posted March 01, 2012 07:12 PM            

Mason Inman

For National Geographic News

Published February 10, 2012

The United States has long been seen as a nation in its twilight as an oil producer, facing a relentless decline that began when President Richard Nixon was in the White House. He and every president since pledged to halt the U.S. slide into greater dependence on foreign oil, but the trend seemed irreversible—until now. Forty-one years later, U.S. oil production is on the rise.

U.S. oil fields yielded an estimated 5.68 million barrels per day in 2011—their highest output since 2003, thanks largely to a surge of new production from shale oil that lies beneath the Great Plains. The rush so far is centered in North Dakota, where oil production has quadrupled since 2005, but drilling is set to spread across the prairie and beyond.

"A 'great revival' in U.S. oil production is taking shape," said Jim Burkhard, managing director of the energy consultancy IHS Cambridge Energy Research Associates in testimony last month before a U.S. Senate committee. The resurgence provides the United States a welcome measure of energy security at a time of global economic uncertainty and geopolitical risk, he said.

Yet the U.S. government's own energy analysts and many experts see a limit to this new gusher. The technological advances that have driven the revival—high-volume hydraulic fracturing combined with horizontal drilling—can only squeeze so much more crude out of the U.S. landscape, they say. Projections are that U.S. oil production will never again reach the lofty heights of the 1960s, even without environmental concerns slowing development or hampering industry with new costs.

But most importantly for U.S. consumers, the new supply is not expected to provide relief at the pump. The price of gasoline, still governed by global geopolitical factors like Middle East conflict, burgeoning economic growth in Asia, and constraints on supply around the globe, is projected to increase at a rate of nearly 2 percent per year. In the United States and elsewhere, the only way to escape the ever-higher price of oil in the future, the experts agree, will be to use less of it.

A Surprising Surge

U.S. crude oil production has dropped by more than a third since its peak in 1970, and as Burkhard said in his Senate testimony, "The long decline . . . was never supposed to end." But instead, since 2008, the United States has seen a greater gain than any other nation in its "total liquid fuels" supply, taking into account the ramp-up of oil alternatives such as ethanol. In a single year, from 2009 to 2010, oil and gas industry spending on U.S. prospects increased 37 percent, to $69.4 billion, he said. The investment reflects high hopes for the future. "The scale of the opportunity to boost oil production in the United States is larger than in most other countries over the next decade," he said.

President Barack Obama highlighted the new oil development in his State of the Union address, saying, "Last year, we relied less on foreign oil than in any of the past 16 years." Indeed, imports have fallen to about 50 percent of U.S. liquid fuel supply, down from 60 percent as recently as 2005, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA). EIA's new analysis released last month says that imports are on track to fall to just 37 percent of supply by 2035, significantly less than the agency's projection only a year ago.

A persistent drop in consumption—nearly two million barrels a day since its high point in 2005 due to a slowing economy, efficiency improvement, and consumer scaling back on travel due to high prices-has contributed equally to the decrease in imports.

When the new oil is considered along with the new natural gas production spurred by the same technology—fracking—some experts have claimed that the United States, the nation that was the birthplace of the oil industry, could become the world's top liquid fuels producer again, surpassing Saudi Arabia and Russia.

But projections by the EIA and the Paris-based International Energy Agency indicate that is unlikely. They expect the U.S. resurgence to hit a ceiling much sooner. EIA projects that the U.S. oil industry will add about 1 million barrels per day to production over the next decade, an increase of about 18 percent. But that's still 30 percent below the 1970 peak, and its forecast to fall slowly after 2020, back down to just over 6 million barrels per day, about 7 percent above today's level.

"It's a modest increase—not a huge increase," said Richard Nehring, founder of the energy consulting firm Nehring Associates in Colorado Springs, Colorado. "The reason is a lot of the new production just replaces old production that's declining." Oil production in California and Alaska, the second and third largest-producing states behind Texas, has been in decline for more than 20 years, he noted.

North Dakota now is fourth in oil production, thanks to the booming development in the Bakken Shale, which sits beneath the western half of the state and neighboring Montana, extending north into Saskatchewan, Canada. The same hydraulic fracturing technology that has unlocked huge new supplies of natural gas across the United States has opened the door to unanticipated production of shale oil, sometimes known as "tight" oil. The oil industry is already leasing land for drilling in a similar formation, the Niobara Shale, beneath Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska and Kansas. Production in the Eagle Ford shale, in South Texas, is increasing rapidly.

Limits and Doubts

But uncertainties abound regarding this newfound oil supply. New regulations are expected due to concerns that the water-intensive process, which results in a large amount of polluted "flowback" water rising to the surface, is a threat to groundwater and land. In his State of the Union Address, Obama said he wants companies that drill on public lands to disclose the chemicals they use.

And there are other issues. When first tapped, oil shale wells start off strong, but their production typically declines some 50 percent in the first year, and in later years drops further. "These wells have a pretty steep decline in their first year," said oil analyst John Staub of the EIA. "It requires a high rate of drilling to maintain production," let alone make it grow.

Indeed, the pace of oil drilling in the United States is now at a 25-year high, and EIA projects the rate will rise even higher, pushing oil shale production to nearly 1.5 million barrels a day, or 20 percent of U.S. production. The oil shale boom is expected to max out around 2030.

"Tight oil is a pretty new resource," Staub cautioned, "so there's definitely uncertainty about how widespread it might be. Production could be lower or it could be higher."

To be sure, the EIA expects to see other sources of new oil production in the United States. Although conventional onshore oil production is expected to continue to slide, more oil may be squeezed out of old oil fields, mainly by pumping in carbon dioxide and other newer "enhanced oil recovery" techniques to flush out recalcitrant fluids.

Offshore development, particularly in deepwater, is expected to continue apace after the lifting of the moratorium imposed after BP's 2010 Deepwater Horizon disaster, which resulted in the largest U.S. oil spill ever, in the Gulf of Mexico. The EIA expects some offshore projects to proceed in the Arctic, but these would not be enough to reverse Alaska's decline in production, and its production would fall from 560,000 barrels a day now to less than half that, 270,000 barrels a day, by 2035.

But even with the United States hoping to produce a larger share of the oil it uses, consumers won't pay less. The price per barrel of crude oil, which was between $85 and $110 per barrel in the United States in 2011, is expected to be $120 by 2016 and $145 by 2035, in today's dollars, EIA projects. (That means a whopping nominal price of $230 per barrel by 2035.) In today's dollars, a gallon of gasoline would cost $4.49 by 2035, an average increase of 1.6 percent per year.

Demand for gasoline is soaring in China and India, lifting the price of the globally traded commodity. And outside of OPEC members, the rest of the world's production has reached a peak or plateau, which a boost in U.S. production would do little to change, said David Greene of the U.S. Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory in Tennessee.

In the words of International Energy Agency chief economist Fatih Birol, "The age of cheap oil is over."

Looking ahead, the U.S. won't be able to eliminate the cost of oil dependence just by boosting production alone, Greene said. Improvements to cars' gas mileage and other efforts to use energy more wisely would make a big difference. "It doesn't mean that we'll get rid of imports," he said. But if the United States makes efforts both to increase production while decreasing demand, the country could "shrink imports down to a manageable size."

Daniel Kammen, director of the Renewable and Appropriate Energy Laboratory at the University of California, Berkeley, said the new drilling boom should not blind the nation to the need to tap other energy resources that don't carry oil's costs.

"The energy mix we have now is heavily domestic due to the expansion of North American fossil resources," Kammen said. "But an arguably larger energy efficiency and renewable energy resource exists in North America." He said that would do more to create jobs and build industry over the long term.

posted March 03, 2012 12:24 AM            

quote:

---

Originally posted by katatonic:
well then, all rich people(who are making out like bandits), all GIs(who are no longer in the line of fire), all young folk between 19-26(who now have health insurance), all gays(whose rights are more supported than ever), and all oil companies and banks(also doing VERY well thank you!), should be voting obama...since they are ALL better off than they were three years ago.

the price of gas DESPITE the largest american production since 2003 is hardly a nail in his coffin.

funnily obama will raise most of his campaign money from supporters among the people, while the likes of romney receive millions from lobbyists, newt has his sugar daddy and mommy, etcetera etcetera etcetera...

obama's first term has been exactly what i thought it would...a proving ground where much of the hidden sickness in washington and elsewhere is exposed and bled out.

his second term will be about rebuilding. jwhop was SURE the "american people" would not elect this man. they did. perhaps the "american people" is much broader and more hopeful than many give them credit for.

the fact is the way business is done has changed, probably forever, and the old world is NOT coming back. obama understands this, for all his faults, AND he understands that you can't walk in the door and wave a wand and change all evil in a minute. something those punting for the current republican crop are in COMPLETE denial about.

---

Once agai Kat, you bring in the Soldiers. If you really followed what was going on with the Military you would know that there are No Soldiers out of work, they are out of the Army. They are not getting benefits, pay or anything else because they are out. The only way they have any pay is if they retired or are retiring.

posted March 03, 2012 10:52 AM            

These numbers come straight from the Congressional Research Service and were compiled by the U.S. Geological Survey.

You'll find the actual numbers/chart on page 18 of this report compiled for the Congress of the United States.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=Files.View&FileStore_id=04212e22-c1b3-41f2-b0ba-0da5eaead952

This is a different kind of chart compiled from the numbers contained in the above noted report.

Look who's number 1

Further:

"America’s combined energy resources are, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service (CSR), the largest on earth. They eclipse Saudi Arabia (3rd), China (4th) and Canada (6th) combined – and that’s without including America’s shale oil deposits and, in the future, the potentially astronomic impact of methane hydrates."

Expect to hear a hell of a lot more about this report during this election cycle when the Republican candidate tells America exactly who is responsible for their $4-$6 gas prices.

Let me get you ahead of the curve acoustic and simply tell you now.

It's your little idol, THE ONE, THE MARXIST MESSIAH, Barack Hussein O'Bomber...and the idiots who work for him.

As for US oil production going up, that's got nothing whatsoever to do with O'Bomber. That's because Bush removed the drilling and production moratorium and said DRILL BABY DRILL. Crude prices fell from $149 per barrel to less than $33 per barrel and gasoline prices fell to an average of $1.879 across the US.

O'Bomber almost immediately reinstated the restrictions Bush lifted and now gas is over $4 per gallon in some parts of America and crude prices hit $109 per barrel a couple of days ago.

This story IS going to told to the American people acoustic, all the dots are going to be connected and an arrow is going to point directly to Barack Hussein O'Bomber and the idiot Energy Secretary Chu...both of whom want US gas prices to rise to the level of Europe.

If you think people are pis$ed at O'Bomber now...and they are; just wait until they find out the US is sitting on the most energy resources in the world...and it's O'Bomber who is doing his best to make sure they're not produced...for political reasons having to do with the Loony-Tunes leftists who are the base of his political support.

If this was the late 1800's, O'Bomber and his idiot crew would be tarred and feathered, tied to rails and run out of Washington.

But, we're far more civilized now...and more's the shame because that's exactly what should happen to someone like O'Bomber who has been working directly against the interests and pocketbooks of Americans.

Most of us are marking the days off on our calendars until November 6, when we can "Constitutionally" throw him out of the White House and then have the joint fumigated.

posted March 03, 2012 11:34 AM            

what you didn't notice was that soldiers (or ex soldiers) were only ONE part of a LIST of types of people who are benefitting from obama's policies. one track mind..much? this is the perfect instance of "what you see is what you get", ie, your bias blinds you to what you are a) not interested in and b) don't like to consider.

what i hate is killing for profit. sorry bout that. ALSO sorry i am not interested in being PART of the military. i think we went through that ages ago.

and many of those soldiers (or ex soldiers) ARE out of work, because they are not career military and they have come home pretty damaged. but at least they have come home!

you've heard of IRAQ VETERANS AGAINST THE WAR and VETERANS FOR PEACE? i wonder why they were inspired to act/get together?

posted March 03, 2012 04:56 PM            

First, O'Bomber tried to get soldiers to purchase private insurance in case they got wounded in action and needed medical treatment.

That flew though the air like a lead brick.

Now, O'Bomber is trying again to make soldiers...wounded and/or retired pay huge increases in their government medical insurance.

Anyone who hasen't figured it out by now that O'Bomber and his entire crew of leftist idiots despise the US military is down to their very last braincell.

Counting the days until we can dump this dud and the thugs he brought with him from Chicago.

Obama Pushing ObamaCare on Troops, Forcing Them to Pay at Least Triple for Care
Katie Pavlich
News Editor, Townhall
Feb 28, 2012

President Obama has already gutted the Army in favor of out of control entitlement programs and now, he's going after military medical benefits in order to get more people on his ObamaCare rolls. In Obama's latest budget, military families will be forced to pay substantially more for medical care through the military while civilian defense union workers will continue receiving the same benefits.

The Obama administration’s proposed defense budget calls for military families and retirees to pay sharply more for their healthcare, while leaving unionized civilian defense workers’ benefits untouched. The proposal is causing a major rift within the Pentagon, according to U.S. officials. Several congressional aides suggested the move is designed to increase the enrollment in Obamacare’s state-run insurance exchanges.

The disparity in treatment between civilian and uniformed personnel is causing a backlash within the military that could undermine recruitment and retention.

The proposed increases in health care payments by service members, which must be approved by Congress, are part of the Pentagon’s $487 billion cut in spending. It seeks to save $1.8 billion from the Tricare medical system in the fiscal 2013 budget, and $12.9 billion by 2017.

It seems as if Obama is trying to make joining the military so unenjoyable in order to decrease sign up numbers. First, he reduces their force to a level his own defense secretary says is ridiculous and dangerous, which means military members are spread even thinner for deployments and other duties. Second, his budget would force military members to pay more for medical benefits than their civilian counterparts. Why be a soldier when you can be a defense worker?

The administration is also pushing for more expensive Tricare payments for military members in order to force them onto ObamaCare, just like they are doing with private insurance plans. It's all part of the move toward single payer healthcare.

Administration officials told Congress that one goal of the increased fees is to force military retirees to reduce their involvement in Tricare and eventually opt out of the program in favor of alternatives established by the 2010 Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, aka Obamacare.

And just how much more will military have to pay?

Significantly, the plan calls for increases between 30 percent to 78 percent in Tricare annual premiums for the first year. After that, the plan will impose five-year increases ranging from 94 percent to 345 percent—more than 3 times current levels.

According to congressional assessments, a retired Army colonel with a family currently paying $460 a year for health care will pay $2,048.

The military disapproves of the push:

Military personnel from several of the armed services voiced their opposition to a means-tested tier system for Tricare, prompting Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Martin Dempsey to issue a statement Feb. 21.

Dempsey said the military is making tough choices in cutting defense spending. In addition to the $487 billion over 10 years, the Pentagon is facing automatic cuts that could push the total reductions to $1 trillion.

posted March 03, 2012 06:10 PM            

the soldiers were citizens who were expected to pay for their own arms and kit, transportation and everything else. there was no full time job waiting them at the end of a war or military action...even the generals were expected to support themselves EXCEPT in times of war.

today the military is a huge federal employer and could be likened to a union in many ways. except "Patriotism" demands that we all ignore the fact that the military is one huge socialist unit supported by us all whether we approve of a war or action or not.
http://www.famguardian.org/Subjects/Politics/ThomasJefferson/jeff1480.htm

there is a reason why the CIVILIAN leader (president) was put in charge of the armed forces. the military is supposed to work for the government, not the other way around. eisenhower, our last general-president, was well aware of how the tables were turning, to the point where we were in danger of being run by the military, not vice versa.

posted March 04, 2012 10:45 AM            

I've always wondered why some people think that stringing together a bunch of words which amount to nothing more than incoherent rambling rises to the level of logical, rational rebuttal of FACTS.

What a striking difference there is between O'Bomber whom our military forces well understand he despises them and is acting against them AND President Bush who often showed up unannounced in Iraq to work in the serving line to help serve them their Thanksgiving dinners. And, not only showed up unannounced but showed up without the gaggle of press pukes to turn it into a photo opportunity for himself.

posted March 04, 2012 03:12 PM            

Virtually nothing of what you said bares any consequence for this election. Your ideas about Conservatives painting an picture that the public will buy is partly fantasy. Sure some people will believe anything the Right puts out in talking points, but some people also believe anything the Left has to say, so already there's a problem with your theory. Left over are the smart people who will seek out the information on their own, and they're not likely to fall for any spin from either side.

I'm hoping you actually read some of the report you posted, particularly page 10 starting with Shale Oil.

posted March 04, 2012 05:17 PM            

They just spout drivel without a single fact to back up anything they say.

You're just supposed to take their word that what they're saying is true...when it's patently apparent, it's not true but is rather spin, evasion, ducking, bobbing and weaving.

Now, what I said about the US having the largest fossil energy reserves in the world IS true.

It's also true that most Americans don't know that, having been fed a steady diet of bullshiiit for more than 40 years that we're running out of oil and gas by the "peak oil" pukes combined with the rabid, idiot environmentalists who don't want another cubic foot of natural gas or another drop of oil developed here.

Americans are going to be told the truth...from official sources and if you don't think that's going to pis$ them off when they're paying $4-$5-$6 or $7 for gasoline, then acoustic, you're either spinning or delusional....since they're alread pi$sed off about the price of gasoline doubling under O'Bomber.

They're also pis$ed that some Loony-Tunes idiots from the White House and some moron so called journalists are telling them that higher gas prices are really a good thing because it means the economy is improving.

However, as Americans look around, they don't see any improvement in the economy. About 45 million Americans are living at or below the poverty line and O'Bomber has added about 12,000,000 Americans to the food stamp rolls...which now stands at about 47,000,000 Americans.

posted March 04, 2012 07:30 PM            

when you stop talking about a work in progress as if it's a static, finished piece, and a body of people as if they are but one big organism, you will start to make sense.

posted March 05, 2012 05:45 PM            

The day O'Bomber began infesting the White House, regular gasoline averaged $1.879 across America.

The average price of regular gas today...3/5/12...is $3.767.

$1.879 X 2 = $3.758

O'Bomber has doubled the price of regular gasoline..in fact, more than doubled the price and in some areas regular gas is higher than $4.

O'Bomber says he has no "magic bullet" to lower gas prices but then, O'Bomber and his idiot Energy Secretary Chu don't want lower gas prices...or lower electric rates.

posted March 05, 2012 06:01 PM            

http://twicsy.com/i/Jmqt7

posted March 05, 2012 06:26 PM            

Pundit Prep~ The Memo

1) RNC writes strategy MEMO to right-wing media instructing on specific talking points to hit this week.

1a) Not a general Memo to supporters, a PUNDIT PREP memo telling media what specific talking points to repeat over and over.

2) Steve Doocy (on sedatives?) reads the memo on air. Yes, on the air. Live.

3) Gretchen Carlson's reaction - PRICELESS.

posted March 05, 2012 08:41 PM            

we did it..we put a price
on land that was given freely...
http://www.wealthandwant.com/themes/Wages.html

posted March 05, 2012 09:29 PM            

the math was a little daunting but i think i finally figured out, it is about 18 acres per person...of course this includes desert, mountain and other not so hospitable places, though people have lived on them all.

posted March 05, 2012 09:39 PM            

so, if we each kept 5

and gave back 13

to ConServe. ...

that would be amazing, Kat!

posted March 05, 2012 10:56 PM            

O'Bomber has doubled gas prices during his term in office...so far.

The prevailing opinion is that O'Bomber is going to drive gas prices even higher.

posted March 06, 2012 04:48 AM            

he was, by the way, totally Apolitical. he believed that change cannot be legislated.

"Grunch" is one of his conglomerate words that describes the collective multinational corporations who own all the research facilities, and thus the research, technology and weaponry (as well as a lot of gold bullion) that makes it VERY difficult for your beloved (and mine) small business to get anywhere without depending on their help, and ultimately being dependent on the choices made available by those who "OWN" the resources.

----------------------------

World War I brought vast munitions-buying on credit by the U.S. government, and the figures ran into multi-millions of dollars as private U.S. industrial corporations acquired postwar operational rights to all the wartime government-financed new-era technology production machinery. Stockholders prospered. World War II saw the same U.S. government credit employed to produce "multi-vaster" new-technology munitions, with the dollar figures running this time into the multi-billions of dollars. World War III's third-of-a-century of "cold-warring" between the U.S.A. and U.S.S.R., waged vicariously through many hot-war puppeted nations, has seen the annual munitions figures running into the multi-trillions of dollars. The U.S.A. 1981 "national" debt is over a trillion dollars, and the U.S. cannot pay even the interest on that debt. We can very properly call World War I the million-dollar war and World War II the billion-dollar war and World War III the trillion-dollar war.

In the meantime, all the industrial research and development as well as its products have become involved with the invisible technologies of atomics, electronics, chemistry, molecular alloying, and information processing. All the research and development of all the products and services that are going to affect all of our forward days are now being conducted in the realm of the electromagnetic spectrum "reality" not directly apprehendible by any of the human senses.

While the North American-situated factories and spectacular city buildings seem to be and are thought of by humans as being American property because they are located on American land, most are no longer U.S.A.people-owned. For instance, though thought of as "American," a majority of the skyscrapers of Honolulu belong to Japanese bankers. Arabian oil billionaires own many U.S. city skyscrapers. Kuwait owns the large South Carolina coastal island of Kiawah.

What was once world-around high credit for American ingenuity and friendliness is no longer existent. On February 1, 1982, the United States ambassador to the United Nations stated to the media that all the "United Nations now hate the U.S.A." What they hate is Grunch, but Grunch is able to deceive the world into blaming the very innocent people of the United States.

[do you think the ambassador in 1982 blamed obama? i somehow doubt it!]

All the continental U.S.A.'s industrial factories and grounds and 90 percent of all that can and does produce physical wealth has already become or is about to become the humanly invisible property of inhumanly operative supranational corporations controlled by the invisible human owners of invisible Swiss bank account code numbers.

A vast new giant of approximately no-risk capitalism is now astride the world. "Earning" over a trillion dollars a year, this supranational giant's monopoly over know-how, wealth, research and development, and production and distribution facilities is worth at least $20 trillion (U.S.A. dollars, September 1981). While the giant now owns and controls four-fifths of the planet Earth's open-market bankable assets, $1 trillion of those giant's assets are in monetary gold bullion. Astride spherical Spaceship Earth, the supranational corporate Grunch of Giants faces a political giant of noncapitalistic forces controlling the lives of two-thirds of humanity.

In making these observations in regard to inanimate corporations we do not infer antisocial attitudes on the part of the corporate officers. A corporation's executives are elected by its board of directors. The directors are elected by the number of shares of stock as voted directly by their holders or as voted by the holders of their share's proxies. This voting is not on a democratic one stockholder/one vote basis but on an as-many-votes-as-sharesowned basis. This being so, the corporations' lawyers have no alternative to reminding any altruistic, socially concerned executives that the corporation is committed by law only to making money for its shareholders, and therefore that any socially concerned, altruistic proclivities of any corporate executive must be realized outside the corporation and at the executive's own expense. ...

In the August 3, 1981, issue of Time appeared the following article:

President [Reagan] appointed William Baxter, a Stanford law professor who firmly believes in the virtues of large-scale enterprises unfettered by excessive Government regulation, to be his antitrust chief in the Justice Department. Baxter's boss, Attorney General William French Smith, succinctly stated the new Administration's philosophy in an oft-quoted speech before the District of Columbia Bar. Said Smith: "Bigness in business is not necessarily badness. Efficient firms should not be hobbled under the guise of antitrust enforcement."

Baxter openly accepts some responsibility for the merger phenomenon. Said he last week: "The statements we've made at the Justice Department have allowed people to think about mergers that they really wouldn't have thought about in past Administrations." Mobil's bid for Conoco is a case in point. Baxter insists that his trustbusters will not allow any acquisition that significantly reduces competition within the oil industry or any other. He also maintains that a Mobil-Conoco combination would be subjected to tough scrutiny in Washington. [That is one reason why the subsequent alternative deal which united non-oil Dupont and oil Conoco was countenanced — R.B.F.]

Baxter should be wary if only because the American public has long been apprehensive about excessive corporate power. [Attorney General Smith] admits, "The strains of populist hostility toward large companies are deeply ingrained in the U.S.A. Government trustbusters have enjoyed broad public support as they attacked both concentration within an industry and combinations between corporate giants in unrelated business." Yet the burgeoning growth of corporate America has outpaced all the antitrust efforts. Since World War II, the portion of U.S. industry controlled by the 200 largest manufacturing firms has risen from 45% to 60%. [Socioeconomically, that is from majority to minority control — R.B.F.]

The attorney general chooses his words carefully. What he speaks of as U.S. industry is not the ownership of the corporations conducting the industrial activity; he speaks exclusively of the physical production activity itself taking place under the roofs of factory buildings situated within the geographical borders of the U.S. of North America. The capital title to and productive earnings of these are 60-percent owned and controlled by the entirely unknown majority owners of the escaped-from-America, supranational corporations — the Grunch.

One-third of humanity lives outside the lands controlled by socialism. All unbeknownst to and undetected by the one-fifth of the one-third of humanity residenced within the U.S.A., gradually cross-breeding "worldians," their one-third-of-a-century-ago kudos for realistically articulated generosity to and concern for others, as well as the U.S. peoples' legal ownership and control of their economic assets, have been altogether exploited, usurped, or stolen from them by the invisibly integrated supranational corporate giants. The Grunch has conducted its ruthlessly selfish activity always in the name of the U.S.A. people.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The now majorly literate crossbreeding world humans are now looking askance at both the socialist and capitalist giants as these politically opposed powers multiply their to-anywhere-deliverable, humanity-annihilating bombs.