LENR to Cause Global Recession? (Vessy’s Blog)

There is an article published on Vessy’s Blog at the E-Cat the New Fire website titled “Will LENR plunge the world in a global recession?” written by Vessela Nikolova and an Italian trader identified as Simone P. which discusses the possibility that the emergence of LENR has already been a cause of the drop in oil prices, and that if oil prices drop much further we could be facing a global economic recession.

Here’s a chart that is used to illustrate the possible correlation between LENR and oil prices:

LENRoilVessy'sblog

The article also discusses the chance that in time oil prices could spike due to diminishing production if there is not investment by oil companies in developing new fields because of lack of resources due to depressed oil prices.

It’s a debate that has been going on for some time now, and I am sure it will continue, especially if LENR makes a positive appearance. I personally think LENR does have the potential to be highly disruptive, and in time replace many of the current energy sources we use, but what is not clear to me would happen during a transition from a fossil fuel-based economy to one where LENR could be the primary energy source used. There are so many variables at play that I think forecasting is very tricky.

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    well i clicked on it at least 3-5 times… possibly more when checking various facts… its possible that the number of unique views is closer to 50,000

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    Exactly. I don’t really think the number of “accidents” are that huge since most of the downloads have been through links from sites like spiegel.de, extremetech.com, e-catworld, lenr-forum, godlikeproductions.com and forums on disqus and facebook.

  • Andreas Moraitis

    Going „long“ means basically that you buy a product – for example, shares of a company – and hope that you can sell it later at a higher price. Those who expect falling prices can instead go “short”: In the simplest case they borrow the shares from a bank, sell them immediately and buy them back on the market after a certain time. In case that the price has dropped until then, they will make a profit. Otherwise, they will loose, since they are obliged to return the borrowed shares sometime. There are much more complicated ways of going “long” or short”, though. In my opinion, short selling is basically a parasitic behaviour, since it contradicts the original purpose of public trading: to equip the industry with capital. Massive short selling, as is often practised by hedge funds, can seriously damage a stock. It may even lead to the bankruptcy of a company if their creditors back out. So, why is it not forbidden? You can answer this question yourself.

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    The Lugano Report has been downloaded about 150,000 times from sifferkoll.se only.

  • Omega Z

    There is a lag period in the supply chain.
    Prices of some goods are just now starting to fall back.
    You also have other market influences such as regional drought that keeps some products higher priced & these will take longer to come down Tho cheaper shipping costs will have some positive price impact. They could have been higher.

    As to the natural gas price decline. It has dropped about 50%.
    The Bad news is that what we are paying for now is based on gas “Contracts” bought months in advance at the higher prices. This is done to assure supply when needed.

    More Bad News. By the time the cheaper contacted gas reaches us, it will be Spring. Just before were about to turn on the AC. 🙁

  • Sanjeev

    Another blog on this issue by someone (and we have the first links to KB there, so I guess people are reading it).
    http://elainedianetaylor.com/cold-fusion-aka-lenr-is-coming/

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    In Reply to bachcole

    A basic bit of business man knowledge in books any executive reads
    “Only puny secrets need protection. Big secrets are protected by public incredulity”
    Marshall McLuhan : “Take Today : The Executive as Dropout (1972)”

    http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Marshall_McLuhan#Take_Today_:_The_Executive_as_Dropout_.281972.29

    Also said in a similar way by some one in relation to D-Day, not sure but I think it was Eisenhower.

    Of course ensuring people who pooh pooh the story get funding helps; as does ensuring those who run the story loose their jobs. This can be achieved by letting editors/owners know you are about to put in some advertising but stories by x make you worried it will damage your image or if you already have advertising and you would like to give an interview with your chief exec story about your latest product but stories by x make you question your whole relationship with the publication and maybe you will go to their competitor.

    Kind Regards walker

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    In reply to bachcole

    “In order to divest, someone has to buy.” Correct! Who would not buy oil fields at a time when futures were rising? You always sell as the market is rising to the top, which when they sold the fields. Check the historical data. Also they sold as the market was shorted by those building the short position, this inflated demand and thus the futures price. Did building the short position cost them money sure, but they made far more than they spent on building the short position.

    “Who is it that is so foolish as to buy?”
    It there in each of the reports Mostly they sold back to the nation states who originally owned the oil. Or to the cronies of the government in that country, no one will be upset about them. So in Russia’s case my bet would be Puttin’s friends. In the UK George Osborne has to carry the can, along with his buddies, those watching the UK chancellor may have noticed his tendency to bite his finger nails a lot of late, and his worried haggard look. Nigeria ditto etc.

    “What would be significant is if the selling has accelerated. Compared with say 20 years ago, has the selling increased? ”
    And if you follow the links say last the one for Shell and those recent ones that list several Big Oil companies that is what they state. Big Oil say they are going to invest the money in new leases. Note that! they go from owning to leasing the asset, you do that when you know the asset is about to take a hit.

    “I see no psychological or sociological reason why an oil company executive could not also be here or otherwise know that LENR juggernaut is rolling along towards a historical moment of truth.”
    Specifically Shell have a department devoted to monitoring LENR, just type in Shell and LENR into Google, you may have to use the wayback machine, or any of the other web archives, to actually see the pages, they are quite covert about these sort of strategic moves, and things that were on the web have started to go missing 😉

    Kind Regards walker

    • Fortyniner

      “George Osborne has to carry the can”

      It won’t be him or his pals of course, but the UK taxpayer who pays for their arrogant but failed energy policies, and their abject subservience to the demands of the EU’s ‘global warming’ extremists.

      However the cost of this will pale into insignificance alongside the taxpayer liabilities they seem so keen to commit the rest of us to, in order to get Hinkley C nuclear power station built. This in turn will look like small change alongside the hundreds of billions that full nuclear decommissioning and disposal will cost (you can bet your underwear that it won’t be the private nuclear contractors who are left holding this particular baby).

      It’ll be the same story in the US, France and any other European states who have failed to see the train headlight approaching, or who are actively denying its existence.

      • Omega Z

        49’er

        A Partial Correction.
        In the U.S., Nuke plants include a decommissioning fee in the cost of electricity. “Most” of this cost is already funded in the accumulating trust funds. The DOE tracks this & requires any plants that are under funded have to increase feed in fees. Obviously, there is a lag period involved & the tax payer will eventually get stuck for a portion of this cost, but the bulk of it is covered. I believe the U.S. is the only country that has this built in decommissioning fee.

        #1-The supporters of Nuclear Energy in the U.S. have always complained that this artificially inflates the cost of Nuke energy making it less competitive.
        And #2- It has a negative impact on Nuclear power investment.
        #1-“Idiots, it IS part of the cost”
        #2-“Sounds like a positive point to me”

    • bachcole

      Ian, your work is a huge contribution. Thank you for your hard work.

      I notice that Steven B. Krivit wrote the article. This is sort of ironic since he slams Rossi every chance that he gets. I wonder if he is going to apologize some day.

      Ian, I think that you have nailed down the connection between Big Oil and LENR. Big Oil does know about LENR. There can be no question about that any longer in my mind, and I will tell my son. (:->)

      But, I hate to be so conservative, but this does not prove that Big Oil is reacting to LENR specifically. But given the graph showing the announcements vs. the down turn in prices, it sure seems like there is a connection. But Shell’s knowledge of LENR would have more to do with them selling their assets than the price of oil dropping. I am positive that Shell would prefer to sell gas at a higher price than at a lower price. NO ONE SELLS AT A LOWER PRICE WHEN THEY COULD SELL AT A HIGHER PRICE. The market has forced them down. I am sure that they go home to their spouses and complain about the price of gasoline. (Too bad)

      • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

        Hi all
        In reply to bachcole

        “But Shell’s knowledge of LENR would have more to do with them selling their assets than the price of oil dropping.”
        That is my point shell sold their assets,

        “I am positive that Shell would prefer to sell gas at a higher price than at a lower price. NO ONE SELLS AT A LOWER PRICE WHEN THEY COULD SELL AT A HIGHER PRICE. The market has forced them down. I am sure that they go home to their spouses and complain about the price of gasoline. (Too bad)”

        Shell’s Refining arm makes the same profit whether the cost per barrel rises or drops. They charge the market rate, in other words what competition creates. That people would prefer to charge more, is a given, but what they can charge is not decided by them and their wishes it is decided by the market.

        They merely realised that an asset they had bought was about to loose value and got rid of it. People often confuse assets with cash earnings, though they are measured with the same device, money, they are not the same, they have a different liquidity.

        Kind Regards walker

  • Fortyniner

    Terms like ‘recession’ and ‘growth’ are not important – they are just technical labels. What matters to us peasants is standard of living, i.e., what kind of lifestyle an average income buys.

    Here in the UK we are being constantly fed a line about how well Britain is doing economically and how ‘unemployment’ is falling. What the government is less keen to acknowledge is the fact that living standards continue to dive as sacking employees becomes easier and easier, and millions are forced into marginal employment on ‘zero hours contracts’ and equally marginal self employment.

  • Eyedoc

    Buy a LENR heater, at least you’ll stay warm cheaply 🙂

  • Eyedoc

    This whole scenario is quite interesting…….I think mostly the native countries ‘nationalized’ the oil …with the Big Oil obliging, instead of fighting it…..ie Russians bought (or acquired ) thinking they were getting immense wealth…..can you say ‘backfire’ 🙂

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    up until 2011 the big banks were usually long oil about 1-200000 contracts. They use to believe to price was going up long term. Big Oil were usually somewhat short to hedge their production.

  • Bernie777

    Thirteen hours ago you said you did not understand the markets, “Not that I actually know what a “contract” is in this context, but I have to ask: Is 390,000 contracts unusually high.”

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    Building a short position causes a boom and glut and does not break competition law, but most people do not pay attention to the commitment of traders reports.

    Of course if you were a big oil company, and sold your oil fields, and wanted to keep your strategies undercover, and then prevented the SEC from seeing who your banking arm were giving the proceeds of those asset sales to for “safe keeping” along with say a nod and a wink and soon to be shredded report; and those keepers of the assets used said assets to short the market so that no Big Oil fingers were on that particular pie, well that would be a whole different kettle of fish; but proving it good luck.

    Of course Big Oil are now openly shorting oil futures alongside the banks, to defend them selves from any future loss of revenue ;). No need to be secret about strategy now the E-Cat is out of the bag.

    Kind Regards walker

    • Jonnyb

      The law was written by the same people, so yes what they are doing maybe legal, however moral? We (most of the people) have all paid the price for this and I am sure we will continue to do so in the future. In the end all of our money goes back to the system, except those with large offshore Tax free accounts, and I suppose in time all of these will as well. How many of the large Roman institutions are still running?

    • Eyedoc

      Lots of very observant notes…..You should write a book…(or just keep rolling it out here) Please do continue to document your facts also. I’m lovin it……..when appropriate I’ll share some wilds about our local Rep, (House Chair of Energy)

  • Jonnyb

    OPEC, don’t see any of them in jail they seem to have been fixing the price of oil for years!!!, just by controlling oil output. Government Tax on oil, they will need to replace this income, Tax, but on what has to be on something. I hate to disagree with you but just look at the evidence. In the U.K. more than half the petrol cost is tax, need any more proof.

    • bachcole

      Heck, I forgot what we were disagreeing about, so you can’t prove anything to me. Oh, yeah, the market. Yes, OPEC is basically by US law an illegal organization. Good luck with trying to arrest them for that. But I think that you are assuming that just because OPEC is price fixing OPENLY that some other sneaky TPTB is doing it else where and else when SECRETLY? I doubt that and it remains unproven in my mind. There must be figures somewhere that show the output of all oil producing countries, including OPEC. Has production suddenly increased over the past 6 months? Has usage suddenly decreased over the past 6 months? People keep saying that the Saudi’s are doing it, but aren’t there places where we could see figures on oil production for the Saudis and other countries?

      If production has remained the same, and demand has remained the same (or even increased), then prices should be going up slightly, not down. Or else the market has not been working very well up until recently. Has tar-sands oil come gushing onto the market? To believe in a TPTB is paranoid and has zero evidence.

  • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

    It would be interesting to know why (as of jan 20th) the Big Banks + Big Oil are short 390,000 contracts in WTI crude and all others in the market (mainly pension/mutual funds of ordinary people) are long the same amount? Why are BigOil+BigBanks taking this huge bet on even lower oil prices right now? And why is this huge bet not mentioned anywhere in media even thoug the data is published weekly on cftc.gov ?

    • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

      ^ Correct.

    • Mats Hilmersson

      You’re hypothesis is intriguing. But what makes the LENR explanation for the Big bank+Big Oil behaviour more likely than the huge shale production increase?
      I think it’s even more interesting that the saudis choose to flood the market and half their income instead of reducing their production 10% keeping the oil price stable and wait a few year for the shale to deplete.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

        Hi all

        In reply to Mats Hilmersson

        Shale and Fracking cannot make a profit on oil below about $60 hence why they are starting to close down those fields, those that are remaining open are loosing money hand over fist, more than $10 Dollars per barrel at current rates, in the hope that the oil price will rise again. How long they do this for depends on how big their pockets are. The Short sellers are taking those more than $10 Dollars per barrel and laughing their socks off.

        Oh and the glut is still rising 😉 They need to get a clue. A market clue.

        Kind Regards walker

        • Mats Hilmersson

          Well, since the banks are still shorting at 50 USD per barrel then the shale hypothesis is not that strong.

        • Warthog

          The big cost of fracking is drilling the well and the fracking itself. So I fail to see how “those [fields] that are remaining open are losing money hand over fist”, as the cost of continuing production should be the same as for any other well.

          Companies that continue to drill and frack are indeed likely to lose money unless cost reductions are made, which is why the media is full of news about pending layoffs at those companies.

    • Mike Henderson

      Ummm. That’s how hedging works. If the price of your product goes up, you win anyway. If the price of your product falls, your hedge bets reduce or eliminate the downside impact.

      • http://sifferkoll.se Sifferkoll®

        well, yes. Thats true of course.But you sort eliminate the “win” if the price go up with this kind of bet. 3900000 contracts is a $40 billion bet at $90 oil (which I guess is close to what the average sell price has been the last 3 years)

  • Allan Shura

    Recession will happen by itself. Oil cans are past the best before expiry date.
    Recovery and hopefully enhanced prosperity since the dark ages is brought about largely with new discoveries and the mode of implementation. In the very near term what will affect the lower demand for oil is the lower cost of solar technology. This displacement will not last so long as multiple technological energy devices are in the near to mid term of 2 to 5 years.

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    CORRELATION DOES NOT IMPLY CAUSATION, NEXT

  • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

    also… LENR would only cause oil prices to DROP… dropping oil prices does not cause a recession… quite the opposite, everything becomes cheaper to move and make.
    the ‘housing’ recession was also sparked by high oil prices when we crossed over the demand/supply curve for the first time. thankfully, tracking has dropped oil prices and it is pulling the world out of the recession

  • http://renewable.50webs.com/ Christopher Calder

    The drop in oil prices is due to US shale oil and new drilling technology. It’s all about supply and demand and the will of Saudi Arabia to accept lower oil prices to squeeze out competitors. LENR has not produced even one watt of electricity yet, and is still unproven as an economically viable energy alternative. There could be a breakthrough from one of the LENR companies this year, but it has not happened yet. LENR is still too speculative and uncertain to move the oil marketplace in any perceptible way. Trying to claim that the Parkhomov test has something to do with a dip in oil prices is silly and way off target.

    • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

      seconded, there are like 400-500 people who actually follow this stuff seriously, maybe as high as a thousand or two.

      • Gerrit

        Bill Gates is one of them, though.

      • Omega Z

        I think you can easily add a several zero’s here. Likely more then 1000 of important concerns(Corporations etc.) are following this seriously.

        However, as to the 7 Billion people in the world, maybe 50% of 50% of 50% of 50% of 1/10th of 1 % are even aware. I may be optimistic about the percentage of the masses knowing.

  • Zizzle

    I think the recession spoken of here is plausible. While the obviously huge economic advantage of LENR for energy will be a general boon to society once it emerges commercially, the years leading up to it will reveal a huge divestment across many companies and governments to shed soon-to-be-useless capital.

    • Jarea1

      The recession is plausible but not because of LENR but another reasons like debt crisis and power interest between China, Russia, Europa and US. It is more probable that they will fight until war in order to ensure ruling the world. The same for Saudis who want all the markets for them and destroy fracking. The Oil is more probable to fall because these hidden intentions than to LENR. I hope to be wrong.
      LENR is a big change true, but it will create a lot of new business and it will increase and boost the commerce. I agree with others that LENR in order to cause this should be more mature and at least more visible. We are not there yet. To dream with conspiracy in the governments keeping LENR secret to let oil companies to adapt (which could be possible but not the easiest and simple answer) are not based in hard facts but in simple correlation and especulation. We need to break the doors of mass media to believe in this!

  • LookMoo

    It is rubbish… right now Saudi Arabia is doing a chicken race with the Iranians and the Russian over their support to Syria… largely Shia backed government. In addition there are a over supply on the oil-market right now as USA is basically self-reliant on oil for the first time in 40 years.

    It have absolutely nothing to do with LENR… no, nada ..ничего 没什么

    • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

      If I refer to some dicussion on a geostrategy forum, citing articles,

      http://www.geostrategique.net/viewtopic.php?t=550&start=105

      Ther is a reversal of alliance in the zone.
      US is allying with iran and Siha, and saudi start to panic.
      France is joining saudi to sell weapons, and French pathetic behavior to attack Assad (allied with iran, agains saudi/Suni ISIS) is explained by that.

      The key fight in middle east is Suni vs Siha, Saudi vs Iran.

      Israel is just US, who both play with changing alliances…
      Iran moaning agains US or israel is for the mob. real enemy is saudi.
      Talibans slaughteres inanian embasy in Afghanistan when gaining power there.
      Iran tryed to bomb a saudi diplomat in US, not Israel representative.

      what is happening in yemen, and which is linked to Charlie terror, is a war between Suni king and Siha rebelion, with terrorist defending the king agains popular rebelion.

      all moral argument you hear on TV is bunk.

      only reason not to help iran have nuclear bomb, is that it will make Saudi desperate to have one, and that would be more dangerous.
      See what hapened when Indi get it’s bomb… pakistan get it and that is a huge menace today with talibans

      one hypothesis I support is that when saudi get bankupts, even trying to dump their cheap oil , and thus when the regime will be upturned by a revolution, the Iran and all their Siha allies will gain control of the zone, and this will be good.
      Siha religion allow much better reform than suni.

      When Saudi are down, Iran will build a french-sized bomb (poison pill) , helped by US, the regime will increase freedom, and they will stabilize a zone where main business will be tourism, farming, trade and manufacturing, no more oil.

      Question is with the Turks, but as long as the zone is developing nicely, Turkey will participate the business.

      • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

        Hi all

        The Saudi support for Al Qaeda and the Taliban (students, that is what the word means in pashto) is all about getting hold of Pakistan’s Nukes.

        And by the way Saudi’s are Wahhabi not Sunni. The Taliban and ISIS are Wahhabi as are Al Qaeda.

        I spent some time in Iran and the tribal areas of Pakistan and around the borders of Afghanistan and Iran and India.

        Kind regards walker

        • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

          I thought it appropriate to start this thread, I searched to see if there was Pakistan Taliban/Al Qaeda War thread and there was not.

          To start you off here is a link to the BBC assessment of the current level of Taliban influence.

          [URL=”http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8046577.stm”]http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/south_asia/8046577.stm[/URL]

          I spent some time in the area a short while after the former USSR left Afghanistan. I was mostly between the Iranian border and Waziristan. I traveled overland from Zahedan Iran to Queta and then on to Karachi and Lahore on a mixture of trains and local buses. I was there for about 2 months.

          I have designated the Al Qaida route to power with bold latin style numbering[B] i. ii. [/B]… [B]vi.[/B] … [B]ix.[/B] etc.

          [B]History of the Taliban and Al Qaeda[/B]

          Some time ago in the Iraq thread I posted a history of how Al Qaeda began. This is a potted version of that.

          Afghanistan was chosen as Al Qaeda’s start point for several reasons not least of which was that access to an Arab Nuclear Bomb, first a little history:

          [B]i.[/B] Al Qaeda were already in Afghanistan and Pakistan, encouraged by Reagan and Bush Snr. under Operation Cyclone, supported by the Pakistan ISI and funded by Saudi Arabia.

          Bin Laden was their Finance Director then but at the time it was called Maktab al-Khidamat (MAK). He was sent there by his family because he was an alcoholic, the hope was that by working with those less well off than himself, Afghan Refugees, and in a religious environment he would sort himself out.

          MAK was not a very effective mujahideen, mainly naive Arab idealist but with a controlling core of terrorist from various Arab countries; that the Arab countries funded in order to get the terrorists out of their hair.

          [B]The founding of the Taliban[/B]

          The mujahideen sent their children to Pakistan to escape the war, thinking they were safe in the hands holy men running religious schools. These kids are the Taliban. Taliban literally means “students”

          What MAK had with the Saudi Funded Madrasahs teaching the Wahhabi doctrine to the refugee children of the mujahideen; was a recruiting network with already traumatised and radicalised children. And more importantly all those children were taught to obey those who ran the Madrasahs. These were portrayed as holy men and brave mujahideen, but were in fact terrorists from day one.

          MAK a mere 2000 foreign Jihadis contributed little to the war against the Russians; that was won by the likes of Ahmad Shah Mas’ud (the Lion of Afghanistan) and the quarter of a million native Afghan Mujahideen.

          After the Russians left the war with Marxist Afghan government continued for another 3 years and at the end of that, a civil war for the remains blew up.

          When the war with Russia was finished, some of the Arabs returned home to normal lives but the Arab terrorists had no where else to go, their original countries certainly did not want them back, they had just spent the last decade being taught how to run covert ops and make bombs by western experts and the Pakistan ISI; I would not want them in my country either.

          A few went off to Chechen war others to the Balkans. MAK split fratricidaly and out of it emerged Al Qaeda with the terrorists under Ayman al-Zawahiri and the money man Bin Laden and they ended up in Sudan. That is a tale in itself. Others stayed in Pakistan. Pretty soon they were kicked out of Sudan but in the meantime:

          [B]ii. [/B]Afghanistan was a political vacuum ripe for the picking

          [B]iii. [/B]Al Qaeda had established financial control of a recruiting and religio-political control structure the Madrasahs

          Thus began the darkest phase of the Al Qaeda plan.

          [B]PATRICIDE[/B]

          All those Refugee Kids, the sons, of the true mujahideen who had beaten the Russians, well they were the student/Taliban of those Madrasahs, and they sent them into Afghanistan to kill their own fathers and they did it with Al Qaeda laughing into the Taliban’s long bushy beards.

          The thing to remember above all is that the The Taliban are a creature of Al Qaeda. It is their puppet.

          [B]This is my assessment of what Al Qaeda’s aims.[/B]

          Al Qaeda has two main goals.

          1)Restoration of the Caliphate.

          This means Arab control of the Muslim world. They are achieving this with Wahhabi’s and the active support of Saudi Arabs to fund Madrases around the world to promulgate what is probably a blasphemous interpretation of Islam.

          2)Access to an Arab Nuclear Bomb.

          Notice I say Arab Nuclear Bomb, not Muslim, Al Qaeda is run by Wahhabi Arabs from Saudi Arabia and the Yemen, they just use the Taliban, Pakistanis, Afghans and Muslims ALL as pawns.

          Laughing into their beards as they say.

          [B]Routes to a Nuke[/B]

          Afghanistan gave four possible routes to Nuclear weapons:

          a) Pakistan, the easiest: destabilise it, infiltrate its power structures as they have, control its education with well funded Madrasahs, control its finances in key areas with Saudi money.

          b) Russia and the former soviet empire: Use cash and buy them with Saudi Oil money from the $140 a barrel bonanza.

          c) China: Do a deal

          d) Iran: Get America and or Israel to attack and then offer to do the dirty as retaliation for their Muslim brothers or steal them in the confusion. With Iran’s hatred of Al Qaeda this would only work if America and Israel could be properly manipulated.

          [B]iv.[/B] Al Qaeda have established financial control of the quasi military organisation; the Taliban

          [B]v. [/B]They had a financial support network from both the Arab and Muslim world

          [B]vi. [/B]They have the infrastructure for a covert operations element; the Al Qaeda Franchise

          [B]Control of Pakistan the Chosen Nuclear Route[/B]

          Now they have moved into the next phase of the Caliphate plan; control of an Arab nuclear bomb by taking over Pakistan:

          [B]vii. [/B]Using their tried and tested Wahhabi Madrasahs they have begun to take control of Pakistani youth giving them a ready made army of the naive to manipulate and control.

          [B]viii.[/B] They have established financial control over the Pakistan ISI

          [B]ix. [/B]They had infiltrated control elements of the Pakistan ISI

          [B]x.[/B] They have infiltrated covert elements within the Pakistani Police, Political parties, Judiciary, civil service and Army.

          [B]xi.[/B] Call any one who disagrees with them Takfir or kafeer and then they can kill them according to their Wahhabi interpretation of Sharia.

          The Pakistanis are just more pawns for the Arab Wahhabi’s of Al Qaeda and the Wahhabi’s will laugh into the Pakistani Taliban’s beards too, just like the did with Afghan Taliban.

          Perhaps people can now see why Obama has moved more troops into Afghanistan and why the Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld’s decision to start the fake war Iraq and not kill the head of the snake when they had a chance in the Torra Bora mountains was such a stupid strategic error.

          You should not ignore Al Qaeda’s primary goal of the Caliphate. This is about controlling Mecca and the Hajj and by it control of all 1.3 to 1.5 billion muslims. To a large extent this Wahhabi plan is already in place, it is just a matter of taking control of Saudi Arabia which is already predominantly Wahhabi. The Caliphate was a period of Arab supremacy over the worlds muslims and it is that power that Whabbism and Al Qaeda seek; Pakistan, Afghanistan and all other muslims are seen as vassal states. The Caliphate is Wahhabism and hence Al Qaeda’s primary goal.

          Kind Regards walker

          • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

            woh, nice description.

            This match what my relations explained me and that i badly relayed here…
            I did not know all of the detail of the Talibans, but this makes a better sense than what we hear on media.

            I wish LENR will simplify all of that…

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          you are right, Wahabi ideology is inside Suni, and is big part of the problem.
          Basicaly, as most muslim know (eg in Indonesia), Saudi try to control the Muslim doctrine accross the planet, by funding and influencing with activist organizations, and Siha oppose that influence.

          my hope is that the problem will weaken when money will stop flowing.

      • Fortyniner

        Thanks for these interesting insights, Alain. We overlook such factors at our peril.

    • Fortyniner

      Russia is under fire just now, using supposed transgressions in Crimea/Ukraine as the pretext, and wrecking their economy may be more than just a welcome side effect of falling oil prices. Low oil prices also affect viability of the low grade oil extraction currently taking place in the US, so something of a game of geopolitical ‘chicken’ seems to be taking place. It may be led by Saudi Arabia but it isn’t clear that the decision to maintain production in the face of a price decline is entirely a Saudi initiative. This article from the UK’s Telegraph newspaper seems relevant:

      http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11310312/Russia-faces-oil-export-catastrophe-snared-in-Opec-price-trap.html

      • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

        the good point is that this push Russia toward China, which is helping them, not without having interest, in reducing US/EU influence.

  • builditnow

    If LENR will cause a recession, then the industrial revolution would have also caused a depression. Did it?

    NO. LENR will be disruptive but will lead to an incredible economic boom. Just replacing all the existing power sources and heater in homes and industry is going to be a huge boom. Then all transport power sources, another huge boom. Then the third world boom as poor people are able to access power, clean water, and move up towards the 1st world, another huge boom.

    BOOM, BOOM, BOOM 🙂

    • Jonnyb

      Not so sure, just shows how cheap oil really is and how it’s price has been kept high to keep the profits rolling in. LENR will no doubt end up the same, cheap, but by the time governments and fat cats take their cut the rest of us will pay the price.

      • Zizzle

        I beg to differ. In the case of LENR, I might outright say that those developing it are generally virtuous people, promoting the environmental benefits of LENR as part of the giant advantage economically. A few private companies will enter the scene with commercial products and establish strong footholds before existing giant corps and governments can catch on, and the power shift might be ugly. New fat cats because of the phenomenon, perhaps, but LENR “isn’t supposed to work”, and so the investment climate in LENR will stay strangely empty for a good bit because “good investors avoid ‘cold fusion’ and other ‘pseudoscience’!”. This is unlike existing energy technologies, which are either obvious but initially hard to find (oil, coal) or difficult to understand yet still accepted (electricity, fission). LENR is unique in history in this respect.

        • http://www.lenrnews.eu/lenr-summary-for-policy-makers/ AlainCo

          don’t be afraid, some governments are already having a plan.
          some corps have a plan too.

          they just don’t tell the media.
          NB: this is not an assumption.

          If your gov or corp is not preparing something, just tell them to move fast because some already have started.

          LENr like industrial revolution will be evil for the fat cats, the aristocrats.
          Oil corp will not be the worst victims. they will shrink but their workforce will move to other emerging industry… creative destruction.
          It will be tragic for petromonarchies and petro democracies.
          Cheap oil like in saudi Arabia will be the only one to be able to make money, but they will have to downsize their budget, which mean probably a revolution. It will be good for ME conflict, and it will probably allow Iran to take the lead in the zone, and liberalize.

          LENR will have much impacts.
          one will be like the diesel engine, to foster cargo transportation adn thus globalization.
          It will also foster agrarian progress, heated greenhouse, fertilizers, water retreatment, and allow that without centralized infrastructure… it could break the power of Monsanto-like industry.

          • Jarea1

            Yes please we all want Monsanto to be broken!!! 🙂
            I have heard so many bad things from this company, i am not so sure if they will be affected by LENR (they are smart and can find a way) but i hope that they will be reduced in power.

          • Omega Z

            AlainCo

            “creative destruction”
            This is a perfect definition of what is about to happen.
            Creating the new to dispose of the old.

    • Eyedoc

      IR did recess manual labor ie blacksmith etc….there will be losers

      • Omega Z

        The blacksmith went to work in the steel mills along with many others who weren’t blacksmith’s. A net employment gain due to an expanding economy. Whether blacksmith’s were happy about that is a different issue. I will speak for them and say that most probably were not. People have issues with change.

        • Nicholas Chandler-Yates

          actually, most blacksmiths eventually became either machinists, or auto mechanics.

  • Omega Z

    There appears to be a correlation between LENR & oil price decline, But that is not cause & effect.

    The Cause, is excess oil production while at the same time, you have World Wide economic stagnation. Lets hope it doesn’t become an economic decline. Even the growth in the U.S. is not as it appears.
    Note the U.S. has enough oil surplus sitting that it wouldn’t need to pump another gallon of oil for about 50 days. There is a major glut at this time. It’s surprising Oil prices aren’t lower.

    E-cats can’t replace your gas powered car & likely wont for at least another 20 plus years. Even battery power cars are a long term outlook.
    E-cats just wont effect Oil prices for a long time.
    ————————————————————
    Here’s some Indicators to watch that E-cat can effect much sooner. In fact is the real target.

    Are they still planning & building Nuclear power plants?
    Are they still planning & building high tech Coal power plants?
    Are they still planning & building high tech Natural gas power plants?
    Are they still planning & building Hydro power plants?
    Are they still manufacturing & installing Wind Turbines?
    Are they still manufacturing & installing Solar Panels?
    Are they still developing Ocean wave generators?
    What about, Fuel cells, Green energy storage systems, Bio fuels, etc, etc,…

    The Answer to all the Above- YES…
    LENR is not effecting anything yet, With the Possible exception of Oil leases 20+ years in the future. Those have been sold in mass over the last 2 years. Even that is of a speculative Nature.

    • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

      Hi all

      In reply to Omega Z

      “Are they still planning & building Nuclear power plants?”
      More a sort of maybe if the taxpayer pays us, but not if we have to pay for it and own it.

      In the case of Siemens they have pulled out of all things Nuclear. As have most of the other Nuclear companies. Siemens actually warned the UK government not to build a nuclear plant, most of the other nuclear manufactures said no to building it unless the UK government would pay for it all and cover all costs of removal afterwards. That is the nature of the current contract under discussion, oh and they want a Giant Deposit from the Government up front. What this means is the UK tax payer will pay the deposit to then realise they have bought a white elephant.

      “Are they still manufacturing & installing Wind Turbines?”
      “Are they still manufacturing & installing Solar Panels?”

      In the case of Siemens they have pulled out of their Green power generation systems both solar and wind and they used to be world leaders. And like GE they have gone on a Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plant manufacturing company buying spree. E-Cat and its competitors will be power sources for CHP but a large amount of the money will be in the technology that interfaces to the power source to a usable function. STMicroelectronics are switching from manufacturing phone chips to manufacturing controller chips for CHP.

      This is all great strategic stuff! They understand that the people who make the real money in a gold rush are not the prospectors but the one who owns the pick and shovel shop/bank. The Bank reference might be obscure to some but trust me linking your pick and shovel shop to a bank is where the real money is made, amazing how many prospectors who strike it lucky need a bridging loan to buy more picks and shovels and what is their collateral? And there are always chokes in supply but the bank still has to be paid 😉

      Natural Gas will stay in use for some time and Hydro and Geothermal are not really threatened.

      Fuel cells and energy storage, because LENR takes so long to start up and shut down, will probably enjoy a boom; though Mitchell Schwartz, Nanor technology could throw a spanner in those works.

      Bio-fuel will convert to plastics and chemical precursor manufacture with LENR powered vertical farms and the Greened desert and along the LENR coal refining will be a competitor to oil for plastics and chemical precursor manufacturing, by the way Monsanto is one company you want to stay clear of the bottom is about to fall out of their market.

      Kind Regards walker

      • Omega Z

        Nuclear power plants have a very uphill battle on several fronts, But, they are still planning & building them around the world including the U.S. even if the Government has to pay a hefty upfront subsidy.

        Issues at hand. Fukushima. It faces a very Negative environment. Also COSTS- A 4 Billion$ price tag has skyrocketed to the 20 Billion$ plus price range. Energy companies don’t see anyway to recover costs. No ROI…

        Note all power plants are suffering price shock tho not as much a Nuclear. This has a lot to do with a lack of skilled labor for their construction. Demand for skilled labor is high & the supply is low. Engineers in the energy field can easily command as much as $200K. A one time lowly welder can command $75K. And still, a power plant can face years waiting in line for these people to be freed up from other plant construction. The waiting list is presently 10 years.

        GE & Siemens have partly bailed on Wind & Solar, but are still involved. This has a lot to do with a perception of reduced subsidies in the pipeline. BUT, I Also give a high probability that (GE & Siemens) are very aware of LENR & Combined Heat and Power (CHP) plants would be a logical path to pursue at this time.

        Siemens greatly increased the size of it’s manufacturing facility in Charlotte, North Carolina. It’s a 1 stop operation. Turbines, Generators & everything to do with (CHP) both Co-/Tri generating systems all in 1 location only about 2 hours from Industrial Heat. GE is also nearby. I suspect they are both positioning for the possible advent of LENR. In the meantime, N-gas is cheap.

        Anyway, As to my original post, None of these areas are slowing down due to LENR & overall has been increasing. Even Nuclear. The World is starved for energy.
        ———————————————–
        This is shear speculation on my part & May have to do with fewer subsidies in the future, but, An Interesting Note.

        Siemens has a Large wind turbine manufacturing plant within 45 miles of me & it has been running at capacity for quite sometime(With Lots of Overtime). I know a few people employed there of which one stopped by in November to visit.

        I don’t talk to many people about LENR for the obvious reason of Eyes glazing over like, What are you talking about stare? Anyway, this is an open minded person & I was talking to him about the E-cat & the very recent Lugano test report to which he looked at me and said, “Huh”

        And it’s like, What? He told me that just that week(late November), they had an employee involved plant meeting in which they were told that a planned Plant expansion & additional hiring had been put on indefinite hold. This is management speak for, “Don’t be sending Friends & Family in to file an application.”

        And further more, Within a few years they are expecting to start a reduction in force. More Management speak- You probably wont work here long enough to retire.

        Corporations as a rule don’t reduce capacity at a relatively new modern(about 5 years old) highly profitable plant that they invested large sums of money into training a skilled work force. They usually look at their money losing facilities.

        Like I said, This is shear speculation. It could be a lack of future subsidies for wind turbine farms or even the cheap N-gas for (CHP) plants, But the Timing is what caught my attention. It could be in anticipation of a declining future market for turbines.

        NOTE: I expect a continuation of green tech even with the advent of LENR, but it will follow a steady decline spread over years. LENR Energy will take time to transition. A wind turbine, solar array, Etc installed today or even 5 years from now can be expected to operate for it’s full life cycle. To be replaced only when it is no longer functional.

  • Buck

    “Fear is the Mind Killer”

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJsYKhEV6o0

  • Obvious

    Clearly the oil price drop coincides with California’s plastic bag law implementation.

    • Omega Z

      That will definitely effect oil sales. All that oil that wont end up as plastic.

      • bachcole

        Nice. You managed to find a connect. Very good.

    • bachcole

      Nice.

  • Alain Samoun

    It will be an ‘adjustment – That the least that we can say,but it will probably take many years until each of us has an e-Cat in his/her house.
    Regarding the price of oil,I believed that it was to punish the Americans for producing more oil and to punish the Russians for taking what belongs to them in Ukraine? I Don’t think that CF is responsible, until now…

  • Gerard McEk

    The shown graph what should prove that LENR is the cause of the oil price drop s pure nonsence. The present drop is caused by the fracking oil and gas and the OPEC oil policy. In the future all energy companies will suffer when LENR emerges, but that may take a few years. When the energy prices drop, the economy will rise, because people have more money to spend for other things and that lead to an new world order.

    • Sanjeev

      Yes, some people are confusing causation with correlation. It just happened that the Lugano report came out at the time of already falling oil prices. It might have caused a downward spike or two, but the major causes are some other.
      LENR is like a drop in the bucket right now. Perhaps we will see its effects on oil and economy in next 10-15 years (if all goes well).

      And I agree with you on the rise in standard of living with fall in energy prices. Energy is the major component of all consumer goods and even food. So prices of everything should come down, which will mean more people can afford stuff that only rich can afford now.

      Why else are we favoring LENR energy, which will be dirt cheap, if cheap energy brings devastation of economy ? A question Vessy and her friend should ponder upon.

      • Omega Z

        Sanjeev

        Many here have trouble grasping the formidable task of the transition. It will literally take 10’s of billions of e-cats and these are just the tip of the iceberg.

        There are boilers, exchangers, turbines & generators to make use of these E-cat reactors. It will take years to transition and.or build the factories just to produce these things. Once these are built, it will take more years to build power plants from these components.

        And Money. Lots & Lots of money. Trillions. And in 30 or 40 years when the job is just about done, it will be time to start replacing the old worn out E-cat plants.

        It will not be so much Disruptive. It will be Transitional.

        • Sanjeev

          I have more or less similar opinion like yours. I do not see an overnight change. It will be fast compared to other major steps the people of Earth have taken , like fire, steam, oil, electricity etc, but not very fast….

          The news of LENR should have impacted one industry the most, which is solar. Solar has comparatively low investments, nothing much depends on solar at this time, its contribution is still small, and so the rumors of LENR could have completely wiped out solar industry. It is so vulnerable to any new energy tech. Yet we see no adverse effects on it, it is growing at a very fast pace. If LENR affected oil, it should have affected other energy markets too, but I see no evidence of that.

          • bachcole

            There may be another development that you techno-geese may have missed. There is a race between how fast LENR develops and how fast ISIS spreads. Right now, ISIS is winning.

            ISIS funds most of their “activities” (such as beheadings, rapes, murders, video cameras, Korans, machetes, etc) with money from oil rigs that they have stolen. When LENR starts to creep into the world’s attention and starts to have an impact on the price of oil, this will help to impoverish these mentally/morally ill people. But it won’t completely stop them, unfortunately.

            • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

              As for everything, it is the human mind which uses the invention.

              The push for war seems so unavoidable in the brain of human beings.

              “In view of the fact that in any future world war nuclear weapons will
              certainly be employed, and that such weapons threaten the continued
              existence of mankind, we urge the Governments of the world to realize,
              and to acknowledge publicly, that their purpose cannot be furthered by a
              world war, and we urge them, consequently, to find peaceful means for
              the settlement of all matters of dispute between them.”

              (Russell-Einstein Manifesto, 1955 http://www.umich.edu/~pugwash/Manifesto.html)

              IF the enlightened Western governments have not respected this reasoning, in what way can we, human beings, demand understanding from religious fanatics?

              • bachcole

                Let’s see, it’s been 70 years since human beings have used nukes in anger. And the stockpile of nukes has been reduced by about 50% since the end of the Cold War, so I guess Bertram Russell and Albert Einstein were wrong. And although I respect Einstein’s scientific contributions greatly, I see no need to be a devotee of him in any other arena of life, except perhaps hair cuts. And Bertram Russell, I don’t even respect his so-called philosophical so-called contributions.

                So your fundamental premise does not cut any ice with me. The appeal to authority doesn’t work. And the reasoning gets weaker and weaker as the decades go by. Plus, it is the religious fanatics who are threatening using nukes, even if they deny it.

                • we want LENR Fusione Fredda

                  “Hopefully, people will realize that they have to think for themselves and question, question, question”.
                  Unfortunately, they were not wrong. Or not entirely. Any weapon that is available, is going to be used.

                  Donald
                  Rumsfeld: in the normal order of things, when you invest in research
                  and development and begin a developmental project, you don’t have any
                  intention or expectations that one would use it. On the other hand, the
                  real world intervenes from time to time, and you reach in there and take
                  something out that is still in a developmental stage, and you might use
                  it. – See more at:
                  http://www.forbiddenknowledgetv.com/videos/alternative-energy/directed-energy-weapons-used-in-iraq.html#sthash.Qbg3uWxw.dpuf

  • http://www.facebook.com/ian.walker.7140 Ian Walker

    Hi all

    What utter rubbish.

    Quite the reverse it massively decrease the cost of many businesses enabling them to sell more product at cheaper prices while taking higher profits, That a few oil barons will go bust is irrelevant to the world economy, none of them will starve.

    In fact several industrial economies are already improving due to decrease in the price of oil.

    By the way the Italian trader seems to be copying parts of posts I made myself and is not even complete in his analysis: I refer you to a more complete analysis:
    http://www.cnbc.com/id/102308102#comment-1772698376

    It deals with the June July circulation of the LENR report to scientists, the significance of which the Italian trader seems to have missed.

    Frank is probably aware of a post I made to him on this matter some months back.

    Kind Regards walker

  • Mats Hilmersson

    Finance people hesitate to disregard the old rule that when oil is down economy is down.

  • Warthog

    Not. It may do “ungood” things to the oil industry, but it will cut energy costs of so many others, and fuel the start of new ones that there will be a worldwide boom, not a recession/depression.

    • Nigel Appleton

      Exactly. With the reduction in fuel cost, I have an extra £60/$90 per month to spend, I only do modest mileage. There are hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of people in the UK alone with extra money to spend to benefit the economy (or to save for old age, which will be a benefit deferred. but a benefit nontheless)