Monthly Archives: December 2013

Shale Oil Revolution is a Mirage by Andy Hall ….. Courtesy of Zerohedge

Courtesy of Zerohedge.  See article here

Phibro’s (currently Astenback Capital Management) Andy Hall knows a thing or two about the oil market – and even if he doesn’t (and it was all luck), his views are sufficiently respected to influence the industrial groupthink. Which is why for anyone interested in where one of the foremost oil market movers sees oil supply over the next decade, here are his full thoughts from his latest letter to Astenback investors. Of particular note: Hall’s warning to all the shale oil optimists: “According to the DOE data, for Bakken and Eagle Ford the legacy well decline rate has been running at either side of 6.5 per cent per month… Production from new wells has been running at about 90,000 bpd per month per field meaning net growth in production is 25,000 bpd per month. It will become smaller as output grows and that’s why ceteris paribus growth in output for both fields will continue to slow over the coming years. When all the easily drillable sites are exhausted – at the latest sometime shortly after 2020 – production from these two fields will decline.”

From Astenback Capital Management

Oil Supply

The speed with which an interim agreement was reached with Iran was unexpected. Equally unexpected was the immediate relaxation of sanctions relating to access to banking and insurance coverage. This will potentially result in an increase in Iranian exports of perhaps 400,000 bpd. Beyond that it is hard to predict what might happen. The next set of negotiations will certainly be much more difficult. The fundamental differences of view that were papered over in the recent talks need to be fully resolved and that will be extremely difficult to do. Also, Iran’s physical capacity to export much more additional oil is in doubt because its aging oil fields have been starved of investment.

As to Libya, it seems unlikely that things will get better there anytime soon. The unrest and political discontent seems to be worsening. Whilst some oil exports are likely to resume – particularly from the western part of the country (Tripolitania), overall levels of oil exports from Libya in 2014 will be well below those of 2013.

Iraqi exports should rise by about 300,000 bpd in 2014 as new export facilities come into operation. But there is a meaningful risk of interruptions due to the sectarian strife in Iraq that increasingly borders on civil war. Saudi Arabia’s displeasure at the West’s quasi rapprochement with Iran is likely to add fuel to the fire in the Sunni-Shia fight for supremacy throughout the region.

If gains in 2014 of exports from Iran are assumed to offset losses from Libya, potential net additional exports from OPEC would amount to whatever increment materializes from Iraq. Saudi Arabia has been pumping oil at close to its practical (if not hypothetical) maximum capacity of 10.5 million bpd for much of 2013. It could therefore easily accommodate any additional output from Iraq in order to maintain a Brent price of $100 – assuming it wants to do so and that it becomes necessary to do so. Still, $100 is meaningfully lower than $110+ which is where the benchmark grade has on average been trading for the past three years.

So much for OPEC, what about non-OPEC supply? Most forecasters predict this to grow by about 1.4 million bpd with the largest contribution – about 1.1 million bpd – coming from the U.S. and Canada and the balance primarily from Brazil and Kazakhstan. Brazil’s oil production has been forecast to grow every year for the past four or five years and each time it has disappointed. Indeed Petrobras has struggled to prevent output declining. Perhaps 2014 is the year they finally turn things around but also, perhaps not. The Kashagan field in Kazakhstan briefly came on stream last September – almost a decade behind schedule. It was shut down again almost immediately because of technical problems. The assumption is that the consortium of companies operating the field will finally achieve full production in 2014.

Canada’s contribution to supply growth is perhaps the most predictable as it comes from additions to tar sands capacity whose technology is tried and tested. Provided planned production additions come on stream according to schedule in 2014, these should amount to about 200,000 bpd.

Most forecasters expect the U.S. to add 900,000 bpd to oil supplies in 2014, largely driven by the continuing boom in shale oil. That would be lower than the increment seen this year or in 2012 but market sentiment seems to be discounting a surprise to the upside. As mentioned above, many companies have been creating a stir with talk of exciting new prospects beyond Bakken and Eagle Ford which so far have accounted for nearly all the growth in shale oil production. Indeed at first blush there seem to be so many potential prospects it is hard to keep track of them all. Even within the Bakken and Eagle Ford, talk of down-spacing, faster well completions through pad drilling and “super wells” with very high initial rates of production resulting from the use of new completion techniques have created an impression of a cornucopia of unending growth and that impression weighs on forward WTI prices.

But part of what is going on here is the industry’s desire to maintain a level of buzz consistent with rising equity valuations and capital inflows to the sector.

The hot play now is one of the oldest in America; the Permian basin. A handful of companies with large acreage in the region are making very optimistic assessments of their prospects there. These are based on making long term projections based on a few months’ production data from a handful of wells. We wonder whether data gets cherry picked for investor presentations. We hear about the great wells but not about the disappointing ones. Furthermore, many companies are pointing to higher initial rates of production without taking into account the higher depletion rates which go hand in hand with these higher start-up rates. EOG, the biggest and the best of the shale oil players recently asserted that the Permian – a play in which it is actively investing – will be much more difficult to develop than were either the Bakken or Eagle Ford. EOG figures horizontal oil wells in the Permian have productivity little more than a third of those in Eagle Ford. EOG has further stated on various occasions that the rapid growth in shale oil production is already behind us.

In part this is simple math. The DOE recently started publishing short term production forecasts for each of the major shale plays. They project monthly production increments based on rig counts and observed rig productivity (new wells per rig per month multiplied by production per rig) and subtracting from it the decline in production from legacy wells. According to the DOE data, for Bakken and Eagle Ford the legacy well decline rate has been running at either side of 6.5 per cent per month. When these fields were each producing 500,000 bpd that legacy decline therefore amounted to 33,000 bpd per month per field. With both fields now producing 1 million bpd the legacy decline is 65,000 bpd per month. Production from new wells has been running at about 90,000 bpd per month per field meaning net growth in production is 25,000 bpd per month. It will become smaller as output grows and that’s why ceteris paribus growth in output for both fields will continue to slow over the coming years. When all the easily drillable sites are exhausted – at the latest sometime shortly after 2020 – production from these two fields will decline.

Others have made the same analysis. A couple of weeks ago the IEA expressed concern that shale oil euphoria was discouraging investment in longer term projects elsewhere in the world that will be needed to sustain supply when U.S. shale oil production starts to decline.

Decelerating shale oil production growth is also reflected in the forecasts of independent analysts ITG. They have undertaken the most thorough analysis of U.S. shale plays and use a rigorous and granular approach in forecasting future shale and non-shale oil production in the U.S. Of course their forecast like any other is dependent on the underlying assumptions. But ITG can hardly be branded shale oil skeptics – to the contrary. Yet their forecast for U.S. production growth also calls for a dramatic slowing in the rate of growth. Their most recent forecast is for U.S. production excluding Alaska to grow by about 700,000 bpd in 2014. With Alaskan production continuing to decline, that implies growth of under 700,000 bpd in overall U.S. oil production, or 200,000 bpd less than consensus.


The final element of supply is represented by the change in inventory levels. The major OECD countries will end 2013 with oil inventories some 100 million barrels lower than they were at the beginning of the year. That stock drawdown is equivalent to nearly 300,000 bpd of supply that will not be available in 2014. Data outside the OECD countries is notoriously sparse but the evidence strongly suggests there was also massive destocking in China during 2013.

Video : Steve Keen Explains Present Economic Theory Does not Include Debt & Finance into their Models

financial_crisisFACT : Unsustainable Debt build-up induces and instigates economic crisis.

FACT : Debt growth has actually surpassed the 2007 peak by over 30% as of now.  

FACT : On-Coming crisis will surpass 2008/09.  

   Mitch. (Silver Sufferer)


Steve Keen follow’s on with his views……….

Conventional economic theory says ‘crisis don’t happen’ unless they are hit by an [outside] shock” exclaims Steve Keen, adding that numerous Nobel Prize winning economists have suggested that “capitalism is stable…” and “the problem of avoiding depressions has been solved for many decades.”

But as Keen explains in this brief but extremely succinct interview, they are wrong – and simply won’t (or can’t) see the next one coming. “People in the public think economists are experts on money; but, in fact, they are experts in finding ways not to include money, debt, and banks in their models

Real Gold Price adjusted for Real US Money Supply…. by National Inflation Association

I actually wrote a report very similar to this analysis 6 months previous, but in relation to the real price of Silver. I will re-post this article shortly, once I have re-calculated the numbers as of today.

It’s an interesting way in comparing the real increase of money aggregates against the official  ’manipulated, understated’ CPI (Inflation) calculator.



Gold’s 1980 high of $850 per oz is actually the equivalent of $7,944.83 per oz in today’s economy. Furthermore, gold’s 1976 low of $103.50 per oz is the equivalent of $1,096.12 per oz in today’s economy. Gold’s 1985 low of $285.75 per oz is the equivalent of $1,276.25 per oz in today’s economy.
The average of gold’s lows in 1976 and 1985 are the equivalent of $1,186.19 per oz in today’s economy. This is within 0.5% of gold’s June 28, 2013, low of $1,192 per oz, which gold once again dipped to last week. This could be a double bottom for gold.
During its 1971-1980 nine year bull rally, gold rose from a low of $35 in 1971 to a high of $195 in 1974 for a gain of 457.1%, followed by a dip to a low of $103.50 in 1976 for a decline of 46.8%, and then an additional gain of 721.3% to a high of $850 in 1980 – for a total gain of 2,329%. After the Fed raised interest rates to 20%, gold over the following five years lost 2/3 of its value, bottoming in 1985 at $285.75.
Mid-way through its secular bear market, when gold dipped 46.9% to a low on August 25, 1976, of $103.50 per oz: the real U.S. money supply as of August 23, 1976, was comprised of: 1) currency component of M1: $77.5 billion, 2) total checkable deposits: $219 billion, and 3) total savings deposits at all depository institutions: $185.9 billion – for a total real money supply of $482.4 billion.
Currently, the real U.S. money supply as of December, 16, 2013, is comprised of 1) currency component of M1: $1.1596 trillion, 2) total checkable deposits: $1.4828 trillion, 3) total savings deposits at all depository institutions: $7.1513 trillion - for a total real money supply of $9.7937 trillionThe real U.S. money supply has grown 20.30X in size since August 23, 1976.
According to the World Gold Council, the world’s total above ground gold stocks mined throughout history as of the end of 2012 were 174,100 tonnes, and after production from this past year – their figures will likely show total above ground gold stocks of approximately 177,000 tonnes. However, in recent days, several NIA members have contacted us with compelling evidence that the World Gold Council’s data is overstating above ground gold stocks by approximately 16,000 tonnes.In NIA’s opinion, above ground gold stocks are 16,000 tonnes below what is being estimated by the World Gold Council, and are now approximately 161,000 tonnes.
Unlike silver, which mostly gets consumed in miniscule amounts during the manufacturing of thousands of different electronic devices (such as our mobile/smart phones), only to end up in landfills – the exact opposite is true with gold. Nearly every ounce of gold ever produced throughout history is currently stored as bars in government vaults, coins in safety deposit boxes, or jewelry in our bedrooms.
Above ground gold stocks are important, because if total worldwide gold production each year was proportional to the amount of U.S. dollars printed by the Federal Reserve, gold would still be $35 per ounce and inflation would be the least of America’s concerns. The U.S. dollar has lost 97% of its purchasing power vs. gold since 1971 due to excess government spending that couldn’t be paid for through taxation. When calculating how much previous gold prices from decades ago are the equivalent to in today’s economy, we must always discount money supply growth by the growth of above ground gold stocks.
NIA estimates based on data from multiple sources that above ground gold stocks in August of 1976 were approximately84,000 tonnes, which is equal to 52.17% of today’s estimated above ground gold stocks of 161,000 tonnes. Over the last 37 years, above ground gold stocks have grown by approximately 91.67%This is only a fraction of real U.S. money supply growth of 1,930%.
If we take gold’s low in 1976 of $103.50, and multiply it X 20.30 for money supply growth, then multiply the resulting figure by 0.5217 to discount the growth of above ground gold stocks - gold’s 1976 low of $103.50 is the equivalent of $1,096.12 per oz in today’s economy.
Between August of 1976 and January of 1980, gold rose from its low of $103.50 per oz to a new all time high of $850 per oz for a gain of 721.3% is just 41 months. On Sunday evening, NIA estimated that gold’s high in 1980 of $850 per oz is the equivalent of $5,301.24 per oz in today’s economy. Unfortunately, NIA made two mistakes in its calculation, which significantly underestimated this figure. NIA mistakenly used money supply figures as of year-end 1980, after the real U.S. money supply grew by 38.44% in the previous 11 months – its largest short-term increase in history. In addition, we mistakenly used above ground gold stock figures from the World Gold Council - which we now realize is overestimating current above ground gold stocks by approximately 16,000 tonnes.
When gold reached a new all time high on January 21, 1980, of $850 per oz: the real U.S. money supply as of that exact date was comprised of: 1) currency component of M1: $105.9 billion, 2) total checkable deposits: $275.3 billion, and 3) total savings deposits at all depository institutions: $191.6 billion – for a total real money supply of $572.8 billion.
The real U.S. money supply has grown 17.10X in size since January 21, 1980. Above ground gold stocks in 1980 were approximately 88,000 tonnes, which is equal to 54.66% of today’s estimated above ground gold stocks of 161,000 tonnes. If we take gold’s high in 1980 of $850, and multiply it X 17.10 for money supply growth, then multiply the resulting figure by 0.5466 to discount the growth of above ground gold stocks - gold’s 1980 high of $850 is the equivalent of$7,944.83 per oz in today’s economy.

Over the following five years, after the Federal Reserve increased interest rates to 20%, which prevented hyperinflation – gold prices dipped to a bottom on February 26, 1985, of $285.75 per oz. The real U.S. money supply as of February 25, 1985, was comprised of: 1) currency component of M1: $158.1 billion, 2) total checkable deposits: $401.7 billion, and 3) total savings deposits at all depository institutions: $734.3 billion – for a total real money supply of $1.2941 trillion.
The real U.S. money supply has grown 7.57X in size since February 25, 1985. Above ground gold stocks in 1985 were approximately 95,000 tonnes, which is equal to 59% of today’s estimated above ground gold stocks of 161,000 tonnes. If we take gold’s low in 1985 of $285.75, and multiply it X 7.57 for money supply growth, then multiply the resulting figure by 0.59 to discount the growth of above ground gold stocks - gold’s 1985 low of $285.75 is the equivalent of $1,276.25 per oz in today’s economy.

Gold’s lows from 1976 and 1985 are the equivalent of $1,096.12 per oz and $1,276.25 per oz respectively in today’s economy.The average of these two figures is $1,186.19 per oz. On June 28, 2013, gold declined to a bottom of $1,192 per oz, where it once again dipped to last week – before bouncing to its current level of $1,210.20 per oz. Considering that $1,192 per oz is within 0.5% of the average equivalent of gold’s 1976 and 1985 lows in today’s economy, NIA believes there is a 50% chance it will hold as gold’s double bottom. If gold declines below $1,192 per oz to a new bottom, it will likely have huge support at $1,100 per oz, which would be just a few dollars from the equivalent of its 1976 low in today’s economy. The lowest NIA can imagine gold falling is $1,050 per oz.
NIA believes there is a 50% chance $1,192 is gold’s bottom, a 30% chance gold will bottom at $1,100, and a 20% chance gold will bottom at $1,050. If gold rises from $1,192 per oz to a high of $7,944.83 per oz, it will be a gain of 566.51%.

NIA is not an investment advisor and is not making any target prices or financial projections. Never invest based on anything NIA says. Always do your own research and make your own investment decisions. NIA never recommends to buy or sell any stock.


Silver to Hit New Highs as Quality of Analysis Sinks to New Lows by SRSrocco

Silver To Hit New Highs As The Quality Of Analysis Sinks To New Lows

Filed in Precious Metals by  on December 27, 2013

SRSrocco-Icon-FacebookThe coming explosion in the value of silver will be a shock to the world due to the failure of the analyst community.  I am completely amazed at the lack of quality analysis today.  Except for a few good analysts, there’s a sea of lousy ones who continue to put out work that becomes increasingly worthless each and every passing day.

While we can totally write-off most of the forecasting that comes from the MSM – Main Stream Media, I am quite surprised at the amount of garbage coming from the alternative media.  I don’t mean to be blunt here, but sometimes it’s best to be honest.

I get a great deal of email from readers who forward articles that run contrary to my analysis and forecasts.  They do so because they are concerned of the possibly that there might be a kink in my analysis.  What they are looking for are answers and confirmation in their beliefs and investments.  I actually do the same thing myself.

I believe, if the best high-quality work is put forth, the answer is plain to see by the investing public.  Unfortunately when the majority of analysis in the market is faulty… so are the majority of investments.

Part of the problem with the analyst community today is that their paycheck forces them to put out work that goes along with the consensus view.  And… the consensus view is to continue the largest financial Ponzi Scheme in history.  Thus, any analyst who works for the establishment must never think outside the box as the box is from where he receives his salary.

This also seems to be true for many in the Alternative Media.  Either the alternative analyst goes along with the company’s overall message in which he or she is employed, or utilizes data and information in forecasts that is superficial or worthless.  Both are lose-lose propositions.

For example, there seems to be a great deal of hype on the “New Shale Energy Revolution” supposedly taking place here in the United States.  While the shale industry has brought on more oil and gas production in the states, it is not a new revolution, but rather the final stage of an industry heading for retirement.

I gather many of these analysts and websites pushing this new U.S. Energy Revolution mantra are trying to be part of the “IN TREND.”  This is indeed the curse of the analyst community — riding the fumes of a trend that will collapse as the fundamentals kick in.

The Silver-Energy Connection

As I have written and spoken many times before, gold & silver are a store of value because they are a store of ECONOMIC ENERGY.  When I first came up with this theory, I used the term “Store of Energy Value.”  However, Mike Maloney in his excellent series, “Hidden Secrets of Money” used the term Economic Energy to describe how gold and silver store this value.  I now use that term all the time.

Another problem with the alternative analyst community is that they tend to over-specialize and not see what is taking place in other industries.  That being said, lets look at the chart below which shows the extreme volatility in oil prices during the 1960′s decade:

Price of a Barrel Of Oil

As we can see the price of oil dropped from $1.90 a barrel in 1961 to $1.80 for the remainder of the decade.  That 10 cent drop was the extent of the volatility in the oil price as the U.S. and world regulated supply to keep prices at a contracted $1.80 for an entire decade.

Of course nothing stays the same, so after the U.S. peaked in oil production in 1970 along with the Arab Oil Embargo in 1973, the world would never again enjoy regulated low oil prices as it did in the 1960′s.

This next chart shows how supply-demand forces, politics and inflation impacted the price of oil in the following decade:

Price of a Barrel of Oil 1961-1980

Several factors pushed the price of oil from $1.80 a barrel in 1970 to $36.83 by 1980.  As I mentioned, the U.S. peaked in oil production in 1970 at 9.6 mbd (million barrels a day) — the last year the price remained at $1.80 a barrel.

In 1973 the Arab Oil Embargo pushed up the price of oil to $3.29.  Then by the following year, as U.S. oil production fell to 8.8 mbd and the full impact of the oil embargo was realized, the price of oil more than tripled to $11.58.

In addition, as monetary inflation kicked in the latter part of the decade and as U.S. oil production continued to decline (to 8.5 mbd), the price of oil hit a new record of $36.83 in 1980.  This is a factor many who analyze precious metals by technical analysis, fail to comprehend.

I was sent a technical trend report from Eidetic Research by one of my readers.  In the report was this long-term silver chart.

Eidetic Research Long Term Silver Chart

Basically, the chart is showing the long-term 127 month cycle for silver.  We can see the different cycles — bull, bear and transition.  From this chart, the folks at Eidetic Research are trying to give a future forecast on where silver is heading.

I believe this sort of analysis is a waste of time because they are forecasting in an energy vacuum — predicting the future price of silver void of future energy factors.  These cycles may have worked when the world was continuing to grow its oil production, but will fail miserably when energy comes in short supply.

I am not singling out Eidetic Research as most of the precious metal community still adheres to the worthless religion of technical analysis.  On a positive note, the folks at Eidetic Research believe the future price rise in silver will be due to the debasement of fiat currency and not the supply & demand forces.  I totally agree.

The reason why the price of silver increased substantially in the 1970′s decade, was not due to technical analysis, but rather the fundamental exponential rise in the price of oil… shown in the chart above.

You will notice that the price of silver paralleled the increase of the price of oil:

Price of Ounce of Silver 1961 to 1980

From 1961 to 1970, the price of silver remained virtually flat as did the price of oil.  The only reason why we had the move up to $2.06 in 1967 was due to the impact of the 1965 Coinage Act which removed silver from circulation.

When the price of oil went from $2.24 in 1971 to $11.58 in 1974, silver moved up from $1.39 to $4.39 respectively.  This is when the Hunts started buying silver.  Between 1970-1973, the Hunts purchased 200,000 oz of silver.

Then from 1974 to 1978, the price of oil only increased modestly from $11.58 to $14.02.  We find the same movement in the price of silver as it increased from $4.39 in 1974 to $5.98 in 1978.  This was at the same time the Hunts purchased over 75+ million ounces of silver.

There is a silly notion that the Hunts were trying to corner the silver market… they weren’t.  They were trying to protect their oil profits from their Libyan Oil Fields as inflation was increasing rapidly in the United States.

In just one year, the price of oil shot up from $14.02 in 1978 to $31.61 in 1979.  This is the same year that the price of silver skyrocketed from $5.93 (1978) to $21.79 (1979).  Please note all these figures are in average prices for the year.

Even though the price of silver (300%) performed much better than oil (125%) from 1978-1979, when we consider the change since 1971, they were about equal.

Silver & Oil Increase 1971-1979

Oil = 1,300% increase

Silver = 1,450% increase

So, the idea that the big move in the price of silver was solely due to the Hunt’s trying to corner the market fails to consider the impact of the price of energy on the shiny metal.  Jim Sinclair mentioned in one of his interviews that while the Hunts were buying a lot of silver, there were huge institutions right behind them doing the very same thing.

We also can’t forget, as the price of oil moves higher, so does the cost to mine silver.   Another assumption made by the precious metal community is that the miners were making a killing during the big move up in gold and silver during the latter part of 1970′s.  This is erroneous once we realize costs were moving up significantly as well.

I have obtained old Annual Reports from Homestake Mining, and I can tell you point-blank…. their financial results were much better in 1973-74 than they were in 1978-1979.

Homestake Operating Earnings to Revenues

1973 = 16.3%

1974 = 31.3%

1978 = 12.4%

1979 = 24.4%

The one thing that Homestake was quite successful in doing compared to the present gold mining companies, is the huge payout of cash dividends to shareholders.  In 1979, Homestake paid $22.6 million in cash dividends… a whopping $2.00 a share.

Here are the dividend payouts by the top 5 Gold Miners during the record price of gold in 2011:

Barrick = $0.51

Newmont = $1.00

Anglo Gold = $0.34

GoldCorp = $0.41

Kinross = $0.11

Newmont paid the most to its shareholders at $1.00 a share, but this was half than what the Homestake shareholders received in 1979 at $2.00 a share.

One important factor the precious metal analysts fail to understand today is the huge DILUTION of shares over the past several decades that went into growing the gold mining industry at the expense of the shareholder.  This was due to the falling EROI of energy as well as the manipulation of gold and silver via the derivatives and financial markets.

Now that we understand the relationship between energy and silver (and gold), let’s look at some very interesting Silver-Oil Ratios.

The Vital Silver-Oil Ratio Relationship

Today, fundamentals are thrown out the window so the Greatest Financial Ponzi Scheme in history can continue for a little longer.  Analysts who go along with this trend get to keep their jobs.  Because I don’t have to bend-over for a paycheck from one of these fine brokerage houses or banks, I can provide out-of-the-box analysis free from the threat of the orthodox mindset.

Analysts who forecast where silver is going based on technical analysis such as Elliot Wave, Cycle Theory and Candlestick formations do so in an energy void.  They see the price or value of silver based on movements of charts only.  Silly analysts.

If we go back and look at some fundamental data on oil and silver, we can see a very interesting trend.  This first chart shows how the price of oil and silver are closely tied together.

Silver vs Oil Price & Ratio 1961-1970

When gold and silver were used as money in the United States, their ratio’s to the price of oil were held relatively close.  Here we can see that the price of oil and silver remained virtually flat unless we consider the slight blip up in 1967 due to the public hoarding of silver coins after it was removed from circulation via the 1965 Coinage Act.

The Silver-Oil ratio remained at 1.4 for many years until it dropped to 0.9 in 1967 (due to the impact of the public hoarding silver).  The Silver-Oil-ratio for this decade averages out to be 1.2.  Thus, the Silver-Oil ratio was extremely low when gold and silver were the legal forms of money in the United States.

The next chart reveals the impact of a peaking domestic oil supply, the drop of the gold-dollar peg, the Arab Oil Embargo and inflation on the price of oil and silver during the 1970′s decade.

Silver vs Oil Price & Ratio 1971-1980 NEW

You will notice as the price of oil increases, so does the price of silver.  The trends aren’t exact, but they move up in a similar fashion.  The Silver-Oil ratio increased from 1.6 in 1971 to 3.0 in 1977, even though the Hunts were buying a great deal of silver supposedly cornering the silver market.

We must remember, the higher the Silver-Oil ratio, the cheaper silver becomes compared to oil.  So, for the price of silver to gain in value compared to oil, the ratio will be a lower number.

Here we can see as the price of oil shot up in 1979, so did the price of silver.  Many analysts claim that silver was extremely over-bought or highly speculative at this time, but according to my analysis… it was trying to regain its proper relationship to oil as a monetary metal.

Once the Fiat Monetary Masters got involved along with the CFTC, the price of silver was knocked lower in 1980 to average $16.39 even though the price of oil increased to $36.89 from $31.61 in 1979.  Furthermore, as the price of silver weakened, the Silver-Oil ratio increased to 2.2 in 1980 up from 1.5 in 1979.

If we take the average for the Silver-Oil ratio in the 1970′s it had increased to 2.1 from the 1.2 ratio in the prior decade.  Again, the higher the ratio the lower the value of silver to oil.

The Dollar was saved when Fed Chairman Paul Volcker increased interest rates which further destroyed the value of silver compared to oil.  For the next two decades the Silver-Oil ratio became extremely volatile.

Silver vs Oil Price & Ratio 1981-2000

I am not going to get into too much detail during this time period, but we can clearly see the Silver-Oil ratio increased again during these two decades to average 3.8, nearly double the ratio compared to the 1970′s decade.

This next chart gives us an idea just how out-of-whack the Silver-Oil ratio has become.  Similar to the 1970′s decade, the price of oil and silver have risen in tandem during the 2000-2013 time period.

Silver vs Oil Price & Ratio 2000-2013

In 2000 the Silver-Oil ratio was 5.8, but fell significantly in 2011 to 3.2 when the price of silver averaged $35.  Once again, as silver was getting ready to top $50 in April of 2011, the Comex stepped in and increased silver margins a record 5 times within a very short period of time to bring “Order” back into the market.  What they meant to say was, “to bring order back to the weakening fiat Dollar.”

Many analysts believe silver was becoming parabolic and extremely over-bought during the first 4 months of 2011.  However, if we look at the data going back 5 decades, we can clearly see that silver was trying to reestablish itself as a monetary metal in relation to the price of oil.

Here are the average Silver-Oil ratios for the four time periods:

Silver-Oil Ratios

1961-1970 = 1.2

1971-1980 = 2.1

1980-2000 = 3.8

2000-2013 = 5.2

Ever since gold and silver have been removed from their role as monetary metals, the ratio of Silver to Oil has increased from an average of 1.2 in the 1961-1970 time period to 5.2 during 2000-2013.

Basically, you can buy more than three times the amount of silver compared to oil today than you could during the decade of the 1960′s.

The Central Banks and Monetary Authorities have done a fine job bamboozling the public in making sure that gold and silver remain as silly investments only the fringe in society would purchase and hold.

When the price of silver reached $35 an ounce in 2011 it wasn’t a parabolic move higher, rather it was behaving more like a balloon being released from far below the surface of the water.

If we were to value silver today compared to its oil ratio during the following periods, this would be the result:

Present Silver Value At Prior Silver-Oil Ratios (based on $20 silver)

1981-2000 (3.8 ratio) = $29.30

1971-1980 (2.1 ratio) = $52.95

1961-1970 (1.2 ratio) = $92.67

What has taken place with the price of silver is that its value to oil has declined significantly over the past 4 decades while the world has increased its exposure to owning paper assets.  Here is a chart that I have used in past articles.

Global Conventional Assets Under Management

The majority of investors in the world have parked their hard-earned fiat currency into paper assets hoping they will protect their wealth in the future.  Unfortunately for these investors, energy is the driver of the global economy… not finance.

So when the world finally realizes that the new supposed “Shale Energy Revolution” is nothing more than another Ponzi Scheme kept alive by ultra low-interest rates, huge amounts of debt and massive drilling to give the illusion of sustainability…. the over $100 Trillion of PAPER GARBAGE called Global Conventional Assets will implode.

When you add-on top of this the coming collapse of fiat currencies, only a NIT-WIT would pay most of their attention to Technical Analysis Waves or Cycles.

Folks, due to the coming Peak of Global Oil Production, the Business Cycle will be over.  The world just doesn’t know it yet.  The value of gold and silver will explode in the future not because I am a Precious Metal Bug who can only can regurgitate a BULLISH RANT, but because the fundamentals and data say so.

The majority of analysis today is completely worthless because most of the analysts have no idea the world has passed them by.  They continue to focus on subjects and areas that are completely worthless.  The internet is full of analyst’s WHITE NOISE which is quite a shame as the public and investors will pay the ultimate price.

I have recently come across new data that makes an even larger degree of analysis seem quite meaningless.  I plan on putting out a full report on this in the beginning of the year.

Please check back for I will be publishing the BOMB-SHELL that destroys a great deal of previously held assumptions.

Silver Price To Head Higher As Cost of Production Forms A Base by SRSrocco

Silver Price To Head Higher As Cost of Production Forms A Base

Filed in MiningPrecious Metals by  on December 22, 2013

Many precious metal investors today are troubled by the current weakness in the price of silver and are concerned that prices could fall much lower.   While the price of silver could continue to fall a bit from here, it’s more likely we will see a higher, rather than a lower trend in 2014.

If we look at the table below, we can see the total three-quarters of financial metrics from my top 12 primary silver miners.

Top 12 Silver Miners Total 2013 Metrics

By adding up all the figures, we can see some interesting data points.  For example, the top 12 primary silver miners recorded a combined $2.36 billion in total revenue for Q1-Q3, while their adjusted income amounted to only $1.4 million.

Thus, the average realized price received by the top 12 silver miners for the first nine months of 2013, was $24.58.  Their estimated silver break-even turns out to be one cent less at $24.57.

Even though this is the average for the first three-quarters of the year, the group was able to lower their break-even to $21.39 in Q3.  I don’t believe the break-even will be much less (and probably higher) due to the fact that the group sold 1.4 million more silver in Q3 than they produced.

Furthermore, the group produced 68.8 million oz of silver for the first nine months of 2013 while they sold 69.7 million oz.  I highly doubt they will continue to sell more silver than they are producing for the next several quarters.

It is quite amazing to see that these 12 primary silver miners had $2.36 billion in revenue during the first nine months of 2013 while only showing $1.4 million of adjusted income.  The power of the FED is mighty indeed.  The net income of a negative $554 million for the Q1-Q3 was due to the huge write-downs during the second quarter.

The Price Of Silver Is Below The Group Average Cost of Production

The current price of silver is $19.40, while the estimated break-even for the top 12 primary silver miners in Q3 was $21.39.  According to Kitco, the average price of silver so far in Q4 is $20.76 or 63 cents less than the prior quarter.

I imagine we may see continued losses from the group in the last quarter as the miners receive a lower price for their silver and as stockpiled silver sales are reduced.  However, there is a chance that we may indeed see a small gain for the group in Q4 if the by-product revenues increase due to stronger prices for copper, zinc and lead (Q over Q) and costs continue to decline.

The Low Price Of Silver & Market Sentiment

This chart from, shows both the price of silver and public opinion of the shiny metal.

Silver Sentiment Nov 2013

Here we can see that sentiment is now approaching the lows seen in June of this year.  What we have taking place are market sentiment lows as well as the price of silver below the break-even for the top 12 miners.

Yes, it’s true that most of the silver comes from by-product mining, however I have checked the break-even for Hecla and Coeur back in 2000, and I honestly say… the price of silver was not much lower than their break-even at the time.  So I doubt we will see much lower prices for silver.

The Fed and member banks are not that stupid to push the price of gold and silver too far below their break-even as it would as it would force investors to take more physical bullion off the market.

If we look at the next series of charts we can see just how much gold and silver have under-performed the commodity index:

Dow to Silver Ratio Dec 2013

Dow to Gold Ratio Dec 2013

Dow to CCI Ratio Dec 2013

The Dow-Silver ratio has increased 3.3 times since the low in August of 2011, The Dow-Gold ratio is 2.3 times higher than its low in August 2011, and the Dow-CCI – the Commodity Channel Index has only increased 1.8 times since the same time period.

How Jeff Christian can brush off gold and silver manipulation while the Fed & Central Banks prop up the entire market with $Trillions of liquidity makes you wonder why he fails to mention that a good part of his business is in Precious Metal Paper Derivative-Hedging.

You see, the huge rise in the price of silver since 2005 has been due to Investment, not Industrial Demand.  The price of silver remained below $5 since the late 1990′s even though there was a silver supply deficit.

So, if you have your head screwed on correctly, the only way to destroy the price of silver is to crush INVESTMENT DEMAND….. period.  Hence, the work of the FED and member banks.

I have to tell you… its hard to hold my tongue as I read and listen to some of the worst analysis to come out of alternative media…. forget MSM.  I am talking about the folks who are supposed to be part of the alternative media.

A good percentage of the energy analysis that comes from some of the well-known subscription services is absolutely atrocious.  You know exactly who I am talking about.  I am completely taken-back by how much the New Shale Energy Revolution is going to be our new savior on the alternative media.

Euan Mearns at the brought up a very interesting concern as it pertains to Shale Oil & Gas Production.  In order for the U.S. to increase its shale oil production, it will need to grow its drilling rig capacity from 2,000 rigs up to 5,000 if we want to grow production from shale to the lofty levels that are forecasted.

However, Euan believes (I agree) that we may be able to increase shale oil production or shale gas production to the levels forecasted…. BUT NOT BOTH.  We just don’t have the drilling rig capacity to do this.

That being said, there is a much BIGGER CONCERN that I will bring up in the beginning of 2014 which makes the threat of PEAK OIL pale in comparison.

Video & pdf : David Collum’s year 2013 in Review….. via Peak Prosperity

Below the Pdf section you will find the RT video, where David Collum talks about his review.

Every year, David Collum writes a detailed “Year in Review” synopsis full of keen perspective and plenty of wit. This year’s is no exception. The 89-page tour-de-force is a must-read this holiday season for perspective on where we have been and where we are going. From Krugman to the abuse of civil liberties, from gold to muni bankruptices, and from Student debt bubble to Cyprus and beyond, Collum covers it all.

Courtesy of PeakProsperity, click on the link immediately below to read his report in pdf..

David Collum Year in review 2013


Courtesy of Boom & Bust on RT, visit their site here

David Collum’s year in review and a Fed-Fueled demise

The EU’s debt has been downgraded, but does it matter? It’s the questions on deck, and we’ll supply an answer.

Plus Cornell Professor, David Collum, is in studio today. He walks us through his “2013 Year in Review.”

And paper or plastic? The Bank of England will start issuing polymer bank-notes in 2016. Rachel Kurzius and Erin discuss the move to plastic money in today’s Big Deal.

He starts at 4.10 to 23.00.

Video : Four Horsemen – Feature Documentary…… by Renegade Economist

FOUR HORSEMEN is an award winning independent feature documentary which lifts the lid on how the world really works.

As we will never return to ‘business as usual’ 23 international thinkers, government advisors and Wall Street money-men break their silence and explain how to establish a moral and just society.

FOUR HORSEMEN is free from mainstream media propaganda — the film doesn’t bash bankers, criticise politicians or get involved in conspiracy theories. It ignites the debate about how to usher a new economic paradigm into the world which would dramatically improve the quality of life for billions.

“Four Horsemen is a breathtakingly composed jeremiad against the folly of Neo-classical economics and the threats it represents to all we should hold dear.”
- Harold Crooks, The Corporation (Co-Director) Surviving Progress (Co-Director/Co-Writer)

Visit their website on  Renegade Economist

Life Is What We Make Of It…. by Chris Martenson of Peak Prosperity

Life Is What We Make of It

Mastering Emotional Resilience
by Chris Martenson
Monday, December 16, 2013, 6:27 PM. At Peak Prosperity


For most people, it won’t be economic hardship that harms them, but their own lack of emotional resilience that does them in.

After the fall of the former Soviet Union, in the years that followed, more than half of all premature deaths that occurred were due to the effects of excessive alcohol consumption:

Alcohol Blamed for Half of ’90′s Russian Deaths

MOSCOW — A new study by an international team of public health researchers documents the devastating impact of alcohol abuse on Russia — showing that drinking caused more than half of deaths among Russians aged 15 to 54 in the turbulent era following the Soviet collapse.

The 52 percent figure compares to estimates that less than 4 percent of deaths worldwide are caused by alcohol abuse, according to the study by Russian, British and French researchers published in Friday’s edition of the British medical journal The Lancet.

The Russian findings were based on a survey of almost 49,000 deaths between 1990 and 2001 among young adult and middle-aged Russians in three industrial towns in western Siberia, which had typical 1990s Russian mortality patterns.

Professor David Zaridze, head of the Russian Cancer Research Center and lead author of the study, estimated that the increase in alcohol consumption since 1987, the year when then-Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev’s restrictions on alcohol sales collapsed, cost the lives of 3 million Russians who would otherwise be alive today. “This loss is similar to that of a war,” Zaridze said.


It bears mentioning that while the times were economically hard in the former Soviet Union, and many people lost their jobs and therefore their sense of purpose in life, folks still had a place to live and food to eat.  Perhaps not a lot, but one marked difference between communism and capitalism is that the former provides at least the basics of sustenance.

Faced with the loss of purpose and livelihood, many Russians turned to alcohol as the means of numbing themselves out from the despair they felt. Instead of seeing the loss of a job as an opportunity to do something new with their lives, even if merely to sit in reflection ten hours a day, they experienced the loss as a form of devastation from which they sought escape.

And today, as we look around, we might notice that escapism is everywhere, whether it is found in excessive drinking, shopping, television watching, smartphones, video games, or drugs. There are lots of ways to numb out the world when it is not providing what we think we need (or deserve).

Already, suicides are the leading cause of premature death in the U.S. – which is another confirmation of the idea that it’s often people’s reaction to hardship that determines the outcome, rather than the hardship itself.

This quote largely captures the dynamic in play:

Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.’

            ~ C.G. Jung

Where people react badly to events and then call it fate, it bears noting that that some people seem to be made stronger by adversity, and that’s not a matter of fate at all. Instead, it’s a matter of how they respond to adversity. And it turns out that such skills can be learned.

Emotional Resilience

We consider emotional resilience to be equally important alongside physical and financial preparation. That’s why we cover it in such depth in our live seminars. And we’re going to spend a bit more time covering the topic in our writings and comments here on the site going forward.

One of the biggest keys to daily happiness and future emotional resilience is having the ability to alter your frame of reference, or point of view, so as to alter your perception of events.

Two people can experience the exact same event, but one might be completely thrilled by it while the other could be utterly devastated. The difference is often the scripts each person has running in their heads, which determine their individual perception of the event.

So if we can learn to alter our internal perception so that we experience more daily happiness and enjoy greater emotional resilience as a result, why wouldn’t we work on developing this ability?

I recently rediscovered this gem of a short video that covers this idea beautifully.  It’s worth the quick watch:

The ideas this video espouses are ones that I have found to be true for me.

I’m the only one in control of my thoughts, and my thoughts control how I perceive the world around me. This means that I, and I alone, am responsible for which thoughts I allow to run through my head.

When I’m projecting stories onto the people around me, as expressed in the video, it’s so much easier to be miserable, find faults, and think the worst. As David Foster said, the only thing that is ‘capital-T True’ is that Iget to decide how I’m going to see the world.

And that brings us to emotional resilience. If it’s ‘capital-T True’ that we’re responsible for our thoughts, and thoughts define our experiences, it means that one of the most important traits we can cultivate is the mastery of our own thoughts.

Just a few short years ago, this would have been a preposterous thought for me, because I was still immersed in the idea that my thoughts were the same thing as reality. Of course I am thinking these thoughts. What other way is there to react to what’s happening around me?! That would have been my line of reasoning. I now know differently.

Instead of my thoughts being generated by me, I now see it as a case where my thoughts generate the reality I perceive.  With some practice, I find I can control my thoughts, re-frame situations on the fly, and have entirely different emotional reactions to them than I otherwise used to.

Admittedly, it’s only recently that I’ve begun to harness this skill. But I no longer believe in Fate like I used to.  Now I know that, as I’m the one creating my experiences, Fate has very little to do with 99% of life.

This is a bit scary because it means I’m the only one responsible for myself – no more room for victim and victimizer thinking. But it’s also liberating because it means I am more fully in control of my thoughts which means I am more fully in control of my destiny.


Until you make the unconscious conscious, it will direct your life and you will call it fate.’

            ~ C.G. Jung

So the first act of emotional resilience is to understand the ways in which your thinking controls your experiences. Then you can begin to uncover the ways in which your thoughts spring from the unconscious, rather than from some adult form of “you.”

This is essentially re-framing your stories before they ‘direct your life.’  Re-framing is at the heart of resilience.

Mental Mastery

Placed into conventional terms that more may find accessible, in this case in an article from Forbes magazine about being a successful entrepreneur, we find many of the core principles of emotional resilience.

I’m going to go through the first seven traits of mentally strong (i.e., resilient) people from the article here with my own comments interspersed along the way.  At a later date we can cover the remaining six traits.

Mentally Strong People: The 13 Things They Avoid

For all the time executives spend concerned about physical strength and health, when it comes down to it, mental strength can mean even more. Particularly for entrepreneurs, numerous articles talk about critical characteristics of mental strength—tenacity, “grit,” optimism, and an unfailing ability as Forbes contributor David Williams says, to “fail up.”

However, we can also define mental strength by identifying the things mentally strong individuals don’t do. Over the weekend, I was impressed by this list compiled by Amy Morin, a psychotherapist and licensed clinical social worker, that she shared in LifeHack. It impressed me enough I’d also like to share her list here along with my thoughts on how each of these items is particularly applicable to entrepreneurs.

1. Waste Time Feeling Sorry for Themselves. You don’t see mentally strong people feeling sorry for their circumstances or dwelling on the way they’ve been mistreated. They have learned to take responsibility for their actions and outcomes, and they have an inherent understanding of the fact that frequently life is not fair. They are able to emerge from trying circumstances with self-awareness and gratitude for the lessons learned. When a situation turns out badly, they respond with phrases such as “Oh, well.” Or perhaps simply, “Next!”

2. Give Away Their Power. Mentally strong people avoid giving others the power to make them feel inferior or bad. They understand they are in control of their actions and emotions. They know their strength is in their ability to manage the way they respond.


The above two are expansion on a favorite theme of mine, which is ‘trust yourself.’

Inherent to the idea of trusting yourself are the concepts of being responsible for your own outcomes and not ceding your power to others.  By trusting yourself, you will not waste time feeling sorry for yourself, and you will assume responsibility for your own outcomes.

You will spend less time feeling sorry for yourself and you will cease to give away your power.

Both of these are liberating, and they are at the heart of emotional resilience. I am certain that many of the Russians who drank themselves to death felt sorry for themselves and felt utterly powerless to do anything to change their situation.

There is always something that can be done, and the easiest thing over which you have the most power is how you think about things.

3. Shy Away from Change. Mentally strong people embrace change and they welcome challenge. Their biggest “fear,” if they have one, is not of the unknown, but of becoming complacent and stagnant. An environment of change and even uncertainty can energize a mentally strong person and bring out their best.

Can I get an “Amen!” for this one? Welcoming change is, of course, a biggie around here at Peak Prosperity and is perhaps the defining trait of our readership. But not everyone is suited to operate in an environment of uncertainty and change, and one of the things that needed to be learned by yours truly was to be patient and compassionate with those who are challenged, if not deeply threatened, by the prospect of change.

The dark side of embracing change is what happens when you are ready for change, expecting it, and hoping for it, yet it does not come. That can be difficult; which brings us to the next pair of traits I’d like to highlight:

4. Waste Energy on Things They Can’t Control. Mentally strong people don’t complain (much) about bad traffic, lost luggage, or especially about other people, as they recognize that all of these factors are generally beyond their controlIn a bad situation, they recognize that the one thing they can always control is their own response and attitude, and they use these attributes well.

6. Fear Taking Calculated Risks. A mentally strong person is willing to take calculated risks. This is a different thing entirely than jumping headlong into foolish risks. But with mental strength, an individual can weigh the risks and benefits thoroughly, and will fully assess the potential downsides and even the worst-case scenarios before they take action.

Flipping #4 a bit, we should seek to control the things we can, especially if those things are currently out of our control. So all efforts to increase our own food, energy, or fuel production are actually acts of emotional resilience as well as prudence.

Taking charge of the things you can control is an act of mastery, while letting go of the things you cannot control is a powerful act of surrender. Both are equally important traits to cultivate.

At the same time, we accept that life is not always fair. It is full of risks for mature adults to weigh carefully and then take action.

Moving along, I want to include this next one in today’s discussion because it aligns with the difficulty so many of us share in relating to others the important but difficult topics found in the Crash Course:

5. Worry About Pleasing Others. Know any people pleasers? Or, conversely, people who go out of their way to dis-please others as a way of reinforcing an image of strength? Neither position is a good one. A mentally strong person strives to be kind and fair and to please others where appropriate, but is unafraid to speak up. They are able to withstand the possibility that someone will get upset and will navigate the situation, wherever possible, with grace.

This one took me a long time to even begin practicing, and I am still not yet a master. Not by a long shot. But one of the more liberating ideas and associated set of practices for me was to begin to release my attachment to getting what I might call ‘favorable responses’ out of everyone.

Truthfully, we cannot know how people are going to react to anything and everything we might say, because their past is unknown to us. Their wounds and shadows are unseen even by them. So we need to let go of the need to change their thinking. We should focus instead on planting seeds that hopefully will grow when conditions are favorable. They’ll eventually come over to our way of thought when they’re ready. Or they won’t. Either is okay.

Skipping over a few to bring up the final trait for discussion, we get to the idea of being in a marathon as opposed to being in a 100-yard dash:

13. Expect Immediate Results. Whether it’s a workout plan, a nutritional regimen, or starting a business, mentally strong people are “in it for the long haul”. They know better than to expect immediate results. They apply their energy and time in measured doses and they celebrate each milestone and increment of success on the way. They have “staying power.” And they understand that genuine changes take time. Do you have mental strength? Are there elements on this list you need more of? With thanks to Amy Morin, I would like to reinforce my own abilities further in each of these areas today. How about you?

This one is really, really important. Staying power is everything in this game. The powers that be are doing everything in their considerable power to drag things along, deny reality, and pretend as if we’re the nutty ones for thinking that perhaps the way we are doing things is unsustainable.

I’m interested in the ways in which we help each other celebrate our successes and the ways in which people apply their energy in measured and calculated ways.

I know many of you are already doing these things, and I want to encourage you to keep sharing your successes and failures, because it’s important for others to see and learn from them.


If I could share one thing with everyone – the one thing that has changed my life more than anything and helped me to become more prosperous, content, and happy – it’s the importance of learning to control one’s own thoughts.

To do this one has to be willing to turn inwards and face some troubling territory. What we might have thought was 100% real and true about ourselves, friends, enemies, co-workers, and life itself turns out to be uncomfortably malleable territory.

In essence, becoming emotionally resilient is about going inwards and developing self-mastery. Even though I know that I will need these skills given the future I think is coming, I would be pursuing mastery here, because these skills are incredibly important, no matter when one happens to be alive.

It is my impression that most Western cultures, mine especially, spend zero time on this subject. Worse, we’re conditioned to feel shameful in moments of emotional upheaval, and so we ship ourselves off for drugs and counseling to limit the gyrations.

Those ups and downs are actually gifts, because it’s during these intense moments when we grow and learn the most. It’s actually how we are wired. I’ll go further and say that if the ups and downs were not meant to be experienced, then we wouldn’t be wired for them.  We’d be like turtles  placid and unflappable.

But we’re not turtles. We’re messy, vibrant, alive beings, capable of experiencing intense emotional swings, which I no longer label as ‘high’ or ‘low’ or ‘good’ or ‘bad,’ because those assign values to them, as if one set were to be sought and the other avoided.

Instead, with mental re-framing, I now know that without experiencing one extreme, the other extreme has less meaning and thereby less value for me.  Phrased as a paradox: In order to love completely, one must come to terms with grief. That is, if you want to experience love more deeply, then expand your ability to withstand grief. And vice versa.

Emotional resilience is not an easy thing to obtain, because it cannot be bought, and there’s no seminar that will give you mastery in a single weekend, no matter how pricey. It’s a set of daily practices that one commits to, and works with, and ebbs and flows with.

We’re human. And mastering emotional resilience is a life-long challenge that is anything but a fixed target.  We grow and change, and the world is constantly shifting around us, and new circumstances constantly present themselves to us. So our job is to cultivate a broad set of skills that will serve us through the droughts and floods that will mark our individual lives. We’ll explore this theme in greater depth throughout 2014.

And so I invite you to explore this topic with me and share your considerable experiences in working towards emotional resilience within yourself.

~ Chris Martenson