Wednesday, June 19, 2019


Some things are easy to-mostly-ignore. Yes, India and Pakistan have nuclear weapons. The US and China have nukes. The Soviets and US had nukes and even if things got tense, we didn't nuke each other for four decades. Nuclear weapons CAN be used but most likely they won't be. I'm as paranoid as you can be and still live in civilized society without being committed, and I just don't worry about nuclear war being all that probable. Always possible-but it is also possible that a supermodel likes my hair and becomes my sugar mamma. Yeah, that is the difference between probable and possible.
Whenever Forrest Trump Tweets, “I's gonna nuke Norks”, just remember me and the supermodel. Of course, we'll probably also have a nuclear war way before a little green alien anal probes me, but that isn't saying much, either. Now, lately, the Straights Of Hormuz has been in the news. Oil tankers being fired upon and such. I trust you aren't too worried. First, it is IN THE NEWS! Almost anything in the news is a lie, misdirection or propaganda. Just like when the US hacked the Venezuela power grid, made a huge deal of Evil Socialism, then nothing happened.
Do you think we are REALLY going to war with Iran? Again, even supermodel sugar mamma's are theoretically possible. Anything COULD happen. But probabilities, yo. Context, yo. The US could give two wet farts in a paper sack what other countries think of them. Did we go around hat in hand begging for permission to attack Iraq or Afghanistan? No. We just did it, made a lame excuse ( as if the other intelligence agencies, or at least those worth their salt such as Mossad, didn't know the lies of 9/11 ), and dared anyone to get in our way.
We don't NEED to blame Iran for starting a war. If we want a war, we'll just start it and make a lame excuse. The excuses are for internal consumption anyway. So, you can forget the whole “we want to have Iran to be the aggressor” thing. And conversely, you can forget the “we want the American public to support a war” thing. Does the US gov really Honest Injun care if the public wants another war? Did they care about support for Syria, North Korea or Venezuela? The public blindly accepted the flimsiest excuse.
Knowing the public will wave the flag with such jingoistic fervor as to strain themselves, if the US wanted to actually go to war, they would have after the first oil tanker attack. Why are they waiting, if they already have public support? Because they aren't going to do anything. Just like the wall doesn't get built, just like the Nork's are not punished for missile tests over Japan or Hawaii. Just like all the other bluster. Trump might be an idiot, or a genius. It doesn't matter. He does what he is told by the Big Boy Bankers.
Now, the bankers might very well be profiting over the Hormuz threat. They are called derivatives. You want the price of oil to go your way, you don't print an article saying “Danger! Hormuz!”. Perhaps that worked in the past. Now? You tell the minions in the government to False Flag an Iran attack. Oil tankers go down, your insurance companies increase the premiums ( it would be interesting to see if the hit tankers were older ships with smaller insurance pay-outs ), you cash in your billions in oil futures. The hookers and cocaine dealers are happy.
Golden Jackass thinks that the fracking industry is a way for the US to manipulate the oil markets for profits, by increasing the supply of our oil. He could be right. I love the guy but I take half what he says with a grain of salt ( unlike you'all, who cling to my every word and worship my hair ). I mean, it makes sense from a financial point ( actual logistics of operating the bankers economy, I see it as an actual The Spice Must Flow tactic ).
If the fracking supply is in trouble because of the ethanol shortage ( and as I said, I DON'T know if they allow the ethanol content to drop below 10% if needed ), this Hormuz attack also makes sense. If fracking drops in production, or as the needed fulcrum to manipulate the market, this panic of middle east supply will substitute handsomely. It isn't JUST that the bankers like Mo Money, sometimes they NEED more in operating expenses. What if their derivatives are failing, shades of 2008?
Not everything can be blamed on the greed of the bankers. They do have to return a portion in bribes and other expenses. It is possible that Hormuz will continue, not as in a full blown war but in a large disruption of supply ( if the insurance companies stop coverage, no hot war is needed ). Small supply disruptions cause prices to surge and supply to dry up. The bankers might NEED a large oil disruption right now. Disguised as war, what if the oil supply had already dropped too low? What if all ethanol supplies were in jeopardy and the ten percent fracking supply drop would have nuked the economy?
( Or, been a military vulnerability? ) By dropping the supply for everyone else, was the system equalized? Or, what if by stopping middle east oil, we were warning Saudi Arabia off of dropping the PetroDollar? They have been cozying up to China. What if there is something we don't know about them that is right now being resolved under cover of Iran War? Do you see how easy it is to come up with a LOT of other explanations? Not just the lame ass media lies. Not to mention, why is any of this a surprise, even if all the other news is real? What, you never heard of the oil disruption option that has been on the table, forever?
One trusts you are all prepared for another oil disruption, at any time. This news should be met with a big, “Meh!”. Not because if it is real it won't be massively disruptive. Obviously, it will be. Possibly worse than we can imagine. But because it has been a Forever Threat. Sorry if it harshes your Happy Motoring paradigm.
( .Y. )
( today's related Amazon link click here )
note: damn! Sweet PayPal donation, SH.  Many thanks.
note: ballistic gel handgun round tests here.  They want to sell you ammo, but you need more, right?  The company sent me the link, but I'm not paid by them or anything.  Just passing along a potential resource, do as you will with it.
note: a really good analysis on Venezuela.  Yeah, much more complicated than simple Peak Oil or Evil Socialism click here 
note: free for today books.  Absolutely nothing to do with prepping or survivalism, but this guy is a superb writer and must be read no matter his subject matter here 
Please support Bison by buying through the Amazon links here ( or from or ). Or PayPal 

*** Unless you are in extreme poverty, spend a buck a month here, by the above donation methods ( I get 4% of the Amazon sale, so you need to buy $25 worth for me to get my $1 ) or mail me some cash/check/money order or buy a book ( web site for free books, Amazon to pay just as a donation vehicle ).
*** My e-mail is: My address is: James M Dakin, 181 W Bullion Rd #12, Elko NV 89801-4184 ***E-Mail me if you want your name added to the weekly e-newsletter subscriber list.
*** Pay your author-no one works for free. I’m nice enough to publish for barely above Mere Book Money, so do your part.*** junk land under a grand *  Lord Bison* my bio & biblio* my web site is *** Wal-Mart wheat***Amazon Author Page
* By the by, all my writing is copyrighted. For the obtuse out there


  1. Only One Point of View Allowed?June 19, 2019 at 7:34 AM

    One thing I like about your writing is that you are willing to look at various options or ideas about what is really happening in a particular situation.

    Some blogs I read now or have read in the past only allow one point of view. If someone comments with a different point of view, the author of the blog or another commenter comes down hard and angry on that person. Sometimes violently angry.

    Whenever that happens, it makes me consider the blog author as less reliable and less worth reading. No one knows all the answers or even what are good questions to ask. To assume that only one point of view is right shows me that the blog author or angry commenter is out of touch with truth or one type of truth.

    It's OK for the blog author or commenter to say: "I don't agree with you" in a polite way. But anger is suspect. Do they doubt themselves?

    1. I can't say I completely avoid the trap of demanding One View on certain things. Peak Oil, especially. I do tend to negatively dismiss any fantasy replacements. I HOPE that doesn't make me blind to alternate views. But, even if it does, I TRY to respect that most readers are smarter than me and should have plenty to add to the discussion.

    2. Monetized discourse. Some and probably many, but not all: bloggers, so called journalists, research paper authors, talk show appearing commentators, etc are on the dole of some sort for their finances. They spout what the sugar daddy says. The a.i. bots are really advanced to the point of sniffing out and alerting the counterstrike team to any dissention on line or in analog out in the field. (lard ass geek types to then come in and go all guerilla and counter argue: everything) follow the money and diagram the connections of persons to each other for the motives.

    3. I guess when less and less pays, the smaller activities are especially focused on.

  2. Here you go:

    “The only countries left in 2011 without a Central Bank owned or controlled by the Rothschild Family are:
    1. Cuba
    2. North Korea
    3. Iran”

    That might shed a little light on the situation :D

    1. Interesting tidbit on the Korean flight shot down by the Soviets. Yeah, if the Rothschild's know you in a bad way, don't ever fly on an airline. :)

  3. Hold up a mean to tell us the US/bankers efforts to shut down Venezuelan crude STILL isn't enough to "goose" prices up and save derivitives? Now they need some hotness off Hormuz? Oh my!
    You started off fantastic....loved the line, "Did we go around hat in hand begging for permission to attack...No. We just did it"
    But alas, Lord Bison, you tied ethanol to fracking oil supply. Not quite sure of the mental gymnastics needed for that but I'll award you a participation prize anyway because...(reasons..)😕.

    Speaking of...about 10 days ago you wrote about nation-states, Empire and the current trendline of decentralization.
    You drew a the conclusion that fracking is a game changer for more decentralization and further loss of empire's grasp (sorry, dont have exact quote etc).
    I think that analysis is short sighted. I say so because it isn't the well head location that matters so much but rather the transmission system (pipeline/rail) and especially the refinery. If I control either your wellhead doesn't mean squat. With exception of the Bakken, all the hot fracking zones are already served by existing pipeline system.
    (Hmmmm...I wonder if Warren Buffett was secretly funding those Keystone pipeline protesters. His BNSF railcars carried a lot of Bakken crude. So what if a few derailments in N. Dakota & Canuckistan..)

    Remember ZERO new refinery permits in US since '70s. All expansion has been at existing plants....your Elko bolt hole is safe from being paved over for a tanker farm and cracking unit. If you want decentralization make a complete mini-sized "cracking unit" that'll fit on a couple of trailers hauled by semitruck. That's a winning ticket.

    To win CWII the forces of Mom, apple pie & the American way just need to control S.E. Texas coast, E. New Jersey, and Kern Co., California.
    Just controlling Exxon's Baytown refinery is equivalent to Gen. U.S. Grant getting control of Mississippi River at Vicksburg, severing CSA in two.
    Control of the refinery nexuses is control of America. Fracking really isn't a creature of or impetus toward decentalization. Everything important downstream is centralized.
    Anyway, hope I didnt misconstrue your previous writing. Keep 'em coming.

    1. To be clear, I'm not implying our current system is decentralizing. The current system ONLY knows how to centralize. I'm saying that the trend is towards decentralization because the energy production is moving downward in net energy. Nobody is going to voluntarily decentralize, but it WILL happen. It has to as less energy becomes available to support the current centralized system. It is like me saying, your long term trend line is to get weaker and older. At the moment, you are still young and strong. But the trend is still in effect. Hope that analogy helps. As for tying in ethanol and fracking, go look at today's SRS Rocco Report:
      I actually had no idea the fracking industry went beyond our borders propping up the economy. And as bad as our economy is, the last ten years were as good as the "growth" got. Scary. But, to my connection, ethanol is 10% of our gasoline. Subtract that with corn crop failures. Replace with fracking oil. That is subtracted from other industries it was just being used for. That is energy OUT of the system ( the above article should make clear how dependent "growth" was on the fracking oil, globally ). Hope that answers the question. If not, I have no life and won't be too far from the computer the rest of the day :D

    2. Your dedication to duty is commendable. Continue to stand your post.
      Thx for link.....but nothing in there about ethanol.
      Anyway, ethanol was NEVER really about increasing or stretching energy supply anyway. That was the excuse (just like you explained above how gov'ts use "reasons" to justify an action).

      Ethanol was political from day #1. I think I've noted in previous post how Iowa's fortuitous first in nation primary caucus was a leading reason why B. Clinton broke with Dems' opposition to Bush Sr's NAFTA. Billy promised @ Nat'l Corn Growers Assoc convention to sign NAFTA, in return those salt of the Earth Iowa farmers gave Billy a primary win, rest is history.

      You know old saying politics make strange bedfellows???? Well various environmental groups had been howling for years about "evil oil & pollution". Some (not so)bright guy said, "Hey, we can pare back BIG OIL by getting gov't to madate ethanol". That guy was "green" before AOC was even born!
      So, corn growers and enviro nuts came to an "understanding" thanks to their respective K Street lobyists. Let's get Uncle Sam to break some (oil) legs for us. Both groups happier than larks when ethanol mandate came through and politicos were paid off with contributions and $$$$.
      Corn goes to ethanol and into newly pried open Mexican mkts while eviro-nuts can chalk a win against BigOil.

      I'll continue with fracking in new post.

    3. Cont'd
      As regards SRS Rocco report, I say, meh!
      Of course US & Canucks had huge production increases in last 12 years. That's what fracking is intended to do.
      The technologhy was invented in N. America so we are first to exploit the game changer. We are improving fracking results over time. Technology works, innovation improves results (eternal thanks to god of FIRE ♨.)

      I like Gail, the actuary,at her blog "Our Infinite World" but the fervor with which she and followers believe Hulbert's curve is Holy Writ is frustrating. So many seem to think that perfect bell curve can be super imposed over a timeline and production will exactly follow the calculus function.
      Sorry guys, while oil is finite, our ability to extract is not struck with '57 technology. The production decline will not in anyway match the left side of the curve.

      I remember hearing old stories of how drillers would setup close to the boundry of their lease and then guide a bit of heavy plate steel down the hole and position it so that when bit and drill stem was lowered back down they would "glance off" and start moving to adjacent, more geo-attractive, property.
      (FYI, at depth, drill pipe can "whip" around like a piece of spaghetti). The first instance of "directional drilling".

      So what I'm getting at is that plate steel has been replaced by computer guided, hydraulically controled drill bits that can move like a fish in water. Multiple formations can be tapped from one platform. As we stride ahead in fracking tech it is now being deployed overseas. Even the Poles and Germans signed up for fracking tech in order to drill old coal seams for trapped gas.
      As more people become experts the tech will disperse (& get cheaper).
      Just like the first cavedude who chipped a lump of flint into a sharp chopper. Look where we are now!

      I know guys/gals using US fracking to rework old fields in Central Asia. Limited operations but almost all positive results.
      Fracking isn't just high pressure or detergents it is a SYSTEM. An infrastructure needs to be in place.
      A lot of those foreign fields in decline, as alluded to in SRS Rocco Report, will be "rehabbed" once the crews and equipment can be brought on line ( NO it wont be a negative EROI). Will EROI be less than Spindletop? Yes of course, but something is better than nothing. SRS Rocco will then publish new production graphs showing world (ex. US/Can) increases and they'll moan that US/Can are stagnant.

      O&G will follow the laws of classical economics...production will continue as long as fixed costs are covered (& fixed costs can be trimmed by innovation).
      Hell, even Mexico"s Cantarell will be rescued. For all the politicos howling about oil & imperialists running dog Yanquis, when push comes to shove the mantra wil be "Drill baby, drill!"
      Go long on O&G....but buy wheat and ammo as a hedge.

    4. Fracking is no way near new technology
      Sixty years old when we started it in earnest. Why did we wait so long? Because it is licking the bottom of the barrel. Yes, there is gobs of fracking oil. No, the EROI is NOT good. 5 to 1 oil does NOT run a 30 to 1 infrastructure. We set up our food production and transportation and economic system to function off a certain amount of BTU's. Between population increases and NET oil decline, we must continuously allow the infrastructure to contract. I allow that it is cheaper and more efficient to frack now than previously, but computer chips only displace workers by robotics, with a small energy savings. Not enough money or energy savings to account for the EROI drop. Plus, and this is a big plus, you need a stable financial system to invest in fracking. Do you think our economy, let alone the rest of the world, is going to stay stable economically? You build a lovely house of cards but I fear for its stability. You need a higher EROI economy to continue pulling off the use of a lower EROI production method. Robbing Peter TWICE, to pay Paul once. And don't be too hard on the Hubbertians. They are working with a classroom model out in the real world. It still beats the Growth Uber Alles model.

    5. Never said fracking is new, but the innovations & improvements (the "system") over last 25 years are light years ahead of earlier iterations.

      You know what is a terrible EROI??? Sending hundreds of $ billions overseas and creating Ptoemkin villages across the 3rd world in the face of repeated failures over decades. Look at Africa. Billions in tax money spent by do-gooders trying to lift up that continent. A waste. Same for huge swathes of Asia/L. America.
      Doesn't matter if funds were charity, gov't projects or biz investments. Only thing holding that together (& tiny dividend return) is threat of a visit by 82nd Airborne.

      You ask why we waited so long to deploy fracking? Well, of course we pumped easy stuff first, duh!
      In a metaphor, I'm going to pick the low hanging fruit first...why waste resources & time climbing to top of tree. Early phase innovation is expensive. Us recently tree dwelling big brained apes are LAZY.

      As for a society built on such and such expected BTUs...well purpose built items have a shelf life, when expire date comes....salvage & reuse.

      Contraction & realignment of earlier infrastructure is OK, Jim. Not the end of world. Not ever expenditure has to be cost effective for 200 years.
      I remember watching "salvage crews" pulling pipe from old stripper wells in early '90s just a few miles from me. Same with the small bore pipelines & gathering tanks for that stripper field. The steel was worth more than the expected near term revenue from stripper wells. $10 bbl oil was just "yesterday".
      Same with "repurposing" concrete from demo sites or medieval Italians who salvaged marble & limestone from Classical Age Roman temples. Yes, it causes disruption to someone, somewhere but it ain't catastrophe.
      And no, I'm not worried about US food supply being trimmed by oil decline...have you seen the mobile lard supply waddling through Walmart late at night? All those calories....

      When O&G really starts decline...the rest of world will be triaged. North America will do the Tiger Mom thing and protect her own before all others. I don't hate rest of world....they just ain't us.
      In the words of Swayze's character in
      'Red Dawn' about why they fight, "We live here!"

      I'll close same as yesterday.."when push comes to shove the mantra will be 'Drill baby, drill!'
      Go long on O&G....but buy wheat and ammo as a hedge".

    6. Okay, I'm going to mostly agree with everything above. You make good points. We are both looking at the same data and you are an optimist while I am a pessimist. Neither of us is wrong, as we filter the data through our different filters. I still say complex systems cannot hold, and all complex systems end up not feeding themselves. But, yes, I could very well be off on my timing. The can has been kicked down the road far more times than I plus hundreds of doomer analysts have projected. Fracking could be the next century of fuel a slow collapse, it just needs to move around a lot ( so, no, the US doesn't have 200 years of fracking, but I can't argue with you that the whole world combined just might ). The question remains, do we stay on top of the heap or sink to the bottom? Then, it will be Turd World conditions for us. A collapse scenario, if not as expected. Mind you, I'm still sticking with my "decade to end of global fuel extraction", as I feel it is the prudent bet. But I know I could very well be wrong.

  4. Insider information, market manipulations, collusion. An analogy simplified is when former senator harry reid, Nv got sweetheart land deal offers on crap nevada dirt, had the finances lined up without any hitch, and then the land use, zoning, future area development anouncements were revealed and all involved made handsome profits upon resale or development. (His so called home in little humble Searchlight, Nv was a front as he stayed in ritzy hotels). It is why most politicians above a certain power or control level are "multi" millionaires in short order AFTER assuming the political or appointed offices. Now scale it up to say pork belly futures deals, uranium one type deals, Haiti charity relief scams, reselling deposed Ghadaffi weaponry, etc. I would venture to argue that half of major events occuring are just manipulations for profit enterprises. But then again, when much of humanity is greedy scumbags, will cheat on spouses without remorse, screw over family or friends just as quick as business competitors, why not go deeper for bigger profits? Body counts be damned, full speed ahead.

  5. The use of ethanol has it's it's own diverse reasoning. It also has it's own lobbyists with a nice office on "K" street in the swamp. Just like the florida sugar cane lobby cockblocked sugar imports via tariffs from mostly whom: Cuba. This kept the cost of sugar stupidly unnecessary high, causing food industry to go with high fructose corn syrup for sweetener uses instead. Once scaled up it is even much cheaper and now fully integrated in usage. Action and reaction, cause and effect. The oil industry or any industry, group, interests, have those behind the curtain manuevers and machinations that my pea brain can't fathom, and it is in my best interests to stay ignorant lest I be stymied by it all. :)

    1. Once you have Hooker And Blow money, cause and effect rarely interests you. Until you are swinging by a lamppost anyway.

  6. Hormuz or any mild indigestion in the system will not really deter the happy motoring 'Mericans from their behaviors. Fuel pricing at 4.00+ in Ca. and they still load up their lard asses in suv's and short penis driver compensating pick up trucks and flock to Vegas every day, every weekend in droves like flies on shit. Swipe the cost on the plastic honey, we'll just have to catch it up on payments later, WHEEEEEEE! we're having FUN.

    1. I don't disagree with you on gas prices and consumer behavior. I could see $6-$8 a gallon gas STILL allowing foolish behavior. However, Hormuz isn't mild indigestion. It is 40% of the worlds oil. So, lets say that happened. We are "independent" on oil, right? Yeah, we would turn right around and sell to foreigners for extra profit before we did so domestically. And remember, the price of gasoline quadrupled when we saw a 5% supply shrinkage in the '70's. We still import at least 20% ( under the most favorable math by the Lying Statisticians ).

  7. Soooo... Did you try getting some freebie munitions and grenades etc. Yesterday ? I heard a lone Bison was spotted riding a bicycle away from the scene of a derailment near you over by Wells.
    Few miles nearer and Helko might gotten blown off the map lol

    1. I have no idea what the train was carrying. I do know, Wells can't ever seem to catch a break :)

    2. It had munitions, grenades, amfo, and aluminum powder.
      Apparently there was aluminum powder scattered all over the area and if even one grenade had went'd have heard the explosion clear over in Elko...

    3. Ha! And here I was just assuming if it was a wreck it had to be Amtrak :)

  8. Ethanol is best consumed in a beverage.

    But "no ethanol" gas is available in many locations - it's not required, there's just a big financial incentive for the C-stores to blend it in.

    1. Ah! Okay. I thought it was required as a anti-pollutant ( taking the place of the chemical that replaced lead ).

    2. Biggest problem with ethanol is that it loves to soak up water. When combined with water it becomes a gel which clogs up carbs. Plus the gel is also corrosve to metal.

    3. Wasn't the Model A ( or was it the "T'? ) a multi-fuel vehicle? How did Ford combat those issues back then?

    4. It's not really an issue, so long as everything is kept fresh.
      Gasoline ended up being the winner in btu's per volume.
      Alcohol has less energy but burns cooler and cleaner.
      Thats why the EPA likes it and allows for lower octane gasoline to be used when used mixed with ethanol.

    5. Thanks. Not really an issue I paid a lot of attention to, other than every time the gov changes regs I end up with mechanical issues leading to cars dying. Asswhores.

    6. But you're not wrong - ethanol is added as a pollutant lowering "oxygenate" in areas with air pollution. Which isn't for hundreds of miles around Modern Mayberry.

    7. I'll take "being right even if for the wrong reason", anytime. :)