Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Sioux Nation -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (64477)	4/18/2006 12:03:42 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 361481

What TexEnron did to CA, God is doing to TX...IMO. Oops, I don't mean to sound like Pat Robertson. I'm sure there are plenty of nice Texans who never worked for Enron.

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (64477)	4/18/2006 12:03:53 AM
From: Wharf Rat	Respond to of 361481

Gold Forecaster - Global Watch Indian Gold Demand/Oil Crisis Julian D.W. Phillips April 18, 2006 Excerpts from "Gold Forecaster - Global Watch." Indian Demand The Indian economy itself continues to enjoy growing wealth. A holding back of investment into gold has been because of the price. The enrichment of all Indians will over the longer term, be to the benefit of the gold market. The acquisition of wealth will lead to greater consumer goods being purchased, but gold is the destination of savings and investments away from the visible economy too, so gold will remain a major feature of Indian's lives. As the wedding season kicked off on the 14th April, we expect the break through the Rs. 27,000 to spur buying, as the realisation that the high prices are here to stay. Yes, there is dishoarding and it is growing. Indian demand has reached 1,000 tonnes a year in the past of which 850 tonnes was imported previously. Imports this year are close to zero and even now wedding purchases of gold are down 30 to 50% so far, but that leas 50 - 70% of normal gold buying continuing. This could well lead to Indian imports even below 400 tonnes this year if this continues, but this is clearly not slowing the price rise of gold. Those staying out of the market have and will miss out on these rises unless they change their stance. It appears that small retailers and their clients will adjust their view, so we do expect them to return to the market once they realise that prices are not going to come down. How can we be so certain? A family Elder in India is cautious in the face of the price rises in the market. Imagine him going home and telling his wife and daughter that because the gold price has risen 20 or 30% he is going to break the age-old tradition of buying gold for the daughter on her wedding day to provide financial security for the couple. He would risk a lynching for sure. No, we expect that after six months of waiting, he will go to the market and buy gold, albeit in smaller volumes. There are signs that this is now happening. One dealer said the current prices were sustainable. "People now have a little more confidence in high prices," said one dealer in Mumbai. Consumers are used to high prices it seems? The Oil Crisis Perhaps this title is an understatement, because we are facing far more than simply an oil crisis. The difference between the price of Brent Crude and West Texas is disappearing as supplies are rapidly being overtaken by demand. The capacity cushion in the entire oil industry was at 1.7 million barrels, 1.5 million of which sits with OPEC. We believe this has dropped to perhaps below 1 million barrels per day by now and dropping fast. The questions we have to ask now are: 1. The interruption in supplies from the Nigerian Delta region are continuing, that's up to 600,000 barrels down on global supplies. What will happen if supplies from Nigeria, Iran or places like Venezuela are interrupted? 2. Chad is threatening to hold back 160,000 barrels a day. 3. What if suppliers turn to exclusive contracts with individual nations like China to the detriment of other buyers? 4. To what extent will individual nations go to, to secure their own supplies of oil? 5. Just how far will the U.S. go to, to ensure continued supplies from the Middle East? Clearly we are on the brink of a global oil shortage. Iran A strike against Iran is close to a certainty now. Few doubt this it seems. But we have to ask why? Yes, the nuclear enrichment programme is a focal point, but far more is at stake here. And we are not talking about political factors or nuclear threats. We are talking of the consequences of these actions. We are not here to moralise, to justify or support or oppose any of these actions. We are here to help our Subscribers assess the consequences and their effect on the gold market primarily, through the events that take place in this globe of ours. One of the immediate consequences is rising levels of tension, as war raises its ugly head. Should there be a strike against Iran's nuclear facilities, Iran is unable to react, effectively, militarily. Their 'revenge' will probably only be seen in its control of its own oil supplies. It has always had the option of diverting all its production to the East, to attempt to keep the oil price rising. But such ploys will lead to three figure oil prices and elevated levels of global tension. On top of this the possibility of sectarian violence lies ready to persuade the Middle East in its entirety, to expand sectarian violence, causing supply ruptures thereby eliminating any remaining surpluses. April 17, 2006 -Julian D.W. Phillips email: gold-authenticmoney@iafrica.com 321gold.com

To: Wharf Rat who wrote (64477)	4/18/2006 1:03:15 AM
From: Karen Lawrence	Respond to of 361481

GWB and Wetland preservation: The Bush Administration announced last week that the nation is no longer losing wetlands--as long as you consider golf course water hazards to be wetlands. Really. Thursday (March 30), Interior Secretary Gale Norton called a press conference to claim our long nightmare of wetlands loss had finally come to an end due to unprecedented gains since 1997 (click hear to read the report she cites). However, she then admitted much of that gain has been in artificially created ponds, such as golf course water hazards and farm impoundments. The sporting community--from Ducks Unlimited to the Theodore Roosevelt Conservation Partnership--reacted quickly, and not favorably. Researchers long ago established that natural wetlands such as marshes, swamps and prairie potholes are far more productive than even the best-designed artificial wetlands. And sharp-edged water bodies like water hazards, farm ponds, and even reservoirs offer very little for wildlife. Putting man-made ponds in the same class as natural wetlands is like ranking pen-raised quail with wild coveys. The boldness of Norton's claim was particularly galling given the Bush Administration's record on wetlands. President Bush, like other presidents before him, promised a policy of “no net loss” of wetlands, but his administration has consistently supported rollbacks of the Clean Water Act to satisfy industry and development. In fact, at the same press conference, the Fish and Wildlife Service reported a continued loss of 523,500 acres of natural wetlands during the same time period. So how could the nation have come out ahead if it lost more than half a million acres? Norton didn't try to hide the truth: The 715,300-acre “gain” was mainly artificial ponds. While saying the nation's wetlands picture remains “precarious,” Norton added that "even ponds that are not a high quality of wetlands are better than not having wetlands." Now there's ringing endorsement of the president's program. Norton's announcement was likely an act of setting the table for more administration assaults on wetlands protections. It was probably no coincidence that three days earlier, the Army Corps of Engineers and Environmental Protection Agency proposed new regulations that encourage development of companies that build artificial wetlands used by industries that destroy the vital natural habitats. It's part of the wetlands mitigation banking concept--which gives companies permits to drain wetlands, as long as they produce “new” wetlands somewhere else. Norton may think a water hazard is better than no wetlands but for fish, wildlife and sportsmen, but it may be even worse. That type of public policy provides an excuse for more permits to drain more natural and productive wetlands to be replaced by non-productive water hazards. Those might be good for real estate values along the 18th fairway, but for fish and wildlife that rely on wetlands ecosystems to survive, it's terrible. fieldandstream.com