Two Boys Drop Dead While Wearing Face Masks During Gym Class

It is completely absurd to use face masks while exercising.  You are recycling CO2 back into his lungs.This is hardly useful.  Doing this for a long period of time will also increase the presence of biolgicals..  If you have COV 19, you will increase the concentration just were you are most vulnerable.

This is not good.  Now we do not know if this event happens to be anomalous.  Children do drop dead from undiscovered flaws.  

Face masks are useful for doctors working close to a patient to prevent them spreading disease.  That matters.  If you are going into a socialy close situation, it helps to wear a mask to prevent your cough mist form been broadly disributed then and there.  What it does little of is to prevent airborne matetrial from been breathed in.

You do not wish to enter an isolation ward.

.

Two Boys Drop Dead While Wearing Face Masks During Gym Class




 August 14, 2020




By Arjun Walia 5.3K likes

https://www.collective-evolution.com/2020/08/14/two-boys-drop-dead-while-wearing-face-masks-during-gym-class

The Facts:


Two Chinese boys dropped dead in gym class while exercising and wearing a mask. It's unclear whether or not the masks had anything to do with their deaths.

Reflect On:


Why are children in gym class, and some gyms across the globe mandating masks when there is science indicating that wearing a mask while exercising is not safe and potentially dangerous?


What Happened: Multiple media outlets are reporting that two Chinese boys dropped dead within one week of each other wearing face masks during gym class. Both of the students were 14 years old and were running laps for a physical examination test when they suddenly collapsed and lost consciousness during their run.


According to the New York Post:

One of the teens was only minutes into his gym class when he fell backward April 24 at Dancheng Caiyuan Middle School in Henan province, according to the outlet.

“He was wearing a mask while lapping the running track, then he suddenly fell backwards and hit his head on the ground,” his father, who was only identified as Li, told the outlet.

His dad said teachers and students tried to help him, to no avail.

The death certificate listed the cause as sudden cardiac arrest, but no autopsy was performed, the outlet said.

The boy’s father said he believes that the mask his son was required to wear to school played a role in his death.

It’s not clear if the cause of death was a result of wearing a mask, or if the masks even contributed to the death of the boys. That being said, it’s important to ask whether or not masks are dangerous during exercise.

But Cao Lanxiu, professor at Shaanxi University of Chinese Medicine, said it’s unlikely that the mask caused the boy to suffocate.

“I don’t think mask-wearing has caused this sudden death,” Cao said, though she added that it was impossible to say without an autopsy.

Six days after his death, the second student collapsed at Changsha’s Xiangjun Future Experimental School in Hunan province, the outlet reported.

He had been wearing an N95 respirator and running a 1,000-meter exam when the fatal incident occurred, the report said. It’s unclear whether an autopsy had been ordered.

Though it’s not known whether the masks played a role in either death, several schools in Tianjin and Shanghai have canceled physical education exams, according to the report.

Why This Is Important: A study published in June 2020 raises some health concerns about people wearing masks while exercising. It also calls into question the ability of masks to stop Covid-19. It’s not the only study to do so, but they go against multiple studies that have been recently published showing that masks can indeed be effective in stoping Covid-19, but it’s quite a controversial subject and we’re only hearing one side from the mainstream media, which is why I believe it’s important to present the other.

The study was published in the Journal Medical Hypothesis titled “Exercise with facemask; Are we handling a devil’s sword? – A physiological hypothesis” and claims the following

Exercising with facemasks may reduce available Oxygen and increase air trapping preventing substantial carbon dioxide exchange. The hypercapnic hypoxia may potentially increase acidic environment, cardiac overload, anaerobic metabolism and renal overload, which may substantially aggravate the underlying pathology of established chronic diseases. Further contrary to the earlier thought, no evidence exists to claim the facemasks during exercise offer additional protection from the droplet transfer of the virus. Hence, we recommend social distancing is better than facemasks during exercise and optimal utilization rather than exploitation of facemasks during exercise.

According to the authors, exercising with facemasks induced as “a hypercapnic hypoxia environment [inadequate Oxygen (O2) and Carbon dioxide (CO2) exchange] [15]. This acidic environment, both at the alveolar and blood vessels level, induces numerous physiological alterations when exercising with facemasks: 1) Metabolic shift; 2) cardiorespiratory stress; 3) excretory system altercations; 4) Immune mechanism; 5) Brain and nervous system.’

Further, poor saturation of haemoglobin would be anticipated due to increased partial pressure of CO2 at higher exercise intensity [19]. Fig. 2 demonstrates the extreme right shift of the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve, which would be higher than that expected during exercise. This acidic environment would unload O2 faster at the muscle level, but due to higher heart rate and reduced affinity at the alveolar junction, the partial pressure of O2 would substantially fall, creating a hypoxic environment for all vital organs.

The authors also point out that “wearing of facemasks to prevent the community spread of the novel Covid-19 is itself debatable, considering the limited evidence on the subject matter. WHO recommends masks only for Covid-19 patients but the usage of masks is morally “exploited” among community individuals.”

Here’s another interesting claim by the researchers:

Though the respirator masks are perceived to be the barriers for preventing aerosol depositions to the respiratory tract, the bitter reality is that masks increase the risk of more in-depth respiratory tract infections. As quoted by Perencevich et al. 2020, “The average healthy person shouldn’t be wearing masks as it creates a false sense of security and people tend to touch their face more often when compared to not wearing masks. The surgical masks are debated to trap the droplets containing the vrus inside, increasing rather than reducing the risk of infection.

The study concludes:

Exercising with facemasks might increase pathophysiological risks of underlying chronic disease, especially cardiovascular and metabolic risks. Social exercisers are recommended to do low to moderate-intensity exercise, rather than vigorous exercise when they are wearing facemasks. We also recommend people with chronic diseases to exercise alone at home, under supervision when required, without the use of facemasks. Given the identified and hypothesized risks, social distancing and self-isolation appear to be better than wearing facemasks while exercising during this global crisis.

We are rapidly moving toward a time where the citizenry of the world no longer questions the information provided to them by their government. In many cases, simply questioning federal government and global health authorities like the World Health Organization (WHO) can result in censorship, and in our case, demonetization.

We’ve seen this a lot with Covid-19. The number of doctors and scientists around the world who have been raising multiple questions, cause for concern, and presenting research, information and evidence that completely contradicts the claims and recommendations that we are receiving from government health authorities is truly astounding. The amount they’ve been ignored by the mainstream, censored on the internet and ridiculed is also quite eye-opening and revealing.

I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again, there is there a digital authoritarian Orwellian ‘fact-checker’ going around patrolling the internet and telling people what is and what isn’t, what to believe and what not to believe. On top of this we are witnessing mandates instead of recommendations, when a wealth of information exists that clearly calls into question these mandates.

Should people not have the right to choose what they do with their body? Should people not have a right to examine all information and determine for themselves what is and what isn’t? Why is there always a campaign to make people feel guilty, or make them feel like they are putting others in danger by not complying to mandates that are already highly questionable, and in some cases possibly even dangerous? What’s going on here?

Another example of conflicting information: A paper published a couple of months ago in the New England Journal of Medicine by, Michael Klompas, M.D., M.P.H., Charles A. Morris, M.D., M.P.H., Julia Sinclair, M.B.A., Madelyn Pearson, D.N.P., R.N., and Erica S. Shenoy, M.D., Ph.D states:

We know that wearing a mask outside health care facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection. Public health authorities define a significant exposure to Covid-19 as face-to-face contact within 6 feet with a patient with symptomatic Covid-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes (and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes). The chance of catching Covid-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal. In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic.

A study published in 2015 found that cloth masks can increase healthcare workers risk of infection. It also called into question the efficacy of medical masks. You can read more about that and access it here.

The physiological effects of breathing elevated inhaled CO2 may include changes in visual performance, modified exercise endurance, headaches and dyspnea. The psychological effects include decreased reasoning and alertness, increased irritability, severe dyspnea, headache, dizziness, perspiration, and short-term memory loss. (source)

We are a society moving towards complete obedience, as well as the shame and ridicule of those who don’t comply. Every day we are being ‘turned against’ each other and a lot of it is due to the fact that there is a plethora of credible information out there that completely contradicts our health authorities.

“We are the last free people, we are the people that have the last chance to act.” – Julian Assange

The Takeaway

It can be frustrating living in a time where mandates are imposed on us despite a wealth of information showing that it doesn’t make much sense. What is done for the ‘greater good’ according to governments may not actually be for the greater good, and this has been a theme throughout history, one that may even be hard for people to accept due to the fear it may bring into ones own consciousenss.

Today, there is more of a division amongst people with regards to ‘what is’ and ‘what isn’t’ and that’s largely due to the fact that our consciousness and perception of events are extremely manipulated. This is why there is always so much information contradicting information, recommendations and explanations that come from our government.

One thing is for certain, regardless of how you feel, keeping calm and peaceful in a time of ‘chaos’ is key.

There’s no doubt about it, many people are going through and experiencing a shift in consciousness. COVID-19 has served as a catalyst for many to start questioning what we are being told, why we think the way we do and why we keep listening and following orders that don’t really make much sense. It’s similar to what we’ve experienced before with events like, 9/11 for example, and many others.

Living in a time like we are today can really drive people mad. It can be frustrating seeing so many people blindly following recommendations without ever questioning them, and in turn demonize those who don’t. The human race has been subjected to measures throughout history under the guise of good, all while moving and creeping towards an authoritarian state. We should be listening to people like Edward Snowden on these matters in my opinion. He has been expressing that just like 9/11, governments are using COVID-19 to “monitor us like never before.” He’s stated that “As authoritarianism spreads, as emergency laws proliferate, as we sacrifice our rights, we also sacrifice our capability to arrest the slide into a less liberal and free world. Do you truly believe that when the first wave, this second wave, and the 16th wave of coronavirus is a long forgotten memory, that these capabilities will not be kept? (source)

Something to think about…

Why Fed Bugs Really, Really Hate Gold

It really goes on and on.  Gold has nothing whatsoever to do with money.  Any more than a ton of copper.  It happens to be an incredably useful commodity.  What makes it most useful is pure compactness and high sale value.  It turns out in this manner to be a useful savings mechanism.

Quite like when during the Bronze Age the smiths kept an inventory of copper ingotrs and other commodities as a value store and they became the bankers of the community.  That tradition still largely exists in India for example.

What i am saying is that it does serve as a default savings program when alternatives do not exist.

The problem is that so many continue to buy into the gold as money MEME, including the central bankers.  The right answer is for banks to dispose of all their gold holdings once and for all and let the public make the market.  They will anyway.  

Why Fed Bugs Really, Really Hate Gold

TAGS 

Gold StandardMoney and Banking

08/09/2020

Jeff Deist3

https://mises.org/wire/why-fed-bugs-really-really-hate-gold

Judy Shelton, a Trump nominee to the Fed Board of Governors, may not have coined the excellent term "Fed bug," but she used it to delicious effect in this 2019 Financial Times interview:

“People call me a goldbug, and I think, well, what does that make them? A Fed bug,” she says.

Can anyone the ​New York Times attacks this dishonestly be all bad?

For our purposes, Fed bugs are people with a faith-based belief in the power of central banks (and central bankers) to engineer economic growth using "monetary policy,"despite decades of history and current evidence to the contrary. They believe tinkering with inputs and rates and velocity and flows somehow makes us richer in terms of productivity, goods, and services. They believe in financial alchemy, as economist Nomi Prins puts it, rather than precious metals. They believe paper has value so long as government issues it and legislates its use. Most of all, they believe in technocratic control over money in the economy. 

Central bankers almost by definition are Fed bugs, but so are most monetary economists, financial journalists, and politicians. And they all hate gold with a passion. The reasons why are multifarious, but ultimately flow from their fundamental resentment of any money they do not control and cannot design. Central planning requires central money, and gold stands apart by its very decentralized nature. It is indifferent to human conceptions, and can be discovered and summoned from the earth only with tremendous risk and effort. It cannot easily be manipulated or destroyed, and its value cannot be decreed (though they try mightily). It is unchanging, unyielding, and stubbornly at odds with the political visions of Fed bugs. 

and so they hate it.

They hate gold because it never goes away and never goes to zero. It holds monetary value intrinsically, without the imprimatur of a sovereign or government. Gold does not need the state or its bankers to operate as money, because individuals choose it as money on the market century after century.

Even after more than a century of political efforts to erase gold's status as money, the public still views it as such. Gold quietly serves as a lingering rebuke of the entire political fiat money project—even as central banks are forced by circumstances to buy and hold it as collateral, as the ultimate hard currency and liquid asset for their balance sheets. In fact, central banks steadily bought or repatriated huge amounts of physical gold in recent years, despite the supposedly strong world economy prior to the covid crisis. 

During the transitional period leading up to the full adoption of the euro across the twelve original eurozone countries, Germans in particular secreted away millions of Deutschmarks in mattresses, closets, and safety deposit boxes. More than a decade after the euro came into widespread use, Germans still held €6.6 billion(!) in unconverted Deutschmark notes and coins according to the Bundesbank. The reason for this is very simple: those Germans distrusted, and continue to distrust, the stability and purchasing power of the euro. They fear a crisis, however unlikely, and protect themselves by holding a "harder" currency in case the euro depreciates rapidly someday.

In other words, they prefer "buying" peace of mind by holding Deutschmarks to converting them to euros and buying goods or services. In the same way and for the same reasons, more and more Americans prefer exchanging some of their paper US dollars for physical gold. 

And yet the media campaign against gold continues. With Congress ordering magical fiscal bailouts from the Treasury, Trump conjuring up continued $600 weekly unemployment payments by executive order, and the Fed adding assets of every dubious stripe to its swollen $7 trillion balance sheet, gold prices predictably spiked to over $2,000 per ounce last week. Right on schedule, Fed bug journalists respond with a litany of "Gold is foolish, don't buy it!" articles. In fact they sound like real estate agents in reverse: there is never a good time to buy. Gold goes up relative to the dollar; it's overpriced and poised for a big fall. Gold falls below $1,100, as it did in 2015? See, we told you this worthless shiny metal was headed down!

We rarely see this level of media vitriol and meta-analysis directed toward, say, the latest pump and dump medical device stock duping day traders on Robinhood. The share price of bankrupt Hertz car rental goes from $20 to 80¢ and back up to $5 in a matter of a few months with little public ire or fanfare. And yet gold, the hated and denounced relic of late night Fox News infomercials, outperformed equity markets over the last fifteen years despite its monetary rather than investment status.

Gold is still here. FDR attempted to ban its private ownership and force conversion into dollars in 1933; Nixon eliminated the right of foreign governments to redeem US dollars for gold in 1971. Both men acted without Congress; both knew what their actions meant for savers and inflation. But gold has not faded away, if anything it grows in importance as fiscal and monetary policy across the West becomes increasingly unmoored.

Here is what Ludwig von Mises had to say about gold as real money one hundred years ago: 

.

What the United States needs is not the gold-exchange standard but the Classical gold standard, decried by the inflationists as orthodox. Gold must be in the cash holdings of everybody. Everybody must see gold coins changing hands, must be used to having gold coins in his pockets, to receiving gold coins when he cashes his pay check, and to spending gold coins when he buys in a store.

.

What a wonderful vision, and not an impossible one. Uncle Sam and virtually all Western nations have embarked on a campaign of money creation unlike any time in human history. Where it all leads, and how long it lasts, cannot be predicted. But a global currency crisis, precipitated by a falling US dollar and finally arriving here at home, is hardly unthinkable. At that point we may see a new supranational currency created, or we may see a flight to known commodity money like gold. When the day comes you might want some gold coins jangling in your pocket, or at least some gold-backed zeros glowing in your digital accounts. 

Author:

Contact Jeff Deist

Jeff Deist is president of the Mises Institute. He previously worked as chief of staff to Congressman Ron Paul, and as an attorney for private equity clients. Contact: email; twitter.

Commodities and Oil

The press is slowly catching on to the global commodity story and the expanding impact on people’s lives. The real story is still the fact that the price of oil has increased four fold over the past decade, yet global production is clearly stalled at 87,000,000 barrels per day. If anything, it is getting less elastic as the industry is scrambling to patch over localized declines.

The current headlines are about food prices and that is more a scare than a tangible problem. A huge investment is taking place this spring and we can count on bumper crops this fall and a return to normal pricing there or at least a sharp increase in stocks.

Other commodities are all ramping up production and we have already seen price abatement. They will get cheaper with any slowdown or just the advent of new supply already financed into the pipeline. As far as they are concerned we should be more concerned with China’s and India’s ability to absorb the planned increases.

This all means that everything except oil will be in a strong supply position after the next three years of investment build out. We can actually dismiss them unless we have to buy potash this year at $400 per ton. Don’t worry though, they are doubling capacity.

Oil is the problem. We are going to displace at least 15,000,000 per day of oil production somehow over the next three to five years one way or the other. I must admit this is more a gut figure rather than a brilliantly calculated estimate based on doubtful statistics. I am also putting out a scary time frame to underline that this is not necessarily caused by dropping production as by reallocation.

It will happen very painfully if oil abruptly runs up to $300 per barrel. In that case the private car everywhere will be run of the road to release the oil for necessary industrial and agricultural use. It is our real strategic reserve. If this type of oil shock materializes, it seems likely to happen this summer. It will start with a production shortfall of a couple million barrels that is impossible to cover.

In the mean time, the trucking industry is preparing to switch over to LNG fuels which will not be short supply for a long time. I suspect that many other diesel based operators will do the same. This will single handedly switch out millions of barrels of oil from the market and may account for much of that 15,000,000 per day reallocation that is needed.

The auto industry is already switching over to hybrids and other patches that can reduce the reliance on oil. Most of our current rolling stock is destined to be either scrap a lot earlier than usual or hanger queens. Do not be surprised if rationing becomes necessary.

I am currently optimistic that this can all unwind slowly over several years. It then allows all the adjustments to be made in a normal flow of business mode. It also allows huge additional oil resources to be brought on stream to cushion the developing transition to a non hydrocarbon sustainable energy world. The very best solution is maintaining the current level of 87,000,000 barrels per day over a couple of decades while the resource is continuously reallocated by price to the most important uses and slowly squeezing out inefficient uses like the automobile.

In that case, we could expect oil to be completely out of the transportation business fairly quickly. Let us hope it does not turn out to be a crash program.

Mono Cock Dreaming

I am sure everyone is aware that the price of oil has ended up at a price of around $114 a barrel after climbing steadily through the slow season. This surely means that the summer market will bring prices running between $120 and $140 a barrel. This means that the pump price is going to be between $4.00 and $5.00 per gallon.

This has all happened without an oil shock anywhere. In fact it is amazing how quiet all the global oilfields are. It is as if they are all trying to keep their heads down. Right now the market smells a million barrels per day short with more to come. This current price adjustment is meant to contract demand. Do you feel contracted yet? Right now the industry is working harder and harder to maintain the current supply volumes.

I personally wish the shoe to never drop. The red hot problem is that we can expand production in only a very few locales. This is while global production is setting up to actually tumble. Current global production is 85 million barrels per day. A mere ten percent decline over the next three years which is totally likely plus a modest bit of fresh production means global production is suddenly below 80 million and steadily declining.

That pending decline is going to come straight out of the personal automobile. That is our real strategic reserve. Ration coupons for all is on the way. As I have said before, the price of oil will get worse and stay bad for a long time. A shock will put it over an unsustainable $300 per barrel for a brief spell. In the meantime, start thinking defensively about your use of gasoline. My own family shifted our own usage sharply downward over the past three years and we are glad we did.

We have now reached the threshold for wholesale conversion to better methods and technologies distained in the past. The news is now full of fresh new engineering advancing efficient new strategies. So the cavalry is on the way at a gallop. So let us give them free rein for they will replace that faltering production with solutions that have nothing to do with another oil well.

While this is all happening, the single best thing that industry can do is to shift fully over to mastering high volume carbon fiber fabrication technology, ending the default use of steel in all traditional manufacturing. Yes, I love steel, but that is because I can mold it under my hands with hammer and anvil. I have not had to do that however, since I left the nineteenth century behind and went to University.

Clever module making with carbon fiber means that we can assemble an automobile from a handful of precision fitted units (try that with steel panels!) that are themselves nearly indestructible and can be even reused over several models and over perhaps decades. After all, if an extra effort is made to be perfect, it is very close to been immortal. Carbon fiber demands nothing less to begin with.

The object of course is to rip as much weight out of the automobile as possible. Carbon fiber can bring the weight of the vehicle down to a level that makes even present hybrid technologies and electric cars competitive. It is not hard to trick out a battery driven system that is good for almost a hundred miles. Carbon fiber could easily double or triple that range.

The auto industry has embraced change and is working on many possible improvements, particularly in propulsion which they know their manufacturing ability gives them a huge edge. After all, a small efficient gasoline engine is ideal for powering a light weight carbon fiber vehicle.

The point I want to emphasize is that very strong carbon fiber laminates can be used to make super strong vehicle shells that can handle both high performance and safety. Why should not every passenger in a vehicle be in a carbon fiber mono cock. It only needs the desire to accept long operational lives to amortize the initial expense.

How about making a fitted mono cock that is good on any running gear for the life of the user and easily mounted. A bit crazy and obviously impractical but should we try to go there? I think we should.

I like the idea of locking in my personal shell onto a road car that is capable of letting me survive a high speed crash. It would be perfect for the autobahn.

We need to explore ways in which a couple of hundred pounds is sufficient to carry a two hundred pound driver at speed on the highway. Do this and even do it cheaply and the use of gasoline must plummet. Many good design concepts have already been played with. They just have not been picked up on by manufacturers who really want to sell you a boat and cannot stop their engineers from adding weight.

It is worth recalling that many designs that are apparently flimsy in steel are very sturdy as carbon fiber.

Alternative Energy Economy Begins

Here we are in early 2008 and at the same time as the credit disaster in the US is fully developed, slashing US purchasing power as reflected by a lousy christmas for retailers, the price of oil merrily goes along close to $100 per barrel.

US oil demand is surely in decline, yet in an off season the price is steady at its high. I suspect that when the history of this period is written, that we are experiencing a significant reallocation of resources in the face of declining options.

We have had the first substancial market break, heralding the commencement of a protracted down swing in securities. The banks are writting down their capital reserves which then makes them carefull lenders. There will be plenty of good credit looking for a home over the next few years. And the Fed is scrambling to find a way to lessen the impact to provide a soft landing.

And I think that for the first time since the depression, cities are getting into the housing business. Rather scary folks, isn't it?

As I have posted earlier, oil supply has lost its elasticity. We have had forty years of convenient oil out of the middle east and have forgotten that even this fabulous resource reaches a point in which its daily production must go into decline. And today all the available evidence is saying just that. It is telling that one of the great institutuional naysayers, Cambridge Energy Research Associates, are now stating global production declines of 4.5%.

In fact we have already felt the bite of that decline and we are watching our oil stocks shrink. That is why the price is so bouyant. Remember that the price is currently twice what it was a mere year or so ago. The open question now is how long can we drag this out before aggressive rationing by both price and regulation is imposed. Obviously, George bush is hoping to tip toe out of office before this load of bricks lands on his head. My sense is that we will be seeing major high prices for oil this summer in spite of everyone's best intention. It may even develop into a crisis atmosphere, particularly if the markets respond by going into a steady decline.

Anyway, this will continue the capital movement of resources into alternative fuel strategies upon which I comment heavily.

As I have previously said, we are entering a world of $100 to $300 oil. This will make the automobile inconvenient to operate except as an occasional luxury. And every alternative becomes viable to impliment. So although there will be pain, there will also be great capital intensive transitions to be involved in.

Keith Kohl on Tightening Oil Supplies.

I am quoting Keith Kohl's newsletter here in full. Much as we are now looking at a clean out of the credit markets that is very dangerous, the real global problem is that a squeeze is developing in the supply side of the oil industry and there is little we can do to evade it. None of the analysts have the guts to tell us the truth. A fill up has to hit $500 to force the automobile driver off the road. It is in the process of happening in a sort of slow motion. I do not like to promote fear and panic, but we have time to share this knowledge with others so that it is not a surprise and folks can prepare for it.

Remember that in the 1970's, oil went up ten to fifteen fold. A comparable today would be for it to go to ten times $20.00 or $200.00 to $300.00 a barrel.

Don't you wish a national leader would just come out ant tell people to prepare for a world of $500 fill ups instead of this "I am all right Jack" attitude.

This is from the Energy and Capital newsletter usually advertised on my blog - thank you Adsense:)!

Tuesday, September 18th, 2007

From Desert Sands to Oil Sands
By Keith Kohl

Baltimore, MD--Oil prices today reached as high as $81.90 before settling back down, but the time to mourn the death of cheap oil has already passed. The real question is, "Where do we go from here?"

If you haven't noticed yet, oil is really on the move. But what's the problem? Shouldn't we be running around like crazy?

Don't hold your breath just yet.

The Oil Crunch

For starters, oil is still very cheap.

I know we're at record prices now, but I've said this before: "If you think $80 a barrel is expensive, wait until it breaks $100 or more."

The truth is that we can't predict how expensive oil will get once the peak global production sets in. But we can say one thing for certain: It's going higher.

I couldn't stop laughing recently after reading one oil exec predicting that prices would hit $150 a barrel within 20 years. Well, at least he narrowed it down to two decades. It made me want to send him my own ridiculous prediction that it would rain at least one day over the next three years.

Seriously, though, what's going on here?

Every meteorologist I've spoken to over the last year has been adamant that this hurricane season would be catastrophic. Even FEMA released a statement saying the 2007 hurricane season could be "nearly as destructive as 2005."

Okay, we should have known this season would be weak if FEMA said that, but then again, we still have more than two months left in the 2007 season.

At least we haven't bombed Iran yet. I can only imagine the price jump from that. Oil would go past $150 a barrel in a heartbeat.

So shouldn't oil prices should be decreasing because of the shortage of monster hurricanes and bombs over the last few weeks?

Here's what's happening . . .

The oil market is still tight. Over the last three months, US crude oil supplies dropped 10 out of 11 weeks.

Don't think it's all rainbows and sunshine from here on out, though.

This week, the EIA is expected to announce that stocks of crude will fall by about 1.75 million barrels. Last week, they dropped by 2.25 million barrels.

Now take into account that our demand (not just in the US, but the world as well) is going to keep growing. Global demand is expected to reach well over 88 million barrels of oil per day. My Energy and Capital readers know exactly how I feel about conventional oil.

But where does this leave us? Sitting on the sidelines, watching the oil prices go haywire, is hardly my idea of fun.

Our Oil-Stained Future

Let me show you where our future oil demand will be satisfied.

Numbers don't lie, unless, of course, we're referring to the dubious oil reserves that OPEC claims they have. Does anyone else remember this chart from my article last May?

When these OPEC members dramatically increase (and in some cases double) their reserves in just seven years, I can't help being skeptical.

But I don't want to focus on reserves. The truth is that we'll never know how much the OPEC oil fields are struggling until they release the data.

However, I know EXACTLY where the US will get its oil.

We know that US oil production is spiraling down the drain. That's no secret. As the world's largest oil consumer, we'll have to look elsewhere. And don't let people fool you, our savior will NOT be Middle Eastern oil.

According to the EIA, our petroleum imports have been rising steadily. From 2001 to 2006, they rose from 11.8 million barrels per day to 13.6 million barrels a day. That means our imports grew roughly 14.6% in that time.

If I asked you where we got most of our oil, I'd bet a number of you would immediately think of the Middle East. I mean, even Greenspan recently said our presence in Iraq is motivated by oil.

But you might be surprised to learn that our addiction to Middle Eastern oil is decreasing.

Consider the following from the EIA . . .

Between 2001 and 2006, our imports from OPEC countries dropped approximately 6%. Since the 1960s, OPEC's total share in our petroleum imports has dropped by about 30%.

In fact, three of the top five exporters increased their petroleum exports to us between 2001 and 2006--Mexico, Nigeria and Canada.

I won't get into the geopolitical mess that is Nigeria. And if we take into account the serious troubles at Cantarell, there seems to be no chance for Mexico to keep up production.

Canada, however, is a different story. During the last five years, petroleum imports from Canada have increased 25%. With the kind of growth the oil sands are experiencing (especially in light of $81.51 for a barrel of oil), there's no doubt in my mind where we'll meet our future demand.

More importantly, oil companies are realizing this too. There'll be trillions of investment dollars pouring into these unconventional sources. The problem for us, however, is finding the companies that are going to benefit from this surge of investment. On Thursday, I'm going to show you some of the things to look for, and (more importantly) some of the pitfalls to be wary of.

Until next time,

Keith Kohl