Softpanorama

May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
(slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and  bastardization of classic Unix

Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2015

Economics of Peak Energy 2016 2015 2014 2013 2012 2011 2010 2009 2008

Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

[Mar 05, 2019] Goldman Sees 15 Years of Weak Crude as $20 U.S Oil Looms

No we can check the quote of Goldman forecast. forecast of those arrogant and clueless jerks ;-)
Is squid talking his book again ? Compare with China Is Hoarding the World's Oil - Bloomberg Business. They are slightly schizophrenic those squid stooges, aren't they ;-)
Notable quotes:
"... with shale fields as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020, there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he said. ..."
"... U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12 months. ..."
Bloomberg Business

... ... ...

Goldman cut its crude forecasts this month, saying the global surplus of oil is bigger than it previously thought and that failure to reduce production fast enough may require prices to fall near $20 a barrel to clear the glut. Prices may touch that level when stockpiles are filled to capacity, forcing producers in some areas to cut output, Currie said Wednesday.

"The last time we saw a period that was similar to today was 1986, 29 years ago," he said. "We waited 15 years" for oil to start rising again.

Lower iron ore, copper and steel prices as well as weaker currencies in commodity-producing countries have reduced costs for oil companies, according to Currie. The world is shifting from an "investment phase" of a 30-year commodity cycle to an "exploitation phase," with shale fields as an important source of output, he said. While Goldman's official forecasts extend to 2020, there is a "very high probability" prices will stay depressed until the end of next decade, he said.

U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 25 cents to settle at $46.90 on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Prices are down 12 percent this year and 50 percent over the past 12 months.

Should oil fall to $20, it would be "one touch," he said. Inventories would top out in parts of the world, some producers would shut production and the market would come into balance.

[Mar 05, 2019] Saudi Oil Strategy Brilliant Or Suicide

This is neoliberal/neocolonial analysis of the situation. Reader beware. But it catches some interesting interdependencies. For example the need for revenue intensifies with the growth of the population. This creates problems for KSA. As of March 2019 oil price per barrel did not return to $90 level yet.
The article was written in 2015 but still has value. So it is interesting to read what neoliberal thought at this time is not that different from what they think now...
The idea that Saudi Arabia is an independent player is too simplistic... It never was. It just hides the key role of the USA in engineering oil prices slump and the fact that Saudi Arabia is a vassal of Washington is ignored.
"... The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative feedback loop between oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western oil producers. Their GDP and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their oil exports. As a result, the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as possible to mitigate the shortfall. ..."
"... Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal reported , some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term contracts to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are reducing the proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies, Venezuela's among them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use their crude. ..."
"... Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need to invest in, or loan to, oil projects. ..."
"... Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq, and the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult. ..."
"... Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and prices, is diminished ..."
"... Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years" with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in a single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at $80 oil)? ..."
"... Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain resources from vital domestic projects. ..."
Aug 30, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative feedback loop between oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western oil producers. Their GDP and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their oil exports. As a result, the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as possible to mitigate the shortfall.

According to the IEA , daily output in June 2015 increased 3.1 million barrels over 2014, with 60 percent (1.8 million barrels) coming from OPEC. At 31.7 million barrels per day, OPEC output reached a three-year high.

This increase in output occurs with the context of a narrow global demand opportunity. Growth in demand in 2015, which the IEA forecasts to average around 1.4 million barrels per day, comes primarily from Asia and North America. In other major export markets, demand is stagnant. That has oil exporting countries, including OPEC members, Russia and others, focusing their sales on Asia, particularly China. North American demand is growing now that oil prices are low, but due to high levels of domestic production, the U.S. is no longer a growth market for oil exporters.

Each producer, therefore, is incentivized to undercut other producers directly (price per barrel) or indirectly (absorbing shipping cost or delivery risk) to win sales in Asia (or displace incumbent suppliers in other major markets). National oil producers can and are shifting the cost of the lowered prices to other sectors of the economy. The U.A.E., for example, has ended fuel subsidies, thereby essentially, increasing its budget revenues, while Saudi Arabia recently floated a $4 billion domestic bond offering to help finance its budget.

Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal reported , some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term contracts to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are reducing the proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies, Venezuela's among them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use their crude.

Given this environment, it is not surprising that the revenue elasticity of production is highly sensitive, and negative. Saudi Arabia increased production by 6.8 percent in the first quarter of 2015 but saw export revenues shrink by 42 percent.

Any Saudi Victory Will Be Pyrrhic

Saudi confidence in their financial wherewithal is proving misplaced.

Their need for revenue is intensifying rather than moderating. They are fighting a multi-front war with Iran directly (in Yemen) and indirectly (in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq). ISIS, Al Qaeda, and disaffected Shias present a significant domestic security threat. Countering external and internal threats demands increased spending (including, perhaps, a very expensive future nuclear weapons program), as does placating the fast growing male and female youth demographic, which requires substantial spending on education, training, employment, and support. Hence, the budget deficit equal to 20 percent of GDP, noted above.
Increased production does not offer a solution. Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capacity to increase production sufficiently to reduce the shortfall significantly in any meaningful timeframe. They currently do not have the spare capacity-to make up for the $291 million in export revenue lost in Q1 , 5.4 million more barrels a day would have been necessary at $53.92 a barrel. Of course, such a drastic increase in output would have driven prices even lower. It is doubtful they can increase capacity substantially even in the medium- to long term. They won't be able to spend significantly more than other major national oil companies. First, low prices reduce Aramco's cash flow and therefore its ability to fund investment. Second, the Saudi government likely will increase its draw from this cash flow to fund higher priority national security and domestic security needs.
Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need to invest in, or loan to, oil projects. What might be attractive at $75 per barrel oil isn't at $50 oil, and even less attractive if the price of oil is thoroughly unpredictable.
Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq, and the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult.
Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and prices, is diminished . Their underestimate of the impact of their policy change on prices, their indifference vis-à-vis the financial damage to other OPEC members, and their willingness to take market share at the expense of other OPEC members undercut their credibility within OPEC (particularly since it derived from Saudi willingness to protect the interests of all members (and sometimes to endure disproportionately).

While Saudi financial reserves are substantial ( circa $672 billion in May ), drawing on them is little more than a stop-gap measure. If its major competitors (Russia, Iraq, Iran, and North America) maintain or even increase output (and they have the incentive to do so), prices could stay lower far longer than the Saudis anticipated.

Saudi reserves have decreased some $65 billion since prices started to fall (in November), so ~$100 billion to ~$130 billion at an annual rate. The longer prices stay low, the faster their reserves fall, and, as reserves plummet, the greater the pressure to prioritize spending, to the disadvantage of some Saudis.

Saudi Arabia Caused The Problem, Can It Engineer A Solution?

Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years" with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in a single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at $80 oil)?

And if they can't-and surely, though they are loath to admit it, they can't - can they engineer a durable increase in prices - i.e., a durable decrease in output? At first glance, it seems impossible. Daily output from Saudi Arabia (10.5 million), and its allies, UAE (2.87), Kuwait (2.8), and Qatar (.67), is roughly equal to the daily output from countries with which it is in conflict, directly or indirectly, Russia (11.2), Iran (2.88), and Iraq (3.75), and therefore have an incentive to take advantage of any unilateral Saudi output concessions.

Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain resources from vital domestic projects.

Moreover, given the sensitivity of prices to changes in volume, it is possible, if not likely, that holding output steady or matching a Saudi

[Mar 05, 2019] Saudi Oil Strategy Brilliant Or Suicide

This is neoliberal/neocolonial analysis of the situation. Reader beware. But it catches some interesting interdependencies. For example the need for revenue intensifies with the growth of the population. This creates problems for KSA. As of March 2019 oil price per barrel did not return to $90 level yet.
The article was written in 2015 but still has value. So it is interesting to read what neoliberal thought at this time is not that different from what they think now...
The idea that Saudi Arabia is an independent player is too simplistic... It never was. It just hides the key role of the USA in engineering oil prices slump and the fact that Saudi Arabia is a vassal of Washington is ignored.
"... The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative feedback loop between oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western oil producers. Their GDP and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their oil exports. As a result, the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as possible to mitigate the shortfall. ..."
"... Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal reported , some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term contracts to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are reducing the proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies, Venezuela's among them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use their crude. ..."
"... Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need to invest in, or loan to, oil projects. ..."
"... Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq, and the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult. ..."
"... Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and prices, is diminished ..."
"... Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years" with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in a single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at $80 oil)? ..."
"... Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain resources from vital domestic projects. ..."
Aug 30, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
The Saudi miscalculation has several sources. One is the negative feedback loop between oil production, GDP, and national budgets that plagues many non-Western oil producers. Their GDP and national budgets depend significantly on the revenues from their oil exports. As a result, the revenue shortfalls incentivize them to produce as much oil as possible to mitigate the shortfall.

According to the IEA , daily output in June 2015 increased 3.1 million barrels over 2014, with 60 percent (1.8 million barrels) coming from OPEC. At 31.7 million barrels per day, OPEC output reached a three-year high.

This increase in output occurs with the context of a narrow global demand opportunity. Growth in demand in 2015, which the IEA forecasts to average around 1.4 million barrels per day, comes primarily from Asia and North America. In other major export markets, demand is stagnant. That has oil exporting countries, including OPEC members, Russia and others, focusing their sales on Asia, particularly China. North American demand is growing now that oil prices are low, but due to high levels of domestic production, the U.S. is no longer a growth market for oil exporters.

Each producer, therefore, is incentivized to undercut other producers directly (price per barrel) or indirectly (absorbing shipping cost or delivery risk) to win sales in Asia (or displace incumbent suppliers in other major markets). National oil producers can and are shifting the cost of the lowered prices to other sectors of the economy. The U.A.E., for example, has ended fuel subsidies, thereby essentially, increasing its budget revenues, while Saudi Arabia recently floated a $4 billion domestic bond offering to help finance its budget.

Asian customers are taking advantage of the competition. They are reducing the share of long-term contracts in favor of spot purchases. For example, as the Wall Street Journal reported , some Japanese refiners are cutting the proportion of oil purchased through long-term contracts to around 70 percent from more than 90 percent, while some South Korean refiners are reducing the proportion from 75 to 50 percent. Furthermore, several national oil companies, Venezuela's among them, are building refineries with local partners in Asia, which will use their crude.

Given this environment, it is not surprising that the revenue elasticity of production is highly sensitive, and negative. Saudi Arabia increased production by 6.8 percent in the first quarter of 2015 but saw export revenues shrink by 42 percent.

Any Saudi Victory Will Be Pyrrhic

Saudi confidence in their financial wherewithal is proving misplaced.

Their need for revenue is intensifying rather than moderating. They are fighting a multi-front war with Iran directly (in Yemen) and indirectly (in Syria, Lebanon, and Iraq). ISIS, Al Qaeda, and disaffected Shias present a significant domestic security threat. Countering external and internal threats demands increased spending (including, perhaps, a very expensive future nuclear weapons program), as does placating the fast growing male and female youth demographic, which requires substantial spending on education, training, employment, and support. Hence, the budget deficit equal to 20 percent of GDP, noted above.
Increased production does not offer a solution. Saudi Arabia doesn't have the capacity to increase production sufficiently to reduce the shortfall significantly in any meaningful timeframe. They currently do not have the spare capacity-to make up for the $291 million in export revenue lost in Q1 , 5.4 million more barrels a day would have been necessary at $53.92 a barrel. Of course, such a drastic increase in output would have driven prices even lower. It is doubtful they can increase capacity substantially even in the medium- to long term. They won't be able to spend significantly more than other major national oil companies. First, low prices reduce Aramco's cash flow and therefore its ability to fund investment. Second, the Saudi government likely will increase its draw from this cash flow to fund higher priority national security and domestic security needs.
Third, Saudi refusal to act as price guarantor undercuts the confidence foreigners need to invest in, or loan to, oil projects. What might be attractive at $75 per barrel oil isn't at $50 oil, and even less attractive if the price of oil is thoroughly unpredictable.
Fourth, in terms of political risk, Saudi Arabia with its Gulf allies, Iran, and Iraq, and the Middle East in general, is at the epicenter of global tension, turmoil, and tumult.
Fifth, its influence within OPEC, and therefore its ability to manage OPEC output and prices, is diminished . Their underestimate of the impact of their policy change on prices, their indifference vis-à-vis the financial damage to other OPEC members, and their willingness to take market share at the expense of other OPEC members undercut their credibility within OPEC (particularly since it derived from Saudi willingness to protect the interests of all members (and sometimes to endure disproportionately).

While Saudi financial reserves are substantial ( circa $672 billion in May ), drawing on them is little more than a stop-gap measure. If its major competitors (Russia, Iraq, Iran, and North America) maintain or even increase output (and they have the incentive to do so), prices could stay lower far longer than the Saudis anticipated.

Saudi reserves have decreased some $65 billion since prices started to fall (in November), so ~$100 billion to ~$130 billion at an annual rate. The longer prices stay low, the faster their reserves fall, and, as reserves plummet, the greater the pressure to prioritize spending, to the disadvantage of some Saudis.

Saudi Arabia Caused The Problem, Can It Engineer A Solution?

Saudi officials apparently viewed $90 or even $80 per barrel oil for "one or two years" with equanimity. Can they maintain the composure they have displayed thus far as they incur in a single year the revenue losses they expected to take four years (at $90 oil) or two years (at $80 oil)?

And if they can't-and surely, though they are loath to admit it, they can't - can they engineer a durable increase in prices - i.e., a durable decrease in output? At first glance, it seems impossible. Daily output from Saudi Arabia (10.5 million), and its allies, UAE (2.87), Kuwait (2.8), and Qatar (.67), is roughly equal to the daily output from countries with which it is in conflict, directly or indirectly, Russia (11.2), Iran (2.88), and Iraq (3.75), and therefore have an incentive to take advantage of any unilateral Saudi output concessions.

Yet, in effect, these countries are engaged in the oil equivalent of mutually assured destruction. The sharp drop in oil revenue damages each of these countries economically and financially, while the wars they wage directly and indirectly against each other drain resources from vital domestic projects.

Moreover, given the sensitivity of prices to changes in volume, it is possible, if not likely, that holding output steady or matching a Saudi

[Nov 30, 2017] Will Robots Kill the Asian Century

This aritcle is two years old and not much happned during those two years. But still there is a chance that highly authomated factories can make manufacturing in the USA again profitable. the problme is that they will be even more profible in East Asia;-)
Notable quotes:
"... The National Interest ..."
The National Interest

The rise of technologies such as 3-D printing and advanced robotics means that the next few decades for Asia's economies will not be as easy or promising as the previous five.

OWEN HARRIES, the first editor, together with Robert Tucker, of The National Interest, once reminded me that experts-economists, strategists, business leaders and academics alike-tend to be relentless followers of intellectual fashion, and the learned, as Harold Rosenberg famously put it, a "herd of independent minds." Nowhere is this observation more apparent than in the prediction that we are already into the second decade of what will inevitably be an "Asian Century"-a widely held but rarely examined view that Asia's continued economic rise will decisively shift global power from the Atlantic to the western Pacific Ocean.

No doubt the numbers appear quite compelling. In 1960, East Asia accounted for a mere 14 percent of global GDP; today that figure is about 27 percent. If linear trends continue, the region could account for about 36 percent of global GDP by 2030 and over half of all output by the middle of the century. As if symbolic of a handover of economic preeminence, China, which only accounted for about 5 percent of global GDP in 1960, will likely surpass the United States as the largest economy in the world over the next decade. If past record is an indicator of future performance, then the "Asian Century" prediction is close to a sure thing.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik Absolutely! ..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Absolutely Mr. Celik. Absolutely!

marknesop.wordpress.com
Northern Star, December 30, 2015 at 3:11 pm
http://www.ndtv.com/world-news/moscow-demands-arrest-of-rebel-for-murder-of-russian-warplane-pilot-1260805

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death"

Absolutely Mr. Celik…Absolutely!……..

yalensis , December 30, 2015 at 5:53 pm
Ooo, this explains a mystery to me. I noticed on my own blog today there was an unusual spike of views for an older story, from November 29, which happened to be about this particular guy, Alparslan Çelik.
People must have googled his name, and maybe my story came up in the search results.

[Dec 31, 2015] Oil, Asia shares see subdued end to year dominated by Fed, China

Notable quotes:
"... While cheaper fuel is a boost to consumer spending power in much of the developed world, it is also a disinflationary force that reinforces bets on loose monetary policy in Europe, Japan and China, even as the Federal Reserve proceeds with glacial tightening ..."
finance.yahoo.com

While cheaper fuel is a boost to consumer spending power in much of the developed world, it is also a disinflationary force that reinforces bets on loose monetary policy in Europe, Japan and China, even as the Federal Reserve proceeds with glacial tightening.

Oil prices are ending the year how they began - under pressure.

[Dec 31, 2015] Top Wyoming oil companies write off $41 billion in assets, while capital spending drops 51 percent

See EIA Crude Oil Production . US production was surprisingly stable in 2015. Since May the figures are 9,479 (May) 9,315 (June) 9,433 (July) 9,407 (August) 9,460 (Sep) 9,347 (Oct)
Notable quotes:
"... US #crudeoil production down to 9.347mbpd in Oct15 from an upward revised 9.460 in Sep15 ..."
"... Texas #crude production down to 3391000 b/day in Oct15 from a revised down 3417000 b/day in Sep15 ..."
"... The write-offs, known officially as impairments, represent a recognition that many wells will have shorter productive lives than initially anticipated, analysts said. It also reflects an acknowledgement that companies may have to pay for the cost of plugging and abandoning wells sooner than they expected, they noted. ..."
"... Chesapeake Energy, Wyomings fourth-largest oil producer, reported impairments of $15.4 billion through the first three quarters of 2015. The Oklahoma City-based producers woes are primarily tied to natural gas. ..."
"... Oil patch bankruptcies have accelerated in the fourth quarter of 2015 as a supply glut keeps prices stuck below $40 a barrel. Ten firms, with more than $2 billion in debt, have closed their doors since October, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. ..."
"... Capital spending has fallen 51 percent since the third quarter, the bank said ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Dean , 12/31/2015 at 1:13 pm
Petroleum Supply Monthly is out:

TechGuy , 12/31/2015 at 2:20 pm

http://trib.com/business/energy/top-wyoming-oil-companies-write-off-billion-in-assets/article_d380f763-962e-587d-9d9a-2af39b1e166d.html
Top Wyoming oil companies write off $41 billion in assets

" The write-offs, known officially as impairments, represent a recognition that many wells will have shorter productive lives than initially anticipated, analysts said. It also reflects an acknowledgement that companies may have to pay for the cost of plugging and abandoning wells sooner than they expected, they noted. "

" Chesapeake Energy, Wyoming's fourth-largest oil producer, reported impairments of $15.4 billion through the first three quarters of 2015. The Oklahoma City-based producer's woes are primarily tied to natural gas. "

" Oil patch bankruptcies have accelerated in the fourth quarter of 2015 as a supply glut keeps prices stuck below $40 a barrel. Ten firms, with more than $2 billion in debt, have closed their doors since October, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Capital spending has fallen 51 percent since the third quarter, the bank said . And the global supply glut may linger into 2017, it noted, pointing to estimates that production will outpace demand by 600,000 barrels per day through 2016."

[Dec 31, 2015] We might have a condensate glut, at least in the US, and perhaps globally.

Notable quotes:
"... I suspect that we actually have a condensate glut, at least in the US, and perhaps globally. ..."
"... Oil production is affected by geopolitics. But it is not a function of geopolitics. Oil production is a function of the cost of production versus the price of oil… but the most important function is the availability of oil in the ground to produce. If the oil is not there then geopolitics or the price of oil counts for nothing. And that is what Stavros fails to understand. ..."
"... Give me a break. Every country is producing every barrel they possibly can. Which country was holding back when oil was over $100 a barrel? Saving oil for the future? They are in recession right now. Most of them anyway. No one is hording oil. A lot of oil is not being produced because of the very low price of oil but everyone is still trying desperately to meet their budgets by producing every barrel they possibly can at the cost they can afford. ..."
Peak Oil Barrel

Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/30/2015 at 4:16 pm

I suspect that we actually have a condensate glut, at least in the US, and perhaps globally.

Javier, 12/30/2015 at 4:33 pm

The possibility of a global recession in 2016 must be taken into account in any scenario, given how weak is the economic situation of the world.

A global recession in 2016 probably means the peak [reached in] oil [ production] in 2015 will last for at least 10 years, and probably forever.

Stavros Hadjiyiannis, 12/30/2015 at 5:23 pm

Is this the 545289658th time that someone has claimed that Russian oil production has peaked?

In any case, oil production is a function of primarily price. If the price is right, then there will be oil for many decades ahead. Oil production is also a function of geopolitics. Also a function of technology and also a function of alternatives. Ron seems to be missing the point that for decades, oil rich countries have no choice but to defer to a great extent to Western oil production. Those that are included in the Western security and financial system (GCC) have an extra incentive to do so, saving their oil for the future.

Ron Patterson, 12/30/2015 at 6:31 pm

Is this the 545289658th time that someone has claimed that Russian oil production has peaked?

Don't be a fucking smart ass. Make your point without stupid exaggerations.

In any case, oil production is a function of primarily price.

Really? Look at the chart above marked "The Rest of the World". Now tell me, at what point did very expensive oil increase production.

Oil production is also a function of geopolitics.

Bullshit! Oil production is affected by geopolitics. But it is not a function of geopolitics. Oil production is a function of the cost of production versus the price of oil… but the most important function is the availability of oil in the ground to produce. If the oil is not there then geopolitics or the price of oil counts for nothing. And that is what Stavros fails to understand.

Ron seems to be missing the point that for decades, oil rich countries have no choice but to defer to a great extent to Western oil production.

What in the hell are you talking about? Since when has Saudi Arabia deferred to Western oil production?

Those that are included in the Western security and financial system (GCC) have an extra incentive to do so, saving their oil for the future.

Give me a break. Every country is producing every barrel they possibly can. Which country was holding back when oil was over $100 a barrel? Saving oil for the future? They are in recession right now. Most of them anyway. No one is hording oil. A lot of oil is not being produced because of the very low price of oil but everyone is still trying desperately to meet their budgets by producing every barrel they possibly can at the cost they can afford.

[Dec 31, 2015] From Oil Glut to Shortage Some Say It Could Happen

Such articles are just astrology of a new type. Situation is now less predictable. It is difficult to tell whether the price of oil would be up $10 or down $3 the next year. It could go either way within the next year, or even within the next month or two. Like the tip of an iceberg, the current slump in world prices sits atop a lot of unknowns. To some energy experts, the oil-price plunge proves that the free market is working and that national economies, hit by secular stagnation, can begin breathing easier. All of a sudden, people decided oil stocks were enormous and there is supply glut, while in reality it was dumping of oil prices by Saudis that lowered the prices. To most experts, ''oil glut'' looks like a very temporary phenomenon that could turn into a serious shortage in a half of a year or so. These experts warn that low prices and headlines about an oversupply of oil risk undermining the West's recent and vital commitments to increased oil exploration, energy conservation and, especially, development of alternate energy sources. many observers say that shale and tight oil are unprofitable at prices below $60 per barrel.
Any drop in oil prices reduces inflationary pressures and stimulates the economy. there in the USA there was no inflationary pressures. Still low oil prices is in effect a reduction in the taxes that all Americans have to pay to foreigners. Consequently reduced oil prices are certainly in the country's best interests. But at the same time the apparent oil glut is a passing phenomenon which must not distract attention from the risk of major supply disruptions in the near future. An Islamic revolution can topple the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Typically when oil prices go lower, they tend to go much farther than people anticipated. The drop in oil prices is already having an impact on shale extraction and offshore drilling.
Notable quotes:
"... The price rout has caused oil companies to cut deeply into investment. With the world awash in crude, the oil industry is contemplating a new problem the oversupply could tee up: an oil shortage. ..."
Dec. 30, 2015 | WSJ

The price rout has caused oil companies to cut deeply into investment. With the world awash in crude, the oil industry is contemplating a new problem the oversupply could tee up: an oil shortage.

[Dec 31, 2015] Ten Reasons Why A Sustained Drop In Oil Prices Could Be Catastrophic

Notable quotes:
"... Figure 1. Jobs in States with and without Shale Formations, from Zero Hedge. ..."
"... Figure 2. Oil production and price of the Former Soviet Union, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013. ..."
"... Figure 3. US Dollar Index from Intercontinental Exchange ..."
"... Figure 4. World liquids production (that is oil and oil substitutes) based on EIA data, plus OPEC estimates and judgment of author for August to October 2014. Oil price is monthly average Brent oil spot price, based on EIA data. ..."
"... what it costs to produce commodities, and what customers can really afford ..."
"... Figure 5. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings. ..."
oilprice.com

08 December 2014 | OilPrice.com

Not long ago, I wrote Ten Reasons Why High Oil Prices are a Problem. If high oil prices can be a problem, how can low oil prices also be a problem? In particular, how can the steep drop in oil prices we have recently been experiencing also be a problem?

Let me explain some of the issues:

Issue 1. If the price of oil is too low, it will simply be left in the ground.

The world badly needs oil for many purposes: to power its cars, to plant its fields, to operate its oil-powered irrigation pumps, and to act as a raw material for making many kinds of products, including medicines and fabrics.

If the price of oil is too low, it will be left in the ground. With low oil prices, production may drop off rapidly. High price encourages more production and more substitutes; low price leads to a whole series of secondary effects (debt defaults resulting from deflation, job loss, collapse of oil exporters, loss of letters of credit needed for exports, bank failures) that indirectly lead to a much quicker decline in oil production.

The view is sometimes expressed that once 50% of oil is extracted, the amount of oil we can extract will gradually begin to decline, for geological reasons. This view is only true if high prices prevail, as we hit limits. If our problem is low oil prices because of debt problems or other issues, then the decline is likely to be far more rapid. With low oil prices, even what we consider to be proved oil reserves today may be left in the ground.

Issue 2. The drop in oil prices is already having an impact on shale extraction and offshore drilling.

While many claims have been made that US shale drilling can be profitable at low prices, actions speak louder than words. (The problem may be a cash flow problem rather than profitability, but either problem cuts off drilling.) Reuters indicates that new oil and gas well permits tumbled by 40% in November.

Related: Who Comes Out On Top After Oil Pandemonium?

Offshore drilling is also being affected. Transocean, the owner of the biggest fleet of deep water drilling rigs, recently took a $2.76 billion charge, among a "drilling rig glut."

3. Shale operations have a huge impact on US employment.

Zero Hedge posted the following chart of employment growth, in states with and without current drilling from shale formations:

Jobs With Vs Without Shale

Figure 1. Jobs in States with and without Shale Formations, from Zero Hedge.

Clearly, the shale states are doing much better, job-wise. According to the article, since December 2007, shale states have added 1.36 million jobs, while non-shale states have lost 424,000 jobs. The growth in jobs includes all types of employment, including jobs only indirectly related to oil and gas production, such as jobs involved with the construction of a new supermarket to serve the growing population.

It might be noted that even the "Non-Shale" states have benefited to some extent from shale drilling. Some support jobs related to shale extraction, such as extraction of sand used in fracking, college courses to educate new engineers, and manufacturing of parts for drilling equipment, are in states other than those with shale formations. Also, all states benefit from the lower oil imports required.

Issue 4. Low oil prices tend to cause debt defaults that have wide ranging consequences. If defaults become widespread, they could affect bank deposits and international trade.

With low oil prices, it becomes much more difficult for shale drillers to pay back the loans they have taken out. Cash flow is much lower, and interest rates on new loans are likely much higher. The huge amount of debt that shale drillers have taken on suddenly becomes at-risk. Energy debt currently accounts for 16% of the US junk bond market , so the amount at risk is substantial.

Dropping oil prices affect international debt as well. The value of Venezuelan bonds recently fell to 51 cents on the dollar , because of the high default risk with low oil prices. Russia's Rosneft is also reported to be having difficulty with its loans .

There are many ways banks might be adversely affected by defaults, including

After the many bank bailouts in 2008, there has been discussion of changing the system so that there is no longer a need to bail out "too big to fail" banks. One proposal that has been discussed is to force bank depositors and pension funds to cover part of the losses, using Cyprus-style bail-ins. According to some reports , such an approach has been approved by the G20 at a meeting the weekend of November 16, 2014. If this is true, our bank accounts and pension plans could already be at risk.1

Another bank-related issue if debt defaults become widespread, is the possibility that junk bonds and Letters of Credit2 will become outrageously expensive for companies that have poor credit ratings. Supply chains often include some businesses with poor credit ratings. Thus, even businesses with good credit ratings may find their supply chains broken by companies that can no longer afford high-priced credit. This was one of the issues in the 2008 credit crisis.

Issue 5. Low oil prices can lead to collapses of oil exporters, and loss of virtually all of the oil they export.

The collapse of the Former Soviet Union in 1991 seems to be related to a drop in oil prices .

Oil Production And Price In USSR

Figure 2. Oil production and price of the Former Soviet Union, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013.

Oil prices dropped dramatically in the 1980s after the issues that gave rise to the earlier spike were mitigated. The Soviet Union was dependent on oil for its export revenue. With low oil prices, its ability to invest in new production was impaired, and its export revenue dried up. The Soviet Union collapsed for a number of reasons, some of them financial, in late 1991, after several years of low oil prices had had a chance to affect its economy.

Many oil-exporting countries are at risk of collapse if oil prices stay very low very long. Venezuela is a clear risk, with its big debt problem. Nigeria's economy is reported to be "tanking." Russia even has a possibility of collapse, although probably not in the near future.

Even apart from collapse, there is the possibility of increased unrest in the Middle East, as oil-exporting nations find it necessary to cut back on their food and oil subsidies. There is also more possibility of warfare among groups, including new groups such as ISIL. When everyone is prosperous, there is little reason to fight, but when oil-related funds dry up, fighting among neighbors increases, as does unrest among those with lower subsidies.

Issue 6. The benefits to consumers of a drop in oil prices are likely to be much smaller than the adverse impact on consumers of an oil price rise.

When oil prices rose, businesses were quick to add fuel surcharges. They are less quick to offer fuel rebates when oil prices go down. They will try to keep the benefit of the oil price drop for themselves for as long as possible.

Airlines seem to be more interested in adding flights than reducing ticket prices in response to lower oil prices, perhaps because additional planes are already available. Their intent is to increase profits, through an increase in ticket sales, not to give consumers the benefit of lower prices.

In some cases, governments will take advantage of the lower oil prices to increase their revenue. China recently raised its oil products consumption tax, so that the government gets part of the benefit of lower prices. Malaysia is using the low oil prices as a time to reduce oil subsidies .

Most businesses recognize that the oil price drop is at most a temporary situation, since the cost of extraction continues to rise (because we are getting oil from more difficult-to-extract locations). Because the price drop is only temporary, few business people are saying to themselves, "Wow, oil is cheap again! I am going to invest a huge amount of money in a new road building company [or other business that depends on cheap oil]." Instead, they are cautious, making changes that require little capital investment and that can easily be reversed. While there may be some jobs added, those added will tend to be ones that can easily be dropped if oil prices rise again.

Issue 7. Hoped-for crude and LNG sales abroad are likely to disappear, with low oil prices.

There has been a great deal of publicity about the desire of US oil and gas producers to sell both crude oil and LNG abroad, so as to be able to take advantage of higher oil and gas prices outside the US. With a big drop in oil prices, these hopes are likely to be dashed. Already, we are seeing the story, Asia stops buying US crude oil . According to this story, "There's so much oversupply that Middle East crudes are now trading at discounts and it is not economical to bring over crudes from the US anymore."

LNG prices tend to drop if oil prices drop. (Some LNG prices are linked to oil prices, but even those that are not directly linked are likely to be affected by the lower demand for energy products.) At these lower prices, the financial incentive to export LNG becomes much less. Even fluctuating LNG prices become a problem for those considering investment in infrastructure such as ships to transport LNG.

$80 Oil By Christmas – Do NOT Be Fooled By The Mainstream Media

The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity for savvy energy investors.
Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays.

Click here for more info on successful oil investing

Issue 8. Hoped-for increases in renewables will become more difficult, if oil prices are low.

Many people believe that renewables can eventually take over the role of fossil fuels. ( I am not of the view that this is possible. ) For those with this view, low oil prices are a problem, because they discourage the hoped-for transition to renewables.

Despite all of the statements made about renewables, they don't really substitute for oil. Biofuels come closest, but they are simply oil-extenders. We add ethanol made from corn to gasoline to extend its quantity. But it still takes oil to operate the farm equipment to grow the corn, and oil to transport the corn to the ethanol plant. If oil isn't around, the biofuel production system comes to a screeching halt.

Issue 9. A major drop in oil prices tends to lead to deflation, and because of this, difficulty in repaying debts.

If oil prices rise, so do food prices, and the price of making most goods. Thus rising oil prices contribute to inflation. The reverse of this is true as well. Falling oil prices tend to lead to a lower price for growing food and a lower price for making most goods. The net result can be deflation. Not all countries are affected equally; some experience this result to a greater extent than others.

Those countries experiencing deflation are likely to eventually have problems with debt defaults, because it will become more difficult for workers to repay loans, if wages are drifting downward. These same countries are likely to experience an outflow of investment funds because investors realize that funds invested these countries will not earn an adequate return. This outflow of funds will tend to push their currencies down, relative to other currencies. This is at least part of what has been happening in recent months.

The value of the dollar has been rising rapidly, relative to many other currencies. Debt repayment is likely to especially be a problem for those countries where substantial debt is denominated in US dollars, but whose local currency has recently fallen in value relative to the US dollar.

US Dollar Index

Figure 3. US Dollar Index from Intercontinental Exchange

The big increase in the US dollar index came since June 2014 (Figure 3), which coincides with the drop in oil prices. Those countries with low currency prices, including Japan, Europe, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa, find it expensive to import goods of all kinds, including those made with oil products. This is part of what reduces demand for oil products.

China's yuan is relatively closely tied to the dollar. The collapse of other currencies relative to the US dollar makes Chinese exports more expensive, and is part of the reason why the Chinese economy has been doing less well recently. There are, no doubt, other reasons why China's growth is lower recently, and thus its growth in debt. China is now trying to lower the level of its currency .

Issue 10. The drop in oil prices seems to reflect a basic underlying problem: the world is reaching the limits of its debt expansion.

There is a natural limit to the amount of debt that a government, or business, or individual can borrow. At some point, interest payments become so high, that it becomes difficult to cover other needed expenses. The obvious way around this problem is to lower interest rates to practically zero, through Quantitative Easing (QE) and other techniques.

(Increasing debt is a big part of pumped up "demand" for oil, and because of this, oil prices. If this is confusing, think of buying a car. It is much easier to buy a car with a loan than without one. So adding debt allows goods to be more affordable. Reducing debt levels has the opposite effect).

QE doesn't work as a long-term technique, because it tends to create bubbles in asset prices, such as stock market prices and prices of farmland. It also tends to encourage investment in enterprises that have questionable chance of success. Arguably, investment in shale oil and gas operations are in this category.

As it turns out, it looks very much as if the presence or absence of QE may have an impact on oil prices as well (Figure 4), providing the "uplift" needed to keep oil prices high enough to cover production costs.

World Liquids production

Figure 4. World "liquids production" (that is oil and oil substitutes) based on EIA data, plus OPEC estimates and judgment of author for August to October 2014. Oil price is monthly average Brent oil spot price, based on EIA data.

The sharp drop in price in 2008 was credit-related , and was only solved when the US initiated its program of QE started in late November 2008 . Oil prices began to rise in December 2008. The US has had three periods of QE, with the last of these, QE3, finally tapering down and ending in October 2014. Since QE seems to have been part of the solution that stopped the drop in oil prices in 2008, we should not be surprised if discontinuing QE is contributing to the drop in oil prices now.

Part of the problem seems to be the differential effect that happens when other countries are continuing to use QE, but the US not. The US dollar tends to rise, relative to other currencies. This situation contributes to the situation shown in Figure 3.

QE allows more borrowing from the future than would be possible if market interest rates really had to be paid. This allows financiers to temporarily disguise a growing problem of un-affordability of oil and other commodities.

The problem we have is that, because we live in a finite world, we reach a point where it becomes more expensive to produce commodities of many kinds: oil (deeper wells, fracking), coal (farther from markets, so more transport costs), metals (poorer ore quality), fresh water (desalination needed), and food (more irrigation needed). Wages don't rise correspondingly, because more and more labor is needed to provide less and less actual benefit, in terms of the commodities produced and goods made from those commodities. Thus, workers find themselves becoming poorer and poorer, in terms of what they can afford to purchase.

QE allows financiers to disguise the growing mismatch between what it costs to produce commodities, and what customers can really afford . Thus, QE allows commodity prices to rise to levels that are unaffordable by customers, unless customers' lack of income is disguised by a continued growth in debt.

Once commodity prices (including oil prices) fall to levels that are affordable based on the incomes of customers, they fall to levels that cut out a large share of production of these commodities. As commodity production drops to levels that can be produced at affordable prices, so does the world's ability to make goods and services. Unfortunately, the goods whose production is likely to be cut back if commodity production is cut back are those of every kind, including houses, cars, food, and electrical transmission equipment.

Conclusion

There are really two different problems that a person can be concerned about:

1. Peak oil : the possibility that oil prices will rise, and because of this production will fall in a rounded curve. Substitutes that are possible because of high prices will perhaps take over.

2. Debt related collapse : oil limits will play out in a very different way than most have imagined, through lower oil prices as limits to growth in debt are reached, and thus a collapse in oil "demand" (really affordability). The collapse in production, when it comes, will be sharper and will affect the entire economy, not just oil.

In my view, a rapid drop in oil prices is likely a symptom that we are approaching a debt-related collapse–in other words, the second of these two problems. Underlying this debt-related collapse is the fact that we seem to be reaching the limits of a finite world. There is a growing mismatch between what workers in oil importing countries can afford, and the rising real costs of extraction, including associated governmental costs. This has been covered up to date by rising debt, but at some point, it will not be possible to keep increasing the debt sufficiently.

Related: A Glimmer Of Hope In Current Oil Price Slide?

The timing of collapse may not be immediate. Low oil prices take a while to work their way through the system. It is also possible that the world's financiers will put off a major collapse for a while longer, through more QE, or more programs related to QE. For example, actually getting money into the hands of customers would seem to be temporarily helpful.

At some point the debt situation will eventually reach a breaking point. One way this could happen is through an increase in interest rates. If this happens, world economic growth is likely to slow greatly. Oil and commodity prices will fall further. Debt defaults will skyrocket. Not only will oil production drop, but production of many other commodities will drop, including natural gas and coal. In such a scenario, the downslope of all energy use is likely to be quite steep, perhaps similar to what is shown in the following chart.

Future Energy production

Figure 5. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

Notes:

[1] There is of course insurance by the FDIC and the PBGC , but the actual funding for these two insurance programs is tiny in relationship to the kind of risk that would occur if there were widespread debt defaults and derivative defaults affecting many banks and many pension plans at once. While depositors and pension holders might try to collect this insurance, there wouldn't be enough money to actually cover these demands. This problem would be similar to the issue that arose in Iceland in 2008 . Insurance would seem to be available, but in practice, would not pay out much.

[2] LOCs are required when goods are shipped internationally, before payment has actually been made. They offer a guarantee that a buyer will be able to "make good" on his promise to pay for goods when they arrive.

By Gail Tverberg

Source - http://ourfiniteworld.com/

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

[Dec 31, 2015] Condensate production has one of the steepest decline rates

peakoilbarrel.com

Heinrich Leopold , 12/31/2015 at 4:10 am

... condensate has one of the steepest decline rates – at least in Texas. As November and December 2014 production has been very high, the rates are very likely much steeper in November and December 2015, reaching record decline rates of 50% (see chart below).

[Dec 31, 2015] There is no worldwide collapse of demand that justify 65-70% fall of the oil price

Notable quotes:
"... There has been a lot of talk regarding the oil glut, but according to EIA crude inventories there is only 105.1 million more barrels of crude than a year ago. That is just 6.4 days of refineries inputs. It does not seem a lot, even less to justify a 60% decrease in the oil price. Oil must be the only commodity industry where one week of extra inventory produce such a price correction. ..."
"... It is even worse if we consider that gasoline inventories are just 0.4% higher than a year ago. The most important product which represents 46% of the refineries output is at 2014 level. Where is the glut? ..."
"... There is a glut in distilite fuel oil, residual fuel oil, propane/propylene and fuel ethanol. ..."
"... I suspect that most of the 2015 build in US and global C+C inventories consists of condensate, and I frequently cite a Reuters article earlier this year that documented case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper API limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity*), but that are deficient in distillates. ..."
"... If we had so much (generally cheaper than imported) actual crude oil on hand in the US, why are refiners importing the same amount of crude oil as they did last year? ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Ves , 12/25/2015 at 2:23 pm
Steve,
I agree with your post about market dynamics between customers having to pay through their purchasing power in order to retire loans created by financial industry for oil companies. But there are a few things that make this oil crash little bit "strange" to say at least:

1) OPEC (and mainly Saudis + GCC) did actually something by not doing anything and that is refusing to cut their production. Well that is "man made" decision as Oman oil minister said and not decision by invisible hand of market. I interpret this mainly as political decision and not economical.

2) Second. Wall Street was pretty much shocked if not pissed by that Saudi decision. I interpret that to be political reaction as well.

3) There is no worldwide collapse of demand that justify 65-70% fall of the oil price. I am sorry but Wall Street is creating ninja loans for cars, student loans, mortgages from the thin air with the same speed in the US. I would say that is political decision as well. Worldwide collapse is not happening as of now either that would justify 65-70% drop of price. Contraction is happening in Europe but very very gradually except in some marginal countries like Greece, and war torn countries in ME and Africa. But these marginal countries did not even have any big consumption to begin with.

4) Shale oil producer based on their balance sheet were bankrupt from Day 1. Why LTO even got the loans to begin with? That is also political decision and not an economic. Why are we waiting even a year after low prices for any major mergers, buyouts or bankruptcies? I am sorry but 100% of LTO are bankrupt so why Wall Street is extending and pretending and keeping them on a life support? Well it is again political decision.

So yes there are some market dynamics around this oil crash but there are a lot of political dynamics as well.

Cacerolo , 12/10/2015 at 12:00 am
This is my first post in this blog.

There has been a lot of talk regarding the oil glut, but according to EIA crude inventories there is only 105.1 million more barrels of crude than a year ago. That is just 6.4 days of refineries inputs. It does not seem a lot, even less to justify a 60% decrease in the oil price. Oil must be the only commodity industry where one week of extra inventory produce such a price correction.

It is even worse if we consider that gasoline inventories are just 0.4% higher than a year ago. The most important product which represents 46% of the refineries output is at 2014 level. Where is the glut?

There is a glut in distilite fuel oil, residual fuel oil, propane/propylene and fuel ethanol. It seems that there is a big problem in the industrial part of the demand or maybe there is a big unbalance between what refineries can produce and what the market needs.

Warm weather promotes more driving, so we could start spring 2016 with gasoline inventories quite reduced and we could face a high gasoline price environment while we still have this huge oil glut that the media talks all day long.

I have no idea if what eia states in its inventory report as crude and other oils ( the two mayor inventory items by quantity) can be completely used as inputs to produce gasoline or if there are some technical limitations ( not any type of crude can be used to product any type of output). Maybe, and just maybe we have a glut of some types of oil and condensate that nobody needs in the quantities it has been produced since the shale boom.

Clueless , 12/10/2015 at 5:13 am
It is basic economics when it comes to any commodity. If there is a shortage, the price can rise rapidly to the amount that the most critical user will pay. Ask yourself "at what price would the hospitals, ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, offshore drilling rigs [which are being leased for up to $600,000/day], say the price is too high, we will just shut down?" With a small surplus, the price of a commodity will drop like a rock, as buyers see no need to have high inventories and shop around for the lowest price, looking for a seller that has to sell at any price.

A game analogy. Musical chairs with 20 players and only 19 chairs (only short by 1), and two other rules: The person without a chair gets killed, but there is one chair for sale and anyone can buy it to guarantee their safety. How high would the bidding go? Up to the point of the person with the most money.

Same game with 20 players and 21 chairs (only 1 extra). How high would the bidding go? Zero, as everyone can see that there is more than enough for everybody.
You can easily see this play out even more frequently by looking at charts for agricultural products such as: wheat, corn, soybeans, etc.

Prices can double quickly if there is a crop surplus, and fall by over 50% just as quickly if the next crop has a surplus.

oldfarmermac , 12/10/2015 at 7:56 am
Clueless, you are not when it comes to commodity prices. I wish I had thought of the musical chairs analogy myself. But you got in a little bit of a hurry in his last sentence and should have said prices can double quickly if there is a crop SHORTAGE.

Commodity food prices are not nearly so inelastic as oil prices, because there are generally plenty of substitutes for any GIVEN food that might be in short supply. But the price can still double in the event of a short crop, it happens.

There are NO short term substitutes for oil.

Clueless , 12/10/2015 at 4:35 pm
Thanks OFM. However, my error was not due to being in a hurry, it was due to being 4:13 am my time, and I was still half asleep.
Nick G , 12/10/2015 at 4:44 pm
There are NO short term substitutes for oil.

I know what you mean, but that's a little strong. Driving slower, driving your small car instead of your SUV, mass transit, carpooling: there are a lot of short term substitutes.

None of them are perfect substitutes for dirt cheap oil…but that's different (and, of course, dirt cheap oil doesn't really exist if we take into account externalities).

Patrick R , 12/10/2015 at 5:11 pm
The US just needs to price driving accurately and a huge amount of low value wasteful trips would suddenly become understood as unnecessary. Furthermore the uplift this would give to all alternatives; not just EVs (you guys are so stuck in autodependency), but Transit, active modes, and, most importantly of all; the rise of the local, would huge. And please note, this is not subsidy, simply user pays, just price driving for all its costs, direct and external. Sorted.

Also always remember that proximity trumps mobility; that's why cities exist!

Sprawl topia is doomed, but I guess that's hard to grasp when it's all people have ever known. And getting real about actual cost allocation is the mechanism to get North America out of the current stuck pattern. Climate change and all other pollution mitigation isn't about personal choice it's about rational cost allocation; by all means choose to stink, just actually pay the whole cost and there will be more rational actors than old contrarians.

The craziest thing is that otherwise libertarian freemarketers are violently committed to the Soviet style socialism that is your taxpayer funded driving amenity and no-price driving system. What kind of crisis will it take for reality to be grasped in this area? Cos I suspect you'll get it sooner or later.

Meantime: Keep on truckin'…

Jeffrey J. Brown , 12/10/2015 at 7:40 am

There has been a lot of talk regarding the oil glut, but according to eia crude inventories there is only 105.1 million more barrils of crude than a year ago

What the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C).

I suspect that most of the 2015 build in US and global C+C inventories consists of condensate, and I frequently cite a Reuters article earlier this year that documented case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper API limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity*), but that are deficient in distillates.

In any case, based on the most recent four week running average data, US refineries were dependent on net crude oil imports for 43% of the C+C processed in US refineries (7.1/16.5) versus 44% a year ago (7.1/16.2). If we had so much (generally cheaper than imported) actual crude oil on hand in the US, why are refiners importing the same amount of crude oil as they did last year?

*Most common overall dividing line between crude & condensate is 45 API

Dennis Coyne , 12/10/2015 at 9:06 am
The market for oil is a World market, look at IEA reports for a better look at the International market. Last time I checked, st0rage levels in the OECD were about 250 million barrels above the 5 year average level. There is a limited number of places to put the oil that has been produced, and storing oil costs money, so when there is an excess prices fall. In theory this should increase demand at any given level of World GDP and it should reduce supply as higher cost production is less profitable at lower prices. It takes some time for this adjustment to take place (people don't go out and buy a gas guzzler right away and oil producers try to outlast their competitors, hoping the other guy stops producing as much). So far it has been about 12 months since oil prices dropped sharply, it may take another 12 months, maybe more for production to slow down and excess inventories to be used up.

If there is not a severe recession worldwide in the next 24 months, I would be surprised if oil prices are not above $60/b, 18 months to 36 months from now, possibly they will be much higher.

It depends on how quickly the oil business can ramp back up after the downturn over the next 1 to 2 years. The longer it takes, the higher oil prices will go, but at some point there may be a major recession, due in part to inadequate oil supply two or three years in the future.

Chart below with the Reference Oil Price case for Brent Oil in 2013$ from the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook published in April 2015.

Heinrich Leopold , 12/10/2015 at 4:17 am
Given the recent discussions about where US oil and gas production is headed, I have tried to find some forward looking indicators. Well permits and well completions seem to give reasonable indicators for future production. Below chart indicates that at least Texan oil and gas production will steeply slump over the next months. Well permits declined fivefold to a six year low and well completions are not far behind. It will be interesting to see the consequences of this trend.

Dennis Coyne , 12/10/2015 at 9:10 am
The RRC Production data is very bad for the most recent 18 months. Texas output has in fact been relatively flat from Nov 2014 to Sept 2015. Perhaps the completion data suffers from the same reporting problems. Permit data is just not very useful.

[Dec 31, 2015] Why Saudis are damping oil at such a low price

Notable quotes:
"... One theory afloat is that the US and Saudi Arabia are allies in an economic and political war against their enemies. According to this narrative, the intent of Saudi Arabia dramatically increasing oil production during a world oil glut, and sending oil prices into a tailspin, is to shipwreck the economies (and the polities) of US and/or Saudi enemies - e.g., Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia hasnt dramatically increased oil production. Their most recent peak in June of 2015 was only a couple hundred thousand barrels per day more than the previous peak back in mid-2013. Thats about 2-3% increase over two years. I wouldnt call that, dramatic. ..."
"... Ron is basically correct. The people who think that oil production is a function of the price are assuming that the oil is there to produce. Now, unless there are a few supergiant fields out there, already discovered and waiting for some State Oil Company or some multi-national oil company to make a Final Investment Decision, that assumption is incorrect. There is a handful of locations which could potentially have supergiant oil fields that are so far undiscovered, Im not that confident that they are there to find, since discovery in the last couple of decades has been a long way short of consumption, even after the price went sky high and everybody and their dog was spending big on exploration. ..."
"... Tight oil has been developed in the US on the basis of unrealistic projections of ongoing production, due to depletion rates being vastly higher than admitted when spruiking to investors. Sooner or later, it was bound to run into problems. These problems have arrived sooner, as opposed to later, due to OPECs price war, which is aimed at sending the tight oil industry broke. Producers have cut back on drilling and concentrated with increased intensity on sweet spots , where production is likely to be highest. They have also introduced technological progress that has cut the price of drilling substantially and thus cut the break-even price for a well of a given production level, but the industry is still losing money. A loss-making industry is unsustainable and, therefore, will not be sustained. Something has to give. ..."
"... At this point, what will be relevant is just how extensive the sweet spots in the tight oil formations are. Having been burnt once, investors will be working on much more careful examination of likely decline rates and wont support drilling wells just to keep production up, if those wells wont recover their costs within the time frame of the investment horizon. ..."
"... The $64 thousand dollar question, therefore, is how long the US tight oil industry is going to be able to keep finding sweet spots where they can extract sufficient tight oil to pay back the cost of drilling. ..."
"... I am NOT saying the Obama administration is colluding with the Saudis, secretly, to keep the price of oil down. I AM saying Uncle Sam is no doubt perfectly happy about oil selling for peanuts, because peanut oil prices are a damned good economic tonic. There must be fifty people happy about cheap gasoline for every one person hurting because he lost his ass or his job in the oil business. Fifty to one. No politician in his right mind can afford to overlook that sort of thing. ..."
"... Im ready to bet the farm that no documentation ever comes to light proving Uncle Sam is trying to force oil prices up at this time. OTOH, Uncle Sam and the Saudis share some very heavy duty common interests when it comes to Iran and Russia. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

likbez , 12/30/2015 at 9:50 pm

Ron,

OK. Let's assume there is no geopolitics here. But then why Saudis are damping oil at such a low price.

In 2015 they exported over 7.3 Mb/d and got 118 Billions. In 2012 they exported something between 7.658 Mb/d (CIA, probably crude only) and 8.42 mb/d (Bloomberg, probably crude and refined products) and got 336.1 billion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-29/saudi-arabian-2012-oil-export-revenue-gained-5-as-iran-fell-12-

If they just cut 1 Mb/d and that allows to preserve 2014 average price of oil (not even 2013 average price) they would get 125 billions (and preserve 12 Mb from their depleting wells for moment of higher prices which will eventually come.)

In any case they managed to achieve almost 3 times drop of revenue from 2012. Three times --

Now they have almost $100 billion budget deficit in 2015 (and almost the same, 86 billions estimate of deficit for 2016) and only around 600 billions in reserves.

Questions:

1. Why they rocked the boat?

2. Where is the logic in their actions, unless we assume that they want to destroy Iran (and hurt Russia) ?

3. Why MSM spread all this BS about Saudis defending their market share ? Does it look like they are defending something else ?

Glenn Stehle , 12/31/2015 at 9:43 am

One theory afloat is that the US and Saudi Arabia are allies in an economic and political war against their enemies. According to this narrative, the intent of Saudi Arabia dramatically increasing oil production during a world oil glut, and sending oil prices into a tailspin, is to shipwreck the economies (and the polities) of US and/or Saudi enemies - e.g., Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.

"Obama's foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-crude-oil-prices-plunge-so-do-oil-exporters-revenue-hopes/2015/12/23/ed552372-a900-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html

The war, however, is not being conducted without inflicting significant damages on US allies - e.g., Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Colombia - and domestic US production as well.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, for instance, published an article a couple of days ago about the immense economic damage being inflicted on Saudi Arabia's economy and polity:

"Saudi riyal in danger as oil war escalates"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12071761/Saudi-riyal-in-danger-as-oil-war-escalates.html

We'll see who blinks first, or who is left standing after all the bloodletting takes place.

Peak Signs , 12/31/2015 at 10:32 am

"According to this theory, the intent of Saudi Arabia dramatically increasing oil production during a world oil glut…"

Saudi Arabia hasn't dramatically increased oil production. Their most recent peak in June of 2015 was only a couple hundred thousand barrels per day more than the previous peak back in mid-2013. That's about 2-3% increase over two years. I wouldn't call that, dramatic.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-crude-oil-production-charts/

Glenn Stehle , 12/31/2015 at 11:00 am

I think you're arguing semantics.

Would you also argue that the Saudi response to the glut in 2009 was the same to its response to the glut in 2015?

Ablokeimet , 12/31/2015 at 3:07 am

Ron is basically correct. The people who think that oil production is a function of the price are assuming that the oil is there to produce. Now, unless there are a few supergiant fields out there, already discovered and waiting for some State Oil Company or some multi-national oil company to make a Final Investment Decision, that assumption is incorrect. There is a handful of locations which could potentially have supergiant oil fields that are so far undiscovered, I'm not that confident that they are there to find, since discovery in the last couple of decades has been a long way short of consumption, even after the price went sky high and everybody and their dog was spending big on exploration.

What interests me is the bit from the previous post, where OPEC projected prices based on their estimate of what it cost to produce the marginal barrel. I think that is a good line to take, until it reaches the point where governments of OPEC countries decide that, with Peak Oil passed and production in irreversable decline, they are going to start hoarding production and make the rest of the world go short.

The thing to realise with projecting prices based on the cost of production of the marginal barrel is that it should be taken as a tendency working on a 5 year or even decadal scale. In time periods short of that, you can get price wars sending prices down below the marginal cost and price spikes producing windfall profits even for the highest cost producers. The price wars lead to national and multi-national oil companies cutting back on capital expenditure, which eventually leads to stagnating or declining production and a recovery in prices. Price spikes lead to huge resources being spent on exploration and development as everybody wants to cash in.

OPEC's production assumptions are a lot less sensible than their price projections. They assume two things:

(a) That the oil is there to increase global production; and

(b) Most of that oil, from 2020 to 2040, will come from OPEC countries.

Conventional crude oil production is flat out right now and, as I said above, unless someone is hiding a few undeveloped supergiant fields somewhere, it's got nowhere to go but down. Let's look at unconventional sources, then.

1. Polar and deepwater oil. A huge amount has been spent exploring for this and the results have been underwhelming. Sure, they've found oil, but not in anywhere near the quantities needed. Shell recently pulled out of the Arctic because of the combination of environmental protests and poor exploration results. If they were discovering heaps, they'd just tough out the protests – as anybody who knows the first thing about corporate capitalism could tell you.

2. Canadian tar sands. Production of these has been expanding, but it hasn't been to the rate that one might imagine from the published resource data. This is because the rate of production is subject to certain limits, due to inputs. The relevant inputs in this situation are water and natural gas – and it is water which is the harder limit. Basically, they can't produce more oil from the tar sands than the rivers of the region can support. These limits will sooner or later, and I believe sooner, put a ceiling on Canadian production. Absent a huge shift in consumption caused by climate change mitigation action, it will keep at that limit for many decades to come, but it won't exceed it.

3. Venezuelan extra heavy. This is the factor about which I know least, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of it on the market yet. There seem to be a lot of obstacles in the road of high production.

4. Tight oil. One thing that everybody who is knowledgeable admits is that there is a lot of "oil in place" in this category. The question is how much of this is recoverable in a practical sense. This industry has developed in the US, primarily because it brings a number of environmental hazards with it and, outside the US, landholders are blocking exploitation because of environmental concerns. In the US, landholders have a financial interest in ignoring these concerns, because mineral royalties are vested in the landowner.

Tight oil has been developed in the US on the basis of unrealistic projections of ongoing production, due to depletion rates being vastly higher than admitted when spruiking to investors. Sooner or later, it was bound to run into problems. These problems have arrived sooner, as opposed to later, due to OPEC's price war, which is aimed at sending the tight oil industry broke. Producers have cut back on drilling and concentrated with increased intensity on "sweet spots", where production is likely to be highest. They have also introduced technological progress that has cut the price of drilling substantially and thus cut the break-even price for a well of a given production level, but the industry is still losing money. A loss-making industry is unsustainable and, therefore, will not be sustained. Something has to give.

Eventually, the price of oil will recover to be equal to or greater than the marginal cost of production. At this point, what will be relevant is just how extensive the sweet spots in the tight oil formations are. Having been burnt once, investors will be working on much more careful examination of likely decline rates and won't support drilling wells just to keep production up, if those wells won't recover their costs within the time frame of the investment horizon.

The $64 thousand dollar question, therefore, is how long the US tight oil industry is going to be able to keep finding sweet spots where they can extract sufficient tight oil to pay back the cost of drilling.

What's going to happen in other countries? Not a great deal, I predict. Opposition from the local population, led by local landholders, will delay and minimise production from tight oil reservoirs. It won't completely prevent a tight oil industry developing in many other countries, but it will ensure that it never develops the dimensions of the current oil industry. Tight oil production will be a buffer for production on the way down, but it won't counteract the declines caused by the depletion of conventional oil fields.

In summary, the price of production of the marginal barrel of oil is going to go higher – a lot higher, but the marginal barrels won't be additional ones. Rather, rising prices will cause demand destruction. It is already doing so in OECD countries, and it will start doing it in Third World countries too, as existing fields deplete and have to be replaced by new and extraordinarily expensive oil.

oldfarmermac , 12/30/2015 at 11:23 pm
Door number two looks damned good from where I sit in the audience, lol.

In addition to putting a hurting on Russia and Iran, the Saudis are also no doubt getting the message across to other exporters, in and out of OPEC, that they will not carry the load alone, if and when they eventually decide to cut.

There is little doubt in my mind that secret negotiations about cuts are going on every day, day after day, between diplomats from other oil exporters and the Saudis. When the Saudi government gets what it wants, iron clad promises of cooperation, THEN they might be more inclined to cut.Maybe.

Sometimes something that walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck , and looks like a duck, is never the less not a duck .. Sometimes the resemblance is merely coincidental. Sometimes coincidences are highly advantageous to two or more parties involved.

Consider for instance that many or most well informed people consider that the House of Saud has managed to accumulate and hang onto the biggest fortune in the world only because the country is a client state of the American empire.

Otherwise all those princes and princesses would be dead, or in dungeons, or refugees.

I am NOT saying the Obama administration is colluding with the Saudis, secretly, to keep the price of oil down. I AM saying Uncle Sam is no doubt perfectly happy about oil selling for peanuts, because peanut oil prices are a damned good economic tonic. There must be fifty people happy about cheap gasoline for every one person hurting because he lost his ass or his job in the oil business. Fifty to one. No politician in his right mind can afford to overlook that sort of thing.

I'm ready to bet the farm that no documentation ever comes to light proving Uncle Sam is trying to force oil prices up at this time. OTOH, Uncle Sam and the Saudis share some very heavy duty common interests when it comes to Iran and Russia.

Hey guys, it ain't nothing but zero's in computers, in the last critical analysis, to the House of Saud. They have more than they can spend (on themselves ) anyway.

Suppose any one of you happened to have a personal fortune of say ten million bucks, and you discover you are at high risk of having a fatal heart attack. I doubt any of you would hesitate to spend a third or even half of that fortune to avoid that heart attack. You will never have eat beans and rice unless LIKE beans and rice, so long as you still have five million bucks. ( Unless maybe your physician insists!)

In the minds of the Saudis, the Russians and the Iranians may well represent a literal existential threat .

[Dec 31, 2015] Saudi riyal in danger as oil war escalates

Notable quotes:
"... The International Monetary Fund has suggested Saudi Arabia could be running a deficit of around $140bn (£94bn). ..."
"... Dr Alsweilem said the country does not have deep enough pockets to wage a long war of attrition in the global crude markets, whatever the superficial appearances. ..."
Telegraph

Saudi Arabia is burning through foreign reserves at an unsustainable rate and may be forced to give up its prized dollar exchange peg as the oil slump drags on, the country's former reserve chief has warned.

"If anything happens to the riyal exchange peg, the consequences will be dramatic. There will be a serious loss of confidence," said Khalid Alsweilem, the former head of asset management at the Saudi central bank (SAMA).

"But if the reserves keep going down as they are now, they will not be able to keep the peg," he told The Telegraph.

His warning came as the Saudi finance ministry revealed that the country's deficit leapt to 367bn riyals (£66bn) this year , up from 54bn riyals the previous year. The International Monetary Fund has suggested Saudi Arabia could be running a deficit of around $140bn (£94bn).

Remittances by foreign workers in Saudi Arabia are draining a further $36bn a year, and capital outflows were picking up even before the oil price crash. Bank of America estimates that the deficit could rise to nearer $180bn if oil prices settle near $30 a barrel, testing the riyal peg to breaking point.

Dr Alsweilem said the country does not have deep enough pockets to wage a long war of attrition in the global crude markets, whatever the superficial appearances.

Concern has become acute after 12-month forward contracts on the Saudi Riyal reached 730 basis points over recent days, the highest since the worst days of last oil crisis in February 1999.

The contracts are watched closely by traders for signs of currency stress. The latest spike suggests that the riyal is under concerted attack by hedge funds and speculators in the region, risking a surge of capital flight.

A string of oil states have had to abandon their currency pegs over recent weeks. The Azerbaijani manat crashed by a third last Monday after the authorities finally admitted defeat.

The dollar peg has been the anchor of Saudi economic policy and credibility for over three decades. A forced devaluation would heighten fears that the crisis is spinning out of political control, further enflaming disputes within the royal family.

Foreign reserves and assets have fallen to $647bn from a peak of $746bn in August 2014, but headline figures often mean little in the complex world of central bank finances and derivative contracts.

See also

Black Swan

""He is drawing on a McKinsey study – 'Beyond Oil' -
that sketches how the country can break its unhealthy dependence on
crude, and double GDP by 2030 with a $4 trillion investment blitz across
eight industries, from petrochemicals to metals, steel, aluminium
smelting, cars, electrical manufacturing, tourism, and healthcare""

McKinsey's advice to the Saudi suckers proves that global financial companies are crooks. Pray tell from where will Saudi Arabia get people to run the industries recommended by Mckinsey ? There is already global excess in the industries.

[Dec 31, 2015] Oil, Asia shares see subdued end to year dominated by Fed, China

Notable quotes:
"... While cheaper fuel is a boost to consumer spending power in much of the developed world, it is also a disinflationary force that reinforces bets on loose monetary policy in Europe, Japan and China, even as the Federal Reserve proceeds with glacial tightening. ..."
finance.yahoo.com

While cheaper fuel is a boost to consumer spending power in much of the developed world, it is also a disinflationary force that reinforces bets on loose monetary policy in Europe, Japan and China, even as the Federal Reserve proceeds with glacial tightening.

Oil prices are ending the year how they began - under pressure.

[Dec 31, 2015] Top Wyoming oil companies write off $41 billion in assets, while capital spending drops 51 percent

See EIA Crude Oil Production . US production was surprisingly stable in 2015. Since May the figures are 9,479 (May) 9,315 (June) 9,433 (July) 9,407 (August) 9,460 (Sep) 9,347 (Oct)
Notable quotes:
"... US #crudeoil production down to 9.347mbpd in Oct15 from an upward revised 9.460 in Sep15 ..."
"... Texas #crude production down to 3391000 b/day in Oct15 from a revised down 3417000 b/day in Sep15 ..."
"... The write-offs, known officially as impairments, represent a recognition that many wells will have shorter productive lives than initially anticipated, analysts said. It also reflects an acknowledgement that companies may have to pay for the cost of plugging and abandoning wells sooner than they expected, they noted. ..."
"... Chesapeake Energy, Wyomings fourth-largest oil producer, reported impairments of $15.4 billion through the first three quarters of 2015. The Oklahoma City-based producers woes are primarily tied to natural gas. ..."
"... Oil patch bankruptcies have accelerated in the fourth quarter of 2015 as a supply glut keeps prices stuck below $40 a barrel. Ten firms, with more than $2 billion in debt, have closed their doors since October, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas. ..."
"... Capital spending has fallen 51 percent since the third quarter, the bank said ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Dean , 12/31/2015 at 1:13 pm
Petroleum Supply Monthly is out:

TechGuy , 12/31/2015 at 2:20 pm

http://trib.com/business/energy/top-wyoming-oil-companies-write-off-billion-in-assets/article_d380f763-962e-587d-9d9a-2af39b1e166d.html
Top Wyoming oil companies write off $41 billion in assets

" The write-offs, known officially as impairments, represent a recognition that many wells will have shorter productive lives than initially anticipated, analysts said. It also reflects an acknowledgement that companies may have to pay for the cost of plugging and abandoning wells sooner than they expected, they noted. "

" Chesapeake Energy, Wyoming's fourth-largest oil producer, reported impairments of $15.4 billion through the first three quarters of 2015. The Oklahoma City-based producer's woes are primarily tied to natural gas. "

" Oil patch bankruptcies have accelerated in the fourth quarter of 2015 as a supply glut keeps prices stuck below $40 a barrel. Ten firms, with more than $2 billion in debt, have closed their doors since October, according to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas.

Capital spending has fallen 51 percent since the third quarter, the bank said . And the global supply glut may linger into 2017, it noted, pointing to estimates that production will outpace demand by 600,000 barrels per day through 2016."

[Dec 31, 2015] Now Comes The Great Unwind - How Evaporating Commodity Wealth Will Slam The Casino

Notable quotes:
"... Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog, ..."
Zero Hedge

Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

...Already, investment is estimated to have dropped by 20% in 2015, and that is just the beginning.

This unfolding collapse of oil and gas investments, of course, will ricochet through the capital goods and heavy construction sectors with gale force. Eventually, annual investment may decline by $250 to $400 billion before balance is restored, meaning that what were windfall profits and surging wages and bonuses in these sectors just a year or two back will evaporate in the years ahead.

... ... ...

... as the credit bubble begins to shrink it means that profits, incomes, balance sheets and credit-worthiness are all shrinking, too. So is the related GDP.

But now the days of heady accumulation of "sovereign wealth" in Saudi Arabia, Norway, Kazakhstan and dozens of commodity producers in between is over and done. What is happening is that these funds are entering a cycle of liquidation which is unprecedented in financial history.

Indeed, the data for Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait, the UAE and other members of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is stunning. During the global credit boom they amassed sovereign wealth funds totaling $2.3 trillion. But with deficits now estimated at 13% of GDP and rising, the level of asset liquidation is soaring.

Thus, if crude oil prices recover to $56 per barrel next year, the GCC states will need to liquidate $208 billion of investments.

... ... ...

In a word, the unnatural Big Fat Bid of the sovereign wealth funds is going All Offers as oil and commodity producers struggle to fund their budgets.

... ... ...

Jack Burton

ENERGY Sector "what were windfall profits and surging wages and bonuses in these sectors just a year or two back will evaporate in the years ahead."

This is already crushing Canada and North Dakota, whose actual oil field cut backs are only now beginning as they tried to produce their way out of the debt crisis. But the hedges have run out, prices seem glued to the basement and NOW the time has come to eliminate the expeditures. That mean people losing jobs all up and down the line.

Stockman is brilliant here, as always.

I was watching "The Big Short" last night too. Excellent film. Very historic and everyone should watch it.

[Dec 31, 2015] We might have a condensate glut, at least in the US, and perhaps globally.

Notable quotes:
"... I suspect that we actually have a condensate glut, at least in the US, and perhaps globally. ..."
"... Oil production is affected by geopolitics. But it is not a function of geopolitics. Oil production is a function of the cost of production versus the price of oil… but the most important function is the availability of oil in the ground to produce. If the oil is not there then geopolitics or the price of oil counts for nothing. And that is what Stavros fails to understand. ..."
"... Give me a break. Every country is producing every barrel they possibly can. Which country was holding back when oil was over $100 a barrel? Saving oil for the future? They are in recession right now. Most of them anyway. No one is hording oil. A lot of oil is not being produced because of the very low price of oil but everyone is still trying desperately to meet their budgets by producing every barrel they possibly can at the cost they can afford. ..."
Peak Oil Barrel

Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/30/2015 at 4:16 pm

I suspect that we actually have a condensate glut, at least in the US, and perhaps globally.

Javier, 12/30/2015 at 4:33 pm

The possibility of a global recession in 2016 must be taken into account in any scenario, given how weak is the economic situation of the world.

A global recession in 2016 probably means the peak [reached in] oil [ production] in 2015 will last for at least 10 years, and probably forever.

Stavros Hadjiyiannis, 12/30/2015 at 5:23 pm

Is this the 545289658th time that someone has claimed that Russian oil production has peaked?

In any case, oil production is a function of primarily price. If the price is right, then there will be oil for many decades ahead. Oil production is also a function of geopolitics. Also a function of technology and also a function of alternatives. Ron seems to be missing the point that for decades, oil rich countries have no choice but to defer to a great extent to Western oil production. Those that are included in the Western security and financial system (GCC) have an extra incentive to do so, saving their oil for the future.

Ron Patterson, 12/30/2015 at 6:31 pm

Is this the 545289658th time that someone has claimed that Russian oil production has peaked?

Don't be a fucking smart ass. Make your point without stupid exaggerations.

In any case, oil production is a function of primarily price.

Really? Look at the chart above marked "The Rest of the World". Now tell me, at what point did very expensive oil increase production.

Oil production is also a function of geopolitics.

Bullshit! Oil production is affected by geopolitics. But it is not a function of geopolitics. Oil production is a function of the cost of production versus the price of oil… but the most important function is the availability of oil in the ground to produce. If the oil is not there then geopolitics or the price of oil counts for nothing. And that is what Stavros fails to understand.

Ron seems to be missing the point that for decades, oil rich countries have no choice but to defer to a great extent to Western oil production.

What in the hell are you talking about? Since when has Saudi Arabia deferred to Western oil production?

Those that are included in the Western security and financial system (GCC) have an extra incentive to do so, saving their oil for the future.

Give me a break. Every country is producing every barrel they possibly can. Which country was holding back when oil was over $100 a barrel? Saving oil for the future? They are in recession right now. Most of them anyway. No one is hording oil. A lot of oil is not being produced because of the very low price of oil but everyone is still trying desperately to meet their budgets by producing every barrel they possibly can at the cost they can afford.

[Dec 31, 2015] From Oil Glut to Shortage Some Say It Could Happen

Such articles are just astrology of a new type. Situation is now less predictable. It is difficult to tell whether the price of oil would be up $10 or down $3 the next year. It could go either way within the next year, or even within the next month or two. Like the tip of an iceberg, the current slump in world prices sits atop a lot of unknowns. To some energy experts, the oil-price plunge proves that the free market is working and that national economies, hit by secular stagnation, can begin breathing easier. All of a sudden, people decided oil stocks were enormous and there is supply glut, while in reality it was dumping of oil prices by Saudis that lowered the prices. To most experts, ''oil glut'' looks like a very temporary phenomenon that could turn into a serious shortage in a half of a year or so. These experts warn that low prices and headlines about an oversupply of oil risk undermining the West's recent and vital commitments to increased oil exploration, energy conservation and, especially, development of alternate energy sources. many observers say that shale and tight oil are unprofitable at prices below $60 per barrel.
Any drop in oil prices reduces inflationary pressures and stimulates the economy. there in the USA there was no inflationary pressures. Still low oil prices is in effect a reduction in the taxes that all Americans have to pay to foreigners. Consequently reduced oil prices are certainly in the country's best interests. But at the same time the apparent oil glut is a passing phenomenon which must not distract attention from the risk of major supply disruptions in the near future. An Islamic revolution can topple the royal family of Saudi Arabia.
Typically when oil prices go lower, they tend to go much farther than people anticipated. The drop in oil prices is already having an impact on shale extraction and offshore drilling.
Notable quotes:
"... The price rout has caused oil companies to cut deeply into investment. With the world awash in crude, the oil industry is contemplating a new problem the oversupply could tee up: an oil shortage. ..."
Dec. 30, 2015 | WSJ

The price rout has caused oil companies to cut deeply into investment. With the world awash in crude, the oil industry is contemplating a new problem the oversupply could tee up: an oil shortage.

[Dec 31, 2015] Ten Reasons Why A Sustained Drop In Oil Prices Could Be Catastrophic

Notable quotes:
"... Figure 1. Jobs in States with and without Shale Formations, from Zero Hedge. ..."
"... Figure 2. Oil production and price of the Former Soviet Union, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013. ..."
"... Figure 3. US Dollar Index from Intercontinental Exchange ..."
"... Figure 4. World liquids production (that is oil and oil substitutes) based on EIA data, plus OPEC estimates and judgment of author for August to October 2014. Oil price is monthly average Brent oil spot price, based on EIA data. ..."
"... what it costs to produce commodities, and what customers can really afford ..."
"... Figure 5. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings. ..."
oilprice.com

08 December 2014 | OilPrice.com

Not long ago, I wrote Ten Reasons Why High Oil Prices are a Problem. If high oil prices can be a problem, how can low oil prices also be a problem? In particular, how can the steep drop in oil prices we have recently been experiencing also be a problem?

Let me explain some of the issues:

Issue 1. If the price of oil is too low, it will simply be left in the ground.

The world badly needs oil for many purposes: to power its cars, to plant its fields, to operate its oil-powered irrigation pumps, and to act as a raw material for making many kinds of products, including medicines and fabrics.

If the price of oil is too low, it will be left in the ground. With low oil prices, production may drop off rapidly. High price encourages more production and more substitutes; low price leads to a whole series of secondary effects (debt defaults resulting from deflation, job loss, collapse of oil exporters, loss of letters of credit needed for exports, bank failures) that indirectly lead to a much quicker decline in oil production.

The view is sometimes expressed that once 50% of oil is extracted, the amount of oil we can extract will gradually begin to decline, for geological reasons. This view is only true if high prices prevail, as we hit limits. If our problem is low oil prices because of debt problems or other issues, then the decline is likely to be far more rapid. With low oil prices, even what we consider to be proved oil reserves today may be left in the ground.

Issue 2. The drop in oil prices is already having an impact on shale extraction and offshore drilling.

While many claims have been made that US shale drilling can be profitable at low prices, actions speak louder than words. (The problem may be a cash flow problem rather than profitability, but either problem cuts off drilling.) Reuters indicates that new oil and gas well permits tumbled by 40% in November.

Related: Who Comes Out On Top After Oil Pandemonium?

Offshore drilling is also being affected. Transocean, the owner of the biggest fleet of deep water drilling rigs, recently took a $2.76 billion charge, among a "drilling rig glut."

3. Shale operations have a huge impact on US employment.

Zero Hedge posted the following chart of employment growth, in states with and without current drilling from shale formations:

Jobs With Vs Without Shale

Figure 1. Jobs in States with and without Shale Formations, from Zero Hedge.

Clearly, the shale states are doing much better, job-wise. According to the article, since December 2007, shale states have added 1.36 million jobs, while non-shale states have lost 424,000 jobs. The growth in jobs includes all types of employment, including jobs only indirectly related to oil and gas production, such as jobs involved with the construction of a new supermarket to serve the growing population.

It might be noted that even the "Non-Shale" states have benefited to some extent from shale drilling. Some support jobs related to shale extraction, such as extraction of sand used in fracking, college courses to educate new engineers, and manufacturing of parts for drilling equipment, are in states other than those with shale formations. Also, all states benefit from the lower oil imports required.

Issue 4. Low oil prices tend to cause debt defaults that have wide ranging consequences. If defaults become widespread, they could affect bank deposits and international trade.

With low oil prices, it becomes much more difficult for shale drillers to pay back the loans they have taken out. Cash flow is much lower, and interest rates on new loans are likely much higher. The huge amount of debt that shale drillers have taken on suddenly becomes at-risk. Energy debt currently accounts for 16% of the US junk bond market , so the amount at risk is substantial.

Dropping oil prices affect international debt as well. The value of Venezuelan bonds recently fell to 51 cents on the dollar , because of the high default risk with low oil prices. Russia's Rosneft is also reported to be having difficulty with its loans .

There are many ways banks might be adversely affected by defaults, including

After the many bank bailouts in 2008, there has been discussion of changing the system so that there is no longer a need to bail out "too big to fail" banks. One proposal that has been discussed is to force bank depositors and pension funds to cover part of the losses, using Cyprus-style bail-ins. According to some reports , such an approach has been approved by the G20 at a meeting the weekend of November 16, 2014. If this is true, our bank accounts and pension plans could already be at risk.1

Another bank-related issue if debt defaults become widespread, is the possibility that junk bonds and Letters of Credit2 will become outrageously expensive for companies that have poor credit ratings. Supply chains often include some businesses with poor credit ratings. Thus, even businesses with good credit ratings may find their supply chains broken by companies that can no longer afford high-priced credit. This was one of the issues in the 2008 credit crisis.

Issue 5. Low oil prices can lead to collapses of oil exporters, and loss of virtually all of the oil they export.

The collapse of the Former Soviet Union in 1991 seems to be related to a drop in oil prices .

Oil Production And Price In USSR

Figure 2. Oil production and price of the Former Soviet Union, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2013.

Oil prices dropped dramatically in the 1980s after the issues that gave rise to the earlier spike were mitigated. The Soviet Union was dependent on oil for its export revenue. With low oil prices, its ability to invest in new production was impaired, and its export revenue dried up. The Soviet Union collapsed for a number of reasons, some of them financial, in late 1991, after several years of low oil prices had had a chance to affect its economy.

Many oil-exporting countries are at risk of collapse if oil prices stay very low very long. Venezuela is a clear risk, with its big debt problem. Nigeria's economy is reported to be "tanking." Russia even has a possibility of collapse, although probably not in the near future.

Even apart from collapse, there is the possibility of increased unrest in the Middle East, as oil-exporting nations find it necessary to cut back on their food and oil subsidies. There is also more possibility of warfare among groups, including new groups such as ISIL. When everyone is prosperous, there is little reason to fight, but when oil-related funds dry up, fighting among neighbors increases, as does unrest among those with lower subsidies.

Issue 6. The benefits to consumers of a drop in oil prices are likely to be much smaller than the adverse impact on consumers of an oil price rise.

When oil prices rose, businesses were quick to add fuel surcharges. They are less quick to offer fuel rebates when oil prices go down. They will try to keep the benefit of the oil price drop for themselves for as long as possible.

Airlines seem to be more interested in adding flights than reducing ticket prices in response to lower oil prices, perhaps because additional planes are already available. Their intent is to increase profits, through an increase in ticket sales, not to give consumers the benefit of lower prices.

In some cases, governments will take advantage of the lower oil prices to increase their revenue. China recently raised its oil products consumption tax, so that the government gets part of the benefit of lower prices. Malaysia is using the low oil prices as a time to reduce oil subsidies .

Most businesses recognize that the oil price drop is at most a temporary situation, since the cost of extraction continues to rise (because we are getting oil from more difficult-to-extract locations). Because the price drop is only temporary, few business people are saying to themselves, "Wow, oil is cheap again! I am going to invest a huge amount of money in a new road building company [or other business that depends on cheap oil]." Instead, they are cautious, making changes that require little capital investment and that can easily be reversed. While there may be some jobs added, those added will tend to be ones that can easily be dropped if oil prices rise again.

Issue 7. Hoped-for crude and LNG sales abroad are likely to disappear, with low oil prices.

There has been a great deal of publicity about the desire of US oil and gas producers to sell both crude oil and LNG abroad, so as to be able to take advantage of higher oil and gas prices outside the US. With a big drop in oil prices, these hopes are likely to be dashed. Already, we are seeing the story, Asia stops buying US crude oil . According to this story, "There's so much oversupply that Middle East crudes are now trading at discounts and it is not economical to bring over crudes from the US anymore."

LNG prices tend to drop if oil prices drop. (Some LNG prices are linked to oil prices, but even those that are not directly linked are likely to be affected by the lower demand for energy products.) At these lower prices, the financial incentive to export LNG becomes much less. Even fluctuating LNG prices become a problem for those considering investment in infrastructure such as ships to transport LNG.

$80 Oil By Christmas – Do NOT Be Fooled By The Mainstream Media

The current market turmoil has created a once in a generation opportunity for savvy energy investors.
Whilst the mainstream media prints scare stories of oil prices falling through the floor smart investors are setting up their next winning oil plays.

Click here for more info on successful oil investing

Issue 8. Hoped-for increases in renewables will become more difficult, if oil prices are low.

Many people believe that renewables can eventually take over the role of fossil fuels. ( I am not of the view that this is possible. ) For those with this view, low oil prices are a problem, because they discourage the hoped-for transition to renewables.

Despite all of the statements made about renewables, they don't really substitute for oil. Biofuels come closest, but they are simply oil-extenders. We add ethanol made from corn to gasoline to extend its quantity. But it still takes oil to operate the farm equipment to grow the corn, and oil to transport the corn to the ethanol plant. If oil isn't around, the biofuel production system comes to a screeching halt.

Issue 9. A major drop in oil prices tends to lead to deflation, and because of this, difficulty in repaying debts.

If oil prices rise, so do food prices, and the price of making most goods. Thus rising oil prices contribute to inflation. The reverse of this is true as well. Falling oil prices tend to lead to a lower price for growing food and a lower price for making most goods. The net result can be deflation. Not all countries are affected equally; some experience this result to a greater extent than others.

Those countries experiencing deflation are likely to eventually have problems with debt defaults, because it will become more difficult for workers to repay loans, if wages are drifting downward. These same countries are likely to experience an outflow of investment funds because investors realize that funds invested these countries will not earn an adequate return. This outflow of funds will tend to push their currencies down, relative to other currencies. This is at least part of what has been happening in recent months.

The value of the dollar has been rising rapidly, relative to many other currencies. Debt repayment is likely to especially be a problem for those countries where substantial debt is denominated in US dollars, but whose local currency has recently fallen in value relative to the US dollar.

US Dollar Index

Figure 3. US Dollar Index from Intercontinental Exchange

The big increase in the US dollar index came since June 2014 (Figure 3), which coincides with the drop in oil prices. Those countries with low currency prices, including Japan, Europe, Brazil, Argentina, and South Africa, find it expensive to import goods of all kinds, including those made with oil products. This is part of what reduces demand for oil products.

China's yuan is relatively closely tied to the dollar. The collapse of other currencies relative to the US dollar makes Chinese exports more expensive, and is part of the reason why the Chinese economy has been doing less well recently. There are, no doubt, other reasons why China's growth is lower recently, and thus its growth in debt. China is now trying to lower the level of its currency .

Issue 10. The drop in oil prices seems to reflect a basic underlying problem: the world is reaching the limits of its debt expansion.

There is a natural limit to the amount of debt that a government, or business, or individual can borrow. At some point, interest payments become so high, that it becomes difficult to cover other needed expenses. The obvious way around this problem is to lower interest rates to practically zero, through Quantitative Easing (QE) and other techniques.

(Increasing debt is a big part of pumped up "demand" for oil, and because of this, oil prices. If this is confusing, think of buying a car. It is much easier to buy a car with a loan than without one. So adding debt allows goods to be more affordable. Reducing debt levels has the opposite effect).

QE doesn't work as a long-term technique, because it tends to create bubbles in asset prices, such as stock market prices and prices of farmland. It also tends to encourage investment in enterprises that have questionable chance of success. Arguably, investment in shale oil and gas operations are in this category.

As it turns out, it looks very much as if the presence or absence of QE may have an impact on oil prices as well (Figure 4), providing the "uplift" needed to keep oil prices high enough to cover production costs.

World Liquids production

Figure 4. World "liquids production" (that is oil and oil substitutes) based on EIA data, plus OPEC estimates and judgment of author for August to October 2014. Oil price is monthly average Brent oil spot price, based on EIA data.

The sharp drop in price in 2008 was credit-related , and was only solved when the US initiated its program of QE started in late November 2008 . Oil prices began to rise in December 2008. The US has had three periods of QE, with the last of these, QE3, finally tapering down and ending in October 2014. Since QE seems to have been part of the solution that stopped the drop in oil prices in 2008, we should not be surprised if discontinuing QE is contributing to the drop in oil prices now.

Part of the problem seems to be the differential effect that happens when other countries are continuing to use QE, but the US not. The US dollar tends to rise, relative to other currencies. This situation contributes to the situation shown in Figure 3.

QE allows more borrowing from the future than would be possible if market interest rates really had to be paid. This allows financiers to temporarily disguise a growing problem of un-affordability of oil and other commodities.

The problem we have is that, because we live in a finite world, we reach a point where it becomes more expensive to produce commodities of many kinds: oil (deeper wells, fracking), coal (farther from markets, so more transport costs), metals (poorer ore quality), fresh water (desalination needed), and food (more irrigation needed). Wages don't rise correspondingly, because more and more labor is needed to provide less and less actual benefit, in terms of the commodities produced and goods made from those commodities. Thus, workers find themselves becoming poorer and poorer, in terms of what they can afford to purchase.

QE allows financiers to disguise the growing mismatch between what it costs to produce commodities, and what customers can really afford . Thus, QE allows commodity prices to rise to levels that are unaffordable by customers, unless customers' lack of income is disguised by a continued growth in debt.

Once commodity prices (including oil prices) fall to levels that are affordable based on the incomes of customers, they fall to levels that cut out a large share of production of these commodities. As commodity production drops to levels that can be produced at affordable prices, so does the world's ability to make goods and services. Unfortunately, the goods whose production is likely to be cut back if commodity production is cut back are those of every kind, including houses, cars, food, and electrical transmission equipment.

Conclusion

There are really two different problems that a person can be concerned about:

1. Peak oil : the possibility that oil prices will rise, and because of this production will fall in a rounded curve. Substitutes that are possible because of high prices will perhaps take over.

2. Debt related collapse : oil limits will play out in a very different way than most have imagined, through lower oil prices as limits to growth in debt are reached, and thus a collapse in oil "demand" (really affordability). The collapse in production, when it comes, will be sharper and will affect the entire economy, not just oil.

In my view, a rapid drop in oil prices is likely a symptom that we are approaching a debt-related collapse–in other words, the second of these two problems. Underlying this debt-related collapse is the fact that we seem to be reaching the limits of a finite world. There is a growing mismatch between what workers in oil importing countries can afford, and the rising real costs of extraction, including associated governmental costs. This has been covered up to date by rising debt, but at some point, it will not be possible to keep increasing the debt sufficiently.

Related: A Glimmer Of Hope In Current Oil Price Slide?

The timing of collapse may not be immediate. Low oil prices take a while to work their way through the system. It is also possible that the world's financiers will put off a major collapse for a while longer, through more QE, or more programs related to QE. For example, actually getting money into the hands of customers would seem to be temporarily helpful.

At some point the debt situation will eventually reach a breaking point. One way this could happen is through an increase in interest rates. If this happens, world economic growth is likely to slow greatly. Oil and commodity prices will fall further. Debt defaults will skyrocket. Not only will oil production drop, but production of many other commodities will drop, including natural gas and coal. In such a scenario, the downslope of all energy use is likely to be quite steep, perhaps similar to what is shown in the following chart.

Future Energy production

Figure 5. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

Notes:

[1] There is of course insurance by the FDIC and the PBGC , but the actual funding for these two insurance programs is tiny in relationship to the kind of risk that would occur if there were widespread debt defaults and derivative defaults affecting many banks and many pension plans at once. While depositors and pension holders might try to collect this insurance, there wouldn't be enough money to actually cover these demands. This problem would be similar to the issue that arose in Iceland in 2008 . Insurance would seem to be available, but in practice, would not pay out much.

[2] LOCs are required when goods are shipped internationally, before payment has actually been made. They offer a guarantee that a buyer will be able to "make good" on his promise to pay for goods when they arrive.

By Gail Tverberg

Source - http://ourfiniteworld.com/

More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:

[Dec 31, 2015] Condensate production has one of the steepest decline rates

peakoilbarrel.com

Heinrich Leopold , 12/31/2015 at 4:10 am

... condensate has one of the steepest decline rates – at least in Texas. As November and December 2014 production has been very high, the rates are very likely much steeper in November and December 2015, reaching record decline rates of 50% (see chart below).

[Dec 31, 2015] There is no worldwide collapse of demand that justify 65-70% fall of the oil price

Notable quotes:
"... There has been a lot of talk regarding the oil glut, but according to EIA crude inventories there is only 105.1 million more barrels of crude than a year ago. That is just 6.4 days of refineries inputs. It does not seem a lot, even less to justify a 60% decrease in the oil price. Oil must be the only commodity industry where one week of extra inventory produce such a price correction. ..."
"... It is even worse if we consider that gasoline inventories are just 0.4% higher than a year ago. The most important product which represents 46% of the refineries output is at 2014 level. Where is the glut? ..."
"... There is a glut in distilite fuel oil, residual fuel oil, propane/propylene and fuel ethanol. ..."
"... I suspect that most of the 2015 build in US and global C+C inventories consists of condensate, and I frequently cite a Reuters article earlier this year that documented case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper API limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity*), but that are deficient in distillates. ..."
"... If we had so much (generally cheaper than imported) actual crude oil on hand in the US, why are refiners importing the same amount of crude oil as they did last year? ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Ves , 12/25/2015 at 2:23 pm
Steve,
I agree with your post about market dynamics between customers having to pay through their purchasing power in order to retire loans created by financial industry for oil companies. But there are a few things that make this oil crash little bit "strange" to say at least:

1) OPEC (and mainly Saudis + GCC) did actually something by not doing anything and that is refusing to cut their production. Well that is "man made" decision as Oman oil minister said and not decision by invisible hand of market. I interpret this mainly as political decision and not economical.

2) Second. Wall Street was pretty much shocked if not pissed by that Saudi decision. I interpret that to be political reaction as well.

3) There is no worldwide collapse of demand that justify 65-70% fall of the oil price. I am sorry but Wall Street is creating ninja loans for cars, student loans, mortgages from the thin air with the same speed in the US. I would say that is political decision as well. Worldwide collapse is not happening as of now either that would justify 65-70% drop of price. Contraction is happening in Europe but very very gradually except in some marginal countries like Greece, and war torn countries in ME and Africa. But these marginal countries did not even have any big consumption to begin with.

4) Shale oil producer based on their balance sheet were bankrupt from Day 1. Why LTO even got the loans to begin with? That is also political decision and not an economic. Why are we waiting even a year after low prices for any major mergers, buyouts or bankruptcies? I am sorry but 100% of LTO are bankrupt so why Wall Street is extending and pretending and keeping them on a life support? Well it is again political decision.

So yes there are some market dynamics around this oil crash but there are a lot of political dynamics as well.

Cacerolo , 12/10/2015 at 12:00 am
This is my first post in this blog.

There has been a lot of talk regarding the oil glut, but according to EIA crude inventories there is only 105.1 million more barrels of crude than a year ago. That is just 6.4 days of refineries inputs. It does not seem a lot, even less to justify a 60% decrease in the oil price. Oil must be the only commodity industry where one week of extra inventory produce such a price correction.

It is even worse if we consider that gasoline inventories are just 0.4% higher than a year ago. The most important product which represents 46% of the refineries output is at 2014 level. Where is the glut?

There is a glut in distilite fuel oil, residual fuel oil, propane/propylene and fuel ethanol. It seems that there is a big problem in the industrial part of the demand or maybe there is a big unbalance between what refineries can produce and what the market needs.

Warm weather promotes more driving, so we could start spring 2016 with gasoline inventories quite reduced and we could face a high gasoline price environment while we still have this huge oil glut that the media talks all day long.

I have no idea if what eia states in its inventory report as crude and other oils ( the two mayor inventory items by quantity) can be completely used as inputs to produce gasoline or if there are some technical limitations ( not any type of crude can be used to product any type of output). Maybe, and just maybe we have a glut of some types of oil and condensate that nobody needs in the quantities it has been produced since the shale boom.

Clueless , 12/10/2015 at 5:13 am
It is basic economics when it comes to any commodity. If there is a shortage, the price can rise rapidly to the amount that the most critical user will pay. Ask yourself "at what price would the hospitals, ambulances, fire trucks, police cars, offshore drilling rigs [which are being leased for up to $600,000/day], say the price is too high, we will just shut down?" With a small surplus, the price of a commodity will drop like a rock, as buyers see no need to have high inventories and shop around for the lowest price, looking for a seller that has to sell at any price.

A game analogy. Musical chairs with 20 players and only 19 chairs (only short by 1), and two other rules: The person without a chair gets killed, but there is one chair for sale and anyone can buy it to guarantee their safety. How high would the bidding go? Up to the point of the person with the most money.

Same game with 20 players and 21 chairs (only 1 extra). How high would the bidding go? Zero, as everyone can see that there is more than enough for everybody.
You can easily see this play out even more frequently by looking at charts for agricultural products such as: wheat, corn, soybeans, etc.

Prices can double quickly if there is a crop surplus, and fall by over 50% just as quickly if the next crop has a surplus.

oldfarmermac , 12/10/2015 at 7:56 am
Clueless, you are not when it comes to commodity prices. I wish I had thought of the musical chairs analogy myself. But you got in a little bit of a hurry in his last sentence and should have said prices can double quickly if there is a crop SHORTAGE.

Commodity food prices are not nearly so inelastic as oil prices, because there are generally plenty of substitutes for any GIVEN food that might be in short supply. But the price can still double in the event of a short crop, it happens.

There are NO short term substitutes for oil.

Clueless , 12/10/2015 at 4:35 pm
Thanks OFM. However, my error was not due to being in a hurry, it was due to being 4:13 am my time, and I was still half asleep.
Nick G , 12/10/2015 at 4:44 pm
There are NO short term substitutes for oil.

I know what you mean, but that's a little strong. Driving slower, driving your small car instead of your SUV, mass transit, carpooling: there are a lot of short term substitutes.

None of them are perfect substitutes for dirt cheap oil…but that's different (and, of course, dirt cheap oil doesn't really exist if we take into account externalities).

Patrick R , 12/10/2015 at 5:11 pm
The US just needs to price driving accurately and a huge amount of low value wasteful trips would suddenly become understood as unnecessary. Furthermore the uplift this would give to all alternatives; not just EVs (you guys are so stuck in autodependency), but Transit, active modes, and, most importantly of all; the rise of the local, would huge. And please note, this is not subsidy, simply user pays, just price driving for all its costs, direct and external. Sorted.

Also always remember that proximity trumps mobility; that's why cities exist!

Sprawl topia is doomed, but I guess that's hard to grasp when it's all people have ever known. And getting real about actual cost allocation is the mechanism to get North America out of the current stuck pattern. Climate change and all other pollution mitigation isn't about personal choice it's about rational cost allocation; by all means choose to stink, just actually pay the whole cost and there will be more rational actors than old contrarians.

The craziest thing is that otherwise libertarian freemarketers are violently committed to the Soviet style socialism that is your taxpayer funded driving amenity and no-price driving system. What kind of crisis will it take for reality to be grasped in this area? Cos I suspect you'll get it sooner or later.

Meantime: Keep on truckin'…

Jeffrey J. Brown , 12/10/2015 at 7:40 am

There has been a lot of talk regarding the oil glut, but according to eia crude inventories there is only 105.1 million more barrils of crude than a year ago

What the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C).

I suspect that most of the 2015 build in US and global C+C inventories consists of condensate, and I frequently cite a Reuters article earlier this year that documented case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper API limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity*), but that are deficient in distillates.

In any case, based on the most recent four week running average data, US refineries were dependent on net crude oil imports for 43% of the C+C processed in US refineries (7.1/16.5) versus 44% a year ago (7.1/16.2). If we had so much (generally cheaper than imported) actual crude oil on hand in the US, why are refiners importing the same amount of crude oil as they did last year?

*Most common overall dividing line between crude & condensate is 45 API

Dennis Coyne , 12/10/2015 at 9:06 am
The market for oil is a World market, look at IEA reports for a better look at the International market. Last time I checked, st0rage levels in the OECD were about 250 million barrels above the 5 year average level. There is a limited number of places to put the oil that has been produced, and storing oil costs money, so when there is an excess prices fall. In theory this should increase demand at any given level of World GDP and it should reduce supply as higher cost production is less profitable at lower prices. It takes some time for this adjustment to take place (people don't go out and buy a gas guzzler right away and oil producers try to outlast their competitors, hoping the other guy stops producing as much). So far it has been about 12 months since oil prices dropped sharply, it may take another 12 months, maybe more for production to slow down and excess inventories to be used up.

If there is not a severe recession worldwide in the next 24 months, I would be surprised if oil prices are not above $60/b, 18 months to 36 months from now, possibly they will be much higher.

It depends on how quickly the oil business can ramp back up after the downturn over the next 1 to 2 years. The longer it takes, the higher oil prices will go, but at some point there may be a major recession, due in part to inadequate oil supply two or three years in the future.

Chart below with the Reference Oil Price case for Brent Oil in 2013$ from the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook published in April 2015.

Heinrich Leopold , 12/10/2015 at 4:17 am
Given the recent discussions about where US oil and gas production is headed, I have tried to find some forward looking indicators. Well permits and well completions seem to give reasonable indicators for future production. Below chart indicates that at least Texan oil and gas production will steeply slump over the next months. Well permits declined fivefold to a six year low and well completions are not far behind. It will be interesting to see the consequences of this trend.

Dennis Coyne , 12/10/2015 at 9:10 am
The RRC Production data is very bad for the most recent 18 months. Texas output has in fact been relatively flat from Nov 2014 to Sept 2015. Perhaps the completion data suffers from the same reporting problems. Permit data is just not very useful.

[Dec 31, 2015] Why Saudis are damping oil at such a low price

Notable quotes:
"... One theory afloat is that the US and Saudi Arabia are allies in an economic and political war against their enemies. According to this narrative, the intent of Saudi Arabia dramatically increasing oil production during a world oil glut, and sending oil prices into a tailspin, is to shipwreck the economies (and the polities) of US and/or Saudi enemies - e.g., Venezuela, Iran, and Russia. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia hasnt dramatically increased oil production. Their most recent peak in June of 2015 was only a couple hundred thousand barrels per day more than the previous peak back in mid-2013. Thats about 2-3% increase over two years. I wouldnt call that, dramatic. ..."
"... Ron is basically correct. The people who think that oil production is a function of the price are assuming that the oil is there to produce. Now, unless there are a few supergiant fields out there, already discovered and waiting for some State Oil Company or some multi-national oil company to make a Final Investment Decision, that assumption is incorrect. There is a handful of locations which could potentially have supergiant oil fields that are so far undiscovered, Im not that confident that they are there to find, since discovery in the last couple of decades has been a long way short of consumption, even after the price went sky high and everybody and their dog was spending big on exploration. ..."
"... Tight oil has been developed in the US on the basis of unrealistic projections of ongoing production, due to depletion rates being vastly higher than admitted when spruiking to investors. Sooner or later, it was bound to run into problems. These problems have arrived sooner, as opposed to later, due to OPECs price war, which is aimed at sending the tight oil industry broke. Producers have cut back on drilling and concentrated with increased intensity on sweet spots , where production is likely to be highest. They have also introduced technological progress that has cut the price of drilling substantially and thus cut the break-even price for a well of a given production level, but the industry is still losing money. A loss-making industry is unsustainable and, therefore, will not be sustained. Something has to give. ..."
"... At this point, what will be relevant is just how extensive the sweet spots in the tight oil formations are. Having been burnt once, investors will be working on much more careful examination of likely decline rates and wont support drilling wells just to keep production up, if those wells wont recover their costs within the time frame of the investment horizon. ..."
"... The $64 thousand dollar question, therefore, is how long the US tight oil industry is going to be able to keep finding sweet spots where they can extract sufficient tight oil to pay back the cost of drilling. ..."
"... I am NOT saying the Obama administration is colluding with the Saudis, secretly, to keep the price of oil down. I AM saying Uncle Sam is no doubt perfectly happy about oil selling for peanuts, because peanut oil prices are a damned good economic tonic. There must be fifty people happy about cheap gasoline for every one person hurting because he lost his ass or his job in the oil business. Fifty to one. No politician in his right mind can afford to overlook that sort of thing. ..."
"... Im ready to bet the farm that no documentation ever comes to light proving Uncle Sam is trying to force oil prices up at this time. OTOH, Uncle Sam and the Saudis share some very heavy duty common interests when it comes to Iran and Russia. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

likbez , 12/30/2015 at 9:50 pm

Ron,

OK. Let's assume there is no geopolitics here. But then why Saudis are damping oil at such a low price.

In 2015 they exported over 7.3 Mb/d and got 118 Billions. In 2012 they exported something between 7.658 Mb/d (CIA, probably crude only) and 8.42 mb/d (Bloomberg, probably crude and refined products) and got 336.1 billion.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-07-29/saudi-arabian-2012-oil-export-revenue-gained-5-as-iran-fell-12-

If they just cut 1 Mb/d and that allows to preserve 2014 average price of oil (not even 2013 average price) they would get 125 billions (and preserve 12 Mb from their depleting wells for moment of higher prices which will eventually come.)

In any case they managed to achieve almost 3 times drop of revenue from 2012. Three times --

Now they have almost $100 billion budget deficit in 2015 (and almost the same, 86 billions estimate of deficit for 2016) and only around 600 billions in reserves.

Questions:

1. Why they rocked the boat?

2. Where is the logic in their actions, unless we assume that they want to destroy Iran (and hurt Russia) ?

3. Why MSM spread all this BS about Saudis defending their market share ? Does it look like they are defending something else ?

Glenn Stehle , 12/31/2015 at 9:43 am

One theory afloat is that the US and Saudi Arabia are allies in an economic and political war against their enemies. According to this narrative, the intent of Saudi Arabia dramatically increasing oil production during a world oil glut, and sending oil prices into a tailspin, is to shipwreck the economies (and the polities) of US and/or Saudi enemies - e.g., Venezuela, Iran, and Russia.

"Obama's foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices"
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/economy/as-crude-oil-prices-plunge-so-do-oil-exporters-revenue-hopes/2015/12/23/ed552372-a900-11e5-8058-480b572b4aae_story.html

The war, however, is not being conducted without inflicting significant damages on US allies - e.g., Mexico, Canada, Saudi Arabia, Colombia - and domestic US production as well.

Ambrose Evans-Pritchard, for instance, published an article a couple of days ago about the immense economic damage being inflicted on Saudi Arabia's economy and polity:

"Saudi riyal in danger as oil war escalates"
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/economics/12071761/Saudi-riyal-in-danger-as-oil-war-escalates.html

We'll see who blinks first, or who is left standing after all the bloodletting takes place.

Peak Signs , 12/31/2015 at 10:32 am

"According to this theory, the intent of Saudi Arabia dramatically increasing oil production during a world oil glut…"

Saudi Arabia hasn't dramatically increased oil production. Their most recent peak in June of 2015 was only a couple hundred thousand barrels per day more than the previous peak back in mid-2013. That's about 2-3% increase over two years. I wouldn't call that, dramatic.

http://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-crude-oil-production-charts/

Glenn Stehle , 12/31/2015 at 11:00 am

I think you're arguing semantics.

Would you also argue that the Saudi response to the glut in 2009 was the same to its response to the glut in 2015?

Ablokeimet , 12/31/2015 at 3:07 am

Ron is basically correct. The people who think that oil production is a function of the price are assuming that the oil is there to produce. Now, unless there are a few supergiant fields out there, already discovered and waiting for some State Oil Company or some multi-national oil company to make a Final Investment Decision, that assumption is incorrect. There is a handful of locations which could potentially have supergiant oil fields that are so far undiscovered, I'm not that confident that they are there to find, since discovery in the last couple of decades has been a long way short of consumption, even after the price went sky high and everybody and their dog was spending big on exploration.

What interests me is the bit from the previous post, where OPEC projected prices based on their estimate of what it cost to produce the marginal barrel. I think that is a good line to take, until it reaches the point where governments of OPEC countries decide that, with Peak Oil passed and production in irreversable decline, they are going to start hoarding production and make the rest of the world go short.

The thing to realise with projecting prices based on the cost of production of the marginal barrel is that it should be taken as a tendency working on a 5 year or even decadal scale. In time periods short of that, you can get price wars sending prices down below the marginal cost and price spikes producing windfall profits even for the highest cost producers. The price wars lead to national and multi-national oil companies cutting back on capital expenditure, which eventually leads to stagnating or declining production and a recovery in prices. Price spikes lead to huge resources being spent on exploration and development as everybody wants to cash in.

OPEC's production assumptions are a lot less sensible than their price projections. They assume two things:

(a) That the oil is there to increase global production; and

(b) Most of that oil, from 2020 to 2040, will come from OPEC countries.

Conventional crude oil production is flat out right now and, as I said above, unless someone is hiding a few undeveloped supergiant fields somewhere, it's got nowhere to go but down. Let's look at unconventional sources, then.

1. Polar and deepwater oil. A huge amount has been spent exploring for this and the results have been underwhelming. Sure, they've found oil, but not in anywhere near the quantities needed. Shell recently pulled out of the Arctic because of the combination of environmental protests and poor exploration results. If they were discovering heaps, they'd just tough out the protests – as anybody who knows the first thing about corporate capitalism could tell you.

2. Canadian tar sands. Production of these has been expanding, but it hasn't been to the rate that one might imagine from the published resource data. This is because the rate of production is subject to certain limits, due to inputs. The relevant inputs in this situation are water and natural gas – and it is water which is the harder limit. Basically, they can't produce more oil from the tar sands than the rivers of the region can support. These limits will sooner or later, and I believe sooner, put a ceiling on Canadian production. Absent a huge shift in consumption caused by climate change mitigation action, it will keep at that limit for many decades to come, but it won't exceed it.

3. Venezuelan extra heavy. This is the factor about which I know least, but there doesn't appear to be a lot of it on the market yet. There seem to be a lot of obstacles in the road of high production.

4. Tight oil. One thing that everybody who is knowledgeable admits is that there is a lot of "oil in place" in this category. The question is how much of this is recoverable in a practical sense. This industry has developed in the US, primarily because it brings a number of environmental hazards with it and, outside the US, landholders are blocking exploitation because of environmental concerns. In the US, landholders have a financial interest in ignoring these concerns, because mineral royalties are vested in the landowner.

Tight oil has been developed in the US on the basis of unrealistic projections of ongoing production, due to depletion rates being vastly higher than admitted when spruiking to investors. Sooner or later, it was bound to run into problems. These problems have arrived sooner, as opposed to later, due to OPEC's price war, which is aimed at sending the tight oil industry broke. Producers have cut back on drilling and concentrated with increased intensity on "sweet spots", where production is likely to be highest. They have also introduced technological progress that has cut the price of drilling substantially and thus cut the break-even price for a well of a given production level, but the industry is still losing money. A loss-making industry is unsustainable and, therefore, will not be sustained. Something has to give.

Eventually, the price of oil will recover to be equal to or greater than the marginal cost of production. At this point, what will be relevant is just how extensive the sweet spots in the tight oil formations are. Having been burnt once, investors will be working on much more careful examination of likely decline rates and won't support drilling wells just to keep production up, if those wells won't recover their costs within the time frame of the investment horizon.

The $64 thousand dollar question, therefore, is how long the US tight oil industry is going to be able to keep finding sweet spots where they can extract sufficient tight oil to pay back the cost of drilling.

What's going to happen in other countries? Not a great deal, I predict. Opposition from the local population, led by local landholders, will delay and minimise production from tight oil reservoirs. It won't completely prevent a tight oil industry developing in many other countries, but it will ensure that it never develops the dimensions of the current oil industry. Tight oil production will be a buffer for production on the way down, but it won't counteract the declines caused by the depletion of conventional oil fields.

In summary, the price of production of the marginal barrel of oil is going to go higher – a lot higher, but the marginal barrels won't be additional ones. Rather, rising prices will cause demand destruction. It is already doing so in OECD countries, and it will start doing it in Third World countries too, as existing fields deplete and have to be replaced by new and extraordinarily expensive oil.

oldfarmermac , 12/30/2015 at 11:23 pm
Door number two looks damned good from where I sit in the audience, lol.

In addition to putting a hurting on Russia and Iran, the Saudis are also no doubt getting the message across to other exporters, in and out of OPEC, that they will not carry the load alone, if and when they eventually decide to cut.

There is little doubt in my mind that secret negotiations about cuts are going on every day, day after day, between diplomats from other oil exporters and the Saudis. When the Saudi government gets what it wants, iron clad promises of cooperation, THEN they might be more inclined to cut.Maybe.

Sometimes something that walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck , and looks like a duck, is never the less not a duck .. Sometimes the resemblance is merely coincidental. Sometimes coincidences are highly advantageous to two or more parties involved.

Consider for instance that many or most well informed people consider that the House of Saud has managed to accumulate and hang onto the biggest fortune in the world only because the country is a client state of the American empire.

Otherwise all those princes and princesses would be dead, or in dungeons, or refugees.

I am NOT saying the Obama administration is colluding with the Saudis, secretly, to keep the price of oil down. I AM saying Uncle Sam is no doubt perfectly happy about oil selling for peanuts, because peanut oil prices are a damned good economic tonic. There must be fifty people happy about cheap gasoline for every one person hurting because he lost his ass or his job in the oil business. Fifty to one. No politician in his right mind can afford to overlook that sort of thing.

I'm ready to bet the farm that no documentation ever comes to light proving Uncle Sam is trying to force oil prices up at this time. OTOH, Uncle Sam and the Saudis share some very heavy duty common interests when it comes to Iran and Russia.

Hey guys, it ain't nothing but zero's in computers, in the last critical analysis, to the House of Saud. They have more than they can spend (on themselves ) anyway.

Suppose any one of you happened to have a personal fortune of say ten million bucks, and you discover you are at high risk of having a fatal heart attack. I doubt any of you would hesitate to spend a third or even half of that fortune to avoid that heart attack. You will never have eat beans and rice unless LIKE beans and rice, so long as you still have five million bucks. ( Unless maybe your physician insists!)

In the minds of the Saudis, the Russians and the Iranians may well represent a literal existential threat .

[Dec 31, 2015] Saudi riyal in danger as oil war escalates

Notable quotes:
"... The International Monetary Fund has suggested Saudi Arabia could be running a deficit of around $140bn (£94bn). ..."
"... Dr Alsweilem said the country does not have deep enough pockets to wage a long war of attrition in the global crude markets, whatever the superficial appearances. ..."
Telegraph

Saudi Arabia is burning through foreign reserves at an unsustainable rate and may be forced to give up its prized dollar exchange peg as the oil slump drags on, the country's former reserve chief has warned.

"If anything happens to the riyal exchange peg, the consequences will be dramatic. There will be a serious loss of confidence," said Khalid Alsweilem, the former head of asset management at the Saudi central bank (SAMA).

"But if the reserves keep going down as they are now, they will not be able to keep the peg," he told The Telegraph.

His warning came as the Saudi finance ministry revealed that the country's deficit leapt to 367bn riyals (£66bn) this year , up from 54bn riyals the previous year. The International Monetary Fund has suggested Saudi Arabia could be running a deficit of around $140bn (£94bn).

Remittances by foreign workers in Saudi Arabia are draining a further $36bn a year, and capital outflows were picking up even before the oil price crash. Bank of America estimates that the deficit could rise to nearer $180bn if oil prices settle near $30 a barrel, testing the riyal peg to breaking point.

Dr Alsweilem said the country does not have deep enough pockets to wage a long war of attrition in the global crude markets, whatever the superficial appearances.

Concern has become acute after 12-month forward contracts on the Saudi Riyal reached 730 basis points over recent days, the highest since the worst days of last oil crisis in February 1999.

The contracts are watched closely by traders for signs of currency stress. The latest spike suggests that the riyal is under concerted attack by hedge funds and speculators in the region, risking a surge of capital flight.

A string of oil states have had to abandon their currency pegs over recent weeks. The Azerbaijani manat crashed by a third last Monday after the authorities finally admitted defeat.

The dollar peg has been the anchor of Saudi economic policy and credibility for over three decades. A forced devaluation would heighten fears that the crisis is spinning out of political control, further enflaming disputes within the royal family.

Foreign reserves and assets have fallen to $647bn from a peak of $746bn in August 2014, but headline figures often mean little in the complex world of central bank finances and derivative contracts.

See also

Black Swan

""He is drawing on a McKinsey study – 'Beyond Oil' -
that sketches how the country can break its unhealthy dependence on
crude, and double GDP by 2030 with a $4 trillion investment blitz across
eight industries, from petrochemicals to metals, steel, aluminium
smelting, cars, electrical manufacturing, tourism, and healthcare""

McKinsey's advice to the Saudi suckers proves that global financial companies are crooks. Pray tell from where will Saudi Arabia get people to run the industries recommended by Mckinsey ? There is already global excess in the industries.

[Dec 30, 2015] Oil down more than 3 percent on U.S. crude build; Brent near 2004 low

Why MSM and those people try to push oil lower at the end of the year? Are they oblivious to the destiny of the US shale companies. Collateral damage ? The Saudi's have finally admitted that they longer limit production, i.e., they're producing flat out, in other words, they have no spare capacity.
Notable quotes:
"... Ali al-Naimi, oil minister of OPEC leader Saudi Arabia, said the kingdom will not limit production, the Wall Street Journal reported. ..."
news.yahoo.com

Stockpiles hit record highs at the Cushing, Oklahoma delivery hub for U.S. crude's West Texas Intermediate (WTI) futures. Gasoline and heating oil also posted larger-than-expected stock builds.

"In all the years I have been doing this, I have never seen builds in the last week of December," said Tariq Zahir, crude futures trader at Tyche Capital Advisors in Long Island, New York.

"At least for tax consequence reasons, refiners always ramp up runs at the year-end, and there's a draw. This is a first for me."

Ali al-Naimi, oil minister of OPEC leader Saudi Arabia, said the kingdom will not limit production, the Wall Street Journal reported.

[Dec 30, 2015] Syrian troops backed by Russian jets enters rebel-held southern town army

Notable quotes:
"... Rebels still control large parts of the region, that also borders Israel, but have been largely on the defensive since their failed offensive in June to take the government-controlled part of Deraa city. ..."
"... In the course of actions aimed to cut terrorists' sources of income, the Russian aircraft eliminate large number of oil production, storing and transportation facilities on the ISIS-controlled territories in Syria. ..."
"... Russian Su-34 bomber performed a strike on the target and eliminated more than 20 oil trucks, which had been used by the ISIS for illegal oil transportation, two off-roaders equipped with ZU-23 AD systems. ..."
"... It is necessary to pay attention to the statement made by representative of the US State Department. Time is changed. Situation is changed. Representatives of the State Department are changed. However, speech writers are not. ..."
"... All these impersonal claims without evidences about performing strikes on civilian objects by allegedly Russian aviation in Syria close resemble performances held by hypnotists or chapiteau. ..."
"... It is about absurd: there are serious accusations referring to some "reputable non-governmental organizations". However, there is no information about the exact name of these organizations and who they are reputable for. ..."
"... All this is happening while actions and, the most important, results of the US air bombardment in this region are keeping absolute silent. ..."
"... If this continue the Syrian military will regain control of all Syrian cities and all these terrorist islamic groups supported by foreign countries will be defeated and expelled from Syria. ..."
"... Well thats interesting. A "mainstream anti Assa armed group", yet they go through all that without actually revealing the name. ..."
"... Is there any question now that the WH was simply letting Syria get demolished in the hopes Assad would fall? ..."
"... Theres a lot of people that support Assad. The WH knows this. The WH stated that Assad hasent a chance in hell of getting re elected. Well if thats the case, why does the WH refuse to see his name on a ballot. ..."
"... They are "Islamist" and the Christian genocide would continue on and on and on. Dont forget, not one of these guys came to power without holding on to a gun. Does that sound like someone you would vote for? ..."
"... hilarious, while this silly article says the syrin army is making gains only after the Russian bombing. They slipped an wrote that the terrorists lost in June against the syrian army!! The russians only got involved in october!! propaganda always has its draw back....the truth!! ..."
"... Until DC provides the list of Moderate Rebels that don't have any Islamic reference they ALL will be viewed as Islamic Terrorists Organizations. And until that list is provided let the Russians bomb the Hell out of them. ..."
"... Let's get this straight... IS militants are all TERRORISTS. Any rebel groups that are fighting alongside with the IS group are also part of the terrorist group. And if those so-called rebel groups are supported by the US or NATO or Turkey, it means that those nations are directly or indirectly supporting the ISIS or TERRORISTS. ..."
"... Sheikh Meskeen is vital and strategic due to its location along the second most important highway in the Dara'a province; it is also the key to the cities of Nawa and Jassim. ..."
"... The Russians are doing this right, get rid of all terrorist groups including the one Israel and the U.S. are supporting, funding and arming. ..."
"... Terrorists are no longer terrorists but are now called rebels? That would mean the Paris slaughter was done by rebels. ..."
"... Somebody please tell to these so called moderate rebels and their brothers in ISIS that their heydays are over. Run while you can. ..."
"... Wonder what the US response would be to Russian airdropping thousands of RPG's and millions of rifles and ammunition to the #$%$, Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam and various militia group in the US who feel they are being oppressed? ..."
"... Since there wasn't a single mention of ISIS in this article, then the emphasis should have been Obama's Syrian "rebel" allies are getting the krap kicked out of them by the Russians. ..."
"... But Reuters, being an Obama support group would only mention them as "backed by Western Powers". ..."
"... Does anyone see the connection between the terrorists, who are backed by the West, and the outright Lies the media tries to pass off as the truth. One other note here, they keep recycling parts of this article which appear almost verbatim in several other reports on Yahoo about Syria. ..."
"... The US is guilty of arming rebels against a government with representation at the United Nations. That is a crime. ..."
"... All the US resources are wasted on misguided and ill-convince military adventures that support corporations than its own citizens. ..."
"... Just like in the north of Syria....ALL the "rebel" groups in the south fight under Al-Nusra's umbrella and command structure. Al-Nusra plans ALL of their offensives, as well as ALL of their defense. You can call them moderate if you want. but ALL the "rebel" groups in Syria work hand-in-hand with the Salafist and Takfiri. ..."
"... Personally I think it's heartwarming the way Western governments and the 'free' press has lined up behind the radical Islamists against Russia and the secular regime in Syria where women can do such evil things as go outside without a sheet over their heads and men can drink beer and etc! This is madness! Russia is evil! ..."
"... stop this nonsense, no one believes it ny more... moderate rebels, barrel bombs ...they are all islamic terorrists, and very well funded and equipped by saudi arabia and qater and trained and supplied by turkey and the u.s. clear as day light ,they are all sunni muslim terrorists! ..."
"... I seriously doubt the "moderate" rebels would approve of anything Christmas-related. Assad looks a lot more moderate to me than the US-backed "moderates". ..."
news.yahoo.com
Rebels still control large parts of the region, that also borders Israel, but have been largely on the defensive since their failed offensive in June to take the government-controlled part of Deraa city.

Vladimir

Here's the latest from Russia's General Staff, with some interesting info about the US Air Force activities.

In the course of last two days, since December 28, aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic have performed 121 combat sorties engaging 424 terrorists' objects

In the course of last two days, since December 28, aircraft of the Russian Aerospace Forces in the Syrian Arab Republic have performed 121 combat sorties engaging 424 terrorists' objects in the Aleppo, Idlib, Latakia, Hama, Homs, Damascus, Daraa, Raqqah and Deir ez-Zor provinces.

Near Mahin (Homs province), Russian Su-34 performed a strike on a large terrorists' base of the ISIS. A hangar with military hardware, depots with weapons, materiel and munitions of terrorists were destroyed. Five off-road vehicles equipped with large-caliber machine guns, an infantry fighting vehicle, and four trucks loaded with munitions were eliminated.

Near Shawarighat al-Arz (Aleppo province), Russian Su-25 destroyed a terrorists' strong point. Direct hits caused elimination of a tank and three off-road vehicles equipped with large-caliber machine guns.

Near Lahaya (Hama province), a Su-25 of the Russian Aerospace Forces eliminated two artillery guns and an ammunition depot.

In suburbs of al-Khadr (Latakia province), Su-25 carried out a strike on a large strong point of terrorists and eliminated 2 pieces of hardware.

Command staff of the Russian aviation group continues receiving information about objects of the ISIS and other terrorist groups active in Syria from representatives of patriotic opposition forces.

Therefore, on Monday, Russian party received information from representatives of one of the Syrian opposition detachments active in northeastern Syria concerning a planned meeting of the ISIS field commanders in the suburbs of Raqqah.

The Russian Defence Ministry organized a day-and-night air observation of the object. After receiving confirmation on arriving of militants' leaders to the assigned point, Russian Su-34 bomber performed a strike on the building, where the meeting was taking place. As a result of direct hit with guided missile, the building was destroyed with all its contents.

Several days ago, representatives of a patriotic opposition formation active in the Idlib province presented information to the Russian Defence Ministry about location of a large ammunition depot of the Jabhat al-Nusra near al-Zerba.

After making research on the aerial photographs of the region and checking reconnaissance data, Russian Su-24M hit the target. Objective monitoring data confirmed elimination of the object.

Means of intelligence detected a hidden reinforced concrete shelter of the AD complex Osa. A Su-34 bomber received an order to liquidate the target. Direct hits of BETAB-500 air bombs caused destruction of the building with all its contents.

In the course of actions aimed to cut terrorists' sources of income, the Russian aircraft eliminate large number of oil production, storing and transportation facilities on the ISIS-controlled territories in Syria.

In the course of last two days, the Russian aviation group destroyed six objects of oil trafficking in the Deir ez-Zor and Aleppo provinces.

In the course of the aerial intelligence operation near Kafr Nabl (Idlib province), the Russian aircraft detected concentration of oil tankers moving to the Syrian-Turkish borders. They were escorted by off-roaders equipped with anti-aircraft systems.

Russian Su-34 bomber performed a strike on the target and eliminated more than 20 oil trucks, which had been used by the ISIS for illegal oil transportation, two off-roaders equipped with ZU-23 AD systems.

***

It is necessary to pay attention to the statement made by representative of the US State Department. Time is changed. Situation is changed. Representatives of the State Department are changed. However, speech writers are not.

All these impersonal claims without evidences about performing strikes on civilian objects by allegedly Russian aviation in Syria close resemble performances held by hypnotists or chapiteau.

It is about absurd: there are serious accusations referring to some "reputable non-governmental organizations". However, there is no information about the exact name of these organizations and who they are reputable for.

All this is happening while actions and, the most important, results of the US air bombardment in this region are keeping absolute silent.

However, every day aircraft and strike UAV's of the US Air Force carry out from six to twenty combat sorties with performing missile and bomb strikes on ground targets.

Therefore, all the public community learns information about effectiveness of operations held by the US Air Force, when their "flights" had caused mass killing. It is impossible to be hide or shift responsibility to any party.


kingn500

Russia carpet bombing is winning the war for the Syrian military that is a strong army that was losing due to lack of air force power and lack of cities war fare experience needed during the attack and defense of Syrian cities, Syrian military was not trained for guerrilla warfare inside the cities but with Russia carpet bombing and Russia retraining the Syrian military in cities warfare they begin to regain Syrian cities and defeating these terrorist rebels If this continue the Syrian military will regain control of all Syrian cities and all these terrorist islamic groups supported by foreign countries will be defeated and expelled from Syria. Good for the Syrian people that most of them don't want an islamic state in Syria. Go Russia go .

smlslk

Rebels from another mainstream anti-Assad armed opposition alongside some Islamist groups"

Well thats interesting. A "mainstream anti Assa armed group", yet they go through all that without actually revealing the name.

Is there any question now that the WH was simply letting Syria get demolished in the hopes Assad would fall?

Theres a lot of people that support Assad. The WH knows this. The WH stated that Assad hasent a chance in hell of getting re elected. Well if thats the case, why does the WH refuse to see his name on a ballot.

So lets get this strait. All the people that now back Assad including all the people that would now vote for him would then become the terrorist if the WH appointed one of these nameless "armed mainstream anti Assad terrorist groups". They are "Islamist" and the Christian genocide would continue on and on and on. Dont forget, not one of these guys came to power without holding on to a gun. Does that sound like someone you would vote for?

Ramsis

hilarious, while this silly article says the syrin army is making gains only after the Russian bombing. They slipped an wrote that the terrorists lost in June against the syrian army!! The russians only got involved in october!! propaganda always has its draw back....the truth!!

stefan

Until DC provides the list of Moderate Rebels that don't have any Islamic reference they ALL will be viewed as Islamic Terrorists Organizations. And until that list is provided let the Russians bomb the Hell out of them.

J M

Let's get this straight... IS militants are all TERRORISTS. Any rebel groups that are fighting alongside with the IS group are also part of the terrorist group. And if those so-called rebel groups are supported by the US or NATO or Turkey, it means that those nations are directly or indirectly supporting the ISIS or TERRORISTS.

DAVID

The Syrian Army announced minutes ago that its troops alongside the popular forces drove the militant groups back from the entire districts of the key town of Sheikh Meskeen North of Dara'a after killing, wounding and capturing a large number of the terrorists. "Sheikh Meskeen is now under the full control of the Syrian government forces," the army said.

"The militant groups have suffered a heavy death toll. Most of the militants in the town have been killed or wounded. In addition, a large number of the militants have surrendered, while the rest preferred to flee the war zone," the army added.

"The Syrian army is fortifying its positions in the town now," it went on to say.

"Pro-government troops are patrolling the town to find the rest of the militants," the army added.

"The Syrian soldiers are transferring the captured and injured militants to safer areas behind the frontline," the army went on to say.

"The engineering units of the army are defusing the Improvised Explosive Devices (IED) planted by the terrorists groups across the government buildings," the army said.

Reports said earlier that the Syrian government forces' rapid advances in the town of Sheikh Meskeen have forced the militant groups to start pulling back forces and fleeing the battlefield to evade more casualties.

"The Syrian army and the National Defense Forces (NDF) have continued to push back the militant groups from different districts of the town, including the residential area of the military forces and one of the main roundabouts of the strategic town," the army said.

"The militant groups, who have witnessed the heavy attacks of the Syria forces and the collapse of their defense lines in the Northeastern, Northern and Eastern parts of the city, have started to withdraw from more districts," the sources said.

"In the meantime, large groups of militants are fleeing the town in order to evade more casualties," the sources added.

"The militant groups have sustained a heavy death toll and are hopeless. The terrorists' commanders have called for fresh militants but have received no response from their comrades in other parts of the province thus far," the sources said.

"The government forces have completed their control over the Eastern part of the town, Pharmacy Street, al-Ra'esi Roundabout in the middle of the town, and Jame'a al-Omari and are advancing against the militants' strongholds," the sources said.

"The Syria forces also have surrounded the militant group of al-Wila Seif al-Sham in the city and are hunting them one by one," the sources said.

Reports said that the Russian and Syrian Air Forces' joint combat sorties over the militant groups' positions in Sheikh Meskeen North of Dara'a claimed the lives of large groups of terrorists and destroyed their military grid.

"The Russian and Syrian fighter jets, in over 25 sorties, massively bombed the militant positions in Sheikh Meskeen, which left many terrorists dead or wounded," the army sources said.

"The aerial coverage created by the Russian and Syrian fighter jets in Sheikh Meskeen battlefield was one the most important causes of the Syrian ground forces' advances against the militant groups on Tuesday," the army added.

The Syrian army and its allies have been significantly advancing against the militant groups in the province in the recent weeks, particularly in Sheikh Meskeen.

Army announced on Tuesday that its troops and their popular allies advanced in the Northern battlefronts of Sheikh Meskeen rapidly and pushed the militants back from more positions.

"Following the capture of Battalion 82 base and Tal al-Hish, the Syrian government forces captured the Sheikh Meskeen's Pool Facility, killing over 15 enemy combatants from the Free Syrian Army (FSA), the army said.

"The Syrian army, the National Defense Forces and other popular fighters are on a roll in the Dara'a province after launching a massive assault on the strategic town of Sheikh Meskeen over 72 hours ago," the army added.

Sheikh Meskeen is vital and strategic due to its location along the second most important highway in the Dara'a province; it is also the key to the cities of Nawa and Jassim.

Bill

MY FELLOW AMERICANS, the first "War on Terror" was during Jefferson's presidency. For nearly fifteen centuries the world has faced the disease of Islam, but our nation faced it head on when Thomas Jefferson, serving as the ambassador to France, and John Adams, servicing as the ambassador to Britain, went to London to meet with Ambassador Abdrahaman, the Dey of Tripoli's ambassador to Britain. Of course they met with Abdrahaman to negotiate a peace treaty, but keep in mind that in Islam, the only peace is submission to Islam.

After independence, however, pirates often captured U.S. merchant ships, pillaged cargoes and enslaved or held crew members for ransom. Jefferson had opposed paying tribute to the Barbary States since as far back as 1785, and in 1801, he authorized a U.S. Navy fleet under Commodore Richard Dale to make a show of force in the Mediterranean, the first American naval squadron to cross the Atlantic ...this lead to the "First Barbary Wars".

America, though this victory proved only temporary, according to Wood, "many Americans celebrated it as a vindication of their policy of spreading free trade around the world and as a great victory for liberty over tyranny." My fellow Americans, I am a veteran, I have fought against terror for over a decade (2001 to 2011). These radicalists have been like this from generation to generation to as far back as the 7th century. I'm concerned on what we will leave behind for our next generation and the future of this great nation! So I say onto you, my fellow Americans, LET NO ONE -AND I MEAN NO ONE- COME INTO OUR HOUSE AND PUSH US AROUND!

Paul

The Russians are doing this right, get rid of all terrorist groups including the one Israel and the U.S. are supporting, funding and arming.


The

Terrorists are no longer terrorists but are now called rebels? That would mean the Paris slaughter was done by rebels.

Kevin

Somebody please tell to these so called moderate rebels and their brothers in ISIS that their heydays are over. Run while you can.

Detritus of Sloth

Wonder what the US response would be to Russian airdropping thousands of RPG's and millions of rifles and ammunition to the #$%$, Aryan Nation, Nation of Islam and various militia group in the US who feel they are being oppressed?

Vicious

Since there wasn't a single mention of ISIS in this article, then the emphasis should have been Obama's Syrian "rebel" allies are getting the krap kicked out of them by the Russians.

But Reuters, being an Obama support group would only mention them as "backed by Western Powers".

RT

insurgents on the ground told Reuters........you mean Terrorists don't you? This is a constant source of the media information, the terrorists themselves. We know what color pajamas the Jihadists wear to bed at night, and every move they make, and why, but our military seems to have missed this.......

Does anyone see the connection between the terrorists, who are backed by the West, and the outright Lies the media tries to pass off as the truth. One other note here, they keep recycling parts of this article which appear almost verbatim in several other reports on Yahoo about Syria.

jane

Who know, maybe in 2016 all "Sunni moderate rebels" and ISIS will be expelled. Then Syria will see peace and its refugees can return home. But I bet the blood-thirsty US Snake Department and the CIA probably will prefer continued bloodshed.

Peetie

The US is guilty of arming rebels against a government with representation at the United Nations. That is a crime.

Hezbollah:

Let's look at so-called "moderate rebels" supported by American taxpayers. Example: Jeysh Al-Islam:

- It means "Army of Islam"
- Its leader called for extermination of all minorities in Damascus
- Its leader called Alawites "more infidel than Jews and Christians"
- Is directly financed by Saudis
- Has clearly shown its support for Islamic Caliphate and vehemently opposes democracy
- Been involved in series of tortures, beheadings, murders and disappearances

Yep, "moderate rebels" all right.

J. de Molay

The two super powers, China and Russia, maneuvered on the global stage for supremacy while the US citizens politically in-fight with no clear future oriented goals or plans. Sadly, the US is slowly dissolving away from what is was supposed to be that was framed by the founders a mere 235+ years ago. All the US resources are wasted on misguided and ill-convince military adventures that support corporations than its own citizens.

Davin

Just like in the north of Syria....ALL the "rebel" groups in the south fight under Al-Nusra's umbrella and command structure. Al-Nusra plans ALL of their offensives, as well as ALL of their defense. You can call them moderate if you want. but ALL the "rebel" groups in Syria work hand-in-hand with the Salafist and Takfiri.

Relja

Seems 'the rebels' are regular troops from jordan and turkey. President Asad lost large teritorry because of turkish, joprdan and saudi 'rebels' loved by west/Us.

Reyter

Personally I think it's heartwarming the way Western governments and the 'free' press has lined up behind the radical Islamists against Russia and the secular regime in Syria where women can do such evil things as go outside without a sheet over their heads and men can drink beer and etc! This is madness! Russia is evil!

CRL

"Rebels from another mainstream anti-Assad armed opposition alongside some Islamist groups said they shelled the city of Izraa, a main government held town"

How many innocent civilians were killed? Did not see the number in the press.

Ramsis

stop this nonsense, no one believes it ny more... moderate rebels, barrel bombs ...they are all islamic terorrists, and very well funded and equipped by saudi arabia and qater and trained and supplied by turkey and the u.s. clear as day light ,they are all sunni muslim terrorists!

Mark

There is a news report "Christmas and New Year carnival in Damascus- Video" on SANA news website. I seriously doubt the "moderate" rebels would approve of anything Christmas-related. Assad looks a lot more moderate to me than the US-backed "moderates".

TruthMonger

Why our media is viewing Syrian events from the terrorists' perspective, never from the legitimate government's??

Scott

That GGAADDAAMMMM IDIOT BUSH & The AFFLUENZA Party (Republican Party) are 100% to Blame......for Creating ISIS....and The Whole Mess in Middle East.......Says RAND PAUL & TED CRUZ........92% of Americans Agree

analogy

I keep on reading "rebels , freedom fighters, moderates" that this means the Paris attackers and the ones that brought down the towers are one of the above?

[Dec 30, 2015] Putin rules out reconciliation with Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... On Thursday, Putin went as far as to say that the Islamic State group was a "secondary issue" in Syria as it was created as "cannon fodder under Islamist slogans" to protect economic interests of other players, although he did not name Turkey. ..."
news.yahoo.com

Moscow (AFP) - Russian President Vladimir Putin fired off an angry tirade against Turkey on Thursday, ruling out any reconciliation with its leaders and accusing Ankara of shooting down a Russian warplane to impress the United States.

In comments littered with crude language, Putin dismissed the possibility that the downing of the warplane over the Turkey-Syria border last month was an accident, calling it a "hostile act".

"We find it difficult if not impossible to come to an agreement with the current leadership of Turkey," the Kremlin strongman said at his annual news conference.

"On the state level, I don't see any prospects of improving relations with the Turkish leadership," he said of Turkish counterpart Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

Ties between Russia and the NATO member have hit rock bottom since the November 24 incident, which led to deaths of two Russian military officers.

Turkey has said the Russian jet strayed into its airspace and ignored repeated warnings, but Moscow insists it never left Syrian territory.

Putin said he did not rule out that Ankara was acting with tacit approval from Washington, possibly so that the United States would look the other way to let Turkey "go onto Iraqi territory and occupy part of it".

"I don't know if there was such a trade-off, maybe there was," Putin said.

"If somebody in the Turkish leadership decided to lick the Americans in one place... I don't know, if they did the right thing," he added.

"Did they think we would run away now? Russia is not that kind of country," Putin said, speaking of Moscow's increased military presence in Syria.

"If Turkey flew there all the time before, breaching Syrian airspace, well, let's see how they fly now."

Turkey has voiced concern about Russian air raids in northern Syria because of the Turkmen minority in the area, a Turkic-speaking people who have had an uneasy relationship with the regime of President Bashar al-Assad.

But Putin declared: "I've never heard anything about these so-called Turkmen.

"I know that there are our Turkmen, living in Turkmenistan," he said, referring to the ex-Soviet Central Asian country.

Putin also accused Turkey's leaders of overseeing a "creeping Islamisation" of the country "which would probably cause (modern Turkey's founding father Mustafa Kemal) Ataturk to turn in his grave."

- Not an 'enemy state' -

Putin and Erdogan have been locked in a war of words since the plane downing, and Moscow has even accused Erdogan's family of engaging in oil smuggling operations with Islamic State jihadists.

On Thursday, Putin went as far as to say that the Islamic State group was a "secondary issue" in Syria as it was created as "cannon fodder under Islamist slogans" to protect economic interests of other players, although he did not name Turkey.

However, he said he does not consider Turkey an enemy state. "They committed an enemy act against our aviation, but to say that we view Turkey as enemy state -- that is not the case."

Russia has imposed a number of sanctions on Turkey but Putin brushed aside questions from journalists about raids against Turkish firms and expulsions of Turkish students from Russian universities.

Putin said that had the downing of the plane been an accident, Turkish leaders should have tried to "pick up the phone and explain themselves".

Erdogan attempted to call Putin on the day of the incident, but the Kremlin ignored his request to speak to the Russian leader.

[Dec 30, 2015] Moscow demands arrest of rebel for 'murder' of Russian warplane pilot

Please note the AFP does not mentions that killing parachuted pilot is a war crime.
Notable quotes:
"... Zakharova said that the publication of Celik's comments in a major Turkish newspaper had angered and surprised Moscow, and accused the media outlet of being a "platform where terrorists and murderers brag about their crimes and spread hate of Russia and the Russian people through nationalist ideology." ..."
"... She added that Celik's comments constituted an admission of his "direct involvement in the murder of the Russian pilot". ..."
news.yahoo.com

Moscow (AFP) - Moscow on Wednesday called for Ankara to arrest a rebel it claims killed the pilot of the Russian jet downed by Turkey last month on the Syrian border.

"We demand that the Turkish authorities take immediate steps to apprehend Alparslan Celik and his accomplices and bring them to justice for the murder of the Russian pilot," foreign ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova said in a statement.

In an interview published Sunday in Turkish newspaper Hurriyet, Celik -- a Turkmen rebel and citizen of Turkey -- said that his "conscience cannot be bothered by a person who threw bombs at Turkmen civilians every day," referring to the slain Russian pilot.

Both pilots aboard the downed Su-24 jet ejected and parachuted to the ground on the Syrian side of the border, one of whom was killed by gun fire from the ground.

"Revenge is the most natural right," Celik said in the interview, while refraining from claiming the pilot's death.

Moscow and Ankara have been locked in a bitter spat over the downing of the Su-24 jet on November 24, with the Kremlin imposing a raft of economic sanctions against Turkey.

Zakharova said that the publication of Celik's comments in a major Turkish newspaper had angered and surprised Moscow, and accused the media outlet of being a "platform where terrorists and murderers brag about their crimes and spread hate of Russia and the Russian people through nationalist ideology."

She added that Celik's comments constituted an admission of his "direct involvement in the murder of the Russian pilot".

Turkish authorities have accused Russia of "ethnic cleansing" in Syria, targeting Turkmen and Sunni population that oppose the regime of Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, Moscow's long-time ally.

Turkey says the Russian jet strayed into its airspace and ignored repeated warnings, while Moscow insisted it did not cross over from Syria and accused Ankara of a planned provocation.

[Dec 30, 2015] Oil in the $20s This pro doubts it

www.cnbc.com
James Cordier, founder of Optionssellers.com. Speaking to CNBC's "Closing Bell" on Monday, he said the summer driving season may influence the possibility of a supply cut from OPEC's de facto leader by its next meeting in June.

"Simply a 5 percent production cut could give a, say, 20 percent rise in price; that might be a trade that the Saudis might be willing to do," he said.

[Dec 30, 2015] Oil down 3 percent; Brent near 11-year low as oversupply worries return

news.yahoo.com

RMax304823

Well, glut up, price down, etc. It all look very temporary once outside of the box. OPEC has opened the floodgates to knee-cap attempts to develop shale oil and sustainable energy sources. It's working but it can't last forever.

(1) Oil is a finite resource.

(2) The developed and emerging markets are using it up at an increasing pace.

(3) We will run out.

Actually, we'll never entirely "run out" of oil. It will just reach a point at which extracting, processing, and shipping it is not worth the energy and expense of the product itself.

I hope the current glut doesn't blind us to this simple fact because petroleum gives us more than just gasoline and heating oil. We get plastics from it, and synthetic fabrics, and innumerable other goods, including the indispensable WD-40.

We really should be getting ahead of the curve on this one but there's a good deal of opposition to that because somehow oil has become defined as a political issue instead of an economic one. It's a short-sighted view. Future historians will refer to the last 200 years as The Petroleum Age.

[Dec 30, 2015] Ilargi 2016 Is An Easy Year To Predict

Notable quotes:
"... What's tragic about all this is its utter stupidity. The US economy has been marching down the road of waste and conspicuous consumption (AKA the 'American lifestyle') paved by Black Gold (oil) for more than a hundred years; the global economy for at least half that long, having destroyed itself in world wars at least twice in the last century. ..."
"... I'm not sure I buy this at all. IEA figures show a consistent growth of oil demand in China the past few years. There is certainly a question mark over whether this is 'real' demand growth or whether it is largely driven by stockpiling (I strongly suspect the latter), but whatever way you look at it, China is buying more oil consistently year on year. ..."
"... Good point. That will be the most interesting part of 2016 in oil. But is a sense price discovery for shale industry already ended. They have few chances to survive below $70-80 (if junk dent to be paid) and $50-$60 if it will be rotated or maturity extended. ..."
Dec 30, 2015 | naked capitalism
The price of oil was a big story, and China plays the lead role in that story, even if again poorly understood. All the reports and opinions about OPEC plans and 'tactics' to squeeze US frackers are hollow, since neither OPEC as a whole nor its separate members have the luxury anymore to engage in tactical games; they're all too squeezed by the demise of Chinese demand growth, if not demand, period.

Ever since 2008, the entire world economy has been kept afloat by the $25 trillion or so that China printed to build overleveraged overcapacity. And now that is gone, never to return. There is nowhere else left for our economies to turn for growth. Everyone counted on China to take them down the yellow brick road to la-la-land, forever. And then it didn't happen.

What 2015 should have made clear, and did in a way but not nearly clear enough, is that the world economy is falling apart due to a Ponzi bubble of over-production, over-capacity, over-investment, over-borrowing, all of which was grossly overleveraged. And that this now is, for lack of a better word, over.

Most people who read this will have noticed the troubled waters investment funds -hedge funds, mutual funds, money market funds et al- have recently landed in. But perhaps not many understand what this means, and where it may lead. These things tend to be seen as incidents, as is anything that diverts attention away from the 'recovery just around the corner' narrative.

Not only do the losses and redemptions at investment funds drive these funds to the brink, everything they've invested in also tumbles. Add to this the fact that most of the investments are highly leveraged, which means that typically a loss of just a few percent can wipe out all of the principal, and a notion of the risks becomes clear.

Of course, since many of the funds hold the same or similar investments, we can add yet another risk factor: contagion. Things will blow up first where the risk is highest. Then everything else becomes riskier. Low interest rates have caused many parties to chase high yields -junk bonds-, and that's where risks are highest.

This is the 2015 story of investment funds, and it will continue, and aggravate, in 2016. Ultra low interest rates drive economies into deflation and investors into ever riskier assets. This is a process of unavoidable deterioration, unstoppable until it has played out in full. A 0.25% rate hike won't do anything to change that.

Why do interest rate hikes pose such a problem? Because ZIRP has invited if not beckoned everyone to be up to their necks in debt. The entire economy is being kept lopsidedly upright, Wile. E style, by debt. Asset prices, even as commodities have now begun to fall in serious fashion, still look sort of OK, but only until you start to look at the amount of leverage that's pinning it all up.

Once you see that, you understand how fragile it all is. Go one step further, and it becomes clear that this exponentially growing 'machinery' can only be 'sustained' by ever more debt and leverage. Until it no longer can.

Commodities prices have nowhere to go but down for a long time to come. These prices have been propped up by the illusionary expectations for Chinese growth and demand, and now that growth is gone. So, too, then, must the over-leveraged over-investments both in China and abroad.

Growth that was expected to be in double digits for years to come has shrunk to levels well below that 'official' 7%. China's switch to a consumer driven economy is as much a fantasy as the western switch to a knowledge economy has proved to be. If you don't actually produce things, you're done. And producing for export markets is futile when there's no-one left to spend in those markets.

Ergo, commodities, raw materials, the very building blocks of our economies, from oil all the way to steel, are caught in a fire sale. Everything must go! Eventually, commodities prices will more or less stabilize, but at much lower levels than they -still- are at present. That we will need to figure this out in 2016 instead of 2015 is our own fault. We could have been healing, but we've yet to face the pain.

... ... ...

I was impressed with the following earlier this month from David Stockman, Reagan's Director of the Office of Management and Budget, who now seems to have firmly caught up with the deflation theme Nicole Foss and I have been warning about ever since we started writing – pre-TAE – at the Oil Drum 10 years ago. Stockman today says that we are entering an epic deflation and the world economy is actually going to shrink for the first time since the 1930s. (!)

The End Of The Bubble Finance Era

There has been so much over-investment in energy, mining, materials processing, manufacturing and warehousing that nothing new will be built for years to come. [..] .. there will be a severe curtailment in the production of mining and construction equipment, oilfield drilling rigs, heavy trucks and rail cars, bulk carriers and containerships, materials handling machinery and warehouse rigging, machine tools and chemical processing equipment and much, much more.

It's good to see people finally acknowledging this. It's still rare. But there's another, again interlinked, development that is very poorly understood. Which is that in a debt deflation, the 'money' that appears to be real and present in leveraged investments more often than not doesn't get pulled out of one 'investment' only to be put into another, it just goes POOF, it vanishes.

And though it may seem strange, conventional economics has a very hard time with that. In the eyes of that field, if you don't spend your money, you must be saving it. The possibility of losing it altogether is not a viable option. Or, if you lose it, someone else must be gaining it, zero-sum style.

But that view ignores the entire 'pyramid' of leveraged loans and investments and commodity prices, which precisely because that pyramid contained no more than a few percentage points of 'real collateral' to underpin everything it kept afloat, should have been a red flag. Because this is the very essence of debt deflation.

PlutoniumKun,

The price of oil was a big story, and China plays the lead role in that story, even if again poorly understood. All the reports and opinions about OPEC plans and 'tactics' to squeeze US frackers are hollow, since neither OPEC as a whole nor its separate members have the luxury anymore to engage in tactical games; they're all too squeezed by the demise of Chinese demand growth, if not demand, period.

I'm not sure I buy this at all. IEA figures show a consistent growth of oil demand in China the past few years. There is certainly a question mark over whether this is 'real' demand growth or whether it is largely driven by stockpiling (I strongly suspect the latter), but whatever way you look at it, China is buying more oil consistently year on year.

While certainly demand is not growing as much as the oil industry hoped, I haven't seen any evidence to contradict the general view that the core reason for the collapse in price is that the Saudi's fear their loss of influence as a result of the huge growth in unconventional oils, and have decided to kill them off by crashing prices. The desperate need by struggling oil producers to increase cash flow, and so not slow down production in response to low prices, accounts for the rest of the oil crash. I don't question the overall thesis of the article, but its not doing itself any favours by this sort of argument.

Growth that was expected to be in double digits for years to come has shrunk to levels well below that 'official' 7%. China's switch to a consumer driven economy is as much a fantasy as the western switch to a knowledge economy has proved to be. If you don't actually produce things, you're done. And producing for export markets is futile when there's no-one left to spend in those markets.

The switch to a consumer driven economy is not a fantasy, it is in fact happening and measurable, as Michael Pettis has pointed out. Anyone who keeps an eye on China knows that the CCP commitment to boosting the domestic consumer sector is real. The question is whether they are doing enough, fast enough – the answer to that (as Pettis concludes in that article) is that it is not happening fast enough. In reality, China has changed focus away from export markets and domestic investment quite significantly – but it is probably too late to prevent real disruption and internal deflation along with much slower real growth. Again, this doesn't contradict Ilargi's thesis, but he's not doing his arguments any favours by making sweeping statements like this which are only partially backed by real figures.

New Deal democrat,

In 2009, Illargi thought monthly job losses would accelerate by about 100,000 each month from 1 MILLION a month to 2 Million a month. In fact they declined by 100,000 a month to nearly zero by year's end.

On the very day of the stock market bottom in 2009, Illargi savaged Warren Buffett, who had said the stock market was making a historic low, and said anyone who took Bufffett's advice to buy stocks would be making a horrific mistake.

I collected these horrible calls in this post: http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2015/08/the-pied-piper-of-doom-and-automatic.html Those kind of gargantuan errors ought to disqualify Illargi from being taken seriously.

As to deflation in 2016, right now gas prices are down about 12% YoY, their least negative reading in over a year. They are only $.02 lower than they were at their bottom in the last week of this past January: https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=30wx

Caveat reader.

Steven,

What's tragic about all this is its utter stupidity. The US economy has been marching down the road of waste and conspicuous consumption (AKA the 'American lifestyle') paved by Black Gold (oil) for more than a hundred years; the global economy for at least half that long, having destroyed itself in world wars at least twice in the last century.

This has all been done so people with more money than they need at the moment or in several lifetimes can continue making more – 'keeping score' I believe they call it. If TPTB really wanted to 'save capitalism' they would be using their wholly owned governmental subsidies to write laws that made technologies with at least a chance of saving billions of lives, e.g. renewable energy and the electrification of transportation, profitable. (The end game is some form of 'socialism' that makes life possible for those billions while preserving the prerogatives of wealth inherited from previous generations or more recently created ex nihilo ('out of thin air') by the bankers and financiers. Remember: "Anyone can create money. The problem is getting it accepted." (Well, not really. You have to have access to credit.)

They (TPTB) have instead chosen to try to sustain the illusion their money-based wealth, i.e. money created ex nihilo – money that goes "Poof" at the end of every business cycle – first by fractional reserve bankers nominally based on gold or some other form of purported 'real' wealth and these days by bogus, impenetrable mathematics that hide the reality of "debts that can't be repaid (and) won't be" at least until the next financial crash (or world war).

The world has been marching down the wrong road for far too long – if the lives of several billion people matter – a road these days paved with the ambitions of Middle Eastern royalty mobilizing their troops with a religious fanaticism encouraging the most ruthless barbarism. It has precious little time remaining to find its direction.

likbez,

"Price discovery has already started (oil, commodities), and central banks have benched themselves. They could only re-enter the game if they quit interfering in the markets, but they're too afraid, all of them, of the consequences that might have, not even so much for their economies but for their TBTF banks. "

Good point. That will be the most interesting part of 2016 in oil. But is a sense price discovery for shale industry already ended. They have few chances to survive below $70-80 (if junk dent to be paid) and $50-$60 if it will be rotated or maturity extended.

[Dec 30, 2015] Russia mulls new tax regime to support Siberian oil production

Dec 30, 2015 | UPI.com

Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak said oil production in Western Siberia, once a major contributor to overall output, was declining at an average rate of around 1 percent per year. Changes in a tax system, where so-called excess profits will be taxed at 70 percent, will make Western Siberia commercially viable.

Under the current tax regime, Novak said about 73 billion barrels of oil are not economic.

...Novak said a return to oil priced around $100 barrel is a long ways off. Volatility is expected to linger through the early part of 2015 before some level of balance returns to the market.

"It is unlikely there will be a sharp surge in prices," he said. "In my opinion, as of today the price of around $50 a barrel would be fair, if we proceed from economic parameters, the balance of supply and demand and the cost of oil production."

[Dec 30, 2015] IMF chief Lagarde warns of disappointing global growth in 2016

Notable quotes:
"... Emerging market companies with debt in dollars and revenue in sinking local currencies could struggle as the Fed begins what is expected to be a series of interest rate increases. ..."
www.theguardian.com

The IMF managing director, Christine Lagarde, said the prospect of rising interest rates in the US and an economic slowdown in China were feeding uncertainty and a higher risk of economic vulnerability worldwide.

Added to that, growth in global trade has slowed considerably and a decline in raw material prices was posing problems for economies reliant on commodities, while many countries still had weak financial sectors as the financial risks increase in emerging markets, she said.

"All of that means global growth will be disappointing and uneven in 2016," Lagarde said, noting that mid-term prospects had also weakened as low productivity, ageing populations and the effects of the global financial crisis dampened growth. In October, the IMF forecast that the world economy would grow by 3.6% in 2016.

... ... ....

Emerging market companies with debt in dollars and revenue in sinking local currencies could struggle as the Fed begins what is expected to be a series of interest rate increases.

Lagarde warned that rising US interest rates and a stronger dollar could lead to companies defaulting on their payments and that this could "infect" banks and states.

[Dec 30, 2015] Saudi Arabia posts double-digit decline in oil revenue

Notable quotes:
"... Oil revenues are expected to reach $118 billion, a decline of 23 percent from the previous year. ..."
Dec 30, 2015 | UPI.com

The ministry reported total revenue for fiscal year 2015 at $162 billion, an estimated 15 percent decline from budgeted revenues. Oil revenues are expected to reach $118 billion, a decline of 23 percent from the previous year.

... ... ...

The Saudi government said that, because of "excessive" volatility in crude oil prices, a budget support provision of $48.7 billion was established to help finance projects designated as national priorities.

Non-oil revenue for Saudi Arabia increased 29 percent from last year to $43.5 billion.

[Dec 30, 2015] Xinhua China Sees Energy Consumption Rising In 2016

Rigzone

...China's apparent demand for crude oil will reach 550 million tonnes (11 million barrels per day) and apparent demand for natural gas will hit 205 billion cubic metres, Nur Bekri, head of the National Energy Administration (NEA), said, according to Xinhua.

...This year, China will have imported 330 million tonnes (6.6 million bpd) of oil and 60 bcm of natural gas. Installed energy capacity will have reached 1.47 billion kilowatts, up 7.5 percent.

...Crude oil production is expected to rise to 220 million tonnes (4.4 million bpd), even as global prices near 11-year lows. Natural gas production, including shale gas and coal-bed methane, is expected to rise to 140 bcm, he said.

[Dec 30, 2015] Oil-Producing States Battered as Tax-Gushing Wells Are Shut Down

Bloomberg Business
In Kern County, California, one of the nation's biggest oil producers, tumbling energy prices have wiped more than $8 billion from its property-tax base, forcing officials to tap into reserves and cut every department's budget. It's only getting worse.

QuickTake Oil Prices

The county of 875,000 in the arid Central Valley north of Los Angeles may face another blow in January, when it reassess the oil-rich fields that line the landscape. Last year's tax bills were based on crude selling for $54 a barrel. It finished Monday at less than $37.

Alaska, Louisiana and Oklahoma have seen tax collections diminished by the rout, which has put pressure on credit ratings and led investors to demand higher yields on some securities. In Texas, the largest producer, the state's sales-tax revenue dropped 3 percent in November from a year earlier as the energy industry exerted a drag on the economy.

Further west, Colorado's legislative forecasters on Dec. 21 estimated that the state's current year budget will have a shortfall of $208 million, in part because of the impact of lower commodity prices. In North Dakota, tax collections have trailed forecasts by 9 percent so far for the 2015-2017 budget.

"The longer it goes the more significant it gets," said Chris Mier, managing director with Loop Capital Markets in Chicago.

[Dec 29, 2015] Where actually is that much-hyped global oil glut?

crudeoilpeak.info
matt , December 29, 2015
The media is full with news that there is a global oil glut.

There are now more than 3bn barrels of excess oil in the world

13/11/2015
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11993687/There-are-now-more-than-3bn-barrels-of-excess-oil-in-the-world.html

Record oil glut stands at 3bn barrels

13/11/2015
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34808487

It was parroted by the Australian public broadcaster ABC TV, using this (unsuitable) opportunity to take a swipe at peak oil:

Peak oil losing credibility as renewables shift accelerates

24/12/2015
"With the world awash with too much crude oil at the moment, the fear of an economic catastrophe when fossil fuels start running out is quietly fading in the background."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-24/peak-oil-losing-credibility-as-shift-to-renewables-accelerates/7052196

These stories go back to the IEA's Monthly Oil Market Report (OMR), November 2015 which reads:

"Stockpiles of oil at a record 3 billion barrels are providing world markets with a degree of comfort. This massive cushion has inflated even as the global oil market adjusts to $50/bbl oil."
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/reports/2015/1115/

So how much is 3 bn barrels?

Let's have a look at the statistics in the latest IEA OMR of December 2015. It's only about OECD stocks, not the whole world.

[Dec 29, 2015] Where actually is that much-hyped global oil glut?

crudeoilpeak.info
matt , December 29, 2015
The media is full with news that there is a global oil glut.

There are now more than 3bn barrels of excess oil in the world

13/11/2015
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/oilprices/11993687/There-are-now-more-than-3bn-barrels-of-excess-oil-in-the-world.html

Record oil glut stands at 3bn barrels

13/11/2015
http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34808487

It was parroted by the Australian public broadcaster ABC TV, using this (unsuitable) opportunity to take a swipe at peak oil:

Peak oil losing credibility as renewables shift accelerates

24/12/2015
"With the world awash with too much crude oil at the moment, the fear of an economic catastrophe when fossil fuels start running out is quietly fading in the background."
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-24/peak-oil-losing-credibility-as-shift-to-renewables-accelerates/7052196

These stories go back to the IEA's Monthly Oil Market Report (OMR), November 2015 which reads:

"Stockpiles of oil at a record 3 billion barrels are providing world markets with a degree of comfort. This massive cushion has inflated even as the global oil market adjusts to $50/bbl oil."
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/reports/2015/1115/

So how much is 3 bn barrels?

Let's have a look at the statistics in the latest IEA OMR of December 2015. It's only about OECD stocks, not the whole world.

[Dec 29, 2015] Why Energy Investors Are Hoping Saudi Arabia And Irans Oil Price Forecasts Are Dead Wrong

The sooner those oil sheiks sell their oil at rock bottom price, the sooner the end of their kingdoms arrive. In this sense this is not a bad development after all.
Dec 29, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Yesterday, when Saudi Arabia revealed its "draconian" 2016 budget, boosting gasoline prices by 40%, while trimming welfare programs after forecasting a collapse in oil revenue (even while allocating the biggest part of government spending in next year's budget to defense and security)

Bloomberg reported that "the kingdom's 2016 budget is probably based on crude prices of about $29 a barrel, according Riyadh-based Jadwa Investment Co."

Clueless, 12/30/2015 at 7:26 pm
With regard to peak oil, I have always [perhaps incorrectly] put most of the weight on the charts/graphs of "new discovery quantities" by year, for the past 80 years.

Put those graphs against consumption graphs for those same 80 years. Looking at those two in conjunction should give pause to most people.

Unless they believe that there dozens of elephant fields out there somewhere that have not been discovered and which will be economic at some price below $75.

The fact that Saudi can produce oil at $5 per barrel is meaningless, since they have created a country with a growing population that needs over $75 per barrel to survive as a country.

[Dec 29, 2015] Falling knives and dead cats When will the oil slump end

This is kind of fact-free reporting. Without new capital investment world production should shrink around 6% (rate of wells national decline) and that's around 5 Mb/d. As capital investment did not stop completely let's assume 2% drop. that's still around 2 Mb/d. new production is less then that.
Notable quotes:
"... New data showing a deeper or more definitive decline in output could give bulls a reason to pile back in. ..."
"... Non-OPEC investment has been cut by around $130 billion this year from about $650 billion in 2014, OPEC Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri said in October. ..."
"... In the United States, the oil rig count just keeps falling. Last week it dropped for the 14th of the last 15 weeks, to 524, a third of what it was a year ago. A Barclays survey found that North American oil firms could cut investment by up to $19 billion next year after slashing it by $68 billion this year. ..."
"... Tehran has said it is gearing up to pump an extra 500,000 bpd of crude as soon as mid-year as sanctions are eased within months. If those exports do not materialize or are delayed, bulls may be emboldened to charge in. ..."
"... For all the talk of oversupply, it may not be as big as many think. Global markets are only oversupplied by about 1 million bpd, according to a report from Citi analysts on Tuesday, and a bridging of the gap is already under way. With incomplete and often lagging data, any sudden sign that the supply excess is diminishing more quickly than expected could ignite buying. ..."
Dec 29, 2015 | Reuters

U.S. oil production has fallen by about 200,000 barrels per day since an over four-decade high in April, a decline that's been far shallower than many expected. Non-OPEC annual supply growth shrank to below 300,000 bpd in November from 2.2 million at the start of the year, according to the International Energy Agency. New data showing a deeper or more definitive decline in output could give bulls a reason to pile back in.

... ... ....

If any one thing points to the dangers of a supply shortfall in the future, it's a lack of investment. As ex-BP chief Tony Hayward told a conference in New York this year, if the money doesn't go into the ground, the oil won't come out. Non-OPEC investment has been cut by around $130 billion this year from about $650 billion in 2014, OPEC Secretary General Abdullah al-Badri said in October.

In the United States, the oil rig count just keeps falling. Last week it dropped for the 14th of the last 15 weeks, to 524, a third of what it was a year ago. A Barclays survey found that North American oil firms could cut investment by up to $19 billion next year after slashing it by $68 billion this year.

... ... ...

One major factor weighing on oil markets is the expected reemergence of Iran as an exporter next year after sanctions are lifted. Tehran has said it is gearing up to pump an extra 500,000 bpd of crude as soon as mid-year as sanctions are eased within months. If those exports do not materialize or are delayed, bulls may be emboldened to charge in.

... ... ...

For all the talk of oversupply, it may not be as big as many think. Global markets are only oversupplied by about 1 million bpd, according to a report from Citi analysts on Tuesday, and a bridging of the gap is already under way. With incomplete and often lagging data, any sudden sign that the supply excess is diminishing more quickly than expected could ignite buying.

[Dec 29, 2015] Oil Bankruptcies Mark Devastating End Of The Year For U.S. Drillers

Notable quotes:
"... The shale sector is now being financially stress-tested, exposing shale's dirty secret: many shale producers depend on capital market injections to fund ongoing activity because they have thus far greatly outspent cash flow, ..."
"... Of course this all worked out fine in an environment characterized by relatively high crude prices and ultra-accommodative monetary policy. The cost of capital was low and yield-starved investors were forgiving, allowing the US oil patch to keeping drilling and pumping long after it should have been bankrupt. Now, the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. ..."
"... "the commodity related industries total 22.8% of the overall HY market index on a par-weighted basis; sectors most at-risk for defaults (defined as failure to pay, bankruptcy and distressed restructurings) total 18.2% of the index and include the oil/gas producer (10.6%), metals/mining (4.7%), and oil service/equipment (2.9%) industries." ..."
"... as many as a third of energy companies will default over the next three years. ..."
"... This week's gains notwithstanding, and a likely misguided assumption about the impact the lifting of America's crude export ban will have on WTI aside, the fundamentals here are a nightmare. Iraq is pumping at record levels, Iranian supply is set to ramp up starting next month, once sanctions are lifted, and OPEC is completely disjointed. Furthermore, producers are bumping up against the limits of how many jobs they can cut and how much capex can be slashed (ultimately, you have to retain enough human capital and capacity to remain operational). The takeaway: the bankruptcies are coming. ..."
"... As the Dallas Fed notes in its latest quarterly energy outlook, bankruptcies in the space are now at their highest levels since the crisis and things look bleak going forward. ..."
Dec 29, 2015 | OilPrice.com
...uneconomic producers in the US are almost entirely dependent on capital markets for their continued survival. "The shale sector is now being financially stress-tested, exposing shale's dirty secret: many shale producers depend on capital market injections to fund ongoing activity because they have thus far greatly outspent cash flow," Citi wrote in September. Here's a look at what the bank means:

... image deleted (see original post for it)...

Of course this all worked out fine in an environment characterized by relatively high crude prices and ultra-accommodative monetary policy. The cost of capital was low and yield-starved investors were forgiving, allowing the US oil patch to keeping drilling and pumping long after it should have been bankrupt. Now, the proverbial chickens have come home to roost. In the wake of the Fed hike, HY is rolling over and as UBS noted over the summer, "the commodity related industries total 22.8% of the overall HY market index on a par-weighted basis; sectors most at-risk for defaults (defined as failure to pay, bankruptcy and distressed restructurings) total 18.2% of the index and include the oil/gas producer (10.6%), metals/mining (4.7%), and oil service/equipment (2.9%) industries."

As Bruce Richards, chief executive officer of Marathon Asset Management told Bloomberg last week, "the price of a barrel of oil could fall below $30 due to a "glut of supply," and as many as a third of energy companies will default over the next three years."

"This is the worst non-recessionary year we've ever had for high yield," Richards said. New York-based Marathon has added to short positions on energy bonds, he said.

This week's gains notwithstanding, and a likely misguided assumption about the impact the lifting of America's crude export ban will have on WTI aside, the fundamentals here are a nightmare. Iraq is pumping at record levels, Iranian supply is set to ramp up starting next month, once sanctions are lifted, and OPEC is completely disjointed. Furthermore, producers are bumping up against the limits of how many jobs they can cut and how much capex can be slashed (ultimately, you have to retain enough human capital and capacity to remain operational). The takeaway: the bankruptcies are coming.

As the Dallas Fed notes in its latest quarterly energy outlook, bankruptcies in the space are now at their highest levels since the crisis and things look bleak going forward. Below, find excerpts from the report.

* * *
From The Dallas Fed

West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices have fallen around 23 percent so far in the fourth quarter. Expectations have shifted toward a weaker price outlook because sanctions against Iran are likely to be lifted in early 2016, the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) has scrapped any pretense of a production ceiling, and U.S. production declines have slowed. Supply Glut Drives Oil Prices to 10-Year Lows The imbalance in global supply and demand has led oil prices to slump to levels last seen over 10 years ago.

World petroleum production will exceed consumption by an average of 1.7 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2015, according to December estimates by the Energy Information Administration (EIA). This excess supply is higher than during the Asian financial crisis and the Great Recession. OPEC supply has bloated markets with nearly 1 mb/d more this year than what the EIA initially predicted in November 2014. In 2016, global supply is expected to exceed demand by 0.6 mb/d on average (Chart 1).

[Dec 29, 2015] In The Year When Nothing Worked, This Handful Of Traders Made Billions

This is a casino, not a real market. And oil price reflects that unconstrained gambling with excessive leverage...
"... Mr. Armitage's $15 billion London firm quietly booked the $1.5 billion profit with its bearish energy wagers and overall pivot to safer markets in the U.S. and Europe. ..."
"... Reading stories like these makes me think of 'Fast Eddie' Felson...nowadays the markets are pure gambling with the central banks as Minnesota Fats... ..."
"... Using 8x leverage doesn't impress me. If she'd have gotten that call wrong she'd be a bum right now. ..."
"... I don't care how smart you are or what info you have, the market is not 100% predictable and the impact of her risk is devastating even if she exited early. ..."
Zero Hedge

In the words of BMO's Lowell Yura, "this year is a wake-up call to think about lower returns for the next several years," warning that "investor expectations for both equities and bonds have been [mistakenly] elevated by recent history." Jim Bianco added that 2015 could be the worst for asset allocation funds since World War I: "for the first time since 2001, none of the major asset-classes returned more than 10%."

...Mr. Armitage's $15 billion London firm quietly booked the $1.5 billion profit with its bearish energy wagers and overall pivot to safer markets in the U.S. and Europe.

JoeTurner

Reading stories like these makes me think of 'Fast Eddie' Felson...nowadays the markets are pure gambling with the central banks as Minnesota Fats...

Exalt

Using 8x leverage doesn't impress me. If she'd have gotten that call wrong she'd be a bum right now. I guess if people want to throw their lives away on trades like that, that's their business. I wonder if she came up the ranks with that strategy and if she will continue making those ballsy and downright stupid plays or quietly exit now having won the lottery basically.

I don't care how smart you are or what info you have, the market is not 100% predictable and the impact of her risk is devastating even if she exited early.

[Dec 29, 2015] US natural gas production is down nearly 10 percent year over year

peakoilbarrel.com

Heinrich Leopold, 12/29/2015 at 9:45 am

According to the latest top stories of http://www.bentekenergy.com (Production revisions bring year to date low), US natural gas production fell to the lowest in over one year to 68.1 bcf/d and nearly down 10% year over year. Texas production fell to 18.3 bcf/d, nearly 25% down from last year (see below chart). These numbers are staggering and come despite vast pipeline expansions over the fall/summer and very high demand of 92.4 bcf/d and falling inventories. As we have not yet seen a shale gas correction, the slowdown could be far steeper than many expect.

[Dec 29, 2015] $10 Trillion Investment Needed To Avoid Massive Oil Price Spike Says OPEC

Notable quotes:
"... The industry cut upstream investment by $250 billion in 2015, and another $70 billion could be cut in 2016 ..."
"... the industry is massively underinvesting ..."
"... recent efficiency gains notwithstanding, marginal costs have generally increased over time. Low-cost production depletes, and the industry becomes more reliant on deep-water, shale, or Arctic oil, all of which require higher levels of spending. ..."
"... In many cases, these sorts of projects are not profitable at today's prices. The price spikes seen in 2011-2014 sowed the seeds of the current bust, but the pullback today could create the conditions of another spike in the future. OPEC could be a bit too sanguine with its call for $95 oil in 2040. ..."
finance.yahoo.com

OPEC also issued a word of caution in its report. While oil markets experience oversupply in the short- to medium-term, massive investments in exploration and production are still needed to meet demand over the long-term. OPEC believes $10 trillion will be necessary over the next 25 years to ensure adequate oil supplies. "If the right signals are not forthcoming, there is the possibility that the market could find that there is not enough new capacity and infrastructure in place to meet future rising demand levels, and this would obviously have a knock-on impact for prices," OPEC concluded. About $250 billion each year will have to come from non-OPEC countries.

In a similar but more disconcerting conclusion, the Oslo-based Rystad Energy recently concluded that the current state of oversupply could be "turned upside down over the next few years." That is because the drastic spending cuts today will result in a shortage within a few years. To put things in perspective, Rystad says that the oil industry "needs to replace 34 billion barrels of crude every year – equal to current consumption." But as a result of the collapse in prices, the industry has slashed spending across the board and "investment decisions for only 8 billion barrels were made in 2015. This amount is less than 25% of what the market requires long-term," Rystad Energy concluded. The industry cut upstream investment by $250 billion in 2015, and another $70 billion could be cut in 2016. The latter figure did not take into account the recent decision by OPEC to abandon its production target, which sent oil prices falling further.

So what are we to make of this? There could be plenty of oil supplies in the future, but as it stands, the industry is massively underinvesting? This illustrates a troubling tension within the oil industry. Oil prices will be set by the marginal cost of production, and recent efficiency gains notwithstanding, marginal costs have generally increased over time. Low-cost production depletes, and the industry becomes more reliant on deep-water, shale, or Arctic oil, all of which require higher levels of spending.

In many cases, these sorts of projects are not profitable at today's prices. The price spikes seen in 2011-2014 sowed the seeds of the current bust, but the pullback today could create the conditions of another spike in the future. OPEC could be a bit too sanguine with its call for $95 oil in 2040.

At the same time, future price spikes set up the possibility of much greater demand destruction, especially if alternatives become more viable. This is the difficult balancing act that the industry must pull off over the next few decades.

[Dec 28, 2015] A Breakdown of the 2016 Saudi Budget and Its Implications -

Does this mean that Saudis expect low prices to persist all the 2016?
Notable quotes:
"... The Ministry of Finance said its 2016 budget is based on "extremely low oil prices" that prompted Gulf states to cut spending. ..."
www.bloomberg.com

Bloomberg Business

Economy Minister Adel Fakeih said Monday that 20 billion riyals of this year's spending overshoot was due to increased military and security spending related to the military operation against Shiite Houthi rebels in Yemen.

The Ministry of Finance said its 2016 budget is based on "extremely low oil prices" that prompted Gulf states to cut spending.

SHORING UP FINANCES

The government, headed by King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, pledged to take action to shore up public finances, including the possible sale of government entities and the revision of fuel, water and power subsidies over the next five years.

It immediately rolled out the first batch of revisions after the budget announcement, raising the prices of water and electricity supplied to households and the cost of gasoline, ethane and gas. The revisions focused on "directing subsidies to those who really deserve it," Fakeih said.

[Dec 28, 2015] Saudi Arabia responsible for oil market destabilization – Russian energy minister

Notable quotes:
"... This year Saudi Arabia has ramped up production by 1.5 million barrels per day, which in fact destabilized the situation on the market, ..."
"... What is now emerging, especially clear since the Turkish deliberate ambush of the Russian SU-24 jet inside Syrian airspace, is that Russia is not fighting a war against merely ISIS terrorists, nor against the ISIS backers in Turkey. Russia is taking on, perhaps unknowingly, a vastly more dangerous plot. Behind that plot is the hidden role of Saudi Arabia and its new monarch, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, together with his son, the Defense Minister, Prince Salman. ..."
www.rt.com
Saudi Arabia has destabilized the crude market while increasing its oil output by 1.5 million barrels a day, said Russia's Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak.

"This year Saudi Arabia has ramped up production by 1.5 million barrels per day, which in fact destabilized the situation on the market," Novak told Rossiya 24 TV channel.

According to him, the balance of oil supply and demand could be achieved in 2016. Iran's return to the global energy market could also affect oil prices, Novak added.

Dec 28, 2015 | RT Business

Nonyank

The world saw this behavior from the Saudi's in 1975 and 1978 when they created oil shortages to gain market share just as they are doing today, sacrificing fellow members of OPEC for their own greed.....we have seen this dumb show before and yet the world allows it to continue.

Tom Brite > Greg G1

Greg G
Saudi Arabia responsible for oil market destabilization. Russia seems to be doing so as well. Just wait till Iranian oil hits the market!

vann tedd > nikko sharkenstein

nikko sharkenstein

Kathryn Roston

What is now emerging, especially clear since the Turkish deliberate ambush of the Russian SU-24 jet inside Syrian airspace, is that Russia is not fighting a war against merely ISIS terrorists, nor against the ISIS backers in Turkey. Russia is taking on, perhaps unknowingly, a vastly more dangerous plot. Behind that plot is the hidden role of Saudi Arabia and its new monarch, King Salman bin Abdulaziz Al Saud, together with his son, the Defense Minister, Prince Salman.

The Saudi monarchy is determined to control the oil fields of Iraq and of Syria using ISIS to do it. They clearly want to control the entire world oil market, first bankrupting the recent challenge from US shale oil producers, then by controlling through Turkey the oil flows of Iraq and Syria.

If we strip away the phony religious cover, what emerges is a Saudi move to grab some of the world's largest oil reserves, those of the Sunni parts of Iraq, and of Syria, using the criminal Turkish regime in the role of thug to do the rough work, like a bouncer in a brothel.

It's the monarchy of King Salman and his hot-headed son, Prince Salman. For decades they have financed terrorism under a fake religious disguise, to advance their private plutocratic agenda. It has nothing to do with religion and everything to do with money and oil. A look at the ISIS map from Iraq to Syria shows that they precisely targeted the oil riches of those two sovereign states. Saudi control of that oil wealth via their ISIS agents, along with her clear plan to take out the US shale oil competition, or so Riyadh reckons, would make the Saudi monarchy a vastly richer state, one, perhaps because of that money, finally respected by white western rich men and their society.


http://journal-neo.org/2015/12/08/what-stinks-in-saudi-aint-the-camel-dung/

What Russia is facing is an indirect soft war from United States. in at least 3 fronts, in Ukraine, in Syria and on its Economy. but also it could be said in IRAQ too, since just like Syria and IRAN, IRAQ is the other of the few countries in middle east that Americans do not fully control, and that cooperates with Russia and buys a lot of military hardware from them. Saudi king, Turkey, US and ISrael are the lifeline of ISIS and Alqaeda. This is why is impossible to completely defeat the organization as long those countries continues recruiting terrorist, and aiding terrorism with money and weapons.

And logistics and training. It could be said that well organized terrorism, but also ultra radical right wing nazis like in Ukraine and baltic states are groups that Americans Government as a policy, helps to organize and to become more powerful, simply because they can be used to fight Russia. The major world conflict in the world today, the major wars, are all caused by Americans with the aim to weaken and isolate Russia. We are effectively in a "Cold war 2.0", that Americans began against Russia, and forcing them to defend itself before the problem grows too much (what Americans wants) and affect directly the security of Russia directly and its long term economic interest.

[Dec 28, 2015] Secular Stagnation

Notable quotes:
"... General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money ..."
"... Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures ..."
Dec 28, 2015 | Monthly Review
... ... ...

Summers's remarks and articles were followed by an explosion of debate concerning "secular stagnation"-a term commonly associated with Alvin Hansen's work from the 1930s to '50s, and frequently employed in Monthly Review to explain developments in the advanced economies from the 1970s to the early 2000s.2 Secular stagnation can be defined as the tendency to long-term (or secular) stagnation in the private accumulation process of the capitalist economy, manifested in rising unemployment and excess capacity and a slowdown in overall economic growth. It is often referred to simply as "stagnation." There are numerous theories of secular stagnation but most mainstream theories hearken back to Hansen, who was Keynes's leading early follower in the United States, and who derived the idea from various suggestions in Keynes's General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money (1936).

Responses to Summers have been all over the map, reflecting both the fact that the capitalist economy has been slowing down, and the role in denying it by many of those seeking to legitimate the system. Stanford economist John B. Taylor contributed a stalwart denial of secular stagnation in the Wall Street Journal. In contrast, Paul Krugman, who is closely aligned with Summers, endorsed secular stagnation on several occasions in the New York Times. Other notable economists such as Brad DeLong and Michael Spence soon weighed in with their own views.3

Three prominent economists have new books directly addressing the phenomena of secular stagnation.4 It has now been formally modelled by Brown University economists Gauti Eggertsson and Neil Mehrotra, while Thomas Piketty's high-profile book bases its theoretical argument and policy recommendations on stagnation tendencies of capitalism. This explosion of interest in the Summers/Krugman version of stagnation has also resulted in a collection of articles and debate, edited by Coen Teulings and Richard Baldwin, entitled Secular Stagnation: Facts, Causes and Cures.5

Seven years after "The Great Financial Crisis" of 2007–2008, the recovery remains sluggish. It can be argued that the length and depth of the Great Financial Crisis is a rather ordinary cyclical crisis. However, the monetary and fiscal measures to combat it were extraordinary. This has resulted in a widespread sense that there will not be a return to "normal." Summers/Krugman's resurrection within the mainstream of Hansen's concept of secular stagnation is an attempt to explain how extraordinary policy measures following the 2007–2008 crisis merely led to the stabilization of a lethargic, if not comatose, economy.

But what do these economists mean by secular stagnation? If stagnation is a reality, does their conception of it make current policy tools obsolete? And what is the relationship between the Summers/Krugman notion of secular stagnation and the monopoly-finance capital theory?

... ... ...

In "secular stagnation," the term "secular" is intended to differentiate between the normal business cycle and long-term, chronic stagnation. A long-term slowdown in the economy over decades can be seen as superimposed on the regular business cycle, reflecting the trend rather than the cycle.

In the general language of economics, secular stagnation, or simply stagnation, thus implies that the long-run potential economic growth has fallen, constituting the first pillar of MISS. This has been most forcefully argued for by Robert Gordon, as well as Garry Kasparov and Peter Thiel.6 Their argument is that the cumulative growth effect of current (and future) technological changes will be far weaker than in the past. Moreover, demographic changes place limits on the development of "human capital." The focus is on technology, which orthodox economics generally sees as a factor external to the economy and on the supply-side (i.e., in relation to cost). Gordon's position is thus different than that of moderate Keynesians like Summers and Krugman, who focus on demand-side contradictions of the system. In Gordon's supply-side, technocratic view, there are forces at work that will limit the growth in productive input and the efficiency of these inputs. This pillar of MISS emphasizes that it is constraints on the aggregate supply-side of the economy that have diminished absolutely the long-run potential growth.

The second pillar of MISS, also a supply-side view, goes back at least to Joseph Schumpeter. To explain the massive slump of 1937, Schumpeter maintained there had emerged a growing anti-business climate. Moreover, he contended that the rise of the modern corporation had displaced the role of the entrepreneur; the anti-business spirit had a repressive effect on entrepreneurs' confidence and optimism.7 Today, this second pillar of MISS has been resurrected suggestively by John B. Taylor, who argues the poor recovery is best "explained by policy uncertainty" and "increased regulation" that is unfavorable to business. Likewise, Baker, Bloom, and Davis have forcefully argued that political uncertainty can hold back private investment and economic growth.8

Summers and Krugman, as Keynesians, emphasize a third MISS pillar, derived from Keynes's famous liquidity trap theory, which contends that the "full-employment real interest rate" has declined in recent years. Indeed, both Summers and Krugman demonstrate that real interest rates have declined over recent decades, therefore moving from an exogenous explanation (as in pillars one and two) to a more endogenous explanation of secular stagnation.9 The ultimate problem here is lack of investment demand, such that, in order for net investment to occur at all, interest rates have to be driven to near zero or below. Their strong argument is that there are now times when negative real interest rates are needed to equate saving and investment with full employment.

However, "interest rates are not fully flexible in modern economies"-in other words, market-determined interest rate adjustments chronically fail to achieve full employment. Summers contends there are financial forces that prohibit the real interest rate from becoming negative; hence, full employment cannot be realized.10

Some theorists contend that there has been demographic structural shifts increasing the supply of saving, thus decreasing interest rates. These shifts include an increase in life expectancy, a decrease in retirement age, and a decline in the growth rate of population.

Others, including Summers, point out that stagnation in capital formation (or accumulation) can be attributed to a decrease in the demand for loanable funds for investment. One mainstream explanation offered for this is that today's new technologies and companies, such as Google, Microsoft, Amazon, and Facebook, require far less capital investment. Another hypothesis is that there has been an important decrease in the demand for loanable funds, although they argue this is due to a preference for safe assets. These factors can function together to keep the real interest rate very low. The policy implication of secular low interest rates is that monetary policy is more difficult to implement effectually; during a recession, it is weakened and can even become ineffectual.

Edward Glaeser, focusing on "secular joblessness," places severe doubt on the first pillar of MISS, but then makes a very important additional argument. Glaeser rejects the notion that there has been a slowdown in technological innovation; innovation is simply "unrelenting." Likewise, he is far less concerned with secular low real interest rates, which may be far more cyclical. "Therefore," contends Glaeser, "stagnation is likely to be temporary."

Nonetheless, Glaeser underscores secular joblessness, and thus the dysfunction of U.S. labor markets constitutes a fourth pillar of MISS: "The dysfunction in the labour market is real and serious, and seems unlikely to be solved by any obvious economic trend." Somehow, then, the problem is due to a misfit of skills or "human capital" on the side of workers, who thus need retraining. "The massive secular trend in joblessness is a terrible social problem for the US, and one that the country must try to address" with targeted policy.11 Glaeser's argument for the dysfunction of U.S. labor markets is based on recession-generated shocks to employment, specifically of less-skilled U.S. workers. After 1970, when workers lost their job, the damage to human capital became permanent. In short, when human capital depreciates due to unemployment, overall abilities and "talent" are "lost" permanently. This may be because the skills required in today's economy need to be constantly practiced to be retained. Thus, there is a ratchet-like effect in joblessness caused by recessions, whereby recession-linked joblessness is not fully reversed during recoveries-and all this is related to skills (the human capital of the workers), and not to capital itself. According to Glaeser, the ratchet-like effect of recession-linked joblessness is further exacerbated by the U.S. social-safety net, which has "made joblessness less painful and increased the incentives to stay out of work."12

Glaeser contends that, if his secular joblessness argument is correct, the macroeconomic fiscal interventions argued for by Summers and Krugman are off-base.13 Instead, the safety net should be redesigned in order to encourage rather than discourage people from working. Additionally, incentives to work need to be radically improved through targeted investments in education and workforce training.14 Such views within the mainstream debate, emphasizing exogenous factors, are generally promoted by freshwater (conservative) rather than saltwater (liberal) economists. Thus, they tend to emphasize supply-side or cost factors.

The fifth pillar of MISS contends that output and productivity growth are stagnant due to a failure to invest in infrastructure, education, and training. Nearly all versions of MISS subscribe to some version of this, although there are both conservative and liberal variations. Barry Eichengreen underscores this pillar and condemns recent U.S. fiscal developments that have "cut to the bone" federal government spending devoted to infrastructure, education, and training.

The fifth pillar of MISS necessarily reflects an imbalance between public and private investment spending. Many theorists maintain that the imbalance between public and private investment spending, hence secular stagnation, "is not inevitable." For example, Eichengreen contends if "the US experiences secular stagnation, the condition will be self-inflicted. It will reflect the country's failure to address its infrastructure, education and training needs. It will reflect its failure to…support aggregate demand in an effort to bring the long-term unemployed back into the labour market."15

The sixth pillar of MISS argues that the "debt overhang" from the overleveraging of financial firms and households, as well as private and public indebtedness, are a serious drag on the economy. This position has been argued for most forcefully by several colleagues of Summers at Harvard, most notably Carmen Reinhart and Kenneth Rogoff.16 Atif Mian and Amir Sufi also argue that household indebtedness was the primary culprit causing the economic collapse of 2007–2008. Their policy recommendation is that the risk to mortgage borrowers must be reduced to avoid future calamities.17

As noted, the defenders of MISS do not necessarily support a compatibility between the above six pillars: those favored by conservatives are supply-side and exogenous in emphasis, while liberals tend towards demand-side and endogenous ones. Instead, most often these pillars are developed as competing theories to explain the warrant of some aspect of secular stagnation, and/or to defend particular policy positions while criticizing alternative policy positions. However, the concern here is not whether there is the possibility for a synthesis of mainstream views. Rather, the emphasis is on how partial and separate such explanations are, both individually and in combination.

Hans G. Despain teaches political economy at Nichols College, where he is the chair of the Department of Economics.

[Dec 28, 2015] Things to Celebrate, Like Dreams of Flying Cars

Looks like Paul Krugman is simply incompetent when he is taking about fracking and space exploration. As somebody have said, racking is actually not a revolution, it is a retirement party. Fracking probably release more methane into atmosphere that it saves greenhouse gases. It also produces sustained environmental damage. Methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide.
Notable quotes:
"... The biggest effects so far have come from fracking, which has ended fears about peak oil and could ..."
"... Until the government spends money on renewable energy instead of wars and oil, we will not see much progress in cleaning up our world or even surviving as a species. Yes, it is politics, but it is mostly MONEY in politics. But first let's break up the banks, and do some serious anti-trust enforcement, and we might be able to undo citizens united. That's the politics that really is holding us back now. GO BERNIE SANDERS!! ..."
"... Ultimately, we need to move toward societies that are less dependent on cheap energy for everything. We've abandoned farms because it's cheaper to transport foods from around the world. Consider the insanity of the modern practice of raising chickens in the US, then shipping them to China for processing and then shipped back for sale in our supermarkets. ..."
"... Consider how we worry about obesity while building suburban developments where you have to drive to go anywhere. Their design actively discourages walking and bicycling as an everyday activity. ..."
"... Unfortunately, though fracking produces oil, it produces methane and more damaging gases. Methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide. Therefore, fracking will worsen global warming. Unless the energy industry eliminates the destructive bi-products of fracking, we can kiss humanity goodbye. ..."
"... The continued acceleration of changes affecting humanity and the planet is coupled today with a more intensified pace of life and work which might be called 'rapidification.' Although change is part of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution. Moreover, the goals of this rapid and constant change are not necessarily geared to the common good or to integral and sustainable human development. Change is something desirable, yet it becomes a source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world and to the quality of life of much of humanity. ..."
"... Ridiculous and possibly Republican free cheese is more dangerous than climate change is a willful grasp for any straw that will permit privilege. The top marginal rates prior to the 1957 Sputnik refute musings about the good old days of the private sector producing wonders. ..."
Dec 25, 2015 | The New York Times

But now we're witnessing a revolution on multiple fronts. The biggest effects so far have come from fracking, which has ended fears about peak oil and could, if properly regulated, be some help on climate change: Fracked gas is still fossil fuel, but burning it generates a lot less greenhouse emissions than burning coal.

The bigger revolution looking forward, however, is in renewable energy, where costs of wind and especially solar have dropped incredibly fast.

Carolyn Egeli, Valley Lee, Md December 25, 2015

Merry Christmas everyone! And for sure have Happy Holidays! Here's to the New Year with more renewable energy and far less fossil fuel consumption! Even though the rest of the world is quickly moving away from fossil fuel consumption to even 100% renewable energy in more than a couple of countries, we lag at 13% renewable in the U.S. Why? Because we are controlled by the fosil fuel companies, including natural gas, which is the biggest boondoggle we've gotten involved in yet. It doesn't help us, it pollutes us.

While other countries are nearing 100% renewable sources for energy around the world, we have let the foxes guard the henhouse of possibilities in nearly every way, from banks controlling the fed (whose worth and assets are so completely tied up in unburned fossil fuels) to wars for those assets. Wars burn fuel, and wars need weaponry.

Until the government spends money on renewable energy instead of wars and oil, we will not see much progress in cleaning up our world or even surviving as a species. Yes, it is politics, but it is mostly MONEY in politics. But first let's break up the banks, and do some serious anti-trust enforcement, and we might be able to undo citizens united. That's the politics that really is holding us back now. GO BERNIE SANDERS!!

lgalb, Albany December 25, 2015

Americans have been enamored with the notion that we can solve our problems by converting from fossil fuels to renewable energy. That may be substituting one addiction for another.

Ultimately, we need to move toward societies that are less dependent on cheap energy for everything. We've abandoned farms because it's cheaper to transport foods from around the world. Consider the insanity of the modern practice of raising chickens in the US, then shipping them to China for processing and then shipped back for sale in our supermarkets.

Consider how we worry about obesity while building suburban developments where you have to drive to go anywhere. Their design actively discourages walking and bicycling as an everyday activity.

Transitioning to renewable energy is only a first step. Ultimately, we need to pay more attention to sustainable living that does not treat energy as an infinite resource that costs nothing to consume.

dbsweden, is a trusted commenter Sweden December 25, 2015

Unfortunately, though fracking produces oil, it produces methane and more damaging gases. Methane is 20 times worse than carbon dioxide. Therefore, fracking will worsen global warming. Unless the energy industry eliminates the destructive bi-products of fracking, we can kiss humanity goodbye.

Happy Holidays.

Karen Garcia, New Paltz, NY December 25, 2015

Merry Christmas, everybody.

In the encyclical Laudato Si', Pope Francis wrote:

"The continued acceleration of changes affecting humanity and the planet is coupled today with a more intensified pace of life and work which might be called 'rapidification.' Although change is part of the working of complex systems, the speed with which human activity has developed contrasts with the naturally slow pace of biological evolution. Moreover, the goals of this rapid and constant change are not necessarily geared to the common good or to integral and sustainable human development. Change is something desirable, yet it becomes a source of anxiety when it causes harm to the world and to the quality of life of much of humanity."

Progress proceeds with the speed of blight. While a billionaire sends his rockets into space, and fellow billionaires wait in line to be space tourists, the number of refugees displaced by the technologies of war has now surpassed a million. Pope Francis is also right in calling the catastrophe "a piecemeal World War III."

While international bigwigs are patting themselves on the back for agreeing to agree at the Paris climate summit, Congress has quietly lifted the ban on exporting domestic oil. The miracle of fracking has created quite the glut. Instead conserving, we're urged to gas up and go, go, go.

In our haste to extract huge pieces of the earth, we seem to have forgotten all about Peace on Earth.

http://kmgarcia2000.blogspot.com/

Joseph Huben, Upstate NY December 25, 2015

Ridiculous and possibly Republican "free cheese" is more dangerous than climate change is a willful grasp for any straw that will permit privilege. The top marginal rates prior to the 1957 Sputnik refute musings about the good old days of the private sector producing wonders. The only wonders the private sector ever produces occur on roads, railroads, the sea and in the air that have been secured by government and the industrial might that government commissioned.

Elon Musk has triumphed in producing a vehicle that will enable travel to the government space station. All of the preliminary work was accomplished with government programs. The people of the United States welcome the entrepreneurs to travel on the roads that we have all built.

Edward Corey, Bronx, NY December 25, 2015

When Sputnik was launched, the rich paid their fair share of taxes. The social safety net was much larger, the roads and other infrastructure were in much better shape, and CEOs' compensation was a lot closer to that of workers. Deterioration began with the Republican hegemony initiated by the election of Richard Nixon.

Capt Planet, Crown Heights Brooklyn December 25, 2015

I'm a firm believer that the real challenge lies not in outer space but inner space. How can we think about Elon Musk's accomplishments when we have mass terror threatening our sense of comfort and well-being? We need to get along with each other and the rest of creation before we start running off to outer space. To not do that will mean just more wasted energy on false solutions. We're the real problem.

Rima Regas, Mission Viejo, CA December 25, 2015

Professor Joseph Stiglitz' work, Rewrite The Rules, at the Roosevelt Institute examines precisely the issues you raise here. It's highly recommended reading. I greatly miss reading him in the NYT.

http://rooseveltinstitute.org/rewrite-rules/

[Dec 28, 2015] Saudi Arabia projects $87B deficit amid low oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... The government announced its budget on Monday, projecting spending of $224 billion (840 billion riyals) in 2016 versus $137 billion (513 billion riyals) in revenue. ..."
finance.yahoo.com

The government announced its budget on Monday, projecting spending of $224 billion (840 billion riyals) in 2016 versus $137 billion (513 billion riyals) in revenue.

Trav

Don't underestimate the Saudi's. They've gutted the oil market to the point that it's hurting U.S. oil companies and more importantly the U.S. economy. Once that's accomplished they can cut off the flow of oil and hurt us even more. They're not losing money without a purpose and their purpose is likely to eventually hurt us.

backahead

Pikers. Obama banging the drums cause we just had our best year ever with him as President...only $450Billion more debt this year. Hey, least it's no longer $1Trillion/yr. Record revenues collected too.

JET

I would gladly pay more for my fuel if it meant putting the thousands of oil workers back to work. It costs US taxpayers millions if not billions to unemployment, food stamps, renal assist and the other social support programs for our unemployed people.

[Dec 28, 2015] Will oil continue to drive volatility in 2016

finance.yahoo.com

...Wolff continued, "although I do think you start to see a bottom in and a rebuild going into the second half of 2016."

For Societe Generale macro strategist Larry McDonald, "the consistent relationship between lower oil prices and higher U.S. equity market volatility" has been "the story of 2015."

Any rally in equities is "suspect" without "a follow-through in oil," said McDonald. "So if oil doesn't follow equities higher and rolls over, get long volatility and short the S&P 500 (INDEX: .SPX)."

[Dec 28, 2015] OPEC $95 Oil, But Not Until 2040

Notable quotes:
"... It also sees the current trend of lower spending and therefore lower production by non-OPEC producers eventually cutting into the supply of oil, increasing demand and thereby raising prices. ..."
"... there is the possibility that the market could find that there is not enough new capacity and infrastructure in place to meet future rising demand levels, and this would obviously have a knock-on impact for prices ..."
OilPrice.com
It also sees the current trend of lower spending and therefore lower production by non-OPEC producers eventually cutting into the supply of oil, increasing demand and thereby raising prices. One chart in the report shows an expectation that non-OPEC production will rise from 57.4 million barrels per day in 2015 to 61.5 million barrels per day in 10 years, then decline to 59.7 million barrels per day by 2040.

But all this depends on capital spending by oil companies. If it doesn't increase, OPEC Secretary-General Abdallah el-Badri wrote in the report's foreword, "there is the possibility that the market could find that there is not enough new capacity and infrastructure in place to meet future rising demand levels, and this would obviously have a knock-on impact for prices."

While OPEC expects the demand in many Western countries is likely to decline between now and 2040 due to "energy efficiency improvements and climate change mitigation policies. … However, oil demand in developing countries is expected to increase significantly (by almost 26 mb/d) to reach 66.1 mb/d at the end of the forecast period. Finally, demand in Eurasia is estimated at 5.8 mb/d in 2040."

The key, then, is for oil companies to maintain balanced investments in exploration, infrastructure and production, according to el-Badri. "In the current market environment, what this underlines is the delicate balance between prices, the cost of the marginal barrel and future supplies," he wrote. "This balance is essential in making sure the necessary future investments are made."

[Dec 27, 2015] Top 10 Oil And Gas Stories Of 2015

OPEC forecast is around %50 average in 2016. that means that half of the month it should be over60 to achive that if the start point is $38 and q1 might see futher drop. So it is probably somewhat optimistic. But the US shale companies are now in real trble and that card will play in 2016 inthe second half of the year.
Notable quotes:
"... Production has declined from a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in April, to 9.3 mb/d in September, although weekly estimates suggest output is somewhere around 9.1-9.2 mb/d currently. ..."
"... The shale boom is over, but production has not fallen fast enough to warrant a rebound in prices. More declines should be expected throughout 2016, but a key question remains: how far and how fast? ..."
Dec 27, 2015 | OilPrice.com

6. Falling U.S. output. U.S. oil production is perhaps the most-watched figure in terms of market analysts trying to gauge when the rebound will come. Production has declined from a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in April, to 9.3 mb/d in September, although weekly estimates suggest output is somewhere around 9.1-9.2 mb/d currently.

The shale boom is over, but production has not fallen fast enough to warrant a rebound in prices. More declines should be expected throughout 2016, but a key question remains: how far and how fast?

[Dec 27, 2015] Forget About Junk Bonds, This Is the New Credit-Equity Disconnect Investors Should Be Watching

Dec 27, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

Because of methodological challenges involved in making direct comparisons between high-yield bond spreads and the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, the pressing concern for equity investors is how much the current weakness in junk bonds infects the market for investment-grade bonds sold by companies with healthier balance sheets (on the eve of a potential rate hike from the Federal Reserve, no less).

The "new divergence" highlighted by Goldman Sachs-a burgeoning disconnect between weaker investment-grade credit spreads and relatively stronger equities in December-is a potential risk to the performance of the S&P 500 in the short term, the strategists note.

[Dec 27, 2015] What Me Worry About Peak Oil

The author ignores the role of Wall Street in the current oil prices slump.... Also there can be geopolitical dimension in Saudis behaviour.
Notable quotes:
"... Easy money caused over-investment in the oil business. Over-production and weakened demand resulted in the collapse in world oil prices. OPEC's reaction and decision to produce at maximum rates have created the "perfect storm" for peak oil production several years before it would have occurred otherwise. ..."
"... All oil producers are losing money at current prices but companies and countries are producing at high rates. Indebted conventional and unconventional players need cash flow to service debt so they are producing at high rates. ..."
"... Everyone is acting rationally from their own perspective but from a high level, it looks like they have all lost their minds. ..."
"... Despite a popular belief that tight oil is price-competitive with conventional oil production, it is not ..."
"... WTI oil is $38.10, whereas the global benchmark Brent oil is about $37.89, or slightly cheaper. Trying to make a profit by paying to ship a more expensive commodity abroad is a fine trick if you can figure out a way to make it work. This is especially so when both grades are selling at a huge loss on their production cost. ..."
"... A lot of US refineries were tuned to heavy Mexican crude, and there's maybe more of that coming to market some day soon. But you are awash in condensate. Perhaps this explains more than anything the WTI Brent spread. ..."
"... Far Eastern refineries are tuned to light oil – Boney Light – so let them have it while you buy heavy crude form Saudi and UK. The WTI – Brent spread disappeared in a flash. Does this solve the oil price crash crisis? I don't think so. The IEA has Nov US, global and OPEC production all up. ..."
Art Berman

It's not important whether this is the final, maximum world production peak or not. It is a signal about a trend that needs to be acknowledged and incorporated into our evolving paradigm about oil supply.

Peak oil production was accelerated by a confluence of factors. Zero interest rates in the U.S. and Middle East supply interruptions before 2014 caused high oil prices. Easy money caused over-investment in the oil business. Over-production and weakened demand resulted in the collapse in world oil prices. OPEC's reaction and decision to produce at maximum rates have created the "perfect storm" for peak oil production several years before it would have occurred otherwise.

All oil producers are losing money at current prices but companies and countries are producing at high rates. Indebted conventional and unconventional players need cash flow to service debt so they are producing at high rates. OPEC is producing at high rates to maintain or gain market share. Everyone is acting rationally from their own perspective but from a high level, it looks like they have all lost their minds.

Peak oil is not about running out of oil. It is about what happens when the supply of conventional oil begins to decline. Once this happens, higher-cost, lower-quality sources of oil become increasingly necessary to meet global demand.

Those secondary sources of oil include unconventional (oil sand and tight oil) and deep-water production. The contribution of unconventional and deep-water production has grown from about 15% in 2000 to approximately one-third of total supply today, and it will probably represent more than 40% by 2030.

Despite a popular belief that tight oil is price-competitive with conventional oil production, it is not

The economics of tight oil plays require spot oil prices that are double and wellhead prices that are triple current face values. Excluding new SAGD projects, tight oil is the world's most-expensive and, therefore, marginal barrel of oil and its cost of production today is more than $70.

Roger Baker, December 27th, 2015 at 1:02 pm

So Congress finally got around to legalizing the export of our unrefined U.S. domestic crude oil production? However this comes at a time when today's market price of our domestic WTI oil is $38.10, whereas the global benchmark Brent oil is about $37.89, or slightly cheaper. Trying to make a profit by paying to ship a more expensive commodity abroad is a fine trick if you can figure out a way to make it work. This is especially so when both grades are selling at a huge loss on their production cost.

Euan Mearns, December 27th, 2015 at 1:55 pm

Art, throughout the history of the North Sea, the UK has had a vibrant export / import trade in crude, even since we became a net importer. The reason being to match the refining spectrum to the crude available.

A lot of US refineries were tuned to heavy Mexican crude, and there's maybe more of that coming to market some day soon. But you are awash in condensate. Perhaps this explains more than anything the WTI Brent spread.

Far Eastern refineries are tuned to light oil – Boney Light – so let them have it while you buy heavy crude form Saudi and UK. The WTI – Brent spread disappeared in a flash. Does this solve the oil price crash crisis? I don't think so. The IEA has Nov US, global and OPEC production all up.

[Dec 27, 2015] The Crude Oil Export Ban--What, Me Worry About Peak Oil by Art Berman

Notable quotes:
"... Congress' decision to lift the 40-year U.S. ban on crude oil exports reflects the same misinformed and distorted thinking that declares that the world's highest cost producer–tight oil–can somehow also be the world's swing producer . ..."
"... The same thinking concludes that because oil markets are over-supplied by about 1.5 mmbpd today, prices will remain low for years if not decades. Although there is certainly a rationale for low prices based on fundamentals of supply and demand in the near term, the longer view is shaped largely by perception. ..."
"... Despite the recent trend toward price capitulation since late November, there is a certain potential energy in the market to find excuses to raise prices or to at least establish a bottom. For example, this week, U.S. crude oil stocks declined by 5 mm barrels and WTI futures increased $3.36 per barrel. We are in the winter de-stocking period so a withdrawal from inventory is normal but the previous week saw an addition to stocks that made this withdrawal seem somehow more important. A price increase of that magnitude makes no sense especially since U.S. stocks are more than 125 mm barrels above the 5-year average. That is the power of perception. ..."
"... The prevailing perspective–lower for longer–is that oil prices will remain low for many years. This is reasonable based on vital signs. The global over-supply of oil persists after a year-and-a-half of lower prices. Iran and Libya could potentially add another 1-2 mmbpd to the existing over-supply. U.S. production has not declined as much as most experts anticipated, and there is considerable if unknown spare capacity in drilled, uncompleted wells. China's economic growth has slowed and the global economy is weak. Demand for oil will continue to grow but at a slower rate than in 2015. ..."
"... The bleeding in the oil patch will get worse and prices will plunge again. ..."
"... The lower-for-longer perception will begin to change in 2016 barring a global economic collapse. It is, after all, founded on the simultaneous occurrence of every possible negative outcome. The long-awaited response in the economy to lower oil prices will begin to emerge. Demand for oil will increase. Concern about lower growth in China is largely accepted already. U.S. production will continue to fall 100,000 barrels per day every month as predicted, just later than expected. Drilled uncompleted wells will not deliver as much new oil as many now fear. ..."
"... None of this will happen overnight. Market balance will likely return more slowly than it unravelled. ..."
"... Energy is the economy. Lower oil and gas prices will be a huge benefit to the global economy but that takes time also. And the longer prices are low the better, although it doesn't feel that way in the oil business right now. ..."
"... Tight oil has bought the U.S. another decade or so of additional oil supply but, as peak oil predicted, at a cost. The technology behind tight oil has also made it the world's most expensive barrel. As all of this sinks in, perception will start to change. Analysts and investors will begin to see that data points more toward long-term scarcity than toward long-term abundance of oil supply. ..."
"... The U.S. is far more economically vulnerable and dependent on foreign oil today than when crude oil export was banned 40 years ago. The world has finite oil resources and the production party of the last 5 years has accelerated the timing of peak global production. A shooting war in the world would bring all of this into instantaneous focus if the data presented here has not. ..."
"... It is a curious paradox that peak oil should manifest in the midst of over-supply and low oil prices. That is certainly not how I thought things would happen. ..."
Dec 27, 2015 | Forbes

... ... ...

Perception is Everything

Congress' decision to lift the 40-year U.S. ban on crude oil exports reflects the same misinformed and distorted thinking that declares that the world's highest cost producer–tight oil–can somehow also be the world's swing producer.

The 1975 export ban was enacted because of the disastrous economic consequences of becoming dependent on imports following the peaking of U.S. oil production in 1970. Now that oil production is again close to peak levels, we have apparently forgotten that imports were the problem then and that we import twice as much today as in 1975.

The same thinking concludes that because oil markets are over-supplied by about 1.5 mmbpd today, prices will remain low for years if not decades. Although there is certainly a rationale for low prices based on fundamentals of supply and demand in the near term, the longer view is shaped largely by perception.

Oil prices (Brent) rallied, after all, to $65 per barrel in May when the market was more over-supplied (2.25 mmbpd) than it is today. That was based on perception that falling rig counts in the United States and withdrawals from oil-storage inventories would bring less supply. Neither perception was correct in the short term but it didn't matter. Prices rose. There were, of course, other factors including concerns about the growth of the Chinese economy, the Greek debt crisis, and renewed Iranian exports.

Despite the recent trend toward price capitulation since late November, there is a certain potential energy in the market to find excuses to raise prices or to at least establish a bottom. For example, this week, U.S. crude oil stocks declined by 5 mm barrels and WTI futures increased $3.36 per barrel. We are in the winter de-stocking period so a withdrawal from inventory is normal but the previous week saw an addition to stocks that made this withdrawal seem somehow more important. A price increase of that magnitude makes no sense especially since U.S. stocks are more than 125 mm barrels above the 5-year average. That is the power of perception.

Energy and oil in particular underlie everything in our global economic lives. Oil prices reflect our collective emotional response to the circumstances of the world. Fundamentals are the vital signs of oil price's body but perception is the key to its psyche.

The more-than $3 per barrel increase in WTI prices last week is an example of a very short-term reaction to some event or circumstance. Oil prices also reflect longer-term longer term price responses that involve considerable lags. For instance, a global production surplus appeared in January 2014 and continued for 6 months before prices responded downward.

... ... ...

The prevailing perspective–lower for longer–is that oil prices will remain low for many years. This is reasonable based on vital signs. The global over-supply of oil persists after a year-and-a-half of lower prices. Iran and Libya could potentially add another 1-2 mmbpd to the existing over-supply. U.S. production has not declined as much as most experts anticipated, and there is considerable if unknown spare capacity in drilled, uncompleted wells. China's economic growth has slowed and the global economy is weak. Demand for oil will continue to grow but at a slower rate than in 2015.

What Lies Ahead in 2016

In another week, the world will go back to work after the holidays. The bleeding in the oil patch will get worse and prices will plunge again. Year-end results for oil and gas companies will be the worst so far. The Federal Reserve Bank and Standard & Poor's have issued warnings about bad debt in the U.S. oil and gas business. The tight oil companies have put the best face they can on a desperate situation.

But investors and their bankers should be out of patience. They should be tired of phony economics and tall tales about giant new reserves when the companies they invested in are losing billions of dollars every quarter.

The lower-for-longer perception will begin to change in 2016 barring a global economic collapse. It is, after all, founded on the simultaneous occurrence of every possible negative outcome. The long-awaited response in the economy to lower oil prices will begin to emerge. Demand for oil will increase. Concern about lower growth in China is largely accepted already. U.S. production will continue to fall 100,000 barrels per day every month as predicted, just later than expected. Drilled uncompleted wells will not deliver as much new oil as many now fear.

None of this will happen overnight. Market balance will likely return more slowly than it unravelled. The oil bubble took 5 years to inflate but the world is impatient and expects a quick return to normal. All of the signs are right–lower rig counts, distress for overly leveraged companies, lower budgets for crucial exploration and development projects–but it all takes time.

Energy is the economy. Lower oil and gas prices will be a huge benefit to the global economy but that takes time also. And the longer prices are low the better, although it doesn't feel that way in the oil business right now.

Tight oil has bought the U.S. another decade or so of additional oil supply but, as peak oil predicted, at a cost. The technology behind tight oil has also made it the world's most expensive barrel. As all of this sinks in, perception will start to change. Analysts and investors will begin to see that data points more toward long-term scarcity than toward long-term abundance of oil supply.

The U.S. is far more economically vulnerable and dependent on foreign oil today than when crude oil export was banned 40 years ago. The world has finite oil resources and the production party of the last 5 years has accelerated the timing of peak global production. A shooting war in the world would bring all of this into instantaneous focus if the data presented here has not.

It is a curious paradox that peak oil should manifest in the midst of over-supply and low oil prices. That is certainly not how I thought things would happen. Perceptions will change and oil-market balance will be restored in ways that few of us thought likely. Peak oil will be part of that change.

Art Berman
Petroleum Geologist and Professional Speaker
Visit my website for more information: artberman.com

[Dec 26, 2015] In todays dollars (adjusted for inflation) annual average oil prices have not been below $20 since 1998

Notable quotes:
"... Everything is possible in the world where the price of oil is determined by Wall Street (despite some people having illusions about supply and demand equilibrium; this is just a factor and probably not the decisive factor). ..."
"... In this sense EIA prediction of $50 average in 2016 does not look completely outlandish. But to achieve such average from low start of $38 per barrel and typically low prices in the Q1 you need at least half of the months to be above $50 by $10. Thats looks less probable now. ..."
"... Unlike $35-40, $20/barrel is below cash operating costs for many conventional producers worldwide.That means that, at that price, not only upstream investments would be severely cut, but also a large number of the currently producing wells will be idled. ..."
"... Oil price may temporarily touch $20, as Goldman predicts (although this is not their base scenario), but it will not stay at these levels for long term. ..."
"... The key consideration here is that the Wall Street instruments create a strong positive feedback loop that destabilized the system and amplifies any price movements. So oscillations became more and more powerful creating more and more moments with absurd prices. Right now on the down side. $20 per barrel is such an absurd in the current circumstances price, but it is not that outlandish estimate of a short time minimum possible in the destabilized system, especially in Q1. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
AlexS , 12/26/2015 at 2:27 pm
$15-20 for a long period of time?

Let's look at it from a historical perspective.

In today's dollars (adjusted for inflation) annual average oil prices have not been below $20 since 1998 ($18.5), and below $15 since 1972.

Brent oil price in 2014 dollars, 1970-2015

Source: BP Statistical Review of World Energy June 2015, my estimate for 2015

likbez , 12/26/2015 at 2:43 pm
Everything is possible in the world where the price of oil is determined by Wall Street (despite some people having illusions about supply and demand equilibrium; this is just a factor and probably not the decisive factor).

But I think even at $40 per barrel the US shale production will be decimated in a year or two. They managed to get financing for 2016, but that's about it. And that's over 3 Mb/d. Additional cars that were bought in the US, India and China in 2015 will be on the road for another 10 years or so.

In this sense EIA prediction of $50 average in 2016 does not look completely outlandish. But to achieve such average from low start of $38 per barrel and typically low prices in the Q1 you need at least half of the months to be above $50 by $10. Thats looks less probable now.

AlexS, 12/26/2015 at 3:04 pm

Unlike $35-40, $20/barrel is below cash operating costs for many conventional producers worldwide.That means that, at that price, not only upstream investments would be severely cut, but also a large number of the currently producing wells will be idled.

$20 is almost twice as low as the current price, and supply-side response will be much stronger than what we are seeing now.

Oil price may temporarily touch $20, as Goldman predicts (although this is not their base scenario), but it will not stay at these levels for long term.

likbez, 12/26/2015 at 4:19 pm

"Oil price may temporarily touch $20, as Goldman predicts (although this is not their base scenario), but it will not stay at these levels for long term."

Thank you. That's exactly my point.

The key consideration here is that the Wall Street instruments create a strong positive feedback loop that destabilized the system and amplifies any price movements. So oscillations became more and more powerful creating more and more moments with absurd prices. Right now on the down side.

$20 per barrel is such an absurd in the current circumstances price, but it is not that outlandish estimate of a short time minimum possible in the destabilized system, especially in Q1.

[Dec 26, 2015] 2016 oil outlook: will an equilibrium price be found

Dan Dicker of MercBlock reveals his 2016 outlook for oil. He thinks that 2016 might be only marginally better. Oil prices might rise in the third quarter ..."
He made the following points:
-- Oil producers never have seen in equilibrium price. They knows nothing but spike down and spikes up. But is we can talk about this mythical Equilibrium oil price I guess is around $80 but it might not be achieved in 2016.
2016 we will see many defaults, bankruptcies and restructures in 2016 and consolidation of the players. When any company in any industry runs cash flow negative, one of two things inevitably occurs … they get better or they are gone.
Big names (Exxon, Chevron, BP) can now be used as bond equivalents for dividends they produce. Use them as holding boxes in your energy portfolio. That's how I use them.
Notable quotes:
"... "Its always tough because the oil market has never really seen an equilibrium price - its nothing but spikes up and spikes down and I think it will continue to do that," Dicker says in the attached video. That being said, Dicker says getting to that equilibrium price entails figuring out the price of extracting the 'marginal' barrel of oil out of the ground, meaning that last barrel that would fill demand. ..."
"... "You've got to get that marginal barrel out of the ground." he says. "That doesnt equate to breakeven points for any particular player, but if you have 92 million barrels a day of oil that's in demand, to get an equilibrium price youve got to pay [for] that last hundred thousand barrels to to meet demand - and everybody gets priced off of that last piece of the puzzle and thats thats closer to about $80." ..."
finance.yahoo.com

Dan Dicker of Merc-block and author of the book "Shale boom, shale bust: The Myth of Saudi Arabia" peered into his crystal ball to see if the commodity get back to an equilibrium price sometime in the near future.

"It's always tough because the oil market has never really seen an equilibrium price - it's nothing but spikes up and spikes down and I think it will continue to do that," Dicker says in the attached video. That being said, Dicker says getting to that equilibrium price entails figuring out the price of extracting the 'marginal' barrel of oil out of the ground, meaning that last barrel that would fill demand.

"You've got to get that marginal barrel out of the ground." he says. "That doesn't equate to breakeven points for any particular player, but if you have 92 million barrels a day of oil that's in demand, to get an equilibrium price you've got to pay [for] that last hundred thousand barrels to to meet demand - and everybody gets priced off of that last piece of the puzzle and that's that's closer to about $80."

Although there will be some shakeout, Dicker does believe some names - small and large, in the energy sector will survive and do well. To hear more about those, watch the rest of the video above.

[Dec 26, 2015] Why some companies just keep drilling wells in spite of the very low oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... If you have or can raise the cash, it makes sense to drill now and produce a year or two down the road-IF you believe prices will be up. According to what I read here, the costs of drilling a well may be down by a third, due to so many men and machines and so much steel and sand etc , "looking for a home". ..."
"... Most LTO companies don't have cash. Most have a gob of debt. I don't think sinking cash into wells that will generate $0 revenue for a year or two is a good idea, especially given the financial shape LTO is in already. ..."
"... So they are strictly gambling that oil prices will rise steeply in the next couple years? Is that a good business strategy for multi-billion dollar corporations to undertake, especially when the futures market says otherwise? ..."
"... The size of the gamble is offset by the size of the potential winnings. ..."
"... Someone come on here and explain how drilling, but not completing 13,000 horizontal wells that won't cum. 100,000 BO in 40 years makes one lick of sense? ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson, 12/26/2015 at 8:51 am
Here is an interesting article that tries to explain why some companies just keep drilling wells in spite of the very low oil prices.

Hoping for a Price Surge, Oil Companies Keep Wells in Reserve

Their well, one of hundreds drilled by Anadarko Petroleum in eastern Colorado's Wattenberg field this year, could someday gush as many as 800 barrels of crude oil a day. But Anadarko is not planning to produce a drop of crude from the well for at least another year because the price of oil is now so pitifully low.

The well here is just one of more than 4,000 drilled oil and natural gas wells across the country producing nothing, but ready to be tapped quickly

……….

But the incomplete wells are also another reason many analysts say a recovery in the oil price is nowhere in sight. Together the well backlog could produce as many as 500,000 barrels of oil a day, about the same amount of oil that Iran is expected to add to the glutted global market after it complies with the recent nuclear deal by the end of next year.

Some analysts say oil companies like Anadarko, EOG Resources and Continental Resources may collectively risk suffocating the very price revival they anticipate by releasing abundant new supplies once prices inch up. Others say the eventual impact would be small and short-lived, but since the industry has never used this strategy before, no one can be sure……….

On the completion side, fracking crews are easier to come by and their contracts tend to be more fluid. Now those completion costs have also come down - meaning that the uncompleted wells will eventually be brought on line at a lower cost, executives say.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 9:24 am
Well that's just great.

The article touts how smart this strategy is.

The company focused on, Anadarko, lost $2.2 BILLION last QUARTER.

oldfarmermac, 12/26/2015 at 9:39 am
Hi SS,

If you have or can raise the cash, it makes sense to drill now and produce a year or two down the road-IF you believe prices will be up. According to what I read here, the costs of drilling a well may be down by a third, due to so many men and machines and so much steel and sand etc , "looking for a home".

I don't know if this is "one third off" drilling sales event is totally for real, it might be only a quarter or a fifth off. Hopefully somebody who crunches tight oil numbers will have something to say about it.

Tight oil production brought on by drilling now and producing later is not going to noticeably affect the price later.

Ron Patterson, 12/26/2015 at 9:49 am
Tight oil production brought on by drilling now and producing later is not going to noticeably affect the price later.

By what logic did you arrive at that conclusion?

The article states: But the incomplete wells are also another reason many analysts say a recovery in the oil price is nowhere in sight. Together the well backlog could produce as many as 500,000 barrels of oil a day, …

Now I think an extra half a million barrels per day would noticeably affect the price.

oldfarmermac, 12/26/2015 at 3:46 pm
A half a million barrels WOULD be enough to influence prices. An individual company does not expect it's OWN production to influence the market price- unless maybe the company is a REALLY big one maybe.

If any given company drills say fifty such wells, that would be only twenty thousand barrels a day, maybe less -- most definitely not enough to move the market price needle. It's not the industry as whole, but individual companies that make the decision.

I DID not go into Christmas trees, personally, for fear the industry was setting itself up to CHOKE itself on excess production. I was wrong about that, I could have made a LOT of money in Christmas trees, not enough people took the gamble to glut the market.

Wine grape growers took the gamble and are asshole deep in grapes that won't sell for enough to cover production costs in a lot of places these days, including my neighborhood.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 10:56 am
OFM.

What you say may make sense of you are using cash and have little to no debt. It may make sense for ExxonMobil.

Most LTO companies don't have cash. Most have a gob of debt. I don't think sinking cash into wells that will generate $0 revenue for a year or two is a good idea, especially given the financial shape LTO is in already.

Also, the entire premise is that there will soon be a steep rise in the price of oil. That is a total crap shoot.

So they are strictly gambling that oil prices will rise steeply in the next couple years? Is that a good business strategy for multi-billion dollar corporations to undertake, especially when the futures market says otherwise?

Ask Harold Hamm how easy it is to predict the future price of oil.

oldfarmermac, 12/26/2015 at 4:21 pm
Hi SS,

I am not an expert, but I HAVE read a representative sample of the books you read to get your MBA. Read me for insight, or comic relief, but DON'T bet more than beer and cigarette money on MY opinions.

Things DON'T always make sense. Under their suits and hats, corporate managers are just naked apes.

Since you are a hands on guy, I expect at some point you have gotten into some soft ground off the highway with a truck, and realized you are were in trouble and that IF YOU STOPPED, you would be walking out for SURE.

SO – you put the pedal to the metal, and hopefully got thru. If not, you were STUCK ANYWAY.

This could be thought of as a NO DOWNSIDE BET-IF you are convinced you are apt to go broke anyway.Win, you get to keep it all, lose, you are not going to pay ANY OF IT back anyway, it's somebody else's money, and your company is in bk court.

The size of the gamble is offset by the size of the potential winnings.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 1:08 pm
I looked up Anadarko on CO state website. Operate under Kerr McGee. Assuming 4,800 operated wells, by my math the average well is producing 23 barrels of oil and 112 mcf of gas per day, gross.

Assuming 25% royalty burden, and remembering the basis spread in CO for both oil and gas is horrible, it looks like GROSS revenue per well at current price would be in the neighborhood of $200K per year.

I keep begging, and will again. Someone come on here and explain how drilling, but not completing 13,000′ horizontal wells that won't cum. 100,000 BO in 40 years makes one lick of sense?

AlexS, 12/26/2015 at 1:23 pm
shallow sand,

I agree with you. There is no sense in drilling but not completing wells, especially as they are spending borrowed money.

[Dec 26, 2015] Be A Pig And Make It Big... With Commodities!

Dec 25, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Now, more importantly, back to the commodity supply side. The table below shows an extract from a recent Americas Metals & Mining report by Deutsche Bank. Commodity producers are cutting their CAPEX in a huge way. Globally, we see the same picture across the board. That's your pork cycle at work right there. We are once again setting ourselves up for future commodity shortages.

commodities_DB

watmann

Interesting article that I suggest you ignore. If you follow ZH you have been killed. Even two weeks ago ZH predicted a calamity when the capital markets were going to get killed when the Fed increased rates and a lot of liquidity was removed from the market. This never happened. What this article misses is that as worldwide artificial demand created by 0 interst rates the glut of increased capacity created without real long term demand caused a commidity price crash. What we are seeing is not cyclical, rather its structural created by unwarranted capacity creation by quants who only saw upward demand and 0 based rates. ZH is wrong. The facts I see them are that a commidity price drop of 80% are just the real market coming. The excess liquidity will soon drive equity prices into the tank the same way that they did to commidity prices. ZH micro manages things to fill a web site to sell advertisers. Its a simple as this.

Uchtdorf , 12/25/2015 - 23:19 | 6964374

From the article:

"For example, in 2011, nobody was yet aware of fracking. We now know this new technology turned the oil market upside down."

From Wikipedia:

"Hydraulic fracturing began as an experiment in 1947, and the first commercially successful application followed in 1950. As of 2012, 2.5 million "frac jobs" had been performed worldwide on oil and gas wells; over one million of those within the U.S.[3] Such treatment is generally necessary to achieve adequate flow rates in shale gas, tight gas, tight oil, and coal seam gas wells.[4] Some hydraulic fractures can form naturally in certain veins or [5]"

From a novel by Orson Scott Card, written in 1987:

"'You can bet they're making gasoline out of shale oil,' Tina said." >

[Dec 26, 2015] Oversupply vs annual decline of oil wells which is 6% or more

Notable quotes:
"... Just because Saudi Arabia has increased production in order to meet their budget does not mean the world will increase production because of cheap oil. (Iraq would have increased production regardless.) ..."
"... No, upstream investment will, or has, dropped dramatically. This will cause production decline down the road. ..."
"... If the world is 2 Mbbl/day oversupplied right now, and decline rates are 6%, and there is only minimal new oil wells. (so, overall decline rate is 2% ?). We should see the oversupply disappear in a year or so. ..."
"... I don't think the oversupply is 2 mm. My guess it's less than 1.2 mm in December. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Ron Patterson, 12/21/2015 at 10:49 am

So as the price of oil continues lower, oil production will continue to increase.

Oh don't be silly. Just because Saudi Arabia has increased production in order to meet their budget does not mean the world will increase production because of cheap oil. (Iraq would have increased production regardless.)

No, upstream investment will, or has, dropped dramatically. This will cause production decline down the road.

Arceus, 12/21/2015 at 10:56 am
Yes, I should have added "in the short term" to that, but then it wouldn't have sounded as glib.
canabuck, 12/21/2015 at 3:49 pm
And what is "short term"?
12 months, or maybe 3-4 years.

If the world is 2 Mbbl/day oversupplied right now, and decline rates are 6%, and there is only minimal new oil wells. (so, overall decline rate is 2% ?). We should see the oversupply disappear in a year or so.

Huckleberry Finn, 12/21/2015 at 6:35 pm
Looks closer to 10% in some cases. From previous thread.

The low prices are taking their toll.
http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ecopetrol-announces-us48-billion-investment-plan-for-2016-561775541.html

Ecopetrol, the largest Colombian producer announced that it will produce 755,000 barrels a day in 2016 vs 760,000/day in third quarter of 2015.
That does not sound like much a of drop, until you realize that Ecopetrol will be taking over the Rubiales field from a joint venture by not extending their partners contract.That will add 70,000 barrels a day to their production.Or about 35,000 barrels day annualized since it happens mid-year. So adjusted for this their production will decline from 795,000 barrels to 755,000 barrels per day, or a drop of 5%. And that is after spending 4.8 Billion USD. So I am guessing their base decline rate is closer to 10%

Fernando Leanme, 12/23/2015 at 8:46 am
I don't think the oversupply is 2 mm. My guess it's less than 1.2 mm in December.

[Dec 26, 2015] When peak cheap oil moment occurred: 2005 or 2015?

Notable quotes:
"... I would say 2015 has been peak "cheap" oil, though some may claim the condensate should not be counted, we do not have good international data on the condensate output so we can only speculate on that. ..."
"... I refer to the 2005 plateau as "peak cheap oil". Today's current price certainly does not reflect today's marginal cost of supply already built into the production stream. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Javier, 12/21/2015 at 10:25 am

2005: Peak Conventional Oil
2015: Peak Oil

We should look not at the consequences of Peak Oil, but to Peak Oil as a consequence of the underlying economical and financial global situation. Peak Oil is going to make sure we never recover during the cyclical upswings. We have found the limits to growth, and those limits are going to be getting smaller with time.

Matt White, 12/21/2015 at 12:36 pm
So are you denying this:

http://euanmearns.com/a-new-peak-in-conventional-crude-oil-production/

I know a lot of people in the peak oil scene keep clinging to that 2005 date, might be time to let it go.

Marcus, 12/21/2015 at 1:11 pm
Matt,

As per your link Euan Mearns sites 73.2 Mbpd in 2005 vs 74.28 Mbpd in December 2014 according to the EIA. The problem is that the figures from JODI, IEA, EIA & BP etc are not all in perfect agreement and I don't think we can definitively say that world production is "x' amount with that degree of accuracy especially since the numbers are often revised up or down a year or two down the line.

What we can do is look at the general trend over several years & its clear that 2005 marked a point where conventional oil production either peaked or at best grew very slowly within the context of a rather bumpy plateau.

So the highest oil prices in history failed to significantly increase conventional production and low oil price environment is unlikely to be conducive to new sources of unconventional production. I would suggest on that basis that the future does not look too rosy.

Dennis Coyne, 12/22/2015 at 7:31 am
Hi Matt,

In 2015 C+C output will be about 79.4 Mb/d, the data is not perfect but output will not be revised down by 6 Mb/d.

As far as 2005 being peak "cheap" oil, the lowest monthly oil price was about $46/b in Jan 2005 and for the year oil was $59/b (all prices in Dec 2015$).

For 2015 the average oil price will be about $49/b and the lowest monthly price was about $42/b in Nov 2015. I would say 2015 has been peak "cheap" oil, though some may claim the condensate should not be counted, we do not have good international data on the condensate output so we can only speculate on that.

tahoe1780, 12/21/2015 at 1:12 pm
So what are we calling "oil" nowadays? http://resourceinsights.blogspot.com/2012/07/how-changing-definition-of-oil-has.html Can anyone provide a graph of the ratio change between crude and condensate over the years? http://www.aogr.com/magazine/editors-choice/growing-condensates-require-optimized-designs-for-gathering-processing
Dennis Coyne, 12/22/2015 at 7:38 am
There is not good data on international condensate output, the only decent data we have is on crude plus condensate ( and that data is not great, but the best we have).

Crude output has always included some condensate output in the data reported and few nations separate the crude and condensate data.

OPEC, Canada, Russia, and the US do, and that is a lot of World output, we can assume the ratio of condensate to crude is the same for the rest of the World and make an estimate of the crude divided by C+C. I have not done so, but I believe others have.

Javier, 12/21/2015 at 1:14 pm
No. That in 10 years production has managed to temporarily increase by 1.5%, when in the previous 10 years it grew by 18% fits my concept of Peak Conventional Oil. Conventional oil got to a bumpy plateau in 2005. A bumpy plateau is by definition bumpy. We are in a bump. If production keeps increasing, it will negate the Conventional Peak Oil. If it falls back it will not.
DougT, 12/21/2015 at 1:54 pm
I refer to the 2005 plateau as "peak cheap oil". Today's current price certainly does not reflect today's marginal cost of supply already built into the production stream.
coffeeguyzz, 12/26/2015 at 5:13 pm
Sarko

When any company in any industry runs cash flow negative, one of two things inevitably occurs … they get better or they get gone.

In the US unconventional field, the 'get gones' are lining up at the exit doors with their list of assets to sell to the 'get better', who are in the process of emerging from this downturn with a ferocious degree of resilience that will shock many, especially the far off be-robed sheiks who will be fortunate to not have their own heads lopped off as well as worldwide idealogues pining for an emergence of their 'inner peasants' (h/t to Fernando for that apt phrase).

As for future reserves, see my response below to shallow re the Riverview well, and apply the principal to hydrocarbon bearing shales and 'tight rocks' on a global scale.

coffeeguyzz, 12/26/2015 at 5:31 pm
Shallow

I'm having a hard time posting on my 'stupid phone'.

Some responses …

I have no financial interest of any kind in any company whatsoever – oil/gas or otherwise.

The operational and technical advances have indeed played a major role in the current situation as a quick glance at any production chart shows huge increases.
You well know, I hope, that I have always questioned the financial underpinnings of these operators vis-à-vis their motives/goals with their continual drilling despite horrific price realizations. (Oilandgas360dotcom has an excellent article, dated Dec 23 3015 called "Why Drill?". It picks seven Appalachian operators and describes the motives/circumstances of each. Info filled piece).

I mention the Riverview well in response to Dennis' comment re lack of recovery improvement. Actually, the Riverview may be far more significant, akin to the Jake well in 2009 (by EOG), the Renz well (2004, Range), and the recent Scotts Run well (2015, EQT) in opening up to he Niobrara, the Marcellus, and the Deep Utica.

The particulars of the Riverview's completion (previously displayed in the EF) will not only be emulated by other operators, it will INCREASE the number of wells per section providing far more resource recovery.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 6:19 pm
Coffee, I know where you are coming from. I do agree that drilling two miles down and two miles out and doing all those frac stages can be pretty cool.

I have made known several of times I am biased against shale, because it rained on my parade. So anything I post should be viewed in that light. It makes a huge difference if one has a financial motive or not. If I had sold out in 2013 like maybe I should have, I would not give a crap about shale and like 99.5% of the US, would be loving $1.75 gasoline at the pump.

Heck, I get a charge out of filling up my truck for $35 even though it is hurting on the other end. That is one place where we are seeing a reduction in OPEX, fuel cost for trucks and other equipment. Way down.

My friend who owns a trucking company is making record profits. They are adding more trucks. I suspect demand growth of 1.2 million bopd in 2016 is on the low side. I doubt $30 oil was utilized in making those predictions.

However, I do try hard to stick to facts. I also am most focused on economics, because no well IMO should ever be drilled without economics in mind.

A small segment of the US economy is being hurt by low oil and gas prices. However, the vast majority is taking off because of it IMO, just like the late 1980s and 1990s.

The same cannot be said for Russia and OPEC, no matter how they try to spin it. Low oil prices hurt FSU and the Middle East in the 1990s and it is again.

As long as GCC can't get along with Iran, Iraq and Russia, US will be happy about oil prices. Non-oil people I talk to here think that the lack of cooperation on the part of those countries is great for the US.

Gasoline is not a huge part of families' budgets in the US. Housing, including utilities, is way more. So is healthcare. So is secondary education for those who go to college. We spend more on food than fuel.

So if the oil exporters want to keep digging and bury themselves, the populace in the West says more power to them.

coffeeguyzz, 12/26/2015 at 5:46 pm
Shallow

Re Anadarko

Several thousand of those wells are legacy vertical wells from their 2000/2006 acquisitions from Union Pacific Resources and Kerr McGee.

Anadarko's output from 2010 thru 2015 (not full year), 7.1Mmbo …8 Mmbo …10.8 Mmbo …16.8 Mmbo …27.9 Mmbo … 26.9 Mmbo

Gas output doubled from 80 Bcf to 152 Bcf (not full year).

Virtually all Anadarko's holdings are Land Grant given to the Union Pacific railroad 150 years ago. I do not know the precise impact on royalty payments, it is a significant reduction. (Several Appalachian Basin operators have similar leasing circumstances).

These Niobrara guys are popping in wells at $3 million per … including completions. Still, $35 WTI would seem to be way low to be feasible.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 6:26 pm
Coffee. I recall Enno Peters recently did an analysis on CO LTO recently. As I recall the wells have a steeper decline than Bakken, are more gassy, and EUR is much less. I am sure you are correct, that they are cheaper.

I agree with you on current economics too.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 1:08 pm
I looked up Anadarko on CO state website.

Operate under Kerr McGee.

Assuming 4,800 operated wells, by my math the average well is producing 23 barrels of oil and 112 mcf of gas per day, gross.

Assuming 25% royalty burden, and remembering the basis spread in CO for both oil and gas is horrible, it looks like GROSS revenue per well at current price would be in the neighborhood of $200K per year.

I keep begging, and will again. Someone come on here and explain how drilling, but not completing 13,000′ horizontal wells that won't cum. 100,000 BO in 40 years makes one lick of sense?

AlexS, 12/26/2015 at 1:23 pm
shallow sand,
I agree with you. There is no sense in drilling but not completing wells, especially as they are spending borrowed money.

[Dec 26, 2015] The fallacy of the idea that Saudis are dumping oil to preserve their market share

Notable quotes:
"... The literature on perceptions suggests that, however they come to be formed, the beliefs of national leaders (including their beliefs about the relative power of states in the international system) are slow to change. ..."
"... This blip period where oil prices are very low are just consequences of geopolitical war that you describe where everybody produce maximum regardless of profit in order to undercut the competition. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Stavros H, 12/21/2015 at 10:23 pm
@Ron Patterson

You continue to ignore the role of geopolitics in setting the tone for the global oil market, and especially the current oil market.

KSA have not been pumping oil at a record pace in order to cover their budget (which is simply impossible at current prices without a massive devaluation of their currency which will annihilate their trade position, since KSA cannot feed or clothe itself) KSA have been doing what they are doing because they are in a shooting war with Russia. The Syrian Arab Army, the Iraqi Shia militias, the Shia-dominated Iraqi government, Iran itself, as well as Hezbollah are Russia's allies in a grand regional struggle against NATO-GCC across the Middle East. The battlefield includes Syria, Iraq and Yemen. East Ukraine is a derivative or diversionary front in what some people describe as the First Global Hybrid War.

Russia, Iraq and Iran have massive oil (and gas) reserves that can be brought into production in the future. Something similar applies to Venezuela (but I reckon that Venezuela's reserves will be more expensive in relative terms) This potentiality threatens the global balance of power, as western oil & gas output is destined to decline (as well as output by countries under western domination) and the potential oil production of Russia, Iran & Iraq becomes a necessity for the global economy.

This is one of the two main reasons (the other being the potential routes of gas pipelines) why we now have an extremely dangerous (media and political leaders vastly understate the true extent of brinkmanship currently ongoing) process of escalation in the Middle East.

What you fail to acknowledge in your articles, is that NATO-GCC have as a strategic imperative to strangle Russia, Iran & Iraq in any which way they can. This includes the imposition of sanctions, military pressure and all other kinds of sabotage one can think of. What we are now witnessing in the global oil (and gas) markets is that excess investment has been ongoing in places such as the US, Canada, the North Sea (as well as several offshore locations, performed by western majors) etc while there is an under-investment in places such as Russia, Iran and Iraq (also Libya & Venezuela) The latter group of countries is much less capital rich than the NATO-GCC countries (and their proxies) and less proficient technologically, hence my firm belief that their production is well below potential.

NATO-GCC's calculation once they embarked on their oil-price war more than a year ago, was that the combination of sanctions, a crushed oil price and loss of trade with Ukraine would have pummeled Russia into submission, hence ending that country's support for the Syrian Arab Army, Iran and Iraq. Simply put, if Russia falls, then the Middle East will be at the mercy of the NATO-GCC-Israel alliance (the world's dominant group of countries) One can also imagine what that would entail for China's position on the world stage.

As for Russia's oil output in 2016, I cannot say very much. There are so many factors at play (price, sanctions, unknown Russian technological capabilities) but even if there is a considerable fall, then it will have nothing to do with Peak Oil (in the traditional sense) finally hitting Russia, but with NATO-GCC pressure bearing some fruit.

In conclusion, my point is that several countries with vast oil & gas reserves, have been intentionally starved of investment due to geopolitical factors, NOT economic ones. As for Russia in particular, I am guessing you have been in the business of monitoring the global oil industry for many years now, how many times have you heard/read western "experts" claim that any minute now, Russian oil production will be entering terminal decline? I can attest that I have been coming across such claims since the day I started following such things, more than a decade ago.

Iran & Iraq also have mythical reserves of oil still untapped. Libya, once stabilized (probably under a NATO-puppet government) can also boost its oil production significantly.

Jimmy, 12/22/2015 at 12:37 am
NATO didn't do so shit-hot in Afghanistan. The days of anybody being at the mercy of NATO are long over. If NATO learnt anything in Afghanistan it's to stay out of land wars in Asia. This has been the case since Alexander the Great but great powers seem to need a reminder every century or so.

I suggest USA is no longer a dominant power. Preeminent yes but not dominant. 25 years ago anybody who defied the USA was in trouble. They'd fly half way around the world and kick your ass. On a Tuesday if they wanted. For 5 billion dollars.

Today we see that Russia, Iran and China have joined together to defy USA/NATO policy in Syria and they're doing rather well. It'll be along time until USA fights any winning battles anywhere in Asia.

Glenn Stehle, 12/22/2015 at 8:55 am
The literature on perceptions suggests that, however they come to be formed, the beliefs of national leaders (including their beliefs about the relative power of states in the international system) are slow to change.

Kenneth Boulding argues that such adjustments occur rarely, if at all, while John Stoessinger asserts that change is possible only as a consequence of some monumental disaster.

The precise point at which the scales of power turn…is imperceptible to common observation…some progress must be made in the new direction, before the change is perceived. They who are in the sinking scale…do not easily come off from the habitual prejudices of superior wealth, or power, or skill, or courage, nor from the confidence that these prejudices inspire. They who are in the rising scale do not immediately feel their strength, nor assume that confidence in it which successful experience gives them afterwards. They who are the most concerned to watch the variations of this balance, midjudge often in the same manner, and from the same prejudices. They continue to dread a power no longer able to hurt them, or they continue to have no apprehension of a power that grows daily more formidable.

–EDWARD VOSE GULICK, Europe's Classical Balance of Power

Glenn Stehle, 12/22/2015 at 8:40 am
Stavros H,

Thank you so much.

Your narrative is at least as plausible as the narrative that KSA is pumping oil at a record pace in order to cover their budget.

The narrative put forth by Ron and Rockman defies reality and common sense because, as Peter notes below, "Saudi Arabia is making half as much now producing 10 million than they were producing 8 million per day."
http://peakoilbarrel.com/all-roads-lead-to-peak-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-551980

Saudi Arabia appears to have other motives besides maximizing its income from oil sales. Its motives are not stricly economic, and waging war is never without cost.

Again, I don't claim to know what Saudi Arabia's motives are, but your explanation seems as plausible as any.

One thing we can be sure of, however, is that the balance of power which attained after 1989 is now very much in flux, and is very much being challenged.

Ves, 12/22/2015 at 10:31 am
Stavro,

The big picture that you describe is somewhat on the money but the devil is in the details. And when you look at these details from different frame of mind you will get different picture.

1) If you use terms like NATO, GCC, EU, IMF you have to be aware that these are just labels that are representing cartels. In North America they like to talk about OPEC cartel but not so much about other cartels. If you don't talk about them than we pretend they do not exist. Main purpose of NATO is not to fight the war with "enemies" but to collect a money racket from the "allies". Country A is in the NATO, regardless if it likes it or not, has to have 3% of budget spent on military. That 3% is your racket. And that racket has to be collected every year. And you can only spend it on hardware from NATO catalogue. No free market there even if there are cheaper and better options. The more countries join the cartel the more money is in the pot. Small countries – no problem, they can join. Poor countries – no problem, they can join too. You can always extract something. In military sense these countries are useful as much as your Facebook friends (practically not friends at all) but what it does it keeps money trickling to the core.

2) Second note is about the fine print of the notion how much some country can produce oil. There is misconception in the discussion that certain country has huge X amount reserves and it will produce huge X amount of oil in the future. Country A with supposedly huge reserves, if assume it has sovereign elite, will produce just enough that suits their economic development and no more. It is as simple as that. The notion that Russia or Iran or whoever will produce so much that European elite can entertain themselves with Formula 1 races every weekend is pretty much nonsense that is result of 50 year of propagandazition. If American elite wants to piss their remaining shale oil on NASCAR races or 20 miles drive to the nearest Wal-Mart for jug of milk, or to keep military bases around the world, well, that is their choice. But eventually it will come to the point where this way of life is not possible and you have to adapt to a new circumstance. This blip period where oil prices are very low are just consequences of geopolitical war that you describe where everybody produce maximum regardless of profit in order to undercut the competition. If you don't have domestic source of oil then you can't play empire games anymore. You have to be "normal" country again. And that is not that tragic because if you ask 99% that question if they would like to be a "normal" country again they would take that in a heartbeat.

Nick G, 12/22/2015 at 10:33 am
This potentiality threatens the global balance of power, as western oil & gas output is destined to decline (as well as output by countries under western domination) and the potential oil production of Russia, Iran & Iraq becomes a necessity for the global economy.

It's certainly time to put the era of the "great prize" of oil behind us, and transition to new forms of transportation and energy.

If that were to reduce the chances for this kind of senseless conflict, that would be enormously valuable.

[Dec 26, 2015] Why is $38 WTI and $2 Henry Hub so devastating?

Notable quotes:
"... If the tech is working wonders, why is $38 WTI and $2 Henry Hub so devastating? ..."
"... I wish you would at least focus on the whole of well productivity, and not just the record setting stuff. ..."
"... Per NDIC, the highest Bakken per well barrels of oil per day field wide was 11/08 at 146. 143 per day was achieved 10/12. 10/15 it is now down to 108. ..."
"... Say you borrowed $5 million of the cost of this average well at 6% interest. It comes due in 2020. $300K interest. You now have $102,000 left to put towards principal of $5 million. Thus far, you likely haven't put any of that meager amount towards principal, if you are US shale. You are still putting it towards trying for a record setting well. ..."
"... You have likely sold your conventional production for 1/3 of what it would have brought in 2013, also to achieve said record setting well. ..."
"... I also hope you understand why those of us who actually own an interest in US oil production grow tired of hearing about the supposed technological wonders. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Sarko, 12/26/2015 at 6:16 am
Technology is great but what happened with technology development when companies are cash flow negative? True, most of today fracking technology come online during 2003-2008 period, when price go from $25 to $140 per barrel.

Also, do you believe is there over 100 billion barrels in US oil reserves? I don't know, i ask you, because i see you are in industry on some way and OPEC and EIA future projections for production in mb/d suggest just that.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 9:21 am
Coffee.

We've discussed tech v economics a lot, of course. If you have answered this before, and I have forgotten, I apologize.

Do you own an interest in any oil and/or gas wells? Do you own any stocks or bonds in any E & P companies?

If the tech is working wonders, why is $38 WTI and $2 Henry Hub so devastating?

I wish you would at least focus on the whole of well productivity, and not just the record setting stuff.

Per NDIC, the highest Bakken per well barrels of oil per day field wide was 11/08 at 146. 143 per day was achieved 10/12. 10/15 it is now down to 108.

108 x .75 = 81. 81 x 365 = 29,565 barrels of oil per year to the WI owners.

29,565 x $28 = $827,820.00.

Subtract $82,782 for production taxes. Subtract $268,000 for OPEX. Subtract $75,000 for G & A.

The average well nets $402,000 in the above scenario.

Say you borrowed $5 million of the cost of this average well at 6% interest. It comes due in 2020. $300K interest. You now have $102,000 left to put towards principal of $5 million. Thus far, you likely haven't put any of that meager amount towards principal, if you are US shale. You are still putting it towards trying for a record setting well.

You have likely sold your conventional production for 1/3 of what it would have brought in 2013, also to achieve said record setting well.

Coffee, I hope someday you realize that high IP is really not that important.

I also hope you understand why those of us who actually own an interest in US oil production grow tired of hearing about the supposed technological wonders.

[Dec 26, 2015] Russian budget assume base scenario $50 for 2016

peakoilbarrel.com
Sarko, 12/25/2015 at 8:47 am
No way that oil price will be average $60 per barrel in 2016. Russian budget assume base scenario $50 but they will lower on $40-45 average in 2016. Russians said they not expected that average oil price be over $60 till 2018, they are very pessimistic on oil price.
I have one question: what is really number for LTO reserves in USA(USGS and EIA) on price around $60-70(in 2015 $)? Because, if it is around 30-35 billion barrels this all charts(not only OPEC but EIA) for US LTO production are mathematically impossible. They have average US LTO production on 4-4.5 mb/b but when you calculate that on 25 years period reserves need are around 40 billion barrels.
4.25mb/d x 365 days=1.55 billion barrels per year
1.55 barrels/year x 25 years=38.7 billion barrels.
I'm something miss or badly calculate?
likbez, 12/25/2015 at 11:31 am
"Russians said they not expected that average oil price be over $60 till 2018, they are very pessimistic on oil price."

They don't. My impression is that most Russian analysts expect mass bankruptcy of shale companies in the USA and $50-$60 on average in 2016

Google translate is your friend...

Sarko, 12/25/2015 at 12:07 pm
It is not government prediction but private funds and Lukoil, biggest private oil company in Russia. This is official government prediction, unfortunately it is on Russian.

http://i73.fastpic.ru/big/2015/1201/b8/df6cd754ec0dc3da1e6480127c206fb8.png

First row is projections of price, two scenarios:

Base price for Ural (around $2 discount on Brent)

2016: $50
2017: $52
2018: $55

Pesimistic

2016-2018 average price $40.

All budget plans, GDP, CPI are project on this oil price projections in Russia. So Russian government don't see oil price on brent over $60 in 2018. And if i'm correct, Russian Central Bank and finance/economic minister now make plans for $30-35 average price for 2016.

I just see official numbers of EIA for LTO reserves in USA and that is around 14 billion, if that is true all predictions about US LTO production on 4mb/d in next 25 are impossible, they even impossible if there is increased of 200% in LTO reserves from today level.

AlexS, 12/25/2015 at 12:27 pm
Russian oil company, Gazpromneft, recently said that their current operations will remain profitable at $15 per barrel, and at $20 they will drill new wells

[Dec 26, 2015] Why some shale companies just keep drilling wells in spite of the very low oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... Well that's just great. The article touts how smart this strategy is. The company thry focused on, Anadarko, lost $2.2 BILLION last QUARTER. ..."
"... Most LTO companies don't have cash. Most have a gob of debt. I don't think sinking cash into wells that will generate $0 revenue for a year or two is a good idea, especially given the financial shape LTO is in already. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson , 12/26/2015 at 8:51 am
Here is an interesting article that tries to explain why some companies just keep drilling wells in spite of the very low oil prices.

Hoping for a Price Surge, Oil Companies Keep Wells in Reserve

Their well, one of hundreds drilled by Anadarko Petroleum in eastern Colorado's Wattenberg field this year, could someday gush as many as 800 barrels of crude oil a day. But Anadarko is not planning to produce a drop of crude from the well for at least another year because the price of oil is now so pitifully low.

The well here is just one of more than 4,000 drilled oil and natural gas wells across the country producing nothing, but ready to be tapped quickly……….

But the incomplete wells are also another reason many analysts say a recovery in the oil price is nowhere in sight. Together the well backlog could produce as many as 500,000 barrels of oil a day, about the same amount of oil that Iran is expected to add to the glutted global market after it complies with the recent nuclear deal by the end of next year.

Some analysts say oil companies like Anadarko, EOG Resources and Continental Resources may collectively risk suffocating the very price revival they anticipate by releasing abundant new supplies once prices inch up. Others say the eventual impact would be small and short-lived, but since the industry has never used this strategy before, no one can be sure……….

On the completion side, fracking crews are easier to come by and their contracts tend to be more fluid. Now those completion costs have also come down - meaning that the uncompleted wells will eventually be brought on line at a lower cost, executives say.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 9:24 am
Well that's just great. The article touts how smart this strategy is. The company thry focused on, Anadarko, lost $2.2 BILLION last QUARTER.
oldfarmermac, 12/26/2015 at 9:39 am
Hi SS,

If you have or can raise the cash, it makes sense to drill now and produce a year or two down the road-IF you believe prices will be up. According to what I read here, the costs of drilling a well may be down by a third, due to so many men and machines and so much steel and sand etc , "looking for a home".

I don't know if this is "one third off" drilling sales event is totally for real, it might be only a quarter or a fifth off. Hopefully somebody who crunches tight oil numbers will have something to say about it.

Tight oil production brought on by drilling now and producing later is not going to noticeably affect the price later.

Ron Patterson, 12/26/2015 at 9:49 am
Tight oil production brought on by drilling now and producing later is not going to noticeably affect the price later.

By what logic did you arrive at that conclusion?

The article states: But the incomplete wells are also another reason many analysts say a recovery in the oil price is nowhere in sight. Together the well backlog could produce as many as 500,000 barrels of oil a day, …

Now I think an extra half a million barrels per day would noticeably affect the price.

shallow sand, 12/26/2015 at 10:56 am
OFM.

What you say may make sense of you are using cash and have little to no debt. It may make sense for ExxonMobil.

Most LTO companies don't have cash. Most have a gob of debt. I don't think sinking cash into wells that will generate $0 revenue for a year or two is a good idea, especially given the financial shape LTO is in already.

Also, the entire premise is that there will soon be a steep rise in the price of oil. That is a total crap shoot.

So they are strictly gambling that oil prices will rise steeply in the next couple years? Is that a good business strategy for multi-billion dollar corporations to undertake, especially when the futures market says otherwise?

Ask Harold Hamm how easy it is to predict the future price of oil.

[Dec 25, 2015] OPEC's 2015 World Oil Outlook is too optimistic as for the USA oil production

Notable quotes:
"... OPEC expects light tight oil to increase in 2016. They only show a slight uptick in LTO in 2016 but an uptick nevertheless. I just don't believe that is possible. ..."
"... In this Outlook, the price of the ORB is assumed to average $55/b during 2015 and to resume an upward trend in both the medium- and long-term. The medium-term foresees a $5/b increase each year so that a level of $80/b (nominal) for the ORB is reached by 2020, reflecting a gradual improvement in market conditions as growing demand and slower than previously expected non-OPEC supply growth eliminate the existing oversupply and lead to a more balanced market. This, in turn, will provide support to prices. Translated into real prices, the oil price is assumed to be $70.7/b by 2020 (in 2014 prices). ..."
"... The long-term price assumption is based on the estimated cost of supplying the marginal barrel which will gradually move to more expensive areas. This continues to be the major factor in the period through to 2040. The price of the ORB in real terms is assumed to rise from more than $70/b in 2020 (in 2014 prices) to $95/b in 2040 (in 2014 prices). Correspondingly, nominal prices reach $80/b in 2020, rising to almost $123/b by 2030 and more than $160/b by 2040. It should be noted that these are not price forecasts, but working assumptions to guide the development of the Reference Case scenario. ..."
"... If the cost of producing that extra barrel is, say $80 a barrel, but only 80 million barrels can possibly be produced and the world could use 90 million barrels, then the price will rise to a lot higher than $80 a barrel. ..."
"... What they call "OPEC crude supply" is not projected actual production, but "the requirement for OPEC crude", i.e. global demand less non-OPEC supply. OPEC NGLs and OPEC other liquids (mainly GTL). ..."
"... at $55 demand should grow in excess of 1 million barrels per day per year. ..."
"... At $55 half the OPEC members get bankrupt in 5 years, including Saudi Arabia. ..."
"... I think once December 31st passes OPEC might cut. Why December 31st? That is the price the auditors will use to assess the value of the oil in the ground for US shale companies. A low price then assures they will not get any credit increases till December 2016 even if the price rebounds. ..."
"... If they are going to cut, it will be after December 31st. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Peak Oil Barrel

It is with the US and Canada where OPEC is most optimistic. They see US and Canada liquids production continuing onward and upward with not much of a pause.

OPEC expects light tight oil to increase in 2016. They only show a slight uptick in LTO in 2016 but an uptick nevertheless. I just don't believe that is possible.

But what about prices. Are not prices killing production in the oil patch, especially in the USA? Well the 2015 World Oil Outlook does not present any price charts or tables. But they do tell us what prices need to do in order for their reference case predictions to be fulfilled, all on page 8. Bold mine.

In this Outlook, the price of the ORB is assumed to average $55/b during 2015 and to resume an upward trend in both the medium- and long-term. The medium-term foresees a $5/b increase each year so that a level of $80/b (nominal) for the ORB is reached by 2020, reflecting a gradual improvement in market conditions as growing demand and slower than previously expected non-OPEC supply growth eliminate the existing oversupply and lead to a more balanced market. This, in turn, will provide support to prices. Translated into real prices, the oil price is assumed to be $70.7/b by 2020 (in 2014 prices).

The long-term price assumption is based on the estimated cost of supplying the marginal barrel which will gradually move to more expensive areas. This continues to be the major factor in the period through to 2040. The price of the ORB in real terms is assumed to rise from more than $70/b in 2020 (in 2014 prices) to $95/b in 2040 (in 2014 prices). Correspondingly, nominal prices reach $80/b in 2020, rising to almost $123/b by 2030 and more than $160/b by 2040. It should be noted that these are not price forecasts, but working assumptions to guide the development of the Reference Case scenario.

They are saying that if prices increase by $5 a barrel a year, from $55 a barrel that they assume will be the 2015 average, then all will be well after only a slight dip in production in 2016 and 2017. So in 2016 we should see prices averaging $60 a barrel if they get their "Reference Case" started off on the right foot.

Glenn Stehle, 12/25/2015 at 10:10 am

Could this be a head fake on the part of OPEC, an attempt to appeal to the wishful thinking of Western policy makers (e.g., the sublime promises coming out of Cowboyistan and Planet Green) and to lure them into believing they have OPEC by the short hairs?

If so, OPEC has plenty of takers, such as Anatole Kaletsky:

Assuming that a combination of shale development, environmental pressure, and advances in clean energy keep the OPEC cartel paralyzed, oil will now trade like any other commodity in a normal competitive market, as it did from 1986 to 2005. As investors appreciate this new reality, they will focus on a basic principle of economics: "marginal cost pricing."

In a normal competitive market, prices will be set by the cost of producing an extra barrel from the cheapest oilfields with spare capacity. This means that all the reserves in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, and Central Asia would have to be fully developed and exhausted before anyone even bothered exploring under the Arctic ice cap or deep in the Gulf of Mexico or hundreds of miles off the Brazilian coast….

[W]ith OPEC on the ropes, the broad principle applies: ExxonMobil, Shell, and BP can no longer hope to compete with Saudi, Iranian, or Russian companies, which now have exclusive access to reserves that can be extracted with nothing more sophisticated than nineteenth-century "nodding donkeys."….

For Western oil companies, the rational strategy will be to stop oil exploration and seek profits by providing equipment, geological knowhow, and new technologies such as hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") to oil-producing countries….

There are two reasons why this has not happened – yet. Oil company managements still believe, with quasi-religious fervor, in perpetually rising demand and prices. So they prefer to waste money seeking new reserves instead of maximizing shareholders' cash payouts. And they contemptuously dismiss the only other plausible strategy: an investment shift from oil exploration to new energy technologies that will eventually replace fossil fuels.

Redirecting just half the $50 billion that oil companies are likely to spend this year on exploring for new reserves would more than double the $10 billion for clean-energy research announced this month by 20 governments at the Paris climate-change conference. The financial returns from such investment would almost certainly be far higher than from oil exploration….

As long as OPEC's output restrictions and expansion of cheap Middle Eastern oilfields sheltered Western oil companies from marginal-cost pricing, such complacency was understandable. But the Saudis and other OPEC governments now seem to recognize that output restrictions merely cede market share to American frackers and other higher-cost producers, while environmental pressures and advances in clean energy transform much of their oil into a worthless "stranded asset" that can never be used or sold….

OPEC seems finally to have absorbed this message and realized that the Oil Age is ending. Western oil companies need to wake up to the same reality, stop exploring, and either innovate or liquidate.

https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/marginal-pricing-end-of-western-oil-producers-by-anatole-kaletsky-2015-12

Ron Patterson, 12/25/2015 at 10:40 am

Quoting Anatole Kaletsky:

In a normal competitive market, prices will be set by the cost of producing an extra barrel from the cheapest oilfields with spare capacity.

No, that is simply not so. I have heard this claim made many times in the last 15 or so years. That is the claim is that: "Oil is priced on the margin." That is, as Kaletsky believes, the price of oil is set by the cost of producing the highest price barrel. And every time that is proposed, it gets shot down by people a lot smarter than me.

If the cost of producing that extra barrel is, say $80 a barrel, but only 80 million barrels can possibly be produced and the world could use 90 million barrels, then the price will rise to a lot higher than $80 a barrel.

Oil, just like everything else in the world, is priced by supply and demand and not what it costs to produce the highest priced barrel to produce.

Note: There are a few exceptions to the supply an demand rule. Rationing for example. Or price controls… or if you can corner the market on any one product like a life saving drug. Or another example: Congress says Medicare is not allowed open bidding for drugs but must pay the price that big Pharma asks. Big Pharma bought your congressman and demanded that the "no bid" clause be wrote into the bill. They did as they were told by the money that bought them their election.

The Veterans Administration is allowed to bid for the lowest price on drugs and as a result they get their drugs at a far cheaper price than does Medicare.

AlexS, 12/25/2015 at 10:28 am

Ron,

What they call "OPEC crude supply" is not projected actual production, but "the requirement for OPEC crude", i.e. global demand less non-OPEC supply. OPEC NGLs and OPEC other liquids (mainly GTL).

Actual OPEC crude production will most likely be higher (Iran, Iraq, Lybia)

Huckleberry Finn, 12/25/2015 at 11:56 am
So I think this is a brilliant report.

Anyone in OECD holding out for higher prices makes decisions based on this then even the 3 million barrels of additional supply, which is 600,000 barrels per day per year, will not happen.

Even if that does, at $55 demand should grow in excess of 1 million barrels per day per year.

The best part about this is if SA has the biggest hand in getting this report done, and I have no reason to believe otherwise, all OPEC members should be ready to cooperate with cuts.

At $55 half the OPEC members get bankrupt in 5 years, including Saudi Arabia.

I think once December 31st passes OPEC might cut. Why December 31st? That is the price the auditors will use to assess the value of the oil in the ground for US shale companies. A low price then assures they will not get any credit increases till December 2016 even if the price rebounds.

If they are going to cut, it will be after December 31st.

[Dec 25, 2015] Does a barrel of NGL have the same BTU as a Barrel of Crude or Condensate?

Due to higher percentage of light crude, the net energy available on a per barrel basis is falling off significantly. One barrel of condensate contain only 60% or energy of the barrel of regular oil. In other words it is almost equal to gasoline as for energy contained.
Notable quotes:
"... Of course, what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C), and condensate can't be used to meet crude oil contractual obligations at Cushing. I assume that the listed value for gasoline, 5.2 MMBTU, is a pretty good approximation for an average value for condensate. ..."
"... For the first nine months of 2015, the EIA estimates that the ratio of US Lower 48 condensate* to US Lower 48 "Crude oil" Production, i.e., C+C, was 22%, or 2 million bpd of Lower 48 condensate production: ..."
"... My premise was and is that we have been on an "Undulating plateau" in actual global crude oil production, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have so far continued to increase: ..."
"... The actual net energy available on a per barrel basis, the way the accounting is done, including ever higher percentages of very light oil, condensate, natural gas liquids, etc, MUST be falling off significantly. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Huckleberry Finn, 12/25/2015 at 8:32 am
Does a barrel of NGL have the same BTU as a Barrel of Crude or Condensate?
If not, converting all into BTU would show whether total BTUs provided are increasing or static.
Ron Patterson, 12/25/2015 at 9:06 am
Rune Likvern says: NGLs have around 60 – 70% of the volumetric energy (heat) content of crude oil.

However peak oil will happen when oil peaks, not NGLs. Liquid transportation BTUs should not be mixed with other types of BTUs. Otherwise we would need to count BTUs from coal as well.

Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/25/2015 at 10:05 am
Some EIA million BTU (MMBTU) conversion factors:

https://www.eia.gov/forecasts/aeo/pdf/appg.pdf

Of course, what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C), and condensate can't be used to meet crude oil contractual obligations at Cushing. I assume that the listed value for gasoline, 5.2 MMBTU, is a pretty good approximation for an average value for condensate.

For the first nine months of 2015, the EIA estimates that the ratio of US Lower 48 condensate* to US Lower 48 "Crude oil" Production, i.e., C+C, was 22%, or 2 million bpd of Lower 48 condensate production:

https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.cfm?id=23952

These numbers are consistent with some estimates that I used in the following comment, where I tried to come up with an estimate of actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower crude oil, i.e., the stuff that corresponds to the global price indexes), versus global condensate production, using the only available data, some EIA API gravity estimates and EIA/OPEC data.

My premise was and is that we have been on an "Undulating plateau" in actual global crude oil production, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have so far continued to increase:

http://peakoilbarrel.com/jean-laherreres-bakken-update/comment-page-1/#comment-534101

*Condensate with API gravity of 45 degrees or more

Ovi, 12/25/2015 at 9:14 am
Ron I note that in the post, some places use the word Supply and in others, Production. In OPEC terminology, Supply adds processing gains to Production. Could this be part of the difference you mention between EIA and OPEC?
Ron Patterson, 12/25/2015 at 10:06 am
No, I don't think so. In the charts that I copied and pasted, they say supply and, in this case anyway, they mean total production. And I was comparing only the supply marked as "crude". This does not include anything except crude. OPEC's total "crude" is way less than the EIA's or even JODI's "crude + condensate".
World crude oil production according to the EIA, JODI and OPEC in million barrels per day.
	2014	 2015	
EIA  	77.9  	79.7 	  Avg. 1st 6 Months
JODI	74.1 	76.1	  Avg. 1st 10 Months
OPEC	72.7 	74.2	
oldfarmermac, 12/25/2015 at 9:52 am
The actual net energy available on a per barrel basis, the way the accounting is done, including ever higher percentages of very light oil, condensate, natural gas liquids, etc, MUST be falling off significantly.

How we should account for this loss in energy density is debatable, in terms of the peak oil debate. But in the real 3D world, it is no doubt already a big enough loss that it should be accounted for in forecasting future consumption measured in barrels.

If oil production is going to actually increase , for another couple of decades, in the face of the depletion of today's legacy oil fields, then the exploration guys are going to have to work some miracles, finding oil in substantial amounts, in places that have been combed over multiple times already. And the production guys are going to have to come up with some miracles too, in order to keep the per barrel cost in constant money below a hundred bucks.

Now being a practical old farmer, I do believe in " miracles", having witnessed half a dozen or so over my life time,for example cell phones, no till planting, genetic engineering, etc. But I don't believe in PREDICTING they will come to pass within any given field, within any given time frame.

I am with Ron, I believe all these rosy forecasts are nothing less than ridiculous, in terms of increasing total production annually going forward, especially at the prices mentioned.

[Dec 24, 2015] Obama s foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
The Washington Post

Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.

After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted next year.

At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.

"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm. "It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."

... ... ...

In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.

The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of 2016.

But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned from constrained oil exports a year ago.

Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were broadened in 2012.

"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."

Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output, its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's Urals oil, McNally said.

Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China, foreign policy and energy.

[Dec 24, 2015] Egypt budget and current account deficits – can Saudi Arabia bail out Cairo

crudeoilpeak.info
JEDDAH: Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman has ordered that Saudi Arabia's aid and investment package to Egypt should be increased to SR30 billion (US$ 8 bn) in the next five years.

The announcement was made by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at a meeting with Egyptian Prime Minister Sherif Ismail in Cairo on Tuesday, said SPA (Saudi Press Agency)

Prince Mohammed said at the start of the meeting that King Salman ordered the increase in the package - to contribute to Egypt's oil needs for five years and for an increase in traffic for Saudi ships in the Suez Canal.

According to a report in Bloomberg quoting Egyptian Investment Minister Ashraf Salman on Wednesday, the investment of SR30 billion would be through Saudi Arabia's public and sovereign funds, with inflows beginning immediately. Egypt is also set to renew a deal to import Saudi oil products for five years on favorable terms, Ismail said."

http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/851651

This follows pledges of US$ 12.5 bn aid by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Oman in March 2015, at an economic conference (EEDC) in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Will that be enough to rescue Egypt?

Let's have a look at Egypt's budget. In the previous post we found that Egypt's oil production peaked in 1993. Declining and now stagnating oil production against an ever-growing oil demand of a ballooning population meant that Egypt is a net-oil importer since 2010. How did that impact on the budget? We use IMF data available from this website: http://www.imf.org/external/country/egy/index.htm

[Dec 24, 2015] Egypt budget and current account deficits – can Saudi Arabia bail out Cairo

crudeoilpeak.info
JEDDAH: Custodian of the Two Holy Mosques King Salman has ordered that Saudi Arabia's aid and investment package to Egypt should be increased to SR30 billion (US$ 8 bn) in the next five years.

The announcement was made by Deputy Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at a meeting with Egyptian Prime Minister Sherif Ismail in Cairo on Tuesday, said SPA (Saudi Press Agency)

Prince Mohammed said at the start of the meeting that King Salman ordered the increase in the package - to contribute to Egypt's oil needs for five years and for an increase in traffic for Saudi ships in the Suez Canal.

According to a report in Bloomberg quoting Egyptian Investment Minister Ashraf Salman on Wednesday, the investment of SR30 billion would be through Saudi Arabia's public and sovereign funds, with inflows beginning immediately. Egypt is also set to renew a deal to import Saudi oil products for five years on favorable terms, Ismail said."

http://www.arabnews.com/featured/news/851651

This follows pledges of US$ 12.5 bn aid by Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, the UAE and Oman in March 2015, at an economic conference (EEDC) in Sharm el-Sheikh.

Will that be enough to rescue Egypt?

Let's have a look at Egypt's budget. In the previous post we found that Egypt's oil production peaked in 1993. Declining and now stagnating oil production against an ever-growing oil demand of a ballooning population meant that Egypt is a net-oil importer since 2010. How did that impact on the budget? We use IMF data available from this website: http://www.imf.org/external/country/egy/index.htm

[Dec 24, 2015] The Fallacy Of Peak Oil Demand

The fallacy of peak oil demand is mainly due to the fact that it limit itself to the G7. which might well exprence peak demand soon. Demand will be growing with the growth of world population and the number of cars on the roads, which continue to increase. The main drivers will be India and China but Arab countries also experience explosive demand. Generally Muslim world will grow oil demand faster then the rest of the world as growth of population is concentrated predominantly in those countries.
Notable quotes:
"... Biofuels are certainly not growing at a fast enough rate to meet world demand – much less cut into petroleum's dominance. Further, there isn't enough available arable land in the world for biofuels to ever make more than a tiny contribution to the world's oil supply. Advanced biofuels which many advocates assured us could deliver us from our oil dependence have failed to deliver. ..."
"... According to Inside EVs, a website that reports on EV sales, through the first 11 months of 2014 there were 110,011 EVs sold in the U.S. This year, sales in the first 11 months have fallen to 102,898 vehicles - a decline of 6.5%. Annual EV sales did grow rapidly from 2011 to 2013, but haven't grown much beyond 2013 s 97,507 vehicles sold. ..."
"... According to Automotive News, the first 11 months of 2014 saw overall vehicle sales in the U.S. of 15,015,434 automobiles (cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs). ..."
"... Thus, in one year the number of cars sold in the U.S. has increased by 811,200 vehicles. ..."
"... That's a one-year increase that's more than double the total EV sales of the past 5 years - and almost all of those vehicles run on petroleum. ..."
www.forbes.com

What about biofuels? The world currently consumes about 92 million barrels of oil per day. The world produces about 1.5 million barrels of oil equivalent (BOE) of biofuels per day. Since 2005, biofuel production in the world has grown by 1 million barrels a day, while crude oil production has grown by nearly 7 million barrels a day. Biofuels are certainly not growing at a fast enough rate to meet world demand – much less cut into petroleum's dominance. Further, there isn't enough available arable land in the world for biofuels to ever make more than a tiny contribution to the world's oil supply. Advanced biofuels which many advocates assured us could deliver us from our oil dependence have failed to deliver.

That brings me to the other primary contender often mentioned as a crude oil killer: the electric vehicle (EV). In theory, as the world switches to EVs, our crude oil consumption will peak and fall. But what is actually happening?

According to Inside EVs, a website that reports on EV sales, through the first 11 months of 2014 there were 110,011 EVs sold in the U.S. This year, sales in the first 11 months have fallen to 102,898 vehicles - a decline of 6.5%. Annual EV sales did grow rapidly from 2011 to 2013, but haven't grown much beyond 2013′s 97,507 vehicles sold.

But 100,000 vehicles per year is nothing to sneeze at, right? Well, let's compare that against overall vehicle sales. According to Automotive News, the first 11 months of 2014 saw overall vehicle sales in the U.S. of 15,015,434 automobiles (cars, light-duty trucks, and SUVs). That means that electric cars sales accounted for about 0.7% of the market. But what's much more revealing is that overall vehicle sales in the U.S. this year through November were 15,826,634 automobiles. Thus, in one year the number of cars sold in the U.S. has increased by 811,200 vehicles.

That's a one-year increase that's more than double the total EV sales of the past 5 years - and almost all of those vehicles run on petroleum.

...there is still nothing on the horizon that signals even the beginning of the end of the oil age.

[Dec 24, 2015] The U.S. oil production miracle continues

Notable quotes:
"... According to today's EIA inventory report, U.S. production was up another 1 kb/d this week. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Ovi, 12/23/2015 at 10:20 pm

The U.S. oil production miracle continues today. According to today's EIA inventory report, U.S. production was up another 1 kb/d this week. Added September US production from the EIA monthly International Stats to the attached chart. From September 4 (8,683 kb/d) to Dec 18 (8,653 kb/d) lower 48 production has only dropped by 30 kb/d.

[Dec 24, 2015] In June 2015 Steven Kopits was predicting $85 oil by the end of the third quarter. He might be right of figure but made a timing error by one year.

Notable quotes:
"... Steven Kopits is predicting $85 oil by the end of the third quarter [of 2015]. ..."
"... Based on the 2005 to 2013 rate of decline in the ratio of Saudi production to consumption, I estimate that Saudi Arabia may have already shipped more than 40% of their post-2005 CNE (Cumulative Net Exports). ..."
"... The key question about tight/shale plays is whether plays like the Bakken – with an average per well production rate of a little over 100 bpd, with a median production rate of less than 100 bpd, with an overall very rapid decline rate – will work in higher operating cost areas around the world. ..."
econbrowser.com
Jeffrey J. Brown

Steven Kopits is predicting $85 oil by the end of the third quarter [of 2015]. Here's the link to the recent interview with Steven on CNBC:

http://video.cnbc.com/gallery/?video=3000384466

So far, monthly Brent crude oil prices are recovering at about twice the rate of increase that we saw following the December, 2008 monthly low in Brent prices. From January, 2015 to May, 2015, monthly Brent price increased at an annualized rate of about 90%/year. Monthly Brent prices rose at an annualized rate of 43%/year from December, 2008 to February, 2011.

Regarding Saudi Arabia, their post-2005 annual net exports (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA data) have been substantially below (their recently revised upward) 2005 level of 9.5 MMBPD (million barrels per day) for nine straight years. Based on the 2005 to 2013 rate of decline in the ratio of Saudi production to consumption, I estimate that Saudi Arabia may have already shipped more than 40% of their post-2005 CNE (Cumulative Net Exports).

The key question about tight/shale plays is whether plays like the Bakken – with an average per well production rate of a little over 100 bpd, with a median production rate of less than 100 bpd, with an overall very rapid decline rate – will work in higher operating cost areas around the world.

In addition, not all shale plays are commercial in the US, and those that are commercial tend to very much gas prone.

[Dec 24, 2015] Refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper API limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity)

Lifting of export ban solved this problem and now such crude can be exported to refineries which are tunes to lighter sorts of oil. that might mean that the USA glut is over.
"... I suspect that most of the 2015 build in US and global C+C inventories consists of condensate, and I frequently cite a Reuters article earlier this year that documented case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper API limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity*), but that are deficient in distillates. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/10/2015 at 7:40 am

There has been a lot of talk regarding the oil glut, but according to eia crude inventories there is only 105.1 million more barrils of crude than a year ago

What the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C).

I suspect that most of the 2015 build in US and global C+C inventories consists of condensate, and I frequently cite a Reuters article earlier this year that documented case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper API limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity*), but that are deficient in distillates.

In any case, based on the most recent four week running average data, US refineries were dependent on net crude oil imports for 43% of the C+C processed in US refineries (7.1/16.5) versus 44% a year ago (7.1/16.2). If we had so much (generally cheaper than imported) actual crude oil on hand in the US, why are refiners importing the same amount of crude oil as they did last year?

*Most common overall dividing line between crude & condensate is 45 API

[Dec 24, 2015] US banks hit by cheap oil as Opec warns of long-term low

Notable quotes:
"... Banks including Wells Fargo have recently spoken about the dangers of low oil prices that could make exploration companies and oil producers unable to pay their loans. ..."
"... There are now five times as many oil and gas loans in danger of default to the oil and gas sector as there were a year ago, a trio of US regulators warned in November…. ..."
Dec 24, 2015 | ft.com

US banks face the prospect of tougher stress tests next year because of their exposure to oil in a sign of how the falling price of crude is transforming the outlook not just for energy companies but the financial sector….

Banks including Wells Fargo have recently spoken about the dangers of low oil prices that could make exploration companies and oil producers unable to pay their loans.

There are now five times as many oil and gas loans in danger of default to the oil and gas sector as there were a year ago, a trio of US regulators warned in November….

"It's the fact that they have 28 negative things hitting you at once that makes them challenging," said Mr Goldberg.

[Dec 24, 2015] Oil above $37 as U.S. supply tightens, still near 11-year low

Lifting export ban eliminates the gap between WTI and Brent which is positive for ETNs based on WTI...
Notable quotes:
"... The lifting of the ban on U.S. exports will provide some underlying support for U.S. crude. ..."
"... at current prices, demand is going to remain strong next year ..."
"... ...Crude inventories, which were expected to rise, fell 5.88 million barrels, the Energy Information Administration said. ..."
"... ...Baker Hughes reported that U.S. oil drillers cut rigs for a fifth week in the last six, a sign that low prices are curbing activity and could slow output. ..."
finance.yahoo.com

"The lifting of the ban on U.S. exports will provide some underlying support for U.S. crude. Oil demand in 2015 was exceptionally high and at current prices, demand is going to remain strong next year," said Olivier Jakob, analyst at Petromatrix.

...Crude inventories, which were expected to rise, fell 5.88 million barrels, the Energy Information Administration said.

...Baker Hughes reported that U.S. oil drillers cut rigs for a fifth week in the last six, a sign that low prices are curbing activity and could slow output.

TUSC

Different whats being said elsewhere, Oil [slump is] based on the USA dollar creep up. WTI went above Brent Oil prices for the first time in years.

Saudi Oil is running out, they are producing a little bit less than they did this time last year and that is with more new oil wells and pumps, Saudi King as issued a statement for its country to move away from the dependence on oil. That's a sure sign oil stocks in Saudi Arabia have started to fall.

[Dec 24, 2015] Electrical vehicles sales are stagnant without government subsidies but even with them they are tough sell

Notable quotes:
"... electric vehicles are still a tiny minority of all vehicles and the solar panels that exist are not close to being sufficient to meet the electrical needs of residents and businesses. ..."
"... The subsidies were insufficient to create widespread adoption when energy prices were high; today it's an even tougher sell. ..."
"... the bottom line is that it's really hard to compete with an energy source as energy-dense, portable, and cheap as oil - especially at today's prices ..."
"... Unless one believes that inexpensive oil will last forever, a transition must take place. In my opinion, that transition will fall somewhere on a continuum from immediate economic collapse to a slower economic collapse. ..."
"... So hooray for government subsidies. They do very little harm and create some small measure of good. They cost a lot less than bombs and bank bailouts. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Silicon Valley Observer, 12/24/2015 at 10:58 am
I live in an area that could be considered ground zero for renewable energy activism. Electric vehicles are commonplace in Silicon Valley - especially in the Whole Foods parking lot. Solar panels are also found many places - on homes, on office buildings, on the structures that shade the parking lot at my son's high school. Just a short drive up the road Tesla is cranking out electric status symbols that herald a new era.

Even so, electric vehicles are still a tiny minority of all vehicles and the solar panels that exist are not close to being sufficient to meet the electrical needs of residents and businesses. There are those on this forum who are more than happy to point out that all of this probably wouldn't be happening without government subsidies. And that is largely true. And some of the subsidies are truly silly. For example, I had a solar powered skylight installed in my house and, just because it had a solar panel, it qualified for a generous tax subsidy - even though the electricity it saves is minuscule.

The subsidies were insufficient to create widespread adoption when energy prices were high; today it's an even tougher sell. There would always be enthusiasts who would ignore the economics because they can afford to and it does buy a certain cache in Cupertino. But there aren't enough Apple and Google engineers to make a difference. The cashier at my local Walmart isn't going to spend an extra $10K to $20K on a Nissan Leaf over an economical ICE vehicle; and there are a lot more people like her than like the Apple/Google engineers.

To me, the bottom line is that it's really hard to compete with an energy source as energy-dense, portable, and cheap as oil - especially at today's prices. But whereas some people, even on this forum, would take some pleasure in pointing out the inadequacies of electric vehicles and their associated subsidies and, I assume, argue for their elimination, I do not.

Unless one believes that inexpensive oil will last forever, a transition must take place. In my opinion, that transition will fall somewhere on a continuum from immediate economic collapse to a slower economic collapse. Collapse is inevitable because no energy source can replace oil and oil underlies our entire economy. In this viewpoint, whether or not we have electric vehicles will make little difference. We won't have jobs to drive to. We won't have products in the stores to buy even if we can drive to them. Yes, there will be a small portion of the population who will do better than most - Silicon Valley will probably be one of those places for quite a while - and for them electric vehicles will provide some value. But not for the vast majority.

So hooray for government subsidies. They do very little harm and create some small measure of good. They cost a lot less than bombs and bank bailouts.

Will they make a meaningful difference in the broad arc of history? I think not. But I have been wrong before. To those who would criticize them I ask you to take the longer view and tell me, what is your vision of the future?

Merry Christmas

[Dec 24, 2015] Dicker Oil isn't going anywhere in 2016

Notable quotes:
"... 2016 might be only marginally better. Oil prices might rise in the third quarter ..."
finance.yahoo.com

Dan Dicker of MercBlock reveals his 2016 outlook for oil. He made the following points

[Dec 24, 2015] California Gas Leak Now Being Called Worst Catastrophe Since BP Spill Zero Hedge

Notable quotes:
"... Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping, as according to the California Air Resources Board, methane - a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide - has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent "to a volcanic eruption" for about two months now. ..."
"... So far, the total leaked gas measures somewhere around 100,000 tons - adding "approximately one-quarter to the regular statewide methane emissions" during that same time frame. ..."
"... Officials and experts are concerned, and they can't recall another leak of this magnitude in decades - if ever. "I asked this question of our staff of 30 years," said Steve Bohlen, who recently left his position as state supervisor of oil and gas. "This is unique in the last three or four decades. This is an unusual event, period." ..."
"... no one really knows the potential long-term side effects of benzene and radon, the carcinogens that are commonly found in natural gas. ..."
"... In fact, there are some 300 such depleted subterranean oil fields being employed this way around the United States ..."
"... Aliso Canyon, a natural gas storage site since the 1970s, has one of the largest capacities: 86 billion cubic feet. During the summer, gas earmarked for winter heating is pumped into these underground cavities by SoCalGas - and the process is reversed with the turn of the seasons. ..."
www.zerohedge.com
Since initially reporting on California's Alison Canyon gas leak, more details have emerged on the scale (and potential for no solution) of the problem as the infamous Erin Brockovich writes, "the enormity of the Aliso Canyon gas leak cannot be overstated. Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping," as according to the California Air Resources Board, methane - a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide - has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent "to a volcanic eruption" for about two months now.

New infrared footage exposes the massive leak..

Infographic of leak (and potential solution)

As TheAntiMedia.org's Claire Bernish details, methane gas continues spewing, unchecked, into the air over southern California from a fractured well to an underground storage site - at such an alarming rate that low-flying planes have necessarily been diverted by the FAA, lest internal combustion engines meet highly volatile gas and, well, blow the entire area to hell.

This is, indeed, the biggest environmental catastrophe since the BP Deepwater Horizon oil rig exploded in the Gulf of Mexico in 2010; and for now, there is no way to stop it.

This methane disaster is worse than can be sufficiently described in words, because while it's estimated well over 100,000 pounds of methane spew into the atmosphere every hour, the leak can't be halted, at least until spring. Even then, that stoppage depends entirely on the efficacy of a proposed fix - which remains a dubiously open question.

According to the California Air Resources Board, methane - a greenhouse gas 72 times more impactful in the atmosphere than carbon dioxide - has been escaping from the Aliso Canyon site with force equivalent "to a volcanic eruption" for about two months now. So far, the total leaked gas measures somewhere around 100,000 tons - adding "approximately one-quarter to the regular statewide methane emissions" during that same time frame.

"The relative magnitude of emissions from the leak compared to other sources of methane in the State underscores the urgency of stopping the gas leak. This comes on top of any problems caused by odor and any potential impacts from exposure," states the initial report on the Aliso leak by air quality officials.

"The enormity of the Aliso Canyon gas leak cannot be overstated. Gas is escaping through a ruptured pipe more than 8,000 feet underground, and it shows no signs of stopping. As the pressure from the weight on top of the pipe causes the gas to diffuse, it only continues to dissipate across a wider and wider area," explained Erin Brockovich, who spent time in nearby Porter Ranch investigating the leak.

Officials and experts are concerned, and they can't recall another leak of this magnitude in decades - if ever. "I asked this question of our staff of 30 years," said Steve Bohlen, who recently left his position as state supervisor of oil and gas. "This is unique in the last three or four decades. This is an unusual event, period."

Though methane, itself, has no odor, the addition of odorants methyl mercaptan and tetrahydrothiophene - a safety measure to alert people by smell to the presence of natural gas - has made the enormous methane seepage impossible to ignore. Thousands of households have evacuated the area, despite little help, much less information, from the gas company about when they might be able to return. As reported by the Los Angeles Times, SoCalGas spokesperson Michael Mizrahi claimed the company had paid to relocate and house 2,092 households - but that effort is severely lacking, says Los Angeles City Attorney Mike Feuer.

Yesterday, the city attorney's office sought a restraining order to mandate SoCalGas relocate residents in the affected area within 48 hours of their request; and it is also seeking a "special master" to oversee the entire relocation operation, which is currently being handled by the gas company. Not only does the present relocation lack speed and coordination, but a housing crunch has resulted in surrounding areas - in some cases landlords, who prefer year-long leases to shorter terms, have driven rent as high as $8,500 per month. Hotels are operating at capacity, and in "some of those hotel rooms there are not enough beds for the people who are being moved," explained chief deputy to the city attorney, James P. Clark.

"It's time Porter Ranch residents had direct and complete answers about all facets of this leak," Clark continued, "including what caused it, how to stop it, and what will be done to assure it never happens again. They should receive better, quicker, and completely adequate relocation assistance."

On Thursday, Los Angeles Unified School District board members voted unanimously to close two Porter Ranch schools and relocate their 1,900 students and staff to different locations for the foreseeable future. A local emergency has been declared by the Los Angeles County Board of Supervisors.

Multiple lawsuits have now been initiated against SoCalGas and/or its parent company, Sempra Energy. A Los Angeles firm representing three of the families, who filed their suit Friday, described in a statement that the well has been "leaking noxious odors, hazardous gases, chemicals, pollutants, and contaminants due to a massive well failure and blowout. However, SoCalGas failed to inform residents of neighboring communities of the disastrous gas leak in a timely manner, putting the health and well-being of thousands of families in jeopardy." Those suits allege "negligence, strict liability of ultra-hazardous activity, private nuisance, inverse condemnation, and trespass."

A class-action lawsuit has also been filed on behalf of the Save Porter Ranch group; and City Attorney Mike Feuer filed a civil suit earlier this month due to the leak's continued threat to residents' health and damage to the environment, alleging failure by SoCalGas to prevent the leak and further exacerbation of "the effects of that failure by allowing the acute odor and health problems faced by the community to persist for more than one month, to say nothing about the indefinite time it will persist into the future," state the court documents. "No community should have to endure what the residents of Porter Ranch have suffered from the gas company's continued failure to stop that leak," Feuer stated.

SoCalGas insists there will be no long-term health effects resulting from the persistent leak; but as Brockovich pointed out, "no one really knows the potential long-term side effects of benzene and radon, the carcinogens that are commonly found in natural gas." In an email to the Los Angeles Daily News, SoCalGas stated they were "providing air filters for people's homes" and "have established a claims process for those who feel they may have suffered harm or injury. And our top priority remains stopping this leak as quickly and safely as possible.

"While the odor added to the leaking gas can cause symptoms for some, the gas is not toxic and county health officials have said the leak does not pose a long-term health risk."

But what's making this massive leak so difficult to stop pertains to the storage 'container,' itself. "We have the largest natural gas storage system in the world," boasts Chris McGill, vice president of the American Gas Association. In the United States, old underground oil fields are often put to use as storage vessels for natural gas - because, hey, that geology worked just fine to hold oil for millions of years, so why not natural gas?

In fact, there are some 300 such depleted subterranean oil fields being employed this way around the United States.

Aliso Canyon, a natural gas storage site since the 1970s, has one of the largest capacities: 86 billion cubic feet. During the summer, gas earmarked for winter heating is pumped into these underground cavities by SoCalGas - and the process is reversed with the turn of the seasons. However, this year, workers encountered what quickly became evident was anything but a typical hiccup. As Wired reported:

"On October 23, workers noticed the leak at a 40-year-old well in Aliso Canyon. Small leaks are routine, says Bohlen, and SoCalGas did what it routinely does: put fluid down the well to stop the leak and tinker with the well head. It didn't work. The company tried it five more times, and the gas kept leaking. At this point, it was clear the leak was far from routine, and the problem was deeper underground."

Beginning December 4th, SoCalGas crews began drilling a relief well to intercept the fissured pipe. Cement will then be poured into both to seal the wells permanently. Of course, for this to work, crews must locate that original pipe, which is a mere seven inches in diameter, thousands of feet underground - without accidentally creating any sparks, whatsoever. Work near the leak site, therefore, has been prohibited after nightfall, when lighting equipment could potentially cause such a spark; though drilling for the relief well is situated far enough away to continue nonstop.

Flaring, or setting a deliberate fire to burn off excess gas, simply isn't an option. The mammoth scope of this leak means a flare would ultimately complicate matters even further.

"There is no stone being left unturned to get this well closed," Bohlen stated. "It's our top priority."

In the meantime, it will be months without any possibility of halting this disaster-in-motion. Sickened, uprooted, and furious residents can rest assured, though, because even as methane spews nonstop into the air, SoCalGas did have this consolation:

"We are deeply sorry for the frustration."

See also

[Dec 24, 2015] Low oil prices destroy and delay investment in new supplies, slow down efficiency gains, encourage consumption and sow the seeds of the next big boom in prices

Notable quotes:
"... "Around $200 billion of investments in energy have been canceled this year, with energy companies planning to cut another 3 to 8 percent from their investments next year," Abdulaziz said. "This is the first time since the mid-1980s that the oil and gas industry will have cut investment in two consecutive years." ..."
"... He said the capital spending cuts would defer projects capable of producing nearly 5 million barrels a day, about 5 percent of world consumption. The Standard and Poor's global oil index is down 25.4 percent over the past year. ..."
"... The major banks, including Wells Fargo, have also set aside additional reserves in case some domestic oil and gas producers need to defer - or default on - loan payments. ..."
"... the domestic U.S. industry will cut budgets another 20 to 30 percent in 2016.In an email, he said that there would also be more layoffs on top of 250,000 people laid off already. ..."
"... ...Abdulaziz ... warned that too much reduction in world supplies could cause a snapping back of prices. ..."
"... the average fuel efficiency of new passenger vehicles in November was 25 miles per gallon, below the 25.7 mpg level reached in May 2014, ..."
"... Low prices are "going to destroy and delay investment in new supplies, slow down efficiency gains, encourage consumption and sow the seeds of the next big boom in prices," McNally said. "And boom-and-bust oil prices are bad for everybody." ..."
"... And they see, at least temporarily, low oil prices as aligning with their foreign policy goals in the Middle East, i.e., make the Iranian regime suffer whenever possible. ..."
"... We could have placed FREE solar panels on every home and business in the south and southwest for a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war. ..."
"... Fracking's role in the larger policy issue is so minor as to hardly merit mention. The total cost of fracking, not including the price to be paid later for reclamation, at the wellhead is so far above the spot as to make it economically unviable. That fracking is now on the downturn and headed toward extinction is both economically sound and socially responsible. ..."
"... If you believe this was not a part of Obama's early calculus in his repeated negotiations with the Saudis, you're not a deep thinker. ..."
"... The US Federal Government funded the basic research for hydraulic fractionating, to the tune of about $150 million. A GREAT investment and one that the Feds can assert has dramatically changed global markets and the politics that have resulted. So yes indeed Obama HAS done a LOT for the industry. Now Sylendra, and some of the renewable energy failures, are Federal disasters. The record is mixed, not always/absolute win or lose. ..."
"... First, the monopolist, once he's sure the competition is destroyed, immediately raises prices; seeking to accomplish two objectives, (1) to "claw-back" foregone profits of the commodities sold at a loss; or at negative profit margins; and (2) to establish a successor price equilibrium point higher than historical norms; and staves off competitors, for generations into the future. ..."
"... And the prior post is correct. We need to do something about oil speculation. The main reason for the futures market is hedging costs and liquidity. There are no issues with liquidity. Those hedging should be required to take delivery on their futures. Speculators can't take delivery. We'll have a much more stable market without them. ..."
"... Anyone that thinks that this just a fluke, doesn't understand the back end work of the much maligned US Govt. These were strategic moves to thwart Russian and Iranian aggressions. The ricochet effect is that others that depended on high priced oil revenues, like Brazil, Cuba, Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc, etc, also get pinched. The net effect is that those countries now have suffering economies and populations who are clamoring for and instituting change. ..."
The Washington Post

Obama's foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices by Steven Mufson

At a conference in Doha in early November, Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman al Saud, Saudi Arabia's vice minister of petroleum and mineral resources, explained the depth of the global impact.

"Around $200 billion of investments in energy have been canceled this year, with energy companies planning to cut another 3 to 8 percent from their investments next year," Abdulaziz said. "This is the first time since the mid-1980s that the oil and gas industry will have cut investment in two consecutive years."

He said the capital spending cuts would defer projects capable of producing nearly 5 million barrels a day, about 5 percent of world consumption. The Standard and Poor's global oil index is down 25.4 percent over the past year.

...The major banks, including Wells Fargo, have also set aside additional reserves in case some domestic oil and gas producers need to defer - or default on - loan payments.

...the domestic U.S. industry will cut budgets another 20 to 30 percent in 2016.In an email, he said that there would also be more layoffs on top of 250,000 people laid off already.

"The oil industry is being dismantled," he said, noting that the loss of workers to other industries would make it "hard for industry to respond quickly when an oil shortage occurs."

...Abdulaziz ... warned that too much reduction in world supplies could cause a snapping back of prices.

...U.S. gas consumption is up 3 percent this year, and the average fuel efficiency of new passenger vehicles in November was 25 miles per gallon, below the 25.7 mpg level reached in May 2014, according to the University of Michigan's Transportation Research Institute.

Low prices are "going to destroy and delay investment in new supplies, slow down efficiency gains, encourage consumption and sow the seeds of the next big boom in prices," McNally said. "And boom-and-bust oil prices are bad for everybody."

UJ, 10:18 AM EST

At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.
--------------
That's not an accident or a coincidence. That's Democratic policy and Obama policy in particular, that's causing all that.

baltic wolf, 10:35 AM EST

I would also add that the Saudis have in the past demonstrated that they will do what they can to prevent us from reducing our imports from their country----as they did in the early 1980's when we introduced CAFE standards for automobiles. They responded by ramping up production which reduced the incentive to drive more gas efficient cars.

And they see, at least temporarily, low oil prices as aligning with their foreign policy goals in the Middle East, i.e., make the Iranian regime suffer whenever possible.

Manchester0913, 10:43 AM EST

If you're trying to claim that this administration hasn't been friendly to the fracking industry, it's time to turn off faux news and pay attention.

4blazek, 10:15 AM EST

"There's no way to quantify whether cheap oil is good for us, because the bad guys lose and good guys win," Hochstein cautioned. "It doesn't work that way. There are winners and losers all across the board." anyone that believes Hchstein's words is a moron as is his words. America is in the process of changing the world energy hierarchy. We are recovering reserves larger than that of the Middle East and it is all right here!. Our challenge is to migrate both power generation and state and federal transportation over to natural gas, which will do several things: 1) reduce US emission to levels to targets 75 years in advance, 2) reduce demand and hence retail price of both gasoline and diesel fuel, 3) have the critical mass of CNG powered vehicles to get the auto industry to offer these vehicles ready to go, without conversion, 4) put a nail in the coffin of those nations using oil receipts to fund terror activities, and 5) lower state and federal spending on fuel for transportation. And who has the courage to get this done? TRUMP...

Publius38, 10:14 AM EST

So why then is Big Oil pushing now to make the USA an oil exporter?

Warwick71, 10:09 AM EST

Because not all oil is the same. Oil produced in various parts of the world contain contaminants at varying levels which must be removed in the refining process. Much of US refining capacity is built to handle imported oil; switching to a different source can't be done without major mods to the refinery, or even building new capacity entirely. Building new capacity is virtually impossible due to restrictive permitting requirements. It's all market driven.

Last Gasp, 10:15 AM EST

Why is this a bad thing?

4blazek, 10:18 AM EST

Because natural gas prices are artificially depressed because of the the export restrictions. Higher NG prices make their way into the hands of Landowners across America from where these resources are being recovered. Instead of making the Saudis rich, we are making fellow Americans better off. Our family farms are right in the Utica play, I can see it first hand...

Skeptical 0bserver, 10:10 AM EST

At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladi­mir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue.
************************
Barry must have personally attended to the oil prices drop...

ParFore, 9:51 AM EST

Interestingly, the House Freedumb Caucus believes it is so unimportant that it's now time to sell-off the strategic oil reserves ...at great loss. Could be the fracking folks were hoping for a golden parachute.

irisiri, 9:53 AM EST [Edited]

Oil is a commodity that's why. The only national interest implication here is that we insist on getting involved in wars due to this product. We should be using so many other sources of energy that oil would be only ONE of the commodities we need. We could have placed FREE solar panels on every home and business in the south and southwest for a fraction of the cost of the Iraq war.

baltic wolf, 9:45 AM EST

Here's an interesting link for those who advocate we accelerate our investment and reliance on wind and solar: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/how-building-a-bett...

Essentially it was saying that we're already producing lots of energy through wind and solar, but we don't have adequate ways to store the power.
In SoCal for instance, the utility there is using lithium batteries to store the energy generated by wind turbines----a necessity because wind speeds and thus energy output is greatest at night but energy demand is greatest during the day.

There are promising new technologies emerging to store the energy more reliably than in lithium batteries (which have a relatively short life span) but they are in their infancy, so it's not reasonable to expect that they will be used widely anytime soon.

edbyronadams, 9:50 AM EST

When Diablo Canyon, one of the last nuclear power projects in the country was built, a twin project called the Helm's Creek project was built in the Sierra where a reservoir stored pumped water during non peak demand times since nuclear piles run at steady output. Standard hydro generation from the project was turned on during peak demand times.

Chortling_Heel, 9:41 AM EST

"U.S. gas consumption is up 3 percent this year, and the average fuel efficiency of new passenger vehicles in November was 25 miles per gallon, below the 25.7 mpg level reached in May 2014 . . . "
______________________________

People love their inefficient SUVs and 'Cross-overs" . . . .

ParFore, 9:40 AM EST

Fracking's role in the larger policy issue is so minor as to hardly merit mention. The total cost of fracking, not including the price to be paid later for reclamation, at the wellhead is so far above the spot as to make it economically unviable. That fracking is now on the downturn and headed toward extinction is both economically sound and socially responsible.

If you believe this was not a part of Obama's early calculus in his repeated negotiations with the Saudis, you're not a deep thinker.

Bresponsible, 9:19 AM EST

Producing and exporting oil at the current price is IMHO very, very short term thinking and long term stupid. We can not compete with Saudi production capability.

More important, fracking is last life effort and can be done only a limited number of times per well. Producing and exporting oil at these prices is economic suicide -- again IMHO.

When we have fracked every well -- and we have no alternate energy alternatives to turn to -- we must return to the market and pay the price. Watch our economy tank when that happens.

centex1, 9:00 AM EST

can anyone explain why we are now going to export our precious oil seeing we have just regained some degree of energy independence from Middle Eastern oil......big oil's greed will yet again paint us in a corner .....offshore bank accounts, shell corporations and now this.......maybe "nationalization" isn't such a dirty word after all.....the American public are but pawns to their unquenchable greed.

Giedi Prime, 8:48 AM EST

"The reason for the deep drop in oil prices continues to be Saudi Arabia's refusal to cut its oil exports in order to prop up prices."

And that's why POTUS stopped in to meet the new King on the way home from India this year. Because in the long game, the Saudis keeping the pumps wide open was more powerful than any bomb or bullet in checking Putin's goals.

edbyronadams, 8:52 AM EST

Is the quid pro quo a promise to protect the House of Saud from the Shia hordes by putting US troops in between?

Manchester0913, 8:55 AM EST

No. But strange that you wing-nuts have a problem with that, but not about putting troops in Syria. Hypocrite much?

Hermitian Operator, 8:32 AM EST

Why are those countries listed as America's "adversaries"?

Why don't the Global Cop elites in Washington allow the Venezuelans to figure things out for themselves? And the Russian people too. What happens in Ukraine is a European problem. Let the Europeans handle it. Same thing with the dystopian Middle East. Let those countries fish or cut bait with ISIS.

The U.S. hyper-interventionist government is the 800 pound Global Cop Gorilla that wrecks just about everything it touches. Why should we be surprised that the arrogant but stupid Power Elites in Washington have created a litany of "adversaries"? Cheered on of course by the Neoconned MSM sycophants like the Washington Post.

And all of that stupidity costs the taxpayers TRILLIONS. But what the heck? From the Elites' PoV, it ain't their money. And OBTW, they always walk away personally rich from the wreckage they create.

P.S. Merry Christmas...

Hermitian Operator, 8:56 AM EST

The U.S. is up against a severe shortage of the primary care physicians. Partly because of the lack of residency slots, (funded by Medicare.) Obama flushed $500,000,000 of American Green down the toilet in sending weapons to "moderate" jihadists in Syria.

Ask the American people if they'd want that money to be stuffed into the pockets of Islamic lunatics in the Middle East or used to train up more doctors here at home.

Plenty more examples of the economic wreckage hatched by the Elites including Obama and his cast of arrogant, cronied-up mediocrities.

CharlesRoy, 9:00 AM EST

The US Federal Government funded the basic research for hydraulic fractionating, to the tune of about $150 million. A GREAT investment and one that the Feds can assert has dramatically changed global markets and the politics that have resulted. So yes indeed Obama HAS done a LOT for the industry. Now Sylendra, and some of the renewable energy failures, are Federal disasters. The record is mixed, not always/absolute win or lose.

onegenius, 8:06 AM EST

The most worrisome issue is the greed of the oil speculators who siphoned $billions$ in profits and cause the wild swing in oil prices. Take them out of the equation and much of the problem goes away. Congress out to pass a law that when you buy oil you are required to take delivery of it, weeding out the pure greedy speculators.

rc115RogerThat, 7:54 AM EST

This Zionist menace and propagandist may think that cheerleading for the Zionist war against the Tsars and other alleged enemies of the Zionist state is a good thing. But it is in fact, very near treason. The destruction of the domestic US energy infrastructure (by collapsing global prices for fossil energy) is an unqualified act of economic warfare, that the US should be respond to in-kind; by the threat of our military abandonment of the Saudi despotism to ether the tender mercies of Iran; or the other nations of the Middle East, who have never benefited from non-existent pan-Islamic largess of Saudi royal family. Worst of all, the article completely overlooks the consequences of a monopolist's successful destruction of his competitors (in and outside of his industry) through under price-fixing.

First, the monopolist, once he's sure the competition is destroyed, immediately raises prices; seeking to accomplish two objectives, (1) to "claw-back" foregone profits of the commodities sold at a loss; or at negative profit margins; and (2) to establish a successor price equilibrium point higher than historical norms; and staves off competitors, for generations into the future.

This is exactly what we have witnessed. Saudi Arabia's destructive under price-fixing of the early 1980s collapsed the price of oil, destroyed the US Savings & Loan industry, and put off modernization of oil and gas exploration technologies in the US (and the rest of the mature producing world), for 30 years.

When those new technologies began to again emerge again (in the early 2000s) in the form of fracking for gas; and oil-shale extraction, the monopolist, and his fellow-traveling traitors struck again. And as for the technologies of alternative energy sources and techniques, their destruction is merely a collateral damage benefit achieved by the Saudi's overall strategy.

LunaTics, 8:06 AM EST

Going with the word "Zionist" three times in the first sentence is a bold choice.

wingerone, 7:49 AM EST

Many weaker oil producers will fail. The stronger producers will weather this, buy the assets and equipment of the weaker producers at bargain basement prices and their cost of production will plummet. They will continue to pump oil as long as it is profitable. Oil prices will remain low longer than most expect and could drop further.

Yes, there eventually will be a snap back. It will be a great investment opportunity. Keep your power dry and be patient. Your return won't be in percentages, it will be in multiples. Look for good companies that bought up cheap assets.

And the prior post is correct. We need to do something about oil speculation. The main reason for the futures market is hedging costs and liquidity. There are no issues with liquidity. Those hedging should be required to take delivery on their futures. Speculators can't take delivery. We'll have a much more stable market without them.

onegenius, 7:33 AM EST

The most worrisome issue is the greed of the oil speculators who siphoned $billions$ in profits and cause the wild swing in oil prices. Take them out of the equation and much of the problem goes away. Congress out to pass a law that when you buy oil you are required to take delivery of it, weeding out the pure greedy speculators.

WhiskeyTangoFoxtrot1, 5:29 AM EST

There's a lot of take away to this story, the main thing I see is it's mostly about Saudi Arabia's foreign policy. In the short term, it's in their geopolitical interests to keep oil prices low because of the effect on their adversaries; namely Iran. An Iran with less money won't be as well armed and will be less able to foment problems in places like Yemen. This policy also maintains Saudi Arabia market share and helps their long-time strategic ally, the United States, by driving down the primary revenue sources in places where we have adversarial relations with countries such as Russia, Iran, ISIS, and Syria.

edbyronadams, 6:35 AM EST

Russia has gone all in for the Shia for some time now.

That alone is enough for the Saudis to want to punish them. They have to pay for their military adventure in Syria some other way.

Marla Burke, 4:01 AM EST

Steven Mufson writes for the business section of the Post and he doesn't seem to know that falling oil prices have made America's energy independence a fading dream, cost 200,000 American oil workers their jobs and has been the boon for folks like me. http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/02/opinion/drilling... Thanks Steve.

Alfak9, 3:40 AM EST [Edited]

Anyone that thinks that this just a fluke, doesn't understand the back end work of the much maligned US Govt. These were strategic moves to thwart Russian and Iranian aggressions. The ricochet effect is that others that depended on high priced oil revenues, like Brazil, Cuba, Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, etc, etc, also get pinched. The net effect is that those countries now have suffering economies and populations who are clamoring for and instituting change.

Thanks Obama!

Jesus in Jerusalem, 12:35 AM EST

Steven Mufson has the story of the year. It is the story of 2016.

Will Russia and Iran coerce - with threats and demonstration of force -
Saudi Arabia to cut production? Gulf oil ports are indefensible. Or will President Obama deter the Russian and Iranian missiles and air force with a powerful threat that they take seriously?

Right now an Obama red line is visible only with infra-red glasses. But give Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter another few weeks in Iraq with the allied taking of Ramadi... and an assurance of another eight years as the strategic military leader of the United States - no matter who gets elected - and the US credibility with the Russians and Iranians will be restored. Putin and Lavrov know who Ash Carter is... with his 1984-2016 detailed understanding of nuclear forces and military capabilities. You can't bluff Ash Carter with one submarine in the Mediterranean Sea and fifty jets in Syria. He is on record saying we can take Iran's air defenses in one night; let's hear what he has to say about deterring a Russian threat to Saudi Arabia.

Michel de Montaigne, 2:55 AM EST

From your vantage point in a very very tiny country, I can understand your comment.
We others do not share these apocalyptic games.

Marla Burke, 4:07 AM EST

High oil prices were needed or the hydraulic Fracturing industry could not turn a profit - that's why 200,000 American oil workers lost their jobs this year . . . And, the Saudi's turned up their oil production quotas

Ben Jarvis, 12/23/2015 11:20 PM EST

"This year, the Russian government was forced to tap its reserve fund to balance the federal budget and will undoubtedly do so again." ----- reserve fund? remember when the u.s.a. had one of those, until george w. bush & dick cheney (mr. "deficits don't matter") gave it all away in that huge, insane tax rebate scheme?

Giantsmax, 12/23/2015 10:25 PM EST

I hope countries take advantage of the cheaper oil and build up some domestic industry. I wonder how the low oil costs will effect this climate change agreement, what if the greener energies now costs I don't know---20% to 200% more than these low oil costs. How do some countries trying to build up their economies decide what to import or produce???

danstrayer, 12/23/2015 9:51 PM EST

Today was a good example of why higher oil prices are not only tolerable but necessary for world economies, with some exceptions. Stocks were up strongly across the board. Generally higher commodities would benefit much of the world,and they will follow oil.

big billy g, 12/23/2015 9:45 PM EST

"And boom-and-bust oil prices are bad for everybody."

Wall street speculators beg to differ..

[Dec 24, 2015] European Leaders Cry Foul Against Germany's Support for Gas Pipeline

Dec 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com
There is a growing chorus in Europe against Germany's support to expand a major natural gas pipeline from Russia over fears that it will leave Europe more dependent on their eastern neighbor.

The Nord Stream 2 would build on the existing Nord Stream pipeline, a conduit that delivers Russian natural gas to Germany via the Baltic Sea. Crucially, the project cuts out Ukraine, a key strategic objective for Russia since the original project's inception.

The latest $11 billion expansion would double the pipeline's current capacity of 55 billion cubic meters of gas per year. From Russia's perspective, the project will increase market share and gas sales; from Germany's point of view, the project increases sources of supply. Nord Stream 2 was originally conceived of years ago, but in June 2015 Gazprom signed a memorandum with Royal Dutch Shell and OMV to move forward.

Nick Cunningham is a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter at @nickcunningham1

[Dec 24, 2015] America's Top Shale Gas Basin in Decline

Notable quotes:
"... The supply overhang will likely linger with storage levels at such highs. There is just too much gas, ..."
Dec 22, 2015 | OilPrice.com

...Reuters recently reported that new drilling permits for the Marcellus declined to just 68 in October, which was a dip from the 76 issued in September. But, those figures are vastly down from the peak of 600 per month routinely seen at the height of drilling five years ago.

... ... ...

Prices are so low that drillers are shutting in production, a once unfathomable development. This suggests that prices could be at an absolute bottom. Still, that is not to say that prices will rebound substantially anytime soon. The supply overhang will likely linger with storage levels at such highs. "There is just too much gas," Justin Kastner of Global Land Partners, a company that finds oil and gas leases for drillers, told Reuters. "I expect to see a downturn for the next two years."

Nick Cunningham is a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter at @nickcunningham1

[Dec 24, 2015] Obama's foreign policy goals get a boost from plunging oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States. ..."
The Washington Post

Plunging crude oil prices are diverting hundreds of billions of dollars away from the treasure chests of oil-exporting nations, putting some of the United States' adversaries under greater stress.

After two years of falling prices, the effects have reverberated across the globe, fueling economic discontent in Venezuela, changing Russia's economic and political calculations, and dampening Iranian leaders' hopes of a financial windfall when sanctions linked to its nuclear program will be lifted next year.

At a time of tension for U.S. international relations, cheap oil has dovetailed with some of the Obama administration's foreign policy goals: pressuring Russian President Vladimir Putin, undermining the popularity of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and tempering the prospects for Iranian oil revenue. At the same time, it is pouring cash into the hands of consumers, boosting tepid economic recoveries in Europe, Japan and the United States.

"Cheap oil hurts revenues for some of our foes and helps some of our friends. The Europeans, South Koreans and Japanese - they're all winners," said Robert McNally, director for energy in President George W. Bush's National Security Council and now head of the Rapidan Group, a consulting firm. "It's not good for Russia, that's for sure, and it's not good for Iran."

... ... ...

In Iran, cheap oil is forcing the government to ratchet down expectations.

The much-anticipated lifting of sanctions as a result of the deal to limit Iran's nuclear program is expected to result in an additional half-million barrels a day of oil exports by the middle of 2016.

But at current prices, Iran's income from those sales will still fall short of revenue earned from constrained oil exports a year ago.

Moreover, low prices are making it difficult for Iran to persuade international oil companies to develop Iran's long-neglected oil and gas fields, which have been off limits since sanctions were broadened in 2012.

"Should Iran come out of sanctions, they will face a very different market than the one they had left in 2012," Amos Hochstein, the State Department's special envoy and coordinator for international energy affairs, said in an interview. "They were forced to recede in a world of over $100 oil, and sanctions will be lifted at $36 oil. They will have to work harder to convince companies to come in and take the risk for supporting their energy infrastructure and their energy production."

Meanwhile, in Russia, low oil prices have compounded damage done by U.S. and European sanctions that were designed to target Russia's energy and financial sectors. And when Iran increases output, its grade of crude oil will most likely go to Europe, where it will compete directly with Russia's Urals oil, McNally said.

Steven Mufson covers the White House. Since joining The Post, he has covered economics, China, foreign policy and energy.

[Dec 24, 2015] Is The Russian-Turkish Standoff An Opportunity For The West

Notable quotes:
"... apparently, two USAF F-15C Eagle air superiority fighters (which had been deployed to Incirlik Air Force Base, Turkey, in November 2015) were in the air as back-up to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force: THK) F-16s, one of which shot down the Su-24. ..."
"... At best, Russia may now move to cover its tactical operations in northern Syria more effectively by offering its own deterrence of top cover by advanced fighters while the ground attack aircraft, such as the Su-24s, do their job. It is also clear that any further Turkish incursions into Syrian airspace were now at-risk, but the Turks already knew that. ..."
Dec 14, 2015 | OilPrice.com

It was, in this latest incident, Turkey, working with the U.S. Government of President Barack Obama, which planned and executed the November 24, 2015, interception of the Russian Air Force Su-24. The event was not a spontaneous occurrence, and, apparently, two USAF F-15C Eagle air superiority fighters (which had been deployed to Incirlik Air Force Base, Turkey, in November 2015) were in the air as back-up to the Türk Hava Kuvvetleri (Turkish Air Force: THK) F-16s, one of which shot down the Su-24. USAF sources subsequently said that the U.S. was taken by surprise when the THK shot down the Sukhoi, but that hardly squares with the historical Turkish practice of coordinating such actions with Washington. Moreover, the Turkish narrative that it "warned" the Russian aircraft several times over a period of five minutes before the THK F-16 shot it down also does not square with reality.

And in this particular ground attack operation, the two Su-24s - including the one which was destroyed - were engaged on missions which did not require them to enter Turkish airspace, even though an acci-dental entry into it was conceivable. Their targets were in the area of northern Syria: pro-Ankara Turkmen militia engaged in supporting the massive cross-border operations of ISIS (asad- Dawlah al-Islamiyah fi al-'Iraq wash-Sham, or Islamic State) moving oil, fighters, and weapons across the Syria-Turkish border.

Dave Majumdar, Defense Editor at the U.S. blogsite, The National Interest, on December 7, 2015, noted: "The United States and Turkey are working on an agreement that would allow the US Air Force F-15Cs to defend Turkish airspace. However, the precise rules of engagement and procedures have yet to be ironed out." It is possible that Turkey wanted to illustrate to the US that its airspace was, in fact, threatened. But what has been clear is that no credible Russian military threat to Turkey existed.

At best, Russia may now move to cover its tactical operations in northern Syria more effectively by offering its own deterrence of top cover by advanced fighters while the ground attack aircraft, such as the Su-24s, do their job. It is also clear that any further Turkish incursions into Syrian airspace were now at-risk, but the Turks already knew that.

Recently-retired U.S. Defense Intelligence Agency Director Lt.-Gen. Michael Flynn publicly said in Moscow on December 10, 2015, that there was no possibility that the Turkish shootdown was undertaken without the express permission and direction of "the highest authority" in Turkey.

Indeed, Turkey has traditionally played the role of aggressor in terms of airspace violation. Not only did the THK lose an RF-4E Phantom II reconnaissance aircraft well into Syrian airspace on June 22, 2012, as a result of surface-to-air missile fire, it continues to consistently invade the airspace of fellow NATO member and neighbor Greece in a manner far more hostile than the penetration of Turkish airspace it alleged Russia undertook (for 17 seconds). THK F-16s entered Greek airspace some 2,200 times in 2014 alone. Moreover, Turkey consistently has violated Cypriot air-, sea, and land-space since its 1974 invasion and occupation of the northern 37 percent of Cyprus.1

So Turkey is hardly the victim. [Indeed, by deliberately starting the "civil war" to remove Pres. Bashar al-Assad from power in Syria, Turkey only incurred a "refugee problem" as a result of its own actions, and has subsequently sought to push those refugees onward into Europe as quickly as possible, seeking political rewards from Europe as the only power capable of stopping the refugee flows.]

In any event, Pres. Erdogan, three years ago said that "a short- term border violation can never be a pre-text for an attack". But that, of course, was when a THK aircraft was shot down by Syria when the THK F-4E deliberately and for some time penetrated Syrian airspace on a mission against Syria.

... .... ....

Turkey, too, will not remain inactive. It will resume its support for anti-Russian terrorism, including support for jihadist movements in the Caucasus. These have included such groups as Kvadrat (Quadrant), a Bos-nia-based Wahhabist unit, which had "laundered" its operations through Turkish-occupied Northern Cy-prus, thence into Turkey and on into the Russian Caucasus.4 But the reactivation of Turkish-backed terror-ism in the Russian Caucasus will be far wider than just Kvadrat: Turkey works extensively, even now, with Chechen and other Caucasus groups inside ISIS and in the jihadi operations in Syria.

Significantly, by early December 2015, President Erdogan assumed that the crisis had passed sufficiently for Turkey to expand its activities in the area. There was no indication that Turkey and ISIS had diminished their extensive and integrated operations in terms of oil transactions, the supply of weapons to ISIS via Turkey, and the use of Turkey as a medical support arena for ISIS wounded. But Turkey went further and deployed Turkish Army troops into northern Iraq near the ISIS-held city of Mosul in early December 2015. Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi led calls for Turkish troops to be withdrawn immediately; they had not been withdrawn by the time this report went to press.

... ... ...

The path, however, is open for a great Russian cooperation with the Kurdish forces, as well as with other regional allies which are concerned about Turkey's strategic adventurism. The Kurds, particularly those led by the majority Kurdish force (under the PKK: Partiya Karkerên Kurdistan, the Kurdish Workers' Par-ty), are now well underway in responding to Ankara. The civil war is underway inside Turkey, and it re-mains literally out-of-bounds to the international media. What is significant is that the Kurds have thus far not agreed to cooperate with Russia, but are awaiting a nod from their principal ally, Israel, before trust-ing Russia.

Thus Israel's position becomes critical in this debate.

Much of the Israeli leadership still hopes that a rapprochement might be achievable with Turkey, but that hope is fading. On the other hand, Israeli planners have to consider whether a broken Turkey - perhaps replaced by a patchwork of states, and with no non-Arab player other than Iran to monitor the region - is worse than a troublesome Turkey. There is also the question of whether unqualified Israeli support for the Kurdish "big push" against Turkey would then jeopardize Israeli strategic relations with Saudi Arabia, which is apparently undecided on whether, or how much, it favors a continuation of the Turkish state.

Without Turkey, according to the Saudi rationale, who would be the counterweight to Iran?

Israel is also not immune to this argument, although for Israel the prospect exists for an eventual reunion with Tehran, after the clerical leadership goes, or modifies.

So Russia is left with three potential regional allies - apart from Syria, Iraq, and Iran - against Ankara: Greece, Egypt, and Jordan. And Cyprus and Armenia to the limited extent that they can assist.

... ... ...

Articles 10 to 18 are the articles which allow for various states, including Russia, to transit military ships through the straits. In short, if Turkey invoked either Article 20 or Article 21, Russia would be legally blocked from moving any naval vessel through the Straits.

Moscow has clearly long gamed out this scenario, which accounts for President Putin's commitment to a measured response to Ankara. Thus it must be a proxy response, for the most part, as well as an economic one. But while it demonstrates the delicacy needed by Moscow, it also demonstrates the reality that Russia cannot continue to be strategically constrained by an increasingly hostile and ambitious Turkey.

So where Turkey is vulnerable is in its economy.

The effects of Russian economic embargoes against Turkey are far more significant than would seem to be the case because the Turkish economy is more vulnerable than it has been portrayed. It is far more leveraged with borrowings than at any time in the recent past. It has a discreet outflow of domestic capital and is heavily reliant on discreet financial injections, probably coming from Qatar, and possible Saudi Arabia. But Saudi Arabia's ability to prop up Turkey is becoming limited.

...while Turkey may not be regarded as an entirely stable partner for the PRC in the region, Beijing would be wary of acting precipitously against it.

...Iran - like Russia - is constrained to act cautiously and indirectly against Turkey. Moreover, Iran cannot risk that its own Kurdish population could join with Syrian, Iraqi, and Turkish Kurds to form a new Kurdish state.

...And in the short-term, this all has hardened Ankara's position on remaining in control of the northern 37 percent of Cyprus, which it has occupied militarily since 1974.

...There is no doubt that Pres. Erdogan believes that continued brinkmanship will be possible, although he is not perhaps aware that he is losing the information war, or the psychological war.

Amvet on December 15 2015 said:

Thank you Mr. Copley for a well researched, honest, and very interesting article. Any chance of getting this published in any US mainstream
newspaper or magazine ?? .

Jim on December 15 2015 said:

...Nice information actually, most mainstream media doesn't even come close. Thanks. definitely a deliberate and pre-approved escalation of the conflict, pointing fingers back to Washington, D.C.

Chris on December 15 2015 said:

A great article that brings together much of what has been reported and provides a coherent framework for understanding it. This piece should be in a general interest publication such as the NY Times so that more Americans could understand what is really going on in the Middle East.

[Dec 23, 2015] OPEC bashes prospects for electric cars

Notable quotes:
"... battery-powered electric cars will capture just 1% of global vehicle sales by 2040. ..."
"... ...It says hybrids will capture 14% market share by 2040. ..."
"... over 40% of global oil demand comes from road vehicles ..."
money.cnn.com

OPEC is predicting that 94% of cars on the road will still be powered by oil-based fuels in 2040.

"Without a technology breakthrough, battery electric vehicles are not expected to gain significant market share in the foreseeable future," the organization said in its annual World Oil Outlook.

The group predicts battery-powered electric cars will capture just 1% of global vehicle sales by 2040.

...It says hybrids will capture 14% market share by 2040.

The OPEC report says that over 40% of global oil demand comes from road vehicles. That's not expected to change over the next 25 years.

[Dec 23, 2015] Developing countries car fleet and oil consumption are quicky rising and the US consumers are switching to SUVs

Low oil prices has a negative effect of switching to more efficient cars in the USA and elsewhere. It looks like it's not only going to be a hard candy Christmas in Cowboyistan, but in the Green Utopia as well.
Notable quotes:
"... A problem is the big surge in oil use is in developing countries. Animals are being replaced by tractors, motor bikes are being replaced by autos or small trucks, etc. In China the increase in auto numbers and in auto size is amazing. ..."
"... In November, fuel efficiency of vehicles purchased fell sharply to 25 mpg – down 0.8 mpg from a peak in August 2014, said University of Michigan researcher Michael Sivak, who tracks fuel efficiency. ..."
"... Nearly 59 percent of U.S. vehicle sales this year have been of sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks or other larger vehicles, up from 54 percent last year, according to industry consultant Autodata Corp. ..."
"... Toyota Motor Corp says within two years its RAV4 SUV will displace the Camry mid-size car as its top-selling model in the United States…. ..."
"... "There is a huge gap looming between government projections and consumer purchases of highly fuel-efficient vehicles," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – the trade association representing major automakers. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Amvet, 12/22/2015 at 4:27 am

A problem is the big surge in oil use is in developing countries. Animals are being replaced by tractors, motor bikes are being replaced by autos or small trucks, etc. In China the increase in auto numbers and in auto size is amazing.

So, my guess is any reduction in oil use in industrialized countries will be buried in the increase from developing countries.

Electric cars in many developing countries have little chance because of the shortage of electricity there. Will they get new electricity from, hydro, coal, NG, or nuclear?

Glenn Stehle, 12/21/2015 at 8:04 pm
Arceus,

In fact, it seems like the world is moving in exactly the opposite direction.

Los Amigos de la Tierra called the COP21 conference in Paris a "farse," and Vía Campesina, the worldwide coordinator of campesino movements , was equally as severe.
http://www.jornada.unam.mx/2015/12/20/opinion/020a1mun

The New Internationalist blasted the Paris deal as an "epic fail on a planetary scale."
http://newint.org/features/web-exclusive/2015/12/12/cop21-paris-deal-epi-fail-on-planetary-scale/

And back home, due to consumer behavior, the push is underway to roll back the CAFE mandates:

Surging demand for trucks and SUVs fueled by cheap gasoline is holding back improvements in U.S. fuel economy and greenhouse gas emissions, a government report due out on Wednesday is expected to show.

The disconnect between consumer demand for larger, less efficient vehicles and the Obama administration's climate goals sets up a clash between the auto industry and federal regulators.

Mark Rosekind, who heads the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, said in a Reuters interview last week the administration will consider automakers' arguments that the shift away from cars makes it harder to hit the 2025 fleet average fuel economy target of 54.5 miles (87.7 km) per gallon….

Consumers are responding to signals from gas pumps, where a combination of relatively low taxes – federal gasoline taxes have not gone up since 1993 – and oil unleashed by hydraulic fracturing or fracking have pushed U.S. gasoline prices to an average of just over $2 a gallon – the lowest level in six years.

In November, fuel efficiency of vehicles purchased fell sharply to 25 mpg – down 0.8 mpg from a peak in August 2014, said University of Michigan researcher Michael Sivak, who tracks fuel efficiency.

Nearly 59 percent of U.S. vehicle sales this year have been of sport-utility vehicles, pickup trucks or other larger vehicles, up from 54 percent last year, according to industry consultant Autodata Corp.

Toyota Motor Corp says within two years its RAV4 SUV will displace the Camry mid-size car as its top-selling model in the United States….

"There is a huge gap looming between government projections and consumer purchases of highly fuel-efficient vehicles," said Gloria Bergquist, a spokeswoman for the Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers – the trade association representing major automakers.

http://www.reuters.com/article/us-autos-emissions-idUSKBN0TZ0HY20151216?feedType=nl&feedName=domesticNews

So mark one up for Team Carbon, because the public has tuned out the warnings of peak oil and global warming prognosticators.

Arceus, 12/21/2015 at 8:12 pm
Yes, but that is because oil is so cheap right now. I do not think it can remain this inexpensive. When gas hits $4 per gallon, you will see more people getting interested in EVs (assuming they continue making them as a severe recession might entail some big cutbacks to EV model lineups.)
likbez, 12/23/2015 at 12:36 pm
"There is a possibility that a supersized battery and electric motor will cost LESS in ten years than a conventional engine, transmission , and all the related engine accessories such as gasoline tank, exhaust system, etc."

I am all for electrical cars, but neither technology nor infrastructure (charging stations) are present. And probably you need not $4 per gallon gas but much higher for the switch to materialize. Probably close to $8 per gallon (European price before oil price slump)

Right now they are limited to home owners who can install special charging sockets. For apartment dwellers they are out of reach. And the most attractive use is as the second car for short commutes (for example daily commute to work or train) when you own a regular car, or SUV, or truck for other needs.

With the current cost of rare metals and copper you might be right as far the gap between the costs or regular drivetrain and electrical drivetrain, but costs of rare metals and copper can increase dramatically in 10 years.

The EV battery is a very expensive proposition. The cost of replacing batteries in Prius is $3,000. Leaf battery is around $5,500. Also some cells are dying during normal exploitation period (10 years I think for Prius). Regular gas engine and transmission last longer. Assuming 10K miles per year they can probably last 20 years (200K total).

If we assume $5000, then most probably for next decade small car drivetrain complete rebuild costs less. Actually for $6000 you can buy a decent three years old Chevy Spark with, say, less then 50K mileage now.

[Dec 23, 2015] Saudi Arabia Said to Weigh Selling State-Run Entities Stakes

Bloomberg Business

...the kingdom may raise domestic energy prices, privatize and tax mines and consider taxing cigarettes. Like other Gulf Cooperation Council members, it's also plans to implement a value-added-tax.

In November 2013, the Arab world's biggest economy took action against illegal workers as it pushed to create more private-sector jobs for its citizens. At that time, unemployment was about 12 percent. The official data show joblessness at 11.6 percent for the first half of this year. Youth unemployment is almost 30 percent, according to World Bank data.

[Dec 23, 2015] Saudi Crude Exports Rose in October to Most in Four Months

Dec 20, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

Saudi shipments rose to 7.364 million barrels a day in the month from 7.111 million in September, according to the latest figures from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative. The monthly exports were the most since June and 7 percent higher than in October 2014, the data released on Sunday showed. JODI is an industry group supervised by the Riyadh-based International Energy Forum.

Saudi Arabia produced 10.28 million barrels a day in October, up from 10.23 million in September, the JODI figures showed.

[Dec 23, 2015] WTI Crude Runs To $37

Well permits and well completions seem to give reasonable indicators for future production. Now it is clear that at least Texan oil and gas production will steeply slump over the next months.
Notable quotes:
"... we are more and more convinced that we've seen the lows in crude and we do not make that statement lightly ..."
Dec 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge

From $35.35 lows (in Feb contract) on Monday, WTI crude has extended its overnight post-API inventory gains, pressing up to $37...

Can it continue? Who knows... well one person does...

Gartman: "we are more and more convinced that we've seen the lows in crude and we do not make that statement lightly."

[Dec 23, 2015] 2015 LTO output output might be surpassed by 2018 with a final peak between 2020 and 2025

Notable quotes:
"... The Rest of the World(ROW) declines by 484 kb/d each year (2420 kb/d over 5 years) so we have a 4500 kb/d increase minus a 2420 kb/d decrease for a net of 2080 kb/d above 2015 C+C output in 2020 ..."
"... If the increasing countries are flat as a group in 2016 (due mostly to decreases in US output) and the increase is linear over the next 4 years, then the 2015 "peak" might be surpassed by 2017 (but barely, only 157 kb/d higher). For that reason my expectation is that 2015 output will be surpassed by 2018 with a final peak between 2020 and 2025. ..."
Dec 23, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

Dennis Coyne, 12/23/2015 at 8:43 am

Hi Ron,

The LTO plays in the US (Bakken, Eagle Ford, and Permian) will probably be able to ramp up to 750 kb/d above 2015 levels by 2021, Canadian oil sands will be able to increase by about 1 Mb/d, Brazil may be able to increase by 500 kb/d, China by 250 kb/d, Russia will hold steady, KSA steady, Iran 250 kb/d, and Iraq 500 kb/d, all above 2015 levels of output by 2021. If the rest of the world continues its linear decline of about 480 kb/d per year and all of these guesses for Brazil, Canada, China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the US are correct then World output peaks in 2019 at 370 kb/d above 2015 output.

Looking at the charts for Brazil, Canada, China, Iran, Iraq, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and the US, I am a little more optimistic. I will keep the 750 kb/d increase for the US and KSA remains flat, Russia and China I expect about a 250 kb/d increase over 5 years, Iran, Iraq, and Canada I expect about 1 Mb/d from each, and Brazil I expect 250 kb/d increase over 5 years. The Rest of the World(ROW) declines by 484 kb/d each year (2420 kb/d over 5 years) so we have a 4500 kb/d increase minus a 2420 kb/d decrease for a net of 2080 kb/d above 2015 C+C output in 2020.

If the increasing countries are flat as a group in 2016 (due mostly to decreases in US output) and the increase is linear over the next 4 years, then the 2015 "peak" might be surpassed by 2017 (but barely, only 157 kb/d higher). For that reason my expectation is that 2015 output will be surpassed by 2018 with a final peak between 2020 and 2025.

[Dec 23, 2015] Important geopolitical dimension of oil counsumption growth in a world of peak oil

Notable quotes:
"... ...India is importing 100% of oil consumption in a world where trade is no longer growing and available world net exports of oil has declined significantly ..."
"... the US cannot permit China's oil imports to persist at a level at, or above, that of the US with available global net oil exports falling and peak global oil production per capita. ..."
"... The condition, should it persist, poses a regional geopolitical threat to US hegemony ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
BC, 12/22/2015 at 2:10 pm
...India is importing 100% of oil consumption in a world where trade is no longer growing and available world net exports of oil has declined significantly since 2005-08 and will continue declining hereafter. India is 40-45 to 80-100 years too late to industrialization.

Moreover, the US cannot permit China's oil imports to persist at a level at, or above, that of the US with available global net oil exports falling and peak global oil production per capita.

The condition, should it persist, poses a regional geopolitical threat to US hegemony, which is among many reasons why trade, diplomatic, and geopolitical tensions are increasing between the US and China, and why there has been the "Pivot to Asia" and expansion of Africom by the Anglo-American imperial military.

[Dec 23, 2015] What is behind Saudi strategy of dumping oil on the market

Great question: Why would a country drive down the price to maintain market share when they know they will lose market share due to declining production.
Notable quotes:
"... According to you Saudi Arabia were doing everything possible in Jan 2013 just to stop decline. ..."
"... Yet here we are 3 years on and they are producing 1mmbld more and flooding the market. Please explain. Why would a country drive down the price to maintain market share when they know they will lose market share due to declining production. ..."
"... Peter, the only reason I can figure out is that the Saudis bought into the hype being peddled by Team Carbon (see graph below from https://www.eia.gov/conference/2015/pdf/presentations/hamm.pdf ), and wanted to stop "the Great American Shale Revolution" in its tracks. ..."
"... Could the Saudis be that stupid, to believe the hype? I doubt it. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Peter, 12/21/2015 at 2:15 pm
Ron

According to you Saudi Arabia were doing everything possible in Jan 2013 just to stop decline.

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/9798

Yet here we are 3 years on and they are producing 1mmbld more and flooding the market. Please explain. Why would a country drive down the price to maintain market share when they know they will lose market share due to declining production.

Ron Patterson, 12/21/2015 at 3:12 pm
According to you Saudi Arabia were doing everything possible in Jan 2013 just to stop decline.

And they did. In addition to dramatically increasing infill drilling in their old fields, they brought Khurais on line, then increased water injection in Khurais and in 2013 they brought Manifa on line ahead of schedule.

Saudi Aramco Starts Pumping From Manifa Oil Field Ahead of Plan

April 15, 2013
Saudi Arabian Oil Co. started producing crude from Manifa, the world's fifth-largest oil field, on April 10, three months ahead schedule.

Saudi Aramco, as the state-owned producer is known, said today the field will produce 500,000 barrels a day of Arabian heavy crude by July and it will reach 900,000 barrels a day by end of next year.

And they are still working desperately to stem the decline in their old giant fields.

Saudi Aramco to expand Shaybah, Khurais oil output in 2016-17

"This will bring it up to a million barrels (per day). We're in the process of awarding the contract in the next few days," he said, adding that an ongoing project at Shaybah will also add 250,000 bpd of natural gas liquids output in end-2014.

The Khurais expansion project was at the front-end engineering stage and the expansion to increase the field's output by 300,000 bpd to 1.5 million bpd should be completed by 2017, he said.

Khurais, Shaybah and Manifa are all very old fields that, for various reasons, were mothballed years ago. But now they are called into service to to stem the decline in their other old giants.

Saudi intends to hold production at current levels for several more years. How successful they will be remains to be seen. But they have not and will not dramatically increase production.

Glenn Stehle, 12/21/2015 at 5:29 pm
Peter said:

Why would a country drive down the price to maintain market share when they know they will lose market share due to declining production.

Peter, the only reason I can figure out is that the Saudis bought into the hype being peddled by Team Carbon (see graph below from https://www.eia.gov/conference/2015/pdf/presentations/hamm.pdf ), and wanted to stop "the Great American Shale Revolution" in its tracks.

Could the Saudis be that stupid, to believe the hype? I doubt it.

I suspect that the Saudis and Russians have other reasons for wanting the price of oil low, reasons which folks like Rockman cannot even conceive of.

We are wandering about in a wilderness of unknowns, but that doesn't stop the speculation.

[Dec 23, 2015] Peak oil is price depedent and at $40 we did reached peak oil in 2015

Notable quotes:
"... I doubt that the Saudis are pumping full out to increase their revenue, they could easily cut back production (along with the rest of OPEC) and make more revenue with lower output. Their aim is to hurt other oil producers such as the Russians and Americans (and perhaps the Iranians) with low prices. ..."
"... As to whether the peak is here in 2015, I think a rise in oil prices in 2017 will bring about higher output with a peak sometime after that (maybe 2018 to 2022), ..."
"... Watcher is correct that nobody knows how much oil will be produced, what the oil price will be or the eventual URR for oil will be. All of it is just guesses. ..."
"... Dennis, so higher prices will bring higher output. And just where is this higher output going to come from? That is higher output that overtakes all declines between now and then and continuing that decline even then? Where Dennis, just which countries are you talking about? Who will supply all this oil? ..."
"... Economics is politics. War is politics with other means. War is the business of empire. War is good business for imperialists. Therefore, economics is politics is the legal, moral/amoral, and intellectual rationalization for the business of empire, i.e., war, which is the use of state violence to expand business, expropriation of resources, exploitation of cheap labor, and the resulting ecocide and genocide in the process. ..."
"... To paraphrase Carl Von Clausewitz 'war is politics by other means'. I'll go two further. Politics is economics by other means, and economics is ecology by other means. Roughly speaking anyway. ..."
"... Ron, first I would say that if oil remains below $40 per barrel, then I would agree with you that 2015 will likely be the year of peak oil. However, I believe that oil will rise to at least $80 in the coming years and may go as high as $150 depending on the strength/weakness of the dollar. ..."
"... I believe most of the oil in the coming years will continue to come from the Middle East and while Saudi seems to be peaking, Iran, Iraq, Libya are not. ..."
"... I do not believe Russia has peaked if oil reaches $80 plus per barrel. Even the U.S. may be able to coax more oil out of the Gulf, Alaska and shale plays if there is money to be made (finding capable, experienced oil field workers may be a problem though). There is oil in Brazil, Canada, Kazakstan, various spots in south america, off-shore africa, etc. ..."
"... I don't believe any of the sources for future oil production increases will offset decline. Unless peace breaks out in Libya I'd suggest they're a write off. Canada conventional peaked and now all they can ramp up on is Bitumen. Maybe we'll get another million a day out of Canadian bitumen but it won't be very soon or very cheap. I believe the infill drilling in KSA will lead to a steep decline before 2022. KSA is taking their last kick at the can as is evidenced by their current desperate policy manoeuvres. ..."
"... Ron – I believe it is clear that all those prognosticators, including the "transition to renewables crowd, are also predicting a future where everyone is wealthy and can afford the much more expensive … EVERYTHING! ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne 12/21/2015 at 4:20 pm
Hi Ron,

I doubt that the Saudis are pumping full out to increase their revenue, they could easily cut back production (along with the rest of OPEC) and make more revenue with lower output. Their aim is to hurt other oil producers such as the Russians and Americans (and perhaps the Iranians) with low prices. They are certainly having that effect on American oil producers, another 6 months and they won't need to cut back as the US output may have fallen by then as the financing for drilling unprofitable wells will have dried up (if oil prices remain under $35/b).

As to whether the peak is here in 2015, I think a rise in oil prices in 2017 will bring about higher output with a peak sometime after that (maybe 2018 to 2022),

Watcher is correct that nobody knows how much oil will be produced, what the oil price will be or the eventual URR for oil will be. All of it is just guesses.

Chart below is another wag, for a medium URR (2800 Gb C+C less extra heavy+600 Gb oil sands) which peaks in 2023 at 80.1 Mb/d after a 2016 decline of 700 kb/d. Chart below.

Ron Patterson, 12/21/2015 at 4:56 pm
I think a rise in oil prices in 2017 will bring about higher output with a peak sometime after that (maybe 2018 to 2022),…

Dennis, so higher prices will bring higher output. And just where is this higher output going to come from? That is higher output that overtakes all declines between now and then and continuing that decline even then? Where Dennis, just which countries are you talking about? Who will supply all this oil?

Dennis, as the thug said to Dirty Harry, "Hey… I gots to know!"

 photo Non-OPEC less US amp Russia_zpsbsam9g3d.jpg

BC, 12/21/2015 at 4:24 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgig1QVU2lY

Economics is politics. War is politics with other means. War is the business of empire. War is good business for imperialists. Therefore, economics is politics is the legal, moral/amoral, and intellectual rationalization for the business of empire, i.e., war, which is the use of state violence to expand business, expropriation of resources, exploitation of cheap labor, and the resulting ecocide and genocide in the process.

Happy Xmas and New Year to all.

Jimmy, 12/21/2015 at 5:36 pm
To paraphrase Carl Von Clausewitz 'war is politics by other means'. I'll go two further. Politics is economics by other means, and economics is ecology by other means. Roughly speaking anyway.
Richard, 12/21/2015 at 4:50 pm
HI: I look forward to the day oil will not be burned but will be used only to make great products like super strong polymers that can be used to build cars, boats, airplanes, houses, etc. Yes, peak production of oil may be upon us, but peak use of oil could be on us as well.
Ron Patterson, 12/21/2015 at 5:09 pm
> People:…. All you prognosticators out there who are picking the peak somewhere in the distant future, please tell me where all this increase in oil production is going to come from?

I have explained, in post after post, and especially this one, why I think the peak will be 2015. But some of you say My own feeling is that oil will peak sometime between 2020 and 2030,… and others say: "I agree with that prediction too,…"

Well hell, that's all well and good. But there must be a reason you think the peak will hold off for another ten years or so. Just who is going to produce all this oil. I have shown that Non-OPEC, less US and Russia, is clearly in decline in spite of oil prices being above $100 a barrel for five years. Okay… are you saying they are going to turn that around? That this time around $100 oil will do the trick where it clearly failed before, before they clearly declined for another ten years?

Hey, if you have an opinion, there must be a reason for that opinion? Otherwise you are just blowing smoke.

Arceus, 12/21/2015 at 5:32 pm
Ron, first I would say that if oil remains below $40 per barrel, then I would agree with you that 2015 will likely be the year of peak oil. However, I believe that oil will rise to at least $80 in the coming years and may go as high as $150 depending on the strength/weakness of the dollar.

I believe most of the oil in the coming years will continue to come from the Middle East and while Saudi seems to be peaking, Iran, Iraq, Libya are not.

I do not believe Russia has peaked if oil reaches $80 plus per barrel. Even the U.S. may be able to coax more oil out of the Gulf, Alaska and shale plays if there is money to be made (finding capable, experienced oil field workers may be a problem though). There is oil in Brazil, Canada, Kazakstan, various spots in south america, off-shore africa, etc.

Yes, it is getting more difficult to and expensive to get oil out of the ground, but these things play out longer than most people expect. Would you believe 15% of computers still use Windows XP or earlier as their operating system?

Jimmy, 12/21/2015 at 5:41 pm
I don't believe any of the sources for future oil production increases will offset decline. Unless peace breaks out in Libya I'd suggest they're a write off. Canada conventional peaked and now all they can ramp up on is Bitumen. Maybe we'll get another million a day out of Canadian bitumen but it won't be very soon or very cheap. I believe the infill drilling in KSA will lead to a steep decline before 2022. KSA is taking their last kick at the can as is evidenced by their current desperate policy manoeuvres.
Jef, 12/21/2015 at 5:41 pm
Ron – I believe it is clear that all those prognosticators, including the "transition to renewables crowd, are also predicting a future where everyone is wealthy and can afford the much more expensive … EVERYTHING!

[Dec 23, 2015] Iraqi production could face decline in 2016….they simply cannot pay their bills; US shale capex cuts will bite in 2016

peakoilbarrel.com
John, 12/21/2015 at 11:27 am
Iraqi production could face decline in 2016….they simply cannot pay their bills even with emergency loans from world bank…

Only OPEC [countries that have] increase 2015 was Iraq and SA….SA going full out and Iraq declining.

Russia full out….Iran…who would invest there with $35 oil?

US shale capex cuts will bite and declines will increase in 2016.

[Dec 23, 2015] The first US crude export since the new law was signed

This is a light crude that is sold to foreign refineries because it can't be processed in the USA. Most probably it is sold at discount to production cost.
peakoilbarrel.com
AlexS, 12/23/2015 at 1:15 pm
OPEC estimate of WTI breakeven prices by play ($/boe)
2011 2012 2013 2014 2015
Bakken 64.1 71.0 65.3 58 46.4
Eagle Ford 101.1 75.2 73.7 61 48.8
Permian Delaware 85.5 70.2 65.6 49.9 40.0
Permian Midland 145.0 107.1 85.3 91.3 73.0
Niobrara 94.5 69.9 52.0 55.0 44.0

coffeeguyzz, 12/23/2015 at 2:20 pm

Alex

Platts is running a story that a 600,000 barrel shipment of US oil is due to leave a Texas port in two weeks' time … the first US crude export since the new law was signed.

Should be interesting to see how much impact this new environment will have on US oil industry.

[Dec 23, 2015] Black box hedge funds lead winners from oil collapse

Notable quotes:
"... So after crude lost 46 percent in 2014, they were already betting strongly at the start of this year that the trend would continue, largely through oil futures and other energy derivatives markets. ..."
"... By the laws of economics, the oil market will turn back up at some point and trend-following funds may struggle then. But in the meantime, some are producing impressive returns. Millburn Commodity Program, for instance, was up 25.3 percent in the year to Dec. 15, performance data seen by Reuters showed. ..."
"... But Lawler said they typically cut their negative bets when crude fell below $40 a barrel this month, believing the market had hit its floor. Instead it kept falling to around $36 on Tuesday, showing how hard it is for flesh-and-blood traders to get their timing right in a rumor-fueled market. ..."
"... Taylor Woods Capital, for example, rode the oil market down for a third straight year of double-digit percentage gains and its best since 2013. However, oil trader Andy Hall's Astenbeck Capital Management stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars from his so far failed bet on a crude price recovery. ..."
"... On average, energy-focused hedge funds have risen 3.6 percent in the year to November, trumping their commodity peers which have fallen 2.4 percent, HFR data showed. The average fund of any strategy, meanwhile, is up 0.3 percent. ..."
"... Andurand - who achieved a return of 210 percent in 2008 after correctly calling an oil price jump and subsequent collapse - told investors recently that crude may fall below $25 in the first quarter of next year, and he was using options to benefit from the move. ..."
"... There is certainly still a chance of lower prices in the next month or so, but weighing that possibility against the virtual inevitability of higher prices down the road leads to a simple conclusion: now is not the time to exit the market . ..."
finance.yahoo.com

LONDON/NEW YORK (Reuters) - To make money from the sharp fall in oil prices this year, it helped if you weren't human.

While a handful of big name traders have profited from some of oil's 35 percent plunge, it has been computer-based or "systematic" funds which have captured much of the spoils.

These black box funds use programs to follow various asset classes and look to latch on to market trends. So after crude lost 46 percent in 2014, they were already betting strongly at the start of this year that the trend would continue, largely through oil futures and other energy derivatives markets.

Apart from a modest recovery early this year, crude prices have mostly been a one-way bet and now languish 66 percent below their levels around $115 a barrel 18 months ago.

"The main beneficiaries have been the systematic, or trend-following guys," said Anthony Lawler, head of portfolio management at investor GAM. "The stronger the trend, the bigger the position ... Since the middle of 2014, oil's been trending lower, so that's quite a long trend. As a result, they have meaningful exposure in energy."

By the laws of economics, the oil market will turn back up at some point and trend-following funds may struggle then. But in the meantime, some are producing impressive returns. Millburn Commodity Program, for instance, was up 25.3 percent in the year to Dec. 15, performance data seen by Reuters showed.

"Discretionary" funds - those where a living person pushes the trading button - can come into their own when the market turns.

But Lawler said they typically cut their negative bets when crude fell below $40 a barrel this month, believing the market had hit its floor. Instead it kept falling to around $36 on Tuesday, showing how hard it is for flesh-and-blood traders to get their timing right in a rumor-fueled market.

The fall has hit funds of all stripes holding energy stocks and debt, and buoyed those which invest in firms that are large consumers of energy and have therefore benefited through lower costs. Energy-focused discretionary funds have been the purest play on the move, and their performances vary considerably.

Taylor Woods Capital, for example, rode the oil market down for a third straight year of double-digit percentage gains and its best since 2013. However, oil trader Andy Hall's Astenbeck Capital Management stands to lose hundreds of millions of dollars from his so far failed bet on a crude price recovery.

On average, energy-focused hedge funds have risen 3.6 percent in the year to November, trumping their commodity peers which have fallen 2.4 percent, HFR data showed. The average fund of any strategy, meanwhile, is up 0.3 percent.


WINNERS, LOSERS

Taylor Woods, run by former Credit Suisse traders Beau Taylor and Trevor Woods, posted a 20 percent gain in the year to mid-December. The Greenwich, Connecticut-based hedge fund started the year with about $1 billion in assets and could make $200 million in profit if it maintains its performance to the end of the year, people familiar with its funding and returns said.

Investors stuck by the fund even when crude prices unexpectedly jumped 25 percent in April during the short-lived rally. "They had low volatility in some of the most challenging times," an industry source said, noting withdrawals that month had been a relatively modest 5 percent of the total sum invested. "That sort of risk management was rare this year."

Taylor Woods declined comment when contacted by Reuters.

Just behind lies the $615 million London-based Andurand Capital, run by former Vitol oil trader Pierre Andurand, which is up 8 percent in the year to Dec. 11.

Andurand - who achieved a return of 210 percent in 2008 after correctly calling an oil price jump and subsequent collapse - told investors recently that crude may fall below $25 in the first quarter of next year, and he was using options to benefit from the move.

Andy Hall has been one of the most successful fund managers of the last decade but this year Astenbeck is among the worst performers. The fund, based in Southport, Connecticut, lost 26 percent in the year to November as he stuck to his conviction that oil prices would recover. This year's decline is the largest ever for Astenbeck, which manages more than $2 billion and was launched by Hall in 2008. Its biggest annual drop before this was 8 percent in 2013. Hall did not respond to requests for comment. But in a letter to investors earlier this month he refused to back down from his conviction. "There is certainly still a chance of lower prices in the next month or so, but weighing that possibility against the virtual inevitability of higher prices down the road leads to a simple conclusion: now is not the time to exit the market".

Other laggards include New York-based BBL Commodities, down more than 10 percent in the year to November after beginning the year with more than $550 million, market sources said. Run by ex-Goldman Sachs trader Jonathan Goldberg, it was one of the best performing energy funds in 2014, gaining 51 percent. Goldberg declined comment.

London-based Merchant Commodity Fund has also failed to maintain its strong 2014 performance. It lost 8 percent up to November, after a near 60 percent gain in 2014.

Assets at Merchant declined from nearly $290 million in January to around $210 million, a note circulated by the fund to investors and seen by Reuters showed.

[Dec 22, 2015] JODI numbers interpretation

Notable quotes:
"... the difference is this is Crude + Condensate and does not include Natural Gas Liquids. ..."
"... The EIA has world crude plus condensate at about 80 million barrels per day. The EIA has production of Crude Oil, NGPL, and Other Liquids at 93,770,000 barrels per day in June 2015. That was a jump of about one and one quarter million barrels per day from May. Somehow I just don't really think that was the case. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

dclonghorn, 12/21/2015 at 12:10 pm

Thanks for the post. I find it very informative. One question I have is why the JODI totals are around 75 million bopd, when world production is often discussed as being around 90 million bopd. I suspect the difference is in how condensate and bitumen are counted, but I would like to know what the differences are.
Watcher, 12/21/2015 at 12:22 pm
Ron's actually on top of these little variances in oil stats from various sources. He juggles the secondary sources choice with gov't reported and the issue of C+C vs just C. The choices always look rational to me.

As to what leads to decline in output when, it's pretty amazing to me that people still try to predict this stuff. I can find you distinguished analysts saying opposite things, and you can find them too, and without much effort. The odd part of this is the reluctance of people to recognize none of them know anything.

One other thing worth thinking about. There is no long run. The long run is now, because now was the long run a year or five ago. No one is allowed to say such and such is true today "but in the long run" something else will be true. What's true now is true in the long run.

Ron Patterson, 12/21/2015 at 1:06 pm
DC, the difference is this is Crude + Condensate and does not include Natural Gas Liquids. The 90 million bpd you quoted does include natural gas liquids. That said however the JODI numbers are somewhat less than the EIA numbers because the EIA counts OPEC condensate while JODI does not. Also there may be a few very small producers that does not report to JODI.

The EIA has world crude plus condensate at about 80 million barrels per day. The EIA has production of Crude Oil, NGPL, and Other Liquids at 93,770,000 barrels per day in June 2015. That was a jump of about one and one quarter million barrels per day from May. Somehow I just don't really think that was the case.

[Dec 22, 2015] USA will be exporting light oil to world market while importing heavier brands

I think the real reason is that US refiner does not want light oil form shale, but there are refiners win other part of the globe thaat dependon such oil. Also restarting a shale well is like restarting a rusted tractor. It take time and cost money.
peakoilbarrel.com
Glenn Stehle, 12/21/2015 at 7:54 pm
And this from the Cowboyistan Ministry of Truth, from John's link above:

http://peakoilbarrel.com/all-roads-lead-to-peak-oil/comment-page-1/#comment-551941

Saudi Arabia is likely afraid to find out how quickly U.S. shale output will rise when oil prices creep up. And now that U.S. exports are in play, everyone wonders how quickly American entrepreneurs will capture markets that, until now, have seen little competition. For OPEC, it's better to put the day of reckoning off as long as possible.

But the radically different characteristic of the new oil era is not so much that America has emerged as a big source of swing supply. That of course was a surprise to many, and the central fact animating Congressional action. The single difference that really frightens OPEC and Russia the most can be captured in a single word: velocity.

Shale technology allows astonishingly fast increases in production and at volumes that can move global markets; furthermore, U.S. capital markets are inherently flexible, fast and have plenty of capacity to fuel shale expansion almost overnight if prices, and profits, creep back up.

In addition, in the shale fields of America, drillers can get permits in weeks on private and state lands, as opposed to years for both U.S. federal lands and those of other nations. Then, shale wells can be drilled and completed in weeks not years.

Every single metric associated with shale drilling and production has not only improved radically in the past half-dozen years, but continues to do so at stunning speeds. The combination of experience (it is, after all, a very new industry) and technology progress (which is propelled by pressures on profit margins) is yielding ever more efficiency gains.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/markpmills/2015/12/21/shale-wars-round-two-congress-acts-on-exports-russia-capitulates-on-price-and-opec-blinks/2/

SW, 12/21/2015 at 9:28 pm

Plus, they can do all of this with an unlimited supply of free money! It is a story that makes that hippie with the loaves and fishes look like an amateur.

likbez , 12/22/2015 at 9:09 pm
That's a very weak article. One thing is this persistent talking about oil glut. EIA figures for world production probably have margin of error well above 1%. That means plus/minus 1 Mb/d. So when they are talking about 1 Mb/d extra production this is within the margin of error of their measurements. So the glut might exist but it well might be not.

I think redistribution of oil production facilities is what in play now. Which started with Iraq and Libya wars and continued with Syria war. Kind of "Disaster capitalism" translated into oil dimension (http://www.amazon.com/The-Shock-Doctrine-Disaster-Capitalism/dp/0312427999). Who do you think will own Venezuela fields in two or three years?

How about predatory pricing with the effect deliberately multiplied via HFT and hedge funds mechanism? Right now Saudis are engaged in predatory pricing. That's an established fact. Actually the hypothesis that Saudis want to hurt US shale industry is extremely weak: Saudis are the USA vassal state and are in principle incapable of such action without prior approval of the US government. So it looks like the USA shale industry is just a collateral damage of this bombing. Real target of this bombing lies elsewhere.

It will be interesting to see how long prices below $40 persist. At this price level most producers have losses and somehow the situation continues. My impression is that the mechanism to force producers to endure such losses is Saudis + stock exchange HFT and futures.

In any case current low prices is a sign how dysfunctional the international finance system has become.

[Dec 22, 2015] Oil is an irreplaceable commodit which now due to low prices burned in excessive quantities

Notable quotes:
"... IMHO the current lows in oil prices were caused more by algorithmic trading and hedge funds then fundamentals so predicting anything in this environment requires being an insider. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
wimbi, 12/22/2015 at 2:29 am
As a mere dude sitting on the fence watching this oil-price rodeo, I keep wondering why none of you fancy rope slingers is giving any attention at all to some of the biggest bulls in the paddock.

1) Paris says we WILL cut back on carbon
2) Pope says we SHOULD cut back
3) Science says we MUST cut back.
4) Probability says we are gonna be FORCED to cut back.

And each and all of these don't have any effect on your thinking on the price of oil???

Dennis Coyne, 12/22/2015 at 12:16 pm
Hi Wimbi,

I would think that over the short term oil prices will increase, both due to reduced supply and possibly due to increased carbon taxes. Eventually this may lead to lower prices as people reduce their demand for fossil fuels, but it will probably be 2050 or so before we get there, I would like it to be sooner, but I am not that much of an optimist.

likbez , 12/22/2015 at 1:03 pm
Saying is not doing. There are powerful forces that will prevent any significant progress in lowing carbon emissions.

Even a minor change in oil consuming industries takes decades. Look at the pace of introduction of hybrid cars in the USA as an example. And you might better understand the future of cutting carbon emissions.

Oil is an irreplaceable commodity. And it is sad that with current low prices it will be burned at higher pace then it would otherwise for several years.

IMHO the current lows in oil prices were caused more by algorithmic trading and hedge funds then fundamentals so predicting anything in this environment requires being an insider.

But that does not change the total irrationality of the current situation (and international financial markets).

So for the price of oil the best answer was given long ago by JP Morgan: When asked what the stock market will do: It will fluctuate. Now we probably are close to trend reversal but when it will come is anybody guess. But if it come there is a guarantee that it will overshoot.

So there is no guarantee that the current irrationality with low oil prices will not reoccur in the future.

All this deregulation under casino capitalism and financialization of everything (it would be nice to hang a couple of oil traders who try to short non-existent oil like in good old times ) made the system unstable.

[Dec 22, 2015] A note on wells annual decline rate

peakoilbarrel.com
Amvet, 12/22/2015 at 4:15 am
... I have two examples to add to the discussion:
(1) The 2014 IEA study of 1,600 oil fields that supply 70% of global oil showed a decline rate of 6.2%.
If this is true, the globe needs, including demand growth, over 4 million bpd of new production per year to stay even. 100K bpd new production makes the news. Where is 4 million?
(2) The classic example of "in the ground does not mean in the barrel": Kazakstan´s Kashagan giant Oil Field. Discovered 2000, 45 API oil, 19% H2S, 11,168 psi. Shallow water in the Caspian. Stormy weather.
So far less than one month production. Latest problem, pipe corrosion. Next year (or later) starting production of 180K bpd. Planned max production 370K bpd. Cost around $190 billion
Dennis Coyne, 12/22/2015 at 12:01 pm
Hi Amvet,

See

http://www.theoildrum.com/node/4763

where they estimate around 4.5% annual decline rate for World output in Nov 2008. It is possible this has increased since then, but assuming it has not, then at least that amount of output has been developed each year because output in 2015 will be about 6.5 Mb/d higher than in 2008. So roughly 4.2 Mb/d of new output was added each year on average from 2009 to 2015, if the decline rate was 4.5%/year on average each year from 2009 to 2015. Eventually a peak will be reached, when that will be is hard to say with confidence.

[Dec 22, 2015] How oil could go even lower--commentary

Notable quotes:
"... The most vulnerable producers are U.S. stripper wells. Totaling at least 700,000 barrels per day, these small wells would begin to shut down if crude ranged around $35 for at least six months. ..."
"... Other candidates are Canadian tar sands; North Sea and Russian brownfield supply (which depends on continuous capex to arrest steep decline rates); and of course shale oil output, which is in the process of rolling over, with declines likely to accelerate. ..."
"... Some 5 million b/d of supply has been deferred or canceled. This means supply that had previously been expected to become available in 2018 or 2019 will not be there. ..."
Dec 18, 2015 | cnbc.com

...The most vulnerable producers are U.S. stripper wells. Totaling at least 700,000 barrels per day, these small wells would begin to shut down if crude ranged around $35 for at least six months. However, stripper well owners are likely to continue pumping until a maintenance issue arises that would force a shut down. Significant shut-ins would only appear after months-to-quarters of lower prices. More often than not, stripper well shut-ins are permanent due to various geological and mechanical factors, reinforcing their owners' reluctance to shut them off. Other candidates are Canadian tar sands; North Sea and Russian brownfield supply (which depends on continuous capex to arrest steep decline rates); and of course shale oil output, which is in the process of rolling over, with declines likely to accelerate.

...In July, Wood Mackenzie reported oil and gas companies have delayed some $200 billion of investment in more than 45 projects, exclusive of U.S. shale, due to the price slump. More than half of affected reserves are in deep-water projects, and nearly 30 percent are in Canadian oil sands. In September, Wood Mackenzie predicted 140 of the 330 fields in the UK North Sea could close in the next five years, even if oil prices recover to $85 a barrel. Some 5 million b/d of supply has been deferred or canceled. This means supply that had previously been expected to become available in 2018 or 2019 will not be there.

Commentary by Robert McNally, founder and president of The Rapidan Group, an independent energy-consulting and market advisory firm based in the Washington, DC, area. From 2001 to 2003, Mr. McNally served as the top international and domestic energy adviser on the White House staff, holding the posts of Special Assistant to the President on the National Economic Council and, in 2003, Senior Director for International Energy on the National Security Council.

[Dec 22, 2015] Oil Bears Exit Market Too Soon as Prices Slide to Another Low

Notable quotes:
"... Speculators' short positions in WTI fell by 15,224 contracts to 166,625 futures and options ..."
"... Net-long positions rose by 15,280 to 95,754. ..."
Dec 16, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

Money managers' short position in West Texas Intermediate crude fell 8.4 percent from an all-time high in the week ended Dec. 15, data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission show. Net-long positions rose 19 percent.

Speculators' short positions in WTI fell by 15,224 contracts to 166,625 futures and options, CFTC data show. Shorts in the prior week were the most in records dating back to 2006. Longs increased by 56. Net-long positions rose by 15,280 to 95,754.

"This is all short covering," said Tim Evans, an energy analyst at Citi Futures Perspective in New York. "It's not a bet that prices will rise, it's a wager that prices might not continue lower."

Traders reduced their bullish stance in Brent crude during the period. Speculators reduced net-longs to 171,834 contracts, according to data from ICE Futures Europe.

[Dec 22, 2015] It has been many months since we have seen rigs on the North Dakota rig page as "stacking". Last week we saw the first, today we have another

peakoilbarrel.com

Toolpush, 12/22/2015 at 1:38 pm

It has been many months since we have seen rigs on the North Dakota rig page as "stacking". Last week we saw the first, today we have another. I believe this will be the beginning of the response to the decreasing oil price, and the restricted 2016 capex budgets of the oil companies.

Strangely enough, one is from XTO, and the other from EOG, both strong players. I would have expected the weaker player to cut back first, but then again, maybe they can't afford to!

BC, 12/22/2015 at 2:17 pm
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2R6J

Economic indices imply a worst recession in ND than in 2007-09, and the worst in 25 years.

Mass out-migration as typically occurs and an aging population will tend to prevent the U rate from spiking, however.

[Dec 22, 2015] The global oil production glut might not exist

If global daily consumption is around 94 Mb/d and error in its measurement is over 1% (discrepancies between various agencies are even higher) how they can talk about "glut" with a strait face. They should talk about "dumping" by Saudis with full support of Wall Street sharks and HFT mechanisms.
Notable quotes:
"... Are massive futures trades and a bit of theater causing the glut? What is your opinion? ..."
"... But in reality, only a few countries have actually increased production since then and it was not by a huge amount. ..."
"... At the same time, rig counts have fallen dramatically as have investments in new oil projects. It would seem, viewed in a certain light, that oil would be ready to rebound and fairly quickly. ..."
"... The world is swimming in debt and this limits economic growth which in turn limits demand for oil. Also there are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia and Venezuela – all of which likely have the potential to increase oil production. ..."
"... None of these countries, quoting you: likely have the potential to increase oil production. Every one of these countries are currently producing every barrel of oil they possibly can. Libya and Iran will likely have that potential sometime in the future, but not today. By how much is just not known at this point. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Amvet, 12/21/2015 at 3:15 pm
Ron, I suspect that the global oil production glut does not exist.
Some of the reasons given to support the glut are interesting:
  • The Saudis cut prices to protect market share.
  • The price went down.
  • US storage increased after imports surged.
  • The Saudis, OPEC, Russia, refused to cut production.
  • Industrialized countries storage increased.
  • Tankers are lined up to unload.

Are massive futures trades and a bit of theater causing the glut? What is your opinion?

Regards.

What is your opinion?

Ron Patterson, 12/21/2015 at 4:31 pm
No, I do not think futures traders can cause a glut and certainly not the appearance of a glut if none exist. Glut may be too strong a word but there definitely was an oversupply as evidenced by the storage levels, not just in the US but all over the world.

US storage increased after imports surged. The Saudis, OPEC, Russia, refused to cut production. Industrialized countries storage increased. Tankers are lined up to unload.

That is the very definition of an oversupply, and perhaps even a glut.

Arceus, 12/21/2015 at 5:03 pm
There is something of a case to be made for that (no glut)…

It goes something like this – oil production has been declining since the Sauds and Opec decided not to cut production. But in reality, only a few countries have actually increased production since then and it was not by a huge amount.

At the same time as production has leveled off, demand for "cheap" oil has been increasing steadily. Moreover, most oil production is measured in boe or barrel of oil equivalents (not all of it is crude oil), and so crude oil production may have actually decreased more than many believe.

At the same time, rig counts have fallen dramatically as have investments in new oil projects. It would seem, viewed in a certain light, that oil would be ready to rebound and fairly quickly.

But not so fast. There are many more things to consider, and here are just a few. Look at natural gas and how it has declined for a very long time, and it is not hard to imagine oil doing the same thing. Also, the dollar has been strengthening (which is a negative for all commodities) and Yellen and company appear to want to keep it that way.

The world is swimming in debt and this limits economic growth which in turn limits demand for oil. Also there are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia and Venezuela – all of which likely have the potential to increase oil production.

Unemployment seems to be growing – this subdues demand for oil. Anyway, just a few things off the top of the head…

Ron Patterson, 12/21/2015 at 5:39 pm
Also there are Iran, Iraq, Libya, Russia and Venezuela – all of which likely have the potential to increase oil production.

None of these countries, quoting you: likely have the potential to increase oil production. Every one of these countries are currently producing every barrel of oil they possibly can. Libya and Iran will likely have that potential sometime in the future, but not today. By how much is just not known at this point.

Venezuela has very serious political problems and their production is far more likely to go down than up. But if you think Russia has the ability to increase production you need to explain why your prognostications are better than just about everyone else in the world who are predicting Russia will decline.

Iraq is a big question mark. I don't think they have much ability to increase production. And their political problems are likely to get a lot worse instead of better.

As for there being no glut, there is a very definite oversupply at the moment. Otherwise supply and demand is a myth. And it most definitely is not.

[Dec 22, 2015] Recapping reality of oil consumption

peakoilbarrel.com

Watcher, 12/22/2015 at 11:02 am

Recapping reality.
  1. China and India have oil consumption growth that is exploding. US conservation just pours more oil in their tanks.
  2. Price is not compelling. This is why God gave us subsidies. No candidate who says "it's good price rose to crush your oil consumption and degrade your life" is going to win vs a candidate who says "this oil spike must be stopped and it is the role of government and its central bank to stop it and reduce the burden on the citizenry".
  3. Y'all left wing folks don't really care about people driving F150s, with which they can carry things around. You want to command people how to live, but you're not willing to take up arms to mow them down if they don't obey.
  4. China has a moral responsibility to continue their growth of oil consumption to AT LEAST the US levels of per capita consumption. China has no Social Security. No other pension plan. No other array of safety nets funded in the US by GDP. They have to get their consumption up RIGHT NOW in order to fulfill responsibility to their people. Not gradually and drawn out. Not waiting for imaginary replacements for oil. RIGHT NOW. And if they do, global supply has to be something like 130 million bpd. It can't get there. China HAS to take it from someone else, the first being those 4+ million bpd in tankers heading north along the Shanghai coast to Japan. Just confiscate that.
  5. India is burning over 4 mbpd now. sashay over to mazamascience.com/OilExport to see the black consumption line for each country. 45 degree slope for India, just a few degrees less than China's slope. KSA's slope looks early exponential. No reason why it shouldn't be. It's their oil.
  6. This stuff about giving up . . . why do you want to give up. Fund weapons to prepare to TAKE what you must have.

[Dec 22, 2015] Oil market to correct in 2016 Harold Hamm

Notable quotes:
"... Hamm said the price of oil will return to $40 to $50 in the first half of 2015 ..."
"... The volumes of oil output will be going down, and as a result, its price will be climbing back, but that will happen during the mid term ..."
www.cnbc.com

...Hamm said the price of oil will return to $40 to $50 in the first half of 2015. He also expects the gap between Brent and U.S. crude to narrow following the lifting last week of a 40-year-old ban on exporting crude oil from the United States.

Allowing producers to export U.S. crude will help the product find a market in countries with refineries capable of processing it, Hamm said, noting that foreign acquisition of U.S. refineries has reduced capacity for American oil.

Vagit Alekperov, CEO of Russian oil giant Lukoil, told CNBC on Monday the oil market will be able to sustain $40 to $50 per barrel next year.

"The current purchases taking place in the industry do not incentivize the development of new exploration projects. … The volumes of oil output will be going down, and as a result, its price will be climbing back, but that will happen during the mid term," he said through an interpreter.

[Dec 22, 2015] More pain for oil Hofmeister

In this video former Shell Oil President John Hofmeister, expects more pain in the oil and gas industry in the first quarter of 2016 before recovery will start. there is light in the end of the tunnel.
Notable quotes:
"... But once a correction occurs, Hofmeister said, he is concerned the oil market will not achieve equilibrium, but instead enter a period of undersupply, ultimately resulting in a price spike. ..."
"... That is because producers are destroying value as they race to cut costs to offset declining revenues, he said. The industry is cannibalizing parts from idled rigs and equipment, laying off workers and reducing inventories, leaving companies ill-prepared for an uptick in demand, he added. ..."
"... Further, Hofmeister believes U.S. drillers will have a tough time borrowing money to fund new production. ..."
"... The turning point in the supply-demand imbalance may be the decline in high-cost U.S. crude production, which is expected to fall by about 500,000 barrels per day next year, he said. ..."
finance.yahoo.com
The recent leg lower in crude prices is no surprise, and market watchers should expect the oil rout to get worse before it gets better, former Royal Dutch Shell President John Hofmeister said Tuesday.

"I think the first quarter of next year is going to be probably the roughest quarter that the oil and gas industry has seen really in a long time," he told CNBC's "Squawk on the Street."

... ... ....

The current price environment will continue for some time so long as top oil exporter Saudi Arabia continues to tap its extensive reserves and borrow money to fund its policy of keeping oil production roughly steady, Hofmeister said.

Oil markets can only achieve a more rational level of production when state-owned companies bring output in line with slower global fuel demand, he said.

But once a correction occurs, Hofmeister said, he is concerned the oil market will not achieve equilibrium, but instead enter a period of undersupply, ultimately resulting in a price spike.

That is because producers are destroying value as they race to cut costs to offset declining revenues, he said. The industry is "cannibalizing" parts from idled rigs and equipment, laying off workers and reducing inventories, leaving companies ill-prepared for an uptick in demand, he added.

Further, Hofmeister believes U.S. drillers will have a tough time borrowing money to fund new production.

The turning point in the supply-demand imbalance may be the decline in high-cost U.S. crude production, which is expected to fall by about 500,000 barrels per day next year, he said.

The U.S. Energy Information Administration projects the country's output will decline through the third quarter of 2016.

[Dec 22, 2015] I Know Of No One Who Predicted This Russian Oil Production Hits Record As Saudi Gambit Fails

Zero Hedge

But not everyone agrees that this is sustainable. Some say efforts to improve efficiency have run their course and with financing for exploration scarce, further gains may be hard to come by. Interestingly, Bloomberg also notes that because Moscow takes "nearly everything above $30-$40 a barrel" on exports, producers won't feel the impact of low prices until crude falls substantially below those levels.

The takeaway here is that the Saudi gambit failed to wrench market share away from the Russians and between the conflict in Syria, Moscow's closer ties with Beijing, and Riyadh's move to antagonize The Kremlin by encroaching on Russia's eastern European market share, one shouldn't expect Putin to back down any time soon. In short, if John Kerry and Riyadh did in fact plan to bankrupt the Russians by tanking crude prices, the effort was a miserable failure that resulted not only in a 20% fiscal deficit for the Saudis, but also in the destruction of American jobs in the oil patch.

MalteseFalcon

Peak oil is sometimes qualified as peak cheap oil.

If the Saudi's are at peak oil it's because the Saudi "cost structure" is too high and includes generous welfare to keep their over-procreating rabble from revolting, expense accounts for over 100 "princes", funding for extreme Islamic radicals all over the globe, a war in Syria and a war in Yemen.

In a word: bullshit.

Gregory Poonsores

Found it a bit weird myself.

Most of the increases by Russia would have been baked in before the price fell, so I don't understand the song a dance about it.

I mean the Saudis were already on a massive infill drilling program which boosted their output this year.

Of course this presupposes the Russians are actually increasing production or just trying to spook the Saudis whose production is dropping again anyway. Besides, all OPEC increases seem to be coming from Iraq now.

Seer

When everyone is backpedaling/contracting I'd think that any increase, even a "paltry" 3-4%, is fairly significant. Think Caterpillar wouldn't want that? (hell, they' probably love to be able to maintain, rather than DROP, production).

Again, for those that don't have a clue about the business world, when things are really tight ANY gains are HUGE. Seeing as most of the West's bankers are force-feeding inflation at 2% (figure it as faked "growth") that 3-4% could be seen as 5-6%,

For the mathematically-challenged, this exponentially pencils out to a DOUBLING of production in only 11 1/2 to 14 years.

The point isn't to show off how much you can produce, it's about out-lasting your competition.


[Dec 22, 2015] Iran and Saudi Arabia to Increase Crude Oil Production in 2016

finance.yahoo.com

Iran crude oil production

Iran's Ministry of Petroleum reported that its oil sanctions might be removed by the first week of January 2015. The easing of sanctions would mean Iran could scale up crude oil production by 0.5 MMbpd (million barrels per day) to 1 MMbpd in the next six months to one year.

...Iran has the lowest production cost at just $10–$15 per barrel. It also has the lowest break-even cost in OPEC and in the world. Iran's strategic location allows it to transport vast amounts of crude oil.

[Dec 21, 2015] Oil Prices Slump to 11-Year Lows in Asia and Europe

Notable quotes:
"... supplies from outside of OPEC will decline next year. ..."
"... Production in the United States remains strong, as higher production from projects in the Gulf of Mexico offsets declines in shale oil production on shore ..."
"... In a recent report, the International Energy Agency said it expected global inventories to keep growing at least until late 2016, although at a much slower pace than this year. "As inventories continue to swell into 2016, there will still be a lot of oil weighing on the market," the agency said. ..."
Dec 21, 2015 | The New York Times

...the International Energy Agency, the Paris-based monitoring organization, forecasts that supplies from outside of OPEC will decline next year.

Still, those prospects have not been enough to shore up prices. Production in the United States remains strong, as higher production from projects in the Gulf of Mexico offsets declines in shale oil production on shore, where low prices have discouraged some energy companies from investing in new drilling. Russia, meanwhile, is essentially shrugging off the impact of Western sanctions over Ukraine and is still producing at high levels.

In a recent report, the International Energy Agency said it expected global inventories to keep growing at least until late 2016, although at a much slower pace than this year. "As inventories continue to swell into 2016, there will still be a lot of oil weighing on the market," the agency said.

[Dec 21, 2015] America cannot do away without Russian oil

Fort Russ

The income changed accordingly. In 10 months of the year it amounted to $35,209 billion for gas, which is a 25,65% decrease from the same period in 2014, according to the data of the Federal Customs Service. Our country received 1.75 times less from oil exports in January-October of 2015 compared to the same period of last year - $76,738 billion.

There are also issues with exports. Despite the slowdown in the global economy (according to different estimates it amounts to less than 3%), energy resources remain the "blood" of the modern world order. Therefore it is reasonable to think about the potential for the export of Russian hydrocarbons and new areas of cooperation.

Here assessments are also different. For example, "Transneft" predicts the decline of Russian oil exports in 2016 to 210 million tons from 222 million tons in 2015. This was announced by first vice-president Maxim Grishanin.

The head of the Energy Ministry of Russia, Alexander Novak expects Russian oil exports at the level of 237 million tonnes a year in 2015 and 2016. According to the Ministry of Economic Development, Russia will sell 227,5 million tons of "black gold" abroad in 2016

According to the forecast of the Ministry of Economic Development gas exports will amount to 174,7 billion cubic meters in 2016.

Operational statistics are not sufficient for the forecast to be more or less reliable, thinks the leading expert of the Union of Oil & Gas Producers, Rustam Tankaev. However, he says some assessments can be made.

...This year one of unexpected destinations for the exports of "black gold" became the US, reminds Rustam Tankaev. "Apparently, this market will continue to grow next year, especially as shale oil production in the New World is gradually declining due to low prices," - he suggests.

[Dec 21, 2015] Iran expecting to produce 4 million barrels of oil per day

EIA estimated that an increase in Iranian crude oil production in 2016 will be around 600,000 barrels per day and is likely to occur in the second half of the year . Richard Nephew, program director for Economic Statecraft at Columbia University and former sanctions coordinator at the U.S. State Department, said in a research brief that larger volume of oil will flow from Iran in 2016, but likely not at the levels that optimists predict.
UPI.com

TEHRAN, Sept. 2 (UPI) -- Iranian oil production by the end of 2016 will be in excess of 4 million barrels per day, more than in the pre-sanctions era, the nation's oil minister said.

Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Zangeneh said the country will increase net oil production by more than 1.5 million barrels per day, bringing total production for the Islamic republic to just over 4 million bpd.

"Around the end of next year, we will be close to this figure," he said in an interview broadcast by CNN.

Zangeneh said his country could become the second largest producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, after Saudi Arabia, within seven or eight months of sanctions relief. Production during the pre-sanctions area was around 3 million bpd.

[Dec 21, 2015] Oil Price Scenarios for 2016

Notable quotes:
"... mature fields would decline at 9% naturally without infield capex, mitigated decline, (such as infill wells, sidetracks, recompletions, acid wash, debottlenecking, new compressors etc) would slow the decline to 6.4%, Current decline including newer fields is about 3.1 % – lowered capex would increase decline rate ..."
"... 300 mb would be gone within one year at the rate of 1 mb/d for OECD countries. ..."
"... FWIW, my own outsider's 'guess' for YE 2016 is around $75-80/bbl. That puts most US shale back in business ..."
"... I think perhaps you overestimate the role of stocks. Oil in storage is owned by somebody, usually oil traders, and their #1 priority is to get the maximum price when they sell. Balancing the market is of no concern to them at all. If prices are rising, they will buy more. ..."
"... The oil stocks do NOT serve to balance the market, outside the SPR they are largely owned by speculators. ..."
Dec 21, 2015 |

Let's cut to the quick. My forecast for Brent at around this time next year in my BAU (business as usual) scenario is $37. This is grim reading for all those involved in and around the oil industry. Worse still, I think there is high probability that we see sub-$20 oil before the first quarter is out. But this is great news for consumers. The reason is gross over-supply sustained throughout 2016, helped by Iran coming back to full market with an additional 800,000 bpd.

Aslangeo, December 16, 2015 at 8:43 am

an interesting point of view from nawar alsaadi – http://m.authorstream.com/presentation/nawar295779-2683608-2014-2015-oil-crash/

I do not know who he is but he feels that prices are likely to increase in the longer term as production form existing fields declines and is not adequately replaced due to Capex cuts

Slide 26 "mature fields would decline at 9% naturally without infield capex, mitigated decline, (such as infill wells, sidetracks, recompletions, acid wash, debottlenecking, new compressors etc) would slow the decline to 6.4%, Current decline including newer fields is about 3.1 % – lowered capex would increase decline rate"

Javier, December 17, 2015 at 10:16 am

Euan,

You know better than anybody that world crude increase since 2010 has come from the shale revolution. But the shale revolution ended the day prices crashed. Investor gullibility, hedges, and inertia sustained production for a year. Investors don't want to know anything with shale oil anymore (bond interests spiking, companies stocks cratering), hedges have expired, and inertia is over and now works against a recovery.

Now the rest of the world has to increase production to compensate for the sinking shale that could easily lose 1 mbpd in 2016, plus to increase world production. And it is just not happening. Since August world production is going down, and it is likely to accelerate its decline in the first months of 2016.

What happens next is anybody's guess, but it would be a pity that after so long you would go to miss Peak Oil just when it is taking place.

After all Peak Oil has to take place with maximal production and moderate to low oil prices, since high prices are conductive to increase production.

Stay well.

Huckleberry Finn, December 17, 2015 at 1:22 am

Pretty funny stuff. You should do stand up.

5 Million cut??????
Over the last year inventories have built at less than 1 million barrels per day. And you espouse 5 Million barrels cut for $100 oil????

And then your 3 Billion barrel 1000 day draw down.

Wow just wow. You expect people to draw down this stuff to zero? We have had 300 Million barrel build. If we were 300 Million below the 5 year average we would be at $150.

Don't take the IEA for gospel. 250% increase in SUV sales in China year on year will not result in 200,000 barrel increase in demand unless you blow your hot air in them.


Huckleberry Finn, December 17, 2015 at 3:56 pm

Ok. You kinda implied the 1000 day drawdown.
Now, When you say considering the inventories built, nowhere in your model do you put that into context.
For example if we have a 3 day extra in inventory versus 3 day less surely the price is different, but where do you get that in the model?
Like I said, this excess supply is a myth. We have a 1 million oversupply currently.
We built inventories by 1 million barrels a day in 2015.

Time will tell.
Peace.

Euan Mearns, December 17, 2015 at 7:54 pm

Huckleberry, via email I've also been pulled up on not placing inventories in context and that is valid criticism. On the size of surplus going to storage. I'm simply taking the IEA numbers. I stopped following the EIA when they fell 150 years behind 😉

The trouble with the IEA is that all the data needs to be transcribed by hand from the OMRs. Its about time this was all available on XL, bang up to date. What are the IEA thinking about, an OECD institution, no doubt funded by us, trying to give competitive advantage to the rich by drip feeding data into public domain.

The supply demand price model is all I have to go on to try and convert market dynamic to price. Phil Hart, who I think founded the concept, based this on volume produced not volume consumed. So there is no doubt room for refinement, but it means transcribing years of data by hand from OMRs – a task I'm going to hand over to Luis who has made a habit of telling me what I should be doing.

Reply

mushalik (@crudeoilpeak), December 18, 2015 at 3:34 am

That 3 Gb comercial inventory number is from the IEA November OMR report

https://www.iea.org/media/omrreports/fullissues/2015-11-13.pdf

Have a look at the graph on page 4. The 5 year OECD inventory average is between 2,600 – 2,800 mb. So can we consider this as a "normal operating condition"?

Therefore, 3,000 mb has to be compared with, say, 2,700 mb which is around 10% more. Not really much. 300 mb would be gone within one year at the rate of 1 mb/d for OECD countries.

If inventories were to go below the lower bound, say 2,500 mb, the IEA would certainly issue a warning

Euan Mearns, December 18, 2015 at 10:34 am

I concede that I got the emphasis wrong on stock levels.

ristvan, December 17, 2015 at 8:53 pm

Euan, there are some background factors that could be added to your overall analysis.

1. Roughly 40% of Saudi output is from Ghawar. In 2010, after reworking the sourthern Haradh section for secondary water flood, they said Ghawar could produce for another 38 years (watercut is already 55%) iff production was continually cut back from the then 5.1mbpd. So their price war is to some extent hurting their own production future. Plus, their social spend drew down foreign currency reserves by about $100 billion in 12 months, in addition to withdrawing $70 billion from asset managers. iMF says the deficit is about 20% of GDP. At that rate, they run out of surplus cash in (650/[100+70]) three and a half years. Even the Saudis cannot afford to keep this going for long.

2. The 2008 IEA survey of ~800 major fields (including all giants and supergiants) which produced over 60% of that years crude showed an average annual decline rate of 5.1%. it would be more by now. That means the world has to add (0.051*0.6) about three percent additional capacity each year just to stay even. If demand growth is 1.5% as you estimate, that net new capacity has to be about 4.5% annually just to remain in balance. You estimate demand at 96mbpd 2h2016 in fig. 3. That means about 4.3mbpd of new capacity by YE 2016. Iran says it can increase exports 0.5mbpd in 2016 after sanctions are lifted. That leaves 4mbpd to be made up by the undeferred portion of the new capacity pipeline next year. That is quite a lot.

I think that the Saudis figured all this out, and that the price war will be over before YE2016. Even the Saudis cannot afford it to go on longer, and it does not take much to bring demand and supply back into balance. Just cutting back Ghawar to prevent field damage would almost do the trick; in 2012 Ghawar alone was 6.1% of total world crude production excluding NGL.

FWIW, my own outsider's 'guess' for YE 2016 is around $75-80/bbl. That puts most US shale back in business, but does not enable new deepwater (BP and Chevron estimate a minimum $85/bbl, and Brazil is in turmoil) or the discovered Yamal giants in Russia lacking infrastructure (estimate $100/bbl needed.)

Then within 2 more years, back over $100 because Brazil's subsalts and the Yamal fields will be needed to replace the annual decline in other conventional oil (defined as API>10, reservoir porosity >5%, reservoir permeability > 10 darcies).

mushalik (@crudeoilpeak), December 18, 2015 at 2:13 pm

There can be no doubt that crude oil production started to peak in 2005. The response of the system to this event was quantitative easing and unconventional oil which brought about an increase in crude oil production from US shale oil and Canadian tar sands 5-6 years later.

http://crudeoilpeak.info/latest-graphs

The 2005 WEO is here:
http://www.worldenergyoutlook.org/media/weowebsite/2008-1994/weo2005.pdf

It predicted 105 mb/d by 2020 (p 90), including processing gains. By latest OMR numbers we are now at 97 mb including 2.6 mb/d biofuels

According to table 3.5 of the WEO 2015, shown here by ASPO Germany on slide 3
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9AZj5ZYb55NdlBtQTRWZlVPZ28/view?pli=1

2020 production would be 95.9 mb/d or 9 mb/d less than estimated 10 years earlier.

IEA did not foresee shale oil but thought much higher supplies would come from from OPEC

It only shows how difficult is to predict future supplies.

Stuart , December 17, 2015 at 9:17 pm

Euan,

I think perhaps you overestimate the role of stocks. Oil in storage is owned by somebody, usually oil traders, and their #1 priority is to get the maximum price when they sell. Balancing the market is of no concern to them at all. If prices are rising, they will buy more.

The oil stocks do NOT serve to balance the market, outside the SPR they are largely owned by speculators.

[Dec 21, 2015] $100 barrel oil Gazprom predicts Russia's rebound

Notable quotes:
"... According to Dyukov, currently there is shorting game . One of the reasons is the expectation of a rate increase by the Fed. For now the price has stabilized. Theoretically, if the shorting game will continue, the price may get lower but it is obvious that this decline will be short-term, - said Alexander Dyukov. ..."
"... If you removed 1.5 to 2 million barrels of oil from the market, it would bring oil prices to 65 dollars per barrel, guaranteed ..."
"... The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons in North America is likely to decline, which will balance supply and demand in the medium term. This will lead to higher prices. The lifting of the embargo on oil exports from the United States, according to Dyukov, will not have a significant impact on the global market. ..."
December 21, 2015 | Fort Russ

Orginally publushed by Rossijskaya Gazeta. Translated from Russian by Kristina Rus for Fort Russ

Global oil prices could sink below the current level of 36 dollars per barrel, but it will not last long, says general director of "Gazprom Oil," Alexander Dyukov.

"No matter what, in the medium or long term the rates will begin to return to the level that is just and right for consumers and producers. I'm talking about the price of 90-100 dollars per barrel", - he declared in an interview with TV channel "Russia 24".

According to Dyukov, currently there is "shorting game". One of the reasons is the expectation of a rate increase by the Fed. For now the price has stabilized. "Theoretically, if the shorting game will continue, the price may get lower but it is obvious that this decline will be short-term," - said Alexander Dyukov.

However, reaching the level of $90-100 per barrel may take a few years. The head of "Gazprom Oil" called the current situation not the most favorable.

"It will have long term implications not just for oil companies but for the consumers," - he said. Dyukov also believes that Russia should not change the strategy on the global oil market in an attempt to maintain global oil prices.

"We don't feel the weakest in this game, we have a serious margin of safety. I don't see any point for us to change the strategy that was chosen by the Russian Federation. If we talk about this competition - we won't lose it for sure. It's a game of nerves, who'll blink first, but Russia is absolutely prepared for this game. In production costs we are not far behind the Middle East, maybe even better off in some ways," - he said.

The lost balance of supply and demand in the oil market could be restored by OPEC and Saudi Arabia.

"But Saudi Arabia is currently fighting for the market share, in addition to increasing its share it is trying to take over expensive projects from many investors. If you removed 1.5 to 2 million barrels of oil from the market, it would bring oil prices to 65 dollars per barrel, guaranteed", - said Dyukov.

The extraction of unconventional hydrocarbons in North America is likely to decline, which will balance supply and demand in the medium term. This will lead to higher prices. The lifting of the embargo on oil exports from the United States, according to Dyukov, will not have a significant impact on the global market.

[Dec 21, 2015] Iraq Sees Crude Oil Prices Rising on Strong Fundamentals

Notable quotes:
"... Crude prices are set to rise from current "very low" levels that are hurting producers, Iraq's Oil Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said after a meeting of Arab petroleum-exporting nations. ..."
Dec 20, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

Crude prices are set to rise from current "very low" levels that are hurting producers, Iraq's Oil Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said after a meeting of Arab petroleum-exporting nations.

Abdul Mahdi, whose country is the second-biggest producer in OPEC, didn't forecast when prices would rebound from an almost seven-year low for Brent, the benchmark for more than half of the world's oil. Qatar's Energy Minister Mohammed Al Sada told reporters before the meeting in Cairo there was no need to be pessimistic about prices.

"There is no doubt that oil prices will rebound," Abdul Mahdi told reporters Sunday after the meeting of the Organization of Arab Petroleum Exporting Countries. "This current level is too low, and it's affecting oil producers. I think economic factors and fundamentals are still strong."

[Dec 20, 2015] History repreats: Shale junk bonds were offloaded by Wall Street firms to public investors

Notable quotes:
"... A reminder that a few weeks or months ago at a JP Morgan investment meeting, maybe even annual, a question was posed to management about their exposure to high yield bonds from shale. The answer was "we have offloaded that risk to public investors". ..."
"... JPM will have managed accounts. They are authorized to trade client money without informing the client of what has been done for each trade, and of course the theory would be that if the client doesn't benefit then they will pull their money from the account. ..."
"... Well, the account managers are trained and polished in selling ice cream to eskimos. They are professionals at persuading money to stay within the Assets Under Management umbrella and the client is not professional at countering those persuasion techniques. ..."
"... It's a new world out there. In 2007 hedge funds and Goldman cooperated in arranging short positions in mortgage backed securities and then spread the word those securities were non performing mortgages, DESPITE the fact Goldman had put clients into them to offload their own risk. Do not believe these guys will place client interests above their own. hahahah how absurd would that be. ..."
"... Methinks a lot of pension funds are facing some pretty large losses on oil and gas bonds. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher, 12/20/2015 at 12:44 pm
A reminder that a few weeks or months ago at a JP Morgan investment meeting, maybe even annual, a question was posed to management about their exposure to high yield bonds from shale. The answer was "we have offloaded that risk to public investors".

What you may not understand is what that can mean in terms of awareness. JPM will have managed accounts. They are authorized to trade client money without informing the client of what has been done for each trade, and of course the theory would be that if the client doesn't benefit then they will pull their money from the account.

Well, the account managers are trained and polished in selling ice cream to eskimos. They are professionals at persuading money to stay within the Assets Under Management umbrella and the client is not professional at countering those persuasion techniques.

The point being, this lending money to shale (in that meeting it was done to service loans already made to shale and keep them current) can be with Other People's Money and those people may not know, and probably don't know.

It's a new world out there. In 2007 hedge funds and Goldman cooperated in arranging short positions in mortgage backed securities and then spread the word those securities were non performing mortgages, DESPITE the fact Goldman had put clients into them to offload their own risk. Do not believe these guys will place client interests above their own. hahahah how absurd would that be.

And so, stop thinking that pre 2007 Normal in the world still applies. It doesn't. There are no precedents to what is happening in many things. At the core of the reasons why . . . is scarcity.

Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/20/2015 at 12:51 pm
Methinks a lot of pension funds are facing some pretty large losses on oil and gas bonds.

[Dec 20, 2015] The low prices are taking their toll

Notable quotes:
"... Ecopetrol, the largest Colombian producer announced that it will produce 755,000 barrels a day in 2016 vs 760,000/day in third quarter of 2015. That does not sound like much a of drop, until you realize that Ecopetrol will be taking over the Rubiales field from a joint venture by not extending their partners contract. ..."
"... So I am guessing their base decline rate is closer to 10% ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Huckleberry Finn, 12/20/2015 at 12:32 pm

The low prices are taking their toll. http://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/ecopetrol-announces-us48-billion-investment-plan-for-2016-561775541.html

Ecopetrol, the largest Colombian producer announced that it will produce 755,000 barrels a day in 2016 vs 760,000/day in third quarter of 2015. That does not sound like much a of drop, until you realize that Ecopetrol will be taking over the Rubiales field from a joint venture by not extending their partners contract.

That will add 70,000 barrels a day to their production. Or about 35,000 barrels day annualized since it happens mid-year. So adjusted for this their production will decline from 795,000 barrels to 755,000 barrels per day, or a drop of 5%.

And that is after spending 4.8 Billion USD. So I am guessing their base decline rate is closer to 10%

[Dec 20, 2015] When Will Oil Prices Turn Around

OilPrice.com

For the first half of 2015, the tight oil-weighted E&P companies that I follow spent about $2.20 in capital expenditures for every dollar they earned from operations (Figure 5).

[Dec 20, 2015] Forecast of Crude Oil Prices

useconomy.about.com

Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecasts that WTI futures contracts for March 2016 delivery will rebound to $44/b. However, it warns that volatility makes this forecast uncertain. It noted that commodities traders said prices could be anywhere between $30/b and $63/b.

That's much lower than EIA's July forecast for October delivery. That averaged $59.45/b. Traders said there was only a 20% chance it would go below $50/barrel.

They said prices would remain above $41/b in December. Instead, WTI for January delivery plummeted to $37.51 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. (Source: Market Prices and Uncertainty Report, EIA, July 7, 2015).

... ... ...

It accurately predicted that global Brent crude oil would drop to a level of $49/b in early 2015. It wrongly said prices would rebound to between $56/b to $60/b by year end. Inventories and production remained higher than expected. Inventories rose 1.8 million b/d in the first three-quarters of 2015.

... ... ...

Why Are Oil Prices So Volatile Right Now?

...many producers had to keep pumping oil, once the wells were opened. Capping off a well is expensive.

Second, forex traders drove up the value of the dollar by 15% in the last six months of 2014. Since all oil transactions are paid in dollars, this offset and possibly even caused 15% of the decline in the price of oil for exporting countries.

[Dec 20, 2015] This is what will happen when U.S. oil producers start to export

I agree that the effect of lifting the US export ban will be limited. Basically, the current spread between WTI and Brent will be largely eliminated.
Notable quotes:
"... If oil rises above $50, however, the picture could change. And the higher prices go, the stronger the incentive will be for U.S. producers to crank up drilling and send the crude overseas. ..."
finance.yahoo.com

If oil rises above $50, however, the picture could change. And the higher prices go, the stronger the incentive will be for U.S. producers to crank up drilling and send the crude overseas.

"With higher prices, U.S. producers would produce more again," says analyst Mark Broadbent of research firm Wook Mackenzie. "In a stronger price environment I'd expect to see more exports and producers eager to ramp up prices."

[Dec 20, 2015] Vultures start circling shale companies

Notable quotes:
"... I would guess that by now, most can see what is happening and therefore, what is going to happen in the future since the model has been established. The banks are not going to take serious hits. Re: Magnum Hunter and New Gulf Resources. ..."
"... I remember seeing some vulture investor discussions back in 2009. They were stating that they would never buy equity in failing companies: they would take control thru the debt. Much more upside possible. ..."
"... The investment/hedge funds step in. They can buy $1 billion of debt for $300 million or less, and the are praying that the company does go belly up. If it does, they get 100% of the equity, and agree to put in another $200 million to ride out the storm. A totally non-contested, prearranged bankruptcy. If things come back [even partially], they might own a company worth $2 billion for their $500 million investment. ..."
"... The vultures give the unsecured bond holders the option of taking pennies on the dollar or becoming subordinate the vultures on all the debt the vultures are able to trade out. ..."
"... In any event, after burning several million dollars, the sold the assets and I am sure took a big loss. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

Clueless, 12/19/2015 at 10:40 pm

I would guess that by now, most can see what is happening and therefore, what is going to happen in the future since the model has been established. The banks are not going to take serious hits. Re: Magnum Hunter and New Gulf Resources.

I remember seeing some vulture investor discussions back in 2009. They were stating that they would never buy equity in failing companies: they would take control thru the debt. Much more upside possible. So, a company with $1 billion in debt has its bonds trading at say 70 cents on the $ and it is rated junk. The bond funds that hold the debt [their covenants prohibit them from holding "bankrupt" rated debt] sells to novice speculators. Then the debt plunges to 10- 30 cents on the dollar.

The investment/hedge funds step in. They can buy $1 billion of debt for $300 million or less, and the are praying that the company does go belly up. If it does, they get 100% of the equity, and agree to put in another $200 million to ride out the storm. A totally non-contested, prearranged bankruptcy. If things come back [even partially], they might own a company worth $2 billion for their $500 million investment.

shallow sand, 12/19/2015 at 11:20 pm
Clueless. You are correct. I might add that the vultures do not appear to be just purchasing the debt. They are trading unsecured debt for second lien debt. I am not sure how this works, but from what I have read, the unsecured bonds have very weak covenants. The vultures give the unsecured bond holders the option of taking pennies on the dollar or becoming subordinate the vultures on all the debt the vultures are able to trade out.

The vultures better be pretty sharp, however. 1st, they better have a good handle on the assets they are trying to acquire. Second, they better have a good team put together to operate the assets. Third, they better have a better handle on future oil and gas prices than schmucks like me.

I saw something similar to this up close in the aftermath if the 1998-99 crash. An investor group bought the bad debt from a bank for pennies on the dollar, took assignment of the liens and foreclosed.

The investor group found out in a hurry that they didn't quite know what they had bought, and that it wasn't easy to manage from 1000+ miles away. They had a hell of a field superintendent, but of course they thought they were smarter than him, despite him having grown up in the middle of the field.

In any event, after burning several million dollars, the sold the assets and I am sure took a big loss. They also screwed up on timing the sale. Had they held on for about 3 more years they could have at least quintupled the sale proceeds. But they knew about as much as I, or really any of us, know about where oil prices are headed.

I am sure these distressed buyers are real sharks. But sharks can die too.

[Dec 20, 2015] Report Eagle Ford Shale Has Peaked, Lifting of Oil Export Ban Could Drain Field More Quickly

Notable quotes:
"... As a result, the drilling treadmill - seeking out new locales to frack in order to keep productivity rates flat - continues apace. The problem, Hughes points out, is that there isn't anywhere left to turn. ..."
"... "This is somewhat counterintuitive as conventional wisdom suggests that companies are focusing drilling efforts on their best acreage, which is in top counties such as Karnes, and withdrawing from more marginal parts of the play in order to maximize economics in a low oil price environment," he writes. "The reason for the steeper decline in Karnes County is likely that it is the most heavily drilled and high quality locations are running out." ..."
"... The hype surrounding tight oil as a means to bolster global oil production over the long term is not justified. Geological fundamentals clearly show that high decline rates, limited sweet spots, and finite numbers of drilling locations will limit long term contributions to production ..."
"... The optimistic tight oil forecasts of the EIA, and even more optimistic forecasts of some industry watchers, are unhelpful abstractions in developing energy policy for a more sustainable future ..."
Dec 18,2015 | naked capitalism

A new report published by the Post Carbon Institute concludes that Texas' Eagle Ford Shale basin, the most prolific shale oil basin in the U.S., has peaked and reached terminal decline status.

... ... ...

As a result, the drilling treadmill - seeking out new locales to frack in order to keep productivity rates flat - continues apace. The problem, Hughes points out, is that there isn't anywhere left to turn.

"This is somewhat counterintuitive as conventional wisdom suggests that companies are focusing drilling efforts on their best acreage, which is in top counties such as Karnes, and withdrawing from more marginal parts of the play in order to maximize economics in a low oil price environment," he writes. "The reason for the steeper decline in Karnes County is likely that it is the most heavily drilled and high quality locations are running out."

These drilling trends are also mapped out for readers to see what the drilling treadmill and sweet spots looks like in action.

... ... ...

Hughes closes the report by suggesting that U.S. energy policy (and thus global energy policy) is dictated by a drilling technique that has already eclipsed peak production mode just over a half decade after its birth.

"The hype surrounding tight oil as a means to bolster global oil production over the long term is not justified. Geological fundamentals clearly show that high decline rates, limited sweet spots, and finite numbers of drilling locations will limit long term contributions to production," wrote Hughes.

"The optimistic tight oil forecasts of the EIA, and even more optimistic forecasts of some industry watchers, are unhelpful abstractions in developing energy policy for a more sustainable future."

PlutoniumKun

This is pretty much exactly as the geologist Arthur Berman (and others) predicted quite a few years ago. Extrapolations from the outputs existing shale oil wells ignored the fact that experienced drillers don't drill randomly – they know what they are doing and usually are very good at hitting the sweet spots. Add in the strong incentive drillers have to exaggerate their success rate and you have a recipe for over optimistic predictions and over investment. The nature of tight oil is such that a decline is likely to be very rapid after the peak is hit as established techniques for drawing out the life of a conventional well (such as fracking around an oil bearing void or pumping in seawater/CO2) can't be used.

night-Train

Agreed. I am doubtful of secondary and tertiary recovery processes as used in conventional oil fields being effective in tight oil bearing formations. These plays and their ability to make the US an energy independent nation have been over sold to the American public. Now, allowing for these finite resources to be exported is foolish and will prove to be the height of political folly. If we are to move forward with it, we should remove all Federal subsidies and tax breaks to the industry. Let the industry sink or swim on its own dime. If it isn't a strategic resource for this country, as a country, we have no imperative to support it more than any other commodity or enterprise.

ambrit

Your comment highlights one of the 'hidden' developments of the modern political economic landscape: Internationalism, or Globalization.
Properly speaking, those who 'manage' the resources have become 'equal partners' with the National governments. Something very akin to the old Robber Barons has arisen; a new Oligopoly. I hesitate to say that the old version of the film "Rolerball" was prescient, but, there it is. Rather than teams sponsored by and representing Industries we have stadia doing that job. Would that I live long enough to see the Army Navy game played in the "Military Industrial Complex Stadium!"
Hail Hydra! Let's do the Strut.

James Levy

Likely accurate and therefore devastating. I still don't know how the fracking industry is surviving, as every barrel they pump is a loss–under no model I have ever seen is fracking economical at $40 a barrel and dropping. And the dropping is hiding in plain sight the significant (massive?) contraction of the global economy. Growing economies do not use fewer inputs of energy and raw materials. This is so obvious it's amazing that it goes unreported (are people blind to the big picture, swallowed up in the minutiae, or just whistling past the graveyard?).

As with the banks, the government is setting things up for the Oligarchs to make One Last Killing on fossil fuels. The aftermath is not going to be pretty.

Carla

This post sent me looking for the origins of a famous quote, which may first have been uttered by Native American Alanis Obomsawin, "an Abenaki from the Odanak reserve, seventy odd miles northeast of Montreal."

"Canada, the most affluent of countries, operates on a depletion economy which leaves destruction in its wake. Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency. When the last tree is cut, the last fish is caught, and the last river is polluted; when to breathe the air is sickening, you will realize, too late, that wealth is not in bank accounts and that you can't eat money."

http://quoteinvestigator.com/2011/10/20/last-tree-cut/

The sentence "Your people are driven by a terrible sense of deficiency" just nails it, does it not?

different clue

I remember reading that a Pacific Northwest Nations person is supposed to have said something similar.

" When the last salmon has been fished from the last river, then the White Man will learn that he can't eat money."

One could update it this way: "When the last can of cat food is gone from the last shelf in the last WalMart, then the White Man will learn that he can't eat money."

Reply

PlutoniumKun

My understanding is that they can keep going partly because the marginal cost of keeping existing wells going is very low (i.e. if you pretend there wasn't a heavy upfront investment) and that many operators were heavily hedged (showing that their investors aren't complete fools). Of course, that raises the question of who is making the hedging losses.

But as Wolf has pointed out, the hedges will likely run out early 2016, at which point the naked swimmers will be all too visible.

different clue

I remember reading that a Pacific Northwest Nations person is supposed to have said something similar.

" When the last salmon has been fished from the last river, then the White Man will learn that he can't eat money."

One could update it this way: "When the last can of cat food is gone from the last shelf in the last WalMart, then the White Man will learn that he can't eat money."

Reply

PlutoniumKun

My understanding is that they can keep going partly because the marginal cost of keeping existing wells going is very low (i.e. if you pretend there wasn't a heavy upfront investment) and that many operators were heavily hedged (showing that their investors aren't complete fools). Of course, that raises the question of who is making the hedging losses.

But as Wolf has pointed out, the hedges will likely run out early 2016, at which point the naked swimmers will be all too visible.

Reply

PlutoniumKun

James – partly it comes down to a different investment model in commodities and base products. It is always assumed if you invest in those that there will be periods where the market price is well below what is profitable. You lose when oil prices are low, you gain when they peak. So investors are conditioned to gritting their teeth when prices are low. What is important to the producers is that the price can cover running costs – which is why sometimes oil supply increases when prices are low – existing wells raise production to keep a cash flow going. Quite simply, investments on this scale are made on 20-25 year timescales, they will assume (or hope for) sufficient super-profitable peaks to tide over the low periods. And of course wiser investors will have hedged anyway so they may not be feeling the pain as much as you might think.

Of course, there is also the 'sunk cost fallacy' at work – having put billions into oil, many investors feel they have no choice but to keep the operators going in the hope that somehow a war somewhere will lead to a spike that will rescue them. Hence there is a bit of a 'too big to fail' mentality at work, nobody wants to start a panic by being the first one to move to wind up loss making operators, its easier to make sub contractors suffer by cutting costs to the bone, up production in existing wells to keep some cash flowing, and hope for the best.

different clue

If you borrow that billion dollars in the form of re-sellable loan instruments, and then you sell those interest-bearing instruments to some greater fool before you have begun spending down the billion, then you do not worry about going bankrupt. Some Greater Fool gets to worry about going bankrupt.

You get to skim off just enough money from that billion dollars so that when the rest of it is gone, the factory shuts down and you declare "bankruptcy". But you haven't lost anything. The people you sold the debt-repayment-instruments to are the people who lose everything. You walk away with whatever survival-money you quietly skimmed off the billion while operating your factory at a visible loss with the rest of the billion till the rest of the billion is gone.

Reply

Crazy Horse

Nice synopsis of the Private Equity model as practiced successfully by vampires like Mitt Romney.

Oildusk

Why didn't you note that the number of drilling rigs in the Eagle Ford has gone from about 250 in late 2015 to 47? Perhaps that had something to do with the decline rate? The Eagle Ford has considerably more potential than you suggest and your graph would look considerably different if 247 rigs were still active there – as will happen when oil prices rebound back in the next year or two.

Eliminating the Oil Export Tax on oil is long overdue. It will close the gap between Brent and WTI – so that at least US oil producers aren't having to sell oil produced in the US for less than oil produced by OPEC. It will also eliminate the economic wastage of U.S. produced light oil being sold to U.S. refineries who buy it so cheaply that they substitute it for medium grade oil in their refinery processes. Keeping my fingers crossed that this law gets eliminated next week.

Crazy Horse

Multiply known depletion rates of individual wells by lower productivity per new well as the sweet spots are all tapped and the mathematics are so simple that even a Texan should be able to understand them. 247 rigs or 2,000 rigs drilling holes with production rates that fail to recover their capital costs won't do much for reversing oil field senility.

But I'm sure changing the tax policy is the solution. Perhaps having the Government just pay for all drilling costs would do the trick- at least long enough to create a few more Koch dynasties.

... ... ...

night-Train

CH – your are raining on the "Shale Miracle". For it to work, we must all believe, believe with all our hearts. It's like Tinkerbell. All it needs to succeed is unquestioning belief and $100/bbl oil.

Bubba Gump

"Why didn't you note that the number of drilling rigs in the Eagle Ford has gone from about 250 in late 2015 to 47?"

I could entertain this idea. Figure 1 would be more informative if it had a rig count as well as an active well count. It's clear to see that the leveling off of the active well count takes place at or just after the peak production. If the rig count dropped off at the same time I think the phenomenon it actually illustrates is just how drastic the depletion rate is for fracked wells especially at this point in the development of this field. I would take that as reinforcing the study's point, not opposing it.

[Dec 19, 2015] Russia opens black box of jet downed by Turkey

Notable quotes:
"... I believe it was not there on patrol, but specifically to shoot the Russian plane down and come back ..."
"... Although I believe the Turkish map, I still think the Turks proved themselves on the side of the terrorists. ..."
"... Crossing that strip of Turkish territory by a friendly plane should not have been reason for shooting it down, only a PRETEXT. That may be the reason why the plane was shot down, because the Russians were not expecting the Turks to shoot at them. ..."
news.yahoo.com

Mister 2 hours ago 0

[The air force commander said 14 countries had been invited to monitor the (Russian) investigation but only China and Britain had accepted the official offer]

Shameful.

Shelly Winters 1 day ago 5

Not sure what information this "black box" contains, but CVR's and FDR's in most all aircraft (especially commercial jetliners) records only what the flight crew says in the cockpit and what operational parameters the aircraft experienced i.e. throttle settings, aileron positions, pitch, etc. It's questionable if the downed fighter aircraft's actual flight path would be stored internally in any such device, especially a fighter aircraft operating in hostile airspace. This data the Russians claim to have, if it really exists, could be certainly manipulated. The only true data for flight path would be a ground radar tape pulled from two different locations in the area.

James

I said it before, I believe the radar map the Turks showed with the paths was correct. And here are the military, but also their Religious reasons.

"War of the maps: Turkey released a map showing where Russia violated its airspace, and Russia countered"

/finance[dot]yahoo[dot]com/news/war-maps-turkey-released-map-210422386.html

You can see there is a very narrow strip of Turkish territory, about a mile wide, protruding deep into the Syrian territory. I don't know exactly the frequency of the sweep of the Turkish radar, but still, looking at the distances between dots, you can figure out the speed. The time to cross the Turkish strip must have been no longer than 20seconds, my initial estimate was 8, the Turks later said 17, but that's not important. The Russian plane is seen to make a wide circle near the Syrian border, flying much below it's maximum speed, probably looking for terrorist bases and convoys, and which circles crossed that limb. It was flying slow and probably low, and in circles, to get a good look. During the next cycle, I do believe the Turks warned it while flying over Syria, 10 times during 5' not to cross that 1 mile strip again. The Russian Su-24 bomber is seen heading for the strip the second time. Notice the Su-24 is a bomber not a dog-fighter like the F-16 and it's older. And there were two F-16's. The Turkish map shows only one path though. But the Russian maps shows only one too! On the Turkish map though, the F-16 is seen lurking in the air, and at some point accelerated sharply, approaching very close and very fast, probably in full afterburner, which is specifically reserved for attack.

I believe it was not there on patrol, but specifically to shoot the Russian plane down and come back. At (probably) the same time, the Russian path is seen with a very sharp small quirk. A sort of a mini-loop. I am sure they were trying to avoid incoming missiles. Their plane got hit, and it is seen trying to accelerate, probably to flee, and then the record ends.

HOWEVER ----------------- Although I believe the Turkish map, I still think the Turks proved themselves on the side of the terrorists.

After all, if the Russian plane was trying to get rid of the terrorists at the Turkish border, and no HONEST state wants terrorists at it's border, and the Russians were trying to do the "dirty job" of getting rid of them, Turkey should have been glad the Russians are helping them. But the fact they shot the Russian plane down, proves Turkey is harboring and abetting terrorists, if not recruits and send them itself.

Crossing that strip of Turkish territory by a friendly plane should not have been reason for shooting it down, only a PRETEXT. That may be the reason why the plane was shot down, because the Russians were not expecting the Turks to shoot at them.

So the Turks are not technically lying, but they ARE! The Russians probably did go through that miserable strip, and that's the technical truth. But Turkey is defending terrorists, and claiming it is not, that's the lie!

There are very sharp Religious reasons why they should do that, and still show the correct map. INTERESTING.. Ever heard of Tawriyya? Let me explain it for you in short. The Koran forbids a Muslim to lie, under penalty of the white-hot fires of Hell. But.. We already know if he becomes a Martyr, all his sins including lies will be forgotten.

But.. for a lie, you will be forgotten, if it's technically, a truth. What does that mean? Say, a Muslim has a $100 bill in his pocket. Somebody comes and asks him for a nickel. He will say: I don't have a nickel in my pockets! That's Tawriya, and Allah will have no reason to send him to Hell, because indeed he does not have a nickel in his pockets! That's a technical truth.

Erdogan, if he were asked "Are the terrorists working for you"? He could answer "Not a single terrorist is working for me". Indeed. Not one, but thousands. Allah won't punish him for that.

He could be asked: "Why did you shoot the plane down"? and he could answer "It was flying over our territory". He will not mention the reason was to protect his terrorists and their oil convoys. That's "Kitman". Saying half the truth. Allah won't punish him for that either.

As for lying to the Infidels, Allah won't punish him if he does it out of fear of the Infidels. Yes, but Islam is at perpetual war with the Infidels, until they either convert or disappear from the face of the Earth by any means, so orders Allah. So being at war with ANY infidel, a Muslim can lie to an Infidel all day and all night long! BUT THEY ARE ALWAYS AT WAR WITH ALL INFIDELS, UNTIL THERE ARE NO MORE INFIDELS! SO ORDERS ALLAH! DO YOU REALIZE WHAT THAT MEANS?

BUT THE TOUGHEST OF ALL IS THE "MURUNA" DOCTRINE. That literally explains terrorism. If you get to understand, you will be very surprised, of how you didn't know it.

If you want to find what terrorism is, and why Erdogan himself, said "There is no moderate and extremist Islam. There is only Islam". And he knew what he was talking about, learn more. So find the MURUNA concept or doctrine. You can find a better explanation here:

You can look on Google for this: "Knowing Four Arabic Words May Save Our Civilization from Islamic Takeover"

And save it before it disappears.

Remember, you won't win any battle not knowing your enemy first.

BTW, did you know where the expression "the writing is on the wall" comes from? I's origin is also explained there.

[Dec 19, 2015] The situation of shale drillers is extreme and is getting worse

Notable quotes:
"... If 98% of Permian is uneconomic at $30, I would be surprised as I would think 100% should be. ..."
"... these fast talking, wheeler-dealer promoter types in the oil and gas business and their cohorts on Wall Street have been throwing out highly inflated reserve figures for quite some time now. ..."
"... And an "as-yet-unreleased study" of the Barnett Shale by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, which looked at the performance of 16,000 wells through June 2011, projected an average lifetime production of 1.44 BCF ( ..."
"... Chesapeake claimed that the Barnett Shale wells on their DFW Airport Lease would produce for "At least 50 years." At least 50 months" would have been more accurate. Five years after the initial wells were drilled and completed, about half of that initial group of wells were already plugged and abandoned. ..."
"... Pricewise we are past the point of arguing about economics. ..."
"... This is extreme, and is only getting worse. People who are about to BK are usually in denial. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
coffeeguyzz, 12/19/2015 at 11:01 am
John, Shallow, Mr. Stehle

You folks may want to recognize the analytical process that Art Berman uses in this piece closely resembles numerous others who were consistently shown wrong when early on looking at the Bakken. Please Google back a few years' predictions to verify this.

If 98% of Permian is uneconomic at $30, I would be surprised as I would think 100% should be.

However, all you folks who chart the numbers should see that the big push towards horizontal drilling just started to get underway relatively recently in the Permian, yet Mr. Berman uses the earlier, learning phase wells to make his overall projections.

These wells will continue to increase in productivity as the costs to drill/complete come down. (Monobore wells alone should show significant improvements).

30 bucks per [barrel] is squat. Tens of billions of barrels of recoverable resource is not.

Glenn Stehle, 12/19/2015 at 12:07 pm
coffeeguyzz,

Well I certainly hope you're right. But these fast talking, wheeler-dealer promoter types in the oil and gas business and their cohorts on Wall Street have been throwing out highly inflated reserve figures for quite some time now.

For instance, in 2013 the Fort Worth Star Telegram wrote an article titled "Report questions long-term productivity of gas wells in Barnett Shale."

Back in the heyday of the Barnett Shale (2005 – 2008) the financial reports of companies active in the Barnett Shale routinely threw out average EURs of 5 BCF(Billion Cubic Feet) per well.

By the time of the writing of the Star Telegram story in 2013 they had lowered their sites a little bit: to an average of 3 BCF per well.

However, a study conducted by the U.S. Geological Survey the year before had pegged average EURs in the Barnett Shale at only 1 BCF per well.

And an "as-yet-unreleased study" of the Barnett Shale by the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas at Austin, which looked at the performance of 16,000 wells through June 2011, projected an average lifetime production of 1.44 BCF ((Billion Cubic Feet) per well.

Undaunted by all this, the article quotes Gregg Jacob, Devon Energy's unit manager for the Barnett Shale, as saying "Devon expects its 4,800-plus wells in the Barnett Shale to produce the equivalent of 3 billion cubic feet of gas, natural gas liquids and oil over their lives."

Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/19/2015 at 3:11 pm
Chesapeake claimed that the Barnett Shale wells on their DFW Airport Lease would produce for "At least 50 years." "At least 50 months" would have been more accurate. Five years after the initial wells were drilled and completed, about half of that initial group of wells were already plugged and abandoned.
shallow sand, 12/19/2015 at 12:27 pm
Coffee. It is tough to analyze the Permian, at least compared to Bakken and EFS. Many different zones. I have seen tremendous wells and wells that wont have cumulative production of 100K BO. Look at the energy net auction site.

Look at my post above about Pioneer's 2015 hedging gains.

Remove those and plug in $18 per BOE, which is where they are today. Pioneer hemorrhages cash at $18 BOE.

Pricewise we are past the point of arguing about economics. Plug in todays oil, NGL and gas prices into any company's PDP PV10. See if you can find one US public E&P, outside maybe XOM, that has greater PDP PV10 value than long term debt. If $50 WTI and $2.75/nat gas dropped CLR from $22 billion to $9 billion, where does $34 WTI and $1.75 gas put it?

This is extreme, and is only getting worse. People who are about to BK are usually in denial.

[Dec 19, 2015] Over 1 trillion in oil related equity losses, 500bn in bond devaluation including a 10 pecent loss in high yield bonds

Notable quotes:
"... I doubt even those prices will be enough to remove all rigs from the Bakken. ..."
"... However, the fierce battle for market share comes at a price for the US economy. Over 1 trillion USD in oil related equity losses, 500bn in bond devaluation in oil related bonds including private equity bond losses as well as a 10% loss of the general high yield bond market. So, in my estimate the US economy has lost already over 2 trn USD so far. Most of it are paper losses, yet the impact is huge. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
KL, 12/19/2015 at 8:19 am
Shale Oil Production in Bakken, Eagle Ford Held Steady in November: Platts Bentek
http://www.platts.com/pressreleases/2015/121815b/no?hootpostid=7da8c0be16213d5c336d783ed00ab303
shallow sand, 12/19/2015 at 10:43 am
It appears I am onto something. Most of the US drop in oil production will be due to drops in US conventional oil.

It is all about financing, IMO. How about this scenario, if GS is correct and we go to $20 WTI, re a bakken well in 2016

Oil sales $12 x 88,000 net barrels. $1,056,000
Gas sales. 100,000 mcf at $1.00. $100,000

Gross sales. $1,156,000
Less:
OPEX @ $4.00 $386,000
Sev tax @ 10%. $115,600
G & A @ $2.50. $241,665
Interest at 5%. $375,000

2016 net. $38,335.00

I doubt even those prices will be enough to remove all rigs from the Bakken.

Heinrich Leopold, 12/19/2015 at 12:08 pm
KL,

However, the fierce battle for market share comes at a price for the US economy. Over 1 trillion USD in oil related equity losses, 500bn in bond devaluation in oil related bonds including private equity bond losses as well as a 10% loss of the general high yield bond market. So, in my estimate the US economy has lost already over 2 trn USD so far. Most of it are paper losses, yet the impact is huge.

In effect, the US, Saudi Arabia and Russia are subsidizing the economies in Europe and China. Thank you America and keep going, we can need this stimulus package.

[Dec 19, 2015] 2 Percent of Permian Basin Commercial at $30 by Art Berman

Art Berman

The Permian basin is one of the oldest producing areas in the United States. It has been thoroughly drilled and is in a hyper-mature phase of development. The Spraberry, Wolfcamp and Bone Springs plays that Pioneer and EOG are pursuing (Figure 1) are really secondary recovery projects in which horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing have replaced water and CO2 injection methods used in the past. Few new reserves should be expected. Most of the claims that these companies make are really about higher recovery efficiency of existing reserves.

None of these plays are remotely commercial at present oil prices. In the most-likely per-well reserve case, these plays require break-even oil prices in the range of at least $50-$75 per barrel, and current wellhead prices in the basin are less than $30 per barrel.

[Dec 19, 2015] Turkey Blasts Breakthrough UN Resolution On Syria It Lacks Perspective. Assad Must Go!

Notable quotes:
"... "Now, is there a way of us constructing a bridge, creating a political transition, that allows those who are allied with Assad right now, allows the Russians, allows the Iranians to ensure that their equities are respected, that minorities like the Alawites are not crushed or retribution is not the order of the day? I think that's going to be very important as well." ..."
"... Seymour Hersh Links Turkey to Benghazi, Syria and Sarin ..."
"... The assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency is that the sarin was supplied by Turkey to elements in Ghouta with the intent of "push[ing] Obama over the red line. " Intercepted transmissions from Turkish operators in the aftermath of the attack are jubilant, and the success of their covert mission must have seemed well in hand. Obama's implicit call to war in the coming month was proof of that. ..."
Dec 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
Following June elections in which AKP lost its absolute parliamentary majority thanks in part to a stronger than expected showing at the polls by the pro-Kurdish HDP, Turkish President Recip Tayyip Erdogan began to lose his mind.

The vote put in jeopardy Erdogan's bid to effectively rewrite the country's constitution on the way to consolidating his power in an executive presidency. That decisively undesirable outcome could not stand and so Erdogan did what any respectable autocrat would do: he nullified the election. First, the President undermined the coalition building process so he could call for new elections. Next, he fanned the flames of civil war and reignited a long-simmering conflict with the PKK. The idea was to scare the electorate into believing that a "strong" AKP government was the only antidote to domestic and international terror. Finally, Erdogan cracked down on the press and anyone else critical of his rule. AKP was also suspected of covertly backing attacks on HDP offices and newspapers. Some (i.e. the PKK) went so far as to suggest that Erdogan secretly worked with Sunni extremists to orchestrate suicide bombings - in other words, there's speculation Erdogan terrorized his own people.

Sure enough, AKP had a better showing at re-do elections last month, but by that point, Erdogan was on the fast track to dictatorial delirium. On November 24, he shot down a Russian fighter jet near the border with Syria in the first such direct military confrontation between Russia and a NATO member in at least six decades. And the madness didn't stop there. After Putin and the Russian MoD laid out their case against Ankara's role in financing Islamic State via Turkey's complicity in the group's lucrative oil trafficking business, Turkey sent hundreds of troops and around two dozen tanks to Bashiqa in Iraq which is right on the crude smuggling route. The deployment infuriated Baghdad and after Turkey refused to pull the troops out, Iraq went to the UN Security Council. Subsequently, Turkish troops were "attacked" by Islamic State.

The Turks claim that Iraq invited them in the past, a contention Baghdad vehemently denies. Thanks to Barzani and the Kurds, Ankara gets to claim that at least someone welcomes the Turkish troop presence (remember, despite Erdogan's hatred of the PKK and the YPG, Turkey is friendly with Erbil, which relies on Turkey to get some 630,000 b/d of what is technically illegal crude to market).

Well, for anyone who thought Turkey might be set to bow to international pressure by moving its troops north and thus back towards the Turkey-Iraq border, think again because on Saturday, Turkish PM Ahmet Davutoglu was out with a series of declarations that seem to suggest Turkey is going full-belligerent-retard as Erdogan scrambles to preserve the "Assad must go" narrative on the way to securing whatever Ankara's interests are in both Iraq and Syria.

First, Davutoglu said that the provision of training to the Peshmerga and Mosul militiamen is "in line with a request from Iraq authorities and as such, the mission in Iraq will continue "until Mosul is freed" from ISIS.

Ok, so two things there. The deployment is not "in line with a request from Iraq." At this point, Turkey's position has moved from comically absurd to maddeningly obstinate. How many times does Baghdad have to say that Turkey isn't invited before NATO forces Turkey to drop the "they told us we could be here" line? Further, the idea that Turkey will stay until Mosul "is liberated" from ISIS, means Erdogan plans to remain in Iraq indefinitely. As we've documented on several occasions, an operation to retake Mosul is for all intents and purposes a pipe dream and if Turkey intends to wait it out, the troops and tanks could be there for years.

Next, Davutoglu claims that the Islamic State attacks on Turkish positions in Bashiqa prove Turkey "is right." "Right" about what, it's not clear, but what's interesting is that the attacks came just as ISIS launched its first major offensive in northern Iraq since July in a move that US officials say was likely designed to disrupt preparations for an assault on Mosul. The point: all of this is rather conveniently timed.

Davutoglu then slammed a UN Security Council resolution agreed in New York on Friday. The meeting of foreign ministers was tipped by John Kerry in Moscow on Tuesday and when discussions ended, diplomats adopted a resolution which purports to draw a road map for ending the war in Syria. As WSJ notes, the resolution "left unresolved divisions among world powers on key issues in the conflict."

Which "key issues", you ask? Well, the only ones that matter - namely, i) the fate of Bashar al-Assad and ii) which groups should be recognized as "terrorists" and which should be awarded the "moderate opposition" badge.

"Both issues were left out of the resolution after an hourslong meeting of foreign ministers in New York on Friday failed to reach a compromise and at one point verged on collapse," WSJ goes on the recount, adding that "Russian and Iranian diplomats said the question of Mr. Assad wasn't discussed on Friday because neither of their countries would accept a deal that calls for Mr. Assad's exit, even at the end of a political transition period."

As we've said on too many occasions to count, Syria is absolutely critical for Tehran when it comes to preserving Iranian influence and ensuring that the so-called "Shiite crescent" doesn't wane. For Russia, this is a chance to supplant the US as Mid-East superpower puppet master and Moscow isn't about to see it slip away by agreeing to a resolution that makes Assad's ouster a foregone conclusion.

For Turkey, the absence of a decision on Assad's future is maddening. The Security Council resolution "lacks realistic perspective," Davutoglu said on Saturday, before adding that the "Syria crisis can only be solved if Bashar al-Assad leaves power."

Consider that, and consider the fact that, as we reported yesterday, Ankara is now establishing a military base in Qatar in order that the two country's might work more closely on tackling "common enemies."

What we're beginning to see here is the formation of three alliances in the Mid-East: 1) Russia, Iran, Syria, and Iraq; 2) Turkey, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar; 3) Britain, France, and Germany. The first alliance is pro-Assad, anti-terror. The second is anti-Assad, pro-Sunni extremist. The third is anti-Assad (although less vehemently so), anti-terror (conspiracy theories aside). Note that we've left the US out. Why? Because Washington is now stuck. The US wants desperately to maintain coordination with Ankara, Riyadh, and Doha, but between stepped up media coverage of Saudi Arabia's role in underwriting extremism (via the promotion of Wahhabism) and hightened scrutiny on Erdogan's role in financing terrorists, the position is becoming increasingly untenable. But aligning solely with the UK, France, and Germany entails adopting a more conciliatory approach to Assad - just ask Berlin which, as we reported on Friday, is now working with Assad's intelligence police and may soon establish a base in Damascus.

With that in mind, we'll close with the following from Obama, which underscores the extent to which the US is now thoroughly confused as to what to do next:

"Now, is there a way of us constructing a bridge, creating a political transition, that allows those who are allied with Assad right now, allows the Russians, allows the Iranians to ensure that their equities are respected, that minorities like the Alawites are not crushed or retribution is not the order of the day? I think that's going to be very important as well."

JustObserving

First try the sarin gas supplying war criminal, Erdogan

Turkey supplied the sarin that killed over 1300 Syrians in Ghouta to try to get the Nobel Prize Winner to bomb Assad into oblivion

Seymour Hersh Links Turkey to Benghazi, Syria and Sarin

The assessment of the Defense Intelligence Agency is that the sarin was supplied by Turkey to elements in Ghouta with the intent of "push[ing] Obama over the red line." Intercepted transmissions from Turkish operators in the aftermath of the attack are jubilant, and the success of their covert mission must have seemed well in hand. Obama's implicit call to war in the coming month was proof of that.

http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2014/05/06/seymour-hersh-links-turke...

WTFRLY

White House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015

Turkey killed and American reporter to protect the lies. British reporter Jackie Sutton was found dead a year to the day in Istanbul airport...

DeadFred
There aren't that many Turkish troops in Iraq, they can be removed with Iraqi Army and Shiite militia ground troops. The Russian can fly CAP but they shouldn't be involved beyond that. The purpose of Erdogan's insanities is to goad Putin into doing something that will bring NATO against him. He's been wise enough to avoid that so far. The Western economies are a gnats eyelash from collapse so all he needs to so is wait. Maybe selling a few shares of SPY at the right time would help or giving a few billion to some untracable players who call for delivery on their gold futures. I hope he's patient, the end-game is upon us but the fewer nukes that get used the better.
two hoots

Israel, where are you in all of this? Oh, see below:

Forget Qatar/Russia pipelines.

Israel/Turkey/US/NATO connection found here: "That would allow Turkey to reduce its energy dependence on Russia and open up a new market for Israeli and U.S. developers of a new natural gas project off the Israeli coast." (WSJ)

http://www.wsj.com/articles/israel-turkey-poised-to-renew-diplomatic-relations-1450438539

Nat Gas in Israel waters: "Israel has proposed that EU countries invest in a multi-billion euro pipeline to carry its natural gas to the continent, noting that the supply from Israel would reduce Europe's current dependence on natural gas from Russia." (Start Up-Israel)

http://www.timesofisrael.com/israel-pitches-massive-natural-gas-pipeline-plan-to-europe/

It could be a whole new NG game? And what thinks Russia/Qatar in all of this?

[Dec 19, 2015] A lot of lower producing wells are being temporarily or permanently abandoned at these oil prices

Notable quotes:
"... This is about a 3% per month decline rate and a 30% annual decline rate, yikes! ..."
"... No doubt a lot of lower producing wells are being temporarily or permanently abandoned at these oil prices. If oil prices continue lower or even remain at the current level (around $35/b), the LTO plays cannot be far behind. ..."
"... I think LTO has held up somewhat because the reduced capex was primarily the result of cost deflation. In 2016, the reduced capex will translate directly into much fewer wells being drilled as there is not much room for lowering costs. So far, the reductions look to be at least 25-30% from 2015 levels. ..."
"... Can you say a little something about what is involved in shutting in a stripper well that is running in the red, in terms of how much it would cost to put it back into production a year or two down the road ? ..."
"... The costs vary quite a bit, depending on well depth, how corrosive water is, etc. Also, much would depend on the injection system. How long shut down matters a great deal. ..."
"... Imagine the difference between idling your tractor, in the elements, for a month or two versus a year or more. ..."
"... Electrical can be a concern. Mice like to chew on. ..."
"... If roads and locations are not maintained, that would require expense. Many times pumping units are removed from idle wells and used as replacements on producing wells when $ is tight, so that is also a possible issue. ..."
"... A large (for our field) operator shut in a large percentage of production (30-40%)I believe in 1998-1999 crash. My understanding they lost money trying to get everything back going again for the next 18 months or so once prices rebounded in 1999. ..."
"... Shutting down wells is a last resort, especially with a water flood. The few we have shut in thus far are not floods, or maybe a low volume well in a multi well flood. ..."
"... I would also note some wells can be run intermittently. I hear a lot of that is going on now. Kind of like driving the old work truck every so often to warm the engine, etc. ..."
"... Two of the most efficient leases we operate are ones we reactivated after them being shut in many years. Others had them, went BK, and they went idle. Many times leases are shut in more based on the overall solvency of the operator, than on how economic they are on their own. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne, 12/18/2015 at 3:52 pm
Thanks Shallowsand,

I added up your data
and 12/14 output was 2,354,030 and 10/15 output was 1,739,365 for all your reporting.

This is about a 3% per month decline rate and a 30% annual decline rate, yikes!

No doubt a lot of lower producing wells are being temporarily or permanently abandoned at these oil prices. If oil prices continue lower or even remain at the current level (around $35/b), the LTO plays cannot be far behind.

Edit: As much of this data is from Texas, I question if we are comparing apples with apples, I just don't trust the Texas data.

shallow sand, 12/18/2015 at 4:12 pm
Dennis.

I agree possibly on the county data, which comes from a large number of operators, some of whom maybe are late in reporting.

However, all but Citation are public companies. Citation is a large private company in business since the early 1980s. I feel their numbers are accurate, and as I noted, there were down trends pretty much across the board from December, 2014. Also, many were heading up in 2014. I think the extreme drop in numbers of vertical rigs beginning 12/14 has taken its toll. Just 87 vertical rigs drilling in latest report, I suspect lower than the depths of 1998-1999. The low point on oil rigs per EIA was 108 in July, 1999. Not sure how many of those were non vertical.

Did you read my Kansas post? Also declining significantly.

I'll look at some others and post as I have time.

AlexS, 12/18/2015 at 4:25 pm
shallow sand,

If your numbers for conventional onshore production are correct, that implies that, at least until recently, conventional accounted for a large part of the decline in total US output. Hence, LTO production was more resilient than we thought.

shallow sand, 12/18/2015 at 4:41 pm
AlexS. I agree. Many LTO producers reported higher Q3 than Q2 production and most were higher in Q2 than Q1. Many, however, are guiding lower for Q4 and 2016.

As far as my numbers being correct, I am just pulling them off state websites. I am very capable of typographical errors, so if you see something amiss, please point it out.

John Keller, 12/18/2015 at 7:15 pm
I think LTO has held up somewhat because the reduced capex was primarily the result of cost deflation. In 2016, the reduced capex will translate directly into much fewer wells being drilled as there is not much room for lowering costs. So far, the reductions look to be at least 25-30% from 2015 levels.

oldfarmermac, 12/18/2015 at 4:58 pm

Hi SS,

Can you say a little something about what is involved in shutting in a stripper well that is running in the red, in terms of how much it would cost to put it back into production a year or two down the road ?

I have read that some such wells, maybe a lot of them, will never be put back into production, if once idled for any period of time.

The ONE oil man I know, personally, owns a dozen or so stripper wells outright,land and all, and if he shuts them in, he won't have to worry about leases at least. But he is only around once in a while, and I haven't had a chance to talk to him recently.

I do know from previous conversations that if he has to make any significant repairs, or do any serious maintenance work, he has to hire it done.

shallow sand, 12/18/2015 at 6:01 pm
OFM.

The costs vary quite a bit, depending on well depth, how corrosive water is, etc. Also, much would depend on the injection system. How long shut down matters a great deal.

Imagine the difference between idling your tractor, in the elements, for a month or two versus a year or more.

My observation is that each well likely will have to be worked over, rods, tubing and down hole pump replaced on many. Maybe will need to be sand pumped and acidized. Electric motors would be removed from the wells and injection pumps so as not to be stolen when shut down. They would have to be reinstalled. Same with injection pumps. Electrical can be a concern. Mice like to chew on.

If roads and locations are not maintained, that would require expense. Many times pumping units are removed from idle wells and used as replacements on producing wells when $ is tight, so that is also a possible issue.

A large (for our field) operator shut in a large percentage of production (30-40%)I believe in 1998-1999 crash. My understanding they lost money trying to get everything back going again for the next 18 months or so once prices rebounded in 1999.

Shutting down wells is a last resort, especially with a water flood. The few we have shut in thus far are not floods, or maybe a low volume well in a multi well flood.

I'd say on a shallow well like ours, $2-15 thousand to reactivate after a year or more idle, depending on what happened down hole and what equipment is still left. Given at $80 oil well head, your are talking probably a $10-15 thousand annual pre tax profit, it is a big decision to make to shut in.

I would also note some wells can be run intermittently. I hear a lot of that is going on now. Kind of like driving the old work truck every so often to warm the engine, etc.

I will say I hate to see these wells plugged, given the number we reactivated that were just as economic many times as ones continuously produced. As long as they can be safely T'A, I say short term that makes sense. Two of the most efficient leases we operate are ones we reactivated after them being shut in many years. Others had them, went BK, and they went idle. Many times leases are shut in more based on the overall solvency of the operator, than on how economic they are on their own. I just looked and one is running $9 per Bbl OPEX, the other $16 OPEX for 2015. Wish it was all in that ballpark!

Fernando Leanme, 12/19/2015 at 4:03 am
I've been involved in operations with lots of marginal wells. We wanted to implement a flood, but economics were marginal, so we pulled the jewelry, put in an old kill string, filled with a light hydrocarbon and a nitrogen cap. These wells were monitored once a month for pressures. And some remained shut in for years. Eventually we had used equipment coming off another field and we restarted with a poboy operation. This needs cooperation from the regulators. But it can be done.

[Dec 19, 2015] This current low price environment for oil looks extremely unhealthy to me from many points

Notable quotes:
"... But this current low price environment for oil looks extremely unhealthy to me from many points. As well as somewhat artificially engineered (please note that Saudi Arabia is a vassal state and cant pursue its own policy in this area despite MSM claims). ..."
"... I suspect that the US government implicitly supports low oil price environment for geopolitical reasons (Russia sanctions might be one) as well as a huge stimulus for the USA economy (to the tune of half trillion in 2015), the economy that after 2008 entered secular stagnation stage despite all efforts (see Summers). ..."
"... One fact that points in this direction is that despite low price it does not buy oil into US strategic reserve (which would support the price) although I do not know what is the upper capacity of this storage. ..."
economistsview.typepad.com
am said... December 18, 2015 at 10:44 PM

http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35136831
Lifting of the oil export ban was part of the negotiations for budget approval, in the USA. Seemingly the ban was in place for forty years.

pgl ->am... December 19, 2015 at 01:27 AM

The export ban was put in place when there was an OPEC driven oil shortage. The real price of oil today is much lower so to me this lifting is no big deal. Some of the tax breaks for the rich are a big and bad deal.
likbez ->pgl... December 19, 2015 at 02:09 AM
The USA is the net importer of oil. But there are certain types of oil now produced by shale wells (light oil) for which we do not have enough refineries. Mixing it with heavy oil to get optimal for refineries blend produces mixed results ;-). So exporting such oil is the most logical way out of this situation.

As for low price of oil this is more a sign of out of control financial system and the level of debt it imposes then a real "supply glut". It is also sign of stupidity of Obama administration or more correctly an attempt to revive economy at any cost (with shale industry as a collateral damage).

Oil is a valuable and irreplaceable resource, an input product for chemical industry (without which many materials are simply impossible to get) and burning it in SUVs and light trucks which now became the most popular type of US cars is extremely stupid at any price.

pgl ->likbez... December 19, 2015 at 02:18 AM
I tend to agree with this case for free trade but somehow I miss the link to your "stupidity of Obama" tag. But I guess this has been the go to place for the Obama haters - so hey!
likbez ->pgl...
Stupidity is probably the wrong word. I apologize. It is actually a brilliant strategy ;-) Although there is no real reason to love OBomber and his neocon administration in any case unless you really like Bush II administration. Obama actually is to the right of Teddy Roosevelt, Eisenhower and Nixon, is not he?

Ilism can probably add more on that better then me.

But this current low price environment for oil looks extremely unhealthy to me from many points. As well as somewhat artificially engineered (please note that Saudi Arabia is a vassal state and can't pursue its own policy in this area despite MSM claims).

I suspect that the US government implicitly supports low oil price environment for geopolitical reasons (Russia sanctions might be one) as well as a huge stimulus for the USA economy (to the tune of half trillion in 2015), the economy that after 2008 entered "secular stagnation" stage despite all efforts (see Summers).

One fact that points in this direction is that despite low price it does not buy oil into US strategic reserve (which would support the price) although I do not know what is the upper capacity of this storage.

[Dec 19, 2015] Depletion of Earth resources

peakoilbarrel.com
Peter, 12/18/2015 at 2:01 pm
In ten years time I doubt very much most people around the world will care about small changes in shale oil production.

The United States uses 19 million barrels of oil per day. The same population in Germany, Great Britain, France, Poland, the low countries and Scandinavia use 10 million.
The United States could reduce it's exorbitant consumption by firstly having the sort of extensive bus services that most European countries have. Ever time a train system can be built up and people would still get to work etc without any real hardship.
http://www.bueker.net/trainspotting/map.php?file=maps/germany/germany.gif

The real problems facing the world are far more difficult to adapt to.

http://www.worldwildlife.org/threats/overfishing

85% of fishing stock is being over fished and many stocks are collapsing, billions of people will be effected.

http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/dec/02/arable-land-soil-food-security-shortage

Due to over plowing, over use of fertilizers and not allowing land to lie fallow, vast areas of arable land is being turned into wasteland or lost.

[Dec 18, 2015] How low can oil prices go? Opec and El Niño take a bite out of crudes cost

Oil is a valuable chemical resource that is now wasted because of low prices... "The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers."
Notable quotes:
"... Iran wont flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference. ..."
"... Those who predict very low prices dont understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this years peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place. ..."
"... If oil prices remain very low until 2025 itll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. ..."
"... But Im with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again. ..."
"... Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? Theyre currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but lets take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day - 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day - 35 years. ..."
"... The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers. ..."
"... Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly? ..."
"... Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. Im betting the Saudis real target is the Russians. ..."
"... In 1975 dollars, thats $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal). ..."
"... I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time ..."
Dec 16, 2015 | The Guardian

Fernando Leza -> jah5446 15 Dec 2015 06:12

Iran won't flood the market in 2016. Right now Iran is losing production. It takes time to reverse decline and make a difference.

Those who predict very low prices don't understand the industry (I do). The low price environment reduces capital investment, which has to be there just to keep production flat (the decline is 3 to 5 million barrels of oil per day per year). At this time capacity is dropping everywhere except for a few select countries. The USA is losing capacity, and will never again reach this year's peak unless prices double. Other countries are hopeless. From Norway to Indonesia to Colombia to Nigeria and Azerbaijan, peak oil has already taken place.

Fernando Leza -> SonOfFredTheBadman 15 Dec 2015 06:05

If oil prices remain very low until 2025 it'll either be because you are right or because the world went to hell. I prefer your vision, of course. But I'm afraid most of your talk is wishful thinking. Those of us who do know how to put watts on the table can't figure out any viable solutions. Hopefully something like cheap fusion power will rise. Otherwise you may be eating human flesh in 2060.

Fernando Leza -> p26677 15 Dec 2015 06:00

Keep assuming. I'll keep buying Shell stock.

MatCendana -> UnevenSurface 14 Dec 2015 03:36

Regardless of the breakeven price, producers with the wells already running or about to will keep pumping. Better to have some income, even if the operation is at a loss, than no income. This will go on and on right until the end, which is either prices eventually go up or they run out of oil and can't drill new wells.

But I'm with Carambaman - prices will go up again. Demand is and will still be there. The excess output will eventually end, and the prices stabilises. And then move up again.

Billy Carnes 13 Dec 2015 19:52

Also this hurts the states...Louisiana is now in the hole over 1.5 Billion or more

TomRoche 13 Dec 2015 12:31

@Guardian: Time to examine the real question: how long can the Saudis maintain their current production rates? They're currently producing more than 10 Mbarrels/day, but let's take the latter figure as a lower bound. They apparently have (per US consulate via WikiLeaks--time for a followup?) at least 260 Gbarrels (though it seems no one outside Saudi really knows). You do the math: 260 Gbarrels / (10 Mbarrels/day) = 26 kdays ~= 70 years. @ 15 Mbarrels/day -> 47.5 years. @ 20 Mbarrels/day -> 35 years.

That's just Saudi (allegedly) proven reserves. But it's plenty long enough to push atmospheric GHG levels, and associated radiative forcing, to ridiculously destructive excess.

The obvious follow-up question is, how long will the sane people of the world continue to allow so much fossil-fuel combustion to continue? An exercise for readers.

TomRoche -> GueroElEnfermero 13 Dec 2015 12:14

@GueroElEnfermero: 'Saudi Arabia, a US ally, using oil production and pricing to crush US oil shale industry? Did I read that correctly?'

Yeah, but I suspect it was *written* incorrectly. I'm betting the Saudis' real target is the Russians.

Sieggy 13 Dec 2015 11:49

In 1975 dollars, that's $8.31 / bbl (with a cumulative inflation factor of 342% over 40 years), or $.45 / gal for gas (assuming a current price of $2.00 / gal).

Carambaman 13 Dec 2015 10:25

I spent 30 years in the oil industry and experienced many cycles. When it is up people cannot believe it will go down and when it is down people cannot believe it will go up. It is all a matter of time

[Dec 18, 2015] Will Goldman Be Right After All

Never say never and additional drop of oil price is theoretically quite possible. Here is some considerations of plausibility of such a drop: the US oil production is falling approximately 0.5 Mb/d in 2016 , rest of the world production is probably flat; consumption is probably increasing 1.3 or 1.4 Mb/d. So approximately 2 Mb/s will be taken out of the market. Also natural depletion might click in and "the rest of the world" production will decline despite remnants of new projects still coming online (started during "old good times" of above $100 oil). So if we subscribe to the theory of "oil glut" this glut might well will disappear or drastically diminish in 2016. And markets are predictive by nature. Or may be Goldman HFT can dictate the prices Goldman wants ?
BTW you can't pump as much as possible in shale environment without drilling new wells, which now is a very difficult proposition.
Notable quotes:
"... U.S. oil production has only declined moderately thus far, down about 300,000-500,000 barrels per day since peaking at 9.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in April 2015. ..."
"... But with so many drillers barely hanging on, everyone is still pumping as much oil as possible in order to keep the lights on, delaying the inevitable adjustment in supply. "This rebalancing is far from achieved," Goldman concluded this week. ..."
Dec 18, 2015 | Dec 18, 2015OilPrice.com

Some corners of the energy world dismissed Goldman Sachs' prediction earlier this year that crude oil prices might fall below $30 per barrel. But no longer. The investment bank reiterated its belief that oil prices may need to fall to $20 per barrel in order to force a significant volume of supply off the market, and such a scenario is no longer seen as a remote possibility.

U.S. oil production has only declined moderately thus far, down about 300,000-500,000 barrels per day since peaking at 9.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) in April 2015.

But with so many drillers barely hanging on, everyone is still pumping as much oil as possible in order to keep the lights on, delaying the inevitable adjustment in supply. "This rebalancing is far from achieved," Goldman concluded this week.

[Dec 18, 2015] Write-down of two-thirds of US shale oil explodes fracking myth

This is from May, 2014, but still relevant.
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the mounting evidence that the shale gas boom is heading for a bust, both economically and environmentally, both governments and industry are together pouring their eggs into a rather flimsy basket. ..."
"... Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A Users Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It , and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed . ..."
"... and that is the issue- all oil growth has come from 2 areas - deepwater and oil fracking- without the deepwater which is limited oil supply would drop and likewise fracking is the only other resource that is sustaining supply - this is serious. If it is a bubble we are fucked. ..."
"... Take a look at the EIA projections. That agency has an enormous amount of well-level data to crunch. Do you really think some blogger on peakoilchange.com or whatever has anywhere near the capability that EIA has? Or perhaps you think EIA is some sort of lackey of the oil industry, with their entire staff of analysts getting paid under the table to make unrealistic projections? ..."
"... gas fracking has become unprofitable because of a glut caused by a goldrush mentality and economics - the price is rising but not fast enough - cheserpeake has had to sell off chunks of its business to enable itself to be sold off. Shell did get burnt by coming in too late. ..."
"... And no doubt the 1000s of oil and gas wells drilled each year in the US is having a economic impact -- the US has over 2500 rigs in operation where as the whole of Europe has about 200. The US power is the fact it has had abundant and relatively cheap energy. ..."
"... Fracking oil in the US has been the sole reason peak oil has not kicked in -- the past looks promising, the future is another issue. If tight oil shale gas is sustainable then everything will be fine. If it is not then you are fucked. ..."
"... what is clear- and it matters not on your politics- is that after 2006 every agency recognised easy oil from traditional oil fields peaked -- the decline rate is 5%. In fact it is difficult to find national producers who are not in decline -- Russia Saudi are keeping production stable with huge investment in enhanced recovery of old fields -- Nigeria can sustain production only if it develops the many small fields it has -- Iraq is struggling to fill the gap as is Libya. ..."
"... Shale oil fracking in the US along with huge investment in Canadian tarsands [but only addition million barrels a day] is the only growth from about 70 million b/pd in 2006. The investment in deepwater has also slightly helped. Added to this is the inclusion of 1 million bpd of gas liquids [which are not the same as crude oil] from shale gas in the US. So without the growth in shale oil/gas there would be a decline in oil production. So here are the big questions -- is shale oil sustainable? Can the US continue to increase production over the next 2 decades. ..."
"... For production of oil to increase in line with expected economic growth an extra 10 million barrels of oil needs to be discovered by the end of the decade. ..."
"... when peak oil was being discussed decades ago it was considered a 3% decline rate in production was manageable -- 5% would considered extremely difficult to deal with -- old oil fields are showing those kind of decline rates. ..."
"... Shale oil has to deliver -- or we need to come up with an alternative -- one alternative is we pay a lot more for oil to pay the costs of extracting smaller amounts from more difficult areas. This is not a left right conversation. ..."
"... My guess is that by 2035 we will see quite a much smaller number of oil exporting nations. We already saw Indonesia cross the threshold and leave OPEC. Cameroon, Egypt, Romania, Yemen....the list is fairly long....they are all losing production capacity. ..."
"... There is NO typical decline exclusively for frac'd wells. It depends on a lot of factors. Declines are usually measured on an annual basis. In W Texas, typical declines are 6-10% annually and the wells are often Frac'd. Additionally, declines are often mitigated by recovery method- primary, secondary or tertia ry. ..."
"... However the beauty of natural resources is that as they become rarer, the selling price typically goes up, unless the buyer decides he doesn't want it anymore. So as the extraction price increases towards the current crude selling price, you'll find that the selling price will also increase unless the customer no longer wants it. ..."
"... A lot of what we read is sheer baloney. I am concerned there´s a significant amount of methane venting by oil operators in North Dakota and Western Siberia. But that´s a completely different issue, and it can be controlled with the proper regulations. ..."
"... When the selling price is high, certain activities like drilling for and extraction of unconventional oil becomes doable. For North Dakota, the oil price has to be in excess of around $55 per barrel, otherwise you can't 'frack' profitably, If the oil price dropped to $40 per barrel, all 'fracking' in N Dakota would cease. ..."
"... So there we have it perpetually high energy prices, which has a direct impact on the proportion of economic activity dedicated to energy acquisition, (i.e an eventual permanent lowering of GDP globally). ..."
"... Economically speaking, I see bumpy and rapid decline in economic fortunes, made potentially worse, by overstated reserves of crude, (which may suddenly decline), and overly optimistic supplies in alternative sources. ..."
May 22, 2015 | The Guardian

EIA officials told the Los Angeles Times that previous estimates of recoverable oil in the Monterey shale reserves in California of about 15.4 billion barrels were vastly overstated. The revised estimate, they said, will slash this amount by 96% to a puny 600 million barrels of oil.

The Monterey formation, previously believed to contain more than double the amount of oil estimated at the Bakken shale in North Dakota, and five times larger than the Eagle Ford shale in South Texas, was slated to add up to 2.8 million jobs by 2020 and boost government tax revenues by $24.6 billion a year.

... ... ...

The latest revelations follow a spate of bad news for industry reassurances about the fracking boom. New research published this month has found that measured methane leaks from fracking operations were three times larger than forecasted. The US Environment Protection Agency therefore "significantly underestimates" methane emissions from fracking, by as much as a 100 to a 1,000 times according to a new Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences study published in April.

The Associated Press also reported, citing a Government Accountability Office investigation, that the US Interior Department's Bureau of Land Management had failed to adequately inspect thousands of oil and gas wells that are potentially high risk for water and environmental damage.

Despite the mounting evidence that the shale gas boom is heading for a bust, both economically and environmentally, both governments and industry are together pouring their eggs into a rather flimsy basket.

Dr. Nafeez Ahmed is an international security journalist and academic. He is the author of A User's Guide to the Crisis of Civilization: And How to Save It, and the forthcoming science fiction thriller, Zero Point. Follow him on Facebook and Twitter @nafeezahmed.


JulesBywaterLees -> LiberalAnalyst 29 May 2014 02:49

An EIA projection of future oil sources- knock yourself out.

you will notice half of all supply forecast for the next 15 years is 'unidentified projects'

or wishful thinking as it is normally known.

JulesBywaterLees -> LiberalAnalyst 29 May 2014 02:44

There you go - a science paper discussion - the jury is still out, but look and you will find plenty of doubt to counter optimism.

and that is the issue- all oil growth has come from 2 areas - deepwater and oil fracking- without the deepwater which is limited oil supply would drop and likewise fracking is the only other resource that is sustaining supply - this is serious. If it is a bubble we are fucked.

LiberalAnalyst 28 May 2014 15:26

Uh, yeah, take a look at SinoChem. They're spending some $4bn on one project (Fuling).

In general, I see liberals here showing a remarkably similar reluctance to accept the general consensus of scientists (petroleum geologists) as many conservatives do with respect to the science of climate change.

Take a look at the EIA projections. That agency has an enormous amount of well-level data to crunch. Do you really think some blogger on peakoilchange.com or whatever has anywhere near the capability that EIA has? Or perhaps you think EIA is some sort of lackey of the oil industry, with their entire staff of analysts getting paid under the table to make unrealistic projections?

JulesBywaterLees -> mike jones 26 May 2014 11:15

Fracking has been a game changer - but the US is still a net importer of NG and fracking amounts to 40% or so of production

gas fracking has become unprofitable because of a glut caused by a goldrush mentality and economics - the price is rising but not fast enough - cheserpeake has had to sell off chunks of its business to enable itself to be sold off. Shell did get burnt by coming in too late.

Cheap gas did mean a switch from coal -- but that coal was still mined and exported -- causing another glut and decrease in price which is not sustainable.

Germany, despite being a smaller country is still a big league player in global manufacturing- and this despite high energy prices- not bad for a country with little energy resources. Germany still has to import Norway & Russian gas, oil, and Polish [and US] coal. It also had to subsidise its own brown coal industry.

American jobs and manufacturing! a few high profile jobs have come back but iPhones are still made in China.

And no doubt the 1000s of oil and gas wells drilled each year in the US is having a economic impact -- the US has over 2500 rigs in operation where as the whole of Europe has about 200. The US power is the fact it has had abundant and relatively cheap energy.

Fracking oil in the US has been the sole reason peak oil has not kicked in -- the past looks promising, the future is another issue. If tight oil & shale gas is sustainable then everything will be fine. If it is not then you are fucked.

JulesBywaterLees -> Carthusian1 25 May 2014 10:59

Worst climate change green agenda propaganda piece I've seen and I see plenty.

you need to explain yourself- what is wrong with the article, where are the facts wrong.

what is clear- and it matters not on your politics- is that after 2006 every agency recognised 'easy' oil from traditional oil fields peaked -- the decline rate is 5%. In fact it is difficult to find national producers who are not in decline -- Russia & Saudi are keeping production stable with huge investment in enhanced recovery of old fields -- Nigeria can sustain production only if it develops the many small fields it has -- Iraq is struggling to fill the gap as is Libya.

Shale oil fracking in the US along with huge investment in Canadian tarsands [but only addition million barrels a day] is the only growth from about 70 million b/pd in 2006. The investment in deepwater has also slightly helped. Added to this is the inclusion of 1 million bpd of gas liquids [which are not the same as crude oil] from shale gas in the US. So without the growth in shale oil/gas there would be a decline in oil production. So here are the big questions -- is shale oil sustainable? Can the US continue to increase production over the next 2 decades.

Is shale oil exportable to Europe/Asia/ etc? For production of oil to increase in line with expected economic growth an extra 10 million barrels of oil needs to be discovered by the end of the decade.

and are the concerns of those about both issues made by industry insiders valid?

if shale oil is a bubble and we see decline rates that some expect, then everyone is in trouble -- doesn't matter if you are left or right of politics.

when peak oil was being discussed decades ago it was considered a 3% decline rate in production was manageable -- 5% would considered extremely difficult to deal with -- old oil fields are showing those kind of decline rates.

Shale oil has to deliver -- or we need to come up with an alternative -- one alternative is we pay a lot more for oil to pay the costs of extracting smaller amounts from more difficult areas. This is not a left right conversation.


jimmycracorn -> jointheconversation 24 May 2014 05:36

I agree with you but without oil there is no medicine or plastics or surgery or space travel. We have the answers to power plants and transportation. At least mostly. It all the things people have no idea that oil is used for that concerns me.

Fernando Leanme -> Watkin M 24 May 2014 05:35

The Europeans and others like Japan are in worse shape than the US when it comes to liquid hydrocarbons.

My guess is that by 2035 we will see quite a much smaller number of oil exporting nations. We already saw Indonesia cross the threshold and leave OPEC. Cameroon, Egypt, Romania, Yemen....the list is fairly long....they are all losing production capacity.

Most oil exporting nations with a significant surplus do need to export oil to earn income for their populations. However, Indonesia has a huge population, and oil wasn´t a key factor in their economy, so when their oil capacity went down they managed to survive.

Other oil exporting nations, such as say Saudi Arabia and Venezuela don´t have much else to live on at this time, and will have to develop something else. Saudi Arabia has a lot of money saved, but Venezuela has enormous debt and a terrible economy, so eventually they will get rid of their dictator Maduro and implement economic reforms.


BubbaGumper -> hopefulcyclist 23 May 2014 12:12

There is NO typical decline exclusively for frac'd wells. It depends on a lot of factors. Declines are usually measured on an annual basis. In W Texas, typical declines are 6-10% annually and the wells are often Frac'd. Additionally, declines are often mitigated by recovery method- primary, secondary or tertiary.


BubbaGumper -> Daniel Hood 23 May 2014 11:29

Please, supply and demand? How about the speculators/Wall Street? I assume the near exponential rise in oil prices not long after GW Bush settled in was due to a sudden corresponding exponential rise in demand or SUV's (in the US)? The downward revision for the California Shale was due to the fact that the original estimate was totally bogus and irresponsible. I've been an engineer in the business for 30 years and I've never seen nor heard of such an error of this magnitude. Also, your doom and gloom scenario is unlikely.


BubbaGumper 23 May 2014 11:13

Once again I feel the need to correct these reporters. Fracturing is NOT new. We've been doing it for decades in well completions and stimulations. Hydraulic/Sand Fracturing is for very tight formations, Acid Fracturing is employed mostly in carbonate formations, as is acidizing.

Other techniques, often used in the Gulf, are Frac and Pack. I started with a major in 1983 and we Acid Frac'd wells in W Texas and SE New Mexico (Permian Basin, carbonate). For Chert formations (silica) we employed Sand Frac's. These were deeper vertical wells in hard-rock country.

Our wells employed 3 casing strings- surface, intermediate, and production string. Each string had cement circulated behind pipe, in the annulus, to surface. The overlying aquifer, the Ogallala, was well protected, as was required by law. The fractures were initiated below 5000 ft and as deep as 9000 ft. The bottom of the Ogallala was 300-400 ft, well above the wellbore work. We don't just pump a fracture and hope for the best. A great deal of input data goes into the design.

The idea is to correctly place a vertical radial fracture, 2 wings, of known radius. Once the fracture is open, acid is used to dissolve/etch the surfaces so once the rock closes it will not seal up, thus leaving a conduit. With Sand Fracturing, the opening is filled/packed with sand and we tail in with a polymer coated sand that seals the opening preventing sand from flowing back into the wellbore. This isn't rocket science and it works very well.

Every formation type requires a different approach. Shale requires Sand Fracturing, simple as that. It's the higher price of oil that has made Shale doable, NOT fracturing.

I would also suggest that some heads roll for those initial estimates in the California Shale. I have never seen nor heard of such an error in my 30 years. The Bakken, Eagle Ford, Barnett and Marcellus shales are different and situated differently than the Monterey shale. To simply use them as an analog/go-by was irresponsible.

Also, geologists, petrophysical engineers and geotechnical engineers are well aware of what lies below the surface and how it's laid out. Core samples allow us to extract the rock characteristics and mechanics. After so many exploratory wells are drilled, logged and produced, a reasonable decision can be made as to go forward or throw in the towel. The more wells, the more information that is available. The engineers also know where the aquifers are and the fault lines. If ground water is indeed being contaminated or if seismic shocks are occurring, it's time to step back and understand what's going on and remedy the situation. I don't understand why this is not occurring. But to just stop mining for oil and gas just puts us back in the import mode.


Alan D Granger -> hopefulcyclist 23 May 2014 11:09

Shale gas production has been curtailed due to low prices. Here in the Eagleford we are avoiding the areas that are more gas than liquids. The same is true in other areas. Furthermore, the price is not high enough to drill for conventional gas plays. The price must be above $5 a thousand, with the expectation of it remaining there to encourage more drilling for gas.


Duncan Frame Yetypu 23 May 2014 09:07

Fracking is not a short-term stop-gap measure, but rather a new normal.

There aren't enough energy efficient extractable resources to make it the new normal. It is at best a stop gap and at worst a panacea for belief in business as usual, and a destructive delay in a rapid shift to sustainability.

You seem to be in the business as usual camp. Presumably you too never saw 2008 coming....

Scot_in_Texas -> nfnfnf 23 May 2014 08:33

Well, that's true, as with all products produced by mankind. However the beauty of natural resources is that as they become rarer, the selling price typically goes up, unless the buyer decides he doesn't want it anymore. So as the extraction price increases towards the current crude selling price, you'll find that the selling price will also increase unless the customer no longer wants it.

Oil is one of those things where you typically have to spend oil by burning it to power generators to get it out of the ground, unless you are close enough to civilization where you could practically run the engines off the national electricity grid which then might be generated by wind, water, coal, nuclear - or of course oil.


Duncan Frame -> demagogue8 23 May 2014 08:20

We could avoid potential future gas price increases by switching to much more expensive renewables now. Makes sense.

Well that depends. What will the gas prices in ten and twenty years be? What are the ACTUAL costs of fracked gas and oil, not the artificially lowered price as experienced in the US through over-estimating of reserves and hiding the cost of land acquisition through toxic debt?

Not to mention any health related lawsuits that emerge over the next few years.

Until you incorporate those costs you can't accurately assess what is more expensive. But essentially the comparison is investment costs now and low ongoing costs (as with wind and solar) and low investment costs and rising ongoing costs.

At some point even you would have to admit that sustainable solutions will be dirt cheap compared to the fossil burning alternative.


Fernando Leanme -> Yetypu 23 May 2014 06:10

I guess these guys forget methane is a pretty good explosive when mixed with air. This means a drilling rig has gas detectors, and a rig crew isn´t about to stick around if there´s a significant methane leak.

A lot of what we read is sheer baloney. I am concerned there´s a significant amount of methane venting by oil operators in North Dakota and Western Siberia. But that´s a completely different issue, and it can be controlled with the proper regulations.

A_Scot_in_Texas semyorka 23 May 2014 05:58

That's right, here are the 6 fields: the Permian, the Haynesville, the Eagleford, the Bakken, the Marcellus and the Niobrara.

Unfortunately for the point you're trying to make, this mere' handful' of fields covers an area rather larger than Texas, see P. 3 of this document... http://www.eia.gov/pressroom/presentations/sieminski_01042014.pdf

The reason is of course that with shale oil and gas, you don't have to target a particular reservoir structure, you are targeting the source rock. As a result there is little to no natural permeability to work with - you must create that yourself - but you don't have to search out particular hydrocarbon traps, you 'just' put a horizontal hole through the source rock then hydraulically fracture it.


A_Scot_in_Texas -> semyorka 23 May 2014 04:48

Well, the major shale oil play in the USA is currently the Permian Basin. That's what is seen as an enormous bonanza at the moment.

http://oilindependents.org/the-imperishable-permian-basin/

The thing with oil & gas companies in the US is that they're private companies. They're not drilling like m$%#%$#%^^s to prove some kind of political point.


A_Scot_in_Texas -> JulesBywaterLees 23 May 2014 04:44

Um, excuse me? As a subject matter expert here - I work in the oil industry, I'd like you to ask yourself this little question - does your average oil company prefer it when the selling price of their product is $15 per barrel, or $100 per barrel?

Yes, that's right, oil companies find that fossil fuels work best when the price is very high indeed.

When the selling price is high, certain activities like drilling for and extraction of unconventional oil becomes doable. For North Dakota, the oil price has to be in excess of around $55 per barrel, otherwise you can't 'frack' profitably, If the oil price dropped to $40 per barrel, all 'fracking' in N Dakota would cease.

To reiterate, oil companies like it when the product they sell goes for the highest price.


CaptCrash -> demagogue8 23 May 2014 04:19

This is already happening, oil wells closed on the 1980's are being re-opened for their meagre and/or harder to get deposits, shales, tar-sands, all are driven by high oil prices, in turn driven by a shortage of easily extracted sweet crude oil.

The increased cost of oil, reflects the increased effort to obtain it, and therefore we can conclude that "peak" conventional oil has occurred, and that to maintain high oil production, either ;

a) high prices need to remain in order to keep production viable
b) extraction techniques have to be even more efficient than simply sucking sweet crude out of the ground.

As b) is really unlikely to occur ,the energy required makes it less efficient, a) is the only possible outcome for an oil fuelled world.

So there we have it perpetually high energy prices, which has a direct impact on the proportion of economic activity dedicated to energy acquisition, (i.e an eventual permanent lowering of GDP globally).

Economically speaking, I see bumpy and rapid decline in economic fortunes, made potentially worse, by overstated reserves of crude, (which may suddenly decline), and overly optimistic supplies in alternative sources.

Prepare for a rough ride over the next 30 years.


Agir demagogue8 23 May 2014 03:50

Methane emissions will be way up - look at the whole picture including damage to road infrastructure, water pollution, loss of agricultural land, air borne pollution, disincentive to invest in renewables and the fracking industry is more of a problem than a solution.


Fernando Leanme -> Federalist10 23 May 2014 03:36

Exxon Mobil buys back its shares because it doesn´t see viable investment opportunities which exceed the return of its existing portfolio. This means ExxonMobil is shrinking itself, and thus we can conclude they are running out of oil reserves.

The current trend for large corporations to buy back their stock is one of the signals we can use to conclude we are indeed running out of oil, outside the OPEC nations and Former Soviet Union the situation is acute.

The current move by greenhorns and UN officials like Christiana Figueres (who doesn´t have a working brain when it comes to energy) to advocate divestment and conclude that PRIVATE oil company reserves will be stranded is really funny.

The oil industry is getting desperate and doesn't know where the oil will come 30 years from now, and we got people arguing to hand over more power to a bunch of OPEC dictator and our dear Vladimir Putin.

Take note that oil and gas aren´t in the same shape. Naffez Ahmed makes a serious mistake when he mixes up a discussion about OIL in the Monterrey shale in California with the NATURAL GAS industry shale gas extraction business. Those of us who know a bit about the business always wondered what type of dope the USGS was smoking when they accepted that Monterrey RESOURCE report (those figures were never booked with the SEC as PROVEN Reserves).

Fernando Leanme -> OnthePlains 23 May 2014 03:23

On the Plains, when a commodity has a price dip the supply tends to dry up. This increases the price as demand tightens up supply. The way the Security and Exchange Commission demands reserves be estimated (technically and economically recoverable under existing conditions) means the RESERVES change with prices.

I realize many who depend on the cash flow from natural gas production and lack the staying power do suffer as the price dips. This usually means they either sell or they have to hunker down and wait for better prices. On the other hand, investors with cash and a well placed brain wait for the price to dip and for the other guys to be selling at low prices and at that point they invest.

Remember that for every guy who sells there´s a guy who buys, and this is the reason why capitalism is much more dynamic and efficient than communism. The market will sort itself out, and the "bust" will only be a bust for the virgins who got into this game without the cash reserves to withstand a price dip.

The oil and gas industry is this way, most of us like to focus on the guys driving the Cadillacs, and forget there are quite a few former big shot gas company presidents who are now washing windows at Walmart.


thesnufkin 23 May 2014 02:45

Actually Nafeez may even be an optimist

U.S. officials cut estimate of recoverable Monterey Shale oil by 96%


Fernando Leanme -> hopefulcyclist 23 May 2014 02:27

Cyclist, the dynamic system is working as it´s supposed to. When the natural gas shale boom developed starting about 10 years ago many engineers (and therefore their companies) weren´t too familiar with shale reservoir performance. This means they UNDERESTIMATED performance, drilled too many wells, the gas price went down, and this led to a shake out. Now prices are rising, they know much better what to expect, and the combination of higher prices and more knowledge means they will gear up to deliver natural gas as required. This is an old story we see in commodities markets, but gas wells producing from shales have hyperbolic decline curves, which means the industry delivers to the market with more efficiency (meaning response to market forces is much faster).

To this we must add two factors: First, the GDP growth rates we see in the USA, and the fact that as prices dropped many companies activated projects to consume natural gas. Second (and this is more speculative on my part), the Obama administration´s move to ban the construction of coal electric power plants means there´s going to be a move to build more gas plants. ANd I suspect producers are now rubbing their hands and waiting for the gas to reach a higher level.

I looked over the recent EPA regulations for coal plants and indeed it seems the energy efficiency they require is unreasonable. This means the options for the industry will be to build more gas driven generators.


litesp33d1 -> roderickspode 23 May 2014 01:23

billions being invested in export facilities.

For gas to be sold to Western Europe at the most profit.

The only problem is that Western Europe gets really cheap gas via overland pipelines. So how can we get Western Europe to voluntarily reject these cheap Russian gas supplies. How about we start a massive civil war in Ukraine? That should do it. And now that the EU has no democracy in this regard as all its decision making come from unelected commissioners that should not be too hard. And then we will tie their hands with a Transatlantic Trade agreement in secrecy. Job done.

Or something like that.

And if it turns out there is not enough gas we can use the same facilities to import LNG from the ME. This has win win win written all over it (for some).


Composing -> samiamnotaus 22 May 2014 21:35

Electricity generated from shale gas has one half the CO2 emissions of electricity generated from coal. So yes, shale gas is a very good thing. It displaces coal fired generation with lower CO2 emission gas generation.

The Germans certainly know all about higher CO2 emissions from opening new coal fired power stations.


samiamnotaus demagogue8 22 May 2014 20:02

Additionally the switch to gas has greatly reduced Co2 emissions in the US. That's no myth

True but it doesn't tell the whole story:
1. Fugitive methane emissions from the extraction process
2. Acknowledge that methane is a fossil fuel and non renewable {leave all fossil fuels in the ground)
3. Acknowledge the environmental damage that occurs during extraction
4. Acknowledge it drives coal prices down which leads to exports of coal, and more polluting energy
5. With no price on that pollution (C)2/CH4) vast amounts of emissions occur.

As to 2, you often here some bullsht about it being a bridging fuel. Seems to me a bridge needs supports on both ends, having nothing to transition too aside from a hope and a prayer makes it rhetoric.


JulesBywaterLees Watkin M 22 May 2014 17:22

I highly recommend Steven Kopits' lecture on youtube it is an hour well spent.

you mention China driving demand with millions of middle-classes taking to the road. This was a key economic principle expected by the oil companies- as exploration costs for new oil rose from $6 [2006] a barrel to $17 [2013] it was expected these costs would be borne by the consumer. After the 3x price hike for oil in 2008 the slack from reduced OECD nation consumption decline was taken up by China- but the supposed growth and consequence increased demand and therefore price has not materialised.

In fact oil demand in China in the last 6 months has gone down leading to a few pence off the price of forecourt fuel and lower inflation.

Globally we seem to have hit peak oil price- of $110 where as the majors need $120- $140 a barrel to continue to explore and keep supply level. If consumers continue to reduce their demand- or catch the train as they do in China [they built 3500 miles of high speed rail in a decade!] then supply will fall.

Coal is attractive as fuel because it is cheap- but costs for extraction are rising- it now takes 2 tons of coal in the US to producer the same energy as 1 ton did in the 1990s- we always mine the easy and best stuff first. It needs to be just a few $ more to continue to be profitable [Bumi Coal - a Rothschild investment to profit from the Asian market crashed 75% pissing off the investors].

A slight increase is desirable by the producers and could be carried by the consumers but a few $ more for a carbon tax would make renewables equal. Renewables also are smaller units and so are cheaper requiring small investors and don't require the huge infrastructure costs of big grids- ideal for developing new markets in remote areas.

Gas is the interesting one- Qatar can sell its LNG at near cost because it profits from the liquids - but even then it is expensive to transport and reheat- the pipeline network is the key to whether the gas is economical or not as demonstrated with the China-Russian deal with the real business in the infrastructure.

Fossil fuels especially coal are cheap because of the infrastructure- that infrastructure such as new powerstation and grids is in need of renewal- and it is that government commitment to lock us into old fossil rather than diversify which is the main battlefield- [in my opinion] what they are not going to say is all fossil fuels will get more expensive.


Yetypu -> meenaghman 22 May 2014 17:50

Not at all. The SEC has rules regarding booking reserves etc.

I am merely pointing out that all stimulated wells experience flush production, & that the tighter the permeability, the longer the supercharge effect.

People who decry shale production because of the drop in flow rate as the supercharge dissipates, perhaps don't know what they are talking or writing about.

A Ponzi scheme is something completely different, no matter how much you wish it.

said Mike Kelly, at Global Hunter Securities in Houston. "If you're not growing production, you're dying."

That would only be true with a very serious caveat - you cannot grow flush production, you can only grow post-flush production. To represent otherwise is a scam. Funnily enough, most of these scammers are the antipathetics, setting up a physical strawman.


ID0667935 -> Watkin M 22 May 2014 16:26

Nonsense, Shale gas recovery has seen electricity prices almost halved in many US states. Many large transport compnaies are converting their truck to run on gas - not petrol. Shale gas recovery will provide low cost energy for domestic and industrial use for the next 200 years at least. No doubt the OPEC price fixing criminals will do everything in their power to discredit it. But they will fail.

[Dec 18, 2015] U.S. crude production in November posted the first annual decline in almost five years as falling prices curbed investment

Notable quotes:
"... U.S. crude production in November posted the first annual decline in almost five years as falling prices curbed investment. ..."
"... The U.S. pumped an average 9.11 million barrels of crude a day in November, down 0.8 percent from a year earlier, the American Petroleum Institute said in a monthly report Thursday. ..."
"... My comment: The EIA's preliminary estimate for November is 9.17 mb/d. We will know later the exact number, but it seems that the decline in output is accelerating by the end of the year ..."
peakoilbarrel.com

AlexS, 12/18/2015 at 6:09 pm

U.S. Oil Output has First Year-on-Year Drop Since 2011, API Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-17/u-s-oil-output-has-first-year-on-year-drop-since-2011-api-says

U.S. crude production in November posted the first annual decline in almost five years as falling prices curbed investment.

The U.S. pumped an average 9.11 million barrels of crude a day in November, down 0.8 percent from a year earlier, the American Petroleum Institute said in a monthly report Thursday.

Production of natural gas liquids rose 6.4 percent from November 2014 to 3.32 million barrels a day, a record for the month and 28,000 barrels short of the all-time high reached in August.

Total deliveries of fuel, a measure of demand, rose 1.2 percent from a year earlier to the highest November total since 2007.

Gasoline consumption rose 3.2 percent from a year earlier and jet fuel demand climbed 6.2 percent, while distillate fuel slumped 1 percent and residual fuel use tumbled 46 percent as prices for natural gas declined.

My comment: The EIA's preliminary estimate for November is 9.17 mb/d. We will know later the exact number, but it seems that the decline in output is accelerating by the end of the year

[Dec 18, 2015] Oil Price Forecast 2015-2016

Blast from the past: article from one year ago.
Notable quotes:
"... I agree with your theory that fluctuation in prices are driven by the psychology of the market and not by a straight forward supply/demand. Yet, extrapolating future oil prices based on historical data is a bit naïve in my opinion. ..."
"... This comparison of current prices with past prices is incorrect, as it ignores inflation over the decades. $20 per barrel in 1986 is not the same as $20 today. ..."
Dec 18, 2014 | Forbes

Update: I have written an update regarding oil economics and Shale 2.0 and an update to discuss the role of foreign exchange rates in the oil price drop, but this article is still the best summary of my current forecast.

The sharp drop in oil prices in the past few weeks confirms the oil price forecast that I published back in May 2013, when West Texas crude sold for $94.50:

"
"Oil prices are headed down, and I mean down at least $20 a barrel. The key reason is that prices have been high. It's not a paradox, but a result of the long time lags in oil production."

Before going into the forecast, it's worth mentioning that price can change faster than the fundamentals of supply and demand. In a recent 30-day period the price of oil fell by 20 percent. There was no change in the demand or supply over that month to justify such a large change. What happened is that commodity traders look at expected future prices, based on long-term supply and long-term demand. When the traders' expectations change, they buy or sell and the price changes. Traders' expectations can change due to moods, "animal spirits," fear, greed, drugs, family strife or lack of coffee. Or too much coffee. Thus, short-term price changes can happen quickly. My own guess is that hundreds of very influential traders suddenly slapped their foreheads and said, " That Bill Conerly is right." Which triggered a large drop in oil prices.

The fundamentals of demand are straightforward. Demand is moves up or down as the global economy moves up or down, but with a pronounced trend toward less energy use per dollar of economic production. The chart tells the story well.

Economists have been slowly lowering their projections for global economic growth in the coming years, triggering lower expectations for oil demand.

On the supply side, think of three distinct steps involved in getting oil to market: exploration, development, and production.

  • Exploration is very sensitive to projected prices of crude oil. The price of oil had seemed stuck at $20 for many years, from roughly 1986 through 1997. Then prices started to rise, breaking through $60 in 2005. The price break, plus maybe talk about peak oil, lead to a surge in exploration around the world. With prices now dropping, new exploration activity will decline.
  • Development is the process of sinking more wells in a field that has already been proven by exploratory drilling. Development also includes building the local pipelines and terminals required to get the oil to a transportation facility. Development expenses are often worthwhile even at lower prices. For example, suppose that the all-in cost of oil from a brand new field is $80, of which $30 per barrel constitutes exploration. That means that development and production only costs $50 a barrel extra. If the exploration costs have already been paid, then companies will continue with development even at today's $60 price.
  • Production is even cheaper. Traditionally, production costs were very small compared to exploration and development, but wells that are fracked have higher production costs that old-fashioned wells. Nonetheless, once the exploration and development have been paid for, it almost always makes sense to keep the wells pumping.

The supply-side question for the future is not whether it's profitable to find new oil at today's low prices. The question is how long we can enjoy the new oil supply that has been discovered in the past ten years. I believe the answer is somewhere between five and ten years. Wells have a natural decline rate. For a particular well, the engineer might estimate that each year's production would be 15 percent less than the previous year's production, over the life of the well, asymptotically approaching zero. (I've never met a petroleum engineer willing to guess at an average decline rate, but I've seen figures such as ten percent and 15 percent cited as examples.)

Rainmaker

This comparison of current prices with past prices is incorrect, as it ignores inflation over the decades. $20 per barrel in 1986 is not the same as $20 today.

Bill Conerly

Rainmaker, you make a good point about inflation. Let me restate after adjusting oil prices using the consumer price index, stated in 2013 dollars: In 1984, the price was mostly in the $60s, averaging $65.65 for the year. In early 1986, the price fell below $30. Either way, it was a very steep drop.

Thanks for your comment. Bill

rjslarx

I don't see it. Oil will return to its 'comfort level' which was around $80 to $90 per barrel. I think by mid-summer it will be back there. But in all honesty, its' just my wild ass guess.

Bill Conerly

rj, what you think of as a "comfort zone" is heavily colored by recent experience. Oil spent many years comfortably below $40.

Thanks for your comment. Bill

sam hemeda

Bill, I agree with your theory that fluctuation in prices are driven by the psychology of the market and not by a straight forward supply/demand. Yet, extrapolating future oil prices based on historical data is a bit naïve in my opinion.

  1. Break even points , past few weeks wall street energy pundits coming up E&P Break-even points all over the place, different plays, different regions, offshore/onshore, major and independent producers etc, each has its own and there is no harmonized cost. Let's not forget, prior to 1997 oil came from shallow waters wells, which all dried out, drilling has moved to deep waters across the globe mainly below 3000 ft below, in the Gulf of Mexico producers are drilling exploratory wells below 15,000 ft, drilling rig can easily cost $500K-1 MUSD daily, avg 30-90 days to drill a single well with a 70% hitting a dry hole.

    True, they are applying the latest technologies to ensure safety and regulatory compliance, but no one disagree it is an enormous cost and companies with strained capex will drill less, also production facilities are in excess of few billions to build. Unconventional (shale gas) is privileged to have a lower cost , which explains why most of the small independent into this segment, however, the decline rate is rapid , we have seen some of the wells are maturing after 3 years of production, companies will have to drill to replenish their reserves and able to meet their obligations.

    In many cases Exploration and Production cost are amortized over the life of the field.

  2. You also did not factor in the geopolitics element in pricing oil, what happened when both Russians and Iranians are down on their knees asking for forgiveness and lifting sanctions or signing an unconditional nuclear accord, do you envision an OPEC cutting production slightly to pump some cash into Russians and Iranian coffers ? Again, Oil has always been a complex commodity and has unconventional pricing model that yet someone has to figure it out.
Bill Conerly

Sam, lots of good facts in your post. Here's my model. For the world as a whole, imagine a exponential-shaped curve, with quantity of oil produced on the horizontal axis and cost (in dollars) on the vertical. That's the cost of supplying different amounts of oil. The curve starts off pretty flat, but then price rises at an accelerating rate. There's some oil that's cheap and easy; after that's been produced, you go to more and more expensive projects.

Technological change is like shifting the whole curve downward. Political control is like shifting the whole curve upward. In the past decade, we've enjoyed the downward shift.

And keep in mind that the real world curve, if we could see it, would have some kinks and corners to it.

Thanks for your comment. Bill

[Dec 18, 2015] Short-Term Energy Outlook

U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

Total U.S. liquid fuels consumption is projected to increase by 290,000 b/d (1.5%) in 2015, higher than the 140,000 b/d (0.8%) increase in 2014. U.S. consumption has been stimulated by continuing employment and economic growth and lower petroleum product prices. Total liquid fuels consumption growth in 2016 is forecast to average 160,000 b/d (0.8%).

U.S. Petroleum and Other Liquids
2013 2014 2015 projected 2016 projected
Crude Oil prices (dollars per barrel)
WTI Spot Average 97.98 93.17 49.08 50.89
Brent Spot Average 108.56 98.89 52.93 55.78
Imported Average 98.12 89.63 47.28 47.48
Refiner Average Acquisition Cost 100.46 92.05 49.06 49.89

[Dec 18, 2015] Texas RRC data for October shows that the steep decline continues

Notable quotes:
"... I have the impression that everybody – including the central banks – want to destroy shale companies, although I am wondering about the motivations. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Heinrich Leopold, 12/18/2015 at 4:29 am
Texas RRC data for October are out. Although data are subject to revisions, it looks like the steep decline continues (see below chart). The recent slump in oil well completions – down nearly 40% from October to November – suggests that the decline accelerates in November. Moreover, the recent slump in the bond and equity market for oil companies makes an even steeper decline in December more likely. I have the impression that everybody – including the central banks – want to destroy shale companies, although I am wondering about the motivations.

The consequences of a steep reduction in US oil production would be an increased US current account deficit- already at a five year high – a steep dollar drop and a massive US recession. If the motivation is to give way for alternative technologies, it is first necessary to improve efficiency and productivity of alternatives, which clearly cannot compete with fossil fuels.

likbez, 12/18/2015 at 11:44 am

Heinrich,

"I have the impression that everybody – including the central banks – want to destroy shale companies, although I am wondering about the motivations. "

Driving oil prices down brings profits and benefits to important players, including the US government. Frackers and oil companies are collateral damage. Low oil prices in 2015 alone are equivalent to a stimulus the tune of 200 billions for the USA economy. Also a shakeout of frackers means consolidation of good properties by oil majors, who were late in this game.

That's how neoliberalism works. As attributed to former U.S. President George H. W. Bush: New World Order is the consolidation of more power and money into tighter, fewer, righter hands.

Also John Kenneth Galbraith said "The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." (The Great Crash of 1929). They live by the next quarter results.

[Dec 18, 2015] Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000

Notable quotes:
"... The real cost is much higher once the dues are paid. In Libya for instance if the regional groups dont get their cut then they start misbehaving which stops oil flow. Everyone gets real upset if they dont get their slice of the pie. ..."
"... Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000. "The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programmes. ..."
"... Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120," he said ..."
"... The big question is how high a price can the world economy handle as that descends along with diminishing returns? ..."
"... I'd be much less scared were the price to rise. I don't see the high price of the boom cycle being a problem any more. The world economy is not going to take it to $140 again IMHO. I see the problem of being the engine stalling and unable to restart not throwing a a piston from high RPM any more. ..."
"... most of the lifting factor for shale was enabled-based on junk bond financing structure and free global capital moving into it. A combination of factors which might not be there for the next round. ..."
"... But it could be replaced by some other even directly gov related scheme.. ..."
"... Anyway, it seems very reasonable to have at least one above $100 upswing before 2025, there is so much money and fools sloshing around, it's almost guaranteed ..."
ourfiniteworld.com

Stilgar Wilcox

Øyvind Holmstad, December 16, 2015 at 12:42 pm

– What it costs to produce oil: http://money.cnn.com/interactive/economy/the-cost-to-produce-a-barrel-of-oil/index.html?iid=EL#

December 16, 2015 at 3:49 pm

http://www.bloomberg.com/energy

US cost per barrel at 36.20 is higher than today's WTI price of 35.69 after a minus 1.66 due to the .25 interest rate rise that increased value of the USD against other currencies.

aliasees, December 16, 2015 at 7:22 pm

Nice information Thank you. The real cost is much higher once the dues are paid. In Libya for instance if the regional groups dont get their cut then they start misbehaving which stops oil flow. Everyone gets real upset if they dont get their slice of the pie. The general consensus is If I dont get my pie nobody does. At these prices the slices of pie are quite thin to nonexistent so I see MuaDib stopping the flow of spice much to the dismay of all pie eaters, myself included.

Fast Eddy, December 17, 2015 at 12:05 am

Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000. "The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programmes.

Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120," he said

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11024845/Oil-and-gas-company-debt-soars-to-danger-levels-to-cover-shortfall-in-cash.html

MJ, December 16, 2015 at 6:11 pm

According to this article there will plenty of tight petrol coming from America in the years ahead

http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2015/11/20/a-year-into-the-oil-bust-a-few-reasons-for-americas-frackers-to-be-thankful/

The boom was fun. The bust has been painful. But there's nothing like that food coma to get you to stop and appreciate a big meal. So even though its been a tough year for American oil and gas, there's plenty to be thankful for. Cheap gasoline and natural gas. An increasingly secure oil supply. An opportunity to buy shares in big oil companies at fat dividend yields. Lots of new technology. And especially the appreciation that thanks to the ingenuity of thousands of engineers, geologists and roughnecks we have many more years worth of oily leftovers to turn into some fracking good turkey stew

Stilgar Wilcox, December 16, 2015 at 7:28 pm

If high prices proved anything, it's the oil is there. It would have been a whole different event if high prices had not produced an oversupply, but it did and that suggests potentially it can again. The big question is how high a price can the world economy handle as that descends along with diminishing returns? The answer to that determines how much future turkey stew is available. Will we be knee deep in all the fixings or searching for loose change to get some fast food?

aliasees, December 16, 2015 at 7:47 pm

I'd be much less scared were the price to rise. I don't see the high price of the boom cycle being a problem any more. The world economy is not going to take it to $140 again IMHO. I see the problem of being the engine stalling and unable to restart not throwing a a piston from high RPM any more.

worldofhanuman, December 17, 2015 at 4:48 am

Define "high price" as linked recently, most of the lifting factor for shale was enabled-based on junk bond financing structure and free global capital moving into it. A combination of factors which might not be there for the next round.

But it could be replaced by some other even directly gov related scheme..

Anyway, it seems very reasonable to have at least one above $100 upswing before 2025, there is so much money and fools sloshing around, it's almost guaranteed, mind you by that time it would be much smarter to get out way earlier as the system might go off the wheels for real at that point.

[Dec 17, 2015] Finally Some Good News For The U.S. Oil Industry

Notable quotes:
"... In its latest monthly Oil Market Report, the IEA doesn't see oil markets balancing out until late 2016. ..."
Dec 15, 2015 | Dec 17, 2015OilPrice.com

"Chesapeake Energy (NYSE: CHK) is reportedly working with Evercore Partners Inc. on reducing its debt load, as the pressure continues to mount. Its stock is down 80 percent in 2015, and has even dropped by half from just October. Natural gas prices have dipped to 14-year lows, draining revenues from the nation's second largest natural gas producer. "

"North America's three dozen oil-company bankruptcy cases underscores how vulnerable U.S. and Canadian producers are to this year's oil and gas bust. Analysts say it costs around $50 a barrel for the average U.S. driller to extract crude from thick shale plays in Texas and North Dakota. In Canada, large oil sands projects can cost $80 a barrel. U.S. crude traded for around $36 a barrel on Tuesday."

In its latest monthly Oil Market Report, the IEA doesn't see oil markets balancing out until late 2016. The IEA sees demand growth easing from a five-year high of 1.8 million barrels per day (mb/d) in 2015 to just 1.2 mb/d in 2016. Still, the IEA acknowledged that OPEC's decision to scrap its production target does not fundamentally change the current state of oil markets. OPEC producers will continue to try to maximize output, just as before. The IEA sees the market share strategy working, as U.S. oil supply is expected to contract by 0.6 mb/d next year.

[Dec 17, 2015] IEA - OMR Public

www.iea.org

World demand growth of 1.2 mb/d is forecast in 2016, as first signs of a slowdown appear. Early indicators for 4Q15 show growth easing to 1.3 mb/d y-o-y, from a 3Q15 peak of 2.2 mb/d. The resulting annual growth of 1.8 mb/d for 2015 is led by China, the US, India and - somewhat surprisingly - Europe

... ... ...

Lower prices are clearly taking a toll on non-OPEC supply, with annual growth shrinking below 0.3 mb/d in November from 2.2 mb/d at the start of the year. A 0.6 mb/d decline is expected in 2016, as US light tight oil - the driver of non-OPEC growth - shifts into contraction. As companies make further spending cuts in reaction to sub-$50/bbl oil, the impact on supplies - both from non-OPEC and OPEC - will be even more pronounced in the longer term.

[Dec 17, 2015] Low oil price cannot kill shale oil but Saudi Arabia can kill its enemies this way.

Notable quotes:
"... "Their talk about gaining or defending market share is nonsense, because even if Saudi Arabia gets five percent more market share, the value of that five per cent amounts between $6-8 billions," ..."
"... "the global demand for oil this year, 2015 has been increasing by 1.4 per cent translating into 1.3 million barrels a day or 1.4 million barrels a day. That is a good and positive development." ..."
"... "But what is preventing the price from increasing – is that every time the price shows signs of moving up, OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia introduces more oil thus exacerbating an already existing glut," ..."
"... "will stick to 30 million barrels a day." ..."
"... "If you take that 2.2 out of the market, you stop the glut and a price could rise immediately or within a week to 70 or 80 dollars," ..."
"... "because the minute the oil price starts to go up, shale oil will be back." ..."
"... "true that some shale oil producers have gone out of the market, and the production of US shale oil has declined this year by 600,000 barrels a day." ..."
"... "Efficient producers of shale oil will remain in the market, and they are using technology to reduce the breakeven prices from $70 to $85 – now it is $60," ..."
"... "Maybe in few months it could go to $50." ..."
"... "a fact of life and we have to deal with it." ..."
"... " the shortcoming of shale oil is their depletion rate." ..."
"... "In the first year of production a well of shale oil loses 70 – 90 per cent of its reserves. That means that shale oil producers will have to produce and drill so many thousand, estimated, I think by Bloomberg, to be 9,000 wells every year at a cost of $45 billion that are just to remain where they are to prevent production from declining further. So OPEC cannot kill or slowdown – it can slowdown shale oil, but … the geology will eventually kill shale oil," ..."
"... "geology that "will eventually kill shale oil." ..."
"... The corrupt 'saudi' regime could fix most of its budget problems easily by cutting production and letting the price of oil rise again. The saudi position has been a huge lie all along. ..."
"... Arabia has something everyone wants-oil. It makes more sense to sell less of it at a higher price, than more of it at a much lower price, right? Whatever oil Arabia doesn't sell today, it can always sell tomorrow. That simple logic either eludes the US puppet, or something else is at work here. ..."
"... Only RT seems capable of printing the obvious, the Arabian story about 'market share' is complete BS, and has been all along. Clearly the US realizes that to let the price rise benefits the empires enemies as well, so that is off the table. However the US can always print more toilet paper out of thin air to give to its oil corporations and oily allies in the GCC. The US elite hardly cares if a bunch of hill-billy, redneck 'shale' companies and workers get thrown under the bus in the homeland-collateral damage and all that. ..."
"... The OPEC shale tale is just that, a fairy tale. 'OPEC' hardly cares about shale and never did. Of course, the Saudis could also stop sending billions to 'ISIS' and stop invading its neighbors at the behest of the US, that would help its balance sheets as well. The corrupt saudi regime and its US masters are banking on its 'enemies' being hurt so bad by all this, they will eventually give in. Russia, to its credit, has *not* cut production(not mentioned here), which implies they are not going to allow a repeat of the 1990's again. IoW, Russia is not rolling over and is making sure the US and S.A. economic war policy hurts them as much as anyone else. ..."
"... OPEC cannot kill shale oil, but the financial markets can and are now doing so. They are having to recalculate and reprice their reserves as we speak. Investors are getting burned and will not be reinvesting any time soon. Employees are getting laid off, assets are being sold, rig counts are going down, new debt can't be sold. They are dead, dead, dead! In addition they have the awful initial depletion rates, more environmental oversite and are causing earthquakes. ..."
"... But I watched a lot more "stupid money" (a technical term we really use in the oil patch) pissed away in the late 70's boom. But when/if there's another price inspired boom the greedy stupid money will return. The fed rates certainly helped push capital our way. ..."
"... rockman - Excellent points as usual. Stupid money! A lot of that stupid money has been soaked up by the 0.01% in a process known as "wealth transfer". Investment portfolios, retirement accounts - taking big hits and it is difficult to see at this point how they'll ever get a sufficient quantity of stupid money to reinvest in the next ass-reaming courtesy of the shale/unconventional biz. ..."
"... It is this very lack of understanding of the most fundamental principals, by people in management and control positions, that makes our present situation most dire. The world is not likely to address our coming energy crisis very effectively if it does not even understand what is happening? The world has morphed into a society of techno geeks that fix the third clog on the fourth wheel. When the wheel falls off they are left with no solution to the problem. ..."
"... IOW as long as the MONETARY value of the energy delivered (not the Btu's) is high enough compared to the MONETARY cost of the energy input (and not the Btu's) the process goes forward. Which takes us full circle back to what I keep saying: EROEI never has and never will be used to make investment decisions in the oil patch. It $'s in vs $'s out…not Btu's. ..."
Peak Oil News and Message Boards
"Their talk about gaining or defending market share is nonsense, because even if Saudi Arabia gets five percent more market share, the value of that five per cent amounts between $6-8 billions," he told RT. He suggests that Saudi Arabia alone is losing $140 billion.

Salameh cited the International Energy Agency in Paris that said that "the global demand for oil this year, 2015 has been increasing by 1.4 per cent translating into 1.3 million barrels a day or 1.4 million barrels a day. That is a good and positive development."

"But what is preventing the price from increasing – is that every time the price shows signs of moving up, OPEC and particularly Saudi Arabia introduces more oil thus exacerbating an already existing glut," he continued.

Salameh argues the Saudis claim that they "will stick to 30 million barrels a day." However, they are producing 32.2 million. "If you take that 2.2 out of the market, you stop the glut and a price could rise immediately or within a week to 70 or 80 dollars," he added.

He does not think that Saudi Arabia is driving down oil prices to squeeze out the American shale producers, "because the minute the oil price starts to go up, shale oil will be back."

He said that it is "true that some shale oil producers have gone out of the market, and the production of US shale oil has declined this year by 600,000 barrels a day." He went on to say that "it is projected to decline by almost 900,000 barrels next year" if the prices continue to be that low.

"Efficient producers of shale oil will remain in the market, and they are using technology to reduce the breakeven prices from $70 to $85 – now it is $60," Salameh told RT. "Maybe in few months it could go to $50."

According to Salameh, we have to accept that shale oil is "a fact of life and we have to deal with it." But, he added," the shortcoming of shale oil is their depletion rate."

"In the first year of production a well of shale oil loses 70 – 90 per cent of its reserves. That means that shale oil producers will have to produce and drill so many thousand, estimated, I think by Bloomberg, to be 9,000 wells every year at a cost of $45 billion that are just to remain where they are to prevent production from declining further. So OPEC cannot kill or slowdown – it can slowdown shale oil, but … the geology will eventually kill shale oil," the expert said.

OPEC, he noted, cannot kill shale oil production, but can slow it down. However, it is "geology that "will eventually kill shale oil."

Anonymous on Fri, 11th Dec 2015 4:25 pm

The corrupt 'saudi' regime could fix most of its budget problems easily by cutting production and letting the price of oil rise again. The saudi position has been a huge lie all along.

Arabia has something everyone wants-oil. It makes more sense to sell less of it at a higher price, than more of it at a much lower price, right? Whatever oil Arabia doesn't sell today, it can always sell tomorrow. That simple logic either eludes the US puppet, or something else is at work here.

If the price rises, it rises for everyone, including the empires sworn enemies, Russia, Iran, and Venezuela?(the CIA backed 'opposition' won so are they still the enemy?). Only RT seems capable of printing the obvious, the Arabian story about 'market share' is complete BS, and has been all along. Clearly the US realizes that to let the price rise benefits the empires enemies as well, so that is off the table. However the US can always print more toilet paper out of thin air to give to its oil corporations and oily allies in the GCC. The US elite hardly cares if a bunch of hill-billy, redneck 'shale' companies and workers get thrown under the bus in the homeland-collateral damage and all that.

The OPEC shale tale is just that, a fairy tale. 'OPEC' hardly cares about shale and never did. Of course, the Saudis could also stop sending billions to 'ISIS' and stop invading its neighbors at the behest of the US, that would help its balance sheets as well. The corrupt saudi regime and its US masters are banking on its 'enemies' being hurt so bad by all this, they will eventually give in. Russia, to its credit, has *not* cut production(not mentioned here), which implies they are not going to allow a repeat of the 1990's again. IoW, Russia is not rolling over and is making sure the US and S.A. economic war policy hurts them as much as anyone else.

Now if Iran were not under illegal US embargo, if Iraq and Iraq and Libya were whole and stable (and not playgrounds for the CIA\Mossad\'ISIS' types) oil prices would (or could be) lower still. Imagine what that would look like.

Bob Owens on Fri, 11th Dec 2015 8:18 pm

OPEC cannot kill shale oil, but the financial markets can and are now doing so. They are having to recalculate and reprice their reserves as we speak. Investors are getting burned and will not be reinvesting any time soon. Employees are getting laid off, assets are being sold, rig counts are going down, new debt can't be sold. They are dead, dead, dead! In addition they have the awful initial depletion rates, more environmental oversite and are causing earthquakes. Investors are starting to do the sane thing and invest in solar/wind farms. They don't have problems shale has.

Truth Has A Liberal Bias on Fri, 11th Dec 2015 9:40 pm

Oil with API gravity of 40 and less peaked in 2005. What we have today is a condensate glut.

GregT on Fri, 11th Dec 2015 10:11 pm

"What we have today is a condensate glut."

And a glut of the oily stuff that will not allow our economies to continue to grow at the rates that they need to, in order to service a system based entirely on infinite exponential growth, which is in of itself, a physical, and mathematical impossibility.

Should be common sense, but obviously in this day and age, sense is not common. Neither is smart, never mind intelligent.

Boat on Fri, 11th Dec 2015 10:56 pm

Truth Has A Liberal Bias

Oil with API gravity of 40 and less peaked in 2005. What we have today is a condensate glut.

All oil gets priced at the refinery. All kinds and types of oil is used. Oil from any source is successful if it makes money. This 2005 API at 40 peak is very questionable. There could be another peak of that type of oil in the next few years. Geopolitics has gotten in the way of production in Libya, Nigeria, Iraq and Iran etc. If and when their resources come online fracking oil could be replaced. But this is not a lack of oil in the ground. Just conflict zones that make it to dangerous.

makati1 on Fri, 11th Dec 2015 11:11 pm

You cannot 'kill' something that is already dying. You can only 'finish it off. Fraked oil was just another bubble supported by zero interest borrowing. If you own shale stock, dump it now.

Northwest Resident on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 10:31 am

Sorry, ennui2, depletion has already taken over. You just don't see it. For shale to return to its glory days of massive debt accumulation, somebody is going to have to give them billion$ of fresh cash to burn. That would require another massive propaganda blitz designed to reel in the suckers, the exact same suckers who are currently losing their asses on plunging shale investments, or who have already cashed out at pennies on the dollar. Granted, there are plenty of greed-driven suckers out there, but even those aren't stupid enough to get screwed by the same Big Lie twice in a row - well, most aren't. The FED would have to keep interest rates near zero and the banks would have to print up another few trillion$ - ain't gonna happen. And last but not least, there just isn't enough good oil to power another ramp-up in shale crap production, keeping in mind that the unconventional oil extracted is NOT sufficient to drive its own extraction, much less power the rest of the economy. No, ennui2, so sorry, your POV is in the realm of fantasy, a fact you shall soon be forced to recognize.

rockman on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 10:42 am

NR – Some valid points. But I watched a lot more "stupid money" (a technical term we really use in the oil patch) pissed away in the late 70's boom. But when/if there's another price inspired boom the greedy stupid money will return. The fed rates certainly helped push capital our way.

And sorry to preach about it again but the EROEI will never kill any play. Never has..never will. Poor economics will first. There were many Eagle Ford wells that didn't produce enough oil to recover half the money spent to drill and complete them. But the vast majority still produced more energy then used to drill them.

Davy on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 10:53 am

Rock/NR, we are seeing a little of both. The oil patch and Wall Street are not the same but they need each other and operate together when oil is being exploited. They both suffer from the others mistakes. We are seeing that now with the end of the shale boom.

It is my opinion we will likely never see those conditions again allowing another boom. We will not see virgin QE again. When bubbles burst they don't reflate the same. The best spots have been exploited. The economy is not what it was. We are in new waters and adrift. I imagine another stab at it will be made if prices elevate but with the condition of the global economy poor how long will any elevation of prices last before demand is again damaged. Remember we will not see virgin QE. We may see the slut version but sluts can't compare to sweet innocence of virginity.

Northwest Resident on Sat, 12th Dec 2015

rockman - Excellent points as usual. Stupid money! A lot of that stupid money has been soaked up by the 0.01% in a process known as "wealth transfer". Investment portfolios, retirement accounts - taking big hits and it is difficult to see at this point how they'll ever get a sufficient quantity of stupid money to reinvest in the next ass-reaming courtesy of the shale/unconventional biz.

I also do not doubt your assertion that the vast majority of Eagle Ford wells produced more energy than was used to drill them. BUT… When you take into account the entire process - exploration, drilling, extraction, delivery to refineries, refinement, storage, distribution - what we end up with is an industry as a whole that has flat out lost its ass and piled up an astronomical amount of unpayable debt. That FACT speaks for itself.

IF at the end of all that full-cycle production there had been net energy remaining, then the industry as a whole would have turned a profit. Excess net energy = profit, or am I wrong. Again, the fact that the whole shebang ended up in a trillion dollar pit of debt tells me that as a whole, the shale/unconventional business was a net energy sink. And that's without doing all the PHD level math - just looking at the obvious.

Or not?

Apneaman on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 1:01 pm

The drillers do not pay for the externalities, but someone or some tax payers do. What's the energy content when you add those up? Earthquake damage, torn up roads that need repaving, polluted water sources and the fixes. Workers at the "man camps" causing havoc in town, spills into streams and rivers and farmers fields, oil trains blowing entire towns up, etc, etc. The rockman don't give a fuck he just rolls into town, does his deed, gets paid and it's on to the next one. How many disasters are left after? How many sick kids and pregnant woman? What's the EROEI cost of all the unfortunate human externalities? I'm not sure, but the people profiting do not give a fuck – you can be sure of that. Donate a toy to a laid off oil patch workers kid and you are self exonerated. Now go do it again.

Northwest Resident on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 1:09 pm

"If this system breaks down enough it could unravel the exchange of goods around the world."

Already happening. International trade tanking. Container freight plumbing the depths of severe recession. Inventories piled high with no buyers in sight. Commodities producers standing in line to file for bankruptcy. Middle class shrinking.

Unraveling is an excellent word to describe just exactly what is happening right here and now.

Hey GregT - thanks. I found a moment of free time, a rarity for me these days. Been travelling a lot. The whole world is burning but in the financial sector things are still in overdrive, for the time being…

Northwest Resident on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 1:15 pm

Another thought before heading out for the day. Like I said above, I have been travelling a lot.

Recently returned from a 3-day biz trip to a major U.S. city. They flew us out there, put us up in a high class hotel, wined and dined us. We had two solid days of meetings - nothing that couldn't have been done via remote connections, but they wanted the "face to face".

Flying back, all I could think was what a godawful waste of good fuel this whole trip was. Multiply my trip by what? One hundred thousand similar trips per day worldwide, something like that? And we wonder why everything is going down the tubes. Isn't it obvious?

ennui2 on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 1:48 pm

"Prices are not going up (at least very far) because what remains of the world's petroleum reserve is just not very valuable"

Sure it is. Matt Simmons explained the value of oil. It's so valuable that even at $10/gallon it would be a steal for the amount of work it does as an energy slave.

shortonoil on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 2:10 pm
"EROEI could be negative in a sense, but just converting human energy"

Not to pick on twocats, but ERoEI is a ratio. Energy returned over energy invested. The only way it could be negative would be if there where such a thing as "negative energy". In our area of the universe there is not much of it, at least as far as we know.

It is this very lack of understanding of the most fundamental principals, by people in management and control positions, that makes our present situation most dire. The world is not likely to address our coming energy crisis very effectively if it does not even understand what is happening? The world has morphed into a society of techno geeks that fix the third clog on the fourth wheel. When the wheel falls off they are left with no solution to the problem.

rockman on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 5:08 pm

Greg – "Is it not EROEI that is killing 'poor economics'?" There is a relationship between rate of return and the amount of oil used/produced. But folks greatly overestimate the amount of fossil fuels we use in exploration and production.

The amount of capital spent to drill with those fossil fuels is typically less than 10% of the total well cost…often much less.

  • The well I often speak of that's been making 400 bopd for several years cost about $8 million to dill and complete.
  • But the diesel cost less than $600,000. IOW it took a lot less production to recover the fuel budget then the total cost of the well.

IOW I had to net only 15,000 bo to pay for the diesel at $40/bbl and net 200,000 bbls to pay for the entire well (made 360,000 bbls so far and still going strong). So an EROEI of 6 would mean netting 90,000 bo (15,000 bbls X 6). But if the well only netted me 90,000 bbls I would have made only $3.6 million…IOW I would have lost over $4 million. So if I knew it would have an EROEI of 6 I would never had drilled it.

Now to get to NR's point about total energy input for the entire process. Basically that has no bearing on what I decide to drill. It doesn't effect my drilling decisions if the entire dynamic produces a negative EROEI. For instance maybe the refining process is very low EROEI…doesn't make any difference to me. Likewise the refiner doesn't care if my drilling effort has a low EROEI. In fact he doesn't care if I also lost my ass on a well: hi sole concern is his profit margin. If he can use as much energy as his products produce he doesn't care if he's receiving a lot more revenue for his product the oil and cracking costs him. IOW a bbl of oil is currently selling for $0.90/gallon and gasoline for about twice that. BTW a lot of the energy used in refining comes from much cheaper NG then from oil.

Which explains why the EROEI of every phase (drilling, refining, marketing, etc) is not relevant to the DECISIONS made in the process. So even if the EROIE of the entire system is very low it doesn't have bearing on what happens IN EACH PHASE.

IOW as long as the MONETARY value of the energy delivered (not the Btu's) is high enough compared to the MONETARY cost of the energy input (and not the Btu's) the process goes forward. Which takes us full circle back to what I keep saying: EROEI never has and never will be used to make investment decisions in the oil patch. It $'s in vs $'s out…not Btu's.

Or let's put it in your lap: when you fill your car up with gasoline do you make that decision on the basis of its EROEI or on the price per gallon? IOW if you knew the EROEI of that gallon of ExxonMobil was much better then that at the Chevron station would you be willing to pay $0.40 more per gallon for it?

shortonoil on Sat, 12th Dec 2015 6:42 pm

"Comparing fake debt money to joules is retarded. When money=joules peak oil date can be predicted."

The petroleum industry still relies heavily on the British Engineering System of measures, so we use BTU in place of joules, 1 BTU = 1.0551 kJ. But basically that is what we do (did). We convert BTU to $s with a fairly good margin of error. Yes, the peak date can be predicted. It will be recorded as no latter than when the central banks had to stop printing huge amounts of currencies. Petroleum went through a critical thermodynamic point in 2012 so it is just a matter of how long the financial system can absorb the losses.

Stop by and check it out.

http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

  1. Davy on Sun, 13th Dec 2015 7:31 am

    I would like to point out something I have in my mind concerning EROI. I have been here on this board a long time so I have seen all the various pro's and con's on EROI. As a doomer and one who looks at doom systematically I find oil and its EROI interesting from the point of view of what is adequate for industrial civilization at the estimated 6 to 1. I feel because oil is existentially vital as a foundational fuel and feed stock it will be harvested at lower EROI's than is adequate for a modern society. How long is debatable and if it will be done is debatable because at a certain point it all comes down to human confidence that allows economic liquidity.

    Society may do this regardless of the ETP of oil. I am a firm believer in Short's Hill's group ETP equation. I am not an engineer nor very good with advanced math but I am good enough with conceptional relationships. The fact that oil's BTU utility and EROI falls below what supports industrial civilization will not stop oil continuing being used for the attempts at industrial civilization. Industrial man will continue to try to use oil even as the use of oil will be a sink not a gain.

    Industrial man can likely do this for much longer than we might theoretically imagine per the physics. There are so many ways for industrial man to subsidize the production of oil and cannibalize the greater infrastructure. I also will discount Short's ETP concerning price by saying oil and the economy are linked as a car and gas are. They have no use without the other. Sure postmodern man will be toying with oil for many generations hence but oil driving an economy puts oil in another category. This puts oil into the human nature category found in markets just as human nature must live in the reality of the physics of oil. Somewhere in the ether between this relationship a compromise is met.

    The price of oil is as much a function of the physics of oil as the human nature of its value. We can say the physics of oil trumps the human nature but this is just not fully accurate except in theory and absolutes. Humans will try to drive an economy far past what theory says is possible. Price will vary as much by oils BTU contribution to the greater economy as the human nature actions of price discovery. I want to add price discovery with all its distortions. We see those distortions today with QE and central bank repression.

    Our system is built upon economic fundamentals. One of these fundamentals is continuous substitution. We cannot substitute oil in an oil based society at the "foundational level". Greenies and other strains of technotopians talk this way but the reality is we are stuck with what we have because of scale of time, place, and productive ability. We can substitute oil's "declining value" by using other fossil fuels or alternative energies. We can use animal and human labor. We can realize vast wealth inequality with a two tier society with the elites using oil and the serfs in a postindustrial hybrid society of preindustrial technologies and lifestyles. In other words we will see an oil based man use oil even as his civilization decays. He will use oil even as it kills himself.

    Decay is random. Decay is about abandonment, dysfunction, and irrational. We are in and will increasingly enter a period of flux were our world is surreal. It will be surreal because it will be a growth based human system entering a bumpy descent. Once a full on descent is entered "meaning" will change. Of course the physics will not change but the human nature will change or not change in a random fashion.

    Where the human nature changes with reality we will see functional. Where it does not change we will see dysfunctional. There will be surreal dysfunctions with modern industrial oil based man living in a unsustainable decaying industrial system. He will attempt to run a civilization on oil far past where its contributions are positive to growth. He will use oil by choice even though it is destructive to his betterment. Industrial man has no choice for he knows no other life and has no tools to transition. It is nature that will force reality. It is man that will resist.

    In the period we are now in the price for oil will likely bounce all over the place because we are human and subject to human nature. That human nature is approaching a turbulence. Turbulence is one physical state without definition per physics. Please give me an equation for it. EROI and ETP are theories that represent reality. The psychology of humans is both rational and irrational. You mix these and you get a cocktail. This cocktail will be different at a growth/decay inflection point then it is now with an economy that is still growing. I say growing but that does not mean positive long term growth. Oil will likely be used long past ETP and EROI says it should be. Price will move around irrationally during the turbulent inflection point of growth and descent. Call that prattle and word salad but how else do you reconcile the rational and irrational.

  2. onlooker on Sun, 13th Dec 2015 8:02 am

    I would have to say that is a stupendous post Davy. I would add that oil as the foundational energy source is as you said irreplaceable even as some substitution can take place. Therefore, both out of desire but also out of need societies will still try and attain oil for its myriad of uses. I would like to cover a bit the pananorma of how this relates with regions of the planet and respective countries. As we are aware Northern countries are richer in may ways while Southern countries are more overpopulated relative to resources. On the other hand the reliance of Northern countries completely on a modern oil based infrastructre makes them particularly vulnerable to price fluctuations and both perceived instabilities as well as material/physical shortages and instabilities. On the other hand Asia with its vast population will find it very difficult to avoid the most drastic of effects of overshoot, meaning die-off. What is happening in the Midde East is so apparent a child can discern it. They are there first and foremost for the oil. The War on Terrror is but a smokescreen. Middle East is simply blessed with much oil and gas as well. The trajectory of powerdown is a composite of as you stated human rationality and irrationality along with physical realities that cannot be negotiated or changed. Thus, it will be both voluntary and forced. Oil will continue to play a role in human affairs for some time to come. The proof is how the Climate conferences including the latest in Paris are not really intent on substantial fossil fuel reduction and also because recent polls clearly show that people by and large are still not overly concerned with climate change. I think clearly humanity will have to endure massive die-off in a both gradual and at times abrupt manner. Industrial modern civilization cannot be maintained that much longer in so much as resource shortages of many kinds especially of course fossil fuels will not allow it. So modern civilization will wither away in fits and starts while humanity tries to adapt and mitigate. All the while climate change threatens ever more massive disruptions and discontinuities. At the other side of the bottleneck of overshoot perhaps remaining humans that probably will number less than a billion will try and maintain some level of functioning society and modernity but certainly at a much less complex level than now and beholden to the whims of Mother nature and what she has in store for us.

  1. rockman on Sun, 13th Dec 2015 8:52 am

    looker

    "So in fact peak oil will really bite when it is not so economically viable to find and produce oil for the market."

    Good point and there's a great visual to emphasize that point: look at the US oil production curve. We peaked about 35 years ago. And during those decades the inflation adjusted price of oil was less the current prices…and considerably less then during the height of the shale boom.

    And the shales boomed when oil price boomed. And not due to technology: horizontal drilling for unconventional reservoirs, like the Austin Chalk in Texas, was well established 15 years earlier. And frac'ng has changed very little for decades.

    IOW US oil production peaked because oil prices essentially peaked decades ago. Yes: up and down but no great movement like we saw when the shales boomed. And US oil production almost reached a new peak because oil prices reached near peak levels once again. Which means that we may not only be at global PO but the longer it takes for oil prices to significantly increase we may never again approach current production levels as depletion continues to take its toll. The recent increase in global oil production actually is the result of low oil prices…not higher. The oil price collapse has forced some producers, like the KSA, to bring their reserve capacity into play so as to increase the revenue stream. Which also means the lower oil prices are also increasing the depletion rate of existing proven reserves as well as hampering the development of new reserves.

    The recent oil price collapse may eventually be viewed as the ultimate "Oh sh*t" moment in the global energy dynamics.

  1. GregT on Sun, 13th Dec 2015 1:35 pm

    Why 2015 Is a Make-or-Break Year for the Global Economy

    WASHINGTON - As 2015 begins, policymakers around the world are faced with three fundamental choices: to strive for economic growth or accept stagnation; to work to improve stability or risk succumbing to fragility; and to cooperate or go it alone. The stakes could not be higher; 2015 promises to be a make-or-break year for the global community.

    For starters, growth and jobs are needed to support prosperity and social cohesion in the wake of the Great Recession that began in 2008. Six years after the eruption of the financial crisis, the recovery remains weak and uneven. Global growth is projected at just 3.3 percent in 2014 and 3.8 percent in 2015.

    Christine Lagarde
    Managing Director, IMF
    01/20/2015 11:24 am EST

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-lagarde/2015-global-economy_b_6502146.html

    According to Scotiabank's Global Forecast Update on Dec 3/2015, global growth is expected to weigh in at 3.1%, not even meeting the mediocre projections of 3.8% by the IMF. The make or break period has been broken.

    http://www.gbm.scotiabank.com/English/bns_econ/forecast.pdf

  1. GregT on Sun, 13th Dec 2015 1:56 pm

    "Oil consumption world wide is growing. Nat gas consumption is growing. Solar and wind is growing. Energy is growing. Coal use is growing. Energy is the base of all economies and there isn't any contraction in any of them. World GDP is growing. You doomers think you can fight facts but ya'll live in a false reality."

    Infinite exponential growth in a finite environment is a physical and mathematical impossibility. That is our reality Boat, and that is a fact. Whether you believe that you can fight it or not, is irrelevant. There has been a contraction in growth, and there will continue to be a further contraction in growth. The fact that you are unable to comprehend what that means, once again, exposes your level of intelligence. (or lack thereof)

  1. Apneaman on Sun, 13th Dec 2015 2:34 pm

    Boat, all that growth in energy does not seem to be translating into any real wealth or opportunity. Where is it all going boat? Energy is supposed to be the driver of the economy – not the economy. Of course you continue to completely ignore mounting debt. Also ignore going into the 8th year of ZIRP. How much of the economy is finalization? 30% – 40%? That's not real wealth and you along with many others seem to forget that the whole criminal finalization enterprise had to be bailed out just a handful of years ago. What's changed on that front? How about nothing except they are doing more of it and added QE and ZIRP yet people are expecting different results. Hows that work? Why would anyone expect things to improve knowing that? It's why many ignore it and hope instead. But not all and a growing number in America no longer believe the propaganda like you. Probably because they are hurting.

    The "American Dream" is Over–and Voters Know It

    "If the American Dream depends on skyrocketing debt built on a weakening foundation of stagnant productivity and income, then it is indeed over.
    Despite a ceaseless propaganda campaign declaring all is well with the U.S. economy, the Status Quo is fragile–and voters know it. Not only do they know the economy–and their financial security–is one crisis away from meltdown, they're also fed up with all the official gerrymandering of data to make the economy appear healthy.

    Many econo-gurus lay the blame for the Great Depression on the Federal Reserve tightening too soon, or not loosening credit enough, but this is nonsense: The Great Depression was the result of credit/borrowing (i.e. debt) outrunning the foundation that supports debt: productivity and income.
    Piling more debt on a base that isn't expanding fast enough to support skyrocketing debt leads to a collapse of the feebly supported debt: borrowers default, asset prices crash as buyers vanish and lenders go bankrupt as the assets held as collateral are repriced."

    more

    http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.jp/2015/12/the-american-dream-is-over-and-voters.html


[Dec 17, 2015] Drop of US shale oil production in 2016 can 1 Million barrel per day in the US and 1 Mb elsewhere

Notable quotes:
"... Jeffrey. I am thinking maybe when we hit new year we will see a dramatic oil rig drop, maybe below 300? They can't even pretend it makes sense to drill at sub $30 oil. ..."
"... I think output will drop by at least 1 Mb/d in the US if Euan is correct, possibly 1.5 Mb/d from Sept 2015 levels, for the rest of the World we would probably see at least another 1 Mb/d drop, so my wag is 2-3 Mb/d, combine this with the likely increase in demand for oil and I just don't see how this price forecast can be correct. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand, 12/17/2015 at 1:31 pm
Halcon Resources, which has significant Bakken production and per NDIC has 2 rigs running, stock price is indicating a BK announcement is coming. 18 cents per share, dropped 40% today.

A couple other noteworthy quotes.

  • Whiting fell below $10.
  • California Resources Corporation (OXY spinoff) fell below $2.
  • I suspicion much of CA oil and gas production has joined several other states in having overall production underwater on an operating basis.

Euan Mearns predicting Brent will finish 2016 at $37 and will breach $20 in 1H 2016. If Euan is correct, a large percentage of US conventional will be shut in.

Dennis, where do you see US production headed if Euan is correct and WTI average price in 2016 is $30. If he is correct, we will either shut down and or lose a lot of $$. There is nothing more to cut here.

shallow sand, 12/17/2015 at 2:40 pm

Jeffrey. I am thinking maybe when we hit new year we will see a dramatic oil rig drop, maybe below 300? They can't even pretend it makes sense to drill at sub $30 oil.

As for gas, I know little about it, other than $1 gas surely will cause further rig loss. Again, the price has dropped past the level where any E &P will be able to BS anyone. Glad I don't have any ND sour crude to sell. Flint Hills might pay you $6 for it?

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 3:53 pm

Hi Shallow sands,

I think output will drop by at least 1 Mb/d in the US if Euan is correct, possibly 1.5 Mb/d from Sept 2015 levels, for the rest of the World we would probably see at least another 1 Mb/d drop, so my wag is 2-3 Mb/d, combine this with the likely increase in demand for oil and I just don't see how this price forecast can be correct.

Keep in mind that I consistently get prices wrong, so perhaps Euan is correct, if he disagrees with me that increases his odds. ;-)

[Dec 17, 2015] Fossil fuels are we on the edge of the Seneca cliff

Notable quotes:
"... This question can be described in terms of the Seneca Cliff , a concept that I proposed a few years ago to describe how the production of a non renewable resource may show a rapid decline after passing its production peak. ..."
"... I guess the system really is on its last legs when oil is produced non-profitably to keep the system running simply via central banks magically printing money by fiat. Obviously such slight of hand is not sustainable. ..."
"... ..."
December 7, 2014 | Cassandra's Legacy
It is a well known tenet of people working in system dynamics that there exist plenty of cases of solutions worsening the problem. Often, people appear to be perfectly able to understand what the problem is, but, just as often, they tend to act on it in the wrong way. It is a concept also expressed as "pushing the lever in the wrong direction."

With fossil fuels, we all understand that we have a depletion problem, but the solution, so far, has been to drill more, to drill deeper, and to keep drilling. Squeezing out some fuel by all possible sources, no matter how difficult and expensive, could offset the decline of conventional fields and keep production growing for the past few years. But is it a real solution? That is, won't we pay the present growth with a faster decline in the future?

This question can be described in terms of the "Seneca Cliff", a concept that I proposed a few years ago to describe how the production of a non renewable resource may show a rapid decline after passing its production peak. A behavior that can be shown graphically as follows:


It is not just a theoretical model: there are several historical cases where the production of a resource collapsed after having reached a peak. For instance, here are the data for the Caspian sturgeon, a case that I termed "peak caviar".

Lukas Rezny, December 7, 2014 at 2:16 PM

Kopits presented some interesting data about capex values and oil production for the listed oil majors (pages 40-42) - http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/energy/Kopits%20-%20Oil%20and%20Economic%20Growth%20%28SIPA%2C%202014%29%20-%20Presentation%20Version%5B1%5D.pdf
That might be useful for the model, but not quite enough to quantify k3...if that is necessary after all.

Burgundy, December 9, 2014 at 2:25 AM

Regarding the oil shale plays, it would seem the capex is driven by external finance rather than reinvestment of profits. I guess this also extends the peak beyond what would be capable using only reinvestment of profits.

I guess the system really is on its last legs when oil is produced non-profitably to keep the system running simply via central banks magically printing money by fiat. Obviously such slight of hand is not sustainable.

AnonymousDecember 16, 2014 at 3:21 PM

This might explain why, recently, oil prices have fallen even though production costs are high. I was going to ask Prof. Bardi if he can explain the recent price declines so near the presumed Seneca Peak. Looks like it may be from something external to the simple models he presented.

AnonymousAugust 27, 2015 at 2:37 PM

I suspect a combination of ongoing demand destruction (aka economic stagnation) and good old-fashioned market manipulation (by OPEC, mainly, mebby others).

Not to put words in Prof. Bardi's mouth, but the models presented here are doubtless intended to be illustrative, not definitive. In any case, of course, "definitive" modeling is only possible after (usually long after) the modeled event(s) have run to completion and all significant factors have been (retrospectively) identified. This is the core difficulty with, for example, the global climate-change models; unforeseen-but-necessary consequences, both as to type and rate of event, keep arising. Thus the ever-moving target of "probable consequence and schedule."

Mikkel, December 10, 2014 at 2:50 PM

"Often, people appear to be perfectly able to understand what the problem is, but, just as often, they tend to act on it in the wrong way. "

Whenever I complain to my grandmother about something in society that doesn't make sense, she tells me, "Everything makes sense to the people doing it, you just have to ask who and when does it help?"

From that perspective, I have come to accept that market failures on finite resources are what us programmers call a feature, not a bug. In the sturgeon example (and bluefin tuna is another good one) the collective industry gets richer and richer as the price rises, since profits rise faster than expenses, but even on the down slope it causes superior outcomes for some players. At first, these are the legacy players that happen to be able to hold out the longest and find a high price, lower competition environment; but eventually a lot of resources are spent even when total output is low because it becomes a lottery.

If the goal of producers was to contribute to society then you are right they are doing the wrong thing, but if it is the hope of getting rich then they are doing the absolutely correct thing. After all, the producers are able to get external financing and can restructure debt when things go wrong, so it is a heads we win, tails you lose situation with their investors.

Traditional fishing villages in Japan rarely catch bluefin these days, but any ship that does catch a few is a ticket to retirement, so a myriad of boats still set out, backed by small investor pools playing a physical equivalent of the lotto.

Random positive reinforcement is *the* strongest operant conditioner. The only factor that seems to break the cycle is complete and sustained demand destruction. As long as demand remains, even if it is just among the luxury class, these dynamics seem to hold.

This seems to make the Seneca Cliff not only plausible, but inevitable.

AnonymousAugust 27, 2015 at 2:47 PM

Mikkel's astute comments (for which thanks!) resonate perfectly with Garrett Hardin's observations on the "tragedy of the commons" so many years ago. Hence the necessity and inevitability of "demand destruction" aka collapse/depopulation so eloquently posited by the "doom-sayers."

The only way forward/out of this morass, so far as I can see, is a truly massive (and highly improbable) change/elevation of collective human consciousness. Ironically, such an event seems most likely as a late (likely too late) consequence of that "demand-destruction."

[Dec 17, 2015] The ongoing collapse of oil prices leads to running out of the capital resources necessary to keep developing new fields and Seneca cliff in production of oil

Notable quotes:
"... The world's motor vehicle numbers are up 50% in the last 10 years ..."
"... When you take oil out of the ground you deplete the resource asset and when you burn it you deplete the clean air. ..."
"... Entire countries sell the family silver by way of their resources, yet their governments record economic growth as if it were just general revenue. ..."
"... Peak oil now or peak oil a little later, it seems that a Seneca Cliff is heading our way. ..."
"... Depletion of natural resources is stalking us like a cat stalking a bird, and the cat already close enough to pounce. If the bird doesn't get moving FAST, it is all over for the bird. ..."
"... We have a shot at avoiding the very worst consequences of the depleting resources Seneca Cliff, and we ought to make the most of it. ..."
"... Are we going to move fast, or is the DEPLETION CAT going to have us for lunch? ..."
"... Population for the World is not growing exponentially, from 1968 to 2010 World population growth was linear, about 81.6 million people per year were added to the World's population from 1968 to 2010. ..."
"... The only way the World will transition away from fossil fuels is if the prices of fossil fuels are higher and remain high. Whether we can transition quickly enough to alternatives as fossil fuel output declines depends on too many factors to predict. ..."
"... I have heard there is a worldwide abundance of the heavy sour oil but not enough of the light sweet oil… is that correct? ..."
"... When it comes to light sweet oil, the United States has a dearth of refining capacity. And since the new production coming on line from the shale plays is light sweet oil, the U.S. refineries are not able to handle it all. ..."
"... DEPA claims there are a number of refineries around the world that face closure due to a lack of supply of light sweet crude. ..."
"... I think this was an excellent move on the part of the dim rats. It won't cost us anything so far as I can see, or at least not much, and that out of the pockets of the owners of refineries making windfall profits because of the ban on exports. ..."
"... It will probably help lower the cost of diesel a little, compared to gasoline. That would be good for everybody, because business runs almost exclusively on diesel. Gasoline is a consumer good, diesel in this country is an industrial commodity. ..."

Sydney Mike, 12/17/2015 at 4:21 am

The climate conference brought as usual no important advances. The world's motor vehicle numbers are up 50% in the last 10 years. We think a doubling or so every 20 years is normal. The air in much of Asia is toxic. Living in places like India, China and surrounds is a constant health hazard. Yet these clowns see progress and development (=more burning of fossil fuels) as their way forward. Let's add another 50 million stinking and gas guzzling cars to our fleet each year and another coal power plant or two each week in China.

The great failure of economists is to keep environmental factors out of their calculations. When you take oil out of the ground you deplete the resource asset and when you burn it you deplete the clean air. It is amazing that we let them get away with it.

Entire countries sell the family silver by way of their resources, yet their governments record economic growth as if it were just general revenue.

Peak oil now or peak oil a little later, it seems that a Seneca Cliff is heading our way.

oldfarmermac, 12/17/2015 at 9:22 am
"Peak oil now or peak oil a little later, it seems that a Seneca Cliff is heading our way."

Dead on, any body who is scientifically literate and has taken the time to acquaint himself with the depletion of one time thru resources is compelled to agree, we are headed into very dangerous waters. A miracle or two a long about now would be great, but I am not holding my breath.

Depletion of natural resources is stalking us like a cat stalking a bird, and the cat already close enough to pounce. If the bird doesn't get moving FAST, it is all over for the bird.

We have a shot at avoiding the very worst consequences of the depleting resources Seneca Cliff, and we ought to make the most of it.

Scaling up renewables is going to take a hell of a long time, and we are ninety nine point nine nine percent damned sure to be VERY short of oil and gas before we get even a quarter enough wind and solar farms built to enable us to cut back very much on coal, and save the gas for other essential purposes such as manufacturing fertilizers and other commodities.

Of course nothing would suit our hard core defenders of the fossil fuel status quo better than an oil and gas supply crisis.

Such a crisis will make the nickel and dime players who own production assets RICH, and the ones who are rich already will become several times as rich.

If I were younger and had more money, I would be looking at doing a little bottom feeding in the oil industry myself. It seems to me the odds are EXCELLENT that oil will spike just as sharply, within the next few years, as it crashed a year or so ago. Depletion never sleeps.

Are we going to move fast, or is the DEPLETION CAT going to have us for lunch?

Population and consumption per capita of resources are both growing exponentially.

This is not going to end well.

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 10:41 am
Hi Old Farmer Mac,

Population for the World is not growing exponentially, from 1968 to 2010 World population growth was linear, about 81.6 million people per year were added to the World's population from 1968 to 2010.

http://www.un.org/en/development/desa/population/publications/pdf/trends/Concise%20Report%20on%20the%20World%20Population%20Situation%202014/en.pdf

especially Figure II on page 5

Chart below with UN medium and low fertility variants, hopefully the World will follow the low fertility path.

oldfarmermac , 12/17/2015 at 12:36 pm
Hi Dennis, ya caught me having a senior moment when I said "exponentially".

You are not the first person to catch me in that mistake. It seems to be a habit, like forgetting where I put my glasses.

I generally point out that population growth has been flattening, and with birth rates falling fast in most countries.

Personally I am hopeful that between cheap birth control tech and the spread of cheap electronic communications, people almost everywhere will get the idea the way women in Brazil got the idea.

The odds imo are good that the low case UN scenario is still a little on the high side.

Birth control is incredibly cheap compared to supporting children, and the old "gotta have kids to work the farm and support us in our old age " paradigm is pretty well smashed to bits any place where people are giving up rural life for the city and the city job.

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 10:48 am
Hi Old Farmer Mac,

The only way the World will transition away from fossil fuels is if the prices of fossil fuels are higher and remain high. Whether we can transition quickly enough to alternatives as fossil fuel output declines depends on too many factors to predict.

I agree with those who think it will not be smooth sailing, whether the boat sinks or not is unknown. The main question is whether we can we bail the water as fast as the ship takes on water.

islandboy, 12/17/2015 at 5:25 am
Ban on US crude oil exports to be lifted!

The actual headline from my favorite EV news site was:

Solar 30% Tax Credit To Be Renewed For 5 More Years, PV Stocks Soar

The "solar cliff" looks to have just been avoided.

The 30% federal credit for solar energy was set to expire in 2017 to be replaced with a 10% credit for businesses and eliminated entirely for residential solar consumers; basically signalling a huge roadblock for widespread PV adoption in about~13 months time.

However, late last night House Republicans took the wraps off of new legislation which had provisions for five year extensions of tax credits for solar and wind.

And if that action seemed a bit odd for the Republications…or at least a bit out of character, well, there are trade-offs. The cost was the end of protracted negotiations with the Democrats over the ban on exports of U.S. crude oil.

The extension of the Investment Tax Credit (ITC) for solar and the Production Tax Credit (PTC) for wind is widely expected to now be approved shortly (Thursday or Friday) as Democratic leaders said yesterday they would support new Republican proposals, provided those renewable energy credit extensions were attached.

Arceus, 12/17/2015 at 5:40 am
Does anyone have an idea who actually benefits from the removal of the crude export ban?

I have heard there is a worldwide abundance of the heavy sour oil but not enough of the light sweet oil… is that correct?

Glenn Stehle, 12/17/2015 at 6:30 am
Arceus,

When it comes to light sweet oil, the United States has a dearth of refining capacity. And since the new production coming on line from the shale plays is light sweet oil, the U.S. refineries are not able to handle it all.

Outside the U.S., however, the majority of refining capacity is for light sweet oil.

Glenn Stehle, 12/17/2015 at 6:35 am
DEPA claims there are a number of refineries around the world that face closure due to a lack of supply of light sweet crude.

https://www.eia.gov/conference/2015/pdf/presentations/hamm.pdf

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 8:17 am

Hi Islandboy,

This seems like a win for those who would prefer an eventual transition to alternative energy, not as good as a carbon tax, but better than nothing. Rockman has long said the export ban makes little difference because the excess light sweet crude can be swapped for imported heavy oil and the export ban was pretty meaningless. So getting these tax credits extended (because a carbon tax will only be passed in the US when the Greenland ice sheet has returned to the ocean, around 2499 give or take a 100 years) is a win for the planet.

oldfarmermac, 12/17/2015 at 10:39 am
Hi Dennis,

I think this was an excellent move on the part of the dim rats. It won't cost us anything so far as I can see, or at least not much, and that out of the pockets of the owners of refineries making windfall profits because of the ban on exports.

It will probably help lower the cost of diesel a little, compared to gasoline. That would be good for everybody, because business runs almost exclusively on diesel. Gasoline is a consumer good, diesel in this country is an industrial commodity.

The dim rats ought to have put one over on the repugnathans the same way with the Keystone. Building it would not have resulted in any significant environmental harm, in terms of the BIG picture, and they could have extracted all sorts of environmental concessions out of the repugnathans by cutting a deal.

The pipeline pushers would gladly have spent megabucks for that permit. The money could have been usefully spent on anything from expanding protected lands to medical research.

As a practical matter, all is fair in love war and politics.

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 11:41 am
Hi Old Farmer Mac,

I agree on the Keystone pipeline. Perhaps Obama should reverse his decision in return for a carbon tax, he could throw in elimination of the Wind and Solar subsidies as long as the carbon tax was high enough and the legislation was for a 20 year period.

Maybe start at some lower level with an increase in the tax each year at the rate of inflation plus 2% (roughly a 4 to 5% increase each year), start at $20/ton of carbon (the tax would be based on carbon emissions from burning the fuel, this is equivalent to about a 5 cent per gallon tax increase on one gallon of gasoline).

If we assume an average increase of 4.5% per year, the tax gradually rises from $20/ tonne of carbon to $48/tonne in 20 years time.

If Obama could accomplish that it would be huge, as I said before, probably not until Greenland is green again (around 2525).

John S, 12/17/2015 at 6:27 am
Post Carbon Institute: Eagle Ford Reality Check by David Hughes at this link:

http://www.postcarbon.org

shallow sand, 12/17/2015 at 7:54 am
http://www.chk.com/investor/presentations

The most recent presentation shows Chesapeake "break evens" in all of their major plays.

AlexS, 12/17/2015 at 8:28 am
shallow sand ,

Here are direct links to this and a newer presentation:

http://www.chk.com/Documents/investors/Bank_of_America_Final_11_9_15.pdf

http://www.chk.com/Documents/investors/Citibank_FINAL_12_16_15.pdf

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 9:06 am
Thanks JohnS,

I was interested in checking David Hughes work as the 242 wells needed to keep output flat seemed a bit too high. I have a slightly different peak at 1580 kb/d on March 2015, Hughes may have used all production from the Eagle Ford region, or my estimate may be incorrect.

I do not have access to drilling info data. In any case I used a model based on Rune Likvern's Red Queen model and a well profile I developed using Eagle Ford RRC lease data. Errors are my responsibility, Mr. Likvern has not checked my work, I want to give credit to his original work on this idea as applied to the North Dakota Bakken/Three Forks.

Model below has 242 new wells added each month from Oct 2015 to Jan 2017, output increases to 1700 kb/d by Dec 2016, so my suspicion seems to be correct.

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 9:20 am
A second scenario with the only change being 185 new wells per month from Oct 2015 to Jan 2017,
output was about 1435 kb/d in Sept 2015, output falls to an average of 1420 kb/d from Oct 2015 to Dec 2016 in this scenario. It is doubtful that this many wells will be completed if the current low oil prices continue for the period covered by this scenario.

Dennis Coyne, 12/17/2015 at 9:46 am
Ok lets assume Bloomberg's estimate of 1250 DUCs in the Eagle Ford(EF) at the end of April 2015 is correct and that this count has decreased by 50 each month for 5 months so that presently the DUCs are 1000 in the EF. Lets also assume a rig count going forward that will average 75 rigs from now until Jan 2017 and that 1.4 wells per rig can be drilled, that is 105 new wells drilled and let's assume 50 wells completed from the fracklog over the next 15 months (until Dec 2016), that would correspond with 155 new wells per month. Scenario below has 155 new wells added each month from Oct 2015 to Jan 2017, output falls from 1435 kb/d in Sept 2015 to 1286 kb/d in Dec 2016, a drop of 149 kb/d and 291 kb/d below the March 2015 peak of 1577 kb/d.

[Dec 17, 2015] No fear Banks bet on energy comeback

Notable quotes:
"... In the end, most lenders were relatively generous in setting credit lines, while also insisting on more protections, including holding more collateral against the loans, according to bankers and others familiar with the process. ..."
"... Banks were also optimistic in their projections for future oil prices, forecasting that the U.S. oil benchmark WTI would average $47.36 in 2016, according to a late-October survey of 32 banks from Macquarie Capital Inc. The banks predicted the price would continue rising in the following years. ..."
"... A November regulatory report said that the number of loans rated as "substandard, doubtful or loss" among oil and gas borrowers almost quintupled to $34.2 billion of total classified commitments, versus $6.9 billion in 2014. ..."
"... energy consultancy IHS data shows more than a fifth of U.S. oil production comes from thousands of small, mostly private companies that do not file public disclosures about their finances-and rely heavily on bank credit for financing. ..."
December 16, 2015 | Yahoo/WSJ

Banks are betting that pain in the oil patch is short-lived.

Even after a steady drop in energy prices through the second half of the year, banks in the U.S. are being lenient with cash-strapped companies rather than set tougher lending constraints that could make survival more difficult. The strategy is helping energy borrowers, but could result in higher losses for lenders if prices don't rebound.

The twice-yearly process in which lenders assess certain energy exposures was unusually intense this fall. In the end, most lenders were relatively generous in setting credit lines, while also insisting on more protections, including holding more collateral against the loans, according to bankers and others familiar with the process.

... ... ...

Banks were also optimistic in their projections for future oil prices, forecasting that the U.S. oil benchmark WTI would average $47.36 in 2016, according to a late-October survey of 32 banks from Macquarie Capital Inc. The banks predicted the price would continue rising in the following years.

... ... ...

Still, projections for losses on energy loans keep rising broadly-and some banks have started to increase their own forecasts for such losses. A November regulatory report said that the number of loans rated as "substandard, doubtful or loss" among oil and gas borrowers almost quintupled to $34.2 billion of total classified commitments, versus $6.9 billion in 2014.

Much of the risk to the financial system remains hidden for now, and may not be known until problems become severe. While larger producers have been able to withstand the pressure so far, energy consultancy IHS data shows more than a fifth of U.S. oil production comes from thousands of small, mostly private companies that do not file public disclosures about their finances-and rely heavily on bank credit for financing.

[Dec 17, 2015] This year car sales in China will be a staggering 23 million

The world's motor vehicle numbers are up 50% in the last 10 years
peakoilbarrel.com
Peter, 12/17/2015 at 3:19 am
China car sales have been increasing year on year regardless of oil price.

http://www.statista.com/statistics/233743/vehicle-sales-in-china/

They want the things they see people in America using, this year car sales in China will be a staggering 23 million.

http://www.caam.org.cn/AutomotivesStatistics/20151216/0905181419.html

I know this is a couple of years old but China has a long way to go to get to the ownership levels of Europe, let alone the United States.

http://www.planetizen.com/node/58169

What will fuel these vehicles? Is China worried about peak oil like Ron is?

http://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asia-Pacific/2014/0627/Why-China-stays-quiet-on-Iraq-despite-being-no.-1-oil-investor-video

China knows how much oil Iraq can produce and most of it will end up in China

[Dec 17, 2015] I see no effort to stabilize world oil markets

Notable quotes:
"... I see no effort to stabilize this world markets. ..."
"... Thats b/c commodity prices are not based solely on Supply and Demand but also political manipulation by exporting state(s) as well as large corporate and private buyers who can and do horde a commodity or dump a commodity while playing the Commodity Options markets. ..."
"... Fundamentals do set the price of commodities however it must be understood that with commodities fundamentals can and are manipulated by Big Players, eg. the Kochs and energy in the USA; ..."
"... The point is commodity markets are gamed by the players if at all possible. There is very little actual hedging despite what you may believe b/c commodity contracts in the Options pits are unlimited, that is not limited to actual physical commodity available. ..."
"... Yes, core indexes are primarily a proxy for a tacit wage index ..."
"... I think as long as the price of Oil is below $40 a barrel inflation will remain nonexistent Ceteris paribus. ..."
"... If the FedRes had waited until oil went back above $40 a barrel given the other factors of our GDP remaining strong as they are today they would have been on sound basis for raising Interest rates. ..."
economistsview.typepad.com
Peter K. -> Paine, December 16, 2015 at 01:27 PM
Like what's going on with oil prices? I see them like speculative bubbles. They can go up and down and sometimes move because of speculators or unusual events involving producer nations' economies. They are tenuously related to the real economy and wages and core inflation.

Like with the housing bubble, if demand is artificially pumped up for too long, it will eventually come back down to a more relation to the real economy and incomes.

The crackpot conspiracy theorists and Austrians obsess over central banks and the "carry trade", but the reality is much less exotic.

Paine -> Peter K....
Interestingly the post WWII [period] was filled with discussions of commodity markets and state stabilization mechanisms. I note this would hit economic rents not wages unlike core controls

I see no effort to stabilize this world markets. Fuel or Cereals or ores or metals by global inter state organizations. I note the great inelasticity of demand

likbez -> Peter K....

"I see them like speculative bubbles. They can go up and down and sometimes move because of speculators or unusual events involving producer nations' economies."

I respectfully disagree. Oil is a strategic commodity with huge geo-polical implications. Iraq war, Libya war and Syria war are all "wars for oil."

In other words low oil prices are critical for survival of neoliberalism as a social system. An the USA elite understands this perfectly well.

High oil prices essentially mean secular stagnation. Sooner or later you might have "USSR story" with neoliberalism in this case.

Current low oil prices mean approximately one half to one trillion dollar transfer from oil producing nations to G7 nations. So it is in the best interest of the USA and G7 to prolong this period as long as possible.

And I think today's FED raise would be completely impossible without low oil prices either.

I think people who organized and financed the current shale boom via junk bond debt are very bright people. Like chess players they say three moves ahead: the collapse of shale industry can be beneficial for the USA if this is the price to pay for several years of low oil prices.

And please note that number of bankruptcies so far has been very low. Somebody still refinances the fraction of total shale industry junk debt that comes due.

Of the 97 USA energy exploration and production companies rated by S&P, 75 are below investment grade ( http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-04-30/shale-drillers-feast-on-junk-debt-to-say-on-treadmill )

anne -> Paine ...
https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=2VZu

January 15, 2015

Producer & Import Commodities and Consumer Price Indexes, 2007-2015

(Percent change)

im1dc -> Paine ...

That's b/c commodity prices are not based solely on Supply and Demand but also political manipulation by exporting state(s) as well as large corporate and private buyers who can and do horde a commodity or dump a commodity while playing the Commodity Options markets.

Fundamentals do set the price of commodities however it must be understood that with commodities "fundamentals" can and are manipulated by Big Players, eg. the Kochs and energy in the USA; a few years back pork bellies were secretly hanging in cold storage by the multiple tons by some midwestern concerns waiting for the day to sell (might have worked out for them given today's price of bacon); cotton is routinely horded and dumped according to the weather reports in cotton country globally; and, oil once there was an organization called OPEC.

im1dc -> im1dc...

The point is commodity markets are gamed by the players if at all possible. There is very little actual hedging despite what you may believe b/c commodity contracts in the Options pits are unlimited, that is not limited to actual physical commodity available.

anne -> Paine ...
Why don't we see much on a commodity price index and an exploration of it here ?

And an import price index ?

Yes, core indexes are primarily a proxy for a tacit wage index

And commodity prices tend to bob up and down around the core index

But why !

[What does it mean, that core indexes are a proxy for a wage index? ]

Paine -> anne...

The bundle of products in the core index are industrial complex products
Where dynamic and cyclical rents play very little part in price formation

Rents here might as well be wind falls except when they're contrived by policy
Even if inadvertently or collaterally

anne -> anne...

Yes, core indexes are primarily a proxy for a tacit wage index

The bundle of products in the core index are industrial complex products
Where dynamic and cyclical rents play very little part in price formation

Rents here might as well be windfalls except when they're contrived by policy
Even if inadvertently or collaterally

[ Really interesting. ]

im1dc said...

This I take to be the price of crude oil below $40. But she doesn't mention when she believes this "softness" might "abate" and that could in 2017 which makes raising interest rates today highly questionable, imo.

United States - 2h ago

"Federal Reserve's Yellen: Recent softness in US inflation data is attributed to 'transitory' factors that are expected to abate - @WSJ"

Read more on blogs.wsj.com

Paine -> im1dc...

Core rates look pretty anemic to me. How about u all ? 2 % core as a ceiling is looking more and more like studied policy !

Syaloch -> im1dc...

This part has me scratching my head. Just wait until oil prices take off. Inflation target met! Economy saved! Uh, but that's the bad cholesterol, not the good cholesterol...

im1dc -> im1dc...

In her press conference after the rate hike announcement today Chairperson Yellen said the FedRes interest rate hike by .25% was "preemptive."

That means there is no inflation at present and the FedRes doesn't want there to be behind the curve if and when Inflation returns.

However as either Duy or Becker wrote Monday the FedRes has a very poor record of predicting Inflation b/c they've seen it coming and warning us about it for 3 years with no inflation in sight.

I think as long as the price of Oil is below $40 a barrel inflation will remain nonexistent Ceteris paribus.

If the FedRes had waited until oil went back above $40 a barrel given the other factors of our GDP remaining strong as they are today they would have been on sound basis for raising Interest rates.

That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

[Dec 17, 2015] Very few shale companies were cash flow positive even when oil price was at $90-100

peakoilbarrel.com
AlexS, 12/16/2015 at 11:25 am
shallow sand

In fact, very few shale companies were cash flow positive even when oil price was at $90-100.
This article by Art Berman shows that, among 18 largest oil-weighted US independents, only 3 companies had years with positive cashflows in 2011-14:
Conoco (in 2013); Marathon Oil (in 2011, 2013 and 2014) and OXY (in 2012-14).
Note that all these companies are not pure shale players.

http://www.artberman.com/the-oil-price-collapse-is-because-of-expensive-tight-oil/

[Dec 17, 2015] A Republican provision would lift the 40-year ban on exports of crude oil from the United States

www.nytimes.com

Fred C. Dobbs said...

'a Republican provision ... would lift the 40-year
ban on exports of crude oil from the United States.'

House Reaches Accord on Spending
and Tax Cuts http://nyti.ms/1SZKkH2
NYT - DAVID M. HERSZENHORN and ROBERT PEAR - DEC. 15

WASHINGTON - Republican and Democratic negotiators in the House clinched a deal late Tuesday on a $1.1 trillion spending bill and a huge package of tax breaks.

Legislative drafters, racing a midnight deadline, met the time limit for issuing the tax package but apparently missed it for the spending bill. That could push back a vote on the House floor by one day, until Friday.

The late-hour tension emphasized the deep disagreements over an array of policy provisions that have left weeks of negotiations tinged with acrimony. Since the Republicans took back control of the House in 2011, a majority in the party has routinely opposed compromise budget and spending measures, forcing party leaders to rely on Democrats for votes to clear the bills. All signs indicate that the same dynamic is playing out now.

But the House Democratic leader, Representative Nancy Pelosi of California, has voiced angry opposition to the huge package of tax breaks, saying it would unfairly benefit big business. And even Tuesday night, some Democrats in the House leadership said Ms. Pelosi was on the verge of turning against the omnibus spending measure because of her opposition to a Republican provision that would lift the 40-year ban on exports of crude oil from the United States.

Republican congressional leaders and the White House reached a budget accord in late October that set top-line spending levels for 2016 and 2017. Throughout Tuesday, major components of the spending legislation appeared to be falling into place, including a tentative agreement to alter major provisions of the Affordable Care Act, delaying a planned tax on high-cost health insurance plans and suspending a tax on medical devices for two years.

Lawmakers also said the package would include the reauthorization and expansion of aid for emergency workers suffering from ailments related to the Sept. 11, 2001, terrorist attacks in New York.

Paul D. Ryan has gained momentum in his early weeks as speaker, clearing a major highway bill and an important education measure. But the omnibus spending bill, needed to keep the government functioning, presented a particular challenge given the Obama administration's opposition to numerous policy prescriptions that Republicans wanted to attach to the must-pass bill.

There were indications late Tuesday that Mr. Ryan and Republicans had been forced to give substantial ground, and that the spending measure would not include provisions tightening restrictions on Syrian and Iraqi refugees. A stand-alone measure to tighten those restrictions passed overwhelmingly in the House, but the White House and Senate Democrats said they would block it.

And while Mr. Ryan has won plaudits from his rank and file for running a more inclusive House, the late rush to finish the spending deal seemed likely to test him on that front.

The question of delaying important provisions of the Affordable Care Act provided a surprising area of common ground - among Republicans who have sought to dismantle President Obama's signature health care law, and Democrats who had reservations about a tax on generous health plans. The White House and many economists have defended the "Cadillac tax" on high-cost employer-sponsored health plans as a way to reduce health costs and make the health care system more efficient.

But lawmakers said they had tentatively agreed to delay the tax, originally scheduled to take effect in 2018, by two years. Labor unions strenuously opposed the tax, saying it could lead to reductions in health benefits prized by their members. ...

ilsm said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...
Before exporting US oil the imports run 10 million bbl per day.

To export .5 mbbl/day US imports will go to 10.5M..........

[Dec 17, 2015] OPEC production excluding Saudi and Iraq is down, this is totally due to 2 countries that have disintegrated into civil war

Notable quotes:
"... Looking at all the countries that have increased and declined in production over the last few years. It is quite clear that if peak oil is in 2015, then it is nothing to do with geological peak. ..."
"... OPEC production excluding Saudi and Iraq is down, this is totally due to 2 countries that have disintegrated into civil war. They are Syria and Libya which combined were producing 2.3 million barrels a day. The only way for these two countries to go is up and when that happens another 2 million barrels of oil will come on to the market. ..."
"... Iran will bring on an extra 500,000 to a million barrels per day in the next few years. ..."
"... Peter, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "Predictions are very hard, especially about the future."But Yogi never said that, it was Niels Bohr, the quantum physicists. Which makes it even more pertinent. ..."
"... Now you are getting your rocks off because a few people who predicted peak oil back a few years ago were wrong. And, you apparently believe, that because they were wrong back then that they will be wrong forever. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
Peter, 12/16/2015 at 8:05 am
2015 Peak oil.

Looking at all the countries that have increased and declined in production over the last few years. It is quite clear that if peak oil is in 2015, then it is nothing to do with geological peak.

Those who try and pretend that above ground factors are a part of peak oil no not know what M. King Hubbert was talking about.

OPEC production excluding Saudi and Iraq is down, this is totally due to 2 countries that have disintegrated into civil war. They are Syria and Libya which combined were producing 2.3 million barrels a day. The only way for these two countries to go is up and when that happens another 2 million barrels of oil will come on to the market.

The naysayers on the Oildrum were so sure that Iraq would never produce 4 million barrels per day, it has surpassed that already. Optimistic and pessimistic forecasts put Iraq production at between 6 and 8 million barrels per day by 2020.

Iran will bring on an extra 500,000 to a million barrels per day in the next few years.

Claiming peak oil now is like someone claiming peak food during World War Two because lots of farmers were killed and millions of livestock killed and fields burned or left untended.

http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2015/04/10/wwii-reparations-rare-footage-from-greeces-occupation-by-the-nazis-video/

Ron Patterson, 12/16/2015 at 12:42 pm
Peter, Yogi Berra is supposed to have said: "Predictions are very hard, especially about the future."But Yogi never said that, it was Niels Bohr, the quantum physicists. Which makes it even more pertinent.

No one that I have ever read predicted the oil price increase post 2005. No one I know predicted the price collapse in 2008, or the long plateau of high prices that followed a couple of years later. I know of no one that predicted the shale revolution, or the oil price collapse of 2014-2015.

Hardly anyone predicted the dot com bust, I know of no one that predicted the mini computer revolution that did in my old mainframe company, Digital Equipment Corp. A very few predicted the housing bubble collapse. No one predicted that interest rates would stay near zero since 2008, seven years now.

Now you are getting your rocks off because a few people who predicted peak oil back a few years ago were wrong. And, you apparently believe, that because they were wrong back then that they will be wrong forever.

Well, I could expect no better logic from someone who has no idea what peak oil really is, a person who thinks it has nothing to do with above ground economics.

[Dec 16, 2015] Moody's in sharp cut to 2016 oil price forecasts

www.cnbc.com

Moody's lowered its price assumption in 2016 for Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, to $43 from $53 per barrel and for West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude, the North American benchmark, to $40 from $48 per barrel.

[Dec 16, 2015] What Blows Up First Part 5 Shale Oil Junk Bonds

dollarcollapse.com

As for what might cause the junk market to crack, one prime candidate is the oil industry. The shale boom has led a lot of energy companies to ramp up production using other people's money, much of which is coming from junk bonds. Now, with oil down from $100/bbl to around $80, the nice fat coverage ratios on these bonds are looking disturbingly skinny. This chart shows the divergence between overall junk spreads and energy-sector junk spreads.

Junk energy bond spreads

The weakest of these companies will default in the coming year, and if oil prices fall another $10, perhaps most of these companies will default. This will of course be dismissed as a localized disturbance unlikely to spread to the broader economy - which is exactly what they said about subprime mortgages last time around.

Bruce C

The whole "shale oil" theme is a "scam". The original investors fell for the very same thing that continues to be rehashed, so they engineered a way to unload it onto the "relatively dumb" money. That's where we are now. After those new INSIDE investors/suckers realized that projected resources were not the same as extractable ones (at certain price levels) and that current production rates were subject to (downward) change (because the whole process is basically insane and extreme) it only makes sense that more funding could only be obtained by issuing bonds (equity was extracted in the "first round" when new wells geysered, etc.)

But don't laugh too hard, yet. Between a totally foolish and pathetic Congress, a totally full of shit President, a desperate national central bank, and "TBTF" philosophy in general, this construct may well be supported way beyond its "natural" life.

History is a fascinating spectrum of human nature. There doesn't seem to be any limits to the lows or the highs, and especially the durations of effort and "pragmatism" to advance certain agendas and IDEALS. That's not always "good" or "bad", and it is definitely hard to know in real time.

[Dec 16, 2015] Fossil fuels are here to stay

peakoilbarrel.com
Stavros H, 12/16/2015 at 9:36 pm
Paris Accord!

It's just propaganda. Fossil fuels are here to stay. That's why we have a slow-motion WW3 in the Middle East right now.

If any major power on the planet believed that there was any alternative to fossil fuels, then there would be no wars in the Middle East.

[Dec 16, 2015] US shale oil industry will recover US Energy Sec

Notable quotes:
"... Oil production in the U.S. has not dramatically dropped, it has gone down a little bit but it's up by four million barrels a day from a few years ago ..."
"... I think this low price will remain for one or a couple of years. I think we will have some peaks and some spikes and some down trends, but it will be in the range of $50–$60, I cannot tell you exactly, but it will be very low, and that is affecting outside investment. ..."
www.cnbc.com

"Oil production in the U.S. has not dramatically dropped, it has gone down a little bit but it's up by four million barrels a day from a few years ago," U.S. Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz told CNBC.

"Our Energy Information Administration (EIA) expects that the average production this year will still be above 9 million barrels a day so the drop-off is not viewed as precipitous. Presumably, the expectations are over time that we'll see a slow reversal of that drop-off and that production will be restored."

... ... ...

"We are pursuing all the directions for reducing oil dependence," he added.

... ... ...

"I think this low price will remain for one or a couple of years. I think we will have some peaks and some spikes and some down trends, but it will be in the range of $50–$60, I cannot tell you exactly, but it will be very low, and that is affecting outside investment."

[Dec 16, 2015] Shale Drillers Feast on Junk Debt to Stay on Treadmill

Notable quotes:
"... "There's a lot of Kool-Aid that's being drunk now by investors," Tim Gramatovich, who helps manage more than $800 million as chief investment officer of Santa Barbara, California-based Peritus Asset Management LLC. "People lose their discipline. They stop doing the math. They stop doing the accounting. They're just dreaming the dream, and that's what's happening with the shale boom." ..."
"... "This is a melting ice cube business," said Mike Kelly, an energy analyst at Global Hunter Securities in Houston. "If you're not growing production, you're dying." ..."
"... Of the 97 energy exploration and production companies rated by S P, 75 are below investment grade, according to the credit-rating company. The average yield for energy exploration and production companies rated junk has declined to 5.4 percent from 8.1 percent at the end of 2009, compared with a drop to 5.21 percent from 9.06 percent for all companies rated below investment grade, according to Barclays. ..."
"... Still, the U.S. central bank has kept borrowing rates near zero since December 2008. An increase, expected in 2015, could cause investors to flee shale-drilling debt in search of safer returns. ..."
"... "It's a perfect set-up for investors to lose a lot of money," Gramatovich said. "The model is unsustainable." ..."
April 30, 2014 | Bloomberg Business
Rice Energy Inc., a natural gas producer with risky credit, raised $900 million in three days this month, $150 million more than it originally sought.

Not bad for the Canonsburg, Pennsylvania-based company's first bond issue after going public in January. Especially since it has lost money three years in a row, has drilled fewer than 50 wells -- most named after superheroes and monster trucks -- and said it will spend $4.09 for every $1 it earns in 2014.

The U.S. drive for energy independence is backed by a surge in junk-rated borrowing that's been as vital as the technological breakthroughs that enabled the drilling spree. While the high-yield debt market has doubled in size since the end of 2004, the amount issued by exploration and production companies has grown nine-fold, according to Barclays Plc. That's what keeps the shale revolution going even as companies spend money faster than they make it.

"There's a lot of Kool-Aid that's being drunk now by investors," Tim Gramatovich, who helps manage more than $800 million as chief investment officer of Santa Barbara, California-based Peritus Asset Management LLC. "People lose their discipline. They stop doing the math. They stop doing the accounting. They're just dreaming the dream, and that's what's happening with the shale boom."

... ... ...

Some companies have been able to drill themselves to better credit ratings. In December, Oklahoma City-based Continental Resources Inc., the most active driller in the Bakken, had its rating boosted from junk to Baa3, the lowest tier of investment grade, by Moody's Investors Service. Others, such as Chesapeake Energy Corp., have made changes that improved their standing with credit-rating companies. Chesapeake, based in Oklahoma City, has sold off $16 billion in assets in the past two years, cut spending and refinanced debt, and S&P said it's considering a higher rating for the company.

... ... ...

"This is a melting ice cube business," said Mike Kelly, an energy analyst at Global Hunter Securities in Houston. "If you're not growing production, you're dying."

Cheap Debt

Of the 97 energy exploration and production companies rated by S&P, 75 are below investment grade, according to the credit-rating company. The average yield for energy exploration and production companies rated junk has declined to 5.4 percent from 8.1 percent at the end of 2009, compared with a drop to 5.21 percent from 9.06 percent for all companies rated below investment grade, according to Barclays.

Cheap debt, along with advances in horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, have propelled U.S. oil output to a 26-year high. Last year, the country produced 87 percent of its own energy, putting it closer to independence from foreign sources than it has been since 1985, according to the Energy Information Administration.

It's an expensive boom. About $156 billion will be spent on exploration and production in the U.S. this year, according to a December report by Barclays analysts led by James West. That's 8.5 percent more than last year and outpaces this year's expected 6.1 percent growth in global expenditures, the analysts said.

Spending Treadmill

"Who can, or will want to, fund the drilling of millions of acres and hundreds of thousands of wells at an ongoing loss?" Ivan Sandrea, a research associate at the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies in England, wrote in a report last month. "The benevolence of the U.S. capital markets cannot last forever."

The spending never stops, said Virendra Chauhan, an oil analyst with Energy Aspects in London. Since output from shale wells drops sharply in the first year, producers have to keep drilling more and more wells to maintain production. That means selling off assets and borrowing more money.

"The whole boom in shale is really a treadmill of capital spending and debt," Chauhan said.

Access to the high-yield bond market has enabled shale drillers to spend more money than they bring in. Junk-rated exploration and production companies spent $2.11 for every $1 earned last year, according to a Barclays analysis of 37 firms.

... ... ...

Still, the U.S. central bank has kept borrowing rates near zero since December 2008. An increase, expected in 2015, could cause investors to flee shale-drilling debt in search of safer returns.

"It's a perfect set-up for investors to lose a lot of money," Gramatovich said. "The model is unsustainable."

[Dec 16, 2015] Cornering Russia, Risking World War III

Notable quotes:
"... "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic partnership between 1985-89. ..."
"... "And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia. ..."
"... "TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct. ..."
"... "Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the think tanks. … None of this exists today. … ..."
"... In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. ..."
"... Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically. ..."
"... unfortunately, today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing America's leadership in the world. ..."
"... Washington's disinclination to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily reckless. ..."
"... As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically through sanctions and other financial measures , in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination to try to avoid war is leading to war. ..."
"... Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger," whom no one needs fear. ..."
"... In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon, or to prepare for war. ..."
Consortiumnews
Official Washington is awash with tough talk about Russia and the need to punish President Putin for his role in Ukraine and Syria. But this bravado ignores Russia's genuine national interests, its "red lines," and the risk that "tough-guy-ism" can lead to nuclear war, as Alastair Crooke explains.

We all know the narrative in which we (the West) are seized. It is the narrative of the Cold War: America versus the "Evil Empire." And, as Professor Ira Chernus has written, since we are "human" and somehow they (the USSR or, now, ISIS) plainly are not, we must be their polar opposite in every way.

"If they are absolute evil, we must be the absolute opposite. It's the old apocalyptic tale: God's people versus Satan's. It ensures that we never have to admit to any meaningful connection with the enemy." It is the basis to America's and Europe's claim to exceptionalism and leadership.

And "buried in the assumption that the enemy is not in any sense human like us, is [an] absolution for whatever hand we may have had in sparking or contributing to evil's rise and spread. How could we have fertilized the soil of absolute evil or bear any responsibility for its successes? It's a basic postulate of wars against evil: God's people must be innocent," (and that the evil cannot be mediated, for how can one mediate with evil).

Westerners may generally think ourselves to be rationalist and (mostly) secular, but Christian modes of conceptualizing the world still permeate contemporary foreign policy.

It is this Cold War narrative of the Reagan era, with its correlates that America simply stared down the Soviet Empire through military and – as importantly – financial "pressures," whilst making no concessions to the enemy.

What is sometimes forgotten, is how the Bush neo-cons gave their "spin" to this narrative for the Middle East by casting Arab national secularists and Ba'athists as the offspring of "Satan": David Wurmser was advocating in 1996, "expediting the chaotic collapse" of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that "the phenomenon of Baathism" was, from the very beginning, "an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy."

Moreover, apart from being agents of socialism, these states opposed Israel, too. So, on the principle that if these were the enemy, then my enemy's enemy (the kings, Emirs and monarchs of the Middle East) became the Bush neo-cons friends. And they remain such today – however much their interests now diverge from those of the U.S.

The problem, as Professor Steve Cohen, the foremost Russia scholar in the U.S., laments, is that it is this narrative which has precluded America from ever concluding any real ability to find a mutually acceptable modus vivendi with Russia – which it sorely needs, if it is ever seriously to tackle the phenomenon of Wahhabist jihadism (or resolve the Syrian conflict).

What is more, the "Cold War narrative" simply does not reflect history, but rather the narrative effaces history: It looses for us the ability to really understand the demonized "calous tyrant" – be it (Russian) President Vladimir Putin or (Ba'athist) President Bashar al-Assad – because we simply ignore the actual history of how that state came to be what it is, and, our part in it becoming what it is.

Indeed the state, or its leaders, often are not what we think they are – at all. Cohen explains: "The chance for a durable Washington-Moscow strategic partnership was lost in the 1990 after the Soviet Union ended. Actually it began to be lost earlier, because it was [President Ronald] Reagan and [Soviet leader Mikhail] Gorbachev who gave us the opportunity for a strategic partnership between 1985-89.

"And it certainly ended under the Clinton Administration, and it didn't end in Moscow. It ended in Washington - it was squandered and lost in Washington. And it was lost so badly that today, and for at least the last several years (and I would argue since the Georgian war in 2008), we have literally been in a new Cold War with Russia.

"Many people in politics and in the media don't want to call it this, because if they admit, 'Yes, we are in a Cold War,' they would have to explain what they were doing during the past 20 years. So they instead say, 'No, it is not a Cold War.'

"Here is my next point. This new Cold War has all of the potential to be even more dangerous than the preceding 40-year Cold War, for several reasons. First of all, think about it. The epicentre of the earlier Cold War was in Berlin, not close to Russia. There was a vast buffer zone between Russia and the West in Eastern Europe.

"Today, the epicentre is in Ukraine, literally on Russia's borders. It was the Ukrainian conflict that set this off, and politically Ukraine remains a ticking time bomb. Today's confrontation is not only on Russia's borders, but it's in the heart of Russian-Ukrainian 'Slavic civilization.' This is a civil war as profound in some ways as was America's Civil War."

Cohen continued: "My next point: and still worse – You will remember that after the Cuban Missile Crisis, Washington and Moscow developed certain rules-of-mutual conduct. They saw how dangerously close they had come to a nuclear war, so they adopted "No-Nos,' whether they were encoded in treaties or in unofficial understandings. Each side knew where the other's red line was. Both sides tripped over them on occasion but immediately pulled back because there was a mutual understanding that there were red lines.

"TODAY THERE ARE NO RED LINES. One of the things that Putin and his predecessor President Medvedev keep saying to Washington is: You are crossing our Red Lines! And Washington said, and continues to say, 'You don't have any red lines. We have red lines and we can have all the bases we want around your borders, but you can't have bases in Canada or Mexico. Your red lines don't exist.' This clearly illustrates that today there are no mutual rules of conduct.

"Another important point: Today there is absolutely no organized anti-Cold War or Pro-Detente political force or movement in the United States at all –– not in our political parties, not in the White House, not in the State Department, not in the mainstream media, not in the universities or the think tanks. … None of this exists today. …

"My next point is a question: Who is responsible for this new Cold War? I don't ask this question because I want to point a finger at anyone. The position of the current American political media establishment is that this new Cold War is all Putin's fault – all of it, everything. We in America didn't do anything wrong. At every stage, we were virtuous and wise and Putin was aggressive and a bad man. And therefore, what's to rethink? Putin has to do all of the rethinking, not us."

These two narratives, the Cold War narrative, and the neocons' subsequent "spin" on it: i.e. Bill Kristol's formulation (in 2002) that precisely because of its Cold War "victory," America could, and must, become the "benevolent global hegemon," guaranteeing and sustaining the new American-authored global order – an "omelette that cannot be made without breaking eggs" – converge and conflate in Syria, in the persons of President Assad and President Putin.

President Obama is no neocon, but he is constrained by the global hegemon legacy, which he must either sustain, or be labeled as the arch facilitator of America's decline. And the President is also surrounded by R2P ("responsibility-to-protect") proselytizers, such as Samantha Power, who seem to have convinced the President that "the tyrant" Assad's ouster would puncture and collapse the Wahhabist jihadist balloon, allowing "moderate" jihadists such as Ahrar al-Sham to finish off the deflated fragments of the punctured ISIS balloon.

In practice, President Assad's imposed ouster precisely will empower ISIS, rather than implode it, and the consequences will ripple across the Middle East – and beyond. President Obama privately may understand the nature and dangers of the Wahhabist cultural revolution, but seems to adhere to the conviction that everything will change if only President Assad steps down. The Gulf States said the same about Prime Minister Nouri al-Maliki in Iraq. He has gone (for now), but what changed? ISIS got stronger.

Of course if we think of ISIS as evil, for evil's sake, bent on mindless, whimsical slaughter, "what a foolish task it obviously [would be] to think about the enemy's actual motives. After all, to do so would be to treat them as humans, with human purposes arising out of history. It would smack of sympathy for the devil. Of course," Professor Chernus continues, "this means that, whatever we might think of their actions, we generally ignore a wealth of evidence that the Islamic State's fighters couldn't be more human or have more comprehensible motivations."

Indeed, ISIS and the other Caliphate forces have very clear human motivations and clearly articulated political objectives, and none of these is in any way consistent with the type of Syrian State that America says it wants for Syria. This precisely reflects the danger of becoming hostage to a certain narrative, rather than being willing to examine the prevailing conceptual framework more critically.

America lies far away from Syria and the Middle East, and as Professor Stephen Cohen notes, "unfortunately, today's reports seem to indicate that the White House and State Department are thinking primarily how to counter Russia's actions in Syria. They are worried, it was reported, that Russia is diminishing America's leadership in the world."

It is a meme of perpetual national insecurity, of perpetual fears about America's standing and of challenges to its standing, Professor Chernus suggests.

But Europe is not "far away"; it lies on Syria's doorstep. It is also neighbor to Russia. And in this connection, it is worth pondering Professor Cohen's last point: Washington's disinclination to permit Russia any enhancement to its standing in Europe, or in the non-West, through its initiative strategically to defeat Wahhabist jihadism in Syria, is not only to play with fire in the Middle East. It is playing with a fire of even greater danger: to do both at the same time seems extraordinarily reckless.

Cohen again:

"The false idea [has taken root] that the nuclear threat ended with the Soviet Union: In fact, the threat became more diverse and difficult. This is something the political elite forgot. It was another disservice of the Clinton Administration (and to a certain extent the first President Bush in his re-election campaign) saying that the nuclear dangers of the preceding Cold War era no longer existed after 1991. The reality is that the threat grew, whether by inattention or accident, and is now more dangerous than ever."

As Europe becomes accomplice in raising the various pressures on Russia in Syria – economically through sanctions and other financial measures, in Ukraine and Crimea, and in beckoning Montenegro, Georgia and the Baltic towards NATO – we should perhaps contemplate the paradox that Russia's determination to try to avoid war is leading to war.

Russia's call to co-operate with Western states against the scourge of ISIS; its low-key and carefully crafted responses to such provocations as the ambush of its SU-24 bomber in Syria; and President Putin's calm rhetoric, are all being used by Washington and London to paint Russia as a "paper tiger," whom no one needs fear.

In short, Russia is being offered only the binary choice: to acquiesce to the "benevolent" hegemon, or to prepare for war.

Alastair Crooke is a British diplomat who was a senior figure in British intelligence and in European Union diplomacy. He is the founder and director of the Conflicts Forum, which advocates for engagement between political Islam and the West. [This article also appeared at the Conflicts Forum's Web site and is republished with permission.]

[Dec 16, 2015] Suicide Rate Soars In Alberta As Job Losses Mount

Notable quotes:
"... ...the province's energy industry reports having laid off more than 40,000 employees so far this year. ..."
"... For me it says something really about the horrible human impact of what's happening in the economy with the recession and the real felt effect, the real suffering and the real struggle that people are experiencing ..."
Dec 16, 2015 | OilPrice.com

...In the first six months of 2014, Alberta had 252 suicides, the Centre reports. In the same period this year, the latest for which such statistics are available, there were 327 suicides.

...the province's energy industry reports having laid off more than 40,000 employees so far this year. David Kirby, a counselor at the Calgary Distress Centre, tells the Canadian Broadcasting Corp. that this has led to a change in tone and frequency of calls to his office's distress line. He says callers' problems are more complex than usual and requests for counseling services is up by 80 percent.

"There might be substance abuse issues. There might be imminent financial collapse," Kirby said. "Anxiety, depression. Relationship conflict, maybe concurrent domestic violence. So there are many more things that people are trying to juggle, I think, at the same time."

Kirby added, "For me it says something really about the horrible human impact of what's happening in the economy with the recession and the real felt effect, the real suffering and the real struggle that people are experiencing."

[Dec 16, 2015] $30 Oil Will Accelerate Much Needed Rebound

Notable quotes:
"... Evercore ISI told The Houston Chronicle that the average breakeven cost for North American shale used to be $65 per barrel. Efficiency gains brought that threshold down to $50 per barrel. ..."
"... With a deeper contraction in rig counts and drilling levels, new production will slow to a trickle. ..."
"... depletion from wells drilled months and years ago will continue to mount, dragging down overall production. ..."
Dec 16, 2015 | OilPrice.com

...Hedges continue to roll off, removing the last bit of protection that some drillers have had up until now.

... ... ...

At $35 per barrel, even some of the most efficient shale drillers will struggle to turn a profit. "Nothing is economic at today's prices," James West, an analyst with Evercore ISI, told The Houston Chronicle. Drillers have gone to extraordinary lengths to reduce costs since mid-2014 when prices started to fall. That included focusing on the sweet spots, drilling more and longer laterals from a given wellpad, and even squeezing suppliers. Evercore ISI says that a third of the companies in the oilfield services sector may not survive 2016.

... ... ...

Evercore ISI told The Houston Chronicle that the average breakeven cost for North American shale used to be $65 per barrel. Efficiency gains brought that threshold down to $50 per barrel. That is an impressive achievement over the course of just 12 to 18 months, but it is still higher than current prices. With drilling services unable to discount their offerings any further, upstream producers will have to cut deeper.

As a result, sharper cutbacks in spending are just around the corner. Cowen & Co. expects the oil industry to slash spending by $115 billion next year compared to 2015 levels.

... ... ...

The fall in the rig count has accelerated in recent weeks after several months of remaining level. Baker Hughes says that the rig count fell by 28 last week, the sharpest decline in three months. That trend should continue with oil prices now at such low levels. With a deeper contraction in rig counts and drilling levels, new production will slow to a trickle. At the same time, depletion from wells drilled months and years ago will continue to mount, dragging down overall production.

In recent months, the Permian Basin has been dubbed one of the last shale regions where companies can still turn a profit. But it will be difficult for production to keep growing even in the Permian with oil prices in the mid-$30s.


[Dec 16, 2015] Saxo Bank predicted oil could return to $100 in 2016

yahoo.com

Oil at $100 'Outrageous' forecasts for 2016

The Danish investment bank's 10 "unlikely, yet perhaps underappreciated" events that could have significant consequences on the financial landscape also include the Russian ruble rising 20 percent versus the US dollar/euro basket.

... ... ...

Saxo Bank predicted oil could return to $100 in 2016 as "unease among weaker as well as wealthier members of the cartel over the supply-and-rule strategy continues to grow. The long-awaited sign of an accelerated slowdown in non-OPEC production finally begins to flicker. Suitably buoyed, OPEC catches the market on the hop with a downward adjustment in output. The price mounts a quick recovery with investors scrambling to re-enter the market to the long side - once again bringing $100/barrel prices onto the horizon."

[Dec 16, 2015] It is especially dark just before the sunrise

Notable quotes:
"... the market forces point to weakness for oil for at least until summer 2016. Depending on how fast US production will fall, oil prices will recover. What I can see now oil will find a bottom over the next three months. ..."
peakoilbarrel.com
oldfarmermac, 12/16/2015 at 7:14 am
It is obvious enough that a lack of access to capital is already a huge problem and apt to get worse, maybe even for big conventional oil companies- if they are privately owned.

But it is my understanding that around ninety percent of the worlds oil is owned by various governments.

I am wondering how lack of credit will affect state owned and operated producers, and how big their total or combined market share is.

In a country such as Saudi Arabia, my guess would be not at all. But in Mexico, well, the Mexican government is not exactly rolling in dough.

Any comments from people who know more about the finances of national oil companies will be appreciated, and thanks in advance.

shallow sand, 12/15/2015 at 5:53 pm
Heinrich. HH natural gas closed today at the lowest level since 1999.

I have to believe these gas prices are destroying future supply in the US, at least for the time being. Would be like oil dropping to $12 now. I guess I shouldn't feel sorry for myself. At least I own no working interests in conventional gas.

shallow sand, 12/15/2015 at 5:58 pm
Also note CHK fell below $4. Range and Cabot are at multi year lows.

Looks like CHK per BOE in Q4 will be under $10. I wonder if they are still having to pay others to take their NGLs?

Heinrich Leopold, 12/16/2015 at 3:08 am
shallow sand,

In my view it is the same situation as in 1998, when many people assumed that oil and gas will be phased out due to the internet. The forces are grinding for some time, yet eventually they are building the base for an huge increase in prices. Just yesterday, there were rumors that a major energy fund has closed redemptions. This will limit new investments from the retail side abruptly. Working in the commodity business is the art to survive the cycles. It is not a buy and hold business. The lower prices go now, the higher they will be later. It is a complete shake out.

shallow sand, 12/16/2015 at 5:04 am
Heinrich. I agree with you. I tend to agree with the saying, "History usually repeats itself.". I also tend to agree with the sayings, "The bigger they are, the harder they fall," and Timing is everything."

My view is that the above very much apply to commodities, particularly oil and gas.

Meanwhile, there are no signs that demand for either is decreasing.

Question to me is not if, but when there will be a turnaround in both. Look for signs of that turnaround when investors look at energy producers in an extremely unfavorable light. Many more defaults in 2016 will speed up the process.

Heinrich Leopold, 12/16/2015 at 8:46 am
shallow sand,

Long term I am a strong bull of oil and gas. Yet the market forces point to weakness for oil for at least until summer 2016. Depending on how fast US production will fall, oil prices will recover. What I can see now oil will find a bottom over the next three months. The oil bull is just shaking out the weak hands.

[Dec 16, 2015] Are Low Crude Oil Prices a 'Boom Or A Curse' For The World Economy

Notable quotes:
"... according to various reports, most of the shale oil wells are profitable only when priced above $60/barrel. ..."
"... A failure of the companies with heavy loans is likely to strain US Banks, which have loaned the monies to said companies. Along with the crude oil producers, the associate industries ie: the equipment suppliers, the hotel industry, the truck companies, etc. are also struggling, due to a decline in prices. ..."
"... With many drillers cutting costs, unemployment within this sector is on the rise, and wages are either stagnant or being reduced. New investments are being postponed. Associate companies, which supply to the oil producers, are slowly going out of business . ..."
Safehaven.com

Shale oil drilling is unprofitable at these levels:

The boom in oil prices, and an improvement in fracking technology, has led to a rapid growth in the number of shale oil wells. However, according to various reports, most of the shale oil wells are profitable only when priced above $60/barrel. Some of these companies have taken large loans, in order, to expand their production, and with prices remaining low, these loans are likely to become unserviceable. A failure of the companies with heavy loans is likely to strain US Banks, which have loaned the monies to said companies. Along with the crude oil producers, the associate industries ie: the equipment suppliers, the hotel industry, the truck companies, etc. are also struggling, due to a decline in prices.

With many drillers cutting costs, unemployment within this sector is on the rise, and wages are either stagnant or being reduced. New investments are being postponed. Associate companies, which supply to the oil producers, are slowly going "out of business".

As the US economy is very diverse, the overall impact is not alarming, however, US States that are dependent on the shale oil drilling, will almost certainly take a hit.

[Dec 15, 2015] FOMC Tomorrow, Cargo Cult Economics

Notable quotes:
"... So let's see how things go this week, keeping in mind that there may be antics aplenty after the Fed announcement and into the quad witch for stocks on Friday. ..."
Jesse's Café Américain

...There is a heavy lean towards believing that the Fed will raise rates 25 basis points.


Fed Funds futures are indicating expectation of a move to 100 basis points total by the end of next year. Let's see if they can pull that one off. It seems aspirational, if one wishes to have room to cut when their latest folly falls back upon them.

The idea that since recoveries are often accompanied by inflation, if we can only use monetary policy to create inflation then the recovery will come, is so wrong-headed that it leaves me aghast.

Even Keynes recognized that the point of stimulus was to provoke aggregate demand, which is the organic form of growth in the economy that will provide all the inflation that one might expect.

But to pursue this effete, top down stimulus focused primary on the still unreformed Banking system and the wealthiest top few percent is beyond policy error, and more policy malpractice. And of course, if one puts austerity and financial parasitism into the mix, then we just aren't in Kansas anymore Toto.

So let's see how things go this week, keeping in mind that there may be antics aplenty after the Fed announcement and into the quad witch for stocks on Friday. The miners have been beaten bloody.

[Dec 15, 2015] What it costs to produce oil

Looks like a fact free reporting. Prices probably in 2015 dollars. US shale breakeven prices is assumed to be over $50. Gulf oil prices are close to that as cost of drilling is much higher, up to million a day. The article also has slide with brake between capital cost and recurrent costs.
Peak Oil News and Message Boards

Adapted from What it costs to produce oil - CNNMoney

Overall cost to produce one barrel of oil

  • United Kingdom $52.50
  • Brazil $48.80
  • Canada $41.00
  • United States $36.20
  • Norway $36.10
  • Angola $35.40
  • Colombia $35.30
  • Nigeria $31.60
  • China $29.90
  • Mexico $29.10
  • Kazakhstan $27.80
  • Libya $23.80
  • Venezuela $23.50
  • Algeria $20.40
  • Russia $17.20
  • Iran $12.60
  • UAE $12.30
  • Iraq $10.70
  • Saudi Arabia $9.90
  • Kuwait $8.50

    Source: UCube by Rystad Energy; Interactive published Nov. 23, 2015

    Notes/Methodology

  • This chart was compiled using data from more than 15,000 oil fields across 20 nations. The production costs were calculated by including a mix of capital expenditures and operational expenditures. Capital expenditures included the costs involved with building oil facilities, pipelines and new wells. Operational expenditures included the costs of lifting oil out of the ground, paying employee salaries and general administrative duties.

    Torsion, Nov 28, 2015

  • Do these figures include taxes? Are the criteria standardized or as self-reported by the different countries using their own definitions? Data as presented is of limited value.

  • [Dec 15, 2015] OPEC says low oil price won't continue, may rise within a year

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've been in the oil business all my life. I saw six cycles - I saw very high price, I saw low price, and this is one of them. This will not continue, ..."
    "... a planned $130 billion in investment being cut this year, ..."
    "... non-OPEC supplies are set to decline by about 400,000 bpd next year ..."
    www.cnbc.com

    "I've been in the oil business all my life. I saw six cycles - I saw very high price, I saw low price, and this is one of them. This will not continue," Badri said at the first OPEC-India Energy dialogue in New Delhi.

    ...a planned $130 billion in investment being cut this year, Badri said, adding that non-OPEC supplies are set to decline by about 400,000 bpd next year.

    [Dec 15, 2015] Oil output declines significant in 2016 Petrie

    Notable quotes:
    "... Iran's leaders have said they plan to bring 500,000 bpd to markets as soon as possible, and they anticipate reaching 1 million bpd. Iran is Saudi Arabia's primary regional adversary. ..."
    Dec 15, 2015 | cnbc.com

    ... Petrie, who has advised top oil exporter Saudi Arabia, said he believes the Saudi-spearheaded OPEC policy is meant to exert pressure on U.S. shale oil producers, address high crude output in Russia, and respond to the United States cooperation with Iran to reach a deal on the Persian country's nuclear program that would lift long-running international sanctions.

    Iran's leaders have said they plan to bring 500,000 bpd to markets as soon as possible, and they anticipate reaching 1 million bpd. Iran is Saudi Arabia's primary regional adversary.

    ...The nation has burned through about $91.5 billion of its assets, reducing total foreign reserves from a peak of $746 billion last August to a still-healthy $654.5 billion in September, according to the IMF.

    [Dec 15, 2015] Magnum Hunter latest oil producer to seek bankruptcy

    Magnum Hunter ranks among the biggest energy producers to file for bankruptcy this year, joining Samson Resources, Sabine Oil & Gas, Quicksilver Resources and Energy & Exploration Partners.
    Notable quotes:
    "... ...The company entered into a restructuring agreement that will convert its funded debt into equity, substantially reducing its more than $1 billion in debt. ..."
    "... Magnum Hunter had about $1.1 billion in assets and $1.5 billion in debts, according to documents filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware. ..."
    www.cnbc.com

    Magnum Hunter ranks among the biggest energy producers to file for bankruptcy this year, joining Samson Resources, Sabine Oil & Gas, Quicksilver Resources and Energy & Exploration Partners.

    ...The company entered into a restructuring agreement that will convert its funded debt into equity, substantially reducing its more than $1 billion in debt.

    ...To fund its operations during its bankruptcy, the company's lenders agreed to provide up to $200 million in financing, which will also convert into equity when Magnum Hunter emerges from bankruptcy, according to the statement.

    ...Irving, Texas-based Magnum Hunter had about $1.1 billion in assets and $1.5 billion in debts, according to documents filed in the U.S. Bankruptcy Court in Wilmington, Delaware.

    [Dec 15, 2015] Government Influence Over Asset Prices Growing

    Notable quotes:
    "... Submitted by Leonard Brecken via OilPrice.com, ..."
    "... The facts are OECD stocks have fell in October, not increased. That runs against the generally accepted belief that storage capacity is full and we are oversupplied by around 2 million barrels per day (mb/d). That suggests that the IEA is underestimating demand and grossly exaggerating inventory levels. ..."
    "... Further, the EIA has consistently overstated supply in its weekly data release, adjusting inventory up by seemingly arbitrary amounts. Now, according to Cornerstone Analytics, last week we find that the EIA is under-sampling small producers whose production is rapidly declining. Also, monthly production figures continue to be inflated. This conclusion from Cornerstone Analytics is noteworthy: ..."
    "... Our sense is that the monthly survey numbers for production have 'undersampled' output from small independent producers whose output has been more negatively impacted from the activity fall-off as compared with the larger producers ..."
    "... Between these imprudent trading practices and the fact that assets are being controlled by mad central banks pursuing a political agenda –makes it extremely difficult for those who do real fundamental research. In the end it lengthens the time horizon when fundamentals become accurately reflected in prices. It also begs the question of whether markets are actually free or not, as all rational thinking goes out the window. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Leonard Brecken via OilPrice.com,

    Where most analysis on oil markets tends to fall short is on the depth of analysis vs. reading headlines and group think, the latter of which is heavily shaped by misinformed media and government propaganda.

    The facts are OECD stocks have fell in October, not increased. That runs against the generally accepted belief that storage capacity is full and we are oversupplied by around 2 million barrels per day (mb/d). That suggests that the IEA is underestimating demand and grossly exaggerating inventory levels.

    Further, the EIA has consistently overstated supply in its weekly data release, "adjusting" inventory up by seemingly arbitrary amounts. Now, according to Cornerstone Analytics, last week we find that the EIA is under-sampling small producers whose production is rapidly declining. Also, monthly production figures continue to be inflated. This conclusion from Cornerstone Analytics is noteworthy:

    "On the USA, one point we will leave you with is that there appears to be some scope for the DOE to revise down American oil production figures for the past few months. Our sense is that the monthly survey numbers for production have 'undersampled' output from small independent producers whose output has been more negatively impacted from the activity fall-off as compared with the larger producers."

    The problem these days is that markets are controlled by people who don't take care to delve deep into numbers and simply don't question numbers being fed to them by media or government agencies. Instead they trade off headlines and care less about their validity because it suits their agenda, ideology or, even more likely, unconscious bias, reinforced by propaganda.

    Between these imprudent trading practices and the fact that assets are being controlled by mad central banks pursuing a political agenda –makes it extremely difficult for those who do real fundamental research. In the end it lengthens the time horizon when fundamentals become accurately reflected in prices. It also begs the question of whether markets are actually free or not, as all rational thinking goes out the window.

    What is more worrisome is the question of how deep governments are directly or indirectly influencing asset prices. As we stated in our last piece, it is clear that the Federal Reserve is doing both, and on a historic scale. The media's role in moving markets has increased enormously over the past two decades. In the past the media was more subtle, but now so many outlets do not even hide their agenda or ideology.

    Governments too morphed from influencing assets and corporate investments indirectly through tax policies or regulatory agencies such as the EPA, to what is now occurring through the Fed. However, we may have taken things one step further as now the Secretary of State is referencing influencing markets through the recent climate change agreement that passed. I first came upon this quote below via a Yahoo! Article, which struck me as odd given the direct reference to investors to liquidate investments in fossil-based energy, particularly at a time they are already being liquidated. On December 11 several high-yield bond funds announced restricted redemptions tied to plunging illiquidity and prices in high-yield energy. I believe this and concern over interest rates sparked a sell off in almost every asset class on Friday.

    ... ... ...

    order66

    Just now it's growing? Dude, they've controlled asset prices for nearly a decade now.

    LawsofPhysics

    LOL!!! Try 40+ years, some might argue over 100 years.

    MalteseFalcon

    The government is manipulating the facts about oil prices and oil reserves?

    No way, man!

    [Dec 15, 2015] Oil's Rout Ripples Beyond Energy ETFs

    Notable quotes:
    "... Paying less at the pump might seem like a good thing, but the drop in crude has reinforced fears over slow economic growth and deflation ..."
    Investors.com

    But oil's collapse to levels last seen in 2008-09 is smelling more acrid.

    "Paying less at the pump might seem like a good thing, but the drop in crude has reinforced fears over slow economic growth and deflation," Koesterich wrote Monday.

    United States Oil (ARCA:USO), the most popular oil commodity ETF, has given up 20% in the past month as WTI crude, the U.S. benchmark, fell briefly below $35 a barrel. Year to date, it's down roughly 45% after falling an almost equal amount in 2014.

    [Dec 15, 2015] Even if the RRC report for October is still resilient, the November and December reports will show a massive decline

    Rig count crash suggest a year of flat or declining global oil production
    Notable quotes:
    "... But for rather a lot of months now we've seen production funded by . . . loans that won't be repaid. That is what default is, after all. And thus you can get uneconomical oil to flow. ..."
    "... I'm inclined to suspect now that a lesson is being learned and that is if you HAVE to have it, you'll get it. If loans and a history of default prevent production and you HAVE to have it, then the next loan can be backstopped by a central bank. Or a central govt can dictate price. ..."
    "... There is an interesting post http://www.highyieldbond.com/high-yield-bond-issuance-shuts-down-as-withdrawals-oil-worries-roil-markets/ . The bond market is now shut for oil companies. ..."
    "... In my view it will be even difficult for big oil to issue bonds. It remains to be seen how long companies can continue capital spending without bond market and future markets. In Texas, well completions went down by 40% from October to November alone. ..."
    "... Even if the RRC report for October is still resilient, the November and December reports will show a massive decline. In my view it is very unwise at this point to increase interest rates as this makes the situation even worse. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    RSAldeen, 04/29/2015 at 1:50 pm
    Oil is very precious raw material, our demand for oil increases day after day, year after year and century after another. The search and use other sources such as atomic, wind, tide, solar, geothermal and others will continue but the prospects / trend to keep on using oil as a main source of energy still quite high and will continue with time due to the following reasons:
    • Worldwide population trend is going up drastically. (Main factor).
    • Oil as a source of energy still quite cheap in comparison with other sources.
    • It may be easy to apply the new technology in certain fields but not for all fields.
    • Oil proofs to be available all over the world and at different levels, hence oil production cost will suit all the times and condition worldwide but not for all the countries.
    • Oil is quite important as a raw material for petrochemical products, and our needs for plastic, paints and other products increases day after day drastically.
    • Oil age will continue for more than few decades to come if not for a century and prices are subject to market condition, political matters, and other technical issues.

    Watcher says: 12/14/2015 at 7:40 pm

    I was in the camp of defaults (which appear to be arriving) raising the breakeven price for the future.

    But for rather a lot of months now we've seen production funded by . . . loans that won't be repaid. That is what default is, after all. And thus you can get uneconomical oil to flow.

    I'm inclined to suspect now that a lesson is being learned and that is if you HAVE to have it, you'll get it. If loans and a history of default prevent production and you HAVE to have it, then the next loan can be backstopped by a central bank. Or a central govt can dictate price.

    This will affect peak. Anything that raises production affects peak.

    Heinrich Leopold, 12/15/2015 at 4:25 am
    shallow sand,

    Your comment meets exactly my point. Oil production and oil reserves are a different pair of shoes. High oil production does not necessarily mean high oil reserves – and vice versus.

    Even if worldwide reserves are lower, production could be very high for a very long time – depending on operating costs and liquid capital markets. The recent stunning high shale oil production increase reflected mainly the combination of highly liquid capital markets and high oil prices.

    Historically this has been quite unique as high oil prices always meant high inflation and tight capital markets. However, the situation has changed and we have now the unique scenario of low oil prices and tight capital markets. This is very unusual as low oil prices suggest low inflation and thus in theory capital markets should be very liquid. This unique combination of low oil prices and tight capital markets is now the basis for my estimate of much lower oil and gas production.

    There is an interesting post http://www.highyieldbond.com/high-yield-bond-issuance-shuts-down-as-withdrawals-oil-worries-roil-markets/. The bond market is now shut for oil companies.

    In my view it will be even difficult for big oil to issue bonds. It remains to be seen how long companies can continue capital spending without bond market and future markets. In Texas, well completions went down by 40% from October to November alone.

    Even if the RRC report for October is still resilient, the November and December reports will show a massive decline. In my view it is very unwise at this point to increase interest rates as this makes the situation even worse. Much lower natgas and oil production will trigger also a price spike of natgas as well as a dollar slump and lead to extreme high inflation. So, a rise in interest rates is counter-productive.

    Heinrich Leopold, 12/15/2015 at 9:55 am
    Here is a chart demonstrating my comment above.

    [Dec 15, 2015] OPEC predicts rivals' supply to contract in 2016

    Non-OPEC production is forecast to fall by the end of 2016 and then set to rebound into 2017.
    Notable quotes:
    "... For 2016, non-OPEC oil supply is now expected to contract by 380,000 barrels a day to average ..."
    "... OPEC raised its forecast for world oil demand growth in 2015, predicting it will rise by 1.53 million barrels ..."
    "... The organization predicted oil demand would increase by around 1.25 mb/d to average 94.14 million barrels a day next year ..."
    "... U.S. tight oil production – the main driver of non-OPEC supply growth – has been declining since April 2015. This downward trend should accelerate in coming months, given various factors, mainly low oil prices and lower drilling activities. ..."
    www.cnbc.com

    "For 2016, non-OPEC oil supply is now expected to contract by 380,000 barrels a day to average 57.14 mb/d, following a downward revision of 0.25 mb/d," from last month's report.

    Just as the supply from non-members was forecast to dwindle, OPEC raised its forecast for world oil demand growth in 2015, predicting it will rise by 1.53 million barrels per day (mb/d) to average around 92.88 mb/d – up 30,000 barrels from the previous month's forecast – and for 2016.

    The organization predicted oil demand would increase by around 1.25 mb/d to average 94.14 million barrels a day next year, upping its forecast mainly as a result of "better-than-expected consumption in Europe and Other Asia," an area including India, Indonesia and Thailand among other Asian economies but not China.

    "Persistently low oil price levels in 2015 have caused the U.S. shale oil sector to shrink," OPEC noted. "Shale drillers in the U.S. have slashed spending and cut the number of workers this year as prices have fallen. U.S. tight oil production – the main driver of non-OPEC supply growth – has been declining since April 2015. This downward trend should accelerate in coming months, given various factors, mainly low oil prices and lower drilling activities."

    [Dec 15, 2015] The declining performance of all Bakken wells

    Notable quotes:
    "... So about 7% of the ND Bakken wells were refracked since 2008, and that had a very significant impact on the plays' total output. ..."
    "... Refracks are very efficient in terms of maintaining production, although, as shallow sand pointed out, the economics are an issue ..."
    "... Without refracks, Bakken wells declines rates are much higher ..."
    "... Posted oil prices are about $25. Gas about $1.60. Each needs to at least triple for activity to be economic (i.e. my view- chance of payout in five years or less). ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Enno Peters, 12/14/2015 at 1:37 am

    I belief I found a way to determine which wells have been refracked, using some simple rules (related to the size and duration of the production increase). I found about 750 Bakken wells since 2008 that have been refracked, which is of a similar magnitude as I have read from several sources. It may not be completely accurate, but I belief it to be roughly so.

    Below you can see the performance of all Bakken wells (about 9850) since 2008 (graph 1), and of the same wells but then excluding those refracked wells (about 9100, graph 2).

    Enno Peters, 12/14/2015 at 1:38 am
    Graph 2. The effect is much more severe than I expected: Take out the wells that appear to have been refracked, and the performance of the remaining wells after 7 years drops by about 40%.

    coffeeguyzz, 12/14/2015 at 4:53 am
    Enno

    I wrote an original comment that is not getting posted … The significance of what you show in those two charts cannot be overstate. HUGE! I suspect the halo effect, rather than actual reentering/refrac'ing plays a role as the 750 figure seems high. Data from the ND subscription service should provide clarity.

    On another site, an industry professional indicated that his company is very secretive about this stuff as they are still trying to understand what is actually happening.

    Good stuff, Enno, as always.

    shallow sand, 12/14/2015 at 6:54 am
    Enno. Again, thank you for this the information. To me it confirms the expensive nature of the Williston Basin. Rune indicates refracks are generally not economic.

    Further, it would seem to me that more recent mega frack practices would limit the viability of going back in again on newer wells?

    Fernando Leanme, 12/14/2015 at 7:27 am
    And the wells supposedly refracked have higher cumulative recovery than the others?
    Glenn Stehle, 12/14/2015 at 7:55 am
    Wow! What a difference. When you revealed the first graph on a thread a few posts back, I was singing and dancing, "We're in the money!" But now it looks like those flat decline curves only come as a result of a lot of very expensive workovers.

    Not good.

    AlexS, 12/14/2015 at 8:28 am
    Enno, thanks a lot for your information.

    Very interesting!

    So about 7% of the ND Bakken wells were refracked since 2008, and that had a very significant impact on the plays' total output.

    My conclusions:

    1) Refracks are very efficient in terms of maintaining production, although, as shallow sand pointed out, the economics are an issue
    2) Without refracks, Bakken wells declines rates are much higher

    shallow sand, 12/14/2015 at 9:44 am
    coffee. It appears there is no "fat tail" unless wells are worked over after a few years.

    One good thing about this is that companies do not have to do these work overs when prices are low. As long as they keep producing some amounts of oil from the wells, they can hold off on work over until prices are better.

    Seems like this is not any different than what we do. We do not refrack many wells, but we do sand pump and acidize them, which brings up production. A lot less expensive and less regulatory work to do these kinds of jobs, as opposed to drilling a new well.

    Wonder if these costs are figured into the PV10 calculations? How many refracks to we need to expect to get to EUR 800K?

    The Williston Basin has always been an expensive place to operate. Posted oil prices are about $25. Gas about $1.60. Each needs to at least triple for activity to be economic (i.e. my view- chance of payout in five years or less).

    [Dec 15, 2015] This Is How The Credit Crisis Spreads To Stocks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yeah but its junk credit... who cares! I am invested in solid megacaps and even solider FANGs - what can go wrong? ..."
    "... The biggest buyer of stocks in 2016, will be, according to Goldman Sachs, the same as it was in 2015 - corporate management teams buying back their own stock in near record quantities. But there is a problem with this thesis... the cost of funding these epic buybacks is surging, making the un-economic actions of the CFO (if very economical for their own bank accounts as they sell record amounts of their own personal stock to their company) even more irrational. ..."
    "... Charts: Bloomberg ..."
    "... And this is why the contagion to IG matters: the biggest buyer of stocks of the last few years is about to priced away as its (cheap debt) funding dries up, removing the biggest pillar of delusion from current equity valuations. ..."
    "... Did nobody tell this stupid asshole that the west funds jihadism in order to conquer Russia? ..."
    "... ...After Ukraine and Syria, Russians have no illusions left about how the West intends to treat Russia. Russians are ready for any action Putin may take against the West and any fall out from it for themselves. ..."
    "... What is sometimes forgotten, is how the Bush neo-cons gave their "spin" to this narrative for the Middle East by casting Arab national secularists and Ba'athists as the offspring of "Satan": David Wurmser was advocating in 1996, "expediting the chaotic collapse" of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that "the phenomenon of Baathism" was, from the very beginning, "an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy." ..."
    "... Putin knows Erdogan was following Obama's orders when Erdogan let US Air Force pilots in Turkish planes shot down the Russian bomber. ..."
    "... if the US were ever to develop the capability to neutralise a Russian nuclear attack, Russia can be guaranteed she will be treated with no greater respect than Iraq under Saddam was. Neither being locked in a weapons race to keep the US vulnerable to Russian attacks nor being prepared to live under Western dictates are options for Russia. ..."
    "... Our DC Beltway and NYC elites are wildly delusional about their ability to win a nuclear war. They listen only to the defense contractors. In fact the West's elites are the prime target in a nuclear war, and even though a small and select strata might have time to hide in a deep bunker, the vast substrata that supports them, runs their bureaucracies and mans their deep state will certainly be annihilated. ..."
    "... The nuclear war our elites seek to provoke will be the first in nearly a thousand years in which the elites themselves will be on the front lines of the combat. ..."
    "... Personally, I think the biggest weakness the USA has is its increasingly diverse and divided population ..."
    "... The Pentagon and their masters must expect to resolve any future major conflict by means of technologic jujitsu; if they think that Americans from all walks of life are going to rally in support of a major foreign war of choice, support mass conscription etc., they're making IMHO a big mistake. ..."
    "... Still, with enough provocation and manipulation, perhaps the typical Amurican can be goosed into enthusiasm for a fight against Islam ; TPTB certainly seem to be giving this angle their best shot these days. ..."
    "... What a shame, such stupidity; the other great power and nation that is at least still Western and Christian. Europe appears to be lost, and yet the U.S. arms Muslim armies and pokes Russia on its borders. Abject insanity. ..."
    "... Simple. Kill the Neocons one by one and we have a safer world for your children, your family and you. ..."
    Dec 14, 2015 | zerohedge.com

    "Yeah but it's junk credit... who cares! I am invested in solid megacaps and even solider FANGs - what can go wrong?"

    The biggest buyer of stocks in 2016, will be, according to Goldman Sachs, the same as it was in 2015 - corporate management teams buying back their own stock in near record quantities. But there is a problem with this thesis... the cost of funding these epic buybacks is surging, making the un-economic actions of the CFO (if very economical for their own bank accounts as they sell record amounts of their own personal stock to their company) even more irrational.

    Here is Goldman's David Kostin explaining who the biggest buyer of stocks is (and will be) - as a reminder, it's not "mom(o) and pop".

    We expect corporations will continue to be the largest source of demand for stocks, with net purchases by US companies totaling $450 billion, equal to about 2% of public equity cap. We forecast equity inflows from equity-related ETFs ($225 billion), equity mutual funds ($200 billion), life insurance ($50 billion), and foreign investors ($25 billion). We forecast net outflows from households ($25 billion) and pensions ($150 billion).

    Well, the cost of funding that carnival of financial engineering and artifice (just ask Nordstrom, Macy's, IBM and so on) is soaring, as high-yield decompression pukes over into investment grade markets, spiking the cost of funding and crushing the 'economic feasibility' of debt-funded shareholder-friendliness:

    Charts: Bloomberg

    And, in case you thought "well, cost of funding has only gone up 30-40bps in IG, they can handle that," you are wrong! To all those who claim US corporate balance sheets are in great shape - they are not! Leverage is at record highs and interest coverage near record lows for the IG universe. And judging by today's collapse in Investment Grade bond prices, the market just woke up to this reality.

    Simply put, the Fed's policies enabled massive releveraging and now corporations are stuck with few options to escape a vicious circle - which by the way, is why it's called the credit 'cycle'.

    And this is why the contagion to IG matters: the biggest buyer of stocks of the last few years is about to priced away as its (cheap debt) funding dries up, removing the biggest pillar of delusion from current equity valuations.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    strannick

    Professor Steve Cohen, the foremost Russia scholar in the U.S., laments, is that it is this narrative which has precluded America from ever concluding any real ability to find a mutually acceptable modus vivendi with Russia – which it sorely needs, if it is ever seriously to tackle the phenomenon of Wahhabist jihadism (or resolve the Syrian conflict).

    Wow, the foremost scholar on Russia is one dumb motherfucker. Did nobody tell this stupid asshole that the west funds jihadism in order to conquer Russia?

    sam i am

    The Western nations underestimated the horrible trauma that the Russian society experienced in 1990s when the Russians peacefully surrendered their society, their lands, their economy to the West, hoping to be accepted and treated as equals by the "world" community. Instead, the West dealt with the Russian skillfully, decisively, and mercilessly, just like the American Indians were dealt with by the colonizers. The Russia was gutted, scalped, and hanged on a cross to die slow and painful death. Some say that Russia like a cat has nine lives. Others say that Russia died and resurrected like Phoenix or Jesus. Open wounds have not healed yet, when after the February 22nd 2014 putsch in Kiev, and publication of the US Department of Defense tenders on the constructions of facilities in Sevastopol for the US fleet and NAVY everyone in Russia, including its government, understood that it was a declaration of war, and stood up in arms.

    http://thesaker.is/ukraine-sitrep-december-13th-2015-by-scott/

    Global Observer

    ...After Ukraine and Syria, Russians have no illusions left about how the West intends to treat Russia. Russians are ready for any action Putin may take against the West and any fall out from it for themselves.

    Ghordius

    "It is the basis to America's and Europe's claim to exceptionalism and leadership". seriously?

    "What is sometimes forgotten, is how the Bush neo-cons gave their "spin" to this narrative for the Middle East by casting Arab national secularists and Ba'athists as the offspring of "Satan": David Wurmser was advocating in 1996, "expediting the chaotic collapse" of secular-Arab nationalism in general, and Baathism in particular. He concurred with King Hussein of Jordan that "the phenomenon of Baathism" was, from the very beginning, "an agent of foreign, namely Soviet policy.""

    so? yes, King Hussein is right, in the very beginning it was mainly the Soviet Union that fostered Ba'athism. and again, so? the Soviet Union is no more

    junction

    Obama is stark raving mad, and his female neocons - Nuland, Powers and assorted other power hungry bitches - are too busy following orders from Israel to realize they are on a treasonous path to World War III. Putin will vaporize Raqqa with one of his new nuclear weapons that works like a neutron bomb. In all likelihood, when the first Kalibr cruise missiles hit ISIS/Bush's Captagon meth plant in Raqqa, the U.S. National Reconnaissance Office couldn't even detect them to warn CIA black ops spies in the drug facility to run. Putin knows Erdogan was following Obama's orders when Erdogan let US Air Force pilots in Turkish planes shot down the Russian bomber.

    Global Observer

    NOBODY WINS A NUCLEAR WAR.

    I hope that Putin and his Military Advisors are smart enough to figure that out.

    They are. But what the Americans don't seem to be aware of is that for some there are worse things than being dead and in order to avoid these worse things, people are prepared to die and nations willing to risk annihilation.

    Russia is willing to risk annihilation in order to be able to live peacefully and with dignity. Is the USA willing to risk annihilation in order to be able to continue to insult Russia and bully the world? If the USA is indeed willing to risk annihilation to continue to do that, it would be silly for Russia not to attack the USA while she still can, because if the US were ever to develop the capability to neutralise a Russian nuclear attack, Russia can be guaranteed she will be treated with no greater respect than Iraq under Saddam was. Neither being locked in a weapons race to keep the US vulnerable to Russian attacks nor being prepared to live under Western dictates are options for Russia.

    monk27

    If the US will be stupid enough to start a war with Russia or/and China, it will lose such a fight big time. That will be the end of America as we know it, and also the end of the contemporary Western "elite" whether they believe it or not. Their move...

    MrPalladium

    "and also the end of the contemporary Western "elite"

    Our DC Beltway and NYC elites are wildly delusional about "their" ability to win a nuclear war. They listen only to the defense contractors. In fact the West's elites are the prime target in a nuclear war, and even though a small and select strata might have time to hide in a deep bunker, the vast substrata that supports them, runs their bureaucracies and mans their deep state will certainly be annihilated.

    No intelligent power like Russia is likely to waste a perfectly good nuke on Paducah Kentucky, but it is certain that the entire population of Manhattan Island, and the DC beltway will be vaporized along with West Los Angeles (propaganda production central) and Silly Valley. The effluvia of the silos in Iowa and Nebraska can be intercepted. Remarkably, our elites and their supporting substrata still believe that the main combatants will be rural boys from Texas and Tennessee which in a strange turn of justice will be the safest places to hide. Our 400 or so billionaire oligarchs who control this country are concentrated in about 20 zip codes. Do you really think that Russia hasn't already targeted them? The whole point of nuclear war is to decapitate the regime but spare the resources and general population for future use, and the real regime, the oligarchs, occupy a very modest and easily cleared amount of territory.

    The nuclear war our elites seek to provoke will be the first in nearly a thousand years in which the elites themselves will be on the front lines of the combat.

    August

    I do like the way you think, Mr. P, and it's entertaining to speculate about war, TEOTWAWKI etc.

    Personally, I think the biggest weakness the USA has is its increasingly diverse and divided population (which is also rather dumbed-down, infantile and irresponsible). The Pentagon and their masters must expect to resolve any future major conflict by means of technologic jujitsu; if they think that "Americans from all walks of life" are going to rally in support of a major foreign war of choice, support mass conscription etc., they're making IMHO a big mistake.

    Still, with enough provocation and manipulation, perhaps the typical Amurican can be goosed into enthusiasm for a "fight against Islam"; TPTB certainly seem to be giving this angle their best shot these days.

    monk27

    "They" (i.e. the Russians) stand a better chance to survive than us. Ours is a much more complex AND violent society than theirs. The Mad Max way of living works only in movie...

    Tall Tom

    NO. THEY DO NOT. NUCLEAR WINTER, PAL.

    You will either freeze to death or succumb to suffocation due to LACK OF OXYGEN.

    The ash will blot out most sunlight. Plants require sunlight to photosynthesize Carbon, from CO2, into complex sugars and starches.

    They transpire OXYGEN. Without the plants...YOU ARE DEAD.

    Watch this video. Even the former Soviet Academy of Sciences concur with this modeling. NOBODY WILL SURVIVE. It is GLOBAL EXTINCTION. It is a God Damned Extinction Level Event.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WCTKcd2Ko98

    I am a physicist. This is valid science. My warning is not without a solid foundation.

    Volkodav

    Soviet did not so much invade. Soviet was already, support moderate government, building infrastructure, schools and other. Girls attended school in dresses.

    Search for photos Kabul in 60's 70's

    Moderate leader was murdered in coup by extremist backed from outsiders. Russians, moderates and monorities were slaughtered. That is when Soviet, after much concern debate, sent additional forces. Soviet was not defeated, but withdrew orderly result of collapse of funds, problems.

    Soviet controlled more of country than west coalition ever did and alone, against outside interferences aiding radicals there was some beginning of what is today, some nasty creations. You never understood there was other side, moderate and civil

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xc2KeSkl5H0

    ebworthen

    What a shame, such stupidity; the other great power and nation that is at least still Western and Christian. Europe appears to be lost, and yet the U.S. arms Muslim armies and pokes Russia on its borders. Abject insanity.

    Insurrexion

    Simple. Kill the Neocons one by one and we have a safer world for your children, your family and you.


    [Dec 15, 2015] There is good reason to believe that the race between depletion and production growth is basically over and that depletion has won

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you believe that peak is not yet but will soon be, then the current low price, plus consumption over the next few years,, plus the current and probable low level of investment for the next few years, plus the declining quality of the remaining endowment of oil in the ground, all add up to a pretty good argument that oil has or soon will peak, and for good. ..."

    The Wet One, 12/14/2015 at 11:06 am

    So with WTI oil under $35 this a.m., I wonder what this entails for peak oi?

    A couple of questions.

    1. Has oil production declined from some peak this year? I should know this, but I have been a bit lax on my reading in here, so I don't know.

    2. I know Ron expected peak to be this year, does that still seem tenable with only 17 days left in 2015?

    3. Is there good reason to believe that the race between depletion and production growth is basically over and that depletion has won? Is there no reason to believe that production growth will ever catch up again? Of course, this is the kind of prediction that is real hard. Who saw shale oil / the fracking boom 6 or 7 years ago when I first became aware of peak oil and my work changed to permanent gloom?

    4. Regardless of the gyrations in the oil markets, does anyone care or think about what is, in my view, some of the more important news that came out this year? Namely that about 1/2 of all life has disappeared since I was born 4 decades ago? Anybody? Or is all gas and oil all the time and nary a thought or care (except what I bring up now and again) on other matters? When will the tipping point be reached beyond which ecological collapse occurs and life has hard go here on Earth (human life included)? How few other species can exists and humanity continue to flourish? Or are these just questions which occupy the especially neurotic among us?

    Merry Christmas everyone!

    oldfarmermac, 12/14/2015 at 11:54 am
    A good many of the regulars here are profoundly concerned with the state of the biosphere, as is our gracious host Ron.

    You will see plenty of commentary on climate, resources other than oil if you look back over the last few months archives- sometimes more than about oil.

    If you believe that peak is not yet but will soon be, then the current low price, plus consumption over the next few years,, plus the current and probable low level of investment for the next few years, plus the declining quality of the remaining endowment of oil in the ground, all add up to a pretty good argument that oil has or soon will peak, and for good.

    But I am not betting MY farm on it. ;-)

    I would bet as much as I can afford to lose though.

    Ron Patterson, 12/14/2015 at 12:22 pm
    So with WTI oil under $35 this a.m., I wonder what this entails for peak oi?

    Nothing! The peak was brought about by $100+ oil, not $35 oil.

    1. Has oil production declined from some peak this year?

    Some but not enough to get excited about. C+C peaked, so far, in July. It is down just over half a million barrels per day since then, through September.

    2. I know Ron expected peak to be this year, does that still seem tenable with only 17 days left in 2015?

    Yes, that is already settled, 2015 will definitely be the peak, or the highest peak so far. The question is will it go higher from here. Well definitely not in 2016. But after that it is open for debate. I believe 2015 will be the final peak but of course others have a different idea.

    3. Is there good reason to believe that the race between depletion and production growth is basically over and that depletion has won? Is there no reason to believe that production growth will ever catch up again?

    If I believe that 2015 is the peak then I obviously believe that depletion will overtake production from this point on. However I am sure others have a different opinion.

    4. Regardless of the gyrations in the oil markets, does anyone care or think about what is, in my view, some of the more important news that came out this year? Namely that about 1/2 of all life has disappeared since I was born 4 decades ago?

    Of course that is very important but it is not really news. Animal life was disappearing long before you were born. The destruction has speeded up considerably in the last 40 to 50 years. But I have been thrashing that straw for half a century and it is not news to me. And the tragic news will only get worse. On the way to the bottom we will eat the songbirds out of the trees.

    The new JODI data, October, will be out Sunday, December 20th. I will have another post on the probable peak then. The data below is through September.

    likbez , 12/14/2015 at 12:36 pm

    "So with WTI oil under $35 this a.m., I wonder what this entails for peak oi?"

    That's a very interesting question ;-) Here are some relevant considerations:

    Each oil price level (30-40, 40-50, 50-60 and so on) has its own "peak oil" with the sustainable production volume and duration of the plato before the decline. And this volume is definitely much higher at $100 then at, say, $35 that we have now.

    But when oil price abruptly drops the production level does not reacts immediately: there is a lag of at least 18 months as hedges need to expire and projects which are under way completed. During this period the production can even increase despite the price drop. Like a huge tanker oil industry has tremendous inertia.

    Double this period and you will see the "The Wile E. Coyote Moment" if consumption did not drop for some reason. If we assume that December of the last year is the start of this period, then there are still 8 months to wait before oil price start feeling upward pressure. If you assume that July of 2014 is the start, then March-April of 2016.

    My impression is that at this price level the current production levels for most of the countries on the globe are not sustainable and I think this is the nature of OPEC gambit, if such exists.

    So I would answer your question: Yes at this price level ($30-$40) the current level of production is the peak oil and will probably not repeat. Although never say never and some tremendous economic crash or world economic depression might change this.

    Also you do not need to equate "paper oil" in futures for WTI and all the financial machination of short sellers in the USA with the situation on the ground. Now tail wags the dog - financial markets drive the price of oil. So it might well be that a short squeeze is coming. As John Kenneth Galbraith noted "The sense of responsibility in the financial community for the community as a whole is not small. It is nearly nil." ( The Great Crash of 1929.)

    So in the situation when we need to conserve this valuable product to provide for future generations Wall Street traders behave like drunks dancing on the deck of Titanic. That might not end well.

    Note how car sales are affected by low oil prices. Most of the efforts in fuel economy now went into the window as people buy SUVs and trucks instead of hybrids and electrical cars.

    If we believe Saudi oil minister at this price level we can expect up to 1 million a day barrels world production drop starting with Q1 2016. The only country that can add substantial amount of oil to the market is Iran, but who will finance this expansion in the current circumstances? And are Iranian that stupid to waist a valuable commodity at the time when world prices are rock bottom? They are more like Saudi then like Russia in this respect and can regulate their output at will.

    Please note that world consumption is still growing and probably will grow at least 1% in 2016.

    In the USA the drop of oil production might already started. If not wait for April.

    [Dec 15, 2015] 4 to 8% for the natural decline rates for Saudi Arabia fields means almost a million barrel per day drop

    Something is deeply wrong with "oil glut" story. At around 12K barrel per day 6% drop of KSA production means 720 thousand barrels. At the same time Indian consumption growth at 10% (from very low current level of 0.003 barrel per capita) means 370 thousand barrels. And the shales boomed when oil price boomed. And not due to technology: horizontal drilling for unconventional reservoirs, like the Austin Chalk in Texas, was well established 15 years earlier. And frac'ng has changed very little for decades. The oil price collapse has forced some producers, like the KSA, to bring their reserve capacity into play so as to increase the revenue stream. Which also means the lower oil prices are also increasing the depletion rate of existing proven reserves as well as hampering the development of new reserves. The recent oil price collapse may eventually be viewed as the ultimate "Oh sh*t" moment in the global energy dynamics. ( http://peakoil.com/production/opec-cannot-kill-shale-oil/comment-page-3#comment-228331 )
    Notable quotes:
    "... Might be a coincidence but KSA production is starting to look a lot like exponential decay with about a 6% per year decline rate ..."
    "... Kuwait may also be in the post plateau decline. ..."
    "... US pop 320 million US consumption 20 mbpd 0.063 per capita ..."
    "... India pop 1.25 billion India consumption 3.7 mbpd 0.003 per capita ..."
    "... Indonesia pop 255 million growth rate 1.5%. Indonesia consumption 1.72 mbpd 0.006 per capita ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Anonymous, 12/13/2015 at 5:52 am
    Might be a coincidence but KSA production is starting to look a lot like exponential decay with about a 6% per year decline rate (i.e. implying all chokes open, nothing new coming on line, maintenance periods being balanced out). Different sources have given 4 to 8% for the natural decline rates for their fields so 6% would agree. If water starts hitting the horizontal infill wells in their major fields this could rise though.
    dclonghorn, 12/13/2015 at 4:24 pm
    Kuwait may also be in the post plateau decline.
    Watche, 12/13/2015 at 2:48 pm
    Some consumption tidbits:
    • Saudi Arabia population 27 million (18.5 m nationals 8.5m non nationals) KSA consumption about 3 mbpd. 0.111 per capita
    • US pop 320 million US consumption 20 mbpd 0.063 per capita
    • Germany population 81 million Germany consumption 2.4 mbpd 0.03 per capita
    • France population 66 million France consumption 1.7 mbpd 0.026 per capita
    • China pop 1.38 billion China consumption 10.48 mbpd 0.007 per capita
    • India pop 1.25 billion India consumption 3.7 mbpd 0.003 per capita

    consumption numbers from nifty map here, just mouseover
    http://www.eia.gov/beta/international/?fips=FR

    Oh and btw China wiki says pop growth rate = 0.47%

    India 1.25%

    Since back in the news:

    • Indonesia pop 255 million growth rate 1.5%. Indonesia consumption 1.72 mbpd 0.006 per capita

    These countries MUST get their per capita consumption up if they are to spare their populace an eternity of inferiority to those consuming more. If there isn't enough to go around, then competing consumption must be destroyed.

    [Dec 14, 2015] The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a possible route out of the crisis

    consortiumnews.com
    anne,
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/12/12/blocking-democracy-as-syrias-solution/

    December 12, 2015

    Blocking Democracy as Syria's Solution By Robert Parry

    The long-cherished neocon dream of "regime change" in Syria is blocking a possible route out of the crisis – a ceasefire followed by elections in which President Assad could compete. The problem is there's no guarantee that Assad would lose and thus the dream might go unfulfilled.
    By Robert Parry

    The solution to the crisis in Syria could be democracy – letting the people of Syria decide who they want as their leaders – but it is the Obama administration and its regional Sunni "allies," including U.S.-armed militants and jihadists, that don't want to risk a democratic solution because it might not achieve the long-held goal of "regime change."

    Some Syrian opposition forces, which were brought together under the auspices of the Saudi monarchy in Riyadh this past week, didn't even want the word "democracy" included in their joint statement. The New York Times reported on Friday, "Islamist delegates objected to using the word 'democracy' in the final statement, so the term 'democratic mechanism' was used instead, according to a member of one such group who attended the meeting."

    Even that was too much for Ahrar al-Sham, one of the principal jihadist groups fighting side-by-side with Al Qaeda's Nusra Front, the two key elements inside the Saudi-created Army of Conquest, which uses sophisticated U.S.-supplied TOW missiles to kill Syrian government troops.

    Ahrar al-Sham announced its withdrawal from the Riyadh conference because the meeting didn't "confirm the Muslim identity of our people." Syrian President Bashar al-Assad has sought to maintain a secular government that protects the rights of Christians, Alawites, Shiites and other religious minorities, but Sunni militants have been fighting to overthrow him since 2011.

    Despite Ahrar al-Sham's rejection of the Saudi-organized conference, all the opposition participants, including one from Ahrar al-Sham who apparently wasn't aware of his group's announcement, signed the agreement, the Times reported.

    "All parties signed a final statement that called for maintaining the unity of Syria and building a civil, representative government that would take charge after a transitional period, at the start of which Mr. Assad and his associates would step down," wrote Times' correspondent Ben Hubbard.

    But the prospects of Assad and his government just agreeing to cede power to the opposition remains highly unlikely. An obvious alternative – favored by Assad and Russian President Vladimir Putin – is to achieve a ceasefire and then have internationally supervised elections in which the Syrian people could choose their own leaders.

    Although President Barack Obama insists Assad is hated by most Syrians – and if that's true, he would presumably lose any fair election – the U.S. position is to bar Assad from the ballot, thus ensuring "regime change" in Syria, a long-held goal of Official Washington's neoconservatives.

    In other words, to fulfill the neocons' dream of Syrian "regime change," the Obama administration is continuing the bloody Syrian conflict which has killed a quarter million people, has created an opening for Islamic State and Al Qaeda terrorists, and has driven millions of refugees into and through nearby countries, now destabilizing Europe and feeding xenophobia in the United States.

    For his part, Assad called participants in the Saudi conference "terrorists" and rejected the idea of negotiating with them. "They want the Syrian government to negotiate with the terrorists, something I don't think anyone would accept in any country," Assad told Spanish journalists, as he repeated his position that many of the terrorists were backed by foreign governments and that he would only "deal with the real, patriotic national opposition."

    Kinks in the Process

    Secretary of State John Kerry told reporters on Friday that he was in contact with senior Saudi officials and noted, "there are some questions and obviously a couple of – in our judgment – kinks to be worked out" though expressing confidence that the problems could be resolved.

    A key problem appears to be that the Obama administration has so demonized Assad and so bought into the neocon goal of "regime change" that Obama doesn't feel that he can back down on his "Assad must go!" mantra. Yet, to force Assad out and bar him from running in an election means escalating the war by either further arming the Sunni jihadists or mounting a larger-scale invasion of Syria with the U.S. military confronting Syrian and now Russian forces to establish what is euphemistically called "a safe zone" inside Syria. A related "no-fly zone" would require destroying Syrian air defenses, now supplied by the Russians.

    Obama has largely followed the first course of action, allowing Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Turkey and other Sunni "allies" to funnel U.S. weapons to jihadists, including Ahrar al-Sham which fights alongside Al Qaeda's Nusra Front as the two seek to transform Syria into a Islamic fundamentalist state, a goal shared by Al Qaeda's spinoff (and now rival), the Islamic State.

    Retired U.S. Army Lieutenant General Michael Flynn, the former head of the Defense Intelligence Agency, has termed Obama's choice of aiding the jihadists a "willful decision," even in the face of DIA warnings about the likely rise of the Islamic State and other extremists.

    In August 2012, DIA described the danger in a classified report, which noted that "The salafist, the Muslim Brotherhood, and AQI [Al Qaeda in Iraq, later ISI or ISIS and then the Islamic State] are the major forces driving the insurgency in Syria." The report also said that "If the situation unravels there is the possibility of establishing a declared or undeclared salafist principality in eastern Syria" and that "ISI could also declare an Islamic State through its union with other terrorist organizations in Iraq and Syria."

    Despite these risks, Obama continued to insist that "Assad must go!" and let his administration whip up a propaganda campaign around claims that Assad's forces launched a sarin gas attack outside Damascus on Aug. 21, 2013. Though many of the U.S. claims about that attack have since been discredited – and later evidence implicated radical jihadists (possibly collaborating with Turkish intelligence) trying to trick the U.S. military into intervening on their side – the Obama administration did not retract or clarify its initial claims.

    By demonizing Assad – much like the demonization of Russian President Putin – Obama may feel that he is deploying "soft power" propaganda to put foreign adversaries on the defensive while also solidifying his political support inside hawkish U.S. opinion circles, but false narratives can take on a life of their own and make rational settlements difficult if not impossible....

    ilsm -> anne...
    The Syria terror consortium was in Riyadh checking in with their bankers. To the Sunni democracy is apostate anathema.
    anne -> ilsm...
    I understand the frustration and beyond, after all I read about Yemen being bombed with American bombs and target sightings and I cannot imagine the policy incentives driving us.

    Nonetheless, the Yemen bombings go on day on day on day.

    anne -> ilsm...
    Iraq, Libya, Syria, Yemen? Who could possibly ever understand, but our policy makers act as though they do.

    [Dec 14, 2015] The recent increase in global oil production actually is the result of low oil prices

    Notable quotes:
    "... The recent increase in global oil production actually is the result of low oil prices…not higher. The oil price collapse has forced some producers, like the KSA, to bring their reserve capacity into play so as to increase the revenue stream. Which also means the lower oil prices are also increasing the depletion rate of existing proven reserves as well as hampering the development of new reserves. ..."
    "... For starters, growth and jobs are needed to support prosperity and social cohesion in the wake of the Great Recession that began in 2008. Six years after the eruption of the financial crisis, the recovery remains weak and uneven. Global growth is projected at just 3.3 percent in 2014 and 3.8 percent in 2015. ..."
    peakoil.com
    onlooker, 13th Dec 2015 8:02 am

    I would have to say that is a stupendous post Davy. I would add that oil as the foundational energy source is as you said irreplaceable even as some substitution can take place. Therefore, both out of desire but also out of need societies will still try and attain oil for its myriad of uses. I would like to cover a bit the pananorma of how this relates with regions of the planet and respective countries.

    As we are aware Northern countries are richer in may ways while Southern countries are more overpopulated relative to resources. On the other hand the reliance of Northern countries completely on a modern oil based infrastructre makes them particularly vulnerable to price fluctuations and both perceived instabilities as well as material/physical shortages and instabilities.

    On the other hand Asia with its vast population will find it very difficult to avoid the most drastic of effects of overshoot, meaning die-off. What is happening in the Midde East is so apparent a child can discern it. They are there first and foremost for the oil. The War on Terrror is but a smokescreen. Middle East is simply blessed with much oil and gas as well.

    The trajectory of powerdown is a composite of as you stated human rationality and irrationality along with physical realities that cannot be negotiated or changed. Thus, it will be both voluntary and forced. Oil will continue to play a role in human affairs for some time to come. The proof is how the Climate conferences including the latest in Paris are not really intent on substantial fossil fuel reduction and also because recent polls clearly show that people by and large are still not overly concerned with climate change.

    I think clearly humanity will have to endure massive die-off in a both gradual and at times abrupt manner. Industrial modern civilization cannot be maintained that much longer in so much as resource shortages of many kinds especially of course fossil fuels will not allow it. So modern civilization will wither away in fits and starts while humanity tries to adapt and mitigate.

    All the while climate change threatens ever more massive disruptions and discontinuities. At the other side of the bottleneck of overshoot perhaps remaining humans that probably will number less than a billion will try and maintain some level of functioning society and modernity but certainly at a much less complex level than now and beholden to the whims of Mother nature and what she has in store for us.

    rockman, 13th Dec 2015 8:52 am

    looker – "So in fact peak oil will really bite when it is not so economically viable to find and produce oil for the market." Good point and there's a great visual to emphasize that point: look at the US oil production curve. We peaked about 35 years ago. And during those decades the inflation adjusted price of oil was less the current prices…and considerably less then during the height of the shale boom.

    And the shales boomed when oil price boomed. And not due to technology: horizontal drilling for unconventional reservoirs, like the Austin Chalk in Texas, was well established 15 years earlier. And frac'ng has changed very little for decades.

    IOW US oil production peaked because oil prices essentially peaked decades ago. Yes: up and down but no great movement like we saw when the shales boomed. And US oil production almost reached a new peak because oil prices reached near peak levels once again. Which means that we may not only be at global PO but the longer it takes for oil prices to significantly increase we may never again approach current production levels as depletion continues to take its toll.

    The recent increase in global oil production actually is the result of low oil prices…not higher. The oil price collapse has forced some producers, like the KSA, to bring their reserve capacity into play so as to increase the revenue stream. Which also means the lower oil prices are also increasing the depletion rate of existing proven reserves as well as hampering the development of new reserves.

    The recent oil price collapse may eventually be viewed as the ultimate "Oh sh*t" moment in the global energy dynamics.

    GregT, 13th Dec 2015 1:35 pm

    Why 2015 Is a Make-or-Break Year for the Global Economy

    WASHINGTON - As 2015 begins, policymakers around the world are faced with three fundamental choices: to strive for economic growth or accept stagnation; to work to improve stability or risk succumbing to fragility; and to cooperate or go it alone. The stakes could not be higher; 2015 promises to be a make-or-break year for the global community.

    For starters, growth and jobs are needed to support prosperity and social cohesion in the wake of the Great Recession that began in 2008. Six years after the eruption of the financial crisis, the recovery remains weak and uneven. Global growth is projected at just 3.3 percent in 2014 and 3.8 percent in 2015.

    Christine Lagarde
    Managing Director, IMF
    01/20/2015 11:24 am EST

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/christine-lagarde/2015-global-economy_b_6502146.html

    According to Scotiabank's Global Forecast Update on Dec 3/2015, global growth is expected to weigh in at 3.1%, not even meeting the mediocre projections of 3.8% by the IMF. The make or break period has been broken.

    http://www.gbm.scotiabank.com/English/bns_econ/forecast.pdf

    GregT, 13th Dec 2015 1:56 pm

    "Oil consumption world wide is growing. Nat gas consumption is growing. Solar and wind is growing. Energy is growing. Coal use is growing. Energy is the base of all economies and there isn't any contraction in any of them. World GDP is growing. You doomers think you can fight facts but ya'll live in a false reality."

    Infinite exponential growth in a finite environment is a physical and mathematical impossibility. That is our reality Boat, and that is a fact. Whether you believe that you can fight it or not, is irrelevant. There has been a contraction in growth, and there will continue to be a further contraction in growth. The fact that you are unable to comprehend what that means, once again, exposes your level of intelligence. (or lack thereof)

    [Dec 14, 2015] Who benefits from lower oil prices

    Notable quotes:
    "... gold rush bonanza days ended in June 2014. The price fall in crude oil did not squeeze frackers out of business, they caused them to be a lot more careful with their money. ..."
    "... oil service companies make fewer sales, and also require fewer employees to maintain their reduced output. Employment in the oil industry has suffered as plans get put off and exploration is cut back. As examples of this phenomenon, consider Schlumberger , which is the largest oilfield service company in the world. Schlumberger has cut its workforce by 9,000 this year. Weatherford International cut their payroll from 60,000 staff to 46,000 in 2014 and then made a further 5,000 employees redundant in 2015. ..."
    "... Unemployment reduces the wages of employed oil workers, because there are plenty of other who would fill the shoes of specialists who walk off site rather than reducing their fees. Thus, the oil industrys workforce has become a major loser in the low crude price era. ..."
    oil-price.net
    The Losers

    High prices for crude oil from 2010 to 2014 gave great incentives to US explorers to invest in locating new sources of oil and gas. The practice of hydraulic fracturing rapidly expanded the USA's oil production and contributed to the current glut. High sales prices meant that fracking companies could bowl into town, rich with easy money. They sprayed money around the communities they moved into and offered high prices for mineral rights and site access. Those gold rush bonanza days ended in June 2014. The price fall in crude oil did not squeeze frackers out of business, they caused them to be a lot more careful with their money.

    Frackers learned to extract more oil from each rig, thus reducing the start up overhead costs of each well. The increased tightness of financing meant the idea of spending millions to get access and buy friends was off the table. A lot of the largesse of fracking has been wiped off the books and so local communities in the vicinity of fracking plays benefit a lot less from a new well, than those lucky citizens reaped back in 2012 and 2013.

    Fewer rigs mean fewer workers. It also means that less equipment needs to be sold. Thus, oil service companies make fewer sales, and also require fewer employees to maintain their reduced output. Employment in the oil industry has suffered as plans get put off and exploration is cut back. As examples of this phenomenon, consider Schlumberger, which is the largest oilfield service company in the world. Schlumberger has cut its workforce by 9,000 this year. Weatherford International cut their payroll from 60,000 staff to 46,000 in 2014 and then made a further 5,000 employees redundant in 2015.

    By squeezing margins and employing new technology, US frackers have been able to stay in the game. Their success at maintaining profitability at lower market prices has put pressure on conventional producers around the world to reduce profits and slash costs. So, although no producers have gone bust yet, their drive to survive has returned a lot of oil workers to the employment lines.

    Unemployment reduces the wages of employed oil workers, because there are plenty of other who would fill the shoes of specialists who walk off site rather than reducing their fees. Thus, the oil industry's workforce has become a major loser in the low crude price era.

    Middle Eastern OPEC members are said to be driving the price fall in order to squeeze out their fracking rivals. This strategy has lost those governments the income they need to keep their economies running with very little alternative sources of income. They must now subsidize their governments with their foreign currency reserves. Drawing down bank deposits means there is less money available for banks to lend, thus squeezing credit and reducing global economic expansion further.

    As Arabian governments start to draw down their savings, they will be forced to cut government spending. Oil producers in the Middle East buy off their citizens' ambitions for democracy with petrodollars. Of course when the money runs out, instability will increase even further in those countries.

    [Dec 14, 2015] North Dakota sees further declines in oil production ahead as prices hit seven-year low

    Notable quotes:
    "... Helms said the current estimated North Dakota wellhead price - $27 per barrel - is the lowest since December 2008. ..."
    "... That price, which is calculated from a Minnesota refinery's posted data, is nearly $10 less than the benchmark West Texas Intermediate price set at a major oil terminal in Cushing, Okla. ..."
    "... Just 65 drilling rigs are operating in North Dakota, down two-thirds from a year ago, and near a seven-year low, according to data released Wednesday. ..."
    "... The top five oil producers in North Dakota all reported net losses for the third quarter. In another sign of troubles, 15 operators have sold 662 producing wells to new investors, according to data released Wednesday by North Dakota regulators. ..."
    December 10, 2015 | bakken.com

    North Dakota's oil price has dropped to a seven-year low, and operators are drilling fewer new wells, portending future declines in production, the state's Mineral Resources Department reported Wednesday.

    "We are looking at a lot of belt tightening and we are looking at it to continue through the entire first half of 2016," Lynn Helms, director of the regulatory agency said on his monthly Director's Cut conference call with reporters.

    In October, however, oil production in North Dakota rose 0.6 percent to nearly 1.17 million barrels per day compared with September, but that's down from the peak of 1.23 million barrels last December.

    Helms said that upward blip partly resulted from North Dakota producers selling oil in advance of last Friday's meeting of Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC). The decision at that meeting to maintain production levels further sank oil prices.

    "They were trying to move and sell as much as they could ahead of the OPEC meeting," said Helms, who expects prices won't recover for months.

    North Dakota producers get less than the domestic benchmark price for crude oil because they lack sufficient pipeline capacity to economically ship out of state, and rely on more-expensive rail to export nearly half their output.

    Related: North Dakota budget writer: New revenue forecast likely

    Helms said the current estimated North Dakota wellhead price - $27 per barrel - is the lowest since December 2008.

    That price, which is calculated from a Minnesota refinery's posted data, is nearly $10 less than the benchmark West Texas Intermediate price set at a major oil terminal in Cushing, Okla.

    Just 65 drilling rigs are operating in North Dakota, down two-thirds from a year ago, and near a seven-year low, according to data released Wednesday.

    Another 10 drilling rigs are expected to stop operating sometime in 2016 in the face of persistent low oil prices, Helms said.

    Further declines

    That pace of drilling likely will result in further declines in North Dakota oil production, Helms said. But he doesn't expect output to drop below 1 million barrels per day - a symbolic threshold that North Dakota achieved in April 2014.

    The top five oil producers in North Dakota all reported net losses for the third quarter. In another sign of troubles, 15 operators have sold 662 producing wells to new investors, according to data released Wednesday by North Dakota regulators.

    In the largest of the deals, 392 wells were sold by Occidental Petroleum Corp. which is exiting the state, to Lime Rock Resources III-A L.P., a private equity firm. Both are based in Houston.

    In other major deals, Whiting Oil & Gas Corp. of Denver sold 122 wells to investor groups; Corinthian Exploration, based in Calgary, sold 92 wells; and American Eagle Energy Corp., a Littleton, Colo.,-based operator that filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy in May, sold 87 wells.

    [Dec 14, 2015] The cost of domestic oil

    Notable quotes:
    "... Shale oil takes an estimated $60-80 per barrel to break even on cost for domestic production, depending on the area being drilled, the extent of drilling and the ability to get it to market. In Iraq, each barrel costs about $20 to extract. If the price of oil dropped to $80, drilling companies would have little incentive to continue drilling new wells and funding exploration ventures. ..."
    "... Horizontal drilling has transformed the industry from drilling straight down into a formation to drilling a curved well that can follow a shale formation and access it throughout. The technique called multi-stage fracturing also boosts oil output. Traditionally, wells would be drilled, the rock would be fractured, and production would be static from that point. Multi-stage fracking fractures the rock at several different points along the well bore. ..."
    "... Independent oil producers in the U.S. spend approximately $1.50 for every dollar they earn in revenues. They also carry a sizable amount of debt. With oil prices at sustained, elevated levels, investors are content with current levels of debt. If the price of oil fell and investors saw their potential for profit falling in lockstep, they would likely chose to invest elsewhere. Having high debt and slim profits makes for a poor investment. A sustained drop in oil price would cause companies to slow or even halt drilling, which would result in a decline in production. ..."
    February 27, 2014 | bakken.com

    The past decade has seen an explosion of drilling into the United States' shale oil reserves. Many people feel as though the shale boom will make life easier for everyone involved with an added bonus of cheap oil. Although we have transitioned from importing the majority of our oil from countries in the Middle East and Venezuela, domestic oil costs much more to produce on US soil.

    In the Bakken formation in North Dakota, oil is coming out of the ground at the feverish rate of one million barrels per day. The initial flow rate from shale rock formation is usually very high, however the rate of production declines quickly and steadies off. In the first year of drilling alone, shale well production will drop about 60-70%. According to the International Energy Agency, it would take 2,500 new wells per year just to keep Bakken oil production at current levels. Iraq would only need 60 to do the same.

    The price of oil has remained around $100 per barrel in recent years, which makes shale oil production profitable. Shale oil takes an estimated $60-80 per barrel to break even on cost for domestic production, depending on the area being drilled, the extent of drilling and the ability to get it to market. In Iraq, each barrel costs about $20 to extract. If the price of oil dropped to $80, drilling companies would have little incentive to continue drilling new wells and funding exploration ventures.

    If technological advances, new techniques and speed of drilling continue improving, this will drive down the costs of producing from shale. This will in turn put downward pressure on the price of oil. Horizontal drilling has transformed the industry from drilling straight down into a formation to drilling a curved well that can follow a shale formation and access it throughout. The technique called multi-stage fracturing also boosts oil output. Traditionally, wells would be drilled, the rock would be fractured, and production would be static from that point. Multi-stage fracking fractures the rock at several different points along the well bore.

    Independent oil producers in the U.S. spend approximately $1.50 for every dollar they earn in revenues. They also carry a sizable amount of debt. With oil prices at sustained, elevated levels, investors are content with current levels of debt. If the price of oil fell and investors saw their potential for profit falling in lockstep, they would likely chose to invest elsewhere. Having high debt and slim profits makes for a poor investment. A sustained drop in oil price would cause companies to slow or even halt drilling, which would result in a decline in production.

    With all the headwinds confronting oil companies, the shale oil boom does not seem like it will be ending any time soon. U.S. oil production is projected to rise to 9.2 million barrels per day in 2015 from 7.4 million in 2014.

    Recent shale exploration has revealed that the Permian Basin in western Texas contains approximately 30 billion barrels of oil. To put it in perspective, the nearby Eagle Ford formation is estimated at 7-10 million barrels, and the Bakken formation at 4.3 billion barrels. With many companies rushing to greener pastures to produce in the Permian and other domestic hot-spots, the conversation on shale oil is far from over.

    [Dec 14, 2015] Oil producers prepare for prices to halve to $20 a barrel

    Notable quotes:
    "... There's nothing new in shale gas that the oil industry itself hasn't done before. Hydrofracturing as a technique for enhancing oil recovery was developed over 50 years ago, and most of the North Sea was fracked (as are oil wells all over the world). The big technological breakthrough that allowed exploitation of shale gas was horizontal drilling, which allowed long pipes to be installed in the (usually narrow) shale gas strata. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia trying to kill the shale oil industry in USA, limit Iran rise and as a bonus undermine Russian military activities. ..."
    "... The falling price of oil has initiated a historic wealth transfer effect of about $1 trillion a year between net oil importers and oil exporters reversing decades of historical trend. The US consumer alone gets $200 billion, and Europe and Asia (especially India and China) are even bigger beneficiaries of this massive wealth transfer of wealth by cheap oil. ..."
    "... This is what's called an economic stimulus - but from cheaper oil prices. As Bloomberg noted recently: OPEC Provides Economic Stimulus Central Bankers Can't or Won't ..."
    "... A non-economists understanding of macro is almost always politics masquerading as science. ..."
    "... The theory that Saudi has engineered this oil price drop is nonsense. If they wanted to do this they would have increased production. The price fall is mostly due to the vast amount of speculation in US shale oil that completely ignored the effect of a massive increase in supply on price. These speculators are now paying for this mistake by leading the world in corporate defaults. Shale oil production will eventually slow down due to lack of finance and the price will start to increase. I don't think anyone can predict future price due to the complexity. ..."
    "... Did you miss the bit where Russia will need to make cuts all the way through its services in line with the money they are losing via weak experts? Do you understand the knock-on effect this has through the rest of her economy - the recession it generates? Macroeconomics is a very interesting subject, and Creekwhore seems to have a good grasp on it. ..."
    "... Hard to know which makes them happier, really. I was doing some work in Saudi in 2012 and there was a lot of concern there that not only were they losing the supply monopoly, but that as the US was becoming not just self-sufficient but an exporter it would make KSA less strategically relevant to the US and others in the west and therefore lose them influence on world events. They know they need the realpolitik power of the being the swing-producer in the oil cartel as without it no-one in the west is queuing up to be the natural ally of a quasi-medieval despotism with a lousy human rights record and a deal with some very suspect religious extremists. ..."
    "... My take on this is that the Russian economy is also a target - even perhaps the real target. ..."
    "... The Saudi's tactics are supposedly designed to hit the US shale producers, but, from what I understand, if these do go under they can quite easily start up again when the oil price recovers, then we're back to where we started. What is the point of all this market manipulation? ..."
    "... US shale producers are much better placed than anyone expected them to be. Saudi Arabia has maybe another 18 months to play at this before they start to really rack up the debts. You've got a young, angry, largely unemployed population there that's basically pacified by the largesse of public spending. ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    The consultancy Capital Economics said: "Brent's [short-lived] dip today below $40 per barrel is a further damning verdict on Opec's bungled communications after its meeting last Friday. However, it was never likely that the group would agree to cut output to boost prices. Instead, any recovery next year will depend on reductions in non-Opec supply and on stronger demand. On this basis, while we are lowering our end-2016 forecast for Brent from $60 to $55, we continue to expect oil prices to stage a partial recovery next year."

    Hugh Easton -> woldsgardener 11 Dec 2015 13:57

    There's nothing new in shale gas that the oil industry itself hasn't done before. Hydrofracturing as a technique for enhancing oil recovery was developed over 50 years ago, and most of the North Sea was fracked (as are oil wells all over the world). The big technological breakthrough that allowed exploitation of shale gas was horizontal drilling, which allowed long pipes to be installed in the (usually narrow) shale gas strata.

    So why do environmentalists make a big deal of hydrofracking at all? As with so much else green, there's no science behind it. They've just seized on a scarysounding something and are using it to bamboozle the public into thinking that a technology they oppose is dangerous.

    TheinfamousmrFox -> sportinlifesport 11 Dec 2015 08:44

    Actually, they're losing money. Even those with the lowest production costs (Saudi A) are burning through their currency reserves at a fantastic rate.

    Essentially, OPEC are betting they can crush the US and Russian oil industries before they go broke themselves. However they didn't count on the growing green momentum starting to replace a lot of fossil fuel technology;- and that's not going to get slower.

    Boutros Gladius ID6232853 11 Dec 2015 03:56

    Check your numbers before you call nonsense. Demand was up 1.4m barrels/day in 2014, and is projected to be up by over a million for 2015 and 2016. In fact, it's up a similar amount every year for the last decade, with the single exception of the year of the financial crash. Demand increases will inexorably eat up any oversupply -- this price reduction is a mere blip.

    ncaplan88 9 Dec 2015 18:40

    It's great for us in America. Almost all retail is pegging to the price of shipping. Shipping is deisel fueled. Better to let OPEC run down their stocks than pump out the last of our reserves. King Salman is a good ally to help weaken our traditional enemies.


    zacmcd -> zoggo 9 Dec 2015 17:43

    Conspiracy theory rubbish. The low interest rate environment has led money to chase bad high yield investments, while the oil price was high this included shale. China's economic slow down has meant oil consumption growth hasn't risen as expected so supply now exceeds demand.

    Russia along with Norway, Brazil, Canada etc are being punished for not having diversified economies not because Uncle Sam does or doesn't like them.


    BlueMazda 9 Dec 2015 12:24

    Forget the two big players, Russian and Saudis. What is the impact on the smaller producers in the ME, UAE, Kuwait, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan et. al.? Are they selling at below extraction costs per barrel? Will we see a ME recession? Social turmoil?


    Timothy Underwood -> Chris Johnson 9 Dec 2015 10:52

    Its not sad at all. The reason low oil prices is bad for 'the markets' is because the oil price drop basically means that consumers spend less on gas, and then instead buy more TVs, cars and eat out more often.

    The margins on hundred dollar oil are really, really good for companies. The majority of that money isn't spent pumping and refining the oil. Most of the money when Exxon sells a barrel at $100 goes to Exxon shareholders (and whatever country the oil is pumped in).

    TVs and cars are very competitive markets. When you buy a car or TV generally 90-95% of the money goes to making the car, which leaves only a little left over for the shareholders of Ford or Samsung. So low oil prices are hurt the share price of oil companies far more than they help the share prices of non oil companies.

    In other words low oil prices move money from rich people to ordinary people. Non oil things are just less profitable to sell on average.

    The value of the market is a rough proxy for how much money rich people expect to get for owning companies over the next 15 years. Oil being low means rich people get less money for owning companies, money which gas buyers instead have to spend on whatever they want.

    AdamMps -> creekwhore 9 Dec 2015 06:41

    this move may well drive the global economy off a cliff

    Cheap oil is both good and bad for the global economy. Bad for oil investment, good because consumers and business will save money on fuel and presumably spend it elsewhere instead.

    There's been a few articles which suggest that it's bad outweighs the good this time around, but it certainly doesn't drive the global economy off a cliff.

    ID6232853 -> gottliebvera 9 Dec 2015 06:06

    Saudi Arabia trying to kill the shale oil industry in USA, limit Iran rise and as a bonus undermine Russian military activities.

    psygone 9 Dec 2015 05:22

    This is all good news.

    The falling price of oil has initiated a historic wealth transfer effect of about $1 trillion a year between net oil importers and oil exporters reversing decades of historical trend. The US consumer alone gets $200 billion, and Europe and Asia (especially India and China) are even bigger beneficiaries of this massive wealth transfer of wealth by cheap oil.

    This is what's called an economic stimulus - but from cheaper oil prices. As Bloomberg noted recently: OPEC Provides Economic Stimulus Central Bankers Can't or Won't

    The Middle East and Russia with diminishing and constrained sovereign funds are the ones getting stuck with the bill. Oil producers with diversified economies like Canada and Norway will do well.

    Thank you cheap oil and carry on ......... "drill baby drill"

    SenseCir -> mrolius 9 Dec 2015 04:35

    Did you miss the bit where Russia will need to make cuts all the way through its services in line with the money they are losing via weak experts?

    Yes countries that foolishly turned their blessing with a natural resource into a dependency of exporting it suffer, and their suffering propagates to an extent. That doesn't drive the global economy of a cliff, nor even is the net effect negative. Once again, when those blessed with oil decide to charge less for it, surplus is shifted.

    Macroeconomics is a very interesting subject, and Creekwhore seems to have a good grasp on it.

    I doubt it. A non-economists understanding of macro is almost always politics masquerading as science.

    bjamesr 9 Dec 2015 04:31

    The theory that Saudi has engineered this oil price drop is nonsense. If they wanted to do this they would have increased production. The price fall is mostly due to the vast amount of speculation in US shale oil that completely ignored the effect of a massive increase in supply on price. These speculators are now paying for this mistake by leading the world in corporate defaults. Shale oil production will eventually slow down due to lack of finance and the price will start to increase. I don't think anyone can predict future price due to the complexity.

    mrolius -> SenseCir 9 Dec 2015 04:09

    Did you miss the bit where Russia will need to make cuts all the way through its services in line with the money they are losing via weak experts? Do you understand the knock-on effect this has through the rest of her economy - the recession it generates? Macroeconomics is a very interesting subject, and Creekwhore seems to have a good grasp on it.

    JemWallis -> SenseCir 9 Dec 2015 04:04

    But given the oversupply of oil, you will be forced to pay a substantial premium for the storage of your commodity since you will be competing for long term storage space. That factor alone will add to your costs and therefore the price you will accept to make the 'huge profit' will get ever larger. What if prices rise more slowly than your on-going costs?

    TheHighRoad -> WaldorfTBeagle 9 Dec 2015 03:57

    Hard to know which makes them happier, really. I was doing some work in Saudi in 2012 and there was a lot of concern there that not only were they losing the supply monopoly, but that as the US was becoming not just self-sufficient but an exporter it would make KSA less strategically relevant to the US and others in the west and therefore lose them influence on world events. They know they need the realpolitik power of the being the swing-producer in the oil cartel as without it no-one in the west is queuing up to be the "natural ally" of a quasi-medieval despotism with a lousy human rights record and a deal with some very suspect religious extremists.

    SenseCir -> creekwhore 9 Dec 2015 03:51

    The fact this move may well drive the global economy off a cliff

    How so, because a fundamental good everyone needs is cheap? Because, assuming Opec cannot defeat the frackers, their price schedule does not maximise their profit, shifting some of the surplus to consumers and non-oil producing countries? What the fuck are you talking about?

    SenseCir rjb04tony 9 Dec 2015 03:48

    What is the point of all this market manipulation?

    Why do you call it 'market manipulation' when they lower prices through shipping a lot, and not when they raise prices through restricting output? The latter is what they would ideally like to do, because it maximises profit. Opec are a cartel. The consumers, and countries that don't export oil, lose when they exercise their monopoly power.

    SA clearly think that a Standard Oilish strategy will work. If they deem to have damaged other oil producers sufficiently, you can rest assured that the price of oil will go up again, ensuring billions of economic profit going to SA and others, extracted from everyone else.

    zoggo -> rjb04tony 9 Dec 2015 03:46

    My take on this is that the Russian economy is also a target - even perhaps the real target.

    WaldorfTBeagle 9 Dec 2015 03:07

    I doubt Saudi's strategy has much to do with US frackers personally and lots to do with hurting Iran.

    rjb04tony 9 Dec 2015 02:53

    The Saudi's tactics are supposedly designed to hit the US shale producers, but, from what I understand, if these do go under they can quite easily start up again when the oil price recovers, then we're back to where we started. What is the point of all this market manipulation?

    graz 9 Dec 2015 02:36

    US shale producers are much better placed than anyone expected them to be. Saudi Arabia has maybe another 18 months to play at this before they start to really rack up the debts. You've got a young, angry, largely unemployed population there that's basically pacified by the largesse of public spending.

    The problem with the House of Saud. They've got some of the best economists money can buy but you've got the egos of some 'limited' princes overruling them.

    Never mind the oil price, if these fools miscalculate on this, on their Yemeni adventures, it could spell chaos for the Middle East and the wider world. >

    [Dec 14, 2015] Predicting demand growth in 2016

    3% demand growth is approximately 3 million barrels a day increase. There is no sources of production that can compensate such an crease. In best case Iran might increase production by 0.5 million barrel a days. Other countries are iether stable or declining. Saudi oil minister predicted that total world production will be declining 1 million barrel a quarter.
    peakoilbarrel.com

    shallow sand, 12/12/2015 at 9:40 pm

    We are at 2004 prices. Look at demand growth in 2004-2005. Prices plunged to around this level late 2008, early 2009. Look at the demand response that resulted.

    Per EIA.

    World wide Demand growth

    • 2004 3.75%
    • 2005. 1.79%
    • 2010. 3.40%

    Again, just looking at what happened previously.

    [Dec 14, 2015] Real oil vs condensate controversy

    Notable quotes:
    "... I frequently cite the Reuters article earlier this year that discussed case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity), but that are deficient in distillates. Of course, what the refiners are rejecting is the condensate component, i.e., they are in effect saying that "We don't want any more stinkin' condensate." ..."
    "... My premise is that US (and probably global) refiners hit the upper limit last year of the volume of condensate that they could process, if they wanted to maintain their distillate and heavier output–resulting in a build in condensate inventories, reflected as a build in C+C inventories. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Jeffrey J. Brown , 12/13/2015 at 7:27 am
    But what percentage of the increase in US and global C+C inventories consists of condensate?

    Looking at early December data, US C+C inventories were up by 105 million barrels, year over year, while four week running average data showed the US net crude oil imports were flat year over year, at 7.1 million bpd. Why would refiners continue to import large volumes of actual crude oil, if they didn't have to?

    I frequently cite the Reuters article earlier this year that discussed case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper limit for WTI crude (42 API gravity), but that are deficient in distillates. Of course, what the refiners are rejecting is the condensate component, i.e., they are in effect saying that "We don't want any more stinkin' condensate."

    My premise is that US (and probably global) refiners hit the upper limit last year of the volume of condensate that they could process, if they wanted to maintain their distillate and heavier output–resulting in a build in condensate inventories, reflected as a build in C+C inventories.

    AlexS, 12/13/2015 at 8:31 am
    Jeffrey,

    EIA statistics show that despite a significant increase in absolute volumes, the share of condensate in total U.S. C+C production increased only marginally since 2000. In 2014 this share was 10.3% vs. 10.2% in 2001
    Do you have any data confirming the increasing share of condensate outside the U.S.?

    U.S. lease condensate production (kb/d) and condensate share in C+C output
    Source: http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_crd_crpdn_adc_mbblpd_a.htm

    AlexS, 12/13/2015 at 8:46 am
    In Russia, condensate production in 1Q15 was 637 kb/d, or 6% of total C+C production.
    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/13/2015 at 8:52 am
    Of course, what counts is the volumetric increase in US condensate production, which has been huge (I believe up to around two million bpd in 2015, which would be a Condensate* to C+C Ratio of about 22%), combined with documented case histories of US refiners rejecting additional volumes of condensate.

    Reportedly, the bulk of Iranian offshore storage consists of condensate. ...

    *45+ API

    [Dec 14, 2015] Oil, gas downturn claims local service company

    Dec 2, 2015 | bakken.com

    According to Haynes and Boone, a global law firm that produces the Oil Patch Bankruptcy Monitor, as of Nov. 8, 36 oil and gas companies across the nation have filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection this year, three in Colorado, and one in Colorado that was filed against Sefton Resources involuntarily but that was dismissed in bankruptcy court Nov. 13.

    Chapter 11 is different from Chapter 7, which allows debtors to liquidate their debt. Chapter 11 allows companies to restructure to allow filers to pay off their bills.

    Of all the filings, there was more than $13 billion in debt, according to Haynes and Boon. Texas leads the country with 16 filings or $1.15 billion in debt.

    The Colorado companies that filed for Chapter 11 this year are, according to Haynes and Boone's report: American Eagle Energy Company, with operations in North Dakota, in May with $193.6 million in debt; Sun River Energy, also filed in May with $11.6 million in debt; and Escalara Resources, which has operations in Wyoming, filed in November with $42.8 million in debt.

    [Dec 13, 2015] Senators Close in on Oil-Export Deal Amid Tax-Break Talks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Senate negotiators are nearing a deal to allow unfettered U.S. crude oil exports for the first time in 40 years . I never got the point of restricting US companies from exporting their oil. Id rather tax the mess out of the imports. ..."
    "... US imports about 50% of its crude. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com
    im1dc said... December 13, 2015 at 02:31 PM
    Gotta keep an eye on the Senate, GOPers are trying to sell our oil overseas and DEMs may let them in a bad deal

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-12/senators-close-in-on-oil-export-deal-amid-tax-break-discussions

    "Senators Close in on Oil-Export Deal Amid Tax-Break Talks"

    by Brian Wingfield & Billy House...December 12, 2015

    • * Most U.S. crude oil exports have been banned since 1970s
    • * House Democrats want Child Tax Credit indexation part of deal

    "Senate negotiators are nearing a deal to allow unfettered U.S. crude oil exports for the first time in 40 years, though differences remain on renewable-energy tax credits that Democrats are demanding in return, according to people close to the discussions.

    While any agreement could still collapse in the coming days -- the deal faces opposition in the House -- lawmakers are weighing the extension of solar and wind tax credits for as long as five years in exchange for lifting the crude-export restrictions, which were established to counter the energy shortages of the 1970s.

    Tax breaks are part of the discussion, though lawmakers are still negotiating the length of wind- and solar-energy tax extensions and whether they should be phased out, said a Senate Democratic leadership aide, who wasn't authorized to speak on the record.

    If agreed to and approved by Congress, repeal of the nation's ban on most crude oil exports would mark the most significant shift in U.S. oil policy in more than a generation. Repeal, benefiting oil producers including ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp. and Continental Resources Inc., would come at a time when the industry is cutting jobs to deal with a global glut in crude oil and the lowest prices in seven years. Talks for a deal are under way as envoys from 195 nations reached an agreement to limit fossil-fuel pollution and curb the effects of climate change..."

    pgl -> im1dc...
    "Senate negotiators are nearing a deal to allow unfettered U.S. crude oil exports for the first time in 40 years". I never got the point of restricting US companies from exporting their oil. I'd rather tax the mess out of the imports.
    pgl -> im1dc...
    Let's separate the two items here:

    "While any agreement could still collapse in the coming days -- the deal faces opposition in the House -- lawmakers are weighing the extension of solar and wind tax credits for as long as five years in exchange for lifting the crude-export restrictions, which were established to counter the energy shortages of the 1970s."

    We are not facing an energy shortage right now. These restrictions were based on questionable economics in the 1970's and are mute now.

    But extending the tax credits for solar and wind energy strike me as good policy.

    ilsm -> pgl...
    US imports about 50% of its crude.
    im1dc -> im1dc...
    I don't care if oil companies export 10% of their crude oil or even 20% but please lets do it only after the DEMS extract some quid pro quo from the GOPsters pushing it not this minor league stuff they've settled for in the article.
    pgl said...
    "Repeal, benefiting oil producers including ConocoPhillips, Hess Corp. and Continental Resources Inc."

    Who wrote this? Like I checked - Hess did not produce oil. They purchased oil to refine and distribute it.

    pgl -> pgl...
    Times change. From the Hess 10-K:

    "In the first quarter of 2013, the Corporation announced several initiatives to continue its transformation into a more focused pure play E&P company. These initiatives represented the culmination of a multi-year strategic transformation designed to deliver long-term, cash generative growth and increase returns to stockholders by focusing on lower risk, higher growth unconventional assets, exploiting existing discoveries by leveraging offshore drilling and project development capabilities, and executing a smaller, more targeted exploratory program….the transformation plan included fully exiting the Corporation's Marketing and Refining (M&R) business"

    Hess was a pure play M&R entity but now they want to be all E&P. Just when E&P margins tanked with lower oil prices!

    likbez -> pgl...
    pgl:

    "Hess was a pure play M&R entity but now they want to be all E&P. Just when E&P margins tanked with lower oil prices!"

    A very good point !

    Unless they got great plays in the Gulf for peanuts this is an extremely bad timing. At current prices even 400 barrels of oil a day shale well that costs $8M to drill is not profitable (assuming 20% per year depletion rate and $600K per year cost of fuel and $400K for manpower and other costs).

    And depletion rate can be higher (http://www.oil-price.net/en/articles/shale-high-depletion-rates-in-bakken.php)

    === quote ===
    Fracked wells age very fast. The initial production is very high so is the rate of depletion. The point is, a newly fracked well may produce 1,000 barrels a day, but this falls by sixty percent the next year, thirty five by the third and fifteen percent by the fourth. Oil companies should replace forty to forty five percent of the current production each year to maintain/increase production. For now at least, the number of wells and cost of production can keep pace with profits because of the higher oil prices. But what happens when the price comes down? The depletion rates will make the wells unviable and the search of oil will continue elsewhere. Roughly the US will need more than 9,000 wells at more than $50 billion to counterbalance the declines.
    === end of quote ===

    Many shale wells produce less. For example, in October Bakken wells produced 100 barrels per day on average (of course many of them are more then a year old)

    https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf

    [Dec 13, 2015] EIA track record of predictions shows that they are absolutely worthless

    "... A quick look at EIA track record of predictions shows that all those models and studies about reserves and production to predict future oil production are absolutely worthless. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Javier, 12/13/2015 at 7:52 pm
    Oil post

    They say an image is worth a thousand words.

    A quick look at EIA track record of predictions shows that all those models and studies about reserves and production to predict future oil production are absolutely worthless.

    We have listened to a lot of bullshit since the price crisis of 2014 started. In the end Ron, and I, and others that predicted that oil price situation was conductive to produce Peak Oil in about a year are going to be right.

    EIA will no doubt predict that it is a temporary peak. You can choose to believe them if you want. Transition out of oil starts this year without any need for any treaty.

    [Dec 13, 2015] Chaos in Libya It's the oil, stupid

    Peak Oil News and Message Boards

    ...The Islamic State is growing by the day in the Gulf of Sirte in the center of the country, imposing its cruel dictates and making inroads elsewhere in the country. Criminal gangs – often the same militias that have had the run of the country since Gaddafi's fall – are doing a brisk trade in people smuggling, sending off desperate migrants and refugees on rickety boats across the Mediterranean.

    Oh, and by the way, Libya is also going broke.

    That last tidbit should be surprising. Libya has Africa's largest oil reserves and has long been an important supplier of light sweet crude, the kind made into gasoline and kerosene. It also had tons of money in both hoards of cash reserves and investments across the globe.

    But the oil, which used to bring in 96 percent of the country's income, is not flowing anymore. From a high of at least 1.6 million barrels per day at the beginning of 2011, Libya is lucky to export a fourth of that today. Militias have taken control of oil fields, pipelines and export facilities across the country. At first, they sought to extort the central government to keep the oil flowing. But since the country was divided into two rival governments, they are simply fighting to keep oil revenue from each other: you take over my oilfield, I block your pipeline. Since earlier this year, IS has jumped into the fray, simply destroying facilities to keep any government from getting its revenues - although, in the longer term, it may very well want to control the oil itself.

    The little oil that still flows out of the country is worth a lot less than it was a year ago, due to falling international prices. Much less revenue is flowing into state coffers, which have been ransacked by profligate spending, corruption and outright theft over the past three years. From over $110 billion in 2013, hard-currency reserves have gone down to an estimated $60 billion – not that anybody seems to know for sure. The assets of the Libyan Investment Authority, the sovereign wealth fund that owns shares in businesses (including the Italian football club Juventus) and real estate across Europe, are being fought over in courts by the rival governments.

    Those two governments – one in Tripoli, Islamist-leaning and supported by Qatar and Turkey; another in Tobruk, backed by Egypt and the United Arab Emirates – are also fighting for control of the remaining cash cows: the Central Bank of Libya, which holds the reserves, and the National Oil Company, which sells the oil and gas that is still being produced. Inasmuch as Libya still has a state, these two institutions are among the few remaining centers of technocratic know-how, and they are being torn apart. They have only survived thus far because they continue to finance both governments - including the salaries of the militiamen holding them hostage - but time is not on their side. Attempts to sell oil outside these official channels have been foiled so far, but the more messy the situation in Libya gets, the more likely these will one day succeed.

    GregT, 13th Dec 2015 6:23 pm

    Libya,

    Another "Mission Accomplished".

    Apneaman, 13th Dec 2015 6:48 pm

    It's America, stupid. Everywhere there is American "interests" there is turmoil, strife, murder and mayhem.

    The following is a partial list of U.S. military interventions from 1890 to 2014.

    This guide does not include:

    mobilizations of the National Guard
    offshore shows of naval strength
    reinforcements of embassy personnel
    the use of non-Defense Department personnel (such as the Drug Enforcement Administration)
    military exercises
    non-combat mobilizations (such as replacing postal strikers)
    the permanent stationing of armed forces
    covert actions where the U.S. did not play a command and control role
    the use of small hostage rescue units
    most uses of proxy troops
    U.S. piloting of foreign warplanes
    foreign or domestic disaster assistance
    military training and advisory programs not involving direct combat
    civic action programs
    and many other military activities.
    Among sources used, beside news reports, are the Congressional Record (23 June 1969), 180 Landings by the U.S. Marine Corp History Division, Ege & Makhijani in Counterspy (July-Aug, 1982), "Instances of Use of United States Forces Abroad, 1798-1993" by Ellen C. Collier of the Library of Congress Congressional Research Service, and Ellsberg in Protest & Survive.

    Versions of this list have been published on Zmag.org, Neravt.com, and numerous other websites.

    Translations of list: Spanish French Turkish Italian Chinese Greek Russian Czech Tamil Portuguese

    Quotes in Christian Science Monitor and The Independent

    Turkish newspaper urges that the United States be listed in Guinness Book of World Records as the Country with the Most Foreign Interventions.

    COUNTRY OR STATE Dates of intervention Forces Comments
    SOUTH DAKOTA 1890 (-?) Troops 300 Lakota Indians massacred at Wounded Knee.
    ARGENTINA 1890 Troops Buenos Aires interests protected.
    CHILE 1891 Troops Marines clash with nationalist rebels.
    HAITI 1891 Troops Black revolt on Navassa defeated.
    IDAHO 1892 Troops Army suppresses silver miners' strike.
    HAWAII 1893 (-?) Naval, troops Independent kingdom overthrown, annexed.
    CHICAGO 1894 Troops Breaking of rail strike, 34 killed.
    NICARAGUA 1894 Troops Month-long occupation of Bluefields.
    CHINA 1894-95 Naval, troops Marines land in Sino-Japanese War
    KOREA 1894-96 Troops Marines kept in Seoul during war.
    PANAMA 1895 Troops, naval Marines land in Colombian province.
    NICARAGUA 1896 Troops Marines land in port of Corinto.
    CHINA 1898-1900 Troops Boxer Rebellion fought by foreign armies.
    PHILIPPINES 1898-1910 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, killed 600,000 Filipinos
    CUBA 1898-1902 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still hold Navy base.
    PUERTO RICO 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, occupation continues.
    GUAM 1898 (-?) Naval, troops Seized from Spain, still use as base.
    MINNESOTA 1898 (-?) Troops Army battles Chippewa at Leech Lake.
    NICARAGUA 1898 Troops Marines land at port of San Juan del Sur.
    SAMOA 1899 (-?) Troops Battle over succession to throne.
    NICARAGUA 1899 Troops Marines land at port of Bluefields.
    IDAHO 1899-1901 Troops Army occupies Coeur d'Alene mining region.
    OKLAHOMA 1901 Troops Army battles Creek Indian revolt.
    PANAMA 1901-14 Naval, troops Broke off from Colombia 1903, annexed Canal Zone; Opened canal 1914.
    HONDURAS 1903 Troops Marines intervene in revolution.
    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1903-04 Troops U.S. interests protected in Revolution.
    KOREA 1904-05 Troops Marines land in Russo-Japanese War.
    CUBA 1906-09 Troops Marines land in democratic election.
    NICARAGUA 1907 Troops "Dollar Diplomacy" protectorate set up.
    HONDURAS 1907 Troops Marines land during war with Nicaragua
    PANAMA 1908 Troops Marines intervene in election contest.
    NICARAGUA 1910 Troops Marines land in Bluefields and Corinto.
    HONDURAS 1911 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
    CHINA 1911-41 Naval, troops Continuous occupation with flare-ups.
    CUBA 1912 Troops U.S. interests protected in civil war.
    PANAMA 1912 Troops Marines land during heated election.
    HONDURAS 1912 Troops Marines protect U.S. economic interests.
    NICARAGUA 1912-33 Troops, bombing 10-year occupation, fought guerillas
    MEXICO 1913 Naval Americans evacuated during revolution.
    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1914 Naval Fight with rebels over Santo Domingo.
    COLORADO 1914 Troops Breaking of miners' strike by Army.
    MEXICO 1914-18 Naval, troops Series of interventions against nationalists.
    HAITI 1914-34 Troops, bombing 19-year occupation after revolts.
    TEXAS 1915 Troops Federal soldiers crush "Plan of San Diego" Mexican-American rebellion
    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1916-24 Troops 8-year Marine occupation.
    CUBA 1917-33 Troops Military occupation, economic protectorate.
    WORLD WAR I 1917-18 Naval, troops Ships sunk, fought Germany for 1 1/2 years.
    RUSSIA 1918-22 Naval, troops Five landings to fight Bolsheviks
    PANAMA 1918-20 Troops "Police duty" during unrest after elections.
    HONDURAS 1919 Troops Marines land during election campaign.
    YUGOSLAVIA 1919 Troops/Marines intervene for Italy against Serbs in Dalmatia.
    GUATEMALA 1920 Troops 2-week intervention against unionists.
    WEST VIRGINIA 1920-21 Troops, bombing Army intervenes against mineworkers.
    TURKEY 1922 Troops Fought nationalists in Smyrna.
    CHINA 1922-27 Naval, troops Deployment during nationalist revolt.
    MEXICO

    HONDURAS

    1923

    1924-25

    Bombing

    Troops

    Airpower defends Calles from rebellion

    Landed twice during election strife.

    PANAMA 1925 Troops Marines suppress general strike.
    CHINA 1927-34 Troops Marines stationed throughout the country.
    EL SALVADOR 1932 Naval Warships send during Marti revolt.
    WASHINGTON DC 1932 Troops Army stops WWI vet bonus protest.
    WORLD WAR II 1941-45 Naval, troops, bombing, nuclear Hawaii bombed, fought Japan, Italy and Germay for 3 years; first nuclear war.
    DETROIT 1943 Troops Army put down Black rebellion.
    IRAN 1946 Nuclear threat Soviet troops told to leave north.
    YUGOSLAVIA 1946 Nuclear threat, naval Response to shoot-down of US plane.
    URUGUAY 1947 Nuclear threat Bombers deployed as show of strength.
    GREECE 1947-49 Command operation U.S. directs extreme-right in civil war.
    GERMANY 1948 Nuclear Threat Atomic-capable bombers guard Berlin Airlift.
    CHINA 1948-49 Troops/Marines evacuate Americans before Communist victory.
    PHILIPPINES 1948-54 Command operation CIA directs war against Huk Rebellion.
    PUERTO RICO 1950 Command operation Independence rebellion crushed in Ponce.
    KOREA 1951-53 (-?) Troops, naval, bombing , nuclear threats U.S./So. Korea fights China/No. Korea to stalemate; A-bomb threat in 1950, and against China in 1953. Still have bases.
    IRAN 1953 Command Operation CIA overthrows democracy, installs Shah.
    VIETNAM 1954 Nuclear threat French offered bombs to use against seige.
    GUATEMALA 1954 Command operation, bombing, nuclear threat CIA directs exile invasion after new gov't nationalized U.S. company lands; bombers based in Nicaragua.
    EGYPT 1956 Nuclear threat, troops Soviets told to keep out of Suez crisis; Marines evacuate foreigners.
    LEBANON l958 Troops, naval Army & Marine occupation against rebels.
    IRAQ 1958 Nuclear threat Iraq warned against invading Kuwait.
    CHINA l958 Nuclear threat China told not to move on Taiwan isles.
    PANAMA 1958 Troops Flag protests erupt into confrontation.
    VIETNAM l960-75 Troops, naval, bombing, nuclear threats Fought South Vietnam revolt & North Vietnam; one million killed in longest U.S. war; atomic bomb threats in l968 and l969.
    CUBA l961 Command operation CIA-directed exile invasion fails.
    GERMANY l961 Nuclear threat Alert during Berlin Wall crisis.
    LAOS 1962 Command operation Military buildup during guerrilla war.
    CUBA l962 Nuclear threat, naval Blockade during missile crisis; near-war with Soviet Union.
    IRAQ 1963 Command operation CIA organizes coup that killed president, brings Ba'ath Party to power, and Saddam Hussein back from exile to be head of the secret service.
    PANAMA l964 Troops Panamanians shot for urging canal's return.
    INDONESIA l965 Command operation Million killed in CIA-assisted army coup.
    DOMINICAN REPUBLIC 1965-66 Troops, bombing Army & Marines land during election campaign.
    GUATEMALA l966-67 Command operation Green Berets intervene against rebels.
    DETROIT l967 Troops Army battles African Americans, 43 killed.
    UNITED STATES l968 Troops After King is shot; over 21,000 soldiers in cities.
    CAMBODIA l969-75 Bombing, troops, naval Up to 2 million killed in decade of bombing, starvation, and political chaos.
    OMAN l970 Command operation U.S. directs Iranian marine invasion.
    LAOS l971-73 Command operation, bombing U.S. directs South Vietnamese invasion; "carpet-bombs" countryside.
    SOUTH DAKOTA l973 Command operation Army directs Wounded Knee siege of Lakotas.
    MIDEAST 1973 Nuclear threat World-wide alert during Mideast War.
    CHILE 1973 Command operation CIA-backed coup ousts elected marxist president.
    CAMBODIA l975 Troops, bombing Gassing of captured ship Mayagüez, 28 troops die when copter shot down.
    ANGOLA l976-92 Command operation CIA assists South African-backed rebels.
    IRAN l980 Troops, nuclear threat, aborted bombing Raid to rescue Embassy hostages; 8 troops die in copter-plane crash. Soviets warned not to get involved in revolution.
    LIBYA l981 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down in maneuvers.
    EL SALVADOR l981-92 Command operation, troops Advisors, overflights aid anti-rebel war, soldiers briefly involved in hostage clash.
    NICARAGUA l981-90 Command operation, naval CIA directs exile (Contra) invasions, plants harbor mines against revolution.
    LEBANON l982-84 Naval, bombing, troops Marines expel PLO and back Phalangists, Navy bombs and shells Muslim positions. 241 Marines killed when Shi'a rebel bombs barracks.
    GRENADA l983-84 Troops, bombing Invasion four years after revolution.
    HONDURAS l983-89 Troops Maneuvers help build bases near borders.
    IRAN l984 Jets Two Iranian jets shot down over Persian Gulf.
    LIBYA l986 Bombing, naval Air strikes to topple Qaddafi gov't.
    BOLIVIA 1986 Troops Army assists raids on cocaine region.
    IRAN l987-88 Naval, bombing US intervenes on side of Iraq in war, defending reflagged tankers and shooting down civilian jet.
    LIBYA 1989 Naval jets Two Libyan jets shot down.
    VIRGIN ISLANDS 1989 Troops St. Croix Black unrest after storm.
    PHILIPPINES 1989 Jets Air cover provided for government against coup.
    PANAMA 1989 (-?) Troops, bombing Nationalist government ousted by 27,000 soldiers, leaders arrested, 2000+ killed.
    LIBERIA 1990 Troops Foreigners evacuated during civil war.
    SAUDI ARABIA 1990-91 Troops, jets Iraq countered after invading Kuwait. 540,000 troops also stationed in Oman, Qatar, Bahrain, UAE, Israel.
    IRAQ 1990-91 Bombing, troops, naval Blockade of Iraqi and Jordanian ports, air strikes; 200,000+ killed in invasion of Iraq and Kuwait; large-scale destruction of Iraqi military.
    KUWAIT 1991 Naval, bombing, troops Kuwait royal family returned to throne.
    IRAQ 1991-2003 Bombing, naval No-fly zone over Kurdish north, Shiite south; constant air strikes and naval-enforced economic sanctions
    LOS ANGELES 1992 Troops Army, Marines deployed against anti-police uprising.
    SOMALIA 1992-94 Troops, naval, bombing U.S.-led United Nations occupation during civil war; raids against one Mogadishu faction.
    YUGOSLAVIA 1992-94 Naval NATO blockade of Serbia and Montenegro.
    BOSNIA 1993-? Jets, bombing No-fly zone patrolled in civil war; downed jets, bombed Serbs.
    HAITI 1994 Troops, naval Blockade against military government; troops restore President Aristide to office three years after coup.
    ZAIRE (CONGO) 1996-97 Troops Troops at Rwandan Hutu refugee camps, in area where Congo revolution begins.
    LIBERIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
    ALBANIA 1997 Troops Soldiers under fire during evacuation of foreigners.
    SUDAN 1998 Missiles Attack on pharmaceutical plant alleged to be "terrorist" nerve gas plant.
    AFGHANISTAN 1998 Missiles Attack on former CIA training camps used by Islamic fundamentalist groups alleged to have attacked embassies.
    IRAQ 1998 Bombing, Missiles Four days of intensive air strikes after weapons inspectors allege Iraqi obstructions.
    YUGOSLAVIA 1999 Bombing, Missiles Heavy NATO air strikes after Serbia declines to withdraw from Kosovo. NATO occupation of Kosovo.
    YEMEN 2000 Naval USS Cole, docked in Aden, bombed.
    MACEDONIA 2001 Troops NATO forces deployed to move and disarm Albanian rebels.
    UNITED STATES 2001 Jets, naval Reaction to hijacker attacks on New York, DC
    AFGHANISTAN 2001-? Troops, bombing, missiles Massive U.S. mobilization to overthrow Taliban, hunt Al Qaeda fighters, install Karzai regime, and battle Taliban insurgency. More than 30,000 U.S. troops and numerous private security contractors carry our occupation.
    YEMEN 2002 Missiles Predator drone missile attack on Al Qaeda, including a US citizen.
    PHILIPPINES 2002-? Troops, naval Training mission for Philippine military fighting Abu Sayyaf rebels evolves into combat missions in Sulu Archipelago, west of Mindanao.
    COLOMBIA 2003-? Troops US special forces sent to rebel zone to back up Colombian military protecting oil pipeline.
    IRAQ 2003-11 Troops, naval, bombing, missiles Saddam regime toppled in Baghdad. More than 250,000 U.S. personnel participate in invasion. US and UK forces occupy country and battle Sunni and Shi'ite insurgencies. More than 160,000 troops and numerous private contractors carry out occupation and build large permanent bases.
    LIBERIA 2003 Troops Brief involvement in peacekeeping force as rebels drove out leader.
    HAITI 2004-05 Troops, naval Marines & Army land after right-wing rebels oust elected President Aristide, who was advised to leave by Washington.
    PAKISTAN 2005-? Missiles, bombing, covert operation CIA missile and air strikes and Special Forces raids on alleged Al Qaeda and Taliban refuge villages kill multiple civilians. Drone attacks also on Pakistani Mehsud network.
    SOMALIA 2006-? Missiles, naval, troops, command operation Special Forces advise Ethiopian invasion that topples Islamist government; AC-130 strikes, Cruise missile attacks and helicopter raids against Islamist rebels; naval blockade against "pirates" and insurgents.
    SYRIA 2008 Troops Special Forces in helicopter raid 5 miles from Iraq kill 8 Syrian civilians
    YEMEN 2009-? Missiles, command operation Cruise missile attack on Al Qaeda kills 49 civilians; Yemeni military assaults on rebels
    LIBYA 2011-? Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation NATO coordinates air strikes and missile attacks against Qaddafi government during uprising by rebel army. Periodic Special Forces raids against Islamist insurgents.
    IRAQ 2014-? Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation
    Air strikes and Special Forces intervene against Islamic State insurgents; training Iraqi and Kurdish troops.

    SYRIA 2014-? Bombing, missiles, troops, command operation
    Air strikes and Special Forces intervene against Islamic State insurgents; training other Syrian insurgents.

    http://academic.evergreen.edu/g/grossmaz/interventions.html

    Plantagenet, 13th Dec 2015 7:06 pm

    You'd think Obama would've learned from Bush's mistake in Iraq and not toppled the Libyan government without having a plan to stabilize the country afterward.

    But no.

    Obama = stupid = Bush

    Cheers!

    [Dec 13, 2015] Producers countries fiscal breakeven

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Nevertheless, there are reasons why $60 is, for now, a sensible assumption. Although higher than the current spot price of $48, it is the price where investors believe oil will be in two years from now. Futures markets point not to a fall, but to a slow, drawn out recovery for Brent crude. ..."
    "... And $60 is the price at which analysts believe much remaining US shale oil and gas – up to 10m barrels a day of peak production, according to Goldman Sachs – could be economic." ..."
    peakoil.com
    ...in October, an excerpt from the Wall Street Journal touts the breakeven level of Brent crude to be $60 a barrel:

    "Nevertheless, there are reasons why $60 is, for now, a sensible assumption. Although higher than the current spot price of $48, it is the price where investors believe oil will be in two years from now. Futures markets point not to a fall, but to a slow, drawn out recovery for Brent crude.

    And $60 is the price at which analysts believe much remaining US shale oil and gas – up to 10m barrels a day of peak production, according to Goldman Sachs – could be economic."

    Yes, we are trading below supposed breakeven levels for oil producers, and even sovereigns, and the reiteration of these breakeven levels by the media and analysts from investment banks has made oil seem like a steal at current levels. However, do not be distracted, oil is currently a falling knife and currently has the momentum to test or take out December 2008 levels. With OPEC out of the way and a potentially much stronger USD in 2016, there could easily be more downside for oil.

    ...

    [Dec 12, 2015] Whether or not shale oil was ever economically feasible even with oil at $100/barrel

    Notable quotes:
    "... At this stage of the game I was wondering if anyone has any input as to whether or not shale oil on this scale was ever economically feasible even with oil at $100/barrel or if perhaps it wasnt a phenomena generated by an audacious group of oilmen who understood the technology and the extent of the resource in conjunction with the same financial wizards who brought us the housing bubble. Something of a Ponzi scheme that backfired when SA refused to cede market share? ..."
    "... Thats an accurate description of the hallowed Shale Revolution. However, its incomplete. Whats missing is the fact that a very similar phenomenon occurred with renewables. For not only did the Saudi royal family take a wrecking ball to the hallowed Shale Revolution, but also to the hallowed Renewables Revolution. ..."
    "... World oil demand is anticipated to increase by 1.53 mb/d in 2015, averaging around 92.88 mb/d. ..."
    "... Projections is off nearly 50%. ..."
    "... China's demand growth in in 2015+ India's demand growth in 2015+ Saudi Demand growth every year for the last 5 would total 1.5 Million barrels per day. I think demand growth is far higher than EIA and IEA are saying. And will be another 2 million next year. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    SW , 12/12/2015 at 10:45 am

    At this stage of the game I was wondering if anyone has any input as to whether or not shale oil on this scale was ever economically feasible even with oil at $100/barrel or if perhaps it wasn't a phenomena generated by an audacious group of oilmen who understood the technology and the extent of the resource in conjunction with the same financial wizards who brought us the housing bubble. Something of a Ponzi scheme that backfired when SA refused to cede market share?

    We kept hearing all these crazy low 'breakeven' numbers that were bandied about for sales pitches. Does anyone believe that they were anywhere near the mark?

    Glenn Stehle, 12/12/2015 at 11:38 am

    SW,

    That's an accurate description of the hallowed "Shale Revolution." However, it's incomplete. What's missing is the fact that a very similar phenomenon occurred with renewables. For not only did the Saudi royal family take a wrecking ball to the hallowed Shale Revolution, but also to the hallowed Renewables Revolution.

    shallow sand, 12/12/2015 at 12:41 pm

    Something interesting to note.

    Per EIA, world wide oil demand increases during the last oil price crash driven primarily by over supply:

    1986-2.81%
    1987-2.36%
    1988-3.12%

    Apparently this time will be different?

    Anecdotal. Live near a few auto parts manufacturing plants. They have been running full bore and hiring anyone, multiple felony convictions no longer an issue. Working 5-6 12 hour shifts per week, making $13-17 per hour. Not Bakken wages, but not bad for someone without a GED who may have had some scrapes with the law.

    ChiefEngineer, 12/12/2015 at 4:00 pm
    US products supplied up 3% YTD for 2015 over 2014

    http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/

    Gasoline up 3.7%
    Jet fuel up 5.4%
    Distillate up 1.9%

    Apparently you didn't do your homework

    Start, 12/12/2015 at 4:10 pm
    December 2014:

    The producer group expects global demand to rise by 1.15m b/d next year, or 30,000 b/d more than previously thought, reaching reaching 92.3m b/d as result of upward revisions to data for the US and Asia.
    http://www.ft.com/fastft/2015/01/15/production-from-non-opec-countries/

    December 2015:

    World oil demand is anticipated to increase by 1.53 mb/d in 2015, averaging around 92.88 mb/d.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/12/10/opec-predicts-rivals-supply-to-contract-in-2016.html

    Projections is off nearly 50%.

    Huckleberry Finn , 12/12/2015 at 7:21 pm
    China's demand growth in in 2015+ India's demand growth in 2015+ Saudi Demand growth every year for the last 5 would total 1.5 Million barrels per day. I think demand growth is far higher than EIA and IEA are saying. And will be another 2 million next year.

    Huckleberry Finn, 12/12/2015 at 8:07 pm

    Ron. The current market perception is of an oversupply of 2 Million barrels. And there is inventory drawdown.

    But until price rises to prevent it, demand "could" grow by even 3 Million barrels per day.

    BTW, since following this on the oildrum from 2004, it has been 11 years continuous that I have seen disbelief that supply could increase the next year. And they have all been wrong for 11.

    I am hardly a cornucopian, and I think supply will be lucky to be down only 1 Million barrels next December, but at the right price we have 5-7 Million barrels per day more.

    [Dec 12, 2015] Robert Reich to the Fed: this is not the time to raise rates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Within days the Fed will begin hiking interest rates in an effort to prevent inflation. This is nuts. There's no sign of dangerous inflation anywhere. Raising rates will just slow the economy, making it harder for people to find jobs. The share of working-age people in jobs is near a 40-year low. Watch our video to find out what this is all about -- and how it will affect you. ..."
    www.facebook.com

    Robert Reich

    Within days the Fed will begin hiking interest rates in an effort to prevent inflation. This is nuts. There's no sign of dangerous inflation anywhere. Raising rates will just slow the economy, making it harder for people to find jobs. The share of working-age people in jobs is near a 40-year low. Watch our video to find out what this is all about -- and how it will affect you.

    Dwight McCabe

    According to Paul Krugman the banks desperately need rates higher so they make more profits. With these very low rates they are stuck in low profit. The Fed lives in the financial culture and all the learned people around them, bankers, are convinced that the economy needs higher rates. The economy will not benefit but the financial community sure will.

    David Van Dyne

    ...By the way, how about the negative returns on money market funds invested through a 401(k) plan?

    [Dec 12, 2015] Inflated EIA Data Could Keep Oil Prices Subdued Next Year

    Notable quotes:
    "... It is indisputable that central bank mandates have morphed from just employment/inflation managers to all out asset class manipulators. ..."
    "... Production is poised to plunge regardless of near term noise from OPEC or any other conjured up media hype to depress commodities. The fact is beyond the day-to-day noise it's the dollar that is driving things and will continue to regardless of fundamentals in 2016. ..."
    "... In fact today the EIA raised its demand growth for oil in U.S. to 160,000 barrels per day in 2016 from 120,000 barrels per day despite 2015 being 300,000 barrels per day. Unless there is a recession why would demand wane by that much when larger cars are being sold I ask? ..."
    "... On top of this they cut their projection for production levels in 2016 by 570,000 barrels per day, a larger decrease from the previous 520,000 barrels per day. But these figures could still be understating the case. ..."
    "... Central banks are manipulating equity prices by 20 to 30 percent on the upside, and the same amount for commodities on the downside. But they can't have it both ways. Sooner or later the house of cards will come tumbling down. ..."
    Dec 12, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    It is indisputable that central bank mandates have morphed from just employment/inflation managers to all out asset class manipulators.

    One may argue what assets classes those are but it's pretty clear that anything is up for grabs. The whims of central bank policies are directly affecting equity and bond markets. The trend has been underway for some time – the Fed has increased its hand in the economy over the past decade so it is no wonder that the Fed seems to have a mandate to prop up certain asset classes while depressing others.

    The fact that we have come to this in U.S. after two bubbles isn't surprising.

    What is surprising is the extent to which investors not only adhere to this mentality but assist in it. We all know the adage "don't fight the Fed," which has been a longstanding unwritten Wall Street law so to speak. But what is now occurring is that Wall Street is following the Fed with disregard to underlying fundamentals.

    Yes, there are some investors showing caution, but there are too many investors running with the Fed, which cause enormous swings in the price of different assets. We witness this daily as either prices crash on shorting or jump on short covering. Again the measure of the distortion level is the disparity and inverse relationship of commodities and NASDAQ, which continues despite record low valuations and short interest in one and very high valuations on the other. Money managers have not hid the fact that they are long on beta and short on energy, nor are they shy in piling in the most crowded trade in history: being long on the dollar knowing the U.S. economy is weakening, solely driven by the Fed's desire to end ZIRP (zero interest rate policy) and because the EU is printing money like mad. They are doing this knowing full well the oil supply story will end as hedges roll off in 2016 and oil remains far below the free cash flow break-even point.

    Production is poised to plunge regardless of near term noise from OPEC or any other conjured up media hype to depress commodities. The fact is beyond the day-to-day noise it's the dollar that is driving things and will continue to regardless of fundamentals in 2016.

    I suspect that despite the high probability of U.S. production declines imminently and the restatement of supply and demand by EIA/IEA to more accurately reflect a much smaller oil imbalance than perceived, it will be the dollar that drives prices. In fact today the EIA raised its demand growth for oil in U.S. to 160,000 barrels per day in 2016 from 120,000 barrels per day despite 2015 being 300,000 barrels per day. Unless there is a recession why would demand wane by that much when larger cars are being sold I ask?

    On top of this they cut their projection for production levels in 2016 by 570,000 barrels per day, a larger decrease from the previous 520,000 barrels per day. But these figures could still be understating the case.

    ... ... ...

    Still, there is a chance that none of this matters because something else could crop up in 2016 that will mask this upward pressure on prices, whether it be the dollar or Iran or something else to depress oil. Until OPEC forces prices higher or the Fed changes policy, prices probably won't recover.

    By 2017 the same bearish media will reverse course as the dollar bubble bursts. Plenty of reasons will be invented to justify these events but no one will admit that the entire asset class distortion that is ongoing is tied to central bankers broadening their mandates and using any means to manipulate assets prices to prop up economies that are now swimming in debt.

    Central banks are manipulating equity prices by 20 to 30 percent on the upside, and the same amount for commodities on the downside. But they can't have it both ways. Sooner or later the house of cards will come tumbling down.

    See also:

    [Dec 12, 2015] Wood Mackenzie expects the decline in horizontal oil rigs to continue through June 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... They expect Lower 48 states ex-GoM C+C production to decline until the end of next year, with a moderate rebound in 2017. ..."
    "... Expected decline in 2016 is not as steep as projected by the EIA (more than 1 mb/d from March 2015 to September 2016). ..."
    "... I find the rig count a useful indicator for the drilling activity. However, as we have seen in the Bakken, the number of wells drilled per rig is up by about 20-40% since the mid of last year. ..."
    "... This causes the rig count drop to be somewhat less severe, and is in my mind a better indication of what is going to happen near term. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 12/11/2015 at 8:58 pm

    Wood Mackenzie expects the decline in horizontal oil rigs to continue through June 2016.

    They expect Lower 48 states ex-GoM C+C production to decline until the end of next year, with a moderate rebound in 2017.

    Expected decline in 2016 is not as steep as projected by the EIA (more than 1 mb/d from March 2015 to September 2016).

    Enno Peters, 12/12/2015 at 5:02 am

    Thanks Alex,

    I find the rig count a useful indicator for the drilling activity. However, as we have seen in the Bakken, the number of wells drilled per rig is up by about 20-40% since the mid of last year. This is of course due to the fact that better rigs & crews are being kept, better practices, and other factors. Therefore, in order to better relate the rig count to the capacity to drill wells, a correction factor should be applied. This causes the rig count drop to be somewhat less severe, and is in my mind a better indication of what is going to happen near term.

    Helms mentioned in the webcast that, based on operator input, he expected the rig count in ND to drop from 65 to about 55 in the coming 6 months, as rig contracts expire. A drop of this order of magnitude (15%) may be seen elsewhere as well.

    To put the fraclog in perspective: if we estimate that the fraclog is about 540 wells in ND, and that rigs drill nowadays about 1.4 wells/month/rig in ND, the fraclog is equal to about 32 rig-years of capacity (32 rigs would drill the fraclog in 1 year).

    [Dec 12, 2015] KUNA Saudi economy resilient, able to stand oil price slump

    Notable quotes:
    "... Saudi Arabia could, through a combination of debt issuance and reserve drawdown, weather a period of low oil prices (in the USD50-55/bbl range) for at least two years before even half of the kingdom's foreign reserves are depleted. ..."
    "... By September 2015, the funds in the central government's deposit accounts at SAMA had fallen by -28.0 percent y/y, or USD112 billion. ..."
    Economics - 12-12-2015

    KUWAIT, Dec 12 (KUNA) -- The National Bank of Kuwait (NBK) said in a report on Saturday that the Saudi economy is resilient and able to stand challenges caused by falling oil prices.

    The Kingdom seems to have ample fiscal space with central government gross domestic debt a very low 1.6 percent of GDP (USD11.6 billion) in 2014, the report added.
    Saudi Arabia could, through a combination of debt issuance and reserve drawdown, weather a period of low oil prices (in the USD50-55/bbl range) for at least two years before even half of the kingdom's foreign reserves are depleted.

    According to the NBK report, the Saudi economy has begun to feel the effects of the decline in oil prices: non-oil activity has moderated, the fiscal account has fallen into deficit and the flow of deposits into the banking system, especially government-sourced, has slowed.

    Faced with a sizeable fiscal deficit, a consequence of lower oil revenues and record high spending, and the prospect of increased drawdowns of the kingdom's foreign reserves, the authorities in 2015 started issuing sovereign bonds for the first time since 2007.

    While banks' interest margins should improve through participation in the bond issuance program, banking sector liquidity will need to be monitored Issuing debt of up to USD 45 billion over the course of a year or two, or even several years, would nevertheless have implications for the domestic banking system.
    On the positive side, banks' net interest margins and revenues should improve as banks shift from lower-yielding, short-term liquid assets to higher-yielding, longer term government securities.

    The NBK report noted that a spate of negative outlook; assessments and a one notch downgrade (AA- to A+) by the ratings agency Standard and Poor's (S&P), compounded the market'ss anxieties, weighing heavily on the index.

    Government deposits at Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA) drawn down; falling foreign reserves spurred the issuance of Saudi Arabia's first sovereign bonds since 2007. By September 2015, the funds in the central government's deposit accounts at SAMA had fallen by -28.0 percent y/y, or USD112 billion.

    Thus, the kingdom has ample resources to help it negotiate the economic downturn, at least over the medium term. Clearly, however, prudent fiscal policies will need to be the way forward for Saudi Arabia.

    The non-oil activity is likely to remain relatively buoyant, supported by government spending, the NBK said. However, there are signs that the economy is cooling: GDP growth in 2Q15 slowed for the third successive quarter and key metrics of consumer and business activity such as point of sale (POS) and ATM transactions, business confidence and private sector credit growth, have all been slipping.

    Also, the annual non-oil growth is projected to slow, from 5.0 percent in 2014 to an average of 3.7 percent during 2015-2017. Headline GDP growth is, therefore, forecast to expand by 3.5 percent in 2015 before slowing to 2.5 percent and 2.3 percent in 2016 and 2017, respectively. (end) osj.amj.msa

    [Dec 12, 2015] Another gloom and doom forecast of oil prices for the next year

    Notable quotes:
    "... The situation has surprised even seasoned oil traders. "It was anticipated that U.S. shale producers, the source of the explosive growth in supply in recent years, would be the first to fold," Andrew Hall, chief executive of the commodities hedge fund Astenbeck Capital Management LLC, wrote in a letter to investors. "But this hasn't happened, at least not at the rate initially expected." ..."
    "... For the past year, U.S. oil companies have been kept afloat by hedges–financial contracts that locked in higher prices for their crude–as well as an infusion of capital from Wall Street in the first half of the year that helped them keep pumping even as oil prices continued to fall. The companies also slashed costs and developed better techniques to produce more crude and natural gas per well. ..."
    "... some analysts to predict that 2016 production could decline as much as 10%. ..."
    "... But others predict rising oil output, in part because crude production is growing in the Gulf, where companies spent billions of dollars developing megaprojects that are now starting to produce oil. … companies are on track to pump about 10% more crude than they did in 2014. ..."
    "... Since most of the money to tap this oil and gas was spent before crude prices cratered, and since pipelines and other infrastructure to bring it to market are already in place, it makes economic sense for the companies to go ahead with the projects despite the glut, they say. ..."
    "... Anadarko Petroleum says it expects its operations to expand in the Gulf, where it currently holds 2 million net acres. The company plans to bring a production platform online in the first half of 2016, which will be capable of producing as much as 80,000 barrels a day. ..."
    "... Like Anadarko, Shell has decided to continue investing in deep water despite low oil prices. Overall, its production in the region is up about 10% for the year, to 250,000 barrels a day–a "big jump for us," said Wael Sawan, an executive vice president. ..."
    "... Small or financially strapped producers, which must keep drilling to get the cash to pay interest on billions of dollars of debt, will probably begin tapping those wells soon, according to Rystad Energy, the Norwegian energy consultancy. It forecasts that these wells could help push up U.S. production in 2016 by about 200,000 barrels a day from the 2015 average. ..."
    "... These wells "will be one of the main drivers for 2016 shale production," said Bielenis Villanueva-Triana, a senior analyst at Rystad. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 12/10/2015 at 8:56 pm

    As for the forecast for the next year, I have serious doubts that we will see a significant drop in LTO output and, generally, in U.S. C+C production next year.

    Here is an article confirming this view:

    As Oil Keeps Falling, Nobody Is Blinking

    http://www.morningstar.com/news/dow-jones/TDJNDN_201512062017/as-oil-keeps-falling-nobody-is-blinking.html

    The standoff between major global energy producers that has created an oil glut is set to continue next year in full force, as much because of the U.S. as of OPEC.
    American shale drillers have only trimmed their pumping a little, and rising oil flows from the Gulf of Mexico are propping up U.S. production. The overall output of U.S. crude fell just 0.2% in September, the most recent monthly federal data available, and is down less than 3%, to 9.3 million barrels a day, from the peak in April.

    Some analysts see the potential for U.S. oil output to rise next year.

    The situation has surprised even seasoned oil traders. "It was anticipated that U.S. shale producers, the source of the explosive growth in supply in recent years, would be the first to fold," Andrew Hall, chief executive of the commodities hedge fund Astenbeck Capital Management LLC, wrote in a letter to investors. "But this hasn't happened, at least not at the rate initially expected."

    For the past year, U.S. oil companies have been kept afloat by hedges–financial contracts that locked in higher prices for their crude–as well as an infusion of capital from Wall Street in the first half of the year that helped them keep pumping even as oil prices continued to fall. The companies also slashed costs and developed better techniques to produce more crude and natural gas per well.

    The opportunity for further productivity gains is waning, experts say, capital markets are closing and hedging contracts for most producers expire this year. These factors have led some analysts to predict that 2016 production could decline as much as 10%.

    But others predict rising oil output, in part because crude production is growing in the Gulf, where companies spent billions of dollars developing megaprojects that are now starting to produce oil. … companies are on track to pump about 10% more crude than they did in 2014. In September, they produced almost 1.7 million barrels a day, according to the latest federal data.

    Since most of the money to tap this oil and gas was spent before crude prices cratered, and since pipelines and other infrastructure to bring it to market are already in place, it makes economic sense for the companies to go ahead with the projects despite the glut, they say.

    Anadarko Petroleum says it expects its operations to expand in the Gulf, where it currently holds 2 million net acres. The company plans to bring a production platform online in the first half of 2016, which will be capable of producing as much as 80,000 barrels a day.

    "It's either free or very little marginal cost," said Anadarko CEO Al Walker. "For some of us, the Gulf of Mexico is still a very viable place for us to make investments."

    Like Anadarko, Shell has decided to continue investing in deep water despite low oil prices. Overall, its production in the region is up about 10% for the year, to 250,000 barrels a day–a "big jump for us," said Wael Sawan, an executive vice president.

    Also likely to slow the decline of U.S. oil production: more than 1,200 wells that companies drilled but left untapped in the hopes of higher prices.

    Small or financially strapped producers, which must keep drilling to get the cash to pay interest on billions of dollars of debt, will probably begin tapping those wells soon, according to Rystad Energy, the Norwegian energy consultancy. It forecasts that these wells could help push up U.S. production in 2016 by about 200,000 barrels a day from the 2015 average.

    These wells "will be one of the main drivers for 2016 shale production," said Bielenis Villanueva-Triana, a senior analyst at Rystad.

    Some producers with low debt will opt to wait to produce more oil, but others won't have that option. "In the U.S., they have a desperate need for cash flow," said Gary Ross, head of global oil at consulting firm PIRA Energy Group. "It looks like this could carry on until at least the first quarter."

    shallow sand, 12/10/2015 at 9:10 pm

    Maybe the only hope is explosive demand.

    Gasoline here is $1.67 and I have heard as low as $1.39 in a low tax state. The US is, or will soon be below $2.00. It will take awhile, but maybe 2016 will have greater production growth than forecast if gasoline price remain this low.

    shallow sand, 12/10/2015 at 9:44 pm

    Is there an oil price/duration that will force OPEC's hand with a cut? How about Russia? I think we will see sub $30 WTI now, with sub $20 not out of the question.

    jjhman, 12/10/2015 at 11:08 pm

    Ron:

    Thanks to you for what, in my opinion, is now the best site on line for solid analysis of the oil industry supported by credible data. Bravo!

    However I get really tired having to skip through the bickering about AGW. It really isn't the subject of this theatre and it seems neither side of the debate can control their emotions. It's an out of context distraction I would rather do without.

    [Dec 11, 2015] Dangers of reaching for yield

    The quest for yield is pushing investors into risk in a frantic hunt for yield in an environment where risk free assets yield at best an inflation adjusted zero and at worst have a negative carrying cost. Add to this fake earnings and share repurchases that weaken many companies including such stalwart as IBM and you get the message.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A firm founded by legendary vulture investor Martin Whitman is barring investor withdrawals while it liquidates its high-yield bond fund, an unusual move that highlights the severity of the months long junk-bond plunge that has swept Wall Street. ..."
    "... All 30 of the largest high-yield bond funds tracked by Morningstar have lost money this year, reflecting price declines as investors shied away from risk. ..."
    "... "Investors have been dazzled that yields on bonds have climbed so high, even while default rates remained low," said Martin Fridson, founder of Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors and a longtime junk-bond analyst. "Currently, though, the ability to sell a large position is especially poor…. When that tension gets especially high, you can see something snap." ..."
    "... Speculation by retail investors in high risk instruments like high yield bonds, oil ETN funds (based off oil futures), gold funds, etc rose tremendously during ZIPR period. Probably several billions were lost by retail investors during this period in search for yield. The same is true about participation of retail investors in regular casino games such as stock funds and indexes like S&P500. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    BenIsNotYoda said... Friday, December 11, 2015 at 03:42 AM

    Another leg of the reach-for-yield/carry trade crumbling. Emerging markets, commodities and now corporate high yield. No bubbles here. Carry on.

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-high-yield-debt-reels-mutual-fund-blocks-holders-from-redeeming-1449767526

    Junk Fund's Demise Fuels Concern Over Bond Rout

    Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund takes rare step, seeking an orderly liquidation as junk-bond market swoons

    A firm founded by legendary vulture investor Martin Whitman is barring investor withdrawals while it liquidates its high-yield bond fund, an unusual move that highlights the severity of the months long junk-bond plunge that has swept Wall Street.

    The decision by Third Avenue Management LLC means investors in the $789 million Third Avenue Focused Credit Fund may not receive all their money back for months, if not more.

    BenIsNotYoda said in reply to BenIsNotYoda...
    of course, biotech has to be added to this list; down 20%.
    pgl said in reply to BenIsNotYoda...
    Amgen shares trading at $145 and Gilead shares trading at $102. Not feeling sorry for these dudes.
    pgl said in reply to BenIsNotYoda...
    Talk about burying the lead:

    "The yield spread between junk-rated debt and U.S. Treasurys narrowed to a multiyear low in mid-2014, reflecting investors' confidence in companies' business prospects. But spreads have since risen, reflecting lower prices, as the energy bust intensified questions about junk-rated companies' ability to repay debts. All 30 of the largest high-yield bond funds tracked by Morningstar have lost money this year, reflecting price declines as investors shied away from risk.

    "Investors have been dazzled that yields on bonds have climbed so high, even while default rates remained low," said Martin Fridson, founder of Lehmann Livian Fridson Advisors and a longtime junk-bond analyst. "Currently, though, the ability to sell a large position is especially poor…. When that tension gets especially high, you can see something snap."

    The Securities and Exchange Commission has been warning mutual-fund managers who purchase illiquid securities-those that may be difficult to buy or sell at stated prices because of a lack of willing investors-to prepare better for potential redemptions and is drawing up new rules requiring such measures."

    Simply put - people who go into the junk bond market get a very high return but they also take the risk. No feeling sorry for these guys especially given that the SEC gave them fair warning.

    Peter K. said in reply to pgl...
    "All 30 of the largest high-yield bond funds tracked by Morningstar have lost money this year, reflecting price declines as investors shied away from risk."

    Investors are shying away from risk? I thought ZIRP encouraged reach-for-yield.

    The market goes up and down. Only drama queens would see a bubble like the tech stock bubble or housing bubble in the data.

    http://cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/matt-o-brien-takes-obama-to-task-on-fed-appointees

    Dean Baker again:

    "Preventing the rebirth of housing bubbles in these markets was a very good thing in my book. I will add the qualification that high interest rates is not my preferred way of bursting bubbles. The first recourse should be talk, as in using the Fed's bully pulpit, coupled with its research, to warn the markets of rising bubbles. Janet Yellen did this successfully in the summer of 2014 when she used congressional testimony to warn of bubbles in social media companies, biotech stocks, and junk bonds. She did not follow through with subsequent warnings, but all three markets did take a hit in the weeks following her testimony.

    For some reason most economists reject the idea of having the Fed talk down bubbles. I guess it is considered impolite. This seems more than a bit bizarre given the enormous damage done by bursting bubbles compared with the virtually costless effort to talk them down.

    Of course the Fed also has substantial regulatory powers which can be used to curb bank lending to support bubbles. This is also a policy option that should be pursued before deliberately slowing the economy with higher interest rates.

    Anyhow, I was not happy to see the economy slowed by the Taper Tantrum, but I was very happy to see that it prevented the growth of another bubble. It is unfortunate that almost no one knows this story - I guess it is difficult for reporters to get access to the Case-Shiller data on the web."

    pgl said in reply to Peter K....
    "The market goes up and down. Only drama queens would see a bubble like the tech stock bubble or housing bubble in the data."

    Yep! And the lack of QE of late has driven up both government bond rates and credit spreads. Now wonder these vulture investors lost money. I'm not feeling for them a bit. And yes - BenIsNotYoda was being a drama queen.

    likbez said in reply to Peter K....
    "Investors are shying away from risk? I thought ZIRP encouraged reach-for-yield."

    Yes, very true.

    Speculation by retail investors in high risk instruments like high yield bonds, oil ETN funds (based off oil futures), gold funds, etc rose tremendously during ZIPR period. Probably several billions were lost by retail investors during this period in search for yield. The same is true about participation of retail investors in regular casino games such as stock funds and indexes like S&P500.

    Conservative investments like TIPS suffered.

    [Dec 11, 2015] OPEC's monthly report

    www.businessinsider.com

    ...On Thursday, crude slumped after OPEC's monthly report showed that the oil cartel pumped the most oil in three years in November.

    [Dec 11, 2015] Fortune says that a third of frackers could be out of business in a year

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Javier, 12/11/2015 at 5:56 am
    A very important issue that adds to the pains of oil companies at a really bad time.

    Fortune says that a third of frackers could be out of business in a year.

    http://fortune.com/2015/09/26/frackers-could-soon-face-mass-extinction/

    shallow sand, 12/10/2015 at 5:03 pm
    dclonghorn. I have absolutely way of knowing how many "DUC" LTO wells are out there in the Bakken or elsewhere. However, I absolutely cannot fathom, at the price of oil since July, 2015, how anyone could financially justify drilling mult-million dollar wells, that will not be completed for at least six months, or even more than a year. There is absolutely no income being produced, yet a major expense to drill same was incurred, and furthermore, I assume there is some small ongoing cost to monitor these wells awaiting completion. Yes, I understand holding off, but why in the heck drill these in the first place? I understand things do not stop on a dime, but we really have not had a suitable price for onshore oil and/or gas well drilling since the fall of 2014.

    The oil price and gas price collapse is simply incredible to me. Almost all well head barrels are in the low 30s or below, today, and it looks very real that the 20s are near. Gas almost everywhere is below $1.75 at the well.

    An LTO company with a 60% oil and 40% gas mix is realizing somewhere between $15 and $21 per BOE.

    A Bakken LTO company with 75% oil and 25% gas mix is realizing $21-23.

    So in the Bakken, lets assume $22 per BOE.

    Subtract $2.20 per BOE for severance and extraction taxes, subtract $6-9 per BOE for operating and subtract $2-4 for G & A. Clearing $6.80 to $11.80 per BOE. Most companies have at least $5 per BOE in interest obligations. So that takes us to $1.80 to $6.80 per BOE.

    If we go to $25 WTI, say $18 Bakken. So around $14 per BOE. Guess what, we are losing money on an operating basis and I will bet there will still be wells drilling and being completed in all shale basins.

    Nick G, 12/10/2015 at 5:05 pm
    Most companies have at least $5 per BOE in interest obligations. So that takes us to $1.80 to $6.80 per BOE.

    Don't they have to pay those interest obligations either way? In other words, aren't they a sunk cost?

    shallow sand, 12/10/2015 at 5:57 pm
    Yes. I suppose the more they produce the less per BOE they are paying. But to produce more they have to borrow more or use the cash from existing production to pay for the new wells which will increase production.

    But apparently some are spending money to drill, but not complete the wells, which adds to interest expense and cash burn, without producing any cash flow.

    But all e & p share prices went up today. Go figure.

    AlexS, 12/10/2015 at 6:44 pm
    OPEC estimates of U.S. liquids production by source
    (Source: OPEC MOMR Dec. 2015)

    AlexS, 12/10/2015 at 6:54 pm
    U.S. oil production estimates: Rystad Energy vs. EIA STEO

    AlexS, 12/10/2015 at 7:15 pm
    Interesting trend: the EIA has been increasing its estimates of U.S. C+C production for 2015 – early 2016, but decreasing estimates for the second half of next year.

    AlexS, 12/10/2015 at 7:32 pm
    The biggest revision (of 280 kb/d) was for the GoM oil production in September 2015.
    Apparently the EIA expected a sharp drop due to the hurricane season.

    Total U.S. C+C output estimate for September was increased by 420 kb/d in the December STEO compared to the October STEO

    C+C production in the Gulf of Mexico

    AlexS , 12/10/2015 at 7:56 pm
    EIA's estimates for the Lower 48 states ex-GoM were revised up for 2005-early 2016
    (by more than 100 kb/d for October and November). However the outlook for the second half of next year has been significantly reduced (by more than 300 kb/d for December 2016).

    AlexS, 12/10/2015 at 8:29 pm

    shallow sand,

    This trend was apparent since the beginning of the shale boom. U.S. oil companies were reallocating capital from overseas projects and domestic conventional operations towards shale gas and LTO. Interestingly, the divested assets were generating free cashflow, while shale operations were cash-negative. And nothing really changed with the sharp drop in oil prices.

    I am not sure that oil and gas production in other parts of the world is now less economic compared to the shale. Probably international projects are perceived as more politically risky


    [Dec 11, 2015] How Far Can The Syria Conflict Spiral Out Of Control

    Notable quotes:
    "... By James Stafford, Editor in Chief of OilPrice. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
    "... • How far the Russia-Turkey spat can go economically ..."
    "... • The fallout effects for countries caught in between ..."
    "... • What Russia wants ..."
    "... • What Turkey wants ..."
    "... • What other geopolitical purposes ISIS serves ..."
    "... • Why ISIS can't be controlled ..."
    "... • How Shi'ite radical groups differ ..."
    "... • Why we're looking at a possible remapping of a significant part of the energy arena ..."
    "... • Why we shouldn't listen to billionaire buffoons ..."
    "... Larger picture of what's really going on with Turkey's intentions driven by Ergodan, Bensh's correct description of Ergo's character and flaws, and less explicitly stated US (he says "west") 1/2 ass efforts to defeat IS despite US leaders (from WH to Congress) emphatic claims otherwise… ..."
    "... "Coupled with unparalleled levels of socioeconomic insecurity, Sunni marginalization produced a real social base whose attraction to ISIS goes beyond religious or ideological factors." ..."
    "... ISIS may project a utopic promise of stability and prosperity, but this is far from the reality on the ground. We can be absolutely certain that it will experience its own internal revolts, as similarly declarative examples of Islamic "states" have faced in the past. ..."
    "... Yet, from the point of view of Washington, a geostrategic problem lingered: how to break the Tehran-Damascus alliance. And ultimately, how to break the Tehran-Moscow alliance. ..."
    "... The "Assad must go" obsession in Washington is a multi-headed hydra. It includes breaking a Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance (now very much in effect as the "4+1" alliance, including Hezbollah, actively fighting all strands of Salafi Jihadism in Syria). But it also includes isolating energy coordination among them, to the benefit of the Gulf petrodollar clients/vassals linked to US energy giants. ..."
    "... Thus Washington's strategy so far of injecting the proverbial Empire of Chaos logic into Syria; feeding the flames of internal chaos, a pre-planed op by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the endgame being regime change in Damascus. ..."
    "... Of course Turkey is the wild card – Erdogan is increasingly looking like he might be the spark that sets off a much larger conflict. To answer the question, I think there are a lot of really bad scenarios that could happen here, and they are a lot closer than people think (Turkey shutting down the Bosphorus, for starters.) ..."
    "... It is way past time for the arrogant stupidity of Washington's neoconservatives to be exposed and for them to at a minimum be removed from the levers of power – if not tried for crimes against humanity. And that includes Obama if he is really one of them, i.e. if he believes in anything but the politics of power. ..."
    "... Specifically with respect to Syria, it looks like about the best the 'West' (i.e. the US and its vassals) can hope for is some pipeline arrangement providing Europe with an alternative, a competing supplier for its energy needs. In exchange, the 'West' can agree to end its economic war against Russia, Iran et.al and get back to the business of business, i.e. exporting something other than debt and bombs. ..."
    "... I remember reading years ago that the rise of the AKP, and the rising standard of living with it, was fueled directly by a large stream of cash that was funneled from the House of Saud. ..."
    "... The interest must be paid… ..."
    "... I think the waffling on ISIS is due to their location among Sunnis. The US would like to win Sunnis over, so they're cautious about bombing, which of course is to ISIS' advantage. ..."
    "... From where I sit, the Syria conflict is an important part of a much larger one – between the 'West' and Russia. Things have been heating up again in the Ukraine. Biden gave a speech there just a couple of days ago in which he insisted that 'NATO would not rest until Crimea was returned to the Ukraine.' That's not going to happen without a war. ..."
    naked capitalism

    By James Stafford, Editor in Chief of OilPrice. Originally published at OilPrice

    ...No one can fight a war without oil, according to Robert Bensh, partner and managing director of Pelicourt LLC oil and gas company. But while the politically unhinged are coming out the woodwork, the more important aspects of this story remain elusive to the public. Is the dangerously unspoken theory that ISIS is a bulwark against Iran what's keeping the West from tackling the Islamic State wholeheartedly on its territory?

    ... ... ...

    In an exclusive interview with James Stafford of Oilprice.com, Bensh discusses:

    • How far the Russia-Turkey spat can go economically
    • The fallout effects for countries caught in between
    • What Russia wants
    • What Turkey wants
    • What other geopolitical purposes ISIS serves
    • Why ISIS can't be controlled
    • How Shi'ite radical groups differ
    • Why we're looking at a possible remapping of a significant part of the energy arena
    • Why we shouldn't listen to billionaire buffoons

    ... ... ...

    Robert Bensh: Russia and Turkey have a great deal of economic interdependence, and nowhere more than in the energy sector. There has been no talk of cutting Russian gas to Turkey, and I don't see how Russia can afford this right now. Turkey is not only a significant customer for Russia, but it's also a key gas-transit point.

    James Stafford: So what does Turkey want?

    Robert Bensh: The better question is: "What does Erdogan want?" You know, Putin's probably not too far off in his statement referring to Erdogan's loss of "mind and reason". Erdogan has been going down this path little by little for some time and it's no secret that he has some megalomaniacal tendencies that grow more and more out of control every year. It would seem that he has dreams of a return of the Ottoman Empire-and that ISIS could be a logical ally to that end. Of course, ISIS is not likely looking to be beholden to another Ottoman Empire controlling a greater Sunni-Arab dominion. Many, many Turks fail to share this dream with their leader, and his ambitions will also be his eventual downfall unfortunately.

    For the Turkish regime, there is also the idea that ISIS will ostensibly give them more power against the rise of the Kurds, both in southeastern Turkey and in northern Syria. It will even raise the Turks' status in the face of the Saudis whose oil wealth has make them more powerful than the Turks in many ways.

    Jim McKay

    Yves: I think your "quibble" is… indeed minor.

    Larger picture of what's really going on with Turkey's intentions driven by Ergodan, Bensh's correct description of Ergo's character and flaws, and less explicitly stated US (he says "west") 1/2 ass efforts to defeat IS despite US leaders (from WH to Congress) emphatic claims otherwise…

    These are realities. Whatever small portion of US electorate reads here, at least a few are being introduced to this. We are heading into another election with… in my view, more deeply entrenched public opinions on this based on lies, then maybe any time I recall my entire life. It's just, the game is bigger now with more potential for longer lasting catastrophe if we don't find a way to right our ship.

    I appreciate this article… it's on the right track. Only other thing I'd mention: amidst all this, we've had recent international climate meetings with little progress. Clearly, this is bigger problem for entire planet that nobody will escape. I'm stuck by Bensh's comments on protecting their investments (oil) and how the various players he mentions all make decisions based on… oil. It over rides, it seems…everything else that matters.

    The planet needs to get behind renewables, and develop them… fast. It's not so hard to see how doing so would change these other geo-political games forever.

    financial matters

    I think taking the 'businessman' look at this is not a bad way to look at it. As Adam Hanieh has pointed out

    https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/12/isis-syria-iraq-war-al-qaeda-arab-spring/

    "Coupled with unparalleled levels of socioeconomic insecurity, Sunni marginalization produced a real social base whose attraction to ISIS goes beyond religious or ideological factors."

    and also

    "ISIS may project a utopic promise of stability and prosperity, but this is far from the reality on the ground. We can be absolutely certain that it will experience its own internal revolts, as similarly declarative examples of Islamic "states" have faced in the past.

    Despite all the setbacks of the last few years, the potential growth of a genuinely left alternative has not been extinguished and, most importantly, has never been more necessary."

    --

    William Polk echoes this idea of the importance of a non-military and non-police response.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/11/17/falling-into-the-isis-trap/

    "–The results of insurgency are described in my book Violent Politics. There I have shown that in a variety of societies over the last two centuries in various parts of Africa, Asia and Europe, guerrillas have nearly always accomplished their objectives despite even the most draconian counterinsurgency tactics."

    His point being that dealing with the fundamental socioeconomic imbalances/repression can be more effective.

    Eureka Springs

    Interesting to me as much for what is not considered by oil businessmen.

    A few quick points:

    • No mention of human suffering, not even in cost/opportunity terms.
    • No mention of rule of law.
    • No mention of what happens to the earths climate/ecosystem if all the oil and gas at stake is unleashed.
    • No mention of who many of the business players are, certainly not in detail. No mention of Erdogans family, Tony Hayward, trafficking / selling this stolen oil…
    • Nor mention of Israel being the major end buyer.
    • When mentioning Assad buys oil from IS (U.S Turk Israel Saudi Qatari Qaeda Nusra) no mention of the point Assad is buying his countries own oil at the point of a gun from the thieves who stole it.
    • No mention that this uncertainty/chaos is both deliberate and a constant feature of big oil and MIC's business model.
    • No concern that more tyrants of the head chopping variety are bound to achieve or maintain power.
    cassandra

    …and

    • No mention of strategic significance of naval base at Tartus
    • No mention of "legal" Saudi arms purchasing and trafficking, and extremist support in Syria, Yemen and about the globe.

    Brooklin Bridge

    This is a good interview. Along with other posts on the subject, this is bringing a little clarity to why there is no clarity.

    participant-observer-observed

    Hmmm. No mention of Saudi and others in the dynamic…

    for more details, read above with Escobar's Pipelineistan,
    here c/o Tom Dispatch.

    Jack Heape

    Thanks for that link. Escobar always has some good insights. I also suggest Juan Cole. He recently had a good piece on President Erdogan.

    camelotkidd

    Pepe Escobar has been all over the back story of what he calls pipelineistan– http://counterpunch.org/2015/12/08/syria-ultimate-pipelineistan-war /

    "Yet, from the point of view of Washington, a geostrategic problem lingered: how to break the Tehran-Damascus alliance. And ultimately, how to break the Tehran-Moscow alliance.

    The "Assad must go" obsession in Washington is a multi-headed hydra. It includes breaking a Russia-Iran-Iraq-Syria alliance (now very much in effect as the "4+1" alliance, including Hezbollah, actively fighting all strands of Salafi Jihadism in Syria). But it also includes isolating energy coordination among them, to the benefit of the Gulf petrodollar clients/vassals linked to US energy giants.

    Thus Washington's strategy so far of injecting the proverbial Empire of Chaos logic into Syria; feeding the flames of internal chaos, a pre-planed op by the CIA, Saudi Arabia and Qatar, with the endgame being regime change in Damascus."

    participant-observer-observed

    Yes, thanks for that most recent Escobar piece at Counterpunch; the one i linked above is already old but still interesting.

    The regime change recipe of DC has already been tried and has failed in Iraq, Libya, etc., no one can fathom any improvements replacing Assad + Isis with Isis alone, aka rag tag coalitions of jihadis! Even Saudis can hardly wish for it.

    ChrisFromGeorgia

    Based on reported facts on the ground (well, reported by non-US media that is) the SAA is making slow but steady progress in retaking key towns and the highway between Aleppo and Damascus. No doubt Russian air and logistical support has made a difference.

    If things keep going this way, Assad will likely regain the upper hand and the Saudi/US sponsored jihadis will be confined to the eastern part of the country. It's looking like Washington will have to make a choice – accept Assad as the legitimate ruler (for now) or continue to provoke the situation with guerrilla tactics. We know from history that there is precedent for long wars against legitimate governments that displease Washington (see Daniel Ortega, Sandanistas.) My guess is they go this route and hope to eventually install a stooge.

    Of course Turkey is the wild card – Erdogan is increasingly looking like he might be the spark that sets off a much larger conflict. To answer the question, I think there are a lot of really bad scenarios that could happen here, and they are a lot closer than people think (Turkey shutting down the Bosphorus, for starters.)

    Steven

    It is way past time for the arrogant stupidity of Washington's neoconservatives to be exposed and for them to at a minimum be removed from the levers of power – if not tried for crimes against humanity. And that includes Obama if he is really one of them, i.e. if he believes in anything but the politics of power.

    This 'Arrogance of Power' has characterized US foreign policy making since the end of WWII. The U.N. was sold to the public as an arrangement for collective security so the U.S. would not have to 'make the world safe for democracy' (sic) a third time. It has been in reality nothing more than a tool for the pursuit of (perceived) US interests, promptly discarded when the principles in its charter became inconvenient.

    Short of initiating the world's Mutually Assured Destruction, the U.S. is running out of options – in Syria and around the world. It may be too late for the U.S. to get serious about collective security, to tell the world 'this time we really mean it'. Having squandered economic and "too good to waste" military power in a successive string of needless wars, it may no longer be possible to convince especially those who hold the levers of power in Russia and China that we are serious about collective security and willing to accept a multi-polar world.

    Specifically with respect to Syria, it looks like about the best the 'West' (i.e. the US and its vassals) can hope for is some pipeline arrangement providing Europe with an alternative, a competing supplier for its energy needs. In exchange, the 'West' can agree to end its economic war against Russia, Iran et.al and get back to the business of business, i.e. exporting something other than debt and bombs.

    kgw

    I remember reading years ago that the rise of the AKP, and the rising standard of living with it, was fueled directly by a large stream of cash that was funneled from the House of Saud.

    The interest must be paid…

    susan the other

    This was really to the point, without actually making it. One thing is becoming clear – the oil wars are distilling down to natural advantage. It currently belongs to SA – but the future looks like it prefers to use Levant & east Mediterranean oil because it will be easier to pipe to southern Europe. And maybe cleaner? So everybody and their dog is fighting for access to it.

    It explains Netanyahu's trip to Moscow & the French clearly in league with Russia for achieving access to this resource (why else?). And it is partly being driven by decisions to leave current oil reserves in the ground. As Palast said it is a "war for no oil."

    Which in turn makes sense of Kerry's admonishing the Senate about the Iran deal – that if they want to continue to be oil brokers (petrodollar brokers) they have to come to terms with Iran because there are plenty of other nations who can step up; and of course we want our EU cousins to get a cut of Levant oil, and etc. And Russia is clearly protecting its oil interests. I wonder how long this feeding frenzy will continue.

    Horatio Parker

    I think the waffling on ISIS is due to their location among Sunnis. The US would like to win Sunnis over, so they're cautious about bombing, which of course is to ISIS' advantage.

    tgs

    From where I sit, the Syria conflict is an important part of a much larger one – between the 'West' and Russia. Things have been heating up again in the Ukraine. Biden gave a speech there just a couple of days ago in which he insisted that 'NATO would not rest until Crimea was returned to the Ukraine.' That's not going to happen without a war.

    [Dec 10, 2015] The Feds Painted Itself Into The Most Dangerous Corner In History - Why There Will Soon Be A Riot In The Casino

    As long as oil stay low I think there will be no recession...
    Notable quotes:
    "... Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog, ..."
    Zero Hedge

    Submitted by David Stockman via Contra Corner blog,

    Presumably, Yellen and her posse know that we did not have seven years running of negative real money market rates even during the Great Depression of the 1930s.

    So after one pretension, delusion, head fake and forecasting error after another, the denizens of the Eccles Building have painted themselves into the most dangerous monetary corner in history. They have left themselves no alternative except to provoke a riot in the casino - the very outcome that has filled them with fear and dread all these years.

    ... ... ...

    But the fantastic global credit bubble summarized below has now reached its apogee. China and the EM economies are rolling over into a debilitating deflation, thereby catalyzing the mother of all margins calls. This time subprime is lettered in Chinese and speaks with a Portuguese accent.

    ... ... ...

    According to Dr. Summers, the thing to do when recession strikes is to cut interest rates by 300 basis points. But even he admits it ain't going to happen this time.

    Even if were technically possible to have a negative 300 bps federal funds rate, what is already a 2016 election year gong show would take on a whole new level of crazy. The brutally trod upon savers and retirees of American would well and truly revolt.

    Historical experience suggests that when recession comes it is necessary to cut interest rates by more than 300 basis points. I agree with the market that the Fed likely will not be able to raise rates by 100 basis points a year without threatening to undermine the recovery. But even if this were possible, the chances are very high that recession will come before there is room to cut rates by enough to offset it. The knowledge that this is the case must surely reduce confidence and inhibit demand.

    Central bankers bravely assert that they can always use unconventional tools. But there may be less in the cupboard than they suppose. The efficacy of further quantitative easing in an environment of well-functioning markets and already very low medium-term rates is highly questionable. There are severe limits on how negative rates can become. A central bank that is forced back to the zero lower bound is not likely to have great credibility if it engages in forward guidance.

    Katherine Schock, 1 year ago
    Just spent the major part of my day putting together the records to file the old man's tax this year. We have contributed mightily to the insurance industry, the pharmaceutical industry, the medical industry and yes, a major part of our income that makes up our yearly retirement amount has ended up in the pockets of these Wall Street bums! Therefore, I am posting this song as a tribute to Wall Street...thanks to you guys we barely have a dime left over! Hope you choke on your fucking bonus!

    Gene Burnett - Jump You F#kers (A Song For Wall Street) - YouTube

    [Dec 10, 2015] Regarding the Future is Bright

    Notable quotes:
    "... We had a sluggish economy during the Bush Mismanagement years. The Fed compensated by allowing an under regulated housing bubble to form. We never fixed the core problem that led to the 2001 recession. It would be foolish to try to fix the jobs problem with housing alone and I think Bondad has a point that housing is not saving us this time. ..."
    "... the crucial indicator being real wage growth. ..."
    "... Another problem is that we live in a bad society. Whether or not there is another recession affects the precise level of pain. But even if there is no recession the future will only be bright for a select class of socially privileged winners. For many, many Americans, the future is bleak no matter what - absent major structural political and economic changes. ..."
    "... Clintons tech stock bubble popped and morphed into Bushs housing bubble. Bush thought military Keynesianism and tax cuts for the rich would help but they didnt help much. The solution is to regulate and tax the financial industry to prevent bubbles from forming. Greenspan denied its existenc ..."
    "... The simple tool for reining in our excessively top-heavy financial sector is deflation! ..."
    "... Its generally useful to talk about macroeconomic factors in terms of cyclical and structural factors. Its a reductionist framework, but one that IMO holds up well and is quite clarifying. So when I hear someone say something about a nebulous core problem that leads to recessions, I am very suspicious. Usually, such claims are about someones hobby horse structural issue, which may or may not be important, but is generally not the cause of recessions. ..."
    Economist's View
    bakho said...
    Regarding the "The Future is Bright ".

    We had a sluggish economy during the Bush Mismanagement years. The Fed compensated by allowing an under regulated housing bubble to form. We never fixed the core problem that led to the 2001 recession. It would be foolish to try to fix the jobs problem with housing alone and I think Bondad has a point that housing is not saving us this time.

    cawley said in reply to bakho...
    Agreed. Also with the crucial indicator being real wage growth.

    ken melvin said in reply to bakho...

    Yup, housing is the effect, not the cause.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to ken melvin...

    Exactly!

    New Deal democrat said in reply to bakho...

    Thanks.

    My post at Bonddad was an elaboration on a comment I made here two days ago. I had been meaning to reply to CR last year when he made the same argument, but never got around to it.

    In fairness, I think Bill makes an excellent case that we won't have another recession brought about by a housing bubble, and/or too much consumer leverage any time soon. But there are plenty of other reasons why the economy might tip back into recession, as comments here have already mentioned.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to New Deal democrat...

    Another problem is that we live in a bad society. Whether or not there is another recession affects the precise level of pain. But even if there is no recession the future will only be "bright" for a select class of socially privileged winners. For many, many Americans, the future is bleak no matter what - absent major structural political and economic changes.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to JF...

    Well I said the prospects are bleak only absent major structural political and economic changes. And they are. American society is killing off whole classes of people. The prisons are full; there are epidemics of substance abuse going on, and rising suicide rates. The Financial Times reported today Even if there is no recession, that just means that these people are not also laid off, and can trudge back and forth every day from their Wal-Jobs to their hardscrabble communities, slums and trailer parks and afford more booze to drink themselves to death or buy lottery tickets to win imaginary pots of gold that will never come, and to have a functioning TV so they can watch people scream at each other all night. Oh, and the prices of hookers and drugs are down. Bright times!

    Why should any of these people care what the "Bonddad" thinks about how bright the future is for people who ... well, own bonds; or who party in Manhattan and Silicon Valley with their fortunes; or who make use of their abundant low-anxiety leisure to talk to their college chums all day in the establishment punditariat?

    The up and down cyclical motions of the pretty horsies going up and down mean little to the people who sleep in the dark machinery underneath the merry-go-round.

    If US society keeps its basic overall shape, the future isn't bright. But it does contain just enough glare to make sure that the party boys with their ever-evolving fashion lines of fancy sunglasses will continue not to see half of the world.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Incomplete sentence. I meant to say, "The Financial Times reported today on the further hollowing out of the US middle class and growing income stratification."

    Dan Kervick said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    America, 2015:

    http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2015/may/14/homan-square-detainee-police-abuse

    JF said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Yes, we absolutely have the opportunity to do better. We ought to try.

    Julio said in reply to JF...

    We are rich beyond belief. We just have to get used to the idea. Then, new vistas open up.

    JF said in reply to Julio...

    Yes. Net Wealth of US residents is nearly $85 T with an annual flow of economic activity over $17 T.

    We have a rising population, not a declining one.

    We produce more food than we can eat and have access to immense energy sources.

    And we have one of the better judicial systems and at least historically a governing set of institutions that brings up to the pragmatic middle that has made sound currency and nationwide payment systems, lots of supportive infrastructure including some good literacy levels from the educational system part of it.

    We can do better, but I'd take the US over any other place (we even have a moderate climate).

    This election might change my thinking on this last point about taking the US over say Canada - but I think I'll be happy to remain.

    Julio said in reply to JF...

    Yes, I went through some of the same thoughts when we reelected Bush-Cheney. But here I am.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to JF...

    JF, I agree that the aggregates and net numbers are great. But our cruel, stratified, inegalitarian social system is the problem. The way those aggregate quantities are spread out over the population is a global scandal.

    America is good for me too, personally. My wife and I live in a well-off upper middle class community in New Hampshire. Very good schools, no crime to speak of, a town full of healthy and advantaged kids 95% bound for colleges. We had and still do have various recession-related anxieties, but they are the anxieties most people in the world only dream of.

    But my life isn't America. It's a privileged and charmed part of it. If I get pulled over by a policeman for driving a bit too fast, I just get a courteous and smiling warning from Officer Friendly. Many others run a good chance of getting tasered, shot or sodomized in a police station. And that's just the tip of the iceberg of the savage inequalities.

    anne said in reply to New Deal democrat...

    http://bonddad.blogspot.com/2015/12/the-future-is-bright-or-perhaps-not.html

    December 9, 2015

    The Future is Bright . . . or perhaps not
    By New Deal democrat

    [ Really nicely done. ]

    Peter K. said in reply to bakho...

    Clinton's tech stock bubble popped and morphed into Bush's housing bubble. Bush thought military Keynesianism and tax cuts for the rich would help but they didn't help much. The solution is to regulate and tax the financial industry to prevent bubbles from forming. Greenspan denied its existence.

    The solution is not to raise interest rates in a depressed economy.

    As DeLong has written the housing bubble was deflating and housing jobs were being replaced by export jobs.

    Then the whole thing short-circuited with the financial crisis.

    At the time the Fed was passively tightening over inflation concerns.

    Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

    Another solution is more fiscal policy so that monetary policy doesn't carry all of the burden.

    Tax cuts for the rich isn't good fiscal policy.

    pgl said in reply to Peter K....

    Greg Mankiw links to some report on the effects of the Jeb! tax cuts but does not comment (Krugman did comment in this report). I followed the link and read the abstract. It is not exactly what Mankiw usually says about the wonders of tax cuts for rich people.

    Peter K. said in reply to pgl...

    I avoid Mankiw's website. No comments.

    :D

    Interesting though. Didn't Krugman blog that the report backs up his (everyone's) claims?

    pgl said in reply to Peter K....

    Krugman did. Abstract of the report and Krugman's comment below. I just found it funny that Mankiw gave a hat tip to something that I doubt he even read first. I guess Greg is getting a lot like JohnH in that way.

    Peter K. said in reply to pgl...

    "I guess Greg is getting a lot like JohnH in that way."

    So much trolling to do, so little time. It's hard to keep up with all the misinformation.

    PPaine said in reply to Peter K....

    Pay roll tax cuts and increased retirement payments

    Plus a greatly expanded earned income subsidy aka tax credit

    These are job class macro moves

    Bernie gets this

    Hillary ???

    PPaine said in reply to PPaine ...

    The fed needs to be captured first before we can rely on. It to operate in sync with a pro job class macro policy

    ilsm said in reply to PPaine ...

    ARAMCO and the pentagon need the cash!

    Norovirus said in reply to Peter K....

    "tax the financial industry to prevent"

    ~~Peter K~

    When you need less of something, tax it. This will shift the supply/price/demand curve of financial "services". We need more of sawmills but less of banks, brokers and quants. Production we need. Casino we don't need. Hell!

    If you want casino then go to Vegas -- more bells and whistles for you money!

    Guten
    fahrt
    !

    Laundry Bank & Trust said in reply to Norovirus...

    Most efficient way to tax financial services is a simple tool.

    "simplicity is the meaning of life.
    "
    ~~Ockham's axiom~

    "
    Simplicity is more sustainable than complexity.
    "
    ~~Ockham's first theorem~

    The simple tool for reining in our excessively top-heavy financial sector is deflation!

    sanjait said in reply to bakho...

    It's generally useful to talk about macroeconomic factors in terms of "cyclical" and "structural" factors. It's a reductionist framework, but one that IMO holds up well and is quite clarifying. So when I hear someone say something about a nebulous "core problem" that leads to recessions, I am very suspicious. Usually, such claims are about someone's hobby horse structural issue, which may or may not be important, but is generally not the cause of recessions.

    PPaine said in reply to sanjait...

    Well a chronic trade deficit And. Spontaneous over accumulation are clearly structural problems that may well require significant if varying full employment budget deficits over the whole cycle

    The inter action of structural and cyclical requires composite macro policy programs using multiple instruments

    The dollar should stay at the assumed long run balanced trade forex thru out the cycle
    Over accumulation suggests a ceiling of zero real for the policy rate

    Etc etc

    Sanjait said in reply to PPaine ...

    Rich developed countries are supposed to have a chronic trade deficit.

    But sure, let's humor that concern for a sec:

    What then, do you claim, is the structural factor that causes chronic trade deficits? This should be interesting.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...

    RE: The Evolution of Work

    [This piece is sort of like the David Warsh broad brush economic history short form pieces except that it is focused purely on the plight of the proletariat instead of elites.]

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Dani Rodrik seems to be on the side of the weebles.

    ken melvin said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Are we still evolving?

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to ken melvin...

    Yep. Evolution never seems to be happening when most of what one sees is within their own generation, sort of by definition. What the millennials are evolving into is something I want to learn, but have not had the chance to duly observe for myself yet. Jealousy between my current wife and the mother of my children created an atmosphere too tedious for my current wife to be subjected to. You should know though that I am not the father of my children either. I just raised them from 4, 6, and 12. Husbands number one and two of the mother of my children were the biological fathers. She had no children with husbands number three (me) nor four. She is still hunting for number five but her powder is too wet now to fire.

    So, what have you learned from your grandchildren?

    From our three girls I learned that progress is mighty slow.

    PPaine said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Yes

    I love his strong advocacy for cross border labor mobility. Control the borders but increase the OECD inflow

    We should set a huge quota for middle easterners

    But let them in very slowly
    Meanwhile those that apply
    Get to stay in a safe area provided by lady liberty

    Inside the us !

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to PPaine ...

    That would trump Trump.

    ilsm said in reply to PPaine ...

    Wll st banks already get a cut on banking al Qaeda!

    bakho said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Dani does not address hours worked or time off.
    The US has one of the worst leave policies in the developed world.
    When was the last reduction in the work week?
    There are a lot of services that are not being provided due to lack of money. Some of the underemployed could move into low level service jobs if other workers moved up to a higher level.

    It is a failure when large numbers of people do not have productive work. They have too little money to sustain potential output, leaving employment far below potential. It is a vicious downward spiral. The spiral is fixed by intervention that reverses the spiral. We have a failure of fiscal policy to address the root problem.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to bakho...

    He's a development economist and his article is about work in the developing world.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to bakho...

    We have a lot of failures and I don't have time enough to make a full list. Changing stuff requires political action on behalf of and usually orchestrated by those that have the needs that require addressing. We need massive working class majority electoral solidarity. Until then the political establishment is safe to treat us as second rate constituents and focus on the desires of the elite.

    JF said in reply to bakho...

    The Tim Taylor piece is helping to remind people to focus more attention on economic policies related to work practices being seen in society. More talk about this the better.

    My two cents, is that society is better when people are hired for stable, full-time jobs. All kinds of definitional matters attend to just saying this, but I still think it needs to be a predominating focus. Society wants more people to have full-time jobs, however you define full-time. So we need to watch developments in the gig economy carefully.

    By predominating full-time employment as a policy-making factor, I'd say this view means that in serious downturns, for instance, we do not want govts eliminating full time, stable jobs if we can somehow do fiscal sharing to avoid this as much as can be done.

    The largest employer segment in the US (well at least it used to be bigger than retail, last time I studied this) is state and local govt employment. These employers don't pay out of whack high-salaries and for the most part the hiring has had a stable and proportional growth rate (political bosses in the US don't hand out jobs to create voters much anymore). These employers create floors in the labor marketplace and this forces other employers to compete on stability factors and on the notion of being full-time. I think we want this type of competition.

    The right-wing Machiavelli ones understand this dynamic and that is why they are very happy to undermine govt employment (cut it, they are lazy anyway, ugh-bureaucrats don't do real things, etc.) - they don't want the competition as it raises the costs of their decades long control over wages.

    But any employer offering stability and full-time jobs - this is good, and economic policies for our society ought to take this into account as a predominating factor.

    sanjait said in reply to JF...

    Hey JF.

    I didn't have time to write up a solid reply the other day, but I did want to eventually respond to your question and comments about whether the central bank has control of long term interest rates ("it's own instruments...") through purchases.

    My quick answer:

    It influences their prices, but not through inducing scarcity. That is because, unlike commodities, securities are not priced based on their scarcity, they are priced based on their expected returns.

    So when the Fed buys $40b in bonds per month, in a $500+b per month liquid market, it's hardly going to move the price.

    But, the Fed does influence long term bond rates both by modulating the entire money supply and by setting expectations for how it will modulate the money supply in the future (aka., the reaction function.)


    One very huge observation apropos of all this: every time the Fed announced a new round of QE, longer term bond rates went UP rather than DOWN. Why? Because it showed the Fed's reaction function was looser than previously thought, and also they were more committed to staving off disinflation.

    Though I will concede, not everyone sees it this way. Even inside the Fed many of them had a simple model that says: buying more bonds = pushing down the price. But I get the impression they generally abandoned that model after operation twist utterly failed to work in that way.

    JF said in reply to sanjait...

    OK. Yield, price, cost to the govt - not always the same thing, but each has a perspective.

    Assuming you are correct that the later QE, and I don't know myself, just assumed that the cost to the govt of a new 10 year moderated a bit in a later QE, I think this evidence points to why they don't use new-QEing now.

    It dawned on them that its initial cost-to-govt effects, lowering interest rates, was just not happening. So why subsidize the dealer networks and stuff more assets on to their books using electronic entries into reserve accounts as payment when we (the FRB) have no idea what to do with assets of this magnitude.

    But off the thread's topic.

    [Dec 10, 2015] Fear grips market as oil leads commodity crash

    Notable quotes:
    "... We think they will continue to take barrels off the market quietly until they have pushed Brent back to $50 ..."
    "... ...Short positions on the crude market have been rising to fresh highs for the past three weeks, reaching a record 360m barrels. This prepares the ground for an explosive short squeeze if anything goes wrong in the geostrategic cauldron of the Middle East. ..."
    "... ...The open question is how long the oil states can withstand the political effects of crumbling income and forced austerity. Opec revenues are heading for $400bn from a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2012. Indonesia said there may have to be an emergency meeting if prices fall to $30. ..."
    Dec 10, 2015 | Telegraph

    The slump is chiefly due to excess production, and amounts to a "positive supply shock" that should boost global recovery. Bank of America said oil demand has risen by 1.8m barrels a day (b/d) over the past year, the second strongest in a decade.

    ...Yet the evidence so far – despite the bluster from Riyadh – is that they have are already trimmed output by 250,000 b/d and are wary of letting the glut build so much that the world runs out of storage, an inflection point that could set off a further crash. "We think they will continue to take barrels off the market quietly until they have pushed Brent back to $50," she said.

    ...Short positions on the crude market have been rising to fresh highs for the past three weeks, reaching a record 360m barrels. This prepares the ground for an explosive short squeeze if anything goes wrong in the geostrategic cauldron of the Middle East.

    ...The latest import data from China were relatively strong as the country takes advantage of cheap crude to fill up its strategic petroleum reserve. Chi Zhang, from Barclays, said Chinese oil demand rose by 500,000 to 6.7m b/d in October

    ...The open question is how long the oil states can withstand the political effects of crumbling income and forced austerity. Opec revenues are heading for $400bn from a peak of $1.2 trillion in 2012. Indonesia said there may have to be an emergency meeting if prices fall to $30.

    [Dec 10, 2015] Billions of oil barrels vanish in a puff of accounting smoke

    Notable quotes:
    "... Across the American shale patch, companies are being forced to square their reported oil reserves with hard economic reality. After lobbying for rules that let them claim their vast underground potential at the start of the boom, they must now acknowledge what their investors already know: many prospective wells would lose money with oil hovering below $40 a barrel. ..."
    "... But the rule has a catch. It requires that the undrilled wells be profitable at a price determined by an SEC formula, and they must be drilled within five years. Time is up, prices are down, and the rule is about to wipe out billions of barrels of shale drillers' reserves. The reckoning is coming in the next few months, when the companies report 2015 figures. ..."
    "... The rule change will cut Chesapeake's inventory by 45 percent, regulatory filings show. Chesapeake's additional discoveries and expansions will offset some of its revisions, the company said in a third-quarter regulatory filing. Gordon Pennoyer, a spokesman for Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake, declined to comment further. ..."
    "... he U.S. shale revolution, which brought the country closer to energy self-sufficiency than at any time since the 1980s, was built on money borrowed against the promises of future output. New wells that could be drilled when U.S. oil was selling for $95 a barrel -- last year's price as calculated by the SEC's formula -- simply don't pay at today's prices, and the revolution has stalled. ..."
    www.msn.com
    In an instant, Chesapeake Energy Corp. will erase the equivalent of 1.1 billion barrels of oil from its books.

    Across the American shale patch, companies are being forced to square their reported oil reserves with hard economic reality. After lobbying for rules that let them claim their vast underground potential at the start of the boom, they must now acknowledge what their investors already know: many prospective wells would lose money with oil hovering below $40 a barrel.

    Companies such as Chesapeake, founded by fracking pioneer Aubrey McClendon, pushed the Securities and Exchange Commission for an accounting change in 2009 that made it easier to claim reserves from wells that wouldn't be drilled for years. Inventories almost doubled and investors poured money into the shale boom, enticed by near-bottomless prospects.

    But the rule has a catch. It requires that the undrilled wells be profitable at a price determined by an SEC formula, and they must be drilled within five years. Time is up, prices are down, and the rule is about to wipe out billions of barrels of shale drillers' reserves. The reckoning is coming in the next few months, when the companies report 2015 figures.

    "There was too much optimism built into their forecasts," said David Hughes, a fellow at the Post Carbon Institute and formerly a scientist with the Geological Survey of Canada. "It was a great game while it lasted."

    The rule change will cut Chesapeake's inventory by 45 percent, regulatory filings show. Chesapeake's additional discoveries and expansions will offset some of its revisions, the company said in a third-quarter regulatory filing. Gordon Pennoyer, a spokesman for Oklahoma City-based Chesapeake, declined to comment further.

    ... ... ...

    The U.S. shale revolution, which brought the country closer to energy self-sufficiency than at any time since the 1980s, was built on money borrowed against the promises of future output. New wells that could be drilled when U.S. oil was selling for $95 a barrel -- last year's price as calculated by the SEC's formula -- simply don't pay at today's prices, and the revolution has stalled.

    [Dec 10, 2015] Oil below $40 forces Texas driller into bankruptcy

    Notable quotes:
    "... A Fort Worth oil company became the 18th driller in Texas to succumb to the oil slump. ..."
    "... The company said capital markets have closed to producers in the wake of $40 oil, leaving it unable to raise funds that could have prevented bankruptcy. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 12/10/2015 at 9:10 am

    Another victim of low oil prices:

    "Oil below $40 forces Texas driller into bankruptcy

    December 8, 2015
    http://bakken.com/news/id/249291/oil-below-40-forces-texas-driller-to-file-for-bankruptcy/

    A Fort Worth oil company became the 18th driller in Texas to succumb to the oil slump.

    Energy & Exploration Partners announced that it filed a voluntary petition under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code in order to deleverage its balance sheet and achieve a viable capital structure for building long-term value.

    The company said capital markets have closed to producers in the wake of $40 oil, leaving it unable to raise funds that could have prevented bankruptcy."

    [Dec 10, 2015] Zombies appear in U.S. oilfields as crude plumbs new lows

    Dec 10, 2015 | Reuters

    The slump has created dozens of oil and gas "zombies," a term lawyers and restructuring advisers use to describe companies that have just enough money to pay interest on mountains of debt, but not enough to drill enough new wells to replace older ones that are drying out.

    ...As long as oil prices stay below the estimated break-even level of $50 a barrel, the zombie group is set to grow.

    ... Some companies that have halted nearly all drilling and fracking are now warning in regulatory filings their output could drop, which could make cash even tighter and hasten an expected decline in U.S. crude output.

    Stopping new drilling is risky because shale wells decline much faster - up to 90 percent in their first year - than conventional wells.

    ...Credit rating agency Fitch says defaults for oil and gas companies are already at the highest since 1999. Since the start of the third quarter, at least 12 oil and gas companies have defaulted on their debt.

    ... The "zombies" bet that by shifting into survival mode they can hang on until oil prices recover, but the outlook is grim.

    With oil prices near new seven year lows below $37 a barrel, crude futures now forecast prices will not return above $50 until early 2018

    [Dec 10, 2015] Oil prices plunge is strictly an artifact of the monetary system, and can not be fixed without replacing the system

    Notable quotes:
    "... Even though the consumer section of the economy is getting less energy from petroleum than it ever has, per BTU it is now paying less for what it is getting than it has since 1973. That effect is moving money from the the production side of the economy to the consumer side. ..."
    "... This is strictly an artifact of the monetary system, and can not be fixed without replacing the system. It has been that system that has made the likes of Goldman Sachs fabulously rich. ..."
    "... Even though everyone is getting poorer, the production side is getting poorer faster than the consumer side. ..."
    ourfiniteworld.com

    Don Stewart , December 10, 2015 at 12:46 pm

    Dear Finite Worlders
    Here is a comment by BW Hill on Peak Oil. I don't think I have heard anything expressed exactly this way before…Don Stewart

    'Goldman is probably pessimistic because money is moving in the wrong direction as far as they are concerned. The recent price plunge has some interesting ramifications that unless they were looking at an energy model of petroleum production they completely missed. Even though the consumer section of the economy is getting less energy from petroleum than it ever has, per BTU it is now paying less for what it is getting than it has since 1973. That effect is moving money from the the production side of the economy to the consumer side.

    This is strictly an artifact of the monetary system, and can not be fixed without replacing the system. It has been that system that has made the likes of Goldman Sachs fabulously rich. Beginning in 2012 when petroleum passed through the energy half way point the rules of applied economics got turned around. Instead of money moving up the economic ladder, it started moving down. Even though everyone is getting poorer, the production side is getting poorer faster than the consumer side. That probably does not sit well with investment banks.

    We would like to inform you that this trend will continue; and there is not one single thing you can do about it!'

    [Dec 10, 2015] Bakken and OPEC Production Data

    Dec 10, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

    Bakken production was up 7,520 barrels per day to 1,113,930 bpd while all North Dakota was up 6,787 bpd to 1,168,950 bpd.

    This chart shows the change in the average production from 2014 to 2015. Of course we are only averaging the first 11 months of 2015 versus all 12 months of 2014. The data is in thousand barrels per day.

    Secondary Sources

    [Dec 10, 2015] $100 never again; there's a new normal for oil

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Oil prices could fall lower in 2016," Gheit said. "I'm talking $2 to $3 dollars per barrel. I don't see it dropping below $30 per barrel." ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Fadel Gheit, managing director and senior analyst at Oppenheimer, told Yahoo Finance's Alexis Christoforous in the video above that $100-per-barrel oil is a thing of the past-$60 to $70 per barrel is the new normal.

    ...The massive boom of U.S. shale oil that has flooded the market has sent prices plummeting 65% over the past 18 months. OPEC did not anticipate the shale revolution and is now struggling to find a strategic response.

    While Gheit warns of some downside risk to prices, he does not anticipate a major drop in the short term.

    "Oil prices could fall lower in 2016," Gheit said. "I'm talking $2 to $3 dollars per barrel. I don't see it dropping below $30 per barrel."

    ..."Producers have already seen a collapse in earnings, and we expect weakness to continue into next year," Gheit said. "Most independent oil and gas producers in the U.S. are in the red. They're losing money."

    [Dec 09, 2015] Short Term Energy Outlook

    Notable quotes:
    "... EIA forecasts that Brent crude oil prices will average $53/b in 2015 and $56/b in 2016. Forecast West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices average $4/b lower than the Brent price in 2015 and $5/b lower in 2016. ..."
    www.eia.gov
    • EIA forecasts that Brent crude oil prices will average $53/b in 2015 and $56/b in 2016. Forecast West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude oil prices average $4/b lower than the Brent price in 2015 and $5/b lower in 2016. The current values of futures and options contracts for March 2016 delivery (Market Prices and Uncertainty Report) suggest the market expects WTI prices to range from $30/b to $63/b (at the 95% confidence interval). ...
    • The monthly average price of U.S. regular retail gasoline was $2.16/gallon (gal) in November, a decrease of 13 cents/gal from October and 75 cents/gal lower than in November 2014. EIA forecasts U.S. regular gasoline retail prices to average $2.04/gal in December 2015 and $2.36/gal for 2016.

    [Dec 09, 2015] JPMorgan Fed could trigger 'massive stop loss order' in the S P 500 if liftoff goes awry

    finance.yahoo.com

    This important event falls at a peculiar time–less than 48 hours before the largest option expiry in many years," wrote Kolanovic, noting that $1.1 trillion worth of Standard & Poor's 500-stock index options–of which $670 billion are puts–will expire on Dec. 18. Roughly one-third of the puts poised to expire are at or near the money, with strike prices from 1,900 to 2,050.

    "Clients are net long these puts and will likely hold onto them through the event and until expiry," the strategist wrote. "At the time of the Fed announcement, these put options will essentially look like a massive stop loss order under the market."

    When a put is close to expiry, the writer of the option becomes a seller of the underlying security as it hits the strike price in order to mitigate the exposure. Thus, a negative reaction in the S&P 500 index to the Fed decision could trigger a wave of forced selling, potentially agitating markets.

    No one knows better than Kolanovic how systematic selling can amplify price changes in financial markets.

    However, it's fair to quibble with the premise: Is Janet Yellen really monitoring open interest in options linked to the S&P 500?

    [Dec 09, 2015] Something Did Blow Up In Junk

    Junk is really goes down. But with low oil price how really probably is the recession?
    Zero Hedge

    Thought Processor

    ...Seriously though, aren't HYG's always the canary in the coal mine...... No better buzzer for an incomming slowdown.

    anti Oligarchy

    I work right in the thick of the real economy... construction / utility / etc. It is happening right now on the ground floor, sales are drying up, inventories going up. It is as serious as you are projecting in these articles.

    Paint By Number

    My experience exactly. The industrial market (except for the flash in the pan oil boom) has been struggling since 2008. But something changed in September/October of this year. I can't tell you how many times I've heard "it's like someone flipped a switch."

    Most people have no idea of how many highly technical and specialized products (valves, cables, pumps, transformers, special alloy components) are keeping electricity, gas, and water going to their homes. Many of these manufacturers are teetering on the edge. If this situation does not change for the better in the next few months we will begin to see major and spectacular failures in our infrastructure.

    I can't overstate the potential devastating social and environmental chaos. It's all great fun to talk about popcorn and watching bankers jump from the 14th floor, but if the lights go out and don't come back on, there won't be much laughing.

    kelley805

    J.P. Morgan analysts wrote that the three best leading indicators for recession have been credit spreads, the shape of the yield curve and profit margins.

    Here are some signs of a coming recession.

    1. Investors in high-yield bonds are expecting to see their first negative return since the start of the credit crisis in 2008.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/deteriorating-junk-bonds-flash-warning-signs-for-stocks-2015-12-07?dist=afterbell

    2. Factory orders continue to drop

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-02/us-factory-orders-flash-recession-warning-drop-yoy-10th-month-row

    3. Default risk spikes

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-02/us-financials-default-risk-spikes-2-year-high

    4. M&A set record

    http://michaelekelley.com/2015/05/29/mergers-and-acquisitions-set-record/

    5. Iron ore prices tumble

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/iron-ore-prices-keep-crashing-adding-to-global-growth-fears-2015-11-30

    6. Baltic dry shipping index tumbles

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/shipping-index-falls-to-all-time-low-stoking-fears-about-global-growth-2015-11-19


    [Dec 09, 2015] The Endless Parade of Recession Calls

    Notable quotes:
    "... We have so messed with market forces and reporting and baselines and seasonal adjustments that all the old metrics are useless. Weve also financialized everything. That means velocity. It means contagion. It means liquidity freezes. You know the list. The speed at which the next recession arrives will render any prediction useless except to historians. ..."
    "... .... so, now we have an unduly enlarged glut of savings chasing an ever dimming prospect of profit. .... ultimate fiat trapped in a ponzi. ..."
    Dec 06, 2015 | Calculated Risk
    Note: I've made one recession call since starting this blog. One of my predictions for 2007 was a recession would start as a result of the housing bust (made it by one month - the recession started in December 2007). That prediction was out of the consensus for 2007 and, at the time, ECRI was saying a "recession is no longer a serious concern". Ouch.

    For the last 6+ years, there have been an endless parade of incorrect recession calls. The most reported was probably the multiple recession calls from ECRI in 2011 and 2012.

    ... ... ...

    Also on Friday I posted an excerpt from a Citi's research piece also suggesting a 65% chance of a recession in 2016.

    Here is the Citi research piece.

    Citi Recession Call

    [A] statistical approach is shown in Figure 46 and highlights the cumulative probability of a recession based on data from 1970-14 across US, UK, Germany and Japan. As the U.S. economy enters year seven, the cumulative probability of a recession in the next year rises to 65%.
    This is just an historical statistical approach based on elapsed time.

    Looking at the economic data, the odds of a recession in 2016 are very low (extremely unlikely in my view). Someday I'll make another recession call, but I'm not even on recession watch now.

    Rob_Dawg

    We have so messed with market forces and reporting and baselines and seasonal adjustments that all the old metrics are useless. We've also financialized everything. That means velocity. It means contagion. It means liquidity freezes. You know the list. The speed at which the next recession arrives will render any prediction useless except to historians.

    sum_luk

    Rob_Dawg:

    all the old metrics are useless.

    .... so, now we have an unduly enlarged glut of savings chasing an ever dimming prospect of profit. .... ultimate fiat trapped in a ponzi.

    sum_luk

    Rajesh:

    I don't expect the U.S. economy to boom except on a relative basis.

    ... of course, Janet's theory is domestic US will carry on despite the fact that a strong dollar makes for cheap imports.

    Rob_Dawg

    Eventually China will have a shadow banking crisis that will leave the rest of the world with the problem of deciding how much to contain it. Very dangerous. 2016? No way of telling.

    sm_landlord

    Rajesh

    I'm with you on that, Rajesh. To the extent that I'm doomy about the macro economy, it's mostly about the rest of the world. The US looks to do far less well than it could, but so far, it doesn't look like a US recession is imminent.

    On the middle/micro level, I see a lot of government spending on things like street/road maintenance, which should prop some things up. Also, auto traffic seems to be back to pre-GR levels. Based on my recent visit to SM, anyway, most of the downtown area is approaching gridlock for much of the day again...

    Can't say the risk is zero, though, because I still see a lot of fragility and testing of limits.

    Cinco-X

    Rajesh:

    My no recession call for 2015 is looking good. I'm making a no recession in 2016 call now.

    I was in Walmart on Friday evening picking up a prescription, and the place was a ghost town. Drove by Best Buy the previous evening and the parking lot was about 25% full

    yuan

    sm_landlord:

    The US looks to do far less well than it could, but so far, it doesn't look like a US recession is imminent.

    Umm...so pretty much business as usual since 2008 (and the republican plan to sabotage obummers by opposing anything that might benefit working class 'merkins).

    curious
    HHNW_GDP.jpg 1920x1080 105 KB

    Early on in the housing bubble, Bill made a number of comments about bubbles using a plot of Household Net Worth to GDP ratio. Early on, he wrote that the ratio had been stable for nearly 50 years. He then changed his tune and started talking about a gradual increase since the 70's.

    Here's the raw data series.

    CitizenAllenM

    Funny how the Boomer generation peak is going to change the economics of so much, just like I predicted.

    I also predict a stunning comeback for Wal-Mart as the cost of living cuts really get going, and the Social Security Day Sales and Foodstamp sales kick off the monthly sales.

    The America of limited everything, as free riders are eliminated.

    Now, have you written off your skybox for 2015?

    LoL- business has so much fat they will need to cut to survive the increase in poverty that will be the boomer retirement.

    Already planning to shed vehicles as fast as Google Cars become available in 10 years

    Someday this war's gonna end...

    CitizenAllenM

    LoL- you have paid more to store that organ than any value it has--- http://phoenix.craigslist.org/wvl/msg/5329410176.html3

    Yup, $250 bucks for the middle class 1950s fantasy item!

    Can't really give them away- Upright Pianos are the worst- worth more as parts for creative reuse than as instruments.

    Grand Pianos still have some marginal value- unless a decent name brand and in excellent condition.

    One of my friends was talking about how valuable the family Steinway was, and I told them to contact the local piano dealer to get an idea of the value, and then see how much it was going to cost to have shipped down from Minnesota- after she made the calls she decided it was no prize and stopped negotiating for it in the estate settlement :wink:

    Technology is ruthlessly destroying mass books next, along with vinyl records, dvds, cds, etc. 8 tracks are worthless, cassette tapes even more worthless.

    Printers and scanners are the junk of America.

    Someday this war's gonna end...

    [Dec 09, 2015] EIA U.S. crude production slows again in November

    Notable quotes:
    "... ... EIA upped its forecast for total production in 2015 to 9.33 million bpd, 40,000 bpd more than its previous prediction. The feds also revised their forecast for 2016 down by 10,000 bpd to 8.76 million bpd. ..."
    Dec 08, 2015 | Fuel Fix

    ...The latest release of federal data now puts total U.S. crude production at 9.17 million barrels per day, a fall of 410,000 bpd since peaking in April.

    ...The most recent projection from the EIA is that the Eagle Ford will lose at least 436,000 bpd by December from the field's 2015 peak. More than half of the active rigs in the Eagle Ford have fallen in that time as well, with just 62 rigs left drilling as of Dec. 4.

    ... EIA upped its forecast for total production in 2015 to 9.33 million bpd, 40,000 bpd more than its previous prediction. The feds also revised their forecast for 2016 down by 10,000 bpd to 8.76 million bpd.

    [Dec 09, 2015] 2016 spells more gloom for oil producers

    Notable quotes:
    "... Low oil prices for much longer will once again put the spotlight back on U.S. shale production, which has lost only about 300,000 barrels per day since peaking in April at 9.6 mb/d. The latest EIA data shows that output fell by just 20,000 barrels per day in September, a stubbornly small decline given how low oil prices are trading nowadays. ..."
    "... A few months ago Mexico was only able to lock in 2016 oil at $49 per barrel. ..."
    "... Wall Street Journal ..."
    "... Offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico nearly hit 1.7 mb/d in September, a jump of about 300,000 barrels per day from a year earlier. More gains are expected in the coming year. ..."
    www.usatoday.com

    Low oil prices for much longer will once again put the spotlight back on U.S. shale production, which has lost only about 300,000 barrels per day since peaking in April at 9.6 mb/d. The latest EIA data shows that output fell by just 20,000 barrels per day in September, a stubbornly small decline given how low oil prices are trading nowadays.

    ... So, just as before, the contraction in supply will have to come from higher-cost production, notably U.S. shale. The financial pressure should increase on shale producers for a few reasons, all of which point to a sharper contraction in the months ahead.

    ... hedges will continue to expire, exposing oil producers to the cruel realities of the bear market. Somewhere around one-fifth of U.S. oil production was hedged at $80 to $85 per barrel in 2015. Half of those hedges will expire in 2016, and the hedge price will fall much lower. In one illustrative example of the power of hedging, Bloomberg highlighted in November the Mexican government's astute decision last year to hedge 228 million barrels at $76.40 per barrel for 2015, bringing it a windfall of nearly $6 billion this year because market prices traded at almost half that price. But it won't be able to do that again in 2016. A few months ago Mexico was only able to lock in 2016 oil at $49 per barrel.

    ... access to finance will only become tighter. Lenders to the energy sector are getting burned - the value of high-yield energy debt has collapsed amid speculation that a wave of defaults could be coming. Lenders were lenient in the most recent round of credit redeterminations, but as the Wall Street Journal notes, the "deep losses on bonds from junk-rated U.S. energy and mining firms are rattling even seasoned investors."

    ... the "fracklog" - the backlog of drilled but uncompleted wells – will begin to be worked through. Companies deferring completions with the hope of an oil price rebound have been disappointed. Whether due to regulatory rules that have time limits on completions, or the financial vice of low oil prices squeezing indebted drillers, many companies will have no other choice but to finish their unfinished wells.

    ... The fracklog could add an additional 200,000 barrels per daynext year.

    ... decline in overall U.S. oil production is masked by the fact that several offshore projects that were planned years ago are coming online. Offshore production in the Gulf of Mexico nearly hit 1.7 mb/d in September, a jump of about 300,000 barrels per day from a year earlier. More gains are expected in the coming year. The output increases from offshore cloud the closely-watched production numbers coming out of the EIA, but the fact is that onshore, just about every oil-producing region has flat-lined or is in decline

    ... Although 2015 is shaping up to be one of the worst years for the energy sector in recent history, the outlook for next year, at this point, does not look much better.

    [Dec 09, 2015] When Oil Turns 40, the Aches Turn Into Real Pain

    Notable quotes:
    "... The psychological and financial impact of the continuing slump to multiyear lows is curtailing even more private projects that would have produced for years. That will make the rebound stronger for companies that can emerge from the wilderness. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Guessing when oil prices will recover is even more complicated than it used to be when OPEC mattered. But an equally important question is now coming into focus: How sharply will prices rebound when they eventually do?

    The psychological and financial impact of the continuing slump to multiyear lows is curtailing even more private projects that would have produced for years. That will make the rebound stronger for companies that can emerge from the wilderness.

    The promised land isn't in sight yet, but it's looking better and better.

    PaterNo

    This is what happens when marketing writes the commodities articles. How did we get from talking about the ridiculous significance of the number "40" to "The promised land isn't in sight yet, but it's looking better and better."

    Some of the major oil companies may never see "better" ever again if they don't take care. Oil may not go much lower but it isn't going to go much higher then it is now for another year or two, barring some major change.

    cynic al

    Do you really think that OPEC producers did not foresee the impact on prices. Do you not think they possess the sophistication to load up on futures to further exploit wall street greed. We might be in for another crisis.

    Mark Levin

    This is definitely a painful downturn. My oil investments are off over 50% and dividends are being slashed. I look forward to higher oil prices soon!

    Zellhoefer

    I'm still missing something. When oil prices are high, the word is energy costs are holding back the economy. Now oil prices are low, and that's hold back the economy. It would seem lower costs would be beneficial. Right?

    john

    The problem I see is world politics. United States government wants low oil price to drive Russia and Issis out of business, problem is it somewhat backfired. The Opec Nations keeps pumping while our shale producer and oil companies are going out of business.

    There needs to a balance of interest between the Opec Nations and our government. Don't get me wrong. Low gas prices is good for the average Joe in america.

    [Dec 09, 2015] OPEC Isn't Dead. It's Shifting Strategies

    finance.yahoo.com

    One massive problem that OPEC has had for years has been the allocation of the overall quota amongst its members. Some countries claim this capacity or that capacity, or this reserve base or that reserve base, and when Iraq is rebuilding its productive capacity and Iran is claiming it will increase production by 500,000 bbls/day as soon as sanctions are lifted, the whole problem gets more and more intractable.

    You might wonder why they argue about the numbers but the great bonus of having OPEC recognize a productive capacity larger than one's actual capacity is that then a cut to that limit might not actually require a reduction in production at all, and all without the appearance of cheating – which is a tad harder now that satellites can track tanker movements at will.

    So what I suspect may be going on is a recognition that, for good or ill, the Saudi strategy has become OPEC's strategy and that OPEC will pump (or is pumping) all it can; and given that, the organization has no better opportunity for calibrating each member's potential oil production capacity than by measuring what everyone can actually produce when everyone is flat out.

    Most OPEC production cuts in the past were really Saudi production cuts. To bring the market into balance a cut of 1.5 million barrels per day would do the trick. If every member were honest and really did cut production that would only require a 5 percent reduction in production, and that could easily generate a 30 percent uplift in the oil price. But if the past is a guide to the future that would really be a 15 percent cut for Saudi Arabia and no cut at all for anyone else.

    Whilst everyone thinks OPEC is in disarray and that it can no longer function as an effective cartel, the abandonment of the quota level for the organization could end up being a pre-cursor to the establishment of a new reality based set of quotas for everyone. Another six months of low prices may just be enough to convince the serial cheaters (I'm looking at you Venezuela and Nigeria) and the less disciplined members of the group that when Saudi relents and says, "it's time for a new set of quotas," all members may play fair for a while.

    So I suspect that rather than giving up being a cartel, OPEC is actually preparing itself for a new and perhaps more effective phase of its existence.

    [Dec 09, 2015] Chevron CEO Oil prices will be higher in a year

    www.cnbc.com

    Oil prices will likely climb in the next year as supply and demand in the market begin to even, Chevron CEO John Watson said Tuesday.

    "We've got a slight imbalance in demand and it's going to take some time to work that off," he told CNBC's "Power Lunch."

    Watson did not give a specific price projection for crude, but he noted the oil giant has prepared to "live with whatever prices the market gives." He cited Chevron's plan to cut capital spending by 25 percent in 2016, with further reductions expected in the following years.

    [Dec 09, 2015] Oil prices may go even lower in 2016 IEA's Birol

    Notable quotes:
    "... 2016 may well be another year with lower prices and this will have implications of course for investments in the oil sector ..."
    "... Birol said that IEA estimates indicated that investment in the oil industry fell by more by 20 percent in 2015 – the steepest decline in history. A further decline is seen in 2016. ..."
    "... We have never seen in the last 30 years, oil investment declining for two years in a row and this will have consequences for the markets in the next few years to come ..."
    "... Prices this low will drive weaker shale producers out of business We will see shale oil production drop significantly. It looks like Iran already broke the deal they signed so i would not count on production from them. I think oil will settle around 50 next year. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    "When we look at 2016, I don't see many reasons why we can see upward pressure on the prices… Demand is weaker and we may well see Iran come back (to the market) and there will be a lot of oil," Birol said, talking from the sidelines of the COP21 climate conference in Paris..

    "So 2016 may well be another year with lower prices and this will have implications of course for investments in the oil sector."

    ... ... ....

    Birol said that IEA estimates indicated that investment in the oil industry fell by more by 20 percent in 2015 – the steepest decline in history. A further decline is seen in 2016.

    "We have never seen in the last 30 years, oil investment declining for two years in a row and this will have consequences for the markets in the next few years to come," he told CNBC.

    Prescott

    What he's missing: American oil production will decline more than publicized. What he got right (at least partly): Iran and Iraq (Kurdistan) will both increase production...

    HELLO GOODBYE

    I think that he is wrong. We are at the tipping point. Shale oil wells that are already built are still turning a profit at around 35-40's dollars a barrel. Prices this low will drive weaker shale producers out of business We will see shale oil production drop significantly. It looks like Iran already broke the deal they signed so i would not count on production from them. I think oil will settle around 50 next year.

    [Dec 09, 2015] Given the global economic growth and prospects for 2016, I would be worried about demand

    Notable quotes:
    "... IEA estimates that demand growth for 2015 will be 1.8 mmbpd compared with 2014, the strongest YOY growth of the new century except for 2010 (compared with the financial collapse year of 2009) and 2004 (compared with the U.S. recession year of 2003). ..."
    www.artberman.com

    A Glimmer of Hope Amid the Oil Glut Gloom Art Berman

    D, December 9th, 2015 at 4:48 am

    Think it's difficult to say what's really going on right now with demand. China's product exports are at historic highs and inventory is building. In US demand for gasoline flat-lined compared to the great H1. Europe is probably OK and could take up some slack as the inland river transportation problem is resolved. EMs (Brazil, Russia etc) are an outright disaster and even India's import figures weren't great. You have a shift to energy efficiency in the MEA.

    Given the global economic growth and prospects for 2016, I would be worried about demand.

    On supply, sure, you got Iran coming back, but also projects that analysts think are write-offs are actually not. Kashagan is coming back onstream Dec 16. Heck, even Venezuela has been increasing number of rigs.

    Hammer December 9th, 2015 at 7:49 am

    The only site I use for staying on top of the oil/gas markets. All other are speculation, hype and a general waste of time. Art sticks to staight forward, and reletively simple concepts. The work done here is appreciated.

    Arthur Berman, December 9th, 2015 at 9:05 am

    D,

    I said that I worry about demand in the post. The fact that we have a few months of YOY encouragement does not indicate that demand is strong.

    IEA estimates that demand growth for 2015 will be 1.8 mmbpd compared with 2014, the strongest YOY growth of the new century except for 2010 (compared with the financial collapse year of 2009) and 2004 (compared with the U.S. recession year of 2003).

    That said, I see great weakness in the global economy and am concerned about the contraction in U.S. manufacturing reported last week.

    All the best,

    Art

    Arthur Berman December 9th, 2015 at 9:20 am

    Daniel,

    I assume that you mean supertanker when you use the VLCC acronym. And, yes, it is a fitting analogy.

    World opinion is focused on U.S. production that declined 170 kbpd in October but the biggest non-OPEC M-O-M liquids production increases were Canada (270 kbpd, Brazil (110 kbpd), Norway (50 kbpd), Russia (40 kbpd), Mexico (20 kbpd) and Indonesia (20 kbpd). These increases add up to 510 kbpd and over-shadow U.S. declines. Within OPEC, Libya (60 kbpd), Saudi Arabia (50 kbpd), Nigeria (40 kbpd) and Angola (20 kbpd) all increased crude oil production in October. See IEA's November OMR for the details.

    So, I agree with you that there are lots of moving parts to the market balance problem.

    All the best,

    Art

    [Dec 09, 2015] World total liquids production up 240,000 bpd to 97.09 Mbpd, a new record high

    Notable quotes:
    "... We have God knows how much oil in storage and the prospect of Iran coming back with full exports. I find it hard to see short term hope. ..."
    "... As to when either supply falls (or consumption rises) so that storage levels decrease, I would think first or second quarter of 2016 with oil prices starting to rise in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2016. My guesses are usually not very good on oil prices. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Euan Mearns, 12/08/2015 at 11:43 am
    Oil Production Vital Statistics November 2015

    Ron, this post already plastered all over the internet. "World total liquids production up 240,000 bpd to 97.09 Mbpd, a new record high."

    I note Permian still rising.

    Ron Patterson, 12/08/2015 at 5:40 pm
    Euan, the EIA's Short Term Energy Outlook, and Art Berman, seems to disagree with what I assume is IEA data.

     photo Art 4_zpsedscq0na.jpg

    Euan Mearns, 12/09/2015 at 5:23 am
    Ron, correct, I am reporting IEA data. I stopped following the EIA since they fell so far behind. But my last month for IEA is October and so I'm surprised to see EIA bang up to date with November data. The pattern of IEA data revisions also complicates matters.

    The bottom line is that after a year of oil price crash, total liquids production is still up there at 96 / 97 Mbpd.

    From Art's chart I note there is a 5 month lag from supply surplus to price collapse. Can we expect same when the supply / demand lines cross? We have God knows how much oil in storage and the prospect of Iran coming back with full exports. I find it hard to see short term hope. And when the market does rebalance, which it will do, I'm unsure how the price will react. I'm unsure if the rules of the past will apply. This comes down to understanding elasticity. 1000 idle rigs…..

    Dennis Coyne, 12/09/2015 at 8:35 am
    Hi Euan,

    I would think it would be 5 to 10 months after consumption rises above supply that we will see oil prices start to move. To make things simple if we assume consumption is 1 Mb/d higher than supply and storage levels are 300 Mb above normal. it would take 10 months foe supply to fall back to normal levels. I think when storage levels fall to 150 Mb above "normal" levels we might see prices start to rise, but somewhere between 5 to 10 months after consumption rises to 1 Mb/d above supply seems reasonable.

    As to when either supply falls (or consumption rises) so that storage levels decrease, I would think first or second quarter of 2016 with oil prices starting to rise in the 3rd or 4th quarter of 2016. My guesses are usually not very good on oil prices.

    [Dec 09, 2015] The NATO-GCC alliance sees fit to exclude Russia, Iran, Iraq, Kazakhstan and Venezuela from fully participating in the global market-place on equal terms

    Notable quotes:
    "... I have said the exact same thing on this blog several times before. But let me expand on this issue some more. The oil production capacity of at least these five countries is artificially suppressed by the still dominant NATO-GCC alliance: a) Russia, b) Iran, c) Iraq, d) Kazakhstan and e) Venezuela. ..."
    "... To be clear, I am not moralizing here, but I am merely saying that the NATO-GCC alliance sees fit to exclude those countries from fully participating in the global market-place on equal terms. It's good old Real-politik. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Stavros H, 12/09/2015 at 8:31 am
    I have said the exact same thing on this blog several times before. But let me expand on this issue some more. The oil production capacity of at least these five countries is artificially suppressed by the still dominant NATO-GCC alliance: a) Russia, b) Iran, c) Iraq, d) Kazakhstan and e) Venezuela.

    To be clear, I am not moralizing here, but I am merely saying that the NATO-GCC alliance sees fit to exclude those countries from fully participating in the global market-place on equal terms. It's good old Real-politik.

    The suppressed oil production from these regions, has allowed western oil majors, as well as much more numerous but smaller US shale drillers to increase their own production of quite marginal oil & gas deposits in the US shale patch, the Canadian tar sands, in several deep-offshore sites around the globe etc…

    This is at least 50% why the above countries are allied with each other and against the NATO-GCC Empire.

    [Dec 08, 2015] Biggest cash issue for Saudi Arabia goes beyond oil

    www.cnbc.com

    Saudi Arabia is expected to run a deficit of more than 20 percent of GDP in 2015, according to the IMF.

    ...Saudi Arabia budgeted at the beginning of the year for expenditures of $229 billion

    ...Saudi reserves were approximately $736 billion coming into the year.

    ...The kingdom supported roughly 4 million people in 1960, and since then, its population has grown rapidly, to the 30 million population level it's at today. Although far-off population boom highs hit in the 1980s, Saudi Arabia's population growth rate is still positive, with the overall population increasing at around 2 percent per annum.

    ...According to the IMF, Saudi Arabia's fiscal breakeven - the price per barrel of oil that it needs to balance its budget - was about $106 in 2014, and it is estimated to remain at about that level for this year as well.

    ..."Saudi Arabia hasn't said they won't cut, but that doesn't mean they are going to increase production either," SEB analyst Bjarne Schieldrop recently told CNBC.

    [Dec 08, 2015] Commodity slump should give Yellen pause, Eichengreen says

    Notable quotes:
    "... Weak commodity prices make for deflation and make for balance-sheet problems for commodity exporting countries. Some experts say lower commodity prices were a key spark of the Great Depression, Eichengreen noted. Central banks can keep commodity prices from becoming destabilizing if they are prepared to do "whatever it takes" to counteract the falling prices, he said. ..."
    "... For the U.S. economy in particular, low commodity prices can dampen exports and set up a negative feedback loop with the already-weak manufacturing sector. "Manufacturing is already doing poorly and it can do even more poorly if this news from the rest of the world continues to be negative," Eichengreen said. ..."
    "... Despite his outlook, Eichengreen said he still expects the Fed to raise interest rates after their two-day meeting on Dec. 15-16. "I think the FOMC as a group is committed to their course of action...they have succeeded in painting themselves in a corner," he said. ..."
    economistsview.typepad.com

    im1dc said... Tuesday, December 08, 2015 at 11:03 AM

    "Commodity slump should give Yellen pause, Eichengreen says"

    I hope Chairwoman Yellen listens to him especially since this article is 3 hours old and Crude Oil is now even lower at $37.57 and showing no signs of stopping its descent.

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/commodity-slump-should-give-yellen-pause-eichengreen-says-2015-12-08

    "Commodity slump should give Yellen pause, Eichengreen says"

    By Greg Robb...Senior economics reporter...Dec 8, 2015...10:31 a.m. ET

    "Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen and her colleagues should seriously think about delaying an interest rate hike given falling commodity prices, said noted economic historian Barry Eichengreen of the University of California at Berkeley.

    "If I were in her shoes, I would be having second thoughts," Eichengreen said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio.

    Weak commodity prices make for deflation and make for balance-sheet problems for commodity exporting countries. Some experts say lower commodity prices were a key spark of the Great Depression, Eichengreen noted. Central banks can keep commodity prices from becoming destabilizing if they are prepared to do "whatever it takes" to counteract the falling prices, he said.

    For the U.S. economy in particular, low commodity prices can dampen exports and set up a negative feedback loop with the already-weak manufacturing sector. "Manufacturing is already doing poorly and it can do even more poorly if this news from the rest of the world continues to be negative," Eichengreen said.

    The Berkeley professor said he was also worried about a scenario whether the Fed begins to normalize but then has to quickly reverse course on the back of a troubled external environment.

    If the U.S. economy stumbles, the Fed doesn't have much room to ease and that puts the U.S. central bank "back in the game of having to invent unconventional monetary policies, which is somewhere no one wants to go," he said.

    Despite his outlook, Eichengreen said he still expects the Fed to raise interest rates after their two-day meeting on Dec. 15-16. "I think the FOMC as a group is committed to their course of action...they have succeeded in painting themselves in a corner," he said.

    And at the moment, Fed officials can point to strong retail spending, and relatively-strong construction activity to justify a rate hike. "They can still tell the story that the economy is doing better and not immediately at risk," he said."

    [Dec 08, 2015] Oil Producer's Currencies Are Collapsing As Brent Breaks Below $40

    Zero Hedge

    explosivo

    The ruble is at 70 now and it is one of the only decent currencies on earth.

    The Greek horse

    This is obviously by design to crush Russia. The elites are manufacturing an economic war!! Now I see clearly why Syria is so important to Mr. Putin.. Saudi Arabia won't stop production and ISIS OIL is in the black market?!?= Low Prices. UK, USSA and Israel axis of EVIL!

    dot_bust

    Crude oil futures are traded through the super-corrupt CME Group.

    Central banks get discounts for trading EVERYTHING through CME Group and Comex
    http://www.gata.org/node/14385

    [Dec 08, 2015] Capex cuts the road to rebalance or rebound - Fuel for Thought

    Dec 08, 2015 | The Barrel Blog

    ...Industry wide upstream spending is down 20% this year, according to the IEA and spending by the supermajors alone in 2015 is down by $22 billion, BP calculates.

    ...Since the oil price dive, the industry has become - understandably - fixated on capital efficiency and technology gains. Companies are doing more with less so the read across from outright spending to future production is not a straight line.

    ... According energy investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt, some 150 oil and gas projects have been delayed or cancelled globally over the last 18 months, jeopardizing a combined 13 million b/d of future oil production. The bank believes the deferred projects - which exclude US shale - hold some 125 billion barrels of oil equivalent of resources, of which 60% are liquids and the rest gas.

    Given average lead times and production lives of non-shale projects, the timing of the production impact would likely be felt from around 2020 for a period of 10 to 20 years, according to TPH's Anish Kapadia.

    ...The IEA last month predicted that Russia, Brazil and Canada would bear the brunt of the medium-term supply hit, revising downwards it estimate of non-OPEC output in 2020 by 1.1 million b/d.

    ...The IEA's new long term energy outlook predicts a tipping point from 2020 when years of stellar non-OPEC oil supply growth is effectively thrown into reverse. Non-OPEC supply is expected to top out at 55 million b/d in 2020 before shrinking by 2.1 million b/d over the following decade.

    [Dec 08, 2015] Yergin Why oil prices cannot stay this low

    "... "The oil market "can't stay low like this because you're not going to have the investment you need," he said." "By 2020, the world oil market is going to need another 7 million barrels a day of production." ..."
    "... Multinational energy companies and U.S. shale oil producers have slashed capital spending in order to protect their balance sheets as their revenues plummet and cash flow dries up. Crude prices began to sink from historic highs last fall, and the downturn accelerated after OPEC announced it would not cut supply to balance oil markets. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Yergin told CNBC's "Squawk Box" he expects oil markets to begin to balance next year or in 2017.

    "The oil market "can't stay low like this because you're not going to have the investment you need," he said." "By 2020, the world oil market is going to need another 7 million barrels a day of production."

    "Right now, the whole mantra is slow down, postpone, cancel projects," he added.

    Multinational energy companies and U.S. shale oil producers have slashed capital spending in order to protect their balance sheets as their revenues plummet and cash flow dries up. Crude prices began to sink from historic highs last fall, and the downturn accelerated after OPEC announced it would not cut supply to balance oil markets.

    [Dec 08, 2015] What is going on at the moment is not only destroying the US oil and gas industry, but causing considerable damage worldwide

    Notable quotes:
    "... The latest drilling report has confirmed the recent trend of sharply declining US shale production. Legacy decline rates are still very high and are very likely declining even faster as drilling declines further. ..."
    "... As I can understand the motivation of Saudi Arabia to squeeze out competition, I am flabbergasted how the US public and policy makers including the FED are destroying its own oil gas industry. What is the strategy behind the destruction of first the coal and then the oil and gas industry? There will be no flood of natgas and an undulating plateau of oil production, if the base of financing new projects implodes. ..."
    "... Thanks for your answer. I work in the oil industry in Norway and what is going on at the moment is not only destroying the US oil and gas industry, but causing considerable damage worldwide – some of the stuff going on over here is insane (good experienced people being fired, cutting corners to save costs, etc.). ..."
    "... Crazy part is, that we have been there before. I am still in my 30ies and this is now the third downturn I see -- starting to look for jobs outside this circus. Every time we fire the good people, only to get promised afterwards that the operators had learned their lessons. Last time the market picked up I had the pleasure to work under a 72 year old drilling engineer, who had been in retirement for 10 years … he was not quite up to speed with some of the technology ..."
    "... I keep reading here in the USA about how all of the companies are setting records on how fast they are drilling wells. They do so in order to tout cost savings, IMO trying to perpetuate the myth that it makes sense to drill these wells at $30 oil and $2 gas. ..."
    "... I am all for technological improvement, but I get the feeling this is not safe. I wish they would describe how they cut drilling times so much. ..."
    "... As I am working in the commodity business as well, the steep downturn is on the other side a good sign of a steep recovery very soon as a lot of production is coming out of the market. I am wondering, however, if this could not have been done with a little less damage to all people involved. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Toolpush, 12/08/2015 at 1:41 am

    http://oilpro.com/gallery/590/8041/samsons-filing-one-largest-ep-bankruptcies-nam-year

    The tip of the iceberg, with more definitely to come!

    Toolpush, 12/08/2015 at 1:57 am
    Good background on Iraq's chances for production growth.

    http://oilpro.com/post/20528/isis-undermining-iraq-oil-production-potential?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter&utm_term=2015-12-01&utm_content=Feature_1_txt

    Daniel, 12/08/2015 at 2:49 am
    US production down by ±100,000 bpd (unless I miss-read the EIA drilling productivity report),
    China Imports up 7.6% from last year and 7.1% from last month with commercial crude stock level showing the biggest fall in years (-4.4%), but crude tanks 6%.
    I know some are making a killing out there by talking oil down, but this is getting insane.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/china-economy-trade-crude-idUSL3N13W3I620151208#TgFW81tlEfs2jW4f.97

    Heinrich Leopold, 12/08/2015 at 6:14 am
    Daniel,

    The latest drilling report has confirmed the recent trend of sharply declining US shale production. Legacy decline rates are still very high and are very likely declining even faster as drilling declines further.

    As I can understand the motivation of Saudi Arabia to squeeze out competition, I am flabbergasted how the US public and policy makers including the FED are destroying its own oil&gas industry. What is the strategy behind the destruction of first the coal and then the oil and gas industry? There will be no flood of natgas and an undulating plateau of oil production, if the base of financing new projects implodes.

    If there are no companies left anymore, who will actually produce oil and gas? Wind and solar can just provide a minimal share of US energy needs and there is by far no alternative left to replace oil and gas. Do authorities know what damage is done to its own economy and the dollar if US oil and gas production collapses? Obviously not. As always policy makers will only react if the damage is done.

    As we can see from Venezuela and France, policy makers go as far as to its own extinction. I thought the US would be a little more advanced in this respect. However, the recent events will only speed up my predictions of much higher natgas prices over the next months.

    Daniel, 12/08/2015 at 6:49 am
    Hi Heinrich

    Thanks for your answer. I work in the oil industry in Norway and what is going on at the moment is not only destroying the US oil and gas industry, but causing considerable damage worldwide – some of the stuff going on over here is insane (good experienced people being fired, cutting corners to save costs, etc.).

    It is strange that I cannot seem to find the same indications as anybody else about the world "swimming in oil". I guess we will be in for a rough ride, once the world finds out production is too low and we lack the resources to rectify the same …. but I guess this is what Ron is on about for quite a while now.

    Toolpush, 12/08/2015 at 7:01 am
    Daniel,

    Yep, destruction all over. Either the doomers are correct and their will not be any demand, or there is going to be a mad scramble in a few years. With all the boomers reaching retirement, there will be a real need for training new people or hiring geriatrics.

    Daniel, 12/08/2015 at 7:08 am
    Crazy part is, that we have been there before. I am still in my 30ies and this is now the third downturn I see -- starting to look for jobs outside this circus. Every time we fire the good people, only to get promised afterwards that the operators had learned their lessons. Last time the market picked up I had the pleasure to work under a 72 year old drilling engineer, who had been in retirement for 10 years … he was not quite up to speed with some of the technology
    Toolpush, 12/08/2015 at 7:21 am
    Yeah,

    I bet that god damn cyberbase drilling must have been a head spin for him, let alone rotary steerable directional drilling.

    While public companies are only focused on the next quarterly report (12 weeks), nobody will ever think of what will happen in the "next" doom cycle. History has shown, when the next boom comes, there is always plenty of money to do what ever it takes to get things going again.

    As for people, we stopped being people along time ago. Haven't you had your bar code or chip yet?

    shallow sand, 12/08/2015 at 7:54 am
    Daniel. I note your comment about cutting corners to save on costs.

    I keep reading here in the USA about how all of the companies are setting records on how fast they are drilling wells. They do so in order to tout cost savings, IMO trying to perpetuate the myth that it makes sense to drill these wells at $30 oil and $2 gas.

    I am all for technological improvement, but I get the feeling this is not safe. I wish they would describe how they cut drilling times so much.

    My experience is with 700′-2500′ holes, so apples and oranges. However, I would not want anyone rushing things that are most importantly unsafe, and secondarily could damage the well.

    Would appreciate to read what you, Toolpush and others think of these "records".

    Fernando Leanme, 12/08/2015 at 9:00 am
    about 14 years ago i was transferred to supervise a team of people that survived a really harsh set of cut backs. The overall performance level was very high, plus they were very motivated not to lose their jobs.

    Drilling a well involves a lot of lost time, some of which can be avoided by a more experienced supervisor and crew. It's also likely the well plan will be smarter and easier to execute when prepared by an experienced engineer. So indeed going faster is possible. But I wouldn't expect more than say a 10 % time reduction. The other savings comes from lower charges per unit.

    Heinrich Leopold, 12/08/2015 at 8:03 am
    Daniel,

    As I am working in the commodity business as well, the steep downturn is on the other side a good sign of a steep recovery very soon as a lot of production is coming out of the market. I am wondering, however, if this could not have been done with a little less damage to all people involved.

    [Dec 08, 2015] What is the strategy behind the destruction of first the coal and then the oil and gas industry

    Notable quotes:
    "... I watched and wondered the same thing back in the 80s as Reagan and Volcker took a wrecking ball to the domestic oil and gas industry. ..."
    "... The best explanation I've come across is from Andrew J. Bacevich in The Limits of Power . He postulates that Jimmy Carter, recoiling from the public backlash that came after his disastrous crisis-of-confidence speech, began the militarization of U.S. energy policy. Reagan then took this ball and ran it through the goal posts. ..."
    "... The strategic reorientation that Reagan orchestrated encouraged the belief that military power could extend indefinitely America's profligate expenditure of energy. Simply put, the United States would rely on military might to keep order in the Gulf and maintain the flow of oil, thereby mitigating the implications of American energy dependence. ..."
    "... The unspoken assumption has been that profligate spending on what politicians euphemistically refer to as "defense" can sustain profligate domestic consumption of energy and imported manufactures. Unprecedented military might could defer the day of reckoning indefinitely - so at least the hope went. ..."
    "... Reagan - and Reagan's successors - mimicked Carter in bemoaning the nation's growing energy dependence. In practice, however, they did next to nothing to curtail the dependence. Instead, they wielded U.S. military power to ensure access to oil, hoping thereby to prolong the empire of consumption's lease on life…. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Glenn Stehle, 12/08/2015 at 7:35 am

    Henrich Leopold said:

    I am flabbergasted how the US public and policy makers including the FED are destroying its own oil&gas industry. What is the strategy behind the destruction of first the coal and then the oil and gas industry?

    I watched and wondered the same thing back in the 80s as Reagan and Volcker took a wrecking ball to the domestic oil and gas industry.

    The best explanation I've come across is from Andrew J. Bacevich in The Limits of Power. He postulates that Jimmy Carter, recoiling from the public backlash that came after his disastrous crisis-of-confidence speech, began the militarization of U.S. energy policy. Reagan then took this ball and ran it through the goal posts. Here's how Bacevich put it:

    The strategic reorientation that Reagan orchestrated encouraged the belief that military power could extend indefinitely America's profligate expenditure of energy. Simply put, the United States would rely on military might to keep order in the Gulf and maintain the flow of oil, thereby mitigating the implications of American energy dependence.

    and

    The unspoken assumption has been that profligate spending on what politicians euphemistically refer to as "defense" can sustain profligate domestic consumption of energy and imported manufactures. Unprecedented military might could defer the day of reckoning indefinitely - so at least the hope went.

    And once Reagan had militarized U.S. energy policy, there seemed to be no turning back. As Bacevich goes on to explain:

    Reagan - and Reagan's successors - mimicked Carter in bemoaning the nation's growing energy dependence. In practice, however, they did next to nothing to curtail the dependence. Instead, they wielded U.S. military power to ensure access to oil, hoping thereby to prolong the empire of consumption's lease on life….

    A new national security consensus emerged based on the conviction that the United States military could dominate the planet as Reagan had proposed to dominate outer space. In Washington, confidence that a high-quality military establishment, dexterously employed, could enable the United States, always with high-minded intentions, to organize the world to its liking had essentially become a self-evident truth. In this malignant expectation - not in any of the conservative ideals for which he is retrospectively venerated - lies the essence of the Reagan legacy

    [Dec 08, 2015] Asian markets fall on lower oil prices

    Notable quotes:
    "... Analysts warned investors to steer clear of shares related to the oil and gas sector. With conditions expected to remain volatile, investors would be wise to avoid the sector altogether and focus on other opportunities instead, said the Motley Fool's Ryan Newman. ..."
    www.bbc.com

    Fresh data from China showed the country's exports fell 3.7% in yuan-denominated terms in November from a year earlier, while imports fell 5.6%.

    ... ... ....

    Analysts warned investors to steer clear of shares related to the oil and gas sector. "With conditions expected to remain volatile, investors would be wise to avoid the sector altogether and focus on other opportunities instead," said the Motley Fool's Ryan Newman.

    am said... December 07, 2015 at 09:54 PM

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-35035827

    Shares drop on the drop of oil prices.

    The oil price drop if it continues significantly to the time of the rates up FOMC meeting should give them pause for thought. The wash out of the last year's decline in inflation from the current inflation stats will not happen.

    The new oil price decline will be disinflationary. So it will add to the point of an unjustified rate rise. All that will be left is that they are ignoring inflation, one of the two key points in their mandate, so they will need to start explaining what is their mandate for if one of the key elements can just be ignored.

    [Dec 08, 2015] It is very likely that production from Eagle Ford alone will decline by over 1 mill b/d by summer 2016

    peakoilbarrel.com
    Heinrich Leopold, 12/08/2015 at 9:23 am
    Drilling Report Dec 15 published:

    The latest drilling report shows that the dramatic decline of US oil production continues. Eagle Ford production alone declined by – 28% year over year (see chart below). The current decline rate stands at -6% per month and makes it very likely that production has declined over -50% (or below 0.8 mill b/d) by spring. Given the recent decline in oil prices, it is very likely that production from Eagle Ford alone has declined by over 1 mill b/d by summer 2016.

    [Dec 08, 2015] Technical trading mubo-jumbo

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mike, as Ive shared here several times in the past few weeks or month or more, there is a potential WTI target (stop) from a bearish technical pattern of $29 IF the critical support of $37 is taken out. ..."
    "... Hey, at this point, almost all US E P's are worthless at the current oil and natural gas futures prices. I'm not just talking privately owned, nor just shale. Look at Marathon Oil, Anadarko, Apache, ConocoPhillips, etc. They are all out of business if futures hold. But then all of the OPEC nations are too. ..."
    "... So either we will have the great collapse many here discuss, or the futures prices wont hold. ..."
    "... How the heck would any of us know what will happen. We have sold from $8-$140 since 1999. Pretty wide range. Wonder how close to $8 the traders can push it. They are in full control. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    BC, 12/07/2015 at 7:11 pm
    Mike, as I've shared here several times in the past few weeks or month or more, there is a potential WTI target (stop) from a bearish technical pattern of $29 IF the critical support of $37 is taken out.

    There is no major technical support below $29 until the mid-$20s.

    IF $37 is taken out, that implies NYMEX gasoline at, or breaking, a buck this winter.

    That's recession territory, brother. ... ... ...

    shallow sand says:

    ... ... ...

    Hey, at this point, almost all US E&P's are worthless at the current oil and natural gas futures prices. I'm not just talking privately owned, nor just shale. Look at Marathon Oil, Anadarko, Apache, ConocoPhillips, etc. They are all out of business if futures hold. But then all of the OPEC nations are too.

    So either we will have the great collapse many here discuss, or the futures prices wont hold.

    How the heck would any of us know what will happen. We have sold from $8-$140 since 1999. Pretty wide range. Wonder how close to $8 the traders can push it. They are in full control.

    [Dec 08, 2015] The service companies began to cannibalize their stacked equipment in order to save money. With rig count down this should accelerate

    Notable quotes:
    "... A question for the hands -on people like shallow: some months ago, some contributors wrote that the service companies in their respective area were beginning to cannibalize their stacked equipment in order to save money. With rig count down even more today, this should accelerate. Any more anecdotal evidence? ..."
    "... One point to keep in mind is that the Shale Oil boom was built on the foundation of the personnel infrastructure of the multiyear Shale Gas boom, and now that personnel and infrastructure base is fading away very fast. ..."
    "... IMO, it's going to take a very long time to get back anywhere remotely close to the 2014 level of activity, even with a strong sustained oil price signal. A lot of people have left the industry never to return, or have retired, passed away or become unable to work. And even those that want to return will need a lot of retraining. And lots of equipment is rusting away, and as you noted, being cannibalized. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Florian Schoepp, 12/07/2015 at 11:40 am
    A question for the hands -on people like shallow: some months ago, some contributors wrote that the service companies in their respective area were beginning to cannibalize their stacked equipment in order to save money. With rig count down even more today, this should accelerate. Any more anecdotal evidence?
    shallow sand, 12/07/2015 at 1:43 pm
    Rigs here are all stacked except for a few work over rigs. Most work over rigs stacked too.

    Just rod and tubing jobs at this point. Skeleton crews.

    Jeffrey J. Brown , 12/07/2015 at 2:11 pm
    One point to keep in mind is that the Shale Oil boom was built on the foundation of the personnel & infrastructure of the multiyear Shale Gas boom, and now that personnel and infrastructure base is fading away very fast.

    IMO, it's going to take a very long time to get back anywhere remotely close to the 2014 level of activity, even with a strong sustained oil price signal. A lot of people have left the industry never to return, or have retired, passed away or become unable to work. And even those that want to return will need a lot of retraining. And lots of equipment is rusting away, and as you noted, being cannibalized.

    Meanwhile, for Xmas gifts this year, I'm handing out bags of pinto beans with my favorite bean and rice recipe.

    [Dec 08, 2015] Shale oil creditors may be now valuing assets at "mark to fantasy" like they did in the subprime mortgage crisis

    Notable quotes:
    "... A comment on Ron Patterson's site got me thinking…I believe it was Watcher who brought up the idea that creditors may be now valuing assets at "mark to fantasy" like they did in the subprime mortgage crisis. ..."
    "... The oilcos could then extend lines of credit to keep operating as long as they had enough cash flow to pay the interest on the debt. It would be both beneficial for the oilco and the bank to avoid bankruptcy and write downs. ..."
    ourfiniteworld.com
    anonymous, December 7, 2015 at 2:14 pm
    I would have thought there would be turmoil in the junk bonds and a raft of oilco bankruptcies by now. After all asset values had to take a hit when they were revalued at this lower crude price and hedges expired.

    A comment on Ron Patterson's site got me thinking…I believe it was Watcher who brought up the idea that creditors may be now valuing assets at "mark to fantasy" like they did in the subprime mortgage crisis.

    The oilcos could then extend lines of credit to keep operating as long as they had enough cash flow to pay the interest on the debt. It would be both beneficial for the oilco and the bank to avoid bankruptcy and write downs.

    [Dec 08, 2015] Higher cost of oil is bearable for society only with increased energy efficiency of the economy

    Notable quotes:
    "... The world has a gigantic resource base of liquid hydrocarbons remaining. Perhaps as much as 4,200 Gb, or several centuries worth at present consumption rates. The possibility of shortages is obviously an oxymoron. The world will not be producing less petroleum in the future because it is unavailable. It will be producing less because what is being produced at present is not giving an adequate return for its costs to the economy. The industry is not investing too little into the future, it has invested too much into the present. Like Shale, money was spent on production that had insufficient market to justify the expenditures. ..."
    ourfiniteworld.com

    Don Stewart , December 7, 2015 at 12:38 pm

    Ed
    Pertinent to your previous comment about BW Hill's model. Here is a current quote from him on Peak Oil:

    'As a result of the inevitable depletion cycle that occurs to all finite natural resources the capacity of petroleum to power the economy is declining. There comes a point where petroleum is no longer a value adding commodity. The economy is not going to spend $2 for petroleum to produce a $1's worth of goods, and services. Its called affordability and it is a calculable quantity:

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

    As the process cost of producing petroleum, and its products increases its affordability for the remaining sectors of the economy declines. Presently the return on petroleum products is 1:1.03; the economy as a whole is getting less out of petroleum than it is putting into it. Consequently, the highest petroleum cost products will be phased out, and as they do demand will fall. Supply must also disappear with that fall in demand. This will be seen as a slowing of the economy; punctuated with periodic monetary, and financial crises.

    The world has a gigantic resource base of liquid hydrocarbons remaining. Perhaps as much as 4,200 Gb, or several centuries worth at present consumption rates. The possibility of shortages is obviously an oxymoron. The world will not be producing less petroleum in the future because it is unavailable. It will be producing less because what is being produced at present is not giving an adequate return for its costs to the economy. The industry is not investing too little into the future, it has invested too much into the present. Like Shale, money was spent on production that had insufficient market to justify the expenditures.

    The future of any producer today depends on reducing investments, cutting cost, and preparing for the further decline in prices that is coming.'

    Note particularly the 1 to 1.03 ratio statement. How can that be if the EROEI he quotes is around 10 to 1?

    As I understand it, it's because the rest of the economy can't produce enough to justify the cost of extraction of the oil IF the rest of the economy suddenly became much more efficient, then I would think the ratio would improve radically. Which would permit higher cost extraction to proceed.

    As you can see, he's not in Kansas anymore….Don Stewart

    [Dec 07, 2015] Oil Prices OPEC Stands its Ground

    Notable quotes:
    "... The balancing of worldwide crude oil markets is well under way as evidenced by the continued sharp decline in U.S. production during the third quarter of 2015. Further, the International Energy Agency estimates that worldwide demand will increase in 2015 by as much as 1,800,000 bopd and a further 1,200,000 bopd in 2016 in response to low commodity prices. Tighter crude markets will prevail which in turn will lead to increased demand for Cores unique technology-related services and products. ..."
    "... It appears that U.S. crude oil production peaked in April 2015, and Core now believes that production could fall from that peak by over 700,000 bopd, more than prior estimates of 500,000 bopd, by year-end 2015. Adding support to this view, Bakken production has now peaked, while Eagle Ford production began to decline earlier in 2015. Currently, the estimated net decline curve rate for U.S. production is 7.8% due to the concentration of U.S. production coming from high-decline-rate unconventional reservoirs, more than doubling Cores new estimated net worldwide crude oil production decline curve rate of 3.1%. In addition to second-half 2015 production declines in North America, including Mexico, international production declines are likely in Europe, Russia, South America, and Africa. ..."
    "... In 2016, at current activity levels in North America, year-over-year production declines of over 900,000 bopd are expected in Canada and the U.S., while international production levels are expected to continue to decline modestly. The Company believes that recent downward production revisions in Mexico and offshore eastern South America confirm these views, which should precipitate higher commodity prices and the following recovery in Cores business in 2016. ..."
    The Motley Fool
    What this means is that the oil market is on its own to get supply and demand back into balance, which is a process that's well under way. Oil reservoir specialist Core Labs (NYSE:CLB) eloquently detailed how the market was repairing itself in the company's third-quarter report pointing out that,

    The balancing of worldwide crude oil markets is well under way as evidenced by the continued sharp decline in U.S. production during the third quarter of 2015. Further, the International Energy Agency estimates that worldwide demand will increase in 2015 by as much as 1,800,000 bopd and a further 1,200,000 bopd in 2016 in response to low commodity prices. Tighter crude markets will prevail which in turn will lead to increased demand for Core's unique technology-related services and products.

    It has been said that the cure for low oil prices is low oil prices and that certainly has been the case. With sub-$50 oil for much of the past year, two key trends have begun to emerge according to Core: Oil production is starting to slide while new demand has emerged.

    Core went into even more detail on the production decline to come by saying,

    It appears that U.S. crude oil production peaked in April 2015, and Core now believes that production could fall from that peak by over 700,000 bopd, more than prior estimates of 500,000 bopd, by year-end 2015. Adding support to this view, Bakken production has now peaked, while Eagle Ford production began to decline earlier in 2015. Currently, the estimated net decline curve rate for U.S. production is 7.8% due to the concentration of U.S. production coming from high-decline-rate unconventional reservoirs, more than doubling Core's new estimated net worldwide crude oil production decline curve rate of 3.1%. In addition to second-half 2015 production declines in North America, including Mexico, international production declines are likely in Europe, Russia, South America, and Africa.

    The chart below clearly shows the impact low oil prices have had on U.S. production:

    US Crude Oil Field Production data by YCharts

    However, the U.S. isn't the only place where production is slipping. Underinvestment in non-OPEC nations like Mexico and Russia is causing production in these nations to roll over as well. Looking ahead, Core noted that,

    In 2016, at current activity levels in North America, year-over-year production declines of over 900,000 bopd are expected in Canada and the U.S., while international production levels are expected to continue to decline modestly. The Company believes that recent downward production revisions in Mexico and offshore eastern South America confirm these views, which should precipitate higher commodity prices and the following recovery in Core's business in 2016.

    In other words, even without OPEC's help, the oil market is well on its way to fixing the glut. With nearly 3 million barrels of new demand projected by the end of next year and a near 1 million barrel production decline in North America alone, the market is starting to wipe out the nearly 2 million barrel a day surplus.

    Investor takeaway

    OPEC's decision to not just hold production flat, but to actually pump at full capacity has hurt the oil market in the short-term. That said, it weakened its rivals and spurred new demand, which suggests higher future oil prices. It's a scenario that could actually prove to be very lucrative for the oil countries and companies that come out of the downturn in one piece.

    [Dec 07, 2015] Major oil companies are structured for big, long lead time projects and needs time to change course

    Notable quotes:
    "... few realize how severe this low oil price will be for near future oil supplies (offset depletion induced declines and possibly grow total production). ..."
    "... Major oil companies are structured for big, long lead time projects and needs time to change course (like a fully loaded tanker changing direction). ..."
    "... Further oil companies rely on predictable prices before they sanction developments involving heavy investments requiring $60+/b to yield a return. The longer this low price remains, the deeper the decline will become and the harder to bring supplies back to previous highs. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Rune Likvern, 12/07/2015 at 11:23 am

    To me the dynamics described in the article

    http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/12/01/scrapping-150-projects-big-oil-could-become-structurally-impaired/#36515101=0

    is right.

    I am also of the opinion that few realize how severe this low oil price will be for near future oil supplies (offset depletion induced declines and possibly grow total production).

    Oil companies are in the business for a return and several of them have now a lot more debt on their books and need time to strengthen their balance sheets. Many oil companies made a bet that the oil price would remain high ($100/b) and therefore assumed more debt in a bid to grow supplies.

    Major oil companies are structured for big, long lead time projects and needs time to change course (like a fully loaded tanker changing direction).

    Further oil companies rely on predictable prices before they sanction developments involving heavy investments requiring $60+/b to yield a return.
    The longer this low price remains, the deeper the decline will become and the harder to bring supplies back to previous highs.

    [Dec 07, 2015] It doesn't look too good for Team Humanity

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Javier said:

    People should be told that we are facing a civilization threatening energy crisis and that sacrifices have to be done to attempt a transition like none done before.

    Jimmy Carter tried that in his infamous crisis-of-confidence speech, and look what happened to him!

    Ronald Reagan - the "modern prophet of profligacy, the politican who gave moral sanction to the empire of consumption," as Andrew Bacevich called him - ate his lunch come election time.

    It's "morning in America," Reagan proclaimed, as he militarized US energy policy to a degree never seen before.

    If you ask me, it doesn't look too good for Team Humanity.

    Ron Patterson, 12/07/2015 at 12:09 pm
    Otherwise humanity returns to 18th century…

    That is an absolute best case scenario. Worst case, humanity returns to the stone age.

    [Dec 07, 2015] US Exports Manufacturing Debacle Covered up by Oil

    Notable quotes:
    "... In fact, the US is pumping so much oil that exports ..."
    "... Credit must be given to the shale oil revolution – and to the many billions of investor dollars that have been drilled into the ground where they have now disappeared without trace! ..."
    "... the massive US auto manufacturing sector that has been flying high, pumped up by cheap credit, loose underwriting standards, extended loan terms, loan-to-value ratios that exceed 100%, the rising proportion of subprime loans, and of course, securitization of these loans ..."
    "... auto manufacturing is still hot, fired up by US auto sales that might soon set an all-time record in units and have already set all-time records in dollars due to higher vehicle prices. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Imports of goods fell 6.6% year-over-year to $186.8 billion – despite the strong dollar, though a strong dollar, in theory, should have caused imports to rise. This testifies to tepid demand in the US. Imports of petroleum products were blamed. The US is – despite the oil bust – pumping so much oil for domestic consumption that imports of petroleum products have been falling for years. And in October, the value of petroleum imports hit the lowest level since 2003!

    In fact, the US is pumping so much oil that exports of petroleum products have been booming, and the net petroleum trade deficit – the difference in value between imports and exports of petroleum products – dropped to a minuscule $4.47 billion, the lowest since April 1999.

    Credit must be given to the shale oil revolution – and to the many billions of investor dollars that have been drilled into the ground where they have now disappeared without trace!

    But this flourishing oil trade covers up the terrible deterioration in the non-petroleum trade deficit. It's volatile from month to month, but the trend is clear: in October, it worsened by 25% year-over-year, to $56.8 billion, after an all-time worst of $59.3 billion in August. Before this year, the worst had been $47.8 billion – in December 2014!

    This chart shows just how fast and how far the non-petroleum trade balance (blue line) has plunged, while the net petroleum deficit (black line) is on the way, if this trend continues, to a surplus:

    ... ... ...

    Bad as it is, it has been propped up by the massive US auto manufacturing sector that has been flying high, pumped up by cheap credit, loose underwriting standards, extended loan terms, loan-to-value ratios that exceed 100%, the rising proportion of subprime loans, and of course, securitization of these loans [read… What Happens When the Auto-Loan Boom Blows Up ].

    And auto manufacturing is still hot, fired up by US auto sales that might soon set an all-time record in units and have already set all-time records in dollars due to higher vehicle prices.

    [Dec 07, 2015] CIBC The Crude Glut Might Be Cured Faster Than You Think

    Notable quotes:
    "... The EIA's data on the changes in 'legacy' production-a measure on the decline rate of existing wells-suggests that if no new rigs were drilled, production would drop by a million barrels per day every quarter, writes Exarhos. U.S. production is now forecast to decline by 500,000 barrels per day over the next six months, a reason to expect at least some price recovery in 2016. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    CIBC World Markets Economist Nick Exarhos notes that the decline in U.S. oil production hasn't come about with the speed or magnitude most experts expected. But in the details of production data, he finds a dynamic that could support crude prices next year.

    "The EIA's data on the changes in 'legacy' production-a measure on the decline rate of existing wells-suggests that if no new rigs were drilled, production would drop by a million barrels per day every quarter," writes Exarhos. "U.S. production is now forecast to decline by 500,000 barrels per day over the next six months, a reason to expect at least some price recovery in 2016."

    Increasingly productive new rigs are behind the resilience of U.S. production, but this comes at a cost. Higher initial production also implies upward pressure on decline rates for these new wells. All else equal, the ability to take more oil out of the ground more expediently reduces the life span of a single well.

    Tight oil projects like shale have much swifter decline rates than conventional plays.

    The price of 12-month West Texas Intermediate futures contracts and shale drillers' access to capital remain integral variables that will inform when the supply-demand imbalance in the oil market is resolved.

    But if drillers don't tap into the fracklog too much , Exarhos has mapped out an avenue through which the oil market's rebalancing process could meaningfully accelerate in the near future. To be sure, there are a number of countervailing forces that could derail this forecast. For instance, the elimination of OPEC's production target threatens to see more production unleashed onto the market, and the economist readily admits that the extent to which shale production has been curtailed has continuously been overestimated.

    [Dec 07, 2015] Stronger Dollar And OPEC Inaction Force Crude Below $40

    OilPrice.com

    This week we get our timely triumvirate of monthly oil reports: EIA kicks things off as usual with tomorrow's Short Term Energy Outlook, while Thursday sees the release of OPEC's monthly oil report. IEA brings up the rear with its oil market report on Friday.

    ... ... ...

    The chart below (via @jkempenergy) illustrates that short positions held by hedge funds have reached 172 million barrels, almost doubling in the last seven weeks to reach their third-largest position on record:

    ... ... ...

    While this highlights the extremely bearish mindset of the market, we have to remember what happened the last two times we were stretched to such extreme short positions: at the previous lows in March and August. At these junctures, prices experienced a swift bout of short-covering, propelling prices higher.

    Looking at global offshore rigs, even though 40 out of 350 rigs have been taken out of the market in the price rout of the last year, according to analysis from Rystad Energy we need to see up to 100 rigs go offline to halt the supply glut.

    ... ... ...

    Oil production from the Gulf of Mexico is set to rise by 10% in 2015, as projects come online this year. Accordingly, production in September was up to almost 1.7 million barrels a day.

    By Matt Smith

    [Dec 07, 2015] WTI just dipped under $38

    "... WTI just dipped under $38 (to 37.72). If the price stays at this level, the frackers will go home and the bankers will turn into scrooges. ..."
    "... EOX Emerald Oil, 1.13 USD per share today, -61 USD per share earnings. A 52 week high of 33.60 usd per share, a 96 percent decrease in price. They all look bad because it is bad. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Frugal, 12/07/2015 at 12:23 pm

    WTI just dipped under $38. If the price stays at this level, the frackers will go home and the bankers will turn into scrooges.
    R Walter, 12/07/2015 at 12:35 pm
    Oil is 35.60 per barrel in Japan today.

    31,930¥ per metric ton.

    123 yen for a dollar, 259 USD per tonne, 35.56 USD per barrel.

    EOX Emerald Oil, 1.13 USD per share today, -61 USD per share earnings. A 52 week high of 33.60 usd per share, a 96 percent decrease in price. They all look bad because it is bad.

    A rout, a crash, cut your losses and run, the jig is up.

    Huckleberry Finn, 12/07/2015 at 3:56 pm

    Another 88,065 of barrels to be lost in January 2016 in the shale plays for a month on month decline of 1.81%.
    Eagle ford will be down 30% in 9 months. That is something.

    dmg555, 12/04/2015 at 1:31 pm

    For the 13th week of the last 14, US Oil rig counts declined. Down 10 to 545 rigs, this is the lowest since May 2010 as the temporary respite in the early Fall has given way to reality and rig counts track the lagged crude price lower…

    shallow sand, 12/07/2015 at 5:25 pm

    How many E & Ps will have write downs in 2015 greater than their current market caps. Just let that one sink in.

    [Dec 07, 2015] Did Erdogan Commit Political Suicide Shahir ShahidSaless

    www.huffingtonpost.com
    Erdogan, desperate and angry over his losing battle to oust Syrian president Bashar al-Assad, ordered the shooting down of a Russian fighter jet. Erdogan has been actively pursuing the ouster of Assad since 2012, but Russia's recent intervention in Syria, in alliance with Iran and its highly ideologically and politically motivated proxies, has resulted in a serious setback for Erdogan's plans.

    Putin's determination to destroy Turkey's proxies at the Syrian borders and to thwart Erdogan's plan to create a no-fly/buffer zone in the area has derailed Erdogan's plans for Syria. Erdogan hoped to use the buffer zone as an operational hub aimed at bringing down President Assad.

    Russian attacks on Turkmen-dominated areas in Bayirbucak, where the Russian plane was downed, would also inflict serious collateral damage to Turkey. The Turkish government regards the area in north-west Syria, presently under the control of the Bayirbucak Turkmens, as an important buffer zone preventing the territorial expansion of Syria's Kurdish-minority militias, whom it regards as terrorists linked to the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK).

    Erdogan's objective in shooting down the plane was to provoke Russia into a harsh response. He hoped the response would bring Russia into conflict with the whole of NATO, which would help reverse Turkey's declining fortunes in the Syrian war.

    Erdogan's calculations went terribly wrong. Following the incident, Turkey requested an emergency meeting with NATO members. Contrary to Erdogan's expectations, although, members did not support Russia, neither did they wholeheartedly support Turkey. Many members questioned Turkey's action and, according to Reuters, "expressed concern that Turkey did not escort the Russian warplane out of its airspace." In a clear indication of the suspicion among NATO members regarding Turkey's real intention behind its adventurism, some diplomats told Reuters, "There are other ways of dealing with these kinds of incidents."

    Not only didn't Cold War II happen, French President Francois Hollande, who promised "merciless" revenge in the aftermath of Paris attacks, met with Putin and they agreed to form an alliance against Daesh (also known as ISIS/ISIL) in Syria. The outcome of such an alliance is that the "Assad must go" mantra will be overshadowed by the war against Daesh--something that Erdogan hated to occur. Erdogan's plan to bring the West and Russia into conflict became even more unattainable when France's move was followed by Britain and then Germany.

    Turkey also lost significant room to maneuver in the post-shootdown of the Russian fighter jet. Russia, by deploying the powerful S-400 surface-to-air missile system in Hmeymim airbase near Latakia, sent a strong signal to Turkey--a de facto no-fly zone already in effect south of the Turkish-Syrian border.

    Russia also sent Turkey and NATO a clear message by arming its fighter jets with air-to-air missiles. On November 30, the Russian Air Force announced that "today, for the first time ‪Su34‬ fighter-bombers departed for combat sorties with air-to-air short- and medium-range missiles.... The usage of such weaponry is necessary for providing security of the aircraft of the Russian" air force, the announcement read. ‬‬‬

    Moscow also authorized numerous economic sanctions against Ankara ranging from tourism to agricultural products as well as sanctions on energy and construction projects.

    Erdogan took a conciliatory stance after the incident. In a speech in Ankara, he said, "We are strategic partners ... 'Joint projects may be halted, ties could be cut'? Are such approaches fitting for politicians?" Erdogan even requested a meeting with Putin while both leaders were in Paris for the COP21 climate change conference on November 30, but Putin rejected the request.

    Russians launched a heavy campaign to damage Erdogan's credibility and reputation. Vladimir Putin and numerous other Russian politicians leveled accusations regarding Turkey's sponsorship and cooperation with ISIS as well as allegations of buying oil smuggled by ISIS.

    On November 30, on the sidelines of the climate change summit in Paris, Putin stated, "At the moment we have received additional information confirming that that oil from the deposits controlled by Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on industrial scale." He even went further to say, "We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil's delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers."

    In response, Erdogan said he will resign as the country's president if Russia provides evidence that implicates Turkey in any oil trade with ISIS.

    Later, Sergei Lavrov, the Russian Foreign Minister, said, "We have repeatedly publicly stated that oil from the IS-controlled territories is transported abroad, particularly to Turkey. The facts that substantiate these claims will be formally presented in the UN in particular, and to all parties concerned."

    Then on December 2, the Russian Defense Ministry held a briefing concerning ISIS funding. During the briefing, which included a PowerPoint presentation, satellite images, and videos, Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov said, "According to our data, the top political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family - is involved in this criminal business."

    Antonov added, "In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son-in-law has been appointed energy minister. What a marvelous family business."

    On December 3, without mentioning specifics, Putin declared there was more evidence to come. "We are not planning to engage in military saber-rattling," he said. "But if anyone thinks that having committed this awful war crime ... are going to get away with some measures concerning their tomatoes or some limits on construction and other sectors, they are sorely mistaken."

    At this point, it is apparent that Putin's ultimate objective is to take advantage of the opportunity presented to him to severely damage Erdogan's name and trustworthiness, both domestically and internationally, or, even better, bring him and his regime down as a perceived power behind the extremists and the anti-Assad forces in Syria. This is in line with Russia's plan for realizing its strategic objectives in Syria.

    [Dec 07, 2015] OPEC to keep pumping crude, sheds symbolic output ceiling

    December 4, 2015 | Fuel Fix

    Without dramatic production cuts by OPEC, it'll probably take until the end of 2016 for the market to see a rebalance of supply and demand, because of weakening oil-demand growth and the apparent resilience of crude suppliers outside of the 12 OPEC nations, Goldman Sachs said.

    OPEC didn't provide an official production ceiling in a communique or a press conference after its semi-annual meeting in Vienna, but said its output would remain around current levels because production cuts wouldn't move the oil market enough.

    "The world dynamics have changed," OPEC President Emmanuel Ibe Kachikwu said in a press conference. "We need to look to non-OPEC members to join us in this stability drive."

    U.S. benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude ended Friday's trading down $1.11 to $39.97 on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

    Abandoning an official output ceiling effectively codifies what OPEC has already done for the past year: ignore its previous target of 30 million barrels a day. The group of 12 oil exporters produced 31.38 million barrels a day in October, up by more than 1.3 million barrels a day since last year.

    OPEC said it would decide on an official production number at its next gathering in June, after it monitors the market amid a return to higher production levels by Iran sometime after western powers lift economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic.

    "We need to see what Iran brings to the market. We felt comfortable that we just need to wait and watch at this time," Kachikwu said.

    When asked about negotiations between the Saudi Arabia-led cartel and OPEC outsiders including Russia to jointly reduce crude production, Kachikwu said the group's first impressions were "50-50." "There have been signs of cooperation, signs of reluctance," he said.

    OPEC Secretary General Abdallah Salem el-Badri said that after meeting with nations outside of OPEC to gauge whether others would be willing to cut production alongside OPEC, the group "had a positive reply, but everyone is trying to digest how they can do it."

    Over time, though, OPEC expects outsiders will be able to figure out how much they can contribute to a joint cut, he said.

    Earlier in the day, crude prices had fallen amid reports OPEC would raise its daily output ceiling by 1.5 million barrels to 31.5 million barrels, a move traders interpreted to mean OPEC would put more oil on the market and worsen a global oversupply. Analysts speculated the group was making room for incoming member Indonesia.

    Indonesia, which produced an estimated 789,000 barrels a day last year and has 3.7 billion barrels in reserve, originally joined OPEC in 1962 and left the group in 2009. Its return became official on Friday.

    Iran expects to put at least 500,000 barrels a day back into international markets next year after international sanctions are lifted.

    [Dec 06, 2015] With allies like Turkey, who needs enemies

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turkey and the U.S. State Department scoffed when Russia accused the Turkish government of being involved with smuggling ISIS oil. However, after Moscow presented convincing proof of Turkey's involvement, the Obama Administration changed its story. ..."
    "... "If the American colleagues are not satisfied with those ones, they should watch videos gained by their own UAVs," the Russian Defense Ministry said on Facebook. ..."
    "... The ever-changing political spin in Washington to avoid admitting the obvious looks increasingly dishonest. ..."
    "... The deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, during the latter's visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4. ..."
    www.dailykos.com

    Turkey has sent 2,000 troops into Iraq without getting permission from Baghdad.

    The Iraqi government has demanded they withdraw, calling it a "hostile act", but Ankara has decided to ignore Baghdad's wishes.

    This is only the latest act that undermines the wisdom of having Turkey as a military ally.

    Turkey and the U.S. State Department scoffed when Russia accused the Turkish government of being involved with smuggling ISIS oil. However, after Moscow presented convincing proof of Turkey's involvement, the Obama Administration changed its story.

    While the US has long hyped the problem of ISIS oil smuggling, the recent Russian Defense Ministry presentation, showing significant evidence of Turkey being involved in buying ISIS oil and taking it to refineries run by the Turkish government, has changed their tune.
    After a previous denial of the allegation against Turkey, the US is now admitting that the oil is ending up smuggled into Turkey, but insists it is "of no significance" because so much of the oil produced in ISIS-controlled parts of Syria is consumed inside Syria.
    "The amount of oil being smuggled is extremely low and has decreased over time," claimed US special envoy Amos Hochstein, a stunning admission which suggests the US was well aware of oil smuggling into Turkey even before the Russian evidence.

    Just in case we don't want to believe the Russian videos, Moscow has a solution.

    "If the American colleagues are not satisfied with those ones, they should watch videos gained by their own UAVs," the Russian Defense Ministry said on Facebook.

    The ever-changing political spin in Washington to avoid admitting the obvious looks increasingly dishonest.

    With the U.S. government knowing about Turkey's government involvement (Russia's photos show ISIS oil smuggling trucks passing through border crossings without stopping), it begs the question of what our objectives actually are?

    gjohnsit

    Erdogan Moves To Annex Mosul

    Should Mosul be cleared of the Islamic State the Turkish heavy weapons will make it possible for Turkey to claim the city unless the Iraqi government will use all its power to fight that claim. Should the city stay in the hands of the Islamic State Turkey will make a deal with it and act as its protector. It will benefit from the oil around Mosul which will be transferred through north Iraq to Turkey and from there sold on the world markets. In short: This is an effort to seize Iraq's northern oil fields.

    That is the plan but it is a risky one. Turkey did not ask for permission to invade Iraq and did not inform the Iraqi government.

    The Turks claim that they were invited by the Kurds:

    Turkey will have a permanent military base in the Bashiqa region of Mosul as the Turkish forces in the region training the Peshmerga forces have been reinforced, Hürriyet reported.

    The deal regarding the base was signed between Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG) President Massoud Barzani and Turkish Foreign Minister Feridun Sinirlioğlu, during the latter's visit to northern Iraq on Nov. 4.

    There are two problems with this. First: Massoud Barzani is no longer president of the KRG. His mandate ran out and the parliament refused to prolong it. Second: Mosul and its Bashiqa area are not part of the KRG. Barzani making a deal about it is like him making a deal about Paris.

    mookins

    Al-masdar news-feed-thing had guncam footage of a night attack, by frogfoots with their cannons, on an ISIS truck park. Magnified view at first so you could see they were full-sized like semi's; and no casual agglomeration, these were parked efficiently in a herringbone pattern, at least 400 and I think closer to a thousand. At the film's end the whole thing is just large, neat rectangles of brightness.

    So little did ISIS have to fear from an American-coalition airstrike that they had it set up like this. And now these White House statements that it was no big deal.

    And Europe sees all this on the news, the ISIS we didn't fight, the flood of refugees that resulted, and sees Russia and Iran being the good guys.

    I read where Putin was worried, called Merkel and Hollande to see if they were still on board with 'Minsk 2', the current ceasefire agreement in Ukraine, and they said yes they were. He was worried because Ukraine's President had said he rejected it and the U.S. had said we support that, we reject it too.

    We've lost Europe. World getting better fast.

    MrWebster, Dec 06 · 04:28:32 PM

    Your observations are right on, but only if you assume that thee enemy is IS and Al Queda in Syria. At this point, I don't believe it is. Assad/Russians are perceived as the bigger and more important enemy for the Obama administration and the neocons to focus on. In this case, what Turkey is doing is acceptable-they are enabling opposition forces to Assad/Russians. Heck, when the Russians started bombing, the Al Nusrat Front (Al Queda in Syria) was magically transformed by the administration and the mass media into "rebels", "moderate rebels", "insurgents", "opposition".

    native -> MrWebster

    I wonder who gets to claim Mosel, after all the dust settles? Abadi seems to have lost all control over his nominal countrymen in the north. But will the Iraqi Kurds side with Turkey, and against their brethren just across the border?

    [Dec 06, 2015] US elite strategy toward Russia is replica of UK strategy a century before

    Notable quotes:
    "... The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience... ..."
    "... Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence ..."
    russia-insider.com

    merchantsofmenace

    The relationship between Russia and Western Europe's far right may be a marriage of convenience...

    Closer ties with rising political parties in the EU will give Putin more leverage against NATO. For its part, the European right sees the Russian leader as a staunch defender of national sovereignty and conservative values who has challenged US influence...

    https://medium.com/the-eastern-project/greece-s-nazi-problem-continues-5b92ca57dc6d#.kfiaixvdm 1

    YoringeTBE -> merchantsofmenace
    russia-insider.com

    Stratfor Chairman Straight-Talking: US Policy Is Driven by Imperative to Stop Coalition between Germany and Russia

    George Friedman, Founder and Chairman of Stratfor, or what is called by many "private/shadow CIA" for its well known connections and close cooperation with the CIA, gave a very interesting speech to the Chicago Council of Foreign Affairs on subject Europe: Destined for Conflict? in February of this year.

    [Dec 06, 2015] Karr Ingham Oil crash "deepest and longest" in history of Texas Petro Index

    Fuel Fix

    An index measuring the health of the Texas oil industry tumbled again in October for the 11th straight month as producers shut down additional rigs and more of the state's oil and gas workers lost their jobs.

    ...Statewide oil output appears to have peaked in the middle of 2015, but Texas still cranked out about 7 million barrels more in October than it did during the same period a year ago. This flood of oil is filling the nation's storage tanks and helping contribute to a global glut that has kept prices depressed.

    [Dec 06, 2015] Soon shale guys will be all dressed up but nowhere to go as sweep spots are all gone

    Notable quotes:
    "... When the price was $100 oil companies always drill first "sweet" spots and gradually move away further to the less desirable spots. Then when price was $40 shale guys continued to drill the "sweet spot" even harder because interest payments are always singing "Tic-Toc" song and you have to feed the bankers on timely basis. Now, how long the price will stay this low? Who knows? But when the price gradually turns around there will be no more sweets spots left for shale guys. Shale guys will be all dressed up but nowhere to go. ..."
    "... Geology is exactly what Jean Laherrere leads to predict a slowdown in Bakken. So, even if there would be no pressure from financial markets, production in the Bakken should go down considerably due to geology. This should be a good reason for companies to keep the powder dry, reduce production now and restart again when prices are higher. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Ves, 12/06/2015 at 9:35 am
    " because unlike houses or internet stocks, oil is still used and bought during economical crisis, just a little less and at a lower price."

    But shale story is little bit different then houses and internet stocks with inconvenient thing for bankers and that is a geology. When the price was $100 oil companies always drill first "sweet" spots and gradually move away further to the less desirable spots. Then when price was $40 shale guys continued to drill the "sweet spot" even harder because interest payments are always singing "Tic-Toc" song and you have to feed the bankers on timely basis. Now, how long the price will stay this low? Who knows? But when the price gradually turns around there will be no more sweets spots left for shale guys. Shale guys will be all dressed up but nowhere to go.

    As with OPEC "no cut" decision that it was very obvious to me that will happen, this is also very obvious once you tune out from daily bombardment of useless and misleading analysis from MSM financial news.

    Heinrich Leopold, 12/06/2015 at 3:20 pm

    Ves,

    Geology is exactly what Jean Laherrere leads to predict a slowdown in Bakken. So, even if there would be no pressure from financial markets, production in the Bakken should go down considerably due to geology. This should be a good reason for companies to keep the powder dry, reduce production now and restart again when prices are higher.

    http://www.resilience.org/stories/2014-02-03/jean-laherrere-uses-hubbert-linearization-to-estimate-bakken-shale-oil-peak-in-2014

    [Dec 06, 2015] Looks like shale junk bonds bubble is ready to burst over next several months

    Notable quotes:
    "... There has been a huge crash of the share price of Rice Energy – the posterchild of Utica – this week (down 12 %), which indicates that something is deeply wrong in this sector and shale companies simply are not economical at these prices. ..."
    "... As in previous bubbles, there is still widespread denial – even from the central bank. Over the next few months, it will be interesting to see how far this develops. An interest rise will certainly worsen the situation. ..."
    "... I agree that the production curves for US tight oil look too optimistic. To sustain production you have to drill more and more wells and that is incompatible with less and less rigs and less and less money. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Heinrich Leopold, 12/06/2015 at 6:59 am

    R Walter,

    There is increasing evidence that the shale bubble bursts (see below chart). In my view this is not only the case for Bakken, yet also for Eagle Ford, Marcellus and Utica. There has been a huge crash of the share price of Rice Energy – the posterchild of Utica – this week (down 12 %), which indicates that something is deeply wrong in this sector and shale companies simply are not economical at these prices.

    As in previous bubbles, there is still widespread denial – even from the central bank. Over the next few months, it will be interesting to see how far this develops. An interest rise will certainly worsen the situation.

    Javier, 12/06/2015 at 7:31 am

    Undeniable, but the question is how that is going to affect production, because unlike houses or internet stocks, oil is still used and bought during economical crisis, just a little less and at a lower price.

    I agree that the production curves for US tight oil look too optimistic. To sustain production you have to drill more and more wells and that is incompatible with less and less rigs and less and less money. Rune's estimates look more realistic.

    A future scenario where oil production becomes constrained in the midst of a global economic malaise looks to me as the perfect storm.


    [Dec 06, 2015] TPH Canceled projects could draw down 19 million daily oil barrels

    Fuel Fix

    ...oil companies have scuttled plans for scores of costly energy projects in an industry-wide retreat that could wipe out 19 million barrels from the world's daily regimen of hydrocarbons over the next few years, a new report says.

    ...Analysts had expected U.S. oil production, which is down by 500,000 barrels from its peak in April, to drop more rapidly than it has this year and help crude prices recover quickly from multi-year lows.

    ...The U.S. Energy Information Administration believes the harvest of liquid fuels in non-OPEC countries like Russia and the United States is going to sink in the fourth quarter of 2015, the first absolute decline since mid-2011. Non-OPEC production growth is expected to sink by 520,000 barrels a day - its lowest point next year - in the first quarter of 2016.

    ...The International Energy Agency estimates it costs $95 to $114 a barrel to pull up a barrel of Canadian oil sands and $59 to $90 a barrel in the U.S. shale plays. Deep-water projects cost $60 to $75 a barrel in West Africa and $38 to $65 a barrel in Brazil. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Iraq can pump oil for $9 to $14 a barrel. Both OPEC countries have pumped record amounts of crude this year.

    ...BP and Chevron have deferred the largest number of projects while Exxon Mobil Corp. could delay the most oil barrels, about 2.5 million barrels a day of production capacity from 25 projects. That's about two thirds the amount the Irving oil giant currently produces. Royal Dutch Shell is next, deferring 1.7 million barrels of oil a day, but its deal to buy BG Group this year has alleviated many of the growth issues it might face in coming years. BG Group has a big stake in Brazil's deep-water fields.

    [Dec 06, 2015] More Planes Than Targets Why the Air War on ISIS Will Fail

    www.counterpunch.org
    Even if Britain's role is symbolic at this stage, it has joined a very real war against an enemy of great ferocity and experience, not least of air attacks. The highly informed Turkish military analystMetin Gurcan, writing on Al-Monitor website, says that air strikes may have been effective against Isis communications and training facilities, but adds that "it is extraordinary that there is not a single [Isis] control facility that has been hit by allied air strikes".

    This is not for lack of trying and shows that talk of destroying Isis command and control centres in Raqqa is wishful thinking, given that 2,934 American air strikes in Syria have failed to do so over the last 14 months.

    Air strikes have had an impact on Isis's tactics and casualty rate, above all when they are used in close co-operation with a well-organised ground force like the Syrian Kurdish People's Protection Units (YPG). Isis may have lost as many as 2,200 fighters at Kobani which is a small and closely packed city. On the other hand, the length of time it took to drive Isis out of it with 700 air strikes demonstrated their fighters' willingness to die.

    Many Isis commanders reportedly regard their tactics at Kobani as a mistake which cost the group too many casualties and which it should not repeat. To do so it sacrificed two of its most important military assets which are mobility and surprise. This does not mean that it will not fight to the last bullet for cities like Raqqa and Mosul, but it did not do so for Tikrit and Sinjar where it used snipers, booby traps and IEDs, but did not commit large detachments of troops.

    Isis has modified its tactics to take account of the continuing risk of air strikes. It now has a decentralised command structure, with tactical decisions being taken by leaders of small units of eight to 10 men, whose overall mission is determined from the centre – but not how it should be accomplished. This limits the ability of its opponents to monitor its communications.

    Its forces assemble swiftly and attack soon afterwards with multiple diversionary operations, as was seen when Mosul was captured in June 2014 and again when they took Ramadi, the capital of Anbar province, this May.

    They had been fighting their way into Baiji refinery, but this turned out to be a diversion and Isis units pulled back from there as soon as Ramadi fell.

    Isis's approach is to use a mixture of conventional, guerrilla and terrorist tactics, none unique in themselves, but they have never been used before in combination. Air strikes mean that it is less able to use captured tanks or big concentrations of vehicles packed with fighters. Instead it uses IEDs, booby traps, snipers and mortar teams in even greater numbers.

    Public martyrdom as an expression of religious faith is such a central part of its ideology that it can deploy suicide bombers on foot or in vehicles in great numbers to destroy fortifications and demoralize the enemy. Some 28 suicide bombers were reportedly used in the final stages of the battle for Ramadi. Psychological warfare has always been an important element of Isis's tactical armory. It has sought to terrify opposition forces by showing videos in which captured Iraqi or Syrian soldiers are filmed being ritually decapitated or shot in the head.

    Sometimes, the families of Syrian soldiers get a phone call from their son's mobile with a picture of his body with his severed head on his chest. Mass killings of prisoners have taken place after all Isis's victories (the al-Qaeda affiliate, al-Nusra Front, does the same thing).

    Heavy air attack will increase Isis's losses and it will be more difficult to bring in foreign volunteers through Turkey because most of the border is now closed. But Isis rules an area with a population of at least six million and conscripts all young men, who often want to become fighters because there is no other employment. Isis may have a fighting force of 100,000 men, as is strongly suggested by the very long front lines it holds and its ability to make multiple attacks simultaneously. Whatever Britain's role, we will be fighting a formidable military machine.

    [Dec 06, 2015] If I had money to gamble, I would invest some if it in oil futures

    peakoilbarrel.com
    oldfarmermac, 12/04/2015 at 10:23 pm
    I for one am not buying the oil stays cheap long term meme.

    This is after all a peak oil site, and I do believe in depletion and all that sort of thing- although I must admit I thought oil production would peak some years ago. Of course at that time I didn't think things all the way thru, just being focused on the peak and an associated collapse.

    Over the last ten or fifteen years, we have seen the price of oil go up about five times, before crashing back to double or so the price then. Five times the price did eventually – after a decade- bring on enough new production to glut the market.

    But given geological constraints, I doubt even two hundred dollars would be enough to result in production coming even close to doubling again. Two hundred dollars might get us a few more million barrels a day for a few more years.

    A lot of us seem to think supply is going to hold up better than consumption, keeping prices low.

    I am thinking that supply may decline EVEN FASTER than the economy, in the event that the world wide economy actually DOES go into a long ,slow, more or less permanent decline. In that case , oil could go up quite a bit even as we all go broke.

    So far as the economy EVENTUALLY going belly up is concerned, I am SURE this is in the cards. But I am NOT sure WHEN.

    Maybe Old Man Business As Usual has a few more good years left in him, barring accident. Personally I think the odds are pretty good he does. The economy might not fall apart for another ten or fifteen years or maybe even longer.

    If the economy declines at one percent, and oil production declines at two percent, we may see the price going up, more or less steadily, this being possible because increasing efficiency will allow us to pay higher prices even as our incomes decline.

    Increasing the efficency of use of oil a couple of percent a year is doable.

    But I don't think there is any serious possibility we can transition AWAY from oil on the grand scale anytime soon. We aren't likely to build pure electric and plug in hybrid cars fast enough to significantly reduce oil consumption within the next decade.

    We gotta have it, and when you gotta have it, you cut back on something else less important to get it.

    If I had money to gamble, I would invest some if it in oil futures.

    Anon, 12/04/2015 at 10:44 pm
    So they have a pretty swift decline starting in 2015 – with positive assumptions about US LTO, Iraq (very!) and Russia.

    That doesn't look very nice if you drop those assumptions down to (1) US LTO can't retake its peak coming off a crash for logistical reasons, (2) Iraq will be lucky to break 5 million, let alone 7 between all their problems, and (3) Russia will have a shark fin peak due to how they've kept production up.

    Merry Christmas…

    Anonymous, 12/05/2015 at 5:41 am
    The decline really isn't that fast – 1.5% per year average to 2020 and 1% per year to 2025. If the natural decline rate is 4%, which is about the average from IEA etc., then there is a lot of new production that needs to be brought on-line to fill the gap. Given how much budgets have been cut over the last two years it's unclear to me where that would be coming from at least before 2020 and even after if the prices stay as low as indicated through 2021. The charts seem to indicate big rises in Brazil (PetroBras has junk bond status and the country is in deep depression, it will be interesting to see whether the olympics hold up), Saudi later (but their recent development announcements have concentrated on gas and solar to replace local in use), Iraq (has recently told the oil companies there to slow down and is currently being invaded from various sides). Saudi, Iran and Iraq might be only one really bad world wheat harvest away from going down the Syria or Libya route; Nigeria, Venezuela and Angola might be edging to full blown breakdowns as well. I think Russia and maybe USA again might surprise on the upside though.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/05/2015 at 7:25 am

    And then there are the mathematical certainties inherent in what I call Net Export Math. I assume that the analysts that prepared the production forecast didn't address Net Export Math, but here are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, while we are currently seeing signs of weak demand in China, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE*, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    And a massively under-appreciated aspect of what I call "Net Export Math" is that the rate of depletion in the remaining cumulative volume of net oil exports, after a net export peak, tends to be enormous. Saudi Arabia is showing a year over year increase in production and net exports, but based on available annual data through 2014, Saudi Arabia's net exports fell from 9.5 million bpd in 2005 to 8.4 million bpd in 2014 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids), and I estimate that Saudi Arabia may have already shipped close to half of their total post-2005 supply of cumulative net exports of oil.

    *GNE = Global Net Exports of oil, combined net exports from (2005) Top 33 net oil exporters, total petroleum liquids + other liquids (EIA)

    [Dec 06, 2015] I expect the US total (C+C) to be in general decline starting in 2015

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Rune Likvern, 12/05/2015 at 2:04 pm

    Ron, thanks for your work.

    FWIIW

    • I expect the US total (C+C) to be in general decline starting in 2015.
    • The regrowth with a projected start in 2018 for Western Europe Crude (primarily the North Sea) appears strange and I suspect the 2019 figures is very much influenced by Johan Sverdrup, which now is scheduled to start to flow late 2019 and reach plateau some time after that. North Sea is in general decline.
    • Norway will have a YoY growth of about 4% in 2015, but most expect crude to decline. There may be some future uptick, but the magnitude is not supported by present sanctioned developments.
    • The OPEC forecast looks strange with the huge build starting in 2021.
    • Looking at World C+C (allowing for some adjustments for NGLs) that is very at odds with Dennis Coyne's predictions.

    Rune Likvern, 12/05/2015 at 5:56 pm

    To me the best approach has been and is a bottom up analysis of every single oil producing country/region.

    (I did this [with BP, World Oil, EIA data] some years ago, never published the results. [Also several others like Campbell, Statoil using IHS data])

    This analysis should take into consideration estimates of recoverable reserves at some year end, Reserves to Production ratio (using the same base year) [R/P], discoveries and the likelihood of future discoveries.

    Further, it should split it into conventional oil, oil sands, heavy oil, tight oil and others as deemed necessary.

    Then some price assumptions should be applied, allowing due consideration to the health of the balance sheets for (as far that is possible) for the major oil companies (both private and state operated).

    I suspect the results would very much take the shape of what was presented in one of Ron's charts.

    The further the analysis spans the wider the span of uncertainty becomes, but it should be possible to arrive at a good projection for the next 10 years.

    [Dec 06, 2015] I would expect the January Venezuela production to be about 2.0 mmbopd.

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Fernando Leanme, 12/05/2015 at 2:59 pm

    Venezuela update: elections tomorrow. Part of the country has Internet cut off. I just read an interesting item: the regime apparently will try to cheat, but the poll results show a 30 % opposition advantage. The regime has a cheating structure in place to cut the implied 65-35 defeat to a 55-45 "win" they get by gerrymandering the districts. Thus they achieve a majority of seats in spite of losing by 10 %.

    However, if their cheating is blocked, and the opposition gets a 60-40 win, they do get a bare majority, and do elect the National Assembly president. Plan B involves ignoring the assembly and having Maduro rule with communes. Problem is the clique in power is divided. And the communes may also end up being opposed to the regime. A move to communes and ignoring the National Assembly means a coup. So at that point the country will be in complete chaos.

    I know enough about what goes on inside pdvsa to expect significant sabotage carried out by playing stupid. Right now the pdvsa management is red. But those reds are incompetent hacks. The heavy lifting is being done by 30 to 35 year olds who are mostly opposed to the regime. And all they gave to do is act stupid. I expect pressure vessels to explode, wells to stop producing because somebody shot holes in the wrong place, etc. so I would expect the January Venezuela production to be about 2.0 mmbopd.

    oldfarmermac, 12/05/2015 at 6:19 pm

    I just copied this from a longer piece at the Huffington Post. It was written by a former high ranking Maduro government official.

    xxxxx

    "Nicolas Maduro, Venezuela's president, recently announced that if the opposition were to gain a majority in the National Assembly in elections this Sunday, "We would not give up the revolution and … we would govern with the people in a civil-military union." To ensure that no one would accuse him of not being a true democrat, he clarified that "we would do this with the constitution in hand." The president conveniently ignored the small detail that the constitution does not have any provision for a "civil-military" government, nor does it give the government the option of disregarding the outcome of an election. What Maduro did stress however was that "if the revolution fails, there will be a massacre"–a threat he has repeatedly made throughout the campaign. He usually follows such threats with reassurances that this violence will not ensue, as it is impossible for opposition candidates to win enough votes for a legislative majority, which Maduro's party has enjoyed for the past 17 years. "

    xxxx

    This piece goes on into some considerable detail and is well worth the time to read it.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/moises-naim/the-story-behind-venezuelan-elections_b_8728902.html

    I suppose the outcome of the brewing revolution in Venezuela could mean as much as a couple of million barrels of oil a day, either way, on world markets, within the next few years.

    [Dec 06, 2015] Lybia present output quoted 380K bpd. Pre-upheaval output looks like about 2 mbpd

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Watcher, 12/05/2015 at 3:30 pm

    Libya's warring factions are very close to a deal on forming a unity government and could sign a long-awaited accord in a month, the new U.N. envoy said.

    Western governments are pushing for the U.N.-backed agreement as the only way to end the chaos in Libya, where two rival governments and their armed factions are struggling for control.

    Present output quoted 380K bpd. Pre-upheaval output looks like about 2 mbpd.

    FYI the official recognized govt operates out of eastern Libya, having been driven out of Tripoli.

    Greenbub, 12/05/2015 at 6:05 pm

    Does that accord include ISIS?

    [Dec 05, 2015] Oil Forecast From a Reputable Firm

    Wildly different set of predictions:
    Notable quotes:
    "... Oil price drops only slightly next year then rises in 2017 and 2018. Then it levels out for about 5 years before rising sharply in 2024 and 2025. My guess, and it is just my guess, is that the world begins to realize that oil production will never rise again. ..."
    "... Emad Mostaque has had a profound change of heart on oil prices. The analyst with London-based consultancy Ecstrat says US$130 per barrel crude could be less than a year away for the European benchmark as lower prices drive demand in both emerging and developed markets, while a weakening stream of capex dollars constrains new exploration and production. ..."
    "... Mostaque was early to bet against oil, forecasting between US$50 and US$70 per barrel last summer. ..."
    "... There are two possible scenarios for future oil prices if peak oil takes place (as I believe). – Permanent low prices due to depressed demand as the economy stops functioning in growing mode. This is Gail Tverberg's view. – High volatility scenario with big price swings as mismatches in production and demand take place due to alternate production destruction and demand destruction cycles in an economy that is contracting in bouts. This is my predicted scenario. ..."
    "... A scenario where prices take off to sky-high levels due to scarcity is not only unrealistic but lacks understanding of an economy response to a spike in a major energy source prices, when we have already been through that. ..."
    "... Just think, we're a biological weapon. Wreck a whole planet in 2500 years, awesome. I suppose its part of God's plan but it does makes you wonder what His ultimate goal is: perhaps algal mats? They were popular from about 3,500 million years ago and have been an important member and maintainer of the planet's ecosystems for a long time. Yup, that's what I recon. We've been put here to prepare for the return of algal mats. ..."
    "... Japan is paying $37.33 per barrel today. It is basically free oil for them at that price. ..."
    "... The price has to rise above 85 USD before 2017, time is running out, 2019 -2022 can't stay stuck on 80 USD. Somebody put God in charge of these markets, someone who can make a difference. The market is not being very kind and is more worry than work. ..."
    "... My wild burro guess is oil goes above 100 before the end of next year. Soon after the US elections. ..."
    Dec 04, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com

    Oil price drops only slightly next year then rises in 2017 and 2018. Then it levels out for about 5 years before rising sharply in 2024 and 2025. My guess, and it is just my guess, is that the world begins to realize that oil production will never rise again.

    Fernando Leanme, 12/05/2015 at 4:08 am

    I realize it's a freebie, but I tend to look at these forecasts as just another item for the bug collection unless they show the NGL and the heavies separated.

    As you know, I worked in Venezuela, and we relied a lot on Canadian know how, consultants, etc. Late I moved on to consult in Canada (very short term jobs), so I have a grasp of both. And my impression is that many forecasters don't gave the full system in mind. Heavy oil requires a lot of planning, takes forever to develop, and it doesn't have the same product yields unless the upgraders and/or refineries are set up to handle it.

    This leads me to recommend the Venezuelan and Canadian crudes lower than say 10 degrees API be handled separately. When this is done several hundred billion barrels listed as "reserves" in these estimates is taken away from the total oil pool. The result stretches out the profile, reduces the peak, and also lowers CO2 emissions.

    I suppose they may be reading this, if so maybe they'll comment on how they handle these crude streams.

    Huckleberry Finn, 12/04/2015 at 3:11 pm

    Did they predict the decline in 2014-2015 in prices….then maybe it is worth the price.

    Ron Patterson, 12/04/2015 at 3:21 pm

    I have no idea. The document I received was the first document I have seen from this firm. But I doubt anyone predicted the 2014-2015 price collapse.

    Allan Stromfeldt Christensen, 12/04/2015 at 4:21 pm

    "But I doubt anyone predicted the 2014-2015 price collapse."

    What about Steve Ludlum's "Triangle of Doom"?

    Two older posts:

    http://www.economic-undertow.com/2014/10/08/petroleumeconomic-endgame
    http://www.economic-undertow.com/2014/12/10/oil-shock

    A more recent post:

    http://www.economic-undertow.com/2015/07/03/euro-margin-call

    BW Hill, 12/05/2015 at 7:27 pm

    We stated our position in May of 2014, and put up this page in September.
    The date is on the second graph:

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_022.htm

    oldfarmermac, 12/04/2015 at 9:15 pm

    Most of the time in matters of business and technology it doesn't really matter who is in control in Washington.

    Democrats are little tougher with businesses when environmental considerations are at stake.

    But both parties are in the vest pocket of the big banks and otherwise too big to fail businesses.

    So far as tight oil is concerned, it is imo impossible to make a case for either party taking credit.

    Democrats are not nearly as anti business as the republicans like to pretend. They do however play favorites with DIFFERENT businesses.

    So far as the oil industry is concerned, with the exception of the Arctic Refuge and some off shore up the east coast is concerned, the dim rats have pretty much allowed to industry to do to suit itself.

    Republicans would have us believe differently of course. The facts are otherwise.

    The real opposition to off shore drilling on the east coast has come from the PEOPLE who own businesses and property worth megabucks up and down the coast. Half of them , more or less, are republicans, probably more. Nobody wants his view spoiled , or his high rise waterfront hotel sitting empty due to an oil spill.

    Most of the opposition to offshore up Martha's Vineyard way etc in the northeast is coming from super wealthy democrats who don't want THEIR views spoiled either.

    LOL.

    shallow sand, 12/05/2015 at 10:14 am

    OFM. The states regulate drilling on private lands. Therefore, it is no surprise to me that TX and ND had a drilling boom while NY and CA did not.

    Admittedly, however, the geology matters much, much more.

    oldfarmermac, 12/05/2015 at 1:21 pm

    Precisely. The decisions when it comes to oil are mostly NOT made in Washington.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/04/2015 at 8:10 pm

    Someone posted this link a few days ago:

    Oil could hit US$130 as U.S. output 'falls off a cliff': Analyst
    http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/11/10/Oil-could-hit-US130-as-US-output-falls-off-a-cliff-says-analyst.aspx


    Emad Mostaque has had a profound change of heart on oil prices. The analyst with London-based consultancy Ecstrat says US$130 per barrel crude could be less than a year away for the European benchmark as lower prices drive demand in both emerging and developed markets, while a weakening stream of capex dollars constrains new exploration and production.

    "What we are seeing is supply is about to roll over dramatically. Demand is continuing to rise," he said an in interview with BNN.

    Unlike many analysts, he says U.S. shale production is set to decline, and as such won't provide the necessary stop-gap to supply the increasing appetite in world markets.

    "U.S. production is about to have a Wile E. Coyote moment where it literally falls off a cliff. One-hundred-and-twenty-thousand barrels, maybe even next month, will drop off," said Mostaque. He says the notion that shale producers can suddenly boost their output as needed is a common misconception.

    The controversial call pushes against bearish sentiment from Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs. The investment bank's head of commodities research, Jeff Currie, said last month that he does not see the price of oil breaking above US$50 a barrel in the next year.

    Mostaque was early to bet against oil, forecasting between US$50 and US$70 per barrel last summer. He raised concerns about the commodity's price stability before oil started its dramatic decline in 2014.

    Now he's calling prices to rally as four to five million barrels disappear from global markets over the next four to five years, and throwing cold water on many of the scenarios where inventories remain oversupplied long-term.

    Mostaque says the lack of capital means the estimated $30 to $40-billion annual price tag to ramp up Iranian oil most likely isn't in the cards.

    "What we think is happening right now is we've seen mass definancialization of the market, with Brent in particular. All of these massive funds have exited because they lost huge amounts of money," he said.

    And a link to my comments, following this article:

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread/comment-page-1/#comment-548711

    BC, 12/04/2015 at 8:51 pm

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2Ln6

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRwsVWQPD-U

    Jeffrey and all, Tejas and the awl bidness are unequivocally in recession as of spring-summer this year. Tejas ain't fixin' to go into recession, y'all are already in recession.

    https://app.box.com/s/7gj0j7fvydrj4du8rihdorbr4pkgvybv

    There is a technical target projection for WTI in the mid- to upper $20s by winter/spring 2016.

    The oil/commodity cycle has turned negative as in 1986 and the early 1960s, implying WTI in the $20s-$30s in the years ahead and US oil production at 5-6Mbd.

    But rather than the cycle turning negative with low debt, reflationary prospects, and demographic tailwinds, we're facing a deflationary cycle with record debt to wages and GDP, fiscal constraints, and peak Boomer demographic headwinds for the foreseeable future, and the trend for global real GDP per capita of ~0% vs. 2.1-2.5%.

    Any jobs available at Dairy Queen these days, Jeffrey? I'm gonna to need some gas, food, and hooch money to finance my car camping and drivin' (parkin'?) while blind.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/05/2015 at 7:35 am

    Excerpt from article linked above:

    Mostaque was early to bet against oil, forecasting between US$50 and US$70 per barrel last summer.

    It looks like the annual average Brent price for 2015, through November, was about $54.

    BC, 12/05/2015 at 6:42 pm

    The price of oil is at the same average price during the mid-1980s (reflationary, debt-induced, Long Wave Downwave) and the early 1870s (onset of the Victorian Depression, Second Industrial Revolution, and effectively the Oil Age Epoch that is now ending):

    https://app.box.com/s/ejyjgfb5bsaupghi425y2vjlfl9um7hf

    https://app.box.com/s/p5rqpp6w0jvxvdnnbuzjrurkyntecbty

    Javier, 12/04/2015 at 3:20 pm

    They might get production more or less right, but I seriously doubt they get price right.

    There are two possible scenarios for future oil prices if peak oil takes place (as I believe).

    – Permanent low prices due to depressed demand as the economy stops functioning in growing mode. This is Gail Tverberg's view.

    – High volatility scenario with big price swings as mismatches in production and demand take place due to alternate production destruction and demand destruction cycles in an economy that is contracting in bouts. This is my predicted scenario.

    A scenario where prices take off to sky-high levels due to scarcity is not only unrealistic but lacks understanding of an economy response to a spike in a major energy source prices, when we have already been through that.

    Arceus, 12/05/2015 at 1:11 pm

    Their oil prices look fine to me, BUT this assumes a significantly weaker dollar. I believe this has a good chance of happening but it is far from certain. Yellen and company will do everything they can to keep the dollar strong.

    Javier, 12/04/2015 at 3:35 pm

    World population

    5 minute video showing over a world map how population has evolved in the last 2000 years and to 2050. Looks to me like a disease spreading and taking over. I found it interesting.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=khFjdmp9sZk

    Doug Leighton, 12/04/2015 at 4:33 pm

    Just think, we're a biological weapon. Wreck a whole planet in 2500 years, awesome. I suppose its part of God's plan but it does makes you wonder what His ultimate goal is: perhaps algal mats? They were popular from about 3,500 million years ago and have been an important member and maintainer of the planet's ecosystems for a long time. Yup, that's what I recon. We've been put here to prepare for the return of algal mats.

    R Walter , 12/04/2015 at 3:45 pm

    Japan is paying $37.33 per barrel today. It is basically free oil for them at that price.

    The price has to rise above 85 USD before 2017, time is running out, 2019 -2022 can't stay stuck on 80 USD. Somebody put God in charge of these markets, someone who can make a difference. The market is not being very kind and is more worry than work.

    My wild burro guess is oil goes above 100 before the end of next year. Soon after the US elections.

    Politics and all of that nonchalant jazz is suppressing prices. I know I'm right.

    Dennis Coyne , 12/05/2015 at 12:25 pm

    Hi BC,

    It will not really matter as the national industries will not produce enough so oil will need to be imported and oil prices will rise, eventually natural gas and coal will peak as well and those prices will also rise. If lower prices are "decreed" then there will be shortages. Hopefully policy makers will see the futility of such policies which are only likely to make matters worse. Government intervention is not always a positive solution, on that point I am in full agreement with those on the right.

    oldfarmermac, 12/04/2015 at 10:43 pm

    Terminally ill patients do occasionally live a good while longer than their physicians think they will.

    LTO has not exactly CRASHED, YET, but it sure as hell is not growing like crabgrass in hot wet weather anymore.

    I thought the entire industry would slow down a lot faster than it has, but now I understand that the industry is so slow and big and ponderous that it truly is like an ocean liner when it comes to changing directions, or speeding up, or slowing down.

    It's like an ocean liner so unimaginably big that takes a couple of YEARS just to slow down, and once slowed, it may take as long or longer to ramp up again.

    LTO might ramp up considerably faster since the infrastructure is now in place for the drillers to get right back to work when the price goes up.

    Dennis Coyne, 12/05/2015 at 12:28 pm

    Hi Old Farmer Mac,

    The ship analogy is a good one for big oil, I made the mistake of thinking these smaller companies would behave differently. I wuz wrong. Unfortunately I will also make mistakes in the future.

    oldfarmermac, 12/05/2015 at 1:38 pm

    Hi Dennis,

    My amateur seat of the pants opinion is that the smaller companies have dug in and stubbornly resisted cutting back on production and investment, to the extent they have been ABLE to avoid cutting back, for easily understood reasons.

    First off management most likely expected the price of oil to go back up soon and certainly before now.

    Second, they are playing what some people call the extend and pretend game, gambling every thing on pulling thru this price crash.

    If you are knocking down good money as a manager, at any level, you are going to be very reluctant to do anything that eliminates your OWN job when the entire industry is in the doldrums or worse. Nobody is going to hire you.

    Nobody wants to admit they were wrong in making the decisions they made before the price crash, if they can possibly avoid doing so.

    If they surrender, they lose out. If they hang tough and make it, they still have nice jobs.

    This would even apply to a certain extent to bank managers. If they admit they MADE BIG MISTAKES, they are out on their ass. If they hang tough, they may pull thru and collect most of the money they loaned. If they hang tough for another six months and then get fired, well, they collected another six months salary and bennies.

    This comment is intended more to give insight into the way individuals perceive their own interests than otherwise.

    Think about the concept "tragedy of the commons" whereby any individual's own best interest is to abuse the commons at the expense of every body else.

    There are similar elements in play.

    Nick G, 12/04/2015 at 6:10 pm

    Prices have currently fallen below the 2016 level in this forecast. If we believe this forecast, then we're at the price bottom right now, this second!

    There's a lot of money to be made in going long on oil futures (and EVs)….if we believe this forecast.

    Mario, 12/04/2015 at 8:07 pm

    There is a bit of a disconnect to me. If production really does significantly contract in the next few years, its unfathomable to me that we don't get a very significant price spike.

    I don't believe we will see that level of production contraction this soon.

    twocats, 12/04/2015 at 8:31 pm

    I agree, isn't the decline going below current consumption? Granted, its not hard to imagine 1) a global economic recession, which could slow, if not reduce, demand, 2) the recession strengthening the dollar, making oil cheap in $ terms. But still if production comes within a million barrels of consumption, it's going to be a factor, right?

    Dennis Coyne, 12/05/2015 at 12:51 pm

    Hi Twocats,

    Good point. Remember there is a fair bit of oil in storage (roughly 300 million barrels above normal levels), so it will take 10 months to bring those levels down (assuming supply falls 1 Mb/d below demand for 300 days). Then either supply increases or demand decreases due to a recession, for a supply increase we would need higher prices, the forecast does predict a rise in oil prices in 2017. The flat part of the price curve does not make sense with declining oil output, I would expect prices to continue to rise as output falls. I usually get the price predictions wrong however.

    [Dec 04, 2015] Trends in oil production

    Notable quotes:
    "... the EIA estimates that U.S. shale oil production will be half a million barrels a day lower in December than it had been in June. ..."
    "... And it will fall further. The five biggest pure players among U.S. shale oil producers could be EOG, Pioneer, Devon, Whiting, and Continental Resources. Between them, these companies may account for about a fifth of total U.S. shale oil production, and between them they have lost $25 billion so far in the first three quarters of 2015. ..."
    "... Shale and tar oil extraction was always a function of Peak Oil (that is widely believed to be refuted) and was never ecologically or economically sustainable. ..."
    "... most inventory has to do with operational reasons and there are some definite constraints on how low/high it can get. ..."
    "... Much actually depends on the ability to hedge oil production by the producers; given that the speculators are running out of collateral, the producers will not be able to hedge their output the way they have been able to do in the past. ..."
    "... They can hedge but it only protects them from dropping below the current price and strip. Which is already a pain point. ..."
    "... So, when we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of actual crude oil, but when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of crude oil + condensate + natural gas liquids (NGL) + biofuels + refinery gains. ..."
    "... the only reasonable interpretation of the available data is that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) has been approximately flat to down since 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, Condensate Natural Gas Liquids (NGL), have (so far) continued to increase. ..."
    "... My point is that it seems quite likely that despite trillions of dollars in upstream capex since 2005, we have seen little or no increase in actual global crude oil production, while global natural gas production–and associated liquids–have so far continued to increase. It seems to me that this might be an important point, since it would also be known as Peak Crude Oil, but I seem to be very much in the minority. ..."
    "... My argument is that the available data suggest that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) has been approximately flat to down since 2005, while global gas production and associated liquids, condensate and natural gas liquids, have (so far) continued to increase, as annual Brent prices increased from $55 in 2005 to an average of $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at $99 in 2014). ..."
    "... Stein's law says oil prices will rise: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/oil-prices-kemp-idUSL8N13I37R20151123#wJl5uV2DGFS6XwrZ.99 "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop," according to Herbert Stein, former chief economist to U.S. President Richard Nixon ("What I think: essays on economics, politics and life" 1998). Stein's law is one of the most simple but important statements in economic theory, yet it is remarkable how often it is forgotten. ..."
    Econbrowser

    Analysis of current economic conditions and policy

    World field production of crude oil increased 2.9 million barrels a day in the 12 months ended last July. That compares with a 3.6 mb/d increase over the entire nine years from Jan 2005 to Dec 2013.

    • The biggest single factor is Iraq, where production is up almost 1.1 mb/d over the last year. Although ISIS has managed to bring cruelty to much of the rest of the world, so far they have not disrupted Iraqi oil production.
    • The second biggest factor in the 2.9 mb/d gain was the United States, where production increased 0.6 mb/d July 2014 to July 2015, thanks to the tremendous success of shale oil, or production based on horizontal fracturing of tight geologic formations.

    But that is going to change. The EIA Drilling Productivity Report tabulates detailed summaries of drilling and production in the main U.S. counties that have been responsible for the shale oil revolution. One of the interesting statistics is their calculation of the change in "legacy" production. To get this, the EIA tabulates production in these counties coming from wells that had been in operation for two months or more as of August, and then looks at how much was being produced by these same wells in September. This calculation comes out to be a drop in production of those legacy wells of some 330,000 barrels per day between August and September. The EIA series for the change in legacy production each month is plotted below. If we were relying only on historical wells without drilling new ones, U.S. shale production would fall about a million barrels/day every three months.

    Drilling hasn't stopped but it has been cut back significantly.

    Production has not fallen as dramatically as many of us has anticipated thanks to remarkable ongoing gains in productivity. Even so, the EIA estimates that U.S. shale oil production will be half a million barrels a day lower in December than it had been in June.

    And it will fall further. The five biggest pure players among U.S. shale oil producers could be EOG, Pioneer, Devon, Whiting, and Continental Resources. Between them, these companies may account for about a fifth of total U.S. shale oil production, and between them they have lost $25 billion so far in the first three quarters of 2015.

    Eventually this adjustment will bring crude oil inventories back to more normal historical levels. But we're not there yet.

    BC, November 22, 2015 at 2:23 pm

    Shale and tar oil extraction was always a function of Peak Oil (that is widely believed to be refuted) and was never ecologically or economically sustainable. As a consequence, the bubbles in energy sector junk debt and bank loans to the energy and energy-related transport sectors, including commercial real estate, will collapse and have to be bailed out by trillions more in Fed printing, along with subprime auto and student loans, munis, local and state pensions, and bank and insurers' debt and equity.

    ... ... ...

    The energy states are in recession, but unlike during the previous energy sector bust during a disinflationary/reflationary regime, the incipient bust is occurring during a debt-deflationary regime that will result in an unprecedented consolidation in the energy and industrial sectors, as well as decelerating real GDP per capita forcing mass cross-industry consolidation in health care, tech, hotels/resorts/casinos, restaurants, and further consolidation in financial services, insurance, airlines, trucking, media, energy, etc.

    ... ... ... ...

    Nony, November 22, 2015 at 3:34 pm

    1. Crude oil stocks in the US are a little bit of a local peculiarity (export ban, Jones Act, LTO versus complexes coker style refineries, and just geography [Cushing versus Gulf, plus the oceans themselves]). On the world stage what matters is world inventory. The situation there is maybe less tight than in the US.

    BTW, I think storage is over-reported because it's more accurate/objective of a metric than most production and consumption estimates (anything other than just price). But most inventory has to do with operational reasons and there are some definite constraints on how low/high it can get. Plus it gets much more complex and large if you really look at the whole supply chain (from DUC wells, to onsite, to pipelines, to ships, to terminals (sometimes more than once), to refinery onsite, to refined products at the refinery, terminals, shipping, and retail. (See the excellent recent article by John Kemp with diagrams).

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/20/oil-storage-kemp-idUSL8N13F2MV20151120#JG2O81y3Q1SsLkfY.97 (diagrams are linked about halfway down).

    ... ... ...

    Procyon Mukherjee, November 23, 2015 at 2:43 am

    Much actually depends on the ability to hedge oil production by the producers; given that the speculators are running out of collateral, the producers will not be able to hedge their output the way they have been able to do in the past. Once that settles, there is only one way to go, cut oil output in a big way. That would eventually settle the prices upwards.

    But this is likely to be faster given the direction of the interest rates, which also cannot support inventories the way it has done in the past.

    Nony, November 23, 2015 at 7:14 am

    They can hedge but it only protects them from dropping below the current price and strip. Which is already a pain point.

    Plus there is a cost of hedging in margin requirement. Besides CAPM argues that investors can diversify risk themselves more efficiently and that producers should be exposed to the market. Not see peculating via hedges.

    Nony, November 23, 2015 at 3:59 am

    "Low Crude Prices Catch Up With the U.S. Oil Patch"

    http://www.nasdaq.com/article/low-crude-prices-catch-up-with-the-us-oil-patch-20151120-00792 (from the John Kemp daily email of energy stories)

    Jeffrey J. Brown, November 23, 2015 at 4:35 am

    What the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C). The most common dividing line between crude and condensate is 45 API gravity. The two principal global crude oil price indexes, Brent & WTI, refer to crude oils with an average API gravity of less than 40 API.

    So, when we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of actual crude oil, but when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of crude oil + condensate + natural gas liquids (NGL) + biofuels + refinery gains.

    A chart showing API gravity versus sulphur content for 16 global crude oils:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/APGravityVsSulfurContentforCrudeOils_zpsc28e149c.gif

    As I have periodically noted, in my opinion the only reasonable interpretation of the available data is that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) has been approximately flat to down since 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, Condensate & Natural Gas Liquids (NGL), have (so far) continued to increase.

    Following are some available annual rate of change data for global production metrics and for OPEC (EIA data). We have crude oil only data for only OPEC and Texas, although the EIA estimates that US condensate production increased by about one million bpd from 2011 to 2014. Incidentally, EIA monthly data (April to September, 2015) indicate that US C+C production declined at an annualized rate of 13%/year.

    Regarding US and global C+C inventories, I suspect that we are seeing is a global condensate glut, and I suspect that US refiners, in late 2014, pretty much hit the limit of how much additional condensate that they could take, if they wanted to maintain their distillate output. For example, Reuters had an article earlier in the year documenting case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting "toxic" blends of heavy crude + condensate that were deficient in distillate content.

    Global Gas, NGL & C+C 2005 to 2013/2014 Rates of Change
    (EIA, 2013 for gas, 2014 for other data)

    Gas: +2.6%/year
    NGL: +2.6%/year
    C+C: +0.6%/year

    OPEC Gas, NGL & C+C and OPEC Crude Only 2005 to 2013/2014 Rates of Change
    (EIA + OPEC, 2013 for gas, 2014 for other data)

    Gas: +5.1%/year
    NGL: +1.3%/year
    C+C: +0.2%/year
    OPEC Crude Only Data: -0.2%/year
    Implied* Condensate: +8%/year

    *EIA C+C less OPEC Crude Only

    Link to more detailed essay & graphs and discussion:
    http://peakoilbarrel.com/worldwide-rig-count-dropping-again/comment-page-1/#comment-546170

    Excerpt:

    My point is that it seems quite likely that despite trillions of dollars in upstream capex since 2005, we have seen little or no increase in actual global crude oil production, while global natural gas production–and associated liquids–have so far continued to increase. It seems to me that this might be an important point, since it would also be known as Peak Crude Oil, but I seem to be very much in the minority.

    aws, November 24, 2015 at 5:36 pm

    Nony,

    You get less diesel when you distil EF condensate than you would distilling a true WTI. Diesel does the heavy lifting in our economies. The rich middle has been taken out of the "Oreo" of the crude slate. The Bakken and Eagle Ford LTOs were too light for the gulf coast oil refineries to chew on as they were engineered to digest much heavier crude.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, November 25, 2015 at 1:31 am

    Liquids over an API gravity of 42 can't be used to satisfy WTI contracts at Cushing (see "Dumbbell" crudes article below, which discusses the problems with synthetic WTI blends of heavy oil and condensate).

    But in any case, my argument is not over the relative qualities of actual crude oil versus condensate.

    My argument is that the available data suggest that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) has been approximately flat to down since 2005, while global gas production and associated liquids, condensate and natural gas liquids, have (so far) continued to increase, as annual Brent prices increased from $55 in 2005 to an average of $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at $99 in 2014).

    Jeffrey J. Brown, November 23, 2015 at 5:49 am

    There have been some downward revisions to preliminary weekly EIA C+C production numbers for the US this year, as the monthly data are released, which I suspect is a pattern that we will see if the US C+C production decline continues. In any case, at the 4/15 to 9/15 annualized rate of decline in US C+C production, it would be down to about 8 million bpd in September, 2016, versus 9.6 million bpd in April, 2015.

    Note that when drilling activity slowed considerably in the Haynesville Shale Gas Play, the observed net rate of decline in Louisiana's marketed natural gas production (from both conventional + shale gas sources) was a two year exponential rate of decline of 20%/year from 2012 to 2014. This was the net rate of decline. The gross rate of decline from existing wells in 2012 and 2013 would have been even higher than 20%/year.

    In regard to US refineries:

    U.S. refiners turn to tanker trucks to avoid 'dumbbell' crudes (March, 2015)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/03/23/us-usa-refiners-trucks-analysis-idUSKBN0MJ09520150323

    In a pressing quest to secure the best possible crude, U.S. refiners are increasingly going straight to the source.

    Firms such as Marathon Petroleum Corp and Delek U.S. Holdings are buying up tanker trucks and extending local pipeline networks in order to get more oil directly from the wellhead, seeking to cut back on blended crude cocktails they say can leave a foul aftertaste. . . .

    Many executives say that the crude oil blends being created in Cushing are often substandard approximations of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the longstanding U.S. benchmark familiar to, and favored by, many refiners in the region.

    Typical light-sweet WTI crude has an API gravity of about 38 to 40. Condensate, or super-light crude that is abundant in most U.S. shale patches, ranges from 45 to 60 or higher. Western Canadian Select, itself a blend, is about 20.

    While the blends of these crudes may technically meet the API gravity ceiling of 42 at Cushing, industry players say the mixes can be inconsistent in makeup and generate less income because the most desirable stuff is often missing.

    The blends tend to produce a higher proportion of fuel at two ends of the spectrum: light ends like gasoline, demand for which has dimmed in recent years, and lower-value heavy products like fuel oil and asphalt. What's missing are middle distillates like diesel.

    Subject: COLUMN-U.S. crude inventories might be tighter than they look: Kemp (September, 2015)
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/09/08/usa-crude-storage-kemp-idUKL5N11E2YE20150908

    Nony, November 24, 2015 at 4:10 am

    Stein's law says oil prices will rise: http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/23/oil-prices-kemp-idUSL8N13I37R20151123#wJl5uV2DGFS6XwrZ.99 "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop," according to Herbert Stein, former chief economist to U.S. President Richard Nixon ("What I think: essays on economics, politics and life" 1998). Stein's law is one of the most simple but important statements in economic theory, yet it is remarkable how often it is forgotten.

    Stein's law explains why oil prices crashed from the middle of 2014 after spending more than three years over $100 per barrel (http://tmsnrt.rs/1SVIZk9). Most commentators now accept a price of $100 was unsustainable (though at the time there were plenty who predicted prices would remain at that level forever).

    High prices were encouraging too much new production, especially from U.S. shale, while causing consumption to fall in the advanced economies and slow in emerging markets. The emerging supply-demand imbalance could only be resolved by a sharp price fall which was triggered in July 2014 after Islamic State fighters failed to seize Kurdistan's oilfields and Libya resumed oil exports. In retrospect, all this is obvious…"

    ---–

    Of course "Stein's Law" is more of a philosophical statement than some statistical correlation. And Kemp goes on to say that one can have over-runs before corrections and no one knows when were a correction will occur. [Further one can think of examples like natural gas prices where the unsustainable does seem to have been sustained and we really have a state change.]

    The amount of on-site storage available at refineries has changed little and remains around 150 million barrels, compared with 156 million in 2004 and 164 million in 1994.

    But the amount of storage available at tank farms, most of which is leased either long-term or short-term to traders, has surged.

    Steven Kopits, November 23, 2015 at 7:22 am

    Latest from me on vehicle miles traveled, at CNBC

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/23/traffic-is-getting-worse-heres-how-to-trade-it-commentary.html

    And the one before it, in which I essentially review the BoE version of Jim's ICE oil price model.

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/why-oil-could-rally-big-in-2016-commentary.html

    [Dec 04, 2015] But It's Just A 0.25% Rate Hike, What's The Big Deal - Here Is The Stunning Answer

    Notable quotes:
    "... So after the Fed created mini-crash, then a Santa Claus Bullcrap Rally, we move into year end and on to January with a smashing potential for a 10-20% rapid correction in the S P along with a Treasury market crashing in parallel and no buyers. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    johngaltfla

    Fascinating article Tyler. Because if the math is correct, which I believe it to be or damned close, then the Fed is about to drain several hundred billion dollars from an illiquid credit market leaving no bid at year end.

    So after the Fed created mini-crash, then a Santa Claus Bullcrap Rally, we move into year end and on to January with a smashing potential for a 10-20% rapid correction in the S&P along with a Treasury market crashing in parallel and no buyers.

    Shit could get real between the next two Fed meetings, that is for certain.

    FireBrander

    Bernanke did a little "draining" of his own; and brought down the global financial system...

    THEN "SAVED IT", AND HE WAS HAILED AS A FUCKEN HERO!

    Yellen my just be trying to secure her spot on the cover of Time for "Saving Us Again".

    Fish Gone Bad

    In October of 2008 there was a fairly large drain of money and things got scary (https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?chart_type=line&height=600&...[1][id]=MULT&width=1000).


    [Dec 04, 2015] Alphachat The US SUV boom, Jamaica's IMF success and a chat with Reihan Salam

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US is on course this year to post its largest vehicle sales since the start of the 21st century. The surge is being led by the return of the sport utility vehicle, which accounts for a higher market share than ever before. ..."
    "... This is where the surge in US car sales comes in. It was common in 2009 to read about the SUV's demise. The petrol-guzzling car was heading for that "great junkyard in the sky," said one analyst. They were too expensive, and too politically incorrect, to survive a recession and an Obama administration. For a while, sales did fall. But in the past 18 months, they have broken all records. The tipping point was falling oil prices. Once a gallon of petrol dropped below $3 last year, consumers reverted to pre-recession tastes. ..."
    "... So far this year, SUV sales are up almost a fifth. Some models, such as the Jeep Cherokee, are selling at almost 33 per cent more than in 2014. With the exception of Volkswagen , which is suffering one of the largest vehicle recalls in history, nearly every major US and foreign carmaker is posting record margins. In each case, SUV and light truck sales are leading the growth. Even allowing for the fact that compact SUVs account for a rising share of the sales, and many of them are hybrids, their fuel economy is still lower than the alternatives. Meanwhile, sales of the Toyota Prius have been plummeting. ..."
    FT Alphaville

    The US SUV boom

    Car sales in the US are set to hit a record high this year, led by the resurgence of the sport utility vehicle. And cheap fuel prices have Americans driving more miles. FT correspondents Edward Luce and Robert Wright join Shannon to examine what this tells us about the incentives the government employs to steer people to more fuel-efficient cars, and whether the SUV boom will have any impact on the US position at next week's UN climate summit in Paris. Read Ed's column on the topic here.

    Gas-guzzling models are back in vogue in the US, so why should poorer nations cut emissions?

    Rumours of the death of American car culture have been greatly exaggerated. The US is on course this year to post its largest vehicle sales since the start of the 21st century. The surge is being led by the return of the sport utility vehicle, which accounts for a higher market share than ever before.

    More than one in three US vehicle sales is an SUV. Though discontinued by General Motors, demand for second-hand Hummers is at an 11-year high. With numbers like these, President Barack Obama will have a tough sell in Paris next week. More than all its non-binding pledges, the global warming summit is meant to begin an era of new habits. If Americans won't change theirs, will others follow?

    ... ... ...

    Much has been made of the fact that US carbon emissions are falling. America's total output is lower today than it was in 2005. Partly this is because of stricter fuel efficiency standards. Some of it is also because of the slowdown caused by the Great Recession. Yet it would be wrong to infer it is doing enough. Of the major economies, America's per capita carbon dioxide emissions are the highest and will remain so for some time.

    Even if China continues to build new coal plants at its current rate, the average American pumps out three times more carbon every year than the average Chinese and more than 10 times the average Indian. Both China and India have borrowed the American idiom to proclaim their own middle-class dreams. Yet if the US version cannot be reimagined, it will be hard to persuade others to change theirs.

    This is where the surge in US car sales comes in. It was common in 2009 to read about the SUV's demise. The petrol-guzzling car was heading for that "great junkyard in the sky," said one analyst. They were too expensive, and too politically incorrect, to survive a recession and an Obama administration. For a while, sales did fall. But in the past 18 months, they have broken all records. The tipping point was falling oil prices. Once a gallon of petrol dropped below $3 last year, consumers reverted to pre-recession tastes.

    So far this year, SUV sales are up almost a fifth. Some models, such as the Jeep Cherokee, are selling at almost 33 per cent more than in 2014. With the exception of Volkswagen, which is suffering one of the largest vehicle recalls in history, nearly every major US and foreign carmaker is posting record margins. In each case, SUV and light truck sales are leading the growth. Even allowing for the fact that compact SUVs account for a rising share of the sales, and many of them are hybrids, their fuel economy is still lower than the alternatives. Meanwhile, sales of the Toyota Prius have been plummeting.

    ... ... ...

    [Dec 04, 2015] Russia Presents Evidence Of Turkey-ISIS Oil Trade

    December 03, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    The charges and counter-charges have been fast and furious since last week, when the Turkish air force shot down a Russian fighter jet near Turkey's border with Syria. But now it's getting personal.

    The Russian Defense Ministry is accusing Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan, his family and his country's leadership of being tied up in illegal trade in oil with the so-called Islamic State (IS), and that Turkey is the group's chief customer.

    "Today, we are presenting only some of the facts that confirm that a whole team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from their neighbors is operating in the region," Russian Deputy Defense Minister Anatoly Antonov told a Moscow news conference Wednesday. He said thousands of trucks ship "large quantities" of the oil into Turkey.

    "According to our data, the top political leadership of the country – President Erdogan and his family – is involved in this criminal business," Antonov said, adding that, "Turkey is the main consumer of the oil stolen from its rightful owners, Syria and Iraq."

    During the briefing, reporters were shown satellite images that ministry officials said showed columns of the tanker trucks taking on cargoes of oil at loading facilities in areas of Syria and Iraq controlled by IS, and other photos said to show the vehicles crossing into Turkey.

    The briefing didn't present direct evidence that Erdogan and his family were involved in the trade – an accusation that the Turkish leader has emphatically denied – but Antonov said, "According to information we've received, the senior political leadership of the country, President Erdogan and his family, are involved in this criminal business."

    Antonov specifically implicated Erdogan's son and his son-in-law in the illegal trade. "In the West, no one has asked questions about the fact that the Turkish president's son heads one of the biggest energy companies, or that his son has been appointed energy minister," he said, adding sarcastically. "What a marvelous family business."

    Turkey's Energy Minister is Berat Albayrak, the president's son-in-law. The son Antonov referred to evidently is Necmettin Bilal Erdogan, one of three owners of BMZ Group, a marine shipping concern that has been linked in at least one news report with transporting IS's stolen oil.

    Antonov didn't say how much oil was involved in the suspected IS trade with Turkey, but another ministry official stressed that the quantity would be greater today if Russia hadn't begun its operations against IS – also called ISIS and Daesh – on Sept. 30, greatly cutting into the group's revenues from oil smuggling.

    "The income of this terrorist organization was about $3 million per day," Lt.-Gen. Sergey Rudskoy said. "After two months of Russian airstrikes, their income was about $1.5 million a day."

    The intensity of Russia's accusations has been growing since the downing of the jet on Nov. 24, the most dangerous incident involving Russia and a NATO state in the past 50 years. On Monday, as the heat was rising between the two countries, Erdogan demanded that Russian President Vladimir Putin back up his allegations with evidence. If he could, the Turkish leader said, he would resign.

    "As soon as such a claim is proved, the nobility of our nation requires [me] to [step down]. I will not remain in this post," Erdogan said. He also challenged Putin to do the same if the accusations prove baseless. "I am asking Mr Putin, would you remain?"

    [Dec 04, 2015] Oil and gas industry is using enormous amount of petroleum to operate and move equipment and people

    400-600 gal/day for a small rig and 1,200-1600 gal/day for a big rig.
    peakoilbarrel.com
    rochapeau, 12/01/2015 at 10:15 am
    Hi, everybody! Trying my first post.
    Just my 2 cents in. When discussing oil demand, did anybody already mention here that the oil industry has just eliminated close to half a million barrels a day of its own oil (diesel, gasoline etc) demand by idling almost 1500 drilling rigs worldwide and putting a great number of projects on hold. Oil and gas industry is using enormous amount of petroleum to operate and move equipment and people
    Ron Patterson, 12/01/2015 at 10:45 am
    Doing the math, 500,000 barrels divided by 1500 rigs comes to 333,33 barrels per rig per day. That times 42 comes to 14,000 gallons per rig per day. I know you must include the gasoline and diesel used by the trucks and cars that serviced those rigs. But still, that seems like a bit much.
    daniel, 12/01/2015 at 12:34 pm
    I would think 100 to max 200,000 bbl per day seems more realistic
    rochapeau, 12/01/2015 at 1:14 pm
    I agree, it is probably an exaggeration. However, we need to account for rig construction, servicing and all the secondary jobs (around 80-90) that each rig creates. Those jobs and people employed in them use petroleum products. Then we need to account for well spudding, pumping, transporting, and storing the oil and again for all the secondary jobs that those activities create. Then there is exploration and all the oil-consuming activities associated with it. All of this combined will account for a number in hundreds of thousands of barrels a day of petroleum consumed. That is why shutting or even scaling down oil industry creates a temporary oil glut. Not too many analysts seem to be talking about this phenomenon
    John S, 12/01/2015 at 3:53 pm
    Ron,

    I just talked to a diesel fuel salesman. he said a small rig will use about 3-400 gallons / day and a big rig will use between 6-8,000 gallons of diesel / day.

    John S , 12/01/2015 at 10:26 pm
    Correction, my diesel salesman corrected his numbers : 400-600 gal/day for a small rig and 1,200-1600 gal/day for a big rig.

    [Dec 04, 2015] Turkish Stream is now officially cancelled. All the eggs are now in the same basket: Nord Stream II.

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Firstly, Ukraine is an energy-deficient country and the tendency we observe today will continue and develop: gas production in Ukraine will decline and consumption will grow. We proceed from the assumption that the Ukrainian economy will develop successfully. The present-day level of gas consumption clearly shows that Ukraine has not solved all of its economic problems. In this regard, gas supplies to Ukraine will increase in the medium and long term. Secondly, if a merger takes place, we will load Ukraine's gas transmission system to the extent possible and it surely means additional income that is significant for the Ukrainian budget. At the same time, if the Ukrainian gas transmission system is loaded with some 95 billion cubic meters of gas per year, we know well that it may deliver 120 and even 125 billion cubic meters with a particular level of investments in modernization and reconstruction, of course. And if small investments are made in new compressor stations and pipeline loops, we may probably speak of 140 billion cubic meters of gas. However, we realize that European gas consumption will grow. According to our estimates, gas demand in Europe may grow up to 130-140 billion cubic meters of gas by the turn of 2020." ..."
    "... Remember the story with biogas, wonderful – 20 per cent by 2020, and mass media start writing that it will enable escaping from dependence on Russia. Then we find out that biogas is there, together with food supply problems, etc. Then we observed the European Union's wonderful program – "20-20-20". I think, there's no need of deciphering it – everyone knows about it. And again mass media say that it will enable reducing dependence on Gazprom and Russia. The same thing is with shale gas. First, no one will cope with shale gas transportation, because it is too expensive, add transport – and it is already a business with no prospects. I have a plea for mass media – would you please stop frightening Europe, stop frightening everyone around with Russia and Gazprom. For Europe it is a real blessing that it has such a powerful neighbor with such conventional gas reserves. Exploration of non-conventionals [N.B.: Non-conventional energy resources] may end with no results, as experience of certain countries shows. So let's live in peace and friendship and contribute to strengthening Russia's contacts and ties with the European Union and Ukraine . ..."
    marknesop.wordpress.com
    karl1haushofer, December 3, 2015 at 9:42 am
    Turkish Stream is now officially cancelled. All the eggs are now in the same basket: Nord Stream II. Hopefully the US/UK/Baltics/Poland front will not be able to stop it. Because otherwise Russia is stuck with Ukraine as a transit country.
    marknesop, December 3, 2015 at 10:45 am
    Well, I don't think they want to stop it. They want the gas the same as before – they just want it on their own terms. Brussels wants to exercise control over whose gas goes through the pipeline, so that if they are have a "spat" with Russia, they can stop orders of Russian gas and bring some at-this-moment-unknown supplier's gas through the same pipeline, probably Azerbaijan.

    Read this 2011 press conference with Gazprom; I found it while looking for a layman's explanation of what the Third Energy Package actually entails. Because it appears what is most unappealing to it from Gazprom's point of view is that it limits vital investment in gas futures, considering it would substantially restrict long-term contracts. They could be happy with you today, buying off your competitors tomorrow. According to Brussels, that's healthy competition which ensures the customer gets the best price, while Gazprom naturally prefers to deal in long-term contracts which lock the customer in, although they are usually willing to talk out a deal if it looks like the customer is really unhappy because unhappy customers are bad for business, even in the gas industry.

    Right away, you notice that Europe accepts long-term contracts, but nonetheless takes the position that long-term capacity supply orders upset the market. As Gazprom correctly points out, these two views cannot reasonably coexist.

    In 2011, Gazprom was still considering a joint venture with NaftoGaz Ukraine, and intended to actually increase gas transit through Ukraine while simultaneously building South Stream. They were also considering a merger, and Miller said if that came about, Ukrainian gas consumers would pay the same prices as Russia. Look how far they are away from that now – funny old world, innit? Here was Miller's vision, at the time, for a Gazprom-NaftoGaz merger:

    "Firstly, Ukraine is an energy-deficient country and the tendency we observe today will continue and develop: gas production in Ukraine will decline and consumption will grow. We proceed from the assumption that the Ukrainian economy will develop successfully. The present-day level of gas consumption clearly shows that Ukraine has not solved all of its economic problems. In this regard, gas supplies to Ukraine will increase in the medium and long term.
    Secondly, if a merger takes place, we will load Ukraine's gas transmission system to the extent possible and it surely means additional income that is significant for the Ukrainian budget. At the same time, if the Ukrainian gas transmission system is loaded with some 95 billion cubic meters of gas per year, we know well that it may deliver 120 and even 125 billion cubic meters with a particular level of investments in modernization and reconstruction, of course. And if small investments are made in new compressor stations and pipeline loops, we may probably speak of 140 billion cubic meters of gas. However, we realize that European gas consumption will grow. According to our estimates, gas demand in Europe may grow up to 130-140 billion cubic meters of gas by the turn of 2020."

    You can see, I'm sure, why Brussels didn't like it. Under the Third Energy Package, the operator of the gas transit system will be elected by the European Union on a tender basis. You can see, I'm sure, why Gazprom didn't like that. If the merger between Gazprom and NaftoGaz Ukraine had come about, Ukrainians would have paid Russian domestic prices, in a word, forever.

    What Europe's position boils down to is it wants a system whereby its suppliers do not own anything of the transit system, and the operator could be anyone depending on who sucks up to Europe the most, so that it can make its suppliers fight with one another and be assured of the cheapest prices. Until that magical sugar-daddy supplier appears that can provide steady and sustained competition to Russia, Europe is not in a very good bargaining position. But you bet that would change fast if the western alliance could get rid of Assad, partition Syria and get a Qatari gas pipeline laid across it.

    Here's a poignant reminder of what might have been, which serves to point up who are the real troublemakers:

    "Remember the story with biogas, wonderful – 20 per cent by 2020, and mass media start writing that it will enable escaping from dependence on Russia. Then we find out that biogas is there, together with food supply problems, etc. Then we observed the European Union's wonderful program – "20-20-20". I think, there's no need of deciphering it – everyone knows about it. And again mass media say that it will enable reducing dependence on Gazprom and Russia. The same thing is with shale gas. First, no one will cope with shale gas transportation, because it is too expensive, add transport – and it is already a business with no prospects. I have a plea for mass media – would you please stop frightening Europe, stop frightening everyone around with Russia and Gazprom. For Europe it is a real blessing that it has such a powerful neighbor with such conventional gas reserves. Exploration of non-conventionals [N.B.: Non-conventional energy resources] may end with no results, as experience of certain countries shows. So let's live in peace and friendship and contribute to strengthening Russia's contacts and ties with the European Union and Ukraine."

    kirill , December 3, 2015 at 2:17 pm
    See above. It is time for Russia to lay down the law. Russia can go without the $25 billion per year of lost revenues. But whole EU economies will crash into epic depressions without this energy supply. In other words, the EU is looking at TRILLIONS of DOLLARS in economic damage. The Brussels Uncle Scam cocksuckers will have to justify their actions. Russia does not have to since it is the vendor. If you are not happy, then shop the fuck elsewhere, idiots.

    [Dec 03, 2015] Why oil could rally big in 2016-commentary

    Notable quotes:
    "... ...Demand isn't weak. Oil demand year to date is up 6 percent in China, according to China Oil, Gas Petrochemicals. And more than that, oil demand globally is posting a stellar year. Over the last quarter, the US Energy Information Administration sees annual global oil demand up 1.3 million barrels per day (mbpd)-a solid performance. Private consultancies put it even higher, with demand up as much as 1.9 million barrels per day. There is no demand weakness as such. ..."
    "... Certainly, this is deceleration, but hardly Armageddon. Of course, unofficial estimates put growth lower, anywhere from 3.5 percent to 5.5 percent. For example, consulting firm Capital Economics estimates China's third-quarter GDP growth at just over 4 percent. But was this slowdown sufficient to torpedo commodity prices by 35 percent? ..."
    "... Shale production in the U.S. has enormously improved U.S. terms of trade. The U.S. trade deficit in oil has shrunk dramatically, from $30 billion per month from the dawn of the shale revolution in early 2012, to a mere $6 billion recently. ..."
    www.cnbc.com

    ...Demand isn't weak. Oil demand year to date is up 6 percent in China, according to China Oil, Gas & Petrochemicals. And more than that, oil demand globally is posting a stellar year. Over the last quarter, the US Energy Information Administration sees annual global oil demand up 1.3 million barrels per day (mbpd)-a solid performance. Private consultancies put it even higher, with demand up as much as 1.9 million barrels per day. There is no demand weakness as such.

    Nor can China's economy be said to be so weak. Official estimates put gross domestic product growth around 6.9 percent for the third quarter, down from 7.7 percent at mid year 2014.

    Certainly, this is deceleration, but hardly Armageddon. Of course, unofficial estimates put growth lower, anywhere from 3.5 percent to 5.5 percent. For example, consulting firm Capital Economics estimates China's third-quarter GDP growth at just over 4 percent. But was this slowdown sufficient to torpedo commodity prices by 35 percent?

    ...Although China's proxy GDP had been trending down since 2011, it took a sharp dive in the second half of 2014. What explains this sudden deterioration?

    The Bank of England's analysis suggests that supply and demand were simultaneously afflicting oil prices, and in similar magnitudes. In simple terms, the model suggests that China was collapsing just as an oil-supply surge was tanking oil prices. But how likely are two such momentous events to occur independently within weeks of each other? Not very likely at all.

    However, the collapse of oil prices did have a profound impact on China, and for a simple reason: China failed to devalue the yuan. Shale production in the U.S. has enormously improved U.S. terms of trade. The U.S. trade deficit in oil has shrunk dramatically, from $30 billion per month from the dawn of the shale revolution in early 2012, to a mere $6 billion recently.

    Commentary by Steven Kopits, managing director, Princeton Energy Advisors.

    [Dec 03, 2015] It's a pretty tough situation for Putin

    Recently annonced: Too Late for Apologies: Russia Halts Turk Stream Gas Pipeline
    marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile, December 3, 2015 at 4:39 am

    Just announced:

    Too Late for Apologies: Russia Halts Turk Stream Gas Pipeline

    Earlier, during his address to the nation, the Evil One questioned the sanity of the Turkish political leadership, stressing that Russia is nor criticising the Turkish nation for the recent downturn in Russo-Turksh relationships.

    marknesop, December 3, 2015 at 7:37 am

    Washington will be delighted, as it was one of the hoped-for consequences of the major downturn in relations. Hoped for by Washington and Brussels, I mean. Brussels will now ramp up its rhetoric against Nord Stream II, and if the coalition building it have not got all their ducks in a row the EC will be all too ready to put a stop to it. The objective will be leaving Russia no option but to continue transit through Ukraine, because the transit fees are vital to its solvency. The EU can't afford to give it $2 Billion a year for nothing for as far as the eye can see.

    kirill, December 3, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    As I posted elsewhere, Russia needs to make a formal announcement that the transit of gas via Ukraine will stop at the end of 2016 regardless of the state of alternative routes. Brussels can then go and eat shit.

    likbez, December 3, 2015 at 8:21 pm

    It's a pretty tough situation for Putin. No friends anywhere. Everybody want a peace of Russia economically or otherwise. The situation reminds me a Russian cruiser Varyag at the Battle of Chemulpo Bay with the Japanese squadron of Admiral Uriu.

    Fledging political alliance of Turkey and Ukraine is not a very good development. Also while economic sanctions are not that damaging to Russia per se as they are for Turkey, they still increase isolation of Russia. Exactly what the USA wanted from the very beginning.

    So this whole incident with shooting down Russian Su-24 looks like another victory of the US diplomacy in its efforts to isolate Russia. And it might well be a plot similar to MH17 plot, if you wish. It does not matter if Erdogan acted on his own initiative or with gentle encouragement. The net result is the same.

    Also a new Saudi leadership is a pretty impulsive and aggressive folk. And the are definitely adamantly anti-Russian.

    [Dec 03, 2015] Is crude oil ready for a rebound Lipow--commentary

    www.cnbc.com

    ...On shore oil production in the U.S. is declining. The decline in the rig counts is having an effect. While U.S. weekly production estimates from the Energy Information Administration have been declining from about 9.6 million barrels per day in May and June to 9.1 million barrels per day last week, something else happened - U.S. Gulf of Mexico production increased by over 200,000 barrels per day, meaning the effect of the lower rig count on oil production may be more significant than one might think.

    Upstream earnings for big oil were terrible. Exxon upstream earnings were down 79 percent, BP 96 percent, Chevron 99 percent while Anadarko and Conoco Phillips lost $2.2 and $1.8 billion respectively. The producers are cutting costs, cutting investment, cutting jobs. Shell for example cancelled its big Arctic project and its Carmon Creek Canadian Oil sands project. Other high cost areas in deep-water - Gulf of Mexico, the North Sea, West Africa or Brazil - will see projects delayed, deferred or cancelled. This means that investments today will not produce oil 3, 5 or 7 years in the future. While Conoco Phillips and Chevron have stated that they will maintain dividends, they are no longer sacrosanct. Marathon Oil Company cut its dividend 76 percent. Oil prices will have to rise in order to encourage additional production. And U.S. shale producers will then benefit.

    Add to the bullish side of the ledger that the market has virtually no geopolitical risk premium in it. With violence continuing in the Middle East, while the Venezuelan and Nigerian governments deplete their foreign reserves, there is upside to the oil market.

    Pain in the short term, gain in the long term. How to play it? I like Exxon, EOG Resources and although Anadarko lost a lot of money this quarter, I like it as well. With little new investment in Canada, I like Suncor and Husky Energy both of which have refining operations that have done well in the lower crude oil price environment. Rising oil prices and an increase in shale oil production will help the North American Pipeline operators so Plains All American, Sunoco Logistics and Magellan Midstream Partners look to have upside from here.

    [Dec 03, 2015] Who are those moderate rebels in Syria

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    yalensis, December 3, 2015 at 4:48 pm

    You are burying the lede, which is Congressman Ed Royce's not-so veiled threat against Russia:

    "I think what Vladimir Putin should think on, for a minute, is the fact that Moscow itself IS a target. The attack on the Metro-Liner from Russia over Egypt clearly is another message from ISIS. So, at this point what we would like to see is a recalibration on the part of the Russian military. So that instead of attacking the Free Syrian Army and the more secular Syrian forces, they should begin to attack ISIS. So far we haven't seen that."

    Translation from American B.S. into plain talk:
    "Putin: Stop attacking our guys, we know they are ISIS but we have to pretend they're not. If you keep attacking them, we'll have them commit ever more terror attacks against the Russian people."

    marknesop , December 3, 2015 at 6:15 pm

    The USA is perhaps the worst choice on the planet to ask who is a "moderate rebel" and who is ISIS, as witnessed by their sad-sack training plan for moderate rebels which produced 5 or so whom they say are reliable after spending $500 Million. Obviously they trained many more than 5, but they have no idea where those people or their equipment are now. The real hot button in that article is the mention of General Steven Groves and his operation to "oversee the suppression of assessments showing the war on a perilous trajectory." That's what the American intelligence organs do now – blow smoke up people's asses so they can't see reality.

    [Dec 03, 2015] Germany Rebukes Its Own Intelligence Agency for Criticizing Saudi Policy

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The cautious diplomatic stance of the older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention," said the memo, which was titled " Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation" and was one and a half pages long. ..."
    "... Since taking the throne early this year, King Salman has invested great power in Prince Mohammed, making him defense minister and deputy crown prince and giving him oversight of oil and economic policy. The sudden prominence of such a young and untested prince - he is believed to be about 30, and had little public profile before his father became king - has worried some Saudis and foreign diplomats. ..."
    "... Prince Mohammed is seen as a driving force behind the Saudi military campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which human rights groups say has caused thousands of civilian deaths. ..."
    "... In its memo, the BND said that Saudi rivalry with Iran for supremacy in the Middle East, as well as Saudi dependency on the United States, were the main drivers of Saudi foreign policy. ..."
    "... The Saudi-Iranian rivalry plays out throughout the region, the memo said, most recently and strikingly in the Saudi military intervention in Yemen. There, it said, "Saudi Arabia wants to prove that it is ready to take unprecedented military, financial and political risks in order not to fall into a disadvantageous position in the region." ..."
    "... In Syria, Saudi Arabia's aim was always to oust President Bashar al-Assad, and that has not changed, the memo said. ..."
    "... "The concentration of economic and foreign policy power on Mohammed bin Salman contains the latent danger that, in an attempt to establish himself in the royal succession while his father is still alive, he could overreach with expensive measures or reforms that would unsettle other members of the royal family and the population," the memo observed, adding, "That could overstrain the relations to friendly and above all to allied states in the region." ..."
    The New York Times

    The intelligence agency's memo risked playing havoc with Berlin's efforts to show solidarity with France in its military campaign against the Islamic State and to push forward the tentative talks on how to end the Syrian civil war. The Bundestag, the lower house of the German Parliament, is due to vote on Friday on whether to send reconnaissance planes, midair fueling capacity and a frigate to the Middle East to support the French.

    The memo was sent to selected German journalists on Wednesday. In it, the foreign intelligence agency, known as the BND, offered an unusually frank assessment of recent Saudi policy.

    "The cautious diplomatic stance of the older leading members of the royal family is being replaced by an impulsive policy of intervention," said the memo, which was titled "Saudi Arabia - Sunni regional power torn between foreign policy paradigm change and domestic policy consolidation" and was one and a half pages long.

    The memo said that King Salman and his son Prince Mohammed bin Salman were trying to build reputations as leaders of the Arab world.

    Since taking the throne early this year, King Salman has invested great power in Prince Mohammed, making him defense minister and deputy crown prince and giving him oversight of oil and economic policy. The sudden prominence of such a young and untested prince - he is believed to be about 30, and had little public profile before his father became king - has worried some Saudis and foreign diplomats.

    Prince Mohammed is seen as a driving force behind the Saudi military campaign against the Iranian-backed Houthi rebels in Yemen, which human rights groups say has caused thousands of civilian deaths.

    ... ... ...

    In its memo, the BND said that Saudi rivalry with Iran for supremacy in the Middle East, as well as Saudi dependency on the United States, were the main drivers of Saudi foreign policy.

    The Saudi-Iranian rivalry plays out throughout the region, the memo said, most recently and strikingly in the Saudi military intervention in Yemen. There, it said, "Saudi Arabia wants to prove that it is ready to take unprecedented military, financial and political risks in order not to fall into a disadvantageous position in the region."

    In Syria, Saudi Arabia's aim was always to oust President Bashar al-Assad, and that has not changed, the memo said.

    But it suggested that the recent shift in Saudi leadership has added new factors in the Middle East. "The concentration of economic and foreign policy power on Mohammed bin Salman contains the latent danger that, in an attempt to establish himself in the royal succession while his father is still alive, he could overreach with expensive measures or reforms that would unsettle other members of the royal family and the population," the memo observed, adding, "That could overstrain the relations to friendly and above all to allied states in the region."

    [Dec 03, 2015] Murder And Mayhem In The Middle East

    Notable quotes:
    "... Because you live in the real world, you know that NATO knew exactly where Gaddafi was at all times and that he was in that convoy attempting to escape NATOs bombing raid. Further, you wont be surprised to learn that many of these vehicles were pickup trucks that really posed no military threat to NATO. The point was to kill Gaddafi, and numerous resources were brought to bear on that mission. ..."
    "... Gaddafis killing was the assassination of a foreign leader by Western interests. In this case, Gaddafi was just yet another target in a long line of leaders that attempted to keep those same interests at bay. ..."
    "... While imperfect by many standards, all of these countries were stable and increasingly prosperous before outside interests came in and turned them into a living nightmare. ..."
    "... It is this context that explains why such reactionary and violent groups as ISIS arose. They are the natural response of violated people seeking to assert some control over lives that otherwise have no hope and even less meaning. ..."
    "... Islamic State militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations, the United Nations said on Monday in a further illustration of the North African states descent into anarchy. ..."
    "... All sides in Libyas multiple armed conflicts are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, according to a U.N. report. ..."
    "... Islamic State (IS) has gained control over swathes of territory, committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance , the joint report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya said. ..."
    "... The U.N. had documented IS executions in their stronghold city of Sirte, in central Libya along the Mediterranean coast, and in Derna to the east, from which they were later ousted by local militias. Victims included Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Eritreans and a South Sudanese, the report said. ..."
    Dec 1, 2015 | Safehaven.com

    Why it matters to those living in the West

    To understand what's happening in Syria right now, you have to understand the tactics and motivations of the US and NATO -- parties sharing interwoven aims and goals in the Middle East/North African (MENA) region.

    While the populations of Europe and the US are fed raw propaganda about the regional aims involved, the reality is far different.

    Where the propaganda claims that various bad dictators have to be taken out, or that democracy is the goal, neither have anything at all to do with what's actually happening or has happened in the region.

    For starters, we all know that if oil fields were not at stake then the West would care much much less about MENA affairs.

    But a lot of outside interests do care. And their aims certainly and largely include controlling the region's critical energy resources. There's a lot of concern over whether Russia or China will instead come to dominate these last, best oil reserves on the planet.

    Further, we can dispense with the idea that the US and NATO have any interest at all in human rights in this story. If they did, then they'd at least have to admit that their strategies and tactics have unleashed immeasurable suffering, as well as created the conditions for lots more. But it would be silly to try and argue about or understand regional motivations through the lenses of human rights or civilian freedoms -- as neither applies here.

    Divide And Conquer

    Instead, the policies in the MENA region are rooted in fracturing the region so that it will be easier to control.

    That's a very old tactic; first utilized to a great extent by Britain starting back in the 1700s.

    Divide and conquer. There's a reason that's a well-worn catch phrase: it's hundreds of years old.

    But to get a handle on the level of depravity involved, I think it useful to examine what happened in Libya in 2011 when NATO took out Muamar Gaddafi and left the country a broken shell -- as was intended.

    I cannot really give you a good reason for NATO involving itself in taking out Gaddafi. I only have bad ones.

    The official reason was that after the Arab Spring uprising in Libya in early 2011 (with plenty of evidence of Western influences in fanning those flames) things got ugly and protesters were shot. This allowed the UN to declare that it needed to protect civilians, and the ICC to charge Gaddafi with crimes against humanity, declaring that he needed to stand trial.

    Here's how it went down:

    On 27 June, the ICC issued arrest warrants for Gaddafi, his son Saif al-Islam, and his brother-in-law Abdullah Senussi, head of state security, for charges concerning crimes against humanity.[268] Libyan officials rejected the ICC, claiming that it had "no legitimacy whatsoever" and highlighting that "all of its activities are directed at African leaders".[269]

    That month, Amnesty International published their findings, in which they asserted that many of the accusations of mass human rights abuses made against Gaddafist forces lacked credible evidence, and were instead fabrications of the rebel forces which had been readily adopted by the western media.

    Source

    After the ICC's indictment, it was a hop, skip and a jump to declaring a NATO-enforced 'no fly zone' over Libya to protect civilians.

    From there it was just a straight jump to NATO actively shooting anything related to the Gaddafi government. NATO had thereby chosen sides and was directly supporting the rebellion.

    The pattern in play here is always the same: cherry-picked events are used as a pretext to support the side seeking to topple the existing government and thereby leave a sectarian wasteland to flourish in the inevitable power vacuum.

    If you are like most people in the West, you know almost nothing of any of this context. It's not well reported. And Libya is rarely in the news even though it's going through increasingly desperate times.

    I found a speech given by Gaddafi a few months before he was killed to be especially compelling and revealing. I will reproduce it in its entirety here:

    For 40 years, or was it longer, I can't remember, I did all I could to give people houses, hospitals, schools, and when they were hungry, I gave them food. I even made Benghazi into farmland from the desert, I stood up to attacks from that cowboy Reagan, when he killed my adopted orphaned daughter, he was trying to kill me, instead he killed that poor innocent child. Then I helped my brothers and sisters from Africa with money for the African Union.

    I did all I could to help people understand the concept of real democracy, where people's committees ran our country. But that was never enough, as some told me, even people who had 10 room homes, new suits and furniture, were never satisfied, as selfish as they were they wanted more. They told Americans and other visitors, that they needed "democracy" and "freedom" never realizing it was a cut throat system, where the biggest dog eats the rest, but they were enchanted with those words, never realizing that in America, there was no free medicine, no free hospitals, no free housing, no free education and no free food, except when people had to beg or go to long lines to get soup.

    No, no matter what I did, it was never enough for some, but for others, they knew I was the son of Gamal Abdel Nasser, the only true Arab and Muslim leader we've had since Salah-al-Deen, when he claimed the Suez Canal for his people, as I claimed Libya, for my people, it was his footsteps I tried to follow, to keep my people free from colonial domination - from thieves who would steal from us.

    Now, I am under attack by the biggest force in military history, my little African son, Obama wants to kill me, to take away the freedom of our country, to take away our free housing, our free medicine, our free education, our free food, and replace it with American style thievery, called "capitalism," but all of us in the Third World know what that means, it means corporations run the countries, run the world, and the people suffer. So, there is no alternative for me, I must make my stand, and if Allah wishes, I shall die by following His path, the path that has made our country rich with farmland, with food and health, and even allowed us to help our African and Arab brothers and sisters to work here with us, in the Libyan Jamahiriya.

    I do not wish to die, but if it comes to that, to save this land, my people, all the thousands who are all my children, then so be it.

    Let this testament be my voice to the world, that I stood up to crusader attacks of NATO, stood up to cruelty, stood up to betrayal, stood up to the West and its colonialist ambitions, and that I stood with my African brothers, my true Arab and Muslim brothers, as a beacon of light. When others were building castles, I lived in a modest house, and in a tent. I never forgot my youth in Sirte, I did not spend our national treasury foolishly, and like Salah-al-Deen, our great Muslim leader, who rescued Jerusalem for Islam, I took little for myself...

    In the West, some have called me "mad", "crazy", but they know the truth yet continue to lie, they know that our land is independent and free, not in the colonial grip, that my vision, my path, is, and has been clear and for my people and that I will fight to my last breath to keep us free, may Allah almighty help us to remain faithful and free.

    Source

    Gaddafi's great crime seems to be giving away too much oil wealth to his people. Was he a strongman? Yes, but you have to be to rule in that region right now. Was he the worst strong man? No, not by a long shot.

    As bad as he was, at least he didn't kill a million Iraqis on trumped up charges of non-existent weapons of mass destruction. Nor was he chopping off 50 heads per week and stoning females for adultery as is the case with Saudi Arabia right now.

    But again, whether he killed protestors or not, or committed war crimes or not, is irrelevant to the power structure. What mattered was that he had locked out Western interests, and instead used his country's oil wealth to provide free or extremely cheap health care, education and housing to a wide swath of Libyans.

    So let's cut to the murder scene. Here's how it went down:

    At around 08:30 local time on 20 October, Gaddafi, his army chief Abu-Bakr Yunis Jabr, his security chief Mansour Dhao, and a group of loyalists attempted to escape in a convoy of 75 vehicles.[7][8] A Royal Air Force reconnaissance aircraft spotted the convoy moving at high speed, after NATO forces intercepted a satellite phone call made by Gaddafi.[9]

    NATO aircraft then fired on 11 of the vehicles, destroying one. A U.S. Predator drone operated from a base near Las Vegas[8] fired the first missiles at the convoy, hitting its target about 3 kilometres (2 mi) west of Sirte. Moments later, French Air Force Rafale fighter jets continued the bombing.[10]

    The NATO bombing immobilized much of the convoy and killed dozens of loyalist fighters. Following the first strike, some 20 vehicles broke away from the main group and continued moving south. A second NATO airstrike damaged or destroyed 10 of these vehicles. According to the Financial Times, Free Libya units on the ground also struck the convoy.[11]

    According to their statement, NATO was not aware at the time of the strike that Gaddafi was in the convoy. NATO stated that in accordance with Security Council Resolution 1973, it does not target individuals but only military assets that pose a threat. NATO later learned, "from open sources and Allied intelligence," that Gaddafi was in the convoy and that the strike likely contributed to his capture.[11]

    Source

    To believe NATO, it had no idea Gaddafi was in that convoy (honest!), but just managed to have a Predator drone handy as well as a large number of jets armed for ground targets (not anti-aircraft missiles, as a no-fly zone might imply). It merely struck all of these vehicles over and over again in their quest to kill everyone on board because they were "military assets that posed a threat."

    Because you live in the real world, you know that NATO knew exactly where Gaddafi was at all times and that he was in that convoy attempting to escape NATO's bombing raid. Further, you won't be surprised to learn that many of these vehicles were pickup trucks that really posed no military threat to NATO. The point was to kill Gaddafi, and numerous resources were brought to bear on that mission.

    Gaddafi's killing was the assassination of a foreign leader by Western interests. In this case, Gaddafi was just yet another target in a long line of leaders that attempted to keep those same interests at bay.

    After NATO was finished making a mess of Libya by taking out Gaddafi and leaving a right proper mess of a power vacuum, it simply departed -- leaving the country to fend for itself. Libya descended, of course, into an outright civil war and has remained ever since a hotbed of sectarian violence and increasing ISIS control and presence.

    If NATO/US had to follow the Pier I rule of "you break it, you buy it" they would still be in Libya offering money and assistance as the country settles down and begins the long process of rebuilding.

    But no such luck. That's absolutely not how they operate. It's disaster capitalism in action. The idea is to break things apart and then make money off of the pieces. It's not to help people.

    Otherwise, how do we explain these images?

    While imperfect by many standards, all of these countries were stable and increasingly prosperous before outside interests came in and turned them into a living nightmare.

    It is this context that explains why such reactionary and violent groups as ISIS arose. They are the natural response of violated people seeking to assert some control over lives that otherwise have no hope and even less meaning.

    I'm not justifying ISIS; only explaining the context that led to its rise.

    Speaking of which, let's turn back to Libya:

    ISIS is tightening its grip in Libya

    Nov 15, 2015

    GENEVA (Reuters) - Islamic State militants have consolidated control over central Libya, carrying out summary executions, beheadings and amputations, the United Nations said on Monday in a further illustration of the North African state's descent into anarchy.

    All sides in Libya's multiple armed conflicts are committing breaches of international law that may amount to war crimes, including abductions, torture and the killing of civilians, according to a U.N. report.

    Islamic State (IS) has gained control over swathes of territory, "committing gross abuses including public summary executions of individuals based on their religion or political allegiance", the joint report by the U.N. High Commissioner for Human Rights and the U.N. Support Mission in Libya said.

    The U.N. had documented IS executions in their stronghold city of Sirte, in central Libya along the Mediterranean coast, and in Derna to the east, from which they were later ousted by local militias. Victims included Egyptian Copts, Ethiopians, Eritreans and a South Sudanese, the report said.

    Some were accused of "treason", others of same-sex relations, but none were given due legal process, according to the report, which covered the year through October.

    Four years after the overthrow of Muammar Gaddafi, Libya is locked in a conflict between two rival governments - an official one in the east and a self-declared one controlling the capital Tripoli - and the many armed factions that back them.

    Source

    After that atrocious summary, how bad does life under Gaddafi sound now? Again, he was targeted for execution by Western interests and the resulting mess is of little surprise to anybody with even modest curiosity about how violent overthrows tend to work out in the MENA region.

    But where is the UN security council denouncing the war crimes? And where is the ICC leveling crimes against humanity charges? Nowhere. There's no more Western political interest in Libya now that it has been broken apart.

    As they say in the military: once is bad luck, twice is a coincidence, but three times is enemy action. This pattern of eliminating "a very bad man" and leaving the country in a complete mess has happened three times of late, with Syria targeted to be the fourth. So enemy action it is.

    ISIS and other extreme jihadist groups arose because of brutal conditions that made such harsh interpretations of ancient religious texts make sense by comparison. When you have nothing left to believe in, one's belief system can compensate by becoming rather inflexible.

    I know I have greatly simplified a terribly complex dynamic, but -- speaking of beliefs -- I don't believe that terrorists are born, I believe they are raised. When one has nothing left to lose, then anything becomes possible, including strapping on a suicide belt and flicking the switch.

    What I am saying is that this is not a battle between Christians and Muslims, nor is it a battle between good and evil, both characterizations that I've read recently in great abundance. That's all nonsense for the masses.

    This is about resources and true wealth that is being siphoned from the people who have had the misfortune to be born on top of it, and towards other regions with greater power and reach.

    There's nothing different in what I am reading today from what the British redcoats did in India from the late 1700's throughout the 1800's. Their military might assured that the East India Tea Company could continue to extract resources from the locals.

    At the time the locals were called heathens, implying they were subhuman and therefore could be safely dispatched. Now they are called terrorists -- same thing. Dehumanize your foe to help rationalize one's behaviors. It's a tried and true practice of war propaganda.


    How This Affects You

    While we might be tempted to sit in our Western environs, secure in the idea that at least we aren't 'over there' where all the bad things are happening, it would be a mistake to think that this turmoil will not impact you.

    I'm not talking about the ultra-remote chance of being a victim of blow-back terrorism either. I am referring to the idea that it would be a mistake to think that any government(s) that think nothing of ruining entire MENA countries will hesitate to throw anybody else under the bus that gets in their way.

    Ben Bernanke gave no thought to throwing granny under the bus in order to help the big banks get even bigger. He willingly and knowing transferred over a trillion dollars away from savers and handed it to the big banks.

    Similarly, we shouldn't expect enlightened behavior to emerge from the shadows of leadership once things get even dicer on the world stage. In fact, we should expect the opposite.

    It would be a mistake to think that powers in charge would not turn their malign intent inwards toward their own populace if/when necessary. Today it's Syria, yesterday it was Libya, but tomorrow it might be us.

    The people of France recently got a small taste of the horror that has been visited upon the people of Iraq, Syria, Yemen and Libya. And while I have no interest in seeing any more violence anywhere, perhaps the people of France will finally begin to ask what happened and why. I don't mean the fine details of the night of the massacre, but how it came to be considered a 'thing to do' at all by the people who did it. (For those unaware, France has been particularly involved for years in fomenting revolt within Syria)


    Conclusion

    My intention in stringing these dots together is so that we can have an informed discussion about what's happening in Syria and the Middle East at large. I am not at all interested in trying to understand events through the framing lenses of religion and/or 'terrorism', both of which are tools of distraction in my experience.

    Instead, I want to understand the power dynamics at play. And to try to peel back the layers, to understand why the powers that be consider this region so important at this moment in history.

    I think they know as well as we do that the shale oil revolution is not a revolution at all but a retirement party for an oil industry that has given us everything we hold economically dear but is on its last legs.

    I think that the power structures of the next twenty years are going to be utterly shaped by energy - who has it, who needs it and who's controlling it.

    Saudi Arabia is acting increasingly desperate here and I think we know why. They have a saying there: "My father rode a camel, I drove a car, my son flies a jet and his son will ride a camel."

    They know as well as anyone that their oil wealth will run out someday; and so, too, will the West's interest in them. With no giant military to protect them, the royalty in Saudi Arabia should have some serious concerns about the future.

    Heck, it's even worse than that:

    Saudi Wells Running Dry -- of Water -- Spell End of Desert Wheat

    Nov 3, 2015

    Saudi Arabia became a net exporter of wheat in 1984 from producing almost none in the 1970s. The self-sufficiency program became a victim of its own success, however, as it quickly depleted aquifers that haven't been filled since the last Ice Age.

    In an unexpected U-turn, the government said in 2008 it was phasing out the policy, reducing purchases of domestic wheat each year by 12.5 percent and bridging the gap progressively with imports.

    The last official local harvest occurred in May, although the United Nations Food and Agriculture Organization projects that a small crop of about metric 30,000 tons for traditional specialty bakery products will "prevail" in 2016. At its peak in 1992, Saudi Arabia produced 4.1 million tons of wheat and was one of the world's top 10 wheat exporters.


    Source

    The Saudis did something very unwise - they pumped an aquifer filled over 10,000 years ago and used it to grow wheat in the desert. Now their wells are running dry and they have no more water.

    And yet their population is expanding rapidly even as their oil fields deplete. There's a very bad intersection for Saudi Arabia, and the rulers know it.

    It helps to explain their recent actions of lashing out against long-standing regional foes and helps to explain the increasing desperation of their moves to help destabilize (and even bomb) their neighbors.

    My point here is that as resources become tight, the ruling powers can be expected to act in increasingly desperate ways. This is a tenet of the Long Emergency of which James Kunstler wrote.

    The only response that makes any sense to me, at the individual level, is to reduce your needs and increase your resilience.

    This is something we cover in great detail in our new book, Prosper!: How To Prepare for the Future and Create a World Worth Inheriting, so I won't go into all the details here. Instead, my goal is to help cast a clarifying light on recent events and add some necessary detail that can help us more fully appreciate what's happening around the world and why taking prudent preparations today is becoming increasingly urgent.

    [Dec 03, 2015] ISIS Oil Plot Thickens Turkish MP Has Evidence Erdogans Son-In-Law Involved In Illegal Crude Trade

    Notable quotes:
    "... Underscoring that contention is CHP lawmaker Eren Erdem who says he, like Moscow, will soon provide proof of Erdogan's role in the smuggling of Islamic State oil. I have been able to establish that there is a very high probability that Berat Albayrak is linked to the supply of oil by the Daesh terrorists," Erdem said at a press conference on Thursday (see more from Sputnik ). ..."
    "... There is one company, headquartered in Erbil, which in 2012 acquired oil tankers, and which is currently being bombarded by Russian aircraft," Erdem said. "I am now studying this companys records. It has partners in Turkey, and I am checking them for links to Albayrak. ..."
    "... Note that this is entirely consistent with what we said last week , namely that in some cases, ISIS takes advantage of the Kurdish oil transport routes, connections, and infrastructure in Turkey. It will certainly be interesting to see if theres a connection between Albayrak, the energy ministry, and Bilal Erdogans BMZ Group. ..."
    "... Many loose ends now for Erdogan popping up. How long he can play whack-a-mole until one illuminates paper trail implication between ISIS and Erdogans masters like McCain, Graham, Nuland? ..."
    "... Maybe Erdogan will come up with a massive distraction that makes oil-thievery insignificant. Hope not. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    ... ... ...

    Underscoring that contention is CHP lawmaker Eren Erdem who says he, like Moscow, will soon provide proof of Erdogan's role in the smuggling of Islamic State oil. "I have been able to establish that there is a very high probability that Berat Albayrak is linked to the supply of oil by the Daesh terrorists," Erdem said at a press conference on Thursday (see more from Sputnik).

    Berat Albayrak is Erodan's son-in-law and is Turkey's Minister of Energy and Natural Resources.

    Erdem isn't the only person to mention Albayrak this week. Recall that in his opening remarks at the dramatic Russian MoD presentation on Wednesday Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov said the following:

    "No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business!"

    "There is one company, headquartered in Erbil, which in 2012 acquired oil tankers, and which is currently being bombarded by Russian aircraft," Erdem said. "I am now studying this company's records. It has partners in Turkey, and I am checking them for links to Albayrak."

    Note that this is entirely consistent with what we said last week, namely that in some cases, ISIS takes advantage of the Kurdish oil transport routes, connections, and infrastructure in Turkey. It will certainly be interesting to see if there's a connection between Albayrak, the energy ministry, and Bilal Erdogan's BMZ Group.

    If you know anything about Erdogan, you know that he doesn't take kindly to this kind of thing and as Erdem goes on to account, he's already been the subject of a smear campaign:

    "Today, the Takvim newspaper called me an American puppet, an Israeli agent, a supporter of the [Kurdish] PKK, and the instigator of a coup…all in the same sentence. I am inclined to view this attack on me as an attempt to belittle my significance, to attack my reputation in the eyes in the public, given that my investigation is a real threat to the government. Such a sharply negative reaction suggests that my assumptions are fair, and I am moving in the right direction to find the truth."

    The lawmaker says that type of attack has "only convinced [him] further on the need to carry this investigation through to the end."

    In the meantime, we can only hope that, for the sake of exposing the truth, "the end" doesn't end up being a Turkish jail cell, or worse for Erdem.

    Troll Magnet

    Do they make nail guns in Turkey?

    Truther

    Yep, with top brands for JPM, Goldman, RBS, WF, CITI and Deutche. They even self point at you too.

    Baby Bladeface

    Many loose ends now for Erdogan popping up. How long he can play whack-a-mole until one illuminates paper trail implication between ISIS and Erdogan's masters like McCain, Graham, Nuland?

    o r c k

    Maybe Erdogan will come up with a "massive" distraction that makes oil-thievery insignificant. Hope not.

    Anonymous User

    The shit is hitting the fan for the turks

    GhostOfDiogenes

    Go figure huh?

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/israel-main-buyer-isis-oil-report/...

    [Dec 03, 2015] Canadian Energy Companies Seen Disappearing in Oil's 'New World'

    peakoilbarrel.com
    aws., 12/01/2015 at 11:18 pm
    Canadian Energy Companies Seen Disappearing in Oil's 'New World'

    Rebecca Penty, Bloomberg, November 27, 2015 - 5:35 PM EST

    Canada is poised to lose energy companies as the industry faces the "new normal" of lower and more volatile oil prices along with tougher climate and regulatory policies, billionaire investor Murray Edwards warned Friday.

    The chairman of the nation's largest heavy-oil producer, Canadian Natural Resources Ltd., likened the oil industry to a horse race in which western Canadian producers are struggling to compete with developers of light crude from U.S. shale.
    -
    Some parts of the industry won't outlive the new regime, said Peter Tertzakian, chief energy economist at ARC Financial Corp. and a member of the royalty review panel.

    "I am confident that segments of the industry will remain competitive," Tertzakian told reporters. In an earlier presentation, he outlined a "new world" facing oil companies since the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries last year decided to maintain output amid a supply glut, boosting competition, complicated by rising use of renewable energy that's damping demand for crude. "We are in the mother of all market share battles."

    Canada is one of the most expensive places to extract crude, yet some of its largest energy companies publicly embraced the province's new climate policy even if it means that only oil-sands projects with the lowest carbon footprint get developed in the future, Edwards said.

    Why does the glut always seem to be blamed on OPEC (Saudi Arabia) when most of the new production was U.S. LTO and Alberta bitumen?

    And… it's remarkable the mess Harper and the Alberta oil patch have made of the Canadian economy.

    Ves, 12/02/2015 at 9:08 am
    "Why does the glut always seem to be blamed on OPEC (Saudi Arabia)"when most of the new production was U.S. LTO and Alberta bitumen?

    Because when we blame someone else we are actually hiding our own irrational behavior.

    [Dec 03, 2015] Oil could hit US$130 as US output falls off a cliff

    Notable quotes:
    "... Emad Mostaque has had a profound change of heart on oil prices. The analyst with London-based consultancy Ecstrat says US$130 per barrel crude could be less than a year away for the European benchmark as lower prices drive demand in both emerging and developed markets, while a weakening stream of capex dollars constrains new exploration and production. ..."
    "... "What we are seeing is supply is about to roll over dramatically. Demand is continuing to rise," he said an in interview with BNN. ..."
    "... "U.S. production is about to have a Wile E. Coyote moment where it literally falls off a cliff. One-hundred-and-twenty-thousand barrels, maybe even next month, will drop off," said Mostaque. He says the notion that shale producers can suddenly boost their output as needed is a common misconception. ..."
    "... Mostaque was early to bet against oil, forecasting between US$50 and US$70 per barrel last summer. He raised concerns about the commodity's price stability before oil started its dramatic decline in 2014. ..."
    "... Now he's calling prices to rally as four to five million barrels disappear from global markets over the next four to five years, and throwing cold water on many of the scenarios where inventories remain oversupplied long-term. ..."
    "... Based on monthly data, it seems likely that US 2015 annual net total liquids imports will be approximately flat to slightly below 2014 levels (net total liquids imports of 5.1 million bpd in 2014), with US net imports almost certainly increasing in 2016, assuming a continued decline in US C+C production. ..."
    "... Reuters had the article earlier this year discussing why refiners were increasingly rejecting artificial WTI blends of condensate and heavy oil that met the upper API limit for WTI, but that were deficient in distillates. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/01/2015 at 8:23 am
    A missive I sent out to some industry guys (I highlighted an article someone posted a few days ago):

    The winter of our discontent, made glorious summer?

    Since we are once again retesting the 2015 monthly lows in Brent crude oil prices, i.e., $45 currently versus monthly lows, so far, of $47 to $48 earlier this year, and entering what appears to be the "Winter of our discontent" for folks in the Oil Patch, I thought that the following article was compelling for two reasons: (1) The analyst was bearish on oil prices last year, while he is now bullish and (2) It's at least nice to read about the possibility of a "Glorious summer" next year in regard to oil prices.

    Oil could hit US$130 as U.S. output 'falls off a cliff': Analyst

    http://www.bnn.ca/News/2015/11/10/Oil-could-hit-US130-as-US-output-falls-off-a-cliff-says-analyst.aspx

    Emad Mostaque has had a profound change of heart on oil prices. The analyst with London-based consultancy Ecstrat says US$130 per barrel crude could be less than a year away for the European benchmark as lower prices drive demand in both emerging and developed markets, while a weakening stream of capex dollars constrains new exploration and production.

    "What we are seeing is supply is about to roll over dramatically. Demand is continuing to rise," he said an in interview with BNN.

    Unlike many analysts, he says U.S. shale production is set to decline, and as such won't provide the necessary stop-gap to supply the increasing appetite in world markets.

    "U.S. production is about to have a Wile E. Coyote moment where it literally falls off a cliff. One-hundred-and-twenty-thousand barrels, maybe even next month, will drop off," said Mostaque. He says the notion that shale producers can suddenly boost their output as needed is a common misconception.

    The controversial call pushes against bearish sentiment from Wall Street titans like Goldman Sachs. The investment bank's head of commodities research, Jeff Currie, said last month that he does not see the price of oil breaking above US$50 a barrel in the next year.

    Mostaque was early to bet against oil, forecasting between US$50 and US$70 per barrel last summer. He raised concerns about the commodity's price stability before oil started its dramatic decline in 2014.

    Now he's calling prices to rally as four to five million barrels disappear from global markets over the next four to five years, and throwing cold water on many of the scenarios where inventories remain oversupplied long-term.

    Mostaque says the lack of capital means the estimated $30 to $40-billion annual price tag to ramp up Iranian oil most likely isn't in the cards.

    "What we think is happening right now is we've seen mass definancialization of the market, with Brent in particular. All of these massive funds have exited because they lost huge amounts of money," he said.

    My comments:

    US Crude + Condensate Production Declining at 11%/year

    Note that the EIA shows that US Crude + Condensate (C+C) production fell an annualized rate of about 11%/year from April, 2015 (9.6 million bpd) to October, 2015 (9.1 million bpd). At this rate of decline, US C+C production would be down to about 8 million bpd in late 2016.

    Based on monthly data, it seems likely that US 2015 annual net total liquids imports will be approximately flat to slightly below 2014 levels (net total liquids imports of 5.1 million bpd in 2014), with US net imports almost certainly increasing in 2016, assuming a continued decline in US C+C production.

    Note that US refineries, based on most recent four week running average EIA data, were dependent on net crude oil imports for 42% of the Crude + Condensate processed daily in US refineries.

    I also added my usual comments about crude versus C+C, excerpt follows:

    . . . . the available data seem quite supportive of my premise that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase. Given the foregoing data, one can't help but wonder if most, or perhaps virtually all, of the reported year over year build in US and global and C+C inventories consists of condensate. As a case in point, reportedly most of Iran's floating oil storage consists of condensate.

    To the extent that we have a global inventory "glut," it probably consists of mostly condensate. For example, a Reuters article earlier this year pointed out that US refiners were increasingly rejecting "foul" blends of condensate and heavy oil (that technically met the API gravity requirements for WTI crude, but that were deficient in distillate yield).

    The bottom line is that if it took trillions of dollars of upstream capex to keep us on a post-2005 "Undulating Plateau" in actual global crude oil production, with (so far) increasing global gas, NGL and condensate production, what happens to actual crude production, i.e., the stuff that corresponds to the oil price indexes, given the large and ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex?

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/01/2015 at 7:11 am
    I suspect that late last year US refineries hit the upper limit of how much very light oil and condensate (roughly 42+ API) that they could take, if they wanted to maintain their distillate output. Note that at Cushing 42 API is the upper limit for WTI crude oil contracts. And as previously discussed, Reuters had the article earlier this year discussing why refiners were increasingly rejecting artificial WTI blends of condensate and heavy oil that met the upper API limit for WTI, but that were deficient in distillates.
    Dennis Coyne, 12/01/2015 at 8:18 am
    The problems would be resolved if the US stopped restricting crude exports, there are refineries in other parts of the World that are set up to refine lighter crude.

    Also some of the light crude will go away as the LTO plays are depleted, though there will still be a lot of condensate coming from the tight gas plays. Canada needs some of this condensate to get the oil sands to move through pipelines in the form of diluted bitumen (the so-called "dilbit").

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/01/2015 at 8:30 am
    Although I have no problem with lifting the ban, my guess is that lifting the US export ban will have little or no impact, given what I suspect is a global condensate glut.
    AlexS, 12/01/2015 at 8:52 am
    Jeffrey,

    There is no global condensate or ultralight crude glut. In fact, the average barrel outside the U.S. is heavier than in the past.
    However, I agree with you that the effect of lifting the US export ban will be limited. Basically, the current spread between WTI and Brent will be largely eliminated.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/01/2015 at 9:02 am
    If the global condensate to C+C ratio is around 10%, an increase in heavy oil production and/or declining 30's API gravity production would have a disproportionate impact on the average API gravity worldwide. In other words, I don't think the average API gravity tells us anything about a probable condensate glut.
    Watcher, 12/01/2015 at 2:58 pm
    One more time:

    US consumption is 47% gasoline.

    85% of global distillate fuel oil is burned outside the US. This includes diesel.

    Condensate doesn't have this in it. Hard to export something that would have no buyers.

    Dennis Coyne, 12/01/2015 at 3:52 pm
    Hi Watcher,

    Some of the crude is lighter crude which can be refined elsewhere in refineries designed to handle crude fro 36 to 45 API.

    The condensate could be exported to Venezuela or Canada where it is needed to move oil sands through pipelines.

    Toolpush, 12/01/2015 at 9:32 am
    Jeff,

    I believe you may be correct that the US refineries hit their upper limit of high API oil this year, but there are several projects coming online next year for spliter capacity. with the continued export of condensates and decreasing "oil" supply from LTO producers, there may just be a very quick flip over to a shortage high API oil for these new projects.

    https://rbnenergy.com/stairway-to-houston-infrastructure-response-to-shale-era-crudeoil-supply-transformation

    In the meantime refiners continue to increase their consumption of light crude and to add capacity such as the two new Kinder Morgan condensate splitters processing ultra-light condensate that are located at Galena Park close to the Houston Ship Channel. Another refinery investment to process more light crude is being made by Valero to their Houston refinery that will enable it to process an additional 90 Mb/d by mid-2016. Houston has also become a center for waterborne exports of lightly processed condensate – movements permitted since July 2014 by new interpretation of the export regulations for condensate (see Ticket To Export). Such processed condensate has to pass through a distillation tower and then kept segregated en-route to marine docks for export

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 12/01/2015 at 10:44 am
    Of course, there are two separate issues here. The upgrades to refineries to allow them to handle more light oil would increase the demand for 42+ light crude and condensate, but the condensate splitters are designed to allow condensate exports under existing crude oil export restrictions.

    I think that the bottom line is that the first hydrocarbon to peak globally is light/sweet crude, while we are definitely seeing increasing production on the light end, condensate to gas, and probably increased heavy crude production, but as noted above, I suspect that we have been on an "Undulating plateau" in total crude oil production (45 API and lower) since 2005.

    Fernando Leanme, 12/02/2015 at 10:42 am
    So the Obamite bureaucracy spurred the construction of condensate fractionation towers (the so called splitters).

    [Dec 03, 2015] Shale oil produsers may recover about 1.5 to 2 billion barrels of oil from current wells enough to pay 24 billion their debt

    Notable quotes:
    "... companies in the Bakken spend $24 billion more than the cash from operations during the last years to come to the current level of production ..."
    "... Do you have a very rough estimation of how much remaining oil, and consequently how much free cash flow (based on strip prices) you think they can recover? Will it be more or less than the $24 billion? ..."
    "... In my own estimation, they may recover about 1.5 to 2 billion barrels of oil from current wells. Depending on the strip prices, and the increase in operational expenses as the wells age (as Shallow as pointed out), they still may be able to recover those funds. It would not make the whole operation profitable, but at least most funds from creditors would be saved (unlike probably those of investors whose holdings more depend on the profitability). ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Rune Likvern, 11/30/2015 at 3:52 pm

    I just posted an update on Bakken(ND) LTO developments based upon NDIC data as per Sep 15.
    http://fractionalflow.com/2015/11/30/bakkennd-light-tight-oil-update-with-sep-15-ndic-data/
    gwalke, 12/02/2015 at 6:48 am
    Excellent as ever, Rune. It always makes me feel I'm on the right track when my results are close to your own.
    Enno Peters, 12/02/2015 at 7:33 am
    Rune, thanks for the great article.

    Question: So in your estimation, companies in the Bakken spend $24 billion more than the cash from operations during the last years to come to the current level of production. Suppose they would stop drilling (I know, not very realistically..), and try to maximize their free cash flows until their wells run into the economic limit and they are plugged. Do you have a very rough estimation of how much remaining oil, and consequently how much free cash flow (based on strip prices) you think they can recover? Will it be more or less than the $24 billion?

    This could answer the question whether in theory they will be able to show a net nominal profit, or loss.

    In my own estimation, they may recover about 1.5 to 2 billion barrels of oil from current wells. Depending on the strip prices, and the increase in operational expenses as the wells age (as Shallow as pointed out), they still may be able to recover those funds. It would not make the whole operation profitable, but at least most funds from creditors would be saved (unlike probably those of investors whose holdings more depend on the profitability).

    Rune Likvern, 12/02/2015 at 8:44 am
    Enno, thanks.
    Using the assumptions you describe I arrive at the same amount of oil recovered as yourself, so let us put this at 2 billion barrels.
    And as you point out there is a plethora of dynamics that comes into play in such a scenario.
    So roughly the total amount ($24B) is likely to be nominally recovered, there is however a wide range of the quality of the acreage for the companies operating in Bakken. Returns will suffer.

    Another way to look at this is to look at figure 04 in my post, where the nominal net back of the average well by vintage is shown. The average well is on a trajectory to recover its costs in nominal terms. The 20015 vintage will struggle.

    [Dec 03, 2015] The history of the Arab conquest of Byzantium is purposefully ignored

    economistsview.typepad.com
    Syaloch said in reply to anne...,

    Yep. I sometimes think that the history of the Arab conquest of East Roman (Byzantine) provinces is purposefully ignored because it doesn't fit into a Western narrative of what Arab Muslim peoples are like.

    The modern Islamic fundamentalist movements we see today are actually a fairly recent invention -- Wahhabism for example originated in the 18th century. And their rise to dominance is largely due to meddling by Western governments, which backed these groups to prevent Soviet expansion into the Middle East and southern Asia and to undermine nationalist movements that might oppose Western interests.

    [Dec 03, 2015] ISIS oil hub with 3000 parked oil trucks escaped detection by the USA and its eagle-eyed coalition

    marknesop.wordpress.com
    marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 2:10 pm
    Here's the evidence that the USA rejects. I particularly enjoyed the satellite imagery of the "ISIS oil hub", at which were parked 3,000 oil trucks. Apparently it escaped detection by the USA and its eagle-eyed coalition. Does it seem realistic that a country which was offered a major and legitimate pipeline deal would rather move its oil around in thousands of tanker trucks? If the oil trucking business were benefiting Assad's regime, don't you think ISIS would have blown it sky-high by now? It's in a region they control and apparently in the middle of open ground, completely unguarded.

    The battle lines have been drawn in yet another field of conflict – Russia aims to take down Erdogan, and Washington aims to keep him in his position. It remains to be seen just how embarrassing that will become.

    marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 1:10 pm
    Moscow is not backing away at all from accusations that Erdogan's family is personally involved in receiving and trafficking in ISIS oil. In a phenomenon pointed out by others of late, Yahoo comments are now overwhelmingly supportive of Russia on these issues. Not only that, mainstream news are picking up the accusation rapidly. The USA may reject Russia's evidence, but we knew they would do that anyway – the USA would reject a signed confession by Erdogan if they got it from Russia. I don't know why Moscow even bothers to show evidence to the Americans, it would do far better to approach Europeans – especially Germany and France – with its proof. If it could convince Germany, the USA would look a lot more foolish if it said it was all more Russian propaganda and lies.

    The USA will shield Erdogan for so long as it can, because his country is in a tremendous strategic position and is studded with NATO military installations. Washington certainly does not want to be confronted with a leadership transition it cannot micromanage. It might throw Erdogan under the bus, but not until it has identified and groomed a successor.

    It is also significant that rather than groveling for mercy, Russia continues to attack the alliance's credibility, and it is scoring hits.

    Patient Observer, December 2, 2015 at 2:11 pm
    The comment with the most "likes" on a yahoo article on Russian claiming that Turkey is buying ISIS oil (lost the link):
    " 542 – likes
    First it does not require a high school education to understand in order for ISIS to sell any oil from captured oil fields and or refineries it must have buyers of said oil. Our govt claims to watch everyone and know everything yet with all their tax payer space observations, massive fleet of drones to track ants in the sand they cannot figure out where all the oil goes to fund ISIS?
    Our govt is intentionally not stopping this oil from being sold and our leaders aware of this need to be exposed then put on trial then executed. In fact political figures in our country need to be facing firing squads monthly until they tell the truth and serve just our citizens. This in turn makes for a huge employment opportunity both in firing squads and new politicians."
    marknesop, December 2, 2015 at 2:21 pm
    The European Union voted to give itself permission to buy oil from "Syrian rebels" to help them overthrow Assad. The only stipulations of who could not benefit from it were "regime-associated" individuals and companies. The agency that must be consulted – the Syrian National Coalition – is based in Turkey and its president is chummy with Erdogan. Come on. Washington is ready to indict and convict Moscow on a hell of a lot less evidence than this on any day you care to name.
    et Al, December 2, 2015 at 2:43 pm
    Neuters: Russia says it has proof Turkey involved in Islamic State oil trade
    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/mideast-crisis-russia-turkey-idUKL8N13R2KV2015120

    …U.S. officials say coalition air strikes have destroyed hundreds of IS oil trucks while the Russian campaign has mainly targeted opponents of the Syrian government who are not from Islamic State, which is also known as ISIL.

    "The irony of the Russians raising this concern is that there's plenty of evidence to indicate that the largest consumer of ISIL oil is actually Bashar al-Assad and his regime, a regime that only remains in place because it is being propped up by the Russians," White House spokesman Josh Earnest said.

    The State Department's Toner said U.S. information was that Islamic State was selling oil at the wellheads to middlemen who were involved in smuggling it across the frontier into Turkey…

    …The ministry said the Western route took oil produced at fields near the Syrian city of Raqqa to the settlement of Azaz on the border with Turkey.

    From there the columns of tanker trucks pass through the Turkish town of Reyhanli, the ministry said, citing what it said were satellite pictures of hundreds of such trucks moving through the border crossing without obstruction.

    "There is no inspection of the vehicles carried out … on the Turkish side," said Rudskoy.

    Some of the smuggled cargoes go to the Turkish domestic market, while some is exported via the Turkish Mediterranean ports of Iskenderun and Dortyol, the ministry said.

    Another main route for smuggled oil, according to the ministry, runs from Deir Ez-zour in Syria to the Syrian border crossing at Al-Qamishli. It said the trucks then took the crude for refining at the Turkish city of Batman….

    …The defence ministry officials said the information they released on Wednesday was only part of the evidence they have in their possession, and that they would be releasing further intelligence in the next days and weeks.
    ####

    I can't wait for that twitter evidence from the State Department and the Pentagon. It should be devastating.

    [Dec 03, 2015] Tomgram Andrew Bacevich, An Invitation to Collective Suicide

    Notable quotes:
    "... Aside from long-shots Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, any candidate likely to enter the Oval Office in January 2017 will be committed to some version of much-more war, including obviously Donald Trump, Marco (" clash of civilizations ") Rubio, and Hillary Clinton, who recently gave a hawkish speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on her version of war policy against the Islamic State. ..."
    "... Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what? Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself -- a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it , "We came, we saw, he died." End of story. In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. "Liberation" turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval. ..."
    "... Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists. ..."
    "... Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. ..."
    "... True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality. ..."
    "... Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker. ..."
    "... American Interest ..."
    "... Now I happen to think that equating our present predicament in the Islamic world with the immensely destructive conflicts of the prior century is dead wrong. Yet it's a proposition that Americans at this juncture should contemplate with the utmost seriousness. ..."
    "... With so much on the line, Cohen derides the Obama administration's tendency to rely on "therapeutic bombing, which will temporarily relieve the itch, but leave the wounds suppurating." The time for such half-measures has long since passed. Defeating the Islamic State and "kindred movements" will require the U.S. to "kill a great many people." To that end Washington needs "a long-range plan not to 'contain' but to crush" the enemy. Even with such a plan, victory will be a long way off and will require "a long, bloody, and costly process." ..."
    "... Nor were Americans sufficiently willing to die for the cause. In South Vietnam, 58,000 G.I.s died in a futile effort to enable that country to survive. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the stakes were presumably much higher, we pulled the plug after fewer than 7,000 deaths. ..."
    "... In the meantime, U.S. forces would have to deal with the various and sundry "kindred movements" that are already cropping up like crabgrass in country after country. Afghanistan -- still? again? -- would head the list of places requiring U.S. military attention. But other prospective locales would include such hotbeds of Islamist activity as Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, and Yemen, along with several West African countries increasingly beset with insurgencies. Unless Egyptian, Pakistani, and Saudi security forces demonstrate the ability (not to mention the will) to suppress the violent radicals in their midst, one or more of those countries could also become the scene of significant U.S. military action. ..."
    "... At first glance, $1.8 trillion annually is a stupefyingly large figure. To make it somewhat more palatable, a proponent of World War IV might put that number in historical perspective. During the first phases of World War III, for example, the United States routinely allocated 10% or more of total gross domestic product (GDP) for national security. With that GDP today exceeding $17 trillion, apportioning 10% to the Pentagon would give those charged with managing World War IV a nice sum to work with and no doubt to build upon. ..."
    "... In other words, funding World War IV while maintaining a semblance of fiscal responsibility would entail the kind of trade-offs that political leaders are loathe to make. Today, neither party appears up to taking on such challenges. That the demands of waging protracted war will persuade them to rise above their partisan differences seems unlikely. It sure hasn't so far. ..."
    "... In my view, Cohen's World War IV is an invitation to collective suicide. Arguing that no alternative exists to open-ended war represents not hard-nosed realism, but the abdication of statecraft. Yet here's the ultimate irony: even without the name, the United States has already embarked upon something akin to a world war, which now extends into the far reaches of the Islamic world and spreads further year by year. ..."
    "... Andrew J. Bacevich, a ..."
    "... , is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of ..."
    "... , among other works. His new book, ..."
    "... is due out in April 2016. ..."
    "... on Twitter and join us on Facebook . Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's ..."
    "... , and Tom Engelhardts latest book, ..."
    Dec 03, 2015 | TomDispatch

    Let's consider the two parties in Washington. I'm not referring to the Republican and Democratic ones, but our capital's war parties (there being no peace party, of course). They might be labeled the More War Party and the Much (or Much, Much) More War Party. Headed by President Obama, the first is distinctly a minority grouping. In a capital city in which, post-Paris, war seems to be the order of the day, it's the party of relative restraint, as the president has clearly grasped the obvious: for the last 14 years, the more wholeheartedly the U.S. has gone into any situation in the Greater Middle East, militarily speaking, the worse it has turned out.

    Having promised to get us out of two wars and being essentially assured of leaving us in at least three (and various other conflicts on the side), he insists that a new invasion or even a large-scale infusion of American troops, aka "boots on the ground," in Syria or Iraq is a no-go for him. The code word he uses for his version of more war -- since less war is simply not an option on that "table" in Washington where all options are evidently kept -- is "intensification." Once upon a time, it might have been called "escalation" or "mission creep." The president has pledged to merely "intensify" the war he's launched, however reluctantly, in Syria and the one he's re-launched in Iraq. This seems to mean more of exactly what he's already ordered into the fray: more air power, more special forces boots more or less on the ground in Syria, more special ops raiders sent into Iraq, and perhaps more military advisers ever nearer to the action in that country as well. This is as close as you're likely to get in present-day America, at least in official circles, to an antiwar position.

    In the Much (or Much, Much) More War party, Republicans and Democrats alike are explicitly or implicitly criticizing the president for his "weak" policies and for "leading from behind" against the Islamic State. They propose solutions ranging from instituting "no-fly zones" in northern Syria to truly intensifying U.S. air strikes, to sending in local forces backed and led by American special operators (à la Afghanistan 2001), to sending in far more American troops, to simply putting masses of American boots on the ground and storming the Islamic State's capital, Raqqa. After fourteen years in which so many similar "solutions" have been tried and in the end failed miserably in the Greater Middle East or North Africa, all of it, as if brand new, is once again on that table in Washington.

    Aside from long-shots Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul, any candidate likely to enter the Oval Office in January 2017 will be committed to some version of much-more war, including obviously Donald Trump, Marco ("clash of civilizations") Rubio, and Hillary Clinton, who recently gave a hawkish speech at the Council on Foreign Relations on her version of war policy against the Islamic State. Given that stark reality, this is a perfect moment to explore what much-more war (call it, in fact, "World War IV") might actually mean and how it might play out in our world -- and TomDispatch regular Andrew Bacevich is the perfect person to do it. Tom

    Beyond ISIS: The Folly of World War IV
    By Andrew J. Bacevich

    Assume that the hawks get their way -- that the United States does whatever it takes militarily to confront and destroy ISIS. Then what?

    Answering that question requires taking seriously the outcomes of other recent U.S. interventions in the Greater Middle East. In 1991, when the first President Bush ejected Saddam Hussein's army from Kuwait, Americans rejoiced, believing that they had won a decisive victory. A decade later, the younger Bush seemingly outdid his father by toppling the Taliban in Afghanistan and then making short work of Saddam himself -- a liberation twofer achieved in less time than it takes Americans to choose a president. After the passage of another decade, Barack Obama got into the liberation act, overthrowing the Libyan dictator Muammar Gaddafi in what appeared to be a tidy air intervention with a clean outcome. As Secretary of State Hillary Clinton memorably put it, "We came, we saw, he died." End of story.

    In fact, subsequent events in each case mocked early claims of success or outright victory. Unanticipated consequences and complications abounded. "Liberation" turned out to be a prelude to chronic violence and upheaval.

    Indeed, the very existence of the Islamic State (ISIS) today renders a definitive verdict on the Iraq wars over which the Presidents Bush presided, each abetted by a Democratic successor. A de facto collaboration of four successive administrations succeeded in reducing Iraq to what it is today: a dysfunctional quasi-state unable to control its borders or territory while serving as a magnet and inspiration for terrorists.

    The United States bears a profound moral responsibility for having made such a hash of things there. Were it not for the reckless American decision to invade and occupy a nation that, whatever its crimes, had nothing to do with 9/11, the Islamic State would not exist. Per the famous Pottery Barn Rule attributed to former Secretary of State Colin Powell, having smashed Iraq to bits a decade ago, we can now hardly deny owning ISIS.

    That the United States possesses sufficient military power to make short work of that "caliphate" is also the case. True, in both Syria and Iraq the Islamic State has demonstrated a disturbing ability to capture and hold large stretches of desert, along with several population centers. It has, however, achieved these successes against poorly motivated local forces of, at best, indifferent quality.

    In that regard, the glibly bellicose editor of the Weekly Standard, William Kristol, is surely correct in suggesting that a well-armed contingent of 50,000 U.S. troops, supported by ample quantities of air power, would make mincemeat of ISIS in a toe-to-toe contest. Liberation of the various ISIS strongholds like Fallujah and Mosul in Iraq and Palmyra and Raqqa, its "capital," in Syria would undoubtedly follow in short order.

    In the wake of the recent attacks in Paris, the American mood is strongly trending in favor of this sort of escalation. Just about anyone who is anyone -- the current occupant of the Oval Office partially excepted -- favors intensifying the U.S. military campaign against ISIS. And why not? What could possibly go wrong? As Kristol puts it, "I don't think there's much in the way of unanticipated side effects that are going to be bad there."

    It's an alluring prospect. In the face of a sustained assault by the greatest military the world has ever seen, ISIS foolishly (and therefore improbably) chooses to make an Alamo-like stand. Whammo! We win. They lose. Mission accomplished.

    Of course, that phrase recalls the euphoric early reactions to Operations Desert Storm in 1991, Enduring Freedom in 2001, Iraqi Freedom in 2003, and Odyssey Dawn, the Libyan intervention of 2011. Time and again the unanticipated side effects of U.S. military action turned out to be very bad indeed. In Kabul, Baghdad, or Tripoli, the Alamo fell, but the enemy dispersed or reinvented itself and the conflict continued. Assurances offered by Kristol that this time things will surely be different deserve to be taken with more than a grain of salt. Pass the whole shaker.

    Embracing Generational War

    Why this repeated disparity between perceived and actual outcomes? Why have apparent battlefield successes led so regularly to more violence and disorder? Before following Kristol's counsel, Americans would do well to reflect on these questions.

    Cue Professor Eliot A. Cohen. Shortly after 9/11, Cohen, one of this country's preeminent military thinkers, characterized the conflict on which the United States was then embarking as "World War IV." (In this formulation, the Cold War becomes World War III.) Other than in certain neoconservative quarters, the depiction did not catch on. Yet nearly a decade-and-a-half later, the Johns Hopkins professor and former State Department official is sticking to his guns. In an essay penned for the American Interest following the recent Paris attacks, he returns to his theme. "It was World War IV in 2001," Cohen insists. "It is World War IV today." And to our considerable benefit he spells out at least some of the implications of casting the conflict in such expansive and evocative terms.

    Now I happen to think that equating our present predicament in the Islamic world with the immensely destructive conflicts of the prior century is dead wrong. Yet it's a proposition that Americans at this juncture should contemplate with the utmost seriousness.

    In the United States today, confusion about what war itself signifies is widespread. Through misuse, misapplication, and above all misremembering, we have distorted the term almost beyond recognition. As one consequence, talk of war comes too easily off the tongues of the unknowing.

    Not so with Cohen. When it comes to war, he has no illusions. Addressing that subject, he illuminates it, enabling us to see what war entails. So in advocating World War IV, he performs a great service, even if perhaps not the one he intends.

    What will distinguish the war that Cohen deems essential? "Begin with endurance," he writes. "This war will probably go on for the rest of my life, and well into my children's." Although American political leaders seem reluctant "to explain just how high the stakes are," Cohen lays them out in direct, unvarnished language. At issue, he insists, is the American way of life itself, not simply "in the sense of rock concerts and alcohol in restaurants, but the more fundamental rights of freedom of speech and religion, the equality of women, and, most essentially, the freedom from fear and freedom to think."

    With so much on the line, Cohen derides the Obama administration's tendency to rely on "therapeutic bombing, which will temporarily relieve the itch, but leave the wounds suppurating." The time for such half-measures has long since passed. Defeating the Islamic State and "kindred movements" will require the U.S. to "kill a great many people." To that end Washington needs "a long-range plan not to 'contain' but to crush" the enemy. Even with such a plan, victory will be a long way off and will require "a long, bloody, and costly process."

    Cohen's candor and specificity, as bracing as they are rare, should command our respect. If World War IV describes what we are in for, then eliminating ISIS might figure as a near-term imperative, but it can hardly define the endgame. Beyond ISIS loom all those continually evolving "kindred movements" to which the United States will have to attend before it can declare the war itself well and truly won.

    To send just tens of thousands of U.S. troops to clean up Syria and Iraq, as William Kristol and others propose, offers at best a recipe for winning a single campaign. Winning the larger war would involve far more arduous exertions. This Cohen understands, accepts, and urges others to acknowledge.

    And here we come to the heart of the matter. For at least the past 35 years -- that is, since well before 9/11 -- the United States has been "at war" in various quarters of the Islamic world. At no point has it demonstrated the will or the ability to finish the job. Washington's approach has been akin to treating cancer with a little bit of chemo one year and a one-shot course of radiation the next. Such gross malpractice aptly describes U.S. military policy throughout the Greater Middle East across several decades.

    While there may be many reasons why the Iraq War of 2003 to 2011 and the still longer Afghanistan War yielded such disappointing results, Washington's timidity in conducting those campaigns deserves pride of place. That most Americans might bridle at the term "timidity" reflects the extent to which they have deluded themselves regarding the reality of war.

    In comparison to Vietnam, for example, Washington's approach to waging its two principal post-9/11 campaigns was positively half-hearted. With the nation as a whole adhering to peacetime routines, Washington neither sent enough troops nor stayed anywhere near long enough to finish the job. Yes, we killed many tens of thousands of Iraqis and Afghans, but if winning World War IV requires, as Cohen writes, that we "break the back" of the enemy, then we obviously didn't kill nearly enough.

    Nor were Americans sufficiently willing to die for the cause. In South Vietnam, 58,000 G.I.s died in a futile effort to enable that country to survive. In Iraq and Afghanistan, where the stakes were presumably much higher, we pulled the plug after fewer than 7,000 deaths.

    Americans would be foolish to listen to those like William Kristol who, even today, peddle illusions about war being neat and easy. They would do well instead to heed Cohen, who knows that war is hard and ugly.

    What Would World War IV Look Like?

    Yet when specifying the practical implications of generational war, Cohen is less forthcoming. From his perspective, this fourth iteration of existential armed conflict in a single century is not going well. But apart from greater resolve and bloody-mindedness, what will it take to get things on the right track?

    As a thought experiment, let's answer that question by treating it with the urgency that Cohen believes it deserves. After 9/11, certain U.S. officials thundered about "taking the gloves off." In practice, however, with the notable exception of policies permitting torture and imprisonment without due process, the gloves stayed on. Take Cohen's conception of World War IV at face value and that will have to change.

    For starters, the country would have to move to something like a war footing, enabling Washington to raise a lot more troops and spend a lot more money over a very long period of time. Although long since banished from the nation's political lexicon, the M-word -- mobilization -- would make a comeback. Prosecuting a generational war, after all, is going to require the commitment of generations.

    Furthermore, if winning World War IV means crushing the enemy, as Cohen emphasizes, then ensuring that the enemy, once crushed, cannot recover would be hardly less important. And that requirement would prohibit U.S. forces from simply walking away from a particular fight even -- or especially -- when it might appear won.

    At the present moment, defeating the Islamic State ranks as Washington's number one priority. With the Pentagon already claiming a body count of 20,000 ISIS fighters without notable effect, this campaign won't end anytime soon. But even assuming an eventually positive outcome, the task of maintaining order and stability in areas that ISIS now controls will remain. Indeed, that task will persist until the conditions giving rise to entities like ISIS are eliminated. Don't expect French President François Hollande or British Prime Minister David Cameron to sign up for that thankless job. U.S. forces will own it. Packing up and leaving the scene won't be an option.

    How long would those forces have to stay? Extrapolating from recent U.S. occupations in Iraq and Afghanistan, something on the order of a quarter-century seems like a plausible approximation. So should our 45th president opt for a boots-on-the-ground solution to ISIS, as might well be the case, the privilege of welcoming the troops home could belong to the 48th or 49th occupant of the White House.

    In the meantime, U.S. forces would have to deal with the various and sundry "kindred movements" that are already cropping up like crabgrass in country after country. Afghanistan -- still? again? -- would head the list of places requiring U.S. military attention. But other prospective locales would include such hotbeds of Islamist activity as Lebanon, Libya, Palestine, Somalia, and Yemen, along with several West African countries increasingly beset with insurgencies. Unless Egyptian, Pakistani, and Saudi security forces demonstrate the ability (not to mention the will) to suppress the violent radicals in their midst, one or more of those countries could also become the scene of significant U.S. military action.

    Effective prosecution of World War IV, in other words, would require the Pentagon to plan for each of these contingencies, while mustering the assets needed for implementation. Allies might kick in token assistance -- tokenism is all they have to offer -- but the United States will necessarily carry most of the load.

    What Would World War IV Cost?

    During World War III (aka the Cold War), the Pentagon maintained a force structure ostensibly adequate to the simultaneous prosecution of two and a half wars. This meant having the wherewithal to defend Europe and the Pacific from communist aggression while still leaving something for the unexpected. World War IV campaigns are unlikely to entail anything on the scale of the Warsaw Pact attacking Western Europe or North Korea invading the South. Still, the range of plausible scenarios will require that U.S. forces be able to take on militant organizations C and D even while guarding against the resurgence of organizations A and B in altogether different geographic locations.

    Even though Washington may try whenever possible to avoid large-scale ground combat, relying on air power (including drones) and elite Special Operations forces to do the actual killing, post-conflict pacification promises to be a manpower intensive activity. Certainly, this ranks as one of the most obvious lessons to emerge from World War IV's preliminary phases: when the initial fight ends, the real work begins.

    U.S. forces committed to asserting control over Iraq after the invasion of 2003 topped out at roughly 180,000. In Afghanistan, during the Obama presidency, the presence peaked at 110,000. In a historical context, these are not especially large numbers. At the height of the Vietnam War, for example, U.S. troop strength in Southeast Asia exceeded 500,000.

    In hindsight, the Army general who, before the invasion of 2003, publicly suggested that pacifying postwar Iraq would require "several hundred thousand troops" had it right. A similar estimate applies to Afghanistan. In other words, those two occupations together could easily have absorbed 600,000 to 800,000 troops on an ongoing basis. Given the Pentagon's standard three-to-one rotation policy, which assumes that for every unit in-country, a second is just back, and a third is preparing to deploy, you're talking about a minimum requirement of between 1.8 and 2.4 million troops to sustain just two medium-sized campaigns -- a figure that wouldn't include some number of additional troops kept in reserve for the unexpected.

    In other words, waging World War IV would require at least a five-fold increase in the current size of the U.S. Army -- and not as an emergency measure but a permanent one. Such numbers may appear large, but as Cohen would be the first to point out, they are actually modest when compared to previous world wars. In 1968, in the middle of World War III, the Army had more than 1.5 million active duty soldiers on its rolls -- this at a time when the total American population was less than two-thirds what it is today and when gender discrimination largely excluded women from military service. If it chose to do so, the United States today could easily field an army of two million or more soldiers.

    Whether it could also retain the current model of an all-volunteer force is another matter. Recruiters would certainly face considerable challenges, even if Congress enhanced the material inducements for service, which since 9/11 have already included a succession of generous increases in military pay. A loosening of immigration policy, granting a few hundred thousand foreigners citizenship in return for successfully completing a term of enlistment might help. In all likelihood, however, as with all three previous world wars, waging World War IV would oblige the United States to revive the draft, a prospect as likely to be well-received as a flood of brown and black immigrant enlistees. In short, going all out to create the forces needed to win World War IV would confront Americans with uncomfortable choices.

    The budgetary implications of expanding U.S. forces while conducting a perpetual round of what the Pentagon calls "overseas contingency operations" would also loom large. Precisely how much money an essentially global conflict projected to extend well into the latter half of the century would require is difficult to gauge. As a starting point, given the increased number of active duty forces, tripling the present Defense Department budget of more than $600 billion might serve as a reasonable guess.

    At first glance, $1.8 trillion annually is a stupefyingly large figure. To make it somewhat more palatable, a proponent of World War IV might put that number in historical perspective. During the first phases of World War III, for example, the United States routinely allocated 10% or more of total gross domestic product (GDP) for national security. With that GDP today exceeding $17 trillion, apportioning 10% to the Pentagon would give those charged with managing World War IV a nice sum to work with and no doubt to build upon.

    Of course, that money would have to come from somewhere. For several years during the last decade, sustaining wars in Iraq and Afghanistan pushed the federal deficit above a trillion dollars. As one consequence, the total national debt now exceeds annual GDP, having tripled since 9/11. How much additional debt the United States can accrue without doing permanent damage to the economy is a question of more than academic interest.

    To avoid having World War IV produce an endless string of unacceptably large deficits, ratcheting up military spending would undoubtedly require either substantial tax increases or significant cuts in non-military spending, including big-ticket programs like Medicare and social security -- precisely those, that is, which members of the middle class hold most dear.

    In other words, funding World War IV while maintaining a semblance of fiscal responsibility would entail the kind of trade-offs that political leaders are loathe to make. Today, neither party appears up to taking on such challenges. That the demands of waging protracted war will persuade them to rise above their partisan differences seems unlikely. It sure hasn't so far.

    The Folly of World War IV

    In his essay, Cohen writes, "we need to stop the circumlocutions." Of those who would bear the direct burden of his world war, he says, "we must start telling them the truth." He's right, even if he himself is largely silent about what the conduct of World War IV is likely to exact from the average citizen.

    As the United States enters a presidential election year, plain talk about the prospects of our ongoing military engagement in the Islamic world should be the order of the day. The pretense that either dropping a few more bombs or invading one or two more countries will yield a conclusive outcome amounts to more than an evasion. It is an outright lie.

    As Cohen knows, winning World War IV would require dropping many, many more bombs and invading, and then occupying for years to come, many more countries. After all, it's not just ISIS that Washington will have to deal with, but also its affiliates, offshoots, wannabes, and the successors almost surely waiting in the wings. And don't forget al-Qaeda.

    Cohen believes that we have no alternative. Either we get serious about fighting World War IV the way it needs to be fought or darkness will envelop the land. He is undeterred by the evidence that the more deeply we insert our soldiers into the Greater Middle East the more concerted the resistance they face; that the more militants we kill the more we seem to create; that the inevitable, if unintended, killing of innocents only serves to strengthen the hand of the extremists. As he sees it, with everything we believe in riding on the outcome, we have no choice but to press on.

    While listening carefully to Cohen's call to arms, Americans should reflect on its implications. Wars change countries and people. Embracing his prescription for World War IV would change the United States in fundamental ways. It would radically expand the scope and reach of the national security state, which, of course, includes agencies beyond the military itself. It would divert vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes. It would make the militarization of the American way of life, a legacy of prior world wars, irreversible. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it would also compromise American freedom in the name of protecting it. The nation that decades from now might celebrate VT Day -- victory over terrorism -- will have become a different place, materially, politically, culturally, and morally.

    In my view, Cohen's World War IV is an invitation to collective suicide. Arguing that no alternative exists to open-ended war represents not hard-nosed realism, but the abdication of statecraft. Yet here's the ultimate irony: even without the name, the United States has already embarked upon something akin to a world war, which now extends into the far reaches of the Islamic world and spreads further year by year.

    Incrementally, bit by bit, this nameless war has already expanded the scope and reach of the national security apparatus. It is diverting vast quantities of wealth to nonproductive purposes even as it normalizes the continuing militarization of the American way of life. By sowing fear and fostering impossible expectations of perfect security, it is undermining American freedom in the name of protecting it, and doing so right before our eyes.

    Cohen rightly decries the rudderless character of the policies that have guided the (mis)conduct of that war thus far. For that critique we owe him a considerable debt. But the real problem is the war itself and the conviction that only through war can America remain America.

    For a rich and powerful nation to conclude that it has no choice but to engage in quasi-permanent armed conflict in the far reaches of the planet represents the height of folly. Power confers choice. As citizens, we must resist with all our might arguments that deny the existence of choice. Whether advanced forthrightly by Cohen or fecklessly by the militarily ignorant, such claims will only perpetuate the folly that has already lasted far too long.

    Andrew J. Bacevich, a TomDispatch regular, is professor emeritus of history and international relations at Boston University. He is the author of Breach of Trust: How Americans Failed Their Soldiers and Their Country, among other works. His new book, America's War for the Greater Middle East (Random House), is due out in April 2016.

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Nick Turse's Tomorrow's Battlefield: U.S. Proxy Wars and Secret Ops in Africa, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

    Copyright 2015 Andrew J. Bacevich

    [Dec 02, 2015] Russian Oil Output Stays Near Record Level as OPEC Set to Meet

    www.bloomberg.com
    AlexS, 12/02/2015 at 5:31 am
    Russian Oil Output Stays Near Record Level as OPEC Set to Meet

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-12-02/russian-oil-output-stays-near-record-level-as-opec-set-to-meet

    Russian oil output in November hovered near a post-Soviet record set the previous month, shrugging off a crude-price slump before OPEC gathers for its annual meeting in Vienna.

    Production of crude and gas condensate averaged 10.779 million barrels a day during the month, according to data from the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit. That's an increase of 1.3 percent from a year earlier and slightly beneath the 10.782 million barrels a day record in October.

    Russia … continues to build output as a weakened ruble reduces costs for drilling and the nation's tax system helps compensate for the lower price. Crude exports reached 5.32 million barrels of oil a day in November, an 11 percent gain from the previous year and a 2.4 percent decline from the previous month.

    My comment: using the 7.3 barrels/ton conversion ratio, November production was 10,735 kb/d vs. 10,737 kb/d in October (revised; preliminary estimate for October was 10,731 kb/d).

    Russian annual output is on track to surpass the official forecast for 2015 of 533 million tons, or 10.66 mb/d.
    Source: Russian Energy Ministry

    [Dec 02, 2015] America's biggest gas field finally succumbs to downturn

    Notable quotes:
    "... I had another look at the Colorado well data. I found out how I could only focus on horizontal wells, and also selected only the prolific Wattenberg field in the Niobrara area. I kept being amazed by the declines, compared with the Bakken. See the full picture below. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    TechGuy, 12/02/2015 at 12:05 pm
    FYI:
    America's biggest gas field finally succumbs to downturn
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/12/02/us-usa-marcellus-decline-insight-idUSKBN0TL0CY20151202#bOmHd0LCw1u9zR5x.97
    Enno Peters, 12/02/2015 at 4:18 pm
    I had another look at the Colorado well data. I found out how I could only focus on horizontal wells, and also selected only the prolific Wattenberg field in the Niobrara area. I kept being amazed by the declines, compared with the Bakken. See the full picture below.

    The average well here returns 82 kbo after 3.5 years, so the EUR may be about 100 kbo or so. Newer wells are slightly better, but also not by much: 2014/2015 wells produce maybe 10 kbo more in the early phase, but similar as in the Bakken the daily rate drops to the same rate as older wells after 1.5 years.

    Gas output is higher, may be in the tune of 500-1000 kMCF EUR.

    These wells together produced about 170 kbo/d in July.

    coffeeguyzz, 12/02/2015 at 5:18 pm
    Enno

    It is great to get a broader perspective from different shale plays. All the attention on the data-rich Bakken can mask what is occurring elsewhere.

    Many of the Wattenberg field wells are 6,000′ deep and have laterals slightly over 4,000′, and 20/25 stages.

    The decline would be horrendous compared to the Bakken where wells run 9,500'/10,000 deep, have 9,500′ long laterals as a rule, and anywhere from 30 to 60 stages.

    A lot of the Niobrara guys drilled the shallowest bench first (Niobrara 1 ?), and have yet to extensively test benches 2 and 3, as well as the deepest Codell, where it exists.

    The usual HBP circumstances as well as economics (shallower = cheaper) have influenced development there.

    The Niobrara wells will never compare favorably to the Bakken, but if the intense down spacing proves effective, and the operators get more than 75 cents/a buck for a gallon ATW for their product, it may make economic sense.

    (As per the down spacing, Whiting just put 32 wells on one pad, but seem to think 30 will be optimal going forward).

    [Dec 02, 2015] Ed Morse is saying OPEC will not cut until June, 2016 at the earliest.

    Notable quotes:
    "... Not sure the shale drillers have many "friends" on Wall Street. Most of the smart money is short the shales. ..."
    "... When enough money has been made, the bones of the shalies will be picked over. ..."
    "... I'm going to stick with my call-OPEC cuts Friday. Every analyst seems to think that they won't cut. But to me, the language out of al-Naimi the last couple of weeks at least leaves the door open. I think they will reference current high inventories and the fact that higher prices are needed now to prevent a major price spike in a year or two. They've knocked out 3-5 million barrels per day of future oil supply with some of it coming out of OPEC members Nigeria, Algeria, Venezuela, Ecuador and Iraq who can't afford to invest in maintaining production. We'll see. ..."
    "... Personally I am still of the opinion that the Saudis are keeping the pedal to the metal in order to put a hurting on their enemies, real or perceived. My take is that they are fighting a war, using the price of oil as their primary and probably only effective weapon, thus depriving their enemies, most or all of whom are oil exporters, of revenue. It takes revenue to fight, revenue to overthrow existing governments, revenue to do just about anything. ..."
    "... I don't think they will cut anytime soon, given that they still have plenty of money in the bank, and can afford to give up the revenue for a while yet, if they so choose. But I wouldn't bet very much on this opinion. ..."
    "... "…difficult choice OPEC nations have to make. They could cut output to revive crude prices from a four-year low, at the risk of losing more market share to rival suppliers, including U.S. shale drillers. Or they could do nothing and allow prices to fall low enough to deter growth in U.S. output, a move that would also squeeze the finances of poorer members like Venezuela and Nigeria." ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    shallow sand, 12/01/2015 at 6:37 pm

    Ed Morse is saying OPEC will not cut until June, 2016 at the earliest. Given that his employer, Citibank, is owned to a large extent by Saudi royals, he should be listened to (assuming he is shooting straight).

    I also notice he is calling for US stripper well production to be shut in. Also note WSJ has written two stripper well articles in the last week.

    What the heck? We were just minding our own business the whole time. Per Macquarie, US conventional onshore, which a large chunk of is stripper, has rolled over harder in percentage terms than in even 1986 or 1998. Those numbers are just through June, 2015, see my post above. We are being responsible, not drilling, not doing work overs, not borrowing. Why should we close up shop? Just because we don't want to borrow above our means?

    Shale caused this mess. But I guess a bunch of Wall Street types would rather see stripper producers fail, as stripper producers are not generally indebted to Wall Street. MLPs such as LINE, BBEP are exceptions.

    So sorry, but to totally kill US stripper production, will need lower prices for longer, which may very well happen. But you Wall Streeters will need to loan more $$ to your Shale oil buddies, are you willing to do that as their $$ per BOE slides below $20?

    Arceus, 12/01/2015 at 7:22 pm
    Not sure the shale drillers have many "friends" on Wall Street. Most of the smart money is short the shales. But you are right, the big money center banks and smaller banks do not want the companies to go under – they need to make money off of them first in a variety of ways – shorting of their stocks, issuing preferred converts, buying up secured high yield junk bonds, doing secondaries, arranging potential mergers, etc.

    When enough money has been made, the bones of the shalies will be picked over.

    John Keller, 12/01/2015 at 9:56 pm

    I'm going to stick with my call-OPEC cuts Friday. Every analyst seems to think that they won't cut. But to me, the language out of al-Naimi the last couple of weeks at least leaves the door open. I think they will reference current high inventories and the fact that higher prices are needed now to prevent a major price spike in a year or two. They've knocked out 3-5 million barrels per day of future oil supply with some of it coming out of OPEC members Nigeria, Algeria, Venezuela, Ecuador and Iraq who can't afford to invest in maintaining production. We'll see.

    oldfarmermac, 12/01/2015 at 10:43 pm
    Personally I am still of the opinion that the Saudis are keeping the pedal to the metal in order to put a hurting on their enemies, real or perceived. My take is that they are fighting a war, using the price of oil as their primary and probably only effective weapon, thus depriving their enemies, most or all of whom are oil exporters, of revenue. It takes revenue to fight, revenue to overthrow existing governments, revenue to do just about anything.

    Another reason for them to wait a while yet on cutting is that they may not yet be SATISFIED that the other OPEC countries have GOTTEN THE MESSAGE about cheating on quotas.

    When the Saudis cut before, all their friends except one or two played the backstabber by cheating like hell and leaving the Saudis to eat the loss of revenue and market share.

    The longer the Saudis put off cutting, the more they rub the cheaters noses in their past mistakes. Maybe this time around, the Saudis will be able to get GUARANTEES that the rest of OPEC will not cheat. Something in writing maybe, specifying damages to be paid to the Saudis. Maybe they think the other OPEC members will be desperate enough to give such written binding guarantees , sooner or later.

    I don't think they will cut anytime soon, given that they still have plenty of money in the bank, and can afford to give up the revenue for a while yet, if they so choose. But I wouldn't bet very much on this opinion.

    Greenbub, 12/01/2015 at 11:19 pm
    This is a couple weeks old, but a good summary of the theories:
    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-11-21/confused-opec-watchers-are-more-divided-than-ever

    "…difficult choice OPEC nations have to make. They could cut output to revive crude prices from a four-year low, at the risk of losing more market share to rival suppliers, including U.S. shale drillers. Or they could do nothing and allow prices to fall low enough to deter growth in U.S. output, a move that would also squeeze the finances of poorer members like Venezuela and Nigeria."

    [Dec 02, 2015] Russia Presents Detailed Evidence Of ISIS-Turkey Oil Trade

    Notable quotes:
    "... Now obviously, conclusive evidence that Ankara is knowingly facilitating the sale of ISIS crude will probably be hard to come by, at least in the short-term, but the silly thing about Erdogans pronouncement is that were talking about a man who was willing to plunge his country into civil war over a few lost seats in Parliament. The idea that he would ever step down is patently absurd. ..."
    "... Whats critical is that the world gets the truth about whos financing and facilitating Raqqas Rockefellers. If a NATO member is supporting this, and if the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks for 14 months as part of an understanding with Erdogan, well then we have a problem. ..."
    "... In the opening address, the Deputy says the ISIS oil trade reaches the highest levels of Turkeys government. He also says Erdogan wouldnt resign if his face was smeared with stolen Syrian oil. Antonov then blasts Ankara for arresting journalists and mocks Erdogans lovely family oil business. Antonov even calls on the journalists of the world to get involved and help Russia expose and destroy the sources of terrorist financing. ..."
    "... I might be too harsh, but at the hands of the Turkish military killed our comrades. The cynicism of the Turkish leadership is unlimited. Look what theyre doing ?! Climbed to a foreign country, it shamelessly robbed. And if the owners interfere, then they have to be addressed. ..."
    "... No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business! ..."
    "... National intelligence agencies watch Facebook, Twitter, Google and other search engines to see if they have to do damage control. If a few sites come out with articles implicating Bilal but the little people dont do many searches for him or re-tweet links, then theres no reason to react. They simply ignore the story. ..."
    "... The government defines the narrative, and MSM stenographers fill in the pieces. Facebook, Twitter and Google are checked to see if they had the desired effect. They can also use a bit more direct techniques like massaging the Google search result rankings or blowing away Facebook and Twitter accounts they dont like. Israel is insane about collecting this data from Americans and reacting. Uncle Sugar isnt going to cough up that free $3 billion a year handout to them if the people are in the streets with pitchforks and torches. They are especially interested in de-ranking Google results that make Israel look bad, and promoting sites that deliver the message they want. Google is the worst search engine to look for Israeli current events. ..."
    "... Obama Administration Supporting Islamic State -- OASIS. It certainly is if youre a terrorist rebel or well-connected oil pimp... ..."
    "... The US made a deal with OPEC: the US would help to remove Assad, and in return, OPEC would dump oil to weaken Russia and Iran, fulfilling PNAC/Cheneys pet dream of consolidating the remaining oil reserves under US-friendly control. ISIS was a tool to that end. ..."
    "... Now that the cat is out of the bag, now that Chinas overdue correction has been triggered, now that Brazil and Canada know who is largely responsible for their collapsing economies, now that Europe knows why they are overrun by refugees, I wonder how friendly those countries will be moving forward. ..."
    "... As I read it, according to traditional international law, the Russian Federation may legally seize Erdogans Maltese-flagged neutral tankers carrying ISIS crude oil, because that crude oil constitutes a significant portion of ISIS war making potential, that tanker then effectively constituting an enemy merchant vessel, with the tankers subsequent condemnation in Russian prize courts, as the capturing belligerent power. ..."
    "... A former police commander from Tajikistan was featured in an ISIS video recently where he admitted he was trained by the U.S. State Department and former military contractor Blackwater all the way up until last year. ..."
    "... It was Turkeys national intelligence agency, known as MIT, that first organized Syrian military defectors into Western-backed groups under the banner of the Free Syrian Army. ..."
    "... Free Syrian Army factions still convene on Turkish soil in the Joint Operations Center, a CIA-led intelligence hub that gives vetted rebels training as well as U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles used to destroy Syrian army tanks and armored units. ..."
    "... Islamist groups, however, have benefited from Turkeys pro-opposition policy as well. In May, the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet published video from 2014 showing customs agents impounding a truck owned by the MIT. The trucks manifest said it was carrying humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Instead it was bearing a cache of ammunition and shells the newspaper said were destined for Islamist rebels. The videos release caused a furor. Erdogan vowed to prosecute Cumhuriyet, a threat he carried out Friday when authorities arrested two of the papers journalists on charges of espionage and aiding a terrorist organization. ..."
    "... According to a 2015 United Nations study, two border crossings controlled by a faction of the Army of Conquest handle more than 300 trucks a day, a figure that exceeds prewar levels. The traffic yields an estimated $660,000 a day. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    On Monday, Turkey's sultan President Recep Tayyip Erdogan said something funny. In the wake of Vladimir Putin's contention that Russia has additional proof of Turkey's participation in Islamic State's illicit crude trade, Erdogan said he would resign if anyone could prove the accusations.

    Now obviously, conclusive evidence that Ankara is knowingly facilitating the sale of ISIS crude will probably be hard to come by, at least in the short-term, but the silly thing about Erdogan's pronouncement is that we're talking about a man who was willing to plunge his country into civil war over a few lost seats in Parliament. The idea that he would ever "step down" is patently absurd.

    But that's not what's important. What's critical is that the world gets the truth about who's financing and facilitating "Raqqa's Rockefellers." If a NATO member is supporting this, and if the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks for 14 months as part of an understanding with Erdogan, well then we have a problem. For those who need a review, see the following four pieces:

    Unfortunately for Ankara, The Kremlin is on a mission to blow this story wide open now that Turkey has apparently decided it's ok to shoot down Russian fighter jets. On Wednesday, we get the latest from Russia, where the Defense Ministry has just finished a briefing on the Islamic State oil trade. Not to put too fine a point on it, but Turkey may be in trouble.

    First, here's the bullet point summary via Reuters:

    • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS RUSSIA'S AIR STRIKES IN SYRIA HELPED TO ALMOST HALVE ILLEGAL OIL TURNOVER
    • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS TURKISH PRESIDENT AND FAMILY INVOLVED IN BUSINESS WITH ISLAMIC STATE OIL
    • RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS WILL CONTINUE STRIKES IN SYRIA ON ISLAMIC STATE OIL INFRASTRUCTURE
    • RUSSIA'S DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS KNOWS OF THREE ROUTES BY WHICH ISLAMIC STATE OIL IS DIRECTED TO TURKEY
    • RUSSIAN DEFENCE MINISTRY SAYS TO PRESENT NEXT WEEK INFORMATION SHOWING TURKEY HELPING ISLAMIC STATE

    That's the Cliff's Notes version and the full statement from Deputy Minister of Defence Anatoly Antonov is below. Let us be the first to tell you, Antonov did not hold back.

    In the opening address, the Deputy says the ISIS oil trade reaches the highest levels of Turkey's government. He also says Erdogan wouldn't resign if his face was smeared with stolen Syrian oil. Antonov then blasts Ankara for arresting journalists and mocks Erdogan's "lovely family oil business." Antonov even calls on the journalists of the world to "get involved" and help Russia "expose and destroy the sources of terrorist financing."

    "Today, we are presenting only some of the facts that confirm that a whole team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from their neighbors is operating in the region," Antonov continues, setting up a lengthy presentation in which the MoD shows photos of oil trucks, videos of airstrikes and maps detailing the trafficking of stolen oil. The clip is presented here with an English voice-over. Enjoy.

    ... ... ...

    Oh, and for good measure, Lieutenant-General Sergey Rudskoy says the US is not bombing ISIS oil trucks.

    * * *

    Full statement from Anatoly Antonov (translated)

    At a briefing for the media, "the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation in the fight against international terrorism. The new data "

    International terrorism - is the main threat of our time. This threat is not illusory but real, and many countries, primarily Russia, knows this firsthand. The notorious "Is Islamic state" - the absolute leader of the terrorist international. This is a rearing monster of international terrorism can be countered. And you can win. Over the past two months, Aerospace Russian forces is clearly demonstrated.

    We are firmly convinced that victory over LIH need to deliver a powerful and devastating blow to the sources of its funding, as repeatedly mentioned by President Vladimir Putin. Terrorism has no money - is a beast without teeth. Oil revenues are a major source of terrorist activity in Syria. They earn about $ 2 billion. Dollars annually, spending this money on hiring fighters around the world, providing them with weapons, equipment and weapons. That's why so LIH protects thieves oil infrastructure in Syria and Iraq.

    The main consumer of stolen from legitimate owners - Syria and Iraq - the oil is Turkey. According to the data entered in this criminal business involved the highest political leadership of the country - President Erdogan and his family.

    We have repeatedly talked about the dangers of flirting with terrorists. It's like that stokes. The fire from one country can spill over to others. This situation we are seeing in the Middle East. Today, we present only part of the facts, confirming that the region has a team of bandits and Turkish elites stealing oil from the neighbors.

    This oil in large numbers on an industrial scale, for the living pipelines from thousands of oil tankers entering the territory of Turkey. We are absolutely convinced today present you the hard facts about what the final destination of the stolen oil - Turkey. There is a large number of media representatives, and Our briefing will see more of your colleagues. In this regard, I would like to say the following. We know and appreciate the work of journalists. We know that in the journalistic community, many courageous, fearless people honestly do its job. Today, we have clearly shown you how the illegal trade in oil, the result of which - the financing of terrorism. Provided concrete evidence that, in our opinion, may be the subject of investigative journalism.

    We are confident that the truth with your help will, will find its way. We know the price to Erdogan. He has already been caught in a lie again Turkish journalists who opened Turkey delivery of arms and ammunition to militants under the guise of humanitarian convoys. For this imprisoned journalists.

    Do not resign Turkish leaders, particularly Mr. Erdogan, and did not recognize, even if their faces will be smeared by oil thieves. I might be too harsh, but at the hands of the Turkish military killed our comrades. The cynicism of the Turkish leadership is unlimited. Look what they're doing ?! Climbed to a foreign country, it shamelessly robbed. And if the owners interfere, then they have to be addressed.

    I stress that Erdogan's resignation is not our goal. It is - it is the people of Turkey. Our goal and the goal to which we urge you, ladies and gentlemen, - joint action to block the sources of funding for terrorism. We will continue to provide evidence of robbery by Turkey of its neighbors. Maybe I'll be too straightforward, but the control of these thieves in business can be entrusted only to the most close people.

    No one in the West, I wonder, does not cause the issue that the son of the President of Turkey is the leader of one of the largest energy companies, and son-in-appointed Minister of Energy? What a brilliant family business!

    This, in general, may elsewhere? Well, once again, of course, such cases can not be charging anyone, only the closest people. Votes this fact in the Western media we do not see much, but it sure can not hide the truth. Yes, of course, dirty petrodollars will work. I am sure that there are now discussions about the fact that everything you see here, - falsification. Well. If it did not - let be allowed in those places that we showed journalists.

    It is obvious that today the publicity was devoted only part of the information about the monstrous crimes of the Turkish elites who directly finance international terrorism. We believe that any sane journalist should fight this plague of the XXI century. The world experience has repeatedly argued that the objective journalism is able to be an effective and formidable tool in the fight against various financial corruption schemes. We invite colleagues to investigative journalism on the disclosure of financial schemes and supplies oil from the terrorists to the consumers. Especially since the oil produced in the controlled militants territories in transit through Turkish ports shipped to other regions. For its part, the Ministry of Defense of Russia will continue to disclose new evidence on the supply of terrorists oil to foreign countries and to talk about the conduct of aerospace forces of Russia operations in Syria.Let's unite our efforts. We will destroy the sources of financing of terrorism in Syria, as you get involved in the kind of work abroad. "

    Latina Lover

    Doesn't matter what evidence Putin offers, the USSA Minion Mainstream Media liars will bury, distort or outright lie to defend Turkey. If Putin wanted any media play, he should photoshop the detailed evidence on a picture of Kim Kardasians ass.

    The good news is that the Turks will figure it out, along with the rest of the world.

    The9thDoctor

    The main difference between al-CIAduh and CIsisA is that even the dumbest of the dumb have figured out that ISIL is controlled and equipped by Western Intelligence.

    two hoots

    John Kerry can explain this....to his own satisfaction.

    Gaius Frakkin' ...

    I've already seen more evidence for ISIS-Turkey oil trading than Saddam's WMDs... still waiting for that BTW.

    farflungstar

    NATO cunts supporting terrorists deserve whatever they get.

    There was a lull when the Russians made their entrance into Syria, as Thinktank Land had to recalibrate their bullshit and get on message for the sheep. A couple weeks later the AmeriKans are crying crocodile tears over civilians and Russia killing kinder, gentler terrorists rather than ISIS.

    LOL AmeriKans concerned over civilian casualties.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    And yet, we are still suppose to "Support Our Troops"

    If they had 'truth in advertising', they'd call it "Support Our Storm-Troopers", to serve the Empire

    Wise up, people. We have a MERCENARY ARMY -- by Definition.

    MERCENARY =

    a. You Volunteered 1,

    b. You are getting Paid,

    c. You have a Contract (with or w/o a Retirement Package)

    d. After said Contract has expired, and if Released from further Duty (at sole discretion of Employer), you may enter a new Contract with a private 'security firm', i.e. "Mercs R US", or retire to pursue other activities (work for Gov.US, or one of its para-Gov units known as NGOs). In some cases, you may be so disillusioned or burned out, that you actually join the private sector. In some rare cases, assuming you haven't killed yourself, you may actually have become an open or closet anti-war activist. Which makes you a Born-Again Citizen, and a genuine Hero. If you are married with children, you are a mutha-facking hero, aka... 'Dad'.

    [1] It matters not/naught if you're a well-meaning 'Patriot' (10%), a Economic Desperado (85%) or a Closet Psycho (5%). They'll take you even if you're not a US Citizen. In which case, you can become one after a mere 2 years, and in the Naturalization Process their Look-back Window is literally 2 years. I know this for fact. If you want to challenge me on this, you'll have to put your money where your mouth is, and pony up some serious Cash/BTC

    McMolotov

    For people of a certain age, "Russia is evil" is their default setting. They literally had that message pounded into their brains for decades, and unless they frequent alternative media sites, it's hard to overcome.

    I see it with my parents. I can talk to them about this stuff for a few hours and gradually get them to see glimmers of the truth, but they usually completely revert to their normal thinking by the next time I see them. It doesn't help that they have Fox News on all the time.

    rwe2late

    UndergroundPost

    Su-24 you say?

    There is fair certainty that the SU-24 was hit (inside Syria) by radar-guided missiles(s) fired by the Turk jets,

    and the missiles were guided and the SU-24 targeted by airborne US AWACS.

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/bombshell-turkish-attack-russian-s...

    The Chief

    Im not sure which is worse, domestic frackers and their rape of the the american consumer and retiree with ridiculous oil and gas prices, junk bond sales to pensioners, etc, or ISIS. ISIS, in my view is no threat at all. These are contractors working for deep state functionaries intent on a long-term rape of the global population...but really, just hoodlums intent on taking a vig from illegal oil sales. Just ask Bush, Cheney, and now the democratic machine. New guys at the trough.

    Frackers, however, are scum of the fucking earth. The business doesnt work unless oil prices are high. Fuck that. They pay their bills with a junk bond ponzi.

    As for frackers themselves...its a tiny fraction of the workforce. Go be auto mechanics or go back to selling meth, fuckers.

    847328_3527

    Canada could take 50,000 refugees by end of 2016

    http://ottawacitizen.com/news/national/governor-general-urges-support-fo...

    The Canadian Gubmint will need to cut benefits to its citizens for the benefit of newcomers just as Barry wants to cut SS for Senior Americans so he can import thousands more.

    "Yes we can!"

    kralizec

    Must be Vlad is daring the Turk to invoke Artcile 21 of Montreux: Erdogan has a trump card against Putin that would transform the Syrian war

    You have to admire their bold manner, they are fearless.

    They love warning NATO to back off. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-warns-nato-montenegro-invite-111359017.html

    But who doesn't? They are a paper tiger, seems pointless to join them.

    They get to build on newly seized territory ala China. http://news.yahoo.com/russia-building-military-bases-islands-claimed-jap...

    The annexation of Crimea and Donbas is secure. Oil, gas and currency deals with China, India...nuclear deals with Iran.

    And nobody is stopping him. Who can? That Muzzie faggot pretender in Washington? The toothless NATO police? The bed-wetting Euro's submitting to Islam?

    Ha!

    It is a de facto Russian/Chinese world now. Most still have no clue. The kabuki is so strong, the illusion of states and freedom and wealth...all an illusion.

    Pah, who cares? Put on the DWTS, snort some lines and pop the bubbly! All is well!

    Life of Illusion

    Kralizec, you need to complete the illusion......wheres the oil goes when in Turkey.....

    http://www.invest.gov.tr/en-US/infocenter/news/Pages/210714-goldman-sachs-buys-turkish-petkim-aegean-port.aspx

    Goldman Sachs buys into Turkish Petkim's Aegean port 21.07.2014

    Hurriyet Daily News – Global leader US investment firm Goldman Sachs has become a partner in Turkey's largest integrated port, operated by petrochemicals maker Petkim, in a deal that will boost Petkim's plans to develop the port as the largest in the Aegean region.

    Petkim announced that it has reached a preliminary agreement to sell its 30 percent stake in Petkim Limanc?l?k (Petlim) for USD 250 million, after months of talks beginning in February of this year.

    Petkim and Petlim are controlled by the Turkish branch of Azeri energy giant SOCAR. Petlim was founded to run the financial operations of Petkim's port in the Alia?a district of the Aegean province of ?zmir.

    "For one of the world's biggest investors to become a partner in our port company means approval of the value and finance of our project," SOCAR Turkey President Kenan Yavuz said, speaking after a ceremony to mark the signing of the deal

    Urban Redneck

    The yahoos at Yahoo!News should really stick to message boards and perhaps one day expand to fringe blogging (if they can ever pull their heads of their asses). Neither the Russians nor the Turks are interested in seeing the Straights closed.

    The purpose of the Montreaux Convention is to prevent another Russo-Turkish war by guaranteeing Russia (and other States that border the Black Sea) will have full military and commercial access to the Straights, while foreign powers will have only limited access. In return for providing this guarantee Turkey was allowed to build fortification to support its obligations under the treaty, while maintaining Turkey's natural right to self defense.

    Any attempt by Turkey to prevent Russian access to the Straights, is an act of blockade, and invites either a blockade of Turkish ports (and pipelines) on the Mediterranean, if not another Russo Turkish war. Closing the Straights is simply not some trump card, and even the Sultan of Ankara isn't dumb enough to view such an action as a step towards extending his grip on power.

    moonshadow

    Putin with "checkmate". Erdogan can only flip the board over and walk away muttering to the int'l crowd somethin bout "Putin...cheater". Great article, Antonov's comments priceless, and video worth a smirk a minute

    Noplebian

    The NATO led escalation and it's push towards WW3, continues unabated……

    http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

    JustObserving

    Will Erdogan resign?

    How about detailed evidence on the shooting of the Russian jet?
    BOMBSHELL: Ambush of Russian Bomber Was Guided by US Reconnaissance

    A U.S. Air Force Boeing E-3 Sentry AWACS plane took off on 24 November from the Preveza airbase in Greece. A second E-3A of the Saudi Arabian air force took off from the Riyadh airbase. Both planes were executing a common task-determining the precise location of Russian aircraft. It is they that picked the "victim."

    http://russia-insider.com/en/politics/bombshell-turkish-attack-russian-s...

    JustObserving

    Erdogan and his oil-smuggling son, Bilal, will be welcomed as heroes in Neocon-controlled Washington. Argentina and Paraguay are now for minor criminals only.


    Calmyourself

    Erdogan you Islamist bastard Ataturk is laughing at you from beyond the grave, GTFO

    edit: why the hell has no one dropped cluster munitions on that truck park? US has been there a year and just missed it? Apparently Obama's (Stalin's) purge of the military has been quite successful because none of them have any balls.

    RockySpears

    Because cluster bombs are illegal. Not that this is exactly what they were designed for, but people cried about the little bomblets that failed to go off and were subsequently "ploughed" up by civilian farmers.

    War is bad, but sometimes it is made worse by the intention to do good.

    Same as Chemical weapons, for the most part, they kill no one, they just incapacitate. And anyway, why is a 1,000lb of TNT NOT chemical?

    Calmyourself

    Only against civilians and nobody signed on anyway.

    "During Desert Storm US Marines used the weapon extensively, dropping 15,828 of the 27,987 total Rockeyes against armor, artillery, and personnel targets. The remainder were dropped by Air Force (5,346) and Navy (6,813) aircraft.[1]"

    Chairman

    2003-2006: United States and allies attacked Iraq with 13,000 cluster munitions, containing two million submunitions during Operation Iraqi Freedom. At multiple times, coalition forces used cluster munitions in residential areas, and the country remains among the most contaminated by this day, bomblets posing a threat to both US military personnel in the area, and local civilians.

    When these weapons were fired on Baghdad on April 7, 2003 many of the bomblets failed to explode on impact. Afterward, some of them exploded when touched by civilians. USA Today reported that "the Pentagon presented a misleading picture during the war of the extent to which cluster weapons were being used and of the civilian casualties they were causing." On April 26, General Richard Myers, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, said that the US had caused only one civilian casualty.

    margincall575

    Follow up

    Breaking: Did the US and Saudis use AWACS to help target the SU-24?
    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/12/01/breaking-did-the-us-and-saudis-u...

    zeroboris

    I used to read the soviet newspaper Pravda and am reading modern western media. And know what? Pravda was many times more truthful. Many of us, Russians, didn't understand this in soviet times (we had no access to western papers). But now I can tell this without any doubt. Most of modern Russian papers are less truthful too.


    ThanksChump

    I'd be surprised if the WPost ignores this. They did cover the Iraqi claim that the US is backing ISIS.

    Paveway IV

    National intelligence agencies watch Facebook, Twitter, Google and other search engines to see if they have to do damage control. If a few sites come out with articles implicating Bilal but the 'little people' don't do many searches for him or re-tweet links, then there's no reason to react. They simply ignore the story. If they notice enough little people start Googling Bilial and illegal oil sales or retweeting damaging articles, then they let the boss know. The U.S. MSM is ordered to send out a few stories quoting each other to spin it one way or another.

    The government defines the narrative, and MSM stenographers fill in the pieces. Facebook, Twitter and Google are checked to see if they had the desired effect. They can also use a bit more direct techniques like massaging the Google search result rankings or blowing away Facebook and Twitter accounts they don't like. Israel is insane about collecting this data from Americans and reacting. Uncle Sugar isn't going to cough up that free $3 billion a year handout to them if the people are in the streets with pitchforks and torches. They are especially interested in de-ranking Google results that make Israel look bad, and promoting sites that deliver the message they want. Google is the worst search engine to look for Israeli current events.

    You'll notice none of the MSM ISIS oil sales articles will mention U.S. stooge Barzani's involvement, and they for damn sure won't mention Israel as a destination for much of the stolen oil. They'll simply steer the narrative to focus on Turkish oil sales, and somehow blame it on Assad.

    krispkritter

    Obama Administration Supporting Islamic State --> OASIS. It certainly is if you're a terrorist 'rebel' or well-connected oil pimp...

    ThanksChump

    Occam's Razor.

    The US made a deal with OPEC: the US would help to remove Assad, and in return, OPEC would dump oil to weaken Russia and Iran, fulfilling PNAC/Cheney's pet dream of consolidating the remaining oil reserves under US-friendly control. ISIS was a tool to that end.

    That's the easy obvious part.

    Less obvious is the tie to Ukraine. Ukraine should have been "converted" after Assad was driven out, and not before. This has me confused. Was it only a mistake in timing?

    Now that the cat is out of the bag, now that China's overdue correction has been triggered, now that Brazil and Canada know who is largely responsible for their collapsing economies, now that Europe knows why they are overrun by refugees, I wonder how friendly those countries will be moving forward.

    Mike Masr

    https://www.rt.com/news/324252-russian-military-news-briefing/

    US pal and NATO ally Turkey

    • 12:26 GMT

      2,000 fighters, 250 vehicles and over 120 tons of ammo have been sent in the past weeks from Turkey to terrorists in Syria, fuelling the violence in the country.

    • 12:31 GMT

      Russia cannot comprehend that such a large-scale business as oil smuggling could not have been noticed by the Turkish authorities. Russia concludes that the Turkish leadership is directly involved in the smuggling.

    • 12:35 GMT

      Russia doesn't expect Turkish President Erdogan to resign in the face of the new evidence, even though he had promised to do so. His resignation is not Russia's goal and is a matter for the Turkish people.

    SoDamnMad

    I' m watching the rebroadcast live right now. Video of all these trucks. Damn good video and stills. Gee, why can't the USSA produce these(oh yeah, the MSM isn't allowed to show the truth. Better to show some college campus protest rather than the truth about whose side is really trying to stop terrorism.) Maybe our reconaissence equipment isn't as good as Russian equipment and our satelittes can't find the Turkish-Syrian border. Never seen so many trucks back to back, even on the Jersey Turnpike or the Long Beach Freeway before a holiday when the economy was good.s a lot of bucks going into Erdogan son's pocket (and Israel's)

    fel.temp.reparatio

    Erdogan: "So what if the MIT trucks were filled with weapons?"

    Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

    Statements available in English here:

    http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/news/more.htm?id=12070726@cmsArticle

    Duc888

    ....another interesting point here...

    http://www.alaraby.co.uk/english/features/2015/11/26/raqqas-rockefellers...

    "The Islamic State group uses millions of dollars in oil revenues to expand and manage vast areas under its control, home to around five million civilians.

    IS sells Iraqi and Syrian oil for a very low price to Kurdish and Turkish smuggling networks and mafias, who label it and sell it on as barrels from the Kurdistan Regional Government.

    It is then most frequently transported from Turkey to Israel, via knowing or unknowing middlemen, according to al-Araby's investigation.

    The Islamic State group has told al-Araby that it did not intentionally sell oil to Israel, blaming agents along the route to international markets."

    no1wonder

    Official media release (and speech translation into English) by Russia's Defense Ministry:

    http://eng.syria.mil.ru/en/index/syria/brief.htm

    cn13

    This story is finally hitting the MSM in the U.S. after being reported here for the past week. The powers to be must have needed time to get their lies straight. Anyway, check out the comment section on Yahoo regarding this story. It is almost 100% pro-Russian and anti-NATO/U.S.

    I have never seen anything like this before.

    The U.S. public has lost total confidence in the government. They are finally catching on to the lies and deceit of those in power.

    http://news.yahoo.com/russia-says-proof-turkey-main-consumer-islamic-state-124337872.html

    MadVladtheconquerer

    Looks like Putin is simply trying to maintain what little remains of the status quo in Syria:

    http://www.hurriyetdailynews.com/is-russia-fighting-isil-or-occupying-sy...

    gregga777

    As I read it, according to traditional international law, the Russian Federation may legally seize Erdogan's Maltese-flagged "neutral" tankers carrying ISIS' crude oil, because that crude oil constitutes a significant portion of ISIS' war making potential, that tanker then effectively constituting an enemy merchant vessel, with the tanker's subsequent condemnation in Russian prize courts, as the capturing belligerent power.

    I hope that the Russian Federation's Navy seizes all of Erdogan's tankers, bankrupting Erdogan's company. Let them then sit in port for the next several years awaiting disposition in a Russian prize court.

    dot_bust

    Then there's this rather enlightening bit of information:

    ISIS Colonel was Trained By Blackwater and U.S. State Department for 11 Years

    A former police commander from Tajikistan was featured in an ISIS video recently where he admitted he was trained by the U.S. State Department and former military contractor Blackwater all the way up until last year.

    http://theantimedia.org/isis-colonel-trained-by-blackwater-and-us-state-...

    Amun

    http://www.latimes.com/world/middleeast/la-fg-syria-turkey-20151201-stor...

    "It was Turkey's national intelligence agency, known as MIT, that first organized Syrian military defectors into Western-backed groups under the banner of the Free Syrian Army.

    Free Syrian Army factions still convene on Turkish soil in the Joint Operations Center, a CIA-led intelligence hub that gives vetted rebels training as well as U.S.-made TOW antitank missiles used to destroy Syrian army tanks and armored units.

    Islamist groups, however, have benefited from Turkey's pro-opposition policy as well. In May, the Turkish daily newspaper Cumhuriyet published video from 2014 showing customs agents impounding a truck owned by the MIT. The truck's manifest said it was carrying humanitarian assistance for Syrians. Instead it was bearing a cache of ammunition and shells the newspaper said were destined for Islamist rebels. The video's release caused a furor. Erdogan vowed to prosecute Cumhuriyet, a threat he carried out Friday when authorities arrested two of the paper's journalists on charges of espionage and aiding a terrorist organization.

    Turkish assistance has been instrumental in empowering the Army of Conquest, a loose coalition of hard-line Islamist factions including Al Nusra Front, which seized control of Idlib province in March in an offensive backed by Turkey and Saudi Arabia.

    Economic ties also have been forged between Turkey and rebel factions.

    According to a 2015 United Nations study, two border crossings controlled by a faction of the Army of Conquest handle more than 300 trucks a day, a figure that exceeds prewar levels. The traffic yields an estimated $660,000 a day. "

    [Dec 01, 2015] The party is over for oil

    Notable quotes:
    "... Assuming the nuclear sanctions are lifted on Iran in late winter or spring, Iran could bring what we currently estimate to be another 400,000 to 600,000 barrels of oil a day within several months. Irans oil minister pegs the number higher - around a million barrels per day. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    After the price collapse, the new U.S. shale-oil industry has proved to be more resilient than many had anticipated, as companies found that they could be much more efficient. In fact, U.S. output continued to increase through April. According to the IHS Oil Performance Evaluator, which tracks U.S. production down to the individual well, a dollar spent this month in the U.S. oil patch will be 65 percent more efficient than in 2014.

    But efficiency is not enough to hold off the impact of lower oil prices. As companies struggle to cut budgets and, in some cases, to survive, U.S. oil production is now on a downward trend from that high point last April. By next April, we estimate it will be about a million barrels a day lower than April 2015. Around the world, projects are being postponed, drawn out, or simply canceled. All of this will show up in the future oil balance in years ahead.

    Oil's collapse does mark the end of the commodity supercycle. And that means that oil-exporting countries are now in the same boat as other commodity-exporting countries - struggling with yawning gaps in their budgets, low growth or recession, austerity and bitterness, and the potential for social and political turmoil. The countries that benefited so much from the heat of China's growing economy are now suffering from the impact of the "China chill."

    This nexus of slowing China and deeply-troubled emerging market countries may end up an offset to a U.S. economy strengthening enough for the Federal Reserve to begin raising rates.

    Meanwhile, oil's turmoil will continue. For new petroleum supplies are likely to come into the market in 2016. Assuming the nuclear sanctions are lifted on Iran in late winter or spring, Iran could bring what we currently estimate to be another 400,000 to 600,000 barrels of oil a day within several months. Iran's oil minister pegs the number higher - around a million barrels per day.

    This specter of Iran battling to regain market share from its geopolitical rival Saudi Arabia and the other Gulf countries is likely to loom very large in the OPEC debates ahead.

    Commentary by Daniel Yergin, the vice chairman of IHS and author of, "The Quest: Energy, Security, and the Remaking of the Modern World." Follow him on Twitter @danielyergin.

    [Dec 01, 2015] Oil prices tread water ahead of US data, OPEC meeting

    finance.yahoo.com

    Iran is expected to increase its oil exports after Western sanctions are lifted under a deal reached with major world powers in July to curb its nuclear program.

    Iran's deputy foreign minister Abbas Araghchi said last week his country expects the deal to come into force in early January, allowing it to resume a high level of exports.

    Traders meanwhile expect a drop in high US commercial crude inventories in Wednesday's weekly report from the Department of Energy.

    According to a Bloomberg News survey of experts, US crude stockpiles likely decreased by 800,000 barrels last week. Inventories increased by 1.0 million barrels to 488.2 million barrels in the week ending November 20, up 27.5 percent from a year ago.

    [Dec 01, 2015] Texas (and ND, WY, AK, OK, and LA) technically entered recession in the Apr-Aug period

    peakoilbarrel.com
    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2Ln6

    Texas (and ND, WY, AK, OK, and LA) technically entered recession in the Apr-Aug period, similar to Mar-Apr 2008, Dec 2000, and Jun-Jul 1990, which coincided with the US economy entering recession.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2yLR

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2K3Z

    This is confirmed by the deep, recession-like contraction in the acceleration of TMS money velocity to private GDP and the broad US equity market entering a bear market during the same period.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2KxB

    This is occurring with real final sales per capita less household health care spending and the fiscal deficit decelerating to "stall speed" and recessionary rates of the past, implying that the improvement in the fiscal deficit/GDP has peaked, the deficit will increase hereafter, and the Fed will resume QEternity to credit primary dealer banks' balance sheets with liquidity to finance the fiscal deficit in order to prevent nominal GDP from contracting in 2016-17.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2vmr

    The incipient broad equity bear market will reduce gov't receipts hereafter, confirming the need for the Fed to resume QEternity to finance the increasing deficit over at least the next 4-6 quarters.

    Under similar conditions as exist today, the Fed raised rates or otherwise restricted banking/financial system reserves/liquidity only three times during its history to date: 1931, 1936-37, and very briefly in 1980; the results thereafter were other than positive, to say the least.

    [Nov 30, 2015] The Spanish General could give the order to shoot down Russian su-

    This is not very probably hypothesis, but if this is true then it was NATO organized provocation...
    "All the airspace in southern Europe from the Azores to the Eastern border of Turkey (Syria, Iraq, Iran) controlled by the radars mounted on towers airbase in Torrejon near Madrid. Command there 57-year-old General Ruben Garcia Servert. The final decision in the center of the Combined Air Operations takes it.
    Notable quotes:
    "... There is, of course, is an option that responsibility for the attack on "Drying" took over the Turkish General 62-year-old Abidin Unal, but in this case, a high-ranking Spanish military became the main witness giving orders. "If you want to shoot down the aircraft of the enemy, I is the person taking final decision" is a quote from an interview Garcia of Servert given in January of this year to the newspaper "El Mundo". ..."

    "All the airspace in southern Europe from the Azores to the Eastern border of Turkey (Syria, Iraq, Iran) controlled by the radars mounted on towers airbase in Torrejon near Madrid. Command there 57-year-old General Ruben Garcia Servert. The final decision in the center of the Combined Air Operations takes it.

    There is, of course, is an option that responsibility for the attack on "Drying" took over the Turkish General 62-year-old Abidin Unal, but in this case, a high-ranking Spanish military became the main witness giving orders. "If you want to shoot down the aircraft of the enemy, I is the person taking final decision" is a quote from an interview Garcia of Servert given in January of this year to the newspaper "El Mundo".

    Who actually gave the order to shoot down the su-24, still we do not know. But do know that the recent crash of the UAV happened at the command of a Turkish General unknown, what was not slow to inform the military. In October two cases of violation by Russian planes of air space of Turkey Abidin conceded right to make the final decision to the Spaniard".

    [Nov 30, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts Rages At The Arrogance, Hubris, Stupidity Of The US Government

    Notable quotes:
    "... No, except make a fool of itself by supporting ISIS. We brought ISIS in there (to Syria) - everybody knows that. Just the other day the former head the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said on television that 'Yes, we created ISIS and we used them as henchmen to overthrow governments.' (Laughter). ..."
    "... And the polls in Europe show that the people are on Russia's side regarding the shooting down of their aircraft. They don't believe (the West's) story at all. So I think what you are seeing here is the arrogance, hubris, and stupidity of the United States government. They are just handing every possible advantage over to the Russians. ..."
    "... Read more here and listen to the full interview... ..."
    Zero Hedge

    On the heels of the Chinese stock market plunging 5.5%, continued turmoil in the Middle East and the price of gold hitting 5 year lows, former U.S. Treasury official, Dr. Paul Craig Roberts told Eric King of King World News that Putin and the Russians are now dominating in Syria and the Middle East as the West destroys itself.

    Dr. Paul Craig Roberts: "It could well be that this is going to work out so much in Russia's favor that Putin will send a letter of thanks to the Turkish President and say, 'Thank you very much. You've done us a huge favor. (Laughter). We lost a pilot and a naval marine but we sure have gained a lot. That was only two deaths for winning a war."…

    "So that looks to me like the most likely outcome. The unintended consequence of this are so positive for Russia that it's got Washington quaking and Europe wondering about the idiocy of being in NATO."

    Eric King: "What I'm hearing from you Russia is dominating in Syria. The Russians have completely taken over and there's really nothing Washington can do."

    Paul Craig Roberts: "No, except make a fool of itself by supporting ISIS. We brought ISIS in there (to Syria) - everybody knows that. Just the other day the former head the Pentagon's Defense Intelligence Agency said on television that 'Yes, we created ISIS and we used them as henchmen to overthrow governments.' (Laughter).

    And the polls in Europe show that the people are on Russia's side regarding the shooting down of their aircraft. They don't believe (the West's) story at all. So I think what you are seeing here is the arrogance, hubris, and stupidity of the United States government. They are just handing every possible advantage over to the Russians.

    This American government is the most incompetent government that has ever walked the earth. Those people don't have any sense at all. Just look at what they've done. In 14 years they've destroyed 7 countries, killed millions of people, and displaced millions of people. And where are those displaced people? They are overrunning Europe.

    This is all because those Europeans were stupid enough to enable our wars. Now the political parties in Europe are under tremendous pressure from these refugees and the populations who object to them, and from the rising dissident parties who are saying, 'Look at what these people who you trusted have done. They've changed your country. It's not Germany anymore - it's Syria.' (Laughter).

    This is a disaster. Only the stupid Americans could have produced such a disaster. Does Putin need to do anything? We're doing it all for him. So he doesn't need to do anything. He's not going to attack anybody. What does he need to attack anybody for? The idiot Americans are destroying themselves and their allies. This is an amazing fiasco."

    Read more here and listen to the full interview...

    Chupacabra-322

    "This American government is the most incompetent government that has ever walked the earth. Those people don't have any sense at all. Just look at what they've done. In 14 years they've destroyed 7 countries, killed millions of people, and displaced millions of people. And where are those displaced people? They are overrunning Europe."

    So true, it must be repeated.

    chubbar

    It's so incompetent it is looking deliberate.

    KingFiat

    King World News always says the price of gold is going to the moon tomorrow when the financial system collapses. After a while you realize no real news comes from there, and ignore them.

    Not the same for Paul Craig Roberts, And I am glad to read his insights here, even if originated from KWN.

    CaptainDanite

    There is no denying that the KWN site is hokey, and that Eric King has a limited repertoire of "stunning" adjectives, and that the frequent employment of bold red and blue fonts can be annoying, etc., etc. However, the simple fact remains that he CONSISTENTLY conducts well-directed and well-edited interviews with some of the most respected voices in the alternative media arena. I routinely look forward to his interviews with Nomi Prins, Eric Sprott, Ronald Stoeferle, and Bill Fleckenstein -- among many, many others. At least KWN is not entirely inundated with ads like ZH is, nor is the mobile version of the site repeatedly susceptible to adware browser hijacks like ZH's mobile version is.

    Furthermore, while I frequently find points of disagreement with Paul Craig Roberts, this most recent interview is PCR at his ever-loving best; it strikes to the heart of the matter of the increasingly frightening conflict brewing between the US, NATO, and the Russians. I highly recommend this interview to everyone out there who is starting to get very uncomfortable about the foreign policy incompetence of the Obama administration as it appears to be deliberately steering us into the maw of WWIII.

    Lore

    PATHOCRACY

    "The ultimate cause of evil lies in the interaction of two human factors: 1) normal human ignorance and weakness and 2) the existence and action of a statistically small (4-8% of the general population) but extremely active group of psychologically deviant individuals. The ignorance of the existence of such psychological differences is the first criterion of ponerogenesis. That is, such ignorance creates an opening whereby such individuals can act undetected.

    The presence of such 'disease' on the individual level is described in the Almost Human section of this website. However, depending on the type of activity of psychopathic and characteropathic individuals, evil can manifest on any societal level. The greater the scope of the psychopath's influence, the greater harm done. Thus any group of humans can be infected or 'ponerized' by their influence. From families, clubs, churches, businesses, and corporations, to entire nations. The most extreme form of such macrosocial evil is called 'pathocracy'.

    Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes

    "If the many managerial positions are assumed by individuals deprived of sufficient abilities to feel and understand the majority of other people, and who also exhibit deficiencies in technical imagination and practical skills - (faculties indispensable for governing economic and political matters) - this then results in an exceptionally serious crisis in all areas, both within the country in question and with regard to international relations. Within, the situation becomes unbearable even for those citizens who were able to feather their nest into a relatively comfortable modus vivendi. Outside, other societies start to feel the pathological quality of the phenomenon quite distinctly. Such a state of affairs cannot last long. One must then be prepared for ever more rapid changes, and also behave with great circumspection." (2nd. ed., p. 140)

    LetThemEatRand

    It's long by today's standards, but another great PCR link for those who are interested. Intelligent and thoughtful debate where the two participants actually allow each other to make their points. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/11/25/pcr-debates-the-intelligent-a...

    Killdo

    this is a pretty good book on how to spot psychos and prevent being screwed over by them:

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0767915828?keywords=the%20sociopath%20n...

    I've read about 10 books on the subject and I find this one very intresting, well written and based on realaity (I think the author is a prof frm harvard).

    It really helped me connect the dots while I lived in LA (according to the author one of 3 world'scapitals of psychopathy together with London and NY)

    [Nov 30, 2015] Erdogan Says Will Resign If Oil Purchases From ISIS Proven After Putin Says Has More Proof

    Notable quotes:
    "... "There are security officers who are sympathizing with ISIS in Turkey. They are allowing them to go from Istanbul to the borders and infiltrate ... Syria and Iraq." ..."
    Nov 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    "I've shown photos taken from space and from aircraft which clearly demonstrate the scale of the illegal trade in oil and petroleum products," Vladimir Putin told reporters earlier this month on the sidelines of the G-20 summit in Antalya. Putin was of course referencing Islamic State's illicit and highly lucrative oil trade, the ins and outs of which we've documented extensively over the past two weeks:

    Turkey's move to shoot down a Russian Su-24 warplane near the Syrian border afforded the Russian President all the motivation and PR cover he needed to expose Ankara's alleged role in the trafficking of illegal crude from Iraq and Syria and in the aftermath of last Tuesday's "incident," Putin lambasted Erdogan. "Oil from Islamic State is being shipped to Turkey," Putin said while in Jordan for a meeting with King Abdullah. In case that wasn't clear enough, Putin added this: "Islamic State gets cash by selling oil to Turkey."

    To be sure, it's impossible to track the path ISIS oil takes from extraction to market with any degree of precision. That said, it seems that Islamic State takes advantage of the same network of smugglers, traders, and shipping companies that the KRG uses to transport Kurdish crude from Kurdistan to the Turkish port of Ceyhan. From there, the oil makes its way to Israel and other markets (depending on which story you believe) and if anyone needs to be thrown off the trail along the way, there's a ship-to-ship transfer trick that can be executed off the coast of Malta. The maneuver allegedly makes the cargoes more difficult to track.

    Some believe Erdogan's son Bilal - who owns a marine transport company called BMZ Group - is heavily involved in the trafficking of Kurdish and ISIS crude. Most of the ships BMZ owns are Malta-flagged.

    In light of the above, some have speculated that Turkey shot down the Su-24 in retaliation for Russia's bombing campaign that recently has destroyed over 1,000 ISIS oil trucks. Here's what Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoub said on Friday:

    "All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well."

    Al-Zoub isn't alone in his suspicions. In an interview with RT, Iraqi MP and former national security adviser, Mowaffak al Rubaie - who personally led Saddam to the gallows - said ISIS is selling around $100 million of stolen crude each month in Turkey. Here are some excerpts:

    "In the last eight months ISIS has managed to sell ... $800 million dollars worth of oil on the black market of Turkey. This is Iraqi oil and Syrian oil, carried by trucks from Iraq, from Syria through the borders to Turkey and sold ...[at] less than 50 percent of the international oil price."

    "Now this either get consumed inside, the crude is refined on Turkish territory by the Turkish refineries, and sold in the Turkish market. Or it goes to Jihan and then in the pipelines from Jihan to the Mediterranean and sold to the international market."

    "Money and dollars generated by selling Iraqi and Syrian oil on the Turkish black market is like the oxygen supply to ISIS and it's operation," he added. "Once you cut the oxygen then ISIS will suffocate."

    "There isn't a shadow of a doubt that the Turkish government knows about the oil smuggling operations. The merchants, the businessmen [are buying oil] in the black market in Turkey under the noses – under the auspices if you like – of the Turkish intelligence agency and the Turkish security apparatus."

    "There are security officers who are sympathizing with ISIS in Turkey. They are allowing them to go from Istanbul to the borders and infiltrate ... Syria and Iraq."

    "There is no terrorist organization which can stand alone, without a neighboring country helping it – in this case Turkey."

    That's pretty unequivocal. But it gets better.

    On Monday, Putin was back at it, saying that Russia has obtained new information that further implicates Turkey in the Islamic State oil trade. "At the moment we have received additional information confirming that that oil from the deposits controlled by Islamic State militants enters Turkish territory on industrial scale," Putin said on the sidelines of the climate change summit in Paris. "We have traced some located on the territory of the Turkish Republic and living in regions guarded by special security services and police that have used the visa-free regime to return to our territory, where we continue to fight them."

    "We have every reason to believe that the decision to down our plane was guided by a desire to ensure security of this oil's delivery routes to ports where they are shipped in tankers," he added, taking it up another notch still.

    As for Erdogan, well, he "can't accept" the accusations which he calls "not moral":

    • ERDOGAN: TURKEY CAN'T ACCEPT RUSSIA CLAIMS THAT IT BUYS IS OIL

    Hilariously, the man who just finished starting a civil war just so he could regain a few lost seats in Parliament and who would just as soon throw you in jail as look at you if he thinks you might be a threat to his government, now says he will resign if Putin (or anyone else) can present "proof": "We are not that dishonest as to buy oil from terrorists. If it is proven that we have, in fact, done so, I will leave office. If there is any evidence, let them present it, we'll consider [it]."

    Hold your breath on that.

    And so, the Turkey connection has been exposed and in dramatic fashion. Unfortunately for Ankara, Erdogan can't arrest Vladimir Putin like he can award winning journalists and honest police officers who, like Moscow, want to see the flow of money and weapons to Sunni militants in Syria cut off.

    The real question is how NATO will react now that Turkey is quickly becoming a liability. Furthermore, you can be sure that the US, Saudi Arabia, and Qatar (who are all heavily invested in the Sunni extremist cause in Syria), are getting nervous. No one wants to see this blown wide open as that would mean the Western public getting wise to the fact that it is indeed anti-ISIS coalition governments that are funding and arming not only ISIS, but also al-Nusra and every other rebel group fighting to wrest control of the country from Assad. Worse, if it gets out that the reason the US has refrained from bombing ISIS oil trucks until now is due to the fact that Ankara and Washington had an understanding when it comes to the flow of illicit crude to Cehyan, the American public may just insist on indicting "some folks."

    Remember, when it comes to criminal conspiracies, the guy who gets caught first usually ends up getting cut loose. It will be interesing to see if Erdogan starts to get the cold shoulder from Ankara's "allies" going forward.

    [Nov 30, 2015] Oil Gains Ahead Of OPEC Meeting, Dollar Caps Growth Potential

    Notable quotes:
    "... the Gulf of Mexico accounted for only 16 percent of U.S production last year, down from a much higher 27 percent in 2003. ..."
    "... ...as the ECB looks to announce stimulus measures this week – in the same month as the U.S looks likely to raise rates – the US dollar should continue to garner support, and the crude complex should continue to face headwinds. ..."
    OilPrice.com

    Even if we had experienced a much more hectic hurricane season, the changing dynamics of U.S oil production mean we would have seen a much lesser impact to prices than seen in prior years. Due to rising onshore shale oil production (h/t Bakken, Permian, Eagle Ford), the Gulf of Mexico accounted for only 16 percent of U.S production last year, down from a much higher 27 percent in 2003.

    ...as the ECB looks to announce stimulus measures this week – in the same month as the U.S looks likely to raise rates – the US dollar should continue to garner support, and the crude complex should continue to face headwinds.

    [Nov 30, 2015] Bakken Light Tight Oil – Update with Sep – 15 NDIC Data

    Notable quotes:
    "... The future trajectory for LTO extraction from the Bakken is now driven by financial dynamics which has to run its course and a lasting, low oil price will cause serious financial stresses on most of the LTO companies in the Bakken. ..."
    Nov 30, 2015 | FRACTIONAL FLOW

    Summary

    The next 8 – 10 months LTO extraction from the Bakken will be in a steep decline, even if oil prices significantly rebounds. The future trajectory for LTO extraction from the Bakken is now driven by financial dynamics which has to run its course and a lasting, low oil price will cause serious financial stresses on most of the LTO companies in the Bakken.

    [Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

    Notable quotes:
    "... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
    "... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
    "... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
    "... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

    We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

    To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

    This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

    Yes, he really said that:

    We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

    In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

    Brilliant.

    As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

    But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

    Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

    Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

    Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

    So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

    We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

    Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

    For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

    Looney

    Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

    Buckaroo Banzai

    The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

    Ignatius

    There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

    Pladizow

    • ----> Not OK to spill oil
    • ----> OK to spill blood

    JustObserving

    2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

    Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

    Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

    Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

    prmths2

    It's not that simple:

    "In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

    "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

    "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

    http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

    It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

    http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

    Urban Redneck

    It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

    'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

    Lore

    I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

    It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

    NoDebt

    So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

    That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

    KesselRunin12Parsecs

    "We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

    So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

    Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

    1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

    2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

    Normalcy Bias

    He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

    Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

    me or you

    Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

    Chris88

    We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

    ..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

    Junerberno

    After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

    Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

    So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

    The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

    earleflorida

    when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

    Raymond_K._Hessel

    No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

    Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

    Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
    http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

    coast

    But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

    marcusfenix

    this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

    if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

    why bother bombing them at all?

    these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

    really?

    and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

    the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

    the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

    and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

    all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

    because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

    sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

    Johnny Horscaulk

    http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
    https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

    http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

    Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

    For Israel.

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

    And to block the Iran pipeline
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

    But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

    [Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

    Notable quotes:
    "... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
    "... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
    "... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
    "... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

    We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

    To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

    This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

    Yes, he really said that:

    We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

    In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

    Brilliant.

    As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

    But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

    Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

    Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

    Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

    So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

    We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

    Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

    For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

    Looney

    Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

    Buckaroo Banzai

    The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

    Ignatius

    There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

    Pladizow

    • ----> Not OK to spill oil
    • ----> OK to spill blood

    JustObserving

    2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

    Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

    Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

    Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

    prmths2

    It's not that simple:

    "In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

    "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

    "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

    http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

    It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

    http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

    Urban Redneck

    It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

    'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

    Lore

    I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

    It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

    NoDebt

    So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

    That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

    KesselRunin12Parsecs

    "We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

    So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

    Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

    1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

    2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

    Normalcy Bias

    He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

    Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

    me or you

    Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

    Chris88

    We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

    ..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

    Junerberno

    After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

    Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

    So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

    The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

    earleflorida

    when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

    Raymond_K._Hessel

    No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

    Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

    Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
    http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

    coast

    But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

    marcusfenix

    this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

    if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

    why bother bombing them at all?

    these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

    really?

    and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

    the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

    the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

    and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

    all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

    because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

    sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

    Johnny Horscaulk

    http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
    https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

    http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

    Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

    For Israel.

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

    And to block the Iran pipeline
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

    But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

    [Nov 29, 2015] Former CIA Deputy Director Gives A Stunning Reason Why Obama Has Not Attacked ISIS Oil Infrastructure

    Notable quotes:
    "... As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II. ..."
    "... Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol , continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it. ..."
    "... Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer ..."
    "... Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity ..."
    "... when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    As we pointed out a week ago, even before the downing of the Russian jet by a Turkish F-16, the most important question that nobody had asked about ISIS is where is the funding for the terrorist organization coming from, and more importantly, since everyone tacitly knows where said funding is coming from (as we have revealed in an ongoing series of posts "Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS: Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President", "How Turkey Exports ISIS Oil To The World: The Scientific Evidence" and "ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal: "Raqqa's Rockefellers", Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection") few on the US-led Western Alliance have done anything to stop the hundreds of millions in oil sale proceeds from funding the world's best organized terrorist group.

    We concluded by asking "how long until someone finally asks the all important question regarding the Islamic State: who is the commodity trader breaching every known law of funding terrorism when buying ISIS crude, almost certainly with the tacit approval by various "western alliance" governments, and why is it that these governments have allowed said middleman to continue funding ISIS for as long as it has?"

    To be sure, the only party that actually did something to halt ISIS' oil infrastructure was Russia, whose bombing raids of Islamic State oil routes may not only have contributed to the fatal attack by Turkey of the Russian Su-24 (as the curtailment of ISIS' oil flows led to a big hit in the funds collected by the biggest middleman in the region, Turkey, its president and his son, Bilal not to mention Israel which may have been actively buying ISIS oil over the past year) but prompted questions why the bombing campaign by the US-led alliance had been so woefully incapable of hitting ISIS where it truly hurts: its funding.

    This past week, someone finally came up with a "reason" why the Obama administration had been so impotent at denting the Islamic State's well-greased oil machine. In an interview on PBS' Charlie Rose on Tuesday, Rose pointed out that before the terrorist attacks in Paris, the U.S. had not bombed ISIS-controlled oil tankers, to which the former CIA deputy director Michael Morell responded that Barack Obama didn't order the bombing of ISIS's oil transportation infrastructure until recently because he was concerned about environmental damage.

    Yes, he really said that:

    We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

    In other words, one can blame such recent outbreaks of deadly terrorist activity as the Paris bombings and the explosion of the Russian passenger airplane over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula on Obama's hard line stance to not pollute the atmosphere with the toxic aftermath of destroyed ISIS infrastructure.

    Brilliant.

    As the Daily Caller adds, Morell also said the White House was concerned about destroying infrastructure that could be used by the Syrian people. Such profound concern for a people which has been traumatized for the past 5 years courtesy of a US-funded effort to destabilize the nation courtesy of US-armed "rebels" whose only purpose has been the deposition of yet another elected president, and where the emergence of the CIA-created Islamic State has led to the biggest wave of refugees to emerge, and flood Europe, since World War II.

    But back to Obama's alleged decision that not polluting the environment is more important than halting the funding artery that keeps ISIS in business.

    Morell continued "Prior to Paris, there seemed to be a judgment that look, we don't want to destroy these oil tankers because that's infrastructure that's going to be necessary to support the people when ISIS isn't there anymore, and it's going to create environmental damage. And we didn't go after oil wells - actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls because we didn't want to do environmental damage and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure, right."

    Then we started asking questions, others joined in, and everything changed: "So now we're hitting oil in trucks and maybe you get to the point where you say we also have to hit oil wells. So those are the kind of tough decisions you have to make."

    Of course, the lunacy gets even more ridiculous when one recalls that none other than one of the democrat frontrunners for president, Bernie Sanders, suggested in all seriousness that the real cause for terrorism is climate change, an allegation subsequently echoed by both UK's Prince Charles and none other than the chief of the UN, Ban Ki-moon himself.

    So here is the purported logic: climate change leads to terrorism, but one can't eradicate the primary funding source of the biggest terrorist threat in the world, the Islamic State, because of dangers it may lead to even more environmental damage and climate change.

    We are truly speechless at this idiocy.

    Meanwhile, the real reasons behind ISIS massive wealth build up: the illicit oil trade facilitated by, and involving NATO-member state Turkey, whose president and his son collect billions in illegal profits by arranging the charter of Islamic State oil to Israel and other international buyers of ISIS' cheap oil, and which involves such "highly respected" commodity traders as Trafigura and Vitol, continues to this day, and only Putin has done anything to put a dent in it.

    For those who can't believe any of this (and it took us quite a while to realize this is not some elaborate prank) here is the clip proving the former CIA deputy director actually said it all.

    Looney

    Morell is the same spook who "edited" Susan Rice's Benghazi SNAFU. Why don't all these assholes like Morell, Greenspan, Bernanke, just shut up, crawl under a rock, and hope they're never found? ;-)

    Buckaroo Banzai

    The media is in the tank for cunts like this, and most people just don't bother paying attention anyway. If Charlie Rose asked tough questions, his career would have ended before it even began. Instead he makes a wonderful living playing the kindly avuncular shill.

    Ignatius

    There is no lie these murderous cunts won't tell. I guess depleted uranium is not an environmental concern? Fuck 'em. Fuck all of 'em.

    Pladizow

    • ----> Not OK to spill oil
    • ----> OK to spill blood

    JustObserving

    2400 tons of depleted uranium used in Iraq and 1000 tons in Afghanistan.

    Fallujah cancer rates worse than Hiroshima due to use of depleted uranium. Leukemia rates 38 times higher than normal https://vimeo.com/38175279

    Depleted Uranium And The Iraq War's Legacy Of Cancer

    http://www.mintpressnews.com/depleted-uranium-iraq-wars-legacy-cancer/19...

    Depleted Uranium Contamination: A Crime against Humanity

    http://www.globalresearch.ca/depleted-uranium-contamination-a-crime-agai...

    prmths2

    It's not that simple:

    "In a follow up study, in which Dr Busby was a co-author, hair, soil and water samples were taken from Fallujah and tested for the presence of heavy metals. The researchers expected to find depleted uranium in the environmental samples. It is well known that the US used depleted uranium weapons in Iraq during the 1991 Gulf war; and Iraqis, at least, are well aware of the increases in cancers and infant mortality rates in the city of Basrah, which was heavily bombarded during Desert Storm. However, what the researchers found was not depleted uranium, but man-made, slightly enriched uranium."

    http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/oct/25/fallujah-iraq-healt...

    "Whilst the results seem to qualitatively support the existence of serious mutation-related health effects in Fallujah, owing to the structural problems associated with surveys of this kind, care should be exercised in interpreting the findings quantitatively. "

    "Finally, the results reported here do not throw any light upon the identity of the agent(s) causing the increased levels of illness and although we have drawn attention to the use of depleted uranium as one potential relevant exposure, there may be other possibilities and we see the current study as investigating the anecdotal evidence of increases in cancer and infant mortality in Fallujah."

    http://www.mdpi.com/1660-4601/7/7/2828/htm

    It is possible that there may be a synergistic effect involving heavy metals in general (i.e., Pb, U, Hg)

    http://link.springer.com/content/pdf/10.1007%2Fs00128-012-0817-2.pdf

    Urban Redneck

    It's not necessarily a lie, but it is necessarily a straw man and red herring, which distracts from a conversation of the forgone alternatives to achieve the (supposedly) desired ends. Charlie cocksucker and his mindless followers apparently buy the implicit argument the only tools in the almighty CIA's chest to combat ISIS's operations funding with oil revenues was "bombing Syria's (relatively tiny) oil fields" and creating an environmental catastrophe somehow akin to Saddam in Kuwait...

    'Muricans are getting exactly the government the (collectively) deserve.

    Lore

    I think the psychopaths don't give a shit. Remember the scale of MONEY and CONTROL at stake. If you want to disable an insubordinate regime for standing up to your plans for regional hegemony and energy supply, you punish the host population by taking out key infrastructure. So for starters, place the launch triggers for all the drone strikes and aircraft sorties in the hands of obedient lackies who follow orders without giving a shit, assemble a list of strategic targets, and then announce "Aha! ISIS happens to be standing directly in front of this strategically-important piece of infrastructure" (bridge, refinery, storage tank, whatever), and then press the button. Proxy war is simply the policy of blaming somebody else for your own rotten behaviour. If the Syrian people are displaced, so much the better, because mass migration conveniently handicaps the economies of nations in Europe that might get in the way of continued button-pushing.

    It's fucking evil, from start to finish. There was a time when it was a compliment to be called a Company Man, but nowadays it just means you're a pathological liar and a whore and a louse.

    NoDebt

    So they'll blow up wedding parties and whatever innocent civilians happen to be around their "targets" but they won't dare touch an oil well.

    That speaks volumes. Delusional is the wrong word. Makes it sound like it's not their fault or something.

    KesselRunin12Parsecs

    "We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage"

    So now explain 'SCORCHED EARTH POLICY' after you presumably rescued babies from incubators in 1991 you POS mF'er.

    Kirk2NCC1701

    Actually, he's telling you everything he can and you need to know or figure out.

    Y'all must be 'Mericans, cause you can't read between the lines or read the situation/context. Allow me to translate for you:

    1. He's under an NDA, and must keep his Oath of Secrecy.

    2. If he gives you a blatantly BS answer, it is YOUR job to figure out that he (a) can't tell you the truth and (b) that it's Code for "Yes we support them to the hilt, and use Middle-men and Cutouts as SOP, but also we deny everything as SOP."

    Normalcy Bias

    He reminds me of his movie counterpart, the 'Robert Ritter, CIA Deputy Director' character from Clear and Present Danger.

    Evil, arrogant, smug, and devoid of any conscience...

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dKsDjpKr2Mk

    me or you

    Meanwhile:US and Turkey cease flights over Syria, as Russia deploys 7000 troops to Turkish border with Armenia

    Chris88

    We didn't go after oil wells, actually hitting oil wells that ISIS controls, because we didn't want to do environmental damage, and we didn't want to destroy that infrastructure.

    ..damage a perfectly good CIA creation.

    Junerberno

    After the attack by Boko Haram (Al Qaeda) on the shopping mall in Nairobi, the US moved to seize a senior Al Qaeda operative living in a mansion in North Africa. We knew where he was all along, but never went after him, until after the attack. He was "made" by the Saudis and we were appeasing him while he was "doing good" (killing Shia) but when he stepped out of line we punished him. It's certain we asked for permission before arresting him finally, of course.

    Pausing, because it must sink in: Al Qaeda. Who attacked us 9-11. Our brownshirts.

    So now we suddenly care about ISIL after they "step out of line" in Paris. They were our friends when they were sawing the heads off Shia. But they stepped out of line so we used a stick on their hands.

    The US knows where all of ISIL are at all times. ISIL has been permitted to slaughter everyone in its path because they are focused on killing Shia, and Israel supports a holocaust against Shia muslims.

    earleflorida

    when 'baby`bush' raided iraq in 2003, he and his filthy scum cronies destroyed [bombed, etc.] every last bit of iraqis antiquities, libraries, religious monuments, museums etel, and... guarded with total authority the Ministry of Energy, oil infrastructure, and Iraq's Central bank with a small army of specialized forces ranging from 12k-18k soldiers.

    Raymond_K._Hessel

    No, isis is not fairly described as comprised of former Baathists. Thats some neocon propaganda.

    Its mostly Libyans and Saudis and Yemenis and some Iraqis and Turks, cats herded by the us and israel and saudi.

    Isis is a proxy for these states and turkey.
    http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html
    http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

    coast

    But they can bomb the fuck out of Iraq, Libya, Syria etc. setting those countries back to the stone age, displacing and killing millions, destroying historical buildings, build nuke plants on fault lines, gmo food, flouride poison in our water, spraying shit in the skies etc....but NOOOO!!, we cant bomboil oil infrastructures that are helping arm the terrorists...what a fucking liar piece of shit..

    marcusfenix

    this is some epic and absurd bullfuckingshit to the highest degree right here.

    if they had no plans to hit IS in the one way it would really hurt them, in the only way it would make any difference then it begs the question....

    why bother bombing them at all?

    these people are not stupid, they know exactly how war works, how to wage it properly and how to defeat an enemy. and yet they try and sell the idiotic idea that they did not go after the most valuable and vulnerable of IS assets out of environmental concerns?

    really?

    and this is exactly why the "coalition" warned the Syrian air force against carrying out missions in these areas, outright threatened them in fact. to provide air cover and a safe route for IS oil to find it's way into Turkey and Iraq. and it worked, it was smooth sailing and billions all around right up until Moscow stepped in and literally started blowing up the program.

    the "save the environment" excuse doesn't play on any level and WFT good does it do the Syria people for this infrastructure to exist so long as IS controls it, they sure as shit are not benefiting from it. in fact it only hurts them more because the longer IS can make billions off the sale of this oil the longer this war will drag on.

    the longer the war drags on the more innocent Syrian's die so it would in fact be better for the common people of Syria for this oil pipeline to be destroyed and ISIS starved to death. then afterwords the Syrians can go ahead and start rebuilding the infrastructure. but there won't be an afterwords so long as IS can make that money and fund there whole drug soaked, murderous operation.

    and I wonder what the citizens of Paris think about the environmental concerns vs wiping out the islamic states revenue stream?

    all this sudden care and concern flowing from DC about civilians, about oil smugglers, civilian infrastructure and mother earth makes me want to vomit.

    because it's all just a never ending stream of bullshit and lies.

    sometimes, in the darkest corners of my mind, I do sincerely wonder weather nuclear war might just the only thing that will bring this lunacy to an end. not saying i want it to happen or that i want to live through it but it might just be the only way for somebody, somewhere in the world to get a fresh start free of this insane asylum we all live in.

    Johnny Horscaulk

    http://original.antiwar.com/dan_sanchez/2015/10/05/seize-the-chaos/
    https://medium.com/dan-sanchez/clean-break-to-dirty-wars-d5ebc5fda9f9

    http://leaksource.info/2015/01/17/the-yinon-plan-greater-israel-syria-ir...

    Isis is a name for us/israeli/saudi/Israeli mostly foreign mercenaries there to destroy Syria as a functioning state.

    For Israel.

    http://www.historycommons.org/context.jsp?item=western_support_for_islam...

    And to block the Iran pipeline
    http://www.mintpressnews.com/migrant-crisis-syria-war-fueled-by-competin...

    But for the us deep state, the zog, its really basically about Greater Israel.

    http://www.sweetliberty.org/issues/israel/zionist2.html

    [Nov 29, 2015] Turkish militants kill russian pilot while he is decending

    yudenich.ru

    watch-v=tiR8E-SwVeI

    Terrorism is typically ideologically driven and as such has no nationality. But this case looks like an e4xception: Turkish media machine has already asssigned this crime to certain mythical "Syrian Turkomans".

    But in reality this looks like Grey Wolfs not "Turkomans", and their leader is a Turkish neo-fascist Alpaslan Celik - son of the mayor of a small Turkish town. Golden youth so to speak.

    http://ntv.livejournal.com/426110.html?mode=reply#add_comment

    So, all those dances over the body of pilot are very similar to explosions in Suruç and Ankara.

    [Nov 29, 2015] Turkey hands over body of Russian pilot to Russia

    www.hurriyetdailynews.com

    Turkey has initiated the process to hand over the body of a Russian pilot to Moscow after his jet was shot down by Turkey, a day before a United Nations climate conference starts in Paris that could bring a "saddened" Turkish president and his Russian counterpart together.

    In a press briefing held at Ankara's airport prior to his departure for a EU-Turkey Summit in Brussels on Nov. 29, Turkish Prime Minister Ahmet Davutoğlu said the body of Russian pilot Oleg Peshkov, who died after his plane was downed by Turkish F-16s on Nov. 24 when it reportedly breached Turkish airspace for 17 seconds, had been taken by Turkey and would be sent to Russia on its request.

    [Nov 29, 2015] How ISIS is financed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Their main source of income is oil sales, but they also resource to taxes to the population, sales of antiquities, bank raids, appropriation of part of Iraq salaries to government employees in occupied areas that are still being paid, extortion to businesses, appropriation of part of crops, ransoms and slave sales. Some of the magnitudes are estimated. ..."
    "... The income from oil is estimated at 1.5 million dollars per day from 34-40,000 barrels per day at 20-35 $ per barrel. ..."
    "... Their main expense is calculated at 10 million dollars per month (0.33 mill $/day) in salaries. They pay almost a fifth of their income in salaries, and that is one of the reasons of their popularity. ..."
    "... Recently the international coalition, with France taking a very active role, has started bombing their oil facilities, thus attacking the jugular of ISIS. They must be desperate because they see no way of protecting their oil financing from air attacks. After a very long time of successes, ISIS is now having problems to hold its ground in parts of Syria and Kurdistan. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Javier, 11/14/2015 at 11:03 am

    OFM,

    This article in Spanish from one of the main journals explains how ISIS is financing. Their main source of income is oil sales, but they also resource to taxes to the population, sales of antiquities, bank raids, appropriation of part of Iraq salaries to government employees in occupied areas that are still being paid, extortion to businesses, appropriation of part of crops, ransoms and slave sales. Some of the magnitudes are estimated.

    The income from oil is estimated at 1.5 million dollars per day from 34-40,000 barrels per day at 20-35 $ per barrel.

    Their main expense is calculated at 10 million dollars per month (0.33 mill $/day) in salaries. They pay almost a fifth of their income in salaries, and that is one of the reasons of their popularity.

    http://www.elmundo.es/papel/historias/2015/11/11/56422776268e3efc608b45e5.html

    Recently the international coalition, with France taking a very active role, has started bombing their oil facilities, thus attacking the jugular of ISIS. They must be desperate because they see no way of protecting their oil financing from air attacks. After a very long time of successes, ISIS is now having problems to hold its ground in parts of Syria and Kurdistan.

    I have family in Paris. My niece, her husband and all his family are in Paris. None of them was present in the attacks, but we are all shocked by the magnitude.

    Caelan MacIntyre, 11/13/2015 at 8:02 pm

    "Fourth-generation warfare (4GW) is conflict characterized by a blurring of the lines between war and politics, combatants and civilians.

    The term was first used in 1989 by a team of American analysts, including William S. Lind,[citation needed] to describe warfare's return to a decentralized form. In terms of generational modern warfare, the fourth generation signifies the nation states' loss of their near-monopoly on combat forces , returning to modes of conflict common in pre-modern times." ~ Wikipedia

    Ironically, much of it is and will be the result of the nation states' monopolies on violence enacted.

    [Nov 29, 2015] A Brief Word to Forecasters: STFU!

    Notable quotes:
    "... Washington Post Business Section ..."
    "... Most forecasters are barely familiar with what happened in the past. Based on what they say and write, it is apparent they often do not understand what is occurring here and now. Why would anyone imagine that they have the slightest clue about the future? ..."
    "... This is not my opinion, but a simple statistical fact: The data overwhelmingly show that the skill set of the predictive pundits is no better than a coin toss. ..."
    "... Course some of these 'predictions' are just some ones ideology. Course none of then ever seem to be punished when they fail. ..."
    www.ritholtz.com
    My Sunday Washington Post Business Section column is out. This morning, we look at the annual forecasting foolishness so prevalent in the media.

    By now, you know the drill: A bunch of analysts make their annual predictions, and of course, they are utterly useless. Here's an excerpt from the column:

    "It's that time of year again when the mystics peer deep into their tea leaves, entrails and crystal balls to divine what's ahead.

    Which means it's also time for my annual reminder: These folks cannot tell the future. Ignore them.

    Most forecasters are barely familiar with what happened in the past. Based on what they say and write, it is apparent they often do not understand what is occurring here and now. Why would anyone imagine that they have the slightest clue about the future?

    This is not my opinion, but a simple statistical fact: The data overwhelmingly show that the skill set of the predictive pundits is no better than a coin toss. The odd person gets these forecasts about the economy and stock markets right each year, but the lack of any sort of consistent winners and losers means that, mathematically, it is a random outcome."

    I speak with numerous experts about the subject, including:

    • -James O'Shaughnessy (author of the classic "What Works on Wall Street," and CIO of O'Shaughnessy Asset Management

    • -Morgan Housel, a columnist for the Motley Fool

    • -Michael Johnston (Poseidon Financial. author of "A Visual History of Market Crash Predictions" and "The Not-So-Surprising Truth About Gold Bugs.")

    • -Laszlo Birinyi (researcher and market historian)

    • -David Rosenberg (chief economist and strategist at Gluskin Sheff)

    They name names and dates and forecasts; hilarity ensues . . . Source:
    Would you let a mystic manage your investment portfolio?
    Barry Ritholtz
    Washington Post, November 29, 2015

    http://wapo.st/1PQDCVz

    willid3, November 29, 2015 at 11:15 am

    Course some of these 'predictions' are just some ones ideology. Course none of then ever seem to be punished when they fail. Like the folks who predicted the end of the US economy that was supposed to happen back in September, you will notice they now predict it will be in 2016 (which of course means they will just keep changing the year when that doesnt happen) eithe

    [Nov 29, 2015] Commodity prices and exchange rates

    Nov 29, 2015 | Econbrowser
    For some time I've been using a simple summary of these various correlations in the form of a regression of the weekly change in the price of oil on that week's change in the price of copper, the value of the dollar, and the interest rate on a 10-year U.S. Treasury bond. The regression is estimated over the period from April 2007 to June 2014. The price of oil was more likely to decrease in a given week if the copper price also decreased, the dollar appreciated, or interest rates fell. The overall decline in copper prices, appreciation of the dollar, and decline in interest rates since June 2014 would have led one to predict that the price of oil would have fallen from $105/barrel in June 2014 to around $65 today, or about 60% of the observed decline. The actual and predicted price of oil that comes out of these calculations is plotted for each week since June 2014 in the graph below.

    oil_pred_nov_15

    We have a friendly tool with data links that you can use to perform these calculations yourself for any start and end date of interest. For example, the model predicts that oil prices would have fallen from $47.30 on October 16 to $43.19 today, about half the observed decline. If all that had changed over that period had been the rise in interest rates, we would have expected to see the price of oil increase, not decline, over the last month. The observed decline in copper prices and appreciation of the dollar are more than enough to counteract that effect and account for a significant part of the observed decline.

    Anarchus, November 29, 2015 at 4:03 pm

    You can make a case that the most important "channel" that the 25 bp rate hike will be working through is actually the US dollar.

    Appreciation in the US dollar quickly causes pressure on operating profits of American companies (the S&P 500 generates about 40%-45% of its operating income overseas), and reduces the competitive position of US exporters and by making imports cheaper, causes the US to potentially import deflationary pressures from overseas.

    The FOMC is completely out-of-step with the inflation outlook in the US – we're nowhere close to the 2% target for the PCE and haven't been close to 2% since about 2011. Sheer madness, I believe.

    Anonymous, November 29, 2015 at 4:23 pm

    1. Looking at the source, there are some commodities that don't have same decline pattern. A lot, probably most, do. But it's not the 100% picture that you get from those selected here.

    2. If you think it's a monetary thing, than how do the same commodities look versus a few other reference currencies? Yen, Euro, CHF? If same picture, than $ debasement can't be the answer. If not, than maybe $ is getting inflated.

    3. Still not crazy about the logarithm comparisons. Too easy to generate spurious correlations (discussed in physics literature).

    [Nov 29, 2015] Commodity Prices, Exchange Rates, and the Fed

    Notable quotes:
    "... Amount of oil extractable at any given price now can be quantified. This amount is dramatically, several times, higher at $100 then at $40: few oil producers at below 40 left. ..."
    Nov 29, 2015 | Economist's View

    Jim Hamilton's bottom line is worth noting:

    Commodity prices and exchange rates: The dramatic decline in the prices of a number of commodities over the last 16 months must have a common factor. One variable that seems to be quite important is the exchange rate. ...

    Ben Groves, November 29, 2015 at 04:20 PM

    There was no supercycle. It was the debt bubble. First it came in corporate bonds. Then came Real Estate. Then came commodities. For China, that lead to excessive over investment through 2011.

    ... ... ...

    Anonymous said in reply to sanjait...

    when commodity price rises raise overall inflation, it is discounted. when they fall and cpi inflation falls as a result, it is not to be discounted but taken as a deflationary signal. this is the kind of asymmetry that drives me nuts about the Fed and all its worshippers.

    likbez said...

    === quote ===
    Ben Groves said...
    There was no supercycle. It was the debt bubble. First it came in corporate bonds. Then came Real Estate. Then came commodities.
    === end of quote ===
    Partially yes. But mostly not. I think there is another factor in play here, especially for oil. It is called "peak cheap oil" phenomenon.

    Amount of oil extractable at any given price now can be quantified. This amount is dramatically, several times, higher at $100 then at $40: few oil producers at "below 40" left.

    The problem is that there is not much oil extractable at or below $40 left and no new are on the horizon. Earth is a small planet after all. Oil can't be inexhaustible on such a planet and current speed of depletion is high enough (around 90 million barrels a day). so it makes perfect sense to speak about physical limits of oil extraction on the planet Earth.

    That means that many players who are now forced to sell oil at below $40 per barrel by market forces soon will be out of business. Might be not in a year but definitely less the in a decade.

    Plus 25% dollar appreciation does no help either (and probably is a temporary phenomenon).

    [Nov 29, 2015] Is the shale gas revolution over

    www.usatoday.com

    while the markets are eagerly watching for declines in oil production, few are noticing that natural gas production is also declining. The EIA reports that in October, several of the largest shale gas regions will post their fourth month in a row of production declines. With a loss of around 208 million cubic feet per day expected in October, the four-month drop off will be the longest streak of losses in about eight years.

    It is no surprise that the Eagle Ford will represent the largest losses, with a decline of 117 million cubic feet per day expected in October. That is because oil is a much more prized commodity in South Texas, so the decline is largely attributable to disappearing crude oil rigs.

    While U.S. shale gas remained resilient through several years of low natural gas prices, the collapse in oil prices are finally putting an end to the boom.

    [Nov 29, 2015] OPEC Crude Production Down in October - Peak Oil BarrelPeak Oil Barrel

    Notable quotes:
    "... If you go look at the Saudi-Americo tech papers (I posted a few here over the past year or two) They are using every trick in the book to keep production up. Most of the big fields are already depleted and they are going after the oil trapped in pockets. In some fields regions they are the second and third generation of horizonal drilling as the previous lines had flooded out. ..."
    "... When horizonal line begins to water out, the drill another line just above it. The Last time I looked the Ghawar Arab-D region has oil column of about 20 to 30 feet ( on a a field that originally had a oil column of over 1200 feet, Although there was less volume holding oil deep in the formation than at the top). ..."
    "... They are also using advance water flooding tech. to push the remaining oil to high spots in the fields to concentrate the oil into a narrow spot to reduce water cut and to prevent oil from getting trapped in tiny pockets. There is a lot of amazing engineering going on in KSA, but unfortunately is indicates trouble is coming as KSA reaches the end of the line on sustaining production. I don't know when it will happen, but I can't imagine they can continue production after the next 5 years. ..."
    "... In my opinion Oil production was sustained and growth (in North America) because of the very high Oil prices and the belief in the industry that Oil prices would continue to rise much higher. Its looking like 2015 will be the global peak in production and its seems unlikely the global economy can afford sustained higher Oil prices. ..."
    "... There was a bigger increase in gas rig count. Apparently Saudi Arabia needs more gas to substitute crude oil and petroleum products in power generation ..."
    "... dclonghorn, you can easily calculate average production per rig over time, as the data is available and you only need Excel to plot it. That information is relatively useful because each rig costs money, but productivity per rig is so variable that you cannot take your conclusions too far. US for example has had a huge drop in rig numbers with a moderate drop in production. The drop in rig numbers is more a problem for future production as the number of new wells is going to drop almost proportionally once the backlog of waiting wells is cleared. ..."
    "... But it is known since Hubbert times that once you reach peak oil, you need an exponentially growing number of wells to sustain production. We are probably seen that futile attempt from some of the richer producers that have reached peak oil. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    dclonghorn, 11/13/2015 at 4:33 pm
    When looking at the OPEC oil production graphs, and BH rig counts, it seems that several countries with higher rig counts are seeing lower production, which would indicate peaking. UAE has rising counts and rising production. The big rig count increases from Kuwait and Saudi Arabia seem to result in declining to flatish production respectively. I wondered if someone with tech skills had plotted graphs with production and rig counts over several years for some of these countries. A graphic presentation would be revealing. If that has already been done, and I've missed it, could someone point me in that direction. Thanks, I have enjoyed the info from this site, and appreciate the opinions, and data presented.
    AlexS, 11/13/2015 at 6:05 pm
    Saudi Arabia is drilling more just to maintain stable oil production capacity.
    However I wouldn't say that the increase in oil rig count was particularly dramatic.
    The average oil rig count was: 54 in June 2012-December 2013; 64 in 2014 and 72 in January-October 2015.

    Saudi Arabia's oil rig count vs. oil production and capacity (mb/d)
    Sources: JODI, OPEC, IEA, Baker Hughes

    oldfarmermac, 11/13/2015 at 7:34 pm
    Perhaps an increase from fifty four on average to seventy two on average over only a three year period in a strong indication that the Saudis are having trouble maintaining production, never mind increasing it?

    But maybe they will be bringing on a whole new field or fields soon with the extra rigs. In that case maybe they can outrun the depletion of their older fields for a while yet.

    AlexS, 11/13/2015 at 7:56 pm
    oldfarmermac,

    They are drilling mainly at the already producing fields.

    Arceus,

    Saudi production capacity is 12.3 mb/d, according to the IEA. Many experts believe it does not exceed 11-11.5 mb/d.
    20 mb/d is an absolutely unreal number

    Arceus, 11/13/2015 at 8:09 pm
    Yes, thanks Alex. I was being ironic or perhaps snarky there in supposing if the Sauds could double their oil production they would likely get the same amount of money due to the fall in the oil price. Presently, the Sauds have incrementally increased their oil production AND at the same time managed to lose market share AND a fairly significant amount of oil revenue.

    Alas "the best laid plans of mice and men often go awry."

    TechGuy, 11/13/2015 at 8:32 pm
    If you go look at the Saudi-Americo tech papers (I posted a few here over the past year or two) They are using every trick in the book to keep production up. Most of the big fields are already depleted and they are going after the oil trapped in pockets. In some fields regions they are the second and third generation of horizonal drilling as the previous lines had flooded out.

    When horizonal line begins to water out, the drill another line just above it. The Last time I looked the Ghawar Arab-D region has oil column of about 20 to 30 feet ( on a a field that originally had a oil column of over 1200 feet, Although there was less volume holding oil deep in the formation than at the top).

    They are also using advance water flooding tech. to push the remaining oil to high spots in the fields to concentrate the oil into a narrow spot to reduce water cut and to prevent oil from getting trapped in tiny pockets. There is a lot of amazing engineering going on in KSA, but unfortunately is indicates trouble is coming as KSA reaches the end of the line on sustaining production. I don't know when it will happen, but I can't imagine they can continue production after the next 5 years.

    In my opinion Oil production was sustained and growth (in North America) because of the very high Oil prices and the belief in the industry that Oil prices would continue to rise much higher. Its looking like 2015 will be the global peak in production and its seems unlikely the global economy can afford sustained higher Oil prices.

    AlexS, 11/13/2015 at 9:53 pm
    Excerpts from an article on Saudi water flood project:

    "State-run Saudi Aramco, the world's largest oil producing firm, is also operating the world's largest system for water flow into its massive oilfields to maintain their production capacity. But the company says such a system is beset with challenges.

    For Saudi Aramco, keeping the nation's oil fields in optimal condition is not simply an option - it's a must, Aramco said in its latest bulletin, Dimensions.
    Part of this responsibility falls on the shoulders of the company's Sea Water Injection Department (SWID), which operates the world's largest seawater injection system. "Water injection for oil fields is critical," said Mohammed Sowayigh, SWID manager.

    "Without water injection, oil production levels cannot be maintained and could be significantly impacted and drop. It's a necessity," he added.
    The hub and center piece of the seawater injection system is the Qurayyah Sea Water Plant (QSWP), it noted. Inaugurated in 1978, the plant is capable of treating 14 million barrels per day (MMBPD) of seawater.

    In the late 1970s, the company's seawater injection capabilities stood at 5.5 MMBPD at the Grass Root Sea Water Plant, which eventually became QSWP.
    Subsequent expansion projects, the most recent being in 2008, made QSWP capable of processing almost three times that amount."

    Source: http://www.emirates247.com/business/energy/keeping-oil-capacity-is-challenging-saudi-aramco-2012-11-19-1.483732

    Ironically, they burn a lot of oil to generate power that is used in water desalination projects
    And if they start shale gas and tight oil production, they will need to build new water desalination plants to produce fresh water for fracking.

    Ron Patterson, 11/13/2015 at 9:31 pm
    But maybe they will be bringing on a whole new field or fields soon with the extra rigs.

    No, that is not going to happen. They don't have any new fields to bring on line.

    Toolpush, 11/13/2015 at 8:33 pm
    Alex,

    Back August, Saudi was doing a major recruitment drive for ex-shale drillers. My gut tells me if Saudi has to resort to shale, on any scale at all, then they are getting close to the end.

    Here is an article saying the last two planned conventional expansion projects have been delayed. These projects were developing the last/worst part of the fields involved. They are starting to scap the bottom, but I am sure they will maintain the current level for a little while yet.

    http://www.tradearabia.com/news/CONS_289405.html

    Saudi Khurais oilfield expansion delayed

    When the expansion plans for Shaybah and Khurais were announced, officials said they would not add to Saudi Arabia's oil production capacity of 12.5 million bpd but merely compensate for declining and ageing oilfields.

    AlexS, 11/13/2015 at 9:34 pm
    Toolpush,

    Thanks for the link. Here is another one on their shale oil plans:

    Saudi Aramco Attracts Unemployed US Shale Workers

    Tuesday, March 17, 2015
    http://www.epmag.com/saudi-aramco-attracts-unemployed-us-shale-workers-787296#p=full

    Workers fired from U.S. shale fields after the collapse in oil prices could soon have a new boss: the nation some blame for driving that decline.
    The state-owned Saudi Arabian Oil Co., also known as Saudi Aramco, is posting new job ads online aiming to snap up experts in extracting oil from shale as the country seeks to become a leader in that rapidly expanding effort. Tens of thousands of U.S. workers have been fired since November as oil prices plunged because of oversupplies, driven in part by an OPEC decision supported by Saudi Arabia.

    That's now giving Saudi Aramco a better chance to lure experienced workers to its own shale formations. Difficult living conditions had previously made the country a hard sell, said Tobias Read, chief executive officer of Swift Worldwide Resources, a recruiting firm.

    AlexS, 11/13/2015 at 6:13 pm
    There was a bigger increase in gas rig count. Apparently Saudi Arabia needs more gas to substitute crude oil and petroleum products in power generation

    Saudi Arabia oil and gas rig count (picture omitted)

    Javier, 11/14/2015 at 8:48 am
    dclonghorn, you can easily calculate average production per rig over time, as the data is available and you only need Excel to plot it. That information is relatively useful because each rig costs money, but productivity per rig is so variable that you cannot take your conclusions too far. US for example has had a huge drop in rig numbers with a moderate drop in production. The drop in rig numbers is more a problem for future production as the number of new wells is going to drop almost proportionally once the backlog of waiting wells is cleared.

    But it is known since Hubbert times that once you reach peak oil, you need an exponentially growing number of wells to sustain production. We are probably seen that futile attempt from some of the richer producers that have reached peak oil.

    [Nov 29, 2015] Bakken production is down nearly 20,000 bbl/d month over month and for the first time also down -2% year over year

    peakoilbarrel.com

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/14/2015 at 4:55 am

    Bakken Production numbers for September are published:

    The recently published Bakken production numbers are truly surprising. Production is down nearly 20,000 bbl/d month over month and for the first time also down -2% year over year. Wells producing declined month over month 21 wells and well productivity is in freefall as production fell 6.7% percentage points from 4.7% growth to a 2% decline and wells producing fell just 2 percentage points from 12% yoy growth to 10% yoy growth (see below chart). If this trend continues, production will be down roughly 40% year over year by March 2016! Finally the industry is responding to the price decline. This increases the chances for an oil price rise in 2016 substantially.

    [Nov 29, 2015] In the USA most of the states with oil and gas sectors are in recession

    Notable quotes:
    "... Recall that the stock market did not roll over and crash for 2-3 quarters following the US economy entering recession in 2008 and 2001. ..."
    "... Were the Fed to raise rates in Dec, it would not be unlike in 1937 when the Fed raised reserve requirements and the US Treasury "sterilized" gold inflows from Europe; in 1931 when the Fed raised the discount rate to support the US$ and stem gold outflows following the collapse of Creditanstalt and the 24% devaluation of sterling; and in 1893 when there was a run on US monetary gold by Europeans in response to the failure of Baring bank, railroad bond defaults, a crash in the price of commodities, especially wheat, and a decline in trade. ..."
    "... Excessive private debt, increasing indications of credit and financial system risk, a bear market, collapsing commodities prices, decelerating or deflating consumer prices, low interest rates, and today's no growth in trade are conditions remarkably similar to those that preceded the Panic of 1893, 1929 Crash, and the bear market, defaults/foreclosures, and recessionary conditions during 1937-42. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    BC, 11/14/2015 at 3:09 pm

    A reminder, gents, that most of the states with oil and gas sectors are in recession, including TX, ND, WY, and LA:

    CO, OK, WVA, and AK are probably in, or near, recession:

    Moreover, the annual change rate of US nominal GDP less household health care spending and the fiscal deficit has decelerated below 3% from a cyclical peak since Q4 2014, which coincided with recessions since 1960, excepting in 1967.

    This is occurring with recession-like contractions in orders and wholesale sales and a surge in inventories:

    And the foregoing are occurring coincident with the broad US equity market having entered a bear market earlier this year, as occurred at a similar rate of real final sales per capita in 2008, 2001, and during the recessions and bear markets of the early 1980s and mid-1970s:

    Finally, the recession-like conditions for orders, business sales, and an equity bear market are occurring with the implied increasing credit risk indicated by corporate yield spreads widening to the 10-year Treasury yield at similar rates as prior to the Lehman take down in 2008, the deflationary recession after WW II, and the deflationary recessions/depression of the 1920s-30s:

    Credit, financial system/equity market, and recessionary risks are higher than is generally perceived.

    Recall that the stock market did not roll over and crash for 2-3 quarters following the US economy entering recession in 2008 and 2001.

    Were the Fed to raise rates in Dec, it would not be unlike in 1937 when the Fed raised reserve requirements and the US Treasury "sterilized" gold inflows from Europe; in 1931 when the Fed raised the discount rate to support the US$ and stem gold outflows following the collapse of Creditanstalt and the 24% devaluation of sterling; and in 1893 when there was a run on US monetary gold by Europeans in response to the failure of Baring bank, railroad bond defaults, a crash in the price of commodities, especially wheat, and a decline in trade.

    Excessive private debt, increasing indications of credit and financial system risk, a bear market, collapsing commodities prices, decelerating or deflating consumer prices, low interest rates, and today's no growth in trade are conditions remarkably similar to those that preceded the Panic of 1893, 1929 Crash, and the bear market, defaults/foreclosures, and recessionary conditions during 1937-42.

    [Nov 29, 2015] Top U.S. Air Defense Commander Turkey's Shootdown of Russian Jet "Had to Be PRE-PLANNED"

    See also Ambush of Russian Su-24 over Syria
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yesterday, McInerney told Fox News – much to the surprise of the reporter interviewing him – that assuming the Turkish version of the flight path of the Russian jet is accurate, Russia wasn't ..."
    "... As the International Court of Justice ruled in the seminal Nicaragua case (1986), any use of force even in alleged self-defense must also fulfill the basic customary international law requirements of (1) necessity and (2) proportionality. Even accepting the government of Turkeys version of events, it does not appear that there was any necessity for Turkey to destroy the Russian jet. ..."
    "... From another [International Court of Justice] case, the basic test for "necessity" is that the necessity of self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Clearly, that was not the case here. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    In his role as Norad commander for Alaska, McInerney dealt with more Russian fighter jet incursions (which he calls "bear penetrations") than anyone else in the world.

    So McInerney knows how to tell innocent from hostile incursions by foreign fighter jets, standard rules of engagement of foreign fighter jets, how to read radar tracks, and the other things he would need to know to form an informed opinion about the shootdown of a foreign jet.

    Yesterday, McInerney told Fox News – much to the surprise of the reporter interviewing him – that assuming the Turkish version of the flight path of the Russian jet is accurate, Russia wasn't threatening Turkey, and that Turkey's shoot down of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned", as the jet wasn't in Turkish air space long enough for anything other than a premeditated attack to have brought it.

    Watch the latest video at video.foxnews.com

    McInerney is right … especially given that a U.S. official told Reuters that the Russian jet was inside of Syria when it was shot down:

    The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    ... ... ...

    International law expert Francis Boyle - Professor of International Law at the University of Illinois, Champaign, who was responsible for drafting the Biological Weapons Anti-Terrorism Act of 1989 – said by email:

    The Russian bombing of Syria is technically legal because they have the explicit permission of the Syrian government, but of course Putin will ultimately act in accord with his interests, not what is best for the Syrian people.

    ***

    As the International Court of Justice ruled in the seminal Nicaragua case (1986), any use of force even in alleged self-defense must also fulfill the basic customary international law requirements of (1) necessity and (2) proportionality. Even accepting the government of Turkey's version of events, it does not appear that there was any "necessity" for Turkey to destroy the Russian jet.

    Washington's Blog asked Boyle whether this is analogous to the "use of force" by someone with a gun who claims he was threatened by someone else. He answered affirmatively, explaining:

    Necessity and Proportionality are each separate requirements for the use of force in self-defense.

    From another [International Court of Justice] case, the basic test for "necessity" is that the necessity of self-defense must be instant, overwhelming, leaving no choice of means and no moment for deliberation. Clearly, that was not the case here.

    [Nov 28, 2015] On The Cusp Of A Staggering Default Wave Energy Intelligence Issues Apocalyptic Warning For The Energy Sector

    Notable quotes:
    "... The US E P sector could be on the cusp of massive defaults and bankruptcies so staggering they pose a serious threat to the US economy. Without higher oil and gas prices -- which few experts foresee in the near future -- an over-leveraged, under-hedged US E P industry faces a truly grim 2016. How bad could things get? ..."
    "... The US E P sector could be on the cusp of massive defaults and bankruptcies so staggering they pose a serious threat to the US economy. ..."
    "... However, experts say this wont be enough to avoid a bloody reckoning with persistent low oil and gas prices, as the sector grapples with some $200 billion-plus in high-yield debt, which it absorbed to finance the shale oil boom. ..."
    "... he default category also includes companies that have entered into distressed exchanges with their creditors, including Halcon, SandRidge, Midstates, Goodrich, Warren, Exco, Venoco and Energy XXI ( EIF Jul.815 ). ..."
    "... Better hedging could have helped, but data from IHS Energy shows a woefully under-hedged E P sector in 2016. Small producers have 27% of their oil production hedged at an average price of $77/bbl; midsized firms have 26% hedged at $69; and large producers have just 4% hedged at $63. That is much less protection than E P firms had in place for 2015 ( EIF Aug.1915 ). ..."
    "... Heading into October redeterminations, Macquerie Tristones energy lending survey showed banks using an average 2016 WTI price outlook of $54. That has since dropped to around $47 this quarter - closer to the $46 indicated by the Nymex strip. ..."
    "... Year-to-date, there has been $70.1 billion in asset write-downs in 2015, approaching the $94.3 billion total for the previous 10-year period of 2005-14, ..."
    "... Watters describes an M A playland for strong companies with investment-grade credit ratings, noting that the six largest integrated majors together hold a war chest of some $500 billion. Smith says it could be a great opportunity for majors to improve their positions in US shale, where they were famously late in the game. Some of the best shale acreage is held by companies with poor balance sheets. It seems like a natural fit, he says. ..."
    Nov 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    The Energy Intelligence news and analysis creator and aggregator is not one to haphazradly throw around hyperbolic claims and forecasts. So when it gets downright apocalyptic, as it did this week in a report titled "Is Debt Bomb About to Blow Up US Shale?", people listen... and if they are still long energy junk bonds, they panic.

    The summary:

    "The US E&P sector could be on the cusp of massive defaults and bankruptcies so staggering they pose a serious threat to the US economy. Without higher oil and gas prices -- which few experts foresee in the near future -- an over-leveraged, under-hedged US E&P industry faces a truly grim 2016. How bad could things get?"

    The full report by Paul Merolli, a senior editor and correspondent at Energy Intelligence:

    Debt Bomb Ticking for US Shale

    The US E&P sector could be on the cusp of massive defaults and bankruptcies so staggering they pose a serious threat to the US economy. Without higher oil and gas prices - which few experts foresee in the near future - an over-leveraged, under-hedged US E&P industry faces a truly grim 2016. How bad could things get and when? It increasingly looks like a number of the weakest companies will run out of financial stamina in the first half of next year, and with every dollar of income going to service debt at many heavily leveraged independents, there are waves of others that also face serious trouble if the lower-for-longer oil price scenario extends further.

    "I could see a wave of defaults and bankruptcies on the scale of the telecoms, which triggered the 2001 recession," Timothy Smith, president of consultancy Petro Lucrum, told a Platts energy conference in Houston last week. Much has been made about the resiliency of US oil production in the face of low prices, but the truth is that many producers are maximizing their output - even unprofitable volumes - because they need the cash flow to service their debt (related). "As an industry, we're at the point where every dollar of free cash flow now goes to paying back debt," Angle Capital's Steve Ilkay told the same conference. Ilkay, who advises North American producers on asset management, said during the boom years of 2012-14 about 55% of the sector's free cash flow, which is calculated by subtracting capital expenditures from operating cash flow, was allocated toward debt repayment.

    With West Texas Intermediate (WTI) stuck below $50 per barrel since August - and closer to $40 recently - the industry has responded with deeper cuts to capex and a greater focus on efficiency (EIF Nov.4'15). However, experts say this won't be enough to avoid a bloody reckoning with persistent low oil and gas prices, as the sector grapples with some $200 billion-plus in high-yield debt, which it absorbed to finance the shale oil boom. Credit quality has been steadily deteriorating since June 2014, when WTI peaked at $108/bbl. Standard and Poor's says there have been 19 defaults so far in 2015 across the US oil and gas industry, while another 15 companies have filed for bankruptcy. Besides those that have missed interest or principal payments, the default category also includes companies that have entered into "distressed exchanges" with their creditors, including Halcon, SandRidge, Midstates, Goodrich, Warren, Exco, Venoco and Energy XXI (EIF Jul.8'15).

    Of the 153 oil and gas companies that S&P applies credit ratings to, roughly two-thirds are E&P firms. Among these E&Ps, 77% now have high-yield or "junk" ratings of BB+ or lower. 63% are rated B+ or worse, and 31% - or 51 companies - are rated below B-. What does this all mean in layman's terms? "Quite frankly it's a lot of gloom and doom," says Thomas Watters, managing director of S&P's oil and gas ratings. "I lose sleep over what could unfold." He says companies with ratings of B- or below are "on life support," while those further down the ratings scale at C+ or lower are "maybe looking at a year, year-and-a-half before they default or file for bankruptcy." While capital markets were still open to struggling E&P firms in the first half of the year, they are closing fast as investors accept a "lower-for-longer" oil price scenario. High-yield E&P firms raised $29 billion from 44 issuances of public debt in 2014. So far in 2015, $13 billion in junk-rated debt been raised from 23 issuances - but only two have come after June (EIF Jul.29'15).

    After posting negative free cash flow of $24 billion in 2015, capex cuts and efficiency measures should help the industry post positive free cash flow of $8 billion in 2016, S&P reckons. However, the high-yield E&Ps are expected to see negative free cash flow of $10 billion, so the group that can least afford a cash crunch will get just that. Better hedging could have helped, but data from IHS Energy shows a woefully under-hedged E&P sector in 2016. Small producers have 27% of their oil production hedged at an average price of $77/bbl; midsized firms have 26% hedged at $69; and large producers have just 4% hedged at $63. That is much less protection than E&P firms had in place for 2015 (EIF Aug.19'15).

    Small and midsized producers, which rely heavily on revolving lines of credit with banks, have not yet seen these liquidity lifelines cut off. Some analysts were shocked after banks reduced lines to credit to E&Ps by just 10% on average during October redetermination negotiations (EIF Oct.14'15). Banks appear to be putting off the inevitable in hopes of a price rebound. Many have been using price forecasts above the average 12-month forward strip - suggesting the pain could extend to energy lenders if markets don't recover as they expect. Heading into October redeterminations, Macquerie Tristone's energy lending survey showed banks using an average 2016 WTI price outlook of $54. That has since dropped to around $47 this quarter - closer to the $46 indicated by the Nymex strip.

    Yet another source of concern for E&Ps and their lenders are price-related impairments and asset write-downs (EIF Nov.11'15). Year-to-date, there has been $70.1 billion in asset write-downs in 2015, approaching the $94.3 billion total for the previous 10-year period of 2005-14, according to Stuart Glickman, head of S&P Capital's oil equities research. And he expects even more write-downs and impairments to emerge at year-end. "Companies are putting this off for a long as they can. You don't want to be negotiating in capital markets with a weakened hand," says Glickman. This will be a problem up and down the E&P sector, not just for the little guys. Chesapeake Energy, one of the largest US independent producers, shocked earlier this month by indicating a $13 billion reduction in the so-called PV-10, or "present value," of its oil and gas reserves to $7 billion. Had Chesapeake used 12-month futures strip prices - instead of Securities and Exchange Commission-mandated trailing 12-month prices for PV values - the value would've fallen to $4 billion. "That's staggering, just alarming to me," said Watters, noting that E&P firms' borrowing capacity is contingent on such measures (EIF Jul.22'15).

    Many believe all of these issues will come to a head in first-half 2016, as the effect of fewer hedges is felt and banks once again reassess credit lines in April. Pitifully low natural gas prices could also play a big factor, especially if the US experiences a mild winter. The confluence of these factors could be the catalyst that finally spurs a long-awaited tidal wave of mergers and acquisitions throughout the sector (EIF Oct.28'15). News of rampant defaults, bankruptcies and write-downs, combined with closed capital markets, might be enough to lower upstream asset valuations to the point where buyers and sellers can more easily agree to deals. Watters describes an "M&A playland" for strong companies with investment-grade credit ratings, noting that the six largest integrated majors together hold a war chest of some $500 billion. Smith says it could be a great opportunity for majors to improve their positions in US shale, where they were famously late in the game. "Some of the best shale acreage is held by companies with poor balance sheets. It seems like a natural fit," he says.

    But there's also some $100 billion in private equity sitting on the sidelines, meaning majors and large independents may face stiff competition (EIF Oct.28'15). Anadarko has openly complained about being outbid for assets by management teams backed by private equity. "Does that mean we're overpaying? No," insists one private equity executive. "It means we're willing to pay a bit more because we think our guys can run the assets better than some larger outfits, who can struggle with cost structures."

    [Nov 28, 2015] ISIS Oil Trade Full Frontal Raqqas Rockefellers, Bilal Erdogan, KRG Crude, And The Israel Connection

    Notable quotes:
    "... "All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well. ..."
    "... "First and foremost, the Turks help the militants sell stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil for $20 a barrel, which is half the market price. ..."
    "... According to a European official at an international oil company who met with al-Araby in a Gulf capital, Israel refines the oil only once or twice because it does not have advanced refineries. It exports the oil to Mediterranean countries - where the oil gains a semi-legitimate status - for $30 to $35 a barrel. ..."
    "... The oil is sold within a day or two to a number of private companies, while the majority goes to an Italian refinery owned by one of the largest shareholders in an Italian football club [name removed] where the oil is refined and used locally, added the European oil official. ..."
    "... Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of IS oil. Without them, most IS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel, said the industry official. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    One person who definitely thinks the Erdogans are trafficking in ISIS oil is Syrian Information Minister Omran al-Zoubi who said the following on Friday:

    "All of the oil was delivered to a company that belongs to the son of Recep [Tayyip] Erdogan. This is why Turkey became anxious when Russia began delivering airstrikes against the IS infrastructure and destroyed more than 500 trucks with oil already. This really got on Erdogan and his company's nerves. They're importing not only oil, but wheat and historic artefacts as well."

    And then there's Iraq's former National Security Adviser Mowaffak al-Rubaie who posted the following to his Facebook page on Saturday:

    "First and foremost, the Turks help the militants sell stolen Iraqi and Syrian oil for $20 a barrel, which is half the market price."

    Meanwhile, the US is preparing for an all-out ISIS oil propaganda war. As WSJ reported on Wednesday, "the Treasury [has] accused a Syrian-born businessman, George Haswani, who his a dual Syrian-Russian citizen, of using his firm, HESCO Engineering and Construction Co., for facilitating oil trades between the Assad regime and Islamic State." Why Assad would buy oil from a group that uses the cash at its disposal to wage war against Damascus is an open question especially when one considers that Assad's closest allies (Russia and Iran) are major oil producers. Of course between all the shady middlemen and double dealing, there's really no telling.

    Ultimately we'll probably never know the whole story, but what we do know (and again, most of the evidence is either circumstantial, anecdotal, of largely qualitative) seems to suggest that in addition to providing guns and money to the FSA and al-Nusra, Turkey may well be responsible for facilitating Islamic State's $400+ million per year oil enterprise. And as for end customers, consider the following bit from Al-Araby al-Jadeed:

    According to a European official at an international oil company who met with al-Araby in a Gulf capital, Israel refines the oil only "once or twice" because it does not have advanced refineries. It exports the oil to Mediterranean countries - where the oil "gains a semi-legitimate status" - for $30 to $35 a barrel.

    "The oil is sold within a day or two to a number of private companies, while the majority goes to an Italian refinery owned by one of the largest shareholders in an Italian football club [name removed] where the oil is refined and used locally," added the European oil official.

    "Israel has in one way or another become the main marketer of IS oil. Without them, most IS-produced oil would have remained going between Iraq, Syria and Turkey. Even the three companies would not receive the oil if they did not have a buyer in Israel," said the industry official.

    Finally, you'll note that this is all an effort to answer what we called "the most important question about ISIS that no one is asking" - namely, "who are the middlemen?" As we noted more than a week ago, "we do know who they may be: the same names that were quite prominent in the market in September when Glencore had its first, and certainly not last, near death experience: the Glencores, the Vitols, the Trafiguras, the Nobels, the Mercurias of the world." Consider that, and consider what Reuters says about the trade in illicit KRG oil: "Market sources have said several trading houses including Trafigura and Vitol have dealt with Kurdish oil. Both Trafigura and Vitol declined to comment on their role in oil sales."

    Similarly, FT notes that "both Vitol and Trafigura had paid the KRG in advance for the oil, under so-called 'pre-pay' deals, helping Erbil to bridge its budget gaps."

    Indeed, when Kurdistan went looking for an advisor to assist in the effort to circumvent Baghdad, the KRG chose "Murtaza Lakhani, who worked for Glencore in Iraq in the 2000s, to assist finding ships."

    "He knew exactly who would and who wouldn't deal with us. He opened the doors to us and identified willing shipping companies to work with us," Ashti Hawrami (quoted above) said.

    Indeed. And given everything said above about the commingling of illegal KRG crude and illicit ISIS oil shipments, it's probably a foregone conclusion that these same firms are assisting in transport arrangements for Islamic State

    Noplebian

    Interesting, but not surprising......

    http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

    Occident Mortal

    Outstanding work. And Raqqafellers will stick.

    I pointed to these assholes yesterday...

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-27/how-turkey-exports-isis-oil-wor...

    quintago

    Right after 9/11, the Israelis swept in and starting building links with the Kurds. Google it. They are using the Kurds as a destabilizer and as a source for oil. Ashkelon and Haifa moving oil to europe is their grand dream.

    BuddyEffed

    If there has been ship to ship transfers I bet someone, and maybe several recon capable countries have spy photos. That could be part of the over the top game here. Let's bargain or we will release photos.

    BuddyEffed

    This just in : http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/erdogan-russian-plane-downing_5659bd...
    Erdogan expressing regrets for the downed plane. Also probably regretting ZH analysis.

    I'm guessing the photos of the ship to ship transfers won't be released at this time.

    jefferson32

    Once again Meyssan's analysis proves extremely accurate. In July 2014, he writes:

    On June 20, Israel bought the oil that the local Kurdish government had stolen in Kirkuk despite the international opinion voiced by the Iraqi federal government. The transit of the oil had been facilitated by the ISIL which controls the pipeline and Turkey which allowed the goods to be loaded onto a tanker at the port of Ceyhan.

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article184669.html

    jefferson32

    To understand how Turkey can, on one hand, cooperate with the Kurds in northern Irak - and enable their oil commerce - and, on the other hand, be fighting Kurds in Syria (and Turkey itself), it is important to realize these two populations, although both ethnically kurdish, have little in common.

    For starters, they don't speak the same language, and killed each other throughout the Cold War.

    Nowadays, the Iraki Kurds are pro-West and lead by Barzani (admitedly a Mossad agent put in place by the Americans and British). The Syrian Kurds are aligned with Iran and Russia.

    Thierry Meyssan's exposé is much better than mine:

    http://www.voltairenet.org/article189385.html

    Paveway IV

    Half of all Turks live under the poverty line. A quarter of those live underneath the starvation line = eat from dumpsters. Erdogan and his crime family live in a three-quarters of a billion dollar palace.

    The Kurds have it worse, from Be Very Worried About Barzani Family Power Struggle

    "...Masud Barzani is president and lives in a palace complex in a resort inherited from Saddam Hussein. His nephew, Nechirvan Barzani, is prime minister. His uncle, Hoshyar Zebari, was Iraq's foreign minister and is now finance minister. Masud's eldest son, Masrour Barzani, leads the intelligence service; and his second son Mansour is a general, as is Masud's brother Wajy. Barzani's nephew Sirwan owns the regional cell phone company which, while purchased with public money, remains a private holding. Barzani's sons are frequently in Washington D.C. They have their wives give birth in Sibley Hospital in order to ensure the next generation has American citizenship, and Masrour Barzani acquired an $11 million mansion in McLean, Virginia. Hanging out in Tyson's Corner, Virginia, some of Masoud Barzani's daughters-in-law have, according to Kurdish circles, been known to introduce themselves as "Princesses of Kurdistan" as they visit high-end shops accompanied by their own rather unnecessary (while in the United States) security details..."

    Kurds hate Barzani - he's in power because Israel and the U.S. back him. Time to strip the Barzani babies of their U.S. citizenship and bar their entire clan from ever setting foot on U.S. soil for the rest of their lives.

    Everything the U.S. touches turns to shit. Every country we have anything to do with is ruled by psychopathic, money-grubbing gangsters. Every country we "freedomize and liberate" ends up knee-deep in the blood of their own citizens while the wars have turned out to be neocon chickenhawks grudge against a leader they don't like.

    When Syria and Iraq have been sufficiently destroyed, U.S. and U.K. oil companies will own the oil and gas production destined for the EU or Israel. The U.S. will continue to turn a blind eye to the tin-pot dictators they have empowered and made profanely rich while their 'little people' eat out of garbage cans. If those peons rise up to kick the dictator's asses (Erdogan, Barzani, and whoever is in charge if the Iraqi hell-hole of death), then we will be there with weapons, armor, aircraft and troops to kill those dumpster-diving terrorists.

    If we don't like the Saddam Husseins or Bashar al-Assads of the world, WHY THE FUCK DO WE KEEP MAKING MORE OF THEM?


    Paveway IV

    The Tylers do a good job of showing the trail of breadcrumbs in these oil operations. If you need a PowerPoint deck and streaming video of Israeli brokers negotiating legally-questionable and terrorist-supporting stolen oil purchases and scans of bill-of-sales from ISIS from Erdogan's son, then you're probably on the wrong site.

    There are plenty of accounts of Israel buying Kurdish oil directly, or acting as a middleman for EU sales. Any Israeli brokers can legally claim ignorance of the source of the oil, but everyone involved knows exactly where some it comes from and why it's so cheap. The legality of ANY Kurdish oil sales are still in legal limbo - the U.S. courts won't permit its import. The fact that a substantial quantitiy of Kurdish (or Turkish terminal spot sales of 'Kurdish') oil is in fact ISIS oil stolen in Syria and Iraq really isn't a secret to anybody. To show what is (or should be) obvious to a reasonably intelligent person is not the same thing as concrete proof with a documented legal trail. Israel probably regrets the ISIS connection, but ISIS won't be around forever. Israel plans on buying oil from the Kurds for a long, LONG time, so I don't expect them to ask too many questions now.

    We're talking a few Israeli brokers and refinery buyers, not ten million Israelis conspiring to buy and sell ISIS oil. If it wasn't Israeli oil dealers, it would be someone else.

    Urban Redneck

    It's not tenuous, it's politely phrased, but there are actually a lot more people and institutions involved. The physical oil trade is a black art, and all the practitioners know each other, and as many times as a title to cargo may trade hands at sea, ONE party is responsible for legitimizing black market product (after which it can be traded more freely). Unfortunately, the simplest and least bloody solution is unlikely at this point, international sanctions on Turkey and an embargo on all oil from Ceyhan not originating from the Baku pipeline.

    Lurk Skywatcher

    Why Assad would buy oil from a group that uses the cash at its disposal to wage war against Damascus is an open question especially when one considers that Assad's closest allies (Russia and Iran) are major oil producers.

    Only an open question for trolls and dullards. Syria has lost a lot of its oil infrastructure, and it needs oil to operate. The Assad government probably isn't buying directly, but unscrupulous middlemen will try to make a profit no matter what their nationality.

    Watch how the MSM will pump the US version, and ignore the Russian version, of who benefits from ISIS oil sales... it fits their agenda like a glove.

    Kayman

    Perversely Obama was correct in saying ISIS is the JV team. A small cog in a very illegal, immoral but lucrative trade in stolen oil. A lot of dirty money to pass around, deposit in Swiss bank accounts in Potus' name, or members of the family, Congress vendors, etc.

    If the U.S. and Nato wanted to- they could strangle the neck of the ISIS chicken by cutting off all oil going through Turkey and all newbie ISIS recuits and arms heading back into Raqqa.

    But there is too much dirty money being made by the real players in the game. Can't have a peace settlement with dirty hands in the game. I now wonder if the ISIS internet recruitment videos are being made in Turkey, Israel or Hollywood.

    Neochrome

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/b8234932-719b-11e5-ad6d-f4ed76f0900a.html#axzz...

    According to this it is Syrian REBELS who are dependent on ISIS oil, it would also partially explain why is US unhappy with turn of events. It is safe to say that the line between ISIS and "rebels" is practically non-existent:

    "It's a situation that makes you laugh and cry," said one Syrian rebel commander in Aleppo, who buys diesel from Isis areas even as his forces fight the group on the front lines. "But we have no other choice, and we are a poor man's revolution. Is anyone else offering to give us fuel?"

    Indeed, diesel and petrol produced in Isis areas are not only consumed in territory the group controls but in areas that are technically at war with it, such as Syria's rebel-held north: the region is dependent on the jihadis' fuel for its survival.

    "At any moment, the diesel can be cut. No diesel - Isis knows our life is completely dead," says one oil trader who comes from rebel-held Aleppo each week to buy fuel and spoke to the Financial Times by telephone.

    Palladin

    According to this article the US destroyed 116 oil trucks, and the Russians destroyed another 500. I don't know how many barrels of oil that is but that has to make a real mess with all that oil leaking all over the place.

    Where are all the Envrionmentlists wringing their Dawn covered hands over all of this. Probably no Seagulls were harmed, but still somebody has to clean up the mess.

    And it seems to me the MSM should be paying more attention to this "Envrrionmental Disaster" like they love to do whenever an offshore oil rig spills any amount of oil.

    Kayman

    Palladin

    Obama couldn't risk killing "innocent" truck drivers- a direct acknowledgement that everyone but the public knew Turkey was the oil conduit. Now you are offering him the opportunity to stop incinerating the trucks for environmental reasons- you ought to be on Obama's staff.

    I-am-not-one-of-them's picture

    the US used Russian footage of destroying 116 oil trucks as proof. I doubt they did, it's their mercenaries and their operation

    that's why nothing happened in the 2 years they pretended to destroy ISIS and Russia has immediate success, one is genuine and the other is fake

    harleyjohn45

    This article says 1300 transports have been destroyed. I read an article that ISIS is using smaller trucks as tankers now, instead of 36,000 liters to 9000 liters per load. Soon they will be carrying oil in 5 gallon buckets.

    Noplebian

    This just about sums up the whole ISIS situation......

    http://beforeitsnews.com/global-unrest/2015/11/cowardly-isiss-terrorist-...

    Perfecthedge

    This is outstanding, investigative journalism. Not the trash that we get from CNN, Fox and the BBC.

    I just checked Trafigura.com and whenever I see a corporation talking about "ethics and transparency" (on their home page). I get suspicious. I am sure KPMG or whatever hooker-accounting firm is auditing this firm, is doing a fine job.

    On another side note, Paypal thinks I am a terrorist and money-laundering criminal, because I wanted to transfer 20 Euros from my Bank account to my Paypal, to buy swimwear on Ebay.

    FUCK THEM. FUCK THEM HARD IN THE ASSHOLE.

    Herdee

    Americans need to look at the world through different perspectives.Use alternative media and open up your minds:

    http://russia-insider.com/en

    Teh Finn

    Russian media claims the men are "ISIS leaders who it is [thought] participated in massacres in Syria's Homs and Rojava, the Kurdish name for Syrian Kurdistan or Western Kurdistan."

    How do you say "Chris Matthews" in Rus?

    PoasterToaster

    The other unasked question is, "After they trade the oil for money, who the hell is selling them all the weaponry?".

    smacker

    "[...] the trucks that haul oil north just might have, maybe, a teensy-weensy, tiny, itsy-bitsy chance of carrying weapons back from Turkey."

    I think you're right. Recall that convoy Russian jets bombed yesterday which ended up in flames.

    Erdogan bellyached about it in a press interview claiming it was "humanitarian aid" (ho-ho). Too bad. Video pix showed the trucks had crates of shells and other weaponry. Some of the shells appeared to have Ukraine/Cyrillic markings on them.

    green dragon

    Veterens Today makes a case that

    [Turkey did this all during the Bush era, having cut a deal with US "manager" Paul Bremmer, a deal VT insiders helped manage for Bremmer and that I was witness to personally.

    The game involved playing Baghdad against Erbil and bleeding off oil revenues from the Kirkuk Oil Fields, largest oil reserves in the world, as they moved by pipeline through Kurdistan and into Turkey. There they were offloaded onto American tankers in the Mediterranean where these huge ships, largest in the world, were filled with oil but it was never recorded and the oil never paid for.

    Turkey got their cut, certain Turkish naval officers became fabulously wealthy while the Bush cabal poured billions into their Cayman offshore accounts managed by Bain Capital.]

    [Nov 28, 2015] Who is buying ISILs oil

    Al Jazeera English
    On the face of it, it looks like any state-run oil industry. Engineers, managers and traders all help extract, refine and distribute oil, which makes its way across Syria and Iraq, as well as overseas. But this is no state-run company. This is the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant's (ISIL) lifeline - a business that provides the armed group with more revenue than any other source.

    Oil helps to fund its war in Syria and Iraq, as well as to provide electricity to the 10 million people living under ISIL control. But despite the oil trade being targeted by the US-led coalition against ISIL, the business continues to thrive. And many people are increasingly asking why.

    Russia has accused Turkey of buying oil from the armed group. Ankara in turn threw this allegation back at Moscow because of Russian support for Bashar al-Assad, who is also accused of buying oil from ISIL.

    And to complicate matters, ISIL oil is also being sold to other rebel groups in Syria, most of whom are opposed to ISIL but have no alternative sources of fuel.

    So, who are the individuals and groups involved in refining and selling ISIL's oil? And where does that oil end up?

    http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/insidestory/2015/11/buying-isil-oil-151127173736852.html

    Presenter: Hazem Sika

    Guests:

    Shwan Zulal - Managing Director of Carduchi Consulting

    Carole Nakhle - Director of Crystol Energy

    Afshin Shahi - Director of the Centre for the Study of Political Islam

    [Nov 28, 2015] Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's no secret by now that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq ..."
    "... Frida Ghitis says the Syrian conflict "pitted moderates against extremists, and then extremists against ultra-extremists." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/opinions/ghitis-russia-jet-shot-down/index.html So I suppose the United States is now on the side of the "extremists." We certainly would never approve of backing the "ultra-extremists," the way our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia do. ..."
    "... Not Turkmen commander-Turkish ..."
    "... So Putin may have to put some of his other goals in the region on the back burner in order to actually wage war on ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups. ..."
    "... Putin is right in saying that Turkey, a NATO member, is backing ISIS, not only financially but militarily. For Turkey their main interest is in Syrian Kurds not getting organized, armed, and in control of their own territory. When Turkey says they are fighting ISIS, they are dropping most of the bombs on Syrian Kurds. And they have never respected Iraq borders when attacking Iraqi Kurds. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is also supporting ISIS, not only because they also defend an extremist Sunni Islam as Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, but also because it is part of their proxy wars against Shia Iran, and Syria is one of the Shia States with Sunni majority. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism. ..."
    "... Holland stupidly wants to march on ISIS, but nobody else wants to put troops on the ground. The only ones with troops on the ground fighting ISIS are Syrian army and Kurds. The latter ones are unacceptable to Turkey, so the former ones might become our new ally. ..."
    "... Alawites, the core of the Syrian army, are paying a very high price for the war. About a third of their manpower has died in the 5 year war. They only keep fighting because they know they face extermination if they lose the war, whether from Syrian Sunnies or from ISIS. ..."
    "... who want higher oil prices might have had their wish granted today after the downing of the russian SU-24 inside syria from a turkish F-16 (you will hear loads of shit in CnnAbcFoxNbcNewYotkTimes…please feel free to complete the alphabet soup here …they are all the SAME! that it was in turkish air space but THAT IS A LIE!!!!) ..."
    "... It is your right to believe that Erdogan/Turkey -and they alone- are "brave" enough to shoot down a Russian aircraft while flying OUTSIDE their territory; It is your right to believe that Maidan/Kiev protests and the ousting of Yanukovich happened/grew genuinely from the Ukrainian people; It is your right to believe that the pro-russian rebels shut down the MH17 in Ukraine; It is your right to believe that our army and air force cannot destroy a bunch of white-basketball-shoe-wearing-mid-eval -lunatics after a year of bombing campaign and that we cannot disrupt their tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of barrels of oil per day production/selling which brings them millions of dollars per day in hard currency (…yet somehow russians did it in a month); It is your right to believe that russians are threatening Europe even though we are expanding NATO right at their borders; It is your right to believe that a bunch of illiterate, ugly, smelly morons with rusted AK-47 can defeat France and Belgium; It is your right to believe that: "…they hate us for our freedoms…" and "…our troops are fighting over there to keep us safe over here…" and other "lovely" narratives as such. It is your right! ..."
    "... Are you absolutely sure of that? The Russians are saying that's not true, that the plane never entered Turkish air space. Russia's side is presented in this video: https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/ ..."
    "... If a person is indeed on a truth-finding mission, is it not incumbent upon that person to listen to what all sides have to say, and then make up one's mind based on the evidence which is presented? ..."
    "... RT, for instance, has a short clip of an interview with retired U.S. Airforce general Thomas McInery where he asserts that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned." ..."
    "... If what General McInery says is correct - that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned" - then there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity. ..."
    "... Well as far as I am concerned, President Obama circling the wagons around Turkey hardly qualifies him as being one the brightest lights on the Christmas tree. Obama is attempting to defend the indefensible. Why do you believe that is? ..."
    "... It is clear that this was an hostile deliberate act by Turkey against Russia regardless of where that plane was at the moment. Where the plane was is only relevant to see if it was legal or illegal, but the deliberate hostile act remains either case. ..."
    "... Turkey doesn't like the way Russia is helping the Syrian government, but they just proved to NATO that they are unreliable and more a liability than a trustworthy ally. This is how wars start, by unjustified escalation. ..."
    "... If one watches the RT video I linked above, Erdogan can be heard saying exactly that same thing back in 2012 after Syria shot down a Turkish jet because of an air space violation. Here's what Erdogan said then: ..."
    "... But whether the US might have given the green light for such an act, and the potential reasons for such a thing. Well, now that's interesting, despite Ron's insistence that it's absolutely untenable position. I say, very tenable for a country that has invaded and overthrown dozens of governments in just my short lifetime. ..."
    "... personally think Ves' comment below about Turkey's desperation about losing their proxies is probably closer to the mark though. I've seen over the past couple decades Turkey has seen itself as a regional player linking the middle east and Europe and global economic hub. ..."
    "... Hey Petro, yeah, just on the face of it I didn't see your comment as being that outlandish. the united states has a very very very long history of making moves that seem quite "beyond the pale" ..."
    "... To say, if he did, that the US directly said, "shoot a plane down ASAP" is probably unlikely. But Turkey, a member of NATO, might be a little hesitant to take such an action unless it felt that the United States had its back. Now Turkey has been a bit "rogue" in recent years – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis . I mean the final answer is really above my pay grade, but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation and I'm beginning to agree with wimbi – can we go back to how much drag there would be on a bomber if it lost its tail section? ..."
    "... That Turks are so desperate to stop their proxies in Syria being annihilated within next few months? Shooting down Russian plane is what desperate party does in order to change war dynamics on the ground. ..."
    "... Unlike US, Russia is very active attacking oil trucks that smuggle ISIS oil to Turkey. Those trucks belong to a shipping company BMZ that belongs to the son of Erdogan. Russia is causing a personal economic loss to the Erdogan family. ..."
    "... The international coalition against Syria and Russia is beginning to crack on the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS. Turkey doesn't want that to happen. This explains the shooting of the plane and the rushed going of Turkey to NATO to ask for support. It is intended to dynamite any possibility of understanding between US-lead coalition in Syria and Russia against ISIS. Obama has his hands tied, as he needs to use his base in Turkey. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Glenn Stehle, 11/24/2015 at 5:34 pm

    Opening up natural gas supplies to Turkey and Europe which are not controlled by Russia and its allies? This requires a pipeline across Syria but Assad nixed the deal.

    No wonder Saudi Prince…told President Vladmir Putin that "whatever regime comes after" Assad, it will be "completely" in Saudi Arabia's hands and will "not sign any agreement allowing any Gulf country to transport its gas across Syria to Europe and compete with Russian gas exports", according to diplomatic sources. When Putin refused, the Prince vowed military action.

    THE GUARDIAN, "Syria intervention plan fueled by oil interests, not chemical weapon concern"

    http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/aug/30/syria-chemical-attack-war-intervention-oil-gas-energy-pipelines

    Jimmy, 11/24/2015 at 7:55 pm

    Something tells me Putin is gonna turn up the dial on Turkeys little Kurdish problem. Putin has a lot of levers to choose from in dealing with Turkey. Whilst Russia does need Turkey perhaps more than Turkey needs Russia they certainly don't need Erdogan.

    Watcher, 11/24/2015 at 5:18 pm

    btw given these short time periods quoted, you also have to add the seconds req'd for all these alleged warnings.

    ZH commenters are saying Turkish PM's son is the primary recipient of ISIS oil flowing thru Turkey. That was motivation, allegedly. Shrug.

    I can say one thing for sure, no way in hell there were 10 warnings of this jet in the time frame available.

    Jimmy, 11/24/2015 at 8:00 pm

    Russia seems to be getting in the way of the Turkish Presidents family business of smuggling ISIS oil. FOX missed it.

    http://olympia.gr/2015/11/24/erdogans-son-bilal-erdogan-smuggles-illegal-isiss-oil-russianplane-syria/

    Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 7:18 am

    It's no secret by now that both Turkey and Saudi Arabia are funding Islamic extremists in Syria and Iraq:

    Turkey and Saudi Arabia are actively supporting a hardline coalition of Islamist rebels against Bashar al-Assad's regime that includes al-Qaeda's affiliate in Syria….

    The decision by the two leading allies of the West to back a group in which al-Nusra plays a leading role has alarmed Western governments and is at odds with the US, which is firmly opposed to arming and funding jihadist extremists in Syria's long-running civil war.

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/syria-crisis-turkey-and-saudi-arabia-shock-western-countries-by-supporting-anti-assad-jihadists-10242747.html

    Frida Ghitis says the Syrian conflict "pitted moderates against extremists, and then extremists against ultra-extremists." http://edition.cnn.com/2015/11/24/opinions/ghitis-russia-jet-shot-down/index.html

    So I suppose the United States is now on the side of the "extremists." We certainly would never approve of backing the "ultra-extremists," the way our allies Turkey and Saudi Arabia do.

    twocats,11/25/2015 at 9:28 pm

    I thought Russia and US both agreed to start bombing oil shipments. Of course, the US didn't WANT to do that as it weakens their proxy allies. It's an a great game of thrones episode that's for sure.

    Opritov Alexandr, 11/25/2015 at 9:25 am

    "A Turkmen commander said they shot the pilots."
    --–
    Not Turkmen commander-Turkish : http://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/2491068.html#comments

    twocats,11/25/2015 at 9:23 pm

    I'm calling "completely irrelevant due to the fact that it's irrelevant". Is Turkey at war with Russia? Are they in a direct conflict in any way really? Does ISIS have bombers? So there's absolutely positively no way they could have "mistaken" the bomber for something else. And unless they are ready to declare war directly with Russia, the attack is on the verge of insanity.

    I know sovereignty is important and all, and they could certainly buzz and even fire "shots across the bow" pretty easily. If we are disputing between 19 and 10 seconds of air space violations, we are idiots. Geeky idiots, but idiots nonethe less.

    Fernando Leanme, 11/26/2015 at 5:06 am

    The Turks were defending Turkmen on the Syrian side. Erdogan said so. The Russians may sit down with turkey and concede a portion of Latakia to Turkey. The excuse will be the fact that it's populated by Turkmen. If Turkey agrees and redraws the border it will be huge win for Russia. It will give them the precedent to justify taking over the Crimea and the Donbas.

    Glenn Stehle says: 11/25/2015 at 6:49 am

    Germany apparently has come to a similar conclusion.

    German Vice-Chancellor Sigmar Gabriel said:

    This incident shows for the first time that we are to dealing with an actor who is unpredictable according to statements from various parts of the region – that is not Russia, that is Turkey.

    https://www.rt.com/news/323240-russia-turkey-warplane-downed/

    NATO, however, has closed ranks with Turkey. NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg said that the alliance backs Ankara:

    We stand in solidarity with Turkey and support the territorial integrity of our NATO ally.

    https://www.rt.com/news/323240-russia-turkey-warplane-downed/

    Obama joined NATO in closing ranks with Turkey:

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/plane-shootdown-could-lead-to-nato-conflict-with-russia/

    and

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/hollande-and-obama-address-isis-threat/

    The MSM talking heads are also swinging into action to defend Turkey, arguing that even if the Russian jet was not shot down over Turkey (something an anonymous Pentagon official told Reuters is the case, since video evidence makes further denials by Anakra and Washington unplausible) then Russia still had it coming. Nick Burns, former National Security Council Director for Russian Affairs, charged:

    There's an important principle at stake here… Every nation has a right to protect its own borders. And President Obama sided with the Turks today in saying that they have that right. It was a gross violation of international law for the Russians to even fly close to that border…

    The Russians may have thought that the Turks weren't serious but they found out today they were.

    http://www.cbsnews.com/videos/analysis-of-russian-plane-shootdown/

    This incident should shed light on the fact that neither the great powers (like the US, France or Russia) nor the regional players (like Turkey, Saudi Arabia, or Iran) are participating in this conflict to fight a common enemy, ISIS. They are there for other reasons.

    Russia, however, is in a tough spot. Pepe Escobar, for instance, noted in Asia Times that Russia has eight times the Islamic extremists living on its soil as does France:

    Bajolet tells us that at least 500 French jihadis from "Syraq" might present a threat; compare it with 4,000 in respect to Russia (and that explains Putin's determination to go after all shades of jihadism).
    http://www.sott.net/article/306819-Pepe-Escobar-Paris-terror-attacks-who-profits

    So Putin may have to put some of his other goals in the region on the back burner in order to actually wage war on ISIS and other Islamic extremist groups.

    Javier, 11/25/2015 at 7:37 am

    Glenn,

    It is a very complex issue as every player has different interests. Putin is right in saying that Turkey, a NATO member, is backing ISIS, not only financially but militarily. For Turkey their main interest is in Syrian Kurds not getting organized, armed, and in control of their own territory. When Turkey says they are fighting ISIS, they are dropping most of the bombs on Syrian Kurds. And they have never respected Iraq borders when attacking Iraqi Kurds.

    Saudi Arabia is also supporting ISIS, not only because they also defend an extremist Sunni Islam as Wahabbist Saudi Arabia, but also because it is part of their proxy wars against Shia Iran, and Syria is one of the Shia States with Sunni majority. Saudi Arabia is probably the biggest supporter of Islamic terrorism.

    The Alawites of Syria (including the al-Assad family) are also happy that ISIS is in Syria. Without them they have no chance of keeping power, but in a three sides war with one of them being unacceptable to Occident, they are no longer looking so bad.

    Syrian opposition is the big loser here. They are bombed by Turkey and Russia (different targets) and attacked on land by Alawites and ISIS as each one wants to expand first at their expense.

    This is why refugees are coming out in droves now as the war is getting much worse.

    Turkey feels pretty safe. NATO has no choice but to close ranks, and the European Union is paying big money to Turkey to keep a lid on the refugee problem, as Spain does with Morocco.

    Holland stupidly wants to march on ISIS, but nobody else wants to put troops on the ground. The only ones with troops on the ground fighting ISIS are Syrian army and Kurds. The latter ones are unacceptable to Turkey, so the former ones might become our new ally.

    Alawites, the core of the Syrian army, are paying a very high price for the war. About a third of their manpower has died in the 5 year war. They only keep fighting because they know they face extermination if they lose the war, whether from Syrian Sunnies or from ISIS.

    Ves, 11/25/2015 at 8:40 am

    Javier,
    You got all ingredients right but all your conclusions are not correct.

    Paulo, 11/26/2015 at 10:33 am

    I wonder what Obama will say about the right of a country to shoot down an aircraft for airspace violation….when one of theirs gets shot down over the Spratleys by China?

    Petro, 11/24/2015 at 4:04 pm

    A bit off topic Ron, but maybe not by much:

    -Shallow Sand et al.

    who want higher oil prices might have had their wish granted today after the downing of the russian SU-24 inside syria from a turkish F-16 (you will hear loads of shit in CnnAbcFoxNbcNewYotkTimes…please feel free to complete the alphabet soup here …they are all the SAME! that it was in turkish air space but THAT IS A LIE!!!!)

    Let us ALL hope and pray that Putin does not take this at face value (Act of WAR!….which indeed is….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC)….for if He does, oil prices are going to be the last thing we have to worry about, dear Shallow Sand!!!!

    Be well,

    Petro

    P.S.: sorry for the off topic comment Ron and thank you for the post!

    Ron Patterson , 11/24/2015 at 5:17 pm

    (Act of WAR!….which indeed is….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC)…

    Petro, that that the shooting down of this Russian plane was probably ordered by the President, or the Pentagon, is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this blog. Any goddamn fool with half a brain would know better than that.

    Sorry for the strong language but when someone posts something so utterly stupid just to take a swipe at our President, or government, really pisses me off.

    That being said, I agree that Turkey shooting down that Russian plane was a very stupid and dangerous thing for Turkey to do. But to say such action was ordered by the US is beyond belief.

    Petro, 11/24/2015 at 10:45 pm

    Dear Ron,

    First, I would like to apologize for being caught in your "cross-hairs" as the result of my unorthodox comment. It will not happen again!

    Second, I genuinely respect the tremendous amount of time and information with which you so generously enable all of us frequenting this great forum each and every week! As I have mentioned on numerous comments of mine here, I feel lucky and empowered every time I read one of your well written "mind-teasers".
    I truly do!
    -For those reasons (and a couple of others) I will not engage on answering:
    "…is the most ignorant thing I have ever read on this blog. Any goddamn fool with half a brain would know better than that…."
    and
    "…when someone posts something so utterly stupid…".

    I would sincerely hope however, that in this forum we refrain from using word concoctions such as : "goddamn fool", "utterly stupid", "most ignorant thing I have ever read" aimed at the PERSONAL level – even when scientifically and logically (with regard to this blog) they are "deserved"

    – i.e. when Peter writes "If 2015 is the peak Oil year, then it is the $45 per barrel peak.

    This should give people pause for thought. How on earth can we really be at peak oil, with prices this low. We cannot."

    -or RDG writes "Peak Oil is irrelevant because the world's methane potential is underestimated…"

    -or Arceus writes"I suspect if the Saudis could double their production to 20 million boepd they could almost double their market share. The only downside would be oil would likely be selling at 20 dollars per barrel."

    -to which you (to my delight-I might add) replied:

    "That's the funniest thing I have read in weeks."

    It is your right to believe that Erdogan/Turkey -and they alone- are "brave" enough to shoot down a Russian aircraft while flying OUTSIDE their territory;
    It is your right to believe that Maidan/Kiev protests and the ousting of Yanukovich happened/grew genuinely from the Ukrainian people;
    It is your right to believe that the pro-russian rebels shut down the MH17 in Ukraine;
    It is your right to believe that our army and air force cannot destroy a bunch of white-basketball-shoe-wearing-mid-eval -lunatics after a year of bombing campaign and that we cannot disrupt their tens of thousands (if not hundreds of thousands) of barrels of oil per day production/selling which brings them millions of dollars per day in hard currency (…yet somehow russians did it in a month);
    It is your right to believe that russians are threatening Europe even though we are expanding NATO right at their borders;
    It is your right to believe that a bunch of illiterate, ugly, smelly morons with rusted AK-47 can defeat France and Belgium;
    It is your right to believe that: "…they hate us for our freedoms…" and "…our troops are fighting over there to keep us safe over here…" and other "lovely" narratives as such.
    It is your right!

    What I am trying to suggest however, is that there is quite a bit of very logical and credible evidence that points to other versions of the "truth".
    …and NO!
    I do not follow idiots akin to Alex Jones and Rush Limbaugh…, nor do I wear a tin foil hat.
    You say: "…our President, or government…"
    I say that the LAST president to be considered truly OURS was JFK.
    How did we go from Jefferson/Adams/Payne/…..JFK to ReaganBushClintonBushWO and worse- seriously considering idiots like TrumpHillarious – is beyond me and only Heavens know (I guess A.Bartlet applies even with regard to "worse" and "worse-er" and "worse-rer-rer" people).
    What is really done in our name and with our money dear Ron, shall give a "heart attack" to us all …very soon.

    In any case, I tried to follow up with Shallow since he was worried about oil prices and I have replied to him (and others) about that on several previous comments.

    Again, I apologize for my unorthodox comment and for any unintentional insult.

    Be well,

    Petro

    Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 6:59 am

    Petro, I stand by my comment. The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds. If you think someone in Washington said "shoot the goddamn thing down" then you are a fool.

    There was not time to notify anyone except Turkish officials on the ground. Turkey does not take orders from Washington.

    Nothing else going on in France, Belgium or anywhere else had anything to do with what I wrote or what I was replying to. You simply saw an opportunity to blame the US government for something they very obviously had nothing to do with. I would have agreed with everything you wrote in that one post had you not took the opportunity to blame it on Washington. If you are going to post on this blog then you have the obligation to use a little common sense.

    Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 8:39 am

    Ron Patterson said:

    The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds.

    Are you absolutely sure of that? The Russians are saying that's not true, that the plane never entered Turkish air space. Russia's side is presented in this video: https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/

    If a person is indeed on a truth-finding mission, is it not incumbent upon that person to listen to what all sides have to say, and then make up one's mind based on the evidence which is presented?

    RT, for instance, has a short clip of an interview with retired U.S. Airforce general Thomas McInery where he asserts that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned."

    One could probably do no better than to heed the advice which Thomas Jefferson gave his nephew in a letter dated August 10, 1787:

    [S]hake off all the fears and servile prejudices under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear….

    Caelan MacIntyre, 11/25/2015 at 8:52 am

    The Fog of War

    Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 8:59 am

    Hey, that was not my point. My point was that the shoot down was not ordered by the US Government in Washington.

    Shooting down that Russian warplane was an extremely stupid thing for Turkey to do. But what is even more stupid is to say that the shoot down was ordered by Washington.

    Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 11:37 am

    Ron,

    I was referring to your argument:

    The plane was in Turkish air space for seconds. If you think someone in Washington said "shoot the goddamn thing down" then you are a fool.

    If what General McInery says is correct - that the downing of the Russian jet "had to be pre-planned" - then there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity.

    I have a feeling like these cat-and-mouse games between pilots probably go on continuously during conflict situations. However, I have no experience in these matters, and oddly enough, the only fighter pilot I've ever known in my entire life was transgendered:

    I also worked for "T" vets inclusion in GLBVA during those years and VA support of "T" vets (which finally happened recently) – I'm a retired USAF Major and Command Pilot. During the '90s I was a rather prolific writer; although, quite a bit of it is probably lost to transgender antiquity. I've been lecturing on gender, gender roles, and the "T" topic at Trinity University for the past 16 years.

    http://research.cristanwilliams.com/2012/03/09/tere-fredrickson-interview/

    Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 12:08 pm

    there was plenty of time for Anakra to get Washington's approval before the pre-planned attack occurred. I'm not saying that this happened, only that it is not outside the realm of possiblity.

    Goddammit, will the stupid shit never stop. It is just down in the dirt stupid to suggest that the President would want such a thing. It could lead to the break-up of NATO. Also, the very idea that Turkey would cot-tow to Washington's wishes is also stupid.

    To shoot this plane down was the stupidest thing Turkey could possibly do. But a lot stupider things have been done by Middle East Islamic rulers causing things to get a lot worse. But to suggest that our President is just as stupid is beyond the pale. Can you guys just not use a little common sense?

    To suggest that Washington was behind this smacks of a conspiracy theory. I think all conspiracy theorists have a screw loose.

    Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 4:06 pm

    Ron,

    Well as far as I am concerned, President Obama circling the wagons around Turkey hardly qualifies him as being one the brightest lights on the Christmas tree. Obama is attempting to defend the indefensible. Why do you believe that is?

    And you don't believe that reinforces the appearance of impropriety, of him being complicit in Turkey's shooting down the plane? Talk about bad optics!

    Mark Ames minces no words:

    Russia will just have to play and replay the shooting down of its jet, and the Syrian rebels gloating over the dead pilots, to see Putin's already sky-high popularity ratings push even higher….

    Point being: this is working out wonderfully for Putin.

    In fact, if there's any conspiracy I can make sense of with what's gone on over the past year and a half, it's that anti-Russia neocons and their pals have been doing everything possible to increase Putin's popularity and power at home, in order to build him up as an even more plausible villain over here. Or maybe they're straight-up Putin moles. But that of course gives everyone, especially these idiots, too much credit.

    https://pando.com/2015/11/24/turkey-shoots-down-russian-plane-wars-have-funny-way-taking-life-their-own/eba0108e463df65f823e3f435b3eead1d41c6e25/

    Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 5:05 pm

    Glenn, the idea that Obama ordered the shooting down the Russian plane is pure ignorance, stupidity gone to seed. I will not lower myself by arguing such an utterly stupid scenario.

    One more point. This is not a conspiracy theory website. We do not discuss conspiracy theories here.

    Bye now.

    twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:08 am

    What if this conversation happened:

    Turkey, "A lot of recent missions by Russia has put them very close to our borders if not outright in our airspace. What do you want us to do."

    White House, "You have the right to defend the sovereignty of your airspace by any means you deem necessary. We feel that Russia is being very reckless in their choice of targets and are endangering stability in the area."

    NATO, "You do realize that if Turkey provokes Russia it could draw us directly into the conflict."

    White House, "We'll cross that bridge when we come to it."

    I mean, if you can't see some version of the above dialogue happening then all I can say to you that you'll understand is, "God Bless America, the greatest country that ever existed."

    Javier, 11/25/2015 at 9:09 am

    Glenn,

    Does it really matter? There is international consensus that planes are not shot down for briefly entering foreign airspace without permit when the nations are not belligerent. Airspace is not clearly delimited up in the air and pilots are often too busy to check.

    It is clear that this was an hostile deliberate act by Turkey against Russia regardless of where that plane was at the moment. Where the plane was is only relevant to see if it was legal or illegal, but the deliberate hostile act remains either case.

    To me it looks like the Russian plane was flying in circles and was passing over a small tip (~2 km wide) of Turkish territory each time. This was used as an excuse to shoot down the plane in what cannot be claimed as a self-defense act, but clearly a hostile warning.

    Turkey doesn't like the way Russia is helping the Syrian government, but they just proved to NATO that they are unreliable and more a liability than a trustworthy ally. This is how wars start, by unjustified escalation.

    Ron Patterson, 11/25/2015 at 9:26 am

    This time I agree 100% with Javier's assessment of the situation.

    Glenn Stehle, 11/25/2015 at 11:02 am

    Javier said:

    There is international consensus that planes are not shot down for briefly entering foreign airspace without permit when the nations are not belligerent. Airspace is not clearly delimited up in the air and pilots are often too busy to check.

    If one watches the RT video I linked above, Erdogan can be heard saying exactly that same thing back in 2012 after Syria shot down a Turkish jet because of an air space violation. Here's what Erdogan said then:

    A short-term border violation can never be a pretext for an attack.

    https://www.rt.com/news/323369-turkey-downed-russian-jet/

    Now, however, the Ministry of Truth in Washington, Anakra and Brussels is saying just the opposite.

    Ves, 11/25/2015 at 11:06 am

    Blowback. Sinking fast due to their own narrative.

    Javier, 11/25/2015 at 11:56 am

    Hahahaaa, that's a good one.

    Politicians, or the art of defending one thing and the opposite without any blush.

    twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:02 am

    fuck an A glen, you're back to the minutiae of that!! stop derailing these conversations about whether or not the plane was in airspace of turkey. I mean really does it matter?! 1km, 40 km, I don't know, irrelevant.

    But whether the US might have given the green light for such an act, and the potential reasons for such a thing. Well, now that's interesting, despite Ron's insistence that it's absolutely untenable position. I say, very tenable for a country that has invaded and overthrown dozens of governments in just my short lifetime.

    I personally think Ves' comment below about Turkey's desperation about losing their proxies is probably closer to the mark though. I've seen over the past couple decades Turkey has seen itself as a regional player linking the middle east and Europe and global economic hub.

    Or it could just be the pilot took the wrong pills getting into the cockpit.

    Petreo, 11/25/2015 at 11:04 pm

    "If you are going to post on this blog then you have the obligation to use a little common sense."

    Dear Ron,
    I clearly was!
    Not just a little, but a lot of common sense.
    In my comment to Shallow I wrote: "…sorry for the off topic comment Ron…"
    In my second comment to you I wrote: "…First, I would like to apologize for being caught in your "cross-hairs" as the result of my unorthodox comment.
    It will not happen again!…"

    I did that, for I did not want to remind you of our first exchange on this site -in which you got a taste of how good I am at "shooting back" (just as Erdogan shall taste how good Putin is at shooting back …very soon!)
    -Yet, you continued with your hysterical, inflammatory bursting!
    I am not certain what pricked your "bubble" -holiday shopping not going well, perhaps – my condolences!
    In any event, you GROSSLY misunderstood and misrepresented what I wrote.
    Nowhere did I write that: " …ourPresident ordered: shoot the goddamn thing down…" – as you so eloquently put it.
    Let me repeat to you what I wrote (short term amnesia – especially when one is enraged – is a bitch!):
    "….probably ordered by your and my tax dollars in DC…".

    -What I was trying to convey (obviously fruitlessly!) was that even though Erdogan/Turks pulled the trigger (or maybe you prefer: "pushed the button") and shot the SU24 down, our un-Kosherly dumb (at the very best!) policies for the last 15 years (and maybe longer!) in the region (and wider), have GREATLY empowered "Erdogan" types.
    Key word is "at the very best" here, for there is unmistakable and unambiguous evidence to suggest the other extreme of that spectrum (hint: intent)!

    -Whether you consider a senior senator (i.e.McCain) posing with known international criminal be-headers, or viceSercretaryOfState (i.e.V.Nuland) hand picking puppets for the head of KievGovrmt after orchestrating, directing and financing a CLASSIC "coup d'etat" to overthrow the previous govmt there, part of ourGovrmt, or NOT – is your business.
    However, that does not give you the moral and social (let alone the common sense one!) right to engage in hysterical, inflammatory and wildly accusational burstings against somebody – even on your blog site!
    If that is your idea of patriotism, you surely missed it!

    -Yes!
    It was theTurks who shot down theRussian aircraft – not us!
    But to put it in a historical context, SIMPLER for you to understand:
    it was NOT Great Britain, France and US (among others) that in 1933 made Adolf Hitler Reich Chancellor;
    it was the Germans – whether they be German elites, or German plebes!

    Behavior(s) and decisions by political and economical/financial leaders in those Countries however, GREATLY facilitated Hitler's ascend to power!
    In December 1938, less than 10 months before starting the carnage that killed 100 million people worldwide , Hitler was Time Magazine's "Man of the Year".

    I would strongly suggest to you sources other than NYT and Fox for your world news updates – you would be enlightened!
    If you do not want me to comment here and this is personal, be a man and say so without wild explosions of nastiness!
    We are all adults here (one can only hope!) and can take it.
    And stop throwing the "conspiracy" label around, as well!
    Makes you sound very foolish and brainwashed.

    -Have a good Thanksgiving tomorrow and maybe/hopefully by Friday feel more relaxed…

    Be well,

    Petro

    twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:50 am

    Hey Petro, yeah, just on the face of it I didn't see your comment as being that outlandish. the united states has a very very very long history of making moves that seem quite "beyond the pale"

    http://www.amazon.com/KILLING-HOPE-William-Blum/dp/B007K517VE

    in this specific case, ron's point that this move seems really really stupid does ring true for me. but i think we need to wait a little longer and see how it plays out to know for sure.

    Ron Patterson, 11/26/2015 at 8:00 am

    Back in 2010 I was living in Pensacola, FL. Right after the Deep Water Horizon disaster everyone was pointing the finger, blaming somebody. And there was a lot of blame to go around but I met several folks here that blamed Obama. Yes, they said, Obama planned and ordered the whole disaster. Just why he would order such a thing no one seemed to know. A few came up with a reason, but no one had the same reason as the other nut cases.

    I see the same thing in almost every other disaster throughout the world, "Obama planned and ordered the whole disaster". So whenever I see someone blaming Obama, or Washington, for this or that disaster, it really pisses me off.

    And like the other nut cases that blamed Obama for the Macondo disaster, they cannot come up with a reason that Obama would do such a thing, but he is the US president and they hate everything that comes out of Washington so he must have been somehow responsible.

    Some people never ever miss a chance to blame Obama, or Washington, for some evil act especially when it cannot be proven otherwise.

    twocats, 11/26/2015 at 11:45 am

    Yep I'll definitely give you the anti-Washington, and vehement anti-Obama thing (gotta be a lot of rascism wrapped up in that). But I'm assuming you are aware of the fairly well known shenanigans of the United States in terms of intervening and influencing countries in order to make terrible terrible things happen:

    1) training Saddam to help overthrow Qasim which led to, well Saddam
    2) overhthrowing Mossadeg to install Shah which led to Iranian Revolution
    3) giving Saddam chemical weapons to kill 100s thousands of Iranians
    4) training Al-Qaeda to fight Russia in Afghanistan, and latter trained again to fight in Kosovo
    5) Backed wahabi tribe of Saud and backed their play for power in Arabian penninsula which led to of course Saudi Arabia, despised totalitarian regime which regularly beheads and then crucifies people.

    i mean i could go on for hours. so the idea that United States hinted to Turkey that it wouldn't be upset if it 1) defended its border, 2) defended Turkmen majority cities on Syrian side (thanks Fernando), these are not such crazy notions. (see article from oriental review – http://orientalreview.org/2015/11/25/whys-the-us-hanging-turkey-out-to-dry/)

    twocats, 11/26/2015 at 12:00 pm

    and just for giggles here is a more direct corollary

    http://foreignpolicy.com/2011/01/09/wikileaks-april-glaspie-and-saddam-hussein/

    Petro's post was a little long and poorly written so i didn't read it all and he may have been overstating it.

    To say, if he did, that the US directly said, "shoot a plane down ASAP" is probably unlikely. But Turkey, a member of NATO, might be a little hesitant to take such an action unless it felt that the United States had its back. Now Turkey has been a bit "rogue" in recent years – http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/oct/13/turkey-denies-agreement-open-air-bases-us-isis. I mean the final answer is really above my pay grade, but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation and I'm beginning to agree with wimbi – can we go back to how much drag there would be on a bomber if it lost its tail section?

    Ron Patterson, 11/26/2015 at 12:05 pm

    but I think you are beginning to see that there are a lot of moving parts to this equation

    I am beginning to see there is a lot of bullshit in this equation and it is getting deeper and deeper. As I said, it is very easy to throw out bullshit when it cannot be proven otherwise. You can seem like a master of knowledge when all you really are is a master of bullshit.

    Reply

    AlexS, 11/25/2015 at 7:37 am

    Russian jet hit inside Syria after incursion into Turkey: U.S. official

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-impact-idUSKBN0TE04M20151125

    The United States believes that the Russian jet shot down by Turkey on Tuesday was hit inside Syrian airspace after a brief incursion into Turkish airspace, a U.S. official told Reuters, speaking on condition of anonymity.

    The official said that assessment was based on detection of the heat signature of the jet.
    ---------------

    Russia to move S-400 air defense system to Syria - defense minister

    http://tass.ru/en/defense/839109

    MOSCOW, November 25. /TASS/. Russia will move its air defense system S-400 Triumf to the Hmeimim air base in Syria, accommodating its air and space group, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Wednesday.
    The Russian General Staff has warned that Russia will be destroying all potentially dangerous targets over Syria and moved towards the Syrian shores its guided missile cruiser The Moskva armed with the Fort system (the sea-launched equivalent of S-300).
    -----------------–
    Second pilot of downed Su-24 jet safe, brought to Russian base - Russian defense minister

    http://tass.ru/en/defense/839080

    MOSCOW, November 25. /TASS/. The second pilot of the Su-24 bomber downed by Turkey has been rescued by the Russian and Syrian forces and is safe and sound, Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said on Wednesday.
    "The operation ended successfully. The pilot has been taken to our base. Safe and sound," Shoigu said.
    He said the rescue operation lasted for 12 hours.
    -------------------–

    Turkey's Erdogan says does not want escalation after Russian jet downed

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/25/us-mideast-crisis-syria-turkey-erdogan-idUSKBN0TE0QT20151125

    President Tayyip Erdogan said on Wednesday that Turkey did not want any escalation after it shot down a Russian warplane near the Syrian border, saying it had simply acted to defend its own security and the "rights of our brothers" in Syria.
    But while neither side has shown any interest in a military escalation, Russia has made clear it will exact economic revenge through trade and tourism. Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev said on Wednesday that important joint projects could be canceled and Turkish firms could lose Russian market share.
    Increased tensions could have significant economic and political repercussions which are in neither Moscow nor Ankara's interests, analysts warned. But both Putin and Erdogan are strong-willed leaders ill-disposed to being challenged.

    "If Erdogan becomes involved a cycle of violence, FDI (foreign direct investment), tourism, and relations with the EU and U.S. will all be in jeopardy," risk analysis firm Eurasia Group said in a note.
    "Our bet is that the episode will not escalate … National interest will probably prevail over emotion, but given the players, that's not a sure bet."
    Turkey imports almost all of its energy from Russia, including 60 percent of its gas and 35 percent of its oil. Russia's state Atomic Energy Corporation (Rosatom) is due to build Turkey's first nuclear power station, a $20 billion project, while plans are on the table for a gas pipeline from Russia known as TurkStream.
    Turkish building and beverage companies also have significant interests in Russia.
    Shares in Enka Insaat, which has construction projects in Russia and two power plants in Turkey using Russian gas, fell for a second day on Wednesday. Brewer Anadolu Efes, which has six breweries in Russia and controls around 14 percent of the market, also saw its shares fall on Tuesday.
    Russians are second only to Germans in terms of the numbers visiting Turkey, bringing in an estimated $4 billion a year in tourism revenues. But Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on Tuesday advised them not to visit and one of Russia's largest tour operators to the country said it would temporarily suspend sales of trips.

    Javier, 11/25/2015 at 8:52 am

    Interesting, Alex,

    Turkish might have built themselves a no-fly zone at their Syrian border. Russians have Syrian permit to fly their space, while Turkish have not. After what has happened any Turkish plane over Syrian space can be considered a dangerous target by the Russians and shot down.

    I don't understand Turkish actions. If it was a military decision from some commander, they should have tried to apologize, and not run to NATO for cover. If it was a presidential decision, I fail to see what good can come from it for Turkey.

    Anyway, I hope those Russian tourists going to Egypt or Turkey can find some solace in Spain [grin].

    Ves, 11/25/2015 at 11:18 am

    Javier: " I don't understand Turkish actions."

    It is very obvious what they want. They want NATO boots on the ground. Do you want to go? Do you know any of Germans that want to go? Greeks, Italians? There are no takers in Europe. Even Obama is not biting.

    Javier, 11/25/2015 at 12:13 pm

    I've never been in favor of bombing other countries, much less of sending troops.

    NATO is a defensive pact in theory. I could understand NATO troops in Turkey if invaded by Russia, but not NATO troops in Syria because Turkey shoots down Russian planes. And I don't believe Turkey is trying to trigger a Russian aggression. Too much to lose.

    Your words still don't make sense to me.

    Ves, 11/25/2015 at 12:23 pm

    What part does not make sense?

    That Turks are so desperate to stop their proxies in Syria being annihilated within next few months? Shooting down Russian plane is what desperate party does in order to change war dynamics on the ground.

    Javier, 11/26/2015 at 5:10 am

    Found a much better explanation than yours over at Euan Mearn's blog in a Syrian drought article in the comments.

    Unlike US, Russia is very active attacking oil trucks that smuggle ISIS oil to Turkey. Those trucks belong to a shipping company BMZ that belongs to the son of Erdogan. Russia is causing a personal economic loss to the Erdogan family.

    The international coalition against Syria and Russia is beginning to crack on the wake of the Paris attacks by ISIS. Turkey doesn't want that to happen.

    This explains the shooting of the plane and the rushed going of Turkey to NATO to ask for support. It is intended to dynamite any possibility of understanding between US-lead coalition in Syria and Russia against ISIS. Obama has his hands tied, as he needs to use his base in Turkey.

    Putin is probably too smart to respond. He'll find another way. Perhaps supporting Kurds.

    Ves, 11/26/2015 at 8:22 am

    Javier,
    Drought? So we have all armadas of the world, including Lichenstain's one plane, circling Middle East for the last 30 years because of – drought??!!!
    No wonder you believe that one of the stated EU goals is for everybody to hold hands and sing Kumbaya at Eurovison contest. Javier, it's always having been delusions of power, control and mucho dinero that caused the conflict- not drought.

    Glenn Stehle, 11/26/2015 at 10:27 am

    https://twitter.com/ijattala/status/669389283225026560?refsrc=email&s=11

    Ves, 11/26/2015 at 10:54 am

    Glenn,
    that is exactly what explained to Javier. Cutting the oil line for the finance of the Turkish proxies. Once the money line is cut even the proxies don't fight for free.

    Javier, 11/26/2015 at 11:33 am

    Ves

    Did I say anything about drought being related to the conflict?
    I just pointed where I got the information.

    You seem to like to engage in straw man arguments. Please continue, don't let yourself be bothered by reality.

    Ves, 11/26/2015 at 1:48 pm

    Javier said: "Found a much better explanation than yours over at Euan Mearn's blog in a Syrian drought article "

    I am sorry but I don't know who is Euarn Mearn's and what Syrian drought article has to do with all this. Leave a link or something.

    Javier, 11/26/2015 at 2:06 pm

    Ves,

    Euan Mearns is a frequent visitor and commenter in this blog. He was also a frequent contributor of The Oil Drumm. He has a very good blog on Energy and also some Climate. If you just google his name you get there. The link to the article is this:
    http://euanmearns.com/drought-climate-war-terrorism-and-syria/
    The information I posted was in one of the comments.
    The article actually argues against the climate change-Syrian war-ISIS connection that has appeared in some media.

    Ves, 11/26/2015 at 3:25 pm

    Thanks Javier. Okey with that little bit of info from you I know what to expect when I click on that link. I will read it.

    You have to understand that I limit my reading to only few limited sources just not to corrupt my mind. You see there are expert internet oil "analysts" who claim that US is oil exporter so there are very dangerous stuff out there in cyber space.

    Ves, 11/26/2015 at 9:33 pm

    Javier,
    I agree with article but I am floored that he actually spent all that energy debunking that nonsense that drought caused all this. Who armed all these people, who financed illegal oil operations, where thousands oil tankers are from, why after 4 years of civil war refugees just suddenly start flowing to Europe this summer, so someone let them purposely go, who is blackmailing Europe?

    twocats, 11/26/2015 at 2:59 am

    the most ignorant, craziest, stupidest, outrageously reasonably explained plausible fitting into global and regional goals possible thing that's ever been said on this blog:

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-11-25/guest-post-why-us-hanging-turkey-out-dry

    [Nov 27, 2015] This British Bank Is Backing The Bullish Case For Oil

    Notable quotes:
    "... Amid all the speculation and market forecasts, there are still some voices in the industry that remain bullish on oil in 2016. One of them is Barclays, which came up with a bullish report that predicts the oil price to increase to $60 a barrel by 2016. ..."
    OilPrice.com
    Amid all the speculation and market forecasts, there are still some voices in the industry that remain bullish on oil in 2016. One of them is Barclays, which came up with a bullish report that predicts the oil price to increase to $60 a barrel by 2016.

    Barclays is bullish on oil

    Barclays is one of the very few financial institutions that is actually predicting oil prices to increase in 2016 despite the recent slump and worsening supply glut. As per Barclay's corporate banking team, oil prices would increase mostly because of doubling of global oil demand growth from 2.1 million barrels a day to almost 4 million barrels a day.

    "There is no doubt that the UK North Sea oil and gas industry is under pressure right now but we do feel that signs of relief are there, and the forecast for $60 oil in 2016 with oil demand growth above trend again is encouraging," said the head of Barclay's Corporate banking team. This prediction made by Barclays in is sharp contrast to the recent Oil Market Report by IEA, which predicts the global oil demand to slow down from the current 2.1 million barrels per day to just 1.2 million barrels a day by 2016.

    ...The bank further predicts a fall in U.S. shale supply in fourth quarter of 2015 and first quarter of 2016, thereby helping oil prices to move up.

    ... ... ...

    As reported earlier, IMF has predicted that Saudi Arabia could face an economic breakdown in the next five years if it pursues its 'high production strategy'.

    The same applies for U.S. shale drillers who suffer from high breakeven costs.

    [Nov 27, 2015] Putin Hard to imagine Turkish gov't unaware of oil supplies from ISIL

    Notable quotes:
    "... He also said that the shooting down by Turkey of a Russian jet was an act of betrayal by a country Russia considered to be its friend. ..."
    www.todayszaman.com

    It is hard to imagine that the Turkish government is unaware of oil supplies to Turkey from areas controlled by the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant (ISIL) in Syria, Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Friday after talks with French leader Francois Hollande.

    Putin used the opportunity of the joint news conference with Hollande to repeat his accusations against Turkey of turning a blind eye to oil smuggling by ISIL. He said it was "theoretically possible" that Ankara was unaware of oil supplies entering its territory from ISIL-controlled areas of Syria but added that this was hard to imagine.

    He also said that the shooting down by Turkey of a Russian jet was an act of betrayal by a country Russia considered to be its friend.

    [Nov 27, 2015] President Erdogan hits out at 'shameful' accusations Turks profit from Isis

    Notable quotes:
    "... Western diplomats believe that, at best, Turkey for too long turned a blind eye to jihadist fighters using Turkey as a conduit for fighters and weapons. ..."
    independent.co.uk

    He hit back at claims that Turkish officials profited financially from the sale of oil from Isis-held territory, telling his critics: "Shame on you."

    In a claim likely to raise eyebrows not only in Moscow but also in Washington, Mr Erodogan insisted that Turkey's fight against jihadists was "undisputed". Western diplomats believe that, at best, Turkey for too long turned a blind eye to jihadist fighters using Turkey as a conduit for fighters and weapons.

    [Nov 26, 2015] Meet The Man Who Funds ISIS Bilal Erdogan, The Son Of Turkey's President

    Notable quotes:
    "... And people STILL don't understand this whole ISIS thing is entirely scripted. As if the us govt doesn't know exactly who is doing what with this illicit oil trade. Of course, maybe they don't. Maybe they are too busy spying on innocent us citizens to be bothered with actually doing their fucking jobs.... ..."
    "... I'm sure we will get a press conference from Obama soon, where he will tell us that he just learned this by reading the newspaper and is just as shocked as we are. What a fucking clownshow we live in. ..."
    "... It is inconceivable that the CIA does not already know all of this and a whole lot more. There are geostationary satellites over Iraq spamming Tb/s of data back to Langley. You only need to see the resolution of Google Maps over Iraq to know how much installed aerial surveillance covers that part of the world. Iraq has higher resolution than Manhattan. ..."
    "... I would not be surprised if the CIA was tracking and analysing the movements of every single vehicle in Mosul. The technology to do it exists, it's the same technology that will manage driverless car fleets. ..."
    "... What makes you think he doesn't know? Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is. It is well known that Obama regularly fails to heed real experts advice or ignores it completely. It's claimed that in many briefings he doesn't even pay attention. His close circle of advisors, like the Kagan family, Victoria Nuland, Valerie Jarret, and such are war mongering conquer the planet types. ..."
    "... For the US ISIS serves a purpose thus the pure propaganda that most US air strikes against ISIS are not approved because they might hurt civilians. Obama could care less about civilians or he never would have bombed Libya into a failed state and walked away, would not have supplied arms and money to Syrian foreign jihadists which comprise 90% of those fighting Assad, and he certainly would never run his drone campaign in at least 7 countries that has killed thousands of innocent people. ..."
    "... Better to be looked upon in the history books as a tragic figure inexperienced and overwhelmed by the enormity of the office rather than the real Obama who loves spilling blood in world conquest. Recently the head of the UN called on all parties to stop this stuff in Syria and let the Syrians decide for themselves who leads them. Obama's reply was Assad must go which meant business as usual supplying weapons and cash for Syrian terrorists. ..."
    "... As per videos and published reports Turkish trucking companies are making nice money hauling goods into Syria, especially to ISIS, with long lines at the border waiting to get across. The Russians are po'd about the Turks taking down their plane so they are targeting convoys entering Syria. Some nice videos of this. It's a wake up call for those trucking companies that it is now too dangerous and unprofitable to continue. They may be insured but close to all insurance companies will not pay off for damages in a war zone. ..."
    "... When the Russians first entered the fray in Syria Obama's response was to drop over 100 pallets of weapons, and promises of anti tank and plane weapons, in the Syrian desert and hoped the proper rebels retrieved them. Look it up, it was all over the news. Does this sound like a peace loving leader to you? ..."
    "... The US was *never* attacking ISIS (before the Bear showed up) - rather they were carrying out air-strikes on pro-Assad forces and claiming they were ISIS. Nobody outside of the MIC or on the ground there could tell the difference, so they got away with it ... until they didn't. ..."
    "... This is directly related the the Su-24 shoot-down. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Turkey's overt and covert military intervention through its Turkmen Jihadis because one of the main CIA arms-smuggling rat-lines is through the Turkmen Mountain region. The U.S. has willingly and eagerly supplied TOW-2As to the Turkmen jihadis there in order to preserve those smuggling routes. There were probably plenty of Xe/Academi military advisors helping the Turkmen and they were getting killed by Russian air strikes. The CIA is frantic to do something to prevent Syria/Russia from closing those routes, and will back any hair-brained Turkish scheme in desperation. CIA arms smuggling routes IN are also Turkish jihadi smuggling routes IN and ISIS stolen oil routes OUT. They're all related and all threatened by Russia. Same as the Aleppo-Aziz-Killis route - it's multi-purpose for many kinds of smuggling. ..."
    "... Erdogan's crime family is a complex issue in already complex environment of Turkish politics - you did a great job of breaking down Bilal's motivations and the oil angle. I feel sorry for all the unfortunate Turks saddled with these psychopathic losers in charge (and I speak from the authority of experience here in the U.S.). ..."
    "... Shim said she was among the few journalists obtaining stories of militants infiltrating into Syria through the Turkish border, adding that she had received images from militants crossing the Turkish border into Syria in World Food Organization and other NGOs' trucks. ..."
    "... Plus, makes all the sense as to why NATO immediately bought off on the Rooskie fighter shoot-down ..."
    "... Wow. I must say. Thanks a lot for this informative article ZH. I always taught that Erdogans many evil plots and insane schemes was really bad , but all the things that are brought into light now are even worse than I imagined. It all makes sense now and it actually explains why Obama and the rest of the western world has done about nothing to stop ISIS and their many war crimes around the globe. ..."
    "... What Erdogan and his gangs of thugs are doing is plain out illegal and they should have been prosecuted and treated as ordinary criminals in the war criminal court in haag , but as the article tells us, also former France politicians and Obama has things to explain. ..."
    "... If the Turkish President is shooting down anti-ISIS planes in order to save his son's business, and the NATO nations are excusing that action, then we really are in a filthy swamp of criminality. It's going to be very hard to climb out of it. Any high moral ground is way out of NATO's reach - now, if not before. ..."
    "... A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.) ..."
    "... Alain Juppe is pursuing the other movements privatizations initiated between 1986 and 1988 and since 1993 with the metallurgical group Pechiney and Usinor Sacilor in 1995, the French Foreign Trade Bank (BFCE, sold over the counter at the National Credit to give birth to Natixis), the Compagnie Générale Maritime (CGM also sold over the counter to the charter shipping company to create the group CMA - CGM), the General Insurance of France (AGF with the purse-up 51% of the capital, the State retaining only 2%) and the French Rhine Shipping Company (RNFL, sold over the counter at the Technical Association of the coal import ATIC) in 1996 . ..."
    Nov 26, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Erdogan's Dirth Dangerous ISIS Games

    More and more details are coming to light revealing that the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria, variously known as ISIS, IS or Daesh, is being fed and kept alive by Recep Tayyip Erdogan, the Turkish President and by his Turkish intelligence service, including MIT, the Turkish CIA Turkey, as a result of Erdogan's pursuit of what some call a Neo-Ottoman Empire fantasies that stretch all the way to China, Syria and Iraq, threatens not only to destroy Turkey but much of the Middle East if he continues on his present path.

    In October 2014 US Vice President Joe Biden told a Harvard gathering that Erdogan's regime was backing ISIS with "hundreds of millions of dollars and thousands of tons of weapons…" Biden later apologized clearly for tactical reasons to get Erdo?an's permission to use Turkey's Incirlik Air Base for airstrikes against ISIS in Syria, but the dimensions of Erdogan's backing for ISIS since revealed is far, far more than Biden hinted.

    According to French geopolitical analyst, Thierry Meyssan, Recep Erdogan "organised the pillage of Syria, dismantled all the factories in Aleppo, the economic capital, and stole the machine-tools. Similarly, he organised the theft of archeological treasures and set up an international market in Antioch…with the help of General Benoît Puga, Chief of Staff for the Elysée, he organised a false-flag operation intended to provoke the launching of a war by the Atlantic Alliance – the chemical bombing of la Ghoutta in Damascus, in August 2013. "

    Meyssan claims that the Syria strategy of Erdo?an was initially secretly developed in coordination with former French Foreign Minister Alain Juppé and Erdogan's then Foreign Minister Ahmet Davuto?lu, in 2011, after Juppe won a hesitant Erdogan to the idea of supporting the attack on traditional Turkish ally Syria in return for a promise of French support for Turkish membership in the EU. France later backed out, leaving Erdogan to continue the Syrian bloodbath largely on his own using ISIS.

    greenskeeper carl

    And people STILL don't understand this whole ISIS thing is entirely scripted. As if the us govt doesn't know exactly who is doing what with this illicit oil trade. Of course, maybe they don't. Maybe they are too busy spying on innocent us citizens to be bothered with actually doing their fucking jobs....

    I'm sure we will get a press conference from Obama soon, where he will tell us that he just learned this by reading the newspaper and is just as shocked as we are. What a fucking clownshow we live in.

    strannick

    Ahh. It all makes sense now.

    The Russian Su24 Bomber wasnt violating Turkish airspace much as it was violating Baby Bilal Erodagans dirty oil concession and destroying his supply tankers.

    Daddy Erodagan risks WW3 so his precious can exploit a NATO oil embargo and sell oil for ISIS . Fork out on your own and get a real job and make poppa proud, Go be a Chambermaid in Munich, or show some real grit and open a kebab stand in Berlin, and so spare the planet a nuclear winter.

    Ghordius

    cosmos, is that the same French government that is currently in Moscow talking with Russia about how to bomb ISIS in Syria? You know, the ISIS that is producing propaganda videos accusing France and Russia to be an "Alliance Of Devils"? This while Germany is discussing about how to support this Franco-Russian cooperation?

    giovanni_f

    "while Germany is discussing"

    "Germany" doesn't "discuss" anything, with Merkel a full-fledged CIA asset. Germany exists as economic exploitation area for Anglosaxon Fiat-money. Forget Germany. I know for I have lived in this country probably for longer time than anyone on ZH.

    remain calm

    So how hard is it Mr Obama to kill this dude, after all you said, "we are going to hunt down isil where every they are and destroy them and their infrastructure" Well if you kill the money guy the operation falls apart. But you don't want that, do you? You want little crisis's all over the world so you can divert attention from the economy and use the terrorism as a scapegoat. You and your policies are evil.Isil if it really wanted to be powerful needs to kill its true leader and that is you.


    Occident Mortal

    It is inconceivable that the CIA does not already know all of this and a whole lot more. There are geostationary satellites over Iraq spamming Tb/s of data back to Langley. You only need to see the resolution of Google Maps over Iraq to know how much installed aerial surveillance covers that part of the world. Iraq has higher resolution than Manhattan.

    I would not be surprised if the CIA was tracking and analysing the movements of every single vehicle in Mosul. The technology to do it exists, it's the same technology that will manage driverless car fleets.

    The problem here is that for whatever reason, the US intelligence agencies are clearly NOT sharing information with the US executive government.

    Something has clearly broken in the chain of command inside .gov, and the rest of the world can see this clear as day. Obama is not being told anything.

    Maybe to maintain plausible deniability, maybe for some other reason? But I don't think Obama knows squat about any of this. John Kerry must know, he is the guy who gets sent to meet ALL of the involved parties. Notice that they always send Kerry, never Obama. Kerry must hear it from the other side, he meets Lavrov, Assad, Bandar, Erdogan, et al.

    This whole 5yr period is just weird.

    I think that come 2017, the apple cart is gonna get flipped 50ft in the air as the USA strides back into geopolitics.

    not dead yet

    What makes you think he doesn't know? Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is. It is well known that Obama regularly fails to heed real experts advice or ignores it completely. It's claimed that in many briefings he doesn't even pay attention. His close circle of advisors, like the Kagan family, Victoria Nuland, Valerie Jarret, and such are war mongering conquer the planet types.

    For the US ISIS serves a purpose thus the pure propaganda that most US air strikes against ISIS are not approved because they might hurt civilians. Obama could care less about civilians or he never would have bombed Libya into a failed state and walked away, would not have supplied arms and money to Syrian foreign jihadists which comprise 90% of those fighting Assad, and he certainly would never run his drone campaign in at least 7 countries that has killed thousands of innocent people.

    Better to be looked upon in the history books as a tragic figure inexperienced and overwhelmed by the enormity of the office rather than the real Obama who loves spilling blood in world conquest. Recently the head of the UN called on all parties to stop this stuff in Syria and let the Syrians decide for themselves who leads them. Obama's reply was Assad must go which meant business as usual supplying weapons and cash for Syrian terrorists. If he really was serious about peace he would have dropped all funding and arms for Syrian terrorists and forced others doing the same to stop and would have all parties join Assad to irradicate ISIS and the rest. The US has never seriously bombed ISIS, just around the edges to contain not kill them. ISIS has been selling oil for years yet the US never seriously bombed their tankers until the Russians did. Obama lost face and was compelled to finally take out a few tankers and broadcast it to the world to "prove" he was serious about stopping ISIS. Many times Obama claimed the war against ISIS was going to take 20 to 30 years yet the Kurds, who are on the ground fighting, claim if all parties make the effort ISIS could be destroyed in a few weeks.

    As per videos and published reports Turkish trucking companies are making nice money hauling goods into Syria, especially to ISIS, with long lines at the border waiting to get across. The Russians are po'd about the Turks taking down their plane so they are targeting convoys entering Syria. Some nice videos of this. It's a wake up call for those trucking companies that it is now too dangerous and unprofitable to continue. They may be insured but close to all insurance companies will not pay off for damages in a war zone.

    When the Russians first entered the fray in Syria Obama's response was to drop over 100 pallets of weapons, and promises of anti tank and plane weapons, in the Syrian desert and hoped the "proper rebels" retrieved them. Look it up, it was all over the news. Does this sound like a peace loving leader to you?

    new game

    never underestimate the enemy, they know wtf is going on. isis is the new commie to fuel the fear needed to keep the juice flowing. moar war, moar fiat financed by banksters. reasons vary depending on the hatred stirred. we are bystanders funding this shit show with our taxes, all captivated by fiat/debt in a closed system with no exits, unless of course, you live in a wood burning, no electric home w/ hand pump well, outdoor shitter, and exist like it is 1850, garden, root cellar and all that.

    Trogdor

    Like that leading from behind propaganda in Libya so that Obama gets blamed for being a wimp or incompetent rather than the warmonger he really is...

    I seem to remember the Halfrican bragging, "I'm really good at killing people" which is something only an infantile psychopath would be proud of. Believing that he's just a simple dupe - or incompetent - is the result of not paying attention.

    The US was *never* attacking ISIS (before the Bear showed up) - rather they were carrying out air-strikes on pro-Assad forces and claiming they were ISIS. Nobody outside of the MIC or on the ground there could tell the difference, so they got away with it ... until they didn't.

    Oldwood

    Plausible deniability

    Obama doctrine: nothing that happens under his administration is his responsibility. Even his Obamacare, with all of its disasters, is blamed on him. Nothing. He always claims to be the outsider when in actuality he is in charge of everything.

    Kayman

    As if the U.S. isn't complicit in this. Look at a map- the oil can't go west thru Assad territory, it can't go south thru Shia Iraq, and it isn't going east thru Iran. So it has no other way to go but thru Turkey.

    Turkey is a NATO member. The U.S. and Europe are supporting Turkey, therefore the U.S. and NATO are supporting ISIS. Period. Full stop.

    Kick Turkey out of NATO and Blockade Turkey. And ISIS will wither and die.

    Coke and Hookers

    There will be three priorities now for Russia: 1) No-fly zone south of the Turkish-Syrian border enforced with S 400, 2) Hitting everything moving on every transit route from Turkey and 3) Bombing the shit out of the border area and the Turkmen scum/CIA agents hanging out there and then capturing it.

    assistedliving

    34 up arrows nowwithstanding, stick to the coke & hookers.

    1. S400 deployment will be delayed

    2. Nothing more will be hit from Turkey

    3. less bombing now let alone "Bombing the shit out....?

    Hard to imagine more wrong analysis; Easy to see ZH chickenhawk, Putin loving adoration

    OldPhart

    Ok, just an observation from the linked video. Your convoy just got bombed by a first world nation's advanced technologies.

    You're fucking lucky to be alive. Yet you bunch up all the rest of the convoy, then stand around in the middle of it all watching, recording, the burning of some trucks. Doesn't it occur to these ignorant mother-fucks that what they just created is the biggist classical military strike of all time?

    Russia is being merciful to fly by shit like this without strike. I thought Putin was a hard ass, maybe he does have a heart. Well, being a decent person in politics could make one look pretty fuckin' odd in these days of elected psychopaths.

    Paveway IV

    The ISIS-miniE oil sales are temporary. It was a bone the U.S. (and indirectly Israel) threw to Erdogan so the CIA could run arms through Turkey without questions. Same thing for the Barzani crime cartel in Iraqi Kurdistan. It's all just temporary because, long-term, U.S./U.K./Israeli interests will own and control every oil asset in Syria and Kurdistan. Genel is sliming their way into control of the oil fields stolen first from Iraq and soon from the Kurds. Tony "Deepwater Horizon" Hayward runs that shop for the Rothschilds. At the appropriate time, Mini-Erdogan and Barzani will cease to be useful to the Anglo-Zio cabal and liquidated, just like al Nusra and ISIS. Israel wants to replace Ceyhan with Haifa and control all the oil from their port, and they want to make sure nobody can turn the tap to them off. Rothschild and the U.K./U.S. Israeli-firsters just want their cut of the eventual loot and to preserve their dying petrodollar. They let Qatar and Saudi Arabia in the club for funding, and probably promised them their pipelines through Syria.

    This is directly related the the Su-24 shoot-down. The U.S. has turned a blind eye to Turkey's overt and covert military intervention through its Turkmen Jihadis because one of the main CIA arms-smuggling rat-lines is through the Turkmen Mountain region. The U.S. has willingly and eagerly supplied TOW-2As to the Turkmen jihadis there in order to preserve those smuggling routes. There were probably plenty of Xe/Academi military advisors helping the Turkmen and they were getting killed by Russian air strikes. The CIA is frantic to do something to prevent Syria/Russia from closing those routes, and will back any hair-brained Turkish scheme in desperation. CIA arms smuggling routes IN are also Turkish jihadi smuggling routes IN and ISIS stolen oil routes OUT. They're all related and all threatened by Russia. Same as the Aleppo-Aziz-Killis route - it's multi-purpose for many kinds of smuggling.

    The backup act of desperation is already playing out. While Syria/Russia tries to take back the two main corridors mentioned above, Turkey and the U.S. are trying to create an entirely new corridor through Afrin canton before Russia gets there. The U.S. may abhor another Kurd slaughter like they were party to in Kobane and Sinjar, but the CIA needs new rat-lines, damn it - that means some Afrin Rojava are going to have to die. Minne-E needs new oil smuggling routes (and a few new tankers), and daddy needs a reliable route to funnel Uighur, Uzbek and Chechen head-choppers to keep the pressure on Assad. Erdogan himself probably has a boner at the thought of another 25,000 dead Kurds. Barazani won't complain too much. The Rojava Kurds don't want to join his criminal gang and swear obedience to him, so he has no use for them. He just needs to convince the world that he is the supreme leader of the Kurdish cause, not the Kurds. See why he likes Erdogan so much?

    For the anglo-zio oil cartel, the Syrian war isn't so much about replacing Assad right away. They would be delighted if that happened, but now they just want to preserve what they have in Syria in the face of Russian involvement. If worse comes to worse, all the parties will just retract their jihadis back across Turkish borders and wait for another opportunity. There's plenty of land-grabbing and bribery work in Iraqi Kurdistan to keep them busy for now. The long game is to own all the oil and gas possible in Syria and Iraq when the smoke clears, and then 100% control where it flows to and who sells it for what price. They'll kill every last Syrian, Iraqi and Kurd if necessary to make sure they control the spice.

    Paveway IV

    That was a damn fine article, Tyler. +1000. I should have offered that thought first before scratching out my rant.

    Erdogan's crime family is a complex issue in already complex environment of Turkish politics - you did a great job of breaking down Bilal's motivations and the oil angle. I feel sorry for all the unfortunate Turks saddled with these psychopathic losers in charge (and I speak from the authority of experience here in the U.S.).

    Escrava Isaura

    Turkey needs this conflict to distract its population. Second, Turkey is a main supported of jihadi organizations such as al-Nusra and Ahrar al-Sham. Even the US trained rebels were killed by these jihadists with the help of Turkey.

    http://www.military.com/daily-news/2015/08/03/pentagon-syria-rebels-trained-by-us-to-get-defensive-air-cover.html

    Noplebian

    WW3 – Turkey/ISIS/Russia – The Countdown Has Begun......
    http://beforeitsnews.com/conspiracy-theories/2015/11/us-gives-their-prox...

    Nostradumbass

    The reason people have not talked about Turkey is because they tend to end up dead from accidents and suicides while passing through that country.

    Yes, tragically, yes they do.

    Press TV's correspondent in Turkey, Serena Shim, has been killed in a suspicious car accident near the Turkey-Syria border.

    Shim was killed on Sunday as she was on a working mission in Turkey to cover the ongoing war in the strategic Syrian town of Kobani.

    She was going back to her hotel from a report scene in the city of Suruç in Turkey's Urfa Province when their car collided with a heavy vehicle. The identity and whereabouts of the truck driver remain unknown.

    Shim, an American citizen of Lebanese origin, covered reports for Press TV in Lebanon, Iraq, and Ukraine.

    On Friday, she told Press TV that the Turkish intelligence agency had accused her of spying probably due to some of the stories she has covered about Turkey's stance on the ISIL terrorists in Kobani and its surroundings, adding that she feared being arrested.

    Shim said she was among the few journalists obtaining stories of militants infiltrating into Syria through the Turkish border, adding that she had received images from militants crossing the Turkish border into Syria in World Food Organization and other NGOs' trucks.

    Shim flatly rejected accusations against her, saying she was "surprised" at this accusation "because I have nothing to hide and I have never done anything aside my job."

    Kobani and its surroundings have been under attack since mid-September, with the ISIL militants capturing dozens of nearby Kurdish villages.

    Turkey has been accused of backing ISIL militants in Syria.

    http://www.presstv.com/detail/2014/10/19/382854/press-tv-reporter-in-tur...

    MrBoompi

    Well of course Turkey sides with ISIS. Many of the ISIS fighters come across the border into Syria from Turkey, where they have been trained. Turkey is on board with the US and the rest of NATO. I suppose we have no choice but wait and see what the US pulls to get rid of Assad now. It won't be pretty.

    Main_Sequence

    Erdogan has a raging hard-on for the multiple gas pipelines from Libya, Egypt, Israel, and Qatar that will provide tens of billions of dollars in revenues in transit fees. Of course Turkey will do whatever it takes to ensure that Assad falls as it is literally costing Turkey billions of dollars every month that Assad is in power. None of what I have read about Turkey supporting ISIS surprises me in the slightest knowing what Turkey is losing.

    knukles

    Plus, makes all the sense as to why NATO immediately bought off on the Rooskie fighter shoot-down even though via the NATO documents, it technically puts NATO in a HOT war with Russia aside from the Hot Proxy wars...

    Oh my....

    REQUIRED READING: Tells it like it really is

    http://turoks.net/Cabana/PoohGoesApeshit.php

    Rusty Shorts

    This U.S. Army film describes Turkey's history, economy, urban areas, industry, and its role in the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GsUEEPN9gWc

    Bay of Pigs

    Yeah, okay. The US is totally solvent, is that what youre saying....lol.

    PeakOil

    ^This. But I would go further - Russia is fighting for its very existence.

    The psychotic megalomaniacal Anglo-Zionist hegemon wishes to rule the world. Totally. Who is standing in their way? Pretty obvious what this is all about wouldn't you say?

    AlaricGaudiTheSecond

    So Russia is funding terrorists around the globe for profits too? Give me a f*** break!!! Liar!!

    captain-nemo

    Wow. I must say. Thanks a lot for this informative article ZH. I always taught that Erdogans many evil plots and insane schemes was really bad , but all the things that are brought into light now are even worse than I imagined. It all makes sense now and it actually explains why Obama and the rest of the western world has done about nothing to stop ISIS and their many war crimes around the globe.

    What Erdogan and his gangs of thugs are doing is plain out illegal and they should have been prosecuted and treated as ordinary criminals in the war criminal court in haag , but as the article tells us, also former France politicians and Obama has things to explain.

    I am simply overwhelmed over how bad it all turns out to be in reality. It explains why the western world was so reluctant to welcome the Russians in their fighting against ISIS, they were afraid that all their little secrets and rotten plots probably would come out. Thanks to Russia, that's exactly what has happened now.

    There are absolutely no news about these things in my country, the mainstream media are only publishing the western political correct version of everything, and thus most people are probably still unaware of the real truth.

    ISIS is responsible for terror attacks and the lifes of thousands of civilians all around the world. They are off course to blame and should be routed out. However. It is actually Erdogan and his thugs that are their real generals. It is Erdogan who has blood on his hands. It is Erdogan that should be wanted by the courts in Haag.

    I am looking forward to read more about Erdogans son and the evil activities these people are involved in. Thank you ZH an keep up the good work.

    Fuku Ben

    This guy is shaping up to be like another Uday Hussein, Saddam's son. Does he have any rape, torture or murder under his belt, like Uday, in addition to his alleged war crimes and terrorist activities? Do the Turks realize they're going to be ceding a portion of their country for the greater glorious mission of rebuilding The Levant if ISIS/ISIL/Israel (see below) succeed in Syria?

    Here is an old quote from a Kurd on the alleged details of the ISIS operation. "Housed in Turkey, trained in Jordan, logistics by Pakistan, literature from Saudi Arabia, funding from Qatar and Saudi Arabia, on the ground day to day running by Israel, arms by the U.S., intelligence by the British, Germans and French and original arms for ISIS came from the Muslim Brotherhood helping them take it from Libya."

    One big happy family isn't it. This seems very plausible and explains why they would all be so pissed off at what Russia has done. Again at the last press conference Hollande and Obama openly refused to cooperate with Russia. Obama again insisting that Russia work through his coalition and that Assad be removed.

    I wonder how many U.S. citizens even realize they are
    under a declared state of Nation Emergency due to that deadliest of threats to the U.S. known as Syria. What a fraudulent joke.

    https://www.whitehouse.gov/the-press-office/2015/05/06/notice-continuati...

    Is anyone operating inside Syrian airspace yet actually doing so lawfully besides Russia? Or are lawful authority and international law now just more fraudulent misrepresentations and treated as a joke? Similar to how the global corporations fraudulently act as Countries and pretending that by being a Citizen you have freedoms that they protect.

    I'm struggling to find any U.N. authorization for the lawful use of force inside Syria without the consent of the Syrian government. Not that the U.N. has that authority anyway. If anyone finds any please feel free to post it.

    http://www.un.org/press/en/2015/sc12132.doc.htm


    XXL66

    The ISIS-Turkey list :

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/david-l-phillips/research-paper-isis-turke...

    smacker

    That's a good document.

    It places Turkey up to its neck at the scene of the ISIS crime.

    Turkey are actively involved in supporting ISIS: recruitment, training, financing, supplying weapons and other goods to ISIS. Recep Erdogan himself is in control and his son Bilal is handling ISIS stolen oil.


    Volkodav

    US Sanctions Syria for buying oil from Islamic State...

    https://in.news.yahoo.com/us-sanctions-syria-buying-oil-163505807.html

    HowdyDoody

    Syrian uses Syrian oil - sanctions.

    Turkey deals in Syiran oil stolen by ISIS - no sanctions.

    css1971

    "Turkey's actions appear premeditated, planned, and undertaken with a specific objective."

    Or put another way. We think you're evil, not stupid.

    localizer

    To sum it up: Erdogan has put his family income above his country's interests since the math is simple - family pockets gain a fraction of the billions that will not be collected by the Turkish companies now due to "sanctions" imposed by Russia, this has already begun - no Russian tourists (that is about $3 billion/year), suspended construction contracts in Russia for Turkish companies, extra "inspections" on ALL Turkish goods (textiles, food) entering Russia etc...

    Lumberjack

    You forgot Hillary

    viator

    And RT chimes in:

    https://www.rt.com/business/323391-isis-oil-business-turkey-russia/

    Maybe this is among the reasons that some people are mad: "Islamic State is selling oil at $15–25 per barrel"

    https://twitter.com/hashtag/StopTurkeySuppportOfISIS

    Hannibal

    Mystery over who bombed Turkish convoy allegedly carrying weapons to militants in Syria

    https://www.rt.com/news/323538-turkey-convoy-syria-attack/

    BarnacleBill

    If the Turkish President is shooting down anti-ISIS planes in order to save his son's business, and the NATO nations are excusing that action, then we really are in a filthy swamp of criminality. It's going to be very hard to climb out of it. Any high moral ground is way out of NATO's reach - now, if not before.

    When I wrote about the famous ISIS Toyotas a year ago (link below), I reckoned the CIA might have bought them on ISIS's behalf - but now I wonder if perhaps Turkey's top oligarch didn't do it on his own. I also presumed the Toyotas had been manufactured in the US, but I've since learned that the Toyota company also manufactures left-hand-drive trucks in Thailand. This story has a lot of angles still to uncover - and not just which tax-haven was used to facilitate the transactions. More likely Hong Kong or Singapore than any one over in this part of the world, in this instance.

    http://barlowscayman.blogspot.com/2014/10/who-sold-isis-all-those-toyotas.html

    viator

    "Russia is preparing wide-ranging economic sanctions against Turkey over the downing of one of its jets on the Turkey-Syria border."

    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-34933608

    "Mr Medvedev said: "The government has been ordered to work out a system of response measures to this act of aggression in the economic and humanitarian spheres."He said the focus would be on "introducing limits or bans" on Turkish economic interests in Russia and a "limitation of the supply" of products, including food.He said tourism, transport, trade, labour and customs as well as "humanitarian contacts" could all be affected. "The same rules may apply to a whole range of investment projects," he said."

    Wahooo

    Do not focus on Ergodan, focus on the US:

    Seymour Hersh, April 2014:

    A highly classified annex to the report, not made public, described a secret agreement reached in early 2012 between the Obama and Erdogan administrations. It pertained to the rat line. By the terms of the agreement, funding came from Turkey, as well as Saudi Arabia and Qatar; the CIA, with the support of MI6, was responsible for getting arms from Gaddafi's arsenals into Syria. A number of front companies were set up in Libya, some under the cover of Australian entities. Retired American soldiers, who didn't always know who was really employing them, were hired to manage procurement and shipping. The operation was run by David Petraeus, the CIA director who would soon resign when it became known he was having an affair with his biographer. (A spokesperson for Petraeus denied the operation ever took place.)

    Wrascaly Wabbit

    The following article is an eye opener in terms of how ISIL finances itself!

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/03/isis-financial-sources/

    The bottom line is you can't sell anything, unless you have someone willing to buy it!

    Whoa Dammit

    Hey Tyler (or anyone else who wants to do the research,

    It might not be a bad idea to look further into Alain Juppe who was mentioned in Engdahl's article. He was responsible for the privatization of a French foreign trade bank and two French shipping companies years back. But old ties run deep in politics and shady deals.

    This is what I found from a cursory look at French Wiki:

    Alain Juppe is pursuing the other movements privatizations initiated between 1986 and 1988 and since 1993 with the metallurgical group Pechiney and Usinor Sacilorin 1995, the French Foreign Trade Bank (BFCE, sold over the counter at theNational Credit to give birth to Natixis), the Compagnie Générale Maritime (CGM also sold over the counter to the charter shipping company to create the group CMA -CGM), the General Insurance of France (AGF with the purse-up 51% of the capital, the State retaining only 2%) and the French Rhine Shipping Company (RNFL, sold over the counter at the Technical Association of the coal import ATIC) in 1996.

    https://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alain_Jupp%C3%A9

    ISIS support in Turkey could have nothing at all to do with any of these companies today, but then again it might. Seeing the foreign trade bank and shipping connections here just alerted my spidey senses.

    Joenobody12

    http://journal-neo.org/2015/11/25/israeli-colonel-caught-with-is-pants-d...

    It is about oil and the disintegration of the Arab countries. Destruction of nations and killing of their people mean absolutely nothing to these psycopaths. In fact , the chosen people have planned the destruction of the Arab countries just so there will be no centralized pwer to threaten Israel.

    Gulag

    Turkey is facilitating selling ISIS stolen oil from Iraq and Syria oilfields to G20 membership countries on the black market at a dumping price. Has been estimated that as much as $800mil of oil has been sold in Turkey by ISIS using Turkey / Syrian border in direct dealings between Turkish officials and ISIS members under the blind eye of UK and USA.

    Turkey is a corrupt, jihadist sh*t hole that hosts, protects, finances and offer intelligence and logistics to ISIS under cover of NATO membership and alliance with USA.

    Turkey is considered a USA ally while ISIS is considered a terrorist faction in war with America.

    Turkey is s state sponsor of ISIS with a NATO membership. NATO is harboring a state that sponsors ISIS. That makes NATO and all nations within NATO membership accomplices of sponsoring terrorism.

    ... ... ...

    me or you

    Turkey is buying and selling ISIS oil while NATO is smuggling Taliban opium.

    johmack2

    What irks me the most is the lack of investigative journalism during this whole middle east fiasco. It was as if after the watergate scandal, washington vowed never again and thus began the death of journalism. In the day and age when you have have alternative media giving more indept analysis than CNN/BBC on geopolitical issues and sites like muddywaters using investigation as means of peeling away the corporate veil of corruption, one has to wonder the nature of the illusion we find ourselves in.

    As i have assimilated more information, the words from morpheous in the matrix to neo in the training simulation continuously ring true.

    "The Matrix is a system, Neo. That system is our enemy. But when you're inside, you look around, what do you see? Businessmen, teachers, lawyers, carpenters. The very minds of the people we are trying to save. But until we do, these people are still a part of that system and that makes them our enemy. You have to understand, most of these people are not ready to be unplugged. And many of them are so inured, so hopelessly dependent on the system, that they will fight to protect it. "

    [Nov 25, 2015] Antonio Fatas on the Global Economy Counting backwards to the next recession

    fatasmihov.blogspot.com

    In the case of the US (using the NBER business cycle dates), in the post-WWII period expansions have lasted from 12 months in the expansion ending in 1981to 120 months in the expansion ending in 2001. The current expansion is already 77 months long, longer than the previous expansion of 2001-2007.

    ... ... ...

    And this second reading the chart reminds us of the risk that we are facing if the next recession is somewhere in the near future and monetary policy has not had the time to go back to normal, to go back to levels of short term rates that allow for a decrease in these rates that is consistent with what we have seen in previous recession. And entering the next recession in Europe or the U.S. with interest rates that are too close to zero does not sound like a good idea and in addition there is a lot of uncertainty given that we have not seen such a case in the recent business cycles.

    [Nov 22, 2015] Clean And Profitable Oil Sands Production Now A Reality

    Without additional capital investment Canadian oil sands are profitable at much lower price the $80 per barrel.
    Nov 09. 2015 | OilPrice.com
    Adding to the growing list of cancelled or halted oil sands programs, Shell in late October moved to scrap its 80,000-barrel/day Carmon Creek project. Earlier this year, three major Canadian energy companies said they would stop new or expanded oil-sands ventures, and last year French Total SA and Norway's Statoil also scrapped oil sands plans. Other major players like Suncor and Cenovus have reportedly been downsizing investments in Alberta.

    Overall, some $60 billion in Canadian oil sands projects are in big trouble, unable to withstand high production costs in today's slumping oil price market.

    ... ... ...

    These doomed oil sands projects require $80 oil to break even and Western Canadian Select is only trading at $30 per barrel.

    [Nov 21, 2015] Global Trade Just Snapped Container Freight Rates Plummet 70% In 3 Weeks

    Notable quotes:
    "... Mass malinvestments in U.S. shale oil, Brazilian mines, and Chinese factories and real estate must be reckoned with. ..."
    "... Instead of economic strength and robust growth, economic fundamentals are breaking down. Manufacturing is slowing. Consumer spending is soft. For additional edification, just look at copper, iron ore, or aluminum.. ..."
    Zero Hedge
    In fact, as the chart above shows, growth in global trade has been slowing down for some time, as Acting-Man's Pater Tenebrarum notes,

    But somewhere between collapsing oil prices, dollar strength, and consumer lethargy the economy's narrative has drifted off plot. The theme has transitioned from one of renewed growth and recovery to one of recurring sickness and stagnation. Mass malinvestments in U.S. shale oil, Brazilian mines, and Chinese factories and real estate must be reckoned with.

    Price adjustments, bankruptcies, and debt restructuring must be painfully worked through like a strawberry picker hunkered over a seemingly endless furrow row of over ripening fruits. Sore backs, burnt necks, and tender fingers are what the over-all economy has in front of it. The U.S. economy is not immune to the global disorder after all.

    More evidence is revealed each week that the unexpected is happening. Instead of economic strength and robust growth, economic fundamentals are breaking down. Manufacturing is slowing. Consumer spending is soft. For additional edification, just look at copper, iron ore, or aluminum...

    [Nov 21, 2015] The Case For Peak Oil

    Notable quotes:
    "... After watching the ups and downs of the oil industry over recent decades, I conclude that this is just another up-down cycle. At prices north of $100 a barrel the incentive was for every producer to go full out on exploration/drilling/fracking/tar sands, etc. and the result was an over supplied market, leading to a much lower price. Once the oversupply ebbs, price will rise to a consumer affordability level in the $70-80 dollar range and the oil industry will have regained incentive for new drilling to insure future supply. It won't be over a hundred to satisfy many countries spend wish lists, but supply-demand will balance out for a while and a new peak will occur in 2016-2018. ..."
    "... I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that the rest of the world outside of USA, Russia, Canada, Saudi… will suddenly see a steep decline after the last seven or eight months have actually seen a bit of a bounce. ..."
    "... The reason I wonder about that is that I assume a lot of these projects that have led to the recent bounce were long lead time projects and that more are still coming on stream that were committed to before the collapse in prices so that it may be a fair bit longer before we see a significant decline in those areas again. ..."
    "... I imagine there will be decline while prices remain low, how steep it will be is unknown. ..."
    "... Bounce? I don't see any bounce. I see lots of ups and downs in the general downward trend. And I would expect to see a lot more as the downward trend continues. ..."
    Nov 20, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

    A lot of prognosticators expect Canada to massively increase production during the next couple of decades. I don't. Notice that Canada's production started to stall in April 2014, well before prices started to fall.

    Canada's rig count has fallen by about 60 percent and capex has declined considerably in the oil sands. I expect Canadian production to decline and even if prices return to $70 a barrel, (they ain't going much higher than that,) it will still be years before Canadian production reaches 4 million barrels per day, if it ever does.

    Production decline, throughout the world, seems to be lagging the rig count by about one year. This should not be a surprise because this is historically the norm, whether rig count is increasing or decreasing. But a lot of people seems to have expected the decline a lot sooner. And that includes Lukoil Vice President Leonid Fedun. The below article was written in March.

    ... ... ...

    Unless oil goes above $100 soon then I must conclude that the USA has peaked. Ditto for Canada. Russia has peaked regardless of what oil prices do. Ditto for Saudi Arabia. The only one I am not so sure of is Iraq. But they have serious political problems and my prognosis is that they have far more downside potential than upside potential.

    The political situation in North Africa and the Middle East will get a lot worse before it gets better. That could prove to be very bad for many Middle East and North Africa oil producers.

    Stilgar Wilcox, 11/20/2015 at 3:28 pm

    After watching the ups and downs of the oil industry over recent decades, I conclude that this is just another up-down cycle. At prices north of $100 a barrel the incentive was for every producer to go full out on exploration/drilling/fracking/tar sands, etc. and the result was an over supplied market, leading to a much lower price. Once the oversupply ebbs, price will rise to a consumer affordability level in the $70-80 dollar range and the oil industry will have regained incentive for new drilling to insure future supply. It won't be over a hundred to satisfy many countries spend wish lists, but supply-demand will balance out for a while and a new peak will occur in 2016-2018.

    Mario, 11/20/2015 at 4:11 pm

    I don't know nearly as much about this as you do, but I'm not sure I agree with the assertion that the rest of the world outside of USA, Russia, Canada, Saudi… will suddenly see a steep decline after the last seven or eight months have actually seen a bit of a bounce.

    The reason I wonder about that is that I assume a lot of these projects that have led to the recent bounce were long lead time projects and that more are still coming on stream that were committed to before the collapse in prices so that it may be a fair bit longer before we see a significant decline in those areas again.

    Why do you think the bounce will be so short lived?

    Dennis Coyne, 11/20/2015 at 4:46 pm

    Hi Mario,

    Good point. I imagine there will be decline while prices remain low, how steep it will be is unknown. I usually give a wild guess, but I am out of my depth (more so than usual.)

    Ron Patterson, 11/20/2015 at 5:13 pm

    Bounce? I don't see any bounce. I see lots of ups and downs in the general downward trend. And I would expect to see a lot more as the downward trend continues.

    Nick G. 11/20/2015 at 5:29 pm

    Ron,

    I hope you're right, and that we're seeing Peak Oil. That would be a good thing for the world. I'd be a little surprised, given that Russia and KSA seem able to keep production at least level for a while, and the US seems likely to bounce back if prices rise. If we're seeing peak, then that would suggest that oil prices will never rise significantly above, say, $70. And that only seems possible if the transition to electric transportation accelerates dramatically.

    That kind of acceleration in the next year or two doesn't seem likely to me, but it's conceivable: here's Audi: "the brand is targeting at least 25% of its US sales to be e-tron-i.e., plug-in hybrid or full electric-models by 2025.

    Further, Keogh said, Audi will support the broad adoption of EV technology in the US by developing a nationwide 150 kW fast charging network that would charge the 95 kWh battery pack of the e-tron quattro to 80% in only 30 minutes-enough for 200 miles worth of driving in the battery-electric SUV. The network will be in place for the launch of the fully electric SUV in 2018. Audi is one of the very few automakers to now put out a firm aspirational target for electric-drive vehicle sales. Volvo had earlier said it expects 10% of its total sales to be electrified by 2020."

    http://www.greencarcongress.com/2015/11/20151119-keogy.html

    There is enormous potential for reduction of marginal consumption by SUVs and inefficient cars.

    The idea that PO will cause collapse seems to be based on the fact that oil shocks have contributed to past recessions. The idea that PO would cause collapse is what one PO blogger might call "ruthless extrapolation" – it doesn't follow. Especially if there's no price shock.

    Hubbert didn't think PO would make things collapse. He assumed nuclear would be the energy source, and nuclear would indeed work, though it wouldn't be my preferred source. The first PO enthusiasts just assumed that other energy sources wouldn't work. I don't know why they dismissed nuclear, but it was kind've understandable that they didn't give much credence to the immature wind and solar industries. That has changed – wind and solar are clearly workable. And, of course, we're not at peak coal or NG yet.

    Finally: free markets (that invisible hand) aren't perfect, but they do work pretty well when combined with just a little planning and regulation, some of which is in place. EVs and hybrids are ready, and available when incentivized. The recent failure of VW's diesels to achieve required efficiency/pollution levels points in that direction.

    [Nov 20, 2015] Could oil prices really shrink to… $20 per barrel?

    Notable quotes:
    "... When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the demand is creeping up, ..."
    www.cnbc.com

    Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), told CNBC on Tuesday that low prices would prompt U.S. producers to cut output, creating upward price pressure.

    "When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the demand is creeping up," Birol told CNBC on Tuesday from the Oil & Money conference.

    ...

    [Nov 20, 2015] Oil Finds Some Support As WTI Hits $40 Mark

    Notable quotes:
    "... 37 oil and gas companies have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection so far this year ..."
    "... The bankruptcy cases account for more than $13.1 billion in outstanding debt among the companies involved ..."
    "... Saudi oil minister is warning about a future supply crunch as the industry fails to adequately invest in new sources of production. ..."
    "... Ali al-Naimi said that the "stability" of the oil markets depends on continuous upstream investment. Naimi says that at least $700 billion will be needed in order to meet rising demand. "To meet this growing need, there should be a continuation if not an increase in the pace of investments in the petroleum industry to guarantee the stability of the market on the short and long term," he said . ..."
    OilPrice.com

    The Wall Street Journal estimates that 37 oil and gas companies have filed for chapter 11 bankruptcy protection so far this year, as the financial storm from low crude prices overwhelms their ability to keep the lights on. The bankruptcy cases account for more than $13.1 billion in outstanding debt among the companies involved. Still, despite the wave of bankruptcies, the industry is not consolidating as fast as many previously anticipated, which appears to be delaying market adjustment.

    ...Saudi oil minister is warning about a future supply crunch as the industry fails to adequately invest in new sources of production. At a conference in Bahrain on November 19, oil minister Ali al-Naimi said that the "stability" of the oil markets depends on continuous upstream investment. Naimi says that at least $700 billion will be needed in order to meet rising demand. "To meet this growing need, there should be a continuation if not an increase in the pace of investments in the petroleum industry to guarantee the stability of the market on the short and long term," he said.

    [Nov 20, 2015] Presenting BofA's Number One Black Swan Event For The Global Oil Market In 2016

    Zero Hedge is going down the drains. Fact free reporting. Why they feel obliged to repeat Citibank call "Oil prices could collapse to $25/bbl". Everything is possible. As John Maynard Keynes used to say "The market can stay irrational longer than you can stay solvent." But this presuppose that the rest of the world maintain the current level of oil production and Saudis increase it. Even overoptimistic EIA prdicts drop in USA production from 9.29 to 8.77 million barrels per day. If we assume drop in the USA oil production in 2016 and the expectation that Russian and Canada will not increase production iether, then only Iraq and Iran remain to maintain status quo. Iraq and Iran probably can increase but by very little if at all. Libya the same. So from where the surplus oil will emerge if world increase consumption by 2 million barrels per day (from 93.86 to 85.26)
    Notable quotes:
    "... Can the government maintain this strategy of flooding the oil market? In our view, it is unlikely that Saudi leaders would want to exacerbate its ongoing reserve drain by pushing prices below $40/bbl. ..."
    Nov 20, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Saudi has been forcing prices lower by increasing production into an oversupplied market so far (Chart 23), and it also rushed to issue debt in its local market to fill a soaring budget gap. We have previously argued that Saudi Arabia's surging output is responsible for almost half of the 520 million barrel global petroleum inventory build in the last 7 quarters. Can the government maintain this strategy of flooding the oil market? In our view, it is unlikely that Saudi leaders would want to exacerbate its ongoing reserve drain by pushing prices below $40/bbl.

    After all, pressure will quickly build on the riyal's 30 year peg to the USD (Chart 24) if Brent crude oil prices keep falling. And frankly, it is a lot easier politically to implement a modest supply cut at first than allow for a full-blown currency devaluation. But a CNY meltdown could ultimately force Saudi's hand.

    ... ... ...

    However, if Saudi cannot resist the gravitational forces created by a persistently strong USD and depegs the SAR to follow Russia or Brazil, oil prices could collapse to $25/bbl. Weaker commodity prices would in turn add more downward pressure on EMs (Chart 26). Thus, even if micro supply and demand dynamics are improving, the path for oil prices in 2016 will heavily depend on how the USD moves against the CNY and the SAR. Or on a Saudi supply cut.

    [Nov 20, 2015] OPEC's Bad Bet By The Numbers

    Nov 20, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    As the December 4, 2015 OPEC meeting in Vienna approaches, OPEC members have the tools to assess the impact of "lower for longer" crude prices on their countries. Serendipitously, the IEA in its recently published World Energy Outlook 2015 describes a low price scenario in which crude stays around $50/barrel through the current decade's end. It is based on four assumptions: lower near-term global economic growth, a less unstable Middle East, continued OPEC emphasis on market share, and resilient non-OPEC supply.

    Equally serendipitously, the IMF October 2015 World Economic Outlook projections are premised on $51.62 crude in 2015 and $50.36 crude through 2020 and therefore show the impact ~$50 crude through the end of the decade would have on OPEC in general and the economies of individual OPEC members

    [Nov 20, 2015] Is crude oil ready for a rebound Lipow--commentary

    www.cnbc.com

    So between now and the end of the first quarter of 2016 looks to be the darkest before the dawn for the oil market and I think the market makes another run at $40 per barrel, perhaps even $37 or $38. But my perception is that there is simply too much buying at the lower levels as the market senses change is coming in 2017 and beyond.

    Now, the good news: On shore oil production in the U.S. is declining. The decline in the rig counts is having an effect. While U.S. weekly production estimates from the Energy Information Administration have been declining from about 9.6 million barrels per day in May and June to 9.1 million barrels per day last week, something else happened - U.S. Gulf of Mexico production increased by over 200,000 barrels per day, meaning the effect of the lower rig count on oil production may be more significant than one might think.

    Upstream earnings for big oil were terrible. ... Oil prices will have to rise in order to encourage additional production. And U.S. shale producers will then benefit.

    Add to the bullish side of the ledger that the market has virtually no geopolitical risk premium in it. With violence continuing in the Middle East, while the Venezuelan and Nigerian governments deplete their foreign reserves, there is upside to the oil market.

    [Nov 20, 2015] The problem with my $70 oil call-commentary

    Notable quotes:
    "... I thought supply from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries - and specifically Saudi Arabia - would also go down. You can't get rich selling anything for less than it costs to maintain the country. I expected they would at least maintain, if not cut, production to command a better price. ..."
    "... That didn't happen. Rather than cutting back or holding steady, OPEC drove prices even lower as Saudi Arabia has increased production by almost a million barrels a day. ..."
    "... Even knowing that, I didn't expect to see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates all working to increase their market share by bringing new production online over the next few years. ..."
    "... Even as OPEC loses money, they are growing their market share. When prices rise, they'll rake in profits while the competition scrambles to catch up. It's also a geopolitical move. The world depends on oil, and they've got their hands on the spigot. ..."
    Oct 8. 2015 www.cnbc.com

    After oil prices plummeted, I went on the record saying I thought they'd be back above $70 per barrel by the end of 2015.

    ... ... ...

    I thought supply from the United States would go down - and it has. Companies have been laying down rigs, and U.S. production has dropped by 500,000 barrels a day since June.

    So where'd I go wrong? One word: OPEC.

    I thought supply from the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries - and specifically Saudi Arabia - would also go down. You can't get rich selling anything for less than it costs to maintain the country. I expected they would at least maintain, if not cut, production to command a better price.

    That didn't happen. Rather than cutting back or holding steady, OPEC drove prices even lower as Saudi Arabia has increased production by almost a million barrels a day.

    I erred in underestimating OPEC's determination to keep the flow of oil under their control. The OPEC cartel is controlled by leaders whose top priority isn't to make money for stockholders, it's keeping themselves in power.

    Even knowing that, I didn't expect to see Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates all working to increase their market share by bringing new production online over the next few years.

    ... ... ...

    When it comes to the price of oil, which remains in the mid-forties, all of that gets taken into account. What doesn't get taken into account is that the nations of OPEC have a long-term strategy, America doesn't. And, on top of all that, we have Russia moving into Syria. That will invariably add a new dimension to the Middle East energy equation.

    Even as OPEC loses money, they are growing their market share. When prices rise, they'll rake in profits while the competition scrambles to catch up. It's also a geopolitical move. The world depends on oil, and they've got their hands on the spigot.

    This administration has run out the clock for a long-term energy plan. ...The candidates should take a good hard look at energy as a centerpiece of their economic policy and tell us what their plan is.

    Commentary by T. Boone Pickens, founder and chairman of the hedge fund BP Capital Management and former CEO of Mesa Petroleum. He is also creator of the Pickens Plan, a plan to get the U.S. more energy independent, develop renewable energy source and increase energy efficiency. Follow him on Twitter @boonepickens.

    [Nov 20, 2015] Where's oil headed Ask China-commentary

    Notable quotes:
    "... he high decline rates of shale wells, and the acute exposure of independent U.S. producers to prevailing market conditions, virtually guarantee that U.S. shale production will take the brunt of market adjustments. If global oil production is to fall, U.S. shale output will lead. ..."
    "... Non-OPEC countries, excluding the U.S., produce 44 million barrels of oil per day, nearly half the global oil supply. ..."
    "... True, international oil rig counts have only fallen by 20 percent, compared to 64 percent in the United States, according to Baker Hughes. But that 20 percent is projected on 44 million barrels of oil per day. The supply adjustment outside the U.S. and OPEC is potentially much greater than the shale oil adjustment over which American investors seem to obsess. And since oil is a fungible, global commodity, a barrel lost in Argentina has about the same impact as one lost in Texas or Saudi Arabia. ..."
    Nov 6, 2015 | CNBC.com

    U.S. oil investors tend to fixate on domestic oil markets-and particularly shales-often at the expense of the bigger global picture. In the absence of a clear consensus on the marginal cost of oil, WTI bounces around with every oil inventory and drilling rig report. Rigs and inventory down? WTI rallies. Crude stocks up? Oil prices tank.

    No doubt, the U.S. is important. U.S. shales will drive the eventual rebalancing of global oil markets. The high decline rates of shale wells, and the acute exposure of independent U.S. producers to prevailing market conditions, virtually guarantee that U.S. shale production will take the brunt of market adjustments. If global oil production is to fall, U.S. shale output will lead.

    But that's not the whole story.

    All in, the U.S. produces about 9 million barrels of oil per day and more than 12 million if natural gas liquids are included. However, much more is produced elsewhere outside OPEC. Non-OPEC countries, excluding the U.S., produce 44 million barrels of oil per day, nearly half the global oil supply.

    As in the U.S., their oil companies are typically exposed to global oil prices and are under pressure to adjust to market conditions. In these countries, too, rig counts have fallen. True, international oil rig counts have only fallen by 20 percent, compared to 64 percent in the United States, according to Baker Hughes. But that 20 percent is projected on 44 million barrels of oil per day. The supply adjustment outside the U.S. and OPEC is potentially much greater than the shale oil adjustment over which American investors seem to obsess. And since oil is a fungible, global commodity, a barrel lost in Argentina has about the same impact as one lost in Texas or Saudi Arabia.

    Commentary by Steven Kopits, managing director, Princeton Energy Advisors.

    See also

    [Nov 20, 2015] More about what oil prices we can expect in 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... I am wondering if the shale decline would be much steeper and faster as currently forecast. The reason could be the fast declining well productivity (-11.5% for North Dakota and -17% for Bakken in September). ..."
    "... As the amount of producing wells increases, the number of new wells must increase accordingly. If companies want to keep production flat, they must actually increase wells more and more over time. It is also the law of high numbers, which eventually brings down any trend. However, at these low prices companies simply cannot increase the number of new wells and production declines as the proportion of faster declining wells increases. Nevertheless, the decline is now enormous. ..."
    "... You can calculate this also by the monthly decline of the growth rate, which is around 2 % per month and accelerating. So in around one year the decline will be at least 30%, which is nearly 3 mill bbl/d. ..."
    "... This is what the numbers say and I have just assumptions what the reason for this decline may be. In my view most people and investors are not aware how dire the situation for shale companies is. ..."
    "... How they can be aware? Don't you see that shale companies are talking in some dialect of shale Esperanto language that only they can understand Thousands of blogs and articles by experts and nobody can coherently explain in two paragraphs what technological innovation we are talking about. It is so advanced innovation that they are all broke while pursuing it ..."
    "... A more realistic scenario would be a drop in US C+C output of 500 to 1000 kb/d by Dec 2016, depending upon oil prices, low prices (under $50/b) are more likely to result in a bigger decline in output, near the high end of my range. If prices make it to $70/b by the end of 2016 we may only see a 500 kb/d decline. I have no clue what will happen to oil prices, only Watcher knows. ..."
    "... IMF expects World growth at 3.3% in 2015 and 3.8% in 2016, 2014 was 3.4%. ..."
    "... Now that they do know that much of US shale is a financial sham, they should cut and let US shale play itself out. But I think Gulf OPEC will have to lose a lot more money before they will admit they were wrong. It is tough for most people to admit they were wrong, particularly those in power. ..."
    "... I admit I was dead wrong. I thought $60-65 WTI would pretty much kill shale drilling and completions off. But my mistake was the same one as Gulf OPEC's. I did not understand the financial side of LTO. Ultimately, neither the US government nor populace, outside those in the industry, give a crap about any of this. Gasoline is $1.79. To 99.5% of the country, that is AWESOME. ..."
    "... OPEC needs to wake up pretty quickly. Not cutting is hurting them a heck of a lot more than any damage they are doing to US shale or Russia, IMO. But if Gulf OPEC wants deplete their reserves and destroy their weaker member countries, that is their right. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS , 11/16/2015 at 8:28 pm

    They have charts for Eagle Ford and Permian production of oil, condensate and natural gas:

    http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/major-oil-gas-formations/eagle-ford-shale/
    http://www.rrc.state.tx.us/oil-gas/major-oil-gas-formations/permian-basin/

    Texas Permian Basin Oil Production 2008 through August 2015

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/17/2015 at 3:31 am

    Matt,

    Thanks for the link, which is very interesting, especially the chart about well productivity. As the monthly decline of Eagle Ford accelerated over the latest few months (see below chart), I am wondering if the shale decline would be much steeper and faster as currently forecast. The reason could be the fast declining well productivity (-11.5% for North Dakota and -17% for Bakken in September).

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/17/2015 at 3:13 pm
    Dennis,

    As the amount of producing wells increases, the number of new wells must increase accordingly. If companies want to keep production flat, they must actually increase wells more and more over time. It is also the law of high numbers, which eventually brings down any trend. However, at these low prices companies simply cannot increase the number of new wells and production declines as the proportion of faster declining wells increases. Nevertheless, the decline is now enormous.

    If you think about the -78 000 bbl/d and month decline in the Eagle Ford, it means that the Eagle Ford is extinct by the end of next year. And so far there is no end in sight of the decline in production. Only a major event – a spike in oil prices – can stop this. You can calculate this also by the monthly decline of the growth rate, which is around 2 % per month and accelerating. So in around one year the decline will be at least 30%, which is nearly 3 mill bbl/d. And this is conservative as this assumes a roughly stable decline rate from now on. So far, the decline rate has increased steadily. This is what the numbers say and I have just assumptions what the reason for this decline may be. In my view most people and investors are not aware how dire the situation for shale companies is.

    Ves, 11/17/2015 at 3:41 pm
    Heinrich: "In my view most people and investors are not aware how dire the situation for shale companies is."

    How they can be aware? Don't you see that shale companies are talking in some dialect of shale Esperanto language that only they can understand :)
    Thousands of blogs and articles by experts and nobody can coherently explain in two paragraphs what technological innovation we are talking about. It is so advanced innovation that they are all broke while pursuing it
    :) LOL

    Dennis Coyne, 11/17/2015 at 5:29 pm
    Note to all,

    A more realistic scenario would be a drop in US C+C output of 500 to 1000 kb/d by Dec 2016, depending upon oil prices, low prices (under $50/b) are more likely to result in a bigger decline in output, near the high end of my range. If prices make it to $70/b by the end of 2016 we may only see a 500 kb/d decline. I have no clue what will happen to oil prices, only Watcher knows.

    Carl, 11/17/2015 at 10:18 am
    AlexS,

    If you read Donald Regan's book and talk to Don Hodell – Secretary of Energy a coordinated plan was developed by William Casey to flood the oil markets in 1986. This is fact, not fiction. The prolonged price drop was coordinated by the Reagan Administration with the Saudi leadership and expedited the financial demise of the Soviet Union. It also demolished the oil industry and gave the OPEC countries total control of the oil markets until the recent Canadian Oil Sand ramp up and the US Shale Boom. Does the current situation sound familiar? The current prolonged price drop brought Iran to the bargaining table and Russia became more amenable to discussion's on the Ukraine.

    Russia would not directly attack Gwahar. Russia weapons would be used(Currently in Syria) and ISIS or Iran would get the blame. Wars in the Middle East are expensive.

    Gorbachov's policy's were stupid and Putin's are scary!

    If Russia is not in the Middle East to control the oil reserves, why are they in Syria? Human rights and suffering?

    RHall, 11/16/2015 at 8:17 pm

    Interesting read on the financialization and boom bust of oil from Chris Cook:
    http://en.trend.az/business/energy/2456914.html

    Watcher, 11/17/2015 at 12:04 pm

    August this year

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/why-chinas-thirst-for-oil-cant-lift-prices-1440574814

    The country's crude imports jumped 22% in July compared with a year ago, to 7.25 million barrels a day, according to customs data. That sort of surge might prove unsustainable, but China's oil imports could still rise by over 7% this year, according to Citi Research.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/jefferies-china-s-demand-for-oil-is-totally-misunderstood-by-the-market

    Yu's team has grown more than a little sick of reports linking weakness in crude oil prices to softening economic data in China. There's one big problem with this narrative, according to the analysts: Chinese oil demand is actually quite robust, up 9.2 percent year-over-year, as of August.

    Imagine that.

    Glenn Stehle , 11/17/2015 at 12:13 pm
    Watcher said:

    The country's crude imports jumped 22% in July compared with a year ago, to 7.25 million barrels a day, according to customs data.

    Hum. It sounds like the anti-carbon crowd isn't having much success in the battle to win friends and influence people.

    AlexS, 11/17/2015 at 12:36 pm
    The Chinese are replenishing their strategic and commercial oil reserves at time of low oil prices. But the underlying consumption also keeps growing
    Watcher , 11/17/2015 at 1:35 pm
    And causing lower oil prices!

    Imagine that.

    Dennis Coyne, 11/17/2015 at 3:34 pm
    Hi Watcher,

    Chinese demand can increase while demand in other areas decreases as it is a World market. Also the fall is a time when refineries shut down for maintenance, oil in storage increases, and prices decrease, it happens most years. The IEA shows world output being flat from August to September, and price may have decreased due to worries over too much supply when Iran starts ramping up production and because US output is falling more slowly than some have predicted.

    At some point the excess oil in storage will decrease and oil prices will increase. I will leave it to you to predict when that might occur. No doubt you will claim that oil will remain under $50/b forever.

    Ron Patterson , 11/18/2015 at 2:05 pm
    Dennis, I have no idea what oil prices will do but I can only say I am not nearly as optimistic as you. I see the economy playing a far bigger part in this drama than you seem to believe.

    The Chinese economy is shaky and things are going downhill fast there. The Chinese economy getting worse will, very likely, keep a cap on oil prices.

    My best guess is that oil production will keep falling and the price of WTI will not recover above $50 for years… if ever. Sick economies around the world will keep demand and prices down for the foreseeable future.

    Of course that is just my opinion. Things could improve in the future. But I just don't see that happening. We are very likely well past peak economy right now. The downhill slide of the economy is the primary cause of falling demand and falling oil prices.

    Dennis Coyne, 11/18/2015 at 3:16 pm
    Hi Ron,

    IMF expects World growth at 3.3% in 2015 and 3.8% in 2016, 2014 was 3.4%.

    http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2015/update/02/

    Kopits expects oil prices to rise

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/11/13/

    Though he predicted this in Feb 2015 for late 2015 and has been wrong.

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/19/2015 at 2:34 am

    Dennis,

    The oil price can only rise when US production will fall by at least 2 mill bbl/d. The sooner US production falls the earlier the oil price would rise. Saudi Arabia simply cannot cut as they then lose market share. US companies could also sit out and wait until low cost producers run out of capacity, yet this will take years and I doubt US companies have the cash to sustain it.

    AlexS, 11/18/2015 at 4:20 pm
    Global oil demand growth: most recent estimates by IEA, EIA and OPEC (mb/d)
    2014 2015 2016
    IEA 0.84 1.82 1.21
    EIA 1.26 1.41 1.4
    OPEC 1.0 1.5 1.25

    shallow sand, 11/18/2015 at 4:56 pm

    Ron, if WTI stays below $50 for several years, there should be a massive US LTO high yield bond default. A ton of that junk comes due between 2018-2022. Of course, the finance people will figure out a way to extend and pretend. OPEC should be aware of this by now.

    I still think OPEC will cut production significantly at some point. OPEC countries are staring at significant financial peril. Many are there now. There would be a cut 12/4/15. However, KSA and their Gulf neighbors were pretty smug on Thanksgiving, 2014 when they refused to cut. They have to save face.

    KSA did not understand how US shale works then (I did not either at that time).

    Now that they do know that much of US shale is a financial sham, they should cut and let US shale play itself out. But I think Gulf OPEC will have to lose a lot more money before they will admit they were wrong. It is tough for most people to admit they were wrong, particularly those in power.

    I admit I was dead wrong. I thought $60-65 WTI would pretty much kill shale drilling and completions off. But my mistake was the same one as Gulf OPEC's. I did not understand the financial side of LTO. Ultimately, neither the US government nor populace, outside those in the industry, give a crap about any of this. Gasoline is $1.79. To 99.5% of the country, that is AWESOME.

    Furthermore, I will take Russia over Gulf OPEC any day as to who will survive. Russia is a heck of a lot more diverse economically than Gulf OPEC, and they do not have the same demographic challenges.

    OPEC needs to wake up pretty quickly. Not cutting is hurting them a heck of a lot more than any damage they are doing to US shale or Russia, IMO. But if Gulf OPEC wants deplete their reserves and destroy their weaker member countries, that is their right.

    Watcher, 11/18/2015 at 12:45 pm

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-29/jefferies-china-s-demand-for-oil-is-totally-misunderstood-by-the-market

    Yu's team has grown more than a little sick of reports linking weakness in crude oil prices to softening economic data in China. There's one big problem with this narrative, according to the analysts: Chinese oil demand is actually quite robust, up 9.2 percent year-over-year, as of August.

    Watcher , 11/18/2015 at 5:49 pm
    In the interests of a pure experience, let's sashay over to India.

    http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2015/08/07/indias-rise-to-3rd-place-in-oil-demand/

    Cool graph saying Japan, with lower prices, is choosing to demand less, and son of a gun if they ain't somewhere about 120 yen to a dollar, showing no signs of exploding to 150.

    But more to the point, India's demand is up 300Kbpd on the year, which ain't hay. Since 2005, India has been responsible for 20% of incremental global oil demand increase, versus 55% for China.

    They ain't slowing down, either. And that slope of that blue line is steeper than the decline of the red, so they are more than undoing Japan.

    Useful tidbit, Jeffrey:

    Gasoline use is up 20% this year, but still only accounts for 10% of India's oil demand, versus 20% in China and 47% in the U.S. Fourth globally, behind the U.S., China, and Russia, India now has a refining capacity of 4.5 million b/d, double the capacity of 2006. This is more than any country in the Middle East (Saudi Arabia leads at 2.9 million b/d), and potentially reaching 6.3 million b/d by 2020. Within a few years, India could become the world's largest market for diesel cars, now standing at over 50% of the fleet.

    Why export US light oil when no one will use it?

    But I digress. No evidence of demand fall. Given China's monthly car buy and the item above, evidence of demand increase.

    Donn Hewes, 11/19/2015 at 5:58 am

    Here is my problem with "supply and demand" as you call it. Robert Rapier recently posted a very cogent description of the five stage of a standard boom and bust cycle for oil. This description implies and I think many folks believe that each stage is driven by the one in front of it and therefore completely unavoidable. For example: a rise in price will "always" lead to a rise in production and a fall in price will "always" lead to a rise in consumption.

    Unfortunately, if you believe in peak oil as I do, and most posters here do; you realize that at some point this "cycle" will not perform as per normal. Is it guaranteed that the only point in the cycle that can fail is when very high prices fail to yield ever more production?

    I think it is possible for anyone of these links in the "business cycle" to fail. I don't think the boom and bust cycle alone is a guarantee of future production in one year, or three, or ten.

    Watcher, 11/18/2015 at 5:53 pm
    The lesson of the price crash is that if you have a central bank, you can lend money to your domestic drillers and get all the production that is geologically possible with more or less no economic aspect to it.
    AlexS, 11/18/2015 at 6:08 pm
    Watcher,
    This is a lesson from the US oil industry. It does not apply to other countries, particularly Russia. All Russian companies are profitable and generate free cashflow even at current low oil prices.

    Doug Leighton, 11/19/2015 at 10:54 am

    The World Bank Commodity Forecast has oil at $54.6 in 2017 (Nominal US$). Personally, I don't have faintest idea. But, if I were forced to make a guess it would be that by 2017 we will be well into a worldwide economic recession with correspondingly low oil prices: my opinion on this is worth absolutely nothing. BTW the World Bank Forecast doesn't have oil at your $75 until 2022.
    Dennis Coyne, 11/19/2015 at 2:25 pm
    Hi Doug,

    I guess it depends on who you believe. The EIA forecasts Brent (in 2013$) to be $76/b in 2017 in their reference scenario. The low price scenario has the oil price at $52/b in 2017. Note that the low price scenario assumes higher oil output.

    My expectation is that low oil prices will eventually reduce supply and will also tend to increase economic growth so that eventually demand growth will outpace supply growth, the excess oil inventory will be reduced to normal levels and oil prices will begin to rise.

    Just like you I do not know how quickly this will occur. Different agencies have different estimates.

    I just don't see the expensive oil producers continuing to lose money for 2 more years, so it seems that oil supply will decrease, usually this would lead to a price increase at normal levels of Worldwide economic growth of 3.3% per year.

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/19/2015 at 3:30 pm

    Dennis,

    The oil price depends on two factors: OPEC and US production. A cut of US production of 2 mill bbl/d has the same effect as a cut of 4 mill bbl/d from OPEC. If US production does not decline, oil prices will rise very slowly – if at all and it will take years until the oil price can rise – even if OPEC cuts. The IEA has the scenario that US production will fall by 2020 by 3 mill bbl/d if oil stays at 40 USD per barrel. And then, the oil price will rise. My scenario is that US oil production will fall by 3 mill bbl/d by the end of 2016 – which will bring the oil price back up again by 2017. I know this sounds somehow like a fast adjustment, yet I know also that change is very swift in the commodity business if it is necessary. I have the gut feeling that OPEC collapses and just everybody produces as much as possible, which will drive oil further down in the short term, yet will bring an oil price recovery much earlier. This is my take on oil which tends to overshoot on the upside and the downside when the market balances itself -at least within the last decade.

    Dennis Coyne , 11/19/2015 at 5:21 pm
    Hi Heinrich,

    So why does a 2Mb/d cut in the US have the same effect on the World oil market as a 4 Mb/d cut by OPEC? Last I checked oil is traded pretty freely on World markets (with the exception of the US that does not allow exports, a stupid policy), so this makes very little sense. Can you explain your reasoning? Also do you expect that World output needs to drop by 2 Mb/d or 3 Mb/d or maybe 4 Mb/d? Don't you think if supply stops growing the demand growth of 1.2 Mb/d will reduce the 300 Mb of extra inventory in about a year, maybe a year and a half.

    Also all of the drop in output does not need to come from the US, some could come from other non-OPEC producers. A recession would also reduce output, but demand and supply would both fall and oil price recovery would need to wait for an economic recovery. I just don't think more than a 1000 kb/d drop in US output is very likely. If your scenario of thousands (are you thinking 2000 or 8000?) of LTO wells being abandoned proves correct, then perhaps we might see a higher decrease in US output, that was what I was expecting when I thought oil prices would quickly recover. That expectation now seems incorrect and even if all new well completion stops in the Eagle Ford and Bakken we get only a 1400 kb/d drop, if we add in the permian (more of a guess because I have no model, maybe another 700 kb/d for a 2100 kb/d drop. With the thousands of well you believe will be abandoned, possibly we get another 500 kb/d (it will mostly be low output wells that are abandoned, if they average 10 b/d, then we would need 50,000 wells, and 25,000 wells at an average of 20 b/d just to get a 500 kb/d drop. I doubt there are that many wells in all of the Eagle Ford and Bakken to accomplish this as the total wells producing in the two plays is only around 20,000 wells, perhaps some Permian wells will be shut in also, but most of the older wells there are conventional wells that are low cost to run.

    I would love to hear what the oil industry guys think about your scenario, it just doesn't seem to make sense to me.

    [Nov 20, 2015] The Age of Gas

    Notable quotes:
    "... The combination of inflated $ oil prices and Saudi/GCC $ oil proceeds invested in the US (which became known as Petrodollars) enabled the US between 2009 and 2014 to fund the development of an additional 5m barrels per day of high cost shale oil. ..."
    "... the US reduced fuel demand by some 2m barrels per day over the period. ..."
    "... This largely Saudi/GCC funded US oil market manipulation on a heroic scale was made possible by the completely dysfunctional nature – which I have documented for half a decade – of the global benchmark Brent crude oil market price and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) market platform on which the Brent Complex of contracts is traded. The outcome is that the US has at last freed themselves of reliance on the Saudis who have increasingly become an embarrassment. So the 70 year relationship between the US and the Saudis has now changed drastically, beginning with a switch by the Saudis from Petrodollars to Petroeuros. ..."
    "... The result was that the private sector received the funding needed for what has been termed a Dark Inventory of leased or borrowed oil. The continuing market oversupply of oil has gradually filled global oil storage, and in my analysis this has been funded by Saudi/GCC Petroeuros and ECB € liquidity. ..."
    "... for refining and consumption ..."
    "... Meanwhile, on the supply side, producers are competing to produce oil as fast as they can in a race to the bottom. This brings me to the question of OPECs strategy as promulgated by the dominant Saudi/GCC OPEC faction. It is said that there are always two reasons for an action: the reason given, and the real reason. The rationale given by Saudi Arabia to OPEC and to the world for pumping oil flat out is that they aim to preserve market share and to destroy competition from US shale oil. ..."
    en.trend.az
    ... ... ... In my analysis, the US successfully engineered for reasons of energy security a five year oil market bubble. They inflated and supported the oil price above $80/barrel using as capital a combination of passive ('inflation hedging') private fund investment and Saudi/Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) reserve assets. The necessary liquidity came from QE dollars printed by the Fed.

    Why on Earth would the greatest global energy user support high energy prices? The reason – as in 1973 after the Oil Shock – is that the US is able to pay for oil in dollars manufactured out of thin air by their deficit-based $ banking system. The combination of inflated $ oil prices and Saudi/GCC $ oil proceeds invested in the US (which became known as Petrodollars) enabled the US between 2009 and 2014 to fund the development of an additional 5m barrels per day of high cost shale oil.

    This essentially repeated the method by which, after the 1973 Oil Shock, the US and UK had been able to use the original wave of Petrodollars to finance development of relatively high cost Alaskan, US Gulf and North Sea crude oil and hence re-establish a measure of energy security.

    However, the US also found, as an unintended consequence, that these inflated $ price levels also led to massive investment in renewable energy – which substitutes for carbon fuel – and to the cheapest carbon fuel of all (Nega Barrels of carbon fuel savings) where the US reduced fuel demand by some 2m barrels per day over the period.

    This largely Saudi/GCC funded US oil market manipulation on a heroic scale was made possible by the completely dysfunctional nature – which I have documented for half a decade – of the global benchmark Brent crude oil market price and the Intercontinental Exchange (ICE) market platform on which the Brent Complex of contracts is traded. The outcome is that the US has at last freed themselves of reliance on the Saudis who have increasingly become an embarrassment. So the 70 year relationship between the US and the Saudis has now changed drastically, beginning with a switch by the Saudis from Petrodollars to Petroeuros.

    In January 2015 the Saudis/GCC used precisely the same techniques as in the previous US $ financed oil bubble to successfully and rapidly (within six weeks) re-inflate the oil market price to over $60 per barrel. This time, the Saudis/GCC achieved market price support by swapping Bunds (ie € denominated German sovereign debt) instead of US Treasury Bills for leased oil inventory, The necessary € liquidity came from Quantitative Easing by the European Central Bank.

    The result was that the private sector received the funding needed for what has been termed a 'Dark Inventory' of leased or borrowed oil. The continuing market oversupply of oil has gradually filled global oil storage, and in my analysis this has been funded by Saudi/GCC Petroeuros and ECB € liquidity.

    Unfortunately for this Saudi/GCC market support strategy, global oil demand for refining and consumption has been either relatively flat or possibly even falling. This oil market reality has been clouded by demand from China and other oil consumer nations for oil to store in strategic reserves. This demand is not only for physical energy security reasons, but also because these nations calculate that it is economically preferable – at zero interest rates - to hold oil reserves rather than Dollar or Euro reserves.

    Meanwhile, on the supply side, producers are competing to produce oil as fast as they can in a race to the bottom. This brings me to the question of OPEC's strategy as promulgated by the dominant Saudi/GCC OPEC faction. It is said that there are always two reasons for an action: the reason given, and the real reason. The rationale given by Saudi Arabia to OPEC and to the world for pumping oil flat out is that they aim to preserve market share and to destroy competition from US shale oil.

    ... ... ... ...

    Chris Cook is a former director of the International Petroleum Exchange. He is now a strategic market consultant, entrepreneur and a commentator.

    [Nov 20, 2015] The Most Bullish Chart for 2015 Oil Prices

    Predictions are hard. especially about future. This is from Jan, 2015.
    Notable quotes:
    "... In December, Kopits notes, that U.S. oil consumption rose 4.4% year on year. That equates to an increase of 800,000 barrels per day. ..."
    "... To put that in perspective, consider that the December increase in the United States alone is equal to the IEA's full-year 2015 forecast for global oil demand. If U.S. demand were to stay at December levels, IEA's demand forecast would be almost a million barrels too low. ..."
    "... On the supply side, Kopits reminded me that the only source of oil production growth last year was North America, and that all of the three main observatory bodies were still predicting significant growth again in 2015. Kopits is highly skeptical of that and believes that it is far more likely we see U.S. oil production declining by the second half of 2015. ..."
    Jan 27, 2015 | dailyreckoning.com

    ...Last week, Kopits posted this graph:

    REC_01-27-15_Oil2

    The graph illustrates the daily difference between global oil demand and supply. A positive number means daily oil supply exceeds demand. A negative number means daily oil demand exceeds supply.

    Obviously, a positive figure (supply surplus) is bearish for oil prices, while a negative figure (supply excess) is bullish.

    The four lines on the chart represent the data from the three organizations that observe the oil market and from Kopits' firm (Prienga). Just for clarity, the three main organizations that observe the oil market and are included in the graph are the International Energy Agency, OPEC and the Energy Information Agency.

    Looking backward, all four lines show an oversupplied oil market dating back to March 2014. Looking forward, the IEA, OPEC and the EIA all believe that oversupply will continue through the end of 2015 to various degrees.

    As you can clearly tell from the graph, Prienga has a very different view.

    The forward-looking numbers from Kopits show the market moving dramatically into a supply shortage of over 2 million barrels per day by June 2015 and getting larger as the year goes on. To say this view is different from the consensus view would be an understatement, and not a mild one. If accurate, the data above suggest that oil prices are going to come roaring back in the second half of 2015.

    I was able to get in touch with Kopits via his website/blog to try and get some additional color on the assumptions that went into his graph. Here's what he told me…

    The first thing that he pointed to is the big demand response that we have already seen in the United States to lower oil prices, and the fact that the IEA, EIA and OPEC have some very pessimistic 2015 demand assumptions.

    In December, Kopits notes, that U.S. oil consumption rose 4.4% year on year. That equates to an increase of 800,000 barrels per day.

    To put that in perspective, consider that the December increase in the United States alone is equal to the IEA's full-year 2015 forecast for global oil demand. If U.S. demand were to stay at December levels, IEA's demand forecast would be almost a million barrels too low.

    For his graph, Kopits modeled the OECD demand growth that was experienced in 1986 subsequent to the 1985 oil price collapse.

    On the supply side, Kopits reminded me that the only source of oil production growth last year was North America, and that all of the three main observatory bodies were still predicting significant growth again in 2015. Kopits is highly skeptical of that and believes that it is far more likely we see U.S. oil production declining by the second half of 2015.

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 19, 2015] Saudi Oil Minister Says OPEC With Others to Stabilize Market

    Notable quotes:
    "... Crude demand is expected to rise by 1 million barrels a day every year in this decade, and the world requires more investments in oil to compensate for declining recovery rates, he said. The recovery rate for all the worlds oil fields [annually] is decreasing by about 4 million barrels a day, he said. ..."
    "... The oil market will start to re-balance next year and prices will improve, Matar al-Neyadi, energy undersecretary for the United Arab Emirates, said at the conference. ..."
    "... Current U.S. shale output is slightly less than 5 million barrels a day and will drop by 900,000 barrels daily in 2016, ..."
    "... Total U.S. oil production wont recover to its recent peak until at least 2018, he said. ..."
    www.bloomberg.com

    ...And just today the Saudi Finance Minister stated

    "Crude demand is expected to rise by 1 million barrels a day every year in this decade, and the world requires more investments in oil to compensate for declining recovery rates, he said. The recovery rate for all the world's oil fields [annually] is decreasing by about 4 million barrels a day, he said."

    ... The oil market will start to re-balance next year and prices will improve, Matar al-Neyadi, energy undersecretary for the United Arab Emirates, said at the conference.

    ... Current U.S. shale output is slightly less than 5 million barrels a day and will drop by 900,000 barrels daily in 2016, Paul Horsnell, head of commodities research at Standard Chartered Plc, said at the Bahrain conference. Total U.S. oil production won't recover to its recent peak until at least 2018, he said.

    [Nov 19, 2015] Suncor Remains Bearish On Canadian Crude, Cuts 2016 Production

    Nov 19, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Suncor Energy (TSX, NYSE:SU), Canada's dominant oil sands player, warned Tuesday that production would drop next year as a result of major planned maintenance work at its facilities. The company, however, intends to increase capital spending in 2016 by around 15% from this year. That means it has added $900 million to its budget, despite its pessimistic outlook for commodity prices.

    Suncor expects U.S. benchmark crude to remain unchanged at $50 a barrel, while predicts that Canadian heavy oil will trade $2 lower in 2016 than this year's forecast.

    ... ... ...

    By Cecilia Jamasmie via Mining.com

    [Nov 19, 2015] Productivity of Oasis Petroleum wells

    peakoilbarrel.com
    shallow sand, 11/19/2015 at 4:58 pm

    There was some discussion on an investor oriented site that shale companies should disclose individual well data. The particular company being discussed was Oasis Petroleum. Thought it might be interesting to look at most recent reported month well production data for Bakken and TFS wells they operate in ND. May be of interest to a few who read/post here. Kind of makes points about both the Red Queen and "core areas".

    Listed below are field, number of producing wells and barrels of oil per day per well by field:

    Alger 46 wells 97.91 bopd per well.
    Alkali Creek 8 wells 77.46
    Assiniboine 4 wells 40.28
    Baker 30 wells 198.22
    Baker Confidential 15 wells sales of 410.82 bopd per well
    Banks 20 wells 76.65
    Black Slough 3 wells 21.29
    Bonetrail 6 wells 57.68
    Bull Butte 29 wells 39.40
    Camp 51 wells 102.24
    Cottonwood 83 wells 47.77
    Cow Creek 24 wells 104.4
    Crazy man Creek 6 wells 78.41
    Dore 5 wells 61.14
    Dublin 2 wells 59.68
    Eight mile 8 wells 85.36
    Elidah 2 wells 59.07
    Elk 2 wells 47.30
    Enget Lake 5 wells 69.83
    Foothills 9 wells 54.52
    Foreman Butte 11 wells 86.79
    Ft. Buford 3 wells 31.84
    Glass Bluff 3 wells 56.02
    Gros Centre 38 wells 51.69
    Harding 1 well 62.60
    Hebron 1 well 68.33
    Indian Hill 3 wells 37.37
    Lake Trenton 3 wells 42.16
    Leaf mountain 1 well 20.60
    Leaf mountain Confidential 1 well 149.50 Sales
    Lucy 2 wells 69.73
    Marmon 2 wells 51.62
    Missouri Ridge 22 wells 93.13
    Mondak 3 wells 36.12
    North Tioga 1 well 56.37
    North Tobacco Garden 2 wells 67.08
    Painted Woods 9 wells 46.72
    Pronghorn 2 wells 63.33
    Randoplh 1 well 58.87
    Rawson 1 well 73.63
    Rosebud 7 wells 60.21
    Sand Creek 1 well 41.23
    Sanish 19 wells 163.95
    Sanish Confidential 3 wells 412.68 sales
    Siverston 13 wells 99.90
    Squires 13 wells 39.16
    Strahndal 1 well shut in 0
    Todd 3 wells 91.61
    Todd Confidential 3 wells 594.10
    Trenton 2 wells 120.60
    Tyrone 42 wells 93.08
    Viking 1 well 62.76
    Willow Creek 24 wells 86.58

    Again, the second number is barrels of oil per day per well in the field for the month of September, 2015, for Oasis Petroleum. Tried to be accurate, but could be a typo, but not anything high volume. Also, for Bakken and TFS only. Oasis has many other wells in ND and they are trying to sell them. Many are shut in.

    When reviewing data, pretty obvious that almost all high volume wells (over 150 bopd) are relatively new. So, most wells are 30-70 bopd range.

    Here is what a 60 bopd well generates assuming $10,000 per month LOE, $100,000 in CAPEX repairs, 20% royalty, 60 mcfpd gas, all sold, 10% severance, $2.50 per BOE G & A:

    17,520 net barrels of oil @ $35 per barrel = $613,200.00
    17,520 net mcf of gas @ $2 per mcf = $35,040.00
    Less:
    Severance ($68,824)
    LOE($120,000)
    CAPEX Repairs ($100,000)
    G & A ($51,100)

    Net before interest, principal and taxes $308,316.00

    I used $10K rather than $14K as I am assuming the 60 bopd well is producing less water and therefore OPEX/LOE is less.

    Oasis has $2,380,000,000.00 of long term debt that will need to be retired from the above wells' net proceeds.

    [Nov 19, 2015] How Congress Set Itself Up to Get Fleeced by Oil Traders

    finance.yahoo.com

    ...forecast relied on oil, which is currently sitting at around $40 a barrel, to jump to more than $70 by 2018, $80 by 2019, and more than $95 by 2024. In all but the first year of sales, the estimates fall short of the forecasts of the U.S. Energy Information Administration. The futures market is even less forgiving.

    ... ... ...

    Energy Secretary Ernest Moniz, even in acknowledging the shift in U.S. energy security, called sales as a money-raising mechanism "a very slippery slope." Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee Chair Lisa Murkowski, an Alaska Republican, was more pointed during an Oct. 6 hearing on modernizing the SPR.

    "We are looking at this as nothing more than a cash machine at a time when we're looking for more money, and I think that this is wrong, and I think that this is irresponsible," Murkowski said.

    The budget agreement does include up to $2 billion to upgrade and modernize the current SPR facilities-a tradeoff that Jason Bordoff, a former top energy official on the staff of Obama's National Security Council, said is worth it. Even staunch defenders of the reserve note that changes in U.S. production and infrastructure have left the facilities out of date. "If selling a fraction of the SPR's 694 million barrels is the only way to make sure the SPR can be accessed, it's better than doing nothing," Bordoff wrote in an Oct. 29 opinion piece in the Hill.

    [Nov 19, 2015] Oil Prices Poised to Surge

    Notable quotes:
    "... a new global oil player is coming in off the sidelines: India. And India could change the demand dynamic yet again for the oil industry - and ultimately, oil prices. ..."
    "... India's oil demand broke out to even higher levels in a trend that started in December last year. By February, oil consumption rose to a record 3.91 million barrels a day, the second highest ever recorded in the country. ..."
    "... Yet last month, passenger car sales rose 22%, the fastest pace in nearly five years. In fact, in that same half-decade period, car sales rose more than 33% to 2.6 million total passenger vehicles a year. The Indian car manufacturers' association expects sales to grow another 6 to 8% in fiscal 2016. ..."
    "... That may not seem like much in a nation of 1.25 billion people. Then again, it was only 10 years ago that Chinese drivers were buying about that many passenger cars annually. This year, they'll buy almost 18 million , up 38% in the last five years, despite the slowing of its economy in the last few years. ..."
    "... While China's population of "working age" consumers has already peaked, India's is still growing. And demographers say it will keep growing for the next 30 years or so. ..."
    "... Raymond James recently came out with a research note on global oil demand in 2015. Driven in part by India's economic growth, oil demand is up by about 2 million barrels a day, or 2%. That's actually the fastest demand growth for oil since 2004, if you exclude the impact of the "snapback" year of 2010 when the world economy surged out of the trough created by the financial crisis. ..."
    thesovereigninvestor.com
    ... Just last week, The Financial Times' headline said it all: Oil Glut to Swamp Demand Until 2020.

    The report was based on the dire assessment of the International Energy Agency. Thanks to China's slowing growth, said one of the group's bureaucrats, "We are approaching the end of the single largest demand growth story in energy history."

    But amid the hand-wringing, a new global oil player is coming in off the sidelines: India. And India could change the demand dynamic yet again for the oil industry - and ultimately, oil prices.

    Oil Prices Poised to Surge

    India produces some of its own oil. But as the U.S. Energy Information Administration noted last year, the country is increasingly dependent on imported fossil fuels. The agency ranks India as the fourth largest consumer of oil imports behind the U.S., China and Japan. Other groups, using more updated data, rank India third.

    But as the Oxford Institute for Energy Studies recently noted, India's oil demand broke out to even higher levels in a trend that started in December last year. By February, oil consumption rose to a record 3.91 million barrels a day, the second highest ever recorded in the country. The trend continues despite the removal of fuel subsidies and the imposition of excise taxes by the reformist Modi government.

    What's going on? For one, Indians are learning to love cars.

    When many of us think of India's transportation networks, we think of creaky overcrowded trains, millions of motorcycles and ubiquitous three-wheeled "auto rickshaws" on narrow streets. Cars weren't really a significant economic factor in energy demand.

    Yet last month, passenger car sales rose 22%, the fastest pace in nearly five years. In fact, in that same half-decade period, car sales rose more than 33% to 2.6 million total passenger vehicles a year. The Indian car manufacturers' association expects sales to grow another 6 to 8% in fiscal 2016.

    That may not seem like much in a nation of 1.25 billion people. Then again, it was only 10 years ago that Chinese drivers were buying about that many passenger cars annually. This year, they'll buy almost 18 million, up 38% in the last five years, despite the slowing of its economy in the last few years.

    Here's where India's energy consumption story diverges from China…

    A Different Demographic of Growth

    While China's population of "working age" consumers has already peaked, India's is still growing. And demographers say it will keep growing for the next 30 years or so.

    You can see where this is heading for India and global energy prices. If oil demand in India grows to what China's is right now, then the world somehow needs to produce a lot more oil (approximately 7 million barrels a day by some estimates) within just a handful of years.

    Raymond James recently came out with a research note on global oil demand in 2015. Driven in part by India's economic growth, oil demand is up by about 2 million barrels a day, or 2%. That's actually the fastest demand growth for oil since 2004, if you exclude the impact of the "snapback" year of 2010 when the world economy surged out of the trough created by the financial crisis.

    What's the takeaway here?

    Wall Street and others may be worried about an overabundance of oil in the here and now. But don't get used to it. Low oil prices mean less exploration and less production. We've already started seeing numerous production companies slashing their exploration plans and capital expenditures. And with that, the seeds are sown for the next cycle of high inflationary oil prices.

    [Nov 19, 2015] Following Shell, Statoil Withdraws From Arctic Alaska

    OilPrice.com
    Statoil acquired interest in the Chukchi leases for $23 million. Shell had spent $2.1 billion for its right to drill in the sea.

    The withdrawal of Statoil from Alaska is part of an industry-wide effort to cut costs in the face of persistently low oil prices. One area for savings is the Arctic, which is believed to have enormous energy resources but is an expensive area in which to operate.

    ...Conoco Phillips said Tuesday that it put its Chukchi Sea operations on hold. And during its conference call on Oct. 29 about third-quarter performance, the Houston-based company said it plans to exit all deepwater exploration by 2017 to save money.

    [Nov 19, 2015] Saudi Oil Minister Says OPEC With Others to Stabilize Market

    Notable quotes:
    "... Crude demand is expected to rise by 1 million barrels a day every year in this decade, and the world requires more investments in oil to compensate for declining recovery rates, he said. The recovery rate for all the worlds oil fields [annually] is decreasing by about 4 million barrels a day, he said. ..."
    "... The oil market will start to re-balance next year and prices will improve, Matar al-Neyadi, energy undersecretary for the United Arab Emirates, said at the conference. ..."
    "... Current U.S. shale output is slightly less than 5 million barrels a day and will drop by 900,000 barrels daily in 2016, ..."
    "... Total U.S. oil production wont recover to its recent peak until at least 2018, he said. ..."
    www.bloomberg.com

    ...And just today the Saudi Finance Minister stated

    "Crude demand is expected to rise by 1 million barrels a day every year in this decade, and the world requires more investments in oil to compensate for declining recovery rates, he said. The recovery rate for all the world's oil fields [annually] is decreasing by about 4 million barrels a day, he said."

    ... The oil market will start to re-balance next year and prices will improve, Matar al-Neyadi, energy undersecretary for the United Arab Emirates, said at the conference.

    ... Current U.S. shale output is slightly less than 5 million barrels a day and will drop by 900,000 barrels daily in 2016, Paul Horsnell, head of commodities research at Standard Chartered Plc, said at the Bahrain conference. Total U.S. oil production won't recover to its recent peak until at least 2018, he said.

    [Nov 18, 2015] Energy Markets Testing Some Big Investors

    So if OPEC is barely keeping its market share, and North America is starting to reduce its production, how oil can stay low for a long time?
    Nov 18, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Plummeting oil prices have beaten down the share prices of energy companies across the board, with some going out of business while others are struggling to hang on.

    With valuations of E&P companies a mere fraction of what they were from a year or two ago, big-time energy investors see a massive opening to scoop up investment positions on the cheap. The CEO of Avenue Capital Group, an investment firm focused on distressed securities, sees a "once-in-a-lifetime opportunity" in distressed energy companies.

    Related: UK Banking On Diesel To Maintain Energy Supply

    Marc Lasry spoke at the Reuters Global Investment Outlook Summit in New York on November 17, where he discussed his firm's big gamble on energy right now. "Either you will get paid off, or you will become the new equity of these companies, but you need the luxury of time. You need to be able to wait two or three or four years," he said. Lasry's Avenue Capital Group manages $13.2 billion in capital, and he recently raised money for a specialty fund investing in energy. "The whole market is oversold, and we're trying to take advantage," he said.

    But so far, the bet has not paid off. It seems every time that investors think the sector is turning a corner, the downturn persists and even deepens. Lasry admitted that his fund has lost money in the first few months since it was set up. But he sees the industry turning around in the coming years.

    ... ... ...

    For other investors, the payoff is too risky and too far away. A hedge fund in Chicago recently announced that it was giving up, having been burned by energy investments. Achievement Asset Management, one of Chicago's biggest hedge funds, has decided to return money to investors rather than continue to gamble on speculative energy debt. The fund, setup by former UBS executive Joseph Scoby, had over $2 billion under management in mid-2014, but that dropped to around $900 million recently. The hedge fund had gobbled up distressed energy debt, but oil prices have failed to rebound, leaving the firm with an array of losing positions. "Obviously, we did not make money in credit," Scoby told The Wall Street Journal. He blamed increasingly illiquid market, which made it difficult to move in and out of positions.

    [Nov 15, 2015] The Nobel Prize winning economist who ate cat food

    Notable quotes:
    "... And the moral of this tale, he says, is that he had been phished for a phool - or manipulated into buying something. ..."
    "... we live in a constructed world thats filled with deception like this. Fools or not ..."
    "... Phishing was initially coined to describe internet fraud, but Profs Shiller and Akerlof use it more broadly to cover a world of deception, and add the term phools to describe its victims. ..."
    "... The financial crisis of 2008 was caused in part, says Prof Shiller, by buyers being manipulated into buying financial products that were ultimately destructive to them and to society. ..."
    "... Most people will pick little shortcuts, little dishonesties, says Prof Shiller. You are pushed [to dishonesty] by many pressures, one is a sense of responsibility to your investors, another is to your employees. And you think everybody does this. Nobodys making a stink.... of course you do it, and the ones who dont do it are failing and going out of business. Thats a phishing equilibrium. ..."
    "... Profs Shiller and Akerlof argue that the free markets persuade us to do things with results that no one could possibly want... ..."
    November13. 2015 | http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34788197

    "Once upon a time a Nobel Prize winning economist had a cat called Lightning.

    Now, Lightning appeared to like his cat food, a rather pricey gourmet dish which claimed to be a cut above the rest. But maybe, thought the Nobel Prize winning economist, I have been fooled into thinking this cat food is a cut above the rest - when it isn't. There is only one way to find out, said the economist. And that is to eat it myself. And so he did. It was, he said with a giggle, pretty much like any other cat food.

    And the moral of this tale, he says, is that he had been "phished for a phool" - or manipulated into buying something.

    Now the economist in question, Robert Shiller and his fellow Nobel laureate George Akerlof, have written Phishing for Phools, about how the sellers of cat food and thousands of other products and services "phish" us into buying things we do not want or need.

    "Of course they do it," he says. "If you had a cat food company you wouldn't say 'Dried Dead Fish' on the label...we live in a constructed world that's filled with deception like this." Fools or not

    "Phishing" was initially coined to describe internet fraud, but Profs Shiller and Akerlof use it more broadly to cover a world of deception, and add the term "phools" to describe its victims.

    Being gulled into paying more for cat food is hardly a serious affair. But the two economists see it as a microcosm of something much bigger in society.

    The financial crisis of 2008 was caused in part, says Prof Shiller, by buyers being manipulated into buying financial products that were ultimately destructive to them and to society.

    So the sale of deeply flawed mortgage-backed securities and their accompanying credit-default swaps flourished on the back of free markets and the reputations of the banks and finance house that sold them.

    ... ... ...

    Profs Shiller and Akerlof argue that if people were fooling themselves there were plenty of others happy to help them on their way. ...The two authors are behavioral economists, who inject psychology and sociology into their economics. There's nothing new about that, but this latest foray into the "dismal art" has a distinctly dismal view of human nature.

    "Most people will pick little shortcuts, little dishonesties," says Prof Shiller. "You are pushed [to dishonesty] by many pressures, one is a sense of responsibility to your investors, another is to your employees. And you think everybody does this. "Nobody's making a stink.... of course you do it, and the ones who don't do it are failing and going out of business. That's a phishing equilibrium."

    ... ... ...

    Profs Shiller and Akerlof argue that the free markets persuade us to do things with results that no one could possibly want..."

    [Nov 14, 2015] Is a 'black box' agency hindering the outlook on US crude, condensate exports

    Notable quotes:
    "... infrastructure constraints, tight spreads and even contractual obligations from producers may have slowed the growth of the US processed condensate market, which may have peaked at an estimated 160,000 b/d in June and fell to as low as 30,000 b/d in September. ..."
    "... decline has been fueled by low crude oil prices, which have pushed Eagle Ford condensate production down by about 200,000 b/d, and a tightening of the WTI-Brent and LLS-Brent spread to about $3/b. At the same time, the construction of three new Gulf Coast splitters has boosted domestic demand for condensate, Nance said. ..."
    Nov 14, 2015 | The Barrel Blog

    When the Obama administration gave legal backing to exports of processed condensate exports last year, it fueled speculation that a more significant shift in US crude export policy was looming and that US producers may have found a new global export market to conquer.

    Much of that speculation has, thus far, fallen flat.

    The administration has signaled that it will not move to liberalize long-standing restrictions on crude exports nor will it back efforts by Congress to repeal these roughly 40-year-old limits, despite a fierce lobbying push to do so.

    At the same time, infrastructure constraints, tight spreads and even contractual obligations from producers may have slowed the growth of the US processed condensate market, which may have peaked at an estimated 160,000 b/d in June and fell to as low as 30,000 b/d in September.

    According to Stuart Nance, a vice president of marketing with Reliance, a Houston-based E&P company, that decline has been fueled by low crude oil prices, which have pushed Eagle Ford condensate production down by about 200,000 b/d, and a tightening of the WTI-Brent and LLS-Brent spread to about $3/b. At the same time, the construction of three new Gulf Coast splitters has boosted domestic demand for condensate, Nance said.

    In short, the relatively underwhelming launch of the US processed condensate export market has not matched the initial hype.

    [Nov 14, 2015] Bakken Big Decline in September

    Notable quotes:
    "... I believe from previous discussions, the 123 completions for the month was suppose to hold product steady, yet we have a 20,000 bopd decline. ..."
    "... Are the oil producers starting to pay for over producing their wells earlier in the year? I will be interested to see how the GORs are getting on. ..."
    "... As Burno Verwimp, pointed out, Aug / Sept were suppose to be the growth months. What is going to happen in the colder months? I think we know the direction. We just don't know how much. ..."
    "... If nothing else is obvious, it is clear that numbers reported by government agencies are seldom going to be very reliable at the cutting edge. LOL . There are too many different people using slightly to noticeably different data and collection and analysis procedures. ..."
    "... For over a year now it's been pretty clear that quite a lot of these numbers from NoDak are wrong. As far back as 2 yrs ago we could not make sense of wells completed vs output. A theory would be crafted and a month would arrive with data that blew it apart. ..."
    "... The wagons were circled aggressively about a year or so ago to aggressively deny that NGLs were getting into oil railcars, despite the infrastructure for processing / separation being less common in NoDak vs Texas. But. . . . certainly would variably corrupt numbers and we do have to face the facts that the numbers don't seem solid. ..."
    "... I wonder if the increased water is due to more frack stages and proppant being used now compared to 2008. The increased gas may simply be due to less flaring due to changes in regulations, but some of the increased gas might also be due to changes in well design (more frack stages and higher amounts of proppant. ..."
    Nov 14, 2015 | Peak Oil BarrelPeak Oil Barrel

    Toolpush, 11/14/2015 at 7:13 am

    From up top,

    "The number of well completions rose slightly from 115(final) in August to 123(preliminary) in September. "

    I believe from previous discussions, the 123 completions for the month was suppose to hold product steady, yet we have a 20,000 bopd decline. So,

    1/ Were the 123 wells brought online were that much poorer than the last months, 115 wells?
    2/The decline rates in older wells has increased?

    Are the oil producers starting to pay for over producing their wells earlier in the year? I will be interested to see how the GORs are getting on.

    Helms has really lost the plot with his DUCs. As Ron points out, for his numbers to be correct, there had to be 221 wells drilled in Sept, with 68 rigs. Folks that didn't happen. Enno is quoted in the last thread as saying they drilled 97 wells. This is a reasonable number. It also means the DUCs will have dropped 26, but from what number I have no idea.

    As Burno Verwimp, pointed out, Aug / Sept were suppose to be the growth months. What is going to happen in the colder months? I think we know the direction. We just don't know how much.

    oldfarmermac, 11/14/2015 at 9:22 am

    If nothing else is obvious, it is clear that numbers reported by government agencies are seldom going to be very reliable at the cutting edge. LOL . There are too many different people using slightly to noticeably different data and collection and analysis procedures.

    I am not a numbers cruncher but occasionally read statistics gathered by agricultural agencies, and no two agencies numbers ever match much better, in terms of the very recent past, than the oil numbers presented here. Like the oil numbers, they tend to come together as the months go by.

    Here is a link to somebody familiar to old TOD hands, who is still doing great work on oil.

    http://www.energytrendsinsider.com/columns/rsquared/

    Watcher, 11/14/2015 at 11:32 am

    For over a year now it's been pretty clear that quite a lot of these numbers from NoDak are wrong. As far back as 2 yrs ago we could not make sense of wells completed vs output. A theory would be crafted and a month would arrive with data that blew it apart.

    There are huge numbers being quoted for Bakken NGL output. Price seems to be nationally about $22.60 / barrel. At the well head . . . shrug.

    The wagons were circled aggressively about a year or so ago to aggressively deny that NGLs were getting into oil railcars, despite the infrastructure for processing / separation being less common in NoDak vs Texas. But. . . . certainly would variably corrupt numbers and we do have to face the facts that the numbers don't seem solid.

    This quote is a year old:

    "NGLs are routinely stripped from crude in other oil production areas, such as the Eagle Ford in Texas, but in those cases the infrastructure of stabilizers has been in place to do the job where the production sits relatively close to the robust NGL market on the Gulf Coast. North Dakota has no in-state petrochemical market (see Shale Daily, May 27) and is 1,500 miles away from the Gulf."

    AlexS , 11/14/2015 at 11:54 am

    Watcher,

    NDIC at least provides reliable production numbers. I wish we had similar statistics for Texas and other regions in the U.S. and worldwide. They also provide raw data on wells, which smart guys like Enno, Dennis and Bruno are processing and presenting to us in this blog.

    We already know that Lynn Helms' interpretation of their own statistics often is wrong, so don't take it too seriously and let's be grateful for what we have from the NDIC

    Dennis Coyne, 11/14/2015 at 2:12 pm

    Thanks Freddy. I wonder if the increased water is due to more frack stages and proppant being used now compared to 2008. The increased gas may simply be due to less flaring due to changes in regulations, but some of the increased gas might also be due to changes in well design (more frack stages and higher amounts of proppant.

    Dennis Coyne, 11/14/2015 at 4:39 pm

    Hi Toolpush,

    The water cut has been rising from the start of 2008, the recent rise in Gas cut may be due to reduced flaring. I assume flared gas is not measured precisely, and I would think it is not counted as "produced" gas. If I am correct, the new regulations which cuts back on flaring would increase the amount of produced gas. The Gas flaring reductions began in July 2014.

    http://www.platts.com/latest-news/natural-gas/houston/north-dakota-regulators-adopt-tough-gas-flaring-21841899

    [Nov 14, 2015] Record oil glut stands at 3bn barrels

    Notable quotes:
    "... A record glut of oil is set to continue into next year and maintain pressure on prices, the International Energy Agency said on Friday. Stockpiles stand at a record three billion, the IEA said in its monthly report. ..."
    "... Although lower oil prices will lead to a decline in US production next year, the IEA said it would take months to clear the glut. ..."
    "... Demand growth has risen to a five-year high of nearly two million barrels per day, ..."
    "... Gains in demand have been outpaced by vigorous production from OPEC and resilient non-OPEC supply. ..."
    Nov 14, 2015 | BBC News

    A record glut of oil is set to continue into next year and maintain pressure on prices, the International Energy Agency said on Friday. Stockpiles stand at a record three billion, the IEA said in its monthly report.

    ... ... ...

    Oil prices have more than halved in the past 18 months as US shale oil output and a refusal by nations in the OPEC cartel to cut production added to oversupply.

    On Friday, Brent crude was down 36 cents, or nearly 1%, at $43.68 a barrel, and US crude was down $1.20, or 2.8%, at $40.55.

    Although lower oil prices will lead to a decline in US production next year, the IEA said it would take months to clear the glut.

    "This massive cushion has inflated even as the global oil market adjusts to $50 per barrel. Demand growth has risen to a five-year high of nearly two million barrels per day," the agency said. "Gains in demand have been outpaced by vigorous production from OPEC and resilient non-OPEC supply."

    Growth in global demand for oil is expected to fall in 2016 as the allure of lower prices fades, the IEA added.

    [Nov 13, 2015] Goldman Decline in Oil Prices boosted GDP by 0.2% in 2015

    Notable quotes:
    "... cheaper oil has boosted GDP growth in 2015 by 0.2 pp. Looking ahead, we think that about 0.1 pp of oil growth stimulus is left in the tank, which should lift growth over the next 18 months. ..."
    "... Judging by the recent earnings reports from retailers, one has to question the Oil Stimulus theory. ..."
    "... Can't wait until Goldman tells us that higher oil prices lead to higher GDP. ..."
    "... Total real personal income expenditure is at the pre-97 trend. Markets keep on wanting 97-06 consumption levels. They simply don't get it. ..."
    "... This is not worthy of a post. It is just sucking up to Goldman, of all disreputable firms to quote. Ridonculous. Really. ..."
    "... Credo: Economic Beliefs in a World in Crisis ..."
    Calculated Risk

    A few excerpts from a Goldman Sachs research piece by economist Daan Struyven: Shale, States and the Shrinking Oil Stimulus

    ... ... ...

    Our state-level analysis suggests that a 50% decline in oil prices is associated with an eventual rise in aggregate output of 0.4% and 400,000 to 500,000 extra jobs. These estimates are broadly consistent with our most recent research, but below the impact implied by many earlier studies. Taking together our new state-level estimates as well as our earlier work and a few back-of-the-envelope calculations, our best estimate would be that cheaper oil has boosted GDP growth in 2015 by 0.2 pp. Looking ahead, we think that about 0.1 pp of oil growth stimulus is left in the tank, which should lift growth over the next 18 months.

    sm_landlord

    Judging by the recent earnings reports from retailers, one has to question the Oil Stimulus theory.
    http://www.moneyandmarkets.com/retail-rout-take-two-heck-going-742471

    Sporkfed

    Can't wait until Goldman tells us that higher oil prices lead to higher GDP.

    JackSnap

    Total real personal income expenditure is at the pre-97 trend. Markets keep on wanting 97-06 consumption levels. They simply don't get it.

    gdd9000

    This is not worthy of a post. It is just sucking up to Goldman, of all disreputable firms to quote. Ridonculous. Really.

    The book: 'Credo: Economic Beliefs in a World in Crisis' is written by Brian Davey and published by Feasta, 2015. ISBN 9780-9540-5103-7. £20.

    [Nov 12, 2015] The Quantum of the Soulless - Trickle Down Bubble

    Notable quotes:
    "... There may be little doubt that the trickle down stimulus that has been bloating the paper assets of the wealthiest few while no progress is being made by all the rest is going to lead to a break point in the current socio-economic equilibrium. At least, this is what history has proven. ..."
    "... the huge increase in corporate debt that has been facilitated by the Feds easy money AND generous tax breaks, loopholes, and offshore tax havens for the biggest and the wealthiest corporations, has been largely deployed not to build for the future, or pay living wages, but rather to pump up the price of their stocks through buybacks that benefit insiders and the wealthiest few. ..."
    Jesse's Café Américain

    "To know and to serve God, of course, is why we're here, a clear truth, that, like the nose on your face, is near at hand and easily discernible but can make you dizzy if you try to focus on it hard. But a little faith will see you through. What else will do except faith in such a cynical, corrupt time? When the country goes temporarily to the dogs, cats must learn to be circumspect, walk on fences, sleep in trees, and have faith that all this woofing is not the last word.

    What is the last word, then? Gentleness is everywhere in daily life, a sign that faith rules through ordinary things: through cooking and small talk, through storytelling, making love, fishing, tending animals and sweet corn and flowers, through sports, music and books, raising kids - all the places where the gravy soaks in and grace shines through. Even in a time of elephantine vanity and greed, one never has to look far to see the campfires of gentle people."

    Garrison Keillor

    The economic data continued in weakly this morning, with an oversized number of newly unemployed, and a continuing unemployment number that was higher than expected. Tra la.

    There may be little doubt that the 'trickle down' stimulus that has been bloating the paper assets of the wealthiest few while no progress is being made by all the rest is going to lead to a break point in the current socio-economic equilibrium. At least, this is what history has proven.

    On the right is a chart that shows how the huge increase in corporate debt that has been facilitated by the Fed's easy money AND generous tax breaks, loopholes, and offshore tax havens for the biggest and the wealthiest corporations, has been largely deployed not to build for the future, or pay living wages, but rather to pump up the price of their stocks through buybacks that benefit insiders and the wealthiest few.

    But such abuses of policy and regulation can go quite far. And the further it goes, the more messy the reversion to the mean may be.

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 12, 2015] Oil price collapsing, could set new low

    www.cnbc.com

    West Texas Intermediate crude futures was down 2.75 percent at $41.75 per barrel. WTI set an intraday low of $37.75 on Aug. 24. Brent crude was down nearly 3 percent Thursday at $45.23 per barrel.

    [Nov 12, 2015] World risks 'persistently' weak growth IMF

    finance.yahoo.com

    Real gross domestic product (GDP) growth is seen averaging 3.1 percent year-on-year across the globe in 2015 and 3.6 percent next year by the IMF. This is down from the international body's July forecasts, which suggested economic expansion of 3.3 percent in 2015 and 3.8 percent in 2016. It is also marginally slower than the growth rates of 3.3 percent and 3.4 percent seen in 2013 and 2014, respectively.

    "Growth remains fragile and could be derailed if transitions are not successfully navigated. In an environment of declining commodity prices, reduced capital flows to emerging markets, and higher financial market volatility, downside risks to the outlook remain elevated, particularly for emerging economies," the IMF said.

    ... ... ...

    Overall, growth is seen declining in emerging economies for a fifth year in a row in 2015, before strengthening next year. Notably, Russia's economy is seen shrinking 3.8 percent this year and 0.6 percent next, while Brazil's economy is declining by 3.0 percent this year and 1.0 percent in 2016.

    [Nov 12, 2015] MEXICO'S CANTARELL OIL FIELD POSTS RECORD LOW OIL PRODUCTION

    Notable quotes:
    "... "The Cantarell oil field - an aging supergiant oil field in Mexico - saw its lowest production in over 30 years with an output of 206,000 barrels per day in October, said PEMEX Exploration and Production (PEP) on Thursday. In its latest weekly report, Pemex said that Cantarell was producing 256,000 bpd at the beginning of 2015, its lowest level since 2004, sparking fears that Mexico's most productive field was running out of oil." ..."
    "... Wow, thats an average decline rate of about 18% per year (since 2003). ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Doug Leighton 11/08/2015 at 10:27 am

    MEXICO'S CANTARELL OIL FIELD POSTS RECORD LOW OIL PRODUCTION

    "The Cantarell oil field - an aging supergiant oil field in Mexico - saw its lowest production in over 30 years with an output of 206,000 barrels per day in October, said PEMEX Exploration and Production (PEP) on Thursday. In its latest weekly report, Pemex said that Cantarell was producing 256,000 bpd at the beginning of 2015, its lowest level since 2004, sparking fears that Mexico's most productive field was running out of oil."

    Meanwhile Ku-Maloob-Zaap remains on a production plateau of about 850,000 bpd which is expected to continue until 2017.

    http://www.shanghaidaily.com/article/article_xinhua.aspx?id=308285

    FreddyW, 11/08/2015 at 11:45 am
    Wow, thats an average decline rate of about 18% per year (since 2003).
    Doug Leighton, 11/08/2015 at 12:01 pm
    Yeh, so much for the long fat tail theory. Mind you, there are extenuating circumstances (Aren't there always?). I.E., PEMEX started shifting resources away from Cantarell a year or so back.

    [Nov 12, 2015] OPEC countries, Russia and International Oil Companies are all losing billions

    Notable quotes:
    "... It's perhaps more so high yield paper issuance ..."
    "... We imagined that a mini Apocalypse loomed, derived from shutting down oil production via loan shutoff simply because it was not profitable. How absurd, in retrospect. Profitable. Profitable was a lot more powerful a requirement pre 2009 than post 2009. Now, it's almost laughable. No one is going to allow horrible outcomes just because numbers on a screen are red. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    Euan Mearns, 11/08/2015 at 10:32 am

    Oil Production Vital Statistics October 2015

    The "big news" this month is that the banks granted over leveraged, loss making shale oil drillers a stay of execution by continuing to provide credit lines. Consequently, there was no major move in US oil drilling or production though both are trending down. Elsewhere, the story is one of production plateaus and stabilisation of rig counts. The modest production rises and falls detailed below are simply noise on these production baselines.

    Against this backdrop of no news, the oil price traded sideways in October. OPEC countries, Russia and International Oil Companies are all losing billions and look set to continue doing so throughout 2016 as over-supply now looks set to continue until early 2017. The situation is one of stalemate as opposed to checkmate.

    Watcher, 11/08/2015 at 12:28 pm

    I think I would modify this a bit.

    "Banks". It's perhaps more so high yield paper issuance, and we have seen at least one story indicating a bank (JP Morgan) orchestrated placement of the issuance in order to service debt JPM had actually loaned. So this would mean banks are selling debt to the public (with their powerful sales force), and doing so to protect their own loan portfolios. One might also wonder about their managed accounts (client money entrusted to in-house advisors) and if those accounts were put into this HY paper.

    There was that JPM quote in response to a question about the risks to their loan portfolio. "We have offloaded that risk to investors."

    To a certain extent it all says that I forgot my own mantra: Nothing relevant to money is going to be allowed to destroy civilization, because it can be created from nothingness.

    We imagined that a mini Apocalypse loomed, derived from shutting down oil production via loan shutoff simply because it was not profitable. How absurd, in retrospect. Profitable. Profitable was a lot more powerful a requirement pre 2009 than post 2009. Now, it's almost laughable. No one is going to allow horrible outcomes just because numbers on a screen are red.

    [Nov 12, 2015] Excerpts from several articles in Bloomberg and Reuters

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oil demand is expected to be 94 million barrels a day this year, rising 1.5 percent from last year, with about 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity, mainly held in Saudi Arabia, the prince said. Growth in Asia's demand may slow "by efforts to efficiency enhancement and oil substitution," he said. ..."
    "... "But the petroleum industry should not lose sight of the fact that scale matters," with billions of people moving up into the middle class, the prince said. The size of the world's middle class will expand from 1.8 billion to 3.2 billion in 2020, and to 4.9 billion in 2030, with the bulk of this expansion occurring in Asia, he said. ..."
    "... The oil market will rebalance in 2016 or 2017, as demand grows between 1.2 million barrels per day and 1.5 million barrel per days through 2020, Yergin, vice chairman of consultants IHS, said in a speech in Abu Dhabi. Demand will rise by about 17 million barrels a day to almost 110 million barrels a day by 2040, with 70 percent of the growth to come from Asia, the head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said at an event in Doha. ..."
    "... "The next few quarters are going to continue to be tough as Iranian oil comes back into the market," Yergin said Monday. "We really see 2016 as the year of transition." ..."
    "... "We have a vested interest to keep prices as stable as possible, but we cannot do that by reducing production," Mazrouei said. "We expect the market will recover by itself because high-cost production will continue to decline." ..."
    "... "We're near the bottom at $40, and there's a potential upside that's much higher." ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 10:48 am

    Excerpts from several articles in Bloomberg and Reuters:

    Saudi Vice Oil Minister Sees Price Surge After Cutbacks

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/oil-investment-cuts-at-200-billion-as-saudi-prince-sees-rally

    The scale of the global oil and gas industry's spending cuts are making another surge in energy prices possible by diminishing future supply, Saudi Vice Minister of Petroleum & Mineral Resources Prince Abdulaziz bin Salman said.

    Investments have been cut by $200 billion this year and will drop another 3 percent to 8 percent next year, marking the first time since the mid 1980s that industry cut the spending for two consecutive years, Prince Abdulaziz said in a copy of his speech for delivery to energy ministers in Doha Monday. Nearly 5 million barrels a day of projects have been deferred or canceled, he said in the remarks.

    Just like high oil prices can't last, a prolonged period of low prices is "also unsustainable, as it will induce large investment cuts and reduce the resilience of the oil industry, undermining the future security of supply and setting the scene for another sharp price rise," the prince said in the remarks. "As a responsible and reliable producer with long-term horizon, the kingdom is committed to continue to invest in its oil and gas sector, despite the drop in the oil price."

    Oil demand is expected to be 94 million barrels a day this year, rising 1.5 percent from last year, with about 2 million barrels a day of spare capacity, mainly held in Saudi Arabia, the prince said. Growth in Asia's demand may slow "by efforts to efficiency enhancement and oil substitution," he said.

    "But the petroleum industry should not lose sight of the fact that scale matters," with billions of people moving up into the middle class, the prince said. The size of the world's middle class will expand from 1.8 billion to 3.2 billion in 2020, and to 4.9 billion in 2030, with the bulk of this expansion occurring in Asia, he said.

    "Rather than being a commodity in decline, as some would like to portray, supply and demand patterns indicate that the long-term fundamentals of the oil complex remain robust."

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

    OPEC's Badri says oil market to be more balanced in 2016

    Nov 9, 2015
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/11/09/us-asia-energy-opec-idUSKCN0SY0TN20151109

    The oil market is expected to become more balanced in 2016 as demand continues to grow, OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri said on Monday ahead of the producer group's policy meeting next month.

    "The expectation is that the market will return to more balance in 2016," he said in a speech at an Asian ministerial energy roundtable in the Qatari capital Doha.

    "We see global oil demand maintaining its recent healthy growth. We see less non-OPEC supply. And we see an increase in the demand for OPEC crude," Badri said, according to the text of the speech published on the OPEC website.

    Most of the oil supply increases in recent years have come from high-cost production, Badri said, in a clear reference to supply sources such as U.S. shale oil.

    "The market is now taking on board this new reality and gradually resetting itself, as we can see with falling non-OPEC supply growth and stronger demand," he said.

    ----------------------------
    Yergin Joins OPEC in Seeing Market Balanced as Soon as 2016

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/yergin-joins-opec-in-seeing-oil-market-balanced-as-soon-as-2016

    Global demand for crude will bring more balance to the oil market as soon as next year, according to Pulitzer Prize-winning author and energy consultant Daniel Yergin and OPEC Secretary General Abdalla El-Badri.

    The oil market will rebalance in 2016 or 2017, as demand grows between 1.2 million barrels per day and 1.5 million barrel per days through 2020, Yergin, vice chairman of consultants IHS, said in a speech in Abu Dhabi. Demand will rise by about 17 million barrels a day to almost 110 million barrels a day by 2040, with 70 percent of the growth to come from Asia, the head of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries said at an event in Doha.

    "The next few quarters are going to continue to be tough as Iranian oil comes back into the market," Yergin said Monday. "We really see 2016 as the year of transition."

    Current market volatility was caused by oversupply, mostly from high-cost producers, and oil stocks are above the five-year average, El-Badri said. Energy industry investment in exploration and production fell 20 percent, or by about $130 billion from 2014 to 2015, he said.

    "The expectation is that the market will return to more balance in 2016," El-Badri said Monday. "We see global oil demand maintaining its recent healthy growth. We see less non-OPEC supply. And we see an increase in the demand for OPEC crude."

    Oil prices are unsustainable at current levels and will rise gradually as international companies defer projects and production plans, United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail Al Mazrouei told reporters .

    "We have a vested interest to keep prices as stable as possible, but we cannot do that by reducing production," Mazrouei said. "We expect the market will recover by itself because high-cost production will continue to decline."

    The U.S. is now the new swing producer of oil, with much room for efficiency gains, Yergin said. If U.S. law would allow it, the nation could be a major oil exporter by the end of decade, he said. Canada's oil sands production will add more than 800,000 barrels a day by the decade's end, and Iran will add 400,000 to 600,000 barrels a day to world markets within a few months of sanctions ending.

    "The market will have to deal with a very significant overhang of inventories," Yergin said. "There's more volatility in this process."
    --------------------–
    Speculators Share Andy Hall's Optimism That Oil Prices at Bottom

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-09/speculators-share-andy-hall-s-optimism-that-oil-prices-at-bottom

    Andy Hall and Daniel Yergin think oil prices are bottoming out. Hedge funds agree.
    Money managers' net-long position in West Texas Intermediate crude rose 20 percent in the week ended Nov. 3, the most in seven months, according to data from the U.S. Commodity Futures Trading Commission. Bets on rising prices increased to the highest level since June.
    U.S. onshore oil production fell for the fifth month in a row in August and supplies grew at the slowest pace since September in the week ended Oct. 30. Inventory data don't indicate a surplus in the crude market and prices are set to rise, said Hall, one of the world's best-known oil traders. Global supply and demand will begin to move into balance by late 2016 or 2017, according to Yergin.

    "The fundamentals are starting to play out," said David Pursell, a managing director at investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. in Houston. "You've got greater recognition that U.S. supply is falling and maybe falling faster. Inventories are building, but the pace of that build is more manageable."

    Onshore production excluding Alaska fell to 7.25 million barrels a day in August, down 334,000 barrels a day from March, according to Energy Information Administration data. U.S. oil inventories grew by 2.8 million barrels a day the week ended Oct. 30, the smallest gain since Sept. 18.

    U.S. output will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12 months ending April, according to Yergin, vice chairman at IHS Inc.." Prices may rise to $70 to $80 a barrel by the end of the decade, he said in an interview.

    Hall, the crude trader, said Saudi Arabia is producing close to capacity while Iraq is struggling to maintain output, while U.S. rig counts will continue to decline.

    "We think the degree of negativity is unwarranted," Hall, who runs $2.6 billion hedge fund Astenbeck Capital Management, said Nov. 4.

    "The economy is on the rebound, China is coming out of a bear market, people are saying let's get long oil," said Carl Larry, head of oil and gas for Frost & Sullivan LP.

    "We're near the bottom at $40, and there's a potential upside that's much higher."

    [Nov 12, 2015] At the current price level some shale companies may stop completing wells and may stop drilling

    Notable quotes:
    "... I focus on the oil price necessary to be cash flow neutral and maintain production. That price is different for every company and constantly changes, but overall it remains much higher than current oil and natural gas prices. Shale companies have been hiding behind this for quite awhile, but recently management is beginning to talk about maintaining production and cash flow neutrality. Apparently some one important has signaled to them that the cash burn has to stop. I do not think $55 WTI or even $65 WTI will result in a return to 2011-2014 like drilling, which is what will be needed to cause US oil production to reverse its decline. The shale companies cannot return rigs at these price levels without burning more cash, on the whole. ..."
    "... At the current price level some companies may stop completing wells and may stop drilling. There are a fair number of drilled uncompleted wells in the Bakken (Enno has two estimates 450 and 900, I am not sure which he favors, let's call it 675). These wells are a sunk cost and are likely to be completed to keep up cash flow levels. Even if all drilling stops (which is unlikely) if 75 wells are completed from the frack log each month, there are 9 months supply of DUCs, if 40 wells per month are drilled the supply would be enough for 19 months of completions at 75 wells completed each month. My scenario assumes well productivity (the estimated ultimate recovery over the first 60 months) of new wells remains at 2013 to 2014 levels. So far the actual data shows no change in new well EUR (it actually increased slightly in 2013 and 2014 from earlier levels and has remained steady in 2015). Perhaps Enno or Freddy W have a 3 month or 6 month cumulative chart for the Bakken Three Forks. I have an old chart but they may have something more recent. Chart below is from data in April or May 2015. ..."
    "... I just want to add that yes production has stayed relatively flat over the years. But water content has increased significantly. Fracking has become more costly also with more fracking fluids and so on. They have on the other hand become more efficient in what they are doing, but I think overall that costs have gone up. ..."
    "... "The short investment cycle of US tight oil and its ability to respond quickly to price signals are changing the way that the oil market operates. The plunge in prices means US tight oil production is now stumbling: if prices out to 2020 remain under $60/bbl, without a rapid evolution in drilling efficiency and technology learning, tight oil production in the United States will likely see a substantial decline in output. However, with tighter markets leading to higher mid-term prices in the New Policies Scenario ($80/bbl in 2020) US tight oil ultimately resumes its upward march, growing by 1.5 mb/d by 2020 to over 5 mb/d." ..."
    "... Plunging oil prices may suggest that the world is awash with cheap oil but, in reality, what the world is really awash with is lots of expensive oil, much of it being produced at a loss. ..."
    "... In any event, I bet the extra 1/2 to 1 million barrels (if truly produced) are the most expensive barrels they have. So one wonders how much more income is really earned by the extra barrels. ..."
    "... Oil and gas debt held by US banks is over $270 billion, but that would include conventional production. ..."
    "... Looking at Iraq and Iran more closely. I think those two are greater threats to KSA market share than US shale at this point in time. As US shale continues to drop, looks like Iran and Iraq are set to grow, with total costs likely lower than even KSA. ..."
    "... Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump. Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, (2015) about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years. ..."
    "... A lot of money borrowed by US upstream, and they are in tremendous trouble if prices stay below $60 WTI though 2016, and do not substantially recover in 2017 ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    shallow sand, 11/11/2015 at 9:52 am
    Heinrich. Your point about CAPEX v operating expense is on the money.

    I focus on the oil price necessary to be cash flow neutral and maintain production. That price is different for every company and constantly changes, but overall it remains much higher than current oil and natural gas prices. Shale companies have been hiding behind this for quite awhile, but recently management is beginning to talk about maintaining production and cash flow neutrality. Apparently some one important has signaled to them that the cash burn has to stop. I do not think $55 WTI or even $65 WTI will result in a return to 2011-2014 like drilling, which is what will be needed to cause US oil production to reverse its decline. The shale companies cannot return rigs at these price levels without burning more cash, on the whole.

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/11/2015 at 4:49 pm
    shallow sand,

    Thank you for your reply. My point is also that many shale companies have published low operating expenses over years by moving most of their expenses into the category 'capex'. By the recent impairments they have moved a big chunk of their capex into the category expenses. So, basically they are saying to investors: sorry folks you have invested your money, but actually it is not invested anymore we have spent the money already on producing gas and oil and you will see a big part of your money never again. This is in my view a very unfair way to pretend to have low operating costs.

    Dennis Coyne, 11/11/2015 at 12:34 pm
    Hi Heinrich,

    Enno Peters posts charts each month showing the well productivity. It has not decreased.

    At the current price level some companies may stop completing wells and may stop drilling. There are a fair number of drilled uncompleted wells in the Bakken (Enno has two estimates 450 and 900, I am not sure which he favors, let's call it 675). These wells are a sunk cost and are likely to be completed to keep up cash flow levels. Even if all drilling stops (which is unlikely) if 75 wells are completed from the frack log each month, there are 9 months supply of DUCs, if 40 wells per month are drilled the supply would be enough for 19 months of completions at 75 wells completed each month. My scenario assumes well productivity (the estimated ultimate recovery over the first 60 months) of new wells remains at 2013 to 2014 levels. So far the actual data shows no change in new well EUR (it actually increased slightly in 2013 and 2014 from earlier levels and has remained steady in 2015). Perhaps Enno or Freddy W have a 3 month or 6 month cumulative chart for the Bakken Three Forks. I have an old chart but they may have something more recent. Chart below is from data in April or May 2015.

    FreddyW, 11/11/2015 at 4:36 pm
    Hi,

    I just want to add that yes production has stayed relatively flat over the years. But water content has increased significantly. Fracking has become more costly also with more fracking fluids and so on. They have on the other hand become more efficient in what they are doing, but I think overall that costs have gone up.

    Newer wells produce more in the beginning, but has higher decline rates for at least the first year. My guess is that the earlier wells will eventually have recovered more oil than the later ones.

    New data will probably come out on Friday. Maybe I have something to show after that.

    AlexS says:
    11/10/2015 at 2:24 pm

    IEA World Energy Outlook 2015 on U.S. tight oil:

    "The short investment cycle of US tight oil and its ability to respond quickly to price signals are changing the way that the oil market operates. The plunge in prices means US tight oil production is now stumbling: if prices out to 2020 remain under $60/bbl, without a rapid evolution in drilling efficiency and technology learning, tight oil production in the United States will likely see a substantial decline in output. However, with tighter markets leading to higher mid-term prices in the New Policies Scenario ($80/bbl in 2020) US tight oil ultimately resumes its upward march, growing by 1.5 mb/d by 2020 to over 5 mb/d."

    "The short investment cycle of tight oil and its ability to respond quickly to price signals is changing the way that the oil market operates, but the intensity with which the tight oil resource is developed in the United States eventually pushes up costs. US tight oil production stumbles in the short term but resumes its upward march as prices recover, helped by continued improvements in technology and efficiency improvements. But tight oil's rise is ultimately constrained by the rising costs of production, as operators deplete the "sweet spots" and move to less productive acreage. US tight oil output reaches a plateau in the early-2020s, just above 5 mb/d, before starting a gradual decline."

    Change in production (2015-2020) of US tight oil for a range of 2020 oil prices
    mb/d

    shallow sand says:
    11/10/2015 at 5:57 pm

    Anecdotal re US conventional.

    Company near us, 2012-14 drilled and completed many conventional wells. 2015 drilled no wells and completed the few remaining ones in first quarter.

    Decline from Q3 2014 to Q3 2015 14.5%. Had grown production annually 2012-14.

    Wonder how many conventional oil wells were completed 2011-14? New conventional wells may have a high decline too.

    I know dwarfed by shale, but it all adds up.

    AlexS says:
    11/11/2015 at 8:13 am

    In its short term energy outlook, the EIA sharply revised its U.S. C+C production estimates for 2H15 and forecast for 2016.

    Estimate for this year's growth was increased to 580 kb/d from a 540 kb/d in previous month STEO, due to stronger than expected performance in onshore production. The biggest upwards revisions were made for August 2015: +187 kb/d, September: +160 kb/d and October: + 108 kb/d. The new production forecast for 2015 is 9.29 mb/d vs. 9.25 mb/d in October STEO.

    Despite these revisions, the EIA still notes that "monthly crude oil production started to decrease in the second quarter of 2015, led by Lower 48 onshore production. From March 2015 through October 2015, Lower 48 onshore output has fallen from more than 7.6 million b/d to about 7.1 million b/d. EIA estimates total crude oil production has declined almost 0.5 million b/d since April, averaging 9.1 million b/d in October", down 43 kb/d from September.

    The EIA expects declines to continue through September 2016, when total production is forecast to average 8.54 mb/d. This level of production would be almost 1.1 mb/d less than the 2015 peak reached in April.

    Doug Leighton says:
    11/11/2015 at 9:35 am

    WHY THE OIL SANDS NO LONGER MAKE ECONOMIC SENSE

    "Plunging oil prices may suggest that the world is awash with cheap oil but, in reality, what the world is really awash with is lots of expensive oil, much of it being produced at a loss. OPEC, home to the world's lowest-cost oil, is pretty much producing what it always has. The market glut is from increased output from high-cost producers like the oil sands. Their existential dilemma in today's market is that it is they, not OPEC, who must cut production to clear the glut.

    http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/rob-commentary/oil-sands-no-longer-make-economic-sense/article27170104/

    shallow sand says:
    11/11/2015 at 10:08 am

    I wish I knew more about production costs for the four Gulf OPEC members plus Iran and Iraq.

    I also wish I knew how much of KSA's increase in oil production, for example, which began in March, 2015, was oil from storage as opposed to produced.

    In any event, I bet the extra 1/2 to 1 million barrels (if truly produced) are the most expensive barrels they have. So one wonders how much more income is really earned by the extra barrels.

    AlexS says:
    11/11/2015 at 12:58 pm

    shallow sand,

    KSA's production was increasing from March and peaked in June. Since then, it has slightly declined.
    I don't think they will (and can, and intend to) increase it further.

    Saudi Arabia's oil production
    Source: JODI, OPEC (direct communications)

    shallow sand says:
    11/11/2015 at 1:48 pm

    AlexS. Thanks. Surprisingly, KSA has really not increased oil production that much, especially in relation to the United States.

    Euan's post above indicates there is negligible spare capacity and it is almost all heavy oil with no refining capacity available for it. Given KSA interest in shale tech, would appear 10.6 may be their conventional peak.

    Russia has been able to continue to slowly increase production. Do you think Russia is nearing conventional peak? Any recent news on Russian LTO efforts?

    Will interesting to see how this plays out.

    AlexS says:
    11/11/2015 at 2:06 pm

    shallow sand,

    The IEA estimates Saudi capacity at 12.26 mb/d and sustainable spare capacity at 2.06 mb/d (in September). However these numbers can be overstated and actual capacity may not exceed 11-11.5 mb/d.

    Euan is right that most spare capacity consists of heavy oil with high sulphur content.

    3 other Gulf states have very small spare capacity of around 100 kb/d.

    Hence production increases in 2016 can be expected only from Iran and Iraq. Libya is a big unknown, which potentially can add up to 1 mb/d

    I think Russia could further increase production in the near term, but not by much. In the medium to long term it will try to maintain production at current levels, so it's probably not a peak, but a plateau.

    Russian LTO is a long-term story, similarly to the Arctic projects. No significant additions are expected until next decade.

    Among other non-OPEC, non-US sources, some growth may be expected from Canada and Brazil, but in both cases it will be slower than previously expected due to lower oil prices.

    With the declining US output and continued (albeit slower) growth in demand, the market will begin rebalancing next year.

    In 1H15, that will mean lower excess supply vs demand, and from 2H15 demand will likely exceed supply.
    This scenario implies that additional supplies from Iran do not exceed 500-700 kb/d, Libya remains in doldrums, and there is no dramatic slowdown in global economic growth.

    shallow sand says:
    11/11/2015 at 5:50 pm

    AlexS. Thanks for the post. I agree with you that Iran and Iraq appear to be able to add much more production than Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, UAE and Qatar combined.

    Iraq in particular has many areas to be developed, subject primarily to political instability.

    For example, Rumalia oil field production has ramped up significantly and it appears there is much room to run at a very low price.

    dmg555 says:
    11/11/2015 at 10:10 am

    Does anyone here have a source for how much money was loaned to the tight oil fracking industry?

    Watcher says:
    11/11/2015 at 12:19 pm

    You will find this number is fuzzy, as is true for all long term debt everywhere, because issuance rolls over on maturity and that may not be tracked.

    shallow sand says:
    11/11/2015 at 1:45 pm

    Oil and gas debt held by US banks is over $270 billion, but that would include conventional production.

    I have read in excess of $1/2 trillion, a number off the top of my head.

    John S says:
    11/11/2015 at 3:22 pm

    Shallow: I think you will find the press release at the link below from FDIC interesting:

    https://www.fdic.gov/news/news/press/2015/pr15089.html

    Here is an excerpt:

    "Oil and gas commitments to the exploration and production sector and the services sector totaled $276.5 billion, or 7.1 percent, of the SNC portfolio. Classified commitments-a credit rated as substandard, doubtful, or loss-among oil and gas borrowers totaled $34.2 billion, or 15.0 percent, of total classified commitments, compared with $6.9 billion, or 3.6 percent, in 2014."

    I went looking for this because a local bank is seeking to increase is liquidity via a preferred stock offering. It is trying to raise a multi-million $ amount. The offered terms are a 5% dividend, 5 year term, and share repurchase at redemption date. The bank is 30 + years old.

    I am told another local bank is doing a similar offering.

    Hmmm…..liquidity issues and off balance sheet financing. Where has that been tried before in the oil patch?

    Watcher says:
    11/11/2015 at 4:23 pm

    Banks do preferred offerings all the time.

    Quick example, go to finance.google.com and enter stock symbol bac. and that's a period after the c and look at all the preferred offerings/issues.

    Quick lesson for the partially washed. Preferred stock is equity that usually has no voting rights for corporate governance determination. Speaking practically it's usually priced about $25/share and pays a higher yield than any common dividend. Preferreds get their dividend first. If there isn't enough profit to pay preferred divvies and common, common has to get zero.

    There are cumulative preferreds and convertible preferreds. Cumulative means if a quarter's dividend is missed, ya gotta make up that quarter's missed payout before you can pay to common shares. Convertible means can convert to XXX shares of common. blahblah

    Anyway, a bank issuing preferred stock is not eyebrow raising in any environment. That is, excluding issuance bought by Buffet in 2009. Anything at all done that year was eyebrow raising.

    shallow sand says:
    11/11/2015 at 5:55 pm

    John S. Thanks for the link! That is the release I was referring to earlier.

    WTI below $43. Wow. Have to think the substandard or worse oil and gas backed loans are only going to grow.

    Looking at Iraq and Iran more closely. I think those two are greater threats to KSA market share than US shale at this point in time. As US shale continues to drop, looks like Iran and Iraq are set to grow, with total costs likely lower than even KSA.

    Watcher says:
    11/11/2015 at 6:46 pm

    KSA has said repeatedly shale is no threat to them and they are no threat to shale. Shale oil can't export. It CAN'T compete. And almost all US imports are coming from Canada and Mexico and Ven and Nigeria. Only about 1 mbpd from KSA.

    They're right - besides which shale oil isn't the medium / heavy oil out of KSA. It's not even the same product to envision as competing.

    oldfarmermac says:
    11/11/2015 at 8:34 pm

    Watcher, you occasionally make some sense, sorta kinda.

    But you know better, or at least you ought to know better, than to say shale oil doesn't matter because it cannot be exported.

    Oil is a fungible commodity traded in a brutally competitive world market.

    A million barrels a day of domestic yankee production above and beyond "the usual" is a million barrels somebody formerly exported to us Yankees looking for a new home in some other importing country.

    Taking a million barrels a day off our Yankee production would have approximately the same effect on the world market as if Saudi Arabia were to cut back by a million barrels a day.

    But your remarks about oil supposedly going into storage recently seem to be very reasonable.

    SURELY TO SKY DADDY the tank farms of the world must be getting pretty damned close to overflowing by now, and every rusty old tanker that will hold a few thousand barrels is probably full as well, sitting anchored someplace.

    Doug Leighton says:
    11/11/2015 at 1:49 pm

    OIL GLUT DEEPENS WITH 100M BARRELS AT SEA

    "Patrick Rodgers, the chief executive of Euronav, one of the world's biggest listed tanker companies, said oil glut was so severe traders were asking ships to go slow to help them manage storage levels."

    http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/f763a6da-8859-11e5-9f8c-a8d619fa707c.html#axzz3rD5Ye7ss

    ezrydermike says:
    11/11/2015 at 2:25 pm

    wti futures 11-11-2015

    Watcher says:
    11/11/2015 at 6:50 pm

    And btw all you supply and demand worshippers . . . just who is buying oil to store, when storage has throughput? You aren't buying to store it for future higher price. You buy it to store it to flow it outward incrementally to consumption, with new oil coming in to refill the tanks. FIFO. That's how Cushing works. If price rose, the oil getting sold from storage just went in there last week or 2 weeks ago. It didn't get there in January. There's no big profit.

    dmg555 says:
    11/11/2015 at 3:13 pm

    From the Financial Times on Energy Debt

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-11/opec-challenges-shale-afresh-as-iraq-crude-floods-gulf-of-mexico

    Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump. Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, (2015) about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years.

    Watcher and Shallow: Your numbers on total debt look a bit low, but I'm only siting the Financial Times.

    shallow sand says:
    11/11/2015 at 6:01 pm

    dmg555. I was just throwing out things off the top of my head, which is probably not the best thing to do.

    A lot of money borrowed by US upstream, and they are in tremendous trouble if prices stay below $60 WTI though 2016, and do not substantially recover in 2017.

    [Nov 12, 2015] Monthly legacy shale production declines accelerates

    Notable quotes:
    "... Much steeper oil production declines in the Eagle Ford and Niobrara are apparently due to much higher and accelerating decline rates of the existing wells compared to the Bakken and Permian basin. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com
    AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 7:02 pm
    Combined oil production from 7 shale plays is expected to decline by 558 kb/d, from 5507 kb/d in April to 4949 (these numbers include ~800-900 kb/d of conventional production, mainly from the Permian basin).

    New combined estimates for 7 plays were revised down by about 25-35 kb/d from March to May, and by 40-50 kb/d from June to December.

    AlexS, 11/09/2015 at 9:05 pm
    Much steeper oil production declines in the Eagle Ford and Niobrara are apparently due to much higher and accelerating decline rates of the existing wells compared to the Bakken and Permian basin.

    Monthly legacy production declines as % of total production by 4 key LTO plays
    Source: EIA DPR

    [Nov 12, 2015] Oil Majors Don't Share OPEC's Optimism On Oil Prices In 2016

    Notable quotes:
    "... Saudi was selling 9 m/bbl/day when oil was at $100+, now they are selling 10.5 mbbl/day at $43. The math on that is staggering. ..."
    "... So why are they overproducing, selling more of their finite resource at a low price instead of over the longer term at more than double its current price. ..."
    "... If the real reason of this stunt is to cause severe pain for Russia, Iran, Venezuala and others, well the oil doesn't go away. Someone will still own it and someone will still drill and pump when prices are more favorable. ..."
    Zero Hedge

    OPEC's meeting in Vienna is less than a month away, and oil producers – countries and companies alike – have been raising their concerns at an energy conference in the United Arab Emirates over the cartel's strategy to keep prices low.

    The issue arose on Monday when Mohammed bin Hamad al-Rumhy, the oil minister of Oman – not a member of OPEC – told the annual Abu Dhabi International Petroleum Exhibition and Conference that oil production is at "irresponsible" levels, leaving little latitude for variations in production.

    "This is [a] man-made crisis in our industry we have created," al-Rhumy said. "And I think all we're doing is irresponsible."

    Al-Rhumy added, "This is a commodity that if you have 1 million barrels a day extra in the market, you just destroy the market. We are hurting, we are feeling the pain, and we're taking it like a God-driven crisis. Sorry, I don't buy this, I think we've created it ourselves."

    The next day, al-Rhumy's concerns, if not his criticism, were shared by executives of leading international oil companies: ExxonMobil of the United States, BP of Britain and Total of France. All said they expect the current glut of oil, and the resultant depression in oil prices, to last longer than anyone expected – months longer, if not years longer.

    "I'm not sure we will exit from low prices before many months," Total CEO Patrick Pouyanne said.

    Lamar McKay, the director of exploration and production for BP, said he expects oil prices will stay low for some time, and Michael Townshend, the company's director for Middle East operations, said he expects the price of a barrel of oil will rise no higher than about $60 for three more years.

    These gloomy forecasts contrasted with the OPEC view. The group's secretary general, Abdullah al-Badri, told the conference on Tuesday that 2016 is likely to be a year for positive momentum in oil markets. And on Monday, UAE Oil Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei, said a decision by OPEC to cut production to shore up oil prices would only play into the hands of its competitors.

    As a result, al-Mazrouei said, he doesn't expect OPEC to change its strategy when it meets Dec. 4. "When you are the least expensive oil, you should be the base producer," he said.

    At its meeting in November 2014, OPEC adopted Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi's strategy of keeping production at 30 million barrels a day, despite the fall in oil prices caused by a rapid increase in production by non-members, especially the United States, which had ramped up production of shale oil.

    The goal was to wage a price war that would keep oil prices so low that such producers, who rely on relatively expensive hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, can't afford to drill for oil. The break-even point for fracking is around $60 per barrel, and oil now averages about $50 per barrel, leading to a noticeable drop in U.S. drilling.

    In the meantime, OPEC nations are exceeding their production limit of 30 million barrels per day by more than 1.5 million barrels, so it's no wonder oil prices are so low.

    Concerns about low oil prices were raised before last year's OPEC meeting, particularly by Venezuela.

    Saudi Arabia had already said it opposed production cuts. Venezuela's president, Nicolas Maduro, said he was hoping to work out ways to bolster oil prices in meeting both with members of OPEC and producers who weren't part of the 12-member cartel.

    That came to naught, however, and the Saudi plan became OPEC policy. Despite current dissatisfaction from some oil producers, there's no reason to expect the cartel to change course if it believes its strategy is working.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Hard Assets

    I have posted this comment on 7 million forums and discussion boards and I have yet to get a reasonable answer.

    If an oil producer, big or small, has X barrels of oil in the ground, a finite number, why would they (especially OPEC countries who can 'control' the price) overproduce to sell today at $43 instead of $110+ ??

    How does driving down the price get one more 'market share' ? When oil was $100/bbl, all things being equal, it was $100 across the globe. At $43, its $43 across the globe. Again, all things being equal, how does that impact market share ?

    Sure, at a point in the future, when competitors fold you gain market share. Does this fall into the "market can stay illogical longer than one can remain solvent" category ?

    Completely short sighted vision in my book. WTF was the intention of OPEC in the first place?

    Saudi was selling 9 m/bbl/day when oil was at $100+, now they are selling 10.5 mbbl/day at $43. The math on that is staggering.

    Back to the finite X reserves. No doubt Saudi and every oil producer will pump and drill and do everything they can to get down to the last drop. Then it's over, literally pack up your tent and call it a day.

    So why are they overproducing, selling more of their finite resource at a low price instead of over the longer term at more than double its current price.

    If the real reason of this stunt is to cause severe pain for Russia, Iran, Venezuala and others, well the oil doesn't go away. Someone will still own it and someone will still drill and pump when prices are more favorable.

    So WTF is really going on here ?

    Benjamin123

    I sort of answered below.

    They dont care. Those countries do not feel any pain. Countries are not even real, only people or animals feel pain and those oil ministers are rich either way.

    Gregor Samsa

    Easy answer: cashflow. These companies / countries need any revenue they can get. Turning off the lights and going home is simply not an answer.

    A secondary answer is that many oil plays, such as tarsands and fracking literally cannot be shut down once started (at least not without incurring extra costs in the millions).

    erk

    US oil production is still up around 9 mill barrels according to EIA. Once their unsustainable shale oil output drops a million BBL or two, then OPEC are back to business as usual.

    Youri Carma

    It's not about OPEC anymore.

    [Nov 11, 2015] 2 simple charts illustrate why low oil prices are so depressing

    Nov 9, 2015 | Business Insider
    The energy sector's capital expenditure, or capex, on spending for fixed infrastructure that secures future business activity, has slumped 8% this year according to Goldman Sachs.

    Energy capex growth is set to fall another 20% next year, wrote the firm's strategists led by David Kostin to clients on Friday.

    There's usually a lag between energy-sector capital spending and oil prices, with prices leading. That means even if oil prices defy most forecasts and rise sharply from current levels, capex will likely still fall.

    [Nov 11, 2015] IEA World Energy Outlook New Hope For Civilization

    Notable quotes:
    "... In The Economic Growth Engine Warr and Ayres have some interesting historical data on how most improvements in, say, fuel efficiency come not from actual technological innovation but a straightforward process of making vehicles lighter, suggesting that there's a hard cap on how far such work can go. ..."
    "... The report states, "The plunge in oil prices has set in motion the forces that will lead the market to rebalance, via higher demand and lower growth in supply. This may take some time, as oil consumers are not reacting as quickly to changes in price as they have in the past." Here we see the inability to perceive the unfolding consequences of peak oil playing out in a neoliberal world run for the benefit of the 1%. It's as if "The market" will "rebalance" because it is eternal and, well, since it's eternal it just has to rebalance. ..."
    "... A few generations from now our descendants will wonder, "What took them so long to figure out that we'd reached the limits to growth?" The answer, of course, is that growth is the core of the myth holding the American psyche together. If it's false, what's the meaning of "life, the universe, everything?" ..."
    Nov 11, 2015 | naked capitalism

    Sandwichman, November 11, 2015 at 2:39 am

    Green smoke. "These projected figures are a figment of our imagination. We hope you like them." (New Yorker cartoon from the 1980s

    vteodorescu, November 11, 2015 at 5:31 am

    The path to low carbon is nuclear. Anything else is a palliative. Technical fact: wind and solar have to be backed up with equal capacity of baseload generation, usually gas, to keep the grid balanced, to compensate the highly variable supply wind and solar produce. They are largely politically driven and a sop to the misinformed intelligentsia.

    Energy scarcity is another tool to keep the huddled masses huddled.

    Disclaimer: I am an organic farmer in the northeast of Brazil. I do not work for or have any financial interest in the nuclear industry.

    TheCatSaid, November 11, 2015 at 6:54 am

    These crystal-ball gazing exercises leave out the high likelihood like pandemics. Losing a significant % of population will impact demand but also supply (just imagine what losing key engineers and scientists could impact on development of better technologies, or on production facilities).

    likbez -> TheCatSaid, November 11, 2015 at 9:34 pm

    If I remember correctly in 1956 Hubbert correctly predicted the peak of the USA production in 1970. From Wikipedia
    ==== quote ===
    Hubbert, in his 1956 paper,[3] presented two scenarios for US crude oil production:
    most likely estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6%, an ultimate resource equal to 150 Giga-barrels (Gb) and a peak in 1965. The size of the ultimate resource was taken from a synthesis of estimates by well-known oil geologists and the US Geological Survey, which Hubbert judged to be the most likely case.

    upper-bound estimate: a logistic curve with a logistic growth rate equal to 6% and ultimate resource equal to 200 Giga-barrels and a peak in 1970.

    Hubbert's upper-bound estimate, which he regarded as optimistic, accurately predicted that US oil production would peak in 1970, although the actual peak was 17% higher than Hubbert's curve.

    Production declined, as Hubbert had predicted, and stayed within 10 percent of Hubbert's predicted value from 1974 through 1994; since then, actual production has been significantly greater than the Hubbert curve.

    Nicholas Cole, November 11, 2015 at 8:51 am

    Is the title of this article supposed to be funny?

    To echo Paper Mac, I'd like to know more about their assumptions re: energy efficiency investments and improvements.

    In The Economic Growth Engine Warr and Ayres have some interesting historical data on how most improvements in, say, fuel efficiency come not from actual technological innovation but a straightforward process of making vehicles lighter, suggesting that there's a hard cap on how far such work can go.

    DanB, November 11, 2015 at 9:35 am

    The report states, "The plunge in oil prices has set in motion the forces that will lead the market to rebalance, via higher demand and lower growth in supply. This may take some time, as oil consumers are not reacting as quickly to changes in price as they have in the past." Here we see the inability to perceive the unfolding consequences of peak oil playing out in a neoliberal world run for the benefit of the 1%. It's as if "The market" will "rebalance" because it is eternal and, well, since it's eternal it just has to rebalance.

    The counter explanation that the price of oil fell because people are going broke while the cost of extracting oil is climbing cannot be conceived, let alone entertained.

    And the peak oil scenario is actually hidden in plain sight in classical economics: if a resource becomes scarce what happens? Price increases and then encourages more exploration and recovery of the resource. If that does not work then price incentivizes the introduction of substitutes. And if that doe not work you get demand destruction, because the market always clears -- even if people go hungry the market clears.

    A few generations from now our descendants will wonder, "What took them so long to figure out that we'd reached the limits to growth?" The answer, of course, is that growth is the core of the myth holding the American psyche together. If it's false, what's the meaning of "life, the universe, everything?"

    IDG, November 11, 2015 at 9:50 am

    Humans are awfully bad at predicting things, specially under radical uncertainty conditions (so basically this situation); yet we see this sort of rubbish published on daily basis. Call me back when we can predict what will happen in a year reliably, until then… 20y-30y projections are a joke, for all I know humanity could have self-exterminated itself in a nuclear war by then (one century with nuclear weapons around and no nuclear-conflict having happened yet looks like defying probability to me!).

    But I guess economists need employment too after all, how would such useless profession be justified if wouldn't swallow rubbish like this.


    [Nov 11, 2015] An Almost Perfect Storm of Incompetence and Felony

    Notable quotes:
    "... People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason. But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right. ..."
    "... The Fed wants to raise rates for their own policy purposes, so they can cut them, without going overtly negative, when their latest financial bubble starts to collapse, which it may already be doing. They cannot really raise rates in a Presidential election year past June, so they will push ahead, to serve their own purposes, even as they harm the real economy. ..."
    jessescrossroadscafe.blogspot.com
    "People of privilege will always risk their complete destruction rather than surrender any material part of their advantage. Intellectual myopia, often called stupidity, is no doubt a reason.

    But the privileged also feel that their privileges, however egregious they may seem to others, are a solemn, basic, God-given right."

    John Kenneth Galbraith, Age of Uncertainty

    "Misdeeds, once exposed, have no refuge but in audacity. And they have accomplices in those who are fearful in their complicity."

    Tacitus, Annals

    I was discussing the markets this morning with my friends Dave and Bill Murphy as we generally do. This is what I just wrote back in response to a question from Bill. I read his columns at LeMetropoleCafe.com every day. His is an amazing crossroads for discussion of things that are interesting about precious metals. I have been a subscriber since 2000. Dave has a new site at Investment Research Dynamics that is quite good and different since he has a very different background in the heart of darkness as a NYC bond trader from mine as a Bell Lab rat and Silicon Valley roustabout.
    We just saw a very historically significant decline in the precious metals in terms of days lower without relief. And we have seen a remarkable rise in the US dollar index against the Euro and the Swiss franc that cannot possibly be good for the real economy of the US, when every other developed nation is trying to devalue their currencies to stimulate their exports and inhibit imports.

    I believe that a portion of the gold selling in particular is an effort to knock down the open interest in gold for December. If there was any serious attempt for holders of those contracts to stand for delivery, even JPM, which has been obviously building up its stores of gold to act as the 'fixer' in that market, would not be able to cover the demand.

    JPM was consistently taking delivery for their house account in gold, and just transferred 70,000+ ounces over from Nova Scotia's warehouse, from whom they had been taking delivery.

    As we know, in the last big delivery month, JPM stepped up with an enormous amount of their gold, 400,000+ ounces, to provide enough real bullion to satisfy the contracts standing for delivery. Even now their inventories remain somewhat depleted.

    The dollar has also been soaring, because the Fed is trying to pretend that the US is recovering so that they can raise rates. A strong dollar and higher rates are very harmful to what is almost undoubtedly a fragile economic recovery in the US.

    And it is fantasy to think that the US can somehow go it alone, and continue to improve while the rest of the world is cutting rates because their economies are slowing.

    The Fed wants to raise rates for their own policy purposes, so they can cut them, without going overtly negative, when their latest financial bubble starts to collapse, which it may already be doing. They cannot really raise rates in a Presidential election year past June, so they will push ahead, to serve their own purposes, even as they harm the real economy.

    There will be another financial crisis as the IMF warned today. There will be a serious dislocation in several financial markets, including the precious metals and the bonds at some point, that will rock the current system to its foundations. It is a portion of the credibility trap which inhibits any meaningful remedy and reform.

    It is an almost perfect storm of incompetence and felony.

    [Nov 09, 2015] Peak Oil Open Thread

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yergin predicts a 10 percent drop in US oil production, April 2015 to April 2016. That's a 960,000 bpd drop and will take us to 8,638,000 bpd in April 2016 if he is correct. ..."
    "... U.S. crude output, which surged to the most in more than three decades this year and triggered a price collapse, will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12-months ending April, according to Yergin, vice chairman at IHS Inc. ..."
    "... How big a drop do you expect? I think Yergin may be right in this case. The drop in output in the US, along with increased demand at low oil prices will eventually balance the oil market, prices will rise and output will level off and may increase slightly if oil prices get above $75/by the end of 2016. ..."
    "... I have no idea when oil prices will get to $75/b, but my WAG is mid 2017 at the latest when World output will be struggling to increase. ..."
    Peak Oil Barrel

    Yergin predicts a 10 percent drop in US oil production, April 2015 to April 2016. That's a 960,000 bpd drop and will take us to 8,638,000 bpd in April 2016 if he is correct.

    Yergin Sees Oil Price Near Bottom as U.S. Output Set to Fall

    U.S. crude output, which surged to the most in more than three decades this year and triggered a price collapse, will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12-months ending April, according to Yergin, vice chairman at IHS Inc.


    Guy Minton, 11/04/2015 at 8:59 pm

    Actually, Yergin's estimate drop to 8,600,000 is in line with EIA's projection. Both are too conservative, my guess the drop will eventually surprise most.

    Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 8:30 am

    Hi Guy,

    How about some numbers?

    How big a drop do you expect? I think Yergin may be right in this case. The drop in output in the US, along with increased demand at low oil prices will eventually balance the oil market, prices will rise and output will level off and may increase slightly if oil prices get above $75/by the end of 2016.

    I have no idea when oil prices will get to $75/b, but my WAG is mid 2017 at the latest when World output will be struggling to increase. That assumes no major World recessions (like 2008/9) between now and 2017, if the pessimists' forecast of an impending crash due to a stock market and debt bubble are correct, then output could fall much more than forecast by Yergin due to sustained low oil prices due to lack of demand for oil due to low income growth (or negative income growth).

    [Nov 08, 2015] Why The Stock Buyback Spree Is Ending

    Notable quotes:
    "... Most certainly, and here is one explanation for the recent market revulsion with prolific repurchasers (see IBM, KORS, CAT). It comes from Citi which shows that contrary to conventional, and wrong, wisdom, gross corporate leverage has never actually been higher. Throw in rising rates, and blowing out spreads, and suddenly all these companies that enjoyed a free ZIRP lunch by engaging in the dumbest of capital allocation decisions, namely pushing their own stock higher (by issuing debt no less), are about to vomit it all right back. ..."
    Nov 08, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    From Goldman:

    Managements will remain committed to returning cash S&P 500 firms will return more than $1 trillion to shareholders in 2016 with buybacks and dividends each growing by 7%. We expect high cash return strategies to outperform given modest GDP growth, low rates, and slim equity returns. A similar macro environment in 2015 rewarded stocks with high cash returns to shareholders while firms investing in capex lagged.

    So buy stocks the buy their own stock. Got it. Only.... any time Goldman tells its client to do something, the opposite usually happens. Could that be the case again?

    Most certainly, and here is one explanation for the recent market revulsion with prolific repurchasers (see IBM, KORS, CAT). It comes from Citi which shows that contrary to conventional, and wrong, wisdom, gross corporate leverage has never actually been higher. Throw in rising rates, and blowing out spreads, and suddenly all these companies that enjoyed a free ZIRP lunch by engaging in the dumbest of capital allocation decisions, namely pushing their own stock higher (by issuing debt no less), are about to vomit it all right back.

    Give up. Reality is not scientific nor even mathematical

    Yes, and from all the ugliness will come an even tighter grip on the New American Century.

    Get ready for the rate hikes that will follow by understanding, the dollar, not gold and certainly not the yuan, is going to rule the world.

    Opportunity abounds for those who aren't the typical alternative media America hater, and who also have sense enough to see the next logical step in this march toward the future. Given the alternative, the world will welcome what they will see as a new golden age of prosperity and progress.

    It won't be that, but only the old will be in on the massive deceit. Civilization merely rides the mercilous bucking bronco of reality.

    Yen Cross

    He's joking right? CapEx has been in the shitter since 2008-09.

    " Furthermore, according to the latest forecast by Goldman's David Kostin, this surge in buybacks will continue for the simple reason that with Capex spending set for its first decline since 2009."


    [Nov 06, 2015] The Oil Glut Outside Of The U.S. Is Surprisingly Small

    One plausible estimate from the discussion: "Unless I see something better to go on, I will go with Core Labs estimates of -10% production in 2016."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Right now, many investors seem fearful of where energy prices are going but I dont think the situation looks all that bad. While it is possible that events such as Iran exporting large amounts of crude (estimates of which are likely overstated) and Chinas economy collapsing could cause a drop in demand in relation to supply, any scenario outside of these transpiring shows a growingly bullish outlook for oil moving forward. ..."
    "... So where is the glut? Probablly only in heads of people that follow the mantras of US mass media machine. ..."
    "... It seems a lot of the addition to builds in liquids are from propane. If you look recently at the EIA weekly reports Gasoline , distillate, jet fuel imports to the US have all risen by a large amount compared to last year. ..."
    "... In March 2013, the inventory was 393 MM. In March 2015 it was 475 MM. Most of the additional inventory was held in tank farms and underground storage supporting pipeline. ..."
    "... It will tell you that US production is only 10% of world production and US spending 20% of world oil. So US is far biggest importer of oil on the world. ..."
    "... ...And importers by definition newer have a glut... Obviously imported oil is cheaper and more suitable than domestic. So WTI producers cant find buyers, hence the glut of US oil. ..."
    "... The adjustment number is running about 3 MM per week for the last 4 weeks. It is almost always in the positive direction that tells me the error bias is the same. ..."
    "... I will stop commenting on weekly EIA numbers because a smart petroleum engineer Gary Long (who compiles these numbers) said that you are dumb if you used his numbers for trades. ..."
    "... If you're using the weekly production numbers to do trades on Wall Street, you're dumb,' said Gary Long, a petroleum engineer who compiles numbers for the EIA. 'This is not going to work out for you. Don't do that. We've actually had people call us and be very angry with us because they've lost a lot of money. ..."
    "... At 10%, this implies oil production of 8.649 million barrels per day compared to the 9.610 million per day we peaked at. At 20%, we are looking at just 7.688 million barrels per day. This second scenario might be on the optimistic side but it would be incredibly bullish for crude if it does materialize. :) ..."
    "... Very likely that oil prices will react to the upside by Q1 or Q2 2016 at the latest...otherwise the world could face a global inventory shortfall of -200 to -300 million barrels by the end of 2016. ..."
    "... Global recessions are like the queen of spades in a game of hearts. If someone gives you the queen of spades in 2016, and you are not shooting the moon (short oil), but are long oil in some way, you LOSE... ..."
    "... Iraq will lead the decline in Middle east. From peak in June, I believe this a 400000-500000 barrels/day in export. The region is in turmoil. ..."
    seekingalpha.com

    Canada, the North Sea, and (maybe) Russia will see production drop over the next year due to decreased investment in drilling activities

    ... ... ...

    According to the IEA, production levels of light tight oil (LTO as they call it) generally fall by 72% within their first 12 months and by about 82% in the first two years.

    ... ... ...

    Right now, many investors seem fearful of where energy prices are going but I don't think the situation looks all that bad. While it is possible that events such as Iran exporting large amounts of crude (estimates of which are likely overstated) and China's economy collapsing could cause a drop in demand in relation to supply, any scenario outside of these transpiring shows a growingly bullish outlook for oil moving forward.

    This is especially true when you consider that the glut that's being experienced isn't all that large at the moment.

    mapodga

    Very good overview. Just excellent.

    So where is the glut? Probablly only in heads of people that follow the mantras of US mass media machine.

    If one accident in ME happen all hell can break out.

    bently

    Very concise but informative coverage of important points! I might add that there is likely to be bullish moves in the energy sector much sooner than people may expect, for the smart money takes their positions based on anticipation of things to come rather than after they are realized -- you know, the buy on the rumor and sell on the news strategy.

    We seem to be seeing the start of that now. But the momentum will build slowly; nothing happens overnight - usually.

    Robert P. Balan

    Mr. Jones,

    You wrote:

    "Using data presented in a previous article of mine, I figured that, at the time this data was gathered, about 96.4 million barrels worth of this glut was attributable to the U.S. This suggests that the OECD, excluding the U.S., has a glut of just 62.9 million barrels, which amounts to roughly 2.4 days of excess supply for the group."

    This chart will provide a scale of just how disruptive the impact of US shale oil production was to the global oil balance, triggering the backlash from the OPEC.

    http://tinyurl.com/p36...

    Also, you wrote:

    "The last piece that investors in the oil space should look at relates to China. I have been bearish on the country for quite some time but one goal they will likely continue to reach for (unless they see a complete economic collapse) is filling up their SPR (Strategic Petroleum Reserve). In the image below, you can see their schedule and estimated storage capacity for the development of storage facilities."

    You may have watch for indications of impending domestic currency CNY devaluations. The official oil imports data out of China tends to pick-up about 1 quarter before the CNY devaluation occurs. Talk of front-running . . . the Chinese have mastered the art.

    See this chart here:

    product.datastream.com


    Trixwd

    (From Oct OPEC report) OECD commercial oil stocks rose further in August to stand at 2,933 mb. At this level, inventories were around 194 mb higher than the five-year average. Crude and products showed a surplus of around 167 mb and 27 mb, respectively.

    In terms of days of forward cover, OECD commercial stocks stood at 63.3 days in August, some 4.5 days higher than the five-year average. http://tinyurl.com/pua ...

    mapodga

    So OPEC inventory is 8% above normal. Being so after 1 year of glut we can conclude there isn't any glut.

    Trixwd

    With more US domestic production being used you would expect a new higher normal for oil inventories because that production is in the US already, and not coming on tanker s(Temp storage) in the form of higher imports.In times of high demand you would also expect higher inventories in distillates , gasoline, jet fuel.

    It seems a lot of the addition to builds in liquids are from propane. If you look recently at the EIA weekly reports Gasoline , distillate, jet fuel imports to the US have all risen by a large amount compared to last year.

    Trixwd

    (Also more on China which is a significant bump to import Quota). China has more than doubled its non-state crude oil import quota for 2016 to 87.6 million tonnes, or 1.75 million barrels per day (bpd), as Beijing seeks to boost competition and attract private investment in its oil industry.

    The 2016 quota issued by the Ministry of Commerce on Friday compared to this year's figure of 37.6 million tonnes. http://tinyurl.com/owr ...

    Kxviswan

    I researched into how the inventory build in US was taking place and posted it in Investor Village. Part of the inventory elevation is a) because of tank farm builds to support tight oil increase and b) the way EIA does oil accounting. Oil in ocean is not counted until it clears customs. I am willing to concede that 30-50 MM barrels might be due to these two reasons and this may a new norm inventory levels. See below.

    I pursued this topic further and found out that Kinnear is partly right and mostly wrong.

    I found a website (see attached) that shows how the crude inventory is divided. Open the excel spreadsheet and you will get the answers.

    The inventory is not held in pipelines but in additional tank farms and underground storage that were built to handle additional flow through pipelines.

    The refiners are holding utmost 10 MM barrels.

    In March 2013, the inventory was 393 MM. In March 2015 it was 475 MM. Most of the additional inventory was held in tank farms and underground storage supporting pipeline.

    Also there is much more capacity to store additional oil.

    http://tinyurl.com/nqd ...

    Ben Ten

    Kxwisan -

    See below the link for an article from September 18th basically discussing the same ideas regarding US inventories you mention above in a different way.

    Check out my comments also in the article's reply section if you are interested.

    We will find out how much of this new inventory sticks - and how much gets burned off. If the oil market gets tight and prices are rising before the US inventory drops much then that will tell us something...

    http://tinyurl.com/pkb ...

    mapodga

    :-)
    It will tell you that US production is only 10% of world production and US spending 20% of world oil. So US is far biggest importer of oil on the world.

    And importers by definition never have a glut. Exporter league is that which define price of oil and when they will put their lines in order then US inventory won't count about anything.

    CarlSag

    "...And importers by definition newer have a glut..." Obviously imported oil is cheaper and more suitable than domestic. So WTI producers can't find buyers, hence the glut of US oil.

    Trixwd

    Kxviswan do you know when the EIA put's out the weekly report they have an adjustment added to crude oil inventory, which i think was around 450,000b/d. Do you have any idea where this oil comes from, it does say the adjustment number(formerly unaccounted for oil).

    But with out that adjustment number taking oil exports + refinery inputs - imports + production it would not show much extra oil left as a weekly build except for that adjustment number being added.

    Kxviswan

    Yes, I have some ideas on this. I have a Chemical Engineering background [and can tell you that] it is very difficult to do a material balance on a weekly basis. The amount of information you need to collect is indeed enormous.

    The adjustment number is running about 3 MM per week for the last 4 weeks. It is almost always in the positive direction that tells me the error bias is the same.

    What I found further that Genscape numbers are different than EIA numbers but their subscription is high- in the 10000 dollar range.

    A lot of people trust EIA numbers as "gospel". Here is what I found and posted on BRY board from Gary Long of EIA. What Gary Long said about EIA weekly numbers

    I will stop commenting on weekly EIA numbers because a smart petroleum engineer Gary Long (who compiles these numbers) said that you are dumb if you used his numbers for trades.

    Eloquently said. I would like to buy a drink or two for Gary.

    "' If you're using the weekly production numbers to do trades on Wall Street, you're dumb,' said Gary Long, a petroleum engineer who compiles numbers for the EIA. 'This is not going to work out for you. Don't do that. We've actually had people call us and be very angry with us because they've lost a lot of money. '"

    Kxviswan

    About propane build in US. I asked this question on BRY board and I got a very intelligent reply. US alone will use 35000 barrels/day for propylene production. This is a new technology that I am very familiar with called PDH or propane dehydrogenation. The others are slated for export. EPD is a major supplier. This is an on-purpose build.

    The message for Daniel is that since April, US is in supply-demand equilibrium because you need to subtract on-purpose build of propane.

    jeezuz30

    Nice summary and viewpoints,

    "Given that the number of oil rigs in the U.S. alone have dropped from 1,595 this time last year to just 594 (with the drop really starting around October and November) I suspect that the drop in output will get a bit more steep in the months ahead"

    I would be careful with that projection and general misconception. With the slowdown of rigs we get an increased performance as the few rigs left are highly competitive with the others as they don't want to be next ones idled. So we have a huge increase in efficiency (12000' laterals now being drilled in 3 days, completed in 4 or so).

    Only a year or two ago, this number was closer to 6 days to drill (and with a lot of the less efficient rigs that did get laid down, some as high as 12-14 days).

    So yes we only have half the rigs or less, but these are (were) probably the high performers and only getting faster and doing more with less.

    Not to mention all the gains that have been made on the production side (look at EOG and cemented liners and the increased production from improved fracking techinques).

    Daniel Jones , contributor

    Author's reply " That is all very true. I don't think a massive drop in rig count will have a similar drop in output but I'd imagine a 50% to 60% drop would result in at least a 10% drop in output, maybe even a 20% drop.

    At 10%, this implies oil production of 8.649 million barrels per day compared to the 9.610 million per day we peaked at. At 20%, we are looking at just 7.688 million barrels per day. This second scenario might be on the optimistic side but it would be incredibly bullish for crude if it does materialize. :)

    Kxviswan

    For what it is worth, Core Lab is projecting 10% drop next year- taking into account rig drop.

    22023171

    Wrong they are projecting a 3.1% decline from existing reservoirs being substantially offset by new production but not entirely net net they are forecasting a modest decline in global production.

    Kxviswan

    ...CLB has lot better models and back in June, Dave Demshur predicted that US production will fall by 500000 barrels/day by 2015. This completely went against the grain that EIA was predicting.

    In third quarter conference call, Core Lab has upped it to 700000 barrels/day.

    GOM picked up 209000 barrels/day in two months that is masking lower 48 states decline.

    EIA predicted a 169000 barrels/day drop in September. Ron Patterson predicted a similar drop in October. We will wait a month and see what happens.

    BRY board members are reporting that rigs will be idled between Thanksgiving and New Year.

    I am using 90000 barrels/day/month [drop] in my estimates based on drilling activity report of EIA.


    Ben Ten

    Kvxviswan -

    I am seeing the same thing...from the above reasoning and estimates.

    It looks to me like the current global surplus in crude oil production is now close to zero - probably in November or December it shifts to a small DEFICIT - difficult to notice at first...

    There are maybe 200 million barrels stored away in excess inventories (relative to "normal" inventories) all over the world - most in the US - these are inventories that are viewed by owners to some extent as temporary and they will use them up as prices rise.

    Unless prices rise in 2016...the data and thinking above speaks to me that global crude oil production will drop by -2.0 million barrels/day by the end of 2016...and demand rises by +1.5 million barrels/day by the end.

    So the deficit will start ramping up already in Q1, as long as prices stay low...hitting maybe -1.0 mmbpd at the end...then in Q2 we are looking at approaching -2.0 mmbpd by the end...and at this rate the global industry is burning through the 200 million barrel inventory cushion fast enough to finish it off in less than a quarter.

    And then it comes down to the turn around speed of US shale oil...when do they raise the rig count...by how much...what is the delay...

    I will be paying attention when the EIA STEO comes out on November 10th, and considering the monthly production for US shale for October.

    Conclusions

    1) Very likely that oil prices will react to the upside by Q1 or Q2 2016 at the latest...otherwise the world could face a global inventory shortfall of -200 to -300 million barrels by the end of 2016.

    2) Likely that US shale will NOT have the power alone to drive prices from WTI of $60-70 back down below $50 in 2016 or even 2017.

    3) Global recessions are like the queen of spades in a game of hearts. If someone gives you the queen of spades in 2016, and you are not shooting the moon (short oil), but are long oil in some way, you LOSE...

    Kxviswan

    I read today that Iraq export has dropped quite a bit to 2.7 MM barrels/day. Here again, Core Labs predicted that Iraq will lead the decline in Middle east. From peak in June, I believe this a 400000-500000 barrels/day in export. The region is in turmoil.

    Iraqi government has no money to pay the contractors and they have sent a letter to majors. 20% of the funds is ear-marked for defense!

    Core Lab said in July that Middle East production is not sustainable and it has zero spare capacity. The June production rate has not been matched yet!

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 06, 2015] The current system is unstable and oil prices will not only oscillate but the size of those oscillations might be huge with minimum price far below cost of extraction

    The current system is unstable and oil prices will not only oscillate but the size of those oscillations might be huge with minimum price far below cost of extraction
    Notable quotes:
    "... My forecast for oil prices: the base or average price of oil will be below the most expensive 10% of production (money wise, not quantity wise, this guesstimate should be a confidence interval, but I have no basis with which to construct the confidence interval ..."
    "... First, we only know the production cost of oil that is produced, over the long term oil will only be produced if it is profitable so your theory seem to assume that oil is always (on average) unprofitable for the highest cost producers. I doubt that will be the case, if that is what Gail argues (I havent read her lately) she is incorrect. ..."
    "... The prices will likely oscillate above and below the marginal cost as supply and demand try to balance, rising and falling oil in storage above and below normal levels indicate the balance of supply and demand. ..."
    "... I believe the business or economic cycle of oil consists of a growth phase, a stagflation phase, and a contraction phase. During the growth phase high prices increase production and low prices increase demand. During the stagflation phase (which I believe will be roughly 2005-2014) prices increase, but production only increases marginally. During the contraction phase, a major paradigm shift occurs. Low prices no longer increase demand. Low prices decrease production. High prices no longer increase production, they decrease demand. ..."
    "... Thus I believe that producers will continue to lose money until production falls. This will cause a price shock, but in my opinion the price shock will be short lived because demand will fall ..."
    "... During the contraction phase, a major paradigm shift occurs. Low prices no longer increase demand ..."
    "... WRONG !!!! Lower prices will always increases demand. Just because other market forces are pushing down demand, doesnt mean lower prices dont effect demand. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Schinzy , 11/05/2015 at 10:44 am

    I agree with Gail. My forecast for oil prices: the base or average price of oil will be below the most expensive 10% of production (money wise, not quantity wise, this guesstimate should be a confidence interval, but I have no basis with which to construct the confidence interval ). To this base price add an oscillatory function with zero average.

    In other words, going forward, the most expensive oil produced will be unprofitable on average until oil ceases to be produced or is produced in very small quantities. I think this will characterize the contraction phase of oil production which has started: production will have to be cut to make production profitable.

    I don't think anyone will pay attention to the neoclassical theory of exploitation of natural resources in 15 years. The model is useless for predicting future quantities and prices.

    Dennis Coyne , 11/05/2015 at 12:33 pm
    Hi Shinzy,

    Why will the price be 10% below the most expensive oil?

    First, we only know the production cost of oil that is produced, over the long term oil will only be produced if it is profitable so your theory seem to assume that oil is always (on average) unprofitable for the highest cost producers. I doubt that will be the case, if that is what Gail argues (I haven't read her lately) she is incorrect.

    Over the long term the average oil price will allow the marginal producers to earn the weighted average cost of capital (essentially barely turning a profit). As oil depletes and if oil demand is adequate, the cost of the marginal barrel will increase. If the higher prices result in lower demand for oil, (because income growth becomes lower) oil prices will fall and the higher cost producers will stop drilling because it will no longer be profitable.

    Essentially your model sounds similar, but I think oil prices will be 10% higher than you have assumed. The prices will likely oscillate above and below the marginal cost as supply and demand try to balance, rising and falling oil in storage above and below "normal" levels indicate the balance of supply and demand.

    Schinzy , 11/05/2015 at 2:19 pm
    Hi Dennis,

    I believe the business or economic cycle of oil consists of a growth phase, a stagflation phase, and a contraction phase. During the growth phase high prices increase production and low prices increase demand. During the stagflation phase (which I believe will be roughly 2005-2014) prices increase, but production only increases marginally. During the contraction phase, a major paradigm shift occurs. Low prices no longer increase demand. Low prices decrease production. High prices no longer increase production, they decrease demand.

    Thus I believe that producers will continue to lose money until production falls. This will cause a price shock, but in my opinion the price shock will be short lived because demand will fall . Demand can fall because of substitution, but more prevalently, loss of income due to low wages and unemployment. Wood Mackenzie estimates that $1.5 trillion of planned investment will be unprofitable at $50 oil. If this investment is not made oil production will fall, but a lot of jobs will not be created lowering demand.

    Thus the big difference between the growth phase and the contraction phase will be that during the growth phase the average oil price remains above production costs, but during the contraction phase high priced producers will continually be priced out of the market and forced to shut down operations leading to a contraction in production.

    ChiefEngineer , 11/05/2015 at 4:09 pm
    "During the contraction phase, a major paradigm shift occurs. Low prices no longer increase demand"

    WRONG !!!! Lower prices will always increases demand. Just because other market forces are pushing down demand, doesn't mean lower prices don't effect demand.

    [Nov 06, 2015] US production might be down by something from 1.5 up to 3 mill bbl/d by end of next year

    Notable quotes:
    "... monthly low is forecast for June 2016 at 8.77 mb/d. ..."
    "... It is interesting that the time lag between capex and production response for conventional production stands around 18 months. Therefore production in the Golf of Mexico is still rising (up 200,000 bbl/d in the last two months alone). This mitigates somehow the decline of shale production. This explains e.g. also the resilience of Russian production, which will in my opinion still rise over the next half year. ..."
    "... However, if the oil price stays below $50 per barrel, production will keep falling at roughly 1% per month, which is the average decline of the FED oil and gas production index since April 2015. ..."
    "... This scenario implies an at least 1.5 mill bbl/d decline until the end of next year – provided the oil price stays at the current level. My personal view is that US production will be down by more than 3 mill bbl/d by end of next year as there are strong signs of depletion of sweet spots, which accelerate the underlying decline. ..."
    "... The projected decline in U.S. production comes primarily from shale plays, and to a much less degree from Alaska and other conventional fields, while production in the GoM is expected to increase. ..."
    "... If, as you say, U.S. production drops by 3 mb/d by year-end 2016, that would mean a decline in LTO production by almost 2/3. That is impossible even if shale operators completely stop drilling new wells. According to the estimates I've seen, with no new wells, LTO production in the Bakken and the Eagle Ford would decline by between 30 and 40% within a 12-months period. ..."
    "... 3mill bbl/d is a lot and it is the top end of my estimate, yet also conventional production will decline by end of next year. It is just my gut feeling and I guess it has to do something with depletion of sweet spots. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 11/05/2015 at 1:13 pm

    article in Bloomberg:

    Cheap Crude Hasn't Crippled the U.S. Shale Boom, Shale drillers defy OPEC and double down on drilling.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-05/cheap-crude-hasn-t-crippled-the-u-s-shale-boom

    shallow sand, 11/05/2015 at 9:16 pm
    AlexS. The title of the article does not exactly match the content. Good, short read.

    The article states US will average 9.2 million bopd this year, 8.8 next year. This ignores that US climbed to 9.6 and will end below 12/14. The 2016 number assumes a rebound in the second half of the year. I am not sure about that.

    If OPEC can keep a lid on oil prices through the end of 2016, I wonder what US production will average in 2017?

    AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 5:54 am
    shallow sand,

    The EIA estimates annual average U.S. C+C production at 9.25 mb/d this year (+540 kb/d y-o-y) and 8.86 mb/d in 2016 (-390 kb/d y-o-y).
    Monthly peak of 9.60 mb/d was in April 2015, monthly low is forecast for June 2016 at 8.77 mb/d.
    Thus, projected decline in monthly average between 4/15 and 6/16 is 830 kb/d.

    Projected decline for Lower 48 onshore between 3/15 and 6/16 is 910 kb/d.

    • The EIA expects U.S. production to rebound in 2H16, from 8.77mb/d in June to 9.02 mb/d in December.
    • The EIA assumes WTI to average $55.3 in 2H16 vs. $51.7 in 1H16 and $45.9 in 2H15.

    So they think that $55 is sufficient to trigger an increase in drilling/completion activity.

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 3:20 am

    AlexS, Shallow Sand,

    Again I think there is a time lag of six months between lower capex and and actual production response. As shale companies have kept capex until recently quite high at the price of huge losses (http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/05/giant-sucking-sound-of-capital-destruction-in-us-oil-gas-impairments/), they have finally responded with much lower capex in 3q15. This implies that the production decline will start in earnest during the first quarter 2016.

    It is interesting that the time lag between capex and production response for conventional production stands around 18 months. Therefore production in the Golf of Mexico is still rising (up 200,000 bbl/d in the last two months alone). This mitigates somehow the decline of shale production. This explains e.g. also the resilience of Russian production, which will in my opinion still rise over the next half year.

    Future production of oil will strongly depend on the oil price. If the oil price rises to over $80 per barrel in December (through a possible OPEC cut), US production will still be down until mid next year and then rise again. This is the scenario the above forecast implies.

    However, if the oil price stays below $50 per barrel, production will keep falling at roughly 1% per month, which is the average decline of the FED oil and gas production index since April 2015.

    This scenario implies an at least 1.5 mill bbl/d decline until the end of next year – provided the oil price stays at the current level. My personal view is that US production will be down by more than 3 mill bbl/d by end of next year as there are strong signs of depletion of sweet spots, which accelerate the underlying decline.

    AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 7:12 am
    Heinrich,

    According to the EIA, U.S. LTO production at the peak earlier this year was about 4.6 mb/d (it is now 200-300 kb/d lower). The projected decline in U.S. production comes primarily from shale plays, and to a much less degree from Alaska and other conventional fields, while production in the GoM is expected to increase.

    If, as you say, U.S. production drops by 3 mb/d by year-end 2016, that would mean a decline in LTO production by almost 2/3. That is impossible even if shale operators completely stop drilling new wells. According to the estimates I've seen, with no new wells, LTO production in the Bakken and the Eagle Ford would decline by between 30 and 40% within a 12-months period.

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 7:28 am
    AlexS,

    3mill bbl/d is a lot and it is the top end of my estimate, yet also conventional production will decline by end of next year. It is just my gut feeling and I guess it has to do something with depletion of sweet spots.

    [Nov 06, 2015] Exxon Mobil Investigated for Possible Climate Change Lies by New York Attorney General

    Notable quotes:
    "... in another recent report , Exxon Mobil essentially ruled out the possibility that governments would adopt climate policies stringent enough to force it to leave its reserves in the ground, saying that rising population and global energy demand would prevent that. "Meeting these needs will require all economic energy sources, especially oil and natural gas," it said. ..."
    "... You legally aren't allowed to knowingly and purposely hide or distort data you are aware of which may materially affect your shareholders. ..."
    "... The issue is based on oil companies selectively releasing data and research in exclusive support of their conclusions, while suppressing or distorting material that didnt fit the narrative. ..."
    "... if I want to know about climate change, I dont seek reliable information from oil and gas companies, supermarket tabloids, or members of Congress. ..."
    "... These are the United States of America, where corporations have (and use) the power to lie constantly to their detractors and their customers alike. For me to expect anything else would suggest a lack of basic skepticism on my part where the products and activities of the corporate world are concerned. ..."
    www.nytimes.com

    The New York Times

    The people said the inquiry would include a period of at least a decade during which Exxon Mobil funded outside groups that sought to undermine climate science, even as its in-house scientists were outlining the potential consequences - and uncertainties - to company executives.

    ... ... ...

    "This could open up years of litigation and settlements in the same way that tobacco litigation did, also spearheaded by attorneys general," said Brandon L. Garrett, a professor at the University of Virginia School of Law. "In some ways, the theory is similar - that the public was misled about something dangerous to health. Whether the same smoking guns will emerge, we don't know yet."

    In the 1950s and '60s, tobacco companies financed internal research showing tobacco to be harmful and addictive, but mounted a public campaign that said otherwise and helped fund scientific research later shown to be dubious. In 2006, the companies were found guilty of "a massive 50-year scheme to defraud the public."

    ... ... ...

    in another recent report, Exxon Mobil essentially ruled out the possibility that governments would adopt climate policies stringent enough to force it to leave its reserves in the ground, saying that rising population and global energy demand would prevent that. "Meeting these needs will require all economic energy sources, especially oil and natural gas," it said.

    Jeff, Atlanta

    This sounds like a fishing expedition on reports published 40 years ago that Exxon wasn't even obligated to do. On top of this, the allegations aren't even that Exxon lied or misled in the reports but financial impact of alleged lies (i.e. similar to misstating earnings). Also, aren't scientific climate reports the entire purpose of the IPCC, not private companies like Exxon? Sounds like a grandstanding opportunity for the NY AG.

    Michael, is a trusted commenter North Carolina

    I would like to think that Schneiderman has undertaken this investigation purely out of concern for our planet, and not primarily as a way to heighten his personal profile, and he may well have. That said, it is unrealistic to think that it will drive Exxon Mobil or any other major energy company out of business. But, given that the political climate in DC is such that there is zero chance for leadership on implementing a tax on carbon, which to me represents the single most powerful way to address climate change, this may be the next best thing. Hefty fines, if large enough, will inevitably find their way to the pump, and to the utility bill, and may finally alter our behavior, our collective behavior. Whether it might come in time to save the planet is the question.


    Andy W, Chicago, Il

    You legally aren't allowed to knowingly and purposely hide or distort data you are aware of which may materially affect your shareholders. The problem isn't that Exxon executives put forward biased opinions about the existence or extent of environmental impacts. The issue is based on oil companies selectively releasing data and research in exclusive support of their conclusions, while suppressing or distorting material that didn't fit the narrative.

    Their legal and ethical obligation was to release all of the data and let the public and regulators judge if their conclusions were correct. In any sworn testimony provided through the years, executives were also obligated not to suppress or distort any requested information in their possession. That is the legal basis for any legal inquiry, your basic tobacco industry style cover-up.

    David Nicholas, Centennial, Colorado

    I am an Exxon Mobil shareholder. I am also a scientist who holds degrees from reputable universities, and if I want to know about climate change, I don't seek reliable information from oil and gas companies, supermarket tabloids, or members of Congress. These are often sources of misinformation where, as a moderately well educated and pragmatic adult, I expect to be provided with utter nonsense.

    These are the United States of America, where corporations have (and use) the power to lie constantly to their detractors and their customers alike. For me to expect anything else would suggest a lack of basic skepticism on my part where the products and activities of the corporate world are concerned.

    Companies like Exxon Mobil exist to make money in any way they can, for themselves and for stockholders like me. Do I condemn their unethical practices? Certainly, but I'm not foolish enough to think I can change them. I cash my dividend checks along with all the other stockholders -- and I vote for representation in Washington, D.C. that knows enough about the science of global climate change to do something meaningful about our role in it. So far, most of the elected officials in Washington, D.C. have been a dismal disappointment; they're the best politicians money can buy.

    [Nov 06, 2015] Egypt's Dismissal of Terrorism in Russian Plane Crash Creates a Rift

    Why western MSM push so hard the version about the bomb ? Investigation just started and there are multiple version including now known far there that were war games by NATO the same day in the same area.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- move along now, nothing to see here ..."
    "... The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more...... ..."
    "... I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side ..."
    The New York Times

    Tom Mariner, Bayport, New York

    Egypt faces an economic disaster if tourism and business travel stops, and you don't think they will say it was just a simple accident -- "move along now, nothing to see here".

    njglea, is a trusted commenter Seattle

    Tension in the Middle East is rising and it is very frightening because it's a no-win situation as it stands now. Everybody loses. I am reminded of a song from the 1960s that addresses this situation perfectly and is a message that should go to every world leader and hater. "One Tin Soldier". Please listen and read the lyrics and, if you agree, forward this message to everyone you know. WE can live in a peaceful world if enough of us take small actions to make it so.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HKx0tdlxMfY

    della, cambridge, ma 52 minutes ago

    I just flew back from Istanbul -- four layers of security -- superior to US.

    Matthew Abbasi, Los Angeles 52 minutes ago

    Why would any Westerner in his/her right mind go to Egypt, Tunisia, or Libya for a vacation? These are unstable nations with ongoing civil wars so Western nations really need to ban tourist for a bit for until things calm down. Its not enough to say that these nations need the tourist money. The risk should not be discounted just because of that. The reality is the West ruined Libya, abandoned Tunis, and chickened out by backing Sisi in Egypt. Therefore, there are alot of armed Jihadis looking for Westerners to shoot. Its also about to get worse since now its Russia's turn to ruin things even more......

    Abbas -> Matthew Abbasi, San Francisco, CA 43 minutes ago

    Egypt does not have a civil war. Statistically, it is far safer to visit than many places in the U.S.

    Rohit, New York

    Quoting another poster

    "I am in no way a fan of Putin, but recently he explained his issue with the West pretty clearly. Most Russians subscribe to that. Russia does not see West as a threat, but as a trouble maker at large, causing havoc and destabilizing the world. Listen to him if you want to understand the other side"

    https://youtu.be/OQuceU3x2Ww

    And what is fascinating is that every word spoken by Putin could just as easily have been said by Noam Chomsky or even by President Eisenhower.

    PS, Vancouver, Canada

    I have little faith in airport security checks in the middle east. Was in Morocco this summer - put my bags on the conveyor belt. Fine - but there was nary a soul manning the monitors. Yes, it was screened (given that it passed through an x-ray machine, but there were no human eyes checking it) . . . also, no one bothered to take my water bottle (which I had inadvertently carried with me.

    [Nov 06, 2015] At 45 dollaris a well that produces 300K barrels over lifetime of 20 years will earn 250,000 dollars for the producer each year on a six million dollar investment, or 4.2 percent.

    Edited for clarity.
    Notable quotes:
    "... If an oil company spends six million dollars to complete an oil well that produces 300,000 barrels of oil over a twenty year period and the average price of oil is $45, an income of $13,500,000 is what you will have in twenty years. ..."
    "... Net $7.5 million realized in twenty years, $375,000 average annual income for the life of the well. Subtract 18% for royalties, 10% to pay for extraction taxes, costs to operate, hauling it to market. All-in-all 1/3 needs to subtracted on average. In our case this is $125,000 ..."
    "... That means a whopping annual profit of $250,000 for the producer each from a six million dollar investment , or a return on the original investment of 4.2%. Not to mention the taxes to be paid at filing time or an accident that can happen during the lifetime of the well. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    R Walter, 11/05/2015 at 6:35 am

    When you want to have some gross income from the production and sale of any commodity, it is desirable to earn more then two dollars for every dollar of expense. A general rule of thumb for the life of the well the total costs can't be more then 1/2 of total earnings. Otherwise you are losing money.

    If an oil company spends six million dollars to complete an oil well that produces 300,000 barrels of oil over a twenty year period and the average price of oil is $45, an income of $13,500,000 is what you will have in twenty years.

    Net $7.5 million realized in twenty years, $375,000 average annual income for the life of the well. Subtract 18% for royalties, 10% to pay for extraction taxes, costs to operate, hauling it to market. All-in-all 1/3 needs to subtracted on average. In our case this is $125,000

    That means a whopping annual profit of $250,000 for the producer each from a six million dollar investment, or a return on the original investment of 4.2%. Not to mention the taxes to be paid at filing time or an accident that can happen during the lifetime of the well.

    You might as well invest your six million in a CD, and earn 2% return, sit at home to watch TV and drink coffee. The oil in the ground is making money just sitting there like you are. If you are going to be a fool, might as well be one while watching TV, not drilling for oil all day long and be making pennies. You'll be doing the world a favor. You'll be dancing, not drinking booze all day long and crying over all of the losses.

    I know the numbers are not in any way near what they really will be, but you have the idea.

    ... ... ...

    [Nov 06, 2015] Its not that humans can't adapt to the changes, its all of the rest of the flora and fauna and biosphere is dying off at exponential rates that will kill us

    Jef, 11/05/2015 at 10:24 am

    Its not that humans can't adapt to the changes, its all of the rest of the flora and fauna and biosphere in general all of which humans rely 100% on to exist which is dying off at exponential rates that will kill us.
    Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 10:37 am
    You've got it wrong. We HAVE to kill off flora and fauna to make room for more humans. Getting rid of buffalo was a master stroke but now there's the other stuff to exterminate. Think about how many people we can fit into Africa by getting rid of that useless wildlife. And, all the bio-fuel we can generate with land wasted by jungle in the Amazon. The key is HUMAN CARRYING CAPACITY. That's what really matters guy.
    BC, 11/05/2015 at 12:59 pm

    Who needs these large animals on our planet anyway? We are the dominant predator species, including prey on one another; these animals simply have failed to evolve and adapt with a neo-cortex, superior technology, will to power, and the imperative to grow numbers and resource consumption per capita perpetually.

    Human apes are superior, and the 7 billion of us and counting is unambiguous proof of our superiority.

    Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 1:27 pm
    Exactly, we're like rats: better at what we do than anyone else. And like rats we deserve to inherit the earth. But I do wonder what happens when all that's left is us and rats? Maybe they eat us.
    MarbleZeppelin, 11/05/2015 at 6:48 pm
    Or the rats will carry a new plague that eradicates the human population. Problem solved.

    MarbleZeppelin, 11/05/2015 at 6:46 pm

    Doesn't it seem very odd that we define progress as some new machine and superiority as the ability to kill off everything?

    [Nov 06, 2015] Debt and energy

    Notable quotes:
    "... I've seen my children's generation living a lifestyle kings and queens couldn't have dreamt of (in the not too distant past): their own furnished homes upon marriage, multiple new-ish cars, international travel, etc. This was a blip in history, one that was financed by – debt. ..."
    "... The question here is: why would oil patch debt cause a systemic crisis? The 2007 real estate crisis was a crisis because it threatened to bankrupt very, very large banks. The Great Depression was caused by bank failures, and the failure of Lehman Brothers scared everyone with the possibility of a re-run of 1929. So, is there a threat that the oil patch will bring down Chase, or Bank of America?? I don't see any evidence of that – that's what needs to be looked at. ..."
    "... I suspect any mainstream economist, including Krugman, would think Gail is crazy to suggest that excess debt is causing the current commodity deflation. The straightforward explanation, AFAIK, is that commodity deflation is a long-term (secular) phenomenon, that was temporarily interrupted by a construction bubble in China. ..."
    "... The thing is as the total debt levels grows and it becomes apparent that the debtor is not capable of repaying the debt, trust is lost in the debtor (and its currency) and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced. ..."
    "... "Would an economy with 25% unemployment be good for them?" Dennis Coyne ..."
    "... "There is nothing crappy or fake about the current economy," ~ ChiefEngineer ..."
    "... "1. thrifty management; frugality in the expenditure or consumption of money, materials, etc." ~ dictionary.com ..."
    "... "Do you need a job Caelan ?" ~ ChiefEngineer ..."

    Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 11:41 am

    "This is the same as borrowing even more from the future to maintain today's over consumptive life styles and leaving their children and grand children with the bill." And, that says it all, thanks Rune.
    Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 12:14 pm
    Hi Doug,

    Imagine your children were just graduating from college. Would an economy with 25% unemployment be good for them? That's what we get when we are too concerned over high public debt as the Hoover administration clearly was. You should read Keynes (it is a short book),
    The General Theory of Employment, Interest, and Money

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_General_Theory_of_Employment,_Interest_and_Money

    Or read Krugman's End This Depression Now, for an alternative view on debt from Gail's.

    Doug Leighton, 11/05/2015 at 12:36 pm
    I've seen my children's generation living a lifestyle kings and queens couldn't have dreamt of (in the not too distant past): their own furnished homes upon marriage, multiple new-ish cars, international travel, etc. This was a blip in history, one that was financed by – debt.
    Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 5:36 pm
    Hi Doug,

    My daughter just graduated from University. You avoided the question, if your daughter had just graduated do you think a World with a 25% unemployment rate would be better, or one with a 6% unemployment rate?

    Low government debt and balanced budgets (Herbert Hoover thinking) gets you low employment. Keynesian policies done properly get you higher employment.

    Debt is important, of that there is no doubt.
    When the economy is doing poorly it is usually because of too little debt rather than too much debt.

    Greece is a notable exception and there are other cases where countries have taken on too much debt, in Greece's case the lack of control over its own monetary policy is a big problem. If they had the ability to increase their money supply to get some moderate inflation (5% or so), they could have eased their debt burden and gradually got there spending and taxation to sustainable levels. The Euro was not a good idea for this reason, that is why the United Kingdom did not join in the monetary union, a smart economic and political move.

    Ron Patterson, 11/05/2015 at 1:16 pm

    Dennis, there are two types of debt, public and private. If you read Gail's article, you will see that it deals exclusively with private debt and not public debt. Keynes theories deals primarily with public debt, efforts by the government to prime the economy with public money.

    I don't think Krugman would disagree that strongly with Gail. I read some of the reviews of his book, End This Depression Now! It appears to me that they are talking about two entirely different subjects.

    But back to Keynes, do you really believe that the economic theories of John Maynard Keynes, written in 1936 have more than a remote connection to today's financing in the oil patch.

    The US government public debt today is totally different from the public debt during the Hoover administration. It is more than just silly to compare the US economy today with that of the Hoover administration. But even doing so would would have only marginal connection to the oil patch.

    Nick G, 11/05/2015 at 2:22 pm
    Ron,

    The question here is: why would oil patch debt cause a systemic crisis? The 2007 real estate crisis was a crisis because it threatened to bankrupt very, very large banks. The Great Depression was caused by bank failures, and the failure of Lehman Brothers scared everyone with the possibility of a re-run of 1929. So, is there a threat that the oil patch will bring down Chase, or Bank of America?? I don't see any evidence of that – that's what needs to be looked at.
    -------–

    I suspect any mainstream economist, including Krugman, would think Gail is crazy to suggest that excess debt is causing the current commodity deflation. The straightforward explanation, AFAIK, is that commodity deflation is a long-term (secular) phenomenon, that was temporarily interrupted by a construction bubble in China.

    Rune Likvern, 11/05/2015 at 3:07 pm

    BIS (Bank for International Settlements) apparently gives some attention to the oil and gas sector total debt.

    "First, the oil–debt nexus illustrates the evolving risks in the financial system. Rapidly rising leverage creates risk exposures in the non-financial corporate sector that may be transferred across the global financial system. Similarly, rising leverage puts a greater premium on the liquidity of the markets for the assets that back debt. Both developments underscore the need to better understand the functioning, behaviour and interaction of markets and intermediaries.
    Second, the build-up of debt in the oil sector provides an example of how high debt levels can induce new linkages between individual markets and the wider economy. Such interaction needs to be taken into account in assessments of the economic implications of falling oil prices."

    https://www.bis.org/publ/qtrpdf/r_qt1503f.pdf

    Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 5:44 pm

    Hi Ron,

    Doug was talking about public debt, I used to read Gail's stuff at the Oil Drum, on economics she is not very good in my opinion.

    One thing she may be missing is that when oil companies go bankrupt, they may sell off their assets to bigger companies with deeper pockets. When oil prices recover, these financially stronger companies will be able to get financing to drill profitable wells.

    I won't comment further, there will be much less of a lag in new drilling once oil prices get above $75/b than Gail believes.

    Rune Likvern, 11/05/2015 at 3:32 pm

    There is something called a balanced budget (I am aware that there are pockets on this planet that this principles do not apply).

    To run a deficit means spending more than what is received as income. This may work temporarily if that puts the economy back on an organic growth trajectory.

    According to data (Warning these are predatory data!) the Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/Historicals

    The US has since 1945 accumulated a total debt of around $12Trillion from (total) fiscal deficits (OMB) and has not run a surplus since 2001 and OMBs estimates now is for deficits through 2020.

    So solving the debt problem created by one generation by arguing that youth unemployment needs to be kept in check by adding more debt for them to service later is [insert appropriate description here].

    The thing is as the total debt levels grows and it becomes apparent that the debtor is not capable of repaying the debt, trust is lost in the debtor (and its currency) and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced.

    "Overall, unemployment in Spain stands at 22.4 percent."
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/04/us-spain-apprentices-idUSKCN0RY09N20151004

    Watcher, 11/05/2015 at 4:11 pm

    and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced.

    Not if you have a central bank that finances the deficit via purchase of gov't securities.

    Rather a lot of that going on right now.

    Everywhere with a CB.

    ChiefEngineer, 11/05/2015 at 5:38 pm

    Rune says:

    "The thing is as the total debt levels grows and it becomes apparent that the debtor is not capable of repaying the debt, trust is lost in the debtor (and its currency) and it gets harder to run a deficit, which means austerity measures are introduced."

    If this is true, why do so many right wing conservatives have their panties in a wad about the United States ? The US is the strongest economy in the world and the dollar is at record strength. Why won't Republicans return to the tax policies of the year 2000 if debt is that important to them? The year of a record surplus.

    History shows Conservatives only care about debt when a Progressive is in the White House. I never heard a word about debt from the Republicans during the Bushy and Raygun years. Remember, Dick Cheney said deficits don't matter.

    http://www.ontheissues.org/Celeb/Dick_Cheney_Budget_+_Economy.htm

    Dennis Coyne, 11/05/2015 at 5:58 pm

    Hi Rune,

    Yes when unemployment is low, a balanced budget makes perfect sense to me.

    I am not in favor of unending deficits (though I probably don't sound like it). It would be better for the government to pay down debt when the economy is doing well (lets say 5.5% unemployment rate or lower).

    When the unemployment rate is high (I was talking about unemployment in general rather than youth unemployment rates), government deficits make perfect sense, even if too much private debt initially caused the recession. Sometimes solving a problem caused by too much private debt, requires increasing public debt to get the economy growing. The economic growth should decrease the deficit as increased income will increase tax revenue and reduce government spending on unemployment benefits and government aid to low income citizens.

    Caelan MacIntyre: On Dennis' Fake Stuff, 11/05/2015 at 6:25 pm

    "Would an economy with 25% unemployment be good for them?" Dennis Coyne

    Would it be a real economy or an uneconomy, helped run by an ungovernment?

    If the latter, then I would answer, yes, if with 100% unemployment. (Because they would be employed in a real economy with a real government)

    …Dennis, why is it that you seem to like crappy stuff like fake governments and fake economies?

    ChiefEngineer, 11/05/2015 at 7:01 pm

    There is nothing crappy or fake about the current economy, unless your on the outside looking in.

    Do you need a job Caelan ?

    Caelan MacIntyre, 11/05/2015 at 7:25 pm

    "There is nothing crappy or fake about the current economy," ~ ChiefEngineer

    The economy is uneconomical, so, yes, it's crappy.
    …Well, ok, its much worse than crappy. Happy?

    Economy:
    "1. thrifty management; frugality in the expenditure or consumption of money, materials, etc." ~ dictionary.com

    "Do you need a job Caelan ?" ~ ChiefEngineer

    You mean like one that manufactures a need for a relatively useless, overpriced and/or otherwise crappy junk sweatshopped product that breaks more often and sooner than ever before and cannot be fixed or fixed easily or cheaply by the owner?

    ChiefEngineer, 11/05/2015 at 8:28 pm

    That crappy economy produced that crappy computer which keeps posting your crappy comments. All because of the crappy education you got from the fake school from a crappy fake government.

    Caelan, I hope your having a real nice day

    Caelan MacIntyre, 11/06/2015 at 7:56 am

    Ya all this fake/virtual communication in place of the real, all the while those with an education (in what?) run around and help to perpetuate the above, the aforementioned and this kind of uneconomy that pushes the planet ever closer to the precipice.
    Back to the ol' drawing board, ChiefEngineer.

    Dennis Coyne, 11/06/2015 at 9:57 am

    Hi Caelan,

    I deal with what is rather than what might be, as far as governments. Your imaginary utopia is likely to remain just that.

    I imagine everyone would vote for optional taxation, what could possibly go wrong? :)

    Fred Magyar, 11/05/2015 at 7:28 pm

    My daughter just graduated from University.
    You avoided the question, if your daughter had just graduated do you think a World with a 25% unemployment rate would be better, or one with a 6% unemployment rate?

    I think you are living far far in the past. I have a son who is still at a University, My brother's daughter also just graduated. so I think I can relate to your concerns. However I think what is happening now, is going to change how society views employment at a fundamental level. The idea of a career might not even apply at all anymore for the current crop of graduates.

    https://goo.gl/EbR8lY

    "We are in the middle of an economic transition, from the old industrial economy to the new collaborative economy" – Peers Inc.

    New sharing practices, facilitated by information technology and pervasive networking, are disrupting the status quo in business, education and society. As co-founder of Zipcar, Robin Chase has been a pioneer and leading thinker in this movement since its emergence. Now, with Peers Inc, Robin aims to "combine the best of people power with the best of corporate power" to help realise the wider benefits when decentralisation, localisation and specialisation meet scale and resources.

    On top of examples and success stories from this 'new collaborative economy', what could this mean for the economy as a whole? Are we in the midst of a transition from capitalism to something new and different? Are the rules of our current economic model being rewritten? If so, what are the new rules of the game and how do we play by them?

    Dennis Coyne, 11/06/2015 at 10:06 am

    Hi Fred,

    The transition may be good for many, my point is that many University graduates are having a tough time finding work that utilizes what they have learned at University.

    This is potentially much more of a problem for young people than excess government debt. In addition, the idle labor and capital is wasteful, there is work to be done to transition away from fossil fuel we should get to it. The ensuing economic growth will reduce government deficits so that the debt incurred to jump start the economy will be reduced if the government surplus that results is not given away in lower tax rates (as Republican presidents since 1980 have tended to do.)

    BC, 11/05/2015 at 12:32 pm

    Speaking of money velocity, it's acceleration is contracting at the fastest rate since 2008, 2001, and the early 1980s:

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2mPb

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2n98

    And a bear market for the broad equity market is underway (especially value and small-cap stocks, which typically is followed by the large-cap stocks "catching down" thereafter):

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2n96

    So-called "health" care spending has been growing at twice the rate of final sales, which is characteristic of recessionary conditions:

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2qs5

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2qrZ

    Subprime auto loans are driving (bad pun) auto sales to bubbly heights vs. real wages, but the rate of growth of auto sales is decelerating:

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2oZu

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2qsp

    Without subprime auto loans, vehicle sales would be 13M vs. 17-18.

    Subprime debt and ACA-induced spending (subsidies to insurers) for "health" care is what is preventing the US economy from decelerating from around stall speed to recession since late 2014. But "health" care spending has become a net drag on the rest of the economy.

    The recession-like contraction in the acceleration of money velocity to private GDP implies that the market is tightening financial conditions (credit/debt-money acceleration) before the Fed can begin raising rates and tightening reserves.

    Therefore, rather than raising rates, the Fed (and ECB, BOJ, BOE, and PBoC) is more likely to resume QEternity to fund increasing deficits/GDP to prevent nominal GDP from contracting from the post-2007 trend rate per capita of below 2% (slowest since the Great Depression, 1890s, and 1830s-40s).

    Moreover, don't be surprised if the Fed is compelled to resort to negative interest rate policy (NIRP) because of debt and price deflation hereafter, including for the service sector ("health" care, "education", law, personal services, etc.).

    Petro, 11/06/2015 at 12:08 am

    Mr. Likvern,

    Normally I would think twice before commenting/correcting you, but this time I noticed you used "Credit" and "Debt" as equivalent terms, therefore I will try:
    although many economists and finance people erroneously use those terms as equivalent – they are NOT!
    Simply/shortly said: credit is a "worthiness" notion -economically not useful in practical terms.
    In order for it to be "useful" economically (i.e generate economic activity/GDP), it has to become debt.
    Signatory parties with COLLATERAL who are pledging/willing to circulate it (i.e. spend it) are necessary for credit to become debt.
    Although this " concept" is altered by Glass_Stegal repeal and interest paying central bank reserves (i.e. FED) which erased the line between commercial and investment banking (today they are one and the same), it still holds generally true throughout economy.
    Be well,

    Petro

    P.S.: an essential mistake most economic/finance luminaries make is: "money is backed by debt".
    Today money is debt – debt is money!
    If one does not clear that concept up, one is certain to stay in the fog when it comes to money/debt/credit…

    [Nov 06, 2015] Iraq needs 1.3 mb/d additional oil exports and $70 oil to balance budget

    Notable quotes:
    "... Iraq needs 1.3 mb/d additional oil exports and $70 oil to balance budget ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Matt Mushalik, 11/04/2015 at 10:36 pm

    After my article on Saudi fiscal breakeven oil prices I did a similar exercise for Iraq:

    30/10/2015
    Iraq needs 1.3 mb/d additional oil exports and $70 oil to balance budget
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/iraq-needs-1-3-mbd-additional-oil-exports-and-us-70-oil-to-balance-budget

    [Nov 06, 2015] Total oil and gas industry loss of $25 bn during last quarter indicates deeply uneconomic production

    Notable quotes:
    "... Chesapeake CHK published its 3q15 results. Loss $5.4 bn on revenue of $880 mill. ..."
    "... Total oil and gas industry loss of $25 bn during last quarter indicates deeply uneconomic production. ..."
    "... If oil prices do not take off, CLR will have no choice and make the impairment. The longer oil prices stay low, the more dramatic the situation. What strikes me is that OXY left the Bakken at a huge loss. Fidelity Oil Gas closed…. There must be something going on here. There is probably more to asset impairments other than price (depletion of sweet spots, monster decline of monster wells?) I think we will see more when the next Bakken production numbers are out. ..."
    "... 63 Billion USD went poof in the Enron Collapse. ..."
    "... Impairments are a non-cash item. My preliminary analysis of companies' 3Q results suggests that operating cashflows remained close to 2Q levels, while capex was sharply reduced. As a result, cash burn was also considerably lower than in previous two quarters, and some companies were cash positive. ..."
    "... Banks traditionally lend money only on PDP reserves, or if PUD is included, there is a large discount applied, per Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulations. Also, it should be noted SEC reserve valuations and bank reserve valuations are not necessarily the same. SEC uses the average of the price of WTI and Henry Hub on the first day of each month, with no escalation in the event of contango, nor deceleration in the event of futures backwardization. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 3:06 am

    Shale Gas Economics,

    Chesapeake CHK published its 3q15 results. Loss $5.4 bn on revenue of $880 mill. Total loss for the first nine months $16bn. See also http://wolfstreet.com/2015/11/05/giant-sucking-sound-of-capital-destruction-in-us-oil-gas-impairments/.

    Total oil and gas industry loss of $25 bn during last quarter indicates deeply uneconomic production. As no economic system could carry on to produce at such losses, companies have already responded. Chesapeake has cut rig count to 18 from 69. Gross wells completed are down to 84 (from 309) and gross wells spud are down to 81 from 296. Activity is reduced threefold!!! As there is a time lag of six to nine months from lower capex to actual production, I expect a significant fall of natgas production for the first quarter 2016. As CHK is one of the leading producers in the US, this will also impact total US production.

    MarbleZeppelin, 11/06/2015 at 6:56 am
    Reminds me of some old cars I have had, keep pouring money into them and get poor performance all the way to the next time they suck your wallet dry. Answer, dump the old one, get a newer more efficient car.

    So if oil is not working out for us, dump it. Get our energy elsewhere. Time to stop throwing money at it, it's in a death spiral.

    AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 7:17 am

    Heinrich,

    Thanks for the link. The article has a link to the original research by Evaluate Energy on U.S. oil & gas companies' 3Q results. Recommended reading
    http://blog.evaluateenergy.com/us-oil-gas-company-earnings-take-a-huge-hit-in-q3-2015-impairments

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 7:37 am
    AlexS,
    Thank you for the link. As prices – especially natgas – are now even lower than in 3q15, this becomes even bigger this quarter. I get the feeling that this is very big and I am wondering what the consequences will be.
    shallow sand, 11/06/2015 at 7:57 am
    Wont their be even more impairments in Q4 as companies like CLR, who have held off, will be forced to write down assets?
    Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 8:26 am
    shallow sand,

    If oil prices do not take off, CLR will have no choice and make the impairment. The longer oil prices stay low, the more dramatic the situation. What strikes me is that OXY left the Bakken at a huge loss. Fidelity Oil&Gas closed…. There must be something going on here. There is probably more to asset impairments other than price (depletion of sweet spots, monster decline of monster wells?) I think we will see more when the next Bakken production numbers are out.

    Enno Peters, 11/06/2015 at 8:34 am
    It doesn't matter if prices will take off now, the impairment still has to be made. Only December may make a very small difference:

    "The United States Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) calculates the economics of proved reserves using the unweighted, trailing 12-month average of the closing prices from the first day of each month. Year-end 2014 impairment tests were evaluated using a $94.99/barrel of oil prices and a $4.31 per MCF gas price, with 2014's low year-end prices buoyed by strong prices from the first 10 months of the year."

    http://press.ihs.com/press-release/ep-impairments/gloomy-price-outlook-signals-continued-impairments-likely-throughout-20

    HR, 11/06/2015 at 10:36 am
    I saw wolf richters article this mornings as well. Those are some ugly numbers mainly because of the write downs. I think I already know the answer, but without the write downs are any of these guys even cash neutral much less making money?

    Wasn't it Harold Hamm that said by spring production will fall off a cliff?

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 2:23 pm
    HR,

    It would be interesting to know if the write downs are just related to price or is there any write down on the quantity of reserves?

    AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 11:44 am

    Heinrich Leopold said:

    "What strikes me is that OXY left the Bakken at a huge loss"

    Occidental was planning to sell its Bakken assets long before the drop in oil prices. But the actual price was far from what they were initially expecting. Occidental Reportedly Sells Bakken Assets To Lime Rock

    October 15, 2015
    http://www.ugcenter.com/occidental-reportedly-sells-bakken-assets-lime-rock-823211

    As recently as last fall, Wall Street had expected Oxy's Bakken assets to sell for more than $3 billion. The sharp drop in the deal's value represents the most-significant pullback in valuation yet in the second-largest U.S. oil producing state.
    =================================

    Occidental Petroleum cuts spending, scales back in the Bakken

    By Patrick C. Miller | February 03, 2015
    http://www.thebakken.com/articles/1005/occidental-petroleum-cuts-spending-scales-back-in-the-bakken

    Occidental Petroleum Corp. will scale back operations in the Williston Basin and is reducing its 2015 capital cost budget by 33 percent in response to low oil prices.
    "Our capital program will focus on our core assets in the Permian Basin and parts of the Middle East," said Stephen Chazen, president and CEO. "We have minimized our development activities in the Williston Basin, domestic gas properties, Bahrain, and the Joslyn oil sands project, as these have subpar returns in this current product price environment."
    ========================================
    Oxy Says Permian Operations Still Solidly Profitable

    FRI, JAN 30, 2015
    http://www.energyintel.com/pages/eig_article.aspx?DocId=875317

    … while Hess regards the Bakken as a crown jewel in its portfolio, it is far less important to Oxy, which lacks the core acreage positions and sheer scale that Hess enjoys there.
    In fact, Oxy is cutting spending in the Bakken to "virtually nil" this year, matching similar cuts across its gas-weighted Midcontinent holdings, Chazen said.
    ===========================================
    Oxy sale of Bakken assets would make strategic sense -analysts

    Reuters, Oct 7, 2014
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/10/07/occidentalpetroleum-bakken-idUSL2N0S22HI20141007

    Any sale of Occidental Petroleum Corp's roughly 330,000 acres in North Dakota's oil-rich Bakken shale formation would make strategic sense for the company, which is likely eager to strike a deal, two analysts said on Tuesday.
    Oxy is looking to sell its Bakken holdings, which are largely undeveloped, for as much as $3 billion, according to a report from Bloomberg News.
    Even with the recent dip in crude oil prices, the divestment "makes sense to us, strategically," Raymond James analysts Pavel Molchanov and Kevin Smith said in a note to clients on Tuesday.
    "This is substantially undeveloped acreage, and Occidental has long cited it as a likely monetization candidate, so it's been puzzling why the company kept it this long," the analysts said.
    Oxy is spending about $510 million this year on its North Dakota holdings, and any buyer would have to invest significant capital to boost production. Currently, Oxy is the 18th-largest oil producer in North Dakota with about 17,000 barrels per day as of July, trailing peers of the same size and even much-smaller rivals.
    Oxy said last October that it would pursue "strategic alternatives" for some of its North American assets, including those in North Dakota. In a statement to Reuters on Tuesday, the company reiterated that position.
    ===============================================

    Occidental said to seek buyer for $3 billion Bakken oil business

    10/07/2014
    http://www.worldoil.com/Occidental-said-to-seek-buyer-for-3-billion-bakken-oil-business.html

    HOUSTON (Bloomberg) - Occidental Petroleum is seeking to sell oil assets in North Dakota for as much as $3 billion, people with knowledge of the matter said.
    Occidental is working with investment bank Tudor Pickering Holt & Co. to sell about 335,000 net drilling acres in the Williston Basin, said the people, who asked not to be identified because they were discussing private information. The holdings include a part of North Dakota's Bakken formation, an area that has been less successful for Occidental because of higher costs, though it's one of the fastest-growing oil-producing regions in the U.S.
    Melissa Schoeb, an Occidental spokeswoman, said the Houston-based company reported plans last year to "pursue strategic alternatives" for some assets, including in the Williston Basin.
    Occidental, CEO, Stephen I. Chazen has embraced a restructuring plan that includes selling part of Occidental's Middle East business and spinning off the company's California operations. Chazen told investors in July that he might accelerate plans to sell assets in what the company calls its "midcontinent" operations in the Piceance and Williston basins.
    ==============================================

    Will Oxy's Divorce Spur The Break Up Of Big Oil?

    2/19/2014
    http://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2014/02/19/will-oxys-divorce-encourage-the-break-up-of-big-oil/

    … Occidental Petroleum has decided to slim down as well.
    Oxy's plan, announced last Friday, will be dramatic. Its California assets will be rolled into a separate publicly traded company … . Analyst Tim Rezvan with Sterne Agee expects Oxy to sell down its Middle Eastern and Bakken assets as well as its oil trading division in order to focus on Texas.
    =============================================
    Occidental Petroleum starts breakup plan in Middle East, North Africa

    Bloomberg, 10/18/2013

    The company said today it will pursue "strategic alternatives" for Mid-continent assets, including some in the oil-bearing Bakken shale of North Dakota as well as in the Hugoton gas field in Kansas and the Piceance gas fields in the Rocky Mountains.

    Longtimber, 11/06/2015 at 11:35 am

    OMG – 33 Billion poof ball for Q3, Top 10 From link above. http://blog.evaluateenergy.com/us-oil-gas-company-earnings-take-a-huge-hit-in-q3-2015-impairments
    63 Billion USD went poof in the Enron Collapse.
    http://usatoday30.usatoday.com/money/energy/2002-01-22-enron-numbers.htm..
    Sportsfans- this is serious, and the train is still on the tracks.

    Ron Patterson, 11/06/2015 at 11:50 am
    I think this one was more impressive. These are "energy companies".

    Evaluate Energy has analysed the preliminary Q3 earnings statements of 48 U.S. companies and compared it with their earnings in previous periods. The 48 companies had a combined total net loss of US$25.5 billion, which is a staggering 70% and 58% larger than these companies' significant combined net losses of US$14.9 billion and US$16.6 billion in Q1 and Q2 2015 respectively.

     photo Net Income_zpsoxne1mv2.gif

    AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 12:23 pm

    In fact, the sharp increase in combined net losses was largely due to the increase in asset impairments. "Impairments are clearly the main reason for this continued downward trend".

    Impairments are a non-cash item. My preliminary analysis of companies' 3Q results suggests that operating cashflows remained close to 2Q levels, while capex was sharply reduced. As a result, cash burn was also considerably lower than in previous two quarters, and some companies were cash positive.

    However lower capex will likely results in lower 1h16 production volumes.

    shallow sand, 11/06/2015 at 12:38 pm

    AlexS. I agree with you.

    Do you have any statistics on gas/ oil ratio trend? Seems to me oil production is declining faster than gas and NGLs production for the oil weighted companies.

    I think Enno has posted that associated gas is not falling to the extent oil is, and this masks oil decline in the company headline reports. Have to look at each report/10Q.

    An example of this is SD, who saw Mid-Continent BOE production fall 10%, but oil fell 18%.

    Heinrich Leopold, 11/06/2015 at 2:05 pm

    AlexS,

    Asset impairments relate to revisions of reserves and resources. However, the main question is now did the revisions relate to oil and gas prices only or is there also a revision of the quantity of reserves due to faster than expected decline? Is there any way to find this out?

    AlexS, 11/06/2015 at 2:50 pm
    Heinrich,

    I think impairments mainly reflect the reduction in the value of the reserves (due to lower prices), rather than volumes. There was no mention of faster decline rates

    shallow sand, 11/06/2015 at 3:52 pm
    I think it should be noted in the SEC reserve reports there are the following categories:

    PDP – Proved Developed Producing
    PDNP – Proved Developed Non-Producing
    PUD- Proved Undeveloped

    Although admittedly simplistic, and I stand to be corrected, PDP are active wells, PDNP are inactive wells and PUD are where there are no wells, but the locations have been "proved" by offsetting wells, and there are plans to drill and complete the location within 5 years.

    All categories will be hit by WTI and Henry Hub prices being half of 2014, but also there should be a hit due to a number of PUD locations being no longer economically viable.

    Banks traditionally lend money only on PDP reserves, or if PUD is included, there is a large discount applied, per Office of the Comptroller of the Currency regulations. Also, it should be noted SEC reserve valuations and bank reserve valuations are not necessarily the same. SEC uses the average of the price of WTI and Henry Hub on the first day of each month, with no escalation in the event of contango, nor deceleration in the event of futures backwardization.

    Banks, on the other hand, use a price deck, which should closely mirror the WTI and Henry Hub strips, subject to maybe a little of the banks' own forecasts on future prices.

    As I have noted many times, total debt levels for all US companies operating in the Bakken, except for XOM, EOG and Abraxas will be greater than 65% of SEC PDP PV10 at 2015 year end, if my calculations are close. Prior to the shale boom, would have meant no further monies advanced using reserves as collateral, assuming bank price decks are close to the current strips.

    Yes, this will include, companywide, the likes of COP, MRO, HES, QEP, CLR and WLL.

    Another exception would be Statoil (not US), I did not include them, as I could not get a handle on their debt/PDP PV10. I did also not analyze Canadian firms operating in the Bakken. However, most Canadian shale firms have large amounts of long term debt, similar to US shale firms.

    Rune Likvern, 11/06/2015 at 6:17 pm

    Just dropping by and remembered an article (Linn Energy) from yesterday;

    "Non-cash impairment of long-lived assets of approximately $2.3 billion for the third quarter 2015, primarily driven by lower commodity prices and the Company's estimates of proved reserves; and"
    http://www.bloomberg.com/research/markets/news/article.asp?docKey=600-201511050650PRIMZONEFULLFEED6022751-1

    More later if time allows……….

    [Nov 06, 2015] Giant Sucking Sound of Capital Destruction in US Oil Gas

    Notable quotes:
    "... Of the 48 companies, 38 recognized impairment charges totaling $32.8 billion in Q3 alone, a 79% jump from Q2, when impairments hit $18.4 billion. Since Q4 2014, these 48 companies recognized impairments of $84.6 billion; 39% of that in Q3. ..."
    "... In Q4 2014, many investors thought the oil bust was a blip, that this was just a correction of sorts in oil prices and that they'd rebound in early 2015. But in 2015, oil and natural gas both have plunged to new cycle lows. And yet, over and over again, sharp sucker rallies gave rise to hopes that it would all be over pronto, that the price would settle safely above $80 a barrel, or at least above $65 a barrel, where some of the oil companies could survive. ..."
    "... he game has boiled down to who can slash operating costs and capital expenditures fast enough without losing too much production, who has enough cash to burn through while this lasts, and who can still get new money at survivable rates. And that game is accompanied, as in Q3, by the giant sucking sound of capital destruction. ..."
    "... Banks, when reporting earnings, are saying a few choice things about their oil gas loans ..."
    "... Its a legitimate industry with high costs. It came online before its time. Fast forward 10 years and conventional depletion+Chinese/Indian demand will let it flourish again. ..."
    "... If it was a scheme, it was a rather elaborate one, involving tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of workers. Also, they maintained the facade for years before winding it down. ..."
    "... Dunno, it's certainly a cluster-f*ck, but I think the dumb bastards actually believed the recoverable reserves numbers in the beginning. ..."
    "... Thank The Saudis for crashing the price of energy, perhaps with a little assistance on the broader political front to crush Russia? How is that going? ..."
    "... You simply cannot build up an industry on leveraged debt when there is no future of sustainable demand. ..."
    "... Yep, the Fed created this monster, but the oil patch is the obvious problem. things are just as bad or worse in all the other economic sectors. Of course when all the defaults start, it will be a complete surprise to all the financial Frankensteins who created the monster... ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Wolf Richter www.wolfstreet.com

    Chesapeake Energy is a good example. The second largest natural gas producer in the US, after Exxon, reported its debacle yesterday.

    Revenues plunged 49% from the quarter a year ago, when the oil bust had already set in. The company has been slashing costs and capital expenditures. In June, it eliminated its dividend. And yesterday, it recognized $5.4 billion in impairment charges, bringing impairments for the nine months to a staggering $15.4 billion.

    Impairment charges are a sudden accounting recognition of accumulated capital destruction. These impairments pushed its losses from operations to $5.4 billion in Q3 and to $16 billion for the nine months.

    Chesapeake currently gets 72% of its production from natural gas, 17% from oil, and 11% from natural gas liquids. The oil bust has been going on since the summer of 2014. The US natural gas bust has been going on since 2009! Two natural gas producers have already gone bankrupt this year: Quicksilver Resources and Samson Resources.

    Its annual free cash flow has been negative since 1994, even during good times, with only two tiny exceptions (Bloomberg chart). After living off borrowed money, it's now trying to hang on by selling assets and lowering its mountain of debt. But it still owes $16 billion, much of which QE-besotted, ZIRP-blinded, yield-hungry investors had handed it over the years, based on hype and false hopes.

    Its shares last traded at $7.50, down 75% from peak hype in June 2014. Its 4.875% notes due 2022 and its 5.75% notes due 2023, according to S&P Capital IQ LCD yesterday, traded for 66 cents on the dollar.

    In terms of capital destruction, Chesapeake is in good company, and not even the leader. A new report by Evaluate Energy, which covers Oil & Gas companies around the globe, examined the financial statements of the 48 US oil & gas companies that have reported earnings for the third quarter so far. The amounts and the speed of deterioration are just stunning.

    Turns out, what started in Q4 last year is getting worse relentlessly. And now it's getting serious: plunging revenues, squeezed operating margins, whopping impairment charges, and horrendous losses are combining into a very toxic mix.

    Evaluate Energy determined that net income of those 48 companies was a gigantic loss for the three quarters combined of $57 billion.

    On a quarterly basis, the losses in Q3 jumped 58% from Q2 and 70% from Q1 to $25.5 billion. This fiasco, which has been spiraling down at a breath-taking pace, looks like this:

    US-oil-gas-earnings-quarterly-2014-Q3-2015

    The biggest factor in these losses, as in Chesapeake's case, was the impairments. For this study, Evaluate Energy only counted impairments of property and equipment, not of financial assets such as "goodwill." Including charge-offs of goodwill, it would have been even worse (an example is Whiting Petroleum, which we'll get to in a moment).

    Of the 48 companies, 38 recognized impairment charges totaling $32.8 billion in Q3 alone, a 79% jump from Q2, when impairments hit $18.4 billion. Since Q4 2014, these 48 companies recognized impairments of $84.6 billion; 39% of that in Q3.

    Devon Energy was king of the hill, with $5.9 billion in impairments in Q3, after having recognized impairments every quarter this year, for a total of about $15.5 billion.

    Our natural-gas hero Chesapeake is in second place, if only barely, with $5.4 billion in impairments this quarter, and $15.5 billion for the nine months.

    Of note, Occidental Petroleum, with impairments of $3.3 billion in Q3, Murphy Oil, Whiting Petroleum, and Carrizo Oil & Gas all recognized over 90% of their respective impairments this year in this misbegotten third quarter. They were in no hurry to grant their investors a peek at reality.

    However, Whiting's impairments of $1.7 billion do not include an additional $870 million in write-offs of goodwill in connection with its once highly ballyhooed acquisition of Kodiak Oil & Gas, which closed in December last year.

    In Q4 2014, many investors thought the oil bust was a blip, that this was just a correction of sorts in oil prices and that they'd rebound in early 2015. But in 2015, oil and natural gas both have plunged to new cycle lows. And yet, over and over again, sharp sucker rallies gave rise to hopes that it would all be over pronto, that the price would settle safely above $80 a barrel, or at least above $65 a barrel, where some of the oil companies could survive.

    But now that oil in storage is practically coming out of our ears, globally, the meme has become "lower for longer," and the game has boiled down to who can slash operating costs and capital expenditures fast enough without losing too much production, who has enough cash to burn through while this lasts, and who can still get new money at survivable rates. And that game is accompanied, as in Q3, by the giant sucking sound of capital destruction.

    Banks, when reporting earnings, are saying a few choice things about their oil & gas loans, which boil down to this: it's bloody out there, but we made our money and rolled off the risks to others in a trade that has become blood-soaked.

    Read… Who on Wall Street is Now Eating the Oil & Gas Losses?

    NotApplicable

    Which plays right into the hands of those manipulating Brzezinski's "Grand Chessboard," as energy choke-points grow ever more valuable to those who ultimately control them.

    Frumundacheeze

    You were a complete inbecile if you ever believed the US fracking industry was anything more than a false pretense for pump and dump schemes. If you did, you didn't do your homework, or you bought into the hype.
    Benjamin123

    Its a legitimate industry with high costs. It came online before its time. Fast forward 10 years and conventional depletion+Chinese/Indian demand will let it flourish again.

    The conventional oil industry was also in trouble in the early 90s when oil slipped under $7. Oh, that was also a pump and dump.

    Casey Jones

    I was in North Dakota recently and was shocked, appalled and utterly devastated by the environmental damage up there, not to mention all the cheap ass construction of lousy housing and fact food outlets. The place is wrecked. Fracking is a cruel joke.

    divingengineer

    I guess that makes me a complete imbecile. The industry seems a little complex to reduce to a pump and dump.

    If it was a scheme, it was a rather elaborate one, involving tens of billions of dollars and tens of thousands of workers. Also, they maintained the facade for years before winding it down.

    Dunno, it's certainly a cluster-f*ck, but I think the dumb bastards actually believed the recoverable reserves numbers in the beginning.

    philipat

    Thank The Saudis for crashing the price of energy, perhaps with a little assistance on the broader political front to crush Russia? How is that going?

    NotApplicable

    I still say that this narrative is more of an after the fact blame-game, as prices would've crashed regardless of what the Saud's are doing. You simply cannot build up an industry on leveraged debt when there is no future of sustainable demand. Mises laid all of this out nearly a century ago.

    new game

    thank the fed with zirp and qe stimulas. without it and market discipline none of this would be happening. fascism, what is the future now. the fed is the enemy from within that is destroying freedom...

    KnuckleDragger-X

    Yep, the Fed created this monster, but the oil patch is the obvious problem. things are just as bad or worse in all the other economic sectors. Of course when all the defaults start, it will be a complete surprise to all the financial Frankensteins who created the monster...

    [Nov 06, 2015] Who on Wall Street is Now Eating the Oil Gas Losses

    Notable quotes:
    "... Banks have been sloughing off the risk: They lent money to scrappy junk-rated companies that powered the shale revolution. These loans were backed by oil and gas reserves. ..."
    "... fresh money is already lining up again. They're trying to profit from the blood in the street. Blackstone raised almost $5 billion for a new energy fund and is waiting to pounce. Carlyle is trying to raise $2.5 billion for its new energy fund. Someday someone will get the timing right and come out ahead. ..."
    "... Next year is going to be brutal, explained the CEO of oil-field services giant Schlumberger. But then, there are dreams of "a potential spike in oil prices." Read… The Dismal Thing Schlumberger Just Said about US Oil ..."
    Nov 06, 2015 | Wolf Street

    Banks have been sloughing off the risk: They lent money to scrappy junk-rated companies that powered the shale revolution. These loans were backed by oil and gas reserves.

    ... ... ...

    Magnetar Capital, with $14 billion under management, sports an energy fund that is down 12% this year through September on "billions of dollars" it had invested in struggling oil-and-gas companies. But optimism reigns. It recovered a little in October and plans to plow more money into energy.

    ... ... ...

    Brigade Capital Management, which sunk $16 billion into junk-rated energy companies, is "having its worst stretch since 2008." It fell over 7% this summer and is in the hole for the year. But it remained gung-ho about energy investments.

    ... ... ...

    But fresh money is already lining up again. They're trying to profit from the blood in the street. Blackstone raised almost $5 billion for a new energy fund and is waiting to pounce. Carlyle is trying to raise $2.5 billion for its new energy fund. Someday someone will get the timing right and come out ahead.

    Next year is going to be brutal, explained the CEO of oil-field services giant Schlumberger. But then, there are dreams of "a potential spike in oil prices." Read… The Dismal Thing Schlumberger Just Said about US Oil

    [Nov 06, 2015] Putin Suspends Flights To Egypt As World Blames ISIS For Plane Crash

    Is this a replay on MH17? Looks like like was the case on 9/11 and MH17 there were war games the same day in the same air space.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down. ..."
    "... I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO. ..."
    "... On 23 January 2013 Italys top criminal court ruled that there was abundantly clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile ..."
    "... Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand. ..."
    "... The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice. ..."
    "... Force his hand to do what? I dont exactly understand what youre suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasnt made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore. ..."
    "... Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting. ..."
    "... I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudis also have some component of the security or operations. ..."
    "... Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. ..."
    "... I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise Im sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too? ..."
    "... Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and Establishment media}. ..."
    "... NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine ..."
    "... The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians. ..."
    "... in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists. ..."
    "... Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough . ..."
    "... ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog ..."
    "... The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide. ..."
    "... The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners. ..."
    "... If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence. ..."
    "... Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero! ..."
    "... Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact. ..."
    "... Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year. ..."
    Nov 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    detached.amusement

    Conspicuously absent from MSM is the fact that Israel, USA, Poland, Greece were having war game air dogfights 40 miles from where the plane was shot down.

    Jack Burton

    I caught that too, and it has gotten no play at all in western media. I heard it mentioned in Russian media. These are regular air superiority exercises. Air to Air combat using air superiority fighters and air to air missiles. Should this be investigated? Of course. It has already done this once before in 1980 during air to air exercises of NATO.

    Aerolinee Itavia Flight 870

    the cause of the crash to a missile fired from a French Navy aircraft, despite contrary evidence presented in Frank Taylor's 1994 report. On 23 January 2013 Italy's top criminal court ruled that there was "abundantly" clear evidence that the flight was brought down by a missile.[1] To date, this remains the deadliest aviation incident involving a DC-9-10/15 series."

    cougar_w

    When everything is a false flag operation then nothing is.

    ISIS is perfectly capable to pulling this off, and seems to enjoy the infamy, and they couldn't wait to claim credit. Looks good to me, no need to go any further than that.

    ... ... ...

    Winston Churchill

    The gambit is pretty obvious.

    Putin has proven in Ukraine that he cannot be goaded into action. This is an attempt to get Russian popular opinion ,to force his hand.

    They keep on telling us he's a dictator, so why would that affect him ?

    The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.

    Glasnost -> Winston Churchill

    Force his hand to do what? I don't exactly understand what you're suggesting. I guarantee you this airliner downing has only made Russians dislike ISIS more...it hasn't made them suddenly think oh we should not mess around there anymore.

    Winston Churchill -> Glasnost

    Something done in rage, rather than his cool, calculating lawyerly approach. Anything that can be portrayed as terrible to the RoW to disuade them from crossing into his camp. Its a Hail Mary pass IMO, but it shows how desperate they are getting.

    Blankone

    I have not confirmed myself but reports are that Israeli firms supplied the security for that airport. Some reports say the Saudi's also have some component of the security or operations.

    Maybe they should focus on that as well.

    trulz4lulz

    Now the sympathisers are trying to "pass the buck!"... an american tradition. much akin to "indian giving" but better.

    dear american gubmit: Who created ISIS?

    american gubmit: uhhh uhhhh, they did it!!! yeah! it was them all along, ya see?!

    Yttrium Gold Nitrogen

    France 2 reports that a sound of an explosion was recorded by the blackboxes, according to official who had access to the recordings.

    trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill

    The contradictions are getting so massive, even sheeple might begin to notice.

    Nope. Not while sportsball is on the teebee they wont. The trough of stupidity is a sweet, intoxicating slurry of false promises, self promotion and uplifting exceptionalism. The world is an aweful place when there isnt anyone there to tell you how exceptional you are. Murikistanians will NOT look away from the trough. Its just too delicious.


    El Vaquero -> trulz4lulz

    Having them distracted with bread and circuses is a double edged sword.

    Winston Churchill -> El Vaquero

    Yep, distraction beats jingo.

    It was much easier to whip up a blood frenzy before kim Kardasians ass blocked out the horizon.

    trulz4lulz -> Winston Churchill

    I agree, but it also helps promote patriotism and consumerism, which also is good for the economy because it focuses on the packadged food sector which is where a lot of jobs data comes from. . The model for the distraction workings is fascinating to me.

    forputin

    So which sources are credible? Only those russian? Yes, I also thought so. Only those sources that are controlled by Putin can be trusted. All other are controled by Anglo Zion Banking NWO Lizzard People Elite. Thank God Putin protects us from that information!

    farflungstar -> forputin

    Voactiv uses Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, so yeah it's probably bullshit. Reuters @ Buiness Insider too, more bullshit, Hymie.

    I just know you voiced equal measures of concern over the 2+ million killed and the countless more driven out, crippled or orphaned by USSA warmongering in the region, not to mention all the noise I'm sure you raised about israel killing thousands of civilians in Palestine too?

    Fuckin dickmouth

    Raymond_K._Hessel

    the Syrian Observatory is absolutely not credible - its one guy being used as a quote factory.

    Your lazy sarcasm aside - Russian media comports strangely with independent media, and it is no less trustworthy than the absolute nonsense in the pages of the NYT, Wa Post and other, indeed, Zionist {and 'Establishment' media}.

    NYT Still Pretends No Coup in Ukraine
    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/01/06/nyt-still-pretends-no-coup-in-ukra...

    The notion that American media is more trustworthy is absolutely absurd. One simply has to read from as broad an array as possible and assume that everyone has an agenda, everyone is trying to convince you of a *version*. Only its the US and its allies that have gone around the world bombing and killing based on pretext and lies, not the Russians.

    So the false equivalency ploy makes sense - until you give it a moment's thought.

    Cookie?

    Jack Burton

    30,000 trained, paid and organized fascists appeared on the Madian in the matter of a couple days, armed and outfitted in body armor. But Euro Maidan is not a Coup according to NYT. Every peaceful protest gets a 30,000 man army arrive to help it along. Also, in Kiev itself it is now public information that most sniper shoots were fired from the Ukraine Hotel that was headquarters to Right Sector Fascists.

    Jack Burton

    Syrian Observatory for Human Rights. Because this fraud guy in his small house in England has been exposed again and again as a liar and fraud, anyone using him as a source is making themsleves highly suspect. As if a fake source, as long as it says what you one wants, is good enough".

    Western Media refuses to expose this guy for what he is. He hides up in his house, claiming people are out to kill him, and puts out posts about war crimes. He hasn't been to Syria for over a decade, and admits No First Hand Knowledge of his Syrian sources, he gets his information second hand from so called friends of friends in Syria. RT caught up to him and made a fool out of him on camera.

    Yet he is the West's Top Source on Syrian war crimes.

    Johnny Horscaulk

    ISIS(ISIL) Completely Fabricated Enemy by US: Former CIA Contractor! Socio-Economics History Blog

    alphahammer

    Here is an excellent source of what happening there -- down to the minute.

    BTW. This nugget jumps out.

    ----

    Big impact of Russia's suspension of Egypt flights

    Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:

    Quote

    It's not just the Egyptian economy that will hurt after this. Russia's association of tour agencies says today's decision cuts off their biggest market and sets them on a "direct path to bankruptcy."

    "Egypt is the single biggest selling destination on the Russian tourism market, and right now it is peak season. It's the main destination for all the large tour operators," said Irina Tyurina, a spokeswoman for the Russian Union of Tour Operators.

    "There's 50,000 Russians there now, and those who have to come home early or have bought tickets but now can't travel, should get their money back from the tour operators. It's a direct path to bankruptcy for many firms."

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/russia/11978962/Russian...

    trulz4lulz

    Heavily invested in the tourist industry, are we? America is about to trigger a world warand you people are screeming aout lost vacation revenue? You are either one of the dumbest humans on earth that has learned to word good, or you are just plan software. Im guessing software. Nothiing but a program can be so blatantly stupid.

    alphahammer

    Dumb?

    BBBWWWAAAAHHHAAAA!!!!!

    I cut and paste the direct words from Roland Oliphant, our correspondent in Moscow, writes:

    If you had a lick of mental capacity, you would understand the comment is about RUSSIAN investment in tourism because Egypt is Russias #1 spot for vacationing Russians.

    ITS THE RUSSIANS SCREAMING ABOUT LOST TOURIST REVENUE EINSTEIN...

    Dumb? Yes, look it up in the dictionary and there will be your picture...

    swmnguy

    Oliphant is doing a good job in his role, helping to bait the hook the Zbigniew Brzezinski acolytes are jiggling out there. Oliphant's editorial comments about the Russian people's unwillingness to take casualties suggests he's gotten his Garanimals mixed up. Russians aren't Americans.

    farflungstar

    Because ISIS, Manischewitz Land, the US and UK "intelligence" agencies said they did it, does this mean it's true? Who would reasonably believe these serial liars at this point in time? Credibility is shot.

    I'd like to hear what the Russians have to say after a thorough investigation.

    SSRI Junkie

    this works out well for obola. he hates egypt for tossing out his muslim brotherhood lackeys and gets putin to cancel their flights in and out of egypt. his bung brothers in saudi arabia keep pumping oil even if it's unprofitable to stomp out our domestic oil production as well as russia's oil production. obola is a plague of unprecendented proportion even if the cdc doesn't recognize it

    cowdiddly

    Britain and the Us both are trying to say that this was a bomb planted by ISIS. The Russians are saying they will wait for the data.

    The Russians are asking British Intel after making the statement that if they have some supporting intel they would like to hear it. They refuse to share any intel; For a disaster and possibly a terrorist attack investigation? Hmmmm Wonder why? What are they hiding from? Why would you not want to help an investigation? Why do they want to promote an unproven story? To deflect the blame? Somebody has something to hide.

    Somebody is involved here that is going to reveal a nasty truth and I would not want to be them cause right now the bear is just smiling at you and he is all ears.

    THE DORK OF CORK

    The Tunisia beech job was very effective.

    It inflated the Spanish and Italian economies over the summer.

    It seems like part of the banks armoury.

    The Dogs of Moar

    An update of the Tourney between Langley and Moscow this first week of November.

    As you know, on Wednesday the Big Big Three, Barack Obama, President of the US, David Cameron, Prime Minister of the UK, and Doofus al-Evil, the US appointed Emir of ISIL, tried to co opt the investigation of the crash of the Russian plane in Sinai.


    "I don't think we know yet" what caused the crash, Obama said ... But it is certainly possible that there was a bomb on board."

    British Prime Minister David Cameron says it's "more likely than not."

    ISIS released a message on November 4 with claims that the group was responsible for the Russian plane crash in Sinai, and said its method will be revealed soon.

    ISIS first claimed credit for the downing of the Russian passenger jet an hour after the plane went down. Six days later they're telling the world that "their method will be revealed soon."

    WHAT THEY ARE REALLY SAYING IS THAT THEIR METHOD WILL BE REVEALED AS SOON AS THE CIA TELLS THEM WHAT METHOD THE CIA USED AND THAT ISIS SHOULD CLAIM THE SAME.

    THE CIA'S FEAR IS THAT THE INVESTIGATORS WILL UNCOVER A SOPHISTICATED EXPLOSIVE THAT THE RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6.

    But Russian and Egyptian authorities pushed back Thursday on suggestions that a bomb brought down Metrojet Flight 9268 over Egypt's Sinai Peninsula, saying there's no evidence yet to support that theory.

    Today the National Anti-Terrorist Committee said it deems it necessary to stop all Russian flights to Egypt until the causes of the A321 plane crash are established. Russian experts are taking wipe-samples from the plane fragments and passengers' luggage to trace possible explosives.

    If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda value.

    Atticus Finch

    " RETARDNIKS IN ISIS COULD ONLY HAVE GOTTEN FROM LANGLEY OR MI6."...

    You forgot Mossad.

    trulz4lulz

    If this investigation gets troublesome, there will be a fight in Langley between those who wanted the plane to go down in the drink and those who wanted it down in the desert for the propaganda value.

    that sums it up right there. arguing over which aspect of treason to commit and cover up. this is whats wrong. exactly.

    swmnguy

    The US/UK intelligence guys screwed up the timeline this past week, putting out new rules for their people and announcing they had intel proving IS did it before cluing in the Russians.

    It was a surprisingly blatant mistake. Let's see, whom do we know in a position of power in Russia who would be intimately familiar with the way this game is played? Who would know immediately exactly what this timeline error signifies?

    The US/UK has amazingly good information on what IS is doing, n' est ce pas? And fantastic surveillance data, right out of the chute, in stark contrast to the seeming complete inattention paid to Malaysian jetliners.

    Telling.

    The Dogs of Moar

    On October 27, 1964 -- here's what Ronald Reagan said

    "If all of this seems like a great deal of trouble, think what's at stake. We are faced with the most evil enemy mankind has known in his long climb from the swamp to the stars.

    Did he realize how prescient he was, in thus describing the United States of America?

    Grandad Grumps

    If the British and American governments are saying it was a bomb, then you can be sure it was NOT a bomb. I am leaning toward believing that it was an act taken by the US and Israel during their war games from a location nearby the downing. Too much of a coincidence.

    The video was not clear enough for me to determine if a missile was involved or the altitude a missile might have originated from.

    Jack Burton -> Grandad Grumps

    That's a valid thought. We should be asking "why the USA and UK are in such a hurry to claim bomb". It was a Russian plane, and the US and UK have no interest in this, unless they do have a hidden interest in this.

    Lets harken back to MH-17. The instant and coordinated lies across all western media within hours, suggests a link between all Media Corporations and their Editorial Staffs. A German journalist wrote a book about his work for the CIA as a German journalist. He was under the impression that CIA was active across all media corporations and their editorial staff. I think MH-17 proved the fact that CIA does control much of what we read and hear. Otherwise, who can explain the exact same stories in all western media appearing before any of them even had a chance to read each others work! Odds of replication without prior knowledge are zero!

    swmnguy -> Jack Burton

    Whether or not it was a bomb matters a lot less than who knew when and how they knew it. Like, for instance, if they knew it was a bomb before it blew up. The details and pattern of the media operation are pretty interesting, but more matters of art than fact.

    farflungstar

    The Mockies over at Charlie Hebdo seemed to find it funny that this plane crashed, not so funny when a bunch of their people got killed at work back in January:

    http://sputniknews.com/cartoons/20151106/1029698946/JeNeSuisPasCharlie.html

    One of the pictures shows a jihadist of the Islamic State (IS) militant group and plane's debris falling around him. The caption says "IS: Russian Aviation intensifies its bombing campaign.

    Mocking a plane crash where 224 people were killed, such a rich source of humor hahahaha so fucking hysterical fucking faggot frogs

    http://sputniknews.com/world/20151106/1029683872/plane-crash-charlie-heb...

    Jack Burton

    I saw this yesterday. Honestly, given what we call "Western Values" I fully expected the guardians of culture in France to come up with something like this. When their people die, it's a world wide event. When others die, it is a joke. Let's be clear, this story has made it deep into Russian media. Need I tell you what the mood is now?

    The Dogs of Moar

    Is it not the case that a Russian passenger plane was downed after the Russian air force bombed ISIS for a month, while no US planes were terrorized after the US air force bombed ISIS for a year.

    ... ... ...

    KashNCarry

    Meanwhile off the coast of Libya:

    Gaddafis Ghost Laughs In Your Face - YouTube

    [Nov 04, 2015] Secular stagnation and Mutual Fund Marxism

    Worthwhile Canadian Initiative

    Suppose the government issued a financial asset that, adjusted for risk and liquidity, promised a higher rate of return than any alternative asset. The government can do this, because it has the power to tax. Everybody prefers holding that government-issued financial asset to any other asset.

    There would be an excess demand for that government-issued asset. The only way to eliminate that excess demand would be for the government to buy up all the other assets in exchange for that asset. The government would be operating one big closed-end mutual fund, that owned all the assets in the economy, with people owning shares in that mutual fund. And the rate of return on those mutual fund shares would be guaranteed by the government's power to tax.

    Most people would be against that policy. Perhaps we could call the few people who supported it "Mutual Fund Marxists"?

    Now let's suppose that particular government-issued financial asset is also used as the medium of exchange. An excess demand for the medium of exchange causes a recession. Each individual tries to ensure that the flow of money leaving his pocket is less than the flow of money entering his pocket, so the stock of money in his pocket increases over time. This is possible for each individual, but impossible in aggregate (unless the government increases the aggregate stock sufficiently quickly over time), but the attempt by each to do something they cannot all do causes a recession.

    So we would have a permanent recession, unless the government implemented Mutual Fund Marxism, by buying up all the assets in the economy in exchange for government-issued money, to eliminate that excess demand for government-issued money.

    The threat of permanent recession I have just described is usually called "secular stagnation". The proposed cures of ever-expanding central bank balance sheets and national debts are the first steps towards Mutual Fund Marxism.

    Should we blame the economy for secular stagnation, or should we blame the government for issuing a financial asset that promises a more attractive rate of return than other assets, and that also is used as medium of exchange?

    Would private financial institutions, that lack the power to tax, ever do the same thing?

    Some might reasonably argue that the twin threats of permanent recession or Mutual Fund Marxism themselves lower the expected rate of return on other assets.

    Just a slightly different way of looking at some old questions. Secular stagnation is the same question as the Optimum Quantity of Money.

    Addendum: If we want to avoid having to choose between secular stagnation or Mutual Fund Marxism, we need to increase the yield spread between government-issued money and other assets. One way would be to target NGDP level path, with a suitably high growth rate for NGDP (presumably a rough proxy for the nominal rates of return on other assets). A second way would be to raise the inflation target. A third way would be a Gesellian tax (negative interest rate) on money.

    Benoit Essiambre

    Exactly!

    I don't understand why there isn't a immense sense of urgency from central banks, governments and the economic profession to fix this.

    People argue about details meanwhile central banks like the ECB are maintaining an asset that is directly subsidizing disinvestment and economic inactivity and leading to colossal amounts of needless suffering and a relative decline of the western world.

    [Nov 04, 2015] Oil Market Needs Another Month to Decide If the Rebound Is for Real

    Notable quotes:
    "... Production in the U.S. will drop 1 million barrels a day from the peak by early 2016, Vitol SA Chief Executive Officer Ian Taylor said at a conference in London. ..."
    "... "Prices have not gone down below $40 a barrel for the last three months so maybe it is at the bottom," Omair said. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Oil prices will increase if global economic growth improves, and high-cost production is cut, Omair said. "If the situation is as it is then the only parameter will be the withdrawal of the high-cost production." Brent rose 0.4 percent to $50.72 a barrel at 12:31 p.m. on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange.

    The number of rigs drilling for oil in the U.S. slumped to a five-year low last week as producers curbed investment because of low prices. Brent has slumped 38 percent in the past year, falling to as low as $42.23 a barrel in August.

    More from Bloomberg.com: That Time I Tried to Buy an Actual Barrel of Crude Oil

    U.S. crude output will retreat by about 10 percent in the 12 months ending April, according to Daniel Yergin, vice chairman of IHS Inc. Prices are near a bottom and global supplies look set to close the gap with demand amid declining output, he said in Tokyo on Oct. 30. Production in the U.S. will drop 1 million barrels a day from the peak by early 2016, Vitol SA Chief Executive Officer Ian Taylor said at a conference in London.

    Oil failed to sustain a gain above $50 a barrel last month as OPEC pumped above its quota for the past 17 months. "Prices have not gone down below $40 a barrel for the last three months so maybe it is at the bottom," Omair said.

    [Nov 02, 2015] Low Oil Prices Could Persist Through 2016

    This game became really interesting if prices will remain low for oil all 2016. That's another 200 billion stimulus for the US economy. People are genetically biased against change, because change means potential danger. People are also genetically biased against acknowledging this bias, because they wish to see themselves as being able to cope with both change and danger. Put together, this means that when changes come, people are largely unprepared or underprepared. This little bit of psychology 101 may seem redundant, but it is indispensable if we are talking about the current oil price slump...
    Notable quotes:
    "... The average estimate from the banks for oil prices is for Brent to average just $58 per barrel in 2016, and WTI to trade for $54 per barrel. But just a few months ago, the same survey showed that the banks expected oil prices to average $70 per barrel in 2016. ..."
    "... U.S. oil output is down to around 9.1 million barrels per day from a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day reached in April 2015. ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    "... However, while the Permian will slow oil market balancing, it won't be able to compensate for the loss of production elsewhere. Overall, U.S. production is in decline. Most of the loss in U.S. output has come from the Eagle Ford in South Texas, which has shed over 227,000 barrels per day in output since April. ..."
    Nov 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    A group of investment banks are becoming increasingly gloomy about the direction of oil prices in the near-term. A Wall Street Journal survey of 13 investment banks found a growing degree of pessimism about the oil markets.

    The average estimate from the banks for oil prices is for Brent to average just $58 per barrel in 2016, and WTI to trade for $54 per barrel. But just a few months ago, the same survey showed that the banks expected oil prices to average $70 per barrel in 2016.

    The growing pessimism is in part due to the potential slowdown in demand, particularly from China. At the same time, Russia and OPEC nations continue to produce at elevated levels. Only U.S. production appears to be declining in any substantial way. U.S. oil output is down to around 9.1 million barrels per day from a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day reached in April 2015.

    ... ... ...

    ... producing in places like the Permian Basin is still very much profitable today, even with prices at $50 per barrel or lower. While North Dakota, Louisiana, or Colorado have seen drilling grind to a halt, drilling in the Permian Basin in West Texas is still going strong. In fact, many oil companies are scrapping drilling in other parts of their portfolio and expanding their footprint in the Permian. As a result, production from the Permian is still rising. The Permian stands out because of the abundance of oil and gas in place, making each well more lucrative than a similar well in another basin.

    However, while the Permian will slow oil market balancing, it won't be able to compensate for the loss of production elsewhere. Overall, U.S. production is in decline. Most of the loss in U.S. output has come from the Eagle Ford in South Texas, which has shed over 227,000 barrels per day in output since April.

    [Nov 02, 2015] It's Difficult to Make Predictions, Especially About the Future OIl Prices

    Initially Statoil was looking for $60 in 2016, $70 in 2017 and $80 in 2018, for planning purposes.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Mark Hanson, an analyst for Morningstar in Chicago, said the days of huge price cuts are nearly over."I don't think there is going to be meaningful reduction from here," he said. "To use a baseball analogy, you are probably in the seventh or eighth inning." ..."
    "... Given that many US oil companies were cash flow negative prior to the price collapse, do you think that US oil companies will be able to increase production in the future without being cash flow negative? ..."
    "... As there is a time lag of six to nine months between initial capex decision and actual production, it is in my view premature to have a final say about current emerging capital efficiency. The production numbers we have now are the harvest of the capex in the last quarter of 2014. ..."
    "... Range Resources had for example 400 mill capex in 4q14, which came down to just 188 mill in 3q15, when production went up 20% year over year. This is in my opinion not extremely capital efficient , yet is a harbiger of much lower production in the months ahead. ..."
    "... "We think that the price level now is too low," Eirik Waerness, chief economist and vice-president at Statoil ASA, said in an interview in Singapore on Thursday. "Some people will stop exploring for oil. With oil prices around $50, you get a stimulus for demand growth. That will tighten the market." Crude is expected to climb to $80 a barrel in 2018 and increase gradually after that as existing supplies get used up, he said. ..."
    "... the way this usually works the government will react and change taxes. As increased taxation takes effect production starts to drop. Evidently the Russian government is reluctant to change the current rates to signal it has a reliable tax system which allows investments to proceed with a very long term outlook. But I expect they'll be putting on the squeeze if they haven't done so. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    R Walter , 11/01/2015 at 8:10 am

    Using Mr. Peabody's Wayback Machine, I found this quote:

    "We will never see eighty five dollar oil again except maybe as the whiplash negative feedback response to a sudden spike as happened the last time prices spiked very high. Think five hundred car pile up on a freeway after that happens with everybody flying and then traffic stopped or almost stopped with nobody buying but a lot of people contracted to take delivery- and the gasoline and diesel piling up at the retail end. Prices may collapse temporarily into the eighties or even lower but only for a few weeks or months." – Old Farmer Mac

    http://peakoilbarrel.com/enno-peters-post/

    Oil is at 45, so the price can fall and it did. 147 to 135, 125, 115, 105, 95, 85, 75, 65, 55, 45, then as low as 39, back to 45 and holding. Nowhere near 85, let alone 100. 45 dollars is a dead man walking.

    Wendell Lawson, the character played by Burt Reynolds in the movie 'The End', was swimming out to sea to make his final exit, deciding he wanted to live, he turned back and began to swim to shore.

    "90 percent, Lord, I'll give you 90 percent if you get me out of this." As he swam closer, the pledge began to decrease, it falls to 80 percent, then to 70 percent, by the time he got back to shore, the Lord was not getting much. When Sonny Lawson finally got there, Marlon Borunki, played by Dom Deluise, started to shoot rounds from a pistol at Sonny. He was helping out Wendell to kill himself.

    It was funny.

    The kind of help the oil industry is getting.

    Dennis Coyne , 11/01/2015 at 11:34 am
    I thought output would decrease at these prices much faster than they have. Until output drops prices will remain under 85 per barrel. Lots of people are wrong on oil prices. Only very wide guesses will be correct such as 5 to 200 per barrel.
    Fernando Leanme , 11/02/2015 at 3:52 am
    40 to 150 over the next 30 months.
    Dennis Coyne , 11/02/2015 at 8:08 am
    Hi Fernando,

    That is probably wide enough to get it right. I have seen some really bold price predictions from others such as, the oil price will be a positive number.

    I have lost confidence in my ability to predict future oil prices so $15/b to $200/b over the next 60 months(in 2015$) is about the best I could do. There are others who will only go so far as to say that oil prices will be "low" or "high" in the future which means very little with no number attached.

    old Farmer Mac , 11/02/2015 at 6:46 pm
    I made a fool out of myself that time sure enough by forgetting to add my usual weasel words such as barring miracle breakthroughs, the economy being in assisted living mode etc.

    It ( warning attempted humor) is all the fault of them there pinko commie environmental types that hang out in forums such as this one misleading me into believing that oil comes out of holes in the ground and does not grow back, that the population is growing and wanting more oil, etc etc.

    Seriously I forgot to consider the possibility that bankers would continue to loan money to tight oil losers at zero percent, that Russia and Saudi Arabia would be at war with the price of oil being the only real weapon the Saudis can bring to bear etc.

    The industry moves a lot slower than I thought, no question. It is taking a LOT longer than I would have thought for high cost producers to cut back their money losing production. Everybody with a barrel to sell seems to be really desperate for cash and willing to run in the hole to put their hands on it. Sooner or later enough production is going to be curtailed to put the price back into black ink territory for high cost producers.

    MarbleZeppelin , 11/01/2015 at 8:23 am
    Referring to Ovi's graph above.
    There is a 4.6% drop in production from March to August which gives a monthly loss of 0.92%.
    Alternatively from January to March there was a 5,6% gain in production. That gives a gain of 2.8% per month.
    Overall the graph shows a 1.4% gain in production or 0.14% gain in production per month.
    The graph does indicate the ability to increase production generally faster than it declines.
    The range is quite wide and the timescale short so it is not feasible to determine the typical range of variation or extrapolate future production.
    The only conclusion that can be made from this graph requires other sources of information, such as the current economic situation in the oil fields. One might conclude that this particular downturn in production is due to economic constraints involving low cash flow and loan contractual terms. The economic constraints lead to the need for a further analysis of situational parameters in the economic environment, such as involvements with other energy sources, demand analysis, efficiency changes as well as psychological changes in the social/political structure.
    AlexS , 11/01/2015 at 5:15 pm
    Big U.S. shale oil savings fast becoming a thing of the past

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/30/oil-results-costs-idUSL1N12M2KI20151030

    Huge cost savings are waning for U.S. shale oil companies, marking an end to the drastic price cuts on equipment and services over the past 16 months that helped them survive the worst industry downturn in six years.

    Companies including Anadarko Petroleum Corp, ConocoPhillips and Occidental Petroleum Corp have saved millions on drilling and fracking wells in Texas, Colorado and North Dakota since the oil price slide started by demanding that oilfield service companies slash prices by 20 percent to 30 percent or more.

    Those savings, coupled with big gains in rig productivity that allowed more oil to be pumped with less equipment, created a lifeline for companies coping with a more than 50 percent drop in crude prices. But productivity gains have stalled in the last few months and deflation may be slowing as well, just as producers try to withstand a lower-for-longer price outlook.

    ConocoPhillips has seen its onshore drilling and completion costs fall. More savings are expected, but not as much.

    "If prices stay low and activity levels stay low I think you will see more pressure on deflation, but not another magnitude of the leg down we've seen so far," Jeff Sheets, Conoco's chief financial officer, told Reuters on Thursday.

    The U.S. rig count has fallen by more than half from a year ago when nearly 1,600 rigs were working, so companies that lease rigs or do hydraulic fracturing have offered double-digit discounts to get work contracts.

    When asked if cost deflation is likely to continue, Darrell Hollek, head of U.S. onshore exploration and production at Anadarko, told analysts on Wednesday the company continues to see decreases in prices, but those declines are not "as significant as what we saw earlier in the year."

    In West Texas, Occidental said the cost for a 4,500-foot well has fallen 45 percent from a year earlier to $6.3 million now. The company said on a call with analysts it expects costs to come down more, but did not say by how much.

    RigData, which tracks oilfield activity, forecast cost declines for U.S. onshore wells of $1.2 million on average in 2015, a drop that is unlikely to be repeated next year, Trey Cowan, senior industry analyst with RigData, said.

    Currently, operators are drilling wells in so-called sweet spots that produce the most oil and gas. After they go through that inventory and move on to less prolific spots, it will cost more to drill, said Cowan.

    The chief executive of Baker Hughes, Martin Craighead, on the third-quarter conference call of the oilfield services giant, downplayed more cuts when an analyst asked if his company could offer additional cost reductions of 15 percent to 30 percent.

    "You are just not going to get out there and take your hats off to any customer," Craighead said. "They are going to obviously try to get as much as they can and there will be a point where it just doesn't make any sense."

    Mark Hanson, an analyst for Morningstar in Chicago, said the days of huge price cuts are nearly over."I don't think there is going to be meaningful reduction from here," he said. "To use a baseball analogy, you are probably in the seventh or eighth inning."

    shallow sand , 11/01/2015 at 7:15 pm
    AlexS. Thanks for the post!

    Given that many US oil companies were cash flow negative prior to the price collapse, do you think that US oil companies will be able to increase production in the future without being cash flow negative?

    It seems to me that if oil prices shoot back up at some point, service rates will also.

    Our lowest two OPEX years since 2006 will be 2009 and 2015. The highest 2008 and 2013.

    I really question whether US oil companies will ever be able to be "growth" companies anytime soon.

    Heinrich Leopold , 11/02/2015 at 3:40 am
    AlexS,

    As there is a time lag of six to nine months between initial capex decision and actual production, it is in my view premature to have a final say about current emerging capital efficiency. The production numbers we have now are the harvest of the capex in the last quarter of 2014.

    It will be interesting how the production numbers will develop over the next few months. Range Resources had for example 400 mill capex in 4q14, which came down to just 188 mill in 3q15, when production went up 20% year over year. This is in my opinion not extremely capital efficient , yet is a harbiger of much lower production in the months ahead.

    HR , 11/02/2015 at 9:30 am
    Heinrich, I am using the same logic as you. I guess the question is how long before reduced capex turns into lower production.
    shallow sand , 11/02/2015 at 7:44 am
    Statoil sees no oil price recovery till 2018. Any guesses on what that scenario does to US oil production?
    Dennis Coyne , 11/02/2015 at 8:19 am
    Hi Shallow sand,

    What does price recovery mean?

    Is that an oil price below $60/b until 2018?

    If so, I would expect US C+C output will fall to 6 Mb/d by 2018, possibly more, however, the oil price prediction will likely be incorrect as the fall in oil supply will lead to an earlier price recovery in 2016 or 2017 at the latest. By price recovery I mean an oil price above $75/b in 2015$.

    shallow sand , 11/02/2015 at 10:09 am
    Dennis. It is difficult to tell from the CNBC article, but looks to me that initially Statoil was looking for $60 in 2016, $70 in 2017 and $80 in 2018, for planning purposes. Now, possibly, they are looking at below $60 to 2018.

    I still feel that OPEC will cut at some point, the question is when. Read an analyst who thought they should 12/4, but would not to save face, as US production has not fallen much and Russian production has not fallen at all (see AlexS post herein). So very possible there will not be a production cut until US production falls significantly, maybe not till late 2016

    AlexS , 11/02/2015 at 10:55 am
    shallow sand,

    Statoil expects $80 by 2018. Here is a Bloomberg article:

    'Too Low' Crude Prices Seen Rising to $80 in 2018 by Statoil

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-29/-too-low-crude-prices-seen-rising-to-80-in-2018-by-statoil

    • Supply growth seen falling amid industry cost-cutting
    • Current high oil inventories preventing price recovery

    Crude prices that have almost halved in the past year are unsustainable at current levels as cuts to investments and postponement of projects will lead to a decline in supply growth, according to Norway's biggest oil company.

    "We think that the price level now is too low," Eirik Waerness, chief economist and vice-president at Statoil ASA, said in an interview in Singapore on Thursday. "Some people will stop exploring for oil. With oil prices around $50, you get a stimulus for demand growth. That will tighten the market." Crude is expected to climb to $80 a barrel in 2018 and increase gradually after that as existing supplies get used up, he said.

    Oil slumped more than 44 percent in the past year as U.S. stockpiles expanded at a time when OPEC producers bolstered output to retain market share, exacerbating a global supply glut that the International Energy Agency estimates will remain until at least the middle of 2016. Producers hurt by the collapse in prices have had to fire workers, cancel projects and sell oil fields to conserve cash. Statoil on Wednesday announced cuts to planned investments in 2015 by $1 billion to $16.5 billion.
    "The question is how much of the current change in the industry will lead to long-term cost reductions," said Waerness. When "demand becomes larger than supply, and we will start drawing down storages. The market will suddenly realize that there's very little spare capacity out there."

    "The underlying trend is that it's going to come up, but it's going to take a while," Waerness said, referring to prices. "One of the reasons why it takes a while is because the storage is too high, and therefore the price mechanism doesn't really work."

    AlexS , 11/02/2015 at 8:43 am
    Russian Crude Output Hits Post-Soviet Record Defying Price Slump

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-02/russian-crude-output-hits-post-soviet-record-defying-price-slump

    • October output averaged 10.776 million barrels a day
    • Oil exports increased 10% compared with October last year

    Russian oil production broke a post-Soviet record in October for the fourth time this year as earlier investments boosted output and producers prove resilient to lower crude prices.

    Production of crude and gas condensate, which is similar to a light oil, averaged 10.776 million barrels a day during the month, according to data from the Energy Ministry's CDU-TEK unit. That is an increase of 1.3 percent from a year earlier and up 0.3 percent from the previous month.

    "Russian oil production is still reflecting oil prices above $100 a barrel due to long lead times in the investment cycle," Alexander Nazarov, an oil and gas analyst at Gazprombank JSC, said by e-mail from Moscow. "The reason behind growth this year dates back to 2010-2014, when a number of projects were financed."

    ---------------
    My comment:
    – Using 7.3 barrels per ton conversion rate, Russian C+C production was 10,731 kb/d.
    – The industry only reduced production m-o-m in 2015 in April and July, indicating stable performance.
    – The companies' upstream margins are supported by weaker rouble and progressive tax system with a very steep scale.
    – There are no signs of reduced investment/drilling activity in the sector in rouble or volume terms.

    Russian C+C production (mb/d) (7.3 bbl/ton conversion rate)
    Source: Russia's Energy Ministry

    Dennis Coyne , 11/02/2015 at 8:55 am
    Hi AlexS,

    Thanks. Has there been any slow down in new oil field developments in Russia due to the lower oil price environment? I wonder if lower capital investment today may result in a fall in Russian output (or possibly an end to the recent growth in output) a few years down the road. Is your expectation a continued plateau in output between 10.6 and 10.7 Mb/d, even if oil prices remain under $60/b (2015$) until 2018?

    Fernando Leanme , 11/02/2015 at 9:42 am
    Dennis, the way this usually works the government will react and change taxes. As increased taxation takes effect production starts to drop. Evidently the Russian government is reluctant to change the current rates to signal it has a reliable tax system which allows investments to proceed with a very long term outlook. But I expect they'll be putting on the squeeze if they haven't done so.
    AlexS , 11/02/2015 at 3:46 pm
    Dennis,

    Development capex increased in local currency terms in 2015.

    From the IEA OMR: "Record high output follows a boom in development drilling, up 8.9% y-o-y for the first 8 months of 2015 compared with the same period a year earlier, as well as a greater share of horizontal wells and a continued focus on brownfield maintenance."

    The IEA now expects Russian oil production to decline by 85 kb/d in 2016. But in July they were expecting a decline of 120 kb/d.

    Similarly, the IEA had projected a decline of 140 kb/d for 2015 (January 2015 OMR), and now they forecast an increase of 110 kb/d (October 2015 OMR).

    As regards longer-term prospects, new projects, which are expected to come onstream in the next 5 years, are on schedule. Only some Arctic offshore projects were postponed, but they were not expected to start production before 2020-2025.

    The Energy Ministry's long term projections anticipate more or less flat production until 2035. I think production can be maintained close to current levels in the next 5-6 years. Longer term prospects depend on the development of the new resource base in the Arctic offshore and unconventional resources, such as tight oil

    Green People's Media , 11/02/2015 at 1:50 pm
    Ron, have you (or your readers) seen this one yet? As a regular follower of Peak Oil Barrel I have to count myself a "BP Skeptic" with regard t o this headline "BP sees technology nearly doubling world energy resources by 2050."

    It's the ancient "technology will save us" mantra re-applied. Wondering if you or any readers have any wisdom or insights on this article. Where is BP getting the claim of a doubling of "global reserves?" (Not daily production in MM Bbl/day, just "reserves," mind you.

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/bp-sees-technology-nearly-doubling-world-energy-resources-143523912–finance.html

    Doug Leighton , 11/02/2015 at 3:32 pm
    Well it was BP who developed (and deployed) wide azimuth towed streamer technology which totally revolutionized marine seismic acquisition and decades before that they invented hydraulic fracturing (in the 1940s, I think) plus they pioneered ways of refining so-called dirty oil so God knows what kind of stuff they've got up their sleeve. Actually, credit where it's due, wasn't it BP who gave birth of the offshore oil/gas industry with exploitation of the North Sea via development of the Forties platform, what, 50 odd years ago.
    Fred Magyar , 11/02/2015 at 4:53 pm
    Yes, I read that article and almost posted it myself. There is so much contradictory information in that article that I think one would really need to read BP's actual press release. It's quite the mish mosh.

    Just this little tid bit should underscore what I mean:

    When taking into account all accessible forms of energy including nuclear, wind and solar, there are enough resources to meet 20 times what the world will need over that period, David Eyton, BP Group Head of Technology said.

    "Energy resources are plentiful. Concerns over running out of oil and gas have disappeared," Eyton said at the launch of BP's inaugural Technology Outlook.

    Oil and gas companies have invested heavily in squeezing the maximum from existing reservoirs by using chemicals, super computers and robotics. The halving of oil prices since last June has further dampened their appetite to explore for new resources, with more than $200 billion worth of mega projects scrapped in recent months.

    By applying these technologies, the global proved fossil fuel resources could increase from 2.9 trillion barrels of oil equivalent (boe) to 4.8 trillion boe by 2050, nearly double the projected 2.5 trillion boe required to meet global demand until 2050, BP said.

    With new exploration and technology, the resources could leap to a staggering 7.5 trillion boe, Eyton said.

    So basically BP is counting on alternative energy sources, electric vehicles, carbon taxes and reduced demand on top of new discoveries for which they no longer have financial incentives, to all come together to increase resources… Yeah, right!

    The article stinks!

    Watcher , 11/02/2015 at 5:53 pm
    If profit is not relevant to the exercise, a great deal more oil can come out of the ground than we have believed.

    [Nov 02, 2015] Peak Oil Review - Nov 2

    Notable quotes:
    "... Goldman Sachs continues to talk about the possibility of a major price drop in the next year as global capacity to store more crude and oil products runs out. There have been a number of analyses concluding that this will never happen, however, as there is still much storage space available. ..."
    "... It is generally believed that US shale oil production will drop further in the coming year but that it will be offset by increased production overseas. ..."
    "... Tehran will officially notify OPEC next month that it plans to increase production by 500,000 b/d and that it expects other OPEC members to cut production by enough to keep the cartel's production below the agreed-upon 30 million b/d ceiling. OPEC has been producing about 1.7 million b/d above this ceiling lately. ..."
    www.resilience.org

    originally published by ASPO-USA | TODAY

    ... ... ...

    Goldman Sachs continues to talk about the possibility of a major price drop in the next year as global capacity to store more crude and oil products runs out. There have been a number of analyses concluding that this will never happen, however, as there is still much storage space available. People with greater insight into this issue point out the problem is much too complex to be determined with a simple recitation of EIA tank capacity. Serious storage problems could still arise due to the spare storage capacity being in the wrong place or being of the wrong type for the liquid needing to be stored. The EIA says it really cannot calculate the amount of "swing space" necessary to keep operations flowing smoothly. There have already been reports of shortages of distillate storage in the New York area.

    It is generally believed that US shale oil production will drop further in the coming year but that it will be offset by increased production overseas. Iran announced this week that it is preparing to increase its production by 500,000 b/d, which should be enough to offset a large part of the decline in US production we have seen in recent months. This assumes that Tehran can sell its additional barrels which may be difficult without substantial price discounts. The future of the Chinese and US economies remains the major unknown. Chinese crude imports have held up pretty well this year despite its economic slowdown. Much of this is due to low prices which have allowed Beijing to fill its newly built strategic stockpile tanks and to feed new refining capacity. These new refineries are simply dumping more oil products on the world markets rather than increasing domestic oil consumption.

    Like the Chinese economy, that of the US seems to be slowing of late. While there has been much publicity about growing gasoline consumption in the US, this is obviously due to low prices which now average about $2.18 a gallon. The weak earnings reports from the oil industry and announcement that GDP growth fell to 1.5 percent in the third quarter from 3.9 percent in the second quarter raises questions about how long US demand for oil products will hold up. There are already tentative indications that the recent growth in gasoline consumption is starting to slip despite the falling prices.
    ... ... ...

    Iran: Tehran will officially notify OPEC next month that it plans to increase production by 500,000 b/d and that it expects other OPEC members to cut production by enough to keep the cartel's production below the agreed-upon 30 million b/d ceiling. OPEC has been producing about 1.7 million b/d above this ceiling lately.

    Iran has proposed establishing an oil and gas swap with Russia as it has had in place with Turkmenistan, Kazakhstan, and Azerbaijan for over a decade. Under this arrangement, the Iranians would receive gas and oil along their northern border for domestic consumption and then ship a similar quantity from its Gulf ports to Russia's customers. This presumably would save on transportation costs and difficulties in moving oil and gas produced in Central Asia to world markets.

    In the wake of the nuclear agreement Tehran has been feeling its oats by announcing plans to become the largest oil and gas producer. At a conference last week, the Iranians said they will need about $250 billion in new investment in the next ten years. Given the massive cutbacks by nearly all the international oil companies in recent months, the possibility of foreign investment on such a scale is remote.

    [Nov 02, 2015] Interesting to see the large publicly traded companies are selling legacy assets

    Notable quotes:
    "... Edit: I found the answer. Per a 2013 National Geographic article, all Bakken and TFS wells require water flushing such that when the field is fully developed with 40-45K wells, the field will require in excess of 10 billion barrels of fresh water annually. ..."
    "... Throw on top that the companies have added to product gathering and salt water disposal costs by selling of this infrastructure to raise cash, I believe long term ND oil production will be among the hugest cost in the lower 48 on strictly an operating basis. ..."
    "... shallow sand, For big oil companies, selling and buying assets is a constant process. They are "optimizing asset portfolio" ..."
    "... Sunk-cost fallacy occurs when people make decisions about a current situation based on what they have previously invested in the situation. For example, spending $100 on a concert and on the day you find that it's cold and rainy. You feel that if you don't go you would've wasted the money and the time you spent in line to get that ticket and feel obligated to follow through even if you don't want to. It's is cold and rainy in the oil industry right now. ..."
    "... Yes, but if the $30,000/acre price Aubrey McClendon paid is typical, it looks like oil gas asset prices in the Permian Basin are hotter than ever. And this despite the drop in oil prices. ..."
    "... Just imagine, McClendon paid over $30,000 per net acre for leasehold working interest, with oil at $45. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    shallow sand, 10/31/2015 at 9:56 am

    Interesting to see the large publicly traded companies are selling legacy assets.

    In particular, Chevron is selling its interest in the Seminole San Andreas Unit in Gaines Co., TX. The unit is generating them over $400K per month. It is a CO2 flood still producing over 20K BOE per day gross, and is operated by Hess.

    Shell is selling a large block of lower 48 royalty interests located in 10 states, generating over $250K per month.

    Chevron is also selling another legacy block of conventional wells operated by them in the Permian Basin, which currently generates over $300K per month.

    What is also interesting is of all is these are all listed for sale on the Internet auction. IMO they are selling these assets at a really poor time. Are even the super majors in need of cash to the extent they would sell premium onshore lower 48 assets at the low end of the market? Maybe they do not see a rebound anytime soon? Yikes. However, the same things happened in 1998 and many buyers hit it big with prices from late 1999-2014.

    Also looked at conventional wells for sale in Dunn Co. ND. They are under water with oil at the well around $30. I note that the wells produce super saturated salt water and require fresh water flushes to operate. Watcher has mentioned this before. These wells are in the Duperow formation. Do middle Bakken and TFS require large amounts of fresh water also?

    Edit: I found the answer. Per a 2013 National Geographic article, all Bakken and TFS wells require water flushing such that when the field is fully developed with 40-45K wells, the field will require in excess of 10 billion barrels of fresh water annually.

    Looking at the production and lease operating statements for the older conventional wells I examined, I estimate 10+ year old middle bakken and TFS wells will need over $50 WTI just to break even on an operating basis, not including any work over expense.

    North Dakota wells are at a distinct disadvantage due to the salt issue.

    Throw on top that the companies have added to product gathering and salt water disposal costs by selling of this infrastructure to raise cash, I believe long term ND oil production will be among the hugest cost in the lower 48 on strictly an operating basis.

    Doug Leighton,10/31/2015 at 10:09 am
    Perhaps selling off assets looks better than borrowing money from a bank to pay dividends to your shareholders? Watcher would probably know the answer to this.
    AlexS,10/31/2015 at 10:34 am
    shallow sand, For big oil companies, selling and buying assets is a constant process. They are "optimizing asset portfolio"
    Glenn Stehle,10/31/2015 at 10:46 am
    shallow sand said:

    IMO they are selling these assets at a really poor time.

    It's hard to tell, since everything hinges on what happens in the future. One thing is for sure, and that is that Permian Basin O&G assets are, despite the low oil and gas prices, still selling for several times what they sold for in the pre-shale days.

    Take Concho Resources purchase of Marbob in 2010, for instance:

    Based on the acquisition price, Concho's purchase is equivalent to $19.84 per BOE of proved reserves and $104,167 per flowing barrel.

    http://www.b2i.us/profiles/investor/NewsPrint.asp?b=1977&ID=40931&m=rl

    Concho picked up 150,000 net acres in the deal. That's a little bit north of $8,000 an acre. At the time of the sale, the old timers thought Marbob's founder and president, Johnny Gray, had cut a fat hog. But if you compare $8,000 an acre to the more than $30,000 per acre Aubrey McClendon just paid, it looks like Gray sold too soon. One could find other comps, but I think the price of Permian Basin O&G assets over the past 15 years has been consistently upwards.

    Ves, 10/31/2015 at 12:26 pm
    Shallow,

    Analyzing why the companies are selling legacy properties that make some money at this moment can lead you to the trap called "sunk cost fallacy". "Sunk cost fallacy" is exactly the same for big oil companies as for individuals.

    Sunk-cost fallacy occurs when people make decisions about a current situation based on what they have previously invested in the situation. For example, spending $100 on a concert and on the day you find that it's cold and rainy. You feel that if you don't go you would've wasted the money and the time you spent in line to get that ticket and feel obligated to follow through even if you don't want to. It's is cold and rainy in the oil industry right now.

    shallow sand, 10/31/2015 at 2:45 pm

    Glenn. I got an email from Raymond James which detailed Q3 sales. Permian basin were substantially higher per flowing barrel than the rest of the US lower 48.

    AlexS. I do agree companies are always selling assets, but interesting to see larger higher quality assets on the public block. Either no solid offers privately, or maybe companies are finding online sales are the best way to go.

    Glenn Stehle, 11/02/2015 at 10:32 am
    Yes, but if the $30,000/acre price Aubrey McClendon paid is typical, it looks like oil & gas asset prices in the Permian Basin are hotter than ever. And this despite the drop in oil prices.

    Diamondback Energy, for instance, in September 2013 paid $440 million for 12,500 acres of net mineral rights in the shale play in Midland County. That's $35,000/acre, but for mineral interest, and back when oil was selling for well over $100/barrel.

    http://ir.diamondbackenergy.com/releasedetail.cfm?releaseid=788419

    Just imagine, McClendon paid over $30,000 per net acre for leasehold working interest, with oil at $45.

    [Nov 02, 2015] A lessening of interest in cars

    Notable quotes:
    "... North American car sales appear to be flat and Europe's sales look like they have declined. Only Asia seems to show significant increases. ..."
    "... Here in the US there are at least twice as many registered cars as there are licensed drivers. So there is little necessity to buy new. ..."
    peakoilbarrel.com

    Glenn Stehle,11/01/2015 at 6:39 am

    Fred Magyar said:

    "Like we all need a car to be free!"

    Well, a lot of young people are no longer buying into that world view.

    Well somebody's still "buying into that world view."

    http://www.statista.com/statistics/200002/international-car-sales-since-1990/

    Boomer II,11/01/2015 at 12:27 pm

    North American car sales appear to be flat and Europe's sales look like they have declined. Only Asia seems to show significant increases.

    Considering that populations have grown in most places in the world, I would say this chart does indicate a lessening of interest in cars.

    MarbleZeppelin,11/02/2015 at 8:30 am

    Boomer said "Considering that populations have grown in most places in the world, I would say this chart does indicate a lessening of interest in cars."

    Maybe it is not so much interest as need or economics. Much of the new population is in the cities where cars are not generally essential. Also many people are way too poor to afford a car even if they needed one, a bicycle or scooter is about their peak ability to afford.

    Here in the US there are at least twice as many registered cars as there are licensed drivers. So there is little necessity to buy new.

    [Nov 02, 2015] US Oil Production by State

    Oct 30, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

    The EIA's Petroleum Supply Monthly is just out with production numbers, through August, for each state and offshore territories. The EIA's Monthly Energy Review is also out. This publication has US production data through September but not for individual states.

    US Total C+C

    The Petroleum Supply Monthly June 15 production numbers were revised down considerably this month. And you can see they had a drop of 169,000 bpd in September. I think there will likely be an even larger drop in October. At any rate US production is finally starting to drop significantly.

    The Gulf of Mexico is the one place that is bucking the trend. The GOM was up 146,000 bpd in July and up another 63,000 bpd in August for a total of 209,000 bpd for the two months.

    Texas was down for the fifth straight month. North Dakota has been moving sideways but is now below their September 2014 level. Alaska is slightly above their August 2014 level but their average annual production will drop by between 25 and 50 thousand bpd this year. Oklahoma has dropped 59,000 bpd since March. New Mexico which holds part of the Permian recovered slightly in August. Montana which, holds part of the Bakken, has been in a downward trend since March. Wyoming had been bucking the trend but now looks like it has succumbed to low oil prices also.

    Longtimber, 10/30/2015 at 5:03 pm

    Cold winter in Alaska? Meanwhile on the other side of the pond, Mr Yergin thinks Frackers may invade the Old World.
    "Europe has shale gas potential, but political obstacles prevent its development, he said. IHS research indicates that by the mid- 2030s Germany could be getting 35 of its natural gas from domestic shale gas produced from non-sensitive areas, equivalent to current import levels from Norway or Russia."

    YERGIN: ENERGY HAS ENTERED 'NEW ERA OF SHALE' WITH BIG BENEFITS FOR PETROCHEMICALS

    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/yergin-energy-has-entered-new-era-of-shale-with-big-benefits-for-petrochemicals.html


    shallow sand, 10/30/2015 at 8:44 pm

    Ron. Thanks for the post!

    Some interesting things, to me anyway.

    After reading several company earnings releases and conference calls, it appears that all want to develop US shale over anything else they own. Unless foreign companies pick up the slack, it appears US majors' lack of foreign investment might result in some steep declines.

    Second interesting tidbit. Read a Seeking Alpha article about ConocoPhillips today that indicated they lost $3 for every BOE they produced company wide on a GAAP basis, with the US lower 48 incurring the highest BOE losses at $9. These figures were for the third quarter, 2015.

    Finally, read that Whiting is in process of selling its water disposal infrastructure. I touched on this earlier. I was unaware this is a common industry practice. To me, selling these assets at this time is a sign of desperation. IMO this permanently devalues the producing assets with an unnecesaary expense burden. If anyone has some data on how much of this infrastructure has been sold off by the shale companies, let me know. Likewise, as I am not familiar with this practice, and especially if you think I am off base, please chime in. I can't imagine us ever wanting to do such a thing. I note both clueless and John S posted this is quite common.

    To me, selling these assets is like selling off the plumbing, wiring, furnace and air conditioner in your house and having to rent them forever.

    gwalke, 11/02/2015 at 7:45 am

    Beyond the infrastructure sale, Whiting's 3Q2015 results seemed like a real disaster to me, though many analysts thought it was a good quarter.

    The three things that stood out to me were:

    • They announced 38% production increase – so they told investors that in response to prices falling 60%, they produced more oil (?!);
    • They announced that they have increased the sand per frack job, and intend to increase it further – telling investors that they are risking the long-term recovery factors of their wells for short-term production rate gains;
    • They announced they will update their EUR curves on the basis of the IP of these new "enhanced completions", and even used 24hr IP to discuss how amazing their 7 million lb of sand fracks are – essentially telling investors that they are juicing their IP in order to hoodwink them about well profitability.
    BC, 10/30/2015 at 9:28 pm

    TX, ND, WY, and LA are in recession.

    CO, OK, AK, and WV might have been/be in recession, or close enough.

    VK, 10/31/2015 at 5:47 am
    Down the slippery slope of descent and ruin. For 80% of Americans life has been getting harder and harder.

    http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2015/10/29/us-on-road-to-third-world-paul-craig-roberts/

    The evidence is everywhere. In September the US Bureau of the Census released its report on US household income by quintile. Every quintile, as well as the top 5%, has experienced a decline in real household income since their peaks. The bottom quintile (lower 20 percent) has had a 17.1% decline in real income from the 1999 peak (from $14,092 to $11,676). The 4th quintile has had a 10.8% fall in real income since 2000 (from $34,863 to $31,087). The middle quintile has had a 6.9% decline in real income since 2000 (from $58,058 to $54,041). The 2nd quintile has had a 2.8% fall in real income since 2007 (from $90,331 to $87,834). The top quintile has had a decline in real income since 2006 of 1.7% (from $197,466 to $194,053). The top 5% has experienced a 4.8% reduction in real income since 2006 (from $349,215 to $332,347). Only the top One Percent or less (mainly the 0.1%) has experienced growth in income and wealth.

    The Census Bureau uses official measures of inflation to arrive at real income. These measures are understated. If more accurate measures of inflation are used (such as those available from shadowstats.com), the declines in real household income are larger and have been declining for a longer period. Some measures show real median annual household income below levels of the late 1960s and early 1970s.

    [Nov 01, 2015] Erdogans AKP Wins Snap Election - Successful Challenge Unlikely

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pre-election polling, which was quite to the point in the June election, is now off by 6 to 8%. No pollster predicted the AKP above 44%. ..."
    "... Internationally Erdogan is getting a lot of support from western states. ..."
    "... The larger question though is what does this mean for Turkey? What does it mean for the civil war in Turkey against the Kurds? And what does this mean for the Jihadi war on Syria that Erdogan and others are waging? ..."
    "... Oh look, theyve changed their headline already. An hour ago Yahoo had the AFP story headline as Erdogan: Turkeys abrasive Sultan . Now it says Erdogan: Turkeys Sultan wins again . You can see the original headline in the URL: http://news.yahoo.com/erdogan-turkeys-abrasive-sultan-100925891.html They also removed the first sentence completely. It said Saviour or dictator . I have a screen cap of the headline and first paragraph. ..."
    "... The main concern is whether there will be a redirection of policy toward Syria/PKK, or would they continue digging the hole to serve their US masters. If hypocritical Davutoglu continues as PM, there is little hope policy is going to change, since he and Erdogan are the main architects of Turkeys foreign policy. ..."
    "... Given Erdogans end-stage narcissism, I expect that he believes he has been appointed/anointed by his God, or Destiny, as the second coming of Ataturk. No one pursuing such a lofty ambition is about to let trifles like democracy and elections stand in his way. ..."
    "... Ataturk modernized, Westernized secularized Turkey, making great strides in its political, legal educational systems. Erdogan is wiping out every trace of Ataturk that he can reach. Erdogan used the Islamic Gulen system to climb to power, until he fell out with Fethullah Gulen. He has great admiration for the Muslim Brotherhood and wept when Morsi was overthrown. He feels that other members of the Gulen system in the courts, police army are undermining him under directions from Gulen. ..."
    "... How can we not recognize and deplore ISIS as a tool for world domination by the evil men that have nurtured and sustained them? ISIS - as both ideology and military force - is intent on destroying every government/society that their sponsors/allies/facilitators direct them to. ..."
    M of A

    The snap election results in Turkey are somewhat surprising and strongly diverge from recent opinion polls. And the result will, as predicted, not check Erdogan. This snap election than "corrected" the June vote in which the AKP had lost its former majority.

    With 98% of the vote counted the announced preliminary result is about

    • AKP 50%
    • CHP 25%
    • MHP 12%
    • HDP 10%

    With this count Erdogan's AKP would have some 317 seats, 13 less than the 330 needed for constitution changing supermajority. But should the lefty/Kurdish HDP fall, by whatever means, under 10% its seats would practically go to the AKP and a supermajority would be likely.

    But the election commission has now, for unexplained reasons, shut down its website and we do not get updated results. Pre-election polling, which was quite to the point in the June election, is now off by 6 to 8%. No pollster predicted the AKP above 44%.

    We can therefore expect that many people will call this a fraudulent election. It may well have been one. Erdogan certainly does not refrain from playing dirty. But do not expect much success for any challenge. The police, prosecutors, and courts are all under tight AKP control. Internationally Erdogan is getting a lot of support from "western" states.

    Just two day before the vote the U.S. announced that it approved long held back 'smart bomb' sale to Turkey. The EU held back a report critical on political and human rights in Turkey. Just twelve days ago Merkel visited for a photo op on the Sultan's throne and offered billions for Turkey to stop sending migrants to northern Europe. There was little criticism of Erdogan for seizing the Koza-İpek Group and the various media channels it owns. These "western" measure were, all together, very supportive for Erdogan and likely brought him some additional voters. So do not expect any criticism from these sides even if some evidence of vote manipulation emerges. The fix is now in.

    The larger question though is what does this mean for Turkey? What does it mean for the civil war in Turkey against the Kurds? And what does this mean for the Jihadi war on Syria that Erdogan and others are waging?

    Posted by b on November 1, 2015 at 01:36 PM | Permalink

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    tom | Nov 1, 2015 1:44:08 PM | 1

    Your last paragraph questions are the essential ones b.

    And all those people that voted for war against the Kurds, war against Syria using head chopping terrorists, and war against human rights in Turkey - fuck you x 1000.

    harry law | Nov 1, 2015 2:08:18 PM | 3

    "And what does this mean for the Jihadi war on Syria that Erdogan and others are waging?" Professor Juan Cole 'Informed comment' does not think IS is all its cracked up to be. here is what he thinks..

    Daesh (ISIS, ISIL), is a weird cult with almost no popular support. It probably rules over about 3 million people in the far east of the Arab world, having kidnapped them at gunpoint or having convinced them that the alternative is worse. Western journalism has been snookered by this small mafia of some 25,000 fighters into thinking they are important and will remain so. Nope. Flash in the pan. Muslim version of People's Temple. http://www.juancole.com/2015/11/exaggeration-shoot-planes.html

    An army can only survive if its troops are fed and weapons and ammunition are resupplied. Once the Russians and the Syrian army close off the resupply routes, IS will be surrounded and landlocked. Russian sorties increasing by the day, wiping out IS infrastructure and supply dumps means the defeat of the terrorists is inevitable, probably sooner than anyone imagines. That is why the US are panicking. The Russians have a very strong hand, hope they don't make too many concessions at Vienna.

    AriusArmenian | Nov 1, 2015 2:21:04 PM | 4

    What it means is that the lunatic Erdogan will lead Turkey and the region into a disaster greater than what we have already seen.
    gemini33 | Nov 1, 2015 2:23:36 PM | 5

    harry law @3
    Stunning, really, that for all this time pundits and military experts alike have been marveling at the power and mystique of ISIS and now it's all unraveling and boiling down to shutting down their supply lines.

    Has everyone lost their minds?

    ------------
    As for the impact of Erdogan's redemption on Turkey and Syria, one of the first things I thought of was that his army told him they wouldn't act on his orders until he had a govt. So if he now has a govt, I wonder if the Turkish army will now throw in their lot in this bizarre war in Syria. And if they do, who will be happy about it? The French news wire AFP seems happy and is already offering some apologist words for us to adopt.

    Oh look, they've changed their headline already. An hour ago Yahoo had the AFP story headline as "Erdogan: Turkey's abrasive 'Sultan'". Now it says "Erdogan: Turkey's 'Sultan' wins again". You can see the original headline in the URL: http://news.yahoo.com/erdogan-turkeys-abrasive-sultan-100925891.html They also removed the first sentence completely. It said "Saviour or dictator". I have a screen cap of the headline and first paragraph.

    Lone Wolf | Nov 1, 2015 2:25:02 PM | 6

    Those are crucial questions, b, thanks for the update.

    Erdogan's snap elections were planned to recover the mandate he lost in the last vote, and with a little help from his friends, La Merkel et al, he did, even when this election took place after silencing media critical to the governing party, and under consistent rumors of fraud.

    AK Party mayor shares stamped ballot paper on Facebook a day before election

    The main concern is whether there will be a redirection of policy toward Syria/PKK, or would they continue digging the hole to serve their US masters. If hypocritical Davutoglu continues as PM, there is little hope policy is going to change, since he and Erdogan are the main architects of Turkey's foreign policy. Now we just have to wait and see the final results.

    Zico | Nov 1, 2015 2:28:01 PM | 7

    Best results ever.. The disintegration of Turkey is now closer than ever... Sultan Erdogan will make sure of that...

    Ort | Nov 1, 2015 2:36:59 PM | 8

    gemini33 @ 5:

    I read the article; at least this wording hasn't changed (so far):

    "There is no doubt Erdogan has his eye on his legacy and wants to go down in history alongside modern Turkey's founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, as one of its great leaders."

    Given Erdogan's end-stage narcissism, I expect that he believes he has been appointed/anointed by his God, or Destiny, as the second coming of Ataturk. No one pursuing such a lofty ambition is about to let trifles like "democracy" and "elections" stand in his way.

    ALAN | Nov 1, 2015 2:54:14 PM | 9

    I expect that he believes he has been appointed/anointed by his God

    Saudi Arabia's rulers also see themselves as predating the Prophet having drawn their consecrated authority from a covenant with god.
    This is the real disease behind the Wahhabist insanity fueling world terrorism, an extremism that has drawn Saudi Arabia and Israel together, partnering them with heretical evangelical Christians.

    Penelope | Nov 1, 2015 2:56:16 PM | 10

    After the prior election, there was a story on Hurriyet which I'm sorry I didn't copy. It said that the Army had informed Erdogan that they would require written orders to invade Syria, and that the order would have to be signed by the coalition govt. (which of course had not been formed) The story did not specifically say that the Army had received such an order.

    Subsequently, Erdogan sent Turkmen and I think spec'l ops into Syria during the few days of the buffer zone which he & Allen had created. (Obama subsequently publicly denied there was a buffer zone although Allen had announced it on weekend TV).

    Lone Wolf | Nov 1, 2015 3:17:05 PM | 11

    @harry law@3

    Thanks for that Juan Cole article. I stopped reading Juan Cole years ago, after he did an about face on long-held positions in the ME, and every time someone quotes him or links him, I read him with a grain of salt. His article on Daesh seems balanced, even if he tends to underestimate them, imho. Sure, they have no capacity to down a plane at 30,000 ft., and his sizing-up of the Egyptian "Daesh" seems right. Same way gang attire become fashionable for naive youth trying to scare others, Daesh membership, even if a few rats in the middle of the Egyptian dessert, calls for recognition and 15 minutes of fame.

    Daesh in Syria/Iraq is another ball game. Those people cannot be underestimated, their military capacity has been proven, and their sponsors continue to make sure they have the best weapons to counter the Iraqi/Syrian armies, and large quantities of ammunition. They are and will remain dangerous for time to come. If cornered, either in Syria or Iraq, they will escape to fight another day. The war of attrition is over for Syria, Daesh/Ja'n et al will be moving to guerrilla war, after the last positions held and fought for now have caused a high casualty rate to the Syrian/Iraqi armies, and before the takfiris are caught in a cauldron and annihilated piecemeal.

    Penelope | Nov 1, 2015 3:18:25 PM | 12

    Ort @ 8,

    The article that said this SHOULD be changed:

    "There is no doubt Erdogan has his eye on his legacy and wants to go down in history alongside modern Turkey's founding father, Mustafa Kemal Ataturk, as one of its great leaders."

    Ataturk modernized, Westernized & secularized Turkey, making great strides in its political, legal & educational systems. Erdogan is wiping out every trace of Ataturk that he can reach. Erdogan used the Islamic Gulen system to climb to power, until he fell out with Fethullah Gulen. He has great admiration for the Muslim Brotherhood and wept when Morsi was overthrown. He feels that other members of the Gulen system in the courts, police & army are undermining him under directions from Gulen.

    US govt brought Fethullah Gulen to the US, where he heads a bunch of schools, doubtless to create great mischief here.

    Lone Wolf | Nov 1, 2015 5:09:44 PM | 14

    I guess everybody has read this article, since nobody has posted it. Regardless, I will post it not for the main news, Russian elite units presence in Syria, which is important, but for the Russian senior commander statement on Hezbollah. That I think, is extremely important.

    The original article appeared in Al-Rai, a newspaper in Arabic that gets frequently translated by Elijah J.M., a blogger sometimes quoted and linked to by b, reason I consider it a reliable source. I hope.

    Russian elite units in Zabadani, Homs, Hama and Aleppo

    [...] "Russia is beginning with what we define as a" quiet support " supplying advanced technology and preparing a spearhead force before reaching a further level we call the" stormy Support ". We expect a large presence of troops that will be supported by Russian Air Force. There are around 2500 Russian fighters, military expert and consultant in Syria. The number is expected to go much higher in the near future ", confirm the source that is in contact with the Russian units on the Syrian ground.

    "There are two aspects for the Russian intervention in Syria: In the first, the front line should be reinforced, maintained and is expected later to recover more lands and lost cities. The second is to hunt and bomb the Islamic State (ISIS) group leaders as well as other extremist groups in Syria, without exception. There are no red lines for the Russian operational tactics against terrorism that may extend to Iraq if necessary. The Kremlin has decided to face and fight terrorism by all means and is determine to eliminate, not to contain, ISIS. The Russians are aware of the necessity of cooperation with the U.S. led coalition over the sky of Syria to prevent unnecessarily accidents ", the source said.

    The senior commander explained, "Israel and the United States are also concerned about the possibility that Hezbollah could benefit from the advanced Russian military equipment pouring into Syria. As far as it concerns us, Damascus and Hezbollah are strategically linked and share the same destiny. Any sophisticated weapon owned by Syria and Iran that an organized but irregular force, like Hezbollah, can use in case of war against Israel is already in our possession. Israel is raising the alarm by saying that its "national security" could be in jeopardy if Hezbollah has this or that technology or could benefit from Russia's presence to transport more weapons into Lebanon. Russia's answer is that its own national security is already in jeopardy due to terrorism expansion. Russia is not fighting a battle but a war on terror on Syrian soil and elsewhere and is present in a hostile environment. Russia will pursue and won't give up upon in this war, in Syria, regardless any possible international pressure to persuade it otherwise". *

    * Bolds are mine.

    If the statement is legit, that is a tremendous boost for Hezbollah as an irregular force, to be considered on a par with Syria and Iran as a Russian ally. It also means that Russia will arm Hezbollah despite ISraIL protestations, because, as the Russian senior commander states, Russia's national security is in danger, and Russia is fighting a war, not a battle, in a hostile environment, where proven allies like Hezbollah come in handy.

    Good for you, Russia. More power to Hezbollah.

    From The Hague | Nov 1, 2015 5:27:53 PM | 16

    @ 14 Lone Wolf

    Yes it's a War on Russia.
    Latest developments: ISIS militants are transported through Odessa to Donbass
    http://fortruss.blogspot.nl/2015/10/death-trafficking-isis-militants-are.html

    And a Run on Putin.
    The Empire goes for persons and they succeeded with Hussein and Kadhaffi.

    I wonder if you act within the rules (as Russia does) you can make it...

    Jackrabbit | Nov 1, 2015 5:29:30 PM | 17

    ISIS may only be 25,000 more or less, but they are the pit of the rotten fruit from diseased trees cultivated by evil men that is force-fed to our body politic.

    We don't need to be in the Middle East. We have mature technology that makes us independent of ME oil: fracking and non-carbon alternatives. And as for Israel: they have had peaceful relations with their neighbors for many years now; they have all the weapons they need to defend themselves; and they are not the democracy that they (used to) claim to be.

    It is only entrenched 'special interests' and their manipulation of our money-based political system that forces us to continue to be involved in the ME. Our politicians and a few businessmen get a small part of the TRLLIONS that we have spent helping to remake the ME for the extremist/fundamentalist regimes that we call "allies" when the sensible course is to put those resources into revamping our sources and uses of energy.

    And lets not forget that the ISIS cancer has spread well beyond Syriaqistan. How can we not recognize and deplore ISIS as a 'tool' for world domination by the evil men that have nurtured and sustained them? ISIS - as both ideology and military force - is intent on destroying every government/society that their sponsors/allies/facilitators direct them to.

    shadyl | Nov 1, 2015 6:47:36 PM | 19

    ISIS Oil Exports Worth $500 Million a Year 'Conducted through Turkey'


    The lion's share of Islamic State illegal oil exports is conducted through Turkey and Kurdish areas. Although Washington could curb the illegal traffic, it has chosen to focus on other issues, a former CIA officer told the Sputnik news agency.

    "It's a question of priorities. They have never allocated enough resources to do so. Other goals and missions have been rated as having more urgent calls on intelligence and tactical resources," John Kiriakou, a former Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) counterterrorism officer and US Senate Foreign Relations Committee senior investigator, told Sputnik.


    http://www.globalresearch.ca/isis-oil-exports-worth-500-million-a-year-conducted-through-turkey/5485920
    harry law | Nov 1, 2015 6:50:10 PM | 20

    This comment from Benito Mussolini from an article by Nick Turse in 'the Intercept. very funny. "Which of you'all is the Free Syrian Army? Good. All 6 of you are here then. I know you were expecting the US to have a bigger army than 50 soldiers, but there's been some cutbacks. Do we start with Assad, Isis, Al-Nusra, the Kurds or them Russians?"

    fast freddy | Nov 1, 2015 7:35:18 PM | 22

    Lone @ 21

    Russia has been faced with Political, Economic and Military War against Russia in the Ukraine.

    The MSM, unsure at first, has been directed to go "all in" for Erdogan and the AKP. Any foe of Assad (including ISIS, IS, ISIL, DAESH) is a friend of NATO.

    gemini33 | Nov 1, 2015 7:39:17 PM | 23

    @14 Lone Wolf

    Thank you for citing that quote again. I had not paid enough attention to it. From the beginning of Russian operations in Syria I have been confused by their arrangement with Israel. I assumed that anything that was reported wasn't the real story or at least that any crackdown by Russia on Israel would be accompanied by some kind of concession. I thought maybe the Golan would eventually be that concession but really have no idea.

    This statement by the Russian commander -- do people here think that will be taken by Israel as a declaration of war to some extent? My understanding is that Hezbollah is Israel's obsession and the group they consider to be their most dangerous threat. If anyone cares to offer it, I'm interested in hearing analysis of the situation between Israel and Russia. I'm even more interested now with some possibly related developments in Egypt and Iraq.

    kafkananda | Nov 1, 2015 7:50:38 PM | 24

    Angela did her part. Here she is with Erdogan, sitting on golden thrones, two weeks before the election.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-20/erdogan-s-golden-throne-for-merkel-sends-message-before-election

    Posted by: Virgile | Nov 1, 2015 7:56:50 PM | 25
    This is not a total success for Erdogan as his party did not get enough seats to change the Constitution.
    Turkish newspaper reports that the AKP got 49.41% 316 seats
    Erdogan is nevertheless satisfied that his strategy of demonizing the HDP paid off. The HDP fell to 10.7%.
    Yet he is still frustrated by his incomplete success and will continue his revenge on the HDP. As Davutoglu will not resist his master, Erdogan will sneakly make Turkey an informal presidential system.
    Obviously his fear mongering tactic also worked. Now he has to show that with the AKP , Turkey is 100% secure. Any failure , any attack will affect his credibility. As Erdogan cannot reinstate a non-aggression deal with ISIS since he has committed to fight them, ISIS ( with the support of enemies of Erdogan) may start violent acts to discredit Erdogan's claim of the safety of a one party system. PKK may also contribute to the instability. Erdogan will have to call on the military to control demonstrations that could turn violent.
    The next few weeks will show if the repression and intelligence apparatus is strong enough to prevent terrorists acts, or of the country will fall into a spiral of violence.

    [Nov 01, 2015] U.S. economy keeps growing

    Low oil prices are approximately $180 billion stimulus for the USA. I wonder why results are not better for 2015.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes the rich and their little wanna-bee sock puppets come up with all kinds of elaborate contraptions to support their self-serving narrative of "serve the investor class and all shall be good". ..."
    "... Who the heck would build a new production facility if they don't have or predict increased demand. ..."
    "... I would agree that demographics will hurt long run growth, but over the short run we should be seeing some disinvestment as people retire and tap into savings, which should stimulate demand. And when private sector consumption and investment are weak, government spending does not weaken the economy, it lifts it up. ..."
    "... Too many of today's millionaires and billionaires made their money the old fashioned ways…inheritance and rent-seeking. I would suggest that you read some of the current literature on economic growth (long run growth). It's not capitalists who drive that growth, but ordinary people who innovate at the ground level. Innovation is what drives growth, not some cult of leadership personality, which is what you seem to have bought into. ..."
    "... CFOs anticipate a marked deceleration of revenues, earnings, and spending hereafter. The aggregate of payroll receipts and reported wages and salaries implies that US employment is significantly overstated, and civilian employment is decelerating to ~0% YoY. ..."
    "... Once a time, James predicted the future : at least 100 USD for oil per barrel forever (was it during the late 2007 speculator spike ?). ..."
    "... The year over year change in real GDP is just 2%. Moreover, the second quarter strength was largely a bounce back from the first quarter when weather related problems contributed to real GDP growth of under 1%. ..."
    "... Final demand looks OK, as you observed. But there is still extremely limited information suggesting the economy if breaking out of the past several years poor performance of some 2% plus real growth. ..."
    Oct 30, 2015 | Econbrowser

    The Bureau of Economic Analysis announced yesterday that U.S. real GDP grew at a 1.5% annual rate in the third quarter. Although the headline number sounds disappointing, the underlying fundamentals look solid.

    It was encouraging that housing, nonresidential investment, and the government sector all made positive contributions. The one negative was a drawdown in inventories (goods sold but not produced during the quarter). Leaving inventories out, real final sales grew at a healthy 3% annual rate.

    Paul Mathis, October 30, 2015 at 1:18 pm

    In The General Theory (p. 104) Keynes famously said: "Consumption - to repeat the obvious - is the sole end and object of all economic activity."

    Without consumption, it is obvious from the graph that there would be no recovery at all and we would still be in a recession. Why do economist today completely ignore the essential role of consumption in our economy? Why is there no emphasis on spurring consumer demand especially when government fiscal policy is MIA. We need to follow Keynes' advice:

    "I should support at the same time all sorts of policies for increasing the propensity to consume. For it is unlikely that full employment can be maintained, whatever we may do about investment, with the existing propensity to consume." The General Theory, p. 325.

    DeDude, November 1, 2015 at 7:50 am

    Yes the rich and their little wanna-bee sock puppets come up with all kinds of elaborate contraptions to support their self-serving narrative of "serve the investor class and all shall be good". Yet simple 5'th grade math tells us that the GDP is driven by consumption. Consumption in itself is about 70% and investments (20%) rarely occur unless consumption is increasing.

    Who the heck would build a new production facility if they don't have or predict increased demand. Looking at the observable world even a 5'th grader should have the sense of logic to understand that economic activity is driven by consumption (private or government). It is a pathetic spectacle to watch those whose ideology and self-interest dictate that they must reach another conclusion.

    2slugbaits, November 1, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    Making consumers pay too much, because of government policies and/or lawyers, doesn't improve consumption, but depletes saving.

    Huh? Those things might reduce welfare through deadweight loss, but as one wise man noted, it takes a lot of Harberger holes to fill a recession…or words to that effect. And some government policies and a legal system with property rights vigorously defended by lawyers do contribute to growth. If you want to point a finger at non-productive actors who engage in rent seeking, then point your finger at many in finance and asset trading.

    We're still in a weak recovery after the severe recession. The anemic economic growth is driven by population growth, federal borrowing, and emergency monetary policy.

    More nonsense. I would agree that demographics will hurt long run growth, but over the short run we should be seeing some disinvestment as people retire and tap into savings, which should stimulate demand. And when private sector consumption and investment are weak, government spending does not weaken the economy, it lifts it up. Have you not learned anything after all these years visiting this blog?

    We need to unleash the entrepreneurs and eliminate crony-capitalism to expand the economy. The new millionaires and billionaires will create lots of good jobs and a great deal of value to consumers.

    Too many of today's millionaires and billionaires made their money the old fashioned ways…inheritance and rent-seeking. I would suggest that you read some of the current literature on economic growth (long run growth). It's not capitalists who drive that growth, but ordinary people who innovate at the ground level. Innovation is what drives growth, not some cult of leadership personality, which is what you seem to have bought into.

    BC

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2mP3

    Non-residential "investment" per capita is turning negative for the first time since Q3 2008 and Q2 2001.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2mP8

    The differential growth of health care "consumption" to final sales is at a rate that previously occurred in Q3 2008 and Q2 2001.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2mP9

    Orders and wholesale sales and inventories are recessionary.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2mPb

    The acceleration of money velocity to private GDP is recessionary and deflationary.

    http://www.cfosurvey.org/2015q3/Q3-2015-US-KeyNumbers.pdf

    CFOs anticipate a marked deceleration of revenues, earnings, and spending hereafter. The aggregate of payroll receipts and reported wages and salaries implies that US employment is significantly overstated, and civilian employment is decelerating to ~0% YoY.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=2mA8

    Texas (and the energy sector) is in recession.

    Lookin' good.

    Johnny, November 1, 2015 at 10:54 am

    "The future is not ours to see."

    Once a time, James predicted the future : at least 100 USD for oil per barrel forever (was it during the late 2007 speculator spike ?).

    spencer, October 31, 2015 at 9:53 am

    The year over year change in real GDP is just 2%. Moreover, the second quarter strength was largely a bounce back from the first quarter when weather related problems contributed to real GDP growth of under 1%.

    Final demand looks OK, as you observed. But there is still extremely limited information suggesting the economy if breaking out of the past several years poor performance of some 2% plus real growth.

    [Nov 01, 2015] A Market Worthy Of The Line Do You Feel Lucky

    Notable quotes:
    "... Oh, and by the way, it was also this same so-called "smart crowd" who also touted this very monetary policy would bolster GDP prints far higher and consistent than they are now. And let's not forget – 1.5% GDP is now formulated with "double seasonally adjusted accounting." i.e., If the print isn't what you want or need; feel free to fudge the inputs as high or, low as needed without causing any obvious unwanted attention or, outright laughter. ..."
    "... Gordon Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our countrys wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. Its bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now youre not naive enough to think were living in a democracy, are you buddy? ..."
    "... The way the fragmented market is set up there is no need for fundamentals, or anything really for it to go up or down. Price movement is no longer dependant on the true value of the underlying, but value is assigned to the underlying by the amount of market pieces or liquidity participants it attracts at any point in time. ..."
    "... I was thinking about it today and it would be possible to have completely imaginary markets (no underlyings) that rely on the best algo to win, Darwinism for quantitation. I guess it would be like the Kentuky derby for computers, may the biggest and fastest server win. You could dump money into it/invest by betting on your favorite algo. In my mind the whole thing is pretty complicated, but thats the gist of it. Anyway.... ..."
    Nov 01, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    The now immortal line spoken by Clint Eastwood as "Dirty Harry" (1971 Warner Bros.) has never fit as a descriptor these financial markets more so than it does today. For if you believe you're investing as opposed to gambling? These markets are now poised to show everyone the difference.

    From an economic standpoint; not only has the current October surge in market prices been an absolute absurdity. Rather, just look to where the market as a whole has propelled itself right back to: within spitting distance of taking out the never before seen in the history of mankind highs. And why shouldn't it be up here? After all, the economy is absolutely booming right? Right?

    So one has to wonder exactly how does an economy in which its latest GDP report prints a blazing 1.5% warrant such a valuation? I know, trick question – it doesn't. However, if one tuned into many (if not all) of the current financial media outlets this question or, reasoning was never addressed in any shape manner or, form.

    As a matter of fact, there was praise by many of the next in rotation economists for how it was derived at in the first place, citing the "inventory" figures as a good news catalyst. Only an economist can find "good news" in a GDP print so pathetic it continues to warrant a continuation of extreme monetary policy by this very group.

    Oh, and by the way, it was also this same so-called "smart crowd" who also touted this very monetary policy would bolster GDP prints far higher and consistent than they are now. And let's not forget – 1.5% GDP is now formulated with "double seasonally adjusted accounting." i.e., If the print isn't what you want or need; feel free to fudge the inputs as high or, low as needed without causing any obvious unwanted attention or, outright laughter.

    What does it say when accounting standards have evolved into a discipline more suited for a massage parlor than anything resembling a house of academic standards – and 1.5% was the best print available? What one should infer from that data point alone is well worth contemplating by anyone truly serious about business or, their wealth. For that little number speaks volumes if one truly cares to dig deeper.

    Looking at the markets "its hard to argue with price" is the old saw. And that price is, as iterated earlier, extremely high.

    That's just fantastic if you're an "investor" with the tendencies of a river boat gambler. However, if you're someone trying to distinguish the subtleties of when to invest precious resource capital into cap-ex projects for the prospects of future growth, or whether or not to expend that capital in hedging strategies to help smooth out input costs – you're out-a-luck. You have just as good of a chance in flipping a coin for your macro business decisions. For hedging is now "What Fed. official will say what today?" Heaven help you if it's the opposite of what they said the previous day. Like the title implied, "Do you feel lucky?" doesn't seem that out of line.

    Boris Alatovkrap

    Ignore "invisible hand", but eventually is b*tch-slap those that defy.

    Escrava Isaura

    Invisible Hand?

    How about the rabbit hand.

    Gordon Gekko: The richest one percent of this country owns half our country's wealth, five trillion dollars. One third of that comes from hard work, two thirds comes from inheritance, interest on interest accumulating to widows and idiot sons and what I do, stock and real estate speculation. It's bullshit. You got ninety percent of the American public out there with little or no net worth. I create nothing. I own. We make the rules, pal. The news, war, peace, famine, upheaval, the price per paper clip. We pick that rabbit out of the hat while everybody sits out there wondering how the hell we did it. Now you're not naive enough to think we're living in a democracy, are you buddy?

    antonina2

    The way the fragmented market is set up there is no need for fundamentals, or anything really for it to go up or down. Price movement is no longer dependant on the true value of the underlying, but value is assigned to the underlying by the amount of market pieces or liquidity participants it attracts at any point in time. So, you could say the market or price action has been more or less decoupled from the true state of its underlying. Supply and demand due to fundamentals was true before hft and multiple exchanges, but can now be skewed in any direction for any length of time due to all the new technology and types of order flow that have been introduced. As long as people are getting paid to provide liquidity and other people are there to pay for taking liquidity away you can have a market that reaches the moon and beyond while the world is in a deep recession. So, if you think about it, while the pundits will have you believe that the market is priced at true valuations, it's not your Grandpa's market anymore, that is why the market can go up on relatively small volume and shitty data. It is a whole new game and beside disastrous glitches, the only time positive movement is threatened is when the big fish start placing large sell order blocks.

    I was thinking about it today and it would be possible to have completely imaginary markets (no underlyings) that rely on the best algo to win, Darwinism for quantitation. I guess it would be like the Kentuky derby for computers, may the biggest and fastest server win. You could dump money into it/invest by betting on your favorite algo. In my mind the whole thing is pretty complicated, but that's the gist of it. Anyway....

    It is my belief that things have developed in this manner to keep big money in the markets. So, I guess the question isn't what is up with the markets, but rather why do large holders continue to hold, my guess would be that they don't have anything else they want/need to do with their money. They say, who cares if Bob, Jen, Greg, and half of America can't find a decent job, we are making more money investing in the market (greater shareholder returns) than by helping to improve the actual economy and investing in more tangible things like people. It's pretty shitty, but that is how I have come to make sense of the whole thing. I mean yeah, the market should be about half of what it is now if it followed fundamentals, but it's not and I think that's why.

    Basically, in order for there to be the big market crash that everyone constantly talks about, some pretty big institutions are going to have to fuck up big time and receive no help in getting out of it. As long as there is enough money out there this fiasco can go on as long as people see fit. We all say, oh the FED is dumb and they are doing the wrong thing blah blah blah and while they are destroying the economy they are keeping the TBTF in the clear and being rewarded handsomely for it, completely aware of their actions. And to the public, they say fuck em and feed em cake, so just watch, a Republican with a great tax package will be elected in 2016 to satiate the people for the next four years while they continue to go about their business, increasingly bad data is reported and retail investors are like wtf is up with the markets?

    IDK, that's just my humble opinion

    [Nov 01, 2015] Chevron Takes Drastic Measures, Lays Off Another 7000 Employees

    "... And even though Chevron said in July that its cost-cutting initiatives would be "completed by mid-November of 2015" it decided to surprise everyone moments ago when on its earnings call it announced it would not only slash its capex by another 25%, but will shortly distribute another 7,000 pink slips. The reason: another terrible quarter in which the $2 billion in earnings were a 73% plunge from a year earlier. ..."
    OilPrice.com

    Back in January, in the aftermath of the first plunge in commodity prices, and oil in particular, oil major Chevron had the unsavory distinction of being the first US oil giant to admit cash flow "constraints" when it was forced to scrap its buyback. And since oil's dead cat bounce fizzled just around the summer before resuming is slide, it was inevitable that Chevron would proceed with trimming even more cash outflows.

    It did so for the first time in July, when as we reported at the time, Chevron would layoff 1,500 jobs globally, saying that "the cost reductions due to cuts in the corporate center are expected to total $1 billion with additional cost savings expected across the company."

    And even though Chevron said in July that its cost-cutting initiatives would be "completed by mid-November of 2015" it decided to surprise everyone moments ago when on its earnings call it announced it would not only slash its capex by another 25%, but will shortly distribute another 7,000 pink slips. The reason: another terrible quarter in which the $2 billion in earnings were a 73% plunge from a year earlier.

    [Oct 31, 2015] Another Black Swan? Turkey Holds Snap Elections Amid NATO-Backed Civil War

    Notable quotes:
    "... Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here . In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities. ..."
    zerohedge.com
    JustObserving

    Supporting the Kurds will lead to more terrorism per Erdogan. But it is fine and dandy to support ISIS terrorists and to be at war with Syria. Turkey will soon be a failed state:

    The following examples show the extent of Turkish involvement in the war on Syria:

    • –Turkey hosts the Political and Military Headquarters of the armed opposition. Most of the political leaders are former Syrians who have not lived there for decades.
    • –Turkey provides home base for armed opposition leaders. As quoted in the Vice News video "Syria: Wolves of the Valley": "Most of the commanders actually live in Turkey and commute in to the fighting when necessary."
    • –Turkey's intelligence agency MIT has provided its own trucks for shipping huge quantities of weapons and ammunition to Syrian armed opposition groups. According to court testimony, they made at least 2,000 trips to Syria.
    • Turkey is suspected of supplying the chemical weapons used in Ghouta in August 2013 as reported by Seymour Hersh here. In May 2013, Nusra fighters were arrested in possession of sarin but quickly and quietly released by Turkish authorities.
    • –Turkey's foreign minister, top spy chief and senior military official were secretly recorded plotting an incident to justify Turkish military strikes against Syria. A sensational recording of the meeting was publicized, exposing the plot in advance and likely preventing it from proceeding.
    • –Turkey has provided direct aid and support to attacking insurgents. When insurgents attacked Kassab Syria on the border in spring 2014, Turkey provided backup military support and ambulances for injured fighters. Turkey shot down a Syrian jet fighter that was attacking the invading insurgents. The plane landed 7 kilometers inside Syrian territory, suggesting that Turkish claims it was in Turkish air space are likely untrue.
    • –Turkey has recently increased its coordination with Saudi Arabia and Qatar.

    more at:

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/25/turkeys-troubling-war-on-syria/

    [Oct 31, 2015] Congresswoman Calls US Effort To Oust Assad Illegal, Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists

    Neocon Wolf Blitzer against Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard
    Notable quotes:
    "... This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol Ive heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress. ..."
    "... Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFKs assassination because he was a threat to national security, a new book has claimed. ..."
    "... Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well ..."
    "... Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5] ..."
    "... She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens. ..."
    "... fighting against Islamic extremists. ..."
    "... What the CIA, et alia, ..."
    "... Islamic extremist groups, ..."
    "... terrorism, ..."
    "... uccessfulness ..."
    "... insanities. ..."
    "... AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION ..."
    "... http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ... ..."
    "... "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism. ..."
    "... Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal. ..."
    "... That seed was already planted ..."
    "... not a good interview for zio Wolfe ... ..."
    Oct 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    One point we've been particularly keen on driving home since the beginning of Russian airstrikes in Syria is that The Kremlin's move to step in on behalf of Bashar al-Assad along with Vladimir Putin's open "invitation" to Washington with regard to joining forces in the fight against terrorism effectively let the cat out of the proverbial bag.

    That is, it simply wasn't possible for the US to explain why the Pentagon refused to partner with the Russians without admitting that i) the government views Assad, Russia, and Iran as a greater threat than ISIS, and ii) Washington and its regional allies don't necessarily want to see Sunni extremism wiped out in Syria and Iraq.

    Admitting either one of those points would be devastating from a PR perspective. No amount of Russophobic propaganda and/or looped video clips of the Ayatollah ranting against the US would be enough to convince the public that Moscow and Tehran are a greater threat than the black flag-waving jihadists beheading Westerners and burning Jordanian pilots alive in Hollywood-esque video clips, and so, The White House has been forced to scramble around in a desperate attempt to salvage the narrative.

    Well, it hasn't worked.

    With each passing week, more and more people are beginning to ask the kinds of questions the Pentagon and CIA most assuredly do not want to answer and now, US Congresswoman Tulsi Gabbard is out calling Washington's effort to oust Assad both "counterproductive" and "illegal." In the following priceless video clip, Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."

    Enjoy:

    https://youtu.be/IHkher6ceaA

    For more on how Russia and Iran's efforts in Syria have cornered the US from a foreign policy perspective, see "ISIS In 'Retreat' As Russia Destroys 32 Targets While Putin Trolls Obama As 'Weak With No Strategy'"

    aint no fortunate son's

    This is one incredible person, she stands in a league of her own. The only pol I've heard in a decade that makes a bit of sense. I now despise only 534 members of CONgress.

    Paveway IV

    "...Gabbard accuses the CIA of arming the very same terrorists who The White House insists are "our sworn enemy" and all but tells the American public that the government is lying to them and may end up inadvertently starting "World War III."..."

    Oh, then you're saying that that's future PRESIDENT Gabbard...

    Sergeiab

    Damn, you might be right. Look: see the public opinion is totally shifting (Easy when you have access to all the comments of all medias, including the moderated ones). Find someone among the democrats who voice it. Give her/him "random" media exposure (she was on Bill Maher few days ago) "Sudden rise of an outsider". She's a soldier/veteran/surfer 32yo. "Incredible American story". And at some point, she says she's transgender. Instant POTUS. That fits. That fits the "change/let's do something wild for once" that everybody's craving for (Trump). And it can't be random that a dissident voice is given media exposure. And she's beyond democrat/gop... That's a lot.

    Is there a closing date for the primaries?

    If not, she/he might well be the 45th president.

    Sergeiab

    Actually she's gonna be 35 in 2016...

    And she did it again:

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DSnXtapv9oQ

    G.O.O.D

    Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists.

    She left out Mossad, mI6, Saudis, Turkey and how many other zionist controlled CUNTries.

    Dick Buttkiss

    "Accuses CIA Of Backing Terroists."

    Backing terrorist? How about being terrorists?

    dot_bust

    I agree. Good point.

    I'd like to add that President John F. Kennedy issued an NSAM forbidding the CIA from conducting an further paramilitary operations and turned those operations over to the Joint Chiefs of Staff.

    President Truman only intended the CIA to analyze data from the other U.S. intelligence agencies, not to engage in any field operations. Here's his original op-ed piece about that very subject: http://www.maebrussell.com/Prouty/Harry%20Truman's%20CIA%20article.html

    In the op-ed, Truman said that the CIA had begun making policy instead of simply analyzing data. He also emphasized his discomfort with the idea of the Agency participating in cloak-and-dagger operations.

    SWRichmond

    Thanks for the link. Truman says:

    I well knew the first temporary director of the CIA, Adm. Souers, and the later permanent directors of the CIA, Gen. Hoyt Vandenberg and Allen Dulles. These were men of the highest character, patriotism and integrity-and I assume this is true of all those who continue in charge.

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3271482/Did-CIA-Director-Allen-D...

    Former CIA director Allen Dulles ordered JFK's assassination because he was a 'threat to national security', a new book has claimed.

    Bay of Pigs

    Allen Dulles most certainly was involved with the murder of JFK, and ensuing coverup. Dulles was central in the Warren Commission whitewash as well. People forget he was dumped after the Bay of Pigs fiasco with JFK saying at the time that he would "splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces and scatter it to the winds".

    Author David Talbot interviewed by Amy Goodman on Democracy Now.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=anYqrPRvhgo

    km4

    Lookout because Tulsi Gabbard has some impressive credentials

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

    Elected in 2012, she is the first American Samoan[3] and the first Hindu member of the United States Congress,[4] and, along with Tammy Duckworth, one of its first female combat veterans.[5]

    Military service (2004–present)

    https://www.votetulsi.com/tulsi-gabbard

    In 2004, when Tulsi's fellow soldiers from the 29th Brigade were called to war in Iraq, Tulsi volunteered to join them. She didn't need to put her life on the line. She could have stayed in the State House of Representatives, but in her heart, she felt it was more important to stand in solidarity with her fellow soldiers than to climb the political ladder.

    Her two deployments to the war-torn and dangerous Middle East revealed both Tulsi's natural inclination to self-less service and her ability to perform well in situations demanding confidence, courage, and the ability to perform well as a member of a team. The same maturity and character that served Tulsi well in the Middle East makes her exceptionally effective in the political world.

    Freddie

    These banksters wars like all wars are total shit but I like her.

    She is half Samoan and was a Catholic but became a Hindu.

    She has a lot of guts unlike the shitty little vile NeoCons like McCain and Lindsay Graham and the Neo-Zio-Libs like Feinstein and Schumer who are dual shit-i-zens.

    SWRichmond

    Graham is the quintessential chickenhawk.

    Radical Marijuana

    While I agreed with your overview, WTFRLY, at the 1:25 mark I think she is seriously mistaken about the priority being fighting against Islamic extremists. The real enemy of the American People has been the international bankers, who have almost totally captured control over the government of the USA, through POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS.

    Her basic opinion regarding 9/11 deliberately ignores that 9/11 was an inside job, false flag attack, which was aided and abetted by the Deep State Shadow Government. Everything that the USA has been doing has been actually carrying out the international bankers' agenda. The countries targeted for regime change were obstacles to the consolidation of the globalized hegemony of the international bankers, who are the best organized gangsters, the banksters, that have already captured control over all NATO governments, as is painfully obvious to anyone who thinks critically about how and why those governments ENFORCE FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.

    What the CIA, et alia, having been doing, since the overthrow of the government of Iran back in 1953, has been creating "Islamic extremist groups," as the responses of the various Islamic countries having been controlled by the European invasions, and later American invasions, which were always directed at capturing control over the development of the natural resources, through maintaining the control over the monetary systems through which that was done.

    The whole of human history has been the exponential growth of social pyramid systems based upon being able to back up lies with violence, becoming more sophisticated and integrated systems of legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, which have become globalized systems of electronic money frauds, backed by the threat of force from atomic bombs. There is indeed a serious risk of NATO countries, already almost totally controlled by the international bankers, getting into conflicts with the national interests of various countries which no longer are so easy for the banksters to continue to control.

    The banksters have been pushing through their agenda of wars based on deceits, in order to back up their debt slavery systems, and those were primarily the reasons for the series of regime changes, which appear to have stalled with respect to Syria. That Russia has decided that it is geopolitically able, along with the propaganda cover of fighting "terrorism," to step in with significant military support of the Syrian regime is indeed in severe conflict with the agenda of the international banksters, who are collectively a group of trillionaire mass murderers.

    Human history has become the excessive successfulness of the application of the methods of organized crime to control governments, through the vicious spirals of POLITICAL FUNDING ENFORCING FRAUDS, to develop to the point of runaway criminal insanities. While the Congresswoman above provided more penetrating analysis than one is used to be presented on the mainstream mass media, and she did that fairly well, she still is presenting the political problems only on very superficial levels ...

    JLee2027

    When a Hindu women who rides a surfboard starts making more sense than the President, and the entire Democratic Party I become speechless.

    scrappy

    She is an example of integrity standing up for what is right. I see many people of heart doing the same as this unfolds. We are supposed to support the "Underdog" Remember?

    UNDERDOG Cartoon Intro

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qHej4ZqZDwo&html5=1

    WTFRLY

    White House, Media Silent One Year After Murder of US Reporter Who Exposed Western Links to ISIS October 20, 2015

    JustObserving

    Heroin production up only 3500% since US invaded:

    AFGHAN OPIUM PRODUCTION INCREASES 35-FOLD SINCE U.S. INVASION

    http://www.breitbart.com/national-security/2015/02/10/afghan-opium-produ...

    MEFOBILLS

    "Hoisted on their own petard" is an apt aphorism.

    https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/hoist_by_one%27s_own_petard

    To be hurt or destroyed by one's own plot or device intended for another; to be "blown up by one's own bomb"

    The beautiful Tulsi Gabbard excerpt from Wikipedia:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tulsi_Gabbard

    Her father is of Samoan/European heritage and is a practicing Catholic who is a lector at his church, but also enjoys practicing mantra meditation, including kirtan.[7] Her mother is of Euro-American descent and a practicing Hindu.[7] Tulsi fully embracedHinduism as a teenage

    At 5 minutes in to video, Wolf B. mentions that Tulsi is a combat veteran. She is also on Senate Arms services committee.

    The not so beautiful Wolf Blitzer:

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolf_Blitzer

    Blitzer was born in Augsburg, Germany] the son of Cesia Blitzer (née Zylberfuden), a homemaker, and David Blitzer, a home builder. His parents were Jewish refugees from O?wi?cim, Poland, and Holocaust survivors… While at Johns Hopkins, Blitzer studied abroad at the Hebrew University of Jerusalem, where he learned Hebrew.

    Petard action happens at 6 minutes in, when Tulsi explains how if the U.S. repeats the same action as Iraq and Libya, the results will equal.

    "Things that are being said right now about Assad, were said about Ghadaffi.., they were said about Saddam Hussein, by those who were advocating for the U.S. to intervene, to go overthrow those regimes and dictators. The fact is, if that happens here in Syria,….far worse situation, persecution of religious minorities and Christians."

    Who advocated to start ME wars? Wolf then puts words in her mouth, suggesting that Hezbollah and Russians are doing the U.S. a favor.

    To give Wolf full credit, he doesn't explode when Tulsi mentions persecution of the Christians, as said Christians MUST be his enemy and color Wolf's wordview, given his parents refugee history. Oh the web we weave, when we intend to deceive.

    rejected

    Well, she managed to get in the meme "We were attacked by Al Qaeda on 9/11". They push that meme every chance they get.

    The spooks at the CIA know how to push propaganda. She will get all kinds of credibility appearing to oppose the spooks and very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger.

    ebear

    "....very few will notice the 9/11 comment but the seed will be fertilized and grow stronger."

    I beg to differ. That seed was already planted. Why are we supporting the people who attacked us? - keeps it nice and simple. Turns the entire narrative against them.

    One dragon at a time.

    Omega_Man

    not a good interview for zio Wolfe ...

    I didn't like this girl before, but starting to like her.

    She needs a security team... to protect her from the US Gov... no joke

    [Oct 30, 2015] Russia Takes Over The Mid-East Moscow Gets Green Light For Strikes In Iraq, Sets Up Alliance With Jordan

    A lot of wishful thinking. The USA still remain world only superpower and (in somewhat diminished way) as well as a technological leader. And the USA is still the most powerful (neoliberal) empire (that does not contradict dismal state of the USA infrastructure; that's typical for empire on late stage of development). It just overextended itself due to neocon dominance in the US politics.
    And remember that Russia is neoliberal state too. And it was Putin who got Russia into WTO. Putin is a unique leader, but his rule is not eternal. An there is nobody after him to continue defiant course. actually Russia will face crisis of leadership after he is gone. So in a way TINA (or PAX Americana) still hold.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didnt get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didnt get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didnt get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didnt get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama wont get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt. ..."
    "... think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria. ..."
    "... As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our side is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet. ..."
    "... This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russias economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars. ..."
    "... ---Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate........... ..."
    "... ......... ..."
    "... For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream medias front pages. ..."
    "... youve got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, id be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it. ..."
    "... The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians. ..."
    "... With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West. ..."
    "... I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians). ..."
    "... Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. Its astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction. ..."
    "... The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said. I dont see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties... ..."
    "... Dont forget ISISs tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically. ..."
    "... I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed. ..."
    "... You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didnt pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do. ..."
    "... Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad moderate opposition , ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan cant protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior. ..."
    "... I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni ..."
    "... Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis. ..."
    "... Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadnt been a sectarian civil war anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally) ..."
    "... Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home. ..."
    "... Thats the best part about solving a problem that youve created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony. ..."
    "... I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction youve sewn ..."
    "... List of GCC countries, Gulf countries *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the NGOs belonging to the UAE Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel! ..."
    "... It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history. ..."
    "... And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of hovering ?... ..."
    "... Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didnt do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries! ..."
    Oct 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    OpenThePodBayDoorHAL

    Zero fucking accountability. Greenspan and Bernanke didn't get it for blowing the Mother of All Bubbles. Clinton didn't get it for NAFTA and tearing down Glass-Steagal. Bush didn't get it for being asleep at the switch for 9/11 and then the wonderful Iraq and Afghan wars. Hilary didn't get it for creating all-terror zones in Libya. And Obama won't get it for destroying health care and doubling the national debt.

    WTF are you gonna do. The United States of Amnesia.

    BTW Turkey is the next Syria, you heard it here first.

    jeff montanye

    Bush was not asleep at the switch on 9-11. he just played one on teevee.

    Escrava Isaura

    I think some of you are missing the big picture. Say that US Plan-B failed-take over Syria after Iraq. Isis are Sunnis. US have always supported Sunnis. So, Isis controls Iraq, with US and Saudi support (Plan-C). Now, say that in a couple years US, Saudi, and Israel manage a Coup D'état in Syria.

    ... ... ...

    Never Let a Serious Crisis Go to Waste: How Neoliberalism Survived(s).......

    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1781680795?refRID=B3QFWNTPC57XETC7CW56&ref_=pd_ybh_a_1

    ... ... ...

    1033eruth

    The writer of this comment is really stupid, ignorant and moronic. The middle east isn't ours. Its not our toy. Russia didn't steal our toy. Its not the taxpayers job to fund a global playground for the US military to "exert our will".

    Everything in the above article was PURE PROPAGANDA designed to promote some type of kneejerk response to Russia stealing our "toy".

    Leave it alone. The middle east is like a big turd pile. We've got to learn to stop playing in it. Apparently readers of ZH think that playing King of the Turd Pile is exactly what taxpayers are supposed to finance.

    Pure Evil

    Vladimir Ilyich Ulyanov's saying about selling the capitalists the rope to hang themselves seems almost apropos in this situation.

    After 9-11 the Russians allowed the former Soviet Republics to open up forward operating bases for the US to supply its foray into Afghanistan. When we went a bridge to far they then applied the pressure to deny access to these former airfields and our only supply route is now through Pakistan. And, undoubtedly the Pakistanis would more than be willing to sell us out to the Chinese and Russians.

    With Iraq they sat back and watched us waste not only men and war fighting material but bleed the US Treasury dry.

    They also stood down as we stoked the Arab Spring from Tunisia to Libya to Syria. Now Europe suffers from their own Arab Spring as millions of Sunni with no place to live invade Europe.

    We overturn Saddam only to replace him with Shia leaders in control and we can only sit back and wonder why the Iranians control the Iraqi army.

    We've spent trillions upon trillions of dollars only to hand over Syria and Iraq on a silver platter to Russia and Iran.

    ... ... ...

    The neocons who consider themselves the best and brightest have totally botched everything and they're about to finish the take down of the US via amnesty, Obamacare, TPP, gun control, more and even higher immigration, and Wall Street corruption.

    Can America afford anymore of their hubris?

    Albertarocks

    I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US admin. just can't comprehend. [And I don't mean 'the American people'. It's the admin. acting as the puppet for the global banking mafia.] Can they accept peace in the Middle East? Hard to say, but when there is peace in the world, the US military industrial complex, the bankers, the fascist corporations, the dark side in general can't rule and make obscene amounts of money robbing the rest of the world.

    As difficult as it is for most westerners to wrap their heads around... we are on the wrong side. Our 'side' is really and truly the dark side. The side that is ruled by the banking cabal and who is hell bent on causing war after war after war in the name of expanding their hold on the entire planet.

    It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy. And maybe that's the proper and loyal stance to have, but cheering for Putin's success is not cheering for the enemy. The dark side, 'our side', is the world's enemy. Your children's enemy. Your grand children's enemy. The enemy of all of humanity and what is 'right'. Then enemy of this entire once-beautiful planet.

    So ya, I want to see Putin be left alone to reassemble the god damned mess the bankers have caused. And then I want to see westerners turn our furious gaze inward... at the real cause of all the world's trouble. Our governments' day of reckoning is what westerners should be focusing on.

    Paveway IV

    "...It's also considered a mortal sin in the west to cheer for the enemy..."

    Critical thinking ability is also a mortal sin in the West. Which would quickly lead one to surmise that the term 'enemy' is a neurolinguistic trick used by psychopaths to make you do something against your will, morals or better judgement. Replace 'enemy' with a more succinct term: 'evil'. Is Russia evil? No. Would you cheer for evil? Of course not. See how easy it is to untwist the psychopath's perverted logic?

    California Nightmares

    Some great comments, here. I'm afraid to thunbs up some of these. Microsoft and Google are probably capturing my every mouse click.

    I offer only one thought: were the Russians (God bless 'em) to attain control of most of the Middle East's oil, we zeros in the USA would find ourselves living back in 1850.

    ThroxxOfVron

    "I think most of the world can see what's going to happen once Putin is finished putting the pieces all back together again. Peace is going to break out. And that's something that the US admin. just can't comprehend. "

    I don't think that the War Profiteers are going to just shrug, stop taking our money from us, and find useful productive activities with which to earn honest livings so easily...

    It's right about next year that South America should start to disintegrate.

    Argentina., Venezuela, Brazil, Mexico: are ALL in serious trouble due to excessive/corrosive mismanagement and corruption, narco trade and human trafficing dynamics, commodities cycle collaps/reversions, resource depletions, etc..

    Texas will have it's 'Hungarian' border moment soon enough as large populations finally give up any hope for political order and economic stability in their homelands and migrate north to the relative political stability and economic health ( and the generous social/welfare benefits! ) offered by the political ideologues in the US and Canada...

    I expect that the usual political/policy factions the US will each welcome a wave of several millions of migrants, and launch military incursions into convulsing failed or failing South American states, albeit for differently stated reasons or ideological affinities...

    IF the South American situation is not a large enough crisis to merit interventions and migrations it will be aggravated/enhanced to the point where it is worth of interventions by the Warfare/Welfare State nexus.

    trulz4lulz

    This is amazing!! Murikistan totally has lost control of their petrodollar superiority in 5 WEEKS! The rest will just be formalities of setting up the re republics of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Libya, and Afghanistan for russia and iran to reside over. This is the best cock-up in the history of the modern era!

    Masterclass geopolitical strategy, Russia and Iran. Not like it wasn't handed to you on a silver platter or anything by obombya and his nerry band of mentally retarded sycophants, but still. Well played.

    P.S. Murikistan doesn't survive this. Im hoping the great lakes region goes to the canadians though.

    chunga

    I've been thinking for a while that for USSA to maintain the petro-dollar reserve status it needs it's military to have at least an aura of invinciblity. Without that it would be tough to keep doing tricks like QE. And without the QE financial tricks it would be tough to pay for the giant military so catch-22.

    Since USSA has fucked with just about everybody over there, their list of allies is pretty bad mainly just cutthroat Saudi Arabia and Israel. With the Russians giving Uncle Scam the finger it might embolden others to do the same. That's why I fear 'Murika might fly off the handle over this and really escalate the shooting because it has no choice. They've burned up all their goodwill internationally so only tool they have is a hammer.

    Albertarocks -> chunga

    I couldn't possibly agree with you more. You nailed it. Sam is in such a pickle. The bankers have led the US down the garden path, using it as it's 'bully branch', and this is more or less what I meant by our government being held to account. 90% of Congress should be charged with treason, given a fair trial and be made to suffer the consequences. If any one of them are found 'not guilty', then the judge should be charged with treason as well since it is already 100% obvious that when any one of them who signs bills, unread, at midnight, they have just committed an act of treason in that irresponsible act alone. I mean it's just incredible how evil the admin. has become. It's time to shake that house apart and bring 'rule of law' back into the forefront where it belongs. And then the oversight agencies like the SEC and the FDA... it's time to tear those demonic agencies to shreds and deal with their leaders accordingly. Those are the people who should probably pay the ultimate penalty first.

    Freddie

    the speed - 5 weeks - makes me think this has all been planned out. The installation of See Eye Aye NWO shit like Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obola makes me wonder. All four are See Eye Aye Moles.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XTuuPx0hFYM

    All four are related. See video above. The USSA is a joke filled with idiots brainwashed by TV and Zollywood.

    Omen IV

    So the usa circles Russia and China with most of the 700 bases it operates and Iran in motion with Russia's help to circle Saudi Arabia with its own sphere of operation - pushing ISIS / ISIL / Daesh / Free Syrian Army / Al Nusra et al = Sunni's - to recognize the big prize that SA represents to ALL Sunni

    The Princes right now have Mecca ???

    laomei

    I'm failing to see the downside to any of this. The US gets bitched at no matter what it does now. It's always wrong in some way or another, so fuck it I guess. Russia, which is MUCH CLOSER than the US is to this mess now gets to stick their dick into this bee hive and see what comes of it. This is an unending war, if the US and the west pulls out of it and now Russia owns the mess. Russia's economy is rather fucked at the moment and they are in no position to be fighting endless wars.

    monk27

    Russia's economy is much less fucked than America's economy. Printing USD with abandon (with and without issuing corresponding debt), and stuffing them into your own banks, hardly qualifies as "economy". By any measure you choose, US is in worse shape than Russia, corruption included...

    At this point, probably the best thing US could hope for would be to clean up it's act internally (filling the jails with financial crooks would help), and do nothing as foreign policy, at least for a while. Detoxification is essential for survival...

    Usurious

    Tyler Durden----''Thanks to the fact that the Western media has held up ISIS as the devil incarnate''...........

    can somebody make a youtube video montage of the talking heads, retired generals, republican debate freak show contestants, PNAC ZIO-CONs telling us how evil ISIS is/are ..........because ISIS has disappearded from the MSM headlines as Tyler predicted 2 weeks ago.....

    Tyler Durden--''For now, however, expect ISIS to gradually disappear from the mainstream media's front pages.''

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-11/end-isis-iraq-air-force-claims-...

    pliny the longer -> laomei

    re laomei: allow me to take a stab at 'splaining this: the reason it matters is because you've got a whole pentagon full of neocons whose heads are about to pop off; the urge in that building to intervene, er help, and blow shit up has to be extreme; if i was prezzy purple dank, i'd be maybe a little nervous of the suicide bug if you get it.

    also, for how long does anyone think israel is going to stand by and let this shit show build? they're playing it cool for now. but so did Putin until about 60 days ago . . .

    this all of course is just a guess; WTF do i know, i'm just a dumb sum bitch that pays my bills and half of everyone else's;

    Niall Of The Nine Hostages

    It's not a "foolproof cover story." It's the truth. The US and the House of Saud created, by accident or design, all the gangs of Muslim mass murderers currently terrorizing the planet. You want order restored and something done about Muslim mass murderers in your region, you bring in the Russians.

    On to Riyadh, Doha and Dubai. After the House of Saud and Thani are driven from power and liquidated, you won't hear another word about the war on terror. With dirty Saudi oil money removed from the politics of Western nations, maybe something will finally be done to reverse Islamisation in the West.

    And there will be peace in Israel for forty years.

    grekko -> Niall Of The Nine Hostages

    You really have to eliminate Bibi first, and his whole neocon cadre. He incites the other side to be stupid, so he can reap the votes of the stupid. Then there will be peace.

    Caleb Abell

    I agree with most of your comment, but Israel has never shown any interest in peace. If anything, they want the same kind of peace the US gave to the Native Americans (in this case, the Palestinians).

    Jack's Raging Bile Duct

    Jordan? HAHAHA! Will they have their anti-ISIS intelligence center three blocks away from their USA sponsored ISIS training centers, or would that be taboo? What shameless whores those people must be. It's astonishing how quickly the wind can change direction.

    smacker

    [copied over from previous article]

    This looks like it's one of the tactics used by US forces in Syria/Iraq to minimise any bombing damage to its ISIS terrorist friends:

    from that article at http://www.middleeasteye.net/news/iraq-authorises-russia-strike-islamic-...

    " "They [the US-led coalition] refuse to strike private cars, mosques, bridges, schools despite the fact Daesh militants are mainly using these places as headquarters," a senior military officer [...] told MEE."

    "The US-led rules, which enforces verification of targets, regularly give IS militants time to save their supplies, equipment and fighters, they said." I don't see any similar constraint by US forces when it comes to bombing hospitals and wedding parties...

    bid the soldier

    Don't forget ISIS's tanker trucks providing both income to ISIS and a increased oil supply to the market to keep prices down and ruin Russia economically.

    smacker

    Yep, it'll be good if Putin's bombers locate a few ISIS oil convoys and deal with them. That won't please the Turkish middle-men.

    bid the soldier... -> smacker

    I suppose yesterday you noticed the US Syrian dwarfs came out out of the woodwork to tell the western MSM how many hospitals the Russians had bombed.

    Apparently unnewsworthy until the US bombed the MSF hospital in Afghanistan.

    Its hard to say which is more pathetic: the US military or US propaganda.

    Lea

    "Iraq allows Russia to strike ISIL" is nowhere but on this Turkish site. I call BS. The whole of the Russian media would make this headlines. There is zilch, nada on Sputnik, RT or TASS.

    grekko

    You really have to hand it to the idiots (neocons) running DC. They totally blew it with the orchestration and training of ISIS to overthrow Assad, all the while having the MSM demonize ISIS as the bogeyman of the Middle East. Personally, I think the Ruskies are a bit slow on the uptake here. Why they didn't pull this off a year ago is beyond me. Maybe they have more patience than I do.

    dustyfin

    There's a time for everything.

    A year ago Russia had other concerns, its military was a year less well prepared and a year ago, I think that Putin and his government still thought that some form of rapprochement could be made with The West.

    Also, to get this far has required a whole heap of planning, negotiating, horse trading and arm twisting. Think of this as being the 'overnight success' that took a decade to achieve!

    sudzee

    Jordan has no choice but to join the Syrian/Russian/Iraq/Iran coalition. ISIS supply lines to and from Turkey will be cut. While the coalition nulifies US backed Anti-Assad "moderate opposition", ISIS will be pushed southeast into eastern Jordan and Saudi Arabia. Jordan can't protect itself from US backed ISIS and sees Russia as its only savior.

    Saudi Arabia will have no choice soon but to join the coalition as well.

    Get ready to price oil in Rubles or gold as the US is completely forced out of the entire middle east.

    PrimalScream

    I will differ with you on that one. The Saudis will never join Russia and Iran - that would be a union between Sunnis and Shiites. It is not going to happen. This new power struggle pits Sunni nations directly against the Shiites. It will be big and it will be bloody.

    Rhett72

    I agree that the Saudis will never ally with Iran, but we should clarify that the conflict you are describing is not Sunni vs Shia. but Wahhabi cultists versus mainstream Sunni and Shia. The Syrian army is 60% Sunni, and the Jordanian Hashemites are traditional Sunnis descended from Prophet Muhammad who were expelled from Mecca by the Saudis. Egypt is also traditional Sunni and will likely move toward Russia and abandon the Saudis.

    Zadig

    Yes, the sectarian civil war nonsense was created to hide and counter the guerrilla war in Iraq. Iraq never had a civil war before, and there hadn't been a 'sectarian civil war' anywhere. That the heavily intermarried anti-occupation Arabs needed to be fragmented into ghettos (just like the Palestinians naturally), but the pro-occupation Kurds didn't should have made things obvious to everyone.

    Jack Burton

    Obama vowed to wage an unrelenting war on ISIL/ISIS. He said it would be a long haul, but terrorists would never hide from the USA. Fast forward to a full year of ISIL advances on the ground backed by a flood of US supplied TOW Anti Tank Guided Missiles, in use by Al-Qaeda and ISIL both. So Russia steps in to the fight. Obama demands they stop their sir strikes, stop arming Assad, and go home.

    Wanna see what Russia at war looks like? Want to see how they answer ISIL chopping heads off, eating organs etc. Watch the FULL video below of the Syrian Arab Army employ their new Russian supplied TOS-1 thermobaric weapon.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3SrKZd5tpNo

    Zadig

    That's the best part about solving a problem that you've created. The severity of the problem will conveniently wax and wane to suit your needs. Need to scare the sheeple and keep foreign vassals loyal? Step #1 Create a pet bogeyman. Step #2: Defeat the pet bogeyman. Repeat as often as needed to maintain hegemony.

    Russia jumping in at Step #2 to reap the plaudits (and weapon sales!), is probably what Mordor hates the most about all this.

    taopraxis

    People who think Russia and China and the USA are enemies probably think Republicans and Democrats are enemies. Step back and it seems fairly obvious that someone behind the scene is moving these pieces around on the global chess board and the political puppets are merely implementing the new policies.

    Obama looks like a Marketing Prez. Putin acts more like a COO. Abe is CFO, apparently, a frightening thought. Not sure what the Chinese and Saudi top dogs are all about...real players, maybe. All just conjecture, but the way the USA pulled out and the Russians moved in looked too well coordinated to be anything other than that...coordinated.

    rejected

    Hopefully President Putin doesn't put too much on his plate. The ussa is setting up fresh arms deliveries to the terrorists as we ponder.

    It's going to be tough going for the Russian Federation to clean up the mess the ussa has made of the ME over the last 25 years. The whole damn place is a complete disaster with Arabs killing each other and Israel killing as many Palestinians as they can.

    It's astonishing the Arabs, like the Ukrainians, can't seem to understand the ussa modus operandi that is,,, start a bunch of crap then back off and watch the fun. Sort of like the bar fight scenes in movies where the perp that starts the brawl exits once everyone is fighting.

    Berspankme

    I admire Putin for his steadfast defense of his country in the face of covert terrorism from the west. I fear the ME might be a quagmire although surely he better understands it than I do. As for the neocunts, everyone of you should die for the destruction you've sewn

    earleflorida

    Why waste valuable resources dividing and conquering in a medieval world, when religion can do the trick without unsheathing a sword? All but[t] for,... only the might being in the hands of the dual-mine'd pen'heads[?], is all one needs as a metaphoric representation of a classical 'Damocles Dilemma' victory? Why tell your right hand what your doing when the left will do it for you in a asymmetric 'syncreticism'!

    "Sunni - Shia Split the Mideast new great divide" http://www.thestar.com/news/world/2013/09/06/sunnishia_split_the_mideasts_new_great_divide.html

    "List of GCC countries, Gulf countries' *Great Data Site-- Note: It is the 'NGOs' belonging to the UAE & Qatar that fund the jihadist throughout the *muslim-sunni world... with Saudi Arabia at the helm. The geographic landscape is telling...[Qatar and Bahrain have gargantuan R&R military base outpost for USSA military brass] while most jihadist are recruited throughout the worlds muslim-sunni communities and trained in Jordan, and Pakistan etel!

    http://www.dubaifaqs.com/list-of-gcc-countries.php

    "Sunnis and Shia in the Middle`East" http://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-25434060

    Lastly, a read-between-the-lines of myopic misinformation atavistic Machiavellian protean...[?] "Obams Regime's Support of Al Qaeda and ISIS" http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39005.htm

    Sandmann

    http://www.veteranstoday.com/2015/10/21/breaking-story-israeli-general-c...

    "There is a strong cooperation between MOSSAD and ISIS top military commanders...Israeli advisors helping the Organization on laying out strategic and military plans, and guiding them in the battlefield"

    The terrorist organization also has military consultants from Saudi Arabia, Qatar, United Arab Emirates and Jordan. Saudi Arabia has so far provided ISIS with 30,000 vehicles, while Jordan rendered 4500 vehicles. Qatar and United Arab Emirates delivered funds for covering ISIS overall expenditure.

    The planes belonging to the aforesaid countries are still landing in the Mosel airport, carrying military aid and fighters, especially via the Jordanian borders.

    Phillyguy

    Key events in US Iraq campaign

    1. Judy Miller and Michael Gordon publish their piece in the paper of record (NYT) about Sadam Hussein's attempts to obtain parts for nuclear weapons in 2002 (later shown to be nonsense).
    2. Colin Powell uses above "intelligence" in his UN speech, effectively creating a casus belli for Bush II invasion/occupation of Iraq.
    3. Don Rumsfeld claims the Iraq war will cost circa $ 70 billion, paid for with Iraqi oil revenue. Reality check- the Iraq campaign will end up costing US taxpayers $4-6 trillion.
    4. Immediately following the US invasion, US military disbands the Iraqi armed forces, many of whom later join ISIS/ISIL/Daesh.

    The arrogance, dishonesty and outright incompetence of this campaign is breathtaking. Despite spending significant lives and treasure, the US failed to obtain any imperial rent (oil concessions, etc) from this war.

    It should not be surprising that Putin, who has an excellent grasp of foreign affairs and intellectually far above most, if not all US policy makers, will exploit this situation. Further, ISIS can easily create major problems in Jordan, (where do they go once they are driven out of Syria?) something the King of Jordan, is no doubt well aware. Bottom line- the 2003 US invasion and occupation of Iraq may well go down as the biggest military and economic disaster in world history.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    Regardless of your stance on whether the EU should be receptive to the millions of asylum seekers fleeing the war-torn Mid-East, the simple fact is that if you remain in Syria, you are risking your life on a daily basis, caught in the crossfire between a bewildering array of state actors, rebel groups, and proxy armies, all with competing agendas.

    And just when are Germans, Italians, French and the Eastern European wanna-bes going to demand that NATO be dissolved and the American MIC permanently removed from their landscape(s) after 70 years of "hovering"?...

    Lay the blame at the feet of those most responsible for this crisis who were coerced, bribed and threatened if they didn't do with impunity what the American IC and military demanded them to do and not the innocent begging for refuge while your government(s) assisted in the looting operation of their sovereign Countries!

    P.S.

    If PIGIDA were ever to wage that kind of a campaign and align themselves with the "left" that is already anti-American the U.S. will be finished!

    [Oct 28, 2015] US Ground Troops In Syria Is Illegal, Big Mistake, Russia Warns Obama Of Unpredictable Consequences

    Zero Hedge

    Newbie lurker

    "He gazed up at the enormous face. Forty years it had taken him to learn what kind of smile was hidden beneath the dark moustache. O cruel, needless misunderstanding! O stubborn, self-willed exile from the loving breast! Two gin-scented tears trickled down the sides of his nose. But it was all right, everything was all right, the struggle was finished. He had won the victory over himself. He loved Big Brother."

    Manthong

    ..this should be Lit 101

    TheReplacement

    More like Modern American History 101.

    Escrava Isaura

    The Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists

    2015 - IT IS 3 MINUTES TO MIDNIGHT

    http://thebulletin.org/clock/2015

    Reg Morrison: "The human brain remains a piece of stone-age machinery, however you look at it, and no amount of culture can make it otherwise. Genetically speaking we are a finished product, not a prototype. What you see is what you get-there will be no bright utopian future."- The Spirit in the Gene, page 247.

    Haus-Targaryen

    So we have Russian soldiers on the ground fighting ISIS & the "moderate" rebels alongside Iran & Syria -- while Russia blows said head choppers to smithereens. While the US will have soldiers on the ground fighting Assad & Hezbollah blowing them up from the air.

    What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah. What happens then? (Then they call air strikes on one another and everyone figures out shit just went real wrong really quickly).

    HowdyDoody

    "What happens when Russia troops take on American troops, thinking they are ISIS and the Americans thinking they are Hezbollah" That's a feature, not a bug. And that is why the Russians are calling out on it beforehand.

    ZippyDooDah

    Russia is providing air cover to Iran and Hezbollah in Syria, so that the USAF can't bomb the Shiite ground troops. America is providing ground troops in Syria to embed with "rebels," so that Russia can't bomb the Sunni ground troops. Proxy war at its most insane, cause it just went beyond proxies.

    The Sunni-Shiite divide is centuries old, and not a fight we should ever have gotten involved with. Dumbassery at its most insane.

    You might think the U.S. military might someday rebel against this kind of wanton waste of its resources. But no, I guess we are just going to grind ourselves away to nothing in the Middle East meat chopper.

    TheReplacement

    Wikileaks Ukraine has leaked a conversation regarding planning false flag shoot downs that involved a certain sitting US Senator who happens to have met with the Nazis in Ukraine and the terrorists in Syria. I believe the plan is to shoot down a US/NATO jet and then a Russian.

    lakecity55

    Russia needs to state the legal case before the UN Security Council and force the USG to veto the Resolution, thus making Vichy DC even more in the wrong internationally!

    Paveway IV

    Russia was already holding the UN's feet to the fire. Things just got a whole lot worse in the last two days.

    The Golan Heights is not Israeli territory according to the UN - ever since 1949. They recognize Israel is occupying it, but under international law (such as it were) the Golan Heights are still Syrian soverign territory. Technically, Syria and Israel are still at war. They are only maintaining a cease-fire/truce along a UNDOF neutral zone (= safe zone = no-fly zone) established in 1974. The 1974 truce didnt' 'give' Israel the Golan land. It was simply an agreement that Israel and Syria would stop attacking eachother and stay out of a neutral zone between each country's armies.

    Herein lies the problem: Israel has been directly supporting al Nusra and ISIS forces hiding inside that neutral zone. The place is so over-run with head-choppers that the 1300 UN observers LEFT their own camps in that zone and have relocated to the Israeli side of the cease-fire line. They openly acknowledge that they can't do anything about defending the zone because Nusra/ISIS are not parties to the ceasefire, and Israel is covertly supplying them so there's no proof that they are violating the cease-fire.

    Israel has repeatedly bombed SAA troops chasing al Nusra/ISIS into the neutral zone. This is a direct violation of the 1974 truce. Russia has always been pissed about that, but on Monday they bitch-slapped Israel without anything but a ridiculous cover story spewed by the MSM (the paraglider thing). Nobody seems to understand the profound implications of RUSSIA flying combat missions IN THE UNDOF ZONE to bomb Israeli's little al Nusra buddies. They just did this in al Qunaitra, which juts out into the occupied Golan Heights in such a way that it would be difficult to bomb anything there without overflying the neurtral zone into the Israeli side. Israel loves to use the word 'border' to suggest some kind of international recognition, but there is none. There is (was) only a UNDOF-maintained cease-fire zone arranged well into Syrian territory in 1974. Israel never left Syrian land and simply claim it as theirs.

    Russia keeps reiterating how it is adhering to international law. Something tells me that this is in preparation for chasing any al Nusra/ISIS head-choppers into the Golan Heights as far as they need to. They are not 'violating' Israeli airspace or soverign lands because it is - by international recognition - still Syrian territory.

    Everyone is waiting for a false flag, and it's been brewing right under our noses. Al Nusra and ISIS will retreat into the Golan Heights because they think it will offer them immunity from Russian air attacks. Russia recognizes (as does the world) that Syria STILL LEGALLY extends to the Jordan river - the Golan Heights IS SYRIAN SOVERIGN TERRITORY. Russia is not 'provoking' Israel - Israel shouldn't be there according to international law and UN recognition.

    I think Russia is going to drive al Nusra and ISIS INTO the Golan Heights to force this issue - an issue that Israel has already LOST in the eyes of the international community. Would the U.S. go nuclear to 'defend' Israel's land-theft? Answer: Who cares. Dick Cheney's oil company just found a huge deposit there - of course the U.S. would go nuclear to protect his money. That's what the U.S. does.

    cowdiddly

    What's even funnier is Iraq has already said "NO THANKS" to ground troops in Iraq. They have seen enough of your so called help.

    Also the little hero raid the other day was a complete farce. The Pershmerga was supposed to lead the raid and do all the dirty work while US troops come in behind. Of the casualties, The one US soldier that got wacked got a little to rambunctious and got out in front.

    Yea hero, lead from behind and you Kurds charge the hill and we look like we did the raid and take the credit. WHATEVER.

    The US is trying real hard to look relevent here. Just like the single ship to China crap. OOOOHHHHHH SCARY, No one is Intimidated, it makes you look weak ,and they just think your insane.

    GO big or GO HOME. But mostly GO HOME WITH SOME DIGNITY LEFT. You can't afford to Play and you look sad and no one wants your help.

    palmereldritch

    http://sputniknews.com/middleeast/20151028/1029209074/golan-heights-oil-...

    We've found an oil stratum 350 meters thick in the southern Golan Heights. On average worldwide, strata are 20 to 30 meters thick, and this is 10 times as large as that, so we are talking about significant quantities," Afek Oil & Gas chief geologist Yuval Bartov claimed in an interview to a local broadcaster as quoted by Engdahl.

    "The Netanyahu government [is now] more determined than ever to sow chaos and disorder in Damascus and use that to de facto create an Israeli irreversible occupation of Golan and its oil," the expert stressed.

    "Now an apparent discovery of huge volumes of oil by a New Jersey oil company whose board includes Iraq war architect, Dick Cheney, neo-con ex-CIA head James Woolsey, and Jacob Lord Rothschild… brings the stakes of the Russian intervention on behalf of Syria's Assad against ISIS [ISIL], al-Qaeda and other CIA-backed 'moderate terrorists' to a new geopolitical dimension," Engdahl underscored.

    Raymond_K._Hessel

    Do the Iraqis have a say in this matter?

    NOTE: Alphahammer and Yomatti wants everyone to spend a half hour doing some research into the origins of ISIS: http://bfy.tw/2VnO

    Raymond_K._Hessel

    Iraq to Washington: We Don't Want Your Troops

    What a difference a day makes. Just 24 hours ago US Defense Secretary Ashton Carter was telling the Senate Armed Services Committee all about the Obama Administration's new military strategy for the Middle East. The headline grabber from his testimony was the revelation that the US military would begin "direct action on the ground" in Iraq and Syria.

    "We won't hold back from supporting capable partners in opportunistic attacks against ISIL (ISIS)," he told the Committee. The new strategy would consist of "three R's," he said: more US action, including on the ground, with Syrian opposition partners to take the ISIS stronghold in Raqqa, Syria; more intense cooperation with the Iraqi army including with US-embedded soldiers to retake Ramadi from ISIS in Iraq; and the beginning of US military raids, "whether by strikes from the air or direct action on the ground."

    That was news to the Iraqis, it turns out. And it wasn't very good news at that. Today Sa'ad al-Hadithi, spokesman for Iraqi Prime Minister Haider al-Abadi, said "thanks but no thanks" to a third US invasion of his country. "We have enough soldiers on the ground," he said.

    This raises the question of whether the US administration intends to insert US soldiers into Iraq against the wishes of its elected government, as it has done and promises to continue to do in Syria. In that case, the US would be shooting at ISIS and the Iraqi government, as well as the Iran-backed Shi'ite militias who are coming to increasingly control large parts of the Iraqi military. Presumably all these forces would be shooting back at US troops on the ground as well. The US would likely be partnering in this task with the anti-ISIS Sunni fighters highlighted in Defense Secretary Carter's testimony yesterday. In other words, the US would be backing forces closer to those of Saddam Hussein, who they overthrew twelve years ago.

    The Iraqi government had requested Russian assistance against ISIS earlier this month, after Russian strikes in Syria appear to have made a significant impact on the battlefield. But Chairman of the US Joint Chiefs of Staff Marine Gen. Joseph Dunford told the Iraqis if they accept Russian assistance they can forget about any more US aid.

    It appears the US threat was not enough to put the Iraqis off asking for Russian help, as earlier this week the Iraqi parliament approved Russian airstrikes against ISIS in Iraq.

    So the big roll-out of the new US Middle East military strategy seems to have fizzled, as none of the intended beneficiaries of US assistance seem all that enthused about the partnership. For the moment, the US finds itself backing Iranian militias in Iraq while fighting them next door in Syria, while planning to place US troops in with "moderate" anti-Assad rebels in the path of falling Russian bombs. All the while, of course, the US is aiding the Kurds in Syria and Iraq which are currently being bombed by NATO ally Turkey.

    What else could possibly go wrong?

    http://www.ronpaulinstitute.org/archives/peace-and-prosperity/2015/octob...

    Crocodile

    Since ISIS, ISIL, IS or the word of the day is a Pentagon formed, trained & funded operation, then the Pentagon is using the US Military, a Pentagon organization, against another Pentagon organization.

    Only proves the insanity of it all and the devaluing of life of the ordinary person.

    Then again Satan attacks the ordinances of God given to man for the good of all which is not limited to, marriage, family and the sanctity of life and unfortunately most people agree as shown by their personal behaviors.

    [Oct 28, 2015] Stop Blaming OPEC For Low Prices by Nick Cunningham

    Huge debts levels of most oil producers (both nation states and companies) completely changes the dynamics after a price drop and that along with financial machinations with futures enabled the current operation "oil price drop" which was probably designed to hurt Russia. Debt needs to be serviced and that means producing at any price but cutting all capital expenditures. In those conditions, despite hidden subsidies from the US government, additional production from the US shale might disappear in two to three years from now as period of life for shale wells is much shorter then for conventional wells...
    "... ...OPEC has only slightly increased output from 2014, and much of it came from Iraq, which has been trying to increase production at all costs, regardless of OPEC decisions. Iraq is not subject to the quota restrictions, and so it is pulling out all the stops to increase output. ..."
    "... The U.S. on the other hand, has aggressively increased output. It is easy to see that much of the responsibility for the crash in oil prices stems from a massive spending spree in the U.S. shale patch, which increased output by around 4 million barrels per day between 2011 and the peak in 2015, nearly doubling production from 5.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) to 9.6 mb/d. OPEC's production, meanwhile, hasn't changed dramatically over the same time period. ..."
    Oct 25, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    However, there is an element of imperialism and superiority in the expectation that the burden should fall on OPEC, which is largely made up of producers from the Middle East. It is a bizarre mentality to think that private companies deserve to seize as much market share as they can manage, after which OPEC producers can take what is left. Steven Kopits, President of Princeton Energy Advisors, laid out the concept very nicely in a Platts article earlier this year, in which he says the expression "call on OPEC" should be scrapped.

    Kopits offers an interesting thought experiment. If the industry in question were, say, automobiles rather than oil, there is no question that such an arrangement would not be framed in the same manner. Imagine that the world thought it reasonable that GM or Ford could take as much market share as possible, and Toyota was expected to slash production if there weren't enough customers left over. It is an absurd scenario, but not so different from the world of oil.

    ...OPEC has only slightly increased output from 2014, and much of it came from Iraq, which has been trying to increase production at all costs, regardless of OPEC decisions. Iraq is not subject to the quota restrictions, and so it is pulling out all the stops to increase output.

    The U.S. on the other hand, has aggressively increased output. It is easy to see that much of the responsibility for the crash in oil prices stems from a massive spending spree in the U.S. shale patch, which increased output by around 4 million barrels per day between 2011 and the peak in 2015, nearly doubling production from 5.6 million barrels per day (mb/d) to 9.6 mb/d. OPEC's production, meanwhile, hasn't changed dramatically over the same time period.

    [Oct 28, 2015] U.S. Shale Lifelines Running Thin By Michael McDonald

    "... banks are going easy on shale firms hoping that a patient approach will yield better recovery rates than aggressively targeting firms for debt repayment. ..." That suggest that Wall Street is involved in oil price slump.
    Oct 27, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    As of September, S&P noted 16 U.S. oil company defaults for 2015, with the largest of these being Samson Resources.

    Redeterminations by banks starting a few weeks ago at the beginning of October could have pushed many firms into distress, but thus far, there has been little evidence of that, suggesting that banks are going easy on shale firms hoping that a patient approach will yield better recovery rates than aggressively targeting firms for debt repayment.

    That approach is sensible given that many banks are only just recovering from the real estate crisis and cleaning up their balance sheets, and few have much of an appetite to take on a new slew of messy assets like oil businesses.

    [Oct 28, 2015] Shell's Scrapped Oil Sands Project Highlights Major Issue For Canada

    "... "At $100 a barrel it was a big concern. At $45 a barrel, that is a far larger percentage (of revenue) and is likely the difference between profitable and unprofitable on many of the assets," ..."
    Oct 27, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Lack of pipeline capacity have forced Canadian oil producers to sell at a discount, a disadvantage that is magnified with low oil prices. "At $100 a barrel it was a big concern. At $45 a barrel, that is a far larger percentage (of revenue) and is likely the difference between profitable and unprofitable on many of the assets," CAPP President Tim McMillan said in September, referring to the discount.

    [Oct 28, 2015] How Long Can OPEC Hold Out

    The key here is to understand who pushed the oil to the current prices. It was not OPEC which only slightly increased its production for the last five years.
    Oct 28, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    ...we might witness the formation of two blocks within OPEC during the next December 4 meet in Vienna. One, led by Venezuela, Ecuador, Libya and Algeria that would want to reduce production levels and the other led by Saudi Arabia, UAE and Kuwait that would stick to the current strategy of defending market share. Iran may have a neutral stance as, although it 'urged' the other OPEC members to reduce their combined production to maintain a ceiling of $70-$80 per barrel, Iran would itself be ramping up its production levels to regain its lost market share, once the western sanctions against it are lifted.

    ... ... ...

    Although it is almost certain that OPEC will not change its strategy in its next meeting in Vienna, it is unlikely that it would maintain this stance for too much longer in 2016.

    Femme Fatale

    The real question is: How long can the US Dollar hold out? US Dollar Demise & WW3 >> http://bit.ly/1PyMpdw

    MadVladtheconquerer

    You mean in the face of the 9 trill $USD short that will have to be covered at some point?

    Dollar up nicely against most majors today including the yen to 121.2.

    DJTA about to go GREEN. Bottom is in.

    Raymond_K._Hessel

    How long can OPEC exist in a world where the FRN is losing power all over the globe, and where nations like Iran and Salafist Arabia are diametrically opposed on just about everything?

    OPEC is a relic.

    [Oct 23, 2015] US. Shale Drillers Running Out Of Options, Fast

    Notable quotes:
    "... The collapse of oil prices has forced drillers to become more efficient, adding more wells per well pad, drilling longer laterals, adding more sand per frac job, etc. That allowed companies to continue to post gains in output despite using fewer and fewer rigs. ..."
    "... However, the efficiency gains may have been illusory, or at best, incremental progress instead of revolutionary change. Rather than huge innovations in drilling performance, companies were likely just trimming down on staff, squeezing suppliers, and drilling in the best spots – perhaps all sensible stuff for companies dealing with shrinking revenues, but nothing to suggest that drilling has leaped to a new level of efficiency. Reuters outlined this phenomenon in detail in a great October 21 article. ..."
    "... Production gains from new rigs – which have increased steadily over the past three years – have run into a wall in the major U.S. shale basins. Drillers are starting to run out of ways to squeeze more oil out of wells from their rigs. Take a look at the below charts, which show drilling productivity flat lining in the Bakken, the Eagle Ford, and the Permian. ..."
    oilprice.com

    Much has been made about the impressive gains in efficiency and productivity in the shale patch, as new drilling techniques squeeze ever more oil and gas out of new wells. But the limits to such an approach are becoming increasingly visible. The U.S. shale revolution is running out of steam.

    The collapse of oil prices has forced drillers to become more efficient, adding more wells per well pad, drilling longer laterals, adding more sand per frac job, etc. That allowed companies to continue to post gains in output despite using fewer and fewer rigs.

    However, the efficiency gains may have been illusory, or at best, incremental progress instead of revolutionary change. Rather than huge innovations in drilling performance, companies were likely just trimming down on staff, squeezing suppliers, and drilling in the best spots – perhaps all sensible stuff for companies dealing with shrinking revenues, but nothing to suggest that drilling has leaped to a new level of efficiency. Reuters outlined this phenomenon in detail in a great October 21 article.

    For evidence that the productivity gains have run their course, take a look at the latest Drilling Productivity Report from the EIA. Production gains from new rigs – which have increased steadily over the past three years – have run into a wall in the major U.S. shale basins. Drillers are starting to run out of ways to squeeze more oil out of wells from their rigs. Take a look at the below charts, which show drilling productivity flat lining in the Bakken, the Eagle Ford, and the Permian.

    [Oct 23, 2015] Saudi Arabia Russia, Iran Forge Energy Partnerships

    Oct 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    No, the "atmosphere is not well," because again, the Saudis are out to achieve "ancillary diplomatic benefits" (i.e. geopolitical advantages) by keeping crude prices low, and those benefits include squeezing the Russians and perhaps limiting the revenue Tehran can bring in when Iran returns to the market.

    As you can see, all of this is inextricably linked and it looks as though Russia and Iran may be on the verge of attempting to challenge the Saudis for domination of the oil market (don't forget Moscow surpassed Riyadh as the number one supplier to China for the second time this year in September).

    Is a "new oil order" in the works? We shall see.

    pot_and_kettle

    Can someone point out when Syria didn't sign off on the Qatar - Turkey pipeline and when the pipeline was first proposed? This is news to me and seems like the watershed event for what the zio-US fomented in that part of the world.

    Sergeiab

    http://ftmdaily.com/what-jerry-thinks/whysyria/

    4shzl

    Next step: open that eastern front on the Arabian Peninsula.

    Freddie

    Persia has been around thousands of years.

    A person may not like the Russians or Iranaians but they "ain't" going anywhere. They are also pretty tough on the battlefield (see Hezbollah). They also stood up for Syrian and the Syrian people including Syrian Christians.

    Persians are a lot smarter than Saudis too.

    alphahammer

    Yea lets take a look. Good of you to point that out.

    ---

    China Not So In Love With Russia After All

    JUN 17, 2015

    Shunned by the West, Russia may want to promote its new Chinese love affair to the world these days, but Czar Romeo shouldn't get his hopes up.

    Russia's second biggest lender, VTB Bank, said that most Chinese banks have foregone doing business with them. The reason? Western sanctions against VTB. China lenders don't want to get caught up in the drama and - having more business with the U.S. and Europe than with Russia - have opted to play it safe.

    "China's ambiguous position regarding Russian banks in the wake of US and EU sanctions is a key issue holding back progress toward greater bilateral cooperation," VTB Bank First Deputy Chairman Yuri Soloviev write in an op-ed published by the FinanceAsia news agency on Tuesday.

    Freddie

    Anything that smacks the shit out of the Saudis or Qatar makes me happy. What they did to Syria with the help of the USA, Turkey, UK, Israel and others is sickening.

    [Oct 23, 2015] Is Russia The King Of Arctic Oil By Default

    This is a very expensive oil that Russians now selling at loss. Financial capitalism in action.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Gazprom Neft began production at the Prirazlomnoye field in 2013 and reached commercial figures last year, with a total output of roughly 5,000 barrels per day (bpd). ..."
    "... No more than 10 percent of the equipment applied at the Prirazlomnaya installation is believed to be Russian-made, and this level of disparity is commonplace at both Russia's onshore and offshore fields. ..."
    Oct 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    ... ... ...

    A cursory search of 'Arctic' and 'oil' elicits little in the way of positivity. Certainly, Shell's failure in the Chukchi Sea is notable. Combined with the Obama administration's waffling distaste for future offshore Arctic development, it marks what should be a period of relative dormancy in U.S. waters. Still, it's not indicative of the sector globally, which is seeing progress, albeit at a glacial pace.

    The shining example of such development to date is Gazprom Neft's Prirazlomnaya platform. Located nearly 40 miles offshore in the Pechora Sea, the rig is the world's first Arctic oil project involving a stationary platform – though the general concept itself has been employed before (see: BP's Northstar Island).

    Gazprom Neft began production at the Prirazlomnoye field in 2013 and reached commercial figures last year, with a total output of roughly 5,000 barrels per day (bpd). With production well number two (of 19) now online, output should reach somewhere between 10,000-15,000 bpd by year's end.

    To be fair, several important tests lie ahead for Prirazlomnaya and Russia's Arctic shelf development in general. Chief among them is rapidly addressing its import dependence – one of the primary targets of U.S. and EU sanctions. No more than 10 percent of the equipment applied at the Prirazlomnaya installation is believed to be Russian-made, and this level of disparity is commonplace at both Russia's onshore and offshore fields.

    Attention, domestic and international, has been given to the courting of China, India, and other backers – both financial and technological – but all eyes should be on the Russian solution, which will seek to demonstrate its efficacy by 2020.

    At the Prirazlomnoye field, the Russian institute Omskneftekhimproekt has begun work on the modernization of the rig's drilling installations, technological equipment, and safety and telecommunications systems. The primary objectives are to boost production capacity (to ~120,000 bpd) toward 2020 and lay the building blocks for the future development of Russian-sourced platforms.

    The work by Omskneftekhimproekt mirrors that of several institutes, companies, and universities across the country, rallying around the call for import substitution. However, just how much can actually be accomplished is the billion dollar question.

    [Oct 23, 2015] Economic effects of shocks to oil supply and demand

    Notable quotes:
    "... Monthly EIA US Crude + Condensate (C+C) data (the short term energy report) show a decline in US production from 9.6 million bpd in May to 9.0 million bpd in September. The annualized exponential rate of decline, based on May to September data, would be about 20%/year. If this (net) rate of decline were to continue for another year, US C+C production would be down to about 7.4 million bpd in September, 2016. ..."
    "... Regarding one of life's little ironies, we keep hearing that oil exports from a net oil importer, the US (with recent four week running average net crude oil imports of 6.8 million bpd), will have a meaningful impact on global oil markets, just as the US is currently showing a 20%/year annualized rate of decline in C+C production, implying that US net oil imports will be increasing in the months ahead, if the production decline continues. ..."
    "... If it took trillions of dollars in global upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau," in actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude, i.e., the quantity of the stuff corresponding to WTI Brent oil prices), what happens to global crude oil production going forward given the ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex? ..."
    "... Haynesville didn't drop because "they ran out of sweet spot" but because the price dropped. There is actually more resource available, now, if we go back to previous prices…because of improvements in drilling and completion efficacy. ..."
    "... But for what it's worth (perhaps not much), I think that this is a tremendous buying opportunity, in regard to oil and gas investments. I don't have any idea what Warren Buffet is doing right now, but I would not be surprised to learn that he is aggressively investing in oil and gas. ..."
    "... In other words, the available data seem quite supportive of my premise that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase. ..."
    Oct 17, 2015 | Econbrowser
    Jeffrey J. Brown October 17, 2015 at 5:15 am

    Monthly EIA US Crude + Condensate (C+C) data (the short term energy report) show a decline in US production from 9.6 million bpd in May to 9.0 million bpd in September. The annualized exponential rate of decline, based on May to September data, would be about 20%/year. If this (net) rate of decline were to continue for another year, US C+C production would be down to about 7.4 million bpd in September, 2016.

    Louisiana is an interesting case history. As drilling activity declined in the Hayneville Shale Gas Play, gas production from the play production initially continued to increase (as operators worked through the backlog of drilling but uncompleted wells), but production from the play ultimately showed a sharp decline, with annual marketed natural gas production falling at a rate of 20%/year from 2012 to 2014. Measured from the monthly peak in December, 2011, it took about two and a half years for the exponential rate of decline in Louisiana's monthly marketed gas production (from both shale gas + conventional production) to fall below 20%/year. The three year 12/11 to 12/14 rate of decline was 18.5%/year.

    Regarding one of life's little ironies, we keep hearing that oil exports from a net oil importer, the US (with recent four week running average net crude oil imports of 6.8 million bpd), will have a meaningful impact on global oil markets, just as the US is currently showing a 20%/year annualized rate of decline in C+C production, implying that US net oil imports will be increasing in the months ahead, if the production decline continues.

    And the question that I have periodically posed, to-wit:

    If it took trillions of dollars in global upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau," in actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude, i.e., the quantity of the stuff corresponding to WTI & Brent oil prices), what happens to global crude oil production going forward given the ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex?

    Jeffrey J. Brown October 17, 2015 at 8:37 am

    Re: US Crude and/or Condensate Exports

    As noted above, it's more than a little ironic that there are so many claims that oil exports from a net oil importer, the US, will have a material impact on global oil markets, even as US Crude + Condensate (C+C) production is declining.

    In any case, I just noticed something very interesting in the EIA Annual Energy Review data tables, which provide monthly and/or annual data back to 1950:

    http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf

    Note that US total liquids net imports were up year over year, from 4.9 million bpd in August, 2014 (2014 annual average of 5.1) to 5.6 million bpd in August, 2015, a 14% year over year increase in net total liquids imports.

    Anonymous October 17, 2015 at 12:12 pm

    Saw some analyst meeting (Genscape maybe) where the person projected rigs continuing to drop through 1Q16, ending up 200 more down (or about 400 remaining). This was based on prices staying in this ~$47-50 band, with commensurate strip. [A drop down to ~$40, with commensurate strip would lead to an additional 200 rigs going away.]

    I think the Haynesville is a nice example to show the "lag" effect when rigs drop. And really, we can already use the US oil production as an example of this already. Another easy example is 2009 in the Bakken.

    I would be leery of thinking too much that the Haynesville is some sort of example of Hubbert peak because a lot of the drop is price caused, not exhaustion. [In a classic Hubbert peak case for global oil or national gas, you would have the normal curve AND would have Hotelling price increase. In this case, it's not even constant price…it's reaction to a price crash.] Haynesville didn't drop because "they ran out of sweet spot" but because the price dropped. There is actually more resource available, now, if we go back to previous prices…because of improvements in drilling and completion efficacy. [This is Adelman's point of how you don't just eat away at lower cost oil and move to higher…yes, you may be doing that. But in addition, knowledge can grow the pool of available low cost oil or reduce the price of getting out what you already know about. Both effects can occur and they fight each other and you have to get into the specifics to see which is winning.]

    In addition, concentrating on the Haynesville, when the Marcellus and Utica have occurred is missing the main story from an economic impact perspective. After all, volume is up and price is down for natural gas. So for all the H or the B dropped, the M and U more than made up for it. "The App" is the key place to look at in US natural gas.

    In addition, FWIW, H did drop very beautifully in a Hubbert-like manner from the peak of 7, BUT for the last 18 months has been near flat at 4 BCF/day. Download the excel data (last figure at bottom of page) and graph it and you will see that. Peak oilers discussing the Haynesville as some sort of organic product life cycle analogy (born, grow, mature, die), never mention this key insight (how it has flattened out dramatically now). But it's in the data. Just graph to see it.

    http://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/weekly/ (note this shows the shale only, not the conventional production. EIA DPR as a data source makes the fat tail look even more prominent, but includes conventional in the region.)

    Jeffrey J. Brown October 18, 2015 at 12:01 pm

    So, given the right price incentives, the sum of the output of discrete sources of oil & gas–that individually peak and decline–will never peak and decline?

    In any case, in regard to price versus production, we have an interesting case history when it comes to actual crude oil production (generally defined as 45 API and lower crude oil). Following is an essay, which I sent to some industry acquaintances a few weeks ago:

    Regarding oil prices, I may be one of the worst prognosticators around, especially when it comes to demand side analysis. My primary contribution has been as an amateur supply side analyst, especially in regard to net exports.

    In any case, earlier this year I thought that we had hit the monthly low in Brent prices for the current oil price decline ($48 monthly average in January, 2015), and I thought we were more or less following an upward price trajectory, from the 1/15 low, similar to the price recovery following the 12/08 monthly oil price low ($40 for Brent).

    However, a key difference between the 2008/2009 price decline and subsequent recovery and the 2014/2015 decline is that Saudi Arabia cut production from 2008 to 2009 while they increased production from 2014 to 2015.

    But for what it's worth (perhaps not much), I think that this is a tremendous buying opportunity, in regard to oil and gas investments. I don't have any idea what Warren Buffet is doing right now, but I would not be surprised to learn that he is aggressively investing in oil and gas.

    The bottom line for me is that depletion marches on.

    A few years ago, ExxonMobil put the decline from existing oil wells at about 4% to 6% per year. A recent WSJ article noted that analysts are currently putting the decline from existing oil wells at 5% to 8% per year (in my opinion, the 8% number is more realistic). At 8%/year, globally we need about 6.5 MMBPD of new Crude + Condensate (C+C) production every single year, just to offset declines from existing wells, or we need about 65 MMBPD of new C+C production over the next 10 years, just to offset declines from existing wells. This is equivalent to putting on line the productive equivalent of the peak production rate of about thirty-three (33) North Slopes of Alaska over the next 10 years.

    It appears quite likely that global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) has been more or less flat to down since 2005, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $55 in 2005 to $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at $99 in 2014)–while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

    Following are links to charts showing normalized production values for OPEC 12 countries and global data. The gas, natural gas liquids (NGL) and crude + condensate (C+C) values are for 2002 to 2014 (except for gas, which is through 2013, EIA data in all cases). Both data charts show similar increases for gas, NGL and C+C from 2002 to 2005, with inflection points in both cases for C+C in 2005. My premise is that condensate production, in both cases, accounts for virtually all of the post-2005 increase in C+C production.

    Global Gas, NGL and C+C:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Global%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpskb5bxu6d.jpg

    OPEC 12 Gas, NGL and C+C:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpsox3lqdkj.jpg

    Currently, we only have crude oil only data for the OPEC 12 countries and for Texas (note that what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually C+C).

    Also following is a link to OPEC 12 implied condensate (EIA C+C less OPEC crude) and OPEC crude only from 2005 to 2014 (OPEC data prior to 2005 was for a different set of exporters than post-2005). Obviously, data quality is an issue, and the boundary between actual crude and condensate is sometimes fuzzy. In any case, we have to deal with the data that we have.

    OPEC 12 Crude and Implied Condensate:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Crude%20and%20Condensate_zps12rfrqos.jpg

    As of 2014, OPEC and the US accounted for 53% of global C+C production (41 MMBPD out of 78 MMBPD). Implied OPEC condensate production increased by 1.2 MMBPD from 2005 to 2014 (1.2 to 2.4). The EIA estimates that US condensate production increased by about 1.0 MMBPD from 2011 to 2014. I'm estimating that US condensate production may have increased by around 1.2 MMBPD or so from 2005 to 2014. Based on the foregoing, increased condensate production by OPEC and the US may have accounted for about 60% (about 2.4 MMBPD) of the 4 MMBPD increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2014.

    Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD.

    In other words, the available data seem quite supportive of my premise that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

    If it took trillions of dollars of upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau" in actual global crude oil production, what happens to crude production given the large and ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex?

    And given the huge rate of decline in existing US gas production (probably on the order of about 24%/year from existing wells), it's possible that we might see substantially higher North American gas prices this winter, given the decline in US drilling.

    Furthermore, through 2013 we have seen a post-2005 decline in what I define as Global Net Exports of oil (GNE, the combined net exports from the Top 33 net exporters in 2005), which is a pattern that appears to have continued in 2014. GNE fell from 46 MMBPD in 2005 to 43 MMBPD in 2013 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids). The volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013.

    Here are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, while we are currently seeing signs of weak demand in China, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    And a massively under-appreciated aspect of what I call "Net Export Math" is that the rate of depletion in the remaining cumulative volume of net oil exports, after a net export peak, tends to be enormous. Saudi Arabia is showing a year over year increase in production and net exports, but based on available annual data through 2014, Saudi Arabia's net exports fell from 9.5 MMBPD in 2005 to 8.4 MMBPD in 2014 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids), and I estimate that Saudi Arabia may have already shipped close to half of their total post-2005 supply of cumulative net exports of oil.

  • "So, given the right price incentives, the sum of the output of discrete sources of oil & gas–that individually peak and decline–will never peak and decline? "

    So again, the argument for imminent decline is some eventual limit to the amount of hydrocarbons on the entire planet? it is not cherrypicking to emphasize the Haynesville and Barnett as gas plays "peaking" when overall gas production in the US has grown 40%, even in the face of a huge price drop????

    "In any case, in regard to price versus production, we have an interesting case history when it comes to actual crude oil production (generally defined as 45 API and lower crude oil)."

    Nope. Lease condensate (~55) is legally considered crude oil. EF 47 is a normal listed form of oil in Platts price lists. Light oil and condensate is used to make gasoline and other products and runs through a refinery. It is easily and routinely blended with heavy oil and is actually needed for that (not just as a diluent for transport but for optimizing the subunits of complex refinery (non complex refineres, e.g. those without cokers or visbreakers or with less cracking actually function better on just light blends to start…the extreme are teakettle refineries).

    Condensate and EF crude is withing a few dollars of WTI and correlates with price moves very closely. EF 47 is actually pricier than heavy sour crudes. Talk to any trader, refinery buyer, or even just a microeconomist familiar with looking at substitutes. It is crazy to say that growth of 45+ oil has not affected overall oil prices. Perhaps some small shrinking of spreads between qualities, but often not even a directionality change. The much larger impact though is on the overall supply demand balance for C&C. Does any economist think the goods are sufficiently different to justify a separate P-Q curve for 45- and 45+ oil? [Oh…and the extra funny thing is the peak oil meme of mid 2000s was that we wouldn't find more light sweet!]

    P.s. If you really think 45+ isn't oil, then why not agree to remove the export restriction on at least them?

    "Following is an essay, which I sent to some industry acquaintances a few weeks ago:"

    Your cut and pasting the things on the net (ELM stuff, net export arguments) is almost spammy. Total conversation killer and often ignored by even your compatriots.

    Erik Poole

    Nony: You make good arguments for lumping crude oil and condensates.

    The problem with a net export perspective is that it ignores the global nature of the market place and at some point, an indifference to whether heavy oil imported into the US refinery complex hails from western Canada, Venezuela, Mexico or Colombia. Or even Iran some day.

    If we could draw and compare distribution curves of oil grades over the last , I suspect we would see the distributions flattening out over time as extreme grades become more prominent. It may even be bi-modal at this point.

    Given the expense of retooling refineries and the robust growth in US condensate production, one can see the interest in securing more pipeline access to Canadian bitumen. And perhaps the interest in hoping/praying for growth in Colombian heavy oil production as Mexican production declines and the populist Neo-Marxist experiment in Venezuela violently implodes stagnating heavy oil production in that country.

    Jeffrey Brown: I don't want to suggest that the net export perspective is not useful. It clearly illustrates symptoms of the Resource Curse and the general difficulty experienced by citizens in weak societies to play and cooperate well together. It does not however say much about the US cheap energy entitlement and how that attitude has hurt US national security and economic performance over time. America's well earned reputation for killing grandchildren and grandparents in part stems from this ill-advized quest for cheap energy security (sic).

    Jeffrey J. Brown

    Erik,

    I'm not arguing the relative merits of crude oil versus condensate, although distillate yield begins to drop off precipitously over an API gravity of about 40 or so.

    I am arguing that the available data strongly suggest that global crude oil production probably peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and natural gas liquids, have (so far) continued to increase.

    In regard to net oil exports, here's the problem: Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in a net oil exporting country, unless they cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, it's a mathematical certainty that the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and that the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    Nony

    I don't think it makes economic sense to put lease condensate with NGLs and away from crude. NGLs are more gas like, so you can put them with gas if you want instead of oil or just make a third grouping. [But don't forget them! If you cut the total liquid products to being C&C, they still belong somewhere…have use!]

    NGLS are mostly (c2-c4) molecularly pure, separated, gaseous products. [minor amount of C5+ liquid ("plant condensate" obtained at the gas refrigeration separation plant].

    Lease condensate is just the associated entrained liquid oil from a primarily gas well. It is obtained at the atmospheric, three phase separator at the wellhead. Similarly, wet gas is separated from predominantly oil streams. Eagle Ford 47 isn't even coming out of "gas wells" (in terms of phase) but single phase liquid oil wells that are very light. Lease condensate and Eagle Ford 47 look like oil, smell like oil, mess up your Nomex coveralls in a similar manner to 30 API oil. They are each that glorious natural product that contains a soup of hundreds of different molecules, of different lengths, aromaticities, branching. Oh and less sulfur (which makes them BETTER oil) but still with some. Lease condensate also tends to be a bit lower API and more variable in composition versus plant condensate (although higher than oil), but still pretty similar.

    There is a reasonable argument to exclude NGLs entirely from crude time series or at least C3 and C2 from being lumped in with crude. Ethane in theory competes with naphtha and is an occasional substitute (and some crackers are convertible), but given the glut, prices have diverged and started to follow C1 a couple years ago. And like C1, it is quite difficult to transport across oceans. C3 is more exportable, but still has a pretty different market (mostly heating) than premium liquid petroleum products (mostly transport fuels: gasoline, diesel, jet). [In a sense, C1 is a substitute for oil, but it's a pretty weak substitute!]

    So yeah, sure, strip out the NGLs. And throw in the C4 and C5+ with being stripped out, since they are minor…even though ARE mostly used for transport. Either direct gasoline mixing for butane or for C5+ mixed into crude (at refineries or upstream at heavy oil sites) or used as naphtha in crackers (thus competing with a refined liquid stream. But fine keep them all apart.

    But keeping condensate (or Eagle Ford 47 oil) apart from other grades of crude makes no sense. That stuff goes through refineries and makes gasoline…a lot of gasoline, which is generally what the refinery is optimized for. (Other products have value and you go for a global optimum, not a local. Like you don't optimize production of RFO and make little gasoline! Diesel and jet have value of course and at times, pricing of diesel can beat out gasoline, but generally gasoline is top in both value. And certainly in volume (typical refinery cracks some product that could have been diesel to make more gasoline). Just look at Platts prices and the correlation of EF47 and DJ condensate versus WTI. It's the same stuff, but slightly different flavors, man. If you look at it on a world basis (where the explosion of light and super light is export-ban trapped on a continent that wants to refine 28 API), the correlations will be even stronger. But I bet even in the US, you find a very consistent correlation: maybe just look at annual average prices for 2008, 2009, 2014 and 2015 YTD. Condensate belongs with crude, from a supply-demand standpoint. Not with NGLs or with NG.

    Nony

    Here's a link showing Saudi 50 API crude selling in the same setting as other grades of crude (i.e. considered a similar good, not considered an NGL). AND at a premium to medium grade Gulf oil. AND even at a greater premium than other light, but less light oils.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2014-05-04/saudi-aramco-raises-all-june-crude-price-differentials-to-u-s- [scroll down to the header "Asia"]

    [Oct 23, 2015] Putin Just Warned Global War Is Increasingly More Likely Heres Why

    Notable quotes:
    "... "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. Whats the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] its just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with." ..."
    "... hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies. ..."
    "... We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all." ..."
    "... the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of bad guys (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens. ..."
    "... They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this? ..."
    www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    ... ... ...

    ... Washington, Riyadh, Ankara, and Doha are left to look on helplessly as their Sunni extremist proxy armies are devastated by the Russian air force. The Kremlin knows there's little chance that the West and its allies will step in to directly support the rebels - the optics around that would quickly turn into a PR nightmare.

    ... ... ...

    Speaking today at the International Valdai Discussion Club's 12th annual meeting in Sochi, Putin delivered a sweeping critique of military strategy and foreign policy touching on everything from the erroneous labeling of some extremists as "moderates" to the futility of nuclear war.

    "Why play with words dividing terrorists into moderate and not moderate. What's the difference?," Putin asked, adding that "success in fighting terrorists cannot be reached if using some of them as a battering ram to overthrow disliked regimes [because] it's just an illusion that they can be dealt with [later], removed from power and somehow negotiated with."

    "I'd like to stress once again that [Russia's operation in Syria] is completely legitimate, and its only aim is to aid in establishing peace," Putin said of Moscow's Mid-East strategy. And while he's probably telling the truth there, it's only by default. That is, peace in Syria likely means the restoration of Assad (it's difficult to imagine how else the country can be stabilized in the short-term), and because that aligns with Russia's interests, The Kremlin is seeking to promote peace - it's more a tautology than it is a comment on Putin's desire for goodwill towards men.

    And then there's Iran and its nascent nuclear program. Putin accused the US of illegitimately seeking to play nuclear police officer, a point on which he is unquestionably correct: The "hypothetical nuclear threat from Iran is a myth. The US was just trying to destroy the strategical balance, [and] not to just dominate, but be able to dictate its will to everyone – not only geopolitical opponents, but also allies."

    Speaking of nukes, Putin also warned that some nuclear powers seem to believe that there's a way to take the "mutually" out of "mutually assured destruction."

    That is, Putin warned against the dangers of thinking it's possible to "win" a nuclear war. Commenting on US anti-missile shields in Europe and on the idea of MAD, Putin said the following:

    "We had the right to expect that work on development of US missile defense system would stop. But nothing like it happened, and it continues. This is a very dangerous scenario, harmful for all, including the United States itself. The deterrent of nuclear weapons has started to lose its value, and some have even got the illusion that a real victory of one of the sides can be achieved in a global conflict, without irreversible consequences for the winner itself – if there is a winner at all."

    In short, Putin is suggesting that the world may have gone crazy. The implication is that the US believes it not only has the capacity to win a war against the nations Washington habitually places on its various lists of "bad guys" (i.e. Russia, Iran, and China), but that Washington believes America can win without incurring consequences that are commensurate with the damage the US inflicts on its enemies. That, Putin believes, is a dangerous miscalculation and one that could end up endangering US citizens.

    ... ... ...

    ZerOhead

    Putin is really pushing the "nuclear war" angle hard. I guess his good friend Henry Kissinger must have told him that power is the only thing that NeoCon fucknuts like himself understand...

    El Vaquero

    For any who want to read it, here is some detailed information on what the USSR's nuclear strategy was during the Cold War:

    http://nsarchive.gwu.edu/nukevault/ebb285/

    While some things will have changed due to changes in technology, what kinds of targets the Russians would pick is likely much the same as it was when it was part of the USSR. If you live near a target, this might be helpful:

    http://nuclearsecrecy.com/nukemap/

    sushi

    The people of the Falklands voted to remain associated with the UK. The citizens of Quebec, Canada nearly voted themselves out of Canada, the citizens of Scotland nearly voted themselves out of the the UK, Self Determination is respected by the UN as being a fundamental right of all peoples, so of course when the the citizens of Crimea undertake exactly the same process and vote to join Russia it is a Russian imperialist land grab.

    Watch more MSM. They will explain it all to you.

    Occident Mortal

    Russian ICBM's can't be shot down with air defense missiles.

    Russian ICBM's constantly recalculate their trajectory following a continually regenerated 'random path' through 3D space all the way to their target. The downside is that the missles need 20% more fuel.

    All air defense systems work by tracking a missle and projecting it's trajectory then triangulating an intercept location and launching an interceptor to that location.

    But by the time the interceptor reaches the intercept location the Russian ICBM will have changed course several times and is likely to be thousands of meters away.

    In order to intercept a Russian ICBM the interceptor needs to travel at over 35,000mph. Good luck with that.

    George Bush decided he wanted a Star Wars missle defense system and after spending a boat load of cash.. the Kremlin called in the US amabasador and told them all Russian missle had just received a software upgrade that would render Star Wars obsolete before it was even built. The Star Wars program was scrapped within a month.

    Anasteus

    A shockingly open Putin's summary of the current situation that every American should hear

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OQuceU3x2Ww

    Mr.BlingBling

    They'd be practically useless on this continent because of the decoys accompanying the 'physics packages.' The sine qua non of an effective ABM system is the ability to destroy the missiles during the boost phase. The importance of eastern Ukraine is its proximity to Russian ICBM bases, which is why 'our' government spent $5 billion to foment the coup.

    cowdiddly

    Oh dont worry it is Carl. That little Caspian missile shoot off the shrimp boats has caused these morons to realize there may be a few gaping ass holes in the curtain has them scrambling. I present you their panic contract to "protect the homeland" just issued to..........Yep. Lockheed Martin. purveyors of the fine F35 aircraft.

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/21/lockheed-radar-missile-defense...

    I feel safer already

    Speaking of military contracts, Last year Russia upgraded and refurbished over 5000 underground atomic bomb shelters built in the old Soviet days that are located in every province of Russia for their people. He knows what kind of nimcompoops he is dealing with. They did this after the White House ... ... decided to move patriot batteries to E. Europe then blew him off and claimed they were pointed at Iran. Remember the Interview where Putin bust out laughing at the reporter who suggested this?

    Now ask yourself how many underground shelters has your government provided for us, other than the huge complex in Utah for the President and politicians to move safely too? I certainly don't know where one is in my state unless I was to dig it myself. The only thing I know of that they did to prepare for disaster is Fema built millions of plastic coffin like things that are being stored around everywhere.

    They are only worried about protecting themselves and don't give a rats ass about you other than taxes. Their only concern for you is you might lay around to long stinking up the place.


    [Oct 22, 2015] Felix Zulauf Bear Market Is Coming Soon

    Zulauf this that this is bear market rally and the slide will resume the next year. His forcast is at the beginning of the video clip. He expects S&500 drops to 1600 the next year.
    Notable quotes:
    "... Zulauf says he expects a global stock swoon next year. ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Speaking at Barron's Art of Successful Investing conference, Zulauf says he expects a global stock swoon next year. He sees short-term gains for e-commerce beneficiaries Amazon, Facebook and Google; longer term, hold bonds.

    James 37 minutes ago

    "What the American people cant take is their government not being square with them"

    When the #$%$ have they EVER been square with us...the hypocrisy in this statement hurts my brain

    [Oct 22, 2015] The Vineyard of the Saker Putin's speech at the Valdai Club - full transcript

    Notable quotes:
    "... Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies. ..."
    "... International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white. ..."
    "... In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case. ..."
    "... The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance. ..."
    "... They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11. ..."
    "... As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries. ..."
    "... What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain. ..."
    "... Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower. ..."
    "... Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries. ..."
    "... Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries. ..."
    "... Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system. ..."
    "... Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. ..."
    "... Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify. ..."
    vineyardsaker.blogspot.com

    ... ... ...

    What we needed to do was to carry out a rational reconstruction and adapt it the new realities in the system of international relations.

    But the United States, having declared itself the winner of the Cold War, saw no need for this. Instead of establishing a new balance of power, essential for maintaining order and stability, they took steps that threw the system into sharp and deep imbalance.

    The Cold War ended, but it did not end with the signing of a peace treaty with clear and transparent agreements on respecting existing rules or creating new rules and standards. This created the impression that the so-called 'victors' in the Cold War had decided to pressure events and reshape the world to suit their own needs and interests. If the existing system of international relations, international law and the checks and balances in place got in the way of these aims, this system was declared worthless, outdated and in need of immediate demolition.

    Pardon the analogy, but this is the way nouveaux riches behave when they suddenly end up with a great fortune, in this case, in the shape of world leadership and domination. Instead of managing their wealth wisely, for their own benefit too of course, I think they have committed many follies.

    We have entered a period of differing interpretations and deliberate silences in world politics. International law has been forced to retreat over and over by the onslaught of legal nihilism. Objectivity and justice have been sacrificed on the altar of political expediency. Arbitrary interpretations and biased assessments have replaced legal norms. At the same time, total control of the global mass media has made it possible when desired to portray white as black and black as white.

    In a situation where you had domination by one country and its allies, or its satellites rather, the search for global solutions often turned into an attempt to impose their own universal recipes. This group's ambitions grew so big that they started presenting the policies they put together in their corridors of power as the view of the entire international community. But this is not the case.

    The very notion of 'national sovereignty' became a relative value for most countries. In essence, what was being proposed was the formula: the greater the loyalty towards the world's sole power centre, the greater this or that ruling regime's legitimacy.

    We will have a free discussion afterwards and I will be happy to answer your questions and would also like to use my right to ask you questions. Let someone try to disprove the arguments that I just set out during the upcoming discussion.

    The measures taken against those who refuse to submit are well-known and have been tried and tested many times. They include use of force, economic and propaganda pressure, meddling in domestic affairs, and appeals to a kind of 'supra-legal' legitimacy when they need to justify illegal intervention in this or that conflict or toppling inconvenient regimes. Of late, we have increasing evidence too that outright blackmail has been used with regard to a number of leaders. It is not for nothing that 'big brother' is spending billions of dollars on keeping the whole world, including its own closest allies, under surveillance.

    Let's ask ourselves, how comfortable are we with this, how safe are we, how happy living in this world, and how fair and rational has it become? Maybe, we have no real reasons to worry, argue and ask awkward questions? Maybe the United States' exceptional position and the way they are carrying out their leadership really is a blessing for us all, and their meddling in events all around the world is bringing peace, prosperity, progress, growth and democracy, and we should maybe just relax and enjoy it all?

    Let me say that this is not the case, absolutely not the case.

    A unilateral diktat and imposing one's own models produces the opposite result. Instead of settling conflicts it leads to their escalation, instead of sovereign and stable states we see the growing spread of chaos, and instead of democracy there is support for a very dubious public ranging from open neo-fascists to Islamic radicals.

    Why do they support such people? They do this because they decide to use them as instruments along the way in achieving their goals but then burn their fingers and recoil. I never cease to be amazed by the way that our partners just keep stepping on the same rake, as we say here in Russia, that is to say, make the same mistake over and over.

    They once sponsored Islamic extremist movements to fight the Soviet Union. Those groups got their battle experience in Afghanistan and later gave birth to the Taliban and Al-Qaeda. The West if not supported, at least closed its eyes, and, I would say, gave information, political and financial support to international terrorists' invasion of Russia (we have not forgotten this) and the Central Asian region's countries. Only after horrific terrorist attacks were committed on US soil itself did the United States wake up to the common threat of terrorism. Let me remind you that we were the first country to support the American people back then, the first to react as friends and partners to the terrible tragedy of September 11.

    During my conversations with American and European leaders, I always spoke of the need to fight terrorism together, as a challenge on a global scale. We cannot resign ourselves to and accept this threat, cannot cut it into separate pieces using double standards. Our partners expressed agreement, but a little time passed and we ended up back where we started. First there was the military operation in Iraq, then in Libya, which got pushed to the brink of falling apart. Why was Libya pushed into this situation? Today it is a country in danger of breaking apart and has become a training ground for terrorists.

    Only the current Egyptian leadership's determination and wisdom saved this key Arab country from chaos and having extremists run rampant. In Syria, as in the past, the United States and its allies started directly financing and arming rebels and allowing them to fill their ranks with mercenaries from various countries. Let me ask where do these rebels get their money, arms and military specialists? Where does all this come from? How did the notorious ISIL manage to become such a powerful group, essentially a real armed force?

    As for financing sources, today, the money is coming not just from drugs, production of which has increased not just by a few percentage points but many-fold, since the international coalition forces have been present in Afghanistan. You are aware of this. The terrorists are getting money from selling oil too. Oil is produced in territory controlled by the terrorists, who sell it at dumping prices, produce it and transport it. But someone buys this oil, resells it, and makes a profit from it, not thinking about the fact that they are thus financing terrorists who could come sooner or later to their own soil and sow destruction in their own countries.

    Where do they get new recruits? In Iraq, after Saddam Hussein was toppled, the state's institutions, including the army, were left in ruins. We said back then, be very, very careful. You are driving people out into the street, and what will they do there? Don't forget (rightfully or not) that they were in the leadership of a large regional power, and what are you now turning them into?

    What was the result? Tens of thousands of soldiers, officers and former Baath Party activists were turned out into the streets and today have joined the rebels' ranks. Perhaps this is what explains why the Islamic State group has turned out so effective? In military terms, it is acting very effectively and has some very professional people. Russia warned repeatedly about the dangers of unilateral military actions, intervening in sovereign states' affairs, and flirting with extremists and radicals. We insisted on having the groups fighting the central Syrian government, above all the Islamic State, included on the lists of terrorist organisations. But did we see any results? We appealed in vain.

    We sometimes get the impression that our colleagues and friends are constantly fighting the consequences of their own policies, throw all their effort into addressing the risks they themselves have created, and pay an ever-greater price.

    Colleagues, this period of unipolar domination has convincingly demonstrated that having only one power centre does not make global processes more manageable. On the contrary, this kind of unstable construction has shown its inability to fight the real threats such as regional conflicts, terrorism, drug trafficking, religious fanaticism, chauvinism and neo-Nazism. At the same time, it has opened the road wide for inflated national pride, manipulating public opinion and letting the strong bully and suppress the weak.

    Essentially, the unipolar world is simply a means of justifying dictatorship over people and countries. The unipolar world turned out too uncomfortable, heavy and unmanageable a burden even for the self-proclaimed leader. Comments along this line were made here just before and I fully agree with this. This is why we see attempts at this new historic stage to recreate a semblance of a quasi-bipolar world as a convenient model for perpetuating American leadership. It does not matter who takes the place of the centre of evil in American propaganda, the USSR's old place as the main adversary. It could be Iran, as a country seeking to acquire nuclear technology, China, as the world's biggest economy, or Russia, as a nuclear superpower.

    Today, we are seeing new efforts to fragment the world, draw new dividing lines, put together coalitions not built for something but directed against someone, anyone, create the image of an enemy as was the case during the Cold War years, and obtain the right to this leadership, or diktat if you wish. The situation was presented this way during the Cold War. We all understand this and know this. The United States always told its allies: "We have a common enemy, a terrible foe, the centre of evil, and we are defending you, our allies, from this foe, and so we have the right to order you around, force you to sacrifice your political and economic interests and pay your share of the costs for this collective defence, but we will be the ones in charge of it all of course." In short, we see today attempts in a new and changing world to reproduce the familiar models of global management, and all this so as to guarantee their [the US'] exceptional position and reap political and economic dividends.

    But these attempts are increasingly divorced from reality and are in contradiction with the world's diversity. Steps of this kind inevitably create confrontation and countermeasures and have the opposite effect to the hoped-for goals. We see what happens when politics rashly starts meddling in the economy and the logic of rational decisions gives way to the logic of confrontation that only hurt one's own economic positions and interests, including national business interests.

    Joint economic projects and mutual investment objectively bring countries closer together and help to smooth out current problems in relations between states. But today, the global business community faces unprecedented pressure from Western governments. What business, economic expediency and pragmatism can we speak of when we hear slogans such as "the homeland is in danger", "the free world is under threat", and "democracy is in jeopardy"? And so everyone needs to mobilise. That is what a real mobilisation policy looks like.

    Sanctions are already undermining the foundations of world trade, the WTO rules and the principle of inviolability of private property. They are dealing a blow to liberal model of globalisation based on markets, freedom and competition, which, let me note, is a model that has primarily benefited precisely the Western countries. And now they risk losing trust as the leaders of globalisation. We have to ask ourselves, why was this necessary? After all, the United States' prosperity rests in large part on the trust of investors and foreign holders of dollars and US securities. This trust is clearly being undermined and signs of disappointment in the fruits of globalisation are visible now in many countries.

    The well-known Cyprus precedent and the politically motivated sanctions have only strengthened the trend towards seeking to bolster economic and financial sovereignty and countries' or their regional groups' desire to find ways of protecting themselves from the risks of outside pressure. We already see that more and more countries are looking for ways to become less dependent on the dollar and are setting up alternative financial and payments systems and reserve currencies. I think that our American friends are quite simply cutting the branch they are sitting on. You cannot mix politics and the economy, but this is what is happening now. I have always thought and still think today that politically motivated sanctions were a mistake that will harm everyone, but I am sure that we will come back to this subject later.

    We know how these decisions were taken and who was applying the pressure. But let me stress that Russia is not going to get all worked up, get offended or come begging at anyone's door. Russia is a self-sufficient country. We will work within the foreign economic environment that has taken shape, develop domestic production and technology and act more decisively to carry out transformation. Pressure from outside, as has been the case on past occasions, will only consolidate our society, keep us alert and make us concentrate on our main development goals.

    Of course the sanctions are a hindrance. They are trying to hurt us through these sanctions, block our development and push us into political, economic and cultural isolation, force us into backwardness in other words. But let me say yet again that the world is a very different place today. We have no intention of shutting ourselves off from anyone and choosing some kind of closed development road, trying to live in autarky. We are always open to dialogue, including on normalising our economic and political relations. We are counting here on the pragmatic approach and position of business communities in the leading countries.

    Some are saying today that Russia is supposedly turning its back on Europe - such words were probably spoken already here too during the discussions - and is looking for new business partners, above all in Asia. Let me say that this is absolutely not the case. Our active policy in the Asian-Pacific region began not just yesterday and not in response to sanctions, but is a policy that we have been following for a good many years now. Like many other countries, including Western countries, we saw that Asia is playing an ever greater role in the world, in the economy and in politics, and there is simply no way we can afford to overlook these developments.

    Let me say again that everyone is doing this, and we will do so to, all the more so as a large part of our country is geographically in Asia. Why should we not make use of our competitive advantages in this area? It would be extremely shortsighted not to do so.

    Developing economic ties with these countries and carrying out joint integration projects also creates big incentives for our domestic development. Today's demographic, economic and cultural trends all suggest that dependence on a sole superpower will objectively decrease. This is something that European and American experts have been talking and writing about too.

    Perhaps developments in global politics will mirror the developments we are seeing in the global economy, namely, intensive competition for specific niches and frequent change of leaders in specific areas. This is entirely possible.

    There is no doubt that humanitarian factors such as education, science, healthcare and culture are playing a greater role in global competition. This also has a big impact on international relations, including because this 'soft power' resource will depend to a great extent on real achievements in developing human capital rather than on sophisticated propaganda tricks.

    At the same time, the formation of a so-called polycentric world (I would also like to draw attention to this, colleagues) in and of itself does not improve stability; in fact, it is more likely to be the opposite. The goal of reaching global equilibrium is turning into a fairly difficult puzzle, an equation with many unknowns.

    So, what is in store for us if we choose not to live by the rules – even if they may be strict and inconvenient – but rather live without any rules at all? And that scenario is entirely possible; we cannot rule it out, given the tensions in the global situation. Many predictions can already be made, taking into account current trends, and unfortunately, they are not optimistic. If we do not create a clear system of mutual commitments and agreements, if we do not build the mechanisms for managing and resolving crisis situations, the symptoms of global anarchy will inevitably grow.

    Today, we already see a sharp increase in the likelihood of a whole set of violent conflicts with either direct or indirect participation by the world's major powers. And the risk factors include not just traditional multinational conflicts, but also the internal instability in separate states, especially when we talk about nations located at the intersections of major states' geopolitical interests, or on the border of cultural, historical, and economic civilizational continents.

    Ukraine, which I'm sure was discussed at length and which we will discuss some more, is one of the example of such sorts of conflicts that affect international power balance, and I think it will certainly not be the last. From here emanates the next real threat of destroying the current system of arms control agreements. And this dangerous process was launched by the United States of America when it unilaterally withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty in 2002, and then set about and continues today to actively pursue the creation of its global missile defence system.

    Colleagues, friends,

    I want to point out that we did not start this. Once again, we are sliding into the times when, instead of the balance of interests and mutual guarantees, it is fear and the balance of mutual destruction that prevent nations from engaging in direct conflict. In absence of legal and political instruments, arms are once again becoming the focal point of the global agenda; they are used wherever and however, without any UN Security Council sanctions. And if the Security Council refuses to produce such decisions, then it is immediately declared to be an outdated and ineffective instrument.

    Many states do not see any other ways of ensuring their sovereignty but to obtain their own bombs. This is extremely dangerous. We insist on continuing talks; we are not only in favour of talks, but insist on continuing talks to reduce nuclear arsenals. The less nuclear weapons we have in the world, the better. And we are ready for the most serious, concrete discussions on nuclear disarmament – but only serious discussions without any double standards.

    What do I mean? Today, many types of high-precision weaponry are already close to mass-destruction weapons in terms of their capabilities, and in the event of full renunciation of nuclear weapons or radical reduction of nuclear potential, nations that are leaders in creating and producing high-precision systems will have a clear military advantage. Strategic parity will be disrupted, and this is likely to bring destabilization. The use of a so-called first global pre-emptive strike may become tempting. In short, the risks do not decrease, but intensify.

    The next obvious threat is the further escalation of ethnic, religious, and social conflicts. Such conflicts are dangerous not only as such, but also because they create zones of anarchy, lawlessness, and chaos around them, places that are comfortable for terrorists and criminals, where piracy, human trafficking, and drug trafficking flourish.

    Incidentally, at the time, our colleagues tried to somehow manage these processes, use regional conflicts and design 'colour revolutions' to suit their interests, but the genie escaped the bottle. It looks like the controlled chaos theory fathers themselves do not know what to do with it; there is disarray in their ranks.

    We closely follow the discussions by both the ruling elite and the expert community. It is enough to look at the headlines of the Western press over the last year. The same people are called fighters for democracy, and then Islamists; first they write about revolutions and then call them riots and upheavals. The result is obvious: the further expansion of global chaos.

    Colleagues, given the global situation, it is time to start agreeing on fundamental things. This is incredibly important and necessary; this is much better than going back to our own corners. The more we all face common problems, the more we find ourselves in the same boat, so to speak. And the logical way out is in cooperation between nations, societies, in finding collective answers to increasing challenges, and in joint risk management. Granted, some of our partners, for some reason, remember this only when it suits their interests.

    Practical experience shows that joint answers to challenges are not always a panacea; and we need to understand this. Moreover, in most cases, they are hard to reach; it is not easy to overcome the differences in national interests, the subjectivity of different approaches, particularly when it comes to nations with different cultural and historical traditions. But nevertheless, we have examples when, having common goals and acting based on the same criteria, together we achieved real success.

    Let me remind you about solving the problem of chemical weapons in Syria, and the substantive dialogue on the Iranian nuclear programme, as well as our work on North Korean issues, which also has some positive results. Why can't we use this experience in the future to solve local and global challenges?

    What could be the legal, political, and economic basis for a new world order that would allow for stability and security, while encouraging healthy competition, not allowing the formation of new monopolies that hinder development? It is unlikely that someone could provide absolutely exhaustive, ready-made solutions right now. We will need extensive work with participation by a wide range of governments, global businesses, civil society, and such expert platforms as ours.

    However, it is obvious that success and real results are only possible if key participants in international affairs can agree on harmonising basic interests, on reasonable self-restraint, and set the example of positive and responsible leadership. We must clearly identify where unilateral actions end and we need to apply multilateral mechanisms, and as part of improving the effectiveness of international law, we must resolve the dilemma between the actions by international community to ensure security and human rights and the principle of national sovereignty and non-interference in the internal affairs of any state.

    Those very collisions increasingly lead to arbitrary external interference in complex internal processes, and time and again, they provoke dangerous conflicts between leading global players. The issue of maintaining sovereignty becomes almost paramount in maintaining and strengthening global stability.

    Clearly, discussing the criteria for the use of external force is extremely difficult; it is practically impossible to separate it from the interests of particular nations. However, it is far more dangerous when there are no agreements that are clear to everyone, when no clear conditions are set for necessary and legal interference.

    I will add that international relations must be based on international law, which itself should rest on moral principles such as justice, equality and truth. Perhaps most important is respect for one's partners and their interests. This is an obvious formula, but simply following it could radically change the global situation.

    I am certain that if there is a will, we can restore the effectiveness of the international and regional institutions system. We do not even need to build anything anew, from the scratch; this is not a "greenfield," especially since the institutions created after World War II are quite universal and can be given modern substance, adequate to manage the current situation.

    This is true of improving the work of the UN, whose central role is irreplaceable, as well as the OSCE, which, over the course of 40 years, has proven to be a necessary mechanism for ensuring security and cooperation in the Euro-Atlantic region. I must say that even now, in trying to resolve the crisis in southeast Ukraine, the OSCE is playing a very positive role.

    In light of the fundamental changes in the international environment, the increase in uncontrollability and various threats, we need a new global consensus of responsible forces. It's not about some local deals or a division of spheres of influence in the spirit of classic diplomacy, or somebody's complete global domination. I think that we need a new version of interdependence. We should not be afraid of it. On the contrary, this is a good instrument for harmonising positions.

    This is particularly relevant given the strengthening and growth of certain regions on the planet, which process objectively requires institutionalisation of such new poles, creating powerful regional organisations and developing rules for their interaction. Cooperation between these centres would seriously add to the stability of global security, policy and economy. But in order to establish such a dialogue, we need to proceed from the assumption that all regional centres and integration projects forming around them need to have equal rights to development, so that they can complement each other and nobody can force them into conflict or opposition artificially. Such destructive actions would break down ties between states, and the states themselves would be subjected to extreme hardship, or perhaps even total destruction.

    I would like to remind you of the last year's events. We have told our American and European partners that hasty backstage decisions, for example, on Ukraine's association with the EU, are fraught with serious risks to the economy. We didn't even say anything about politics; we spoke only about the economy, saying that such steps, made without any prior arrangements, touch on the interests of many other nations, including Russia as Ukraine's main trade partner, and that a wide discussion of the issues is necessary. Incidentally, in this regard, I will remind you that, for example, the talks on Russia's accession to the WTO lasted 19 years. This was very difficult work, and a certain consensus was reached.

    Why am I bringing this up? Because in implementing Ukraine's association project, our partners would come to us with their goods and services through the back gate, so to speak, and we did not agree to this, nobody asked us about this. We had discussions on all topics related to Ukraine's association with the EU, persistent discussions, but I want to stress that this was done in an entirely civilised manner, indicating possible problems, showing the obvious reasoning and arguments. Nobody wanted to listen to us and nobody wanted to talk. They simply told us: this is none of your business, point, end of discussion. Instead of a comprehensive but – I stress – civilised dialogue, it all came down to a government overthrow; they plunged the country into chaos, into economic and social collapse, into a civil war with enormous casualties.

    Why? When I ask my colleagues why, they no longer have an answer; nobody says anything. That's it. Everyone's at a loss, saying it just turned out that way. Those actions should not have been encouraged – it wouldn't have worked. After all (I already spoke about this), former Ukrainian President Yanukovych signed everything, agreed with everything. Why do it? What was the point? What is this, a civilised way of solving problems? Apparently, those who constantly throw together new 'colour revolutions' consider themselves 'brilliant artists' and simply cannot stop.

    I am certain that the work of integrated associations, the cooperation of regional structures, should be built on a transparent, clear basis; the Eurasian Economic Union's formation process is a good example of such transparency. The states that are parties to this project informed their partners of their plans in advance, specifying the parameters of our association, the principles of its work, which fully correspond with the World Trade Organisation rules.

    I will add that we would also have welcomed the start of a concrete dialogue between the Eurasian and European Union. Incidentally, they have almost completely refused us this as well, and it is also unclear why – what is so scary about it?

    And, of course, with such joint work, we would think that we need to engage in dialogue (I spoke about this many times and heard agreement from many of our western partners, at least in Europe) on the need to create a common space for economic and humanitarian cooperation stretching all the way from the Atlantic to the Pacific Ocean.

    Colleagues, Russia made its choice. Our priorities are further improving our democratic and open economy institutions, accelerated internal development, taking into account all the positive modern trends in the world, and consolidating society based on traditional values and patriotism.

    We have an integration-oriented, positive, peaceful agenda; we are working actively with our colleagues in the Eurasian Economic Union, the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation, BRICS and other partners. This agenda is aimed at developing ties between governments, not dissociating. We are not planning to cobble together any blocs or get involved in an exchange of blows.

    The allegations and statements that Russia is trying to establish some sort of empire, encroaching on the sovereignty of its neighbours, are groundless. Russia does not need any kind of special, exclusive place in the world – I want to emphasise this. While respecting the interests of others, we simply want for our own interests to be taken into account and for our position to be respected.

    We are well aware that the world has entered an era of changes and global transformations, when we all need a particular degree of caution, the ability to avoid thoughtless steps. In the years after the Cold War, participants in global politics lost these qualities somewhat. Now, we need to remember them. Otherwise, hopes for a peaceful, stable development will be a dangerous illusion, while today's turmoil will simply serve as a prelude to the collapse of world order.

    Yes, of course, I have already said that building a more stable world order is a difficult task. We are talking about long and hard work. We were able to develop rules for interaction after World War II, and we were able to reach an agreement in Helsinki in the 1970s. Our common duty is to resolve this fundamental challenge at this new stage of development.

    [Oct 22, 2015] Peak Oil is a Function of Oil Price

    Notable quotes:
    "... The book argued that Saudi Arabia had overstated its oil reserves, that its oil production was on the cusp of terminal decline, and that prices were set to soar. ..."
    "... My view was that peak oil would cause great hardship, but humanity would survive. We would muddle through and find our way. ..."
    "... In hindsight, our view on peak oil was pretty naïve. Global oil production was not about to fall off a cliff. The potential for increased production was hand-waved away. But higher oil prices had a much bigger impact on production than most of us would have projected. ..."
    "... "Peak oil is a moving target. I think peak oil is in a different place if oil is $150 versus oil at $100." Then the notion crystallized. You can't talk about peak oil without talking about oil prices. Why? Because this is what the real world looks like ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    "... we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty "The world has passed peak $20 oil." ..."
    "... That doesn't mean that oil prices will never again fall to $20, as supply/demand imbalances do wildly swing prices at times. It just means that $20 isn't a sustainable price for meeting current global demand. That also means that the average price of oil in the future will be much greater than $20, which is why I downplay those predictions of very low oil prices. ..."
    "... But has the world passed peak $100/bbl oil? The answer to that is clearly no. When oil was at $100/bbl, supplies were still rising. Now that prices are less than half that level, global production looks like it is set to fall. So maybe ..."
    "... When prices are rising, oil producers spend money as fast as they can to build out capacity. New oil plays become economical. Inevitably, supply outpaces demand and the price crashes. Capital spending slows, marginal oil plays are shut in, and demand catches back up to supply, which drives the price back up. ..."
    "... This time oil didn't drop to $10/bbl, but it did spend a lot of time at $100/bbl. That is a sign that we are using up the cheapest oil supplies. ..."
    "... While maximum oil production is indeed a function of the price of oil, the price of oil that people can afford to pay is a function of the EROEI of oil extraction. As the oil extraction industry gets to be a larger and larger part of the overall economy, all the other parts of the economy suffer from the diversion of resources to oil production, limiting the ability of would-be oil purchasers to pay higher prices. ..."
    "... At some point, the price needed to stimulate new production will exceed the price purchasers can afford to pay. That will be when we see the peak of production. $100 oil may very well be incompatible with robust world-wide economic growth. ..."
    "... What really worries me about passing the peak is the economic consequence of having a critical mass of people come to the realization that we are indeed past peak oil. If the substitutes for oil are by then insufficient for economic growth, people will realize that the world economy will henceforth be subject to continuous recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty, with no remedies in sight. ..."
    "... Not entirely. I alluded to this point, but it depends on the cost of the energy input. You wouldnt use 1 BTU of gasoline to produce 1 BTU of gasoline, but you might use 3 BTUs of coal to produce 1 BTU of gasoline. ..."
    "... You are right as far as the EROEI of oil is concerned, but I believe that Joes comment is valid in a broader sense, expanded to the EROEI of the total energy supply. What you seem to argue is that the EROEI of gasoline (or any particular energy carrier) may not have absolute limits. However, the EROEI of the economy on the whole does matter, as the economy needs free energy to operate on. ..."
    "... Robert, the way I understand Peak Oil was that Hubbert was basically correct with his models (genius even) for conventional oil production, but that his models do not include unconventional production and the advance of technology. Most of the worlds historically large oil fields have gone into decline in the 21st century as Hubbert predicted. But new technologies, partly driven by higher prices, have opened up vast new resources such as shale that were not considered producible before. Unconventional resources are quite large and that is why reserves have gone up despite that accuracy of Hubberts models. ..."
    "... One thing I might add to your excellent analysis is the substitution of other hydrocarbon liquids for crude oil, yet calling it and counting it as crude. Global crude oil production has been pretty flat since 2005, while production of natural gas liquids, condensate, etc. has increased. It is interesting that while these do not have the energy content or utility of crude, they are counted as such. ..."
    "... I see this, along with tar sands and light tight oil (LTO, shale) as scraping the bottom of the barrel, with declining energy profits as you appropriately point out. The peak so far has been an undulating plateau for ten years, with the worlds oil industry exploring itself into financial distress during that time trying to find new sources of quality crude, with little to show for it. Instead we have synthetic crude from Canadian tar sands, dumbbell crude from tight rock, Saudi Arabia develops its probably last field of heavy sour crude that no one wanted before, and on and on. Clearly we are chasing the dregs of oil. What else should peak look like? ..."
    "... I just read an article on technology that will boost deep ocean recovery something like 30%. A device that utilizes the oceans depth water pressure to increase pressure differential at oil recovery zone. Also, articles on future robot technology that is proving itself per drilling equipment that makes deep water drilling safer and easier. Technology continues to make drilling, recovery, processing, and oil detection more efficient. ..."
    "... Climbing for decades would not make PO bunk , it would only make Hubbert´s estimate a bit more inaccurate and drag the decline out by a generation. ..."
    "... But even ignoring climate for a second: Humans have not evolved much in the past millennia. The only thing that differentiates our 200-yr-old industrial society from previous agrarian ones is the reliance on abundant and cheap fossil fuels and, for the past century, oil. If you think that depleting oil will not hurt, think again. ..."
    "... Isnt it so that Hubbert was largely correct in predicting what would happen in a world of stability, but he failed to take into account the economic instability caused by oil depletion itself? That would be quite understandable, as he was a geophysicist, not a social scientist. Not as if social scientists could predict what will happen when our oil-based society is deprived of its fuel.... ..."
    "... The global economy can not afford $100/bl oil and producers can not increase production without it. It is debt that has filled the void and that too is peaking. Next will be peak population. ..."
    "... I agree that the issue with Peak Oil isnt that were going to run out of oil. The issue is that we are running out of economic benefit that is achievable given the cost to extract the oil. That is the current drag upon the world economy. And I really think that we will eventually be able to plot that economic benefit / bbl of oil as a function of time, and it will likely be a very familiar curve. That economic drag will increase no matter what new extraction technologies come online. ..."
    "... If peak oil is a function of oil price (a stance which I largely agree with) then the key question becomes, what is the highest oil price that the world can sustain. In the advanced economies around $100 seems sufficient to cause stagnation or decline in demand, but in China or India demand seemed able to grow robustly at these prices. Presumably because filling your only moped with petrol gets you more utility than filling up your second SUV. So perhaps somewhere in the $100-150 range represents a ceiling, for the moment. ..."
    "... And what with the more rapid decline rates of newer wells (deepwater and shale decline more rapidly than onshore conventional) depletion rates will probably accelerate. I think that perhaps the frequency of booms and busts in the oil price is going to accelerate a bit, as cycles of overinvestment lead to more gluts, then the price collapses, then underinvestment leads to shortages which manifest sooner, and so on. Does this sound plausible to you? ..."
    "... I think thats going to be different for different parts of the world. Ironically, $100 oil caused demand to decrease in the U.S., but it kept growing strongly across the developing world. ..."
    "... The reason is: If the retail price of oil is $4/Gal, the daily per capita consumption price in the USA is about $11.00. In India the daily per capita consumption price is about 61 cents. 2.7 Gallons versus 2.5 cups. ..."
    "... what you wrote above hit me: Its such a low per capita consumption in developing countries, and just a little more has a big impact on their lives. So they will drive future consumption. ..."
    "... Peak oil isnt just a factor of supply as Hubbard proposed. Nor is it a function of price as the author proposes. It is a wobbly stool of both these factors couple with the third leg of political stability. ..."
    www.energytrendsinsider.com

    The Origins of Peak Oil Awareness

    The scientific study of peak oil began in the 1950′s, when Shell geophysicist M. King Hubbert reported on the evolution of production rates in oil and gas fields. In a 1956 paper Hubbert suggested that oil production in a particular region would approximate a bell curve, increasing exponentially during the early stages of production before eventually slowing, reaching a peak when approximately half of a field had been extracted, and then going into terminal production decline.

    Hubbert applied his methodology to oil production for the Lower 48 US states and offshore areas. He estimated that the ultimate potential reserve of the Lower 48 US states and offshore areas was 150 billion barrels of oil. Based on that reserve estimate, the 6.6 million barrels per day (bpd) extraction rate in 1955, and the 52.5 billion barrels of oil that had been previously produced in the US, Hubbert's base case estimate was that oil production in the US would reach maximum production in 1965. He also estimated that global oil production would peak around the year 2000 at a maximum production rate of 34 million bpd.

    Hubbert calculated a secondary case that if the US oil reserve increased to 200 billion barrels (about which he expressed doubts), peak production would occur in 1970, a delay of five years from his base case. Oil production in the US did in fact peak in 1970, so Hubbert is widely credited with precisely calling the US peak, but few know that he was actually skeptical that the peak would take place as late as 1970.

    The US has now surpassed Hubbert's most optimistic estimate for US oil production. Through 2014, cumulative US production stands at ~ 215 billion barrels, with a remaining estimated proved reserve of 48.5 billion barrels (but with the caveat this reserves estimate is based on crude prices near $100/bbl).

    The Modern Peak Oil Debate

    In the ensuing decades since Hubbert's original work, discussion of peak oil ebbed and flowed. But the modern peak oil debates really heated up a decade ago. In 2005 the late Matt Simmons, an investment banker to the oil industry, published Twilight in the Desert. The book argued that Saudi Arabia had overstated its oil reserves, that its oil production was on the cusp of terminal decline, and that prices were set to soar.

    ... ... ...

    Peak Oil Camps

    At one extreme of this debate was the camp that believed peak oil was happening at that time (~2005), and that it was going to spell the end of civilization. This camp was often referred to as "doomers", because they believed that humanity was doomed. (And many haven't changed from that position). At the other extreme were those who believed technology could continue to squeeze ever more oil out of the ground. This camp was sometimes referred to as the "technocopians."

    Most of us were somewhere in the middle. In 2005 I felt like we still had a few years to go before we reached peak oil. My general position was that we were 3-5 years away at that time, and I spent a lot of time debating the evidence with the imminent peakers. I wrote a number of articles addressing the topic of peak oil (e.g., Five Misconceptions About Peak Oil). My view was that peak oil would cause great hardship, but humanity would survive. We would muddle through and find our way.

    Overconfidence in these discussions over peak oil (and peak natural gas) was prevalent. For instance, in 2003 Matt Simmons predicted, with "certainty," that by 2005 the US would begin a long-term natural gas crisis for which the only solution was "to pray." This sort of confidence was prominent in the debates. If you had argued at that time that by 2015 US and world oil production would be where they are today, you would have been deemed certifiably insane.

    In hindsight, our view on peak oil was pretty naïve. Global oil production was not about to fall off a cliff. The potential for increased production was hand-waved away. But higher oil prices had a much bigger impact on production than most of us would have projected.

    I had this idea bouncing around my head that higher prices would spur more oil production, but I agreed with those who argued that there were limits to this and we had to take steps to address the risks. The limits wouldn't necessarily be technological, but would rather depend on the amount of energy required to extract and process the oil. At some point it simply becomes too energy-intensive, and even if you are using a cheaper source of energy to do the extraction, there comes a point that the cost of energy inputs exceeds the cost of energy extracted. Since the energy inputs and outputs are related via price, it's a pretty good argument.

    It's Not That Simple

    Jeff Rubin - the former chief economist at CIBC World Markets - eventually crystallized in my mind the relationship between peak oil and oil prices. I saw Rubin give a presentation in 2011, and he said something like "Peak oil is a moving target. I think peak oil is in a different place if oil is $150 versus oil at $100." Then the notion crystallized. You can't talk about peak oil without talking about oil prices. Why? Because this is what the real world looks like

    ... ... ...

    ,,,the bottom line is that there is a lot of oil that will come online at higher oil prices. How much is truly unknown, but it is estimated to be in the 10′s of millions of barrels per day. (For those who believe this is unlikely, think back to 2005 and how much chance you would have given for the current levels of oil production). Similar graphics have been produced for the break-even price in shale oil plays, and the message is similar: Higher oil prices will spur oil production in more marginal areas.

    So we should really talk about peak oil as a function of oil prices. In that case, we can say with a pretty high degree of certainty "The world has passed peak $20 oil." If we could magically freeze the price of oil at $20, we would see the sort of peak that the imminent peakers projected. That doesn't mean that oil prices will never again fall to $20, as supply/demand imbalances do wildly swing prices at times. It just means that $20 isn't a sustainable price for meeting current global demand. That also means that the average price of oil in the future will be much greater than $20, which is why I downplay those predictions of very low oil prices.

    But has the world passed peak $100/bbl oil? The answer to that is clearly no. When oil was at $100/bbl, supplies were still rising. Now that prices are less than half that level, global production looks like it is set to fall. So maybe we have past peak $50/bbl oil.

    The peak oil story turned out to be more complex than most of us who were debating it could have imagined back in 2005. What many thought was peak oil at that time was just one more cycle in the gyrations of the oil industry. When prices are rising, oil producers spend money as fast as they can to build out capacity. New oil plays become economical. Inevitably, supply outpaces demand and the price crashes. Capital spending slows, marginal oil plays are shut in, and demand catches back up to supply, which drives the price back up.

    But what we have seen in this most recent cycle is that the trough isn't as deep as it has been in the past. This time oil didn't drop to $10/bbl, but it did spend a lot of time at $100/bbl. That is a sign that we are using up the cheapest oil supplies. The world is highly unlikely to return to an era of $20 oil. The floor has moved higher. Peak oil has moved past the $20 threshold, and most likely the $50 threshold.

    ... ... ...

    Link to Original Article: Peak Oil is a Function of Oil Price

    Joe Clarkson a month ago

    While maximum oil production is indeed a function of the price of oil, the price of oil that people can afford to pay is a function of the EROEI of oil extraction. As the oil extraction industry gets to be a larger and larger part of the overall economy, all the other parts of the economy suffer from the diversion of resources to oil production, limiting the ability of would-be oil purchasers to pay higher prices.

    At some point, the price needed to stimulate new production will exceed the price purchasers can afford to pay. That will be when we see the peak of production. $100 oil may very well be incompatible with robust world-wide economic growth. If so, we will know that we have passed peak oil when oil prices again rise to record highs (over $100/bbl) and production fails to respond and exceed the volumes that were produced the last time oil was $100/bbl.

    What really worries me about passing the peak is the economic consequence of having a critical mass of people come to the realization that we are indeed past peak oil. If the substitutes for oil are by then insufficient for economic growth, people will realize that the world economy will henceforth be subject to continuous recession, rising unemployment and increasing poverty, with no remedies in sight. If they haven't happened already for other reasons, debt deflation and financial panic will then exacerbate all our other resource depletion predicaments. It won't be pretty.

    Robert Rapier Mod Joe Clarkson a month ago
    "people can afford to pay is a function of the EROEI of oil extraction."

    Not entirely. I alluded to this point, but it depends on the cost of the energy input. You wouldn't use 1 BTU of gasoline to produce 1 BTU of gasoline, but you might use 3 BTUs of coal to produce 1 BTU of gasoline. So EROEI is something that tells us about the relative efficiency, but it doesn't address the economics. Nor does it include a time factor. I could run a society on a process with an EROEI of 1.1 -- as long as I returned that on a daily basis.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    Robert,

    "You wouldn't use 1 BTU of gasoline to produce 1 BTU of gasoline, but you might use 3 BTUs of coal to produce 1 BTU of gasoline."

    You are right as far as the EROEI of oil is concerned, but I believe that Joe's comment is valid in a broader sense, expanded to the EROEI of the total energy supply. What you seem to argue is that the EROEI of gasoline (or any particular energy carrier) may not have absolute limits. However, the EROEI of the economy on the whole does matter, as the economy needs free energy to operate on. Your example assumes that coal will continue to have a much higher EROEI than (marginal) oil, but to the extent oil needs to be cross-subsidized in energy terms, it ceases to be an energy source to the economy, it just becomes an expensive energy carrier. And the more we subsidize oil with coal (in energy terms), the faster will the EROEI of coal decline and more of society's resources will have to be invested in the energy sector.

    "I could run a society on a process with an EROEI of 1.1 -- as long as I returned that on a daily basis."

    Let's assume you can run your economy on the "right kind of energy" (let's call it gasoline) that has an EROEI of 1.1 I.e., every day you need to invest one unit of this energy to get 0.1 unit available to (and sufficient for) the rest of the economy. But if you need three units of the "wrong kind of energy" (coal) to produce one unit of this gasoline (meaning that gasoline has an EROEI of 1/3, i.e. it is not a net "source" of energy) and the actual process you are running the economy on (coal production) has an EROEI of 1.1, then returning that every day would only give you 1/30 units of gasoline a day, which is only a third of what you need for the rest of the economy. You would therefore have to return the 1.1 coal energy not on a daily basis, but every 8 hours to get your fix of gasoline. That would mean having to triple the throughput of coal, meaning three times more mines, rail transport, power capacity, etc.

    Joe's argument may have been simplistic, but I think it is clear that there are limits that monetary cost cannot represent. Measuring the price of oil in dollars seems to assume that somehow dollars can represent a value independent of the cost of oil, which is questionable. Higher oil price cannot postpone peak oil indefinitely, as it can just crush society's ability to maintain the complexity needed to maintain (let alone increase) oil production from increasingly difficult places.

    davidgmills1 -> Glen McMillian 24 days ago
    I guess its high time on this board that people learn about Liquid fluoride thorium reactors (maybe you do but you don't act like it). This was the nuclear power we should have had and never got because a decision was made by the US government to breed Uranium 238 instead of breeding Thorium 232. We proved at Oak Ridge that breeding 232 was feasible. But Uranium 238 won out because it could be used to make bombs easily while breeding thorium couldn't make bombs easy. Using uranium we got a two-fer. But a number of Uranium 238 breeder reactors were built and no one ever made them work successfully. By then though, the Oak Ridge program had been shut down and all of the developers of the program were either dead or retired.

    People need to know that this form of energy is available to us, and it is capable of powering the world for thousands of years.

    Ten major attributes of thorium:

    http://energyfromthorium.com/2...

    Solar and wind are fine for many applications, but if you want to power ships or go to deep space or even colonize the moon or other places, there are many times they just don't work.

    Russ Finley -> davidgmills1 24 days ago
    We can't hang our hats on unproven technology, but we certainly should be trying much harder to prove it. These reactors are not a done deal:

    http://euanmearns.com/molten-s...

    This is the kind of technology the Google Engineering team was talking about when they concluded that we don't have the weapons to fight climate change.

    http://www.energytrendsinsider...

    davidgmills1 -> Russ Finley 24 days ago
    We ran a reactor for 20,000 hours in the 60's and 70's. It would not take that much to get them going again if we had the will. I would say that 20,000 hours was a pretty good start at proving the technology.

    And I looked at Euan Means' article. It clearly does not address LFTRs. LFTRs run in the thermal spectrum, not the fast spectrum.

    The reason uranium breeders were not successful is that they ran in the fast spectrum, which has a target 1/25 the size of the thermal spectrum's target that a neutron has to hit.

    It is much easier to breed fertile elements when having a neutron hit a target 25 times as big and splitting an atom 2/3 of the time than it is to hit a target 1/25 the size and splitting the atom 90% of the time. That is the difference between breeding in the thermal spectrum and the fast spectrum. The people who wanted to breed uranium believed uranium could be bred in the fast spectrum. It proved to be very difficult.

    Only thorium breeds in the thermal spectrum. Uranium does not. Breeding thorium was much easier and consequently it is not surprising we were able to do it at Oak Ridge for 20,000 hours.

    The only thorium reactor discussed in Means' article runs in the fast spectrum. Euan Means' article proves he does not know what LFTRs are and consequently his article is not a valid analysis of LFTR's capability.

    Rob Andrews a month ago
    Peak Oil is also a function of demand, if alternate energy sources create an energy price that is lower than the $20 peak oil price you may end up with a lot of trapped oil that not extractable. Of course research on both sides seeks innovation to beat the floor price of the competition

    davidgmills1 -> Robert Rapier 24 days ago

    Maybe not today. But China has begun work on Liquid Fluoride Thorium Reactors which we pioneered in the 60's. They hope to have one operational by 2020.

    See my post about 4 comments above and the link I cited.

    If the world starts to make them in the 2020's, by 2035 or 40, the world will drastically change from what it is now. The thorium age will be vastly different from the fossil fuel age.

    Ed Dodge a month ago
    Robert, the way I understand Peak Oil was that Hubbert was basically correct with his models (genius even) for conventional oil production, but that his models do not include unconventional production and the advance of technology. Most of the world's historically large oil fields have gone into decline in the 21st century as Hubbert predicted. But new technologies, partly driven by higher prices, have opened up vast new resources such as shale that were not considered producible before. Unconventional resources are quite large and that is why reserves have gone up despite that accuracy of Hubbert's models.

    There are more unconventional resources to be tapped, so reserves can continue to grow. Tight oil recovery rates are very low with huge margin for improvement. CO2-EOR opens up billions of barrels, methane hydrates are massive and yet to be tapped (gas not oil but the point remains), and synthetic fuels can be produced from coal, biomass and garbage.

    I agree that prices drive development, and obviously environmental concerns are huge, so we must be smart and manage carbon emissions and everything else, but we are certainly not about to run out of hydrocarbons though they would not be as cheap as they once were.

    Robert Rapier Mod Ed Dodge a month ago
    "Robert, the way I understand Peak Oil was that Hubbert was basically correct with his models..."

    He was WAY off on his numbers. He vastly underestimated future production rates. So his peak predictions are based on production rates that were much lower than they actually were. If he had plugged in what the numbers actually ended up being, he would have forecast peak years earlier than he did.

    Cracker -> Robert Rapier 21 days ago
    Robert, I suspect he underestimated reserve growth (increase of proven reserves over time) in US oil over those decades, as well. Variables and unknowns are why long term numbers are seldom correct.

    One thing I might add to your excellent analysis is the substitution of other hydrocarbon liquids for crude oil, yet calling it and counting it as crude. Global crude oil production has been pretty flat since 2005, while production of natural gas liquids, condensate, etc. has increased. It is interesting that while these do not have the energy content or utility of crude, they are counted as such.

    I see this, along with tar sands and light tight oil (LTO, shale) as scraping the bottom of the barrel, with declining energy profits as you appropriately point out. The peak so far has been an undulating plateau for ten years, with the world's oil industry exploring itself into financial distress during that time trying to find new sources of quality crude, with little to show for it. Instead we have synthetic crude from Canadian tar sands, dumbbell crude from tight rock, Saudi Arabia develops its probably last field of heavy sour crude that no one wanted before, and on and on. Clearly we are chasing the dregs of oil. What else should peak look like?

    Forrest 18 days ago
    Would it be more accurate to say oil production is a factor of price? As the market will be energized by future profits that in turn will spur innovation, technology, investment, R&D, tax incentives, etc..

    I just read an article on technology that will boost deep ocean recovery something like 30%. A device that utilizes the ocean's depth water pressure to increase pressure differential at oil recovery zone. Also, articles on future robot technology that is proving itself per drilling equipment that makes deep water drilling safer and easier. Technology continues to make drilling, recovery, processing, and oil detection more efficient.

    I can think of no reason the petrol fossil fuel supply will run out. It will get more expensive, but the earth makes a good storage container as such the supply will quietly and safely sit in place until needed. I remember reading of natural gas reserves of 100 or 200 years out, depending on exports and consumption.

    That's the known (current) recoverable reserves of which should increase. Also, coal was rated the same. Maybe GW concerns will eliminate or limit the fuel source, but the enthusiast of such planet killing phenomenon seem to be fickle bunch that only concern themselves with political leadership and solutions of their choosing. For example they claim corn ethanol is worse than gasoline per CO2. The EPA follows suit with outdated data and unproven penalties and utilize illegal rule governing power to limit the production of the fuel. Contrast this with Energy department's evaluation of ethanol fuel upon GW very positive as compared and gaining strength wile the EPA buries it's head to avoid reality check. Think of the taxpayer cost and politics invested to promote wind and solar energy without accurate analysis and comparison. Think of the same costs and quality of evaluations of BEV. Then compare the taxpayer cost of the ethanol fuel solution and hydro power already in the position of solving problems and reducing cost. What's the holdup if as they say GW will destroy the planet. Shouldn't environmentalist be shouting for joy, for example, that a new auto company utilizing all American built material is about to debut it's 2016 production and drive a spike in auto pollution problems. A simple low cost safe and reliable auto that's rated at 84 mpg. A $6,800 vehicle that needs no taxpayer subsidy and should replace a large segment of the used car market. A market of 90 million clunkers that average less than 20 mpg. I don't hear shouts of joy? Why is that? You could double the GW emission benefit of this vehicle with mid level blend ethanol fuel. An easy move up to E85 fuel engine that would decrease carbon pollution 85% if fueled with cellulosic ethanol. The Energy Department's rating of Miscanthus grass ethanol drives the carbon rating to negative. Meaning you actually improve. Shouts of Joy per not needing horrendous taxpayer investment and no need to lose citizen and private market freedoms per government regulation should soon spout. Don't hold your breath as they will attempt to kill such solutions not aligned with their ideals.

    Optimist 20 days ago
    More to the point, Peak Oil is bunk, thanks to markets.

    When production dips below demand, price increases until either demand drops or supply increases (or both). May take months or years, but that's inevitably how it works. There are many options for adding to liquid fuel supply that have not even been seriously explored and therefore remains available as future options, including gas-to-liquid, coal-to-liquid, biomass-to-liquid, etc.

    The main threat to the system are foolhardy politicians, a species that seem to be out-breeding the other kind at a most disconcerting rate. When, and only when, one of these dimwits attempt to put a ceiling on fuel prices, shortages ensue.

    At least we still have Nixon to kick around, jackass...

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Optimist 18 days ago
    Are you suggesting that the Earth has infinite reserves of oil? If there is no peak oil, then oil production would need to increase monotonously forever. That is only possible if the Earth has infinite amounts of the stuff. The volume of the Earth is finite, and most of it is not oil (consider the core, the mantle, most of the crust, etc.).
    TimC -> Advocatus Diaboli 17 days ago
    "The volume of the Earth is finite, and most of it is not oil..."

    Okay, so how much of it IS oil?

    Modern drilling equipment can reach a depth of about 12 thousand meters beneath the surface of the earth. This makes the volume of the portion of the crust that can be explored by drilling about 6.2x10^18 cubic meters, equal to 3.9x10^19 barrels. The earth's ultimate recoverable reserves (URR) of oil has been estimated at two trillion (2x10^12) barrels. If that URR estimate is true, then the pre-industrial concentration of oil in the earth's crust was about 51 ppbv, or fifty-one parts per billion by volume.

    It isn't possible to quantify any concentration accurately near the detection limit of the quantitative method. No one knows how to analyze the earth's crust to accurately quantify the concentration of recoverable oil remaining. It could be 25, 50, 100, 200, or 400 ppbv. When petroleum engineers or geologists estimate the global oil URR value, they use crude accounting methods that have very poor sensitivity, so the estimate that they produce is at or below the detection limit of any analytical method. Instead of two trillion barrels, there may be four trillion, or eight trillion barrels of recoverable resources yet to be discovered.

    You are certainly correct that the earth's crust can only contain a finite quantity of fossil hydrocarbon resources. But that quantity may be so large that production can continue to climb monotonously for decades, or even centuries.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> TimC 16 days ago
    "But that quantity may be so large that production can continue to climb monotonously for decades, or even centuries."

    Whether decades or centuries; it will peak (=reach an all-time maximum) at some point (if it hasn't done so already).

    Rereading my earlier comment, I have to correct myself: a monotonous increase would not be necessary to disprove PO, as production could fluctuate or stabilise. But it would need to be infinite, which it won´t be.

    Climbing for "decades" would not make PO "bunk", it would only make Hubbert´s estimate "a bit" more inaccurate and drag the decline out by a generation.

    Climbing for "centuries" would probably require our understanding of the climate system to be proven wrong. I´d welcome that, but doubt that we are that lucky. I consider it more likely that we shall give up going after oil way before that, either deliberately (less likely) of for the lack of ability to maintain production.

    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 16 days ago
    Basically, as far as your lifespan is concerned, the supply of oil is infinite. It's just a matter of developing the technology that enables us to tap into those supplies. This is where the markets serve as an active encouragement to research when demand exceeds supply.

    But let's take a step back and look centuries or millennia down the line, to the point where we really have exhausted all the planet's available oil: at this point oil prices increase, until some smart inventor, probably working for Big Oil discovers a process for converting ________* into liquid fuels. Crisis averted yet again. PO believers repeat their claim that PO will destroy civilization in the next 25 years. Some things never change.
    * For _____ insert your choice of coal, natural gas, agricultural waste, solids municipal waste, sewage sludge, the one energy crop that might make sense: algae grown in the open ocean or any combination of the above.

    Claims of Peak Oil, Peak Soil, Peak Water, etc. all rely on two assumptions: (1) we keep our consumption at the same levels as in the past and (2) we aren't able to expand supply beyond what we use today. Both are foolish assumptions. Both ignore the impact of markets on innovation.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Optimist 16 days ago
    You seem to ignore even the possibility that climate change may play an important role in our ability to cope or choice of energy. That alone disqualifies you from a civilized discussion. Not because climate change is a certainty (I think it is as certain as it gets, but it is always legitimate to ask questions), but to ignore a vast body of evidence that has made even stalwart skeptics shut up or even convert is simply not serious or honest (yoir choice).

    But even ignoring climate for a second: Humans have not evolved much in the past millennia. The only thing that differentiates our 200-yr-old industrial society from previous agrarian ones is the reliance on abundant and cheap fossil fuels and, for the past century, oil. If you think that depleting oil will not hurt, think again.

    Everything you eat comes from soil and oceans. Oceans are wrecked, even cornucopians don't predict an increase of food from the oceans. You'd better respect soil. Or suggest you eat your coal.

    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 15 days ago
    Wait, you are going to exclude people from the discussion who don't have the same priorities as you do? I hope you like talking to yourself.

    Nice bait and switch, by the way. We were talking about Peak Oil and suddenly you want to exclude me for not mentioning climate change. The point remains: Peak Oil is bunk.

    Climate change is a different topic. No doubt it needs some attention. We need to find a way to beam more heat into outer space. Where is NASA when you need them? Stop fooling around on Mars, already!

    Food production is yet another matter. Japan better get used to importing rice, because sushi is going off the menu fast, as you point out. It is unfortunate that some cultures are so short-sighted, but what are you going to do? Have the US navy sink fishing boats taking more then their quota? The good news is that nature has a capacity to rebound.

    BTW, who needs soil? Ever heard of hydroponics? There are even plants being developed that can grow using seawater while producing normal food. Hard to keep up with all the science, I know.

    And, you're right future generations may eat coal, though I suspect natural gas would be the first fossil fuel to be converted to food. Basically you'd do a conversion of methane to something more biodegradable like methanol or one of the volatile fatty acids. Grow some fungus on that mix (think of it as related to mushrooms) and viola...

    Science won't limit the future of mankind. If science was the only concern the future would be exceedingly bright.

    Advocatus -> Diaboli Optimist 15 days ago

    Science is just science, a way to understand nature, and perhaps use it better.

    The limitation is not imposed by science, but by the laws of nature, the limitations of our natural endowment and the needs of humans. Science can help us live better within the constraints, but cannot lift the constraints. Science allows us to understand and make use of the laws of thermodynamics, but it will never allow us to change those laws. It is utterly unscientific to expect that it would. Science can tell us about the role of phosphorous, it can help us find deposits of phosphorous, but cannot create those deposits.

    I won't go into detail on your points as I do not have the time and don't see the point. Don't take it personally. I think you are delusional, but I wish you were right.

    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 15 days ago

    That's OK.

    Typical, when a pessimist can't make his point, he just claims the optimist is delusional. End of argument.

    You'll excuse me if I remain unconvinced.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Optimist 15 days ago
    No. All I dared to suggest was that science can tell us about the laws of nature, but cannot change the laws of nature. You and Forrest seem to believe otherwise, as suggested by your last comment (dismissing my argument) and a number of your expectations from science, which are unscientific. Beaming more heat into space without warming the planet? You don't even need NASA for that: Simply reducing GHGs in the atmosphere would do that. Too bad that you want to 'beam' so that you can continue releasing CO2.

    Science tells you to to stop digging, and you propose buying a bigger excavator.

    Forrest -> Advocatus Diaboli 16 days ago
    Diaboli, Optimist is right on this one. Your premise is correct, "the earth is finite", but given the scale, technology, etc. a poor restriction or arbitrary talking point. Just to many unknowns and the power of the market will make the transition automatically and effortlessly. Your 2rd premise of eating coal, totally wrong. We're actually upon a great historical revolution that is yet to be named. Every aspect of societal need is currently being evaluated, improved, reinvented. Think of the current magnitude of change upon us. All of it is very positive, unless one is a suffering pessimist. Farming is just entering the beginning stages of empowering the biological world by design. Agronomics, GMO, global positioning, drone workers, robotic workers, soil engineering, fungi exploitation, and the rest. Their is no limit in sight for improving production per acre, quality of food, and fuel feed stock. Most of it directed to negative carbon rating.

    Metals and metallurgy continues to accelerate progress. Nuclear physics continue to accelerate, engineering skills and tools continue to accelerate improvements. Think of the short time span predicted for autonomous vehicles and resulting light vehicle fleet.

    Miles per energy unit will no doubt be a magnitude improved. Heavy transportation and distribution equally being radically improved. Same for grid and green power. Fuel cell and bio energy chemistry making strides that will gradually offset petrol. Hydroponics, aquaponics, fish farming, and the rest already enable privatization of food production for those so motivated. Even to the extent of power and fuel supplies for those so motivated even upon small suburban house lots. The biggest threat to humanity is radicalism of terrorist that attempt to destroy society or destabilize. This will limit invention and progress and result in suffering. Same with radical ideals of "change" per some perceived danger. Politics can be very destructive if citizens lose historical understanding and clamor for quick solutions that require no work.

    Advocatus Diaboli -> Forrest 16 days ago
    I agree on the " privatization of food production". You should have added water. As for the rest, I cannot quite tell whether you are being sarcastic or you really believe all this, but if the latter: dream on.
    Optimist -> Advocatus Diaboli 15 days ago
    Forrest is serious. And right. The main challenge for mankind is the fact that democracy is giving us the leadership we deserve. Worldwide the results are utterly depressing...

    Glen McMillian a month ago

    I think a lot of regular readers would like to see you update some of your older articles now that the costs of renewables have fallen so much in the last few years.
    Advocatus Diaboli a month ago
    Robert,

    I wonder what (if any) assumption Hubbert made on oil prices. I don't know his writings, but I do not suppose that he would discount the possibility that higher efforts could shift his curves. Isn't is so that he assumed (explicitly or implicitly) that prices would remain relatively stable. That would have been reasonable for his analysis of the US production, as he could assume that the (presumably much larger) production of other regions could take over (i.e., reduced supply from the US would not push prices up). In that case the US would essentially be a price taker, and its production would develop along a depletion curve as he predicted (although not necessarily at that level).

    Such an assumption of relative price stability would be more difficult to assume for the global supply (with no alternative sources of oil). However, optimists who believe that other energy sources (renewables or CTL) would fully substitute oil above a certain price level could still assume a relative oil price stability at the global level.

    I believe that the problem comes in when oil is considered critical and not practically substitutable. Then demand becomes inelastic and prices get volatile, represented by boom-and-bust cycles with an increasing overall trend, as you describe. I take this volatility as a sign of instability.

    Isn't it so that Hubbert was largely correct in predicting what would happen in a world of stability, but he failed to take into account the economic instability caused by oil depletion itself? That would be quite understandable, as he was a geophysicist, not a social scientist. Not as if social scientists could predict what will happen when our oil-based society is deprived of its fuel....

    Forrest a month ago

    Some of the commentators, share the idea that the days of no compete high cost of oil products may be numbered. This is juxtaposed with alternative energy decreasing in cost over time. This is new phenomena with no historical path to predict new trends. History is full of examples of supply problems such as war, threat to environment, high cost of capital, etc that impacted price. The economic ramifications always shot oil prices to extreme as traders worked the pricing to new highs. This threw the economies of the world into harsh inflation of energy costs that dampened economic growth.

    Oil was the economic life blood and took much military investment to ensure the supply. Also, because of the crucial need for ample supply, gov't artificially amped up supply per subsidy such as regulated by tax code. So, are entering into a brave new world without this holdup reliance of corp oil supply? Appears so, with a positive trend line of diverse and renewable energy supply. Currently, most consumers do have some choice at the pump.

    Limited, but economic analysis have studied this "competition" and have found a powerful dampening effect of gasoline per the U.S. ability to produce a million barrels of ethanol a day. It's not limited to FFVs either as the driving public have learned to utilize higher blends within entire light vehicle fleet. Also, diesel engine testing with ethanol describe a path way if diesel fuel price zooms up. Adding a alternative E85 fuel system to offset the diesel fuel consumption per intake air injection. Apparently, a quicker lower cost alternative as compared to CNG conversion. Ethanol processing plants have stored feed stock that can come to the rescue for short term increase supply needs. BEV's play into this alternative choice as consumers are increasing expected to have one of these vehicles sitting in garage. Same with small ultra efficient cars sitting next to the SUV that can take over transportation needs upon high price of fuel times.

    Harquebus a month ago

    The global economy can not afford $100/bl oil and producers can not increase production without it. It is debt that has filled the void and
    that too is peaking. Next will be peak population.
    Glen McMillian a month ago
    Robert , what is your personal opinion on the minimum necessary energy return on energy invested as a practical matter given the nature of our present day economy?

    I have seen figures as low as four to one and as high as ten to one or even higher.

    fozzydabear a month ago
    "Oil prices did in fact rise sharply in the 2nd half of 2015" - Don't you mean 2005?
    Robert Rapier Mod fozzydabear a month ago
    It seems that no matter how many times I proofread an article a typo always makes it through. Thanks for that. It's fixed.
    Over the Hill a month ago
    I agree that the issue with "Peak Oil" isn't that we're going to run out of oil. The issue is that we are running out of economic benefit that is achievable given the cost to extract the oil. That is the current drag upon the world economy. And I really think that we will eventually be able to plot that economic benefit / bbl of oil as a function of time, and it will likely be a very familiar curve. That economic drag will increase no matter what new extraction technologies come online.

    It won't be the end of the world. It will be a different world that we will have to make a commitment to adapt to, however.

    Sam Taylor a month ago
    Robert,

    If peak oil is a function of oil price (a stance which I largely agree with) then the key question becomes, what is the highest oil price that the world can sustain. In the advanced economies around $100 seems sufficient to cause stagnation or decline in demand, but in China or India demand seemed able to grow robustly at these prices. Presumably because filling your only moped with petrol gets you more utility than filling up your second SUV. So perhaps somewhere in the $100-150 range represents a ceiling, for the moment.

    Then the question becomes, when do we reach this ceiling? Peak $20 oil was perhaps around the early 2000's, and maybe peak $50 is around now (inflation adjuested). The costs facing the majors appear to be accelerating quite rapidly, and if that breakeven chart is accurate the price curve seems to accelerate quite steeply, so perhaps an optimistic estimate might give us a decade or two.

    And what with the more rapid decline rates of newer wells (deepwater and shale decline more rapidly than onshore conventional) depletion rates will probably accelerate. I think that perhaps the frequency of booms and busts in the oil price is going to accelerate a bit, as cycles of overinvestment lead to more gluts, then the price collapses, then underinvestment leads to shortages which manifest sooner, and so on. Does this sound plausible to you?

    Robert Rapier -> Sam Taylor a month ago
    "what is the highest oil price that the world can sustain."

    I think that's going to be different for different parts of the world. Ironically, $100 oil caused demand to decrease in the U.S., but it kept growing strongly across the developing world.

    Dipchip -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    The reason is: If the retail price of oil is $4/Gal, the daily per capita consumption price in the USA is about $11.00. In India the daily per capita consumption price is about 61 cents. 2.7 Gallons versus 2.5 cups.

    10% increase for one is $1.10 the other is 6 cents per day. A 5% increase in world consumption will bring back $100 oil. Who do you suspect will cause the increased consumption, developed or undeveloped nations?

    Robert Rapier -> Dipchip a month ago
    Of course. I have written lots on this. A decade ago I thought poor countries would be priced out of the market. As prices rose, I saw that it wasn't impacting demand in developing countries. I also went to India in 2008 and saw 7 people on a motorcycle. And what you wrote above hit me: It's such a low per capita consumption in developing countries, and just a little more has a big impact on their lives. So they will drive future consumption.

    It was an example of the data causing a 180 degree shift in my opinion.

    Glen McMillian -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    A gallon of diesel fuel burnt in a tractor or irrigation pump generates hundreds of times more economic return than a gallon burnt fetching beer in an oversized pickup truck.
    Forrest -> Glen McMillian a month ago
    What's the return on Prius owner driving coast to coast to demonstrate against use of oil? Maybe she or he is smoking pot and wrecks an expensive asset that cost the environment dearly. So, the multi use pickup driving to neighborhood grocery not so bad after all. The pickup utilized in providing services and supplemental income. The pickup life cycle extends multiples of the Prius and powered upon environmentally friendly fuel that per gallon provides more jobs and economic stimulus. The fuel supply will never diminish per continued use of processing plant and solar powered feed stock. No need to be on a continuous search and development cycle of diminishing supplies of raw material.
    Dipchip -> Robert Rapier a month ago
    R Squared: The first time I ran across your name was back in 2005. I was having a disagreement with some Minnesota renewable fuel agency folks, when suddenly you came into the conversation. They were trying to say that ethanol was more efficient to produce than Gas; after reading your comment I decided to let you take over, as you seemed to be someone from the tail end of energy production and I was on the front end.

    Been following your opinions ever since. Seems the internet is a good way to keep from becoming obsolete since retiring twenty years ago. Thanks for your years of effort to inform.

    Robert Rapier -> Dipchip a month ago
    I remember that. It was one of those things that inspired me to start writing more. So much misinformation. I actually got the state of Minnesota to change that claim on their website after having several exchanges with them.
    davidgmills1 -> Forrest 24 days ago
    For a different kind of nuclear technology, one which we developed at Oak Ridge in the 60's, see Liquid Fluoride Thorium technology. It's top ten attributes and why it will change the world:

    http://energyfromthorium.com/2...

    LuapLeiht1 a month ago
    I agree that peak oil is a function of price rather than raw supply numbers. However, I think that drawing conclusions from the price is still a bit naive. Prices spiked in the late 70s, early 2000's, and early 2010's. What do those three time periods have in common? The Middle East was on fire in all three periods (Arab oil embargo, Iraq war, and the "Arab Spring").

    Peak oil isn't just a factor of supply as Hubbard proposed. Nor is it a function of price as the author proposes. It is a wobbly stool of both these factors couple with the third leg of political stability.

    Like most things in life, reality is much harder to predict than theory would indicate.

    [Oct 21, 2015] Devastating Shale Oil Losses

    October 19, 2015 | Peak Prosperity

    Sometimes it helps to examine one narrow slice of the pie as a means to understanding the entire pie. In the case of the shale oil Ponzi scheme, we can both wrap our minds around the scale of the predicament and also answer the question of who the losses will be foisted on.

    Once we've done that, you should be able to simply apply the same logic and learning to other sectors of the financial universe. Learn one sub-bubble, learn them all; like a fractal foam of misadventure.

    [Oct 21, 2015] How Much Longer Can The Oil Age Last

    Notable quotes:
    "... I wish the author had discussed his current estimates of recoverable oil in the $50-70 range rather than just implying it's there for the taking. A lot of countries have had their own individual peaks in production (i.e. Egypt, Syria) and only much higher oil prices may reverse that (like how high prices lead the US to increase energy extraction w/fracking). ..."
    "... One question I'd really love to see tackled: if you could calculate the true, total cost of production and use of a barrel of oil, including all the costs currently externalized (such as the cost of repairing damage from earthquakes from fracking, or full ecosystem restoration and financial restitution to affected people from pipeline breaks, etc) and compare that to the market price, are a greater percentage of costs externalized than in the past? And where does that trend go in the future? ..."
    "... including all the costs currently externalized ..."
    "... With all the mountains of BS on the internetz, this fundamental mat'l you will not find. BTW add the cost of attributable MIC and Failed States to the list. ..."
    "... differently ..."
    "... responsible ..."
    "... responsible ..."
    "... Population will plateau at some point during this century. ..."
    "... The problem is to get smart non-psychopaths in power, that's the #1 problem we have right now. ..."
    "... It flies in the face of capitalist orthodoxy and its requirement of ever-expanding markets ..."
    "... First, a big piece of what's going on stems from happy memories among Western policy makers of how a similar Saudi-initiated oil price war played a big role in breaking the USSR back in the 1980's. It's true that the price cut attends to some necessary cartel-management housekeeping, but this is a side benefit – the motives are mainly geopolitical rather than commercial. War by other means, as somebody said. For Putin, of course, the 1980's memories are not so happy. His objectives include showing that Russian policy can't be jerked around via the oil price, and ideally setting up consequences so painful to the Saudis that they'll never want to try this again. So events won't follow the path you'd expect in a normal OPEC cartel management exercise – either in time or in plot line. ..."
    "... Second, there's a wicked price spike coming. It could be the day after tomorrow, if the Russians and Iranians engineer something kinetic around the export facilities and trade routes on the western shore of the Gulf. Or it could be a year or two from now, as the two sides – exhausted and poorer – settle for some kind of mutually livable compromise. In either case the capex cuts now in train will flip the oil supply from its present "glut" (very small in percentage terms as compared to the 1980's experience) to a shortage at least as severe as the one in the middle years of the last decade.. ..."
    "... Oil price feedback will eventually kick in, though this is far in the future. High oil prices increase the prices of all things dependent on oil for production or transport. Eventually, the high price of oil starts to affect the price of oil itself. Those spikes will be numerous and rapid, for a while. ..."
    "... My take in Oil Dusk was to leave global warming out of the book and focus on the importance of oil to the current infrastructure in the developed world and what a disruptive transition might look like. Also, oil is truly scarce and took many millions of years to produce a quantity that will mostly be gone within the next hundred years. Oil scarcity concerns me a lot more than climate change. ..."
    "... Within the next five years, we will almost certainly see oil prices return to at least $90 a barrel – and perhaps considerably more. ..."
    "... The real alternative right now to oil is natural gas and it's likely that we transition from a oil to a natural gas energy infrastructure before we get to a solar and wind driven world structure. ..."
    "... The Saudis have the largest reserves of high quality cheaply extractable oil. They are the highest rent producer. (There are likely further reserves of such cheap, high quality oil to be found in a couple of places, Libya and Iraq, but you can see the problem there, and after that there's nothing left to be found of conventional reserves). But they must also realize that the age of oil is coming to a close over the next few decades. Hence it is in their interest to make sure that they sell off their reserves to the last drop, before the end, and thus to squeeze out higher cost unconventional producers. In the meantime, they also have an interest in keeping the global economy from recession, since the value of their immense financial reserves depend on the health of the global economy, which can readily be sent into recession by high oil prices. SO likely they will try to keep the oil price from rising above , say, $70 for quite some time. so as to balance out their various objectives. ..."
    "... Conversion to renewables is just happytalk. Conversion to anything is just happytalk. A quick look at physical fundamentals would reveal that there is simply not the means to continue industrial civilization in anything vaguely like its current configuration. ..."
    "... Civilization will be seriously disrupted–more likely, ended. Any technology or process that would mitigate the resulting suffering would need to be robust against disruption. High technologies and complex systems will not be robust, and will be of no use. ..."
    "... Capitalism has been mentioned. The key point is that return on investment (on loans) is in fact usury, and fundamentally criminal on a finite planet. The Industrial West "got away with" usury for five centuries firstly because of imperialism (colonialism–the immiseration of the periphery to prop up the center) and secondly because of cheap fossil fuels. Now that both of those are at an end usury just means destroying the economy that already exists in the name of trying to pay back the unpayable. Usury drove expansion, when expansion was physically possible; now it accelerates decline. If we eliminated return on investment tomorrow, we would open a window for addressing our problems. But usury will not be eliminated, and thus the chance of addressing our problems is nonexistent. Won't happen–end of story. ..."
    "... Meanwhile greenscams are everywhere, and will increase. Greenscams -- proposals for endless energy and stuff (delivered in an environmentally friendly way, of course)–are about to become their own proper industry. As everyone wants the impossible, greenscammers promise just that -– money up front (from you, the sucker) for unicorns delivered in the future. After all, who can prove the unicorns won't appear? This industry will be very profitable until we run out of suckers. I give it a decade. ..."
    Oct 21, 2015 | naked capitalism
    Will

    I wish the author had discussed his current estimates of recoverable oil in the $50-70 range rather than just implying it's there for the taking. A lot of countries have had their own individual peaks in production (i.e. Egypt, Syria) and only much higher oil prices may reverse that (like how high prices lead the US to increase energy extraction w/fracking).

    One question I'd really love to see tackled: if you could calculate the true, total cost of production and use of a barrel of oil, including all the costs currently externalized (such as the cost of repairing damage from earthquakes from fracking, or full ecosystem restoration and financial restitution to affected people from pipeline breaks, etc) and compare that to the market price, are a greater percentage of costs externalized than in the past? And where does that trend go in the future?

    optimader

    including all the costs currently externalized

    With all the mountains of BS on the internetz, this fundamental mat'l you will not find. BTW add the cost of attributable MIC and Failed States to the list.

    jgordon

    Rather than rehash things I've said before many times, I'll just provide a link to this classic post from Nicole Foss at the Automatic Earth website. I think it offers context and interpretation that's quite a contrast from the rosy and perhaps ill informed post above:

    http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2012/10/renewable-energy-the-vision-and-a-dose-of-reality/

    DanB

    I agree with you, but this is a hard sell at this site due to deeply entrenched mythological beliefs about 1. what money is and can do and 2. about infinite growth on a finite planet (collectively, we're at the bargaining stage on this latter one as the signs of the end of growth and ecological overshoot abound but are blocked from recognition by a paradigm that explains them as aberrations or human failures). I'd add to the Nichole Foss post the book "Green Illusions: The Dirty Secrets of Clean Energy and the Future of Environmentalism (Our Sustainable Future)," the webiste of Gail Tveberg, Our Finite World," and the site "Economic Undertow".

    jsn

    It's not such a hard sell, I read plenty of comments here that understand what is in your references. The issue is how you get where we need to go from where we are. Calling everyone who disagrees ignorant doesn't help much: we all know what we know and don't know exponentially more. But it is very hard to propose actionable ideas beyond "personal virtues" which on their own have no chance. This is possibly the ultimate coordination problem: agreement on goals is much further along than agreement on means.

    MikeNY

    +1

    very perceptive comment

    DanB

    Please note I use "collectively" to refer to our culture, not to NC readers. Perhaps that was not clear. And i've been reading and commenting here since 2009.

    washunate

    This is a great exchange. Perhaps what I might add is I'm not so sure we do have agreement on goals. I think that does a disservice to those voices that quite passionately advocate moar.

    They genuinely believe that more work, more output, more deficit spending, more higher education, more home equity, more development and infrastructure, more aggregate activity, will improve society. It is a moral calling they see, and it is quite distinct from the perspective that we should live differently. We can't paper over how deep that chasm is between those that want full employment and those that want a world where less is more. One irony of the post-Keynesian (and post-Bretton Woods) MMT world is that Keynes himself thought we'd only need to be working a few hours a week by now. Capital accumulation was the great liberator of our time, to allow us human beings to do more important and exciting (and less polluting) things than go to work. But the secularization of the puritan work ethic – the notion that human life is directionless without an authoritative (and fatherly) figure to give direction – dies hard.

    bdy

    And for whatever reason, the less-is-more crowd isn't so much in the habit of proposing actionable ideas. We might consider that dismissal and scorn are nothing more than rhetorical tools in a conversation about power. (See Ghandi or Nicholas Klein: "first they ignore you…")

    – We can tax excessive consumption at the rate of its externalities, even (and especially) for necessities like food, water and housing
    – We can publicly fund taking people and institutions off of the grid.
    – We can publicly fund light industry and massive agricultural infill in our cities.
    – We can lift property taxes and subsidize rents for anyone who walks or bicycles to work.
    – We can tax energy in direct proportion to the loss rate of whatever grid carries it.
    – We can enable the State to enter the Market wherever a discernible demand is not being met, as consumer or provider (see giving medicine to sick children or eating unadulterated food)
    – We can scrunch city streets to the size of cart paths, confiscate any vehicle that exceeds 25 mph, shade everyone's windows, turn off our a/c, criminalize the use of drinking water for anything but drinking, locally compost all our bio-waste, end the industry of converting sunlight to meat, criminalize bulk possession of any bio-toxin, enforce a 25 hr / 3 day work week with no overtime, revoke the commerce clause (or not), buy back guns at triple the sticker price and melt them into strollers and windmills…

    It's simply a matter of keeping the conversation on point (what works within the limits of our solar income?) and being willing to discuss policies that might or might not reduce our level of comfort and privilege.

    Naomi Klein reads like USA Today, but The Shock Doctrine is right. The inevitability of scarcity means that crises will escalate. And with each escalating crisis, the most unthinkable ideas will become potentially acceptable (including comic-book nastiness like a nuclear first strike; ethnic cleansing in Kansas; a 0% capital gains tax; or declaring global, never-ending war against non-christians terror).

    If enough of us agree that shit is really going South in a bucket, and that the Fiat dollar allows us to spend relatively freely on things like war in Iraq; QE; or mitigating the disruption of mass industrial shrinkage, then we should also agree that the "actionable" in actionable ideas is all encompassing. Because the next time someone flies a false flag or blows up a critical asset class, the table will be in dire need of transformative food for thought.

    washunate

    It's simply a matter of keeping the conversation on point (what works within the limits of our solar income?) and being willing to discuss policies that might or might not reduce our level of comfort and privilege.

    Yep. I think that's one of the characteristics that makes proposals to do less (for example, tax the rich or end the drug war or scale back IP law) the most realistic in a system as corrupt intellectually and financially as ours is today.

    It's the first rule of holes: stop digging. Almost all of the big ideas to do more require an infrastructure of good faith management that simply doesn't exist.

    Brooklin Bridge

    Thanks for the link. That is a very interesting and well written article, worth reading and re-reading since it gives a good perspective on many issues. But you should also take into account that it (and all the links inside it) was written in 2012 and the costs of producing renewable energy are dropping to such an extent (like compound interest) that they are changing the nature of the issue.

    Moreover, the argument the article makes doesn't negate the need to transition to renewables; rather it acknowledges that need but emphasizes the gains of doing so locally in support of (as alleviation to) the current centralized power model rather than immediately replacing it. My argument about corruption below, I think, is one of the reasons that this effort has not gone further. Example, Hawaii, where electric utilities have had considerable success in halting renewables at the local level by individuals due to fear of reduction in profits.

    Brooklin Bridge

    Note, the fear of reduction in profits isn't entirely without merit. But what is without merit is the capitalist system that makes it possible for the utilities to win a battle for profits in a war for existence.

    jgordon

    The article is even more relevant than it was in 2012; the issue is not the cost of a solar panel, which is perhaps the least important cost in the process. Rather, it's the way our infrastructure is set up. The centralized utility/grid model is still just as incompatible with renewable energy today as it was in 2012.

    It's possible that we could all have a solar panel array and a windmill directly adjacent to the demand–but we'll still have to cut our energy consumption by 95%. In that kind of a world, things like personal passenger vehicles and the internet will not exist. I'm looking forward to it.

    hidflect

    The primary issue is one polite society refuses to address: population.

    jsn

    That is the issue that makes it "possibly the ultimate coordination problem". The moral reality of billions of lives lie in the balance of the actions one takes or doesn't take. That weight may be among the biggest barriers to responsible action: those who aspire to be responsibleare the most unnerved by this issue.

    washunate

    I'm much more optimistic on that front. Population is not a large coordination problem because there is no scaling needed to have fewer kids later in life (at least until the authoritarians perfect their Huxley Bokanovsky groups, I guess). Those are individual choices that can be made at the ultimate local level.

    It's already happening all around the globe, and outside of China, it's mostly happening as a genuinely free choice made available by the intersection of reproductive healthcare and a basic standard of living. It's almost like our species subconsciously recognizes the value of reducing the total population. Even against the stern worrying of the Serious People that declining birth rates threaten The Economy(TM).

    Ignacio

    +1, an other perceptive comment.

    Also the 'population problem' is a relative problem to consumption, resources and distribution. Population will plateau at some point during this century.

    There is no such thing as 'population problem' with the appropriate policies if the population does not go beyond 10 bill. (and old people consumes much less, by then humanity will be aging, damn, it already is in developed nations).

    The problem is to get smart non-psychopaths in power, that's the #1 problem we have right now.

    jsn

    Right now the real resources ratchet is producing civil wars and mass migrations, for instance, among other problems that are just beginning to blossom.

    It isn't population per se that is the coordination problem, it is equitable distribution of diminishing real resources in real time to support it without mass die offs that is.

    So far industrial overshoot is playing out with all the harbingers of collapse which will solve the distribution problem by natural selection. The coordination problem is to solve the distribution problem ethically to prevent nature taking its course.

    Nature bats last, so the trick is to keep the inning going.

    MikeNY

    I think this is true, and there are two big reasons for it:

    1. It flies in the face of capitalist orthodoxy and its requirement of ever-expanding markets
    2. If flies in the face of certain religious teachings on sexuality

    Both of these need to be rethought.

    Eric Patton

    The article does not mention the word "capitalism" even once.

    Private enterprise market economies - capitalism - are literally incompatible with reduced emissions. As long as we have a private enterprise economy with market-based allocation, we will simply continue to destroy the planet.

    Private enterprise centrally planned economies, public enterprise centrally planned economies, and public enterprise market economies have all existed in real life: Nazi Germany, the former Soviet Union, and the former Yugoslavia. None of these are viable alternatives to capitalism, if the goal is reduced carbon emissions.

    People are not yet ready to discuss the alternative though. This is not good.

    JTMcPhee

    …it's not "market based allocation," unless one does a little trick with definitions and categories– I'd call it "corruption based allocation," with a secondary diagnosis of terminal metastatic idiotic greed…

    Pwelder

    This post is OK as far as it goes, but it misses a couple of realities in the current situation that are relevant to finance and politics when viewed – as Yves does – from 50,000 feet.

    First, a big piece of what's going on stems from happy memories among Western policy makers of how a similar Saudi-initiated oil price war played a big role in breaking the USSR back in the 1980's. It's true that the price cut attends to some necessary cartel-management housekeeping, but this is a side benefit – the motives are mainly geopolitical rather than commercial. War by other means, as somebody said. For Putin, of course, the 1980's memories are not so happy. His objectives include showing that Russian policy can't be jerked around via the oil price, and ideally setting up consequences so painful to the Saudis that they'll never want to try this again. So events won't follow the path you'd expect in a normal OPEC cartel management exercise – either in time or in plot line.

    Second, there's a wicked price spike coming. It could be the day after tomorrow, if the Russians and Iranians engineer something kinetic around the export facilities and trade routes on the western shore of the Gulf. Or it could be a year or two from now, as the two sides – exhausted and poorer – settle for some kind of mutually livable compromise. In either case the capex cuts now in train will flip the oil supply from its present "glut" (very small in percentage terms as compared to the 1980's experience) to a shortage at least as severe as the one in the middle years of the last decade..

    Why should progressives care? Many good reasons, but the big one I haven't seen mentioned is this: There's a good chance the spike lands smack in the middle of the 2016 election. That being the case, this is probably not a great time to be parading around bragging about successes in blocking pipelines and keeping the oil on trains.

    MrColdWaterOfRealityMan

    There are a number of issues not mentioned that factor into any prediction:

    1) Oil isn't electricity. It's not used the same way and currently can't be used the same way. There are no electric airplanes, freight trains or cargo ships. Despite innumerate claims to the contrary, no current battery technology is capable of replacing hydrocarbon fuels. The volumetric energy density is not there and won't be for the foreseeable future.

    2) Price is a proxy for energy return. Prior to the current overproduction glut (the equivalent of squeezing a sponge harder for a few seconds), oil became expensive because acquiring it from fracking or drilling in deep water is more expensive, both energetically and economically. Despite the current overproduction blip, the upward pricing trend will inevitably continue.

    3) Production breakdown will be nonlinear. The world's current interdependent, global, just-in-time supply chains depend on *cheap* oil to be economical. When oil prices jump again, as they inevitably will, these will start breaking down in unpredictable ways as production and transportation costs increase. This affects everything, including the price of oil

    4) Oil price feedback will eventually kick in, though this is far in the future. High oil prices increase the prices of all things dependent on oil for production or transport. Eventually, the high price of oil starts to affect the price of oil itself. Those spikes will be numerous and rapid, for a while.

    Oildusk

    I was involved in a book entitled the Carbon Conundrum, by Bob Kelly. Bob has a PDH in economics from Harvard. He mapped out the anticipated volume of fossil fuels remaining and it's impact on the world climate. His take was that we'd run out of oil in the not too distant future and that it would take the world about 500 years to get back to pre-industrial carbon levels.

    My take in Oil Dusk was to leave global warming out of the book and focus on the importance of oil to the current infrastructure in the developed world and what a disruptive transition might look like. Also, oil is truly scarce and took many millions of years to produce a quantity that will mostly be gone within the next hundred years. Oil scarcity concerns me a lot more than climate change.

    While a book about oil scarcity might seem unrealistic at this juncture with world prices hovering in the $45 – $50 range, I remember twelve years ago when I couldn't persuade the bank to provide me with a price deck above $30 a barrel so that I could make some energy investments. Within the next five years, we will almost certainly see oil prices return to at least $90 a barrel – and perhaps considerably more.

    The real alternative right now to oil is natural gas and it's likely that we transition from a oil to a natural gas energy infrastructure before we get to a solar and wind driven world structure.

    Energy transitions are difficult and the actual path will make a huge difference in where we are as a species in the next 100 years.

    Ignacio

    There are different ways of looking at the energy issue depending on where do you live and I appreciate very much the insigths from Mumbay, India. I live is Spain and I have a different view. India is growing briskly while spain is stagnated and will be so for years to come it seems. Instead of growing fossil fuel consumption we have seen a quite noticeably decline, particularly for petrol products. Since the beggining of the crisis, petrol products consumption has declined by 28% (From 75 million tons annually in 2015-2017 to 54 million tons in 2014). Domestic oil production covers less than 1% of total consumption. We depend almost totally on oil imports.

    The observed decline has been caused of course by the financial crisis and high oil prices. Nevertheless, I bet that in Spain we have already seen an all-time peak oil consumption. Of course, lower oil prices are now playing in reverse and 2015 will see a modest rise in petrol products consumption for the first time since 2007. Nevertheless the observed decline shows clearly that an economy can function with much lower oil energy input. And there is still a lot of room to reduce consumption.

    A country like Spain, totally dependent on oil imports and crushed by bad debt is very sensitive to oil price volatility and there are many economic incentives to reduce oil consumption and replacement with renewables. In a depressed economy like ours, every euro/dollar saved on imported petrol products has a multiplier effect on growth. Besides, pressure is mounting from the side of public health (toxic emissions from gasoil, fueloil and kerosene) and climate protection. Spain has not the size nor the population of India and its international impact is small. But it migth become an advanced laboratory trial to test the end of the Oil Age.

    DanB

    You write, "While a book about oil scarcity might seem unrealistic at this juncture with world prices hovering in the $45 – $50 range…" Actually, the reason the price is low is due to the scarcity of cheap light sweet crude oil. We're seeing more and more people unable to afford more and more of life's necessities while simultaneously the cost of extracting oil is increasing (along with bankruptcies and mergers among energy companies to fend off the inevitable consequences of peak oil on debt, finance and the economy.) Low prices do not mean a glut of oil; they signal just the opposite. And then we have a neoliberal political/economy that worsens the matter.

    susan the other

    I agree and I'm convinced that every government on Earth agrees. What I see playing out between the Saudis-Qataris and the Russians is a struggle to control natural gas. The Gulf wants to pipe gas thru Syria and turkey to the EU. Russia wants to pipe gas from the Caspian to southern Europe. France wants to gain a share of the gas fields belonging to Egypt and get in on the action. It looks like Iran intends to supply China with natural gas via a pipeline thru Pakistan. What this looks like is a pact among the producers to leave oil in the ground after a certain window of time needed to switch to natural gas and then the reduction of the use of natural gas as it is replaced by renewables. The Saudis are using their natural advantage to sell as much of their oil as they can before the window closes. Maybe.

    john c. halasz

    The Saudis have the largest reserves of high quality cheaply extractable oil. They are the highest rent producer. (There are likely further reserves of such cheap, high quality oil to be found in a couple of places, Libya and Iraq, but you can see the problem there, and after that there's nothing left to be found of conventional reserves). But they must also realize that the age of oil is coming to a close over the next few decades. Hence it is in their interest to make sure that they sell off their reserves to the last drop, before the end, and thus to squeeze out higher cost unconventional producers. In the meantime, they also have an interest in keeping the global economy from recession, since the value of their immense financial reserves depend on the health of the global economy, which can readily be sent into recession by high oil prices. SO likely they will try to keep the oil price from rising above , say, $70 for quite some time. so as to balance out their various objectives.

    Gaianne

    One hesitates to add to an overly long thread.

    Conversion to renewables is just happytalk. Conversion to anything is just happytalk. A quick look at physical fundamentals would reveal that there is simply not the means to continue industrial civilization in anything vaguely like its current configuration.

    Civilization will be seriously disrupted–more likely, ended. Any technology or process that would mitigate the resulting suffering would need to be robust against disruption. High technologies and complex systems will not be robust, and will be of no use.

    Photovoltaic technology is a mid-term, niche, small-scale amelioration. It cannot power the grid, and it cannot replace the grid. Until panels can be made without rare-earth elements, the supply is seriously constrained by geology. Even if they are freed from rare-earths, the high technology and long suppy chains mean they will not go more than a few decades into the future.

    The grid itself will go down, region by region, never to return.

    Those of us who use photovoltaics know they are wonderful for the small-scale low-power applications to which we put them. And of no use for the high-energy large-scale schemes we keep hearing about.

    Capitalism has been mentioned. The key point is that return on investment (on loans) is in fact usury, and fundamentally criminal on a finite planet. The Industrial West "got away with" usury for five centuries firstly because of imperialism (colonialism–the immiseration of the periphery to prop up the center) and secondly because of cheap fossil fuels. Now that both of those are at an end usury just means destroying the economy that already exists in the name of trying to pay back the unpayable. Usury drove expansion, when expansion was physically possible; now it accelerates decline. If we eliminated return on investment tomorrow, we would open a window for addressing our problems. But usury will not be eliminated, and thus the chance of addressing our problems is nonexistent. Won't happen–end of story.

    There is much to be done nonetheless. Learning to live will less, and on things which can obtained locally, is both possible and necessary. Managing local, available sunlight for heating and cooling was well researched (and ignored) back in the 1970s. Much can be done on a small, local scale.

    Meanwhile greenscams are everywhere, and will increase. Greenscams -- proposals for endless energy and stuff (delivered in an environmentally friendly way, of course)–are about to become their own proper industry. As everyone wants the impossible, greenscammers promise just that -– money up front (from you, the sucker) for unicorns delivered in the future. After all, who can prove the unicorns won't appear? This industry will be very profitable until we run out of suckers. I give it a decade.

    –Gaianne

    Steven

    Just about the best take I've found on this subject – and on money and economics – is Frederick Soddy's "Wealth, Virtual Wealth and Debt" (2nd edition). Here are some samples:

    • …though as yet the applications of the knowledge to the economics of life are not generally realised, life in its physical aspect is fundamentally a struggle for energy,… p. 49
    • As Ruskin said, a logical definition of wealth is absolutely needed for the basis of economics if it is to be a science. p. 102
    • The vast potential productivity of the industrialised world, particularly in the engineering and chemical industries, must find an outlet. If that outlet is by financial folly denied it in the building up and reconstruction of the home-life of nations, it remains as a direct and powerful incentive to the fomenting of war. p. 303

    The first bullet obviously goes far beyond mere oil wars. Ecology 101 says we can't turn the earth into one wriggling mass of humanity, that other forms of life are necessary to sustain our existence. You've heard variations of the second bullet before, e.g. Oscar Wilde describing the Anglo Saxon version of economics: "they know the price of everything and the value of nothing."

    If the third bullet doesn't ring a bell, you have been listening to too much Fox news. The military industrial complex gained its death grip on the American economy in the aftermath of a Great Depression that left America's financial and political leadership with a profound fear of the return of peace. At stake was not just unparalleled political and military hegemony but the power to create money ex nihilo and exchange it for the world's wealth.

    [Oct 21, 2015] If Caterpillars Data Is Right, This Is A Global Industrial Depression

    Zero Hedge
    Caterpillar has seen 34 consecutive months of declining global sales, and 11 consecutive months of double digit declines!

    Why is this important? Because a month ago we asked: "What On Earth Is Going On With Caterpillar Sales?"

    We have been covering the ongoing collapse in global manufacturing as tracked by Caterpillar retail sales for so long that there is nothing much to add.

    Below we show the latest monthly data from CAT which is once again in negative territory across the board, but more importantly, the global headline retail drop (down another 11% in August) has been contracting for 33 consecutive months! This is not a recession; in fact the nearly 3 year constant contraction - the longest negative stretch in company history - is beyond what most economists would deem a depression.

    We got the answer just three days later when the industrial bellwether confirmed the world is now in an industrial recession, when it not only slashed its earnings outlook, but announced it would fire a record 10,000.

    Moments ago, CAT reported its latest monthly retail sales and they were even worse than last month: in the month of September there was not a single region that posted either a increase of an unchanged print. This was the first month in all of 2015 in which every region posted a drop.

    Putting CAT's result in context, the Great Financial Crisis resulted in 19 consecutive months of sales declines. We are currently at 34 months and showing no signs of any pick up.

    As such, based on CAT's ongoing shockingly bad retail sales we wonder if it is no longer merely a global recession: perhaps that time has come to call it what it really is - a global industrial (at first) depression, which has so far been hidden from plain view thanks to $13 trillion in central bank liquidity, whose marginal impact is evaporating by the day and a Chinese credit machine which recently hit a brick wall.

    [Oct 21, 2015] US oil output on brink of dramatic decline

    Notable quotes:
    "... world oil prices were now too low to support U.S. shale oil output, the biggest addition to world production over the last decade. ..."
    "... We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth, the former head of oil firm EOG Resources Mark Papa, told the conference. ..."
    "... U.S. oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year. He said the main reason for the decline would be a lack of bank financing for new shale developments ..."
    "... The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell Plc agreed, saying U.S. oil producers would struggle to refinance while prices remained so low, leading to lower output in future. Producers are now looking for new cash to survive and they will probably struggle to get it, Ben van Beurden said. ..."
    "... Longer term, there was a risk that low levels of global production could bring a spike in oil prices, he said. ..."
    "... Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told reporters on the sidelines of the conference the U.S. oil industry had reacted to lower prices by improving its productivity. But this process could not continue forever. ..."
    "... The Secretary-General of OPEC, Abdullah al-Badri, said oil supply growth from non-OPEC producers might be zero or negative in 2016 because of lower upstream investment. ..."
    "... But Papa said if U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd - or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years. I see the United States as a long-term growth producer, he said. If low oil prices prevail - then the correction in oil prices will be much more severe. ..."
    Oct 6, 2015 | af.reuters.com
    • World prices seen too low to support U.S. shale oil output
    • Lack of bank financing seen for new shale developments
    • Risk low production levels may cause price spike
    • U.S. oil sector productivity improvements seen near limit (Recasts; adds U.S. production forecasts)

    Oil executives warned on Tuesday of a "dramatic" decline in U.S. production that could pave the way for a future spike in prices if fuel demand increases.

    Delegates at the Oil and Money conference in London, an annual gathering of senior industry officials, said world oil prices were now too low to support U.S. shale oil output, the biggest addition to world production over the last decade.

    "We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth," the former head of oil firm EOG Resources Mark Papa, told the conference.

    Papa, now a partner at U.S. energy investment firm Riverstone Holdings LLC, said U.S. oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year. He said the main reason for the decline would be a lack of bank financing for new shale developments.

    Official data show that nationwide U.S. output has already begun to decline after reaching a peak of 9.6 million barrels per day (bpd) in April, although production in some big shale patches, including North Dakota, has held steady thus far. The Energy Information Administration forecast on Tuesday that output would reach a low of around 8.6 million bpd next year.

    Until this year, U.S. oil output was growing at the fastest rate on record, adding around 1 million bpd of new supply each year thanks to the introduction of new drilling techniques that have released oil and gas from shale formations. But oil prices have almost halved in the last year on oversupply in a drop that deepened after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries in 2014 changed strategy to protect market share against higher-cost producers, rather than cut output to prop up prices as it had done in the past.

    Benchmark Brent crude was up 5 percent, or $2.50 a barrel, at $51.75 on Tuesday as investors digested news from the London conference. It peaked in recent years above $115 a barrel in June 2014.

    SPIKE

    The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell Plc agreed, saying U.S. oil producers would struggle to refinance while prices remained so low, leading to lower output in future. "Producers are now looking for new cash to survive and they will probably struggle to get it," Ben van Beurden said.

    Longer term, there was a risk that low levels of global production could bring a spike in oil prices, he said.

    If prices remained low for a long time and oil production outside OPEC and the United States declined due to capital expenditure cuts, there was not likely to be any significant spare capacity left in the system, he said.

    "This could cause prices to spike upwards, starting a new cycle of strong production growth in U.S. shale oil and subsequent volatility," van Beurden said.

    Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told reporters on the sidelines of the conference the U.S. oil industry had reacted to lower prices by improving its productivity. But this process could not continue forever.

    "Now we are seeing the limits at least in the near term and it is beginning to impact production," Sieminski said. "We see (U.S. oil production declines) continuing into next summer."

    The Secretary-General of OPEC, Abdullah al-Badri, said oil supply growth from non-OPEC producers might be zero or negative in 2016 because of lower upstream investment.

    But Papa said if U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd - or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years. "I see the United States as a long-term growth producer," he said. "If low oil prices prevail - then the correction in oil prices will be much more severe."

    [Oct 21, 2015] Economic Impossibilities For Our Grandchildren Examining Secular Stagnation

    Video of the lecture by lecture! O'Rourke's: Economic impossibilities for our grandchildren? A lecture by Professor Kevin O'Rourke
    Notable quotes:
    "... I would suggest that right wing policy shoveling all the income and wealth gains into the pockets of a few rich plutocrats are incompatible with economic growth. ..."
    "... But why is inequality rising in nearly all societies worldwide (including the northern European societies)? Could it be that sovereign governments are trapped in a race for current-account surpluses and improve their current-account balances by transferring income from consumer households to saver/investor households (and in some cases, such as Saudi Arabia or China, governments)? See Michael Pettis, The Great Rebalancing ..."
    Oct 21, 2015 | Economist's View

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...

    I listened for quite a while hoping for something that sounded like an actual insight but never got past why Hansen became Keynesian. Capitalists do not need to be euthanized. Capitalists are suicidal. They would rather bet their money in a Wall Street casino than pay wages high enough for their customers to buy their goods because they keep forgetting that their workers ARE their customers. Trade deficits driven by offshoring are one of the most effective ways of making capital more efficient while simultaneously lowering wages and aggregate demand including even for those goods our corporations produce offshore.

    If per capita income/demand falls, prices are stable, and profit margins increase then volume is bound to fall.

    Jan said...

    Great lecture! O'Rourke's close attention to both the history of economic thought and economic history sets him apart (above) most of the debate on secular stagnation.

    According to Martin Wolf, world interest rates were unusually low from about 1895 until WWI and lower still during the 1920s. This suggests that secular stagnation might be a chronic problem. Perhaps Hansen is right that humans normally save too much. Or perhaps the interaction among sovereign states in a global economy causes a secular trend of rising world savings. Or perhaps something else. What do you think?

    DeDude said in reply to Jan...

    I would suggest that right wing policy shoveling all the income and wealth gains into the pockets of a few rich plutocrats are incompatible with economic growth. There is a reason that the Scandinavian countries are so wealthy (in spite of 5-6 week annual vacation etc.).

    DeDude said...

    The economy IS consumption. Even the 30% of GDP that is not direct consumption is not going to grow unless consumption is growing. So to grow the economy you either increase private sector consumption or you increase public sector consumption. The only way to obtain a sustainable increase in private sector consumption is to get a better income and wealth distribution away from investor class and into consumer class pockets. Alternatively, when the private sector resist increased consumption you have to increase public sector consumption (financed either by debt or by taxing the investor class). GDP is not rocket science, it is 5th grade math.

    Jan said...

    I totally agree (and so does Summers) that growing income inequality is a proximate cause of excess saving and, hence, secular stagnation.

    (By the way, although the USA is commonly perception as a profligate spender, the USA private sector's ratio of wealth (accumulated saving) to consumption has risen by about 5% since 1980. So contrary to the common perception, the USA's private sector has been contributing to the growth of the world saving glut.)

    But why is inequality rising in nearly all societies worldwide (including the northern European societies)? Could it be that sovereign governments are trapped in a race for current-account surpluses and improve their current-account balances by transferring income from consumer households to saver/investor households (and in some cases, such as Saudi Arabia or China, governments)? See Michael Pettis, The Great Rebalancing, on how sovereigns improve their current account balances. (Warning: you won't find Pettis's brilliant exposition in an International Economics textbook, which is stuck in the neoclassical obsession with allocative efficiency and, hence, "free trade.")


    [Oct 20, 2015] Crude Tumbles As API Reports Another Huge Inventory Build

    Notable quotes:
    "... What this implies is that limitations on future supplies may result from the price of oil being too low. Contrary to the public perception that such limits would be accompanied by high prices, it is precisely high prices that make it possible to exploit the marginal deposits that are unprofitable today. ..."
    "... Writer Gail Tverberg has developed this thesis in detail on her blog Our Finite World, a thesis first advanced by energy analyst and consultant Steven Kopits. ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    Zero Hedge
    Escrava Isaura

    This post is by Gail Tverberg. Worth reading:

    I was also mystified by Kurt Cobb's statement,

    What this implies is that limitations on future supplies may result from the price of oil being too low. Contrary to the public perception that such limits would be accompanied by high prices, it is precisely high prices that make it possible to exploit the marginal deposits that are unprofitable today.

    Writer Gail Tverberg has developed this thesis in detail on her blog Our Finite World, a thesis first advanced by energy analyst and consultant Steven Kopits.

    ... ... ...

    [Oct 19, 2015] Halliburton Cuts More Jobs as Fracking Hit Worst in Downturn

    Notable quotes:
    "... The pumping business in North American is clearly the most stressed segment of the market today, but it's also the market we know the best, President Jeff Miller told analysts and investors Monday on a conference call. This is the segment that we expect to rebound the most sharply. ..."
    Bloomberg Business

    Halliburton Co. cut another 2,000 jobs in the past month as the worst oil market slump in decades saps demand for work at the world's largest provider of fracking services.

    The Houston-based company said the first quarter of next year may represent the lowest point for its North American profit margin as customers start fresh with new spending budgets for 2016 and tap Halliburton's pressure-pumping expertise to start new wells. The comments came after the company reported a third-quarter loss of $54 million.

    "The pumping business in North American is clearly the most stressed segment of the market today, but it's also the market we know the best," President Jeff Miller told analysts and investors Monday on a conference call. "This is the segment that we expect to rebound the most sharply."

    Oil has swung between a bear and a bull market in North America this year as the drilling rig count slid. Explorers have cut more than $100 billion from global spending plans for the year after crude prices fell by more than half since June 2014.

    Quarterly Loss

    Halliburton had a loss of 6 cents a share in the third quarter compared with net income of $1.2 billion, or $1.41, a year earlier, according to a statement Monday. Excluding certain items, the per-share result was 4 cents more than the 27-cent average of 34 analysts' estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Sales dropped 36 percent to $5.6 billion.

    The company has now cut its workforce by 18,000, or about 21 percent, since its peak last year, Emily Mir, a spokeswoman, said Monday in an e-mail.

    Prices that service companies charge for hydraulic fracturing, which blasts water, sand and chemicals underground to release trapped hydrocarbons, are projected to fall as much as 37 percent in North America this year, according to IHS Inc. Fracking represents about 70 percent of the cost for an average U.S. well, Chief Executive Officer Dave Lesar said on the call.

    [Oct 19, 2015] John Helmer US Strategy In The Middle East Is Dying, Along With Its Authors, Carter And Brzezinski; Putin, Al-Assad Get To Dan

    Notable quotes:
    "... This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.) ..."
    "... BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care, where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis, the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn. ..."
    "... But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what am I missing? ..."
    "... Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression. ..."
    "... The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles. ..."
    "... Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not a secret. ..."
    "... Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity. ..."
    "... The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. ..."
    "... Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. ..."
    "... Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take it personally when their plans go awry… ..."
    "... Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped us before… ..."
    "... U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters flying around mountain valleys. ..."
    "... Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R D budget has been wasted on projects like F-35 and contracting fraud. ..."
    "... Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The flight capital out of Russia is relentless. ..."
    "... Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy. ..."
    "... Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation. ..."
    "... The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match the might of the Western Bloc. ..."
    "... I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. ..."
    "... "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in the 21st century." ..."
    "... The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear. ..."
    "... No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of. Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK. ..."
    "... It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual. Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources ..."
    "... There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria. ..."
    "... Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia. ..."
    www.nakedcapitalism.com

    Russia has established a no-fly zone on every one of Syria's frontiers, and will make an Alawite fortress along the coastal plain. As for what happens in the northern and western deserts, that's up to the Shiite armies of Iran and Iraq to decide, with or without Russian air cover, but with the assurance of no American, NATO, Turkish, Saudi, Jordanian or Emirati air cover.

    Gennady Nechaev, a military analyst at Vzglyad in Moscow, explains: "There is airspace, but either it is controlled by the US or by our Air Force. But today there is no issue of control of air space. We are talking about control of ground space. There operations can be of two types: direct destruction from the air and from insulation of the area of operations by air in order to avoid movements of the enemy and incoming reserves. In this case, the task is hardly feasible, as there is an open border with Iraq on the side of Turkey. The boundaries are not controlled. The problem could be solved [by Russia] if a blow can be dealt along the entire depth of the space under the control of ISIS. At the moment there is an operation against the infrastructure of ISIS. Infrastructure is a fairly loose concept, because they don't have civilian infrastructure. There are military links and connexions which must [operate] to supply weapons. For these purposes Russia is now applying its strokes."

    ... ... ...

    What if the Saudis shift their forces from bombing southward and eastward in the Yemen towards the west, and they invite US forces to defend their sorties from Saudi airfields or from carriers in the Persian Gulf? An Egyptian military source comments: "The king [Salman] has Alzheimer's, and his son [Mohammad bin Salman], the real ruler of the kingdom, is too young; too insecure in the royal succession; and too vulnerable domestically. If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs. There will be no support for the Saudis against the Russians from their only real Arab guarantor, [Egyptian President Abdel Fattah el-] Sisi. And long ago, when Obama installed the Moslem Brotherhood in Cairo, [Sisi] realized the American strategy, Obama's promises, are the gravest threat to Egyptian and Arab security there is. That's because he can't control the Washington Amazons who run his warmaking machine, or the jihadists he employs to fight. Without air cover, supply lines, and dollars, they are doomed. The Saudi sheikhs won't risk trying to save them."

    For more on Putin's management of the Saudi relationship, read this.

    London sources familiar with Israeli politics add that Russian strategy has the tacit backing of Israel. "This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan. No threat means no Syrian Army, no jihadists. Russia and Israel will now have what [Israeli Prime Minister David] Ben-Gurion once explained was Israel's long-term objective – the breakup of the large, potentially powerful secular Arab states into small sectarian territories too weak to do anything but threaten each other."

    blert October 10, 2015 at 5:38 am

    Dr. Zbig. must be totally off his medication.

    There is not the slightest chance that BHO has any interest in squaring off with Putin.

    What the President has been doing is to support al Qaeda fronts - most particularly al Nusrah.

    Both al Nusrah and IS are joined at the hip and do not fight each other - much. Dr. Zawahiri is their mutal mediator, with plenty of correspondence to his credit.

    ISIS // ISIL // IS wouldn't be a serious factor if it was not for the UK, US, and Jordan. These three patron powers trained the core block of al Baghdadi's boys - in the northern Jordanian desert - just a few years back - remember ?

    It was all over the news - particularly in the Arab Middle East.

    They graduated - and promptly went rogue - taking out Mosul - probably by simply phoning ahead. For the US had given them first class communications gear - that they were supposed to be using in Syria. It, however, worked its magic even better - intercepting Iraqi cell phone frequencies - so that al Baghdadi could threaten the generals and their families quite directly.

    In this, they were entirely aping the USAF's gambit in Libya. Remember Commando Solo ? It was exactly such phone calls to Libyan generals that broke up Kaddafy's entire army. We admitted that we'd called just about everyone in the dictator's immediate family, to boot.

    Well, the fanatics in Libya couldn't miss any of that.

    And our Pentagon gave them the same tools// toys that the big boys have.

    Without this communications gear, ISIS would never have been able to roll fast, roll large, and co-ordinate everything - pretty much without a hitch.

    The FSA is a fictive fig leaf dreamed up by the spin smiths at the White House. There never has been a Free Syrian Army. There are NO secular fighters in the field. This is a flat out religious war. One has to be deliberately dense to repress that reality.

    Every single item ever given to the so called FSA has been deeded over to the fanatics - probaly with kisses, too.

    All of the above is idiot obvious. The only place that reality has no traction is in the West.

    When it can't be denied, the public will come to know that BHO has treasonously enabled al Qaeda in war time.

    That both of these fronts have direct AQ connections is out on the open record. Both are still in communication with Dr. Zawahiri. The only split is that al Baghdadi wants to be the caliph and run the ever expanding caliphate… a Napoleon, a Hitler for our time.

    BHO has been vectoring weapons to al Nusrah - by the flimsy pretext that they were intended for moderate rebels. That lie won't hold water.

    The TOW missiles that al Nusrah has received were entirely responsible for the massive reverses that Assad suffered of late. Go to YouTube to see the jihadi footage. It's a pretty good bet that the Russians have targeted the ammo dumps most likely to have these missiles. The Russians have put their hits up on YouTube, too.

    The only player that's going to be backing down: BHO. That's who.

    BTW, at any time Putin can pull the President's card house flat. I suspect Putin is going for maximum embarrassment. His treasonous support of AQ could finally lead to impeachment and conviction… throwing Biden into the Oval Office. Such a travail would be triggered indirectly - so that Putin's fingerprints would not be at all obvious.

    In the meantime, Putin likes the fool right where he sits.

    TedWa, October 10, 2015 at 11:58 am

    I must say, nice lay out of the facts. There's so many things O should be impeached and jailed for and if you think this one has him dead to rights, well…. cumbaya bro

    James Levy, October 10, 2015 at 12:28 pm

    I would bet the farm that the leadership in the House and Senate are, at this moment, unindicted co-conspirators and Obama can prove it. There will be no impeachment over any of this. It would bring down the whole system.

    ohmyheck, October 10, 2015 at 2:13 pm

    Not necessarily…

    http://www.opednews.com/articles/Putin-s-Endgame-in-Syria-by-Mike-Whitney-Assad_Isis_NATO_Obama-151009-339.html

    "Turkish officials claimed a third incident on Monday, when an unidentified MiG-29 fighter jet locked its radar for four and a half minutes on eight Turkish F-16 jets that were on patrol on their side of the border, in apparent preparation to open fire."…

    This is a wake-up call. Moscow is indicating that there's a new sheriff in town and that Turkey had better behave itself or there's going to be trouble. There's not going to be any US-Turkey no-fly zone over North Syria, there's not going to be any aerial attacks on Syrian sites from the Turkish side of the border, and there certainly is not going to be any ground invasion of Turkish troops into Syria. The Russian Aerospace Defence Forces now control the skies over Syria and they are determined to defend Syria's sovereign borders. That's the message. Period."

    My guess is the Russian Air Force has a few more "messages" up its sleeve…

    OIFVet, October 10, 2015 at 2:20 pm

    There are no Russian Mig-29s in Syria.

    blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    The 'mistaken' Russian penetrations into Turkish air space are designed to 'brush back' the Turks. ( Baseball term: a pitch is thrown very close by the batter to get him to inch away from the plate. )

    And it has suceeded. While not given much publicity in the Western press Erdogan has been injecting his air force directly over Syria - about 30 kilometers - give or take.

    He has also deployed SAMs rather foreward, too.

    The net effect has been to drive Assad's air force out of the skies all along the border.

    But, much further south, Syria is a total desert with but one river running through it, the Euphrates.

    So Erdogan's play has been effectively shielding ISIS from Assad's pitiful air force. ( All downed pilots are assassinated via torture by the fanatics.

    Putin is terminating Erdogan's gambit.

    Putin is simultaneously protecting the Kurds - as Erdogan can't beat them up any more with his air force. One can reasonably expect that 'somehow' the Kurds will experience a shift in fortunes - as Putin becomes their devious patron. He'll want to arm them in such a manner that Iran and Iraq don't 'kick.'

    That should now be easy. He can over fly ISIS turf from the Caspian sea - spitting weapons out the back window like Zardoz, when over Kurdish positions. (1974, Sean Connery)

    Jesper, October 10, 2015 at 8:29 am

    The US has stopped doing strategy so while short term victories can be had the long-term is only obtained by chance…. The ones in US with strategies are the ones who are pursuing personal strategies, those strategies sometimes happen to align with US interests.

    & to be seen as a reliable ally (and therefore an ally wished for) then a country needs to back up their allies even(!) when times get tough. Russia is doing that in Syria. France is doing that in Mali:
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-africa-13881978

    UK & the US has been doing the same numerous times throughout history, Maybe even the backing of the current regimes in Afghanistan & Iraq would fall into the category of backing up an ally, or maybe those are more 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend'.


    blert, October 10, 2015 at 2:50 pm

    Both Obama and Clinton are big into 'triangulation.'

    Meaning that they are too clever by half - and ALWAYS mistake domestic political tactics and tricks for viable gambits in international affairs.

    With Bill Clinton you had a president that spun on a dime, famously flip-flopping four times in a single day on this or that domestic issue.

    With Obama you have a president that just CAN'T accept and adopt - straight out - ANY recommended policy suite proferred by his own professionals. Instead, he runs it by Axelrod and the other spin smiths - gauging it for domestic and media impact.

    He really thinks that he's the smartest man in Washington, and that his 'play' has been brilliant. He is a bit perturbed that the rest of the world is not following his scripts.

    His 'clever' scheme to use the CIA (et. al.) to sustain a proxy anti-Assad army has blown up like a Roadrunner gag.

    The jibes from Putin and others are particularly irritating.

    No-one now is kissing his Islamic ring.

    ( Yes, his marriage ring is ornately inscribed with Islamic iconography. Google around for it. He's worn it since Harvard, long before Michelle.)

    binky Bear, October 10, 2015 at 3:45 pm

    Not only deeply informed but a telepath to boot. How fortunate to be near-omniscient, and to support so deeply such complex arguments with provable facts.

    blert, October 10, 2015 at 6:01 pm

    Where have you been ?

    Clinton's 'triangulation' was a term of art brought up largely by himself.

    As for the proxy army… Now even the AP is willing to 'fess up.

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dfe1547ba36f4f968deee227d467dc08/officials-russian-bombs-cia-rebels-had-syrian-gains

    The big error in the AP article is dating it to 2013. The project was started even earlier.

    Telepath ?

    Reading their local press did the trick. You will find Indian and Pakistani English language publications hitting right on target - realities that 'elude' the NY Times.

    OpenThePodBayDoorsHAL October 10, 2015 at 6:14 pm

    This. The most infuriating part about Obomba is the smug "smarter-than-you" certainty he has. He was a community organizer and one-term state Senator but somehow he started sniffing all the farts the sycophants were wafting his way about just how clever he really was. Then he installed a bunch of also-smart groupthinker Berkeley-ites from the "duty to protect" and "humanitarian bombing" crowd, Chanel-suited exceptionalist egomaniacs who thought they were Kissinger (Samantha Powers, Hilary, Susan Rice et al.)

    BHO thought he could triangulate and "out-clever" everyone on everything, from health care, where he managed the worst of all worlds that fattened Big Insurance AND screwed up the cost of care…to Wall St where he fattened TBTF AND screwed up Dodd-Frank. In the ME he thought he could cleverly play all sides off against each other, the Turks, the Muslim Brotherhood, the Israelis, the Saudis... and stunningly also al-Qaeda themselves were just another co-optable pawn.

    But as Warren Buffet says "when the tide goes out you can see who's swimming naked". Tide's heading out…and as far as I can see the Russia/Iran/Iraq/Israel/Syria/Kurd team, with Brother China, fed-up Pakistan and resurgent India backing things up, is looking pretty good. Sclero-Europe has long ago ceded their sovereignty and relevance, LatAm as usual is absent from consideration…what am I missing?

    Unfortunately after the Hilary coronation we'll have another serial "third way" triangulator in charge who never saw a war, arms program, or covert adventure she didn't like. Except when she didn't like it, which was right after she did like it, and right before the previous time she didn't like it.

    Jim McKay October 10, 2015 at 8:53 am

    Good article… gives (from all I've read elsewhere) good, accurate context to what's going on now, and why (IMO) Putin's actions make sense. That is, if "solutions" (eg. ending blood shed, restore sustainable stability) in Syria is the objective.

    I'm also struck by some retrospective considerations, beyond what author (with limited space) hits very generally (eg: Brzezinski/Carter). In particular, all the secret prisons and indiscriminate detentions by BushCo (torture), much of it seemingly continued by BO. And, the "unintended" consequences of that.

    Reading Wikipedia's bio on al-Baghdadi this morning, seems he was a very well educated cleric (doctorate in both Islamic Studies and Education) even well after Bush's Iraq adventure began. He was non-descript, low key… seems little evidence he had violtent inclinations:

    "I was with Baghdadi at the Islamic University. We studied the same course, but he wasn't a friend. He was quiet, and retiring. He spent time alone. Later, when he helped found the Islamic Army, Mr Dabash fought alongside militia leaders who were committing some of the worst excesses in violence and would later form al-Qaeda… [but] Baghdadi was not one of them, I used to know all the leaders (of the insurgency) personally. Zarqawi (the former leader of al-Qaeda) was closer than a brother to me… But I didn't know Baghdadi. He was insignificant. He used to lead prayer in a mosque near my area. No one really noticed him."

    This bio also says this (which I didn't know):

    Bakr al-Baghdadi was arrested by US Forces-Iraq on 2 February 2004 near Fallujah and detained at Camp Bucca detention center under his name Ibrahim Awad Ibrahim al-Badry[22] as a "civilian internee" until December 2004, when he was recommended for release by a Combined Review and Release Board.[24][29][30] In December 2004, he was released as a "low level prisoner".[22]

    A number of newspapers and cable news channels have instead stated that al-Baghdadi was interned from 2005 to 2009. These reports originate from an interview with the former commander of Camp Bucca, Colonel Kenneth King, and are not substantiated by Department of Defense records.[31][32][33] Al-Baghdadi was imprisoned at Camp Bucca along with other future leaders of ISIL. (emphasis added)

    Would be hugely informative to have a means of cross checking records (if they exist?) of U.S. detainees as "illegal combatants", their violent "proclivities" prior to incarceration, and how many of them became Jihadists after release. The utter injustice of this, in the face of nothing more then an invasion and occupation of Iraq… this cause & affect is ignored and unacknowledged by leadership/policy makers on our shores. And making "exception" for these policies guarantees the continued disastrous results, ad infinitum.

    Global conventions against torture have stood for a long time, with a strong moral grounding… based on understanding, that abrogating them WILL produce the kinds of results we've seen, expanding like dominoes.

    Somehow, someway… if U.S. is ever to get on a course other then collapsing from within, this stuff needs to be examined thoroughly and cut out of public and official "acceptance" like the cancer that it is.

    blert October 10, 2015 at 2:59 pm

    The problem with any bio on al Baghdadi is that the CIA// Pentagon has re-used that name// title over and over. This is topped off by the fact that the Muslims use that nome-de-guerre over and over, too.

    So one is always left puzzling over whether this or that reference is getting crossed over with yet another al Baghdadi. The Pentagon, itself, admits that they have made that exact error many, many, times. They've 'killed' al Baghdadi numerous times - only for another elusive al Baghdadi to pop up.

    Some analysts contend that the name is really more towards a title - just like Caesar. After he died, all of his successors were so labeled. The only folks that seem to have the slightest clue about what's up are the desert Arabs. (Jordan, KSA, Kuwait - and the Awakening Movement in Iraq.)

    Everyone else is 'stupid' - counter-informed - like Dr. Zbig. What a gas bag. Dangerous, too.

    Procopius October 10, 2015 at 8:07 pm

    I don't think it's useful to refer to "al Baghdadi" as a "nom de guerre." It's a nickname, "the guy from Baghdad," in a culture where names are rather indeterminate. OK, I'm not an Arabic linguist, but I know that a guy may be known by some of his friends as "Son of X," by others of his friends as "Father of Y," and by others as "Abdu al [insert attribute of Allah]." I think this makes it problematic for many Americans, who are not known for language ability.

    blert October 11, 2015 at 8:08 pm

    Actually, adopting a 'nom de guerre' is extremely popular for the fanatics.

    1) Like all super heros, they don't want blow back upon their non-combatant family members. This is especially evident with their infamous executioners. But the tic is not at all limited.

    2) The fake persona permits the jihadist easy travel when outside the war zone. Many of the fanatics are claiming to flit to and fro - from America to Syria - with grace and ease. This ease of travel was confirmed by an elderly German journalist, (75) who visited ISIS. They scared the Hell out of him. It also terrified him that he could, himself, flit from Germany to Syria, with little to inconvenience him. (!) It was all too easy. Yikes !

    In his opinion, the fanatics are shuttling all over the place. Current border controls are wholly ineffective with these players. If a slow moving retiree can make the transit, that's telling.

    timbers October 10, 2015 at 8:58 am

    Interesting things are happening with Russian involvement in Syria. Are we seeing the global balance of power tip before our eyes? The U.S. is losing it's sole hegemony status and that could be a good thing if Washington can realize this and accept that and adopt diplomacy and cooperation to maintain what position it still has instead of denial followed by escalating aggression.

    A reborn Russia/Iran/Iraq/Syria alliance could check the brutality of the current U.S./Israel/Saudi Arabia/Turkey axis. Have seen articles that Iraq is impressed with Russian effectiveness against U.S. funded ISIS that is creating chaos in Iraq, and they may ask Putin to do the same thing there he is doing in Syria. Wonder if O's ego can handle that?

    Even signs that some in Europe see Russia is helping them by intervening in Syria and connecting the dots, as in "WTF are we doing hurting ourselves pissing off Russia in service of U.S.?"

    With all that going on, I was dumbfounded seeing headlines that the U.S. is preparing a major naval challenge to China's islands, as if we don't have enough conflict on our hands already.

    Steve H. October 10, 2015 at 9:08 am

    "If either of them makes so much as a nervous twitch towards the Syrian frontier, the oil price will return to the level Russia wants, and needs."

    ""This is because [President Vladimir] Putin has told [Prime Minister Benjamin] Netanyahu that Israel can count on a no-threat zone running from Damascus south and east to the Golan."

    Those are a couple of very interesting points that look win-win for Russia. Especially with the Saudi and Turkish regimes having internal problems as well.

    Here's an analysis from the other side of the aisle:

    stratfor.com/analysis/syria-loyalist-offensive-begins

    The bone I'll pick with it is that the 'far' position taken is "negotiated settlement". The U.S. and Saudis appear over-extended and thus under-committed. Russia has advanced a Knight, and S-400's and cruise missiles are discomforting if NATO tries to advance the Queen of overwhelming air power (see the Stratfor map of U.S. vs Russian air strikes). When the BATNA is a win-win, all negotiations are just plays for time.

    blert October 10, 2015 at 3:05 pm

    Stratfor totally lost me with their fantasy Free Syrian Army schtick. It does not exist.

    That scribe is pipe dreaming. Absolutely no-one in the field identifies with the FSA. Not. A. One.

    The FSA = al Nusrah = al Qaeda in Syria. The re-labeling was invoked so that BHO could send weapons to al Nusrah… the player that currently has snapped up EVERY weapon the President sent into the fight. Most recently that's meant TOW missiles.

    Go to YouTube to see countless jihadi videos uploaded showing how al Nusrah has been driving Assad into retreat.

    The rest of the article is pure jibberish… counter-factual… aka lies.

    ltr October 10, 2015 at 10:19 am

    This is an especially important post, as it is all but impossible to gain a balance in analysis or reporting from the press in the United States on the Russian initiative and engagement in Syria.

    Mel Fish October 10, 2015 at 10:56 am

    Stratfor is great reading…polished and confident, always written with a hint of being' in the know' , and yet is less useful as a forecasting tool than a dart board (without any darts). Also amusing is to wonder about the irony of the president's Nobel peace prize and what effect the fear of the resurfacing of the irony/hypocrisy each time the president engages the country in yet another "conflict". If you imagine the president being issued a certain number of conflict cards at the beginning of terms, well, they must be used judiciously….especially when one has that damned prize to think about. Wonder if that's another reason the Russians got to go Russian in Syria first.

    sd October 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    Good lord. Stratfor is well-known as politicized propaganda machine that works in concert with large multinational corporations to further their interests in foreign countries. It's not a secret.

    Lambert Strether October 11, 2015 at 1:12 am

    I don't see how that contradicts Fish's comment. We expect the elites to be polished and confident, do we not?

    blert October 11, 2015 at 8:12 pm

    Stratfor is Neocon central, I should think. They stock gasbags in quantity.

    EoinW October 10, 2015 at 1:01 pm

    Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Now it's a nice, neat package to assume Russia made Israel an offer it couldn't refuse, however Putin can't make deals with everyone. After all, he's not Donald Trump.

    My guess would be that Hizbollah will be rewarded for their support and be able to keep the arms they get from Russia. Israel will simply have to stay out of southern Lebanon for good. That's going to be a tough one for the Jewish Taliban, with their Greater Israel project, to swallow. Ben-Gurion may have wanted peaceful borders but it is the last thing modern Israel wants. The Assads kept the peace on the Golan border for 40 years – fat lot of good that did them. Peaceful borders means no excuse for Israel to avoid making peace with the Palestinians.

    The question I must ask: what happens to all these Islamic fighters after they are run out of Syria and Iraq? Only safe territory for them – away from the Russian air force – will be US allies, like Jordan and Arabia. Hamas is not as extreme as ISIS, however the Palestinian situation becomes more extreme every day. Could ISIS end up working with the Palestinians? Israel, with its excuse of no peace partners, may end up with enemies from hell. Even if ISIS doesn't take up the Palestinian cause, it still has to go somewhere. Seems the chickens will come home to roost.

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 1:10 pm

    Russian operations in Syria began right before Bibi was due to visit Moscow. Wrong, Bibi visited on September 20th.

    blert October 10, 2015 at 3:09 pm

    Bibi and al Sisi romanced Putin once Obama showed his colors. The President intended to take America down a peg… okay… many pegs. Instead, the down-pegging has occurred to himself.

    He's now totally ineffective in foreign affairs. He is scorned and ridiculed… universally.

    TG October 10, 2015 at 2:09 pm

    Interesting. But I wouldn't hand Putin the victory cup just yet.

    Suppose that Obama just decides to flood Syria with weapons? Anti-tank, anti-air, medium-range missiles with cluster bombs that can hit the Russian bases… America may not have any sense of long-range strategy but we are very good at breaking things, and our leaders throw fits and take it personally when their plans go awry…

    Of course giving all sorts of advanced weapons to the mostly jihadist Syrian 'rebels' would in the long run certainly cause a lot of blowback to the United States, but that's never stopped us before…

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    I suspect that the Kurds and Houthis, as well as the Shia in KSA's oil producing regions will suddenly find excellent source of weapons, plunging Turkey, KSA, and the emirates in quite the chaos.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 3:13 pm

    The issue is moving the weapons. Jordan's border is open desert. Iraq is warming to the Russians with an active war zone along the border. Israel doesn't want weapons running through their territory without control. The water is locked up, and Lebanon is full of Hezbollah.

    After today's events, who knows where Turkey is?

    Where is the money coming from? Americans aren't brining up Syria on the campaign trail except to note they were opposed to intervention. The Saudis are suffering from low oil prices and their own quagmire.

    U.S. air superiority is based on air superiority, not anti-aircraft weaponry. Afghanistan and Syria are radically different much like Vietnam and Iraq were different. It's much easier for the Russians to supply their bases than in Afghanistan where they had to rely on helicopters flying around mountain valleys.

    Advanced weaponry will be seen by Russian eyes in the sky and can be hit by missiles from the Caspian apparently. I hate to break it to you, but the U.S. R&D budget has been wasted on projects like F-35 and contracting fraud.

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 3:28 pm

    It's Time for the United States to Start Worrying About a Saudi Collapse. I thought the plunge in oil prices would bring down the Ruskies?

    Besides the shale operations, the overextended KSA is now in trouble, particularly with rising domestic oil consumption and internal Al-Saud family dissent growing.

    Then there is the appalling poverty that may no longer be alleviated with oil revenue subsidies. In the 1980s the Saudis matched CIA spending for the mujaheddin 1:1, which really made a huge difference. If the US wants to launch a proxy war on Russia in Syria, and wants the Saudis to help pay for it, it may find itself with a disintegrating KSA, one where the oil fields are in predominantly Shia areas. Blowback might be putting it quite mildly.

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 4:09 pm

    There are only 10,000 non-wealthy Saudi men and only half are of fighting age. The House of Saud doesn't have a great faction to stand for the regime if anything were to go to South. I'm sure the Hajj stampede and crane collapse aren't sitting well with the king in the hospital. From the rumors, King Fahd's party are trying get to retake power. Fahd was pals with the old man Assad.

    The Royal Guard is roughly the size of the national army, so there are two separate armies in Saudi Arabia with separate Com and structures which demonstrates the lack of faith in the army. Costs aside, I wonder if the real aim is to keep much of the Saudi military as possible occupied I stead of at home where they can cause trouble. With only 30,000 or so members, the House of Saud can be replaced at any old time.

    Crazy Horse October 10, 2015 at 10:56 pm

    Why does my Spidy Sense tell me that the foundation of the Saudi oil ministry policy of continuing to flood a depressed market with low cost oil was a secret agreement between Obomber and the Saudi ruling family? The plan was to bankrupt Russia by a two-pronged attack- the fraudulent US sponsored sanctions based upon manufactured reality events in Ukraine and the Saudi capacity to control the marginal price of oil. The carrot offered by the US was a piece of the action in the trans Syrian gas pipeline- and continued protection against internal opposition.

    Worked about as well as most US foreign policy "initiatives". Wouldn't it be ironic if the end game was the overthrow of the decadent Saudi ruling family and a post revolutionary Saudi Arabia in the Russian/Chinese axis?

    OIFVet October 10, 2015 at 11:06 pm

    It is amusing to contemplate, up to a point. I am not sure that potential Saud family collapse is necessarily good for peace.

    ambrit October 11, 2015 at 8:37 am

    What I fear from all this is a 'Caliphate' extending from Mosul down around Basra (got to give those Sixers credit,) and on into The (Former) Kingdom. Ben-Gurions' Arab 'splintered' states could come back to bite his successors as one big confederation of "The Faithful."

    blert October 11, 2015 at 8:30 pm

    The Saudi royal house is furious with Obama.

    It's the Iran deal. After that, nothing else really matters to the Saudis.

    The low oil price was never co-ordinated with anybody.

    It's targets are - in no particular order:

    Assad
    Iran
    Russia
    American frackers

    The Saudis have been disrupting Iranian oil exports to Asia - by under cutting them on price and quality.

    Until Obama released the Shah's old deposits ( my how they have compounded into real money ) Iran was going insolvent.

    Saudi Arabia wants Putin to suffer - as he's the patron of Assad - of whom they hate the most. Low crude pricing has pounded the Russian ruble. Putin's crew is also going insolvent. The flight capital out of Russia is relentless.

    American frackers represent a dire strategic threat to the Saudi clan. Such methods have every prospect of making Saudi oil an insignificant resource.

    For, on the math, fracking ( like flotation cells a century ago ) figure to increase the resource base – – crude recoveries - by a factor of one-hundred.

    That last figure may astonish, but it's true. All this time drillers have discovered vast oil deposits - that were too thin to work - with vertical bore holes. Some of these thin deposits don't actually need fracking, per se. They just need the super accurate aimable drilling tips America now produces.

    The kicker - on the economics - is that such thin deposits are extensive. So if you punch down - you are sure to hit the strata - to strike oil - about 100% of the time. Your only risk is if this or that effort is not quite what you hoped for.

    Such resource economics are entirely upside down from conventional drilling. They strongly resemble the economics of coal mining. Everybody is uniformly 'lucky.'

    The total amount of 'thin strata' oil in the ground is staggeringly larger than all conventional deposits. The Saudi royals know this. The general public does not.

    It's against the economic interests of any of the players to level with the press or the public. Everybody is lying about everything to everybody else. This behavior is classic - typical of mining everywhere. When was the last time you heard a gold miner telling all where he'd found a massive strike ?

    Heh.

    Medon October 10, 2015 at 3:15 pm

    Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all. We can just buy oil from the lowest cost supplier and have it shipped over. What am I missing here?

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 3:32 pm

    Contracting fraud, where the real money is made. It was never about oil, just contracts and egos. Oil has to be sold at an honest price for a variety of reasons, but I can't judge a cruise missile's price behind a veil of secrecy.

    cwaltz October 10, 2015 at 3:53 pm

    http://www.msn.com/en-us/money/markets/house-votes-to-lift-oil-export-ban/ar-AAfhPdk

    Heck if we wanted to we wouldn't even have to ship it over. What's the fun in that though? Yay, capitalism where no one ever gets to lift the stupid veil!

    NotTimothyGeithner October 10, 2015 at 4:21 pm

    Then there is the natural failing of leaders domestically who search for scapegoats. Half of the foreign policy pronouncements are full of whispered hisses of "China." Don't pay attention to me. It's those red Chinese and their currency manipulation.

    It's not that much different than medieval kings who blamed jews for the ills of society. Oh sure, we have tablets and Facebook, but we are still the same people after all these years.

    cwaltz October 10, 2015 at 4:43 pm

    The currency manipulation thing always makes me laugh. Good Lord, what do they think the Fed does when it lowers and increases interest rates and what QE did to the dollar?

    People WANT a scapegoat though. They want to believe that it's someone else's fault. Our domestic leaders are giving the people what they want, a culpable body, when playing the blame game.

    optimader October 10, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    Why does the US need to be in the Middle East at all
    It doesn't
    What am I missing here?
    stock in http://www.bga-aeroweb.com/Top-100-Defense-Contractors-2014.html
    ill admit, the relative positions of 11-13 surprised me, but then not.

    Roland October 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    The Russian expeditionary force in Syria is indeed highly vulnerable, but only if the Western Bloc wants to risk a major war. Now the Western Bloc can prevail against Russia, at any level of escalation, albeit at mounting risk. Nobody should expect today's Russia to be able to match the might of the Western Bloc.

    But the Russian government indicates that they are willing to go to war, even if they know in advance that they will lose that war. Willingness to lose means willingness to fight, and the willingness to fight is a crucial element in deterrence.

    In both Georgia and Ukraine, the Russians have physically demonstrated their willingness to go to war wherever NATO tries to expand into any more of the former Soviet republics. There is no question of Russian credibility as far as NATO expansion into former SR's is concerned. That means war, period.

    Syria's importance to Russia lies in the fact that it's Russia's only ally that is not territorially contiguous to Russia. If Russia is to retain any real sovereign capacity to make or preserve meaningful alliances abroad, then they must support the Syrian government, even if a military deployment there is precarious.

    Russia was very slow to engage in direct intervention in Syria. For years, Russia confined its efforts to political support, technical advice, and resupply of the existing Syrian arsenal. Russia even disarmed Syria of its chemical weapons, in a failed effort to mediate the conflict.

    However, Russia's long reluctance also means that their current action is long-considered. A government that is slow to go to war is usually a government that will fight hard in that war.

    I expect the Western Bloc will presume that they can prevail through politico-economic attrition against Russia. They probably can. However, the longer this complex regional war in the Middle East continues, the more likely things are to veer off unpredictably. The real God of war is neither Athena nor Mars. It's Tyche.

    Chauncey Gardiner October 10, 2015 at 4:28 pm

    Patrick Smith wrote an interesting article that was published in Salon on October 6th, I recommend it as worthwhile reading and food for thought. An extract:

    "In my read, Russia and Iran have just popped open the door to a solution in Syria. All the pieces are in place but one: Washington's capacity to acknowledge the strategic failure now so evident and to see beyond the narrowest definition of where its interests lie. This brings us to the paradox embedded in those questions Putin and Zarif and a few others now pose: American primacy is no longer in America's interest. Get your mind around this and you have arrived in the 21st century."

    http://www.salon.com/2015/10/06/thomas_friedman_read_your_chomsky_the_new_york_times_gets_putinobama_all_wrong_again/

    Hmmm… A multi-polar world?

    blert October 10, 2015 at 5:49 pm

    "The CIA began a covert operation in 2013 to arm, fund and train a moderate opposition to Assad. Over that time, the CIA has trained an estimated 10,000 fighters, although the number still fighting with so-called moderate forces is unclear.

    The effort was separate from the one run by the military, which trained militants willing to promise to take on IS exclusively. That program was widely considered a failure, and on Friday, the Defense Department announced it was abandoning the goal of a U.S.-trained Syrian force, instead opting to equip established groups to fight IS."

    http://bigstory.ap.org/article/dfe1547ba36f4f968deee227d467dc08/officials-russian-bombs-cia-rebels-had-syrian-gains

    Even this AP story is largely inaccurate. The CIA had been active even before 2013. It's original proxy army went rogue and is the cadre for al Baghdadi's ISIS horror show. ONLY NOW is the MSM breaking the story that is idiot obvious across the Middle East. ZeroHedge is comparing this to Bay of Pigs II.

    No kidding -- Both involved CIA proxy armies that had no operational security to speak of. Both were authorized by the Oval Office. And we know how much BHO admires JFK.

    Stefan October 10, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    This article's quotes from various foreign quarters are informative, but its characterization of American strategy is a bit "breathless."

    The US maintained a fairly hands off approach to Syria over the past few years on the advice of Israel. In essence, the US didn't have a dog in that fight, and the general intention was to allow the regime and its enemies to weaken each other interminably.

    Obama's empty threats about chemical weapons were a mistake, of course. But the Russians helped him out of that one. And in some way, they are helping him out again. The blitzkrieg success of Sunni/ISIS took observers by surprise, and all those gruesome beheadings seem to call for something. But again where is the real strategic value of Syria? Every sensible Syrian who can is on his way to a new life in Europe.

    While the article's author seems to wish to ridicule him, Brzezinski is right. The US has stupendous firepower, more than the rest of the world combined. But as we have seen, that does not guarantee success in every situation, and is hardly effective if half-hearted.

    By the way, the Israelis could "take out" Assad any time they wish to. They could as well probably cripple the Russian force in Syria in a day, if they chose. But they do not prefer the consequences.

    VietnamVet October 10, 2015 at 9:58 pm

    It is important to get Russian viewpoint especially since most Americans are monolingual. Also, it is hard for us not to root for the home team. Still Syria is a gigantic SNAFU. It is so far beyond incompetence it has to be purposeful. This is the ultimate expression of the Shock Doctrine. Collapse Russia and gain control its energy resources at the risk of exterminating Homo sapiens. Russia will do well for a while carving out enclaves for the minority Shiites, Christians and Alawites then they will in a tough slog of fighting Sunni Arabs in a regional Holy War.

    There are 1.6 billion Sunni Muslims. Want-to-be Jihadists will flock to Syria to fight the Russian Crusaders. Barrack Obama has already warned Vladimir Putin of a quagmire. His continued arming the Sunnis is a purposeful act to ensure this. World War III starts when Russia shoots down an American aircraft on a combat mission over Syria.

    ambrit October 11, 2015 at 8:48 am

    Give the Russians some credit for finesse. All they need do is shoot down an Israeli jet attacking a Syrian government position in support of some Syrian "Moderates" near Damascus. I'll be watching for a Russian campaign to rid the Syrian skies of 'Western' drones. That would be a sign of serious intentions on the part of Russia.

    Another possibility is a peaceful change of leadership within Assad's Syrian government. Does anyone know if there is a suitable successor to Assad Jr. in the 'family?' Such an event would remove even the fig leaf presently being waved in front of the West's attempted rape of Syria.

    Russell Scott Day/Transcendia October 11, 2015 at 1:02 am

    So I was hoping that the Russians would go in there and kill ISIS and then they turn around and start killing the rebels trying to kill Assad, who ISIS wouldn't mind killing as well. So much for wishful thinking which last I noted hasn't worked well in war except when called dumb luck, which is fortunate weather events never anticipated by anyone.

    Well it sort of makes sense that if you have an enemy with an army and they threaten you, enough, you kill them. Unfortunately for allies of the US, it doesn't really matter that much for the US long as the Petrodollar, the gift of Nixon and Kissinger is the reserve currency. If all the Syrian draft dodgers go to Germany, well that will serve Volkswagen right, not to mention make Greece and Hungary thinking so while any minute I'll look good telling the Netherlands to go for it with my Insurodollar.

    Well it sure did work out well about that Euro. And things would be great if it was actually oil coming from the 3,900 drill rigs, if it was oil instead of leaky ass methane wrecking the climate even more than oil getting burned things would be better. A 4,000 dollar CNG gas tank that takes up the trunk makes batteries look good.
    But who knows what all since piddling around has halfway or a third worked out, so far.

    It's not how many nukes you have, but who uses them first, if you have them see. They didn't really have them till the end of the second world war, which was a war, still, and why I call what's in store next for us an apocalyptic riot.

    If only capitalism was working and Russia was just offered a land transit corridor for a price to Sevastopol? So what if they get to access more better in the Black Sea, It's Black right?

    Remember the Zaporizia! Remember that Hunter Biden! Remember Antares! Remember Christophe de Margerie and the drunk that got there just in time for a plane that never crashes except for the other one that was shot down! And remember thinking too much, since what you know is lots of lies, and the rest is cowardly, or stupid.

    [Oct 19, 2015] Syrian Gambit: US at Pains to Create 'Another Afghanistan' for Russia

    This is a very dangerous gambit for Russia. The USA and allies represents overwhelmingly stronger alliance economically, politically and technologically.
    Notable quotes:
    "... And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors, ..."
    "... We will see fewer conventional offensives in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan ..."
    "... While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the West have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage, he told Sputnik. ..."
    "... given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation ..."
    Oct 18, 2015 | sputniknews.com

    In September 2014, Kenneth M. Pollack, a former CIA intelligence analyst, proposed a plan entitled "An Army to Defeat Assad." The CIA analyst envisaged the creation of a US Syrian proxy army that would take over the Syrian government forces (and deal a blow to Islamic State). However, the toppling of Bashar al-Assad was marked by Pollack as the overriding priority.

    "Once the new army gained ground, the opposition's leaders could formally declare themselves to represent a new provisional government. The United States and its allies could then extend diplomatic recognition to the movement, allowing the US Department of Defense to take over the tasks of training and advising the new force – which would now be the official military arm of Syria's legitimate new rulers," Pollack elaborated.

    In January 2015, the Pentagon announced that it kicked off a plan aimed at training Assad's opposition fighters, strikingly similar to that offered by Pollack in September 2014. So, nothing hinted at any trouble until September 30, when Russia suddenly threw a wrench in Washington's ingenious plan.

    "To get to the root of the current crisis in Syria and the Middle East overall, we must look at US policy overall," Germany-based American political analyst Phil Butler explained in an exclusive interview to Sputnik.

    "The current divisions within Syria and Northern Iraq are to a degree fabricated. Secular, religious, and even tribal differences in this region have been leveraged for centuries to divide Syria, as well as other nations in the region. You've mentioned Ken Pollack, and appropriately, I might add. Pollack, who's held many official positions within the Washington policy making establishment, is actually one of the authors of chaos in this region. Discussing such "bred" academics is a deep well, but suffice it to say the division of Yugoslavia, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the Arab Spring overall, the Georgia war, and the current Ukraine mess are all facets of the same flawed gem of US hegemony," the analyst told Sputnik.

    According to Butler, the current mission in Syria is not intended to be a splintering as we saw with Kosovo, in the Balkans.

    "As for the 'plan' in Syria, I believe there were 'contingencies' mapped out. As amoral as these schemes may be, they are not concocted by idiots. Contingency 1, in my view, was the literal overthrow of Assad. Vladimir Putin's moves, Russia's, have thwarted this potential at every turn. Contingency number two obviously involves another Yugoslavia in the making. And finally, overall tribalism and chaos in the region helps the US, and particularly Israel gain strength in the region by weakening neighbors," the political analyst stressed.

    Meanwhile, Western reputable media sources have reported of an upcoming offensive on Raqqa, ISIL's "capital," the Pentagon is preparing to launch along with its Arab and Kurdish military allies.

    However, Middle East Eye reported on October 14 that there is no sign of such preparations on the ground: "The US-led anti-IS coalition dropped 50 tons of weapons to the newly created Syrian Arab Coalition on Monday in the Hasakah province, in order to avoid angering Turkey. But so far, no US weapons can be seen on the frontlines close to Raqqa, nor any sign of rebel troop preparations."

    "The reason we have not seen these latest weapons shipments being used, is the complexity of strategy on the ground has changed. No standing force, Al-Nusra, ISIL, or other jihadists put together, could withstand Russian air power. I believe we are about to see Assad's opposition morph their strategy to full guerrilla warfare as was the case in Afghanistan. We will see fewer conventional "offensives" in the future, and far more localized attacks, the Pentagon will try and create another Afghanistan," Butler explained commenting on the issue.

    However, in contrast to the US' covert war against the USSR in Afghanistan, there were no US jet fighters in the region and thus far, no threat of a direct confrontation between the two global powers.

    Today, there are many military "actors" in the skies of Syria and Iraq. Does it mean the Pentagon's Afghani strategy may unexpectedly transform into a direct confrontation between US/NATO and Russia?

    "As for the threat of direct confrontation between the US and Russia in Syria, the possibility does exist. In this case however, I believe such a confrontation is actually another contingency for Washington," the American political analyst underscored.

    "While US military doctrine these days is set to avoid direct confrontation, on the other hand America and citizens in the "West" have been primed for it. Consider that most Americans, have been brainwashed substantially to believe Vladimir Putin has already invaded half a dozen countries. As crazy as this sounds, pretend you live in small American town and you listen to CNN or Fox before bed every night. This potential, to be dragged into a wide conflagration set up by Washington, is why you see Vladimir Putin making very conservative and precise moves on the stage," he told Sputnik.

    "Having said this, given all we have seen since 9/11, it would take a fairly major incident to excuse such a confrontation," Phil Butler concluded.

    [Oct 18, 2015] Russia oil diversification

    [Oct 18, 2015] Oil Market Showdown Can Russia Outlast The Saudis

    The author is pretty naive assuming the KAS can decide to move oil prices without the USA blessing and the US controlled financial market support of such a move. In a sense it's no longer KAS that determine the oil price, it's Wall street as volume of "paper oil" exceeds "real oil" by several times now. Making oil more like a play in another currency. Also probably some tangible or intangible compensation was promized for KAS for putting pressure on Russia.
    Oct 18, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The Saudi government is also scrambling. After an eight year hiatus from issuing sovereign debt, the Saudi government announced a plan during the summer to borrow $28 billion in 2015 and launched the borrowing with a $5 billion offering in August. The Ministry of Finance has banned contracts for new projects, hiring and promotions, and purchase of vehicles or furniture in the fourth quarter, while the newly created Council for Economic and Development Affairs must now approve all government projects worth more than $27 million. The Saudi government also is preparing to privatize airports and contemplating seeking private financing for infrastructure projects.

    Related: Airstrikes Have Yet To Stop ISIS Oil Industry

    The budget situation puts the Saudi government in a difficult situation. On the one hand, the size of the deficits requires drastic cuts in spending, but such drastic cuts would impact politically sensitive areas such as energy subsidies, government employment opportunities for Saudi citizens, education, and economic development projects. On the other hand, depleting Saudi government reserves to finance the deficits will put the Saudi sovereign credit rating at risk, which would raise the cost of borrowing as well as pressure the Saudi currency (the consequences of which are discussed below).

    [Oct 16, 2015] ISIS on verge of defeat as Russian jets cut off arms supplies

    World News Daily Express

    Earlier this week Putin accused US official of having "mush for brains" after they refused hand over intelligence about ISIS targets.

    He said: "We asked on the military level to give us the targets which they consider to be the terrorist ones for sure, 100 per cent. But the answer was: 'No, we are not ready to do that'.

    "Then we thought and asked another question: 'Then could you tell us where we should not hit?' Again, no answer. So, what should we do?"

    Washington and its allies have suggested Russia is seeking to prop up Bashar al-Assad's regime rather than defeat ISIS.

    But Putin hit back, saying his country wants to "contribute to the fight against terrorism" which threatens "the whole world".

    [Oct 14, 2015] Strategist We've Hit 'Peak Negativity' in the Energy Sector

    "... a prolonged period of low oil prices is now baked into analysts' earnings expectations, although some Canadian analysts will probably have to ratchet down their estimates even farther. ..."
    "... In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to be." ..."

    "... In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to be." ..."

    "... Earnings per share revisions are one of our most trusted contrarian indicators and the fact that they have hit extreme negative levels is encouraging to us for sector performance prospects ..."
    finance.yahoo.com

    Earlier this year, Bank of Montreal Chief Investment Strategist Brian Belski called energy stocks a value trap.

    He has become more constructive, upgrading the sector to market weight, from underweight.

    A confluence of factors influenced the strategist's decision to "neutralize" his portfolio position for both U.S. and Canadian energy stocks. The first is that the sector has reached what he called "peak negativity," underperforming the Standard & Poor's 500-stock index by the most since 1986, when the last supply side-driven crash in oil prices occurred.

    Second, a prolonged period of low oil prices is now baked into analysts' earnings expectations, although some Canadian analysts will probably have to ratchet down their estimates even farther.

    "Earnings per share revisions are one of our most trusted contrarian indicators and the fact that they have hit extreme negative levels is encouraging to us for sector performance prospects," he wrote.

    "Energy sector growth expectations in Canada have come down significantly, but still remain too optimistic given the oil price outlook and especially when compared to estimates for the U.S.," he added.

    ... ... ...

    In December, he noted that his clients were consumed with in energy, and he cautioned against holding on to the previous cycle's winners. Two months later, he quipped that the short period of crumbling crude prices would not "cure a decade-long notion of oil and energy being the place to be."

    But the "pain trade," Belski now says, is for energy stocks to move higher.

    [Oct 13, 2015] The headline is a bit over the top but relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate

    Warren , October 11, 2015 at 10:59 am

    RAF given green light to shoot down hostile Russian jets in Syria

    As relations between the West and Russia steadily deteriorate, Royal Air Force (RAF) pilots have been given the go-ahead to shoot down Russian military jets when flying missions over Syria and Iraq, if they are endangered by them. The development comes with warnings that the UK and Russia are now "one step closer" to being at war.

    http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/raf-given-green-light-shoot-down-hostile-russian-jets-syria-1523488

    Moscow Exile , October 11, 2015 at 12:50 pm

    "The first thing a British pilot will do is to try to avoid a situation where an air-to-air attack is likely to occur - you avoid an area if there is Russian activity," an unidentified source from the UK's Permanent Joint Headquarters (PJHQ) told the Sunday Times. "But if a pilot is fired on or believes he is about to be fired on, he can defend himself. We now have a situation where a single pilot, irrespective of nationality, can have a strategic impact on future events."

    The headline is a bit over the top, don't you think?

    The same rule applies to all combat pilots of any nation, as indeed the (as usual) unidentified source is quoted as saying.

    That's why the US navy shot down an Iranian airliner, isn't it: the warship thought it was being threatened by the passenger aircraft.

    Patient Observer , October 11, 2015 at 5:30 pm

    Trigger happy, poorly trained, panic-stricken, glory-seeking and incompetent – what else can describe the US Navy's shoot-down? How would they perform in a real war with an adversary able to hit back hard?

    marknesop , October 11, 2015 at 9:53 pm

    Yes to the first, and no to the second. The U.S. Navy shot down an Iranian airliner they claim they mistook for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat, although it (1) took off from a known civil airport following a commercial air route and within the air safety corridor, (2) was displaying the IFF interrogator trace for civil aviation, (3) was correlated to a civil aviation radar emitter rather than the AN/AWG-9 radar associated with the F-14, and which is quite distinctive on ESM gear and (4) was not descending or following an attack profile. The USS VINCENNES stationed itself directly underneath an air traffic corridor within Iranian airspace, so that normal air traffic passed directly over it; obviously, for one half of its transit, an aircraft would close the VINCENNES, and for the remainder it would be opening after it passed overhead. I'd have to look up again if any warnings were passed, but if there were the pilot likely did not think the surface unit was talking to him, since he was flying the same route he did every day or week or with whatever degree of regularity. So if he was told to turn away he likely did not think it applied to him, as few commercial pilots would be able to conceive of the arrogance of a ship's captain who would park his ship in Iranian territorial waters and then demand that all the country's civil aviation reroute themselves around his position.

    [Oct 12, 2015] OPEC Crude Little Change - Peak Oil BarrelPeak

    "... Ron's excellent charts are telling me that Opec is not going to be producing as much or MORE oil on a daily basis, if any, very much longer. With only three countries carrying the load, and all the others combined just holding steady over the last few years, DEPLETION is sure to take a bite out of those other smaller countries production pretty soon. ..."
    "... It looks as if the only countries with any REAL hope of increasing production enough to really matter on the world stage, near term, are Iran and Iraq and the USA. The USA is out of the running until prices go up and then, according to what I read here, it will take a year or maybe two to ramp up again. ..."
    "... Nobody can predict when oil prices will rise with any accuracy. I will suggest it will be in the future, maybe late 2016, maybe not. ..."
    Aug 30, 2012 | peakoilbarrel.com

    Oil Barrel

    OPEC says world upstream spending will be down only 20% in 2015 but North American upstream spending will drop by 35%. I guess that is because of the big drop in shale spending.

    Ovi, 10/12/2015 at 10:52 am

    3Q15–4Q15–1Q16–2Q16–3Q16–4Q16
    -13.5-13.4-13.4-13.5--13.5-13.7

    Above is the OPEC projection for US production out to Q4-16. Looks optimistic to me. For the above to be true, there must be some underlining assumption regarding increasing oil prices to restart drilling.

    Ron Patterson, 10/12/2015 at 1:01 pm

    Yes those numbers are totally unrealistic, just as unrealistic as the US Short Term Energy Outlook numbers. In the chart below US Total Liquids are the left axis while C+C numbers are the right axis.

    Total liquids for the US STEO includes refinery process gain. And they even count refinery process gain on imported oil. So it looks like the OPEC MOMR numbers do not include refinery process gain.

    AlexS, 10/12/2015 at 2:53 pm

    The EIA expects U.S. non-C+C liquids supply to increase by 1.17mb/d between January 2014 and December 2016, of which 1.03 mb/d – NGPLs.

    brian, 10/12/2015 at 1:40 pm

    'God-trader' Andy Hall's fund loses $500M

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/06/god-trader-andy-halls-fund-loses-500m.html

    Ves, 10/12/2015 at 2:05 pm

    Was he trading based on IEA, EIA or OPEC forecast numbers? :)

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/12/2015 at 2:31 pm

    Ron's excellent charts are telling me that Opec is not going to be producing as much or MORE oil on a daily basis, if any, very much longer. With only three countries carrying the load, and all the others combined just holding steady over the last few years, DEPLETION is sure to take a bite out of those other smaller countries production pretty soon.

    It looks as if the only countries with any REAL hope of increasing production enough to really matter on the world stage, near term, are Iran and Iraq and the USA. The USA is out of the running until prices go up and then, according to what I read here, it will take a year or maybe two to ramp up again.

    Am I right about this? Are there any other countries that have any real hope of substantially increasing production near term?

    I am thinking about buying a LOT (for an individual) of diesel fuel as soon as I think the price is starting up again. I know, predicting IS HARD , but a bigger stash of diesel is as good as silver and gold in a jar buried in the back yard. Will probably stock up on lime and fertilizer as well, these inputs are extremely sensitive to and correlate with oil and gas prices.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/12/2015 at 2:53 pm

    Hi Old Farmer Mac,

    Just take my price predictions and assume the opposite will be true, or flip a coin :)

    Nobody can predict when oil prices will rise with any accuracy. I will suggest it will be in the future, maybe late 2016, maybe not.

    Petro, 10/12/2015 at 10:26 pm

    …there will be no price rise, just the volatility of: "…a bomb went off here…", "…a war started there…" and "…a russian jet was shot down over there…somewhere…".

    be well,

    P.S: the "hoard" of diesel is not a bad idea, OFM

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/12/2015 at 2:52 pm

    This new SEC regulation might help people interested in peak oil and oil prices come by more and better data.

    It will probably go into force second half next year from the looks of things.

    http://thehill.com/blogs/congress-blog/economy-budget/256535-wind-at-secs-back-on-long-overdue-oil-transparency-rule

    Chris, 10/12/2015 at 3:31 pm

    OPEC has reached a plateau, oscillating between 28 mbpd to 31.6 mbpd since 10 years now. World production peaked so far in June. Saudi Arabia production in decline since June, US production in decline since several months. Peak oil in 2015? I am curious to see the December production…

    Dennis Coyne, 10/12/2015 at 6:23 pm

    It looks like the latest OPEC Monthly Oil Market Report predicts that World Oil Supply and Demand will be in balance by 3Q16, if OPEC output remains at 3Q15 levels. There will still be a supply overhang which may require another quarter or two of either decreased supply or increased demand (or both) to bring oil stocks back to normal levels.

    As always, these forecasts are notoriously inaccurate so oil prices could remain low until 2018 if demand is lower or supply is higher than OPEC forecasts, or they might rise in early 2016 if the opposite is true. It's a coin flip.

    Greenbub, 10/12/2015 at 7:43 pm

    Wouldn't most oil producers go out of business if prices stayed low until 2018?

    [Oct 12, 2015] Saudi Arabia Halts Government Spending Due To Oil Price Fall

    Aug 30, 2012 | OilPrice.com

    Saudi Arabia has reportedly resorted to spending cuts to cope with a budget deficit caused by the steep decline of oil prices over the past year.

    Bloomberg reported Oct. 8 that the Saudi Finance Ministry has directed government agencies not to embark on any new spending initiatives for the rest of the year. It also froze government hiring and promotions, suspended the purchase of furniture and vehicles and urged revenue collectors to accelerate their operations.

    ...oil accounts for around 90 percent of Saudi revenue. But the kingdom's finances also have been strained by its involvement in wars in Syria and Yemen.

    As a result, Saudi Arabia's ratio of debt to GDP is in danger of rising to 33 percent in five years, according to a new report by the International Monetary Fund (IMF). The report says the Saudi budget has gone from a surplus to a deficit of more than 20 percent of GDP, more than twice as deep as those that beset the United States and Britain in 2008 and 2009, the darkest period of the recent recession

    ... ... ...

    The spending cuts aren't Saudi Arabia's first effort to manage its deficit. Bloomberg quoted other anonymous sources as saying Riyadh had planned to raise at least $24 billion from bond sales by the end of 2015. This was in response to a drop in the kingdom's foreign assets, which at that time had fallen for the seventh consecutive month to $654.5 billion, its lowest in more than two years.

    [Oct 12, 2015] Problem of fracking wells decline in shale industry

    "... this disaster would have overtaken the fracking patch even if oil prices had not tanked, because its root problem was the hideous decline rate of fracking wells, most of which are exhausted within four years. ..."
    "... Imagine if they built houses of water-soluble materials. You buy a house for $200,000 or so, and at the end of four years its uninhabitable and worthless, and you have to buy another one. You might have been making good money those four years, but enough to set aside $50,000 a year? Thats been the fracking problem from the beginning, and virtually every company in the business has had to borrow heavily – actually, recklessly - to stay in the game. ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Another interesting article linked on Peakoil.com, which links to a Fortune article:

    http://www.dailyimpact.net/2015/09/30/fortune-frackers-face-mass-extinction/

    As I've reported here over and over, this disaster would have overtaken the fracking patch even if oil prices had not tanked, because its root problem was the hideous decline rate of fracking wells, most of which are exhausted within four years.

    Imagine if they built houses of water-soluble materials. You buy a house for $200,000 or so, and at the end of four years it's uninhabitable and worthless, and you have to buy another one. You might have been making good money those four years, but enough to set aside $50,000 a year? That's been the fracking problem from the beginning, and virtually every company in the business has had to borrow heavily – actually, recklessly - to stay in the game.

    Which is over. For most. There will always be some operators diligently wringing out the last few drops of combustibles, but the Brave New World of American oil supremacy in a cowed world, the age of American energy security, the renewed American oil economy - all creations of marketing departments in search of the proverbial greater-fool investors and lenders - are toast.

    [Oct 12, 2015] Could oil prices really shrink to twenty dollars per barrel

    "... When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the demand is creeping up, ..."
    "... So therefore, to think that [low] oil prices will be with us forever may not be the right way of thinking ..."
    "... Despite its warning, Goldman Sachs said there was a less than 50 percent chance of oil falling to $20 per barrel. Instead, its base case scenario for 2016 was $45 per barrel -a level that Birol said was still too low for U.S. shale producers to maintain current production. ..."
    Oct 06, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    ... Fatih Birol, the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), told CNBC on Tuesday that low prices would prompt U.S. producers to cut output, creating upward price pressure.

    "When we look at the next few quarters, we expect U.S. oil production to decline because of low oil prices and in Iraq, production growth will be much slower than in the past. And the demand is creeping up," Birol told CNBC on Tuesday from the Oil & Money conference.

    "So therefore, to think that [low] oil prices will be with us forever may not be the right way of thinking."

    ... ... ....

    Whether or not U.S. shale players will cut production in response to ongoing low prices is a moot point however. They could instead respond by increasing production in order to satisfy creditors eager for results. Plus, against some odds, shale producers have managed to lower productions costs, although these remain high in comparison to conventional oil production.

    Despite its warning, Goldman Sachs said there was a less than 50 percent chance of oil falling to $20 per barrel. Instead, its base case scenario for 2016 was $45 per barrel -a level that Birol said was still too low for U.S. shale producers to maintain current production.

    "It is proven it is a very resilient type of production, but this level of prices, $45, $50 is not good enough to induce reinvestments and for production to continue to grow. Therefore, we expect as of next year, production growth will decline in the United States," Birol told CNBC.

    The secretary general of OPEC, Abadall El-Badri, also forecast that oil production from countries outside his group would fall next year.

    ... ... ...

    "We see that non-OPEC supply is declining and in 2016, we see there is an increase in demand … so in a nutshell, there is a balance in the market in 2016. How much this will reflect on the price I really cannot tell," he later added.

    ... ... ...

    Standard & Poor's (S&P) appeared more bullish on oil prices than Goldman, forecasting on Tuesday that Brent oil would average $55 per barrel in 2016, up from an average of $50 for the remainder of this year.

    [Oct 12, 2015] Oil rig count drops for a 6th week

    According to driller Baker Hughes, the number of active oil rigs fell by 9 to 605, putting the count at the lowest level since the week ending July 30, 2010. The combined tally of oil and gas rigs fell 14 from last week to 795, the lowest since May 2002. We saw a renewed drop in the oil rig count last week, which fell by 26, the biggest decline since the rig count topped out a year ago.

    Earlier this week, Baker Hughes reported that the average US rig count for September was 848, down 35 from the prior month.

    [Oct 11, 2015] Russia's Move In Syria Threatens Energy Deals With Turkey

    In 2014, Gazprom delivered 27.3 billion cubic meters (bcm) of gas to Turkey via its Blue Stream and Trans-Balkan pipelines. Gas exports from Russia are up some 34 percent since 2010, and Turkey – now Russia's second largest market after Germany – is only getting hungrier. By 2030, gas demand in Turkey is expected to expand 30 percent, reaching 70 bcm per year.

    ... ... ...

    With European demand projected to grow by just over 1 bcm per year in the same period, Russia's South Stream pipeline proposal was as misguided as it was non-compliant with the EU's Third Energy Package. Routed through Turkey however, Russia's newest pipeline, TurkStream, promised to add greater utility. Turkey gets its gas and partly fulfills its transit aspirations; Russia bypasses Ukraine while opening windows to Europe and the Middle East; and Europe, if it wants it, will have gas on demand.

    It sounds good – okay, at least – but as so often happens in Russia, the tale has taken a turn for the worse. TurkStream has stumbled out of the gates and larger happenings in Syria look to significantly damage Russia-Turkey relations.

    Originally intended as a four-pipe 63-bcm project, TurkStream will now top out at 32 bcm, if it gets off the ground at all. As it stands, the parties have agreed to draft the text of an intergovernmental agreement, with a targeted signing date of early next year, following Turkey's general election. And that's it.

    [Oct 11, 2015] Why it's so easy to manipulate ordinary investors

    That quote is a key theme in Phishing for Phools: The Economics of Manipulation & Deceptionby George Akerlof and Robert Shiller. The authors, two of America's leading economists, note that free markets are capable of generating unimaginable wealth and innovation. And yet, this system also "tends to spawn manipulation and deception." Because the goal of every business person is to get you to spend your money, they will often come up with ingenious ways of tricking you. This frequently results in consumers choosing things that aren't very good for them.

    Akerlof and Shiller point to the Cinnabon breakfast treat as an amusing example of how the free market system exploits our weaknesses automatically. Humans are naturally attracted to the scent of cinnamon, so it was almost inevitable that an entire business would emerge to exploit that vulnerability. Life may indeed "need frosting" - as Cinnabon's motto declares - but most of us probably shouldn't start our day with a pastry containing 880 calories.

    Understanding the two peculiar terms from the book's title is essential for grasping its central argument. The authors define the word "phish" as "getting people to do things that are in the interest of the phisherman, but not in the interest of the target." In other words, "phisherman" are those businesses that are trying to get you to buy something that may not be in your best interest.

    A "phool," according to the authors, is "someone who for whatever reason is successfully phished." Each of us might get phished because our cognitive biases might lead us to misinterpret reality or we might just lack adequate information.

    After defining these terms, the authors show us how the notion of "phishing for phools" works across various industries. For example, Big Pharma appears to be especially rife with manipulation. The authors describe how the pharmaceutical companies orchestrate the rollout of a new drug. There are journal articles and sales rep visits and ads on TV -- all designed to "create a story of the new wonder drug."

    Vioxx was one such wonder drug, of course. Akerlof and Shiller tell us in considerable detail how the system broke down in that specific case.

    The investing industry is another ideal "phishing" hole where financial professionals drop their lines in order to take advantage of phools. One big takeaway from their research just might help ordinary investors. After analyzing numerous industries and countless case studies, the authors conclude,

    In every one of the phishes, it occurred because the phisherman took advantage of the phool's wrong focus. In some cases the phisherman, like the magician and the pickpocket, himself generated that wrong focus. We also checked Cialdini's [Ed. note: Robert Cialdini, author of The Psychology of Persuasion] list of psychological biases; each one of them could be considered to be the result of an errant focus by the phool.

    This insight is extremely valuable when applied to the investing world. Financial professionals very frequently exploit the tendency of ordinary investors to focus on the wrong thing. That "wrong focus" can be extraordinarily costly in fees and poor investing performance.

    Just consider how much "focus" the financial media places on the inscrutable actions of the Fed or the volatile movements of commodity prices or whether or not a recession is right around the corner. And think about how much emphasis some financial professionals place on their ability to generate "alpha" by pursuing some incomprehensible strategy that requires you to pay them hefty fees, even if they're not successful.

    Phishing is everywhere in the financial industry and it's designed to make you lose your focus on the right things, while you fork over your hard-earned money to the phishermen. None of us can predict where markets are going in the short term, so worrying about what the Fed will do or about how much alpha-generating ability your advisor possesses (he'll tell you it's a lot) will only distract you from your long-term investing plan. If your financial advisor is calling you with a hot tip on a can't-miss fund based on the latest investing fad, then you might be in danger of focusing on the wrong thing. In other words, you're most likely a phool.

    This fine book yields another crucial insight for investors. The authors argue that phishing is one of the prime reasons behind the volatility of asset prices. Misleading accounting, media hype, investor sales pitches -- these are just some of the ways that asset prices become inflated. When the inflated assets have been purchased with borrowed money, huge losses will eventually snowball and "then credit dries up; and the economy tanks." We experienced that back in 2008 and 2009, of course. Phishing hurts investors in a variety of ways.

    So, what must be done? First, remember that the authors believe strongly in the power of free markets. They're not advocating for a "people's paradise" with centrally planned outcomes.

    Instead, they just want us to recognize that people don't always do what is good for them. That's why we need sensible securities regulation in our public markets. We also need more prudent and smart oversight in both the economic and political realms. Leaving everything to free markets alone, the authors argue, will result in bad outcomes. There was a time in American history when that opinion wasn't terribly controversial.

    I highly recommend this book, even for those who might disagree with the authors' outlook. Their case studies are illuminating, and their insights on the way markets work are fascinating. When you consider the sorry state of the personal finances of the median working age family in the United States today, it's hard to disagree with their central thesis that our current system isn't working properly.

    Try any of our Foolish newsletter services free for 30 days. We Fools may not all hold the same opinions, but we all believe that considering a diverse range of insights makes us better investors. The Motley Fool has a disclosure policy.

    SPONSOR CONTENT: Forget the iPhone 6. Next Apple Sensation Leaked

    Forget the iPhone and the Apple Watch. Another revolutionary Apple technology is booming. According to Gartner Research, the market for this technology will soon be worth a whopping $721 billion!

    But you won't hear about this game-changer in front page headlines. Peeking under the hood reveals a more intriguing story about a little-known company that has cornered the market for the technology hidden in Apple's devices. Simply click here to learn its name.

    [Oct 11, 2015] Series of small earthquakes hit near Oklahoma crude oil storage hub

    The US Geological Survey (USGS) reported that nine quakes ranging in magnitude from 2.5 to 3.7 were recorded between 5.07pm on Saturday and 5.27am on Sunday. No injuries or damage were reported. Geologists say damage is not likely in quakes below magnitude 4.0.

    The latest seismic activity came after a 4.5 magnitude temblor on Saturday afternoon near Cushing and a 4.4 magnitude quake on Saturday morning south-west of Medford.

    The Oklahoma Geological Survey has said it is likely that many recent earthquakes in the state have been triggered by the injection of wastewater from oil and natural gas drilling operations.

    Cushing is home to the world's most important crude oil storage hub, which is used to settle futures contracts traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange.

    Cushing emergency management director Bob Noltensmeyer said on Sunday that no significant damage was found at the oil facility, only "shattered nerves".


    Orwell2015 11 Oct 2015 19:50

    Oh the irony of it all, which sadly will be lost on most.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Obama Launches A Proxy War On Russia

    Notable quotes:
    "... Russia bombed some of the CIAS trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didnt receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful: ..."
    "... Erdogans AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation. ..."
    "... Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi young leader deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so. ..."
    www.moonofalabama.org
    But instead of building on that agreement and of further working with the Russians, the U.S. is now slipping into a full war by proxy against the Russian Federation and especially with its contingent in Syria. Obama had claimed that he would not get drawn into a proxy war with Russia in Syria but his administration, the Pentagon and the CIA, is now doing all it can to create one. The Russian support for Syria is not limited. With the U.S. administration now moving into a position where war on Russia in Syria becomes the priority the fighting in and around Syria will continue for a long time.

    The official Pentagon program to train Syrian insurgents will cease to vet, train, arm and support those mercenaries. But the program will not end. The Pentagon will simply shorten the process. It skips the vetting and training part and will arm and support anyone who proclaims to want to "fight ISIS":

    The move marks an expansion of U.S. involvement in Syria's protracted ground war and could expose the Obama administration to greater risks if weapons provided to a wider array of rebel units go astray, or if U.S.-backed fighters come under attack from forces loyal to Assad and his allies.
    ...
    Under the new plan, leaders of groups already battling the Islamic State undergo vetting and receive a crash course in human rights and combat communications. Many of them have already received that training outside Syria, officials said.

    Eventually the Pentagon plans to provide ammunition and basic weapons to those leaders' fighters and would carry out airstrikes on targets identified by those units.

    We know how well things go when some rogue proxies identify targets they want the U.S. air force to hit. The destroyed MSF hospital in Kunduz and the 50 something killed in the U.S. attack on it, on request of Afghan special forces, tell the story.

    Significant military aid to those fighters, in an area where Islamist extremist groups are mixed with and often fighting beside moderate opposition rebels, would mark a departure from previous U.S. policy. A senior administration official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss the matter, declined to give specifics on any new aid that might arrive in northwest Syria. But the official said that "these supplies will be delivered to anti-ISIL forces whose leaders were appropriately vetted," and described them as "groups with diverse membership."

    That would be these diverse groups which all include al-Nusra/al-Qaeda, Ahrar al Shams and other Jihadis. Even if not directly given to them the fact that al-Qaeda demands a "toll" of 1/3 of all weapons going through its controls, and sometimes takes all, shows that this program is effectively a direct, though unacknowledged, armament program for al-Qaeda.

    The new program is separate from a CIA-led effort to aid rebel factions in Syria. It was not immediately clear how Friday's announcement might affect the CIA program.

    The CIA runs a similar but much bigger program since 2012. Weapons are handed out to everyone who wants to take down the Syrian government. Most of those weapons have landed in the hands of the Islamic State or al-Qaeda.

    Indeed it is the CIA, under its torture justifying chief Brennan, which has pushed the Obama administration away from Kerry's conceding statement and into a full blown proxy war with Russia.

    Russia bombed some of the CIA'S trained, armed and paid groups. It had earlier asked the U.S. to tell it who not to bomb but didn't receive an answer. As the CIA mercenaries are fighting against the Syrian government and are practically not distinguishable from al-Qaeda, ISI or other terrorists they are a legitimate targets. But not in the eyes of the CIA which nevertheless finds Russian attacks on them useful:

    Reports indicate that CIA-trained groups have sustained a small number of casualties and have been urged to avoid moves that would expose them to Russian aircraft. One U.S. official who is familiar with the CIA program - and who like other officials spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss intelligence matters - said the attacks have galvanized some of the agency-equipped units. "Now they get to fight the Russians," the official said. "This improves morale."
    ...
    Brennan departed for the Middle East last week as the Russian strikes intensified. U.S. officials said that the trip was previously planned and not related to the bombings but acknowledged that his discussions centered on Syria.

    ...
    The decision to dismantle the Pentagon's training program - whose small teams of fighters were often quickly captured or surrendered their weapons to rival rebel groups in Syria - may force Obama to weigh ramping up support to the CIA-backed groups.

    U.S. officials said those involved in the agency program are already exploring options that include sending in rocket systems and other weapons that could enable rebels to strike Russian bases without sending in surface-to-air missiles that terrorist groups could use to target civilian aircraft.

    The person who told the Saudis to deliver 500 TOW missiles to Syria ASAP was likely CIA chief Brennan. He also ordered to plan for attacks on the Russian base.

    So instead of a calming down and cooperation with Russia to fight the Islamic State the Pentagon was told to shorten its program and to hand out weapons to everyone who asks. The CIA is feeding more weapons to its mercenaries via its Gulf proxies and is planning for direct attacks on Russians.

    The war on Syria, and now also on Russia, is unlikely to end in the near future. With the U.S. throwing more oil into the fire the war will burn not only in Syria but in every other country around it.

    Two suicide bombers blew themselves up today at a rally of the Kurd friendly HDP party in Ankara. Some 90 people were killed and some 200 wounded. This is the biggest terrorist attack modern Turkey has ever seen. The Turkish government disconnected the country from Twitter and forbid any reporting about the terror attack. The HDP party is leftist and supports a peaceful struggle for Kurdish autonomy. The militant Kurdish PKK in Turkey is currently fighting skirmishes with Turkish security forces in the east of the country. It has now announced that it will stop all attacks unless when it is attacked first. The sister organization of the PKK in Syria, the YPK, is currently fighting against the Islamic State. Erdogan's AK-Party and his government have supported the Islamic State and al-Qaeda in Syria. It sees the HDP party and the Kurds in general as its enemies. As one Turkish non-AKP politician said today, the bloody incident in Ankara was either a total Turkish intelligence failure or a Turkish intelligence operation.

    Whatever else it was, the bombing, very likely by Islamic State suicide bombers, is a sign of an ongoing destabilization of Turkey. The instability will increase further until there is a major policy change and a complete crackdown on any support for the Jihadis in Syria as well as a complete closure of the Turkish-Syrian border.

    Today the Russian President Putin will meet the Saudi "young leader" deputy crown-prince Mohammed Salman-un. Can Putin read him the riot act and tell him to stop being a proxy in the U.S. war on Syria? One hopes so.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Three main reasons for which NATO is not attacking Russia right now

    Notable quotes:
    "... The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom. ..."
    "... One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. ..."
    "... Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, theyre running free. ..."
    "... It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar. ..."
    "... Its a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the rebels . The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. Moderate rebels morphed into relatively moderate insurgents and all kinds of other permutations. ..."
    "... McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other unstable personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the responsible players like Obama and Kerry. The responsibles can always point to the lunatics and extract concessions from frightened opposite side. ..."
    "... On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup detat, hes made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkeys EU aspirations. ..."
    "... Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the a , b and c of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War. ..."
    "... The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe. ..."
    "... Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but were brainwashed idiots. ..."
    "... We have become a Propaganda Wonderland. ..."
    "... Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth. ..."
    "... The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russias surprise intervention in Syria and its a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months. ..."
    "... Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program thats so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat. ..."
    "... The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world. ..."
    "... excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan ..."
    the unbalanced evolution of homo sapiens

    by system failure

    The first, and probably most important reason for which NATO is not attacking Russia for the moment, is the upgraded Russian nuclear arsenal. As in the Cold War 1.0 era, the nuclear strength of both superpowers, capable to destroy the planet many times, was a key preventing factor against a direct conflict between the USA and the former Soviet Union.

    Moreover, the US indirect aggression against China lately, a stupid strategy coming from the neocon agenda, brought China closer to Russia, building an even stronger alliance between them. They are both now in a race of developing further their nuclear arsenals and this is a key deterrent which prevents NATO to confront them openly.

    The second reason, is that NATO is facing problems, the alliance is weakening and its credibility has been damaged a lot. Essentially, the members which are fully aligned behind US imperialism right now are the Baltic countries, the former eastern bloc countries and the traditional US ally, United Kingdom.

    The relations between the United States and other major countries inside the alliance appear to be in a quite bad shape, especially those with Germany and Turkey. The recent Volkswagen emission scandal confirmed that, indeed, there is an underground fierce economic war between the United States and Germany. Besides that, the relations between the two countries started to worse rapidly after the known revelations of the NSA interceptions.

    Concerning Turkey, it is known that the US promote the creation of a Kurdish state because it serves better their interests. This is totally unacceptable for Erdoğan,who is occupied by the illusion of the Turkish expansionism. Washington is not very happy seeing ISIS being used by Turkey to fight Kurds, instead of operating in full force against Assad regime.

    Other key allies like France, are not very happy with the sanctions, imposed by the US, against Russia. The economic damage is not insignificant. The most characteristic example concerning France, is the cancellation of the deal concerning the Mistral warships, by Russia.

    The third reason, is that the US need Russia and even Iran to clean up the mess in Middle East. A mess which was created by the US and their allies in Middle East when they started to arm anti-Assad forces to confront the Assad regime. Now, ISIS is out of control.

    However, the Americans had enough troubles with the attrition wars in Iraq and Afghanistan. They wouldn't risk further mess by bringing 'boots on the ground' to confront ISIS. The recent deal with Iran, concerning its nuclear program, is not accidental. Besides, Pentagon announced that will stop training new militant forces in Syria, which is actually an admission of failure of its so far strategy.

    shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 1:05:32 PM | 9

    Beware bloggers:

    Cold War II to McCarthyism II, June 8, 2015

    Exclusive: With Cold War II in full swing, the New York Times is dusting off what might be called McCarthyism II, the suggestion that anyone who doesn't get in line with U.S. propaganda must be working for Moscow, reports Robert Parry.

    snip

    Perhaps it's no surprise that the U.S. government's plunge into Cold War II would bring back the one-sided propaganda themes that dominated Cold War I, but it's still unsettling to see how quickly the major U.S. news media has returned to the old ways, especially the New York Times, which has emerged as Official Washington's propaganda vehicle of choice.

    What has been most striking in the behavior of the Times and most other U.S. mainstream media outlets is their utter lack of self-awareness, for instance, accusing Russia of engaging in propaganda and alliance-building that are a pale shadow of what the U.S. government routinely does. Yet, the Times and the rest of the MSM act as if these actions are unique to Moscow.

    BIG SNIP

    USAID, working with billionaire George Soros's Open Society, also funds the Organized Crime and Corruption Reporting Project, which engages in "investigative journalism" that usually goes after governments that have fallen into disfavor with the United States and then are singled out for accusations of corruption. The USAID-funded OCCRP also collaborates with Bellingcat, an online investigative website founded by blogger Eliot Higgins.

    https://consortiumnews.com/2015/06/08/cold-war-ii-to-mccarthyism-ii/

    Soros is coming to get us. :) Look for uptick in trolls. Hope Operation Summer Rains trolls have retired.

    Lysander | Oct 10, 2015 1:16:14 PM | 14

    Best defense for Russia is the ability to retaliate in kind. Yemen against KSA and PKK against Turkey. It doesn't mean they won't arm the terrorists, but it does mean it will be costly for them. And the Russians can always play the "gee it looks like your manpads fell into the wrong hands and they went and shot down an Aapache in Iraq."

    james | Oct 10, 2015 1:26:51 PM | 18

    what is the disconnect between the us admin and the cia? is this some sort of good guy, bad guy routine that they like to have going? are they supposed to make out like the right hand doesn't know what the left hand is doing too? looks like the cia is calling the shots... so much for that friggin' democracy joke under the nobel peace prizer's command..

    actually i think skipping the vetting and training of those working for the usa administration and the cia is a huge problem.. they can do that when they want to put weapons in isis's hands to overthrow assad, but they need to stop doing it to their own country as it's doing to blow up in their face..on 2nd thought maybe they are hoping for regime change in the usa! that's one way to get an amerikkkan regime change in your own country - destroy it..

    i am sorry to hear of the horrible event in ankara.. i can't imagine sultan erdogan being happy about it either..who advises this dipstick? or, is that an example of how things will go better with isis?

    Virgile | Oct 10, 2015 1:45:51 PM | 19

    This is where Iran comes in...

    It is clear that if the USA starts a proxy war in Syria against Russia, Iran will retaliate by hitting the USA ally, Saudi Arabia, in Yemen.

    In parallel to Saudi Arabia arming Syrian rebels, we will see Iran (and Russia) arming the Houthis in Yemen. I expect heavy military escalation on the Saudi Yemeni border soon

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 1:51:14 PM | 21

    @17 shadylady
    Impotence is an unfamiliar feeling in DC, so they are all "pissed" right now. Generals, politicos, arms merchants, lobbyists, think tankers, all of them. They are scrambling for a response, but can't find a single one that wouldn't lead to a worsening of their position.
    We are witnessing the last gasp of American hegemony, and the process is natural and irreversible.

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:00:19 PM | 22

    nmb @2, Thanks for the link. One of the 3 reasons it gives for US not attacking Russia is that Russia is needed to clean up the US mess in Syria. I agree and evidently some faction in the US with Obama as its point-man agrees. However this faction is so weak that it cannot even seem to speak out forthrightly, but relies on undermining the neocon strategy, which remains the same. The unipolarists are still determined upon absolute rule generally-- and destruction of Syria and its govt specifically.

    shadylady | Oct 10, 2015 2:04:53 PM | 23

    @ MMARR @ BOG @ James, I love reading Pepe Escorbar and M.K. Bhadrakumar

    NATO all dressed up, nowhere to go in Syria

    Neither Erdogan nor Russian President Vladimir Putin is spoiling for a fight. By the way, what actually happened over the weekend on the Turkish-Syrian border too is shrouded in mystery and increasingly it seems Ankara and Moscow are in some foreplay over new ground rules for the non-existent Turkish-Syrian border.

    From Erdogan's latest remarks, he seems to be tapping down tensions.

    snip
    The European Union's proposal to 'assist' Turkey in handling the refugee flow from Syria is a case in point. The EU offers to subsidize Turkey financially provided Ankara kept custody of the Syrian refugees. Ankara has an open mind – everything depends on how generous the EU funding will be. Clearly, $1.5 billion is 'peanuts'.

    Turkey does not want foreign troops to come and defend it. Its preference is that the US and Germany would change their mind and allowed the Patriot batteries to remain in Turkey. (Alas, they are not agreeable.)
    snip

    A broad Turkish-Russian understanding over Syria may even emerge out of it. Erdogan will most certainly expect Putin not to arm the Syrian Kurds.

    MORE: http://atimes.com/2015/10/nato-all-dressed-up-nowhere-to-go-in-syria/

    Always love Escobar, waiting for his next article:
    http://atimes.com/category/empire-of-chaos/

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 2:16:15 PM | 25

    Shady Lady @3, "Do we have a rogue CIA now?"

    Did you know that CIA has NO Congressional oversight now? With no threat of hearings, they're running free.

    It seems that most of the military/foreign policy establishment is actively pushing the neocon unipolarist adventurism. More like those who are active in trying to dilute its actions are the rogue element. Obama, I am convinced, is trying even while covering himself w a milder version of neocon rhetoric. I never thought I wd approve anything about such a liar.

    He weakened the Pentagon's program to send in fighters, but I don't think there's anything he can do against the CIA I guess he still appoints the director, but making that change wd be an awfully dangerous move.

    Does anyone know if there are elements in the military who resist the military adventurism for whom McCain and the neocons are the point-men?

    gemini33 | Oct 10, 2015 2:35:41 PM | 30

    @11 Penelope

    It's a real study to read the articles from the NYT and other big media outlets here on the subject of Syria and particularly the "rebels". The concoction of terms that have been used over the past couple of years and especially since ~ June is mind boggling. At one point I had started collecting them. "Moderate rebels" morphed into "relatively moderate insurgents" and all kinds of other permutations.

    It's also interesting to note the way they refer to their numerous anonymous sources. We have become a Propaganda Wonderland.

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 2:42:38 PM | 33

    @25 Penelope

    McCain, Lindsey, Rubio, Cotton and other "unstable" personalities decide grand total of nothing in US foreign policy. They are encouraged to talk tough only insofar as it softens up the foreign interlocutors for the "responsible" players like Obama and Kerry. The "responsibles" can always point to the "lunatics" and extract concessions from frightened opposite side.

    People who take their bluster seriously are making a mistake, because that's exactly their goal. Yet it's simply a bluster, a theater, and nothing more.
    Therefore, nobody in the US military "resists their adventurism", because they are all part of the same team, only with different roles.

    Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 2:49:58 PM | 35

    Proxy wars were how the Cold War 1.0 was fought, and after a brief hiatus, that's how the new Cold War 2.0 will be fought, what has changed is the weaponry and the type of warfare, mainly from guerrilla wars of liberation in Africa, Asia, and Latin America, to hybrid and asymmetrical warfare. The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world.

    On another note, Erdogan is setting himself up for a landslide defeat at the polls or a military coup d'etat, he's made so many enemies in the Turkish army and body politic, that combined with his erratic personal behavior and foreign/internal policies, and his delusions of grandeur, are not a good omen for his future. If Turkey still had any illusions re: membership in the EU, Erdogan and the recent suicide bombings just kill them for time to come, and la Merkel now has more ammunition to throw at Turkey's EU aspirations.

    Welcome to the, now official, Cold War 2.0!

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 3:11:58 PM | 39

    @27 Penelope

    Russians are far more cautious than Americans, because they have had more 1000 years to hone their diplomacy, and are acutely aware that blowback is an inevitable consequence of any poorly though-out action and/or overreach. Americans are still learning the "a","b" and "c" of the craft, and maybe even regressing since the end of the Cold War.

    So, Moscow will definitely refrain from any preemptive action with regard to undermining Saudis or Turks. They usually prefer to sit and watch, to talk and to calculate the odds, and only then move a figure on a chessboard. Americans move first and think later, believing they can always kill the opponent, if the game develops not to their liking.

    As for Russia not supplying Syria or Iran with S-300, I think that was done mostly in order not to alarm and antagonize the West prematurely, while Russia's military was moving swiftly on the path of wholesale reorganization and modernization. In Putin's world, it seems, everything has its own time and its own place.

    ToivoS | Oct 10, 2015 3:34:37 PM | 42

    The Russians must have had a very clear understanding that when they attacked those "al Nusra" and other "moderate" targets in Northern Syria that they that these forces were being supplied and encouraged by the CIA Russia knowingly attacked US backed forces. Perhaps Obama and Kerry are too stupid to realize what that means. What it means is that there are very powerful forces inside the US government and military that will see this as an attack on the United States of America and that we must respond to that aggression. I hope that Obama is starting to understand what he is up against. He should be trying to bring those agencies under control. Any tiny efforts to neutralize those War Party forces with compromise will only make matters worse. It is time exert executive control over these groups and execute top level purges if they resist. Somehow this seems unlikely.

    I hope Putin and Lavrov thought this through before they acted. The outcome could be very dangerous indeed. I was terribly worried last week when the Russian attack began that it would produce a strong reaction inside the US government among all of those war monger plants inside State, the military and intelligence agencies that have been slowly gaining power for the last decade. All of that cheering we have been hearing over the last week here at MOA has been serious -- representatives of the US hegemon do not like to be ridiculed.

    Penelope | Oct 10, 2015 3:36:53 PM | 43

    BOG @ 13, I don't think it's a divide between the executive & military. I think the majority of each is committed to an aggressive foreign policy. Obama I think is resisting it and only giving rhetorical agreement. I'm not sure who else is in the resistors' faction.

    Thanks for posting about the withdrawal of the USS Theodore Roosevelt "just one day after Russian missile strikes from the Caspian. Didn't make sense to me, cuz Russians aren't threatening ships.

    In fact, departure was well telegraphed in advance: In April, June & July. Announcement was that for first time since 2007 there wd be a two month gap in the Fall w/o an aircraft carrier in the Gulf. Replacement in December. Reason: Only 10 active now, stead of 11 & ideal maintenace schedule is 7 months deployment; as it is we're deploying for 8 months. Oct 5 announced imminent departure, day before Rusian missiles.

    This was potentially important; thanks for posting it. The links are boring. Don't bother; I only posted them for completeness.
    http://www.washingtoninstitute.org/policy-analysis/view/assessing-the-u.s.-aircraft-carrier-gap-in-the-gulfTh Oct 5, announcing imminent departure
    http://breakingdefense.com/2015/06/carrier-gap-in-gulf-is-a-symptom-not-a-crisis/
    http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/07/30/navy-admiral-confirms-us-pulling-aircraft-carrier-from-persian-gulf-this-fall/

    GoraDiva | Oct 10, 2015 3:51:04 PM | 46

    A good update on the Syrian ops - http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/10/john-helmer-us-strategy-in-the-middle-east-is-dying-along-with-its-authors-carter-and-brzezinski-putin-al-assad-get-to-dance-on-their-graves-david-ben-gurion-too.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+NakedCapitalism+%28naked+capitalism%29

    alaric | Oct 10, 2015 4:04:07 PM | 50

    The Russians surely anticipated such a move from the US so i assume Putin has a counter move for the US. China's participation would certainly supply that but there are lots of things Putin can do, many are mentioned above.

    The US plan (export ISIS and Al Qaida to balkanize) is extremely defective because it also threatens the stability and even existence of traditional US stooges like Pakistan, Jordan, Egypt, etc, and it also inflicts massive economic pain and an immigration crisis upon Europe.

    I doubt US allies will be able to endure this US push to implement Brzezinki's nefarious plot and Israel's similar plan for the ME. I expect some major defections from the US camp.

    Saudi, Qatar, and UAE have exported terrorism with complete impunity for decades now. Russia, Iran, Syria, Hezbollah, etc need to do something rather direct about that or it will continue. The American people should do something as well but we're brainwashed idiots.

    zedz | Oct 10, 2015 4:06:51 PM | 51

    IMO the lack of western reaction is due to two things - 1) Russians have some toys that the west can't neutralize and 2) Europe wants to survive and wants no war anyway

    I think the arab statements are pure posturing, they'll basically trade Syria for Yemen in the end.

    Erdogan played both east and west and betrayed both. He has no future, this way or the other. The current chaos there could come from both sides just as well.

    Vintage Red | Oct 10, 2015 4:12:00 PM | 53

    gemini33 @30:

    "We have become a Propaganda Wonderland."

    The US has become Humpty-Dumpty, claiming "words mean what I want them to mean." We all know what happened to Humpty-Dumpty...

    tom | Oct 10, 2015 5:30:31 PM | 59

    Please don't hate me because I was right, once again.

    Believing John Kerry in saying that he agrees to a secular stable Syria was bullshit from the first breath that came out of his mouth.

    Like I said weeks ago when b and others here gave Kerry the benefit of the doubt, which was never deserved. How could Kerry be a proven unreliable liar in regards to Ukraine, but he's capable of telling the truth in Syria ?! it makes no sense. Desperate, wishful thinking.

    The Empire is scrambling for answers and actions due to Russia's surprise intervention in Syria and it's a simple as that. Read my post from yesterday. Once they decide on a course of despicable action, it will become much clearer in the next few weeks or months.

    And when Russia inevitably becomes Iraqs foreign helpful power, replacing the US there, then expect far more US support for jihadi terrorists. If the US is left out of the loop in Iraq, they will counter that with more jihadis and more weapons. It's why they are the evil empire and the Great Satan.

    Oh, and that time frame of the Russian involvement in Syria will be only four months, like I said was bullshit yesterday, guess what, it's time to hate tom again, because I was spot on there too.

    Weeks ago I mentioned that this Russian in intervention is not a riskless, easy program that's so many Putin-bots were desperate for. One can either describe reality, or be a biased self-credibility eviserator. The evil US Empire is super pissed and they are going to double down instead of retreat.

    MMARR | Oct 10, 2015 5:50:11 PM | 62

    @57 Penelope

    In geopolitics the words of intent almost always hide the real intent. They are meaningless.

    All of this verbal saber-rattling is nothing more than psy-ops, the lowest cost form of warfare. People are simply trying no nudge the Russians to engage in talks, as well as enhance their own position at the negotiating table. US government also has to calm down the viewers of FOX News. Moscow understands that.

    My prediction - neither the West nor the Gulf Arabs (who operate some of the world's biggest and fines airlines) will supply high-tech anti-aircraft weapons to head choppers. Russians produce the best such toys in the world, and the blowback for this "act of war" could be vicious.

    harry law | Oct 10, 2015 6:06:25 PM | 66

    "On Friday, Russian air power "destroyed two command centres of the militants, an ammunition depot in the Hama Province, 29 field camps, 23 fortified stations and positions with ammunition and equipment."

    Radio intercepts revealed ISIS now faces a shortage of fuel, weapons, ammunition and increasingly the will to fight in the face of an onslaught against which they're defenseless.
    Thousands "are demoralized and are actively leaving the battle zone, moving in eastern and northeastern directions," Konashenkov explained.

    Areas targeted in the last 24 hours included Raqqa (the main ISIS stronghold), Hama, Idlib, the Damascus countryside and Aleppo." http://sjlendman.blogspot.co.uk/ Not bad for a start, won't do McCains health any good.

    Satellite images located a hidden Idlib province command center. "After analysis of pictures from space and after air reconnaissance by drones," Russian air strikes destroyed it.

    Wayoutwest | Oct 10, 2015 7:33:26 PM | 73

    HL@66

    The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing. Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall.

    The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

    The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

    ben | Oct 10, 2015 7:56:14 PM | 77

    LoneWolf @35 said: " The empire will not cede an inch of their unipolar delusion, and will fight to defeat Russia/China/Iran aspirations for a multipolar world."

    Yep, and as long as the dollar reins, they'll create all they need to meet their goals.

    nmb @ 38 said: "I'm afraid things can get worse with the 2016 US elections. Any GOP will certainly promote the neocon agenda, but also Hillary will adopt such policies. I doubt that the US deep state will let any chance for Sanders."

    Agreed. It's the money people, til' that changes, nothing changes. Go BRICS, go!

    Lone Wolf | Oct 10, 2015 11:21:16 PM | 83

    @Wayoutwest@73

    The Russians are certainly good at self-promotion and propaganda bombing.

    I don't think the takfiris you so much defend would have the same opinion. They are being blown to bits, and that according to your buddy-buddy at the Syrian "Observatory for Human Rights" (sic!).

    Islamic State loses 132 members, 70 villages and farmlands in the northeast of Syria

    Reading this detailed report you would think they face a conventional army in the Islamic State who sit in buildings waiting for orders while the bombs fall. The IS is a nonconventional force an Urban Guerilla force dispersed across the country in small groups and if there was a command center it was evacuated and empty when bombed just as the training facilities/ school yards were empty.

    Wrong again. IS performs and behaves like a conventional army, with entire regions, cities and territory under their control, some of them for years now, with a functioning economy, bureaucracy, the entire infrastructure of a state. They are not a rag-tag guerrilla group, they have ties to the infrastructure they have stolen, gas and oil fields to defend, training grounds, C&C centers, etc. IS might use non-conventional, guerrilla tactics in their fighting, as many armies do, that doesn't turn them into a non-conventional force. A guerrilla moves to fight another day, does not engage in attrition tactics.

    The IS fighters were running during this bombing spree but they were running to capture new territory from other rebel groups that the Russians softened up for them.

    You pretend to be so well informed. How would you know those details? Your takfiri rats are running all over because their time for reckoning is up, now they have to pay for their crimes, and are being sent to hell in bits and pieces so their master can use them for fuel.

    crone | Oct 10, 2015 11:47:30 PM | 86

    excellent article up at zerohedge... http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-10-10/carpe-chaos-isis-israel-iraq-syria-its-all-part-plan

    comment section informative also

    [Oct 10, 2015] US oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year

    U.S. shale oil needs $80 to grow
    "... U.S. oil production growth will stop this month and begin to decline early next year due to low oil prices, the former head of oil firm EOG Resources, Mark Papa, said on Tuesday. ..."
    "... He said the main reason for the decline would be the lack of bank financing for new shale developments. ..."
    "... If U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, Papa said U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd – or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years. ..."
    "... In its Short-Term Energy Outlook the EIA revised higher estimates of US oil production: by 62 kb/d on average for the second half of 2015, by 49 kb/d for 1H16 and by 22 kb/d for 2H16. I think this largely reflects the revision of its historical estimate for July. ..."
    "... Of course, at an overall decline rate of 10%/year from existing production, operators need to put on line close to 1.0 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells. At a probably more realistic decline rate of about 15%/year from existing production, they would need to put on line about 1.5 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells (at current production levels). ..."
    "... We see (U.S. oil production declines) continuing into next summer. ..."
    "... About two weeks ago, as reported in the Daily Oklahoman, Harold Hamm (Continental Resources) said that by May of 2016, US production decline would be so significant and obvious that the crises would be over ..."
    "... I wonder if Dennis might have been technically wrong, but actually fundamentally correct, about an oil price bottom in January, when Brent averaged $48. Brent averaged $47 in August, and probably about the same in September, and its currently trading at about $53 this morning. It seems to me that the bottom line is that monthly lows so far in his cycle have been in the high 40s. ..."
    "... Incidentally, I had forgotten how rapid the run-up was in oil prices from 2007 to 2008. From June, 2007 to June, 2008, monthly WTI prices exactly doubled (hitting $134 in June, 2008), and Brent almost doubled (hitting $132 in June, 2008). Brent then fell to a monthly low of $40 in that price decline, in December, 2008. ..."
    "... Do you think your numbers show that improvements in drilling efficiency have finally reached a limit? ..."
    "... Enno. Saw you comment on the Seeking Alpha article re: CLR. Am I correct that a massive write down is coming for CLR at year end, and thus a massive loss in earnings? ..."
    "... I think John Keller and Blaine brought up that banks are not on the hook for most of the debt, but unsecured bonds make up the bulk of it. It is odd, however, to see banks eager to loan funds to LTO companies who could possibly default on unsecured debt and who are insolvent, on paper, at least. ..."
    "... Why do unsecured bond holders just take a bath and take no action? It would seem to me that upon default, the unsecured bond holders could obtain a judgment against the defaulting company and lien the assets. Seems this might be some leverage to get some money out of the defaulting company/first lien banks, who probably do not want to go through the foreclosure process? ..."
    "... As mentioned before, my guess is that improvements in early production levels are temporary and technological – adding more sand to the frack, fiddling the engineering/choke – to improve IP, and thus asset bases and the potential size of loans, at the expense of ultimate recovery. Companies that need to do this far outnumber the genuine oil companies that merely try to extract oil for a lower price than they sell it for, and comprise at least two of the three top producers. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    U.S. shale oil needs $80 to grow

    U.S. oil production growth will stop this month and begin to decline early next year due to low oil prices, the former head of oil firm EOG Resources, Mark Papa, said on Tuesday.

    Papa, now a partner at U.S. energy investment firm Riverstone Holdings LLC, told an industry conference in London that the U.S. shale oil industry needed oil prices of at least $80 a barrel to resume production growth.

    "We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth," said Papa, who was a key figure helping to spur the U.S. shale oil boom when he was at EOG Resources.

    U.S. oil production has been growing by around 1 million barrels per day (bpd) year-on-year since mid 2012, thanks to the introduction of new drilling techniques that have released oil and gas from shale formations. But output in North America has started to slow in recent months as prices have fallen sharply.

    Papa said U.S. oil production would stall this month and begin to decline from early next year. He said the main reason for the decline would be the lack of bank financing for new shale developments.

    If U.S. light crude oil prices went back up to $75 a barrel, Papa said U.S. oil production would resume growth at around 500,000 bpd – or around half the record growth rates observed in the past few years.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 9:16 am

    In its Short-Term Energy Outlook the EIA revised higher estimates of US oil production: by 62 kb/d on average for the second half of 2015, by 49 kb/d for 1H16 and by 22 kb/d for 2H16. I think this largely reflects the revision of its historical estimate for July.

    From the report:

    "Based on the latest survey-based reporting of monthly crude oil production estimates, U.S. production averaged 9.4 million b/d in the first half of 2015. This level is 0.2 million b/d higher than the average production during the fourth quarter of 2014, despite a more than 60% decline in the total U.S. oil-directed rig count since October 2014. However, crude oil production started to decrease in the second quarter of 2015, beginning with Lower 48 onshore production in April. Although the Lower 48 onshore decline was offset by production gains in the Gulf of Mexico that kept total production growth positive in April, total U.S. production began declining in May.

    EIA expects U.S. crude oil production declines generally to continue through August 2016, when total production is forecast to average 8.7 million b/d. Forecast production begins rising in late 2016, returning to an average of 9.0 million b/d in the fourth quarter. A total of 12 projects are scheduled to come online in the Gulf of Mexico in 2015 and 2016, pushing up production from an average of 1.4 million b/d in the fourth quarter of 2014 to more than 1.6 million b/d in the fourth quarter of 2016.

    Expected crude oil production declines from May 2015 through mid-2016 are largely attributable to unattractive economic returns in some areas of both emerging and mature onshore oil production regions, as well as seasonal factors such as anticipated hurricane-related production disruptions in the Gulf of Mexico. Reductions in 2015 cash flows and capital expenditures have prompted companies to defer or redirect investment away from marginal exploration and research drilling to focus on core areas of major tight oil plays. Reduced investment has resulted in the lowest count of oil-directed rigs in about five years and in well completions that are significantly behind 2014 levels.

    Oil prices, particularly in the second quarter of 2015, remained high enough to support continued development drilling in the core areas within the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, and Permian formations, with July and August showing the first consecutive month-to-month increases in the oil-directed rig count since September and October 2014. However, WTI prices below $60/b through the forecast period are anticipated to limit onshore drilling activity and well completion totals, despite continued increases in rig and well productivity and falling drilling and completion costs. The forecast remains sensitive to actual wellhead prices and rapidly changing drilling economics that vary across regions and operators.

    While projected oil production in the Gulf of Mexico rises during the forecast period, oil production in Alaska falls. Production in these areas is less sensitive to short-term price movements than onshore production in the Lower 48 states and reflects anticipated growth from new projects in the Gulf of Mexico and declines from legacy fields in Alaska."

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/06/2015 at 9:35 am
    Of course, at an overall decline rate of 10%/year from existing production, operators need to put on line close to 1.0 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells. At a probably more realistic decline rate of about 15%/year from existing production, they would need to put on line about 1.5 million bpd of new C+C production per year, just to offset declines from existing wells (at current production levels).
    Greenbub, 10/06/2015 at 11:59 am

    If we returned to $80/barrel (and that could happen pretty easily if the dollar fell or other causes), that would mean we would have over 11 million bpd in four years. When would peak oil happen in that case?

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/06/2015 at 12:58 pm

    At the 1965 to 1970 rate of increase in US C+C production, the US would have been producing about 73 million bpd in 2015:

    http://www.eia.gov/totalenergy/data/monthly/pdf/sec3_3.pdf

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 1:14 pm

    U.S. oil output on brink of 'dramatic' decline, executive says

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/06/us-oil-outlook-usa-idUSKCN0S021Y20151006

    Delegates at the Oil and Money conference in London, an annual gathering of senior industry officials, said world oil prices were now too low to support U.S. shale oil output, the biggest addition to world production over the last decade.

    "We are about to see a pretty dramatic decline in U.S. production growth," the former head of oil firm EOG Resources Mark Papa, told the conference.

    The chief executive of Royal Dutch Shell Plc agreed, saying U.S. oil producers would struggle to refinance while prices remained so low, leading to lower output in future.

    "Producers are now looking for new cash to survive and they will probably struggle to get it," Ben van Beurden said.

    Longer term, there was a risk that low levels of global production could bring a spike in oil prices, he said.

    If prices remained low for a long time and oil production outside OPEC and the United States declined due to capital expenditure cuts, there was not likely to be any significant spare capacity left in the system, he said.

    "This could cause prices to spike upwards, starting a new cycle of strong production growth in U.S. shale oil and subsequent volatility," van Beurden said.
    Adam Sieminski, administrator at the U.S. Energy Information Administration, told reporters on the sidelines of the conference the U.S. oil industry had reacted to lower prices by improving its productivity.

    But this process could not continue forever.

    "Now we are seeing the limits at least in the near term and it is beginning to impact production," Sieminski said. "We see (U.S. oil production declines) continuing into next summer."

    Clueless, 10/06/2015 at 4:06 pm
    About two weeks ago, as reported in the Daily Oklahoman, Harold Hamm (Continental Resources) said that by May of 2016, US production decline would be so significant and obvious that the crises would be over [paraphrasing].
    Steve, 10/06/2015 at 9:33 am
    Utica showing signs of age? From an anti-fracing org, but more importantly, is the data valid?

    The Curious Case of the Shrinking Utica Shale Play
    September 29, 2015

    http://www.fractracker.org/2015/09/shrinking-utica-shale-play/

    Ted Auch, 10/07/2015 at 12:13 pm
    First I would just like to clarify that while FracTracker might seem like an "anti-fracing org" we believe that the pro/con labels are typical of debates in US (i.e., you are either with us unconditionally or against us!).

    There is plenty of room in the middle and at the margins for sound research and mapping with respect to hydraulic fracturing and the broader hydrocarbon industrial complex with respect to land-use/land-cover (LULC), waste generation and transport, water use and watershed resilience, Energy Return On Energy Invested (EROEI), and potential threats to ecosystem services.

    That said we are very interested in modeling the spread between Utica production expectations and reality.

    1. Herein we compiled a very robust data set of 1,100 Utica wells to construct this spacially explicit model using a technique called Empirical Bayesian Kriging.
    2. The data we have compiled speaks to Ohio's Utica wells experiencing 84% declines in oil and gas production on a per day basis from years 1 to 2. From that point forward oil and gas declines by 25% and 10%, respectively. Furthermore, the newer wells are experiencing more pronounced exponential declines in productivity.
    3. We aren't "set[ting] up a straw man premise" about production but simply showing that the Ohio DNR is woefully lagging behind in updating their constituents as to the realities of the Utica from an oil, gas, and brine perspective.
    coffeeguyzz , 10/07/2015 at 9:58 pm
    Mr. Auch

    Straight up, if you honestly are unaware of the difference between flow back water and produced water, you may want to get an education right quick.
    I checked the brine output for the three wells mentioned in the article, and found the 1,800 barrel was for TWO days after the well came online. The NEXT 91 days, this Chesapeake Trueshall well produced 170 bbl/d.

    Exact same premise for the EM and Gulfport wells. (Gulfport's Bolton well is currently producing 15 barrels of water a day).

    Anyone who remotely thinks the dry gas Utica is shrinking or diminishing in any way is simply uninformed.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/07/2015 at 5:30 am
    I wonder if Dennis might have been technically wrong, but actually fundamentally correct, about an oil price bottom in January, when Brent averaged $48. Brent averaged $47 in August, and probably about the same in September, and it's currently trading at about $53 this morning. It seems to me that the bottom line is that monthly lows so far in his cycle have been in the high 40's.

    Incidentally, I had forgotten how rapid the run-up was in oil prices from 2007 to 2008. From June, 2007 to June, 2008, monthly WTI prices exactly doubled (hitting $134 in June, 2008), and Brent almost doubled (hitting $132 in June, 2008). Brent then fell to a monthly low of $40 in that price decline, in December, 2008.

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=RWTC&f=M

    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 1:45 pm
    Hi Jeffrey,

    I think I was just plain wrong on my guess at an oil price bottom in January.

    I also was wrong about how fast LTO output would decline (I thought at under $50/b) the decline in LTO output would be much steeper and that the well completion and drilling rates would decrease much faster than has been the case.

    If the LTO output had fallen as fast as I thought back in January, $48/b for Brent might have been the bottom. I have no clue what will happen going forward. Do you still expect oil prices might reach $65/b or higher by Jan 2016 (even with no OPEC cut)? Everything has moved much slower than I anticipated, certainly Steve Kopits forecast from Feb 2015 wasn't correct and I have not heard any new forecasts from him, what's your take, July 2016 oil prices reach $70/b?

    robert wilson, 10/07/2015 at 3:51 am
    Biography M. King Hubbert Available April 2016 http://www.oracleofoil.com
    Enno Peters, 10/07/2015 at 5:47 am
    Yesterday the NDIC released the latest update on the status of all wells in ND (no production numbers).

    What I found most interesting is that a very low number of 66 wells were spudded in ND in September. The last time so few wells were spudded in ND was early 2010. This number may still be revised (I expect up to 10% higher), but it is much lower than the 121 wells spudded in August, and the 109 wells spudded in July. It also indicates that the trend of the rising number of spuds/rig/month has reversed, as shown in the chart below (latest data is for September).

    A similar temporary rise in this 'drilling capacity factor" (wells spud/rig/month) was also visible during the 2009 downturn, as can be seen. I have no explanation for it.

    So yes, drilling efficiency has increased over the last 4 years, from an average of 0.6 wells spud/rig/month, to recently almost 1.2 wells spud/rig/month, but it is still a far cry from 2, which Lynn Helms mentioned in a recent update.

    I expect that this big drop in new wells spudded will show up as lower output, in a delayed response, somewhere mid/end next year, as the current fraclog is depleted slowly each month (meaning more wells are being brought online than drilled), as has been the case since December 2014.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 6:33 am
    Thank you Enno, very interesting.

    The average rig count in North Dakota in September was 67. If 66 wells were spudded, there is only 1 well spud/rig/month.

    Do you think your numbers show that improvements in drilling efficiency have finally reached a limit? What is your estimate of the current fracklog in ND and what was its peak level this year?

    Thanks again

    Enno Peters, 10/07/2015 at 7:46 am
    Alex,

    "Do you think your numbers show that improvements in drilling efficiency have finally reached a limit?"

    That appears to be the case based on the latest data. However, the last few months showed large fluctuations, so a few more months would be useful to come to a more firm conclusion.

    "What is your estimate of the current fracklog in ND and what was its peak level this year?"

    If I assume that 125 wells were brought online in August, and 115 in September (vs 136 in July), the below picture emerges.

    I provide 2 measures for the fraclog:
    1) Uncompleted well inventory: This is the well inventory counted from the start of spudding a well, and before first production. This is an accurate measure, as the data is available. It has been trending down since last November (1260), and could drop to about 940 by the end of September, based on the above assumption. It will never come close to 0, as there are always a few months between spudding a well and first production.

    2) Estimated fraclog: This is the well inventory, counted from 5 months after spudding, and before first production. Historically, there used to be about 5 months (although this number has varied) in between these 2 activities, so I think this is a more reasonable estimate of the actual number of wells where completion is clearly being delayed. This number has been rising until June, as more wells spudded late last year past the 5 months waiting time, and I expect it to keep dropping since then. According to this measure the June peak was at 500 wells, and by the end of September dropped somewhat to 460. Now that the number of spudded wells has dropped significantly in September, I expect that this measure of the fraclog will start to drop more rapidly early next year, if a steady number of wells are completed.

    I am quite curious of the quality of the wells in this fraclog. So far, despite high-grading, no improvement in well productivity has been seen in 2015, compared with 2014. This is somewhat surprising, but on the other hand it would make sense if operators typically have focused on their best areas in the past already. In the current price environment, I belief it is rational to expect that operators keep employing the same strategy, of bringing their best wells online first (except EOG, which is not bringing any wells online, some of which are known to be very good). If that is the case, the average well in the fraclog may be of lesser quality than the wells being brought online so far. For example, it could contain a greater ratio of Three Forks wells. This is just a theory, which may be revealed in the data in the coming year.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 8:35 am
    Thank you Enno.

    I think the best definition of the fracklog is "drilled but uncompleted wells" (DUC), but this information in unavailable. I agree that your "Estimated fraclog" better reflects the real trend than the "well inventory counted from the start of spudding a well, and before first production".

    One question: how do you estimate the quality of the wells in this fraclog if these wells are not yet producing?

    Enno Peters, 10/07/2015 at 8:46 am
    "One question: how do you estimate the quality of the wells in this fraclog if these wells are not yet producing?"

    I have no information on the quality of the wells in the fraclog, nor any estimate. What I meant was that I suspect that the quality of those wells may be less than the wells being brought online during the recent period. This could be confirmed once the fraclog wells are online, and we can measure their performance.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 8:49 am
    O.K., thanks Enno
    shallow sand, 10/07/2015 at 9:05 am
    Enno. Saw you comment on the Seeking Alpha article re: CLR. Am I correct that a massive write down is coming for CLR at year end, and thus a massive loss in earnings?

    Also, surprising to me how much shale stocks have rebounded with WTI just improving by about $4-$5 per bbl.

    Enno. 10/07/2015 at 9:23 am
    Shallow,

    Correct. But it will be presented as "a one-off non-cash write-off, typically ignored by analysts", despite being massive and having been paid up front. :-)

    Indeed the rebound is somewhat surprising. Perhaps a short squeeze?

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 10:25 am
    Impairment charges at record levels for North American E&P peer group (IHS Herold)

    1 September 2015
    http://blog.ihs.com/impairment-charges-at-record-levels-for-north-american-ep-peer-group-ihs-herold

    The elevated level of asset impairments in the first half of 2015 have exceeded the previous annual high of the past decade in 2008. Given continued low commodity prices, we predict continuing severe impairments for companies in our North American E&P peer group during the remainder of 2015, with companies with high DD&A expense and assets outside core areas of the best plays most at risk. With proved reserves used as collateral for debt financing, E&Ps taking major write-downs in 2015 could have difficulty obtaining financing from their banks if prices remain depressed.

    • Our preliminary second-quarter 2015 data shows the North American E&P peer group (Large, Midsized, and Small) took a total of $31 billion in impairment charges during the quarter, surpassing the first-quarter total of $29 billion. This propels the first-half 2015 total to $60 billion, far exceeding the previous high of $49 billion in 2008, as well as the 10-year annual average of $18 billion.

    shallow sand, 10/07/2015 at 11:58 am
    It appears that some companies began taking charges in Q1, and are taking a charge each quarter, while others are waiting until the end of 2015.

    What is the reason for this difference? Accounting methods?

    It appears that there are just two months left for SEC reserve value calculations for year end, 2015. As I and others brought up several months ago, many companies will have PDP PV10 smaller in value than the amount of their long term debt.

    I think John Keller and Blaine brought up that banks are not on the hook for most of the debt, but unsecured bonds make up the bulk of it. It is odd, however, to see banks eager to loan funds to LTO companies who could possibly default on unsecured debt and who are insolvent, on paper, at least.

    Again, I do look for US conventional production to continue to absorb the hit, as many conventional producers tend to be small business owners, who actually have to be concerned about paying debt back, no matter to who it is owed.

    Why do unsecured bond holders just take a bath and take no action? It would seem to me that upon default, the unsecured bond holders could obtain a judgment against the defaulting company and lien the assets. Seems this might be some leverage to get some money out of the defaulting company/first lien banks, who probably do not want to go through the foreclosure process?

    Or once the interest payment is missed, do the defaulting companies immediately file BK?

    Blaine, 10/07/2015 at 10:55 pm
    I would think it would usually be in the interest of the junior creditors to to force bankruptcy as soon as possible, while it still looks as if there might be value left over after addressing more senior liabilities. Their problem is that unless they have a debt covenant, they can't force a bankruptcy until the company actually defaults on a payment, and for the most part, the bonds don't have one.

    Remember how all the E&Ps made such a big deal about how they didn't have any debt due soon? Payments due are generally quite small. There's really no standard approach, but when they started realizing they were in trouble, a lot of the companies issued secured second lien bonds which cut ahead of the older bonds, and they've been using the cash from these (plus credit lines) to make all contracted payments.

    gwalke, 10/08/2015 at 6:35 am
    One way to achieve this might be to stratify them by county, using McKenzie, Mountrail, Dunn and Williams as 'core' counties, as well as by targeted formation (as you have said).

    Our analysis was that high-grading was relatively difficult, at least geologically, as the industry was already completing 84% of its wells in core counties. The percentage has increased this year, but there was little headroom for them to improve. Obviously this excludes sub-county level high-grading, but it is not unreasonable to have expected companies to generally bring their best wells on first even in the absence of price pressure. In the daily reports companies have still been completing wells in peripheral counties like Bottineau and Bowman.

    As mentioned before, my guess is that improvements in early production levels are temporary and technological – adding more sand to the frack, fiddling the engineering/choke – to improve IP, and thus asset bases and the potential size of loans, at the expense of ultimate recovery. Companies that need to do this far outnumber the 'genuine' oil companies that merely try to extract oil for a lower price than they sell it for, and comprise at least two of the three top producers.

    Enno Peters, 10/08/2015 at 7:01 am
    thanks for your comments gwalke, I agree with you.
    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 2:36 pm
    Hi Enno,

    So with a frac log of 450 wells and assuming 70 wells drilled per month and 140 wells completed, we run out of the frac log in less than 7 months, if the frac log is 900, this gets extended to 13 months under the same assumptions. So possibly output could be maintained until April or September if well quality doesn't deteriorate. Great stuff, thanks!

    Blaine, 10/07/2015 at 10:39 pm
    What is your source for the "Wells Spud" data, and why do we believe that this the date is accurate? Clearly the count from ND should be correct in the sense that it matches the actual wells, and the operators will eventually have to file paperwork with the correct spudding date.

    But is there a reason they need to promptly report the spudding of a well? If your source is the ND well status reports, is there a reason why they shouldn't be a month or two stale?

    Enno Peters, 10/08/2015 at 4:08 am
    I get this data from:

    https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/
    – Go to the GIS Map Server
    – Click on "download shape files" (top right)
    – download the wells.zip at the bottom
    – open the wells.dbf in Excel

    I have worked with this data over a year, and I found that every update typically contains minor revisions, mostly over the last few weeks. The revisions are typically changing the spud date with 1 day forwards/backwards, and a few new spud dates in the previous period. This was typically a minor occurrence, therefore I said above it could still be revised upwards with about 10% in my experience.

    Blaine, 10/08/2015 at 9:18 pm
    Thanks. Since that's actual spud date data and not a proxy, I agree that the older data should be quite accurate, and that the accuracy of the more recent data can be determined from the revision history, and is apparently accurate as well.

    Increasing pad size should be causing an increase, but that should be longer term, and not this kind of spike.

    The only thing that I can think of that would cause the spike is crewing. Maybe when they're about to lay people off, they have more people standing around waiting to fix anything that goes wrong? Even if they had the same number of people per rig, they wouldn't be busy with setting up the next pad. The effect is larger than I would have thought, but after all wells are drilled by people, not rigs. Maybe someone with some experience could comment if this seems reasonable?

    Enno Peters, 10/09/2015 at 1:29 am
    "The effect is larger than I would have thought, but after all wells are drilled by people, not rigs. "

    That's a good point.

    gwalke, 10/08/2015 at 6:39 am
    Current daily report data is also very interesting. We are only five days in (of 22) to forecasting September production, but on current data new wells would only add around 25kbpd. That's compared to around 51kbpd added by July's new wells.
    Enno Peters, 10/08/2015 at 7:03 am
    One thing I noticed is that many (300+) inactive wells have been recently put back on active again. I am not sure how big an impact that will give.

    [Oct 10, 2015] The danger of the succession war in Saudi Arabia

    "... That could mean that only one branch of this family of some seven thousand princes will have power, a prescription for potential conflict as thirty-four of the thirty-five surviving lines of the founders family could find themselves disenfranchised. ..."
    "... Todays Saudi Arabia is reminiscent of the dying decade of the Soviet Union, when one aged and infirm Politburo chief briefly succeeded another-from Brezhnev to Andropov to Chernenko ..."
    "... In moves announced on Saudi state television, Salman replaced Crown Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz and named the powerful interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, as next in line. He also named his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as deputy crown prince and relieved the long-serving foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, who has shaped the kingdoms foreign policy for nearly four decades. ..."
    "... But that was before their father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, 79, ascended to the throne. Now Prince Mohammed, the eldest son of the kings third and most recent wife, is the rising star. He has swiftly accumulated more power than any prince has ever held, upending a longstanding system of distributing positions around the royal family to help preserve its unity, and he has used his growing influence to take a leading role in Saudi Arabias newly assertive stance in the region, including its military intervention in Yemen. . . . ..."
    "... some Western diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the prince and the king, say they are worried about the growing influence of the prince, with one even calling him rash and impulsive. And in interviews, at least two other princes in the main line of the royal family made it clear that some older members of the clan have doubts as well. Both questioned the costs and benefits of the Yemen campaign that Prince Mohammed has spearheaded. . . . ..."
    "... The prince, one of the grandsons of the states founder, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, has told the Guardian that there is disquiet among the royal family – and among the wider public – at the leadership of King Salman, who acceded the throne in January. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    coffeeguyzz, 10/07/2015 at 6:12 am

    WTI just hit $49.50 this AM

    Reports are coming out of KSA that King Salman is in a hospital in critical condition.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/07/2015 at 7:28 am

    In regard to Saudi Arabia, I usually reference "On Saudi Arabia," which was published in 2013. Following is a link to, and excerpt from, Chapter One:
    http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0307473287?ie=UTF8&isInIframe=0&n=283155&ref_=dp_proddesc_0&s=books&showDetailProductDesc=1#product-description_feature_div

    What scares many royals and most ordinary Saudis is that the succession, which historically has passed from brother to brother, soon will have to jump to a new generation of princes. That could mean that only one branch of this family of some seven thousand princes will have power, a prescription for potential conflict as thirty-four of the thirty-five surviving lines of the founder's family could find themselves disenfranchised. Saudis know from history that the second Saudi state was destroyed by fighting among princes. Older Saudis vividly recall how this third and latest Saudi state was shaken by a prolonged power struggle between the founder's two eldest sons after his death in 1953.

    Today's Saudi Arabia is reminiscent of the dying decade of the Soviet Union, when one aged and infirm Politburo chief briefly succeeded another-from Brezhnev to Andropov to Chernenko-before Gorbachev took power with reform policies that proved too little too late. "They keep dying on me," Ronald Reagan famously said of the four Soviet leaders he dealt with in less than three years. The next U.S. president almost surely will have the same experience with ailing Saudi rulers.

    An article from April, 2015:

    King Salman of Saudi Arabia Changes Line of Succession
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/04/29/world/middleeast/king-salman-of-saudi-arabia-changes-line-of-succession.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news&_r=0

    BEIRUT - King Salman of Saudi Arabia issued a series of surprise royal decrees early Wednesday, shaking up the line of princes slated to succeed him to the throne, replacing a number of ministers and further enhancing the power of his own line.

    In moves announced on Saudi state television, Salman replaced Crown Prince Muqrin bin Abdulaziz and named the powerful interior minister, Prince Mohammed bin Nayef, as next in line. He also named his son, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, as deputy crown prince and relieved the long-serving foreign minister, Prince Saud al-Faisal, who has shaped the kingdom's foreign policy for nearly four decades.

    The moves show Salman is shifting further away from the legacy of his predecessor, King Abdullah, who died in January.

    Saudi Arabia has joined a United States-led coalition that is bombing the militants of the Islamic State in Syria and Iraq. It is also leading a bombing campaign against Houthi rebels who have seized a large portion of territory in neighboring Yemen. The new appointments are unlikely to lead to big changes in these policies.

    Of all the changes, the reordering of the line to the throne is likely to draw the most scrutiny inside the kingdom because of competition between branches of the sprawling royal family for positions leading to the throne.

    An article from June, 2015:

    Surprising Saudi Rises as a Prince Among Princes
    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/06/07/world/middleeast/surprising-saudi-rises-as-a-prince-among-princes.html?_r=0

    RIYADH, Saudi Arabia - Until about four months ago, Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 29, was just another Saudi royal who dabbled in stocks and real estate. He grew up overshadowed by three older half brothers who were among the most accomplished princes in the kingdom - the first Arab astronaut; an Oxford-educated political scientist who was once a research fellow at Georgetown and also founded a major investment company; and a highly regarded deputy oil minister.

    But that was before their father, King Salman bin Abdulaziz, 79, ascended to the throne. Now Prince Mohammed, the eldest son of the king's third and most recent wife, is the rising star. He has swiftly accumulated more power than any prince has ever held, upending a longstanding system of distributing positions around the royal family to help preserve its unity, and he has used his growing influence to take a leading role in Saudi Arabia's newly assertive stance in the region, including its military intervention in Yemen. . . .

    The sweeping changes have thrust the young prince into power at a time when Saudi Arabia is locked in a series of escalating conflicts aimed at defending its vision of the regional order and holding back its chief rival, Iran. The kingdom is financially sustaining the rulers of Egypt and Jordan and propping up the Sunni monarchy in neighboring Bahrain against a revolt by its Shiite majority. It is also arming rebels in Syria against the Iranian-backed president, fighting in the United States-led air campaign over Iraq and leading its own air assault on an Iranian-backed faction in Yemen. And it is ramping up its military spending even as plunging oil prices and growing domestic expenditures have reduced its financial reserves by $50 billion over the last six months, to less than $700 billion.

    "The king has put his son on an incredibly steep learning curve, clearly," said Ford M. Fraker, the president of the Middle East Policy Council and a former United States ambassador to Saudi Arabia. "The king is obviously convinced he is up to the challenge." But some Western diplomats, speaking on the condition of anonymity for fear of alienating the prince and the king, say they are worried about the growing influence of the prince, with one even calling him "rash" and "impulsive." And in interviews, at least two other princes in the main line of the royal family made it clear that some older members of the clan have doubts as well. Both questioned the costs and benefits of the Yemen campaign that Prince Mohammed has spearheaded. . . .

    Prince Mohammed's three older half brothers - sons of their father's first wife, Sultana Bint Turki Al Sudairi, who died in 2011 - all have distinguished résumés and were once considered contenders for top government roles. . . .

    Prince Mohammed, however, is the firstborn son of the King Salman's third and most recent wife, Fahda bint Falah bin Sultan, who worked hard to promote him as his father's successor, according to Western diplomats who know the family, several family members and associates who have worked for the family.

    "He is her eldest," said one longtime associate who works closely with the clan. "For her, he is her glory at the end of the day."

    Someone recently posted a story about a memo circulating among the Saudi Royal family that was highly critical of King Salman and his designated successors.

    Saudi royal calls for regime change in Riyadh (September 28, 2015)
    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/sep/28/saudi-royal-calls-regime-change-letters-leadership-king-salman

    A senior Saudi prince has launched an unprecedented call for change in the country's leadership, as it faces its biggest challenge in years in the form of war, plummeting oil prices and criticism of its management of Mecca, scene of last week's hajj tragedy.

    The prince, one of the grandsons of the state's founder, Abdulaziz Ibn Saud, has told the Guardian that there is disquiet among the royal family – and among the wider public – at the leadership of King Salman, who acceded the throne in January.

    The prince, who is not named for security reasons, wrote two letters earlier this month calling for the king to be removed.

    "The king is not in a stable condition and in reality the son of the king [Mohammed bin Salman] is ruling the kingdom," the prince said. "So four or possibly five of my uncles will meet soon to discuss the letters. They are making a plan with a lot of nephews and that will open the door. A lot of the second generation is very anxious."

    "The public are also pushing this very hard, all kinds of people, tribal leaders," the prince added. "They say you have to do this or the country will go to disaster."

    Saudi King Hospitalized for Dementia (October 6, 2015)

    http://en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/10/06/713917/story.html

    Informed sources told Arabic-language al-Ahd news agency that King Salman is now in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) section of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in the Saudi capital.

    The sources also said that given the Saudi king's unstable and aggravating health conditions, officials have ceased plans to transfer him to US hospitals.

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/07/2015 at 2:29 pm

    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/10/07/russia-saudi-oil-cooperation-is-hogwash-kilduff.html

    I agree with this guy, the chances imo of the Russians and the Saudis getting together to cut back on oil production are exceedingly slim to approaching zero.

    My opinion is based not on their finances but on their rivalry. The Saudis have a LOT of reasons to fear and hate the Russians and to try to bankrupt them.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Oilfield cannibals: to save cash, US drillers strip idle rigs

    "... (Cannibalization) will slow the industrys ability to ramp the rig count back up so it will delay the production response from oil prices, ..."
    "... While there are no official statistics available, cannibalization has been so pervasive in this slump that industry experts say it is possible a majority of the 1,100 rigs that are not working have been scoured for parts. ..."
    "... Investors, still seeing an oversupply of rigs, and are encouraging companies to scrap more rigs to halt the slide in daily rental rates, now around $20,000, depending on the rigs speed and power. ..."
    "... However, the scrapping of more rigs would likely increase the number of those ripe for cannibalizing, analysts said. ..."
    "... Our U.S. domestic customers, the oil producers, are shutting off all capital spending on just about anything, said Hewell, whose Houston company is backed by Houston-based private equity firm Global Energy Capital LP. ..."
    "... The current US active rig count is 809. The 2014 peak level was 1931. In 2011 rig count exceeded 2000. Total number of oil and gas rigs, including rigs idled for long-term, was close to 3000. The common view among experts is that when drilling activity rebounds active rig count will is unlikely to exceed 1200-1400 units. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 8:50 am

    Interesting trends in the US onshore drilling sector:

    Oilfield cannibals: to save cash, U.S. drillers strip idle rigs

    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/us-oil-services-parts-idUSKCN0S109S20151007

    In a bid to save cash, rig owners are cannibalizing parts such as motors and drill pipe from idled rigs to fix 800 active ones in the U.S. when stuff breaks.

    In good times, they would buy new equipment … when parts fail. Now, they just pick over any of about 1,100 rigs idled by the price crash.

    Cannibalization is so widespread in this downturn that services companies and others say even after oil prices recover it will take six months or more to see a significant rebound in drilling and production – a timeframe that will allay fears of a quick uptick in drilling promptly sinking prices again.

    NOV [National Oilwell Varco] has said so many rigs are idled that firms could cannibalize drill pipe for up to a year before placing new orders.

    "(Cannibalization) will slow the industry's ability to ramp the rig count back up so it will delay the production response from oil prices," said James West, oilfield services analyst with Evercore ISI.

    While there are no official statistics available, cannibalization has been so pervasive in this slump that industry experts say it is possible a majority of the 1,100 rigs that are not working have been scoured for parts.

    Land rig utilization is hovering around 60 percent for larger U.S. drilling contractors, according to data from Tulsa, Oklahoma-based Helmerich & Payne Inc, which has a higher utilization rate because it has a fleet of newer rigs.

    There are lots of spares available because the U.S. rig fleet was near a 15-year high when prices started to tumble.

    Investors, still seeing an oversupply of rigs, and are encouraging companies to scrap more rigs to halt the slide in daily rental rates, now around $20,000, depending on the rig's speed and power.

    "Companies have to continue to scrap idle rigs and do all that they can to balance supply with demand," said Robert Thummel, a portfolio manager at Tortoise Capital Advisors.

    However, the scrapping of more rigs would likely increase the number of those ripe for cannibalizing, analysts said.

    To escape the downturn gripping the U.S. shale market, Premium Oilfield is expanding in the Middle East.

    "Our U.S. domestic customers, the oil producers, are shutting off all capital spending on just about anything," said Hewell, whose Houston company is backed by Houston-based private equity firm Global Energy Capital LP.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 12:51 pm

    Ves,

    The current US active rig count is 809. The 2014 peak level was 1931. In 2011 rig count exceeded 2000. Total number of oil and gas rigs, including rigs idled for long-term, was close to 3000. The common view among experts is that when drilling activity rebounds active rig count will is unlikely to exceed 1200-1400 units.
    Furthermore, there is a constant shift towards newest and most efficient rigs.
    I am sure that most rigs that drilling companies are disassembling are relatively old and will never be needed.

    Ves, 10/07/2015 at 1:44 pm

    Alex,

    I am not sure that I would agree that explanation on justification for disassembling the rigs.

    1) "Experts" predict that rig count will not likely exceed 1200-1400 rigs.

    Well then why these experts did not foresee collapse in 2013-14 and advise drilling companies to rain spending on the new rigs? The simple truth is that their opinion is worth it as much yours or mine.

    2) Second justification that they are disassembling rigs are relatively old and will never be needed is also weak. They need them now because the parts that are taking from them are for the rigs that are drilling right now. So these are not obsolete rigs. They do serve the function.

    3) And the third about constant shift towards newest and most efficient rigs. Well my question is did the drillers retired the loans that they got for the current rigs? With huge decline in the rig rates the answer is clearly not. So the question is where they will find capital to buy newer and fancier rigs? They will not get it. So that is why this is delusion on their part.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 2:39 pm

    Ves,

    U.S. oil & gas active rig count remained within a relatively narrow range between 1700 and 2000 for almost 4 years, while US C+C production increased from 5.5 mb/d to 9.5 mb/d, and natural gas and NGL production was also increasing.

    Drilling companies were actively modernizing their drilling fleet, so there were also about 1000 permanently idled old rigs.

    There is no doubt that all existing rigs will not be needed even if the drilling activity rebounds.

    (1) Shale production will increase at much slower rates, and the drilling frenzy of 2011-14 will not be repeated.

    (2) New rigs are more efficient and

    (3) The is a constant shift to pad drilling

    Thanks to (2) and (3) less rigs are needed to drill the same number of wells.

    (4) If the demand for rigs start ito rise, customers (the E&P companies) will require newer and more efficient rigs, so there is no need to store old rigs.
    Remember the 80's, when 3/4 of U.S. rigs were scrapped

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/07/2015 at 2:25 pm

    It has been common practice almost forever to strip parts off of idle equipment in slow times to keep equipment still on the job running.

    For example, a couple of EXPERIENCED guys with a boom truck can remove a twenty thousand dollar (used) diesel engine from a dozer in half a day – and put it in a dozer on the job in another day and a half.

    The bad engine that comes out can be put in the maintenance shop for a rebuild at leisure and installed in the donor dozer at leisure or kept on a pallet for a ready spare.

    This way the mechanics are kept busy, helping keep the crew together, the dozer on the job gets fixed pdq, and the twenty or thirty grand needed to purchase a rebuilt or used running engine in a hurry is conserved to help the company get thru bad times.

    Almost nothing is actually LOST except a day or two day of labor. The cost of that labor is apt to be less than the cost of a rental dozer for a couple of days.

    Now I have never been around an oil rig, but I bet a five hundred horsepower weather proof electric motor can be removed in a day and that a new one would cost at least fifteen or twenty thousand and probably more.

    Getting a bad one rewound would most likely take at least a week to a month because when times are slow for contractors, they are generally pedal to the metal for the specialists who fix stuff contractors cannot fix in their own maintenance shops.

    Any large company that uses a lot of big diesel engines most likely has in house diesel mechanics. But electric motors are so dependable hardly any company has enough to maintain their own electric motor shop – so they get sent out.

    Having said all this, older machines are indeed frequently robbed to the point they are never put back in service.

    Manufacturers expect to make more money on parts than they do on selling new equipment, over the years. If you go to a heavy truck dealer and ask for the prices of the fifteen or twenty most expensive parts of a given truck, the total will exceed the price of a complete truck by a wide margin.There would be a thousand parts still to be bought to assemble a truck.

    It doesn't cost THAT much to keep parts in a warehouse and ship them to a dealer. Parts are THE profit center- along with the service department of course.

    It is totally common place for a dealer to bill labor at five or more times what a mechanic makes.

    People who sell new parts like to make fun of used parts, but the fact of the matter is that as soon as you drive a car off the dealer lot, with ten miles or less on the odometer, EVERY single part of it is a USED part.

    [Oct 10, 2015] Another Petro-State Throws In The Towel The Last Nail In The Petrodollar Coffin

    "... 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF). ..."
    "... As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. ..."
    "... Assuming oil prices remain low, mainland tax revenue will plummet as they are very much a function of what goes on offshore, while expenditure will rise as they do in all welfare states during a down cycle. ..."
    "... In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016 ..."
    "... For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US. ..."
    "... To be blunt, the prospect in Washington DC of the loss of dollar world wide hegemony is creeping closer and closer. What does this mean to the worlds only super power and vast global empire? Well, it puts in threat the ability of Washington to print green paper and have all the rest of the earth to supply in return manufactured goods, energy, commodities and services. All in return for green paper. Washington spends twice what its taxes return each year. That leaves 1/2 of the entire federal spending to come from printed green paper. ..."
    Oct 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    According to the proposed budget submitted by the current 'blue-blue' government the Norwegian deficit will reach another record high in 2016. Mainland taxes are expected to bring in 1,008 billion NOKs, while expenditures are estimated at 1,215 billion NOKs. In other words, 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF).

    While record mainland deficits covered by the petroleum sector is nothing new in Norwegian budget history, on the contrary it is closer to the norm, the 2016 budget did raise some eyebrows. The other side of the ledger, the net inflow to the SWF from activities in the North Sea will, again according to budget, be lower than the required amount to cover the deficit. This has never happened before and is testimony of the sea change occurring in the world of petrodollar recycling. Interestingly enough, the need to liquidate SWF holdings is helping to create further deflation in the Eurodollar system in a self-reinforcing loop.

    As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. A SWF as the Norwegian was created through a surplus of exports over imports meaning it can only be utilized through future imports over exports. When the Norwegians look at their wealth expressed in Norwegian kroner it all looks fine, but expressed in dollars the SWF has shrunk considerably in size. Thus, the surfeit imports expected by the Norwegian populace cannot be met. Norway rode high on a wave of liquidity which pushed up commodity currencies, leading Norwegians to consume more imported goods today, without realizing they were tapping into the principal of their future. When the tide turns the gross misconception is revealed.

    The Government claims it is all fine though. The current down-cycle will, according to them, end early 2016 so despite a 2 percentage point reduction in corporate- and personal income tax, mainland tax revenues are expected to increase 1.9 per cent. That is obviously a pipedream, just as the expected 17.9 per cent increase in interest and dividend income which will make sure the SWF continue to grow at a healthy pace despite the massive mainland deficit.

    Assuming oil prices remain low, mainland tax revenue will plummet as they are very much a function of what goes on offshore, while expenditure will rise as they do in all welfare states during a down cycle.

    If we are right, a global recession is imminent, meaning the expected increase in dividend income will never materialize.

    In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016.

    For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US.

    Robust growth in the US will prompt Yellen to hike, spiking the dollar (as Eurodollar claims scramble for actual dollars) while paradoxically a recession in the US will lead to the exact same outcome. The goldilocks scenario of 1-2 per cent growth is the best that the Norwegian government can hope for. It will minimize the gap between the lies and propaganda spewed out by the Ministry of Finance and reality.

    Latina Lover

    Death to the Fed Reserve! Time for a currency reset. Down with the Banksters, or rather, hang them high!

    Lumberjack

    Just in:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/statoil-reports-oil-spill-of-norway-coa...

    news printer
    Muslim Press Claims Saudi King Salman bin Abdulaziz Hospitalized for Dementia

    Informed sources told Arabic-language al-Ahd news agency that King Salman is now in the Intensive Care Unit (ICU) section of King Faisal Specialist Hospital in the Saudi capital.

    The sources also said that given the Saudi king's unstable and aggravating health conditions, officials have ceased plans to transfer him to US hospitals.


    According to witnesses, his exact state of dementia is a source of speculation but he is known to have held cogent conversations as recently as last October. !!!!!!!


    He can also forget what he said minutes ago, or faces he has known all his life. This is typical of the disease.

    en.abna24.com/service/middle-east-west-asia/archive/2015/10/06/713917/story.html

    Jack Burton

    "the world of petrodollar recycling"

    The USA Dollar hegemony system was partly built upon Petro Dollar recycling. And of course Chinese trade surplus recycling. We have already seen the Chinese Treasury selling. That is a nail in the world reserve currency. Falling oil revenues dry up another major dollar recycling system.

    Many on ZH have noted the not so gradual approach of World War. To be blunt, the prospect in Washington DC of the loss of dollar world wide hegemony is creeping closer and closer. What does this mean to the world's only super power and vast global empire? Well, it puts in threat the ability of Washington to print green paper and have all the rest of the earth to supply in return manufactured goods, energy, commodities and services. All in return for green paper. Washington spends twice what it's taxes return each year. That leaves 1/2 of the entire federal spending to come from printed green paper.

    To be clear. When Washington loses the power to print, it has lost over half of it's global power in one stroke. The prospect of that can only lead to global war. The US Neoconservatives are laying the foundations for global war, World War Three. It is either go to war, or lose the global super power status built on Money Printing.

    Unless you think America remains the global super power based on it's vibrant productive economy?

    [Oct 09, 2015] Russian military operation in Syria bolsters oil market, domestic stocks

    Oct 09, 2015 | RT Business

    Oil prices have risen 12 percent in October to a two-month high. Rising crude coincides with Russia's airstrikes against Islamic State targets in Syria which began on September 30.

    The price of Brent in London increased over one percent to $53 per barrel on Friday. US benchmark WTI is trading higher than $50 per barrel for the first time in three months after hitting six-year lows in late August. Other factors contributing to rising oil prices include a weakened dollar and shrinking US production.

    Crude prices can be particularly responsive to unrest or violence in the Middle East, one of world's biggest oil-producing regions. While Syria does not have significant oil reserves, crude prices rise over fears the conflict could spread to the broader region.

    "Syria is not a crude oil producer-its real significance to the energy markets is not a heightening of its ongoing internal conflict but rather the risk of contagion within the region at large," the Wall Street Journal quotes NUS Consulting Group as saying.

    norbert kimar 4 hours ago

    "Syria is not a crude oil producer.." the Wall Street Journal.." I thought ISIS etc made $1-2million/day from smuggling Syrian oil.

    Nana Akosua -> Baakan Agyiriwah 6 hours ago

    LOL, it's all about the war, the fighting, the blood and the gore that makes the stocks rise and the blood boil in delirium. Funny how war makes the cash registers ring and the banksters happy, they don't care who does it, just do it!! what a mad, mad, mad world we live in.

    Illya Kuryakin 7 hours ago

    So Russia's CIA-Saudi Extermination Policy is paying for itself. Nice!

    PeterNZL 11 hours ago

    grzeghh

    Putin's the man. He scored 7 goals in the ice hockey match in Sochi and that was just
    more...

    Obama, too, was a skilled athlete. He scored 2000 civilians before winning his Nobel Peace Prize. Remarkable!

    [Oct 09, 2015] As oil bust takes hold, Eagle Ford workers losing jobs, pawning goods -

    Oct 09, 2015 | www.expressnews.com
    Sep 5, 2015 | San Antonio Express-News

    Eagle Ford production peaked in March at 1.7 million daily barrels, but then slid six straight months, the U.S. Energy Information Administration reports. The agency expects the field to pump 1.48 million barrels daily in September, still enough to fill 94 Olympic-sized swimming pools every day.

    Allen Gilmer, CEO of Austin-based Drillinginfo, said dropping prices chip away at the Eagle Ford.

    At $100 oil, most operators can make money.

    Because costs for everything from drilling to fracking have come down 30 percent this year, vast swaths of the field still are profitable at $60 per barrel, the oil price for much of the spring.

    "The Eagle Ford at $60 a barrel is not a whole lot different than the Eagle Ford at $100 a barrel," Gilmer said.

    But crude oil prices around $40 turn the economics of the field upside down, and only 15 percent of the whole field makes money, Gilmer said.

    ... ... ...

    The numbers show an industry fallen on hard times.

    The number of drilling rigs working in the Eagle Ford dropped by half in the past year, from 203 to 93. Across the country, more than 1,000 drilling rigs have been stacked.

    McMullen County pumped 2.7 million barrels of oil in June, down from 3.6 million barrels the same month last year.

    DeWitt County's total property value, much of it based on oil and gas wealth, fell by $1.15 billion this year, down 16 percent.

    The Eagle Ford's biggest oil producers have issued a series of gloomy announcements. Houston-based EOG Resources made just $5.3 million in the second quarter, down 99 percent from the same period last year. ConocoPhillips last week said it would lay off 10 percent of its workforce. Marathon Oil Corp. posted a $386 million net income loss for the second quarter.

    Dennis Elam, associate professor of accounting at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, said the smaller, more overleveraged shale companies are drilling wells just to pay debt. "They're chasing the water right down the drain," he said.

    Now, Zavesky has hired some of his old deputies back and said the police academy has seen a bump in enrollment.

    He's also seen an uptick in oil field crime - the theft of tools from work sites and people stripping copper from the drilling rigs parked along the side of the road.

    Joy Tipton, who owns the Little White House Country Store in Fowlerton, judges the oil market by what time she starts to hear traffic rumbling down Texas 97. The noise used to start around 5 a.m., with trucks hauling sand, water and oil flowing past her place like a mechanical river. In August, it stayed quiet until around 9 a.m.

    Blink-and-miss-it Fowlerton, with 62 residents the last time the Census Bureau bothered to count in 2000, hugs the La Salle-McMullen county lines. In recent months, a small restaurant and oil field supply company closed their doors.

    ... ... ...

    Boom-bust cycle

    In some ways, Texas still hasn't outrun the long shadow of the 1980s oil bust, an implosion that took down the state economy. So many people left the industry then, never to return, that there's a gap in the workforce. Nearly everyone is old or young. The industry calls it the "great crew change," and it means that a large part of the workforce never has seen a downturn.

    ,,, ,,, ,,,

    Eric Bell of San Antonio energy services umbrella company Group 42, said the U.S. oil business has gone through the stages of grieving this year. "The first quarter was a complete sense of denial," Bell said.

    Then came anger and a "bargaining and sad mopey phase" when everyone talked about how oil would pop to $70 or $80 by summer. It didn't. "Now finally it kind of seems like there's a sense of resignation or acceptance," Bell said. "Some companies are just in trouble."

    And yet, the familiar grind of the oil patch continued in so many ways. The Eagle Ford this year still is expected to draw $20 billion in industry investment, far more than any other field, says research firm Wood Mackenzie.

    Kim Triolo Feil

    if only these guys had the foresight to do BTEX blood/urine baseline testing before a workday and then after a workday...nah these companies come and go so even if they had evidence of being exposed...who they gonna sue to pay their cancer bills if that happens down the road?

    [Oct 09, 2015] Oil bust

    Oct 09, 2015 | jdeanicite.typepad.com
    I cite

    excerpt from here

    The number of drilling rigs working in the Eagle Ford dropped by half in the past year, from 203 to 93. Across the country, more than 1,000 drilling rigs have been stacked.

    McMullen County pumped 2.7 million barrels of oil in June, down from 3.6 million barrels the same month last year.

    DeWitt County's total property value, much of it based on oil and gas wealth, fell by $1.15 billion this year, down 16 percent.

    The Eagle Ford's biggest oil producers have issued a series of gloomy announcements. Houston-based EOG Resources made just $5.3 million in the second quarter, down 99 percent from the same period last year. ConocoPhillips last week said it would lay off 10 percent of its workforce. Marathon Oil Corp. posted a $386 million net income loss for the second quarter.

    Dennis Elam, associate professor of accounting at Texas A&M University-San Antonio, said the smaller, more overleveraged shale companies are drilling wells just to pay debt. "They're chasing the water right down the drain," he said.

    South Texans track other economic measures - traffic jams on rural roads or the advertised prices for hotel rooms in the region, now as low as $40.

    A few years ago, DeWitt County Sheriff Jode Zavesky lost seven employees in three weeks to the oil field. The police academy in Victoria had to cancel classes because everyone was going to work in the oil field instead. "We've got great benefits," Zavesky said. "But a young guy can't buy diapers on great health insurance."

    Now, Zavesky has hired some of his old deputies back and said the police academy has seen a bump in enrollment.

    He's also seen an uptick in oil field crime - the theft of tools from work sites and people stripping copper from the drilling rigs parked along the side of the road.

    Joy Tipton, who owns the Little White House Country Store in Fowlerton, judges the oil market by what time she starts to hear traffic rumbling down Texas 97. The noise used to start around 5 a.m., with trucks hauling sand, water and oil flowing past her place like a mechanical river. In August, it stayed quiet until around 9 a.m.

    Blink-and-miss-it Fowlerton, with 62 residents the last time the Census Bureau bothered to count in 2000, hugs the La Salle-McMullen county lines. In recent months, a small restaurant and oil field supply company closed their doors.

    That left Tipton as the only one to give unsolicited advice to oil field workers who stop to buy a soft drink or after-work beer: "Don't speed. Don't eat your dessert before you eat that sandwich. There's a police officer down there."

    [Oct 09, 2015] How do consumers respond to lower gasoline prices

    Oct 09, 2015 | Econbrowser
    The evidence thus is that consumers were indeed responding to the most recent price declines the same way they usually did, namely, by spending most of the windfall. The fact that we don't see this as clearly in the aggregate data suggests that the economy has been facing other headwinds that partly offset the stimulus from lower gasoline prices.

    Another consumer response to lower gasoline prices is increased consumption of gasoline itself, though these adjustments take more time to develop. U.S. vehicle miles traveled, which had been stagnant while gas prices were high, have since resumed their historical growth.

    ... ... ...

    And the average fuel efficiency of new vehicles sold in the United States, which had been improving steadily through most of 2014, has fallen with oil prices.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Goldman Sachs This Oil Rally Is Not Going to Last

    Oct 09, 2015 | www.bloomberg.com

    Bloomberg Business

    Currie claims that the oil glut is now being sustained by production outside the U.S.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Bank Of England Tells British Banks To Reveal Their Full Exposure To Glencore And Other Commodity Traders

    See Glencore - Wikipedia: "According to an Australian Public Radio report, "Glencore's history reads like a spy novel".[14] The company was founded as Marc Rich & Co. AG in 1974 by billionaire commodity trader Marc Rich, who was charged with tax evasion and illegal business dealings with Iran in the US, but pardoned by President Bill Clinton in 2001.[15] He was never brought before US courts before his pardoning, therefore there was never a verdict on these charges."... "In 2005, proceeds from an oil sale to Glencore were seized as fraudulent, in an investigation into corruption in the Democratic Republic of Congo (Allen-Mills 17 June 2008)" ... "In May 2011 the company launched an IPO valuing the business at US$61 billion[26] and creating five new billionaires.[27] Trading was limited to institutional investors for the first week and private investors were only allowed to buy the shares from 24 May 2011." ... "A BBC investigation in 2012 uncovered sale documents showing the company had paid the associates of paramilitary killers in Colombia. In 2011, a Colombian court had been told by former paramilitaries that they had stolen the land so they could sell it on to Glencore subsidiary Prodeco, to start an open-cast coal mine; the court accepted their evidence and concluded that coal was the motive for the massacre. Glencore refuted the allegations" ... ""In Ecuador, the current government has tried to reduce the role played by middle men such as Glencore with state oil company Petroecuador" due to questions about transparency and follow-through, according to Fernando Villavicencio, a Quito-based oil sector analyst." ... A visual Relationship Map of Glencore executive board and stakeholders with their connections.
    Oct 09, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

    Overnight we got confirmation that Glencore has indeed become a systemic risk from a regulatory standpoint after the FT reported that the Bank of England has asked British financial institutions to reveal their full exposure to commodity traders and falling prices of raw materials amid concerns over the impact of the oil and metals slump. Or, in other words, their exposure to Glencore, Trafigura, Vitol, Gunvor and Mecuria.

    Dr. Engali

    The BOE is trying to figure out who is going to need a bail out before shit hit the fan.

    Edit: Oh by the way, that 11% move to the upside is short covering not a sign that Glencore is okay you dumb fucks.

    "The shares jumped as much as 11 percent in London". "Analysts promptly cheered the move"...., Idiots.

    junction

    Why is the Bank of England protecting Stemcor, the mining giant owned by the Oppenheimer family? Former PM Tony Blair is probably the person responsible, protecting MP Margaret Hodge She should have been sent to prison in 1994 for her role in protecting the pedophile ring operating in the London Borough of Islington instead of going to Parliament. Hodge is an Oppenheimer family member who backed Blair.

    http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/04/16/uk-stemcor-restructuring-steel-...

    Dubaibanker

    Glencore has closed Dubai office. https://www.difc.ae/glencore-investments-dubai-limited

    Glencore has closed Singapore http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/news/glencore-to-close-down-sin...

    Glencore has sold Nickel project for pennies in Brazil http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/28/us-horizonte-glencore-idUSKCN0...

    Glencore has fired hundreds in Australia http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-10-09/glencore-slashes-queensland-jobs-n...

    Glencore will fire thousands in Zambia and shut some operations http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/09/23/us-zambia-mining-glencore-idUS...

    Glencore has closed a mine in South Africa and laid off hundreds http://uk.reuters.com/article/2015/10/07/uk-glencore-safrica-idUKKCN0S11...

    I have heard they fired hundreds in Zug...does anyone have a link?

    Kayman

    "The BOE is trying to figure out who is going to need a bail out before shit hit the fan."

    More precisely, the BOE is trying to figure out how much money will be needed to stiff the taxpayers on behalf of their swill drinking friends.

    kliguy38

    Glencore was a massive Ponzi from the start and designed to fail. When it goes it will pull a 2 Trillion in derivatives down its rabbit hole. They know it and they're stalling for another bagman to take the derivatives. gl with that one.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Troubles with refinanciang in shale industry

    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:14 pm

    Willbros Group amends credit facilities

    October 5, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/willbros-group-amends-credit-facilities.html

    Willbros Group Inc. has completed amendments to its 2015 term-loan and ABL credit facilities. The amendments establish less-stringent term loan financial covenants beyond the end of the first quarter of 2016 that are designed to address the impact of current market conditions.
    Consistent with the company's expected revenue levels for 2016, the ABL commitment has been reduced from $150 million to $100 million, with an accordion feature to expand up to $175 million to accommodate future revenue growth.
    These amendments also enable Willbros to proceed with its asset sale initiatives, including the sale of its Professional Services segment, which will allow the company to strengthen its balance sheet through debt reduction.
    The amended financial covenants are more aligned with current market conditions and the company's performance objectives, and the amendments approve the sale of certain assets, including discrete assets that it may market in future periods. Net proceeds will be used primarily for debt reduction and secondarily for working capital.
    ====================================================
    PDC Energy extends maturity of revolving credit facility

    October 2, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/pdc-energy-extends-maturity-of-revolving-credit-facility.html

    PDC Energy Inc. has extended the maturity of its revolving credit facility by two years to May 2020. The borrowing base has been reaffirmed at $700 million of which the company has elected to keep its commitment level at $450 million.
    CFO Gysle Shellum stated, "We are very pleased with the support of our bank group and its agreement, given the current market conditions, to not only reaffirm our current borrowing base, but to also extend the maturity of the revolving credit facility by two years. This liquidity and flexibility provides us the ability to continue operating with a clear focus on maintaining favorable debt metrics and executing on our strategic vision of delivering shareholder value through continued production and cash flow growth, and strong returns."
    PDC Energy's operations are focused on the horizontal Niobrara and Codell plays in the Wattenberg field in Colorado and on the condensate and wet gas portion of the Utica shale play in southeastern Ohio.
    ===============================================

    Chesapeake amends revolving credit facility

    October 1, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/chesapeake-amends-revolving-credit-facility.html

    Chesapeake Energy Corp. has amended its five-year, $4 billion revolving credit facility agreement maturing in 2019 with its bank syndicate group.
    Key attributes include:
    • Facility moves to a $4 billion senior secured revolving credit facility from a senior unsecured revolving credit facility
    • The initial borrowing base is confirmed at $4 billion, consistent with current availability
    • Previous total leverage ratio financial covenant of 4.0x trailing 12-month earnings before interest, depreciation and amortization (EBITDA) is suspended
    • Two new financial covenants include a senior secured leverage ratio of 3.5x through 2017 and 3.0x thereafter, and an interest coverage ratio of 1.1x through the first quarter of 2017, increasing incrementally to 1.25x by the end of 2017.
    Chesapeake's credit facility may become unsecured when specific conditions set forth in the credit agreement are met. During an unsecured period, the total leverage ratio would be reinstated and the senior secured leverage ratio and interest coverage ratio would no longer apply. While Chesapeake's obligations under the facility are secured, the amendment gives Chesapeake the ability to incur up to $2 billion of junior lien indebtedness. As of Sept. 30, Chesapeake has $12 million in outstanding letters of credit under the facility with the remainder of the $4 billion available.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:16 pm

    New Source Energy Partners updates on pending borrowing base deficiency

    September 29, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/new-source-energy-partners-updates-on-pending-borrowing-base-deficiency.html

    New Source Energy Partners LP, due to a pending borrowing base deficiency under its revolving credit facility, will be prevented from paying the quarterly cash distribution on its 11% Series A cumulative convertible preferred units.
    "While it was the Partnership's intention to pay this distribution, there are covenants in our credit agreement with our reserve based lending group that prevent our ability to make the payment while in a deficiency," said Kristian Kos, chairman and CEO. "We are not in a deficiency at this time. However, based on initial communication from our reserve based lending group, we expect to be in a borrowing base deficiency after our biannual redetermination takes place in early October, which will prevent us from making a distribution on Oct. 15. We will be working with our lenders to finalize the new borrowing base over the next several days, as well as exploring alternatives to remedy the deficiency to allow the Partnership to resume making distributions on the preferred units as soon as possible."
    New Source Energy Partners is an independent energy partnership engaged in the production of its onshore oil and natural gas properties that extends across conventional resource reservoirs in east-central Oklahoma and in oilfield services that specialize in increasing efficiencies and safety in drilling and completion processes.
    =====================================================

    Bill Barrett reaffirms borrowing base

    September 29, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/bill-barrett-reaffirms-borrowing-base-sells-certain-uinta-properties.html

    Bill Barrett Corp.'s (NYSE: BBG) semi-annual borrowing base review has been completed with the bank group reaffirming the $375 million borrowing base related to its revolving credit facility maturing in April 2020. The credit facility has $375 million of commitments and there are currently no borrowings under the credit facility.
    As part of the redetermination process, the company and its lender group agreed to amend the maintenance covenants in the revolving credit facility by replacing the leverage covenant limiting the maximum total debt to trailing 12-month EBITDAX ratio of 4.0x with a covenant limiting the maximum senior secured debt to trailing 12-month EBITDAX ratio of 2.5x through March 31, 2018, after which the leverage covenant reverts to a maximum total debt to trailing 12-month EBITDAX of 4.0x, as of June 30, 2018. In addition, an interest coverage ratio requirement was included, pursuant to which the ratio of EBITDAX to interest expense may not be less than 2.5 to 1.0 for each quarter through March 31, 2018.
    =======================================================

    Approach Resources confirms reaffirmation of lender commitments in credit facility at $450M

    September 28, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/approach-resources-confirms-reaffirmation-of-lender-commitments-in-credit-facility-at-450m.html

    Approach Resources Inc. has completed the scheduled semiannual borrowing base redetermination of its revolving credit facility, and as a result, the bank group has set the lender commitment amount and borrowing base at $450 million.
    Under the terms of the credit agreement, the bank group redetermines the borrowing base semiannually, using the banks' estimates of reserves and future oil and gas prices. The next borrowing base redetermination is scheduled to occur by April 1, 2016. As of Sept. 24, Approach had $276 million outstanding under its revolving credit facility, resulting in liquidity of $177 million.
    Approach Resources is an independent energy company focused on the exploration, development, production, and acquisition of unconventional oil and gas reserves in the Midland Basin of the greater Permian Basin in West Texas.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:17 pm

    Enterprise increases capacity of bank credit facilities to $5.5B

    September 17, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/enterprise-increases-capacity-of-bank-credit-facilities-to-5-5b.html

    Enterprise Products Partners LP's operating subsidiary, Enterprise Products Operating LLC, has increased its bank credit facilities by $500 million to provide the company with up to $5.5 billion of aggregate borrowing capacity.
    The facilities consist of an amended $4 billion multi-year revolving credit agreement that matures in September 2020 and a new $1.5 billion 364-day revolving credit agreement, both of which are unconditionally guaranteed by Enterprise on an unsecured and unsubordinated basis. As of today, aggregate available borrowing capacity under the increased bank credit facilities is $4.7 billion.
    ==================================================

    Gastar borrowing base maintained at $200M

    September 1, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/09/gastar-borrowing-base-maintained-at-200m.html

    Gastar Exploration Inc. has completed its second scheduled borrowing base redetermination of its revolving credit facility for 2015 and, as a result, the borrowing base has been reaffirmed by the lending participants at $200 million.
    Currently, Gastar has drawn $65 million under its revolving credit facility, resulting in $135 million of unused borrowing capacity. The next scheduled borrowing base redetermination is to occur by May 1, 2016.
    Gastar's principal business activities include an emphasis on unconventional reserves, such as shale resource plays. In Oklahoma, Gastar is developing oil-bearing reservoirs of the Hunton Limestone horizontal play and expects to test other prospective formations on the same acreage, including the Meramec shale play (middle Mississippi Lime) and the Woodford shale play, which Gastar refers to as the STACK play. In West Virginia, Gastar is developing liquids-rich natural gas in the Marcellus shale play, and has drilled and completed two dry-gas Utica/Point Pleasant wells on its acreage.
    ========================================

    RSP Permian completes bolt-on Midland Basin acquisitions and increases borrowing base

    August 26, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/08/rsp-permian-completes-bolt-on-midland-basin-acquisitions-and-increases-borrowing-base.html

    RSP Permian Inc. closed an amendment with the lenders under its revolving credit facility that, among other things, increases the borrowing base 20% to $600 million. The company currently has no amounts drawn under its revolving credit facility and the next scheduled borrowing base redetermination is May 1, 2016.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 5:21 pm

    Exterran Holdings secures financing to enable spin-off of businesses

    October 6, 2015
    http://www.ogfj.com/articles/2015/10/exterran-holdings-secures-financing-to-enable-spin-off-of-international-services-and-global-fabrication-businesses.html

    Exterran Holdings Inc. (NYSE: EXH) has provided an update to the planned financing in connection with its previously announced separation.
    In November 2014, Exterran Holdings said that it intends to separate its international contract operations, international aftermarket services, and global fabrication businesses into a stand-alone, publicly traded company named Exterran Corp. Upon completion of the spin-off, Exterran Holdings, which will continue to own and operate its contract operations and aftermarket services businesses in the US, will be renamed Archrock Inc.

    As previously announced, Exterran Corp. entered into a $750 million revolving credit facility on July 10 that would become available upon the completion of the separation and the satisfaction of certain other conditions. On Oct. 5, Exterran Corp. amended and restated the credit agreement to provide for a new $925 million credit facility, consisting of a $680 million revolving credit facility and a $245 million term loan facility. The revolving credit facility will have an interest rate subject to a leverage grid with an expected initial interest rate of LIBOR plus 2.75%. The term loan will carry an interest rate of LIBOR plus 5.75%, with a 1.00% LIBOR floor.

    Availability under the new credit facility is conditioned upon the completion of the separation and the satisfaction of certain other customary conditions. The revolving credit facility will mature five years after the effective date of the separation transaction, and the term loan facility will mature two years after the effective date of the separation transaction.
    The new credit facility includes, among other covenants, financial covenants requiring Exterran Corp. to maintain (after the separation) an interest coverage ratio of not less than 2.25:1.00 and a total leverage ratio of not greater than 3.75:1.00. Should Exterran Corp. refinance the term loan facility with the proceeds of certain qualified unsecured debt or equity issuances, the financial covenants in the revolving credit facility will be modified to require that Exterran Corp. maintain a total leverage ratio of not greater than 4.50:1.00 and a senior secured leverage ratio of not greater than 2.75:1.00, while the interest coverage ratio will not change. Such capitalized terms are defined in the amended and restated credit agreement.
    In connection with the spin-off, Exterran Holdings anticipates that Exterran Corp. initially will borrow under its new credit facility and transfer an amount of proceeds to Exterran Holdings which, when taken together with the proceeds from borrowings under the Archrock credit facility as described below, will enable Exterran Holdings to repay all of its existing indebtedness.
    As of June 30, on a pro forma basis after giving effect to the spin-off, Exterran Corp. would have borrowed and transferred to Exterran Holdings approximately $539 million. Subsequent to June 30, and prior to the completion of the spin-off, Exterran Holdings expects to incur additional borrowings under its existing credit facility of between $40 million and $50 million to finance expenses related to the completion of the spin-off, which will increase the amount that Exterran Corp. borrows under its new credit facility and transfers to Exterran Holdings.
    Also, Exterran Holdings entered into a $300 million credit facility on July 10 that would become available upon the completion of the separation and the satisfaction of certain other conditions. On Oct. 5, Exterran Holdings executed a first amendment to the credit agreement that, among other things, increases the aggregate commitments under the revolving credit facility from $300 million to $350 million. The revolving credit facility includes, among other covenants, financial covenants requiring Archrock Inc. to maintain (after the separation) an interest coverage ratio of not less than 2.25:1.00 and a total leverage ratio of not greater than 4.25:1.00 (except that the maximum total leverage ratio during a specified acquisition period will be increased to 4.75:1.00), as those capitalized terms are defined in the credit agreement. The revolving credit facility will have an interest rate subject to a leverage grid with an expected initial interest rate of LIBOR plus 1.75%.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Is russian oil production peaked ?

    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com

    AlexS, 10/04/2015 at 5:11 pm

    RE: Russian oil production statistics from various sources

    Ron,

    I personally never questioned the reliability of Russian oil statistics. But as you have repeatedly raised this issue, I did a brief assessment of the data from various sources.

    The Russian Energy Ministry provides very detailed data on oil + condensate production by each Russian producer on a daily basis. As in Soviet times, these numbers are reported directly by the companies to the Ministry. They can be easily verified as all oil produced is transported by pipelines owned by the state –owned Transneft. Small quantities are processed for internal use by the companies at mini-refineries, but their throughput is also reported to the ministry.

    The Ministry reports production in tons without converting it in barrels per day. However other sources (including Russian and foreign oil companies operating in Russia) use conversion ratios at 7.33 and 7.3 for Russian oil production. In the table below I calculate both numbers.
    NGL production is reported separately and is not included in C+C numbers.

    IEA oil production statistics include C+C+NGLs, however in their recent monthly Oil Market Reports the IEA is also mentioning C+C production for Russia. These numbers are very close to the data provided by the Russian Energy Ministry. In the past, the IEA did not disclose separate numbers for the Russian C+C, and it was first mentioned in the May OMR (p.25):

    "Despite sanctions and lower oil prices, Russian producers managed to maintain crude oil output near record levels through April, hovering around 10.7 mb/d since the start of the year. Including gas liquids, Russian output exceeded 11 mb/d in both March and April."

    Note, that the IEA works closely with Russia and gets data directly from the Russian Energy Ministry.

    The EIA has detailed oil and other liquids production data for many countries and releases it excel format:

    (International Energy Statistics, Petroleum Production http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/IEDIndex3.cfm?tid=50&pid=53&aid=1). This is very useful when you don't have other sources of data. However in many cases the EIA does not get information directly from national sources and uses third party data. Besides these numbers are relatively rarely updated and in some cases look incorrect. For example, their newest international oil production data are for April 2015.

    The EIA also publishes "Total liquids supply" data for the key producers in the STEO, where the numbers are updated monthly. (STEO excel file, Table 3b. Non-OPEC Petroleum and Other Liquids Supply).

    Note that the updated numbers for Russia in the September STEO are 143 kb/d higher for April and 132 higher for March, compared with the EIA International Energy Statistics. Given that the EIA constantly estimates Russian refinery processing gains at 26 kb/d, we can easily calculate C+C+NGL production estimates up to August by subtracting 26 kb/d from the STEO Total liquids numbers.

    As a result, as can be seen from the table below, EIA's C+C+NGL production estimates for Russia are only marginally below the IEA's numbers (the average discrepancy for Jan.-Aug. 2015 is ~40 kb/d).

    You can also note that the EIA's estimate for Russia's NGLs output in the first 4 months of 2015 is around 755kb/d, while the IEA's number is only ~350 kb/d. I think that the EIA classifies all or part of Russian condensate production as NGLs, while in the IEA and the Russian Energy Ministry's statistics it is included in the C+C output.

    Finally, JODI data is based on national statistics. As it says on its website: "The data are submitted by the national authority of the participating country. These data are considered authoritative and are not subject to alteration by any of the JODI partner organisations." (https://www.jodidata.org/about-jodi/faqs.aspx). Nevertheless, in some cases JODI
    data differs significantly from national statistics. JODI does not explain its methodology, and its officials do not respond to emails to comment on why its data differs from figures provided by national agencies.
    JODI provides data on both Russian oil and NGL production. NGL data is much higher than IEA's numbers, but slightly lower than the EIA.
    JODI data is released with significant delay to the IEA and especially to national statistics. I also noticed that, unlike the IEA, they generally do not update the numbers released earlier. That can partly explain, why JODI numbers for Russia are lower than data from other sources. On average, JODI's C+C+NGL numbers for January-July 2015 are
    203 kb/d lower than IEA and 164 lower than EIA.

    In general, all serious experts on Russian oil industry use the official numbers provided by the Energy Ministry.

    Russian oil production statistics from various sources

    shallow sand , 10/04/2015 at 5:33 pm

    I think Russian production would be easier to measure given it is much lower decline, there aren't as many companies nor as many governmental agencies measuring it.

    It appears to me US data is the most variable and likely inaccurate.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/05/2015 at 3:48 pm

    Hi Ron,

    I think AlexS has solved the discrepancy between the EIA/JODI data and the IEA/Russia data. It is mostly a matter of how pentanes plus should be classified.

    The EIA puts some of these(field or wellhead pentanes plus) in the C+C category and the pentanes plus produced during natural gas processing (to produce dry gas to ship to customers) is included in the NGL category. Canada and Russia group all pentanes plus together in the condensate category (which makes perfect sense from a chemistry perspective), this accounts for about a 400 kb/d difference between EIA estimates for Russian C+C and the Russian Energy ministry estimates. The rest of difference might be due to the EIA assuming a different estimate for the density of Russian C+C (possibly they use the density of the Urals blend which would have a reciprocal of 7.25 barrels per metric ton) than the IEA (which uses about 7.31 barrels per metric ton).

    AlexS, 10/05/2015 at 10:15 am

    Dennis,

    In fact, the lighter is the barrel, the more barrels are in 1 ton.
    43961 ktons reported by the Energy Ministry for September
    is 10741 kb/d with 7.33 conversion ratio
    10697 kb/d with 7.3
    10551 kb/d with 7.2
    10404 kb/d with 7.1
    10258 kb/d with 7.0
    10111 kb/d with 6.9

    As I said earlier, the most widely used ratio is 7.33 (the numbers in Reuters and Bloomberg articles, as well as all Russian statistics by Energy Intelligence, etc.) and 7.3 (apparently used by the IEA)
    I also prefer 7.3, as I think the average Russian barrel is heavier than 7.33.

    That said, the Russian oil output is getting lighter due to the growing share of new fields in eastern Siberia, Far East (Sakhalin) and some other regions. Thus, according to Platts, the Urals blend API is 31.55 API,
    ESPO (East Siberia) is 34.8, Sokol and Vityaz (Far East) are 39.7 and 34.4 API degrees, respectively.
    (Source: http://www.platts.com/im.platts.content/insightanalysis/industrysolutionpapers/espoupdate0510.pdf )
    So in theory, as the share of lighter crudes rises, the conversion ration should also increase. But I doubt that the IEA, EIA or JODI are changing their conversion ratios.

    The EIA and JODI do not specify which conversion ratios they are using for Russia. If they are using 7.2 or 7.1, that could partly explain the discrepancy between their numbers and Energy Ministry and the IEA numbers.

    However the key difference is the volume of condensate and NGL output. It seems that JODI and the EIA account most of condensate production as NGLs. Therefore, their NGL volumes for Russia are much higher than the IEA, and their C+C volume estimates are lower than the numbers provided by the IEA.
    The IEA normally reports only combined C+C+NGL volumes, but this year they also include C+C production numbers for Russia (in the OMR main text). By subtracting C+C from C+C+NGL we get the IEA's estimate for Russian NGL production at 340-350 kb/d in the past several months. This compares with the EIA's 755 kb/d average monthly estimates (January-April) and JODI's 710 kb/d estimate (January-July).

    I think that the IEA's numbers are more accurate, as in 2010 they published a study on global NGL production, where they carefully analyzed NGL and condensate production for the key producing countries using national statistics, as well as information provided by individual companies.
    ("Natural Gas Liquids Supply Outlook 2008-2015." IEA, April 2010. http://www.iea.org/publications/freepublications/publication/ngl2010_free.pdf )
    Here are their numbers for Russia's output levels in 2008:
    Condensate: 356 kb/d
    "Other NGLs": 180 kb/d
    Total NGL and condensate: 536 kb/d

    From the IEA report: "The Russian Ministry of Oil and Energy does not report NGLs per se, but they do report LPG and condensate production per company. In this study we have applied the reports of LPG and condensate production per company as a starting point to arrive at a proxy for Russian NGL production. Based on the reported figures at August 2009 the LPG production of Russian gas processing plants was 230 kb/d, while the condensate production was 361 kb/d, a total of 591 kb/d."

    In this report, the IEA projected a sharp increase in Russia's "Condensate and other NGLs" production from 536 kb/d
    In 2008 to 817 kb/d in 2015. Indeed, as we know now, both condensate and NGL output has increased even faster in the past few years due to: 1) increasing production of wet gas, 2) better utilization of previously flared associated gas, and 3) development of several new gas condensate fields. Thus, in the first quarter of 2015, gas condensate output jumped 18% year on year to 7.86 million tons (~640 kb/d) due to the launch of new production facilities in West Siberia, primarily by Novatek and Gazprom Neft. As per the IEA numbers, NGL output also almost doubled from 180 kb/d in 2008 to 340-350 kb/d in 2015.

    Apparently, JODI did not researched as deep as the IEA into the Russian NGL and condensate output, so they account most of condensate as NGLs.
    As regards the EIA, their list of sources for International Energy Statistics [http://www.eia.gov/cfapps/ipdbproject/docs/sources.cfm] does not include the Russian Energy Ministry. This is rather strange, as they get data from the national agencies of such countries, as Cuba, Mongolia and others. Apparently their numbers for Russia are based on statistics from JODI, the IEA and the "Russian Energy Monthly, Eastern Bloc Research" (never heard of it).

    That said, I do not suspect JODI and the EIA of being biased against Russia. These are just different statistical methodologies.

    Ronald Walter , 10/05/2015 at 10:34 am

    If you measure 100 cc of oil in a graduated cylinder, since the density, specific gravity, is less than water, 100 cc of oil will weigh less than 100cc of water. 1 cc of agua weighs 1 gram, 1 cc of oil will weigh less than one gram, you will need more oil, a greater volume, to obtain a weight of one gram for the oil.

    A metric ton of oil will occupy a volume greater than one cubic meter, more barrels.

    AlexS , 10/05/2015 at 11:51 am

    Russian crude oil and NGL production (kb/d)
    Source: JODI

    Longtimber, 10/06/2015 at 3:40 pm

    Jan 2012 Refineries came on line (?) Mother Russia keeps the good stuff for value added high density i.e.. Diesel/jet fuel? Russian polymers in the 90's were terrible and next to useless for packaging. Many markets now well supplied with SABIC Polymers. https://www.sabic.com/americas/en/productsandservices/plastics/

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 4:13 pm

    In January 2012 JODI changed its methodology and started treating Russian condensate production as NGL

    Stavros H, 10/05/2015 at 7:36 am

    No, Russian production is genuinely at an all-time high. It's not like the Russians count Lukoil's production in Iraq as "Russian" LOL!

    Consider also that Russia is under sanctions specifically designed by the West to harm its oil output.

    Peak-oilers are over-eager to claim that country "X" or "Y" has peaked in terms of oil production. This is often not the case.

    The only countries that have peaked in oil production, are the capital rich ones of the West. The reason for that is very clear. Those countries started exploiting their oil reserves earlier, and even more importantly have had the capital and technology to extract even the most marginal of deposits. Even in those cases, ultra-cheap financing can lead to temporary booms (US shale, Canadian sands) even if production takes place at a considerable financial loss.

    Countries like Iraq, Iran, Russia or Kazakhstan still have lots of untapped reserves.

    This also partly explains the current World Crisis that could even escalate into WWIII.

    Glenn Stehle, 10/05/2015 at 7:45 am

    There's an interesting article in OilPrice on Russia:

    http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-Russia-Plotting-To-Bring-Down-OPEC.html

    The author uncritically accepts the myth of the "Great American Shale Revolution," which, as you say, is a play in which "production takes place at a considerable financial loss."

    Nevertheless, the take-away is the importance that oil and gas play in geopolitics.

    Frugal, 10/05/2015 at 8:51 pm

    Countries like Iraq, Iran, Russia or Kazakhstan still have lots of untapped reserves.

    Which oil reservoirs are untapped in these countries?

    [Oct 09, 2015] WTI Crude Tops $50, Energy Stocks Soar To Biggest Week Since 2008 (But Credit Aint Buying It)

    "... output from the world's biggest consumer drops and Shell and PIMCO claim the worst may be over (while Goldman sees lower for longer suggesting this rally is a squeeze). However, while Energy stocks and raw materials are soaring, credit markets remain notably less impressed. ..."
    "... at $50 big oil will maintain dividends and bonuses but cut capex to the bone. kick the can bitchez. ..."
    "... ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

    Zero Hedge

    WTI Crude is back above $50 to its highest in almost 3 months following a 10%-plus gain on the week (the 2nd best since Jan 2009). This surge has sparked the biggest surge in European and US Oil & Gas stocks since 2008 as Bloomberg notes, output from the world's biggest consumer drops and Shell and PIMCO claim the worst may be over (while Goldman sees "lower for longer" suggesting this rally is a squeeze). However, while Energy stocks and raw materials are soaring, credit markets remain notably less impressed.

    ... ... ...

    As Bloomberg reports,

    Oil may rise to a "baseline" of about $60 a barrel in one year's time as the impact of supply cuts becomes more evident from early 2016, Greg Sharenow, an executive vice-president at Pimco, said in an e-mail. U.S. crude output is down about 440,000 barrels a day from a four-decade high of 9.61 million barrels in June.

    Still, companies remain cautious after a rally earlier this year was shortlived. While production cuts may help draw a line under the rout, prices are set to remain "lower for longer" because of excess inventories, according to Pimco, which manages $15 billion of commodity assets. Shell plans for a long stretch of low prices, Van Beurden said this week in London.

    "People could be thinking, how much worse can it get from here, so there's a rotation from short positions to long," Michael Powell, a managing director of investment banking at Barclays Plc, said in London this week. "Then you ask, is this the spring of this year all over again?"

    buzzsaw99

    at $50 big oil will maintain dividends and bonuses but cut capex to the bone. kick the can bitchez.

    Herdee

    Suckers rally, just manipulated like all markets in order to give big oil in the U.S. the chance to hedge on the downside for winter recession. All the crooks on Wall Street need another load of suckers for a big fat pay check before Christmas.

    LawsofPhysics

    Who gives a shit about paper bullshit?

    Some people will have access to the calories and commodity chemicals required to maintain a decent standard of living. Most will not.

    Same as it ever was...


    [Oct 09, 2015] Problem of toxic water disposal in shale industry

    "... An oil crisis is eventually inevitable -- and it is inevitable that the oil will be burnt – somewhere. Where doesn't matter in environmental terms. The best imo we can hope for politically is to slow down oil consumption so it lasts a little longer. ..."
    "... If Ron is right about Peak oil happening shortly, i.e. within a year or two, the tune might change. To quote OFM "In the event of a real crisis we may wish like hell for a non existent Keystone". ..."
    "... Told me something very interesting. He said, that he and other guys in his industry aren't drilling for oil, but rather some were drilling "Water Injection Wells." Says, companies have to continue drilling these deep wells to get rid of the toxic water that comes from extracting oil, especially shale oil. ..."
    "... He also says as shale wells get older and lose production it becomes even less commercially viable to keep the well pumping when they have to inject higher volumes of water back into the ground that are coming via the shale oil industry. ..."
    "... I thought ROCKMAN'S post on peak oil.com, which Jeffrey referred to here recently was very telling. Something like 30% of the EFS wells completed in July, 2014 are presently shut in. That is a terrible percentage. Peruse the monthly ND well production report. Lots of shut in wells in ND too. Many are not Bakken, but quite a few are, which is not good considering the play is not ten years old. ..."
    "... I'd say a company such as Whiting is not looking good right now. SEC PDP PV10 will be less than long term debt at year end, production is falling, still cash flow negative and still must drill and complete wells to keep production from falling of a cliff. ..."
    "... So to summarize: of the 129 EFS wells that began producing in July 2014: 40 wells (31%) suffered a 100% decline rate per year. Actually it's higher since not all produced for the entire 12 months but I'll let that slide: there were 4 wells that stopped producing after a month or so and only recovered less than 6,000 bo each. And the 89 wells still producing in July 2015: they have suffered a decline rate of 73%. ..."
    "... Electric expenses are only second to labor in most water floods IMO, and many times can even be higher than labor. However, chemicals also are a major expense. ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com

    Old Farmer Mac, 10/04/2015 at 1:05 pm

    ... ... ...

    An oil crisis is eventually inevitable -- and it is inevitable that the oil will be burnt – somewhere. Where doesn't matter in environmental terms. The best imo we can hope for politically is to slow down oil consumption so it lasts a little longer.

    We have a somewhat better shot at limiting coal consumption because wind and solar power plus gas can be readily substituted for coal.

    This comment is about what WILL be rather than what OUGHT to be.

    Ovi, 10/04/2015 at 8:00 pm

    ... ... ...

    If Ron is right about Peak oil happening shortly, i.e. within a year or two, the tune might change. To quote OFM "In the event of a real crisis we may wish like hell for a non existent Keystone".

    If the environmental lobbies were really concerned about CC, they should be pushing for a North American approach on how to deal with all oil production, not just focused on Canadian oil.

    SRSrocco, 10/04/2015 at 1:58 pm

    Ron & Group,

    Maybe some of you that are working in the field can add to this. I had a phone conversation with a fella who has been looking for oil in Texas, Louisiana and Oklahoma for the past 30+ years. Says… he knows just about everyone looking for conventional plays in his neck of the woods.

    Told me something very interesting. He said, that he and other guys in his industry aren't drilling for oil, but rather some were drilling "Water Injection Wells." Says, companies have to continue drilling these deep wells to get rid of the toxic water that comes from extracting oil, especially shale oil.

    Says this could become a big issue going forward as the EPA may start cracking down on this further. He also says as shale wells get older and lose production it becomes even less commercially viable to keep the well pumping when they have to inject higher volumes of water back into the ground that are coming via the shale oil industry.

    Would love to see if anyone else here can comment on this.

    shallow sand, 10/04/2015 at 2:19 pm

    Depends on the well.

    Bakken wells seem to produce less water as they age. Mississippian production in KS and OK seems to have a high water cut, making same uneconomic. EFS and Permian more of a mixed bag.

    Earthquake issues arise from these wells, not from the frac itself.

    shallow sand, 10/04/2015 at 2:57 pm

    Steve. I'm not entirely sure on water cut in Bakken, seems it does vary well to well.

    Just as with any other oilfield, some wells are better than others.

    As I have pointed out here many times before, OPEX per BOE usually is lowest immediately after the well is completed, especially if it is flowing.

    I thought ROCKMAN'S post on peak oil.com, which Jeffrey referred to here recently was very telling. Something like 30% of the EFS wells completed in July, 2014 are presently shut in. That is a terrible percentage. Peruse the monthly ND well production report. Lots of shut in wells in ND too. Many are not Bakken, but quite a few are, which is not good considering the play is not ten years old.

    LTO economic issues are coming home to roost. Just hard to say how much longer banks and investors keep propping it up.

    I'd say a company such as Whiting is not looking good right now. SEC PDP PV10 will be less than long term debt at year end, production is falling, still cash flow negative and still must drill and complete wells to keep production from falling of a cliff.

    However, no personal liability for debt and hype can keep extend and pretend going for a long time, maybe long enough to kill a lot of other high cost production.

    SRSrocco, 10/04/2015 at 3:17 pm

    shallow,

    I couldn't agree more about your assessment of the current state of affairs in the U.S. Shale Oil Industry. Actually, I have found out a lot of data by reading many of your comments here in the blog. I have been a bit low-key in commenting lately, but I still enjoy reading many of Ron's posts and comments.

    As you may be aware, I have my own blog, https://srsroccoreport.com/ . It's a precious metal website that includes energy into the mix. Energy is excluded by most precious metal analysts… which I find completely frustrating to say the least.

    While some label me a Gold or Silver Bug, I look at the precious metals as stores of economic energy… whether that be oil, gas, coal or human-animal labor. I agree that the "Extend & Pretend" model has been going on longer than most realized. However, when it finally cracks, I would stand very far away from anything tied to debt… STOCKS, BONDS, REAL ESTATE and etc.

    So, it will be interesting to see how things play out this fall if we finally get the Stock Market Crash from hell.

    steve

    Dennis Coyne, 10/06/2015 at 11:25 am
    Hi Shallow Sands,

    They started drilling in the Bakken in 1953. Very few wells that started producing in 2007 have stopped producing, only 3% in the Bakken/Three Forks. For wells starting production in 2008 about 5% of wells have stopped producing, for 2009 wells 3% have stopped producing.

    I define "stopped producing" as 12 months or longer of zero output counting back from the most recent month reported. I used the data through Feb 2015 so these numbers may have changed somewhat over the past 8 months.

    I question whether Rockman used a reliable method for reporting on the Eagle Ford. In many cases the RRC will report output as zero when the company has not yet reported output for a lease (or the data is pending review for accounting reasons), Drilling info gets its data from the RRC and the data is not very complete. The 30% of wells that Rockman claims have stopped producing in the Eagle Ford may just be an artifact of this incomplete data.

    Ron Patterson , 10/06/2015 at 1:21 pm
    The 30% of wells that Rockman claims have stopped producing in the Eagle Ford may just be an artifact of this incomplete data.

    I really don't think so. Rockman wrote:

    So to summarize: of the 129 EFS wells that began producing in July 2014: 40 wells (31%) suffered a 100% decline rate per year. Actually it's higher since not all produced for the entire 12 months but I'll let that slide: there were 4 wells that stopped producing after a month or so and only recovered less than 6,000 bo each. And the 89 wells still producing in July 2015: they have suffered a decline rate of 73%.

    I don't think Rockman would make such a silly mistake as you suggest. It appears to me that he is tracking each well and the 40 that dropped out did so at different times and simply never returned to production.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 11:43 am
    Hi Ron,

    I don't have access to the Drilling info database so perhaps you are correct. I am very skeptical of Rockman's claims. I think he assumes that because output is reported as zero, that the output is in fact zero.

    I followed some Eagle Ford wells for a while and the "missing output" is often just delayed reporting which shows up later. For a better test Rockman would have to look at wells that started producing in July 2013 and see how many of those wells were still producing in July 2014, that would avoid most of the delayed reporting artifacts.

    If he did so he would probably find that 5% or fewer wells had stopped producing (where this is defined as zero production for 12 consecutive months or more).

    Rune Likvern, 10/04/2015 at 4:22 pm
    Steve and FWIIW,
    In December 2014 I presented an analysis based on work by Enno and I that showed actual developments for water cut for LTO wells in Bakken (lots of charts).
    General trend is that water cut (and GOR) increases as the LTO wells ages.
    http://fractionalflow.com/2014/12/11/will-the-bakken-red-queen-outrun-growth-in-water-cut/
    shallow sand, 10/04/2015 at 5:18 pm
    Rune. Thanks! I thought maybe you had addressed this.

    I think an interesting exercise related to the high decline and increasing water cut would be to assume a company, such as Oasis, we're to cease all drilling, completion and refrac work.

    Is there any way OAS, who I think is 100% ND and MT, could come close to retiring debt at the present strip.

    I would note OAS is attempting to sell all of its non-Bakken/TF acreage and production.

    A confidentiality agreement is required to view the data. The public data indicates 625 BOEPD from 95 wells. I looked at MT site, several wells are shut in. Looks the same for ND.

    I read the article Jeffrey linked comparing LTO wells to water soluble houses. I can't really tell what is better for these companies. Keep drilling at a loss or stop and try to pay down debt. What a deal.

    Might be amusing if we weren't in a pickle with much of our production also.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, 10/05/2015 at 6:42 am
    A rough metaphor for the shale players is the book and movie "Thinner," by Stephen King. A gypsy places a curse on the lead character, who weighs about 300 pounds. No matter how much he eats, he loses weight, and only by consuming vast quantities of food per day is he able to minimize the weight loss.
    Rune Likvern, 10/05/2015 at 8:15 am
    shallow,
    I posted the chart below some weeks ago.

    The chart shows Oasis credit and debts stacked (columns) along their retirement profile (time axis) and the growing lines (using October-15 as baseline) shows estimates on Oasis cumulative net cash flow with oil prices at respectively $50/b and $70/b [WTI] and no wells added post October-15 (this causes a steep decline in LTO production).

    The chart assumes that the credit facility is fully utilized by October 2015.

    With average oil price of $50/b Oasis may clear the first hurdle, the second one (due Feb 2019 becomes challenging).
    With average oil price of $70/b Oasis may find it difficult to meet debt retirements as from 2022.

    How oil prices develop is a big if, but I expect these to be low for some time. The other thing is possible rollovers of debts.
    To me the best strategy in a low oil price environment would be to stop drilling (LTO) wells that has the prospects of becoming unprofitable [due to the high front end loaded production]…..and pray for a higher oil price.

    Fred , 10/04/2015 at 2:20 pm

    EPA's regulations require that all onshore "produced water" be reinjected, very few exceptions. Of course, as well age, the water cut increases and reinjection becomes a significant cost factor.
    Boomer II , 10/04/2015 at 2:45 pm

    Says this could become a big issue going forward as the EPA may start cracking down on this further.

    Given the corporate and political opposition to the EPA, I can envision waste water wells being regulated at the state level.

    Oklahoma Acts to Limit Earthquake Risk at Oil and Gas Wells – The New York Times

    Watcher, 10/04/2015 at 2:59 pm

    Noted last post, I suspect we have underestimated OPEX for shale out years. Lower oil output means the onsite tanks fill slower to be off loaded by less frequent truck visits.

    But the trucks for production water still have to make the trip to drain the faster filling water tanks.

    John S, 10/04/2015 at 9:49 pm

    SRSRocco,

    A water injection well is a different animal to me than a "water disposal well". An injection well is used in field operations to maintain reservoir pressure by injecting water or reinjecting gas into the reservoir and would be drilled by the operator not a third party service provider. Water would probably have to be treated chemically before injecting into a reservoir.

    A salt water disposal well is used to dispose of produced water that is a by product of field operations. Often these are drilled and operated by 3rd party service contractors but many times an operator will drill and operate its own disposal wells.

    In Texas, the general rule is that produced salt water from one surface tract can not be disposed of on a another surface tract without the consent of the surface owner. Consent is generally given in return for a per barrel fee. It is my experience, that operators take advantage of surface owners in this regard especially when the surface owner is absentee. Other times the surface owners operate these wells as a business and accept produced water from many different operators.

    Some surface owners also sell fresh water to operators as a business too.

    Large unitized fields generally have their own disposal wells for produced water and the operators run them as part of the unit operations.

    Many salt water disposal operators try to convert old abandoned wells into disposal wells. There has to be a formation with enough porosity and permabilty to take the water either on a vacuum (which is the ideal situation) or on a pump which takes a lot of electricity to operate.

    shallow sand , 10/04/2015 at 10:58 pm

    John S, good comment.

    How much electricity it takes to dispose of produced water makes a big difference in well economics right now.

    In my experience, it takes more pressure, and thus more electricity, to inject water in the producing zone, as opposed to disposing of water in the most suitable non-producing zone.

    Electric expenses are only second to labor in most water floods IMO, and many times can even be higher than labor. However, chemicals also are a major expense.

    Having a salt water disposal well that can take a lot of water on a vacuum or at low pressure can be an asset. I have recently seen some commercial disposal wells for sale, with monthly net income as high as $30K.

    A good water supply well is also very useful in water flood operations. However, very important that the water can easily commingle with water in the producing zone. Otherwise, tremendous chemical expense and/or down hole problems may result. Also, tends to clog lines.

    I would say most US water floods are not doing well economically at present. In the last thread had a discussion about an MLP, Mid-Con, and their expenses.

    Many MLP are heavy into water floods. Also, think OXY and Chevron are big water flood players in the Permian, in addition to CO2 floods. I think many CO2 floods originally were water floods.

    MBP indicated secondary and tertiary production is still profitable in the Permian. Would be interested to see OPEX, taxes and G&A for some of the larger water and CO2 floods.

    Kinder Morgan has two of the largest CO2 floods in SACROC and Yates. Might see if they break out those costs. I think they have an advantage in that they own a lot of CO2 transmission lines.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Possible super spike in oil prices

    "... CAPEX cutbacks will bite hard after a lag period and supply will be unable to meet demand which may lead to a super spike in oil prices, followed by recession and lower demand. ..."
    "... In my view, that might happen not earlier than the beginning of next decade. There is still a surplus in the market of around 2 mb/d. It would take time before it is erased. As prices start to rise again, there will be additional supply from Iran, Iraq and Brazil. Libyan oil will also eventually return to the market. ..."
    "... Super spikes in oil prices are possible in the future. The oil industry is cyclical and is known for big fluctuations in prices. But I do not think that potential price spikes in the next decade is what is seriously worrying the Saudis at this moment. So their decision not to cut output now seems quite logical to me. ..."
    "... I believe that Canadian oil sands and US LTO output will fall faster than OPEC anticipates and may bring supply and demand into balance by June 2016 (assuming OPECs demand forecast is correct). ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel
    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 12:09 pm
    Dennis,

    You said: "Here is the problem if OPEC follows the path that you suggest. CAPEX cutbacks will bite hard after a lag period and supply will be unable to meet demand which may lead to a super spike in oil prices, followed by recession and lower demand."

    In my view, that might happen not earlier than the beginning of next decade. There is still a surplus in the market of around 2 mb/d. It would take time before it is erased. As prices start to rise again, there will be additional supply from Iran, Iraq and Brazil. Libyan oil will also eventually return to the market.

    Finally, while LTO output might indeed "begin to crash in 2016" if oil stays below $50, the shale industry will not be killed. After all, the necessary infrastructure remains in place; there is a vast fleet of drilling rigs and fracking equipment. Some companies might go bust, but their assets will be bought by bigger and stronger players. Financial markets will be cautious and access to capital for LTO producers will be more difficult, but it will not be cut. I agree that "LTO may not rebound as fast as some believe", but I think it will take no longer than 6 to 9 months. If and when WTI reaches $65 LTO industry will show first signs of life, and at $75-80 it will resume steady growth.
    Annual growth rates of 1 mb/d are in the past, but 500 kb/d are quite possible, probably not for 7-8 years, as Mark Papa says (see Ron's link below), but at least for 4 -5 years.

    Super spikes in oil prices are possible in the future. The oil industry is cyclical and is known for big fluctuations in prices. But I do not think that potential price spikes in the next decade is what is seriously worrying the Saudis at this moment. So their decision not to cut output now seems quite logical to me.

    Dennis Coyne, 10/07/2015 at 12:21 pm
    Hi AlexS,

    Well if your assumptions about new oil coming to market are correct then there will be no danger of a superspike in oil prices.

    I don't think $70/b oil will cause a lot of new output to come to market. The Saudis export about 8.8 Mb/d of crude and petroleum products, an extra $20/b amounts to $176 million per day or $64 billion per year.

    For all of OPEC about 27 Mb/d of crude plus products are exported, so raising oil prices by $20/b increases revenue by $520 million per day (assuming 1 Mb/d lower output) or about $190 billion per year.

    The oil market may adjust very smoothly in the absence of any cartel action, but this will be historically unprecedented.

    I have a little faith in markets, but you must be a true believer in free markets. I am not, markets need some regulation and in the absence of the RRC or OPEC, the oil market will be Volatile.

    Rune Likvern, 10/06/2015 at 3:45 pm
    Shallow,
    I am much on the same page as AlexS here.
    It is hard to know what OPEC's true objectives are; there is a lot of chatter in the media.
    I noticed KSA recently (again) cut the price to some of their Asian customers.

    A lower oil price stimulates consumption (demand) and there are some new developments that still may grow the supply side. Then there is Brazil, Iran, Iraq and Libya (to name some).

    To me the big unknown is how demand, especially in emerging Asian economies develops and the slowdown in China's imports of commodities (iron ore, coal, nat gas etc) are signs of a slowing economy. China has been pulling their neighbors, so as China slows so will others.

    If one follow the commodities flows to China through the Chinese factories the end products normally ends up with consumers all over the world. Lower commodity prices may be a sign about consumer's general financial health (a demand issue). These are indicators that may be helpful in understanding directions for global oil demand.

    There are also some reports about China now filling their strategic petroleum reserve. In other words, what one needs to do is break the demand into consumption and stock build.
    OECD has a huge (and growing) stock overhang which needs to be worked through.

    Now I hold it 70+% probable that OPEC will not cut during their next meeting later this year.

    Dennis Coyne , 10/07/2015 at 1:22 pm
    Hi Rune,

    Interesting.

    I would think that $50/b will not result in a lot of new oil coming from Brazil, Iraq is in chaos, Libya about the same so probably not a lot of new supplies coming from any of those 3. We might see some new output from Iran, the question for me is will this offset the declines in Canada, US, and the North Sea due to CAPEX cutbacks. You are correct that there are a lot of stocks out there, so any danger of a spike in oil prices is minimized by the excess stocks (roughly 250 million barrels based on OPEC's Monthly report in September).

    I believe that Canadian oil sands and US LTO output will fall faster than OPEC anticipates and may bring supply and demand into balance by June 2016 (assuming OPECs demand forecast is correct).

    The slowdown in China may be positive for many Asian nations that compete with China exporting their products to other nations, but only if there is not a bigger fall in exports to China than the increase in exports to other nations. The fall in the value of the Yuan in August may help China's exports.

    Most economic forecasts have World growth at about 3% in 2015, these are not much better than long term weather forecasts so we will find out in time.

    One thing I would say is that if AlexS and Rune agree on a forecast of the oil industry, it is likely correct.

    On the other hand Jeffrey Brown and Steve Kopits seem to think the oil market will become tight sooner rather than later.

    I just don't know what the future will bring.

    AlexS, 10/07/2015 at 1:49 pm
    Dennis,

    IEA, EIA and OPEC forecast that supply and demand will be balanced by 4Q 2016 ,
    and they anticipate relatively modest increase in Iran supply and no increase in Libya.
    That means that global crude and products inventories will continue to increase for at least the next 3 or 4 quarters, although not as fast as in the first half of 2015.
    Once the balance is reached and then demand starts to exceed supply, it will take time before the excess volume of inventories is wiped out.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Open Thread, Oil and Gas

    "... Seems like that add pops up a lot. With WTI averaging about $46 for Q3 and right there yet today, seems like OIL BUST is now the more appropriate term. ..."
    "... Oil production and related liquids is generating about $5 billion per day less worldwide than it did in the 2012-2014 time frame. Big transfer of funds from one group to another. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia, with its huge foreign reserves, could withstand for 3 or 4 years at $50 oil. By that time, prices will improve. ..."
    "... We could live with 60-70% of the 6/14 high for quite awhile, which would be $63-74 WTI. ..."
    "... That price range sounds about right for 2016, but I think we may see it creep up by 2017 (maybe at a 5 to 10% annual rate of increase) because those prices will not be enough to encourage much investment so demand will outstrip supply and drive oil prices up. I think it likely we will see $100/b by 2018 (possibly higher), if the peak has arrived by 2018 (and output is either on a plateau or slowly declining) then oil prices may head to about $150/b within 3 to 5 years, though a recession would put a damper on the oil price rise eventually (within 1 or 2 years of reaching $150/b is my WAG.) ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | peakoilbarrel.com
    Oct 04, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel

    Longtimber , 10/05/2015 at 12:47 pm

      Gotta wonder bout such an Ad in an article titled "us-shale-oil-industry-will-simply-vanish"

      Most Likely it's the Investor that will vanish – the oil industry will be "right sized" when forced focus on fundamentals. Sad.. but the Ad title … OIL BOOM is spot on.

    shallow sand, 10/05/2015 at 3:50 pm

    Seems like that add pops up a lot. With WTI averaging about $46 for Q3 and right there yet today, seems like OIL BUST is now the more appropriate term.

    Oil production and related liquids is generating about $5 billion per day less worldwide than it did in the 2012-2014 time frame. Big transfer of funds from one group to another.

    KSA realizing around $180 billion less on an annual basis. Wonder how long before they feel backed into a corner enough to do something. Looks like Russia may outlast them, as KSA is pegged to dollar and Russia isn't.

    Maybe Jeffrey can send KSA royals some good bean dish recipes and some free ice cream cone coupons from DQ. LOL!!

    AlexS , 10/05/2015 at 4:47 pm
    shallow sand,

    Saudi Arabia, with its huge foreign reserves, could withstand for 3 or 4 years at $50 oil. By that time, prices will improve.

    shallow sand , 10/05/2015 at 7:14 pm
    AlexS. KSA could go longer than that as I assume many banks would be willing to loan them money with reserves as collateral. They also could issue many more billions of unsecured bonds.

    However, OPEC did not go years without cutting in 1986, 1999 and 2009.

    Each time the cut worked. The price went up significantly. 1986 was not as successful as the other two cuts.

    I may be wrong, but for US producers, it is likely the only hope.

    AlexS, 10/05/2015 at 8:49 pm

    shallow sand,

    In 1986, OPEC actually started increasing production after unsuccessfully trying to stabilize prices by cutting output over the previous 5 years. Their market share dropped from 45.4% in 1979 to 27.6% in 1985, but was constantly increasing from 1986 and has reached 41.9% in 1998. Over the whole period prices remained low (with only a short spike during the Gulf war in 1990). But, for OPEC countries, this was partially offset by the increased production volumes from 15.9 mb/d in 1985 to 30.7mb/d in 1998 (almost twice).

    shallow sand, 10/05/2015 at 10:45 pm
    AlexS.

    I am just looking at history regarding a cut. The past may not be repeated, I agree.

    • 1985-1986. WTI dropped 62.4% from 11/85 to 7/86, from around $31 to $11.50. In November, 1986, OPEC set a target price of $18. 1/87 WTI averaged $18.65. By 7/87 the average was up to $21.34. I do agree the price collapsed again in 1988, but recovered. The price typically was 60-70% of the $31 high in 1985 until the 1998 collapse.
    • 1998-1999. The price dropped approximately 55% from late 1997 to 12/98, when the monthly average was $11.35. I remember that very well. Glum Christmas Party. We were at $8 and change. 3/23 OPEC announced 2.2 million barrel cut. 7/99 average $20.10. 12/99 average $26.10.
    • 2008-2009. Price dropped 71%. June, 2008 average $133.78. February average $39.09. OPEC announced stages of cuts, 500K 9/08, 1.5 million 10/08, 2.2 million 12/08. By 6/09, monthly average 69.64. By 12/09, $77.99
    • 2014-15. Price dropped almost 64% from June, 2014 to August, 2015. June averaged $105.79. August, 2015 averaged $42.87.

    Maybe OPEC will not cut in December, 2015. Going by history they will soon. They have not let things go more than 18 months from the peak in the past. 12/4 meeting will be at 18 months from June peak.

    Go read news stories from 1986, 1999 and 2008-2009. KSA was concerned about the price each time and stated such. Things are not peachy, contrary to both KSA and Russia official mantras.

    Again, I could be wrong, just looking at history. Otoh, maybe lower for longer is needed to stifle the ridiculous North American CAPEX. When reading stories from late 2008, COP had announced a CAPEX budget cut of 18% to $2.8 billion for 2009. By 2014 the CAPEX budget had ballooned to over $17 billion. COP, of course, is a big player in tar sands and all major US LTO plays, so would be a good proxy for "out of control spending.".

    shallow sand, 10/05/2015 at 10:56 pm

    AlexS

    We could live with 60-70% of the 6/14 high for quite awhile, which would be $63-74 WTI.

    Apparently at this time the crude market does not believe this is enough to stifle North American (sans Mexico) production.

    What do you think about this price range from maybe 7/16-12/20? Where do you see LTO in that scenario?

    Dennis Coyne , 10/06/2015 at 9:53 am

    Hi Shallow Sands,

    That price range sounds about right for 2016, but I think we may see it creep up by 2017 (maybe at a 5 to 10% annual rate of increase) because those prices will not be enough to encourage much investment so demand will outstrip supply and drive oil prices up. I think it likely we will see $100/b by 2018 (possibly higher), if the peak has arrived by 2018 (and output is either on a plateau or slowly declining) then oil prices may head to about $150/b within 3 to 5 years, though a recession would put a damper on the oil price rise eventually (within 1 or 2 years of reaching $150/b is my WAG.)

    Others predict a permanent recession (or very slow growth) due to high debt levels.

    If that hypothesis is correct, the future economic outlook is indeed very grim, even in this scenario supply would decrease faster than demand (due to low prices and lack of investment) and oil prices would eventually rise (probably not until 2020), but at a slower rate of increase maybe reaching $100/b in 2025.

    I don't find the excess debt story very compelling, but many do.

    AlexS, 10/06/2015 at 9:41 am

    Shallow sand,

    Parallels with 1985-86, 1998-99, 2001-02 and 2008-09 may lead to erroneous conclusions.

    Sharp oil price declines in 1998-99, 2001-02 and 2008-09 were caused by cyclical demand reduction during global recessions. It was relatively easy, for OPEC, to support prices by cutting output, as demand quickly rebounded. OPEC restored production levels in a few months and didn't lose its market share.

    By contrast, oil price decline in the 80s was due not only to a deep recession (1980-83), but also to long-term trends triggered by the oil price shocks of 1973-74 and 1979-80. These included oil substitution by natural gas in power generation and industry, oil/energy saving measures, and a sharp increase in oil production in the North Sea, Alaska, Mexico and Western Siberia. OPEC initially tried to offset falling demand and the tide of rising non-OPEC supplies by cutting its own output, but this proved inefficient. Competitors were taking its market share and prices continued to decline. Therefore, Saudi Arabia and other OPEC members changed their market strategy from defending prices to defending market share.

    The current oil price slump is due to long-term trends in supply (primarily LTO, but also Canada and some OPEC members). Cutting OPEC output to maintain prices would only support LTO and other non-OPEC supplies, including costly projects such as Arctic. As we have seen in 2Q15, even at $60 WTI tight oil producers are ready to increase drilling activity, but at the current $45 LTO production is declining.

    Therefore, it doesn't make sense for Saudi Arabia and its neighbors to cut output and support competitors. They will wait until rising demand and stagnating or declining non-OPEC production will finally erase excess supply. That will take much less time than in the 80-90s, as current spare capacity is only about 2.5 mb/d vs. 11-12 mb/d in 1985.

    [Oct 09, 2015] Another Petro-State Throws In The Towel The Last Nail In The Petrodollar Coffin

    "... 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF). ..."
    "... As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. ..."
    "... In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016 ..."
    "... For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US. ..."
    Oct 09, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    According to the proposed budget submitted by the current 'blue-blue' government the Norwegian deficit will reach another record high in 2016. Mainland taxes are expected to bring in 1,008 billion NOKs, while expenditures are estimated at 1,215 billion NOKs. In other words, 2016 will be another year of record mainland deficit which need to be covered by the offshore sector and its 6,900 bn NOK sovereign wealth fund (SWF).

    While record mainland deficits covered by the petroleum sector is nothing new in Norwegian budget history, on the contrary it is closer to the norm, the 2016 budget did raise some eyebrows. The other side of the ledger, the net inflow to the SWF from activities in the North Sea will, again according to budget, be lower than the required amount to cover the deficit. This has never happened before and is testimony of the sea change occurring in the world of petrodollar recycling. Interestingly enough, the need to liquidate SWF holdings is helping to create further deflation in the Eurodollar system in a self-reinforcing loop.

    As Eurodollar liquidity dries up and consequently pushes up the price of actual dollar (note, Eurodollars are international claims to domestic US dollars but for which no such dollars actual exists) the problem for petro-states compounds. One way this manifest itself is through international purchasing power of prior savings. A SWF as the Norwegian was created through a surplus of exports over imports meaning it can only be utilized through future imports over exports. When the Norwegians look at their wealth expressed in Norwegian kroner it all looks fine, but expressed in dollars the SWF has shrunk considerably in size. Thus, the surfeit imports expected by the Norwegian populace cannot be met. Norway rode high on a wave of liquidity which pushed up commodity currencies, leading Norwegians to consume more imported goods today, without realizing they were tapping into the principal of their future. When the tide turns the gross misconception is revealed.

    The Government claims it is all fine though. The current down-cycle will, according to them, end early 2016 so despite a 2 percentage point reduction in corporate- and personal income tax, mainland tax revenues are expected to increase 1.9 per cent. That is obviously a pipedream, just as the expected 17.9 per cent increase in interest and dividend income which will make sure the SWF continue to grow at a healthy pace despite the massive mainland deficit.

    Assuming oil prices remain low, mainland tax revenue will plummet as they are very much a function of what goes on offshore, while expenditure will rise as they do in all welfare states during a down cycle.

    If we are right, a global recession is imminent, meaning the expected increase in dividend income will never materialize.

    In other words, the drawdown of the SWF will exceed its inflow even after adding financial income flows. The last remnant of the petro-dollar will thus die in 2016.

    For a country 100 per cent dependent on continued leverage in the Eurodollar system the absolutely best case scenario is for the US economy to grow just slowly enough for international monetary policy to again realign; reducing the value of the USD through continued ZIRP in the US.

    Robust growth in the US will prompt Yellen to hike, spiking the dollar (as Eurodollar claims scramble for actual dollars) while paradoxically a recession in the US will lead to the exact same outcome. The goldilocks scenario of 1-2 per cent growth is the best that the Norwegian government can hope for. It will minimize the gap between the lies and propaganda spewed out by the Ministry of Finance and reality.

    Latina Lover

    Death to the Fed Reserve! Time for a currency reset. Down with the Banksters, or rather, hang them high!

    [Oct 08, 2015] Crude Oil Surges Above $50 a Barrel for First Time Since July

    Oct 08, 2015 | www.bloomberg.com
    Oil surged above $50 a barrel in New York for the first time since July on speculation that demand is picking up.

    ... ... ...

    WTI for November delivery rose $1.62 to settle at $49.43 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was the highest settlement since July 21. Futures touched $50.07. The volume of all futures traded was 45 percent higher than the 100-day average at 3:01 p.m.

    ... ... ...

    Global oil demand will increase by 1.5 million barrels a day this year, El-Badri said in the statement to the IMF’s International Monetary and Financial Committee. Commercial oil inventories in developed countries remain about 190 million barrels above the five year average , he said.

    [Oct 08, 2015] Oil's Rally Was A Bunch Of Noise And Won't Last, Goldman Sachs Says

    While financial market can dictate oil price for a considerable length of time then can't do it forever. At some point the fact that a lot of oil production need break-even price of 65 and realistic price $75 per barrel will change the game Wall Street is playing. Some "overenthusiastic" shorts might lose. Also credibility Wall Street is probably close to zero to attempt to manipulate market via MSM are not as effective as in the past.
    Oct 08, 2015 | Barrons.com
    Last month, Courvalin said that oil prices could fall as low as $20 as the global glut drags into next year. See last month's post, "There Will Be Blood: Goldman Slashes Oil Price Forecasts." Here's the laundry list of what Goldman says hasn't changed in the past week:
    1. The global oil market is currently well oversupplied.
    2. This oversupply is driven by strong production growth outside of the US with Lower 48 production already declining and gradually tightening light US crude balances.
    3. Low prices are required in 2016 to finally bring supply and demand into balance by year-end and sustain a US production decline of 585 kb/d next year.
    4. Although demand growth has surprised to the upside this year at 1.6 million b/d growth, risks are clearly to weaker demand growth in 2016.

    Dave wrote:

    Goldman has lost all credibility LONG ago. They are looking to load up before the rebound and are trying to drive prices down temporarily.

    Earnst wrote:

    Only about 20% of trade is between actual buyer's and seller's. There is a terrific bias towards longs and the use of technical analysis as well as conditioned responses to factors such as middle east conflict. It was a new day yesterday but by God it's an old day now; they'll capitulate.

    Big Al wrote:

    These are the same guys who called for oil in the $20s. They are either: trying to protect some short positions, clueless as to oil and gas industry fundamentals or incompetent at best. Everyone in the industry knows that shorting energy is like playing Russian roulette. You could get lucky, but if you keep playing long enough, you wind up dead.

    Jeff wrote:

    Hmmmm.... Rig count at lowest level in years. US production swinging lower. Saudis signaling for higher prices as they bleed $12B per month. Seems like higher prices up to $60 not unreasonable.

    dsr wrote:

    Not many know this, but Goldman owns a large interest in an oil refinery in Indiana. The lower oil is the higher the crack spreads for them, equals $$$$$. They also sell 70,000 barrels of crude per day to another refinery and then buy the product to sell on the market. Do a Google search on Goldman's forecast for energy over the last 18 months and you will see the light of absurdity. It's beyond funny. We have lost 1 million barrels of oil per day in non-opec production in the last 6 months, and at the same time demand is surging, and this guy says "not much has changed." No credibility.

    kim wrote:

    The vampire squids are having to eat crow right now and they are trying harder than ever to jawbone down the price of oil to save their credibility and probably make a few shekels in the process. Put a little salt and pepper on that 20 dollar per barrel crow that you are having to eat there Damien; makes it go down better.

    Phil wrote:

    If Goldman said it will go down, bet for oil, it will go up!

    George wrote:

    And where is the $200/barrel oil they predicted a couple of years ago? Oh, not here yet so now they are predicting $20. Losers.

    anonymous33 wrote:

    people should read the report. Nowhere does the analyst or Goldman predict $20 oil. That number is specified as a very specific condition which even they say is not going to happen. Typical over-reaction by the public.

    [Oct 08, 2015] A Dell-EMC deal could choke the debt market

    Oct 08, 2015 | fortune.com
    The financial turmoil of the past month has brought the high yield debt market to a screeching halt. A number of deals have been called off or shifted to the loan market. Late last month, chemical company Altice had to cut back a bond offering and increase the interest rate to 11% on a portion of a multi-billion dollar deal.

    Just $12 billion in high yield bonds were issued last week, down from $34 billion during the same week a year ago, according to S&P Leverage Commentary and Data. Total issuance of leveraged loans and high yield bonds is down by nearly $140 billion this year compared to 2014, to about $575 billion.

    [Oct 08, 2015] IMF: Up to $3 trillion in over-borrowing in emerging markets

    Oct 08, 2015 | news.yahoo.com
    The biggest risks to the global economy are now in emerging markets, where private companies have racked up considerable debt amid a fifth straight year of slowing growth, the International Monetary Fund said Wednesday.

    [Oct 08, 2015] Short-Term Energy Outlook - U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA)

    Oct 08, 2015 | www.eia.gov

    The current values of futures and options contracts for January 2016 delivery (Market Prices and Uncertainty Report) suggest the market expects WTI prices to range from $32/b to $67/b (at the 95% confidence interval) in January 2016.

    ... ... ...

    Projected U.S. crude oil production averages 9.2 million b/d in 2015 and 8.9 million b/d in 2016.

    [Oct 08, 2015] Why Barrons Is Wrong On $75 Oil

    Blast from the past. Note that key arguments still look reasonable... But prediction is not ;-)...
    "... New unconventional oil reserves in the U.S. require an average break-even price of $65, which does not justify or support a $75 price. ..."
    "... Barrons assumes that all new unconventional reserves are here for the long term and will continue to increase production, which is not the case. ..."
    "... The article references Citigroup energy analyst Eric Lee, who believes that most of this new oil could be recovered for around under $75 per barrel, leading to a global decrease in price. ..."
    "... after examining existing extraction cost data it is hard for the supply side economics to actually work out and support $75 oil for a sustained period of time. ..."
    "... This increased demand would put worldwide oil consumption at 91.60 million barrels per day in 2014 and 92.97 million barrels per day in 2015. ..."
    Apr. 2, 2014 | Seeking Alpha
    Barron's assumptions as to the leading factors of lowered oil pricing do not make sense after examining the supply side economics.

    New unconventional oil reserves in the U.S. require an average break-even price of $65, which does not justify or support a $75 price.

    Barron's assumes that all new unconventional reserves are here for the long term and will continue to increase production, which is not the case.

    The cover of Barrons this past week read "Here Comes $75 Oil". The article highlights that due to several new "game changers" in the oil production market that within the next 5 years the oil market would fall to $75 a barrel. The three main reasons that would contribute to cheaper oil are deep-water oil, shale oil, and oil sands. All of these newfound resources are estimated at roughly one trillion barrels in newfound oil. Adding that onto the existing global oil reserve estimated at 1.5 trillion, makes this newfound oil a major factor in the future of oil pricing. The article references Citigroup energy analyst Eric Lee, who believes that most of this new oil could be recovered for around under $75 per barrel, leading to a global decrease in price.

    As much as $75 oil sounds nice and would no doubt be a major boon to the U.S. and world economies. Yet after examining existing extraction cost data it is hard for the supply side economics to actually work out and support $75 oil for a sustained period of time. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), they expect worldwide consumption of petroleum products to grow by 1.2 million barrels per day in 2014 and 1.5 million barrels per day for 2015.

    This increased demand would put worldwide oil consumption at 91.60 million barrels per day in 2014 and 92.97 million barrels per day in 2015.

    [Oct 08, 2015] What's Next For Oil Prices

    "... investments in new or expanded oil projects will be reduced by 22.4 percent to $521 billion this year – down $130 billion from 2014 – thereby reducing the supply of crude and putting upward pressure on prices. ..."
    "... He said he expects global demand for oil will rise by 1.3 million barrels a day in 2016. ..."
    "... When will the end of that tunnel appear? Within the next 18 to 24 months, el-Badri predicted. ..."
    Oct 08, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    In London, OPEC Secretary-general Abdallah Salem el-Badri said investments in new or expanded oil projects will be reduced by 22.4 percent to $521 billion this year – down $130 billion from 2014 – thereby reducing the supply of crude and putting upward pressure on prices.

    "Less supply in the very near future. Less supply means high prices," el-Badri said in a speech at the Oil and Money conference.

    El-Badri's expectations on investment were supported by the executive director of the International Energy Agency (IEA), Fatih Birol, who told the meeting that investments in oil projects this year will fall by about the same rate forecast by el-Badri.

    "Upstream investment will be at least 20 per cent lower [this year] than in 2014," said the chief of the Paris-based IEA, which represents 29 oil-consuming countries. "In terms of money spent, it's the highest [drop] in history."

    Oil prices will also rise, ironically, because the current low prices have encouraged consumers to buy more fuel, according to el-Badri. He said he expects global demand for oil will rise by 1.3 million barrels a day in 2016.

    The current low price of oil has strained the budgets of many oil-producing countries, including wealthy Middle Eastern states. The price of oil is now less than $50 per barrel, less than half what it was in June 2014. Yet el-Badri argued, "We are not in disarray. We see some light at the end of the tunnel."

    When will the end of that tunnel appear? Within the next 18 to 24 months, el-Badri predicted.

    Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, doesn't see oil prices stabilizing quite that soon, however. He told the conference that while oil prices are due to recover, their rise won't be as fast as el-Badri expects

    ... ... ...

    This [shale] technology can't make money unless oil sells for at least $60 per barrel.

    Related: A Key Indicator Low Oil Prices Are Lifting Demand

    [Oct 08, 2015] Oil prices are soaring as Saudi Arabia gets the upper hand over shale producers

    "... At 848, the number of U.S. drilling rigs is only half what it was in January, and the lowest level since 2003. The Department of Energy said Tuesday it estimated U.S. oil production fell by 120,000 barrels a day last month, and will continue to fall through mid-2016. It now expects U.S. crude output to fall to an average of 8.9 million b/d next year from 9.2 million this year. ..."
    "... The International Energy Agency now expects global demand to rise by 1.7 million b/d this year. ..."
    "... Pretending that there's still some kind of competition between shale oil and OM's and ignoring the worldwide credit collapse is just plain stupid. OM's are clearly in liquidation because of the credit collapse, and not because they're winning some artificial competition against the shale oil producers who're themselves effectively out of business. ..."
    "... Massive credit is required to drill, and it's not there. ..."
    Oct 08, 2015 | fortune.com
    October 7, 2015 | Fortune

    Baker Hughes' closely-watched rig count showed that the number of drilling rigs in the U.S. turned down sharply in September after signs of a brief revival in the previous two months. At 848, the number of U.S. drilling rigs is only half what it was in January, and the lowest level since 2003. The Department of Energy said Tuesday it estimated U.S. oil production fell by 120,000 barrels a day last month, and will continue to fall through mid-2016. It now expects U.S. crude output to fall to an average of 8.9 million b/d next year from 9.2 million this year.

    ... ... ...

    The International Energy Agency now expects global demand to rise by 1.7 million b/d this year.

    KI time

    Pretending that there's still some kind of competition between shale oil and OM's and ignoring the worldwide credit collapse is just plain stupid. OM's are clearly in liquidation because of the credit collapse, and not because they're winning some artificial competition against the shale oil producers who're themselves effectively out of business.

    Massive credit is required to drill, and it's not there. Government has effectively provided more than $4.2 Trillion$ in bailouts since 2005 as cover for the worldwide credit collapse. Now Government is stone broke and can't do it anymore...

    [Oct 08, 2015] Black Gold May Be Down, but Its Not Out

    "... while there are alternatives ranging from electric batteries to natural gas, none are as convenient or deliver the same energy-dense punch as plain old petroleum products. ..."
    "... the way oil is bought, sold and used has changed almost beyond recognition in less than a year. For the first time in generations, oil is being driven by markets [aka Wall Street speculators -- NNB] rather than giant cartels. ..."
    "... Bad for the bulls, right? Maybe not â€" oil always seems to bubble upward. Paul Horsnell, head of commodity research at Standard Chartered Bank in London, tells OZY that U.S. production is “falling relatively quickly.†As a result, he says, a sharp price increase is in the cards, perhaps to near $75, compared with prices in the $50 range today. Philip Verleger, president of the consulting firm PKVerleger, also sees oil rising in the near term; he says U.S. companies have been laggards about reporting their cutbacks, and that government statistics overstate oil production as a result. ..."
    Oct 08, 2015 | news.yahoo.com

    For better or worse, oil never really seems to lose out in the long run. You’d think the case against it would be easy to make: It’s last century’s go-to energy source and a nightmare for the environment. There are also those nagging concerns about peak oil and even peak car, given that millennials seem way less interested in their own wheels than their elders were at that age. But oil is still by far the biggest traded commodity in the world. It’s uniquely useful, and so far irreplaceable, as a cheap, liquid fuel â€" after all, you can’t run a car on coal or fly a plane on solar, and while there are alternatives ranging from electric batteries to natural gas, none are as convenient or deliver the same energy-dense punch as plain old petroleum products. All the fracking in the world hasn’t yet diminished the sense that the days of Texas Tea are far from over.

    By contrast, the way oil is bought, sold and used has changed almost beyond recognition in less than a year. For the first time in generations, oil is being driven by markets [aka Wall Street speculators -- NNB] rather than giant cartels. OPEC, long the bogeyman of the oil market, has been neutered by a huge surge in U.S. production; at the same time, low gas prices don’t seem to be encouraging people to drive longer or buy more gas guzzlers the way they have in the past. “This time it is not business as usual,†said Maria van der Hoeven, executive director of the Paris-based International Energy Agency, in a recent speech.

    The most jaw-dropping change by far: OPEC’s effective capitulation in its decades-old game of rigging oil prices. Last November, Saudi Arabia opened its oil taps in what experts considered an attempt to kill off “high cost†U.S. shale-oil production. But it turned out that U.S. operations haven’t been so high cost after all; oil expert Daniel Yergin, vice chair of the research and consulting company IHS, notes that U.S. prospectors improved their efficiency by 65 percent in just a year. U.S. oil production is up to stay, he says â€" and that means oil prices are likely to stay low.

    Bad for the bulls, right? Maybe not â€" oil always seems to bubble upward. Paul Horsnell, head of commodity research at Standard Chartered Bank in London, tells OZY that U.S. production is “falling relatively quickly.†As a result, he says, a sharp price increase is in the cards, perhaps to near $75, compared with prices in the $50 range today. Philip Verleger, president of the consulting firm PKVerleger, also sees oil rising in the near term; he says U.S. companies have been laggards about reporting their cutbacks, and that government statistics overstate oil production as a result.

    Some forecasters believe oil’s great run won’t end for decades â€" most of us still love our cars, and demand for them continues to grow in the developing world. But there’s also the threat that governments worried about global warming and pollution might finally cap the gusher.

    Says Verleger: “The oil industry has no friends.â€

    [Oct 07, 2015] This Month Could Make Or Break The Oil Markets

    Russia forecasts that its production will be drop 2 million tons (to 528 from the current 530) .
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    October could be a crucial month for struggling drillers. With drillers undergoing credit redeterminations, October could see a wave of debt restructuring and cuts to credit lines, potentially forcing deeper cuts in the shale patch.

    ... ... ...

    In the U.S., production declines continue, although fitfully and inconsistently. After several months of large declines in production, the supply picture has become a bit murky. For example, output fell by 222,000 barrels per day between April and May, and then by another 115,000 barrels per day from May to June. But in July, production actually increased by 94,000 barrels per day. The gains came from the Gulf of Mexico, and not the shale patch. Offshore projects are long-term propositions and don't respond quickly to shifts in oil prices. However, even taking out the offshore gains, U.S. production would have only declined by 53,000 barrels per day, a slower pace than what was seen in previous months.

    gcjohns1971

    "Saudi Arabia will continue to seek a rebound in oil prices only by a contraction in production from countries such as Russia, Canada, and the United States."

    This is a red herring because the United States, even in the unlikely event of an oil surplus, is by law not an oil exporter.

    What the 'Shale Revolution' has done is send those formerly exporting to the US to fight for markets elsewhere.

    ... ... ...

    cashtoash

    But Garrrrrtman said on CNBS [yesterday on fast money] that oil has bottomed, time to buy buy buy

    [Oct 07, 2015] Summers Global Economy The Case for Expansion

    Oct 07, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Economist's View

    Larry Summers continues his call for fiscal expansion:

    Global economy: The case for expansion: ...The problem of secular stagnation - the inability of the industrial world to grow at satisfactory rates even with very loose monetary policies - is growing worse in the wake of problems in most big emerging markets, starting with China. ... Industrialised economies that are barely running above stall speed can ill-afford a negative global shock. Policymakers badly underestimate the risks... If a recession were to occur, monetary policymakers lack the tools to respond. ...
    This is no time for complacency. The idea that slow growth is only a temporary consequence of the 2008 financial crisis is absurd. ...
    Long-term low interest rates radically alter how we should think about fiscal policy. Just as homeowners can afford larger mortgages when rates are low, government can also sustain higher deficits. ...
    The case for more expansionary fiscal policy is especially strong when it is spent on investment or maintenance. ... While the problem before 2008 was too much lending, many more of today's problems have to do with too little lending for productive investment.
    Inevitably, there will be discussion of the need for structural reform... - there always is. ...
    Traditional approaches of focusing on sound government finance, increased supply potential and the avoidance of inflation court disaster. ... It is an irony of today's secular stagnation that what is conventionally regarded as imprudent offers the only prudent way forward.

    [The full post is much, much longer.]

    bakho said in reply to pgl...

    If Bush would have done fiscal stimulus instead of tax cuts and low interest rates in 2001, we could have avoided the worst of the 2008 mess. When the wealthy hoard capital in an unproductive way and use their political power to increase their wealth, it leads to a stalled economy.

    Peter K. said...

    Everyone is for fiscal stimulus. Even Republicans like Ben Bernanke and Martin Feldstein.

    "The problem of secular stagnation - the inability of the industrial world to grow at satisfactory rates even with very loose monetary policies - is growing worse in the wake of problems in most big emerging markets, starting with China."

    Interest rates are low by historical standards but monetary policy isn't "loose."

    If it was loose we'd see inflation and tight labor markets.

    bakho said in reply to Peter K....

    Monetary stimulus at the ZLB is weak and carries more risk than fiscal stimulus. The problem for Yellen and the Fed: fiscal policy is dragging the economy down. Monetary policy would be adequate if fiscal policy were doing its part. It does not even come close. The Fed can create more money, but the wealthy are positioned to grab it so very little goes to where it is needed.

    Monetary policy, no matter how good cannot fully correct for bad or inadequate fiscal and regulatory policy.

    D said in reply to Peter K....

    "Even Republicans like Ben Bernanke..."

    Maybe that should be: former Republicans like Ben Bernanke.

    http://qz.com/518111/bernanke-im-not-really-a-republican-anymore/

    "I didn't leave the Republican Party. I felt that the party left me."

    -JJF

    Peter K. said...

    "It is an irony of today's secular stagnation that what is conventionally regarded as imprudent offers the only prudent way forward."

    Summers borrows/steals from Krugman.

    bakho said in reply to Peter K....

    The Fed lacked the authority for Cramdown and Geithner who had the power block most of the help that should have bailed out home owners. Obama's Harvard buddies were against Cramdown, the GOP is a wholly owned subsidiary of the banksters so a good policy was blocked.

    BigBozat said in reply to JaaaaayCeeeee...

    "But why is Larry Summers saying that the problem before 2008 was too much lending? Said so baldly, doesn't it just support austerians, like the Tory argument that Labor caused the recession by spending too much on entitlements?"

    Only if you conflate "lending" with "public debt" (and/or argue that spending on entitlements is a totally non-productive use of the public fisc). If the Tories are good at conflating (and/or believe entitlements are a complete waste of money), then yeah I guess they could make claims... 'tho they'd be either disingenuous or ignorant in doing so.

    FWIW, I tend to associate "lending" more with private sector activity. What Larry means by "too much lending" - in this case, anyway - was the cheap & poorly/fraudulently underwritten credit-fueled housing sector bubble.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to BigBozat...

    The problem was private debt. There was long secular run of private debt to gdp prior to the crash. Eventually private debt was at its highest level since 1929.

    http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2012/09/private-debt-is-the-main-problem/


    [Oct 07, 2015] Banks Glencore Exposure Is a $100 Billion 'Gorilla': BofA

    Shadow of Lehman Brothers over Wall Street ?
    Oct 07, 2015 | www.bloomberg.com

    Global financial firms' estimated $100 billion or more exposure to Glencore may draw more scrutiny as regulatory stress tests approach after the commodity giant's stock plunge this year.

    [Oct 07, 2015] Volatility and Oil

    "... For example the energy cost to major chemicals of running their plants is significant in the united states this about 6% of the national energy consumption. Since 1994, Dow has reduced its energy intensity by 22 percent through a structured program targeting process improvements. This has saved 1.6 quadrillion BTUs, equivalent to the energy required to generate all of the residential electricity used in California for one year. The savings have totaled $8.6 billion on an investment of $1 billion. ..."
    "... Vertical means incorporating finding, processing, converting chemically modifying, distributing and selling products. However even in the present time it is interesting to note how BP beat its guidance in the last quarter and other companies such as Exxon are not doing too badly. ..."
    "... Exxon is an interesting case since it purchases more crude oil that it actually produces, and so a lower price helps its energy and raw materials cost structure. ..."
    "... In conclusion oil is, like it or loath it, a central pillar of our modern society. Alternative sources, such as solar cells (photovolteic), wave, wind and geo thermal, do not currently posses the necessary infrastructure to support the global energy need. ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | community.3dsbiovia.com
    Petroleum is a volatile product. The chemistry that enables it as such a high density energy and ubiquitous energy source is volatile. The economic environment around oil is volatile, with a growing tide of alternative energy sources, and climate change issues. The political environment around oil is volatile. However oil currently is and will I believe remain for the foreseeable future, the essential underpinning of modern societies around the globe. This is why companies like Exxon call themselves energy organizations. Its not a vain attempt to change their image but rather a real understanding of the nature of chemicals and energy and the value they bring. if you need to understand this, image that we had no fuel for transportation, goods delivery, power-stations, and lights; it would be a very cold parochial world.

    User-added imagel

    Recently we have seen a precipitous change in the energy or per barrel price of oil, across the broad markets. To many people this is shocking and upsetting; a sign of a global economic contagion. However this is not the first significant price shock in the energy sector. When I started in BP oil was about 65-70 dollars a barrel for Brent Crude and was projected to go to 80-90. Unfortunatley due to economics and supply or demand, it actually dropped. Well the oil majors learnt from that shock, the Gulf and early Oil crises. They became fully integrated corporations. The drill, produce, refine, blend, distribute and own end point of sales. They balance their exposure in the upstream and highly risky area, with that of continuous margin driven volume production in refining, and more batch driven specialty chemicals in the downstream and products domain. Now as the oil price drops, the margins and profit in upstream decreases, but the energy costs of running crackers and separating and converting columns decreases.

    For example the energy cost to major chemicals of running their plants is significant in the united states this about 6% of the national energy consumption. Since 1994, Dow has reduced its energy intensity by 22 percent through a structured program targeting process improvements. This has saved 1.6 quadrillion BTUs, equivalent to the energy required to generate all of the residential electricity used in California for one year. The savings have totaled $8.6 billion on an investment of $1 billion.

    So as prices drop the downstream parts of integrated petrochemicals is healthy. The gasoline stations, do not clearly make a lot of money, but the refineries and chemical production outlets are very healthy and currently running at maximum capacity, (a friend verified last week). This balanced portfolio is how the companies manage the significant shifts in costs. It also is why they really need an integrated systems view of the whole business. They need to manage, cost, risk and velocity across different sectors, with differing information, material and economic considerations. being able to have flexibility across a refinery to take advantage of local and global price shifts and consequent supply and material shifts (quality content etc) is important.

    Further to this, oil and the exploration of oil has often been subject to regulations. There have been a number of very sad incidents involving oil companies that have affected the environment. In order to continue to operate, the petrochemical companies are very mindful of their "Green License to Operate". therefore they carefully track using inventory and supply chain technologies all of the products, their regulatory and environmental impact and their health, safety and fire code compliance. They do this across all their divisions, to both ensure information tractability and of course compliance to specified procedure.

    Lastly oil has always been as a product subject to taxation regimes. These change and as many of you will have heard the allowances for drilling in for example the United States are considerable. Exploration and Production has always been the riskiest side of the vertically integrated, oil company's portfolio. Vertical means incorporating finding, processing, converting chemically modifying, distributing and selling products. However even in the present time it is interesting to note how BP beat its guidance in the last quarter and other companies such as Exxon are not doing too badly.
    http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Global-oil-price-factors-420x305.png

    Note Exxon is an interesting case since it purchases more crude oil that it actually produces, and so a lower price helps its energy and raw materials cost structure.

    In conclusion oil is, like it or loath it, a central pillar of our modern society. Alternative sources, such as solar cells (photovolteic), wave, wind and geo thermal, do not currently posses the necessary infrastructure to support the global energy need. In order to provide a mode complete energy portfolio, Petrochemical companies are actively investigating carbon capture and conversion to methanol for energy consumption. They are likewise working very hard to optimize their entire business processes, documentation and innovation activities along a systems model approach

    [Oct 07, 2015] US Ruling Circles Split On Use of Jihadists in Syria

    "... Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. Theyve come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. ..."
    "... They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that dont want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest. ..."
    "... in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world. ..."
    "... there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And theres nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight. ..."
    "... And although that warning didnt cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think thats why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that theyve been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state. ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | therealnews.com
    BALL: So what is going on here? It almost sounds like a neo-Cold War indirect conflict of superpowers vying for colonial control over their property, or a fight over whose anti-Assad allies should be supported. What is going on?

    FORD: Well, the United States and its allies are speaking gobbledygook, and Russia is speaking straight up plain international law truth. They've come to the aid of the recognized government of Syria, which is being attacked by proxies of other countries, the U.S., the Saudis, other Gulf states, and Turkey, in violation of international law. And the Russians say that they are not just defending the government that they have had relations with for decades. They are defending principles of international law. And the U.S. and its allies are violating international law, and the U.S. and its allies cannot draw some kind of red line around ISIS, the wayward jihadists that don't want to take orders, and expect the Russians to only discipline their little bad boys and leave the other jihadists alone. That only makes sense to idiots like the New York Times and CNN and the rest.

    BALL: But again, for those of us who have varying understandings of what's happening here, it would seem like the U.S. would not have a problem with Assad's territory being bombed, given that the U.S. and Obama's administration in particular is no fan of Bashar al-Assad and his leadership there in Syria. Why then are they having a problem with what Russia's doing, and to what extent are the problems that are claimed to be addressed there actually caused in their origin by the United States and its policies?

    FORD: Well, the United States has, and Obama knows the United States has, problems that go beyond the Russian intervention. They have problems with their own policy, which has brought them to this state of affairs. And in a way the Russian military intervention against the jihadists in Syria has given the Obama administration another chance to back off of that decades-long policy of using Islamic jihadists as footsoldiers for imperialism in the Muslim world.

    And the reason that I say another chance is because it was the Russians back in 2012 who gave President Obama a similar opportunity to re-think that jihadist 35-year-old policy when they proposed that the international community supervise the destruction of Syria's chemical weapons. That was back in 2012. And that allowed President Obama to back off from his threat to attack Syria, to bomb the Syrian government. I think that President Obama backed off on that threat not because of domestic or international opposition. The United States acts unilaterally all the time, I think he could have gotten away with it. I think that Obama was genuinely afraid of what would happen if the Syrian government collapsed. And make no mistake about it, if the United States had attacked the Syrian government directly the dynamic of the situation would have compelled the United States to keep on attacking until that government was totally destroyed, just like they did to Col. Gaddafi's government in Libya only one year before.

    But it is very clear, now quite clear in hindsight but I think it was visible back then, that there was a growing split in the U.S. government in ruling circles, in the intelligence agencies, even three years ago. And there was a fear that the jihadists would have, were developing their own kind of agenda. And there's nothing that U.S. imperialists dislike more than people who have their own agenda. And we know now that in August of 2012, we know this because of a memo that came to light this year, that analysts for the Defense and Intelligence Agency were warning that the jihadists, the people who would become the Islamic State, were likely to declare their own caliphate. And that would mean that they would have their own policies and they would fight their own war, not the war that the United States wanted them to fight.

    And although that warning didn't cause the U.S. to reverse its long policy of supporting jihadists, it did I think make Obama much more cautious, and I think that's why he backed off from bombing Syria that same year. The same Defense Intelligence Agency analysts are now screaming that the top Pentagon brass are lying about the kinds of reports that they've been given, reports about the growing strength of ISIS. And that argument in itself is signs of a real split in the intelligence agencies, a split in the U.S. military, a split in the Obama administration itself. A split that was evident when Hillary Clinton was secretary of state.

    So the Russian intervention is now forcing Obama's hand. He's going to have to decide if he's going to continue this policy with the jihadists, or if he's going to go for some kind of containment or stabilization of the battle lines in Syria. We know it's quite obvious that Turkey and Saudi Arabia and the Gulf states wanted an all-out offensive to take out the Assad government once and for all, but that has been checked definitively by the Russians. And that gives Obama another chance to cooperate with the people in the region, with Syria and with Iran, and with the government of Iraq, as well as with the Russians. He has that chance again, if he takes it.

    [Oct 07, 2015] Uncertain Times Ahead For The Saudis

    "... If the U.S. shale complex finally folds under the weight of its own debt, bad economics, and less forgiving capital markets allowing Riyadh to raise prices again having secured the future of the country's market share ..."
    "... However, there are quite a few things that can go wrong here that would serve to destabilize the situation and if the rumors about a rebellion within the royal family are true, the slightest misstep could end up being catastrophic. ..."
    Oct 07, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    ...between maintaining subsidies, defending the riyal peg, and fighting two proxy wars, Saudi Arabia's fiscal situation has deteriorated rapidly, forcing Riyadh to tap the bond market in an effort to help plug a hole that amounts to some 20 percent of GDP.

    ... ... ...

    Referring to reports that the number of drilling rigs deployed by U.S. shale producers is falling, Naimi said: "Eventually, economic producers will continue to prevail," the paper reported.

    Naimi disagreed with analysts who believe OPEC's market share would fall further, the paper reported. "On the contrary, OPEC's market share will be higher," he said.

    Maybe so, but make no mistake, this is a precarious time for the Saudis. If the U.S. shale complex finally folds under the weight of its own debt, bad economics, and less forgiving capital markets allowing Riyadh to raise prices again having secured the future of the country's market share, and if Iran and Russia end up being content with preserving the regional balance of power and don't move to push the issue in Iraq and Yemen once they're done "saving" Syria, then the Saudis may well weather the storm.

    However, there are quite a few things that can go wrong here that would serve to destabilize the situation and if the rumors about a rebellion within the royal family are true, the slightest misstep could end up being catastrophic.

    [Oct 06, 2015] Oil jumps $2, breaking range as supply seen ebbing

    Oct 06, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    Global oil demand will grow by the most in six years in 2016 while non-OPEC supply stalls, according to a monthly U.S. energy report that suggests a surplus of crude is easing more quickly than expected.

    Total world supply is expected to rise to 95.98 million barrels a day in 2016, 0.1 percent less than forecast last month, the U.S. Energy Information Administration said in its Short-Term Energy Outlook. Demand is expected to rise 270,00 bpd to 95.2 million barrels a day, up 0.3 percent from September's forecast.

    Russia's energy minister said Russia and Saudi Arabia discussed the oil market in a meeting last week and would continue to consult each other.

    OPEC Secretary-General Abdullah al-Badri said at a conference in London that OPEC and non-OPEC members should work together to reduce the global supply glut.

    Iran's crude sales were on track to hit seven-month lows as its main Asian customers bought less than before.

    [Oct 06, 2015] Oil needs a capitulation Goldman Sachs

    "... The problem is, you can't believe anything these Racketeers masquerading as Bankers at Goldman Sachs say ..."
    Oct 06, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    Jeff Currie, global head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs, says the risk of crude oil reaching $20 a barrel is driven by "breaching storage capacity."

    R.T. Arcand

    The problem is, you can't believe anything these Racketeers masquerading as Bankers at Goldman Sachs say. After all they're the ones who will tell you to buy, so they can do a pump and dump against you.

    Not to mention that these pathetic fools in 2008 had to go so low as to throw in the towel on Free Market Economics to become a bunch of pathetic Fascist TARP Welfare Queens because they were too stupid to keep their fraud with the Ratings Agencies alive with their fraudulent bundled mortgages. Goldman Sachs is the parasite that needs to be destroyed if this nation or even humanity is to advance.

    Compare how much the Apollo program cost, compared to the Fascists in the banks and their fraud and bailouts. It's time Americans go after these fascists with the same urgency the "Greatest Generation" did.

    [Oct 06, 2015] One True Measure Of Stagnation Not In The Labor Force

    "... Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds ..."
    "... This is a stark depiction of underlying stagnation: paid work is not being created as population expands. ..."
    "... jobless ..."
    "... Not in the Labor Force (NILF) ..."
    "... population 220 million ..."
    "... population 272 million ..."
    "... population 232 million ..."
    "... population 282 million ..."
    "... population 322 million ..."
    Oct 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Charles Hugh Smith from Of Two Minds

    One True Measure of Stagnation: Not in the Labor Force

    This is a stark depiction of underlying stagnation: paid work is not being created as population expands.

    Heroic efforts are being made to cloak the stagnation of the U.S. economy. One of these is to shift the unemployed work force from the negative-sounding jobless category to the benign-sounding Not in the Labor Force (NILF) category.

    But re-labeling stagnation does not magically transform a stagnant economy. To get a sense of long-term stagnation, let's look at the data going back 38 years, to 1977.

    NOT IN LABOR FORCE (NILF) 1976 to 2015

    I've selected data from three representative eras:

    • The 20-year period from 1977 to 1997, as this encompasses a variety of macro-economic conditions: five years of stagflation and two back-to-back recessions (1977 - 1982), strong growth from 1983 to 1990, a mild recession in 1991, and growth from 1993 to 1997.
    • The period of broad-based expansion from 1982 to 2000
    • The period 2000 to 2015, an era characterized by bubbles, post-bubble crises and low-growth "recovery"

    In all cases, I list the Not in Labor Force (NILF) data and the population of the U.S.

    1977-01-01: 61.491 million NILF population 220 million

    1997-01-01 67.968 million NILF population 272 million

    Population rose 52 million 23.6%

    NILF rose 6.477 million 10.5%

    1982-07-01 59.838 million NILF (start of boom) population 232 million

    2000-07-01 68.880 million NILF (end of boom) population 282 million

    Population rose 50 million 22.4%

    NILF rose 9.042 million 15.1%

    2000-07-01 68.880 million NILF population 282 million

    2015-09-01 94.718 million NILF ("recovery") population 322 million

    Population rose 40 million 14.2%

    NILF rose 25.838 million 37.5%

    Notice how population growth was 23.6% 1977-1997 while growth of NILF was a mere 10.5% As the population grew, job growth kept NILF to a low rate of expansion. While the population soared by 52 million, only 6.5 million people were added to NILF.

    In the golden era of 1982 - 2000, population rose 22.4% while NILF expanded by 15%. Job growth was still strong enough to limit NILF expansion. The population grew by 50 million while NILF expanded by 9 million.

    But by the present era, Not in the Labor Force expanded by 37.5% while population grew by only 14.2%. This chart shows the difference between the two eras: those Not in the Labor Force soared by an unprecedented 26 million people--a staggering 15.6% of the nation's work force of 166 million. (Roughly 140 million people have some sort of employment or self-employment, though millions of these earn less than $10,000 a year, so classifying them as "employed" is a bit of a stretch).

    This is a stark depiction of underlying stagnation: paid work is not being created as population expands. Those lacking paid work are not just impoverished; they lose the skills and will to work, a loss to the nation in more than economic vitality.

    [Oct 06, 2015] Have We Reached A Peak Water Tipping Point In California

    Oct 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    The concept of "tipping point" - a change beyond which there's no turning back - comes up a lot in climate discussions. An obvious tipping point involves polar ice. If the earth keeps warming - both in the atmosphere and in the ocean - at some point a full and permanent melt of Arctic and Antarctic ice is inevitable. Permanent ice first started forming in the Antarctic about 35 million years ago, thanks to global cooling which crossed a tipping point for ice formation. That's not very long ago. During the 200 million years before that, the earth was too warm for permanent ice to form, at least as far as we know.

    We're now going the other direction, rewarming the earth, and permanent ice is increasingly disappearing, as you'd expect. At some point, permanent ice will be gone. At some point before that, its loss will be inevitable. Like the passengers in the car above, its end may not have come - yet - but there's no turning back....

    I think the American Southwest is beyond a tipping point for available fresh water. I've written several times - for example, here - that California and the Southwest have passed "peak water," that the most water available to the region is what's available now. We can mitigate the severity of decline in supply (i.e., arrest the decline at a less-bad place by arresting its cause), and we can adapt to whatever consequences can't be mitigated.

    But we can no longer go back to plentiful fresh water from the Colorado River watershed. That day is gone, and in fact, I suspect most in the region know it, even though it's not yet reflected in real estate prices.

    Two of the three takeaways from the above paragraphs are these: "California and the Southwest have passed 'peak water'" and "most in the region know it." (The third takeaway from the above is discussed at the end of this piece.)

    [Oct 06, 2015] Icahn Earnings numbers are a mirage

    Oct 06, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    I think it is very dangerous. and I am not taking about market next month here or the next quarter. Right now I can't understand why companies are sold at this multiple of earning, 22 for S&P500. A lot of those earnings are mirage. I remember times when 5 or 6 were good numbers. If you really dig in earning, that nobody wants to do. Earning are overstated in many cases.

    [Oct 06, 2015] Marc Faber We Have Colossal Asset Inflation

    Oct 06, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Gloom, Boom & Doom Report Editor Marc Faber discusses how low interest rates have helped to raise asset prices with Bloomberg's Scarlet Fu, Joe Weisenthal and Alix Steel on "What'd You Miss?" (Source: Bloomberg)

    [Oct 04, 2015] Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention

    Notable quotes:
    "... If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly. ..."
    "... The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth. ..."
    "... "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces ..."
    "... USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors. ..."
    "... It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government. ..."
    "... It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets. ..."
    "... The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched. ..."
    "... Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words. ..."
    "... whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults. ..."
    "... the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. ..."
    "... The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force. ..."
    "... The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys). ..."
    Oct 01, 2015 | The Guardian


    Normin 2 Oct 2015 13:16

    Russia had to step in and bring attention to the proxy groups operating in Syria under US support. After years of lies the divide and conquer, regime change to puppet government plan has been exposed.

    The US support of these groups against Assad coincides with Israeli security concerns which deem a destabilized Middle East a boost to Israel's security. This unprecedented foreign state influence starts in Washington with Congress, various advisers, think tanks, lobby groups, and full media support.

    It's interesting to see how Russia acts to pursue state interests without being hobbled by the concerns and questionable influence of another country that does not have similar foreign policy interests as the USA. Time for a change in US policy, it's long overdue.

    mgeary 2 Oct 2015 12:56

    Sadly, as always in war the truth is amongst the first victims.

    This conflict is another product of the old "divide and conquer" tactic, adapted to the current reality. When you do not like a nation`s leadership, you find a group of dissidents, train them, arm them and let them loose.

    The civilians, women and children killed, the lives ruined and the homes lost are just collateral damage.

    The situation in Syria is by the making of the powers involved, so complicated, with so many factions involved, that we should be very careful when we pass judgement.
    Several of the people commenting here and some reporters have already done so with bias, according to their interests.

    Thomas Hood -> eelolondon 2 Oct 2015 12:44

    If the USA has not intervened covertly, Russia would not have intervened overtly.

    Glauber Brito 2 Oct 2015 11:25

    It is difficult to criticize Russian involvement in the Syria, when considering that it has been the US invasion and occupation in Iraq, which incidentally claimed well over 100,000 civilian lives, that sent the entire Middle East into turmoil.

    The basic rational always seems to be that US targets, including the bombing targets and civilian deaths, are legitimate, while Russia involvement is nefarious a priori. Russian reporting is usually termed ' Russian propaganda', while US reporting, which is as unified and unanimous in its judgement, just reversed, is seen as telling the truth.

    Which is exactly what the Russians are telling their viewers and listeners. It would be utterly refreshing, if the media would start demonstrating the same critical bias towards the government and the use of language, as they do of the Russians.


    Madranon LaterNow 2 Oct 2015 09:16

    I suspect that this is all about the House of Saud's internal war manifesting in proxy wars destabilising the region in some sick power struggle between the royal families.
    Besides, the only real victims in this are the non Sunnis, the groups that Saudi Arabia has long persecuted within its own borders for decades. The aim, i believe is a totally Sunni middle east with all other sects and religions driven out or exterminated. With the help of western weapons, Britain likes to make a few bob out of any civil war and regional horror.

    WhetherbyPond -> diddoit 2 Oct 2015 03:13

    "the term Ziocons is offensive."

    I meant to give offence. Being violently nationalistic, expansionist, racist and corrupt is offensive. If the apartheid state of Israel was any other country the west would be up in arms and calling for sanctions and regime change; however, because of the vile actions of the Nazi's and others, and the fact that the west did very little to help the poor souls who were being persecuted and murdered, the Ziocons use the guilt that is rightly felt in the west as a shield to cover their actions and silence their critics.


    SHappens 123dcp 2 Oct 2015 02:16

    US journalist Nir Rosen wrote in 2012, "every day the opposition gives a death toll, usually without explanation ... Many of those reported killed are in fact dead opposition fighters ... but described in reports as innocent civilians killed by the security forces ."
    http://www.counterpunch.org/2015/08/21/the-douma-market-attack-a-fabricated-pretext-for-intervention/

    The figures about casualties comes from The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights (OSDH) is an agency close to the rebels financed by Arab monarchies and Western states and headquartered in London. It publishes its toll of months of war Syria. These macabre figures reveal surprising dishonesty of traditional media and contradict the pro-interventionist propaganda. Note that Reuters was not allowed to check their figures.

    The OSDH announced that there would have been 220,271 deaths.

    Nearly half of the victims of war are soldiers and loyalist militiamen.

    The number of "Bashar soldiers" killed is higher than the number of civilians killed. On the other hand, the Syrian Arab army is essentially composed of conscripts, that is to say citizens who defend their country, their institutions and their government, we can say that the army is inseparable from the Syrian people.

    Therefore, it is also dishonest to hold Assad responsible for the deaths of more than 220,000 Syrians as do the media and provocative militants since the first victim of the war in Syria is the army, so the people in uniform, so the "people pro-Assad".

    Let us turn now to the number of civilian casualties. The OSDH counted 104,629 killed.

    This figure does not distinguish the Syrians that could be broadly described as "pro-government" or "pro-rebellion".

    The number of civilians, including women and children, which can be in the pro-Assad camp of anti-rebel or neutral is probably extremely high especially if one takes into account the mass killings which occurred by terrorist groups in the Kurdish areas of the north of the country, in neighborhoods and Shiite villages and Christian and among the Sunni patriots all over the country.

    The anti-government armed groups have also claimed hundreds of executions of civilians including children, suspected of sympathy with the Syrian regime.

    As for victims of the armed opposition, the OSDH recorded 37,336 killed, twice less than killed Syrian soldiers (90,000) and one fifth of the total number of victims of war (220,271).

    These armed groups are themselves engaged in wars that cause the death of many pro-rebel fighters and their families. Thus among the 104,629 civilian victims of the Syrian confit, it should take into account hundreds of rebels killed by pro-rebel civilians.

    On reading the tragic toll of the OSDH, the Syrian situation shows that this is not Bashar, but the rebellion that is killing the Syrian people. Therefore, the Syrian state is right to fight against terrorism to restore peace in the country like any other state in the world

    Which leads us to defend the non-interference and peace in Syria, with Assad.
    http://www.syriahr.com/en/2015/04/310000-people-killed-since-the-beginning-of-the-syrian-revolution/


    GERALD710 -> eelolondon
    2 Oct 2015 00:47

    I agree and disagree.
    The protests began in Daraa. Where the protesters did an idiotic thing. The region was suffering from a severe drought. Now instead of protesting for relief aid, they were protesting for the downfall of the regime?????

    There was nothing at all peaceful in the protests of Hama and Homs in 2011 where protestors deliberately murdered policemen and women and the Muslim Botherhood was busy already chanting 'Alawites in Coffins and Christians to Beirut'. A very dangerous chant in the two cities where minorities made up more than a third of the population.

    I am sorry, if a bunch of Islammist nutjobs start talking of putting my people in coffins and deporting my allies to Beirut, I would have leveled them to the Ground. Have you seen the Old City of Homs? That would have been anyone's reaction.

    Sparingpartner 1 Oct 2015 20:45

    If you can't own the economy, fuck the place up! Great policy in the so called propagation of democratic freedoms... and while you are at it, explain to me once gain why Australia needs to not only be involved in this inglorious cluster-fuck but want to urge the Americans to step it up - like they're not doing enough?

    Sweet Jesus in heaven save me from the do-gooders in this world!

    buildabridge -> Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 20:34

    Or a deliberate cunning foreign policy to divide and create chaos?

    Back in 2005 Bashra under occupation by British forces:

    "......British soldiers have been caught posing as Arabs and shooting Iraqis in the occupied city of Basra in southern Iraq. A group of them was caught yesterday by Iraqi police. They were driving an Iraqi car, wearing Arab clothing, and carrying weapons and explosives........police and civilians have been targeted and killed by "terrorists" or "insurgents. .........But this is the first time that any of those responsible have been caught in the act, and it is now clear that at least some of them are working directly for the occupying forces"

    http://www.theinsider.org/news/article.asp?id=1556

    buildabridge -> ComradeFunk 1 Oct 2015 20:15

    Not so sure. USA is still the strongest military power with the furthest reach by miles. It has the smartest and best funded Foreign Offices and Spy Networks, human and electronic. This chaos in the Middle East, any slowly further North, is US foreign policy firing on all cylinders, to create chaos in Eurasia to prevent Eurasia from settling down and trading peacefully with each other, and so USA becoming sidelined. USA is succeeding and winning with minimal loss, far away from Eurasia. USA remains strong and Eurasia becomes weaker fighting with itself, just like WW1 and WW2.

    USA is wining by sophisticate wide 'divide and rule' policy; so it remains very strong at influencing, manipulating and weakening its competitors.

    mandzorp -> eelolondon 1 Oct 2015 18:06

    Russia are bombing in support of the government of Syria. It was America and its proxies which turned Syria from a relatively secular, functioning State into the mess we have there today by supporting those opposed to the government.

    cherryredguitar -> tubes99 1 Oct 2015 17:47

    Just making the point that the US/UK are on the same side as Islamic nutters who eat dead people's internal organs.

    TheChillZone -> LoveisEternal 1 Oct 2015 17:26

    Yeah, whereas the West's nation building in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya etc has gone soon well. Russia can't do any worse than us....and at least hey are doing something to fight isis and the legions of terrorsst groups that are lining up to take control of Syria. It's hard not to conclude that the US would rather have countries unstable and in ruins that under control of a leader that isn't one of their puppets.

    KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:07

    As a matter of fact the Russian intervention at Syria's invitation was necessary because of the failure of the US to halt ISIS. Yes, the same ISIS that the USA originally armed ( to fight Assad). Syrian Government forces currently control territory that holds 80% of the Syrian population and you can be sure that ISIS are now doomed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran, Iraq and others, with or without the support of the outmaneuvered (again) USA.

    The petulant warmongers in USA and NATO are now coordinating a major disinformation campaign. According to the President of the Russian Federation the lies about civilian deaths were even reported BEFORE the Russian airstrikes were launched.

    Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press in the US and UK.


    retsdon 1 Oct 2015 17:20

    whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to shore up his position and stave off demands that he step down.

    Step down and - then what? What the hell's wrong with you people? How about the Russians are simply sickened to fuck by the spectacle of the psychos you propagandize for playing their little games? Dirty, dirty, weasly words.

    Here, try the truth.

    whether its goal is to strike at Islamic State or, more likely, to take on any rebel force fighting Bashar al-Assad in order to prevent the final and complete descent of Syria into the pit of total bloody anarchy and slavery at the hands of a myriad lunatic death cults.

    You just can't bring yourselves to admit that your neo-liberal masters have cocked their little adventure up completely this time, can you? Eh?


    Realworldview 1 Oct 2015 17:04

    Wake-up call on Syrian army weakness prompted Russian intervention

    Very true, the collapse of the Syrian army was looking increasingly likely. This interesting article on the Saker website adds further clarity, by discussing what will not happen, what will happen, what has already happened, and what might happen. Finally some clarity about the Russian plans about Syria that ends with this paragraph, which raises the prospect of some "interesting times" in Syria and the wider Middle East:

    Of course, I am under no illusions about any real change of heart in the imperial "deep state". What we see now is just a tactical adaptation to a situation which the US could not control, not a deep strategic shift. The rabid Russophobes in the West are still out there (albeit some have left in disgust ) and they will now have the chance to blame Russia for anything and everything in Syria, especially if something goes really wrong. Yes, Putin has just won another major victory against the Empire (where are those who claimed that Russia had "sold out" Syria?!), but now Russia will have to manage this potentially "dangerous victory".

    If nothing else, it explains the wall to wall media propaganda blitz that started with the first Russian air strikes.

    KriticalThinkingUK -> psygone 1 Oct 2015 16:45

    Wake up psygoon...

    the root cause of terrorism is the original arming of ISIS by your US bosses (to fight Assad) and of AlQaida and the Taliban ( to fight the Russians), in addition to the prolific funds provided by the gulf monarchist dictatorships allied to the USA. Its a fact whether you like it or not...the US propaganda offensive to try and cover up their stupidity will go nowhere. The truth will out and the terrorists will be destroyed by the coalition of Syria, Russia, Iran and Iraq etc, with or without the support of the USA. The Russian intervention against ISIS has massive support in Europe, who can take no more refugees. Europe, the whole of the middle east, Russia and above all the Syrian people (especially the Kurd and Christian minority communities) all need a stable government in Syria, not another failed state like Libya and Iraq.


    Abiesalba -> Jack Seaton 1 Oct 2015 16:02

    As for ISIS being a threat to Russia, does anyone seriously believe that ISIS are going to get anywhere near those maps you linked to?

    Yes. The media in the European countries which are on the ISIS map reported about this map with concern already when it was published a year ago. (One of the links to ISIS maps in my previous post goes to Slovenia's national broadcaster, the other to an Austrian newspaper - both Slovenia and Austria are on the ISIS map).

    Because unlike you, we understand that ISIS does not have to physically occupy all these countries. Its strategy is to first have groups pledging allegiance to ISIS in these countries. And in this respect, ISIS is VERY successful and has in only one year spread its influence into rather many countries. Besides, it has also claimed incredibly much territory in Syria and Iraq, while the US-led coalition (comprising very mighty armies) claim they are fighting against them!

    And ISIS is already in the Russian Federation!!!! See for example:
    -
    -
    8 ISIS supporters killed in N. Caucasus special op

    (2 August 2015)

    Russian security forces have foiled a terrorist group that recently pledged allegiance to ISIS in Ingushetia, in the Northern Caucasus, according to the National Anti-Terror Committee (NAC). Security forces seized explosives, weapons and over 2,000 rounds of ammunition.
    -
    -
    How Russian Militants Declared A New ISIS 'State' In Russia's North Caucasus

    (26 June 2015)

    The Islamic State group announced the creation of its northernmost province this week, after accepting a formal pledge of allegiance from former al Qaeda militants in the North Caucasus region of Russia.

    Clark8934 1 Oct 2015 16:01

    The west is physiologically defunct. Fact. Their fragile idealistic bits-and-pieces approach to having a belief system, full of irrational claptrap is being so painfully allowing the Syrian conflict to run and run.

    However terrifying the reality becomes the west withdraws into a sort of elitist denial and always seem to have international law on their side however many times they break it!

    It seems a long time ago now that anyone in the West thought and articulated with such clarity, realism, and sense as the Russians. The political correct bigots in the West created this situation , one where no-one dare talk sense for fear of ridicule. Long live Putin.


    AgeingAlbion 1 Oct 2015 15:30

    Putin at least has been consistent throughout. He has backed Assad from day one.

    The west first thought it was going to be another wonderful Arab Spring, then thought they could manage to back the "right" rebels as opposed to Isis, then said chemical weapons were a "red line" them failed to do anything when the red line was crossed then said Assad must go before negotiations and now meekly accept he might have to be part of the solution.

    How much has that dithering achieved and how many lives has it cost? If Russia moves in directly and uses the Red Army to destroy Isis will it really be worse than our messing around?

    SHappens 1 Oct 2015 15:26

    Good summary. As an add on from Dr Bachar al-Jaafari, permanent syrian UN delegate 16/09/2015

    - In the North, there are outlawed groups of called armed terrorists " Armed with the conquest " [Jaïch al-Fath], financed by Qatar and Turkey, that sends every day thousands of shells on Aleppo, killing hundreds and mutilating thousands of our citizens, preventing them from meeting their elementary needs on a daily basis.

    In the South, rages another terrorist army financed by Saudi Arabia and Jordan, member state of this organization, country brother and neighbor of Syria. An army which proceeds in the same way by despicable terrorist acts against our citizens in this region.

    In the suburbs of Damascus(damask), rages another army from the city of the Duma, a group of terrorists financed by Saudi Arabia, called up " Armed with the Islam " [Aich al Islam].

    There are three terrorists groups who are armed, the first under the command of Turkey, the second in command of the Jordan, the third under the command of Saudi Arabia and Qatar. Backed up by the US, UK and France.

    The US coalition is limited to preventing the Caliphate from spreading into forbidden territory but leaving it free to act in Syria. The columns of trucks and pick-up of Daesh which took Palmyra on May 21st circulated uncovered in the desert without being worried by the US Air Force.

    The US coalition's airstrikes look like at best a gesture, at worst a smokescreen for future bombing campaign against Syria. The war prevented on September 2013 would be triggered under a new guise. But Russia took the ground. The priority is the fight against jihadism, associated with integrating the power of the political opposition, elections and a regional peace conference.

    The US strategy, the long term strategic vision, was to bring down Assad under the blows of ISIS. And when the thugs will be in Damascus and attack the Russians in Tartus, the americans will support them until the Russians will withdraw, finally the US will bomb and destroy in half a day all the Califat's army which they contributed to create (the good guys).

    Russia is about to put an end to this circus, hopefully with little collateral damage (thus beware of western propaganda on civilians toll) having high weapons tech to select targets accurately as mentioned in this article.


    Abiesalba -> KriticalThinkingUK 1 Oct 2015 15:22

    Politicians across Europe are welcoming Russia's intervention as the only long term solution to the refugee crisis and literally hundreds of millions of Europeans are supporting Russia's attack on ISIS, whatever lies you may read from the old cold warriors and their oligarch's press in the US and UK.

    Very true. Here is Slovenia, the public opinion seems to be very strongly siding with Russia and against the insane US (judging from comments on forums).

    And the US/UK media are truly an amazing brainwashing propaganda machine, straight from Orwell's 1984.


    Jan Burton 1 Oct 2015 14:47

    Russia isn't dumb or dishonest enough to make the meaningless distinctions between ISIS and other Islamist groups that the west insists on making. They're all out for the same thing and only differ on the details.

    Putin in merely doing what needs to be done.

    cherryredguitar 1 Oct 2015 14:48

    Given that the so-called moderate rebels have a leader who videoed himself cutting a dead person's body open and eating one of the guys internal organs, the Russians are right not to differentiate between them and Isis.

    Destroy all the extremists, even the ones that the Americans and Saudis like.

    Abiesalba -> RobertNeville 1 Oct 2015 14:46

    the Russians are allowed to fly the skies of Syria and the US is not.

    Yes. Because the Syrian government asked Russia for a military intervention, whereas the US apparently have some superior right to illegally breach international borders as they wish and bomb whomever they like (Afghanistan, Iraq, Libya, Syria, Pakistan).

    By the way, the very fact that Iraqi government asked for a military intervention is used by the US-led coalition to justify their strikes in Iraq.

    jvillain -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:44

    The US, France and finally to a slightly lesser degree the UK want Assad gone more than they want ISIS, Al Quaida or the Army of God gone. If Assad falls all his weapons will belong to ISIS and crew as well as having total control of a state. The so called rebels are only 5% or so of the people fighting. All the other opposition groups have either merged with ISIS or been eliminated.

    If Assad falls there will no longer be a choice but to put western boots on the ground in Syria in a big way.

    WhetherbyPond 1 Oct 2015 14:43

    The Ziocons in the US are very upset that their geopolitical game is being thwarted by Russia.


    Abiesalba -> Mr Russian 1 Oct 2015 14:41

    It surely is interesting how the Anglo-American media today went all hysterical about the alleged civilian casualties in Russian air strikes.

    Well, how about some hysteria about this then:
    -
    -
    About 3000 people, including 162 civilians, killed in US- coalition airstrikes on areas in Syria

    The Syrian Observatory for Human Rights, June 2015
    -
    SOHR documented the death of 2896 people at least since the beginning of the U.S led coalition air strikes on Syria in 23/Sep until this morning, while hundreds others were wounded, vast majority IS extremists.

    The number of civilians who were killed in the coalition airstrikes on oil areas, where there are oil refineries, oil wells, building and vehicles, in the provinces of al- Hasakah, Deir Ezzor, al- Raqqa, Aleppo and Idlib has risen to 162, including 51 children and 35 women.

    Among the deaths, there are a family of a man, his wife and their 5 children killed due in US- led coalition airstrikes on the village of Dali Hasan in east of the town of Serrin in northeast of Aleppo and 64 civilians killed by a massacre committed by the U.S led coalition warplanes on Friday's night in 04/30/2015 when they targeted Bir Mahli village near the town of Serrin in Aleppo with several air strikes, and the death toll of this massacre includes:

    – 31 children under the age of 16 including ( 16 females and 15 males ).
    – 19 women above the age of 18.
    – 13 men above the age of 18.
    – A 18 years old boy.
    -
    -
    For more about civilian casualties due to the US-led coalition strikes in Syria and Iraq, see the Airwars website:

    584 – 1,720 civilians killed:

    To date, the international coalition has only conceded two "likely" deaths, from an event in early November 2014. It is also presently investigating seven further incidents of concern; is carrying out credibility assessments on a further 13; and has concluded three more investigations – having found no 'preponderance of evidence' to support civilian casualty claims.

    [Oct 04, 2015] Saudis Mull Launch Of Regional War As Russia Pounds Targets In Syria For Fourth Day

    Notable quotes:
    "... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. ..."
    "... Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise. ..."
    "... Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection? ..."
    "... I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding. ..."
    "... You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans. ..."
    "... The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking." ..."
    "... And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either. ..."
    "... The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. ..."
    "... The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach. ..."
    "... Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?). ..."
    "... McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow. ..."
    "... America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil. ..."
    "... For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football. ..."
    "... The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean. ..."
    "... But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents. ..."
    "... Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com

    Looney

    Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)

    strannick

    Like the US, these vile medieval "regional allies" try to frame their propaganda to show that this is about removing the dictator Assad, who actually is one of the most benign in that demented region. Its not.

    They want him out because he opposed their pipeline, favoring instead the Iraqi Iran Shiite pipeline, which all three nations agreed to create. So much for national self determination. Otherwise they wouldnt give a shit what deranged lunatic ran Syria, or if Syria was ruled by some king as demented and tyranical and genocidal as they, -the Saudis and Qataris- are themselves.

    Winston Churchill

    Its not about an indefencible gas pipline at all.

    By deception we wage war.

    Its about potable water in south Lebanon.

    Without that Israel is a failed desert state within ten years.

    Go do the research yourself, all the data has been out there for nearly fifty years.

    Hidden in plain sight.

    swmnguy

    Israel has to have the Litani river from source to outlet.

    The pipeline from Qatar is a real project too, though.

    Captain Debtcrash

    Saudis' won't mess with Russia because they know the US probably wouldn't intervene on their behalf, we don't want to mess with Russia either and vice versa. It was already agreed we would let them do what they want and talk a good game in opposition.

    That said, if I'm wrong, I don't think we will have to worry about low oil prices any more.

    Oracle of Kypseli

    Desal water is much more expensive than oil.

    And... Yes it is more about water rights than oil. The Jordan river is now a small slow moving creek.

    Winston Churchill

    The Litani is part of the headwaters of the river Jordan.

    The Golan overlooks the Jordan.Whick looks like a stream in comparison to what is was fifty ago, and a dried up mud hole relative to 150yrs ago. I wish I could post a photo from the 1860's I have of the Jordan, its a glass plate negative taken by my great grandfather.

    Overthrowing Assad cuts Hezbollahs supply lines, which is THE point of the excercise.

    If, as reported yesterday, Putin is going to supply Hezbollah direct with armaments, Putin will have a Israels balls in a vice, no wonder Nutjob is going apeshit..

    Jack Burton

    Good point Winston. I have always been dubious about the Pipeline argument. As you say, even if built, this pipeline would run through very hostile places, sure to be hit over and over again.

    Now WATER and Israel. You are barking up the right tree. Much of all of this is about Greater Israel. If you were old like me, you would remember back when secular Arab states actually possed a real threat to Israel. All those state are now torn to pieces by US policy. So, see the connection?

    Israel must, with in a decade take and hold souther Lebanon of perish. The only water left is there, Israel must have it. So they will take it, to hold it, they need Syria dead and Lebanon a failed stated.

    I maintain most of this is Israeli based. With the US doing Israeli bidding.

    The Indelicate ...

    the Qatar pipeline argument never made any sense because:

    1] you don't build a pipeline through chaos which will last years, which is precisely what Israel, most of all wants - a bloodletting that destroys another regional economic, and to an extent military rival.

    2] Cost/benefit wise it doesn't make sense to spend this sort of money and time to go through Syria - look at a map.

    3] Israel's Leviathan find, it's plans to ethnically cleanse the remainder of Palestine, and find/create pretexts to attack and invade more of Lebanon, Syria, and Sinai. It's plans to steal the gas that, if international law applied to the Jewish State, Gaza, Syria, and Lebanon.

    Early Zionist Interest In Lebanon - Laura Zittrain Eisenberg
    http://www.bintjbeil.com/E/history/zionism.html

    Israel Wants The Litani River Desperately
    http://northerntruthseeker.blogspot.com/2010/08/israel-wants-litani-rive...

    HOORAY FOR HEZBOLLAH!
    http://www.tomatobubble.com/id775.html

    flysofree

    This is a load of crap. I lived in the Caribbean and our source of water was desalinization plant. It wasn't as expansive as you say, even the poorest locals could easily afford it. The problem with desalinization plants was that intake valves would clog up with seaweed during storms!

    There is no evidence whatsoever that Israel is planning any aggression towards its neighbors. It's also no secret that ALL of Israel air strikes into Syria involved intercepts of weapons shipments from Iran; that's clearly stated in mainstream media reporting!

    You must be a deluded old twig, if you even attempt to compare Nazi Germany Lebensraum policies of total liquidation of local populations to modern Israeli politics of settler land grab in the West Bank.

    Winston Churchill

    I'm old like you Jack, but travelled extensively throughout the MENA, a family tradition you could say, my great grandfather and grandfather were involved in opening up tourism/biz to a lot of the area.Long before oil was discovered. Have some 'wrong side of the blanket' relatives who I keep in contact with as well.

    SWRichmond

    Lemme get it straight… Saudi Arabia and Qatar can't handle the Houtis in Yemen, but they think they can take on Russia? Oh, boy! I need a bigger popcorn bucket! ;-)

    Putin is confident in his backing at home. Russian people are, for lack of a better way to put it, accustomed to "doing without" while supporting the motherland. Saudi, on the other hand, has completely spoilt their home population with their temporary wealth (now in doubt), paying them just to live, making them soft and expectant, petulant, self indulgent (sound familiar?). Putin is quite obviously "going for it", pressing his position, because he believes he will prevail. The gloves are off. USA is broke, and Putin knows it. Petrodollar is on its death bed, and he knows it, and he is willing to overtly hasten its death.

    Final question, for bonus points: how do nations traditionally finance wars?

    Answer: BY DEBASING THEIR CURRENCIES.

    PacOps

    Didn't someone pull some kind of shit like that on the Soviet Union a few decades back? ;-)

    Sun, 10/04/2015 - 11:48 | 6628206 swmnguy

    The Russian people can feed themselves. Not lavishly; cabbage and "cole" vegetables; potatoes; a little meat, fish and poultry; cold-weather grains; but they can feed themselves. Not so much for the Saudis and Qataris etc. Also, the Russians make their own stuff. They don't have to import slaves who outnumber them.

    Yes, if the luxury is suddenly removed from their lives, the Russian people wouldn't notice, never having had much in the first place. But the Saudis and Qataris can't survive in their current arrangements.

    kananga

    "So, millions of Saudi refugees invading Europe?"
    More like, 100 Saudi Royals invading Monaco.

    lincolnsteffens

    You know most Americans are clueless as all they get is overwhelming propaganda from cradle to grave. It is the US policy makers that know they can use the American people's labor to continue with their nefarious plans.

    Sir Edge

    Yes...

    Plus One Kabillion SWR... Perfectly Said...

    "USA is preparing to rip itself apart. For some reason Americans believe they can foist death, destruction, mayhem and hopelessness upon the entire rest of the planet, while somehow remaining immune from it themselves. The neocons love death and killing, and it will come home. Ask Imperial Rome. The hubris is absolutely breathtaking."

    strannick

    Exactly.

    How dare Russia and Iran tinker with America and Suadis bombed out, fucked up Shangrala that is their legacy in the Middle East.

    researchfix

    They know what´s coming. Iran and Russia will chase ISIS to the Saudi border. And then they stop the chase. And then the next chapter enfolds.

    cosmyccowboy

    Stick with the small bucket, I do not believe that the Saudi little boy lovers and women beaters sill last long against the Russians, Syrians and Iranians. Their mercenaries will flee from a real fighting force!

    HowdyDoody

    Saudi are being setup as Zion's stooges. If they win - ZIon gets lebensraum to the north of Israel, if they lose - lebensraum to the south. The inevitable public reason for the land grab - poor defenseless little Israel needs a buffer zone between it and the Muslims.

    LetThemEatRand

    And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia. Putin really made a brilliant play on this one. Most Americans are cheering for him as he destroys the CIA created boggie man ISIS, and the CIA controlled US media doesn't know what the fuck to say about it because they've already convinced the public that ISIS is the real reason we're screwing around in Syria. Check mate unless the US decides to go full retard and start bombing the Russians based upon some false flag like the Russians bombing a hospital or something -- oops, can't really do that now either.

    Bendromeda Strain

    And once again we see who is driving American foreign policy in the Middle East -- our good friends the Royal family of Saudi Arabia.

    Do not fail to miss the "go to" interview with the demon worshipper at The European Council of Foreign Relations. Saudi Arabia's interest just happens to *currently* align with the globalists. Convenient for them - for now.

    TheReplacement

    I disagree. I think the drivers are unnamed and the royals of KSA are both a faction and a pawn. They would look at themselves and see a faction. When looked down upon by TPTB they are pawns (like 99.999999% of humanity).

    I also do not see most Americans cheering for Putin. I see most Americans are absolutely ignorant and clueless as per usual. Some think they are informed and think evil Putin grasping at empire. I cannot speak to Putin's motives and I do hold suspicion of anybody who has maintained power like his as long as that man. Still, I have to ask them what exactly Putin has done.

    "Invaded Ukraine."

    Really? Show me pictures and video that isn't years old and taken from a completely different country while I show you pictures and video of the US State Department funding and fomenting a violent uprising by neo nazis against a constitutionally elected government (this is not to say that I disagree in any way with Ukrainians taking action of their own volition but that isn't what happened).

    "Well, he shot down that jetliner."

    Proof? The west has all the evidence and we have no proof. You do realize the official report only confirmed that the jet was in fact shotdown. They have presented no evidence that either confirms nor denies any particular faction did in fact shoot it down.

    "He's invading Syria."

    Putin was invited by the Syrian government because ISIS and their allies were starting to win the war despite our forces supposedly bombing them all year. If we were bombing and droning them, in addition to the fighting by the Iraqis, Syrians, and Kurds, then why were they still winning? If Russia, Syria, and Iran all want to defeat ISIS then who is it that wants ISIS to win - who is supporting the bad guys in black if all the other bad guys are trying to kill them?

    "I don't know. You wanna watch the Redsox?"

    JustObserving

    The corrupt, criminal, cruel cabal that rules Saudi Arabia should have collapsed years ago. So let them start another war and collapse now. Karma is a bitch. Hope ISIS are pushed into Saudi Arabia and Turkey.

    The US has launched 6700 airstrikes on ISIS while the Russians have apparently degraded ISIS in just 60 airstrikes. Was the US dropping care packages and videos made in Langley?

    The US and its allies have carried out 6700 airstrikes at an expense of nearly $4 billion in the year since President Barack Obama ordered a campaign against Islamic State. Yet the terror group shows no sign of defeat and has even expanded its reach.

    http://www.rt.com/news/314885-isis-usa-anniversary-campaign/

    TheReplacement

    I question that narrative. Sure a lot of ISIS fighters are probably true believers but those are the ones who will stand, fight, and be killed (blind pawns). However, seeing this is as much a covert operation as an overt operation then one has to think that the brains of the operation is made up of state operatives or mercenaries. These will not stand, fight, and die but run, re-arm, and redeploy elsewhere (Afghanistan->Stans->Russia or Afghanistan->China?).

    JustObserving

    Does the Doomsday clock have a seconds hand ?

    Does it have a nanosecond hand?

    Threat of wider war mounts as Russia continues airstrikes in Syria

    More prominent are voices calling for an even more reckless US policy of escalation against both Assad and Putin. They speak for powerful sections of the foreign policy and military-intelligence establishment that are implacably hostile to the nuclear deal with Iran and bent on war with Russia and China.

    John McCain, the Republican chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, spoke for this faction Wednesday. He declared from the Senate floor, "Into the wreckage of this administration's Middle East policy has now stepped Putin. As in Ukraine and elsewhere, he perceives the administration's inaction and caution as weakness, and he is taking advantage."

    On Thursday, McCain told CNN that he could "absolutely confirm" that the initial Russian strikes were "against our Free Syrian Army or groups that have been armed and trained by the CIA…"

    McCain is implicitly-and sections of the media are explicitly-pointing to a change in the Pentagon's rules of engagement in Syria announced by the Obama administration last spring that allows US forces to combat Syrian government forces or any other group or country that attacks US-backed "rebels." This is meant to put pressure on the White House to initiate attacks not only against Damascus, but also against Moscow.

    http://www.wsws.org/en/articles/2015/10/02/syri-o02.html

    falak pema

    That the Sunni clans find the Russian Iran entente a threat to their creationist minded ideology is understandable--to the extent that Turkey has reverted to obscurantist logic and effaced Ataturk's legacy from its current political inclination-- and that Saud and Qatar, as inheritors of the Pax Americana Oil protected legacy, have reverted to the same ideological stance in a regressional spiral that shocks the word-- is one thing ; that the West adheres to this same logic is another. The history of the wahhabist arabs monarchies is diametrically opposed to that of the West in terms of political priorities.

    The latter trend, of regression to neo-feudal ideology, is a betrayal of western values that are the bedrocks of our society.

    There is no excuse for this regression, now brought out to the open by a Shia theocracy aligned with a autocratic Russia, which make the so called democratic West look like the new Evil Empire.

    We are now in a spiral in West that will bring down democracy and replace it by a neo-feudal autocracy that will have nothing to envy the most evil traits of the Spanish Inquisition.

    America's elites are as Trump says : a nation of neo-con elites whose mantra breeds --as incarnated by the NRA lobby --psychopathic mad shooters who have the genius of the devil.

    Even Putin and Khameini look like moderates!

    ThroxxOfVron

    Russia is not allied with Iran.

    That both Russia and Iran perceive that it is in their individual interestes to intervene in Syria does not make them allies.

    The only reason that Russia and Iran welcome the others intervention is that it temporarily relieves each of them of the full weight of the financing costs of their respective interventions which would be higher if undertaken alone, and relieves both of some amount of the international political pressures being manifest by the US/Zio powers opposed to their interventions.

    Russia and Iran do not share the same goals and will not employ the same methods.

    Any appearance of mutual support is tangenital and temporary. It will dissipate rapidly when their true divergent interests become apparent in due course and as their opportunities in the Trans-Syrian theater evolves.

    Likely the two will immediately become opponents in Syria as other forces are ejected from the theater in much the same manner as Russia and the British/US did in Germany when Berlin fell at the end of the WW2.

    What I do not think is being spoken of publicly is the fact that Iraq is effectively being carved up while the focus is on Syria.

    I do not think Iraq will exist, or certainly will not exist with the same territorial boundaries, when the Trans-Syrian ( Great Sunni/Shia ) War is concluded.

    swmnguy

    I would guess Kurdish leaders are doing everything they can to get an audience in the Kremlin about now. This is their best chance ever at an independent Kurdistan, protected by Iran and Russia. There won't ever be a better moment for them. The US has been using them as we used the Hmong in Laos in the Vietnam War. Time for the Kurds to get out of the firing line and into an arrangement with local regional powers who will actually pay them in the coin of their choosing in return for their services.

    swmnguy

    I don't think Saudi Arabia can do anything more than transfer some ancient handheld anti-arcraft missiles to their Syrian proxies, through third-parties. I can't imagine the Saudis openly attacking the Russians. I doubt they'd ship anything directly traceable back to them.

    For some reason, nobody in the US-Saudi-Turkish-Israeli nexus thought Russia would actually intervene. I don't know why. Russia went to the mat over Syria a few years back when Obama, fresh off the triumph of turning Libya into a dumpster fire, shipped the same mercenaries who did the Gadhafi hit-job to Syria, freshly re-armed. Remember, those guys' presence was the real reason for the Benghazi fiasco; a fact HRC and the Obama Administration can't speak out loud and the GOP knows full well, making Benghazi the perfect political football.

    But if you look at the atlas, and at Russian behavior since the 1970s, it's pretty obvious why they aren't going to tolerate radical insane Sunni mercenary armies running around in their backyard. In Syria, different from Ukraine, the local recognized government can invite them in. Now it looks like the local recognized government in Iraq has invited them in, too.

    The US strategy of sparking and fueling a Sunni vs. Shi'a world sectarian war has taken a brutal hit. The Shi'a are in the extreme minority of Islam, but not in the Middle East, between Iran and the Mediterranean.

    The Saudis will whine and cry, but not do much. Israel is going to get real quiet. I'd guess the US will cut bait on their proxies. But I'm keeping an eye on the Uighurs in China's Xinjiang Province, and the various -Stan nations. It will take a little while, but I'm guessing there will be "Mysterious", "Spontaneous" uprisings of extremist Sunni violence there. And "Mysterious" newcomers with beards and Saudi accents.

    45North1

    All this crap really ramped up about the time Libya was destroyed by NATO. Civilian deaths certainly have soared from 2011 to now.

    Not saying there is a coincidence with respect to Libya being destroyed , but I can't help but think there is some link between liberated Libyan weapon staches and the accelerated actions of the various iterations of Syrian Rebels and re-labeled Terrorists in Syria. Syrian People have subsequently suffered. Infrastructure has been destroyed, Syria risks a future as a failed state (ala Libya) if overrun. I am sure Syria can take some comfort in knowiing that Libya got a new Central Bank as NATO munitions were still landing.)

    Hopefully Policies of other players in the Syrian mess don't adopt the in for a penny , in for a pound approach to this debacle.... but I have my doubts.

    Islam needs to get itself together if there is ever to be peace in the Middle East.

    Pigs will probably fly first.

    Atticus Finch

    Brilliantly, the Russians have stolen the "War on Terror" narrative. The US psychotics, psychopaths and megalomaniacs have proven incredibly stupid. Russia asks the US to join them in fighting the war on terror. Hilarious.

    Paracelsus

    Correct. Gaddafi would have had tons of munitions.These were transported with US help thru Turkey into Syria.With the Iraq war destabilizing the entire region,

    The Kurds were able to establish there own mini-state with the bonus of oil in the ground. Turkey has always been the weak man in the area politically, and has always opposed an
    independent Kurdish nation.

    I am waiting for the first Russian warplane to be brought down and the pilot roasted in a cage (on video). I can't see where the Russkies would be very happy with the CIA/Mercs who provided the ManPads for this event. The Russkies are very good at the airpower thing. The Iranians are tough on the ground. The Russkies seem to want to get this over in months or less.

    Funny how they don't seem to worry about any UN Security Council condemnation. Chinese Veto?

    Well, death of the PetroDollar system. History in front of our eyes.. The only wildcard is the Israelis threat to use nukes if they don't get their way. Aside from the PetroDollar collapse, there exists a strong threat of China and others dumping Treasuries on the finance markets (if they are unhappy with US foreign policy).

    "May you live in interesting times".....

    Truly Inspiration

    You really raise serious questions about just how "intelligent" US intelligence actually is??

    Why shall US target their own people when the ISIS top commander is an AMERICAN! You don't believe it?

    Nada a 19 year old woman just escaped from hell,

    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3253107/Is-ISIS-commander-AMERIC...


    sudzee

    SA worried that the "coalition of the good and honest" Russia/Syria/Iran and Iraq will corner ISIS and force them south thru western Iraq/eastern Jordan into Saudi Arabia itself. The Royal Family, beheaders in chief, will receive the goes around.

    AlfredNeumann

    Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
    Hillary Clinton : We created Al-Qaeda
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dqn0bm4E9yw

    Gregor Samsa

    This cartoon says it best: http://sputniknews.com/cartoons/20151002/1027919479/us-russia-syria-cart...

    forgotten in th...

    Here some social media statements by members of the "moderate islamic opposition" that Barack Obama and his two piece of shit (Cameron and Hollande) are supporting.

    From wikipedia

    In response to reports of Russian intervention, the Army of Conquest's Liwa al-Haqq commander Abu Abdullah Taftanaz posted a tweet addressing the "infidel Russians", inviting them to send troops to Syria and saying that "we have thousands like Khattab" who would "slaughter your pigs".[76][77] Abu Abdullah Taftanaz also tweeted Russian military terms for Syrian rebels to familiarize themselves with if they intercepted Russian radio chatter.[78][79][80][81][82] Reportedly Chechen and Caucasian foreign fighters have begun flocking to the coastal regions of Syria where the Russians are based in order to seek them out.[83]

    Ahmad Eissa al-Sheikh, a commander in Turkish/Saudi-backed Ahrar ash-Sham,[84] threatened to bring upon "Russian hell in a Levantine flavor" if they encountered the Russians.[85][86] Harakat Fajr ash-Sham al-Islamiya leader Abu Abdullah ash-Shami tweeted about the "globalization" of the "Levantine Jihad".[87][88] He also tweeted that on the Russians and said that "The Levant will become their graveyard, with the permission of Allah".[89] The Al-Qaeda-linked Al-Nusra Front[90] has set a reward for the seizure of Russian soldiers of 2,500,000 Syrian pounds (approximately US$13,000).[91][92]

    The Syria based, Al-Qaeda linked Saudi cleric Abdallah Muhammad Al-Muhaysini threatened that Syria would be a "tomb for its invaders" or "graveyard for invaders" in response to the Russian intervention and brought up the Soviet war in Afghanistan.[93][94][95]

    AlfredNeumann
    Syria Update# Air Duel between the Sukhoi Su - 30 Russian SM and Israeli F-15 Tags:
    Six Russian fighter jets type Multirole Sukhoi SU - 30 SM have intercepted 4 Israeli McDonnell Douglas F-15's fighter bombers attempting to infiltrate the Syrian coast.The Israeli F 15 warplanes have been flying over Syrian airspace for months and in particular the coast of Latakia, which is now the bridgehead of the Russian forces in Syria.

    The Israeli jets would generally follow a fairly complex flight plan and approach Latakia from the sea

    On the night of 1 October 02, 2015, six Sukhoi SU-30 Russian SM fighters took off from the Syrian Hmimim airbase in the direction of Cyprus, before changing course and intercepting the four Israeli F-15 fighters off the coast of Syria, that were flying in attack formation.

    Surprised by a situation as unexpected and probably not prepared for a dogfight with one of the best Russian multipurpose fighters, Israeli pilots have quickly turned back South at high speed over the Lebanon.

    The mighty Israeli military doesn't do so well against opponents who can actually fight back! They'll probably bomb Gaza again so they can feel butch about themselves!

    Read more: WHAT REALLY HAPPENED | The History The US Government HOPES You Never Learn! http://whatreallyhappened.com/#ixzz3ncnOMUxV

    Amun

    "on November 2, 1917, British imperialism in Palestine began when Lord Balfour, the then British foreign secretary and former prime minister, sent a letter to Baron Rothschild, one of the leaders of the Zionist movement. This letter became known as the "Balfour Declaration".

    In that letter, Balfour promised British support for the Zionist programme of establishing a "national home for the Jewish people" in Palestine. This pledge of support was made without consulting the indigenous Christian and Muslim inhabitants of Palestine, the Palestinian people. And it was made before British troops had even conquered the land.

    Balfour, on behalf of Britain, promised Palestine – over which Britain had no legal right – to a people who did not even live there (of the very small community of Palestinian Jews in Palestine in 1917, very few were Zionists). And he did so with the worst of intentions: to discourage Jewish immigration to Britain. No wonder Lord Montagu, the only Jewish member of the Cabinet, opposed the declaration.

    And yet, just two years earlier, Britain had committed herself to assisting the Arab nations in achieving their independence from the Ottoman Empire. Arab fighters all over the region, including thousands of Palestinians, fought for their freedom, allowing Britain to establish her mandate in Palestine. "

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/middleeast/palestinianauthority/9645925/Britain-must-atone-for-its-sins-in-Palestine.html

    Abiesalba 1 Oct 2015 14:29

    With respect to the total mess in Syria, to my knowledge there has been only one recent poll conducted across Syria (see below). The pollsters say that the poll is representative of the people of Syria. A similar poll was also conducted in Iraq. Both polls were conducted in June-July 2015:
    -
    82% of Syrians agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (17% disagree).

    85% of Iraqis agree that ISIS was foreign-created by the US (10% disagree).
    -
    -
    Among the warring sides in Syria, Assad has the highest (!) support – 47% of Syrians think he has a POSITIVE influence (50% negative) .

    Compare to the groups which the US 'coalition' and the Anglo-Americans media claim we should all support:

    Free Syrian Army – 35% positive, 63% negative

    Syrian Opposition Coalition – 26% positive, 72% negative
    -
    Considering the polling results, anyone claiming that Assad should be removed is working AGAINST half of the Syrians. Putin is right – Assad has to be included in any solution to the war. Else, there will immediately a rebellion of half of Syrians against FOREIGN powers toppling Assad.

    Assad will not come to the negotiating table without Putin.

    Besides, it is clear that for Syrians (and Iraqis), the truly BAD guys are the Americans.
    -
    -
    PUBLIC OPINION IN SYRIA
    -
    Fieldwork: June 10 to July 2

    Respondents: 1,365 Syrians from all 14 governorates of the country
    -
    -
    Thinking about the persons and the groups which are working now in Syria, Generally, do you think that their influence is negative or positive on the matters in Syria
    -
    Positive … Negative
    -
    47% … 50% … Bashar al-Asad
    43% … 55% … Iran
    37% … 55% … Arab Gulf Countries
    35% … 63% … Nusra Front
    35% … 63% … Free Syrian Army
    26% … 72% … Syrian Opposition Coalition
    21% … 76% … Islamic State
    -
    -
    There are many reasons around to explain the presence of ISIL in Iraq/Syria, please tell me if strongly agree, somewhat agree, somewhat disagree, or a strongly disagree for the reason that explains the presence of ISIL?
    -
    Agree … Disagree
    -
    82% … 17% … ISIL is foreign made by the US

    59% … 40% … As a result of widespread sectarian politics in the Arab countries and in Turkey

    55% … 44% …ISIL is made by some Arab regimes

    50% … 48% … ISIL is created by foreign countries to find a balance with Iran

    44% … 55% … Wrong policies pursued by the Syrian government

    42% … 56% … Syrian regime made ISIL for marking the opposition to terrorism

    39% … 57% … Iran is supporting this organization to weaken Iraq and take it under its control

    22% … 76% … Sectarian congestion that has arisen in Syria
    -
    -
    Do you support or oppose the international coalition airstrikes in Syria?
    -
    Support … Oppose

    47% … 50%
    -
    -
    According to your view, which of the following represent the best solution for the crisis which Syria is in today?
    -
    51% … Political solution
    37% … Military solution
    -
    -
    Note: The poll has a margin of error of +/-3 percentage points.

    Sources:

    Polls Show Syrians Overwhelmingly Blame U.S. for ISIS (16 September 2015)

    Full polling reports by the British ORB International (affiliate of WIN/Gallup International):

    * Syria http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/syriadata.pdf

    * Iraq http://www.opinion.co.uk/perch/resources/iraqdata.pdf

    [Oct 04, 2015] Gulf states plan military response as Putin raises the stakes in Syria

    Notable quotes:
    "... The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms of a counter-escalation ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may limit both their military and financial resources. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | The Guardian

    Regional powers have quietly, but effectively, channelled funds, weapons and other support to rebel groups making the biggest inroads against the forces from Damascus. In doing so, they are investing heavily in a conflict which they see as part of a wider regional struggle for influence with bitter rival Iran.

    In a week when Russia made dozens of bombing raids, those countries have made it clear that they remain at least as committed to removing Assad as Moscow is to preserving him.

    "There is no future for Assad in Syria," Saudi foreign minister Adel Al-Jubeir warned, a few hours before the first Russian bombing sorties began. If that was not blunt enough, he spelled out that if the president did not step down as part of a political transition, his country would embrace a military option, "which also would end with the removal of Bashar al-Assad from power".

    ... ... ...

    "The Russian intervention is a massive setback for those states backing the opposition, particularly within the region – Qatar, Saudi Arabia and Turkey – and is likely to elicit a strong response in terms of a counter-escalation," said Julien Barnes-Dacey, senior policy fellow at the European Council on Foreign Relations.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia and Qatar are already embroiled in an expensive and bloody war in Yemen that may limit both their military and financial resources.

    [Oct 04, 2015] Funds To Play Oil's (Slow) Recovery: ETF.com

    "... USO holds front-month futures, and to avoid taking physical delivery when those contracts mature, it rolls its position forward to the next futures contract-but the farther-dated contracts are often higher priced (due to storage costs and other factors), meaning that when USO sells its front-month contract it will be able to buy less of the next-month futures. This has led to underperformance for the fund this year, which has fallen nearly twice as much as spot oil prices. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | Barrons.com
    Unfortunately, Roy notes, the United States Oil Fund (USO), the most common way to play oil, has often backfired for investors. USO holds front-month futures, and to avoid taking physical delivery when those contracts mature, it rolls its position forward to the next futures contract-but the farther-dated contracts are often higher priced (due to storage costs and other factors), meaning that when USO sells its front-month contract it will be able to buy less of the next-month futures. This has led to underperformance for the fund this year, which has fallen nearly twice as much as spot oil prices.

    Luckily, USO isn't the only way to play oil. The PowerShares DB Oil Fund (DBO) seeks to minimize the costs of rolling contracts forward by choosing the most advantageous futures contract to switch to, instead of always using the next month's, as USO does. Roy also notes that the United States Brent Oil Fund (BNO) holds Brent oil, popular in Europe, which in recent years has started to diverge in price more frequently from West Texas Intermediate, a grade of oil commonly sold in the U.S. In the first three quarters of 2015, Brent lost less than WTI.

    However, none of those oil products were able to avoid the big drop in crude prices. For more buy-and-hold investors, Roy suggests the Energy Select SPDR (XLE) that holds energy-related stocks (like Exxon (XOM), Chevron (CVX) etc.). He concludes:

    For long-term investors, an equity-based energy ETF like XLE is superior to the futures-based ETFs mentioned earlier, for several reasons: 1) an investor doesn't have to worry about roll costs; 2) the companies can grow their oil production, creating value for shareholders even in a flat oil price environment; 3) they often pay dividends. XLE currently has a yield of more than 3.3 percent.

    Year-to-date, XLE is down by 21 percent, less than the futures-based ETFs. Over the past five years, XLE is up 20.4 percent, compared with losses ranging from 40 to 58 percent percent for the other three ETFs.

    [Oct 04, 2015] Worries about a Global Economic Slowdown

    Oct 04, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

    Jim Hamilton:

    ... What evidence is there that worries about a global economic slowdown are figuring prominently in recent oil prices? Exhibit one is the remarkable comovement between commodity and asset prices. Concerns about global economic weakness show up in commodity prices and asset markets across the board. ...

    Gavyn Davies:

    The turbulence in the global financial markets in the past few weeks has been widely attributed to a "China shock" that has increased the risks of a major downturn in global activity. Last month, this blog concluded that our regular "nowcasts" for global activity had not yet corroborated this narrative.
    This month, we have identified the first clear evidence that the global economy has slowed down since mid year, with emerging markets and advanced economies both now growing more slowly. ...

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Sunday, October 4, 2015 at 10:24 AM in Economics | Permalink Comments (33)

    Fred C. Dobbs said...

    The world economy remains adrift in
    choppy waters http://brook.gs/1NeDNZY
    Brookings - Oct 2

    The latest update of the Brookings-Financial Times TIGER (Tracking Indexes for the Global Economic Recovery) reveals sharp divergences in growth prospects between the advanced economies and emerging markets, and within these groups as well.

    Growth prospects for the advanced economies have improved, but this is largely on account of good growth in the U.S. and the U.K. The euro zone remains mired in low growth and Japan's economy appears to have stalled again. Commodity-exporting countries, both advanced and emerging, have been hit by sharp growth slowdowns.

    The U.S. economy continues to strengthen, with domestic demand picking up momentum, as reflected in rising retail sales and investment. Despite healthy employment growth and a falling unemployment rate, wage pressures remain muted. Inflation has stayed low, aided by a strong dollar and weak energy prices, and the CPI index has flirted on and off with deflation. Credit growth remains robust but U.S. equity markets, industrial production, and exports have all been held back by economic weakness in the rest of the world. The strong possibility that the Federal Reserve will commence its rate hike cycle in December points to how asynchronous the U.S. recovery is relative to business cycle conditions in most other advanced economies.

    The euro zone and Japan face a difficult combination of weak growth, near-deflationary price changes, and the absence of fundamental reforms needed to revive domestic demand. Any growth at all in the euro zone is considered a victory and the zone has certainly kept to those expectations, growing at less than half a percent in the second quarter. The Japanese economy contracted in the second quarter. Despite highly expansionary monetary policies, inflation in both economies is barely positive.

    Emerging market economies, which had become the main drivers of global growth in the aftermath of the financial crisis, are now leading the world economy into a slump. Growth has fallen, business and consumer confidence are eroding, and financial markets have taken a beating in these economies.

    Most economic indicators point to a loss of growth momentum in China, with high-frequency indicators such as electricity consumption and freight volumes pointing to an even sharper manufacturing slowdown. While policymakers still have some room to boost growth closer to the 7 percent target, the inability of monetary policy measures to gain traction in raising growth has elevated risks to the financial system and shaken confidence in the economic management skills of the leadership. These concerns have been exacerbated by recent missteps in managing stock market volatility and the shift to a more market-determined exchange rate, both of which have been marred by an unclear strategy and weak communication.

    Among the major emerging markets, India alone continues to maintain strong GDP growth, although industrial production and other indicators of economic activity suggest that the economy is in less robust shape. ...

    Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to pgl...

    Could be...

    China is dumping U.S. debt http://cnnmon.ie/1Q4ENx0
    via @CNNMoney - Sep 10

    ...to raise stimulus funds?

    [Oct 04, 2015] Carl Icahn Warning About the High Yield Bond Market Bubble

    Icahn predicts junk bind crash for almost a year now. that does not mean that he is wrong. But that does mean that he is a bad timer. Also he might be a buyer of CDS on junk bonds. Carl Icahn mentioned that although the short-term outlook for the energy sector is bad, the sector as a whole could make a comeback in a couple of years.
    "... In the context of the high yield bond market, activist investor Carl Icahn mentions the use of credit default swaps as a form of protection or insurance against credit events. However, he terms these products as "arcane" and implies that investors should possess sophisticated knowledge of the fixed income markets to enter that playing field. ..."
    Oct 04, 2015 | marketrealist.com
    May 15, 2015 | Market Realist

    Oil price nosedive could trigger a crash in the junk bond markets

    According to Sean Hanlon's December 16, 2014, article Oil's Price Decline Weighs On High Yield Debt in Forbes, US energy companies borrowed heavily using the junk bond market to finance hydraulic fracking operations. However, this occurred when oil prices were above the $100 per barrel level, resulting in an economically viable business model.

    With the nosedive in oil prices in the latter half of 2014, the ability of these energy firms to retain their profitability was called into question-including their ability to service the payments on their high-yield debt.

    ... ... ...

    As seen in the above graph, the prices of the iShares iBoxx $ High Yield Corporate Bond ETF (HYG) declined with the fall in oil prices. With the looming uncertainty over oil prices, the times ahead are probably not bright for the high yield bond market.

    Credit default swaps and a correction in high yield bonds

    In the context of the high yield bond market, activist investor Carl Icahn mentions the use of credit default swaps as a form of protection or insurance against credit events. However, he terms these products as "arcane" and implies that investors should possess sophisticated knowledge of the fixed income markets to enter that playing field.

    Credit default swaps (or CDS) are analogous to insurance contracts. The buyer of the CDS makes periodic fixed payments to the seller of the CDS, who receives these premiums and in exchange, compensates the buyer in the event of a default involving the underlying reference entity.

    ProShares launched the ProShares CDS North American HY Credit ETF (TYTE) and the ProShares CDS Short North American HY Credit ETF (WYDE) in August 2014. Although TYTE offers investors a long exposure to North American high yield bonds, WYDE offers a short exposure to the same. For instance, investment in WYDE could hedge a portfolio of high yield bonds against a drop in prices. The decreased prices typically result from increasing defaults by energy firms due to falling oil prices.

    In the final part of this series, we'll discuss Carl Icahn's view on the energy sector. The analysis specifically focuses on the outlook for oil companies such as EOG Resources (EOG), Exxon Mobil (XOM), Phillips 66 (PSX), and Valero Energy Corporation (VLO). Phillips 66 and Valero are oil refiners, EOG Resources is independent and lacks downstream operations, and Exxon Mobil is an integrated company.

    EOG Resources has an 8.2% weight in the iShares US Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (IEO). Phillips 66 has a 7.2% weight in IEO, and Valero has a 4.9% weight in IEO. EOG is also part of the iShares US Energy ETF (IYE), with a 3.1% exposure.

    [Oct 03, 2015] How Saudi Arabias aggressive foreign policy is playing against itself

    Notable quotes:
    "... Saudi Arabia feels betrayed by the US in providing a final solution to the Iranian problem. Russias aggressive entry in the Mid-Eastern affair is also turning out to be a huge set-back for them. ..."
    "... For instance, Saudias decision not to cut production of oil has now backfired. As oil prices continue to fall, Saudi Arabia has been forced to offer Russia full membership in OPEC to stabilize the oil market. ..."
    "... The irony is that one of the main purposes behind Saudi knocking oil prices down was to hurt, on the Wests behalf, Russian economy as much as possible. ..."
    October 2, 2015 | Asia Times

    ... ... ...

    While Saudi Arabia has certainly failed to strangulate Iran's economy, it has also failed to contain Iran's influence in the region that the former wanted to achieve through systematically engaging Iran in one conflict (Syria) after the other (Yemen).

    Saudi Arabia feels "betrayed" by the US in providing a "final solution" to the Iranian 'problem.' Russia's aggressive entry in the Mid-Eastern affair is also turning out to be a huge set-back for them.

    I am not sure if the Saudis had contemplated such a scenario. If they had, they would not have been trying to make use of "all available options" as they are doing now.

    Instead, they would have had a certain policy direction. For instance, Saudia's decision not to cut production of oil has now backfired. As oil prices continue to fall, Saudi Arabia has been forced to offer Russia full membership in OPEC to stabilize the oil market.

    The irony is that one of the main purposes behind Saudi knocking oil prices down was to hurt, on the West's behalf, Russian economy as much as possible.

    While offering Russia full membership is just one instance of how Saudi Arabia's foreign policy is playing against itself, the Saudis are having to face a lot of trouble with regard to the goals it set to achieve in Yemen.

    ... ... ...

    Salman Rafi Sheikh is a freelance journalist and research analyst of international relations and Pakistan affairs. His area of interest is South and West Asian politics, the foreign policies of major powers, and Pakistani politics.

    (Copyright 2015 Asia Times Holdings Limited, a duly registered Hong Kong company. All rights reserved. Please contact us about sales, syndication and republishing.)

    [Oct 03, 2015] How the United States Oil Fund ETF Will Use Futures

    Apr. 9, 2006 | Seeking Alpha

    The United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSEARCA:USO) is the first oil ETF. Its launch is an important event for energy investors and those interested in ETFs. Here's an excerpt from the fund's S-1 SEC filing explaining its use of futures to replicate the price of oil:

    What is USOF's Investment Strategy?

    In managing USOF's assets the General Partner does not intend to use a technical trading system that issues buy and sell orders. The General Partner does intend to employ a quantitative methodology whereby each time a Creation Basket is purchased, the General Partner will purchase oil interests, such as an Oil Futures Contract for WTI light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange, that have an aggregate face amount that approximates the amount of Treasuries and cash received upon the issuance of one or more Creation Baskets.

    As an example, assume that a Creation Basket purchase order is placed on January 2, 2006. If one were to assume USOF's closing NAV per unit for January 2 is $66.79, USOF would receive $6,679,000 for the Creation Basket ($66.79 NAV per unit times 100,000 units, and ignoring the Creation Basket fee of $1,000). Assume that the price of an Oil Futures Contract for WTI light, sweet crude oil on January 3, 2006 is $66,800. Because the price of oil reflected in these Near Month futures contracts on January 3, 2006 is different (in this case, higher) than the price of oil reflected in USOF's NAV calculated as of January 2, 2006 (the day the corresponding Creation Basket was sold), USOF cannot invest the entire purchase amount corresponding to the Creation Basket in futures contracts-i.e., it can only invest in 99 Oil Futures Contracts with an aggregate value of $6,613,200 ($66,800 per contract times 99 contracts). Assuming a margin equal to 10% of the value of the Oil Futures Contracts which would require $661,320 in Treasuries to be deposited as margin with the futures commission merchant through which the contract was purchased, the remainder of the purchase price for the Creation Basket, $6,017,680, would remain invested in cash and Treasuries as determined by the General Partner from time to time based on factors such as potential calls for margin or anticipated redemptions.

    The specific Oil Futures Contracts to be purchased will depend on various factors, including a judgment by the General Partner as to the appropriate diversification of USOF's investments in futures contracts with respect to the month of expiration, and the prevailing price volatility of particular contracts. While the General Partner anticipates significant investments in New York Mercantile Exchange Oil Futures Contracts, as USOF reaches certain position limits on the New York Mercantile Exchange, or for other reasons, it will invest in Oil Futures Contracts traded on other exchanges or invest in other Oil Interests such as contracts in the "over-the-counter

    [Oct 03, 2015] Huge Carl Icahn Energy Purchases Highlight Recent Insider Buying

    "... Cheniere Energy Inc. (NYSE: LNG) was the clear highlight of the week. This liquefied natural gas player had a very high-profile buyer step up to the plate more than once. Activist investor and Wall Street legend Carl Icahn bought a gigantic amount of the company's stock. ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | 24-7 Wall St.

    We cover insider buying every week at 24/7 Wall St., and we like to remind our readers that while insider buying is usually a very positive sign, it is not in of itself a reason to run out and buy a stock. Sometimes insiders and 10% owners have stock purchase plans set up at intervals to add to their holdings. That aside, it still remains a positive indicator.

    Cheniere Energy Inc. (NYSE: LNG) was the clear highlight of the week. This liquefied natural gas player had a very high-profile buyer step up to the plate more than once. Activist investor and Wall Street legend Carl Icahn bought a gigantic amount of the company's stock. He purchased 2,042,928 shares at a price of $47.14 apiece. The total for the buy came to a massive $96.3 million. Not stopping there, Icahn purchased an additional 1,503,313 shares at $48.30. The total for second buy was a whopping $72.6 million.

    ALSO READ: September Worst Month in History for Energy MLPs: 3 Bargains Right Now

    Oddly enough, as Icahn was buying millions of shares of Cheniere Energy, the CEO of the company was selling. He parted with a total of 100,000 shares at between $46.25 and $50.42 per share. The total for the sale came to $4.8 million. It was also the only one major company that reported insider selling last week. Cheniere shares ended trading on Friday at $50.50, and it is pretty easy to assume that Icahn's high-profile purchase was viewed as very positive.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Oil Tanker Rates Soar Above $100,000 a Day as China Hiring Jumps

    Oct 03, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    The world's biggest crude oil tankers earned more than $100,000 a day for the first time since 2008, amid speculation that a surge in Chinese bookings is curbing the number that are left available for charter.

    Ships hauling 2 million barrel cargoes of Saudi Arabian crude to Japan, a benchmark route, earned $104,256 a day, a level last seen in July 2008, according to data on Friday from the Baltic Exchange in London. The rate was a 13 percent gain from Thursday.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Shale High depletion rates in Bakken

    "... Roughly the US will need more than 9,000 wells at more than $50 billion to counterbalance the declines. ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    "... Sooner or later, you'd realize that Shale is an industry of diminishing returns. In plain terms, a temporary bubble waiting to burst thanks to depletion. SEST? Enjoy. But then, we've warned you. ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | www.oil-price.net

    As you can see, Bakken is the star of the region. So, who wants to point that the Emperor has no clothes? In other words, the higher-than-normal rate of depletion of fracked wells?

    Well, what is depletion? Depletion is a naturally occurring phenomenon. All non renewable resources undergo reduction over a period of time. Oil and gas aren't exempted from this equation, either

    ... ... ...

    Fracked wells age very fast. The initial production is very high so is the rate of depletion. The point is, a newly fracked well may produce 1,000 barrels a day, but this falls by sixty percent the next year, thirty five by the third and fifteen percent by the fourth. Oil companies should replace forty to forty five percent of the current production each year to maintain/increase production. For now at least, the number of wells and cost of production can keep pace with profits because of the higher oil prices. But what happens when the price comes down?

    The depletion rates will make the wells unviable and the search of oil will continue elsewhere. Roughly the US will need more than 9,000 wells at more than $50 billion to counterbalance the declines.

    ... ... ...

    Sooner or later, you'd realize that Shale is an industry of diminishing returns. In plain terms, a temporary bubble waiting to burst thanks to depletion. SEST? Enjoy. But then, we've warned you.

    [Oct 03, 2015] Icahn to Yahoo Finance Its going to be a real bloodbath

    "... Icahn slams using junk bonds for doing deals, comparing it to drug addiction, writing, "Making acquisitions with junk bonds may increase earnings for the short-term, but this gives companies a short-term high, just as heroin does to their users." ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com
    September 28, 2015

    Yahoo Finance has obtained a policy paper written by Carl Icahn on income inequality that the billionaire financier recently sent to Donald Trump and others on Wall Street and in Washington. In the paper, Icahn warns of "dangerous systemic problems that will affect each and every American in the coming years."

    The five and a half page paper has some similarities to the video that Icahn is releasing on www.carlicahn.com, but focuses more on imbalances in our society.

    The paper was sent to Trump before the GOP presidential candidate revealed his economic proposals. "I sent it to a number of people," Icahn said. "A few of the ideas in the paper are reflected in Donald Trump's plan. I think that shows what an open-minded guy he is, which is what we need in the White House."

    In the paper, Icahn takes a decidedly egalitarian tone, writing:

    "The average worker makes approximately $50,000 per year. The average annual compensation of the thirty highest paid CEOs is approximately $47 million per year. (I don't believe this disparity was ever this great even in most dictatorships!) You will hear many politicians argue that government should not interfere with the 'business judgment', of our companies and, therefore they cannot pass laws to encourage 'income equality.' This is completely untrue – the sad fact is that the government has actually passed many laws that have brought about 'income inequality.'"

    In a phone interview with Yahoo Finance Icahn says, "In this country, you talk about the wealth gap and politicians say, 'well, you can't legislate equality,' but we legislate inequality."

    Of all the corporate raiders and junk bond kings that came of age in the 1980s, Carl Icahn has become the richest and most powerful. He shows little sign of slowing down. Now 79, and with a net worth of some $21 billion according to Forbes, Icahn has moved beyond being a fixture of CNBC and the business pages to being something of a general news subject. With unusual tentativeness and nuance Icahn has linked himself to Donald Trump thereby guaranteeing him a place at the grown-ups' table this news cycle. In the recent phone interview with Yahoo Finance, Icahn says that while he admires Trump, (the two worked with each other in the maw of the Atlantic City casino business) the two don't see eye to eye on everything. Icahn wouldn't comment specifically on where they disagree. As for being Trump's Treasury Secretary, Icahn apparently said he would and then retracted that point. "He's his own man," Icahn says of Trump.

    In the policy paper, Icahn writes about the complicity of CEOs and Wall Street:

    "…the American worker is also getting 'screwed' …boards and CEOS have allowed property, plants and equipment of our companies to become the oldest on record and, as a result, the growth rate in productivity per hour of our workers has also become the worst on record and has actually decreased compared to last year. The average age of corporate property, plants and equipment is an astounding 22.3 years, the oldest it has reached since 1941. But I do not believe that most boards and CEOs really give a damn. With many exceptions, CEOs only care about short term results. Perhaps you can't really blame them because unfortunately, Wall Street judges them based on quarter to quarter results and CEOs receive their egregious compensation based on those short-term results."

    Icahn also writes about CEOs and how hard it is to remove them: "How would we feel if laws were passed that certain criteria had to be met to vote for President and there were no term limits on the President's ability to serve, thus making it almost impossible to remove Obama? Amazingly, there are many state laws in existence that protect the CEOs that are analogous to the example I just made."

    Icahn slams using junk bonds for doing deals, comparing it to drug addiction, writing, "Making acquisitions with junk bonds may increase earnings for the short-term, but this gives companies a short-term high, just as heroin does to their users."

    Icahn closes his piece by again coming back to the plight of the common man versus CEOs: "When it comes time to pay the Piper, CEOs will have taken their bonuses and again the workers will be left, holding the proverbially 'empty bag.'"

    [Oct 03, 2015] Icahn's bold warning about… Icahn

    Carl Icahn warn about junk bonks bubble. more then 2 trillion of junk bond spread in various ETF and mutual funds in case of crisis will be illiquid. Warning of many companies are fallacious. They are archived by tricks like mergers and acquisitions and stock back backs. It's all financing engineering. It's loading companies with bet.
    Oct 03, 2015 | www.cnbc.com
    Billionaire investor Carl Icahn reiterated his warnings about high-yield bond ETFs in a wide-ranging video released on his website overnight, complaining that these so-called junk bonds "are being sold en masse to the public" by companies such as BlackRock, whose high-yield bond ETF (HYG) holds about $13 billion worth of assets.

    "People are buying these not really understanding what they're buying," Icahn said in the video, referring specifically to BlackRock's "junk bond" ETFs.

    Ironically, nearly 1 percent of what those people are buying is debt issued by Icahn's company itself.

    The HYG ETF holds four separate bonds issued by the investor's company, Icahn Enterprises. These four bonds cumulatively make up 0.7 percent of the ETF - for a total notional value of $91 million, according to data available from BlackRock's ETF arm, iShares.

    It is worth noting that BlackRock does not have any say in the holdings of its ETF; the HYG simply tracks the Markit iBoxx USD Liquid High Yield Capped Index. Nor is the presence of Icahn Enterprises bonds in the ETF new; various Icahn Enterprises securities can be found in it going back to April 2012.

    Icahn's broader point about high-yield debt is that stimulative Federal Reserve policies have created a stock and bond bubble that will be resolved messily, due to a lack of willing buyers and hence loss of liquidity. BlackRock, for its part, contends that ETFs can provide liquidity and improve market stability

    Icahn's office did not immediately respond to a call for comment.

    Read More5 things that keep Carl Icahn up at night

    [Oct 03, 2015] U.S. manufacturing barely expands in September as global growth weakens, oil drillers cut back

    Oct 03, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    New orders and production both fell sharply and a measure of hiring also declined, according to the ISM, a trade group of purchasing managers. All three measures still barely remained in expansion territory.

    U.S. manufacturers are getting hit by slower growth in China, the world's second-largest economy, and a stronger dollar, which makes U.S. goods more expensive overseas. The 15 per cent rise in the dollar's value in the past year has also made imports cheaper compared with U.S.-made goods. Oil and gas drillers are also cutting back on their orders for steel pipe and other equipment in the wake of sharply lower oil prices.

    [Oct 03, 2015] What Blows Up First Part 5 Shale Oil Junk Bonds

    Prediction "The weakest of these companies will default in the coming year, and if oil prices fall another $10, perhaps most of these companies will default. " definitely proved to be false. But it looks like junk bond problem does exist. see Icahn warning Spe 26, 2015. Actually he issues similar varning in Ocr 2014 -- Carl Icahn says high-yield 'junk' bond market in a bubble - CNBC Reuters
    "... As for what might cause the junk market to crack, one prime candidate is the oil industry. The shale boom has led a lot of energy companies to ramp up production using other people's money, much of which is coming from junk bonds. Now, with oil down from $100/bbl to around $80, the nice fat coverage ratios on these bonds are looking disturbingly skinny. This chart shows the divergence between overall junk spreads and energy-sector junk spreads. ..."
    "... ... ... ... ..."
    Oct 03, 2015 | November 18, 2014

    One of the surest signs that a bubble is about to burst is junk bonds behaving like respectable paper. That is, their yields drop to mid-single digits, they start appearing with liberal loan covenants that display a high degree of trust in the issuer, and they start reporting really low default rates that lead the gullible to view them as "safe". So everyone from pension funds to retirees start loading up in the expectation of banking an extra few points of yield with minimal risk.

    This pretty much sums up today's fixed income world. And if past is prologue, soon to come will be a brutally rude awakening. Most of the following charts are from a long, very well-done cautionary article by Nottingham Advisors' Lawrence Whistler:

    Junk yield premiums over US Treasuries are back down to housing bubble levels...

    ... ... ....

    As for what might cause the junk market to crack, one prime candidate is the oil industry. The shale boom has led a lot of energy companies to ramp up production using other people's money, much of which is coming from junk bonds. Now, with oil down from $100/bbl to around $80, the nice fat coverage ratios on these bonds are looking disturbingly skinny. This chart shows the divergence between overall junk spreads and energy-sector junk spreads.

    ... ... ...

    The weakest of these companies will default in the coming year, and if oil prices fall another $10, perhaps most of these companies will default. This will of course be dismissed as a localized disturbance unlikely to spread to the broader economy - which is exactly what they said about subprime mortgages last time around.

    Bruce C

    The whole "shale oil" theme is a "scam". The original investors fell for the very same thing that continues to be rehashed, so they engineered a way to unload it onto the "relatively dumb" money. That's where we are now. After those new INSIDE investors/suckers realized that projected resources were not the same as extractable ones (at certain price levels) and that current production rates were subject to (downward) change (because the whole process is basically insane and extreme) it only makes sense that more funding could only be obtained by issuing bonds (equity was extracted in the "first round" when new wells geysered, etc.)

    But don't laugh too hard, yet. Between a totally foolish and pathetic Congress, a totally full of shit President, a desperate national central bank, and "TBTF" philosophy in general, this construct may well be supported way beyond its "natural" life.

    History is a fascinating spectrum of human nature. There doesn't seem to be any limits to the lows or the highs, and especially the durations of effort and "pragmatism" to advance certain agendas and IDEALS. That's not always "good" or "bad", and it is definitely hard to know in real time.

    socalbeachdude

    John, you are 100% correct in your article, particularly with your conclusion that this "will of course be dismissed as a localized disturbance unlikely to spread to the broader economy - which is exactly what they said about subprime mortgages last time around."

    Frank DiGiovanni

    Funny.. Your website is about the demise of the dollar.. Than its about oil stocks who have plunged along with oil due to a strong dollar
    .. Seems you are just looking for negatives..

    digriff > Frank DiGiovanni

    While you are assuming the strong dollar is the cause of the oil prices I would say "the last guy to drown in the pool is technically the best swimmer (dollar) but did still drown in the end".

    Frank DiGiovanni > digriff

    Point is .. You have been complete incorrect on the dollar.. Then write negatively on oil.. You are just a negative person.. Currency value is all relative to other currency; have to have winners and losers.. Not everybody drowns. You seem foolish with such a comment..

    [Oct 02, 2015] EIA's Latest Petroleum Report Yields Few Surprises

    "... If the government approves the planned tax hike, investments could slump by 50 percent and total oil production drop by 100 million metric tons over next three years, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in an interview to state TV Friday. ..."
    Oct 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    ... ... ...

    I took the Weekly Energy Review and averaged it into monthly average. As you can see it differs greatly from both the Monthly Energy Review and the Petroleum Supply Monthly. However for last July and August it agrees pretty closely with the Monthly Energy Review. And it says [USA] production dropped just over 200,000 barrels per day from August to September.

    This is the weekly data, since December from the Weekly Petroleum Status Report. It has U.S. production dropping every month since June.

    ... ... ...

    I thought the below article said a lot about Russia.

    Russian Oil Producers Head for Tax Showdown Amid Output Warnings

    Russia's Energy Ministry estimated last week that oil output would be stable until 2035 at a level of about 525 million metric tons a year, or 10.5 million barrels a day, as investment in new projects offset declines at older fields. If the government approves the planned tax hike, investments could slump by 50 percent and total oil production drop by 100 million metric tons over next three years, Energy Minister Alexander Novak said in an interview to state TV Friday.

    "In a lower capex environment, the output decline at mature Russian fields may reach some 5 percent already next year," Alexander Nazarov, oil and gas analyst at OAO Gazprombank, said by phone. "New projects won't be able to cushion the total decline."

    They are saying that if they get enough investment in new projects to offset declines in their old fields, then they can keep production flat for the next 20 years. Otherwise they are headed lower. Their old fields will be declining at about half a million barrels per year. I don't think even if they do get the tax breaks they can come up with that much new oil. And most certainly they cannot do it for 20 years.


    [Sep 30, 2015] Becoming China From Shale Malinvestment Boom To We Are Overbuilt Bust

    "... As Bloomberg reports ..."
    "... The frenzied drilling that made it No. 1 in personal-income growth and job creation for five consecutive years hasn't lasted long enough to support the oil-fueled building explosion ..."
    Sep 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    many previous oil-boomtowns across Texas and North Dakota are facing a real-estate crisis. As Bloomberg reports, the former bustling "man-camps" of towns like Williston, ND are now desolate with hundreds of skeletons or wood & cement as predictions that fracking would sustain production and a robust tax base for decades have failed completely.

    ... ... ...

    Chain saws and staple guns echo across a $40 million residential complex under construction in Williston, North Dakota, a few miles from almost-empty camps once filled with oil workers. As Bloomberg reports, after struggling to house thousands of migrant roughnecks during the boom, the state faces a new real-estate crisis: The frenzied drilling that made it No. 1 in personal-income growth and job creation for five consecutive years hasn't lasted long enough to support the oil-fueled building explosion.

    Civic leaders and developers say many new units were already in the pipeline, and they anticipate another influx of workers when oil prices rise again. But for now, hundreds of dwellings approved during the heady days are rising, skeletons of wood and cement surrounded by rolling grasslands, with too few residents who can afford them.

    "We are overbuilt," said Dan Kalil, a commissioner in Williams County in the heart of the Bakken, a 360-million-year-old shale bed, during a break from cutting flax on his farm. "I am concerned about having hundreds of $200-a-month apartments in the future."

    The surge began in 2006, when rising oil prices made widespread hydraulic fracturing economically feasible. The process forces water, sand and chemicals down a well to crack rock and release the crude. Predictions were that fracking would sustain production and a robust tax base for decades.

    Laborers descended on the state, many landing in temporary settlements of recreational vehicles, shacks and even chicken coops. Energy companies put up some workers in so-called man camps. In 2011, Williams County commissioners approved 12,000 beds, says Michael Sizemore, the county building official.

    Everyone levered up on this "no-brainer"...

    The camps were supposed to be an interim solution until subdivision and apartment complexes could be built.

    Civic leaders across the Bakken charged into overdrive, processing hundreds of permits and borrowing tens of millions of dollars to pay for new water and sewer systems. Williston has issued $226 million of debt since January 2011; about $144 million is outstanding. Watford City issued $2.34 million of debt; about $2.1 million is outstanding.

    and many remain delusional...

    "We didn't build temporary housing on purpose because we viewed North Dakota as a long-term play," said Israel Weinberger, a principal at Coltown Properties, which invests in multi-family real-estate developments.

    "We think the local production of oil is here to stay. Yes, prices have dropped, but it's a commodity and commodities fluctuate. There is always a risk."

    Fracking's success has created another glut...

    As the migrant workers leave, their castoffs pile up in scrap yards such as TJ's Autobody & Salvage outside Alexander, about 25 miles (40 kilometers) south of Williston. More than 400 discarded vehicles crowd its lot, including souped-up pickup trucks and an RV with rotting potatoes and a dead mouse in the sink.

    "I wake up and RVs are in my driveway," said owner Tom Novak. "It's insane; there are empty campers everywhere."

    HedgeAccordingly

    welp.. was only matter of time..
    IMF raises red flag about Canada's 'overheated' housing market

    bluskyes

    It's a golden age for the repo game

    bluskyes

    Oil has been boom/bust forever...

    Unfortunately most are no longer from agrarian roots, and have no concept of living within one's means, and storing away excess in times of feast - for the times of famine that inevitably follow.

    [Sep 29, 2015] Carl Icahn Says Market Way Overpriced, Warns God Knows Where This Is Going Zero Hedge

    "... The quest for yield is pushing investors into risk in a frantic hunt for yield in an environment where risk free assets yield at best an inflation adjusted zero and at worst have a negative carrying cost. ..."
    Sep 29, 2015 | www.zerohedge.com
    Here's a list of Icahn's concerns:
    • Low rates and asset bubbles: Fed policy in the wake of the dot com collapse helped fuel the housing bubble and given what we know about how monetary policy is affecting the financial cycle (i.e. creating larger and larger booms and busts) we might fairly say that the Fed has become the bubble blower extraordinaire. See the price tag attached to Picasso's Women of Algiers (Version O) for proof of this.
    • Herding behavior: The quest for yield is pushing investors into risk in a frantic hunt for yield in an environment where risk free assets yield at best an inflation adjusted zero and at worst have a negative carrying cost.
    • Financial engineering: Icahn is supposedly concerned about the myopia displayed by corporate management teams who are of course issuing massive amounts of debt to fund EPS-inflating buybacks as well as M&A. We have of course been warning about debt fueled buybacks all year and make no mistake, there's something a bit ironic about Carl Icahn criticizing companies for short-term thinking and buybacks as he hasn't exactly been quiet about his opinion with regard to Apple's buyback program (he does add that healthy companies with lots of cash should repurchases shares).
    • Fake earnings: Companies are being deceptive about their bottom lines.
    • Ineffective leadership: Congress has demonstrated a remarkable inability to do what it was elected to do (i.e. legislate). To fix this we need someone in The White House who can help break intractable legislative stalemates.
    • Corporate taxes are too high: Inversions are costing the US jobs.
    Here's more from Reuters:

    ... ... ...

    In a video entitled "Danger Ahead" and released on Tuesday, Icahn said the Fed's rate policy had enabled U.S. chief executives - many of whom he describes as "nice but mediocre guys" – to pursue "financial engineering" that he said has exacerbated an already wide gap between rich and poor in America.

    Icahn, who slammed money managers who benefit from the so-called "carried interest" loophole under which their earnings are taxed as capital gains rather than ordinary wage income, also endorsed Donald Trump's presidential bid.

    Trump unveiled a tax plan on Monday that he said would eliminate the loophole.

    "Those guys who run these companies are borrowing money very cheaply, leveraging up their companies, using it to do two things … They are going in and they are buying back stock or even worse, making stupid takeovers," said Icahn, adding some recent acquisitions have been done at a too high a price.

    Much of this debt is bought via exchange-traded funds, a popular vehicle for trading baskets of bonds and stocks.

    Icahn said retail investors had a false sense of security about how easy it would be to sell their holdings of such debt if the market turns.

    "It's like a movie theater and somebody yells fire. There is only one little exit door," he said. "The exit door is fine when things are OK but when they yell fire, they can't get through the exit door … and there's nobody to buy those junk bonds."

    [Sep 28, 2015] Why I Believe Paul Krugman Over Jim Hamilton Why a Chinese Slowdown Is by itself Little Threat to the U.S. Economy

    "... that the U.S. economy was adjusting to and shrugging off ..."
    "... until the financial crisis began the collapse of Wall Street ..."
    "... With Dodd-Frank, it seems we are closer to 1998 (or at least in the middle). ..."
    "... With 700 trillion in outstanding derivatives we don't know where the risks are and neither do the banks or the regulators. One mistake in one spreadsheet could sweep away all the big banks in the world. ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | www.bradford-delong.com

    Over at Equitable Growth: The collapse of housing investment in the U.S. after the bubble pop began in late 2005 was absolutely huge:

    FRED Graph FRED St Louis Fed

    READ MOAR

    Economic importance of China: "How important would an economic downturn in China be for the United States?...

    ...Paul Krugman reviews... reasons why... [we] shouldn't worry too much.... I've long believed that to understand business cycles we need to consider not just net flows but also gross interdependencies.... While China may only account for 15% of world GDP, it has been a huge factor in commodity markets... 55% of the increase in global petroleum consumption between 2005 and 2013.... Arezki and Matsumoto note that China now accounts for about half of global consumption of iron ore, aluminum, copper, and nickel.... U.S. exports of goods and services to China... [are] only about 1% of U.S. GDP. But U.S. investment in mining structures (explorations, shafts, and wells) amounted to $146B at an annual rate in 2014:Q4. By the second quarter of this year that number was down to $89B, largely a result of cutbacks in the U.S. oil patch.... This development alone has already subtracted about 0.3% from U.S. GDP.... Another concern comes from financial linkages.... I don't know what the ultimate implications for the U.S. of a significant recession in China would be. But things I don't know cause me to worry.

    If we take the current shock to oil-patch investment of 0.3% of GDP to be half the shock from China, right now the shock from China is one-quarter of the 2005-2007 shock from the housing market that the U.S. economy was adjusting to and shrugging off without much difficulty until the financial crisis began the collapse of Wall Street. Thus, IMHO, the major lesson of 2005-7 is that for the macroeconomy it is finance and only finance--plus the ability of the government to react properly and in a timely fashion--that matters. A sectoral shock one-quarter as large as 2005-7, or indeed one-sixth as large as 1999-2001, ought not to matter much at all.

    J. Bradford DeLong on September 27, 2015 at 06:55 PM in Economics: Finance, Economics: Macro, Streams: Economics, Streams: Equitable Growth, Streams: Highlighted | Permalink

    https://www.quandl.com/collections/economics/gdp-as-share-of-world-gdp-at-ppp-by-country

    In the US prior to the bursting of the housing bubble in 2006, residential fixed investment had grown 6.6%, from its usual average of around 5%. That seems relatively small, but a collapse in that one market and its layers of overvalued derivatives led to a broader US collapse.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1xJ2

    So China is a larger component of the global economy now than US housing investment was in 2006. That wouldn't matter much for the rest of us is China were isolated from foreign investment. But China overtook the US this year as the number one spot for foreign direct investment.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/business-31052566

    Maybe the world has learned from the global financial crisis, and larger capital requirements and other regulatory measures are protecting us better than they did in 2007/8. But these facts all seem relevant, and I would like to see some analysis of the situation from a systemic financial risk perspective.

    Dan Kervick said...

    By the way, this quote utterly depresses me:

    "That, at least, is the lesson I draw from 2005-2007. As long as aggregate demand is properly managed, a decentralized market economy is a wonderfully flexible thing. It can and does adjust swiftly to even big sectoral shocks."

    If that is the main lesson you have taken away for 2005-07, then God help us all. Count me now as officially terrified that the neoliberal techno-democrats, under Hillary Clinton and her 20th century retro machine, are going to take the White House again in 2017.

    I hope the view is nice, at least, from inside your rectum.

    jonathan said...

    The obvious counterpoint is that from August 2007 to August 2008, the Federal Funds rate fell 300 basis points. This monetary stimulus was likely responsible for the rise in exports and non-residential investment, and thus the stability of aggregate demand. The Fed doesn't have such an ability to offset negative AD shocks today.

    [Very true--but the rest of the government does...]

    jorgensen said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Dan, what lesson do you say should have been learned from 2005-2007 (I thought that main lesson was that the Bush tax cuts were a very, bad housing bubble producing, policy.)

    T said...

    Brad -
    The level of certainty in your tone is , er, troubling.

    And it's odd coming from you after you bravely admitted that you completely missed the financial crisis and still can't explain the effects of NAFTA.

    It could well be that the macro boys will be furiously modelling international linkages just like they're trying to incorporate a financial sector if this all heads south. Best to stay humble on this China stuff. And you'd think you'd have started to figure out the distributional effects baked into the neoliberal agenda by now. Maybe that's one item you can add to the year end mea culpa list.

    jorgensen said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    China may be sixteen per cent of the world economy but most of that will be produced and consumed in China and a huge drop might be hard on China but not directly effect the U.S. very much.

    Canada, Australia and Brazil are going to be much harder hit than the U.S. There may be some feed through effects - Canadian revenues from resources drop so its imports from the United States have to fall but most of the pain will be felt in Canada and American consumers benefit from lower commodity prices (lumber, copper, oil, steel).

    We don't know how big the financial effects might be. We have reason to suspect that the Chinese financial system is a house of cards. But we know that China has been exporting massive amounts of capital for years so the amount of foreign exposure to the Chinese financial system should be limited.

    I think that the biggest risk to America from China is not financial contagion or some diminution of China as a market for American goods and services but rather that a slowing China will become even more hyper-competitive than it already was in global markets for manufactured goods.

    jorgensen said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    "China's economy might be relatively small, but it's share of the global economy is now over 16%."

    As an afterthought - the 16% is calculated at purchasing power parity which will probably inflate the relative importance of China in world trade.

    Robert Waldmann said...

    I have to say that I don't find strong support for your view in your graph. Up until December 2007, it shows huge increases in non-residential investment and exports balancing the decline in residential investment and government purchases,but for example is not solid statistical analysis. It seems to me equally possible that there was a strange coincidence causing aggregate demand to remain roughly constant from the peak of the housing bubble through December 2007.

    In particular, I don't see the magic of the market in the increase in US exports (I see insane fluctuations in exchange rates which were obviously unpredictable since I didn't predict them).

    As you note, the case of 2001 is another example, but that really looks to me like a housing bubble coming to the rescue after the dot com bubble burst. I don't know what bubble, if any, will protect the US from a Chinese recession.

    Also, you seem to be discussing the actually existing USA, yet you discuss the hypothetical ability of "the government to react properly and in a timely fashion". That's the same government which might or might not be open for business on Thursday. I don't see how any discussion of the US government maybe, possibly, conceivably reacting properly has any relevance to the real world.

    Dan Kervick said...

    Jorgenson, in my opinion, the housing bubble was over a decade in the making and grew from overly-liberalized financial conditions that were put in place in the decade before that. And the housing bubble is only part of a larger, secular credit bubble that lead to an unsustainable rise in private debt to GDP. The surge in private indenturing and indebtedness goes hand in hand with the ongoing destruction of the social contract in the US, an obscene and decadent widening of inequality, the explosion of corporate power, the bloating of the financial sector of that corporate economy, and the erosion of the public sector as a coordinating driver of economic policy and long-term planning and public investment strategies.

    Brad is an intellectual stakeholder in the economic philosophies of the administration for which he worked. He has become notorious - in my mind at least - for his blithe conviction that nothing is really wrong with the prevailing order other than some bad short-term technocratic management decisions in the (unexplained by him) implosion of much of the US financial sector in 2007/8. As much as I like him personally, I have zero interest in his brand of neoliberal political economy being given another crack at things.

    I don't belong to a political party, and regard most of the economic policy of past 40 years as a mistake.

    Kansas Jack said...

    BDL, but you end by saying, "plus the ability of the government to react properly and in a timely fashion–that matters." BUT!! That is, to me, the key of it all. For what happens in the case of a commodity market slowdown -- even if it is a smaller share than Hamilton believes as you argue-- that we have governments who cannot react properly. Markets that spiral downward because the fiscal managers in Congress see no reason to intervene -- nay, believe it is morally wrong to do so and further believe that it means we ought to tighten our belts-- has a bigger multiplier than I think you are suggesting. So, while I agree with you that China OUGHT not to be a big deal, I think politics today makes is a VERY big deal. Why am I wrong about that?

    jorgensen said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Dan

    I agree that financial deregulation of the late 1990s was a mistake. I believe it to have been founded on a rather naive blindness (or corrupt looking the other way) on how many people in the financial industry are stupid or dishonest or both.

    I see the housing bubble itself as a reaction to the Bush tax cut and the dot com bubble bursting - in 2003 people had money to invest and thought houses were safer than stocks.

    Financial deregulation enabled the housing bubble by making it easier for fraud to go undetected but did not itself cause the bubble.

    Pinkybum said in reply to jorgensen...

    No the lesson was that deregulation of the financial industry forced the banks to give loans to people who could not repay them. Less government regulation is really more in the deranged right-wing world.

    claudius said...

    The crash in 2008 came from large financial institutions realizing that their collateral, hedges, and reserves were actually worthless. Lehman gone and AIG bankrupt, and the house of cards falls over.

    So the only relevant question is, is there still a house of cards on wall st that will go tumbling down with the first stiff breeze?

    In 1998 and 1995, there were major economic collapses elsewhere, with no major negative wall st impacts (LTCM aside). Are we back in 1998 with a robust system, or 2008 with a fragile system?

    With Dodd-Frank, it seems we are closer to 1998 (or at least in the middle).

    Thomas More said...

    Dan is unfortunately correct.

    Let's sort out specifically what's wrong with Brad's analysis:

    [1] The collapse in housing investment wasn't isolated. It was closely connected to the huge bubble in the stock market, much of which consisted of fraudulent mortgage-backed securities which were sold in tranches to investors as low-risk, but were actually extremely high risk.

    [2] We need to recall that as late as late 2008 economists like Brad were still claiming that because the subprime mortgage market constituted only 5% of the total housing market, the broader economy was in no danger of collapse even if the subprime mortgage market imploded. Clearly neoliberal economists like Brad did not recognize that the huge amount of leverage created in the financial markets by the subprime mortgage securities generated an enormously sensitive and unstable financial situation in which a very small collapse in one sector could ripple outward nonlinearly to create a huge cascade of financial and housing collapses.

    [3] Brad appears to base his reasoning on normative macro models. Those work well for equilibrium conditions in the markets. Normal macro models use linearized equations to model a system with relatively small shocks. If we want to get technical, the equations are typically linear ordinary differential equations with small Reynolds numbers. The problem is that since circa the mid-1990s the world has experienced extremely non-normal macroeconomic conditions. How so? Well, in 1991 the USSR imploded and turned capitalist, releasing some 800 million workers in the former communist countries. In 1989, the Tiananmen uprising forced Chinese leadership to pivot to a capitalist economic system, releasing some 1.3 billion workers. Together, the collapse of the USSR + China's switch to capitalism increased the global labor market by circa 60%. This exerted a tremendous shock on labor prices -- to put it technically, the Reynolds number became very very big. Adding in the gigantic shadow banking sector, which ballooned under Clinton/Bush deregulation to a size that dwarfed the regular financial sector, and include the exponential growth of bizarrely complex financial instruments like CDOs, and the equations themselves became nonlinear, because very small changes in a CDO could potentially produce enormous financial losses. Cap it off with the fact that the ex-physicists designing all the complex financial derivatives using computers themselves often did not know what the financial derivatives would do under boundary (extreme) conditions. You get a chaotic financial system not well modeled by linear equations.

    What's the upshot of Brad's faulty reasoning here?

    First: the underlying conditions creating financial bubbles and huge nonlinearities in the financial system have not been fixed.

    "The Dodd-Frank legislation does not reform Wall Street. Rather it preserves the system that existed prior to the 2008 crisis, according to Martin Wolf of the Financial Times of London. According to former Treasury Secretary Tim Geithner, "The goal of financial reform was to make the system safe for failure. It wasn't to prevent the failure of individual firms that take on too much risk, but to make the aftershocks of failure less threatening to the system as a whole." Most importantly, Dodd-Frank amended the Federal Reserve Act of 1913 to prohibit the central bank from bailing out an insolvent financial institution on the verge of bankruptcy. It can only lend or inject capital if the bank is solvent. According to Harvard economist Larry Summers the Fed is simply not capable of understanding even when a member bank becomes insolvent.

    "The Fed's monetary policy model at present does not take into consideration any factual or numerical input from events either in domestic financial markets or global markets. This lack of input means the Fed will always have trouble spotting a bubble that is developing out of speculation in the financial or commodity markets." ["The Ten Reasons Why There Will Be Another Systemic Financial Crisis," Forbes magazine, op. cit.]

    Second: in 2007, America suffered from a single subprime real estate bubble and huge numbers of risky investments in the form of derivatives. Today, in 2015, America suffers from four different financial bubbles: the college loan bubble, the real estate rental-backed securities bubble, a second tech bubble, and a subprime auto loan bubble. Plus, in 2015 the deregulations and opportunities for fraud in the financial markets have *still* not been fixed. Viz., Gramm-Leach-Bliley repealing the Glass-Steagall act has still not been repealed.

    These statements are well documented and noncontroversial. Let's start with the fragility of today's financial markets, unchanged since 2007:

    "A major factor in the last crisis was, of course, the rapid growth of low-quality mortgages. Between 2000 and 2006, the combination of subprime and Alt-A loans rapidly grew their share of mortgage originations. Since the crisis, subprime alone has fallen from a peak of more than 20% of originations in 2006 to roughly 0.3% as of 2014. However, the spigot has opened elsewhere. Auto loans have grown rapidly to $970 billion. Through the middle of 2014, about 29% of all the securities based on auto loans to individuals were classified subprime, and defaults are now rising. Student loans are not broken out by quality (i.e., subprime), but there are two issues with them that are important to note. First, they have grown rapidly to $1.36 trillion. Moreover, as graduates and younger people are having a difficult time entering the work force, delinquencies on student loans in repayment are an estimated 27.3%. As it happens, the Federal government owns $883 billion (65%) of the student loans, so defaults will lead to more government bond issuances and, ultimately, more inflation." ["Are we headed for another financial crisis?" CFA institute, 11 June 2015]

    "No one understands the derivative risk positions of the Too Big To Fail Banks, JP Morgan Chase, Citigroup, Bank of America, Goldman Sachs or Morgan Stanley. There is presently no way to measure the risks involved in the leverage, quantity of collateral, or stability of counter-parties for these major institutions. To me personally they are big black holes capable of potential wrack and ruin. Without access to confidential internal data about these risky derivative positions the regulators cannot react in a timely and measured fashion to block the threat to financial stability, according to a National Bureau of Economic Research study." ["Another Financial Crisis Is Inevitable, Promises The Fed Vice Chairman," Forbes, 19 July 2014]

    We could go on to mention the enormous growth in high-speed trading which firms themselves can't predict and don't understand, ever larger disruptions as a result of these automated trading systems, including the "flash crash," but the point is clear: lack of transparency, the skyrocketing growth of the shadow banking system with its complex derivative financial instruments, and the failure to regulate or break up the "too big to fail" banks have resulted in a financial system _more_ fragile today than it was in 2007.

    As for the college loan bubble, see "The scary reality of the student loan bubble in 5 charts." The rate of increase in student debt compared to inflation is now worse than at the peak of the subprime mortgage bubble, total student loans are now larger than the total outstanding amount of U.S. credit card debt:
    http://moneymorning.com/2013/03/05/the-scary-reality-of-the-student-loan-bubble-in-5-charts/

    As for the rental-back mortgage securities housing boom, see the following:

    "Analyst: Housing bubble not a question of if but when - As in, when is it going to implode?"
    http://www.housingwire.com/articles/33970-analyst-housing-bubble-not-a-question-of-if-but-when

    "Here's what's driving up housing prices," CNN money, 4 May 2015.

    "`Price increases -- even in the most desirable places -- can't continue to outstrip income growth forever,' said Keith Gumbinger, vice president of HSH.com. `At some point, no one will be able to afford a home.'"

    http://money.cnn.com/2015/05/04/real_estate/real-estate-housing-bubble/

    "Housing Market's Foundations Crack - Sales of New and Existing Homes Look Less Than Inspiring," Wall Street Journal, 29 December 2014.

    "California Housing Market Cracks in Two, Top End Goes Crazy," Wolf Richter, 26 November 2014. The median price for a house in San Francisco is now $661,000: the median price for a house in San Diego is $520,000. For comparison, at the peak of the last real estate bubble the median price for a house in San Diego was $650,000 and San Francisco has now surpassed its previous median price peak at the top of the bubble.

    As for the second tech bubble, see the article "Bubble 2.0?" techcrunch website, 16 May 2015. Fed chair Janet Yellen recently warned about this:

    "Federal Reserve Chairwoman Janet Yellen weighed in on the prospects of an equity bubble at a meeting with International Monetary Fund Director Christine Lagarde earlier this month. The danger warnings beat to the drums of Mark Cuban's worse than 2000 prediction because the tech sector was singled out as the asset class with overinflated valuation.

    "A quick glance at the NASDAQ Composite Index's breach of the infamous 5000 would seem to support these claims."

    As for subprime auto loans. see the article "Next subprime bubble to burst: auto loans," New York Post, 7 February 2015.
    http://nypost.com/2015/02/07/next-subprime-bubble-to-burst-auto-sales/

    Third: there has been no progress in forcing transparency on the global shadow banking system since 2007. As a result, the economists at the Federal Reserve (and economists like Professor DeLong) are not even able to estimate the size and nature of financial risk in the shadow banking markets.

    "Nor does the Fed have any oversight powers over the Shadow Banking System, which amounts to $75 trillion worldwide of financial activities by non-banks that in 2008 triggered runs on the system that threatened its stability. Shadow banking, which runs the gamut from money market mutual funds to short term repurchase financing agreements, commercial paper and other aspects of investment banking, are activities that can trigger panicky runs on the financial system. Shadow banking is also inherently fragile due to the lack of a central bank safety net or the deposit insurance that supports bank deposits. The whole inter-relationship between shadow banking and traditional banking is not very well understood. In short, shadow banking increases the likelihood that systemic risk will be triggered from the breakdown and gaps that exist between it and traditional banking." ["The Ten Reasons Why There Will Be Another Systemic Financial Crisis," Forbes magazine, op. cit.]

    Given this evidence, it becomes incumbent on a reasonable observer to ask -- on what basis does Brad issue his confident claim that a small downturn in China will not produce a nonlinear ripple effect leading to the bursting of one or more of these new 2015 financial bubbles and a subsequent crash of the whole U.S. economy?

    Did Brad predict the bursting of the last financial bubble? Was he even aware that it existed?

    Economists like Professor DeLong seem to believe that the current financial system is perfectly fine and that only slight tinkering around the edges is needed to keep everything shipshape. By contrast, other people like Nassim Taleb have been warning about financial black swan events for a number of years. Given the track record of events since the year 2000, which of these two groups should we believe?

    jorgensen said in reply to claudius...

    "With Dodd-Frank, it seems we are closer to 1998 (or at least in the middle). "

    With 700 trillion in outstanding derivatives we don't know where the risks are and neither do the banks or the regulators. One mistake in one spreadsheet could sweep away all the big banks in the world.

    Another Scott said...
    By the end of 2007, about $400 billion/year--2.5% of GDP--of spending on residential construction that had been there in 2005 was no longer. Yet the U.S. economy was not in recession.

    I know you and Dean Baker have gone round-and-round about this, but I'm confused as to why you don't seem to agree on the scale of the problem.

    In CEPR's Housing Bubble Fact Sheet from July 2005 he says:

    5. The collapse of the housing bubble will throw the economy into a recession, and quite likely a severe recession.

    Housing construction is equal to approximately 5 percent of GDP. Construction of new homes has been going on at a near-record pace over the last few years, in response to the run-up in housing prices. Home construction could easily fall back 40 percent (this was the drop off in the 1981-82 recession), which would imply a direct loss in demand equal to 2 percentage points of GDP.

    In addition, the large wealth effect associated with the housing bubble, which has spurred a consumption boom in the last few years, will go into reverse as housing prices plummet. Research from the Federal Reserve Board shows that a dollar in additional housing wealth leads to 4 to 6 cents of annual consumption. This implies that a loss of $5 trillion in housing wealth would lead to a decline in annual consumption of between $200 billion and $300 billion. This loss in consumption is equivalent to 1.6 to 2.5 percentage points of GDP.

    Combining the 2 percentage point drop in demand due to a falloff in housing construction with the 1.6 to 2.5 percentage point drop in demand due to the reversal of the housing bubble's wealth effect leads to a falloff in demand of between 3.6 and 4.5 percentage points of GDP. If employment fell in the same proportion, this would imply the loss of between 5.0 million and 6.3 million jobs. Since the federal government is already running a large deficit, and the country is running a very large trade deficit, the government's ability to use fiscal and monetary policy to boost the economy out of the recession will be severely restricted.

    That seems to me to be a cogent prediction of what actually happened, though actually on the low side (8.8 M jobs were lost according to Google). But since there were still 2 years before the implosion, I can cut him a little slack on that. ;-)

    Are you ignoring the "wealth effect" that he talks about? Or is your argument that the timing shows that the bursting of the housing bubble didn't correspond to the start of the Great Recession?

    I think the timing can be explained as simply the fact that normal people knew that the bubble was deflating (I recall seeing new construction in-fill developments in my area listed for $1.4M and not going anywhere, then being listed at $1.0M a few months later....), but thought that it wasn't going to affect *themselves* before they could refinance or sell. Remember everyone talking about a "soft landing"? We were still saturated with "Flip this House" TV shows (which premiered in July 2005)and "refinance now!" TV ads until the day Lehman collapsed. And probably even later.

    And the banksters were doing everything they could to keep their earnings inflated so they could keep collecting their fat bonuses. When they finally couldn't hide their housing losses any more, that's when the dominoes finally started tumbling (Countrywide, AIG, Lehman, etc., etc.). But it all goes back to the housing bubble.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

    [Sep 28, 2015] Exuberance and Disappoin4tment at Shell's About-Face in the Arctic

    Looks like Shell wants to wait out the period of low oil prices, cutting investments to bare minimum.
    "... More than half of the state's $5.2 billion this year could not be collected, forcing budget cuts and a deep dive into a state savings account. ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | The New York Times

    In Alaska, Shell's announcement that it would suspend drilling in the Chukchi Sea after a test well showed less promise than hoped for was one more blow to a state where energy-tax revenues - which pay for most of the budget - are drying up as prices and production have fallen. More than half of the state's $5.2 billion this year could not be collected, forcing budget cuts and a deep dive into a state savings account. The Trans-Alaska Pipeline that made the state rich after its completion in the 1970s is pumping only a quarter of its oil capacity.

    "It's tough times," said Kara Moriarty, the president of the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, who said that rumors of layoffs in the next few weeks or months, in both the corporate offices of oil companies in Anchorage and in the drilling fields, were flying everywhere. "It's an incredibly sobering day," she added.

    [Sep 28, 2015] Shell Exits Arctic as Oil Slump Forces Industry to Retrench

    Sep 28, 2015 | The New York Times

    As oil prices have continued their steady decline this year, rig after rig has been shut down, costing thousands of jobs in the United States. Yet major oil producers have been loath to pull the plug on their most ambitious projects - the multibillion-dollar investments that form the backbone of their operations.

    Until now. On Monday, Royal Dutch Shell ended its expensive and fruitless nine-year effort to explore for oil in the Alaskan Arctic - a $7 billion investment - in another sign that the entire industry is trimming its ambitions in the wake of collapsing oil prices.

    ... ... ...

    The industry has cut its investments by 20 percent this year and laid off at least 200,000 workers worldwide, roughly 5 percent of the total work force. Companies also have retreated from less profitable fields in places like the North Sea, West Africa, and some shale prospects in Louisiana and North Dakota.

    American oil companies have decommissioned more than half of their drilling rigs over the last year, and production is beginning to drop in the United States...

    ... ... ...

    With demand dwindling, the current market of 94 million barrels a day has roughly two million barrels in surplus supply.

    Steve Projan

    This decision was not based on the test results of a single well but the current glut of oil and its depressed price and renders the expensive to get arctic oil a poor investment, for now. But I'll bet that Shell isn't giving back its lease. The (short term) losers are the Alaskan citizens who are addicted to oil money that is rapidly running out (heavens these takers might actually have to pay taxes rather than getting a check from the government).

    At least for today a modest, although probably short term, win for the environment.

    rexl, phoenix, az. 1 hour ago

    Just think what is going to happen when the price of oil goes back above one hundred dollars per barrel.


    [Sep 28, 2015] Economic impo4rtance of China

    "... China's import volumes of crude oil were up 9.8% y-o-y in 8m15, so the effect you're describing hasn't happened yet. ..."
    "... I think the US oil production decline is mostly a domestic cycle, following earlier overinvestment, ..."
    "... Debt now drives the globe – downward! The effects of decades of Keynesian deficit spending and central banking run amok are coming home to roost. ..."
    "... US QEs went into the stock market and via the carry trade into EM debt. ..."
    "... For example, gasoline and jet fuel demand in China were both up more than 20% in August year on year–absolutely a blow-out month. Oil demand was up an impressive 6.6%. Similarly, Nike saw fabulous results in China in the three months ended August, with sales there up more than 30%. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34355627 All of these indicators directly contradict any notion of recession. ..."
    "... India imports 100% of oil consumption. China imports 55-60% (?) of oil consumption. World oil supply per capita is no higher than in 2004-05 and where US oil production per capita was in the late 1970s, the onset of deindustrialization and financialization of the US economy. The world is where the US was in the late 1970s ..."
    "... Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time. ..."
    "... Here are China's commercial inventories, just for you. They are a solid 19 mb below normal for oil, and 27 mb below for all crude and product inventories taken together. ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | Econbrowser
    U.S. exports of goods and services to China in 2014 were $167 billion, only about 1% of U.S. GDP. But U.S. investment in mining structures (explorations, shafts, and wells) amounted to $146B at an annual rate in 2014:Q4. By the second quarter of this year that number was down to $89B, largely a result of cutbacks in the U.S. oil patch. This means that in the absence of offsetting gains elsewhere, this development alone has already subtracted about 0.3% from U.S. GDP.

    Of course, lower commodity prices will force layoffs for oil companies and miners but leave more money in the hands of consumers. However, additional spending from that channel has been more modest than many of us were anticipating.


    Tom Warner, September 27, 2015 at 1:22 pm

    China's import volumes of crude oil were up 9.8% y-o-y in 8m15, so the effect you're describing hasn't happened yet.

    I think the US oil production decline is mostly a domestic cycle, following earlier overinvestment, which was to some extent driven by wrong hopes that the Saudis would accommodate higher US output by cutting theirs. The global knock-on effects are mainly among oil producers, many of which didn't pass on the oil price drop to their domestic consumers, and many of which have reacted to falling oil prices by increasing their net energy exports.

    But the general tone of caution about China I agree with. The main effect from China globally has been to reduce prices of building materials and metals, especially iron ore.

    BC, September 27, 2015 at 5:58 pm

    Tom, WRT to China's oil imports, take a look at China's oil production, consumption, imports as a share of consumption, net imports of oil, the extent to which China is storing/hoarding oil as a share of consumption, and electricity consumption, and the aggregate suggests that the Chinese economy is growing at a fraction of the reported 7% real rate.

    JBH, September 28, 2015 at 9:03 am

    Tom: The main effect from China has been to wreak havoc on EM economies. Simultaneous with the reversal of the US dollar carry trade, this has caused an increasing number of EMs to tilt toward recession. EMs (ex China) have the largest ppt contribution to global growth this recovery.

    When the locomotive slows, the train slows. EM currencies are plunging. To support them, monetary policies are being tightened. Much EM corporate and sovereign debt is denominated in dollars. Hence the need to support currencies to service debt and stave off default.

    Debt now drives the globe – downward! The effects of decades of Keynesian deficit spending and central banking run amok are coming home to roost. Since 2014:Q1, the net export contribution to real GDP has been minus 0.6%. Another leg down coming. The daisy-chain from EMs to the US is multi-stemmed real and financial. Growing fissures in the financial system are the worry. US QEs went into the stock market and via the carry trade into EM debt. All this is unwinding, as it was always going to. Promises to become known the Great Unwind.

    BC, September 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm

    What must be understood is that China's "miracle" was not an organic process but one "made in the USA" (and in part Japan), in that US supranational firms have invested (via offshoring in search of labor arbitrage) trillions of dollars since the 1980s-90s, resulting in a scale and rate of growth per capita in China that otherwise would not have occurred.

    US and Japanese FDI peaked in 2011-13 and began contracting in the past year or so, not coincidentally when China's "exports" (largely from US and Japanese firms' production of components, intermediate goods, and finished goods) and goods-producing sectors began to contract.

    Since 2013, China's labor force has been contracting. Along with reported wage growth, contracting production, M1 and M2 growing 9-13%, and money supply at ~195-200% of GDP, China's productivity is growing no faster than ~1%. Then, at a population growth rate of 0.5%, in aggregate, China's real potential GDP per capita hereafter is effectively 0%, which is the post-2007 average trend rate (new normal of secular stagnation) for the US, EZ, and Japan.

    This outcome was never in doubt, as it was implied by the precedent of the middle-income trap, excessive debt to GDP, and the demographic drag effects China is now experiencing, as is occurring for the countries that make up 70-75% of world GDP.

    Moreover, under these conditions, it should be no surprise that growth of trade has peaked and begun contracting, as the US-China "trade" flows made up the largest share of global "trade" for what I refer to as the Anglo-American imperial trade regime, which is not unlike that of Britain from the 1870s-80s to WW I.

    Now with the onset of the cumulative, self-reinforcing effects of Peak Oil, record debt to GDP coinciding with unprecedented asset bubbles to GDP, hyper-financialization of the economy (net flows to the financial sector absorbing all output), population overshoot, climate change, low labor share, decelerating productivity, extreme wealth and income inequality, decelerating money velocity, and fiscal constraints, the world faces the new normal/neutral of global secular stagnation, which is likely to be further entrained by another global deflationary recession and bear market possibly underway.

    Tweaking tax, fiscal, and monetary policies under the foregoing conditions will make little difference. The assumptions and policies that were deemed appropriate during the inflationary and reflationary regimes of the Long Wave will be rendered ineffective or irrelevant during the current debt-deflationary regime. The primary causes of the malaise are demographics, low labor share, too much debt, overvalued assets hoarded by the top 1-10% at zero velocity, and extreme inequality exacerbating the effects on capital formation and productivity (and growth of profits) from low labor share and excessive debt.

    Until debt is forgiven sufficiently and labor share/purchasing power increases (by higher wages or lower or no regressive taxation on earned income) for the bottom 80-90%, the secular stagnation will persist and its effects worsen until a crisis that risks the collapse of the mass-consumer economy and of the institutions that depend on growth of the economy per capita.

    It's "different this time", but apparently most eCONomists don't know it, don't know why it's different and the implications, or they aren't paid to tell us.

    Steven Kopits, September 27, 2015 at 3:06 pm

    For those interested, please find the first edition of my China Tracker here: http://www.prienga.com/blog/2015/9/27/china-tracker-sept-2015

    The evidence suggests that China most likely has been suffering the side-effects of an over-valued yuan since Q3 2014. Such a situation would benefit importers and consumers and hurt exporters and producers. And it has.

    For example, gasoline and jet fuel demand in China were both up more than 20% in August year on year–absolutely a blow-out month. Oil demand was up an impressive 6.6%. Similarly, Nike saw fabulous results in China in the three months ended August, with sales there up more than 30%. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-34355627 All of these indicators directly contradict any notion of recession.

    On the other hand, the Chinese have resisted devaluing the yuan in line with the won, yen or Euro, and so China's competitiveness has substantially eroded, and that's clearly visible in capital flows, exports, and industrial production. In principle, if China devalues, the demand for Nikes and oil should ease off a bit, and exporters should be revitalized.

    I would add that China's private debt-to-GDP ratio is very high, indeed, at levels associated with financial crisis in many other countries historically. However, the proximate issue in China is the exchange rate. We would get a better sense of the state of the underlying economy once that issue is addressed.

    Find more in the Tracker.

    BC, September 28, 2015 at 6:49 am

    Jeffrey, I suspect that the "Limits to Growth" (LTG) to global real GDP per capita from Peak Oil, falling GNE, population overshoot, etc., will force a decline in demand for oil imports in China and India as trade slumps and real GDP per capita decelerates to 0%.

    India imports 100% of oil consumption. China imports 55-60% (?) of oil consumption. World oil supply per capita is no higher than in 2004-05 and where US oil production per capita was in the late 1970s, the onset of deindustrialization and financialization of the US economy. The world is where the US was in the late 1970s, i.e., peak industrialization. India is 40-45 to 80+ years too late to industrialization, and China's growth has peaked and will decelerate to ~0% real per capita.

    The oil/commodities cycle is contracting, implying $20-$30 oil in the years ahead.

    That fits with the ongoing decline per capita for US oil production (now at the level of the late 1940s) as the log-linear US oil depletion regime inexorably continues. Despite the fastest 5- and 9-year rates of US oil production since 1927-30, the shale boom/bubble is but a blip for the long-term US oil depletion regime per capita.

    At the long-term trend rate of US oil depletion, US oil production per capita will have declined by 50% since 1970 by no later than the early 2020s; however, the 50% threshold could occur sooner were another global deflationary recession to occur, which appears increasingly likely. In fact, as little as a decline in US oil production to 8-8.2Mbd in the next 3-5 years will achieve the 50% decline per capita. I suspect that we will see the 50% per-capita threshold exceeded before 2020.

    And we know what the implications are for when the US reaches and sustains 50% oil depletion per capita. The structural effects have already begun to occur with real GDP per capita since 2007-08 averaging barely faster than ~0% for the US, EZ, and Japan, and now for China's real potential GDP. No amount of QE, ZIRP in perpetuity, and unprecedented asset bubbles can reverse the inexorable US depletion regime and its effects of real GDP per capita.

    Neither will wind and solar (renewable energy or RE) make much of a difference during the remaining oil depletion regime's descent. In fact, growth of wind and solar has likely peaked with the price of oil and will follow the oil cycle into negative growth in the years ahead. In effect, given Peak Oil and LTG, we cannot afford to grow real GDP per capita AND build out RE to necessary scale AND maintain the fossil fuel infrastructure indefinitely hereafter. Something has to give and it will be growth of real GDP per capita and the RE build-out.

    As a result, we are likely to experience a last-man-standing contest between the West and China for the world's remaining vital resources of finite planet Earth.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 28, 2015 at 4:15 am

    Through 2013 we have seen a post-2005 decline in what I define as Global Net Exports of oil (GNE, the combined net exports from the Top 33 net exporters in 2005), which is a pattern that appears to have continued in 2014 (complete data not yet available from EIA). GNE fell from 46 MMBPD (million barrels per day) in 2005 to 43 MMBPD in 2013 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids). The volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013.

    Here are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    Jeffrey J. Brown September 28, 2015 at 3:48 pm

    Minor correction: In 2013, India's total petroleum liquids production + other liquids production was 25% of total liquids consumption, China's was 42%.

    Jeffrey J. Brown September 28, 2015 at 6:57 am

    Interesting article on Saudi Arabia:

    The collapse of Saudi Arabia is inevitable

    http://www.middleeasteye.net/columns/collapse-saudi-arabia-inevitable-1895380679

    Steven Kopits September 28, 2015 at 12:23 pm

    Here's a bit I wrote on oil prices and Arab unrest. Interestingly, unrest seems more correlated with high oil prices, rather than low prices.

    Keep in mind, the Saudi fiscal model went to hell after 1983, and particularly after the big oil price drop from Feb. 1986–and this at a time when they were pumping only 3 mbpd. And yet the monarchy survived.

    It's not entirely clear that low oil prices lead to revolution.

    http://www.prienga.com/blog/2014/12/1/arab-unrest-linked-to-oil-price-spikes-not-price-collapses

    And by the way (speaking of being quoted), I should be on NPR's Marketplace again tonight.

    Steven Kopits September 28, 2015 at 7:32 am

    Do you ever have a cheery day, BC?

    Here are China's commercial inventories, just for you. They are a solid 19 mb below normal for oil, and 27 mb below for all crude and product inventories taken together.

    BC September 28, 2015 at 1:08 pm

    Thanks, Steven, but what's "normal" WRT inventories going forward? Do your data account for tanker oil storage?

    China's demand growth is set to slow to an annual rate of 2.3 percent by the fourth quarter compared with 5.6 percent in the second quarter, a reflection of "weak car sales data, declines in industrial activity, plummeting property prices and fragile electricity output," the IEA said in a report on Sept. 11.

    What if "normal" for 2011-14 is well above the trend rate of growth of demand hereafter?

    What is the source of your data? Thanks.

    Cheers!

    Ricardo September 28, 2015 at 4:56 am

    The Professor wrote:

    "I've long believed that to understand business cycles we need to consider not just net flows but also gross interdependencies. A downturn in China will affect some businesses much more than others. If specialized labor and capital do not easily move to other sectors, that can end up having significant multiplier effects.

    Professor,

    Thank you once again for a bit of reason in your analysis. Krugman as the leaders of the far-left Progressive economists leads so many astray with his ultra-aggregate economics.

    Excellent article!

    Steven Kopits September 28, 2015 at 8:36 am

    "Demand out of China [for Apple iPhone 6s] looks white-hot," Ives said.

    http://news.yahoo.com/apple-reports-record-sales-iphone-6-6s-plus-124914752–finance.html

    Doesn't really scream recession, does it. It sure screams over-valued currency, though.

    [Sep 28, 2015] No shelter for U.S. stocks as trapped global investors flail

    After spectacular rise there should be spectacular fail. the neoliberal mechanism of redistributing wealth up in full swing. And I thin S&P500 is below 200 days average just for 21 day.
    "... Plenty more are using the 2011 panic as a guide, which would mean a drop below 1750. ..."
    Sep 28, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    The twelve-month average level of the S&P 500 has dropped for two straight months, something that has only happened twice since 1995 – both as bear markets got underway.

    ... ... ...

    So many people are assuming the S&P 500 must at least "re-test" its August low of 1867, down more than 3% from here, it might be tempting to take the other side.

    Plenty more are using the 2011 panic as a guide, which would mean a drop below 1750. Now that we have Congressional dysfunction and a threatened debt-ceiling standoff on the radar, maybe traders are over-extrapolating the similarities.

    [Sep 27, 2015] How Russia and Iran Plan to Push Oil Prices Back above $100

    Notable quotes:
    "... And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East ..."
    "... The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC ..."
    "... This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact on Western economies and enough to help the Wests Middle East petro partners. ..."
    "... The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. ..."
    "... Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a peace keeping role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region. ..."
    "... The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning. Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely than Russias, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative peace. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | johngaltfla.com
    September 27, 2015 | Shenandoah

    And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East

    On post super blood moon Monday, Vladimir Putin will be meeting with President Obama to discuss the ISIS crisis in the Middle East. There are many within the U.S. media who are promoting this meeting as some strange idea that the Russians are about to ask the Americans for help against ISIS. While there might be a small gnat's hair bit of truth to this, in reality, Putin is about to dictate terms and the United States is ill prepared to deal with the consequences.

    In 2014, I penned a piece reflecting the true reason ISIS was created so that the Arabian sheikdoms could establish pipelines through Iraq and Syri a to permanently shift Europe's dependency on Russian oil and natural gas over to their own private market where they can re-assert control over the world market price. The problem is that Russia failed to see the US, British, and Arab point of view and offered what they thought was enough support to block ISIS from overthrowing Bashir Al-Assad and keep this dream from becoming reality.

    ... ... ...

    The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC as of Friday, 9/25 ):

    This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact on Western economies and enough to help the West's Middle East petro partners.

    ... ... ...

    The Middle East is aflame right now and the economic situation along with terrorist Islamist ideologues have exported their problems into Europe with a massive migration of millions of refugees from Syria, Jordan, Libya, and Iraq. Mixed within these people are numerous terrorist operatives as was promised by ISIS and Al Qaeda years ago but ignored by the naive European Union. The future problems this will create are another story but the question has been promoted by some in the United States asking why the Arab nations of the Arabian Peninsula have not taken any of the refugees. That answer is obvious; their economies and domestic political situations are so tentative and fragile that an influx of millions of new residents would probably tip nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia closer to full blown civil war within their own borders.

    ... ... ...

    The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. By later on this year and early next year their should be sufficient forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq to push the ISIS militants into a meat grinder, eventually cutting them off from their northern forces somewhere in north central Iraq. Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed.

    Meanwhile in the southern part of Iraq, ISIS will be left unchecked for a short duration and eventually pushed into Saudi Arabia and the GCC states, to let the sponsors of this terrorist army deal with the problems they funded and created. The brilliance of this strategy by the new alliance of Egypt, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (which may soon include Jordan) is obvious; the return of the malcontents who will feel betrayed by the House of Saud and other various sheikdoms of the region will create domestic instability and as a result the destruction wrought on Iraq's oil infrastructure will now become a GCC problem.

    Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a "peace keeping" role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region.

    The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning. Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely than Russia's, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative peace.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Where Will 78 Million Boomers Retire Facing the Challenge of Aging in Place

    They will be selling their 401K assets. Who will buy them?
    Sep 27, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    With roughly 78 million baby boomers at or near retirement and average life expectancies climbing, many independent-minded seniors are resisting the pressure to move to often costly retirement communities or assisted living facilities and are instead making plans to stay at home.

    [Sep 27, 2015] How Russia and Iran Plan to Push Oil Prices Back above $100

    Notable quotes:
    "... And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East ..."
    "... The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC ..."
    "... This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact on Western economies and enough to help the Wests Middle East petro partners. ..."
    "... The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. ..."
    "... Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed. ..."
    "... Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a peace keeping role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region. ..."
    "... The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning. Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely than Russias, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative peace. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | johngaltfla.com
    September 27, 2015 | Shenandoah

    And in turn, Remove the United States as a Superpower in the Middle East

    On post super blood moon Monday, Vladimir Putin will be meeting with President Obama to discuss the ISIS crisis in the Middle East. There are many within the U.S. media who are promoting this meeting as some strange idea that the Russians are about to ask the Americans for help against ISIS. While there might be a small gnat's hair bit of truth to this, in reality, Putin is about to dictate terms and the United States is ill prepared to deal with the consequences.

    In 2014, I penned a piece reflecting the true reason ISIS was created so that the Arabian sheikdoms could establish pipelines through Iraq and Syri a to permanently shift Europe's dependency on Russian oil and natural gas over to their own private market where they can re-assert control over the world market price. The problem is that Russia failed to see the US, British, and Arab point of view and offered what they thought was enough support to block ISIS from overthrowing Bashir Al-Assad and keep this dream from becoming reality.

    ... ... ...

    The bigger story however has not been the fighting but the subterfuge which was ignored by the Western mainstream media with regards to an economic war against Russia and Syria has been quite successful thus far in the guise of sanctions and destroying the price of crude oil( via CNBC as of Friday, 9/25 ):

    This indiscreet economic and political war on Russia might have been perceived as a clever method to keep the bear trapped inside the Ukrainian box, contained so as to prevent any further impact on Western economies and enough to help the West's Middle East petro partners.

    ... ... ...

    The Middle East is aflame right now and the economic situation along with terrorist Islamist ideologues have exported their problems into Europe with a massive migration of millions of refugees from Syria, Jordan, Libya, and Iraq. Mixed within these people are numerous terrorist operatives as was promised by ISIS and Al Qaeda years ago but ignored by the naive European Union. The future problems this will create are another story but the question has been promoted by some in the United States asking why the Arab nations of the Arabian Peninsula have not taken any of the refugees. That answer is obvious; their economies and domestic political situations are so tentative and fragile that an influx of millions of new residents would probably tip nations like Kuwait and Saudi Arabia closer to full blown civil war within their own borders.

    ... ... ...

    The idea is a not so subtle message to the United States and Saudi Arabia; if you continue to support ISIS and the various rebel forces in Syria and Iraq, a new united front will push them back into your lap for your nation to deal with it. By later on this year and early next year their should be sufficient forces on the ground in Syria and Iraq to push the ISIS militants into a meat grinder, eventually cutting them off from their northern forces somewhere in north central Iraq. Without any supplies crossing from Turkey or Saudi Arabia, those forces will attempt to migrate into the Kurdish controlled portions of Iraq and Turkey where they will eventually be dispersed or destroyed.

    Meanwhile in the southern part of Iraq, ISIS will be left unchecked for a short duration and eventually pushed into Saudi Arabia and the GCC states, to let the sponsors of this terrorist army deal with the problems they funded and created. The brilliance of this strategy by the new alliance of Egypt, Russia, Iran, Iraq, and Syria (which may soon include Jordan) is obvious; the return of the malcontents who will feel betrayed by the House of Saud and other various sheikdoms of the region will create domestic instability and as a result the destruction wrought on Iraq's oil infrastructure will now become a GCC problem.

    Saudi Arabia is ill prepared to fight a two front war with Yemen on it south and ISIS/Al Qaeda to its north thus there is a high probability that terrorist units will have little trouble penetrating deep into Kuwait and the Saudi kingdom. Russia and Iran will view this as justifiable payback for the Sunni militias that the kingdoms sponsored and as such, destabilize the monarchies to the point where oil prices will be severely impacted in 2016; eventually driving the price of Brent Crude back over $100 per bbl. As China has already locked in their prices via long term supply contracts with Iran and Russia the opportunity for their forces to act in support of such an offensive in a "peace keeping" role is viable, usurping the U.S. hegemony in the region.

    The idea by Europe, the United States, and Arab kingdoms that a pipeline was a viable plan using mercenaries funded and supplied in the name of Syrian liberation was a myth from the beginning. Now the incompetency of their strategy may soon backfire and impact their economies far more severely than Russia's, leaving a greater vacuum of power on the world stage; a void which will be filled by the new Sino-Russian alliance to purge American influence from the Middle East after twenty years of relative peace.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Wall Street braces for grim third quarter earnings season

    Sep 27, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com
    Forecasts for third-quarter S&P 500 earnings now call for a 3.9% decline from a year ago, based on Thomson Reuters data...

    [Sep 27, 2015] Shiller Stocks and housing are overvalued-- here's what to do about it

    Sep 27, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    The correction in August brought the market down ten percent," Shiller says. "But it's halfway back up. It's still looking pretty frothy."

    Shiller adds that his valuation confidence index, known as the CAPE ratio, is far above the historical norm of 17. The ratio, which compares current stock prices to earnings over a ten-year period, currently measures 24.5, near the peak it reached before the financial crisis in 2007.

    "On top of that, I have survey data showing that [a high percentage of] people think the market is overpriced," he says. "This this creates a little bit of fear that there could be a correction. When we saw the correction in August of this year, there was some anxiety thrown into people's hearts."

    [Sep 27, 2015] Cash flows beat stocks for first time since 1990

    Sep 27, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    Investors piled into cash-equivalent, money-market funds over the last week, making the asset class more popular than bond and equity funds for the first time in 25 years, new data shows.

    Some $17 billion was pumped into cash funds in the week to Wednesday, while $3.3 billion where pulled out of stocks through ETFs and mutual funds, according to research from Bank of America Merrill Lynch and EPFR Global published Friday.

    Meanwhile bond funds saw just $400 million in inflows over the same period, meaning cash is outperforming both asset classes this year for the first time since 1990, the data reveals.

    Money market funds invest in very short-term, liquid debt such as U.S. Treasurys and offer investors low volatility, meaning they are often thought of as a cash-equivalent.

    Corporate bonds saw their twelfth straight week of outflows, with safe-haven Treasury bond funds picking up some of the slack.

    Global chief investment officer at UBS Wealth management, Mark Haefele has cut his U.S. high-yield corporate bond position this month, having been overweight the asset class since the end of 2011.

    ... ... ...

    As well as sticking to cash, investors pulled $7.4 billion from the State Street's SPDR S&P 500 ETF (NYSE Arca: SPY), the world's largest ETF.

    [Sep 27, 2015] Paul Craig Roberts Warns The Entire World May Go Down The Tubes Together

    The problem with Paul Craig Roberts thinking is that China and Russia are also neoliberal economies which exist within global financial system, controlled from Washington. But this not a typical ZeroHedge "dooms day porn". He manages to make some relevant observations about the current situation, without he definitely underestimates the resilience of the American financial empire.
    "... Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts, ..."
    "... China is America's largest creditor after the Federal Reserve. If the Chinese government were so inclined, China could cause Washington many serious economic, financial, and military problems. Yet China pursues peace while Washington issues threats. ..."
    "... he Wolfowitz Doctrine states that Washington's principal objective is to prevent the rise of countries that could be sufficiently powerful to resist American hegemony. Thus, Washington's attack on Russia via Ukraine and Washington's re-militarization of Japan as an instrument against China, despite the strong opposition of 80 percent of the Japanese population. ..."
    "... Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Yemen. ..."
    "... neoliberal economics is blind to reality and serves to justify the destruction of the economic prospects of the Western World. It remains to be seen if Russia and China can develop a different economics or whether these rising superpowers will fall victim to the "junk economics" that has destroyed the West. ..."
    "... With so many Chinese and Russian economists educated in the US [neoliberal] tradition, the prospects of Russia and China might not be any better than ours. ..."
    Sep 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Paul Craig Roberts,

    Washington's IQ follows the Fed's interest rate - it is negative. Washington is a black hole into which all sanity is sucked out of government deliberations.

    Washington's failures are everywhere visible. We can see the failures in Washington's wars and in Washington's approach to China and Russia.

    The visit of Chinese President Xi Jinping, was scheduled for the week-end following the Pope's visit to Washington. Was this Washington's way of demoting China's status by having its president play second fiddle to the Pope? The President of China is here for week-end news coverage? Why didn't Obama just tell him to go to hell?

    Washington's cyber incompetence and inability to maintain cyber security is being blamed on China. The day before Xi Jinping's arrival in Washington, the White House press secretary warmed up President Jinping's visit by announcing that Obama might threaten China with financial sanctions.

    And not to miss an opportunity to threaten or insult the President of China, the US Secretary of Commerce fired off a warning that the Obama regime was too unhappy with China's business practices for the Chinese president to expect a smooth meeting in Washington.

    In contrast, when Obama visited China, the Chinese government treated him with politeness and respect.

    China is America's largest creditor after the Federal Reserve. If the Chinese government were so inclined, China could cause Washington many serious economic, financial, and military problems. Yet China pursues peace while Washington issues threats.

    Like China, Russia, too, has a foreign policy independent of Washington's, and it is the independence of their foreign policies that puts China and Russia on the outs with Washington.

    Washington considers countries with independent foreign policies to be threats. Libya, Iraq, and Syria had independent foreign policies. Washington has destroyed two of the three and is working on the third. Iran, Russia, and China have independent foreign policies. Consequently, Washington sees these countries as threats and portrays them to the American people as such.

    Russia's President Vladimir Putin will meet with Obama next week at the UN meeting in New York. It is a meeting that seems destined to go nowhere. Putin wants to offer Obama Russian help in defeating ISIS, but Obama wants to use ISIS to overthrow Syrian President Assad, install a puppet government, and throw Russia out of its only Mediterranean seaport at Tartus, Syria. Obama wants to press Putin to hand over Russian Crimea and the break-away republics that refuse to submit to the Russophobic government that Washington has installed in Kiev.

    Despite Washington's hostility, Xi Jinping and Putin continue to try to work with Washington even at the risk of being humiliated in the eyes of their peoples. How many slights, accusations, and names (such as "the new Hitler") can Putin and Xi Jinping accept before losing face at home? How can they lead if their peoples feel the shame inflicted on their leaders by Washington?

    Xi Jinping and Putin are clearly men of peace. Are they deluded or are they making every effort to save the world from the final war?

    One has to assume that Putin and Xi Jinping are aware of the Wolfowitz Doctrine, the basis of US foreign and military policies, but perhaps they cannot believe that anything so audaciously absurd can be real. In brief, the Wolfowitz Doctrine states that Washington's principal objective is to prevent the rise of countries that could be sufficiently powerful to resist American hegemony. Thus, Washington's attack on Russia via Ukraine and Washington's re-militarization of Japan as an instrument against China, despite the strong opposition of 80 percent of the Japanese population.

    "Democracy?" "Washington's hegemony don't need no stinkin' democracy," declares Washington's puppet ruler of Japan as he, as Washington's faithful servant, over-rides the vast majority of the Japanese population.

    Meanwhile, the real basis of US power-its economy-continues to crumble. Middle class jobs have disappeared by the millions. US infrastructure is crumbling. Young American women, overwhelmed with student debts, rent, and transportation costs, and nothing but lowly-paid part-time jobs, post on Internet sites their pleas to be made mistresses of men with sufficient means to help them with their bills. This is the image of a Third World country.

    In 2004 I predicted in a nationally televised conference in Washington, DC, that the US would be a Third World country in 20 years. Noam Chomsky says we are already there now in 2015. Here is a recent quote from Chomsky:

    "Look around the country. This country is falling apart. Even when you come back from Argentina to the United States it looks like a third world country, and when you come back from Europe even more so. The infrastructure is collapsing. Nothing works. The transportation system doesn't work. The health system is a total scandal–twice the per capita cost of other countries and not very good outcomes. Point by point. The schools are declining . . ."

    Another indication of a third world country is large inequality in the distribution of income and wealth. https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/fields/2172.... ">According to the CIA itself, the United States now has one of the worst distributions of income of all countries in the world. The distribution of income in the US is worse than in Afghanistan, Albania, Algeria, Armenia, Australia, Austria, Azerbaijan, Bangladesh, Belarus, Belgium, Benin, Bosnia/Herzegovina, Burkina Faso, Burundi, Cambodia, Cameroon, Canada, Cote d'Ivoire, Croatia, Cyprus, Czech Republic, Denmark, Egypt, Estonia, Ethiopia, Finland, France, Germany, Ghana, Greece, Guinea, Guyana, Hungary, Iceland, India, Indonesia, Iran, Ireland, Israel, Italy, Japan, Jordan, Kazakhstan, Kenya, South Korea, Kyrgyzstan, Laos, Latvia, Liberia, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macedonia, Malawi, Mali, Malta, Mauritania, Mauritius, Moldova, Mongolia, Montenegro, Morocco, Nepal, Netherlands, New Zealand, Nicaragua, Niger, Nigeria, Norway, Pakistan, Philippines, Poland, Portugal, Romania, Russia, Senegal, Serbia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, Switzerland, Taiwan, Tajikistan, Tanzania, Timor-Leste, Tunisia, Turkey, Turkmenistan, Uganda, Ukraine, UK, Uzbekistan, Venezuela, Vietnam, and Yemen.

    The concentration of US income and wealth in the hands of the very rich is a new development in my lifetime. I ascribe it to two things.

    One is the offshoring of American jobs. Offshoring moved high productivity, high-value-added American jobs to countries where the excess supply of labor results in wages well below labor's contribution to the value of output. The lower labor costs abroad transform what had been higher American wages and salaries and, thereby, US household incomes, into corporate profits, bonuses for corporate executives, and capital gains for shareholders, and in the dismantling of the ladders of upward mobility that had made the US an "opportunity society."

    The other cause of the extreme inequality that now prevails in the US is what Michael Hudson calls the financialization of the economy that permits banks to redirect income away from driving the economy to the payment of interest in service of debt issued by the banks.

    Both of these developments maximize income and wealth for the One Percent at the expense of the population and economy.

    As Michael Hudson and I have discovered, neoliberal economics is blind to reality and serves to justify the destruction of the economic prospects of the Western World. It remains to be seen if Russia and China can develop a different economics or whether these rising superpowers will fall victim to the "junk economics" that has destroyed the West.

    With so many Chinese and Russian economists educated in the US [neoliberal] tradition, the prospects of Russia and China might not be any better than ours.

    The entire world could go down the tubes together.

    Oh regional Indian

    PCR is always good at rehashing crappy kabuki story-lines with a dose of "I was once a DC insider" gravitas...

    And while there will be a lot of going down together (seems un-avoidable at this point), questions is who will rise back up first?

    Hint: not nations considered "westerley". so to speak...

    UndroppedClanger

    'Leader' implies people at the front with some direction. Perhaps a different word would be more appropriate for this global circlejerk cadre!

    ToSoft4Truth

    The inverse of 'Leader' is 'follower'

    Anytime you hear a person say, "There's no leadership"…. They are telegraphing to you, "I need someone to follow."

    kaiserhoff

    So Chomsky would rather live in Argentina?

    Who's stopping him?

    ebear

    "I was once a DC insider"

    You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender.

    philipat

    "You don't understand. I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender."

    I do think that there is large dose of spite in PCR's writings, probably as a result of "The Establishment's" refusal to elect him to the CFR. However, better late than never? The one's that do get religion always do so after the event, which is, of course, part of the problem also....


    Bach's_bitch

    PCR is always good at rehashing crappy kabuki story-lines with a dose of "I was once a DC insider" gravitas...

    "Kabuki story-lines"? Did you make that up yourself or something?

    questions is who will rise back up first?

    Whoever is least affected, meaning none of the big economies.

    Oh regional Indian

    I don't think you appreciate the subtle push of an old adage: The bigger they are, the harder they fall. You can keep nursing dreams of manifest destiny as they turn into mani-festering realities....

    Jeffersonian Liberal

    Any nations or ethnicities that have benefitted from parasiting on this failed, corrupt monetary system will also fall together.

    The BRICS are sinking like stones. They tried to parasite off what they saw was an unending Western economic boom, unrealizing, or perhaps turning a blind eye to the fact that it has all been a bubble since the central banks took control of the currency.

    TheEndIsNear

    I doubt that American Generals could be bribed as easily as our government politicians.

    Thick Willy

    Actually, they are probably much cheaper to bribe. Dimon had to give Eric Holder a $77,000,000 per year salary to keep bankers out of prison. The generals are easily bribed with a mid 6 figure salary at some defense contractor. Some for even less.

    algol_dog

    I Strongly encourage people to read Mish's short blog and then check out the accompanying video. It will enlighten much more about China than this guys rant.

    http://globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.com/2015/09/how-us-corporations-c...


    [Sep 27, 2015] Kiev professes itself "satisfied" with the gas price deal

    Sep 27, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    marknesop, September 25, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    Kiev professes itself "satisfied" with the gas price negotiated in the deal, in which the fact that Ukraine's gas supply will be entirely paid for by Europe is spun as a victory for Naftogaz and Demchysin personally, after he wrestled Russia into submission and made them drop their prices.

    "As customers, we're interested in a lower price". Dear God, you could laugh until you died. As customers who have to beg our boss for money because we're broke, we're interested in at least the appearance of being in control of something. Anything.

    marknesop, September 25, 2015 at 3:22 pm
    Ha, ha, ha!! If you were thinking "Nord Stream II in Ukrainian Perspective" could be summarized as "Wahhhh!!! I Went Crazy And Now Russia Won't Talk To Me!" crackpottery, you would be right.

    Standout points are (1) Raising transit fees is normal procedure when transit volumes drop, and (2) Ukraine's transit system will register a net loss if transit drops below 40 BCm a year. The volume in 2015, while Ukraine is still being used as a transit country, is expected to top out at 51 BCm.

    I would say the writing is on the wall there, and the message does not…ummm…look positive for Ukraine. You pissed in the pickles one time too often. Notably, however, although some of the reduced transit volume is due to Europe taking less gas, a stronger limiting factor is more gas being sent through Nord Stream. You can see why Europe was desperate to stop South Stream, and why it is now trying out a tough-guy approach as if it can force Russia to continue using Ukraine as a transit country, to a background of despairing wails from Ukraine.

    [Sep 26, 2015] Is the shale gas revolution over

    "... natural gas production is also declining. The EIA reports that in October, several of the largest shale gas regions will post their fourth month in a row of production declines. With a loss of around 208 million cubic feet per day expected in October, the four-month drop off will be the longest streak of losses in about eight years. ..."
    "... While U.S. shale gas remained resilient through several years of low natural gas prices, the collapse in oil prices are finally putting an end to the boom. ..."
    Sep 20, 2015 | www.usatoday.com

    While everyone is watching the oil bust, there is another bust going on - one for natural gas.

    Before there was a boom in oil production in the United States, there was the "shale gas revolution." That is where we all became familiar with terms like "fracking." And the Marcellus, Haynesville, and Barnett Shales were famous long before the Bakken or Permian.

    The surge in natural gas production crashed prices, fueling a huge increase in activity in petrochemicals and causing a major switch from coal to natural gas in the electric power industry. Aside from a few brief moments (such as the winter of 2014), natural gas has mostly traded around $4 per million Btu (MMBtu) or lower since the financial crisis of 2008.

    But unlike oil, the boom in shale gas did not stop with plummeting prices. U.S. natural gas production continued to climb. For example, production from the prolific Marcellus Shale – which spans Pennsylvania, West Virginia and Ohio – skyrocketed from less than 2 billion cubic feet per day (bcf/d) in 2009, to a record-high of over 16.5 bcf/d this year. And the dramatic ramp up in production occurred over several years when prices were extremely low.

    Much of that has to do with the huge innovations in drilling techniques, including fracking and horizontal drilling, which allowed for production to remain profitable despite the downturn in prices. But some of the credit also goes to drillers searching for more lucrative natural gas liquids and crude oil. Dry natural gas is produced in association with oil. With oil prices extremely high, especially in the period between 2010 and 2014, drillers continued to produce natural gas even if they were looking for oil.

    So only after oil prices busted did natural gas production start to slow down. In fact, while the markets are eagerly watching for declines in oil production, few are noticing that natural gas production is also declining. The EIA reports that in October, several of the largest shale gas regions will post their fourth month in a row of production declines. With a loss of around 208 million cubic feet per day expected in October, the four-month drop off will be the longest streak of losses in about eight years.

    It is no surprise that the Eagle Ford will represent the largest losses, with a decline of 117 million cubic feet per day expected in October. That is because oil is a much more prized commodity in South Texas, so the decline is largely attributable to disappearing crude oil rigs.

    While U.S. shale gas remained resilient through several years of low natural gas prices, the collapse in oil prices are finally putting an end to the boom.

    MORE:

    [Sep 25, 2015] Upstream oil execs agree Low, long and living within means

    "...If prices throughout the budget development season … are consistent with the current 2016 forward price of around $50/b for WTI, capital spending could be down 25%-30% for the large-cap producers" in North America"
    Sep 25, 2015 | The Barrel Blog

    •Capital spending for 2016 will be lower than in 2015 - which itself has been 35%-40% below last year and could actually come in steeper in relative cuts than that, given that some operators have further slashed 2015 outlays and may still do so.

    ... .,. ...

    Said Barclays in a report on conference takeaways: "If prices throughout the budget development season … are consistent with the current 2016 forward price of around $50/b for WTI, capital spending could be down 25%-30% for the large-cap producers" in North America.

    [Sep 24, 2015] Peak Oil Notes - 24 Sep

    Sep 24, 2015 | www.resilience.org

    The EIA also had US domestic oil production up by 19,000 b/d last week to 9.14 million and output in the lower 48 states flat at 8.65 million b/d. Analysts are not sure what these numbers mean. Some say they could indicate that the decline in production is slowing from what the EIA has been forecasting. However, some note that if there is any indication of production actually increasing, we would quickly see oil prices down in the $30s.

    ... ... ...

    The financial press continues to highlight the woes of the global oil industry as it tries to contend with falling oil prices. Waterford International, one of the world's largest drilling contractors, failed in an attempt to borrow $1 billion from Wall Street because of its sagging stock price. ConocoPhillips is trying to sell off its Canadian assets. Total SA sold a 10 percent share in a $15 billion oil sands mine for $234 million and Wood Mackenzie says the world's oil companies have now cut $220 billion in planned investments. Wood Mackenzie also says that if oil prices stay below $50 a barrel, some $1.5 trillion worth of investments will be curtailed over the next few years. If these predictions come to pass it is difficult to foresee how world oil production can stay anywhere near current levels.

    ... ... ...

    In the Middle East, the Libyan peace talks look like they are going to collapse. The Russian military buildup in Syria continues with more tanks, attack helicopters and aircraft arriving daily. While Moscow says it is in Syria to fight ISIL, the insurgents threatening Assad's power base in northwest Syria are made up of groups backed by Turkey, the US and the Gulf Arabs, with most of ISIL's forces hunkered down in the northeast to avoid the continuing US arterial bombardment.

    Another cholera epidemic has broken out in Iraq where the sanitation and water systems continue to deteriorate. Temperatures in Iraq reached 122o F. in July and August which did not help the situation. The flow of middle class Iraqis to Europe is increasing. It becomes increasingly difficult to see how Iraq can continue to increase or even maintain its oil production given the numerous problems it is facing.

    [Sep 24, 2015] Tight Oil Reality Check

    "... The EIAs 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. ..."
    "... The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices. ..."
    "... As it has acknowledged, the EIAs track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. ..."
    "... How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period? ..."
    "... Americas energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy cant be overstated. Its for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIAs rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper. ..."
    Sep 24, 2015 | www.resilience.org
    In Drilling Deeper, PCI Fellow David Hughes took a hard look at the EIA's AEO2014 and found that its projections for future production and prices suffered from a worrisome level of optimism.

    Recently, the EIA released its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 and so we asked David Hughes to see how the EIA's projections and assumptions have changed over the last year, and to assess the AEO2015 against both Drilling Deeper and up-to-date production data from key shale gas and tight oil plays.

    Key Conclusions

    • The EIA's 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. The AEO2015 reference case projection of total tight oil production through 2040 has increased by 6.5 billion barrels, or 15%, compared to AEO2014.
    • The EIA assumes West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices will remain low and not exceed $100/barrel until 2031.
    • At the same time, the EIA assumes that overall U.S. oil production will experience a very gradual decline following a peak in 2020.
    • These assumptions-low prices, continued growth through this decade, and a gradual decline in production thereafter - are belied by the geological and economic realities of shale plays. The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices.
    • Perhaps the most striking change from AEO2014 to AEO2015 is the EIA's optimism about the Bakken, the projected recovery of which was raised by a whopping 85%.
    • As it has acknowledged, the EIA's track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. Admittedly, forecasting such things is very challenging, especially as it relates to shifting economic and technological realities. But the below ground fundamentals- the geology of these plays and how well they are understood-don't change wildly from year to year. And yet the AEO2015 and AEO2014 reference cases have major differences between them. As Figure 13 shows, with the exception of the Eagle Ford, the EIA's projections for the major tight oil plays have shifted up or down significantly.
    After closely reviewing the Annual Energy Outlook 2015, David Hughes raises some important, substantive questions:
    • Why is there so much difference at the play level between AEO2014 and AEO2015?
    • Why does Bakken production rise 40% from current levels, recover more than twice as much oil by 2040 as the latest USGS mean estimate of technically recoverable resources, and exit 2040 at production levels considerably above current levels?
    • How can the Niobrara recover twice as much oil in AEO2015 as was assumed just a year ago in AEO 2014?
    • What was the thinking behind the wildly optimistic forecast for the Austin Chalk in AEO2014 that required a 78% reduction in estimated cumulative recovery in AEO2015?
    • How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period?

    America's energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy can't be overstated. It's for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIA's rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper.

    [Sep 24, 2015] Drilling Deeper

    Sep 24, 2015 | Post Carbon Institute

    Drilling Deeper reviews the twelve shale plays that account for 82% of the tight oil production and 88% of the shale gas production in the U.S. Department of Energy's Energy Information Administration (EIA) reference case forecasts through 2040. It utilizes all available production data for the plays analyzed, and assesses historical production, well- and field-decline rates, available drilling locations, and well-quality trends for each play, as well as counties within plays. Projections of future production rates are then made based on forecast drilling rates (and, by implication, capital expenditures). Tight oil (shale oil) and shale gas production is found to be unsustainable in the medium- and longer-term at the rates forecast by the EIA, which are extremely optimistic.

    This report finds that tight oil production from major plays will peak before 2020. Barring major new discoveries on the scale of the Bakken or Eagle Ford, production will be far below the EIA's forecast by 2040. Tight oil production from the two top plays, the Bakken and Eagle Ford, will underperform the EIA's reference case oil recovery by 28% from 2013 to 2040, and more of this production will be front-loaded than the EIA estimates. By 2040, production rates from the Bakken and Eagle Ford will be less than a tenth of that projected by the EIA. Tight oil production forecast by the EIA from plays other than the Bakken and Eagle Ford is in most cases highly optimistic and unlikely to be realized at the medium- and long-term rates projected.

    [Sep 21, 2015] Russian Oil Industry Braces For Tax Hike

    Looks like Russian government take measures to cut oil production...
    Sep 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    The Russian government is moving to plug a whole in its budget by raising more revenue from its oil and gas industry.

    According to Reuters , the Russian finance ministry will tweak the Mineral Extraction Tax on oil companies, slapping on a "rouble deduction," which could raise 1.6 trillion roubles ($24.1 billion) through 2018. In effect, oil companies pay a tax that is largely calculated based on the strength of the country's currency, leading to a decline in revenues as the rouble has lost a significant amount of its value over the past year.

    Instead of using a previous formula that used an exchange rate based on when the tax was paid, the government will instead use a rate close to what the rouble traded for in late 2014. That means, instead of a projected 63.5 roubles per dollar that the government expects for 2016, the tax will instead by based on 43.8 roubles per dollar.

    The effect will be much more tax paid by oil companies, since the rouble was dramatically stronger in 2014 compared to where the rouble has gone since then.

    [Sep 21, 2015] The Pope the Market

    "... Gosar is a cafeteria catholic, who ignores the thing about "loving thy neighbor", and "tossing the first stone". ..."
    "... Carbon pricing is not "market based"; it is a regulatory intervention to correct "market distortions," which originate from... wait for it... HOW MARKETS FUNCTION! Nordhaus appears to mistake an imaginary image of an "ideal" competitive market in which all externalities are internalized for actual markets in which the ideal could never, never materialize. In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes. ..."
    "... MARKETS 'R' US! ..."
    "...In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes..."
    "... The SUV and Saudi Arabia are not worth the pain of American soldiers suffered defending the past 70 years. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

    ilsm -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Gosar was educated by the "Jesuits" (they are a minority of Jesuits today) who brought you the Inquisition. Gosar is a cafeteria catholic, who ignores the thing about "loving thy neighbor", and "tossing the first stone".

    Religious freedom is not the practice of bigotry and intolerance.

    Gosar would be best served listening to the Pope. He needs the truth.

    ... ... ...

    Sandwichman said...

    "...market-based environmental policies such as carbon pricing..."

    "...the fact that environmental problems are caused by market distortions rather than by markets per se..."

    Who will teach the economists?

    Carbon pricing is not "market based"; it is a regulatory intervention to correct "market distortions," which originate from... wait for it... HOW MARKETS FUNCTION! Nordhaus appears to mistake an imaginary image of an "ideal" competitive market in which all externalities are internalized for actual markets in which the ideal could never, never materialize. In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes.

    And this is not Catholic theology -- it is economics as practiced by some of the most perceptive economists of the 20th century who must be ignored because... MARKETS 'R' US! Too bad, because I get the sense that Nordhaus's heart is in the right place even if his economic theory is in the wrong century.

    Sandwichman...

    "...In fact, externalities are NOT "market failures"; they are cost-shifting successes..."

    [Priceless!]

    Sandwichman -> RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Credit to Joan Martinez-Alier, paraphrasing Karl William Kapp, "Externalities are not so much market failures as cost-shifting 'successes'."

    Kapp, Karl William (1971) Social costs, neo-classical economics and environmental planning. The Social Costs of Business Enterprise, 3rd edition. K. W. Kapp. Nottingham, Spokesman: 305-318

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    K.W. Kapp:

    "Environmental problems are being forced today into the conceptual box of externalities first developed by Alfred Marshall. In my estimation this concept was not designed for and is not adequate to deal with the full range and pervasive character of the environmental and social repercussions set in motion by economic activities of producers or the goods produced and sold by them to consumers. I agree with those who have criticized the use of the concept of externalities as empty and incompatible with the logical structure of the static equilibrium theory."

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    From "Social Costs of Business Enterprise" by K. W. Kapp. pp. 69-70:

    http://www.kwilliam-kapp.de/documents/SCOBE_000.pdf

    How the principles of business enterprise favor the emergence of the social costs of air pollution

    "The initial concentration of industrial production in a few centers, as indeed the location of industries in general under conditions of unlimited competition, will take place in accordance with private cost-benefit calculations. Once established, the industry widens the market for a host of other industries; it offers employment and income opportunities to labor and capital; it provides a broader tax base for the emerging urban communities and the necessary public services. The locality becomes generally more attractive for additional investments, enterprise and labor and urban settlement. It is this expansionary momentum which serves to 'polarize' industrial development in certain 'nodal' centers, which soon gives rise to secondary and tertiary spread effects in the form of increasing outlets for agricultural products and consumers' industries in general. In the light of traditional economic theory the process seems to proceed in harmony with the principle of social efficiency. For, after all, internal economies combine with external economies (in the narrow Marshallian sense) to make it appear rational to concentrate production in centers which are already established and offer some guarantee that the necessary social overhead investments (in roads, schools, communication) can be shared by a larger community. What is overlooked is that the concentration of industrial production may give rise to social costs which may call for entirely new and disproportionate overhead outlays for which nobody may be prepared to pay. Thus by concentrating on the analysis of internal and external economies, and by stopping short of the introduction of the concept of social costs of unrestrained industrial concentration, traditional theory lends tacit support to the overall rationality of cumulative growth processes, no matter what their socially harmful effects may be. After all, what could be more 'rational' than to exploit to the fullest extent the availability of internal and external economies? As long as social costs remain unrecognized and as long as we concentrate on costs that are internal to the firm or to the industry we shall fail to arrive at socially relevant criteria.

    "It may be argued that, while the neglect of social costs may contribute to the cumulative growth process it still would not explain the incomplete and inefficient process of combustion which gives rise to the emanation of pollutants into the atmosphere. For obviously, if air pollution is a sign of inefficient and incomplete combustion of coal or oil the question arises why would business enterprise permit such waste to continue? The answer is simply that what may be technologically wasteful might still be economical considering the fact that not only social costs can be shifted with impunity but, above all, that discounted private returns (or savings) obtainable from the prevention of the technological inefficiency and social costs may not be high enough to compensate for the private costs of the necessary abatement measures. The fact that the resulting pollution of the atmosphere may cause social costs far in excess of the costs of their abatement is not, and indeed cannot, be normally expected to be considered in the traditional cost-benefit calculations of private enterprise."

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    More K. W. Kapp:

    "My central thesis was and has remained that the maximization of net income by micro-economic units is likely to reduce the income (or utility) of other economic units and of society at large and that the conventional measurements of the performance of the economy are unsatisfactory and indeed misleading. To my mind, traditional theoretical inquiry was neither guided nor supported by empirical observations and available data. I tried to show that micro-economic analysis ignored important relationships between the economy (wrongly viewed as a closed system) and the physical and social environment and that these intrinsic relationships gave rise to negative consequences of the economic process. It was and is my contention that the nature and scope of economic theory is too narrow. This restriction has affected economic theory at its foundation: i.e., at the stage of concept formation (e.g., costs and returns), in the choice of criteria of valuation and aggregation (in terms of money and exchange values) and hence in the delimitation of the scope of the inquiry. Not only the dynamic interconnection of the economy with the physical and social environment and the impact which the disruption of the environment has upon the producer (worker) and consumer but also the relationship between human wants and needs and their actual satisfaction have remained outside the scope and preoccupation of economic theory. Human wants and preferences (all subjective concepts), are treated as "given" and the analytical apparatus is designed to develop an instrumental logic of choice and allocation under these given conditions within a closed system.

    "This traditional restriction of economic analysis is not only contrary to the empirical facts of the interdependence of the economy with the environment but also protects the analysis and its conclusions against its critics who present evidence of the negative impact of economic activities on human health and human development. In fact, the whole procedure "alienates" economic analysis from what I consider to be one of its most important objectives, namely the appraisal of the substantive rationality (Max Weber) of the use of society's scarce resources. Critics of the traditional approach from Marx and Veblen to Myrdal and more recently H. Albert and W.A. Weisskopf have pointed out that the restriction of the analysis is the result of specific analytical preconceptions as well as hidden value premises. In short, the critics have argued that the restriction of economic analysis reflects a subtle dogmatism on the part of its practitioners."


    GeorgeK -> Sandwichman...

    WSJ
    Updated April 19, 2013 6:27 p.m. ET

    "One of the great policy bubbles of our times has been cap and trade for carbon emissions, and on Tuesday it may have popped for good. The European Parliament refused to save the EU's failing program, which is the true-believer equivalent of the pope renouncing celibacy.

    The Parliament in Strasbourg voted 334-315 (with 63 abstentions) against propping up the price of carbon credits in the EU Emissions Trading System. The failed proposal would have delayed the scheduled sale of 900 million ETS permits over the next seven years, thereby suppressing supply. After carbon traders realized they weren't getting more artificial scarcity, they drove the price of emissions permits down by 40% at one point on Tuesday."....

    Maybe Mr Nordhaus miss this little gem when he was "researching" his article

    anne -> GeorgeK...

    http://www.wsj.com/articles/SB10001424127887324030704578426520736614486

    April 19, 2013

    Cap and Trade Collapses
    Even the European Parliament rejects carbon price-fixing

    ilsm -> Sandwichman...

    The author does not think greed and failed distribution are market distortions.


    Sandwichman -> ilsm...

    No. Nordhaus appears to believe that general equilibrium describes a tendency of economies rather than a feature of abstract mathematical models. After all, didn't Arrow and Debreau "prove" its existence (given certain implausible assumptions)?

    The mathiness fetish began long before Lucas and his bogus "critique." Only a profession that was desperately eager to "pay no attention to the man behind the curtain" could have fallen for such a blatant display of OzWizardry.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    I repeat:

    "Human wants and preferences (all subjective concepts), are treated as "given" and the analytical apparatus is designed to develop an instrumental logic of choice and allocation under these given conditions within a closed system.

    "This traditional restriction of economic analysis is not only contrary to the empirical facts of the interdependence of the economy with the environment but also protects the analysis and its conclusions against its critics who present evidence of the negative impact of economic activities on human health and human development."

    david -> Sandwichman...

    I always find it very hard to get over this fundamental objection. And wonder why I think I should.

    DrDick -> ilsm...

    Why would he? They are the very heart and soul of capitalist markets.


    anne said...

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/pope-franciss-fact-free-flamboyance/2015/09/18/7d711750-5d6a-11e5-8e9e-dce8a2a2a679_story.html

    September 18, 2015

    Pope Francis' fact-free flamboyance
    By George F. Will - Washington Post

    Pope Francis embodies sanctity but comes trailing clouds of sanctimony. With a convert's indiscriminate zeal, he embraces ideas impeccably fashionable, demonstrably false and deeply reactionary. They would devastate the poor on whose behalf he purports to speak - if his policy prescriptions were not as implausible as his social diagnoses are shrill.

    Supporters of Francis have bought newspaper and broadcast advertisements to disseminate some of his woolly sentiments that have the intellectual tone of fortune cookies. One example: "People occasionally forgive, but nature never does." The Vatican's majesty does not disguise the vacuity of this. Is Francis intimating that environmental damage is irreversible?

    [ A wildly offensive essay from a typically offensive writer, but so much so as to be deserving of reading at least for the idea that environmental damage, damage to life as such, is inevitably and necessarily reversible. ]

    Sandwichman -> anne...

    Yuck. There is a reason I don't read George Will. He is a political pornographer whose intended audience is composed of post-adolescent crypto-fascists.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    "[William F.] Buckley is survived by his hip satirical novelist son Christopher, his pale imitation of its former self magazine, and George Will's wardrobe and middle initial."

    http://gawker.com/361402/william-f-buckley-crypto-fascist-is-correcting-usage-in-heaven


    cm -> Sandwichman...

    But in reference to your first comment in this post, there is a market for his writing, so ...

    DrDick -> cm...

    There is a market for underage prostitutes as well. That does not mean that we should encourage it.

    Sandwichman -> Sandwichman...

    Wikipedia: "A shill, also called a plant or a stooge, is a person who publicly helps a person or organization without disclosing that they have a close relationship with the person or organization."

    Ben Groves said...

    Follow the actual policy and reject the dialect. There has been almost no move against what is called "Climate Change". The "deniers" try to mutter dialectical nonsense there has been this great move, but they are lying. Look at the Rockefeller fortune split. While Jay has moved David's fortune to supporting moves to combat climate change, the Rockefeller Foundation has consistently financed denier bullshit globally and they own most of the money. Thus, the climate denier is a globalist. Why? Because global capitalism can't run without oil and specifically, cheap oil in the developed world for them to make profit.

    If you want to enmass a battle against "climate change" (a word the deniers existed), you must use fear and nationalism. This is the weakness in the current response. When you don't use fear and nationalism, it creates a emasculated response and people don't drift to Beta's. Alpha response in politics cannot be underestimated. It is how the neocons suck in the fools and what they learned watching 100 years of anti-capitalism in action (especially the Cuban revolution, with mega alpha males Fidel and Che).

    ilsm said...

    From the start the carbon cabal has created immense externalities which governments have responded with coddling them with subsidies and defending their foreign "assets".

    From wars (US since WW II), to support of corrupt royals and ruthless dictators, to cadmium in the livers of ungulates, to blighted cities and to massive degradation of the public health.

    While the right wing is defending the soccer Mom's SUV!

    The SUV and Saudi Arabia are not worth the pain of American soldiers suffered defending the past 70 years.

    The Pope is being Jeremiah!

    [Sep 21, 2015] Peak Oil Review - Sep 21

    "... The EIA released a report pointing out the impact the massive debt service US oil producers have accumulated in recent years is having on their cash flow. Last week Samson Resources joined a list of oil producers filing for bankruptcy in an effort to get out from under $4 billion it owes to 10,000 creditors. ..."
    "... According to Bloomberg, more than half the companies on its list of oil producers have debts totaling 40 percent or more of their value. Bloomberg also says that 400,000 b/d of oil produced by companies in financial trouble is in risk of being shut down. ..."
    "... US natural gas production has started to fall. Some of this is due to the drop in natural gas production that comes along with falling oil production, but some is due to the the extremely low price of natural gas ..."
    "... the Iranians are looking forward to increasing their oil production next year and regaining their former share of the international oil market. ..."
    "... The Saudis still have about $660 billion in foreign assets, enough to get them through five years of low oil prices. ..."
    "... In the first half, the Saudis exported an average of 4.4 million b/d to seven Asian nations, about the same as they did before the price slump. ..."
    "... the government is studying an increased oil extraction tax that could increase the tax burden on oil producers by $9 billion. Given the shape of the Russian economy, there is little left to tax other than oil production ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | www.resilience.org
    The EIA released a report pointing out the impact the massive debt service US oil producers have accumulated in recent years is having on their cash flow. Last week Samson Resources joined a list of oil producers filing for bankruptcy in an effort to get out from under $4 billion it owes to 10,000 creditors. Only four years ago KKR & Co. and a group of other investors spent $7.2 billion in buying Samson. According to Bloomberg, more than half the companies on its list of oil producers have debts totaling 40 percent or more of their value. Bloomberg also says that 400,000 b/d of oil produced by companies in financial trouble is in risk of being shut down.

    Moody's and Goldman's were out last week with pessimistic forecasts about the outlook for the oil industry over the next two years. Moody's says that earnings from the global oil and gas industry will decline by 20 percent this year and only recover modestly in 2016. Goldman's says the the current crude surplus may keep prices low for the next 15 years and reiterated that it could take prices as low as $20 a barrel to clear the oil glut which is threatening to overrun storage capacity.

    The US Secretary of Commerce noted last week that interest in acquiring new drilling rights in the Gulf of Mexico is dropping due to low oil prices. This year the auction of drilling rights in the Western Gulf of Mexico yielded only $22.7 million as compared with $110 million last year. High-cost off shore drilling is in a lot of trouble with participants scrambling to mothball drilling rigs and fleets of support ships and to defer new equipment that was ordered during the boom years.

    ... ... ...

    Lost in all the furor over oil prices and declining production is that US natural gas production has started to fall. Some of this is due to the drop in natural gas production that comes along with falling oil production, but some is due to the the extremely low price of natural gas which fell on Friday to $2.60 per million BTU's in NY. These prices have led to an increase in demand for gas by the power companies and the ongoing construction of several export terminals for LNG.

    ... ... ...

    In the meantime, the Iranians are looking forward to increasing their oil production next year and regaining their former share of the international oil market. Tehran has announced that new types of oil contracts aimed at attracting foreign investment to the country's oil industry will be announced soon. Trade delegations from France and the UK are scheduled to visit Tehran soon.

    ... ... ...

    Down in Iraq, the government is trying to cope with lower oil prices by increasing exports. The latest plan calls for shipments of Basra crude to increase by 26 percent next month. In the meantime, Baghdad has warned the foreign oil companies working in the country that it will not have much money to pay them for their drilling efforts in the coming year so they should cut back on capital expenditures.

    ... ... ...

    There is unlikely to be much change in the oil situation unless there is some type of foreign intervention to contain the Islamic State or stop the refugee flow into the Mediterranean.

    ... ... ...

    The Saudis are starting to feel the impact of lower oil prices as the kingdom faces the biggest financial deficit in decades. Steps to cut spending are underway and the privatization of state-owned companies and elimination of fuel subsidies are likely. The Saudis still have about $660 billion in foreign assets, enough to get them through five years of low oil prices.

    Recent data shows that the Saudis are holding their own in efforts to maintain market share. In the first half, the Saudis exported an average of 4.4 million b/d to seven Asian nations, about the same as they did before the price slump.

    ... ... ...

    Russia's economy continues to deteriorate. Moscow's labor minister said that real incomes in Russia are expected to contract by 5 percent this year. Efforts to ramp up domestic substitutes for food and goods previously imported from the West are going slowly and it may be years before they are implemented. To offset growing budget deficits, the government is studying an increased oil extraction tax that could increase the tax burden on oil producers by $9 billion. Given the shape of the Russian economy, there is little left to tax other than oil production which is still doing well thanks to the greatly devalued ruble and large export sales which have combined to leave oil export revenues largely unchanged when measured in rubles.

    Work on the "Turkish Stream" pipeline which Moscow is planning to build to move natural gas to the EU while bypassing Ukraine has not begun. Delays have moved completion of the project into 2017.

    ... ... ...

    China's diesel exports may surge to a record in the coming months as refinery output increases while domestic demand growth for the fuel slows. The nation's diesel shipments might have risen to a record last month, topping the previous high in June of 670,000 tons, and may climb to 1 million tons a month in the fourth quarter. (9/14)

    ... ... ...

    Uganda/Kenya: Low crude prices have thrown the future of East African oil projects into doubt. With oil prices languishing below $50 a barrel, there's little incentive for companies such as Tullow Oil Plc, Africa Oil Corp., China's CNOOC Ltd. and France's Total SA to keep investing. (9/16)

    ... ... ...

    Gasoline consumption: U.S. motor gasoline use has been rising after reaching an 11-year low in 2012. Although lower gasoline prices have been an important factor in the increase in gasoline use so far in 2015, changes in the labor market and in the vehicle sales mix over the past few years also have contributed to the rise in gasoline use. (9/16)

    [Sep 21, 2015] Economic Outlook, Indicators, Forecasts - Your Business

    "... More ups and downs are assured. But we look for WTI to trade between $40 and $45 per barrel by December. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | Kiplinger

    Then the Federal Reserve announced its decision to keep its benchmark interest rate at rock-bottom levels, citing concerns about the health of the global economy. Those worries promptly sent oil prices sliding, with WTI trading near $45 per barrel.

    More ups and downs are assured. But we look for WTI to trade between $40 and $45 per barrel by December. Any sort of sustained price rally looks unlikely until global supply is dialed back from its current high level. Even though U.S. production is slipping a bit, output remains strong in the Middle East and Russia.

    [Sep 21, 2015] Oil Prices Gain On Higher Investor Confidence In Tightening Markets

    "... hedge funds have cut their gross short position by almost a third in recent weeks to 111 million barrels. This is down from a peak of 163 million in mid-August, but still almost double the 56 million barrels seen in mid-June: ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The crude complex is ripping higher after Friday's lambasting, encouraged higher by signs of a tightening market and further closing of short positions in the latest CFTC data. As the below chart illustrates, hedge funds have cut their gross short position by almost a third in recent weeks to 111 million barrels. This is down from a peak of 163 million in mid-August, but still almost double the 56 million barrels seen in mid-June:

    [Sep 21, 2015] Is This The Bottom For Oil Prices

    "... Around the world, an estimated $1.5 trillion worth of oil and gas investment may not be viable, at least at today's prices, according to a new report from Wood Mackenzie. The report concludes that $220 billion worth of investment has already been scrapped, and another $20 billion could be cancelled as well. The number of new oil and gas projects to be approved in 2016 could be around one-fifth of the annual average. ..."
    "... The low oil prices are taking their toll, the main shale oil producing regions in particular likely to suffer lasting damage ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    Global oil demand also continues to rise. The IEA again revised its demand projection for 2015 upwards, with consumption expected to grow by 1.7 mb/d, a five-year high. "The market's not as oversupplied as we think it is," David Pursell, managing director at Tudor Pickering Holt & Co., told Bloomberg in an interview.

    The long-term picture shows even stronger signs of bullishness. For example, it is unlikely that Iraq will be able to reach its ambitious production targets for the future, and because energy forecasters like the IEA are counting on Iraq to make up a large share of global production growth in the coming decades, the failure to reach those targets could leave the world short of supply. The same can be said for Brazil. In June, Petrobras acknowledged it will be unable to meet its production goals as well. The several million barrels per day lost between just these two countries alone mean that the long-term supply picture looks a lot tighter than we once thought.

    But it goes beyond Iraq and Brazil. Around the world, an estimated $1.5 trillion worth of oil and gas investment may not be viable, at least at today's prices, according to a new report from Wood Mackenzie. The report concludes that $220 billion worth of investment has already been scrapped, and another $20 billion could be cancelled as well. The number of new oil and gas projects to be approved in 2016 could be around one-fifth of the annual average.

    Other market watchers concur. "The low oil prices are taking their toll, the main shale oil producing regions in particular likely to suffer lasting damage," Commerzbank concluded in another report. Lower production over the longer-term could send oil prices up.

    However, it is short-term market conditions that dictate the huge gyrations in crude oil prices. And for now, based on the positions of oil speculators, prices may have bottomed out.

    By Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com

    Related: Iran Deal May Redefine The Middle East

    [Sep 21, 2015] HUGE part of the problem is we have a energy illiterate general public

    "... markets are less and less supportive of deja vu innovation. ..."
    "... However, a HUGE part of the problem is we have a (mostly) energy illiterate general public, AND a scientific community that often does not speak in a language that the general public can comprehend; there is A HUGE disconnect here. ..."
    "... US electricity consumption per capita is at the levels of the late 1990s to early 2000s. Efficiency, demographics reducing the growth of household formations, and a halving of the growth of real GDP per capita since 2000 and a further deceleration to near 0% since 2007-08 are the primary factors reducing consumption per capita. ..."
    "... It ..."
    "... would be nice if our only problem were with oil. We have a problem with electricity too, and with keeping the roads paved. Electric cars don't solve those problems. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | ourfiniteworld.com
    September 15, 2015

    Thomas Simon, September 15, 2015 at 7:19 am

    @CalifornuiaLiving you are right about the California economy booming. Record tourism, agriculture, fossil fuels, high tech, etc. all have been strong. Problem is drought , wild fires, and climate change have significant impact on the future. Also wage stagnation in non-elite worker sector is a deepening problem. And high tech sector is starting to feel the pinch as markets are less and less supportive of deja vu innovation.

    The reality of ocean acidification, coastal marine life die off due to heat caused algae bloom and potential sea rise from Arctic ice melting are no longer deniable. This is is not doom and gloom – this is as you I am sure can recognize required input for planning how to adjust oir at the east manage the risk.

    What I appreciate from Gail is her careful analytical models that provide data points to monitor as part of the risk assessment and adjustments that any pragmatist must consider.

    kimgerly, September 14, 2015 at 5:28 pm

    @CaliforniaLiving. Here you go. RE's only at 20% in California. http://energyalmanac.ca.gov/electricity/total_system_power.html

    Massive EV rollout is only good in tandem with a MASSIVE increase in installed renewable energy systems technologies. It will take decades to do this based on today's generation mix. And based on the escalation of the 'undesirables' and 'indifference' of Mother Nature, I'm predicting there will be A LOT more pain in the near future.

    Better if the leadership trains and educates the populous to conserve, leave these bad habits of hyper-consumption in the past, and to PREPARE. to RESPOND. and ADAPT., because Mother Nature is not going to wait.

    BTW: I'm a renewable energy engineer.

    kimgerly, September 14, 2015 at 7:16 pm

    The way I see it is hyper-consumerism will be the bane of (wo)mans' and other species' existence.

    However, a HUGE part of the problem is we have a (mostly) energy illiterate general public, AND a scientific community that often does not speak in a language that the general public can comprehend; there is A HUGE disconnect here. And so, why would those of us in the scientific/engineering realm expect the lay person to get onboard when we, although I try my best not to, spew in language that goes over most peoples' heads. More storytelling is needed…

    On top of the fact that we have leaders who don't understand thermodynamics, so they make BAD policy. Right, I blame a great deal on leadership who is failing to plan and not the sheeple.

    But it's happened before and it is quite likely happening again. And so it goes…

    CL, September 15, 2015 at 1:14 pm

    @Kimgerly

    I agree with you that "illiterate general public" is a major problem in setting the world on a correct course and Gail with this blog is part of that problem. There is one simple proven way to get the public to learn what is needed to point them in the right direction. It is though the tax code. The government needs to taxes the public on the actions that are damaging our environment and give credits to behavior that improves our environment. The one thing the public understands is money. I'm sure the fools will come after me. When they read this post. Telling me I'm obstructing their freedom that is destroying mother earth.

    I also don't buy your statement that " leaders who don't understand". There is one party that gets it and another that refuses to at knowledge the situation protecting it's special interest ( oil companies for one ). This site lead by Gail is part of that special interest infrastructure. I have yet to see since she fell out of favor at TheOilDrum. A solution to anything. It's always Fear, Collapse, Fear and more Collapse.

    Obama gets it – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C23e_-5BdZM

    PleaseExplain, September 15, 2015 at 1:25 pm

    Please Gail, let us know the last time you offered a solution ? You've been calling for collapse for five years and it hasn't happened. When do you admit your wrong ?

    PleaseExplain, September 15, 2015 at 2:56 pm

    I'm sick of reading your negative doomsday scenario and disinformation that this site pushes on the public for special interest. That's who I am.

    BC, September 15, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    US electricity consumption per capita is at the levels of the late 1990s to early 2000s. Efficiency, demographics reducing the growth of household formations, and a halving of the growth of real GDP per capita since 2000 and a further deceleration to near 0% since 2007-08 are the primary factors reducing consumption per capita.

    EV sales are plunging with the crash in the price of gasoline and coincident with a global recession that likely began in late 2014 to earlier this year.

    Growth of wind and solar energy production overall and as a share of total energy production has likely peaked for the cycle and will decelerate to 0% or negative in the years ahead, as occurred in the 1990s.

    Gail Tverberg, September 15, 2015 at 6:54 am

    Yes, we do have a population problem.

    Gail Tverberg, September 15, 2015 at 6:45 am

    It would be nice if our only problem were with oil. We have a problem with electricity too, and with keeping the roads paved. Electric cars don't solve those problems.

    [Sep 21, 2015] Iran Deal May Redefine The Middle East

    "... A Real Politik assessment that only can come from someone who covers the global oil producing nations as a whole industry. ..."
    "... The breakup of the Soviet Union was not just the fall of a single nation, but the fall of one of 2 Post WWII Global Hegemons. ..."
    "... Unfortunately, the overwhelming jargon of business from the last 4 decades of unrelenting Neo-liberalism likes to refer to ¨deals¨ and Western values, as if we clip money saving coupons to be redeemed at the bargaining table with Iran. ..."
    "... The US still owes the Iranians much more than "regret" for overthrowing the first true and democratically elected SECULAR government ever in the ME (Mossedegh). ..."
    "... They COULD have been a true, natural ally of the West (except for the "privatize everything" schtick the West has been stuck in for the last 30 years). Such a waste. All we've left behind us is chaos, jihadis, instability, death. ..."
    Sep 21, 2015 | naked capitalism
    This has led to a new emerging relationship between the Saudis and Russia, where negotiations between Russia and OPEC emerged over the possibility of coordination of oil production levels. OPEC hinted that it was open to coordinated production cuts with non-OPEC members in its latest bulletin report, saying that "if there is a willingness to face the oil industry's challenges together" then the future would "be a lot better." Russian officials held meetings with their counterparts from OPEC, fueling speculation of some sort of accommodation.

    Despite positive language from the negotiators, the talks so far have not amounted to much. Rosneft's Igor Sechin seemed to rule out such a scenario on September 7 in comments to the press, in which he said that Rosneft can't operate the way OPEC can. It would be difficult for Russia to cut back on its production, even if that meant some chance of higher prices. Russia's economy is hurting, and it needs to sell every barrel that it can.

    Although there won't be a deal on oil output, Saudi Arabia and Russia made more progress on discussions regarding the purchase of Russian nuclear power plants and military equipment, a likely wake-up call to the U.S. and UK, the Saudis' longtime military suppliers. Still to be determined is whether this is a new alliance or merely a show of Saudi independence.

    ... ... ...

    The EIA reports that in the last five years, the U.S. 'shale oil revolution' has enabled the U.S. to more than halve its oil imports, making it far less dependent on imports from OPEC, and significantly changing the terms of the relationship.

    There is a lively ongoing argument in the world press about the possibility of the nuke deal leading to an entente between the U.S. and Iran, or even the possibility of an actual alliance.

    Hardcore opponents of the deal claim that Iran is already in a quasi-alliance with the U.S. in the fight against ISIS in Iraq. And, although both countries hotly deny any intent to form an alliance, there are many in the region who believe that perhaps 'the ladies doth protest too much'.

    ... ... ...

    As reported by Nick Cunningham, on these pages, the recently announced agreement with European oil companies to extend Gazprom's Nordstream gas pipeline into Germany was a clear sign that the EU is willing to do business with Russia again; this despite the Ukraine crisis, which in the face of Middle Eastern conflicts, seems to be fading into the background.

    Selected Skeptical Comments

    Vince in MN, September 21, 2015 at 6:39 am

    39 paragraphs of cliche ridden breathless rumor mongering. The heart veritably races waiting for the next shoe dropping.

    EoinW, September 21, 2015 at 8:58 am

    In my lifetime, the Middle East has had two problems: Wahabbism and Zionism. We've been on the wrong side of both. One can count on western leaders to always be on the wrong side.

    If Putin appears the voice of reason, what does that make Obama? He often seems like a housewife reacting to the dramatic conclusion of his favourite soap opera…with a new episode to follow tomorrow. Almost want to write – same Bat time, same Bat channel – it's so cartoonish.

    The refugee crisis has made Merkle seem almost like a compassionate human being. But we know she only cares about keeping the EU going on her watch and she can see what a threat the refugee crisis is to EU unity. How worse will that threat be when Ukrainian refugees start coming? Better make nice with Russia!

    Bill Smith September 21, 2015 at 10:17 am

    "Saudis offer to Israel to allow flyovers of Saudi territory in case an attack on Iran" This has been reported on and off for several years.

    The "sudden military alliance between Israel and Saudi Arabia" seems overblown. There have been very scattered reports of intelligence cooperation in the past but that is it.

    Of course FARS reports stuff like this:

    "20 Israeli officers and 63 Saudi military men and officials were killed"

    likbez September 21, 2015 at 11:22 am

    "39 paragraphs of cliche ridden breathless rumor mongering. The heart veritably races waiting for the next shoe dropping."

    I would agree. It is clear for me that the quality of reporting about Russia is on the level of presstitutes from WashPost.

    Also it is unclear that is the USA game plan as for Iran and what this article tries to communicate does not look plausible. It might well be that the USA wants to spread their bets by including Iran into the cycle of vassals (the USA does not need allies, only vassal states) but I think Iran elite still remembers years of crippling sanctions pretty well to jump into Uncle Sam embraces. The deal is needed mainly to put additional pressure on oil prices and if it achieves its goals and Russia crumbles, Iran will be thrown under the bus by US neocons very soon and without any hesitation.

    It also looks like SA leadership wants some kind of rebalancing of relations with Russia as after Egypt to rely on US neocons is simply stupid. They proved to be pretty treacherous folks and promises given are not worth the paper they were printed on.

    But if we assume that neocons dominate the USA foreign policy in foreseeable future, then the key policy in Middle East will be usual "divide and conquer" policy like we saw in Iraq, Libya and Syria. And bloodshed financed from usual sources (is not ISIS the USA and friends creation ?) will continue.

    What is interesting is that SA never managed considerably increase their oil exports as their internal consumption grows more rapidly then extraction. They just refused to drop the volume of their exports. Probably with tacit approval of the USA. So it looks like drastic oil price drop is mainly financial markets play (derivative and futures games) - and that means that one plausible scenario is that this is another attempt to hurt Russia and depose Putin, even by taking a hit for own shale industry and decimating Canadian oil sands. Lifting sanctions from Iran is just the second step of the same plan.

    EoinW -> likbez, September 21, 2015 at 12:32 pm
    If Vietnam can forget over 2 million murdered by Americans and cozy up to Washington then it must be possible to find elites in any society(even Iran) who will sell out for the right price.
    Paul Tioxon September 21, 2015 at 12:34 pm

    A Real Politik assessment that only can come from someone who covers the global oil producing nations as a whole industry. Not completely unsurprising, but unusual in that the only constant in the social order is change and the people making sense out of the change have to look ahead to consequences real and unintended from political decisions that impact global energy production, particularly oil. The breakup of the Soviet Union was not just the fall of a single nation, but the fall of one of 2 Post WWII Global Hegemons.

    The failure of the Project for A New American Century as a bid for a unipolar, unilateral Militaristic American Hegemony has resulted in a shift back to the International as opposed to Global relations. The institutions of the Post WWII world, The United Nations, the IMF and the World Bank, with the emphasis on diplomacy as opposed to nation to nation warfare is being resurrected in the Iranian Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. What has been nearly completely absent is the naming of the UN Security Councils permanent members, the victors of WWII were united in staring down Iran until they produced the desired results, namely, giving up on pushing its way into the nuclear power club. The re-establishment of normal diplomatic relations with Cuba is a corroborating development. Russia has worked with the US in Syria to eliminate the chemical warfare stockpiles of Syria as well as patiently worked to conclude a successful Iran re-approachment.

    Unfortunately, the overwhelming jargon of business from the last 4 decades of unrelenting Neo-liberalism likes to refer to ¨deals¨ and Western values, as if we clip money saving coupons to be redeemed at the bargaining table with Iran. And the war party demanded that a better deal could be had, what, they could get it for us WHOLESALE! Nuclear Non Proliferation was what was at stake and the UN Permanent Security Council Members were all present to negotiate the re-integration of Iran into the United Nations.

    Presidents Obama and Putin are more allied than not and the structure of an inclusive international social order are being worked out without the lies of the Bush family´s war party plans. The USA is not falling apart at the seams because other nations are finally enriching themselves, thus putting them beyond the simple command and control of Neo-con warlords. The USA is relatively weaker not due to being hood winked or conquered but because other nations have risen in their own capacity to direct self determination. Iran is welcomed to do so, just not with nuclear weapons. That is a good thing, in the eyes of the Iranians and the rest of world.

    mark September 21, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Interesting article about the people that worked on this over the years.

    "Who made the Iran deal happen? Here are some of the people behind the scenes.
    PRI's The World"

    http://www.pri.org/stories/2015-07-14/who-made-iran-deal-happen-here-are-some-people-behind-scenes

    Praedor September 21, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    I DO so hope it leads to a completely new alignment in the ME. I am sick to death of "Iran the great evil" bullcrap.

    It has always struck me as purely a childish temper tantrum on the part of the USA because the Iranian people had the GALL to toss out OUR murderous dictator and actually run their own country for their own people. Who do they think they are?

    How DARE they use THEIR oil for THEIR country rather than to serve Western oil company bottom lines and provide the US with oil that, by rights, belongs to it. Because America! That and the fact that the Iranians held some US neocolonials/neoliberals hostage for a year-ish. That's unacceptable! Americans can do anything they want to whomever they want, damnit!

    The US still owes the Iranians much more than "regret" for overthrowing the first true and democratically elected SECULAR government ever in the ME (Mossedegh). Imagine what Iran and even the ME could have been by now if Mossedegh had been allowed to stay in rightful power? Iran would be a true beacon of liberty and freedom and modernity in the heart of the ME. Israel doesn't even come close. They COULD have been a true, natural ally of the West (except for the "privatize everything" schtick the West has been stuck in for the last 30 years). Such a waste. All we've left behind us is chaos, jihadis, instability, death.

    [Sep 20, 2015] Which Shale Firms Will Cut Production

    "... while existant production is profitable, new production may not be worthwhile. ..."
    "... Fiscally that is certainly a sound move, but if many firms follow CLR's footsteps, then it could set the stage for the long awaited turn in production growth. And that would be good news for oil prices indeed. ..."
    Sep 20, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    ...if production in the U.S. really is going to fall, it may come from firms like Whiting Petroleum and Continental Resources. Whiting announced at the end of July that it was cutting its capital spending budget and that it would run 8 drilling rigs for the year instead of the previous 11 it had planned to run. WLL's production in July was up 2 percent quarter over quarter, and production growth next year stands a good chance of turning negative for the firm.

    Whiting's per barrel costs look like they may be a bit under $20 each excluding production taxes and Depreciation, Depletion and Amortization (DD&A). As a result, while existant production is profitable, new production may not be worthwhile.

    Continental is taking similar steps and announced earlier in September that is was cutting its capital spending to align with its cash flow.

    Fiscally that is certainly a sound move, but if many firms follow CLR's footsteps, then it could set the stage for the long awaited turn in production growth. And that would be good news for oil prices indeed.

    Peak Oil Notes - 17 Sep

    While it is clear that US shale oil production is declinong, the pace of the decline is rather murky. The EIA told us on Monday that production from the major shale-oil fields is likely to fall by 80,000 b/d between September, and October, but when the state data, which is six weeks behind but has been more accurate, comes in production does not look so bad. On Monday North Dakota reported that its shale oil production was down by only 5,400 b/d in July. The EIA says that last week US oil production was down by 17,000 b/d or 0.2 percent. In a world that produces some 93 million b/d, this should not have much of an impact. It seems clear that we have a way to go before the shale oil production picture is completely clear.

    There has been much discussion in the press recently concerning the "financial reckoning" that is about to fall on the oil patch. For the last year US energy companies have borrowed billions of dollars to stay in operation with oil selling well below costs of production. Many expect that credit lines will be cut substantially in the near future and that many companies will have to merge or declare bankruptcy.

    [Sep 19, 2015] Syria peak oil weakened government's finances ahead of Arab Spring in 2011

    In May 2013 the Guardian had an article "Peak oil, climate change and pipeline geopolitics driving Syrian conflict"http://www.theguardian.com/environment/earth-insight/2013/may/13/1

    In March 2015, a group of researchers led by climatologist Colin Kelley (University of California) published a study in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences with the title "Climate change in the Fertile Crescent and implications of the recent Syrian drought"

    "Between 2006 and 2009, the people of Syria suffered during the most severe drought that country has experienced since the beginning of its instrumental record. As water became scarce, crops failed and cattle died on a huge scale. As many as 1.5 million Syrians, out of a population of just over 20 million, moved from the countryside to the outskirts of already overflowing cities"

    http://www.historicalclimatology.com/blog/is-climate-change-behind-the-syrian-civil-war

    [Fig 2: Image of sandstorm, not shown here for licensing reasons.]

    In this article we analyse to which extent peak oil contributed to a fiscal deterioration so that the Syrian government was forced to introduce unpopular policies (tax increases, removal of fuel subsidies, increasing cost of cement etc) which contributed to the unrest.

    Oil production, exports and consumption

    Fig 3: Syria oil production, exports and consumption

    We see several tipping points

    • 1996: peak production
    • 2001: Crude oil exports start to drop sharply, albeit cushioned by rising oil prices
    • 2006: Petroleum imports begin to increase at higher rate
    • 2008: Increasing petroleum consumption approaches level of declining oil production
    • 2011 Arab spring reaches Syria in March
    • 2011 International oil companies suspend operations
    • oil embargo http://www.sanctionswiki.org/Syria
    • 2012: Oil production falls precipitously as government loses control over Eastern oil fields.
    • 2014: Oil production has completely collapsed

    Fig 4: Map of oil & gas fields and IS control as of July 2015. [See original at full size.]

    http://www.businessinsider.com.au/map-of-syria-shows-what-isis-is-truly-fighting-for-2015-6

    Oil reserves

    Fig 5: Syria's remaining oil reserves from different sources

    Fig 6: Syrian Cumulative discovery, actual production and remaining reserves

    Jean Laherrere's website: http://www.aspofrance.org/

    So cumulative production plus remaining 2P (proved and probable) reserves is 7.5 Gb. Jean Laherrere's production projection on the basis of 8 Gb of ultimate recovery is depicted in the following graph:

    Fig 7: Jean Laherrere's 2009 production profile for Syria

    Of course Fig 7 is now very theoretical. No one can predict the future in Syria

    IMF Reports

    This article mainly uses IMF data. The last IMF Article IV consultation staff report 2009

    http://www.imf.org/external/np/sec/pn/2010/pn1042.htm

    was published in March 2010. Since then no IMF assessment was made due to the political/security situation. As a result of a 2 year long lag of preparing national accounts, lack of data and other discrepancies many calculations are estimates or projections. The earliest IMF report available on the internet is from October 2005 with data going back to 2000.

    Revenue

    Government revenue was 21 % of GDP in 2010. The following graph shows oil revenue compared to other revenue and total expenditure.

    Fig 8: Syrian government revenue by source

    Oil related revenue is in decline or stagnating since 2001. Its share of total revenue dropped from 45% in 2000 to 25% in 2010. Despite this, total revenue grew on average by 9.4% pa. This was achieved by increasing income tax and other indirect taxes, definitely not popular policies. Transfers from public enterprises (PE) also contributed to revenue growth. These PEs dominate the energy and financial sectors, play a privileged role in supply chains such as in cotton and cereals and hold monopolies in all utilities, oil and sugar refining, production of cement, fertilizers and mineral water. However, the PE surplus is not net of capital expenditure which comes under the big item "development expenditure" (Fig 10). Most PEs are loss making except those in the telecommunication sector.

    However, expenditure grew faster at 10.8%. This difference resulted in a budget deficit of 17% of expenditure in 2010.

    Fig 9: Composition of oil revenue

    The largest contribution is the tax revenue from the Syria Petroleum Companyhttps://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Syrian_Petroleum_Company.

    Expenditure

    Government expenditure was 25.9% of GDP in 2010.

    Fig 10: Syria's government expenditure

    Expenditure grew by an average of 10.8% pa, salaries by 16% pa.

    Fig 11: Defense expenditure consumed all oil related revenue in 2007

    Oil balance

    The oil balance is defined as: oil exports – oil imports – repatriation of oil company profits.

    Fig 12: Syria's oil balance

    The graph shows that the value of net oil exports after 2007 was practically zero. Due to transfers of international oil company profits the zero point of the oil balance was passed 1 year earlier, in 2006, after which it was negative between 1 and 1.5 US$ bn pa.

    Current account balance

    Fig 13: Current account and oil balances

    In the above graph, we start with the oil balance calculated in Fig 12 (blue line) and add the (positive) export balance from services, income and transfers. The trade balance of goods is negative and has to be deducted (hatched area) to arrive at the current account balance (red line). We see that the declining shape of the oil balance results in a similarly declining current account curve.

    Inflation

    Fig 14: Syria's average CPI

    Inflation largely moved with oil prices up to 2008. The cumulative inflation over the period 2000-2010 was 54%.

    Population

    Fig 15: Syria's population development (age structure in background)

    http://esa.un.org/unpd/wpp/DVD/

    Per capita oil production peaked in 1993 at 15.2 barrels and had dropped to half of that by 2007.

    Fuel Subsidies

    The IMF praised the reduction of fuel subsidies as a reform, but this was certainly not popular.

    Fig 16 : Increase in fuel prices 2008-09

    In 2008, fuel prices were lifted, saving around 7% of GDP. In order to offset these higher prices, public wages were increased and coupons introduced which allowed each household to buy 1,000 litres of diesel at a lower price. This costed 4.5% of GDP. In 2009, the diesel coupons were replaced by targeted cash transfers based on income, asset ownership and utility bills.

    Fig 17 : Energy subsidies as percent of GDP

    The fuel subsidy reform in 2009 meant that the population had to save 8% of GDP.

    Summary

    There are many reasons for the disintegration of Syria and the tragic exodus of refugees. This article showed how Syria's declining oil production and increasing oil consumption impacted negatively on the budget, lead to tax increases and reduction of subsidies. These factors contributed to the population's dissatisfaction which sparked the Arab Spring in Syria.

    It is absolutely necessary that the world wakes up to the problem of peaking oil production in geo- strategically important areas otherwise there will be more surprises. If countries with a high per-capita oil consumption could finally embark on a transition away from oil this would reduce future conflicts and wars.

    But don't count on Australia where Federal and State governments have embarked on a new, huge program of road tunnels, tollways and airport expansions. The current Prime Minister Abbott even thinks that peak oil has no value for policy making.

    Addendum

    Australia has a new Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull
    14/9/2015 21:45
    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-09-14/malcolm-turnbull-wins-liberal-leadership-ballot-over-tony-abbott/6775464

    Further Reading

    SYRIA'S ECONOMY AND THE TRANSITION PARADIGM Samer Abboud, Ferdinand Arslanian 2009

    http://ojs.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.php/syria/article/view/713

    https://ojs.st-andrews.ac.uk/index.php/syria/article/download/713/617

    Related posts:

    4/7/2013 2/3 of Egypt's oil is gone 20 years after its peak
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/23-of-egypt%e2%80%99s-oil-is-gone-20-years-after-its-peak

    16/3/2013 Iraq war and its aftermath failed to stop the beginning of peak oil in 2005
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/iraq-war-and-its-aftermath-failed-to-stop-the-beginning-of-peak-oil-in-2005

    24/6/2011 War overshadows peak oil in Libya
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/war-overshadows-peak-oil-in-libya

    31/5/2011 Sudan's Nile blend in decline – why we should be concerned
    http://crudeoilpeak.info/sudan-nile-blend-in-decline-why-we-should-be-concerned

    http://crudeoilpeak.info/yemen

    China Liquidated A Record $83 Billion In Treasurys In July

    According to TIC, China, between its mainland and Euroclear holdings, sold a record $83 billion in Treasurys in the month of July. It also means that China has liquidated a whopping $184 billion notional in US Treasurys in 2015. Finally, and here it the punchline: the sale of ~$83 billion took place in July. This is before China announced its devaluation on August 11 and before, as we also first reported, it sold another $100 billion in Treasurys in August.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Oil prices weak on economic concerns, OPEC target on market share

    finance.yahoo.com

    U.S. West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were trading at $46.74 per barrel at 0535 GMT, down 16 cents from their last settlement. Brent prices were at $49.12 per barrel, up 4 cents.

    Kuwait, a key producer of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), said on Thursday the oil market would balance itself but that this would take time, indicating support for the group's policy of defending market share despite falling prices.

    ... ... ...

    Analysts had suggested a weaker greenback - a usual result of low interest rates - would support oil, as it makes dollar-traded crude cheaper for countries using other currencies.

    [Sep 18, 2015] The least Russia has held of American securities in the last two years was in April this year, when it held only $66.5 Billion

    Sep 17, 2015 | marknesop.wordpress.com

    Moscow Exile, September 17, 2015 at 2:00 am

    Russia has invested another $10 billion in the US national debt

    In July Russia increased its investment in US Treasury bonds by $9.7 billion of dollars, according to information given by the United States Treasury and Federal Reserve.

    Moscow Exile, September 17, 2015 at 2:03 am
    Source of the above: lenta.ru, Kommersant etc.
    et Al, September 17, 2015 at 5:54 am
    Curious. Just as China has been deleveraging itself from its US bonds/debt, Russia is taking some on. There must be something more to this.
    marknesop, September 17, 2015 at 10:40 am
    It's odd, but $10 Billion doesn't really represent much of an adventure. The least Russia has held of American securities in the last two years was in April this year, when it held only $66.5 Billion. The most during the period shown was in August last year, when Russia held nearly twice that, $118.1 Billion. And China, while media mythology has them shoveling dollars out the windows, held $1.24 Trillion at the end of July this year, up slightly from January. Nobody seemed to notice that Belgium sold of $20 Billion more than China did.

    https://smaulgld.com/foreign-holdings-u-s-treasuries/

    However, look at the vulnerability the USA itself has taken on through QE, and government buying of its own securities, just in 2014.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Age of the Unicorn How the Fed Tried to Fix the Recession, and Created the Tech Bubble By Doug Henwood

    Sep 03, 2015 | The Nation

    The number of "unicorn" tech companies is increasing dramatically-but the bubble will burst eventually.

    ... ... ...

    The last tech bubble, in the late '90s, came with more utopian ambitions than quick mattress delivery. The web and the New Economy it made possible would flatten hierarchies, make work more meaningful, make recessions a thing of the past, and promote peace, love, and understanding. The classic statement of techno-utopianism and its new era of decentralization and abundance was former Wired editor Kevin Kelly's "New Rules for the New Economy," which featured such assertions as "1) Embrace the Swarm. As power flows away from the center, the competitive advantage belongs to those who learn how to embrace decentralized points of control" and "3) Plentitude, Not Scarcity. As manufacturing techniques perfect the art of making copies plentiful, value is carried by abundance, rather than scarcity, inverting traditional business propositions." On a more wonky yet no less exuberant note, the noted economist Rudi Dornbusch wrote in 1998: "The U.S. economy likely will not see a recession for years to come. We don't want one, we don't need one, and, as we have the tools to keep the current expansion going, we won't have one. This expansion will run forever." And who can forget Thomas Friedman's nonsensical declaration, made in 1999 as the new economy bubble was reaching extreme proportions, that "no two countries that both had a McDonald's had fought a war against each other," so powerful were the charms of globalization, one of the cornerstones of New Era thinking?

    The last tech bubble, in the late nineties, came with more utopian ambitions than quick mattress delivery.

    Exuberant rhetoric is often the accompaniment to financial exuberance. At the turn of the 21st century, labor markets were tight-the unemployment rate briefly broke below 4 percent for the first time since 1969-and wages grew across the board. The stock market was booming, led by tech stocks, and the mania pervaded the culture; Joey Ramone even wrote a love song to CNBC's Maria Bartiromo, who became a celebrity known as the Money Honey. According to the Federal Reserve's Survey of Consumer Finances, the share of US households directly owning stock (as distinguished from indirect ownership through mutual funds) rose from 15.2 percent in 1995 to 21.3 percent in 2001. Since that peak, it's fallen steadily; as of 2013, the most recent survey, the share was down to 13.8 percent. This time around, the exuberance seems more muted. Like the left, capitalism seems to have lost its utopian capacities. Exuberance is now a luxury good, and only a minority is participating in the new boom.

    While bouts of irrational exuberance often end badly, it must be conceded that some degree of economic and technical progress can be their byproduct. The dot.com mania helped turn the internet from a niche product into one of life's essentials. This one is offering new ways to hail a cab and order takeout. But one shouldn't get carried away with that: most major technological advances of the last decades have been publicly financed. As Mariana Mazzucato shows in The Entrepreneurial State, all the major advances that made the iPhone possible were publicly funded, from the touch screen to GPS.

     This bubble has been publicly financed in a more subtle way. While American finance is often subject to major bouts of irrational exuberance, the latest round has almost certainly been fueled by the Federal Reserve's extraordinary efforts to reflate the economy after the financial crisis. Since Lehman Brothers collapsed in September 2008, the central bank has pumped $3.6 trillion into the economy by buying Treasury and mortgage bonds. (Point of comparison: GDP is $17.8 trillion, so even by the standards of the US economy, $3.6 trillion is a large number.)

    All the major advances that made the iPhone possible were publicly funded, from the touch screen to GPS.

    While all this pumping has probably had some good effect on the real economy (though opinions differ), even proponents concede that it was fairly modest. But it looks to have been immensely stimulative to the financial markets. Stocks are up about 175 percent from their post-Lehman low. (They've come a few percentage points off their highs, thanks to jitters about the Chinese economy, but the gains remain largely intact.) Long-term interest rates fell from 4.3 percent in June 2008 to a low of 1.4 percent in July 2012; they've since come up but not by much-to 2.2 percent. When interest rates fall like that, bondholders enjoy huge capital gains (older, higher-yielding bonds become more valuable as rates fall), which they need to redeploy. And as interest rates fell to minimal levels-that July 2012 interest rate on 10-year Treasury bonds was the lowest since the Federal Reserve's historical series began in 1953-it became cheaper to borrow funds to speculate with. Investors, bored with sub-2 percent rates, were happier to "reach for yield"-invest in risky ventures in hope of earning higher returns. All this together is an ideal formula for unicorn feed.

    The pump priming has, unfortunately, provided little fodder for working people. Though the labor market has recovered, it's hardly bubbly. In July 2000, 56 percent of respondents to the Conference Board's monthly consumer confidence survey described jobs as "plentiful"; in August 2015, just 22 percent did. And most of today's tech startups are tightly held, meaning financed by venture capitalists (who themselves work with money provided by institutional investors, like pension funds and your finer universities, and very rich people), and not by initial public offerings (IPOs) of stocks, which were widely held by affluent individuals, either directly or through mutual funds. And no CNBC personalities qualify as celebrities today, unless you count Rick Santelli, author of the 2008 rant that gave birth to the Tea Party.

    The tech bubble is a byproduct of the Federal Reserve's extraordinary efforts to reflate the economy post-crisis.

    Of course, when this bubble bursts-as it inevitably will, especially with the Fed having ended its massive money injections and now talking about raising interest rates in the fall-the narrow holding of tech investments means that fewer innocents will suffer collateral damage from the implosion. (So far, the market stumbles of late summer haven't dampened spirits among venture investors-yet. Should a more serious financial retrenchment ensue, that will change.) There aren't going to be as many busted 401(k) accounts as there were in 2000–01. But it means that the greatest benefits of the Fed's reinflation policy are tightly held, too.

    There's something sad about this echo-bubble, with its constricted ambitions and minimal use of utopian rhetoric. We're accustomed to hearing that there's just "no money available" for all manner of excellent pursuits-though clearly we have plenty of money available to fund serial bubbles and busts, and few unreconstructed social critics ever denounce that with a "Remember last time?" I'm only partly thinking of social benefits like childcare and libraries; those are day-to-day expenditures, not big-ticket items financed out of long-term money, like transit and green-energy research.

    GOP eagerness to slash Amtrak by $242 million got headlines while Uber has had no problem raising almost $7 billion.

    Congressional Republicans' eagerness to slash Amtrak funding by $242 million got some headlines, but the railroad's $1.3 billion current level of federal funding was none too generous to start with. But Uber has had no problem raising almost $7 billion so far, and rival Lyft another $1 billion. This is a staggering misallocation of capital. Nor do we have the imagination or funding to follow up on the suggestion by Mike Konczal and others to "socialize Uber," by turning the thing into a driver-owned cooperative. There really are some more urgent tasks than devising a better way to hail a cab-or buy a mattress-and it would be nice to steer some money towards them instead of towards capitalist phantasms.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Peak Oil Review - Sep 14

    When the IEA's monthly Oil Market Report came out last week, it seconded the gloomy outlook by forecasting that non-OPEC oil production will fall by 500,000 b/d in 2016, which would be the largest drop in 20 years. The IEA also has US production falling by 400,000 b/d next year.

    ... ... ...

    The US House of Representatives passed a bill to repeal the oil export ban last week. Some in Congress are so enthusiastic about the prospects for exporting US crude, despite the circa 7.5 million b/d of US imports, that they are talking about "containing Iran" with US oil. The prospects for the bill in the Senate are still uncertain.

    ... ... ...

    Before the sanctions can be lifted, Tehran has to ship 12 tons of partially-enriched uranium out of the country, dismantle and store more than 13,000 centrifuges and convert its underground nuclear enrichment facility into a research station. The Iranians must also dismantle the core of their heavy water reactor which is capable of making plutonium for atom bombs, make arrangements for IAEA inspections, and answer questions about past efforts to build nuclear weapons. Western experts expect that it will take six to nine months to accomplish these steps. Tehran, anxious to get its economy moving again, say they can be completed much quicker.

    On October 19th, the US and EU are to lift many of the sanctions on doing business with Tehran and grant access to some $125 billion in frozen Iranian assets, only some $60 billion of which are liquid enough to be of much use...

    Iran was producing some 3.6 million b/d before the sanctions and exporting to 21 countries. After the sanctions, Iran's customers were down to six countries and production fell to 2. 5 million b/d and is now thought to be about 2.9 million...

    ... ... ....

    Wall Street analysts now are seriously contemplating the likelihood that a further slowdown in China's economy will lead to a global recession starting in countries that are dependent on exports to China. Trade data out last week showed a 14 percent drop in the value of China's imports in August. This was the 10th consecutive fall in Beijing's imports.

    The Shanghai International Energy Exchange is about to establish a crude derivatives contract to rival that of New York's West Texas Intermediate and London's Brent. As the world's biggest oil importer, China is likely to play a major role in the oil markets in coming years. Beijing will likely move to have its futures contracts denominated in yuan as a means of undercutting the dollar in the global oil markets.

    ... ... ...


    Investment in U.K. North Sea oil and gas projects could drop as much as 80 percent by 2017 as the collapse in oil prices forces the industry to cut back. Capital investment across the industry of 14.8 billion pounds ($22.8 billion) last year will probably decline by 2 billion to 4 billion pounds annually to 2017. (9/9)

    Norway said total revenues for the oil-rich economy were down by nearly 5 percent for the second quarter of 2015. Its oil-driven economy has been pressured by lower crude oil prices, with overall investments expected to decline by 12 percent this year. (9/9)

    Norway's Statoil said development of the giant Johan Sverdrup field is moving swiftly. The field is expected to be operational during 2019. At peak Norway's 5th largest field is expected to produce up to 650,000 b/d. (9/12)

    Italian energy company Eni said the republic of Cyprus could serve as a strategic energy hub and a possible conduit for future Egyptian natural gas supplies. (9/11)

    In Russia, at a time when the collapse in crude prices pushes the economy into a recession, the nation's oil producers are managing to beat their western counterparts. On measures including cash flow, profit margins and share prices, Rosneft, Lukoil – Russia's two largest oil producers - and Gazprom are performing better than Royal Dutch Shell, BP or Exxon Mobil. (9/8)

    ... .... ....

    The US oil-rig count fell by 10 to 652 in the latest reporting week, the second straight decline after six consecutive weeks of increases, according to Baker Hughes. There are still about 59 percent fewer oil rigs working since a peak of 1,609 in October 2014. The number of gas rigs declined by six to 196. For all rigs, including natural gas, the week's total was down 16 to 848. (9/12

    US imports: The EIA reports Saudi Arabian oil accounts for roughly 17 percent of all crude oil imported into the US, putting it at the No. 2 spot behind Canada. Total imports of Saudi crude for the week ending Sept. 4 were 1.06 million barrels per day, down 15.2 percent from the same week in 2014. (9/12)

    Thousands of stripper-well operators in the US are losing money and some are shutting in their wells. This step could turn out to be a key element in ending the oil-price rout, rather than the difference being made by a large producing country like Saudi Arabia or a big public company. (9/8)

    US shale producers lost more than $30 billion during the first half of 2015, as the prolonged slump in oil prices takes its toll. Bankruptcies and restructuring are on the rise as independent oil and gas companies do what they can to survive. Data company Factset reports that capital spending exceeded cash from operations by about $32 billion in the first six months of the year and is quickly approaching the deficit of $37.7 billion reported for the whole of 2014. (9/10)


    [Sep 18, 2015] Oil Prices Could Surge As This Country Fails To Meet Production Targets By Nick Cunningham,

    Sep 17, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    For years, Iraq has been central to the IEA's rosy scenarios for long-term sources of new oil supply. A few years ago, the IEA predicted that Iraq would more than double its output to 6.1 million barrels per day (mb/d) by 2020, and 8.3 mb/d by 2035 – nearly triple what Iraq was producing at the time the IEA published its report.

    Any projection should be taken with a large degree of skepticism, but the IEA's prediction that the world would be well-supplied for the next several decades was largely predicated on Iraq coming through with a huge ramp up in production. The increase of 5 mb/d from Iraq over the next twenty years would account for about 45 percent of the total increase in global oil supply.

    ... ... ...

    Against the odds, Iraq has thus far succeeded in achieving impressive gains in oil production, exceeding 4 million barrels per day in recent months, a record high. It is the second largest OPEC producer behind only Saudi Arabia.

    ... ... ...

    Wood Mackenzie expects production to be essentially flat through the end of the decade, rising to just 4.4 mb/d.

    Moreover, a large portion of the more than 3 mb/d in production gains by the end of the decade was expected to come from the south near Basra, where Iraq's super-giant oil fields are located. But the Wall Street Journal recently profiled one major project that is behind schedule, highlighting the precarious circumstances that Iraq's ambitious production targets are based upon.

    ... ... ...

    The project near Basra involved injecting saltwater from the Persian Gulf into oil fields in order to increase reservoir pressure and thereby boost production. But the project won't be completed until at least 2020, seven years later than expected. Without the so-called Common Seawater Supply Facility, production from Iraq's southern oil fields, which account for about three-quarters of the country's output, could fall by 10 percent per year.

    ... ... ...

    The evidence then points to Iraq not living up to the expectations of it making up such a large portion of global supply growth in the coming years. Taking away several million barrels per day of production capacity by 2020 that we had previously expected to come online suggests that the oil markets will tighten significantly in the not so distant future.

    Michael Moran on September 18 2015 said:

    I think more immediate question is 2016 and 2017. Can Iraq maintain 4+ million b/d given current situation. Or does production start to drop off in 2016 and 2017? One note in WSJ article was number of rigs working in Iraq had dropped in half from first of year. Could it be oil companies moved rigs because they were not being paid? Oil well decline in production, without rigs to drill new ones Iraq production may decline far sooner than expected.


    [Sep 18, 2015] $50 Oil For 15 Years – Can Anyone Take Goldman Seriously Anymore By Evan Kelly

    Sep 18, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Goldman gets a lot of attention with these types of headline-grabbing figures, but they seem to be off base on this one. The EIA has confirmed that U.S. oil production is declining, already down 500,000 barrels per day since peaking earlier this spring at 9.6 million barrels per day. At the same time, demand is rising. Throw in some other major sources of expected growth in oil production that won't pan out – a few million barrels per day of capacity that were expected from both Iraq and Brazil can probably be ruled out – and there is a recipe for a rather strong rebound in oil prices in the coming years. Obviously, the big question is when that will happen. The glut could persist through this year and next, but calling for oil to remain near $50 per barrel for 15 years seems like a stretch.

    ... ... ...

    Statoil (NYSE: STO) brought the first subsea compression plant in the world online this week. The subsea facility, located at Asgard in the Norwegian Sea, will increase production by around 306 million barrels of oil equivalent, boosting output from the aging field. "This is one of the most demanding technology projects aimed at improving oil recovery. We are very proud today that we together with our partners and suppliers have realised this project that we started ten years ago," Margareth Øvrum, Statoil's executive vice president for Technology, Drilling and Projects, said in a statement. The subsea system will increase the ultimate recovery of the Midgard reservoir from 67 to 87 percent, and the Mikkel reservoir from 59 to 84 percent. Fields lose reservoir pressure over time, and compression boosts that pressure. But the closer you can get to the well, the more oil and gas can be recovered. Usually, compression is done at the sea surface on a platform. This is the first gas compression facility at the sea floor. It is illustrative of an important emerging trend in the offshore oil industry.

    [Sep 18, 2015] China Is Hoarding the World's Oil by Grant Smith

    "...China's demand growth is set to slow to an annual rate of 2.3 percent by the fourth quarter compared with 5.6 percent in the second quarter, a reflection of "weak car sales data, declines in industrial activity, plummeting property prices and fragile electricity output," the IEA said in a report on Sept. 11."
    September 17, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Goldman Sachs says Chinese hoarding may avert $20 oil scenario

    ....In the first seven months of the year, China purchased about half a million barrels of crude in excess of its daily needs, the most for the period since 2012, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. As the country gathers bargain barrels for its strategic petroleum reserve, the demand is cushioning an oversupplied market from a further crash, according to Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy.

    "It throws a lifeline to the market" that safeguards against the risk of crude touching $20 a barrel, Jeff Currie, head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs Group Inc. in New York, said by phone. "That lifeline lasts through late 2016."

    Over the next 18 month, the EIA estamates that China will put 132 million barrel of crude into storage. Another 149 million barrels of capacity is planned by 2020. 218.9 are filled.

    ...the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve has been stable at about 700 million barrels for years

    ... ... ...

    China's demand growth is set to slow to an annual rate of 2.3 percent by the fourth quarter compared with 5.6 percent in the second quarter, a reflection of "weak car sales data, declines in industrial activity, plummeting property prices and fragile electricity output," the IEA said in a report on Sept. 11.

    ... ... ...

    When amassing inventories, China's import demand can swing by as much as 1 million barrels a day

    ... ... ...

    "The surplus in the market at the moment is close to 2 million barrels a day," said Miswin Mahesh, an analyst at Barclays in London. "China's support for the SPR would only be able to take a fraction out of that.

    ... ... ...

    By mopping up some of the surplus, China encourages a gentler scenario in which the "financial stress" of $40 oil gradually causes highly indebted shale producers to curb production, Currie said. "You reduce the likelihood of a scenario where the market only balances when prices collapse below production costs, at about $20 a barrel," he said.

    [Sep 18, 2015] Big oil's broken model By Michael T Klare

    If we assume that at each price point only a finite amount of oil can be profitably extracted from Earth (which is a small planet, that is now well researched for oil) , the current slump in oil prices looks extremely suspicious. It means robbing of future generations, as conservation efforts are now derailed.
    The problem with the view expressed is that cost of production can't be changed dramatically. That should slow the rate of increase of consumption but such dramatic drop in prices requires special engendering and some backstage agreement between the USA and Saudi Arabia.
    "...Demand will continue to rise -- that's undeniable, given expected growth in world income and population -- but not at the pace to which Big Oil has become accustomed. Consider this: in 2005, when many of the major investments in unconventional oil were getting under way, the EIA projected that global oil demand would reach 103.2 million barrels per day in 2015; now, it's lowered that figure for this year to only 93.1 million barrels. Those 10 million "lost" barrels per day in expected consumption may not seem like a lot, given the total figure, but keep in mind that Big Oil's multibillion-dollar investments in tough energy were predicated on all that added demand materializing, thereby generating the kind of high prices needed to offset the increasing costs of extraction. With so much anticipated demand vanishing, however, prices were bound to collapse."

    "...the IEA believes that oil prices will only average about $55 per barrel in 2015 and not reach $73 again until 2020. "

    Sep 18, 2015 | atimes.com/atimes

    Many reasons have been provided for the dramatic plunge in the price of oil to about US$60 per barrel (nearly half of what it was a year ago): slowing demand due to global economic stagnation; overproduction at shale fields in the United States; the decision of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern OPEC producers to maintain output at current levels (presumably to punish higher-cost producers in the US and elsewhere); and the increased value of
    Big oil's broken model
    By Michael T Klare

    Many reasons have been provided for the dramatic plunge in the price of oil to about US$60 per barrel (nearly half of what it was a year ago): slowing demand due to global economic stagnation; overproduction at shale fields in the United States; the decision of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern OPEC producers to maintain output at current levels (presumably to punish higher-cost producers in the US and elsewhere); and the increased value of the dollar relative to other currencies.

    There is, however, one reason that's not being discussed, and yet it could be the most important of all: the complete collapse of Big Oil's production-maximizing business model.

    Until last fall, when the price decline gathered momentum, the oil giants were operating at full throttle, pumping out more petroleum every day. They did so, of course, in part to profit from the high prices. For most of the previous six years, Brent crude, the international benchmark for crude oil, had been selling at $100 or higher. But Big Oil was also operating according to a business model that assumed an ever-increasing demand for its products, however costly they might be to produce and refine.

    This meant that no fossil fuel reserves, no potential source of supply - no matter how remote or hard to reach, how far offshore or deeply buried, how encased in rock - was deemed untouchable in the mad scramble to increase output and profits.

    In recent years, this output-maximizing strategy had, in turn, generated historic wealth for the giant oil companies. Exxon, the largest US-based oil firm, earned an eye-popping $32.6 billion in 2013 alone, more than any other American company except for Apple. Chevron, the second biggest oil firm, posted earnings of $21.4 billion that same year. State-owned companies like Saudi Aramco and Russia's Rosneft also reaped mammoth profits.

    How things have changed in a matter of mere months.

    ... ... ...

    According to the Energy Information Administration (EIA) of the U.S. Department of Energy, world oil production rose from 85.1 million barrels per day in 2005 to 92.9 million in 2014, despite the continuing decline of many legacy fields in North America and the Middle East. Claiming that industry investments in new drilling technologies had vanquished the specter of oil scarcity, BP's latest CEO, Bob Dudley, assured the world only a year ago that Big Oil was going places and the only thing that had "peaked" was "the theory of peak oil."

    That, of course, was just before oil prices took their leap off the cliff, bringing instantly into question the wisdom of continuing to pump out record levels of petroleum. The production-maximizing strategy crafted by O'Reilly and his fellow CEOs rested on three fundamental assumptions:

    1. that, year after year, demand would keep climbing;
    2. that such rising demand would ensure prices high enough to justify costly investments in unconventional oil;
    3. and that concern over climate change would in no significant way alter the equation.

    Today, none of these assumptions holds true.

    Demand will continue to rise -- that's undeniable, given expected growth in world income and population -- but not at the pace to which Big Oil has become accustomed. Consider this: in 2005, when many of the major investments in unconventional oil were getting under way, the EIA projected that global oil demand would reach 103.2 million barrels per day in 2015; now, it's lowered that figure for this year to only 93.1 million barrels. Those 10 million "lost" barrels per day in expected consumption may not seem like a lot, given the total figure, but keep in mind that Big Oil's multibillion-dollar investments in tough energy were predicated on all that added demand materializing, thereby generating the kind of high prices needed to offset the increasing costs of extraction. With so much anticipated demand vanishing, however, prices were bound to collapse.

    Current indications suggest that consumption will continue to fall short of expectations in the years to come. In an assessment of future trends released last month, the EIA reported that, thanks to deteriorating global economic conditions, many countries will experience either a slower rate of growth or an actual reduction in consumption. While still inching up, Chinese consumption, for instance, is expected to grow by only 0.3 million barrels per day this year and next -- a far cry from the 0.5 million barrel increase it posted in 2011 and 2012 and its one million barrel increase in 2010. In Europe and Japan, meanwhile, consumption is actually expected to fall over the next two years.

    And this slowdown in demand is likely to persist well beyond 2016, suggests the International Energy Agency (IEA), an arm of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (the club of rich industrialized nations). While lower gasoline prices may spur increased consumption in the United States and a few other nations, it predicted, most countries will experience no such lift and so "the recent price decline is expected to have only a marginal impact on global demand growth for the remainder of the decade."

    This being the case, the IEA believes that oil prices will only average about $55 per barrel in 2015 and not reach $73 again until 2020. Such figures fall far below what would be needed to justify continued investment in and exploitation of tough-oil options like Canadian tar sands, Arctic oil, and many shale projects. Indeed, the financial press is now full of reports on stalled or cancelled mega-energy projects. Shell, for example, announced in January that it had abandoned plans for a $6.5 billion petrochemical plant in Qatar, citing "the current economic climate prevailing in the energy industry." At the same time, Chevron shelved its plan to drill in the Arctic waters of the Beaufort Sea, while Norway's Statoil turned its back on drilling in Greenland.

    There is, as well, another factor that threatens the wellbeing of Big Oil: climate change can no longer be discounted in any future energy business model. The pressures to deal with a phenomenon that could quite literally destroy human civilization are growing. Although Big Oil has spent massive amounts of money over the years in a campaign to raise doubts about the science of climate change, more and more people globally are starting to worry about its effects -- extreme weather patterns, extreme storms, extreme drought, rising sea levels, and the like -- and demanding that governments take action to reduce the magnitude of the threat.

    Europe has already adopted plans to lower carbon emissions by 20% from 1990 levels by 2020 and to achieve even greater reductions in the following decades. China, while still increasing its reliance on fossil fuels, has at least finally pledged to cap the growth of its carbon emissions by 2030 and to increase renewable energy sources to 20% of total energy use by then. In the United States, increasingly stringent automobile fuel-efficiency standards will require that cars sold in 2025 achieve an average of 54.5 miles per gallon, reducing U.S. oil demand by 2.2 million barrels per day. (Of course, the Republican-controlled Congress -- heavily subsidized by Big Oil -- will do everything it can to eradicate curbs on fossil fuel consumption.)

    Still, however inadequate the response to the dangers of climate change thus far, the issue is on the energy map and its influence on policy globally can only increase. Whether Big Oil is ready to admit it or not, alternative energy is now on the planetary agenda and there's no turning back from that. "It is a different world than it was the last time we saw an oil-price plunge," said IEA executive director Maria van der Hoeven in February, referring to the 2008 economic meltdown. "Emerging economies, notably China, have entered less oil-intensive stages of development… On top of this, concerns about climate change are influencing energy policies [and so] renewables are increasingly pervasive."

    The oil industry is, of course, hoping that the current price plunge will soon reverse itself and that its now-crumbling maximizing-output model will make a comeback along with $100-per-barrel price levels. But these hopes for the return of "normality" are likely energy pipe dreams. As van der Hoeven suggests, the world has changed in significant ways, in the process obliterating the very foundations on which Big Oil's production-maximizing strategy rested. The oil giants will either have to adapt to new circumstances, while scaling back their operations, or face takeover challenges from more nimble and aggressive firms.

    Michael T. Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

    Copyright 2015 Michael T. Klare


    Michael T Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.

    Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

    (Copyright 2015 Michael T Klare)

    [Sep 16, 2015] Checkmate for Saudi Arabia

    For how much longer will Saudi Arabia be in a position to defend its Riyal as pegged to the Dollar at 3.75? Urgently needing oil to be at $106 per barrel in order to balance its budget, it is nowhere near seeing such prices again in the presence of a fracking industry as dynamic as it is innovative and which has managed to slightly alleviate its predatory behaviour. This is a warning of a wholesale sandstorm to come for the Wahhabi kingdom."
    Notable quotes:
    "... Basically, Saudi Arabia is going to have great trouble in about two years and will be confronted by an existential crisis in around five! The collapse of oil prices by nearly 55% in one year is effectively melting away this country's cash reserves, a country which is suffering the torment and humiliation of budgetary deficits, and which has been reduced to issuing a public loan (of more than $5 million) in order to subsidise its needs. ..."
    www.michelsanti.fr

    The debacle of oil prices has greatly exceeded that of the global financial crisis of 2008 and the Asian crisis of 1998. And it is much more severe. At the end of this summer of 2015, OPEC is just a shadow of its former self: simply put, it has been de facto dissolved and this cartel would be better off closing its offices in Vienna in order to save some cash… Similarly, it is easy to see that the Saudi tactic of flooding the market with petrol has backfired. Already in decline and very fragile due to the fact that the only income from exportation comes from the sale of just one product (oil), Saudi Arabia's war using ancient weapons is dwindling.

    The oil markets have indeed fundamentally changed since the time when investments became lucrative only after ten years. The Saudis were of course the undisputed masters when vast sums of money had to be handed over to make extractions from oil wells that would only come good many years later. This is why they got up to their dirty tricks in November 2014 when they decided to lower prices in order to stifle American oil shale producers, whom they had been banking on wiping off the map. As for the lost revenue due to the fall in oil prices, they would inevitably gain it back after the renewed rise in prices thanks to the disappearance of US producers. However, this venture, which consisted of making prices drop in order to harm competitors before putting them back up again in order to monopolise and maximise profits, is now an invalid practice. Also, this insane gamble taken by Saudi Arabia last winter to increase its own production to 10.6 million barrels per day at the climax of the fall in prices was already lost because it reveals a deep misconception of fracking, which is by no means a classical resource extraction method, and one which doesn't require substantial investment nor elevated oil prices in order to be viable.

    Far from being a traditional production model, fracking allows the operation of wells with as little as $1 million while ensuring immediate gains. What's more is that extraction techniques are improving basically every day and allow the use of up to ten sites per day, while sophisticated computer programs detect cracks over a large area. To sum it up, the explosion in the development of fracking techniques – which will lead to the reduction of costs associated with extraction by nearly 45% in 2015 alone – is revolutionising the oil industry, previously the exclusive domain and prerogative of certain States, and which once demanded massive prior investment. Extremely responsive and flexible, the operators of shale oil would remain the beneficiaries even in the case of a rise in prices: this would in turn allow for the opening of many more extraction sites…acting on their part to squeeze prices due to increased supply.

    Saudi Arabia is therefore no longer the go-to producer, since it is no longer capable of influencing oil prices. Having opened the floodgates in order to massacre the fracking industry, it is realizing that its extraction rates are ridiculous and any attempt on its part to manipulate prices in order to let prices rise again will be seized upon by the frackers who will immediately open even more sites to profit from this goldmine. Basically, Saudi Arabia is going to have great trouble in about two years and will be confronted by an existential crisis in around five! The collapse of oil prices by nearly 55% in one year is effectively melting away this country's cash reserves, a country which is suffering the torment and humiliation of budgetary deficits, and which has been reduced to issuing a public loan (of more than $5 million) in order to subsidise its needs.

    For how much longer will Saudi Arabia be in a position to defend its Riyal as pegged to the Dollar at 3.75? Urgently needing oil to be at $106 per barrel in order to balance its budget, it is nowhere near seeing such prices again in the presence of a fracking industry as dynamic as it is innovative and which has managed to slightly alleviate its predatory behaviour. This is a warning of a wholesale sandstorm to come for the Wahhabi kingdom.

    Michel Santi is a French-Swiss economist, financier, writer, advisor to central banks and sovereign funds. For several years, he was a Professor of Finance in Geneva, Switzerland, a member of the World Economic Forum, the IFRI and a qualified member of the NGO "Finance Watch".

    Born in Beirut, Lebanon, he is the son of a French diplomat. He lived in Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Lebanon, Egypt and Turkey.

    [Sep 16, 2015] Oil, Iraq War, & Neoliberalism

    "... Now with his war under attack, even President George W. Bush has gone public, telling reporters last August, "[a] failed Iraq … would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales." Of course, Bush not only wants to keep oil out of his enemies' hands, he also wants to put it into the hands of his friends. "
    "...Guaranteeing access to Iraq's oil, however isn't the whole story. Despite the lives lost and the utter ruin that the war has brought, the overarching economic agenda that the administration is successfully pursuing in the Middle East might be the most enduring legacy of the war-and the most ignored. Just two months after declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq, Bush announced his plans for a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area to spread the economic invasion well-underway in Iraq to the rest of the region by 2013. Negotiations have progressed rapidly as countries seek to prove that they are with the United States, not against it."
    "...In 2004, Michael Scheuer-the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with the Bush administration-wrote, "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was … an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." How right he was. For it is an absolute fallacy that the Bush administration had no post-invasion plan for Iraq. The administration had a very clear economic plan that has contributed significantly to the disastrous results of the war. The plan was prepared at least two months prior to the war by the U.S. consultancy firm, Bearing Point, Inc., which then received a $250 million contract to remake Iraq's economic infrastructure.
    "...Halliburton received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies received contracts worth more than $1.5 billion each. The seven largest reconstruction contracts went to the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion). These companies are responsible for virtually all reconstruction in Iraq, including water, bridges, roads, hospitals, and sewers and, most significantly, electricity."
    "...Put simply, U.S. oil companies want access to as much of Iraq's oil as they can get and on the best possible terms. The fact that Iraq is a war-ravaged and occupied nation works to the companies' benefit. As a result, the companies and the Bush administration are holding U.S. troops hostage in Iraq until they get what they want. Once the companies get their lucrative contracts, they will still need protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 144,000 American troops? {Following this pattern, we can know understand why the U.S. has not completed medical clinics, re-establish electric service, etc. They are holding the country hostage, with a promise of approve the sale of the oil fields and then these projects will be completed--jk.}"
    January 15, 2007 | skeptically.org

    Both parties support neoliberalism, and this is sufficient to explain the course of events leading up to and following the invasion of Iraq. Biparticism and media support of neoliberalism has left a gap in debate and reporting. The article below fills that gap-jk.

    From In These Times @ www.inthesetimes.com

    Features > January 15, 2007

    Spoils of War: Oil, the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area and the Bush Agenda

    By Antonia Juhasz, Antonia Juhasz, a visiting scholar at the Institute for Policy Studies, is the author of The Bush Agenda: Invading the World, One Economy at a Time, on which part of this article is based. She is working on a new book that will make the case for the break-up of the largest American oil companies. Learn more at www.TheBushAgenda.net.

    Remember oil? That thing we didn't go to war in Iraq for? Now with his war under attack, even President George W. Bush has gone public, telling reporters last August, "[a] failed Iraq … would give the terrorists and extremists an additional tool besides safe haven, and that is revenues from oil sales." Of course, Bush not only wants to keep oil out of his enemies' hands, he also wants to put it into the hands of his friends.

    The President's concern over Iraq's oil is shared by the Iraq Study Group, which on December 6 released its much-anticipated report. While the mainstream press focused on the report's criticism of Bush's handling of the war and the report's call for (potential) removal of (most) U.S. troops (maybe) by 2008, ignored was the report's focus on Iraq's oil. Page 1, chapter 1 laid out in no uncertain terms Iraq's importance to the Middle East, the United States and the world with this reminder: "It has the world's second-largest known oil reserves." The group then proceeds to give very specific and radical recommendations as to what should be done to secure those reserves.

    Guaranteeing access to Iraq's oil, however isn't the whole story. Despite the lives lost and the utter ruin that the war has brought, the overarching economic agenda that the administration is successfully pursuing in the Middle East might be the most enduring legacy of the war-and the most ignored. Just two months after declaring "mission accomplished" in Iraq, Bush announced his plans for a U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area to spread the economic invasion well-underway in Iraq to the rest of the region by 2013. Negotiations have progressed rapidly as countries seek to prove that they are with the United States, not against it.

    The Bush Agenda

    Within days of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert Zoellick announced that the Bush administration would be "countering terror with trade." Bush reiterated that pledge four years later when he told the United Nations, "By expanding trade, we spread hope and opportunity to the corners of the world, and we strike a blow against the terrorists. Our agenda for freer trade is part of our agenda for a freer world." In the case of the March 2003 invasion and ongoing occupation of Iraq, these "free trade"-or corporate globalization-policies have been applied in tandem with America's military forces.

    The Bush administration used the military invasion of Iraq to oust its leader, replace its government, implement new economic and political laws, and write a new constitution. The new economic laws have transformed Iraq's economy, applying some of the most radical-and sought-after-corporate globalization policies in the world and locking in sweeping advantages to U.S. corporations. Through the ongoing occupation, the Bush administration seeks to ensure that both Iraq's new government and this new economic structure stay firmly in place. The ultimate goal-opening Iraq to U.S. oil companies-is reaching fruition.

    In 2004, Michael Scheuer-the CIA's senior expert on al-Qaeda until he quit in disgust with the Bush administration-wrote, "The U.S. invasion of Iraq was not preemption; it was … an avaricious, premeditated, unprovoked war against a foe who posed no immediate threat but whose defeat did offer economic advantages." How right he was. For it is an absolute fallacy that the Bush administration had no post-invasion plan for Iraq. The administration had a very clear economic plan that has contributed significantly to the disastrous results of the war. The plan was prepared at least two months prior to the war by the U.S. consultancy firm, Bearing Point, Inc., which then received a $250 million contract to remake Iraq's economic infrastructure.

    L. Paul Bremer III-the head of the U.S. occupation government of Iraq, the Coalition Provisional Authority (CPA)-followed Bearing Point's plan to the letter. From May 6, 2003 until June 28, 2004, Bremer implemented his "100 Orders" with the force of law, all but a handful of which remain in place today. As the preamble to many of the orders state, they are intended to "transition [Iraq] from a … centrally planned economy to a market economy" virtually overnight and by U.S. fiat. Bremer's orders included firing the entire Iraqi military-some half a million men-in the first weeks of the occupation. Suddenly jobless, many of these men took their guns with them and joined the violent insurgency. Bremer also fired 120,000 of Iraq's senior bureaucrats from every government ministry, hospital and school. {By removing the Sumi bureaucracy, they removed opposition to globalization. The U.S. could now shop for support from what would soon be a newly elected factionalized parliament-jk.} His laws allowed for the privatization of Iraq's state-owned enterprises (excluding oil) and for American companies to receive preferential treatment over Iraqis in the awarding of reconstruction contracts. The laws reduced taxes on all corporations by 25 percent and opened every sector of the Iraqi economy to private foreign investment. The laws allowed foreign firms to own 100 percent of Iraqi businesses (as opposed to partnering with Iraqi firms) and to send their profits home without having to invest a cent in the struggling Iraqi economy. Iraqi laws governing banking, foreign investment, patents, copyrights, business ownership, taxes, the media, agriculture and trade were all changed to conform to U.S. goals.

    After the U.S. corporate invasion of Iraq

    More than 150 U.S. companies were awarded contracts for post-war work totaling more than $50 billion. The American companies were hired, even though Iraqi companies had successfully rebuilt the country after the previous U.S. invasion. And, because the American companies did not have to hire Iraqis, many imported foreign workers instead. The Iraqis were, of course, well aware that American firms had received billions of dollars for reconstruction, that Iraqi companies and workers had been rejected and that the country was still without basic services. The result: increasing hostility, acts of sabotage targeted directly at foreign contractors and their work, and a rising insurgency.

    Halliburton received the largest contract, worth more than $12 billion, while 13 other U.S. companies received contracts worth more than $1.5 billion each. The seven largest reconstruction contracts went to the Parsons Corporation of Pasadena, Calif. ($5.3 billion); Fluor Corporation of Aliso Viejo, Calif. ($3.75 billion); Washington Group International of Boise, Idaho ($3.1 billion); Shaw Group of Baton Rouge, La. ($3 billion); Bechtel Corporation of San Francisco ($2.8 billion); Perini Corporation of Framingham, Mass. ($2.5 billion); and Contrack International, Inc. of Arlington, Va. ($2.3 billion). These companies are responsible for virtually all reconstruction in Iraq, including water, bridges, roads, hospitals, and sewers and, most significantly, electricity.

    U.S. Air Force Colonel Sam Gardiner, author of a 2002 U.S. government study on the likely effect that U.S. bombardment would have on Iraq's power system, said, "frankly, if we had just given the Iraqis some baling wire and a little bit of space to keep things running, it would have been better. But instead we've let big U.S. companies go in with plans for major overhauls."

    Many companies had their sights set on years-long privatization in Iraq, which helps explain their interest in "major overhauls" rather than getting the systems up and running. Cliff Mumm, head of Bechtel's Iraq operation, put it this way: "[Iraq] has two rivers, it's fertile, it's sitting on an ocean of oil. Iraq ought to be a major player in the world. And we want to be working for them long term."

    And, since many U.S. contracts guaranteed that all of the companies' costs would be covered, plus a set rate of profit (known as cost-plus contracts), they took their time, building expensive new facilities that showcased their skills and would serve their own needs should they be runing the systems one day.

    Mismanagement, waste, abuse and criminality have also characterized U.S. corporations in Iraq-leading to a series of U.S. contract cancellations. For example, a $243 million contract held by the Parsons Corporation for the construction of 150 health care centers was cancelled after more than two years of work and $186 million yielded just six centers, only two of which are serving patients. Parsons was also dropped from two different contracts to build prisons, one in Mosul and the other in Nasiriyah. The Bechtel Corporation was dropped from a $50 million contract for the construction of a children's hospital in Basra after it went $90 million over budget and a year-and-a-half behind schedule. These contracts have since been turned over to Iraqi companies.

    Halliburton's subsidiary KBR is currently being investigated by government agencies and facing dozens of charges for waste, fraud and abuse. Most significantly, in 2006, the U.S. Army cancelled Halliburton's largest government contract, the Logistics Civil Augmentation Program (LOGCAP), which was for worldwide logistical support to U.S. troops. Halliburton will continue its current Iraq contract, but this year the LOGCAP will be broken into smaller parts and competitively bid out to other companies.

    The Special Inspector General for Iraq Reconstruction (SIGIR), a congressionally-mandated independent auditing and oversight body, has opened 256 investigations into criminal fraud, four of which have resulted in convictions. SIGIR has provided critical oversight of the U.S. reconstruction, but this fall it nearly fell prey to a GOP attempt to shut down its activities well ahead of schedule. Fortunately, it survived.

    SIGIR's October 2006 report to Congress reveals the failure of U.S. corporations in Iraq. In the electricity sector, less than half of all planned projects in Iraq have been completed, while 21 percent have yet to even begin. Even the term "complete" can be misleading as, for example, SIGIR has found that contractors have failed to build transmission and distribution lines to connect new generators to homes and businesses. Thus, nationally, Iraqis have on average just 11 hours of electricity a day, and in Baghdad, the heart of instability in Iraq, there are between four and eight hours on average per day. Before the war, Baghdad averaged 24 hours per day of electricity.

    While there has been greater success in finishing water and sewage projects, the fact that 80 percent of potable water projects are reported complete does little good if there is no electricity to pump the water into homes, hospitals or businesses. Meanwhile, the health care sector is truly a tragedy. Just 36 percent of planned projects are reported as complete. Of 20 planned hospitals, 12 are finished and only six of 150 planned public health centers are serving patients today.

    Overall, the economy is languishing, with high inflation, low growth, and unemployment rates estimated at 30 to 50 percent {being part of a militia is providing employment} for the nation and as high as 70 percent in some areas. The International Monetary Fund has enforced a structural adjustment program on Iraq that mirrors much of Bush's corporate globalization agenda, and the administration continues to push for Iraq's admission into the World Trade Organization.

    Iraq has not, therefore, emerged as the wealthy free market haven that Bush & Co. had hoped for. Several U.S. companies are now preparing to pack up, head home and take their billions of dollars with them, their work in Iraq left undone. The Bush administration is likely to follow a dual strategy: continuing to pursue a corporate free-trade haven in Iraq, while helping U.S. corporations extricate themselves without consequence. The administration will also focus on the big prize: Iraq's oil.

    Winning Iraq's oil prize:

    The Bush Agenda does have supporters, especially those corporate allies that have both shaped and benefited from the administration's economic and military policies. In the 2000 election cycle, the oil and gas industry donated 13 times more money to Bush's campaign than to Al Gore's. The Bush administration is the first in history in which the president, vice president and secretary of state are all former energy company officials. In fact, the only other U.S. president to come from the oil and gas industry was Bush's father. Moreover, both George W. Bush and Condoleezza Rice have more experience running oil companies than they do working for the government.

    Planning to secure Iraq's oil for U.S. companies began on the tenth day of the Bush presidency, when Vice President Dick Cheney established the National Energy Policy Development Group-widely referred to as "Cheney's Energy Task Force." It produced two lists, titled "Foreign Suitors for Iraqi Oilfield Contracts as of 5 March 2001," which named more than 60 companies from some 30 countries with contracts for oil and gas projects across Iraq-none of which were with American firms. However, because sanctions were imposed on Iraq at this time, none of the contracts could come into force. If the sanctions were removed-which was becoming increasingly likely as public opinion turned against the sanctions and Hussein remained in power-the contracts would go to all of those foreign oil companies and the U.S. oil industry would be shut out.

    As the Bush administration stepped up its war planning, the State Department began preparations for post-invasion Iraq. Meeting four times between December 2002 and April 2003, members of the State Department's Oil and Energy Working Group mapped out Iraq's oil future. They agreed that Iraq "should be opened to international oil companies as quickly as possible after the war" and that the best method for doing so was through Production Sharing Agreements (PSAs).

    PSAs are considered "privatization lite" in the oil business and, as such, are the favorite of international oil companies and the worst-case scenario for oil-rich states. With PSAs, oil ownership ultimately rests with the government, but the most profitable aspects of the industry-exploration and production-are contracted to the private companies under highly favorable terms. None of the top oil producers in the Middle East use PSAs, because they favor private companies at the expense of the exporting governments. In fact, PSAs are only used in respect to about 12 percent of world oil reserves {such as Nigeria}.

    After the invasion

    Two months after the invasion of Iraq, in May 2003, the U.S.-appointed senior adviser to the Iraqi Oil Ministry, Thamer al-Ghadban, announced that the new Iraqi government would honor few, if any, of the dozens of contracts signed with foreign oil companies under the Hussein regime.

    At the same time, Bremer was laying the economic groundwork for a "U.S. corporate friendly" Iraq. When Bremer left Iraq in June 2004, he bequeathed the Bush economic agenda to two men, Ayad Allawi and Adel Abdul Mahdi, who Bremer appointed interim Prime Minister and Finance Minister, respectively {viz., two sell the oil lackeys to head the Iraq government}. Two months later, Allawi (a former CIA asset) submitted guidelines for a new petroleum law to Iraq's Supreme Council for Oil Policy. The guidelines declared "an end to the centrally planned and state dominated Iraqi economy" and advised the "Iraqi government to disengage from running the oil sector, including management of the planned Iraq National Oil Company (INOC), and that the INOC be partly privatized in the future."

    Allawi's guidelines also turned all undeveloped oil and gas fields over to private international oil companies. Because only 17 of Iraq's 80 known oil fields have been developed, Allawi's proposal would put 64 percent of Iraq's oil into the hands of foreign firms. However, if a further 100 billion barrels are discovered, as is widely predicted, foreign companies could control 81 percent of Iraq's oil-or 87 percent if, as the Oil Ministry predicts, 200 billion barrels are found.

    On December 21, 2004, Mahdi joined U.S. Undersecretary of State Alan Larson at the National Press Club and announced Iraq's plans for a new petroleum law that would open the oil sector to private foreign investment. "I think this is very promising to the American investors and to American enterprise, certainly to oil companies," said Mahdi. He described how, under the proposed law, foreign companies would gain access both to "downstream" and "maybe even upstream" oil investment in Iraq. ("Downstream" refers to refining, distribution, and marketing of oil. "Upstream" refers to exploration and production.)

    The draft petroleum law adopted Allawi's recommendation that currently producing oil fields are to be developed by Iraq's National Oil Company, while all new fields are opened to private companies using PSAs.

    The Bush administration and U.S. oil companies have maintained constant pressure on Iraq to pass the petroleum law. The administration appointed an advisor to the Iraqi government from Bearing Point to support completion of the law. And in July 2006, U.S. Energy Secretary Samuel Bodman announced in Baghdad that oil executives told him that their companies would not enter Iraq without passage of the new oil law. Petroleum Economist magazine later reported that U.S. oil companies considered passage of the new oil law more important than increased security when deciding whether to go into business in Iraq.

    The Iraq Study Group, recognizing as it did the primacy of oil in its Iraq calculations, recommended that the U.S. "assist Iraqi leaders to reorganize the national oil industry as a commercial enterprise" and "encourage investment in Iraq's oil sector by the international community and by international energy companies."

    Put simply, U.S. oil companies want access to as much of Iraq's oil as they can get and on the best possible terms. The fact that Iraq is a war-ravaged and occupied nation works to the companies' benefit. As a result, the companies and the Bush administration are holding U.S. troops hostage in Iraq until they get what they want. Once the companies get their lucrative contracts, they will still need protection to get to work. What better security force is there than 144,000 American troops? {Following this pattern, we can know understand why the U.S. has not completed medical clinics, re-establish electric service, etc. They are holding the country hostage, with a promise of approve the sale of the oil fields and then these projects will be completed--jk.}

    Three days after the release of the Iraq Study Group Report, the al-Maliki government announced that Iraq's oil law was near completion. The law adopts PSAs and not only opens Iraq to private foreign companies, but permits "for the first time-local and international companies to carry out oil exploration in Iraq."

    To ensure that this model prevails, the Iraq Study Group recommends that Iraq's constitution be rewritten to give the central government of Iraq-as opposed to individual regions-the ultimate decision-making authority over all of Iraq's developed and undeveloped oil fields.

    Standard Oil Company's John D. Rockefeller famously said, "Own nothing, control everything." He would be proud of the U.S. oil companies and the Bush administration, as they seem poised to get exactly the control they want over Iraq's oil.

    Beyond Iraq: the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area

    But the Bush agenda has never been limited to Iraq. As the Wall Street Journal reported in May 2003, "For many conservatives, Iraq is now the test case for whether the U.S. can engender American-style free-market capitalism {neoliberalism} within the Arab world." To this end, the administration has used the "stick" of the Iraq war to convince nations across the Middle East to adopt its free trade agenda. The mechanism for doing so is the president's U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Area (MEFTA).

    The corporate lobbying group behind the MEFTA, the aptly named U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition, includes among its 120 members Chevron, ExxonMobil, Bechtel and Halliburton-companies intimately connected to the Bush administration that have already been big winners in Iraq.

    Insulated by oil revenue, the Middle East has largely avoided succumbing to the sacrifices required under free trade agreements. But since the war began, negotiations for the MEFTA have progressed rapidly.

    The Bush administration devised a unique negotiating strategy for the MEFTA. Rather than negotiate with all of the nations as a bloc, the United States negotiates one-on-one with each country. This means that every nation-some half the size of one state in the United States-must try to make a deal that serves its own interests with the most economically and militarily dominant nation in the world. The reality is that there can be no "negotiation" between such thoroughly unequal pairings.

    These individual free trade agreements are then united under the MEFTA. If successful, the MEFTA would be concluded by 2013 and include 20 countries: Algeria, Bahrain, Cyprus, Egypt, Palestine, Iran, Iraq, Israel, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Libya, Morocco, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Syria, the United Arab Emirates, Tunisia and Yemen.

    To date, the Bush administration has signed 13 Trade and Investment Framework Agreements (TIFAs), which demonstrate a country's commitment to the MEFTA, and are considered the key step towards passage of a full Free Trade Agreement (FTA). Things have moved briskly since the invasion of Iraq. Algeria and Bahrain signed before the war, while agreements with Lebanon (the most recent, signed in December), Tunisia, Saudi Arabia, Kuwait, Yemen, the United Arab Emirates, Qatar, Egypt, Morocco, Oman and Iraq all followed the war. The United States has signed FTAs with five Middle Eastern countries: Israel, Jordan, Morocco, Bahrain, and Oman. The last three were signed after the 2003 invasion of Iraq. Negotiations with the United Arab Emirates are underway and near completion.

    The winners, of course, are U.S. corporations. On January 19, 2006, for example, then-U.S. Trade Representative Robert Portman sent a letter to Oman's minister of commerce and industry affirming that, when it signs contracts, the Omani government may not give preference to the government's state-controlled oil companies. As for Oman's apparel industry, the U.S. International Trade Commission estimates that the U.S.-Oman agreement will lead to a 66 percent increase in U.S. imports of apparel manufactured in Oman. What are the likely effects? In May, a report by the National Labor Committee detailed the cost of the first Middle East trade agreement signed by Bush in December 2001-the U.S.-Jordan FTA. After that agreement was implemented, new factories arrived in Jordan to service American companies, primarily apparel firms such as Wal-Mart, JC Penney, Target and Jones New York. These factories have engaged in the worst kinds of rights violations, including 48-hour shifts without sleep, physical and psychological abuse, and, in the case of imported foreign workers, employers who hold passports and refuse to pay. (Wal-Mart also is a member of the U.S.-Middle East Free Trade Coalition. The Bush administration will spend the next two years aggressively pushing the MEFTA as it seeks to expand the economic invasion of Iraq to the entire region.

    What's next?

    Throughout his presidency, George W. Bush has claimed that we will live in a safer, more prosperous, and more peaceful world if the United States remains at war and if countries throughout the world change their laws and adopt economic policies that benefit America's largest multinational corporations. The Bush Agenda has proven to have the opposite effect: increasing deadly acts of terrorism and economic insecurity, reducing freedom, and engendering more war. To replace the Bush Agenda, we must address each of its key pillars individually-war, imperialism and corporate globalization.

    The most urgent first step is ending the war in Iraq by ending both the military and corporate occupations. We in the peace movement have already made tremendous progress in reaching these ends. Most Americans now oppose the war. The peace movement has welcomed with open arms U.S. soldiers and their families who share this opposition and unity has made us all stronger. Counter-recruitment efforts are blossoming across the country. The U.S. labor movement has joined forces with its counterpart in Iraq. Protests at corporate headquarters and shareholder meetings have led to U.S. war profiteers being called to account for their abuses in Iraq. Our success was made concrete with the dismissal of the president's party from power in both the House and the Senate.

    According to "Election 2006: No to Staying the course on Trade," by Public Citizen, 18 House races saw "fair traders" replace "free traders" in the midterm election, and not a single "free trader" beat a fair trade candidate. {Staying the course translates into holding the Iraq nation hostage until they pass PSA-jk.} In every Senate seat that changed hands, a fair trader beat a free trader. One of their most important tasks this year will be to deny Bush the renewal of Fast Track negotiating authority when it expires in July. Fast Track allows the president to move trade bills through Congress quickly by overriding core aspects of the democratic process, such as committee deliberations, full congressional debate and the ability to offer amendments. In addition to the newcomers, several existing allies have been elevated to new positions of power. Rep. Ike Skelton (D-Mo.) is now chairman of the House Armed Services Committee. He has pledged to resurrect the subcommittee on oversight and investigations. Rep. David Obey (D-Wisc.) will use his chairmanship of the House Appropriations Committee to exercise greater oversight of Bush's war spending. The most important ally, however, will likely be Rep. Henry Waxman (D-Calif.), the new chairman of the House Government Reform Committee. Waxman has been one of the most effective and aggressive critics of Halliburton's work in Iraq, greatly contributing to Halliburton's loss of its LOGCAP contract.

    Our allies in the new Congress should put forward two key demands:

    First, all remaining and future U.S. reconstruction funds must be turned over to Iraqi companies and Iraqi workers. SIGIR found that when Iraqi companies receive contracts (rather than subcontracts from U.S. companies), their work is faster, less expensive and less prone to insurgent attack. There are literally hundreds of both private and public Iraqi companies-and millions of Iraqi workers-ready, able and willing to do this work. U.S. military commanders and soldiers in Iraq have repeatedly made this demand as they have learned firsthand that a person with a clipboard or a shovel in his or her hands is far less likely to carry a gun.

    Second, U.S. corporations must not be allowed to "cut and run." Every U.S. corporation with reconstruction contracts in Iraq must be individually audited and each project investigated by SIGIR. Misspent funds must be returned and made available to Iraqis for reconstruction. SIGIR has begun this process with plans for a full audit of Bechtel's work due out early this year. SIGIR needs more staff, greater oversight authority and more money to complete this work in a timely manner.

    The Democrats must abandon the Bush administration's plan to remake Iraq into an economic wonderland for U.S. corporations. Iraq must belong to the Iraqis to remake as they see fit. Nowhere is this demand more critical than in the case of Iraq's oil. It is clear that Iraq needs to develop its oil sector to survive and that it needs to retain as much of the proceeds from its oil as possible. It is also clear that it should be the Iraqi public-freed of the external pressure of a foreign occupation, the Bush administration and U.S. corporations-that decides how its oil is developed. U.S. oil corporations cannot be permitted to "win" the war in Iraq while we-Iraqis and Americans-pay the price for their victory.

    IMF policy is to sell of the assets of each nation-which was consistent with the Whitehouse plan. From the point of view of Muslim zealots, this Americanization of the Arab world is the greatest immediate threat to their faith. Our presence on their turf and our plans for free trade turns these zealots into freedom fighters--jk.

    Read about how neoliberalism brought about the war in Iraq, and the plans to sell off the oil field through our puppet government there.

    What we all thought about the cause of the war, oil. However this article ties in international corporations and their wanting to upon up markets with the war. The politicians are not about informing through debate what is going on, but rather about selling their product and making their opponents look bad.

    [Sep 16, 2015] Axel Merk Warns Investors Are In For A Rude Awakening

    Sep 16, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Why should investors care?
    Investors need to care because the above is just a proxy for all risky assets, including what is sometimes referred to the ultimate risk asset, the stock market.

    All else equal, economic theory suggests that when volatility (risk premia) is lower, asset prices are higher. Investors are more willing to pay for an asset when the future appears less uncertain. As volatility increases, for whatever reason, asset prices should tend adjust lower to provide the higher expected future return needed to compensate the investor for the increased risk level.

    Stock prices were rising on the backdrop of low volatility. Such an environment, in our assessment, fosters complacency: investors have been lured, courtesy of the Fed, to buy the stock market.

    The trouble is that risky assets are, well, still risky. So while central bankers can mask risk, they cannot eliminate it.

    As a result, our analysis suggests many investors may be holding assets that are riskier than they think.

    Where we are
    The Fed's hope was that the economy would be on sound enough footing by now, so that the 'extraordinary accommodation' can be removed. Alas, hope is not a plan.

    In our assessment, the Fed has tried to boost economic growth through asset price inflation. While we don't think printing money creates jobs in the long-run, it does impact various sectors of the economy and, well, asset prices. Housing, for example, is affected by monetary policy: as home prices rise, fewer home-owners are "under water" in their mortgage (there are more implications, such as rather hot housing markets in places such as San Francisco).

    Relevant to this discussion, though, is that if asset prices were to deflate, there might be higher headwinds to economic growth than had asset prices not previously been artificially boosted. And that's exactly where we are: in our analysis, the reason the markets are so nervous about a rate hike is because it signals a shift towards rising risk premia. As the Fed is trying to engineer an exit, risky assets, from junk bonds to stocks, warrant a higher risk premium. In our analysis, all else equal, we don't even need a Fed "exit:" even a perceived Fed exit warrants higher volatility and, with it, lower asset prices.

    Where we may be heading
    Think about it: we have investors that have enjoyed years of bull market; investors that have been told to "buy the dip;" investors that have invested in the markets under the faulty assumption that the markets are a low risk endeavor. Now let volatility spike for any reason - blame the Chinese if you wish - and our assessment is that an increasing number will say: "I didn't sign up for this. I didn't know investing in the market is risky."

    Differently said, rather then the glass being half full, it may be half empty. Rather than buy the dips, investors may now sell the rallies. Investors may scramble to preserve their paper profits. It will take a while for most investors to embrace this new regime, but we believe the tide may well have shifted.

    So will we get a rate hike?

    It doesn't matter. What matters is what the Federal Reserve Open Market Committee (FOMC) has been arguing since the spring of 2014 in their Minutes:

      The Committee currently anticipates that, even after employment and inflation are near mandate-consistent levels, economic conditions may, for some time, warrant keeping the target federal funds rate below levels the Committee views as normal in the longer run.

    To us, this is a promise to be "behind the curve," i.e. to be late in raising rates. The Fed will try to keep rates lower than the Fed itself 'views as normal.' Presumably, it will try to avoid risk premia to blow out too much too quickly. Maybe they'll succeed, but I would not want to bet my house on it.

    What should investors do?

    Just as with every bubble that has been built, investors have been most reluctant to take chips off the table when times were good. We urge all investors to have a close look at whether they are comfortable with the risk profile of their portfolio. Based on our discussions with both retail and professional investors we believe many are over-exposed to risky assets. We don't expect everyone to do what I did in early August, which is to actually go short the market (please read: Coming Out - As a Bear!), but we urge everyone to do some serious stress testing on his or her portfolio.

    Which asset classes do we think will outperform?

    In August, any trade that appeared to have worked, went into reverse. In fact, one could argue there is no such thing as a risk free asset anymore, and given that risky assets were in decline, most investors lost money. It's one reason why looking at alternative strategies, such long/short strategies (in currencies, equities or otherwise) might be worth considering.

    The so-called "flight to safety" did not benefit the greenback; instead, the euro surged on days when U.S. equities plunged. While the media was highlighting how some emerging market currencies plunged, the greenback was down versus all major currencies on numerous days when the S&P was down sharply. We are not suggesting that the euro, or any one currency, will necessarily, be the bastion of strength. Instead, what's been happening is that investors had been piling in to the same trades, such as "the dollar must rally because the U.S. has the cleaner shirt, will raise rates, because ..." well, a good trade works even better with leverage; except that when "risk is off," i.e. when the pessimists take over, de-leveraging is the mode du jour. As such, all those out of favor investors are suddenly outperforming.

    In our assessment, different asset classes adjust at different speeds. The currency markets, when it comes to free-floating currencies at least, adjust faster than equity markets. In the equity market, we expect downward pressure to persist for an extended period until public sentiment is firmly in bearish territory (this may take months, more likely years).

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 15, 2015]A Fiscal Policy Rule for Oil Exporters

    "...On the high side, oil spend equaling 5% of GDP implies 'stagflation', 'secular stagnation' or outright recession in the advanced oil importing countries....Today, 5% of GDP equals about $110 / barrel"
    .
    "... Indeed, surplus capacity is probably not more than 1-2% (1-2 mbpd) of oil consumption, a level which would ordinarily be considered critically low."
    .
    "...At current prices, many shale operators are facing bankruptcy, the oil majors are liquidating themselves, and OPEC governments are suffering for a lack of revenues. The situation looks untenable for producers."
    .
    "... For now, let it suffice to say that maintaining current oil prices depends intrinsically on weakness in China, not on the ability of oil producers to flood the market at $50 / barrel Brent."
    Princeton Energy Advisors

    ... ... ...

    Oil is the life-blood of the global economy, and therefore GDP and oil prices tend to be related. Therefore, it seems appropriate to use a model is based on global spend on crude oil as a percent of world GDP. If oil prices are too low, supply will falter, the global economy will sooner or later become starved of oil, and prices will rise. On the other hand, if prices are too high, then the consumer economies will stagnate, new oil production will come on line, and oil prices will decline.

    On the high side, oil spend equaling 5% of GDP implies 'stagflation', 'secular stagnation' or outright recession in the advanced oil importing countries. Oil prices are not sustainable at that level without ascribing to some variation of peak oil. Today, 5% of GDP equals about $110 / barrel. That's a very high price historically, and not suitable for fiscal planning purposes given current realities.

    ... ... ...

    I would add that our expectations depend heavily on the experience after 1986, when oil prices last collapsed in such great magnitude. At the time, a period of extended low prices was readily foreseeable. High oil prices had been maintained by progressive OPEC production cuts, which in turn created global spare capacity equaling 13 mbpd, or 25% of global consumption. This enormous surplus required almost 20 years to clear-two decades known as The Great Moderation. However, there is no such surplus today. Indeed, surplus capacity is probably not more than 1-2% (1-2 mbpd) of oil consumption, a level which would ordinarily be considered critically low.

    ... ... ...

    If one allows the 1986 precedent, then fiscal policy should be set assuming oil prices will equate to 2.3% of GDP, as they did from 1986 to 1990. In dollar terms, that would imply a spot Brent oil price of $50 / barrel today, rising to $60 / barrel in 2020. As Brent currently hovers around $48 / barrel, the sustainable price would appear to be above the current price.

    On the supply side, maintaining such low prices looks quite a challenge. At current prices, many shale operators are facing bankruptcy, the oil majors are liquidating themselves, and OPEC governments are suffering for a lack of revenues. The situation looks untenable for producers.

    To maintain low prices, China would have to suffer a recession--GDP growth of 2% or less -- thereby pushing its neighbors into outright recession. The script would follow the Asian financial crisis of 1998. At the time, oil spend fell to 1.1% of global GDP, equal to $25 / barrel into today's terms. Of course, assessing China's outlook is a complicated matter. For now, let it suffice to say that maintaining current oil prices depends intrinsically on weakness in China, not on the ability of oil producers to flood the market at $50 / barrel Brent.

    Those oil exporters who believe that oil is not a shortage commodity should plan for sustainable prices over the next five years at 2.3% of GDP, approximately $50-60 / barrel on a Brent basis. For those who believe that China still has a future, and that oil is still hard to find, well, your analysis will be more complicated.

    [Sep 15, 2015] Common factors in commodity and asset markets

    "...OECD oil demand is up 800 kbpd over last year, and I am still trying to find another 300-400 kbpd of refined products in the OECD which have disappeared, statistically speaking. So OECD demand growth could be up as much as 1.1-1.2 mbpd, depending on where those missing barrels end up. No visible weakness in the demand in the OECD. "
    Sep 15, 2015 | Econbrowser
    Ricardo September 14, 2015 at 5:08 am

    Menzie wrote:

    "Increases in oil production in the United States and the Middle East were certainly key factors in the huge drop in oil prices over the last year."

    Don't you have this backward? Actually, huge drops in oil prices have reduced production. Reductions in production would tend to lower supply and tend to creare higher prices than if the supply did not change.

    Understanding this gives us the answer to your second sentence.

    "Nevertheless, one can't help but be struck by the fact that the weekly changes in oil prices correlate with dramatic moves in other commodity and financial markets."

    We would expect overall commodity prices to drop – especially oil – with an appreciating currency.

    Steven Kopits September 14, 2015 at 9:36 am

    Scott Sumner might point out that we are reasoning from price changes.

    As I recall, shale oil production has moved the trade deficit by 2% of GDP since 2012. I believe this is not a small adjustment.

    The OECD seems to be doing fine. OECD oil demand is up 800 kbpd over last year, and I am still trying to find another 300-400 kbpd of refined products in the OECD which have disappeared, statistically speaking. So OECD demand growth could be up as much as 1.1-1.2 mbpd, depending on where those missing barrels end up. No visible weakness in the demand in the OECD.

    The global economy, ex-China and China-derived demand (eg, Brazil, Australia, Indonesia, Canada, Norway, and some other commodity exporters) is doing fine. So if we're talking weakness in the global economy, we're talking about weakness in China. And if we're talking weakness in China, we're talking first and foremost an over-valued yuan. See the second graph ("Rush to Exit") in the article below, and tell me the yuan doesn't need a write-down. And note flight of capital from China corresponds to the collapse of the oil price, the devaluation of other currencies against the dollar (excluding China), and that in turn corresponds to the acceleration of shale oil production in Q3 2014.

    One could argue that China collapsed just as shale oil production was accelerating, but that seems a bit too coincidental.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-09-11/these-four-charts-show-how-obama-s-leverage-over-xi-is-increasing

    Steven Kopits, September 15, 2015 at 8:51 am

    I have written an analysis of the impact of shale oil production on the US trade deficit, and by implication, the dollar exchange rate.

    Find it here: http://www.prienga.com/blog/2015/9/15/impact-of-shales-on-the-us-trade-deficit

    [Sep 14, 2015] A Flock Of Black Swans

    Sep 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Submitted by Jeff Thomas via InternationalMan.com,

    "What Will the Fatal Trigger Be?"

    Here's a brief list of possible triggers:

    • Creditors dump US debt back into the US market
    • Commodity prices spike
    • A crash occurs in the stock or bond market
    • A backlash occurs from countries sanctioned by the US
    • European countries default on their debt
    • The US dollar ends as the petrocurrency (causing a sale in US treasuries)
    • The US or EU introduce significant tariffs, diminishing world trade
    • Interest rates rise, as they did in 1929
    • The paper gold market crashes, when the shortage of physical gold is revealed
    • Banks freeze or confiscate deposits
    • FATCA accelerates the demise of the US dollar as the default currency
    • A credit collapse occurs (followed by dramatic inflation or hyperinflation)

    Any of the above is capable of triggering a collapse (and, as stated, this is not by any means an exhaustive list). Therefore, it would be wise to keep an eye out for indicators that one of them may occur. Any one of them that appears to be nearing the point of becoming a reality would suggest that the tipping point may occur soon.

    "How Will I Know in Advance?"

    Whatever advance warning you may have will be based on how closely you're following the indicators that any of the possible triggers may be nearing fruition. Some, like the overbought stock market or the rise in commodity prices could kick in at any time.

    Others, such as a bank freeze on deposits, or the collapse of the ETF market in gold, could happen quite suddenly and without any warning at all.

    In discussing the above condition with investors, they often say, "Well, if it's inevitable and I can't time the event, there's no use thinking about it. We're all going to go down with the ship, so why bother?"

    Quite frankly, I'm astonished that so many investors are so complacent that they're prepared to shrug their shoulders and accept their own economic demise, yet this assumption is very common.

    The enemy is not the coming events; the enemy is complacency toward those events.

    The investor therefore has two viable choices: to either get blindsided by events and become an economic casualty, or be prepared (as much as possible) for the crashes, regardless of what the trigger might turn out to be.

    [Sep 14, 2015] Jeffrey Brown To Understand The Oil Story, You Need To Understand Exports

    It's amazing that several trillion dollar was spend in exploration and oil recovery for the last several years. That suggests low EROEI.. Earth does not contain unlimited amount of cheaply extractable oil. Opposite is true ("peak cheap oil"). "Real oil" became more and more scars, but production of oil substitutes greatly increased as side effect of national gas exploration.
    The closer you follow MSM on oil, the more you are misled. Not all oil is created equal. condensate that account for most production increase (as a byproduct of national gas extraction).
    "Real" crude oil extraction did not increased since 2005. Shift to other oil substitutes by-and-large accounts for increase in oil production in stars reports.
    In you production if flat or falling or your internal consumption is rising them you export less and less. Net export for several current oil exporting countries can go zero in just nine years. Saudi Arabia probably already shipped 50% of oil they can ever export. And their internal consumption is increasing rapidly due to population growth. Unless they cut their internal consumption they can export less and less.
    Sep 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Submitted by Adam Taggart via PeakProsperity.com,

    Despite the attention-grabbing economic volatility that is dominating headlines, it's important to keep our eye on the energy story firmly in focus. This is especially true as the headlines we regularly read about Peak Oil being dead " are "manifestly false" according to this week's podcast guest, petroleum geologist Jeffrey Brown.

    As concerning as the fact that global oil production has plateaued over the past decade, despite trillions invested in trying to goose it higher, are Brown's forecasting model for oil exports. His Export Land Model shows how rising internal consumption can swing (and has swung) countries from major exporters to permanent importers within a dizzyingly short period of time:

    The crucial issue to understand about what has happened after 2005 is that we've had a very large increase in global gas production and natural gas liquids, but a much slower increase in crude plus condensate.

    So, what I think has happened is the actual crude oil production has basically flatlined while the liquids associated with natural gas production, condensate and natural gas liquids, have continued to increase. So, we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of Brent or WTI; but when you ask for the volume of oil, you get some combination of crude, condensate, natural gas liquids, biofuels. So, the fact is that substitution has worked and is working in that they're bringing on alternative substitutes, but they're only partial substitutes. The actual, physical volume of crude oil production has probably been flat to down since 2005. Over the past ten years, it has taken us trillions of dollars, basically, to keep us on an undulating plateau in actual crude oil production. What happens going forward?

    So, basically, the conventional wisdom is the fact that we've seen an increase in liquids production, seems there's no evidence of the peak in sight. And, I think in regard to crude oil production, that argument is manifestly false. I think that we've probably seen a peak in actual crude oil production, 45 and lower API gravities, despite trillions of dollars of upstream capex expenditures.

    I started wondering in late 2005 what happens to oil exports from an exporting country, given a production decline and rising consumption. And, so I just started, I just constructed a simple little model. I assumed a production of about two million barrels a day or so at peak, consumption of one, and assumed production falls about 5% per year, basically what the North Sea did, and assumed consumption increases to 2.5% per year. What the model showed was that exports, net exports would go to zero in only nine years, even though a roughly modest production decline. So, the easy way to state it is giving an ongoing, inevitable decline in production, unless an exporting country cuts their domestic oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production, or at a faster rate, it's a mathematical certainty that the net export decline rate, what they actually ship out to consumers will exceed the rate of decline in production. And, furthermore, it accelerates.

    Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Jeffrey Brown (43m:48s)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=2evwXpejl_M

    buzzsaw99

    ...despite trillions of dollars of upstream capex expenditures.

    Trillions?

    SHRAGS

    See this talk by Stephen Kopits, yes, trillions
    http://energypolicy.columbia.edu/events-calendar/global-oil-market-forec...

    Uncletommy

    Export what you can make money on Great examination of the variables in the oil business. Funny that a graph on Canadian exports wasn't included in this analysis. Watching the performance on the Canadian crud (oops, I mean't crude) stocks tumble, his analysis hits the nail on the head. Canadian heavy crude producers are facing huge discounts and they have had to use the condensate to blend heavier sources just pipe it to market.

    And if it doesn't hit the refiner's specs, it is either rejected or priced even lower, as Mr Brown points out. The CAPEX on these Alberta sources has been cut way back and they are only shipping existing heavy crude and conventional production just to keep the lights on. Layoffs in western Canada haven't been this high in a long time. I wonder why?

    The interesting thing I see is that the major refiners in the US are making comfortable margins on finished products that most of the exporting countries are importing. Has your gasoline dropped as much as the price of crude? Doubt it.

    I'm not saying the refiners are having a cakewalk, but low priced base products certainly don't hurt. Bottom line - the good stuff is getting scarce. The 7 billion of us will soon be 9 billion. Just one more affirmation of PP's message. Great discussion and another good slant on the topic. Keep up the good work, Chris.

    Export Numbers

    To understand the oil story we need to understand exports. Well I listened to the podcast twice and I am shocked and confused. It sounds to me like the Bobble Heads in charge aren't on top of the export data or are minimizing, obfuscating or ignoring the information. Isn't this information and data that should be shouted from the roof-tops?

    The Bobble Heads said the Titanic was UNSINKABLE, oops wrong. Now it's we are awash in petroleum, don't worry be happy. Soon it's oops, wrong again ..... really?

    And people are using "implied numbers" or the "available data" this tells me there is some room for error. This wasn't an - "ah ha" podcast this was a Holy Shit podcast.

    Looking forward to others feed back.

    AKGrannyWGrit

    [Sep 14, 2015] United States Oil Fund LP (ETF) Short Interest Down 6.7% in July (USO)

    Ticker Report

    United States Oil Fund LP (ETF) Short Interest Down 6.7% in July (USO)

    Posted by Max Byerly on Aug 18th, 2015
    United States Oil Fund LP (ETF) logoShares of United States Oil Fund LP (ETF) (NYSE:USO) were the target of a significant decline in short interest in the month of July. As of July 31st, there was short interest totalling 45,855,306 shares, a decline of 6.7% from the July 15th total of 49,139,106 shares, AnalystRatings.NET reports. Based on an average trading volume of 23,230,679 shares, the short-interest ratio is currently 2.0 days.

    United States Oil Fund LP (NYSE:USO) opened at 13.89 on Tuesday. United States Oil Fund LP has a 52 week low of $13.86 and a 52 week high of $35.83. The company's 50-day moving average is $16.41 and its 200 day moving average is $18.44.

    United States Oil Fund, LP (NYSE:USO) is a commodity pool that issues limited partnership interests (shares) traded on the NYSE Arca, Inc. The investment objective of USO is for changes in percentage terms of its shares' per share net asset value (NAV) to reflect the changes in percentage terms of the spot price of light, sweet crude oil delivered to Cushing, Oklahoma, as measured by the changes in the price of the futures contract for light, sweet crude oil traded on the New York Mercantile Exchange (the NYMEX). The Company's general partner is United States Commodity Funds LLC. The net assets of USO consist primarily of investments in futures contracts for light, sweet crude oil, other types of crude oil, diesel-heating oil, gasoline, natural gas and other petroleum-based fuels that are traded on the NYMEX, ICE Futures or other the United States and foreign exchanges.

    [Sep 13, 2015] A Major Bank Just Made Global Financial Meltdown Its Base Case The Worst The World Has Ever Seen

    "...China is building islands in the SCS as a shot at Japan; Japanese brokerage takes a shot at China's economy. Shots fired. But, not saying they're wrong."
    "...Yet another instance of a person or entity that is fucking causing this meltdown with their fraud and theft suddenly warning about it. Just like that brit douche bag, just like greenspan, and now this. Just trying to protect themselves when the disaster they have wrought comes unglued, so they can say something along the lines of "it wasn't me, I was trying to warn you this would happen, remember?""
    "...This is very obviously preemptive damage control. This bank knows the crash is coming and is announcing that it is china's fault before they get dragged out into the street and killed. Very very smart."
    "...The meltdown is coming and well known to the elites ... thus we have more war intensity in the MENA areas. The West classically uses war as a tool to fight depressions. Now is no exception.
    Of course the politicans and business leaders want not only war but massive flooding of refugees so they can justify stealing taxpayer money to build houses for them [and line their pockets at the same time] ... using "humantitarian" purposes as the ruse."
    "...The Western Oligarchs want to keep China, Russia and other emerging economies in their place. They control capital flows AT ALL COSTS "
    Sep 13, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    One bank that is now less than optimistic that China can escape a total economic meltdown is the Daiwa Institute of Research, a think tank owned by Daiwa Securities Group, the second largest brokerage in Japan after Nomura.

    Actually, scratch that: Daiwa is downright apocalyptic.

    In a report released on Friday titled "What Will Happen if China's Economic Bubble Bursts", Daiwa - among other things - looks at this pernicious relationship between debt (and thus "growth") and China's capital stock. This is what it says:

    The sense of surplus in China's supply capacity has been indicated previously. This produces the risk of a large-scale capital stock adjustment occurring in the future.

    Chart 6 shows long-term change in China's capital coefficient (= real capital stock / real GDP). This chart indicates that China's policies for handling the aftermath of the financial crisis of 2008 led to the carrying out of large-scale capital investment, and we see that in recent years, the capital coefficient has been on the rise. Recently, the coefficient has moved further upwards on the chart, diverging markedly from the trend of the past twenty years. It appears that the sense of overcapacity is increasing.

    Using the rate of divergence from past trends in the capital coefficient, we can calculate the amount of surplus in real capital stock. This shows us that as of the year 2013, China held a surplus of 19.4 trillion yuan in capital stock (about 12% of real capital stock).

    Since China is a socialist market economy, they could delay having to deal directly with the problem of capital stock surplus for 1-2 years through fiscal and financial policy. However, there is serious risk of a large-scale capital stock adjustment occurring in the mid to long-term (around 3-5 years).

    Daiwa then attempts to calculate what the magnitude of the collapse of China's economic bubble would be. Its conclusions:

    Even in an optimum scenario China's economic growth rate would fall to around zero

    We take a quantitative look at the potential magnitude of the collapse of China's economic bubble to ensure that we can get a good grasp of the future risk scenario. If a surplus capital stock adjustment were to actually occur, what is the risk for China and how far would its economy fall?

    Chart 7 shows a factor analysis of China's potential growth rate. The data here suggests that (1) China's economy has gradually matured in recent years, and this has slowed progress in technological advancement, (2) Despite this fact, it has continued to depend on the accumulation of capital mainly from public spending to maintain a high economic growth rate, and (3) As a result, this has done more harm than good to technological advancement. Between the years 2012-15 China's economy declined, yet still was able to maintain a high growth rate of over 7%.

    However, 5%pt of the growth rate was due to the increase in capital stock. Labor input and total factor productivity contributed only 2%pt.

    The major decline in the rate of contribution from total factor productivity is especially noteworthy, as it had maintained an annualized rate of 5% for thirty years straight since the introduction of the reform and opening-up policy and on through the era of rapid globalization.

    According to a DIR simulation, if a capital stock adjustment were to occur under such circumstances, China's potential growth rate would fall to around 4% at best. This adjustment process is shown in the bottom left Chart 7. As far as can be determined from the capital stock circulation diagram, capital spending at the level seen in 2014 should not have been allowable without an expected growth rate of over 10%. Hence if adjustment progresses to the point where the potential growth rate is only 4%, the situation for capital spending will continue to be harsh.

    If the adjustment process lasts from the year 2016 to 2020, capital spending will likely continue in negative numbers on a y/y basis. If this scenario becomes a reality, the real economic growth rate will hover at around zero as is shown in the lower right portion of Chart 7.

    ... ... ....

    The stunning punchline:

    "Of all the possible risk scenarios the meltdown scenario is, realistically speaking, the most likely to occur. It is actually a more realistic outcome than the capital stock adjustment scenario. The point at which the capital stock adjustment is expected to hit bottom is at a much lower point than in the previously discussed capital stock adjustment scenario (see Chart 8). As shown in the bottom right portion of this chart, the actual economic growth rate will continue to register considerably negative performance. If China's economy, the second largest in the world, twice the size of Japan's, were to lapse into a meltdown situation such as this one, the effect would more than likely send the world economy into a tailspin. Its impact could be the worst the world has ever seen."

    greenskeeper -> carl

    Yet another instance of a person or entity that is fucking causing this meltdown with their fraud and theft suddenly warning about it. Just like that brit douche bag, just like greenspan, and now this. Just trying to protect themselves when the disaster they have wrought comes unglued, so they can say something along the lines of "it wasn't me, I was trying to warn you this would happen, remember?"

    FinalEvent

    Not only warn, but blame it on china as well.

    chunga

    I'm curious how the squid will profit by making it all worse.

    A Lunatic

    I guess the same way they have always profited from death and hell and misery...

    THX 1178

    This is very obviously preemptive damage control. This bank knows the crash is coming and is announcing that it is china's fault before they get dragged out into the street and killed. Very very smart.

    CheapBastard

    The meltdown is coming and well known to the elites ... thus we have more war intensity in the MENA areas. The West classically uses war as a tool to fight depressions. Now is no exception.

    Of course the politicans and business leaders want not only war but massive flooding of refugees so they can justify stealing taxpayer money to build houses for them [and line their pockets at the same time] ... using "humantitarian" purposes as the ruse.

    jeff montanye

    the report cited early above, by mckinsey, is quite interesting; it can in its entirety here http://www.mckinsey.com/insights/economic_studies/debt_and_not_much_dele...

    to me, there are some internal inconsistencies: e.g. sometimes financial debt is included in the ratios, sometimes not. in any case there are many more-leveraged countries than china, the u.s, and south korea: japan and much of europe for instance.

    CheapBastard

    Good read. Lax lending standards are rampant again and I am not sure they ever tightened much, esp in places like the usa where lenders know they will get bailed out. it also sounds as if we are going to have brutal deflation before any serious inflation due to austerity, defaults, etc.

    Arnold

    Lax lendig is social policy in the US.

    ThroxxOfVron

    "This bank knows the crash is coming and is announcing that it is china's fault before they get dragged out into the street and killed. Very very smart. "

    China's fault, huh? All by themselves?

    Somehow I think that the globalists and banksters that made billions if not trillions on this misadventure might be as much to blame as the Party Poobahs that welcomed the chance to farm the peasants out and pave the whole country over in 30 short years...

    I say we drag them ALL, Party/Politcal hacks, Globalist Feudalist, Banksters, THE LOT: out into the street anyway.

    As the Cultural Revolution proved all too well: 'cleaning the slate' is 'morally acceptable' to 'civilization' in both the East and the West.


    Groundhog Day

    the only solution for the banksters (and elites) is to cause a major economic meltdown, where rich (small business owners, doctors, lawyers) and poor people are starving to death for a long time. This way they won't really care about the trillions lost but will only be concerned about thier next meal. same as it ever was throughout history. Then the elite can come in and start the game all over again with new rules and clean hands

    yogibear

    Being on the right side of the trade. Since Goldman knows first hand which way the Fed is blowing it knows how to set itself up.

    William Dudley is a former Goldman boy. Goldman will be the first to know.

    TeethVillage88s

    A Goldman Boy!! How can the EU, Russia, China, and vassal states like the PIIGS not fight back?

    - Well there were a few and still are a few rebels, but you have to search your soul about supporting their ideas:

    1) PIIGS
    2) Venezuela
    3) Argentina
    4) Brazil
    5) Russia
    6) China
    7) India
    8) South Africa
    9) Indonesia
    10) Cuba
    (BRIICS)

    Who gets a pass on Global Principals and their participation in Global Events:

    1) Belgium
    2) Luxembourg
    3) Nederland
    4) United Kingdom (and Vassal States)
    5) France
    6) Germany
    7) Switzerland

    8) Asian Tigers (Singapore, Hong Kong, Indonesia, Malaysia, Thailand, Vietnam, Burma)

    9) Australia, New Zealand, Canada

    Are there other Alternative Societies or Constructs?

    A) Off Shore Structures in the Sea
    B) Vessels that declare sovereignty
    C) Regions or Places declared communes or under the command of a Captain of the Sea
    D) Islands or Arctic Areas with no permanent settlements

    **If the USA reclaims it's US Constitution and forces the 3 Branches of Federal Government to comply then the USA could be born again

    ZippyDooDah

    China is building islands in the SCS as a shot at Japan; Japanese brokerage takes a shot at China's economy. Shots fired. But, not saying they're wrong.

    JRobby

    Chicken Little? No, I think not. The people that have profited most by creating the scenario for collapse now calling for it is what is to be expected.

    The Western Oligarchs want to keep China, Russia and other emerging economies in their place. They control capital flows AT ALL COSTS

    Radical Marijuana

    Superficially correct, Supernova Born, but actually WAY WORSE, because all of that "money" made out of nothing was being used to strip-mine the natural resources of the planet.


    Visualizing China's Mind-Boggling Consumption Of The World's Raw Materials

    China jumped in the deep end with both feet, when it decided to imitate and out-do the Western systems based on fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting, and therefore, created something about three times more "money" out of nothing as debts. The Chinese economy deliberately adopted those systems, and therefore, what we thought of as their economic systems was more like ENFORCED FRAUDS ON STEROIDS.

    The ways that most people think about "economics" are as absurdly backwards as possible, because those ways of thinking tend to take completely for granted that the public "money" supplies are being made out of nothing, as debts, while then that "money" does NOT actually "pay" for anything, but rather, is the expression of ENFORCED FRAUDS, where having been able to ENFORCE FRAUDS never stopped those FRAUDS BEING FALSE.

    Sure, it appears that "Nobody but the house wins in a rigged casino." However, that casino is way more profoundly rigged, to the degree to which nobody wins. The world's political economy is based upon governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks. Since China could not beat them, China decided to join them, and indeed, create flabbergastingly more "money" out of nothing than the previous "leaders" in those areas had ever done!

    As the saying goes:

    "I do not know who discovered water, but is was not fish."

    For generation after generation, almost everyone has been used to living inside of a political economy based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS. That drove almost everyone to develop attitudes which deliberately ignored the principle of the conservation of energy as much as possible, while also deliberately misunderstanding the concept of entropy in the most absurdly backward ways possible. The ways that people think about economic activities could not be more absurdly backwards, because they could not be more based on ENFORCING FRAUDS than they already are, which is pretty well more than 99%, which is matched by the ratios between physical realities versus financial frauds, being about 1 to 100, while automatically still getting worse, since the political economy is still based upon governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks.

    While it may well appear that those privately controlled banks are "winning" fantastically, inside of the casinos that they have rigged, that perception is relatively superficial, because their fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems were simultaneously based upon deliberately ignoring the laws of nature as much as possible, both by building everything on the basis of strip-mining, as well as discounting the consequences of doing that as much as possible.

    The appearance of those who rigged the casinos "winning" ONLY exists within the fundamentally fraudulent accounting systems that operated through those rigged casinos, which became based on governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks. The intense paradoxes of social systems based on ENFORCING FRAUDS is that the more successful they become, the more they get locked into vicious spirals of psychosis. Those who appear to be "winning" inside of their rigged casinos are actually playing while they are burning that casino down.

    By and large, it is practically impossible for most people to go through the cognitive dissonance it would take for them to come to terms with the degree to which everything "economic" was built on the basis of being able to ENFORCE FRAUDS. While it is theoretically possible to do that, by developing the intellectual scientific revolutions necessary to approach understanding human being and civilization as entropic pumps of environmental energy flows, it is politically impossible to do that, since one has to go through profound paradigm shifts, in order to comprehend how and why everything became based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS, and that China decides to embrace that kind of political economy, and do it more than anyone else had previously done.

    There are intense paradoxes, in the form of consistent contradictions, which arise from better understanding how and why civilization actually operates according to the principles and methods of organized crime. On a superficial level, it may well appear that those who rigged their casinos were the only ones "winning." However, on deeper levels, they were also lying to themselves, because those systems which privatized the profits, while socializing the losses, were based upon being able to deliberately ignore that those socialized losses were accumulating to become greater than the privatized profits.

    As stated in the recent article, A Major Bank Just Made Global Financial "Meltdown" Its Base Case: "The Worst The World Has Ever Seen"

    "Of all the possible risk scenarios the meltdown scenario is, realistically speaking, the most likely to occur. It is actually a more realistic outcome than the capital stock adjustment scenario. If China's economy, the second largest in the world, twice the size of Japan's, were to lapse into a meltdown situation such as this one, the effect would more than likely send the world economy into a tailspin. Its impact could be the worst the world has ever seen."

    Since everything the globalized political economy has been doing was based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS, and China enthusiastically jumped on that bandwagon, the basic problems regarding having done that were almost totally globalized. Since the world is run by people who degree of social successfulness was based upon their abilities to be the best available professional liars and immaculate hypocrites, in order to be socially successful within the established systems ENFORCING FRAUDS, it continues to be politically impossible for most of those people to admit the magnitudes to which they were lying to themselves, and to everyone else, regarding how the political economy was really doing, due to how it really worked.

    Collectively, the globalized political economy was based upon runaway triumphant organized crime, whose excessive successfulness became runaway criminal insanities. While it appeared to those who had rigged their casinos were "winning" that was their own delusional sense of what was actually going on, due to the degree that short to medium term social successes could be based on continuing to ENFORCE FRAUDS.

    However, at the same time, the deeper underlying realities were actually developing, because the fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems were able to trick human beings, but that did not change the underlying laws of nature. Despite human beings dominated by social systems based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS feeling like they were "winning" inside of the casinos that they had rigged, what was actually really happening was that they were behaving in ways where the only connections between human laws and natural laws were the abilities to back up lies with violence. Hence, those runaway systems of ENFORCED FRAUDS were actually directing civilization to behave in ways that deliberately ignored the basic laws of nature as much as possible.

    The interesting questions that arise are what could the possible "corrections" to that become, after the development of systems of globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic bombs. Of course, the laws of nature are still there, and human beings never actually violated any of those laws of nature when human societies became based on more and more be able to back up lies with violence, while most people adapted to that by adopting those systems, such as the Chinese did, when they decides to make vastly more "money" out of nothing as debts than ever before done by anybody else.

    I am NOT asserting that human beings' ERRORS will never be corrected. Rather, I am am attempting to point out the magnitude of those ERRORS. While the global political economy more and more became a rigged casino, based upon governments ENFORCING FRAUDS by privately controlled banks, in my view it was a dangerous delusion for those who appears to be "winning" to believe that they actually were "winning."

    Those who appeared to thereby be able to privatize the profits from controlling the political economy through ENFORCING FRAUDS were actually always also accumulating their own shares of the collective losses. Those collective losses tended to be deliberately discounted and disregarded as much as possible. However, those were always actually accumulating in the real world. Hence, those who appears to be privately winning inside of their rigged casinos were NOT actually winning, but rather, driving the human species as a whole towards committing collective suicide, due to the degree to which civilization thus became psychotic and manifested runaway criminal insanities.

    tumblemore
    Yeah it's like when China adopted Communism and then took it to even worse extremes. This time they adopted the western banking system and took that to even worse extremes. The lesson for them should be don't copy ****** inventions because (reasons).
    durablefaith

    corrections are illegal...

    Self reliance = isolationism. Grouping up with like-minded people is racism. Promoting an ideology that reveals the morally bankrupt current state = hate speech. Anarchy = extremism. Protests = terrorism.

    The countermeasures being employed against us are asymetrical in nature due to legality and technology.

    The collective herd, ridden hard by their psychopath overlords, are approaching the Cliff.

    Those of us who are awake and mindful swim upstream, because of duty, regardless of outcome


    sun tzu

    Lions don't attack the entire buffalo or wildebeest herd. They pick the weakest ones.

    yogibear

    Only when the riggers dump all their holdings on the sheeple will they take this baby down.

    Much faster making money on the way down. Usually those not well connected never see it coming.

    Oldballplayer

    How much money flows into 401k accounts each week.

    Those are the ultimate rip off. Get two entire generations pumping 4% of their gross in every payday. And when they think they are all set--pull the rug from under them.

    At this point, take the penalty, pay the taxes and but as many 2017 dec puts as you can get. You will make it all back. And more.

    Chuck Knoblauch

    US doom a certainty. Yuan devaluation exposing USD$ weakness.

    Global dumping of US Treasuries.

    Stop the bullshit. It's really obvious, captain.

    TeethVillage88s

    Daiwa Securities Group Inc.,Daiwa Securities Group Inc.*,,,,
    Ticker,8601 JP Equity,,,,
    Includes Loans to:,Daiwa Securities Group Inc. and Daiwa Securities Group Inc.,,,,
    Identified in Fed Documents as:,Daiwa Securities America Inc. and Daiwa Securities America Inc.,,,,
    Capital Raised From Home Governments,,,,,
    Programs,"PDCF, ST OMO",,,,
    Country,Japan,,,,
    Industry,Diversified Financial Services,,,,
    "Average Daily Balance
    From 8/1/2007 to 4/30/2010",$76.32 ,,,,
    Peak Amount of Debt,"$1,000.00 ",,,,
    Peak Date,12/24/2008,,,,
    Number of Days In Debt to the Fed,99,Market Cap,Percent of Market Cap,ST OMO,PDCF

    So looks like the FED loaned them peak amount of $1 Billion.

    - No such thing as conservative Banking at the FED or Wall Street.

    - We are still seeing the fall out from US Created problems

    1) Bubbling Housing, Derivatives, Stock Market Prices

    2) Poor Stewardship of the US Petro Dollar/World Reserve Currency

    3) Out of Control US Federal Budget Spending and resulting mal-investing in MIC & Police State

    4) US Control over Global Politics and Press/Media

    5) US & EU Sponsored Globalization and Trade resulting in Mal-investment and greater wealth Gaps and concentration of Capital into Financial Schemes

    6) US Globalization & War has thrown Europe into chaos with mass immigration and Cultural Destruction

    but maybe it is just me.

    SHADEWELL

    Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny.

    falak pema

    A socialist market economy; aka a CP classical totalitarian model under the surface of market manipulation drowning in debt and malinvestment; as opposed to the west's version of the same beast :

    A capitalistic oligarchical economy; now more and more CP'd under CB print and debt accumulation just like China; inverted totalitarianism.

    When Charybdis MOCKS Scylla, the Gods of Capitalism and Statism have gone as mad as their mortal look alikes running around the financialized world like headless chickens.

    Diogenes can truly mock Alexander's expedition on its march to his fool's paradise in Persepolis.

    When Syrac dreams burn like Babylon.

    ndree

    I personally am not concerned with the prophecies of doom and gloom about China. Of course, they could not maintain a 7-10% growth forever. The economy is pivoting, not just to another level, but also to a different nature. Once the projects of the New Silk Road are ramped up (and I am certain they would accelerate this), all talk of slow growth, doom and gloom would be moot. Why should the Chinese be responsible for overall world growth, or providing Wall Strret gamblers and junkies with more ill gotten gains, and additional cocaine for their pipes?

    withglee

    a vast debt build up (by now everybody should be familiar with McKinsey's chart showing China's consolidated debt buildup) leading to a just as vast build up of excess capacity, also known as capital stock accumulation. And/or vice versa.

    Has the writer looked at his own linked chart? It shows in 2000 a ratio of non-financial corporate debt to total debt to be 69%. In 2Q14 it shows it to be 44%.

    Isn't it non-financial corporate activity that leads to "excess capacity"?

    It's becoming more and more difficult to make sense of these articles.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user5/imageroot/2015...

    [Sep 13, 2015] Heart of Gold

    "... There will be quite a bit more economic data released next week compared to this holiday shortened trading week we have just seen. The big event will be the FOMC rate decision on Thursday the 17th. This has become more of a psychological issue than a substantial policy action. 25 basis points will not be making or breaking anything, but it does signal a 'change' in the long period of easy money, policy errors, and financial bubbles which we have seen since the big bailouts of the one percent and Wall Street since 2008."
    "...The financial system is sick, and incapable of repairing or reforming itself. The problem is that it has also badly infected the political and professional classes."

    Can you believe that this was over seven years ago, and here we still are, muddling along?

    "Capable of giving alms, perhaps, but incapable of stripping themselves bare, the comfortable will be moved to the sound of beautiful music, at the thought of Jesus's sufferings, but His Cross, the reality of His Cross, will horrify them.

    They want it all out of gold, bathed in light, costly and of little weight; pleasant to see, and hanging from a beautiful woman's throat."

    Léon Bloy


    "Beware the leaven of the Pharisees, which is hollow hypocrisy. There is nothing covered that shall not be revealed, and hidden, that shall not be made known. Whatever has been said in the darkness shall be heard in the light: and what has been whispered behind closed doors shall be shouted from the roof tops."

    Luke 12:1-3


    There will be quite a bit more economic data released next week compared to this holiday shortened trading week we have just seen.

    The big event will be the FOMC rate decision on Thursday the 17th.

    This has become more of a psychological issue than a substantial policy action. 25 basis points will not be making or breaking anything, but it does signal a 'change' in the long period of easy money, policy errors, and financial bubbles which we have seen since the big bailouts of the one percent and Wall Street since 2008.

    Can you believe that this was over seven years ago, and here we still are, muddling along?

    ... ... ...

    The financial system is sick, and incapable of repairing or reforming itself. The problem is that it has also badly infected the political and professional classes.

    These things happen from time to time. It seems almost common when one glosses over history, ignoring the dull periods of honest families and their progress, skipping along from crisis to cataclysm, most often fomented by the folly of proud and selfish men.

    Please remember the poor, and those who have no one to care for them.

    People can too often fall in love with an almost paganistic fascination with the words, the ritual, the glamour and the shine of the outward trappings and the gleam of the gold on their altars. But in their misapprehension they do not want anything to do with the message which they can for a time ignore, but without which what they do has no meaning, no significance, no substance, nothing. Without love it is all just a vanity. This is 'the leaven of the Pharisees,' which is hypocrisy.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 12, 2015] The 20-Year Stock Bubble - Its Origin In Wholesale Money Zero Hedge

    Sep 12, 2015 | Zerohedge

    Faith in the QE world is waning everywhere and with very good reason. If the "wholesale money" eurodollar takeover was instead responsible for the serial asset bubbles of the past two decades, then it would make far more sense to extrapolate stock trends from that starting point rather than the irrelevant and overstated federal funds monkeying.

    In this context, the panic in 2008 makes perfect sense as it was a total failure of the eurodollar/wholesale system which not only reversed in total the prior bubble levels it crushed the global economy with it.

    ... ... ...

    ...the former Fed chair wrote on June 1:

    Stock prices have risen rapidly over the past six years or so, but they were also severely depressed during and just after the financial crisis. Arguably, the Fed's actions have not led to permanent increases in stock prices, but instead have returned them to trend. To illustrate: From the end of the 2001 recession (2001:q4) through the pre-crisis business cycle peak (2007:q4), the S&P500 stock price index grew by about 1.2 percent a quarter. If the index had grown at that same rate from the fourth quarter of 2007 on, it would have averaged about 2123 in the first quarter of this year; its actual value was 2063, a little below that. There are of course many ways to calculate the "normal" level of stock prices, but most would lead to a similar conclusion.

    From this view, the Fed acted quite appropriately with regard to stock prices in order to get them back to their own established trend; therefore no bubble. It isn't surprising that his math works out, as you can plot his figures on a chart of the S&P 500 and see his reasoning painted forth.

    ABOOK Sept 2015 Bernankes Trend

    Starting at the end of the dot-com recession sometime in the last quarter of 2001, a 1.2% per quarter trend nicks the top of the market in 2007. Ignoring the implications of panic and crash through March 2009, as he does, filling out the rest of the chart puts the current (before August 24) stock index directly within the path of his trend.

    ABOOK Sept 2015 Bernankes Trend2

    It is a ridiculously weak argument for obvious reasons, not at all unlike his defense of QE in the real economy via the unemployment rate without mentioning the denominator. It isn't clarified in his post, but it seems equally evident that he picked the end of the dot-com recession as a start date because that is when Greenspan's Fed brought forth "ultra-low" interest rates (see below). So if you believe that "ultra-low" interest rates are responsible for the current stock bubble, there you go.

    ... ... ...

    If the eurodollar takeover was instead responsible for the serial asset bubbles of the past two decades, then it would make far more sense to extrapolate stock trends from that point rather than the irrelevant and overstated federal funds monkeying. So where Bernanke's stock trend aligns the peaks as if that were "fair" and of the real market, the troughs instead just as easily conform traced back to the plainly obvious eurodollar deviation.

    ABOOK Sept 2015 Bernankes Trend Dollar Trend

    In this context, the panic in 2008 makes perfect sense as it was a total failure of the eurodollar/wholesale system which not only reversed in total the prior bubble levels it crushed the global economy with it. The failure of the eurodollar standard to heal or rebuild to its prior upswing (ended on August 9, 2007) was seen more so in the real economy (the 2012 slowdown) but also in the stock market in 2010 and again in 2011; both those outbreaks appeared to revert back to that "dollar baseline."

    The fact that asset inflation can continue on its own apart from any financial contribution of the wholesale "dollar" is due to partially separate liquidity and funding sources. Liquidity isn't everything always, but when it is failing it takes over for the dominant marginal direction. In other words, corporate repurchases and retail flows might be sufficient for stock prices to rise and rise rapidly where the "dollar" isn't as supportive, but those are easily overwhelmed where the "dollar" is acutely retreating (as August 24).

    When we plot Bernanke's 1.2% per quarter benchmark at a start date of January 1995, that compounding growth works out to a "target" S&P 500 level of 1236.09 for Q3 2015.

    ABOOK Sept 2015 Bernankes Trend Dollar Trend Compounded

    Where his 1.2% per quarter within the bubble mechanics calculates to 2123 (as of June) for the S&P 500, applying the same idea to starting outside the serial bubbles is vastly different (-42%).

    I'm not making any claims about whether 1236.09 is "fair value" for the S&P 500, only realizing the true nature of the stock bubble makes a huge difference. He isn't quite taking the full weight of the Yellen Doctrine here (I define that as her notion that a bubble isn't really a bubble unless it doesn't "work" in the real economy) but you can see how he is, by the construction of his trend narrative, thinking in at least that direction. Both are attempts to justify asset inflation by moving the perspective to within the bubble period so as not to have to explain how it all arrived in the first place (inferring from Bernanke's intent: since the dot-com bubble predates "ultra-low" interest rates it can't possibly be the Fed's fault, and therefore the Fed has been successful in simply re-establishing what the "market" did on its own beforehand).

    I think that is true but only in the narrow view that interest rate targeting didn't actually do much of anything – which was and remains the whole problem. If interest rate targeting didn't directly cause the asset bubbles, it didn't restrain them either. This is not a small or trivial reflection, as the whole point of controlling the liquidity rate was to not just "stimulate" but also to restrict where "necessary." To say that there was no limitation upon the eurodollar advance is an understatement since banks simply wrote their own, to the point that they even manufactured their own currency (collateral) far outside of what these economists considered to be well-aligned financial behavior.

    ABOOK June 2015 Bubble Risk Eurodollar Standard2

    The relevant point to consider for stocks is which trend is closer to the "truth" of asset inflation. That is, of course, amplified in 2015 by the revisiting of eurodollar decay in much more strained and openly chaotic fashion. If the "dollar" is again to fail, what might that do to stocks? While that isn't knowable we do have some methods of gaining insight, for which only certain central bankers will provide useful perspective.

    ABOOK July 2015 Eurodollars Swiss plus OCC

    Secret Treaties

    Retail Sweep Programs and Bank Reserves, 1994-1999

    Richard G. Anderson and Robert H. Rasche

    "In January 1994, the Federal Reserve Board permitted a commercial bank to begin using a new type of computer software that dynamically reclassifies balances in its customer accounts from transaction deposits to a type of personal-saving deposit, the money market deposit account (MMDA).1 This reclassification reduces the bank's statutory required reserves while leaving unchanged its customers' perceived holdings of transaction deposits.

    The use of deposit-sweeping software spread slowly between January 1994 and April 1995, but rapidly thereafter. Estimates of the amounts of transaction deposits reclassified as MMDAs at all U.S. depository institutions, prepared by the Board of Governors' staff, are shown in Figure 1.2 By late 1999, the amount was approximately $372 billion. In contrast, the aggregate amount of transaction deposits (demand plus other checkable deposits) in the published M1 monetary aggregate, as of December 1999, was $599.2 billion."

    So . . .

    "Our analysis suggests that the willingness of bank regulators to permit use of deposit-sweeping software has made statutory reserve requirements a "voluntary constraint" for most banks. That is, with adequately intelligent software, many banks seem easily to be able to reduce their transaction deposits by a large enough amount that the level of their required reserves is less than the amount of reserves that they require for day-to-day operation of the bank. For these banks at least, the economic burden of statutory reserve requirements is zero."

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/review/01/0101ra.pdf

    DontWorry

    Don't worry. Many things changed in 1995, some permanently, and this article takes a rather myopic view. Remember the Netscape browser that hailed the beginning of the commercial Internet? That was released in December of 1994. This article doesn't even mention the Internet! That changed the world economy as much or more than the invention of the railroad! Preposterous!

    The world is awash in central bank money for the forseeable future, and as things get worse in the rest of the world, that money will come to the US stock market. Invest with confidence, and always with a qualified investment professional who can design a diversified portfolio based on your risk tolerance.

    daveO

    Why the Japanese, who import over 90% of their oil, put up with this guy is a testament to their gullibility. It really should be more apparent to them what a fool he is.

    "I'm still really, really worried," Krugman said at a conference in Tokyo on Wednesday. A big problem remains building enough momentum in the economy to escape deflation, he said.

    Krugman said he is concerned that Abenomics is getting bogged down as the Bank of Japan fails to spur inflation to a 2 percent target, hampered by falling oil prices.

    Clowns on Acid

    What happened in 1995? That's easy .. the repeal of Glass Steagal. Baks, brokers, and Insurance companies no longer competing for funds ...at a market price . cost.

    Once the Banks, brokers and insurance get "centralized" they use one balance sheet to lever all risk ... chasing the same asset groups. With a ZIRP policy the respective demand of funds does not cause an increase in interest rates.

    Thus they all bid up all asset groups usig the same risk metrics ... until 2007/08 when it all crashes ... until the Fed shows how printing money is the answer.... to lack of liquidity and falling asset prices.

    [Sep 12, 2015] Declining oil prices: OPEC vs. (future) Shale?

    December 16, 2014 | english.alarabiya.net

    When the late John D. Rockefeller, one of America's earliest global business barons, was asked the secret of success, he quipped: "Get up early, work late and strike oil." Of course, as founder of Standard Oil in the year 1870, he certainly got up early, and worked late as he built an empire of oil that made him the richest man in the world by the early 20th century.

    Since then, oil has come to rival water as one of the most essential commodities necessary for modern human life and, thus, the countries and companies that produce, extract, refine, and sell it are among the richest on earth. Rockefeller's advice still holds.

    Norway's sovereign wealth fund is not far off a trillion dollars and Saudi cash reserves clock in at nearly $800 billion. The world's leading energy companies report earnings in the billions every quarter.

    Partly as a result of the U.S. energy boom, oil prices have hit a five-and-a-half-year low

    Afshin Molavi

    Thus, it's no surprise that the current near 50 percent drop in oil prices since June of this year has captured global headlines and spawned numerous narratives: OPEC and/or Saudi Arabia vs U.S. shale oil, one of the more popular ones, and Saudi Arabia/UAE vs Iran/Russia a secondary one. But as with most popular narratives, there is a deeper issue at play here.

    Bristling theories

    First, let us dispense with the Russia/Iran squeeze play story. Theories are rife about a Saudi squeeze play on Iran, a country with far less cash reserves than the UAE, Kuwait, or Saudi Arabia. Iran, the theory goes, will face far more difficulty with the declining oil price than Arab members of OPEC. That's why Saudi Arabia chose not to "defend" the price through cuts in production, the theory goes.

    With a break-even budget price of oil ranging in the $130-$140 range, according to the IMF, a sanctioned Iran with little access to capital markets can hardly handle a sustained oil price decline. Russia, too, faces a tide of rising sanctions and they, too, are hurt by the global decline in prices. By squeezing Russia, the argument goes, Riyadh would be "punishing" Moscow for its support of President Bashar al-Assad.

    There may be some truth to this, but to truly do significant damage to Iran or Russia, the price decline would need to be larger and over a longer period of time. With large, fiscal expansionary budgets in Saudi Arabia and the UAE, such a move would risk cutting off the nose to spite the face.

    Larger play

    No, there is a larger play here than Iran or Russia. So, is it U.S. shale oil? Is the play to let the price drop squeeze out U.S. shale oil producers who need a higher global price to make their projects sustainable?

    Today, the U.S. is producing more oil than it has done in three decades. Over the summer, the U.S. surpassed Russia and Saudi Arabia as the world's largest oil producer. The U.S. shale boom has added significantly to global inventories of oil and posed a direct challenge to OPEC.

    Partly as a result of the U.S. energy boom, oil prices have hit a five-and-a-half-year low, falling by almost 50 percent since June. Brent crude hovers in the $60 range, and U.S West Texas Intermediate has fallen to $57 per barrel. In some parts of the United States, shale oil is being sold for under $40 per barrel.

    The key question at play here is this: Is the decline in oil price a cyclical or structural phenomenon? Have the tectonic plates of energy shifted?

    To answer that, let us begin with a group of engineers and geologists who, in the early 1980s, began using a technology known as hydraulic fracturing to try to coax gas from tight rock formations in the United States by injecting chemicals and water into the wells. Nothing worked, until a uniquely driven businessman by the name of George Mitchell, laid down the gauntlet for his team of engineers in the early 1980s: get me some shale gas in a decade, or the company collapses.

    Mitchell and his team got up early, worked late, and eventually, after seventeen years of trying, they "cracked the code," as industry observers often say. They became the first company to discover the right combination of water and chemicals to extract so-called tight gas. Those gas fields eventually began producing oil, and today, the shale oil and gas revolution has fueled U.S. economic growth, changed global energy dynamics and transformed global geopolitics.

    Radically transforming global energy markets

    But will U.S. oil radically transform global energy markets over the next decade or two? The answer is no. Middle East oil, Russian oil and African oil will still be in high demand over the next two decades, according to forecasts by the International Energy Agency. Indeed, most forecasts suggest that by the 2020s, U.S. shale will decline and OPEC oil will be needed to pick up the slack.

    So, new U.S. oil will put downward pressure on the price, but will not be a game changer in and of itself. The real question is: Will the U.S. fracking revolution expand globally? If it does, that could have a truly transformational effect on global energy. That would be the game changer.

    Imagine a China that fracks. Or an India. Or some of the other large emerging markets that are driving future demand. Or fracking in Europe? In that scenario, we could see both the cost of fracking fall and the world come awash in new supplies of oil, putting tremendous downward pressure on the price, and reordering world energy markets and world power.

    Some have suggested that we are still in the early stages of shale oil and gas, something akin to the first clunky computers that hit the shelves in U.S. stores, and were being purchased for office use for the first time. In that pre-Internet, pre-high speed computing era, few could have imagined the growth of the information revolution and how it would transform the world.

    The problem with that analogy, however, is that the costs of fracking are so high that only a high oil price environment will allow for companies to take the necessary capital expenditure risks to develop new projects. The declining oil price will not squeeze U.S. shale entirely, but it will make new projects far less feasible. These are not projects that can be hatched in a garage with a couple of engineers and a bit of angel investing money. These are projects that carry massive debt.

    In this context, the OPEC decision to let the market find its own price makes sense. After all, a world of Chinese and Indian fracking would pose tremendous challenges to OPEC producers.

    So, this is not a fight between OPEC and U.S. shale oil. It's a battle between OPEC and future shale. Because what is most dangerous to the future of OPEC is not U.S. production, but a world in which China, India and Europe all begin their own fracking revolution.

    _____________________

    Afshin Molavi is a senior fellow and director of the Global Emerging and Growth Markets Initiative at the Foreign Policy Institute of the Johns Hopkins University School of Advanced International Studies (SAIS) and a senior research fellow at the New America Foundation, a Washington DC-based think tank. A former Dubai-based correspondent for the Reuters news agency, Molavi has also been based in Riyadh, Jeddah, and Tehran. His articles and essays have been published in the Financial Times, Washington Post, Newsweek, Foreign Policy, and dozens of other publications. He is currently writes a global affairs column for Newsweek Japan.

    [Sep 12, 2015] David Stockman Sums It All Up In 3 Minutes

    Sep 09, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Stockman unleashes truthiness hell on Bloomberg TV: "Federal Reserve [actions] will have disastrous long-term consequences... when you deny price-discovery in the market for so long, it is a massive subsidy to speculation... In an era of peak debt, the only thing zero interest rates achieve is create an enormous incentive for Wall Street to gamble more and more recklessly..."

    195 seconds... watch, listen, and think...

    Spitzer

    Stockman is the best writer out there. His book is 32 hours of epic Stockman ranting. Worth every penny

    khakuda

    His analysis and the points he makes are spot on, yet he really needed an editor. He has brilliant and important things to say, but the general public will never read the 700 pages of it. He needs a cliffs notes edition or a 40 page kids version with some pictures, pop-ups and maybe some soft porn.

    Tinky

    Fair criticism, though it is more damning of the general quality of the readers than the author.

    franzpick

    Brief, concise, pointed summaries of the numerous ongoing bubbles, misallocations and dysfunctional markets are available daily at Stockman's website, giving new meaning to 'cliff notes':

    http://davidstockmanscontracorner.com/

    Keyser

    And of course the shill from Bloomberg attempted to bait Stockman into saying he was against the Fed... For no other reason to brand him a whack-job... It's time for all the pundits be forced to pledge transparency and stick to it, or they get to walk the plank...

    cheeseheader

    Yes, that shill would be one Tom Keane, a permabull, and whose picture adorns the word 'idiot' in any dictionary.

    Next time you feel like upchucking, turn him on Bloomberg radio for 4 seconds.

    Bloppy

    Most people don't want to hear his truth though. They won't want the cliff notes version either. They've been conditioned to believe markets are a one-way ride up up up. His work requires thinking.

    Sex Pistol John Lydon wonders if Hillary 'really is that clumsy'

    http://tinyurl.com/ovgut87

    Winston Smith 2009

    "Most people don't want to hear his truth though."

    True, but even worse, the vast majority are economically illiterate and wouldn't have a clue about what he was talking about. Besides, his book is #31,738 in books on Amazon and that's among the minority of people who read more than the tweet from a fellow twit about what they had for lunch.

    Don't judge the majority by yourself or those you associate with. To quote Carlin, "Just think of how stupid the average person is, and then realize half of them are even stupider!" We didn't get to this point via an intelligent voting public.

    Jack Burton

    Excellent points Winston. Too many people assume others have built up the same background of knowledge and are critical thinkers looking for truth. Ha! They are anything But! Have you ever had a deep discussion withsome you repsected for their high level career in business, science, education or technology? I have many times. I leave bewildered at how such people advance to high levels of performance. They are narrow minded, stick to their one field of expertise, and prosper in it, as for knowing anything else, they are like 3 year old toddlers.

    new game

    i've met a few too many and yea, box of rocks looked smart, ha...

    unfortunately, future schoolers are not gonna be anymoar economically smarter.

    an app for it. ha...

    doesn't matter; dear honorable david, understand we are past the point where this can be straightened out. 18.x trillion, and sir, you know math. right? so . you must throw in the towel, spike the bowl and party on like its 1999, ha again.

    RaceToTheBottom

    His rant here was short, concise, and on target, with focus and prioritization. So he can do it when he wants to.

    ebworthen

    The dopes in D.C. could read all 700 pages and not get it, or understand it perfectly and not give a shit.

    Twice as true for the Criminals of Wall Street and the banking/corporate/insurance cartel because they are getting rich off of it at the expense of the future itself.

    Hang 'em high!

    ebworthen

    Five word version: "Hey People, you're getting raped!"

    DanDaley

    Download it from Audible...put it on an ipod and listen to it in the car, doing the lawn, walking. Who has time to actually read much now days?

    Meat Hammer

    I haven't read him but plan to. I'm disturbed, however, that he isn't bothered by the existence of the Fed, just by its practice of going far beyond its original intent.

    Mr Poopra

    I don't trust anyone that wants to "reform" the Fed. If you cannot admit that it was a treasonous conspiracy from its inception, it makes me question your allegience or at the very least your judgment.

    Yohimbo

    simple, just end the abomination and be done with it. let the markets with myriads of participants make the policies on the fly; through market forces.

    InsanityIsWinning

    He makes perfect sense to me . . . that scares me, maybe he's wrong. I remember him ranting about Reaganomics back in the 80's, if he's correct, there's an unwind coming of biblical proportions.

    Vlad the Inhaler

    Since he served as Reagan's budget director for the first term, I'd think he would be well qualified to rant about Reaganomics.

    chinoslims

    The rich, the banks, hedge funds, etc get all the low interest financing to buy all the assets esp equities. Sell their positions at the top and watch the whole thing crumble while most suffer. This is the greatest transfer of wealth to the rich ever. How is any of this legal? (Because the idiots trust the govetnment.)

    [Sep 11, 2015] Citi's Chief Economist Says China Is Financially Out of Control

    "...The economist isn't too optimistic about the prospects for the powers in Beijing to resolve their bloated credit situation. Chinese policymakers are playing a game of "extend and pretend," said Buiter, drawing a parallel to the European Union's penchant for reaching short-term solutions to the crisis in Greece."

    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Willem Buiter, Citigroup chief economist, sees a storm brewing in China.

    This week, he estimated that there is a 55 percent chance of a made-in-China global recession in the not too distant future, which he defines as a period of sub-2 percent global growth.

    Without a massive, consumer-focused stimulus plan, he argues, Chinese growth will slip below 4 percent. This would constitute a recession for the world's second-largest economy, according to Buiter, and the rest of the world wouldn't be insulated from the slowdown.

    Buiter appeared on BloombergTV to discuss his headline-grabbing call.

    The cause of his consternation is the immense debt that Chinese non-financial companies have racked up in a short period of time. Over the past decade, the indebtedness of China's private sector has exploded and exceeded that of the U.S., which Buiter pointed out has a much more advanced economy and sophisticated financial system:

    ... ... ....

    "I think things are financially out of control in China and we are waiting for the regulators and supervisors to bring things back under control and to do for the financial system the kind of things - recapitalizing banks and other systemically important financial institutions - that would give you the underpinning for continued growth," he said.

    The economist isn't too optimistic about the prospects for the powers in Beijing to resolve their bloated credit situation. Chinese policymakers are playing a game of "extend and pretend," said Buiter, drawing a parallel to the European Union's penchant for reaching short-term solutions to the crisis in Greece.

    "Until the problems in the banking sector, the financial sector generally, and in the corporate sector - the excessive debt burden - is tackled by the government, the only entity that can do it, I think the prospects for resumption of healthy growth in China are dim," he concluded.

    [Sep 11, 2015] IEA Sees Oil Supply Outside OPEC Falling by Most Since 1992

    "...futures contracts for 2016 trade below the price needed for most projects to break even"
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Oil supplies outside OPEC will decline next year by the most in more than two decades as the price rout curbs U.S. shale output, according to the International Energy Agency.

    Production outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will fall by 500,000 barrels a day to 57.7 million in 2016, the Paris-based adviser said Friday in its monthly report. While fuel demand this year will be the strongest since 2010, record-high oil inventories in developed nations won't start to diminish until the second half of next year, and the revival of Iranian exports with the removal of sanctions may swell supplies further, it said.


    ... ... ...

    U.S. shale output will shrink by almost 400,000 barrels a day next year as futures contracts for 2016 trade below the price needed for most projects to break even, the agency said. As recently as July, the IEA had projected that U.S. shale supply would expand by 60,000 barrels a day in 2016.

    The decline in total non-OPEC supply next year will be the biggest since a drop of 1 million barrels a day in 1992 following the collapse of the Soviet Union, it said.

    ... ... ...

    U.S. output will need to decline by 585,000 barrels a day next year and other non-OPEC production will need to fall by 220,000 barrels a day for the global surplus to end by the fourth quarter of 2016, Goldman said.

    Global oil demand will climb by 1.7 million barrels a day this year to 94.4 million as low prices stoke consumption, before growth eases in 2016 to 1.4 million barrels a day. China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer, will "keep up its purchases" even as signs of slowing growth and the country's surprise devaluation of its currency fan concerns about its economic stability, the IEA said.

    [Sep 11, 2015] Why Vladimir Putin Won't Be Helping OPEC to Cut Oil Production

    Is this unfounded speculation of hidden attempt to form expectations? Will Iran able or willing to do that taking into account low oil prices? Increase need substantial capital investmant which at current price point might not pay for themselves for a lon, lon time. So why bury money into the ground just to please the USA?
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    Iran, which produces a similar grade of crude to Russia, is preparing to ramp up production by as much as 1 million barrels a day next year after reaching an agreement to lift international sanctions.

    [Sep 11, 2015] End Of Cheap Fossil Fuels Could Have More Severe Consequences Than Thought By Kurt Cobb

    "...The shorthand way of understanding this is that in the last century we extracted all the easy-to-get fossil fuels."
    "...Annual world economic growth from 1961 through 2000 according to the World Bank was 3.8 percent per year. From 2000 to 2013, an era of increasingly expensive energy, it slowed to 2.4 percent. From the initial spurt of 4.1 percent growth in 2010 (after a contraction of 2.1 percent in 2009), growth settled down to 2.3 percent in 2012 and 2013, slightly below the recent average. This is despite unprecedented efforts to stimulate the world economy through large increases in government spending and record low interest rates."
    Sept 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The characteristic feeling of the post-2008 world has been one of anxiety. Occasionally, that anxiety breaks out into fear as it did in the last two weeks when stock markets around the world swooned and middle class and wealthy investors had a sudden visitation from Pan, the god from whose name we get the word "panic." Pan's appearance is yet another reminder that the relative stability of the globe from the end of World War II right up until 2008 is over. We are in uncharted waters.

    Here is the crux of the matter as expressed in a piece which I wrote last year:

    The relentless, if zigzag, rise in financial markets for the past 150 years has been sustained by cheap fossil fuels and a benign climate. We cannot count on either from here on out....

    Another thing we cannot necessarily count on is the remarkable geopolitical stability that the world experienced for two long stretches during the fossil fuel age. The first one lasted from the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815 to the beginning of World War I in 1914 (interrupted only by the brief Franco-Prussian War). The second lasted from the end of World War II in 1945 until now.

    Following the withdrawal of U.S. military forces from Iraq, the Middle East has experienced increasing chaos devolving into a civil war in Syria; the rapid success of forces calling themselves the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria which are busily reshaping the borders of those two countries; and now the renewed chaos in Libya. We must add to this the Russian-Ukranian conflict. It is no accident that all of these conflicts are related to oil and natural gas.

    ... ... ...

    But hidden from the view of most is the role that increasingly expensive energy has played since the beginning of this century in slowing economic growth. The shorthand way of understanding this is that in the last century we extracted all the easy-to-get fossil fuels. Now we are going after the hard-to-get remainder which are costly to extract. That takes resources away from the energy-consuming part of the economy and creates a drag on economic growth. Hence, a dramatically slower economy in 2015 after four years of record or near record average daily prices for the most critical fossil fuel, oil. (The recent drop in oil prices is primarily a reflection of slowing demand that comes from a slowing economy.)

    The financial industry through the media has intervened forcefully during the recent stock market sell-off to tell us all not to panic. These corrections are normal, they say, and long-term investors--that is, virtually everyone except Wall Street--should ignore them. What the industry and the media do not tell us is that these are not normal times.

    Circumstances have changed dramatically. The evidence is there if only we have eyes to see it. Interest rates in much of the world are still stuck at or near zero seven years after the last worldwide downturn. How will the world's central banks stimulate the economy after the next inevitable recession? By lowering interests that are already at zero? In the post-World War II paradigm, rates would be at much higher levels today, say four or five percent, and economic growth would be much faster.

    Annual world economic growth from 1961 through 2000 according to the World Bank was 3.8 percent per year. From 2000 to 2013, an era of increasingly expensive energy, it slowed to 2.4 percent. From the initial spurt of 4.1 percent growth in 2010 (after a contraction of 2.1 percent in 2009), growth settled down to 2.3 percent in 2012 and 2013, slightly below the recent average. This is despite unprecedented efforts to stimulate the world economy through large increases in government spending and record low interest rates.

    ... ... ...

    ...Franklin Roosevelt is famous for saying: "The only thing we have to fear is fear itself." But fear is a protective mechanism. We are right to fear things that can hurt us and to act accordingly. We cannot solve our problems if we refuse to accept that we have them.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 11, 2015] Deflationary Collapse Ahead?

    "..."Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C [crude + condensate] ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD." "
    Aug 26, 2015 | Our Finite World
    Overview of What is Going Wrong

    1. The big thing that is happening is that the world financial system is likely to collapse. Back in 2008, the world financial system almost collapsed. This time, our chances of avoiding collapse are very slim.
    2. Without the financial system, pretty much nothing else works: the oil extraction system, the electricity delivery system, the pension system, the ability of the stock market to hold its value. The change we are encountering is similar to losing the operating system on a computer, or unplugging a refrigerator from the wall.
    3. We don't know how fast things will unravel, but things are likely to be quite different in as short a time as a year. World financial leaders are likely to "pull out the stops," trying to keep things together. A big part of our problem is too much debt. This is hard to fix, because reducing debt reduces demand and makes commodity prices fall further. With low prices, production of commodities is likely to fall. For example, food production using fossil fuel inputs is likely to greatly decline over time, as is oil, gas, and coal production.
    4. The electricity system, as delivered by the grid, is likely to fail in approximately the same timeframe as our oil-based system. Nothing will fail overnight, but it seems highly unlikely that electricity will outlast oil by more than a year or two. All systems are dependent on the financial system. If the oil system cannot pay its workers and get replacement parts because of a collapse in the financial system, the same is likely to be true of the electrical grid system.
    5. Our economy is a self-organized networked system that continuously dissipates energy, known in physics as a dissipative structure. Other examples of dissipative structures include all plants and animals (including humans) and hurricanes. All of these grow from small beginnings, gradually plateau in size, and eventually collapse and die. We know of a huge number of prior civilizations that have collapsed. This appears to have happened when the return on human labor has fallen too low. This is much like the after-tax wages of non-elite workers falling too low. Wages reflect not only the workers' own energy (gained from eating food), but any supplemental energy used, such as from draft animals, wind-powered boats, or electricity. Falling median wages, especially of young people, are one of the indications that our economy is headed toward collapse, just like the other economies.
    6. The reason that collapse happens quickly has to do with debt and derivatives. Our networked economy requires debt in order to extract fossil fuels from the ground and to create renewable energy sources, for several reasons: (a) Producers don't have to save up as much money in advance, (b) Middle-men making products that use energy products (such cars and refrigerators) can "finance" their factories, so they don't have to save up as much, (c) Consumers can afford to buy "big-ticket" items like homes and cars, with the use of plans that allow monthly payments, so they don't have to save up as much, and (d) Most importantly, debt helps raise the price of commodities of all sorts (including oil and electricity), because it allows more customers to afford products that use them. The problem as the economy slows, and as we add more and more debt, is that eventually debt collapses. This happens because the economy fails to grow enough to allow the economy to generate sufficient goods and services to keep the system going–that is, pay adequate wages, even to non-elite workers; pay growing government and corporate overhead; and repay debt with interest, all at the same time. Figure 2 is an illustration of the problem with the debt component.

    philsharris, August 26, 2015 at 8:08 am

    Gail,

    Modern industrial expansion has clearly been driven by the key enabling fuel, petroleum. Not all petroleum, however, has the same potential value as the original stuff of the 1950s to 2005. Nevertheless 'condensate' (gas condensate derived from expanding NG fields) is included in world 'total oil' as if it was.

    US geologist Jeffrey Brown, who has specialised in studying the quantities of oil available to economies round the world – particularly amounts available to the larger economies who are net importers, – that includes US, EU, Japan & China, – has a long comment just now on peakoilbarrel (Ron Patterson blog). He includes an interesting apparent statistic concerning condensate. We should note that the amount of 'real stuff' to go round the industrial world is probably stalled since 2005. The world generally appears to have a lower-value resource to enable any future expansion. The exlixir of youth is going to be in short supply, it seems.

    Jeffrey: "Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C [crude + condensate] ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD."

    Gail Tverberg, August 26, 2015 at 8:55 am

    Yes, the high quality crude has been flattening in supply. I am not sure how important this is in the whole scheme of things, however.

    When we look at energy consumption vs GDP on a world basis, the correlation is best with total energy, rather than with just oil. Also, our oil production has been growing at both the long carbon chain end of the spectrum (oil sands, etc.), and the short carbon chain end (Bakken, etc). In some sense, the mix changes tend to offset.

    I think it is probably more important that world coal consumption grew at an unusually slow rate in 2014, and perhaps is even shrinking in 2015. China's consumption is down, and its electricity use seems to be something like flat in 2015. Natural gas consumption worldwide also grew at an unusually low rate in 2015. These are indications of a world-wide slowdown.

    Harry Gibbs, August 26, 2015 at 10:02 am
    We've also seen global trade contract by over 2% in the first half of 2015:

    http://www.gtreview.com/news/global/global-trade-slumps-in-first-half-of-2015/

    And global capex is likewise shrinking:

    http://www.smh.com.au/business/markets/global-capex-set-to-shrink-as-commodities-crunch-bites-20150803-giqv80.html

    It does seem very much like global growth is peaking, just as your look at global energy demand suggested:

    http://ourfiniteworld.com/2015/06/23/bp-data-suggests-we-are-reaching-peak-energy-demand/

    Reverse Engineer, August 26, 2015 at 7:38 pm
    There is a lot in Part 3 of the Collapse Cafe TSHTF Vidcast with Gail's view on Renewables, as well as Nicole Foss's views and my own

    You can find all 3 Parts we got recorded last Sunday on the Collapse Cafe You Tube Channel,

    RE

    John Doyle , August 26, 2015 at 8:17 am

    We certainly need an economic model which accommodates a downturn in our civilization. I don't think it is impossible but the longer we remain inactive the less likely we will be to avoid chaos no matter what we do. Governments need to survive but the way they behave these days is not conducive to trust, being so partisan and polarised one one side and head in the sand ignorant on the other. It all looks just so unlikely that we will pull any rabbit out of the hat, even temporarily.
    Michael , August 26, 2015 at 8:02 pm
    Mr. Doyle, I agree with your statement on a need for an economic which accommodates a downturn. Have you found any proposals yet? I've done some jury rigging of models for such but have not found any good alternatives.
    Gail Tverberg , August 28, 2015 at 4:08 pm
    The continuing debt part is the hard part. Very short term works, but longer term doesn't.

    [Sep 11, 2015] Iranian Oil Minister Output to Return After Sanctions Lift, $80 Crude Would Be 'Fair'

    Contradictory statements. On one hand Iran wants $80per barrel prices, on the other is ready to serve as a Trojan horce to keep oil prices low. That's probaly the ffect of Bloomberg reporting ;-).

    Bloomberg Business

    Oil at $70 to $80 a barrel would be "fair," he said. Brent crude, the global benchmark, fell as much as 2.3 percent to $48.40 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange and traded at $49.12 at 3:36 p.m. local time. Brent sold for as much as $102.86 a barrel a year ago.

    ... ... ...

    OPEC said in a bulletin from its Vienna-based secretariat on Monday that the group won't shoulder the burden of propping up prices by cutting supply on its own, and non-member producers would have to contribute. OPEC will protect its interests and there is "no quick fix" for market instability, it said.

    ... ... ...

    Iran plans to produce 3.8 million to 3.9 million barrels of oil a day by March, with output rising by 500,000 barrels a day soon after sanctions are lifted and by 1 million barrels within the following five months, Zanganeh said. Iran is producing 2.8 million barrels a day, its highest level in three years, and is exporting more than 1 million barrels a day, he said.

    Iran has about 60 million barrels of condensate in floating storage and has no crude stored offshore, Zanganeh said.

    "Immediately after lifting sanctions, it's our right to return to the level of production we historically had," Zanganeh said. "We have no other choice," he said. A slump in oil prices won't slow Iran's return to the market, he said.

    [Sep 11, 2015] IEA Sees U.S. Shale Oil Shrinking in 2016 on Price Slump

    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    U.S. shale oil production will drop 9 percent next year as a crude price below $50 a barrel "slams brakes" on years of supply growth, the International Energy Agency said.

    "Oil's downward spiral to fresh six-year lows below $50 a barrel has dimmed the prospects for a recovery in U.S. drilling activity," the Paris-based IEA said in its monthly market report Friday. Unless oil prices "bounce back in coming months," supply is forecast to fall by 385,000 barrels a day next year to 3.9 million barrels a day.

    ...Unless oil prices "bounce back in coming months," supply is forecast to fall by 385,000 barrels a day next year to 3.9 million barrels a day.

    ... ... ...

    Drilling activity and output levels are unlikely to rebound following the cuts in oil producers' capital spending, the agency said. The number of oil rigs active in the U.S. has fallen by almost 60 percent over the past year, standing at 662 in the week to Sept. 4, according to Baker Hughes Inc.

    This has translated into five weeks of declines in U.S. production, the longest retreat in almost 11 years. Total output currently stands at 9.13 million barrels a day, a 5 percent drop from the all-time high of 9.61 million reached on June 5, according to Department of Energy data.

    Continuous investment is needed for production to keep flowing from U.S. shale oil wells, which have "steep decline rates," the IEA said. Output per well tends to decline by an average of 72 percent from initial production rates within 12 months of the well having started, forcing operators to keep drilling to offset the decline.

    U.S. shale oil producers may have to contend with a funding squeeze from capital markets that's seen impacting their ability to drill, Citigroup Inc. said earlier this week. The U.S. bank estimates as much as half a million barrels a day may be cut by year-end.

    ... ... ...

    Drilling and completion of wells will drop by a further 20 percent to 70 percent next year, the IEA predicted. "Impressive increases in productivity" have helped offset the slowdown in drilling and tempered ensuing drop in production, it said. U.S. shale oil producers would also be the first ones to respond should market conditions improve, the IEA said

    [Sep 11, 2015] How Low Can Oil Go Goldman Says $20 a Barrel Is a Possibility

    The first question is standard: Is squid, like always, trying to talk his own book ? Now it looks like the key idea behind Iran deal is to use them as a Trojan horse to keep oil prices low.
    "...Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh has vowed to increase output by 1 million barrels a day once sanctions are removed as the nation seeks to regain market share."
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    The global surplus of oil is even bigger than Goldman Sachs Group Inc. thought and that could drive prices as low as $20 a barrel.

    While it's not the base-case scenario, a failure to reduce production fast enough may require prices near that level to clear the oversupply, Goldman said in a report e-mailed Friday while cutting its Brent and WTI crude forecasts through 2016. The International Energy Agency predicted that crude stockpiles will diminish in the second half of next year as supply outside OPEC declines by the most since 1992.

    "The oil market is even more oversupplied than we had expected and we now forecast this surplus to persist in 2016," Goldman analysts including Damien Courvalin wrote in the report. "We continue to view U.S. shale as the likely near-term source of supply adjustment."

    ... ... ...

    Goldman trimmed its 2016 estimate for West Texas Intermediate to $45 a barrel from a May projection of $57 on the expectation that OPEC production growth, resilient supply from outside the group and slowing demand expansion will prolong the the glut. The bank also reduced its 2016 Brent crude prediction to $49.50 a barrel from $62.

    ... ... ...

    The Paris-based IEA forecast Friday that production outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will fall by 500,000 barrels a day to 57.7 million in 2016. Shale oil production in the U.S. will drop by 385,000 barrels a day next year as a crude price below $50 a barrel "slams brakes" on years of growth, the agency said in its monthly market report.

    ... ... ..

    The U.S. pumped 9.14 million barrels a day of oil last week, according to data from the Energy Information Administration. While the EIA this week cut its 2015 output forecast for the nation by 1.5 percent to 9.22 million barrels a day, production this year is still projected to be the highest since 1972. U.S. crude stockpiles remain about 100 million barrels above the five-year seasonal average.

    Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Iran will drive supply growth from OPEC, Goldman said. The group, which supplies about 40 percent of the world's crude, has produced above its 30-million-barrel-a-day quota for the past 15 months.

    Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh has vowed to increase output by 1 million barrels a day once sanctions are removed as the nation seeks to regain market share.

    [Sep 11, 2015] These Four Charts Show How Obama's Leverage Over Xi Is Increasing

    "...China still holds $1.27 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, making it the biggest foreign holder of the government debt as of June. But its share of all foreign holdings of Treasuries has been steadily declining. "
    Sep 11, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    With sluggish demand around the world, China is increasingly reliant on American consumers and companies to buy its goods. In fact, if current trends hold, China will pass Canada this year as America's biggest trading partner. China's exports to the U.S. have climbed 6.1 percent in the first eight months of 2015 from a year earlier, compared with a 1.4 percent drop in exports worldwide. So Xi needs to ensure that America remains a happy customer, while President Barack Obama can rest easier from a trade standpoint, given that U.S. exports to China are a proportionally much smaller slice of the U.S. economy.

    ... ... ...

    Capital has flowed out of China to the tune of $610 billion in the 12 months through July 2015, compared with an inflow of $224 billion through July 2014, based on data compiled by Bloomberg. That's the worst pace in data going back to 2007. Because of the sharp pullback in investment, China has become and will remain a next exporter of capital "for the foreseeable future," putting money into manufacturing and real estate in the U.S., said David Dollar, a senior fellow with the Brookings Institution in Washington who was previously a U.S. Treasury official in Beijing.

    ... ... ...

    China still holds $1.27 trillion of U.S. Treasuries, making it the biggest foreign holder of the government debt as of June. But its share of all foreign holdings of Treasuries has been steadily declining. That proportion stands at 20.6 percent, down from a peak of 28.2 percent in 2011. And it could be poised to fall even further: China's foreign-exchange reserves plummeted by a record $94 billion in August, after a $43 billion drop in July, as the government sold assets to defend the yuan.

    ... ... ...

    Willem Buiter at Citigroup said that China in reality is growing at closer to a 4 percent pace, far below the government's stated rate of 7 percent. (The U.S. reported an annual pace of 3.7 percent GDP expansion for the second quarter.)

    [Sep 09, 2015] One Shale Boom That Is Bulletproof To The Current Market Chaos

    Sep 09, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Argentina is home to 27 billion barrels of recoverable oil and 802 trillion cubic feet of natural gas and its two shale basins could end up being bigger than the Eagle Ford and Bakken. But adding to the attraction is another significant aspect at a time of slumping oil prices: For producers in Argentina, the price of natural gas and oil is fixed at $7.5 per million British Thermal Units (BTU) for new gas developments and U.S.D $75 to $77 per barrel respectively, well above international oil prices.

    [Sep 09, 2015] The Fed Must Banish the 1970's Inflation Devil

    "...It is Republican industrial policy to make workers into slaves working themselves to death like in slave labor camps. But if you must go into debt to get a job, why bother getting a job when you can not get a job is rack up less debt or figure out how to subsistence survive. Not even cutting welfare spending will make going into debt to work for less than it costs to work make sense. "
    "...That is correct. You are too busy discussing whether the gini coefficient is 0.49 or 0.48. The financial markets will blow up under your nose and you idiots will be arguing irrelevant nonsense. Then the economy will blow up and you will blame everybody but the Fed. "
    Sep 08, 2015 | Economist's View

    I have a new column:

    The Fed Must Banish the 1970's Inflation Devil: Will the Fed raise rates when it meets later this month? Inflation remains below the Fed's two percent target, and that argues against a rate increase. But labor markets appear to be tightening and that is raising worries that higher inflation is just ahead. Should the Fed launch a preemptive strike against the possibility of wage-fueled inflationary pressure?

    Hopefully there's at least one argument against raising rates that you have not heard before.

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, September 8, 2015 at 08:28 AM in Economics, Fiscal Times, Inflation, Monetary Policy, Unemployment | Permalink Comments (83)

    pgl:

    Incredibly well said! And the title was excellent:

    "Why the Fed Must Banish the 1970's Inflation Devil Before Raising Rates".

    Stop fretting over inflation and let's get the economy back to full employment before raising interest rates!

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 08:32 AM
    mulp -> pgl:

    Yep, the Fed printing money to inflate stock prices is really creating like 500,000 new jobs per month because higher stock prices drives CEOs to boost profits to maintain P/E by hiring new workers to increase labor costs.

    Seriously, economists do not want to defy the conservative free lunch economic orthodoxy that higher prices from higher labor costs and lower profits is the key to growth and that this can be done without increasing money supply because velocity will magically increase, instead of decreasing steadily as it certainly has during the 21st century because money is stuck sloshing around not being paid to labor.

    Velocity of money is the lowest across the board in a decade and Mark Thoma is calling for even lower velocity to the point that money is just standing still.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1INq

    M2 and MZM are the lowest estimated by the Fed in the entire half century of the statistic, and M1 is the lowest since 1975 during a steady rise over decades of stable bank regulation and rising interest rates that ended in the early 80s when banking got radically deregulated. From that point, M2 was on a roller coaster up and down, always higher than 1976 until it reached an all time peak in 2007 when it began a constant decline as the Fed keeps increasing M2 without driving any matching increase in economic activity.

    I'm beginning to reject my belief [that] inflation is related to fiscal, banking, and industrial policy, not money supply. I had been convinced by Monetary History of US by Schwarz-Friedman, but the past decade has provided a counterexample that I believe rejects the core of monetary theory. Look at the following graph and justify any theory that money supply increases drives inflation, not US industrial policy which has been devoted to restricting consumer spending capacity while creating excessive supply of consumer goods and restricting investment in capital goods.

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1MOQ

    sanjait -> mulp:

    The problem with Friedman's theory of money and prices is that it under-values the importance of expectations in price setting. The problem with your theory of money and prices is that it involves a lot of hand-waiving and ignores things like interest rates.

    Eric Blair:

    Why is the labor force participation rate so low? I know that the part of it that is not demographics is due to "long term trends", but what trends are those, exactly? I don't know how you could estimate how much slack there is in the labor market without first getting a handle on this. If the labor force dropouts really are gone for good, then there's probably not a lot of slack. If they're going to come back, then there is.

    anne -> Eric Blair:

    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

    January 4, 2015

    Civilian Labor Force Participation Rate, 2000-2015

    2000 ( 84.0) *
    2001 ( 83.7) Bush
    2002 ( 83.3)
    2003 ( 83.0)
    2004 ( 82.8)

    2005 ( 82.8)
    2006 ( 82.9)
    2007 ( 83.0)
    2008 ( 83.1)
    2009 ( 82.6) Obama

    2010 ( 82.2)
    2011 ( 81.6)
    2012 ( 81.4)
    2013 ( 81.0)
    2014 ( 80.9)

    August

    2015 ( 80.7)

    * Employment age 25-54

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 09:14 AM
    sanjait -> Eric Blair:

    Some of it is due to demographics. Most of it is due to discouraged workers dropping out of the labor force. Employment hysteresis and all that.

    But, as depressing as that fact is when you think about it

    the one bright side is that tight labor markets could plausibly draw many of those discourage workers back into the labor force.
    pgl -> sanjait:

    Thanks Eric and Sanjait - comments that contribute to the conversation. In 2005 I was arguing for an employment to population (EP) ratio near 64% and we did get back to 63.5% without inflation. OK, the demographic argument updated 10 year later puts my EP ratio goal at 62%. But the current EP is 59.4%. That's way too low.

    sanjait -> pgl:

    If I was going to do a deep analysis of EMPOPs, I'd track each age/sex tier reported by the BLS separately and look at the disaggregated trends, which could reveal a lot.

    For example, in the period immediately after the crash, I recall reading how most working ages had big declines in LFP, with the exception of people near and just in retirement age, which actually went UP (likely due to them desperately seeking to repair their finances after seeing their 401k's collapse).

    What's happening now? I don't know precisely, but I do know that technology and demographics haven't change THAT MUCH since 2009, and the decline in the ratio was coincident with the cycle.

    I also know that if labor markets actually were tight, workers would be seeing bigger raises, and that after being beaten down both by a huge recent economic downturn and a long term secular trend, it's probably not a bad thing if wages were to rise a little bit faster than output for some period of time.

    anne -> sanjait:

    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

    January 4, 2015

    Employment-Population Ratio, 2000-2015

    2000 ( 31.5) *
    2001 ( 32.2) Bush
    2002 ( 33.2)
    2003 ( 34.2)
    2004 ( 34.9)

    2005 ( 35.9)
    2006 ( 36.9)
    2007 ( 37.4)
    2008 ( 37.9)
    2009 ( 37.3) Obama

    2010 ( 37.4)
    2011 ( 37.6)
    2012 ( 38.0)
    2013 ( 38.2)
    2014 ( 38.2)

    August

    2015 ( 38.3)

    * Employment age 55 and over

    sanjait -> anne:

    Interesting. That's not the trend my lying eyes remembered from post-crisis, and I had no idea there was such a shift in the middle 2000s.

    Though, now that I think about it, it was probably the above *65* group that saw a spike in LFP post crisis, which would get washed out in a data set taht includes 55-64 year olds.

    I'd parse that out myself, but my browsers don't appear to support the Java applet for this link.

    anne -> sanjait:

    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

    January 4, 2015

    Employment-Population Ratio, 2000-2015

    2000 ( 57.8) *
    2001 ( 58.6) Bush
    2002 ( 59.5)
    2003 ( 59.9)
    2004 ( 59.9)

    2005 ( 60.8)
    2006 ( 61.8)
    2007 ( 61.8)
    2008 ( 62.1)
    2009 ( 60.6) Obama

    2010 ( 60.3)
    2011 ( 60.0)
    2012 ( 60.6)
    2013 ( 60.9)
    2014 ( 61.4)

    August

    2015 ( 60.8)

    * Employment age 55-64, not seasonally adjusted.

    anne -> sanjait:

    Between 2000 and 2013, the only age group in which median household or family real income increased was that over 65. The reason for the increase was Social Security benefits which are indexed to inflation:

    http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/household/

    September 16, 2014

    Household Median Income by Age of Householder: 2000 and 2013

    Combined ( 56,800) ( 51,939) *

    25 to 34 ( 60,079) ( 52,702)
    35 to 44 ( 72,724) ( 64,973)
    45 to 54 ( 77,973) ( 67,141)
    55 to 64 ( 60,673) ( 57,538)

    65 and older ( 31,225) ( 35,611)

    * Income in 2013 dollars.

    Brad -> anne:

    I love reading Anne's posts and scan the responses for her data! Thanks Anne.

    anne -> Brad

    That was awfully nice of you.

    am -> sanjait

    http://www.advisorperspectives.com/dshort/updates/Stuctural-Changes-in-Employment.php

    D Short touches on these issues in the link above and also other links embedded at the foot of the link. I mean the 65+ issue.

    Fred Fnord -> sanjait

    But, as depressing as that fact is when you think about it

    the one bright side is that tight labor markets could plausibly draw many of those discourage workers back into the labor force.

    If we don't put the brakes on the economy and therefore stop any such thing from happening, that is

    mulp -> Eric Blair

    It is Republican industrial policy to make workers into slaves working themselves to death like in slave labor camps.

    But if you must go into debt to get a job, why bother getting a job when you can not get a job is rack up less debt or figure out how to subsistence survive.

    Not even cutting welfare spending will make going into debt to work for less than it costs to work make sense.

    Until Republicans start rounding up the non-working men and put them in slave labor camps, men are going to keep dropping out of the labor force and just get by on subsistence. But Republicans won't put men to work even if they do round them up, and they have rounded up millions in prisons, because putting slaves to work means you are engaged in government building government owned capital assets, or you are competing with for profit industries you depend on for money.

    Democrats would happily put millions of workers to work at solid middle class wages building productive capital assets that corporations will contribute millions in political support to get done for their benefits. In fact, businesses have started calling for taxes they pay to be hiked to get such productive assets built for them.

    But all the focus is placed on electing a good dictator to hike taxes and put millions of men to work earning middle class wages while electing a board of directors that is determined to liquidate the enterprise.

    Trump is saying "as CEO I was the dictator who got things done, so elect me dictator and I will run over Congress and get things done." Bernie Sanders is promising to lead millions of people to trample the Congress the same people elected - the populist dictator.

    The myth of FDR is that he ruled like a dictator.

    The truth is FDR channelled the populism that elected legislatures stampeding to do something anything.

    Populism today is electing legislatures to do something anything to get government out of the way of individuals wanting to take anything they want from those who have it because they have been indoctrinated by right and left that government is what prevents you from getting what you want.

    In particular, its Obama that has prevented everyone from getting free energy, free healthcare, free SUVs, free houses, free money, free global dictatorship,

    Trump and Sanders are making the biggest free lunch promises of all the potential dictator wannabes.

    bakho said

    Good Column
    Without help from Congress and fiscal policy, there will be no inflation. We don't have 2016 budget yet. Shutdown could happen.

    We live in a time when inflation and unemployment are strongly affected by fiscal policy and economic shocks, but only weakly affected by monetary policy.

    Biggest impact on recovery was the ARRA. Monetary policy drained the battery and needs a fiscal policy recharge. Monetary policy is weak.

    Any change in monetary policy will be swamped by fiscal policy effects.

    pgl -> bakho

    Which is why we need stimulus not austerity.

    mulp -> pgl

    Which Republicans have you been working to defeat in Congress?

    Double Capitulation said

    "raising worries that higher inflation is just ahead. Should the Fed "
    ~~Mark Thoma~

    Déjà vu sensation from 43rd administration decision to spend the budget surplus that wasn't? Hey! If inflation is what you want, raise the public spendthrift coefficient. Personally I do not fear the prospect that our wealthy cousins will see their portfolios shrink in nominal value as deflation sets in as in August 015. Hey! My meagre net worth did plummet last month, but I now have more buying power as stocks drop, commodities stay below the clouds and all those playthings I buy at Toys-R-We have become gobs cheaper.

    One thing for sure, home prices and improved real estate may slide lower, but unimproved land prices will rise as population expands exponentially.

    Did Mark Twain once quip, "When they stop making the thing the price on the thing will go up. Buy land, they just stopped making it!"?

    Imprecisely, yet gave his insider information to Will Rogers.

    Notice how electronic toys usually get cheaper! Knowing this the vendor keeps the inventory drained at whatever the falling price will bear. As vendor drops price, M2V accelerates. Same thing happened with auto sales this summer. Dis-inflationary and deflationary expectations rev up the M2V, gets people hired as inventory accelerates. Vote for more employment, for lot

    and lot more
    deflation
    !

    mulp -> Double Capitulation

    Since the Republicans took over Congress, M2V has fallen from 1.75 to 1.60 and shows zero since of failing to continue its fall to 1.5 something before the next election.

    Clinton was able to keep M2V above 2 when Republicans took over and halted its rise, but one Republicans won the Congress and White House it was downhill except for the times Republicans rolled out the pork barrels. Then conservatives reacted badly leading to demands for no more pork.

    See for yourself
    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/M2V/

    Anonymous said

    This is what drives me crazy. It has not been about inflation since the mid-90s. Why is the Fed still predicating their decisions on inflation? And why are any economists discussing inflation as the critical factor - one way or the other. The markets are telling us what the critical issue is - boom bust boom bust. The volatility in multi year time frame in commodity, fx and risk markets has gone through the roof in the last 15 years. The central issue for central banks is to tame these NOT bicker about whether 5.1% unemployment or 1.7% inflation is too much or too little.

    This is why we are in the trouble that we are in.

    pgl -> Anonymous

    Most of us "liberal economists" are not worried about INFLATION even as JohnH lectures us ad nausam that we should be.

    mulp -> pgl

    You want more money stuffed in mattresses?

    If interest rates are really low, then stuffing money in a mattress has no opportunity cost.

    Anonymous -> pgl

    That is correct. You are too busy discussing whether the gini coefficient is 0.49 or 0.48. The financial markets will blow up under your nose and you idiots will be arguing irrelevant nonsense. Then the economy will blow up and you will blame everybody but the Fed.

    pgl said

    Doug Henwood says we are in a "Unicorn" bubble with the low interest rates fueling it:

    http://www.thenation.com/article/age-of-the-unicorn-how-the-fed-tried-to-fix-the-recession-and-created-the-tech-bubble/

    Oh boy! Time for more FED bashing. Maybe I should start writing - fix NY/NJ infrastructure and transportation issues NOW! Fiscal stimulus that would make my commute easier!

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 09:55 AM

    Jim Harrison said

    For a great many of these folks, talking about fear of inflation is just a polite way of talking about fear of higher wages.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 10:16 AM

    pgl -> Jim Harrison

    Exactly! Whenever I hear someone scream INFLATION, I dismiss that person as being some alleged champion of workers.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 10:32 AM
    Paul Mathis said

    "The inflation problems of the 1970s, the loss of Fed credibility that came with it, and the need to impose the Volcker recession in the early 1980s to bring inflation down to tolerable levels made an indelible impression on policymakers who lived through that time period."

    Apparently what made NO impression on those policymakers was the more than 10 fold increase in U.S. oil prices from 1973 to 1980 ($3.60/barrel to $39.50/barrel) and the massive oil and gasoline shortages of that era. The collective amnesia among economists and politicians about the actual cause of the hyper-inflation back then is truly astonishing.

    How could the Fed have anticipated that oil crisis and prevented the hyper-inflation? Would raising interest rates before the Yom Kippur war have prevented the Arab Oil Embargo? How?

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 10:27 AM
    Ben Groves -> Paul Mathis

    Inflation was already rising before the oil crises.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 12:06 PM
    Paul Mathis -> Ben Groves

    Not true Ben.

    In late 1970, the inflation rate was 7.1% and steadily declined to 3% in 1973. Then in October 1973, the Arab Oil Embargo hit and inflation quadrupled to nearly 12% in early 1975 as world market oil prices had quadrupled by the end of 1974.
    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/STICKCPIM157SFRBATL

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 12:23 PM
    anne -> Paul Mathis

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1MRZ

    January 15, 2015

    Inflation Rate, 1960-1979

    (Percent change)

    [ The inflation rate in 1969-1970 never went above 6.18%, and only reached that level in 2 months. ]

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 12:32 PM
    Paul Mathis -> anne

    Inflation DECREASED from 1970 to 1973.

    According to your CPI data, in January, 1970, inflation was 6.2% and it fell steadily to 3.4% in December, 1972.

    Ben said inflation was rising in that period.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 01:10 PM
    anne -> Paul Mathis

    Understood.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 01:14 PM
    Dan Kervick -> pgl

    No, Ben is a polite contributor whose views often differ from both yours and mine. You don't get to decide who the trolls are.

    Ben Groves -> Paul Mathis

    Recheck those numbers. Inflation was at 6.2% in 1973. The oil shock really didn't impact to 74. Sure, it boosted the numbers, but not the total cause. It was the same by the late 60's when inflation surged and disinflation took it down to 3% on a blip. The US was bumping into cold war generated issues it had never seen before.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 12:40 PM
    pgl -> Ben Groves

    We may have had a little excess demand in 1973 but the spikes in inflation were in large part due to the OPEC actions.

    "The US was bumping into cold war generated issues". Eh dude, defense spending went up in the 1980's.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 12:46 PM
    pgl -> pgl

    Let's see. Defense spending/GDP fell from 9.3% in 1970 to 6.3% by 1980. Reagan and the Republicans complained Carter let our guard down with these defense spending cuts. And Ben Groves blames inflation on "cold war generated issues". That is a troll for you.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 12:54 PM
    Paul Mathis -> Ben Groves

    I think we all agree that inflation fell from 1970 through 1972 and then the oil shocks caused massive inflation starting in 1973 through 1980.

    So what could the Fed have possibly done in 1972 to head off inflation starting in 1973 when the cause of that inflation was completely unknown in 1972?

    Those who blame the Fed for the stagflation of the 70s and early 80s are just being disingenuous.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 01:22 PM
    mulp -> Paul Mathis

    You can't impose price controls on imported oil, but you can impose price controls on wages, US production, including US oil production.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 12:58 PM
    pgl -> mulp

    "You can't impose price controls on imported oil".

    Actually we did lower oil prices with price controls in the 1970's. The US was the big dog on the block so our policies had global effects.

    Reply Tuesday, September 08, 2015 at 01:25 PM
    pgl -> mulp

    A little history mulp does not seem to know:

    "The Emergency Petroleum Allocation Act of 1973 (EPAA) was a U.S. law that required the President to promulgate regulations to allocate and control price of petroleum products in response to the 1973 oil crisis. It was extended by the Energy Policy and Conservation Act of 1975. The regulations were withdrawn by President Reagan in Executive Order 12287 of January 28, 1981."

    Not saying these price controls were a good idea but they did exist.

    Lafayette said

    Isn't it important to also consider historically the employment-to-population ratio?

    At present it is 59.4. Ten years ago it was at 62.9? Twenty-years ago it was at 62.8.

    It was back in 1985 that we were at about the same as today.

    Perhaps it's wishful thinking, but if the historic high in this ratio is 64.5 (in 2000) does not that indicate that the economy has a way to go before it starts bumping up against it's historical maximum?

    Which does not mean it cannot go even higher. The major hurdle being that we a progressing into a major "age change". That is, from the Industrial to the Information Age, which means different and more advanced skill-sets are increasingly more necessary.

    Which places an even greater emphasis on education to give workers the aptitude/skills necessary to find decent wages at decent jobs.

    Tinkering with the interest rate is perhaps an amusing mental riddle presently, but is it really the most important?

    Methinks not

    sanjait -> Lafayette

    Tight labor markets are the one reliable way to pull that number up.

    And the Fed is talking about raising rates now to prevent labor markets from getting overly tight, while some of us are arguing (as loudly as we can) that it's crazy to think labor markets are overly tight right now, with EM-POP growth and wage growth both being tepid and inflation expectations way below target. We're talking about this interest rate tinkering because it threatens to derail what weak recovery that we have.

    Ben Groves -> sanjait

    This is wrong. Labor markets had periods of tightness in the 1948-64,yet that number would not rise much past 50%. It wasn't until the Boomers, who were the first generation to really feature full scale female employment, that it rocketed along with its demographic population surge.

    Accepting history is not easy. You can't use the employment to population ratio as labor market "tightness". It simply does not work. The main surge in this index was the late 70's to the late 80's. Even in the 90's its growth was fading.

    sanjait -> Ben Groves

    What on Earth?

    Do you think that we're going back (or have already gone back?!) to the days when women didn't work?

    I do not, and therefore I don't think an EMPOP ratio from those days is highly relevant to the question of LFP today.

    I really do not understand what you are even trying to argue here.

    Ben Groves -> sanjait

    Because it shows the causation with the factors. It is still much higher than before women went to work, which is little surprise considering women's employment to population is still historically very high.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait

    Well, I think the point is that it is very hard to formulate a clear and uncontroversial economic standard for what the "correct" employment to population is, since historically this level has varied with non-economic social factors during both good times and bad times.

    Possibly one way to make some progress is to establish some national targets for growth and economic development, and then we ask whether the active labor force is large enough to accomplish those national goals. If it is, then at that point we have a distribution issue, not an employment issue. After all, if at some point in the future labor has grown so productive that we manage to have 5% annual growth with only 30% of the population employed, and are also meeting all of our longer-term strategic objectives with respect to education, energy, health and infrastructure, then I doubt people will be complaining that the employment to population ratio is too low.

    I personally think we do need a significantly higher rate of population employment because we are stagnating economically, and have peculiarly pressing and unmet national and global challenges that are going to require a high level of participation. We are going to need a lot of people working to rebuild our broken and failing society.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait

    "Was it also the effect of discouraged workers turning temporarily and reversibly into labor force dropouts?"

    Yes, I agree this is by far the most important factor.

    With the perspective of a few years behind us now, we can see that US capitalism responded to the 2007/8 crisis by jettisoning a significant portion of the previous workforce, and reconsolidating the economy around a smaller core group of economic participants. Even from the ruthless standpoint of the plutocracy, this is a foolish path, because the wreckage it has created is only planting the seeds of social problems that are going to come back to bite the plutocrats. But failing and succumbing to short-termism is what neoliberal capitalism has been all about since its inception in the 80's.

    mulp -> Lafayette

    "Which does not mean it cannot go even higher. The major hurdle being that we a progressing into a major "age change". That is, from the Industrial to the Information Age, which means different and more advanced skill-sets are increasingly more necessary."

    You must be referring to the need to raise horses and mules, make wagons and buggies, and drive horses and mule teams.

    After all, the Republican policy is to let the highways decay toward being impassible to motor vehicles, water and sewer systems fail, dams fail, etc, because the last thing Republicans want is any American getting a decent middle class job because their spending would drive economic growth, and Republicans want America to go back to lower GDP per capita.

    sanjait said

    There were some new (to me) arguments in there, so that's a good contribution to the discussion from Thoma IMO.

    I've heard before the "long lags" argument, for why supposedly rates need to go up now when inflation and expectations thereof are below target, because they don't want it to overshoot the mark.

    Thoma points out rightly that a balance of risks view strongly suggests we wait anyway.

    And I've long believed that central bank policy doesn't just act through long lags, but rather through a spectrum of channels that includes key ones that are quite forward looking. Even hinting at maybe raising rates has tightened policy this year.

    But in any case, it's interesting to note that even the somewhat well-established (long ago) long laggy channels might not be so laggy. Perhaps this is implicitly conceding too much to the inflationistas, even having that conversation, but it's interesting nonetheless.

    anne said

    http://data.bls.gov/pdq/querytool.jsp?survey=ln

    January 4, 2015

    Employment-Population Ratio, Asian, 2000-2015

    2000 ( 78.8) *
    2001 ( 78.1) Bush
    2002 ( 76.4)
    2003 ( 75.6)
    2004 ( 76.9)

    2005 ( 76.8)
    2006 ( 78.2)
    2007 ( 78.5)
    2008 ( 79.0)
    2009 ( 76.0) Obama

    2010 ( 74.7)
    2011 ( 75.1)
    2012 ( 75.5)
    2013 ( 76.3)
    2014 ( 75.2)

    August

    2015 ( 74.1)

    * Employment age 25-54, not seasonally adjusted.

    Dan Kervick -> pgl

    My dumb rant is based on polling data. What is your hypothesis based on.

    In fact, Americans have all sorts of divergent and wild opinions about prices that are very distant from statistical measures of price levels as produced by economists. In fact, as I think you know, if you asked the average American, they would probably say that inflation is already far too high, and would have said the same thing at any point over the past 5 or 6 years. That's because they base their inflation estimates on things like food and fuel.

    I'm not saying we should listed to these popular opinions. But the fact that they are so different from both actual core rates and Fed statements about expected core rates is enough to show that the idea that inflation expectations in the US economy are mainly a function the Fed's pronouncements is extremely implausible.

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick

    Didn't we just have this conversation?

    Markets aren't a democracy. Everyday consumers have inflation expectations, which matter to the extent that inflation expectations might change their consumption behavior.

    But the inflation expectations that do move are those of market participants, and as I carefully explained to you before, the market participants that have the most influence on price are the ones that control the most money.

    And you can sure as hell bet that those money managers pay attention to Fed pronouncements.

    You seem to be on a kick of trying to convince yourself and others that the Fed's forward guidance doesn't really do anything in the economy

    but you are utterly wrong about this. The people whose financial decisions set bond rates listen to the Fed, and those rates affect the cost of capital of every consumer and business borrower and the rates of return of every investor in the economy. So yeah, the Fed's pronouncements matter.
    Lafayette said

    {After all, the Republican policy is to let the highways decay toward being impassible to motor vehicles, water and sewer systems fail, dams fail, etc, because the last thing Republicans want is any American getting a decent middle class job because their spending would drive economic growth, and Republicans want America to go back to lower GDP per capita.}

    You are ranting.

    The Replicants this, and the Replicants that

    likbez -> Lafayette

    Are not they just two branches of the same party in best USSR traditions, as Gore Vidal suggested

    Gore Vidal: "Our Only Political Party Has Two Right Wings, One Called Republican, The Other Democrat"

    likbez said

    I think that Fed strategy is dictated by International concerns as much, if not more, as domestic concerns.

    == start of quote ===

    The source of the term is a quotation in an October 17, 2004, The New York Times Magazine article by writer Ron Suskind, "Faith, Certainty and the Presidency of George W. Bush," quoting an unnamed aide to George W. Bush (later attributed to Karl Rove[1]):


    The aide said that guys like me were "in what we call the reality-based community," which he defined as people who "believe that solutions emerge from your judicious study of discernible reality."

    "That's not the way the world really works anymore," he continued. "We're an empire now, and when we act, we create our own reality. And while you're studying that reality-judiciously, as you will-we'll act again, creating other new realities, which you can study too, and that's how things will sort out. We're history's actors…and you, all of you, will be left to just study what we do."[2]
    == end of quote ===

    And that's probably the key to understand their action or inaction as for interest rate.

    IMHO, in no way domestic concerns are of primary importance.

    [Sep 08, 2015] Weak economic outlook and oversupply weigh on oil markets

    U.S. crude (CLc1) was at $44.31 per barrel at 0425 GMT, down $1.74 since Friday's close, weighed down by the closure of the largest crude distillation unit at Exxon Mobil Corp's (XOM.N) 502,500 barrel-per-day (bpd) Baton Rouge, Louisiana, refinery.

    ... ... ...

    "Brent will likely be range-bound and volatile over the next 12 months as the supply overhang is worked off," Morgan Stanley said, adding that it expected the glut to be worked off and result in higher prices by the fourth quarter of next year.

    "In the interim, non-fundamental factors (FX, macro themes, fund flows, etc.) and headlines will likely remain key price drivers," the bank said.

    Oil prices have fallen almost 60 percent since June 2014 ...

    On the supply side, recent speculation that Russia might be willing to cooperate with the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to curb output in support of prices was given a blow on Monday after the chief executive of Russian oil major Rosneft ruled out a Russian cut.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 07, 2015] US, Canadian Shale Sectors Doomed if Oil Price Drops Below $45 Per Barrel

    Muhammad Sahimi, professor of chemical engineering and materials science at the University of Southern California, agreed that the tumbling global oil price was likely to be followed by a dramatic shrinkage in the US oil and gas sector.

    "Clearly, if the oil price is too low, shale fracking become un-economical," Sahimi, co-founder and editor of the website, Iran News & Middle East Reports, told Sputnik. "Many of the shale formations are [only] economical for fracking, if the oil price is in the range of $60-$70 a barrel."

    Sahimi explained that if the oil price stays low, it would not be economical to continue fracking. "Many of the oil companies that depend on fracking will have a net negative balance sheet this year."

    Sahimi warned that 50 percent of all US companies dependent on fracking were at risk of ruin in the current global energy glut.

    "I estimate that at least half of such companies are already bankrupt, or will go bankrupt by the end of the current year, if the oil price does not change upward dramatically," he said.

    Eventually, Sahimi predicted, the combination of bankruptcies, mergers and acquisitions in the United States and Canada with cutbacks in production by some other major global producers would stabilize global oil prices again.

    "It will probably hover around $40-50," he explained. "It may last for a while, but cannot last too long. Saudi Arabia can cut back production to raise the price."

    Although the Saudi Arabia had maintained high production in the short term to bring economic pressure to bear on Iran, their own need to ensure high annual income meant they had to cut production at some point to restore higher prices, he said.

    [Sep 07, 2015] Why The New Car Bubbles Days Are Numbered

    "...Well, of course, I'm going to buy the Biggest chartreuse Escalade I can! I got to fill that 4.872 sf subprime house garage with something.' Yes I can! ' "
    .
    "...Sum total? if we've unreasonably pulled forward sales, and further greased the skids of over production / unsustainable sales with low interest rates, plus exacerbated the problem by overproducing - then the comparably few new car buyers have something to look forward to."
    Sep 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Having recently detailed the automakers' worst nightmare - surging new car inventories - supply; amid rapidly declining growth around the world (EM and China) - demand, it appears the bubble in new car sales is about to be crushed by yet another unintended consequence of The Fed's lower for longer experiment. As WSJ reports, Edmunds.com estimates that around 28% of new vehicles this year will be leased - a near-record pace - leaving 13.4 million vehicles (leased over the past 3 years in The US) - compared with just 7 million in the three years to 2011 - set to spark a massive surplus of high-quality used cars. Great for consumers (if there are any left who have not leased a car in the last 3 years) but crushing for automakers' margins as luxury used-care prices are tumbling just as residuals have surged.

    To sum up... Secret Treaties

    Everything you need to know, right here . . .

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1A8n

    Never One Roach

    << Consumers focused on the dollar amount of their monthly payment have taken advantage of low interest rates to sometimes buy more car than they might otherwise be able to afford. >>

    Well, of course, I'm going to buy the Biggest chartreuse Escalade I can! I got to fill that 4.872 sf subprime house garage with something.

    ' Yes I can! '

    Canadian Dirtlump

    Over producing is definitely an issue, but that is separate - yet further exacerbated by the issue mentioned here.

    Historically, companies like BMW, Toyota / Lexus and Honda could lease vehicles for a few years on the cheap, then sell the used returns for a profit - relying on their comparably high resale value. As they suggest, this becomes tougher when in addition to BMW and Honda.. Infiniti, Cadillac, Mercedes, Buick, Acura, and a panoply of other plebian manufacturers do the same thing. In addition to pulling forward future sales due to low interest rates, many people leased due to favorable conditions.

    So in addition to average car loan duration being historically high, dealer inventory being historically high - thanks to an unreasonable expectation of low interest rate new normal environment, we have set the stage for a flood of "leaseback" used vehicles to hit the market soon.

    Sum total? if we've unreasonably pulled forward sales, and further greased the skids of over production / unsustainable sales with low interest rates, plus exacerbated the problem by overproducing - then the comparably few new car buyers have something to look forward to.

    ... ... ...

    JMT

    In Boston, seems like every 20 something has a new BMW or a Ford F250.. Of course the yuppies who live in Back Bay & the South End all have several cars one of which is always a Prius with the $1,000 Thule bike rack

    JMT

    where exactly can you find a 3 year old (i assume Tacoma or the F250 which all 'real men' need to have for some type of ego boost?) for a 30% discount? and with "sub 20K miles on it)?

    Also, most cars are still only made to last to around 100,000 miles when you get past 80,000 you find all those 'problems' that quicly add up - ex. suspension parts, hub bearings, brakes, tires. Any "sensor" can cost $500 + with parts, labor + sales tax.

    Full Nelson

    Fuck any car built after '06. Trackers and hacks and who knows what they'll be able to do next.

    I'll take a set of carburetors and elbow room for wrenching before dealing with modern BS, circle-feeding California-emission, mechanical loopery headache disposable lighter cars.

    [Sep 06, 2015] China's stock market crash 11 things you need to know by Ezra Klein and Max Fisher

    They actually managed to stop the slide. But factor listed are interesting and some of them are applicable to the USA stock maket as well.
    August 24, 2015 | Vox
    China's stock market is crashing, and the Chinese government can't seem to stop it

    On Monday, China's benchmark Shanghai Composite index fell another 8.5 percent, bringing the market's total losses to almost 40 percent since its June peak. The drop comes after large losses earlier in the summer.

    How large were those losses, exactly? This July tweet from Zero Hedge gives a useful sense of scale:

    China has lost 15 Greeces in market cap in three weeks

    What's perhaps more worrying than the actual losses is the Chinese government's inability to stop them.

    As Tim Lee wrote after the July slide, the Chinese government basically destroyed their stock market to save it: The central bank pumped cash into the China Securities Finance Corp, a state-run company that lends people money so they can buy stocks; many initial public offerings were suspended so newly issued shares wouldn't compete with those already on the market; major shareholders in companies were banned from selling stocks; China's securities regulator ordered companies to either buy their own shares or encourage their executives or employees to do the same; and so on.

    This was a tremendous amount of intervention - so much so that it basically wrecked the ability of China's stock market to function as a normal stock market, where companies trade at a price that reflects their real value, and those prices help investors efficiently allocate capital. But it at least seemed to prove that the Chinese government could stop the sell-off it it wanted to. Monday's drop throws even that into doubt.

    "This is a real disaster and it seems nothing can stop it," Chen Gang, the chief investment officer at Heqitongyi Asset Management Co., told Bloomberg.

    2) China's stock market boom is built on debt

    Investing borrowed money used to be heavily restricted in China, but the authorities have loosened the regulations since 2010. The result has been an explosion of debt-fueled trading.

    "By official count, margin debt on the Chinese stock market has tripled since June 2014," wrote Ruchir Sharma, head of emerging markets and global macro at Morgan Stanley Investment Management, in the Wall Street Journal. "As a share of tradable stocks, margin debt is now nearly 9%, the highest in any market in history."

    And it's not just margin debt. People have been finding creative ways to evade the regulations the Chinese government left on the books (as detailed in a helpful May report from Credit Suisse). So there's yet more risky debt, and yet more risky trades, than that chart suggests.

    3) Most of China's new investors don't even have a high school education

    "Unlike other major stock markets, which are dominated by professional money managers, retail investors account for around 85 percent of China trade," reports Reuters.

    Or consider this data point: "A majority of the new investors in China's market don't have a high school education (6% are illiterate)." There are now more retail investors in the Chinese stock market (90 million) then there are members of China's Communist Party (88 million).

    There's an optimistic spin to put on this: Individual borrowers don't create systemic risks. A bunch of farmers going bankrupt doesn't imperil the global financial system.

    But there's a pessimistic read, too: These borrowers - and there are a lot of them - got into the stock market because the Communist Party, in word and deed, was pushing them into the stock market. Then the market crashed. They will be justified in partially blaming the government for their losses, and the Communist Party has never been particularly good at dealing with widespread anger at the regime. In that way, even if the economics of individual borrowers are simpler, the politics can be much worse.

    "This is a real testing moment for the leadership," Zhao Xijun, deputy dean of Renmin University's School of Finance, told Bloomberg. "The evaporation of fortunes of more than 80 million individual investors would pose unthinkable social problems for the country."

    4) The Chinese government's failure to stop the crash is rattling markets even more

    As the Economist wrote in July, the government has put on "a spectacle of ever-more drastic actions to save the market. Regulators capped short selling. Pension funds pledged to buy more stocks. The government suspended initial public offerings, limiting the supply of shares to drive up the prices of those already listed. Brokers created a fund to buy shares, backed by central-bank cash. All the while, state media played cheerleader."

    My favorite bit of media cheerleading: "Rainbows always appear after rains," promised The People's Daily.

    The fact that all this intervention hasn't been enough has scared markets yet more. "Beijing's inability to stop the recent decline has rattled investors who have long been used to seeing the government use its power to control markets," reported the Wall Street Journal in July. This most recent sell-off follows months of overwhelming, and seemingly successful, intervention from the Chinese government, and so it's yet more proof that the situation may be spiraling out of their control.

    5) China's stock market is big - but it's not that big

    As the Economist notes, "Lost in all the drama about the stock market is that it still plays a surprisingly small role in China. The free-float value of Chinese markets-the amount available for trading-is just about a third of GDP, compared with more than 100% in developed economies. Less than 15% of household financial assets are invested in the stock market: which is why soaring shares did little to boost consumption and crashing prices will do little to hurt it."

    You might think, given that, that the Chinese government wouldn't much worry over the gyrations of the stock market - after all, it's still up from last year. But the stock market's crash comes on the back of broader woes in the Chinese economy. Growth has been slowing for years, and economists broadly agree that the country's export-driven economic model needs a (possibly painful) overhaul.

    In this, the stock market is as much symbol as anything. The Chinese government is good at hiding the country's economic problems from outside eyes, but it can't hide a plunging stock market. Given that, officials have tried to intervene directly to stop the market from plunging, and that just made them look weak and has focused more attention on the Chinese economy's problems.

    6) The deeper problem: China's export-based model has stopped working

    China's stunning economic rise has been fueled by low-cost exports. But as its economy has grown, the export model has begun to crack apart.

    "It has outgrown the export-led growth model that led it to rely on external demand and high internal investment," says Patrick Chovanec, a longtime China watcher who is currently chief strategist at Silvercrest Asset Management. "So now it needs to shift to a model that is more balanced between investment and consumption."

    Around the 2008 recession, in particular, global demand fell, and China couldn't keep its growth going through exports. And its own citizens weren't consuming enough to create the demand necessary to keep the growth engine revving.

    The Chinese government's answer was to use monetary policy, state-owned banks, local governments, and other tools under its control to push internal investment. The result was a massive buildup in factories, highways, airports, real estate, and much more. Some of these investments were wise. Many weren't. China has become famous for its profusion of empty stadiums, skyscrapers, and even cities. The result, says Chovanec, is "a lot of overcapacity and bad debt."

    This is part of why the Chinese government encouraged the stock market boom, Sharma said in an interview. "The Chinese government basically comes up with this plan. They see they have these heavily indebted companies that need to raise money to clean up their balance sheets. They realize there are these huge savings in China that can be put into the stock market. So they begin talking up the stock market and they make it easier to use margin debt. And margin debt exploded."

    So the stock market crash speaks to a much larger problem: China has not transitioned to the kind of consumption-driven economy that it needs to have. It is stuck in an outdated economic model that is unsustainable.

    7) China's Communist Party is unusually scared of slow growth

    China's official inflation-adjusted growth rate in 2014 was 7.4 percent, and the economy is growing, according to official (and, some believe, inflated) statistics, at about 7 percent in 2015.

    Sound pretty good? Not for China. It's almost an article of faith among senior leaders in the Chinese government that 7 percent growth is the bare minimum needed to keep the society stable. In the Communist Party's view, this is the basic bargain they have made with the citizens of China: The people give them power, and they give the people growth. If they stop giving the people growth, well, the people might stop giving them power - and no one knows what happens in that scenario.

    Here's the other problem: That 7 percent number might be bunk. Some Chinese officials have privately admitted that the official GDP statistics are unreliable. "The headline number of 7 percent in China is not something that's corroborated by other data, like electricity production or import growth," Sharma says. "That data paints a picture of an economy growing at more like 5 percent."

    But even if the official data is right, it's still a 25-year low for the country. And that's part of why the Communist Party is so desperate to get growth back on track.

    8) China's leaders have less power to direct the economy than many think

    So why hasn't China made this transition to a new, healthier kind of economy? Why is it stuck in an unsustainable model? One reason is that its leadership, though it may appear monolithic and all-powerful from the outside, actually isn't.

    One place you can see this play out is in steel production. China has long produced and exported way too much steel, flooding global markets and keeping China's economy on the export-led model it needs to drop. So, just about every year, China's leadership comes out and announces that it's going to cut steel production. And, every year, steel production does the opposite: It goes up. It only finally dipped for the first time in 20 years this spring, after US and EU producers called for tariffs to punish Chinese overproduction.

    Beijing can make all the declarations it likes, but there are a lot of high- and mid-level officials, not to mention the powerful state-run industries, that might not see it as in their interest to go along. Those officials are really invested in the status quo - often quite literally so, with corruption rampant.

    This gets to the larger problem with China's needed economic transition to a consumer economy: The leadership can't pull it off unless the larger Chinese system wants to make it happen, which is very hard for the simple reason that it would be bad for the people who dominate that system.

    9) China's government is terrified of economic problems leading to social unrest

    The countercurrent here is that the Chinese Communist Party is deeply paranoid. It fears that economic crisis could lead to social unrest, and that social unrest could lead to utter catastrophe. That was a chief lesson it took from the 1989 Tiananmen Square protests, which were spurred in part by economic problems, and which Beijing saw as so dangerous it deployed tanks into the streets.

    China's leaders are willing to go to extraordinary lengths to prevent that from happening again, which in economic terms means keeping growth up. This makes them at times very risk-willing; the stakes, in their minds, justify it. At the same, their fear of the consequences of disaster can make them risk-averse and conservative.

    You can see these dual impulses play out, for example, in the leadership's handling of the stock crash. Chinese leader Xi Jinping had promised since 2013 to let market forces play a larger role in the economy, but over the past couple of months has gone back on that, intervening heavily to prevent a bigger crash.

    10) China's leadership has managed to resolve economic crises in the past

    One reason there is tremendous debate among China watchers over the health of China's economy is that on the one hand, there are many indicators that the system is fundamentally unhealthy, but on the other, the leadership has shown time and again that it can resolve the crises these problems create. The current stock market crash is just the latest in a very long series of economic and political crises that have hit the country: the 2011 Wukan village protests, for example, or the 2013 credit crunch.

    Every time, it looked like a crisis that got right to the heart of China's fundamental weaknesses and could perhaps bring the system tumbling down. Every time, the leadership managed to pull through and to keep the system in place; within a couple of weeks or months, the supposedly existential crisis was over, and things were more or less back to normal. The result has been growing market trust in China's government, as the pessimists who keep predicting collapse keep being proven wrong.

    Of course, past performance is no guarantee of future results.

    11) It's dangerous for the world to lose faith in China's government

    Financial crises happen when markets have to reevaluate an important investment premise all at once. In 2007, for instance, markets were forced to abandon the idea that subprime loans were low-risk. In 2010, they were forced to abandon the idea that loans made to eurozone members like Greece were safe. The biggest danger here is that a series of bad decisions by the Communist Party will force the world to reevaluate a truly critical investment premise: that China's government knows what it's doing.

    "People are seeing now that the Chinese economy might now be too large and too complex for the government to be in control of it, and that would lead to a fundamental reassessment of the risk for China," says Sharma.

    China's stock market isn't that big, and because of regulations sharply limiting foreign investment, it isn't that integrated into the world economy. So the consequences of a stock market crash aren't that severe. But China is huge and fully integrated into the world economy. The consequences of political unrest in China, or a true crisis in its economy, could be very real, not least of all for the Chinese people.

    Additional reporting by Timothy B. Lee.

    [Sep 06, 2015] The Unemployment rate is misleading given the numbers of people who want to be employed but have given up looking for a job.

    im1dc said...

    Another below forecast Employment report, not good but not bad either.

    The Unemployment rate is misleading given the numbers of people who want to be employed but have given up looking for a job.

    http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/09/04/august-jobs-report-unemployment-rate-economy-labor/71662044/

    "Employers added 173,000 jobs in Aug., jobless rates falls to 5.1%" by Paul Davidson, USA TODAY...9:33 a.m. EDT...September 4, 2015

    "Payroll growth slowed in August as employers added 173,000 jobs in a key report that could help the Federal Reserve decide whether to raise interest rates later this month.

    The unemployment rate fell from 5.3% to 5.1%, lowest since March 2008.

    Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expected employment gains of 218,000, according to their median forecast.

    Businesses added 140,000 jobs last month, fueled by strong advances in health care, professional and business services, and leisure and hospitality. Federal, state and local governments added 33,000.

    Partly offsetting the disappointing report is that job gains for June and July were revised up by a total 44,000.

    Wage growth picked up moderately as average hourly earnings rose 8 cents to $25.09 after dipping in June, and are up 2.2% the past year, slightly faster than the tepid 2% pace so far in the recovery. The Fed is seeking signs of faster wage that would indicate stronger inflation as it considers increasing its benchmark interest rate.

    The report is the most significant the Fed will review before its September 16-17 meeting. Until recent financial market turmoil..."

    [Sep 06, 2015] U.S. tight oil production decline

    "...In any case, what causes a peak is the inability to offset declines from existing wells, and therefore the higher the production rate, the closer we are to a peak, because the volumetric decline from existing wells increases in tandem with the increase in production (it's pretty amazing that so few people are willing to admit this)."
    "...I am sorry James but why aren't economists looking at the 10-Ks and noticing that none of the companies were cash flow positive even when oil prices were very high and the wells drilled were in the more productive areas? Why haven't they noticed that when the big players came into the shale space they got burned even though they paid less for the properties than what the sellers were saying they were worth on the conference calls. "
    "...the shale story was a big scam driven by easy access to borrowing. Given the massive increase in debt on the balance sheets of most producers and the high depletion rates I just can't see how the sector can go on selling its narrative for that much longer. Note that in June 2012 the Bakken data showed 4162 wells producing an average of 144 barrels per day. The June 2015 data, which is the last month available, shows 9912 wells producing 116 barrels per day. The number of wells has more than doubled yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. The new wells are high IP wells yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. Sorry for the repetition but most people gloss over the implications. The simple fact is that when you look at the math and the 10-Ks, the narrative being told by the EIA, USGS, and the Wall Street analysts does not work very well.
    "
    "...Peak, shale and tar production is a not-for-profit business, not unlike the US gov't, the Anglo-American imperial military, the USPS, the Corporation of Communist China, Amazon, Twitter, Tesla, and many biobubbletech companies, some with no REVENUES and a market cap of many billions of dollars."
    "...I interpret this remark as there being far too many gratuitous prognostications that do nothing other than inject noise into the airwaves. Or equally as bad, heavily-hedged puffed-up bets that hold no water when held up to the light of day. Academic papers are major offenders in this regard. Over half are not worth the paper they are printed on. If it doesn't forecast, it is not science. "
    "...Corruption at the highest level - crony capitalism as it is now called, otherwise since time immemorial known as vested interests – is strangling economic growth. It is an open question if Fed officials are corrupt. I do not want to think that of them. But certainly they are imbecilic in the mass devastation they have wrought since the time of Greenspan. We cannot yet look back from the vantage point of ten years out. But unless something changes regarding vested interests, coercive big government, and central banks run amok, the miserable last ten years will look like a walk in the park. This is an easy-to-make prediction in light of the crippling debt burden Keynesian economics has inflicted on this and future generations …"
    Sep 01, 2015 | Econbrowser
    U.S. oil production has begun to drop in response to low oil prices, but not as dramatically as many had anticipated.

    Oil companies have cut back spending significantly in response to the fall in the price of oil. The number of rigs that are active in the main U.S. tight oil producing regions– the Permian and Eagle Ford in Texas, Bakken in North Dakota and Montana, and Niobrara in Wyoming and Colorado– is down 58% over the last 12 months.

    Number of active oil rigs in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to July 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Number of active oil rigs in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to July 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Nevertheless, U.S. tight oil production continued to climb through April. It has fallen since, but the EIA estimates that September production will only be down 7%, or about 360,000 barrels/day, from the peak in April.

    Actual or expected average daily production (in million barrels per day) from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Actual or expected average daily production (in million barrels per day) from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    This is despite the fact that typically output from an existing well falls very quickly after it begins production. The EIA estimates that tight oil production from wells that have been in operation for 3 months or more has declined by 1.6 mb/d since April, as calculated by the sum of the EIA estimated monthly declines in legacy production from May to September.

    Legacy production change (month-to-month production change, in thousands of barrels per day, coming from wells in operation 3 months or more) in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, Jan 2007 to Sept 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Legacy production change (month-to-month production change, in thousands of barrels per day, coming from wells in operation 3 months or more) in counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, Jan 2007 to Sept 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    One would think that these decline rates from existing wells and the drop in the number of rigs drilling new wells would mean that production would have fallen much more dramatically. Why didn't it? The answer is that there has been a phenomenal increase in productivity per rig. For example, the EIA estimates that operating a rig for a month in the Bakken would have led to a gross production increase of 388 barrels/day two years ago but can add 692 barrels today.

    Average productivity (added gross daily barrels per month) per drilling rig from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    Average productivity (added gross daily barrels per month) per drilling rig from counties associated with the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara plays, monthly Jan 2007 to September 2015. Data source: EIA Drilling Productivity Report.

    A key factor in the productivity gains is that companies are finding ways to complete wells faster, so that more wells can be drilled each month from the same number of rigs. For example, The Barrel reports that Occidental Petroleum "has seen a 40% decrease in spud to rig release time in the Wolfcamp area of its Permian holdings from 43 days in 2014 to 26 days in March this year with a target of eventually reaching 16 days."

    The modest drop in U.S. production has been enough to start to bring inventories down. U.S. crude oil stocks last week were down more than 30 million barrels from April. But that still leaves them way above normal.

    Source: EIA This Week in Petroleum.

    Source: EIA This Week in Petroleum.

    The drillers' cash flow is assisted not only by the improvements in efficiency just mentioned but also by the fact that the drop in demand for rigs means companies are seeing drops in day rates and other costs. Even so, major shale producers like EOG, Whiting, Pioneer, and Devon reported before-tax losses each of the last two quarters.

    West Texas Intermediate averaged $53/barrel the first six months of this year. Last week it went as low as $38 before rebounding back to $45 by the end of the week.

    Losing money is obviously not a sustainable business model, yet inventories have to come down further. Meanwhile, elsewhere in the world, Iraq oil production is up half a million barrels a day from a year ago, and Iran hopes to raise oil production by up to a million barrels a day once sanctions are lifted. Economic prospects for China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer after the United States, are cloudy.

    Another part of the adjustment process is also underway, coming from the big cuts in capital expenditures for exploration and production for more conventional oil fields. This will also affect supply, but with significantly longer lead times than is the case of production of tight oil.

    Gains in efficiency, lower costs of inputs, and, in the case of production outside the United States, appreciation of the dollar have all helped lower the marginal cost of producing oil.

    Even so, the current price is well below the marginal cost, meaning one of two things has to happen. Either the price must rise or output from the higher-cost producers must fall further.

    Bruce Hall August 30, 2015 at 2:18 pm

    Prof. Mark Perry had a slightly different perspective on the dynamics of shale oil in the U.S.
    http://www.aei.org/publication/shale-oil-a-tremendous-development-for-u-s-oil-production-shovel-ready-jobs-economic-growth-and-energy-independence/

    The drop in U.S. production is reasonable considering the no-return on investment at current prices. The point is that current prices are most likely temporary and U.S. shale production can be geared up rather quickly if prices recover a bit. There seems to be quite a range of where the break-even point for shale oil is: http://www.cnbc.com/2015/08/20/us-crude-oils-break-even-cost-how-low-can-it-go.html


    Jeffrey J. Brown, August 31, 2015 at 6:43 am

    Drilling and completion activity can be geared up, but how quickly is a very interesting question, given the loss of experienced personnel and the loss of equipment, and given the damage to inactive rusting equipment. Also, given the enormous losses that bond investors have sustained in the value of their loans to shale players, one would think that capital will be harder to come by.

    Ricardo, August 31, 2015 at 12:51 pm

    Jeffery,

    Bingo!!

    We are close to seeing a repeat of the late 1990s when WTI went down to $10/bbl, essentially the cost of production. Then as the economy began to recover after the Bush supply theory tax cuts oil demand pushed prices through the roof. With a House, Senate, and Presidency of supply theory Republicans we could see a repeat of the oil conditions of early 2000s.

    Hopefully the efficiencies that the Professor notes will help the supply shortages and hopefully the Republicans will resist the restrictionists who will cry "over-heating economy". They must remove production wedges allowing the markets to produce at prosperity levels.

    A large part of this is the current deflationary policies of the FED. Yellen has done well to use restraint, reminiscent of Greenspan in the early 1990s, but she must resist falling prey to Greenspan's hubris and bringing on a deflationary decline.

    Nony, September 6, 2015 at 10:27 am

    I don't know. Six months? A year? Obviously there's spare capacity if rigs are sitting "rusting". And if there are people laid off. Probably a lot quicker to bring back a rig from cold stack than to build it new. And faster to get back laid off workers than to train new ones. (Some will still be sitting around and even those that got other jobs didn't likely get ones that pay as much.) Net, net: easier with spare capacity than without it. [And, FWIW, you can't simultaneously bemoan the laid off workers and stacked rigs, as some peakers have, and then say no one/nothing is available for the next boom.]

    Capital is a commodity. It seeks returns. At $100/bbl there was a lot of opportunity (peakers really overplayed the whole "cashflow" story, etc.) At $50/bbl, there's way less opportunity. New opportunities will just be judged based off of price. If we go back to $100 with a strip, then the money comes back. They could care less if someone else lost money before. Just look at it rationally and mathematically as NPV optimization. [Plus with high decline, you can even hedge most of the price risk.]

    Jeffrey J. Brown August 31, 2015 at 7:07 am

    It's an article of faith among the Cornucopian Crowd, e.g., Mark Perry, that there is no sign of any kind of peak in sight, but in my opinion this assertion is manifestly false when it comes to actual global crude oil production (generally defined as crude oil with an API gravity of less than 45 API crude oil). Note that what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually Crude + Condensate (C+C).

    When we ask for the price of oil, we generally get the prices of two grades of crude oils, WTI and Brent, both of which have average API gravities in the high 30's. But when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of crude oil + condensate + natural gas liquids (NGL) + biofuels. In other words, we get the volume of actual crude oil + partial substitutes. This is analogous to asking a butcher for the price of beef, and he gives you the price of steak, but when you ask him how much beef he has on hand, he gives you total pounds of steak + roast + ground beef.

    Shouldn't the price of an item directly relate to the quantity of that item and not to the quantity of the item being priced + partial substitutes?

    But in any event, the fact that partial substitution has so far worked, in response to higher crude oil prices, does not mean that crude oil has not peaked.

    Following is an essay, which I sent to some industry acquaintances, that I put together about a week ago:

    Regarding oil prices, I may be one of the worst prognosticators around, especially when it comes to demand side analysis. My primary contribution has been as an amateur supply side analyst, especially in regard to net exports.

    In any case, earlier this year I thought that we had hit the monthly low in Brent prices for the current oil price decline ($48 monthly average in January, 2015), and I thought we were more or less following an upward price trajectory, from the 1/15 low, similar to the price recovery following the 12/08 monthly oil price low ($40 for Brent).

    However, a key difference between the 2008/2009 price decline and subsequent recovery and the 2014/2015 decline is that Saudi Arabia cut production from 2008 to 2009 while they increased production from 2014 to 2015.

    But for what it's worth (perhaps not much), I think that this is a tremendous buying opportunity, in regard to oil and gas investments. I don't have any idea what Warren Buffet is doing right now*, but I would not be surprised to learn that he is aggressively investing in oil and gas.

    The bottom line for me is that depletion marches on.

    A few years ago, ExxonMobil put the decline from existing oil wells at about 4% to 6% per year. A recent WSJ article noted that analysts are currently putting the decline from existing oil wells at 5% to 8% per year (in my opinion, the 8% number is more realistic). At 8%/year, globally we need about 6.5 MMBPD of new Crude + Condensate (C+C) production every single year, just to offset declines from existing wells, or we need about 65 MMBPD of new C+C production over the next 10 years, just to offset declines from existing wells. This is equivalent to putting on line the productive equivalent of the peak production rate of about thirty-three (33) North Slopes of Alaska over the next 10 years.

    It appears quite likely that global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) has been more or less flat to down since 2005, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled from $55 in 2005 to $110 for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at $99 in 2014)–while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

    Following are links to charts showing normalized production values for OPEC 12 countries and global data. The gas, natural gas liquids (NGL) and crude + condensate (C+C) values are for 2002 to 2014 (except for gas, which is through 2013, EIA data in all cases). Both data charts show similar increases for gas, NGL and C+C from 2002 to 2005, with inflection points in both cases for C+C in 2005. My premise is that condensate production, in both cases, accounts for virtually all of the post-2005 increase in C+C production.

    Global Gas, NGL and C+C:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Global%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpskb5bxu6d.jpg

    OPEC 12 Gas, NGL and C+C:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Gas%20NGL%20C%20amp%20C_zpsox3lqdkj.jpg

    Currently, we only have crude oil only data for the OPEC 12 countries and for Texas (note that what the EIA calls "Crude oil" is actually C+C).

    Also following is a link to OPEC 12 implied condensate (EIA C+C less OPEC crude) and OPEC crude only from 2005 to 2014 (OPEC data prior to 2005 was for a different set of exporters than post-2005). Obviously, data quality is an issue, and the boundary between actual crude and condensate is sometimes fuzzy. In any case, we have to deal with the data that we have.

    OPEC 12 Crude and Implied Condensate:
    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/OPEC%20Crude%20and%20Condensate_zps12rfrqos.jpg

    As of 2014, OPEC and the US accounted for 53% of global C+C production (41 MMBPD out of 78 MMBPD). Implied OPEC condensate production increased by 1.2 MMBPD from 2005 to 2014 (1.2 to 2.4). The EIA estimates that US condensate production increased by about 1.0 MMBPD from 2011 to 2014. I'm estimating that US condensate production may have increased by around 1.2 MMBPD or so from 2005 to 2014. Based on the foregoing, increased condensate production by OPEC and the US may have accounted for about 60% (about 2.4 MMBPD) of the 4 MMBPD increase in global C+C production from 2005 to 2014.

    Combining the US and OPEC estimates, the US + OPEC ratio of condensate to C+C production may have increased from about 4.6% in 2005 to about 10% in 2014. If this rate of increase in the global condensate to C+C ratio is indicative of total global data, it implies that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity) was approximately flat from 2005 to 2014, at about 70 MMBPD.

    In other words, the available data seem quite supportive of my premise that actual global crude oil production (45 API and lower gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have (so far) continued to increase.

    If it took trillions of dollars of upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating Plateau" in actual global crude oil production, what happens to crude production given the large and ongoing cutbacks in global upstream capex?

    And given the huge rate of decline in existing US gas production (probably on the order of about 24%/year from existing wells), it's possible that we might see substantially higher North American gas prices this winter, given the decline in US drilling.

    Furthermore, through 2013 we have seen a post-2005 decline in what I define as Global Net Exports of oil (GNE, the combined net exports from the Top 33 net exporters in 2005), which is a pattern that appears to have continued in 2014. GNE fell from 46 MMBPD in 2005 to 43 MMBPD in 2013 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids). The volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013.

    Here are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, while we are currently seeing signs of weak demand in China, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    And a massively under-appreciated aspect of what I call "Net Export Math" is that the rate of depletion in the remaining cumulative volume of net oil exports, after a net export peak, tends to be enormous. Saudi Arabia is showing a year over year increase in production and net exports, but based on available annual data through 2014, Saudi Arabia's net exports fell from 9.5 MMBPD in 2005 to 8.4 MMBPD in 2014 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids), and I estimate that Saudi Arabia may have already shipped close to half of their total post-2005 supply of cumulative net exports of oil.


    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 1, 2015 at 5:58 am

    Increased oil production in a net oil importing country would reduce their demand for net oil imports, but I'm not an expert on Chinese oil production, although I do believe that a significant portion of their production is in long term decline.

    In any case, once again, following are the mathematical facts of life regarding net exports, which are not statements of opinion, but are instead statements about mathematical certainties:

    Given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in production in the net oil exporting countries, unless the exporting countries cut their liquids consumption at the same rate as, or at a faster rate than, the rate of decline in production, the resulting rate of decline in net exports will exceed the rate of decline in production and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time.

    In addition, while we are currently seeing signs of weak demand in China, given an ongoing, and inevitable, decline in GNE, unless China & India cut their net oil imports at the same rate as, or at a rate faster than, the rate of decline in GNE, the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will exceed the rate of decline in GNE, and the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India will accelerate with time.

    For example, from 2005 to 2013 the rate of decline in the volume of GNE available to importers other than China & India (2.3%/year) was almost three times the observed rate of decline in GNE from 2005 to 2013 (0.8%/year).

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 1, 2015 at 8:08 amRe: Global Gas Production

    The reason that I have spent so much time on crude versus crude + condensate is that the conventional wisdom is that there is no evidence of any kind of peak in sight, and my contention is that this is manifestly false, in regard to actual crude oil production (45 API gravity and lower crude oil). And if actual global crude oil production has probably peaked, it's when, not if, that we see similar peaks in global gas and associated liquids, condensate and NGL. In that regard, the global gas data (BP) are pretty interesting. Some rates of change:

    2005 to 2010:

    Global Gas: +2.8%/year
    Global Gas, Excluding North America: +3.2%/year

    2010 to 2014:

    Global Gas: +1.9%/year
    Global Gas, Excluding North America: +1.3%/year

    Note that the rate of increase in global gas, excluding North America, fell from 3.2%/year for 2005 to 2010 to 1.3%/year for 2010 to 2014. And of course, "Net Export Math" works for both oil and gas (as well as for domestic food consumption versus production).

    The shale advocates would argue that shale plays around the world will keep up us on an indefinite rate of increase in production, but global results have been disappointing in many areas, e.g., Poland, and high costs are a problem, combined with the very high decline rates.

    In any case, what causes a peak is the inability to offset declines from existing wells, and therefore the higher the production rate, the closer we are to a peak, because the volumetric decline from existing wells increases in tandem with the increase in production (it's pretty amazing that so few people are willing to admit this).


    Nony, September 6, 2015 at 10:39 am

    Brown:

    You are the only one "generally defining" oil as less than 45 API. 47 API Eagle Ford runs through refineries. It's price is correlated to WTI. And it actually gets a better price than 30 API sour (e.g. "Basra light"). I don't think any economist would look at lighter oils as anything other than a substitute and significant economically. This is an econ blog. You may pay a little less for an EF cargo. And there are some in the weeds concerns with fluffing the barrel (light ends). But this is really a nuance. From any reasonable economic evaluation, that stuff is OIL.

    Even classic lease condensate (like 55-60 API) is pretty much oil. Sure it gets blended with heavy before hitting the distillation tower, but it still makes a lot of gasoline, has a decent price (some delta with WTI) and follows WTI. It's not like methane or even propane.

    And that's just within the US (where we have export restrictions and a new volume of light). Light oils are even more reasonable on a world basis. And in the US, classically the spreads were much closer or even to the benefit of condensate in the past.

    By the way, it's fascinating that we actually ended up with too much light oil. The peaker trope was that new sources would be heavy and non-WTI-like. And Bakken is very close to classic WTI! Also, current peakers never seem to mention the advantage of low sulfur content (and S and API are broadly speaking inversely correlated.)

    rjs, August 30, 2015 at 6:38 pm

    inventories are clearly in a seasonal (driving season) decline, but still way above historical levels because of the contango tradiing…we never saw 400 million barrels before this year….

    in reporting on EIA data weekly, i've noticed that the weekly fluctuatons in inventories are a function of imports…if two extra VLCCs unload in the same week, your inventories rise…

    SecondLook, August 30, 2015 at 9:59 pm

    I think, very relevantly: what is the current cost of production of oil, or even what is the significant distribution range.
    I find discussions about oil, or for that matter any finite commodity, without having an agreed upon cost basis factor sort of meaningless.

    JBH, August 31, 2015 at 8:37 am

    SecondLook Quite so. Technological progress in fracking is nothing short of astounding. Global economic growth is decelerating with no end in sight. So the only meaningful constraint on price is MC. No curve would be more informative than the historic MC of fracking for say the last two or three years. I do not for a moment believe the current price of $44 is well-below MC.

    It may be somewhat below, but the all-important technology dynamic is moving the MC curve lower by the day. The solidest, most-well-backed-up projection I've seen is that by Mark Mills at the Manhattan Institute: costs are ultimately heading to the $5 to $20 range! Thus far I've found very little on what to me has gravitated to the forefront as the next biggest question: What happens when fracking goes global at ever-falling marginal cost?

    Jeffrey J. Brown, August 31, 2015 at 9:10 am

    The Economist Magazine suggested an outlook for an extended period of oil prices in the $5 to $10 range:

    http://www.economist.com/node/188181

    Yet here is a thought: $10 might actually be too optimistic. We may be heading for $5. To see why, consider chart 1. Thanks to new technology and productivity gains, you might expect the price of oil, like that of most other commodities, to fall slowly over the years. Judging by the oil market in the pre-OPEC era, a "normal" market price might now be in the $5-10 range. Factor in the current slow growth of the world economy and the normal price drops to the bottom of that range. . . .

    The supply situation is even gloomier for producers. Unlike 1986, oil supplies have been slow to respond to the past year's fall. Even at $10 a barrel, it can be worth continuing with projects that already have huge sunk costs. Rapid technological advances have pushed the cost of finding, developing and producing crude oil outside the Middle East down from over $25 a barrel (in today's prices) in the 1980s to around $10 now. Privatisation and deregulation in such places as Argentina, Malaysia and Venezuela have transformed moribund state-owned oil firms. According to Douglas Terreson of Morgan Stanley Dean Witter, an investment bank, this has "unleashed a dozen new Texacos during the 1990s", all of them keen to pump oil.

    Meanwhile OPEC, which masterminded the supply cuts that pushed prices up in the 1970s and 1980s, is in complete disarray. The cartel will try yet again to agree upon production cuts at its next meeting, on March 23rd, but, partly thanks to its members' cheating on quotas, the impact of any such cuts will be small. OPEC members fear that Iraq, whose UN-constrained output rose by 1m barrels a day in 1998, may some day be able to raise production further. Last week Algeria's energy minister declared, with only slight exaggeration, that prices might conceivably tumble "to $2 or $3 a barrel."

    Nor is there much chance of prices rebounding. If they started to, Venezuela, which breaks even at $7 a barrel, would expand production; at $10, the Gulf of Mexico would join in; at $11, the North Sea, and so on (see map). This will limit any price increase in the unlikely event that OPEC rises from the dead. Even in the North Sea, the bare-bottom operating costs have fallen to $4 a barrel. For the lifetime of such fields firms will continue to crank out oil, even though they are not recouping the sunk costs of exploration and financing. And basket-cases such as Russia and Nigeria are so hopelessly dependent on oil that they may go on producing for some time whatever the price.

    BC, August 31, 2015 at 2:34 pm

    https://app.box.com/s/npygb8t139jm69yjcz5nhzm8ygibd5pd

    https://app.box.com/s/0hroqkg7zym2us8em4k55a36affs4xmc

    https://app.box.com/s/6qtqg4w41mrzfn8dhgoq27z3j1n20sg5

    https://app.box.com/s/858zgmul9yfhdi1j5fmybhd54jpuexkz

    https://app.box.com/s/m4d2o0kl8bqf850e6e2ptu3m3rf2c0tb

    https://app.box.com/s/be72m6g0e3pmdss2apjamoswvq7jxe1i

    https://app.box.com/s/41k6v2nfqgqs2jcrixrn5bybjdov3hhv

    https://app.box.com/s/qml1c2s6fdihreha51dr1x2epxv8bg0u

    US oil production per capita is down 40-45% since 1970 and 25% since 1985 (onset of deindustrialization and financialization).

    The oil cycle is turning lower (CPI and US$ terms) as in the early to mid-1960s and 1986.

    However, this time we have much more debt to wages and GDP; real GDP per capita is growing at half the 1960s and 1980s rates; labor share of GDP is much lower; peak Boomer demographic effects are bearing down in the US, UK, Canada, Oz, EZ, Japan, and now China and the Asian city-states; financial assets are in a MASSIVE bubble and about to burst again as in 1929, 2000, and 2007; wealth and income inequality is obscene and pernicious; health care and debt service costs are precluding any discretionary income for the bottom 90%; and labor productivity is decelerating due to deindustrialization, regressive taxes on earned income, demographics, labor share, debt, and inequality.

    http://www.bloombergview.com/articles/2015-02-16/oil-prices-likely-to-fall-as-supplies-rise-demand-falls

    I don't know about Shilling's speculation about $10 oil, but $25-$32 fits the cycle, technicals, and price-supply-demand for implied global real GDP per capita rate of growth indefinitely hereafter, notwithstanding a possible seasonal technical rally to $55-$60.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 1, 2015 at 5:51 am

    Incidentally, the Economist Magazine article I linked to, and that I showed an excerpt from, was published in early 1999.

    The Economist Magazine ran their "Drowning in oil" cover story in early 1999, in which they suggested that we would see $5 to $10 oil for the indefinite future. At the time of the story, annual Brent crude oil prices were then in the early stages of three approximate price doublings:

    From $13 in 1998 to $25 in 2002;
    From $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005;
    From $55 in 2005 to $110 range for 2011 to 2013 inclusive (remaining at about $99 for 2014).

    And . . . .

    In late 2004, Daniel Yergin predicted that oil prices would be down to a long term index price of $38 by late 2005 (which caused me to suggest that we price oil in "Yergins" with One Yergin = $38).

    Also in 2004, the Saudi oil minister reiterated their support for the OPEC price band of $22 to $28.

    In August, 2009, Michael C. Lynch predicted that oil prices would soon be back to a long term price in the low 30's.

    In early February of this year, Ed Morse predicted that oil prices could fall as low as the "$20 range for a while."

    My prediction is that global net exporters will continue to deplete their remaining volume of post-2005 CNE (Cumulative Net Exports of oil) at an accelerating rate of depletion.

    I estimate that Saudi Arabia shipped about 5% of their post-2005 CNE in 2006, and I estimate that they shipped about 9% of their remaining post-2005 CNE in 2014, AKA an accelerating rate of depletion.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, August 31, 2015 at 6:37 am

    An Interesting Gas Play Case History

    The Haynesville Shale Gas Play, which covers part of both Texas and Louisiana, is an interesting case history. Following is a chart showing the monthly production versus the rig count. Note the significant time lag, a little more than a year, between the beginning of the decline in the rig count (late 2010) and the beginning of the decline in production (early 2012). Also, note that that there was about a three year gap between the beginning of the late 2010 decline in the rig count and the end of the steep production decline (late 2013):

    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Haynesville-rig-count-and-natural-gas-production1_zpsb1n95tiz.jpg

    In any case, the decline in production from the Haynesville Play contributed to the observed 20%/year exponential rate of decline in marketed gas production from Louisiana from 2012 to 2014 (dry gas production for 2014 not yet available). Note that this was the net rate of decline in gas production, after new wells were put on line (for both conventional and unconventional production). The gross underlying decline rate from existing wells in 2012 and 2013 in Louisiana was even higher than 20%/year.

    The Louisiana data provide strong support for the Citi Research estimate that this gross underlying rate of decline in existing US gas production is on the order of about 24%/year (again, gross being the rate of decline, before new wells are added).

    With an underlying gross decline rate of about 24%/year, the US needs about 17 BCF/day of new production per year, just to offset the declines from existing production. Note that this volume of gas–that the US needs just to offset declines from existing wells–exceeds the dry gas production levels of every country in the world, except for the US and Russia. In other words, in order to maintain current gas production, we need to put on line–every year–more gas production than Canada, or Norway, or Iran, or Qater, etc.

    The gross underlying decline rate from existing US oil production is probably not as high, but a plausible estimate is that it is on the order of 15%/year, which would imply that we need about 1.5 MMBPD (million barrels per day) of new Crude + Condensate (C+ C) production every year, just to offset annual declines from existing wells.

    Vangel Vesovski, August 31, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    I am sorry James but why aren't economists looking at the 10-Ks and noticing that none of the companies were cash flow positive even when oil prices were very high and the wells drilled were in the more productive areas? Why haven't they noticed that when the big players came into the shale space they got burned even though they paid less for the properties than what the sellers were saying they were worth on the conference calls.

    I think that the evidence shows that the shale story was a big scam driven by easy access to borrowing. Given the massive increase in debt on the balance sheets of most producers and the high depletion rates I just can't see how the sector can go on selling its narrative for that much longer. Note that in June 2012 the Bakken data showed 4162 wells producing an average of 144 barrels per day. The June 2015 data, which is the last month available, shows 9912 wells producing 116 barrels per day. The number of wells has more than doubled yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. The new wells are high IP wells yet the production rate has fallen has fallen by 19.4%. Sorry for the repetition but most people gloss over the implications. The simple fact is that when you look at the math and the 10-Ks, the narrative being told by the EIA, USGS, and the Wall Street analysts does not work very well.

    I think that some time in the next few months the picture will be much clearer and the fingers will start pointing. Given what I have been reading and hearing the problems were created by the Fed and SEC, not the oil company executives who disclosed everything to people who were willing to pay attention.


    Nony, September 1, 2015 at 8:40 pm

    A company that is growing production at 30% should not be expected to be cash flow positive. Especially when there is a heavy upfront capital investment (the drilling and completion) involved in production.

    Lots of people pointed out the companies were not cash flow positive, but they tended to be peak oil advocates who lacked a good understanding of the basics of investment (as simple as NPV). See Copeland's Valuation or Brealey and Myers Corporate Finance.


    Vangel Vesovski, August 31, 2015 at 8:06 pm

    @Nony

    The problem for the industry is the very high decline rate. Most wells lose more than 50% of their production rate in less than a year so the decline after the lag period clears will be much steeper. Think of the Yibal production rate and you won't be far off for the US shale sector.


    BC, August 31, 2015 at 2:17 pm

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

    http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_018.htm

    Peak, shale and tar production is a not-for-profit business, not unlike the US gov't, the Anglo-American imperial military, the USPS, the Corporation of Communist China, Amazon, Twitter, Tesla, and many biobubbletech companies, some with no REVENUES and a market cap of many billions of dollars. 😀

    But, hey, Mr. Musk is using Tesla as a loss leader at thousands of dollars per unit (tens of thousands counting subsidies) to become the techno-optimist exemplar to get us to the Moon, Mars, and ultimately to join our extraterrestrial ancestors inhabiting the Rings of Uranus.

    How will be accomplish this? Not by nuclear, wind, or solar. Please! The word is that Musk discovered HUGE deposits of dilithium crystals in Mexico, the Atacama Desert, and not far from where he is building his gigafactory, locations revealed to him by time-traveling Mr. Spock, who himself was informed by the aforementioned extraterrestrials centuries in the future.

    Soon we will upload our consciousnesses into virtual humachines, leaving behind our concerns about Peak Oil, population overshoot, resource depletion per capita, and climate change, and go off planet to explore the cosmos as immortal beings for millennia to come.

    This is going to be so exciting!

    Anonymous, August 31, 2015 at 3:16 pm

    In my view, there world is awash in mis or bad information. Oil prices are anything but linear either positively or negatively. The past 3 days of trading is showing this. Great to read that opec members may begin to discuss a reasonable output level to help restore prices to a fair level. I agree with the bull Boone Pickens as his experience and expertise in energy is par excellence. On his blog, he expects oil to exit this year at 70 per boe. I have a bet with a friend that wit exits this year at at least 60 per boe and I am also long crude, happily long that is…

    JBH , September 1, 2015 at 7:12 am

    Anonymous Re your remark on mis or bad information. I could not agree with you more. I interpret this remark as there being far too many gratuitous prognostications that do nothing other than inject noise into the airwaves. Or equally as bad, heavily-hedged puffed-up bets that hold no water when held up to the light of day. Academic papers are major offenders in this regard. Over half are not worth the paper they are printed on. If it doesn't forecast, it is not science.

    Your own prediction re the yearend price of crude is certainly reasonable. I do not put it in the above category. That said, I do disagree with it. What gives my disagreement gravitas is it has teeth, as the following will confirm.

    What this site needs is a neutral holder of escrow for legal bets of token amount so commenters can put their money where their mouth is. Claims would be written to pay at a specific date for a specified price, growth rate, or quantity. My reasoning is along the lines of what you were driving at. It is to leaven sense into academics and others who say anything fool thing they want to students, or on sites like Econbrowser, without being called on it. That some people have a belief structure so impervious to the real world that leavening sense into them would not be possible is beside the point. Others would be watching, and that would be value enough for a project like this.

    Take the stock market forecast in a comment of mine here on Econbrowser in late-July. I said in no uncertain terms the Dow was in a bear market. That bet would pay off if and when the Dow reached 20% down from its May 19th high; if instead the Dow goes to a new all-time high without first going down 20% I will have lost.

    There is no shame in losing. This is an uncertain world. The shame comes otherwise. Most notably in making a highly amorphous statement about the future, and then at some future date crowing about having been right.

    Allow me to flesh this out more. Using the WSJ print for the 2015 yearend WTI price of crude as the basis, I'll take even money crude will end the year below $60 per barrel. Even money that over the next four quarters – Q3 thru Q2 next year – real GDP growth will be below the current WSJ consensus estimate (a known number available to all). That real GDP growth will be below 2% over the next three years (distant payoff date yet noteworthy for what it says). I would, however, require a clause that this latter bet be negated if Donald Trump becomes president. The Iowa winner-take-all presidential market has the Dem candidate priced at (valued at) 59 cents vs. 41 cents for the Rep. My prediction here is this spread will narrow considerably in coming months.

    I base this last on the venerable methodology of the 13 Keys to the Presidency (original version). As for my Dow prediction, it is based on a proprietary technical model of mine constructed from market internals. At present, market internals are more negative than at their worst in the 2008 crisis! This brings a further thing to light – technical analysis is a highly valuable tool. Economists would do well to master it, since the market is a fine leading indicator of recessions. Paul Samuelson's often quoted statement about the market's ability to predict recessions borders on gibberish. Of course, a bear market does not mean impending recession. No good forecaster ever said it did. Other things have to fall in place. At present they have yet to do so. But in advance of the next recession – whenever that is – stocks will have entered a bear market. The caveat is that stocks go down in both nominal and real terms. Never since the inception of the Dow has the real Dow not led the economy down. Ditto for on the way up.

    BC, September 1, 2015 at 8:52 am

    JBH, agree about the bear market, and it is setting up like 2007, 2000, and 1929 given a list of rarely occurring coincident indicators that occurred only during those periods since the early 20th century:

    https://app.box.com/s/vs7kkhuw96x9rksodwbwvnxxek3nis3b

    https://app.box.com/s/sqpdwrin8dt40t3ri6n0n5ksx88gtoqz

    https://app.box.com/s/5q46eovoo137r3z8xemetj4jipz54jt1

    BTW, since the late 1990s and the onset of hyper-financialization of the economy, the stock market has become a "lagging" indicator rather than the widely believed "leading" indicator. If the phenomenon still maintains, the US economy entered recession as long ago as Q4 '14 to Q1 '15.

    And as is historically characteristic of debt-deflationary regimes of the Long Wave, including Japan since 1992, there will be no persistent capacity constraints, accelerating wages and inflation, a yield curve inversion, and central bank tightening prior to the next recession and bear market. The Fed will much more likely resume QEternity and maintain ZIRP indefinitely.

    JBH, September 1, 2015 at 8:04 am

    Peak Trader Word usage is incredibly important. "We" don't do anything. There is a natural economy driven by the entrepreneurial spirit inherent in humans. It's part of the survival instinct coded by DNA. The Federal Reserve and big government are world-class obstacles to the economy's natural rate of growth. Natural growth is the birthright of common man in a civilization as advanced as ours. The Federal Reserve, politicians, and government officials at all levels create impediments to and worsen the drains on natural growth. "They" should get out of the way. There are nuances around this, one notable being reasonable tariff protection like our nation had in its heyday. Another is reasonable-yet-not-onerous regulation of the environment.

    Corruption at the highest level - crony capitalism as it is now called, otherwise since time immemorial known as vested interests – is strangling economic growth. It is an open question if Fed officials are corrupt. I do not want to think that of them. But certainly they are imbecilic in the mass devastation they have wrought since the time of Greenspan. We cannot yet look back from the vantage point of ten years out. But unless something changes regarding vested interests, coercive big government, and central banks run amok, the miserable last ten years will look like a walk in the park. This is an easy-to-make prediction in light of the crippling debt burden Keynesian economics has inflicted on this and future generations …

    Kirby thibeault, August 31, 2015 at 3:25 pm

    Oil prices will exit, wti, this year at a min of 60 per boe and the extreme pessimists are wrong and I completely disagree with Gary shillings 10-20 call. The past few days should make everyone aware of how quickly prices can change.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 4, 2015 at 5:55 am

    All glory is fleeting


    "For over a thousand years Roman conquerors returning from the wars enjoyed the honor of triumph, a tumultuous parade. In the procession came trumpeteers, musicians and strange animals from conquered territories, together with carts laden with treasure and captured armaments. The conquerors rode in a triumphal chariot, the dazed prisoners walking in chains before him. Sometimes his children robed in white stood with him in the chariot or rode the trace horses. A slave stood behind the conqueror holding a golden crown and whispering in his ear a warning: that all glory is fleeting."

    ― George S. Patton Jr.

    The EIA shows that US Crude + Condensate (C+C) production was 5.0 MMBPD (million barrels per day) in 2008. Let's assume that the current estimate of 9.6 MMBPD in US C+C production in April, 2015 is correct. And let's assume that the gross rate of decline in existing US C+C production in 2008 was about 5%/year. So, in order to offset the decline from existing 2008 wells, US operators had to put on line 0.25 MMBPD of new production (which they clearly achieved, given the observed net increase in production).

    Here's the problem.

    Even with no increase in the decline rate, as production increases, the volumetric decline from existing wells increased in tandem with the production increase. A peak occurs when the production from new wells (and workovers, secondary, tertiary recovery efforts, etc.) can no longer offset the decline from existing production. Therefore, the higher the production rate, the closer that we are to a production peak, i.e., "All glory is fleeting."

    US operators are, in effect, fighting a two front war–an increase in the decline rate from existing wells and an overall increase in the volumetric decline from existing wells, because of the increase in production. This is of course also largely true of total world production, and my contention is that in all likelihood, virtually all of the new actual crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude) that was put on line from 2006 to 2014 inclusive globally only served to approximately offset the declines from existing wells, i.e., it took trillions of dollars in upstream capex to keep us on an "Undulating plateau" in actual crude oil production for the past decade.

    In any case, the estimated annualized volumetric declines (rounded off to nearest 0.5 MMBPD) in April, 2015 US C+C production at three rates of decline from existing wells:

    5%/year: 0.5 MMBPD
    10%/year: 1.0 MMBPD
    15%/year: 1.5 MMBPD

    At the 15%/year rate, which IMO is the most likely, in order to maintain 9.6 MMBPD, US operators would have had to put on line, from April, 2015 to April, 2016, production that would be approximately equivalent to all of Norway's 2014 C+C production.

    Jeffrey J. Brown, September 4, 2015 at 8:13 am

    Late August US net crude oil imports (four week running average data, MMBPD):

    2008: 10.1
    2009: 9.1
    2010: 9.6
    2011: 9.2
    2012: 8.6
    2013: 8.1
    2014: 7.3
    2015: 7.1

    Of course, when we look at total production less consumption, overall net imports on a total liquids basis are lower, but it certainly appears that the decline in US net crude oil imports has slowed considerably, and US net imports will in all likelihood be increasing in future months, as US C+C production declines.

    It looks like the recent low in net US crude oil imports was in early November, 2014, at 6.6 MMBPD (four week running average), which was down quite a bit from the early November, 2013 number (7.5).

    In any event, it seems to me that the bottom line is that for every one bpd of new production that US operators had to put on line in 2008 to offset declines from existing wells, they will need about six bpd of new production now.

    Nony, September 6, 2015 at 11:05 am

    I always felt that high price impact was the best fallback position of peakers after US production explosion surprised them as did worldwide gradual up plateau. It was something that cornies needed to concede. At the end of the day, for the US, as a big net importer we gain more from low prices than from the production itself.

    Now, I'll take the low price as a win. Feels like the peak oil skeptics have won twice now over the peak oil advocates (even the more moderate ones). First with the production. Second with prices.

    I don't even like the "no one could have predicted shale". Peak oil advocates (even the more moderate ones) were slow to look at the warning signs (but quick to look at things like Staniford and Simmons Saudi concerns). They tended to talk it down on the way up. And FWIW, I didn't predict shale, but I'm not surprised that something came out of the bag. Seems like it has often happened over the history of the industry when back against the wall. And we probably could have done the same impact, by approving ANWR, Keystone, and VACAPES drilling (which were known options). The whole US can't affect world prices looks pretty wrong in retrospect.

    [Sep 06, 2015] Oil Shale Reserves

    The Daily Reckoning
    Oil Shale Technology – Old & New

    Extracting oil from the shale is no simple task. The earliest attempts to extract the oil utilized an environmentally unfriendly process known as "retorting." Stated simply, retorting required mining the shale, hauling it to a processing facility that crushed the rock into small chunks, then extracted a petroleum substance called kerogen, then upgraded the kerogen through a process of hydrogenation (which requires lots of water) and refined it into gasoline or jet fuel.

    But the difficulties of retorting do not end there, as my colleague, Byron King explains:

    "After you retort the rock to derive the kerogen (not oil), the heating process has desiccated the shale (OK, that means that it is dried out). Sad to say, the volume of desiccated shale that you have to dispose of is now greater than that of the hole from which you dug and mined it in the first place. Any takers for trainloads of dried, dusty, gunky shale residue, rife with low levels of heavy metal residue and other toxic, but now chemically-activated crap? (Well, it makes for enough crap that when it rains, the toxic stuff will leach out and contaminate all of the water supplies to which gravity can reach, which is essentially all of 'em. Yeah, right. I sure want that stuff blowin' in my wind.) Add up all of the capital investment to build the retorting mechanisms, cost of energy required, cost of water, costs of transport, costs of environmental compliance, costs of refining, and you have some relatively costly end-product."

    But a new technology has emerged that may begin to tap the oil shale's potential. Royal Dutch Shell, in fact, has recently completed a demonstration project (The Mahogany Ridge project) in which it produced 1,400 barrels of oil from shale in the ground, without mining the shale at all.

    Instead, Shell utilized a process called "in situ" mining, which heats the shale while it's still in the ground, to
    the point where the oil leaches from the rock. Shell's Terry O'Connor described the breakthrough in testimony before Congress earlier this summer (And Congress may have an acute interest in the topic, since the U.S. government controls 72% of all U.S. oil shale acreage):

    "Some 23 years ago, Shell commenced laboratory and field research on a promising in ground conversion and recovery process. This technology is called the In-situ Conversion Process, or ICP. In 1996, Shell successfully carried out its first small field test on its privately owned Mahogany property in Rio Blanco County, Colorado some 200 miles west of Denver. Since then, Shell has carried out four additional related field tests at nearby sites. The most recent test was carried out over the past several months and produced in excess of 1,400 barrels of light oil plus associated gas from a very small test plot using the ICP technology…

    "Most of the petroleum products we consume today are derived from conventional oil fields that produce oil and gas that have been naturally matured in the subsurface by being subjected to heat and pressure over very long periods of time. In general terms, the In-situ Conversion Process (ICP) accelerates this natural process of oil and gas maturation by literally tens of millions of years. This is accomplished by slow sub-surface heating of petroleum source rock containing kerogen, the precursor to oil and gas. This acceleration of natural processes is achieved by drilling holes into the resource, inserting electric resistance heaters into those heater holes and heating the subsurface to around 650-700F, over a 3 to 4 year period.

    "During this time, very dense oil and gas is expelled from the kerogen and undergoes a series of changes. These changes include the shearing of lighter components from the dense carbon compounds, concentration of available hydrogen into these lighter compounds, and changing of phase of those lighter, more hydrogen rich compounds from liquid to gas. In gaseous phase, these lighter fractions are now far more mobile and can move in the subsurface through existing or induced fractures to conventional producing wells from which they are brought to the surface. The process results in the production of about 65 to 70% of the original "carbon" in place in the subsurface.

    "The ICP process is clearly energy-intensive, as its driving force is the injection of heat into the subsurface.
    However, for each unit of energy used to generate power to provide heat for the ICP process, when calculated on a life cycle basis, about 3.5 units of energy are produced and treated for sales to the consumer market. This energy efficiency compares favorably with many conventional heavy oil fields that for decades have used steam injection to help coax more oil out of the reservoir. The produced hydrocarbon mix is very different from traditional crude oils. It is much lighter and contains almost no heavy ends.

    "However, because the ICP process occurs below ground, special care must be taken to keep the products of the process from escaping into groundwater flows. Shell has adapted a long recognized and established mining and construction ice wall technology to isolate the active ICP area and thus accomplish these objectives and to safe guard the environment. For years, freezing of groundwater to form a subsurface ice barrier has been used to isolate areas being tunneled and to reduce natural water flows into mines. Shell has successfully tested the freezing technology and determined that the development of a freeze wall prevents the loss of contaminants from the heated zone."

    It may seem, as O'Conner said, counter-intuitive to freeze the water around a shale deposit, and then heat up the contents within the deposit. It's energy-intensive. And it's a lot of work. What's more, there's no proof yet it can work on a commercial scale.

    Yet both technologies, the freeze wall and the heating of shale, have been proven in the field to work. The freeze wall was used most recently in Boston's Big Dig project. It was also used to prevent ground water from seeping into the salt caverns at the Strategic Petroleum reserve in Weeks Island, LA.

    But still, you may be wondering, does it really make sense to heat the ground up a thousand feet down for three or four years and wait? Of course it does. In case you missed O'Conner's math, Shell could harvest up to a million barrels per acre, or a billion barrels per square mile, on an area covering over a thousand square miles.

    It's still early days in the oil shale fields of Colorado and Wyoming, but it looks to me like someone's gonna make a lot of money out there. I'm working hard to discover how we outside investors can play along.

    Shell's Mahogany Ridge

    Last week, I paid a visit to Royal Dutch Shell's oil shale project in Colorado. The visit left me with more questions than answers, but I came away from the place with the sense that this opportunity is very real…or, at least, it soon will be.

    After driving across a vast expanse of "Nowhere," Colorado, my brother and I met up with a few geologists from Shell. Of course it's just those large, unpopulated tracts of high desert that make the area so appealing from a geopolitical point of view. Tapping into the oil shale 2,000 feet underground isn't going to bother too many people. And there are no spotted owls around either. If the technology to turn shale into oil works, the entire area will become a new American boom patch.

    Soon after we arrived, the geologists escorted us around the facility, chatting all the while about the successes and challenges of their venture.

    The two trickiest aspects of oil shale development, as the geologists and engineers explained, are heating the shale to extreme temperatures, while simultaneously surrounding the heated area with a subterranean ice wall. Shell doesn't know, or isn't saying, which part of the project will be the most challenging. If you were about to change the world by making it economic to tap into as much as 2 trillion barrels of oil under the Colorado plateau, you'd be pretty careful about showing your competitors how you were going to do it.

    First, anything that heats up rock around it to around 600 or 700 degrees Fahrenheit has to conduct electrically generated heat well. The most conductive metals on the Periodic Table of Elements are, in order, silver, copper, and gold. Naturally, the number of heaters you put in a place affects the amount of time it takes to turn the shale goo into API 34 crude. The more heaters, the more cost, though.

    And given the fact that Shell does not know yet if the heaters will be recoverable, you can see that sticking silver, copper, or gold heaters 2000 meters underground and then leaving them there once the kerogen has been pumped has a serious effect on the economics of your operation.

    At the moment, Shell is not sure what the optimal size of production zones ought to be. The big issue here is how big can a freeze-wall be to be effective and freezing the groundwater surrounding a shale deposit? The test projects, as you can see, were quite small. Shell doesn't know, or isn't saying, what the optimum size is for a each "pod" or "cell". That's what they'll have to figure out at the next stage…and the picture with the dirt is a football field sized project….where rather than creating the freeze-wall at 50 meters down…they will do it at 1,000 ft. down…. with 2,000 being the desired and necessary depth for commercial viability. I'm not sure anyone has ever created a freeze-wall at that depth….neither is shell. But we'll find out. The oil itself that comes from the process looks like…oil. No heavy refining needed.

    Shell thinks the whole thing is economic at a crude price of $30. So barring a major reversal of geopolitical trends, they're forging ahead.

    Since the Bureau of Land Management owns about 80% of the oil shale acreage in Colorado, there is no investment play on private companies that might own land with rich shale deposits. Although, if Shell and the DOE are right that you can recover a million barrels of oil per acre…it wouldn't take much land to make a man rich out here.

    Oil Shale: Testing Public Lands

    The Bureau of Land Management recently received ten applications (by eight companies) for a pilot program to develop Colorado's shale reserves. The program allows the companies access to public lands for the purpose of testing shale-extraction technologies. You see below an interesting mix of large, publicly traded oil giants and small, privately held innovators.

    There is dispute within the industry over how long, if ever, demonstration extraction technologies can become commercially viable. I've spoken with some of the smaller companies that have applied for leases from the BLM. Some of them will have to raise money to conduct the project. And some of them have been less than forthcoming about how exactly their extraction technology is different or better than previous methods.

    How will it all unfold? Well, for starters, it could all utterly fail. To me, Shell's in-situ process looks the most promising. It also makes the most sense economically. There may be a better, less energy-intensive way to heat up the ground than what Shell has come up with. But Shell, Chevron, and Exxon Mobil clearly have the resources to scoop up any private or small firm that makes a breakthrough.

    And there are a host of smaller firms involved with the refining and drilling process that figure to play a key role in the development of the industry, should that development pick up pace.

    The Energy Policy Act of 2005, otherwise known as a listless piece of legislation without any strategic vision, does, at least, make provision for encouraging research into the development of shale. But government works slow, when it works at all. It's going to take an external shock to the economy to really ratchet up interest and development of the nation's energy reserves…say…something like a nuclear Iran.

    Dan Denning
    for The Daily Reckoning

    [Sep 06, 2015] Why the $20 Oil Predictions are Wrong By Robert Rapier

    "...I don't like predicting prices short term, because they are less influenced by fundamental factors. Longer term, irrational markets return to pricing based on fundamental factors like the cost to produce something and make a profit. In the long run, $40/bbl oil is not a price sufficient to entice enough oil producers to produce at a level that can satisfy global demand. Hence, prices will rise. How long will it take? Hard to say. Oil prices stayed above $100/bbl for a lot longer than I thought they would. Maybe they will remain depressed longer than I think they will. Personally, I believe prices will be back up to the $60/bbl level in 6 months or a year – and that's without any action from OPEC. If OPEC announced a 10% across the board production cut, that's a Black Swan that would drive prices back to $100/bbl very quickly."
    "...Not only did U.S. oil production grow faster than production in Saudi Arabia and Russia, but it outpaced production growth in all of OPEC, as well as the entire Middle East. Yet even with U.S. shale oil production, oil prices exceeded $100/bbl. And while U.S. shale oil producers have been getting more efficient, they aren't going to invest in new production at current prices. Hence, the handwriting is on the wall. (For an explanation of BP's crude oil accounting, see Is the U.S. Really the World's Top Oil Producer?)."
    Aug 20, 2015 | energytrendsinsider.com

    ... ... ...

    U.S. Crude Production is Falling

    No, U.S. crude oil production is now falling. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in its most recent Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) that U.S. crude oil production declined by 100,000 bpd in July compared with June, and they expect these declines to continue because of the steep cuts shale oil producers have made to their budgets. The EIA reduced its forecast for oil production next year to 400,000 bpd less than this year. More on the significance of this below.

    So why did inventories increase last week? It was actually because crude oil imports surged. Crude oil imports were 465,000 bpd higher than the previous week. That means 3.3 million barrels more oil came into the country than arrived in the previous week. Add that to the BP outage, and there was a surplus of oil of 4.9 million barrels relative to the previous week. This more than explains the 2.6 million barrel weekly gain in inventories. The question is "Will that continue to happen?"

    In my opinion, "No." The BP outage will continue for an indefinite period, but the import surge was an anomaly. Crude imports from Canada surged by 404,000 bpd from the previous week. But guess what? Canadian oil producers are in an even deeper bind than U.S. oil producers. A recent article stated that at $40/bbl WTI, Canada's largest synthetic crude project is losing about $10 on every barrel. How long do you suppose that can continue? The larger producers will hang in as long as they can, but some of the smaller guys are going to be shutting in production at $40 WTI (which implies an even lower price for them due to the distance to market). That will reduce imports from Canada - the very imports that surprisingly drove crude inventories higher this week.

    The U.S. Role in the Global Supply Picture

    U.S. crude oil production is falling because investments into shale oil production dried up as the price of crude oil fell below $60/bbl. Companies aren't interested in putting new capital to work, and because these oil fields deplete, that means crude production is falling. Why is that significant? Because most of the world's new oil production in the past 6 years has come from U.S. shale oil fields. It is hard to overstate the global importance of the new crude supply that came online in the U.S. since 2008. Perhaps this graphic will help put it into perspective:

    6 Years Oil Production Change

    Since 2008, U.S. oil production growth is equivalent to 83% of the global supply added during that time. (Some countries had declines in oil production, which is why the increases shown on the chart add up to more than the global total.) Not only did U.S. oil production grow faster than production in Saudi Arabia and Russia, but it outpaced production growth in all of OPEC, as well as the entire Middle East. Yet even with U.S. shale oil production, oil prices exceeded $100/bbl. And while U.S. shale oil producers have been getting more efficient, they aren't going to invest in new production at current prices. Hence, the handwriting is on the wall. (For an explanation of BP's crude oil accounting, see Is the U.S. Really the World's Top Oil Producer?).

    Insatiable Demand

    But what about demand? Isn't it declining? No. Our Western-centric view of the world may give us the impression that oil demand is declining, but the truth is quite different:

    Global Crude Demand

    Over just the past decade global oil consumption increased by an average of 900,000 bpd each year, and consumption has risen in 18 of the past 20 years. If we look back 30 years, global oil consumption increased by an average of 1.1 million bpd annually. Demand did decline in member countries of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) - the grouping of the world's developed countries. But demand growth in developing countries overwhelmed the declines in the developed world. In just the past five years, demand in developing countries has increased by an average of 1.6 million bpd annually, and now exceeds OECD demand.

    OECD vs Non Demand

    Note that there was hardly any negative impact on demand in developing countries even with oil prices at $100/bbl. What drives consumption in these countries is a very large number of people using just a little bit more oil than they did before. High oil prices will do little to dissuade them from buying a little bit more when it can make such a big impact on their lives, especially when incomes are rising.

    Global demand growth for crude oil is projected to continue. The International Energy Agency recently forecast that global demand will increase by 1.4 million barrels per day this year, and a further 1.2 million bpd in 2016. The bulk of that demand growth is expected to come from developing countries in Asia. With U.S. supply falling, where are the new oil supplies coming from to satisfy global demand at $40/bbl oil? There simply isn't enough to go around. Another way of looking at this is "We are past peak $40/bbl oil."

    Iran Can't Close the Gap

    Yes, Iran may be putting another half million barrels per day on the export market over the next year. However, oil production in Iran has historically grown slowly. In the past 20 years the most they ever increased production by in a single year was 423,000 bpd. The 2nd most was 249,000 bpd. I am a bit skeptical about some of the optimistic forecasts for their ramp up. A year from now Iran's half million barrels per day may be on the market, but then oil demand will be another 1.4 million bpd higher.

    Further, if U.S. production begins to decline in earnest, that production will have to be made up as well. So if the IEA is correct we need another 1.4 million bpd plus the losses that will happen as a result of lower oil prices - and if Iran is stepping up then it will be taking place in an unstable region of the world. Is this really a scenario that can support $40 oil?

    This is why, in my opinion, oil can't go to $20/bbl. Despite very vocal predictions of much lower oil prices, many people are aware of the dynamics I have laid out here. They know that if you look at this moment in time, today, the market is slightly oversupplied. That is why oil prices are in the $40′s. But 6 months or a year from now? No way. Demand will keep growing, and there aren't enough producers willing to grow oil production at these prices. Thus, prices will rise, so every time WTI gets down to the sort of unsustainable level it is at now buyers start stepping up.

    The OPEC Wild Card

    This scenario presumes that OPEC doesn't blink. If you recall, at OPEC's meeting in late November 2014, they decided to defend market share instead of reducing production quotas, as some expected, to prop up the price of crude. OPEC's rationale was that such a move would only help shale oil producers grow their market share by allowing them to maintain high margins. Instead OPEC decided to produce all out, and the falling oil prices that began in the summer accelerated following OPEC's meeting. (See OPEC Crashed the U.S. Rig Count for additional background).

    At their June 5th meeting this year, they once more decided to leave production unchanged. But this strategy is inflicting a lot of pain on OPEC countries, and many are becoming more vocal about the issue. This week Algeria wrote a letter to OPEC questioning the wisdom of their current strategy. The letter asked OPEC to consider taking some form of action to bolster oil prices, as many OPEC countries need oil prices to be at least $100/bbl to balance their budgets. CNN recently reported that this year Saudi Arabia alone has burned through $62 billion of its cash reserves. By my calculations, the steep slide in the price of oil has cost Saudi Arabia around $200 billion in the past year.

    Personally, I think Saudi made a monumental miscalculation. While I have seen some claim that the rise of shale oil has effectively neutered OPEC, keep in mind that the organization still produced 41% of the world's oil last year. 36.6 million bpd of global production came from OPEC. Had they decided to cut production by 5% or so last fall, they would have lost some market share, and yes, the shale oil producers would have kept growing production. But oil prices would probably be at least twice what they are now. The net outcome for OPEC, despite the loss of market share, would have been much higher revenues than what they ended up with.

    Another problem for Saudi Arabia now is one of saving face. If they announce an emergency cut to the quotas, or even announce this at their next meeting in December, they will be admitting defeat. They may argue that if they can hold out just a bit longer, they can set the shale oil industry back by years, and then when prices go back up OPEC will be the biggest beneficiary. That is not the decision I would make, but certainly a decision that has benefited U.S. consumers.

    Conclusions

    I don't like predicting prices short term, because they are less influenced by fundamental factors. Longer term, irrational markets return to pricing based on fundamental factors like the cost to produce something and make a profit. In the long run, $40/bbl oil is not a price sufficient to entice enough oil producers to produce at a level that can satisfy global demand. Hence, prices will rise. How long will it take? Hard to say. Oil prices stayed above $100/bbl for a lot longer than I thought they would. Maybe they will remain depressed longer than I think they will. Personally, I believe prices will be back up to the $60/bbl level in 6 months or a year – and that's without any action from OPEC. If OPEC announced a 10% across the board production cut, that's a Black Swan that would drive prices back to $100/bbl very quickly.

    Here is a closing thought. If you could freeze the price of oil at $40/bbl for the next year, what do you think would happen? Supply would be lower in a year, and demand would be higher. In the real world, the price of oil will rise. Granted, the oil markets are notorious for over-correcting, which is the situation they are in right now, in my opinion. Could the price of oil drop to $20/bbl briefly? Well, these are predictions and opinions, and I am on the record predicting that WTI would not close below $40/bbl this year, but you never say never. I think it's highly unlikely though. If WTI shocks me and does fall to $20/bbl I will scrape together every penny I can and buy oil, and just sit back and wait for the inevitable swing in the other direction.

    Link to Original Article: Why the $20 Oil Predictions are Wrong

    (Follow Robert Rapier on Twitter, LinkedIn, or Facebook.)


    Forrest

    Liquid fuels will dominate transportation sector for foreseeable future. Technology improvements will make the common ICE very competitive. A $40k Chevy Bolt is far from being competitive to comparable MSRP $14,455 '16 Ford Fiesta. Also, biofuels will continue to increase production as a result the negative rating of motor fuel will decrease. Inner city mass transit may be the only exception as autonomous technology and computer control would really magnify the benefit of EV with the ensuing loss of roadway congestion, parking, and pollution. This seems to be the perfect application for EV.

    More economist fear the world economies may be intertwined within a vicious deflation pressure per the older generational logistics and our past leveraging of future wealth. Meaning the long time future a slow slog of low growth, high unemployment, low wages, and dwindling standard of living. This would endure until we slowly pay down debt and start to rebuild. This is the "change" that was once was hyped as good. But, saying that the U.S., especially, has a very impressive flow of invention such as the likes from Amazon, Apple, and the internet trading community that may empower our economy. Think of the biofuel, grid, solar, wind, nuclear, oil technology, auto technology, communications, entertainment, housing, materials, fuel cell, education and the rest. We need to, as a country, to become very flexible and agile and to bust roadblocks to improvement. We need to accept even demand invention and reinvention and eliminate holy political cows of Union organizations, Public ed, and corrupt politicians protecting powerful constituencies from Wall Street to Hollywood.

    ben

    Well, this '15 prediction was wrong, yet, underlying factors promoting sustainably higher oil prices remain in play despite temporary price relief. Is this surprising? Not at all, if the influences of the Fed's financial repression policies are taken to their logical conclusion; artificially suppressed interest rates will eventually sow the seeds of dysfunction across the whole spectrum of financial markets and assets with a concomitant impact on national economies. Artificial stimulants temporarily aiding a run-up in financial assets and equity markets cannot ultimately alter the underlying, real-world forces of supply & demand for both capital and labor.

    In short, monetary manipulations of central bankers attempting to orchestrate soft landings in relief of mismanaged fiscal policies on the part of the 'ruling class' will inevitably fall short of the objective.

    Indeed, these manipulations only serve to hide the mismanagement in such a way as to ensure that the ultimate corrections are far more traumatic than is otherwise necessary or advisable. Alas, the pretensions of such orchestrations must necessarily attend arrangements wherein political leadership, in tandem with the money manipulators, since the instinct to put off until tomorrow the demands of today naturally attend the temptation of expedient characters.

    Regrettably, contemporary politicians have made an art form of deflecting on the real issues while promoting their more popular (and their own) interests. Don't believe it? Well, just tune in for a Donald Trump rally and see what it looks like when entertainment "trumps" serious reasoning ;)
    Thanks for the straight talk, RR. No apologies required nor sought!

    TimC • 14 days ago

    "If WTI shocks me and does fall to $20/bbl I will scrape together every penny I can and buy oil."

    Me too. But why not buy oil at $40/bbl, if you believe it's going to $60 within a year? Or, if you don't like the risk in oil, diversify with an ETF. I recall one analysis at the start of the year that predicted the S&P500 Energy Select SPDR ETF (XLE) would rise 10% in 2015. XLE is down 20% YTD, so it should go up 37.5% in the next four months. How can you go wrong?

    "I don't like predicting prices short term..."

    Robert Rapier Mod > TimC

    "But why not buy oil at $40/bbl, if you believe it's going to $60 within a year?"

    I did the last time oil dipped toward $40. Not putting your eggs in one basket is good advice, so I keep a little powder dry. But at $20? I am all in.

    "How can you go wrong?"

    If you make predictions, you are going to be wrong sometimes. The key is being right more often than you are wrong. Then you make money.

    Common Sense

    What about the impact of potentially rising interest rates in the U.S. And its impact on the strength of the dollar?

    Wouldn't further US dollar appreciation stem some increase in emerging market demand and thus impact the price of oil?

    Robert Rapier Mod > Common Sense

    Demand growth in developing countries didn't flinch at $100 oil, so I don't think it's going to flinch with a stronger dollar and lower oil prices.

    Arthur_Henderson

    Robert,

    In my opinion - fantastic analysis! You took all of the variables into account. I think one of those most important variables to emphasize is depletion rates. With producers in the US and across the world pumping as much as they can, they are doing it at a cost of running into diminishing production rates (depletion) on those existing wells even sooner.

    I think the oil market will have turned a corner and prices will be back in the $60 - 70 range within about 18 months. I really think the oil market is going to get blindsided by this and all of a sudden, the reactions will be swiftly to the upside.

    I think we'll bottom out around $30 per barrel as the media broadcasts negative, emotional headlines through their propaganda bullhorns, and that's when we'll spike back into the $40s immediately before seeing more bullish data in the 1st and second quarter of 2016 - driving prices into the $50s.

    This is under the assumption that OPEC stubbornly refuses to budge. If they DO budge, oil markets are going to be on a tear into the $80s at the very least. US producers wouldn't be able to ramp up production quick enough to catch up at that point - and we'd be in the exact opposite situation we're in today!

    Benjamin Cole

    Well, probably right, this analysis is. But then, we did see $10 oil in the 1990s, not that long ago.

    In the longer run, I think there is a ceiling on oil, somewhere in the $70 to $100 range. Alternatives and conservation make a lot of sense once oil gets too expensive, And I guess better and better fracking techniques can go global.

    Plenty of wild cards out there in next 20 years. Mexico, Venezuela, Iran, Iraq, Libya, Nigeria, Russia --- gobs of oil, but can it be extracted? Even Saudi Arabia is cutting output artificially (in free-market terms).

    BTW, GS Yuasa says they will have a battery with double the power at half the cost on the market in two to five years. That company is a publicly held, Japanese, and already a major commercial battery maker, so I do not think this is pie on the moon stuff, ala cellulosic ethanol or $200 barrel oil.

    Urban regions with lots of battery cars? You can rent a car for cross-country drives, when you really need the gasoline. Fleets--UPS trucks, etc---will gravitate to batteries.

    It may be soon EVs will actually make commercial sense.

    Not sure oil is a good long-run bet. That said, oil back o $70? Very possible.

    [Sep 05, 2015] Deflation and Money

    "...Friedman and Schwartz were wrong about the cause and the cure of the Great Depression. Those who learned monetarism as the "new truth" are having a difficult time unlearning it. We need re-education courses for older economists and a new curriculum for younger ones."
    .
    "...I don't have the neo-classical faith in the "natural" healing powers of the economy as some people do. Seems more likely that the economy would settle in to a lower equilibrium given enough fiscal austerity."
    .
    "...But what if the FED is a rational captain of corporate capitalism. Better then the opportunistic demagogues in the congress. But still dedicated to wage stag "
    .
    "..."if wage increases for the business sector as a whole lag behind productivity increases deflation occurs"..."
    Sep 05, 2015 | Economist's View
    The summary "Deflation and money" by Hiroshi Yoshikawa, Hideaki Aoyama, Yoshi Fujiwara, and Hiroshi Iyetomiof says:
    Deflation and money, Vox EU: Deflation is a threat to the macroeconomy. Japan had suffered from deflation for more than a decade, and now, Europe is facing it. To combat deflation under the zero interest bound, the Bank of Japan and the European Central Bank have resorted to quantitative easing, or increasing the money supply. This column explores its effectiveness, through the application of novel methods to distinguish signals from noises.

    The conclusion:

    ...all in all, the results we obtained have confirmed that aggregate prices significantly change, either upward or downward, as the level of real output changes. The correlation between aggregate prices and money, on the other hand, is not significant. The major factors affecting aggregate prices other than the level of real economic activity are the exchange rate and the prices of raw materials represented by the price of oil. Japan suffered from deflation for more than a decade beginning at the end of the last century. More recently, Europe faces a threat of deflation. Our analysis suggests that it is difficult to combat deflation only by expanding the money supply

    bakho said in reply to pgl...

    Monetary policy weak is at the ZLB. Fiscal and regulatory can have much stronger effects and complete swamp monetary like a tidal wave to a ripple.
    Exchange rates and other economic shocks have more effect than monetary policy at the ZLB.

    Friedman and Schwartz were wrong about the cause and the cure of the Great Depression. Those who learned monetarism as the "new truth" are having a difficult time unlearning it. We need re-education courses for older economists and a new curriculum for younger ones.

    bakho said in reply to pgl...

    Efficiency standards backed by a carbon tax would be much more effective that a carbon tax alone.
    Efficiency standards work for electric appliances and prevent a races to the bottom.

    pgl said in reply to bakho...

    True. It seems Carly and Jeb! do not want to regulate but rather to encourage innovation by giving subsidies to rich people. Not only is this Republican reverse Robin Hoodism on steroids - it will not has as much effect as a tax combined with regulations.

    Simply put - conservatives should not be listened to as their agenda is not economic efficiency but rather making the Koch Brothers ever richer.

    Peter K. said...

    As a thought experiment I would wonder what bakho's re-education course would look like.

    There is this paper, but could it be it says the same thing as those graphs which show the large increases in the monetary base would just sit there with at the Zero Lower Bound because of the liquidity trap?

    The inflationistas were wrong that all of that monetary policy would cause runaway inflation.

    But considering what needed to be done to move long-term interest rates, was it really large enough?

    David Beckworth's blogpost in today's links suggests the Fed did what they wanted to do.

    http://macromarketmusings.blogspot.com/2015/09/revealed-preferences-fed-inflation.html

    And maybe part of that was to offset the unprecedented fiscal austerity we say after Obama's stimulus ran out. (And that stimulus was pretty much canceled out by 50 little Hoovers.)

    If monetary policy supposedly didn't move prices, I found it surprising that austerity didn't give us deflation as it did in Europe.

    Maybe fiscal policy works better and more directly but if it is blocked or even reversed with austerity, monetary policy shouldn't be ruled because it is supposedly ineffective.

    Maybe Friedman and Schwartz's maximalist claims aren't true, but that doesn't mean one should flip to the opposite extreme.

    Bernanke says in a speech that Tobin suggested that the Fed could have mitigated the Great Depression by lowering long-term rates.

    Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

    "What is the total number of months during the Ford, Carter, Reagan and Bush I administrations, plus the first term of Clinton, when the unemployment rate was lower than today?"

    http://www.themoneyillusion.com/?p=30495

    https://twitter.com/ObsoleteDogma/status/639877889979228160

    Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

    "The inflationistas were wrong that all of that monetary policy would cause runaway inflation."

    When confronted they always say that once the economy normalized, all of those reserves will go rushing out into the economy causing inflation.

    But the Fed says it will use Interest on Excess Reserves to manage that outflow.

    Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

    "If monetary policy supposedly didn't move prices, I found it surprising that austerity didn't give us deflation as it did in Europe."

    I don't have the neo-classical faith in the "natural" healing powers of the economy as some people do. Seems more likely that the economy would settle in to a lower equilibrium given enough fiscal austerity.

    Paine said in reply to Peter K....

    Very agreeably presented

    But what if the FED is a rational captain of corporate capitalism. Better then the opportunistic demagogues in the congress. But still dedicated to wage stag

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke said...

    Deflation? Uupps, price theory, too, is wrong
    Comment on 'Deflation and Money'

    The current economic situation is a clear refutation of both commonplace employment and quantity theory. The core of the unemployment/deflation problem is that the price mechanism does not work as standard economics claims.

    The correct formula for the market clearing price in the simplified consumption good industry is given here
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AXEC41.png

    Roughly, the formula says that the consumer price index declines if (i) the average expenditure ratio falls, (ii) the wage rate falls, (iii) the productivity increases, and (iv) the employment in the investment good industry shrinks relative to the employment in the consumption goods industry. The formula follows from (2014, Sec. 5).

    The more differentiated and therefore better testable formula is given here
    https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:AXEC39.png

    The crucial message is that the wage rate is the numéraire of the price system. If at all, the quantity of money plays an indirect role via the expenditure ratio and the employment relation of the investment good and the consumption good industry.

    The rule of thumb says: if wage increases for the business sector as a whole lag behind productivity increases deflation occurs (the rest of the formula kept constant).

    For the rectification of the naive quantity theory see (2011) (I)/(II).

    Egmont Kakarot-Handtke

    References
    Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2011). Reconstructing the Quantity Theory (I). SSRN Working Paper Series, 1895268: 1–28. URL http://ssrn.com/abstract=1895268.
    Kakarot-Handtke, E. (2014). The Three Fatal Mistakes of Yesterday Economics: Profit, I=S, Employment. SSRN Working Paper Series, 2489792: 1–13. URL
    http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2489792.

    Patrick said in reply to Egmont Kakarot-Handtke...

    "if wage increases for the business sector as a whole lag behind productivity increases deflation occurs"

    That certainly has the ring of truth to it.

    The paradox of productivity?

    Jason Smith said...

    The relationship between money and prices is more complicated than a simple linear relationship can capture:

    http://informationtransfereconomics.blogspot.com/2015/03/japan-inflation-update.html

    spencer said...

    Despite deflation in Japan, over the last five years real per capita GDP growth has been greater than in the US.

    Of course you have to be careful of these types of comparisons when the Japanese population is actually falling.

    anne said in reply to spencer...

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1LK4

    August 4, 2014

    Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United States and Japan, 2010-2014

    (Indexed to 2010)

    [ These last 5 years real per capita GDP has increased by 5.6% in the United States and 3.6% in Japan. ]

    Peter K. said in reply to spencer...

    Good point. This is why I am skeptical when I read people claim that Japan's extraordinary monetary policy has had no effect.

    And even if Japan has done more than before courtesy of Abe and Yoda Kuroda, they also mitigate it with contractionary policy like by raising consumption taxes.

    [Sep 05, 2015] WORLD TRADE IS FALLING

    "...so, if we've got plenty of oil stored, and with at least two refineries operating below capacity, why do we continue to import near fracking-era record amounts of crude oil? one reason is the contango trade that we've talked about in the past, wherein contracts for oil to be delivered in the future are at a price somewhat higher than the cost of buying oil now, such that it pays for speculators to buy oil and pay for its storage, and enter into a contract to sell it back at a higher price in the future…at one point last week, the contract for oil to be delivered in December was more than a dollar a barrel higher than the current price, meaning that a speculator could buy oil at today's price, pay the fees to have it stored at Cushing or elsewhere, and sell it back in December with a clear profit…but as we should all know, for every contract there has to be a counterparty, and for everyone who's buying oil now with a contract to sell it in December, there was a seller of that oil at today's price and a someone else buying a contract to take delivery of that oil for a dollar more a barrel in December…so for every one who's trading oil like this, there is someone on the other side of those trades, be it a bank, commodities house, or an oil company, taking the other side of those contracts, and effectively betting against the contango trader…they both can't be right, and those who bet on higher prices in March and a month ago have since lost their shirts… "
    Angry Bear

    rjs August 23, 2015 2:39 pm

    dan, when you brought up oil imports and exports in your comment here Friday, i almost responded, because i already knew our imports the prior week were the highest since April 3, since i watch the reports and write about that stuff every weekend…maybe since i didn't, i continued to think about that and took a closer look at it yesterday than i normally do, which i have just posted online…turns out our net imports of oil and oil products, ie imports minus exports, were the highest they've ever been this year in the week ending August 12th…here's the relevant excerpt, without the links to the data sets i cited:

    US crude oil output fell this week, but our oil imports were the highest since early April, and with a major refinery idled, that unexpectedly led to the largest increase in our inventories of oil in storage in 4 months, precipitating yet a further crash in the price of oil…US field production of crude oil fell for the third week in a row in the week ending August 14th, from 9,395,000 barrels per day last week to 9,348,000 barrels per day in this week's report…while that was down 2.7% from the modern record of 9,610,000 barrels per day set in the week ending June 5th, it was still 9.6% higher than our output of 8,556,000 barrels per day in the same week last year…our imports of crude oil, meanwhile, rose for the 3rd week in a row, jumping from 7,573,000 barrels per day in the week ending August 7th to 8,038,000 barrels per day in the current report…while that's 2.4% more than the same week last year, our 7.6 million barrels per day average crude imports of the last 4 weeks is still 0.9% lower than the same 4 week period of last year…

    however, even with the increased oil supply brought about by that large increase in imports, that oil was not being put to use to the same degree as last week…due in large part to the unexpected August 8 outage at the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana, the largest BP refinery and the largest in the US Midwest, U.S. crude oil refinery inputs dropped to 16,775,000 barrels per day, from the 17,029,000 barrel per day level of the week ending August 7th…so with greater supply and less refinery throughput, our crude oil inventories in storage rose by 2,620,000 barrels to 456,213,000 barrels in week ended August 14th, 24.3% more oil than the 367,019 ,000 barrels we had stored at the end of the 2nd week of August last year…that was, of course, more than was ever stored anytime in August in the 80 years that the EIA has records for, which had never seen the 400 million barrel inventory level breached before this year…that news of even higher inventories during the summer driving season when inventories usually fall sent oil prices down by 4.8% to a six and a half year low at $40.57 a barrel on Wednesday, and although the expiring September contract price inched up on Thursday on news of the first hurricane of the Atlantic season, oil prices for October delivery crashed again on Friday in the midst of a global market panic, briefly slipping below $40 a barrel, before closing the week at $40.45, capping the longest weekly losing streak for oil prices in 29 years…

    so, if we've got plenty of oil stored, and with at least two refineries operating below capacity, why do we continue to import near fracking-era record amounts of crude oil? one reason is the contango trade that we've talked about in the past, wherein contracts for oil to be delivered in the future are at a price somewhat higher than the cost of buying oil now, such that it pays for speculators to buy oil and pay for its storage, and enter into a contract to sell it back at a higher price in the future…at one point last week, the contract for oil to be delivered in December was more than a dollar a barrel higher than the current price, meaning that a speculator could buy oil at today's price, pay the fees to have it stored at Cushing or elsewhere, and sell it back in December with a clear profit…but as we should all know, for every contract there has to be a counterparty, and for everyone who's buying oil now with a contract to sell it in December, there was a seller of that oil at today's price and a someone else buying a contract to take delivery of that oil for a dollar more a barrel in December…so for every one who's trading oil like this, there is someone on the other side of those trades, be it a bank, commodities house, or an oil company, taking the other side of those contracts, and effectively betting against the contango trader…they both can't be right, and those who bet on higher prices in March and a month ago have since lost their shirts…

    another reason for continued high imports of oil is that we're exporting more refined products than ever before…in the 2nd week of August, our total exports of refined petroleum products averaged 3,884,000 barrels per day, up 10.6% from the 3,512,000 barrels per day we were exporting in the same week last year…but that's also more than double the 1,851,000 barrels per day of refined products we were exporting in August 2009, and more than quadruple the 964,000 barrels per day of refined products we were exporting in August of 2004…we're also exporting more crude oil too, mostly mostly to Canada, where the lighter grades of distillates are blended with tar from the oil sands to produce diluted bitumen, or dilbit, which can then be delivered by pipeline…on a monthly basis, our total exports of crude and petroleum products hit a record 4,943,000 barrels per day in April, more than double the 2,432,000 total exports of April five years earlier…

    but the week just ended was somewhat an anomaly, in that with the aforementioned refinery constraints, our total exports did not rise, and our total imports of refined products rose to 2,614,000 barrels per day, up from 1,927,000 barrels per day of refined product we imported just two weeks ago …that was only the 2nd time in the past two years wherein our refined product imports topped 2.6 million barrels per day, and as a result our total imports of crude oil and petroleum products rose to 10,652,000 barrels per day, for our highest weekly total imports this year…subtracting the 4,460,000 barrels per day of crude and products that we exported this week means our net petroleum and product deficit was at 6,192,000 barrels per day for the week, which was also the greatest excess of crude and products imports over exports that we've seen this year…

    despite that, the industry is pushing to have the 40 year old crude oil export ban repealed; it's already passed the House. why? simple; international oil prices have been running between $5 and $10 a barrel more than US oil prices. dont have to tell you what will happen to US prices if that happens…

    run75441 , August 23, 2015 3:19 pm

    RJS:

    Like oil production, refining is a cartel in itself and matching refining to demand is profitable.

    Anyhoo here is a chart to help you along. http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MOPUEUS2&f=M

    rjs , August 23, 2015 3:52 pm

    yeah, bill, i mine the EIA datasets every week, and the weekly EIA reports are where all the numbers above came from…not surprisingly, the refiners are not passing through all of their lower costs to the consumers…

    the difference between crude oil and gasoline prices has increased by more than 50% from a year ago, so the pure refiners are making a bundle…the oil majors are using refinery profits to offset exploration and exploitation losses, and they all saw big downturns in 2nd quarter earnings anyway…

    and probably half the independent drillers i looked at in the first two weeks of August saw losses in the 2nd quarter, and that was when oil prices were 50% higher than they are now…

    Spencer England , August 24, 2015 10:37 am

    I monitor the Census real trade data and it shows that POL ( petroleum, oils & lubricants) is now equal to almost 50% of exports. that is partly a function of weaker imports, bottleneck but real exports have been growing at double digit rates for several years.

    West Texas Intermediate is selling at a discount to Brent, partially because of transportation bottlenecks. The Gulf Coast refiners are taking advantage of this discount to refine WTI and sell it in Europe where the refiners use Brent oil.

    The Keystone pipeline could eliminate this unusual spread and the US refiners would lose their price advantage - oil companies should be careful of what you wish for. Of course at today's prices the Keystone pipeline is not profitable.

    rjs , August 24, 2015 10:55 am

    the BP refinery in Whiting i mentioned above was one of the main processors of heavy crude such as dilbit from Canada, which is coming in to the US through the Enbridge pipeline system (Steve Horn at Desmogblog has had a series on how the "Keystone clone" , from Alberta to Lake Superior to the Fleming pipeline in Illinois, was quietly approved under the radar)

    at any rate, with Whiting down, maybe for a month, there's no one around to process West Canada Select…i saw it quoted with an $18 handle last week, when WTI was in the 40s…WTI has been trading with a $38 handle all morning, so they're probably having trouble giving that tar sands output away by now…

    [Sep 05, 2015] Global Economic Fears Cast Long Dark Shadow On Oil Price Rebound by Evan Kelly

    Sep 05, 2015 | Zero Hedge via OilPrice.com,

    After bouncing around, oil prices finished off the week with just a bit less volatility than when it started the week. WTI stayed at around $46 per barrel as of midday on September 4, with Brent holding at $50 per barrel.

    Aside from supply and demand fundamentals in the oil markets, central bank policymaking is another major factor determining the trajectory of oil prices. The European Central Bank hinted that it might consider more monetary stimulus to help the stagnant European economy. Oil prices rose on the news. The markets, however, are waiting on a much more significant announcement from the Federal Reserve this month on whether or not the central bank will raise interest rates. This summer's market turmoil – the Greek debt crisis and the meltdown in the Chinese stock markets – has dimmed the prospect of a rate increase.

    Moreover, the global economic unease may begin to reach American shores. On September 4, the U.S. government released data for the month of August, revealing that the U.S. economy added only 173,000 jobs, a mediocre performance that missed expectations. Although an economic slowdown is no doubt a negative for oil prices, the news could provide enough justification for the Fed to hold off on raising interest rates. A delay in a rate hike could push up WTI and Brent.

    Although a slew of Canadian oil sands projects have been cancelled due to incredibly low oil prices, several large projects were already underway before the downturn. With the costs of cancellation too high, these projects continue to move forward. When they come online – several of which are expected by 2017 – they could add another 500,000 barrels per day in production, potentially exacerbating the glut of supplies not just in terms of global supply, but more specifically in terms of the flow of oil from Canada. Canadian oil already trades at a discount to WTI, now at around $15 per barrel.

    That means that when WTI dropped below $40 per barrel last week, Western Canada Select was nearing $20 per barrel. With the latest rebound to the mid-$40s, WCS is only around $30 per barrel. But with breakeven prices for many Canadian oil sands projects at $80 per barrel for WTI, oil operators in Alberta are no doubt losing sleep over their current situation. One important caveat to remember is that unlike shale projects, Canada's oil sands [mines] operate for decades, so the immediate downturn does not necessarily ruin project economics. However, with a strong rebound in prices no longer expected in the near-term, high-cost oil sands projects are probably not where an investor wants to be.

    Low oil prices continue to take their toll. Bank of America downgraded BP to "underperform" and warned that its dividend policy faces risks.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia's King Salman arrived in Washington on September 4 to meet with U.S. President Barack Obama. The two leaders will discuss the Iran nuclear deal, a deal that the Saudi King had strongly opposed from the start, but has since begrudgingly warmed up to following security promises from the United States. If they can manage to stay on the same page with the Iran deal, the two leaders will then discuss the ongoing conflicts in Syria and Yemen. There is obviously little to no prospect that such intensely complicated conflicts will get sorted out in the near future, so more modest goals for the trip include simply building trust between the two countries. Although long-term allies, Saudi Arabia has become more mistrustful of the U.S. President following the thaw in relations between the U.S. and Iran. The trip follows what the media has called a "snub" when King Salman declined to come to Washington this past spring for a summit of other Gulf state leaders.

    ... ... ...

    Russian President Vladimir Putin met Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro in China this week, and the two sides apparently discussed ways to stabilize oil prices. Maduro says that they agreed on "initiatives" to address low oil prices, but did not elaborate with details. In all likelihood, Maduro is engaging in a degree of bluster and wishful thinking. Neither side has the capacity to cut oil production as both are facing varying degrees of economic and financial crisis. However, earlier this week oil prices briefly spiked on news that Russia might be willing to negotiate coordinated action. Prices subsequently retreated once expectations subsided.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 05, 2015] Is Effective Demand showing the limit of the Business Cycle… again

    "...To me the US economy means much more than the current short sighted-term artificially inflated stock price buy back capital gains game that is being played out again on Wall St. for the benefit of the 1% "
    Angry Bear

    William Ryan, September 4, 2015 8:54 am

    Yes the FRED chart does not lie. It has been almost 8 years since the last bubble burst. Soon will be the China bubble or maybe another financial engineering bubble from Wall St. The graph is trying to tell us that the time is near the 8 year mark. My only problem is that there is nothing we, any of us can do about it when 95% of all corp. earnings go to stock buy backs, dividends and acquisitions. Nothing is going to capital or people long term investment… Even Trump will get trumpted on this one.

    JimH, September 4, 2015 9:50 am

    Inventories are going up.

    Consumers can not spend what they do not have and producers will not produce what they can not sell.

    Or stated another way, unless labor share is increased, consumer spending on discretionary goods must decrease. (As the prices on non discretionary goods increase.)

    William Ryan, September 4, 2015 11:15 am

    JimH you are so right but this is what happens when we fully participate in the greed that perpetuates the race to the bottom in supporting other countries economies rather than our own. We must create new domestic demand and raise the tide of our own economy for a change.. Not China's, Mexico's, South Korea's or Vietnams.

    Artificially inflating stock prices on Wall St. does not constitute a growing economy or economic recovery.

    We need to actually make things here again to create new wealth of which our economy will grow again and not to be gamed by the greedy few at the top. Then real wages will rise along with greater domestic consumer demand.

    To me the US economy means much more than the current short sighted-term artificially inflated stock price buy back capital gains game that is being played out again on Wall St. for the benefit of the 1% . Please go read today's PCR.com if you cannot see what is really happening to our country.

    [Sep 05, 2015] RE: Inflation, the Fed, and the Big Picture (Links for 09-04-15)

    "...Much of Macro is still operating under the Friedman myth of Monetary policy domination. Monetary policy can have strong effects, but at other time Fiscal and Regulatory Policy are much stronger and needed for the best economic outcomes.
    .
    A problem with the US Fed is limited powers to set monetary and regulatory policy and it can be totally uncoordinated from fiscal and regulatory policy that are under control of Congress and the Executive. In the mid 1990s, the Fed and Clinton administration were using the same playbook and cajoled a reluctant Congress. Do the Fed an Executive even try to coordinate policy now? This Congress is the anti-Fed and operates on a playbook from the gamma quadrant. Total lack of policy coordination "
    .
    "...1) Real asset prices have gone up a lot as a result of QE. Now they are headed down as QE is done with no real hope of another round.
    2) Nominal and Real GDP are on the way up.
    3) Inflation will be the last to respond. Waiting for inflation to show up is a mistake.
    4) That still does not tell us the timing of getting off the zero bound. As I have said before, the Fed has let asset prices go up too much (much has been said including Shiller's recent analysis).
    The stock prices are now coming down. The fact that Netflix (which has zero exposure to China) is down 25% should give pause to anyone who believes parts of the market are not in a bubble. Add to that crashing commodity prices and growth overseas in important economies. I think the Fed needs to wait and see how it shakes out. It = asset prices, commodity prices, EM growth and finally, how all this impacts US growth."
    September 04, 2015 | Economist's View

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...

    RE: Inflation, the Fed, and the Big Picture

    [Actually Carmen Reinhart deserves a better pitchman here than the little comment pgl posted above. Carmen presents a expressly well written and concise picture. Since it is international then the same focus on core CPI that we get for domestic inflation is not referenced nor implied. She includes commodities in the inflation. The full text following the short excerpt given by pgl is below:]


    https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/jackson-hole-banking-conference-inflation-by-carmen-reinhart-2015-09

    ...
    Most of the other half are not doing badly, either. In the period following the oil shocks of the 1970s until the early 1980s, almost two-thirds of the countries recorded inflation rates above 10%. According to the latest data, which runs through July or August for most countries, there are "only" 14 cases of high inflation (the red line in the figure). Venezuela (which has not published official inflation statistics this year) and Argentina (which has not released reliable inflation data for several years) figure prominently in this group. Iran, Russia, Syria, Ukraine, and a handful of African countries comprise the rest.

    The share of countries recording outright deflation in consumer prices (the green line) is higher in 2015 than that of countries experiencing double-digit inflation (7% of the total). Whatever nasty surprises may lurk in the future, the global inflation environment is the tamest since the early 1960s.

    Indeed, the risk for the world economy is actually tilted toward deflation for the 23 advanced economies in the sample, even eight years after the onset of the global financial crisis. For this group, the median inflation rate is 0.2% – the lowest since 1933. The only advanced economy with an inflation rate above 2% is Iceland (where the latest 12-month reading is 2.2%).

    While we do not know what might have happened were policies different, one can easily imagine that, absent quantitative easing in the United States, Europe, and Japan, those economies would have been mired in a deflationary post-crisis landscape akin to that of the 1930s. Early in that terrible decade, deflation became a reality for nearly all countries and for all of the advanced economies. In the last two years, at least six of the advanced economies – and as many as eight – have been coping with deflation.

    Falling prices mean a rise in the real value of existing debts and an increase in the debt-service burden, owing to higher real interest rates. As a result, defaults, bankruptcies, and economic decline become more likely, putting further downward pressures on prices.

    Irving Fisher's prescient warning in 1933 about such a debt-deflation spiral resonates strongly today, given that public and private debt levels are at or near historic highs in many countries. Especially instructive is the 2.2% price decline in Greece for the 12 months ending in July – the most severe example of ongoing deflation in the advanced countries and counterproductive to an orderly solution to the country's problems.

    Median inflation rates for emerging-market and developing economies, which were in double digits through the mid-1990s, are now around 2.5% and falling. The sharp declines in oil and commodity prices during the latest supercycle have helped mitigate inflationary pressures, while the generalized slowdown in economic activity in the emerging world may have contributed as well.

    But it is too early to conclude that inflation is a problem of the past, because other external factors are working in the opposite direction. As Rodrigo Vergara, Governor of the Central Bank of Chile, observed in his prepared remarks at Jackson Hole, large currency depreciations in many emerging markets (most notably some oil and commodity producers) since the spring of 2013 have been associated with a rise in inflationary pressures in the face of wider output gaps.

    The analysis presented by Gita Gopinath, which establishes a connection between the price pass-through to prices from exchange-rate changes and the currency in which trade is invoiced, speaks plainly to this issue. Given that most emerging-market countries' trade is conducted in dollars, currency depreciation should push up import prices almost one for one.

    At the end of the day, the US Federal Reserve will base its interest-rate decisions primarily on domestic considerations. While there is more than the usual degree of uncertainty regarding the magnitude of America's output gap since the financial crisis, there is comparatively less ambiguity now that domestic inflation is subdued. The rest of the world shares that benign inflation environment.

    As the Fed prepares for its September meeting, its policymakers would do well not to ignore what was overlooked in Jackson Hole: the need to place domestic trends in global and historical context. For now, such a perspective favors policy gradualism.
    Friday, September 04, 2015 at 02:44 AM

    bakho said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Here conclusion was weak with a vague take home message.

    Much of Macro is still operating under the Friedman myth of Monetary policy domination.

    Monetary policy can have strong effects, but at other time Fiscal and Regulatory Policy are much stronger and needed for the best economic outcomes.
    A problem with the US Fed is limited powers to set monetary and regulatory policy and it can be totally uncoordinated from fiscal and regulatory policy that are under control of Congress and the Executive. In the mid 1990s, the Fed and Clinton administration were using the same playbook and cajoled a reluctant Congress. Do the Fed an Executive even try to coordinate policy now? This Congress is the anti-Fed and operates on a playbook from the gamma quadrant. Total lack of policy coordination

    pgl said in reply to bakho...
    My take was that she was advocating more aggressive aggregate demand stimulus in general. And you are right - we need the fiscal side to step up to the plate.

    Story in NYC as how bad just the subway stops are. The rails suck as well and we need to expand the system. But at the rate this is going this decaying stops which are very dangerous will not be fixed until 2065. Why? Lack of funding is the stated reason. No one in this stupid nation can say - well provide more funding? We are ruled by idiots.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to bakho...
    [Well, yeah but that would have diverged a long way from her topic:]

    "Inflation – its causes and its connection to monetary policy and financial crises – was the theme of this year's international conference of central bankers and academics in Jackson Hole, Wyoming. But, while policymakers' desire to be prepared for potential future risks to price stability is understandable, they did not place these concerns in the context of recent inflation developments at the global level – or within historical perspective..."

    [She stuck with just inflation and monetary policy because that is what she chose to write about at this time. However, Carmen is the other intellectual half of Rogoff of the debt limit for economic growth flameout. So, we should not depend upon her for fiscal policy recommendations. That even someone this popular with the establishment Republican elite can understand monetary policy is notable in contrast to the inflationistas.

    Peter K. said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    Yes she did the 90 percent government debt cutoff with Rogoff that Krugman attacked.

    Also the vaguely righwing blogger from the St. Louis Fed, Andolfatto or something, recently had link where they said inflation wasn't a problem and the Fed shouldn't raise rates until inflation is apparent.

    Peter K. said in reply to bakho...
    "In the mid 1990s, the Fed and Clinton administration were using the same playbook and cajoled a reluctant Congress. "

    I thought Clinton cut the deficit and the tech stock bubble helped balance the budget so they had surpluses. Some people say those surpluses were a problem because of a lack of safe assets. That drove money to seek safe returns in mortgage backed securities for instance.

    Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....
    Maybe he didn't cut the deficit - I think Dean Baker argues that - but at the beginning of his Presidency, Clinton dropped his middle class spending bill in a deal with Greenspan who said he'd keep interest rates low in return.
    Peter K. said in reply to bakho...
    "This Congress is the anti-Fed and operates on a playbook from the gamma quadrant."

    haha yes. The Fed regularly complained about fiscal "headwinds."

    Anonymous said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/qb110301.pdf

    Chart 1 is key to understanding the rough timing. In the US and UK, we are a little past the dashed vertical line (impact phase). UK has had a little more success importing inflation.

    1) Real asset prices have gone up a lot as a result of QE. Now they are headed down as QE is done with no real hope of another round.
    2) Nominal and Real GDP are on the way up.
    3) Inflation will be the last to respond. Waiting for inflation to show up is a mistake.
    4) That still does not tell us the timing of getting off the zero bound. As I have said before, the Fed has let asset prices go up too much (much has been said including Shiller's recent analysis).
    The stock prices are now coming down. The fact that Netflix (which has zero exposure to China) is down 25% should give pause to anyone who believes parts of the market are not in a bubble. Add to that crashing commodity prices and growth overseas in important economies. I think the Fed needs to wait and see how it shakes out. It = asset prices, commodity prices, EM growth and finally, how all this impacts US growth.

    [Sep 05, 2015] Fed Watch: If You Ever Wondered Whose Side The Federal Reserve Is On...

    "...Real median weekly earnings have grown 8.6% since 1985. Nonfarm output per hour is up 79% over that time. Yet the instant that there is even a glimmer of hope that labor might get an upper hand, the Federal Reserve looks to hold the line on wage growth. It still appears that the Fed's top priority is making sure the cards remain stacked against wage and salary earners."
    .
    ".When you recruit from the banksters, as the Fed does, you have to expect that their interests align with the kleptocratic rentiers."
    .
    "...Notice that the labor share of business income has declined by 10.6% since 2000, while real after-tax corporate profits have increased by 143.5%."
    Sep 05, 2015 | Economist's View
    Sep 05, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com
    Tim Duy:
    If You Ever Wondered Whose Side The Federal Reserve Is On..., by Tim Duy: Catching up with Richmond Federal Reserve Jeffrey Lacker's speech. His dismissal of low wage growth numbers:
    Some argue there must be excessive slack in labor markets if wage rates are not accelerating. But real wages are tied to productivity growth, and productivity growth has been slow for several years now. Wage growth in real terms has at least kept pace with productivity increases over that time period, which is perfectly consistent with an economy from which labor market slack has largely dissipated.

    Real wage growth is consistent with productivity, thus there is no excess slack in the labor market. If you think this is some crazy hawk-talk, think again. Fed Chair Janet Yellen in July:

    The growth rate of output per hour worked in the business sector has averaged about 1‑1/4 percent per year since the recession began in late 2007 and has been essentially flat over the past year. In contrast, annual productivity gains averaged 2-3/4 percent over the decade preceding the Great Recession. I mentioned earlier the sluggish pace of wage gains in recent years, and while I do think that this is evidence of some persisting labor market slack, it also may reflect, at least in part, fairly weak productivity growth.

    For more than three decades, the pace of productivity growth has exceed that of real compensation:

    Another view from real median weekly earnings:

    Real median weekly earnings have grown 8.6% since 1985. Nonfarm output per hour is up 79% over that time. Yet the instant that there is even a glimmer of hope that labor might get an upper hand, the Federal Reserve looks to hold the line on wage growth. It still appears that the Fed's top priority is making sure the cards remain stacked against wage and salary earners.

    Posted by Mark Thoma on Saturday, September 5, 2015 at 09:48 AM in Economics, Fed Watch, Monetary Policy | Permalink Comments (52)

    pgl :

    Let's unpack this spin:

    "But real wages are tied to productivity growth, and productivity growth has been slow for several years now."

    Productivity by definition is output per worker. So when a recession lowers output, it lowers measured productivity. So much for this garbage circular "reasoning".

    Oh and the canard that JohnH does a lot - look at only what has happened of late:

    "Wage growth in real terms has at least kept pace with productivity increases over that time period, which is perfectly consistent with an economy from which labor market slack has largely dissipated."

    Tim Duy has already exposed this fallacy by looking at this over a longer period of time.

    pgl -> Paine ...

    Dude - this is a whole literature on this. Recessions do lower output by more than it lowers employment but this is not exactly because firms are nice. Recessions are bad news for everyone. Wages do not keep up with what is even limited inflation - again firms are not exactly nice. So recessions sort of screw firms but unbelievably screw workers. Eventually the economy gets back to full employment but workers never fully recovery.

    This is why recessions are bad for everyone in the short fun but especially bad for workers short-run and long-run.

    Which brings me to why I did not go after Yellen. It seems she and hubbie Akerlof have written some of the best papers on this topic.

    Paine - stop being an arrogant lazy ass and actually check up on this literature.

    Now if your point is that the FED borg (I coined this term) is about to take over Yellen's mind, I fear this too. It seems to have taken over Stan Fischer's mind and he used to be brilliant.

    ilsm -> Paine ...

    The fed hawks are like pentagon version hawks since 1946.....

    we cannot have any more pearl harbors

    or inflation......

    DrDick :

    DrDick :

    When you recruit from the banksters, as the Fed does, you have to expect that their interests align with the kleptocratic rentiers.

    mrrunangun :

    Domestic US wage rates have been flat. In the graph, the lines cross between 1975 and 1985. During those years, international competition increased in the tradable goods sector, IMO due to the recovery of Japanese and European industrial economies from the destruction suffered in WWII. The divergence between the curves expands more rapidly as more free trade agreements come on line in the 90s (e.g. NAFTA in 1992 and PNTR for China in 1999).

    It may be that intensifying competition in the tradable goods sector has slowed wage gains in the US by a supply and demand imbalance for labor. The increasing wage premium to education over the past 40 years and the capture of the domestic political system, and thus capture of the government, by the very rich, has made it impossible for the political system to make adjustments to the change in international competition that would benefit the unskilled or semiskilled worker.

    Mike Sparrow -> mrrunangun...

    The trade agreements are vastly overrated in terms of competition and instead, they are what help surge productivity. The US began to have offshoring in the 1950's, especially after the Korean war era boom. Companies began to bail as the US had developed a consumer base. This is very typical of capitalism. It happened in Europe in the 19th century because of the same reason.

    Keeping a strong consumer base and industrial base would liquidate capitalist positions and turn the economy into laborism.

    Mike Sparrow :

    I would argue productivity is too high, still. Real productivity really zoomed from the mid-90's and really never came back down. The late 00's recession made it worse.

    Persistently high productivity causes real wages to struggle to keep up. I think many hobbyists have it backwards with wages including myself. Yes, real wages rose rapidly between 1997-2000, but that was only because productivity surged. The long run problem of that was wage stagnation due to the previous high productivity, which has been there since the 80's. Real wage acceleration coupled with correcting productivity is a good sign and the Fed doesn't like it because they want high productivity all the time.

    The Rage -> Peter K....

    I think what he is trying to say, reading through his posts: technology is driving down the need for labor investment and the information/computer/plastic/whatever you want to call it revolution really drove that point home to the end.

    So productivity is high, creating profits from reduced pace of hiring and keeping pipelines of credit open for future output. However, productivity is slowing lately and real wages have accelerated implicating that near term output will be higher than while future output will be lower. Yeah, that part is a bit confusing, but the drift is that productivity/real wages need to track together closer or you get problems. When they come unglued, the offender, this case productivity, needs to come down for wages to catch up. Real wages were to high before 1980 and productivity should run a bit higher than wages. So by 1995, the problems that helped spur the great inflation had ebbed, but a new problem started: rapid productivity growth.

    I read this in 2009 believe it or not in a article. Their belief was if productivity stayed high and growing, the economy would be in permanent recession. They believed to maintain stability, productivity had to decline for the next decade. Mercy, I wish I could remember where I read that from. 6+ years leaves a large gap. I do think the chart shows the "panic" over slowed productivity is pure noise. Between 95-00 it when "boom boom". Notice the pre-95 trend and the post-95 trend. To the productivity must decline squad, a decline in productivity will help real wages rise boosting real incomes and reducing nominal debt, creating a more stable economy.

    Dickeylee :

    We are still in a slave labor economy. The whole world is looking for the next labor market to enslave. Nike in Vietnam, Apple in China, and China looks poised to take over Africa.

    If you can't get your slaves shipped to you, go to your slaves!

    pgl -> Dickeylee...

    China looks poised to take over Africa? I guess the Chinese capitalists hate paying $3 an hour and so will pay Africans less. If you check - multinationals are in Africa and they are mainly US and European based companies. It seems we beat the Chinese to this.

    ilsm -> pgl...

    Pentagon deploying to keep the peace in Africa for the job creators........

    Lafayette -> pgl...

    PITY AFRICA

    The plight of Africa is that it has been plundered by both Europe and America over the past two centuries. By America principally for cheap labor brought over on slave-ships.

    Do not overlook the fact that damn few African countries can seem to develop a leadership that does not plunder its country's assets for their own personal profit.

    This plague of profiteering has existed since time immemorial and China is just the newest entrant to the game ...

    DrDick -> pgl...

    China has been making significant inroads there for over a decade and are currently the largest single player there.

    http://www.businessinsider.com/why-china-has-become-so-big-in-africa-2015-1

    pgl -> Dickeylee...

    Your comment actually has some merit in two senses. China has recognized that its habit of investing in government bonds of other nations (e.g. US) is giving them a lower return than what foreign direct investment offers. And Africa is attracting a lot of foreign direct investment. I went searching for who the big players are and this gave an interesting list:

    http://theafricachannel.com/5-multinational-corporations-making-significant-investments-in-africa/

    But it shows the BRIC nations (C for China) has been doing FDI in Africa for a while.

    If multinationals are going global, maybe the labor movement should do the same. Workers of the world unite!

    Julio :

    Rasputin explained why the Fed must raise rates before the next recession, so it can lower them later:

    "Certainly our Savior and Holy Fathers have denounced sin, since it is the work of the Evil One.
    But how can you drive out evil except by sincere repentance?
    And how can you sincerely repent if you have not sinned?"

    anne :

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1Jpv

    January 30, 2015

    Labor Share of Nonfarm Business Income and Real After-Tax Corporate
    Profits Per Employee, 2000-2015

    (Respectively indexed to 2000 and 2014)


    Decline in labor share index:

    100 - 89.4 = 10.6%


    Increase in real dollar profits per employee:

    15,139 - 6,218 = 8,921

    8,921 / 6,218 = 143.5%

    anne -> anne...

    Notice that the labor share of business income has declined by 10.6% since 2000, while real after-tax corporate profits have increased by 143.5%.

    [Sep 04, 2015] The political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment

    We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated

    RGC said...

    Krugman explains why he is a Keynesian and proceeds to prove that he is not a Keynesian:
    Krugman:

    So, am I a Keynesian because I want bigger government? If I were, shouldn't I be advocating permanent expansion rather than temporary measures? Shouldn't I be for stimulus all the time, not only when we're at the zero lower bound? When I do call for bigger government - universal health care, higher Social Security benefits - shouldn't I be pushing these things as job-creation measures? (I don't think I ever have). I think if you look at the record, I've always argued for temporary fiscal expansion, and only when monetary policy is constrained. Meanwhile, my advocacy of an expanded welfare state has always been made on its own grounds, not in terms of alleged business cycle benefits.
    In other words, I've been making policy arguments the way one would if one sincerely believed that fiscal policy helps fight unemployment under certain conditions, and not at all in the way one would if trying to use the slump as an excuse for permanently bigger government.

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/06/06/why-am-i-a-keynesian?

    Keynes:

    In some other respects the foregoing theory is moderately conservative in its implications. For whilst it indicates the vital importance of establishing certain central controls in matters which are now left in the main to individual initiative, there are wide fields of activity which are unaffected. The State will have to exercise a guiding influence on the propensity to consume partly through its scheme of taxation, partly by fixing the rate of interest, and partly, perhaps, in other ways. Furthermore, it seems unlikely that the influence of banking policy on the rate of interest will be sufficient by itself to determine an optimum rate of investment. I conceive, therefore, that a somewhat comprehensive socialisation of investment will prove the only means of securing an approximation to full employment; though this need not exclude all manner of compromises and of devices by which public authority will co-operate with private initiative. But beyond this no obvious case is made out for a system of State Socialism which would embrace most of the economic life of the community. It is not the ownership of the instruments of production which it is important for the State to assume. If the State is able to determine the aggregate amount of resources devoted to augmenting the instruments and the basic rate of reward to those who own them, it will have accomplished all that is necessary. Moreover, the necessary measures of socialisation can be introduced gradually and without a break in the general traditions of society.

    Whilst, therefore, the enlargement of the functions of government, involved in the task of adjusting to one another the propensity to consume and the inducement to invest, would seem to a nineteenth-century publicist or to a contemporary American financier to be a terrific encroachment on individualism. I defend it, on the contrary, both as the only practicable means of avoiding the destruction of existing economic forms in their entirety and as the condition of the successful functioning of individual initiative.

    https://www.marxists.org/reference/subject/economics/keynes/general-theory/ch24.htm

    Kalecki:

    We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending. But even if this opposition were overcome -- as it may well be under the pressure of the masses -- the maintenance of full employment would cause social and political changes which would give a new impetus to the opposition of the business leaders. Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure. The social position of the boss would be undermined, and the self-assurance and class-consciousness of the working class would grow. Strikes for wage increases and improvements in conditions of work would create political tension. It is true that profits would be higher under a regime of full employment than they are on the average under laissez-faire, and even the rise in wage rates resulting from the stronger bargaining power of the workers is less likely to reduce profits than to increase prices, and thus adversely affects only the rentier interests. But 'discipline in the factories' and 'political stability' are more appreciated

    http://mrzine.monthlyreview.org/2010/kalecki220510.html

    Friday, September 04, 2015 at 06:59 AM

    anne said in reply to RGC... Friday, September 04, 2015 at 08:08 AM

    Krugman explains why he is a Keynesian and proceeds to prove that he is not a Keynesian....

    [ Interesting argument. ]

    Peter K. said in reply to RGC...

    "We have considered the political reasons for the opposition to the policy of creating employment by government spending.

    ...

    Indeed, under a regime of permanent full employment, the 'sack' would cease to play its role as a 'disciplinary measure."

    There's no reason full employment can't be done via monetary policy which is government intervention.

    Business leaders just want monetary policy that rations credit so that labor markets hit the goldilocks spot, not too tight.

    [Sep 04, 2015] S&P 500 may fall further 10-15% Nomura's Janjuah

    "...He now predicts that a further selloff for the S&P is "likely" and says that the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield could reach roughly 1.80 percent "in the next six weeks" with investors flocking to bonds as a safe-haven asset. The yield on the 10-year note currently stands at about 2.17 percent."
    "..."What I think the global investor needs to understand is that globally there's not enough growth, there's way too much capacity and we've hidden that gap with this thing called liquidity - actually liquidity is debt," he said."
    "..."The workers of the world have no pricing power, without pricing power you cannot get a sustained cycle of inflation. And a world where we have got excess capacity and not enough demand, that's deflation." "
    Nomura's widely-watched strategist, Bob Janjuah, believes that the S&P 500 is likely to fall another 10 to 15 percent in the near term, causing the U.S. Federal Reserve to unleash more stimulus policies in 2016.

    "When we were up at 2100 points I thought we would see 1,700 points at some point in late (third quarter), early (fourth quarter)," Janjuah, a senior independent client adviser at the investment bank, told CNBC Tuesday. "We made some progress towards that target, I think there's a bit more to go."

    The S&P 500, a broad measure of U.S. stocks, closed on Monday at 1,972 points, a key level some analysts are watching for support. The index has just suffered its worst month since May 2012 on the back of Chinese growth concerns and jitters that the Fed is about to raise interest rates.

    Janjuah, who argued in a research note in early July that a "flash crash" was imminent, told CNBC that his prediction was now in danger of coming true, although he conceded that he was slightly inaccurate with the timing of the plunge in stocks and how U.S. Treasury yields have reacted.

    He now predicts that a further selloff for the S&P is "likely" and says that the benchmark 10-year Treasury yield could reach roughly 1.80 percent "in the next six weeks" with investors flocking to bonds as a safe-haven asset. The yield on the 10-year note currently stands at about 2.17 percent.

    China and the Federal Reserve will continue to be the two dominant themes for markets, according to Janjuah. He believes that the Chinese authorities have "lost control" over their own stock market and other global central banks - like the Bank of Japan and the Fed - will continue to pump more liquidity into their economies to account for softening growth in the world's second largest economy.

    "What I think the global investor needs to understand is that globally there's not enough growth, there's way too much capacity and we've hidden that gap with this thing called liquidity - actually liquidity is debt," he said.

    "The workers of the world have no pricing power, without pricing power you cannot get a sustained cycle of inflation. And a world where we have got excess capacity and not enough demand, that's deflation."

    Janjuah is no stranger to gloomy predictions, and has made several bold calls in recent years. In November 2013, he said that the end of 2013 till the end of the first quarter of 2014 would be a buying window followed by a 25-50 percent sell-off over the last three quarters of 2014 – a forecast that failed to materialize.

    Goldman Sachs is a little more positive with its outlook. Peter Oppenheimer, the chief global equities strategist at the bank, has a "neutral" outlook on the S&P 500 but disagrees that a sharp selloff is on the horizon.

    "I wouldn't say the bull market was over in equities," he told CNBC Tuesday. "The valuation driven part of the equity market bull (in the U.S.) is probably over, in other words, the period where the multiples have risen very sharply as interest rates have fallen."

    William Bruce Wilhite

    Analysts and prognosticators are basically in the entertainment business. Jack Bogle said it best: "Your best move is to stay invested and keep your fingers crossed."

    Jeffrey2013 > William Bruce Wilhite

    Seems like a lot depending on faith.

    Take profits

    Blah blah blah. Another "genius" making big claims with no accountability.

    [Sep 04, 2015] 6 reasons the bear market has just begun by Michael Pento

    Sep 04, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    Here are six reasons why I believe the bear market in the major averages has only just begun:

    1) Stocks are overvalued by almost every metric. One of my favorite metrics is the price-to-sales ratio, which shows stock prices in relation to the company's revenue per share and omits the financial engineering associated with borrowing money to buy back shares for the purpose of boosting EPS growth. For the S&P 500 (INDEX: .SPX), this ratio is currently 1.7, which is far above the mean value of 1.4. The benchmark index is also near record high valuations when measured as a percentage of GDP and in relation to the replacement costs of its companies.

    2) There is currently a lack of revenue and earnings growth for S&P 500 companies. Second-quarter earnings shrank 0.7 percent, while revenues declined by 3.4 percent from a year earlier, according to FactSet. The Q2 revenue contraction marks the first time the benchmark index's revenue shrank two quarters in a row since 2009.

    3) Virtually the entire global economy is either in, or teetering on, a recession. In 2009, China stepped further into a huge stimulus cycle that would eventually lead to the largest misallocation of capital in the history of the modern world. Empty cities don't build themselves: They require enormous spurious demand of natural resources, which, in turn, leads to excess capacity from resource-producing countries such as Brazil, Australia, Russia, Canada, et al. Now those economies are in recession because China has become debt disabled and is painfully working down that misallocation of capital. And now Japan and the entire European Union appear poised to follow the same fate.

    This is causing the rate of inflation to fall according to the Core PCE index. And the CRB Index, which is at the panic lows of early 2009, is corroborating the decreasing rate of inflation.

    But the bulls on Wall Street would have you believe the cratering price of oil is a good thing because the "gas tax cut" will drive consumer spending - never mind the fact that energy prices are crashing due to crumbling global demand. Nevertheless, there will be no such boost to consumer spending from lower oil prices because consumers are being hurt by a lack of real income growth, huge health-care spending increases and soaring shelter costs.

    4) U.S. manufacturing and GDP is headed south. The Dallas Fed's manufacturing report showed its general activity index fell to -15.8 in August, from an already weak -4.6 reading in July. The oil-fracking industry had been one of the sole bright spots for the US economy since the Great Recession and has been the lead impetus of job creation. However, many Wall Street charlatans contend the United States is immune from deflation and a global slowdown and remain blindly optimistic about a strong second half.

    Unfortunately, we are already two-thirds of the way into the third quarter and the Atlanta Fed is predicting GDP will grow at an unimpressive rate of 1.3 percent. Furthermore, the August ISM manufacturing index fell to 51.1, from 52.7, its weakest read in over two years. And while gross domestic product in the second quarter came in at a 3.7 percent annual rate, due in large part to a huge inventory build, gross domestic income increased at an annual rate of only 0.6 percent.

    GDP tracks all expenditures on final goods and services produced in the United States and GDI tracks all income received by those who produced that output. These two metrics should be equal because every dollar spent on a good or service flows as income to a household, a firm, or the government. The two numbers will, at times, differ in practice due to measurement errors. However this is a fairly large measurement error and it leads one to wonder if that 0.6 percent GDI number should get a bit more attention.

    5) Global trade is currently in freefall. Reuters reported that exports from South Korea dropped nearly 15 percent in August from a year earlier, with shipments to China, the United States and Europe all weaker. U.S. exports of goods and general merchandise are at the lowest level since September of 2011. The latest measurement of $370 billion is down from $408 billion, or -9.46 percent from Q4 2014. And CNBC reported this week that the volume of exports from the Port of Long Beach to China dropped by 10 percent YOY. The metastasizing global slowdown will only continue to exacerbate the plummeting value of U.S. trade.

    6) The Fed is promising to no longer support the stock market. Back in 2009, our central bank was willing to provide all the wind for the market's sail. And despite a lackluster 2 percent average annual GDP print since 2010, the stock market doubled in value on the back of zero interest rates and the Federal Reserve 's $3.7 trillion money-printing spree. Thus, for the past several years, there has been a huge disparity building between economic fundamentals and the value of stocks.

    But now, the end of all monetary accommodations may soon occur, while markets have become massively over-leveraged and overvalued. The end of quantitative easing and a zero interest-rate policy will also coincide with slowing U.S. and global GDP, falling inflation and negative earnings growth. And the Fed will be raising rates and putting more upward pressure on the U.S. dollar while the manufacturing and export sectors are already rolling over.

    I am glad Ms. Yellen and Co. appear to have finally assented to removing the safety net from underneath the stock market. Nevertheless, Wall Street may soon learn the baneful lesson that the artificial supports of QE and ZIRP were the only things preventing the unfolding of the greatest bear market in history.

    Read More

    Michael Pento produces the weekly podcast "The Mid-week Reality Check," is the president and founder of Pento Portfolio Strategies and author of the book "The Coming Bond Market Collapse."

    [Sep 03, 2015] America's terrible roads are good for Michelin's business CEO

    "...The Federal Highway Administration estimates it will take $170 billion a year to make significant improvements on America's roads and bridges."
    Sep 03, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

    "The fact that fuel prices are low today is driving more driving miles…so our business right now is very strong," claimed Pete Selleck, Michelin North America chairman and president.

    ... ... ...

    "Right now demand is extremely strong right in the core of our business which is passenger car and medium truck tires," said Selleck.

    And America's deteriorating road conditions are helping the company's sales in that market. "Bad roads is actually good for our business because tires then get damaged," said Selleck.

    In its most recent infrastructure report, the American Society of Civil Engineers graded U.S. roads a "D". But Selleck puts the financial responsibility solely on the government. "At the federal level and at the very state levels, there has to be more money put into maintaining roads, bridges and other aspects of the infrastructure," he said.

    The Federal Highway Administration estimates it will take $170 billion a year to make significant improvements on America's roads and bridges.

    ... ... ...

    [Sep 03, 2015] Why Did Oil Prices Just Jump By 27 Percent in 3 Days by David Dayen

    September 3, 2015 | naked capitalism

    Dave here. A very good look at the various issues. Optimism reigns supreme among oil traders, it seems…

    By Nick Cunningham, a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter @nickcunningham1. Originally published at OilPrice

    Oil prices have posted their strongest rally in years, jumping an astounding 27 percent in the last three trading days of August.

    While much of the recent price movement defies reason and is enormously magnified by speculative movements by traders to take and cover their bets on oil, still, there were a series of rumors, events, and fresh data that helped contribute to the spike.

    For example, on August 31, the oil markets woke up to the news that Russian President Vladimir Putin will meet his counterpart from Venezuela to discuss "possible mutual steps" to stabilize oil prices. The meeting will take place in China on September 3. Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro has already called for an emergency meeting of OPEC, a call that has fallen on deaf ears, at least in the most important country of Saudi Arabia.

    It is still highly unlikely, but the one country that might be able to change the minds of Saudi oil officials is Russia. Again, even if Russia promised to cut back oil production to boost prices (which it has not shown a willingness to do), Saudi Arabia has little trust in Moscow to follow through on those promises. Similar understandings to cooperate in the past have fallen apart, making coordinated action unlikely.

    Moreover, it is not at all clear that Russia's best move is to cut back on production. Sure, it wants higher oil prices, but selling less oil will arguably offset price gains. And the depreciation of the ruble has cushioned the blow of low oil prices – Gazprom just reported a 29 percent gain in net profit for the second quarter compared to a year earlier, largely due to a weaker ruble. So, Russia is eager for oil prices to rebound, but the Kremlin is not as desperate as Venezuela.

    Yet, bringing Russia to the table was enough to raise the prospect of OPEC production cuts, at least for oil traders, which bid up the price of oil on August 31.

    Adding to the speculation was a new OPEC bulletin, which included a commentary about the state of the oil markets, entitled, "Cooperation holds the key to oil's future." Most of the article was unremarkable analysis about rising oil demand, but the article concludes with this:

    "Cooperation is and will always remain the key to oil's future and that is why dialogue among the main stakeholders is so important going forward. There is no quick fix, but if there is a willingness to face the oil industry's challenges together, then the prospects for the future have to be a lot better than what everyone involved in the industry has been experiencing over the past nine months or so."

    In all likelihood, that is a throwaway line paying lip service to collective action, with no substance behind it. But the oil markets saw a glimmer of hope in a reevaluation of the group's strategy, possibly portending a production cut. No doubt the Venezuela-Russia meeting added fuel to that speculation. Oil markets, as irrational as they are, don't need confirmation to bid up prices. Oil prices jumped by more than 8 percent on the last day of August.

    But another major reason that oil prices shot up at the end of August was due to very significant revisions by the EIA on U.S. oil production data, pointing to sharper contraction than was previously assumed. The EIA released new survey-based data, which is more accurate than their mere estimates based on extrapolation, and the new data showed that between January and May, the U.S. actually produced 40,000 to 130,000 fewer barrels per day than the agency previously reported. Then, in June, oil production dropped by 100,000 barrels per day from the month before, hitting just 9.3 million barrels per day (mb/d).

    The largest downward revision came from Texas, which has been producing 100,000 to 150,000 fewer barrels than previously reported for the first half of this year.

    To put that in perspective, consider the agency's own weekly data, which comes out every Wednesday, and although it is less accurate than the retrospective looks, oil prices move up and down in response to the results. In its weekly data, the EIA shows U.S. oil production above 9.5 mb/d through the middle of July. For the week ending August 21, the EIA says the U.S. is producing 9.33 mb/d, above what the agency now says the U.S. produced in June.

    In other words, for several months the oil markets had believed the U.S. was producing much more oil than it actually was. Instead of continuing to climb through much of the spring and leveling off into the summer, oil production actually peaked in April and has declined consistently since then. When the EIA released this latest revision on August 31, oil prices shot up.

    Finally, although probably not quite as important as the OPEC rumors and the EIA data revisions, Canada suffered some outages at its oil facilities that could lead to a disruption in supplies. Canadian Oil Sands had to shut down production of its synthetic crude oil facility after a fire damaged equipment. And Nexen Energy, an oil producer in Canada and subsidiary of China's CNOOC, had to close 95 pipelines after inspectors found problems with them. Neither company offered specifics on what the disruptions mean for their production levels, but if the outages persist, they could cut down on supplies. Canada's benchmark for synthetic crude rallied on the news.

    Citigroup analysts think the recent rebound is overdone, calling it a "false start," and the 27 percent gain in just three days was "driven by a misread of market data and financial headlines." Indeed, the largest three-day price rally since 1990 was driven by headlines, but given the severe volatility and huge price swings, oil prices are not trading on the fundamentals right now. Nobody knows what will happen next.

    Russell, September 3, 2015 at 4:02 am

    Could it be that the search for safety in the turbulent markets view oil as the more recoverable commodity? Yet another diversification?

    PlutoniumKun, September 3, 2015 at 6:17 am

    It seems weird that just rumours about Opec and revised data figures could lead to such a huge upsurge in prices. The revised data figures for the US seems particularly odd – surely if it turns out there wasn't so much crude in the market, but this didn't put the price up, this indicates that demand is weaker than everyone thinks? Seems an odd logic.

    I suspect that for whatever reason the market is expecting a huge surge in price and are, a bit like 100 metres sprinters on the line, occasionally jumping the gun. This would match up with the news a few weeks ago that some hedgies are betting big on domestic oil producers. I wonder if they are assuming that the US government will start putting pressure on the Saudis to reign back production after the election? Received wisdom of course is that the US always wants low prices, but now that expense tight oil is so important, it may be that someone important feels that $100 a barrel oil is in the US strategic interest. Now that the Iran deal is sealed, maybe they will be looking for an excuse to pick a fight with the Saudis.

    Bam_Man, September 3, 2015 at 1:11 pm

    "When the capital development of a country becomes a by-product of the activities of a casino, the job is likely to be ill done." - J.M.Keynes

    Welcome to the casino, boyzz.


    [Sep 03, 2015] The Dangerous Separation of the American Upper Middle Class

    Sep 03, 2015 | Economist's View

    Richard Reeves at Brookings:

    The dangerous separation of the American upper middle class: The American upper middle class is separating, slowly but surely, from the rest of society. This separation is most obvious in terms of income-where the top fifth have been prospering while the majority lags behind. But the separation is not just economic. Gaps are growing on a whole range of dimensions, including family structure, education, lifestyle, and geography. Indeed, these dimensions of advantage appear to be clustering more tightly together, each thereby amplifying the effect of the other.

    In a new series of Social Mobility Memos, we will examine the state of the American upper middle class: its composition, degree of separation from the majority, and perpetuation over time and across generations. Some may wonder about the moral purpose of such an exercise. After all, what does it matter if those at the top are flourishing? To be sure, there is a danger here of indulging in the economics of envy. Whether the separation is a problem is a question on which sensible people can disagree. The first task, however, is to get a sense of what's going on.

    Skipping the extensive analysis covering:

    "We are the 80 percent!" Not quite the same ring as "We are the 99 percent!" ...

    Defining the upper middle class...

    Upper middle class incomes: on the up...

    "Where did you get your second degree?" The upper middle class and education...

    Families, marriage and social class...

    Voting and Attitudes...

    The conclusion is:

    Conclusion The writer and scholar Reihan Salam has developed some downbeat views about the upper middle class. Writing in Slate, he despairs that "though many of the upper-middle-class individuals I've come to know are good, decent people, I've come to the conclusion that upper-middle-class Americans threaten to destroy everything that is best in our country."

    Hyperbole, of course. But there is certainly cause for concern. Salam points to the successful rebellion against President Obama's plans to curb 529 college savings plans, which essentially amount to a tax giveaway to the upper middle class. While the politics of the reform were badly bungled, it was indeed a reminder that the American upper middle class knows how to take care of itself. Efforts to increase redistribution, or loosen licensing laws, or free up housing markets, or reform school admissions can all run into the solid wall of rational, self-interested upper middle class resistance. This is when the separation of the upper middle class shifts from being a sociological curiosity to an economic and political problem.

    In the long run, an even bigger threat might be posed by the perpetuation of upper middle class status over the generations. There is intergenerational 'stickiness' at the bottom of the income distribution; but there is at least as much at the other end, and some evidence that the U.S. shows particularly low rates of downward mobility from the top. When status becomes more strongly inherited, inequality hardens into stratification, open societies start to close up, and class distinctions sharpen.

    Mike Sparrow
    The upper middle class will also be the ones who will be thrown to the wolves if everything falls apart. Hubris is a bitch.
    Sandwichman said in reply to Mike Sparrow
    Lucky them if they're thrown to the wolves.

    DrDick said in reply to Mike Sparrow
    There is also this possibility (given the large number in the tech industry):

    "I really don't know what you do about the "taxes are theft" crowd, except possibly enter a gambling pool regarding just how long after their no-tax utopia comes true that their generally white, generally entitled, generally soft and pudgy asses are turned into thin strips of Objectivist Jerky by the sort of pitiless sociopath who is actually prepped and ready to live in the world that logically follows these people's fondest desires. Sorry, guys. I know you all thought you were going to be one of those paying a nickel for your cigarettes in Galt Gulch. That'll be a fine last thought for you as the starving remnants of the society of takers closes in with their flensing tools." (John Scalzi, http://whatever.scalzi.com/2010/09/26/tax-frenzies-and-how-to-hose-them-down/)

    Sandwichman
    Factitious values and cost-shifting. It's all that's left, really. Everything else is just resource depletion and overpopulation. Malthus was wrong! Then.

    Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman
    But not to worry. Nothing a little QE can't fix. Every time I get a bump or scrape I just rub some QE on it and... all better!

    Larry
    My litmus test about the liberalness of (homeowning) liberals is whether they favor replacing the mortgage interest deduction with a tax credit of fixed size. Those deductions are a huge UMC subsidy.

    Then you could talk about the massive federal aid to universities, again helping the 30% who go but not the 70% who don't.

    Sandwichman said in reply to Larry
    Yep. The "Upper Middle Class" is nothing but cost-shifting and factitious values. Smoke and mirrors. Punch one some time. It's like they are made out of twinkies.

    anne said in reply to Sandwichman
    Rubbish, not even sarcasm.

    Dan Kervick
    Maybe this is why economics has gotten so boring lately. For the upper 20%, which includes most academic economists, there is a 100% recovery. So they have stopped talking about what is wrong with American society, and gone back to talking about methodological issues, and about that time someone called them a mean name in graduate school.

    JF
    President Obama might direct that all economic data become reported first on the data associated with population who fit within the 90% strata and announce that this is being done to remind people every day that the public's govt is supposed to govern with the bulk of society in mind.

    The President's budget submission to Congress will discuss matters in this way too; that is, how are the 90% affected. And as you know, I'd prefer that this grouping is done mostly on a Net Worth basis, not income, so we have a constant reminder to consider economics looking at both wealth and income - not just income for the coming year.

    Of course the data that includes the 1% and the other 9% will be available too.

    JF said in reply to JF
    And I'd like academia to mirror this too. All studies will focus on the 90% and discuss from this perspective.

    Let the Koch-backed researchers do the other studies.

    It really would be interesting to have all professors tell their students to only use data for the 90% in their discussion papers.

    [Sep 03, 2015] Uber Strategy of Monopolization Through Sidestepping Labor Law May Be Coming to an End

    "...Uber's "disruption" derives mostly from skirting around labor laws and getting a lot of VC money amid promises to gouge their workers and customers once they put the taxi industry out of business. So having to pay back wages and payroll taxes and reimbursements would kind of blow up the whole thing."
    .
    "...In other words, if you are driving around carrying passengers (or pizza) for money, you have NO COVERAGE under your auto policy."
    September 3, 2015 | naked capitalism

    The best thing I've seen about Uber recently comes from about a month ago. The Wall Street Journal wrote up a perfunctory story about the company's $50 billion valuation, and it included a very truthful passage. So truthful, in fact, that presumably some PR flak got on the horn and made them change it for the online edition. @NeilAnAlien captured it on Twitter.

    Online edition: "The company hopes to attract enough drivers and passengers that its business model becomes profitable."

    Print: "The company hopes to build enough loyalty that it can charge customers more and pay drivers less."

    At this point I should mention that attempted monopolization is a criminal action under the Sherman Antitrust Act.

    But Uber has far bigger problems than that. A California judge is threatening their fiendish "Let's arbitrage state and federal law and replace a monopoly with a different monopoly" plan:

    Northern District Court Judge Edward Chen determined that 160,000 current and former Uber drivers in the state could be treated as a class, which will allow a lawsuit against the company to go forward. At stake are questions about the future of jobs in America and potentially billions of dollars for one of the world's fastest-growing companies.

    The lawsuit alleges that those drivers were misclassified as independent contractors rather than employees, and that Uber has thus cheated them out of things that employees get under California law, like reimbursements for gas, worker's compensation and other benefits. The lawsuit also claims that the company failed to pass on tips to the workers.

    Whether they'll get gas reimbursed is up in the air, it'll get decided later.

    Class action lawsuits have become VERY difficult to certify at the federal level. I wrote about this a couple years ago in conjunction with the Bank of America HAMP modification case, where employees for their servicing arm charged in testimony that they were told to lie and given bonuses for putting people into foreclosure. That was tossed, because of minor differences in the individual homeowner cases. The Supreme Court set the precedent for this in Walmart v. Dukes, creating a more stringent class certification test, forcing the complainants to prove up-front whether the commonality of their claims was the most important factor in the case. Indeed this is what Uber's lawyers argued – that Uber drivers are so diverse in their dealings with the company that they can't possibly make up a single class. The goal is to divide and conquer, to force individuals to pursue litigation alone (and be outgunned by Uber's legal team).

    So if a federal judge is certifying the Uber class, in many ways they've cleared the biggest hurdle. Uber has already lost a misclassification case like this at the California Labor Commission, but because it was an individual driver suing and not a class, they only had to pay $4,000. But Judge Chen saw right through Uber's gambit, writing: "Uber argues that individual issues with respect to each driver's 'unique' relationship with Uber so predominate that this Court (unlike, apparently, Uber itself) cannot make a class wide determination." In other words, Uber insists that all their drivers are independent contractors, but when challenged on it, claim they're all little snowflakes, no two alike.

    Judge Chen did exclude drivers from the class who didn't opt out of a forced arbitration clause in their driver contracts starting in May 2014. That's also fallout from a 2011 Supreme Court ruling, AT&T Mobility v. Concepcion, which effectively legalized putting mandatory arbitration in the fine print. Still, since Uber was late to that scheme, the class could be substantial – Uber says 15,000 but they're almost certainly lowballing.

    That's why you can expect Uber to appeal, and the same Supreme Court that backed up big business and closed the courthouse door to workers in the Walmart case might get a shot to do that for Uber. However, the rank stupidity of their argument – that everyone's a contractor but nobody's the same – might be too much even for the Roberts Court.

    If Uber ultimately loses this fight, forcing them to classify their drivers as employees, they become just another car service. Anyone can build an app to hail and pay for a ride – the New York City taxi system just unveiled one this week, and e-hailing apps do very well globally. Uber's "disruption" derives mostly from skirting around labor laws and getting a lot of VC money amid promises to gouge their workers and customers once they put the taxi industry out of business. So having to pay back wages and payroll taxes and reimbursements would kind of blow up the whole thing.

    Citing Matt Stoller on Uber from last year:

    Uber is quietly gaining enormous power, almost feudal power, over its drivers. Remember, Uber wanted to 'reward' drivers with a great paycheck. This works both ways. Are you an Uber driver who is complaining too much about Uber stealing your tips? Well, gosh, it seems like the magic algorithm keeps giving you bad customers. Or no customers. Or think a few years down the road, when there is nothing but Uber in certain localities. Then Uber can raise prices on consumers, who may have other options and can squeal. But it can also lower prices paid to drivers, and these drivers are dependent on Uber for their livelihood. In fact, Uber is even starting a financing program for its drivers, so they can get loans for cars.

    Remember, the customer doesn't even pay a driver, the payment goes through Uber. What are these drivers going to do when Uber totally controls the market? Sue? Ha, not if they want the algorithm, I mean the market pricing, to 'reward' them. And let's be clear, when a company offers low cost financing for capital investment for independent contractors and controls all aspects of the transaction and customer relationship, these are no longer independent contractors. They are employees. Only in this case, they are employees who have taken on debt to work for Uber. Uber has figured out that it is cheaper to trick people into thinking they are independent contractors and get them to risk their capital. Then Uber can happily take the profits.

    These are just the troubles Uber is having locally. In Mumbai the still-robust taxi union has been on strike for two days, protesting Uber's expansion after getting a ban overturned in June. In China there's a local rival that has 80 percent of the car-hailing market and has been buying up competitors. Korea's version, Kakao Taxi, is emerging as a strong competitor as well.

    There's no special sauce to what Uber does. And if they are prevented from breaking the law in the U.S., they'll just be another face among many, struggling for profitability.

    NotTimothyGeithner, September 3, 2015 at 9:35 am

    The insurers are in issue. Uber will inevitably be in lawsuits left and right as accidents pile up. Judges go ballistic on pizza deliverers anyone working for tips, they will always favor a non-uber claimant/plantiff/whatever with mind blowing evidence. A pizza delivery guy and my older sister had a quirky run in, and the judge asked where they were driving. When he heard pizza delivery, he ruled in favor of my sister. Taxis deal with regulatory structures which at least requires a certain level of competence. A taxi driver would not have hit my sister.

    When insurers have to start dealing with lawsuits because Uber drivers weren't taking care of their brakes, they are done. Uber and similar services will go the way of 30 minute pizza delivery promises.

    My guess is auto insurers want to get rid of Uber because they won't be able to determine who is running a unregulated taxi service.


    weinerdog43, September 3, 2015 at 10:04 am

    Virtually every single personal auto policy in the US contains the following language under the Exclusions section: "We do not provide Liability Coverage for any Insured; for that Insured's liability arising out of the ownership or operation of a vehicle while it is being used to carry persons or property for compensation or a fee." Go ahead and check your policy; it's there.

    In other words, if you are driving around carrying passengers (or pizza) for money, you have NO COVERAGE under your auto policy. You are 'going bare'. This is why Domino's has to buy commercial auto coverage for their drivers. The insurers don't care about Uber because it is not their problem. (I'm an insurance coverage lawyer.)


    washunate, September 3, 2015 at 7:45 pm

    I'm mildly optimistic actually on that front. The independent contractor loophole to employment law has become so egregious that I think there is serious interest in reigning in the more extreme excesses a tad, releasing some pressure if you will, and Uber works great for that. High public profile, low interconnectedness with the established power structure, specific industry that heavily regulates workers.

    Or to say it differently, I think Uber has violated the fundamental law of looting: don't be so blatant about it that the legal system can't justify it without completely destroying their own credibility. Face saving is key. If Uber drivers aren't employees, then even hugerer numbers of workers are not employees than already aren't employees today, and I don't think TPTB are in tight enough control to weather the fallout from that kind of logic. Especially with how much political capital went into entrenching employment-based health insurance with PPACA. Something the Roberts court found Constitutional, by the way.


    [Sep 03, 2015] JPM Omen 2.0 Sparks Stock Pump'n'Dump After Crude Surges'n'Purges Zero Hedge

    hobopants

    Everybody is screaming "This fall", but after so many false alarms I have a feeling this shit show will continue on alot longer.

    To paraphrase Zappa

    The illusion of the market will continue as long as it's profitable to continue the illusion. At the point where the illusion becomes too expensive to maintain, they will just take down the scenery, they will pull back the curtains, they will move the tables and chairs out of the way and you will see the brick wall at the back of the theater."

    [Sep 03, 2015] Mapping The Crisis Contagion Process The Flowchart

    Sep 03, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    In the paraphrased words of JPMorgan's head quant, "We're halfway there" for the selling... and yes it appears "we are living on a [Fed/PBOC/ECB/BOJ] prayer"

    JustObserving

    US leads the world in too much debt - $1,720,000 per taxpayer compared to $65,000 per taxpayer for bankrupt Greece. We may be getting dumber but at least we lead the world by a long shot in that category

    Forward

    Economist Tells Congress: U.S. May Be in 'Worse Fiscal Shape' Than Greece

    "The first point I want to get across is that our nation is broke," Kotlikoff testified. "Our nation's broke, and it's not broke in 75 years or 50 years or 25 years or 10 years. It's broke today.

    http://cnsnews.com/news/article/barbara-hollingsworth/economist-tells-co...

    KnuckleDragger-X

    Yep, but its magic debt and subject to even more magic money. The problem with the above chart is that it makes no accounting for chaotic events since they can't be predicted, but they will likely be the driver of the collapse.....

    junction

    So, instead of saying the truth, that looters have taken over the world economy, someone calls the situation "crisis contagion." Who are the disease vectors that are the carriers of this pathogen causing the crisis? Mostly Goldman Sachs banksters like Mario Draghi and Henry Paulson. Banksters and their cohorts like Obama and Eric Holder and David Cameron who have poisoned the world economy. What we need are fewer weasel words like crisis contagion and more words like "You are under arrest, Eric Holder, for criminal conspiracy."

    Groundhog Day

    if only it were that easy... a friend of mine stopped reading financial blogs like ZH, all news outlets including the web (funny considering he's a programmer and on the web all day) and he is much happier. he knows the inevitable will come but doesn't care. He figures he is single, has no debt and a house paid off and is relativiely intelligent working for a 100k give or take a few thousand....so his way of beating the system is not to particate in a 401k, ira, brokerage at all and spend his money on vacations in different parts of the world spending all his money so he loses no purchasing power in a savings account and spending on small mom and pop business owners as to not feed the corporate beast..

    saints51

    I agree with him too. I think we all need a break from this website time to time. This place is addictive, but it is not the articles I'd miss, it is the members. I enjoy everyone's company even the trolls.

    RaceToTheBottom

    I don't believe the music on the Titanic ever stopped. They just kept playing until they were underwater. Expect more of the same.

    Also expect the same actions of the few .01% as they do the present day equivalent of dressing up like ladies to get onto the lifeboats. At least those not already on safe land.

    Implied Violins

    ...he says to Schopenhauer, who authored:

    "...all human action (is) the product of a blind, insatiable, and malignant metaphysical will."

    I think he had something there...

    [Sep 03, 2015] Risk of big stock drops grows Robert Shiller

    According to Shiller S&P 500 can go as low as 1300 based on "return to normal" of his, currently elevated, CAPE index. " I think this is dangerous time" he said.
    "... The historic average is around 17, a level that would correspond with about 11,000 on the Dow and 1,300 on S&P 500. A retracement to those levels would represent more than 30 percent declines. "
    finance.yahoo.com

    Based on his research of historical stock market valuations, Nobel Prize-winning economist Robert Shiller said Thursday he sees the "risk of substantial declines" ahead.

    Even with the recent turmoil, which pushed the Dow industrials, S&P 500, and Nasdaq into correction last week and again this week, "the market is high now," the Yale University professor told CNBC's " Squawk Box ."

    As of Wednesday's close, the Dow remained in a correction, despite strong gains. But the rally in the S&P and Nasdaq composite pulled those measures out of correction territory.

    Shiller measures valuation with his cyclically adjusted price-to-earnings (CAPE) ratio, which looks at price divided by 10-year average earnings.

    "The CAPE ratio right now is around 25. It's high," he said. The historic average is around 17, a level that would correspond with about 11,000 on the Dow and 1,300 on S&P 500. A retracement to those levels would represent more than 30 percent declines.

    Shiller said he's not saying that will happen, just the CAPE ratio serves as a "warning signal."

    In fact, based on history, the stock market could more higher because the CAPE has been much higher in the past before the air came out of the market, he said.

    "The monthly CAPE ratio reached a peak of 44 in the year 2000 and that was followed by an important [market] drop. It went down to 13 and came back up to 27 in 2007 and it was followed by another drop," he said.

    "Nobody can really forecast the market accurately. But I think this is a risky time," Shiller concluded-adding he personally has been reducing his portfolio's exposure to U.S. stocks. "[But] everyone's different. People need to look at their own risk situation."

    [Sep 02, 2015] The Mirage Of An Iranian Oil Bonanza By Dalan McEndree

    Total world production is around 86 mmbl (millions barrels a day). Iran probably can contribute additional one million barrels a day). Drop of the US shale production and Canadian sands production might be higher then that. Also Iranian internal consumption (currently 2 million barrels a day) also will rise substantially after lifting of the sanctions.
    "...Projecting from International Energy Agency (IEA) data, Iran is on track to produce an average ~2.85 mmbl/day of crude in 2015. The IEA puts Iran's current sustainable capacity at 3.6 mmbl/day (defined as a level achievable in 90 days and sustainable for an extended period). "
    "... it is possible that Iran will lack the domestic and foreign resources necessary to increase crude output to and over 4 mmbls/day by 2020."
    Sep 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    The P5+1 agreement with Iran on Iran's nuclear program has generated (sometimes fevered) anticipation of an Iranian oil bonanza at the end of the nuclear agreement rainbow, both in terms of the increase in Iranian crude output and the business opportunities for foreign firms in driving the increase.

    The anticipation comes from several sources. Iran's crude potential is one. According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA), Iran's proven crude reserves, 158 billion barrels, are the world's fourth largest (and among the cheapest to produce at $8-to-$17/barrel, depending on the source).

    Iranian public statements expressing determination to increase crude output significantly are another (to 5.7 mmbl/day, according to Mehdi Hosseini, chairman of Iran's oil contracts restructuring committee). The third is the value of potential contracts for foreign suppliers. Hossein Zamaninia, Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, indicated the government hoped to conclude nearly 50 oil and gas projects worth $185 billion by 2020.

    Projected Output and Exports to 2020

    Projecting from International Energy Agency (IEA) data, Iran is on track to produce an average ~2.85 mmbl/day of crude in 2015. The IEA puts Iran's current sustainable capacity at 3.6 mmbl/day (defined as a level achievable in 90 days and sustainable for an extended period). This is roughly comparable to Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh's assertion Iran could increase output 500,000 barrels per day within a few months after international sanctions on Iran's economy are lifted and another 500,000 barrels per day in the following months .

    ... ... ...

    Iran won't be able to finance this on its own. It has three "internal" sources of investment-frozen Iranian funds in foreign accounts, government budget resources (oil revenues flow to the Iranian government, a portion of which the government returns to the industry), and oil in storage. (Iranian banks evidently can't provide meaningful funding). Rough conjectures of the investment Iran could generate from these three sources in current low price environment are as follows:

    ... ... ...

    The possibility of direct military conflict between Iran on the one hand and Saudi Arabia and its Gulf Arab allies on the other is another factor. The two sides are already essentially at war indirectly in Yemen, Iraq, Lebanon, and Syria. Moreover, just the threat of direct military conflict or an increase in regional tensions is enough to cause foreigners anxiety.

    The deal structure the Iranians will offer foreign companies-Hosseini described it as a "risk service contract"-will increase rather than mitigate risk. Given their lack of capital, the Iranians will be asking foreigners to bear the upfront investment burden in return for payment (cash and/or crude) in the (perhaps distant) future. Foreigners must take into account the possibility that negative changes in the internal and/or external environment will damage the value of their investment.

    Foreign investors cannot be confident Iran's internal political dynamics will be conducive to foreign investment. Not all influential Iranians or Iranian interest groups (for example, the powerful Revolutionary Guards) welcome the nuclear agreement and détente with the United States and Europe. Should the balance of power tip in their favor-or further in their favor-foreign investments could face anything from unpleasant pressure to expropriation.

    Moreover, absent a binding agreement within OPEC and between OPEC and Russia on production levels, Saudi and Gulf Arab production policies will threaten the value of foreign investment in the Iranian crude industry. Saudi Arabia's sustainable capacity is 2.5 mmbl/day more than its average 10.01 mmbl daily output in 1H 2015, while the UAE has announced plans to increase output 600,000 barrels per day in the next few years, and Kuwait by 1.4 mmbl/day by 2020.

    ... ... ...

    In Sum

    While it is likely Iran will increase crude output once sanctions are lifted, it is possible that Iran will lack the domestic and foreign resources necessary to increase crude output to and over 4 mmbls/day by 2020. Absent a thaw in its relations with Saudi Arabia, the Gulf Arab states, and the West, higher and more stable crude prices, and initial positive experience for foreign companies in negotiating and implementing projects, it is more likely foreign investment will trickle into the Iranian energy industry than gush into it.

    [Sep 02, 2015] Financial Sector To Cut Credit Supply Lines For Oil And Gas Industry By Nick Cunningham

    Sep 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    As time passes, more and more hedges are expiring, leaving oil companies fully exposed to the painfully low oil price environment. "A lot of these smaller guys who had bad balance sheets have pretty good hedge books through full-year 2015," Andrew Byrne, an analyst with IHS, told the Houston Chronicle. "You can't say that about 2016."

    In fact, about one-fifth of North American production is hedged at a median price of $87.51 per barrel. Smaller companies rely much more heavily upon hedging as they are more vulnerable to price swings and are not diversified with downstream assets. Across the industry, IHS estimates that smaller companies had about half of their production hedged at a median oil price of $89.86 per barrel in 2015.

    ... ... ...

    More worrying for the oil and gas companies that are struggling to keep their lights on is the forthcoming credit redeterminations, which typically take place in April and September. Banks recalculate credit lines for drillers, using oil prices as a key determinant of an individual company's viability. With oil prices bouncing around near six-year lows, more companies will find themselves on the wrong side of that equation.

    Banks were more lenient in April when oil prices were a bit higher and many analysts expected prices to rise. This time around the pain is mounting and there will be a lot less leeway. Somewhere around 10 to 15 percent credit offered to drillers could be cut back on average, a move that could slash $15 billion in credit capacity, according to CreditSights Inc.

    ... ... ...

    According to the FT, banking regulators are pushing banks to take a more conservative approach to their energy loans.

    [Sep 02, 2015] ConocoPhillips Fires 10% Of Global Workforce, Warns Of Dramatic Downturn To Oil Industry

    "...Sanford C. Bernstein, the Wall Street research company, calls the rapid increase in production costs "the dark side of the golden age of shale". In a recent analysis, it estimates that non-Opec marginal cost of production rose last year to $104.5 a barrel, up more than 13 per cent from $92.3 a barrel in 2011. "
    Zero Hedge

    ...Houston based ConocoPhillips announce that the E&P giant is about to terminate 10%, or 1,800 people, of its global workforce, in the next several weeks as it copes with low oil prices.

    As the Houston Chroncile's FuelFix blog writes, "Daren Beaudo, a company spokesman, confirmed that an internal communication was sent to employees earlier this week informing them of the upcoming staff reductions. Most of those affected workers will receive layoff notifications next month."

    But don't worry: the great(ly fabricated) US jobs recovery myth will not be impaired: all these formerly highly-paid engineers, technicians, drillers and chemists will find minimum wage jobs flipping burgers at their local recently IPOed Shake Shack.


    Publicus

    Zerohedge logic: oil going up is bad for the economy, oil going down is bad for the economy.

    While gold going up means you should buy more, and gold going down means you should buy more.

    LOL

    El Vaquero

    That's because both are true. If oil is too expensive, people cannot afford to buy as much random crap in this "consumer economy," and if oil is too cheap, well, there's always the $550 billion in energy sector junk bonds floating around that aren't going to get repaid. This is the result of years upon years of economic manipulation.


    Berspankme

    El Vaq- that requires critical thinking

    Winston Smith 2009

    "that requires critical thinking"

    Always, unfortunately, a very rare commodity... which explains why we're where we're at.

    "Five percent of the people think, ten percent of the people think they think, and the other eighty-five percent would rather die than think." - Thomas A. Edison

    Magooo

    HIGH PRICED OIL DESTROYS GROWTH According to the OECD Economics Department and the International Monetary Fund Research Department, a sustained $10 per barrel increase in oil prices from $25 to $35 would result in the OECD as a whole losing 0.4% of GDP in the first and second years of higher prices. http://www.iea.org/textbase/npsum/high_oil04sum.pdf

    HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil production has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world's economies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth

    THE END OF CHEAP OIL Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years

    Feb 14, 1998 |By Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrre http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-end-of-cheap-oil/

    BUT WE NEED HIGH OIL PRICES: Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

    The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

    Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000. "The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programmes. Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120," he said http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11024845/Oil-and-gas-company-debt-soars-to-danger-levels-to-cover-shortfall-in-cash.html

    Sanford C. Bernstein, the Wall Street research company, calls the rapid increase in production costs "the dark side of the golden age of shale". In a recent analysis, it estimates that non-Opec marginal cost of production rose last year to $104.5 a barrel, up more than 13 per cent from $92.3 a barrel in 2011. http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/ec3bb622-c794-11e2-9c52-00144feab7de.html#axzz3T4sTXDB5

    JustObserving

    Obama's war on oil to hurt Russia and Iran having unintended consequences. Maybe he can drone short-sellers of US stocks

    lehmen_sisters

    Good paying oil workers going to get jobs at Chili's and Flingers....talk about a recovery! Drinks on me!

    Magooo

    THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59 onwards)

    The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy.

    But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel.

    http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

    crazybob369

    ConocoPhillips Fires 10% Of Global Workforce, Warns Of "Dramatic Downturn" To Oil Industry

    "Dramatic Downturn", really? These morons are in the energy business and they just figured this out now? Or, are they simply justifying the layoffs?

    Jack Burton

    the massive upcoming reserve liquidation (read Treasury selling) that is about to be unleashed as a result of the soaring dollar

    Don't discount Russia in this treasury sell off. No they are not a player like China, but they have a roll to play, they were sitting on 350 billion dollars in FX if you believe some, of 450 billion to believe others. They have been bullsih gold for ages. But if China sells treasuries, Russia will continue to sell theirs also. The economic war on Russia is already worthy of WWIII, thus Russia should have only one goal, "To kick T-Bills in the balls when they get the most kick for their efforts."

    America lives by the Dollar, prints it and buys a consumer bonanza, energy and the greatest military on earth. I suggest to you that fully 1/2 of that spending is deficit, money printing or T-Bill selling. China, Russia and Iran should likely do what they can to hurt the dollar, as the dollar is America's primary support, 1/2 our federal spending is borrowed.

    johmack2

    From magooo post, http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf is highly recommend everyone read that report or have one of the tylers post it, very comprehensive report


    [Sep 02, 2015] US Oil Production Nears Previous Peak

    Sep 01, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel
    MarbleZeppelin, 09/01/2015 at 9:45 pm
    Roads cost the US $155 billion dollars per year and that is a shortfall of what is needed to keep everything in good repair. So the cost of keeping the road system operable is similar to the cost of fuel to use it.
    We need to find ways to minimize the amount of roads in the US and ways to make the necessary ones less expensive. I am sure a lot of energy is tied up in that $155 billion dollar figure.
    Boomer II, 09/02/2015 at 11:26 am
    It just occurred to me last night that while not intended, letting the roads and bridges fall apart is one way to deal with peak oil.

    Where I live, there's been a lot of expanding and repairing roads. While some of it has been to add express lanes to encourage car pool and bus use, other parts of the work are just to add lanes to busy roads.

    Some of us would rather the transportation budget be used for more trains, and that has happened in some places around here, but the focus is still on vehicle transportation.

    Unlike my area, it appears that in other parts of the country there is no money to fix the roads. If, of course, you don't want more cars and trucks moving about, letting the roads fall into disrepair may make economic sense. Why keep pumping money into an infrastructure you may not need in the future?

    MarbleZeppelin , 09/02/2015 at 2:46 pm
    The trucks do account for significant damage to highways and roads. Road damage from one 18-wheeler is equivalent to 9600 cars. Freeze-Thaw, corrosion, erosion, and large temperature shifts are also culprits.
    Fact is we need to get rid of a lot of the roads because even if all trucks were reduced in weight, there would still be significant cost to the public.
    Truck weight damage:
    http://archive.gao.gov/f0302/109884.pdf
    Patrick, 08/30/2015 at 10:09 pm
    "There will be substantial amounts of fossil fuels available to us for many decades to come."

    1. How can you be so sure?
    If Ron is right (http://peakoilbarrel.com/peak-oil-right-now/), global oil production will start declining soon. It will be double-squeezed due to the other phenomenon of Export Land Model (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Export_Land_Model). There is also the Energy Trap (http://physics.ucsd.edu/do-the-math/2011/10/the-energy-trap/). I personally think that assumption (MANY decades) way too optimistic. We will not have that "luxury".

    2. To us, or to the U.S.?
    When you write "us" I tend to include myself, European, in your "us". But I guess what you really meant was "you", the United States, am I right?

    [Sep 02, 2015] West Texas Fracker Uses Toilet Water To Cut Cost By Michael McDonald

    Sep 02, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    Water costs in fracking are expensive, but most major firms including Pioneer have been working on improving efficiency on that front

    ... ... ...

    The firm looks set to buy water for around $6.33 per thousand gallons in the first year of the deal.

    ... ... ...

    ...Pioneer will receive roughly 18 billion gallons of water (18 billion gallons * an average price per thousand gallon of about $6.75 = a total of $120 million) over the next 10 years. Since Pioneer would have had to get that water from somewhere else if it didn't get it from Odessa, the deal is the equivalent of annually freeing up about 16,000 gallons of water per person in the city of 110,000.

    [Sep 02, 2015] Bill Gross Fed tightening now could create self-inflicted instability

    "...He suggested that major global policy shifts should emphasize government spending as opposed to austerity, adding that countries should recognize that competitive devaluations do nothing but allow temporary respite from the overreaching global problem of too little aggregate demand versus too much aggregate supply. "
    "...He suggested that major global policy shifts should emphasize government spending as opposed to austerity, adding that countries should recognize that competitive devaluations do nothing but allow temporary respite from the overreaching global problem of too little aggregate demand versus too much aggregate supply. "
    "...Overall, Gross said "super-size" August movements in global stocks are but one sign that something may be amiss in the global economy itself, China notwithstanding."
    "..."Cash or better yet 'near cash' such as 1-2 year corporate bonds are my best idea of appropriate risks/reward investments," Gross said. "The reward is not much, but as Will Rogers once said during the Great Depression – "I'm not so much concerned about the return on my money as the return of my money.""

    NEW YORK (Reuters) - Bond guru Bill Gross, who has long called for the Federal Reserve to raise interest rates, said on Wednesday that U.S. central bankers may have missed their window of opportunity to hike rates earlier this year and doing so now could create "self-inflicted" instability.

    He suggested that major global policy shifts should emphasize government spending as opposed to austerity, adding that countries should recognize that competitive devaluations do nothing but allow temporary respite from the overreaching global problem of too little aggregate demand versus too much aggregate supply.

    The neutral rate is the point at which the rate is neither stimulative nor contractionary.

    The Fed seems intent on raising the federal funds rate at its policy meeting this month if only to prove that it can begin the journey to normalization, said Gross, who runs the $1.5 billion Janus Global Unconstrained Bond Fund (JUCAX.O).

    "They should, but their September meeting language must be so careful," that "one and done" is an increasing possibility, Gross said. The "one and done" approach represents the Fed raising rates once and not again, at least for the next six months, Gross said.

    "The Fed is beginning to recognize that 6 years of zero bound interest rates have negative influences on the real economy – it destroys historical business models essential to capitalism such as pension funds, insurance companies, and the willingness to save money itself."

    A decline in saving would lead to other problems like decreases in investment and long-term productivity, he added.

    Gross said: "The global economy's finance-based spine is so out of whack that it is in need of a major readjustment. In this case, even the best of chiropractors could not even attempt it. Nor would a one-off fed fund increase straighten it out."

    He suggested that major global policy shifts should emphasize government spending as opposed to austerity, adding that countries should recognize that competitive devaluations do nothing but allow temporary respite from the overreaching global problem of too little aggregate demand versus too much aggregate supply.

    "It is demand that must be increased – yes, China must move more quickly to a consumer-based economy but the developed world must play its part by abandoning its destructive emphasis on fiscal austerity, and begin to replace its rapidly decaying infrastructure that has been delayed for decades," Gross said.

    Overall, Gross said "super-size" August movements in global stocks are but one sign that something may be amiss in the global economy itself, China notwithstanding.

    Fiscal and monetary policies around the world now are not constructive or growth enhancing, nor are they likely to be, Gross said. "If that be the case, then equity market capital gains and future returns are likely to be limited if not downward sloping."

    Gross said cash is king in this environment.

    "Cash or better yet 'near cash' such as 1-2 year corporate bonds are my best idea of appropriate risks/reward investments," Gross said. "The reward is not much, but as Will Rogers once said during the Great Depression – "I'm not so much concerned about the return on my money as the return of my money."

    High-quality global bond markets offer little reward relative to durational risk, he added. Private equity and hedge related returns cannot long prosper if global growth remains anemic, Gross said.

    (Reporting By Jennifer Ablan; Editing by Chizu Nomiyama)

    [Sep 01, 2015] No fundamental reason for oil's 'meltdown' energy analyst

    China oil demand is growing modestly 3% a year, which is actually extremely fast for such a large economy. Moderation in China demands started long ago so this is no news. so what we are seeing is sentiment. Sentiment on all commodities is negative right now Capital investment in new oil development this year at least 25% globally and 50% in the USA. The next year it can be worse. Oil supply will eventually reflect this.

    Worries about China and near-record production from OPEC and the U.S. have knocked oil prices below $40 a barrel. But the markets may have beaten up crude a little too much, according to one energy analyst.

    [Sep 01, 2015] Marc Faber We Have Reached Some Kind of Tipping Point

    Sep 01, 2015 | Fox Business
    "The markets have moved sideward for essentially the last 12 months and this year, when the crash really happened, we were 2% lower on the S&P year-to-date…we were down 13% for the transportation index, so the internal of the market has been weak," Faber said during an interview on FOX Business Network's Cavuto: Coast to Coast.

    He added that global markets have realized deceleration in China's economy is worse than "optimistic" fund managers and strategists predicted.

    Faber said it would not be easy for China to get its economy growing the way it once was. It it decellerating more then most expect.

    "An economy like China is not like a car where you just drive around the corner," he said. "The Chinese economy cannot be stimulated meaningfully for the time being-it will take time."

    Recently, China's stock market troubles hit U.S. markets. Faber explained why Wall Street is impacted by negative news out of China.

    "You look at announcements of Hewlett-Packard, United Technologies, car manufacturers… they have a large exposure to China, and when the Chinese economy slows down, what really drove the growth, namely capital spending in China, and consumption in China slows down, so in July, car sales in China were down 7% year-over-year," he said.

    [Sep 01, 2015] Some Day, We'll Look Back at This, and Laugh

    Exemplary of The Guardian's forecasting where Russia is concerned – and The Guardian never met a Russian it didn't hate, unless they were an oligarch expat, a political dissident or a member of Pussy Riot – is this gem by The Guardian's "Economics Editor", Larry Elliott;"Russia Has Just Lost the Economic War With the West".

    For those who don't remember when the west's economic war against Russia started, it actually kicked off with a skirmish, in which the USA stopped service in Russia to holders of Visa and Mastercard at certain sanctioned banks in Russia, back in the spring of 2014. Customers found that their cards did not work and their accounts were frozen. Russian media promptly pointed out that American credit-card companies "had a record of bowing to political decisions from Washington"; the government imposed a security deposit fee equal to two days worth of transactions in Russia, which would cost the companies $1.9 Billion (Visa) and $1 Billion (Mastercard), and Morgan-Stanley issued a report which suggested the two credit-card giants would be better off terminating their operations in Russia, where they together had 90% of market share. For his part, the Russian president announced that Russia would develop its own national payment system and greatly reduce its dependence on western credit-card companies.

    It's hard for me to see that as a western victory. Visa and Mastercard squealed like pigs, Russia introduced a prototype domestic card (Mir) which Mastercard signed on to co-brand, and Mastercard and Visa both humbly signed on to Russia's national payment system, which moves processing to Russia. This results in a huge loss of financial control for the western-based cards, and a bigger one is coming when Russia introduces its national replacement for SWIFT, the Society for Worldwide Interbank Financial Telecommunication. Western regulatory authorities have long been accustomed to using SWIFT to read other countries' financial mail, and a few years back, the USA pressured the supposedly non-partisan system to shut out Iran. It's unlikely America would have tried that with Russia – especially since European courts ruled that it was illegal – but a couple of big-mouthed American senators started hollering for it to be done, and that was enough.

    You would think Larry Elliott would have learned something from that, but it is apparent that he did not. He had all summer and autumn to form an assessment of how things were lining up, and he guessed wrong.

    "The west knows all about the vulnerability of Russia's economy, its creaking factories and its over-reliance on the energy sector. When the introduction of sanctions over Russia's support for the separatists in Ukraine failed to bring Vladimir Putin to heel, the US and Saudi Arabia decided to hurt Russia by driving down oil prices. Both countries will face some collateral damage as a result – and this could be considerable in the case of the US shale sector – but both were prepared to take the risk on the grounds that Russia would suffer much more pain. This has proved to be true."

    Is that so? Well, at least one insight in that passage was accurate – the damage caused to the U.S. shale industry was considerable. Have a look at this comical piece in The Economist, which is almost as big a failure at presenting the world as it actually is as The Guardian; the anonymous author hedges his analysis so hard that his regular reversals make the reader dizzy. Goodrich Petroleum's debts are six times the size of its market-value equity – but it says it has ample liquidity and may sell some stuff. At the start of 2015, it looked like the slaughter among the frackers would be horrific – but only 5 companies actually went bankrupt. The Saudis (treacherous dogs all) have failed to put Houston out of business – but big services companies such as Halliburton have fallen into losses and small ones are on life support.

    Here's another, in which The Economist does not make the link: the United States has increased its oil production to 13% of global output – but it supplies only about half its own consumption. It puts a happy face on this by describing its increase in production as far larger than its increase in consumption. That is indeed a bit of good news, but the USA still consumes more daily oil output than something like the next four nations combined (figures are from 2011), and about 20% of the world's output.

    The global economy is faltering as the World Bank lowers its projections for growth. Saudi Arabia, originally a partner in the effort to crush Russia's economy, has continued to flood a glutted oil market that is now oversupplied by 800,000 barrels per day, and shows no sign of letting up. Meanwhile, Saudi Arabia and Russia inked 6 new trade agreements in June, one of which will see Rosatom operate up to 16 nuclear reactors in Saudi Arabia.

    The USA put its head together with its Saudi partners, and worked out a scheme whereby OPEC would administer a short, sharp shock to the energy markets which would tip Putin out of bed – colour revolution successful at last, America gets to pick a new government, we've got momentum, baby! But that's not the way it worked out at all. Who benefits from a weaker ruble? The resource exporters who are a main source of revenue for the Russian government. Putin remains as popular with Russians as he has been since his introduction to upper-echelon politics.

    Meanwhile, in Europe, Russian sanctions coincided with perfect growing conditions and consequent overproduction to kick the British dairy industry in the slats. The Russian dairy market, by contrast, is surging, with some varieties of artisan goat cheese selling for $14.00 a pound at the supplier level. German cars and car parts exports to Russia fell more than 27% between January and August 2014. The Russian food ban is "a nightmare" for French farmers. Even mighty Apple saw its smartphone sales cut in half in 2014 – although, despite the crisis, Russian smartphone sales overall were up 39%. American car brands joined the plunge as car sales in Russia tanked; however, the ruble began to regain strength in the first quarter and was the best-performing of more than 170 currencies tracked by Bloomberg – bear in mind that this is in the face of deliberate efforts to force it down. The tumble in car sales slowed in July as government incentives began to have an effect – but the gains were all felt by Lada and Asian brands, and the only American car to even get on their scoreboard was the Chevrolet Cruze. Expect western brands across the board to continue to suffer, as market replacement continues apace.

    Let us not gild the lily: the economic war against Russia hurt, and for a day or two there was reason for western optimism that their attempt to backstab Putin out of office would bear fruit. But it didn't, and Elliott's brainless rah-rah cheerleading for Washington was torpedoed by Russian resolve and resilience. The west now has the global opponent it thought it wanted, but market replacement and a rejection of western institutions within Russia signifies a decisive turning away from the west that will not easily be reversed, if ever. Vladimir Putin could run over a pensioner with his car on election day and still cruise to victory without breaking a sweat. None of the west's goals of economic warfare against Russia have been realized. Not one.

    It's still too soon to say whether Russia will weather the storm Washington deliberately set in motion. But there is every reason to be optimistic if you are Russian, and no reason at all to be optimistic if you are one of Barack Obama's foreign-policy drones. And John Kerry might as well just run off a cliff, because he has been an even worse Secretary of State than Hillary Clinton was – a benchmark I did not ever think to see surpassed, never mind so quickly.

    As a recent Russia Insider article warned, there's no surer way to lose the next war than to live in delusion about your own strength.

    Oddlots, August 26, 2015 at 8:31 pm

    Hard to pick a favourite line but I think mine is this: "Of course America makes mistakes – grievous ones, which are scrutinised sharply in its political system and media."

    Comical. Errr… Haven't seen much evidence of that for quite awhile friend.

    This guy barely has the intellectual ability to run a golf club though his prejudices would make him welcome in any of them.

    Warren, August 27, 2015 at 3:55 am

    Lucas is an odious sanctimonious hypocrite. He merely preaches to people who share his prejudices.

    ucgsblog, August 24, 2015 at 6:48 pm

    Just reread this:

    "The west knows all about the vulnerability of Russia's economy, its creaking factories and its over-reliance on the energy sector. When the introduction of sanctions over Russia's support for the separatists in Ukraine failed to bring Vladimir Putin to heel, the US and Saudi Arabia decided to hurt Russia by driving down oil prices. Both countries will face some collateral damage as a result – and this could be considerable in the case of the US shale sector – but both were prepared to take the risk on the grounds that Russia would suffer much more pain. This has proved to be true."

    Dang. Oh, oh. Where do I even start? First, I know a few US oil traders; they're in it for long term profit. They didn't want the risks and don't give two shits about Ukraine. It's why you don't see them lining up to donate to Ukraine. Second, in order to kill US shale, the Saudis drove down the price, after informing Russia of their actions. Third, it's not US shale that's currently driving up the prices, it's Saudi Arabia, and, yep, Russia. US shale is crying "uncle, uncle!" On top of this, the oil price effectively busted Obama's green energy legacy, or as a commentator said: "da, ne vezet cheburashke, ne vezet!" Student loans also busted his education legacy, he's going to be an all around failure. Ouch!

    But none of what I said makes that comment stupid. Not a thing. What makes said comment absolutely asinine, is that by claiming that the Oil Wars were started by US and Saudi Arabia to hurt Russia, and by additionally claiming that said Oil Wars are continued to be ran by US and Saudi Arabia to hurt Russia, those idiots effectively gave Russia a powerful weapon to hurt the US financially, and because Obama got pwnd on the Iranian Deal, (Bob Gates' words, not mine,) the Saudis want to answer to Russia, which is why they're signing energy deals with Russia like there's no tomorrow.

    To be absolutely blunt: the US media gave Putin a proverbial gun to shoot themselves with, while claiming that they're actually holding said gun to Putin's head. When the proverbial shot goes off, hilarity will ensue.

    As if this wasn't enough, in order to keep US shale somehow functioning, low cost loans are being made, and the current demand is a must. Low cost loans will only work by keeping the interest rate at 0.1%. What does that mean? It means that the "poorly performing" Russo-Chinese currencies have done something that I thought would be impossible a few months ago: they checked the dollar's aggressive stance. Yes, the dollar is still a power to be reckoned with, but the US can no longer lead with the dollar; rather, the US must wait until Russia and China attack the dollar, which they won't do.

    Furthermore, demand is dropping. Supply is increasing. US shale is slowly but surely going bankrupt. In order to prevent that, US must keep interest rates low, meaning that the dollar's effectiveness is checked, which, according to Elliot, is Obama holding a proverbial gun to Russia's head. As if this wasn't enough, there's still the potential Greek Switch, which could lead to the collapse of the Euro. Add the rise of Nationalist Parties in Europe, and you'll see the shift towards Russia, thus giving Putin the Lisbon to Vladivostok trade route. Combine that with the Silk Route, as well as India and Pakistan's dispute being solved peacefully by the SCO… do I really need to keep going here? And remember, according to Elliot, the US has the proverbial gun, so Putin better give Crimea back, pronto!


    marknesop, August 24, 2015 at 9:17 pm

    Certainly a much more optimistic forecast, what?? I wonder if Russia actually does know this, and it is calculated, or is it just a series of big dominoes falling over one by one? It's certainly true that Saudi Arabia and Russia are a lot chummier than you would expect, given that the former is supposed to be part of a deal to screw the latter. And you are correct that the further out on the limb U.S. shale goes to prove to the world that it's still unhurt, the further the drop will be when the fiction can't be maintained any longer.

    I don't really wish the USA any harm – although I despise its government and more or less its entire political class – and I hope there's no collapse like that because it would hurt a lot of decent people who didn't do anything worse than believe in The American Dream. Not to mention our economic fate is inexorably tied to yours. But the global economy does appear to be unraveling – for the second time in our lives – right before our eyes. Whose economy is hurting, Mr. President?

    That's a hell of an analysis. And it's always easier to spot a trend if you're looking for it. So let's see if you're right – if you are, you're a visionary, because nobody who feels they're authorized to talk about it sees a picture like that. I don't dispute that some in the back room see things starting to come apart, but of course they won't say that. Running panics the troops.

    ucgsblog, August 25, 2015 at 6:31 pm

    Thank you! Russia doesn't know this, but simply reacts in the best possible way possible. It's like racing a track for the first time, you don't know where it turns, but when it does, you do the best you can, and eventually, someone is going to have the record time, and someone else will ask: "did they know?" Nope, they simply adapted, and when it comes to resurging and adapting, Russia's numero uno.

    In terms of US shale, it's not so much that it's going to collapse, but rather, that the capitalization of US shale will hold back the dollar. The problem with the US political class is rooted in the two party system, which reduces political debates to "my side yay, your side boo" type of arguments. These in turn rely more on messaging power, i.e. dollars, which enables those with the money to work the electoral college to play a hefty role in elections. If we simply abolished the electoral college… that'd be an improvement, but Republicans and Democrats jointly oppose that.

    I'm coming from the trend that was first displayed when Russo-Chinese leaders called the SCO a "success beyond our wildest dreams". That's my perspective. It's hilarious to see others suggest that Russia and China will break apart, and even paid analysts are getting pissed off at the bullshit they have to write, which is why you get articles with "Russia is China's junior partner… Russia and China treat each other as equals…" where any analyst reading that knows that the writer was very pissed off at the editor.

    As far as panicking the troops, the truth's that there's massive divestment from internationalism and more and more people are pushing for the Moneyball Model. By the time the rout hits, poor saps like Julia Ioffe will look around and go "waaa!" but no one will be there to defend them. And then those whom they fucked in the 1990s will have their vengeance in a trollish way. As for me, I'll be deciding which brand of popcorn to buy. We have more varieties in California than almost anywhere else, it's a tough, tough choice. BTW, I'm open to suggestions.

    Guy, August 24, 2015 at 10:37 pm

    Something i would like to add. There's one more point that i think everyone has overlooked. Fact that the US dollar is backed by other peoples traded oil means that the US is effectively relying on that traded oil to support it's currency. International trade, commodities and the shuffling of paper are what keeps the dollar afloat. If the price of oil drops by let's say $10, the demand for dollars to buy that oil also falls by $10 across the entire spectrum of the oil market. This amounts to a direct attack on the dollar price as if a country had dumped that many dollars. Now we're seeing Chinese trade slow down, also a reduction in demand for dollars, and the're going out of their way to defend their markets which also involves dumping of dollars.


    ucgsblog, August 25, 2015 at 6:33 pm

    Thank you! And you're right that both of those processes hurt the dollar; where we might disagree is a matter of scale. I think that it hurts the dollar slightly, akin to an artillery barrage to prevent a charge, but leaves the unit in cohesion. I'm unsure if you share that view, or if you think that it does extensive damage to the dollar/unit.

    Guy, August 25, 2015 at 9:40 pm

    Well if it really did do extensive damage on it's own would think that it would be more visible by now. I think the damage i not visible due to the fact that people won't necessarily dump their dollars just because they don't immediately need them to buy oil. But your analogy is absolutely correct. I think in the long term this will prevent the fed from printing too much more and facilitate de-dollarisation by freeing that capital up to be invested in other assets, perhaps not dollar denominated. It all depends on where the extra capital goes. If it goes back into more trade or assets that require dollars then there would be no effect. However on it's own the quantity that we're talking about is rather immense. This effect will become more pronounced when China opens up it's own gold and commodities exchange because this allows the freed up capital to be funneled elsewhere.

    Regarding your views on the oil market i think you would be interested to read my analysis below. Ehhh.. it's somewhere down there, not sure how i can link to it. My views are that US shale will be allowed to die so that the companies can be bought up for penny's on the dollar by predatory hedge funds and restarted once the price rises again and the crash in oil prices is solely orchestrated by US banks which have the capital and leverage to short it on the paper market.

    karl1haushofer, August 25, 2015 at 12:14 am

    But generally low oil benefits the West (because they are net importers) and hurts Russia (because they are a major exporter). The losses in US shale industry is not a doomsday scenario for the US economy. The cheap imported oil more than compensates for that. The shale industry can always be restarted once the oil price goes up again (whether it happens in a year or after ten years).

    Russian economy has always been dependent on oil prices though. The fall of Soviet economy started after the oil price collapsed in the 1980's. The two biggest GDP drops of Russian economy happened when the oil price bottomed in 2008-2009 and in 2015.

    So the writer is right that low oil price hurts Russia while the West mainly benefits from it.

    karl1haushofer, August 25, 2015 at 12:27 am

    The biggest question for Russia is that if the period of low oil price lasts for a decade how can Russia cope with it. Easy oil money is not flowing to the economy anymore. Russia needs to find new (and harder, more difficult) ways to earn money and generate wealth. They have no other choice if they want to keep the country intact (since economically weak Russia would become an easier target for disintegration by the West).

    Guy, August 25, 2015 at 12:45 am

    It won't be priced low for decades. The cure for low oil prices is low oil prices. Eventually high cost suppliers will go bankrupt, keep in mind that countries such as Venezuela and even Saudi are struggling. The US most likely won't save it's shale producers. It will use this opportunity to cannibalism them and then yes restart production when oil prices have gone up, however this doesn't impact the fact that they will stop production in the short term, which is already putting hundreds and thousands of people out of jobs.

    The recent hiccup by China saw $250billion wiped off the EU markets. Even if they go into a death spiral Russia is far less affected by this than the EU, US, Japan Etc… due to it's limited exposure to the global financial system. From what i can see THEY DEFINITELY WILL FOLD FIRST. IMO this also strengthens Russia's position vis a vis China.

    Lastly no ones going to be sitting still and twiddling their thumbs for decades. While i do feel that more could be done in some sectors, the initiative is there to reorient the economy.

    ucgsblog, August 25, 2015 at 6:41 pm

    No one is saying that it's a doomsday scenario for either economy, but one has to look at the greater picture. If Putin was truly worried about the price of oil, he would've screwed over the Iranian Deal, which would've increased oil price. He didn't. It's more complex than a-good and b-bad.

    Russia needs to divest from oil. Badly. The fall of the oil price is forcing the Russian economy to do that, when the Russian economy can take the damage. Think of it as having a great workout – yes, it'll hurt, but you need to go through the pain to make the gain. Russia needs the low price oil pain to divest. And Russia can take said pain.

    Similarly, the US also needs more green energy development, but the low prices of oil is hurting said development. The US economy isn't recovering as fast as it should. So while Russia's hitting the gym, US is slouching around, if we are to use my comparison. Which one is going to be better off in the long term?

    The Soviet Economy was stagnating, not falling. The USSR fell due to propaganda damage from within, not economic damage, i.e. the combination of Perestroika and Glasnost. The EU is repeating said mistake with Open Borders and Austerity.

    As thus, the writer's right in the short term. But most analysts don't care about the short term. If we did, we'd be working in shorting stocks. We care about the long term, where the effect is the exact opposite.

    That said, thank you for your responses Karl!

    Warren, August 25, 2015 at 2:52 am

    So How's That Economic War on Russia Faring? #Russia pic.twitter.com/KQVeVAwBHy

    - Russia Insider (@RussiaInsider) August 24, 2015

    Warren, August 25, 2015 at 2:55 am

    Londongrad: TV comedy shows London through eyes of its Russian inhabitants

    Russian comedy detective series centres around a 'fixing' agency set up to troubleshoot problems for rich Russians in London

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/aug/21/londongrad-portrait-of-london-russian-inhabitants

    [Aug 31, 2015] Forget China Oil price main driver for market turmoil

    The story that really matters right now is oil derivatives and hedges
    "...Low oil prices have devastating effects on the financial sector that is involved in lending to the oil industry and in the trade of oil related derivatives. "
    "...Many oil producers receive a fixed price for their oil as they covered their production with price insurance in the form of derivatives. With the current oil price, we just guess insurance providers paid out about 35 dollars a barrel to compensate the losses of the producers. Only for the US shale production this amounts roughly to 120 Million dollars a day. Somehow the financial sector has to cover these loses. "
    "...The problem, as with everything, was the financialization of oil."
    Aug 29, 2015 | GEFIRA

    Commentators are linking the current market turmoil to problems in China. Our team sees the oil price as the main driver behind the market route. Low oil prices are positive for consumers and it will lower production costs for numerous industries. However it will also lower the investments in energy such as sustainable energy and oil producers will see their high profits turn into losses. Low oil prices have devastating effects on the financial sector that is involved in lending to the oil industry and in the trade of oil related derivatives. World oil production is about 90 million barrels a day, representing a cash flow of about nine billion dollars a day which comes down to three trillion dollars a year. With the oil price 40 to 50% lower, this flow is also cut by 40 to 50%. This amounts to 10% US GDP. Compare it with the 0.5% growth we are now missing in China, we prefer to keep our eyes on the oil price. These extreme moves can not be without consequence.

    Many oil producers receive a fixed price for their oil as they covered their production with price insurance in the form of derivatives. With the current oil price, we just guess insurance providers paid out about 35 dollars a barrel to compensate the losses of the producers. Only for the US shale production this amounts roughly to 120 Million dollars a day. Somehow the financial sector has to cover these loses.

    Comments from Zero Hedge
    adr

    The problem, as with everything, was the financialization of oil.

    Had oil not been turned into the latest greatest leveraging scheme by Wall Street, it probably never would have gone north of $40 in the first place.

    Rebalancing and true price discovery is needed. Oil needs to settle at $45 a barrel and allow this price to filter all the way through the supply chain. $45 still represents a 100% increase to the price of oil at the close of the 20th century.

    The USA can have $1.65 gasoline. Shipping rates can come down and perhaps the economy can truly mend.

    [Aug 31, 2015] Is China's Devaluation a Game Changer

    "...I don't believe the Western financial system is axiomatically all bad. It's under contest. Dodd-Frank. Who knows, maybe it is. Look at Greece.

    What they need are capital controls and financial transaction taxes to slow down the hot money. All economies need that. "

    Aug 31, 2015 | Economist's View

    rayward

    Too complicated. China's politicians are no different from our politicians (well, a little different - ours may be sent into exile but theirs, well), they respond to their constituency: the investor class. Until they don't.

    Ridiculing China's government for not understanding markets is a little rich given the recent history in the U.S. What I find interesting is the similarity between China and the U.S.: both share a high level of inequality and a bubble in financial assets.

    What they don't share is fiscal stimulus: China with a fiscal stimulus on steroids, the U.S. fiscal stimulus non-existent. If China's economy ascends and the U.S. economy doesn't, how ironic that China understands capitalism better than us. How else does one explain all the China bashing in the U.S.: it's the insecurity, stupid.

    JF said in reply to rayward...

    Rayward, very nice.

    I am hopeful that chinese officialdom is not measuring themselves or their society on the basis of whether they obtain hegemon status within the financial system.

    I am hopeful that they want stability, rising living standards, and other elements within their society that fulfill the promises of the US Constitution's Preamble and the 'life, liberty and pursuit of happiness' phrase from the Declaration.

    They believe in money, they believe in markets (not idolatry though), they understand systems and freedoms-of-order, and they have the US to emulate for their 1.3+ Billion people. Financial hegemon??

    anne said in reply to anne...

    The Chinese economy needs to resist global integration of both
    The RMB
    And
    The domestic credit system

    The only cost to credit systems are opportunity costs

    China has more directions of opportunity than any economy on earth

    Throw a dart at a board and grant credit

    What is necessary
    A viciously punitive system for fraudsters and looters

    [ I think the Chinese leadership agrees, but Western analysts seldom understand. No matter, the passage is interesting, clever and important. ]

    Peter K. said in reply to Paine ...

    "The Chinese economy needs to resist global integration"

    Some random thoughts and brainstorming:

    The Chinese economy is delivering rising living standards and wages. Full integration into the global (Western) system will halt that, you suggest.

    However partnership with Western corporations has allowed them access to Western markets and know-how (tech, etc.)

    Their living standards are going up at the expense of the Western job class and to the benefit of Western corporations and finance.

    Is this the "Chinese economy" or their partnership with Western corporations?

    What they need to do is sell to their own workers rather than the Western consumer market.

    I don't believe the Western financial system is axiomatically all bad. It's under contest. Dodd-Frank. Who knows, maybe it is. Look at Greece.

    What they need are capital controls and financial transaction taxes to slow down the hot money. All economies need that.

    The neoliberals will argue it will slow growth and probably it will but growth will be more sustainable. Growth needs to be driven by the job class and income gains, not finance and debt.

    Peter K. said...

    Barkley Rosser has asked how China is different and how to define it. This appears to go some of the way. I don't know how much of it is true.

    "Last August, we posted our most popular blog piece to date: China's Capital Controls and the Exchange Rate Regime.

    In it, we explained how capital controls make it possible for China to maintain a fixed exchange rate while policymakers could adjust interest rates to stabilize their domestic economy.

    We also highlighted how these same capital controls are incompatible with the objectives of making Shanghai a global financial center and the renminbi (RMB) a leading international currency.

    Given the risks inherent in freeing cross-border capital flows, we concluded that the process of financial liberalization (both domestically and externally) would remain gradual. Yet, having seen China develop in unprecedented ways in the past, we have been watching to see if China could also alter conventional paradigms of finance and monetary policy. Could China do what no one else has done?"

    anne said...

    Well, it turns out that the "impossible trinity" or "trilemma" – which compels policymakers to choose only two of three from among free capital flows, discretionary monetary policy, and a fixed exchange rate – may be more like a physical law than nearly any economic principle we know....

    -- Cecchetti and Schoenholtz

    Using a technique Brad DeLong employs:

    a) free capital flows and discretionary monetary policy but not fixed exchange rate

    b) free capital flows and fixed exchange rate but not discretionary monetary policy

    c) discretionary monetary policy and fixed exchange rate but not free capital flows


    d) free capital flows, discretionary monetary policy and fixed exchange rate

    a, b and c are possible, but d is impossible

    Which then should China choose a, b or c?

    anne said in reply to anne...

    A problem is that I find no reason to believe Chinese leaders want free capital flows, which would mean that c) discretionary monetary policy and fixed exchange rate would be possible. China should be able to have a discretionary monetary policy and a fixed exchange rate as long as capital flows are controlled.

    The question then is why would China need free capital flows? Should the Chinese leadership control capital flows, monetary policy would be effective in limiting or quickening growth at a given exchange rate or over a narrow currency value range as Chinese leadership are evidently choosing.

    JF said in reply to anne...

    My answer to your question about why they might want free capital flow is not telling for those who invest in China - my view is that they want the flow of commodities and some currencies to come into China. Flowing out, not freely. They can create credit and money all they want for flow within their jurisdiction, they don't need outsider's 'capital' - but really like other currencies of value and other things of value to come in.

    I think only a few should be putting their hard-money into China. It is their risk, and I wish them well.

    If this population attains an economic system and society like we had in 1965 (not counting the warfighting stuff at all here) - all the more power to them, and it will be a great place to invest then - just like the US was in 1965.


    [Aug 31, 2015] Price of Oil Jumps Above $48 Per Barrel for WTI by Doug Madson

    Daily violatility was over 13%.
    August 31, 2015 | dakotafinancialnews.com

    Share on StockTwits

    Oil traders recently scared off due to an apparent glut of oil in the U.S. received good news on Monday.

    The price of the dominant blend of North American oil jumped by close to 6% in a bit less than two hours on Monday. It was trading at $48 per barrel for the first time in nearly one month.

    By midmorning on Monday, West Texas Intermediate's price was down slightly from its close on Friday or changing hands at approximately $43.75 a barrel. However, at that time the Energy Information Administration lowered forecasts for oil output in the U.S. The U.S. pumped over 9.3 million barrels daily of oil during June, about 100,000 less than what had been initially reported.

    It was less than was churned out by the country in May, which was good news to the oil traders who were scared off due to the oil glut that has been seeing the world pump up to as much as 2 million more barrels per day that the overall world economy needs during this period of the year. All the excess oil that sits in storage tankers is what drove the price of oil per barrel down to $38 recently.

    The new numbers by the EIA were sufficient to send WTI soaring in price to as much as $48 per barrel only two hours after the report had been released. Crude prices also were buoyed by an OPEC statement that suggested the oil cartel might be willing to reduce production until prices were to come back to levels that were higher.

    Some traders had interpreted the statement as new evidence that the group, which is led by Saudi Arabia could be willing to turn the taps off in what is considered a meaningful way. Monday also is the last day of August, and the oil future contract often times has a volatile day during its last day of a particular month as the traders rush to settle positions prior to the activity of the previous month starting.

    [Aug 30, 2015]The Dollar Now What

    Aug 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Canada's fundamentals are poor and this seemed to outweigh the recovery in oil prices. Also, the US two-year premium over Canada recouped most of the ground it had lost earlier in the week. Canada is expected to report a contraction in Q2 GDP in the coming days and a softening of the labor market in August. The US dollar's pullback from the CAD1.3355 spike on August 25 fizzled near CAD1.3140. Another run at the highs looks likely. Over the longer term, we look for the Australian dollar to fall toward $0.6000 and the US dollar to rise toward CAD1.40.

    Oil prices staged a strong rebounded in the second half of last week after falling to $37.75 on August 24. The bounce carried the October light crude futures contract to $45.25, which completes a 61.8% retracement of the slide in prices since July 29. The next objective is seen near $46.80 and then $48.00. There is good momentum, and the October contract finished the week above its 20-day moving average (~$42.95) for the first time since June 23. The October contract posted a potential key reversal on the weekly bar charts. It made a new multi-year low early in the week and then proceeded to rally, taking out the previous week's highs. It closed at its highest level since the end of July.

    ... ... ...

    7. The net long speculative light sweet crude oil futures positions were pared by 5k contracts, leaving 215.6k. Given the large movement in prices, it is surprising to see how small of a position adjustment took place. The longs added 1k contracts, lifting the gross position to 474.2k contracts. The bears trimmed their gross position by 4k contracts, leaving 215.6k.

    [Aug 30, 2015] Brace for Quantitative Tightening, As China Leads Forex Reserves Purge

    Aug 30, 2015 | NDTVProfit.com

    Faith in the power of "quantitative easing" has prompted central banks, led by the US Federal Reserve, to pump trillions of dollars of stimulus into the global financial system to cushion the impact of the 2007-08 market crisis and recession.

    This supply of liquidity continues to flow. The European Central Bank has taken the baton from the Fed and is leading the way with its 1 trillion euro ($1.1 trillion) bond-buying programme that will run through September next year. The Bank of Japan is also buying large quantities of bonds.

    But a counter flow - call it "quantitative tightening" - is gathering force as China sells foreign exchange reserves to protect its economy and markets from the recent surge of capital out of the country. Other emerging markets are following suit.

    Analysts at Citi estimate that global FX reserves have been depleted at an average pace of $59 billion a month in the past year or so, and closer to $100 billion over the last few months. A source at another large global bank said emerging market central banks may have sold up to $200 billion of FX reserves this month alone, of which $100-$150 billion likely came from China.

    [Aug 30, 2015] China Sneezes, Europe Catches a Cold

    Aug 30, 2015 | naked capitalism


    … the concerns of German firms,"

    Stock market declines around the world would in this view only represent some short-term financial contagion without a connection to real economic activity.

    The second hypothesis is that the collapsing stock prices are linked to a slowdown in economic activity in China. Such a slowdown will then be passed on through trade linkages to China's trading partners.

    We want to investigate whether the stock market falls in Europe are primarily a financial contagion problem or whether they are linked to trade exposure to China. We look at the decline since the start of August until now, compared to the extent to which the respective OECD economy is linked to China, measured in gross exports to China as a share of GDP.

    Contrary to the first hypothesis that this episode is just a matter of turbulence in financial markets, we can see that in Europe those countries with stronger trade connections to China have generally suffered bigger losses in their stock markets. We take this as an indication that there is a disruption in the real economy in China, leading to less demand for European exports to China that is passed on to European stock markets through trade channels.

    For example, if we look at Germany, we can see that the DAX has fallen by around 12% (second highest in the sample), and also has the highest exports to China as a share of GDP at 2.66%.

    Overall, we would warn European policy makers not to take the Chinese crisis lightly. The health of the Chinese economy is of essence to the global economy and there are reasons to believe that this could turn out to be a more fundamental cooling of China than previously thought.

    [Aug 30, 2015] Why The Great Petrodollar Unwind Could Be $2.5 Trillion4 Larger Than Anyone Thinks

    "...The US has already destroyed Iraq, Lybia, and Syria to secure oil flows and ensure the dollar supremacy. Only Iraq cost them over 2 trillions, projected to go as high as 6 trillion over the next decades once veteran medical care and pensions are factored in, says Reuters. But according to ZH, they are somehow going to allow the Saudis to break the dollar regime as if it was a cheap plastic toy. They will just stand by and watch how their world domination project goes down the drain because of a small desert kingdom of 18 million people. How realistic is this scenario?"
    Aug 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    In short, China's FX management means that Beijing has joined the global USD asset liquidation party which was already gathering pace thanks to the unwind of the petrodollar system. To understand the implications, consider what BofAML said back in January:

    During the oil-boom era, oil-exporters used oil earnings to finance imports of goods and services, and channeled a portion of surplus savings into foreign assets. 'Petrodollar' recycling has in turn helped boost global demand, liquidity and asset prices. With the current oil price rout, external and fiscal balances of oil exporters are undermined, and the threat of lower imports and repatriation of foreign assets is cause for concern.

    Recycling of Asia-dollars might partly replace the recycling of petrodollars. Asian sovereign wealth funds ($2.8tn) account for about 39% of total sovereign wealth funds, and will likely see their size increase at a faster clip. Sovereign wealth funds of China (CIC & SAFE), Hong Kong (HKMA), Singapore (GIC & Temasek) and Korea (KIC) rank in the Top-15 globally

    Yes, the "recycling of Asia-dollars might partly replace the recycling of petrodollars." Unless of course a large Asian country is suddenly forced to become a seller of USD assets and on a massive scale. In that case, not only would the recycling of Asian-dollars not replace petrodollar recycling, but the "Eastern liquidation" (so to speak) would simply add fuel to the fire - and a lot of it. That's precisely the dynamic that's about to play out.

    A careful reading of the above from BofA also seems to suggest is that looking strictly at official FX reserves might underestimate the potential size of the petrodollar effect. Sure enough, a quick check across sellside desks turns up a Credit Suisse note on the "secular downtrend in EM reserves" which the bank says could easily be understated by focusing on official reserves.

    First, note the big picture trends (especially Exhibit 2):

    And further, here's why the scope of the unwind could be materially underestimated.

    Taken into context, the year-to-date fall in EM reserves accounts for only 2% of the total stock of EM reserves. However, the change in the behavior of EM central banks from persistent buyers to now sellers of reserve assets carries important implications. Importantly, official reserves will likely underestimate the full scale of the reversal of oil exporters' "petrodollar" accumulation.

    Crucially, for oil exporting nations, central bank official reserves likely underestimate the full scale of the reversal of oil exporters' "petrodollar" accumulation. This is because a substantial part of their oil proceeds has previously been placed in sovereign wealth funds (SWFs), which are not reported as FX reserves (with the notable exception of Russia, where they are counted as FX reserves).

    Now that the tide has turned, it is likely that not only official reserves drop but that SWF asset accumulation slows to nil or even reverses. SWF selling may be a slower process as assets tend to be less liquid, but the opportunity might still be taken to repatriate some investments, for instance to boost domestic rather than foreign infrastructure projects.

    In other words, looking at the total amount of official reserves for oil exporters understates the potential for petrodollar draw downs by around $2.5 trillion. Now obviously, it's unlikely that exporters will exhaust the entirety of their SWFs. Having said that, the fact that EM FX reserve accumulation turned negative for the first time in history during Q2 underscores how quickly the tide can turn and how sharp reversals can be. If one fails to at least consider the SWF angle then the effect is to underestimate the worst case scenario by $2.5 trillion, and if 2008 taught us anything, it's that failing to understand just how bad things can get leaves everyone unprepared for the fallout in the event the situation actually does deteriorate meaningfully.

    So that's the big picture. In other words, the above is a discussion of the pressure on accumulated petrodollar investments and is an attempt to show that the pool of assets that could, in a pinch, be sold off to finance things like massive budget deficits (Saudi Arabia, for instance, is staring down a fiscal deficit that amounts to 20% of GDP) is likely being underestimated by those who narrowly focus on official reserves. Switching gears briefly to consider what $50 crude means for the flow of petrodollars (i.e. what's coming in), RBS' Alberto Gallo has the numbers:

    If petroleum prices continue in to year end at their current YtD average ($52), this would represent a 60% decline in Petrodollar generated in 2015 vs between 2011 and 2014. Assuming that 30% of gross Petrodollars generated per year are invested in financial markets, this would imply $288bn ready for investments in 2015 vs a $726bn average between 2011 and 2014. Lower purchasing power from oil-exporting countries may in turn reduce demand for $-denominated fixed income assets, including $ IG and $ HY. US IG and HY firms have issued $918bn and $220bn YtD, which in total marks a record-high vs past years.

    And while all of this may seem complex, it's actually quite simple: less petrodollars coming in without a commensurate reduction in what's going out means the difference has to be made up somewhere and that somewhere is in the sale of USD reserve assets which are prone to being understated if one looks only at official FX reserves. Contrast this with the status quo which for years has been more petrodollars coming in than what's going out (in terms of expenditures) with the balance being reinvested in USD assets.

    Simplifying even further: the virtuous circle (for the dollar and for USD assets) has not only been broken, but it's now starting to reverse itself and the potential scope of that reversal must take into account SWF assets.

    Where we go from here is an open question, but what's clear from the above is that between China's FX reserve drawdowns in defense of the yuan and the dramatic decrease in petrodollar flow, the self-feeding loop that's sustained the dollar and propped up USD assets is now definitively broken and we are only beginning to understand the consequences.

    JustObserving

    Obama's plan to attack Putin by crashing oil prices is backfiring. But then Obama has failed at everything but killing brown people and defending the NSA/CIA infinte spying on the American people and signing NDAA.

    Forward

    Think about how the Obama administration sees the state of the world. It wants Tehran to come to heel over its nuclear programme. It wants Vladimir Putin to back off in eastern Ukraine. But after recent experiences in Iraq and Afghanistan, the White House has no desire to put American boots on the ground. Instead, with the help of its Saudi ally, Washington is trying to drive down the oil price by flooding an already weak market with crude. As the Russians and the Iranians are heavily dependent on oil exports, the assumption is that they will become easier to deal with.

    John Kerry, the US secretary of state, allegedly struck a deal with King Abdullah in September under which the Saudis would sell crude at below the prevailing market price. That would help explain why the price has been falling at a time when, given the turmoil in Iraq and Syria caused by Islamic State, it would normally have been rising.

    http://www.theguardian.com/business/economics-blog/2014/nov/09/us-iran-r...

    CaptainAmerika

    An empire founded by war has to maintain itself by war
    http://www.philiacband.com/propaganda.html

    johngaltfla

    Nicely done Tyler. And the funny part is all the nations stupid enough to buy and peg reserves to the USD which will get destroyed in the process. When Singapore and Hong Kong de-peg, it is over boys and girls.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    And what a fine strategy it is?...

    Create massive over capacity to the market by looting the hell out of every other ME country's reserves (which has been non-stop since 9/11) to destroy Russia and Iran's revenue "party" which everyone by now knows was the objective 14 years ago... Trouble is according to the town crier of the Aspen Institute General "Let's start a nuclear war over an airport in the Balkans"... It was only supposed to take 5 years and ended up taking much longer and at a much more exorbitant price than was previously anticipated!

    That "overcapacity" can be systematically fucked in a major way... Sabotage to those reserves comes to mind and will be the perfect segue for either side in the event the Anglo-American team decides to get another "wild hair up it's ass"to put it's helmet back on again only this time for the last major ass kicking unlike any they have ever had before!!!

    I guess for the truly delusional and criminally insane it's a fun way to end both the party and your life!

    Trouble with this behavior is that the rest of the 99% probably don't see it this way?!!!

    Jack Burton

    Always good posts Captain Nemo! The Iranians have said that should Israel, the USA or Saudi Arabia participate in an attack on Iran, then Saudi oil fields would see a hail of missiles arrive on refineries, Shipping facilities , key pipeline junctions. Iran has build crusise and ballistic missiles to spread their attack around both low altituded and high altitude. So YES, IF the USA plays it's cards Too hard, Iran will burn the fucking Saudi Oil.

    Russia, while still bending over backwards to please the EU, can be counted on to burn some Saudi Oil if need be. Russia has till now been peaceful. But they might just begin to fund their own favorite anti Saudi groups! Then things will change fast.

    Bluntly Put

    Just guessing, but it seems to me the fed doesn't print currency directly, they issue credit, reserves at least in loans. I agree when they monetize debt like buying MBS they are essentially printing money, but what if they sold those assets?

    So, some of their actions result in hot currency, while other actions are more related to the interdependent network of banks as capital flows related to interest and principle payments on outstanding loans/bonds/debt.

    If all those channels get mucked up, then liquidity freezes and you get a credit crisis. If the fed actually just printed money it would retain it's value however much that value might drop over time and depreciation via debasement.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    Good points BP

    The problem is we know how derivatives laden those "assets" are, especially with respect to paper vs. physical in the COMEX.

    Suffice it to say eventually the "Emperor" will default what is underneath the "kimono"...And when he does the ladies (shall we say) will be disappointed!

    cherry picker

    Everything is so convoluted I don't understand it. Maybe it is designed that way so main street can't see it.

    I can understand shipping tonnages dropping, means less goods bought and sold.

    I can understand selling oil at margins to kill off competition.

    I can understand China selling Treasuries to either bolster their finances or to "pay' back the USA for 2008 and sticking their noses in the South China Sea.

    I can understand tax revenues going down among other recession/depression indicators as people have no money, affecting business, labor markets and so on.

    I don't understand at all how this 'reserve currency' stuff will play out and the above post really does not clarify it in my mind.

    DanDaley

    I don't understand at all how this 'reserve currency' stuff will play out and the above post really does not clarify it in my mind.

    I think of it like this:

    As other countries decide that they prefer something other than dollars for trade settlements, all of those FRNs sitting in foreign banks (estimated to be several trillions) will make their way home. When they do, you get big-time inflation.

    Also, when noone overseas wants to take dollars any more for payment, then our we have less cheap stuff...our standard of living takes a nose-dive. Everything that you need or want becomes more expensive and harder (or impossible) to obtain.

    There are going to be a lot of surprised and unhappy muppets out there, and none of them will have the faintest clue of what went wrong.

    Winston Churchill

    Missing a big piece of the puzzle here Tyler.A very big piece.

    $14tn in shadow banking 'assets'.

    Some is within the Venn intersection, but how much ?

    The elephant sitting in the room.

    Urban Redneck

    Counter parties, custody chains, leverage and capitalization ratios... at this point, what difference does it make?

    Urban Redneck

    After MF Global blew up, I stepped up my atypically thorough and anal due diligence to full retard. I discovered that the physical certificates for JBSICA I own through through a US trust with a US account at EuroPac are sitting in a vault at ShitiBank in London! I couldn't find any documentation of the custodial relationship between the two entities even after going though mountains of account/fund paperwork and corporate disclosures and filings. Ratscam tested taking physical delivery of JBSICA here in Switzerland a while back and I have friends at Julius Baer who can do everything short of breaking Swiss law to reissue certificates... But if this thing actually blows up, it won't make any difference, there's simply too much interdependence and complexity to reverse direction if it starts gaining momentum. Midnight harvesting of yesteryear's midnight gardening and wreck diving past boating accidents will be about it.

    Hope your lawyer didn't bill you too much and only confirm what you already knew.

    AC_Doctor

    What do you think King Salman is going to say to Obozo, when he visits next week?

    A. We are going to start taking Yuan for payment of crude

    B. We are going to start liquidating US Treasurys like our buds the Chinese

    C. Both A & B and Oboza doesn't get a reach around

    Aaron Hillel

    Obamas handler will answer *well, my dear king, look out to the sea, do you see the MAU cruising out there, and that? oh thats just a carrier group, nothing to be afraid of, its for your protection.Of course, if they ever land on your hallowed shores, they could install a TrueDemocracy(c) in here and what would you do then?So, what were you saying?*

    The rotten house of Sa'ud is as much puppet of Washington-TelAviv axis as Merkel or Hollande, perhaps more.

    JD59

    Bath house Barry is sending the U.S. Carrier Group back home, no more on station in the Persian Gulf.

    wrs1

    What are they going to buy with Yuan? If so, wasn't it utterly stupid to dump crude at way below market for $ they didn't want anymore? Seems really, really unlikely that your scenario in anyway connects wth their previous actions. Will they sell other assets before Treasuries to get $? You bet and the first thing on the list is stocks and HY bonds no doubt.

    lasvegaspersona

    The flow of surplus oil revenues reversing course does not surprise me. What does is the quantities. We are talking about a few trillion probably over a few years. That is a lot but compared to the 16 trillion in currency swaps and other dollar movement the Fed is said to have engaged in during the 2008 to 2009 period it is trivial.

    I'm thinking that if the Fed could play hide the weiner with 16 trillion or so they can probably pull this off.

    The difference of course is that then the money was probably used to buy worthless assets to prevent global deflationary collapse.

    This time it will be dollars hitting the international currency market and being spent into the economy.

    16 trillion protecting bad assets did not change the number of dollars being spent. A few trillion affecting prices at the margin...that could be an inflationary force to be reconned with.

    cherry picker

    It is humorous to note that the words "In God We Trust" are printed on the greenback.

    Does that mean "In God We Trust" is only true if there is money?

    If there is no money you can't trust "God" anymore?

    A few decades ago all the evangelicals were always crying for donations to help with "God's Work" and Goldman Sach's states it is doing "God's" work too.

    I think that may be a problem for many. They may feel God can't do anything without money, which strips the divine out of the "God" belief, doesn't it?

    For many, God is the big financier in the sky :)

    VW Nerd

    A few years ago, the Social Security fund went into the negative also, meaning that extra revenue used to mask the Federal deficit was gone. I'm thinking that between these two major changes, the American way of life (social and economic) might experience some profound changes going forward. Much more than we've witnessed thus far.

    Also, for decades the petrodollar monopoly has been used by USG, Wall St. and Corp. USA as a political and economic weapon, fomenting hatred toward the US. The only ones who don't get this are the American public. They keep believing "they hate us for our freedom".

    Glorious Kataifi

    I agree. The US has already destroyed Iraq, Lybia, and Syria to secure oil flows and ensure the dollar supremacy. Only Iraq cost them over 2 trillions, projected to go as high as 6 trillion over the next decades once veteran medical care and pensions are factored in, says Reuters.

    But according to ZH, they are somehow going to allow the Saudis to break the dollar regime as if it was a cheap plastic toy. They will just stand by and watch how their world domination project goes down the drain because of a small desert kingdom of 18 million people. How realistic is this scenario?

    Whatever the game is, the US elites are certainly running it. At least that's my two pennies.


    [Aug 29, 2015] U.S. Inflation Developments

    This establishment stooge can't care less about employment. All he cares is 0.1%.
    .
    "..."and the labor market is approaching our maximum employment objective..." I stopped reading there."
    .
    "...The wealthy special interests really want a rate hike. There must be a large amount of profit riding on a rate hike."
    .
    "..."The Fed is being clear. They are not going to be responsible for full employment. Full employment is up to Congress, fiscal policy and the administration. Of course, the GOP Congress will block fiscal stimulus." We are ruled by idiots. "
    .
    "...Idiots [pandering to those who will get a larger piece of the pie, and] who don't care that the "pie" shrinks. When the fed goes insane on rates the shorters (wall st gamblers/hedgers) and the cash hoarders will celebrate. It is not idiocy it is [class treachery] selling out the masses for the rentier class. A skirmish in the class wars, maybe Bernie would comment."
    .
    "...Industrial Deflation is what causes inflation to look "low". This was a problem in the 00's when consumer price inflation was being covered up by deflation in industrial prices. The way prices are computed and trimmed don't always reflect reality. The deflation caused by the tech revolution for industrial production needs to be outright stripped out of indices.

    The mythical "full employment" or a overheated economy doesn't imply inflation is coming either. This is where I reject most of the analysis on this board. Inflation didn't see it in 97 or especially in 05. It failed. All you have left is to guess. "
    .
    "...What Fisher and the other governors can't and won't say is that they are very worried about another major global downturn, and they are worried about the fact that if interest rates are not higher when that recession hits, they will have no room to lower them sharply when they need to."

    [A speech by Stanley Fischer at Jackson Hole turned into a pretend interview]

    Hello, and thank you for talking with us.

    Let me start by asking if you feel like it gives the Fed a bad image to have a conference in an elite place like Jackson Hole. Why not have the conference in, say, a disadvantaged area to send the signal that you care about these problems, to provide some stimulus to the area, etc.?

    I am delighted to be here in Jackson Hole in the company of such distinguished panelists and such a distinguished group of participants.

    Okay then. Let me start be asking about your view of the economy. How close are we to a full recovery?:

    Although the economy has continued to recover and the labor market is approaching our maximum employment objective, inflation has been persistently below 2 percent. That has been especially true recently, as the drop in oil prices over the past year, on the order of about 60 percent, has led directly to lower inflation as it feeds through to lower prices of gasoline and other energy items. As a result, 12-month changes in the overall personal consumption expenditure (PCE) price index have recently been only a little above zero (chart 1).

    Why are you telling us about headline inflation? What about core inflation? Isn't that what the Fed watches?

    ...measures of core inflation, which are intended to help us look through such transitory price movements, have also been relatively low (return to chart 1). The PCE index excluding food and energy is up 1.2 percent over the past year. The Dallas Fed's trimmed mean measure of the PCE price index is higher, at 1.6 percent, but still somewhat below our 2 percent objective. Moreover, these measures of core inflation have been persistently below 2 percent throughout the economic recovery. That said, as with total inflation, core inflation can be somewhat variable, especially at frequencies higher than 12-month changes. Moreover, note that core inflation does not entirely "exclude" food and energy, because changes in energy prices affect firms' costs and so can pass into prices of non-energy items.

    So are you saying you don't believe the numbers? Why bring up that core inflation is highly variable unless you are trying to de-emphasize this evidence? In any case, isn't there reason to believe these numbers are true, i.e. doesn't the slack in the labor market imply low inflation?

    Of course, ongoing economic slack is one reason core inflation has been low. Although the economy has made great progress, we started seven years ago from an unemployment rate of 10 percent, which guaranteed a lengthy period of high unemployment. Even so, with inflation expectations apparently stable, we would have expected the gradual reduction of slack to be associated with less downward price pressure. All else equal, we might therefore have expected both headline and core inflation to be moving up more noticeably toward our 2 percent objective. Yet, we have seen no clear evidence of core inflation moving higher over the past few years. This fact helps drive home an important point: While much evidence points to at least some ongoing role for slack in helping to explain movements in inflation, this influence is typically estimated to be modest in magnitude, and can easily be masked by other factors.

    If that's true, if the decline in the slack in the labor market does not translate into a notable change in inflation, why is the Fed so anxious to raise rates based upon the notion that the labor market has almost normalized? Is there more to it than just the labor market?

    ...core inflation can to some extent be influenced by oil prices. However, a larger effect comes from changes in the exchange value of the dollar, and the rise in the dollar over the past year is an important reason inflation has remained low (chart 4). A higher value of the dollar passes through to lower import prices, which hold down U.S. inflation both because imports make up part of final consumption, and because lower prices for imported components hold down business costs more generally. In addition, a rise in the dollar restrains the growth of aggregate demand and overall economic activity, and so has some effect on inflation through that more indirect channel.

    That argues against a rate increase, not for it. Anyway, I interrupted, please continue.

    Commodity prices other than oil are also of relevance for inflation in the United States. Prices of metals and other industrial commodities, and agricultural products, are affected to a considerable extent by developments outside the United States, and the softness we've seen in these commodity prices, has in part reflected a slowing of demand from China and elsewhere. These prices likely have also been a factor in holding down inflation in the United States.

    So you must believe that all of these forces holding down inflation (many of which are stripped out by core inflation measures, which are also low) that these factors are easing, and hence a spike in inflation is ahead?

    The dynamics with which all these factors affect inflation depend crucially on the behavior of inflation expectations. One striking feature of the economic environment is that longer-term inflation expectations in the United States appear to have remained generally stable since the late 1990s (chart 6). ... Expectations that are not stable, but instead follow actual inflation up or down, would allow inflation to drift persistently. In the recent period, movements in inflation have tended to be transitory.

    Let's see, lots of factors holding down inflation, longer-term inflation expectations have been stable throughout the recession and recovery, remarkably so, yet the Fed still thinks a rate raise ought to come fairly soon?

    We should however be cautious in our assessment that inflation expectations are remaining stable. One reason is that measures of inflation compensation in the market for Treasury securities have moved down somewhat since last summer (chart 7). But these movements can be hard to interpret, as at times they may reflect factors other than inflation expectations, such as changes in demand for the unparalleled liquidity of nominal Treasury securities.

    I have to be honest. That sounds like the Fed is really reaching to find a reason to justify worries about inflation and a rate increase. Let me ask this a different way. In the Press Release for the July meeting of the FOMC, the committee said it can be " reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term." Can you explain this please? Why are you "reasonably confident" in light of recent history?

    Can the Committee be "reasonably confident that inflation will move back to its 2 percent objective over the medium term"? As I have discussed, given the apparent stability of inflation expectations, there is good reason to believe that inflation will move higher as the forces holding down inflation dissipate further. While some effects of the rise in the dollar may be spread over time, some of the effects on inflation are likely already starting to fade. The same is true for last year's sharp fall in oil prices, though the further declines we have seen this summer have yet to fully show through to the consumer level. And slack in the labor market has continued to diminish, so the downward pressure on inflation from that channel should be diminishing as well.

    Yet when these forces were absent -- they weren't there throughout the crisis -- inflation was still stable. But this time will be different? I guess falling slack in the labor market will make all the difference? More on labor markets in a moment, but let me ask if you have more to say about inflation expectations first.

    ...with regard to expectations of inflation, it is possible to consult the results of the SEP, the Survey of Economic Projections, which FOMC participants complete shortly before the March, June, September, and December meetings. In the June SEP, the central tendency of FOMC participants' projections for core PCE inflation was 1.3 percent to 1.4 percent this year, 1.6 percent to 1.9 percent next year, and 1.9 percent to 2.0 percent in 2017. There will be a new SEP for the forthcoming September meeting of the FOMC.
    Reflecting all these factors, the Committee has indicated in its post-meeting statements that it expects inflation to return to 2 percent. With regard to our degree of confidence in this expectation, we will need to consider all the available information and assess its implications for the economic outlook before coming to a judgment.

    You will need to consider all the available information, I agree wholeheartedly with that. I just hope that information includes how poor forecasts like those just cited have been in the past, and the Fed's own eagerness to see "green shoots" again and again, far before it was time for such declarations.

    What might deter the Fed from it's intention to raise rates sooner rather than later?

    Of course, the FOMC's monetary policy decision is not a mechanical one, based purely on the set of numbers reported in the payroll survey and in our judgment on the degree of confidence members of the committee have about future inflation. We are interested also in aspects of the labor market beyond the simple U-3 measure of unemployment, including for example the rates of unemployment of older workers and of those working part-time for economic reasons; we are interested also in the participation rate. And in the case of the inflation rate we look beyond the rate of increase of PCE prices and define the concept of the core rate of inflation.

    I find these kinds of statement difficult to square with the statement that labor markets are almost back to normal. Anyway, what, in particular, will you look at?

    While thinking of different aspects of unemployment, we are concerned mainly with trying to find the right measure of the difficulties caused to current and potential participants in the labor force by their unemployment. In the case of the core rate of inflation, we are mainly looking for a good indicator of future inflation, and for better indicators than we have at present.

    How do recent events in China change the outlook for policy?

    In making our monetary policy decisions, we are interested more in where the U.S. economy is heading than in knowing whence it has come. That is why we need to consider the overall state of the U.S. economy as well as the influence of foreign economies on the U.S. economy as we reach our judgment on whether and how to change monetary policy. That is why we follow economic developments in the rest of the world as well as the United States in reaching our interest rate decisions. At this moment, we are following developments in the Chinese economy and their actual and potential effects on other economies even more closely than usual.

    I know you won't answer this directly, but let me try anyway. When will rates go up?

    The Fed has, appropriately, responded to the weak economy and low inflation in recent years by taking a highly accommodative policy stance. By committing to foster the movement of inflation toward our 2 percent objective, we are enhancing the credibility of monetary policy and supporting the continued stability of inflation expectations. To do what monetary policy can do towards meeting our goals of maximum employment and price stability, and to ensure that these goals will continue to be met as we move ahead, we will most likely need to proceed cautiously in normalizing the stance of monetary policy. For the purpose of meeting our goals, the entire path of interest rates matters more than the particular timing of the first increase.

    As expected, that was pretty boilerplate. When rates do go up, how fast will they rise?

    With inflation low, we can probably remove accommodation at a gradual pace. Yet, because monetary policy influences real activity with a substantial lag, we should not wait until inflation is back to 2 percent to begin tightening. Should we judge at some point in time that the economy is threatening to overheat, we will have to move appropriately rapidly to deal with that threat. The same is true should the economy unexpectedly weaken.

    The Fed has said again and again that it's 2 percent inflation target is symmetric with respect to errors, i.e. it will get no more worried or upset about, say, a .5 percent overshoot of the target than it will an undershoot of the same magnitude (2.5 percent versus 1.5 percent). However, many of us suspect that the 2 percent target is actually a ceiling, not a central tendency, or that at the very least the errors are not treated symmetrically, and statements such as this do nothing to change that view.

    I have quite a few more questions, and I wish we had time to hear your response to the charge that the 2 percent target is functionally a ceiling, but I know you are out of time and need to go, so let me just thank you for talking with us today. Thank you.

    bakho said...

    The wealthy special interests really want a rate hike. There must be a large amount of profit riding on a rate hike.

    The Fed is being clear. They are not going to be responsible for full employment. Full employment is up to Congress, fiscal policy and the administration. Of course, the GOP Congress will block fiscal stimulus. Wealthy special interests would like the economy to be less good by this time next year to tilt the presidential election their way.

    ilsm -> pgl...

    The fed (Cossacks) works for the .1% (Tsar).

    Sandwichman

    "and the labor market is approaching our maximum employment objective..."

    I stopped reading there.

    Peter K. -> Sandwichman...

    Yeah. Nice appointment, thanks Obama....

    ilsm -> Sandwichman...

    Mc Donald's may have to start paying $7.75!!

    pgl -> ilsm...

    Actually some are paying $9. Oh my - a Big Mac might actually cost something.

    ilsm -> pgl...

    The big mac is helping out your embalmer.

    Joke is most of us cannot afford anything more than a cremator.

    Cardiologists follow Mickey D sales!

    anne -> Sandwichman...

    "and the labor market is approaching our maximum employment objective..." I stopped reading there.

    [ Really, really awful comment but limiting employment is what Stanley Fischer is all about so the only surprise is in the saying so. ]

    pgl -> Sandwichman...

    But later he admitted there was ongoing economic slack. He sounded very confused.

    Peter K. -> pgl...

    On the one hand he's trying to inspire confidence in the economy, cheerlead, and clap his hands to conjure the confidence fairy.

    On the other he's being more realistic which hopefully is their frame of mind when making interest rate decisions.

    One is public relations, one is where the rubber hits the road.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron -> Peter K....

    A rubber chicken in every pot :<0

    Peter K. said...

    "Although the economy has made great progress, we started seven years ago from an unemployment rate of 10 percent, which guaranteed a lengthy period of high unemployment."

    It didn't guarantee it. An insufficient monetary-fiscal mix guaranteed a lengthy period of high unemployment, wage stagnation and increasing inequality.

    But at least inflation remained low and the deficit came down!

    ilsm -> Peter K....

    If UE rate counted people out longer than 26 weeks......

    anne said...

    http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R

    January 4, 2015

    Employment-Population Ratios, 2014

    United States ( 76.7) *

    Australia ( 78.8)
    Austria ( 83.4)
    Belgium ( 79.1)
    Canada ( 81.2)

    Denmark ( 82.0)
    Finland ( 80.4)
    France ( 80.5)
    Germany ( 83.5)

    Greece ( 62.4)
    Iceland ( 85.7)
    Ireland ( 72.3)
    Israel ( 78.2)

    Italy ( 67.9)
    Japan ( 82.1)
    Korea ( 75.7)
    Luxembourg ( 83.7)

    Netherlands ( 81.7)
    New Zealand ( 81.8)
    Norway ( 83.9)
    Portugal ( 77.4)

    Spain ( 67.4)
    Sweden ( 85.4)
    Switzerland ( 86.9)
    United Kingdom ( 82.0)

    * Employment age 25-54

    anne said...

    http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=LFS_SEXAGE_I_R

    January 4, 2015

    Employment-Population Ratios for Women, 2014

    United States ( 70.0) *

    Australia ( 72.0)
    Austria ( 80.3)
    Belgium ( 74.9)
    Canada ( 77.4)

    Denmark ( 78.4)
    Finland ( 78.0)
    France ( 76.2)
    Germany ( 78.8)

    Greece ( 53.1)
    Iceland ( 82.1)
    Ireland ( 66.6)
    Israel ( 74.3)

    Italy ( 57.6)
    Japan ( 71.8)
    Korea ( 62.7)
    Luxembourg ( 76.8)

    Netherlands ( 76.5)
    New Zealand ( 74.9)
    Norway ( 81.4)
    Portugal ( 74.3)

    Spain ( 62.3)
    Sweden ( 82.8)
    Switzerland ( 81.8)
    United Kingdom ( 76.1)

    * Employment age 25-54

    anne -> anne...

    As in the child's game, one of these things is not like the other, the United States employment-population ratio for men and women, and for women, from 25 to 54 was remarkably lower than 19 of 24 developed countries in 2014. The exceptions were the austerity beset countries Ireland, Spain, Italy and Greece as well as Korea in which women are just entering the workforce in significant numbers.


    pgl -> bakho...

    "The Fed is being clear. They are not going to be responsible for full employment. Full employment is up to Congress, fiscal policy and the administration. Of course, the GOP Congress will block fiscal stimulus."

    We are ruled by idiots.

    ilsm -> pgl...

    Idiots [pandering to those who will get a larger piece of the pie, and] who don't care that the "pie" shrinks. When the fed goes insane on rates the shorters (wall st gamblers/hedgers) and the cash hoarders will celebrate. It is not idiocy it is [class treachery] selling out the masses for the rentier class.

    A skirmish in the class wars, maybe Bernie would comment.

    Mike Sparrow said...

    Industrial Deflation is what causes inflation to look "low". This was a problem in the 00's when consumer price inflation was being covered up by deflation in industrial prices. The way prices are computed and trimmed don't always reflect reality. The deflation caused by the tech revolution for industrial production needs to be outright stripped out of indices.

    The mythical "full employment" or a overheated economy doesn't imply inflation is coming either. This is where I reject most of the analysis on this board. Inflation didn't see it in 97 or especially in 05. It failed. All you have left is to guess.

    Peter K. said...

    Scroll, scroll, scroll:

    Thoma:

    "I just hope that information includes how poor forecasts like those just cited have been in the past, and the Fed's own eagerness to see "green shoots" again and again, far before it was time for such declarations."

    Well put. This is probably why markets don't fear an uptick in inflation anytime soon. Quite the contrary. It's probably partly why longterm inflation expectations are "stable."

    anne said...

    http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/fed-monetary-policy-tightening-risks-by-j--bradford-delong-2015-08

    August 28, 2015

    A Cautionary History of US Monetary Tightening
    By J. Bradford DeLong

    BERKELEY – The US Federal Reserve has embarked on an effort to tighten monetary policy four times in the past four decades. On every one of these occasions, the effort triggered processes that reduced employment and output far more than the Fed's staff had anticipated. As the Fed prepares to tighten monetary policy once again, an examination of this history – and of the current state of the economy – suggests that the United States is about to enter dangerous territory.

    Between 1979 and 1982, then-Fed Chair Paul Volcker changed the authorities' approach to monetary policy. His expectation was that by controlling the amount of money in circulation, the Fed could bring about larger reductions in inflation with smaller increases in idle capacity and unemployment than what traditional Keynesian models predicted.

    Unfortunately for the Fed – and for the American economy – the Keynesian models turned out to be accurate; their forecasts of the costs of disinflation were dead on. Furthermore, this period of monetary tightening had unexpected consequences; financial institutions like Citicorp found that only regulatory forbearance saved them from having to declare bankruptcy, and much of Latin America was plunged into a depression that lasted more than five years.

    Then, between 1988 and 1990, another round of monetary tightening under Alan Greenspan ravaged the balance sheets of the country's savings and loan associations, which were overleveraged, undercapitalized, and already struggling to survive. To prevent the subsequent recession from worsening, the federal government was forced to bail out insolvent institutions. State governments were on the hook, too: Texas spent the equivalent of three months of total state income to rescue its S&Ls and their depositors.

    Between 1993 and 1994, Greenspan once again reined in monetary policy, only to be surprised by the impact that small amounts of tightening could have on the prices of long-term assets and companies' borrowing costs. Fortunately, he was willing to reverse his decision and cut the tightening cycle short (over the protests of many on the policy-setting Federal Open Markets Committee) – a move that prevented the US economy from slipping back into recession.

    The most recent episode – between 2004 and 2007 – was the most devastating of the four. Neither Greenspan nor his successor, Ben Bernanke, understood how fragile the housing market and the financial system had become after a long period of under-regulation. These twin mistakes – deregulation, followed by misguided monetary-policy tightening – continue to gnaw at the US economy today.

    The tightening cycle upon which the Fed now seems set to embark comes at a delicate time for the economy. The US unemployment rate may seem to hint at the risk of rising inflation, but the employment-to-population ratio continues to signal an economy in deep distress. Indeed, wage patterns suggest that this ratio, not the unemployment rate, is the better indicator of slack in the economy – and nobody ten years ago would have interpreted today's employment-to-population ratio as a justification for monetary tightening.

    Indeed, not even the Fed seems convinced that the economy faces imminent danger of overheating. Inflation in the US is not just lower than the Fed's long-term target; it is expected to stay that way for at least the next three years. And the Fed's change in policy comes at a time when its own economists believe that US fiscal policy is inappropriately restrictive.

    Meanwhile, given the fragility – and interconnectedness – of the global economy, tightening monetary policy in the US could have negative impacts abroad (with consequent blowback at home), especially given the instability in China and economic malaise in Europe....

    Dan Kervick said...

    "At this moment, we are following developments in the Chinese economy and their actual and potential effects on other economies even more closely than usual."

    I think this is probably the most important sentence in the entire speech.

    What Fisher and the other governors can't and won't say is that they are very worried about another major global downturn, and they are worried about the fact that if interest rates are not higher when that recession hits, they will have no room to lower them sharply when they need to.

    Richard H. Serlin said...

    But what about asymmetric loss Dr. Fischer?!

    You have to know what that is.

    Why don't you think the loss and overall risk is much bigger from pulling the trigger too early than from pulling the trigger too late?

    How is inflation that gets up to 3%, 4%, even higher single digits more of a danger than a lost decade, severe unemployment (low labor force participation) and underemployment? Especially when overly high inflation is far easier to remedy?

    I really really wonder what you're really thinking.

    Richard H. Serlin -> Richard H. Serlin...

    And I also seriously wonder how much of it has to do with the fact that no one ever making these decisions ever has any risk of ever being unemployed without means and with a family to support.

    [Aug 29, 2015] The Fed Looks Set to Make a Dangerous Mistake

    economistsview.typepad.com

    Larry Summers says "Raising rates this year will threaten all of the central bank's major objectives":

    The Fed looks set to make a dangerous mistake: Will the Federal Reserve's September meeting see US interest rates go up for the first time since 2006? Officials have held out the prospect that ... rates will probably be increased... Conditions could change... But ... raising rates ... would be a serious error that would threaten all three of the Fed's major objectives- price stability, full employment and financial stability.
    Like most major central banks, the Fed has ... a 2 per cent inflation target. The biggest risk is that inflation will be lower than this - a risk that would be exacerbated by tightening policy... Tightening policy will adversely affect employment levels... Higher interest rates will also increase the value of the dollar, making US producers less competitive... This is especially troubling at a time of rising inequality. Studies ... make it clear that the best social program for disadvantaged workers is an economy where employers are struggling to fill vacancies.
    There may have been a financial stability case for raising rates six or nine months ago, as low interest rates were encouraging investors to take more risks... That debate is now moot. With credit becoming more expensive, the outlook for the Chinese economy clouded at best, emerging markets submerging, the US stock market in a correction, widespread concerns about liquidity, and expected volatility having increased at a near-record rate, markets are themselves dampening any euphoria or overconfidence. The Fed does not have to do the job. ...
    It is no longer easy to think of economic conditions that can plausibly be seen as temporary headwinds. ... This is the "secular stagnation" diagnosis...
    New conditions require new policies. There is much that should be done, such as steps to promote public and private investment so as to raise the level of real interest rates consistent with full employment. Unless these new policies are implemented, inflation sharply accelerates, or euphoria in markets breaks out, there is no case for the Fed to adjust policy interest rates.

    [Aug 29, 2015] Shiller: Rising Anxiety That Stocks Are Overpriced

    "...You're all pants-wetting terrified that the American people are tired of do-nothing neoliberal government, and will figure out that with a more assertive and economically engaged central government dynamic growth and social transformation are possible, and that the stagnation, predatory exploitation, cruel subjugation and social destruction wrought 40 years of neoliberalism was a horrible and completely avoidable mistake."
    Robert Shiller (a reason to agree with Tim Duy):
    Rising Anxiety That Stocks Are Overpriced: Over the five trading days between Aug. 17 and Aug. 24, the U.S. stock market dropped 10 percent - the official definition of a "correction," with similar or greater drops in other countries. ...

    But there are reasons to question whether this was a quick, effective slap on the wrist, or if the market is still too overactive, and thus asking for a more extended punishment. ...

    It is entirely plausible that the shaking of investor complacency in recent days will, despite intermittent rebounds, take the market down significantly and within a year or two restore CAPE ratios to historical averages. This would put the S. & P. closer to 1,300 from around 1,900 on Wednesday, and the Dow at 11,000 from around 16,000. They could also fall further; the historical average is not a floor.

    Or maybe this could be another 1998. We have no statistical proof. We are in a rare and anxious "just don't know" situation, where the stock market is inherently risky because of unstable investor psychology.

    Mark Thoma on Thursday, August 27, 2015 at 10:08 AM in Economics, Financial System | Permalink Comments (65)

    Dan Kervick -> Peter K....

    The post-2008 recovery has been the worst on record in terms of the recovery of both growth rates and jobs. As has been well-discussed and well-recognized by almost everyone here, the employment-to-population rate was dramatically lowered as a result of the recession, and has grown at a snails pace since then, and come nowhere near to recovering its previous level. There is no clear evidence that extraordinary monetary policy measures have had any significant impact on recovery whatsoever relative to the baseline recovery trend that could be expected anyway in the absence of such policies.

    I admit it is an extremely hard question to answer, since the economy has had to deal with an MIA federal government this time.

    anon said...

    The Fed wants to raise interest rates:

    - in the hope of preserving there institutional economic significance,

    - out of a sense of loyalty to the Fed's history of financial influence using interest rates,

    - because using rates to influence economic events increases their professional comfort,

    - and because their economic grad school training was to fear wage push inflation above all else (they seem to believe that if inflation exceeds 2% it is a harbinger of hyper inflation).

    Economists are post-industrial shamans whose witch doctor modeling impedes macro economic understanding. The precision of models is ersatz, more or less inversely proportional to its real world relevance. The delusion of being a scientist is critical to their professional self-respect.

    Dan Kervick -> pgl...

    This is an area in which you seem to be persistently incapable of avoiding lies. You know very well that are a large number of ambitious long-term projects the US could do that are non-military, have nothing to do with immigration and could boost output tremendously.

    You're becoming part of the LPTS crew: "liberal pundits terrified of socialism."

    That's why Brad DeLong has an embargo on any talk about Bernie Sanders and his ideas.

    That's why Paul Krugman is also avoiding Sanders like the plague and using daily red meet partisan servings to keep Democrats' attention riveted on the foibles of the Republicans.

    That's why Brendan Nyhan has yet another column warning us all about the dangers of "Green Lanternism".

    You're all pants-wetting terrified that the American people are tired of do-nothing neoliberal government, and will figure out that with a more assertive and economically engaged central government dynamic growth and social transformation are possible, and that the stagnation, predatory exploitation, cruel subjugation and social destruction wrought 40 years of neoliberalism was a horrible and completely avoidable mistake.

    40% of this country has household income of under $40,000 per year. If we remove the plutocratic capitalist stranglehold on this economy, use government to more efficiently distribute and invest our national wealth, and demote private enterprise to its proper subordinate place, we could double that rapidly and drive a wave of high-growth social transformation with all of the liberated economic energy.

    This is going to happen. Take your pick: we're either going to get the somewhat fascistic and racist Trump version on strong government or democratic socialist version. The Ivy League twits hanging on for dear life to their established networks, revolving doors, tit-for-tatting, sinecures and don't-rock-the-boat regime of stagnant managerialism are going to butts handed to them by history.

    pgl -> Dan Kervick...

    Blah, blah, blah. I guess we could employ more economists at the BEA to do what they are already doing at Census.

    Dan Kervick -> pgl...

    The Census doesn't and can't combine income distribution numbers with growth numbers on a monthly and quarterly basis. The BEA could collect this data, but doesn't, because it is part of their mission to pretend class conflict doesn't exist.

    The top quintile in the US pulls down about 50% percent of the income. That means we could get 3.7% annualized growth if their income grew by 6% while everybody else's income grew by less than 1/2 a percent.

    Is that what's happening? Inquiring minds want to know. It seems like a natural mission for the BEA to track this. But they don't.

    Paul Krugman A Moveable Glut

    "...No, that's a very bad place to start. Keynes refuted that kind of thinking almost 80 years ago. There is no magic full employment interest rate."
    Aug 29, 2015 | Economist's View
    The Rage -> Second Best...

    I will choose to disagree. I think China going "down" will be a good thing for the US economy in the short run and it depends on if China can build a consumer base in the long run.

    Wall Street literally knows now they will have to completely overhaul their investment portfolio. You could tell they hoped in the spring, everything was going back to "normal". Now they know it cannot happen. They must change as well and we are getting a hissy fit.

    Too many econ-bears want China to cause a credit contraction, but they don't seem to understand, the US IS the credit market. The 2008 financial crisis was totally a US generated event. Even Europe would have trouble matching it, though a eurozone collapse would try. Most of the credit risks are born in the US. Outside 98-00, the stock market provides very little consumer spending.

    I was out Saturday to some festivals and people were very optimistic in the future because of gas prices. The mental damage from the 04-14 spike is starting to recede and people are hopeful for prices even lower this winter than last. This also helps creditors because debtors have more spare capacity to take on debt with less risk. Whatever happened to Don? He basically has been screaming for this day for years. Much like him, I agreed China could not keep the "old" model going on forever and it was not helping the US economy like people thought. It stole investment from the US and basically hurt consumers through its manipulation of commodity markets with oil being the most important.

    ThomasH said...

    I think bubbles would cause limited damage if monetary authorities took seriously their responsibilities to keep price level trends on target and their actions were such as to persuade markets that they were serious. (NGDP would probably be a better target, but for these bubble popping issues it would amount much to the same thing.)

    sanjait -> ThomasH...
    Yes, yes, yes.

    I'm sick of central bankers who allow sagging inflation in a weak demand world, and then make up every excuse imaginable.

    Just hit your target. And if you miss, make it up next year. They talk about inflation like it's some barely comprehensive force of black magic, but it's just the markets price level response to a combo of current demand and forward expectations. The targets can be hit if central banks just commit to hitting them. But instead we get fearful genuflection about how risky are ZIRP and QE, while a generation of workers goes into year 7 of widespread underemployment.

    sanjait -> sanjait...

    I should have said: widespread CYCLICAL underemployment.

    Paine -> sanjait...

    Amen

    Dan Kervick -> Peter K....

    But Krugman's piece isn't about short term solutions. He says we have to take seriously the possibility that excess savings and persistent global weakness are the new normal. He's suggesting we are dealing with a long-term disease, not a short-term

    So then the question is, "Why?" Just saying that it's because demand is too low isn't an answer. Low demand is one of the phenomena to be explained. You can't treat a disease without an explanation of the cause.

    Paine -> Dan Kervick...

    Exactly. But it's up to a class based political economy to mobilize the forces behind a true global maxizer

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick...
    A few things:

    1) You just restated Say's Law as if it were a fact, when it is a known fallacy. No, output and demand aren't the same thing.

    The main thing to notice is that in the short and medium term we can get substantial deviations from a full employment equilibrium. That's what "weak demand" means. Again I think you were asking a question to which you actually know the answer, feigning ignorance as a rhetorical strategy.

    2) Yes, the world has many problems.

    3) No, you don't always have to have an explanation for the cause of a disease to treat it. From having an intermediate level of biomedical and bioscientific knowledge, I can tell you it is quite common for diseases to be treated with mysterious etiologies.

    In this case, the relevant thing to notice is that higher inflation addresses the problem of disequilibrium regardless of the cause. It doesn't solve every problem on earth, but it does solve the problem of a negative Hicksian natural rate of interest, and in doing so, it bolsters the ability of the economy to bounce back from both shocks and secular stagnation-like forces.

    So that's why we need more of it. At the VERY LEAST central banks should be more aggressive about hitting their stated targets, and IMO they should have higher targets.

    Sanjait -> sanjait...
    I meant Wickseian natural rate.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...

    "1) You just restated Say's Law as if it were a fact, when it is a known fallacy. No, output and demand aren't the same thing."

    No, you just committed the anti-Say's Law fallacy fallacy :)

    If all of the firms in the US committed tomorrow to expanding their annual output by 3%, would that guarantee that demand would grow by the 3% needed to buy up the additional output? No, of course not.

    But would demand increase by an amount approaching the ballpark of 3%. Yes. Because it is impossible for firms to increase their output by a given amount without increasing their own demand for their factor inputs by some amount at least close to that. They can't just squeeze it out of the same inputs and same quantity of labor.

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...

    "So that's why we need more of it. At the VERY LEAST central banks should be more aggressive about hitting their stated targets, and IMO they should have higher targets."

    OK, why? We talk about this month after month here, and elsewhere, and everybody seems totally convinced that it is really really really important whet the rate of inflation if 2.5% instead of 1.5%. But nobody every explains why in cogent terms.

    How many people do you know in the business world who ever talk about the inflation target? ... ever? What reason do people have for thinking the Fed's "target" for inflation amounts to a hill of macroeconomic beans?

    And what specifically do people want the Fed to do to hit that target?

    sanjait -> Dan Kervick...

    "If all of the firms in the US committed tomorrow to expanding their annual output by 3%, would that guarantee that demand would grow by the 3% needed to buy up the additional output? No, of course not.

    But would demand increase by an amount approaching the ballpark of 3%. Yes."

    No. This is again just wrong. You ignored the role of capital stock entirely, which is a major error.

    "OK, why? We talk about this month after month here, and elsewhere, and everybody seems totally convinced that it is really really really important whet the rate of inflation if 2.5% instead of 1.5%. But nobody every explains why in cogent terms."

    As I already stated ... the concept of Wicksellian natural rate of interest is a good place to start.

    Both your comments show you aren't familiar with the concept, because it answers both.

    My quick summary would be this: raising the inflation rate pulls the real Wicksellian natural rate above zero, breaking the liquidity trap.

    Because, you see, what makes Say's Law actually work in practice in the medium term is if and only interest rates are set at the natural rate, but when the natural rate falls below zero (due to shocks, secular stagnation, whatever), then we end up with prolonged demand slumps.

    Google search for Wicksell and liquidity trap before you go telling me about the supposed Say's Law fallacy fallacy.

    The very simplified version of the story is this: inflation boosts demand by making it more expensive to sit on idle money.

    It also has the added benefits of whittling away nominal debts and overcoming sticky price problems that allow markets to clear, which are also significant.

    sanjait -> sanjait...
    Here's an even simpler version:

    a) Business investment, housing construction, auto purchases and other components of demand of various types based on credit will, all else equal, be higher if real interest rates are lower.

    b) At or near the zero bound, raising the rate of inflation results in lower real interest rates on short to medium term debt instruments.

    But still, before you go quibbling with that in some small way or claiming "nobody ever explains" why higher inflation would be useful, do go read about the Wicksell natural rate of interest.

    Amileoj -> sanjait...

    I get the Wicksellian story, but there are at least three largish problems with it:

    a) Following a collapse in aggregate demand, the effect of lower real interest rates might well be swamped by the effects of lower expected returns and less robust job prospects. Let money be as cheap as you will. If I think I'm not going to be able to sell any new output, or make any new payments, I'm still unlikely to borrow more. The idea that there simply must be price of credit (a 'natural' rate), at which all of these bench sitters will get in the game, and clear the glut, seems to me a lot more like a postulate than a conclusion warranted by logic & evidence.

    b) While it's true that a lower real rate will help debtors make existing payments, it also diminishes the income of creditors. The net effect would seem to depend entirely on the relative propensities to consume, but either way there's likely to be a fair amount of cancelling-out.

    c) Finally, since the CB cannot directly increase spending (not at least without the cooperation of the fiscal authority), the whole argument turns on the premise that the central bank can engineer higher inflation by getting investors/consumers to think higher inflation is coming. In other words, investors/consumers must be convinced that the central bank will bring something about, that it has no direct means to bring about, and this expectation, will substitute for the lack of such means. The evident circularity here doesn't exactly inspire confidence in the CB's ability, never mind its willingness, to 'credibly promise to be irresponsible.'

    Dan Kervick -> sanjait...
    "As I already stated ... the concept of Wicksellian natural rate of interest is a good place to start."

    No, that's a very bad place to start. Keynes refuted that kind of thinking almost 80 years ago. There is no magic full employment interest rate.

    "My quick summary would be this: raising the inflation rate pulls the real Wicksellian natural rate above zero, breaking the liquidity trap."

    No, even among the defenders of that line of thinking, that's not how it works. The Wicksellian real rate does not change as a result of a change in the price level. The idea that Krugman and others defend is that, given the fact that there is a nominal zero bound, by having higher inflation the real interest rate can fall into negative territory. (3% inflation with a 1% nominal rate, for example, equals a negative 2% real rate). So if the Wicksellian natural rate is negative, the inflation allows the real rate to fall to the natural rate.)

    The problem is that there is no reason to believe that such a thing as the Wicksellian natural rate exists.

    Amileoj -> ThomasH...

    I agree with one stipulation: monetary authorities who took such responsibilities seriously would need to promptly & publicly place their monetary tools at the disposal of the fiscal authorities.

    The most useful thing a central bank could do in such a circumstance would be to announce that interest rates on government debt will stay at the lower bound, no matter how large a deficit the government decides to run, until income output and employment are restored to at least their pre-crisis levels.

    This would be QE with a purpose--namely, to enable a real upside transmission mechanism that monetary policy alone invariably lacks.

    Paul Mathis said...

    "[G]overnment spending and debt aren't problems in the current environment."

    When have government spending and debt ever been a problem since FDR took us off the gold standard in 1933? Our national debt is more than 800 times greater since then and we have become the largest economy on the planet with the strongest military. We also overcame the Great Depression and won WWII because of the debt.

    The debt fear mongers -- Ron Paul, Tom Coburn, Alan Simpson -- have been dead wrong for years about the debt and yet everyone in D C worships at the altar of the balanced budget. Even Krugman won't give up his fears about the debt. Obama's 75% deficit reduction during the worst recession in 75 years is the main reason for our slow economic and wage growth. Enough of this nonsense!

    Paine -> Paul Mathis...
    One the one side
    Vicious no holds barred brutes
    On the other side
    debt hamlets
    pgl -> Paul Mathis...
    "Our national debt is more than 800 times greater" You love BIG numbers. What has happened to the price-level? To population? To real per capita income? Multiply these three and you get another really BIG number!

    "Even Krugman won't give up his fears about the debt."

    WTF? Was Casper the friendly ghost lurking behind him when he wrote his latest?

    Paul Mathis -> pgl...

    Do the debt fear mongers ever talk about the price level? Do they talk about per capita debt? Do they talk about per capita income?

    No of course not. They only talk about the total sum of the debt and "your share." They don't even relate it to GDP! But go ahead and explain why we should be worried about the debt. I'd love to hear it especially since we can print money to pay it at any time.

    Krugman has never completely backed away from his own fear mongering about the debt:

    "But my prediction is that politicians will eventually be tempted to resolve the crisis the way irresponsible governments usually do: by printing money, both to pay current bills and to inflate away debt.

    "And as that temptation becomes obvious, interest rates will soar. . . But unless we slide into Japanese-style deflation, there are much higher interest rates in our future."
    http://www.nytimes.com/2003/03/11/opinion/11KRUG.html

    Paine -> Paul Mathis...

    PK joined the highly partisan attack on little bush and his wealth building top down tax cut

    I recall the absurd dembots hysterics about run away deficits etc. Yes PK needs to fully confess self criticize and beg us to forgive him

    But he really has fear of the open budget school of Fay wray etc. He has an inner VSP he hasn't shot in the head .....yet

    Paul Mathis -> Paine ...

    Dubya's deficits never exceeded 3.5% of GDP, yet Krugman described them as a "trainwreck" and "a fiscal crisis that will drive interest rates sky-high."

    His explanation for inexplicably low interest rates:

    "I think that the main thing keeping long-term interest rates low right now is cognitive dissonance. Even though the business community is starting to get scared - the ultra-establishment Committee for Economic Development now warns that "a fiscal crisis threatens our future standard of living" - investors still can't believe that the leaders of the United States are acting like the rulers of a banana republic."

    The U.S. as a "banana republic?" Really?

    pgl -> Paul Mathis...

    "Dubya's deficits never exceeded 3.5% of GDP". But debt/GDP started another upward path even during a period of prosperity. Oh yea - they would have solved that by Social Security cuts. You and Paine are not worried about this but you don't get their agenda.

    Paul Mathis -> pgl...

    Wrong pgl

    "But debt/GDP started another upward path even during a period of prosperity."

    Dubya's debt/GDP peaked at 3.4% in 2004 as did his real GDP. Both then declined for the next 3 years.

    I'm not worried about the debt at all and I am still waiting for your explanation of why I should be. Perhaps you can also explain why the surpluses during the entire decade of the 1920s were good in light of what happened immediately thereafter.

    pgl -> Paul Mathis...

    "Dubya's debt/GDP peaked at 3.4% in 2004 as did his real GDP."

    You are clueless. Debt and deficits are not the same thing. Learn basic definitions.

    pgl -> pgl...

    Federal debt/GDP. It was not a mere 3.4% in 2004 and it did continue to rise:

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/GFDEGDQ188S

    I think Paul Mathis needs to get his definitions right before he says anyone else is wrong.

    Paul Mathis -> pgl...
    You might want to check our OMB's historical table 1.2 before you lecture me.
    https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals
    Paine -> pgl...
    Pedantic loop holing again eh pgl. You know what he's saying you have no answer beyond bluster

    Mr bluster !

    Paul Mathis -> pgl...

    "Debt and deficits are not the same thing." Well duh! I never said they were. Learn to read.

    half-mast tailgate streamlining -> pgl...

    "Debt and deficits are not the same thing. Learn"
    ~~pgl~

    Not identical but vitally intertwined. Deficits can lead to debt, but debt service can lead to deficits. Do you see the recursion? The retroflexive self-reinforcement that can spiral upward?

    No the spiral really doesn't matter because we owe it all to ourselves, to our own wealthy folks. Hell! They actually enjoy the debt servitude that we shoulder. No! Owning it to ourselves is not the problem. The spiral upward is not a problem, unless . . .

    Unless we are also the jokers who print up the GTF, global Triffin fiat. No! We don't make big bucks from the print jobby that foreigners buy from us with their goods and services, but

    But the amount per capita is better than a kick in the butt. We don't want to lose that concession until we are independently wealthy, wealthy enough to stop burning up the resources that will morph into the kind of CO2 that will destroy the human species. Then again we definitely deserve to be trashed.

    pgl -> Paine ...

    Partisan attacks? The entire purpose of those tax cuts was to give to the rich as they tried to take for the poor. Sorry but that is CLASS WARFARE.

    Paine -> pgl...

    The class war is won with solid attacks not shoddy opportunism that appears to certify the deficit fetish

    pgl -> Paul Mathis...

    "Do the debt fear mongers ever talk about the price level? Do they talk about per capita debt? Do they talk about per capita income?"

    Not the fear mongers and I don't take their rants seriously. But those who want to do real analysis do.

    Paul Mathis -> pgl...

    Fear mongering about the debt is political and those who do it should be refuted with all available facts. Serious economic analysis has NOTHING to do with our debt discussions over the past 6 years. People who know facts should use them to stop the debt fear mongers who have no interest in serious analysis. That should be obvious by now.

    pgl -> Paul Mathis...

    Listen - I am not Chris Christie or Jeb Bush. And I have called for fiscal stimulus. So enough with this straw man nonsense.

    Paine -> pgl...

    Chris C is your bench mark ?

    Talk about a low bar

    Peter K. -> Paul Mathis...

    "Obama's 75% deficit reduction during the worst recession in 75 years is the main reason for our slow economic and wage growth. Enough of this nonsense!"

    Exactly. But the Republicans in the House helped push it.

    Paul Mathis -> Peter K....

    Obama wanted MORE cuts than Repubs had done: In his 2013 State of the Union speech, Pres. Obama noted that the deficit had decreased "more than $2.5 trillion" under his administration and the vast majority was spending cuts. Also, he wanted another $1.5 trillion of deficit reduction.

    Obama negotiated at length with Repubs to get a "Grand Bargain" only to fail because Cantor stabbed Boehner in the back at the last moment. Obama is definitely responsible for the 75% deficit reduction and he is very proud of it.

    pgl -> Paul Mathis...
    I never supported the Grand Bargain. I have consistently based this GOP austerity nonsense. So has PeterK. You are preaching to the choir.
    Paul Mathis -> pgl...
    I'm not letting Obama off the hook for our economic debacle and I am calling out Krugman too. Enough with the nonsense!

    EMichael -> Paul Mathis...

    BS

    Nothing quite like sound bytes in a political speech to "prove" a point.

    Yeah, Obama should have said I got my ass kicked by these nut jobs running our country.

    The Rage -> Paul Mathis...
    Debt is irrelevant in some respects. QE failed because it was being absorbed into a global financial system that was geared toward Asian,Commodity and domestic financial bank accounts. The real problem since 2003 triggered by the end of the cold war was the disinvestment nationally in favor of Asian development and Oil producing countries ate it up. If you really want to "improve" growth in the US, this system had to go. Don has been talking about this for years on this blog.

    Just surging public debt to keep a domestically bad system in place, is bad policy. Time for capital to diversify and bring some of that money back home. China will have to change. If they want to really challenge the US, they will need a consumer base strong enough to do so.

    Paul Mathis -> The Rage...
    "Just surging public debt to keep a domestically bad system in place, is bad policy."

    How about cutting the deficit 75% during the worst recession in 75 years? Is that good policy?

    The Rage -> Paul Mathis...
    Cutting the deficit after it surged 75% is ad hoc
    Paine -> The Rage...
    Dollar Finance is unlimited
    Forget the flight
    The fed in he peoples hands can fund everything

    We need to forget these artificial hedge rows created by and for
    Private profit driven finance capital


    We can build a giant fully automated green social production system
    All with uncles funds

    RGC said...

    The counterpart to the global savings glut is the global private debt glut.

    The giant vampire squid has sucked so much blood of the common citizenry that demand is anemic.

    The solution is to redistribute the blood from the squid to the citizenry and all will be well.

    EMichael -> RGC...

    No, that is not true.

    The squid has sucked all the income into the way upper class.

    Paine -> EMichael...

    We need a wage boom

    And we've known how to trigger one since 1940

    Paine -> Paine ...

    And I don't mean build a huge new war machine

    pgl -> Paine ...

    But 1940 was a huge new war machine. No - we need to build school buildings, infrastructure, and green technology. In contrast to Carly - let's regulate so the private sector has to innovate.

    Paine -> Paine ...

    http://www-personal.umich.edu/~shapiro/papers/labor-29jun2010-for-www.pdf


    This is worthy of Mankiw

    john c. halasz -> pgl...

    Umm... not that I would trust anything from Mankiw,(and the MA proposal that he supports from what I've read of it is crap), but an carbon tax-and-rebate scheme is an essential, though not sufficient measure, and rebating it through the FICA tax, with a progressive tilt, and building it out from there would be the most logical way to do it on the national scale.

    john c. halasz -> Paine ...

    Public investment and indicative planning are also essential, to transform infrastructure and capitals stocks are also essential. I object to the idea that any tax should be used to funding that rather than rebated. But my intuition is that the tax-and-rebate is the more readily attainable, given the current politics, and has the additional benefit of bringing in virtually the entire population into the issue, rather than being an "elite' concern, once the effects of rebates are felt, enabling further required programs and projects. (Of course, stripping away the $500 bn in annual fossil fuel subsidies would also surely help.)

    Ellis -> EMichael...

    You're right.

    Where did the supposed "savings glut" (they're just saving too much money! Ha! Ha! Ha!) come from.

    "Corporate profitability is not translating into widespread economic prosperity.

    The allocation of corporate profits to stock buybacks deserves much of the blame. Consider the 449 companies in the S&P 500 index that were publicly listed from 2003 through 2012. During that period those companies used 54% of their earnings-a total of $2.4 trillion-to buy back their own stock, almost all through purchases on the open market. Dividends absorbed an additional 37% of their earnings. That left very little for investments in productive capabilities or higher incomes for employees."

    "Profits Without Prosperity" HBR
    William Lazonick

    https://hbr.org/2014/09/profits-without-prosperity/ar/1

    Ellis -> Ellis...

    So rather than invest profits, companies distribute their profits right back to their shareholders in the form of dividends and stock buybacks, trillions of dollars worth. Those investors place their holdings with financial companies.

    So, the glut in savings is really a glut in uninvested capital.

    What's so disgusting is that the money could be put to work by producing the things that we need and in the process create jobs. Instead, it is simply used to blow up financial bubbles... and crises and depressions.

    And no one holds them accountable. No one even dares mention their name... capitalists.

    Dan Kervick said...

    "a huge excess of savings over investment in China and other developing nations... He worried a bit about the fact that the inflow of capital was being channeled, not into business investment, but into housing; obviously he should have worried much more. ..."

    Yes, good.

    "What's ... important now is that policy makers take seriously the possibility, I'd say probability, that excess savings and persistent global weakness is the new normal."

    But *why* is it the new normal? What is going on now? What would explain this phenomenon?

    A problem perhaps is that the people with wealth to invest, and the people who manage that wealth for them, to are dedicated to the proposition that all investors are entitled to a safe, risk-free, easy money return on their investments at a level that exceeds the growth rate.

    So what have they done? Expand the "financial sector" in desperate pursuit of these elusive real returns. That includes all of the schemes involved in squeezing, wringing, twisting and scamming returns out of the economic flows generated by the people who are actually producing the value. The financial sector isn't just

    What is to be done about it? Well one thing that must be done is more assertive action to pull more of that accumulated wealth out of the safety-and-rent-farming sector and push it into real productive activity - at the firm level, the state level, the national level and the global level.

    Use more supply side sticks instead of supply side carrots. Instead of giving concentrated wealth another tax break and begging them to, pretty-please, invest their wealth in economic expansion instead of retaining earnings and paying dividends, threaten them with an additional punitive tax if they *don't* invest a greater proportion of profits in expansion.

    Also, the public has the option of simply *taxing wealth away* from the rent-farmers and using it for smarter, more coordinated, and more strategically ambitious purposes.

    Jeff Bezos has one thing right: Amazon plows most of its profits back into growing Amazon instead of rewarding stock-holders in the short-term. (Of course he pays himself a buttload of money, which is recorded as a "labor cost" instead of profit, and stiffs his own workers, so it's not a perfect object lesson.)

    Another problem is the graying of the developed world. This is giving us a world in which a dwindling proportion of workers have to produce more and more output to provide for the consumption needs of an expanding proportion of non-producing population. The greater abundance of retirees and near-retirees has given us a greater volume of funds in desperate search of real returns from a productive sector that is struggling to supply them, and has blown up the financial sector to supply dubious nominal returns through semi-Ponzi bubblicious asset price inflations as a substitute.

    Anyway, if the market system by itself is not-generating the right balance of consumption to investment, and is not succeeding in channeling savings into productive investment and out of rent-farming and ponzi-economy fluff, then it is the job of government to do this job for us.

    Dan Kervick -> Dan Kervick...

    The paragraph that reads,

    "So what have they done? Expand the "financial sector" in desperate pursuit of these elusive real returns. That includes all of the schemes involved in squeezing, wringing, twisting and scamming returns out of the economic flows generated by the people who are actually producing the value. The financial sector isn't just"

    was supposed to be completed this way:

    "So what have they done? Expand the "financial sector" in desperate pursuit of these elusive real returns. That includes all of the schemes involved in squeezing, wringing, twisting and scamming returns out of the economic flows generated by the people who are actually producing the value. The financial sector isn't just the sector that channels savings into productive investment; it also contains the sub-sector that manufactures new ways of collecting rents."

    JF -> Dan Kervick...

    Let's see, the NY FED just released a study reporting that around 2007 the trading units of the banks were operating with leverage at 48-1.

    We need to stop using the loanable funds theory when discussing policy and the facts - yes the banks used lots of "schemes involved in squeezing, wringing, twisting and scamming" but they did not need to concern themselves about returns from the economic flows generated by the people who are actually producing the value - they created the lending accounts, out of whole cloth. That is where the new "wealth" came from, it came from account-entries used to fuel financial asset positions, huge amount 2000-2007, conspicuous years. A glut of these positions were created, divorced from those who produce real value in terms of goods and services that can profit from the test of good markets.

    We have a new generation of "investors" who have learned that financial asset trading, using leverage, is how wealth is produced - sure these financial positions are owned and traded as financial positions - but is that the production function economics of Smith, Wicksell, Bagehot, Marshal, Keynes, etc.?

    What should the FED do instead of what it is doing now (or contemplating as some are apparently, with regard to raising payments being made to banks for donig nothing with the intention of causing credit prices to rise affecting all aspects of the economy)?

    Paine -> Dan Kervick...

    The Chinese elite resists the obvious solution: Helicopter money on a grandiose scale

    Send the peasants a 30 year social dividend. In a series of pay outs and through a payment system
    that becomes the infrastructure of a vast state of the art transfer system
    Based on plastic cards with chips

    Paine -> Paine ...

    State of the art railroads are hardly as valuable as state of the art payment and depository systems

    Do it comrades DOIT Nooooooow

    pgl -> Paine ...

    The Chinese are putting us to shame on investment in infrastructure. But they save so much that they could be financing our infrastructure investment.

    Paine -> pgl...

    They need to sell more household durables

    To their vast lower middle income households
    Thru a subsidy sell off of great leap proportions

    [Aug 28, 2015] A third scenario for stock markets

    The key problem is that there is natural limit to offshoring, layoffs and stock buyouts, which was three game that corporate brass way playing since 2008. May be one or more of those limits was already reached or we are close to it.
    Antonio Fatas on the Global Economy

    Robert Shiller on the New York Times argues that the stock market is expensive by historical standards using the cyclically-adjusted price earnings ratio (CAPE) that he has made popular through his writings since the late 1990s.

    There is no doubt that the CAPE ratio for the US stock market is high by historical standards. Using Shiller's estimates it stands around 26 today, clearly above the historical average of about 17. What a higher CAPE means is that you are paying more for the same earnings.

    ... ... ...

    How much do we need those numbers to change to justify higher-than-normal CAPE ratios? A quick calculation using current bond interest rates would tell us that the stock market at a 25 CAPE ratio offers a risk premium over bonds that is similar to what the stock market offered when the CAPE ratio was 17 (around 6-7%). In that sense, the stock market is not expensive, it is prices in a way that is consistent with historical levels. If you want to make the stock market cheap you just need to argue that risk premium should be lower than that. If you want to make the stock market very expensive you need to argue that interest rates on bonds will soon go back to historical levels. In that scenario the US stock market should go down by about 30-40% relative to current levels.

    Predicting which scenario will be realized is not easy, as Shiller argues. But I wished that he would have considered as well the third possible scenario where current CAPE levels are fine and investors should get used to lower-than-historical returns but returns that are consistent with what is going on in other asset classes. Maybe we put too much emphasis on the bouncing back and crashing scenarios when we talk about stock prices and we forget a much more boring but as plausible one that delivers a less volatile stock market.

    Antonio Fatas is the Portuguese Council Chaired Professor of European Studies and Professor of Economics at INSEAD, a business school with campuses in Singapore and Fontainebleau (France), a Senior Policy Scholar at the Center for Business and Public Policy at the McDonough School of Business (Georgetown University, USA) and a Research Fellow at the Center for Economic Policy Research (London, UK).

    [Aug 27, 2015] Lies You Will Hear As The Economic Collapse Progresses

    Aug 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Public statements by globalist entities like the IMF on China, for example, have argued that their current crisis is merely part of the "new normal"; a future in which stagnant growth and reduced living standards is the way things are supposed to be. I expect the Fed will use the same exact argument to support the end of zero interest rates in the U.S., claiming that the decline of American wealth and living standards is a natural part of the new economic world order we are entering.

    That's right, mark my words, one day soon the Fed, the IMF, the BIS and others will attempt to convince the American people that the erosion of the economy and the loss of world reserve status is actually a "good thing". They will claim that a strong dollar is the cause of all our economic pain and that a loss in value is necessary. In the meantime they will, of course, downplay the tragedies that will result as the shift toward dollar devaluation smashes down on the heads of the populace.

    A rate hike may not occur in September. In fact, as I predicted in my last article, the Fed is already hinting at a delay in order to boost markets, or at least slow down the current carnage to a more manageable level. But, they WILL raise rates in the near term, likely before the end of this year after a few high tension meetings in which the financial world will sit anxiously waiting for the word on high. Why would they raise rates? Some people just don't seem to grasp the fact that the job of the Federal Reserve is to destroy the American economic system, not protect it. Once you understand this dynamic then everything the central bank does makes perfect sense.

    A rate increase will occur exactly because that is what is needed to further destabilize U.S. market psychology to make way for the "great economic reset" that the IMF and Christine Lagarde are so fond of promoting. Beyond this, many people seem to be forgetting that ZIRP is still operating, yet, volatility is trending negative anyway. Remember when everyone was ready to put on their 'Dow 20,000' hat, certain in the omnipotence of central bank stimulus and QE infinity? Yeah...clearly that was a pipe dream.

    ZIRP has run it's course. It is no longer feeding the markets as it once did and the fundamentals are too obvious to deny.

    The globalists at the Bank for International Settlements in spring openly deemed the existence of low interest rate policies a potential trigger for crisis. Their statements correlate with the BIS tendency to "predict" terrible market events they helped to create while at the same time misrepresenting the reasons behind them.

    The point is, ZIRP has done the job it was meant to do. There is no longer any reason for the Fed to leave it in place.

    Get Ready For QE4

    Again, don't count on it. Or at the very least, don't expect renewed QE to have any lasting effect on the market if it is initiated.

    There is truly no point to the launch of a fourth QE program, but do expect that the Fed will plant the possibility in the media every once in a while to mislead investors. First, the Fed knows that it would be an open admission that the last three QE's were an utter failure, and while their job is to dismantle the U.S. economy, I don't think they are looking to take immediate blame for the whole mess. QE4 would be as much a disaster as the ECB's last stimulus program was in Europe, not to mention the past several stimulus actions by the PBOC in China. I'll say it one more time – fiat stimulus has a shelf life, and that shelf life is over for the entire globe. The days of artificially supported markets are nearly done and they are never coming back again.

    I see little advantage for the Fed to bring QE4 into the picture. If the goal is to derail the dollar, that action is already well underway as the IMF carefully sets the stage for the Yuan to enter the SDR global currency basket next year, threatening the dollar's world reserve status. China also continues to dump hundreds of billions in U.S. treasuries inevitably leading to a rush to a dump of treasuries by other nations. The dollar is a dead currency walking, and the Fed won't even have to print Weimar Germany-style in order to kill it.

    It's Not As Bad As It Seems

    Yes, it is exactly as bad as it seems if not worse. When the Dow can open 1000 points down on a Monday and China can lose all of its gains for 2015 in the span of a few weeks despite institutionalized stimulus measures lasting years, then something is very wrong. This is not a "hiccup". This is not a correction which has already hit bottom. This is only the beginning of the end.

    Stocks are not a predictive indicator. They do not follow positive or negative fundamentals. Stocks do not crash before or during the development of an ailing economy. Stocks crash after the economy has already gone comatose. Stocks crash when the system is no longer salvageable. Since 2008, nothing in the global financial structure has been salvaged and now the central banking edifice is either unable or unwilling (I believe both) to supply the tools to allow us even to pretend that it can be salvaged. We're going to feel the hurt now, all while the establishment tells us the whole thing is in our heads.

    [Aug 27, 2015] Shiller: Rising Anxiety That Stocks Are Overpriced

    "...So people sold what may have been just under $2 T in positions. "
    "...But if E were unsustainably high due to an output gap leaving businesses to operate under-capacity for their capital stock while simultaneously cutting wage expenses via layoffs and increased use of part time workers to boost E (earnings) then what would that say about P (share price)? Shiller puts a lot of faith in Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE). My guess is there is a reason for that."
    "...[ Interesting, when wealth is significantly invested in nonproductive assets, what then? ] Nonproductive, like corporate stock buybacks. When buybacks exceed investment in R&D, plant & equipment, systems, etc. for a decade or more, then growth in the subsequent decade is likely to be merde, n'est-ce pas? Uncreative destruction. Schumpeter *rolls over in grave*"
    Robert Shiller (a reason to agree with Tim Duy):
    Rising Anxiety That Stocks Are Overpriced: Over the five trading days between Aug. 17 and Aug. 24, the U.S. stock market dropped 10 percent - the official definition of a "correction," with similar or greater drops in other countries. ...
    But there are reasons to question whether this was a quick, effective slap on the wrist, or if the market is still too overactive, and thus asking for a more extended punishment. ...
    It is entirely plausible that the shaking of investor complacency in recent days will, despite intermittent rebounds, take the market down significantly and within a year or two restore CAPE ratios to historical averages. This would put the S. & P. closer to 1,300 from around 1,900 on Wednesday, and the Dow at 11,000 from around 16,000. They could also fall further; the historical average is not a floor.
    Or maybe this could be another 1998. We have no statistical proof. We are in a rare and anxious "just don't know" situation, where the stock market is inherently risky because of unstable investor psychology.

    JF said...

    So people sold what may have been just under $2 T in positions.

    Well, we do hope they invest in a real business with some of this, and maybe people will just enjoy themselves a bit and spend where there are lots of multiples that follow.

    But otherwise, where do they put their money to get a return? The basic "psychology" is that worldwide it is still better to put your money into an equity compared to a bond, and into the US for safety and for returns, compared to most other choices.

    More might go directly into real-economy businesses if we can get the economy moving and less into the stock market, but then again if the economy moves out smartly then the stock market will also benefit from improvements in the fundamentals and profits of real businesses too.

    sanjait said in reply to JF...

    What you describe is the main story.'

    Stocks are highly valued, relative to historic P/Es, because the opportunity cost of capital is low. Earnings yields on stocks have gone down, driving up their prices, because the alternatives aren't great either.

    This is what Shiller's CAPE ratio misses. It's designed to capture cyclical changes in earnings to make P/E a more reliable metric, but it leaves out cost of capital. So when we have this unusual situation with massive decline in interest rates, that projects to persist for a number of years, of course multiples expand...

    Anonymous said in reply to sanjait...

    What you are describing is true. Low interest rates means higher multiples can persist. However, we saw that scenario in Japan in the 90s for years. The low interest rates made Japanese stocks look like good value (even though PE was high). That did not prevent big big 30% drawdowns multiple times. I am not sure that low interest rates are a guarantee that high PEs are ok. Just putting in an observation to add to the discussion.

    mulp said in reply to JF...

    Investors sold shares of private companies and bought Federal government debt signalling the market wants more government spending.

    Yet the claimed free market loving Republicans keep bucking the free market that is begging for much more government spending.

    And there is so much needed capital assets to be built by government because We the People will not build the capital assets we want to see as individuals, nor do We the People want private corporations to build the capital assets We the People call for. The free market clear is calling for the Republican controlled legislatures to borrow and invest in big government capital asset building:

    Corporations are demanding lots of investment in human capital because they claim they can't find qualified machinists, welders, engineers, technicians, plumbers, carpenters, architects, and on and on, to hire, saying that without Americans being invested in, they need to import skilled workers or move the jobs out of the US

    Every bit of the above we know how to do at twice or three times the rates currently being done based on the rate of investment from about 1920 to 1970. The number of miles of paved highway in the 20s was massive. The electric grid built was massive. Post WWII the investment in human capital accelerated from the rate in the 30s and 40s when the minimum standard education for every citizen shifted from grade 8 to grade 12.

    Dan Kervick said...

    FWIW, anybody who has iTunes U can listen to a whole semester-long Shiller Yale class on financial markets. Highly recommended.

    pgl said...

    I can't seem to post the WSJ to the 8/26/2015 P/E ratios but they are near 17. Not that high in light of current interest rates.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to pgl...

    But if E were unsustainably high due to an output gap leaving businesses to operate under-capacity for their capital stock while simultaneously cutting wage expenses via layoffs and increased use of part time workers to boost E (earnings) then what would that say about P (share price)? Shiller puts a lot of faith in Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE). My guess is there is a reason for that.

    pgl said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Granted we should address cyclical issues as the issue is not historical earnings but rather expected future earnings. But here's the puzzle. Let's assume we get a quick return to full employment. Would earnings rise or fall? A lot of folks might argue that they would rise as we returned to full capacity. But you are right - a lot of the extra production would finally go to higher real wages.

    Ray Fair - we need your 93 equation CC model!

    mulp said in reply to pgl...

    Extra production requires higher wages first.

    No business is idiot enough to produce stuff without knowing that buyers already have the cash or credit to buy it.

    On the other hand, government can offer to buy increased production knowing it will be able to charge the people who benefit by its power to tax. For example, the US has built tens of thousands miles of highways to nowhere, train rail lines to nowhere, knowing it would pay for it all by levying taxes. Water and sewer to nowhere.

    I'm old enough to remember Interstate highways off to the side of the crowded two lane highway my family drove year after year on vacation or church business. It was easy to buy right of way across farm fields and easy to lay down high quality payment, but building overpasses on existing heavily used roads too what seemed like forever. In Indiana, bulldozing subsoil into hills took a year or more. It is the weight of the soil that compresses the soil to the required compaction, but that requires time. And then building interchanges in or near cities requires even more planning.

    While those Interstates built in my youth require constant rebuilding because entropy obeys no economist, the bill for building them is long paid while the utility value of the Interstates increases constantly. And the highest utility value is seen when a bridge goes out and the cost of rerouting traffic hits the users. Bundles of cash get showered on replacing the bridge because government, We the People, can shower cash if We the People demand it.

    sanjait said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    "Shiller puts a lot of faith in Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings ratio (CAPE). My guess is there is a reason for that."

    Yeah, he invented it.

    It's a nice way of smoothing PE data to account for some cyclical factors, but it doesn't account for everything.

    JF said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Ratio of workforce hours to the Investment Base and value of Intangibles. This is different from how the stock market "prices" a share (it can't know, I'd expect very few people know these ratios for a company and few understand them by sector and over time - while accounting for intangibles was a very late development too).

    Shiller recognizes the psychology of these financial asset markets. We know the participants in these markets; i.e., buyers, seller, market-makers, demonstrate herd behaviors. Shiller does want to teach about more rational methods for the pricing of stocks. But markets price as they do - not always "rational" expectations here.

    Stocks are good - participants are sharing in risks, unlike debt instruments. Stocks are, fundamentally, better economics for society, imho.

    JF said in reply to JF...

    So put your money directly into a business or buy ownership shares in some market (different forms of taking risk in the making of business). US is still the best place to do that.

    mulp said in reply to JF...

    Investment must result in wages and benefits paid, or else its just asset trading or pump and dump asset churn.

    sanjait said in reply to pgl...

    That's what I'm saying.

    What everyone needs to realize is that low interest rates change the *fundamentals* of stock valuation.

    Sure, we could be experiencing some degree of pop in corporate earnings due to weak labor demand, competitive washout during the crash and the unusual way that low investment can in the short term lead to higher profitability. All of that is worth examining.

    But none of that changes the other side of the coin, which is that ... cost of capital matters.

    pgl said in reply to sanjait...

    Check out James Glassman's What We Got Wrong (re DOW 36000). He never admits either one of his two bizarre errors. It is more the world changed after 9/11. Really? What changed? The cost of capital fell which should have meant higher valuations. OK - maybe steady state growth is no longer 3% as some say it is 2%. But wait? Glassman tells Jeb! steady state growth should be 4%. So what changed should have had him change his book to DOW 72000!

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said...

    The stock market is almost always experiencing a speculative bubble except for a few blue chips that are less volatile.

    Justin Cidertrades said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    "almost always experiencing a speculative bubble except for a few blue chips"
    ~~AKA~

    buy low, but sell high, Hawaii!
    Go through your portfolio! Mark up the price on everything you have! Put it up for sell on limit order! Then commit all your cash to limit orders to buy but at very low bid. Buy things that are a cinch to grow with the underlying business but only after researching the business for debt levels etc. Whoops! You can't use that rent money for stock bid. Remember! All stocks are equally worthless until proved otherwise.

    Ben Groves said...

    A speculative commodity bubble. Not sure that has every happened before by itself. Don't know what that really means. Stocks may have been overinflated or its damage to the real economy may mean stocks are underinflated.

    sanjait said...

    I don't think we're seeing a Minsky Moment in stock valuations.

    What instead I think we're seeing is a Minsky Moment in China. Or, at least, people openly wondering how far off their previous assumptions were about growth and demand in China, and whether there is risk of contagious defaults somewhere there.

    In other words, they aren't worried about multiples, they are worried about fundamentals.

    rayward said...

    What's the alternative to speculative financial assets? It's been conventional wisdom that the rate of return on productive capital (r) has been falling for 30 plus years. Larry Summers has repeated this often.

    But now along comes Paul Gomme, B. Ravikumar, and Paul Rupert (https://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/es/article/10406) who conclude that the rate of return on productive capital is actually high not low as Summers and others claim. Both can't be right.

    It depends on the meaning of "is", or "productive capital". My take is that Gomme et al. (in their 2011 paper cited in the August paper referenced and on which the August paper is based) are not altogether clear on what they mean by "productive capital" (which they refer to as "business capital"). In a footnote to the 2011 paper, they indicate that it "includes" such things as plant and equipment, but "includes" is not the same as "is". If Summers et al. are correct (and this view goes back to research conducted by James Tobin), then unless and until r is improved, we are stuck with speculation in financial assets and the financial instability that goes with it. Why haven't economists devoted more research to r?

    anne said in reply to rayward...

    It's been conventional wisdom that the rate of return on productive capital (r) has been falling for 30 plus years. Larry Summers has repeated this often....

    [ Where would a specific reference be where this argument has been made by Summers? The argument makes no sense to me and I wonder what I have missed or possibly I do not understand the passage. ]

    pgl said in reply to anne...

    Summers calls this Secular Stagnation. Of course some people think this Summers thesis is not quite right.

    ilsm said in reply to anne...

    Conventional wisdom is a signal that the rest of the sentence is epistemic closure........

    pgl said in reply to anne...

    That's the paper that takes Summers on. But check out my post on this issue as well as Noah Smith's doubts.

    Sandwichman said...

    What? People are afraid the imaginary money doesn't really exist?

    anne said...

    http://www.multpl.com/shiller-pe/

    Ten Year Cyclically Adjusted Price Earnings Ratio, 1881-2015

    (Standard and Poors Composite Stock Index)

    August 27, 2015 PE Ratio ( 25.12)

    Annual Mean ( 16.62)
    Annual Median ( 16.01)

    -- Robert Shiller

    pgl said in reply to anne...

    OK - his ratio is near 25. Sanjait is right - this is not that high given the low real interest rates.

    anne said...

    http://www.multpl.com/s-p-500-dividend-yield/

    Dividend Yield, 1881-2015

    (Standard and Poors Composite Stock Index)

    August 27, 2015 Div Yield ( 2.11)

    Annual Mean ( 4.40)
    Annual Median ( 4.34)

    -- Robert Shiller

    anne said...

    http://www.econ.yale.edu/~shiller/data.htm

    January 15, 2015

    Ten Year Mean Price Earnings Ratio, 1960-2015

    (Standard and Poors Composite Stock Index)

    1960 ( 18.3)
    1961 ( 18.5) Kennedy
    1962 ( 21.0)
    1963 ( 19.0) Johnson
    1964 ( 21.3)

    1965 ( 22.9)
    1966 ( 23.8)
    1967 ( 20.1)
    1968 ( 21.2)
    1969 ( 20.8) Nixon

    1970 ( 16.9)
    1971 ( 16.4)
    1972 ( 17.1)
    1973 ( 18.6)
    1974 ( 13.4) Ford

    1975 ( 8.9)
    1976 ( 11.3)
    1977 ( 11.5) Carter
    1978 ( 9.2)
    1979 ( 9.2)

    1980 ( 8.8)
    1981 ( 8.5) Reagan
    1982 ( 7.4)
    1983 ( 9.6)
    1984 ( 9.4)

    1985 ( 10.7)
    1986 ( 13.4)
    1987 ( 16.0)
    1988 ( 14.4)
    1989 ( 16.6) Bush

    1990 ( 16.5)
    1991 ( 17.9)
    1992 ( 19.5)
    1993 ( 20.8) Clinton
    1994 ( 20.5)

    1995 ( 22.7)
    1996 ( 25.9)
    1997 ( 31.0)
    1998 ( 36.0)
    1999 ( 42.1)

    2000 ( 41.7)
    2001 ( 32.1) Bush
    2002 ( 25.9)
    2003 ( 24.1)
    2004 ( 26.4)

    2005 ( 26.0)
    2006 ( 26.0)
    2007 ( 26.8)
    2008 ( 20.8)
    2009 ( 16.9) Obama

    2010 ( 20.7)
    2011 ( 21.8)
    2012 ( 21.4)
    2013 ( 23.2)
    2014 ( 25.5)

    July

    2015 ( 26.5)

    -- Robert Shiller

    anne said in reply to anne...

    The price earnings ratio for stocks in July 2015 was 26.5 as compared to 26.7 in 1929. Such a price earnings ratio would have seemed especially high, however rationalized, before 1996 but since then no matter the bear markets that have occurred such a ratio has come to be taken as reasonable by a range of economists.

    The ratio may well be reasonable, I would however like an understanding as to why.

    pgl said in reply to anne...

    1929? 1929's financial markets were a lot like those in 2007. About to see a huge increase in interest rates on corporate bonds rated BBB even as government bond rates fell. Krugman noted a small increase in credit spreads but no where near 2009 or 1930.

    You can't just compare P/E ratios without thinking through the fundamentals. Interests are low and credit spreads are modest.

    anne said in reply to anne...


    Robert Shiller found indexing stock prices from 1881 through 2015 important. I would agree.

    Possibly 1996 when the stock market price earnings ratio was 25.9 and Shiller suggested stock investors might be too optimistic and Alan Greenspan wondered about what made for irrational exuberance, possibly a 25.9 p/e ratio for 1996 should never have been compared with any ratio in the past but I think otherwise.

    Sandwichman said in reply to anne...

    That settles that!

    Numbers go way up then they go down a bit then back up a bit. Clearly the numbers will either go up or down in the future.

    and the wheels on the bus go 'round and 'round...

    anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

    I have no idea how the prices of investment assets will change from here, what I do know however is what the price patterns have been for better than a century and that rationales that have been used to justify prices for investment assets in the past do not make sense presently.

    Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

    To be clear, these numbers are index numbers. That means they are constructed by assembling together various bits of data that are ASSUMED to indicate this or that, so the resulting index is then ASSUMED to indicate some other thing. This is fine in an analytical context but becomes mystification when the indexes take on a life of their own. People forget about the analytical context. They forget the qualifications and the artificial nature of the indexes. They think they are talking about something analogous to a measurement taken with a standardized yardstick.

    Same yardstick fallacy.

    If my height is the yardstick by which I measure my height, then I am always exactly one my height high.

    All of economics seems now to revolve around a glaring silence about the composition of the yardstick.

    What is a "Real Home" anyway? Is it anything like a Fun Home?

    https://youtu.be/PK-FJRtB7SY

    anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

    Investing for long periods of time in the stock market index and a range long-term investment grade bonds, which is essentially an index, has been remarkably successful. Stock and bond indexes or near indexes then strike me as quite real, quite tangible:

    https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0040&FundIntExt=INT#hist%3A%3Atab=1&tab=1

    Vanguard 500 Stock Index Fund

    Average annual returns as of 7/31/2015

    7/31/2014 ( 11.05%)
    7/31/2012 ( 17.40)
    7/30/2010 ( 16.07)
    7/29/2005 ( 7.60)

    08/31/1976 ( 11.02)


    https://personal.vanguard.com/us/funds/snapshot?FundId=0028&FundIntExt=INT#hist%3A%3Atab=1&tab=1

    Vanguard Long-Term Investment-Grade Bond Fund

    Average annual returns as of 7/31/2015

    7/31/2014 ( 3.45%)
    7/31/2012 ( 2.83)
    7/30/2010 ( 7.27)
    7/29/2005 ( 6.46)

    07/09/1973 ( 8.50)

    anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

    What the real home price index was remarkably good for was for showing analysts that homes generally and home especially in relatively high priced markets were becoming increasingly risky to buy from about 2002 on if a buyer was counting on price appreciation, especially counting on price appreciation to pay a mortgage.

    The work of Robert Shiller has been remarkably helpful for analysts trying to understand market movements.

    anne said in reply to anne...

    Looking to real home prices, Shiller found that over time prices generally tracked inflation so that where the real home price index was 100 in 1890 the index was at 113 in 1996. Between 1996 and 2006 the real home price index increased from 113 to 194.7 which was an altogether unprecedented level.

    In June 2015, however, after the supposed deflating of the housing bubble the real home price index was 155.9 which is a level never even approached before 2003 when the housing bubble should have been obvious.

    What does this mean?

    Sandwichman said in reply to anne...

    "What does this mean?"

    A decade and a half of Potemkin Village Economy.

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/02/26/the-potemkin-village-economy/

    anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

    http://www.counterpunch.org/2010/02/26/the-potemkin-village-economy/

    February 26, 2010

    The Potemkin Village Economy
    By ALAN FARAGO

    US politics are in gridlock because elected officials, Democrats and Republicans alike, are fighting to revive an economic model based on construction, development and housing. Instead of breaking with the past– and confessing that trillions of taxpayer handouts have been given to banks to shore up a failed economic model– elected officials in the US are maintaining a steadfast silence to paper over their ruined circular logic.

    In the New York Times yesterday, "New-Home Sales Plunged To Record Low in January", the chief economist of Metrostudy described that logic with crystalline clarity, "You're not going to have a robust housing market until you have more jobs, and you're not going to add jobs fast enough to bring down the unemployment rate until you have robust housing market."

    In "Florida struggles to carve out new jobs: spurred by state unemployment soon expected to top 12 percent," (St. Pete Times) Mark Wilson, head of the Florida Chamber of Commerce, says, "There is no silver bullet." The Chamber, this year, will be using all its bullets to shoot down the citizens' petition to amend the Florida constitution, Florida Hometown Democracy, providing for local elections on changes to growth plans. The measure was born from the public revulsion with rampant overdevelopment that created temporary jobs in construction but permanently scarred the Florida landscape, wrecking Floridians' quality of life, the environment, and undermined the potential for "jobs" that legislators are desperate to create.

    The core of the problem is not just Florida's. An economy so dependent on housing is, by definition, a Potemkin Village. Potemkin Villages in 18th century Russia were "fake settlements" built to impress the political upper class. Imperial Russia's delusions of grandeur have much in common with the ours....

    JF said in reply to anne...

    "savings glut" comes to mind - too much wealth and some of it chases homes- then and still.

    But also, the "wealth" was created in the period you mention by leveraging positions, and we know many of these new lending-account-deposits bought positions (e.g. MBS) that lacked any reality. So it isn't just too much wealth but also the fact that many gained it, not from running a business and earning it, but via endogenous leverage, and this made home prices even more disconnected from real economics.

    A tax-cut-and-borrow scheme of public finance, in concert with the already wealthy also transferred huge sums, unearned.

    Rent-seeking led to imprudent leveraging and the investors all gained new wealth positions (but homeowners picked up the pieces and the rest of society too). So too much unearned wealth chases all kinds of assets (homes, stocks, luxury items and collectibles).

    Only public policy can remedy once the financial positions become lawfully established (again, even though these were obtained by rent-seeking and distortion of markets).

    anne said in reply to JF...

    "Savings glut" comes to mind - too much wealth and some of it chases homes - then and still....

    [ Interesting, when wealth is significantly invested in nonproductive assets, what then? ]

    JF said in reply to anne...

    We need economic policy to intervene. Can the FED change its regulations to encourage investments in non-financial matters within the core of society's needs (housing, durables, education come to mind)?

    Right now the FED is paying banks .25% IOER to hold their "reserves" - accounting matters is what Keynes would call this type of action - we need them to sponsor rules that get reserves into the real economy (certainly not leveraging other debts, even margin buying support for stocks, imo). Seems to me this is in their current authority. The FED can redeem the public debt on their books and take the current fiscal position of the govt to primary surplus (via remittance/offset) and this will cause public debt markets to change, and hopefully push investors to put their money elsewhere (public debt markets will not see interest rates rise where they are). Perhaps they should consider altering the margin rules too, again forcing owners of this excess wealth to invest outside these financial-asset trading marketplaces. Or spend - which would at least be taxed by capital gains provisions and by sales taxes.

    Oh well. What are they going to talk about in Wyoming??

    anne said in reply to JF...

    BigBozat said in reply to anne...

    [ Interesting, when wealth is significantly invested in nonproductive assets, what then? ]

    Nonproductive, like corporate stock buybacks. When buybacks exceed investment in R&D, plant & equipment, systems, etc. for a decade or more, then growth in the subsequent decade is likely to be merde, n'est-ce pas? Uncreative destruction. Schumpeter *rolls over in grave*

    anne said in reply to anne...

    Looking to real home prices, Shiller found that over time prices generally tracked inflation so that where the real home price index was 100 in 1890 the index was at 113 in 1996. Between 1996 and 2006 the real home price index increased from 113 to 194.7 which was an altogether unprecedented level.

    In June 2015, however, after the supposed deflating of the housing bubble the real home price index was 155.9 which is a level never even approached before 2003 when the housing bubble should have been obvious.

    What does this mean? Possibly homes should be considered remarkably inexpensive, remarkably fine investment currently, but a real home price index of 155.9 which had never been approached between 1890 and 2003 suggests that I, at least, need to understand why home are really so inexpensive currently.

    ThomasH said... \

    Yes, we are in one of these rare, anxious "just don't know situations" in which stock prices could go up or down, particularly if you ask about the future.

    pgl said in reply to ThomasH...

    That was Shiller's final thought. He does not if the market is overvalued or not - so the rest of us clearly do not know. Oh wait - James Glassman and Kevin Hassert are writing their DOW 72000! You say Glassman is an idiot? Yea but he is one of Jeb!'s economic advisers.

    [Aug 27, 2015]Where Is Neo When We Need Him

    Aug 27, 2015 | zerohedge.com

    In The Matrix in which Americans live, nothing is ever their fault. Nowhere in the Western media other than a few alternative media websites is there an ounce of integrity. The Western media is a Ministry of Truth that operates full-time in support of the artificial existence that Westerners live inside The Matrix where Westerners exist without thought. Considering their inaptitude and inaction, Western peoples might as well not exist. More is going to collapse on the brainwashed Western fools than mere stock values.

    In The Matrix in which Americans live, nothing is ever their fault. For example, the current decline in the US stock market is not because years of excessive liquidity supplied by the Federal Reserve have created a bubble so overblown that a mere six stocks, some of which have no earnings commiserate with their price, accounted for more than all of the gain in market capitalization in the S&P 500 prior to the current disruption.

    In our Matrix existence, the stock market decline is not due to corporations using their profits, and even taking out loans, to repurchase their shares, thus creating an artificial demand for their equity shares.

    The decline is not due to the latest monthly reporting of durable goods orders falling on a year-to-year basis for the sixth consecutive month.

    The stock market decline is not due to a weak economy in which after a decade of alleged economic recovery, new and existing home sales are still down by 63% and 23% from the peak in July 2005.

    The stock market decline is not due to the collapse in real median family income and, thereby, consumer demand, resulting from two decades of offshoring middle class jobs and partially replacing them with minimum wage part-time Walmart jobs without benefits that do not provide sufficient income to form a household.

    No, none of these facts can be blamed. The decline in the US stock market is the fault of China.

    What did China do? China is accused of devaluing by a small amount its currency.

    Why would a slight adjustment in the yuan's exchange value to the dollar cause the US and European stock markets to decline?

    It wouldn't. But facts don't matter to the presstitute media. They lie for a living.

    Moreover, it was not a devaluation.

    When China began the transition from communism to capitalism, China pegged its currency to the US dollar in order to demonstrate that its currency was as good as the world's reserve currency. Over time China has allowed its currency to appreciate relative to the dollar. For example, in 2006 one US dollar was worth 8.1 Chinese yuan. Recently, prior to the alleged "devaluation" one US dollar was worth 6.1 or 6.2 yuan. After China's adjustment to its floating peg, one US dollar is worth 6.4 yuan. Clearly, a change in the value of the yuan from 6.1 or 6.2 to the dollar to 6.4 to the dollar did not collapse the US and European stock markets.

    Furthermore, the change in the range of the floating peg to the US dollar did not devalue China's currency with regard to its non-US trading partners. What had happened, and what China corrected, is that as a result of the QE money printing policies currently underway by the Japanese and European central banks, the dollar appreciated against other currencies. As China's yuan is pegged to the dollar, China's currency appreciated with regard to its Asian and European trading partners. The appreciation of China's currency (due to its peg to the US dollar) is not a good thing for Chinese exports during a time of struggling economies. China merely altered its peg to the dollar in order to eliminate the appreciation of its currency against its other trading partners.

    Why did not the financial press tell us this? Is the Western financial press so incompetent that they do not know this? Yes.

    Or is it simply that America itself cannot possibly be responsible for anything that goes wrong. That's it. Who, us?! We are innocent! It was those damn Chinese!

    Look, for example, at the hordes of refugees from America's invasions and bombings of seven countries who are currently overrunning Europe. The huge inflows of peoples from America's massive slaughter of populations in seven countries, enabled by the Europeans themselves, is causing political consternation in Europe and the revival of far-right political parties. Today, for example, neo-nazis shouted down German Chancellor Merkel, who tried to make a speech asking for compassion for refugees.

    But, of course, Merkel herself is responsible for the refugee problem that is destabilizing Europe. Without Germany as Washington's two-bit punk puppet state, a non-entity devoid of sovereignty, a non-country, a mere vassal, an outpost of the Empire, ruled from Washington, America could not be conducting the illegal wars that are producing the hordes of refugees that are over-taxing Europe's ability to accept refugees and encouraging neo-nazi parties.

    The corrupt European and American press present the refugee problem as if it has nothing whatsoever to do with America's war crimes against seven countries. I mean, really, why should peoples flee countries when America is bringing them "freedom and democracy?"

    Nowhere in the Western media other than a few alternative media websites is there an ounce of integrity. The Western media is a Ministry of Truth that operates full-time in support of the artificial existence that Westerners live inside The Matrix where Westerners exist without thought. Considering their inaptitude and inaction, Western peoples might as well not exist.

    More is going to collapse on the brainwashed Western fools than mere stock values.

    Barnaby Barnaby's picture

    One of the youngest states in the world is hardly a threat. Client status means they're held by the balls. Any other understanding is simple paranoia.

    What you should be worried about is that your UN sponsor allows ethnic cleansing on such a scale in Palestine. That makes you culpable.

    DontWorry
    Don't worry, the USA is recognized as a beacon of freedom and democracy throughout the world. There are always multiple viewpoints, but the US media represents a fair, unbiased and mainstream view. Our press is the freest in the world, and supported by our Constitution. The US will be the center of western democracy, culture and commerce for the forseeable future.

    lasvegaspersona

    Many of the problems of modern life, including the actions of the US government, are founded in the very currency that enables it to act seemingly without effort.The ability to create the medium of exchange for the entire world has given this same government the appearance of invulnerability. It has allowed the federal government to make demands upon the states that comprise it. It can control citizens whose consent used to be required for it to act. It seems to have the ability to control the entire world.

    This is an illusion. It has been granted these abilities, it has not earned them nor won them. The world needed a monetary system post WW2 and even post 1971. The final stages of this whole episode was seen by Rueff and triffin quite clearly considering they spoke 40 plus years ago.

    Now the world has changed. It is withdrawing the permission it granted every time it bought treasuries or did other things that kept all those excess dollars from coming back to their country of birth to cause rising prices. The chinese are selling, the Arabs are selling and the ECB stopped buying long ago. They are not going to kill the dollar (and cause a war). They are going to let it fail through inaction. The actions of our nation do not make much sense to most folks who viewed thenUS as a good country. It seems to have been taken over by evil people.

    I think these are the actions of spoiled children who don't have to pay for what they get.

    Now the trust fund has run out. Daddy took the T-Bird away. Soon we will have to get a real job.

    About 50% of American exceptionalism is due to the exorbitant privilege. The other part is actually real...if we can salvage those things that once made us truly great. Most Americans, who pay attention, are shocked and angry by what they see their government doing.

    Both the government and the American people are not worse than any other country would have been if it was granted the same power over money itself. I just hope the ending of this chapter comes smoothly before we wreck the car and kill a lot more people.

    It is time to grow up and get a real job.

    Renfield

    <<Many of the problems of modern life, including the actions of the US government, are founded in the very currency that enables it to act seemingly without effort.The ability to create the medium of exchange for the entire world has given this same government the appearance of invulnerability. It has allowed the federal government to make demands upon the states that comprise it. It can control citizens whose consent used to be required for it to act. It seems to have the ability to control the entire world... Now the world has changed. It is withdrawing the permission it granted every time it bought treasuries or did other things that kept all those excess dollars from coming back to their country of birth to cause rising prices. The chinese are selling, the Arabs are selling and the ECB stopped buying long ago. They are not going to kill the dollar (and cause a war). They are going to let it fail through inaction. The actions of our nation do not make much sense to most folks who viewed thenUS as a good country. It seems to have been talen over by evil people. I think these are the actions of spoiled choildren who don't have to pay for what they get. Now the trust fund has run out. Daddy took the T-Bird away. Soon we will have to get a real job.>>

    Bravo. THIS is why the idea of any fiat "world reserve currency" needs to die for the good of the planet.

    On a national scale, I don't mind a fiat currency as long as it is not 1) issued by the government, 2) fraudulently claimed to be anything but fiat, or 3) mandated as the sole currency allowed for a nation. (Or city, or town, or any group.) That way people are free to ignore it in favor of real money.

    "Counterfeiting" laws should be scrapped in favor of good old-fashioned anti-fraud enforcement. But no government should ever be allowed by its people to traffic in a fraudulent, fiat currency, let alone to mandate it as the only currency legal to use. This puts criminals at the top of the system and riddles your financial system with fraud, and with such a foundation, of course bad money drives out good and eventually 'malinvestment' in unproductive or evil commerce becomes its entire result.

    buzzsaw99

    Without Germany as Washington's two-bit punk puppet state, a non-entity devoid of sovereignty, a non-country, a mere vassal, an outpost of the Empire, ruled from Washington, America could not be...

    AWESOME!

    MalteseFalcon

    The USA still has bases, army and air force in Germany. So the Germans are not completely feckless punks.

    What about France?

    [Aug 27, 2015] Oil markets catch breath after biggest gains in six years

    "A short covering rally, led by crude oil pushed commodities higher across the board. Better than expected U.S. GDP numbers was the main spark, although the force majeure on BP's exports from Nigeria extended the gains," ANZ said in a note on Friday morning.

    "The recovery in commodity prices looks fragile with concerns over China's growth still weighing on market activity," the bank added.

    The U.S. economy grew faster than initially thought in the second quarter on solid domestic demand. Gross domestic product expanded at a 3.7 percent annual pace instead of the 2.3 percent rate reported last month, the Commerce Department said on Thursday in its second GDP estimate for the April-June period.

    Shell's Nigerian unit, Shell Petroleum Development Company (SPDC), declared force majeure on Bonny Light crude oil exports on Thursday after shutting down two key pipelines in the country due to a leak and theft.

    China's falling auto sales have been at the forefront of concerns that its economy is slowing much faster than expected, weighing on oil prices.

    Venezuela has been contacting other members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), pushing for an emergency meeting with Russia to come up with a plan to stop the global oil price rout, the Wall Street Journal reported.

    [Aug 27, 2015] Oil Prices Must Rebound. Here's Why

    OilPrice.com

    You can see two things on this chart, the first is that when capacity exceeds demand, prices are low (and vice versa); the second is that, since about 2005, despite the oil price being rather high, outside North America the world has struggled to add any oil production capacity at all. In fact, since 2010 oil production capacity outside North America has been in decline. If it weren't for the USA & Canada, where production growth has been driven by LTO & SAGD, we would have been in a right pickle.

    ... ... ...

    In the short term, the oil market is in the doldrums and projects are being delayed or cancelled, left right and center. That will mean that, outside North America, oil production capacity will decline even faster and with the growth knocked out of the shale producers and SAGD projects being put on the back burner, it is only a matter of months before demand starts to exceed world oil production capacity again.

    A nasty recession might put a dent in demand growth and turn those months into quarters, but eventually capacity will wane, demand will wax, and the oil price will climb once again.

    In fact if traders looked hard at these charts they might wonder if the continued weakness in the 2022 Brent Oil future was a tad overdone. For this time, I think the price response might be even stronger and more sustained than before.

    Oil Prices Driven Lower By Everything Except Fundamentals

    By Leonard Brecken

    "...According to Reuters, 50 to 60 hedge funds have taken short positions that account for around 160 million barrels of oil in near term contracts. In fact, the amount of short positions in oil options and futures now exceeds levels in the great financial meltdown of 2008, believe it or not, despite talk of a good economy and the Fed needing to raise interest rates. Madness, right?"
    "...All these things still don't explain the panic in oil markets other than financially driven events that aren't directly tied to the supply and demand of oil which, as I stated, has improved vs. the start of 2015. "
    Aug 24, 2015 | OilPrice.com

    It is clear that it is no longer supply and demand for oil that is dictating the price but is instead the financial markets and more importantly money flows tied to central bank policy.

    Bearish sentiment in the oil markets is taking over as net short positions near record highs. According to Reuters, 50 to 60 hedge funds have taken short positions that account for around 160 million barrels of oil in near term contracts. In fact, the amount of short positions in oil options and futures now exceeds levels in the great financial meltdown of 2008, believe it or not, despite talk of a good economy and the Fed needing to raise interest rates. Madness, right?

    ... ... ...

    Fundamentally, almost every bear case presented by the media in 2015 has been proven false. Doomsday events such as rig count (vertical rigs being dropped vs. horizontal), Cushing overflowing, China demand slowing, to Iran floating storage of 50 million barrels being unleashed, U.S. production rising, have all been dispelled.

    In fact, as I said, the fundamentals have even improved as U.S. production has entered into decline, crude stocks have been drawing down since the spring, and demand for gasoline is at record highs (much higher vs. expectations going into 2015). Furthermore, the worries on Iran are completely overblown given that the hype on floating storage – the millions of barrels of crude oil sitting in tankers turned out to be low quality condensate that is hard to process. Also, the 500,000 to 1 million barrels per day (mb/d) increase tied to the nuclear deal will be absorbed by higher demand, which has averaged 1 million barrels or more each year (in 2015, it has been even higher than that; closer to 1.4 mb/d or higher).

    Furthermore, China alone will add 600,000 barrels per day in refinery capacity, as it allows independent refineries to process oil. What has been incrementally negative has been additional capacity added by Iraq and Saudi Arabia since the start 2015. However, aside from Iran, OPEC doesn't have any spare capacity left and, Saudi Arabia has already announced intentions of reducing output by 200,000-300,000 barrels per day post their seasonally strong domestic period.

    Yet even though the dollar has weakened recently, oil has still collapsed some 35 percent. The E&P equities have fallen even further as in addition to shorts, there are also pressing bets on the upcoming fall credit redetermination and hedge funds taking positions in E&P bonds while shorting equities.

    All these things still don't explain the panic in oil markets other than financially driven events that aren't directly tied to the supply and demand of oil which, as I stated, has improved vs. the start of 2015. In fact, demand is soaring while days of supply are improving dramatically as evidenced by the charts the charts below:

    ... ... ...

    Leonard Brecken, Brecken Capital LLC. Leonard is a portfolio manager and principal at Brecken Capital LLC, a hedge fund focused on domestic equities

    [Aug 27, 2015] Oil Industry Needs Half a Trillion Dollars to Endure Price Slump

    "...Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years."
    "... In the U.S., the number of bonds yielding greater than 10 percent has increased more than fourfold to 80 over the past year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Twenty-six European oil companies have bonds in that category, including Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ltd. and EnQuest Plc."
    "...Some earnings metrics are already breaching the lows of the 2008 financial crisis. The profit margin for the 108-member MSCI World Energy Sector Index, which includes Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., is the lowest since at least 1995, the earliest for when data is available."
    "...Credit-rating downgrades are putting additional strain on the ability of oil companies to raise money cheaply. Standard & Poor's cut the rating of Eni SpA, Italy's biggest oil company, in April while Moody's Investors Service downgraded Tullow Oil Plc's debt in March."
    "...The biggest companies, with global portfolios that span oil fields to refineries, will probably emerge largely intact from the slump, Norton Rose's Wood said. Smaller players, dependent on fewer assets, could have problems, she said."
    Aug 27, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    ... ... ...

    "The look and shape of the oil industry would likely change over the next five to 10 years as companies emerge from this," Wood said. "If oil prices stay at these levels, the number of bankruptcies and distress deals will undoubtedly increase."

    Debt repayments will increase for the rest of the decade, with $72 billion maturing this year, about $85 billion in 2016 and $129 billion in 2017, according to BMI Research. About $550 billion in bonds and loans are due for repayment over the next five years.

    U.S. drillers account for 20 percent of the debt due in 2015, Chinese companies rank second with 12 percent and U.K. producers represent 9 percent.

    In the U.S., the number of bonds yielding greater than 10 percent has increased more than fourfold to 80 over the past year, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. Twenty-six European oil companies have bonds in that category, including Gulf Keystone Petroleum Ltd. and EnQuest Plc.

    ... ... ...

    Slumping crude prices are diminishing the value of oil reserves and reducing borrowing power, even as pressure builds to find replacement fields.

    Some earnings metrics are already breaching the lows of the 2008 financial crisis. The profit margin for the 108-member MSCI World Energy Sector Index, which includes Exxon Mobil Corp. and Chevron Corp., is the lowest since at least 1995, the earliest for when data is available.

    "There are several credits which simply won't be able to refinance and extend maturities and they may need to raise additional equity," said Eirik Rohmesmo, a credit analyst at Clarksons Platou Securities AS in Oslo. "The question is: Would they be able to do that with debt at these levels?"

    Credit Ratings

    Some U.S. producers gained breathing space by leveraging their low-cost assets to raise funds earlier this year and repay debt, Goldman Sachs Group Inc. wrote in a Aug. 6 report. This helped companies shore up their capital and reduce debt-servicing costs.

    That may no longer be an option because energy companies have been the worst performers in the past year among 10 industry groups in the MSCI World Index.

    Credit-rating downgrades are putting additional strain on the ability of oil companies to raise money cheaply. Standard & Poor's cut the rating of Eni SpA, Italy's biggest oil company, in April while Moody's Investors Service downgraded Tullow Oil Plc's debt in March.

    Spokesmen for Eni and Tullow declined to comment.

    The biggest companies, with global portfolios that span oil fields to refineries, will probably emerge largely intact from the slump, Norton Rose's Wood said. Smaller players, dependent on fewer assets, could have problems, she said.

    "Clearly, those companies with debt to pay will have one eye firmly on oil prices," said Christopher Haines, a senior oil and gas analyst at BMI in London. "With revenues collapsing and debt soon to mature, a growing number of companies may find themselves unable to meet repayment schedules."

    [Aug 26, 2015]Peter Schiff The market's 'pipe dream' is ending

    "For awhile, people thought that the stock market can handle higher interest rates. That was just a pipe dream. They can't," Schiff said Tuesday on CNBC's " Futures Now ." "That's the only thing propping up the market."

    [Aug 25, 2015] What cheap oil means, and where do prices go from here

    Let's take the unassailable good news first: The price of benchmark West Texas Intermediate crude oil recently dipped below $39 a barrel, which is down from $140 in 2008. That's an incredible 72% drop. And, yes, lower oil prices have pushed down gas prices. At $2.60 a gallon, gas is now about a dollar below where it was last year at this time. And it could continue to fall. Some analysts are looking for prices to drop below $2, maybe even down toward $1.60 a gallon, the low during the Great Recession in early 2009. When President Obama predicted in his State of the Union Address in January that "the typical family this year should save $750 at the pump," he was probably right. Multiply that by the nation's 115 million households and you get a total savings of over $86 billion. That's huge.

    Lower gas prices help poor people in particular; households with incomes of less than $50,000 spent 21% of their income on energy in 2012, according to analysts at Bank of America Merrill Lynch, while households earning more than $50,000 spent 9%. Additionally, Americans who live in chillier regions like New England and the Midwest could save another $750 or so on energy bills.

    ... ... ...

    But the biggest problem with cheap oil may well be the destabilizing effect that it can have on oil-dependent nations around the world. Yes, some may cheer the pain Saudi Arabia and other OPEC nations will feel, but they should be careful of what they wish for as a raft of difficulties looms here. There are 19 countries that produce over a million barrels of oil a day, and it's a diverse group, including, of course, the U.S., Saudi Arabia and Kuwait, but also the likes of Brazil, Norway and Angola, and Canada. Each country will have to adjust to less income and lower employment in oil-related businesses. The nation's that stand to lose the most, though, are Russia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and Iraq-in order, the biggest oil exporters in the world.

    ... ... ...

    bur

    Well this was a crock of manure.... A 72% decrease in oil cost only provides approximately a $1 difference at the gas pump??? Who is making all the money? The price at the pump should be around $1.25 at the most. Seems like the oil refineries making fuel are paying significantly less for oil and minimally reducing costs at the pump based on their savings! Also, this whole thing was directed at fuel.

    Many of our daily use products (plastics etc.) are petroleum based. Has consumption of those items gone down? Did Coca Cola, Pepsi, etc. quit putting their product in plastic bottles? Did the world quit using plastics over night? Its all an attempt to make the general public feel guilty about low fuel prices.

    Give us a small break here. The Middle East has raped the United States for years with the oil prices and we are supposed to feel sorry for them? I don't think so.

    Lou

    I was pleasantly surprised to read such a sober and balanced article. Cheap energy and lots of it is what has made America the industrial leader of the world. Although low oil prices hurt my income (I am a Petroleum Engineer), easy-to-find-and-produce oil is not unlimited in supply and demand for innovation in oil recovery will continue.

    So, I am bullish on Industrial America thriving with these low prices and on the future of the oil industry in meeting future demand. We will not only survive as a nation and as an industry, we will continue to lead the world.

    Mica

    I see the drop in oil prices this way - everything should be cheaper. Truckers can transport products cheaper. Manufacturers can produce a less expensive product. Travel will be more plentiful because the price of fuel is cheaper. Unemployment will go down because businesses will need to employ more people because the demand will go up. People will have more money to spend.

    People don't generally save their money so they will spend more. I'm not really losing sleep over the people struggling in Russia or Saudi Arabia because quite frankly it will be the kings not the general public who will suffer. The general public is suffering already in these countries. As for the people here in the US who work in the oil industry, they have reaped the benefits that we had to pay for so what goes around comes around, Lets face it - there is not an endless supply of oil so the price will soar again.

    Joe

    Translation: We the left hhhhaaaaattttteeee cheap oil, cheap oil means people are free to do as they please, drive wherever they want, and worst of all drive an SUV!. We MUST put stop to this STAT, quick find someone who will write an article and throw in a bunch of BS that weak minded people with buy into, in other words tell them to ignore common sense and only believe what we tell you. "We are the left you will be assimilated, resistance is futile"

    drp

    Peak oil was a valid theory. Hubbert was referring to cheap conventional oil. The new oil which has come onto the market as on late amounts to a world surplus of about 3%. Since world demand is about 93 Million BOPD, the 3% represents about 3 MBOPD. The US brought about 4 to 5 million bbls of new expensive unconventional oil online over the past 5 years. The companies that brought that oil online are mostly cashflow negative, and most of them will go broke due to owing more money than they are bringing in. The new shale oil cost more than conventional oil, and the expensive new oil was financed by low interest rates. About 40 million bbls of the world 93 million bbls of demand comes from expensive unconventional oil (such as deep water oil, tar sands, offshore deep water Brazil oil, shale oil, etc.). Once the OPEC countires become unstable to the point where they could lose their regime, they will cut back on production of oil in order to raise the price of crude oil so that they can finance their countries socal programs and finace their armies to protect the regimes which allows the OPEC countries to stay in power and under civil law. Again, the world needs both cheap oil and also unconventional more expensive oil. We do not have enough cheap conventional oil to meet world demand. So, expect the price of world crude oil to increase again once the CAPEX programs that have already been cut result in less oil production. Again, the 5 million bbls of new shale oil that has been brought on the market in the US is not economic, thus prices will have to increase, or this shale oil will not be produced economically and the companies will go out of business. ZIRP -- zero interest rate production cannot last forever, and shale oil, deep water oil, unconventional oil cost more than $40/bbl to produce. Hopefully we will see the need for increased prices in oil so that the price doesnt go up in a whipsaw way, and cause disruptions in production. $65-$80/bbl will be about the price where OPEC might be stable (although their budgets call for about $112 to $86/bbl to remain out of debt and able to remain stable regimes). There is much more to the world oil picture than this articles brings to folks who would like to know. Regards.

    Gene

    "Another problem with cheap oil, though, is that it will likely derail efforts to develop alternative sustainable energy sources like solar, wind and hydro. These businesses suddenly become uneconomical when the price of oil drops precipitously."

    That is a bad argument. Those alternative energy sources were uneconomical and unpractical when oil price was $140 per barrel. We are not ready technologically yet to deliver efficient solution for alternative source of energy, regardless of what Hollywood said. All other arguments such as feeling of Saudi Arabia and other Arabs - are not our "primary" concern at all.

    paul

    don't let yahoo fool you! What this really means it they cannot pursue further drilling developments without the high price of oil. It cost almost a billion dollars to drill deep and without oil at 80 dollars a barrel they will no longer be able to dig deep. But Alas we have a overflow of oil so why do we need to dig deep still? This is all about big oil not lining their pockets will thousand dollar bills but instead with hundred dollar bills!

    [Aug 25, 2015] Norway's Oil Minister Says Crude Price at $40 Can't Last

    Bloomberg Business

    Crude at $40 a barrel is unsustainable and prices will have to rise as supply drops out of the market, according to Norway's Oil Minister.

    "There has developed a surplus capacity on the production side and the supply side -- the supply side will be reduced in today's oil prices," Tord Lien said in an interview in Oslo on Tuesday. "But $40 oil prices? They are clearly unsustainable in the medium- to long-term."

    ... ... ...

    "There's no reason to think we will see oil prices last under $55 a barrel but we will have to adjust to lower oil prices," Lien said. "It's important for Norway to make the adjustments and prepare for a lower price-range than we were getting used to."

    [Aug 25, 2015] Out in the Real World, Oil Market Is Much Better Than It Looks

    Aug 25, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

    The global oil market is healthier than it looks, signaling that crude's plunge to six-year lows has probably gone too far.

    While futures tumbled below $45 a barrel in London for the first time since 2009, Morgan Stanley and Standard Chartered Plc say other measures suggest physical markets for crude have stabilized or even strengthened in recent weeks. China, the world's second-biggest oil consumer, will keep buying extra barrels to fill its strategic reserve this year, according to Goldman Sachs Group Inc.

    "While oil fundamentals aren't strong, physical markets do not corroborate the substantial weakness in flat price," New York-based Morgan Stanley analyst Adam Longson said in a report Monday. The "latest oil pricing pressure appears more financial than physical."

    ... ... ...

    The gap between the price of the first-month Brent contract, October, and futures for settlement 12 months forward hasn't widened enough over the past few weeks to suggest the world is running out of space to store crude, according to Longson. The spread was more than $11 a barrel in January, compared with about $6 on Tuesday, ICE data show. This suggests the supply surplus is smaller today than it was at the start of the year, said Horsnell.

    The spread between Brent and Dubai, the grade used as Asia's regional crude benchmark, is at its narrowest for this time of year in several years, according to Morgan Stanley. This signals continued strength in demand from Asia for Middle Eastern crude, Longson said. Prices for West African crude grades relative to Brent have strengthened in recent weeks, he said.

    ... ... ...

    "Despite poor headline macro data, most China oil demand data points remain resilient," Longson said. The nation's apparent demand for gasoline rose 17 percent last month, the highest growth rate all year, he said.

    The filling of emergency crude reserves in China "gives the market a lifeline" that distinguishes the current situation from the Asian crash of 1998, Jeff Currie, head of commodities research at Goldman Sachs, said in an interview on Bloomberg Television Aug. 21. Brent crude dropped to as low as $9.55 a barrel in December 1998, according to ICE data.

    ... ... ...

    Another weight lifted from the oil market is the conclusion of Mexico's annual hedging program, Morgan Stanley's Longson said. The Latin American producer locked in 2016 prices for 212 million barrels, its Finance Ministry said on Aug. 20. The biggest hedge undertaken by any national government, the program was an "under-appreciated negative" for prices and its completion "removes a bearish overhang for oil," he said.


    [Aug 25, 2015] Oil Traders Race for Cover as Light at End of Tunnel Dims

    Bloomberg Business

    The most active WTI options Monday were October $35 puts, which surged 38 cents to 66 cents a barrel on volume of 14,240 lots. It was the highest price since April. The second-most active were November $30 puts, with 8,138 contracts trading.

    The so-called skew, measuring the premium for December 25-delta put options versus 25-delta calls, almost doubled in the past two trading sessions.

    WTI crude for October delivery fell $2.21, or 5.5 percent, to $38.24 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange Monday. It was the lowest settlement since Feb. 18, 2009. The December contract fell 5.4 percent to $39.65. Tuesday, October futures rose $1.37, or 3.6 percent, to $39.61 at 9:22 a.m.

    The Chicago Board Options Exchange Crude Oil Volatility Index surged 12 percent to highest level since April. The gauge measures hedging costs on the United States Oil Fund LP, an exchange-traded fund tracking crude futures. Shares of the ETF dropped 5.6 percent to $12.49.

    [Aug 25, 2015] It Feels Like 1997 Warns Art Cashin, Watch High Yield

    "... The high yield market has been of some concern of the last several weeks. If that begins to show appreciable weakness than I would think the caution flags stay up. "

    Aug 25, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Another scary development is the crash in energy markets. On Monday, the price of WTI oil dropped temporarily below 38 $. How does that affect the stock market?
    People keep talking that cheap oil means more money to spend. But we're not seeing that at all. I think that the weakening of the oil price is counter-beneficial: Here in the United States, a lot of the employment that we picked up after the recession came from energy related areas like fracking. And now they're certainly not employing any extra people and in some cases they're laying off. Also, as oil is going down it is putting more pressure on stocks. You see the big oil companies trading lower and they're all prominently represented in different stock market averages.

    ... ... ....

    ready to raise interest rates.

    What are the signals you are looking for to stay on top in such a market?
    I continue to monitor the high yield market and see where that goes. The high yield market has been of some concern of the last several weeks. If that begins to show appreciable weakness than I would think the caution flags stay up.

    [Aug 25, 2015] Bulls back in charge; Intervention the 'new normal'; Hollywood's China love story

    Braden

    A bounce back to pre-correction levels will prove once and for all that the 1% are completely manipulating the Casino through the use of the media for their gain. It would mean that the news about China and the world markets was somehow false. Why would the market correct and then go back up within a week unless it were pure manipulation? We shall see. This is a real test as to how rigged the game really is. We have not had a correction like this in about 4 years and I don't see how the market continues to march upward based on the reasons it just corrected unless they are false.

    [Aug 25, 2015] Oil rallies but still near six-and-a-half-year lows

    U.S. crude <CLc1>, also known at West Texas Intermediate or WTI, was up $1.40 at $39.64 a barrel by 1320 GMT, while Brent <LCOc1> was up $1.50 at $44.19.

    ... ... ...

    Several members of the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries are producing record volumes of oil in an attempt to squeeze out competition.

    Adding to supply glut concerns, OPEC member Iran said on Tuesday it would increase crude production and reclaim its lost export share after international sanctions are lifted, even if prices remain low.

    gigi

    This is what causes high prices in gas and makes the 10% rich.

    The Commodity Futures Modernization Act of 2000 Signed by Bill Clinton was ® Senator Phil Gramm's desire to prevent the SEC from regulating swaps, and against CFTC regulation preventing "bank products." derivatives passed allowing banks to invest in risky OIL and farm commodities such as corn, wheat and soybeans Driving the prices up for the consumer and creating large profits for a few people and doing nothing for 90% of the people. Thus SPECULATION in the futures trades in commodities OIL , paper trades, was made possible and is a main driver for higher PRICES at the pump and in groceries at the store. This was good for 10% of America and HURT 90% of of the people and we still are feeling the effects every day!

    Wrekins

    coincidentally, phil gramm's wife worked at the CFTC and puhsed for deregulation that Enron was lobbying for, and then later GRamm's wife left the CFTC and joined the board of directors of Enron. Somehow they managed to stay out of jail. Incredible. As corrupt as the day is long. "Serving their country"

    Rudy

    that was "better self service".

    [Aug 24, 2015] Advice After Stock Market Drop Take Some Deep Breaths, and Don't Do a Thing

    "...I think low bank interest is a scam to force people into the markets. That's one result of banking deregulation."
    "...Whenever the stock market falls sharply the "professionals" advise the "amateurs" not to do a thing, to stick with their long term goals. Then the professionals sell and the amateurs take the loss."
    "... If you are near retirement or in retirement, think twice about the advice here to not adjust your portfolio. Can you sustain a 30 to 40 percent drop in the value of your retirement account and wait, perhaps, years for it to recover? If not, question the advice here and act accordingly. One strategy: Lighten up your equity position, but stay invested. The middle ground, safer approach."
    "...Consider this: In 1929 your portfolio (i.e. life savings) disappeared - down 86% overnight. So you held on - for 26 years, until 1955. Now, you are even! Then, ten years later (1965), the market stalled for 17 years…"
    "...My question is - why does the average American who isn't a financial expert have to risk his/her money in the stock market at all?... I have no interest in spending all of my spare time educating myself about the market and what it may or may not do. I do have a financial advisor, but if the bank gave a much better rate on savings accounts I wouldn't need one. Me thinks this is a grand conspiracy to steal people's money. "
    Aug 24, 2015 | The New York Times
    Rutger Fitz, Sweden, 2015/08/22
    On your 4th point: Are you seriously comparing selling off at (probably) almost the pinnacle of a seven year fantastic bull market to selling off at the low point of an 18 month crash in 2009?

    Of course it's a good idea to get rid of everything you've got now and investing in something extremely stable, if you're 70 years old. Don't be stupid with your money.

    jeffgs, home
    The Times has, on a number of occasions, printed such articles as this. It may be good advice. It may also be that the Times is part of the corporate body that would loose if more people sold, and so the Times' encouragement to hold is to protect itself, and Capitalism in general. And that it would be in many peoples' advantage to sell now.

    I trust that you read me to say I don't know...and it well could be possible. Certainly those who have sold, and so have moved so many markets so far, most of whom [with the big accounts, who effect the prices] think its in their best interest to sell.

    Which raises the question: why would it be that so many of those who are paid so much to be 'right', and can make arguments that they are likely to be so, have sold so much? They, and others who care about such things, certainly think that it was right to sell. Why would it be in their best interest, and not in yours or mine?

    mancuroc, is a trusted commenter Rochester, NY

    The market is perfect for people with money. You can afford the losses, then buy cheap and make a bundle when the market goes up. Meanwhile, the rest of us are at the mercy of the market, depending on its timing.

    I think low bank interest is a scam to force people into the markets. That's one result of banking deregulation.

    And if some politician seeking your vote proposes converting Social Security to private account, vote the other way.

    Kenneth Ranson, Salt Lake City 2 hours ago

    Whenever the stock market falls sharply the "professionals" advise the "amateurs" not to do a thing, to stick with their long term goals. Then the professionals sell and the amateurs take the loss.

    My advice, sell, sell everything, and when the Dow goes to 4,000 the professionals will have to rethink their investment strategies since they can no longer count on long term investors to stabilize the markets.

    wmeyerhofer, New York 2 hours ago

    I hate to brag, but I shifted everything to bonds - and insisted my husband shift everything to bonds - about 2 months ago. It was starting to feel downright greedy to expect anything more out of the equity markets. So I'm sitting pretty and I'll put a toe back into equities in, say, a year or two. Meanwhile, I'm whistling a happy tune. Don't hate me. I put everything into bonds in Autumn of 2007 too, so I have a perfect record so far of knowing when I've made too much money and it's time to calm down and batten down the hatches and not get greedy.

    treabeton, new hartford, ny

    If you are near retirement or in retirement, think twice about the advice here to not adjust your portfolio. Can you sustain a 30 to 40 percent drop in the value of your retirement account and wait, perhaps, years for it to recover?

    If not, question the advice here and act accordingly. One strategy: Lighten up your equity position, but stay invested. The middle ground, safer approach.

    Fourteen, Boston 2 hours ago

    Majortrout and Ron Lieber. Neither of you have it right. Anyone who still believes in buy and hold as a viable investment strategy is a person who will never sleep well at night.

    Consider this: In 1929 your portfolio (i.e. life savings) disappeared - down 86% overnight. So you held on - for 26 years, until 1955. Now, you are even! Then, ten years later (1965), the market stalled for 17 years…

    Remember 2008? You lost 50%! How did that feel? Now, your life savings are teetering again, so how well are you sleeping, Mr. Buy and Hold?

    Buy and hold has been dead for at least ten years, when globalization and algo trading took over. Note that the big money does not "buy and hold".

    Don't listen to the big money shills, journalists, or neophyte day-traders....

    Jake, Pittsburgh

    Famous quote from JP Morgan, when asked what the stock market will do: "It will fluctuate".

    Angela, Elk Grove, Ca

    My question is - why does the average American who isn't a financial expert have to risk his/her money in the stock market at all? Why can't we get better rates for pass book savings accounts and other safer, government protected investments? Yes, I know that interest rates are set by the Fed, however, many banks and quite a few credit unions seem to have a lot of money for some pretty frivolous things. Are they allowed to set a higher savings rate? Or are they required by law to set their rates at a certain amount. You are lucky if you can get 1% on a passbook savings account. Banks have many sources of interest income and should be able to increase what they pay on their savings accounts.

    A case in point, Golden 1 Credit Union in California just recently spent over a million dollars for the naming rights to the new Kings stadium in downtown Sacramento, yet, I am getting about 1% on my passbook account. First of all NO credit union should have that kind of slush fund, second, if they can spend that kind of money on naming rights, then they should be able to give me a much better ROI on my passbook account as well as other savings instruments. Not being a financial person, I have no interest in spending all of my spare time educating myself about the market and what it may or may not do. I do have a financial advisor, but if the bank gave a much better rate on savings accounts I wouldn't need one. Me thinks this is a grand conspiracy to steal people's money.

    Ignatius Pug, NYC 59 minutes ago

    Yes indeed. There seems to be a periodic sucking sound that pulls the meager profits out of my 401k into the accounts of those who are better off financially. Surely some big players will be profiting from this plunge at the expense of the retirement accounts of the masses. Meanwhile those of us who do something more socially constructive for a living-- as opposed to playing elaborate slot machines-- are forced to fritter away our time and money in support of the "financial industry." I'm sure that members of congress all know this and also have very healthy portfolios.

    [Aug 24, 2015] Black Monday Brings Global Market Rout, Investors Mourn The Death Of Central Bank Omnipotence

    Aug 24, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    NoDebt

    My central premise since joining ZH was that we were all going to turn into Japan. As I always pointed out, the only thing not lining up with that theory was a persistent bear market in equities.

    What's that? 1200 Dow points in two days? On NO NEW NEWS.

    Hey, if you've enjoyed the crash so far you're really going to like the multi-year slow grind lower that follows it.

    Bay of Pigs

    Its been a long wait for some of us NoDebt.

    To see the bulls utterly crucified will be heartwarming to me.

    Oldwood

    Delusion's greatest enemy is truthiness. Truth is becoming more popular if not also more hated, and this will let the air out. People know its all fake but they choose to ignore that fact as long as they think everyone else will do the same. After all, why not when their economic gains are at stake. Reality always wins however and that inevitability is what people hear ringing in their ears.

    Not My Real Name

    Multi-year slow grind to be preempted this time by a currency crisis -- and then reset.

    gatorengineer

    I cannot see how this is possibly going to go slow. Another day or so and Hedgies will start blowing up.

    [Aug 24, 2015] Why $20 Oil Won't Happen

    "...U.S. crude oil production is now falling. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in its most recent Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) that U.S. crude oil production declined by 100,000 bpd in July compared with June, and they expect these declines to continue because of the steep cuts shale oil producers have made to their budgets. The EIA reduced its forecast for oil production next year to 400,000 bpd less than this year. "
    "...Canadian oil producers are in an even deeper bind than U.S. oil producers. A recent article stated that at $40/bbl WTI, Canada's largest synthetic crude project is losing about $10 on every barrel."
    Aug 24, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest we have bottomed. You could have $15 or $20 oil - easily," influential money manager David Kotok told CNNMoney. "I'm an old goat. I remember when oil was $3 a barrel," said Kotok, whose clients include former New Jersey Governor Thomas Kean.

    Yes, and you could get a candy bar and soda for a nickel. But I will bet him $10,000 we don't see WTI at $15/bbl unless he has access to a time machine. Today I want to address this argument. I got into a debate on this topic with a person yesterday, and I am seeing enough of these predictions that I thought it warranted addressing. Again. The $20/bbl argument goes something like this: Crude oil inventories are extremely high. U.S. oil production keeps rising. Demand is falling. Something has to give.

    Crude Inventories Did Rise

    The problem is that this conventional wisdom argument is wrong on 2 counts. It is true that crude oil inventories are high. Last week there was a surprise build in U.S. crude oil inventories. Analysts were expecting inventories to fall - which they have been doing since April - but instead crude inventories rose by 2.6 million barrels. Following this week's release of the Weekly Petroleum Status Report announcing the surprise build in inventories, I saw more than one person claim "We are definitely going below $40/bbl today."

    Related: Donald Trump Sees No Danger For Environment In Keystone XL Pipeline

    Didn't happen. Now it could happen within the next few days. We are close, so one really bad day could drop us below $40, disproving my January prediction that WTI would not close below $40/bbl in 2015. But the price won't stay there because that is well below the marginal cost of production at the current level of world demand. More on that below.

    I don't believe the people predicting $20 oil are seeing the whole picture. The person I debated this week essentially argued "High inventories = much lower oil prices." But you have to dig down a bit more than that. Why did inventories rise last week? There were two primary drivers.

    The first is that the BP refinery in Whiting, Indiana - one of the largest in the country - is dealing with unexpected maintenance problems. They have 235,000 barrels per day (bpd) of crude oil refining capacity offline. (For those who think this is some sort of conspiracy by BP to drive up gasoline prices, get real. This helps all the other refiners - not BP). So BP didn't consume about 1.6 million barrels of crude during the week that they otherwise would have consumed. Yet inventories rose even more than that. Why? Did U.S. production surge?

    U.S. Crude Production is Falling

    No, U.S. crude oil production is now falling. The Energy Information Administration (EIA) reported in its most recent Short Term Energy Outlook (STEO) that U.S. crude oil production declined by 100,000 bpd in July compared with June, and they expect these declines to continue because of the steep cuts shale oil producers have made to their budgets. The EIA reduced its forecast for oil production next year to 400,000 bpd less than this year. More on the significance of this below.

    So why did inventories increase last week? It was actually because crude oil imports surged. Crude oil imports were 465,000 bpd higher than the previous week. That means 3.3 million barrels more oil came into the country than arrived in the previous week. Add that to the BP outage, and there was a surplus of oil of 4.9 million barrels relative to the previous week. This more than explains the 2.6 million barrel weekly gain in inventories. The question is "Will that continue to happen?"

    In my opinion, "No." The BP outage will continue for an indefinite period, but the import surge was an anomaly. Crude imports from Canada surged by 404,000 bpd from the previous week. But guess what? Canadian oil producers are in an even deeper bind than U.S. oil producers. A recent article stated that at $40/bbl WTI, Canada's largest synthetic crude project is losing about $10 on every barrel. How long do you suppose that can continue? The larger producers will hang in as long as they can, but some of the smaller guys are going to be shutting in production at $40 WTI (which implies an even lower price for them due to the distance to market). That will reduce imports from Canada - the very imports that surprisingly drove crude inventories higher this week.

    [Aug 23, 2015] Are Stock Markets Setting Up For A New 'Black Monday'

    Aug 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    atthelake

    Depends on how long tptb want to keep this Ponzi floating. If they're not ready for a crash, they'll do something to stop it. If they're ready for a crash, this will be it. If they've lost control of it, hold on to your hats. It's going to be a memorable ride.

    Jungle Jim

    But what I'm afraid of is that nothing much will happen tomorrow. Just another Big Nothing. No fireworks. No walls come tumbling down. No heads roll.
    Instead, the Nice Government Men will just push a few buttons and pull a few strings and click a few mouse clicks and the stock market will soar right back up to its all-time highs again.
    Or they may even dump 24.7 Billion ounces of "gold" in a nanosecond in the wee hours of the morning, strictly to move the price. Move it *down*, that is. I don't think there even *are* 24.7 Billion ounces of physical gold, actual physical three-dimensional metal, on this planet. But that never stopped them before.
    Honestly, I'm not psychic, but something just tells me tomorrow's going be a dud, just another non-happening.

    farmboy

    Who knows, one thing is for sure :

    1. Margin requirements will rise that is not good with margin debt at all time high.

    2. Option expiration on Friday will mean a lot of people get a call to cover this "free put premium"

    3. Momo player must switch sides.

    But he expect also tap dancing FED members singing with Krugman for "Fly me to the moon" Frank sinatra.


    ebworthen

    Take away, the bailouts, 7 years of ZIRP, and Trillions in QE slathered on Wall Street and what do you get?

    Dow 6,000 and S&P 666!

    silverer

    I was thinking about 8,500. But you know what? I don't think I'd bet against your #. The only thing we have to look forward to now is how many people Trump will fire in the first two months if he's elected Prez. Best entertainment ever!

    Hope Copy

    Don't count earning, as the company still controls the money... they can hold for a crash and do a stock buyback at the bottom and the remaining stock holders get no income.. You guys need to get off the mythical earnings horse as it can break a leg at anytime and you are dumped having gone no where (still on the race track and not in the real world)... gambling without a clue but the horse's name...

    In a crash, cash is king, as margins have to be covered. The tals will ose some also and will be bought by those that have cash and want a safe haven, but only at a discount. It is when Bonds also dive and liquidity is provided, the metals will rise.

    The FED will buy gold and all refinable metals that are easily transportable. This I suggest to them if they are to do another QE.. at least get omething of value for the release of cash.

    the grateful un...

    nirvana in the stock buyback game is when you have almost all your float, you buy it back (from yourself) and you go private. the problem with buybacks is when you start losing share value jsut because the indexes are crashing, the only shares being traded are being sold, as bob prechter says it only take two a buyer and seller to make a market, buying up your own stock only works on the upside, with low volume. at the bottom there is no easy money to buyback stock and theres a good chance you held on and still have most of the float, worth less than half what you paid for it with borrowed money. a crash is the one thing the share buyback program is not going to like

    the grateful unemployed

    the 87 drop included a pretty good snapback rally before we got to monday, (this is august and the crash came in october) then the USG pledged money (we will outdo the Chinese on buying back our stock market I wager) more to the question is this the 2000 nasdaq selloff, which was steady and relentless. that crash came about because of a RATE HIKE. greenspan wanted to pop the tech bubble. the 87 event was as nearly as postiive a crash as you could hope for, most stock had their precrash value back within a year, and the market went bullish, from 2500 precrash to 1500 to 12000 by 2000. it was classic bubble reflating. the nasdaq crash wiped out some really big names, MS never came back instead there were new faces, apple and google. the Nasdaq victims had no earnings, while the current DOW companies have financially engineered earnings (pretty similar on that account) the BTFD crowd was amply rewared on black monday and punished in 2000. currently commodities are in the L shaped recovery, which will confound the BTFD crowd this time, down and flat for a long long time. if the government owns the stock market what should it be worth?

    [Aug 23, 2015] IMF official says 'premature' to speak of Chinese crisis

    Aug 23, 2015 | Reuters

    China's economic slowdown and a sharp fall in its stock market herald not a crisis but a "necessary" adjustment for the world's second biggest economy, a senior International Monetary Fund official said on Saturday.

    Fresh evidence of easing growth in China hammered global stock markets on Friday, driving Wall Street to its steepest one-day drop in nearly four years.

    "Monetary policies have been very expansive in recent years and an adjustment is necessary," said Carlo Cottarelli, an IMF executive director representing countries such as Italy and Greece on its board.

    "It's totally premature to speak of a crisis in China," he told a press conference.

    [Aug 23, 2015] This Wasnt Supposed To Happen Crashing Inflation Expectations Suggest Imminent Launch Of QE4

    "...They have to raise rates if only to appear to be doing anything more than pushing on a string."
    .
    "...What does credibility matter when the sheeple can't remember further back than the last commercial and will tout the wonders of the apparel of the emperor because that's what their TV tells them to do, despite their fair emperor standing right in front of them naked as the day they were born?"
    Aug 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge/The New York Times

    Here is a better way of summarizing it: the last three times inflation expectations tumbled this low, the Fed was about to launch QE1, QE2, Operation Twist and QE3.

    And the Fed is now expected to hike rates in less than a month even as inflation expectations are the lowest since Lehman?

    Good luck. The Fed - which is damned if it hikes rates (and crushes financial conditions by tightening, sending deflationary signals surging even higher and undoing 7 years of stock market levitation), and damned if it launches QE4 (as it loses all verbal jawboning credibility it worked so hard to establish in the past year ) - is now truly boxed in.

    James_Cole

    The Fed - which is damned if it hikes rates (and crushes financial conditions by tightening, sending deflationary signals surging even higher and undoing 7 years of stock market levitation), and damned if it launches QE4 (as it loses all verbal jawboning credibility it worked so hard to establish in the past year )

    Talk is cheap. Unexpected china, unexpected greece, unexpected weather... qe4eva.

    NihilistZero

    WHAT THE FUCK ARE THEY GONNA BUY WITH A QE4???

    There's no big increase in government spending coming with a GOP congress and a Dem President. Mortgage originations are at historic lows because Housing Bubble 2.0 has made real-estate MORE UNAFFORDABLE than during Bubble 1.0. The FED is in a complete liquidity trap.

    They have to raise rates if only to appear to be doing anything more than pushing on a string. Unless equities continue to crash and the recession actually starts there's no way to get the government spending going to support another round of QE. And there sure as fuck aren't going to be enough MBS for them to purchase without a return to 2012 RE prices at least.

    NorthernPike

    $5.00 on Biflation for next 36 months @ .05%/month average both lines.

    Line 1 = LIfe support items = Inflate

    Line 2 = Non life support = Deflate

    Winston Smith 2009

    "as it loses all verbal jawboning credibility it worked so hard to establish in the past year"

    Bullshit. It should have lost credibility so many times before and didn't. Extend and pretend can easily continue but will fix nothing, of course, just delay the eventual crash as it has done so far.

    Question Reality

    What does credibility matter when the sheeple can't remember further back than the last commercial and will tout the wonders of the apparel of the emperor because that's what their tele tells them to do, despite their fair emperor standing right in front of them naked as the day they were born?

    cougar_w

    There is a lot of virtue in delaying the crash. Every one wants the crash delayed including you. And in this case whoever crashes last might crash best, I'm pretty sure the Chinese were betting on it anyway.

    El Vaquero

    I'd rather get it over with. If I survive, it'll be like taking a giant shit after being constipated for a week. An extremely painful process that needs to be done with, and delaying it only makes it worse.

    cougar_w

    The metaphor is not a good one. Taking a shit is a normal thing.

    The Crash will be more like; having a diseased limb removed with a bone saw without anesthesia, by a guy who never cut off a limb before, and who frankly doesn't like you much because you married his ex.

    Yeah extremely painful but also potentially lethal, probably crippling too so that even should you survive it you'll be disfigured for the rest of your life.

    We need to get our framing down here folks. And I don't think you really want your wife's ex hacking off your limbs.

    Temerity Trader

    <"...The Fed - which is damned if it hikes rates (and crushes financial conditions by tightening, sending deflationary signals surging even higher and undoing 7 years of stock market levitation), and damned if it launches QE4 (as it loses all verbal jawboning credibility it worked so hard to establish in the past year ) - is now truly boxed in...">

    Couldn't agree more, and I think most everyone can see it now. To even hint at QE4 is to admit total failure and, most importantly, that more QE is worthless except to create another momentary algo-driven pop. Just to not go through with the tiny rate hike will be further evidence the Fed is f***ed. We are so close to the final collapse that nothing can stop it. The markets are now 98% based upon Fed worship and hope.

    I will be a lonely voice that says more QE is likely impossible to do. Behind the scenes Janet may have to push back and tell the oligarchs quietly, it just won't work. Mr Market is about to exact punishment for the intervention that should never have happened. The spiral down will be self-reinforcing and very ugly...

    [Aug 23, 2015] Gold Driving Higher: Spec Flambé

    "...A short squeeze, also known as speculator flambé."
    .
    "...It requires some 'juice' to get the minions in the media and the pros on the exchanges to all dance to the same tune, and lure the specs in for 'Pee Wee's Big Adventure' with their Big Bad Short, not only on the metals, but the miners, the ETFs, yada yada. "\
    .
    "...Official reports will no doubt cite an excess of animal spirits in the bearish outlook that took them to an excess, and the markets, in their glorious efficiency, were merely reverting to the mean."
    What do you get when you add the volatile sauce of a 'flight to safety' to the hot pan of a record net short in the large and small speculators?

    A short squeeze, also known as speculator flambé.

    They probably caught a lot of the other peoples' money crowd as well, momentum players and the managed mayhem merchants.

    But don't blame the poor beleagured goldbugs for this one. They are just glad for a break from the pounding they have been taking.

    It requires some 'juice' to get the minions in the media and the pros on the exchanges to all dance to the same tune, and lure the specs in for 'Pee Wee's Big Adventure' with their Big Bad Short, not only on the metals, but the miners, the ETFs, yada yada.

    Finger lickin' good. A lot of cool money, and a lot of powerful connections. The grifters giveth to themselves, and the grifters taketh away, from everyone else.

    Official reports will no doubt cite an excess of animal spirits in the bearish outlook that took them to an excess, and the markets, in their glorious efficiency, were merely reverting to the mean.

    That might be plausible except that it took a lot of energy to drive the futures prices as low as they had gone, starting with that $50 overnight mugging in the quiet early hours of the gold markes few weeks ago. No one sees Mackie Messer, and no one knows.

    Especially with China dragging gold in by the tonne. About 302 of them in July according to the second chart below. Nothing to see there, move along.

    No one wants a pet rock, until you have to provide the one you sold but didn't have.

    And lets not forget about silver. That's in chart three. Plenty of tinder for a short squeeze there.

    Or a bonfire of the inanities.

    Let's see how far it goes. Is it just a flash in the pan, or the first act in something different.

    Must be nearly time to tighten up those margin requirements.

    [Aug 22, 2015] From Russia to Iran, the consequences of the global oil bust

    I always was low opinion about Farid Zakaria. He is just a tool.
    Notable quotes:
    "... A primary reason for the accelerated price decline is that Saudi Arabia, the world's "swing supplier" - the one that can most easily increase or decrease production - has decided to keep pumping. ..."
    "... Major oil-producing countries everywhere are facing a fiscal reckoning like nothing they have seen in decades, perhaps ever ..."
    Aug 22, 2015 | The Washington Post

    Nick Butler, former head of strategy for BP, told me, "We are in for a longer and more sustained period of low oil prices than in the late 1980s." Why? He points to a perfect storm. Supply is up substantially because a decade of high oil prices encouraged producers throughout the world to invest vast amounts of money in finding new sources. Those investments are made and will keep supply flowing for years. Leonardo Maugeri, former head of strategy for the Italian energy giant Eni, says, "There is no way to stop this phenomenon." He predicts that prices could actually drop to $35 per barrel next year, down from more than $105 last summer.

    A primary reason for the accelerated price decline is that Saudi Arabia, the world's "swing supplier" - the one that can most easily increase or decrease production - has decided to keep pumping. The Saudis "know it hurts them but they hope it will hurt everyone else more," says Maugeri, now at Harvard. One of Saudi Arabia's main aims is to put U.S. producers of shale and tight oil out of business. So far, it has not worked. Though battered by plunging prices, U.S. firms have used technology and smart business practices to stay afloat. The imminent return of Iran's oil - which markets are assuming will happen, but slowly - is another factor driving down prices. So is the increasing energy efficiency of cars and trucks.

    Major oil-producing countries everywhere are facing a fiscal reckoning like nothing they have seen in decades, perhaps ever . Let's take a brief tour of the new world.

    ... ... ...

    Many American experts and commentators have hoped for low oil prices as a way to deprive unsavory regimes around the globe of easy money. Now it's happening, but at a speed that might produce enormous turmoil and uncertainty in an already anxious world.

    [Aug 22, 2015] Paul Krugman Debt Is Good

    But debt slavery is not...
    August 21, 2015 | Economist's View

    JF said in reply to reason...

    Good. I made a similar point last night on another thread when talking about a 1996 Vickery paper surfaced by Paine. There is a myopia in economics, in my opinion, focused only on annual flows (GDP) and completely disregarding the importance of wealth and as you call it, "economic resilience."

    If Piketty has any influence, I am hoping that economic discourse and public finance no longer just focuses on annual flows and that it always also discusses Net Worth (as economic capacity of the individual and in the aggregate is also constituted by using wealth and any new income you get too).

    anne said in reply to JF...
    I made a similar point last night on another thread when talking about a 1996 William Vickrey paper surfaced by Paine....

    [ Would there be a reference to the paper? ]

    JF said in reply to anne...
    Actually, it was Dan Kervick who added the link, in response to a recommendation from Paine (who apparently also went to Columbia, so can spell Vickrey's name):

    http://www.columbia.edu/dlc/wp/econ/vickrey.html

    For what it is worth, last night late, I then said this, and had to chuckle to my wife when I say Krugman's blog article this am:

    JF - "Paine and Dan Kervick - I would prefer that this paper be re-written in light of the Piketty remonstrance that you need to look at economics and society not just in terms of income and flow but also in Net Worth terms. Plainly, a very wealthy society can raise taxes with little harm to aggregate demand if the new taxes fall on those with a lower/lowering propensity to spend, at least to some degree (see Saez and others who comment on the taxation of income tax bases).

    I am one who will always make note that the public should not cut taxes on the already wealthy so that the subsequent borrowing of the cash comes from the same class of people. Clearly, we need to think in more balanced ways here. Borrow for long term assets to spread the costs to those who benefit over time, especially when interest rates are low. Borrow from foreign sources as this brings money into the US economy for the trade of a piece of paper and cash management dollops of principal and interest. But otherwise a wealthy society should tax, otherwise it is transferring wealth upward by foregoing taxation in trade for giving the wealthy class a tradeable asset.

    Ouch, I'd prefer we just helicopter the money over to Treasury than the tax-cut and borrow scheme of the republican party.

    Oh wait, as we redeem the public debt purchased by the FED and they offset the principal with the Treasury, we will be doing helicoptering, just had to wait six years or so.

    Anyway, rambling point: public debt is not always better than taxation, and for the most part in a wealthy society like the US where we have a deep financial system with all kinds of instruments of trading efficiency, including trillions of debt products, I suspect it seldom is right to borrow anew when you can tax and target the taxation so it does not harm aggregate demand.

    I think in 1996 when this was written almost everyone was myopically focused solely on flows (GDP/income)."

    JF said in reply to JF...
    When a new Congress comes in 2017, perhaps we can change the finance law of the US to permit the FED and Treasury to sell US public debt direct to foreigners without having to go into the open market and dealer-community.

    Alas, if we can only get through this next national election with heads screwed on straight! Good to hear that Mrs. Clinton at least is saying that economic policy is the centerpiece of her campaign. We will see our well she does from a strategic communications perspective.

    Perhaps some economists can help here too.

    reason said...
    P.S. One thing that PK doesn't say, that I think needs to mentioned is that for countries with their own currencies, they can print money rather than issuing bonds. The distributional implications are important. Even at low interest rates, government bonds are a promise of a stream of income to the already rich (and taking money out of circulation, which selling bonds does is a deflationary thing to do - increasing the real value of financial wealth). Printing money, and spending it or giving it to the poor, on the other hand does not make the government the supporter of existing wealth. This should not be forgotten.
    Paine said in reply to JF...
    Beware the false value the scheinvert the bubble value

    The better notion is the inter temporal payments grid

    We need a way other then inflation deflation to adjust this grid to on going production value and wage value. Stiglitz is very keen on wealth v productive capital

    And he's on to something deep that seems to be in large part invisible to most model builders

    [Aug 22, 2015] Investors Flood Oil ETFs Looking For Bottom ETF.com By Cinthia Murphy

    ... ...

    Investors poured more than $2 billion into energy-linked ETFs in the past week alone, more than doubling the assets in funds such as United States Oil Fund (USO | A-70), and adding nearly $740 million to the Energy Select SPDR (XLE | A-96) in just five days.

    ... ... ...

    Sam Stovall, U.S. equity strategist for S&P Capital IQ, says the energy sector is looking downright "compelling" from a relative strength perspective at these levels. ETF asset flows suggest investors are taking notice.

    "There have been six times in the past quarter-century that the S&P 500 energy index traded this low, or lower," Stovall said in a recent webcast. "Over the subsequent 24 months, however, the energy index was positive six of six times, and beat the S&P 500 five of six times. It also outpaced the broad stock market by an average 16 percentage points."

    Value Opportunity Brightens

    Past performance is no indication of future outcomes, as Stovall noted, but the numbers do cast a positive light on the prospects for energy stocks going forward.

    USO is largely considered the closest ETF proxy to oil prices, and a very liquid one at that. The fund invests only in near-month Nymex futures contracts on WTI crude oil, and trades more than $350 million, on average, every day, making it a popular choice with investors who want to tap in to oil through energy-futures-based ETFs.

    XLE, meanwhile, is an equity energy fund, and owns some 44 stocks as it tracks a market-cap-weighted index of U.S. energy companies in the S&P 500. The fund has almost $11 billion in assets.

    As a segment, energy-linked ETFs had more than $48.6 billion in total assets as of Dec. 18, up 4.3 percent from a week earlier.

    Top 5 Commodity ETF Creations Dec. 12-18, 2014

    Ticker Fund Net Flows ($,mm) AUM
    ($, mm)
    AUM % Change
    XLE Energy Select SPDR 738.14 11,085.38 7.13%
    USO United States Oil 392.54 1,162.14 51.01%
    DJP iPath Dow Jones-UBS Commodity Total Return ETN 354.48 1,755.75 25.30%
    OIH Market Vectors Oil Services 198.62 1,091.21 22.25%
    VDE Vanguard Energy 171.97 3,102.97 5.87%

    [Aug 21, 2015] Feels like 1986 Oil on track for longest weekly losing streak in 29 years

    In late 1985, oil prices slumped to $10 from around $30 over five months as OPEC raised output to regain market share following an increase in non-OPEC production.

    BP CEO Bob Dudley said in late-July, when oil prices were some $8 a barrel higher than now, that "it does feel like 1986".

    U.S. crude for October delivery was 46 cents lower at $40.86 a barrel at 0656 GMT. The September contract, which expired on Thursday, ended 34 cents higher. The U.S. benchmark hit a 6-1/2 year low of $40.21 a barrel on Thursday.

    Brent was on track for its seventh weekly decline in the past eight, trading 41 cents lower at $46.21 a barrel, after settling 54 cents lower on Thursday.

    The dollar continued retreating on shrinking expectations of an U.S. interest rate hike in September, providing some support for oil prices.

    ... ... ....

    "The only silver lining we are seeing coming from the United States is that refining rates remain high and that crude production continues to fall," Singapore-based Philip Futures said in a note to clients.

    Despite the rout in oil prices, some mutual funds keep ploughing money into oil exploration and production companies in the United States in a bet that production will retreat sharply over the next 12 months, setting the stage for a rebound towards $65-70 per barrel.
    ... ... ...

    Spot prices of Western Canada Select (WCS), a marker for heavy, diluted bitumen from Alberta's oil sands sank to a 12-year low near $20 per barrel.

    SCOTT USMC VET 2 hours ago

    Tomorrow we will be in short supply and need to raise prices. Too many people with the poker in the fires. All scam artists need to reported to sec for fraud and manipulation of commodities.

    Larry 3 hours ago

    IN 1986 Reagan enlisted the Saudi's to flood the market in an economic attack against Russia, in 2014 US gov. repeated the attack. Now, with the internet, US citizens can learn the truth and see that the US gov. acts unconstitutionally against it's own citizens by market manipulation.

    [Aug 21, 2015] Is The Oil Crash A Result Of Excess Supply Or Plunging Demand The Unpleasant Answer In One Chart

    "...I, for one, feel much better that we have returned to depleting our natural resources at a record pace. This will help to ensure that our children and our children's children have a bright future. "
    "..."Breaking Russia has become an objective [for US officials] the long-range purpose should be to integrate it," the 92-year-old told The National Interest in a lengthy interview for the policy magazine's anniversary that touched on most of the world's most pertinent international issues. "If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities." "
    Aug 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    One of the most vocal discussions in the past year has been whether the collapse, subsequent rebound, and recent relapse in the price of oil is due to surging supply as Saudi Arabia pumps out month after month of record production to bankrupt as many shale companies before its reserves are depleted, or tumbling demand as a result of a global economic slowdown. Naturally, the bulls have been pounding the table on the former, because if it is the later it suggests the global economy is in far worse shape than anyone but those long the 10Year have imagined.

    Courtesy of the following chart by BofA, we have the answer: while for the most part of 2015, the move in the price of oil was a combination of both supply and demand, the most recent plunge has been entirely a function of what now appears to be a global economic recession, one which will get far worse if the Fed indeed hikes rates as it has repeatedly threatened as it begins to undo 7 years of ultra easy monetary policy.

    Here is BofA:

    Retreating global equities, bond yields and DM breakevens confirm that EM has company. Much as in late 2014, global markets are going through a significant global growth scare. To illustrate this, we update our oil price decomposition exercise, breaking down changes in crude prices into supply and demand drivers (The disinflation red-herring).

    Chart 6 shows that, in early July, the drop in oil prices seems to have reflected primarily abundant supply (related, for example, to the Iran deal). Over the past month, however, falling oil prices have all but reflected weak demand.

    BofA's conclusion:

    The global outlook has indeed worsened. Our economists have recently trimmed GDP forecasts in Japan, Brazil, Mexico, Colombia and South Africa, while noting greater downside risks in Turkey due to political uncertainty. Asian exports continue to underwhelm, and capital outflows are adding to regional woes. Looking ahead, we still expect the largest DM economies to keep expanding at above-trend pace but global headwinds have intensified.

    And yet, BofA's crack economist Ethan Harris still expects a September Fed rate hike. Perhaps the price of oil should turn negative (yes, just like NIRP, negative commodity prices are very possible) for the Fed to realize just how cornered it truly is.

    Ms No

    I'd say it is more like the answer in one quote, Kissinger the corpse is squealing again.

    "Breaking Russia has become an objective [for US officials] the long-range purpose should be to integrate it," the 92-year-old told The National Interest in a lengthy interview for the policy magazine's anniversary that touched on most of the world's most pertinent international issues. "If we treat Russia seriously as a great power, we need at an early stage to determine whether their concerns can be reconciled with our necessities."

    Budnacho

    Yep, Zero demand at $3.75 a Gallon for gas....

    Antifaschistische

    I, for one, feel much better that we have returned to depleting our natural resources at a record pace. This will help to ensure that our children and our children's children have a bright future.

    Jumbotron

    "Meh - our children's children will farm or die."

    Howard Kunstler talked about this in his book "The Long Emergency" back in 2005. And continues to do so on his web site.

    http://kunstler.com/

    The "JIT" (Just In Time) model based on cheap global energy and cheap wage slave labor arbitrage is breaking down. This is a multi-decade issue. There will be recoveries....but each drop will see the world get, poorer, slower, and more local as the decades pass.

    However, the elites of the world will try the very last trick in their bag of horrors......CASHLESS. With a cashless, purely digital credit system, they can manipulate all they want, even to the point of doing "buy-ins" if the need arises...you know...to "save the children".

    That's when the last attempt at total control will happen. But when there are still too many people, and not enough cheap, easily extracted and easily obtained resources for those people......shit will hit the fan none the less. Cashless or not.

    Then......war. Global war....and the big reset to farming or dying.

    Jumbotron

    " The JIT model has exactly nothing to do with cheap energy. More like accountants telling us "we don't need to put capital into holding a stock of materials." "

    Bull...Fucking...Shit.

    Ever heard of Fed-Ex ? Ever heard of UPS ? Ever heard of 24/7 trucking ? Ever heard of 24/7 rail service ? Ever heard of Cloud Computing ? Ever heard of Amazon ? Ever heard of 24/7 overseas shipping ?

    Ever heard of paved Interstate Highways ? What about the Internet ? What about all the steel mills, and the coke factories and the plastic factories and the asphalt makers......etc....etc....and fucking etc.

    ALL of these, including so much more, rely SOLEY on cheap energy.

    Go back to your magical X-Box and the comfort of your mother's basement. And her magical microwave which just made you some magical popcorn.

    Apply Force

    Not like when we were 16... I bought my own 1st (and 2nd, and 3rd) cars in cash that I earned working (mowing lawns/yard work) from 12 on. I worked on my own cars, which was not so hard, and usually Dad or another in the neighborhood could help out. I paid for my own ins. and my own gas.

    Not so easy to buy a used car now - way more expensive per what a child can earn prior to being driving age. And good luck working on your own car now - way more complex, and parts are way, way more expensive. And insurance costs are higher as well. No need to drive to a job for a 16 year old if the wage they earn can not even pay for car maintenance - if they could even find a job to begin with!

    The Age of Less is upon us - adjust accordingly!

    Shaznardickleze...

    No jobs, no money, no where to go, internet social life. Whats your point?
    Would you pay $3 a gallon if you were paid $7 an hour?

    nope-1004

    Fed will raise rates? lmao. As BOP noted a few days ago, the last rate hike was in 2006.

    NINE YEARS OF BULLSHITTING THE PUBLIC about raising rates. Enough.

    Apply Force

    The chart is Brent oil and world demand - not so sure US local gas prices and demand are reflected so well there.

    "Demand" at any rate really means "affordability" and oil production lags affordability changes by quite a bit - - hence what appears to be excess production to many people. Reality just takes a while to catch up to long-term endeavors like drilling for oil.

    It is simply a whipsaw in prices that is generally on it's way down... Down for the count within the decade, imo.

    Cloud9.5

    The demand for gasoline is to a large extent inelastic. Cougar is right that we are trapped in the car culture. I picked up my mother in law's maid this morning. She was walking the three miles from her house to my mother-in-laws. She could not afford the repairs on her car. We have no mass transit so she either walks or quits. Most people would quit and go on welfare. For all I know she may already be on welfare.


    Dr_Snooz

    Dr_Snooz's picture


    "Yep, Zero demand at $3.75 a Gallon for gas...."

    Yeah, the price of oil has halved, but the price of gas is unchanged. How does that work? If we yell loud enough at our Congresscriminals, they'll launch some price-gouging investigation, determine that there is none, sweep it all under the rug and get back to servicing their corporate constituencies.

    The problem is that you can only steal so much from the people before it's all gone and the whole system crashes...

    Oh wait. That's already happening.

    Login or register to post comments

    Fri, 08/21/2015 - 10:50 | 6451448 BustainMovealota

    BustainMovealota's picture


    It works when the people put their ass in the air and let their elected "representatives" have their way with that ass. ie, not good for you.


    cougar_w

    cougar_w's picture


    People will buy gas -- at any price -- before they buy groceries. Because they have to get to work as an urgent matter, because they cannot afford to lose their job, because half the people they know are already out of work. They have to keep that job no matter what -- and work two jobs 20 milesa part maybe three -- so that later in the week they can then think about buying groceries.

    I'm kind of surprized the ZH crowd doesn't get this part.

    The price of gas will go down when a lot of people are homeless or dead.

    samsara

    "Calling Gail Tverberg, whose finite world is looking ominously true."

    Yes, GailTheActuary of course was correct. Smart lady, read her comments/articles for years on TheOilDrum.

    Falak, Try this one from AutomaticEarth. Nicole(aka StoneLeigh) nails the future I believe very correctly.

    Nicole (and Ilargi) used to run TheOilDrum Canada before AutomaticEarth.

    http://www.theautomaticearth.com/2015/08/nicole-foss-the-boundaries-and-future-of-solution-space/

    Nicole Foss: The Boundaries and Future of Solution Space

    falak pema

    thanks I enjoyed it.

    Local area networks and value chains, not cancerous globalization. Minimal mercantile exchanges to starve the Oligarchy beast, to sustain human chains; except where labour lacks like in Germany.

    Peak Oil and peak RM were already in the cards in 1979 with world population exploding. We should have learned from second oil shock.

    Help Africa grow don't rape it! Respect Che Guevara's legacy by doing same in Land of Latinos. All those guys who died for what : Che, Gandhi, Mandela, even Giap!

    But Pax Americana was on another page : Reaganomics!

    I said this back in 2007 -2010, to the wind!

    I wrote it all down but haven't published it.

    Lol, it blows back now.

    moneybots

    "the most recent plunge has been entirely a function of what now appears to be a global economic recession, one which will get far worse if the Fed indeed hikes rates as it has repeatedly threatened as it begins to undo 7 years of ultra easy monetary policy."

    The boom causes the bust. Years of QE is the problem, not potential rate hikes. Can't burst a bubble, until you build one. A bubble is 100% guaranteed to burst.

    DaveyJones

    Gail the Actuary (The Oil Drum) and many others have been predicting this phenomenon for some time now. The (modern) world (and their economic models) are entriely built on the fiction of never ending growth. Since energy drives everything and since the economic world has exponentially bet way out into the future, the economic structure will fall (completely apart) before the energy structure does. Even though it will take more and more money (read energy) to get the same energy out of the ground, the people will not be able to afford the price the companies need to charge and, as Ruppert said, everything wil just shut down.

    ejmoosa

    Central planners who pushed electric vehicles to the tune of 8,000 dollar tax credits and forcing fuel standards higher and higher despite the cost are baffled by the drop in oil demand.

    [Aug 21, 2015] What Will It Take For The Fed To Panic And Bail Out The Market Once Again BofA Explains

    "...Nobody but Madoff went to jail in '08 the last time they were bailed out. -No "Pecora" investigation(s) took place with officer(s) of AIG, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Citigroup, JP Morgan and our favorite bank in the whole World that had their fingers among other appendages up the sphincty of everyone and has a revolving door to the Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury EU and IMF -Leadman Sucks..."

    Aug 20, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    One of the main reasons a month ago we started carefully following the commodity trading giants, the Glencores, Mercurias and Trafiguras of the world...

    Which will be first: Trafigura, Mercuria or Glencore

    - zerohedge (@zerohedge) July 22, 2015

    ... is because nobody else was.

    Perhaps due to their commodity-trading operations, these companies were expected to be immune from the mark-to-market vagaries of the commodity collapse on their balance sheet, and as such presented far less interest to market participants than pure-play miners whose stocks have gotten crushed since the commodity collapse and subsequent relapse.

    And then, yesterday, Glencore "happened" and everyone was so shocked by the company's abysmal results, which as we explained may servce as "The Next Leg Of The Commodity Carnage: Attention Shifts To Traders - Glencore Crashes, Noble Default Risk Soars." This took place a day after we penned "Noble Group's Kurtosis Awakening Moment For The Commodity Markets" in which we profiled the ongoing slow-motion trainwreck of Asia's largest commodity trader.

    Of course, Glencore's problems should not have been reason for surprise: after all it was a bet on a surge in Glencore's default risk that prompted us to write "Is This The Cheapest (And Most Levered) Way To Play The Chinese Credit-Commodity Crunch?" in March of 2014 as a levered and relatively safe way to trade crashing copper prices (since then, Glencore CDS have doubled).

    And so others started to notice.

    So with Wall Street's attention suddenly focused, with the usual delay, almost exclusively on the commodity hybrids, it was none other than Bank of America which earlier today reserved a very special place for a possible collapse of these companies. In fact, the "credit event" (read "failure") of a company like Glencore is precisely what BofA's Michael Hartnett said "may be necessary to cause policy-makers to panic."

    Bank of America starts with a chart that ZH readers are all too familiar with: a comparison of the CDS of Noble and Glencore which as duly noted many times already, have recently spiked:

    And here is why Bank of America decided to suddenly focus on a small subset of the commodity sector, one which we have been fascinated with for over a month: to BofA the collapse of either of these two companies is the necessary and/or sufficient condition for the Fed to exit its recent trance, and reenter and bailout the market.

    That's right: Bank of America is begging for another Fed-assisted market bailout, which gladly hints would be accelerated should Glencore experience a premature "credit event." To wit:

    Short-term, markets seem intent on forcing either the Fed to pass in September, or the Chinese to launch a more comprehensive and credible policy package to boost growth expectations. Alternatively, a credit event in commodities (note CDS is widening sharply for resources companies – front page chart) may be necessary to cause policy-makers to panic. Markets stop panicking when central banks start panicking. We think that is increasingly likely in September, thus arguing that risk-takers should soon look to add risk, particularly on any further weakness.

    We thank Bank of America for making it quite clear what the catalyst for QE4 will be (and why we should double down on the Glencore long CDS trade), but we are confused: how is the Fed expected to "panic" in September when that is when BofA's crack economists predict the Fed will hike rates. If anything, a rate hike is supposed to calm the market and give confidence that the Fed is on top of the situation, even if as has been clearly the case, the US economy, not to mention the global one, are both going into reverse.

    And while that is a major loose end to any trading thesis BofA may want to present, it does hedge by saying that all bets on a market bailout are off if the Fed and other central banks have now "lost their potency", i.e., if the market's faith in money printing has ended.

    Finally, we believe the inexorable rise in volatility as QE programs wane leads to the ultimate risk. In our view, all investment strategies have been tied in recent years to the power of central banks. There are few bond vigilantes willing to punish profligate governments, fewer currency speculators willing to defy central bank intervention, and investors have become adept at front-running policy-makers and/or expecting central banks will "blink" at signs of market volatility. We believe a loss of central bank potency is an unambiguous risk-off.

    Indeed, we too believe that if not even central banks can boost this market, then the time to get the hell out of Dodge is at hand. And while exiting, make sure to have a lot of gold, silver and lead. Because if the days of Keynesian voodoo and fiat are almost over, then absolutely nobody has any idea what lies ahead.

    Son of Captain Nemo

    That's right: Bank of America is begging for another Fed-assisted market bailout, which gladly hints would be accelerated should Glencore experience a premature "credit event."

    And why the fuck "not"?...

    Nobody but Madoff went to jail in '08 the last time they were bailed out. -No "Pecora" investigation(s) took place with officer(s) of AIG, Bear Sterns, Lehman, Citigroup, JP Morgan and our favorite bank in the whole World that had their fingers among other appendages up the sphincty of everyone and has a revolving door to the Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury EU and IMF -Leadman Sucks...

    If you don't put them on the top of the Federal Reserve headquarters and the Freedom Tower to be thrown off the roof 7 years after the irreparable harm they continue to carry out...

    This is what you get and what you deserve!

    OldPhart

    We're just waiting for the Statute of Limitations to run out. Then we'll investigate. [Obama Administration]

    Crocodile

    Quote: "if not even central banks can boost this market, then the time to get the hell out of Dodge is at hand."

    Got that right; seems like they are losing the handle and ready to implement "Plan B"; massive short squeeze followed by "pulling the plug" and letting the chips fall. Seems we are at or near the end-game. I was hoping the DJIA would not go below 17K and it did, so tomorrow will give strong forward guidance that will answer the question; "have they lost control altogether?". I hope not.

    Pareto

    News flash Dundee. The FED has NEVER been in control. Being forced to react to redemptions is not becoming of someone who is "in control". Short of buying stocks, like the PBOC, or more MBS and CDS (QE1,2, Twist, 3), or, more Treasuries (QE forever), they're done. The thing about the market is that eventually it exposes the reality of central planning - that it doesn't work, hasn't worked, and never will work. It is simply naiive to think that any central bank has been in control of anything - ever. If they have been in control of anything at all, it would be that they own one of the greatest wealth redistributions that has ever occurred in history. They own that, And they also own every major recession since 1913. And they will own this cluster fuck too when it is all said and done. Because there is no free lunch. Sooner or later - everybody pays.

    Angry Plant

    Do higher interest rates represent a greater threat than lower growth to the 1% is the question?

    The Fed will always serve the interests of the 1%.

    Current stock, housing, car loan, and college loan bubble will all get worse if Fed does more QE. More QE really just means more malinvestment while no QE means that current malinvestment will come due. Those bubbles popping is inevitable so popping them now while they're smaller is maybe the best course.

    China and Europe are now in position where they have to QE to stop economic implosion so US can exploit that to shut down US QE and let China and Europe carry the load.

    In regards to the 1% the big loser of this would be Hillary and the likely big winner would be Jeb. Both candidates are completely in the pocket of the 1% so the rest of the 1% really don't care.

    Angry Plant

    I don't think I explained it well.

    To be more clear I believe the fed will let the stockmarket tank instead of raising interest rates. The drop in stocks will have same impact as rate increases. That will allow fed to keep rates low and avoid a surge in US dollar.

    It will also correct one of the bubbles currently in the US economy. The oil buble got popped last year now it's time for the stock bubble to be popped.

    [Aug 20, 2015] Rosneft Doubling Down To Survive Oil Price Storm

    A very weak article. The actual volumes Rosneft produces and volume growth dynamics are left behind...
    Notable quotes:
    "... With a production of more than 10 million barrels per day in month of July, Russia's oil output has reached its post-Soviet era production levels. ..."
    "... According to a study by Citigroup, Russia's exports are still as profitable as they were during the $100 per barrel oil price levels, because of the currency devaluation. ..."
    OilPrice.com

    In fact, some market analysts and traders are even predicting oil prices will fall to $30 per barrel.

    ... ... ...

    In contrast, the drilling volumes at Rosneft have increased by 27 percent during the first seven months of 2015 where more than 800 new wells were drilled. At a time when oil companies are shying away from newer acquisitions, Rosneft is all set to buy Trican Well Service Limited's Russian Hydraulic Fracturing business. So how does Rosneft manage to increase spending on its operations and acquisitions when other major oil companies are struggling?

    ....the ruble has weakened substantially against the U.S. dollar and is now trading at almost half of the value it was a year ago. The devaluation in the ruble has reduced the operational costs as oil companies would earn in dollar and pay their expenses in rubles.

    Moreover, Russian tax laws have resulted in domestic oil companies bearing just one fifth of the burden related to the total drop in the crude oil prices. "As we expected, changes to Russia's taxation mechanism on the oil sector at the start of 2015 are cushioning domestic companies within the sector from the effects of lower oil prices," said Julia Pribytkova of Moody's. With a production of more than 10 million barrels per day in month of July, Russia's oil output has reached its post-Soviet era production levels.

    ... ... ...

    According to a study by Citigroup, Russia's exports are still as profitable as they were during the $100 per barrel oil price levels, because of the currency devaluation. It is therefore quite obvious that Russia is set to increase its exports (and add to the supply glut) as the country has no other choice but to produce more oil in order to maintain its market share. This is highlighted by Rosneft's first quarter profits, which fell by more than 35%, yet it still decided to increase its production levels

    ... ... ...

    Gaurav Agnihotri, a Mechanical engineer and an MBA -Marketing from ICFAI (Institute of Chartered Financial Accountants), Mumbai

    [Aug 20, 2015] Wolf Richter It Starts – Broad Retaliation Against China in Currency War

    Aug 20, 2015 |
    naked capitalism

    Kazakhstan saw what's happening to oil, its main export product, and to the currencies in China and Russia, its biggest trading partners. The yuan devaluation was relatively small, compared to the ruble, which is now allowed or encouraged to drop with oil. It has plunged 14% against the dollar over the past 30 days and 45% over the past 12 months, to 66.7 rubles to the dollar. With the Russian economy losing its grip, the ruble is dropping perilously close to the panic levels of last December and January.

    And Kazakhstan freaked out and devalued the tenge by 4.5% today, to 197.3 per dollar, the biggest drop since that infamous day in February 2014 when the central bank let the tenge plunge 20%. So today's move is likely just a foretaste of what is still to come.

    ... ... ...

    But devaluations are not free lunches. They're desperate measures that demolish domestic consumption and real incomes (see Japan), business investment, and overall credibility. And capital flees. They can also heat up inflation. But many emerging market countries and their banks and corporations borrow in other currencies to get access to lower interest rates. That foreign-currency debt can't be devalued or inflated away.

    Instead, the opposite happens. Their struggling or battered economies have to service foreign-currency debt with their own devalued currencies. Commodity exporters are getting sapped additionally by plunging commodity prices. Then that foreign currency debt, that cheap easy money everyone got to used playing with, becomes an insurmountable pile of expensive debt in a currency they can't control and whose exchange rate might run away from them.

    This is when a debt crisis begins to spiral elegantly through the emerging markets, taking down banks, entire economies, and gobs of investors as it goes – or taxpayers in other countries if there is a bailout. It's always the same story. But this time, it's different: after years of global QE, low interest rates, and hot money sloshing through the system, the sums are larger, and the risks are higher.


    MyLessThanPrimeBeef, August 20, 2015 at 12:47 pm

    Only one nation is exceptionally lucky with an import-driven/global reserve currency circulated model that's free from this need to devalue or to service foreign currency loans.

    Mike Sparrow, August 20, 2015 at 12:59 pm

    Currency war? Not seeing it.

    [Aug 20, 2015] Low Oil Prices Could Break The "Fragile Five" Producing Nations By Nick Cunningham

    August 20, 2015 | naked capitalism

    By Nick Cunningham, a Vermont-based writer on energy and environmental issues. You can follow him on twitter at @nickcunningham1. Originally published at OilPrice

    ... ... ...

    Meanwhile, in southern Iraq, which produces the bulk of the country's oil and has been far from the violence associated with ISIS, protests have threatened oil operations there. Protests at the West Qurna-2 oilfield operated by Russian firm Lukoil have raised concerns within both the company and the Iraqi central government about disruptions. The Prime Minister even traveled to the site to reassure Lukoil about the stability of its operations.

    ... ... ...

    Low oil prices could also push Venezuela into a deeper crisis.

    ... ... ...

    For Libya, already torn apart by civil war and the growing presence of ISIS militants, low oil prices are the last thing the country needs. ISIS violently crushed a civilian rebellion last week in the coastal city of Sirte, according to Al-Jazeera. Libya's internationally-recognized government has called upon Arab states for help in fighting ISIS, something that the Arab League has endorsed. Meanwhile, the country's oil sector – the backbone of the economy – is producing less than 400,000 barrels per day, well below the 1.6 million barrels per day Libya produced during the Gaddafi era. In other words, Libya is selling far less oil than it used to, and at prices far below what they were as recently as last year.

    ... ... ...

    Saudi Arabia could run a fiscal deficit that is equivalent to about 20 percent of GDP. To finance public spending, Saudi Arabia has returned to the bond markets for the first time in eight years, issuing 15 billion riyals ($4 billion) in July, only to be followed up by an additional bond offering of 20 billion riyals ($5.33 billion) in August. The government plans on taking on more debt in the coming months as well.

    ... ... ...

    Praedor, August 20, 2015 at 9:01 am

    I am always automatically dubious about instability in Latin America, particularly Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela. I cannot but assume that the CIA and State Dept are all over it, pushing it beyond what it would otherwise be organically, perverting it towards coup if a rightwing US-selected leader cannot be "elected". The US wants nothing MORE than instability and overthrow of these national governments and will do anything possible to manufacture disaffection inside their borders. There's water to privatize, oil to privatize, schools to privatize, corporations to feed.

    shinola, August 20, 2015 at 10:56 am

    My local newspaper carried a story this a.m. about low oil prices becoming a problem for Mexico too.

    Sam Kanu, August 20, 2015 at 12:41 pm

    Any clarity yet on who is funding Boko Haram in Nigeria?

    PlutoniumKun, August 20, 2015 at 3:27 pm

    The War Nerd (Gary Brecher) is required reading on Boko Haram, although unfortunately his work is increasingly being screened by paywalls. From memory, he was pretty clear that much of its funding comes from the usual suspects among 'our allies' in the Middle East.

    Sam Kanu, August 20, 2015 at 6:22 pm

    Local opinion on the source of funding seems to settle on certain elements of the Nigerian military, and possibly them acting as a conduit from global suspect #1.

    Never mind the so called allies and the so called "experts" who have never set foot in the country.

    Now start adding up 2 and 2.

    Charles Fasola, August 20, 2015 at 1:16 pm

    More bull crap from the controlled main stream media concerning Venezuela. Which is a target for regime change by the empire and its CIA organized criminal syndicate. Any nation that attempts to serve public purpose in any form becomes a target. Assassinations, overthrowal of legitimately elected governments, opium and narcotics production in Afghanistan and now Ukronazistan, money laundering for drug cartels, theivery and human trafficking are the specialties of this vile cesspool called the USA.

    [Aug 16, 2015] You Don't Need to Hire Rapacious Private Equity Firms to Get Their Returns by

    August 14, 2015 | naked capitalism

    A myth that has allowed private equity to persist in its predatory ways is that private equity delivers returns that investors can't obtain through other investment strategies.

    We've described the large body of research that demonstrates otherwise. Private equity has conditioned investors to use IRR, a return metric that exaggerates their performance. Average private equity industry performance does not beat the S&P 500, which is a much more flattering metric than smaller-cap indicies that would make for better comparables. Moreover, investors need to be compensated for the illiquidity of private equity and most investors use a rule of thumb of 300 to 400 additional basis points. Even the mighty CalPERS, which has better access to private equity funds than just about any market participant, has failed to meet its private equity performance benchmarks for the last 10, 5, 3, and one years. If CalPERS can't eke out an adequate risk-adjusted return out of private equity, pray tell who can?

    The justification for investing in private equity has rested almost entirely on the idea that investors could gain access to the best funds. If they could invest only in top quartile funds, private equity looks like a winner. But that notion has also been roundly debunked. It was once true that top quartile firms stayed in the top quartile, so investors could in theory target them. But top quartile outperistence no longer holds, so investors might as well throw darts at a list of private equity fund managers. Moreover, even in the days when top funds were able to maintain a performance lead over their peers, the also-rans were able to muddy the selection waters. One study found that 77% of the funds were able to claim top quartile status. Oops.

    As we wrote last year:

    Rather than question the logic of investing in private equity at all, everyone in the industry has convinced themselves that it is reasonable to believe that they can be the Warren Buffett of private equity. The investment consultants go through the shooting-fish-in-a-barrel exercise of convincing their institutional clients that each of them is prettier, smarter, and more charming than average, and therefore capable of achieving sparking results. Needless to say, flattery is an easy sell….

    Fundamentally, this is an intellectually dishonest exercise, and diametrically opposed to the way many public pension funds construct other parts of their investment portfolios. With public equity in particular, it's almost certain that a significant majority of U.S. pension fund assets are invested in index funds. That's because pension funds have recognized that, collectively, they cannot do better than average, and that after paying active management fees, actively managed public equity portfolios typically perform worse than the market average.

    So it's not as if these investors are so clueless that they can't grasp the point that all of them cannot achieve above average results, let alone significantly above average results. Instead, with private equity, there is a desperate desire to be in the asset class for reasons that probably reflect a combination of intellectual capture by the PE managers, political corruption in legislatures that control public fund board appointees, and the need to have a strategy that could conceivably solve the pension underfunding problem over time.

    In other words, the very long term, illiquid nature of private equity investments allows limited partners to fool themselves about how realistic it is for them to achieve their desired returns, and there's a well-honed industry of private equity professionals and consultants who stoke those illusions.

    But it's going to be hard to keep those fantasies alive when academics show how to beat private equity returns with much cheaper public equity strategies. Matthew Klein of FT Alphaville summarizes a new paper by Brian Chingono and Dan Rasmussen that shows how to exceed the average private equity fund's return by a solid margin. We've embedded the article at the end of the post. Klein does a fine job of recapping it, so we'll quote liberally from his post.

    The Chingono/Rasmussen strategy, in simple form, seeks to replicate what private equity funds do with a portfolio of public stocks by creating a portfolio of leveraged but low-priced yet solid cash flow generating firms. They focus on midsized stocks, in the 25th to 75th percentile of market capitalization, that are cheap (bottom 25% in enterprise value to EBITDA terms) and are leveraged more than average. The academics then tested several ways for selecting the best performers from this bunch. They found the best measures to be sales growth relative to assets and debt repayment ability (as in cash flow relative to debt levels). The only anomaly seems to be that rejiggering the portfolio annually in the 4th quarter produces sub-par returns; all the other variants produced impressive results of an average of 9.1% to 11.7% outperformance. That puts private equity to shame.

    From Klein's post:

    It's well known among finance academics that the performance of the average private equity fund is overwhelmingly determined by 1) junk bond spreads and 2) the amount of capital invested in PE funds. General partners overpay for their target companies when they have too much money to play with, which kills returns. But when credit is tight and few investors are willing to commit to private equity, general partners can get better deals and deliver the massive gains that underfunded pension plans salivate over.

    In other words, returns are cyclical and can be predicted by the purchase multiples being paid, which in turn can be predicted by macro factors. (That's not surprising, since basically all asset returns are inversely related to how much you pay.) You may want to have some exposure to this kind of thing, but you shouldn't be paying pay 2 and 20 for it. Plus, there's no telling that the particular funds you invest in generate returns representative of the strategy.

    And get a load of the margin of outperformance over time:

    Looking at US data going back to the early 1960s, they found that if you'd bought a portfolio consisting of companies in the top quartile according to each of these filters, you would have made around 23 per cent per year between 1965 and 2013. You would have done slightly better with an equal-weighted portfolio and slightly worse with a value-weighted portfolio.) Compare that to the roughly 10 per cent annual returns you would have gotten over the same period if you invested in the S&P 500 index and reinvested all dividends, or the long-run net of fees returns of the Cambridge Private Equity Index of around 13 per cent per year.

    So what's the fly in the ointment? Public stocks are more volatile than private equity funds. But that in large degree is a fallacy, by virtue of turning the defect of private equity, its illiquidity and infrequent valuations, into a trumped-up virtue. Moreover, PE firms flat out lie about what their portfolios would be worth in a bad market, like the fall of 2008. The authors mention the importance of this fibbing to private equity's perceived superiority:

    The key advantage of private ownership of leveraged businesses, however, is that the private equity investor can mask volatility because the equity securities are not publicly listed.

    This truncating the bottoms of the worst of market cycles gives private equity the illusion of lower price volatility than it really has. Or put it another way, the valuation consultants haven't adequately priced the fact that the investors have handed over the option as to when they get their money back to the general partners, which is not the same as "illiquidity". That option is a very long-dated option, and long dated options are extremely expensive. It's a virtual certainty that if this option were properly priced, limited partners would need to seek a far higher premium than the 300 to 400 basis point the industry has agreed upon as a heuristic.

    But even handicapping the higher volatility using conventional metrics, this levered public equity strategy still beats private equity. As Klein sums up:

    True, you would have endured extreme volatility to go along with your leverage-fueled returns, but the risk to return ratio would still have been somewhat better than the market as a whole…

    But we can easily imagine investment committees lacking the stomach for this kind of strategy even if it is far more liquid than the private-market equivalent. Some may prefer to take comfort in the apparent stability of made-up numbers generated from appraisals of untraded assets even if that means leaving money on the table.

    Yet we see CalPERS, which is better run than any other public pension fund, assuming more risks to eke out mere single-digit basis point improvements in performance, while ignoring what amounts to free money opportunities by getting out of the high-fee private equity regime, either by moving to cut out the middleman, as Canadian pension funds are doing, or by employing public market strategies to achieve equity like returns (Chingono/Rasmussen isn't the only approach we've heard about, but it appears to be the most rigorously tested one). But until investors feel more pressure, either due to evidence of more private equity chicanery or faltering private equity returns, they aren't likely to kick their private equity bad habit.

    [Aug 16, 2015] And Quiet Flows the Con

    "As flies to wanton boys are we to the gods.
    They kill us for their sport."

    William Shakespeare, King Lear

    That disruption was caused by the China currency devaluations which reminded those who have not been paying attention that

    a) there is a currency war underway,

    b) there is no sustainable economic recovery despite rosy reassurances and the facade of statistical growth, and

    c) there are a number of bubbles in financial assets that have been functioning primarily as wealth transfer mechanisms, and are wobbling in a manner that could bring the economy back to the brink once again.

    Welcome To The World Of ZIRP Zombies Zero Hedge

    Bay of Pigs

    It is amazing that most people don't realize the last time the FED actually raised rates.

    June 2006

    RaceToTheBottom

    Central Banksters are afraid, because they have nowhere to backtrack to.

    Economics profession is also scared because they have been acting like a one religion Religious Studies department for over 50 years. They only now just realized that their livelihood has become tied to that one religion and that one religion is a religion based on having a Spaghetti strainer on your head.

    MagicMoney

    What Mises means by:

    falling value of money = rising interest rate is that people prefer to buy goods versus saving money. They prefer goods over money. Higher interest rates is a regulatory price that prevents over consumption of loan-able funds.

    Rising value of money = falling interest rate, because people prefer to save more money versus spending their money on goods. Interest rates can be lower, because there is less demand for present goods, which means funds are cheaper for entrepreneur can engage in new types of production today to bring about consumption in the future.

    I will repeat..

    When people prefer goods over money, there is high demand for funds to buy it, thus like any supply and demand law, prices rise for those funds. When people prefer money over goods, it's inverse. Demand for funds is lower, means consumers are not spending as much, and this allows room for capital investment, because funds are not competing for consumption. Consumption levels have subsided, and the investment period can began today to bring about new goods for consumers tommorrow.

    I don't know how you missed that.

    withglee

    I don't know how you missed that.

    My concern is with anyone who thinks they got it!

    When people prefer goods over money, there is high demand for funds to buy it, thus like any supply and demand law, prices rise for those funds.

    A properly managed Medium of Exchange (MOE) does not respond to a supply/demand relationship for the MOE. It responds to the default/interest collection relationship. But with proper management, the process "guarantees" both these ratios are unity ... all the time and everywhere. And such proper management is trivial. How? Monitor defaults. When there is one, immediately collect an equal amount of interest.

    Money is "a promise to complete a trade". It is an efficiency that allows simple barter trades to proceed over time and space. Money is created by traders making trading promises and getting them certified. The certificates are destroyed when the trader delivers. If the trader defaults, the orphaned certificates are recovered with interest collections. During the delivery process, the certificates circulate as the most desired object of simple barter. This is because, under a properly managed MOE process, they never lose their value. Thus they are universally accepted.

    Supply and demand for these certificates (money) is in perpetual perfect balance ... it's the nature of trade.

    Demand for funds is lower, means consumers are not spending as much, and this allows room for capital investment, because funds are not competing for consumption.

    This is a "capitalists" notion and was imposed by capitalists. It gives capitalists control over traders and their desire and ability to trade where no such natural control exists.

    It is ridiculous to require that someone first save before he, or someone else using money, can trade. In the beginning there was "no" capital. Yet trade got started and has continued ever since.

    Consumption levels have subsided, and the investment period can began today to bring about new goods for consumers tommorrow.

    Consumption and savings have nothing to do with proper management of an MOE process. Under a properly operating MOE process, reliable traders (those who don't default) enjoy zero interest load. Thus, in time value of money calculations (i.e. (1+i)^n) the zero "i" term makes all these "buy it now with future money or save present money for a future purchase" considerations go away. With inflation guaranteed to be zero, a consideration to trade is governed only by the traders desire to do so and ability to deliver.

    Without some capitalist jacking the system with their farming operation (i.e. diddling interest rates and restricting traders ability to get their promises certified) traders are far less likely to default ... and there is no cascading effect if they do.

    A properly managed MOE process "automatically" increases interest collections in the face of defaults. This is what the capitalists claim to be doing with all the nonsense described in this article.

    So again... if you "get that", you are putty in the capitalists hands and you are a major part of the problem.

    NoWayJose

    We had the chance in 2007-2009 to re-set everything and come out with a stable growing economy and severe limitations on banks. It did not happen. We will get another chance, but the pain threshold will be much higher!

    [Aug 16, 2015] Deal or War': Is Doomed Dollar Really Behind Obama's Iran Warning?

    "..."At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the international payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."
    The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct of international trade and financial transactions..."
    .
    "...Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery.""
    .
    "..."If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the US economy.""
    .
    "...Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey. He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed in 2007-08.... "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"..."
    .
    "...President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option..."
    August 15, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    US President Barack Obama has given an extraordinary ultimatum to the Republican-controlled Congress, arguing that they must not block the nuclear accord with Iran. It's either "deal or war," he says.

    In a televised nationwide address on August 5, Obama said: "Congressional rejection of this deal leaves any US administration that is absolutely committed to preventing Iran from getting a nuclear weapon with one option: another war in the Middle East. I say this not to be provocative. I am stating a fact."

    The American Congress is due to vote on whether to accept the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action signed July 14 between Iran and the P5+1 group of world powers – the US, Britain, France, Germany, Russia and China. Republicans are openly vowing to reject the JCPOA, along with hawkish Democrats such as Senator Chuck Schumer. Opposition within the Congress may even be enough to override a presidential veto to push through the nuclear accord.

    In his drastic prediction of war, one might assume that Obama is referring to Israel launching a preemptive military strike on Iran with the backing of US Republicans. Or that he is insinuating that Iran will walk from self-imposed restraints on its nuclear program to build a bomb, thus triggering a war.

    But what could really be behind Obama's dire warning of "deal or war" is another scenario – the collapse of the US dollar, and with that the implosion of the US economy.

    That scenario was hinted at this week by US Secretary of State John Kerry. Speaking in New York on August 11, Kerry made the candid admission that failure to seal the nuclear deal could result in the US dollar losing its status as the top international reserve currency.

    "If we turn around and nix the deal and then tell [US allies], 'You're going to have to obey our rules and sanctions anyway,' that is a recipe, very quickly for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world."

    In other words, what really concerns the Obama administration is that the sanctions regime it has crafted on Iran – and has compelled other nations to abide by over the past decade – will be finished. And Iran will be open for business with the European Union, as well as China and Russia.

    It is significant that within days of signing the Geneva accord, Germany, France, Italy and other EU governments hastened to Tehran to begin lining up lucrative investment opportunities in Iran's prodigious oil and gas industries. China and Russia are equally well-placed and more than willing to resume trading partnerships with Iran. Russia has signed major deals to expand Iran's nuclear energy industry.

    American writer Paul Craig Roberts said that the US-led sanctions on Iran and also against Russia have generated a lot of frustration and resentment among Washington's European allies.

    "US sanctions against Iran and Russia have cost businesses in other countries a lot of money," Roberts told this author.

    "Propaganda about the Iranian nuke threat and Russian threat is what caused other countries to cooperate with the sanctions. If a deal worked out over much time by the US, Russia, China, UK, France and Germany is blocked, other countries are likely to cease cooperating with US sanctions."

    Roberts added that if Washington were to scuttle the nuclear accord with Iran, and then demand a return to the erstwhile sanctions regime, the other international players will repudiate the American diktat.

    "At that point, I think much of the world would have had enough of the US use of the international payments system to dictate to others, and they would cease transacting in dollars."

    The US dollar would henceforth lose its status as the key global reserve currency for the conduct of international trade and financial transactions.

    Former World Bank analyst Peter Koenig says that if the nuclear accord unravels, Iran will be free to trade its oil and gas – worth trillions of dollars – in bilateral currency deals with the EU, Japan, India, South Korea, China and Russia, in much the same way that China and Russia and other members of the BRICS nations have already begun to do so.

    That outcome will further undermine the US dollar. It will gradually become redundant as a mechanism of international payment.

    Koenig argues that this implicit threat to the dollar is the real, unspoken cause for anxiety in Washington. The long-running dispute with Iran, he contends, was never about alleged weapons of mass destruction. Rather, the real motive was for Washington to preserve the dollar's unique global standing.

    "The US-led standoff with Iran has nothing to do with nuclear weapons," says Koenig. The issue is: will Iran eventually sell its huge reserves of hydrocarbons in other currencies than the dollar, as they intended to do in 2007 with an Iranian Oil Bourse? That is what instigated the American-contrived fake nuclear issue in the first place."

    This is not just about Iran. It is about other major world economies moving away from holding the US dollar as a means of doing business. If the US unilaterally scuppers the international nuclear accord, Washington will no longer be able to enforce its financial hegemony, which the sanctions regime on Iran has underpinned.

    Many analysts have long wondered at how the US dollar has managed to defy economic laws, given that its preeminence as the world's reserve currency is no longer merited by the fundamentals of the US economy. Massive indebtedness, chronic unemployment, loss of manufacturing base, trade and budget deficits are just some of the key markers, despite official claims of "recovery."

    As Paul Craig Roberts commented, the dollar's value has only been maintained because up to now the rest of the world needs the greenback to do business with. That dependency has allowed the US Federal Reserve to keep printing banknotes in quantities that are in no way commensurate with the American economy's decrepit condition.

    "If the dollar lost the reserve currency status, US power would decline," says Roberts. "Washington's financial hegemony, such as the ability to impose sanctions, would vanish, and Washington would no longer be able to pay its bills by printing money. Moreover, the loss of reserve currency status would mean a drop in the demand for dollars and a drop in willingness to hold them. Therefore, the dollar's exchange value would fall, and rising prices of imports would import inflation into the US economy."

    Doug Casey, a top American investment analyst, last week warned that the woeful state of the US economy means that the dollar is teetering on the brink of a long-overdue crash. "You're going to see very high levels of inflation. It's going to be quite catastrophic," says Casey.

    He added that the crash will also presage a collapse in the American banking system which is carrying trillions of dollars of toxic debt derivatives, at levels much greater than when the system crashed in 2007-08.

    The picture he painted isn't pretty: "Now, when interest rates inevitably go up from these artificially suppressed levels where they are now, the bond market is going to collapse, the stock market is going to collapse, and with it, the real estate market is going to collapse. Pension funds are going to be wiped out… This is a very bad situation. The US is digging itself in deeper and deeper," said Casey, who added the telling question: "Then what's going to happen?"

    President Obama's grim warning of "deal or war" seems to provide an answer. Faced with economic implosion on an epic scale, the US may be counting on war as its other option.

    Reprinted with permission from RT.

    [Aug 16, 2015] The Ron Paul Institute for Peace and Prosperity Republicans Cant Face the Truth About Iraq

    "...For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world's biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington's bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel's most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists."
    .
    "...It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel's viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush's invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region's key nation, is run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship."
    August 15, 2015 | ronpaulinstitute.org

    Gov. Jeb Bush repeated one of the biggest falsehoods of our time during the recent presidential candidate debate: "we were misled (into the Iraq War) by faulty intelligence."

    US intelligence was not "misled." It was ordered by the real, de facto president, Dick Cheney, to provide excuses for a war of aggression against Saddam Hussein's Iraq.

    PM Tony Blair, forced British intelligence services to "sex up" reports that Iraq had nuclear weapons; he purged the government and the venerable broadcaster BBC of journalists who failed to amplify Blair's lies. Bush and Blair reportedly discussed painting a US Air Force plane in UN colors and getting it to buzz Iraqi anti-aircraft sites in hope the Iraqis would fire on it. Bush told Blair that after conquering Iraq, he intended to invade Iran, Syria, Libya and Pakistan.

    In fact, Iraq had no "weapons of mass destruction," save some rusty barrels of mustard and nerve gas that had been supplied by the US and Britain for use against Iran. I broke this story from Baghdad back in late 1990.

    Tyler Drumheller, who died last week, was the former chief of CIA's European division. He was the highest-ranking intelligence officer to go public and accuse the Bush administration of hyping fabricated evidence to justify invading Iraq.

    Drumheller was particularly forceful in denouncing the Iraqi defector codenamed "Curveball," whose ludicrous claims about mobile Iraqi germ laboratories were trumpeted before the UN by former Secretary of State Colin Powell. "Curveball's" claims were outright lies and Powell, whose career was ruined by parroting these absurd allegations, should have known better.

    "Curveball" was an 'agent provocateur' clearly sent by a neighbor of Iraq to help promote a US attack on that nation. Whether it was Kuwait, Saudi Arabia or Israel that sent Curveball," we still don't know. All three fabricated "evidence" against Iraq and passed it to Washington. That is where US intelligence was indeed misled. But that's only a minor part of the story.

    A Washington cabal of pro-Israel neocons, oil men, and old-fashioned imperialists joined to promote a grossly illegal invasion of oil-rich Iraq. One of its senior members, former Pentagon official Paul Wolfowitz, admitted that weapons of mass destruction was chosen as the most convenient and emotive pretext for war. Orders went out to CIA and NSA to find information linking Iraq to 9/11 and weapons of mass destruction.

    Some of the worst torture inflicted on suspects kidnapped by CIA's action teams was designed to make them admit to a link between 9/11 and Saddam Hussein. There was, of course, none. But administration officials, like the odious Condoleeza Rice, kept broadly hinting at a nuclear threat to America.

    Prior to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, polls showed a majority of Americans believed Iraq was threatening the US with nuclear attack and was behind 9/11. Amazingly, a poll taken of self-professed evangelical Christians just before the US attacked Iraq showed that over 80% supported war against Iraq. So much for turning the other cheek.

    Most of the US media, notably the New York Times, Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, amplified the lies of the Bush administration. TV networks were ordered never to show American military casualties or civilian dead. Those, like this writer, who questioned the rational for war, or who wouldn't go along with the party line, were blanked out from print and TV.

    For example, I was immediately dropped from a major TV network after daring mention that Israel supported the 2003 Iraq war and would benefit from it. I was blacklisted by another major US TV network at the direct demand of the Bush White House for repeatedly insisting that Iraq had no nuclear capability.

    Very few analysts, journalists, or politicians took time to ask: even if Iraq had nuclear weapons, how could they be delivered to North America? Iraq had no long-range bombers and no missiles with range greater than 100kms. Perhaps by FedEx? No one asked, why would Iraq invite national suicide by trying to hit the US with a nuclear weapon?

    The most original answer came from George W. Bush: nefarious Iraqi freighters were lurking in the North Atlantic carrying "drones of death" that would attack sleeping America. This hallucination was based on a single report that the bumbling Iraqis were working a children's model airplane that, in the end, broke and never flew. What inspired such a phantasmagoria? Pot, too much bourbon, LSD, or thundering orders from Dick Cheney to find a damned good excuse for invading Iraq.

    For Cheney and his oil pals, conquering Iraq would secure the Arab world's biggest oil reserves for Uncle Sam and offer a central military base in the region. For Washington's bloodthirsty neocons, pulverizing Iraq would remove one of Israel's most determined enemies, crush the only Arab nation that might challenge Israel's nuclear monopoly, and cost Israel nothing. Invading Iraq produced the slow disintegration of the Mideast so long sought by militant Zionists.

    It all worked brilliantly, at least from Israel's viewpoint. Not, however for the US. Bush's invasion shattered Iraq, led to al-Qaida and ISIS, and left Washington saddled with a $1 trillion-dollar bill instead of the $60 million cost estimated by Wolfowitz. The Mideast is in a tailspin, Palestinians are totally isolated, and Egypt, the region's key nation, is run by an Arab-fascist military dictatorship.

    Tyler Drumheller was the only senior CIA officer to stand up and tell Americans they were lied into an unnecessary, illegal war. Today, we have Iraqi déjà vu anew as the lie factories and fear mongers work overtime to promote war with Iran.

    Reprinted with permission from EricMargolis.com.

    [Aug 16, 2015] IEA At Least Another Year Before Oil Markets Rebalance

    OilPrice.com
    IEA further suggests that the long-anticipated decline in world production will probably be most pronounced in the second half of 2015 and into 2016 "with the US hardest hit. "

    The message is clear. The world continues to have an over-supply problem that is slowly improving but it will take another year before the market comes into balance.

    OPEC continues to hold the cards and could change the balance if it chooses.

    By Art Berman for Oilprice.com

    Related: Saudi Oil Strategy: Brilliant Or Suicide?

    'International Money Mania'

    Aug 16, 2015 | Economist's View
    Paul Krugman:
    International Money Mania: China is claiming that it's not devaluing the renminbi to gain competitive advantage, it's adding flexibility to prepare for the yuan as an international reserve currency, becoming part of the basket in the IMF's SDRs and all that. That's highly implausible as a story about what's happening right now; but it may be true that China's urge to loosen capital controls is driven in part by its global-currency ambitions. ...
    So what are the advantages of owning a reserve currency? ...
    What you're left with, basically, is seigniorage: the fact that some people outside your country hold your currency, which means that in effect America gets a zero-interest loan corresponding to the stash of dollar bills - or, mainly $100 bills - held in the hoards of tax evaders, drug dealers, and other friends around the world. In normal times this privilege is worth something like $20-30 billion a year; that's not a tiny number, but it's only a small fraction of one percent of GDP.
    The point is that while reserve-currency status may have political symbolism attached, it's essentially irrelevant as an economic goal - and definitely not worth distorting policy to achieve. Someone needs to tell the Chinese, you shall not crucify this country on a cross of SDRs.

    am said...


    Wo! Prof K pulls the reins on the reserve currency objective. I think that prestige is the main objective in China's moves in this direction and they wouldn't mind a bit of the seignorage too. But to get prestige fully they will have to let the currency float.
    China won't peg the yuan forever and doesn't want to either, I think. Their long term objective is surely international bonds in yuan to rival the USA dollar bonds.

    RogerFox said...


    'Reserve' status tends to make a currency stronger that it otherwise would be. When they think it through, the Reds will eventually come to the realization that such an outcome might not be to their benefit, any more than it has been for blue-collar-types in the States.

    Manipulating their currency down, then up, then down again - that's hardly demonstrative of an embrace of market-forces, is it?


    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RogerFox...


    'Reserve' status tends to make a currency stronger that it otherwise would be.

    [Krugman doesn't seem to believe in the Triffin dilemma, but you are correct. What you mean by "stronger than it otherwise would be" is having a higher foreign exchange value relative to its surplus trading partner's currencies than if they were not holding securities denominated in the reserve currency. So, the reserve currency does have a higher import purchasing power in the face of persistent trade deficits. Whether that increases or decrease the overall trade deficit for the reserve currency nation depends upon the real balance of trade relative to the effect of exchange rates. If US based MNCs were going to offshore production regardless of exchange rates just because of arbitrage over regulation and standard of living (real wages) and the US was going to import the same amount of oil anyway then the over-valued dollar actually reduced the US trade deficit. That may be why Krugman just tiptoed past the Triffin dilemma. ]

    *

    ...When they think it through, the Reds will eventually come to the realization that such an outcome might not be to their benefit, any more than it has been for blue-collar-types in the States...

    [The US had developed a higher standard of living including higher environmental quality and higher labor safety standards. There are plenty of Reds and they do not have much leverage in their political system. Most importantly China can liberalize their financial system while still practicing protectionists industrial policy. What China needs to grow is a switch to domestic consumption and that will take a lot more imported oil. China wants to make this transition. China wants the Triffin dilemma to lower the cost of their oil imports. They are ready to let lower wage countries perform more of the low skill labor while China raises their standard of living and switches from surplus to deficit on trade. China will be smart about what it choses to import though unlike the US. The US was smart about making the rich even richer until they controlled the media and even the political system. The Chinese government would want to avoid that embrace.]


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 04:44 AM


    Lafayette said...


    WAKEY, WAKEY …

    From Forbes : {Technically, the news that many rich people in China have personal ties to China's top leaders is not really news anymore. Nor is it news that many rich Chinese have placed their assets in offshore accounts or even that many rich people in China get that way through peddling influence or corruption.

    After all, the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion, making their American congressional cousins across the Pacific-whose top 50 members are worth only $1.6 billion-look positively poverty stricken. The link between politics and money in China is well-established.*}

    And we thought that Uncle Sam had a problem with too many plutocrats fixing policy from the top?

    Wakey, wakey. The sun rises in the east … !

    *From here: http://www.forbes.com/sites/elizabetheconomy/2014/01/28/the-political-plight-of-chinas-wealthy/

    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:25 AM


    anne said in reply to Lafayette...


    After all, the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion...

    [ Not that the crazed viciousness directed against the Chinese will stop, but it is not conceivable that Forbes could know this. ]


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:43 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to anne...


    Anne, don't be naive.

    I have seen this figure confirmed by Chinese, in China, on TV reports here in France. In fact, the reportage was done by some very brave Germans who would not dare set foot again in China.

    The report was very well done, in that it interviewed dissenters in hiding as well as those who had been in jail. It even went to the backwaters of large cities and out into the countryside.

    In fact, I heard quotes for the position of regional leadership that are bantered about and even well-known. Meaning this: The corruption is so wide-spread that those in command are no longer even hiding it.

    I cannot imagine how they (the reporters) got away with it, because the Political Police go right down to the village level. You cannot believe what's going in China from abroad.

    But when it implodes, and it WILL implode, the economic earthquake caused is going to be enormous ...


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:02 AM


    anne said in reply to Lafayette...


    "In fact, the reportage was done by some very brave ------- who would not dare set foot again in China."

    Rubbish, though no doubt self-sacrificing and bravely gathered rubbish, but what is now all important through the West is the destroying of China.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:14 AM


    pgl said in reply to anne...


    How is reporting that a few people have gotten very rich destroying China? You are paranoid here.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:23 AM


    anne said in reply to anne...


    "After all, the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion..."

    "In fact, the reportage was done by some very brave ------- who would not dare set foot again in China."

    Rubbish, though no doubt self-sacrificing and bravely gathered rubbish, but what is now all important through the West is the destroying of China. What is being reported cannot conceivably be known and is simply making up stuff with the intent of destroying China.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:36 AM


    kthomas said in reply to Lafayette...


    Mao is turning in his grave at Ludicrous Speed.


    Im enjoying the hell out of this.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:31 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to kthomas...


    Witnessing what is happening in China from afar is a privilege.

    They are flocking to France this summer because French "style" is highly prized. And what do they find here ... gangs of Romanian pick-pockets.

    They are a decent people, the Chinese, but haven't the slightest sense of "individualism". Quite unlike Americans, who have little sense of "solidarity".

    So, the Chinese are easy to manipulate. And they ARE being manipulated by a corrupt caste-system that has replaced the iron-fist of communist rule.

    These billionaires are "communists" in sheep-clothing - they are no different from Putin's kleptocrats ...


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 11:55 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to Lafayette...


    NICE MONEY IF YOU CAN GET ... AND YOU CAN GET IT, IF YOU TRY

    {... whose top 50 members are worth only $1.6 billion}

    Only? That's more than a cool $300M each on average.

    Now who the hell "needs" 300M dollars ... ?


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:56 AM


    am said in reply to Lafayette...


    How do they define a billion. If it is 1000 million then 50 into 1.5 billion is 30 million.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:20 AM


    pgl said in reply to am...


    $94.7 billion collectively. Almost $1.9 billion per person. I know - Forbes needs better writers. But the DONALD would still call these rich dudes "light weights". When they each have $10 billion, then he'll be nice to them.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:28 AM


    am said in reply to pgl...


    My comment was about the US combined wealth. Laf says it works out at 300million each for the top 50 but if a billion is 1000 million then he should have said 30million each. All rounded down, of course. I think there are different definitions of a billion which is why I asked the question in the first comment.

    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:39 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to am...


    Your right, it's ONLY $30M. That changes EVERYTHING, doesn't it!

    Dammit, where's that delete button when you need it ... ;^)


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:38 AM


    pgl said in reply to Lafayette...


    I thought the figure was $94.7 billion. Now it is $1.6 billion? Let's get the accounting straight. BTW - $300 million is what the DONALD spends in just a couple of months.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:24 AM


    pgl said in reply to pgl...


    "the top 50 members of China's National People's Congress boast a combined wealth of $94.7 billion, making their American congressional cousins across the Pacific-whose top 50 members are worth only $1.6 billion".

    Oh wait - I get this story. Sort of. But 94.7/50 is a bit more than 1.6. Right?


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:26 AM


    pgl said in reply to pgl...


    Oh good grief - the original story reads:

    "MANY Americans grumble about the wealth of their politicians. An annual survey released this month by CQ Roll Call, part of The Economist Group, showed that the median net worth of all Congressmen was $440,000, compared with American household net worth of around $70,000. Indeed, the 50 richest members of Congress hold a staggering $1.6 billion. But that's nothing compared with China. The wealthiest 50 delegates to the National People's Congress (NPC), China's rubber-stamp parliament, control $94.7 billion, according to the Hurun Report's latest rich list. That's about 60 times more than their American confrères. Darrell Issa, a Republican from California, is the richest man in Congress, with $355m. But that is pocket money compared with the riches of Zong Qinghou, an NPC delegate and boss of Hangzhou Wahaha Group, a drinks-maker, whose wealth totals almost $19 billion (including assets distributed to family members). Americans might not take much succour in being trumped by China, but it certainly brings new meaning to the idea that the seat of political power is called the capital."

    Better writing. The DONALD is still laughing at this as he is worth $10 billion but he has decided that Zong Qingjou is not a light weight.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:32 AM


    Lafayette said in reply to pgl...


    Does the exact number really matter? Nobody knows for sure what the real figure is, so its's just an estimate for the moment.

    I quoted that figure from Forbes ...

    If any division is of - mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa ...


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:44 AM


    pgl said in reply to Lafayette...


    One of these dudes has raked in $19 billion? Damn - what did he give away to make that?

    And notice - any story on China that says anything other than their growth rate is the highest in a long time sends Anne off in another one of her tantrums. Just sad.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 09:53 AM


    pgl said...


    China's real exchange rate has doubled over the past 20 years:

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/RBCNBIS

    Krugman notes this fact and writes:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/china-2015-is-not-china-2010/?module=BlogPost-Title&version=Blog%20Main&contentCollection=Opinion&action=Click&pgtype=Blogs&region=Body

    "It's true that China's real exchange rate has trended upward for a long time, and that this didn't lead to a loss of competitiveness until recently - mainly because of Balassa-Samuelson and other effects of rising productivity. But with Chinese growth slowing and the pace of appreciation rising - and with rising competition from other emerging markets - the past five years almost surely have brought a major reduction in competitiveness. It's perfectly consistent to believe that China was destructively undervalued in 2010 but overvalued now."

    We used to lecture the Chinese on alleged currency manipulation but maybe we should stop lest we become clowns like the DONALD!

    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 08:41 AM


    am said...


    http://www.afr.com/markets/chinas-central-bank-moves-to-calm-markets-20150813-giy9w9

    A good Aussie report on the new Chinese policy. Basically the peg has a range for the day's trading. The value at close of business is then the new starting peg the next day. Hence the devaluation each day this week.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:28 AM


    am said in reply to am...


    http://www.afr.com/markets/currencies/hockey-backs-china-central-bank-moves-to-calm-markets-20150813-giyihc
    The Aussies seem to like what is happening with the yuan.


    Reply Thursday, August 13, 2015 at 10:37 AM


    pgl said in reply to am...

    "China's central bank said it would keep the exchange rate at a "reasonable" and stable level at a press conference on Thursday".

    In other words, pegged at a different level than earlier but still pegged. I say this because Matty Boy Bot thought this meant floating. OK - the Boy Bot gets everything wrong.

    john c. halasz said...

    Umm... the "advantage" of having a reserve currency is that one can borrow cheap and long and then invest at much higher returns elsewhere, especially abroad. Why does PK miss that, instead focusing on the trivial seigniorage? Of course, that's not an advantage for the economy as a whole necessarily, just for certain factions of the elite, but should macroeconomic abstraction blind one to the different interests in play?

    Peter K. said in reply to john c. halasz...

    The carry trade?

    "and then invest at much higher returns elsewhere,"

    And then pull it out in a panic as they did during the East Asian crisis in the late 90s and the European periphery's debt crisis recently.

    or with subprime and mortgage-backed securities with the housing bubbble.


    [Aug 15, 2015] Paul Krugman Bungling g's Stock Markets

    Aug 14, 2015 | Economist's View

    kthomas said in reply to Mitch...

    ...As for this particular article from PK, its garbage. Completely subjective, and repeating much of what most of us know. He does it rarely, thank God, but nobody is perfect and he can be allowed an occasiional rant.

    Im far more interested in his opinions on Fed response.

    sanjait said...

    This is concerning, because it's amateurish behavior for a national government. China is essentially acting like the London Whale - throwing money at the market in a vain attempt to avoid having asset prices shift, hoping beyond reason that the market will just favorably make it's own adjustments sometime in the future.

    Paine said in reply to sanjait...

    What ? Amateurish ? How can you know the underlying plan here? I certainly don't

    And I made my living for a while analyzing currency markets

    Sanjait said in reply to Paine ...

    They are trying to arrest market movements, and it's amateurish because it's a strategy doomed to fail.

    I suppose it's always possible that someone's apparently dumb actions are actually part of an intelligent 12-dimensional chess strategy that is not apparent to outsiders ... but I'm pretty comfortable that's not the case when we are talking about China's attempts to prop up the stock market.

    nikbez said in reply to Sanjait ...

    You are incredibly naïve if you think there was no geopolitical play in using the bubble Chinese created to crash Chinese market.

    I wonder what was the role in all this of vampire squid and friends

    anne said in reply to sanjait...

    There is no reason to think Chinese policy makers are trying to set stock market prices as opposed to dampen market movements. Hong Kong authorities were able to dampen market movements during the Asian currency crisis by buying shares in the Hong Kong index. Similarly, Malaysia employed capital controls limiting flows of money from stock sales from be taken out of the country.

    sanjait said in reply to anne...

    Even if it's merely dampening market movements, which is totally plausible, its an extremely stupid thing to do.

    It tells every investor in the market that the national government is providing a backstop on their losses. In the very short term this reduces market volatility but in the less short run it just encourages leveraging up and reduced risk premia, which increase market volatility. Even on that measure it's a dumb and amateurish move.

    And that's putting aside the fairly obvious fact that the state is covering the losses of wealthy private investors with this move, enacting a form of post facto lemon socialism.

    If Hong Kong did the same thing, it was dumb for them too.

    Malaysia (or any other country) implementing capital controls is definitively *not* the same thing.

    Eric Blair said in reply to sanjait...

    PK himself does not take this position. In fact the 1998 Malaysia currency controls were imposed after Malaysia's leader read a Krugman column in Fortune suggesting exactly that. So far as I know, though, he has never spelled out exactly where "slap in the face" ends and "post facto lemon socialism" begins.

    nikbez said in reply to Eric Blair...

    Eric,

    all free market fundamentalists are "true believers". They can't be influenced by arguments.

    Eric Blair said in reply to sanjait...

    PK himself does not take this position. In fact the 1998 Malaysia currency controls were imposed after Malaysia's leader read a Krugman column in Fortune suggesting exactly that. So far as I know, though, he has never spelled out exactly where "slap in the face" ends and "post facto lemon socialism" begins.

    RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to RC AKA Darryl, Ron...

    Wealth breeds greed. Greed breeds elitism. Elitism breeds isolation. Isolation breeds ignorance.

    "Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Great men are almost always bad men." Lord Acton

    anne said in reply to sanjait...

    Suggested by Branko Milanovic:

    http://www.marketwatch.com/story/heres-the-map-of-the-world-if-size-was-determined-by-market-cap-2015-08-12?link=MW_home_latest_news

    August 14, 2015

    Here's the map of the world, if size were determined by market cap
    In billions of dollars, the world according to free-float stock market capitalization.
    By STEVE GOLDSTEIN

    D.C. BUREAU CHIEF

    Bank of America Merrill Lynch this month published a report transforming many of their investment themes into maps.

    One of note is what the world would look like if sized by market capitalization.

    The U.S. is still looking like the U.S. - and Japan is pretty hefty - but where did China go? And how is Hong Kong bigger than the mainland?

    Some readers have noted that China looks unusually small - that's because the methodology here is to use MSCI's numbers. The index provider still keeps out the so-called A-shares * from inclusion in its indexes, for reasons including capital mobility. Were the A-shares included, even after the rout in that country, the market cap of China would swell by tenfold.

    Russia, on this map, is basically the size of Finland. (A country that reportedly Vladimir Putin has designs for, though that's a story for another day.)

    The U.S. market capitalization is $19.8 trillion, or 52% of world market cap, which the brokerage says is the highest since the 1980s.

    Russia, for what it's worth, is the largest country by area.

    * http://www.investopedia.com/terms/a/a-shares.asp

    Shares in mainland China-based companies that trade on Chinese stock exchanges such as the Shanghai Stock Exchange and the Shenzhen Stock Exchange. A-shares are generally only available for purchase by mainland citizens; foreign investment is only allowed through a tightly-regulated structure known as the Qualified Foreign Institutional Investor (QFII) system.

    sanjait said in reply to anne...

    Not sure what the point is ... but ok.

    So it seems China's equities market is dominated, in market cap terms, by shares that are limited to domestic purchasers. This indicates they have significant capital restrictions on foreign ownership of companies.

    But I didn't think that fact was in dispute, nor that they have other significant capital restrictions, nor that capital restrictions themselves are necessarily stupid policy.

    Dan Kervick said...

    "The response of the Chinese authorities was remarkable: They pulled out all the stops to support the market - suspending trading in many stocks, banning short-selling, pushing large investors to buy, and instructing graduating economics students to chant "Revive A-shares, benefit the people." "

    "All of this has stabilized the market for the time being. But it is at the cost of tying China's credibility to its ability to keep stock prices from ever falling. And the Chinese economy still needs more support."

    I don't understand this. China did not act to "keep stock prices from ever falling." They acted to put a floor under a very precipitous decline.

    Clearly China has a mixed economy that relies on a heavier degree of political management than the US economy, and has a more flexible, less doctrinaire reliance on "the market thing". They also don't like political drama, and are willing to intervene when the changes underway produce more volatility than they want.

    Paine said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Managing equity markets is relatively novel state craft

    Bonds are another matter
    And forex yet a third
    Not to mention land lots

    Socializing markets is a state activity we are learning

    China right now is operating at the knowledge frontier practically speaking

    It's amazing to watch political economist reflexes here


    Most are giddy


    The earths joblings benighted by a socially constructed black out
    Cant see what's at stake

    pgl said in reply to Paine ...

    "Managing equity markets is relatively novel state craft".

    Maybe but CEOs have been doing this in the US for decades. Yep - we mastered this game by privatizing corporate corruption.

    anne said in reply to Paine ...

    China right now is operating at the knowledge frontier practically speaking

    [ Really, really important. China has for decades used direct, specific market sector controls in generating and smoothing growth.

    A sharp increase in international oil prices is not taken as a general problem, but a problem in agricultural communities where the cost of fuel can be a significant problem during planting and harvest time, so the Chinese have at times directly lowered the price of oil for rural China. However, such market interference should not work since a low price for oil in rural China should mean oil flowing to urban China. China has made price discrimination work however, work without bottlenecks. ]

    Paine said in reply to anne...

    It's interesting and pgl gets this nicely

    It's okay tautly to manipulate markets if you're an oligopoly corporation

    God forbid if you're the sovereign

    Dan Kervick said in reply to Paine ...

    "Managing equity markets is relatively novel state craft."

    Agreed, but the principle isn't that much different. China recently began encouraging ordinary households to invest in their smallish stock market. That's part of the plan for long-term "capital deepening" and development that doesn't rely so much on state-fostered credit and bubbles. Perhaps they concluded now is not the time for some kind of Chinese Black Friday.

    Paine said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Agreed

    However I'd prefer the state just keep relying on its own credit mill
    And yuan mine

    It's cost less

    As to households

    Private Savings give them a limited extra freedom

    Fine

    In fact a universal comprehensive social transfer system cradle to grave
    Could make private savings a luxury product
    Which it ought to be
    Providing a safe place to store purchasing power is enough once the state creates a complete transfer system .

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    This private holding of equities is vey dangerous if it becomes wide spread enough
    And horns into pensions etc


    pgl said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    So you think all this fuss is an overreaction. OK. I said the fuss over that tiny change in the exchange rate peg was much ado about nothing.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

    Yes, I think it's probably an overreaction. The issue is, what if the devaluation doesn't stop, but China continues to expose the exchange to market forces, and market forces push the yuan down?

    This will make confused capitalist heads explode across the United States! The devaluation will be bad for the US, but will be a result of the Chinese practicing US-beloved market principles.

    The politicians and pundits will then have to come up with some conspiracy theory to explain how the commies are manipulating the markets that are driving down the currency, so that they can keep calling the Chinese "manipulators".

    pgl said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    "This will make confused capitalist heads explode across the United States! The devaluation will be bad for the US, but will be a result of the Chinese practicing US-beloved market principles."

    I'm all for heads exploding. But is the yuan really overvalued. Krugman's latest says maybe not. If it is not overvalued, maybe their devaluation is on the same order of the devaluation of the Euro. In fact, Bernanke noted that the German trade surplus is much more of a problem than the shrinking Chinese trade surplus.


    Paine said in reply to pgl...

    PK countered that that peg shift pre staged more peg shifts and the regime change in policy would change expectations of forex marketeers

    Gist

    The market players now expect major moves down and will validate any such plan. On his other hand the marketeers will hammer at any floor

    pgl said in reply to Paine ...

    He is Dornbusch's student so the overshooting model rules his brain. Which in my view is a good thing.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to EMichael...

    Well, this criticism would make sense coming from some Austrian defender of pure free markets. But it's coming from people who don't think interest rates in the credit market should be set by the market, but should be guided and targeted by deliberate central bank policy that prevents them from going where the market otherwise wants to push them.

    Paine said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Dan god bless u

    You think past the paper barriers . Exactly. The present progressive mind is only slightly liberated from the iron dictatorship
    Of capitalist dominated markets

    ... ... ...

    EMichael said in reply to Paine ...

    Gotta' tell you, I can't figure out how you think it is possible that China is not being run by "an iron dictatorship Of capitalist dominated markets"

    Only difference is in the number of people in that "special" group.

    The average Chinese citizen has not seen a whole lot of the impressive Chinese gains these past decades.

    Paine said in reply to EMichael...

    You might want to look into gains at the level of Chinese wage workers since Deng reforms in 1979-80

    EMichael said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Yeah, setting FED rates is almost exactly the same thing as what the Chinese are doing.

    Meanwhile, I believe I can go into the archives here and find examples where you thought it made sense to let speculators have a "hard landing".

    Dan Kervick said in reply to EMichael...

    Speculators, yes. The general public, no.

    Paine said in reply to EMichael...

    Interesting you bring up speculators. Rough housing them is just what the PBC needs to do over the yuan

    Will they ? What if he bastards have personal skin in the game ?

    pgl said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    "should be guided and targeted by deliberate central bank policy that prevents them from going where the market otherwise wants to push them".

    WTF? Unless you are advocating having interest rates rise - this makes no sense. Interest rates are near zero. Letting them rise but invite another recession. Is that what you want?

    Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

    No. What I am saying is it is somewhat inconsistent for people who have no problem with US government price-setting in credit markets - which are a vast share of the US economy - to criticize the Chinese for interfering in the price mechanisms in other markets.

    Paine said in reply to pgl...

    You are suggesting the PBC run around plugging holes
    When a comprehensive strategy for asset markets and land lot markets is in order here

    Taxation your favorite gig
    Must play a huge strategic role here

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    Or perhaps you feel like Mitterrand in the mid 80's
    And maybe Syriza now
    ---I hope not ---

    The Chinese communist politbureau should simply bow to he marketeers will
    Abdicate power over asset markets.
    And call for open elections

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    Castro brothers oughta cave similarly right

    Julio said in reply to EMichael...

    No, what's "more flexible" is being willing to try different methods not allowed by "the market thing".
    If they stick to only one method, applied rigidly, then your criticism will apply.

    Paine said in reply to Julio...

    Excellent

    pgl said in reply to EMichael...

    Go over to DeLong's place where he was mocking Jeb! 4% and DONALD! 10% read Kervick's attack on the Solow growth model. About the dumbest rant I have ever seen in my life. And as Kervick tried to school Solow, I offered what I would suspect Solow would fire back.

    Looking at changes in real GDP during the Great Depression as a measure of changes in potential GDP. Really stupid.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

    I didn't really attack the Solow model. I implied that economists can't predict the impact of political decisions on growth rates or growth ceilings by using that model, since the predictions come from pumping numbers into the model that are extrapolations from current conditions.

    The model contains an exogenous variable for "multifactor productivity". If multifactor productivity changes, then the steady state equilibrium changes along with the calculated growth path for getting there. And multifactor productivity is a factor that, while unpredictable, changes in response to innovation and investment in human capital.

    It also treats the savings rate as an exogenous variable. But clearly states can increase the savings rate of their societies.

    Clearly societies have experienced periods of dramatic economic progress in the past because of technological innovations or political interventions that would not have been predictable ahead of time from the Solow model.

    The model has limited use in predicting growth paths for societies in which some important basic parameters stay the same (or change according to some simple quantitative rule). It loses applicability when applied to situations in which either private or public sector developments result in dramatic changes in the values of variables the model treats as exogenous.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to pgl...

    Right. But the Chinese did not at all prevent stock prices from "ever falling." Nor did they announce or commit to such a crazy policy. They announced a temporary measure to prevent them only from falling below a certain level. They applied some brakes - that's all.

    It's not that much different than what we do in the US to prevent a automated trading "flash crash" from turning into a Black Friday market rout.

    Paine said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    Exactly. Except here the various market players ..inside players call the shots. Not the state

    Sanjait said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    It's not at all the same. A temporary trading halt is not the same as having state backed entities buy shares.

    Neither is it similar to conventional monetary policy.

    Your argument for these Chinese policies seems to consist of a long string of false equivalences such as these.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to Sanjait ...

    It's the same thing. Just two different mechanisms for getting out of a doom loop. You just think there is something evil or out of bounds about states intervening in market mechanisms. I say big deal. If a few giant market participants stepped in to buy up shares to stop a panicky selloff, people would say, "Thank, Citizen Moneybucks and Citizen Morgan for stopping this terrible panic." The state is just another public spirited and powerful agent with a stake in preventing instability.

    As for "conventional monetary policy", I'll ask you to recall that QE is generally classified as "unconventional" monetary policy. Of course, what is conventional or unconventional depends only on what people are used to. Once upon a time, in the early 20th century, central bank open market purchases of all kinds were an unconventional emergency measure. Then people got used to them. Now large-scale asset purchases have probably moved into the conventional category. Some central banks have already been involved in buying and selling equities, and perhaps some day those interventions will be "conventional" as well.

    It really doesn't matter, though, whether they are conventional or unconventional. The questions should be what the goals are, and how well they accomplish them.

    Just because "the markets" decide they want to carry out some Mellonite liquidation of overvalued assets in a rapid, elephant stampede style doesn't mean it is good public policy to let it happen.

    Peter K. said in reply to Dan Kervick...

    I'm leaning towards John Cassidy's take, who suggests they're having a "Minsky moment."

    "Underlying all of this is the fact that China is still dealing with the consequences of an enormous credit and real-estate bubble that has accompanied, and prolonged, the latter stages of the growth miracle. Between 2007 and 2014, total private debt in China rose from about a hundred per cent of G.D.P. to about a hundred and eighty per cent-a jump even larger than those seen in countries such as Ireland and Spain, which subsequently endured deep recessions. In 2010 alone, the amount of debt taken out by Chinese businesses and households jumped by about thirty-five per cent of G.D.P.

    ...

    So far, however, the Chinese government, which enjoys the luxury of having relatively little debt of its own, plus enormous foreign currency reserves, has managed to avoid such a nasty outcome. By intervening in ways obvious and opaque, it has sought to substitute a managed deleveraging of the economy for a chaotic collapse. Until pretty recently, the consensus among economists and investors was that this policy was generally working. G.D.P. growth was falling, but not cratering. The Chinese shadow-banking system, which issued a lot of the dodgy credit, was shaky, but it hadn't collapsed. And China's stock market was soaring.

    The events of the past months have prompted a reassessment of the true state of China's economy, and of the competence of its policy makers. In the aftermath of the effort to prop up the stock market, the Times' Paul Krugman said Chinese officials were demonstrating that they "have no idea what they are doing." This week's devaluation prompted more critical comments from Krugman, while, over at Bloomberg View, Justin Fox suggested that China might not have a master plan.

    I think it probably does-the question is whether the plan will ultimately work. In seeking to deflate a huge credit bubble and rebalance the economy without subjecting China to an outright recession, the government in Beijing is seeking to defy the economic laws of gravity. That was never going to be easy."


    sanjait said in reply to Peter K....

    ^^THIS

    Peter describes the situation very well I think.

    Basically, China is attempting to dance past its Minsky moment.

    It would be like if the US decided in 2008, instead of buying MBS and its own bonds, to coerce state-backed investors into issuing more loans and buy equities. China is essentially doing what the obtuse free-market ideologues accused the US of doing with its various bailouts and monetary policy activities.

    But these things aren't the same. China is actually trying to prevent the corrections, or at the very least slow them, not through macro policy but through purchase flows.

    At best these policies will result in massive losses for the Beijing Whale. Perhaps some would argue it would be worth it to ensure macro stability, though I can think of a whole lot of other better ways to achieve that goal.

    And at worst these policies will just delay or even exacerbate the inevitable corrections, and leave the state with fewer resources and weaker credibility to deal with the aftermath.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to sanjait...

    "...or at the very least slow them."

    That's the ticket. Also, we need to remember that markets are stupid and herd-like some times, and the direction they decide to go isn't always smart. Maybe the full "correction" will never happen. Maybe it was partly based on an excessive fear that Chinese equities were overvalued that was just as irrational as the excessive exuberance that overvalued the equities in the first place.

    EMichael said...

    "The common theme in these wild policy swings is that China's leadership keeps imagining that it can order markets around, telling them what prices to reach."

    But of course this is what China's leadership has done for decades. They ordered their economy around, and it should be no surprise that this is their reaction to the changing world.

    Peter K. said...

    http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/the-4-trillion-that-no-one-can-see

    The $4 Trillion That No One Can See
    by Dean Baker

    Published: 14 August 2015

    Economists and people who are write about the economy are not known for being especially astute when it comes to economic issues. After all, there were almost no people in this group who were able to see the $8 trillion housing bubble whose collapse sank the economy. More recently we have a substantial clique running around yelling that the robots will take all the jobs. This is at the same time that we continue to have most of the Washington elite types fretting that the retirement of the baby boomers will leave us without any workers. These concerns are 180 degrees opposite, sort of like complaining that the soup being too hot and too cold, but that's the sort of conceptual absurdities folks have come to expect from people who write about the economy.

    The usually astute Catherine Rampell is one of the guilty parties today, telling readers that the recent drop in the value of the Chinese yuan is a response to the market, not the result of currency management by China's government. The problem in this story is that it ignores that China's central bank is holding more than $4 trillion of reserves, about $3 trillion more than would be expected for an economy of China's size. This stock of reserves has the effect of raising the value of the dollar and other reserve currencies against the yuan.

    If that is not obvious, consider the analogous situation with the Federal Reserve Board and its holding of more than $3 trillion in assets as a result of it quantitative easing (QE) policy. Under this policy, the Fed bought up large amounts of government bonds and mortgage backed securities. The idea was that the Fed's purchases would drive up the price of these bonds and thereby directly lower long-term interest rates.

    While the Fed's act of buying bonds almost certainly drove up bond prices and lowered interest rates (it is the same thing), the fact that the Fed continues to hold a huge amount of bonds means that bond prices are higher and interest rates are lower than they otherwise would be. If the Fed didn't hold this stock of $3 trillion of bonds, there would be a much greater supply in the market, which would lead to lower bond prices and higher interest rates. In other words, the Fed's QE policy is still putting downward pressure on interest rates, even though it is no longer in the process of buying bonds.

    Applying this logic to China's holding of $3 trillion in excess foreign exchange reserves, if China did not hold these reserves then we would have another $3 trillion worth of foreign exchange floating around on world markets (most of it in dollars). This would lead a lower price of the dollar against other currencies, including the yuan if it was allowed to float freely.

    So Rampell has missed the boat completely in telling readers that the downward movement in the yuan is the result of free market conditions. As long as China holds a huge amount of excess reserves it is still holding down the value of the yuan. This is just a market fluctuation, like a fall in long-term interest rates in the United States, against a backdrop of very large government intervention.

    There is another item that Rampell gets badly wrong in this piece. She tells readers:

    "There are a lot of Chinese policies that are unambiguously bad for American companies and workers, including disrespect for intellectual property rights, ..."

    No, that one is wrong. Unless you happen to own lots of stock in Pfizer or Microsoft, you have no particular stake in China's disrespect for intellectual property," in fact you might be hurt if China respected it more. "Respect" in this context means paying more money for royalties and licensing fees. If China pays our software and drug companies more money for their patents and copyrights it means that it has less money for other products from the United States. Other things equal, the more money being paid to Pfizer and Merck, the lower the value of the yuan against the dollar. This means that people who work in steel and auto factories will find it harder to compete against the goods produced in China. It's hard to see why this is a good story for them.

    In fact, since patents and copyrights are archaic and inefficient mechanisms for supporting innovation and creative work, most people in the United States might be better off if China were to ignore U.S. property claims in these areas. This could allow, for example, people suffering from cancer to get drugs in China that would cost $1,000 or even less, rather than the $100,000 plus charged for new cancer drugs protected by patent monopolies. Pushing a free market in this area would also eliminate the corruption associated with monopoly prices, such as efforts to mislead the public about the safety and effectiveness of drugs, which leads to bad health outcomes and sometimes death.

    So it is not true that most workers in the United States should want to see China have more respect for the intellectual property claims of U.S. companies.

    Peter K. said in reply to anne...

    During the East Asian crisis of the late 90s, China sidestepped it via capital controls. Other east Asian countries had to go to the IMF and suffer structural adjustment programs. Look at what happened to Greece.

    China's $4 trillion reserves means it probably won't ever have to go to the IMF.

    anne said in reply to Peter K....

    During the East Asian crisis of the late 90s, China sidestepped it via capital controls. Other east Asian countries had to go to the IMF and suffer structural adjustment programs. Look at what happened to Greece....

    [ Importantly so. China has repeatedly adopted policy to directly control markets. Of course, Alan Greenspan as Chair of the Federal Reserve designed policy to directly control stock prices immediately after a decline in the market of nearly 23% on October 17, 1987. ]

    Peter K. said in reply to anne...

    These are all guesses but I think he sees the anti-democratic Communist elite as he sees the Republican leadership - not knowing what they are doing.

    But I don't really understand the evidence for this. Like Cassidy writes, the Communist government is doing the best they can and they're in a tough position if they are having a Minsky moment.

    Compare Ireland or Spain during the European debt crisis.

    China has no public debt and trillions in foreign reserves. Spain didn't have much public debt had to follow the ECB tight monetary policy and suffer austerity in order to follow EU budgetary rules.

    But Spain and Ireland suffered bad downturns with the people enduring the suffering. The Chinese leadership are worried that a downturn would spark a revolt and a demand for democratic reforms.

    What do they have to worry about in a Minsky moment? A slowdown in growth and an outflow of capital that worsens the situation.

    How would Krugman recommend they manage the slowdown?

    Paine's system of transfers via a Social Security-like system? A better welfare state and safety net like Obamacare? Work-sharing and shorter hours like Germany which would minimize job loss?

    Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....

    Of course to be cynical one could say Krugman in insulating himself from red baiting - his opponents on the Right consider him to be a communist who loves government spending and debt - by heavily criticizing the Chinese Communists as being insufficiently pro-market.

    Dan Kervick said in reply to Peter K....

    That could be. Frankly I have had a difficult time figuring out exactly what PK has been arguing over the past few days, and his reaction seems very strong. The article in today's Links above does help clarify some of the thinks he's thinking about, economically and politically:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/08/13/china-2015-is-not-china-2010/?_r=1

    For years, US and other western economists have argued that the Chinese were artificially suppressing the value of their currency, and that this was hurting US exports and US employment. They argued that China should let the markets set the value of their currency, a policy change that would have lead to an appreciating yuan, increased domestic Chinese consumption of imports; boosted US, Japanese and European exports; decreased offshoring of production to China, etc.

    In 2010, Krugman strongly argued something must be done about the Chinese currency-fixing:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/15/opinion/15krugman.html

    But by 2012, Krugman said the situation had changed, and that the political issue the Republicans were making out of the Chinese currency was bluster:

    http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/10/22/an-issue-whose-time-has-passed/

    Since the Chinese have allowed the yuan to appreciate over the past few years, the markets now seem to think that the currency is overvalued, not undervalued. So a move to let currency markets set the exchange rate in 2015 might actually lead to a falling yuan, a reduction of Chinese imports, increased Chinese exports, increased attractiveness of offshoring production to China, etc.

    This might tip the US back into recession. But Krugman - and many others - might be worried that people will then say, "Hey, we're having another lousy recession because the Chinese did the very thing Paul Krugman and other US economists have always said they should do: let the markets rule!"

    Krugman initially responded that China isn't really letting the market set the exchange rate. It has only taken a weak half-measure ("bite of the cherry") in that direction. This raises the question: if the Chinese actually did move suddenly to a free float, would Krugman support it, even if the move caused a major shock to the US economy?

    Krugman also points out, though, that liberals haven't been complaining about Chinese currency manipulation lately. Cynics might argue that Americans complain about currency manipulation if that manipulation happens to hurt them, and support it if that manipulation happens to help them.

    Krugman has been in a variety of different places lately on currency issues:

    The Swiss used to manipulate the franc and maintain a peg, and when they dropped it Krugman was very put out by it. In that case, he was pro-peg and anti-float.

    The Greeks are part of the EZ, so their currency is pegged to their EZ partners. Krugman argued the Greeks should leave the Eurozone. In that case he was anti-peg and pro-float.

    Now with China, it seems he was pro-float before, when floating would have helped the US, but not so much pro-float now, when floating could hurt the US.

    I don't know what all of this amounts to, other than the fat that people are often going to be torn a bit between the general principles they support, other things being equal, and the short-term national interests they are concerned about in the the here and now.

    Anyway, I think we need a lot more evidence before we can conclude the Chinese "don't know what they are doing." A country that has increased the GDP of a quarter of the world's population by 162% over ten years, while their developed world colleagues were languishing in stagnation, deserves the benefit of the doubt.

    Paine said in reply to Peter K....

    Right now the party thru the state must demonstrate the macro control of the system is in the hands of the party elite thru control of the commanding heights of the social production system

    Ie credit and forex and even asset market price levels both paper and real

    Ie land lots

    Nothing prevents this demonstration from achieving ultimate success except a failure of determination

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    The party leaders are in uncharted waters here

    And reflective dogma from a ivory tower new Keynesian is not of huge value

    Hey pk is great
    He's a terrier
    After the right rat none better

    But the terrier is not a useful police dog
    Let alone Shepard of a wooly flock

    kthomas said in reply to Paine ...

    How pathetically optimistic.

    Stop providing cover. They pigged out. Time to pay the piper.

    Paine said in reply to kthomas...

    You may mistake my point

    The party leaders HAVE to decide to win this struggle
    I'm certain they are not in harmony on this

    What's at stake ?

    The party abdicating control of the domestic economy

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    The venality of elite members of the party plays no role one way or other here

    If indeed the very hold on state power depends on the eventual outcome

    Right now the politbueau is poised either to vindicate the TINA parties of the planet

    Or demonstrate there is another way

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    We share a value ..we Americans

    We trust in periodic open popular elections to certify or to de certify state policy

    Directly some times most often indirectly thru our elected agents

    Here in china we have the enlightenment construct
    The despot fully in command of progressive methods and goals for
    Social development

    Hobbes leviathan

    Battle lines are drawn

    The state versus the corporations

    anne said in reply to Paine ...

    "TINA" is an intolerable term, meant to make sure a reader has no understanding of what is being written.

    Paine said in reply to anne...

    Anne

    Please
    This term is in common currency now

    Tina is
    Like neo liberal A term that sumerizes a movements mind

    There is no alternative to corporate capitalism

    You are the last one to buy this big lie


    sanjait said in reply to anne...

    That seems hyperbolic, Anne.

    Krugman was very explicitly commenting on the Communist Party ruling China, not all of its 1.4 billion people.

    Not the same thing.

    anne said in reply to sanjait...

    The government of China indeed reflects the people of China, just as does the government of Japan or Australia. Western analysts tend to write as though the government in China were illicit or there by trickery but there is every reason to think the government generally reflects the collective thinking of Chinese people.

    Issues are fought over, there are a range of dissidents but China has a stable political system. Writing as though a the Chinese government were unstable is a Western conceit that shows a lack of understanding of or possibly concern with Chinese history.

    sanjait said in reply to anne...

    "The government of China indeed reflects the people of China, just as does the government of Japan or Australia. "

    I couldn't disagree more.

    First, even in a democracy, the government is a highly imperfect reflection of the people and their will.

    And China is not a democracy. It's a one-party state. That one party has to serve the people to an extent in order to hold power, but that certainly doesn't justify a claim that any criticism of the government is a criticism of the people.

    anne said in reply to sanjait...

    I repeatedly find analysts in the New York Times and the like writing as though the Chinese leadership were continually "panicky," continually insecure about the government in general and this is completely lacking in understanding. President Xi is as secure as is Prime Minister Abe or Cameron or President Hollande.

    So when the Chinese government is criticized as though completely detached from the people of China, I know the analyst lacks understanding or simply wished the government of China gone.


    anne said in reply to Paine ...

    Imagine trying to use China as a warning about the limits on the state to regulate market outcomes
    For assets, etc

    And pretending or at least relying on tacit presumption
    That state-owned enterprise debt is the twin of private for-profit corporate debt

    kthomas said in reply to anne...

    That last statement needs clarification. If I am an analyst, debt is debt. As an investor, I rely on accuracte data, not semantics.

    Paine said in reply to kthomas...

    Look the debt is held by some player
    If it's not the State the state can buy it on the market out of its limitless mr mine

    If it's a state enterprise no private profiteers benefit
    Moral hazards exists but so do state prisons
    Plenty of room in them
    for fraudsters and looting managers of state enterprises

    This is not easy to see if you refuse to understand qualitative differences

    At the macro level
    Debt swallowed by the state
    Can vanish
    The state can be a black hole for its own debt
    And when we are talking about any real social production system
    The only cost is lost better uses

    Only arrogant fools can believe private banks in toto driven by profits
    Reach better allocations then state credit systems
    No theorem can definitively and generally prove this..or it's opposite really

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    China is running way below capacity

    There's hundreds of millions of underutilized hands and minds

    Any spending that adds one more shovel full of useful activity directly or indirectly
    Has no REAl zero sum type cost

    There is more likely zero crowding out of the otherwise done
    Only one project scheme selected over another
    Wise or unwise honest or corrupt
    It trumps idleness
    Policy quandary time lost is opportunity lost

    Paine said in reply to Paine ...

    This is absolutely a crucial insight
    Without it
    Keynes wrote in vain

    anne said in reply to Paine ...

    China is running way below capacity

    There's hundreds of millions of underutilized hands and minds

    Any spending that adds one more shovelful of useful activity directly or indirectly
    Has no REAL zero-sum-type cost

    anne said in reply to anne...

    China is running way below capacity

    There's hundreds of millions of underutilized hands and minds

    [ Remember the vastness of China and advances made in basic industries, especially in agriculture, there are many young men and women who are capable but "underutilized." Advances in agricultural production, for a country that was traditionally rural, allow for different uses of many, many people. ]

    kthomas said in reply to Paine ...

    Now I really disagree. All evidence points or suggests massive over capacity. And obviously, low demand internally. They need to raise wages or start flat out buying more foreign goods, besides real estate. Instead, they have done the opposite.

    The longer the Central Committee waits, the more severe the pain later on, we all know this.

    Paine said in reply to kthomas...

    The over capacity is precisely a partial result of inadequate imperfect mobilization

    There's a nice passage somewhere in Keynes about building over capacity

    Let this suffice

    Over capacity in infra structure and urbal housing and office space etc today in inland china
    Will soon be utilized as the wave of expansion radiates
    Inwards from the coast

    anne said in reply to Paine ...

    At the macro level
    Debt swallowed by the state
    Can vanish
    The state can be a black hole for its own debt
    And when we are talking about any real social production system
    The only cost is lost better uses

    [ Nice. ]

    kthomas said in reply to Paine ...

    You may be right. And I do admire your optimism.

    Paine said in reply to kthomas...

    Hey -- I wish I were optimistic. The party leadership is poised to take he plunge into private profit guided development

    The market will no longer be a mediator regulators filter and incentivized. It will be liberated. The state abdicating control to the corporations

    Most crucially abdicating control of the commanding heights. Precisely where this present struggle is centered

    BigBozat said in reply to Paine ...

    Bravissimo!

    am said...

    They appear to have been taken completely by surprise by the market's predictable reaction; namely, the initial devaluation of the renminbi was ... a sign of much bigger declines to come. Investors began fleeing China, and policy makers abruptly pivoted from promoting currency devaluation to an all-out effort to support the renminbi's value.

    Above from the Prof K post. What was this all out effort. Did it use reserves in China. Any ideas. If using reserves does that show up in reduction in US bond purchases or sales of same. Higher coupon rates to come in US. Just asking, don't know. But surely a few days this week of minor devaluations couldn't knock much of a hole in China's big cash pot.

    anne said in reply to am...

    They appear to have been taken completely by surprise by the market's predictable reaction; namely, the initial devaluation of the renminbi was ... a sign of much bigger declines to come. Investors began fleeing China, and policy makers abruptly pivoted from promoting currency devaluation to an all-out effort to support the renminbi's value....

    [ No, China is different. China has for many years limited short term capital flows. The capital that a General Motors or a Boeing or a Proctor & Gamble or an Apple has in China is long term capital and will remain.

    A critical aspect of Chinese development has been that if a company wants to sell in China, the company has to invest in China and invest in a technically advanced way.

    The Chinese central bank can manage the relative value of Yuan just as adeptly as Secretary of Treasury Robert Rubin managed the value of the dollar, though reacting according to the actions of international currency traders. ]

    Richard H. Serlin said...

    China still has tons of great high return investment it can do. It doesn't have to throw money instead into big screen TVs and vacations. It's just the investment may not be so much in the classical infrastructure. They can still really invest in education and the health and welfare of their people for future human capital and production, and absolutely Heckman-style early human development investment. These things would stimulate the economy just as much as consumption with no lasting value, and be far better for the future.

    anne said in reply to Richard H. Serlin...

    China still has tons of great high return investment it can do. It doesn't have to throw money instead into big screen TVs and vacations. It's just the investment may not be so much in the classical infrastructure. They can still really invest in education, and the health and welfare of their people for future human capital and production, and absolutely Heckman-style * early human development investment. These things would stimulate the economy just as much as consumption with no lasting value, and be far better for the future.

    * https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Heckman

    [ Agreed, but hard infrastructure investment as well is not nearly done with. ]

    pgl said in reply to Richard H. Serlin...

    "China still has tons of great high return investment it can do. It doesn't have to throw money instead into big screen TVs and vacations."

    The same could be said about the US. But then our political leaders are not that bold.

    Richard H. Serlin said in reply to pgl...

    Very very true. Heckman has a mountain of evidence, but personally, as a father, and thus constant reader on early human development and education, I see this more and more.

    And obviously it's not symmetric, the more we vote Democratic, the more of this investment we'll have, instead of trillions in tax cuts for the rich.

    chris herbert said...

    China doesn't consider infrastructure funding as deficit. It has the reserves because the central bank keeps the net foreign reserves from exports, exchanging those reserves by pegging the exchange value by fiat and paying export companies in RMB. In effect the central bank pumps RMB into the Chinese economy by doing this. They do this because you can't do any commerce in China without exchanging your currency for RMB (actually this is the same as the dollar). My confusion comes from wondering why the Communist Party allowed the private debt to balloon--and to balloon in foreign currency? They don't really need the foreign capital--they have $4 trillion in dollar reserves. Anyway, I'm a little skeptical of claims that private debt in foreign currency is so large the flight of capital could be a problem.

    chris herbert said...

    In the past China used capital controls, and required all domestic banks to slow loan growth (including central bank lending for infrastructure)to dampen any inflation tendencies. Not interest rates. If the stock market plunges, devaluing the RMB to help exports makes some sense to me. What would also make sense is to pump money into the domestic economy; to increase infrastructure spending; to raise minimum incomes.

    The real danger here, in my opinion, is the Beijing power structure most especially that of the military. China has never been shy about purging politicians and businessmen who become so rich they challenge the traditional power structure. They've done it many times, long before Communism even existed.

    If that happens then the world economy will be seriously hit, unless the purge leaves the markets alone to the central bank and the technocrats, who from my view, have been doing a remarkable job of directing economic activity.

    anne said in reply to chris herbert...

    There has been a serious campaign against economic corruption since Xi became President in November 2012, there has been no slowing of the campaign as reflected even in the type of personal spending in China or the progressive limiting of spending on luxury goods.

    sanjait said in reply to anne...

    I was looking at some statistics recently about a marked decline in whiskey sales in China, after years of relatively rapid increases. This decline was attributed to crackdowns on corruption, which often took the form of state employees going out drinking at taxpayer expense.

    This crackdown, of course, should be lauded.

    anne said in reply to sanjait...

    Gambling has been significantly reduced, especially high stakes gambling in Macao. Casino revenue has been falling for about 2 years. Purchases of cars have tended to Buicks at the high end, but away from showy models. Expensive gift giving has declined, as Tiffany and the like have reported....

    Corporate influence peddling has been a target, by domestic and international corporations in China. There have just been several executive replacements at a couple of partly state-owned energy companies....

    pgl said...

    Bonus coverage. The start of Dan Kervick's dumbest rant ever (go to DeLong's place for the rest of this long winded rant):

    ""long-run steady-state growth path"???

    Perhaps there is no such thing?

    Economists are limiting our potential with their backward Ptolemaic ideas about steady states and equilibria, dampened further with input numbers extrapolated from decades of neoliberal capitalist stagnation.

    In 1937, real GDP grew at a negative 3.3% rate. By 1939 it was plus 7.8%, and by 1941 in was 18.9%. And yet I wonder what kinds of fictional limits economists would have declared in 1937 regarding our potential if they had plugged some numbers into a Solow growth model."

    I gave what Solow might have replied to him over at DeLong's place. But measuring changes in potential GDP by the change in actual GDP for one year when one is in the middle of a prolonged large output gap. This hits a new low in ultimate stupidity.

    sanjait said in reply to pgl...

    Well ... I'm not saying it makes sense, but as Krugman has pointed out, the IMF also calculates structural deficits in such a way that a crash in output automatically implies a decline in potential.

    It's a recipe for self-fulfilling prophesy (when macro policy fails to be sufficiently stimulative, and then cyclical employment eventually turns structural...), and deeply wrong, but not unique apparently.

    anne said...

    About Chinese monetary policy, though we do not fully understand how monetary policy is employed through the country, policy changes are usually not meant to be generalized but rather are linked to specific credit and investment objectives.

    A published loosening of Chinese monetary policy can be directed just at broadening and easing construction credit, even credit construction specifically only in interior provinces. Loosening monetary policy for construction can go along with tightening credit for stock purchases.

    anne said in reply to anne...

    Good grief, I just read on article about monetary policy in Brazil and realized how decidedly and importantly different monetary policy is in China. We need to study Chinese monetary policy, but it not different than monetary policy as we understand it.

    anne said in reply to anne...

    http://www.nytimes.com/2015/08/14/business/dealbook/in-good-times-or-bad-brazil-banks-profit.html

    August 13, 2015

    In Good Times or Bad, Brazil Banks Profit
    By DAN HORCH

    SÃO PAULO, Brazil - Political parties whose symbol is a red star tend to be unfavorable for bankers, but Brazil's ruling party has been a lucrative exception.

    When the Workers' Party of former President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and current President Dilma Rousseff took power in 2003, it promised, and for many years delivered, a rising standard of living for the country's poor and working classes.

    Yet the gains have been much more impressive for the nation's banking industry, even as the manufacturing sector has stagnated and the broader economy has ridden the ups and downs of global commodity prices. The combined annual profits of Brazil's four biggest banks have grown more than 850 percent to just over $20 billion, from $2.1 billion, in the 12 years of Workers' Party rule.

    Even as a corruption scandal centered in the government-owned petroleum giant Petrobras has paralyzed important sectors of the economy, bank profits have kept growing.

    Bank earnings made up more than half of the total profits for companies on the São Paulo stock exchange in both 2013 and 2014, according to the consulting firm Economatica. While the stock market is a poor reflection of Brazil's economy - agribusiness and carmakers are barely represented - bank profits were never above a quarter of the total all through the previous decade.

    Brazil's largest and third-largest banks, Banco do Brasil and Caixa Econômica Federal, do not even have profit as their sole mandate. The government, which controls both, often obliges them to engage in less profitable operations as a public service.

    The two giant private sector banks, Itaú and Bradesco, consistently earn returns on equity - a measure of the earnings a company can squeeze out of each dollar invested - of around 20 percent. Big banks in the United States usually manage only about half as much.

    Government policies and economic trends have helped the banks here.

    One is interest rates at levels so high that they would leave borrowers in most other countries speechless.

    In the so-called non-earmarked or free credit market, which excludes government-subsidized loans for housing and infrastructure, Brazilian consumers pay on average 58.6 percent interest, and businesses pay 27.5 percent to borrow money.

    Brazilian academics argue over the reasons for such high rates, but a history of high inflation, sharp currency fluctuations and large government budget deficits mean that the government itself must pay a steep price to borrow money.

    The central bank's basic rate, which it pays on the local equivalent ofTreasury bills, is 14.25 percent.

    Since banks can make good money by just buying government bonds, to take the effort and risk of actually making loans, they need an even greater profit.

    They can often find it. The average spread - the difference between what banks pay to gain access to capital and what they charge to lend it out - is 30.7 percentage points in the free credit market.

    Not all of that is profit. Taxes and regulatory costs are high, and the government just announced a plan to further increase taxes on bank profits. And default is a serious risk. Nearly 56 million Brazilians, more than a quarter of the country's population, have missed enough debt payments to be on the blacklist of Serasa Experian, a credit reporting bureau.

    But the spreads are easily wide enough to compensate, especially when the economy is growing.

    And when times are bad, the banks can look to the government.

    Brazil's Treasury not only sells bonds that protect investors against inflation, as certain United States Treasury bonds do; it also offers bonds that increase their payouts when interest rates rise or the currency devalues.

    When banks sense that the economy is about to deteriorate, they scale back their loans and migrate into these government-backed investments....

    anne said in reply to anne...

    http://www.cepr.net/publications/op-eds-columns/brazil-will-need-to-reverse-course-in-order-to-revive-economy

    August 7, 2015

    Brazil Will Need to Reverse Course In Order to Revive Economy
    By Mark Weisbrot

    Lula da Silva won the presidency of Brazil on his fourth attempt, in an overwhelming victory in October 2002. His Workers' Party (PT) ushered in a new era for the country's previously disenfranchised majority, with the economy from 2004 to 2010 more than doubling its rate of growth of the previous 23 years. Poverty declined by 55 percent and extreme poverty by 65 percent from 2003 to 2012. Unemployment hit record lows, the real (inflation adjusted) minimum wage doubled, and the gains from growth were more equally distributed than in previous decades.

    A large majority of Brazilians are still vastly better off today than they were before the PT came to power. But the economy slowed sharply from 2011 to 2014, with GDP growth returning to the rates of the pre-PT era. Job creation in the formal sector - regular employment covered by taxes and legal benefits, as opposed to the underground economy - fell from an average of 1.46 million jobs annually for 2004 through 2010 to just 829,000 for 2011 to 2014 and just 152,000 in 2014. Economic growth was about zero last year and will turn negative this year.

    Approval ratings for Lula's successor, Dilma Rousseff, have plummeted, and most of the news about Brazil is woefully pessimistic - corruption scandals, including one involving the state-run oil company, Petrobras; Standard and Poor's lowering its outlook for the country's bond rating after downgrading it to one notch above junk; the real falling about 35 percent against the U.S. dollar over the past year.

    What went wrong? Many analysts have blamed external conditions. The growth of the world economy and trade plummeted after 2010, and the price of Brazil's commodity exports also fell. However, as Brazilian economists Franklin Serrano and Ricardo Summa explain in a new paper * on the slowdown, this is only a relatively small part of the story. Brazil's exports are not that big a part of its economy and didn't change that much - from 11.9 percent (2004 to 2010) to 11.3 percent (2011 to 2014).

    The problem is that on top of the worsening external conditions, the government piled a series of policy decisions that weakened the economy. Beginning in February 2010, the Central Bank began to raise short-term interest rates, from 8.5 to 12.5 percent the following August, just as the economy was slowing. (This rate, called the Selic rate in Brazil, is analogous to the U.S. Federal Reserve's benchmark federal funds rate, which has remained at 0 to 0.25 percent since December 2008). The government tightened consumer credit, which had expanded considerably in the previous years. Some of these measures were reversed the next year, with interest rates coming back down, to 7.5 percent in October 2012, but the changes were too little and too late.

    Then the government began another cycle of raising interest rates in April 2013, which has continued through last week, with the Selic rate at 14.25 percent - one of the highest in the world - in spite of the forecast recession for this year. Beginning in 2011, the government tightened its fiscal policy - for example, by cutting public investment by 18 percent in real terms.

    Not surprisingly, these policy changes sent private investment and consumer spending plummeting. Although the government threw a lot of money at private investors in the form of tax breaks and public-private partnerships for infrastructure, most investors aren't attracted by an economy in which the growth of disposable income and consumer spending is plummeting.

    Unfortunately, Brazil hasn't even gotten the benefit of lower inflation from the slowing economy: Its consumer price index is rising at a 9.25 percent annual rate. This is partly due to the fall in the real, which raises the price of imports, and a steep rise in government-set electricity prices. The increase in inflation has eroded real wages and has been seized on by the opposition, some of whom have called for Rousseff's impeachment - although there is no legal or constitutional basis for doing so.

    How can Brazil get out of this mess? The private sector clearly cannot lead an economic recovery at this time, any more than it can in Greece. The government is going to have to create the climate for increased private investment and consumption the way it did before 2011, by increasing its spending, especially on public investment in badly needed infrastructure.

    One way to free up money for this is to lower Brazil's debt service. The Brazilian government is spending more than 6 percent of its GDP - about 20 percent of its national budget - on net interest payments. This is one of the highest rates of debt service in the world. Even the International Monetary Fund has pointed out ** that this is "exceeding the typical volume of spending on education." There is absolutely no sane reason for this, and it is relatively easy to change by simply lowering the Selic rate to a level comparable to those of the rest of the Americas....

    * http://www.cepr.net/documents/publications/Brazil-2015-08.pdf

    ** http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/scr/2015/cr15121.pdf

    anne said...

    http://www.cepr.net/blogs/beat-the-press/because-oil-is-priced-in-euros-china-will-buy-less-oil-now-that-the-value-of-the-yuan-has-fallen

    August 13, 2015

    Because Oil Is Priced in Euros, China Will Buy Less Oil Now That the Value of the Yuan Has Fallen

    Yes, I know, oil is priced in dollars, not euros, but it doesn't make one iota of difference. In an article on the meaning of the drop in the value of the yuan on people in the United States, USA Today told readers: *

    "China, the world's second largest economy, consumes a lot of oil, second only to the U.S. However, oil prices are denominated in dollars, so a gutted yuan means China's purchasing power is reduced, which could prompt the Chinese to spend less on oil-based products. That reduction in demand could lower prices, an upside for American drivers."

    Everything in this paragraph would be equally true if oil was priced in euros. The Chinese currency is now worth less measured in dollars, euros, yen, or oil. The loss of purchasing power will lead China to buy less of everything that is produced abroad, including oil. The fact that oil is priced in dollars matters not at all.

    As a practical matter, anyone hoping to get super cheap gas due to less demand from China is likely to be disappointed. If we assume that the 2 percent drop in the value of the yuan leads to 2 percent higher gas prices in China, and we assume an elasticity of demand of 0.3, then China's gas consumption will fall by roughly 0.6 percent as a result of the devaluation. This almost certainly has less impact on the demand for gas than even a one-year reduction in China's growth rate by 2 percentage points. If the devaluation and other stimulatory policies speed growth in China, then we may see increased rather than decreased demand for oil from China.

    The piece also gets the story of U.S. companies manufacturing in China somewhat confused. It tells readers:

    "Many U.S. companies do a considerable amount of their business abroad, either selling directly to Chinese consumers, manufacturing or via overseas units that produce income in the local currency. Apple, for example, relies on China to make its iPhone and iPad. A stronger dollar compared to the yuan means any income generated in China loses value as it is repatriated back to America."

    Actually the impact is the opposite. The lower valued yuan increases the profits from manufacturing in China rather than the United States. Apple will likely still sell its iPhones and iPads at the same price in the United States and other countries, even though it now costs them less money to manufacture them because of the lower price of the yuan. This means greater profits.

    This is an important point because the issue of currency values is often presented as one pitting the United States against China. That is not accurate. Many companies that manufacture in China or rely on importing low cost goods produced in China, like Walmart, have a real stake in keeping down the value of the yuan against the dollar. These powerful interests are a main reason that the United States has not made raising the value of the yuan a top priority in trade negotiations with China.

    If it really was the case that the United States government considered it a top priority to raise the value of the yuan against the dollar, and was prepared to make concessions in other areas, like enforcement of Microsoft's copyrights and Pfizer's patents, then China would almost certainly have agreed to raise the value of the yuan by more than it has.

    * http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/business/2015/08/12/yuan-and-you-how-chinas-devalued-currency-affects-us-consumers/31524925/

    -- Dean Baker

    Jesse said in reply to anne...

    I think this *might* be true if one disregards the fact that China has already negotiated major energy deals, including oil, that are settled in yuan and not dollars.

    I posted this same comment at Dean's site when he first wrote this.

    Am I the only one who is watching China closely? There are some very big changes in the world economy underway, particularly with regard to the long standing Bretton Woods II agreement as some have called it, and few are noticing them.

    anne said in reply to Jesse...

    I think this *might* be true if one disregards the fact that China has already negotiated major energy deals, including oil, that are settled in yuan and not dollars.

    [ Right, right, China has negotiated a range of important long term oil and gas, and delivery, agreements this year. ]

    Jesse said...

    China should listen to Paul, and just mint up some 'trillion dollar Platinum coins' and forsake their tinkering with the economy.

    Peter K. said in reply to Jesse...

    The Fed should mint some trillion dollar coins if the Republicans try to shut down the government again this fall over funding Planned Parenthood.

    David said...

    I hold shares in Baidu, the Chinese google. It's down this year but up from 2 years ago. I suspect it's the same for most big cap stocks in China. I don't think China is doing this cause they're stupid, as it is routine for export countries to toy with their currency in Asia.

    I think Chinese leadership is not scared, maybe, but worried. Manipulating a stock market is very risky in terms of capital flight. If you show investors the game is rigged only suckers will play that game. And eventually get burned. And that could lead to political unrest.

    So really I think this is about politics and the grip on power. That's what's scary.

    [Aug 12, 2015] Better Times Ahead For Oil, If You Can Believe It By David Yager

    There is likely no good news in the short term, the next couple of months, that is. Prices may go lower again based on market sentiment. Keep the faith.

    In the medium term-the next six months, hopefully-there will be growing stability and confidence if federal and provincial politicians don't do anything really awful.
    August 12, 2015 | OilPrice.com
    Things will get better because they can't get worse. We're at or near the bottom. Better times ahead.

    ... ... ...

    Hide the sharp objects. This is a big batch of misery for today's battered oilpatch. But there are also some positive aspects.

    There is likely no good news in the short term, the next couple of months, that is. Prices may go lower again based on market sentiment. Keep the faith. In the medium term-the next six months, hopefully - there will be growing stability and confidence if federal and provincial politicians don't do anything really awful.

    But the long term looks good. The herd is wrong again and global oil supply and demand will prove it.

    David Yager is National Leader Oilfield Services MNP LLP in Calgary. He has been writing about the upstream oil and gas industry and analyzing energy policy…

    [Aug 11, 2015] When Will Oil Prices Turn Around by Arthur Berman

    "...The significance of these production forecasts and the second quarter earnings reports is that U.S. tight oil production will decline. The fact that production has remained strong despite a 60% decrease in the tight oil rig count has incorrectly lead some analysts to conclude that production will not fall because of the ingenuity and efficiency of U.S. producers."
    "...Will a decline of 400,000 to 800,000 bopd in U.S. tight oil production make a difference in the global market balance? Obviously, it depends on what other producers do but it is certainly important to OPEC's strategy of gaining market share from unconventional producers."
    Aug 10, 2015 | oilprice.com

    "...world demand reached a new high of 93.86 million bpd, an increase of 1.3 million bpd over May. "

    "...For the first half of 2015, the tight oil-weighted E&P companies that I follow spent about $2.20 in capital expenditures for every dollar they earned from operations (Figure 5)... These companies are outspending what they earn by a dollar more today than they were a year ago during the first half of 2014. Anyone who believes that decreased service costs and drilling efficiency will allow tight oil companies to make a profit at $50-60 oil prices needs to think again."

    "...The significance of these production forecasts and the second quarter earnings reports is that U.S. tight oil production will decline. The fact that production has remained strong despite a 60% decrease in the tight oil rig count has incorrectly lead some analysts to conclude that production will not fall because of the ingenuity and efficiency of U.S. producers.

    It takes time for production to decline because there are months of lag between the beginning of drilling and first production, and more months of lag before production data is released. Also, many of the rigs that were released were drilling marginal locations that didn't contribute much to overall production–the 80-20 rule. And, there is the inventory of uncompleted wells that are unaffected by rig count.

    Will a decline of 400,000 to 800,000 bopd in U.S. tight oil production make a difference in the global market balance? Obviously, it depends on what other producers do but it is certainly important to OPEC's strategy of gaining market share from unconventional producers.

    OPEC is producing more than half of the world production surplus and has the capacity to cut production by the entire amount of the surplus. This will not happen until its goals are achieved but Saudi Foreign Minister al-Jubeir will meet with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov August 11 in Moscow to discuss global energy markets and other topics. EIA will release its STEO on the same day and IEA will release its OMR the next day.

    I am hopeful that something positive will emerge that will at least help to stop the decline in oil prices."

    [Aug 09, 2015] Hillary Clinton State Department Emails, Mexico Energy Reform, and the Revolving Door

    Notable quotes:
    "... By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog . ..."
    "... Originally stored on a private server , with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex 's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create. ..."
    "... The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio. ..."
    "... David Goldwyn , who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role. ..."
    "... The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private " [email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business. ..."
    "... It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account. ..."
    naked capitalism
    By Steve Horn, a Madison, WI-based Research Fellow for DeSmogBlog and a freelance investigative journalist. He previously was a reporter and researcher at the Center for Media and Democracy. Originally published at DeSmogBlog.

    Emails released on July 31 by the U.S. State Department reveal more about the origins of energy reform efforts in Mexico. The State Department released them as part of the once-a-month rolling release schedule for emails generated by former U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, now a Democratic presidential candidate.

    Originally stored on a private server, with Clinton and her closest advisors using the server and private accounts, the emails confirm Clinton's State Department helped to break state-owned company Pemex's (Petroleos Mexicanos) oil and gas industry monopoly in Mexico, opening up the country to international oil and gas companies. And two of the Coordinators helping to make it happen, both of whom worked for Clinton, now work in the private sector and stand to gain financially from the energy reforms they helped create.

    The appearance of the emails also offers a chance to tell the deeper story of the role the Clinton-led State Department and other powerful actors played in opening up Mexico for international business in the oil and gas sphere. That story begins with a trio.

    The Trio

    David Goldwyn, who was the first International Energy Coordinator named by Secretary of State Hillary Clinton in 2009, sits at the center of the story. As revealed by DeSmog, the State Department redacted the entire job description document for the Coordinator role.

    Goldwyn now runs an oil and gas industry consulting firm called Goldwyn Global Strategies, works of counsel as an industry attorney at the law firm Sutherland Asbill & Brennan, and works as a fellow at the industryfunded think tanks Atlantic Council and Brookings Institution.

    The emails show that, on at least one instance, Goldwyn also used his private "[email protected] " (Goldwyn Global Strategies) email address for State Department business.

    It remains unclear if he used his private or State Department email address on other instances, as only his name appears on the other emails. But Cheryl Mills, a top aide to Secretary Clinton at the time, initiated the email that he responded to on his private account.

    [Aug 09, 2015]A Cheer and a Half for Cheap Commodities

    Aug 08, 2015 | The New York Times

    The collapse in oil prices is all too evident in oil shale states like North Dakota and Oklahoma, as well as in nations like Canada, Mexico, Brazil, Russia, Norway and Saudi Arabia - but it has not intruded into the daily experience of many Americans.

    For many of us, in fact, the commodities rout hasn't been perceived as a crisis at all: It has seemed to be welcome news. That is understandable, though that view may be shortsighted.

    ... ... ...

    Declines in the commodities markets have already had a damping effect on inflation in the United States and are likely to restrain it in future data releases, said Azhar Iqbal, an econometrician with Wells Fargo Securities.

    [Aug 09, 2015] The Link Between Oil Reserves and Oil Prices

    Aug 05, 2015 | energytrendsinsider.com

    Last December the Energy Information Administration (EIA) released its latest estimate of U.S. Crude Oil and Natural Gas Proved Reserves. Although natural gas reserves rose, the real story was crude oil reserves. The EIA reported that U.S. proved reserves of crude oil and lease condensate had increased for the fifth year in a row, and had exceeded 36 billion barrels for the first time since 1975:

    fig_1

    There are two reasons for this increase in proved reserves. The first is that despite >150 years of oil production in the U.S., new fields are still being discovered. In March 2015 the EIA released its update to the Top 100 U.S. Oil and Gas Fields as a supplement to the December report. This was the EIA's first update on the Top 100 fields since 2009. The most significant addition to the list was the Eagleville field (in the Eagle Ford Shale), which was only discovered in 2009 but is now the top producing oil field in the U.S. In addition to the Eagleville, there were 4 other fields in the Top 100 that were only discovered in 2009. Several others in the Top 100 were discovered in 2007 and 2008.

    But the largest additions to reserves weren't via new discoveries at all. The largest reserves additions have been a result of rising oil prices, and this is a source of frequent misunderstanding on the topic on reserves.

    An oil resource describes the total amount of oil in place, most of which typically can't be technically or economically recovered. For example, it is estimated that the Bakken Shale centered under North Dakota may contain several hundred billion barrels of oil (the resource). However, what is technically and economically recoverable in the Bakken may be less than 10 billion barrels. The portion that is technically AND economically recoverable is the proved reserve. Because of the requirement that the oil be economically recoverable, proved reserves are a function of oil prices and available technology.

    Thus, as oil prices rise, oil resources that may have been discovered decades ago can be shifted into the category of proved reserves. Venezuela provides a perfect case study of this phenomenon. Venezuela has an enormous heavy oil resource in the Orinoco region of the country. But this oil is very expensive to extract. In 2003, Venezuela's proved oil reserves were only 77 billion barrels. At that time Saudi Arabia's reserves were tops in the world at 263 billion barrels.

    After the past decade saw oil prices rise to above $100/barrel, more of Venezuela's heavy oil resource became economic to produce. Thus, by 2013 Venezuela's proved reserves were estimated to be tops in the world - 289 billion barrels. Saudi Arabia has now slipped to second with 266 billion barrels.

    But that economic argument cuts both ways. Oil and gas resources that became proved reserves as prices rose will be declassified as proved reserves should lower prices render them uneconomical to produce. This is often the reason that companies have to write down proved reserves. It's not that a company believed there was oil or gas and found out later that there wasn't (although that of course also happens), it's generally because a period of depressed prices has rendered those proved reserves to be no longer economical. See the dip in gas reserves in 2012? That was caused by lower prices in 2012, which rebounded somewhat in 2013.

    ... ... ...

    Because of the crash in oil prices, it is likely that many companies will have to write down their proved reserves - especially those in the PUD category. Thus, for the first time in several years, many companies - and indeed countries, including the U.S. - are likely to see a big drop in their proved reserves at year-end when they file their annual reports. I will discuss this in more detail in an upcoming article.

    Note: This is a slightly edited version of an article that originally appeared in the Oil and Gas Monitor called Proved Oil Reserves the Real Story.

    [Aug 09, 2015] Blowout Week 84

    "...The oil kingdom is facing a big hole in its budget,"
    "...The biggest losers from the current price war between Opec and the shale producers seem set to be producers outside the Middle East and North America caught in the crossfire. Expensive production from the North Sea, Canada's oil sands, offshore mega projects, weaker African and Latin American members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and frontier exploration areas around the world are all being squeezed by the price slump."
    Energy Matters

    CNN Money: Saudi Arabia is having to borrow money

    The oil kingdom is facing a big hole in its budget, caused by the slump in oil prices and a sharp rise in military spending. That's forcing the government to raid its reserves, and it may even borrow from foreign investors, analysts say. Saudi Arabia has already burned through almost $62 billion of its foreign currency reserves this year, and borrowed $4 billion from local banks in July - its first bond issue since 2007. Its budget deficit is expected to reach 20% of GDP in 2015. That's extraordinarily high for a country used to running surpluses. Capital Economics estimates that government revenues will fall by $82 billion in 2015, equivalent to 8% of GDP. The IMF is forecasting budget deficits through 2020. Oil's slump from $107 a barrel last June to $44 right now is largely responsible for the squeeze. Half of the country's economic output and 80% of government revenue is generated by the oil industry.

    South China Morning Post: Non-Opec, non-shale producers caught in oil's crossfire

    The biggest losers from the current price war between Opec and the shale producers seem set to be producers outside the Middle East and North America caught in the crossfire. Expensive production from the North Sea, Canada's oil sands, offshore mega projects, weaker African and Latin American members of the Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, and frontier exploration areas around the world are all being squeezed by the price slump. According to oilfield services company Baker Hughes, the number of rigs drilling for oil outside North America has fallen by over 200, or about 19 per cent, since July last year. Rig counts have fallen in every region, with 28 fewer in Europe, 47 in the Middle East, 33 in Africa, 66 in Latin America and 34 in Asia Pacific. Proportionately, the hardest hit regions have been Europe and Africa, where more than 30 per cent of rigs operating in the middle of last year have since been idled. But the slowdown is broad-based, with big downturns in countries as far apart as Mexico, India, Turkey, Brazil, Iraq, Colombia and Ecuador.

    The Week: BP to invest in North Sea oil

    BP has said it will invest £670m to extend the life of North Sea oil fields for more than 15 years, even as major cost savings in response to the oil price slump have forced it to cut projects elsewhere. The investment in the Eastern Trough Area Project (Etap) comes despite the firm announcing it would cut $3bn (£1.9bn) from capital spending in this current financial year as continuing low prices eat into profits. Trevor Garlick, BP's regional president for the North Sea, told The Times that in spite of "challenging times" that are forcing it to make "hard choices", BP remains "committed to improving the competitiveness of the North Sea and to maximising economic recovery from our fields". The Motley Fool says BP is one of the companies that is "well placed to ride out low oil prices", as its 'downstream' operations such as refining and marketing have seen profits rise five-fold due to falling oil prices, to offset some of the declines in its 'upstream' exploration activities.

    ABC News: US Oil and Natural Gas Rig Count up 10 to 884

    Oilfield services company Baker Hughes Inc. says the number of rigs exploring for oil and natural gas in the U.S. increased by 10 this week to 884. Houston-based Baker Hughes said Friday 670 rigs were seeking oil and 213 explored for natural gas. One was listed as miscellaneous. A year ago, 1,908 rigs were active. Among major oil- and gas-producing states, Texas gained eight rigs, Louisiana gained four, Kansas increased by three, West Virginia gained two and California, and North Dakota each increased by one. Alaska, Arkansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah and Wyoming were unchanged.

    [Aug 09, 2015] Broken Energy Markets and the Downside of Hubbert's Peak

    "..."The $300–$400 billion overall annual economic gain from the oil & gas boom has been greater than the average annual GDP growth of $200–$300 billion in recent years-in other words, the economy would have continued in recession if it were not for the unplanned expansion of the oil & gas sector.
    "Hydrocarbon jobs have provided a greater single boost to the U.S. economy than any other sector, without requiring any special taxpayer subsidies-instead generating tax receipts from individual incomes and business growth". "
    "...Peak exports was at least 7 years ago, and since then some net importers have seen their share of oil reduced as much as 25%, while others have increased theirs (China and India mainly). Diminishing oil is not going to be divided proportionally, some will get a lot and some will get almost none. This effect inevitably leads to the killing of globalisation and a huge debt crisis that has the potential to topple the monetary system."
    "...Saudi Arabia is still growing its oil per capita consumption. Exporters will keep as much as they wish, increasing the chances of geopolitical conflict."
    "...This can be demonstrated by constructing a spreadsheet showing the next 50 years or so of Energy Invested and Energy Returned of the world energy mix as it evolves over time. It is not until people have convinced themselves that the complete transformation cannot be achieved that we can start to look sensibly at what is best to do under the circumstances. Nobody is doing this at the moment because everyone is still stuck in pre-Peak Fossils thinking, where anything is possible if you have enough money."
    December 24, 2014 | Energy Matters

    aslangeo, December 24, 2014 at 7:38 am

    Jobs in the American oil patch

    article in zero hedge http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-23/20-stunning-facts-about-energy-jobs-us

    key points

    O&G jobs grown 40% since 2008 (400,000 people direct , 2MM indirect)
    These are high wage jobs – in Texas wages in Shale counties are 50% larger than non-shale

    "The $300–$400 billion overall annual economic gain from the oil & gas boom has been greater than the average annual GDP growth of $200–$300 billion in recent years-in other words, the economy would have continued in recession if it were not for the unplanned expansion of the oil & gas sector.

    "Hydrocarbon jobs have provided a greater single boost to the U.S. economy than any other sector, without requiring any special taxpayer subsidies-instead generating tax receipts from individual incomes and business growth".

    All of this is now at risk – how much will survive and at what shape??

    С новом годом, с новом счастыем (happy new year in Russian)

    Javier, December 22, 2014 at 2:10 pm

    There are several problems not addressed with any downside scenario.

    1. Peak exports was at least 7 years ago, and since then some net importers have seen their share of oil reduced as much as 25%, while others have increased theirs (China and India mainly). Diminishing oil is not going to be divided proportionally, some will get a lot and some will get almost none. This effect inevitably leads to the killing of globalisation and a huge debt crisis that has the potential to topple the monetary system.
    2. The downside is also made steeper by the export land model. Saudi Arabia is still growing its oil per capita consumption. Exporters will keep as much as they wish, increasing the chances of geopolitical conflict.
    3. The downside is also made steeper by the energy trap model. More and more of the oil will have to be directed to ensure our energy production, making the decline on our economy much worse.

      Giving all the above, collapse appears as a real possibility.

    davekimble3, December 23, 2014 at 9:49 pm

    All this talk about the financial cost of fossil/nuclear/wind misses an important point – what matters is the ENERGY that has to be spent up front on new generating infrastructure and the machinery to use it, and the time gap till that energy is repaid and net energy profit starts.

    This energy gap has to be filled by our current energy mix (mostly fossil), over and above that needed to keep the global economy running and growing. There is still some slack in the system, so we can certainly use fossil fuels to make a start on the transformation away from fossil fuels, but there will come a time when Peak Fossils will impose a choice as to whether we keep building more nuclear/wind/solar or keep industrial civilisation running. The complete transition away from fossils can no longer be achieved – we should have started 3 decades ago.

    This can be demonstrated by constructing a spreadsheet showing the next 50 years or so of Energy Invested and Energy Returned of the world energy mix as it evolves over time. It is not until people have convinced themselves that the complete transformation cannot be achieved that we can start to look sensibly at what is best to do under the circumstances. Nobody is doing this at the moment because everyone is still stuck in pre-Peak Fossils thinking, where anything is possible if you have enough money.

    [Aug 09, 2015] Stephen Schork: The Commodity Crash Is A Canary In The Coal Mine For The Global Economy

    "..."this drop in oil prices, this drop industrial metal prices, this is not good. It's a canary in the coal mine that something is not right in the global economy, and that is a concern for us all.""
    .
    "...On the supply side we are still producing. Regardless of what the oil bulls will tell you about the pullback in production, or the anticipated pullback in production, we have not yet seen it, and we will not see significant pullback I believe through the end of this year. So you marry those two facts together, fall in demand, strong production, i.e. I do think oil prices are headed below $40 a barrel in the latter half of this year. "
    .
    "...That can't be, because energy prices or commodity prices in general don't drive economic growth. Economic growth drives commodity prices."
    .
    "...So we have the rout in oil prices. We have the rout in copper prices, in aluminum prices. If we look at the industrial metals complex, that's now trading at lows not seen since the recession. We're looking at bellwethers such as Caterpillar, a bellwether of industrial production. That stock is trading again at a post-great recession low.
    .
    So there are a lot of telltales out there that this drop in oil prices, this drop industrial metal prices, this is not good. It's a canary in the coal mine that something is not right in the global economy, Pimm. And that is a concern for us all. "
    Aug 09, 2015 | zerohedge.com

    The best thing about the commodity crash relapse taking place so quickly after the last swoon - recall tha we have had two oil bear markets within 8 months - is that all those hollow chatterboxes and econo-tourists who swore that tumbling oil is "unambiguously good" and "great for the economy" (first and foremost Larry Kudlow and then proceeding with every single sellside strategist and economissed), have been laughed out of even CNBC's studio, and are nowhere to be found this time around because not only did all those promises of a surge in consumer spending never materialize (for reasons, or rather one reason which we explained extensively before), but the observent public still remembers all too well how countless 'experts' confusing cause (a gobal slowdown in the economy) with effect (crashing commodities).

    Therefore, we were delighted when someone who actually understands the energy market for a change, The Schork Report's Stephen Schork, appeared on BBG's Pimm Fox yesterday to explain not only what the immediate future holds for both oil and gasoline prices, but why, when one actually gets cause and effect right, "this drop in oil prices, this drop industrial metal prices, this is not good. It's a canary in the coal mine that something is not right in the global economy, and that is a concern for us all."

    The full interview is below, here are the key spot-on highlights, first about the futures of commodity prices :

    ... from a demand perspective on the seasonal front, it's August 7. We only have four more weeks left of summer driving, then the peak gasoline season is over. Then we head into the fall where the fall turnaround; that is the refinery maintenance season begins. So refineries will scale back in their crude oil purchases. So right now we are at the peak of the demand season. Demand is only going to fall between now and the end of the year.

    On the supply side we are still producing. Regardless of what the oil bulls will tell you about the pullback in production, or the anticipated pullback in production, we have not yet seen it, and we will not see significant pullback I believe through the end of this year. So you marry those two facts together, fall in demand, strong production, i.e. I do think oil prices are headed below $40 a barrel in the latter half of this year.

    Then a repeat of what we first explained in "It's Official: Americans Spent All Their "Gas Savings" On Obamacare"

    FOX: All right. So, Stephen, let's say that gasoline ends up being around $2.00, $2.10 a gallon by the end of the year, that extra money that people are not spending on gasoline, going to go somewhere else?

    SCHORK: Yes. It's going to go to a big government health care. Look, I spend $100 -- and I'm saving $100 a week at the pump, excuse me, $25 a week, $100 a month, but my health care premium went up $160 a month for my family. So I'm still diggings $60 in.

    And so that's the big misnomer here, Pimm. People tend to think that this pullback at the pump is somehow good. No. It's a zero sum game because, yes, those dollars are being spent elsewhere, but those are not additional dollars being spent elsewhere. We're just moving the pieces around on the chessboard. We're not creating economic growth.

    Putting it all together:

    And this is the big concern because we keep on thinking that lower energy prices are somehow good for the economy. That can't be, because energy prices or commodity prices in general don't drive economic growth. Economic growth drives commodity prices.

    So we have the rout in oil prices. We have the rout in copper prices, in aluminum prices. If we look at the industrial metals complex, that's now trading at lows not seen since the recession. We're looking at bellwethers such as Caterpillar, a bellwether of industrial production. That stock is trading again at a post-great recession low.

    So there are a lot of telltales out there that this drop in oil prices, this drop industrial metal prices, this is not good. It's a canary in the coal mine that something is not right in the global economy, Pimm. And that is a concern for us all.

    Full interview with Stephen Schork after the jump:

    [Aug 08, 2015] How Russian energy giant Gazprom lost $300bn

    Notable quotes:
    "... Since the Russians haven't rolled over the first time, the US is trying again. These days, the price of oil is determined by activity in the futures market impacting the spot price. Likewise, I expect for shares and wouldn't be surprised if someone is shorting the stock. Any oil and gas not pumped today is available to be pumped tomorrow - possibly at higher prices. Gazprom isn't going bankrupt. Neither are any of the other major oil companies. ..."
    "... Therefore, he said, "today there are no conditions under which all thought that if tomorrow Russia will cease to supply gas, this same gas would be supplied by Iran." "Our production is still far from this stage", - said the president. ..."
    "... "Competition should not be problematic, it should be healthy competition, should not do so to the profit only for the buyer, and the exporters suffering damage ". ..."
    "... the recent Security Council vote ending the Iran sanctions also enabled was the release of ~$150 billion that was held in foreign accounts. ..."
    "... When Russia responded at the sanctions by its sanctions in the agriculture I heard here the malevolent sneers there'd be a famine in Russia. Now the collapse of Gasprom, the failure of the deal with China. What a shame for The Guardian to become an yellow shit ..."
    "... Seems the author is a warrior in the camp of the unnamed competitor which would like to supply its liquid costly gas.I know one direction where his bid will be welcomed at any price but for free- Ukraine ..."
    "... What is happening in the oil market is a very complicated process. Do not simplify the process of digestion by eating only the headlines. The headlines are not very high-calorie product, if you certainly do not pursue the goal to lose weight. Including lose money. ..."
    "... Putin has tried to shrug off the economic sanctions as no big deal, but the secret agreement between the West and Saudi Arabia to keep oil supplies high and gas prices low is really hurting Russia. ..."
    "... Kuwait and Abu Dhabi can live with crude at its current level: Saudi Arabia cannot. It requires an oil price of $106 a barrel to balance the books... Not $20 ..."
    www.theguardian.com

    ...energy giants ExxonMobil and Petro China, Gazprom's financial contemporaries back in mid-2008, have remained top performers . Norway boosted its market share and overtook Russia as western Europe's top gas supplier over the 2014-2015 winter.

    ... ... ...

    Russia is looking to channel gas through Turkey and adding two new lines to the Baltic Nord Stream network, transporting gas over the top of Europe.

    The total costs of the projects, without taking into account overruns, will reach about $25.4bn.

    Beyond the construction expenses, transit costs for North Stream appear to be significantly more expensive than through Ukraine. Experts estimate that in 2014 it cost Gazprom $43 to transport1,000 cubic metres via Nord Stream compared to $33 via Ukrainian . Factored over the tens of billions of cubic metres that Gazprom wants to send through the Baltic pipes, that's a mighty extra cost just to avoid Ukraine.

    Willinilli 8 Aug 2015 02:36

    Lazy, lazy, lazy journalism.. Even for a business /economics journalist .. Saudi Aramco has a much larger potential market cap..

    Though to be fair, it was the original FT study that was lazy.. This is just uninformed churnalism..

    annamarinja airman23 8 Aug 2015 09:09

    Poor airman23. Have you ever heard about Dick Cheney? Have you ever looked at the Wolfowitz Doctrine? If not, then you are very much behind the nowadays understanding of fascism and fascists. On the other hand, you are such a concrete success of Mrs. Nuland-Kagan' (and likes) travails.

    annamarinja -> psygone 8 Aug 2015 09:03

    Fracking? Are you serious to monger this this barbaric technique that has spurred a mass movement in the US and Canada against the ecological dangers generated by fracking? Each and every of your posts is in line with MSM "reports." It seems that you value FauxNews above else.

    yemrajesh -> psygone 8 Aug 2015 07:36

    Difficult to say. If the costs are true'ly low it would have reflected at the Pump. But it hasn't. Another flaw is how can oil pumped from deeper well ( Fracked Oil) is cheaper than conventional oil. It looks more like US flexing its muscles to subdue Russia. Besides its not Just Gazprom , shell, BP, Exxon , Gulf, Mobil etc also many of US vassal states are affected. It would be interesting to see how long this artificial price drop continue with zero benefit to the customers.


    Kaiama 8 Aug 2015 06:07

    Since the Russians haven't rolled over the first time, the US is trying again. These days, the price of oil is determined by activity in the futures market impacting the spot price. Likewise, I expect for shares and wouldn't be surprised if someone is shorting the stock. Any oil and gas not pumped today is available to be pumped tomorrow - possibly at higher prices. Gazprom isn't going bankrupt. Neither are any of the other major oil companies.

    AlbertEU -> alpamysh 7 Aug 2015 17:09

    The crisis of one industry necessarily will hurt other sectors. Hard-hit banking sector, which is credited US shale industry. The effect can be like an avalanche. Especially if it is strengthened by additional steps. I think for anybody is not a secret the existence of a huge number of empty weight of the dollar, which is produced by running the printing press. Oil trade is in the dollar, which in turn keeps the volume of the empty weight of the dollar. Now imagine a situation where part of the oil market has not traded more in dollars. It is equally affected, the USA and Russia.

    But there is one important detail. Russia has never in its history, was a rich country (if you count all the inhabitants of Russia, not individuals). In the country there is no cult of consumption. The traditional religions of Russia, that is, those that have always existed in Russia (Orthodox Christianity, Islam and Buddhism) did not contribute to the emergence of such a cult.

    Orthodoxy says plainly that material wealth is not important for a man. Wealth is only supplied in addition to achieve the main goal in the life of an Orthodox Christian. Therefore, to be poor in Russia is not a problem. This is a normal way of life. Hence the stoic resistance to any hardship, challenges, wars and so on. Expectations of great social upheaval in Russia, caused by the lowering of the standard of living is a little naive. Russia used to run in the marathon. Who would have more strength, intelligence and endurance is a big question. Geopolitics is a very strange science...

    airman23 7 Aug 2015 16:31

    Ooops, It's just been announced that the U.S. is adding the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye oil and gas field that belongs to Gazprom to it's sanctions list. It looks like Gazprom is gonna loose even more money. This is certainly not what the Fuehrer had in mind when he started his imperialist war of conquest in Ukraine and illegally annexed Crimea. Unintended consequences to be sure but what comes around, goes around.

    John Smith -> William_Diaz 7 Aug 2015 16:05

    From Iranian president from October last year:

    Therefore, he said, "today there are no conditions under which all thought that if tomorrow Russia will cease to supply gas, this same gas would be supplied by Iran." "Our production is still far from this stage", - said the president.

    He also said that Iran is ready to cooperate with Russia in the gas sector. "For several years we have been making efforts that countries that export gas would be able to cooperate" - he recalled. - "Competition should not be problematic, it should be healthy competition, should not do so to the profit only for the buyer, and the exporters suffering damage ".

    John Smith -> William_Diaz 7 Aug 2015 15:56

    Your ignorance only, with whom do you think Iran will coordinate their actions?
    Who brokered them a deal? Do you think Russians are stupid?
    Turkey will be not just a transit country but a hub. The EU got to built they own pipeline if they want Russian gas in 2019. Turkey will set prices.

    William_Diaz -> John Smith 7 Aug 2015 15:13

    Your ignorance is astounding, lol. Iran doesn't need anyone else to 'jump in', among the other things that the recent Security Council vote ending the Iran sanctions also enabled was the release of ~$150 billion that was held in foreign accounts.

    There is more than enough money available for domestic investment, including a natural gas pipeline to Europe.

    Have a great day!

    oleteo -> JanZamoyski 7 Aug 2015 14:23

    When Russia responded at the sanctions by its sanctions in the agriculture I heard here the malevolent sneers there'd be a famine in Russia. Now the collapse of Gasprom, the failure of the deal with China. What a shame for The Guardian to become an yellow shit

    oleteo 7 Aug 2015 14:12

    Seems the author is a warrior in the camp of the unnamed competitor which would like to supply its liquid costly gas.I know one direction where his bid will be welcomed at any price but for free- Ukraine

    AlbertEU 7 Aug 2015 12:59

    To kill a competitor, had to endure their own pain. Are you sure that these actions will kill the Russian oil production instead of US shale oil? In this case, Saudi Arabia has nothing to lose by increasing oil production, the same does and lowering the price of Russian oil. Recently, the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia visited Russia.

    They have a lot of something talked with Putin. Russia, the USA, Iran, Saudi Arabia are competitors.

    Over the past year the United States increased the number of purchased crude oil from Russia. Saudi Arabia's oil squeezed out of the US market by their own shale oil. If Saudi Arabia could bankrupt the US oil shale industry, it (Saudi Arabia) will regain US market.

    What is happening in the oil market is a very complicated process. Do not simplify the process of digestion by eating only the headlines. The headlines are not very high-calorie product, if you certainly do not pursue the goal to lose weight. Including lose money.

    Yankee_Liberal 7 Aug 2015 11:37

    Putin has tried to shrug off the economic sanctions as no big deal, but the secret agreement between the West and Saudi Arabia to keep oil supplies high and gas prices low is really hurting Russia. Eventually the Russian people will realize that a lot of economic pain will go away when Putin goes and they start respecting their neighbors boundaries.

    andydav 7 Aug 2015 11:18

    The Guardian has no idea what it is printing. Fact's are not a requirement in there story's any more EG:: Like many oil-producing countries, Saudi had got used to an era of high oil prices.

    Kuwait and Abu Dhabi can live with crude at its current level: Saudi Arabia cannot. It requires an oil price of $106 a barrel to balance the books... Not $20

    [Aug 08, 2015] Peter Schiff What Kind Of Improvement Does The Fed Want

    Aug 08, 2015 |
    Zero Hedge
    ... ... ...

    So barring any further revisions to First Half 2015 GDP, (which are much more likely to be revised down not up), our economy is running at an annualized pace of just 1.45%. To even get to the 2.3% annual growth rate, which represents the extreme low end of the Fed's "central tendency" for 2015, the economy would have to grow at 3.15% annualized in the Second Half. That is looking extremely unlikely. If we fail to hit those numbers, 2015 will be the ninth consecutive year in which the economy failed to reach or exceed the low end of its forecasts.

    The weak labor market and the weakening economy may explain a couple of trends that should not be occurring in a strengthening economy: Americans' growing love for old cars, and the high rate in which young people of working age remain living with their parents.

    Recent statistics show that the average age of America's fleet of 257.9 million working light vehicles had an average age of 11.5 years, the oldest on record. The IHS Automotive survey (7/29/15) also showed that new car buyers were holding on to their vehicles for an average of 6.5 years, up from 4.5 years in 2006. When workers are doing well they tend to buy new cars more often. When things are lean they hold onto their rides longer. Interestingly, this trend has occurred while Americans are taking on more leverage in car loans.

    Similarly a recent study by Goldman Sachs, from Dept. of Commerce data, shows that the percentage of 18-34 year olds who live at home, which had shot up during the recession of 2008, finally began to decline slightly in 2014, but that declinestopped at the beginning of 2015. USA Today (8/5/15) noted that the number of Millennials living at home increased from 24% in 2010 to 26% in the first third of 2015, according to a Pew Research Center report, based on Census Data. Why would this be happening if the economy was really growing?

    Since the unemployment rate seems unlikely to drop and both wage growth and increased labor participation show no signs of life, and the percentage of those who want to work full time, but can't, is still highly elevated, should we conclude that the Fed will move forward with its rate hike plans this year? If Janet Yellen is being honest that the Fed will not raise rates until we have further improvements in the labor market and those improvements seem to be nowhere in sight, then why doesn't she just admit that the Fed will not be raising rates any time soon?

    If GDP growth only averages 2.0% in the Second Half (which I think is likely), then 2015 growth will only be about 1.7% annually. Given that the Fed didn't raise rates in 2012, 2013, and 2014, when growth was well north of 2%, why would they do so now? Yet Wall Street and the media stubbornly cling to the notion that 3% growth and rate hikes are just around the corner. Old notions die hard, and this one has taken on a life of its own.

    junction

    Forget the economy for now and just realize we are already in World War III. The proxy wars in the Middle East engineered by our Manchurian Candidate president are flames to the powder keg of World War.

    Bokkenrijder

    This article should HAVE BEEN TYPED IN CAPITAL LETTERS, as Peter Schiff always likes to shout your ears off. Lemme guess, he has many gold and silver coins to sell and YOU need to be the buyer?

    p.s. how is Jim-"my daughter is learning Mandarin"-Rogers doing these days? Still bullish on all those bubbles in China, agriculture ("farmers driving Maseratis") and commodities (oil $45) in general?

    techpreist

    Here come the downvote wars... but anyway I'll bite. Schiff's basic message for the last decade has been:

    "Economic data, read correctly, points to the US economy becoming weaker, less sound, and more and more based on ever-increasing debt load. Headline indexes that sort-of look good do not mean much once you dig deeper. Therefore, at some point in the future the bottom is going to fall out, and if you're positioned correctly you can still thrive."

    For this article, ultimately it's the same message, with a few new data points, and usually he offers products in line with what he thinks will happen next. If you agree with his assessment, buy them. If not, don't.

    baldski

    Bokken: you have that right! Peter Schiff has been absolutely wrong on all his predictions for the last 10 years. He is a fear seller. Why is he allowed to push his bullshit on this site? Tyler is he kicking back to you?

    thunderchief

    The fed will keep jawboning because it buys them time while the rest of the world goes to zero or negative.

    They may eventually raise rates to as much as 1% or so, but this is just keep the dollar strong and wait out the world's drop to zero or below, the new world order norm.

    What Peter does not address, is that the fed is not going to fight WW1 (QE) when we are now in WWII. The French tried this with the maginot line and the rest is history.

    Strong dollar policy is everything now, and destroying everything with it to be the last man standing is the new game. If the dollar fails now, we all know everything dollar based goes with it, and the Fed knows this more than anyone.

    Stocks, Bonds, Realestate, the military industrial complex and USA hegemony all go if the dollar tanks this time.

    So no overt QE, and until the world goes negative, the Fed will only then go to where it wants to be...

    Arnold

    I believe the fed is waiting for the same thing we are: the unknown unknown.

    Shemittah? Known unknown.

    Unrepayable derivative debt? Known known

    Asteroid? Unknown Known

    Psychopathic weapon wielders? Unknown Known

    Divine Intervention? Yes an Unknown Unknown , but not what they are waiting for.

    Alien Invasion? Known known

    Yellowstone Eruption? Known unknown.

    Hell, I don't know.

    Meanwhile financial products keep things churning....


    [Aug 08, 2015]Top 6 Myths Driving Oil Prices Down

    "...The Saudis, as OPEC's largest producer and largest contributor to growth in 2015, have already stated that they will reduce output by 200,000-300,000 by summers end. "
    OilPrice.com
    "Whoever would overthrow the liberty of a nation must begin by subduing the freeness of speech."

    Benjamin Franklin, Silence Dogood, The Busy-Body, and Early Writings

    I start with that quote because once the media, as well as politicians for that matter, have no accountability for actions or words then liberty will dissolve. Over the last few weeks I have witnessed another litany of lies that the media insists on putting forth. They come in the form of statements presented as facts to sway opinion while others are opinions quoted by others. Either way, the bias in talking down oil prices, reinforcing the "glut" that is fueled in part by misleading EIA and IEA data, is readily apparent.

    Earlier in the year I documented half a dozen media reports which turned out to be 100 percent false. Now I expose another half dozen in just the past few weeks. Prices remain unchanged as a result of the largest drop in production in a year, as well as a large inventory draw this week via the EIA. The very fact that prices haven't responded demonstrates my points. This comes despite the dollar index (UUP) over the last month remaining essentially flat while USO has fallen over 15 percent (so much for that relationship, except when the dollar rises right?)…

    Related: A Reality Check For U.S. Natural Gas Ambitions

    Even at the time of this article the dollar index is down 1 percent yet oil is down as well.

    Here is a list of the latest lies:

    1. Iran Agreement to flood market. FALSE. OPEC has even stated that the natural 1.0 to 1.5 million barrels per day (MB/D) rise in demand in 2016 will more than offset any production rises in Iran which, contrary to earlier reports, won't come on line until early 2016. In addition, China will open up refining to third party, non-state-owned refineries which will reportedly add another 600,000 B/D in demand in 2016.
    2. Iran floating storage will flood market. FALSE. As initially reported in the media, it was Iranian oil floating in storage but it now turns out to be low grade condensate as stated by PIRA on Bloomberg a few weeks back and then supported by tankers attempting to move inventory to Asia. Later media reports corrected earlier ones that the storage is in fact condensate while failing to report on its grade.
    3. U.S. production resilient. FALSE. The latest EIA data refutes this as does data via EPS calls at Whiting Petroleum (WLL) & Hess Corporation (HES). Yes, some are increasing production such as Concho resources (CXO), but in the Bakken both companies confirm that 2H15 production will decline due to lower rigs and depletion. HES raised production for the year as a result of 1H15 production being higher than expected by some 5 percent. All in all, next week should see further production drops.
    4. U.S. Inventory resilient. FALSE. EIA data would have fallen last week by some 4MB as it did this week ex import surges and continues to be overstated by "adjustments" made to production that amount to millions of barrels in daily production.
    5. Cushing inventory fears revived. FALSE…see above.
    6. OPEC supply will continue. The Saudis, as OPEC's largest producer and largest contributor to growth in 2015, have already stated that they will reduce output by 200,000-300,000 by summers end. Yes true, OPEC as an entity won't formally announce a cut but isn't it misleading to report this?

    ... ... ...

    I should note that WLL also refuted Goldman Sachs' call that, at $60, U.S. production and rig count increases would resume. Before the most recent fall in oil, that call admittedly looked true as rigs did rise and Pioneer Natural Resources (PXD) was reportedly going to add 2 rigs a month until early 2016.

    WLL, however, finally drew a line in the sand as they stated on their EPS call that they would not add a rig until 4-6 months after oil remained at $60 or better. PXD, if they are smart, will follow suit and, I suspect, the oil industry has finally come to realize that the "Trillion Dollar Swindle" in oil is very real and normal supply and demand dynamics no longer apply. The law of diminishing returns in more supply is real thanks to media hype.

    Lastly, I wish to emphasize that freedom of speech not only comes as the freedom to express yourself, as I am doing here now, as others have done freely in the media, presenting both bullish and bearish cases. However, the number of statements that have been proven false and not retracted, as well as the obvious bias should raise serious questions about the role of media in the current oil bust. Which industry will be under attack next?

    Meanwhile, an industry which by simple math cannot generate free cash flow (FCF) on $100 oil is disintegrating before our eyes, with millions affected by the fallout. Targeting individuals has become a regular theme in the media but now it appears to have moved to certain industries.

    Below demonstrates that even on $100 oil shale isn't self-sustainable on a FCF basis, never mind $50 oil.

    Below is the estimated CF deficits for 2016 according to Jefferies with hedges:


    (Click to enlarge)

    How one on the sell side or media can argue for even lower oil to balance the market demonstrates the lack of detailed research and understanding of shale economics.

    By Leonard Brecken of Oilprice.com

    steve from virginia on July 31 2015 said:

    - Oil prices are declining because oil product end users around the world are broke and cannot borrow. They cannot borrow b/c they are insolvent, they are insolvent b/c they cannot borrow.

    - Oil prices are declining as a direct result of worldwide QE and other forms of easing. Easing shifts purchasing power proportionately to banks and large firms away from product end users. Without funds the end users cannot retire the drillers' expanding debts => drillers fall bankrupt.

    - Oil prices are declining because using fuel does not offer any real returns, only vaporous 'utility' which is really pleasure. Oil is an indispensable form of capital, it has been squandered for 'thrills', we are now facing the consequences: end users who lack the means to support extraction efforts.

    Keep in mind, ongoing fuel supply constraints (!) adversely affect end users faster than declining prices can subsidize them; this is a self-amplifying process. When it takes hold there is no escape from it; oil prices will decline to near-zero and the price will still be too high.

    Joseph Castillo on August 01 2015 said:
    Thank you for your insights, Leonard. No one seems to be noticing the production rollover here in Texas, nor the growing disparity between the Texas numbers and the EIA numbers and forecasts. Yesterday the market punished oil because of a very small increase in the rig count. Amazingly, the market completely missed that the EIA finally reported a significant drop (on the order of 150,000 bbls/day) for both their monthly volumes as well as their July 31st weekly numbers. At some point these facts will have to be recognized.

    I am at a loss for how this goes unnoticed by the media and why "reputable" researchers at groups like Goldman-Sachs continue trumpeting the oil glut horn in direct conflict with the facts. Anyway, thanks for your work. It gives little guys like Bold Energy hope that we can survive.

    Mike on August 02 2015 said:
    Timothy. Your statement about demand growth is wrong. There has been significant demand growth and if you look at actual statistics you will see that.

    I would not believe the fairy stories in Media news about demand though, because like most media stories at present, they seem to perpetuate a desired view rather than any effort to represent and true and honest account. .

    Shakespit on August 03 2015 said:
    Tone of article seems angry and strident, maybe desperate. How dare the media print anything that negatively affects oil pricing. The news stories are "myths," read "lies." Well surely if the stories are myths, reality will soon correct the price.

    I am no expert but have read energy news with interest since the first oil shock in 1973, I know that the statement that "...$100 oil shale isn't self-sustainable ..." is a joke. Shale oil certainly is very sustainable at $100 per barrel; a lot of shale is sustainable at $50, as are Canadian tar sands.

    The cost floor for unconventional oil to be sustainable has been wildly exaggerated for several years. Not four months ago Shell's head of tar sands production in an NPR interview corrected a young-sounding reporterette, who was stating the tar sands production needed $70 a barrel to break even, to say that the actual break even point was $36 a barrel. A $36 a barrel price for most unconventional oil is about the break even point cited for decades in the literature -- I think I'll stick with that figure as my understanding as the sustainable floor for most unconventional oil. Cheer up, myths can only hurt for so long, then the market will catch up and make it all better! So don't you worry about a thing! Thank you!!


    Andrew on August 03 2015 said:

    Agree with Steve from Virginia. QE was the most blatant and convoluted blow at the laws of economics, supply and demand. By seeking to undermine the cyclical nature of the economy and save those who would have been justly taken down the Fed and the politicians have created huge distortions which will echo through the economy for years to come. They stopped the market from adjusting itself, rebalancing wealth distribution and asset values, removing inefficiencies and restoring consumers purchasing power.

    How this tinkering (this word is obviously inadequate to describe the meddling, a wrench in the gears is more appropriate) will propagate through the system is anybody's guess. I suppose the stats perversion in the oil industry and its subsequent degradation so aptly described by the author is one of them. .

    zorro6204 on August 03 2015 said:

    Myths don't drive the oil markets, supply and demand does. And the facts are that in spite of the price drop, production is not falling. I'm hard pressed to find any companies guiding to lower production, and neither could these guys:

    "Barclays said a group of 101 oil companies that it tracks, which cover around 40% of global oil production, show no slowdown in the pace of production growth in 2015. After growing by one million barrels a day in 2014, the companies plan to accelerate output growth to 1.4 million barrels a day this year and maintain that level into 2016." - WSJ .

    Matt on August 03 2015 said:

    What the large independents should've done (the majors never would. Heck, they may be behind this driving down of the price of oil so they can snatch up a CLR or someone cheap) is stack every rig. Not drill a darn well at all in 2015, pay all of their hands from cash flow,and reevaluate at year end. Most of us little guys have already done that.

    Shakespit is correct. If production is truly declining, the market will correct itself even if it is being manipulated psychologically or otherwise. When a buyer needs physical oil and it's not so easy to come by, the price offered will go up.

    [Aug 08, 2015] Don't Expect An Oil Price Rebound This Side Of 2017

    "...with most market participants now resigned to at least another year of low oil prices, a lot of hope has gone out of the markets."
    .
    "...Second, firms will keep pumping in many cases until their wells run dry. Fortunately for oil investors, shale wells have a much faster decline rate than traditional wells. Shale wells decline at a rate of between 60 percent and 90 percent over the course of three years."
    .
    "...Rapid decline rates mean that U.S. oil production could begin declining as fewer and fewer new wells are drilled. But it will take time for production to come down sufficiently enough to support a major oil price rebound. Given that, investors need to focus on oil stocks that can get through the next two years on minimal (if any) profit, and they themselves need to be prepared to wait for a price rebound until 2017."

    OilPrice.com

    ...firms have an incentive to produce now rather than waiting. Previously, some firms likely hoped that oil prices would spring back by the end of 2015 and that the firm's hedges could keep sales receipts high enough to avoid dealing with the dramatic fall in prices. But prices have not bounced back, and with most market participants now resigned to at least another year of low oil prices, a lot of hope has gone out of the markets.

    ... ... ...

    This will take time though. First, many firms were propped up by their hedging programs. Those hedges are only just now starting to expire and exposing firms to the full depth of the oil price drop. Second, firms will keep pumping in many cases until their wells run dry. Fortunately for oil investors, shale wells have a much faster decline rate than traditional wells. Shale wells decline at a rate of between 60 percent and 90 percent over the course of three years.

    Rapid decline rates mean that U.S. oil production could begin declining as fewer and fewer new wells are drilled. But it will take time for production to come down sufficiently enough to support a major oil price rebound. Given that, investors need to focus on oil stocks that can get through the next two years on minimal (if any) profit, and they themselves need to be prepared to wait for a price rebound until 2017.

    By Michael McDonald for Oilprice.com

    The elites not stupid: they need a crash to justify their draconian repressive and warmaking moves

    bolasete, August 5, 2015 at 4:18 pm
    daily i review articles on zerohedge, full of doom and gloom. unfortunately they are written by ron paul types, not even socialists, let alone communists. the way i see it a crash really is coming but the ones calling the shots are not stupid: they want a crash that will demand/justify their draconian repressive and warmaking moves.

    (what i find amazing – given my slant – is the large number of smart, knowledgeable people who must understand yet go along with it, like your immortal cyborg comment: why aren't these people moving to tropical isles?) my point being that analysis of armageddon and calling to account the enemy is for the future.

    ignore the provocateurs! he's not worth the increased bp

    [Aug 08, 2015]The US Economy: Explaining Stagnation and Why It Will Persist

    Aug 07, 2015 | thomaspalley.com

    This paper examines the major competing interpretations of the economic crisis in the US and explains the rebound of neoliberal orthodoxy. It shows how US policymakers acted to stabilize and save the economy, but failed to change the underlying neoliberal economic policy model. That failure explains the emergence of stagnation, which is likely to endure. Current economic conditions in the US smack of the mid-1990s. The 1990s expansion proved unsustainable and so will the current modest expansion. However, this time it is unlikely to be followed by financial crisis because of the balance sheet cleaning that took place during the last crisis. [READ MORE]

    [Aug 08, 2015] Global Oil Supply More Fragile Than You Think

    "... the delay of 46 major oil and gas projects that have 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves mean that global production several years from now could be much lower than anticipated. Due to long lead times, decisions made today will impact the world's production profile towards the end of this decade and into the 2020s. It makes sense for companies to cut today, but collectively that could lead to much lower supplies in the future."
    Aug 05, 2015 | Oilprice.com

    Many oil companies had trimmed their budgets heading into 2015 to deal with lower oil prices. But the rebound in April and May to $60 per barrel from the mid-$40s suggested that the severe drop was merely temporary.

    But the collapse of prices in July – owing to the Iran nuclear deal, an ongoing production surplus, and economic and financial concerns in Greece and China – have darkened the mood. Now a prevailing sense that oil prices may stay lower for longer has hit the markets.

    Oil futures for delivery in December 2020 are currently trading $8 lower than they were at the beginning of this year even while immediate spot prices are $4 higher today. In other words, oil traders are now feeling much gloomier about oil prices several years out than they were at the beginning of 2015.

    The growing acceptance that oil prices could stay lower for longer will kick off a fresh round of cuts in spending and workforces for the oil industry.

    "It's a monumental challenge to offset the impact of a 50% drop in oil price," Fadel Gheit, an analyst with Oppenheimer & Co., told the WSJ. "The priorities have shifted completely. The priority now is to discontinue budget spending. The priority is to live within your means. Forget about growth. They are now in survival mode."

    And many companies are also recalculating the oil price needed for new drilling projects to make financial sense. For example, according to the Wall Street Journal, BP is assuming an oil price of $60 per barrel moving forward. Royal Dutch Shell is a little more pessimistic, using $50 per barrel as their projection. For now, projects that need $100+ per barrel will be put on ice indefinitely. The oil majors have cancelled or delayed a combined $200 billion in new projects as they seek to rein in costs, according to Wood Mackenzie.

    But the delay of 46 major oil and gas projects that have 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves mean that global production several years from now could be much lower than anticipated. Due to long lead times, decisions made today will impact the world's production profile towards the end of this decade and into the 2020s. It makes sense for companies to cut today, but collectively that could lead to much lower supplies in the future.

    That is a problem because the oil majors were struggling to boost oil production even when oil prices were high. 2014 was one of the worst in over six decades for major new oil discoveries, even though oil prices were high for most of the year. Despite high levels of spending, exploration companies are simply finding fewer and fewer reserves of oil.

    Shale production has surged in recent years, but it could be a fleeting phenomenon. Precipitous decline rates from shale wells mean that much of a well's lifetime production occurs within the first year or two. Moreover, after the best spots are drilled, the shale revolution could start to come to a close. The IEA predicts that U.S. shale will plateau and begin to decline in the 2020s. That means it would not be able to keep up with rising demand. Add in the fact that oil wells around the world suffer from natural decline rates on the order of 5 percent per year (with very wide variation), and it becomes clear that major new sources of oil will need to come online.

    One other factor that could tighten oil markets over the long-term is the fact that Saudi Arabia has churned through much of its spare capacity. As one of the only countries that can ramp up latent oil capacity within just a few weeks, Saudi Arabia's spare capacity is crucial to world oil market stability.

    Many energy analysts like to compare the current oil bust to the one that occurred in the 1980s. But one of the major differences between the two events is that, in addition to the glut of oil supplies in the 1980s, was the fact that Saudi Arabia dramatically reduced its output from 10 million barrels per day (mb/d) down to less than 4 mb/d in response. As a result, on top of the fact that the world was awash in oil throughout the 1980s and 1990s, there were also several million barrels per day of spare capacity sitting on the sidelines, meaning there was virtually no chance of a price spike for more than a decade.

    That is no longer the case. Today OPEC has only 1.6 mb/d of spare capacity, the lowest level since before the 2008 financial crisis. So while Saudi Arabia is currently flooding the market with crude, it has exhausted its spare capacity, leaving few tools to come to the rescue in a pinch.

    That brings us back to the large spending cuts the oil majors are undertaking. With spare capacity shot and major new sources of oil not coming online in a few years, the world may end up struggling to meet rising oil demand. That could cause oil prices to spike.

    More Top Reads From Oilprice.com:
    •Could WTI Trade At A Premium To Brent By Next Year?
    •How Russia's Energy Giant Imploded
    •US Oil Production Finally Starting to Decline

    1. Oil Guru Who Called 2014 Slump Sees a Return to $100 Crude Bloomberg
    2. Oil Warning: The Crash Could Be the Worst in More Than 45 Years Bloomberg
    3. Oil bulls' hope for quick price dip dimmed by 2020 crude under $70 Reuters
    4. How Iran Impacts The Price and Supply of Oil Investopedia
    5. Shell to Cut 6,500 Jobs as Profit Drops The Wall Street Journal

    [Aug 08, 2015] The "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power

    "...I would completely agree that the "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power but am frankly confused by what the essential mechanism of this is. To my mind to institute the petrodollar it is not sufficient to say that oil will be denominated in dollars or even sold only in dollars. The key is that the proceeds need to STAY in dollar assets. This was only achieved once Kissinger brokered Petro-dollar recycling, meaning that the dollars earned in this way would be recycled into treasury securities or used to purchase American weaponry or the engineering skills of the American firms that basically built the Kingdom as it now exists. This is what I was hinting at when I was talking about the circular nature of trade between currency blocs. No non-circular trade patterns can persist for long.
    .
    We emphasize different things. I suspect that the simple scale of the dollar value of trading of financial claims on things – trading in which London and New York are dominant – contributes more to the maintenance of the dollar reserve system than you are proposing. The upshot being that America's "debt" problem is actually a demonstration of its financial power. "

    .
    "..."The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold."
    .
    So it seems that the oil sellers, seeing that their "real" income from selling oil was decreasing (they were selling oil at the same price in terms of dollars, but at a lower price in terms of gold), were determined not to let the depreciating dollar erase a big chunk of their earnings. I think this goes to show how deep is entrenched in the collective psyche the idea that gold is THE medium for storing wealth. Barbarous relic? I think not…
    .
    After all, value is a social construct and economic relations are social relations mediated through these things we call "commodities". Gold has proven itself to be a very good mediator of these social relations, not because some magical qualities, but because of obvious practical advantages. So, although its role is significantly smaller these days, I think it still retains the roles of "medium of last resort" and "measuring stick of wealth"."

    james@wpc, August 4, 2015 at 11:35 pm

    I had to start a new thread, Mark. Your first question – "does the fact that the USA's debt is more than 100% of its GDP not make it insolvent?"
    I take it you are using the definition of insolvency being when an organizations liabilities exceed it's assets. The nation's GDP does not belong to the government and so cannot be seen as an asset of the govt. So the question, as framed, is not 'well English', speaking economically :) Perhaps you could rephrase it?

    Insolvency can also be defined as an inability to meet current liabilities as they fall due which is a cash flow problem rather than an asset problem. A government that owns and controls its central bank cannot ever have a cash flow problem; that would be Iran, for instance, or Libya before Terror Inc was unleashed on it.

    A govt that does not own and control its central bank cannot have a cash flow problem so long as its debt is denominated in its own national currency and the privately owned central bank continues to monetize the government's newly issued bond/treasury certificates; that is countries like the US and the UK.

    A government that has its debt nominated in a foreign or external currency, such as Greece and other Euro zone countries, is in the position of any other business and can be declared insolvent and its assets sold up for the creditors. This situation with Greece was always going to come right from the beginning.

    I don't follow what you are asking with your second question – "Would it, if there were a deliberate run on the dollar to drive it down and reduce its circulation, by refusing to use it as a medium of exchange?" Could you rephrase it also?

    astabada, August 4, 2015 at 11:51 pm

    @james, TimOwen

    A government that has its debt nominated in a foreign or external currency, such as Greece and other Eurozone countries, is in the position of any other business and can be declared insolvent and its assets sold up for the creditors. This situation with Greece was always going to come right from the beginning.

    Bang! I do not follow all of your points, but on this one I totally agree. To reconnect with what Tim was writing about Italy, the problem with Italy (and Greece) is that they both have:

    • – a currency which is grossly overvalued with respect to their economies (this makes import artificially easier than it should be, and export artificially harder)
    • – no control on what the value of that currency is (e.g. by devaluing its currency Italy could keep its products competitive in the past)

    When did the Italian crisis start? Answer: when Italy pegged its currency to the future Euro, with the Maastrich Treaty.

    marknesop, August 5, 2015 at 7:34 am

    In the second question, I meant ""Would it (be insolvent), if there were a deliberate run on the dollar to drive it down and reduce its circulation, by refusing to use it as a medium of exchange?" That is, would a deliberate turning-away from the dollar put the USA in a position where it had to pay its debts and live within its means? And the answer is, not likely, because the government does not control the bank or own the money, although there is most definitely a very close relationship between the governors and the bankers. Still, there must be a relationship between the whole world using the dollar and U.S. power, because if there were not the U.S. would not attack a country on some made-up excuse as soon as it made noises about dropping the dollar. Unless that's just a crackpot conspiracy theory.

    james@wpc, August 5, 2015 at 8:28 am

    Thanks for the clarification, Mark. The US could well find itself in trouble and that is my expectation but "insolvent" is the wrong word to use.

    First, the basics of the relationship between the Fed and the US Treasury dept. I think someone here (Tim?), about a year ago, spelt out the actual mechanics of it all but a rough Idea will suffice for our purposes. When the US govt wants to get more money, they have the Treasury Dept draw up treasury certificates which are essentially IOU's and hand them to the Fed. The Fed creates the credit to the value of the IOU's and places it in the US govt's a/c (at interest). The govt can then meet all future expenses including maturing loans with this money because all of the US's trade and loan contracts are written in US$.

    There is no limit to the debt that the US can run up in this manner so there will always be money to meet commitments. So the US govt cannot become technically insolvent.

    Crystal ball stuff now – the problem for the US govt (and the Fed) is that it is committed to printing ever more money at a time when the demand for it internationally is shrinking because the BRICS countries and others are avoiding using the US dollar when possible. This will lead to inflation for the dollar. In other words, it will lose value and make it less and less attractive for people, companies and govts to hold it and thus further decreasing demand. We now have a self fuelling downward spiral for the dollar.

    The inflation happens because the US dollar is backed not only by the domestic GDP of the US but also by all the international trade that is conducted using the dollar. As the total amount of dollars in circulation increases and the demand decreases (because people are avoiding using it) we have more dollars to buy less goods (because sellers do not want US dollars for their goods) so the prices on the goods that are still available for US dollars will be bid upwards by the excess money over goods available causing the inflation. I have been very impressed how the FED/govt and Wall st generally have been able to stave off this inevitable inflation so far.

    As for the US ever 'living within its means' that will only come when other trading partners en masse refuse to accept US dollars for their goods (incl military materiel). The US will then have to sell something tangible to raise the foreign currency (as most other countries now have to do) to buy Chinese clothing and uniforms and ammunition etc. They may not be able to pay for the military occupation in foreign countries using US dollars and so the Empire will start visibly shrinking.

    If this happens, countries like israel and Saudi Arabia will be left high and dry and have to fend for themselves – and good luck with that! But psychopaths never say die so they just might pull something out of the hat other than a rabbit. We'll see soon enough, I think. You can see, though, that time is not on the side of the usual suspects.

    I hope that answers your question adequately, Mark. If not, come on back to me!

    Jen, August 5, 2015 at 3:52 pm

    " … Still, there must be a relationship between the whole world using the dollar and U.S. power, because if there were not the U.S. would not attack a country on some made-up excuse as soon as it made noises about dropping the dollar. Unless that's just a crackpot conspiracy theory."

    I mentioned earlier in this thread that in 2000, Iraqi President Saddam Hussein switched to trading oil for euros and then Iraq began conducting all its trade in euros. Not long afterwards, the euro appreciated in value, perhaps in part as a result of its use as a trading currency, and the value of Iraq's gold reserves also shot up as a result.
    http://www.theguardian.com/business/2003/feb/16/iraq.theeuro

    Iran and North Korea then switched to trading in euros. Next thing you know, all three countries became the New Axis of Evil.

    If the world has to use the US dollar for trade, this means there will always be a demand from exporters and importers for US dollars and this keeps the value of the US dollar high relative to other currencies. To an extent this means that in a situation where all currencies are free-floating (that is, not subjected to any controls on their value or supply by governments in the countries where they are legal tender) and are completely subject to market supply and demand, the US dollar will not experience high and low extremes when its value against other currencies fluctuates. This keeps the US dollar's value high and steady.

    The use of the US dollar as a world currency for trade was adopted during the Bretton Woods conference in the late 1940s just after the Second World War. At the time, the US was the pre-eminent manufacturing economy in the world and could dictate its terms to a ruined Europe. If the rest of the world were to catch up with the US in manufacturing and trading capability, then everyone needed to use US dollars to buy US goods, services and intellectual know-how in the form of patents, advice and training. Few people at the time foresaw what would happen to the US economy if the US dollar became the world's trading currency: the US economy would start to suffer persistent trade and balance of payment deficits and the US government would be unable to control the supply of US dollars. This is known as the Triffin Dilemma.

    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triffin_dilemma

    The British economist John Maynard Keynes who attended Bretton Woods was one of the few who knew – that was partly why he advocated for adopting an international trade currency (bancor) and an international clearing house for balance-of-payments surpluses and deficits – but as he was the representative of an exhausted and defeated empire, his ideas were given short shrift by the US attendees.

    Tim Owen, August 5, 2015 at 8:22 pm

    Posted this on earlier thread one page back before I saw this:

    Here's where I think you, James and I agree: the reserve status of the dollar allows the U.S. to fund it's deficit at the expense of other countries.

    Here's' where I think (?) we disagree:

    • my point is that the reserve status makes it possible for the U.S. to run persistent trade deficits but the ability to run a deficit is a virtue of all fiat systems. The fact that the reserve status of the dollar means those deficits can be much higher doesn't change the fact. Nor should it discredit deficit-spending by association.
    • I would completely agree that the "petrodollar" is a pillar of American power but am frankly confused by what the essential mechanism of this is. To my mind to institute the petrodollar it is not sufficient to say that oil will be denominated in dollars or even sold only in dollars. The key is that the proceeds need to STAY in dollar assets. This was only achieved once Kissinger brokered Petro-dollar recycling, meaning that the dollars earned in this way would be recycled into treasury securities or used to purchase American weaponry or the engineering skills of the American firms that basically built the Kingdom as it now exists. This is what I was hinting at when I was talking about the circular nature of trade between currency blocs. No non-circular trade patterns can persist for long.
    • We emphasize different things. I suspect that the simple scale of the dollar value of trading of financial claims on things – trading in which London and New York are dominant – contributes more to the maintenance of the dollar reserve system than you are proposing. The upshot being that America's "debt" problem is actually a demonstration of its financial power. *

    Could it become it's greatest weakness? It's possible I suppose but I don't see this happening when western finance dwarfs the trading clout of its rivals. The system develops over time and, with time it gains scale and so momentum. In other words I'm suggesting that a dollar collapse is less likely than one might suppose.

    *This was the point I was trying to make with the dollar as "safe haven" comments above. If the dollar zigs (strengthens) when your mental model of the world says it should zag (weaken) then this should really suggest that your model is missing some important part of the complex mechanism it is trying to simulate.

    james@wpc, August 6, 2015 at 12:05 am

    Tim, I'll quote your words back to you and insert some clarifying (for me) words to demonstrate my understanding and to see if it is the same as yours-

    – my point is that the reserve status makes it possible for the U.S. to run persistent (international) trade deficits but the ability to run a (domestic budgetary) deficit is a virtue of all fiat systems. The fact that the reserve status of the dollar means those (international trade and domestic budgetary) deficits can be much higher doesn't change the fact. Nor should it discredit (domestic budgetary) deficit-spending by association."

    The Bretton Woods agreement specified that the US would make gold available for purchase at an agreed fixed price. This condition was thought to inhibit the US from printing money to excess. But the Vietnam War came along and the US was printing money to pay for it. This extra money was not financing extra productive capacity or creating wealth. Quite the opposite, in fact. So we had an increasing supply of US dollars around the world but no commensurate extra production to absorb the extra dollars.

    This is exactly what the French thought would happen and they started demanding gold for their US dollars. Eventually, the US had to stop selling gold now that it was greatly undervalued because the dollar was overvalued. So Nixon took the US dollar off the gold standard. Inflation ensued.

    Something was needed to soak up the extra purchasing power of the extra US dollars sloshing around the world. This money was called "EuroDollars" at the time. Oil was the answer. The Saudis (at the behest of Wall St) and OPEC jacked up the price of oil by a factor of four (IIRC) and rapidly increased the demand for dollars and reversed the inflationary trend and the subsequent loss of value.

    As Tim points out, the Saudis had to not only sell oil exclusively for US dollars but they had to deposit their surplus with New York banks. This way the banks won in three different ways. 1. they had overnight increased the international demand for US dollars and boosting its strength and prestige (perceptions are everything)
    2. They had handed a fortune to the Saudis but by keeping the money in the NY banks, the bankers still controlled the Saudis
    3. This surplus money was also kept out of other international banks and so could not be used by them to effectively compete with the NY banks and so kept those other banks under control as well and Wall St dominant.

    Point 1 was the most important for the bankers, in my view. This created the petrodollar – a dollar that used to be covered by gold as well as international trade and the US domestic GDP. Then gold dropped out of the equation and was replaced with oil at a hugely inflated price.

    At a bankers symposium during the eighties (I think from memory), the head of Citibank at the time, Walter Wriston, answered a question concerning what his bank would do if the Saudis wanted their money back. He replied blithely, "No problem. We'll write them a cheque!" His reply was met with dumbfounded silence which told me told me that most of the audience of bankers did not understand banking at that level. There should have been laughter because the money cannot escape the system. It can only get transferred from one bank to another and each bank is dependent on remaining in the system to keep operating.

    It's just a matter of borrowing from each other. If Citibank has the Saudi's money to cover their other loans, then this will be more profitable for them than having to borrow it from other banks. But it is not a system breaker if they do have to borrow it from other banks. That's what the system is for.

    Jen, August 6, 2015 at 12:33 am

    It would be interesting to know when the Saudis also started buying up weapons and military hardware from the US and the UK. If they began some time in the early / mid 1970s to buy such equipment, and it were possible to find out where the money was coming from, that would be another piece in a big puzzle that links the collapse of the Bretton Woods agreement, the Vietnam War, the 1973 oil crisis and subsequent decline in the US car manufacturing industry, the Yom Kippur War and maybe more besides.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1973_oil_crisis#End_of_the_Bretton_Woods_accord

    James, thanks for the extra detail.

    spartacus, August 6, 2015 at 1:45 am

    Hello Jen! From the Wiki article you linked, I found this paragraph to be very interesting:

    "The result was a depreciation of the dollar and other industrialized nations' currencies. Because oil was priced in dollars, oil producers' real income decreased. In September 1971, OPEC issued a joint communiqué stating that, from then on, they would price oil in terms of a fixed amount of gold."

    So it seems that the oil sellers, seeing that their "real" income from selling oil was decreasing (they were selling oil at the same price in terms of dollars, but at a lower price in terms of gold), were determined not to let the depreciating dollar erase a big chunk of their earnings. I think this goes to show how deep is entrenched in the collective psyche the idea that gold is THE medium for storing wealth. Barbarous relic? I think not…

    After all, value is a social construct and economic relations are social relations mediated through these things we call "commodities". Gold has proven itself to be a very good mediator of these social relations, not because some magical qualities, but because of obvious practical advantages. So, although its role is significantly smaller these days, I think it still retains the roles of "medium of last resort" and "measuring stick of wealth".

    marknesop, August 6, 2015 at 9:42 am

    The currency Gaddafi had moved to introduce was the gold dinar, an actual negotiable gold coin, and he proposed all African and Muslim nations accept only the dinar for oil. The sources speculating on this look a little tabloid-ey, but as with many such subjects, the mainstream press just never mentions it, as if deciding not to talk about it removes it from consideration as an issue.

    Similarly, the disappearance of Libya's gold is easily explained – unscrupulous people, including Gaddafi himself, stole it. The guy who was planning to introduce a gold currency to Africa actually stole all the gold for himself, the tricky devil.

    james@wpc , August 6, 2015 at 1:48 am

    Jen, my recollection is that the Saudi's started buying armaments big-time during the seventies because I remember asking myself, "what's wrong with this picture?" Here is a supposed enemy of Israel buying huge amounts of military equipment, particularly fighter jets, from the country it has just imposed sanctions on, the US. Added to that, the US is THE big supporter of Israel and indeed, saved its bacon during the Yom Kippur war!

    The money for the military hardware could only have come from the increased price of oil and looking back it is increasingly obvious that these sales were part of the original deal to increase the price of oil. It is part of the circular trading that Tim was talking about.

    The petrol rationing exercises in the US and elsewhere are looking more and more like theatre to condition the punters that we have to pay more. The whole crisis was stage managed and nothing has changed in forty years!

    marknesop, August 6, 2015 at 9:14 am

    The USA has a similar arrangement with Israel, in which it transfers billions in foreign aid to this prosperous country and Israel then uses it to buy U.S. weapons and military equipment. It would be simpler to just gift them the military equipment, but that would look as if the USA was building a military ally to extend its own power – which it is – and the former way helps create the need for more dollars.

    [Aug 08, 2015] This Week In Energy Depressed Oil Market Still Sees Production Gains

    OilPrice.com

    Just in case you need some more evidence that the Permian is the place to be, ExxonMobil (NYSE: XOM) just announced the finalization of two deals to increase its exposure to the Permian. The deals include a farm-in agreement and an acquisition of acreage adjacent to positions held by XTO Energy (a subsidiary of Exxon) in Martin and Midland Counties. The two deals give the oil major the rights to 48,000 acres in the Permian. "The recent emergence of strong Lower Spraberry results, combined with the established Wolfcamp intervals, demonstrates the significant potential of the stacked pays in the Midland Basin core," XTO's President said in a statement.

    While the impressive results and the confidence among a handful of stronger drillers bodes well for their share prices on an eventual rebound, the collective drilling efficiency is prolonging and exacerbating the oil glut. Oil prices have tanked yet again, with WTI now trading below $45 per barrel and Brent dropping below $50. There is little reason to feel confident that oil prices will rebound in the months ahead with U.S. oil production remaining steady.

    [Aug 07, 2015] U.S. adds Russian oil field to sanctions list

    U.S. Ambassador to the U.N. Samantha Power says Washington is very concerned about reports of a visit to Russia by Iran's Quds Force chief to Russia in breach of U.N. sanctions. Rough Cut (no reporter narration). Reported Russia visit by Iran military chief' "very concerning" to U.S.
    yahoo.com

    (Reuters) - The United States has added a Russian oil and gas field, the Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field, to its list of energy sector sanctions prompted by Moscow's actions in Ukraine, drawing a prompt rebuke from the Kremlin on Friday.

    The federal government said on Thursday the field, located in the Sea of Okhotsk of the Siberian coast and owned by Russia's leading gas producer Gazprom, contains substantial reserves of oil in addition to reserves of gas.

    "The Yuzhno-Kirinskoye Field is being added to the Entity List because it is reported to contain substantial reserves of oil," according to a rule notice in the Federal Register.

    A Kremlin spokesman criticized the move.

    "Unfortunately, (this decision) further damages our bilateral relations," spokesman Dmitry Peskov told reporters.

    Gazprom declined to comment.

    Adding the field to the list means a license will be required for exports, re-exports or transfers of oil from that location, it said. The gas and condensate field was discovered in 2010, according to Gazprom.

    Douglas Jacobson, an international trade lawyer in Washington, said the addition "represents a new arrow in the quiver of U.S. sanctions on Russia."

    He said the addition means that no U.S. origin items or non-U.S. origin items containing more than 25 percent U.S. content can be exported or re-exported to the field without a Commerce Department license, which he said was not likely to be issued.

    "This goes beyond the current Russia sanctions, which prohibit certain items to be exported to Russia when they are used directly or indirectly in the exploration for, or production of, oil or gas in Russian deepwater (greater than 500 feet)," Jacobsen said in an email.

    The action builds on those taken since last year by the United States and the European Union after Russia's annexation of Crimea and its use of force in Ukraine.

    Last week, the United States imposed additional Russia and Ukraine-related sanctions, adding associates of a billionaire Russian gas trader, Crimean port operators and former Ukrainian officials to its list of those it is penalizing in response to Russia's actions in Ukraine.

    (Additional reporting by Yeganeh Torbati in Washington and Ekaterina Golubkova and Maria Tsvetkova in Moscow; Editing by Andrew Hay)

    [Aug 06, 2015]US layoffs hit nearly 4-year high in July Challenger

    UA wage are declining: Payroll taxes and related withholding are declining 8% in q1 of the last year, 6% in Q2 of the last year and only 2.5% in q3. 70K layof in oil industry were good paing jobs, almmost twise national average. Now they are gone and when they return is unclear.
    finance.yahoo.com

    U.S. job cuts soared to a nearly four-year high in July as the military announced plans to reduce troop and civilian workforce payrolls, according to outplacement consultancy Challenger, Gray & Christmas.

    Employers based in the United States announced 105,696 layoffs last month, the first time monthly reductions exceeded 100,000 since September 2011. A year ago, U.S. companies announced plans to cut 46,887 jobs.

    The Challenger report comes a day before the Labor Department's crucial July jobs report. A weak report would make it less likely for the Federal Reserve to announce its first interest rate increase in nine years at its September meeting.

    July's reductions bring the year-to-date total to 393,368 cuts, a 34 percent increase from the period last year. The Army accounted for more than half of the total with 57,000 cuts expected over the next two years.

    "When the military makes cuts, they tend to be deep," Challenger CEO John A. Challenger said in a statement. "With wars in Afghanistan and Iraq winding down and pressure to cut government spending, the military has been vulnerable to reductions."

    The technology sector also contributed to July's announced job reductions, with computer and electronics companies announcing 18,891 layoffs in July.

    Microsoft (NASDAQ: MSFT)'s decision to close its Nokia division resulted in 7,800 job losses, while Qualcomm (NASDAQ: QCOM) said it would hand out 4,500 pink slips. Intel (NASDAQ: INTC) also announced it would shed 3,180 jobs.

    Read More

    [Aug 06, 2015] Crude Carnage Continues As Goldman Warns Storage Is Running Out

    "... $58/bbl the 3-year forward oil price is at its lowest in a decade"
    .
    "...Not only has emerging market growth slowed, but any benefits from lower prices are mostly behind us now, as the benefits only last 6 to 9 months. "
    .
    "...The oil industry on average is not earning its cost of capital. The distinction between cash costs and total costs, also applies to 'well' versus 'company' returns. While the returns at the well can be economical at prices near $50/bbl, the returns for the company can be deeply underwater due to large-scale investments when prices were at $100/bbl. "
    .
    "...While the supply and demand for the barrels of oil will likely find a balance between now and sometime in 2016 with an increasing likelihood of this being driven by operational stress, this doesn't mean a sharp rebound in prices will occur quickly as so many other factors will likely weigh on prices. "
    .
    "... Iran has the potential to add 200 to 400 kb/d of production in 2016 and with significant investment far greater low-cost volumes in 2017 and beyond. Iran, like other OPEC countries, needs the revenues through volume. "
    .
    "...I can almost foresee a crude [production] liquidation throughout all non OPEC and OPEC nations"
    Aug 06, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    WTI Crude is back below $45 again this morning - pressing towards 2015 and cycle lows -after Goldman Sachs' Jeffrey Currie warns 'lower for longer' is here to stay, with price risk "substantially skewed to the downside." His reasoning are manifold, as detailed below, but overarching is oversupply (Saudi Arabia has a challenge in Asia as it battles to maintain mkt share, the Russians are coming, andother OPEC members want a bigger slice) and, even more crucially, storage is running out. As Currie concludes, this time it is different. Financial metrics for the oil industry are far worse.

    As Goldman Sachs' Jeffrey Currie explains...

    1)Although spot oil prices have only retraced to the lows of this winter, forward oil prices, commodity currencies and energy equities/credit (relative to the broad indices) have now all retraced to levels not seen since 2005, erasing a decade of gains. This creates a very different economic environment as the search for a new equilibrium resumes: financial stress is higher, operational stress as defined below is more extreme and costs have declined further due to more productivity gains, a substantially stronger dollar and sharp declines in other commodity prices. These differences reflect not only a further deterioration in fundamentals, but also the financial markets' decreasing confidence in a quick rebound in prices and a recognition that the rebalancing of supply and demand will likely prove to be far more difficult than what was previously priced into the market. This is all in line with our lower-for-longer view. While we maintain our near-term WTI target of $45/bbl, we want to emphasize that the risks remain substantially skewed to the downside, particularly as we enter the shoulder months this autumn.

    2) In January, we argued that one of the key tenets of the New Oil Order was that capital is now the new margin of adjustment. As shale has dramatically reduced time-to-build (the time between when producers commit capital and when they get production) from several years to several months, oil prices now need to remain lower for longer to keep capital sidelined and allow the rebalancing process to occur uninterrupted. This spring's rally in prices did prove to be self-defeating. Not only did all the capital markets reopen as oil prices rose, but producers began to redeploy rigs and remained under hedged, which is a reflection that the industry simply had not faced enough pain to create real financial stress that would create change.

    3)This time it is different. Financial metrics for the oil industry are far worse. Forward oil prices are c.10% lower (at $58/bbl the 3-year forward oil price is at its lowest in a decade). At the same time leverage for the industry is rising as hedge books are much lighter, with 2016 hedge ratios at 9% versus a five-year average of 25%. Energy equity markets relative to the equity indices are at the lowest level since 2005 and at 3-year lows on an absolute basis. Energy high yield as an OAS spread ratio has also pushed above December 2014 highs. Although financial stress is higher, it alone is still unlikely to create the rebalancing needed due to the unique market structure of the New Oil Order, sidelined capital and declining costs.

    4) The market structure of the New Oil Order is unprecedented. In January we showed that high-quality producing assets were on average owned by weak balance sheets while strong balance sheets on average owned the lower-quality producing assets. In other words, the IOCs and some NOCs own most of the higher-cost production while E&Ps, particularly US E&Ps, own much of the lower-cost production. Historically, weak balance sheets typically owned high-cost assets and vice versa, creating a linear relationship between lower prices and financial stress, which historically led to more financially motivated supply cuts as prices dropped. Yes, we have seen some of the few companies with weak balance sheets and high-cost assets run into trouble and go into maintenance mode, but they are not sufficient to shift the market balance. In contrast, the weaker balance sheets with high-quality assets issued equity during the spring, when capital markets were open, to buy more longevity by reducing leverage by half a turn. On net, from a financial perspective, the adjustment process is now likely to take longer.

    5) Logistical and storage constraints are also tighter this time. We have argued for decades now that modern energy markets mostly rebalance through operational stress. Operational stress is created when a surplus breaches logistical or storage capacity such that supply can no longer remain above demand. Although perceptions this past April were that the market was near operational stress, it is now far closer. We estimate that the industry has added c.170 million barrels of petroleum to crude and product storage tanks since January and c.50 million barrels to clean and dirty floating storage. With increased operational stress in the system versus six months ago, we now attach a substantially higher probability to this being the margin of adjustment than we did in January. While the probability of blowing out storage this autumn is higher, the market will need to balance or adjust before next spring's turnarounds.

    6) Should the market breach logistical and storage capacity constraints, this would kill the storage arbitrage between spot and forward prices and create a significant flattening of the entire forward curve (though front timespreads would likely blowout initially). Historically, once storage capacity is breached across all crude and products, supply must be brought back below demand immediately. To create the rebalancing physical constraints create a collapse in spot prices below cash costs as supply is forced in line with demand (late 1998 is a good example), creating the birth of a new bull market. Breaching crude storage capacity alone is not sufficient, as it simply leads to an increase in refinery runs creating product where storage capacity is available, so both crude and product storage needs to be breached. Further, this only requires breaching capacity in one or two of the key product markets given constraints on refinery product yields. In the current market, the likely candidate is distillate as inventories, particularly outside of the US, are extremely high and margins are weak. As the curve flattens, long-dated oil prices historically have drifted down toward cash prices. As producers face increasing financial stress, covering operating costs and surviving becomes more important than future growth.

    7) It is important to separate cash costs from total costs. As oil markets are substantially oversupplied by nearly every measure (see below), the need for new incremental capacity is limited at the margin. New incremental capacity requires prices above 'total' costs, defined as fixed (capex) plus variable/cash costs (opex). However, in an environment where the market only needs to produce from existing capacity, prices only need to cover variable/cash costs to keep existing capacity operating. And herein lies the paradox, for the high-cost, strong balance sheet producer, cash costs are $40-$45/bbl versus total costs closer to $75/bbl. In contrast, the low-cost, weak balance sheet producer faces cash costs near $20/bbl with total costs near $55/bbl. As the high-cost production is mostly oil sands and other costly to shut in conventional oil, the stronger balance sheet producers with this production will resist the costs of shutting in, leaving the easier-to-shut, lower-cost production held by the weaker balance sheets as the more likely candidate. This suggests the volatility and risks to the downside are significant. Furthermore, a stronger US dollar, productivity gains and other commodity price declines only creates more cost deflation, via the negative feedback loop, making cash costs a moving target to the downside.

    8) Commodity and emerging market currencies have also erased a decade of gains, reflecting the significant macroeconomic imbalances many of these countries are facing, created in part by the sharp decline in all commodity prices. This not only impacts emerging market demand for oil, Latin American demand in particular, but also lowers the costs to produce oil and commodities in these countries. To illustrate the sensitivity of oil cash costs to the Brazilian real (BRL) and Canadian dollar (CAD), we find that a 10% move in BRL or CAD shifts cash costs by 3% and 5% respectively. The BRL and CAD have weakened year-to-date by 31% and 14% respectively. Further, as we argued late last year, 2015 supply growth in regions facing sharp currency depreciation have been revised up since March by the IEA: Brazil (+24 kb/d), North Sea (+65 kb/d) and Russia (+145 kb/d). It is important to emphasize that markets have never seen such a large appreciation in the US dollar at the same time they have seen such a large surplus in the oil market. While it is unprecedented in the current direction, the weakest US dollar ever recorded on a trade-weighted basis was when oil prices peaked above $147/bbl in July 2008. As we have emphasized in all of our research since 2013, it is the same macro forces working in reverse today that pushed markets to the highs during the previous decade. The crude market didn't go to $147/bbl on oil fundamentals alone, nor would it be collapsing like this on oil fundamentals alone.

    9) Nonetheless, fundamentals are weaker today than in 1Q. Global supply is currently up 3.0 million b/d (and averaged up 3.2 million b/d over the past 12 months), driven in large part by a surge in low-cost production from Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Russia. The largest demand growth ever observed was in 2004 when China and the emerging markets kicked off the previous decade's commodity boom and drove a 3.15 million b/d demand growth number. In 2004 the emerging markets had clean balance sheets in strengthening currencies which reflected their good health. Today, that boom decade has been brought to a halt. These countries are facing large macro imbalances and debt. Not only has emerging market growth slowed, but any benefits from lower prices are mostly behind us now, as the benefits only last 6 to 9 months. We estimate that current oversupply is c.2.0 million b/d versus c.1.8 million b/d in 1H15.

    10) The oil industry on average is not earning its cost of capital. The distinction between cash costs and total costs, also applies to 'well' versus 'company' returns. While the returns at the well can be economical at prices near $50/bbl, the returns for the company can be deeply underwater due to large-scale investments when prices were at $100/bbl. Even assuming an aggressive company decline rate of 25% over the past year, that would make 75% of the assets legacy production. While commodity markets don't care about legacy fixed costs, and only about today's cost to bring on a marginal barrel, potential equity and credit investors do care about those legacy costs and what they do to company long-run returns. In general, energy companies at present cannot earn their cost of capital over the long-term (defined as the past 50 years). Long-run returns are 10% versus a cost of capital of 12.5%. In other words, they are wealth-destroying propositions from the get go. The reason for this is the industry constantly invests in new capacity during the investment phase of the super cycle, i.e. high and rising prices, and brings on line this new capacity during the exploitation phase of the super cycle, i.e. low and declining prices.

    11) While the supply and demand for the barrels of oil will likely find a balance between now and sometime in 2016 with an increasing likelihood of this being driven by operational stress, this doesn't mean a sharp rebound in prices will occur quickly as so many other factors will likely weigh on prices. Not only will the macro forces keep prices under pressure, but historically markets trade near cash costs until new incremental higher-cost capacity is needed (even the IEA has revised 2015 non-OPEC output growth from existing capacity up by 265 kb/d since March).

    In addition, low-cost OPEC producers are likely to expand capacity now that they have pushed output to near max utilization. At the same time Iran has the potential to add 200 to 400 kb/d of production in 2016 and with significant investment far greater low-cost volumes in 2017 and beyond. Iran, like other OPEC countries, needs the revenues through volume.

    Even Venezuela accepted another $5 billion last week from China to produce oil from older fields. Finally, the capital markets for energy need to be rebalanced through consolidation and capital restructuring. This takes time to achieve. In the previous cycle this took from 1986 to 1998 and ended with the creation of the super majors. Today we expect it to go more quickly, just as we erased a decade in the matter of months, but it will take time.

    JustObserving

    Goldman always talks their book. How many hundreds of billions worth of oil is Goldman short?

    cn13

    Goldman predicted $32/barrel crude oil earlier this year right before the market rallied higher by nearly 50% in just a few weeks.

    Why would anyone listen to these crooks? They are the worst of the worst.

    I Eat Your Dingos

    ZH its not like you haven't reported on this several times! [sarc]

    Wait for Goldman to catch up. I can almost foresee a crude [production] liquidation throughout all non OPEC and OPEC nations . I wonder how long US shale producers can holdout during this continued crude drop in WTI and Brent


    [Aug 05, 2015] Everyday stagnation

    investorschronicle.co.uk

    One of the few drawbacks of working from home is that one is bombarded with annoying phone calls from time-wasters. Not from my editor, but from cold-callers: do I want to install solar panels? Have a new conservatory? Change energy supplier? Claim compensation for PPI mis-selling? Been in a car accident? The answer to all of these is along the lines that Prince Philip might give. Such irritations, however, tell savers a lot.

    The question is: why do so many people take such thankless jobs? It's for the same reason that hundreds of thousands of others have become self-employed handymen and freelancers who spend their hours waiting for work - because they can't find anything better.

    All those cold callers give us a daily - well, hourly - reminder that the economy isn't dynamic enough to create sufficient productive and rewarding jobs. In other words, we are in an era of secular stagnation. This phrase has many meanings; it refers to the combination of slow productivity growth, weak investment and low innovation that have given us negative real interest rates. Even those who don't expect such negative rates to persist believe they will stay low. Bank of England governor Mark Carney said last week that the "equilibrium" real interest rate - the rate consistent with the economy operating at potential and inflation on target - "will continue to be lower than on average in the past".

    Stagnation, though, hasn't only given us poor returns on cash. It has also depressed equity returns. One reason why the All-Share index has fallen in real terms since the start of the century is that the fear of stagnation has depressed profit expectations.

    'Secular stagnation' might sound like high-falutin' pointy-headed economic jargon. But it is, in fact, the thing that gives us the twin irritations of cold-callers and miserable returns on our savings.

    Which poses the question: why are we in it, and could we get out of it?

    A recent paper by Gianluca Benigno at the LSE and Luca Fornaro at Barcelona's University of Pompeu Fabra points out that economies can fall in a stagnation trap. If people expect low growth they won't invest or innovate and this will cause low profits for other companies, thus exacerbating disincentives to invest. In this way, pessimism can be self-fulfilling.

    The problem is that such pessimism might be justified.

    One reason for this is that profit rates have fallen. The economics blogger Michael Roberts estimates that returns on capital in G20 countries have steadily fallen since the early 1970s. This has reduced incentives to invest or innovate.

    If stagnation takes greater hold, we could face decades of negative returns of the sort Japan has suffered"

    In this sense, secular stagnation might be the rediscovery of one of the oldest ideas in economics - that of the stationary state. All the classical economists such as Adam Smith, David Ricardo and John Stuart Mill thought that increases in the capital stock would lead to diminishing returns and thus to lower investment and eventually an end to growth.

    Why hasn't this happened earlier? It's because technical progress has offset diminishing returns. Some economists believe it will continue to do so. "There are a number of emerging technologies that provide tremendous scope for improvements in productivity," say Saara Tuuli and Sandra Batten, two Bank of England economists.

    However, it's a long way from the laboratory to the marketplace. Companies will only invest in these new technologies if they expect to make a profit. And history suggests this might not be the case. Yale University's William Nordhaus has shown that only a "minuscule fraction" of the returns to innovative activity flow to companies: it is mostly consumers that benefit. And Charles Lee and Salman Arif, two US economists, have shown that rises in capital spending lead on average to lower profits.

    It could be that investment and innovation are weak precisely because the tech crash and Great Recession have alerted companies to the facts that these often don't pay.

    Indeed, optimism about potential technical progress might itself be a reason not to invest. If you equip a factory with robots costing £10m you'll be unable to compete in a few years with the next, better generation of robots that cost only £5m. In this sense, techno-optimism and secular stagnation, far from being opposing arguments, are in fact compatible.

    So, what could change to lift us out of stagnation? Many believers in the idea - from Maynard Keynes to Paul Krugman - want governments to intervene in the economy more. This is unlikely to happen.

    Another possibility is that any short-term increase in investment caused by increased animal spirits might - as in Benigno and Fornaro's theory - shift us from a low- to a high-investment equilibrium.

    A longer-term hope is that there will eventually emerge a generation of entrepreneurs and business leaders who haven't been scarred by the tech crash and recession, and their greater (over-?) optimism could raise growth.

    For equity investors, the stakes here are massive. If stagnation takes greater hold, we could face decades of negative returns of the sort Japan has suffered. If it doesn't, relief at the fading away of such a horrible risk could cause a big revaluation. In this sense, equities are more uncertain than the historic distribution of returns would suggest.

    MORE FROM CHRIS DILLOW...

    Read more of Chris's comment pieces.

    Chris blogs at http://stumblingandmumbling.typepad.com

    View Chris Dillow's benchmark portfolio

    [Aug 02, 2015]Shale Gas Reality Check

    Key Conclusions

    [Aug 02, 2015]Peak Oil Notes - July 30

    The Turks have taken out after the Kurds again by intensive bombing of Kurdish military units in Turkey and Iraq. The Kurds have retaliated by blowing up the gas pipeline into Turkey from Iran and the line that was exporting oil from northern Iraq to the export terminal at Ceyhan, Turkey. The revival of open hostilities between Ankara and the Kurds almost certainly has many important ramifications for the future of the region.

    Russia's economy has taken another a big hit from falling oil prices. The ruble was back above 60 to the dollar for a while on Tuesday before the government stepped in to stop the slide. If oil prices continue to fall, Moscow will be in a lot of economic trouble before the year is out.

    [Jul 31, 2015] Paul Krugman China's Naked Emperors

    Jul 31, 2015 | Economist's View

    What can we learn from the response of the Chinese government to the problems in China's stock market?:

    China's Naked Emperors, by Paul Krugman, Commentary, NY Times: ... We've seen ... strange goings-on in China's stock market. In and of itself, the price of Chinese equities shouldn't matter all that much. But the authorities have chosen to put their credibility on the line by trying to control that market - and are in the process of demonstrating that, China's remarkable success over the past 25 years notwithstanding, the nation's rulers have no idea what they're doing. ...

    China is at the end of an era - the era of superfast growth... Meanwhile, China's leaders appear to be terrified - probably for political reasons - by the prospect of even a brief recession. ... China's response has been an all-out effort to prop up stock prices. Large shareholders have been blocked from selling; state-run institutions have been told to buy shares; many companies with falling prices have been allowed to suspend trading. ...

    What do Chinese authorities think they're doing?

    In part, they may be worried about financial fallout. It seems that a number of players in China borrowed large sums with stocks as security, so that the market's plunge could lead to defaults. This is especially troubling because China has a huge "shadow banking" sector that is essentially unregulated and could easily experience a wave of bank runs.

    But it also looks as if the Chinese government, having encouraged citizens to buy stocks, now feels that it must defend stock prices to preserve its reputation. And what it's ending up doing, of course, is shredding that reputation at record speed.

    Indeed, every time you think the authorities have done everything possible to destroy their credibility, they top themselves. Lately state-run media have been assigning blame for the stock plunge to, you guessed it, a foreign conspiracy against China, which is even less plausible than you may think: China has long maintained controls that effectively shut foreigners out of its stock market, and it's hard to sell off assets you were never allowed to own in the first place.

    So what have we just learned? China's incredible growth wasn't a mirage, and its economy remains a productive powerhouse. The problems of transition to lower growth are obviously major, but we've known that for a while. The big news here isn't about the Chinese economy; it's about China's leaders. Forget everything you've heard about their brilliance and foresightedness. Judging by their current flailing, they have no clue what they're doing.

    [Jul 31, 2015] Greed Is King - What We Learned Talking To Chinese Stock Investors

    "...Or was it just the foreign investors (Goldman Sachs) who rode that roller coaster bought into the Shanghai market on 50% margin?"
    "...Same for the short selling: peasant rice farmers or JPMorgan? Inquiring minds want to know."
    Jul 31, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Early birds get the worms

    This goes completely against most prudent and established norms. While the standard advice is to avoid "hot" bubbly assets, in China the experience has actually been to jump in early and fully instead. Many of the bubbles or "hot" investments mentioned earlier have in truth made many of the people I've talked to a lot of money. China real estate today is a poor investment but those who got in early doubled or tripled their investments. Similarly with wealth-management products, more people have benefited from their high-interest-rate payouts than have suffered. While the Shanghai market has dropped 20%-30% from its peak a few weeks ago, it still represents a 100% gain from a year ago and a 30% gain over the last 6 months. Those participants who jumped in early are still more than happy.

    Greed is king

    Despite recognizing it's a bubble, almost everyone was still all-in on stocks. Why? Quite simply - greed with a dash of jealously. Seeing constant market gains in the news along with daily sharing and boasting from friends and family getting rich is simply too tempting and thus caution was thrown to the winds. Subsequently, this fueled a massive amount of equity exposure followed by leveraging and margin borrowing to go even more all-in.

    But fear is the emperor

    The only emotion more powerful than greed is fear. Almost everyone I talked to was still all-in on stocks but everyone had a foot halfway out the door, ready to bolt at the first sign of trouble. While not uniquely a China problem - market drops are almost always more violent than the initial rise - in China, it's several times more volatile. Look no further than solar-panel firm Hanergy's Hong Kong listed stock, which lost 47% in one hour, or the numerous days the Shanghai market rose or dropped by 5% or more.

    bid the soldier...

    Confucius say "With Chinese greed you get greedy one hour later. With American greed you greedy your whole life."

    Greed and fear - two intrinsic emotional states relating to the topic of unpredictability of stock market. Vulnerability to those two emotional states might be a result of investors' low comfort level due to the market instability.

    Greed and fear relate to an old Wall Street saying: " financial markets are driven by two powerful emotions – greed and fear".

    While sticking to this statement would be an oversimplification, it can also prove to be very truthful. Resisting these emotions can have an utter and deleterious effect on investors portfolios and stock market.

    This old Wall Street saying predates Kublai Kahn's duplex pleasure dome at the Xanau at 66th and Fifth.

    bid the soldier...

    The author hangs his hat on this stat:

    Chinese retail investors make up 85% of the market, a far cry from the U.S. where retail investors own less than 30% of equities and make up less than 2% of NYSE trading volume for listed firms in 2009.

    Of the 85% of the small retail investor, how many of them were in the market before China allowed foreign investors to trade their market in March 2014? How many rice farmers doubled down and margined further stock purchases when the foreign investors tried to take Shanghai to the moon? Or was it just the foreign investors (Goldman Sachs) who rode that roller coaster bought into the Shanghai market on 50% margin?

    Were stocks whose trading was halted, halted to prevent further selling or halted to prevent the "malicious sellers" from covering at lower prices as the authorities slowly forced the stock prices higher?

    Of the huge spike in margin loans, how much of it was caused by the rice farmers in the provinces and how much was taken on by the giant investment houses in New York and London?

    Same for the short selling: peasant rice farmers or JPMorgan?

    Inquiring minds want to know.

    Just as we snicker when we see statistics from the Bureau of Economic Analysis (BEA) and National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER) shoundn't we all have a giggle at the numbers from The Peoples Statistics of China?

    ******************************************************

    Their government told them it was the right thing to do. "Trust us," their government said.

    Do you really think the Chinese Authorities were completely unaware of what happened in the Tokyo Stock Exchange in 1989, 3 years after the Nikkei allowed Wall Street in?

    Either the Chinese are the major dumfuks on the planet or Goldman, Morgan Stanley will soon be singing the Song of Roland to deaf ears.

    GRDguy

    70 trips for Goldman-Sach's Hank "The Hammer" Paulson to teach certain Chinese leaders (sociopaths) on how to take candy from a baby. Big payoffs for some of them.

    Crush the Infame

    Stock markets need to change from being stock price based to dividend based. Investing should be about putting cash up today with the hope of getting more back tomorrow, not about making a quick casino win on market timing.

    Imagine if Vegas changed the odds on all the slots so that people starting winning a lot more than they were losing. The mania would be surreal, but then they pulled back and all of these people who now depend on that money begin to panic. Of course let's add in that a large chunk of the nation's pension funds and insurance companies were sending people to Vegas to play these rigged slots as an "investment."

    So what's next? Now the government steps in and tells the Vegas casinos that they will provide the cash to keep the party going. If this happened with slot machines people would be up in arms, but swap out slots for stocks and it's about keeping the "system" going.

    Capitalism doesn't require a stock market. Corporate bonds and private equity could replace the selling of stock in a rigged market. There would less boom but also less bust and no need for governments to intervene when the whole thing teetered on the verge of collapse.

    Moonrajah

    "Greed, for lack of a better word, is good. Greed is right. Greed works. Greed clarifies, cuts through, and captures, the essence of the evolutionary spirit. Greed, in all of its forms; greed for life, for money, for love, knowledge, has marked the upward surge of mankind and greed, you mark my words, will not only save Teldar Paper, but that other malfunctioning corporation called the U.S.A." (c) Gordon Gekko

    Uhh... about that...

    Batman11

    Did you find any shoe shine boys giving stock tips?

    [Jul 31, 2015] Say A Little Prayer Bill Gross Warns, Zombie Corporations Now Roam The Real Economy

    "...The BIS emphatically avers that there are substantial medium term costs of "persistent ultra-low interest rates". Such rates they claim, "sap banks' interest margins…cause pervasive mispricing in financial markets…threaten the solvency of insurance companies and pension funds…and as a result test technical, economic, legal and even political boundaries." "
    "...There is no statistical reason per se for the Fed to raise interest rates, yet absent a major global catastrophe we are likely to get one in September. But the reason will not be the risk of rising inflation, nor the continued downward push of unemployment to 5%. The reason will be that the central bankers that are charged with leading the global financial markets – the Fed and the BOE for now – are wising up; that the Taylor rule and any other standard signal of monetary policy must now be discarded into the trash bin of history"
    "...In other countries, and in other times, low interest rates and monetary easing have resulted in speculation and stock market inflation rather than job-creating investment. Someone is not doing his homework. The massive use of stock buy backs is a relatively new phenomenon."
    Jul 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    Corporate investment has been anemic. Structural reasons abound and I have tried to convey that ever since my well-advertised New Normal, in 2009, which introduced the probability of a future generation of low real growth due to aging demographics, tighter regulations, and advancing technology permanently displacing workers. But there are other negatives which seem to be directly the result of zero bound interest rates.

    3 month Libor rates have rested near 30 basis points for 6 years now and high yield spreads have narrowed and narrowed again in the quest for higher investment returns. Because BB, B, and in some cases CCC rated companies have been able to borrow at less than 5%, a host of zombie and future zombie corporations now roam the real economy. Schumpeter's "creative destruction" – the supposed heart of capitalistic progress – has been neutered.

    The old remains in place, and new investment is stifled. And too, because of low interest rates, high quality investment grade corporations have borrowed hundreds of billions of dollars, but instead of deploying the funds into the real economy, they have used the proceeds for stock buybacks. Corporate authorizations to buy back their own stock are running at an annual rate of $1.02 trillion so far in 2015, 18% above 2007's record total of $863 billion.

    But perhaps the recent annual report from the BIS – the Bureau for International Settlements – says it best. The BIS is after all the central banks' central banker, and if there be a shift in the "feed a fever" zero interest rate policy of the Fed and other central banks, perhaps it would be logically introduced here first. The BIS emphatically avers that there are substantial medium term costs of "persistent ultra-low interest rates". Such rates they claim, "sap banks' interest margins…cause pervasive mispricing in financial markets…threaten the solvency of insurance companies and pension funds…and as a result test technical, economic, legal and even political boundaries."

    Greece is not specifically mentioned, nor the roller coaster ride of Chinese equity markets, nor the rising illiquidity of global high yield bond markets, nor the…well a reader should get the point. Low interest rates may not cure a fever – they may in fact raise a patient's temperature to life threatening status. Yellen, Fisher, Dudley and company may not be in total agreement, but they assuredly are listening as this week's Fed meeting will likely attest.

    There is no statistical reason per se for the Fed to raise interest rates, yet absent a major global catastrophe we are likely to get one in September. But the reason will not be the risk of rising inflation, nor the continued downward push of unemployment to 5%. The reason will be that the central bankers that are charged with leading the global financial markets – the Fed and the BOE for now – are wising up; that the Taylor rule and any other standard signal of monetary policy must now be discarded into the trash bin of history. Low interest rates are not the cure – they are part of the problem. Say a little prayer that the BIS, yours truly, and a growing cast of contrarians, such as Jim Bianco and CNBC's Rick Santelli, can convince the establishment that their world has change

    nobodysfool

    "... a growing cast of contrarians, such as Jim Bianco and CNBC's Rick Santelli, can convince the establishment that their world has change."

    Rick Santelli Gets it....it's the other MSM sled dogs on Obama's leash that are too stupid too think for themselves or too realize there is no improving economy....guess it'll have to hit them in the face when they're fired for bad ratings.

    RMolineaux

    Two slips: BIS stands for Bank for International Settlements, and if Gross is refering to the Vice Chairman of the Fed, it is Stanley Fischer (with a "c"), former Chairman of the Central Bank of Israel. Otherwise an excellent piece of work, IMHO.

    In other countries, and in other times, low interest rates and monetary easing have resulted in speculation and stock market inflation rather than job-creating investment. Someone is not doing his homework. The massive use of stock buy backs is a relatively new phenomenon. In more serious times, the use of treasury stock by corporations to influence the market price was frowned upon, and attempts were made to make it illegal. Corporations over a certain size need to be required to have Federal charters (under the interstate commerce clause of the Constitution), and this kind of behavior prohibited.


    [Jul 29, 2015] Chevron cutting 1,500 jobs to help cut costs by $1B

    "...The cuts, which will take place across 24 business groups ... about 270 are existing vacant positions that will not be filled; the company also plans to eliminate an additional 600 contracting positions as well. "
    Jul 28, 2015 | cnbc.com

    Energy giant Chevron will eliminate about 1,500 job positions in an effort to cut costs, the company said in a statement Tuesday.

    The cuts, which will take place across 24 business groups in its corporate center, will result in cost reductions of about $1 billion.

    "In light of the current market environment, Chevron is taking action to reduce internal costs in multiple operating units and the corporate center," Chevron said, in the statement. "These initiatives, which are currently underway, are focused on increasing efficiency, reducing costs and focusing on work that directly supports business priorities."

    Of the announced cuts, about 270 are existing vacant positions that will not be filled; the company also plans to eliminate an additional 600 contracting positions as well.

    Chevron shares were little-changed in after-hours trading. It and Exxon Mobil are both slated to report quarterly earnings Friday morning.

    [Jul 29, 2015] Fed staff error reveals "potential" output is mostly nonsense by Matthew C Klein

    Jul 27. 2015 | ftalphaville.ft.com | 12 comments

    On June 29, someone at the Fed inadvertently included the staff's June economic projections, which are supposed to be secret, into publicly available computer files. On July 24, the Fed decided to let the world know that it goofed, while also letting you download the charts and tables for yourself. Then it turns out that some of the information released was incorrect and had to be updated yet again.

    For convenience, here's a link to the table, which is somewhat useful to compare to the published projections of FOMC members. You'll notice that the staff is much more pessimistic about real growth for 2015 than the entire range policymakers, and more pessimistic for 2016 growth than most policymakers polled for their projections. Otherwise there isn't much new there.

    Read

    [Jul 29, 2015]World Natural Gas Shock Model

    "...I mean, I know WTI is around $47.00 due to the temporary lull in world oil consumption (leading to a temporally local oversupply of 2 million or so barrels a day), but that won't last (after all, what's the solution for low prices? Low prices, which spurs consumption. Duh! Econ 101 right?). Still though, it does seem like some optimism is perhaps not out of place."
    .
    "...A sustainable industrial civilization IS at least technically possible."
    .
    "..."Looks like any oversupply won't be around much longer" depends on the time span, and the human factor: how many investors are willing to bet oil prices will recover to $80-90 per barrel by 2017? The key is to understand there's a large dose of unquantifiable human behavior in this game."
    .
    "...BREAKING: US #oil production fell 145 kb/d according to latest #EIA weekly data to 9413 kb/d http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/overview.pdf #crude"
    Jul 29, 2015 | Peak Oil Barrel
    The Wet One: 07/28/2015 at 3:30 pm
    I've been on holidays, taking a break from it all and flying all over the western hemisphere burning up precious fuel.

    Now that I'm back to reality, is there any reason to believe that the world will not go to hell in handbasket before I die in about 40 or so years?

    I mean, I know WTI is around $47.00 due to the temporary lull in world oil consumption (leading to a temporally local oversupply of 2 million or so barrels a day), but that won't last (after all, what's the solution for low prices? Low prices, which spurs consumption. Duh! Econ 101 right?). Still though, it does seem like some optimism is perhaps not out of place.

    But then I read Albert Bartlett's comments about the exponential function and, yeah, I'm hoping against hope aren't I? World population growth, carbon continues to be added to the atmosphere, and bad things will still probably arrive before I die in about 40 years.

    And my planned for, but presently non-existent children, will be going into that maelstrom along with my grandchildren.

    Ok, I'm properly depressed again now.

    I need to go back on holidays. Perhaps somewhere a little closer this time (seriously, no need for another 15,000 km round trip. That was a lot of travel).

    Dennis Coyne: 07/28/2015 at 3:55 pm
    Hi Wet one,

    There is a good possibility (better than 50% chance) that within 5 to 10 years of the beginning of oil decline (more than 0.5% per year for 3 years or more so people recognize it) that there will be an economic depression. My guess is between 2028 and 2033 for the start of Great Depression 2.

    How the world responds is key, will we also repeat WW2 or worse or will there be a focus on solving the energy problem and associated environmental problems with wise social investments? A build out of rail, light rail and High Voltage DC transmission would be a start. Tax credits for non fossil fuel energy production and development might also help along with a stiff tax on carbon emissions.

    Much is possible, higher fossil fuel prices as they deplete will help move society towards alternative energy, but it probably won't be fast enough to avoid a crisis. The response to crisis will determine the ride.

    old farmer mac: 07/28/2015 at 9:41 pm
    Don't let people like Bartlett get you too far down.

    Back when I was an agriculture undergrad in the fabled sixties I heard all the doom and gloom predictions made up until that time in the biology classes that made up well over a third of my studies. Those classes sometimes carried ag id such as Ag BioChem 201 as opposed to Intro BioChem 201 etc but they were taught in the same classrooms at the same hour by the same professors to the biology majors.I had a long conversation with Erlich himself, the guy who wrote The Population Bomb, when he came to Va Tech as a visiting scholar.

    Back in those days I had a "hot young blossom" ( Twain) of my very own, who although she was a hot blooded Baptist farm girl with four sisters and a brother make it perfectly clear that SHE would never have more than two kids. Of course being young and intellectually arrogant and extremely well read (for a youngster) and all that sort of thing it never even occurred to me in my ignorance that women all over the world might be thinking the same way in a couple of generations.When I look back the width and depth of my ignorance in those amazes the hell out of me. Nowadays I am so far behind when it comes to really understanding the new technological realities the youngsters look at me with pity if not outright contempt. But I know ONE thing they have not yet learned – that thing being that they just might be WRONG about the future.

    I looked at people like Erlich as demigods back in my youth and promptly forgot about them -believing that the shit would hit the fan SOMEDAY just as they predicted but also believing that someday was too far down the road to concern myself with it.

    There is NOTHING wrong with Bartlett's actual science but as Yogi sez, predicting is HARD, especially the future. Bartlett and Erlich know (knew) their stuff but they failed to anticipate falling birth rates and they grossly underestimated or ignored the rate at which progress was being and is still being made in energy efficiency and conservation measures.

    They did not foresee the computer and electronic communication revolution that is making it possible for poor people's kids in backward countries to get a basic education formerly totally out o their reach.

    They did not foresee the coming of cheap photovoltaics or the sort of genetic engineering that allows modern farmers to grow more food on less land without the topsoil washing away due to plowing over and over.

    There is as much critical knowledge to be gained from the study of history and literature as there is from the hard sciences themselves.

    A sustainable industrial civilization IS at least technically possible. Anybody who tells you otherwise is basing his arguments on outdated assumptions such as the EROEI of renewables being too low to get the job done. Plenty of capable physicists will tell you the same. I have asked four personally. None of the four is willing to predict such a civilization WILL come to pass but all four believe it is within the realm of the possible.

    Falling birth rates and changing life styles in combination with new technology mean we DO have a chance – some of us at least.

    There is no reason to assume that the entire world is going to suffer a silmantaneous hard crash, although the cards might fall that way-especially if we fight a flat out WWIII which is a real possibility.There ARE plenty of good reason to believe large parts of the world WILL suffer such a crash at somewhat different times. This is what overshoot is all about.

    Western European countries will sooner or later do whatever they must do to stop the flow of immigrants from Africa and other nearby places. If it takes machine guns at the borders, machine guns will eventually be deployed.

    I anticipate our southern American border being closed up tight within ten years or so regardless of which party controls the country. As times get tougher the voters are not likely going to tolerate much immigration legal or otherwise.

    Life IS a Darwinian affair and while we have a great capacity to show empathy and assist each other in times of trouble, we look after our nested "in" groups starting with the immediate family, the extended family, the local community… right on up to the nation state we call home.

    With a little luck – more than a little – the USA, Canada, and a few other nations possessed of plenty of resources, defensible borders, large educated populations, very powerful armed forces or very powerful allies etc etc have a decent shot at pulling thru the coming crisis, although I expect some very hard times even here in the USA.

    There really isn't ANYTHING at all that we MUST have to survive and live decent lives that we do not possess already within our borders.

    Stay well away from places such as Egypt and Detroit and go ahead and have a couple of kids.

    It times past they would have been at high risk of dieing from starvation, a dozen different contagious diseases, war, snake bite, exposure, food poisoning, a broken bone or an abscessed tooth or old age at thirty five due to working themselves to death.

    Pick a good spot to raise them and teach them how to think for themselves and to work hard and smart and they will probably have about as good a shot at living to be old and providing you with grandchildren as any generation that has ever lived.

    There is a LOT to be said for the Bible Belt mountains of the southeastern USA. In the event the shit hits the fan really hard, there is no better place to be. In the lottery of life I am a damned lucky individual, having been born to a family with the right color skin and a suitable name etc in the strongest and best situated nation on earth. I got lucky again coming from one of the best spots in the USA. Call my hand four of a kind. If my parents had been rich and connected, I would have drawn a royal flush. I am guessing that you are holding not less than a full house yourself but I don't know where you are from.

    Safety is an illusion. The grave worms WILL have their way with us unless our carcasses are pumped full of nasty chemicals and in that case the anaerobic bacteria will get the carcass anyway. When we quit believing in God we did not just immediately start believing in NOTHING. Without something bigger and grander to look up to we have gotten to looking at our navels too often and want to live forever since death is so scary.

    I don't have any qualms about life being dangerous. Life has always been dangerous until very recently indeed. Quite a few of the people buried in the church cemetery where I will rot away next to my parents met violent ends. Men who wear panties feel compelled to call the police when troubles come to them but men around here just make it clear that trouble is met with more and BIGGER trouble. Consequently we have very little trouble excepting domestic troubles and occasional burglaries etc. Home invasions and armed robbery are just about unheard of.

    Something will get us all sooner or later but later might very well be a century or ten centuries down the road for YOUR bloodline. That something might be ten thousand years down the road.

    Your kids and grandkids will not miss what they did not experience themselves. They might have to fight and they might have to work themselves to death but there is nothing new about such fates.

    Fernando Leanme: 07/29/2015 at 4:55 am
    "Looks like any oversupply won't be around much longer" depends on the time span, and the human factor: how many investors are willing to bet oil prices will recover to $80-90 per barrel by 2017? The key is to understand there's a large dose of unquantifiable human behavior in this game.
    islandboy: 07/28/2015 at 10:31 pm
    This presents a nice opportunity for me to present the results of this months EIA Electricity Supply Monthly or more accurately Tables 1.1 and 1.1A. The graph shows production as a percentage of total by source and it is worthy of note that while coal regained it's prominence over all other sources particularly Natural Gas, between April and May, all sources except renewables (both hydro and non hydro) are up in absolute terms. April seems to have been the low point so far for this year, as it has been for the two previous years.

    old farmer mac: 07/28/2015 at 11:37 pm
    From the same report:

    lectric Utilities
    Year-to-Date
    Receipts Cost Receipts Cost
    (Physical Units) (Dollars / Physical Unit) Number of Plants (Physical Units) (Dollars / Physical Unit)
    Fuel May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014 May 2015 May 2014
    Coal (1000 tons) 47,094 50,122 45.07 48.21 222 237 239,155 239,638 44.57 46.85
    Petroleum Liquids (1000 barrels) 1,192 895 75.86 131.40 109 119 6,842 7,534 74.47 131.26

    Petroleum Coke (1000 tons) 357 383 56.26 60.11 9 8 1,657 1,794 54.27 56.52
    Natural Gas (1000 Mcf)

    Unless my mental arithmetic is off this chart indicates that utilities spent about two billion bucks buying coal in May. Say for conversational purposes twenty four billion for the 2015 calendar year.

    I have found that hard numbers are hard to come by but my best guess is that wind and solar power are saving us very close to what it would have cost to buy another four percent of either coal or gas.

    And when you do things to reduce the sale of a commodity, you are doing things that reduces the price of that commodity. EVERYBODY all across the economy, excepting coal and gas producers and their employees gets just about everything a little cheaper.

    The avoided expense of purchasing that much MORE coal and gas will be repeated month after month year after year for the entire life of EXISTING wind and solar farms. The price reduction resulting from utilities buying less coal and gas will spread out all thru the entire economy benefitting ALL of us for that same lifetime.

    Excepting a mere handful of railroad employees the coal industry produces damned few jobs except in the coal fields and not very many even there.

    Renewables on the other hand create a lot of jobs spread out over the entire country. A wind or solar farm built in Podunk pays taxes locally and provides employment locally.

    Fernando Leanme: 07/29/2015 at 5:02 am
    U.S. Gas producers pay taxes. Almost everything used to build wells and facilities is USA sourced. The labor is mostly natives, and a lot of that work is well paid.

    The cheap gas price is caused by over drilling, not by renewables. On the other hand wind turbines and solar require subsidies and increase electricity bills. This reduces disposable income, which in turn cuts business for barbers, hairdressers, plastic surgeons, and dentists. This in turn increases the crime rate, which leads to higher prison costs on society.

    old farmer mac: 07/29/2015 at 6:42 am
    The very cheap price of gas is caused MOSTLY by excess supply at this time-you are right about this.Your entire comment is on the money- so far as it goes if you consider only the SHORT term.

    But in your usual mule stubborn way you refuse to recognize any fact that does not reflect well on your own positions. Gas is not always going to be cheap and not everybody believes the good jobs should always go to people who live far away and that property taxes should always be paid to people in far away places.

    You just flat out refuse to put any weight at all on the perfectly well understood and universally accepted (except by Watcher) relationship known as supply and demand-except when it suits YOUR argument.

    CHEAP gas is the result of OVERSUPPLY. Oversupply is as a matter of fact mostly brought on by over drilling FOR NOW but part of the oversupply is due to renewable power cutting into the demand for gas and coal.

    As time passes renewables will produce a larger and larger share of our energy and thus hold down gas prices to a substantial extent.

    Overshoot is a VERY real problem and we are deep into overshoot already and the end result is going to be that barring miracles most of the seven billion people on this planet are going to continue to live very hard lives and meet untimely hard ends.

    But you may be forgiven the typical engineers fault of near total ignorance of the life sciences since they were not taught in the engineering curriculum back in the dark ages and are seldom taught in that field even today.

    People by the BILLION cannot afford coal and gas TODAY. The capital to extend grid system electricity to them does not exist and they would have nothing to export to pay for oil and gas in any case. There is a limit to the amount of throw away junk the rich countries can consume and the supply already overwhelms demand for it.

    Renewables are the closest thing we have to a pressure relief valve on the boiler of overshoot. The valve is going to prove to be TOO SMALL to get the job done PROPERLY but it will nevertheless DELAY the violence of the eventual baked in explosion.

    Karen Fremerman: 07/28/2015 at 7:07 pm
    Thanks Dennis. I have a question. Won't oil declines really rule over natural gas in the short and long run? If/when oil starts it's real relentless decline, won't that limit how much natural gas (or any other resource/commodity for that matter) can be delivered because extraction and transportation all take oil to get to market? Isn't oil the limiting factor?
    Thanks
    Karen
    old farmer mac: 07/29/2015 at 7:04 am
    Oil is for very good reasons known as the lifeblood of the economy but it is NOT absolutely necessary for the economy to continue to thrive IF the supply declines slowly and the supply of gas increases fast enough to compensate for the decline of oil.

    Gas can be substituted as a motor fuel in the gas and oil fields and most mining is already electrified anyway. Heavy industries such as the manufacture of steel and all the things made out of steel depend on only to the extent that they depend on highway trucks to deliver input materials and output product.Otherwise they run on electricity generated mostly with coal and gas.

    Trains can be electrified and so can mining machinery used for surface mining – machinery such as bulldozers and excavators.Trucks can run on natural gas.

    Shrinking oil supplies are going to hurt us and hurt us a LOT but if gas is as plentiful as some think it is then a lack of plentiful oil is not going to KILL us but the pain may well extend to the economy going into the longest and deepest depression of modern times.This would be the MOTHER of ALL DEPRESSIONS and the worst one EVER.

    Eventually both oil and gas are going to come up very short indeed and then the fall back position will probably be coal to liquids.

    The proof that we can get by with less oil is crystal clear. Take a look at the per capita consumption in places such as France and consider that the French will have a totally electrified rail system within the next few years.

    It sounds very mean and harsh to say it but the billions of poor people in the world who use next to no oil at all are going to CONTINUE to use next to no oil at all and stay poor given that the oil they would like to consume does not exist for the most part.

    The rest of us are going to learn to get by with electrified automobiles, mass transit,bicycles and shoe leather sooner or later.

    UNLESS renewables get to be incredibly cheap. In that case we might MANUFACTURE motor fuels using renewable electricity but the odds of this coming to pass look to be exceedingly slim.

    Dennis Coyne: 07/29/2015 at 8:30 am
    Hi Karen,

    I am glad I read Mac's response before ing. I agree with him that it is possible that oil decline will not affect natural gas output very much. Note that in the past, oil shocks have not affected natural gas output very much, this may or may not continue in the future, but the effect will be limited by substitution as Mac suggests IMO.

    SAWDUST: 07/28/2015 at 9:46 pm
    In a world with less oil. The use of other sources of energy will grow exponentially. Unless you believe people will stop doing things that require energy. Or believe there will soon be far fewer people using energy.

    In all likelihood oil shock will bring the day of gas shock forward in time a good bit. As gas consumption will rise a good bit in the wake of oil shock.

    shallow sand: 07/28/2015 at 9:58 pm
    Off topic.

    To Rune. Also to Doug, who I recall has a connection in the industry in Norway.

    Read over Statoil earnings release. They beat estimates due to better than expected domestic results, but their international operations lost money for the third quarter in a row. The Wall Street Journal article said the company was the most disappointed in its North American operations, which I presume means shale and tar sands.

    Would be interested in your take on this or any additional information you may have.

    shallow sand: 07/28/2015 at 11:39 pm
    Looked at SM Energy Q2 10Q. Production dropped from 186K BOE per to 181K BOE per day from Q1 to Q2. Full year guidance is 168-175K BOE per day. So will drop significantly in second half.

    Majority of production in EFS. Next most in Bakken, Divide County, which is not sweet spot but wells cost much less also.

    They sold $317 million of assets and used 100% of the proceeds to pay down debt.

    They reduced rigs from 17 to 9 and will pull two more from the Bakken in the fall.

    They did lower OPEX significantly from Q1 to Q2. They greatly benefitted from hedges, and have around 40-45% of production hedged through 2015. Caused realized oil price after hedges to be $65 per barrel and $4.30 for gas. 2016 hedged volumes much less than 2015.

    Playing it smart in my opinion. Should be close to cash flow neutral in second half, due to greatly reduced CAPEX and hedges.

    IMO a company that is playing the down turn smarter than others. Still have over $2 billion of debt, but are choosing reduced production over adding even more debt.

    shallow sand: 07/29/2015 at 8:34 am
    Looked at Hess Corporation second quarter 10Q/earnings release.

    Company wide production up to 391,000 boepd from 361,000 boepd in first quarter.

    Bakken production also up to 119,000 boepd from 108,000 boepd in first quarter.

    Company burned over $1.5 billion in cash from 1/1/15 to 6/30/15

    Report that cost to Drill and Complete a well in Bakken decreased to $5.6 million, which to me is a tremendous cost reduction. This to me is very noteworthy.

    Sold interest in their Mid Stream assets for $3 billion dollars, which will (unfortunately) provide them with a lot more cash to keep increasing production.

    For the second quarter of 2015, company posted a loss of ($1.99) per share v. earnings per share in second quarter of 2014 of $2.96 per share. For first six months, posted loss of ($3.37) per share v. earnings of $4.13 per share in first six months of 2014. The ($1.99) includes a large impairment due to much lower commodity prices, operating loss for Hess was ($.52) for the second quarter of 2015.

    Hess did not add debt. That still stands at just about $6 billion. The asset sale gives them a ton of cash to either pay down debt, drill more wells, or both. It closed this month, will be reflected in Q3 numbers.

    Given that they raised production in the Bakken by 11 thousand barrels per day from Q1 to Q2, I think it is doubtful we will see much of a decrease in June Bakken production. Whiting releases after the close, but they have already guided higher production in the Bakken as well, I believe. Will be interesting to see if they disclose similar lower costs per well as Hess. If we are going from $10 million dollar wells, to $5-6 million dollar wells, I assume US production will not decrease and there could be an even more prolonged period of low oil prices. The US companies will not make money, but I really don't think management like Hess cares about that as much as increasing production, given that they sold a major asset in order to fund more drilling at such low commodity prices.

    coffeeguyzz: 07/29/2015 at 9:07 am
    Shallow

    To continue the meme of increasing output despite horrific financials, the July 27 piece on Seeking Alpha by Mike Filloon (Mega fracs increasing production …), discusses the 'halo effect' whereby operators are not only increasing production via new frac'ing designs, they are also boosting offset wells' output, sometimes to a startling degree.

    One CLR well doubled output after a new nearby well was frac'd, and its decline rate practically ceased. Furthermore, the two wells were in different formations, one TF and one Middle Bakken.

    Should these operators continue to successfully implement this, as new wells are frac'd one by one, offset wells will see ongoing elevated production causing all prior predictive decline curves to be inaccurate.

    Could be a lot more hydrocarbons coming to market, shallow.

    Dean: 07/29/2015 at 9:42 am
    BREAKING: US #oil production fell 145 kb/d according to latest #EIA weekly data to 9413 kb/d http://ir.eia.gov/wpsr/overview.pdf #crude

    Lower48 down 151 kb/d to 8953 kb/d.First big fall in US #oil production: is fracklog no more sufficient to compensate the fall in rigs?#crude

    [Jul 29, 2015] As Rosneft turns to Asia, will spot crude oil sales in the East decline further By Daniel Colover

    That means less oil for Europe.
    July 28, 2015 | The Barrel Blog

    Russian giant Rosneft's recent deals in Asia suggest it is potentially shifting the balance of its crude oil sales in the region - one of its most important export markets - from a spot tender basis to long term contracts and significantly reducing the amount of Russian crude that enters the spot market in Asia.

    Last year the company sent 35% of its total crude exports, or around 680,000 b/d, to Asia, with South Korea, Japan and China being the main buyers.

    Russia's crude exports to Asia have been rising steadily, underpinned by term contracts sealed with Chinese buyers, primarily China National Petroleum Corp. By 2018, Rosneft will raise its term sales to CNPC to over 600,000 b/d, doubling from current volumes.

    ... ... ...

    Data from Beijing shows that Russia for the first time overtook Saudi Arabia to be China's top crude oil supplier in May, with volumes exceeding 900,000 b/d. Russian flows again surpassed 900,000 b/d in June, although Saudi Arabia reclaimed the top spot.

    Why are these investors avoiding stocks in 401(k)s

    One of the most important investment maxims consists of just one word: diversification. Almost any investment professional will urge you to hold a mix of stocks, bonds and other assets for protection from sudden market swings and the prospect of steadier returns.

    But a stubborn subset of investors persists in ignoring that advice. Some 10.2 percent of the savers in a study by the Employee Benefit Research Institute, or EBRI, had no exposure to stocks in their 401(k) account as of 2013, and 11.8 percent had 90 percent or more of their money in equity funds.

    A separate analysis for CNBC.com by Federal Reserve analysts, using data from the Survey of Consumer Finances, found that among households of all ages with a 401(k), IRA or both, 18 percent had less than 10 percent of their retirement assets in equities, and 20 percent of households had more than 90 percent in 2013.

    ... ... ...

    Between Dec. 31, 1985, and Dec. 31, 2014, T. Rowe Price found that a diversified portfolio invested 60 percent in equities, 30 percent in bonds and 10 percent in cash would have delivered 91 percent of the returns generated by 100 percent stock exposure, with about 83 percent of the volatility.

    ... ... ...

    [Jul 29, 2015]Is oil price set for rebound after losing streak

    "...JP Morgan, for instance, expects Brent prices to hit $65 a barrel in the third quarter, and $67 dollars in the fourth quarter of this year."
    .
    "...Barclays analysts, meanwhile, expect Brent to trade around $61 a barrel in the third quarter and $66 in the last quarter of the year – although it did acknowledge the threats to its forecast."
    Jul 20, 2015 | cnbc.com

    JP Morgan, for instance, expects Brent prices to hit $65 a barrel in the third quarter, and $67 dollars in the fourth quarter of this year.

    "We view July and August as the most likely time within 3Q 2015 when crude markets should be at their tightest, given peak summer demand for gasoline and the fact that refinery crude runs are forecast to peak in August," the bank said in a note on Friday.

    ... ... ...

    Barclays analysts, meanwhile, expect Brent to trade around $61 a barrel in the third quarter and $66 in the last quarter of the year – although it did acknowledge the threats to its forecast.

    ... ... ...

    Barclays analysts added that, from a fundamental perspective, 2016 looked undervalued.

    [Jul 29, 2015] Oil groups have shelved $200B in new projects as low prices bite

    "...The plunge in crude prices since last summer has resulted in the deferral of 46 big oil and gas projects with 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves "
    .
    "...Deepwater drilling rigs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to hire and these projects could yet proceed if contractors' costs fall far enough. "
    .
    "...Canada is the biggest single region affected, with the development of some 5.6 billion barrels of reserves, almost all oil sands, having been deferred."
    Jul 26, 2015 | cnbc.com

    The plunge in crude prices since last summer has resulted in the deferral of 46 big oil and gas projects with 20 billion barrels of oil equivalent in reserves - more than Mexico's entire proven holdings - according to consultancy Wood Mackenzie.

    ... ... ...

    More than half the reserves put on hold lie thousands of feet under the sea, including in the Gulf of Mexico and off west Africa, where the technical demands of extracting crude and earlier inflation have pushed up the cost of projects. Deepwater drilling rigs cost hundreds of thousands of dollars a day to hire and these projects could yet proceed if contractors' costs fall far enough.

    Canada is the biggest single region affected, with the development of some 5.6 billion barrels of reserves, almost all oil sands, having been deferred.

    [Jul 29, 2015]Are Chinas Problems Responsible For Recent Market Slides

    "... I have tried to link to a report from just over a week ago by Pete Wargent, an Australian with an accounting background who reports from investing.com, but it did not work. So, I am just going to lay out a bunch of reported data from a bunch of sources that suggests that while Dean is right about the NYTimes story, things are going on in China that are negatively affecting the world economy and are not being reflected in more aggregated statistics. One reason I wanted to link to Wargent was not just his immediate report that capital flight from China has been steadily soaring, probably at least quadrupling from about two years ago, he linked to an older report laying out how the Chinese government messes with its GDP accounts, pointing out foreign trade data as one area where things get misreported. He snarkily noted that China had just reported that the most recent quarterly growth report was at 7%, just what the government had forecast, but...|"
    .
    "...In May, oil imports were down 11% from a year before."
    .
    "...Anyway, declines in oil purchases by them and rumors that the Chinese have guaranteed a gold price floor of $1000, well, I guess we do not know what is really going on with any of this, whether or not declines in these and other markets are really due to a bigger slide in the Chinese economy than is being officially reported at the aggregate level, this cannot be ruled out. But, I think there is reason to be concerned."
    Jul 29, 2015 | EconoSpeak

    So, WTI oil has slid below$49 per barrel; gold has gone below $1100, although it jumped today. The US stock markets have been down in recent days for no obvious reasons, and some others are not looking so hot either. Is there a common thread? The big Greece crisis is over, although that could yet blow up, although I think most markets already know about that.

    There have been lots of rumbling that problems in China might have something to do with all that. There is no way to know this for sure, especially given China's long record of manipulating data. Furthermore, serious observers are dismissing all this as a bunch of bad hype, most notably Dean Baker recently, accurately dumping on an incompetent story out of the NYTimes (who seem to be pretending that they were secretly bought by Rupert Murdoch lately). The Times had a story about the decline of the Chinese stock market, making a big deal about it. Dean accurately noted that it is still above where it was in February, so the NYT looks pretty silly making such a big deal about it, especially since the Chinese stock market seems to have stabilized, as have the housing markets in Shanghai and Beijing, even if it is still falling in a lot of lower tier cities.

    I have tried to link to a report from just over a week ago by Pete Wargent, an Australian with an accounting background who reports from investing.com, but it did not work. So, I am just going to lay out a bunch of reported data from a bunch of sources that suggests that while Dean is right about the NYTimes story, things are going on in China that are negatively affecting the world economy and are not being reflected in more aggregated statistics. One reason I wanted to link to Wargent was not just his immediate report that capital flight from China has been steadily soaring, probably at least quadrupling from about two years ago, he linked to an older report laying out how the Chinese government messes with its GDP accounts, pointing out foreign trade data as one area where things get misreported. He snarkily noted that China had just reported that the most recent quarterly growth report was at 7%, just what the government had forecast, but...

    So, what he noted is that while these aggregate number can say one thing, looking at more micro data can tell very different stories. Here are some numbers, each taken from a different source:

    1. In March, electrical power production (from all sources) was down 2% from a year before.
    2. In May, oil imports were down 11% from a year before.
    3. Truck sales have fallen by nearly a half between last year and now.
    4. Capital flight numbers are accelerating, possibly more dramatically than the quadrupling figure reported by Wargent.

    So, maybe these are consistent with an aggregate 7% growth rate, but does not look like it. Many outside observers are arguing that the Chinese GDP growth rate is more like 4%, with some saying that in the first quarter it hit zero or even lower, although picking up more recently.

    A final point regards the stock market bubble story. While Dean Baker sneered at the story from the NYTimes, an aspect not reported by them or him, but in Wargent reports and some other sources says that the methods used by the Chinese government in its efforts to halt the stock market slide (so far successful) were very extreme, including simply forbidding many stocks from being sold, and also forcibly confining stock dealers in rooms until they engaged in purchasing some stocks, with portions of the market still shut down with no transactions allowed. So, the stock market is not at all really stabilized. We are seeing the ugly side of the old Chinese system, trying to keep a lot of problems under control that they have not had to deal with.

    Anyway, declines in oil purchases by them and rumors that the Chinese have guaranteed a gold price floor of $1000, well, I guess we do not know what is really going on with any of this, whether or not declines in these and other markets are really due to a bigger slide in the Chinese economy than is being officially reported at the aggregate level, this cannot be ruled out. But, I think there is reason to be concerned.

    Barkley Rosser

    [Jul 29, 2015] Saipem Shares Drop After Unexpected Loss, Profit Target Cut

    Bloomberg Business

    Saipem SpA, Italy's biggest oil and gas contractor, plunged in Milan trading after saying it will cut jobs and exit businesses as writedowns led to an unexpected loss and an earnings-target reduction.

    The company, controlled by Italian oil producer Eni SpA, on Tuesday reported a second-quarter net loss of 997 million euros ($1.1 billion), after total writedowns of assets for 929 million euros. Analysts were expecting a 39.1 million-euro profit.

    ... ... ...

    Saipem plans 1.3 billion euros of savings through 2017, including a workforce reduction of 8,800 people. The company will exit businesses, downsize its presence in Brazil and Canada, where lower-margin contracts led to previous target cuts, and scrap five vessels.

    It forecasts a net loss this year of 800 million euros.

    Net debt rose to 5.53 billion euros at the end of June. Chief Financial Officer Alberto Chiarini said the sale of bonds or shares are options to cut debt, during a conference call with analysts.

    Mediobanca reiterated in a research note on Wednesday that the company needs as much as 3.5 billion euros in fresh equity.

    [Jul 27, 2015] 185 Billion Reasons Why The US Agreed To Nuclear Deal With Iran

    "...Iran's energy supplies also devalue the energy exports from Russia. It's all part of Obama's full spectrum war against Putin."
    .
    "...There are so many factions vying for power, many with ulterior motives, who are forming counter intuitive alliances based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategies. The whole shit show has become so convoluted that at this point we (the west) might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks. Better yet, we could mind our own business, and take care of problems here on the home front. It seems like the linked picture is emblematic of world foreign policy."
    .
    "...It was not long ago that media was abuzz with the fracking miracle, energy independence, USA the new Saudi Arabia etc. etc. What everyone failed to realize is all energy is not the same. Some is low cost to produce and transport, others are high cost, out at the margins of profitability. We know where Fracking stood on that scale. Not to mention Canadian Tar Mines, coming in at the top of production costs. Harper bet Canada's future on a total Tar Sands development policy. That investment is looking questionable. And I for one can find few if any new media coverage of North Dakota. Though they still produce in a desperate bid to keep meeting debt repayments. Their hedges are the only thing keeping companies alive at present."
    Jul 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Many have questioned just why President Obama was so keen to get the Iran nuclear deal done - apparently with almost no real concessions - in the face of allies home and abroad deriding the agreement. Well, if one were so inclined, OilPrice.com explains that Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, Hossein Zamaninia, told Reuters that the country has already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids - with the government pegging the value of these properties at $185 billion...

    Submitted by Dave Forest via OilPrice.com,

    Important news last week -- from a place that's quickly becoming the world's focus for high-impact oil and gas projects.

    That's Iran. Where government officials said they are on the verge of revolutionizing the country's petroleum sector. Which could provide big profit opportunities for foreign investors.

    Iran's deputy oil minister for commerce and international affairs, Hossein Zamaninia, told Reuters that the country has already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids. With the government pegging the value of these properties at $185 billion.

    And officials are hoping to get these fields licensed out soon. With Zamaninia saying that the government plans to offer all of the blocks over the next five years.

    Perhaps most importantly, Iranian officials say they have designed a new petroleum contract structure for international investors. Which they are calling the "integrated petroleum contract" or IPC.

    Officials said that the IPCs will last for a term of 20 to 25 years. A substantial improvement over the older, shorter-term contracts -- which have been a major stumbling point for the world's oil and gas companies.

    Few other details on the IPC structure have yet been provided. But the government noted that the new contracts will address "some of the deficiencies of the old buyback contract".

    Deputy Minister Zamaninia said that full details on the new contracts will be announced within the next two to three months. Along with specifics on the fields being offered by the government for bids.

    Of course, all of this is predicated on the lifting of Western sanctions against Iran -- which is still not a certainty. But if and when the country does open for investment, it appears there will be substantial prizes to won. Watch for further announcements on projects and fiscal terms over the next few months.

    * * *

    Billions of dollars for the firms that lobbyists represent can be one hell of a motivation to do a deal with the devil it seems...

    JustObserving

    Iran's energy supplies also devalue the energy exports from Russia. It's all part of Obama's full spectrum war against Putin.

    JustObserving

    Lot more energy becomes available as sanctions against Iran are lifted. So energy prices fall and it hurts Russia.
    Russia and its oil are likely to be losers in Iran deal
    http://www.cnbc.com/2015/07/16/russian-and-its-oil-are-likely-to-be-lose...


    Billy the Poet

    "Peace, commerce, and honest friendship with all nations-entangling alliances with none." -- Jefferson

    Fahque Imuhnutjahb

    There are so many factions vying for power, many with ulterior motives, who are forming counter intuitive alliances based on "the enemy of my enemy is my friend" strategies. The whole shit show has become so convoluted that at this point we (the west) might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks. Better yet, we could mind our own business, and take care of problems here on the home front. It seems like the linked picture is emblematic of world foreign policy.

    http://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/images/backwardgImage1.jpg

    Billy the Poet

    we (the west) might as well air drop weapons to all inhabitants, then step back and watch the fireworks.

    That's called American history, 1945-2015.

    Fahque Imuhnutjahb

    Agreed, but it seems we used to at least make the pretense of choosing sides, hell now it's a damn free for all, literally free arms for all. It's no damn wonder 2.3 trillion of tax dollars fell down the rabbit hole, and we,

    the damn taxpayers didn't even get offered any rabbit stew.

    insanelysane

    It's easier to go to war with someone that you have a treaty with because breaking the treaty is a slam dunk justification. No one cared what was really in the treaty as long as Iran agreed to the treaty because they know Iran will break it.

    roadhazard

    uh, Russia was in on the deal. You mean they fucked themselves.

    CrazyCooter

    Or maybe in three to five years when that huge frack ramp has run its couse and the US mean reverts to its production trend line the additional global supply coming online around that time will be sorely needed.

    Don't forget one of the largest oil fields in the world is in Iran ... and it was discovered in the 80s. Saudis big field was discovered in the 40s.

    If the game is going to continue, it has to have oil - and they can't print that.

    Regards,

    Cooter

    Winston Churchill

    Iran could'nt become a full SCO member with sanctions on.

    None of that money,which is theirs anyway, will be going to US companies.

    You can bet the farm on that.


    Colonel Klink

    Just goes to further prove how our politican's sell out to corporations. That's called Fascism!

    Billy the Poet

    Isn't it better to trade for energy than to bomb for freedom? Each scenario can be seen as supporting corporations but assuming that the corporatist paradigm is presently inescapable which corporations would you rather see prevail?

    greenskeeper carl

    Say what you will about the deal, but aside from all the noise, anything that avoids another war that kills a few thousand more Americans, a few hundred thousands innocent civilians, and racks up another 2-4 trillion in debt is a good thing.

    Who knows, maybe those lobbyists not wanting to get their investments nationalized by the Iranian govt(which would happen in the event of a conflict) will exert more influence on whatever stooge occupies the White House than the regular neocon cheerleaders constantly looking for a new war.

    Probably not , but one can hope.

    roadhazard

    But it's an OBAMA deal so fuck all that saving lives crap. BushCo would have hung another banner and the repubicans would cheer.

    FreeMoney

    There was no need for deal to made at all. Iran's oil can sit in the ground un used and unsold, while the West continued to block trade with the Mullahs. I think the Mullahs were loosing power over the prople slowly drip by drip.

    No we have eliminated barriers to Iran going NUC, are dropping import and export sanctions against a regeme that calls for our destruction daily, and next we are going to give them billions of dollars for their oil so they can buy or develope weapons to use against us.

    Without question, this is the stupidest course of action we could take for America.

    Billy the Poet -> FreeMoney

    No we have eliminated barriers to Iran going NUC

    Cite the specifics or shut the fuck up. Iran was already a signatory to the NNPT which barred them from developing nuclear weapons and this treaty sets the bar even higher.

    DutchBoy2015 -> FreeMoney

    Stop with your stupid goddam LIES.

    Iran never threatened the USA , you fucking MORON. You believe bullshit.

    A group of 30 paid agents screaming ''Death to America'' does NOT a revolution make.

    I bet you have never been to Tehran. You just parrot the bullshit your lying ZioNazis feed you.

    Pathetic.

    DutchBoy2015 -> FreeMoney

    Morons like you don't have a fucking clue about the real world. YOu support despotic regimes like Saudi where women can't drive, and they behead people daily , and have actually asked Pakistan for nukes.

    monoloco

    So many logical fallacies there I don't know where to start. For one, what would be the motive to "buy or develop weapons to use against us" ? If the sanctions are lifted and they are participating in the world's economy by selling oil on the open market, it would be completely counter-productive to attack a country that could totally destroy the economy that lifting the sanctions enabled. But don't let logic or facts get in the way of pushing the Zionist/corporate agenda.

    Babaloo

    There is so much wrong with this post it almost defies belief. Let's start with this quote: "...in the face of allies home and abroad deriding the agreement." How can the writer seriously expect sentient humans to believe this? Our "allies" England, France, Germany, as well as non-allies, China and Russia were signatories to the deal! If by "allies" we're saying Israel, well, that's a whole different set of "allies" isn't it?

    ajkreider

    This is brilliant stuff. Obama is such a darling of the oil services industry. Is Cheney still VP?

    $185 billion is chump change, and the U.S. isn't getting that anyway.

    Do the people who write this garbage have paying jobs?

    DutchBoy2015

    German and French company CEOs are already in Tehran making deals. Not oil companies but companies like Bosch,AEG, Stihl, Miele etc.

    Iranians use washing machines, power tools etc etc also.

    Everything in my home is German or Korean. NOT one USA product because they don't make anything but weapons and burgers anymore.

    assistedliving

    185 Billion Reasons
    You got a problem with that?

    I lived in Iran awhile back. Imo, best place in entire Near East except maybe Lebanon. Only Iran far richer, culturally and every other way except maybe cuisine.

    Jack Burton

    How do you say "American frackers are dead, and several hundred thousand jobs will die." already identified 50 oil and gas projects it will offer for bids - with the government pegging the value of these properties at $185 billion...

    It was not long ago that media was abuzz with the fracking miracle, energy independence, USA the new Saudi Arabia etc. etc. What everyone failed to realize is all energy is not the same. Some is low cost to produce and transport, others are high cost, out at the margines of profitability. We know where Fracking stood on that scale. Not to mention Canadian Tar Mines, coming in at the top of production costs. Harper bet Canada's future on a total Tar Sands development policy. That investment is looking questionable. And I for one can find few if any new media coverage of North Dakota. Though they still produce in a deperate bid to keep meeting debt repayments. Their hedges are the only thing keeping companies alive at present.

    smacker

    OK. Obola bends over for Big Oil and gets his kicks by stuffing the US workforce that will go to Iran full of CIA spies.

    [Jul 27, 2015] Can You Hear the Fat Lady Singing - Part III

    "...I wonder if the Chinese aggression re: their stock market is because they perceived it as a Wall Street attack on their markets. That's what they said at the time, and I believe that is the way they see it. (Maybe that's even what happened.) The rumour was that Wall Street attacked Chinese stock market right around the same time that the BRICS New Development Bank opened for business, as retaliation. The Chinese didn't make these protective moves in 2008, right? But this time they did, along with a lot of rhetoric about how it was a US attack, along with a lot of rhetoric about how the West 'wished' them to fail and their growth numbers would never lie, unlike the West, etc. And the US suffered a few hacking attacks at that time as well. So I wonder if this aggressive protection is b/c that stock market dive was perceived to be part of the WW3 Currency War, which the 'west' has been waging on pretty much everyone else, and the Chinese felt the need to display that such an attack will not work on them?"
    Jul 27, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    Renfield

    Loved your description of the irrelevant cocktail party! Reminded me of Tom Wolfe's description: social x-rays and lemon tarts. I've been to way too many of those, and now avoid them like the plague. Even if it means pretending I've caught the plague. They're boring and irrelevant except for those who really can win by networking, fewer and fewer these days.

    I've been fascinated by the currency markets this year. The US satellite currencies are also falling, along with EM. This is sending the USD up, but that just means it's dying last. Like when a body freezes, the limbs freeze first and all the blood moves in to protect the heart, so the heart dies last -- but you can't call it a healthy body, or a healthy heart, just because the blood is there rather than at the limbs.

    I wonder if the Chinese aggression re: their stock market is because they perceived it as a Wall Street attack on their markets. That's what they said at the time, and I believe that is the way they see it. (Maybe that's even what happened.) The rumour was that Wall Street attacked Chinese stock market right around the same time that the BRICS New Development Bank opened for business, as retaliation. The Chinese didn't make these protective moves in 2008, right? But this time they did, along with a lot of rhetoric about how it was a US attack, along with a lot of rhetoric about how the West 'wished' them to fail and their growth numbers would never lie, unlike the West, etc. And the US suffered a few hacking attacks at that time as well. So I wonder if this aggressive protection is b/c that stock market dive was perceived to be part of the WW3 Currency War, which the 'west' has been waging on pretty much everyone else, and the Chinese felt the need to display that such an attack will not work on them?

    Anyway, thanks for the focus on the currency wars waging out there. It isn't just emerging markets that are suffering; USD satellite economies are suffering too. It will take a real miracle to turn this around. Bond markets have been most volatile over the last few months, and second-most volatile have been currencies. Last May Wolf Richter posted this article with an Otterwood Capital Management chart, showing how "capital markets are completely backwards":

    http://wolfstreet.com/2015/05/18/buyers-beware-capital-markets-completel...

    with a chart showing the most volatility in bonds, second in currencies, third commodities, and last, equities. Christine Hughes wrote that "The important thing to take from this chart is that bonds and currencies (blue and red lines) are becoming more volatile than equities (black line).This is completely backwards to how capital markets typically behave. It is stock market volatility that is well known and feared, but we are seeing the reverse unfold". When equities get the memo, as they appear to be getting it now, then the central banks' pretence of control is over. As equities are now the last to get the memo, this 'contained, everything under control' leg of the Depression is about up as the facade starts to crack wide open.

    [Jul 27, 2015]Which is more likely, $33 or $75 oil

    http://finance.yahoo.com/news/more-likely-33-75-oil-130102167.html

    The trouble with ETFs

    Trading futures is not suitable for most investors. Fortunately, there are many ETFs such as United States Oil Fund LP (USO) ProShares Ultra Bloomberg Crude Oil (UCO), iPath Goldman Sachs Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (OIL), VelocityShares 3x Long Crude ETN linked to the S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index Excess Return (UWTI) and United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (USL).

    There are also inverse ETFs that profit from oil going down. These include United States 12 Month Oil Fund LP (SCO), DB Crude Oil Double Short ETN (DTO), DB Crude Oil Short ETN (SZO) and VelocityShares 3x Inverse Crude ETN linked to the S&P GSCI Crude Oil Index Excess Return (DWTI).

    Investors may choose to focus on USO and SCO, as they offer the most liquidity.

    The trouble with these ETFs is that they exhibit significant tracking errors. An investor can easily be right on oil, but the ETF may not perform in line with the oil move.

    The reason behind these tracking errors is that most of these ETFs invest in oil futures instead of buying or selling oil. Oil futures expire, and the funds have to go into the next contract. The price adjustment does not always work in the ETF holders' favor. Typically, an ETF is buying high and selling low as it rolls into new futures.

    For the foregoing reasons, oil ETFs are not suitable for holding more than a few months.

    ... ... ...

    Oil is the most volatile commodity, and our price forecast is revised weekly. We expect it to trade in a very wide range. Here are our forecast ranges at this time.

    2015 - $33.00 to $62.00

    2016 - $33.00 to $75.00

    2017 - $55.00 to $85.00

    [Jul 27, 2015]The Nuclear Deal is Mostly about Oil by John Browne

    Jul 27, 2015 | Safehaven.com

    The recent nuclear non-proliferation agreement between Iran and the U.S. has created a firestorm debate in the Middle East and both sides of the Atlantic. While the deal is supposedly all about nuclear power and nuclear bombs, its practical implications are all about oil. But the conclusions we should make about its impact on the energy sector are far from clear. A ratification of the deal would allow Iran to make lucrative long term production and distribution contracts with foreign energy firms. However, freely flowing oil from Iran would add significant new oil supply into the world markets, disrupt U.S. plans to become an energy exporter, and could potentially put further downward pressure on prices.

    The U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) reports Iran's proven oil reserves as the fourth largest in the world, at 158 billion barrels, or about 10% of the world's crude oil reserves. It also has the world's second largest reserves of natural gas (Oil & Gas Journal, January 2015). But as a result of the series of sanctions laid on Iran by the United States and the United Nations for Iran's failure to abide by nuclear inspections, which have essentially blockaded the nation, these reserves have done little good for the Iranian economy or the theocratic Muslim government that holds the country in its tight grip.

    The IMF estimates that Iran's oil and natural gas export revenue had been $118 billion as recently as 2011/12. But by 2012/2013 revenues fell by 47 percent to $63 billion. Revenues declined another 10 percent in 2013/14 to $56 billion (Islamic Republic of Iran, Country Report, April 14, 2014). By May 2015, Iran's daily oil production had fallen from 4 million barrels in 2008 to just over 2.8 million barrels.

    It goes without saying that the removal of the sanctions regime will allow Iran to resume exports at levels seen in the past. And if Iran is true to its word, and that its nuclear program is indeed focused on the development of nuclear power plants, then it is likely that its domestic demand for fossil fuels will fall, thereby allowing for even greater exports.

    The first issue regarding Iran's new oil flow is how easily will it be able to reestablish its former customer links and sell its oil, regardless of increased production. Having destabilized the Middle East by killing Saddam Hussein, the U.S. may wish now to leave the areas' nations alone to sort out the resulting mess. Into this void we can be sure that the Chinese and Russians will stride forcefully and deliberately.

    Even if Iran is successful in regaining former customers, and selling down its inventory, how quickly can its production be increased? The Iranian oil infrastructure has been neglected for years and Iran needs to rebuild it desperately. Fortunately, Western expertise in energy development is by far the most advanced, which will give Western interests a leg up on Chinese and Russian rivals. But Chinese cash and strategic support may prove decisive.

    Reuters reports that, in the opinion of 25 economists and oil analysts, Iran could be able to increase its oil production by up to 500,000 barrels a day this year and reach 750,000 a day by mid-2016. This will add to a current global oversupply of some 2.6 million barrels a day.

    Meanwhile, as the price of oil remains relatively depressed, production wells in the U.S. and other producing nations, planned and established when oil prices were much higher, are drifting off stream. Finally, there is increasing evidence that recession may be felt internationally, reducing at least the rate of growth of oil demand if not the absolute level of demand in some countries.

    Today's oil market faces a global supply overhang and price weakness. Iran's new oil production and exportation is not likely to come on line for at least a year or two, provided the treaty is ratified. But when that oil does start to flow, the new supply could add to downward price pressures. However, the amounts are unlikely to greatly affect the totality of the global marketplace and by that time whatever inflationary effects there may be of continued monetary expansion in America and Europe should act as a stronger force pulling prices upward.

    In total then, the return of Iran to the global energy market should have a beneficial effect on the global economy, both in pushing down prices and providing lucrative development work for oil companies around the world. However, the economic aspects of the deal are largely insignificant in comparison to the geopolitical ramifications.

    President Obama's nuclear arms deal leaves open to debate whether Iran will become a nuclear power within the next decade, if not earlier. Unleashing a nuclear arms race in a highly unstable area of the world would render oil supplies sourced from there considerably less secure and unattractive, possibly even at lower prices, to consumer nations, including the 500 million strong EU.

    The deal will also threaten the longstanding alliance between the United States and Saudi Arabia. The implicit arrangement between the two countries has always been that the Saudis would direct the lion's share of its oil exports to the United States in exchange for American support of regional Saudi security interests. Shiite dominated Iran has always been one of Sunni-led Saudi Arabia's top concerns. If the U.S. and Iran drift closer together, Saudi Arabia will surely seek other partners who are more supportive of its interests.

    No one knows what such a Middle East will look like. But given the volatility of the region, change is unlikely to be pretty

    John Browne is a Senior Economic Consultant to Euro Pacific Capital. Opinions expressed are those of the writer, and may or may not reflect those held by Euro Pacific Capital, or its CEO, Peter Schiff.

    [Jul 25, 2015] U.S. oil supply update

    "I know nothing about this stuff, can you tell me what you think is the true long-run marginal cost? Is the $67/barrel futures number close to it in your opinion?" ... "xo: I think $75 is a better estimate, though I second-guess the market only with trepidation."
    "...If you do the supply-demand pairs, the resulting graph suggests that it will be quite difficult to hold the price below $85 Brent over the long run. This appears to be above the marginal cost for shales, but it's important to keep in mind that the relevant measure is system-wide marginal cost, not just that of shales. "
    "...Interesting enough, the case histories tend to show that regardless of how oil exporters treat internal consumption, given an ongoing production decline, the net export decline rate tends to exceed the production decline rate and the net export decline rate tends to accelerate with time. "
    Given an ongoing production decline in a net oil exporting country, unless they cut their domestic oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production or at a faster rate, the resulting net export decline rate will exceed the production decline rate and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time. Furthermore, a net oil exporter can become a net oil importer, even with rising production, if the rate of increase in consumption exceeds the rate of increase in production, e.g., the US and China.
    "...A deal with Iran could bring an additional 1 mbpd onto the market, substantially depressing prices for as much as six months, I would guess. But timing and certainty are hard to predict. "
    Econbrowser
    Frank Flowers March 15, 2015 at 7:29 pm

    Or the contracts require drilling to keep leases.
    https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/presentations/FullHouseAppropriations010815.pdf.
    And a rig today is not the rig in 2007. So, this graph isn't an apples to apples comparison.

    Benamery21 March 16, 2015 at 4:20 am

    The WSJ brings up something I was going to, and I bet it explains the difference between the DMR and EIA.

    About half the cost of a fracked Bakken well is the frac job, drill rigs are typically under long term contract which are slowly expiring by the month, but the equipment leased for frac jobs is typically on a shorter timeframe. Some drilling is also necessary to hold land leases. Increasing stringency of DMR requirements on gas flaring also are delaying some completions.

    Jeffrey J. Brown March 16, 2015 at 5:46 am

    If anyone is interested in my 2¢ worth on this general topic, I have a number of comments on the prior article on US oil production:

    http://econbrowser.com/archives/2015/03/u-s-oil-production-still-surging

    However, I posted something that I found very interesting, at the bottom of the prior thread. Earlier this year, Steven Kopits' staked out a pretty lonely position regarding the outlook 2015 supply and demand (total liquids basis), and I thought it very interesting that Art Berman has an article on increased consumption that is quite supportive of Steven Kopits' (January, 2015) article on supply less demand:

    http://www.artberman.com/world-oil-demand-surges-a-data-point-for-price-recovery/

    World oil demand increased by 1.1 million barrels per day in February

    This is a potentially important data point that suggests a crude oil price recovery sooner than later. It is also important because it further supports the view that a production surplus and not weak demand is the main cause for the recent oil-price fall.

    The latest data from EIA shows that February world liquids production was flat with January but consumption increased 1.1 million barrels per day. This reduces the relative production surplus (production minus consumption) from 1.68 million barrels per day in January to 0.56 million barrels in February.

    Steven Kopits' (January, 2015) outlook for global supply less demand:

    Supply Minus Demand, Explained
    http://www.prienga.com/blog/2015/1/20/supply-minus-demand-explained

    Jeffrey J. Brown March 16, 2015 at 6:37 am

    Having noted Steven Kopits' continuing track record of being remarkably prescient regarding global oil supply and demand analysis, I do have one issue with global supply & demand analysis -– consumption in net oil exporting countries versus consumption in net oil importing countries, to -- wit, to paraphrase "Animal Farm," in my opinion some consumers are more equal than others.

    Let's assume a scenario where all oil production and refining operations are in oil exporting countries and let's ignore things like refinery gains. Total petroleum liquids production is 80 mbpd and consumption in the oil exporting countries is 40 mbpd, and they therefore net export 40 mbpd to oil importing countries.

    Production rises by 2.5 mbpd in the oil exporting countries, so total supply increases from 80 mbpd to 82.5 mbpd. However, consumption in the oil exporting countries rose by 5 mbpd. So, Net Exports = Production – Consumption = 82.5 mbpd – 45 mbpd = 37.5 mbpd.

    My point is that a global supply and demand analysis would not accurately represent the situation in the net oil importing countries, i.e., a 6.25% decline in the supply available to net importers (40 mbpd to 37.5 mbpd), although global supply is up by 3.125%, 80 mbpd to 82.5 mbpd.

    Of course, the crux of what I call "Export Land Model" or ELM, is that for a number of reasons (subsidies, proximity to production, legal restrictions, etc.), consumption in oil exporting countries tends to be satisfied before oil is exported.

    Interesting enough, the case histories tend to show that regardless of how oil exporters treat internal consumption, given an ongoing production decline, the net export decline rate tends to exceed the production decline rate and the net export decline rate tends to accelerate with time.

    For example, Indonesia subsidizes petroleum consumption and the UK heavily taxes petroleum consumption, but both former net oil exporters showed accelerating rates of decline in their net exports (in excess of their respective production decline rates).

    Here are the ELM Mathematical Facts of Life:

    Given an ongoing production decline in a net oil exporting country, unless they cut their domestic oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in production or at a faster rate, the resulting net export decline rate will exceed the production decline rate and the net export decline rate will accelerate with time. Furthermore, a net oil exporter can become a net oil importer, even with rising production, if the rate of increase in consumption exceeds the rate of increase in production, e.g., the US and China.

    The (2005) Top 33 net exporters showed a slight increase in production from 2005 to 2013, from about 62 mbpd to 63 mbpd (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA), but their rate of increase in consumption exceed their rate of increase in production and their combined net exports (what I call Global Net Exports, or GNE) fell from 46 mbpd in 2005 to 43 mbpd in 2013.

    Furthermore, China and India ("Chindia") consumed an increasing share of a post-2005 declining volume of GNE. What I call Available Net Exports (ANE, or GNE less Chinidia's Net Imports, CNI) fell from 41 mbpd in 2005 to 34 mbpd in 2013.

    Here's the Available Net Exports problem:

    Given an ongoing decline in GNE–and it's when, not if–then unless the Chindia region cuts their oil consumption at the same rate as the rate of decline in GNE, or at a faster rate, the resulting rate of decline in ANE will exceed the GNE decline rate and the ANE decline rate will accelerate with time.

    From 2005 to 2013, GNE fell at 0.8%year. From 2005 to 2013, ANE -- the supply of Global Net Exports of oil available to importers other than China & India -- fell at 2.3%/year.

    xo March 16, 2015 at 7:28 am

    "we will settle down to a price around the true long-run marginal cost."

    I know nothing about this stuff, can you tell me what you think is the true long-run marginal cost? Is the $67/barrel futures number close to it in your opinion?

    James_Hamilton Post authorMarch 16, 2015 at 7:46 am

    xo: I think $75 is a better estimate, though I second-guess the market only with trepidation.

    Steven Kopits March 16, 2015 at 8:27 am

    If you do the supply-demand pairs, the resulting graph suggests that it will be quite difficult to hold the price below $85 Brent over the long run. This appears to be above the marginal cost for shales, but it's important to keep in mind that the relevant measure is system-wide marginal cost, not just that of shales.

    Much below $80 Brent, conventional supply falls off and demand grows, and shale growth is more muted. So it looks pretty hard on paper to hold prices below $80 Brent for a longer period of time. On the other hand, if we assume that shales can produce what they have recently, then prices above $90 Brent are again starting looking dicey. At this level, not only are shales more incentivized, but conventional is also more viable, and demand growth should be more muted. Therefore, I would put longer-run system-wide marginal cost in the $85 Brent range.

    I disagree with JPM and some of the consultancies that prices can be kept below marginal cost for as long as two years. I believe 12 months is about the limit. Therefore, if you think I think mid-year 2016 Brent futures are compelling at $63.30, you are right. I would caution, however, that we may still have a big overhang coming in Q2, so any investment of this sort should have sufficient downside protection.

    Tom March 16, 2015 at 11:25 am

    The thing is nobody knows what that long-run marginal cost of production will be, and transportation costs and demand and regulation (eg limits on US crude exports) all matter. The 2020 futures contract price is no guide. We do need to think about what happens when the major US tight oil fields deplete, but the estimates that had that coming already around 2020 look very pessimistic now.

    BP March 16, 2015 at 11:27 am

    James your posts on oil are must a read for me, thank you.

    BP March 16, 2015 at 12:00 pm

    When horizontal drilling/hydraulic fracturing boom hit natural gas, a lot of executives were saying at drilling was uneconomic when gas was below $4.50 but it's been seven years now.

    Jeffrey J. Brown March 17, 2015 at 9:41 am

    We have seen some substantial regional declines in predominantly dry gas areas, like the Haynesville Shale Play, and to a lesser extent, in the Barnett Shale Play. The Haynesville Play is an interesting case history. EIA data show that Louisiana's shale gas production increased from 1.1 BCF/day in 2009 to 5.8 BCF/day in 2012. At this rate of increase, Louisiana's shale gas production would have been up to about 31 BCF/day in 2015.

    However, primarily due to a decline in Haynesville Play drilling, Lousiana's marketed gas production (from all sources) fell by 20% from 2012 to 2013 and by another 17% from 2013 to 2014. Note that these were net declines in production, after new wells were put on line. The gross declines, from existing wells in 2012 and from existing wells in 2013 would be even higher.

    Louisiana gas data:

    http://www.eia.gov/dnav/ng/ng_prod_sum_dcu_sla_a.htm

    The Louisiana data provide some support for a Citi Research estimate that the underlying gross decline rate for US gas production is on the order of 24%/year. In round numbers, this decline rate estimate implies that in order to maintain current US gas production, we have to put on line the productive equivalent of current Marceullus gas production–every single year, just to maintain current gas production.

    The Haynesville Play is interesting for another reason, since it shows the lag time between a decline in drilling and a decline in production in this play:

    http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Haynesville-rig-count-and-natural-gas-production1_zpsb1n95tiz.jpg

    xo March 16, 2015 at 11:32 am

    Ok, so using this Econbrowser calculator, I get about $2.75 at the pump at $75-$80/barrel:

    http://econbrowser.com/archives/2014/06/gasoline-price-calculator

    Can you tell me if the following is a reasonable approximation of this new reality? Due to the near limitless supply of shale that can be pumped profitability at around $75-$80/barrel, it represents a ceiling for future US gas prices of about $2.75, no matter what the Saudis, Opec, Russia, Venezuela, Nigeria etc. do.

    JBH March 16, 2015 at 1:35 pm

    Crude breaks to a new low today. Once time had transpired and crude showed it could not break out of the 3-day range set immediately off the January bottom, that failure meant resolution would eventually be to the downside. This has now happened. The market will now establish a new range. And all markets will reset off this. Crude oil prices>energy pass-through>core inflation>overall inflation>eventual bottom in inflation as perceived by the Fed>fed funds rate>rest of yield curve. This resetting will be a multi-month process. The element of time needed for processes to play out in an economic system means an inflation bottom cannot now be perceived (confirmed) before the June FOMC meeting. The only way the Fed could hike in June without seeing the higher back-to-back PCE numbers needed to confirm a bottom is by abrogating on the inflation prong of their mandate. The market would punish that.

    In the first link, the author states the gap between production and consumption has shrunk to the lowest level since last April. The data show otherwise. An error of this nature puts his entire argument in jeopardy. The care taken in writing a piece reflects on the author's mind and gives us information.

    The globe hardly needs more inventory this calendar year. Hence, if production is above consumption then pressure on price will continue to be downward. The salient chart is EIA 2015 World Liquids Production and Consumption Forecast. If inventories were already in excess, and if production is greater than consumption, as is the case each month on the chart, why would price rise? Unless I am missing something, inventory increases (flows) each month drive the level of inventories to greater and greater excess, but for the insignificant increment needed for trend-inventory-growth. Hence the first author's main argument doesn't hold water.

    This takes us to the Kopits' article. It is much more nuanced. Which makes any useful forecast more difficult to ferret out. Nonetheless, the thinking is quite useful as it gives us insight into various aspects that may otherwise remain hidden. Kopits' main thrust harkens back to the 1986 episode as a parallel to today. At that time, Kopits says, both production and consumption responded quickly to the huge drop in price. Not to split hairs, but I recently (Dec 22nd) looked at this episode and concluded an 8-month lag time. That seems longer than the Kopits article expects. Be that as it may, something else is vitally important. The world is quite different – different in two ways.

    Today a new supply force is in the picture. For the horizon of its short life, US fracking and increasingly non-US fracking must now be reckoned with. With no blame here, estimates of the average global marginal cost are all over the place. But when all is said and done, the dynamically changing technology of fracking and its global spread will keep downward pressure on price. Equally important, the demand situation is different today. Hamilton estimated 45% of the drop in price last fall was due to global demand. In 1986, demand was stagnating because of high price. The price decline in 1986 was wholly due to tapering demand growth. The Saudi's finally had to relent and increase supply, otherwise Saudi revenue would have fallen to zero. But the prime initiating cause back then was dwindling demand in a market where price was being held artificially high by a cartel.

    Today's episode has a different source on the demand side. That of stagnating global economic demand because the Chinese economy is (this is too harsh a word) imploding. The global locomotive has derailed. Oil demand is suffering from the deceleration of global growth that's radiated out from China. This is quite unlike 1986. So, things are going to play out differently as well. The deflationary pressures from China's inevitable and now-arrived slowdown press down on all prices everywhere. This is not going to go away overnight. At the same time, fracking presses down on price from the supply side. This is a one-two punch. Forget the monthly numbers. This is the big picture. It is layered over the very large template of conventional oil well depletion which works the other way on price. Nonetheless, this one-two punch is the marginal mover and promises to keep oil prices down for a very long time. Surely through 2016. As at a higher level of causation, the globe has entered a box canyon with walls of too much debt from which there is no escape. That debt grew since the 2008 crisis nowhere faster than in China. The unintended consequences have just now begun to reveal themselves.

    Steven Kopits March 17, 2015 at 9:01 am

    JBH –

    I continue to believe that 1986 is the correct template. The data are supportive. For example, here's a piece from John Kemp.

    http://bakken.com/news/id/234911/u-s-fuel-consumption-is-soaring-amid-cheaper-prices-kemp-2/

    The quarterly data from 1986 show that Q2 was the big quarter, with OECD demand rising by nearly 5% in this quarter alone. I think we'll see something like that again. Obviously, 5% growth is not needed to rebalance the market. 1.2% growth would do it nicely. So we're not talking about a huge gap.

    I don't know how you keep oil prices low once the market has rebalanced. You need at least sufficient price signals to turn around the NA rig count. We can debate the number. Pioneer, for example, seems happy at $70-80 WTI. Some claim lower prices. I personally don't think $70 WTI will stop the rot in onshore conventional and at the IOCs. At that price, shales will both have to grow rapidly to meet new demand, as well as displace existing supply. It's quite a challenge.

    And then we have Whiting, a leading Bakken producer, which put itself up for auction in the middle of the biggest price downturn likely for a decade. Why would someone do that? If shale is effectively the entire source of incremental supply globally, then prices must be high enough to reward shale oil producers for dynamic production growth over the next twelve months. Why wouldn't the company seek to refinance debt or make a modest capital increase to provide interim liquidity? Why would management head for the doors? Makes you wonder about the underlying economics.

    JBH March 18, 2015 at 9:21 am

    Stephen:

    1986 is the only template. So it attracts like a flame to moth. Yet the macro context is very different. Then there was a big three: Europe, US, Japan. Today there is a big four. China, the locomotive of this tepid recovery, is now derailed. You can get off on the wrong foot by not fully recognizing this. China was the straw that broke the oil camel's back. Nor is China's slowing transitory.

    In '86, central banks had begun forcefully taking the dollar down. Though for different reasons, the direction is quite the opposite today. The US economy had a swift undercurrent coming off the '82 bottom. Because that recession was a true, healthy cleansing, the economy was poised for a long run ahead. Japan was a powerhouse. All these conditions (and more) are reversed today. Always dicey picking comparison starting points. That said, let me take the two oil peaks and look two years ahead. Sep '85 WTI at $30.81, fell to $11.59 by Jul 1986 and by Sep '87 had rebounded to $19.53. June 2014, oil at $105.79. We don't yet know the bottom. If it's not until a 62.4% drop as in '86, oil will go to $39.80. A proportionate rebound would then take it back to $67 in Jun 2016. The market is itching to take oil to $39. The market has a very long memory, and coincidentally $39 was the 2009 low. Within this 2-year horizon, the sharper the drop the bigger the rebound. If oil stops today at $42, it's less likely to get to $67. Momentum must never be denied.

    Suppose it goes to $39 (which I judge is where it is going, if not further), now we can look at the comparisons. Year-over-year, world real GDP grew 3.4% in '86. The US 3.5%, EU 2.9%, Japan 2.8%. There was a hit to growth in '86 of ½ ppt. Then an equivalent rebound in '87. The oil dislocation was temporarily stunning.

    Even more critical differences. The funds rate fell from 7.9% to 5.9% the first year, and averaged 6.6% in the second. The 10-year fell from 10.4% to 7.5%, and averaged 8% in the second. Today the funds rate is going up, and just maybe the 10-year will average 20 basis points lower in year two than where it was last June. The consensus actually expects it to average higher. US monetary policy is a headwind for global growth, and hence oil. Economic fundamentals were strong in '86 thanks to the recessionary cleanse of '82, and sensible policy including deregulation. The expansion was 3-years young when oil prices started collapsing, and the expansion ran 4 more years. Hence the bull market in stocks was real. The expansion was 5 years along this time when oil dropped. And today the stock market is at the cusp of being the 3rd largest bubble ever! World oil consumption rose 2.9% '86 over '85; US rose 3.5%. That in the context of tailwinds from monetary policy, the energy-intensive US economy benefiting from a falling dollar, and Japan ramping up to 4% growth in '87 and 7% in '88. Today there are only headwinds, and they are severe. Add to that the fracking boom on the supply side, no matter that it is being muzzled. (Depletion of conventional oil cuts the other way, of course.)

    The biggest headwind is debt! In the '86 episode, debt was not far from optimal. This cushion allowed US credit to increase 14% in '86 and 10% in '87. Hence aggregate demand got a big boost, and hence so did oil demand. Today global debt is at an historic high. Far, far beyond optimal. Precisely why China is slowing, the eurozone is at stall speed, and Japan is and will not get anywhere. Nothing but stagnation until the debt ratio comes down. For comparison, US credit rose 1.9% last year and is on track for 2% this year. That's below nominal growth, precisely the opposite of the 1986:Q2 surge you refer to. On top of all this, financial fragility has to be reckoned in. Over the remaining course of the 2-year horizon, there is a non-zero probability the next – for there will be one – financial calamity may strike. This has to be factored into the oil analysis.

    Global growth is a function of the dollar and global trade, exchange rate problems emerging markets are now having, wrenching change in the oil patch, monetary tightening in the US, QEs abroad that may have some minor positive effect during our horizon, asset markets across the globe in bubbles, and a level of debt that is highly constricting. These larger forces make vehicle mileage etc. minor players. Arguing from Texas as Kemp does is a classic mistake. It is narrow and monotonic. Not only that, the current Feb-over-Feb change he touts as his main argument is not much bigger percentage-wise than the prior one. The marginal impact on Texas motor fuel tax receipts of the drop in oil has hardly been a big one. And "as the economy strengthens" is contrary to what is happening. The flow of economic reports since September is showing the largest cumulative net negative since 2010. Q1 growth will be dismal. Nor do we know when this will turn up, as we have never been in a place like this before. Specifically, in (a) an artificial economy post-crisis with (b) China now decelerating. Though not well understood, the second derivative is always a dominant force. All this means $67 oil by June 2016 is unlikely.

    Jeffrey J. Brown March 17, 2015 at 9:16 am

    So Far, Saudi and Global Net Exports of Oil Peaked in 2005

    A crucial point about Saudi Arabia that almost everyone overlooks is that Saudi net oil exports have been below their 2005 net export rate of 9.1 mbpd (total petroleum liquids + other liquids) for eight, almost certainly nine, straight years.

    • As annual Brent crude oil prices rose from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005, Saudi net exports increased from 7.1 mbpd in 2002 to 9.1 mbpd in 2005.
    • As annual Brent crude oil prices averaged $110 for 2011 to 2013, Saudi net exports averaged 8.7 mpbd for 2011 to 2013 inclusive, versus 9.1 mbpd n 2005.

    While it's possible that the Saudis chose to reduce their net exports after 2005, a more plausible scenario in my opinion is that they could not exceed their 2005 net export rate, at least without doing long term damaged to their reservoirs.

    Global Tight/Shale Plays to the Rescue?

    Regarding tight/shale play potential globally, a key question is whether wells like the Bakken Play, i.e., quickly declining wells with an average production rate of a little over 100 bpd and a median production rate of less than 100 bpd, will work in much higher operating cost areas around the world.

    Also, one has to consider the quality of the liquids production from tight/shale plays.

    What refiners want and need is generally 40 API gravity and lower crude oil (and when we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of 40 API and lower crude oil). The EIA's own data and projection show that it took about half the global (oil and gas) rig fleet to increase US 40 and lower API gravity crude oil production by just 0.5 mbpd from 2011 to 2014.

    EIA chart showing actual and projected US liquids production by API gravity (light blue and lower on the chart is 40 API and lower):

    AS March 17, 2015 at 1:59 pm

    Jeffrey,
    Any thoughts about Tuesday's WSJ article discussing Iranian oil production?

    Steven Kopits March 18, 2015 at 8:30 am

    On the upside, there are two wildcards today, that is, Iran and Libya.

    A deal with Iran could bring an additional 1 mbpd onto the market, substantially depressing prices for as much as six months, I would guess. But timing and certainty are hard to predict.

    Big demand numbers coming out of India and Europe, by the way.

    Darren March 16, 2015 at 10:36 pm

    California (Bay Area) is still $3.25/gallon at the pump. California gets mostly Brent prices, not WTI, but still. Cheap oil has not made gas prices much lower in the Bay Area.

    Benamery21 March 18, 2015 at 1:53 am

    That isn't about crude price:
    http://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/End-of-refinery-labor-strike-could-mean-cheaper-6133179.php

    Jeffrey J. Brown March 19, 2015 at 6:27 am

    As Steven noted, many things are possible, but it's worthwhile reviewing some previous scenarios regarding Brazil & Iraq.

    Circa 2009, the Iraqi Oil Ministry claimed that Iraq could hit 12 mbpd of production within about seven years, and following is a graph prepared by Stuart Staniford, showing a simple extrapolation that would put Iraq's oil production at 12 mbpd by 2016. In 2014, based on the projection, they would be at about 9.6 mbpd.

    Iraq's actual production in 2014 was probably about 3.3 mbpd (total petroleum liquids).

    http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_D9-JNTtRKgs/S0AwzBBUVqI/AAAAAAAAAMg/I9C6ykZfByY/s1600-h/Picture%20117.png

    And following is an April, 2009 Bloomberg column talking about Brazil's projected rising oil production "Taking market share away from OPEC." In reality, Brazil is a net oil importer, with a recent track record of increasing net imports, even if we count biofuels as production. In 2009, Brazil's production was basically equal to production, but by 2013 their net imports had increased to 0.4 mbpd.

    Iraq's net exports increased from 1.8 mbpd in 2009 to 2.3 mbpd in 2013 (total petroleum liquids + other liquids, EIA). So, the combined increase in net exports from Brazil + Iraq from 2009 to 2013 pretty much rounds to zero (0.1 mbpd).

    Also, in regard to the April, 2009 Bloomberg column and the following quote from said column, "As OPEC nations make their biggest oil production cuts on record, Brazil, Russia and the U.S. are pumping more, threatening to send crude back below $50 a barrel as demand slows," monthly Brent crude oil prices were then in the process of rising at 43%/year, from December, 2008 to February, 2011.

    April, 2009: OPEC Cuts Thwarted as Brazil, Russia Grab U.S. Market
    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aiSCDyK4CWmI&refer=news

    April 14 (Bloomberg) - As OPEC nations make their biggest oil production cuts on record, Brazil, Russia and the U.S. are pumping more, threatening to send crude back below $50 a barrel as demand slows. U.S. imports from the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries fell 818,000 barrels a day, or 14 percent, to 5.02 million in January from a year earlier, according to the latest monthly report from the Energy Department. At the same time, imports from Brazil more than doubled to 397,000 and Russia's increased almost 10-fold to 157,000, a trend that continued in February and March, according to data from each country. . .

    Petroleo Brasileiro SA, the state-controlled energy company, said in January that it plans to invest $174.4 billion through 2013 to boost production oil and gas production to the equivalent of 4.63 million barrels a day by 2015 from 2.40 million in 2008.

    [Jul 25, 2015] How Sustainable Is North American Shale Oil Extraction?

    "...And there are many assertions on how much shale extraction really costs. I agree with Grantham on his assertion; the shale fracking paradigm will stand in history as a red herring to oil pricing (something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting).
    Grantham makes an interesting hypothesis in regard to fracking: "...remarkable proof that, so late in the realization of the risks of climate change and environmental damage, the US could expressly deregulate such a rapidly growing and potentially dangerous activity..." "
    "...Below is one of the better examples of a graphic that suggests a realistic breakeven is $75 per barrel."
    Dec. 5, 2014 | Seeking Alpha
    11:14 AM ET | 55 comments |

    Disclosure: The author is long BP, COP, SDRL. (More...)The author wrote this article themselves, and it expresses their own opinions. The author is not receiving compensation for it (other than from Seeking Alpha). The author has no business relationship with any company whose stock is mentioned in this article.

    Summary

    • Shale oil's one-year decline is 50%-80%; shale gas' one-year decline is 50%-75%. Constant drilling/fracking will become too capex-intensive to offset rapid well-decline rates.
    • Pure play shale oil and gas producers may be overleveraged. Borrowing toward a capex-intensive trend will lead to shutdowns in operation, and consolidation.
    • Fracking requires 2-25 million gallons of water per well. Wastewater disposal practices might be polluting water tables. Western states will increasingly restrict fracking due to severe water shortages.
    • The best NA acreage has been drilled, and the results should have been considerably better financially than the current picture of overspending and environmental damages.
    • Fracking causes seismic events. The environmental implications of these events remain poorly understood. Ignoring such risks may pose significant future liabilities.

    Humans consume ~90 million barrel of oil per day, and this is a labor intensive effort for extraction, logistics, refining, and delivery. In the course of 3 months, oil has plummeted, and drawn a fever pitch of discussions on where price per barrel is heading on all sorts of timeline. The story goes something like this:

    Oil will fall to $35 per barrel, the world now is awash with too much oil, there is a massive supply glut with no end in sight, NA Shale revolution has Russia and OPEC on its knees, the U.S. will become the Saudi Arabia of Shale oil, and will force majors to reduce capex by cutting offshore DW and UDW programs. The cost basis of NA Shale is $40/barrel, and so fracking will prevail for at least 20 years.

    No doubt there is a shale oil boom going on. This chart is from an article highlighting the wisdom of Jeremy Grantham as it relates to NA shale oil extraction. Suffice it to say, Grantham has less-than-favorable opinions on the economics of shale extraction.

    There is clear and extraordinary deviation from U.S. onshore mean production. And there are many assertions on how much shale extraction really costs. I agree with Grantham on his assertion; the shale fracking paradigm will stand in history as a red herring to oil pricing (something, especially a clue, that is or is intended to be misleading or distracting).

    Grantham makes an interesting hypothesis in regard to fracking:

    ...remarkable proof that, so late in the realization of the risks of climate change and environmental damage, the US could expressly deregulate such a rapidly growing and potentially dangerous activity...

    While oil pricing discussions range from OPEC, Russia, and offshore drilling, I now believe the most compelling reason for today's price drop has the most to do with the dramatic rise in North American shale oil production. Below are two graphics that display this stellar rise:

    And here is a closer look at the Bakken formation:

    From both of these graphics, there clearly indicates a rapid acceleration in production from North American fields over the last five years. So how long is this trend really sustainable? To start understanding the social and cultural significance of unconventional shale oil, I highly recommend the following fascinating read from The Atlantic: "Searching for the Good Life in the Bakken Oil Fields."

    North American fracking represents a perfect storm of corporate interests effectively selling politicians and land owners on the goal of extracting natural resources at a white-hot pace, in a post housing bubble/wage stagnation/depressed economy. Before investing in North American shale oil, consider that there may be significant downside risks.

    What are some of these risks?

    1. Expected ultimate recovery (EUR) of a petroleum source is the sum of the proven reserves at a specific time and the cumulative production up to that time.

    What is the EUR for unconventional North American shale oil? The three-year average well decline rates for the seven shale oil basins measured below range from an astounding 60%-91%. That means over three years, the amount of oil coming out of the wells declines 60%-91%. This translates to 43%-64% of EUR (estimated ultimate recovery) dug out during the first three years of the well's existence. Four of the seven shale gas basins are already in terminal decline in terms of their well productivity: the Haynesville Shale, Fayetteville Shale, Woodford Shale and Barnett Shale.

    Here is a visual example of shale oil depletion rates for the remaining two large and supposedly economic viable shale basins; these are the Bakken, and Eagle Ford:

    As you can see, even the "best of breed" appears to be closing on terminal decline.

    2) Environmental risk and concern are currently being neglected due to momentum and policy strength.

    There are now clear and emerging scientific studies that link fracking and wastewater disposal as a causative variable to earthquakes. What the industry may be consciously ignoring at this time is a need to better understand the risks the practices pose to surrounding communities, water tables, and low level exposure to "proprietary" extraction chemicals.

    Fracking wells in the U.S. generated 280 billion gallons of wastewater in 2012. There are presently no clear cost benefits studies or health assessment on impacts of large-scale fracking in areas with large populations dependent on aquifers for their drinking water. This is a disaster waiting to happen. Consider the following indicators:

    1. Pennsylvania has made public 243 cases of contamination of private drinking wells from oil and gas drilling operations.
    2. According to a 2013 report, chemicals from oil and gas wastewater pits have contaminated water sources in New Mexico at least 421 times.
    3. In California, oil and gas companies pumped nearly three billion gallons of waste water into underground aquifers that would have qualified safe for drinking water or irrigation. These aquifers should be protected by the EPA. State officials tested eight water supply wells within a one-mile radius where four water samples came back with higher than allowable levels of nitrate, arsenic, and thallium.

    If there are supposed to be any brakes on safety concerns of the fracking boom, the momentum of this effort appears to be currently overwhelming policy. Any forum for constructing a regulatory regime sufficient to protect the environment and public health, and enforcing such safeguards at more than 80,000 wells, plus processing and waste disposal sites across the country, appears to be absent at this time. This will change, and hopefully before there is a serious disaster.

    3) Is the cost basis a game of liar's poker?

    The cost basis for shale oil production is likely to remain a game of liar's poker well into 2015. Below is one of the better examples of a graphic that suggests a realistic breakeven is $75 per barrel.

    The objective of the game is to bluff markets into believing that your capex does not exceed revenue. The shale boom is about to show its hand in 2015.

    4) The affect of politics.

    Fracking involves the injection a mix of pressurized water, sand and chemicals to unlock hydrocarbons from rock. This process can trigger earthquakes. Many environmental groups say the technique is wasteful, polluting and noisy, but the industry says it is safe. So, up to now, knowing what is known, who appears to be winning the argument?

    5) WTI oil price per barrel is a leading trend indicator for rig count. As rig counts decrease, so then does production.

    In the graphics below, at the peak of the housing bubble bust (2009), notice the trough in WTI oil PPB precedes the trough in North American rig count by 4.5 months.

    [Jul 25, 2015] QE At Work Pouring Cheap Debt Into The Shale Ponzi by Joseph Y. Calhoun, Alhambra Partners

    "...This shale oil and gas ponzi scheme can only go on for so long. For many of these companies it will only take a few dry holes to end their borrowing spree and send them to bankruptcy court. High yield and bank loan investors should take note. Oil and gas is the second largest position in HYG. It was a long time ago, but it probably would be instructive to remember too that Continental Illinois, the original TBTF bank, failed in the mid 80s because it lent too much to the oil and gas industry right before a bust. Any Texans old enough to remember might take the time to remind younger investors about the last oil bust and its effects on the Texas banking industry."
    June 2, 2014 | David Stockman's Contra Corner

    What is (was?) Quantitative Easing intended to accomplish? Here's what Ben Bernanke said at Jackson Hole when he first proposed the program:

    The channels through which the Fed's purchases affect longer-term interest rates and financial conditions more generally have been subject to debate. I see the evidence as most favorable to the view that such purchases work primarily through the so-called portfolio balance channel, which holds that once short- term interest rates have reached zero, the Federal Reserve's purchases of longer-term securities affect financial conditions by changing the quantity and mix of financial assets held by the public.

    Specifically, the Fed's strategy relies on the presumption that different financial as-sets are not perfect substitutes in investors' portfolios, so that changes in the net supply of an asset available to investors affect its yield and those of broadly similar assets. Thus, our purchases of Treasury, agency debt, and agency MBS likely both reduced the yields on those securities and also pushed investors into holding other assets with similar characteristics, such as credit risk and duration. For example, some investors who sold MBS to the Fed may have replaced them in their portfolios with longer-term, high-quality corporate bonds, depressing the yields on those assets as well.

    Maybe the most important phrase in those two paragraphs is "I see the evidence as most favorable to the view". What that means in layman's terms is that Bernanke – and no one else for that matter – didn't then – and sure doesn't now – know how or even whether QE actually works to raise economic growth. The evidence since the first incarnation of QE is mixed. It is a bit curious that Bernanke continued to believe that QE lowered bond yields even after each implementation of the program produced the opposite. One might, as Bernanke obviously did, assume that rates would have been even higher absent QE, but that is dubious at best (although impossible to prove either way). I say that because each iteration of QE produced a rise in inflation expectations that was reversed once the program was wound down. The one effect of QE that we can confirm and quantify is that it raises inflation expectations. I'm not sure what bond market Bernanke is familiar with but the one I know does not look favorably on higher inflation.

    Of course, another theory of QE is that this rise in inflation expectations is actually a positive and is the real way QE affects growth. Rising inflation expectations, in theory, should spur spending today in advance of price hikes tomorrow. There is little in the way of actual data to back that up but it does make a good and logical story for the masses. It could be that expectations of rising prices produces the opposite effect by inducing consumers to save more today to pay for the future price hikes. One would be hard pressed to find that in the savings rate data though so maybe the inflation expectations theory of creating growth actually works as the theory suggests. At best though, it is a temporary, palliative effect. Assuming the inflation expectations are correct and prices do rise, the purchasing of goods today just reduces the purchases of goods tomorrow. Even if QE didn't actually raise prices, it would still only "work" by pulling forward purchases from the future to the present. TANSTAAFL.

    But let's return to the Bernanke theory for a minute and consider what QE hath wrought. Bernanke's idea was that if he just removed enough safe assets from the available mix, investors would shift their capital to riskier assets. This shift to riskier assets is a nod to Keynes belief in animal spirits as essential to getting an economy out of a slump. This part of Bernanke's theory has been borne out. One need look no further than the bond market to find evidence that investors did respond as Bernanke predicted. Corporate bond issuance is on a tear to meet the seemingly insatiable demand for yield product. 2013 was a record year for bond issuance totaling over $1.3 trillion and this year has seen no let up. One can't help but assume that stock prices have benefitted as well with IPOs of ever more dubious companies a highlight of the calendar.

    So, clearly, Bernanke was right that QE would incite the old animal spirits, but was he correct that this would lead to better economic growth? One would be hard pressed to find any evidence in the latest GDP report. For those of you who had better things to do than wait for the government to tell you what you already knew, GDP fell by 1% in the 1st quarter. GDP contraction in any quarter is pretty rare outside of recession (as Jeffrey points out here) but hope springs eternal so the consensus is that the 1st quarter was an aberration and will soon be reversed. Of more concern to investors should be the drop in corporate profits buried in the GDP report. There were some mitigating circumstances due to tax changes but the fact is that corporate profits fell in the first three months of the year despite the small rise in EPS reported by the companies of the S&P 500.

    That's where Bernanke's portfolio balance channel theory rubber meets the road actually. It seems pretty obvious that the reported rise in S&P earnings per share was a function of the boom in corporate bonds. A large portion – over a third – of the corporate bond issuance has been for the purpose of buying back stock and paying dividends. It hasn't been used to make productive investments – yet – and therefore hasn't had the intended effect on economic growth. Another use of corporate cash has been in the very active M&A market which globally amounted to over $500 billion in the first quarter alone. With sales growth stagnant, companies are trying to buy growth, something that has a dubious track record to say the least.

    In Bernanke's explanation, investors swap high quality MBS or Treasuries for high quality corporate bonds but reality has seen something a bit different. From 1996 to 2006, a bit over $1 trillion in junk bonds were issued. It took only 3 years to match that total in the QE era. What is more disturbing is that a large portion of that junk debt (and a lot more that isn't reported via the bank lending channel) is being issued to fund oil and gas exploration companies for the fracking of oil and natural gas. Shale debt has at least doubled over the last four years. Why is that disturbing? Isn't shale supposed to lead us to the nirvana of energy independence? Well, maybe not. I've been a critic of the industry since the boom first started and not because I'm concerned about the environmental impact (although that probably deserves more of my attention). My criticism has focused on the economics of shale.

    There are two pieces of the economic puzzle when it comes to shale. First is that most shale oil deposits are not profitable to extract except at current high prices. This drilling/extraction method is not cheap. Breakeven prices vary by region but it is safe to say that no shale oil deposits are profitable below $50/barrel and most areas require much higher prices. An average might be in the range of $65 and there are plenty of areas where the price needs to be above $80 before anyone makes a nickel. I would just note that oil traded, albeit briefly, at $34 in the last recession. Second is the production profile of shale wells; production drops off rather precipitously after the first year (in contrast with traditional wells which deplete over much longer time frames). Combine high extraction costs with rapid depletion and the economics of shale become not only dubious but frankly insane.

    We've already seen a number of large oil and gas companies take writedowns on their shale investments but the BPs of the world can afford to write these off and move on. Smaller companies find themselves in a more precarious position. As production from their existing wells falls rapidly, they have to drill more wells just to maintain production at current levels. And they are funding that drilling with debt to the point where a number of companies are now dedicating double digit percentages of their revenue to interest costs. In some extreme cases, interest expense has exceeded revenue.

    This shale oil and gas ponzi scheme can only go on for so long. For many of these companies it will only take a few dry holes to end their borrowing spree and send them to bankruptcy court. High yield and bank loan investors should take note. Oil and gas is the second largest position in HYG. It was a long time ago, but it probably would be instructive to remember too that Continental Illinois, the original TBTF bank, failed in the mid 80s because it lent too much to the oil and gas industry right before a bust. Any Texans old enough to remember might take the time to remind younger investors about the last oil bust and its effects on the Texas banking industry.

    And that brings us right back to Bernanke's theory of how QE works and whether it in fact raises economic growth. Bernanke was right that QE does indeed change the allocation of capital; more risk has been taken. Whether it is a better allocation seems doubtful. If the first quarter is an aberration and the economy accelerates it might take more time to find out for sure but misallocation of capital due to Fed distortions does have consequences (see Bust, Housing). But if it is a harbinger of things to come, the end of the shale boom is nigh and with it the capital that has been wasted in its pursuit. Bernanke's theory of QE may amount to nothing more than an off key version of We Shale Overcome.

    Click here to sign up for our free weekly e-newsletter.

    "Wealth preservation and accumulation through thoughtful investing."

    For information on Alhambra Investment Partners' money management services and global portfolio approach to capital preservation, Joe Calhoun can be reached at: [email protected] or 786-249-3773. You can also book an appointment using our contact form.

    This is a syndicated repost courtesy of Alhambra Investment Partners - We Are Different.. To view original, click here.

    Oil Plunge Can Trigger 'Subprime' Debt Crash by Paul Gallagher

    Dec 19, 2014 | larouchepub.com

    [PDF version of this article]

    Dec. 10-What began as a British-Saudi financial warfare weapon against Russia and Iran-the so-called "oil sanction"-is turning into an unpredictably bouncing hand grenade which may blow out a large debt bubble over the bankrupt U.S. economy.

    Warnings are now starting to proliferate, as the price of West Texas Intermediate crude oil has fallen to the low $60s/barrel, that a wave of defaults of "high-yield," or junk, energy debt, could trigger a broader mass default in the high-yield debt markets as a whole, which represent a couple of trillion dollars in very leveraged debt. High-yield energy debt is variously reported to constitute 20-30% of that bubble.

    One of Two Results Possible

    During the last decade's "shale oil boom" which has propelled the United States toward the world lead in oil production, oil companies here and in Europe have taken on record levels of debt. This is true both of the independent shale oil producers and of the long-established oil majors, although for different purposes. The repayment of that debt requires prices for a barrel of (Brent crude) oil which range from $80-85 to $120.

    Therefore, the Saudi-triggered plunge in oil prices from $110-115/barrel this past Summer, to $60-65 now, will have one of two results: Either the price will shoot abruptly back up in 2015, or the collapse of energy debt can trigger a financial crash in the U.S., as it already has in Norway.

    This point was made by economics columnist Liam Halligan in the Telegraph Dec. 1. His colleague Ambrose Evans-Pritchard had written several data-loaded columns since July, comparing the petrochemical sector currently to the mortgage sector in 2006-07 and the role of "subprime" debt in the 2007-08 crash. The petroleum sector is overloaded with debt whose basis is an appreciating oil price. This, despite persistently depressed demand since the 2008 financial collapse.

    The International Energy Agency (IEA), in a report of July 29, 2014, made clear that since 2008, the oil industry has been borrowing about 20% of the cash it needs, or about $100 billion a year, net new debt. Its total debt has rocketed to about $1.6 trillion, with revenues of under $600 billion a year at $110/barrel average. If the oil price remains in the $60-70 range, that would become $1.6 trillion in debt based on less than $400 billion in revenues-a ratio perilously close to the definition of "unsecured leveraged lending" in banking terms.

    And Evans-Pritchard wrote in September, when the oil price was in the $90s, that

    "The world's leading oil and gas companies are taking on debt and selling assets on an unprecedented scale to cover a shortfall in cash, calling into question the long-term viability of large parts of the industry.... Companies appear to have been borrowing heavily both to keep dividends steady and to buy back their own shares, spending an average of $39 billion on repurchases since 2011."

    Financial columnist Andrew Critchlow found, in the Telegraph on Nov. 14, that oil shale drillers had come to be nearly one-third of all "high-yield, sub-investment grade" (sub-prime) borrowers in the United States. And that if the oil price stayed in the $60s, 30% of high-yield B- and CCC-grade [energy] borrowers would default:

    "A shock of that magnitude could be sufficient to trigger a broader high-yield market default cycle."

    'Mini'-Financial Crash?

    Debt defaults have already begun to hit in the North American shale oil/gas industry, due to the collapsed oil price and the relatively great inefficiency of the hydraulic fracking technology. More significantly, credit has quickly frozen up in this sector in the past two months, and the effects are spreading to the "high-yield" bond and loan markets as a whole.

    The Dec. 5 Dallas Morning News carried one such warning on its front page: "As Prices Fall, Fears Rise About Massive Debts Taken On in Boom." "Already trouble is emerging in the usually steady bond markets," the paper reported.

    "Among the nation's largest energy companies, the ratio of debt to earnings, a key measure in determining a company's leverage, has almost doubled since 2011. And now that forecasts of even lower oil prices are emerging, the value of high-yield bonds in the energy sector has plummeted."

    For reasons presented in the article following, namely the great economic inefficiency of the "shale oil and gas revolution" since 2009, it has consumed a great deal of capital investment to keep new holes constantly drilling while prior holes gave out-an estimated 35% of all U.S. capital investment since 2009. It has accounted for one-third of all net employment creation in the U.S. economy since the the end of 2007: roughly 400,000 jobs. That investment has been heavily leveraged with debt of the "high-yield" variety, which can be analogized to "subprime" debt in the mortgage bubble.

    What is the relation of this high-yield energy debt to the entire high-yield debt market (leveraged debt and junk bonds)?

    Former Reagan budget chief David Stockman, on his "ContraCorner" website Dec. 9, estimated that the now-shaking high-yield debt bubble in energy is $500 billion-$300 billion in leveraged loans and $200 billion in junk bonds. EIR had also estimated, Dec. 7, that high-yield energy debt is close to one-quarter of the more-than-$2 trillion high-yield market.

    In that junk energy debt market, interest rates have suddenly leaped, in the past 45 days, from about 4% higher than "investment grade" bonds, to 10% higher; i.e., credit in that sector has effectively disappeared, triggering a sudden 40% drop in oil drilling permits, and the start of defaults of the highly leveraged shale companies and their big-oil sponsors.

    Bloomberg News reported Dec. 8 that Southern Pacific has hired Royal Bank of Canada to advise on quarterly interest payments it can't make on C$432 million of bonds. Conacher, with C$977 million in debt, hired Bank of Montreal to advise on a similar default.

    In the larger, $2 trillion high-yield debt market as a whole, interest rates have also risen sharply, so far by 2-2.5%: i.e., contagion.

    Whether this bubble, which is only about one-fifth the size of the mortgage debt which melted down in 2007, could detonate a broader "reverse leverage" blowout, is now the subject of analyses that claim it is "contained." The term is familiar. Business Insider, for example, published a chart estimating the big U.S. banks' exposure to oil/gas debt at 2.5% of their total assets, with Citibank an outlier at 7% (about $65 billion).

    But according to a Brown Brothers Harriman analysis published Dec. 6, the energy sector has just suffered its own "Minsky moment." That term refers to the point in time when a commodity which must, to sustain the debt leveraging it, go up indefinitely-takes a sudden turn lower and starts a debt crisis. "A lot of things were leveraged based on oil prices that can only go up," states the analysis.

    Whether the debt collapse will be mini or maxi, may be determined in the markets for $20 trillion in commodity derivatives exposure. About $4 trillion of that exposure is energy commodity derivatives exposure of the half-dozen largest U.S.-based banks. And because the shale energy producers have bought derivatives contracts from these banks to protect themselves against a plunge in oil prices, there is good reason to believe that the big banks' $4 trillion energy derivatives exposure consists largely of bets in the wrong direction now.

    Is it a coincidence that Republican leaders in Congress are in a strong push, with Wall Street, to pass legislation to allow commodity derivatives, among other types of these financial weapons of mass destruction, to be put under FDIC insurance?

    This, on the path to another financial blowout

    [Jul 24, 2015] The Eurasian Big Bang How China & Russia Are Running Rings Around Washington

    Zero Hedge

    And don't forget Iran. In early 2016, once economic sanctions are fully lifted, it is expected to join the SCO, turning it into a G9. As its foreign minister, Javad Zarif, made clear recently to Russia's Channel 1 television, Tehran considers the two countries strategic partners. "Russia," he said, "has been the most important participant in Iran's nuclear program and it will continue under the current agreement to be Iran's major nuclear partner." The same will, he added, be true when it comes to "oil and gas cooperation," given the shared interest of those two energy-rich nations in "maintaining stability in global market prices."

    philipat

    Add also a pissed-off Saudi Arabia agreeing to China (It's largest customer) paying for oil in CNY much sooner than would otherwise have been the case. Then too the peoples of Europe are waking up to the fact that sanctions against Russia are unwarranted and are not in the best interests of Europe itself and that further tensions with Russia, created by the US, could result in nuclear war IN EUROPE whilst the US mainland would probably be unaffected,

    So, all in all, yes a brilliant strategy by the neocons who seem to be living in the past....

    ebworthen

    The U.S.A. deserves to have rings run around it; we have been incredibly arrogant, and fomented war instead of heeding the instructions of our Founding Fathers and our Constitution (which has been trampled by those sworn to protect it).

    [Jul 24, 2015]Peak Oil Review - July 23

    I think much more the 23 billion is distressed. And this is by design...
    "...More than $22 billion of the $235 billion of the debt owed by 62 North American oil companies, however, is "distressed" and unlikely to be paid back."
    Jul 23, 2015 | resilience.org

    As prices continue to fall, concerns are increasing on Wall Street as to the quality of their loans to unprofitable oil and gas companies. Many banks are starting to set aside money to cover bad loans which eat into banking industry profits. In recent years Wall Street has been the biggest ally of the "shale revolution" by allowing companies to exceed their debt limits time after time in hopes that they would someday turn profitable. With US oil prices now below $50 a barrel and unlikely to climb significantly during the next year or so, bankers are demanding that drillers reduce their credit lines and increase equity. In response US oil producers have raised some $44 billion by selling bonds and shares in the first half of this year. More than $22 billion of the $235 billion of the debt owed by 62 North American oil companies, however, is "distressed" and unlikely to be paid back.

    The recent drop in oil prices is giving Moscow second thoughts about the economic recovery in 2016 that President Putin has been talking about. Russia will face recession or stagnation if oil trades near $50 a barrel next year. If oil is trading near $40 a barrel, Moscow is facing a 7 percent decline in its GDP next year.

    [Jul 24, 2015] The bottom of the market may still be ahead

    "...The oil companies and service companies have already made deep spending cuts with substantial redundancies. Nevertheless, the momentum built in the last 5 years continues to feed through to higher production levels. Many companies will have been hoping for signs of a robust recovery in price by now, hanging tough to retain staff for when the upturn comes. I suspect that over the next 6 months we will see a second wave of cuts. Things are indeed already austere here in Aberdeen."
    Jul 12, 2015 | Energy Matters
    Posted on July 12, 2015 by Euan Mearns

    I have become an avid reader of the International Energy Agency Oil Market Report. A "free" synopsis is published mid month with the full report and data tables made public at the end of the month. Here are the bullets from the report summary published on 10th July:

    • Crude oil prices fell to their lowest in nearly three months in early July, pressured by ever rising supply while financial turmoil in Greece and China unsettled world markets. At the time of writing, Brent was around $59/bbl and US WTI at $53.10/bbl.
    • Global oil demand growth is forecast to slow to 1.2 mb/d in 2016, from an average 1.4 mb/d this year, with strong consumption expected in non-OECD Asia. World oil demand growth appears to have peaked in 1Q15 at 1.8 mb/d and will continue to ease throughout the rest of this year and into next as temporary support fades.
    • Global oil supply surged by 550 kb/d in June, on higher output from OPEC and non-OPEC. At 96.6 mb/d, world oil production gained an impressive 3.1 mb/d on 2014, of which OPEC crude and NGLs accounted for 60%. Non-OPEC supply growth is expected to grind to a halt in 2016, as lower oil prices and spending cuts take a toll.
    • OPEC crude supply rose by 340 kb/d in June to 31.7 mb/d, a three-year high, led by record high output from Iraq, Saudi Arabia and the UAE. OPEC output stood 1.5 mb/d above the previous year. The 'call on OPEC crude and stock change' for 2016 is forecast to rise by 1 mb/d, to 30.3 mb/d.
    • OECD industry inventories hit a record 2 876 mb in May, up by a steep 38.0 mb. Product holdings led the build and by end-month covered 30.7 days of forward demand. Global supply and demand balances suggest that the rate of global stock builds quickened rapidly to an astonishing 3.3 mb/d during 2Q15.
    • Robust margins spurred stronger-than-expected OECD refinery runs, lifting 2Q15 global throughput estimates to 78.7 mb/d. Global refinery throughputs are forecast to increase by a further 0.7 mb/d in 3Q15, with annual gains shifting to the non-OECD. New capacity start-ups in 2015 and 2016 will put margins under pressure.

    The title of this post, "The bottom of the market may still be ahead", is the last line of the July IEA OMR summary. Those companies and investors hoping for an early end to this low price crisis may be disappointed. Global supply was up again in June by 550,000 bpd. Demand growth looks set to slow. Inventories are at record levels. And not surprisingly prices have once again yielded to the gravity of glut and have fallen below $60 / bbl. To add insult to injury US oil rig count has risen these last two weeks and UK North Sea oil production looks set to rise in the years ahead.

    Rig Count

    The US oil rig count has fallen every week since December 2014, that is until two weeks ago when it rose for the first time in 7 months a feat repeated last Friday.

    The US oil rig count has risen over the last two weeks by a total of 17 units. So what is going on? Why have the shale producers not all gone bankrupt as some industry watchers forecast. An interesting article in Breitbart, posted by Roger Andrews in this week's Blowout, gives some clues.

    The U.S. "fully burdened exploration and production "break-even" cost is now $51 per barrel, and falling fast. Furthermore, with hundreds of American oil companies having already paid the exploration lease acquisition costs to accumulate tens of thousands of drilling sites, the production-only break-even cost for positive cash-flow is about $29 a barrel. After tacking on a 9 percent profit, U.S. domestic oil companies are now incentivized to produce domestic oil any time the price is above $32 a barrel.

    The operating cost base for drilling and producing shale oil has followed the oil price down. If these figures from Breitbart are anywhere close to correct then many OPEC members should be extremely concerned. Can they run their social services on $30 per barrel?

    UK Oil Production to Increase

    Not only do the oil companies and the oil price have to contend with robust US production but there is a prospect of UK oil production increasing for the first time since the year 2000. The forecast scenario below is from Derek Louden who provides a tremendous overview of UK oil production in this presentation.

    UK oil production has a historic decline rate of about 9% per annum. It was always the case that when production declined so far that it would become easier to reverse basin decline. For example, when production stood at 2.9 Mbpd, 261,000 bpd new production capacity was required every year to replace declines. Now that production is closer to 0.8 Mbpd, 72,000 bpd new capacity will do the job.

    The record high price of recent years has led to record levels of investment that are only now working through the system with several major new field developments due to come on line in the next couple of years. Derek Louden lists all new developments on pages 42 and 43 of his report. The big ones are: Schiehallion redevelopment, Clair phase 2, Kraken and Mariner. If all goes according to plan then UK production will rise before falling again before the end of the decade.

    Oil Stocks

    One of the big surprises of the IEA OMR is the record crude oil and products inventory levels that they do not fully understand. In the past I have never managed to make much sense of inventory changes and it is hence a variable that I have not followed. It is perhaps time to put that right. The chart shows the development of stock levels in the USA based on EIA data.

    In a recent comment Jim suggested that the flood of LTO may produce a flood of propane and NGL that currently has no where to go but storage. In the USA this does seem to be a part of but not the whole story. It is a rise in crude oil stocks that underpins the recent surge in US inventory.

    Concluding Thoughts

    The oil companies and service companies have already made deep spending cuts with substantial redundancies. Nevertheless, the momentum built in the last 5 years continues to feed through to higher production levels. Many companies will have been hoping for signs of a robust recovery in price by now, hanging tough to retain staff for when the upturn comes. I suspect that over the next 6 months we will see a second wave of cuts. Things are indeed already austere here in Aberdeen.

    One thing we seem to have heard little about so far is austerity within OPEC. There seemed to be solidarity for the current strategy at their June meeting. I wonder how much longer this will last?

    [Jul 24, 2015] Nine Reasons Why Low Oil Prices May "Morph" Into Something Much Worse

    Jul 24, 2015 | resilience.org

    2. The cost of oil extraction tends to rise over time because the cheapest to extract oil is removed first. In fact, this is true for nearly all commodities, including metals.

    For oil and for many other commodities, we are experiencing the opposite situation. Instead of becoming increasingly efficient, we are becoming increasingly inefficient (Figure 4). This happens because deeper wells need to be dug, or because we need to use fracking equipment and fracking sand, or because we need to build special refineries to handle the pollution problems of a particular kind of oil. Thus we need more resources to produce the same amount of oil.

    Some people might call the situation "diminishing returns," because the cheap oil has already been extracted, and we need to move on to the more difficult to extract oil. This adds extra steps, and thus extra costs. I have chosen to use the slightly broader term of "increasing inefficiency" because it indicates that the nature of these additional costs is not being restricted.

    Very often, new steps need to be added to the process of extraction because wells are deeper, or because refining requires the removal of more pollutants. At times, the higher costs involve changing to a new process that is believed to be more environmentally sound.

    The cost of extraction keeps rising, as the cheapest to extract resources become depleted, and as environmental pollution becomes more of a problem.

    3. Using more inputs to create the same or smaller output pushes the world economy toward contraction.

    Essentially, the problem is that the same quantity of inputs is yielding less and less of the desired final product. For a given quantity of inputs, we are getting more and more intermediate products (such as fracking sand, "scrubbers" for coal-fired power plants, desalination plants for fresh water, and administrators for colleges), but we are not getting as much output in the traditional sense, such as barrels of oil, kilowatts of electricity, gallons of fresh water, or educated young people, ready to join the work force.

    We don't have unlimited inputs. As more and more of our inputs are assigned to creating intermediate products to work around limits we are reaching (including pollution limits), fewer of our resources can go toward producing desired end products. The result is less economic growth. Because of this declining economic growth, there is less demand for commodities. So, prices for commodities tend to drop.

    This outcome is to be expected, if increased efficiency is part of what creates economic growth, and what we are experiencing now is the opposite: increased inefficiency.

    4. The way workers afford higher commodity costs is primarily through higher wages. At times, higher debt can also be a workaround. If neither of these is available, commodity prices can fall below the cost of production.

    If there is a significant increase in the cost of products like houses and cars, this presents a huge challenge to workers. Usually, workers pay for these products using a combination of wages and debt. If costs rise, they either need higher wages, or a debt package that makes the product more affordable–perhaps lower rates, or a longer period for payment.

    Commodity costs have been rising very rapidly in the last fifteen years or so. According to a chart prepared by Steven Kopits, some of the major costs of extracting oil began increasing by 10.9% per year, in about 1999.

    In fact, the inflation-adjusted prices of almost all energy and metal products tended to rise rapidly during the period 1999 to 2008 (Figure 7). This was a time period when the amount of mortgage debt was increasing rapidly as lenders began offering home loans with low initial interest rates to almost anyone, including those with low credit scores and irregular income. When debt levels began falling in mid-2008 (related in part to defaulting home loans), commodity prices of all types dropped.

    Prices then began to rise once Quantitative Easing (QE) was initiated (compare Figures 6 and 7). The use of QE brought down medium-term and long-term interest rates, making it easier for customers to afford homes and cars.

    ... ... ...

    More recently, prices have fallen again. Thus, we have had two recent times when prices have fallen below the cost of production for many major commodities. Both of these drops occurred after prices had been high, when debt availability was contracting or failing to rise as much as in the past.

    [Jul 23, 2015] US Recession Imminent - World Trade Slumps By Most Since Financial Crisis

    Remember this is ZeroHedge... It "predicts" that the US recession is coming for the last five years. But, please note, one day it will be right. Still I would subscribe under the following:
    "...We have not had a recovery since 2008. In fact, one could argue that the housing bubble that started in 2002 up to 2008 was also a band aid attempt at creating a fictitious recovery by stoking asset values, hyperinflating housing, and further debasing savings at the expense of the productive population."
    Jul 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge
    nope-1004

    Everything from Wall Street is "since the financial crisis".

    Wish some truth would be told at some point, that the "recovery" since 2008 has been a smoke & mirrors recovery with cooked books, fake employment stats, FASB accounting changes marking asset values to fantasy, and back door bailouts of the financial institutions because they are 100% insolvent.

    We have not had a recovery since 2008. In fact, one could argue that the housing bubble that started in 2002 up to 2008 was also a band aid attempt at creating a fictitious recovery by stoking asset values, hyperinflating housing, and further debasing savings at the expense of the productive population. The FED is sucking the life out of anyone not chasing bubbles, unicorns, and rain bows.

    The financial system is a crooked lie and WE ARE IN A PROLONGED DEPRESSION.

    Let's call a spade a spade.

    [Jul 23, 2015] Western businesses eye Iran after UN backs nuclear deal

    "Unfortunately for Iran, the timing could not be worse. Oil prices are depressed and already there is a glut of oil on the market. Adding Iran's crude will put further downward pressure on oil prices." -- May be that was the idea form the very beginning ;-)
    Jul 23, 2015 | The Guardian

    Handjani also said it was likely that Iran would soon be able to sell crude. "I think that is where we will see the most immediate loosening up of restrictions," Handjani said. "Iran has between 40m and 50m barrels of crude at sea. Expect this crude to come to the market in short order. They will start competing fiercely to regain market share that they have lost to their Persian Gulf neighbours. Unfortunately for Iran, the timing could not be worse. Oil prices are depressed and already there is a glut of oil on the market. Adding Iran's crude will put further downward pressure on oil prices."

    [Jul 23, 2015] WTI Crude Tumbles To $48 Handle, Energy Stocks At Dec 2012 Lows

    "...Can we get to 47.09. That's about the last time Goldman came out and stated prices can go lower and we had lift off. Maybe they make another comment for another slaughter."
    Zero Hedge

    saints51

    Can we get to 47.09. That's about the last time Goldman came out and stated prices can go lower and we had lift off. Maybe they make another comment for another slaughter.

    JustObserving

    Gas price in Venezuela is 6 cents a gallon. We may get there yet.

    http://www.globalpetrolprices.com/gasoline_prices/

    wrs1

    My two newest oil wells, drilled by BHP in the Wolfcamp, produced a combined 35,000 bbl of oil in May and 100,000mcf gas.

    wrs1

    Vertical wells are lucky to produce 1/10th of that. Never owned a vertical well that produced more than 100 bbl/day. But 7-8kbbl/mo is still 250bbl/day and no, these wells should still be over 10kbbl/day next year. The decline rate isn't near what has been claimed on this site. As usual, the disinformation is more accepted on this site than reality.

    papaswamp

    I think the point was more price dives across all commodities. Sort of the classic precursor to a recession (or worse). But as to Oil...since it has far reaching economic impact (see CATs recent earnings report)...shows a rather large global problem.

    [Jul 23, 2015] The Effect of New Production Methods on U.S Oil Output

    The Effect of New Production Methods on U.S Oil Output

    Tags: Bakken, fracking, oil production, oil shale, shale oil, WTI inShare

    Since 2005, the "total oil supply" for the United States as reported by the Energy Information Administration increased by 2.2 million barrels per day. Of this, 1.3 mb/d, or 60%, has come from natural gas liquids and biofuels, which really shouldn't be added to conventional crude production for purposes of calculating the available supply. Of the 800,000 b/d increase in actual field production of crude oil, almost all of the gain has come from shale and other tight formations that horizontal fracturing methods have only recently opened up. Here I offer some thoughts on how these new production methods change the overall outlook for U.S. oil production.

    Let me begin by clarifying that "shale oil" and "oil shale" refer to two completely different resources. "Oil shale" is in fact not shale and does not contain oil, but is instead a rock that at great monetary and environmental cost can yield organic compounds that could eventually be made into oil. Although some people have long been optimistic about the potential amount of energy available in U.S. oil-shale deposits, I personally am pessimistic that oil shale will ever be a significant energy source.

    By contrast, the expression "shale oil", or the more accurate term "tight oil", is often used to refer to rock formations that do contain oil and that sometimes might actually be shale. The defining characteristic is that the rock is not sufficiently porose or permeable to allow oil to flow out if all you do is drill a hole into the formation. However, enterprising drillers have discovered that if you create fissures in the rock by injecting water (along with sand and some chemicals to facilitate the process) at high pressure along horizontal pipes through the formation, oil can seep back through the cracks and be extracted.

    As seen in the figure above, these horizontal fracturing methods have been the main factor behind recent increases in U.S. field production. The key question is how much more growth we should expect. Leonardo Maugeri, senior manager for the Italian oil company Eni, and Senior Fellow at Harvard University, has a new paper in which he predicts that the U.S. could get an additional 4.17 million barrels per day from shale/tight oil plays by 2020, though he notes that any such predictions are problematic:

    the huge differences in permeability, porosity, and thickness of a shale/tight oil formation require many more exploration wells be drilled in different areas of the field before making it possible to have an idea of the effective recoverability rate from the whole formation…. it is impossible to make any reasonable evaluation of the future production from a shale/tight oil formation based on the analysis of a few wells data and such limited activity.

    To put the 4.17 mb/d number in perspective, total U.S. field production of crude oil in 2011 was 5.68 mb/d. If 4.17 mb/d could be added to that, it would almost put us back to where we were in 1970. Alternatively, 4.17 mb/d represents 22% of the 18.8 mb/d currently consumed by the U.S. and 4.7% of total world consumption.

    Crude oil production (in millions of barrels per day) from entire United States, 1859-2011, with contributions from individual regions as indicated. Updated from Hamilton (2011)

    Maugeri describes the assumptions under which he arrived at his estimate for the Bakken tight formation in North Dakota and Montana as follows:

    • A price of oil (WTI) equal to or greater than $70 per barrel through 2020;
    • A constant 200 drilling rigs per week;
    • An estimated ultimate recovery rate of 10 percent per individual producing well (which in most cases has already been exceeded) and for the overall formation;
    • [original oil in place comes to 300 billion barrels];
    • A combined average depletion rate for each producing well of 15 percent over the first five years, followed by a 7 percent depletion rate;
    • A level of porosity and permeability of the Bakken/Three Forks formation derived from those experienced so far by oil companies engaged in the area.

    The above assumptions detail the total quantities that Maugeri estimates can eventually be extracted (a stock variable), but they clearly are not enough to calculate an annual production rate for the year 2020 (a flow variable) which is the key number Maugeri is reporting. His analysis also makes use of a proprietary database of results for existing wells. What he evidently did was to calculate average well completion rates and flow rates per well from that database and extrapolate those forward, though he does not tell the reader what were the actual summary averages that he used for this calculation nor indicate in what way the $70 assumed price enters the calculations. His paper really just seems to provide his own summary judgment as to what his private database implies rather than specifics that other analysts could use to evaluate or reproduce his claims.

    I recently attended an excellent conference on oil market fundamentals, whose proceedings can be viewed online if your budget allows for a hefty registration fee. One of the presentations was by Morningstar analyst Jason Stevens, who estimated the 2015 potential U.S. tight crude oil production using two different approaches. The first approach, which Stevens called a "top-down" approach, was to "use best-in play curves and assume repeatability and similar results in emerging plays," which sounds identical to Maugeri's methodology, and indeed, Stevens' calculations used the identical 200 rigs per week assumption for Bakken as did Maugeri. But whereas Maugeri predicted we'd see 1.5 mb/d additional Bakken production by 2010, Stevens calculated that the area might only add 150,000 b/d or so by 2015. On the other hand, Stevens' calculations suggested about a 900,000 b/d gain for the Eagle Ford in Texas by 2015, compared with 1.47 mb/d anticipated by Maugeri for 2020.

    Source: Jason Stevens, 2012 Symposium on Oil Supply and Demand.

    Stevens also calculated a forecast using a second method that he described as "bottom up", which used specific production forecasts for 16 of the individual firms involved in these plays, and assumed that the fraction of each area's total production represented by these particular firms would stay constant. This bottom-up calculation leads to an expected additional flow by the particular firms studied of almost 1 mb/d by 2015, implying perhaps 3 mb/d combined production from all drillers in the plays. Thus Stevens' bottom line was similar to that of Maugeri's, although the specifics differ.

    Source: Jason Stevens, 2012 Symposium on Oil Supply and Demand.

    In addition to the uncertainties noted above about extrapolating historical production rates, the rate at which production declines from a given well over time is another big unknown. Another key point to recognize is the added cost of extracting oil from tight formations. West Texas Intermediate is currently around $85/barrel. With the huge discount for Canadian and north-central U.S. producers, that means that producers of North Dakota sweet are only offered $61 a barrel. Tight oil is not going to be the reason that we return to an era of cheap oil, for the simple reason that if oil again fell below $50/barrel, it wouldn't be profitable to produce with these methods. Nor is tight oil likely to get the U.S. back to the levels of field production that we saw in 1970. But tight oil will likely provide a source of significant new production over the next decade as long as the price does not fall too much.

    It is a separate critical question how much additional production may come worldwide from other sources, and how far this new production will go toward offsetting declining production from existing mature fields. Maugeri is also quite optimistic about these issues as well. I hope to take up a discussion of these separate questions in a subsequent post.

    This article originally appeared on Econbrowser.

    [Jul 22, 2015] Far Worse Than 1986 The Oil Downturn Has No Parallel In Recorded History, Morgan Stanley Says

    "...[There are] strong similarities between the current oil price downturn and the one that occurred in 1985/86. The trajectory of oil prices is similar on both occasions. There were also common reasons for the collapse. "
    .
    "...Folks, we are in the throes of economic war and most of us haven't a clue as to the enemy. It isn't really OPEC, but they may be an ally of the enemy. The true enemy is the financial system itself - the big banks. To the extent the Fed enables this behavior, it is part of the problem, not the solution. Easy credit is creating dilemas that constrain policy choices. By issuing too much high risk credit the banksters have made it tough for the Fed to raise rates. Welcome to Japan."
    .
    "...Summary: Morgan Stanley is trying to talk down the price of oil even more, so they can buy oils stock at ridiculoulsy low values. I'll be buying too, when the time comes."
    Jul 22, 2015 | Zero Hedge

    In a ZIRP world, there's plenty of demand for new HY issuance and ill-fated secondaries, which means the digging, drilling, and pumping gets to continue indefinitely in what may end up being one of the most dramatic instances of malinvestment the market has ever seen.

    Those who contend that the downturn simply cannot last much longer - that the supply/demand imbalance will soon even out, that the market will clear sooner rather than later, and that even if the weaker hands are shaken out, the pain for the majors will be relatively short-lived - are perhaps ignoring the underlying narrative that helps to explain why the situation looks like it does. At heart, this is a struggle between the Fed's ZIRP and the Saudis, who appear set to outlast the easy money that's kept US producers alive.

    Against that backdrop, and amid Wednesday's crude carnage, we turn to Morgan Stanley for more on why the current downturn will be "worse than 1986."

    From Morgan Stanley

    Worse than 1986? Really?

    We have been expecting the current downturn to be as severe as the one in 1986 – the worst for at least 45 years – but not worse than that. Still, if oil prices follow the path suggested by the forward curve, our thesis may yet prove too optimistic.

    Our constructive stance on the majors is based on four factors: 1) supply – we expected production growth to moderate following large capex cuts and the sharp decline in the rig count; 2) demand – we anticipated that the fall in price would boost oil products demand; 3) cost and capex – we foresaw both falling sharply, similar to the industry's response in 1986; and 4) valuation – relative DY and P/BV indicated 35-year lows.

    So far this year, we can put a tick against three of them [but] our expectation on supply has not materialised: US tight oil production growth has started to roll over, but this has been more than offset by OPEC, which has added ~1.5 mb/d since February.

    On current trajectory, this downturn could become worse than 1986: An additional +1.5 mb/d is roughly one year of oil demand growth. If sustained, this could delay the rebalancing of oil markets by a year as well. The forward curve has started to price this in: as the chart shows, the forward curve currently points towards a recovery in prices that is far worse than in 1986. This means the industrial downturn could also be worse. In that case, there would be little in analysable history that could be a guide to this cycle.

    [There are] strong similarities between the current oil price downturn and the one that occurred in 1985/86. The trajectory of oil prices is similar on both occasions. There were also common reasons for the collapse.

    A high and stable oil price in the preceding four years stimulated technological innovation and led to a high level of investment. This resulted in strong production growth outside OPEC, exceeding the rate of global demand growth. When it became clear that OPEC would no longer rein in production to balance the market (as it did during both the Nov 1985 and Nov 2014 OPEC meetings) the price collapsed.

    And although MS notes that similar to 1986, costs and capex are likely to come in sharply while demand growth should materialize, the supply side of the equation is not cooperating thanks to increased output from OPEC.

    Due to the sharp slowdown in drilling activity and the high decline rate of tight oil wells, we expected production in the US to flatline and start declining in 2H. This seems to be happening: according to the US Department of Energy, tight oil production in June was 94 kb/d below the April level, and it forecasts further falls of 90 kb/d in both July and August.

    Now that capex is falling, we anticipated non-US production to be flat at best. Still, this has not yet been the case. At the time of our 'Looking Beyond the Nadir' report in February, OPEC production stood at ~30.2 mb/d. This increased substantially to 31.3 mb/d in May and 31.7 mb/d in June, i.e. OPEC has added 1.5 mb/d to global supply in the last four months alone.

    Our commodity analyst Adam Longson argues that the oil market is currently ~800,000 b/d oversupplied. This suggests that the current oversupply in the oil market is fully due to OPEC's production increase since February alone.

    We anticipated that OPEC would not cut, but we didn't foresee such a sharp increase. In our view, this is the main reason why the rebalancing of oil markets had not yet gained momentum.

    If oil prices follow the path suggested by the forward curve, and essentially remain rangebound around levels seen in the last 2-3 months, this downturn would be more severe than that in 1986. As there was no sharp downturn in the ~15 years before that, the current downturn could be the worst of the last 45+ years.

    If this were to be the case, there would be nothing in our experience that would be a guide to the next phases of this cycle, especially over the relatively near term. In fact, there may be nothing in analyzable history.

    Needless to say, this does not bode well for everyone who has unwittingly thrown good money after bad on the assumption that the Saudis will cut production and trigger a rebound in crude.

    In addition to the immense pressure from persistently low prices, US producers also face a Fed rate hike cycle and thus the beginning of the end for easy money.

    Of course, the more expensive it is to fund money-losing producers, the less willing investors will be to perpetuate this delay-and-pray scheme, which brings us right back to what we've been saying for months: the expiration date for heavily indebted US drillers is fast approaching, and if Morgan Stanley thinks the oil downturn has no parallel in "analysable history," wait until they see the carnage that will unfold in HY credit when a few high profile defaults in the oil patch send the retail crowd running for the junk bond ETF exits.

    aVileRat

    Yes it is worse than 87, and 83. In fact you have to reach all the way back to 1860 and the brief 1931-33 period to figure this one out. And given that most of the majors will require fresh credit roll over and drilling capital for the 2016 drill programs, this could get nasty. Most bonds are pricing that debt will be rolled over at the same terms, with at best 500 basis point moves for some of the most horrible offenders of debt binge drilling. Those were financed at 80/bbl projections on Par. Most corporates have locked in their hedges down at the low 60's. (all USD). For some corporates the capital programs needed to keep production flat, plus roll their bonds over at the 80/bbl interest rate are nearly 4x their current cash flows. Yet most HYG still trades at 80/100 or better.

    This salient fact is what is keeping the 51 billion in special situations PE money on the sidelines. Who wants to buy into the next GDP or PVA ? and then see a 50% haircut in 6 months. Very few on a standard 5% WACC (going to 8). That is also what keeps most of the major Pensions, Endowments and bond managers awake at night. What happens when a BBB+ rolls the yield at 300 bps. What happened to the money markets when nobody knew what was economical.

    MonetaryApostate

    I believe that banking institution are more dangerous to our liberties than standing armies. If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issue of their currency, first by inflation, then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around [the banks] will deprive the people of all property their fathers conquered. The issuing power should be taken from the banks and restored to the people, to whom it properly belongs. - Thomas Jefferson

    There are two ways to conquer a nation. One is by the sword. The other is by debt. - John Adams

    http://galeinnes.blogspot.com/2015/07/the-invisible-enslavement.html

    steelhead23

    I would assume that MS sent a forward copy of this to the FOMC because this information is likely to encourage the Fed to continue ZIRP. Those with rose colored glasses should stop reading this comment now.

    The U.S. economy is a virtual zombie, kept alive by easy credit. Even those seemingly good numbers coming out of the car biz is simpy another credit bubble, including a huge amount of high risk credit. Let's use autos as a metaphor here. If interest rates increase, tight oil producers would not be able to roll their debt and would go bankrupt. U.S. oil production would decline. If OPEC did not fill the supply gap, prices would rise. If they did fill the gap, the U.S. trade balance would get worse, but let's assume OPEC sits tight (not a great assumption, but I want to make a point). The effect of increasing interest rates would be to reduce production. Prices would then rise. Now, let's look at our new car owner. The increased cost of gas would consume more of his/her cash flow. They could either buy less, causing an economic downturn, or default. If either the economy goes down or defaults increase the Fed would be looking to juice the economy and would reduce rates, reinitiating ZIRP. The Fed is a reactionary organization, not a leader.

    Folks, we are in the throes of economic war and most of us haven't a clue as to the enemy. It isn't really OPEC, but they may be an ally of the enemy. The true enemy is the financial system itself - the big banks. To the extent the Fed enables this behavior, it is part of the problem, not the solution. Easy credit is creating dilemas that constrain policy choices. By issuing too much high risk credit the banksters have made it tough for the Fed to raise rates. Welcome to Japan.

    From where I sit the best answer is a painful one. The Fed should do a Volcker; raise rates and keep raising rates until credit is being created at a rate equal to or lower than economic growth. Yes, there would be an absolute hemorroage in the markets. Lots of folks would lose lots of money. As long as this global Ponzi scheme continues we will be seeing rampant insider looting and other criminality because prosecution could cause the systemic collapse the entire regulatory apparatus fears most. End ZIRP now!

    Dr. Engali

    Cracks me up every time I read that we are facing a fed rate hike cycle. Fucking hilarious. Here's some food for thought; we have an over supply of oil because we have no demand thanks to the global depression we are currently in.

    Carpenter1

    You falsely assume our rulers are benevolent and actually want to hold the financial system together.

    In that assumption, you are incorrect.


    Carpenter1

    Here's some food for thought; we have an over supply of oil because we have no demand thanks to the global depression we are currently in.

    Your own words, no assumptions necessary. Or is this statement supposed to be the lead in to why there WILL be a rate hike? Because we're in a depression right?

    Doubt that very much, obviously you're saying there'll be no hike cause the economy sucks.

    So I repeat, you falsely assume our leaders are benevolent and want to keep the system up. In that you are incorrect.

    Dr. Engali

    What the fuck does that statement you highlighted have to do with the powers that be wanting to hold the system together? You make no fucking sense. I will repeat what I have said in the past. We will never see a fed funds rate above 1% again. We may get a little hike to prolong the illusion that all is well, but we will never see "normal" rates again. When TPTB do collapse the system, and they will, there will be a false flag to give them cover.

    Meremortal

    Well yes, governments are in the oil biz. The feds collect 22.3 cents a gallon and the states average around 18 cents a gallon. They make that by sticking their hands out.

    So, subtract out the 40 cents a gallon the various levels of govt make and the cost of boutique fuels and prices would be a good bit lower.

    Of course there's also the big bad oil companies' profits, which average 9 cents a gallon. Horrors. To get that profit, they have to permit, explore, produce, refine, ship and retail the product.

    There's also the fact the almost 30% of all oil use is non-fuel in nature.

    Oil has been a boom-bust biz for a century and some people are just noticing.

    Carpenter1

    No, that's not why.

    Super major producers have been reducing their reserves for decades, some thought this was a sign they were losing ground. To the contrary, they, being insider elites, knew this day was coming and would be far more than a typical cyclical downturn in oil prices.

    We are witnessing the destruction of every non-super major producer worldwide.

    In the meantime, super majors are making their money refining and manufacturing instead of producing. Thus, they've kept prices high to offset whatever losses they take from their leftover production business. So, they'll survive this thing just fine, and notice they aren't raising bloody hell in government with their extremely powerful lobbyists.

    Seem odd? It should, cause big oil gets what big oil wants. Apparently big oil doesn't want higher prices, cause big oil has planned for this event long ago.

    Meremortal

    Lots of "ifs" in that article.

    WTI prices in this downturn so far:

    116.75 - 49.92

    WTI prices in last downturn, 2008:

    146.12 - 46.56.

    http://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart

    Take a look of what has happened after each crash in oil prices, adjusted for inflation.

    Jus7tme

    Summary: Morgan Stanley is trying to talk down the price of oil even more, so they can buy oils stock at ridiculoulsy low values. I'll be buying too, when the time comes.

    piratepiet2

    Can this not be explained by the following :

    1. renewable energy revolution->downward pressure on demand

    2.fracking in US->downward pressure on demand on world market (as still ban on exports)

    3.nuclear deal with Iran in return for sanctions relief-> increase in supply

    4.Global warming narrative with potential deal in Paris in december 2015->downward pressure on demand

    5.economic depression ?

    6.I have the impression that peak oil hysteria was possibly a scare tactic to justify high prices. Are people waking up to that ?

    7.Young generation is too hooked to their internet connected devices to want a car to drive anywhere ? Or the sharing economy makes having your own car less of a must ? Think Uber,...

    Your thoughts ?

    Radical Marijuana

    piratepiet2,

    my answers:

    Primarily, it is the counter-intuitive results of systems which were based upon presuming endless exponential growth running into real limits of diminishing returns making that no longer possible. Civilization was based upon being able to make "money" out of nothing as debts, in order to "pay" for strip-mining the natural resources of the planet. Running into the real limits of diminishing returns, after we have high-graded ourselves to hell, show up first and foremost through the fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems. However, since those systems ARE ENFORCED FRAUDS, the intrusions of physical realities into those integrated systems of legalized lies backed by legalized violence results in various sorts of psychotic breakdowns, which manifest through a wide variety of counter-intuitive ways, because none of the mental models that people are using to perceive the real world were remotely close to being realistic, since those were based on being able to operate as professional liars and immaculate hypocrites.

    As was recently concluded in another article that I also commented upon $900 Million Payday Is Billionaires' Reward For Crushing Twinkie-Maker's Labor Unions

    "... an entire world filled with lunatic central bankers who have clearly taken over the asylum."

    In every way possible, on every possible level, it is a gross understatement to assert that: "In fact, there may be nothing in analysable history."

    As I also explained in my reply under:

    So You Say You "Don't" Want A Revolution?

    There is nothing in human history to compare to the development of globalized electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic bombs. The only thing that compares to the progress in physical science is the development of photosynthesis, which had profoundly revolutionary effects upon the evolution of life on planet Earth.

    Morgan Stanley thinks the oil downturn has no parallel in "analysable history."

    Nothing during "analysable HUMAN history" can be compared to advances in physical science enabling technologies to be developed that are trillions of times more powerful and capable, which then were primarily applied through social pyramid systems based upon ENFORCING FRAUDS.

    The wild swings in the price of oil are due to hyper-complicated interactions within systems that were always based upon being able to back up lies with violence, so that everything that happens occurs through those infinite tunnels of deceits.

    The renewable revolution is not yet sufficiently significant to explain the wide price swings in oil. Being able to make "money" out of nothing to speculate with is much more related to the wild price swings in oil. DEMAND DESTRUCTION is the single best explanation for the collapse of the price of oil, which in turn is related to those who are able and willing to make more "money" out of nothing to speculate with continuing to do that.

    Nothing regarding the objective supply of oil explains the wild oscillations in the price of oil. Rather, the background steady deterioration due to diminishing returns from investments to extract oil ends up being leveraged up and down by many orders of magnitude, through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, such that those have intensely counter-intuitive manifestations, because there is nothing like that which was ever globally faced before, by the Neolithic styles of social pyramid systems, based upon being able to back up lies with violence.

    The global warming narrative exists inside of that overall context that civilization is controlled by backing up lies with violence. Therefore, nothing can be trusted. Even although the greenhouse gas mechanisms exist, the overall climate includes more cosmic factors, such as the Sun and Earth magnetic fields, which are changing significantly in ways that nobody understands, and which factors were deliberately ignored by the mainstream climate models. In any case, there are not yet any sufficiently significant impacts from laws that are supposed to limit carbon emissions, but rather, only more scam "solutions" designed to deceptively be able to make more privatized profits, in ways which do not really resolve the bigger problems.

    Economic depression is what I believe in the currently most significant reason for the DEMAND DESTRUCTION, that hit the price of oil. However, that cannot be comprehended outside of the extremely counter-intuitive aspects of how everything is priced through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems.

    Peak oil was not "hysteria," although the statistics can not be trusted regarding that, due to all of the vested interests that are behind misrepresenting that data. However, the basics appear to me to be irrefutable, without some series of technological miracles, none of which have been sufficiently proven to be possible, as far as I now know, our current kind of industrial civilization has sailed itself way up its shit creek without enough of a paddle, by presuming that there surely would be some technological miracles to save us from ourselves.

    However, the basic problems are that money is measurement backed by murder, or that the debt controls depended upon the death controls. The history of oil can not be separated from the history of warfare, nor separated from the basic ways that civilization actually operates according to the principles and methods of organized crime. Again, there "nothing in analysable history" to be able to compare to what happens to petroleum resources, after the human murder systems have to adapt to the existence of weapons of mass destruction.

    At the present time, we are cruising on the autopilot of human habits, to have developed globalized electronic frauds, backed by atomic bombs, in the forms of MAD Money As Debt, backed by MAD Mutual Assured Destruction. We have NOT adapted to that, other than mostly by continuing to follow our morbid psychological and political habits, which were based upon thousands of years of social successfulness through backing up deceits with destruction, and then through enforcing frauds.

    The ways that the industrial revolution developed were never done with any overall rationality, but rather, were done in the expedient ways directed by the continued triumphs of organized crime. Therefore, the petroleum resources' real past was wrapped up in the paradoxical triumphs due to enforcing frauds, and so, the future of those must also continue to be wrapped upon in their continuing enforced frauds, which has wildly counter-intuitive consequences, related to the wild oscillations in the price of oil, that have no direct relationship to the relatively overall steady supply of oil, which has perhaps overall been plateauing.

    The oil markets, like all other markets, are being rigged to the maximum possible degree by the people who most control the SOURCES of the public "money" supply as ENFORCED FRAUDS, which therefore, are able to create as much of that "money" out of nothing as they want to, in order to speculate with that, which are the primary reasons how and why the price of oil can be MADLY manipulated, in counter-intuitive ways, which will increasingly have even more MAD counter-intuitive consequences, because, overall, those ENFORCED FRAUDS are reaching their turning or tipping points, towards reaching the cusps of various psychotic breakdowns.

    We are NOT analyzing a "rational" market, we are actually analyzing runaway criminally insane markets. It is only from that perspective that one can comprehend the otherwise astonishingly counter-intuitive ways that the oil markets have been behaving. Personally, I believe that Peak Oil is real, however, I therefore think that that will provoke Peak Insanity.

    The younger you are, the more you are being lied to, cheated and robbed by the political system that you were born into. Some young people may have an intuitive bullshit detector. However, the circuits of that have probably burned out due to the overload placed upon those detectors. The entire system was based on maximizing the short-term benefits, while that also simultaneously maximized the longer term costs, which was facilitated through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems. Overall, therefore, the debts have been deferred onto future generations, and even more so, the deaths have been deferred onto future generations, in order that past and present generations could indulge in strip-mining the planet's natural resources as fast as possible, regardless of the overall eventual consequences from having done that ...

    The more one learns about that, the worse it gets. Furthermore, the younger you are, the worse that will probably become. For generation after generation, people have been the victims of the best scientific brainwashing that money could buy. That continues to be the case now more than ever before. All in all, I can quite sympathize with young people who have turned their intuitive bullshit detectors off, because otherwise those would have their sirens blaring louder and louder, while their warning lights blinked brighter.

    In order to become more realistic about human energy systems, one has to go through series of intellectual revolutions, in order to encompass how and why we have ended up operating our civilization through fundamentally fraudulent financial accounting systems, whereby those frauds by privately controlled banks were enforced by governments to achieve leverage levels which appear to have become so extremely unbalanced as to be criminally insane (as I just recited in my other comment I posted today under $900 Million Payday Is Billionaires' Reward For Crushing Twinkie-Maker's Labor Unions

    "... an entire world filled with lunatic central bankers who have clearly taken over the asylum."

    In my view, it is impossible to exaggerate the degree to which that is literally the case, and since petroleum resources are the single most important component in our current kind of industrialization, those are also subject to being the most criminally insane, and therefore, the oil markets manifest the maximum counter-intuitive events.

    PrimalScream

    OIL has tanked

    COAL has tanked

    COPPER has tanked

    The Baltic Dry Index is at generational lows.

    But no worries - the Dow continues to have record values !!!!!

    HAS IT OCCURRED to anyone ... how stupid and corrupt our Financial System looks, when this kind of stuff goes on? I know Banana Republics that that have better "price discovery" mechanisms than this. And they only deal in bullets and bananas!

    Youri Carma

    Halliburton secures $500 million to fund drilling in old wells
    20 July 2015, by Amrutha Gayathri (Reuters)
    http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/07/20/us-halliburton-results-idUSKCN0PU11H20150720

    Halliburton said it had tapped BlackRock for $500 million to help fund drilling in existing shale wells, the first such move by a major oilfield services provider at a time when oil producers are shying away from drilling new wells.

    HardlyZero

    bullish. They have to keep up appearances to keep the entire show on the road. It's going to take years to wipe out all this fiat financed capex and stop the madness.

    adr

    In the late '90s there was a lot of talk at very high levels about the discovery that oil is abiotic and the supply is just about limitless. New oil massive oil fields were being discovered and ones that should have run dry kept on producing. Oil looked to go below $10 a barrel. Cheap energy and low cost raw materials are the lifeblood of small business and the true economy.

    This, like Tesla's discovery of free limitless electricity generated from the Earth itself didn't work for the powers that be. It sounds like a wacky conspiracy theory but there is plenty of evidence that true world changing innovation has been stifled.

    The Saudis could still rake in billions with oil selling for $10. US oil companies were making billions with oil selling for less than $20 and still exploring and expanding deep sea rigs. I remember talking with some of my college friends who went on to work at Exxon that a price of $50 for a barrel of oil was seen as impossible. When prices first started creeping up I was told that at $50 it would be profitable to drill anywhere on Earth, even the bottom of the deep sea. If $20 oil still allowed for massive exploration, why is $50 oil seen as the end of the world now? Either oil really is that expensive, or we have been lied to by investment banks and traders who can't make a profit if a commodity falls below the price they paid for it.

    The world functioned quite well with commodities at a fraction of their current prices. It is pretty clear that the global economy can't function the way things are right now. We have had fifteen years of absolute economic hell since the Commodity Futures Modernization Act was passed. I don't think anyone even knows what commodities should be selling for since we haven't had anything close to real price discovery for coming up on two decades. Just look at the inflation caused by the massive increase in contract volume. Did growing corn, cutting trees, mining ore, or drilling for oil really get that expensive? Or did everything skyrocket in price because contracts became the next great speculative investment.

    The global depression started when total economic control was handed over to investment bankers. The passage of that piece of legislation along with the repeal of Glass Steagall has caused more damage than every war in history combined.

    Wed, 07/22/2015 - 18:12 | 6342998 piratepiet2

    two words for you : petro and dollar.

    Wed, 07/22/2015 - 19:30 | 6343312 Pareto

    Inflation. Eventually, $50 oil will be viable when the prices of labor, equipment, services, housing, food, etc., all come down. And the longer the commodity rout continues, the more likely these adjustments will occur. Talking to a kid the other day - figured his time is worth $30/hr. Hasn't worked a fucking day in his life - but - thats just what he figures he's worth........ When the reset occurs I think most (conscious) people will do just fine. Others, like this kid will have an incredibly rude awakening. The way commodities are headed and their duration, nominal wages need to come down at least 40%. Which means the nominal prices of all other things have to come down commensurately as well. And they will.

    It just takes time for the shock effect to etch permanently in the minds of people, that things are never going to be the same. We are still in the denial stage. That will change and give way to a more realistic expectation once the greatest monetary experiment completes its cycle.

    Wahooo's picture

    How do you get a 40% drop?

    Winston Churchill

    None of the historic ratios mean anything.

    We are truly in uncharted waters, without a paddle.

    It is different this time, but not in the way CNBC says.

    KJWqonfo7

    OK, I know im going to regret saying this but... could the Obama policy for Iran be right?

    Ignore the nukes and the fact that they hate our guts..

    Strategically are we better off if the Saudis have an enemy that is well funded, strong and close by? It will force them to build capacity, spend political capitol and treasure to face off against an Iran that has a VERY young population and has been living like the red headed stepchild of the middle east? Hell their lives are already shit what can the Saudis do to them.

    Will it focus their anger more on each other and less on the Tribe (in the short term)? Is a locked and loaded ME with a weak Amerika a strategy to turn them on each other and weaken the region over the long term?

    Has Obama been playing chess while the rest of us were playing checkers?

    Are dogs and cats living together? Is there mass histeria (or just localized to me)?

    Fuck I can feel the downvotes like a chill running down my spine....

    rsnoble

    Who knows. Possible. Neo-cons are capable of anything, including killing off their own, if they think they can come out ahead.

    RaceToTheBottom

    Compare the response of the FED to the 2007 Bankster crisis and the Oil Crisis (especially shale) now.

    • Banksters get bailed out so much that they have their largest bonuses ever.
    • Shale companies go down the toilet.

    This country really needs a come to Jesus moment, and it isn't a stupid "Black lives matter" or "save unborn lives" or "Gays marrying is the most important thing in the world".

    We are sliding into some Sci Fi crazy world reminiscent of some Star Trek show, only this one won't get solved in an hour.

    DOT Vehicle Miles Driven increased 2.7% year-over-year in May, Rolling 12 Months at All Time High

    http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2015/07/dot-vehicle-miles-driven-increased-27.html

    aleister perdurabo wrote on Tue, 7/21/2015 - 9:02 am

    Urban Institute Predicts Rental Surge Among Millennials, Minorities, Seniors | Multifamily content from National Real Estate Investor

    Many apartment experts think the number of vacant apartments will rise this year, despite strong rent growth this spring. But in the long term, an increasing number of researchers expect the demand for rental apartments to keeping growing for more than a decade.

    "A rental surge is coming," according to "Headship and Homeownership: What Does the Future Hold?" a new report from the Urban Institute. "Over the next 15 years, new renters will outnumber new homeowners-causing a sustained surge of rental housing demand that will significantly affect Millennials, seniors and minorities, and expose important gaps in our current housing policies."

    Millions of new renters and fewer new homeowners will push the percentage of households that own their own home down to 61.3 percent by 2030, according to the Urban Institute. That's a steep fall from 63.6 percent in 2013. The homeownership rate has already fallen from 66.2 percent in 2000-before the distortions of the housing boom push the homeownership rate upwards.

    Rob Dawg wrote on Tue, 7/21/2015 - 9:49 am

    Sticker shock sales taxes in Chicago

    The city of Chicago alone has a $20 billion unfunded liability and when Moody's Investors Service dropped the city's debt rating to junk, it forced $2.2 billion in accelerated debt payments. So Cook County has to borrow more money now at higher interest rates to pay those newly due bills AND it has to increase sales taxes to that whopping 10.25% rate effective in January to help pay the interest on it all. It's an endless cycle.

    merchants of fear wrote on Tue, 7/21/2015 - 10:13 am

    People outside that interest group see what's happened with Libya, what almost happened in Egypt. The total shit show that is now Iraq and Syria. The continuing mess that is the West Bank and Gaza, and the terrifying situation in the Ukraine. They think interests that front McCain are a liability that needs to be squelched.. - Comrade Gibbon

    You may be on to something.

    KarmaPolice wrote on Tue, 7/21/2015 - 10:25 am

    Auto-loan defaults lowest in at least 11 years - MarketWatch

    I believe that this was another Doomer theme.

    Subprime car loans.

    [Jul 22, 2015]Oil falls, U.S. crude settles below $50 as inventories rise

    "... Oil is trading at inflation adjusted price equal to 1974 pricing. "

    U.S. September crude (CLc1) fell $1.67 to settle at $49.19 a barrel, first settlement below $50 since April. The $49.06 intraday low was a September contract low.

    U.S. crude dropped below $50 on Monday for the first time since April and its 14-day Relative Strength Index is below 28. A reading below 30 is considered an indication of an oversold condition by technical traders.

    DSR

    The reason inventories are not going down is mostly due to imports of heavy sour grade, which the US does not produce in substantial quantities. Over the years, most US refiners have upgraded to run lower priced heavy crude versus WTI sweet. Thus, refiner demand for WTI has been tempered. Thus our inventory problem at Cushing, etc. BUT, the WTI supply is going to come down and probably faster than most think.

    Chris

    The API is usually off by about double whatever they report, so we'll see a little bit later how much of build there really is in the USA.

    doubtingthomas1 6 hours ago

      4/26/09 9/23/10 7/21/15 
          50      75     50 cost of barrel oil
        1.43     1.91  1.91 RBOB wholesale 
        1.86     2.44  2.45 price seen at the pump
    Data from the commodity Exchange and my local pump prices.

    p2i

    Saudis step up diesel export? Their refineries were only using 2.4M barrels a day in the last report for June. They can't export a lot of product when it's been reported by Wikipedia that they consume 3M barrels a day themselves.

    Joseph

    Somebody is really trying to keep oil above $50/bbl. It's going to be interesting if Oil dips below 50 and possibly triggers some automatic selling. It seems like $50 is a technical indicator.

    IC

    In CA we're getting reamed as usual. We're paying at the $100/bbl level, $4.25/gal. Hell, at the rate these thieves are going, the gas taxes alone will end up being the national avg of the price of gasoline.

    David

    When will the media stop reporting fudged numbers. Media that broadcasts numbers that are obvious estimated aka fudged are just as guilty as the perpetrators. The reality is that fracked oil is not the same quality, estimates of production include distillates that cannot be used as Oil or Gas production. World oil demand is estimated at about 95 million barrels per day, while Saudi's supply is about 31 million per day. The demand is going to quickly outpace the so called 2.5 million bpd surplus. Oil is trading at inflation adjusted price equal to 1974 pricing.


    jim

    This is good news for Americans.
    Bad news for speculators, banksters, Putin, and Texans!

    Jay 5 hours ago

    Low oil prices?

    It's not just overproduction, the world economy is in bad shape and demand is falling.

    Lars Mors

    It is interesting that Saudi Arabia came up short $4 billion in just the last month, and has run short of capacity. Something is gonna break ... either prices shoot up or economies collapse.


    [Jul 22, 2015] The current "gangbusters" wealth effect on consumption

    "...Since 2009 it has been the stated policy of the Federal Reserve to "Increase asset prices". Ben Bernanke, and now Janet Yellen, have pursued monetary policy accommodation ata level never seen before in history."
    .
    "...In Japan, the Central Bank is buying common stocks with the objective of increasing wealth. They have been doing this for two years in large amounts. The Japanese believe in (and are now dependent on) the wealth effect."
    July 20, 2015 | angrybearblog.com

    Pulled back from comments. (bolding mine)

    Marko, July 20, 2015 7:01 am
    These days , more people may own stocks , but the vast majority own trivial amounts. Look up Edward Wolffs stuff on wealth distribution and try to estimate how much stocks would have to go up to tease out any meaningful consumption out of the bottom 90% of the wealth distribution.

    The dotcom bubble was unusual in that from the mid-90s to just after the crash decent income gains were achieved across the distribution , something that hadn't been seen for a couple of decades. That may have contributed to any apparent consumption anomaly , as more-than-usual income flowed to high MPC households.

    You can find people who can econometrically manufacture stock market wealth effects of 5-10 cents on the dollar , but they're almost always those of a certain "persuasion" , politically speaking , i.e. mouthpieces for the 1%. Greenspan was a famous example.

    Other asset prices certainly respond to a stock market bubble , like art and other collectibles , but that doesn't do much for the economy either.

    Shiller has never believed much in the stock market wealth effect , and I tend to think he's on the right track. A couple pennies on the dollar in the US , maybe :

    http://www.pragcap.com/robert-shiller-debunks-stock-market-wealth-effect

    Housing wealth is more potent , I'm sure , but when you back out the collateral-enhanced borrowing increase , I doubt that it amounts to more than a penny or two attributable to wealth "animal spirits".

    Finally , 'splain this :

    https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=dGy

    If there's any kind of generalized wealth effect , it should be going gangbusters right now , bigger even than the dotcom or subprime booms. That's hard to square with this economy's performance , which has limped along right through the wealth boom. Maybe some would argue that without the wealth boom we'd be entirely dead , but my feeling is we've designed the economy to generate wealth instead of gdp. In that sense , we're doing great !

    My reply

    Indeed the ratio of personal consumption expenditures to personal disposable income is the highest its been since 1950 except for 2005 2006 and 2007 (the height of the housing bubble).

    Note in the discussion that Brad DeLong, Dean Baker and I all agree that housing wealth has more effect on aggregate demand than stock market wealth. I argued as you do that the wealth of the rich has little effect on their consumption (which is I think limited by 24 hours in a day not a budget).

    I have no idea why it is that people who assert there is a stock price effect on consumption tend to be right wing. They often argue that promoting saving is very important (hence capital income shouldn't be taxed). In general they argue that consumption is too high not too low (and that it crowds out investment). Thus they should argue that causing low consumption is a good thing about low stock prices.

    In fact, I think that usually (when the economy is not in a liquidity trap) lower consumption would be better. This is one of many reasons why I would like to effectively confiscate part of the value of stock by taxing dividends. It is exactly the wealth effect that makes the optimal tax on capital income (as correctly calculated using the standard model used by critics of capital income taxation) very high.

    In any case, I don't think one should decide what is true by group affinity for people who say one thing or another. Rather I think it is better to look at data (as I did following your absolutely correct albeit rhetorical gangbusters prediction).

    GDP is way below trend because of low residential investment and low government consumption and investment. Consumption is high - much higher than one would guess with the most empirically successful model with no wealth effect (which is the paleo Keynesian consumption function).

    Warren, July 20, 2015 11:12 am

    I agree 100% with your assessment of the (lack of) "wealth effect" of a stock market bubble.

    You get a stock market bubble by having more people wanting to buy than to sell, so the prices get bid up. "Investment" in stock (except for IPO's), does nothing for the economy - except to raise stock prices. In general, it is still a good idea for people themselves to invest in the stock market, but a stock market bubble does not help the economy at all, because to get money out to buy something else (which would help the economy), someone else has to take their money, which he might have used to buy something else, to pay you for that stock.

    Stock market purchases (again excepting IPO's), are a wash - whatever price is paid by the purchaser just goes to the seller and the broker. There is no net gain anywhere.

    Indeed, the wealth of the rich does not affect their consumption, not because there are only twenty-four hours in a day, but because their goal is the accumulation not consumption. That's how they got wealthy in the first place.

    Housing prices, however, are a different matter, because some people will take out equity loans on their houses and spend it on something - usually consumption, not accumulation. This takes money that people want to save (the lenders), and puts it back into the economy to buy goods and services. It is the flow of money that is important in an economy, not the amount of money. (Yes, one can take loans against stock holdings, but it is riskier, and most people just do that so they can buy more stock - again doing nothing for the economy.)

    Now, I do believe that promoting saving is very important, not for the economy, but for the individuals themselves. I agree with the idea that "consumption crowds out investment," but only at the individual level, not economy-wide. For one person to consume, someone else must produce. To produce, he must invest in the means of production. The only way for consumption to be higher is for production to also be higher.

    While it seems we agree on all that, I don't understand where you are going with the dividend tax. Dividends are already taxed. A company earns some income, that income is taxed, and from the remainder dividends are paid. Then the recipients of those dividends are taxed on them. Dividend payments are not tax deductible, so they are taxed at both the corporate and individual levels. (True, those in the 10% and 15% brackets pay no dividend tax, but they hold a negligible amount of the dividend-paying stocks.)

    Assuming a marginal corporate tax rate of 35%, and a dividend tax of 15% (for most people - some will be taxed at 20%), that's already a 50% tax on that income. How much do you think the government should take?

    Lastly, I can understand how low residential investment reduces GDP - it is less production. But I do not see how lack of government consumption reduced GDP. The government, generally, produces little of value. (Yes, the F35 is very expensive, but I think you will agree that its value is much lower.) Government consumption must be paid for by taxes, which means that those paying the taxes will not be spending that money on something else (like residential improvements). Or it can be paid for by borrowing money, in which case the people lending the money to the government won't be spending it on something else or lending it to someone else.

    The primary way for federal government spending (investment) to really increase GDP is in infrastructure. Roads, bridges, trains, and public transportation in general have a beneficial effect on the economy in general ("the General Welfare… of the United States").

    Now, to contradict myself, maybe I need to go back to the FLOW issue. If those paying the taxes or buying the bonds would otherwise just sit on that money, then perhaps it is better to take or borrow it, even to seemingly waste it on those who don't (won't) work, the government contractors who charge $800 for a MILSPEC hammer, failed health insurance exchanges, etc. Generally, the people who "earn" that money are going to go out and spend it. So perhaps keeping the FLOW moving, even if the reason for the flow is itself worthless, is itself a net positive.

    Even so, our debt levels scare the $H!T out of me.

    Sorry I've gone on so long. It's a fascinating topic. Thanks for letting me ramble.

    bkrasting, July 20, 2015 12:17 pm

    Marko dismisses the consequences of the wealth effect with this:

    but they're almost always those of a certain "persuasion" ,
    politically speaking , i.e. mouthpieces for the 1%.
    Greenspan was a famous example.

    Since 2009 it has been the stated policy of the Federal Reserve to "Increase asset prices". Ben Bernanke, and now Janet Yellen, have pursued monetary policy accommodation at a level never seen before in history.

    Both Ben an Janet have repeated the mantra that aggressive policy and strong Dow Jones are good for the economy. They have pushed this policy to a much greater extent that Greenspan ever did.

    Yellen and Ben do not fit Marko's mold.

    In Japan, the Central Bank is buying common stocks with the objective of increasing wealth. They have been doing this for two years in large amounts. The Japanese believe in (and are now dependent on) the wealth effect.

    In the past month China's market fell a jaw dropping 30%! The government stepped in to prop up the market. Hundreds of billions of printed money was needed to avoid an even deeper sell off. There was concern of social pressures if the sell off got out of control. The Chinese clearly believe in (and fear) the wealth effect.

    Again, It's a mistake to paint stripes on those who gear economic policy around equity markets. It's also a mistake to underestimate the consequences of the markets on overall economic performance. After all, we have 1929 and 2009 to point to.

      Daniel Becker, July 20, 2015 1:29 pm

      In the end, the vast majority of citizens of a given economy still need to be able to make the payments. Wealth means nothing to them if they don't have the income to cover the monthly bill.

      The liquidity trap was the results of banks having nothing but air under their loan portfolios because the people who were making the payments could not.

      That "could not" make the payments part as I've noted and then Kreger noted in is Gatsby Effect that $1.1 trillion in income had shifted to the 1% from the 99% and in his calculations represented $450 billion in consumption.

      How stupid was this economic design? Build a money machine that depends on people being able to make payments while the machine works also reduces the money used to make payments by those who need to make payments.

      The money boys and girls played both ends against the middle and the ends smacked into each other causing the big crash.

      Bruce Webb, July 20, 2015 2:54 pm

      Warren let me disagree on a few points. In two comments.

      One it is too reductionist to say that the rich are motivated by accumulation rather than consumption, in part because there are only 24 hours in the day. First of all people like Larry Ellison have proven there ARE ways to consume conspicuously no matter how much money you have. For example you can essentially buy the America Cup competition AND buy 99% of one of the major Hawaiian Islands. But more generally you have omitted the third possibility: which is display. As a medievalist by training I have seen abundant evidence that what motivated chieftains and then kings and emperors was not personal consumption as much as the chance to display wealth and hospitality. Meaning that you could become famed by being KNOWN to be so rich that you could spend without care, and not just on yourself but on your supporters or simply via charity. In this way display has a function in between accumulation and consumption and where a thousand years ago that might manifest itself in palaces and cathedrals today it can happen with the pages of the Forbes 400 issue.

      coberly, July 20, 2015 3:24 pm

      Well, I agree about the Big LIe, or the Big Befuddlement. You have to reember that these people have been lying to themselves since they were freshmen at Harvard and were let in on the Big Secrets by Famous Men.

      On the other hand, you could just as well, or better, tax ONLY corporations. Since the corps would adjust the wages they pay and the prices they charge, the effect on "the economy" would be zero. and since the people would not be paying any tax, they would vote for larger taxes and we could get some work done.

      Or, as long as you are not running a system where the rich pay no taxes and the poor pay what the traffic will bear, you could leave things as they are and let the market sort them out.

      I don't know anyone who is paying the "double tax" who is going without supper.

      [Jul 22, 2015] Will the Oil Patch Bust Trigger Recession?

      July 22, 2015 | charles hugh smith
      Six months into the energy bust, the leading index for Texas has hit the zero line, U.S. industrial production has rolled over but real GDP hasn't budged. So far, the impact of dramatically lower oil revenues has been limited to the oil patch, but the potential for contagion is still present.

      As B.C. noted:

      The last time the energy sector experienced a similar bust as is emerging today and clearly evident in Texas was in 1985-86, which occurred coincident with the crash in the price of oil and the onset of the S&L Crisis.

      However, the US economy overall did not experience recession, but Industrial Production (manufacturing) decelerated to around 0% even as real GDP did not get close to "stall speed", owing primarily to the effects of Baby Boomers entered the phase of life for peak spending and household formation.

      Also, it did not hurt that the constant-US$ price of oil fell from $37 to $16 (similar scale as the recent drop from $100+ to $50/barrel) and the price of gasoline to below $2/gallon.

      In other words, back in the 1980s oil bust, the drop in gasoline prices helped consumer spending and the mass entry of Baby Boomers into the housing market provided a source of broad-based economic stimulus.

      The recent drop in gasoline prices has not stimulated consumer spending much, thwarting economists' expectations of a big dividend from the oil bust.

      Housing formation remains historically weak as home prices have soared out of reach of young families struggling with stagnant wages, crushing student loans and an uneven job market that rewards a few and leaves many with insecure incomes.

      So these positives are either weak or missing in action.

      But what's different this time is the $550 billion that has been loaned to energy producers:

      Since early 2010, energy producers have raised $550 billion of new bonds and loans as the Federal Reserve held borrowing costs near zero, according to Deutsche Bank AG. With oil prices plunging, investors are questioning the ability of some issuers to meet their debt obligations. Research firm CreditSights Inc. predicts the default rate for energy junk bonds will double to eight percent next year.

      This seemingly inexhaustible credit line is now drying up, with severely negative consequences for oil producers with debt that's coming due and has to be rolled into new loans: Is The US Shale Industry About To Run Out Of Lifelines? (Zero Hedge).

      [Jul 21, 2015] Fat Tails & The Invisible Vulnerability Of Markets

      Jul 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      Authored by Michael Mauboussin, via ValueWalk.com

      Fat Tails & Nonlinearity, Dec 2007

      Diversity Breakdowns and Invisible Vulnerability

      For he who is acquainted with the paths of nature, will more readily observe her deviations; and, vice versa, he who has learned her deviations will be able more accurately to describe her paths.

      Francis Bacon
      Novum Organum 1

      The Memo Went Out

      If you are involved in financial markets, you have gotten the memo about fat tails by now.

      But awareness of extreme events is not enough. Thoughtful investors must understand two interrelated aspects of the market. The first is the statistical properties of price movements, including important deviations from the bell-shaped distribution. Academics, risk managers, and quantitative investors have explored this aspect extensively. Researchers recognized decades ago that the distribution of price changes includes fat tails.

      The second aspect, and one often overlooked or misunderstood, is the mechanism that leads to the statistical imprint. Much of the work on the market's statistical properties is divorced from the propagating mechanism, while traditional theories of market efficiency assume the mechanisms. Crucially, understanding the mechanism provides insight into how and why markets fail.

      Our focus here is on nonlinearity. Many complex systems, including markets, have critical points where small incremental condition changes lead to large-scale effects. Researchers in both the physical and social sciences have known about these critical points for a long time; so much so that terms like phase transition and tipping point have slipped into our day-to-day language. Still, critical points throw a monkey wrench into our mostly linear cause-and-effect thinking.

      Critical points help explain our perpetual surprise at fat-tail events: We don't see them coming because the state change is much greater than the perturbation suggests. Water does not undergo a dramatic change as it drops from 35 to 33 degrees Fahrenheit, but two degrees of additional cooling changes its state from liquid to solid. Likewise, large changes can occur in markets without visible manifestation in asset price change, while small additional changes can flip the price switch.

      Critical points are also important for proper counterfactual thinking. For every critical point we do see, how many were lurking but never triggered? Like water temperature dropping to 33 degrees and again rising, there are likely many nearmisses in the markets that elude our detection.

      We survey three ideas: black swans and why patterns set us up for surprise; the conditions for crowds to be wise and the role of nonlinearity; and, finally, three examples of nonlinearity, including a physical system, an agent-based model, and a recent market dislocation.

      Michael Mauboussin - Fat Tails And Nonlinearity

      Don't Feed the Turkey

      Nassim Taleb uses the black swan metaphor to help popularize the fat-tail idea. He defines a black swan as an outlier event that has an extreme impact and that humans seek to explain after the fact. Recent market turmoil fits the definition well.

      The black swan reference reflects Karl Popper's criticism of induction. Popper's point is that to understand a phenomenon, we're better off focusing on falsification than on verification. Seeing lots of white swans doesn't prove the theory that all swans are white, but seeing one black swan does disprove it.

      Taleb relates the story of a turkey that is fed 1,000 days in a row. The feedings reinforce the turkey's sense of security and well-being, until one day before Thanksgiving an unexpected and uninvited bad event occurs. All of the turkey's experience and feedback is positive until fortune takes a turn for the worse. Recent comments by a senior executive at one of the world's largest banks evoke the turkey story: "Our losses [from instruments based on U.S. subprime mortgages] greatly exceeded the profits we made in this field over several years."

      Michael Mauboussin - Fat Tails And Nonlinearity

      Here's the point: rising asset prices provide investors confirming evidence that their strategy is good and everything is fine. This induction problem lulls investors into a sense of confidence, and sets the stage for the shock when events turn down. That nonlinearity causes sudden change only adds to the confusion.

      Michael Mauboussin - Fat Tails And Nonlinearity

      See full PDF here

      [Jul 21, 2015] Is The US Shale Industry About To Run Out Of Lifelines

      "...Each time, the shale driller came close to violating debt limits set by its lenders, endangering a credit line that provided as much as $1.05 billion in much-needed cash. Each time, Halcon's banks, led by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., loosened their restrictions, allowing Halcon to keep borrowing."
      "...When the Iran effect hits (by design), perhaps one the triggers in months upcoming, things will "fall" into place (edit: meaning oil slides further and further...GOD will have one very stumpy leg come September...)..."
      "...Chesapeake is just an obvious turd floating on top. I live in oil country and I've got bets with friends on exactly which crash first, but I lost on Chesapeake since I figured they'd go down months ago....."
      "...Shale plays are going belly up like no one is considering and the banks over sold their junk bonds at high premiums"
      Jul 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Earlier today, Chesapeake Energy - in a mad scramble to conserve cash - eliminated its common dividend, a move which i) will save the company around $240 million per year, but ii) caused the stock to plunge to a twelve-year low.

      ... ... ...

      Meanwhile, as we quipped earlier this month, drillers are about to be "zero hedged" as the price protection which accounted for 15% of Q1 revenue for around half of North American E&P companies (and which also helped keep bank credit lines open), rolls off.

      Because the next round of revolver raids for the industry isn't due until October, investors may have been lulled to sleep by exactly the kind of credit facilities Chesapeake cites as contributing to its "extremely strong" liquidity position. In short, banks are about to run out of patience with this industry. Bloomberg has more:

      Halcon Resources Corp. almost ran into trouble with its banks in June 2013. And again in March 2014. And in February 2015.

      Each time, the shale driller came close to violating debt limits set by its lenders, endangering a credit line that provided as much as $1.05 billion in much-needed cash. Each time, Halcon's banks, led by JPMorgan Chase & Co. and Wells Fargo & Co., loosened their restrictions, allowing Halcon to keep borrowing.

      That kind of patience may be coming to an end. Bank regulators have issued warnings on the risks involved in lending to U.S. drillers, threatening a cash crunch in an industry that's more dependent than ever on other people's money. Wall Street has been one of the biggest allies of the shale revolution, bankrolling thousands of wells from Texas to North Dakota. The question is how that will change with oil prices down by half since last year to about $50 a barrel.

      "Lenders in general are increasing pressure on oil companies either to raise more equity or do some sort of transaction to pay down their credit lines and free up extra cash," said Jimmy Vallee, a partner in the energy mergers and acquisitions practice at law firm Paul Hastings LLP in Houston.

      Banks are already preparing for the next reevaluation of oil and gas credit lines, reviews which typically take place twice a year in April and October. The loans are based on the value of drillers' producing reserves, which has shrunk as oil prices fell. Many companies are also losing protection as hedges that locked in prices as high as $90 a barrel begin to expire.

      "There's another redetermination cycle in the fall," Marianne Lake, chief financial officer at JPMorgan in New York, said July 14 during a conference call to discuss the company's earnings. "And I'm not going to say likely but it's possible we'll be selectively downgrading some clients."

      Banks so far have been willing to keep the money flowing because drillers that come close to maxing out their credit lines have paid them off by tapping public markets. U.S. producers have raised about $44 billion through bonds and share sales in the first half of this year, the most since 2007, according to data compiled by Bloomberg and UBS Group AG.

      Oh regional Indian

      Shale and all it's derivative FIRE related activities have not even felt the Iran effect yet, which is building, multi-billion dollar projects flying off the shelf, 21 nuclear reactors (dumbfucks).....

      When the Iran effect hits (by design), perhaps one the triggers in months upcoming, things will "fall" into place. (edit: meaning oil slides further and further...GOD will have one very stumpy leg come september...)...

      One way or the other, the march to Agenda 21 will not be denied except by a deux ex machina...

      Meanwhile, we need to wake the fup....

      https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2013/01/20/two-hammer-blows-and-a-rando...

      KnuckleDragger-X

      Chesapeake is just an obvious turd floating on top. I live in oil country and I've got bets with friends on exactly which crash first, but I lost on Chesapeake since I figured they'd go down months ago.....

      youngman

      I think this is a 5 year playout....its going to be tough going for 5 years but by then oil and gas will be back as a profitable investment game...

      Soul Glow

      ^^ This is what will crash the markets. Shale plays are going belly up like no one is considering and the banks over sold their junk bonds at high premiums. 2008 MBS all over again.

      [Jul 19, 2015] Shell Warns, Oil Price Recovery To Take 5 Years

      "...The price of oil has fallen from more than $100 per barrel in June 2014 to under $60 today, and Brown said the company has believed for months that it will take until 2020 for the price to rise to a mere $90 per barrel."
      "...It will take several years [for oil prices to recover fully], but we do believe fundamentals will return"
      Jul 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      Submitted by Andy Tully via OilPrice.com,

      Ben van Beurden, the CEO of Royal Dutch Shell, and one of his senior executives envision low oil prices for some time unless energy producers cut production and the demand for fuel doesn't rebound.

      In a wide-ranging interview with Oil & Gas Technology published July 14, van Beurden spoke of competing benefits of the low price of oil for fuel demand, and its liabilities for those who produce it.

      "Low prices have big implications for exporting countries like Iran, Russia and Venezuela," he said.

      "But also for shale-producers in the U.S., and even the domestic budgets of producers in the Gulf states. In consuming nations, low oil prices are an economic boon stimulating growth and demand."

      For the near term, van Beurden pointed to one key forecast that this year will see more worldwide demand than in 2014. "Compared to last year, the International Monetary Fund expects the global economy to grow [in 2015]," he said. "So global oil demand is expected to grow as well."

      But he stressed that many oil producers also are reluctant to explore and drill for oil because of smaller profit margins. Therefore, he said, "Supply … may even decline." As for Shell itself, though, he said, "We're determined to avoid a start-stop approach to investment."

      As for the global market, Van Beurden said that at best, "a rapid recovery could occur if projects are postponed or even canceled. This would lead to less new supply – not so much now, but in two or three years. Combined with economic growth, the market could tighten quickly in this scenario."

      But he pointed to one major snag in that view: U.S. shale oil. A boom in North American production over the past few years helped to create the glut that led to the steep decline in oil prices that began a year ago. OPEC, under the leadership of Saudi Arabia, decided to fight shale producers with a price war, hoping that keeping prices low would make shale extraction, already costly, unprofitable.

      But if shale producers cut costs and take other steps to keep producing, van Beurden said, "With moderate economic growth, prices could stay low for longer."

      Van Beurden qualified his outlook by stressing that "I can't predict the future," but his director of oil and gas production outside America gave a more specific view of Shell's expectations in a separate interview with Reuters, published July 16.

      Andy Brown, a top Shell official, said the Anglo-Dutch oil giant forecasts no quick rebound in the average global price of oil, but only a gradual recovery lasting five years. He attributed this sluggishness to a slowdown in China's economy, leading a drop in demand for fuel, and the continuing oversupply of oil.

      The price of oil has fallen from more than $100 per barrel in June 2014 to under $60 today, and Brown said the company has believed for months that it will take until 2020 for the price to rise to a mere $90 per barrel.

      In fact, he said, that was a key driver for Shell to offer of $70 billion to buy rival BG Group more than three months ago. This not only supports van Beurden's insistence that low oil prices won't cause Shell to trim investments, but also expands Shell's capabilities in deepwater oil production and gives it immediate entree to markets for liquid natural gas (LNG).

      "It will take several years [for oil prices to recover fully], but we do believe fundamentals will return," Brown said. "Until such time, we, like other companies, will have to make sure we stay robust."

      [Jul 16, 2015] BP Data Suggests We Are Reaching Peak Energy Demand

      "...That is a point I've thought about. Oil is such a phenomenal energy source that even after paying for it's utility, a person can pay various fees and taxes at the pump and still think it was worth it. In contrast, renewable energy seems to be subsidized at multiple levels, so it lacks residual value altogether, leaving nothing to be taxed for the benefit of society and it's infrastructure upkeep."
      "...Combine that excellent presentation with Dmity Orlov's excellent overview of world finance,
      http://cluborlov.blogspot.hk/2015/06/pop-goes-bubble.html ,
      and not forgetting 11 June 2008 when Peak Oil (supply) caused $147/b, and you can see that Peak Oil (supply) DID cause it all."
      Jul 16, 2015 | Our Finite World

      Fast Eddy , June 23, 2015 at 10:07 pm

      Even with lower prices we are seeing GDP slowing dramatically - US just printed -0.2... Canada negative 0.7.... China is dropping quickly and probably barely growing now....

      Oil has been priced at under $70 for quite a few months now - and we are not seeing a snap back in growth (commodity prices across the board remain very low)

      Let's go bigger picture here...

      Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

      The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US$92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

      Steven Kopits from Douglas-Westwood said the productivity of new capital spending has fallen by a factor of five since 2000.

      "The vast majority of public oil and gas companies require oil prices of over $100 to achieve positive free cash flow under current capex and dividend programmes. Nearly half of the industry needs more than $120,"

      he said http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/oilandgas/11024845/Oil-and-gas-company-debt-soars-to-danger-levels-to-cover-shortfall-in-cash.html

      So the reduced price of oil is not stimulating growth as expected.... that's because the middle class has been wiped out - their incomes are down dramatically - many have lost their jobs - most are up to their ears in debt - many are fearful of losing their jobs....

      And on the other hand the low price of oil means the industry is mostly insolvent.... the share prices of oil companies should by all rights collapse under these conditions - because the low price of oil bankrupts them - and high priced oil means nobody can afford their products...

      Didn't Art Berman say Exxon was acting like a company in liquidation...

      Who in their right mind would invest in an industry that has those prospects?

      I see the invisible hand of the Fed at work here :

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 8:36 am

      If the cost of production is rising, and the price a consumer is willing to pay is falling, I think that we can all agree that consumption will decrease.

      I think that there are underlying presuppositions that we have that are false. These include:

      (1) Prices will rise to match the cost of extraction, plus a reasonable profit, for the marginal producer. This is not true if wages depend on the use of the product, and these are falling.

      (2) If the cost of production rises, cheaper substitutes will be found. (Not likely!) (Actually, this should read, "If price rises", not "If the cost of production rises." If price rises, then another expectation is that this will stimulate more production. Our problem is that price isn't rising though.

      BC, June 24, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      This is a profound point. Since 2011-12, the US has consumed 50-75% of shale production in order to increase shale production by 50% (and nearly 100% since 2008-09) at an average 5-year price of ~$100 unprofitably.

      http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

      http://www.thehillsgroup.org/depletion2_018.htm

      The energy cost of energy extraction of costlier, lower-quality crude oil substitutes is now prohibitive and sustained only by increasing debt in the shale sector to pay interest and dividends, which has been increasingly funded by bank commercial and industrial (C&I) lending over the period.

      Private equity and hedge funds have jumped into the game since the oil price crash, expecting the price of oil to rebound to $70-$80. I expect not, which implies that they don't understand the dynamics of Peak Oil, "Limits to Growth", and "secular stagnation".

      P.S. As always, Gail, thanks for your exemplary work.

      Stilgar Wilcox, June 24, 2015 at 7:30 pm

      BC, I think we still need to wait and see how shale oil plays out. It's too early to know for sure that oil price will not rise again high enough to initiate more shale activity. There could be subsequent peaks, albeit not maybe as high as the most recent one. The world economy is still a works in progress as Fig. 1 shows energy usage worldwide is still rising. Let's see where it goes.

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 7:41 pm

      Assuming my assumption that the PTB control the price of oil... that they forced the price to $100+ specifically to enable the shale 'revolution' - which encouraged massive investment and the drilling of many thousands of wells... which we know peak within a couple of years of the start of production...

      I am thinking the shale gig is over... basically we got as many straws in the ground as possible in as short at time as possible and now we are sucking on these straws like an obese family of 4 who each jam a straw into a super sized coke trying to get as big a share as possible...

      I wonder if there is any point in ramping oil prices to 100+ again - will we drill even more holes at that price? Perhaps not .. or not enough to make a difference...

      If that is the case then may as well leave the price of oil where it is - because it puts less stress on the camel's back....

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 3:23 pm

      If our problem were just low oil prices, and not low commodity prices in general, low wages, and low investment returns, I would have more sympathy for the "oil price will rise again" scenario. If oil price does rise, I expect the rise will not be very high (well under $130 barrel), and not for very long. It won't stimulate much shale drilling.

      Gail Tverberg , June 25, 2015 at 2:07 pm

      Thank you! Too many people don't realize how many assumptions are wound together inside models they take for granted, like the standard supply and demand curves.

      John Doyle , June 23, 2015 at 10:24 pm

      As you say, Gail, our intuition as to how things will go is wrong. I am in no doubt we are in deflation and have been since the GFC. Everything you say here reinforces that. It will never reverse. No more "Good times" let alone booms in our future! The energy crunch is here to stay. But is not only that but the policies of the super wealthy elite who are making the corporate world overtake national governments. Arnold Toynbee said decades ago [1931]"We must wrest this.. political force called sovereignty out of the clutches of the masses". Well, with the TTP and TTIP this reality gets ever closer. But it is a deadly trap. It is supported by the credit boom and increases our consumption well beyond what we really need, considering consumption should decline in a recession. What we see around us today right across the world is conspicuous consumption writ large. It is a sign of decadence, an end of civilization typical scenario. In the end the corporate world accelerates the decline. The end of our civilization is brought forward.

      A couple of observations need updating in your text. Fractional reserve banking has been superceded some years ago. It is now credit creation theory that applies. Commercial banks don't lend out even a dollar of their reserves, they just create credit deposits based on the banks total worth. From this it follows that when the federal government wants to stop too much lending commerce, therefore inflation, they "sell" securities. The funds paid are thus withdrawn from the economy and sit, earning good interest, in savings accounts in the FRB. The bond amount is never spent, so at maturity the sum is recredited to the investors or rolled over. QE policies do the opposite hoping to stimulate demand, except it's not working as the banks are discovering many erstwhile customers are not good prospects. Another sign of deflation.

      Regarding the misery this deflation will cause, also implied in your article, the revenue shortfall from taxation is not a problem per se. Federal governments do not collect taxes to pay for even 1 dollar of expenditure, so pensions and all welfare payments can continue to be met. Tax is used to extinguish excess spending, another way the Fed can control the money supply.

      The ability to spend into the economy is not a problem for central banks. they can never go broke in their own currency. This is not generally understood, but it will be a life saver for the population as poverty and unemployment ramp up in the future. Paying everyone a stipend will allow everyone to buy necessities and get medical care for as long as the society survives. It will slow down panics and chaos from overtaking us.

      We need a decent plan to manage this. We don't have one, and that is the scary bit!

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 8:10 am

      Thanks for your observation on fractional reserve banking. I knew it really wasn't used any more, but didn't update the analogy. Perhaps I should say that people plane the payment of interest on debt. That may be where the discussion has moved now.

      Regarding TTP and TTIP, it would be helpful if you write out acronyms. I was thinking you meant TPP (Trans Pacific Partnership Free Trade Agreement) and TTIP (Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership). If so, you misspelled TTP.

      As I noted in my response to another comment, the real issue is goods and services that money and debt can buy. No matter how much money and debt is created, if the underlying goods and services aren't there, we have a major problem. Debt creation can to some extent pump up the price of commodities–I have mentioned this many times as being important in enabling the extraction of fossil fuels. But apart from this role, all debt and money can do is simply reallocate what we have. If the "size of the pie" is shrinking, we will have to deal with it somehow.

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 9:51 pm

      I think this intro is key - particularly the first 11 words....

      THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59 onwards)

      The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy.

      But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel.

      http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

      John Doyle, June 24, 2015 at 10:32 pm

      Tim Morgan has another blog now which is worth following; surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com

      John Doyle , June 24, 2015 at 10:25 pm

      Thanks Gail, The world of finance is filled to overflowing with misinformation. It's left to a few who "get" it. I am doing my damnedness to "get" it but it's easy to be mistaken.
      I did a typo on TPP, apologies, I thought the readership would know well those trade deals!
      The interest on sovereign debt is not at all related to taxpayer money. Taxpayer money is money extinguished from the accounts .It doesn't get used at all in the central bank books.
      All T-securities in the CB are actually savings accounts, paying interest to investors, but no spending of the bond sum is involved. When the bonds mature the bond sum is returned to the investor. I.e., it's not a debt. As I already said above.

      I wonder if it matters that it does or does not reflect the sum of real goods and services? It all seems to end up in the hands of the 0.1% and is devoid of any Trickle Down effect. It's kind of off in fairyland. The only downside, for all of us, is that it uses, wastes, resources when it gets spent into the economy and that speeds up the machine driving us to extinction. As long as the money is just sitting in accounts in banks the effect is nil.

      Joe Clarkson , June 23, 2015 at 10:38 pm

      With falling prices comes lower total consumption.

      I know that you claim this statement is true despite it being so counter-intuitive, but I still think you have the cart before the horse. There are time lags in the supply demand dynamic which may be giving the illusion of reverse causality. There may be other economic reasons why oil consumption will continue to fall, but a lower price is not one of them. Other things being equal, lower prices will stimulate demand. If other things are not equal, it is incumbent on you to show why they are not, separate from the effect of the last several years of very high oil prices.

      urbangdl, June 23, 2015 at 11:37 pm

      I think my brain is on that one too, "it keeps telling me low prices will foster demand finding the point of equilibrium for marginal returns" off course there is the "Finite" factor.
      As for low prices humm... I can only use the little knowledge I have and logic but don't think I have the arguments to explain the role of prices the only clue is the affordability problem...

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 7:56 am

      We have two different values:
      (1) Cost of production, which is rising.
      (2) Price, which is falling in inflation-adjusted terms.

      Let's think about this–in the short term, if price is falling relative to the cost of production, then less of the goods will be produced, and less will be purchased.

      Over the longer term, economists postulate that "demand will rise" or "substitutes will be found" but this is just wishful thinking, in my opinion. If demand had nothing to do with affordability, and substitutes had nothing to do with limitations of nature, the statement might be right.

      urbangdl, June 24, 2015 at 11:43 am

      Thank you very much Gail that is very clear, and thanks for for your research and willingess to share it with us.

      By the way if developed countries are slowing their energy consumption before developing ones, I believe wealth could be redistributed while developing countries begin the decline as well. that could be a false missinterpretation of new rising superpowers like the BRICKs I really hope they do not seek to waste that breif growth on military, just before joining the first world nation in the spiral.

      urbangdl, June 24, 2015 at 11:44 am

      BRICS *

      bcarman6 , June 24, 2015 at 3:39 pm

      Indeed, Gail.

      Note that US "oil" production is down 40% PER CAPITA since 1970, and down 25% per capita since the secondary absolute peak in oil production in 1985. The shale boom/bubble has made hardly a blip in the long-term decline in US oil production per capita.

      And today the 5-year cost of oil to extract that next marginal bbl of oil is ~$95-$100/bbl vs. $20-$35/bbl at the 1970 and 1985 peaks. But the US economy cannot grow in real terms per capita with the price of oil above $40.

      Then compare that cost of extraction to that of the Saudis and Russia.

      Moreover, note that world net exports of oil (see Jeffrey Brown's exemplary work on net exports and the export land model or ELM) per capita are declining steadily, which is reflective of the end of growth of "trade" AND real GDP per capita since 2007-08, which in turn is a function of contraction of US and Japanese foreign direct investment (FDI) in China-Asia.

      Growth of real GDP and oil production/consumption per capita ended in 2007-08, which is consistent with the World3's BAU model for the "Limits to Growth".

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 10:00 pm

      There's no substitute for oil .... but we can substitute things like pink slime for meat.... and when that becomes unaffordable I can imagine we could see a campaign out of Madison Avenue along these lines:

      Introducing New and Improved Alpo for HUMANS!

      'You've seen how your hungry dog chomps through a can of delicious Alpo - that's because it just tastes so good! Well now you and your family can enjoy the same awesome taste of Alpo when you purchase our new and improved Alpo for humans.... The same great taste with all the nutrition of our famous dog foods – in stores now!'

      Stilgar Wilcox, June 25, 2015 at 2:44 pm

      Out of curiosity in my teens, I tried a tiny bit of dog food and immediately gagged. It's really awful stuff and not just the taste, the texture – yech! I think dogs get around this by eating it in big gulps.

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 3:12 pm

      Oh ... but this will be more refined that the regular dog food...

      But you'd still never want to eat it on its own - because it is too rich in nutrients and meaty flavour...

      Rather it would be served on crackers as canapes (with sprigs of grass and bark) - or you could mix it into a shepherds pie....

      Martha Stewart has been engaged by Alpo to come up with some simple recipes that use Alpo for Humans

      Joe Clarkson , June 25, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      In the case of oil, there has never in the past several years been "less of the goods produced". World oil supply has been rising since the financial crisis of 2008, even though the sales price has been falling relative to the cost of production. Your assertion that "if price is falling relative to the cost of production, then less of the goods will be produced" is not true. As long as the marginal producer can make a profit from new investment in oil production, production will increase even though profit margins are declining ("price is falling relative to the cost of production") and more will be purchased. The fact that the marginal producer can still make a profit means that the market is supply-constrained and more product can be sold.

      Remember that in the several years prior to 2008, oil prices were increasing far faster than the relative cost of production. After the financial crisis, which sent oil prices on a roller coaster plunge, prices climbed right back to their maxima, inducing the marginal producers from the shale sector and tar sands to produce like crazy. Even though the cost of production kept on increasing, most producers around the world kept their output as high as possible. They were making very large profits from unprecedented margins . It then took four and a half years for production to increase to the point that the world market was over-supplied, at which point the price of oil began falling rapidly. The market switched from being supply-constrained to demand-constrained.

      It has taken over eight months of falling oil prices to affect production by the shale industry. The reason? Profit margins finally diminished to the point that investment in new production was no longer profitable; or at least the raising of large amounts of capital for new production was no longer possible.

      As the cost of oil production keeps climbing, there is a constant tension between what the purchaser can afford and the amount the producer can supply at a profit. If the cost of production exceeds the price that anyone can pay, no oil will be produced. We aren't even close to that point yet. We may be closer to the point where the cost of production is so high that a profitable oil price becomes unaffordable to enough purchasers that production does decline from the recent maximum (if we have even seen that yet). We won't know whether we are past peak oil production until oil sales prices reach a new maximum and production fails to surpass the previous peak. My guess is that a new maximum sales price is only a year or two away at most. Shale production declines so rapidly that we could shift back to a supply-constrained market very quickly.

      Even though prices fell and production dropped in 2008-2009, prices then rose right back to their previous highs and production also increased to new highs. Falling prices are no proof that falling oil production will never increase again. This peak may be the peak, but falling prices don't tell us that. Absent any other-than-price-related effects on demand (war or epidemics for example) only record high prices and reduced production (from previous highs) can indicate that we are permanently past peak.

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 8:54 pm

      A few articles that will get you up to speed on the situation:

      THE END OF CHEAP OIL Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years Feb 14, 1998 |By Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrre http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-end-of-cheap-oil/

      HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world's economies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth

      BUT WE NEED HIGH OIL PRICES: Marginal oil production costs are heading towards $100/barrel http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

      THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59 onwards)
      The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

      MG, June 28, 2015 at 1:49 pm

      Dear Joe Clarkson,

      the stimulation of the prices with the debt creation means that the bubble is being overinflated. No, the peak production will not be marked by high prices. The picture is distorted by the debt creation. It will be similar to the situation when the Soviet Union pumped the more and more costly oil while going deeply into debt when the oil prices could not go up.

      The low prices of today are the result of subsidies in the form of the debt creation at the side of the producers. The same way as the low prices for the consumers of the food are the result of subsidies by the states. The consumers had been indebted before the producers. The peak production will be achieved when the maximum debt limits are reached – consumers and producers combined. Then the system implodes and the production goes down.

      We live in the world that has been going into debt for decades: first citizens (consumers) and then the states (companies). The debt allowed us to consume more than we could afford. When we reach the limits of the debt creation, our real affordability collapses the bubble and thus brings everything like prices, consumption, production etc. down.

      John Doyle, June 29, 2015 at 12:00 am

      Isn't that what is called a "Minsky Moment"?
      When the interest payments are worth more than the asset itself.

      Fast Eddy, June 29, 2015 at 12:05 am

      I think normally that would be correct - but what is different this time is that the central banks are attempting to defy gravity .... so long as that is policy what should happen immediately gets delayed...

      By all rights the stock markets should collapsing globally - the only thing stopping that is central bank money being used to prop them up....

      Many countries, cities, states, provinces, munis are insolvent and without QE ZIRP would declare bankruptcy (Meredith Whitney was RIGHT - her only flaw was failing to understand that OOTF would do anything to delay this outcome)

      The fuse is primed... a nuclear explosion will rip the global economy to pieces when it's lit...

      Joe Clarkson , June 29, 2015 at 1:57 am

      Aloha MG,

      I never said that the peak of oil production would be when prices were high, rather that we would only know that the peak was past when prices were high and production was still not as much as when prices were last high. As Ron Patterson (at peakoilbarrel.com) has said many times, the peak will most likely happen when there is an oil 'glut' and prices are starting to fall in response. This year could indeed be the year for the peak, but we can't be sure until oil prices go back up. Gail seems to think that they never will. We shall see.

      I do agree that our current low prices are due to over-production stimulated by the availability of cheap debt. Numerous articles have been written about the fact that few, if any, of oil's marginal producers in the shale industry are cash flow positive. It seems to me that their production and business plans are another example of hope triumphing over experience. It will be interesting to see if shale production ever vigorously resumes again after this low oil price shakeout. Even if prices do return to the $100 plus range, shale producers may not find it so easy to borrow money again after bankruptcies sweep the industry. Again, we shall see.

      Gail Tverberg, June 30, 2015 at 12:24 pm

      The ability to put together "models" of what experience will look like over, say, 40 years, with optimistic estimates and nearly all of the profits on the later years has helped this along. The gullibility of auditors has as well. I expect that it is possible to somewhat "shop" the system. Find out who has signed off on optimistic estimates for competitors, and get them to sign off on optimistic estimates for you as well. There is huge pressure on consultants of any kind to write reports saying what its client wants. (I was in consulting for a lot of years myself.)

      ktos , June 23, 2015 at 11:29 pm

      In May China's coal production was 8.1% lower than year earlier. In January-May period it was 7.6% lower.

      Fast Eddy, June 23, 2015 at 11:38 pm

      I think the reason for that drop is that the Chinese have usurped my idea and they are breeding solar panels with windmills - so are no longer using energy in the manufacture of renewable energy....

      Either that or they are growing solar panels on trees....

      Or it could be that China is lying about their growth figures

      ladrillez, June 23, 2015 at 11:56 pm

      You can bet a leg for the last option...

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 12:01 am

      Which is an indication that lower priced oil is not reviving growth...

      Of course in the past when oil prices spiked recessions followed... which lead to a price drop and a restart of growth...

      This time is different.

      Not only is that not happening (even with trillions of ongoing stimulus) - but this time the production costs are far higher than the sale price of a barrel of oil.

      Oh boy oh boy - is this time very very different. Apocalyptically different.....

      Gail Tverberg , June 24, 2015 at 7:50 am

      Thanks! I have seen several articles earlier this year, also pointing to lower coal production.

      Harry Gibbs, June 24, 2015 at 8:34 am

      And this March article from the FT quotes one Shi Zhenglei, an iron ore analyst at Mysteel, as saying that about half of China's estimated 1,500 iron mines will be forced to close this year, leading to up to 30% loss of capacity. Their iron imports have also been dropping dramatically. In May, China imported 70.87 million tonnes of ore, 11.6% less than April and 8.4% lower than May 2014. These kinds of figures are hardly indicative of 7% GDP growth.

      http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/132ba452-d465-11e4-9bfe-00144feab7de.html#axzz3duluXXuJ

      Harry Gibbs, June 24, 2015 at 10:59 am

      And equally alarming:

      "Heavily indebted local governments seeking to refinance expensive debt have issued more than 600 billion yuan ($96.7 billion) of municipal bonds in the past month – more than in all of 2014."

      http://www.ifre.com/explosive-muni-issuance-threatens-pboc-easing-efforts/21204682.article

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 11:19 am

      Wow! It isn't clear the debt problem is under control.

      Gail Tverberg , June 25, 2015 at 10:37 am

      Thanks! I know that China has a lot of small coal mines, and many of them have problems of various types–unsafe, polluting, high cost. If the loss of capacity turns out to be 30%, there would be a need to suddenly ramp up coal imports from other places, for example Inner Mongolia. At one point, there was expectation that such a ramp-up would occur. With low coal prices, I doubt work has been done in that direction, however.

      ktos , June 24, 2015 at 12:54 pm

      I can't provide a link to this news, because it requires registration. But if You want to regiter, then it's here: http://en.sxcoal.com/520/122320/DataShow.html

      Miguel , June 24, 2015 at 11:30 am

      I thought China had plans of importing more Coal from Australia, increasing their reserves of ready to sell coal, probably waiting for coal prices to rise just like Arabs do with oil, to adjust prices in the global market and ease the burden they have put on their environment or even maybe to have cheap energy when other countries hit scarcity...
      If China does not buy coal from Australia that is good news for cutting carbon emissions and bad news for Australian economy, at leats for the prosperous mining sector in the short term.

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 3:05 pm

      Can you provide a reference for that comment.

      Of course burning less coal means less carbon in the sky - however fossil fuel burning correlates 1:1 with economic activity ... so if fossil fuel burning reduces (and nothing picks up the slack - some other energy source or efficiencies in energy use) then we'll very quickly have zero carbon emissions.

      Because reduced energy consumption = recession - which if left unchecked results in a deflationary death spiral and economic collapse

      June 23, 2015 at 11:48 pm

      I just updated the graph below, with the EIA world crude oil extraction figure for 2014:

      All I know is, its blue FUNCTION line takes a slowly-increasingly-steep dive, from last New Year's Eve, onward - not what the future may hold.
      Matt Mushalik's graphs at http://crudeoilpeak.info/latest-graphs suggest to me that world HEAVY crude oil extraction peaked in about 2012, & that the recent sharp peak is largely from "light" crude oil from US "fracking" (which isn't so good for getting things like diesel or kerosene, for jet fuel).

      David L. Cooper, June 23, 2015 at 11:50 pm

      Forgot to add the link to the page, above: http://davecoop.net/seneca.htm

      richard, June 24, 2015 at 9:28 am

      Thanks for the link. I'll have a go at integrating that function, based on a start at 1900, to bring this into a comparison with the Hill's Group graphs.

      richard, June 24, 2015 at 1:06 pm

      integral function approx 210*(x-2065)*e^(.04(x-2040)) -128
      Or 1387M barrels to go ... and counting

      richard, June 25, 2015 at 4:17 am

      Woops – that was barrels*years. the correct figure is 365.25 times larger, or 507GBarrels.

      Gail Tverberg , June 24, 2015 at 7:46 am

      One thing I have noticed is that gasoline prices are very high relative to diesel prices here. This is opposite of what I would expect, if we now have a surplus of very light oil, that can be made into gasoline but not diesel.

      A couple of explanations come to mind:
      (1) I have heard about refinery issues, but not investigated them. These may be affecting gasoline prices. There are other things as well–ethanol mandate related costs, for example. Gasoline costs tend to be high in summer, because of mandates regarding composition so as to keep evaporation emissions as low as possible.
      (2) Diesel is disproportionately used by businesses in trucks, trains, and other mechanical equipment. Also cars in Europe often use diesel. If there is a slowdown in these uses, but gasoline is still in demand, this could provide the pattern we are seeing. I know a while back I was reading that in China, gasoline demand continued to grow, even as there was a big slowdown n diesel usage. Diesel is traded internationally, so what we see is an international price.

      Stilgar Wilcox, June 24, 2015 at 1:22 pm

      D. Cooper, that oil production graph shows actual oil production with red dots, but the blue line is predictive. For those following peak oil, that peak has shifted to the right over the years and could still shift even farther out into the future. That's the thing that stands out to me, i.e. how the peak oil process is taking longer than most thought it would. So that blue line may be correct or it may do some more shape shifting.

      But this phenomenon of our minds projecting events on shorter periods of time than what actually occurs, will surely play out with the world economy. One aspect of this is TPTB will continually by way of the Fed and wall street keep the game going for those that can remain in the game. Already many people are living with their parents and I am sure many families have combined into one home to save money. How far that process of whittling down the economy by the disenfranchised simply and quietly sequestering into the shadows can go on before they gather together for major rioting that brings down the system is anyone's guess. But people are apparently quite good at taking it so to speak. They just accept their new less affluent lifestyle as their own failure, partly because what they see on TV is all these other people that are doing so well. They don't understand there is an underlying problem of a net energy decline that is behind their dropping standard of living.

      bcarman6, June 24, 2015 at 3:52 pm

      Bingo, Stilgar, and it's no accident.

      I fully expect the US to eventually resemble multi-generational household and social arrangements reminiscent of the 18th and 19th centuries in the US, and similar to Latin America, Asia, and Africa today.

      Note, however, that there are advantages to those extended families who "get it", who act in anticipation of the mass-social trend, and who thus benefit from the process of pooling resources, reducing the cost of living per capita and per household.

      Consider that the typical household spends 45-55% of disposable income on housing and auto transportation (52-62% if "illth" care costs are included). Reduce the cost per capita of housing and auto transport by 2-3 times or more, and one can double or triple one's purchasing power per capita by doubling or tripling up for housing and transportation.

      This is a no-brainer for those who stop self-identifying with the unrealistic, unsustainable of what has become the standard for the "American Way of Life", which is now prohibitively costly.

      Stilgar Wilcox, June 24, 2015 at 9:25 pm

      Yeah, I know Bearman – I was reading about those very high percentage of renters income going to rent. Too many renters due to a huge drop in home ownership, or a better way to put it would be to say its a landlord's market. Very disturbing how 70 million people in the US have no savings. Any kind of sharp economic contraction and many will become disenfranchised from their housing. Stacy on Max Keiser's show refers to renters as the new rentier class.

      ladrillez , June 23, 2015 at 11:54 pm

      Dear Gail

      You saiid:
      "A great deal of debt is needed for the new operations. At some point, this debt starts reaching limits."

      The great question is: Why?

      Intuitively, I also think tha debt have a limit, but we speak about fiat money, and there is no limit in a fiat concept...

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 12:03 am

      Kuntsler had some interesting thoughts on this the other day:

      http://kunstler.com/clusterfuck-nation/history-in-free-verse/

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 7:24 am

      I like Kunstler's comment,

      "The European Union and its wing-men at the European Central Bank (ECB) and the International Monetary Fund (IMF) can only pretend to kick that fabled can down the road because it has turned into a cement-filled 50-gallon drum."

      Gail Tverberg , June 24, 2015 at 7:37 am

      One reason debt reaches limits has to do with debt servicing, and the constraints that puts on future spending. For individuals and businesses, this is clearly a limit. An individual with a huge amount of student loans cannot afford to take out a mortgage as well, for example.

      For governments, part of the problem is convention–studies have shown that above certain ratios to GDP, countries tend not to do well financially. Another issue is the increasingly large chunk of the budget that must be devoted to interest payments, unless the interest rate for borrowing is zero.

      A major issue is that in the real world, all we really have is the goods and services that can be created this year, plus an inventory of previous goods that is rapidly depreciating. Adding more debt doesn't really change this fact. If, going forward, we reach a situation where the amount of goods and services we add each year is declining, we have a major problem. We cannot even offset depreciation on our existing inventory of goods. Money and other forms of debt can somewhat reallocate what is available, but if very little is available, that is a fundamental problem.

      With decreasing affordable demand, we are reaching a situation where less and less of the raw materials needed to make goods and services is available. This is a problem.

      bcarman6, June 24, 2015 at 4:25 pm

      Yes, Gail.

      To the point, total net annual flows to the US financial sector now equal total US annual GDP output. That is to say, all value-added output of the US economy is pledged to, and therefore claimed by, the financial sector and the top 0.001-1% owners of the rentier claims from wages, profits, and gov't receipts for social goods.

      This supports my description (not disparaging) that the US is a militarist-imperialist, rentier-socialist corporate-state, with all of the net gains from (un)economic activity going to the rentier top 0.001-1%.

      richard , June 24, 2015 at 9:35 am

      "Why?" – to quote Davis McWilliams "Private Debt so enormous that default is the only option" – todays consumer is encouraged to consume to the point where his income equals his debt payments. In olden times, he becomes a slave of his creditors. The ultimate wealth transfer from the poor to the already rich.

      James, June 24, 2015 at 11:02 am

      I wonder if a contrarian POV might not be appropriate for consumers, assuming that their debts will eventually be unpayable, and their bank accounts likewise, unredeemable. If there's a serious run on the money supply, being cash poor and liability/asset rich may be the winni<e>ng position, once again assuming that creditors are so swamped in bad debt that they simply give up on collecting it, and the state likewise gives up on enforcing/punishing it. I have a friend (an extremely knowledgeable and well-grounded fellow in all respects) that subscribes to that theory, and believes that leveraging to the hilt, especially just prior to a crash if it's foreseeable, is the smartest way to go.

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 3:30 pm

      I agree with your friend – nobody will be collecting.... I leverage our buy in New Zealand because I expect the bank who loaned me the money will not exist in the near term... so I'd rather use what will soon be wall paper to pay for our place (I am hedged with some PM .. just in case...)

      But then ... I also do not believe that assets will have any value post collapse.... stocks, bonds, property etc... will be worthless...

      I am also assuming we get an extinction event - or an event that might as well be because if anyone survives they'll be living like savages... the only assets of value in such a world would be weapons and ammunition, stored food, and tools that could be used in producing food.

      Don't worry about property - there will be millions of acres of property available - but unfortunately most of it will have ruined soil because it was farmed using industrial inputs....

      James, June 25, 2015 at 9:42 am

      Agreed. All of which flies in the face of conventional "doomer" advice. Trouble is, there could be interim steps of many years or even decades where debt defaults are enforced, so it's always a game of trying to anticipate that which is for the most part completely unforeseeable. But I personally think that the current economy has only 5-10 years left in it at most, as the residual pressures from 2008 have been steadily building ever since. Everyone is currently falsely assured by the sky high DJI, when in fact it represents little more than the rapidly rising fever of a terminal patient about to expire. It won't be pretty this time.

      sandra, June 27, 2015 at 4:12 am

      how did you get into new zealand? u have to have $10mil+ to get in at your age.

      Fast Eddy (neo-Nostradomus!), June 27, 2015 at 11:17 pm

      It's like this...

      I burned my passport ... and purchased this boat for $1000 from a fisherman in Bali

      Then I set sail for New Zealand... the coast guard intercepted me ... I told them that I was a refugee escaping political persecution in Indonesia ..

      The minister of immigration then granted me residency status on these grounds.

      And la voila... c'est toot. G'day – eh....

      Gail Tverberg , June 25, 2015 at 11:21 am

      A person can pretty well make the case for borrowing to the hilt. Of course, many of the goods you buy might not do you any good anyhow. I have never gone that route myself. The worries don't seem to make up for any theoretical benefit.

      richard , June 24, 2015 at 9:38 am

      I should also have mentioned Japan. Their government debt is so great that if interest rates were to rise by about two percent, their entire tax revenue could not pay the interest.

      John Doyle, June 24, 2015 at 3:56 pm

      Please understand that Sovereign Debt is not spent money needing to be repaid. It is the sum of all the treasury securities held in the central bank. Treasury securities are money parked as savings accounts in the names of the bond holders and thus are sue to be repaid to the bond holders at maturity. This is why it seems like debt. However the bond sums themselves do not get spent, so at maturity they are simply repaid to the investors [or rolled over] with a change over to relisting them back into the investors reserve accounts at the CB. Bonds are not raised to spend money. Central banks do not use such money as they can pay directly for any expenditure required without borrowing. They most certainly don't need private money at interest. Bonds are used to restrict the excess reserves in the private sector, a way to control inflation. Etc. Japan could, with keystrokes, wipe its sovereign debt figures to zero.

      richard, June 25, 2015 at 4:23 am

      I believe that is called "default." Or if you are suggesting something else, then inflation rates, and interest rates should rise.

      John Doyle, June 25, 2015 at 4:24 pm

      Sorry, Nothing I wrote here relates to default. If there is a credit crisis point it comes at the Minsky moment, when debt repayments cannot keep up with rising debt. The government cannot "print money". It spends by creating deposits in the private banking system. The Fed does not control the amount of money in circulation as that has been outsourced to the commercial banks. However the CB can influence the money supply to control inflation pressures. Bonds are one way of doing that, as is setting the interest rate.

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 4:42 pm

      "The Fed does not control the amount of money in circulation as that has been outsourced to the commercial banks."

      The Fed controls those banks - it controls all corporations - it controls all countries - it controls all people.

      How does it do that?

      it is a PRIVATELY owned entity that has been given the right to print the global reserve currency and lend it out at interest

      Imagine that - having the right to print money and make money off of that money!!!

      But money is not the issue - money is simply the tool that gives the Fed ultimate power.

      Want to take down a country? Screw with their bond market.

      See Berlusconi - mafia king pin billionaire - tossed out on his ass over night when he tried to defy the ECB (which is controlled by the Fed) and replaced by a former Goldman Sachs minion...

      Everyone - and I mean everyone –ultimately dances to the Fed's tune.

      Only an idiot opposes the Fed - because the Fed rewards those who play ball handsomely - there is no upside to trying to change the rules... better to get along live large...

      "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." Nathan Rothschild

      "Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. ... Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile." Mackenzie King, Canadian Prime Minister 1935-1948.

      John Doyle, June 25, 2015 at 7:25 pm

      Sorry, "Fast Eddy" it's wrong. The Federal Reserve has a board overseeing it made up no doubt by bankers. But so does Australia's RBA. etc. It's not unique but they all answer to Treasury and back to the government. Treasury tells the central bank to credit/pay whomever Treasury chooses. They are not a law unto themselves. They manage interest rate targets and the reserve accounts kept there. They manage interbank lending also with an eye on inflation control. The money is all in the private sector and the Fed has no control over that supply, but seeks to manage it with its debt instruments etc.

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 8:14 pm

      Of course the owners of the Fed would have you believe the Fed is a quasi-government ministry getting marching orders from the president, congress and the senate.

      In reality it is the other way around... these institutions are the front men for the real decision makers

      And the beauty of this structure is that when the people become upset with decisions they can blow off steam by voting out the government that they believe was responsible for the unacceptable decisions. Rinse repeat rinse repeat (and the ignorant sheeple believe they have democracy!)

      And that keeps the hordes from showing up to the castle gates with pitchforks... like I said - this is a brilliant scheme.

      Is Obama any different than Bush? Of course not - because he is the front man - the OOTF (owners of the Fed or Ooooh – Tuff) – tell the president what to say and do. The president is little more than an actor.

      "Some people think that the Federal Reserve Banks are United States Government institutions. They are private monopolies which prey upon the people of these United States for the benefit of themselves and their foreign customers; foreign and domestic speculators and swindlers; and rich and predatory money lenders."

      – The Honorable Louis McFadden, Chairman of the House Banking and Currency Committee in the 1930s

      Read More http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489

      Let's revisit these statements – one made in the 1700's... one made a couple centuries later:

      "I care not what puppet is placed on the throne of England to rule the Empire, ... The man that controls Britain's money supply controls the British Empire. And I control the money supply." Nathan Rothschild

      "Once a nation parts with the control of its currency and credit, it matters not who makes the nation's laws. ... Until the control of the issue of currency and credit is restored to government and recognized as its most sacred responsibility, all talk of the sovereignty of parliament and of democracy is idle and futile." - Mackenzie King, Canadian Prime Minister 1935-1948.

      Why would anyone thing things have changed since these statements were made?

      The money lenders run the show - and they have for a very very long time.

      John Doyle, June 25, 2015 at 8:58 pm

      Yeah, I've seen all that too. It doesn't affect the day to day operations which is what I was answering.
      If you are interested try this version of the super elite control theory;

      There are many more, but its a good one;
      Michael Hudson chimes in as well;
      http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article39034.htm

      Artleads, June 26, 2015 at 12:26 am

      Hi John,

      Do you have the direct link for The Council on Foreign Relations video you posted?

      John Doyle, June 26, 2015 at 12:58 am

      It's in the video I posted before. But here it is again;
      It's my only link to it.

      Here's more, another good one;

      John Doyle, June 26, 2015 at 1:05 am

      I just looked again at the second link. It is out of date regarding money creation, Fractional reserve lending has not been practiced for years but the arabic scholar's point of view is interesting.

      richard , June 25, 2015 at 4:39 am

      @ John – you may be confusing Sovereign Debt with Quantitative Easing. QE is a subsidy to the banking sector to prevent insolvency. Sovereign Debt is accumulated deficit spending.

      John Doyle, June 25, 2015 at 4:39 pm

      I am not confused about QE vs Sovereign debt. QE is a stimulus put in place when interest rates are too low to raise economic activity. The government offers to buy non performing assets from the commercial banking sector. It does not finance government spending.
      It removes money from the economy which drives up the value of the dollar. By passing on non performing assets to the Government, banks can improve their capital position and are able to lend more freely. Not that they are actually doing that lately!

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 4:53 pm

      The scope of QE is vastly beyond that ...

      QE/ZIRP drives the subprime markets for autos, houses etc... this cash also makes shale possible... it is also tapped by corporations to be used as buy backs... it keeps interest rates low so that cities and states are able to service debts....

      Basically without these two policies there would be no economy.... it would have imploded in 2008.

      Since China and Russia are unloading US debt one has to wonder who or what is funding the massive deficits in the US? Who is buying the Treasuries? Impossible to say but I would not be surprised if QE is involved....

      Japan is doing that http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/japan-monetization-government-debt-by-adair-turner-2015-03

      John Doyle, June 25, 2015 at 7:28 pm

      My responses are not meant to be a comprehensive dissertation on QE.

      richard, June 25, 2015 at 5:33 pm

      John – I suggest you skip the first part about Peter Schiff – Steve Keen has a good explanation on how QE/Central banking works.

      Artleads , June 26, 2015 at 7:01 pm

      Thanks, John. I'll figure this out.

      Fast Eddy , June 23, 2015 at 11:58 pm

      https://marketrealist.imgix.net/uploads/2015/06/USO-ETF-22-June-2015.png?w=660&fit=max&auto=format

      How long does oil need to stay at that relatively low price before we see growth kick back in?

      I would assume there would have been a snap back within a couple of months... we are not seeing it... in fact growth is trending downwards...

      Kulm, June 24, 2015 at 12:09 am

      FB is more overvalued than Exxon because the world's smart money is on FB, Uber, and companies like that.

      Exxon is not sexy anymore.

      FB's run may be ephemeral, but all the trillions of money have to go to somewhere. The money will not simply disappear.

      FB may fade away but by then something similar to it would have attracted billions of dollars.

      ckazok, June 24, 2015 at 1:08 am

      Gail, as usual very nice to read your work. On the other hand, don't you think your "demand slowing down" view is based on fragile grounds? Especially for oil, you are looking at 2012/13/14 and those 3 years a) follow a vast economic crisis b) incorporate persistently high oil prices, dampening demand. What I would like to ask you is, what's your view now we seem to have entered a phase of an oversupply and lowl/affordable oil price for at least a couple of years? Will there be a bounce back to the old growth path, at least in some parts of the world? It surely seems so, if you look at how oil demand has grown in Q1 this year, especially in Asia, US (gasoline) etc. What's your take on this potential rebound?

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 7:21 am

      I suppose that there is a potential for a rebound with low prices in parts of the world. I don't see the gap between supply and demand going down much so far, however. I know that a recent EIA STEO analysis indicated that there was nearly a 3 million barrel per day gap between supply and demand in May 2015. This is hardly moving in the right direction. Art Berman graphs the reported balance in a recent post. http://www.artberman.com/for-oil-price-bad-is-the-new-good/

      Part of the problem is the low prices on all kinds of goods–coal, natural gas, steel, many metals, food products. We have low demand everywhere. Trying to fix this widespread a problem is impossible.

      Daddio7 , June 24, 2015 at 2:24 am

      Nothing to add, I just want to see new comments in my email.

      C2, June 24, 2015 at 2:58 am

      Thanks Gail for this very helpful analysis. Two minor typos, although your intended versions were quite clear in context: under Fig3, China's WTO accession was in 2001 not 2011, and under Fig8, US EU & Japan rather than EU EU.

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 6:56 am

      Thanks! Fixed them.

      Stefeun , June 24, 2015 at 4:16 am

      Thank you Gail for your hard work in putting up, updating and analysing all those figures.

      I think it clearly shows that our consumer economy is demand-driven (rather: affordability-driven) and is meeting problems when the cost of energy products rises, due to that we're getting closer to the limits of our finite world. Some unpleasant outcomes can be hidden or postponed for a while, but not forever.

      Another feedback is induced by the slowing growth and operated by the "financial pump", it's the growing inequalities, which in turn increases a lot the instability of the system (not to mention the shameful increase in suffering of lower to middle class people).

      Dennis Meadows recently put it in a quite simple way:
      "When you don't have conventional (inexpensive) energy sources like oil, you cannot sustain the kind of economic growth rates that we have seen in the past. As a practical matter, then, there is now very little real wealth generation. Most of the economic activity these days consists of those who have more power getting richer by taking away from those with less. This is why we see widening gaps between rich and poor."
      http://www.greattransition.org/publication/growing-growing-gone

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 6:53 am

      "When you don't have conventional (inexpensive) energy sources like oil, you cannot sustain the kind of economic growth rates that we have seen in the past. As a practical matter, then, there is now very little real wealth generation. Most of the economic activity these days consists of those who have more power getting richer by taking away from those with less. This is why we see widening gaps between rich and poor."–Dennis Meadows

      Thanks! That is a good quote. I hadn't thought about the rich taking money away from the poor–only the creation of artificial wealth by our banking gurus, and this going to the very wealthy.

      Stefeun, June 24, 2015 at 10:53 am

      "From 2009 to 2012, average real income per family grew modestly by 6.0% (Table 1) but the gains were very uneven. Top 1% incomes grew by 31.4% while bottom 99% incomes grew only by 0.4%. Hence, the top 1% captured 95% of the income gains in the first two years of the recovery."
      From (see mid-p.4 and table 1): http://eml.berkeley.edu//~saez/saez-UStopincomes-2012.pdf

      I can't find the exact ref (Piketty? other..?), but I know I read that for slightly extended percentile (top 5% or top 10%) and over a bit longer period since GFC, and perhaps not US only,
      this "captured percentage" was higher than 100% (even more than 110%, iirc).

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 11:13 am

      I agree that is a good link. He says more data is available from a spreadsheet, which is linked.

      James , June 24, 2015 at 10:47 am

      Great link!

      Stefeun, June 24, 2015 at 1:42 pm

      Link provided by Don a few days ago.

      Schinzy , June 24, 2015 at 6:03 am

      Hi Gail,

      China entered the world trade organization in 2001, not 2011.

      Very interesting article. It corroborates the intuition I
      expressed here.
      I have begun to make subversive posts to the Toulouse School of Economics
      debate forum. Someone from this blog pointed out some errors in my post but
      it had already been published when I tried to correct it.

      Cheers

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 6:38 am

      Thanks–I fixed the typo. Thanks too for the link to your article.

      It may be that subversive posts will get through to this economics group. There seems to be such a reverence for old peer reviewed material that no one can consider the possibility that basic ideas are wrong.

      VPK , June 24, 2015 at 6:40 am

      This article by a friend of Gails, Erasmo Calzadilla, posted Havana Times
      http://www.havanatimes.org/?p=112116
      Does Latin America have the fuel needed to reach such an ambitious goal? Might this not be another "white lie", of the kind used by leaders to prevent riots and keep investors in orbit?

      Graph 2 was prepared by Mazama Science on the basis of data supplied by British Petroleum.

      Black gold production in the region has been stagnant for about a decade. Large discoveries are conspicuously absent and mature wells have been spitting out nothing by mud. The definitive fall will begin soon, if it hasn't already
      s a business, fracking has failed in most countries where it was used, and not precisely because of harassment by ecologists. The United States was able to take on the immense and risky initial investment, but less "fortunate" countries, even those that have juicy and technically adequate reserves, haven't had the same success
      n Latin America, Argentina and Mexico, people opened their hearts to fracking (it is said fracking is carried out under the table in Venezuela), but the results to date have been unimpressive.

      Not even the International Energy Agency (which highly praised the virtues of hydraulic fracturing methods) sees much future in it. Its most recent report (WEO 2014) makes this evident.

      Gail Tverberg, June 24, 2015 at 6:49 am

      Thanks for the link.

      BP data shows only the larger countries separately, so does not break out countries such as Cuba or North Korea or most of the African countries. To get a complete breakdown, a person has to wait for the compilation of the US Energy Information Administration. It tends to be a couple of years behind, though, especially for coal and some of the other fuels that are harder to get.

      Pingback: BP Data Suggests We Are Reaching Peak Energy Demand | Olduvai.caOlduvai.ca

      VPK, June 24, 2015 at 7:33 am

      Here in South Florida peak demand
      Broward College is planning staff cuts and tuition increases to help offset declining demand.
      BROWARD NEWS
      The college, which served about 68,000 students in the past year, is expecting a 5 percent drop in demand for classes this fall. Officials say the total number of Broward College students will likely be the same, but the college expects those students to take fewer classes. That means less money from the state and fewer tuition dollars, President David Armstrong said.

      And Governor slashing the state budget

      TALLAHASSEE - Moving with surprising speed and secrecy, Florida Gov. Rick Scott vetoed $461 million from the state budget Tuesday, enraging fellow Republicans for wiping out their priorities with the stroke of a pen Following a tense session in which he fought senators in his own party, Scott bludgeoned their projects just four days after the end of a three-week special legislative session. He denied that he was getting even with them.
      http://www.tampabay.com/news/politics/stateroundup/gov-rick-scott-signs-state-budget-in-private-with-little-notice/2234704

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 10:15 am

      Thanks! I am sure that you have read that a federal court has ruled in favor of making private colleges prove that their students can find jobs and get loan money. http://www.usnews.com/news/politics/articles/2015/06/23/federal-court-upholds-rules-aimed-at-for-profit-industry A person wonders what will happen to chiropractic schools, and in fact most of the private schools.

      If private schools must prove that their degrees are worthwhile, it may start people realizing that many public school degrees are not very helpful either. Fewer students: fewer jobs for teachers, janitors, food preparation workers, etc.

      Bill Simpson , June 24, 2015 at 7:59 am

      Bloomberg New Energy Finance has a 2015 study projecting the energy use and generation to 2040.

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 9:54 pm

      Bloomberg also states that the unemployment rate in the US is just over 5%....

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 10:21 am

      I see a free executive summary is available here. http://www.bloomberg.com/company/new-energy-outlook/ This report only looks at electric power. The ad says,

      "By 2040, the world's power-generating capacity mix will have transformed: from today's system composed of two-thirds fossil fuels to one with 60% from zero-emission energy sources. Renewables will command just under 60% of the 9,786GW of new generating capacity and two-thirds of the $12.2 trillion of investment."

      Where are we getting the $12.2 trillion of investment, and the huge amount of fossil fuels this implies? Is there any chance this investment will make electricity a lot cheaper (which is what we need, if it is to help our job situation)?

      BC, June 25, 2015 at 2:09 pm

      "Where are we getting the $12.2 trillion of investment, and the huge amount of fossil fuels this implies? Is there any chance this investment will make electricity a lot cheaper (which is what we need, if it is to help our job situation)?"

      https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1kUz

      Indeed, Gail. See the link above for capital formation to final sales and labor's (earned income's) share of GDP. Wall St. and Fortune 25-100 CEOs have succeeded since the 1970s-80s in deindustrializing, decapitalizing, deskilling, and financializing the US economy to the point that the physical capital and human labor stock of the US economy is incapable of a peak-cyclical rate of real final sales per capita faster than ~0%.

      Moreover, electricity consumption per capita is at the levels of the late 1990s to early 2000s and no signs of acceleration. Where is the economic justification to dramatically expand capacity of "renewables" under conditions of no growth of demand per capita for nearly 20 years?

      https://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/fredgraph.png?g=1koj

      http://www.cbo.gov/sites/default/files/cbofiles/attachments/49892-Outlook2015.pdf

      And this is consistent with the secular trend for potential real GDP per capita decelerating to below 1% (near 0% vs. 2.1% for the long-term average rate), whereas the CBO forecasts a 2.5% rate and 1.8% real per capita.

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 8:36 pm

      The retirement of baby boomers is by itself a huge stress on an essentially pay-as-you-go system. Add to that proposed rising interest rates and a shortage of oil (or rather a shortage of jobs that will afford people to buy products made with oil) we have a major problem. Then try to overlay that with a new more expensive electricity system, when the system isn't growing and doesn't need to meet future demand. Someone is kidding themselves.

      Stephen Saffold , June 24, 2015 at 8:40 am

      Gail thanks for another great well researched article and clear thinking – not much of that going on today- in a confusing economy if you just look at one or two or ten parameters the big background is as you put it low demand increases lower demand

      James, June 24, 2015 at 10:15 am

      Excellent post as always? In light of all the above, it should be quite an interesting election silly season coming our way here in the US, as candidates of all political stripes let their mouths write checks that they'll never be able to cash should they have the "good fortune" to actually get elected. Gonna be a lot of disappointment in our fair land just a few years down the road, and we're not exactly a bastion of rosy contentment right now either!

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 10:43 am

      I have a hard time getting excited about any political party–too much selling of something that can't really happen.

      interguru, June 25, 2015 at 3:13 pm

      "There is only one party in the United States, the Property Party ... and it has two right wings: Republican and Democrat." - Gore Vidal

      The latest passage of the TPP trade treaty in the US Congress only proves this point. When I looked at comments on articles in the New York Times and the very right wing National Review, they were almost 100% negative to the treaty, but it passed anyway.

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 9:09 pm

      What amazes me is that after seeing what Mr Hope and Change has done since he took office.... is that anyone would even bother to vote every again

      If this is not evidence that a higher power is running the show and that the president and the political parties do the bidding of OOTF and not the people... then I don't know what would have to happen to convince the sheeple....

      But of course the sheeple like the matrix... they don't want the truth because they can't handle it

      John Drake , June 24, 2015 at 11:40 am

      The key factor is the falling average EROEI of human civilization energy sources, which are today mostly composed of non-renewable hydrocarbons.

      This fundamentally implies that there is less and less energy available to do something else than energy production.

      Hence, human civilization has essentially been in a "death spiral" ever since the average EROEI of its energy sources has peaked (when was that?) and has started falling increasingly faster.

      As you slide along that falling EROEI curve, a critical threshold will eventually be hit and a brutal non-linear phase change type response will take down the entire system's level of complexity and will readjust it to a simpler state requiring a much lower, yet relatively stable, energy consumption level.

      If you translate this system's energy "phase change" in terms of human socio-economics you get civilization collapse and a great deal of human suffering. But as you may know, at least five previous extinction events of Earth's life system have already been identified throughout its history along with numerous human civilization collapses.

      I agree with you Gail that human civilization today desperately needs new "cheap" energy sources. But in terms of physics, you are essentially saying that human civilization needs new "high EROEI" energy sources essentially to take up the currently falling average EROEI of human civilization energy sources.

      Most people tend to frame the current issues in terms of economics (instead of physics) without realizing that economics, in its current state, is not an intellectual discipline that follows the scientific method, as Charles Hall has so rightly mentioned.

      Hence "economics" – with its collection of non-scientific "Mumbo Jumbo" principles mostly inspired and evolved to suit a collection of very private specific interests – is not an appropriate tool to truly identify the full scale of human civilization's "energy problem", its potential consequences and its potential solutions. In other words, in its present state, economics is more a quasi-religious set of non-verified assertions than a science based on the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

      Economics is unfortunaltely a tool used by TPTB to mostly orient human civilization development in a direction set to suit their interests. Needless to say that economics is also used to mask very real and potentially mortal problems from Main Street, essentially for control purposes.

      For example, if from the onstart Joe SixPack had kept his eyes and brain focussed on the evolution of the average EROEI of human civilization energy sources, he would have known quite some time ago that this average had peaked and that, if something was not done by TPTB to correct the slide down, he was heading for a painful extinction event.

      Instead, Joe SixPack's attention was "drowned" by a combination of cheap drink, TV varieties, sports and a set of elastic economic principles and reports that essentially told him there was no problem until he found, after having lost his job, that energy was no longer "cheap" and that a few people had uttered the expression "peak oil".

      Hence, using economics as a primary analytical tool to assess critical energy problems is unfortunaltely equivalent to putting on one's head the same type of device that a horse wears to insure that he walks in the direction that his rider wants him to go...

      The poor beast will not see much until it is too late to do anything...

      Artleads, June 24, 2015 at 2:28 pm

      I'm not sure that how humans behave system-wide can't function as an energy source. Unless there's some proof that human society is only capable of self-destructive myopia (as with Joe Sixpack) and not capable of self-interest-oriented long term thinking as to how/why to organize and systematize EVERYTHING.

      "Economics is unfortunaltely a tool used by TPTB to mostly orient human civilization development in a direction set to suit their interests. Needless to say that economics is also used to mask very real and potentially mortal problems from Main Street, essentially for control purposes."

      This is what I would have thought too, but I'm way over my head here.

      Fast Eddy, June 24, 2015 at 2:57 pm

      "As you slide along that falling EROEI curve, a critical threshold will eventually be hit and a brutal non-linear phase change type response will take down the entire system's level of complexity and will readjust it to a simpler state requiring a much lower, yet relatively stable, energy consumption level."

      The thing is.... we need BAU to extract the high hanging fruit that remains ... and as we are seeing that is not possible ...and our modern industrial civilization is collapsing....

      So when we collapse we will have no energy at all – not just a lower stable supply.

      If we cannot extract it now we will definitely not be able to post crash.

      If anyone survives this then at most they would be burning the forests for heating and cooking – that could be considered lower, stable energy consumption (assuming 7B people do not burn down the entire wood stock of the planet)...

      Such a society would be very primitive.... and it would remain very primitive .... because the resources that allowed us to 'progress' to where we are now - are gone. That was a one-off windfall....

      davekimble3, June 25, 2015 at 1:30 am

      In fact it's worse than that – the falling net energy has first to be spent on maintaining vital infrastructure, and only then can the remainder be used for more production. You can cheat on maintenance for a while, but then falling bridges and exploding nuclear power plants cause even more problems, needing even more energy to fix.

      Once the electricity goes off, ATMs, EFTPOS, bank security, TV, radio, phones, internet, reticulated water and sewerage all go off, and shopping grinds to a halt. We experience this here after major cyclones – we are totally helpless without outside support.

      John Doyle, June 25, 2015 at 8:04 am

      Indeed, As we get a more complex society so maintenance needs to expand and get more costly to do. So we spend more and more of a diminishing energy input leaving less and less to spend on everything else society requires. That can't end well!

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 3:03 pm

      Red lining the engine... seeing blue smoke out the back side....

      richard , June 25, 2015 at 10:07 am

      Surprisingly, the clever stuff is relatively inexpensive to maintain. Just keeping things clean and flowing, fixing leaks, and cutting back trees from power-lines can hurt more if you do not spend the money on them. Engineers and Architects are pretty good at deciding what maintenance is essential, but managers hope that someone else will get the blame when it goes wrong.

      Artleads, June 25, 2015 at 11:12 am

      Yep. Steady maintenance seems to be key. I think we need to ditch the cosmetic stuff completely, and just focus on the practical.

      And while I have no idea how it would get enacted, I believe that strict rationing of oil will be required to keep "essential" function working indefinitely. Perhaps mildly (humanely) coerced cheap labor could also keep a strategic amount of electricity and pumped water going indefinitely too. When I say only for the basics, I mean shockingly Spartan. If some of us can augment the Spartan regime through local cooperation and ingenuity, so much the better.

      Stefeun , June 25, 2015 at 3:29 am

      John,
      I agree with most of what you say, but unfortunately the end of cheap energy is not our only problem.
      Even if we happened to find a substitute for conventional oil or other new high EROI energy source (which won't happen), we'd have to face other limits, such as:
      – overpopulation
      – soil depletion
      – depletion of mineral ores
      – increasing levels of pollution (all kinds, some unsustainable)
      – global warming (disturbed climate, sea rise, ocean acidification, ...)
      – loss of biodiversity
      – race against pathogen microbes
      – ...? (sure I'm missing some other ones)

      Many of these limits are interlinked, which mean we'd have to fix all problems at once. Of course, that is impossibe, even with a new energy source (which, due to entropy generation, would likely worsen some problems while trying to fix other parts), not to mention that some of the above mentioned parameters are no longer under our control, as we have probably triggered feedback loops with unknown effects and consequences on the whole system.
      We're not Masters of the Universe, just playing God and burning down the house.

      Artleads, June 25, 2015 at 11:31 am

      Yes. Climate change and nuclear apocalypse (not necessarily caused by war) seem, especially, to be beyond remedy. But I think most of the other parts of the system could be addressed through radical change of behavior, including the wise rationing of remaining fossil fuels. So I see it as a need to correct all the sub systems that are amenable to correction, and then try, against all rationality, to address the top two.

      Climate Change:

      – Plant so many trees that you can't see the ground from a plane.
      – Radically ration the amount of GHG that can be released.

      Nuclear Catastrophe:

      – Focus as much or more on radical planning for eternal maintenance as on decommissioning nuclear plants. Maintenance might well be within the realm of affordability and time constraints.

      – If possible, decouple nuclear power from other parts of the grid, so as to contain and limit its harmful potential.

      – Apply nuclear energy to work which can be done in the vicinity of plants, and whose stoppage won't bring down the rest of the system.

      I also agree that it's the whole system in its entirety, and not discreet parts of it, that needs to change.

      Stefeun, June 25, 2015 at 12:04 pm

      Arleads,
      do you think your suggestions (or similar proposals) will be seriously discussed during COP 21 conference to be held in Paris this fall?

      Why don't they talk about really important topics?
      1. they know it's too late
      2. they have some hidden plan
      3. they don't have a clue of what's happening

      My bets are on 1. for the PTB, and 3. for the politicians.
      I can't see how any plan (2.) could work in the long run. But I'm not aware of the plan, so...?

      Artleads, June 25, 2015 at 1:21 pm

      IF anything I wrote was on the money, somebody with influence could use it as they saw fit. That's how I see the blogosphere...planting seeds, or worse, just throwing them along the shoulder as we drive past. I have no expectations for COP 21. Blogs like this are decent places to share ideas, and if I were among the elite, I'd check them out. Apart from that, it takes the unexpected–like the encyclical, perhaps?–to move the needle. Or so it seems to me.

      Correction: I expect the encyclical will have an influence on COP 21. Not determinative, but something that is amenable to further influence from an engaged public...or to further surprises?

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 3:31 pm

      The elites have think tanks with the best minds who have access to all the information - who model various outcomes... who recommend policies to delay the collapse...

      I don't think they need to visit blogs like this to get ideas... we offer nothing ...

      Although when they get truly desperate they may latch onto my Koombaya meme ... everyone needs a bit of hope eh...

      Artleads, June 25, 2015 at 6:14 pm

      The elites are obviously very stupid. Or is it, very unwise? Even if also very clever and short-sighted.

      June 25, 2015 at 2:35 pm

      Stefeun, there is "a plan". In fact, in certain circles it is referred to as "The Plan" or Fortress Europa or the Transatlantic Federation. The objective set out by the Rockefeller-Rothschild int'l banking syndicate's principal owners in the 1960s-70s was to merge the US and Canada with the UK, EZ, Japan, Oz, and Kiwiland into a single currency (SDR-based basket of currencies as the new int'l reserve currency), single regulatory, taxing, and customs regime, unified military command, and the IMF to become the reserve clearing bank for the BIS as the central bank of central banks, subordinating other central banks.

      These same enlightened types have no doubt about Peak Oil, population overshoot, the effects of climate change, and "Limits to Growth", and, as a result, they expect mass die-off of the human ape species beginning no later than the 2030s, beginning in Africa and South Asia first.

      Each successive crisis provides the int'l syndicate's owners the justification to consolidate power increasingly to the syndicate in such a way that there eventually emerges a kind of inter-continental, bankster-run, rentier-socialist, militarist-imperialist corporate-state owned by the top 0.001-1%.

      So, I would submit that 1, 2, and 3 from your list are all correct, except that a few well-placed politicians and Established technocrats are the principal facilitators of "The Plan", therefore, there are anything but "clueless".

      Thus, whenever there is an election, political, financial, or social crisis, or war, and technocrats and politicians convene, the first question should always be, What do the banksters want? Whatever it is, they usually get it, and whatever "it" is most often comes at a prohibitive cost to everyone else.

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 3:21 pm

      I am not clear as to how creating a new currency would make any difference (maybe it would kick the can a little further???) when the problem is not one of money - rather it is one of running out of energy that can be extracted at a low enough price to allow the economy to grow

      John Doyle, June 26, 2015 at 1:55 am

      Can you give us some links which explain this "plan"?
      We really do need a plan. It would of course not be generally known for fear of premature panic.
      But without a plan there will only be chaos and that need not be necessary.
      Today's politicians are not up to any such task, so the Army will be brought in to implement any plan.

      Stefeun, June 26, 2015 at 6:24 am

      BC,
      sure we need the banksters to run our current system, but IMO they just operate the system, they don't create any wealth.

      Money helps move the problems in time and space, but as soon as the money can no longer buy anything it becomes worthless. Sorry for the tautology, I mean the real wealth is the energy and "stuff" made with it, not the money.

      Fast Eddy , June 25, 2015 at 8:56 pm

      You cannot ration the remaining fossil fuels...

      Reducing the burning of fossil fuels means growth stops and goes into reverse... that means the economy collapses...

      And that means the fossil fuels that are in the ground at that time - will remain in the ground... because they require the full force of BAU (finance, technology etc...) to extract them.

      When the economy collapses – BAU collapses

      Fast Eddy , June 25, 2015 at 3:07 pm

      This is the biggie http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-04-07/california-microcosm-impending-global-water-crisis

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 4:40 pm

      I saw an ad from someone yesterday about some hoped-for treatment that would allow people to live forever. Imagine what that would do to our overpopulation problem!

      Stefeun, June 26, 2015 at 2:31 am

      Yes Gail,
      I had same reaction while listening a researcher tell they hoped being about to find out about the "secret" of the naked mole-rat, that has an exceptional longevity (see https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naked_mole-rat#Longevity). The guy was saying that if ever they found a simple "key" (some gene, I guess), it may very well allow, overnight, (some? rich?) humans to live up to 600 years!!

      Then I thought that concerned people would have to eat anyway.
      So I'm afraid it wouldn't change anything.

      Gail Tverberg , June 25, 2015 at 11:36 am

      My view:

      1. EROEI, as it is actually calculated, does not match up well with the physics. EROEI is too narrowly defined, as it is used in academic settings.
      2. Civilizations have collapsed since the beginning of time, for reasons that are not captured by the narrowly defined EROEI calculations. A person needs to study diminishing returns more broadly to understand what is happening.

      Artleads, June 25, 2015 at 1:01 pm

      "EROEI is too narrowly defined, as it is used in academic settings."

      How can (or CAN) this be remedied? Here, especially.

      Gail Tverberg, June 25, 2015 at 8:19 pm

      Our system of keeping record of the costs of production is, in effect, a way of counting all of the energy costs, even the hidden ones that go to the government in the form of taxes. We talk about money being a marker for embedded energy. This is why I talk about the cost of production as being important. I think that this is what we should be looking at, not EROEI. We can then compare cost of production to the market prices.

      With respect to the EROEI approximation, Charlie Hall back in the 1970s thought he could get a close enough approximation by just adding up the quantities of fossil fuel energy used "at the wellhead". Even this is a big headache to try to calculate. (It does keep a lot of graduate students busy, though.) I think we are kidding ourselves if we think graduate students really can do the counting correctly on a broader basis.

      Charlie Hall and his students have proposed adding more pieces, to get all of the way to the equivalent of the distributed cost to the consumer (but still leaving out taxes, dividends, interest payments, lease payments, corporate overhead, and probably other things). I presume that the EROEI calculation would still have the problem of treating all kinds of fuels equally, based on their energy equivalent. This is a problem because natural gas and coal are about 1/10 the cost of oil. Using them to create a liquid fuel may be a perfectly reasonable strategy for extending our liquid fuel supply. Even if oil is an energy sink, it doesn't really matter, if we have a lot of very cheap fuels we can use in its extraction.

      Artleads, June 25, 2015 at 9:09 pm

      "I presume that the EROEI calculation would still have the problem of treating all kinds of fuels equally, based on their energy equivalent. This is a problem because natural gas and coal are about 1/10 the cost of oil. Using them to create a liquid fuel may be a perfectly reasonable strategy for extending our liquid fuel supply. Even if oil is an energy sink, it doesn't really matter, if we have a lot of very cheap fuels we can use in its extraction."

      With apologies for my kindergarten-level understanding–using coal to excavate oil would be cost effective, but that is not how the system works?

      I believe coal mining is deadly for many communities and environments, but that fracking for gas, which causes earthquakes, is even worse. So coal could well be the best of a bad lot?

      Gail Tverberg, June 26, 2015 at 1:35 pm

      We end up with two side-by-side "cost" systems:

      1. The one computed in dollars, based on input costs.
      2. The one computed on an EROEI basis.

      What happens is that the two side by side cost systems give high-cost fuel makers two chances to "prove" their fuel is a good choice–(1) what it costs to make the fuel, and (2) what the EROEI based-calculation says. The EROEI-based calculation often gives a misleadingly optimistic indication, because it leaves out so much from the calculation.

      Anything that gives an excuse for more development, including the use of more "renewables," leads to more fossil fuel use, and more of the problems with coal and natural gas use. In theory, that could change over the long run, but I don't think it has so far.

      In the EROEI calculations, coal is treated the same as oil in the calculations. Thus, if an energy product uses much coal in its production, the EROEI will look low, but the cost calculation may very well turn out favorably. This is also true if much natural gas is used in creating an energy product. On the other hand, a process that uses a lot of high-priced oil to produce a new energy product (say intermittent wind energy) will not be penalized in the EROEI calculation for the high cost of oil used in the process. Instead, the EROEI will look favorable, even though the cost estimate comes out badly. As long as those working with the estimates have two choices (EROEI if its calculation turns out well, cost if it turns out better), those wishing to profit from the alternative energy product can pick the better-sounding calculation to justify investment in their proposed alternative energy type.

      John Drake , June 25, 2015 at 2:50 pm

      Gail said: "EROEI as it is actually calculated, does not match up well with the physics".

      What does that mean?

      At least with EROEI the scientific method is there to cross-check any proposed data or method of calculation.

      With "Voodoo Economics", such as that of Chicago School Economics, the scientific method has never been used to check anything and you consequently end up with a set of wild faith based assertions, such as "the invisible hand of the market", that very few dared to question until after the "free market adepts" had used their credo to wildly deregulate the financial system to the point where it had essentially become a giant "casino" – so disconnected from the risks related to basic energy realities – that it triggered the global 2008 financial debacle.

      Charles Hall clearly demontrated – in particulaar in his remarkable book "Energy and the Wealth of Nations" – the extent of the scientific "shallowness" of all the "neo-classical" economic "principles" that were, not so long ago, considered as the "Bible" of contemporary economics. Those "principles" are so disconnected from the known scientifically checked realites of our world that they can only be considered as "Voodoo Economics".

      Hence, if an issue essential to the very survival of human civilization has to be assessed, such as the energy issue, it is highly preferable to use an analytical instrument that includes rigorous scientific verification than one using a set of criteria essentially designed to "please private interests" and help them to legally "rob" Main Street...

      Gail Tverberg, June 26, 2015 at 8:51 am

      I am well aware of Charles Hall's book, "Energy and the Wealth of Nations." In fact, I wrote an article about it, as a way of advertising it, at his request. http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/04/13/two-energy-books-of-interest/

      Regarding the problems with the EROEI calculation, in some sense our economic system is all about energy–payments for past energy expended and amounts paid to people, allowing them to buy products made with future energy expenditures. The system contains a wide range of types of energy: human energy, animal energy, free energy from the sun, coal, oil, natural gas, hydroelectric electricity, nuclear electricity, etc. The government can especially distort financial assets with its policies, but discounting this problem (affecting mostly account balances that haven't been spent), the calculations of costs of production reflect the marketplace value put on the various types of energy included in the system.

      Hall has come up with an alternative system of counting energy products in the system. The rules are sort of as follows:
      1. Only count energy used "at the well-head" in the initial production. Ignore indirect energy usage, and energy used later in the process. This would include energy required for refining and transporting oil and energy needed for balancing intermittent renewables. It would exclude the cost of the many huge pipelines needed to transmit natural gas, and the LNG infrastructure.
      2. Ignore human energy, even though humans earn money, and use this to buy energy products.
      3. Count only fossil fuel energy in the calculation, or varying with the researcher, include fossil fuels plus some or all of renewable energy in the calculation. Typically, burning sugar cane residue for making electricity would typically not be included as energy consumed.
      4. In the real world, oil is valued at about 10 times the value of coal and natural gas, on a Btu basis. In EROEI, this value difference goes away. All fossil fuels are valued at the same level. Renewables may have no cost whatsoever.
      5. There are a huge number of problems that come up in the actual calculation: How should co-products be valued? For example, ethanol is made simultaneously with feed for animals. Oil and natural gas are often produced from the same well. When a person is working with dollar values, how does a person adjust for wide swings in prices? Where are boundaries on the calculation drawn? Do you include the energy going into making the building and machines? Do you include the energy going into the factory that went into making the building and machines? If a particular machine is fully depreciated, is it OK to just ignore its fossil fuel energy component? Is it OK to ignore processes that are not present all of the time (irrigation for corn for biofuels, possible future explosions and clean up efforts for nuclear energy, etc.) Do you use pro-forma value of the amount of wind-energy that a wind turbine is supposed to produce, or do you actually see how it performs at the particular location (often a whole lot lower)?

      As a practical matter, different researchers come up with very different answers when trying to calculate EROEI for the same fuel. Even if the same researcher does the calculation, there is no real reason to think that the direct well-head cost will be the same percentage of total energy costs for one fuel as it is for the next fuel. The EROEI calculation process becomes a "second path" whereby a high-priced energy substitute can claim its worth. If someone can find someone to calculate a sufficiently high EROEI for a high-priced energy substitute, this can be used as justification for asking for subsidies.

      I think of the situation as sort of like measuring the size of icebergs by only looking at the top of the iceberg. The amount floating below the surface varies a lot, however, so even when we are done with the laborious calculation, it doesn't tell us a whole lot, especially for comparing one energy type to another. Maybe, if we could do it right, it might tell us about the world average EROEI situation over time. What tends to happen though, it that the world mix of fuels tends to rebalance away from the high-priced, low EROEI fuels. This is the reason why Greece (whose economy is very oil dependent) is having difficulty right now. Coal's EROEI (properly measured, but ignoring its pollution issues) has always been the highest of the various fuels. That is why it is a popular fuel.

      If we think about the historical situation, in the pre-fossil fuel situation, we were working with EROEIs of mostly infinity, at least the way the calculations ignoring human labor are done. Since human labor counts for nothing, picking up sticks to burn them has an energy return on investment of infinity. Planting crops by hand, and harvesting them also has an infinite return.

      All of our attempts to use fossil fuels are thus steps down from these infinite EROEIs. I personally cannot see any reason why a particular threshold would be a show stopper. For example, using coal to make an oil substitute, if coal is a whole lot cheaper, might make sense. This might imply an EROEI of less than 1:1.

      All of the focus on this rather strange calculation takes time and effort away from looking at other things. The concept sounds like it belongs with motherhood and apple pie in terms of how wonderful it is; it is the details that trip it up.

      Don Stewart, June 26, 2015 at 10:49 am

      Dear Gail and Stefeun

      The list of problems with EROEI models are the 'intractable problems' which led BW Hill and his group to turn to a thermodynamic model. Here is one comment in a Q and A session which I linked to earlier:

      'It appears to me that while the entropy balance analysis utilizing appropriately defined control volumes is a standard applied method in chemical/process engineering, it may not be widely understood or appreciated in non engineering fields. Even I as a (retired) chemical engineer had to revisit my undergraduate text (Process Heat Transfer by Kern) to refresh my understanding.
      My view is your study is the next logical step beyond the ERoEI analysis which, even though it is not trivial to complete, has not delivered the insight of the Etp Model.'

      The results of the thermodynamic model are about as gloomy as you might wish to find. Here is a quote from BW Hill, from the same Q and A session:

      'Internal combustion engines are the primary user of petroleum products. Their efficiency has increased very little over the last 85 years. Even though designs have improved, reductions in compression ratios to reduces emissions have counter balanced that trend. The world has been balancing environmental issues with petroleum usage issues since day one. The other concern is that we probably just don't have the time, or money to make major changes in how we use petroleum. The best advise to the individual that I can give is to get ready for a very low petroleum usage world. Attempt to substitute, or discontinue use of many of the things that you think you must absolutely have to have. Many of them will no longer be available in the very near future. A second home in the Keys will soon become an anachronism. The day is not far away when you will be ready to trade it for one good meal.'

      Please note that I am not defending the details of Hill's model. The model may be a good representation of reality or a bad representation of reality. But to dismiss it as 'just another EROEI study' is, I think, to do it a disservice. Which may have repercussions on those who refuse to look.

      Don Stewart

      Stefeun, June 26, 2015 at 11:30 am

      Sorry Don,
      I cannot answer you because I haven't digged deep enough into the logic of the ETP model to have a clear opinion about it.
      And I don't think I've ever made any comment about BW Hill's work (except maybe try to give a theoretical explanation for the 50% threshold not long ago).

      richard, June 27, 2015 at 7:10 am

      @Don – There is a simpler way of explaining this.
      If you crunch the numbers in BP's 2015 data, and say that, for example, the maximum sustainable price for oil is $100 per barrel, there are only $475GBarrels available below that cost. Allow a few years for that fact to be widely recognised, and for 110GB to be consumed, and the remaining 365GB can be accounted for by exponential decay of all the wells currently in production.
      No need to complicate these things.

      Don Stewart, June 27, 2015 at 7:19 am

      richard

      there still is the 'declining affordability' issue. IF Hill is correct that 77 dollars is the maximum price in 2015, and then going down steadily, some of the oil which is currently counted as reserves will never be produced, as water cuts rise.

      Of course, this is all very murky. Will global financial capitalism simply collapse when some smart investors figure it all out? Are lifting costs and processing costs really as high as Hill says they are? Will the National Oil Companies starve their citizens in order to keep producing oil at a loss (as Hill suggests they might)? And so on and so forth.

      Don Stewart

      richard, June 28, 2015 at 4:24 am

      @Don – That's over 1000GB of reserves that can never be exploited. At $4 per barrel over US$4Tn of collateral "evaporates" from the financial system.
      As for affordability, prices have to drop very low for a producing well to be shut in. Affordability is only relevant for new wells. BTW, in this model, GDP drops at 10 percent per year for as long as oil and GDP are correlated.

      Don Stewart, June 28, 2015 at 9:22 am

      richard
      when the water cut gets high enough, production can stop regardless of oil price. I remember seeing that Exxon sold some high water cut wells to a company which specializes in stripping the last bit of oil out. But the company shut down the wells as prices fell.

      Other than Hill's very macro projections, I haven't seen any studies on 'nearly depleted' wells. I think everyone assumes that prices will resume their upward march. Few people can contemplate steadily falling prices.

      Don Stewart

      Don Stewart

      richard, June 28, 2015 at 12:07 pm

      @Don – I am more focussed on flows than prices. I *think* you may have a large oil field in Saudi Arabia in mind when discussing water problems. I'd be interested to hear how much oil you think will be flowing from Saudi Arabia, in say, ten years from today – assuming no new wells are drilled.

      Don Stewart, June 28, 2015 at 8:13 pm

      richard
      I'm not a reservoir expert, so my guess about Ghawar would be worth nothing to anyone.

      I do understand that the Saudis are drilling infill wells at the present time.

      IF Hill is correct about the price of oil in ten years time, then my guess would be that the Saudis would be getting very little oil out of Ghawar. Among other things, I think the Kingdom would have dissolved into chaos.

      Don Stewart

      richard, June 29, 2015 at 1:04 pm

      @Don – This 2007 report suggests that there may not be much life left in Ghawar.
      http://www.321energy.com/editorials/staniford/staniford051807.html
      It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that this part of the ME is where our remaing oil will be sourced. Trouble for them is trouble for the rest of us.
      I had already guessed that getting a handle on reserves and flows would be challenging, but if that can be done, much of the rest of the unknowns will fall into place.

      Artleads , June 26, 2015 at 11:25 am

      "For example, using coal to make an oil substitute, if coal is a whole lot cheaper, might make sense. This might imply an EROEI of less than 1:1."

      This is interesting. I live in an old coal town. There is low-quality coal just under the surface and high-level coal in deep, abandoned mines. I keep asking around if there is some less-than-deadly (or affordable) way to use our coal, but nobody's thinking about this.

      John Drake, June 26, 2015 at 3:17 pm

      Gail said: "I personally cannot see any reason why a particular threshold would be a show stopper. For example, using coal to make an oil substitute, if coal is a whole lot cheaper, might make sense. This might imply an EROEI of less than 1:1."

      This simple statement tells a lot about how the current economic system can distort physical reality to the point where decision makers can be enticed to make costly long term investment decisions that will ensure the ultimate demise of human civilization...

      And that is why it is so important to develop a coherent reliable, scientifically verifyable, methodology to unambiguously measure the average EROEI of human civilization energy sources and its evolution.

      Coming up with this data is of course more complex than measuring the EROEI at wellhead of a conventional oil reservoir but physical sciences do provide technical knowledge that can be used to develop reliable estimates.

      Charles Hall et al have followed that route, which of course leads to the production of highly strategic data... because, as you can easily imagine, the average EROEI of energy sources can be derived for individual countries and of course can be compared. Projections for the future can also be made, based on a number of hypothesis related to available energy sources. Even further, socio-economic and geopolitical consequences can be inferred for countries and even for regions within given countries.

      No wonder that TPTB do not want Joe SixPack to get access to those figures. He might just be able to figure out what the New World Map – not to say New World Order – will look like just a few years down the road. Much better to keep the "old chap" secured by an ever changing maze of elastic economic dogmas that will keep him confused about where he is going until the very last moment. After all, someone has to keep working on the sinking ship while others finish their drinks en route for the remaining few lifeboats.

      Gail Tverberg, June 29, 2015 at 8:54 pm

      There are huge differences in types of energy products–how energy dense, how portable, how they can be used in our built infrastructure. Natural gas may be in some ways like oil, but it is a whole lot harder to transport. It requires a lot of built infrastructure. For years, it was treated primarily as a waste product. In fact, in the Bakken it was still being treated as a waste product just recently–legislation had to be enacted forcing companies to start putting in the expensive pipelines needed to gather the gas.

      The amount of energy theoretically available at extraction is only one piece of information. It the energy cannot be used at that particular location, and it will require a huge expenditure (and much more use of energy) to transport and store the energy product, that is important as well.

      Artleads, June 30, 2015 at 1:16 am

      "The amount of energy theoretically available at extraction is only one piece of information. It the energy cannot be used at that particular location, and it will require a huge expenditure (and much more use of energy) to transport and store the energy product, that is important as well."

      This is helping toward systemic and comprehensive thinking.

      June 25, 2015 at 2:12 pm

      "[E]conomics is more a quasi-religious set of non-verified assertions than a science based on the fundamental principles of the scientific method.

      Economics is unfortunaltely a tool used by TPTB to mostly orient human civilization development in a direction set to suit their interests. Needless to say that economics is also used to mask very real and potentially mortal problems from Main Street, essentially for control purposes."

      Well said. Bravo.

      John Doyle, June 25, 2015 at 6:23 pm

      I agree. A lot of well known people have characterised Economics as "a faith based cult"
      Having discovered Modern Monetary Theory, the faith base is cut away and the plain facts emerge into daylight. I can recommend it be studied if understanding macroeconomics is of interest. It's called a theory, but it isn't per se. It's factual. It's what actually happens today with money and finance;
      http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

      James, June 25, 2015 at 10:28 am

      The "challenge" comes in resisting the allures of more and more techno-triumphalism. TT got us into this mess (and keeps burying us further and further in it), but it damn sure ain't going to get us out again. Think simple and back down the energy curve that got us here. And unfortunately, A LOT less people too.

      The idea that we can engineer our way out of our current dilemma is (and has always been!) the problem, not the solution.

      Fast Eddy, June 25, 2015 at 3:14 pm

      How many billions of tonnes of coal would we need to burn to manufacture panels to heat say 3 billion homes warmed by PV?

      Matthew Krajcik, July 1, 2015 at 12:06 am

      How many billions of tonnes of coal would we need to burn to directly heat 3 billion homes for eternity?

      Fast Eddy, July 1, 2015 at 2:25 am

      Roughly the same amount as you would need to manufacture the solar panels and other gear that would be required to do the same – actually probably quite a lot more…

      Gail Tverberg. June 30, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      The original Limits to Growth book came up with a scenario that IIRC "worked" to put collapse off until after 2100. One part of it was to transfer energy use to something deemed more sustainable. I believe that would be was nuclear, although I am not sure it was spelled out in the book as such. Another was to cap population growth at 0 by estimating the number of people who would die each year, and only allowing that many women to have babies in the following year. I expect the result would be less than 1 child per family, in some parts of the world. The plan may have had other efficiency aspects, to keep of the use of resources down.

      Of course, they were still dealing with a problem of starting with a fixed amount of resources and increasing effects of diminishing returns. The change was simply an attempt to deplete the resources more slowly, so they would last to 2100.

      Fast Eddy, June 30, 2015 at 2:23 pm

      Here's another way to deplete the resources more slowly: Keep a large portion of the world living in dire poverty … steal their resources…

      Hmmmm…..

      Gail Tverberg, July 1, 2015 at 5:57 pm

      Only works until they die of latest epidemic–perhaps pass it on to you.

      Gail Tverberg, June 30, 2015 at 11:24 am

      There are many kinds of diminishing returns. These do tend to raise cost of goods over time. (Whether the affordable price can rise is a different issue–this is why commodity prices are low.)

      Coal needs to come from deeper, thinner seams and needs to be transported farther. Pollution becomes a bigger issue, and so scrubbers are added. All of these things add to the cost of coal fired electricity used to make solar panels. There are also other pollutants that become more of a problem, and base materials of the right type come from mines that are also experiencing diminishing returns (deeper seams, lower ore percentages).

      Stefeun, July 1, 2015 at 3:12 am

      Alturium,

      a short comment on the Global Debt chart.
      Notice that the Government and the Financial curves are crossing around 2011.

      If you look back in 2008, you can see that the Financial curve is flattening, while the Govt one starts increasing.. This fits in with the process as described by Charles Hugh Smith 2 days ago:

      "…Then came financialization. Banks could skim the profits from originating loans and offload the risk of default onto towns in Norway, credulous pension funds and other greater fools.

      And if a default threatened the bank–for example, Greece in 2011–the bank simply bought political power and shifted the debt onto taxpayers. "The ATMs will stop working," the bankers threatened their political flunkies in Congress in 2008, and the bought-and-paid-for toadies in Congress and the Federal Reserve obediently shifted trillions of dollars in private liabilities and sketchy debt-based "assets" such as mortgages onto the taxpayers and the Fed balance sheet."
      http://charleshughsmith.blogspot.fr/2015/06/the-global-template-for-collapse.html

      Next step is to shift the risk from the taxpayer (vanishing entity) onto bank deposits (hard assets). This seems to be almost acheived, with bail-in procedures.

      [Jul 15, 2015] Shale Drillers' Safety Net Is Vanishing

      All events before the end of 2015 are just warm-up. Real action starts in 2016 when the wave of hedges comes down and we will be able to see who is swimming naked.
      "...With drillers burdened by interest payments on $235 billion of debt, $89 billion of it high-yield, a U.S. regulator has warned banks to beware of the "emerging risk" of lending to energy companies."
      "...Payments from hedges accounted for at least 15 percent of first-quarter revenue at 30 of the 62 oil and gas companies "
      "...Forecasters including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. see U.S. crude falling further in the final six months of the year. UBS predicts prices will slide as low as $50 a barrel."
      Jul 15, 2015 | Bloomberg Business

      The insurance protecting shale drillers against plummeting prices has become so crucial that for one company, SandRidge Energy Inc., payments from the hedges accounted for a stunning 64 percent of first-quarter revenue. Now the safety net is going away.

      The insurance that producers bought before the collapse in oil -- much of which guaranteed minimum prices of $90 a barrel or more -- is expiring. As they do, investors are left to wonder how these companies will make up the $3.7 billion the hedges earned them in the first quarter after crude sunk below $60 from a peak of $107 in mid-2014.

      "A year ago, you could hedge at $85 to $90, and now it's in the low $60s," said Chris Lang, a senior vice president with Asset Risk Management, a hedging adviser for more than 100 exploration and production companies. "Next year it's really going to come to a head."

      The hedges staved off an acute shortage of cash for shale companies and helped keep lenders from cutting credit lines, many of which are up for renewal in October. With drillers burdened by interest payments on $235 billion of debt, $89 billion of it high-yield, a U.S. regulator has warned banks to beware of the "emerging risk" of lending to energy companies.

      Payments from hedges accounted for at least 15 percent of first-quarter revenue at 30 of the 62 oil and gas companies in the Bloomberg Intelligence North America Exploration and Production Index. Revenue, already down 37 percent in the last year, will fall further as drillers cash out contracts that paid $90 a barrel even when oil fell below $44.

      ... ... ...

      Forecasters including Citigroup Inc. and Bank of America Corp. see U.S. crude falling further in the final six months of the year. UBS predicts prices will slide as low as $50 a barrel.

      Regulator Scrutiny

      With oil prices down 45 percent in the past year, the industry is facing scrutiny from lenders and their regulator. Banks typically evaluate credit lines to oil and gas companies twice a year. The next time is October, and by then many of the drillers' hedging contracts will have run out.

      ... ... ...

      [Jul 15, 2015] Look who is participating in the construction of Nord Stream II. Anglo-Dutch Shell, and 15% of gas transported via Nord Stream II will flow to the UK.

      marknesop, July 14, 2015 at 2:03 pm
      Well, well….look at that. Along with confirming the suspicions that Turkish Stream is not all that solid despite the ongoing construction of the first stage, look who is participating in the construction of Nord Stream II. Anglo-Dutch Shell, and 15% of gas transported via Nord Stream II will flow to the UK. So all the while Cameron is capering and posturing in the public eye and farting out flannel about standing shoulder to shoulder with Kiev and the Ukrainian people, a company incorporated in the UK is getting a cut from constructing the pipeline that will help Russia bypass Ukraine with Europe's gas supplies. A couple of other fun facts in there – Nord Stream is exempt from the EU's third Energy Package regulations. And Anglo-Dutch Shell (better known as Royal Dutch Shell) had 2013 revenues equal to 84% of the Netherlands (where it is headquartered) GDP.

      Here's a fun little interactive graphic I stumbled across, illustrating the connections between UK government figures and the Finance and Energy fields. Check out Gregory Barker, Minister of State for the Department of Energy and Climate Change…and former heavyweight with Anglo-Siberian Oil (1998-2000) and head of International Investor Relations for Sibneft (1998). Or Robert Goodwill, the appropriately-named Government Whip and Lord Commissioner of HM Treasury…and shareholder in Gazprom and Lukoil. Wheeee!!! Somebody stop me!!

      [Jul 13, 2015] OPEC expects a more balanced oil market in 2016

      This is Reuter interpretation which is by definition slanted toward energy consumers, who are interesting in low prices bonanza to continue. Should be taken with a grain of salt.
      "...In its monthly report, the 12-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said it expected world oil demand to increase by 1.34 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2016, up from growth of 1.28 million bpd this year."
      "...Benchmark Brent crude traded around $58.70 a barrel at 1230 GMT on Monday, down from a peak above $115 in June 2014."
      "...OPEC said supply of oil from non-OPEC producers was expected to grow by only 300,000 bpd in 2016, down sharply from growth of 860,000 bpd this year.
      U.S. oil output, which has seen rapid increases over the last five years thanks to the development of huge shale resources by "fracking", is expected to log much more modest supply growth in 2016."
      "...The group said it estimated, based on figures from secondary sources, that its own collective crude output rose by 283,000 bpd to 31.38 million bpd in June, led by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. That is still well ahead of current demand for OPEC oil and should help ensure global inventories continue to build for some time to come."
      Jul 13, 2015 | Reuters
      • Group expects world oil demand growth to increase in 2016
      • U.S. oil output growth to fall sharply next year
      • Saudi Arabia says it pumped at record high in June (Updates throughout)
      The oil market should be more balanced next year as China and the developing world use more oil while supply of fuel from North American shale grows more slowly, OPEC said on Monday.

      In its monthly report, the 12-member Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries said it expected world oil demand to increase by 1.34 million barrels per day (bpd) in 2016, up from growth of 1.28 million bpd this year.

      World oil demand growth should outpace any increase in oil supply from non-OPEC sources and ultra-light oils such as condensate, increasing consumption of OPEC crude, it said.

      "This would imply an improvement towards a more balanced market," OPEC's in-house economists said in the report.

      OPEC has increased production sharply over the last year as its most powerful member, Saudi Arabia, and other core producers in the Middle East Gulf attempt to build market share, leading to higher inventories worldwide.

      OPEC said Saudi Arabia reported that it pumped 10.56 million bpd last month, up 231,000 bpd from May. According to industry data, that would be a record high.

      Higher OPEC production has been a major factor behind a collapse in oil prices, which are now around half their levels of a year ago.

      Benchmark Brent crude traded around $58.70 a barrel at 1230 GMT on Monday, down from a peak above $115 in June 2014.

      Lower prices have squeezed high-cost oil producers and brought a sharp fall in the number of oil exploration rigs in operation, particularly across North America.

      OPEC said supply of oil from non-OPEC producers was expected to grow by only 300,000 bpd in 2016, down sharply from growth of 860,000 bpd this year.

      U.S. oil output, which has seen rapid increases over the last five years thanks to the development of huge shale resources by "fracking", is expected to log much more modest supply growth in 2016.

      "Total U.S. liquids production is expected to grow by 330,000 bpd, just one third of the growth of 930,000 bpd expected this year," it said.

      That should mean more demand for OPEC oil next year.

      OPEC said it expected demand for its own crude to rise by 860,000 bpd in 2016 to 30.07 million bpd. But it cut its estimate of demand for its crude this year by 100,000 bpd to 29.21 million bpd.

      The group said it estimated, based on figures from secondary sources, that its own collective crude output rose by 283,000 bpd to 31.38 million bpd in June, led by Iraq, Saudi Arabia and Nigeria. That is still well ahead of current demand for OPEC oil and should help ensure global inventories continue to build for some time to come.

      (Editing by Dale Hudson and Jason Neely)

      The EIA's Questionable Numbers - Peak Oil BarrelPeak Oil Barrel

      "...For the past three years, Saudi domestic energy demand has been rising by about 8% due to an expanding population and new construction and large-scale projects. More than 25% of the country's crude is consumed domestically by cars, planes, homes and businesses, a figure that rises in the summer and is almost double what the kingdom used in the early part of the last decade. The kingdom's population has increased 17% since 2005, faster than most developed countries."
      "...Based on most recent EIA data, the US is still dependent on net crude oil imports for about 40% of the crude + condensate (C+C) processed daily in US refineries, and a plausible estimate is that our existing C+C production is declining at about 20%/year (we have to run very fast to stay in place production-wise). The US is one of about 157 net oil importing countries in the world. "
      "...I am surprised that most people don't seem to notice how things are taking a turn for the worse lately. At the same time the world is radicalizing, (Isis, Syriza, French National Front, Spanish Podemos, etc) and the world economy is worsening (Greek bankruptcy, fake recovery, world commerce diminishing, China growth reducing). To me is like seeing storm clouds approaching. "

      Jeffrey J. Brown, 07/02/2015 at 6:47 am
      The WSJ has discovered "Net Export Math."

      WSJ: As Saudis Keep Pumping, Thirst for Domestic Oil Swells
      Kingdom is poised to break records for crude output, but its ravenous energy needs threaten its ability to ramp up exports

      http://www.wsj.com/articles/as-saudis-keep-pumping-thirst-for-domestic-oil-swells-1435786552

      RIYADH-Saudi Arabia is poised to break records for oil production this summer, analysts said, as domestic-energy needs soar during its scorching summer and the holy month of Ramadan and threaten its ability to ramp up exports.

      Saudi Arabia has said it produced a near-record 10.3 million barrels a day in May, a mark that industry observers said could increase to 11 million barrels this summer as air-conditioning use increases with temperatures reaching 110 degrees Fahrenheit. The country has the ability to produce 12.3 million barrels a day for 90 days, but it has never pumped this much. Saudi output averaged 9.22 million barrels a day from 2006 to 2014, according to the U.S. Energy Information Administration. Most of its oil is exported.

      For the past three years, Saudi domestic energy demand has been rising by about 8% due to an expanding population and new construction and large-scale projects. More than 25% of the country's crude is consumed domestically by cars, planes, homes and businesses, a figure that rises in the summer and is almost double what the kingdom used in the early part of the last decade. The kingdom's population has increased 17% since 2005, faster than most developed countries.

      At this pace, the kingdom would have to start importing oil by 2030, Citigroup Inc. has predicted, a once unthinkable prospect for the linchpin of the world's oil market. Khalid al-Falih, the current chairman and former chief executive of the kingdom's state-owned oil company, Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Saudi Aramco, said in 2011 that, if left unchecked, domestic energy consumption would rise to 8.2 million barrels of oil a day by 2030.

      Link to my comment on BP + EIA data on Saudi Arabia's net exports:

      http://peakoilbarrel.com/bakken-april-production-data/comment-page-1/#comment-521843

      Marcus, 07/02/2015 at 7:21 am
      Whilst the Saudi population in common with the rest of the middle east has grown substantially and its consumption with it in recent years I sometimes wonder if we are dealing with a case of Muhammad Saeed al-Sahhaf aka Baghdad Bob or Comical Ali.
      What I mean by that is that hyping their production level is such an important part of their bragging rights that they are willing to do so even when it is clearly not in their interest. Well before the US shale boom they were apt to do this even when logic would dictate that they talk down their production (obviously the quota system also plays a significant role). When their production finally nose dives I think they will claim the same or higher production while increasing their consumption estimates more and more in fact this will likely be the message that all the last great net oil exporters will give us towards the end.
      Jeffrey J. Brown, 07/02/2015 at 7:28 am
      Interesting admission by Khalid al-Falih:

      Reuters (January, 2015): Saudi Aramco to renegotiate some contracts on low oil price -CEO

      http://www.reuters.com/article/2015/01/27/saudi-oil-aramco-idUSL6N0V60Z320150127

      Jan 27 (Reuters) – Saudi Aramco will renegotiate some contracts and postpone some projects due to falling oil prices, the head of Saudi Arabia's state oil company said on Tuesday, stressing the top crude exporter will not single handedly balance the global oil market. . . .

      Saudi Aramco Chief Executive Khalid al-Falih, speaking at a conference in Riyadh, did not specify which projects or contracts would be affected by low prices. . . .

      Falih said the imbalance in the oil market had nothing to do with Saudi Arabia, and a fair price is what would ultimately balance supply and demand, a sign Riyadh is sticking to its strategy of allowing the market to stabilise itself.

      "Saudi Arabia has a policy, the policy is set by the government through the Ministry of Petroleum, and they have said that Saudi Arabia will not single handedly balance the market," he said.

      "The math will tell you that our exports are gradually declining. So the reason for the imbalance in the market absolutely has nothing to do with Saudi Arabia."

      old farmer mac, 07/02/2015 at 7:48 am
      The politics of oil prices are complicated indeed.

      While the Saudis have plenty of reasons to want to put the screws to the Russians they can't trust the rest of OPEC to honor the cartel's production sharing decisions.

      But it appears they are willing to cut a deal with the Russians who do have at least ONE thing in common with them. They both want a higher price for their oil.

      http://finance.yahoo.com/news/saudi-arabia-leaving-u-behind-215428719.html;_ylt=AwrC0F9wMJVVCHUA4SyTmYlQ;_ylu=X3oDMTByMDgyYjJiBGNvbG8DYmYxBHBvcwMyBHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzYw–

      By the way " our" Jeff Brown and host Ron ought to be on the talking head shows. The fact that they aren't proves that the MSM is not really competent, perhaps by choice, when it comes to energy.

      I am an hopeless amateur when it comes to oil compared to the pros who hang out here but to the best of my knowledge the Russians have until recently always done what they promised in terms of delivering oil and gas.

      I predict that if they cut a deal with the Saudis to cut production they will honor it.

      shallow sand, 07/02/2015 at 9:05 am
      Jeffrey, are the other Gulf OPEC states similar to KSA, in that their exported oil is also falling due to rising internal consumption?
      Jeffrey J. Brown, 07/02/2015 at 10:00 am
      I can shoot you the data base for the (2005) Top 33 net exporters. It's only updated through 2013 (still waiting on EIA consumption data), and there have been some revisions since we compiled the data base.

      My email: westexas AT aol Dot com.

      As I have repeatedly pointed out, what almost everyone is missing is the enormous difference between rates of change in production and CNE (Cumulative Net Exports) depletion*. I estimate that we may have already burned through around 30% of post-2005 Global CNE.

      *As combined production from the Six County Case History increased by 2% from 1995 to 1999, they had already shipped 54% of post-1995 CNE (major net exporters, excluding China, that hit or approached zero net exports from 1980 to 2010).

      AlexS , 07/02/2015 at 10:24 am
      the decline in net exports was largely offset by the drop in US net imports
      Jeffrey J. Brown, , 07/02/2015 at 10:42 am
      The decline in US net imports certainly affected the demand for Global Net Exports of oil (GNE*). But within OECD countries, we also had some countries with increasing net imports, e.g., the UK.

      Of course, on the demand side, the key factor has been the ongoing decline in what I define as Available Net Exports (GNE less Chindia's Net Imports, CNI). ANE fell from 41 MMBPD in 2005 to 34 MMBPD in 2013, and BP/EIA data indicate that the ANE decline probably continued in 2014.

      Based on most recent EIA data, the US is still dependent on net crude oil imports for about 40% of the crude + condensate (C+C) processed daily in US refineries, and a plausible estimate is that our existing C+C production is declining at about 20%/year (we have to run very fast to stay in place production-wise). The US is one of about 157 net oil importing countries in the world.

      Based on current trends (rate of decline in GNE/CNI Ratio), in about 16 years China & India alone would theoretically consume 100% of GNE, leaving no net exports available to about 155 net oil importing countries.

      *Combined net exports from top 33 net exporters in 2005 (EIA)

      Javier, 07/02/2015 at 6:24 pm
      So we have current trends saying that:
      – Saudi Arabia will become a net importer in 15 years.
      – China & India are to consume 100% of net exports in 16 years.

      As those trends become unsustainable, we are going to have lots of interesting things happening during the next decade.

      I am surprised that most people don't seem to notice how things are taking a turn for the worse lately. At the same time the world is radicalizing, (Isis, Syriza, French National Front, Spanish Podemos, etc) and the world economy is worsening (Greek bankruptcy, fake recovery, world commerce diminishing, China growth reducing). To me is like seeing storm clouds approaching.

      Paulo, 07/02/2015 at 8:35 am
      Terrific confirmation, Jeffrey. I have sent your comments on to others many times these past few years. Unfortunately, the confirmation by a major MSM publication is what John Q Public needs to see in order to accept reality. I have already sent it on!!

      [Jul 02, 2015] Shale Drillers About To Be Zero Hedged As Loss Protection Expires

      "...access to cheap cash via capital markets allows otherwise insolvent producers to keep drilling even as prices collapse, creating what are effectively zombie companies (to use Matt King's words) on the way to delaying the Schumpeterian endgame and embedding an enormous amount of risk in HY credit by flooding the market with supply just as demand from investors (who are delirious from hunger after being starved of yield by the Fed) peaks and secondary market liquidity continues to dry up. "
      "...Thanks to SEC rules on how drillers are required to value their reserves, producers are effectively forced to overstate the value of their O&G businesses by nearly two-thirds, which can lead unsophisticated investors who don't bother to read the 10K fine print to believe that the businesses are healthier than they actually are. "
      "...The insurance that producers bought before the collapse in oil -- much of which guaranteed minimum prices of $90 a barrel or more -- is expiring. As they do, investors are left to wonder how these companies will make up the $3.7 billion the hedges earned them in the first quarter after crude sunk below $60 from a peak of $107 in mid-2014."
      "...The hedges staved off an acute shortage of cash for shale companies and helped keep lenders from cutting credit lines, many of which are up for renewal in October. With drillers burdened by interest payments on $235 billion of debt, $89 billion of it high-yield, a U.S. regulator has warned banks to beware of the "emerging risk" of lending to energy companies."
      "...In short, the last line of defense against terminal cash burn for the beleaguered US shale complex is about to fall and when it does, it's going to take bank credit lines down with it. "
      Jul 02, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      In many ways, the US shale industry is emblematic of why failing to normalize monetary policy after seven years of largesse can be extremely dangerous.

      As discussed at length in these pages and then subsequently everywhere else, access to cheap cash via capital markets allows otherwise insolvent producers to keep drilling even as prices collapse, creating what are effectively zombie companies (to use Matt King's words) on the way to delaying the Schumpeterian endgame and embedding an enormous amount of risk in HY credit by flooding the market with supply just as demand from investors (who are delirious from hunger after being starved of yield by the Fed) peaks and secondary market liquidity continues to dry up.

      This dynamic has served to create a supply glut in a number of industries and has suppressed commodity prices in a self-feeding deflationary loop.

      Thanks to SEC rules on how drillers are required to value their reserves, producers are effectively forced to overstate the value of their O&G businesses by nearly two-thirds, which can lead unsophisticated investors who don't bother to read the 10K fine print to believe that the businesses are healthier than they actually are.

      Furthermore, the next round of revolver raids for the industry isn't due until October, meaning investors may also believe the industry has easier access to liquidity than it actually does. As a reminder:

      As if all of the above weren't enough, there's yet another reason why the shale default cascade has thus far been forestalled, giving many the impression that perhaps a "crude" awakening (pardon the terrible pun) has been averted: hedges.

      Here's Bloomberg with more on why some US shale drillers may soon be zero hedged (ahem):

      The insurance protecting shale drillers against plummeting prices has become so crucial that for one company, SandRidge Energy Inc., payments from the hedges accounted for a stunning 64 percent of first-quarter revenue.

      Now the safety net is going away.

      The insurance that producers bought before the collapse in oil -- much of which guaranteed minimum prices of $90 a barrel or more -- is expiring. As they do, investors are left to wonder how these companies will make up the $3.7 billion the hedges earned them in the first quarter after crude sunk below $60 from a peak of $107 in mid-2014.

      "A year ago, you could hedge at $85 to $90, and now it's in the low $60s," said Chris Lang, a senior vice president with Asset Risk Management, a hedging adviser for more than 100 exploration and production companies. "Next year it's really going to come to a head."

      The hedges staved off an acute shortage of cash for shale companies and helped keep lenders from cutting credit lines, many of which are up for renewal in October. With drillers burdened by interest payments on $235 billion of debt, $89 billion of it high-yield, a U.S. regulator has warned banks to beware of the "emerging risk" of lending to energy companies.

      Payments from hedges accounted for at least 15 percent of first-quarter revenue at 30 of the 62 oil and gas companies in the Bloomberg Intelligence North America Exploration and Production Index. Revenue, already down 37 percent in the last year, will fall further as drillers cash out contracts that paid $90 a barrel even when oil fell below $44.

      For SandRidge and other drillers, the hedges, required by some lenders, gave them enough time to cut spending. Costs in shale fields have fallen by 20 to 30 percent and productivity has increased as producers moved rigs to the most prolific regions. Producers were able to raise about $44 billion in equity and debt in the first quarter, according to UBS AG.

      "That postponed the day of reckoning," said Carl Tricoli, co-founder of private-equity firm Denham Capital Management.

      At Goodrich Petroleum Corp., hedges accounted for 35 percent of revenue in the first three months of 2015. Most of its insurance runs out at the end of the year, company records show.

      In short, the last line of defense against terminal cash burn for the beleaguered US shale complex is about to fall and when it does, it's going to take bank credit lines down with it.

      This means October is the expiration date for heavily indebted US drillers and perhaps for HY credit as well, because once the defaults begin in earnest and HY spreads start to blow out, the BTFD-ing retail crowd will head for the exits, triggering a very non-diversifiable, unidirectional flow for bond fund managers who will then be forced to hold their noses and dive into the ever-thinner secondary corporate credit market.

      It is precisely at that point when everyone's worst nightmares about shrinking dealer inventories and illiquid credit markets will suddenly be realized.

      The Shape

      Someone's getting what they want.

      http://peakoilbarrel.com/the-eias-questionable-numbers/

      [Jul 02, 2015]Current Oil Price Slump Far From Over

      I think the author is wrong. Neither production nor demand drastically changed to justify 50% oil price drop. Cost of production is the most interesting question here; my hypothesis is that it is close to $90 for large part of shale wells as most shale companies issued junk bonds and are heavily in debt even while prices were around $100. In any case it is clearly above $60 for most. So the current prices in three-five years will drastically diminish the role of shale in the USA oil production, if (big if) they can be sustained. They also alreasy started the wave of to bankruptcies and acquisition on minor players by major oil players (aka consolidation of industry). In other word this is destruction of shale industry as a sacrificial pawn in a larger geopolitical game. Destruction, in which, paradoxically, Saudi Arabia is the major player, but not for the reasons published in MSM as it is essentially the kingdom is a Washington vassal on Middle East.
      .
      The key factor in increasing shale oil production in the USA was the ability of producers to sell junk bonds. This channel is destroyed and might not recover in a decade. Junk bonds from those guys now have a distinct smell of subprime mortgages. That means that as soon as existing and under construction wells production decline (in three years or so let's talk about 2018) many of those companies will be acquired by stronger competitors and losses will be written off.
      .
      "...$90 per barrel appears to be the empirical threshold price above which demand destruction begins."
      Jun 29, 2015 | OilPrice.com
      The availability of capital to fund unconventional production is the key to how long low oil prices will last going forward. If the flow of capital continues, then the production surplus and lower oil prices will also continue, assuming that OPEC is able to maintain higher production levels and that demand growth remains relatively low.

      Eventually, price will win and unconventional production will fall. The market will rebalance and prices will rise. If oil prices stay low for long enough, demand will increase to support a return to higher prices. I doubt that prices will increase to levels before mid-2014 barring politically driven shock events. $90 per barrel appears to be the empirical threshold price above which demand destruction begins.

      It is more difficult to predict how the second- and third-order effects of economic uncertainty and geopolitical risk may affect supply and demand fundamentals and, therefore, price. These are the wild cards that could change the outcome that I describe.

      The most likely case is that oil prices will decrease in the second half of 2015 and that financial distress to all oil producers will increase. The hope and expectation that the worst is over will fade as the new reality of prolonged low oil prices is reluctantly accepted.

      We have had a year of lower oil prices. Based on available data, I see no end in sight yet. The market must balance before things get better and prices improve. That can only happen if production falls and demand increases. That will take time.
      We have crossed a boundary and things are different now.

      *I am indebted to James K. Galbraith for introducing me to the idea of boundaries and phase changes as they may apply to economics and oil prices in The End of Normal: The Great Crisis and The Future of Growth (2014).

      Rick on June 30 2015 said:

      Art,

      You completely ignore data from the states. You appear to have a blind faith in the infallibility of the EIA and IEA. For a guy with the background you claim to possess to believe the Saudis and OPEC can increase maxed out production, or that a decimated economy with badly neglected facilities and fields can so dramatically increase production, is simply astounding. Are you serious?

      Jim on June 30 2015 said:

      "Low" is a relative term. WTI averaged about $30 in current dollars between 1985-2005. If we see a new normal around $50 over the next decade or two, then it has become much more expensive in real terms. It is important to remind readers that cheap natural gas has allowed US industry to remain competitive and to keep consumers warm in the winter and cool in the summer. Internet technologies and computer-aided logistics also are helping the US economy control demand for driving. Since the 1970's though, oil has become an increasingly expensive building block in our civilization.

      [Jul 02, 2015] EPA's New Fracking Study: A Close Look at the Numbers Buried in the Fine Print

      by Sharon Kelly, originally published by DeSmog Blog | Jun 26, 2015

      When EPA's long-awaited draft assessment on fracking and drinking water supplies was released, the oil and gas industry triumphantly focused on a headline-making sentence: "We did not find evidence of widespread, systemic impacts on drinking water resources in the United States."

      But for fracking's backers, a sense of victory may prove to be fleeting.

      EPA's draft assessment made one thing clear: fracking has repeatedly contaminated drinking water supplies (a fact that the industry has long aggressively denied).

      Indeed, the federal government's recognition that fracking can contaminate drinking water supplies may prove to have opened the floodgates, especially since EPA called attention to major gaps in the official record, due in part to gag orders for landowners who settle contamination claims and in part because there simply hasn't been enough testing to know how widespread problems have become.

      And although it's been less than a month since EPA's draft assessment was released, the evidence on fracking's impacts has continued to roll in.

      A study in Texas' Barnett shale found high levels of pollutants – volatile organic compounds, heavy metals, and known carcinogens – in many people's drinking water, based on testing from over 500 water wells. The contaminants found were associated with the shale drilling industry, but the researchers cautioned it was too soon to say whether the industry actually caused the contamination.

      But the association was strong, the researchers said. "In the counties where there is more unconventional oil and gas development, the chemicals are worse," lead researcher Zachariah Hildenbrand told Inside Climate News. "They're in water in higher concentrations and more prevalent among the wells. As you get away from the drilling, water quality gets better. There's no doubt about it."

      Those who might have hoped that EPA's national study would help resolve questions swirling around fracking were largely disappointed, saying that EPA's new draft assessment is largely a review of the current literature. EPA also heavily relied on data that was self-reported by drillers to FracFocus or to various states, leaving open questions about whether the accident rates they found are in fact under-stated.

      Historically, the executive summary from EPA's assessments on the oil and gas industry has provided a much rosier picture than the details included in the body of the report. And a close look at EPA's new draft assessment reveals some striking results that haven't made headlines.

      EPA couldn't say with certainty how many fracked wells there are in the US, nor could it say how much wastewater was produced from fracking. They could say that overall, the oil and gas industry is producing billions of gallons of wastewater a day – hundreds of billions of gallons per year – but couldn't say how much of that was tied to fracking.

      Roughly a third of America's newly fracked wells that EPA could find were drilled in densely populated areas – either metropolitan areas or what the EPA calls "micropolitan" centers, where over ten thousand people live close together (p. 109).

      Wells have been fracked as little as 0.01 miles away from a public drinking water supply, which supplies homes that do not use well water (p. 111) But despite how close fracking is to people's homes and public drinking water supplies, the EPA admitted it knows shockingly little about how risky the chemicals used are to human health (p. 38).

      Meanwhile, accidents keep on happening, both above-ground and under, by the hundreds or thousands. One in a dozen spills by drillers wasn't contained before it hit drinking water sources – and the spills that hit water supplies tended to be much larger spills than those that didn't (p. 38). Although gas wells are generally depicted as having numerous layers of concrete and steel casings to prevent the gas, wastewater and chemicals inside the well from interacting with the environment outside it, two thirds of wells had no cement along some portions of their bores (p. 275), an EPA review found. And conditions underground, which can leave wells under high pressure, high temperatures or in "corrosive environments" sometimes caused well casings to have "life expectancies" that run out in under a decade (p. 281) – but the oil and gas industry has told investors that shale wells are expected to keep pumping for 30 years or more.

      Here's a look at more of the evidence that's buried in the fine print on the EPA's study.

      First and foremost, fracked wells can contaminate underground drinking water supplies and there are multiple documented cases where that has occurred. The EPA's assessment, for example, concluded that in Pennsylvania, "in some cases, the methane [found in drinking water wells] appears to have originated from deeper layers such as those where the Marcellus Shale is found." The agency also cited cases of water contamination tied to the Vermejo coalbeds in Colorado's Raton basin. (See p. 284-5 of the report).

      In fact, at the five sites EPA selected for its retrospective studies, they found problems everywhere and most of the time, the only available explanation was fracking. An aquifer was contaminated with wastewater and tert-butyl alcohol in North Dakota and EPA concluded that the only possible cause was a blow-out during fracking; in Northeastern PA, where gas is often naturally found in water supplies, 9 out of the 36 wells EPA analyzed were newly contaminated due to fracking activities (25%); salty groundwater contamination in Southwestern PA likely came from a fracking wastewater pit; in two of the drinking wells EPA studied in Wise County, TX, the only explanation consistent with the EPA found contamination was brines from fracked rock layers and a third drinking well may have also been similarly polluted; and in Raton Basin, CO, EPA found pollution but couldn't "definitively" link it to the coalbed fracking done in the area.

      The agency also cited examples of lesser-known problems elsewhere in the US. For example, "[i]n Bainbridge, Ohio, inadequately cemented casing in a hydraulically fractured well contributed to the buildup of natural gas and high pressures along the outside of a production well," EPA said (p. 40-41). "This ultimately resulted in movement of natural gas into local drinking water aquifers."

      At least 12.2 million people live or drink water from within a mile of a fracked well, but that is almost certainly an under-count because EPA couldn't locate all the wells that were fracked. (p. 31-32; 116) Tens of thousands of new wells are drilled and fracked every year, EPA found, and half of the states in the country have now been fracked. So even if problems occur a small percent of the time, vast numbers of individual people could be impacted.

      And companies have been allowed to frack using over a thousand different chemicals nationwide even though scientists have a very poor understanding of the ways that they affect people (p. 176). Little is known about the human health effects for the vast majority of the chemicals used in fracking, a problem that EPA labeled "a significant data gap for hazard identification." The risks of long-term exposure were not know for 92% of the chemicals used during fracking (p. 38). Much also remains unknown about the health risks associated with 38-48 percent of the naturally-occurring materials that get mixed in with injected fluids underground, though more is known about these than the chemicals deliberately used by drillers.

      The few chemicals whose health risks have been studied can have severe impacts on people's bodies, causing cancer, kidney, brain and liver problems, and pose harm to developing fetuses and babies (though EPA cautioned that so little is known about the more commonly used chemicals that it wasn't clear what risks an average well might pose) (p. 39).

      This means that people whose health is harmed could have a hard time tying their ailments to fracking in court, because the science has lagged so far behind. It also makes it hard for regulators to know what chemicals are riskier or how best to prevent people from getting sick.

      Although the oil and gas industry often focuses on "best practices" in describing how the modern shale rush has used emerging technology, even basic precautions are not routinely taken. Roughly 3 percent of fracked wells in one part of North Dakota – in other words, hundreds of wells per year – were deliberately built short on the well casings that are designed to protect drinking water supplies. And without enough casing, the risk of contamination spikes 1,000- fold, EPA noted (p. 39).

      Much has been made of the long distances that fracking chemicals would have to travel to move from shale layers buried sometimes thousands of feet below the surface to the depths that people's drinking water wells reach. But it turns out that twenty percent of fracked wells are considered "shallow," which means that fracking happens much closer to drinking water supplies, EPA found (p. 41).

      And, in a practice that has gotten very little attention, drilling companies are sometimes deliberately fracking directly into drinking water supplies. "The practice of injecting fracturing fluids into a formation that also contains a drinking water resource directly affects the quality of that water, since some of the fluid likely remains in the formation following hydraulic fracturing," EPA wrote. "Hydraulic fracturing in a drinking water resource is a concern in the short-term (should there be people currently using these zones as a drinking water supply) and the long-term (if drought or other conditions necessitate the future use of these zones for drinking water" (p. 41).

      Of course, it's not just problems underground that cause contamination.

      No one knows how much wastewater from fracking is produced nationwide, EPA reported, because states don't consistently track the industry's waste. This means there is no reliable way of knowing what percentage of wastewater winds up injected, dumped, spilled, deliberately evaporated in evaporation ponds, sent to treatment plants, sprayed on roads, or otherwise handled or mishandled. The amount of wastewater from a given well can be millions of gallons – sometimes even more than companies pumped in, or sometimes up to 90 percent of what's inject remains below ground, EPA said.

      Sewage treatment plants cannot handle fracking wastewater, and there is no evidence proving that commercial wastewater treatment plants can handle it either (p. 46).

      Hundreds or thousands of chemical or wastewater spills can be expected annually, and an average spill is over 400 gallons (picture eight 50-gallon drums), EPA found, despite limited reporting. About one in ten spills reached surface waters, and nearly two thirds soaked into the ground. "These spills tended to be of greater volume than spills that did not reach a water body," EPA noted (p.45).

      Unlined wastewater storage pits can create "plumes" in underground water supplies, when fluids seep down through the soil into aquifers, and those plumes can create problems for a very long time and even reach nearby lakes, rivers or streams, EPA reported (p. 45).

      And as droughts extend across much of the U.S., the sheer amount of water consumed by fracking – often permanently removed from the water cycle – also impacts America's drinking water supplies. In some counties, fracking consumes more than half of all the water that is used annually, based on the industry's own self-reporting, EPA noted (p. 35).
      Problems underground have also dogged the fracking industry, and evidence is growing despite the complex and expensive technical problems that confront investigators into specific incidents.

      Modern fracking techniques, where 10 or more wells are drilled from the same pad, may increase the risks of groundwater contamination, EPA found. In some parts of Oklahoma, fractures from two different wells accidentally crossed each other nearly half of the time. When this happens, fluids pumped down into one well can erupt out of a different well, causing fracking-fluid spills at ground-level (p. 42).

      These risks are especially high if one of the over 1 million wells that were drilled and abandoned "prior to a formal regulatory structure" turns out to have been nearby (but that's hard to anticipate because "the status and location of many of these wells are unknown" (p. 42).

      About 1,380 wells over a decade old were fracked in 2009 and 2010, despite concerns that older wells were not tested to withstand modern fracking techniques. "The EPA estimated that 6% of 23,000 oil and gas production wells were drilled more than 10 years before being hydraulically fractured in 2009 or 2010. Although new wells can be designed to withstand the stresses associated with hydraulic fracturing operations, older wells may not have been built or tested to the same specifications and their reuse for this purpose could be of concern. Moreover, aging and use of the well can contribute to casing degradation, which can be accelerated by exposure to corrosive chemicals, such as hydrogen sulfide, carbonic acid, and brines." (p. 41)

      While all of this shows EPA's baseline for talking about fracking's impacts, there are many reasons to believe that the agency's numbers represent just the tip of the iceberg. In its executive summary, EPA acknowledged that its numbers "may be an underestimate as a result of several factors," citing a lack of available data (p. 50).

      EPA's study also took a narrow approach and left out many issues related to fracking, including problems that emerge during drilling or constructing well pads (even at sites where fracking is necessary to get the well to begin producing oil and gas), the impacts of mining of sand used as proppant, and what happens to wells once they stop producing oil and gas and are abandoned. Early plans to study air emissions and other effects were also dropped.

      And of course, since the assessment is only a draft, it is still open for public comment. Public meetings and teleconferences to discuss EPA's findings are scheduled for this fall.

      Image via shutterstock. Reproduced on Resilience.org with permission.

      [Jul 01, 2015] Massive downward revisions to oil output in Brazil and Iraq

      Prediction three years too early...
      Massive downward revisions to oil output in Brazil and Iraq have increased the risks for oil markets of going from the current feast to famine within just a few years, leading to a price spike that would give a new boost to the U.S. shale industry…

      …"All these project cancellations and deferral and cut backs are setting the world up for tighter oil markets in the medium term (2017-19) unless the record Middle East oil rig count successfully translates into significantly higher production," said Seth Kleinman from Citi.

      "Demand will have its say but from a supply perspective it is hard not to believe the seeds of the next price spike are being sown today," Deutsche Bank said in a note on Tuesday….

      …Several oil industry heavyweights, including former BP (BP.L) boss Tony Hayward, have predicted a new bull market could arrive sooner than expected given the scale of capital and workforce withdrawal from the U.S. oil industry.

      U.S. oil output growth has indeed stalled in recent months as companies drastically cut the number of drilling rigs following a steep fall in oil prices after OPEC decided against cutting output last November….

      [Jun 29, 2015] U.S. Oil Glut An EIA Invention?

      "...This figure, as created by the EIA, has (with the media's help) created the impression of a huge oil glut in the U.S. market. No one, either within the media or the industry, has asked for clarification of this number and it is instead taken as gospel. "
      "...The EIA, at its sole discretion, has had the power the dramatically affect the sentiment and prices of an entire industry and in some cases completely obliterate it. The agnitude of the errors is mounting by the day as are the consequences."
      Jun 29, 2015 | OilPrice.com

      In the latest weekly production data from the EIA, on the back of recent March revisions, the U.S. managed to post a 76,000 barrel per day increase in the lower 48. Production from Alaska fell by 61,000 barrels per day, putting overall U.S. output 15,000 barrels per day higher for the week ending June 12 compared to the previous week.

      This comes at a time when multimillion barrel draws have become the norm. It is important to note that lower 48 production is estimated based on an EIA black box model, while Alaska is virtually real time data. That suggests that the weekly supply estimates are hugely overestimated.

      These weekly supply numbers are then used as a basis to jump to the conclusion that the markets are suffering from too much supply. As stated on OilPrice.com many times before, the amount of "over supply" vs. the averages in the U.S. according to the EIA amounts to tens of millions of barrels of oil.

      I continue to maintain that the EIA revision to production came very suspiciously at exactly the same time inventory draws began, as did the "Miscellaneous to Balance" figure used in calculating inventory. The chart below clearly shows when this figure started to grow and by what amount. It totals more than 30 million barrels since April and has been rising, which is virtually all of the oversupply above the mean in the U.S! To reiterate that number is at discretion of the EIA and is not an actual data point but an "adjustment."

      Data Errors Have Real World Consequences

      This figure, as created by the EIA, has (with the media's help) created the impression of a huge oil glut in the U.S. market. No one, either within the media or the industry, has asked for clarification of this number and it is instead taken as gospel. This is now wreaking havoc in energy states such as Texas, as well as threatening most oil companies as well as tens of thousands employed within the oil and gas industry. With such importance placed on a number which has impacted not only billions of dollars in company revenue but many lives for the worse, how can it be largely unchallenged by all but a few in the media?

      Whether this is tied to sheer incompetence or some other, more sinister reason, the number should be as accurate as possible. The consistent errors put the vast majority of small E&P companies at risk. The EIA, at its sole discretion, has had the power the dramatically affect the sentiment and prices of an entire industry and in some cases completely obliterate it. The magnitude of the errors is mounting by the day as are the consequences.

      [Jun 27, 2015] Tsipras Bailout Referendum Sham naked capitalism

      "...not just greece. the collusion between the ECB and the French and German governments/banks, along with the IMF sends a clear message to all the European "junior" states."
      .
      "...He stated that default would be "catastrophic" and that he saw his job as "attempting to save capitalism from itself." In short exactly the role that FDR played in the U.S. "
      .
      "...Surely you can't believe Syriza is going to come out of that stronger? The banking system has basically collapsed, deal or no deal. Plus. the Troika proposal also contains the poison pill of VAT increases for the islands, which would drive a wedge between Syriza and it's nationalist allies. "
      .
      "...The combination of political cravenness combined with short-sightedness and a recklessness built on arrogance displayed by the Troika should be truly sobering and is the real story, regardless of what now happens in Greece."
      June 27, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

      Chris Herbert said...

      Greece doesn't need any loans. Greece doesn't need any debt. Once you are a monetary sovereign you call the shots. Just ask the United States, or China, or Japan. Or Iceland. The central bank can recapitalize the economy with a new drachma, the only currency that can be used domestically. It can fund infrastructure projects that invigorate the Greek economy without issuing debt because it is producing assets, not liabilities. It can do so by avoiding what Keynes describe as 'a bookkeepers nightmare.' Keynes: "The divorce between ownership and the real responsibility of management is serious within a country when, as a result of joint-stock enterprise, ownership is broken up between innumerable individuals who buy their interest today and sell it tomorrow and lack altogether both knowledge and responsibility towards what they momentarily own. But when the same principle is applied internationally, it is, in times of stress, intolerable - I am irresponsible towards what I own and those who operate what I own are irresponsible towards me. There may be some financial calculation which shows it to be advantageous that my savings should be invested in whatever quarter of the habitable globe shows the greatest marginal efficiency of capital or the highest rate of interest. But experience is accumulating that remoteness between ownership and operation is an evil in the relations between men, likely or certain in the long run to set up strains and enmities which will bring to nought the financial calculation....

      National self-sufficiency, in short, though it costs something, may be becoming a luxury which we can afford if we happen to want it. Are there sufficient good reasons why we may happen to want it? The decadent international but individualistic capitalism, in the hands of which we found ourselves after the War, is not a success. It is not intelligent, it is not beautiful, it is not just, it is not virtuous - and it doesn't deliver the goods. In short, we dislike it and we are beginning to despise it. But when we wonder what to put in its place, we are extremely perplexed."

      anne said in reply to Chris Herbert...

      http://www.polyarchy.org/enough/texts/keynes.1933.html

      1933

      National self-sufficiency
      By John Maynard Keynes

      RC AKA Darryl, Ron said in reply to Chris Herbert...
      Terrific!
      Swedish Lex June 27, 2015 at 7:27 am

      Thanks for long analysis.

      Not sure I agree with all.

      While Tsipras, Syriza & Co. certainly are not the team that would win the Super bowl, far from it, they are nevertheless not worse than the Troika in terms of incompetence, internal inconsistencies, having made populistic and crazy promises to voters on false pretenses, etc. Greece is the unruly teenager and the Troika are supposed to be the enlightened and responsible parents, even if it means being harsh. What we have instead is one entirely dysfunctional family.

      My point is that even a 24 karat Greek Government would have an impossible task in negociating with the Ayatollahs of the Troika.

      This game is therefore (unfortunately) not about acting rationally. Doing the right and responsible thing will not make you win or at least lose less.

      Therefore I think that Tsipras move to launch a referendum is not bad. If the ECB shuts off the ELA – a couple of days before the citizens of Greece get to vote on the situation – then the ECB will (again) be confirmed at the Institution that kills democracy.

      The Greek referendum has in my view been an option for the Greeks all the time. By doing it now "Ach mein Gott, way too late", the Greeks show that the creditors, and their parliaments, do not own the agenda (and hence cannot use it as pressure point).

      What we are witnessing is clearly not a negotiation. It is political warfare with one pygmy state against a totally overwhelming force. I do not expect Greece to win this, in the end, but I hope that they will lose with dignity while the creditors win in infamy. This is not irrelevant since the next generation of Greeks will need to know that their parents refused to surrender to the, objectively, suicidal demands of the creditors....

      Swedish Lex, June 27, 2015 at 7:33 am

      I also believe that a Greek default would blow a big hole in the ECB's balance sheet, meaning that the euro states would have to inject tens of billions of new equity. Real money. TBC.

      Freddo, June 27, 2015 at 7:52 am

      I wonder how Merkel is feeling right now. I would interpret telling Tspiras to "shut up" as a sign she sees her legacy disappearing down a drain. Powerful leaders holding all the cards don't talk like that. Maybe she has suddenly realized she doesn't hold all the cards.
      ennui, June 27, 2015 at 10:06 am

      not just greece. the collusion between the ECB and the French and German governments/banks, along with the IMF sends a clear message to all the European "junior" states. the fact that the ECB has conducted a slow bank run in Greece destroys any trust national political leaders might have in a European banking system. you can't have a central bank which is willing to destroy the banking system of a member state to advance the political aims of other member states….

      steviefinn, June 27, 2015 at 7:56 am

      Swedish Lex

      Agreed – & what is the difference in the end result between bowing & scraping & at least putting up some sort of fight ? Strikes me that it would eventually end up in much the same place anyway. Maybe morals don't count in this counting house world anymore, but however it ends, I personally am grateful to Syriza for allowing us more insight into the dealings of the EU Junta – which hopefully others will learn from, leading to a way of destoying this hydra.

      Lambert Strether, June 27, 2015 at 1:23 pm
      Not sure what mechanism you have in mind. From the post:

      [Syriza's] assumption appears to have been that the national governments would find it too politically toxic to recognize losses on the debt they had extended to Greece through the EFSF and the Greek Bailout Fund. But maturities on these facilities have been extended and payments deferred. And the national governments do not have to mark to market. They will recognize losses only if and when Greece fails to make payments, which is years down the road. And even then, the pain is spread out over decades. That means Greece's supposed nuclear weapon turns out to be a pop gun.

      Granted, these are country losses (after they were left holding the bag for German banks) but you do't explain how the ECB would lose. Would you, please?

      Cugel, June 27, 2015 at 7:42 pm

      Varoufakis last year explained everything before Syriza even took power. He stated that default would be "catastrophic" and that he saw his job as "attempting to save capitalism from itself." In short exactly the role that FDR played in the U.S.

      The difference of course is that the U.S. had a sovereign currency and could run deficits and FDR didn't have to answer to the Troika. So, Syriza tried to get the creditors to see reason and see that it was in their long-term best interests to grant debt-relief. They failed because of EU arrogance, blind adherence to dogma, and short-term thinking. But, they certainly didn't have any other choice.

      Yves has criticized them severely for not negotiating better. It is impossible to prove she's wrong that Syriza missed opportunities for finding a workable compromise, but I've never seen it as remotely plausible that the creditors would agree to anything Greece could accept.

      The attempt at a referendum is obvious political theater and will be rejected by the Troika. It wouldn't work anyway. It is just another political ploy by Tsipras to cast the blame on the Troika by making them look bad, but they are long past the point of caring and just want Greece out of the EU.

      Ben Johannson, June 27, 2015 at 3:35 pm

      I can see no evidence that eurozone CB's must be in positive territory regarding its balance sheet or that member states must make any "hole" whole. They may demand it anyway given the leaders of the eurogang are likely as stupid as they look but it isn't an inevitability given the ECB does not require balance sheet solvency to conduct its operations.

      ennui, June 27, 2015 at 1:15 pm

      As Varoufakis notes in his recent statement, an agreement now would leave Syriza with a Greek economy in a deep depression, a banking system that has been strangled by the ECB with no commitment to confidence building, a requirement to create a fiscal surplus and monthly reviews by the IMF culminating in a repeat performance of this whole charade in November.

      Surely you can't believe Syriza is going to come out of that stronger? The banking system has basically collapsed, deal or no deal. Plus. the Troika proposal also contains the poison pill of VAT increases for the islands, which would drive a wedge between Syriza and it's nationalist allies.

      Whether it was intentional or not, Syriza's dogged commitment to this "negotiation" has illustrated just the degree to which the Troika are acting in bad faith. There were just two outcomes that were possible from this process: Syriza signing a deal which would be politically suicidal or Greek exit, and this was by design by the powers of Europe.

      The combination of political cravenness combined with short-sightedness and a recklessness built on arrogance displayed by the Troika should be truly sobering and is the real story, regardless of what now happens in Greece.

      [Jun 27, 2015] Breaking Greece

      Paul Krugman:

      Breaking Greece: I've been staying fairly quiet on Greece... But given reports from the negotiations in Brussels, something must be said...
      This ought to be a negotiation about targets for the primary surplus, and then about debt relief that heads off endless future crises. And the Greek government has agreed to what are actually fairly high surplus targets, especially given the fact that the budget would be in huge primary surplus if the economy weren't so depressed. But the creditors keep rejecting Greek proposals on the grounds that they rely too much on taxes and not enough on spending cuts. So we're still in the business of dictating domestic policy.
      The supposed reason for the rejection of a tax-based response is that it will hurt growth. The obvious response is, are you kidding us? The people who utterly failed to see the damage austerity would do - see the chart, which compares the projections in the 2010 standby agreement with reality - are now lecturing others on growth? Furthermore, the growth concerns are all supply-side, in an economy surely operating at least 20 percent below capacity. ...
      At this point it's time to stop talking about "Graccident"; if Grexit happens it will be because the creditors, or at least the IMF, wanted it to happen.
      Sandwichman said...

      The class nature of the IMF position is evident to anyone who chooses to see. Olivier Blanchard is the IMF's chief economist. Professor Krugman politely omits mentioning that salient fact. Professional courtesy, I presume.

      anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

      Olivier Blanchard is the IMF's chief economist.

      [ Meaning what exactly? ]

      Sandwichman said in reply to anne...

      Meaning if "unserious" Olivier (see below) was serious about his unseriousness maybe he would publicly repudiate the economics of the policy of the organization that he is presumably chief economist for.

      Sandwichman said in reply to anne...

      "The IMF's 'Tough Choices' on Greece," Jamie Galbraith

      http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/imf-greece-debt-restructuring-by-james-k-galbraith-2015-06#I3bKPImqEIzi2QYu.99

      "Blanchard should know better than to persist with this fiasco. Once the link between "reform" and growth is broken – as it has been in Greece – his argument collapses. With no path to growth, the creditors' demand for an eventual 3.5%-of-GDP primary surplus is actually a call for more contraction, beginning with another deep slump this year.

      "But, rather than recognizing this reality and adjusting accordingly, Blanchard doubles down on pensions. He writes:

      "'Why insist on pensions? Pensions and wages account for about 75% of primary spending; the other 25% have already been cut to the bone. Pension expenditures account for over 16% of GDP, and transfers from the budget to the pension system are close to 10% of GDP. We believe a reduction of pension expenditures of 1% of GDP (out of 16%) is needed, and that it can be done while protecting the poorest pensioners.'

      "Note first the damning admission: apart from pensions and wages, spending has already been "cut to the bone." And remember: the effect of this approach on growth was negative. So, in defiance of overwhelming evidence, the IMF now wants to target the remaining sector, pensions, where massive cuts – more than 40% in many cases – have already been made. The new cuts being demanded would hit the poor very hard."

      anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

      Understood completely, darn.

      Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

      So Galbraith and Krugman basically agree on the stupidity of the policy. Galbraith names the name. Krugman hesitates. Basic social psychology.

      Sandwichman said in reply to Sandwichman...

      Final paragraph of the Jamie Galbraith piece:

      "Blanchard insists that now is the time for "tough choices, and tough commitments to be made on both sides." Indeed it is. But the Greeks have already made tough choices. Now it is the IMF's turn, beginning with the decision to admit that the policies it has imposed for five long years created a disaster. For the other creditors, the toughest choice is to admit – as the IMF knows – that their Greek debts must be restructured. New loans for failed policies – the current joint creditor proposal – is, for them, no adjustment at all."

      Final two paragraphs of Krugman's:

      "Talk to IMF people and they will go on about the impossibility of dealing with Syriza, their annoyance at the grandstanding, and so on. But we're not in high school here. And right now it's the creditors, much more than the Greeks, who keep moving the goalposts. So what is happening? Is the goal to break Syriza? Is it to force Greece into a presumably disastrous default, to encourage the others?

      "At this point it's time to stop talking about "Graccident"; if Grexit happens it will be because the creditors, or at least the IMF, wanted it to happen."

      Do those "IMF people" have names? I guess not.

      anne said in reply to Sandwichman...

      Perfectly contrasted and argued, and important.

      pgl said in reply to Sandwichman...

      This is sounding a lot like our Federal government. Nondefense purchasing is not that high even though we need a lot more infrastructure. Republicans have bitched about Social Security retirement benefits for decades. Cut taxes to hell and then demand a balanced budget even during weak aggregate demand. OK, Greece's problems are enormous but listen to Paul Ryan enough and we will become a banana republic.

      [Jun 26, 2015] Oil Price Forecast 2015-2016 by Bill Conerly

      The key question is the size of available "cheap oil" reserves. Prices below $60 are unsustainable if "cheap oil" is gone. Some estimate that it will be gone in ten years. some estimate that in 40 years. As Earth population is still growing, the consumption of oil will iether grow or stabilize on the current level. It can't drop significantly without some technological breakthrough which the decimates the current status quo.
      "... Let me restate after adjusting oil prices using the consumer price index, stated in 2013 dollars: In 1984, the price was mostly in the $60s, averaging $65.65 for the year. In early 1986, the price fell below $30"
      Dec 18, 2015 | Forbes

      Update: I have written an update to discuss the role of foreign exchange rates in the oil price drop, but this article is still the best summary of my current forecast.

      The sharp drop in oil prices in the past few weeks confirms the oil price forecast that I published back in May 2013, when West Texas crude sold for $94.50:

      "Oil prices are headed down, and I mean down at least $20 a barrel. The key reason is that prices have been high. It's not a paradox, but a result of the long time lags in oil production."

      Before going into the forecast, it's worth mentioning that price can change faster than the fundamentals of supply and demand. In a recent 30-day period the price of oil fell by 20 percent. There was no change in the demand or supply over that month to justify such a large change. What happened is that commodity traders look at expected future prices, based on long-term supply and long-term demand. When the traders' expectations change, they buy or sell and the price changes. Traders' expectations can change due to moods, "animal spirits," fear, greed, drugs, family strife or lack of coffee. Or too much coffee. Thus, short-term price changes can happen quickly. My own guess is that hundreds of very influential traders suddenly slapped their foreheads and said, "That Bill Conerly is right." Which triggered a large drop in oil prices.

      The fundamentals of demand are straightforward. Demand is moves up or down as the global economy moves up or down, but with a pronounced trend toward less energy use per dollar of economic production. The chart tells the story well.

      Oil Consumption

      Economists have been slowly lowering their projections for global economic growth in the coming years, triggering lower expectations for oil demand.

      On the supply side, think of three distinct steps involved in getting oil to market: exploration, development, and production. Exploration is very sensitive to projected prices of crude oil. The price of oil had seemed stuck at $20 for many years, from roughly 1986 through 1997. Then prices started to rise, breaking through $60 in 2005. The price break, plus maybe talk about peak oil, lead to a surge in exploration around the world. With prices now dropping, new exploration activity will decline.

      Development is the process of sinking more wells in a field that has already been proven by exploratory drilling. Development also includes building the local pipelines and terminals required to get the oil to a transportation facility. Development expenses are often worthwhile even at lower prices. For example, suppose that the all-in cost of oil from a brand new field is $80, of which $30 per barrel constitutes exploration. That means that development and production only costs $50 a barrel extra. If the exploration costs have already been paid, then companies will continue with development even at today's $60 price.

      Production is even cheaper. Traditionally, production costs were very small compared to exploration and development, but wells that are fracked have higher production costs that old-fashioned wells. Nonetheless, once the exploration and development have been paid for, it almost always makes sense to keep the wells pumping.

      The supply-side question for the future is not whether it's profitable to find new oil at today's low prices. The question is how long we can enjoy the new oil supply that has been discovered in the past ten years. I believe the answer is somewhere between five and ten years. Wells have a natural decline rate. For a particular well, the engineer might estimate that each year's production would be 15 percent less than the previous year's production, over the life of the well, asymptotically approaching zero. (I've never met a petroleum engineer willing to guess at an average decline rate, but I've seen figures such as ten percent and 15 percent cited as examples.)

      My price forecast is that today's $60 price is likely to be the high end for the coming two years. There may be temporary market volatility higher, but don't expect a higher price to be sustained. At the low end, $50 seems like a floor absent a global recession.

      However, it's worth looking at the 1980s to recall how low things can go. Oil had sold for less than five dollars a barrel every year prior to 1973, when the price shot up past ten dollars. Then in 1979 the price zoomed into the high $30s. By 1986, though, global exploration had brought more oil to market. Energy conservation efforts had been triggered by the higher prices, and they limited demand. The price of oil plunged, sinking Texas into recession and causing the bankruptcy of many oil companies and banks.

      For the next few years, take our current $60 price as a ceiling, and consider the floor indeterminate.

      Rain Maker 6 months ago

      This comparison of current prices with past prices is incorrect, as it ignores inflation over the decades. $20 per barrel in 1986 is not the same as $20 today.

      Bill Conerly Bill Conerly, Contributor 6 months ago

      Rainmaker, you make a good point about inflation. Let me restate after adjusting oil prices using the consumer price index, stated in 2013 dollars: In 1984, the price was mostly in the $60s, averaging $65.65 for the year. In early 1986, the price fell below $30. Either way, it was a very steep drop.

      Thanks for your comment.
      Bill

      sam hemeda 6 months ago

      Bill, I agree with your theory that fluctuation in prices are driven by the psychology of the market and not by a straight forward supply/demand. Yet, extrapolating future oil prices based on historical data is a bit naïve in my opinion.

      1- Break even points , past few weeks wall street energy pundits coming up E&P Break-even points all over the place, different plays, different regions, offshore/onshore, major and independent producers etc, each has its own and there is no harmonized cost. Let's not forget, prior to 1997 oil came from shallow waters wells, which all dried out, drilling has moved to deep waters across the globe mainly below 3000 ft below, in the Gulf of Mexico producers are drilling exploratory wells below 15,000 ft, drilling rig can easily cost 500K-1 MUSD daily, avg 30-90 days to drill a single well with a 70% hitting a dry hole. True, they are applying the latest technologies to ensure safety and regulatory compliance, but no one disagree it is an enormous cost and companies with strained capex will drill less, also production facilities are in excess of few billions to build. Unconventional (shale gas) is privileged to have a lower cost , which explains why most of the small independent into this segment, however, the decline rate is rapid , we have seen some of the wells are maturing after 3 years of production, companies will have to drill to replenish their reserves and able to meet their obligations. In many cases Exploration and Production cost are amortized over the life of the field.

      2- You also did not factor in the geopolitics element in pricing oil, what happened when both Russians and Iranians are down on their knees asking for forgiveness and lifting sanctions or signing an unconditional nuclear accord, do you envision an OPEC cutting production slightly to pump some cash into Russians and Iranian coffers ? Again, Oil has always been a complex commodity and has unconventional pricing model that yet someone has to figure it out.

      [Jun 25, 2015]We Are Reaching Peak Energy Demand, BP Data Suggests

      Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

      Some people talk about peak energy (or oil) supply. They expect high prices and more demand than supply. Other people talk about energy demand hitting a peak many years from now, perhaps when most of us have electric cars.

      Neither of these views is correct. The real situation is that we right now seem to be reaching peak energy demand through low commodity prices. I see evidence of this in the historical energy data recently updated by BP (BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015).

      Growth in world energy consumption is clearly slowing. In fact, growth in energy consumption was only 0.9% in 2014. This is far below the 2.3% growth we would expect, based on recent past patterns. In fact, energy consumption in 2012 and 2013 also grew at lower than the expected 2.3% growth rate (2012 – 1.4%; 2013 – 1.8%).

      Figure 1- Resource consumption by part of the world. Canada etc. grouping also includes Norway, Australia, and South Africa. Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 data.

      Figure 1- Resource consumption by part of the world. Canada etc. grouping also includes Norway, Australia, and South Africa. F Soviet Union means Former Soviet Union. Middle East excludes Israel. Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 data.

      Recently, I wrote that economic growth eventually runs into limits. The symptoms we should expect are similar to the patterns we have been seeing recently (Why We Have an Oversupply of Almost Everything (Oil, labor, capital, etc.)). It seems to me that the patterns in BP's new data are also of the kind that we would expect to be seeing, if we are hitting limits that are causing low commodity prices.

      One of our underlying problems is that energy costs that have risen faster than most workers' wages since 2000. Another underlying problem has to do with globalization. Globalization provides a temporary benefit. In the last 20 years, we greatly ramped up globalization, but we are now losing the temporary benefit globalization brings. We find we again need to deal with the limits of a finite world and the constraints such a world places on growth.

      Energy Consumption is Slowing in Many Parts of the World

      Many parts of the world are seeing slowing growth in energy consumption. One major example is China.

      Figure 2. China's energy consumption by fuel, based on data of BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Figure 2. China's energy consumption by fuel, based on data of BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Based on recent patterns in China, we would expect fuel consumption to be increasing by about 7.5% per year. Instead, energy consumption has slowed, with growth amounting to 4.3% in 2012; 3.7% in 2013; and 2.6% in 2014. If China was recently the growth engine of the world, it is now sputtering.

      Part of China's problem is that some of the would-be buyers of its products are not growing. Europe is a well-known example of an area with economic problems. Its consumption of energy products has been slumping since 2006.

      Figure 3. European Union Energy Consumption based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 Data.

      Figure 3. European Union Energy Consumption based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 Data.

      I have used the same scale (maximum = 3.5 billion metric tons of oil equivalent) on Figure 3 as I used on Figure 2 so that readers can easily compare the European's Union's energy consumption to that of China. When China was added to the World Trade Organization in December 2001, it used only about 60% as much energy as the European Union. In 2014, it used close to twice as much energy (1.85 times as much) as the European Union.

      Another area with slumping energy demand is Japan. It consumption has been slumping since 2005. It was already well into a slump before its nuclear problems added to its other problems.

      Figure 4. Japan energy consumption by fuel, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Figure 4. Japan energy consumption by fuel, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      A third area with slumping demand is the Former Soviet Union (FSU). The two major countries within tithe FSU with slumping demand are Russia and Ukraine.

      Figure 5. Former Soviet Union energy consumption by source, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy Data 2015.

      Figure 5. Former Soviet Union energy consumption by source, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy Data 2015.

      Of course, some of the recent slumping demand of Ukraine and Russia are intended–this is what US sanctions are about. Also, low oil prices hurt the buying power of Russia. This also contributes to its declining demand, and thus its consumption.

      The United States is often portrayed as the bright ray of sunshine in a world with problems. Its energy consumption is not growing very briskly either.

      Figure 6. United States energy consumption by fuel, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014.

      Figure 6. United States energy consumption by fuel, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014.

      To a significant extent, the US's slowing energy consumption is intended–more fuel-efficient cars, more fuel efficient lighting, and better insulation. But part of this reduction in the growth in energy consumption comes from outsourcing a portion of manufacturing to countries around the world, including China. Regardless of cause, and whether the result was intentional or not, the United States' consumption is not growing very briskly. Figure 6 shows a small uptick in the US's energy consumption since 2012. This doesn't do much to offset slowing growth or outright declines in many other countries around the world.

      Slowing Growth in Demand for Almost All Fuels

      We can also look at world energy consumption by type of energy product. Here we find that growth in consumption slowed in 2014 for nearly all types of energy.

      Figure 7. World energy consumption by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Figure 7. World energy consumption by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Looking at oil separately (Figure 8), the data indicates that for the world in total, oil consumption grew by 0.8% in 2014. This is lower than in the previous three years (1.1%, 1.2%, and 1.1% growth rates).

      Figure 8. Oil consumption by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Figure 8. Oil consumption by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      If oil producers had planned for 2014 oil consumption based on the recent past growth in oil consumption growth, they would have overshot by about 1,484 million tons of oil equivalent (MTOE), or about 324,000 barrels per day. If this entire drop in oil consumption came in the second half of 2014, the overshoot would have been about 648,000 barrels per day during that period. Thus, the mismatch we are have recently been seeing between oil consumption and supply appears to be partly related to falling demand, based on BP's data.

      (Note: The "oil" being discussed is inclusive of biofuels and natural gas liquids. I am using MTOE because MTOE puts all fuels on an energy equivalent basis. A barrel is a volume measure. Growth in barrels will be slightly different from that in MTOE because of the changing mix of liquid fuels.)

      We can also look at oil consumption for the US, EU, and Japan, compared to all of the rest of the world.

      Figure 9. Oil consumption divided between the (a) US, EU, and Japan, and (b) Rest of the World.

      Figure 9. Oil consumption divided between the (a) US, EU, and Japan, and (b) Rest of the World.

      While the rest of the world is still increasing its growth in oil consumption, its rate of increase is falling–from 2.3% in 2012, to 1.6% in 2013, to 1.3% in 2014.

      Figure 10 showing world coal consumption is truly amazing. Huge growth in coal use took place as globalization spread. Carbon taxes in some countries (but not others) further tended to push manufacturing to coal-intensive manufacturing locations, such as China and India.

      Figure 10. World coal consumption by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Figure 10. World coal consumption by part of the world, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Looking at the two parts of the world separately (Figure 11), we see that in the last three years, growth in coal consumption outside of US, EU, and Japan, has tapered down. This is similar to the result for world consumption of coal in total (Figure 10).

      Figure 10. Coal consumption for the US, EU, and Japan separately from the Rest of the World, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy data.

      Figure 11. Coal consumption for the US, EU, and Japan separately from the Rest of the World, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy data.

      Another way of looking at fuels is in a chart that compares consumption of the various fuels side by side (Figure 12).

      Figure 8. World energy consumption by fuel, showing each fuel separately, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Figure 12. World energy consumption by fuel, showing each fuel separately, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Consumption of oil, coal and natural gas are all moving on tracks that are in some sense parallel. In fact, coal and natural gas consumption have recently tapered more than oil consumption. World oil consumption grew by 0.8% in 2014; coal and natural gas consumption each grew by 0.4% in 2014.

      The other three fuels are smaller. Hydroelectric had relatively slow growth in 2014. Its growth was only 2.0%, compared to a recent average of as much as 3.5%. Even with this slow growth, it raised hydroelectric energy consumption to 6.8% of world energy supply.

      Nuclear electricity grew by 1.8%. This is actually a fairly large percentage gain compared to the recent shrinkage that has been taking place.

      Other renewables continued to grow, but not as rapidly as in the past. The growth rate of this grouping was 12.0%, (compared to 22.4% in 2011, 18.1% in 2012, 16.5% in 2013). With the falling percentage growth rate, growth is more or less "linear"–similar amounts were added each year, rather than similar percentages. With recent growth, other renewables amounted to 2.5% of total world energy consumption in 2014.

      Falling Consumption Is What We Would Expect with Lower Inflation-Adjusted Prices

      People buy goods that they want or need, with one caveat: they don't buy what they cannot afford. To a significant extent affordability is based on wages (or income levels for governments or businesses). It can also reflect the availability of credit.

      We know that commodity prices of many kinds (energy, food, metals of many kinds) have been have generally been falling, on an inflation adjusted basis, for the past four years. Figure 13 shows a graph prepared by the International Monetary Fund of trends in commodity prices.

      Figure 9. Charts prepared by the IMF showing trends in indices of primary commodity prices.

      Figure 13. Charts prepared by the IMF showing trends in indices of primary commodity prices.

      It stands to reason that if prices of commodities are low, while the general trend in the cost of producing these commodities is upward, there will be erosion in the amount of these products that can be purchased. (This occurs because prices are falling relative to the cost of producing the goods.) If, prior to the drop in prices, consumption of the commodity had been growing rapidly, lower prices are likely to lead to a slower rate of consumption growth. If prices drop further or stay depressed, an absolute drop in consumption may occur.

      It seems to me that the lower commodity prices we have been seeing over the past four years (with a recent sharper drop for oil), likely reflect an affordability problem. This affordability problem arises because for most people, wages did not rise when energy prices rose, and the prices of commodities in general rose in the early 2000s.

      For a while, the lack of affordability could be masked with a variety of programs: economic stimulus, increasing debt and Quantitative Easing. Eventually these programs reach their limits, and prices begin falling in inflation-adjusted terms. Now we are at a point where prices of oil, coal, natural gas, and uranium are all low in inflation-adjusted terms, discouraging further investment.

      Commodity Exporters–Will They Be Next to Be Hit with Lower Consumption?

      If the price of a commodity, say oil, is low, this is a problem for a country that exports the commodity. The big issue is likely to be tax revenue. Governments very often get a major share of their tax revenue from taxing the profits of the companies that sell the commodities, such as oil. If the price of oil, or other commodity that is exported drops, then it will be difficult for the government to collect enough tax revenue. There may be other effects as well. The company producing the commodity may cut back its production. If this happens, the exporting country is faced with another problem–laid-off workers without jobs. This adds a second need for revenue: to pay benefits to laid-off workers.

      Many oil exporters currently subsidize energy and food products for their citizens. If tax revenue is low, the amount of these subsidies is likely to be reduced. With lower subsidies, citizens will buy less, reducing world demand. This reduction in demand will tend to reduce world oil (or other commodity) prices.

      Even if subsidies are not involved, lower tax revenue will very often affect the projects an oil exporter can undertake. These projects might include building roads, schools, or hospitals. With fewer projects, world demand for oil and other commodities tends to drop.

      The concern I have now is that with low oil prices, and low prices of other commodities, a number of countries will have to cut back their programs, in order to balance government budgets. If this happens, the effect on the world economy could be quite large. To get an idea how large it might be, let's look again at Figure 1, recopied below.

      Notice that the three "layers" in the middle are all countries whose economies are fairly closely tied to commodity exports. Arguably I could have included more countries in this category–for example, other OPEC countries could be included in this grouping. These countries are now in the "Rest of the World" category. Adding more countries to this category would make the portion of world consumption tied to countries depending on commodity exports even greater.

      Figure 1- Resource consumption by part of the world. Canada etc. grouping also includes Norway, Australia, and South Africa. Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 data.

      Figure 1- Resource consumption by part of the world. Canada etc. groupng also includes Norway, Australia, and South Africa. F Soviet Union means Former Soviet Union. Middle East excludes Israel. Based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015 data.

      My concern is that low commodity prices will prove to be self-perpetuating, because low commodity prices will adversely affect commodity exporters. As these countries try to fix their own problems, their own demand for commodities will drop, and this will affect world commodity prices. The total amount of commodities used by exporters is quite large. It is even larger when oil is considered by itself (see Figure 8 above).

      In my view, the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991 occurred indirectly as a result of low oil prices in the late 1980s. A person can see from Figure 1 how much the energy consumption of the Former Soviet Union fell after 1991. Of course, in such a situation exports may fall more than consumption, leading to a rise in oil prices. Ultimately, the issue becomes whether a world economy can adapt to falling oil supply, caused by the collapse of some oil exporters.

      Our Economy Has No Reverse Gear

      None of the issues I raise would be a problem, if our economy had a reverse gear–in other words, if it could shrink as well as grow. There are a number of things that go wrong if an economy tries to shrink:

      • Businesses find themselves with more factories than they need. They need to lay off workers and sell buildings. Profits are likely to fall. Loan covenants may be breached. There is little incentive to invest in new factories or stores.
      • There are fewer jobs available, in comparison to the number of available workers. Many drop out of the labor force or become unemployed. Wages of non-elite workers tend to stagnate, reflecting the oversupply situation.
      • The government finds it necessary to pay more benefits to the unemployed. At the same time, the government's ability to collect taxes falls, because of the poor condition of businesses and workers.
      • Businesses in poor financial condition and workers who have been laid off tend to default on loans. This tends to put banks into poor financial condition.
      • The number of elderly and disabled tends to grow, even as the working population stagnates or falls, making the funding of pensions increasingly difficult.
      • Resale prices of homes tend to drop because there are not enough buyers.

      Many have focused on a single problem area–for example, the requirement that interest be paid on debt–as being the problem preventing the economy from shrinking. It seems to me that this is not the only issue. The problem is much more fundamental. We live in a networked economy; a networked economy has only two directions available to it: (1) growth and (2) recession, which can lead to collapse.

      * * *

      Conclusion

      What we seem to be seeing is an end to the boost that globalization gave to the world economy. Thus, world economic growth is slowing, and because of this slowed economic growth, demand for energy products is slowing. This globalization was encouraged by the Kyoto Protocol (1997). The protocol aimed to reduce carbon emissions, but because it inadvertently encouraged globalization, it tended to have the opposite effect. Adding China to the World Trade Organization in 2001 further encouraged globalization. CO2 emissions tended to grow more rapidly after those dates.

      Figure 14. World CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, based on data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Figure 14. World CO2 emissions from fossil fuels, based on data from BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2015.

      Now growth in fuel use is slowing around the world. Virtually all types of fuel are affected, as are many parts of the world. The slowing growth is associated with low fuel prices, and thus slowing demand for fuel. This is what we would expect, if the world is running into affordability problems, ultimately related to fuel prices rising faster than wages.

      Globalization brings huge advantages, in the form of access to cheap energy products still in the ground. From the point of view of businesses, there is also the possibility of access to cheap labor and access to new markets for selling their goods. For long-industrialized countries, globalization also represents a workaround to inadequate local energy supplies.

      The one problem with globalization is that it is not a permanent solution. This happens for several reasons:

      • A great deal of debt is needed for the new operations. At some point, this debt starts reaching limits.
      • Diminishing returns leads to higher cost of energy products. For example, later coal may need to come from more distant locations, adding to costs.
      • Wages in the newly globalized area tend to rise, negating some of the initial benefit of low wages.
      • Wages of workers in the area developed prior to globalization tend to fall because of competition with workers from parts of the world getting lower pay.
      • Pollution becomes an increasing problem in the newly globalized part of the world. China is especially concerned about this problem.
      • Eventually, more than enough factory space is built, and more than enough housing is built.
      • Demand for energy products (in terms of what workers around the world can afford) cannot keep up with production, in part because wages of many workers lag thanks to competition with low-paid workers in less-advanced countries.

      It seems to me that we are reaching the limits of globalization now. This is why prices of commodities have fallen. With falling prices comes lower total consumption. Many economies are gradually moving into recession–this is what the low prices and falling rates of energy growth really mean.

      It is quite possible that at some point in the not too distant future, demand (and prices) will fall further. We then will be dealing with severe worldwide recession.

      In my view, low prices and low demand for commodities are what we should expect, as we reach limits of a finite world. There is widespread belief that as we reach limits, prices will rise, and energy products will become scarce. I don't think that this combination can happen for very long in a networked economy. High energy prices tend to lead to recession, bringing down prices. Low wages and slow growth in debt also tend to bring down prices. A networked economy can work in ways that does not match our intuition; this is why many researchers fail to see understand the nature of the problem we are facing.

      Financial_skeptic/ /energy. Stagnation/

      [Jun 24, 2015] Russia overtakes Saudi Arabia as largest supplier of oil to China

      Jun 24, 2015 | The Guardian

      Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the largest supplier of oil to China for the first time, sending almost 930,000 barrels a day last month – up 21% on April.

      China imported 3.92m tonnes of crude oil from Russia in May. In comparison, oil imports from Angola and Saudia Arabia totalled 3.26m tonnes and 3.05m tonnes respectively.

      Popeyes 24 Jun 2015 16:33

      Just another example of Russia and China working together at the expense of the U.S. Currency swaps between Russia (ruble) and China (yuan) for an initial US$ 25 billion equivalent have already been implemented, to allow direct transactions between the two countries. Similar swaps are under way between China and Russia with other countries, primarily the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

      In other words, a large junk of hydrocarbons are no longer being traded in US (petro) dollars, but in rubles and yuans and their partners respective local currencies, thus reducing worldwide demand for the petro dollar.

      PlatonKuzin -> 6i9vern 24 Jun 2015 16:28

      True. And what the US is now doing - to prevent the above said from happening - is preparing a war against Russia in Europe by proxy, using the same Europe. There is only one, but very important aspect crossing its dirty criminal intentions.

      And that is that, if the US wages a war in Europe, this time, number one target of Russia will be the United States and the war will go on its territory. The States will not survive this time overseas. It must keep it in mind all the time.

      6i9vern 24 Jun 2015 15:09

      "Russia now accepts yuan for oil payments"

      And so it begins - the end of the petro-dollar, the end of virtually all international trade being mediated in dollars.

      And when that ends, the ability of the USA to run trillion dollar deficits at minimal cost goes. The state will have to shrink. The military industrial complex and entitlements will be radically cut.

      70 million lower middle-class Americans will cease having First World lifestyles.

      Kaiama -> sasha19 24 Jun 2015 15:04

      Actually, I am aware that a deal was signed by Tsipras in St Petersberg to construct a gas pipeline to carry Russian gas from Turkey. But, and this is the crucial point, Russia's trade with China is growing: goods, energy and military technology. In the future, I would expect most of the petrochemicals and natural resources to be redirected to Asia rather than Europe. Yes, the Russians are trying to keep their European Business, but they are also developing the Asian alternative where people aren't trying to screw Russia at the same time. Long term, I suggest that trade with Europe, including gas, will decline permanently or at least for a generation until people have forgotten about everything.

      Petar -> Peter iangio 24 Jun 2015 14:58

      You probably meant ukrainian fascist butchering innocent children and women in Novorossia..but not for long .Russia is redirecting its exports to Asia to break independence on corrupt western money..once it is done..ukraine is doomed.

      BMWAlbert -> Chirographer 24 Jun 2015 14:55

      I think the 'out-of-ground' price in RU is Globally speaking, very low, but China tends to low-ball producing of all energy and materials with a provision of large volume and importantly, high reliability. It was the same with the NG, it was priced something like 30USD below the Euro-rate mean.

      tiojo 24 Jun 2015 13:43

      One of the expected consequences of US and EU economic sanctions on Russia. It finds other partners with which to trade. With the NATO sabre rattlers doing their best to keep themselves and their armed forces in employment combined with economic sanctions that build barriers rather than ties any thought of constructive dialogue seems to have gone out of the window. A pity that Ms Merkel seems to be sidelined in Greece. She seemed to be the only one who saw a future in a positive relationship between Europe and Russia.

      MaoChengJi 24 Jun 2015 13:27

      Calculations at the time shows Russia needs an oil price of $105 a barrel for its budget to break-even

      Well, of course the budget is not sent down by God. They planned for $105/barrel, and now they'll have a different budget. Or they'll compensate by selling more oil. Or they'll use a part of their large rainy-day fund.


      Phil_Paris -> oleteo 24 Jun 2015 12:52

      It is not a coincidence that the huge increase of production of gas thanks to fracking has the consequence of lowering the sales of oil from the Saudi Arabia to the US.
      Now China is buying a lot of oil from a Saudi Arabia.

      Then the USA is not as dependant of Saudi Arabia, which is a reasonnable move after 9/11, but undoubtebly must retain good connections in the oil industry there which can be usefull when China is highly dependant on imported oil.

      Phil_Paris -> quarrytone 24 Jun 2015 12:38

      China doesn't "cement ties in South America", China for example makes agreements with Brasil to build a railway across the Amazonia to carry GM soya and cut the forest to export logs to China, and eliminate indigenous tribes if necessary
      It's colonial.
      As regards China and Russia, Russia has signed an agreement whereby it will sell gas to China with Chinese financing through a pipeline (built by Chinese firms, Chinese workers probably too as it would be naive to think that China will pay to employ Russians) not connected to the grid to Europe ie for the sole destination of China, hence China will hold Russia by the b....
      In the South China Sea China is violating the International Law of the Sea and occupies islands and islets included in the EEZ of states thousands of km from its own shores.

      quarrytone -> Phil_Paris 24 Jun 2015 11:49

      However the biased press likes to dress it up, China does have a historic claim to uninhabited islands and reefs, however tenuous in Western law. Comparing that old KMT claim to a sudden annexation across a long settled border is faintly hysterical.

      And no, there are not millions of Chinese on Russia's border. Clearly geography isn't your strong point. There are one or two cities with a couple of million doing well thanks through trade with Russia, and Russians doing very well in trade with China. If China wants farmland produce then that will only cement ties with Russia, as it does with South America.

      [Jun 24, 2015] Russia overtakes Saudi Arabia as largest supplier of oil to China

      Jun 24, 2015 | The Guardian

      Russia has overtaken Saudi Arabia as the largest supplier of oil to China for the first time, sending almost 930,000 barrels a day last month – up 21% on April.

      China imported 3.92m tonnes of crude oil from Russia in May. In comparison, oil imports from Angola and Saudia Arabia totalled 3.26m tonnes and 3.05m tonnes respectively.

      Popeyes 24 Jun 2015 16:33

      Just another example of Russia and China working together at the expense of the U.S. Currency swaps between Russia (ruble) and China (yuan) for an initial US$ 25 billion equivalent have already been implemented, to allow direct transactions between the two countries. Similar swaps are under way between China and Russia with other countries, primarily the BRICS and the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation.

      In other words, a large junk of hydrocarbons are no longer being traded in US (petro) dollars, but in rubles and yuans and their partners respective local currencies, thus reducing worldwide demand for the petro dollar.

      PlatonKuzin -> 6i9vern 24 Jun 2015 16:28

      True. And what the US is now doing - to prevent the above said from happening - is preparing a war against Russia in Europe by proxy, using the same Europe. There is only one, but very important aspect crossing its dirty criminal intentions.

      And that is that, if the US wages a war in Europe, this time, number one target of Russia will be the United States and the war will go on its territory. The States will not survive this time overseas. It must keep it in mind all the time.

      6i9vern 24 Jun 2015 15:09

      "Russia now accepts yuan for oil payments"

      And so it begins - the end of the petro-dollar, the end of virtually all international trade being mediated in dollars.

      And when that ends, the ability of the USA to run trillion dollar deficits at minimal cost goes. The state will have to shrink. The military industrial complex and entitlements will be radically cut.

      70 million lower middle-class Americans will cease having First World lifestyles.

      Kaiama -> sasha19 24 Jun 2015 15:04

      Actually, I am aware that a deal was signed by Tsipras in St Petersberg to construct a gas pipeline to carry Russian gas from Turkey. But, and this is the crucial point, Russia's trade with China is growing: goods, energy and military technology. In the future, I would expect most of the petrochemicals and natural resources to be redirected to Asia rather than Europe. Yes, the Russians are trying to keep their European Business, but they are also developing the Asian alternative where people aren't trying to screw Russia at the same time. Long term, I suggest that trade with Europe, including gas, will decline permanently or at least for a generation until people have forgotten about everything.

      Petar -> Peter iangio 24 Jun 2015 14:58

      You probably meant ukrainian fascist butchering innocent children and women in Novorossia..but not for long .Russia is redirecting its exports to Asia to break independence on corrupt western money..once it is done..ukraine is doomed.

      BMWAlbert -> Chirographer 24 Jun 2015 14:55

      I think the 'out-of-ground' price in RU is Globally speaking, very low, but China tends to low-ball producing of all energy and materials with a provision of large volume and importantly, high reliability. It was the same with the NG, it was priced something like 30USD below the Euro-rate mean.

      tiojo 24 Jun 2015 13:43

      One of the expected consequences of US and EU economic sanctions on Russia. It finds other partners with which to trade. With the NATO sabre rattlers doing their best to keep themselves and their armed forces in employment combined with economic sanctions that build barriers rather than ties any thought of constructive dialogue seems to have gone out of the window. A pity that Ms Merkel seems to be sidelined in Greece. She seemed to be the only one who saw a future in a positive relationship between Europe and Russia.

      MaoChengJi 24 Jun 2015 13:27

      Calculations at the time shows Russia needs an oil price of $105 a barrel for its budget to break-even

      Well, of course the budget is not sent down by God. They planned for $105/barrel, and now they'll have a different budget. Or they'll compensate by selling more oil. Or they'll use a part of their large rainy-day fund.


      Phil_Paris -> oleteo 24 Jun 2015 12:52

      It is not a coincidence that the huge increase of production of gas thanks to fracking has the consequence of lowering the sales of oil from the Saudi Arabia to the US.
      Now China is buying a lot of oil from a Saudi Arabia.

      Then the USA is not as dependant of Saudi Arabia, which is a reasonnable move after 9/11, but undoubtebly must retain good connections in the oil industry there which can be usefull when China is highly dependant on imported oil.

      Phil_Paris -> quarrytone 24 Jun 2015 12:38

      China doesn't "cement ties in South America", China for example makes agreements with Brasil to build a railway across the Amazonia to carry GM soya and cut the forest to export logs to China, and eliminate indigenous tribes if necessary
      It's colonial.
      As regards China and Russia, Russia has signed an agreement whereby it will sell gas to China with Chinese financing through a pipeline (built by Chinese firms, Chinese workers probably too as it would be naive to think that China will pay to employ Russians) not connected to the grid to Europe ie for the sole destination of China, hence China will hold Russia by the b....
      In the South China Sea China is violating the International Law of the Sea and occupies islands and islets included in the EEZ of states thousands of km from its own shores.

      quarrytone -> Phil_Paris 24 Jun 2015 11:49

      However the biased press likes to dress it up, China does have a historic claim to uninhabited islands and reefs, however tenuous in Western law. Comparing that old KMT claim to a sudden annexation across a long settled border is faintly hysterical.

      And no, there are not millions of Chinese on Russia's border. Clearly geography isn't your strong point. There are one or two cities with a couple of million doing well thanks through trade with Russia, and Russians doing very well in trade with China. If China wants farmland produce then that will only cement ties with Russia, as it does with South America.

      [Jun 24, 2015] Is the Global Trade Slowdown a New Normal?

      http://econbrowser.com/archives/2015/06/the-global-trade-slowdown-a-new-normal#comments

      This is the title of a newly released VoxEU ebook, edited by Bernard Hoekman.

      The post-Crisis decline in the growth rate of the ratio of global trade to GDP has been cause for some concern that global trade has peaked, and that we are now reaching a new normal in which trade levels will be weak in comparison to about a decade ago. Whether such a peak in trade was a defining moment in global trade or whether it is a cyclical phenomenon is one of the questions this eBook addresses.

      hoekman_pix

      Figure 1 from Hoekman (2015).

      Here's the Table of Contents.


      Part One: Introduction

      Trade and growth – end of an era?
      Bernard Hoekman

      1 World trade and production: A long-run view
      Douglas A Irwin

      Part Two: Determinants of the slowdown

      2 The global trade slowdown
      Cristina Constantinescu, Aaditya Mattoo and Michele Ruta

      3 Recent slowdown in global trade: Cyclical or structural?
      Emine Boz, Matthieu Bussière and Clément Marsilli

      4 Does the post-Crisis weakness of global trade solely reflect weak demand?
      Patrice Ollivaud and Cyrille Schwellnus

      5 The power of the few in determining trade accelerations and slowdowns
      Guillaume Gaulier, Gianluca Santoni, Daria Taglioni and Soledad Zignago

      Part Three: GVCs, gravity and peak trade

      6 Global value chains and the trade-income relationship: Implications for the recent trade slowdown
      Byron Gangnes, Alyson C Ma and Ari Van Assche

      7 World trade and income remain exposed to gravity
      Hubert Escaith and Sébastien Miroudot

      8 A value-added trade perspective on recent patterns in world trade
      Paul Veenendaal, Hugo Rojas-Romagosa, Arjan Lejour and Henk Kox

      9 On the gravity of world trade's slowdown
      Matthieu Crozet, Charlotte Emlinger, Sébastien Jean

      Part Four: East Asian perspectives and the China factor

      10 The relationship between trade and economic growth and a slowdown of exports in Korea
      Taeho Bark

      11 Growth and structural change in trade: Evidence from Japan
      Koji Ito and Ryuhei Wakasugi

      12 The global trade slowdown: Lessons from the East Asian electronics industry
      Willem Thorbecke

      13 China's trade flows: Some conjectures
      Menzie D Chinn

      14 Trade impact of China's transition to the 'new normal'
      Jiansuo Pei, Cuihong Yang and Shunli Yao

      Part Five: Policy perspectives

      15 Crisis-era trade distortions cut LDC export growth by 5.5% per annum
      Simon J. Evenett and Johannes Fritz

      16 Trade growth prospects: An African perspective
      Ottavia Pesce, Stephen Karingi and Isabelle Gebretensaye

      17 'Peak trade' in the steel sector
      Simon J. Evenett and Johannes Fritz

      18 Supporting the micro-multinationals to help achieve peak trade
      Usman Ahmed, Brian Bieron and Hanne Melin

      19 Bold political leadership and vision can unlock global trade growth
      Amgad Shehata

      The entire ebook can be downloaded here.

      [Jun 24, 2015] US productivity – the dog that isn't barking at the Fed by Gavyn Davies

      "...The estimate of US GDP growth at 2 percent is somewhat above Andrew Smithers' blog posts which suggests it might be lower at around 1.5 percent or less. So productivity puts a low ceiling on possible noninflationary US growth. "
      "...Correct me if I'm wrong but if less of the taxes paid are spent in the economy won't that reduce growth and could that not explain why it's a problem for the FED i.e. not enough taxes are coming back to the economy? Too much going on military spending abroad and servicing foreign debt perhaps?"
      Jun 21, 2015 | blogs.ft.com | 15 comments | Share

      Before last week's FOMC meeting, there was much debate about whether the Fed would officially draw attention to the awful US productivity data that have been published lately. Both William Dudley and Janet Yellen have highlighted the problem in recent speeches, and there was speculation that some members of the FOMC might revise down their estimates for potential GDP growth at the June meeting.

      In fact, however, they did not do so, preferring to sweep the problem under the carpet for at least another meeting. Instead, they focused attention on the "gradual" nature of the likely upward path for interest rates after lift-off, which now seems marginally more likely to start in December than in September 2015.

      The FOMC's range for long run GDP growth fell sharply from 2011 to 2013, but has not been changed now for about a year. Potential GDP growth depends on underlying productivity growth, and on the projected growth in the labour force, which is about 0.4 per cent per annum at present. So the Fed's central projection of 2.15 per cent for potential GDP growth implies a productivity projection of about 1.75 per cent.

      The problem, however, is that this range is not consistent with the actual productivity numbers that have been published at any stage during the present economic recovery. Since 2009, productivity has risen at an average of 1.5 per cent per annum while over the past two years it has risen at only 0.5 per cent. Normally, as a recovery matures, productivity growth should be speeding up, but that is not happening this time. At some point soon, the FOMC will need to acknowledge this.

      Why does this matter for policy and markets? After all, in the period since 2009, the slowdown in productivity growth has occurred without this having any effect on Fed decisions, and without doing any damage to equity or bond prices. But that was in an environment of excess capacity in the economy, even with a very low estimate for potential GDP growth. Now that excess capacity has been nearly eliminated on many estimates, the growth rate in potential GDP could suddenly become a binding constraint on the economy.

      A major downgrade to the FOMC's productivity projections would have very adverse implications for markets. Short term interest rates would need to rise more rapidly, for any given rate of growth in real GDP. Long term rates may rise by less, because the Fed's estimate of real long term interest rate – the eventual destination for rates during the tightening cycle – would probably decline with the underlying GDP growth rate.

      That means the yield curve would probably invert, which is normally not a good signal for equities. Furthermore, a rise in unit labour costs, following lower productivity growth, could result in a decline in the profits share in GDP, which has been one of the key fundamental underpinnings for the equity bull market.

      But before leaping into action, members of the FOMC will have to ask themselves at least three difficult questions about the productivity challenge. These are:

      1. Is the slowdown being exaggerated by mismeasurement in the official economic data, because the impact of IT on productivity is being under-stated? This issue is now being widely debated, as it was in the late 1990s, when Fed Chairman Greenspan used the same argument to justify running the economy "hotter" than otherwise would have been justified. As far as we can tell, the current Fed is not as persuaded by the IT argument as Greenspan was. In her recent speech, Ms Yellen was agnostic on this debate: "I do not know who is right". Furthermore, there is no sign that the official statisticians are planning to reconsider the inflation and productivity statistics, as they did with the Boskin Commission report in the 1990s. Therefore, the current Fed will have no "cover" from an impending change in the official data to make a controversial judgment on productivity growth. They are unlikely to use this escape route.
      2. Will productivity growth rebound automatically if the recovery in GDP accelerates? Ms Yellen has often suggested that this might be the case and she remarked in last week's press conference that this assumption has been built into the Fed's latest economic projections. But there is very little evidence that it is actually happening as the recovery matures. If that remains the case, there is scope for disappointment here, rather than the reverse.
      3. How should monetary policy respond to an acceleration in unit labour costs driven by rising wage inflation at a time of slow productivity growth? The FOMC is aware that wage inflation is now starting to rise slightly on some measures, but it has shown no signs of alarm over this trend so far. Recent Fed research has suggested that the link between labour costs and price inflation is much less robust than it was in earlier decades, but it is questionable whether the FOMC will feel they can rely on this if the rate of increase in unit labour costs rises above 3 per cent. That may happen in the not too distant future.

      What is the bottom line? The median of the FOMC's "dot plot" for the future path for short rates remains substantially above the path that is priced into the bond markets, though the gap has narrowed with the slight downward revisions to the dots that emerged after last week's policy meeting. Furthermore, there have been suggestions, after forensic analysis of the "dots", that the key members of the FOMC might be bunched around the dovish end of the range, so the difference between them and the market may no longer be very significant.

      This means that, in the immediate future, the danger that a really hawkish Fed might shock the markets is still fairly slight:

      The risk, however, is that neither the Fed dots, nor the markets, are making sufficient allowance for the looming threat to the path for short rates stemming from low productivity growth. The markets are increasingly aware that this threat exists. For example, Bruce Kasman of J.P. Morgan has been warning about "demand side optimism and supply side pessimism", a combination that sounds bad for US bonds and equities.

      It will be hard for the FOMC to skirt round this issue for much longer.

      MarkGB, 3 days ago

      "Is the slowdown being exaggerated by mis-measurement in the official economic data, because the impact of IT on productivity is being under-stated? "

      No - the whole picture of what is happening in the real US economy is being distorted by mis-measurement in the official economic data, through:

      1. GDP figures that are being inflated by politically motivated 'seasonal adjustments', which conveniently support the Fed's jawboning of the stock market

      2. Inflation figures that bear very little resemblance to rises in the cost of living, particularly for poor people, but which do very conveniently hold down annual rises in benefits and social security

      3. Unemployment figures that:

      a) Count 1+ hours a week as a job

      b) When three of these jobs are being carried out by the same person that's counted as three 'jobs'

      c) The jobs being lost are 50k+ jobs whilst the 'jobs' being gained are part-time low wage jobs

      d) The majority of these jobs are being taken by the 50 plus age group, not young people

      In short, the official presentation of what is happening in the US economy is as bent as a nine dollar note...garbage in, garbage out.

      You are right Mr Davies, productivity is being eroded - the life is being sucked out of the US economy by the distortions and mal-investments generated by Federal Reserve monetary policies, coupled with governmental taxation, regulatory and fiscal policies that urgently need reform, which, amongst other things make it increasingly difficult for small businesses to create new jobs.

      Politicians and government academics typically don't 'get' productivity. Most of them have never produced anything. They are like kids who want a McDonald's but have never even seen a cow, let alone worked on a farm.

      /B
      3 days ago

      @MarkGB plus GDP itself is nuts. Most credit creation is through lending against land. We have the inversion of demographics now the boomers are retiring and have (thank god) started to end borrowing against land. Therefore GDP will fall, even as we see fantastic increases in wealth creation due to an IT revolution.

      GDP is just not useful. For the life of me I can't understand why when most newly created money is via housing that we are not spending more time discussing land.

      Imputed rent alone accounts for 10% of GDP. Yet the FT just never ever talks about any of this in detail.

      Paul A. Myers, 4 days ago

      The estimate of US GDP growth at 2 percent is somewhat above Andrew Smithers' blog posts which suggests it might be lower at around 1.5 percent or less. So productivity puts a low ceiling on possible noninflationary US growth. This contrasts sharply with Jeb Bush's assertion that he can achieve 4 percent GDP growth (which an FT editorial characterizes as absurd). But the key point is that the US political establishment in Congress is at best very confused about the drivers of current GDP growth.

      My surmise is that to increase US GDP potential would require a significant increase in public spending on infrastructure and research -- that there is private capital sitting on the sidelines due to a lack of public investment. If so, then further tax cuts and less government spending -- the bromides the Republican party are bringing to the 2016 election -- are the wrong medicine.

      So better private sector growth will require more public spending. Obviously this is a counterintuitive argument to most voters. It will be interesting to see where the US government goes in 2017 and beyond with regard to public investment. And will this even be an issue in the 2016 campaign.

      Michael McPhillips, 3 days ago

      @Paul A. Myers

      As public spending is already included in GDP from those who pay the taxes and deficit spending still the only way government can increase growth (IT figures for it) are you saying that only with infrastructure spending can private capital also invest and not from tax cuts and lower public spending, which would increase demand and slow the rate of future tax increases, which would encourage investment.

      Correct me if I'm wrong but if less of the taxes paid are spent in the economy won't that reduce growth and could that not explain why it's a problem for the FED i.e. not enough taxes are coming back to the economy? Too much going on military spending abroad and servicing foreign debt perhaps?

      cg12348, 3 days ago

      Reality is starting to set in - the US is in decline - due to demographics and global competitive forces. Now as with all liberal governments - social programs try to compensate for those things productivity is expected to make ore available - far less efficient coming from social programs than private markets - the spiral continues.

      joshuak2077, 3 days ago

      To consider expanding Inflationary forces because of trailing productivity does not take in considerations the exogenous forces coming from abroad that suppress Inflation. The ways economists evaluate and predict at the moment is profoundly endogenous and therefor shortminded.

      FRUSTRATED SAVER
      3 days ago

      If the us is now running near full capacity surely we should expect domestic investment to

      accelerate isnt that the indicator the fed should be watching alternatively there is excess capacity in other parts of the world(china for instance) and in a world of competetive devaluations

      this is going to worsen the trade deficit as it has in the past. and may not be inflationary

      making the conundrum worse

      [Jun 22, 2015] The Russian Pipeline Waltz

      Jun 22, 2015 | naked capitalism
      Gaylord June 20, 2015 at 3:47 am

      Does anybody know what Russia's plans are to try to prevent runaway climate change? Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions? Their aggressive plans for oil drilling in the Arctic indicate the latter.

      Barry Fay June 20, 2015 at 6:33 am

      "Or is Russia's government oblivious to the catastrophic effects of continued greenhouse gas emissions?" Sounds like a typical cheap shot against Russia to me. The country most oblivious to the catastrophic effects, and one of the two the biggest contributors (with China), is the good ole USA. Russian is at 6%, USA at 20%! Your propaganda driven prejudice is showing!

      Macon Richardsonn June 20, 2015 at 7:35 am

      Thank you Barry Fay! Well said.

      Nick June 20, 2015 at 9:06 am

      With Russia's utter dependence upon oil and gas, plus lack of FDI, they have no alternative but to drill baby drill. Eventual regime change may increase their long term prospects.

      Gio Bruno June 20, 2015 at 12:48 pm

      Careful now. This could encourage blow-back from Barry Fay.

      Let me just say that Russia is not a static society (education is prized). They can, and likely will, create a more diversified/un-stratified economy going forward. As for regime change, that's an habitual fantasy of folks who read only MSM propaganda. Putin, despite the grandstanding of American representatives (98% return rate) has the support of 80% of the Russian population. Russians are not stupid (See USA for comparison.)

      Steve H. June 20, 2015 at 9:21 am

      http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2015/06/naomi-oreskes-the-hoax-of-climate-change-denial.html#comment-2458611

      Externality June 20, 2015 at 12:28 pm

      1. Russian- – unlike some Western nations – has submitted a detailed carbon-reduction plan to the upcoming climate conference. http://newsroom.unfccc.int/unfccc-newsroom/russia-submits-its-climate-action-plan-ahead-of-2015-paris-agreement/

      2. At a time when China and parts of Eastern Europe remain dependent on highly polluting coal-fired power plants, Germany is returning to coal following its phase-out of nuclear power, cash-strapped EU countries are phasing out renewable energy subsidies, and many Eastern European nuclear plants are overdue for retirement, natural gas remains a necessary – and environmentally friendly – energy alternative. The only question then is where the gas to come from. The UK's oil and gas industry is in terminal decline, large-scale imports from North America and the Middle East are a decade or more away, and efforts to promote fracking-related gas production in Europe has failed for a variety of reasons. To borrow a favorite line of the neo-liberals, "there is no alternative" (TINA) to Russian gas.

      3. Since the end of the Cold War, the West has aggressively used the WTO, investor-state dispute tribunals, sanctions, propaganda campaigns, and "regime change" to punish resource-exporting nations who limit, or attempt to limit, exports for environmental reasons. To the WTO, for example, environmental laws in countries outside of Western Europe, the US, and Canada are illegal "non-tariff trade barriers." Russian attempts to protect its old growth forests against timber exporters and Chinese attempts to limit the environmentally disastrous (and often illegal) mining of rare earth ores were both struck down by the WTO at the request of the West. If Russia were to limit oil and gas exports for environmental reasons, the resulting legal, political, and military confrontation with the West would dwarf the Cuban missile crisis.

      Rex June 20, 2015 at 1:33 pm

      Burning any hydrocarbon produces carbon dioxide, so natural gas is not "environmentally friendly." There is clear evidence, too, that natural gas exploration and production release huge quantities of methane into the atmosphere. EPA has proposed rules on that for producers (late and weak, of course). Methane in atmosphere is over 20X as damaging as CO.

      Russian scientists contribute much to Climate Mayhem knowledge, especially in the rapidly changing arctic and on the threat of methane release.

      Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Pacific Oceanological Institute, 43 Baltiiskaya Street, Vladivostok 690041, Russia
      Natalia Shakhova, Igor Semiletov, Anatoly Salyuk, Denis Kosmach & Denis Chernykh

      Russian Academy of Sciences, Far Eastern Branch, Institute of Chemistry, 159, 100-Let Vladivostok Prospect, Vladivostok 690022, Russia
      Valentin Sergienko

      To name a few.

      One wonders if Russian climate scientists are censored and hounded as much as are U.S. and U.K. researchers, especially in the US government (USGS, NOAA, NASA, etc.). Persecution and censorship of US scientists is above McCarthey-esque proportions today.

      Ian June 20, 2015 at 8:37 pm

      What about thorium reactors. I am aware that at least China is investing in the technology.

      Lune June 20, 2015 at 3:08 pm

      Just like the War on Drugs is most successful when it focuses on reducing demand (drug users) rather than fighting/bombing the suppliers (Mexico, Colombia, etc), the War on greenhouse gases is best fought by reducing demand. If the Europeans find a way to no longer need so much natgas, then Russia wouldn't be selling it to them. Otherwise, someone else will sell it to them regardless.

      That doesn't completely exonerate Russia, of course, and given their history with the Aral Sea, I'm not sure that they would put environmental concerns very high on their list of priorities (certainly not higher than their economic security). But right now, the problem with greenhouse gases is on the other end of all these pipelines.

      Otter June 20, 2015 at 8:15 am

      The abandonment of South Stream was not much of a surprise to anybody with even a passing interest in the energy politics.

      Brussels and Washington were both adamant that it would never pass through Bulgaria.
      I suppose some people were surprised at how quickly negotiations progressed with Turkey. Possibly there is some quid pro quo regarding Iranian and Kurdish hydrocarbons.

      Serbia and Hungary are anxious for access. The Austrians are even talking money. Greece of course needs gas and transit fees. Italia, Slovakia, Czech would welcome shares. The only problem is some people have suddenly taken an interest in organizing a colour revolution in Makedonia.

      Jackrabbit June 20, 2015 at 1:03 pm

      I questioned the author's perspective as soon as I saw this (in the second sentence) :

      Six months ago Russian President Vladimir Putin surprised the energy world by dismissing the long-prepared South Stream project in favour of Turkish Stream.

      Russia re-routed South Stream to Turkey (now called "TurkStream") because Bulgaria rejected South Stream under pressure from US/EU. OIFVet, a frequent commentator at NC, has written loads of good and inciteful comments with respect to this farce (he is Bulgarian).

      The author refers to a "Russian Waltz" which casts aspersions on Russian intentions. Their intentions are clear. To by-pass a Ukraine that is hostile to Russia. Period. Their efforts to do so are being blocked (first by pressuring Bulgaria, now with a color revolution in Macedonia). Russia's 'waltz' partner is the EU which created the rule that pipeline ownership must be independent of supplier. This rule has dubious value when applied to large suppliers like Russia/Gazprom.

      The author artfully guides us to three possibilities but ignores the most logical and intuitive one. Russia is likely to be taking this move now to hedge against the developing brinkmanship whereby Russia is blamed for causing European suffering by refusing to transit gas through Ukraine – despite the US/EU's irresponsible blocking of South Stream / Turk Stream as a delivery platform.

      =

      I believe that one must be very careful about sources when dealing with issues that are sensitive to the US/EU establishment.

      Brugel is nominally an independent think tank but it is governed by, led by, and staffed with establishment figures and technocrats. From their annual report:

      The idea to set up an independent European think tank devoted to international economics stemmed from discussions involving economists, policymakers and private practitioners from many European countries. The initiative subsequently found support from 12 EU governments and 17 leading European corporations, who committed to the project's initial funding base and participated in the election of its first Board in December 2004. Operations started in 2005 and today Bruegel counts 18 EU governments, 33 corporations and 10 institutions
      among its members.

      It is difficult to trust "experts" that have a vested interest in culling favor with the establishment. This article proves that such skepticism is very much warranted.

      David in NYC June 20, 2015 at 1:13 pm

      Putin's plan, to maintain a chokehold of the distribution of gas, mimics John Rockefeller's strategy for Standard Oil to control the distribution of oil in the late 19th century.

      susan the other June 20, 2015 at 1:14 pm

      Syria has really taken a hit for Russia. Until the conflict there is resolved the the Saudis/Arab natgas cannot build their pipeline. And by the time it is resolved Russia will have already established its network. It looks like this leaves the Saudis and other MidEast natural gas suppliers at the mercy of China and India. The BRICS.

      Raj June 20, 2015 at 7:50 pm

      You already know this, but Israel wants to send the gas production from the Levantine Basin to the Europe market and Assad stands in the way for the time being. Once Assad is toppled and a new puppet regime is put in place, I think we'll see the construction of the pipeline through Syria. Qatar & Saudi Arabia will connect through the same artery to reach the Europe market…and then Russia finds itself with competition. This is the key for the West to gain greater control of the Russian economy, and eventually profit from Russia's resources. So, in the short term (~10 yrs), Russia may have its infrastructure in place (whether via Nord, Turkish or South stream), but in the long term (~20+ yrs), we'll see Israel, Saudi Arabia and Qatar enter the Europe market and Russia will no longer be the only game in town. We think we're seeing the squeeze put on Russia now, but it will only get worse with time. The West looks at Russia's resources and sees dollar signs.

      Gerard Pierce June 20, 2015 at 5:29 pm

      In the current political situation, there should be a natural alliance between Russia and Greece, but it can't be a declared alliance – that leads to retaliation that neither one wants to deal with right now.

      A covert alliance with Russia could put Greece in a position to obtain finance through China. Without any overt declarations, the European countries might figure out "on their own" that continued sanctions against Russia are counter-productive.

      Even in default, if Greece can maintain any kind of economy, the wily Varoufakis gets to sit back and smile while the EU ministers try to explain to southern Europe why their policies are necessary and correct.

      The US gets to continue with its unprofitable wars in the mid-East while trying to avoid major embarrassment from the fascists in DonBass. The major problem for the Russians is watching as Russians in Ukraine are ethnically cleansed.

      If the Russians can avoid a military response all that is needed is someone to maintain the body count. The overall death count would probably be a lot less than a military response.

      Susan Pizzo June 20, 2015 at 8:49 pm

      An MOU with Greece has been signed, providing significant investment funds, a route around Ukraine, and a potential clinker in the Russian sanction vote on Monday. Further complications for debt negotiations? Greece is also reportedly "drawing up a default plan, which would see the country institute capital controls and nationalize its banking industry" (ibtimes). It ain't over till it's over…

      http://www.ibtimes.com/greece-russia-reach-preliminary-gas-pipeline-deal-greek-debt-woes-continue-1976077

      http://money.cnn.com/2015/06/19/news/greece-russia-gas-deal/index.html

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-06-18/russia-greece-ink-pipeline-deal-gazprom-boosts-ukraine-bypass

      [Jun 20, 2015] Junk Bonds Are Not Leading Stocks Yet

      Jun 20, 2015 | Jeremy L. Hill's Blog

      Focus for a moment on how bonds and fixed income volatility affect the stock market. There is little doubt that a bond market crash (or melt up) will highly impact the U.S. stock market. We've already seen U.S. Treasury Notes rise in yields which has fired the racing gun for bond repositioning. Yesterday, Lipper reported that investors withdrew $2.6 billion from high yield bond funds last week while equity funds saw an inflow of $2.8 billion.

      Here's the rub. High yield bonds have outperformed stocks so far in 2015 in many respects. Looking at the high yield indices published by Merrill Lynch, both higher rated and triple C rated high yield bonds have outperformed the S&P 500 which is up 2.45% year to date.

      OK, actually that is slightly inaccurate if you include dividends which juices the total return to 3.40% year to date. The point is that high yield bonds have done pretty well in 2014 relative to other bonds and other asset classes? Why? Because high yield bonds are generally about idiosyncratic risk at the company and paper level, rather than about a sector or a market. The implication is that some level of market risk can be avoided in high yield debt when investing in individual companies (not ETFs or funds).

      The question now becomes whether the U.S. high yield market will lead equities lower? There has been much discourse as to whether a selloff in the high yield market would bleed into equities. Conversely, some commentators have posited that a selloff in the bond market will be constructive for stock prices as money coming out of bonds will gravitate to stocks. Maybe. Maybe both are right and wrong and at the same time and for different reasons.

      The correlation coefficient between U.S. high yield bonds and stocks – using the iShares iBoxx High Yield Corporate ETF (ticker: HYG) and the S&P 500 as benchmarks – shows a very strong correlation between the two assets classes: 85% roughly.

      This does not mean that high yield bonds lead U.S. stocks, or vice versa. Markets and the punditry tend to overstate these types of relationships but they are frequently temporal in nature. It makes sense that stocks and high yield bonds are correlated – both assets depend upon the general state of the economy for earnings growth and minimalizing of credit risk. However, the notion that one can trade stocks based upon high yield market is a generalization and void of the much higher level of analysis that should be employed when trading asset correlations. More simply and importantly, watch for (all of a sudden) high levels of bond market volatility. That is what can be stated as a "risk off" factor and will likely bounce stocks indices around in its wake.

      For more information on Old Blackheath Companies and our services go to http://www.oldblackheath.com/

      To follow Jeremy L. Hill on Twitter please go to https://twitter.com/JHILLMacro

      Picture from Emelio Labrador via Flickr

      DISCLAIMER: NOTHING HEREIN SHALL BE CONSTRUED AS INVESTMENT ADVICE, A RECOMMENDATION OR SOLICITATION TO BUY OR SELL ANY SECURITY. PAST PERFORMANCE DOES NOT PREDICT OR GUARANTEE FUTURE SIMILAR RESULTS. SEEK THE ADVICE OF AN INVESTMENT MANAGER, LAWYER AND ACCOUNTANT BEFORE YOU INVEST. DON'T RELY ON ANYTHING HEREIN. DO YOUR OWN HOMEWORK. THIS IS NOT A RESEARCH REPORT. THIS IS FOR ENTERTAINMENT PURPOSES ONLY AND DOES NOT CONSIDER THE INVESTMENT NEEDS OR SUITABILITY OF ANY INDIVIDUAL. THERE IS NO PROMISE TO CORRECT ANY ERRORS OR OMISSIONS OR NOTIFY THE READER OF ANY SUCH ERRORS OR OMISSIONS.

      [Jun 19, 2015]BLS Twenty-Five States had Unemployment Rate Increases in May

      sum luk wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 8:15 am (in reply to...)

      josap wrote:

      First-Quarter Growth Disappoints, but Outlook Robust

      … yes, but now, cpi / pce have been saved by rising gasoline prices: http://floatingpath.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/CPI-Table-820x567.png

      arthur_dent wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 8:29 am

      we all know by now, but it does not hurt to be reminded,

      The Fed Sucks At Economic Forecasting

      (second topic down)

      KarmaPolice wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 8:42 am

      Why U.S. is producing but not using more oil and gas - MarketWatch

      "One offshoot: the number of busses on the road has surged."

      All going to Colorado.

      yuan, wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 8:58 am
      Let Greece Go - Bloomberg View

      Regardless, it is now in Greece's own best interests to show itself the door. There should be no doubt, as Martin Wolf points out in the Financial Times, that like most divorces, this one will be acrimonious. But the sooner it starts, the sooner Greece can begin the process of starting an economic recovery.

      Here are a few that might persuade Greece to pack its bags and leave the abusive relationship it's in with the EU:...

      Default!
      Default!
      Default!

      yuan wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 9:02 am
      The Track Record for Austerity in the Euro Crisis Countries | Beat the Press | Blogs | Publications | The Center for Economic and Policy Research

      This table compares the I.M.F.'s projections for per capita GDP and employment in 2015 with the 2007 level in each of the four countries.

      Reality has a Keynsian bias...

      Citizen AllenM wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 9:31 am

      A fine birthday present for me on Monday- A Grexit!

      I am so excited to finally see what happens when the pseudo gold standard collapses again, bit by bit.

      Someday this war's gonna end...

      Comrade Janošik wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 9:31 am

      i too sense the Dooooooooooooooom!!!

      Citizen AllenM wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 9:39 am (in reply to...)

      Bank runs starting, so out they go!

      Using the Argentine model, they are toast monday.

      Or one more episode of can kicking could occur, but the writing is now on the wall.

      Someday this war's gonna end...

      Sebastian wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 9:44 am

      Timetable of potential Greece default.

      Greek debt crisis: Key dates on the road to a possible Grexit - FT.com

      If no agreement can be reached, worst-case scenarios begin to kick in, including capital controls to limit withdrawals from Greek banks and prevent a complete financial meltdown.

      If a Greek bank run were to begin, the European Central Bank - which is keeping Greek banks on life support by approving emergency central bank loans to local financial institutions - could be forced to declare them insolvent and withdraw all assistance.

      Without the emergency loans, Greece's banks would collapse and the only way to restart them would be creating a new central bank with a new currency.

      Sebastian

      josap wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 9:53 am

      Today.
      ECB approves rise in emergency loans to Greek banks - FT.com

      Greece and Europe look into the abyss, with one last chance looming - The Washington Post
      Fears that Greece's cash-strapped banks might imminently close their doors eased Friday afternoon as the European Central Bank agreed to pump even more emergency loans into the Greek banking system. It was the second time this week that the ECB had come to the rescue, following an infusion Wednesday. But the new loan was only expected to cover the country's lenders through Monday, and ECB officials made clear it was just a temporary patch for a much bigger problem.

      Fair Economist wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 10:01 am

      I don't understand the ECB's game. They made a statement yesterday that the Greek banks were going to be in trouble soon, setting off a run - and then loan more money to these insolvent institutions. This makes no sense whether they're trying to be tough or gentle. Unless, I suppose, they're trying to assume all the bad debt by letting the banks run off entirely, and I can't believe they're trying to do that.

      bearly wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 10:02 am (in reply to...)

      Fair Economist wrote:

      I don't understand the ECB's game.

      They're trying to reel in the IMF to spread the losses outside of the eurozone.

      Fair Economist wrote on Fri, 6/19/2015 - 10:10 am (in reply to...)

      They're trying to reel in the IMF to spread the losses outside of the eurozone.

      Well, right now the IMF is as exposed as it's ever going to be. Right now a big chunk of the loans are already from the IMF. The next tranche, if it ever comes, will be a loan from the EC and will be used to pay off the IMF. If the EC wants to minimize their losses and dump as much as possible on the IMF, ending it now is in their interest - but then why would they assume even larger amounts of bad bank debt?

      There have been, according to one site, 3.4 billion in euro withdrawals already this week - that's almost half the size of the tranche currently under negotiation (7.2 billion IIRC).

      Private debt, as usual, dwarfs public debt.

      [Jun 12, 2015] Why EIA, IEA, and BP Oil Forecasts are Too High by Gail Tverberg

      "...Many people believe that low prices started in late-2014, when oil prices dropped below the $100 barrel level. If we look back, we find that there was a problem as early as 2013, when oil prices were over $100 per barrel. Oil companies were then complaining about not making a profit on a cash flow basis–in other words, the highest price basis listed above."
      "...Another reason why oil production doesn't quickly reset to match prices is the fact that oil is the lifeblood of companies that produce it. "Cutting back" means laying off trained workers. If these workers are laid off, companies will find it nearly impossible to rehire the same workers later. The workers have families to support; they will need to find work, even if it is in other industries. Companies will need to train new workers from scratch. Thus, companies will do almost anything to keep employees, no matter how low prices drop on a temporary basis."
      "...The amount of oil available at $60 per barrel seems to be quite low. Perhaps a little low-priced oil would be available from Kuwait and Qatar at that price, but not much else. Some additional oil might be obtained, if governments of non-oil exporters (such as the USA and China) choose to cut back their tax levels on oil companies. Even with the additional oil made possible by lower taxes, total oil supply would still be far less than needed to run today's world economy."
      Jun 09, 2015 | Our Finite World
      ...The amount of available future oil is likely to be much lower if real-world price constraints are considered. There are at least two reasons why oil prices can't rise indefinitely:
      1. Any time oil prices rise, economies that use a high proportion of oil in their energy mix experience financial problems. For example, countries that get a lot of their revenue from tourism seem to be vulnerable to high oil prices, because high oil prices raise the cost of airline travel. Also, if any oil is used for making electricity, its high cost makes it expensive to manufacture goods for export.
      2. When oil prices rise, workers find that the cost of food tends to rise, as does the cost of commuting. To offset these rising expenses, workers cut back on discretionary spending, such as going to restaurants, going on long-distance vacations, and buying more expensive homes. These spending cutbacks adversely affect the economy.

      The combination of these two effects tends to lead to recession, and recession tends to bring commodity prices in general down. The result is oil prices that cannot rise indefinitely. The oil extraction limit becomes a price limit related to recessionary impacts.

      The cost of oil is currently in the $60 per barrel range. It is not even clear that oil prices can rise back to the $100 per barrel level without causing recession in many counties. In fact, the demand for many things is low, including labor and capital. Why should the price of oil rise, if the overall economy is not generating enough demand for goods of all kinds, including oil?

      ... ... ...

      Required Oil Prices

      Many people believe that low prices started in late-2014, when oil prices dropped below the $100 barrel level. If we look back, we find that there was a problem as early as 2013, when oil prices were over $100 per barrel. Oil companies were then complaining about not making a profit on a cash flow basis–in other words, the highest price basis listed above.

      My February 2014 post called Beginning of the End? Oil Companies Cut Back on Spending (relating to a presentation by Steve Kopits) talks about oil companies already doing poorly on a cash flow basis. Many needed to borrow money in order to have sufficient funds to pay both dividends and "Exploration & Production" expenses related to potential new fields. Figure 1 is a slide by Kopits showing prices required for selected individual companies to be cash flow neutral:

      The problem back in 2013 was that $100 per barrel was not sufficient for most companies to be profitable on a cash flow basis. At that time, Figure 1 indicates that a price of over $130 per barrel was needed for many US companies to be profitable on that basis. Russian companies needed prices in the $100 to $125 range, while the Chinese companies PetroChina and Sinopec needed prices in the $115 to $130 per barrel range. The Brazilian company Petrobas needed a price over $150 per barrel to be cash flow neutral.

      Kopits doesn't show required prices for OPEC countries to be cash flow neutral, but similar price estimates (required funding including budgeted tax amounts) are available from Arab Petroleum Investments Corporation (Figure 2, below).

      Based on this exhibit, OPEC costs are generally over $100 per barrel. In other words, OPEC costs are not too different from non-OPEC costs, when all types of expenses, including taxes, are included.

      As more oil is extracted, the tendency is for costs to rise. Figure 3, also from the Kopits' presentation, shows a rapid escalation in some types of costs after 1999. This is what we would expect when we reach the end of readily available "cheap to extract" oil and move to more expensive-to-extract unconventional types of oil.

      Figure 3. Figure by Steve Kopits of Westwood Douglas showing trends in world oil exploration and production costs per barrel.

      Figure 3. Figure by Steve Kopits of Douglas Westwood showing trends in world oil exploration and production costs per barrel. CAGR is "Compound Annual Growth Rate".

      What prices do we need on a going-forward basis, to keep the oil extraction system operating on a long-term basis? I would argue that we need a price of at least $130 now in 2015. In the future, this price needs to rise to higher and higher levels, perhaps moving up quite quickly as we move to more-expensive-to-extract resources.

      Is it really necessary to include tax revenues in these calculations? I would argue that the inclusion of taxes is especially important for oil exporting nations. Most of these countries depend heavily on oil taxes to provide funds to operate programs providing food and jobs. As the quantity of oil that they can extract depletes, and as the population of these countries rises, the per-barrel amount of revenue required to fund these government programs is likely to increase. If we want to have a reasonable chance of stability within these countries (so that exports can continue), then we need to expect that the tax loads of companies in oil exporting nations will increase in the future.

      Also, if there is any plan to subsidize "renewables," funds to make this possible need to come from somewhere. Indirectly, these funds are available because of surpluses made possible by the fossil fuel industry. Thus taxes from the fossil fuel industry might be considered a way of subsidizing renewables.

      Why Production Doesn't Quickly Reset to Match Prices

      Do we really have a problem with oil prices, if oil production hasn't dropped quickly in response to low prices? I think we do still have a problem.

      One reason why oil production doesn't quickly reset to match prices is related to many different ways of reporting oil extraction costs, mentioned above. A company may not be making money when all costs are included, but it is making money on a cash flow basis if "sunk costs" are ignored.

      Another reason why oil production doesn't quickly reset to match prices is the fact that oil is the lifeblood of companies that produce it. "Cutting back" means laying off trained workers. If these workers are laid off, companies will find it nearly impossible to rehire the same workers later. The workers have families to support; they will need to find work, even if it is in other industries. Companies will need to train new workers from scratch. Thus, companies will do almost anything to keep employees, no matter how low prices drop on a temporary basis.

      A similar issue applies to equipment used in oil operations. Drilling equipment that is not used will deteriorate over time and may not be usable in the future. A USA Today article talks about auctions of equipment used in the oil industry. This equipment is likely to be permanently lost to the oil industry, making it hard to ramp back up again.

      If a company is a government owned company in an oil-exporting nation, there is an even greater interest in keeping the company operating. Very often, oil is the backbone of the entire country's economy; most tax revenue comes from oil and gas companies. There is no real option of substantially cutting back operations, because tax funds and jobs are badly needed by the economy. Civil unrest could be a problem without tax revenue. In the short run, some countries, including Saudi Arabia, have reserve funds set aside to cover a rainy day. But these run out, so it is important to maintain market share.

      There are additional reasons why oil production stays high in the short term:

      • Some companies have contracts in the futures market that cushion price fluctuations, so they may not directly "feel" the impact of low prices. Because of this, they may not react quickly.
      • Oil companies will very often have debt obligations that they need to meet, and need cash flow to keep meet them. Any cash flow, even if the price covers only a bit more in the direct cost of extraction, is helpful.
      • Large amounts of equity funding have been available, even for companies issuing "junk bonds." Companies that would otherwise be reaching debt limits have been able to issue large amounts of stock instead. Bloomberg reports that in the first quarter, $8 billion in stock was issued, which is a record.

      All of these considerations have allowed production to continue temporarily, but are unlikely to be long-term solutions. In the long run, we know that we are likely to see problems such as defaults on junk rated bonds of oil companies. Futures contracts guaranteeing high prices eventually run out. Also, if prices remain low, government programs of oil exporting countries may need to be cut back, leading to unrest by citizens.

      Regardless of what is happening in the short-term, it is clear that eventually production will drop, quite possibly permanently, unless oil prices rise substantially.

      Why are Oil Prices so Low?

      I see two reasons for low oil prices:

      1. Debt is now not rising fast enough, because debt levels are reaching limits. Increases in debt levels tend to hold up commodity prices because increasing amounts of debt allow consumers to buy additional cars, homes, factories and other goods, thus creating "demand" for oil and other commodities. At some point, debt limits are reached. This can happen because a growth spurt is slowing, as in China, or because governments are reaching limits on the ratio of debt to GDP that they can carry. When debt levels stop rising rapidly, the debt "pump" that has been holding up prices in the past disappears, and commodity prices tend to stay at a lower level.
      2. The wages of ordinary workers are lagging behind. If a young person cannot find a good paying job (or owes too much on college loans), he most likely will live with his parents longer, delaying the purchase of a house and car. If a family discovers that the cost of day care for children plus the cost of commuting is more than the wages of the lower-earning parent, the lower-earning parent may choose not to work. A household with only one employed worker is less likely to buy a house or a second car than a two-worker household. These kinds of responses to low wages tend to hold down "demand" for goods made with commodities. Thus, affordability issues (or low demand related to affordability) tends to hold down the prices of commodities.

      The problem of lagging wages of ordinary workers is a very old one. The problem occurs whenever there are issues with diminishing returns. For example, when population reaches a level where there are too many farmers for available land, the average size of plot for each farmer tends to decrease. Each farmer tends to produce less, because of the smaller size of plot available. If each farmer is paid for what he produces, his wages will drop.

      We are reaching the same problem today with oil. We continue to produce increasing amounts of oil, but doing so requires increasing numbers of workers and increasing amounts of resources of other types (including fresh water, steel, sand for fracking, and energy products). Workers are on average producing less oil per hour worked. In theory, they should be paid less, because the value of oil is determined by what the oil can do (how far it can move a vehicle), not how much labor was required to produce the oil.

      The same problem is occurring in other areas of the economy, including natural gas production, coal production, electricity production, medicine, and higher education. At some point, we find the economy as a whole becoming less efficient, rather than more efficient, because of diminishing returns.

      We know from Peter Turchin and Surgey Nefedov's book, Secular Cycles, that low wages of common workers were frequently a major contributing factor to collapses in pre-fossil fuel days. With lower wages, workers were not able to buy adequate food, allowing epidemics to take hold. Also, governments could not collect adequate taxes from the large number of low-earning workers, leading to governmental financial problems. A person wonders whether today's economy is reaching a similar situation. Will low wage growth of common workers hold down future GDP growth, or even lead to collapse?

      Are the Projections of EIA, IEA, BP, and all the Others Right?

      Perhaps these projections would be reasonable, if oil prices could immediately bounce to $130 per barrel and could continue to inflate in the years ahead.

      If, on the other hand, low oil prices are really being caused by lagging wages of ordinary workers and the failure of debt levels to keep rising, then I don't think we can expect oil prices to reach these lofty levels. Instead, we can expect oil production to fall because of low prices.

      The amount of oil available at $60 per barrel seems to be quite low. Perhaps a little low-priced oil would be available from Kuwait and Qatar at that price, but not much else. Some additional oil might be obtained, if governments of non-oil exporters (such as the USA and China) choose to cut back their tax levels on oil companies. Even with the additional oil made possible by lower taxes, total oil supply would still be far less than needed to run today's world economy.

      The world economy would need to contract greatly in order to shrink down to the oil available. Such shrinkage might be accomplished by a cutback in trade and loss of jobs.

      Debt defaults would likely be another feature of the new smaller economy. Such a scenario would explain how future oil production may deviate significantly from the forecasts of EIA, IEA, and BP.

      [Jun 11, 2015] Disaster Risk and Asset Pricing

      Jun 11, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

      Jerry Tsai and Jessica Wachter at Vox EU:

      Disaster risk and asset pricing, Jerry Tsai, Jessica Wachter, Vox EU: A persistently puzzling feature of the US stock market is the high return to holding a diversified equity portfolio. On average, over the last 60 years, equities have outperformed short-term bonds by 7.5% a year. The difference, when cumulated over time, is dramatic. ...$1 invested in 1947 in a value-weighted portfolio of equities traded on major exchanges would have increased 100-fold (in 1947 dollars), while a strategy of rolling over short-term Treasury bills would have barely kept up with inflation. The 2008 Global Crisis resulted in a very temporary dip in this performance. ...

      Why do equities earn such a high rate of return?

      The most obvious possibility is that this high return is a compensation for risk. However, while equity markets are very risky (the standard deviation of the above portfolio is 18% per year), this risk is not reflected in the broader economy. For long-run investors who are willing to ride out the ups and downs of the stock market, the risk that matters is the risk in actual consumption. And that standard deviation has historically been less than 2% a year, even when taking the Great Recession into account. This disconnect between the return to holding stocks and the risk of the overall economy, is known as the equity premium puzzle (Mehra and Prescott 1985).

      In a recent article (Tsai and Wachter 2015), we argue that this equity premium reflects the risk of an economy-wide disaster. Our argument builds on work by Robert Barro (2006), further developed with co-authors Emi Nakamura, John Steinssen and Jose Ursua (Barro and Ursua 2008, Nakamura et al. 2011). ...

      Once we account for the possibility of rare disasters, the equity premium is no longer a puzzle. High equity returns do not represent a 'free lunch' in which investors receive high returns without taking on risk. On the other hand, equities do not represent something that prudent investors should avoid. Rather high returns on equities reward investors for bearing the risk of a large decline in stock prices during an economic disaster.

      Stock market volatility

      Another basic question about the stock market pertains to the level of volatility. Various studies, beginning with Shiller (1981) have concluded that the volatility in the stock market is too great to represent forecasts of future dividends or other measures of cash flows of corporations. As memorably described by Shiller, the stock market appears to exhibit 'excess' volatility, namely volatility that cannot be attributed to rational factors and rather reflects (in the words of Keynes) the 'animal spirits' of investors.

      Rare disaster models offer an alternative way to understand excess volatility. Rather than reflecting the day-to-day whims of investors, stock market fluctuations could reflect investors' changing views of the probability of a rare disaster..., stock returns, which incorporate these probabilities, can be far more volatile than dividends or consumption, which reflect (primarily) the disaster itself. ...

      Low interest rates

      As is well-known, the Global Crisis and its aftermath have been characterised by interest rates that are extremely low by historical standards. ... Of course, many factors influence interest rates. However, the same model that can explain a high equity premium and high stock market volatility, can also explain this seemingly anomalous interest rate behaviour. When the risk of a rare disaster rises, investors want to save to protect their assets for the future. This lowers the required return on savings, namely the interest rate, even as it raises the implicit rate of return on equities. This could contribute to the challenge facing central banks when conducting monetary policy. According to this view, raising interest rates may not be a matter of a simple policy decision, and may require the far-harder task of altering investors' perceptions of risk. ...

      Conclusion

      Recent research demonstrates how rare disasters can explain both a high equity premium and high stock market volatility. Time-varying disaster risk offers a compelling explanation for the patterns in equity values, consumption, and interest rates during the recent Global Crisis and its aftermath. While significant attention has rightly been paid to reducing or eliminating risk in the aftermath of the Crisis, research on disasters suggests that this is a risk that, to some extent, has long been present and accounted for in equity markets. While policymakers struggle with strategies to avoid crises, investors may have decided that a risk of a crisis can never be truly eliminated, and have acted accordingly. ...

      Selected Skeptical Comments
      Matt Young said...

      http://www.fedprimerate.com/wall_street_journal_prime_rate_history.htm
      The prime rate is what credit worthy corporations pay, and it has been in line with the price rise of stock values. The prime rate currently is 3%, but in all of the studies it has been 5% and higher.

      Query, not a conclusion. Why are we comparing treasury safe rate to the market index, not the prime rate?

      likbez

      Stock market is the major tool of redistribution of wealth under neoliberalism. So management of corporations takes action to maximize "shareholder value" and that includes means such as cutting workforce, outsourcing or moving production to low wage countries.

      401K was also quite devious scheme to get prols to finance fat cats and deprive them of garanteered pension forcing them to assume all the investment risk. If made stock ownership almost universal hugely benefitting Wall street and creating new breed of "fat cat" in mutual fund companies (Fidelity, Vanguard, PIMCO, etc. )

      The third factor was "helicopter money" which found its way into stock market. I think this one explains quite a bit of S&P500 amazing run since 2008.

      [Jun 10, 2015] Peter Schiff Warns This May Be The First Bubble To Burst Without A Pin

      Jun 10, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      Submitted by Peter Schiff via Euro-Pacific Capital,

      It is well known that I don't think much of the ability of government officials to correctly forecast much of anything. Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke have made famously clueless predictions with respect to stock and housing bubbles, and rank and file Fed economists have consistently overestimated the strength of the economy ever since their forecasts became public in 2008 (see my previous article on the subject). But there is one former Fed and White House economist who has a slightly better track record...which is really not saying much. Over his public and private career, former Fed Governor and Bush-era White House Chief Economist Larry Lindsey actually got a few things right.

      Back in the late 1990s, Lindsey was one of the few Fed governors to warn about a pending stock bubble, and to suggest that forecasts for future growth in corporate earnings were wildly optimistic. He also famously predicted that the cost of the 2003 Iraq invasion would greatly exceed the $50 billion promised by then Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, a dissent that ultimately cost him his White House position. (But even Lindsey's $100-$200 billion forecast proved way too conservative - the final price of the invasion and occupation is expected to exceed $2 trillion). Now Lindsey is speaking out again, and this time he is pointing to what he sees as a painfully obvious problem: That the Fed is creating new bubbles that no one seems willing to confront or even acknowledge. Interviewed by CNBC on June 8th on Squawk Box, Lindsey offered an unusually blunt assessment of the current state of the markets and the economy. To paraphrase:
      "The public and the political class love to have everything going up. We had "Bubble #1" in the 1990s, "Bubble #2" in the 00s, and now we are in "Bubble #3." It's a lot of fun while it's going up, but no one wants to be accused of ending the party early. But it's the Fed's job to take away the punch bowl before the party really gets going."
      To his credit, however, Lindsey sees how this is sowing the seeds for future pain, saying:
      "The current Fed Funds rate is clearly too low, the only question is how we move it higher: Do we do it slowly, and start sooner, or do we wait until we are forced to, by the bond market or by events or statistics, in which case we would need to move more quickly. By far the lower risk approach would be to move slowly and gradually."
      In other words, he is virtually pleading for his former Fed colleagues to begin raising rates immediately. I would take Lindsey's assertion one step further; the party really got going years ago and has been raging since September 2011, the last time the Dow corrected more than 10%. (That correction occurred at a time when the Fed had briefly ceased stimulating markets with quantitative easing.) Since then, the Dow has rallied by almost 58% without ever taking a breather. With such confidence, the party has long since passed into the realm of late night delirium. As if to confirm that opinion, on June 8th the Associated Press published an extensive survey of 500 companies (using data supplied by S&P Capital IQ) that showed how corporate earnings have been inflated by gimmicky accounting. Public corporations, upon whose financial performance great sums may be gained or lost, are supposed to report earnings using standard GAAP (Generally Accepted Accounting Principles) methods. But much like government statisticians (see last month's commentary on the dismissal of bad first quarter performance), corporate accountants may choose to focus instead on alternative versions of profits to make lemonade from lemons. Using creative accounting, bad performance can be explained away, moved forward, depreciated, offset, or otherwise erased. Given the enormity and complexity of corporate accounting, investors have deputized the analyst community to sniff out these shenanigans. Unfortunately, our deputies may have been napping on the job. The AP found that 72% of the 500 companies had adjusted profits that were higher than net income in the first quarter of this year, and that the gap between those figures had widened to sixteen percent from nine percent five years ago. They also found that 21% of companies reported adjusted profits that were 50% more than net income, up from just 13% five years ago. But with the fully spiked punch bowl still on the table, and the disco beat thumping on the speakers, investors have consistently looked past the smoke and mirrors and have accepted adjusted profits at face value. In a similar vein, they have looked past the distorting effect made by the huge wave of corporate share buybacks (financed on the back of six years of zero percent interest rates from the Fed). The buybacks have created the illusion of earnings per share growth even while revenues have stalled. So kudos to Lindsey for pointing out the ugly truth. But I do not share his belief that the economy and the stock market can survive the slow, steady rate increases that he advocates. I believe that a very large portion of even our modest current growth is based on the "wealth effect" of rising stock, bond, and real estate prices that have only been made possible by zero percent rates in the first place. In my opinion, it is no coincidence that economic growth and stock market performance have stagnated since December 2014 when the Fed's QE program came to an end (it has very little to do with either bad winter weather or the West Coast port closings). Prior to that, the $80+ billion dollars per month that the Fed had been pumping into the economy had helped push up asset prices across the board. With QE gone, the only thing helping to keep them from falling, and the economy from an outright recession (which is technically a possibility for the first half of 2015), is zero percent interest rates. Given this, even modest increases in interest rates could be devastating. Lindsey's gradual approach may be equally as dangerous as the rapid variety. But the quick hit has the virtue of bringing the inevitable pain forward quickly and dealing with it all at once. Call it the band-aid removal approach; it may seem brutal, but at least it's direct, decisive and makes us deal with our problems now, rather than pushing them endlessly into the future. The last attempt made by the Fed to raise rates gradually occurred after 2003-2004 when Alan Greenspan had attempted to withdraw the easy liquidity that he had supplied to the markets in the form of more than one years' worth of 1% interest rates. But by raising rates in quarter point increments for the succeeding two years, Greenspan was unable to get in front of and contain the growing housing bubble, which burst a few years later and threatened to bring down the entire economy. In retrospect, Greenspan may have done us all a favor if he had moved more decisively. Today, we face a similar but far more dangerous prospect. Whereas Greenspan kept rates at 1% for only a year, Bernanke and Yellen have kept them at zero for almost seven. We have pumped in massively more liquidity this time around, and our economy has become that much more addicted and unbalanced as a result. Arguably, the bubbles we have created (in stocks, bonds, student debt, auto loans, and real estate) in the years since rates were cut to zero in 2008 have been far larger than the stock and housing bubbles of the Greenspan era. When they pop, look out below. Unfortunately, the gradual approach did not save us last time (worse, it backfired by making the ensuing crisis that much worse), and I believe it won't work this time. In fact, the current bubbles are so large and fragile that air is already coming out with rates still locked at zero. However, unlike prior bubbles that pricked in response to Fed rate hikes, the current bubble may be the first to burst without a pin. It appears the Fed fears this and will do everything it can to avoid any possible stress. That is why Fed officials will talk about raising rates, but keep coming up with excuses why they can't. Lindsey will be right that the markets will eventually force the Fed to raise rates even more abruptly if it waits too long to raise them on its own. But he grossly underestimates the magnitude of the rise and the severity of the crisis when that happens. It won't just be the end of a raging party, but the beginning of the worst economic hangover this nation has yet experienced.

      I would suspect the DB resignations are related to Greece exposure.

      Fraud is being used to cover negligence.

      Login or register to post comments

      Wed, 06/10/2015 - 16:49 | 6183927 clooney_art

      clooney_art's picture


      If all the secrecy everywhere has any foreboding, we won't even know when the market crashes.

      Login or register to post comments

      Wed, 06/10/2015 - 18:00 | 6184191 El Vaquero

      El Vaquero's picture


      Yeah we will. We'll wake up one morning to hard capitol controls as opposed to the soft ones that we have now, and people who actually had FRNs in the bank will find them replaced with worthless shares of bank stock.

      Login or register to post comments


      Wed, 06/10/2015 - 16:54 | 6183960 gmak

      gmak's picture


      Don't think so unless it has something to do with the collateral market. The actions of the FED and other CBs have created the interesting situations where many CSAs are being modified to permit cash instead of T-bills (or the .gov /sovereign debt instrument of the underlying currency in the derivatives).

      If a Derivatives' bomb exploded, it would be creating all sorts of panic in back offices as re-hypothecation of collateral comes home to roost.

      El Vaquero

      El Vaquero's picture


      You may be correct, as I think we would have heard something more about it by now, but Douche Bank is one to keep an eye on anyway. They have the largest known pile of derivatives in the world, their CEOs just got nixed, Greece is probably a problem for them and they're in a country that has seen its YoY exports decline by 18%. Not a good position to be in.

      cowdiddly

      Geeze again? They have been jawboning about raising rates since 2010. Go ahead Punks make my day. Once again for the math challenged dreamers.

      Interest payments on the national debt at Zero is running about 270 billion. at a mere 1 percent this becomes a 550 billion. at 2 percent 1.1 trillion a year with a tax base of about 3.1 trillion or 33% of Govt Income just to pay interest.

      3% yea whatevea.

      So quit yer yammerin and get after it you broke ass lying Sacks O S. I dare ya.

      jmeyer

      The Fed will not do anything serious about interest rates unless the markets show evidence of a need. They can also raise by less than 25 bps. The Fed is not certain about the direction of the economy. We may be entering a Japan style deflation, although it would be faster here. Raising rates in that case would be destructive. There is still room do QE. And the Fed can legally trade in any market it wants to trade in even soybeans, gas, whatever. The Fed cannot control a derivative mother of all bombs bringing long bank holidays and frozen accounts; SHTF Defcon 1 mess. IMO.

      taggaroonie

      Cowdiddly, can you educate me further - sincerely. How would an increase in interest rates apply to existing treasuries?

      I would have thought a 10-year bond yeilding 1% only paid out that amount of interest at maturation.

      By this reckoning, the increase in rates would affect deficit spending, rather than existing debt.

      Mind you, I've been wrong before.

      mendigo

      The talk of impending collapse is an effort to distract from the reality that the collapse has been under way since about 2000. All the fed gyrations are in effort to mask this.

      Immigration is also being used to grease the skids - supressing wage pressure.


      El Vaquero

      It has been a gradual drop into misery for the last 10-15 years. Labor force participation rate has been on the decline since ~2000, and the costs of living have not been declining. At some point, because of the decline, we won't be able to support this overly complex system that we've built up around us, and it will come down. This is probably going to be the next financial crisis, or a war, which will probably be remembered as the collapse. That is wrong. Whatever event it is, it will be the end of the collapse, not the entire collapse itself.

      FranSix

      You have had a massively inverted yield curve with the rise in the $U.S. and the spread between U.S. Treasury bills and Euro long dated bonds. Massively inverted. Screamingly inverted. Doomsday inverted.

      konputa

      Have you guys looked at the performance of Schiff's funds?

      Get a load of this horseshit:

      EPLAX -5.24% YTD, -19.32% 1Y

      EPASX +0.17% YTD, -8.16% 1Y

      EPHCX +8.76% YTD, +9.57% 1Y

      EPGFX -3.69% YTD, -20.13% 1Y

      SHTF is already here if you've been investing with Schiff.

      TeethVillage88s

      EP China Fund (EPHCX) - His only Fund doing well is China Fund. How Ironic that he is complaining about the US Exchange Markets & the FED who has been pumping them up.

      Why has the FED been Pumping up Stocks?

      Because they are Bankers and all Bankers care about is their damn Stock Market.


      ElixirMixer

      Not that I disagree with the general premise, but Peter Schiff is basically now the financial equivalent of those 19th century religious fanatics that predicted the world would end every single year.

      philosophers bone

      Poor Analogy. He's more like the drug counsellor predicting that the addicted drug addicts (Central Banks) can't stop coming back for more (QE). Till the addict kills himself (Market Collapse / Hyperinflation). The fact is that the drug addict is hanging on a little longer than predicted. But the underlying assumption and predicted end game - total destruction - is dead on.

      Fun Facts

      Valid but people in the US tend to be too US centric.

      The western CB cabal/cartel is global and it operates globally in a coordinated fashion.

      They communicate every day and persue the same global policies. This explains the FED loaning 13 trillion to foreign banks in 08 [covertly].

      They conduct coordinated open market operations [covertly].

      In this sense, QE has not ended. It rotates from bank to bank. Today, the ECB and BOJ are supporting the UST market as well as their own markets with QE printing.

      QE cannot end. The ponzi math behind it all prohibits that.

      The only difference between this and madoff is that in this case the printing press is the substitute for ever greater "new investor" money.

      It will end only when the "money" [which is not money at all but an unpayable debt] loses it's value, and it will. It would have already absent open market operations and a quadrillion dollar derivative ticking time bomb.

      TeethVillage88s

      Fun Facts Yes Open Market Operations need an Audit Badly.

      You sound like you know FED Banking. I'll have to refresh my memory.

      But I don't think it is common knowledge to know that Open Market Ops are going on, nor that it is not normal.

      I have thought it was normal the last year... since I don't read enough about the FED.

      Pareto

      The FED has essentially lied (and I know everybody is going to say "duh", but, I'm trying to defeat them at least intellectually), when Bernanke essentially mandated the Phillips curve as his key economic policy with 6.5 and 2 on the unemployment inflation tradeoff as the trigger for halting/reversing the expansion of their balance sheet. By my estimate they have surpassed this objective - comfortably. Regardless of whether you believe the Phillips curve theoretical cosntructs is another matter, but, what is important and ought to not be overlooked is that the FED has made a complete mockery of living up to even this - this Keynesian line in the sand - that they themselves defined and set as THE criterion for changing their monetary policy. They keep moving the fucking goal posts - goal posts which are themselves - not even real.

      There are a lot of things that piss me off about the FED - too various and many to talk about here - but this - this fabricated bullshit doublespeak economic hocus pocus bunk - of never intending to do what they said they were going to do - even if you think that what they said they were going to do was bunk anyways (Phillips curve crap).......ITS THIS that pisses me off most.

      They are just making shit up. There is absolutely no credibility and therefore no respect for this institution - because in addition to the severe economic damage it has created - it continues to ignore its responsibilityas a steward of the people's money; distort and destroy meaningful capital formation (and instead has promoted sharebuy backs for crony capitalist gains that benefit no-one but people like Carl Icahn and Warren Buffet) - continue to create all sorts of incentive distortions in capital and derivative markets - and through all of it - they continue to lie about it - the whole fucking lot of them. They are so dogmatic and fixated on saving their own ass that they are willing to fuck everybody else in the process of spilling their continuous lies and deceit. Its fucking embarrassing!!

      At least - at least when Volker took the chair (he flatly ignored 1/2 of the Phillips curve and never ever believed the other), he cut price inflation off at the head. He did exactly what he said he was going to do. I'm not arguing Volker was a hero - I'm arguing Volker was the last credible chair of the most important insitution in the world and that since him we have had nothing but bat shit crazy clowns running things. Its a shit show that is out of control and we all ought to be writing our repsective .......fuck that - just something - anything to start igniting the idea that weought to be returning to some sort of normalcy before it is no longer recognizable or AFFORDABLE.

      Its a fucking joke.

      And its fucking embarrassing.

      END the FUCKING FED!!


      Citxmech

      If the fed substantially raised rates the US economy would pretty much implode instantly.

      El Vaquero

      You are correct, excepting maybe a tolken 0.25% raise. However, if the Fed doesn't raise rates, the US economy will implode anyway. If you're on the top of a burning building, do you let the fire kill you, or do you jump? That's the kind of situation the Fed is in.

      Magooo

      THIS is the DISEASE - the financial crisis is the symptom --- the disease is fatal for civilization

      THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59 onwards)

      The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

      TeethVillage88s

      TeethVillage88s's picture


      All Citizens & Investors need correct data & Info in order to make decisions, influence communities & Nation, build families & Security, and Balance our Time & Service here.

      Thanks. Looks like a good Read.

      I needed to make some bullets from the above, but wanted to ask what a Financial Adviser is likely not to include in his analysis:

      - part one: the end of an era
      - four critical factors: debt bubble, globalization; obscured economic trends, energy-returns cliff-edge.
      - part two: this time is different
      - implosion of the credit super-cycle (3 Decades)
      - part three: the globalisation disaster
      - use of debt for consumption
      - part four: loaded dice
      - distorted data driving policy
      - Economic data (including inflation, growth, GDP and unemployment) used for government spending,
      - part five: the killer equation, the decaying growth dynamic

      What is missing:

      - Huge Compensation for those at the top
      - Gaming of Investments is known, but often the safe Dividends are not there for the little guy(more of a Game than real business)
      - Cutting Public Jobs & Benefits is primary cost cutting measure
      - Only now are people asking what is the effect of cutting jobs and Decapitalizing Industry, Outsourcing, Off Shoring, and Greed that sends wealth to Accounts Offshore
      - Automation, Robotics Displacing Jobs
      - Loss of Middle Class is Loss of Consumer Market to a Large Degree
      - Expensive Health Care Industry, Education & Housing are Deadly Trends unless people agree to live in single room apartments like Orientals sometimes do

      Now I just have to read it I guess.

      Seriously the Outsized Compensation in the USA while providing lousy Health Care Service, Lousy Education, Lousy Government, Lousy News & Reporting (MSM), Lousy Government Spying, Dirty Wars, Corrupt Defense Spending, Private for Profit Prisons... just smacks of Greed and lack of Humanity as Jobs & Middle Class Disappear.

      harrybrown

      the fed IS NOT fighting for its life, its serving it spurpose as planned to "transfer the worlds wealth" to the FED owners, plain & simple, just look at the ideology of those who control it below. any of it seem familiar?

      The Protocols of Zion in Modern English A one page summary…

      Goyim are mentally inferior to Jews and can't run their nations properly. For their sake and ours, we need to abolish their governments and replace them with a single government. This will take a long time and involve much bloodshed, but it's for a good cause. Here's what we'll need to do:

      • Place our agents and helpers everywhere
      • Take control of the media and use it in propaganda for our plans
      • Start fights between different races, classes and religions
      • Use bribery, threats and blackmail to get our way
      • Use Freemasonic Lodges to attract potential public officials
      • Appeal to successful people's egos
      • Appoint puppet leaders who can be controlled by blackmail
      • Replace royal rule with socialist rule, then communism, then despotism
      • Abolish all rights and freedoms, except the right of force by us
      • Sacrifice people (including Jews sometimes) when necessary
      • Eliminate religion; replace it with science and materialism
      • Control the education system to spread deception and destroy intellect
      • Rewrite history to our benefit
      • Create entertaining distractions
      • Corrupt minds with filth and perversion
      • Encourage people to spy on one another
      • Keep the masses in poverty and perpetual labor
      • Take possession of all wealth, property and (especially) gold
      • Use gold to manipulate the markets, cause depressions etc.
      • Introduce a progressive tax on wealth
      • Replace sound investment with speculation
      • Make long-term interest-bearing loans to governments
      • Give bad advice to governments and everyone else

      Eventually the Goyim will be so angry with their governments (because we'll blame them for the resulting mess) that they'll gladly have us take over. We will then appoint a descendant of David to be king of the world, and the remaining Goyim will bow down and sing his praises. Everyone will live in peace and obedient order under his glorious rule.

      bluskyes

      Usery is a moral issue, not an economic issue.

      If money were sound, one would not have to charge interest to retain the purchasing power of loan's principle.


      The Delicate Genius

      "Lindsey is famous for spotting the emergence of the late 1990s U.S. stock market bubble back in 1996 while a Governor of the Federal Reserve. According to the meeting transcripts for September of that year, Lindsey challenged the expectation that corporate earnings would grow 11½ percent a year continually. "

      Maybe the problem is people laboring under the misconception that economics is anything like real science?

      TeethVillage88s's picture

      Nice quote.

      I am a little slow and thought about that for year maybe three years ago. I've only been on here a year. So maybe I posted something about questioning if Economics could even be considered a Soft Science. Hard Science deserves Respect. Medicine is just a practice based on observations and is not a hard science.

      Anyway I think even the slubs that don't read business, finance, or economic don't believe the government or economics. They know policy comes from an Interest group and this leads at least to Bias in gov admins, but more likey is complete Influence by the Wealth & TPTB.

      Krugman & Greenspan are likely smart people, but I just think of them as insiders, paid shills like MSM, or CIA/NSA/FCC types.

      Dre4dwolf

      Its not about a recovery or higher asset prices.

      What people do not realize is that we are at war, financially.... NOT ECONOMIMCALLY, but FINANCIALLY.

      The Fed + U.S. Govt is actively going at it with China and Europe and Russia trying to destabilize their banking institutions so that they can force them into joining some sort of "one world" bank organization . . . a global unified currency...

      In order for the Fed + collection of Rothschild owned banks to pull this off they will have to destroy all the national banking institutions (collapse them all at the same time).

      In order to collapse them all they have to force them to "play a game".

      Just like the U.S. managed to defeat Russia during the cold war, they tricked them into expanding their military and govt expenditures to the point of collapse.

      The Central Banks of the world are engaged in the same "game" again. . . this time govts will push themselves over the edge with debt to finance debt, instead of debt to finance a war machine.

      This time when the banks go down, it will be for good and all the chips will endup in one mega bank, which will in turn become the One-World Bank.

      This is the plan.

      This was always the plan.

      9/11 was about putting into motion a chain of events that would eventually lead to this "Final solution".

      9/11 failed to complete the task, which is why they expanded monetary policy post 9/11 in order to push the markets over the edge ala 2007~2009.... which again failed to produce the results they were seeking,so now having failed with terrorism, and financial fraud, the elitists will simply resort to a "combined disaster" of sorts.... and if that fails. . . it will be full on martial law rule by decree/fiat.

      They will get their "one world order" one way or another... at any cost even though they know full well a unified system of governance and monetary policy for the entire globa will fail misserably as socio-economic pressures boil over to uncontrollable levels at which point no amount of tear gas can hold it together.

      Hohum

      You might as well sit back and enjoy the show because it's one of two paths. One, total debt rises faster than total output and we all feel wealthier for a while. Or, two, debt falls off and our precious consumer society circles the drain.

      [Jun 07, 2015] Forget the noise Oil prices won't crash again by Dan Doyle

      "... Others, like Goldman Sachs, who a few months ago had set their flag in the 30's, have unfortunately not gone so silent. They recently moved their flag into the 40's but they continue to talk a lot. A better strategy – though one that would require some humility - would be to stop talking and listen."
      "...The rig count went into free fall after OPEC's Thanksgiving Day announcement. Frack jobs continued, with some sand suppliers booming right through January of this year. But by February, the free fall began there too. That was 4 months ago, which means the sled ride down the decline curve is on."
      "...No one is going to rush into their back log of completions either. Everyone in the business is holding cash tightly-really, really tight. And no one is going to run to the debt markets to finance a burst of activity. Completions will occur, but they will occur methodically. For service companies, frack logs will create work but they will not create a boom."
      "...Ignore the noise and stick with the data. Most walls of worry erected in the last few months have been built on clay. Most have or will fall, particularly within the US and Canada. That said, outside of North America there are real concerns. Chiefly, there is the upside of Saudi production potential and there is increasing Iraqi, Libyan and Russian production. Those are the big issues.
      But on balance, these concerns seem to be offset by the wars, skirmishes and terrorist strikes that are increasing in the area, not declining. Watching monthly production out of Libya has the same relative curve as a kid on a pogo stick. And the Chinese economy at 7% growth in 2015 is a bigger consumer of oil than it was at 10% in 2010. Note too, that Asian demand is increasing and Europe is starting to look like it has put in a bottom."
      "...The big story in oil prices was the rig count on the way down. The big story on the way up will be inventory. Look for WTI to make a move towards and maybe into the $70's as clarity strikes the market. Look too for more walls of worry but remember to consider the source."
      Jun 07, 2015 | OilPrice.com

      Oil rising to $60 a barrel is displeasing some people, particularly the shorts. Some of the more extreme -- those calling for oil in the $20's – have wisely fallen silent. Others, like Goldman Sachs, who a few months ago had set their flag in the 30's, have unfortunately not gone so silent. They recently moved their flag into the 40's but they continue to talk a lot. A better strategy – though one that would require some humility - would be to stop talking and listen.

      Recent and compounding data will soon wash away the walls of worry erected by the experts. Four consecutive weeks of inventory draws, each one larger than the last is irrefutable proof that a 60% decline in the rig count means something.

      Shorts will downplay this trend and point to last week's surge in US production. But this could have had as much to do with sales as it did with production. I don't fully understand all the criteria used by the EIA in assembling weekly data, but I do know what some well-heeled operators have been up to. Those who could afford to store oil in leasehold tank farms began selling long held inventory when oil touched $60. Wall Street would call this arbitrage, but to an oil operator this is known as calling in a load. This is a one-off event but when you factor it into last week's 2.8 million bbl draw, you will see a clear path towards large inventory draws in the very near future.

      Well site storage levels will decrease as will production. The X-axis on all decline curves marks time, Y is volume. The IP (initial production) rates right after a completion may be high with shale wells, but there is a very steep precipice that immediately follows. As we move through time, more and more wells are slipping down this curve that bottoms out at 15% to 20% +/-of initial production rates. And this only takes a handful of months. The flat section a year or so out is known as the tail. The tail is good money, but the upfront flush is what pays for wells.

      The rig count went into free fall after OPEC's Thanksgiving Day announcement. Frack jobs continued, with some sand suppliers booming right through January of this year. But by February, the free fall began there too. That was 4 months ago, which means the sled ride down the decline curve is on.

      Another factor to consider is that the EIA weekly production numbers are estimates. As oil producing states begin to report real numbers in 60 to 90 days, you will see markdowns.

      Inventory draws of 4 million plus, which will begin shortly, may finally see some of the media saturated shorts stop pontificating for a moment and possibly even consider a short period of quiet introspection. Maybe. Or they may stick to the newest argument-the "fracklog".

      Drilled, though uncompleted wells are nothing new. They're a common occurrence when mid stream infrastructure is not yet in place or when there is the need to secure a lease. There is also not much of a worry that wells will have to be completed due to state regulations requiring so.

      No one is going to rush into their back log of completions either. Everyone in the business is holding cash tightly-really, really tight. And no one is going to run to the debt markets to finance a burst of activity. Completions will occur, but they will occur methodically. For service companies, frack logs will create work but they will not create a boom.

      Then there is the issue of TV commentators using the term "efficiency". Do your best to ignore this. There is no discernible difference between a July 2014 frack job (when oil was around $100) and one that is scheduled for today-other than the fact that the service company is more appreciative and the operator is cheaper.

      Ignore the noise and stick with the data. Most walls of worry erected in the last few months have been built on clay. Most have or will fall, particularly within the US and Canada. That said, outside of North America there are real concerns. Chiefly, there is the upside of Saudi production potential and there is increasing Iraqi, Libyan and Russian production. Those are the big issues.

      But on balance, these concerns seem to be offset by the wars, skirmishes and terrorist strikes that are increasing in the area, not declining. Watching monthly production out of Libya has the same relative curve as a kid on a pogo stick. And the Chinese economy at 7% growth in 2015 is a bigger consumer of oil than it was at 10% in 2010. Note too, that Asian demand is increasing and Europe is starting to look like it has put in a bottom.

      U.S. demand is also better than predicted. The "tax break" that every commentator on every cable station detailed to death is finally showing up in the data. But rather than appearing in retail and hospitality sales as most predicted, it is showing up in oil and gas consumption. Go figure, cheaper gas means people are driving more. Hard to believe, but I think a lot of us missed that one too.

      The big story in oil prices was the rig count on the way down. The big story on the way up will be inventory. Look for WTI to make a move towards and maybe into the $70's as clarity strikes the market. Look too for more walls of worry but remember to consider the source.

      OilPrice.com is a USA TODAY content partner offering oil and energy news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

      [Jun 05, 2015] James Dondero - Is the price of oil headed for a V-shaped...

      Is the price of oil headed for a V-shaped recovery?

      Since 1984, Brent has had six major moves down. All of them were followed by a V-shaped recovery. We expect the supply response to be faster today than in previous cycles as the world is more dependent on oil from shale wells, which have a higher base decline rate than conventional oil wells. We have already seen the oil rig count fall by 24% (386 rigs) from the Q4 highs. We saw a similar move in 2008 when the oil rig count fell 23% in three months, but that was when the peak was 442 rigs compared to over 1,600 rigs in October 2014.

      [Jun 05, 2015] CONVERGEX - The Mystery of the Missing American Consumer Gas...

      Miles driven – a monthly metric calculated by the Federal Highway Administration – are up 3.9% year over year for March 2015 (latest data available). The six month rolling average is now 3.4% higher than last year, the best comp since June 2004 (3.6%), March 1997 (3.8%) and – gulp – June 2000 (4.3%). Hitting the road means hitting the gas pump first, and gasoline consumption also up, to the tune of 2.8% year over year in March, and 2.6% on average for the last 6 months. Again, that growth is more consistent with boom times like the 1990s and early 2000s. So where are we all going? The easy answer is "To work", as 86% of Americans commute by car. The long run correlations between job growth and miles driven support that assumption. The obvious bump in that road is that job growth has been slowing, so we are left with two possibilities. One, the survey-based employment data on which the Federal Reserve makes policy is undercounting actual employment growth. And that means the Fed is way behind the curve. And the other – Americans have rediscovered the joy of just cruising. With no particular place to go.

      [Jun 05, 2015] The Deal - Crude concerns Will Pacific Drilling violate its...

      Pacific Drilling SA (PACD) could be facing a covenant breach on a $1 billion senior secured credit facility in the first quarter of next year, warns a ratings agency analyst.

      The Luxembourg-based global offshore drilling contractor, which provides its services to the oil and natural gas industry, needs to get covenant relief by the end of the year in order to avoid breaching its net debt-to-Ebitda covenant on its $1 billion senior secured credit facility in the first quarter of 2016, said Moody's Investors Service Inc. analyst Sreedhar Kona in a phone interview.

      [Jun 05, 2015] Steady OPEC, firm demand will send oil to $60-$80 range Energy investor

      "...In November, a lot of the wording was about crude oil oversupply in the markets," Thummel says. "The most recent wording is more concerned with [price] stability and, actually, optimism about the demand response of the low oil price."
      Jun 05, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com
      "In November, a lot of the wording was about crude oil oversupply in the markets," Thummel says. "The most recent wording is more concerned with [price] stability and, actually, optimism about the demand response of the low oil price."

      ... ... ...

      While domestic production has not yet begun declining, the number of North American drilling rigs in use has collapsed by more than 50%, setting the stage for output to stabilize or begin declining in coming months.

      "We'll have a slowdown in North American production." Thummel says. "What that means is that a lot of lower-cost oil producers will continue to increase their production volumes."

      Some of these better-positioned producers "are trying to turn $65 oil prices into the new $90," he suggests.

      [Jun 05, 2015] Oil up 2 percent after early swings on dollar, OPEC

      Brent (LCOc1) settled up $1.28, or 2.1 percent, at $63.31 a barrel, after hitting the April 16 low of $60.94. For the week, it fell 3.6 percent.

      U.S. crude (CLc1) jumped $1.13, or almost 2 percent, to settle at $59.13. It lost 2 percent on the week.

      ... ... ...

      Data also showed U.S. oil drillers boosted activity in four key shale basins this week despite an overall decline in oil rigs. [RIG/U]

      (Additional reporting by Vladimir Soldatkin in London and Henning Gloystein in Singapore; Editing by Andre Grenon; and Peter Galloway)

      [May 29, 2015] Our Finite World

      bwhill, May 28, 2015 at 12:40 pm
      Don Stewart said:

      "What about the incentives. The 'European/ American' dream leads a government to think that a glyphosate factory is a great leap forward. But a truly enlightened government would reward farmers with quite different incentives."

      The oil age is coming to a much more rapid conclusion than most assume. By 2030 the US will be functioning on 4 to 5 million barrels per day (if that). Reliance on any government initiative would be a mistake. The governments that we have become accustomed to will no longer exit in just a few decades. Their continuous is dependent upon the oil that in the very near future will no longer be there.

      Since a government is incapable of perceiving its own extinction, any policy it sets in motion is doomed to failure. Its own dismantling would need to be incorporated into its policy. Any policy that a bureaucracy adopts will be a matter of more extend and pretend. Like the population at large it will refuse to just roll over, and die. It will maintain the policy of absorbing more of the available resources to insure its own survival. That will do little to insure the continuation of the present society.

      Like Dmitry Orlov's extinction discussion, the question of government addressing our current situation is a question without an answer. It is an intellectual exercise that can produce no meaningful determinations. Gail's approach of seeking out societies that have already gone through what Western society is soon going to be experiencing may be the best approach. By ignoring the actions of the post oil Cuban government, and concentrating on the actions of its people we may find lessons that we will be able to bring into the future. What remnants of government that may remain will be playing a very small role, if any, in the future individual's survival.

      http://www.thehillsgroup.org/

      [May 29, 2015] US biggest oil fund sees $1bn outflow - Bloomberg

      "...Outflow from the largest US oil-specific exchange traded fund (USO) reached $1 billion in April-May, Bloomberg says. It is the largest outflow in six years and raises concerns over a further rebound in oil prices."
      The number of active rigs in the US currently stands at 802, which is the lowest number since March 4, 2011... US production climbed to 9.57 million barrels a day last week, the most since 1983, according to Energy Information Administration data. Inventories were 479.4 million, up 86 million from the previous year.
      May 29, 2015 | RT Business

      Outflow from the largest US oil-specific exchange traded fund (USO) reached $1 billion in April-May, Bloomberg says. It is the largest outflow in six years and raises concerns over a further rebound in oil prices.

      A total of $368.4 million has been withdrawn from the US Oil Fund this month, following $591.6 million in April, which was the biggest single-month outflow since April 2011, Bloomberg reported on Friday. Total assets are currently down from $3.25 billion since March, standing at $2.28 billion.

      "The oil rebound has run out of gas and now you are seeing nervous investors with itchy trigger fingers bailing out of USO. They don't want to get burned by another drop in oil," Bloomberg Intelligence analyst Eric Balchunas said.

      Investors poured $2.86 billion into the USO in the six months ended March 31 as oil slumped and started to sell when crude turned to growth. They used the 30-percent rebound in oil prices as an opportunity to reap profits.

      Oil rebounded from a six-year low in mid-March on speculations that the falling number of drilling rigs will reduce production and ease a supply glut. The number of active rigs in the US currently stands at 802, which is the lowest number since March 4, 2011.

      US crude stockpiles that are close to the highest level in 85 years, along with OPEC's November refusal to cut production, will continue influencing oil prices, according to leading financial service providers Goldman Sachs, Deutsche Bank and Citigroup.

      US production climbed to 9.57 million barrels a day last week, the most since 1983, according to Energy Information Administration data. Inventories were 479.4 million, up 86 million from the previous year.

      OPEC, the group of 12 Gulf State oil producing nations, has predicted in its long-term strategy report seen by Reuters that supply from non-OPEC countries will continue growing, mainly due to North American shale.

      The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries is meeting in Vienna on June 5 to discuss output policies. In November, the OPEC oil cartel decided to keep production high and provide no relief to the supply glut, aiming to gain its market share.

      WTI futures for July were up 65 cents at $58.33 a barrel by 15:10 MSK on Friday. Brent rose 63 cents to $63.21.

      READ MORE: OPEC says global oil glut to persist till 2017 - media

      [May 27, 2015] Crude Story by Arthur Herman

      "..."I expect the United States will be exporting close to 300,000 barrels a day of processed condensate by the end of 2015", says energy analyst Andrew Lipow, president of the consulting firm that bears his name. That's still just a fraction of the oil exported by Saudi Arabia, or even Venezuela. But it could become a flood if Congress acts to lift the 1975 ban altogether. "
      "...Two years after the economic trauma caused in part by the Arab oil embargo of 1973–74, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA. It directed President Gerald Ford "to promulgate a rule prohibiting the export of crude oil" produced in the United States. "
      "...Between 2007 and 2012 fracking sparked an 18-fold increase in U.S. production of high-quality crude oil known as light tight oil, or LTO."
      May 26, 2015 | The American Interest
      From the July/August Issue

      The United States should export energy in the form of oil to allies and leverage a new American petro-diplomacy against adversaries.

      America's energy security faces a strange paradox. On the one hand, we are the only leading industrial nation that prohibits crude oil exports. On the other, foreign tankers regularly line up at the dock in Galveston, Texas, to take on what is not supposed to leave the country, namely, crude oil-almost half a million barrels to South Korea alone last September and October.

      The paradox is explained by the fact that this exported oil is ultra-light condensate from natural gas extraction, which the Commerce Department has decided is not crude oil as defined under the law Congress passed back in 1975 to ban oil exports. That technical loophole has allowed U.S. producers to export so much condensate that we are now shipping more oil than we did in the record year of 1957-more than 400,000 barrels a day, much of it condensate.1 "I expect the United States will be exporting close to 300,000 barrels a day of processed condensate by the end of 2015", says energy analyst Andrew Lipow, president of the consulting firm that bears his name. That's still just a fraction of the oil exported by Saudi Arabia, or even Venezuela. But it could become a flood if Congress acts to lift the 1975 ban altogether.

      The explosive growth of available condensate reflects the key new factor in America's energy equation, namely the widely discussed shale revolution. Since 2008 America has been producing record amounts of shale natural gas in addition to shale oil-more oil, in fact, than the current market can absorb. The result is that we are now almost literally awash in oil that we can't ship abroad because of a law built around erroneous 1970s-era assumptions about "peak oil", which kindled expectations of looming oil shortages and dwindling supply.

      For these reasons most experts, and a growing number of politicians, agree that the paradox of America's current oil exports is passing into the realm of absurdity. But the question of whether to lift the ban or preserve it has set off a major debate on Capitol Hill pitting free marketers against those who fear that ending the ban will drain away our hard-won national energy independence.

      Unfortunately, the debate tends to get stuck on conflicting economic priorities when the real issue should be strategy, and when the real question should be not whether to lift the 1975 oil export ban, but how. Other oil-exporting countries use the commodity to further their national interests, and there is no reason the United States should not do the same. Without violating free-market principles, we can turn our energy superpower status into strategic advantage to help friends and gain leverage over enemies, and thus to restore American leadership around the globe.

      Two years after the economic trauma caused in part by the Arab oil embargo of 1973–74, Congress passed the Energy Policy and Conservation Act, or EPCA. It directed President Gerald Ford "to promulgate a rule prohibiting the export of crude oil" produced in the United States. At the time it seemed a sensible if somewhat drastic response to a massive rise in the price of oil and to a domestic oil industry that was nearly overwhelmed by growing demand (this was before completion of the Alaska Pipeline). It also conformed to historical precedent: Congress and the Ford Administration knew that the Eisenhower Administration had decided in 1957 that it was cheaper and strategically wiser to buy what was then very inexpensive oil abroad and keep domestic oil in the ground as a strategic asset. In 1975, the United States believed it had to keep every drop of oil it pumped-especially when U.S. oil production was tumbling below ten million barrels a day, with no end to the fall-off in sight. Indeed, even with the Alaska Prudhoe Bay fields, domestic oil production dropped to just over five million bpd by 2000, a fourth of daily domestic consumption.

      Then the shale revolution happened, otherwise known as hydraulic fracturing, or fracking. Between 2007 and 2012 fracking sparked an 18-fold increase in U.S. production of high-quality crude oil known as light tight oil, or LTO. U.S. crude oil production is now headed back to ten million barrels a day, even as domestic demand first declined and then flat-lined. The result is more oil than we can refine at home, as producers struggle to find ways to get around the 1975 export ban through regulatory waivers like the one for condensate.

      Light tight oil (LTO) is a lighter crude, meaning that it is less viscous and "sweeter", which in petrospeak means it contains less sulfur, making it easier and less expensive to refine. It's a product much in demand among refineries in Asia and Europe. Meanwhile, refineries in this country are largely designed for handling the heavier crude that comes from Mexico, Canada, and South America. America's heavy crude refiners can process LTO but only with a significant loss of efficiency, which means they demand a considerable discount from producers. The point here is that LTO is an oil virtually made for export rather than for domestic U.S. consumption. LTO is an oil virtually made for export rather than for domestic U.S. consumption.

      That's one reason why Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska has recently introduced a bill, S.1312, that lifts the ban on crude oil and which has found no less than eleven co-sponsors, including six committee chairmen. Not surprisingly, the American Petroleum Institute has been strongly supportive, predicting that an expanded export market would generate another half million barrels of oil a day to meet global demand and directly and indirectly create as many as 300,000 jobs.

      Proponents of lifting the ban have included President Obama's own Secretary of Energy Ernest Moniz, his former Director of National Economic Council Lawrence Summers, and his former Undersecretary of Defense for Policy Michèle Flournoy. Still, resistance has been fierce, thanks to the efforts of an unusual coalition of environmentalists, oil refiners, and protectionist-minded nationalists who worry that lifting the ban will both drive up gas prices and dissipate our shale energy edge.

      "As oil producers head overseas to fetch higher prices than they [can] get at home", says Tyler Slocum, director of Public Citizen's Energy Program, "domestic supplies will dry up, and the cost will rise." This argument seems compelling from a strict supply-demand perspective, but it ignores the fact that the oil market is integrated globally. Sending crude outside the United States will therefore add to global supply and push global prices downward. A host of studies, including by both the Houston-based energy research firm IHS Cambridge Associates and by NERA Economic Consulting for the Brookings Institution, suggest that U.S. oil exports will not raise gasoline prices but lower them.

      More specifically, NERA estimates that even if the U.S. producers exported as much as two million barrels a day-roughly one quarter of current production - the price plunge might be as much as $5–7 per barrel in the first year, with further price declines following over the next decade. The report concludes that the price drop at the pump would be in the 8-12 cents per gallon zone, even if the decline in supply of LTO for domestic production means a growing convergence of West Texas Intermediate and Brent crude prices.

      This touches on the heart of the resistance from refiners. Because domestic refiners don't relish their product, LTO producers have had to sell at a discount, sometimes as much as $28 below world prices. Ending the ban means ending the discount-which is in effect a non-market subsidy provided by the 1975 law-that allows refiners to buy LTO cheaply and sell it as gasoline on the world market. (Unlike crude oil, there are no restrictions on exporting gasoline.) This is such a lucrative market distortion that even during the third quarter of 2014, when oil prices were steadily tumbling, refiners still enjoyed a considerable premium based on the price differentiated between the crude oil they bought from U.S. producers and the refined products they sold, including abroad. The NERA experts conclude that the net effect of exports will be to introduce "greater efficiency in the refining system due to the increased ability of U.S. refineries to utilize the types of crude oil for which their design is optimized"-that is, the heavier crudes from U.S. producers and from Canada and other countries.

      The third and final argument against lifting the 1975 ban is a macroeconomic one, namely, that the energy abundance the shale revolution has produced will dissipate if our surplus is shipped abroad. Related to this argument is the fear that, if oil prices retain their historic volatility, the American consumer could be caught in a vise if prices spike while U.S. producers are exporting too much of the shale supply. On the other hand, a steep drop in prices will induce a cutback in new shale exploration and production, undercutting our abundance at its very source. To support their claim, oil-export critics point to the impact of the recent drop in the price of oil on new shale investment, especially by smaller and mid-size producers.

      This pessimistic scenario overlooks the fact that shale extraction technology has enabled producers to adopt a much more flexible response to price changes than conventional producers, enabling them to reduce production quickly when prices fall and resume with similar speed when prices rise again. The overall impact has been to provide a new stability to global oil prices, even as other technologies are allowing more efficient production from existing wells. Indeed, oil analyst Rusty Braziel has recently reasoned that even at $35 a barrel, increased drilling efficiency, falling production costs, and heavier reliance on the most productive oil areas will mean sustained production for a large proportion of U.S. shale producers. "I just don't see a way that the brakes are going to be slammed on", adds David Knapp of Energy Intelligence.

      ... ... ....

      Which countries would make suitable candidates for such bilateral oil trade deals? One is certainly Japan. It's the third largest petroleum consumer in the world, and the second biggest net importer. It's also the fourth-largest supplier of goods to the United States, from cars and machinery to electronics and medical instruments, worth a total of $73 billion in 2013. Today Japan is almost entirely dependent on imported oil, 83 percent of it from the Middle East, and a third of that from Saudi Arabia. U.S. light crude would be welcome to Japanese refiners, and also allow them to reduce dependence on an increasingly volatile Middle East.

      Indeed, Japan is one of the Asian countries that has already lined up at the condensate window (another is South Korea). In October 2014 almost 300,000 barrels worth of condensate were shipped to Japan's Cosmo Oil Company, while Houston-based Enterprise held term contracts with Japanese traders Mitsui & Co. and Mitsubishi Corporation to supply condensate through the end of 2014. Japan is also looking for alternatives to its dependence on Middle Eastern oil. Barring a breakthrough on the American market, it's been turning in desperation to Russia and buying East Siberian oil on the spot market to the tune of 300,000 barrels per day. A bilateral trade deal with the United States could all but erase Japan's need for Russian oil, delivering a sharp rebuff to Vladimir Putin's growing energy-supply extortion racket in Asia.

      Another candidate is India. Its crude oil bill came to $144 billion in 2013, the single biggest of India's import costs. Indeed, 75 percent of its oil needs are imported, almost all from Gulf states, including Iran. Just as Japan wants to reduce its dependence on Saudi oil, India is keen to reduce its dependence on Iranian oil.Just as Japan wants to reduce its dependence on Saudi oil, India is keen to reduce its dependence on Iranian oil. A U.S. trade deal could go a long way toward doing that, while having an important impact on the U.S. trade deficit with India, now at about $20 billion per year. A putative deal of 300,000 barrels per day at $50 per barrel would lop off one-quarter of that deficit-not to mention other trade benefits the United States could negotiate as part of the final deal.

      Then there is Australia, perhaps the most acute case of an oil-poor ally. Once an oil producer, Australia now imports 91 percent of its petroleum needs-up from 60 percent in 2000. A recent government study concluded that, if that vital flow of oil were interrupted, the country's transportation system would run dry in just three weeks. Australia's main sources of imported oil are Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia. A 300,000 barrel-per-day deal with the United States would provide much-needed relief on the supply side and also breathe new life into Australia's stumbling refining industry (in 2014 almost one third of the countries' refineries were set to close).

      Finally, there's Great Britain. This is ironic, since its North Sea oil discoveries in the 1970s produced the Brent crude that still gives the name to the light sweet oil that dominates world financial markets. Yet those North Sea reserves are on the wane. Production there has dropped to less than one million barrels per day; Britain now imports almost half its fossil fuels from abroad, including crude oil. Like other EU countries, Britain is increasingly dependent on oil from Libya, where a chaotic political situation regularly threatens to cut off supply. A generous and reliable stream of crude oil from U.S. producers, which is similar to Libya's light crude, could breathe new stability to Britain's economic fortunes and those of other EU countries as well.

      Interestingly, the national security case for U.S. energy exports to the European Union has already been made and accepted-with regard to liquefied natural gas. The political battle over gas exports is virtually over, with the Obama Administration all but conceding defeat after initial opposition due to pressure from environmental groups. Creating a liquefied natural gas export infrastructure will take years, however-perhaps as much as a decade. Oil exports to the EU could begin tomorrow morning were the political will-and the right political strategy-in place.

      A series of bilateral oil trade agreements would mark a new kind of diplomacy for the United States: petro-diplomacy. It would leverage our current energy advantage in not one but three ways.

      The first and most obvious would be using oil exports to enhance the energy security of long-standing allies like Japan and Britain, as well as relatively new ones like India or, to choose another likely candidate, Poland. At the same time, it sends a powerful signal to the rest of the world that the days of the American oil embargo, as the Financial Times once dubbed it, are over.

      The second is that it would turn oil into a commodity that enhances our terms of trade with other industrialized countries that want and need petroleum to sustain economic growth, and would do it without literally opening the floodgates. It could even turn the status of Most Favored Oil Export Nation into something worth trading in exchange for concessions on other traded commodities. South Korea, for example, currently buys considerable quantities of condensate but refuses to import American automobiles. A formal bilateral agreement could adjust that trade picture, while showing sustained "soft power" support for an important ally.

      The third advantage of the petro-diplomacy approach is less obvious but just as crucial. America's reserves of shale oil are limited. Shale wells exhibit much steeper decline rates than conventional wells, which implies that the boom could fizzle out much sooner than optimistic forecasters believe. Even with a best-case scenario of discovering additional reserves through enhanced technology, there may be only a twenty-year window for American LTO production to have a decisive effect on global prices and supply.

      This means that an outright lifting of the ban could quickly dissipate our current shale advantage, whereas a carefully modulated petro-diplomacy strategy would husband and exploit it. Of course, some will object that this approach borders on neo-mercantilism, thus overthrowing a sacrosanct principle of American diplomacy, namely promotion of free trade. Yet the sober truth is that the vast majority of bilateral "free trade agreements" are anything but; most contain loopholes for certain favored industries and products that remain protected by tariffs, import quotas, or other mechanisms. A real free-trade agreement need be only one page long; but there are no such agreements. Right now the United States has very little leverage for advancing freer trade on a bilateral basis. Oil trade deals with countries like South Korea or India could become among the most valuable levers we have.

      ... ... ...

      [May 24, 2015] Restoring the Public's Trust in Economists

      May 19, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

      I have a new column:

      Restoring the Public's Trust in Economists: The belief that economics has become politicized is a big reason the general public has lost faith in the ability of economists to give advice on important policy questions. For most issues, like raising the minimum wage, the effects of government spending, international trade, whether CEOs deserve their high compensation, etc., etc., it seems as though economists who also happen to be Republicans will mostly line up on one side of the issue, while economists who are Democrats mostly take the other. Members of the general public, not knowing who to believe and unable to rely upon the press to sort it out, either throw up their hands in frustration or follow the side that agrees with their preconceived notions and ideological beliefs.
      But why is it so hard to sort out? Why can't the press do a better job of avoiding "he said – she said" reporting and give the public direct and specific answers to these important policy questions? One reason is the "mathiness" that has infected our economic models, something economist Paul Romer recently identified as a big problem with economic theory. :

      Posted by Mark Thoma on Tuesday, May 19, 2015 at 08:10 AM in Economics, Fiscal Times, Politics, Press | Permalink Comments (55)

      ken melvin:

      Was this twisting, manipulation of data and results ever so endemic politics as today?

      Sandwichman -> ken melvin:

      Frederic Harrison called political economy "this magazine of untruth" in 1872.

      "The complaint one makes against that anti-social jargon, which so easily passes for economic science, is that it is in ludicrous opposition to the common observation of facts. Political economy professes to be a science based on observation. But the bitter pedantry which often usurps that name usually assumes its facts, after it has rounded off dogmas to suit its clients. In practice this magazine of untruth escapes detection for two reasons. One is that the facts relating to labour are invariably seen through the spectacles of capital.

      The employing class is virtually in possession of the whole machinery of information; and all judgments are tinged with the tone current among them. Thus we see the very newspapers which celebrate the amusements of the rich in a hundred different forms, scandalized at the coal miners objecting to grub in the pits every day in the week. Laziness, ingratitude, and extortion, seem the proper terms for sportsmen and fine ladies to apply to the men and children who swelter half their lives underground. The second reason which obscures the truth about industry is, that the facts about capital are almost never honestly disclosed:."

      mrrunangun

      The public is correct to be skeptical of the value of economics as a prescriptive science at its current stage of development. Bill Black's critique of the econ profession as being unwilling to take account the effects of fraud or corruption in its models renders the models useless as a basis for prescriptions for public policy.

      Medicine in the late 18th century was inaccurate even as a descriptive science. john Hunter in Britain and Claude Bernard in France began to report organized observations in surgery and medicine. Many medical men subscribed to the theory of the four humors and its prescriptive capacity was limited to bleeding or purging and debates as to which was appropriate for which condition were taken seriously. Much as debates as to whether financially insupportable debt loads or socially insupportable austerity and inequality are seen among contemporary economists.

      Economics is stil not accurate as a descriptive science, as its practitioners are unwilling to make unwelcome observations. The problems of Chicago and Illinois are largely related to the longstanding custom of using public office for private gain among the political leaders here and the willingness of the local press and public to tolerate it. Economics provided no diagnosis for this problem before it became a crisis. Economics has no prescription for this, though its baneful effects are clearly economic in nature.


      Darryl FKA Ron -> mrrunangun:

      Yes sir!

      JohnH -> mrrunangun:

      I would only add that economists, macro-economists in particular, have become advocates rather than dispassionate analysts and educators. In this role they tend to tout the benefits of their position without discussing the costs or downsides.

      For example, Stiglitz notes that while the Fed and economists touted the advantages of low interest rates, they omitted the costs:

      "There was a cost, however: all those retired individuals who had invested prudently in government bonds suddenly saw their incomes disappear. In this way, there was a large transfer of wealth from the elderly to the government, and from the government to the bankers. But little mention of the harm to the elderly was made, and little was done to offset it.

      The lower interest rates might have dampened spending in other ways. Persons nearing retirement, seeing that they would have to put away that much more in safe government bonds to get the retirement income they desired, would have to save more. As would parents saving to put their kids through school. Even cursory attention to the distributional consequences of such policies would have raised doubt about the effectiveness of the low interest rate policy." (The Price of Inequality)

      Economists, by championing certain policies which are ostensibly "good for the economy," are too often oblivious to the harmful effects on significant portions of the population. Rather than acknowledge the negative effects, economists seem to say, "just suck it up!" Well, that's fine for a short time. But for a decade?

      How can the public retain trust in economists when they advocate positions that directly harm their pocketbooks for a long period of time?

      JF:

      Economists position themselves as being against self government when they misuse the "distortion" conceptualization.

      Academic institutions should teach business, finance and economic students that govt rules are part of markets, like other parts, and take care in casting the impression that govt rules are per se, distortionary when they explain modeling, models and in their theoretical discussions.

      I'd like to see more blog articles and papers on the notion of distortion, and when markets are distorted by actors involved in the markets.

      Of course, I would also like to see all economists when imparting advice to govt policy discussions to upfront say something about how govts are not distortionary, per se. Ideally they'd say that self-govt institutions are most likely to produce uniform and fair marketplaces, but I suppose that is asking for too much.

      There is an academic and research agenda here too. Find all basic equations containing a G in them, and figure out ways to separate out govt as just another purchaser versus govt as a rule maker. Rewrite all the equations, teach them as re-written, and we may avoid the quite-silly notion that markets make themselves and self-adjust availing themselves of unlimited freedoms of order bound only by immutable governance rules that have come from somewhere other than from human institutions.

      How can economists be trusted if they are undermining confidence and trust in self-government?

      Conelrad -> JF:

      Thank you for this reply.

      As you suggest, "the economy" is not independent of the society in which it's embedded--contrary to the dominant teaching of economists. The reality is that every "economy" is a set of relationships established via societal rules and regulations, many if not most emanating from government.

      Among the sins of the prevailing economics is the fallacy of misplaced concreteness, i.e., "mistak[ing] an abstract belief, opinion, or concept [such as "the economy"] about the way things are for a physical or 'concrete' reality" (Wikipedia).

      The pervasive notion of "the economy" shared by liberals and conservatives forms a set of blinders. With such tunnel vision, economists generally end up, intentionally and not, creating a smokescreen. This smog helps obscure rule-making that, e.g., redistributes wealth and income upward and risk downward.

      Despite economists' failure to anticipate the Great Recession, economics has not undergone a needed paradigm shift. Until that happens, pronouncements from the discipline must be taken with a very large grain of salt.

      pgl:

      Simon Wren Lewis in a recent post linked to something he wrote in August 2012. It was an excellent discussion of how Greg Mankiw and John Taylor was lying on behalf of Mitt Romney. SWL found this repugnant. I agree.

      Syaloch:

      Perhaps economics can learn something from studying the dynamics of the global climate change "debate"?

      As in economics, climate science deals with a complex, dynamic global system where you have to rely more on data gleaned from the historical record than running controlled experiments. In both cases you have strong ideological agendas to have the research point to a predetermined conclusion. And even more so than in econ, in climate science you have ideologues trying to blatantly interfere with, pollute, deny, and suppress results they do not wish to hear. And yet climate science seems to have weathered these attacks quite well, with the scientists generally maintaining their integrity and continuing to speak with one voice, whereas economics is a mess. Why the difference?

      Peter K.:

      "In many other cases, the data do point in a particular direction but this is ignored or denied because it gives results that disagree with someone's previous work, goes against their political leanings, or contradicts their preconceived conclusions. The tactic in this case is to just cite the few papers that support your position while ignoring, dismissing, or clouding the considerable amount of evidence that points in the other direction. This cherry picking and obfuscation of the evidence leaves the impression that there is uncertainty over issues that are largely settled. To me, this is one of the more frustrating aspects of communicating economic policy to the general public."

      This is tactic used by JohnH, Don Kevack, Jeffrey Sachs, and Niall Ferguson among others.

      I can't imagine what they believe they're accomplishing other than annoying people who know better. Perhaps that's all they want to do.

      Tom aka Rusty:

      Sorry to bust your bubble, but those who comment here will probably read more economics this week than most people will read this decade, or this lifetime.

      Most people are too busy working and getting on with their lives to study economics. They depend on whatever "business news" they have time to pick up during a busy day, if at all.

      And since both sides of most debates claim to have the gospel truth, who can sort it out? Both sides are tainted with politics, both sides claim to have data on their side, blah, blah.

      Back to the real world:.and real work.

      Roger Gathmann:

      Nice article!
      However, it is premised on an idea that I am extremely skeptical about: that there exists a value free, neutral economics that we can point to when discussing policy. That economists line up with different parties or ideologies is, I think, a good thing, not a bad thing. That doesn't mean they should blur the results of their work - it does mean that they approach the work from a certain angle. There is a reason for this. One of the great premises of economics is that people work in their own self interest. However, I think that premise relies too much on a hard notion of self that doesn't exist in real life - most people I know have a distant notion that what they are doing every day will somehow benefit them, but their direct actions are more likely to be linked to the benefit of others, whether its a company, a family, a lover, a friend, the country, the community, etc. But the one place where self interest is magnified n the classic economic sense is in economics itself. This is the conclusion of a number of surveys, which are referenced here: https://bcps.org/offices/lis/researchcourse/images/econ-selfish.pdf

      This paragraph sums up the state of research:

      "Inquiry into the question of whether economists are less apt to engage in what Frey and Meyer (2004) refer to as pro-social behavior begins with Marwell and Ames (1981), who find that economics graduate students are more likely than other groups to free ride in a public-goods experiment. Additional experiments produced similar results: economics students offer less in ultimatum games (Carter and Irons 1991), they are more likely to defect in prisoners' dilemma games (Frank, Gilovich and Regan 1993), they are more likely to defect in a solidarity game (Selten and Ockenfels 1998), and they are more likely to accept bribes (Frank and Schulze 2000).

      Other research relies on survey data. Rubenstein (2009) describes various business scenarios and asks students, as hypothetical employers, to make a series of decisions with respect to their employees; he finds that economics students are more likely to place profit maximization ahead of the welfare of the workers. Economists among Frey and Pommerehne's (1993) and Haucap and Just's (2003) survey respondents are more apt to view allocation based on prices as a fair mechanism for allocation."

      What Mark is pointing to is what I'd call ideology maximization. It is what I'd expect to arise from a group that begins by viewing human action as governed by self interest, and that self interest as being more socially beneficial in the long run than altruism.

      Frankly, I think that this will always be the case in economics. It is one of the many reasons that economics is not social physics. Culture counts.

      pgl -> Roger Gathmann:

      "ideology maximization" strikes me as an excuse for deceiving people. Sorry but I find this incredibly insulting. There are economists who want an honest exchange of ideas. Our host is one of those people.

      So way to go - telling Mark Thoma that he cannot exist. Duh!

      Roger Gathmann -> pgl:

      No, I was telling Mark that if he thinks he is doing value neutral economics, I don't believe it. It doesn't have to do with his existence.

      So, to upgrade this comment to something that has some intellectual respectability - you don't believe the surveys that repeatedly show economics classes make people act in more selfish ways? Do you have any countering evidence whatsoever? And if you don't, and you think that the surveys are correct, what would you predict for the discipline as a whole?

      Myself, this is where ideological maximization starts - to maintain, on the one hand, that models which are explicitly premised on narrowly selfish behaviors describe social action, and then to maintain, on the other hand, that economists never act on their ideological interests. Either loosen up the first premise - in which case economics needs a much more extensive overhaul than is proposed by Mark - or get used to the consequence, which is a selfish culture that leads to, at least, unconscious ideological bias.

      That doesn't, by the way, mean that the work is bad. It is bad from the standpoint of value neutrality, but if you reject that Weberian standard, it becomes part of a dialogue. In the second case, conflict is not a sign of untrustworthiness, but of vigor.

      pgl:

      In Krugman's mis-selling of TPP, he references what he considered the best blog post ever - "Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance". It was about the lies told to get us to invade Iraq but it had this gem over whether to include the true cost of stock options on the income statement:

      "Good ideas do not need lots of lies told about them in order to gain public acceptance. I was first made aware of this during an accounting class. We were discussing the subject of accounting for stock options at technology companies. There was a live debate on this subject at the time. One side (mainly technology companies and their lobbyists) held that stock option grants should not be treated as an expense on public policy grounds; treating them as an expense would discourage companies from granting them, and stock options were a vital compensation tool that incentivised performance, rewarded dynamism and innovation and created vast amounts of value for America and the world. The other side (mainly people like Warren Buffet) held that stock options looked awfully like a massive blag carried out my management at the expense of shareholders, and that the proper place to record such blags was the P&L account.

      Our lecturer, in summing up the debate, made the not unreasonable point that if stock options really were a fantastic tool which unleashed the creative power in every employee, everyone would want to expense as many of them as possible, the better to boast about how innovative, empowered and fantastic they were. Since the tech companies' point of view appeared to be that if they were ever forced to account honestly for their option grants, they would quickly stop making them, this offered decent prima facie evidence that they weren't, really, all that fantastic."

      Awesome!

      pgl -> pgl:


      Warren Buffet's term blag was new to me so I went to Urban Dictionary:

      "To gain, usually entrance to a restricted area or club, or some material good, through confidence trickery or cheekiness. Lying is also acceptable."

      Perfect! Tech companies lying to their shareholders. And when FAS 123 ended that - they still lie to the IRS.

      Denis Drew:

      " Members of the general public, not knowing who to believe and unable to rely upon the press to sort it out, either throw up their hands in frustration "

      Maybe if the Democrats would beat to death just a couple of issues (I have two really big issues in mind) where the eighth-grade math is indubitably in progressive favor, then, folks might tend to take progressive economists word for it on everything else (or at least lean our way) -- and forever see the Republicans as dolts.

      I can envision some Democrat campaign organization working up a couple of commercials that can be used by any Democrat (or anybody else) in the country for free.

      The most indefensible Republican nonsense is states refusing to expand Medicaid for 90% payback from the federal government. Half (okay a guess) the patients who would have been covered by expansion will show up somewhere for treatment anyway -- and the (unpaid) expenditure is going to be packed into the price of private premiums or paid through other government channels. Often these folks wont show up until their illness is much further advanced and extremely more expensive to treat and for the public or inflated premium channel to cover.

      The same makes it foolish to minimize on even the 65% payback for current Medicaid.

      The states send the fed the money; don't they want it back? The same states will give away billions in tax abatements to attract jobs. How does that song go: Money for nothin; jobs for free? Don't have to mention any bleeding heart, liberal stuff about needy patients; it's all bottom line.

      * * * * *

      Another damn the damn fool-Republicans commercial could be the win/win math of the minimum wage. Republicans forget that the price of labor is a price within a price -- sometimes allowing large wage hikes at minimal product price hike (if the price of labor has been underpaid for a long time). I call this the magnifier effect (cab driver econ). Card and Kruger showed that fast food (highest labor costs, lowest wage starting point) sale grew after minimum wage raises.

      What could these raises have been: a dollar or two? 20% X 33% fast food labor costs? Adding 5-6% to fast food prices? But the same wage hike hit businesses with only 10-15% wage costs -- adding negligible to their prices -- but a lot to the wages of fast food customers: the magnifier effect.

      The eighth-grade math: 50% of the workforce averaging $8,000 raise ($15 being the 45 percentile wage + 5 percent getting full $16,000)= 75 million employees X $8,000 = $600 billion = about 4% shift of GDP to raise almost half the country to $30,000 a year. What were they doing below that anyway?! 4% is how much we grow every couple of years -- save more than that on jails, etc. -- half the country better educated, more productive economy in the long run.

      Just run these two commercials until they sink in (what Obama gets paid to do for free) -- the Republicans will never be the same. Go on saying nothing beyond hanging on to the Democrats paltry past :

      : Obamacare that leaves tens of millions out -- too expensive for many;
      General support for some kind of minimum wage hike (min now several dollars below 1968 -- double per capita income later!)
      Hang on to SS, Medicare, Medicaid;
      Hang on to Dodd-Frank;
      Nothing to say about the defining economic -- and political -- pathology of our time: de-unionization. Nothing to wake voters out of their deep sleep and rouse them to the polls and nothing will ever change.

      Sandwichman:

      "Restoring the Public's Trust in Economists"?

      Why would you want to do a silly thing like that? Sort of like restoring People's Temple members' appetite for kool-aide.

      Why not restore members of the public's capacity to THINK FOR THEMSELVES, instead?

      Syaloch -> Sandwichman:

      Having individuals think for themselves is well and good, but in most cases it's simply not possible or practical for the general public to be as well informed about a subject as scientists with graduate-level training who study it every day. That's why trustable experts are needed.

      Sandwichman -> Syaloch:

      There is such a thing as learned incapacity, too. There are quite a few bits of cult belief that circulate amongst those so-called "scientists" with graduate level training that wouldn't occur to the general public. I mean weird stuff that hearkens back to late 18th century polemics against mercantalism and fascination with mechanical analogies.

      "There is an INFINITE amount of work to be done!"

      No, there isn't, there is only as much work to be done as can be PAID FOR.

      "There is a BUILT-IN MECHANISM that ensures we will never exhaust natural resources."

      Nope. There is more than one "built-in mechanism" and they produce contradictory outcomes. Exchange is reversible in principle, at least. but PRODUCTION is not.

      "A change is a potential Pareto improvement if the winners could compensate the losers."

      No, no, no, no. The claim is based on a same yardstick fallacy.

      "Economic Growth is at the heart of Keynesian economics."

      Uh-uh. Keynes was dead two years when Leon Keyserling launched the growth-pimp swindle.

      Sandwichman -> Sandwichman:

      Kenneth Galbraith:

      "The Council of Economic Advisers became in turn, a platform for expounding the Keynesian view of the economy and it was brought promptly Into use. Leon Keyserling, as an original member and later chairman, was a tireless exponent of the ideas. And he saw at an early stage the importance of enlarging them to embrace not only the prevention of depression but the maintenance of an adequate rate of economic expansion. Thus in a decade had the revolut1on spread."

      Leon Keyserling:

      "Coming over to economic growth in particular, everybody talks about the influence of Keynesian economics. The Keynesian economics is really a static economics. It doesn't deal with economic growth at all. Furthermore, it was developed at a time of worldwide depression. Even Ken Galbraith, in an article in the New York Times a couple of years ago, when he was talking about the influence of Keynesian economics, mentioned me specifically as the one who had introduced the fundamental new factor of the dynamics of economic growth."

      pgl:

      Google Master JohnH pulls another one out of his ass. A cherry picked quote from Stiglitz that JohnH abuses to suggest that the FED never considers income inequality. Janet Yellen - current head of the FED - begs to differ:

      http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2015/04/02/yellen-economic-inequality-long-an-interest-of-the-fed/

      And of course Stiglitz would strongly blast the gold bug nonsense from JohnH as well as the Cameron fiscal austerity that JohnH hearts. Who to believe - the very smart Janet Yellen or the serial piss ant known as JohnH?

      JohnH -> pgl:

      Wow two speeches (now three) in eight years about inequality!!! That's what I call lip service.

      "'Economic inequality has long been of interest within the Federal Reserve System,' [Yellen] said, citing a 2007 speech by then-Chairman Ben Bernanke on the matter. Her own speech last October was in that same tradition, she said."

      I'll believe Stiglitz on this one: "standard macroeconomic models don't even recognize that the distribution of income matters, and so it's not surprising that the Fed in its policies has often seemed oblivious to the distributional implications of its decisions." (The Price of Inequality)

      pgl -> JohnH:

      You have not read what Yellen has written. If you did - you might know something besides how to attack people. Have Cameron give his pitbull cheerleader a new bone.

      pgl:

      Rather than wasting one's time listening to JohnH's blovating about how we need to screw the overall economy with tight money if we care about income inequality, here's something from a couple of folks who actually understand economics. James Kwak goes back and reads Lawrence Summers:

      http://baselinescenario.com/2015/05/19/over-at-medium-the-importance-of-taxing-capital/

      Part of what Summers noted was:

      http://larrysummers.com/2015/05/04/okuns-equality-and-efficiency

      "At present, when zero interest rates make capital costs as low as they have ever been but corporate profits are at record levels, there needs to be much less concern with capital costs and more concern with the distributional aspects of capital taxation."

      This is an insight you'd never get from Greg Mankiw's blog!

      pgl:

      A nice review of Stiglitz's Price of Inequality. Check it out as JohhH is incredibly misrepresenting Stiglitz's book to claim that Stiglitz agrees with JohnH's gold bug insanity:

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/08/05/books/review/the-price-of-inequality-by-joseph-e-stiglitz.html?_r=0

      Quite the contrary - Stiglitz wants us to get back to full employment. He prefers using fiscal stimulus. JohnH hearts Cameron's fiscal austerity. Stiglitz in the past has been critical for pulling the plug on monetary stimulus but this is exactly what gold bug JohnH advocates.

      JohnH once again cherry picks a quote out of context to misrepresent what someone had said. But that is all JohnH is good for.

      JohnH -> pgl:

      Maybe you should read the book. Quotes are from Stiglitz's criticism of macroeconomics and the Fed.

      pgl -> JohnH:

      PeterK got this right. Another out of context cherry picked quote. FYI - Krugman just called you a right winger. Check it out!

      Matt Young:

      "Republicans will mostly line up on one side of the issue, while economists who are Democrats mostly take the other."
      ------------

      Here is a clue, hard to get, but let me help. Two groups, Dem and Repub. Having that distinction, thinking it matters and making it part of the theory then, right away, we have bad economics.

      pgl -> Matt Young:

      Bad economics? Boy Bot has bad programming. Babble on!

      Matt Young:

      Is the economy stationary? - Jérémie Cohen-Setton
      ------
      Take this post for example. This is about one thing, economists are acknowledging that the economy cycles at eight year presidential elections with an 85% probability. If you just say presidential elections, then it is a 90% probability. We are now undergoing a slow down right on schedule.


      Now, I wath who sees the pattern. A lot of economists see it, but of public intellectuals, I count actually two who can say the words out loud, Jerry Brown mentions it and Roger Farmer brings it up.

      That is the problem right there, cyclic behavior in aggregate statistics are topic number three, I think, in most probability classes. But, just now, after looking and staring at the obvious evidence for six years, economists can see the grey bar pattern? This is not theory, this is something very fundamentally wrong with economics, a very deep fraud.

      Matt Young:

      Let me go on.
      In the Southwest we have two economies, Texas and California in the top 20 largest economies in the world. There major foreign policy concern is trade with Mexico. Probably 4% of the ballot isses on the voting booth out here are federal votes, and about 65% of the issues are non-partison local measures. Yet one of the two behemoths is solidly Republican, the other solidly Democrat; and neither has any real voice in the Senate.

      Yet, this amazing and obvious condition is not even up for study at UC Berkeley, which is supposed to be one of the top political economic schools. Nor will you see this studied at Harvard, which should know better. And now we discover that DC cycles, an obvious connection needing to be studied. We have conscious fraud in the economic sciences. It pervades almost every large economic school, except UCLA and UCSD, from my limited look. (There are many economic schools not so fraudulent, I cannot count them all.)

      [May 21, 2015] Crude oil is surging

      "...How we can have a glut of oil one week and the next we don't ."
      "...I really enjoy reading all the expert opinions on oil. One says it will plummet, another says it will surge, and another says it will stay steady. What are these people "experts" of? It can't be oil or they would all say the exact same thing. "

      Crude oil is having a big day. West Texas Intermediate crude oil rallied by more than 3% to cross back above the $60 per barrel mark. On Wednesday, the Energy Information Administration said that crude inventories fell by 2.7 million barrels last week.

      It was the third straight week of declines in inventories, which have seen a huge swell in recent months to the highest levels in at least 80 years. Earlier this week, we highlighted comments from Morgan Stanley, noting that following the oil crash, drillers are now prioritizing profitability over their output of barrels.

      Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, was also higher, up by more than 2%. Here's a chart showing the jump in WTI...

      mad man

      I can't understand, as everyone of us that are not greedy SOB's. How we can have a glut of oil one week and the next we don't . I wouldn't leave this country for another , I'll stand and fight for what we had in the past!

      We have to rid this county of the #$%$S that think they are running it! Dem.'s or GOP's are all #$%$'s! . This is not for the PEOPLE BY PEOPLE any more. WE ALL have to try and fix it .

      H e

      Crude is surging because the US dollar has no backbone anymore and losing it's world's reserve currency status.

      okeydokey

      Market manipulation. Nothing more. As for Business Insider, this is a propaganda rag.

      heybert17

      I really enjoy reading all the expert opinions on oil. One says it will plummet, another says it will surge, and another says it will stay steady. What are these people "experts" of? It can't be oil or they would all say the exact same thing.

      [May 19, 2015]Oil Prices Will Fall A Lesson In Gravity

      The problem with this line of thinking is that people are betting that real price of oil extraction is higher then the current level. And such long bets are in itself is a powerful factor that limit speculators flexibility and ability to short the "paper oil". There is strong evidence that "peak cheap oil" is upon us, so the current situation can be only temporary. What "temporary" means here is unclear, but as Herbert Stein put it "If something cannot go on forever, it will stop," This saying is applicable to low oil prices, if "peak cheap oil" hypothesis is right.
      May 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Submitted by Arthur Berman via OilPrice.com,

      The oil price collapse is not over yet. It is more likely that the Brent price could fall back into the mid-$50 range than that it will continue to rise toward $70 per barrel.

      That is because oil prices have risen based on sentiment alone. The fundamentals of supply and demand indicate a dismal reality: oil prices will fall and may fall hard in the near term.

      Our present situation is like that of the cartoon character Wile E. Coyote. He routinely ran off of a cliff and as long as he didn't look down, everything was fine. But as soon as he looked down and saw that there was no ground beneath him, he fell. Hope and momentum cannot overcome gravity.

      Neither can ignoring the data.

      When I look down from $60 WTI and almost $68 Brent, I see no support except sentiment. Like Wile E. Coyote, we need a gravity lesson about oil prices. What goes up for no reason, will come down sooner than later and it may fall hard.

      Let's examine the facts.

      The principal reason for the oil-price collapse is a production surplus–more supply than demand for oil. The latest data from EIA (Figure 2) indicates that the surplus is the greatest since the current oil-price collapse began. In other words, the cause of the price collapse is getting worse, not better!

      The latest data from IEA indicates that the production surplus in first quarter of 2015 is the greatest of the last decade and much greater than during the 4 previous quarters (Figure 3).

      With data like this from EIA and IEA, how can anyone be optimistic that even higher oil prices may be coming? How can anyone say that the price increase in recent months has any relationship to reality whatsoever?

      Both IEA and OPEC offered grave concerns about persistent over-supply in their recent monthly reports that seem to have been ignored or dismissed in the jubilance of higher oil prices.

      Analysts may be hopeful that the drop in U.S. rig counts–which has almost stopped in the last two weeks–will result in a decrease in tight oil production. I believe that is true but the U.S. is not the world and the world continues to add production.

      With somewhat higher prices, some tight oil producers like EOG say they are ready to aggressively grow production again if prices stabilize around $65 per barrel. If other producers do the same, so much for the as-yet-to-be seen production decline from lower rig counts.

      Many point to signs of increased oil demand because of low product prices as a positive trend. I agree, but as long as production is growing faster than consumption, we have an over-supply problem.

      I hope that the rebound in oil prices over the past two months is sustainable and that prices continue to rise. But hope doesn't count much for very long in global markets. The data so far says that the problem that moved prices to almost $40 per barrel in January has only gotten worse. That means that recent gains may vanish and old lows might be replaced by lower lows.

      Wile E. Coyote never learned the lesson of gravity but that was in a cartoon. This is real.


      junction

      In the spring of 2008, oil spiked to near $140 a barrel. Then, I read that an expert said that oil should be trading at $65 a barrel, that the higher price was market manipulation. In short order, as the Wall Street collapse took hold, oil's barrel price dropped by over a $100, to about $38 a barrel by September. That $65 a barrel price is still what the benchmark price should be. The problem for frackers is that at $65, frackers can't make any profits.

      Serfs Up

      Also the other problem for frackers was they couldn't make any positive free cash flows with oil at $100.

      papaya

      It's not just frackers, but producers from oil sands, too.
      Not even 10 years ago, teh Saudi's claimed that their economy required a minimum of $80 /bbl for crude.

      MSimon

      I think they require $70 a bbl now to keep their oil socialism afloat.

      LawsofPhysics

      The planet seemed to do just fine and there was plenty of water before all humanity starting extracting all that oil. What the fuck are you talking about? What is oil? Oil is in fact consumable calories and reduced hydrocarbons. The fact is, these are very useful things, especially when it comes to maintaining a high standard of living.

      Niall Of The Nine Hostages

      Well, of course oil prices will never recover! Goldman told us so! Goldman wouldn't lie, would they?

      In any case, in markets surpluses are self-correcting. The North American shale oil industry has essentially collapsed, leaving more room for dirty Muslim oil to take its place....

      Paul451

      Summer stock gasoline (lower reid vapor pressure so your car's fuel system doesn't vapor lock) means an automatic price increase this time of year.

      Most/all price pressure (if there is actually such a thing anymore) on crude is down. As long as The Crazies are running the Middle East asylum, the price will not hit absolute bottom. Risk has to be incorporated into the price somehow.

      [May 17, 2015] This May Just Be The Start Of The Oil Price War Says IEA

      05/16/2015 | Zero Hedge
      Submitted by Andy Tully via OilPrice.com,

      Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi may be one of the most powerful individuals in the global oil industry. After all, as the top oil official in arguably the world's most influential oil-producing country, he has enormous influence.

      But for all his power, is he the most ingenious? That question arises from the release of two reports on the current state of the oil industry that look at whether or not OPEC's strategy of forcing US shale to cut back is succeeding.

      The first, issued on May 12 by OPEC, says, in essence, that Saudi Arabia's effort to keep its own oil production at near-record highs is succeeding in wresting market share back from US producers of shale oil, also called "light, tight oil" (LTO). The second, issued a day later by the International Energy Agency (IEA), agrees, but only up to a point.

      "In the supposed standoff between OPEC and U.S. light tight oil (LTO), LTO appears to have blinked," the IEA reported. "Following months of cost cutting and a 60 percent plunge in the U.S. rig count, the relentless rise in U.S. supply seems to be finally abating."

      But the report from the Paris-based IEA, which advises 29 industrialized countries on energy policy, also pointed to a rebound in oil prices that could benefit US shale producers.

      As both the OPEC and IEA reports point out, the decline in US shale oil output has somewhat reduced the oil glut and led oil prices to rally up to about $65 per barrel. And the IEA adds that this brings LTO back above the threshold where its production becomes profitable again.

      But that, evidently, isn't good enough for both domestic and foreign shale drillers in the United States, and this is where ingenuity enters the picture. "Several large LTO producers have been boasting of achieving large reductions in production costs in recent weeks," the report said.

      For example, Statoil, Norway's huge state-owned energy company, is trying out new techniques of hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, in Texas' Eagle Ford shale field. They include using different grades of sand to mix with water and chemicals, and drilling at varying depths, to increase oil yields.

      "There's a proverb in Norway that says necessity teaches the naked woman how to knit," Bjorn Otto Sverdrup, a Statoil vice president, told The New York Times, during a tour of the company's shale operations in Kennedy, Texas.

      Evidently this mother of invention is showing some success. Statoil may have cut the number of its rigs at Eagle Ford from three to two in 2014, but its production from the shale field is up by one-third. The new fracking method has also cut the cost of extraction from an average of $4.5 million per well to $3.5 million, in part because it's been able to reduce drilling time from an average of 21 days to 17.

      Against this backdrop, then, it's not surprising that the IEA isn't so sure that OPEC in general, and al-Naimi in particular, have the upper hand – yet. "It would thus be premature to suggest that OPEC has won the battle for market share," the agency's report said. "The battle, rather, has just started."

      [May 17, 2015] An update on oil prices by Bill McBride

      May 16, 2015 | Calculated Risk
      Demand for gasoline has picked up significantly recently. In February, U.S. vehicle miles driven hit a new all time high. Gasoline prices have increased too (although some of the increase was due to refinery problems).

      From the LA Times: Four-dollar gasoline returns to the L.A. area

      On Friday, the average for a gallon of regular in the Los Angeles area was higher than $4 for the first time since July, according to daily fuel price reports by AAA and GasBuddy.com. The recent surge in regional fuel prices has left local drivers paying more on average than motorists anywhere else in the U.S.

      Analysts attributed the rise to a supply pinch caused by problems at the state's refineries, and predicted relief may not arrive in time for Memorial Day weekend road trips.

      Oil Prices

      Click on graph for larger image

      This graph shows WTI and Brent spot oil prices from the EIA. (Prices Friday added). According to Bloomberg, WTI was at $59.69 per barrel on Friday, and Brent at $66.81

      Prices have increased sharply off the recent bottom, but are still down 40%+ year-over-year.

      KidPsych wrote on Sat, 5/16/2015 - 7:52 pm

      Stop sanitizing the history of the run-up to Iraq War - The Washington Post

      But a real accounting of what happened does not end with the question that has temporarily made life so miserable for Jeb Bush. Josh Marshall suggests today that Jeb's latest concession is only the beginning, and might lead to an open-ended discussion of the real mistakes - if that's even the right word - that were made in the run-up to Iraq. I hope so. But I'm not optimistic. Neither party - and let's not even get started on the role news organizations played in that whole tale - has a real interest in seeing that happen.

      KidPsych wrote on Sat, 5/16/2015 - 8:07 pm

      Citigroup says it's too early to start fighting bubbles - MarketWatch

      A potential theme this time around could center on the idea of "secular stagnation," a condition in which growth, inflation and interest rate are persistently low.

      "Within the equity market, stagnating economies might encourage investors to pay inflated prices for those companies which offer premium growth. Perhaps this is why biotech companies and Internet plays currently trade on high valuations," they write. "Elsewhere, low interest rates may encourage investors to pay up for shares which offer high and/or growing dividends."

      Ample liquidity is also a prerequisite for bubbles. This time around, there is no shortage thanks to aggressive easing by global central banks (see chart below).

      Then there is business and career risk, the strategists noted, recalling a client who described a bubble as "something I get fired for not owning."

      [May 17, 2015]Dumping only works if you destroy, buy or otherwise acquire control on your competitor s

      astabada, May 14, 2015 at 9:06 pm
      This article is from Sputnik News.

      Six months ago, OPEC, led by Saudi Arabia, announced a surprising decision to counter rivals' energy production. Instead of cutting back on oil production to match global demand, member states would hold steady.

      […] by flooding the market, global prices would plunge, and more high-priced competitors would be forced to respond. The main target, US shale companies, would hopefully collapse as they were forced to cut spending.

      Six months later, the plan seems to be working.

      Well done Saudi Arabia, well done. Except oil is a finite resource, so US oil (and Venezuelan, Russian, Iranian oil, …) are still there, and eventually will get sold at even higher prices.

      Dumping works if you destroy, buy or otherwise acquire control on your competitors.

      If you had ten canvas from van Gogh, would you sell them at half price to prevent your competitors from selling theirs?

      If you answered yes to the above question, congratulations! You are eligible to be Oil Minister of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia! Contact us immediately (please outside lunch hours).

      [May 15, 2015] Is Saudi Arabia Drowning Rivals in Oversupply?

      If so that's a pretty ricky game for Saudis. Do they really want to burn their dollar reserves ? If yes, why ?
      May 13, 2015 | Barrons.com

      West Texas Intermediate crude futures fell 0.8% to $60.25 a barrel in recent trading, according to FactSet. That's after prices rose as high as $61.85 earlier on Wednesday. United States Oil Fund (USO) and the iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (OIL) declined by 0.2%.

      The FT reports that the kingdom's production rose to a record 10.3 million barrels a day in April, and that the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has shown no signs of reversing course at next month's meeting. What's more, the FT quotes the Saudi official saying that the country wishes to "extend the age of oil."

      ... ... ...

      After collapsing under the weight of global oversupply last year into March, oil prices have rebounded strongly, nearly 40% since bottoming in the middle of March.

      Market watchers are divided about what's in store for oil from here. Some, such as oil entrepreneurs T. Boone Pickens are bullish that prices will continue to rebound into the end of this year. Goldman Sachs warned on Tuesday that the market could be in for a double-dip drop.

      [May 15, 2015] Gas Price Charts

      May 15, 2015 | GasBuddy.com

      [May 15, 2015] Dear Bureau Of Labor Statistics, About Those Plunging Gasoline Prices...

      May 15, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      One of the major reasons for yesterday's market surge to new record highs was the surprise drop and miss in the April wholesale inflation report, or rather make that deflation, when the BLS announced that PPI in April had dropped by 0.4%, far below expectation of a 0.1% increase, of which the BLS said "over 30 percent can be attributed to the index for gasoline, which decreased 4.7 percent."

      The implication, of course, being that with the US drifting ever further from the Fed's desired 2% inflation threshold, not only is the probability of a June rate hike negligible, but the last time US macro data was this bad, the Fed launched QE2 (and Operation Twist... and QE3).

      Which is all great, we just have one question for the BLS: just what "data" are you looking at?

      Because a quick reality check reveals April gasoline prices not only did not drop 4.7%, they rose by 8%!

      stocker84

      Gasoline prices are not efficient. One block $2.59 Mobile unleaded 87 octane... the next block $2.79 Mobile unleaded 87 octane.

      I use Gas Buddy... as efficient as it will get until most people start using it. App on android and iPhone... probably on windows phone, too. Drive to lowest/nearest gas station and that alone will drive the price down another 10%. Wishful thinking.....because we're in a world of mindless zombies, but the rest of us can do our part.

      China has surpassed the US in gasoline consumption? When that house of cards collapses, we'll see gasoline under $2 a gallon.

      [May 14, 2015] Russia crisis to hit ex-Soviet states harder than expected EBRD

      In Ukraine, whose economy has been drained by the deadly separatist conflict in the country's east, "GDP is now expected to shrink by 7.5 percent this year -- a worsening outlook since January, when a five percent contraction was forecast," the EBRD said.

      Mike

      Ukraine's economy is not only being drained by the separatist war in the east, but the lack of work, foreign investment and the returning of thousands of Ukraine workers who live/work in Russia (just like other workers who have had to returned home to other ex-Soviet republics, something is not being mentioned here in the case of Ukraine) but the jobs have dried up do to the sanctions imposed by the West.

      Real

      That's exactly what Washington wanted -- weaken the economy and stability of Russia's neighboring countries to damage Russia in a long run.

      [May 12, 2015] Crude Prices 'Spike' Despite Saudis Increasing 'Surge' Production

      May 12, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      As Barclays recently noted, there is a complete decoupling between futures and physical markets for crude oil and nowhere is that more evident than the high volume spike in crude that just happened after Saudi Arabia boosted crude production for a second month to the highest level in at least three decades, helping to raise OPEC output as U.S. growth showed signs of slowing.

      As Bloomberg reports,

      Saudi Arabia boosted crude production for a second month to the highest level in at least three decades, helping to raise OPEC output as U.S. growth showed signs of slowing.

      The Middle Eastern country increased daily crude output by 13,700 barrels in April to an average of 10.308 million, according to data the country communicated to the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries' secretariat in Vienna.

      Prices collapsed by almost half last year as Saudi Arabia led OPEC in maintaining production rather than cede market share to booming U.S. output. The group has become more unified about keeping its daily output target of 30 million barrels because prices are now rising, according to Kuwait's oil minister. Oil in New York has surged more than 40 percent from its March low amid as U.S. drillers pulled a record number of rigs from fields.

      "The Saudis must be content that their policy of protecting their market share has worked so well and prices did not stay below $50 for long," said Christopher Bellew, senior broker at Jefferies International Ltd. in London, who had not seen the report. "They held their nerve and now see a stable market with their share preserved."

      ...

      OPEC maintained projections for supply growth from oil producers outside the group in 2015 at 680,000 barrels a day. It also kept its 2015 estimate for demand for the group's crude at 29.3 million barrels a day. That's about 1.5 million barrels a day less than the group produced in April.

      Looney

      The Saudis are really pissed now. They are in the full tantrum mode. Within just a few years they went from Bush's dearest friend to Obama's bitch. ;-)

      Secret Weapon
      The Saudis can go fuck themselves in the neck. 9/11 Truth.
      samsara
      They were just the drivers in the crime, the CIA and Mossad via dual citizenship Americans were the brains of the crime....

      samsara

      "...Saudi Arabia boosted crude production for a second month to the highest level in at least three decades..."

      SA has seen the writing on the wall, Their tenure is almost up, and anticipate losing control of the infrastructure.

      They are pumping out, and Cashing OUT as fast as they can.

      Making as much as they can while they can before they are overthrown and move to a 'Safe Place" somewhere.

      To know what I mean, look at this story.

      Iran Responds To US Naval Escalation, Sends Warship Escort For Yemen Aid Vessel

      [May 12, 2015] Goldman Fears Crude Oil's Self-Defeating Rally

      Zero Hedge

      Market rebalancing derailed by price rally...

      The oil market rebalancing has started: weak prices in 1Q15 pushed producers to cut capex while supporting demand. This led to a recovery in prices further fueled by relief that US crude stocks would not breach capacity, strong demand and rising Middle East tensions. The rise in prices was further supported by oil screening as cheap relative to E&P equities, drawing cross-asset investors into buying crude.

      TheBoyPlunger

      Goldman was calling for $30 crude on March 11, so I'd say their credibility on this topic is as close to zero as posible: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102496363

      Captain Debtcrash

      Not to mention they didn't say anything about the drop from 100 happening, but that doesn't mean they didn't see it coming. Their credibility never existed to me.

      This is the root cause of the drop in oil prices. It will take 18-24 months before there is a real cut in supply to support prices.

      mcsean2163

      Goldman say sell, so that is a buy signal. I wish the released this back at $50 when I was considering buying!

      Downtoolong

      Wait a minute, is this the same Goldman that said oil was going below $40 when it was last at $45?

      Yep, that's the one.

      "One day, one day", said the blind squirrel, "I'm going to find me a pine nut".

      adr

      Well Goldman is correct, but that doesn't matter since speculators looking for a quick buck piled into paper oil.

      Look at the oil chart since January, is that type of movement supposed to be normal?

      The world market is flooded with oil. The Chinese are buying as much as they can for storage, not for use.

      But, since all the contracts are correlated and gasoline futures never caught down to oil, they skyrocketed to a higher price than they have ever been compared to a barrel of oil. $3.00+ gasoline on $60 oil is insane.

      [May 12, 2015] How Much Longer Can The Oil Age Last

      Zero Hedge

      El Vaquero

      "With little or no pollution, renewables like solar, wind and biofuels are viewed by many as a means to curtail the rising greenhouse emissions and replace oil as a sustainable alternative."

      Bull fucking shit! It takes oil to mine the materials used to make "renewables" like solar and wind, and it takes oil to transport them and it takes coal/nat gas/nuclear to process those materials. Then they wear out. You aren't going to run a 30' tall dump truck in a mine on solar. And biofuels are limited by the (in)efficiency of photosynthesis. Renewables are only as renewable as the equipment used to harvest them.

      gwar5

      Zactly!

      Just one wind farm kills more birds in a year than the Gulf Oil Spill did. Biofuels are a joke -- they burn up human food and just create CO2 before the plants have a chance to become fossils, and biofuels without massive subsidies (that could go to mass transit instead) could not exist. Solar panels require strip mining and huge upfront costs for a system is the same as 15 years of utility bills and you still can't really run your heater and range with them.

      Matt

      "You aren't going to run a 30' tall dump truck in a mine on solar. "

      You could, if you ran all your equipment on overhead lines, like trolleys and trams. The bigger problem, as I see it, is the implementations. Switching from DC to AC has losses. Storing solar power in batteries brings them down to nearly a net loss.

      The windmills, they use cheap cement and tempered steel rebars. The base weighs several thousand tons, the mast another couple thousand tons, and the whole assembly needs to be replaced in less than 50 years. So you need thousands of tons of new steel and cement, instead of using galvanized rebar and hydrophobic cement so only the moving parts need regular replacement.

      In the end, we end up burning 10 years worth of coal and oil to try to get some energy for 20 years. If you double total energy, that's supposed to be pretty good. Madness.

      Totentänzerlied

      First point: photosynthesis is one the most efficient energetic processes known to science. It puts anything manmade and petroleum-related to complete and total shame.

      The issue is not that you would need to convert your entire economic infrastructure away from oil eventually (sooner or later). The issue is simply that you need a certain margin of net-energy in your civilization. The problem here is, no one has any really good data on the true energy efficiency of a modern society, so any comparison to a hypothetical renewables economy is mostly guesses which tend to be biased toward petroleum. The most one can say safely is that it's highly doubtful current renewables could be a drop-in replacement and the economics would work out. But that's not the real problem, which is that new energy sources are not the solution to staggeringly wasteful energy use (unless you're a neo-Keynesian).

      You probably can't have happy motoring and sprawling suburbs with any kind of renewables technology that will be available in the next century. But that's just begging the question that happy motoring and sprawling suburbs are sacrosanct and must be preserved. Anyone who believes that isn't worth listening to. Humans actually can survive without one 5 ton vehicle, n-thousand square feet of retail floor space, and a quarter to a half of a 4,000 square foot McMansion per person - most of the world already (still) does.

      This is why almost all mainstream environmentalism is facile garbage - its entire raison d'etre is "preserve American middle-class suburbia at all costs".

      PS: Just in case I haven't pissed off enough readers, in the interest of completeness, nuclear fission CAN get the job done for a few thousand years, and most discussions about contamination/pollution conveniently ignore the enormous pollution of fossil fuels. The real issue here is that human voters cannot be trusted to demand and enforce safe nuclear energy as has been made absolutely and categorically clear over the past half-century.

      skbull44

      A couple of concerns in this article over an assumption stated as definitive fact and what appears to be an oxymoronic conclusion.

      First, to state "...With little or no pollution, renewables like solar, wind and biofuels..." completely ignores the production and distribution costs of these alternatives. From the mineral extractions processes, to manufacturing, to the transportation of all the components and end-product, and the ongoing maintenance of these alternatives, there are some good arguments to be made that they are actually more carbon intensive than fossil fuels. For example, in another article published today, the following statement is made: "...A more critical analysis shows that the cumulative energy and CO2 balance of the industry is negative, meaning that solar PV has actually increased energy use and greenhouse gas emissions instead of lowering them...." (http://www.lowtechmagazine.com/2015/04/how-sustainable-is-pv-solar-power...).

      Second, to argue "...that the age of oil isn't ending anytime soon, at least not in the next 30 years...." after just stating that "...when we analyze past oil price trends, we find that volatility related to geopolitical equations, speculations, wars, economic sanctions and climate change have always kept the global energy markets guessing about the future...." seems to be oxymoronic. Oil and gas are finite resources and their age must come to an end sometime; when that ending occurs is anybody's guess and it could be before three decades passes. In fact, there are a number of analysts who argue it will occur sooner rather than later. No one really knows and it will not likely be a 'smooth transition' to 'renewables' since there aren't enough resources to manufacture them to replace the edifice created by oil/gas anyways.
      http://olduvai.ca

      UrbanBard

      The quantity of Oil in the world is finite, in the same way that water in the ocean is finite. Unbelievably enormous, but limited. At some price, it makes sense to drill and produce oil. The world is not even close to running out.

      Our situation is that the demand for oil is down, because the world economy is in the toilet. Supply is up because of fracking. Improvements in technology will make it possible to frack oil at today's price.

      The current low price for oil will use up existing supplies above ground. Oil in the Mideast will dry up sooner, thus reducing their influence on the world. A glut in the US is likely to nudge congress into allowing export to Europe. This will cause Europe to stop being so obsequious to the Mideast.

      Alternative energy is not viable yet. It is foolish to spend money on it until the technology improves. If the Environmentalist really opposed oil they wouldn't oppose Nuclear power plants.

      FrankIvy

      I thought 5 years ago that we would have had irreversible price spikes by now. Shale oil bought us a few years. Happy to have oil at a cheap price for the 20 or 30 years I have left, but I don't expect it. Hope I'm wrong going forward. 10$ a gallon gas would suck.

      Back when oil went to 140 in '08, gasoline was at about 4. Today, we have 60$ oil and we are at about 3 for gasoline. Odd market.

      BTW - there are no such thing as renewables - they are all fossil fuel derivatives.

      Magooo

      Fucking MORON!

      Replacement of oil by alternative sources

      While oil has many other important uses (lubrication, plastics, roadways, roofing) this section considers only its use as an energy source. The CMO is a powerful means of understanding the difficulty of replacing oil energy by other sources. SRI International chemist Ripudaman Malhotra, working with Crane and colleague Ed Kinderman, used it to describe the looming energy crisis in sobering terms.[13] Malhotra illustrates the problem of producing one CMO energy that we currently derive from oil each year from five different alternative sources. Installing capacity to produce 1 CMO per year requires long and significant development.

      Allowing fifty years to develop the requisite capacity, 1 CMO of energy per year could be produced by any one of these developments:

      • 4 Three Gorges Dams,[14] developed each year for 50 years, or
      • 52 nuclear power plants,[15] developed each year for 50 years, or
      • 104 coal-fired power plants,[16] developed each year for 50 years, or
      • 32,850 wind turbines,[17][18] developed each year for 50 years, or
      • 91,250,000 rooftop solar photovoltaic panels[19] developed each year for 50 years

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oil

      Magooo

      Renewable energy 'simply won't work': Top Google engineers

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2014/11/21/renewable_energy_simply_wont_work_google_renewables_engineers/

      http://techcrunch.com/2011/11/23/google-gives-up-on-green-tech-investment-initiative-rec/

      Two highly qualified Google engineers who have spent years studying and trying to improve renewable energy technology have stated quite bluntly that whatever the future holds, it is not a renewables-powered civilisation: such a thing is impossible.

      Both men are Stanford PhDs, Ross Koningstein having trained in aerospace engineering and David Fork in applied physics. These aren't guys who fiddle about with websites or data analytics or "technology" of that sort: they are real engineers who understand difficult maths and physics, and top-bracket even among that distinguished company.

      Even if one were to electrify all of transport, industry, heating and so on, so much renewable generation and balancing/storage equipment would be needed to power it that astronomical new requirements for steel, concrete, copper, glass, carbon fibre, neodymium, shipping and haulage etc etc would appear.

      All these things are made using mammoth amounts of energy: far from achieving massive energy savings, which most plans for a renewables future rely on implicitly, we would wind up needing far more energy, which would mean even more vast renewables farms – and even more materials and energy to make and maintain them and so on. The scale of the building would be like nothing ever attempted by the human race.

      In reality, well before any such stage was reached, energy would become horrifyingly expensive – which means that everything would become horrifyingly expensive (even the present well-under-one-per-cent renewables level in the UK has pushed up utility bills very considerably).

      Or in other words - solar panels and batteries and windmills don't grow on trees.

      [May 12, 2015] Shale Revolver Raids To Resume In October When Rubber Meets The Road For HY Energy

      Zero Hedge

      Now that the defaults and bankruptcies have begun, and now that David Einhorn has jumped on the bandwagon (coining a new word in the process), , it's time for banks to start taking a hard look at just how bad the fallout will be once hedges start rolling off and more weak hands are shaken out of the HY oil & gas space.

      As we discussed at the beginning of last month, the "revolver raids" have already begun for some heavily indebted US shale companies who were set to see their credit lines cut after banks performed their bi-annual review in April, which is based on where crude has traded over the preceding 12 months. Those credit lines will be assessed again in October and according to a UBS survey of the banks who have helped finance the oil & gas industry, the outlook is not good, with nearly two-thirds of respondents indicating that loan quality is likely to deteriorate. No one said they expected conditions to improve and more than 80% of banks reported tightening credit lines to oil & gas companies.

      For its part, UBS believes the "rubber will meet the road" for the HY energy in H2 as energy prices likely will not be high enough to support "lower quality" players.

      [May 08, 2015] Power The Essence of Corrupt Banking and Politics Is to Grow and Control the Debt

      May 04, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain

      "Events have satisfied my mind, and I think the minds of the American people, that the mischiefs and dangers which flow from a national [central] bank far over-balance all its advantages. The bold effort the present bank has made to control the Government, the distresses it has wantonly produced, the violence of which it has been the occasion in one of our cities famed for its observance of law and order, are but premonitions of the fate which awaits the American people should they be deluded into a perpetuation of this institution or the establishment of another like it."

      - Andrew Jackson, Sixth Annual Message, December 1, 1834

      "Another cause of today's instability is that we now have a society in America, Europe and much of the world which is totally dominated by the two elements of sovereignty that are not included in the state structure: control of credit and banking, and the corporation.

      These are free of political controls and social responsibility and have largely monopolized power in Western Civilization and in American society. They are ruthlessly going forward to eliminate land, labor, entrepreneurial-managerial skills, and everything else the economists once told us were the chief elements of production.

      The only element of production they are concerned with is the one they can control: capital."

      - Professor Carroll Quigley, Oscar Iden Lecture Series 3, 1976

      Money is power. And those who control the money, if they have the will for it, can use it as a means to incredible power, to create debt, and to control it, thereby controlling the debtors, both as individuals, as communities, as regions, and whole nations.

      This is the story of global trade deals, the Dollar, and the foul marriage between politics, money, and central banking. The more discretion and secrecy that is granted to those who create money and debt, the more vulnerable is the freedom of the people.

      This is the story of Cyprus, of Greece, and of the Ukraine.

      And there will be more.

      This will to power is as old as Babylon, and as evil as hell.

      "The powers of financial capitalism had another far-reaching aim, nothing less than to create a world system of financial control in private hands able to dominate the political system of each country and the economy of the world as a whole. This system was to be controlled in a feudalist fashion by the central banks of the world acting in concert, by secret agreements arrived at in frequent private meetings and conferences. The apex of the system was to be the Bank for International Settlements in Basle, Switzerland, a private bank owned and controlled by the world's central banks which were themselves private corporations.

      Each central bank, in the hands of men like Montagu Norman of the Bank of England, Benjamin Strong of the New York Federal Reserve Bank, Charles Rist of the Bank of France, and Hjalmar Schacht of the Reichsbank, sought to dominate its government by its ability to control Treasury loans, to manipulate foreign exchanges, to influence the level of economic activity in the country, and to influence cooperative politicians by subsequent economic rewards in the business world."

      Professor Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope, 1966


      "He promises you illumination, he offers you knowledge, science, philosophy, enlargement of mind. He scoffs at times gone by; he scoffs at every institution which reveres them.

      He prompts you what to say, and then listens to you, and praises you, and encourages you. He bids you mount aloft. He shows you how to become as gods.

      Then he laughs and jokes with you, and gets intimate with you; he takes your hand, and gets his fingers between yours, and grasps them, and then you are his."

      John Henry Newman

      Posted by Jesse at 8:03 PM

      Category: audacious oligarchy, central banks, debt slavery, Federal Reserve, financial corruption, modern monetary theory, money corruption, political corruption

      [May 08, 2015] Will oil prices keep rising. Signs say yes

      May 08, 2015 | usatoday.com

      Oil prices are up and could continue to see some strength coming from a very unlikely source: Eurozone growth.

      That's not a typo. The European Union published a forecast on May 5 that pointed to a higher rate of economic expansion in the months ahead on the back of monetary stimulus and low oil prices. The EU could see growth of 1.8%, an upward revision from its previous forecast in February of 1.7%. That is not exactly lightning-speed growth, but it is a solid performance for the debt-ridden continent that has been fighting off recession.

      Still, there is a massive hangover from the Eurozone crisis from the last few years – debt, high unemployment, banking fragility, and an unclear path forward. And, ironically, the improved outlook stemmed in part from low oil prices, but a stronger EU economy could contribute to higher oil prices. For the oil markets, a stronger European performance is an unlikely, but welcome, development.

      With all of the quarterly earnings in from the oil majors, there is one common thread that runs through all of the reports. Profits from upstream oil and gas production were way down for the first quarter in 2015, but the damage was largely mitigated by downstream refining, which saw a large boost in revenue. Lower oil prices provide a larger margin for refiners to sell their products. But with WTI trading at a discount, refiners earn a little extra – buying crude at a discounted (WTI) price, and selling their refined products at a higher global price (more closely linked to Brent). By and large, the oil majors have their fingers in a lot of pies, and robust downstream operations provide a hedge against lower oil prices. That is not the case with smaller upstream companies that are more singularly focused on extraction. Those are the companies that are clearly hurting much worse.

      ExxonMobil (XOM) saw its refining profits double even as its upstream activities suffered. BP (BP) saw downstream earnings more than double. Total (TOT) managed to triple its earnings from refining. And on it goes. Still, overall, profits for all the oil majors are down on balance, but the first quarter performances show the benefits of an integrated business model.

      Another strategy that oil producers are using to alleviate the damage done from low oil prices is through financial mechanisms. Hedging their production at stable price levels could keep losses at a certain level, even if it means putting a ceiling on potential profits. Reuters reported that oil producers are stepping up their hedging, locking in prices that allow them to sell oil within a range of between, say, $45 and $70 per barrel. If prices drop below $45, these companies would be protected. Still, that means that they would miss out on higher profits if prices jump above $70. But after a year of extreme volatility, an increasing number of companies find it beneficial to hedge their future production to ensure some stability.

      ... ... ...

      Russia continues to produce oil at a near-record rate. For the month of April, Russia produced 10.71 million barrels per day, a high in the post-Soviet era. The higher production is helping offset the decline in revenues from low prices and western sanctions. The Russian economy shrank by a painful 3.4% in March from the year before. The ruble has taken on a high degree of volatility, interest rates were jacked up to rein in inflation and capital flight, and government revenues have taken a hit. Russian President Vladimir Putin is surely breathing a sigh of relief with the recent uptick in oil prices, a rise of nearly 40% in the last few weeks. Brent is now trading above $66 per barrel, a level not seen since OPEC made its decision to leave its output unchanged last November.

      Russian officials are set to meet with their OPEC counterparts in early June, with discussions covering the possibility of a coordinated output cut. But there is little scope for Russia to cut back on its production, given the aforementioned economic struggles. Russia declined to cooperate last time around. However, having seen OPEC's resolve in the face of low oil prices in the intervening months since their last meeting, perhaps Russia will reconsider balking at coordination.

      OilPrice.com is a USA TODAY content partner offering oil and energy news and commentary. Its content is produced independently of USA TODAY.

      MORE: BP proves analysts wrong with better than expected earnings report

      MORE: We are witnessing a fundamental change in the oil sector

      MORE: Why the U.S. should worry about oil sector jobs

      US Shale Sector Crashes After David Einhorn Repeats What Everyone Knows Already

      Zero Hedge

      Greenlight's David Einhorn has come out swinging at the Fed-fueled fracking frenzy and, after pointing out facts that are extremely widely known, and have been explained innumerable times here, sent Shale stocks tumbling... led by the so-called "MotherFracker" - Pioneer Natural Resources... Einhorn concludes, "Either way the frackers are fracked."

      [May 04, 2015] Peak Oil Optimism

      Zero Hedge

      Speculative bets on rising Brent crude oil prices reached a new record last week but under the surface futures and options market positioning among managed money accounts is flashing a very red warning signal...

      As Saxobank's Ole Hanson notes, the long/short ratio has reached 6.4 meaning that for each lot of shorts more than 6 lots are long.

      Historically, this looks extreme and on three previous occasions since early 2013 a reading above 6 subsequently triggered sell-offs of which the most recent was last June when the price peaked at $115.

      [May 04, 2015] Stephen Roach Derides Central Bankers' Mass Delusion

      "...Indeed, notwithstanding the Fed's massive liquidity injection, the American consumer – who suffered the most during the wrenching balance-sheet recession of 2008-2009 – has not recovered. Real personal consumption expenditures have grown at just 1.4% annually over the last seven years. Unsurprisingly, the wealth effects of monetary easing worked largely for the wealthy, among whom the bulk of equity holdings are concentrated. For the beleaguered middle class, the benefits were negligible."
      May 04, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      Authored by Stephen Roach, originally posted at Project Syndicate,

      The world economy is in the grips of a dangerous delusion. As the great boom that began in the 1990s gave way to an even greater bust, policymakers resorted to the timeworn tricks of financial engineering in an effort to recapture the magic. In doing so, they turned an unbalanced global economy into the Petri dish of the greatest experiment in the modern history of economic policy. They were convinced that it was a controlled experiment. Nothing could be further from the truth.

      The rise and fall of post-World War II Japan heralded what was to come. The growth miracle of an ascendant Japanese economy was premised on an unsustainable suppression of the yen. When Europe and the United States challenged this mercantilist approach with the 1985 Plaza Accord, the Bank of Japan countered with aggressive monetary easing that fueled massive asset and credit bubbles.

      The rest is history. The bubbles burst, quickly bringing down Japan's unbalanced economy. With productivity having deteriorated considerably – a symptom that had been obscured by the bubbles – Japan was unable to engineer a meaningful recovery. In fact, it still struggles with imbalances today, owing to its inability or unwillingness to embrace badly needed structural reforms – the so-called "third arrow" of Prime Minister Shinzo Abe's economic recovery strategy, known as "Abenomics."

      Despite the abject failure of Japan's approach, the rest of the world remains committed to using monetary policy to cure structural ailments. The die was cast in the form of a seminal 2002 paper by US Federal Reserve staff economists, which became the blueprint for America's macroeconomic stabilization policy under Fed Chairs Alan Greenspan and Ben Bernanke.

      The paper's central premise was that Japan's monetary and fiscal authorities had erred mainly by acting too timidly. Bubbles and structural imbalances were not seen as the problem. Instead, the paper's authors argued that Japan's "lost decades" of anemic growth and deflation could have been avoided had policymakers shifted to stimulus more quickly and with far greater force.

      If only it were that simple. In fact, the focus on speed and force – the essence of what US economic policymakers now call the "big bazooka" – has prompted an insidious mutation of the Japanese disease. The liquidity injections of quantitative easing (QE) have shifted monetary-policy transmission channels away from interest rates to asset and currency markets. That is considered necessary, of course, because central banks have already pushed benchmark policy rates to the once-dreaded "zero bound."

      But fear not, claim advocates of unconventional monetary policy. What central banks cannot achieve with traditional tools can now be accomplished through the circuitous channels of wealth effects in asset markets or with the competitive edge gained from currency depreciation.

      This is where delusion arises. Not only have wealth and currency effects failed to spur meaningful recovery in post-crisis economies; they have also spawned new destabilizing imbalances that threaten to keep the global economy trapped in a continuous series of crises.

      Consider the US – the poster child of the new prescription for recovery. Although the Fed expanded its balance sheet from less than $1 trillion in late 2008 to $4.5 trillion by the fall of 2014, nominal GDP increased by only $2.7 trillion. The remaining $900 billion spilled over into financial markets, helping to spur a trebling of the US equity market. Meanwhile, the real economy eked out a decidedly subpar recovery, with real GDP growth holding to a 2.3% trajectory – fully two percentage points below the 4.3% norm of past cycles.

      Indeed, notwithstanding the Fed's massive liquidity injection, the American consumer – who suffered the most during the wrenching balance-sheet recession of 2008-2009 – has not recovered. Real personal consumption expenditures have grown at just 1.4% annually over the last seven years. Unsurprisingly, the wealth effects of monetary easing worked largely for the wealthy, among whom the bulk of equity holdings are concentrated. For the beleaguered middle class, the benefits were negligible.

      "It might have been worse," is the common retort of the counter-factualists. But is that really true? After all, as Joseph Schumpeter famously observed, market-based systems have long had an uncanny knack for self-healing. But this was all but disallowed in the post-crisis era by US government bailouts and the Fed's manipulation of asset prices.

      America's subpar performance has not stopped others from emulating its policies. On the contrary, Europe has now rushed to initiate QE. Even Japan, the genesis of this tale, has embraced a new and intensive form of QE, reflecting its apparent desire to learn the "lessons" of its own mistakes, as interpreted by the US.

      But, beyond the impact that this approach is having on individual economies are broader systemic risks that arise from surging equities and weaker currencies. As the baton of excessive liquidity injections is passed from one central bank to another, the dangers of global asset bubbles and competitive currency devaluations intensify. In the meantime, politicians are lulled into a false sense of complacency that undermines their incentive to confront the structural challenges they face.

      What will it take to break this daisy chain? As Chinese Premier Li Keqiang stressed in a recent interview, the answer is a commitment to structural reform – a strategic focus of China's that, he noted, is not shared by others. For all the handwringing over China's so-called slowdown, it seems as if its leaders may have a more realistic and constructive assessment of the macroeconomic policy challenge than their counterparts in the more advanced economies.

      Policy debates in the US and elsewhere have been turned inside out since the crisis – with potentially devastating consequences. Relying on financial engineering, while avoiding the heavy lifting of structural change, is not a recipe for healthy recovery. On the contrary, it promises more asset bubbles, financial crises, and Japanese-style secular stagnation.

      [May 04, 2015] Federal Reserve 1 - 0 Saudi Arabia

      May 04, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Since we last updated the state of Saudi Arabia's reserve stash, things have gone from bad to worse. It appears the battle to crush US Shale producers is taking its toll as The FT reports, Saudi Arabia is burning through its foreign reserves at a record rate as the kingdom seeks to maintain spending plans (and thus social stability) despite lower oil prices. All the time The Fed remains 'easy', no matter how negative US Shale cashflows are, the muppets will buy their debt and keep the mal-invested market alive. Saudi reserves are now their lowest in almost 2 years (but they have plenty more to chew through to out-wait The Fed).

      Saudi Reserves have dropped to 2 year lows and fallen by the most ever in the last 2 months...

      As The FT reports,

      The central bank's foreign reserves have dropped by $36bn, or 5 per cent, over the past two months, as newly crowned King Salman bin Abdulaziz al-Saud dips into Riyadh's rainy-day fund and increases domestic borrowing to fund public sector salaries and large development projects.

      The latest data show Saudi's foreign reserves dropped by $16bn to $698bn in March, driven by public sector bonuses paid by King Salman after he assumed power in January. This follows a fall of $20bn in February. Saudi Arabia has spent $47bn of foreign reserves since October.

      As one analyst noted, "There is a need to rationalise spending," as King Salman promised a bonus payment for military personnel engaged in the kingdom's month-long bombardment of Houthi rebels in Yemen, a campaign that itself added pressure to state coffers.

      ...

      "The [military] bonuses are not an encouraging sign," said Steffen Herthog of the London School of Economics. "It shows the knee-jerk reaction to political challenges is to distribute more money."

      * * *
      The royal family, whose social contract with the people offers cradle-to-grave care in return for loyalty, is seeking to reduce state subsidies without sparking popular anger. But analysts are unclear how quickly the government can move on such a sensitive topic.

      * * *

      Simply out, as long as The Fed keeps ZIRP, it will cost Saudi Arabia.

      TeethVillage88s

      Business is Business. SA has Oil Clout, but USA would look askance at returning Gold.

      However, when you are cash starved, when you have an Obvious Reserves problem, but can't stop till you ruin the Industry... SA could get a way with a short term request for Gold Reserves.

      Short term 2 years. 5-7 years would not help with the Driving of Oil Price to $50. USA would stall, stall, stall.

      [Apr 22, 2015] Baker Hughes Cuts 17% Of Workforce As Oil Slump Ripples Through Economy

      Apr 22, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Baker Hughes has increased the number of jobs it plans to cut from 7,000 to 10,500 and will close 140 facilities worldwide citing a need to "reduce the cost base and resize [the company's] footprint" in the face of challenging market conditions. Meanwhile, JPM reminds Richard Fisher that "the only thing dropping in the Texas economy is the number of jobs."

      ... ... ...

      As for Richard Fisher's assertion that a negative outlook for the Texas economy premised on the decline in oil prices amounts to "bull droppings" (to use the PG-13 version of what he actually said), JPM is here to tell the now retired Dallas Fed chief that "unfortunately, the only thing dropping in the Texas economy is the number of jobs." Here's the note:

      The Texas Workforce Commission recently reported that nonfarm employment dropped by a huge 25,400 in March, a decline the magnitude of which hasn't been seen since mid-2009 (see the chart below). To put that in perspective, the 0.2% drop in employment would be equivalent to a 304,000 monthly drop at the national level. The swing in momentum is particularly sharp, as Texas had been averaging job gains of 34,000 per month last year. The March decline follows a sharp slowing in January and February and has occurred alongside a big deterioration in Texas business sentiment. Moreover, the elevated level of jobless claims in Texas on into April suggests that monthly job losses could persist past March.

      Job losses of the size Texas experienced last month are rarely seen outside of recessions. Looking at things from the demand side there are also indications the Texas economy may be near contracting. At the national level, cutbacks in oil & gas-related capex could shave about 0.5%-point from Q1 GDP growth. The Baker Hughes rig count (which is used by BEA to estimate this category of investment) indicates that just over half of the reduction in rig count has occurred in Texas. Given Texas' 9.2% weighting in the national GDP, this means oil & gas capex alone could be taking about 2.7%-points off of Q1 GDP growth in Texas -- a big hole to get out of to achieve positive growth.

      Fisher's more optimistic prediction for the Texas outlook rested on its diversification into non-oil industries. The Texas economy is diversified, and is home to many world-class companies that have nothing to do with fossil fuels. So then what did Fisher get wrong? One doesn't have to look farther than the Dallas Fed's own research for an answer. Shortly after the energy price collapse of 1986 the Dallas Fed estimated that every job lost in the oil and gas sector had a knock-on effect of another 2.6 jobs lost in various non-energy sectors – retail, hospitality, etc. It seems a similar phenomenon is at work in the current episode. In the industry detail table below you will see that the mining and logging industry (of which oil & gas extraction is a subsector) saw employment decline by 2,800. Retail trade alone suffered twice as many losses, down 6,600. A variety of other service industries also saw declining employment.

      Fiscal.Enema

      Haliburton closed the Minot branch. 150 employees right there. ND is down 100 rigs from last year. Lets see..... thats 4000 workers. Others oil firms have layed-off 50 to 60% of their workers. ND officials are really quiet about this and are pretending and hoping things will come back. The Minot Airport is reporting boarding down 8% or so and the parking lots at the airport are 30 to 50 % empty now. Where as during the boom they were full all the time. Some one is not telling the whole story up here in Minot.

      I M DeMan
      Employers cut jobs in 31 US states as growth slows http://news.yahoo.com/unemployment-falls-just-23-us-states-hiring-slows-...
      Falling Down

      B-H gave the last company I worked for (started a new job a couple of weeks ago) a decent contract, late last year. Inconel shafts with magnet assemblies on them, for pumps they put underground to extract oil from old wells, basically sending oil from a horizontal pipe up to the surface.

      I knew it couldn't last, plus with the global downturn, there's just not as much exploration, and opening of old wells.

      [Apr 16, 2015] Cheap Oil Winners and Losers

      April 16, 2015 | Barry Ritholtz


      Source: Bloomberg

      Based on the state sales tax data that came out today for 2014, I would suggest that is the USA ex Alaska, which is more like Canada than the US when i comes to energy.

      [Apr 14, 2015] Crude Dips After EIA Forecasts Increased Oil Production For A Decade

      Apr 14, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      The EIA's annual energy outlook has something for everyone as it attempts to forecast energy markets out to 2040. For the bears, US crude oil production is expected to rise (even more than they had forecast last year - before the price collapse) as it seems, according to EIA the only thing more stimulative for oil production than high prices is low prices. For the bulls, EIA exuberantly forecasts prices soaring to over $240 by 2040 in a high growth environment. Crude prices are dipping modestly from their ramp highs.

      Production will keep rising...

      ... ... ...

      As Reuters notes,

      The U.S. government on Tuesday forecast domestic crude production will rise even more than expected a year ago, undeterred by the worst price rout since the financial crisis.

      U.S. crude oil production will peak at 10.6 million barrels per day in 2020, a million barrels more than the high forecast a year earlier, according to the annual energy outlook by the Energy Information Administration, the statistical arm of the U.S. Energy Department.

      Crude production will then moderate to 9.4 million bpd in 2040, 26 percent more than expected a year ago, the agency said.

      The reference case in the report forecasts Brent prices of $56 a barrel in 2015, rising to about $91 a barrel in 2025, $10 a barrel less than levels expected a year ago. The report uses the 2013 value of the dollar as its measure.

      Despite lower prices, higher production will result mainly from increased onshore oil output, predominantly from shale formations, the agency said.

      Onshore production in lower 48 states is expected to reach 5.6 million bpd in 2020 in the reference case, 34 percent more than expected a year ago.

      The agency expects a faster oil drilling pace this year than it saw last year.

      Hohum

      The best use for this report will be lining birdcages.

      [Apr 14, 2015] US Shale oil production may have maxed out - EIA

      "The question is how fast the decline is going to go. If it's fast, if it's steep, there could be a big jump in the market."

      Apr 14, 2015 | RT Business

      The shale oil boom may be over, judging from the latest report from the US Energy Information Administration, which said oil output from America's seven most productive shale formations will decrease for the first time in four years.

      The report has had an effect on the oil market with Brent, the benchmark for more than half of the world's oil, trading above $58.25 per barrel, a 0.55 percent increase, and WTI, the North American blend, advancing one percent to $52.44 at the time of publication.

      Production from Bakken, Eagle Ford, Haynesville, Marcellus, Niobrara, Permian and Utica will only product 5.56 million barrels of crude oil per day in the next month, compared to 5.62 million barrels per day (bpd) in April, the organization said in its monthly Drilling Productivity report, published Monday.

      ... ... ...

      The imminent decrease marks a sharp turnaround from 2014, when crude oil production in the US hit a 100-year high.

      The decline is directly correlated to the number of active oil rigs, which at 802, is at its lowest number since March 4, 2011, according to Baker Hughes.

      "We're going off an inevitable cliff," because of the shrinking rig counts, Carl Larry, head of oil and gas for Frost & Sullivan LP, told Bloomberg News. "The question is how fast the decline is going to go. If it's fast, if it's steep, there could be a big jump in the market."

      The so-called cliff so far only looks like a slightly rounded plateau for April, which the agency only believes will lose 2,098 barrel per day in production. However, in May, this drop will intensify, as the EIA predicts a loss of 56,673 barrels per day. To compare, output increased by more than 100,000 bpd in November and February.

      The graphs below shows how much production will be hit in the nation's two biggest producers. The Bakken shale formation in North Dakota, believed to contain the most recoverable crude oil, will see output decline by 23,000 barrels per day and production from Eagle Ford in Texas, the second-largest oil field in the US, is expected to fall 33,000 barrels per day.

      ... ... ...

      Perhaps oil prices did succeed in squeezing out the more expensive to produce North American shale. In November, the OPEC oil cartel decided to keep production high and provide no relief to the supply glut, a move that was seen as analysts as a way to hamper American shale competition.

      [Apr 13, 2015] U.S. shale oil output to fall in May, first drop in four years - EIA

      The first monthly decline in over four years
      finance.yahoo.com

      NEW YORK (Reuters) - Oil production from the fastest-growing U.S. shale plays is set to fall some 45,000 barrels per day to 4.98 million bpd in May from April, the first monthly decline in over four years, projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed on Monday.

      The projected slip from 5.02 million bpd in April underscores how record crude production from the U.S. shale boom may be backtracking after global markets saw prices effectively slashed by 60 percent since June on oversupply and lacklustre demand.

      Oil production from the Permian Basin of West Texas and New Mexico were forecast to rise 11,000 bpd to 1.99 million bpd, the smallest monthly increase since November 2013, according to the EIA's drilling productivity report.

      Production from the Bakken formation of North Dakota will fall 23,000 bpd to 1.3 million bpd. Eagle Ford oil production in South Texas will fall 33,000 bpd to 1.69 million bpd, the largest monthly drop since EIA began tracking the data in 2007.

      [Apr 12, 2015] Why The Oil Price Collapse Is U.S. Shale's Fault

      There is a link between overproduction of expensive oil and shale gas and access to cheap financing. In other words, the shale gas boom and bust in in large measure a by-product of ZIRP and QE.
      April 7, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com

      Yves here. Notice how Arthur Berman links overproduction of expensive oil and shale gas to access to cheap financing. In other words, the shale gas boom and bust in in large measure a by-product of ZIRP and QE.

      By Arthur Berman, a petroleum geologist with 36 years of oil and gas industry experience. He is an expert on U.S. shale plays and is currently consulting for several E&P companies and capital groups in the energy sector. Berman is an associate editor of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists Bulletin, and was a managing editor and frequent contributor to theoildrum.com. He is a Director of the Association for the Study of Peak Oil, and has served on the boards of directors of The Houston Geological Society and The Society of Independent Professional Earth Scientists. Originally published at OilPrice

      The present oil price collapse is because of over-production of expensive tight oil. The collapse occurred because of the inability of the world market to support the cost of the new expensive oil supply from shale, oil sands and deep water. Demand was progressively destroyed during the longest period of sustained high oil prices in history from 2010 through 2014.

      Since the early 2000s, the price of oil was largely insensitive to the fundamentals of supply and demand as long as prices were less than about $90 per barrel. The chart below shows world liquids supply minus demand (relative supply surplus or deficit), and WTI oil price.

      ada2268

      Figure 1. World liquids relative surplus or deficit (production minus consumption) and WTI crude oil price adjusted using the consumer price index (CPI) to real February 2015 U.S. dollars, 2003-2015. Source: EIA, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

      In mid-2004 and mid-2005, the relative supply surplus was much greater than it has been during the 2014-2015 price collapse yet prices continued to rise. When oil traders perceive supply limits and rising prices, price below some critical threshold is not an issue. They are willing to carry the cost of storage and interest to hold the commodity in the future when it will be more valuable.

      In 2004, the relative supply surplus reached 1.9 million barrels per day and in 2005, it reached 4.1 million barrels per day. By contrast, the greatest supply surplus in the current oil price collapse was 1.7 million barrels per day in January 2015.

      During periods of supply surplus in 2004 and 2005, prices were less than $75 per barrel. The average WTI oil price between November 2010 and October 2014 was $91 and for 18 months of that period, prices were more than $100 per barrel.

      Oil prices have collapsed three times because of demand destruction: in 1979, 2008 and 2014. In all of these cases, oil prices exceeded $90 per barrel in real 2015 dollars for extended periods. The chart below shows WTI oil price* from 1970 to the present with periods when price exceeded $90 per barrel highlighted in red.

      ada2270

      Figure 2. WTI crude oil price adjusted using the consumer price index (CPI) to real February 2015 U.S. dollars. Areas in red represent periods when oil prices exceeded $90 per barrel. Source: U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, EIA and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

      Oil prices were more than $90 in 1979-1981 for 26 months; in 2008-2009, for 13 months; and in 2010-2014, for 33 months. 2010-2014 was the longest period of oil prices above $90 in history. There were other factors at work in all three of these high oil-price episodes and their subsequent periods of price collapse.

      In 1979, the trigger for oil-price increase was the Iranian Revolution and the Iran-Iraq war. More than 6 million barrels of oil were removed from world supply. Oil prices rose from $50 to $115 per barrel (in real 2015 dollars) between January 1979 and April 1981. Then, new production from the North Sea, Mexico, Alaska and Siberia flooded the market. By March 1986, prices had fallen to $27 per barrel. OPEC cut production by 14 million barrels per day but oil price was unaffected because of a combination of demand destruction, crippling interest rates, and new supply from non-OPEC countries. Prices did not begin to recover until 2001.

      So far, the current oil-price collapse is nothing like this. Surplus production is about 1.0 to 1.5 million barrels per day, interest rates are near zero, and demand recovery appears strong from early data.

      The oil-price collapse and Financial Crisis of 2008 were preceded by 11 consecutive months of relative supply deficit and price increase (Figure 1 above). This was largely because of a surge of consumption by China and low OPEC spare capacity. Oil prices approached $150 per barrel in June 2008, the highest price ever reached, and then collapsed below $40 by February 2009.

      The record price of oil was an underlying cause of The Financial Crisis. It increased the cost of global trade, produced inflation and higher interest rates that contributed to real estate loan defaults, and caused demand destruction for oil and other commodities.

      Weak demand for all commodities and loans remains a chronic artifact of the years since 2008 despite the best efforts of central banks to correct the problem.

      Oil prices rebounded fairly quickly after 2008 because of a 4.2 million barrel per day production cut by OPEC in January 2009 (Figure 1). Another reason for increasing oil price was the devaluation of the U.S. dollar by the Federal Reserve Board by lowering interest rates and increasing the money supply. The chart below shows Federal Funds interest rates and the price of oil.

      ada2272

      Figure 3. Federal funds interest rates and WTI oil price in 2015 dollars, January 2000 – January 2015. Source: Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, EIA, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

      Oil prices rose with a weak U.S. dollar and interest rates near zero in 2009. Other factors, notably the Arab Spring uprisings in the Middle East, also contributed to the price increase.

      As prices passed $80 per barrel in late 2009, tight oil production began in earnest. Low interest rates forced investors to look for yields better than they could find in U.S. Treasury bonds or conventional savings instruments. Money flowed to U.S. E&P companies through high-yield corporate ("junk") bonds, loans, joint ventures and share offerings. Although risk was a concern, these were investments in the United States that were theoretically backed by hard assets of oil and gas in the ground.

      In the first half of 2012, flagging demand caused a relative supply surplus of 3.5 million barrels per day (Figure 1 above). WTI oil prices dropped below $90 but by early 2013, prices returned to the high $90-to-low-$100 per barrel range.

      Tight oil boomed after late 2011 when oil prices moved higher than $90. An endless flow of easy money was available to fund spending that always exceeded cash flow. The table below shows full-year 2014 earnings data for representative tight oil E&P companies.

      ada2273

      Table 1. Full-year 2014 earnings data for representative tight oil exploration and production companies. Dollar amounts in millions of U.S. dollars. FCF=free cash flow; CF=cash flow; CE=capital expenditures. Source: 2014 10-K filings, Google Finance and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

      These companies out-spent cash flow by 25%, spending $1.25 for every $1.00 earned from operations. Only 3 companies–OXY, EOG and Marathon–had positive free cash flow. Total debt increased from $83.4 to $90.3 billion from 2013 to 2014. Debt must be continually re-financed on increasingly poorer terms because it can never be repaid from cash flow by many of these companies.

      The U.S. E&P business has, in effect, become financialized: investment in this class of company has become the sub-prime derivative of the post-Financial Crisis period. There is no performance requirement by investors other than the implicit need to maintain net asset values above debt covenant trigger thresholds.

      These terrible financial results reflect a year when average WTI oil prices were more than $93 per barrel. First quarter 2015 earnings will make these results look good.

      The immediate cause of the present oil price collapse is found in increasing production and, to a less obvious extent, decreasing demand that began in January 2014 as shown in the chart below. Markets react slowly and it was not until June 2014 that prices began to fall.

      WorldLiquidsSupplyDemand

      Figure 4. World liquids supply and demand, July 2013-February 2015: Source: EIA and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

      This was the manifestation of longer-term demand destruction following nearly 3 years of oil prices above $90. The chart below shows the same world liquids data as in Figure 1 but with demand (consumption) expressed as a percentage of supply (production).

      ada2278

      Figure 5. World liquids demand (consumption) as a percent of supply (production) and WTI crude oil price adjusted using the consumer price index (CPI) to real February 2015 U.S. dollars, 2003-2015. Source: EIA, U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics, and Labyrinth Consulting Services, Inc.

      Figure 5 shows that demand as a percent of supply was generally increasing until about September 2007 and has been generally decreasing since then. Especially weak demand since early 2014 is merely the most extreme expression of a trend that has been active for more than 7 years.

      The present oil-price collapse is, therefore, because of long-term high oil-price fatigue. It reached a crescendo in mid-2008 when oil prices exceeded $140 per barrel but was not specifically recognized as more than another of the factors that contributed to the Financial Collapse that followed. It is now clear that oil price was a central cause of that collapse.

      The artificial low interest rates that have been imposed by central banks since the Collapse have weakened the U.S. dollar and pushed the price of oil above $90 per barrel for the longest period in history.

      The quest for yields in a low interest rate world led investment banks to direct capital to U.S. E&P companies. Capital flowed in unprecedented volumes with no performance expectation other than payment of the coupon attached to that investment. Tight oil boomed despite poor financial performance.

      The current oil-price collapse is because of expensive tight and other unconventional oil and the market's inability to support its cost. $90 per barrel WTI price appears to be the empirical threshold for demand destruction. Only the best parts of core areas of the Bakken and Eagle Ford shale plays make some profit at $90 per barrel and almost nothing makes money at present oil prices.

      Low price will eventually cure weak demand. At the same time, the effect of reduced oil and gas spending on the U.S. economy is unclear but a weaker economy could lower demand despite low prices. Allen Brooks and Euan Mearns have explained the case for demand destruction in excellent detail.

      The present oil-price collapse is severe because of the accumulated, long-term price fatigue that has existed since late 2007. Although the immediate cause of the collapse is over-production of tight oil, the key to recovery is demand.

      Demand is more difficult to cure than over-supply so that is where efforts must be directed. Over-production of non-commercial tight oil must slow and eventually stop before the market can balance itself. I am more optimistic than most that this is already underway but it distresses me to see increased capital flow thus far in 2015 to what Christopher Helman aptly calls "zombie" companies.

      The problem is structural and systemic and firmly rooted in the irresponsible funding of under-performing U.S. tight oil companies since at least 2010. The first step to price recovery is the severing of capital supply to companies that could not fund their operations from cash flow when oil prices were more than $90 per barrel. If this does not happen, we could be in for a long period of low oil prices.

      kimyo, April 7, 2015 at 1:08 am

      i hold stoneleigh in the highest regard because of analysis like this: (published in 2010, answering a reader's questions)

      Q: If we have $20 oil there will be no crisis, guaranteed. $20 oil and we have lots of credit/money expansion. Multipliers working and inflation/growth. We would have commerce. We would all be buying shit from (low- wage/cheap coal) China.

      Stoneleigh: I disagree. I think we will see $20 oil, but only because of a massive fall in aggregate demand due to the evaporation of purchasing power. $20 oil will not be cheap oil. On the contrary, it will seem very expensive to most people.

      (continuing)
      Stoneleigh: I am not convinced we will see the dollar become a proxy for oil. I think the dollar will rise substantially as dollar-denominated debt deflates (creating demand for dollars), and people make a knee-jerk move into it on a flight to safety. However, I don't think this will last more than a year or two at most.

      I think we are headed into a chaotic currency regime where floating exchange rates are dropped, currency pegs instituted in an attempt to 'beggar they neighbour', and those currency pegs fail.

      as late as q2/2014, people would have ridiculed her. since, we're not at $20/barrel, but it's certainly possible, given the 5/2015 land-based storage fill-up and the need for the shale operations to keep pumping. the swiss currency peg cut, the dollar's strength, she made the call and backed it up.

      Luke The Debtor, April 7, 2015 at 1:48 am

      The peak oilists' thesis is wearing thin: US oil and oil product production record. We're getting awfully close to seeing their covenant with Huebert expelled from energy discussions.

      vegeholic, April 7, 2015 at 9:17 am

      Did you actually read the article? One of the author's main points is that the dramatic increase in production is largely an artifact of cheap money. Dancing on the grave of Mr. Hubbert might be a little premature.

      sd, April 7, 2015 at 3:10 am

      Zombie oil for zombie banks in a zombie economy.

      Ignacio, April 7, 2015 at 5:35 am

      Berman's post is excellent. The comment you replied looks intended to lower the discussion to below ground level.

      Your answer is brief but points to another point of discussion: how the fracking investment frenzy will unfold. This is addressed in Euan Mearns link and adds to the uncertainty in economic and energy future.

      fajensen, April 7, 2015 at 7:16 am

      We will need to become zombies too – because the banks will have invested our pensions in shale oil riiight about at the top, when their cronies are dumping, so we cannot afford to retire or even die of old age.

      Santi, April 7, 2015 at 10:16 am

      In the South of Europe around one quarter of the population are already economic zombies: unemployed with no perspectives of ever getting a job. But most of us refuse to follow the second law of neoliberal thinking, and "go die" ;)

      In the positive side, Energy Intensity of Mediterranean countries like Spain and Greece, but also France or Italy is getting way better in a context of diminishing GDP (according to Eurostat). Spike in Greece was probably due to meltdown in 2012.

      Jim Haygood, April 7, 2015 at 8:01 am

      'Demand is more difficult to cure than over-supply so that is where efforts must be directed.'

      First central planning created oversupply through 'financialization.' Now demand has to be 'cured,' which is what QE and ZIRP (whether effective or not) were intended to do.

      Who is going to do this 'severing of capital supply to companies,' which metaphorically suggests corporate head chopping? Evidently, the mistakes of central planning are to be combated with yet more central planning.

      I hear that a retired central planner, Alan Greenspan, is available for consulting gigs. When it comes to forecasting energy demand and prices, he's a legend in his own mind.

      craazyboy, April 7, 2015 at 10:55 am

      "Who is going to do this 'severing of capital supply to companies.."

      I imagine it happens as their short and medium term bonds come due and they need to enter the bond market to re-fi. I would hope the investment world has not gotten so crazy in their search for a little yield that they overlook the fact that many of these companies bleed $40 of red ink for every barrel they pump. 'Course they will likely need to enter the bond market before rolling over existing debt – if they aren't even generating enough revenue to cover cash operating expense.

      vidimi, April 7, 2015 at 12:03 pm

      i had also picked that sentence out because it looks very counterintuitive. if something is more difficult, isn't it better to do the thing that's easier? but i take it to mean that supply will sort itself out while demand will need a hand.

      Steve H., April 7, 2015 at 8:19 am

      Don Lancaster is an old-school electronics buff who wrote "The Incredible Secret Money Machine." His amortization analyses debunking the financial viability of solar photovoltaics are excellent. For anyone interested, there is this pdf from 2008:
      .tinaja.com/glib/pvlect2.pdf

      Amend with this note from last December:

      "Meanwhile, the November pv pricing figures are in and approach
      45 cents per peak panel watt, If the present price drops continue,
      hitting the magic 25 cents per peak panel watt required for net
      energy renewability and sustainability could happen in as little
      as eight months."

      Coming from him, that is a very optimistic comment.

      Fool, April 7, 2015 at 5:06 pm
      So, from my rudimentary understanding: the financial sector is throwing lots of junk bonds around Shale markets; this hot money is causing an oversupply which is bringing down the price of oil. But if the price of oil is cheap, what's the problem?

      Oil Dusk, April 7, 2015 at 5:40 pm

      Interesting theory. Here's an alternate one.

      (1) OPEC essentially sets the world price for oil when it meets with OPEC and agrees on quotas.

      (2) Oil producers are essentially price takers. If the world price of oil exceeds the cost to produce this oil, as estimated over the life of an given oil well, then producers will make a decision to drill that well.

      (3) The real world price for oil should probably have been something around $85 a barrel for the past five years. The fact that it was actually something closer to $100, suggests that oil producers with marginal costs that could make their money back, along with a reasonable return, at $100 a barrel oil, were able to find capital to drill those wells.

      (4) As the US added a few million barrels a day of production through its oil shale operations (out of an estimated 90 million barrels of oil a day of crude oil liquids), OPEC once again had the option of simply cutting back on its quota and keeping prices at this level. Instead, this time, they chose to keep their level of production (to include the quotas) in place.

      (5) OPEC, as a cartel and mostly led by the Saudis in this matter, are suddenly willing to allow the crude oil market to crater to hurt other producers. They are willing to accept a large loss, as compared to what they have been making in recent years, in order to eliminate competitors and make the capital providers for their competitors think twice. They are achieving this by basically not undertaking their normal price setting behavior (which would be illegal in the US, unless it was done by someone like the Texas Railroad Commission). Once these competitors are eliminated, anticipate that OPEC will re-set the world price for oil back in the $85 a barrel range for now, but don't be surprised to see world prices jump above $100 for some temporary period.

      (6) Some portion of these shale plays are not economic above $85 a barrel; those companies that are overly invested in those marginal plays are in trouble. However, despite your persistent claims to the contrary, much of the US shale business is economic at $85 a barrel or less.

      (7) The annual decline rate for global production is something close to 5 million barrels a year. This is the amount of new oil production that must come on line each year in order to allow the amount of oil being produced to remain constant from year to year.

      (8) Given recent prices, the amount of capital being reinvested in oil drilling operations, is probably less than half of what it was last year. This means that the few million barrels of oil being produced from our oil shale operations a year has already been absorbed into the world oil system as part of that replacement oil for this year's oil production decline.

      (9) These current low oil prices will not likely last for long unless OPEC really throws in the kitchen sink and increases their quotas and digs into their excess production capacity in an attempt to flood the market. The EIA country report for Iraq suggests that they could possibly come up with another 6 million a day of production. Even so, that capacity could be absorbed in a couple years of annual decline.

      (10) You don't need to assume industry malfeasance to explain what has happened. The facts seem sufficiently explanatory.

      [Apr 09, 2015] Notes on the Currency War - 'Old as Babylon and Evil as Hell'

      Jan 01, 2013 | Jesse's Café Américain

      Below is an excerpt from a much longer article which you can read in its entirety here.

      It is an interpretation told from a certain perspective, but overall does a fairly decent job of laying out the general boundaries for the currency war that has been brewing in the background since 1971 with the collapse of Bretton Woods.

      It is more visible to us now because it started manifesting more overtly in the 1990's and since then has slowly been gaining momentum.

      If an analyst does not understand this, even if they do not agree with this particular interpretation, then they have a poor grasp of the major trends that are driving so much financial and political activity in the world today.

      And fortunately or unfortunately, gold and silver are deeply involved as the traditional supra-national world currencies.

      To put the entire thing in a nutshell, in 1971 the US arbitrarily ended the Bretton Woods Agreement by closing the 'gold window,' and placed the world on an entirely fiat reserve currency which the US controlled. Since the US is making monetary policy to suit its own domestic agenda, and increasingly so over the past twenty years, the stresses that this creates in the world have become unacceptable to many other countries, some of which are in a position to push back against this.

      This tension between the dollar and the rest of the world is either going to end in an acceptable and workable compromise, or will result in a split of the world into regions of power and financial influence, most likely three or four. This will be accompanied by conflict on all the usual levels: diplomatic, economic, and military. We are seeing this today.

      Compromise is being thwarted by a neo-conservative, militaristic and nationalistic group in the States, with clients in other countries, that view an American hegemony as the natural and highly desirable outcome of the end of the Cold War. However, this is a patriotic cover story for what is essentially a bid for more money and power for a privileged few who have no patriotism and little decency, who serve only themselves and their patrons. To quote Edward Abbey, their motives are 'old as Babylon and evil as hell.'

      Whether you agree with this or not does not matter so much, because it is very obvious to those in countries like the BRICs that this is the situation, and they are acting on this, and the US is reacting in response. But from reading the literature of the neoliberal economists and neoconservative politicians, it seems hard to come to any other conclusion based on facts and specific actions which have been taken by the US, the UK, Canada, Germany and Japan.

      I do not think it is too much to say that we are experiencing a type of 'world war.' This seems to be the type of settling of differences and adjustments that follow major economics shifts, as we had seen in the first half of the 20th century.

      "The Fed effectively acts as the world's central bank, but sets monetary policy only in its own interest. Under the pressure and the orders of financial oligopolies, it fixes interest rates and prints money to suit itself, sending economies across the globe into tailspins...

      These policies aren't enacted with the express goal of kicking the global South in the stomach, but this outcome is a necessary and predictable result of the domination of the global financial order by a sole country whose interest is to keep its hegemonic status. Other measures are taken precisely toward this end. This latest round of financial warfare has to be seen in the context of financial imperialism in general. Countries struggling for sovereignty are also being hit by sanctions, speculative currency attacks, commodity price manipulation, biased evaluations from US ratings agencies, massive fines on some banks for what the US has deemed inappropriate practices, and the prohibition of certain banks from participating in the international banking system...

      Not only does the dollar enable the US empire, but also protecting the dollar's status is a major reason for US imperial wars. American financial and military strength is based upon the fact that the dollar is the world's reserve and international trade currency, creating a global demand for dollars which allows the US to print as many greenbacks as it likes. It then pumps them into the overbloated finance capital system and uses them to fund its criminal wars...

      Without this international demand for dollars, the dollar would "correct," and US hegemony would eventually, inevitably, come to an end. Therefore the US pressures and attacks countries that attempt to free themselves from the dollar's yoke, not only because they're guilty of lese majesty, but in order to force the world to maintain the status of the dollar and thus preserve US domination...

      Although it has so far been unsuccessful, the idea of rebalancing the world monetary system is extremely threatening to the US, and goes a long way toward explaining recent US wars and warmongering, which may otherwise seem irrational...

      The dollar is rallying less because of any supposed US recovery than because of higher global demand for dollars due to investors' risk aversion, in the wake of the Fed pulling the plug on QE. Parenthetically, the US economy is definitely not recovering...

      While a stronger dollar will not hurt the consumption-based US economy, the rising dollar and US monetary tightening are about to give the developing world a severe blow..."

      Michèle Brand and Rémy Herrera, Dollar Imperialism 2015

      "Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton thievery, they search out across the seas. The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as well.

      Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace."

      Tacitus, Agricola

      [Apr 07, 2015] Bernanke's True Legacy

      The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US $92/bbl in 2011
      Apr 07, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      Magooo

      ... ... ...

      THE END OF CHEAP OIL Global production of conventional oil will begin to decline sooner than most people think, probably within 10 years

      Feb 14, 1998 |By Colin J. Campbell and Jean H. Laherrre http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/the-end-of-cheap-oil/

      HOW HIGH OIL PRICES WILL PERMANENTLY CAP ECONOMIC GROWTH For most of the last century, cheap oil powered global economic growth. But in the last decade, the price of oil has quadrupled, and that shift will permanently shackle the growth potential of the world's economies. http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2012-09-23/how-high-oil-prices-will-permanently-cap-economic-growth

      BUT WE NEED HIGH OIL PRICES: The marginal cost of the 50 largest oil and gas producers globally increased to US $92/bbl in 2011, an increase of 11% y-o-y and in-line with historical average CAGR growth. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/2012/05/02/983171/marginal-oil-production-costs-are-heading-towards-100barrel/

      THE PERFECT STORM (see p. 59 onwards) The economy is a surplus energy equation, not a monetary one, and growth in output (and in the global population) since the Industrial Revolution has resulted from the harnessing of ever-greater quantities of energy. But the critical relationship between energy production and the energy cost of extraction is now deteriorating so rapidly that the economy as we have known it for more than two centuries is beginning to unravel. http://ftalphaville.ft.com/files/2013/01/Perfect-Storm-LR.pdf

      [Apr 07, 2015] Baker Hughes to close Bryan office, terminate employees by Nora Olabi

      Apr 06, 2015 | Houston Business Journal

      Houston-based Baker Hughes Inc. (NYSE: BHI) is permanently shutting down its Bryan, Texas, office, located just outside College Station, according to KHOU Channel 11.

      Fifty-four employees at the office are expected to be terminated.

      In a statement to the city of Bryan, Baker Hughes said it "must reduce its cost structure companywide in order to remain competitive in this challenging business environment." Employees may be eligible for redeployment.

      Terminated employees will be paid for a 60-day period, and benefits will continue for three months following the closure.

      The job cuts are part of a companywide workforce reduction that will minimize cost during this downturn in oil prices. Baker Hughes said it would cut about 7,000 jobs amid slumping oil prices.

      Baker Hughes has also closed other facilities to reduce expenditures. Its Mineral Wells, Texas, plant closure affected 110 employees.

      During the oil downturn, companies have turned to mergers and acquisitions to shore up finances. Shareholders at Halliburton and Baker Hughes recently approved the companies' $34.6 billion megamerger.

      Slumped oil prices have also hit companies such as Weatherford International PLC (NYSE: WFT). The company announced it would cut up to 8,000 jobs in the first half, mostly from the U.S. The company eliminated nearly 7,000 jobs globally just last year.

      Here's an update on the Texas energy companies that have cut back amid slumping oil prices this year.

      [Apr 03, 2015] C-Suite Survey Executives increasingly gloomy about oil shock's impact on economy Richard Blackwell

      March 30, 2015 | BNN News/The Globe and Mail
      Canadian executives are increasingly gloomy about the prospects for Canada's economy, and are fearful that the recent drop in oil prices will stunt the country's growth in the coming year.

      The latest quarterly C-Suite survey reveals the most pessimistic mood in the corner office since mid-2009, when the country was still in the grips of a deep recession.

      Almost 40 per cent of the executives surveyed said they expect the economy to decline in the next year, a sharp increase from the 23 per cent who felt that way in December. Last summer, only 3 per cent thought a decline was in the offing.

      The main culprit is the precipitous fall in oil prices, which has knocked the wind out of the oil patch, put Alberta's finances in a precarious position, and caused economic ripples across the country.

      "We are certainly going to have a slow-growth year," said Arni Thorsteinson, president of Shelter Canadian Properties Ltd., a Winnipeg-based company that owns commercial and residential real estate across the country, including some in Fort McMurray, Alta. "The impact from the decline in oil prices is substantive because capital investment in the energy market has really been the main driver [of the economy] for the last five years."

      Lower oil prices and the lower Canadian dollar should help consumers and exporters, Mr. Thorsteinson said, but many of those benefits can take months or years to come to fruition.

      He noted that his firm has investments in hotels, which will theoretically gain if more foreign tourists are attracted by the lower loonie. "But those booking patterns take two years or longer to kick in," he said. "By the time they get around to coming, it could be 2017."

      On the other hand, the impact of low oil prices was felt almost instantly in the oil patch, which was stunned by the sudden plunge.

      "None of us saw it coming," said Murray Toews, chief executive officer of Bonnett's Energy Corp., a Grande Prairie, Alta-based oil-field services company. As late as last December, he said, the general view was that 2015 would be similar to 2014. Instead, "Boom. The rug was pulled from underneath us."

      While some may benefit from lower oil prices, "I don't think that this is good for the country at all," he said. "Whenever you get someone stumbling in any sector of our country it is going to affect us east to west."

      Having learned its lesson from the 2008-09 recession, Bonnett's quickly cut back, trimming 15 per cent of its work force in February.

      Bonnett's is certainly not alone, as many oil-sector firms swiftly trimmed staff and reduced spending plans. Indeed, the C-Suite results showed that 41 per cent of companies surveyed have taken specific initiatives in light of the drop in oil prices. The top moves include reducing capital spending, shifting investments and cutting staff.

      While there is a broad consensus that Canada's economy is weakening as a result of lower oil prices, the survey also underlines significant regional differences in attitudes. Far more western-based executives – about 46 per cent – say the national economy will shrink in the next year, compared with Ontario where 29 per cent expect a decline.

      ... ... ...

      About the survey:

      The quarterly C-Suite survey was conducted for Report on Business and Business News Network by Gandalf Group, and sponsored by KPMG. The survey interviewed 152 executives between Feb. 23 and March 16, 2015.

      Watch for coverage Monday on BNN and view the full survey.

      [Apr 03, 2015] West is trying to buy allies of Russia

      This is extremely strong move by the US diplomacy (EU vassals were just token players, extras in the play) which considerably weakens Russia political and economic position. It also shows that drop of oil prices was a well though out strategic move with several possible surprises in the sleeves.
      Apr 03, 2015 | svpressa.ru

      How the lift sanctions against Iran will affect the position of Russia in the world

      Lengthy negotiations the six world powers (Russia, USA, UK, France, Germany, China) in Lausanne ended with agreement on the lifting of restrictions against Iran. Foreign Minister of this country Mohammad Zarif called the historical results of the negotiations. Similar opinion is shared by U.S. President Barack Obama, who compared the agreements with agreements between the United States and the Soviet Union during the reign of Reagan and Nixon. The world market after the statements of the leaders of the six responded to a decrease in oil prices. But the question arise: will the economy of Russia suffer as a result of this shrewd move, and will Russia be able to maintain a trusting relationship with its ally in the Middle East or it will change camps.

      The EU and the US sanctions against Iran seriously limited the foreign trade of Tehran. They were introduced under the pretext of preventing Iran's development of its own nuclear weapons. Iran argued that solely interested in building on their own territory of the nuclear power plants and is not intended to have weapons of mass destruction. But the official representatives of the West did not believe statements by Iran leadership, fearing that obtaining a nuclear weapon by Iran will seriously alter the geopolitical balance in the middle East.

      In recent years tensions between Iran and the West only grew. This played against attempts to isolate Moscow, which, after the reunification of the Crimea with Russia was forced to start organizing the "anti-Western coalition." to counter Western sanctions. But Tehran clearly did not enjoyed its permanent status of a "rogue state" assigned by the USA, and the new President of Iran Hassan Rouhani began to hint that he might compromise and accept the demands of the West.

      Concluded at Lausanne agreements, Iran accepted an obligation for 15 years not to build new facilities for uranium enrichment and not to enrich uranium to the level of over to 3.67%, while also reducing the number of centrifuges from the current 19 thousand to six thousand. In response to the Tehran gets the opportunity to export the energy to the West.

      The appearance on the world market of oil and gas from a new player at the current moment of low energy prices might trigger further collapse in the price of "black gold" which will jeopardize the economy of Russia. At the same time, the removal of restrictions on the development of the Iranian nuclear program will enhance the ability of Russian companies to participate in construction of nuclear power plants. It also indirectly created a new prospects for cooperation in military-technical sphere.

      It is possible that the West went to the lifting of sanctions, based on geopolitical considerations. Shiite Iran is supporting the rebels Houthis in Yemen and efforts of the coalition led by Saudi Arabia may not lead to success. This can threatens oil supplies to Europe and the USA. In addition, Iran has long expressed his desire to join the Shanghai cooperation organization, collective security Treaty organization and BRICS. Here West was forced to give Tehran a bone to block or slow down such moves.

      The lifting of the sanctions on Iran may lead in the near future to the fall in oil prices. But this probably will be a short-term phenomenon caused by excessive speculation. In itself, the lifting of sanctions in the future for a few months will not affect the market, " said the Director of the Center for the study of world energy markets energy research Institute of Russian Academy of Sciences Vyacheslav Kulagin. No additional quantities of oil and gas on the market will be added to market immediately. But if the current economic situation in the world will stay then in the future the lifting of the sanctions on Iran will led to significant changes. Iran will obtain access to Western investments and technology. But again, in a short term the world energy market is not affected.

      But if we talk about the future after 2020, Iran could become a leading exporter of oil and gas. Oil and gas production will increase. It is worth noting the value of the field "South Pars". Even before the sanctions, there were dozens of projects in this field, including some with the participation of Russian companies. If those projects will be revived, then they will have a serious impact. But this impact will be felt in 2020 or even 2030. In this timeframe Russia will get a serious competitor in the commodities market.

      It is worth considering the geopolitical factor, in particular, the current situation in Yemen. Iran supports the Shiite population of this country, but does not yet have the financial capacity to significantly affect the situation. But in the future if the investment is going in Iran, such opportunities will appear. Accordingly, re-configuration of forces in the Middle East will be a bigger question than it is today.

      [Apr 01, 2015] Fracking Town's Desperate Laid-off Workers: They Don't Tell You It's All a Lie

      Apr 01, 2015 | Alternet
      WILLISTON, N.D.-From the looks of it, the nation's boomtown is still booming. Big rigs, cement mixers and oil tankers still clog streets built for lighter loads. The air still smells like diesel fuel and looks like a dust bowl- all that traffic - and natural gas flares, wasted byproducts of the oil wells, still glare out at the night sky like bonfires.

      Not to mention that Walmart, still the main game in town, can't seem to get a handle on its very long lines and half­ empty shelves.

      But life at the center of the country's largest hydraulic fracturing, or fracking, boom has definitely changed. The jobs that brought thousands of recession­-weary employment­-seekers to this once peaceful corner of western North Dakota over the last five years have been drying up, even as the unemployed keep coming.

      Downtown, clutches of men pass their time at the Salvation Army, watching movies or trolling Craigslist ads on desktop computers. The main branch of the public library is full, all day, every day, with unemployed men in cubbyholes. And when the Command Center, a private temporary jobs agency, opens every morning at 6am, between two and three dozen people are waiting to get in the door.

      Some of these job seekers are sleeping in their trucks, in utility sheds, behind piles of garbage by the railroad tracks, wherever they can curl up.

      Only a year ago, Williston's shale oil explosion was still gushing jobs. From 2010 to 2014, thanks to the Bakken shale oil patch, it was the fastest growing small city in the nation. Williston nearly tripled in size, from 12,000 to 35,000 people. But the number of active rigs used to drill new wells in the Bakken dropped to 111 in March, the lowest number since April 2010, according to state figures. Low oil prices have prompted drilling to slow down, and companies big and small have been laying off workers and cutting hours.

      ... ... ...

      The Salvation Army has offered stranded workers a one­-way ticket back home. But many job seekers seem unwilling to leave-at least not until they can make a success out of their sacrificial move to a place with six months of winter, the worst traffic they've ever seen, and a disgruntled, if not miserable, populace.

      "You just have to cowboy up and expect things to get better," said Terry Ray Cover, a 56­-year-­old farmer and jack­-of-­all-­trades who came from southeast Iowa on a Greyhound bus in November. He'd heard North Dakota was raining jobs.

      "They don't tell you it's all a lie," he said, sipping coffee in the Salvation Army on a frigid day in early March. "Places advertise jobs and then tell you they're not hiring."

      The jobs he sees ads for, Cover said, require certifications and degrees, "like engineering." He had found odd jobs, one at a cattle ranch, since he arrived in Williston. But he hadn't worked in four weeks, despite daily treks to the Command Center.

      Cover, bundled in a ski suit, had spent the most frigid nights of winter (­20 Fahrenheit) in a tin shelter he discovered within walking distance of the Command Center, his best hope for work. He was relying on the Salvation Army for his daily bread and new friends for his daily smokes.

      The men-they are all men-hanging out at the Salvation Army for coffee, bread and whatever donated goods there might be on a given day (from 9am to 3pm) have come from all over, including Iowa, Minnesota, Montana, Louisiana, New Jersey and Washington, D.C. They include a number of African immigrants originally from Liberia, Sierra Leone, Nigeria and Senegal.

      But their stories are close to the same. They heard Williston had jobs, and they weren't having any luck back home. So they hopped in their truck, or a Greyhound bus, and hopped off to a rude awakening.

      Most of the men, who range in age from their early 30s to late 50s, have spent 10 nights, the maximum allowed, at a 10­-bed emergency shelter the Salvation Army and a local church set up, leasing 10 beds at a camp for oil workers (a so-­called man camp). More than 100 men applied to stay at the emergency shelter since it resumed operating for the second year in November. (It was set to close March 31 but has extended its season due to demand.)

      ... ... ...

      Ali Singa, who moved to North Dakota from Nashville nine months ago, started out in Fargo, making $11 an hour the day after he arrived in shipping. He stayed for three months before heading to Williston, where he heard he could make more money, enough to send to his wife and three children in Sierra Leone.

      He found work in a nearby oil patch town, Watford City, hauling water, but he was laid off in December and has not been able to land another job. "A lack of a job has trapped me here," Singa said. "Right now, I'm staying with friends. I'm in a very bad situation. You must put this down in your report: At the same time that they're advertising jobs, they're laying people off, and people keep coming and keep coming."

      Singa, a high school French teacher in his native country, moved to Washington, D.C. from the Sierra Leone 10 years ago, seeking a better life for his family back home. But after being laid off from a baggage handler job, he has not had much luck with his relocations.

      Evelyn Nieves is a senior contributing writer and editor at AlterNet, living in San Francisco. She has been a reporter for both the New York Times and the Washington Post.

      [Apr 01, 2015] Chris Hedges America is a Tinderbox

      Apr 01, 2015 | naked capitalism
      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:18 am

      Well, I don't find most people vicious. But you are right if you mean by that they admire and respect strength. The Montgomery Bus Boycott was a powerful symbol of the strength of a community. Most Americans have contempt for the left because it is weak. It wilts, always, under pressure. I am old enough to remember when that wasn't the case.

      I don't blame the American people because they have been subject to the most sophisticated mind-control regime ever known–people who are literally under dozens of magic spells, half-hypnotized and half-awake. Yes, they succumbed to the sly manipulations that used the unconscious as a playing field without hardly anyone knowing.

      jake chase July 21, 2013 at 1:47 am

      Sophisticated mind control my ass. Plutocrat right wing horseshit sells because it makes people who buy it feel somehow respectable and virtuous, without challenging in any way the mean, puerile selfishness by which they steer their own ship of life. Just about every man at least has somebody he can push around, thrash if he feels like it, all the while telling himself how manly this makes him. Want to see what the working class is like? Spend a few hours in one of their bars.

      The only thing 90% of the population wants is for their own worthless lives to become marginally more luxurious. I saw this vividly during the Seventies, on the North Fork of Long Island, where every union screw turning warm mongering putz had his little plot of grass, his motorboat, his garden tools that made the neighborhood sound like Armageddon. Archie Bunker was a sanitized version of these bastards, who liked nothing better than thrashing some long haired student or idealistic protestor and waiving the flag for Richard Nixon.

      Of course, none of them had served anywhere. They had fallen into the between the wars age group, and their idea of military service was a John Wayne movie.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 11:22 am

      Sure, many working class assholes were and are assholes. But many are not that way and I hung out in some bars then and I must say I knew some nice guys too.

      As for mind-control–I've studied it and the ruling elites certainly set out on the project willfully and left a paper trail and it worked. Stage magic works as does manipulating the unconscious of people who don't believe they can be manipulated.

      jonboinAR July 21, 2013 at 1:56 pm

      Response to "tongograd"'s quotation of Mark Ames

      Will you listen to this from a white male point of view? As the end of the first paragraph makes clear, the people that Ames is calling not just stupid but cowardly, nearly the worst insult you can give to a human being, are not really so much Americans in general, that is Latinos, African Americans, Native Americans, Asians, or women of any ethnicity, but specifically white males. Really them alone. Then, again, as usual, following the string of insults, Ames and the Left he putatively represents have the nerve to wonder just what they have to do to attract the white male vote. "Well, we can't do anything about it. They're not just benighted and otherwise disgusting, but really they're chicken-shirt. If they ever decide to grow a pair they'll come to us." Really? You think so?

      What other ethnic group on the face of the earth is it not just considered acceptable by the Left, but de rigeur, to openly despise, to compete in order to creatively criticize and put down. "Hey", says Ames, "Everyone calls them stupid. No one ever thinks to call them cowards, the whole group of white, male American Fox News watchers. I'll make my name today!" ANY other ethnic group, you'd better watch yourself when you reference. You'd better make sure that nothing you say can be taken to even imply any criticism of them as a group. Man, I don't think I'm exaggerating here. But white males, especially if they're American, whether working or managerial class, have, since the Civil Rights Era, been the scapegoats of the left, classical-like scapegoats, openly, until now it's not even questioned. The Left puzzles and puzzles about why the American white male distrusts them, but never even brings up this perfectly obvious question. I don't know. My discussion of it right now will probably be considered racist by some just for defending them. It seems as though the practical definition of racism is advocating in any way for the interests of whites or, especially, white males. Nothing they have or do is considered legitimate.

      "We the spiteful." Please! That's just funny.

      You, we (and man, I do it too, now I think of it), the Left, need to stop pretending to wonder why the white males in the US don't want to travel with us. If we're really interested in winning the economic war with the "oligarchs", we're going to have to drop the identity politics and return to class. But maybe it's useful, psychologically or competivitively necessary to continue scapegoating them and this economic struggle is really a smokescreen for something else. I don't know.

      Lexington July 20, 2013 at 3:38 pm

      The problem, Hugh, is that your 99% does not agree with your view of the world. They believe that the poor are lazy and they are more resentful of the poor than the Koch brothers. Leftists have to face this fact.

      Yes, they have to face it, but they don't have to accept it. To build a mass movement these people need to be engaged in dialogue and persuaded that there is another way (I deliberately avoid the condescending term "educated"). Many people seem to think this is next to impossible and not worth trying, but from where I'm standing it's the only way. And I don't think it's that hard, because our agenda is emminently in their self interest, and at bottom people invariably have a very firm grasp of their own self interest, even if it has been clouded by "wedge issues" and "culture wars".

      Bottom line is that racial resentment and nationalism are all good and fine, but when your stomach is empty they don't amount to a hill of beans. Neoliberalism is remorselessly proleteriatizing the American worker and one consequence is that peoples' priorities become a lot clearer.

      I can only site the most egregious example and that is the Daily Kos blog which is an example of where faux-leftists dominate the discussion and ban real discussion when it gets beyond Party orthodoxy.

      Daily Kos is the unofficial house organ of the Democratic Party, not in any way legitimately a progressive site. Markos has never been very good at concealing his ambition of becoming a player in the Democratic establishment by leveraging the site's potential to mobilize the base. Back in the day when we could pretend that progressives and Democrats were largely on the same team lots of people were willing to overlook that. Seems like a lifetime ago now.

      The left is dead right now–stone cold dead. Occupy was a last stab by anarchists to wake it up–it failed utterly in doing that though I think it may have revived anarchism a bit which is always a good thing.

      I honestly don't know what people expected from Occupy. Did the Montgomery bus boycott end racial segregation in the south? Did the Ludlow Massacre crystalize broad suppport for workers rights? Occupy was an opening skirmish in what will be, at best, a very long and drawn out war of attrition against very powerful and deeply entrenched interests. Perhaps our society's obsession with instant gratification has blinded people to exactly what this will entail.

      Hugh July 20, 2013 at 7:16 pm

      I agree with you. We need to talk to all Americans, citizen to citizen, equal to equal. We must ask not just for their ideas and support but their full participation.

      A bad idea (what we have now) can be overturned by a good idea (what we can build together). But we don't have to just appeal to self interest. Ordinary people, we of the 99%, have shown for hundreds of years that we were willing to fight and even die for something bigger than ourselves. That impulse has not disappeared. We just need to give people something to believe in, and make sure that it is worthy of their belief.

      jake chase July 21, 2013 at 1:51 am

      Ordinary people have shown they are sheep willing to be led into slaughter, too fearful of censure by neighbors to even stand up for their own lives. There is nothing they have 'died for' in the past three hundred years that was worth a fart in a hailstorm. If you think otherwise you better spend more time reading history.

      Calgacus July 21, 2013 at 6:29 pm

      Really, Jake? The sides in the US Civil War & WWII were indistinguishable, and one side was not somewhat gooder guys than the other? (Need I say that that side was imho the one with the evil Northern capitalists & later the US military-industrial imperialist complex & Joe Stalin too?)

      The slaves in Haiti 200 years ago were not fighting for something "worth a fart in a hailstorm"?
      Really?

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:10 am

      The Montgomery Bus Boycott did much to change things at the time–it built momentum for a movement by showing the determination of citizens to see the project to the end. It was a dramatic show of strength by a community that had felt marginalized and despised by the majority of citizens.

      Occupy was nothing of the kind. It was studiously not organized and it achieved little momentum because, beyond the participants and part of the intellectual class it did not win much respect from the population as a whole. Again, it aided the cause of anarchism and I think showed the left an interesting direction to follow.

      jrs July 21, 2013 at 2:56 pm

      I'm tired of criticisms of Occupy for not being organized, if the point of the criticism is they didn't have a leader, and proper heirarchy etc.. The fact that there was an assassination attempt on Occupies "leaders" (and the assassination attempt had unintended humor – the keystone cops want to assassinate leaders of an anarchist group!), shows just how dangerous organizing in a traditional hierarchy would have been. Leaders = Targets for Assassination. That's the murder elite we are dealing with. Perhaps the anarchist know a great deal more about fighting a guerilla war than their liberal critics.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 3:30 pm

      Occupy was a sign more than a movement. By not organizing, of course, it avoided decapitation and populated the imagination more than the streets. It's taken me awhile to understand it as a harbinger of a new political age. Since it is new I do not understand it yet. But I recognize that politics cannot change without a profound change in consciousness in all of us left, right, center and outsider (my current political alignment).

      But, as a political movement, it failed completely. Lack of coherence did not inspire the confidence of people sitting on the fence. That's not the fault of Occupy it's just the way we are now.

      Nathanael July 21, 2013 at 10:18 pm

      The Montgomery Bus Boycott came after a decade of seemingly fruitless work in the 1950s, and even earlier setbacks in the 1940s.

      I have debated in these pages whether we are in the equivalent of the "1950s" phase or the "1940s" phase. We certainly aren't anywhere near the 1960s phase; some people have to age out and others have to grow up.

      EricT July 21, 2013 at 1:08 am

      I don't agree with the presumption that the 99% in this country can't agree on anything we actually agree on a lot when the real message is delivered. The real problem is that every movement that gains momentum is co-opted by the real power in this country. Nixon's cointel has become the policy of the elite to protect itself. Haven't you ever turned on current TV. On my cable system, the sound is awful, I have to turn the volume way up to hear it, turn on one of the MSM stations and the sound is relatively incredible. They make it hard for everyone to organize, they give you candidates that only differ on the most divisive issues( i.e. reproductive rights ) and won't address the actual causes of everyone's malaise.

      They promote chaos among us all, by not actually bailing out the country, they keep everyone on edge being one paycheck away from bankruptcy or one medical condition from ruin, some of their tools are racism and classism. The game is rigged and we are the suckers.

      jrs July 21, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      As for "more resentful of the poor than the Koch brothers". I get into debates where a subject of never ending interst is whether or not people deserve their economic fate.

      Gah, with all that is wrong with the world (so so much) why is this topic even so endlessly interesting to people? The truth seems obvious and boring to me: while there is sometimes things individuals can do to effect their economic situation one way or other we don't live in some world that magically metes out justice in monetary reward. Duh. Furthermore an economic system that doesn't allow second and third and forth etc. chances before condemning people to poverty is cruel. And I'm not even talking about second chances for murders or any type of moral offense – I mean for making dumb economic decisions! Even some platonic ideal of a Perfect economic Meritocracy – if it all depended on an economic decisions you made at 19 and could never be changed after that point is *inhuman* – it does meet a basic human requirement of human life for growth over the lifespan. Life has consequences by it's very nature, but punishment to poverty is a consequence purely of social systems.

      So really why is the question of whether people deserve their economic fate even so interesting to poeple? We are the 99%.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 4:40 am

      Gramsci wrote from one of Mussolini's jails. A lot of his language is neutral for that reason.

      ambrit July 20, 2013 at 6:28 am

      Mr Strether;
      Obama as a modern American Mussolini! Now that's an image! The Tea Party stooges got it wrong in portraying 'O' as a Hitler type. He's a 'kinder gentler' Mussolini type authoritarian! (Somehow this strikes me as an insult to the memory of Mussolini. Go figure.)

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 10:52 am

      I agree that no change will take place without organizational politics.

      Peter Skerry does an outstanding analysis of the three types of politics - organizational, protest and elite-network - in Mexican Americans: The Ambivialent Minority.

      Organizational politics has always been the only effective way to advance the interests of the lower socio-economic orders. Elite-network has of course always been the domain of elites, folks like Obama. Protest politics can swing both ways, but as a stand-alone tactic it is inadequate. Remember that behind the Civil Rights Movment stood an elaborate organization: the Black church.

      Lexington July 20, 2013 at 3:12 pm

      Protest politics creates awareness of the issues and mobilizes people behind them. It is therefore complimentary to organizational politics rather than an alternative to it.

      You are absolutely right to point out that the church was indespensable in organizing the civil rights movement, including providing most of the leadership. But it was the sight of thousands of blacks in the streets demanding their rights that moved public discourse on civil rights by giving urgency and momentum to their agenda.

      nonclassical July 20, 2013 at 5:49 pm

      Hugh,

      I love your writing…but English language is "abstract", meaning specifically, (the
      "act" portion) that it enables words-concepts to be presented, while lacking in
      direct ACTion…English is a poor language for DIRECT ACTion, therefore direct thought consideration-in comparison, an Asian pictogram is a direct picture of an action-leads away from "abstraction"…

      ..what I intend, therefore, is to take specific actions into consideration, and force them upon public consideration.

      If "the people's representative government" is to return to this conceptual relevance, first must be a public movement to end, once and for all, ALL campaign $$$$ influencing "the people's representative government"…otherwise, all else is in permanent fail mode…focus, people…

      wes July 20, 2013 at 4:33 am

      yves, I totally agree with your analysis of the shortcomings of hedges' understanding of the history of anticommunism. its been one of the few undercurrents that really annoys me about his otherwise admirable body of work and thought.

      i would add that in addition to the repressive state apparatus's mastery of human movement through the urban landscape which you mention, there's at least one more important bit of geographical context to the underdevelopment of American oppositional culture: the suburb. It's a lot easier to mass on the streets when there's a mass of people living on the same street.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 1:17 pm

      Yves makes good points but she's wrong that not having a street culture necessarily precludes activism. It is the propaganda regime that has silenced real dissent and it has, and this is far worse, the betrayal of truth by both Hedges' liberal class and the radical left. The left, as a whole, has accepted the mainstream narratives about the nature of power-relations in this country and the basic narrative that our leaders always mean well even though they may be misguided and that Vietnam or Iraq was a "mistake" by policy makers suffering from hubris. Bullsh!t!!!! Macbeth did not make a "mistake" he was a greedy bastard who wanted power. Well, that's the case for the vast majority of American politicians and power-brokers–not grasping this clearly has destroyed the American left–let's bury it and start again shall we?

      Antifa July 20, 2013 at 2:55 pm

      The biggest and most invisible elephant in the American psyche is this: our government has long since abandoned the goal of managing this nation as a nation.

      Instead, America as a nation is managed as a means to global empire.

      And everyone's all right with this.

      While a middle class was useful to produce salable products to the rest of the world, we had a prosperous middle class. Now that industry can be relocated wherever wages and taxes are lowest, America's middle class is being stripped of its jobs, homes, pensions, social safety net, civil liberties and future.

      All to feed the last sticks of furniture into the raging war for global economic and military dominance that benefits only our wealthiest one percent.

      Even wingnuts respond to the idea that we need to leave off policing every square foot of the planet and return to looking after our own nation as a nation, rebuilding decent jobs, rebuilding communities, and rebuilding our sense of there being a better future for our kids than we got.

      Discussing and organizing around this idea that our lust and quest for empire has gone way too far scares the powerful more than anything else. It cuts at the very root of their power when they hear demands from all political sides that we cease empire building in favor of returning our full attention to domestic progress, to managing health and success for the citizens of this country, our country, before projects to surveill, conquer, or economically dominate any other nation.

      Call it the Me First project. Everybody gets to make demands for a better life for themselves and their children. That's the American Dream that everyone wants.

      Call it Nation Building. We're gonna roll up our sleeves and make our country self sufficient in clean energy, first in education, first in healthcare, first in equality and liberty, and the model for nations everywhere. Cuz that's how we roll.

      It is not normal for Americans to lose their futures, for Americans and their children to be starved of shelter, food, medicine and education in order to have an active military theater command for every continent on earth.

      Where is that in our Constitution?

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 3:36 pm

      All through history one may observe the tendency of power to destroy its very raison d'être. It is suffered because it achieves internal unity and creates external defenses for the nation. But it grows to such proportions that it destroys the social peace of the state by the animosities which its exactions arouse, and it enervates the sentiment of patriotism by robbing the common man of the basic privileges which might bind him to his nation. The words attributed by Plutarch to Tiberius Gracchus reveal the hollowness of the pretensions by which the powerful classes enlist their slaves in the defense of their dominions:

      The wild beasts in Italy had at least their lairs, dens and caves whereto they might retreat; whereas the men who fought and died for the land had nothing in it save air and light, but were forced to wander to and from with their wives and children, without resting place or house wherein they might lodge… The poor folk go to war, to fight and to die for the delights, riches and superfluities of others.

      –PLUTARCH, The Parallel Lives

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 3:32 pm

      Echoes Jesus: "Foxes have dens and birds have nests, but the Son of Man has no place to lay his head." Luke 9:48.

      nonclassical July 20, 2013 at 6:01 pm

      Banger,

      that "propaganda" you mention is summed up in entirety in Adam Curtis' fine BBC videos (and you are accurate):

      I would love to be able to post the entire Adam Curtis "The Power of Nightmares" video also-but due to U.S. video of neocon bushit, shown on U.S. television, and number of us who have posted it in direct contradiction to fundamentalist propaganda, it is permanently removed from youtube…entirely too controversial…(too funny-buy the video):

      http://www.amazon.com/Four-Adam-Curtis-Nightmares-Century/dp/1615774408/ref=sr_1_1?s=movies-tv&ie=UTF8&qid=1374357284&sr=1-1&keywords=adam+curtis+documentaries

      people might also be advised that Curtis' videos include British and Russian economic history, in parallel to historical treatise involved in these videos:

      • "All watched over by machines of loving Grace" is expose' on Ayn Rand…
      • "Mayfair Collection" is British military-economic historical treatise…
      OIFVet July 20, 2013 at 6:11 pm

      Try here: http://www.youtube.com/user/BBCNightmares. It works.

      JCC July 21, 2013 at 3:39 pm

      Not any more, it only took one day since your link to take it down.

      Dan Kervick July 20, 2013 at 9:53 pm

      It seems to me that if people of a leftist orientation want to achieve some sort of real, comprehensive and enduring social change, the first step is to accept and embrace the idea that what they are trying to do is achieve political power. That might appear obvious, but it sometimes seems to be a characteristic psychological trait of the contemporary left to have turned their politics into a matter of pure psychological identity, temperament and personal expression. Most self-described lefties seem to possess such a deep antipathy toward all forms of political power, such as it actually exists in actual human nature and human history, that their aspirations for change are utterly and comically doomed from the outset.

      So all that is left for them is a kind of waiting around for some vaguely imagined spiritual transformations of humanity, wringing an occasional concession out of existing elites due with a noisy protest or two. Lovely. Keep praying, dreaming and "demonstrating" forever. Meanwhile, keep being dominated, because real politics is not a quest for millennial religious enlightenment, or personal liberation from all forces of external control. That's just egotistic self-indulgence. Real politics is organized, coordinated, strategically and tactically mature action in pursuit of difficult social goals.

      People like Hedges, Chomsky really have little to offer, I'm sorry to say. Their style of leftism has been on proud and impotent display for about four decades now as the right has taken over the world. They are angry and alienated outsiders whose entire intellectual and emotional identity is based on remaining angry and alienated outsiders so they have a mighty wall of oppressive counter-reality against which to rail and define themselves.

      People who want political power might want to start by at least imagining themselves in power. Now, I can already hear the contemporary critic, "No in my utopia, there is no power. There is no coercion. There is no institutional organization with conventional systems of governmental direction and control. There is no commerce and exchange. There are no police enforcing any rules. There is no "wielding" of anything. There is no hell below us; above us only sky, blah, blah. There are just people living in perfect magical harmony, achieving a lovely, comprehensive but utterly non-coercive egalitarian coordination."

      Let's just say that there have been periods of left-wing success in the past, and this isn't how they thought. They built a middle class out of a peasantry; they created social insurance systems; they destroyed serfdom; they ended child labor; they created tax regimes that leveled inequalities and funded broad-based investment for the general good; they built powerful unions and parties that actually managed to run things, get elected and implement a difficult agenda. they wrested control of society's capital resources from powerful private owners of those resources who were in no mood to give them up. They fought and died in Spain; they fought and died in Germany and they fought in Stalingrad. And that wasn't just because they wanted to be martyrs, but because they judged these battles to be necessary steps in a long, hard strategically coherent slog.

      Paul Tioxon July 20, 2013 at 10:47 pm

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7t537W5zoFI

      Billy Joel-Prelude/Angry Young Man- WITH Lyrics

      Marko July 20, 2013 at 11:14 pm

      " People like Hedges, Chomsky really have little to offer, I'm sorry to say…."

      Says who ?

      Says Kervick. Mr. Dan Kervick.

      WTF is that? Has he done anything ? Is he anybody ? Does he have any bright ideas ?

      None that are readily apparent.

      Well he should shut his bashing-all-leftists-that-aren't-himself pie-hole till he does , then.

      Maybe when he's sued the gov't on behalf of all of us and our civil liberties , as Hedges and Chomsky did recently , he'll have some reason to puff himself up. As of today , he ain't got jack shit.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 11:22 pm

      Less ad hominem, more responsiveness, please. It's going to take a little more than suing the government to get us out of this hole. It's certainly good, admirable, that Hedges ad Chomsky did this. C'est magnifique, mais pas la guerre. Kervick points this out. It's a perfectly respectable argument.

      from Mexico July 21, 2013 at 12:34 am

      I thought Kervick made a valid argument too.

      We've dreamed of a world free of politics, hierarchy and coercion for a long time, in the Modern period since Rousseau. And this aversion to politics has had a strong influence on the left, as Hannah Arendt explains in "Karl Marx and the Tradition of Western Political Thought."

      But there are plenty of people out there, like Adam Curtis, who believe this is a Utopian vision. In his latest film, All Watched Over by Machines of Loving Grace, he speaks of the latest ideology, "computer utopianism" or the "California ideology," that, as the trailer says, held out the promise of a society "without politics and the old hierarchies of power."

      "But power hasn't gone away," concludes the trailer. "It never does."

      http://vimeo.com/54978755

      Chris Rogers July 21, 2013 at 3:07 am

      @Mexico,

      One of the major problems with the 'organisational meme' is that very often said organisation becomes rather staid and Conservative – much as Robert Michel's noted with his 'iron law of oligarchy', i.e., 'who says organisation, says oligarchy',. And, if I'm not mistaken, those who were at the forefront of the OWS movement wished to avoid this and remain truthful to their grassroots – the problem with OWS, who's aims were noble, was it seemed to be a 'middle class' movement', which by its own definition alienated much support from the working class.

      Now, if only we had another Martin Luther King, who by any measurable standards is one of the USA's greatest political leaders and a brilliant orator in his time – regretfully, and as history suggests, he was a once in a lifetime brilliant leader – he was also able to connect to not only his core constituency, but those with a moral outlook whatever their class or colour maybe – Regretfully, I see no MKL on the horizon to inspire and coral many of the disparate forces and opinion expressed on these boards.

      So there you have it, our left-of-centre leanings mean in effect we are awaiting a messiah to deliver us from this neoliberal dystopia and deliver us the 'new Jerusalem' – which seems highly religious.

      One 'big plus' for all concerned, is that Hughes comments and opinions have driven an unusually large response from the commons – its very disparate, with forces from both the left-of-centre and more libertarian elements having similar aims and goals and all highly concerned.

      What to do next is the obvious question, and its a must to avoid false prophets, such as one Barack Obama in the US or Tony Blair in the UK.

      Joe Miller July 22, 2013 at 12:55 am

      "We've dreamed of a world free of politics, hierarchy and coercion for a long time, in the Modern period since Rousseau."

      It's entirely possible to be free from the latter while still engaged in the former. Here's what Morgan Finnegan has to say about egalitarianism in extant forager societies:

      "Egalitarianism in BaAka contexts is a relationship rather than a static term, within which there is continual bargaining and disputation. Individual autonomy and freedom, as in all hunter-gatherer communities is prized, so that the social ethos of sharing and the perpetual motion against dominance must be continually reinvented. This tension is what gives the egalitarian relationship its fluid, dynamic quality."

      RanDomino July 21, 2013 at 12:58 am

      Cute. An orthodox Marxist lecturing anyone about what it takes to succeed. THIS time it'll be different, right comrade?

      Dan Kervick July 21, 2013 at 12:12 pm

      I'm not a Marxist. I don't believe in the labor theory of value or dialectical materialism or the withering away of the state, and I believe societies need to have vibrant private sectors as well as public sectors. I'm just a practical egalitarian who believes in old-fashioned "mixed economy" economics, and the possibility of vibrant real-world, problem-solving democracy. A society with state-supported full employment and ongoing public investment in human capital and strategic economic transformation; a broad and much more equal distribution of the national output with strong caps of private accumulation; a socialization of retirement, education and health care, with most of the remaining consumer economy handled by private enterprise; a drastically reduced and reorganized financial sector with reformed institutions of public finance; more time spent on citizen deliberation, education and practical governance chores, and less on entertaining oneself and doing one's day job – these things all seem eminently achievable to me, since in one form or another they were being achieved in the past before neoliberalism swept much of it away. So the left just has to pick of the pieces and get started again.

      We don't need a revolutionary "spark" or a "charismatic leader". We're talking about a long ground game. There needs to be coordination on an ambitious agenda, and some strategic thinking about how to put it into practice. How did the radical right agenda of people like William F. Buckley and Barry Goldwater become the depressing mainstream that it is today. No revolutionary romance. They just spent decades organizing and carrying through a gradual takeover.

      No dreams of tribal life in a pre-historical rain forest, where 200 people manage to live without formal rules and law enforcement; no fantasies about techno-geek, open source, government-free utopia of untrammeled anarchic liberty.

      There is always a certain element of thinkers who thinks the very idea of a police department that keeps people from pissing on the sidewalk is "fascist" or "maoist", etc.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:27 am

      I think I sympathize with you. The left's aversion for politics comes from the sense that, in the end, politics breeds the struggle for power and that, in itself, is the deep problem that we are sitting with that makes us unable to move.

      For me this is because leftist have tended to accept the dominant narrative as the container of their own. I claim that the dominant narrative is a carefully constructed and engineered lie and should be totally discarded.

      The essence of the left's problem is that all power that isn't a result of the usual Machiavellian game comes from community. A mobilized community can stand up to political power and has and won clear victories over and over again. By accepting the individualist philosophy that cripples any movement we accept defeat. We cannot be a collection of individuals voting for the usual clowns–that is no way towards anything but neo-feudalism which is coming about as sure as the sun will rise tomorrow.

      First, form communities–you talk about change, about peace, about egalitarianism–then give up your selfish ways and join with others by pooling resources and building trust. There is no other path. The alternative to that? Mysticism and it could lead to community, who knows. The monastics seemed to have done rather well back in the day.

      jake chase July 21, 2013 at 2:03 am

      Yes, give up your selfish ways- now there is a message that will resonate with the working class. On the other hand, you could promise them all a new Webber grill with an electronic starter.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 6:54 pm

      No I would tell them about teamwork, parties, relaxing because your friend has your back–how long before "things" become empty? Life is to be lived not endured mediated by products.

      Timothy Y. Fong July 21, 2013 at 2:26 pm

      The mistake is in believing that there is some end-steady-state utopia. There isn't. No matter what we do, in 100 years (or less) some angry 20-somethings are going to look back at us and say we screwed up. Nonetheless, the winning is in the struggle.

      Ruben July 21, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      "Most self-described lefties seem to possess such a deep antipathy toward all forms of political power, such as it actually exists in actual human nature and human history, that their aspirations for change are utterly and comically doomed from the outset."

      To base your argument on such an empty abstraction as "human nature" is to fail Popper's test of falsifiability.

      Look, this works too: because of human nature any successful fight for political power is doomed to turn first tragically then comically into tyranny, as it actually has happened throughout history.

      At the end of your argument you make a strawman of the other view but that's OK, it's a free blog-comment section.

      Anyways, the perfect example you are looking for of leftists achieving political power at the last paragraph of your argument existed for several decades, it was called the USSR. Earlier examples include the Jacobins.

      Achieving political power is not the solution, political power itself is the problem. Whomever achieves political power, no matter how pious, immediately suffers moral debasement, because the well being of the abstract collective notion he/she undertakes to protect overwhelms the natural, evolved, in-built morality of the individual.

      Dan Kervick July 21, 2013 at 4:00 pm

      Human nature isn't just an abstraction. There is a science of it.

      Ruben July 22, 2013 at 2:41 am

      Insofar as there is a science of human nature, that science is genetics, and genetics is no ground at all to prove the need of political power.

      Dan Kervick July 21, 2013 at 4:03 pm

      What about the union movement of the 20th century? Or the successful creation of the Social Security system? Or minimum wage laws? Or the 90% marginal tax rate?, etc. These things were passed by actual legislators who achieved political power.

      You know, every exertion of leftism doesn't degenerate into "Mao" or "Stalin". Can't we get

      Dan Kervick July 21, 2013 at 4:04 pm

      Mean to say: "Can't we get past that?"

      Ruben July 22, 2013 at 3:22 am

      I guess we want different different results so our views cannot be reconciled.

      I lived some time in a country that has a well developed and firmly established social safety net, no poverty, very little crime, high taxes, allowances to help the less fortunate, strong unions, unarmed police, short work hours, good salaries, the whole machinery.

      I observed the system attentively.

      Of course I set out to find two fundamental elements, a girlfriend and a soccer league. As it happened, both provided me excellent windows into the entrails of the system.

      The captain of my soccer team worked for the gov't safety net. His job was to cross-check and spy on those receiving help. The way he spoke about beneficiaries and the things he did to spy on them so they were not cheating convinced me that a strong State that takes seriously the role of protecting the working class reduces to just one major functioning principle: the State buys poverty.

      Those receiving help must provide the State with poverty and the State will pay for that supply. The State spied on its clients to know whether they have any other income except the price paid by the State for their poverty because if that was the case then these client were not really providing all the poverty the State was paying for.

      So in my view whenever the left gets political power and the result is not Stalin then the result is the commoditization of poverty, the commoditization of workingclassness.

      Timothy Y. Fong July 21, 2013 at 2:24 pm

      I agree. I hear Hedges' argument about speaking in the prophetic voice and calling out abuses of power. There's a role for that in every society, By definition, those embodying the role cannot every take power– which means they are, at best, Cassandras.

      For those of us who want to implement positive programs (such as the job guarantee), then the path is the same as always; kick ass and take names.

      profoundlogic July 20, 2013 at 6:04 am

      Yes, Obama is the ultimate Manchurian candidate. Sadly, Hedges, while completely well-intentioned, seems to underestimate America's collective apathy and indoctrination. Most Americans are still too comfortable to care, and until enough of the population takes a hit to the wallet they will continue their journey toward the "American dream", only to find that the dream was more a mirage.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 12:04 pm

      There was a comment that was made very late on yesterday's Hedges thread, but which I think has great merit, so would like to repost here:

      tongorad says:

      July 20, 2013 at 12:08 am

      I think environmental gloom and doomers are a non-starter for the working class. So you want to take away my working class food, one of the few things I'm allowed to enjoy, and nibble on twigs and leaves?

      The neoliberals are serving up a bogus prosperity gospel that will not be defeated by the likes of Mr Vinegar-Tits himself, Chris Hedges. In fact, I think environmentalism will only serve to quicken the pace of facism, as the psychology of it harmonizes with the idea of an Other that we need guard or protect ourselves against. And the austerity angle too (those working class have had it too good, they need to do what's good for them).
      If the left can't articulate a positive vision, then it has nothing for the working class.

      Read more at http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2013/07/chris-hedges-on-whether-we-can-change-trajectory-and-avert-collapse.html#mECFYJXw5JxX8qKM.99

      If we look at one of the most successful mass movements of all times, Christianity, what we see is that it ministered to both man's material needs and his spiritual needs. The PBS special on the history of early Christianity makes this clear:

      http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/religion/

      The evolutionary biologist David Sloan Wilson had this to say about it:

      Christian society provided "a miniature welfare state in an empire which for the most part lacked social services" (Johnson, 1976, 75; quoted in Stark 1996, 84). Even the emperor Julian acknowledged this fact in a letter to a pagan priest: "The impious Galileans support not only their poor, but ours as well, everyone can see that our people lack aid from us" (84). Julian saw the problem and tried to institute pagan charities to rival Christian charities, but the social dilemmas implied by the word "charity" are not solved so easily.

      –DAVID SLOAN WILSON, Darwin's Cathedral: Evolution, Religion, and the Nature of Society.

      Here's what the Rev. Martin Luther King said on the subject:

      …the gospel deals with the whole man, not only his soul but his body; not only his spiritual well-being but his material well-being. It has been my conviction ever since reading Rauschenbusch that any religion which professes to be concerned about the souls of men and is not concerned about the social and economic conditions that scar the soul, is a spiritually moribund religion only waiting for the day to be buried.

      http://mlk-kpp01.stanford.edu/primarydocuments/Vol4/1-Sept-1958_MyPilgrimageToNonviolence.pdf

      When Christianity became the official religion of the Roman Empire all this changed. Plato's two-world theory of body and soul was revived and interjected into Christian theology, and was revived once more by Jefferson, Madison, and Williams to become the reigning political philosophy of the new republic, a phenomenon which Thomas E. Buckley describes in great detail in "The Political Theology of Thomas Jefferson," or David Little in "Religion and Civil Virtue in America."

      Carroll Quigley in The Evolution of Civilizations speaks of the potential pitfalls of the sort of Neo-Platonic dualism that, according to Reinhold Niebuhr, "corrupted" Christianity when Christianity was "philosophically elaborated in Greco-Roman thought" (Niebuhr, "Optimism, Pessimism, and Religious Faith"):

      We deal with continua rationally either by dividing them into arbitrary intervals to which we give names, or by giving names to the two ends of the continuum and using these terms as if the middle ground did not exist at all. This last method is called "polarizing continuum," and is frequently done even when the greatest frequency of occurrence is in the middle range… Such polarization of continua is so common and so familiar that we come, frequently, to accept our categories as real instead of being arbitrary and imaginary, as they usually are…

      This practice of slicing continua into parts or even into dual poles and giving names to these artificial categories is necessary if we are to think about the world or to talk about it. But we must always remain alert to the danger of believing that our terms are real or refer to reality except by rough approximation. Only by making such divisions can we deal in a rational way with the many nonrational aspects of the world.

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 1:00 pm

      In summary, religion will take over as a pacifier, or the promise of a better life in afterlife.

      As for the environmental argument… in Japan, when the Emperor noticed a little too much deforestation, he put a moratorium on tree cutting. Of course, the poor and destitute suffered the most when the twigs disappeared.

      That's why think humanity will be going through a tough time before it gets better.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 2:57 pm

      Moneta says:

      In summary, religion will take over as a pacifier, or the promise of a better life in afterlife.

      Well that's certainly a one-eyed view of religion, a view which the rich and powerful who corrupted Christianity with Neo-Platonic dualism hoped to instill in the Christian faithful: forego rewards in this life because your true reward is in the next life.

      And, according to the liars by omission, that is also what Marx believed. He did, after all, say that religion "is the opium of the people."

      However, like any literalistic or fundamentalist interpretation, that is a distortion and a half-truth achieved by selective quotation of "scripture," as Susan Neiman explains:

      Metaphors have long lives, and Marx's description of religion as the opium of the people helped mislead us all. In fact, though Marx was the first thinker to show how deeply our worldviews may be shaped by material needs, his views of religion are more complex, and less condescending, than most leftist critics who followed. Far from reducing religious needs to economic ones, Marx called the criticism of religion the first premise of all other criticism because he understood its power. Here's what he actually says in the passage leading up to the one-liner about opium:

      "Religion is the general theory of the world, its encyclopedia, its logic in popular form, its spiritualistic point d'honneur, its enthusiasm, its moral sanction, its solemn complement, and general ground for the consummation and justification of this world….Religious suffering is at once the expression of real suffering and the protest against real suffering. Religion is the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, just as it is the spirit of spiritless conditions. It is the opium of the people."

      Sitting in the British Library, Marx may have got his drugs wrong. On his account, religion is anything but a sedative; in fact it sounds more like cocaine. In Marx's description, religion is the force that keeps the world awake. Heart of a heartless world calls up love as well as courage; hearts are also sometimes seats of purity, another quality one longs for when one longs for faith. But saccharin allegories aside: anatomically speaking, the heart is the organ that keeps us alive.

      Marx's judgment of the forces arrayed against religion was just as savvy as his judgment of its power. His description of what capitalism did to the world it found might, with few changes, have been written by believers in Afghanistan-or Arkansas.

      "The bourgeois…drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor in the icy water of egotistical calculation. It has resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms has set up that single, unconscionable freedom-free trade…All that is solid, melts into air, all that is holy is profaned."

      Of course this is irony, and verbal acrobatics, but it's also ambivalence. Marx's attitude towards the religious standpoint is hardly one of scorn. Something fateful was lost when bourgeois calculation replaced religious devotion, and we are right to feel bereaved.

      http://www.einsteinforum.de/fileadmin/einsteinforum/downloads/victims_neiman.pdf

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 3:33 pm

      Indeed, we ought to feel bereaved. Religion is not an option but a constant whether we call it religion or atheism–we bind ourselves to some conceptual of mythological framework. Our current religion is just as real as any of the others–it is seen in the films, shows, and news stories we watch that make up our culture. Our rituals, Christmas, the Super Bowl and so on are religious and re-enforce the values of radical materialism and competition. Fortunately for all of us today's religion is so confusing and contradictory that unlike the relatively mild contradictions of other religion it cannot be maintained for long. In addition, our current secular religion does not offer satisfying rewards.

      Doug Terpstra July 20, 2013 at 4:01 pm

      Timeless - Marx could have written this just yesterday about the Wall Street-Washington kleptocracy.

      "…drowned the most heavenly ecstasies of religious fervor in the icy water of egotistical calculation….resolved personal worth into exchange value, and in place of the numberless indefeasible chartered freedoms has set up that single, unconscionable freedom-free trade…All that is solid, melts into air, all that is holy is profaned."

      It's no wonder Marx is taboo, Howard Zinn too. Thanks.

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 4:07 pm

      I should have written that religion will be used and/or promoted as a pacifier but sometimes you need to try to find the right one to pacify the baby. Some babies will never take to one and others will bop other babies in the face with them.

      myshkin July 20, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      I don't claim to know Marx's attitude toward religion, no doubt manifold, yet did he not think it would fade away, part of that earlier phase of human history that was irrational and that would be superceded by the later industrial and scientific phase? The passage you end with, "All that is solid, melts into air, all that is holy is profaned." continues, "And man is at last compelled to face, with sober senses, his real conditions of life, and his relations with his kind." For Marx, a starting point for building a better world.

      Whether we should take his idea that human history is necessarily a story of progress seriously is mooted. Civilization by its nature is a collective enterprise with interacting components of commerce, politics etc. The usual result is bureuacracy, Hannah Arendt had this to say, "Bureaucracy is the form of government in which everybody is deprived of political freedom, of the power to act." That seems to be where we are now and where human enterprise frequently dead ends.

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 4:45 pm

      Well the creationist putsch and some other religions are a thorn on science's side right now.

      psychohistorian July 20, 2013 at 5:24 pm

      I have a problem with the general concept of religion being the general theory of the world. That theory worked until the Enlightenment where the general theory of the church was shown to be BS.

      We are there again because the inherited rich made a devils pact of relevance for the should have evolved to myth religions in exchange for unquestioned inheritance and accumulating private ownership of property (i.e. the class system of the past few hundred years.

      If religion is the general theory of the world, does it have a theological explanation of the hexagonal clouds on the North pole of Saturn? GRIN

      Why can't we proceed with the humility of knowing how much we don't know or will never know and not try and integrate any faith based theories as other than myth.

      jake chase July 21, 2013 at 2:10 am

      Marx was a brilliant social critic and the only thing he ever got wrong was his dialectic, which doesn't make any more sense than other Millennial nonsense. The best thing he ever wrote may be the Eighteenth Brumaire of Louis Bonapart.

      Perhaps he just spent too much time in cold rooms fueling himself on Hegel?

      LAS July 20, 2013 at 4:31 pm

      I don't think of the Rev. Daniel Berrigan or Rev. Martin Luther King as passive. And if you read what Christ actually said in the bible, you'll find no pushover, but someone who aroused considerable fear among Romans and other ruling authorities.

      LizinOregon July 20, 2013 at 3:20 pm

      Looking to religion to provide a solution is just substituting one Daddy for another.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 4:57 pm

      True enough.

      That point was certainly driven home by Jacques Barzun in From Dawn to Decadence.

      At the turn of the 20th century, Shaw despaired that his hallowed Fabian socialism and other socialisms had failed to overcome man's "brutish instincts and his propensity to lie and mouth empty ideals," while another disillusioned socialist, Georges Sorel, in Reflections on Violence, urged the industrial unions towards a final combat with police that would overthrow the capitalist system.

      The scientists of the day were all agog with the latest scientific fads: Social Darwinism, anthropo-sociology and Eugenics. The world of the scientific and artistic elite was all gilded wrapping paper, hermetically sealed off from the hoi polloi:

      With all the preaching and practicing of bloodshed between 1890 and 1914, how can it be that in retrospect the period was seen as an ideal time deserving to be called la Belle Époque? … Here it is enough to say that the intellectual and artistic elites, and to a certain extent high society, lived in their world of creation, criticism, and delight in the new. They were aware of the crises, no doubt, but after one or two had gone by gave little thought to what they might still cause…

      And when the war broke out, their reaction was equally as depraved:

      This haughty ignorance of social and political facts enables us to understand why the cultivated classes reacted as they did when war came: several hundred intellectuals in Germany signed a manifesto denouncing "the other side" as if betrayed by a friend and brother. It was answered, with a like rhetoric, by several hundred of the French. The enemy's purpose must be wicked since we are innocent.

      A prominent German pacifist responded to the pro-war manifesto with a 'Manifesto to Europeans', which challenged militarism and 'this barbarous war' and called for peaceful European unity against it. 'Educated people in all countries should use their influence to bring about a peace treaty that will not carry the seeds of future wars.' Only three other people were brave enough to sign this peace manifesto; one of them was Einstein. As Barzun explains:

      Looking over the roster of great names in literature, painting, music, philosophy, science, and social science, one cannot think of more than half a dozen or so who did not spout all the catchphrases of abuse and vainglory.

      But despite the depravity of the artistic and intellectual elite, the deportment of the clergy was even worse, as Barzun goes on to point out:

      And everywhere the clergy were the most rabid glorifiers of the struggle and inciters to hatred. The Brotherhood of Man and the Thou Shalt Not Kill were no longer preachable… [B]ishops in various countries spoke out for total war. They enlisted God: "He is certainly on our side, because our goals are sinless and our hearts are pure." The most moderate said: "Kill but do not hate." One English preacher spoke of "the wrath of the Lamb" and another speculated that although Jesus would not have become a combatant, he would have enlisted in the Medical Corps.

      But, as Barzun continues, even though the "20C fury recalled the wars of religion," in "1914 religion was no longer a prime aggressive impulse" and "not before 1914 was the flush of blood lust seen on the whole intellectual class."

      jake chase July 21, 2013 at 2:14 am

      On the other hand, you have Henry Ford, who people think of as an anti-Semite and a fascist, who did everything he could to stop the War.

      Have you read his autobiography? Nobody ever had a better understanding of bankers. That is why he never went public or borrowed any money. It took less than ten years for his descendants to totally fuck up his company.

      LizinOregon July 21, 2013 at 2:50 am

      Unraveling the common thread of human atrocities leads inevitably to tribal identity. But without a strong attachment to some group, the individual is left with the lonely burden of always swimming against the tide. I think we can try to understand the past and pretend to predict the future, but cannot hope to make sense of the time we live in because we are the actors who are creating it.

      tongorad July 20, 2013 at 3:34 pm

      Thank you for mentioning my comment, from Mexico, I am truly honored as I admire your writing on this forum so very much.

      nonclassical July 20, 2013 at 6:08 pm

      …it's also known as "Black-White" DUALITY…which is an imperfect point of view, used primarily by reductionists and power monger-manichean-"ends justifies means" advocates…view Hitler-George W Bush propaganda, as perpetrated by "Rendon Group"=John Rendon…as shown here:

      http://ics-www.leeds.ac.uk/papers/vp01.cfm?outfit=pmt&folder=2053&paper=3010

      The Man Who Sold the War
      Meet John Rendon, Bush's general in the propaganda war
      JAMES BAMFORD

      Dan Kervick July 21, 2013 at 4:09 pm

      Early Christianity doesn't seem to have had much to do with ministering to humanity's material needs. It was an apocalyptic cult based on renunciation and waiting for the end of the world. Only after Constantine perverted it into a Greco-Roman style religion of praying to gods for military victories and the like did it turn into a quasi-worldly faith.

      Joe Miller July 22, 2013 at 1:02 am

      Have you ever read The Legitimacy Of The Modern World by Hans Blumenberg, FM? I think you would learn a great deal from it if you haven't yet. You can learn about Blumenberg's ouvre here. http://www.readysteadybook.com/Article.aspx?page=hansblumenberg

      der July 20, 2013 at 6:23 am

      When violence is directed toward the state and state supported corporate interests then our militarized police forces will certainly, aggressively, dial up state violence. I agree that a general strike is unlikely mostly for the reason that we're inculcated to see success as an individual effort. Violence, random or otherwise, will come as a one on one action to self-survival, the have-nots taking from the have just a little more than.

      Pierce writes of it as Stand Your Ground vigilantism:

      On the streets, we are being trained paradoxically to both submit to the authority of the police, and to take the law into our own hands, if necessary, because the police cannot possibly protect us from every danger. Stand Your Ground, though it played no role in the Zimmerman trial per se, is vigilantism hallowed by legislation. That's all it is. This does nothing but produce a national schizophrenia about crime and fear and weaponry that we inevitably act out.
      http://www.esquire.com/blogs/politics/Vigilante_Nation

      ambrit July 20, 2013 at 6:33 am

      Dear der;
      It looks increasingly like the organs of State violence are proactively applying 'maximum coercive force' against even peaceful and societally accepted forms of protest. See the police response to the feminist protest in Virginia recently as highlighted by skippy. A little overt psychological bullying has become the norm. When will it go over to overt physical bullying, unprovoked? That's going to be the testing point.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 12:42 pm

      There exist two equally old and time-honored traditions concerning the basis of political power. One of these - that professed by the likes C. Wright Mills, Max Weber, Voltaire, Clausewitz, Strausz-Hupe, Marx, Bodin, John Stewart Mill, and Stalin - was most succinctly summed up by Mao Tse Tung: "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun."

      However, there exists another tradition and another vocabulary no less old and time-honored, which is that it is the people's support that lends power to the institutions of a country. This is what Madison meant when he said "all governments rest on opinion."

      Hannah Arendt fell into this later grouping, which explains why in "On Violence" she wrote: "Rule by sheer violence comes into play where power is being lost."

      Those, however, who embrace the first tradition - that "Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun." - probably perceive these as being pretty bleak and hopeless times.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 2:27 pm

      Ultimately power does come from brute force at least as we understand it. There are other sorts of power that come from community. However the modern state has sought to destroy community so that those who come to power have more power. In the U.S. there is no need to always use force–they have used the power of science and stage-magic to rule by controlling the collective unconscious to believe that up is down and down is up. Almost all of the mainstream narrative is demonstrably false–yet people, including nearly all of the left accept it as, at least, mainly true.

      Dave July 20, 2013 at 8:31 pm

      "Rule by sheer violence" also comes into play when power is achieved.

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 2:20 pm

      There is a huge misconception among many on the left about Stand Your Ground laws. Granted, there have been times when these laws have been twisted to grant license to acts that had, or were perceived to have, a racist component. But these laws grew out of the absurdity that existed (and still exists) without them. Without a Stand Your Ground law, the rights all reside with the criminal. You, the victim, are required to retreat. The criminal has the right-of-way.

      The classic example is someone being approached by a mugger. Absent SYG, the potential victim is required to retreat and can only exercise a potentially lethal (or even harmful) response AFTER he or she runs out of room to retreat.

      Another classic example: You surprise a thief breaking into your car. You CANNOT attempt to stop him. You must retreat and let him finish the job. (Absent SYG you cannot use potentially harmful or lethal force to protect property, your own or others.) If threatened, it is the victim's legal obligation and responsibility to defuse the situation by retreating. (Or standing idly by at some "safe" distance.) In jurisdictions without SYG, there have been cases where thieves successfully sued the targets of their crimes for financial compensation for injuries sustained. The criminal was viewed, in the eyes of the law, as the victim. This kind of Kafkaesque, through-the-looking-glass bullshit is what prompted SYG laws in the first place.

      LillithMc July 20, 2013 at 2:49 pm

      In CA there is only instruction to the jury to be "reasonable" when evaluating the victim while requiring the "aggressor" to retreat or to prove his need to shoot. In contrast to Florida, Martin had the right to stand his ground. Zimmerman, the aggressor, should have stayed in his car or retreated. At trial he had the obligation to prove he was in mortal danger.
      I hope the feds investigate both the obvious racial profiling of Martin using his many tapes from the police on different occasions and the problems with the GOP/ALEC/NRA stand your ground laws passed in all the red states.

      Yalt July 20, 2013 at 3:30 pm

      In the general case it is not clear who, if anyone, is the "criminal". Is an older man with a gun, apparently stalking a teenager, a criminal? Or is he an upstanding member of the community carrying out necessary nieghborhood policing activities? Without the telltale shading of the respective skins, who would know?

      Thankfully we don't have to worry about such subtleties because these laws typically refer to the shooter's subjective perception of threat without requiring any objective basis for that perception. That allows the application of the law to be more black and white than it might otherwise be.

      Lexington July 20, 2013 at 4:26 pm

      Yalt's point about your use of the word "criminal" is spot on, but let's deconstruct it just a little more.

      When you say "criminal" it is really code for "person of colour", or "poor person". When you imagine coming across someone breaking into your car, that's who that someone is. Strictly speaking someone isn't a criminal until they have been tried and convicted in a court of law, but to many Americans people of certain racial or ethnic backgrounds and certain socio economic classes are presumptively criminals. And stand your ground, like so many law and order initiatives in the US, is about extending the law to exert every greater social control over them -in this case by giving ordinary citizens -specifically "law abiding", middle class citizens- the power to act as judge, jury and executioner over their inferiors.

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 6:02 pm

      Technically, you're right about the term criminal. After all, on a hot day the guy breaking into your car could just be acting to free a child or pet trapped inside. (Provided, of course, there was a child or pet inside.) And at night, the guy could just be trying to move your car that was blocking his driveway. (If, in fact, you had parked blocking his driveway, which is not at that uncommon in certain communities which are near nightclub hot spots.)

      However, when you're legally parked on a public street and come out of the restaurant or movie theater to find a guy trying to jack your car, for the purpose of everyday common language and communication, you're pretty much safe in describing him as a "criminal".

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm

      @ Jess

      Since when is someone committing a property crime deserving of being shot?

      If you surprise someone burglarizing your car, the appropriate response is to call the police and let them handle it.

      You're just spouting a bunch of stupid vigilante nonsense, in which a non-violent crime stands a high likelihood of being escalated to a violent confrontation.

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 8:22 pm

      @ Mexico -
      "Since when is someone committing a property crime deserving of being shot?

      If you surprise someone burglarizing your car, the appropriate response is to call the police and let them handle it."

      You're kidding, right? No, I'm afraid you're not. For you, the criminal has superior rights. I, who has worked hard (sometimes at multiple jobs) just for the ability to drive a reliable car, owe it - OWE IT - to the thief to let him make off with my car or it's contents. I've got a suggestion for the thief: Don't wanna get shot? Don't rob people and their cars and homes. But that's not good enough for you. No, you believe that the criminal has a RIGHT TO ESCAPE. Because, you see, unlike cop shows, cops usually aren't right around the corner. Even in densely populated urban areas and typical suburbs, police often take 10-20 minutes or more to respond to a call. By then the thief is long gone.

      So what do the police do? Write a report, which you can get within a few days at the local police department - but often only after paying a fee! Then you can get your insurance to pay whatever the residual amount is over and above your deductible, unless your deductible is higher than the damage, in which case you pay the whole thing.

      Got any idea what a replacement airbag costs? About $1,000. Not for a Benz or a Beamer, but for the average car. And that's not including the installation cost. And you know what?

      a) By your reasoning, the thief has the right to come back the day after your car is fixed and rob it again! Because, again, you - the law-abiding, tax-paying good citizen - cannot or should not protect your property.

      b) Your insurance deductible is usually per-incident, meaning that in this scenario, once again you must go out-of-pocket for the replacement cost.

      c) Insurance claims, esp. repeat claims for the same type of damage, can get your policy canceled or the rate raised.

      d) To prioritize things like food, shelter, medical care, etc., lots of people do not carry "Comprehensive" coverage on their policies, so they have NO coverage for losses due to break-ins and vandalism.

      This is what I mean by the inverted logic that pervades jurisdictions without SYG laws. All the rights belong to the criminal. So how about I exercise those rights? I'm hereby giving Yves permission to give you my email addy. You give me your info - residence location, car license number, etc. Then I'll come and rob you over and over and over and over again and you promise never to try to stop me and always to settle for just calling the police. (I'm sure this won't be a problem because evidently you have all the money necessary to continually replace your valuables.)

      JCC July 21, 2013 at 4:10 pm

      Although this discussion is completely off-topic, you both have valid points:

      1) Standing by and waiting for cops is a complete waste of time and you will rarely, if ever, get your property back or be compensated in any way other than the loss of valuable personal time dealing with police, usually on the order of hours and adding insult to injury, insult even from the police themselves. I say this from more than one incident of direct personal experience.

      2) Shooting someone over a radio theft in your car is a little over the top, to put it mildly. On the other hand, in most states, the thief is protected and there is nothing you can do, including the use of pepper spray, taser, or baseball bat/baton, which in my opinion is far more reasonable and appropriate. But most states do not allow even this if you were not attacked directly.

      Which goes to show how unbalanced our society truly is.

      If I cautiosly "swipe" (download) a bunch of 1's and 0's intelligently encoded into 3 minutes of music I face 10's of thousands of dollars in fines and potential loss of a couple of years of feedom, but if I cautiosly jack the radio out of my neighbor's car very little, if anything, will ever happen to me.

      People like Mark Ames say that the average worker is cowardly but the fact is the average citizen wants to avoid like the plage both the left and their accusations (and no real organized solutions) and the right with their accusations (and their highly organized "solutions").

      They just want decent jobs, decent children, decent communities, and decent and reasonable law enforcement. Once 3 out of 4 of these things are gone, there will be a reaction good or bad.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 5:21 pm

      @ Jess

      I'm not buying it.

      Here's a rebuttal to your argument:

      "A Most American Way to Die"

      If you're an unarmed black teen in Florida, someone can gun you down – and they might get away with it

      Read more: http://www.rollingstone.com/culture/news/jordan-davis-stand-your-grounds-latest-victim-20130425#ixzz2ZcfbGZkF

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 6:21 pm

      Nice try at pulling out the old straw man. No attempt to rebut my arguments about why SYG laws came into being, or the factual situation where they do not exist. SYG is a lot like a person's right to protect themselves in their homes. "(Every man's home is his castle.") Prior to changes in laws, it was possible for people to be charged with, and convicted of, murder or manslaughter for using deadly force against intruders WITHIN their own homes. In times past, you couldn't shoot an intruder who was trying "just" to steal your TV or other valuables. Inside your own domicile you could not protect your own property, own the lives of you and your family or guests. Upside down, ass-backwards, through-the-looking-glass laws? Absolutely. Now, in most jurisdictions, that has changed. In many areas you can now even use deadly force to protect your valuables outside the house as long at they're on your property.

      The fact that SOMETIMES, in SOME situations, SYG can either be abused or result in a verdict like the Zimmerman one. There have been many cases of family members accidentally being mistaken for intruders and shoot within the home by other family members. Should it therefore be illegal for homeowners to possess firearms? Most people would answer, "No". (There are, of course, people who believe that citizens should never, ever, EVER, under any circumstances, own firearms, even if they live in areas of Alaska so remote as be reachable only by plane. Never mind the bears feeding on your livestock and threatening your kids, firearms are always and forever intrinsically bad, bad, bad!)

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 6:28 pm

      "The fact that SOMETIMES, in SOME situations, SYG can either be abused or result in a verdict like the Zimmerman one." should have ended with "is being used as the logic to strike down SYG laws."

      My bad. But edit function would be so nice.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 7:13 pm

      As the article I linked explained, the Stand Your Ground law is the extension of an ancient law, one which allowed someone to shoot an intruder who had broken into their home:

      It was another wild debasement of existing law, this one dating back to a distinctly American iteration of English common law called "castle doctrine," where the original duty to retreat was rejected and you had the right to use deadly force if your castle, i.e., dwelling, was invaded, though there were subtle differences state by state. But the gun lobby got cracking in the 1960s and expanded the law to include your lawn and backyard, then, a couple of decades later, your car, as well. Now, with Stand Your Ground, your castle was your person and your right to use deadly force traveled with you.

      I remember many years ago, when I was living in West Texas, there was a doctor who shot and killed a teenage boy. The boy was stealing a battery from the doctor's car and the doctor shot him from the second story window of his home using a high-powered rifle.

      So let me ask you, was what the doctor did morally justified? It sounds like under Stand Your Ground that what he did would have been legal. But is summary execution an appropriate punishment for someone stealing a car battery?

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 8:34 pm

      As I said in another reply to you (which may or may not show up at some later time) "You don't wanna get shot, don't steal."

      Although in my personal situation, I would have:

      First, demanded that the thief drop to the ground;

      Second, if he tried to flee, wound him in the leg. (But then again, I'm a pretty damn good shot.)

      Third, if he demonstrated any hostile intent toward me, such as reaching for or brandishing a weapon of his own, I'd put two in his heart and before he hit the ground another in the head. (Like I said, I'm a good shot.)

      Yves Smith Post authorJuly 20, 2013 at 9:31 pm

      You really think theft justifies murder? Not even the bloody Old Testament stands for that: "an eye for an eye".

      So why don't you go kill Jamie Dimon or Lloyd Blankfein or Joe Cassano? You're wasting your vigilante energy on the wrong targets.

      I lived in NYC in the bad old days, when pickpocketing and other types of theft were common. But no one was worried about their personal safety, even people who had break-ins. These guys just wanted your stuff, they weren't interested in killing or hurting you. People carried mugger money, $10 or $20 they'd hand to a robber in case they were accosted.

      You've said you don't even believe they are threats, just robbers, but you feel justified in blowing them away. That's depraved.

      Plus you are kidding yourself that your precious pop-shooter is any protection if you were to get a hardened criminal pissed off at you. Being good at a practice range or hunting has no relationship to using a weapon in a real life situation. Even cops, who generally have their weapons drawn before going into a hostile encounter, hit their targets only about 15-20% of the time (cops have a higher success rate because they travel in pairs, usually have their weapons drawn and aimed in advance, and can call in backup if they really get in trouble).

      And they've studied how effective guns are. The short answer is not very. The Tueller Rule, based on numerous studies, is that within 21 feet, an assailant can get to you before you will get your weapon out and aimed. And cops have them in holsters, far more accessible than they'd be to you.

      Try pulling out a weapon, and a serious bad guy will kick you in the groin or ribs (crushing your liver or spleen depending on how he decided to aim) or gouge your eyes out, and for the encore, slam your head into the pavement and crack your skull open. But be my guest. Try escalating a fight with a robber. Maybe you'll be right, but if he's a real criminal, you are the one more likely to wind up dead.

      This advice, BTW, comes from folks who helped develop the hand to hand combat course for the Navy Seals and now teach cops, the FBI, and interested laypeople, and they study tapes of prison fights and police encounters. So the scenario above isn't theory, it's what often happens.

      Dave July 21, 2013 at 1:25 am

      Yves,

      I just noticed your response to Jess after I wrote my response to you. You are seriously overestimating the competency of cops! Many are capable, but many are not. Many are a danger to themselves, their fellow cops, and the citizens they serve. They should not be allowed to carry guns. On the other hand, many of my civilian friends are far more capable to defending themselves and others than are many cops. Blanket statements and policies are for governments; they have an agenda.

      "Just give them what they want." "Then they will go away!" It is not quite that simple when one is dealing with a sociopath, and there are a lot of them. Freedom of choice fits here too. If one's freedom to have the means to defend one's self is denied because of some blanket statement by some element of power in society, then we have lost

      We then have returned to the law of the jungle, where the strongest and most ruthless rule by violence. The firearm is the only effective available equalizer and it makes the weakest woman equal to the strongest and most vicious man. The police do not protect people except in a matter of pure happenstance. What they do is arrive after the event and take pictures of the mess. Then they try to catch the bad guys before they do it again.

      Moneta July 21, 2013 at 7:20 am

      When I read comments like these, I get depressed. I am astounded at the depravity in the US.

      Whys is it that in Canada and Europe, we generally don't feel the need to carry arms? We can generally walk around anywhere without being afraid of getting robbed or attacked.

      Why is that? Is it because we have more equality? Gated communities are frowned upon. We believe that it takes a village to raise a child.

      You know what I find really depressing? It's that I see the American way of doing things creeping up on us. Gated communities are popping here and there. Our prime minister is accelerating the process with his neoliberal or neocon policies. Inequality has ballooned… it is still being masked by a real estate bubble where equity is making the low middle class do stupid things. But it is appearing here while most do not see it and I have no clue how to stop it.

      Inverness July 21, 2013 at 9:42 am

      Moneta,
      Right on. Creeping neo-liberalism has hit Canada. Even Quebec, which pretends to be so progressive and socialist, has been cutting their $7.00 day cares and unemployment budgets, and throwing in some nationalism to divert attention away from the reality that Pauline Marois is right-wing.

      Yves Smith Post authorJuly 21, 2013 at 3:09 am

      Dave,

      I have more knowledge of this terrain than you might think.

      1. There are pretty clear indicators of social (male posturing) and economically motivated crimes versus anti-social violence. They stop talking. If they are still talking, it's still a social interaction. Even a crime can be a social interaction. If it's social, you may be able to keep it social. Plus you may have no better options:

      http://www.sfgate.com/crime/article/Marin-hostage-s-heroism-leads-to-arrest-4476655.php

      2. As I indicated, guns are far better at getting your loved ones killed in your house than in any kind of self defense. Even cops have trouble using them well in the heat of battle. If someone is in close proximity to you and has bad intent, you are not going to get your weapon out in time to hold him off. Not even close.

      If you are serious about self defense, take a course taught by people who teach law enforcement professionals. And not martial arts, that's a sport.

      Dave July 21, 2013 at 12:16 pm

      Yves,

      Thanks for your advice on seeking instruction from professionals. I'm way ahead of you though. For the past 30 years I have been inventing and selling them a few of their favorite tools. Some of my closest friends are prominent weapons and tactics instructors for the FBI, Secret Service, Seal Teams and Delta Force. In some cases I am not particularly proud of this, as some organizations such as SWAT teams and other groups have totally corrupted their original ideals. Nevertheless, I have taken instruction on a regular basis and it has been one on one and free of charge in all cases.

      You are right about martial arts, as they are not of that much value in reality.
      These guys deal in reality though, and the reality is that they cannot protect us from violence, simply because they cannot be there at all times. There is an old saying in my social community. "I carry a gun because a cop is too heavy."

      If you carry a gun, at least you have the option of using it if it comes down to a life or death situation. Freedom of choice again. Of course, one most certainly must have instruction in rules of safety and proper use. Concealed carry permits always require an extensive background check and basic instruction. Blanket statements and policies by government and well meaning individuals restrict this freedom of choice.

      It is sad that we live in a society that is saturated with the mentality of violence. My visits to western Canada always give me a glimmer of hope. But the reality is that we do live in a culture of violence. Our children are almost constantly entertained by the same computer games our military uses to de-sensitize soldiers to killing. TV and action movies present lethal violence as a normal solution to many problems. Our wonderful country has been fucked up by the mass media and other factors in more ways than one!

      Dave July 21, 2013 at 1:34 pm

      To the moderator:

      It appears that the truth is way too uncomfortable for this forum. A real discussion is not just preaching to the choir. It involves civilized disagreement and tolerance for diversity. Thanks for giving me the opportunity to present my points of view!

      Jess July 21, 2013 at 2:21 pm

      I agree. Thanks for letting all sides chime in.

      Jess July 21, 2013 at 2:14 pm

      "guns are far better at getting your loved ones killed in your house than in any kind of self defense."

      The studies that presumably make up the basis for that statement have been discredited because they did not segregate out houses and homes used for or by people engaged in criminal activity, most notably drug dealing. And those studies usually linked having a gun in the home to being shot - but NOT by your own gun. (Granted, that does happen from time to time, but it is not nearly as prevalent as the gun-banishment folks would have you believe.)

      What's interesting about this debate is a story that was on HuffPo earlier this week. A former husband was shot dead by his ex-wife in their former family home 15 minutes - FIFTEEN MINUTES - after they left court where a judge slapped the guy with an injunction not to come near his former wife. In this particular case, after he broke down the front door she retreated to the bedroom and only after he broke down that door did she shot and kill him. By your reasoning, she should have never had the gun in the first place, leaving her these options:

      a) Wait however long it took for the cops to get there, and quite possibly being killed before then.

      b) Climbing out a window and trying to outrun her obviously enraged, adrenaline-pumped up husband. Good luck with that. (Not to mention the idea that fleeing would have left any children in the house at their psycho father's not so tender mercies.)

      BTW, just to clear the record of any lingering doubts:

      a) I am not, and have never been, a member of the NRA and I have nothing but disgust for their stance against background checks and their shilling for the firearms industry.

      b) I have been a registered Democrat all my life (although after Obama's betrayals my Dem status merely reflects my desire to vote in the state legislative primaries for my district). In fact, I'm such a racist whacko gun-nut cracker that I worked in Tom Bradley's first campaign for mayor of L.A. (For those not aware, that would be BLACK Tom Bradley). Among my other liberal bona-fides are volunteering in the campaigns of JFK, RFK, and McGovern, plus over two decades of activism with local initiative and referendum campaigns fighting over-development and bond-issue boondoggles.

      Jess July 21, 2013 at 2:47 pm

      "I lived in NYC in the bad old days, when pickpocketing and other types of theft were common. But no one was worried about their personal safety, even people who had break-ins. These guys just wanted your stuff, they weren't interested in killing or hurting you. People carried mugger money, $10 or $20 they'd hand to a robber in case they were accosted."

      So, in effect, the robber has a right to your money or belongings without resistance? Then why do you refer to that time as "the bad old days"? Seems to me that was your perfect world: poor thieves took your money with impunity, no threat of suffering harm, and all was right with the world. $10 or $20 was just "mad money" for you Wall Street types but you made no mention of the people for whom $10 or $20 was a lot of money, enough to buy milk and groceries for the kids, enough to ride the subway to their job for an entire month, etc. And in those days, $10 or $20 bought a lot. Today the equivalent would be what, $50 and $100?

      And, like the example given of the doctor who shot the kid breaking into his car, you believe that it is the sole responsibility of the crime victim to assess what is the appropriate, or potential, result of any response to the crime? The doctor has to ask, "Is it worth killing some one over a battery?" but the thief NEVER has to ask, "Is a battery worth getting killed over?" That's how it's supposed to work?

      Let's examine the motivational aspects of the crime: If the thief needed the battery because he's poor and the battery to his car died, perhaps that mitigates his crime. But it also begs the question, "What does he need his own car for?" If it's to drive to work or the store/pharmacy for food and medicine for his family, then that's more mitigation. Conversely, what if he just wants to be able to cruise around, go over to his chick's crib to get laid, hang with some buds and smoke some weed? (Not that I think there is anything wrong with smoking weed, but let's face it, that reason pales against the others I've mentioned.) Or what if he needs to battery for his car so he can pull off a robbery or deliver some dope to a buyer?

      Now let's turn it around and look at the doctor's perspective:

      Why should he devote 12 years of studying and a grueling internship to become a doctor, incurring mountains of debt in the process, only to arrive at a position where he has to let a thief steal the battery out of the his own car in his own driveway?

      What if the doctor gets an emergency call, what if he is a neurosurgeon or a key member of a heart-transplant team and suddenly his special skills are needed, but he is delayed (or even prevented) from getting to the hospital or patient in time because his car won't start and he has to get a friend, neighbor, cab, etc?

      What if the patient who dies, or suffers irreversible brain damage, is a close friend or relative of yours? What if it was Lambert? Glenzilla? Naomi Klein? Edward Snowden?

      Yves Smith Post authorJuly 21, 2013 at 11:39 pm

      You've just proven my point to have to resort to such strained hypotheticals.

      It is depraved to think that theft of property justifies killing someone. Period. Depraved. Take your sick world views and go pollute another site.

      Dave July 20, 2013 at 8:46 pm

      You are absolutely right that the doctor had no moral or legal right to shoot. I hope that the doctor got life without parole.

      In the Florida M vs Z case though, Mr. Martin's constitutional right to attempt to bash the brains out on the pavement of someone who irritated him was violated by Mr. Zimmerman.

      Yves Smith Post authorJuly 20, 2013 at 9:19 pm

      The idea that Martin was a threat to Zimmerman was never established. Zimmerman had no serious injuries and the angle of the gunshot that entered Martin could be explained by theories other than that offered by the defense.

      There are really obvious reasons why SYG is a bad idea: male posturing. Guys get in bar fights all the time, and one slugs the other and one guy falls and cracks his head on the floor or the bar and winds up dead.

      The Zimmerman verdict has just officially opened up hunting season on minorities. Some white dude accosts black/Hispanic dude and utters a racial slur. Black/Hispanic dude gives him some lip back. White dude escalates and starts getting verbally abusive, maybe gets in black/Hispanic dude's face. Black dude backs away and reaches into pocket to pull out cell phone. White dude shoots, claims later he thought black/Hispanic dude was pulling out a gun whether or not he actually felt threatened.

      Rinse and repeat.

      You might as well call it "legalized ethnic cleansing"

      Dave July 21, 2013 at 12:41 am

      Yves,

      Zimmerman had "no serious injuries" YET. As you pointed out in the next paragraph about the bar fight though, "one guy falls and cracks his head on the floor and winds up dead".

      Considering "ethnic cleansing", black folks have a legal right to buy and own guns, just like white folks, and they do. (unless they are a convicted felon of course) When they use these guns on either whites or blacks, there is usually no mention of race. Quite the contrary when whites use them on blacks. Another case of the media trying to create a frenzy.

      All indications are that Zimmerman is (was) a wanna be cop and a fool. He did not physically attack Martin though. Martin violently attacked Zimmerman evidently just because he felt offended. He was using a deadly weapon, the pavement, apparently to try to remove Zimmerman's brains from his skull.

      I would submit that you and many others have been watching too much TV and too many action flicks. They do not begin to accurately portray the ugliness and sometimes brain damaging or even fatal results of a severe beating inflicted in an unyielding environment such as a city street or sidewalk.

      LucyLulu July 21, 2013 at 2:45 am

      When they use these guns on either whites or blacks, there is usually no mention of race

      Perhaps not, but if they are caught, they are arrested, convicted, and sentenced to prison. They aren't acquitted, much less released the same night without an investigation or being charged.

      Inverness July 21, 2013 at 9:47 am

      Dave, Zimmerman did not physically attack Martin? After stalking him in a van (if you've never been stalked by somebody, it is frightening), He SHOT him. To death.

      Martin was trying to stand his ground, after being psychologically terrorized by a vigilante. Had Zimmerman not done that, nor been emboldened by SYG laws, that boy would be alive today.

      facethemusic July 20, 2013 at 6:32 pm

      There's a logical flaw in your statement:

      "Without a Stand Your Ground law, the rights all reside with the criminal. You, the victim, are required to retreat. The criminal has the right-of-way."

      Both people walking down the street have the rights you speak of. It's only after one of them assaults the other that you can call them a criminal. Until something happens, both people have the right of way. SYG seems to allow a pre-emptive defensive strike, to something that may or may not be there.

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 8:30 pm

      "Both people walking down the street have the rights you speak of. It's only after one of them assaults the other that you can call them a criminal. Until something happens, both people have the right of way. SYG seems to allow a pre-emptive defensive strike, to something that may or may not be there."

      Wrong. SYG only allows you to SYG after you have been threatened. Two folks walking opposite directions, both have equal rights. But absent SYG, once the other guy pulls a gun or a knife or a lead pipe and demands your money, he has the right-of-way. You must retreat and/or fork over to avoid confrontation. It is your responsibility to insure that the situation does not escalate. Forget the guy aspect; if you engage in hand-to-hand combat with the guy, you're liable for his injuries because you didn't comply with his demands and/or retreat or flee. This is the absurdity of jurisdictions without SYG laws.

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 8:36 pm

      Should be "forget the gun aspect".

      Can we please have an edit function? Pretty please?

      myshkin July 20, 2013 at 8:57 pm

      Can we please stop paying attention to anything you have to say.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 11:38 pm

      Wrong. Not "have been threatened." Feel threatened. Unfortunately, racists tend to feel threatened by black people. CNN:

      A Florida man charged with murder in the fatal shooting of a [black] teenager amid an argument over loud music at a gas station pleaded not guilty Monday.

      Michael Dunn, 45, entered his plea during a hearing Monday morning at the Duval County, Florida, jail.

      Dunn told investigators he fired at a car in which Jordan Davis, 17, and three of his friends were sitting because he felt threatened by them. No guns were found inside the teens' car, the Jacksonville Sheriff's Office said.

      So, if open season on black people sounds like a good idea to you, by all means support lost cause "stand your ground" laws.

      Jess July 21, 2013 at 1:48 pm

      And you'll notice the man has been charged with murder. That's what gets the whole SYG issue confused. As I understand it, any SYG defense predicated on the idea of "feeling threatened" rests on having some valid reason, such as the presence of a weapon, menacing behavior, etc.

      Best playing cards in delhi July 20, 2013 at 6:40 am

      The world of espionage has been always attracted. Operation of the secret of Hollywood many books, TV shows and movies and dagger, cloak and mark cards, Playing cards, spy war game, Best playing cards, Contact lenses for marked Card, Marked cards contact lenses, Playing cards. It has been the subject of A big budget. However, beyond the fiction, in a variety of applications and Environments, there is a need for a very real for the device "spy" more than One.

      middle seaman July 20, 2013 at 6:59 am

      Hedges mentions the Swedish success of eliminating poverty in the 80s. This success belongs to Social Democrats which, in this country, means the more liberal wing of the Democratic Party before Reagan. Social Democrats don't equate with socialism. Socialism which, at least most of its 20th century life, means a very limited capitalistic economy. We know that system doesn't work.

      The left has weakened drastically during the late 20th century years and since then. The US is not alone in that. The Israeli left deteriorated to almost a joke. Many European countries went the same way.

      The US left became increasingly frustrated with its inability to respond to popular affinity to low level affluence. It became Tea Party left. Hate became a major factor in everything. They gang raped Hillary. They abandoned labor unions, they rejected poor whites, they hated everything right wing and developed a racial rejection towards Israel that was copied from its European equivalent whose source, mainly a Millennium of European Anti-Semitism.

      Uprisings don't help. Million demonstrated, with limited violence, in Madrid, Athens and Tel Aviv. The rich couldn't care less. The Arab Spring, a historical and universal achievement of the Arab youth, has been kidnapped by Fundamentalists.

      In the two segments so far, Hedges provides important information, but his prescription for solutions are awfully misplaced.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 9:31 am

      Hugh Sir,

      Sorry to rain on your parade, but most left-of-centre parties in Western Europe were founded on Socialist, as opposed to Communist, foundations and principles – as an example, within Germany from the states founding in 1871, and until the mid 1950's the German SDP group was an avowed Socialist movement – the KDP, an off shoot of the SPD, was an avowed Communist Party.

      Here in the UK, the Labour Party founded at the beginning of the 20th Century was an openly Socialist and progressive movement – even if its leaders when in power failed to honour Clause IV of the party's constitution.

      The UK Labour Party under one Tony Blair ceased to be an avowed Socialist/Labour Party with the removal of Clause IV in the mid-1990's – the rest is history, for as with the US Democratic Party, the UK's Labour Party is as addicted to neoliberal economics and self serving careerist politicians as the Democrat Party.

      The German SPD had its Blair moment in the 1950's, but was still a credible left-of-centre progressive movement well in to the 1990's – not so now I'm afraid.

      In a nutshell, most Northern European left-of-centre political groupings favoured whats referred too as a 'mixed-economy' with state and private enterprises – Southern European nations, among them France, have a somewhat different history as far as Communism and left-of-centre political groupings are concerned, much of this religious-based, namely the Catholic Church.

      Whilst its been a while since I've studied European comparative politics, you had common threads in Europe in the more Northern states.

      Its all interesting stuff, but Communism, not to be conflated with Socialism or social democratic movements, was always more stronger in the Southern European nations – we should discount Weimar Germany's experience, which was an exception to the rule as politics became more polarised due to economic dislocation.

      What is a fact, and one usually well hidden from the US populace, is how brutally repressed anything with a hint of left-of-centre smell to it was in the USA, this from the time of the Irish diaspora through to the treatment of OWS.

      Its truly shocking now that Nixon could be accused of being a Socialist by those running both the Dems and Republican's presently – which gives an indication of how much to the right US politics has moved in less than 40 years, and this trend coincides with the ascendency of the economic philosophy now referred too as 'neoliberalism', which in reality is a backwards looking system of governance and economics born out of the Victorian era – it really should be consigned to the dustbin of history.

      As for myself, born and raised in the South Wales valleys of the UK, I have no issue calling myself a Socialist, which is a philosophy again that favours a so called 'mixed-economy' wedded to a strong welfare state – I'm certainly no Communist, although have o issues with much of Marx and Engels output, as well as many other noted left-of-centre progressives and revolutionaries of the later part of the nineteenth century.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 9:45 am

      That should be in reply to Seaman and not Hugh – so an apology to Hugh.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 1:38 pm

      That's a great comment, but I think socialists have to do some really profound self-examination and soul searching.

      Lawrence Goodwyn, for instance, in The Populist Moment renders a rather harsh criticism of socialism:

      On the available evidence, twentieth-century people around the globe are paying a high price for their submission to the hierarchical languages of political analysis that have grown out of the visions of Adam Smith and Karl Marx. The problem that will doubtless interest future historians is not so much the presence, in the twentieth century, of mass political alienation, but the passivity with which the citizenry accepted that condition.

      [….]

      But while American socialists, for reasons they themselves did not cause, can be seen in retrospect as never having had a chance, they can be severely faulted for the dull dogmatism and political adolescence of their response to this circumstance… [I]ndividual righteousness and endless sectarian warfare over ideology came to characterize the politics of a creed rigidified in the prose of nineteenth-century prophets. As a body of political ideas, socialism in America - as in so many other countries - never developed a capacity for self-generating creativity. It remained in intellectual servitude to sundry "correct" interpretations by sundry theorists - mostly dead theorists - even as the unfolding history of the twentieth century raised compelling new questions about the most difficult political problem facing mankind: the centralization of power in highly technological societies. If it requires an army responsive to a central political committee to domesticate the corporate state, socialism has overwhelmingly failed to deal with the question of who, in the name of democratic values, would domesticate the part and the army. In the face of such a central impasse, it requires a rather grand failure of imagination to sustain the traditional socialist faith.

      Perhaps this is what Hedges means when he speaks of the "inability to articulate a viable socialism."

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm

      One of the issues I see hindering the liberals in North America is their focus on materialism.

      What I have noticed is that those of a conservative mindset tend to see the pie as limited in size and those of a liberal mindset tend to think that the size of the pie can be unlimited. Admittedly, there are those with a conservative mindset who do think resources are unlimited but their primary goal is often to corner the markets so they can control a bigger portion of the pie and this caps the size of the pie.

      I believe the pie can be unlimited but not as long as our money and economic systems are primarily based on hard goods and materialism.

      I think the liberals will always lose when the resources become scarce within the scope of the economic system at the time. When the hard assets got scarce in Europe, we got the righties digging their heels and mass exodus.

      Now that all land is owned in the US, we are slowly seeing a creeping rentier society. And globally, there is not much more land to go to that is free for the taking.

      Materialism individualism will need to shrink for our situation to improve. I am optimistic humanity will improve and technology will help but I don't think this will happen with 7 billion people on the planet.

      Dave July 20, 2013 at 8:53 pm

      We need to put birth control chemicals in the water! Personally, I would tax children rather than greedy capitalists.

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 9:50 pm

      That's what we're doing, except we don't explicitly call it taxes.

      Yalt July 20, 2013 at 2:35 pm

      I have a different impression of US labor history. "Bread and roses" in Lawrence, those iconic "I am a Man" signs in Memphis, the Wobbly soapboxes in Spokane…all pretty creative if you ask me, and hardly passive.

      "Intellectual subservience to sundry correct interpretations?" Not down in the trenches, where it mattered.

      Lexington July 20, 2013 at 4:35 pm

      Goodwyn's point is perhaps not inaccurate when discussing the history of socialism in America, but you're point is equally well taken: history isn't destiny.

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 6:04 pm

      @ Yalt

      Your take sounds closer to that of Reinhold Niebuhr:

      The American labor movement was almost completely bereft of the ideological weapons, which the rebellious industrial masses of Europe carried. In its inception it disavowed not only Marxist revolutionary formulas but every kind of political program. It was a pragmatic movement, born of the necessity of setting organized power against organized power in a technical society. Gradually it became conscious of the fact that economic power does try to bend government to its own ends. It has, therefore, decided to challenge a combination of political and economic power with a like combination of its own…

      More recently, housing, medicine and social security have become matters of public and political policy. All this has been accomplished on a purely pragmatic basis, without the ideological baggage which European labor carried.

      –REINHOLD NIEBUHR, The Irony of American History

      Niebuhr may not be an unbiased source, though, because he was a member of the Socialist Party up until 1940. Niebuhr's break with the Socialist Party, however, was related to pacifism, and not specifically due to labor or welfare society issues. Niebuhr had been a pacifist, but his position had changed so that it was no longer reconcilable with that of the anti-war Socialist Party. It was also over the issue of pacifism where the Rev. Martin Luther King parted ways with Niebuhr.

      Yalt July 20, 2013 at 11:10 pm

      No, that is not my take.

      Niebuhr's use of the term "baggage" is telling. The Wobblies were as principled, as "ideological" in the true sense of the word, as any labor movement I can think of. "Bread and roses," the demand for the satisfaction of spiritual and not just of material needs, was anything but pragmatic. The Seattle free-speech soapbox action was a sophisticated civil demonstration and a deeply political act.

      Their deeply-held principles, their ideology, gave them a moral power that organized US labor has never regained. For Niebuhr this is "baggage".

      There's a reason he found it so easy to make his piece with the militarists, and there are few people I would less want to see my views conflated with.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 2:55 pm

      @Down Mexico,

      Can I first refer you to a post I made in yesterday's comments on Hedges first Real News interview, namely, due to the elaborate language he utilised in his opening missive, he'd already lost the argument due to the fact that if you are from a non-universiry educational background most would not have a clue what he was talking about – I do not blame a persons ignorance on them personally though, this issue has much to do with the education system and other modern distractions – this applies in equal measure in the UK and USA.

      Further, and when you reference 'socialism', it seems to me you always do this from the vantage point of having read it in a academic book, rather than actually lived or experienced it.

      To be perfectly honest, I do not believe you can learn about socialism from a book or academic study – socialism must be in the heart and learned from real life experiences and real life struggles and only the poor, or, as I refer to it, the working class, can have a true and meaningful understanding of what socialism is, and again this is learn't from real life experiences – for this and this alone, I'd always rather read Thomas Paine, than anything written by the supposed great minds of political philosophy, i.e., I cannot abide John Locke.

      Now, you are instructing members of the working class, whom many would believe should be well versed in socialism, to re-evaluate what socialism and left-of-centre politics is about, this despite the fact that the vast majority are not versed is such matters. And this is because, on the whole, the State denies them an education whereby by they can be versed in left-of-centre political philosophies, never mind, there own history and contribution to the formation of the USA, both prior and after 1776.

      Further, in the USA at least, talk of the working class is avoided, i.e., as far as I can tell, the USA has no working class, you are either middle class or blue collar – but never working class.

      This I find strange, for where I grew up, we were all fully aware of what class we belonged too and the socialism and working class solidarity I often refer too originated in actual real and oppressed communities, where working class solidarity was essential if we were to better ourselves and reverse class injustice – to all extent and purposes, one is talking about 'communtarianism', which our friend Rousseau discussing in much of his own output.

      Now, as highlighted, and thankfully I was lucky enough to have a good education paid for by the state, whilst I may be able to cotton on to much of the debate, dialogue and academic-based research and philosophy many here highlight continually, the fact remains, that many of those who are required to combine forces to change matters, be this by legal means, or revolutionary means, to be frank, have little idea what many are discussing on these boards – and yet, these are 'socialists', they just do not understand it because class and education are denied in the USA and many other nations.

      Anyway, that's my two bobs worth, but, its no good preaching to the converted and highlighting how well read we are and expect revolutionary change, if those forces that can bring about said change cannot understand us – might as well speak in Latin.

      So, I do not think left-of-centre grouping, namely the working classes need to re-evaluate themselves – progressives and academics perhaps, the working class that's denied a class consciousness certainly cannot do that – and these are your socialists and the vanguard necessary for a better tomorrow.

      charles sereno July 20, 2013 at 4:38 pm

      Just came late upon this discussion and was impressed (and maybe missed some of it). I see several viewpoints, not particularly contradictory, though typically ones employing the kind of arguments that lead to non-productive cat fights. One bit that I can add based on experience is this - the "masses" (or fill in the blank) are not unattracted to the intellectual elite, on one condition. That condition being that the person espousing views, (even when offensive to those they currently follow), has risen up from their own background and have experienced enough of it to understand how they think. Once that happens, they swell with pride and are eager to learn new ways. This is the makings of a true revolution. The acid test of a leader is this - Does he/she fully comprehend that one's own competence in a particular area must be accompanied by a quest for leaders in many other areas?
      The problem Chris Hedges has (not his fault) is that his audience doesn't suspect how much he's shared their own experiences.

      digi_owl July 20, 2013 at 11:07 am

      I suspect the academic left in the Nordics and elsewhere were too effective at selling the message of education as a road to a high wage.

      To take my home country of Norway, the supposed labor party has become something of a bureaucrat's party. And their "socialist" splinter party has mostly focused on students, academia and foreign issues.

      In its place has risen a populist right wing party focused on entrepreneurship and the myth of the self made man. Meaning that there is no political party that think about the industrial and service worker from their own point of view.

      It is either from the professional administrator/bureaucrat point of view, or the budding business man point of view (where the laborer becomes a one man business doing contract/consultant work rather than wage work).

      Massinissa July 20, 2013 at 11:33 am

      Parts of your post are sort of facepalm.

      Firstly, what is wrong with not supporting that center right clown Hillary? Do you really still think she would have been any different than Obama? Or Bill Clinton for that matter?

      And the antipathy towards part of the left of Israel, which by the way is certainly a minority (DiFi is part of the 'left' for gods sakes! Shes practically Israel's representative to the Senate!), is most certainly not based on racial grounds. To suggest as such is a thorough misdirection and strawman, and quite insulting.

      Though I agree with most of the rest of the post, with the exception of your attitudes towards socialism, which Rogers debunks far more ably than I.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 1:20 pm

      Most social-democrats are described as being proponents of a managed economy. You allow capitalism to thrive where it thrives best and you guarantee that citizens do not suffer from deprivation. When capitalism goes awry you stem pin. Scandinavia was never socialist–it always had capitalism at the center of the economy.

      Tokai Tuna July 20, 2013 at 1:32 pm

      I thought the Arab spring was promoted by NGOs and the like, but billed as an authentic youth uprising. Fundamentalists are fine as long as they still behave like Mubarak did. Behave as 'Murica prefers and we'll call it a Democratic incubator of Jeffersonian Fundamentalism, the weapons and money are on the way – it's getting harder to buy people off these days.
      Part of the problem with the "American Tinderbox" is the torrent of misinformation and propaganda aimed at everyone. Right next to Hedges columns for example, you'll see Eugene Robinson, who chops out the type and posts a civil whimper of protest. Starbucks readin'.

      Yalt July 20, 2013 at 2:42 pm

      I suspect it was both at the same time–that was certainly the case in the Ukraine, where the great majority of the Orange demonstrators were blissfully unaware of the fact that the movement they embodied was being funded by and steered from the West.

      It's not so different here–our local Tea Party crowd really believes they're a genuine grassroots movement set off by a completely unscripted and impromptu television rant. They know nothing about the Kochs, if you told them they wouldn't believe you, if they believed you they wouldn't care.

      OIFVet July 20, 2013 at 2:29 pm

      Respectfully, that which you describe as "left" is nothing more than a faction of the neoliberal movement. Faux "progressives" of the MSNBC variety are nothing more than useful stooges for the official narrative which seeks to convince us that the Democrat party is a leftist party, that Obama is the best thing since sliced bread, that there is an actual alternative to the neoliberal sociopathy which is leading us into the serfdom of the new Dark Age. And I refuse to recognize anyone named Clinton as a leftist, what with NAFTA, Graham-Leach-Bliley, and the unhealthy Rubinite dependency…

      Massinissa July 20, 2013 at 3:28 pm

      AMEN. My thoughts exactly.

      I fail to see why some 'leftists' are STILL upset that Obama beat that Rubinite Hillary. For those folks, whenever Obama does something bad, they say, "Ah, Hillary would have been so much better!" with absolutely no evidence at all that she would have done anything different. Its sort of nauseating to me.

      Jess July 20, 2013 at 6:37 pm

      Another AMEN.

      And it's not "sort of nauseating" to be, it's just nauseating.

      Synopticist July 21, 2013 at 8:54 am

      I don't agree with that. I think Clinton would have been a fair bit better than Obama. Obama is a centre-right corporatist, Clinton's a centrist.

      But the big difference is she would have understood that there was no room for compromise with the republicans. Obama is a bit of a pussy basically, whereas Clinton isn't, and shew also understands the need to keep your base happy, which in her case included unions.

      OIFVet July 21, 2013 at 11:59 am

      Lesser evilism again. Really?! Let me guess, her Secretary of Energy will be Ed Rendell… No thanks. And I will never buy the "Obama is a pussy" meme, he gets precisely what he wants.

      Doug Terpstra July 20, 2013 at 11:19 pm

      Yup, different puppets; same string-pullers, same show. Obama is puppet V2.0, artificial sentience, apparently without conscience or soul.

      Tenney Naumer July 20, 2013 at 7:12 am

      It is utterly amazing how the introduction of fracking has galvanized Americans on both sides of the political divide. Anti-fracking movemnts are growing like wildfire across the country and they are also partnering with the anti-pipeline movements. People are looking at the role of city and county governments like never before. The battle between ordinary people and oil and gas companies and all the campaign money flowing in to state legislators have awoken the passive public.e

      MikeNY July 20, 2013 at 7:17 am

      As it's said in politics, things can move quickly from the impossible to the inevitable, without stopping at the probable.

      If we keep pumping a million or more college graduates into the workforce every year without decent prospects for employment, very soon we will have a critical mass of 10+ million who may be ready simply to "withdraw from the system". Young, educated, indebted, and unemployed.

      I believe, of course, that power will try to cling to power: when social unrest emerges, the federal government will find the money for a massive jobs program. It's the least risky option, the most conservative, for the plutocracy.

      Skeptic July 20, 2013 at 7:34 am

      I wonder what role Professional Sports (including NCAA) and the Entertainment Complex (including Iphones, Ipads, other entertainment devices) play in the Pacification of America. Seems most folks have their entertainment if nothing else.

      Professional Sports all have virtual Monopolies granted by government fiat. They all get huge government tax subsidies either directly through stadia financing or other means. Every city in America has its team. Many of these teams are owned by Wall Street types or hedge fund guys (Boston Red Sox). Bernie Madoff was using NY Mets to get clients. The airwaves are full of Sportz Talk. Every newscast has its Sportz Update. The only alternative commentator I have ever heard really go after Professional Sportz is Alex Jones.

      Universities too have all their Sportz, generally acting as feeders into the Big Money Sportz. Many Latin Perfessors will tell you that Sportz runs the University.

      If I am not mistaken, is that not an ADIDAS shirt Tsarnaev is wearing on the cover of Rolling Stone? ADIDAS one of the biggest domestic and international Sportz suppliers and advertisers. So even Tsarnaev has been Sportz brainwashed? I have seen this many times. Michael Moore wearing Sportz hats. I have seen demonstrators at labor rallies wearing NYYankees hats. NYYankees, the team of Wall Street.

      Then there are numerous Progressives and Liberals who all have their favorite teams. Really remarkable, they do not even understand the link between Sportz, the State and the Great Deterioration. No, they need their lighter moment at the ballpark where they can forget, guzzle ten dollar beers and be advertised to.

      Then there's Hollywood, Disney, and all the Entertainment conglomerates who control that Industry. Not exactly Occupy material.

      Lastly, all the Tech Toyz. Ipads, phones, Facebooks, etc. to divert and entertain us all on the way down. Get all the latest Sportz scores and Celeb Chatter. Cheaply too. If things get really bad, the 1% can just give free sat TV and the newest Apple trinket to the 99% and just keep on truckin'. Just like buying Manhattan for $24! Maybe throw in a ticket to the BIG GAME.(Obummah gave away free cellphones.)

      Why are Sportz, Entertainment, Tech Toyz all ignored as factors in the Pacification of America? Is it because we all have our favorite teams, conglomeratized entertainments and Tech Toyz? Seems that there is one Big Elephant no one is mentioning.

      So, being from Boston, go Red Sox, Patriots (there's a name a revolutionary can love), Celtics, Bruins, BC Eagles, Harvard Crimson,…. etc.

      What's your favorite team or TV show or Tech Toy?

      When is NC going to have a Sportz Section?

      Boston Scrod July 20, 2013 at 9:15 am

      Skeptic doesn't seem to appreciate the fact that our founders freed us from the yoke of colonial oppression so that we could use our hard won freedom to commit our lives to the enjoyment of spectacle and entertainment, both real and virtual. Wake up and smell the coffee, man!

      mark worden July 20, 2013 at 9:21 am

      Neil Postman: Amusing ourselves to Death. comes to mind.

      not to mention….bread and circuses

      Adam Noel July 20, 2013 at 9:34 am

      Good comment and one with many here agree. This is why I am completely fatalistic about change coming as long as the entertainment-media nexus exists. No change can occur because change would entail missing Glee, The Kardashians or the Football game.

      From an evolutionary perspective the current system is novel. This system, through pursuit of the profit motive, has been optimized (selection of products that produce the most profit will result in more of those products. These products, if they are to be extra-profitable, most exploit psychology in some shape or form) to override our instincts and drive consumerism.

      To a certain degree even those who profess to be proponents of change (Michael Moore, etc) view such events as "just fun" while they are nothing like the sporting events, plays, etc of the century prior. These events, once you are plugged into them, are marketing machines optimized to ensure you keep coming back.

      Huxley is ultimately more right then Orwell. Most people read Huxley and are terrified at the idea of soma yet fail to recognize such a system already exists. Through exploitation of evolutionary novel contexts to produce rampant consumerism we are already enslaved. Like you said, as long as the entertainment-media complex keeps on churning out content nobody will notice.

      People who promote wanting a simpler life cannot compete with sky-diving out of planes recording the experience with google glass, jumping off ramps and then zip-lining (Or something) into a press release. Life is Hollywood now, baby. You either go big or go home.

      F. Beard July 20, 2013 at 9:45 am

      Quit blaming the victims!

      Back when most of us were on the family farms the banks stole, there was plenty of wholesome entertainment and work to do.

      But now most people have to make do with the mess of pottage they've been given in return – cheap entertainment and mass consumption.

      Adam Noel July 20, 2013 at 9:52 am

      I do agree with you that it is not anyone's fault. It is a way of life now pretty much and as I said to a friend before… when I look behind it all sometimes there is still a distinctly human character to some of it. (i.e. all is not lost)

      For example, watching a television show with a sibling eventually becomes part of the bond between those two siblings. Sure, to a certain degree, it is a mass produced pile of garbage but the bond formed through the mass produced pile of garbage is still meaningful.

      It is never the victim's fault and to a certain degree it isn't even the oligarch's faults. The system itself is the problem.

      F. Beard July 20, 2013 at 9:58 am

      I do agree with you that it is not anyone's fault. Adam Noel

      I've never said that. Those who set up the money system and those who continue to support it in the face of a just alternative are certainly at fault.

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 4:42 pm

      If you were them, you would do the same thing.

      Empathy is what will help us get us out of this hole.

      F. Beard July 20, 2013 at 6:03 pm

      Speak for yourself.

      I've lent people money quite a few times but never charged them interest. So it appears I can't even get to 1st bank when it comes to being a banker.

      You?

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 10:01 pm

      Cognitive empathy: the drive to identify another's mental states.[14][17] The term cognitive empathy and theory of mind are often used synonymously.[18
      ---
      It's not a question of putting the person you are in someone else's shoes because the reality is that if you had the genetics, upbringing and experiences of the 1%, you would not be the person you are now.

      Another reality is that you never really know how you would act in intense situations until you live it. I know, I've been there and it's an eye opener.

      F. Beard July 21, 2013 at 4:46 pm

      Actually dear, (now that I know you're female) I do realize that we're in a tragic situation and I don't blame very many at all. For example, I hate usury but I'm pretty sure my pension depends on it. I hate credit creation but realize pension funds are invested in banks.

      I do seek a painless way out for everyone except sadists and those who seek to profit from misery.

      Moneta July 21, 2013 at 7:57 pm

      I do realize that it is very difficult to get our worldviews across in blurbs.

      And I do also realize that each one of us has a few pieces of the puzzle. Some more than others but each piece counts.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 12:37 pm

      Noel Sir,

      First, I concur with your analysis that a large part of the populace, be it in North America or the more northerly parts of Western Europe do seem to be addicted to Soma – of course referencing Huxley's Brave New World, which as with Orwell's 1984 is a wonderful dystopian novel predicting a ghastly future for mankind – indeed, if we mix both Huxley's dystopia with that of Orwell's, I think we are more or less 99% there in those northern nations where unemployment is at or below 10%.

      I don't think we can say this for places such as Mexico, or many of the Southern European nations – many of whom due to poverty are unable to enjoy the 'paid for' bread and circuses our masters wish us to consume.

      However, and what's perhaps even more interesting, and shall I say I think Yves's misses the point a little in Hedges second RN interview – there is actually no commons so to speak, no hallowed and commonly owned ground where critics can air a grievance and communicate effectively face-to-face. Indeed, we have to all extent and purposes become digitally atomised – and as others have noted, one cannot launch a revolution via digital means blogging on sites like NC. Indeed, NC actually benefits TPTB by the very fact we are stuck in front of a monitor or with a iPad posting comments on these boards, rather than socialising and rioting – which our friends in Southern Europe seem adapt at doing, namely in Spain, Greece and Italy, and sometimes in France.

      So, my analysis for what its worth, which may be a little deterministic for some, is this: At our present juncture in the profit-driven proto-fascist nations such as the USA and UK we have the drip feed of SOMA, or as I refer to it as, bubblegum entertainment of the lowest kind, much of which you have to access via paid subscriptions. Now if you have high employment levels and a decent welfare safety net, its possible to keep persons of the street and from interacting at a personal level – be this in work, taverns, sports grounds whatever – what happens though, when the majority due to lack of funds cannot actually access these dumbing down services>

      And this is where our trajectory is taking us, for not only under neoliberalism does every thing have to be paid for and a profit derived thereof, but by the very act of cutting wages and increasing unemployment to unheard of levels, our masters are digging their own graves.

      I will make one further addition based on observations in the UK. Its been approx. 40 years since the neoliberal inspired counter revolution was launched, in which time we have witnessed a huge increase in inequality, unemployment and real poverty, exacerbated by the GFC – unlike its bedfellow though in the USA, so demented are our neoliberal baboons in the UK, that they have adopted a policy of austerity in a period of stagflation and high unemployment, however, the cutbacks are not only on the welfare state, quite the reverse in fact has happened to that in America, namely, even the forces of law and order, and the military have had huge cutbacks – with the only increase in spending on our secret services. So, instead of militarising the state apparatus, as in the US, our masters have done the reverse, i.e., they are so greedy and tightfisted that they will not pay for their own protection.

      So, don't be surprised to see further outbreaks of public rioting and disorder in the UK over the coming years as further austerity is embraced – for if you cannot even afford the Soma, like most addicts you'll turn to crime, or combine with others and riot – as for political change, I think this will only come when this inflection point is reached, which is basically what Hedges is saying, and if the UK goes, so does much of Europe – particularly given we are about the most passive of all our European neighbours I'm ashamed to say.

      Funny that!!!!!!!!!

      from Mexico July 20, 2013 at 10:40 am

      Carlos Fuentes called it the new Baroque, a Baroque that had devolved into its Rococo extreme. There is no empty time and no empty space, as every space and every moment is filled with dazzling, lavish, elaborate, swirling splendor. Here's an illustration of the orginal Rococo:

      http://www.reprodart.com/kunst/salvador_barbudo_sanchez/1014478.jpg

      It was also used in religous settings. Here's an example from Mexico, where the Rococo perhaps was carried to its most elaborate extreme:

      http://safe-img02.olx.com.mx/ui/11/83/25/1306095947_206347825_14-Paseo-cultural-a-Puebla-.jpg

      Other terms for it are, in Mexico, pan y toros, or in Roman times bread and circus.

      It didn't work out too well for Luis XVI or Marie Antoinette, nor for the Bourbons in Mexico. And some argue it wasn't a sustainable form of social control in Rome either, although I'm sure you are aware there are about a thousand different theories on why the Roman Empire declined.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 4:52 pm

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 1:31 pm

      Yes, the whole entertainment industry and consumerism did not arise randomly as everyone including nearly all leftists belive. It was engineered as surely as Hedges has carefully examined the origins of manufacturing consent by the power-elite. The current narrative we live under is not a random interaction of market forces–i.e., giving people what they want. I used to think that. One book that changed my mind, is Captains of Consciousness, Advertising and the Social Roots of the Consumer Culture written in the 70s that contains numerous quotes from the power-elite on how to condition the populace to create the culture you describe.

      This is not the sort of natural result of freedom of expression and all that. Our fetters, our narratives have been carefully constructed using the best minds, the best materials, the best research available to enslave us not by jack-booted thugs–that clearly did not work but through what would have once been called "magic spells."

      I believe that the interest in magic and fantasy has a lot to do with the fact that consciously we are not allowed to admit to ourselves that we live in a world manipulated by, frankly, evil magicians–they use our desperate need to believe we actually are "individuals" who want to be free to create our own identity. We're not, we're food for predators. Hedges, by the way does an excellent jobs in several of his books describing some of this though he and I disagree on some of his conclusions.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm

      To them we are food. To us, we are individuals, fully human moral agents.

      reslez July 20, 2013 at 9:08 pm

      We are ruled by evil magicians. Objectivism falls on the same slice of the alignment pie as True (or Neutral) Evil:

      A neutral evil villain does whatever she can get away with. She is out for herself, pure and simple. She sheds no tears for those she kills, whether for profit, sport, or convenience. She has no love of order and holds no illusion that following laws, traditions, or codes would make her any better or more noble. On the other hand, she doesn't have the restless nature or love of conflict that a chaotic evil villain has.

      Neutral evil beings consider their alignment to be the best because they can advance themselves without regard for others.

      This ethos holds that seeking to promote weal for all actually brings woe to the truly deserving. Natural forces which are meant to cull out the weak and stupid are artificially suppressed by so-called good, and the fittest are wrongfully held back, so whatever means are expedient can be used by te powerful to gain and maintain their dominance, without concern for anything.

      Neutral evil characters are primarily concerned with themselves and their own advancement. They have no particular objection to working with others or, for that matter, going it on their own. Their only interest is in getting ahead. If there is a quick and easy way to gain a profit, whether it be legal, questionable, or obviously illegal, they take advantage of it. Although neutral evil characters do not have the every-man-for-himself attitude of chaotic characters, they have no qualms about betraying their friends and companions for personal gain. They typically base their allegiance on power and money, which makes them quite receptive to bribes.

      The neutral evil is an unscrupulous, self-serving character who is only out for himself. Power, glory, wealth, position, and anything that will make his life more comfortable is his goal. It matters not who gets caught in the middle, as long as he comes out smelling like a rose. This person will lie, cheat, and kill anyone to attain his personal goals.

      from The D&D Alignment System: Neutral Evil

      Schofield July 20, 2013 at 8:43 am

      The class war is ultimately based on the failure to understand how both human nature and money works. Ultimately it's a failure to understand the importance of balance. Balancing self-interest against other-interest and public creation of money against private creation.

      JCC July 21, 2013 at 4:25 pm

      That's for sure, ir as Henry Ford said many years ago before things got really out of hand, "It is well enough that the people of this nation do not understand our banking and monetary system, for if they did, I believe there would be a revolution before tomorrow morning."

      I'm reading Bad Money by Kevin Phillips at the moment, and although outdated by 5 years or so, the patterns he describes have gotten worse.

      The first thing the Left needs to do is read this, have all their acolytes read it, and then ban all discussions on his nuanced politics (such as always describing the presidents of countries that castigate the U.S. as "strongmen" while using the polite honorific for those presidents/prime ministers that are our allies) and pay attention to the bare facts, as well as read NakedCap :)

      I'm not done with Bad Money yet, maybe I'll change my mind, but until you get the average person on the streets to understand our system of money, nothing good will be accomplished.

      C.Raghavan July 20, 2013 at 8:53 am

      see recent column of Prof. Johan Galtung of Transcend Peace University http://www.ipsnews.net/2013/07/the-new-fascism/
      raghavan

      profoundlogic July 20, 2013 at 9:13 am

      If you're looking for a real tinderbox, check out the Comex. JPM's eligible gold down 66% in one day. LOL! One has to wonder how long the bullion banks and Fed can keep this game up? Any coincidence that the Fed is now reconsidering banks' commodity trading actions? Things that make you go hmmmm.

      Perhaps Hedges should begin a movement to expose the gold leasing actions contributing to the obfuscation of balance sheets? In an age when regulation has become a joke, this is looking more like another MF Global waiting to happen. It's pretty hard to tender delivery of what you don't have.

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2013-07-20/fed-reviewing-2003-decision-on-banks-commodities-activities.html

      Bam_Man July 20, 2013 at 10:53 am

      And when they declare Force Majeure and offer settlement in cash only, the COMEX will finally be recognized as the "bucket shop" that it is.

      Jennifer July 20, 2013 at 9:17 am

      I agree that Obama has been terribly destructive-whether by design or by accident doesn't really matter. And I agree that there is nothing very hopeful about the political "left". But there are pockets of hope and resistance everywhere-the low-wage organizing happening all over the country, the ripple effects of Snowden, the fight in Texas over choice. More and more people are recognizing class war, even if they don't call it that. And there are mainstream allies in this, even if they don't have the same rationale. It's always a question of how this dissatisfaction will channeled, if people think they can vote for Democrats indiscriminately and get change, than no, that is not going to work. But if a few independent voices could be elected, and/or if people can organize around specific issues, and hold accountable whoever is in office for those issues, things could happen. It's true that Americans don't take to the streets the way others do, but seriously what has all that street protesting got Europeans? As far as I can tell, nothing. I don't want to say protests are useless, of course not, but it's just as silly to suggest that's the only way significant change will occur.
      I will tell in Chicago there is organizing all over the place, mostly by young people who fully understand what is at stake.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 1:35 pm

      Actually, street demos have gotten the Europeans almost everything. The governments feared the public and provided them with the benefits they now receive because of that fear. This began to change in Europe starting in the 70s, like here, it's a long story but, at this time, the European left has been outmaneuvered pretty easily.

      OIFVet July 20, 2013 at 3:02 pm

      Jennifer, as your fellow Chicagoan I have to ask: do you honestly think that the organizing by the young people will overcome King Rahm's fundraising muscle and his court of 50 merry yes-men alder-creatures? I agree that in the past year the general level of awareness has increased given the events surrounding the teachers' strike and the total war on public education, but come 2015 will that be enough to overcome Rahm's ability to raise $2 mil every quarter? I think not. As a fellow "lakefront liberal" (from Hyde Park), let me share what I see on the South Side: struggling minorities who are unhappy with the status quo, but happily accepting a few minimum wage crumbs thrown their way by the Penny Pritzker/UChicago Hyatt development, (paid for with TIF money taken from their public schools of course), and asking for more of the same. I see an ever-accelerating stripping of the public assets and an administration which makes me long for the days of Little Daley. And worst of all, I see a majority which is too damn apathetic to do anything about it, with or without organizing. I am sorry but I do not share your upbeat view of the events in Chicago.

      Jennifer July 20, 2013 at 10:05 pm

      You should get out more.

      OIFVet July 21, 2013 at 11:39 am

      Thank you for the advice, but I do get out plenty. I suspect I go to places where you do not. Hint: the North Side is not all there is to Chicago. I do have some very dear friends living in your neighborhood, good 'lakefront liberals' one and all. Their problems couldn't be further removed from the problems of the South Side populace, and I don't think one can organize people whose problems they don't understand. Regarding schools, Rahm is careful not to push north siders too far, something which he has no compunction doing to the minority south and west sides. That's because he knows only too well that north siders have the money and muscle to cause problems while on the south side power comes from churches and precinct captains, institutions which are in his pocket. Outside organizers as yet stand no chance given Chicago's racial history. Again, learn about the people you want to organize. I suspect that will require stepping outside Lakeview every so often. I am sorry if that sounds mean-spirited, I certainly do not intend it to come out like that.

      Dave July 20, 2013 at 9:04 pm

      Your protests will be tolerated and held to be constitutional as long as they have no real effect. If they start to have an effect, they will be ruthlessly suppressed.

      Thor's Hammer July 20, 2013 at 9:22 am

      "Everybody Knows" Classic description of the world by Jonette Napolitano and the band Concrete Blonde
      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RaJAxdGeZ4E

      Thor's Hammer July 20, 2013 at 9:41 am

      And if apathy doesn't do it for you, there is always Jonestown. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yyQvxVD_wZs

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 4:56 pm

      The classic version…

      Thor's Hammer July 20, 2013 at 6:26 pm

      My instinct tells me that "Jonestown"has has more prediction probabiliity than all the dreams of tecnosalvation.

      Paranormal Corpse July 20, 2013 at 7:00 pm
      Paranormal Corpse July 20, 2013 at 7:04 pm

      sorry, unsuccessful embedding

      Corporate Elect

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R_sot9ZK8X8

      F. Beard July 21, 2013 at 4:35 pm

      Looks like Leonard Nimoy.

      Shutter July 20, 2013 at 9:47 am

      Don't expect anything from the 'people'. Expect the gov't to go publicly HARD right and crash the economy in the effort to wring every last penny out of it. When power distribution, communications, dollar collapse and fuel shortages isolate us, the country will fragment. We'll see what shakes out after that.

      Phrase July 20, 2013 at 12:36 pm

      Shutter, i tend to agree with your statement : " Expect the gov't to go publicly HARD right and crash the economy in the effort to wring every last penny out of it. When power distribution, communications, dollar collapse and fuel shortages isolate us, the country will fragment. "
      .
      For me, i would nuance your statement so that the focus ends up clarifying the force and monied long-term strategic planning that has concentrated the neoliberal agenda's implementation into supra-national institutions, tireless working at destroying national sovereignty by for example, multi-national trade agreements with corporate controlled investor-state resolution bodies. … For me, civil soceity clearly realizes how 'illegitimate' those publically financed economic bank bailouts are. … But TBTF banks are global institutions fighting to maintain hegemony and the maintainance of the status-quo which is ever needy, and always greedy. … It is inherent to 'the system'.
      .
      But, i really just wanted to mention Gar Alperovitz. His writings, to me, convey the role that 'pain' has in gradually becoming the catalyst for the building of the 'critical mass' needed to bring about … if not global institutional change … maybe regional pragmatic transformative change as communities take back control. … I do believe in people, the spirit of co-operation, innovation, and regional communities reclaiming sustainability. … Hedge's thoughts and writing continually throws cold water as a wake-up call.
      .
      Yes …, and as you may agree, … the battle is one of economies of scale -- … It is also about redefining the dominant narrative so that the moral, ethical, environmental, health of the eco-system, rejection of solely the fiduciary commitment, … etc., concern for the public good, …etc., … gets inserted into the policy making agenda. … ALEC has to go!
      .
      I don't think that a more equitable horizontal hierarchy can co-exist with the imperialist, militaristic, financialized, neoliberal global vertical hierarchy … furthered by some unrepresentative national governments. … The more regional 'pain' that we see the more daunting and yet also related we see different pluralist struggles. … I guess the question here is, how large can regional civil society friendly communities/regions become before the represent a threat to rule from the stratosphere. …
      .
      So, to come back to your comment, I also am very concerned the disaster capitalism's monsters are getting ready for profit from the fire sale -- … phrase

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 1:40 pm

      Personally, I don't think so. The hard right today has a strong and growing part that is against war, for civil liberties and sees our own government as the enemy. I believe they are far in advance of what is left of the left and offer the only avenue for change at this time. The government fears an armed and motivated public. They certainly try to manipulate the right by trying to induce racial hatred and all that but I don't think it is working so well anymore. The far right in this country is not fascist but libertarian–though there is a real fascist right I believe it is more a construction created by billionaires that, without considerable funding, would collapse.

      Jim July 20, 2013 at 2:19 pm

      Great point…I'm seeing that too here in flyover country. There have recently been publicly displayed banners supporting the 4th amendment, which may explain why some Republican politicians have actually been skeptical of Obama's position on surveillance. I think many here are finally getting that social issues are just a way to distract people from the corporate hegemony built in Washington.

      Personally, I've been monitoring what I call the "Bullet Price Index". A couple of acquaintances of mine are avid gun collectors, and when I get a chance to speak with them, I always ask what the price of ammunition is, not at Wal-Mart, but amongst themselves in underground transactions. A typical .22-caliber round is what I ask about. About a year ago, the price was around 80 cents. The last quote I received, in June, is about $1.80 to $2.

      Feel free to debate the implication of this, but I think this creates an opposing argument to the "frustrated individual" theory in this post. Anger is more widespread than even NC readers might think, and creates a risk that the possible results of this may neither be social-issue friendly, nor big-corporation friendlly…just another data point to throw into the mix.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 2:33 pm

      Yes, I think if you live in the South as I do you see a lot of interesting developments particularly among the young who see the influence of the government as toxic. I had an interesting talk with someone not too long ago who came from Kentucky who told of her community being destroyed by Social Security disability checks and crooked doctors writing pain-killer prescriptions. She was looking for a way of just dropping out of society she was so disgusted.

      The Rage July 21, 2013 at 1:04 am

      Don't agree with this at all. The "right" are just goons global capitalists want to use to abolish the bougeois states and turn all law to the capitalists.

      fwiw, it ain't 'social security' checks that are doing anything, stop issuing them, the price would just go down and drugs would still be flowing.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 7:00 pm

      Some, particularly the growing movement of pro-gun, anti-corporate, pro-libertarian, anti-globalist, anti-chemicals in your food are beginning to coalesce–I see it in young people in the fly-over country. That's where the action is.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      I like that index.

      Dave July 20, 2013 at 9:19 pm

      The armed far right has a large number of religious zealots. If there ever is an armed rebellion, religion will be a major factor. The wars against the Muslims have been a significant issue. Many have been to Iraq and Afghanistan and actually consider those campaigns to be a Christian crusade. Many active duty officers certainly do. Coups have occurred in other countries when similar wars have been "lost". So if there is a revolution, it's possible that it may be a military coup.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 11:28 pm

      Yes, and the Christianist loons at the Air Force Academy controlling some nukes. Happy thought!

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:32 am

      My own experience is that the people who are into guns aren't necessarily religious–they use religion as a frame of reference but aren't that dedicated to it. I think they are more suspicious of the the political order and think civil society is disintegrating.

      Pogonip July 20, 2013 at 9:50 am

      Americans will demand change when their vehicles are taken away, or their ability to drive those vehicles whenever and wherever they please (curfews, $15/gallon gas). Not before then.

      John July 21, 2013 at 8:54 pm

      No, not until the cable and the electricity are turned off.

      Then fantasy world America is over and survival America will begin.

      F. Beard July 20, 2013 at 10:14 am

      Here, Hedges laments the lack of an effective left, and blames its death on the "inability to articulate a viable socialism". Yves Smith

      The Left speaks of sharing and equity but have never, to my knowledge, been against central banking which promotes usury and debt.

      Inverness July 20, 2013 at 10:56 am

      His discussion of socialism was vague. He seemed to suggest social democracy as the solution? Then just say it. There is such a lack of willingness to discuss concrete plans, with the exception of people like Richard Wolff, who has shared how worker cooperatives can be quite successful.

      Of course, the social democratic state was preserved as an alternative to communism in Europe. Since "there is no alternative" to crony capitalism, the social democratic state is in pretty lousy shape in Europe, especially for those in the EU, although even Sweden has been privatizing its public schools (!) How viable is that model? It's better than the virus that's spreading throughout North American and Europe now, although there will always be some inequality under social democracy, albeit significantly less.

      Inverness July 20, 2013 at 10:37 am

      Agreeing with Yves' misdiagnosis of Obama, oddly referred to as merely "mediocre" by Mr. Hedges. Bush is venal, and Obama is just average? No, Obama is brilliant, because who saw it coming? The same man who wrote so eloquently about black male suffering in Chicago in his memoirs, could be so indifferent to children in Pakistan and Afghanistan? Who thought such a nuanced thinker could be such a brute, and thug? There you go.

      He's a new breed, one of Morris Berman's hollow men with no moral compass and reminds me of another highly accomplished "progressive" with all the right academic credentials, Ms. Samantha Powers, who also proves to have a similar shaky moral compass. Now, she's totally cool with Israeli atrocities! Who saw that coming? But if it gets you ahead, why not? She's moving in high places, with the right books behind her (she has "proven" she cares about humanity), yet the monstrous capacity to work for this administration, and everything that entails (legitimizing mass murder and torture as foreign and domestic policy).

      These people are so much scarier than Bush. What's that line from the Usual Suspects? The greatest trick the devil played was convincing the world he didn't exist. Obama and his ilk are real-time, real world shape-shifters.

      For Morris Berman's talk: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=70buY9TZ7bo

      Patricia July 20, 2013 at 12:30 pm

      Berman analysis is precise, but I am realllyyyy tired of intellectuals soaking their analysis of the US public in a wretched judgmentalism that rivals any Calvinist. It emerges from a deep sense of superiority. And anyone who thinks US public is too stupid to get that is too stupid themselves.

      Thus the first question that Berman fields (24:50) is from someone bemoaning the failure of democracy and wondering about a benevolent dictator (via Plato, of course, right?). And Berman answers, among other things: "…de Tocqueville mentioned that democracy can only work if the population is fairly intelligent and we don't have that."

      The next questioner tries to address this, asking about "A General Theory of Love" (Thomas Lewis ed) from which Berman quoted: "A good deal of modern American culture is an extended experiment in the effects of depriving people of what they crave most."

      Berman says, further, "In other words, what we are channeled into by this system is substitute satisfaction. Because human beings want is what they've always wanted: community, friendship, sex, interesting things to think about, safety…And what this system does is it takes those things away and says, 'here, here's a cell phone…here's television'. It gives you stuff that basically is crap and it says, "You'll be happy with it" and generally people aren't, on some level. And that's part of the crisis, really."

      This isn't part of the issue, it is at center. What underlies community, friendship, sex, etc, is the need to be to be loved and to believe that one's life is meaningful. When these things are methodically stripped from humans over decades (over generations) by a culture ruled by big business' bottom line of maximum profit, they will take the allowed substitutes, and they become defeated. Of course it follows that they will also become stupider. How could they not? They suffer malnutrition.

      Stupidity is not the problem but a symptom. No wonder the working class remains alienated from the remaining handful of intellectuals. No wonder the liberal educated class never cared all the much about labor unions. And, FWIW, the working classes include all groups of color, because that is where they also predominantly reside.

      Failure by superiority. Talk about stupid!

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      Terrific comment!!!! I agree with you on Berman, someone who does have the some of the best analysis around, certainly, for me Hedges and Berman, who are friends, should be at the center of any discussion on culture and politics. But Berman's demonization of U.S. culture comes from his own sense of alienation from the rest of us not his analysis, in my view.

      We need all the things you say and we are malnourished on a psychic level. I've made the argument that we live in a new age of magicians. I maintain that Americans have been victim of a carefully calculated and engineered mind-control system. How and why this happened has been well-documented but isn't generally known. Both Hedges and Berman touch on it but they miss the power of the magic. By magic I mean both traditional stage magic and careful manipulation of the subconscious. Nearly everyone I talk to that is reasonably intelligent categorically denies that they are influenced by advertising. Well consciously, most people reject advertising claims–but unconsciously, if it's done right their subconscious accepts it and waits for the opportunity to express that acceptance. Much of our problem lies in our refusal, despite over a century of theorizing and research that most of our motivations come from the unconscious and this is most true in American intellectual culture. If you don't understand the overwhelming force of unconscious desires both individual and collective you cannot possibly understand contemporary society in any way–you would just be blindly throwing darts or coming to Berman's conclusions that we are just stupid and, eventually, to the conclusion that human beings are base creatures. My experience is that human beings are splendid beautiful creatures and this gap between beauty that I see inside people and the reality of their sad state has always struck me and pained me almost beyond belief. It is like seeing people being flogged and tortured from the inside–no wonder so many people are in pain physically and emotionally!!

      Inverness July 20, 2013 at 2:39 pm

      Yes - those propagandists are the ultimate wizards behind the curtain, aren't they?

      It's true that if we dismiss most Americans as unintelligent, we might fall victim to a kind of snobbery that alienates the very people with whom we need to build solidarity. I also agree that we shouldn't underestimate the well-oiled machine started by Bernays (Adam Curtis does a fine job of establishing this timeline).

      Frankly, when I hear that Germans, Canadians, and British people aren't freaking out in massive numbers over the Snowden allegations, nor storming the American embassy, I start to realize that more and more people have been seduced and lulled by sophisticated lies, not only Americans.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 2:45 pm

      Europe may have changed more than the U.S.–the dynamic there is fascinating. I see less hope there than here.

      OIFVet July 20, 2013 at 4:21 pm

      I disagree. It is true that Europe has changed more, but what is still true IMO is that unlike us in the US they don't have to deal with the chimera of the "American Dream" and its attendant belief in individualism over society. Class conscience there is still strong unlike here in the US where, as Chris Rogers has correctly noted, we act as though there are no class divisions. Never underestimate the capacity of the European masses to make important heads roll, figuratively and literally.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 4:34 pm

      You maybe right there. But my instinct is, no offense to Europeans, that European society strikes me as being as even more confused than Americans by contemporary society. I agree that Europeans have more communitarian values one hopes that young people will find a way to move things in a more radical direction.

      OIFVet July 20, 2013 at 5:19 pm

      I am not sure precisely what you meant by "contemporary society" but I will admit that you may have a point, though from my experience it may only apply to some parts of Eastern Europe. I was born in one of the former "communist bloc" countries (one which is currently racked by protests), and what strikes me is the reactionary venom against anything perceived as "left", never mind that most people seem to have trouble defining "left" and "right" and never mind that it was the supposed "socialists" who imposed flat taxation. So we have the paradox of protests for social justice and complete public resistance to social spending or anything with the word "social" in it. Though it is due in part to the well earned distrust in the corrupt ruling elites, your point about the propaganda used to control, blunt, and misdirect the anger also applies. But this is Eastern Europe so I wouldn't use it to generalize about the rest of the continent. In my experiences and observations, Southern Europeans and the French are in no way confused about what is going on; the problem there as I see it is that the populace has yet to find an effective way to overcome the loss of sovereignty which has come with the rise of the EU and the financial control of international institutions like the "troika". And witness the explosive bitterness in the UK which manifested itself after Thatcher's death: the people didn't seem to have trouble identifying the source of their issues and remembered only too well how this new economic order was imposed upon them.

      Perhaps I am biased by my euro origins, but I truly see Americans as far more compliant and easy to control. The myth of the "American Dream" I already mentioned. The myth of the "American Exceptionalism" is where I see the tool used to control the American people: we are exceptional so we must protect that at all costs, including sacrificing treasure to pursue our imperial interests abroad and sacrificing essential constitutionally guaranteed freedoms at home to "protect" us from "evildoers". I only wish I knew who would protect us from our "protectors"…

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 10:24 pm

      One important issue with Europe is its dependency on banking and the US. They can not deforest and energy is limited. So they really have to limit their materialism, something they have not managed very well over the last couple of decades.

      If they really want to keep their material way of life, they will have to be extremely productive… hard to see with their ageing population.

      Once again, materialism is at the core.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:38 am

      Sorry, by "contemporary society" I mean the modern social contract that devalues family and community and encourages atomism, i.e., people live without reference to traditional values–in all sections of Europe these ties have been more important than in the States and therefore, in my view, the trauma may be greater.

      As for the American Dream and all that, I think that is changing–the youth, increasingly, don't believe in it.

      Moneta July 20, 2013 at 10:16 pm

      One morning, in my mid-20s, while I was pulling up my 3rd pair of stockings in 5 minutes, I had an epiphany. I realized that I was one of the brainwashed by culture… why do we women wear such wasteful an uncomfortable accessories?

      Every time I think I am so "independent or special", I remember this incident and laugh at my hubris.

      Dan H July 21, 2013 at 1:23 am

      I was sure you were male, and would have gauged my ability to make that call as rock solid…I look out for your handle, have a well formed conception of your outlook etc…at least I thought I did. Your moment of self introspection has caused one of my own. Thank you.

      Moneta July 21, 2013 at 7:49 am

      LOL! I majored in math-economics and work in finance. I have spent most of my life in men centric circles… I'm here because in real life I'm surrounded by people who have no interest in the subjects I find captivating and the top 20%, most of which are deluded and drive me nuts!

      I guess I have been forced to be an actress for 20 years, no awards lined up though…

      F. Beard July 21, 2013 at 4:33 pm

      Gee wiz, gal!

      I'll not be able to get so mad at you now.

      But I sure disliked you as a male!

      Klassy! July 20, 2013 at 4:11 pm

      Yes, excellent comment.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 5:09 pm

      "The other guy is stupid" is a very well-worn trope among Obots and Democrats generally. Every so often The Daily Howler does a Maddow takedown, which should dispel any notion that either legacy party has a monopoly on stupid.

      OIFVet July 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm

      "who saw it coming?" Adolph Reed did, as far back as the mid-90's:

      "In Chicago, for instance, we've gotten a foretaste of the new breed of foundation-hatched black communitarian voices; one of them, a smooth Harvard lawyer with impeccable do-good credentials and vacuous-to-repressive neoliberal politics, has won a state senate seat on a base mainly in the liberal foundation and development worlds. His fundamentally bootstrap line was softened by a patina of the rhetoric of
      authentic community, talk about meeting in kitchens, small-scale solutions to social problems, and the predictable elevation of process over program - the point where identity politics converges with old-fashioned middle-class reform in favoring form over substance. I suspect that his ilk is the wave of the future in U.S. black politics,
      as in Haiti and wherever else the International Monetary Fund has sway. So far the black activist response hasn't been up to the challenge. We have to do better."

      "The Curse of Community," Village Voice, January 16, 1996

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:40 am

      Great, great find–kudos to you!

      indianaboy July 20, 2013 at 11:56 am

      The closer you were to the Soviet Union, the more meaningful socialism your society enjoyed. Scandinavia > UK > USA

      The key to upper class concessions is a real fear on the part of the upper class that without compromise they risk revolution. Working class revolutions are usually only possible if they are supported by an external superpower: the USSR in the the 20th century played this role for the West.

      Today, interestingly enough, the US is providing this same benefit to the working masses of China. As someone who frequently travels to the PRC and closely watches the party-state it is clear that they're continuing policies of raising the minimum wage and extending health insurance, and subsidized education are being motivated in part, by a real fear that without these concessions, the lower classes will revolt and demand democratic freedoms, inspired in no small part by the (actually inaccurate) perception that the US is both a democracy and a superpower (in PPP terms the PRC is a much, much larger economy; the US is being propped up only by its overvalued currency)

      The lower and middle classes in the PRC will sorely miss the US when it is gone. We may be entering into a new conservative period akin to 1815-1848 Europe when a concert of authoritarian monarchies kept a firm hand over the restive European lower classes.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 1:28 pm

      @indianboy,

      No, no, no.

      Your analysis is wrong to say the least, particularly with regards the development of more socially democratically orientated states in Western Europe.

      I don't wish to belittle your analysis, but by focusing on post 1917 developments in Europe after the Communist seizure of power – Russia after all was a democracy in 1917 for a few months – is wrong.

      First and foremost, you need to acquaint yourself more with German History after unification in 1871 following the Franco-Prussian War and consequent Paris uprising and the Commune – the first true elements of a modern welfare state, which is now associated with social democratic nations, were actually sown by Bismarck, and wether we like it or not, Germany under Bismarck was a functioning democracy despite its three tier voting system that favoured the ruling elite – remember in the 1912 German elections the SPD had the largest share of the vote and were a formidable presence in the Reichstag – so fear of the Soviet Union had little to do with it in Western Europe.

      As an illustration, the UK suffered a pretty severe recession from the early 1870's until the 1890's, welfare provision was limited to say the least – we had the Poorhouse/Workhouse and a philosophy of its the poor's fault they are poor – not the states – a wonderful attitude if you are the sole Superpower, not so good when you had the French, Germans and USA biting at your heels – now, if you look at international relations in Europe during the timeline 1871-1914, there is an emerging trend, not only a growth in the power of the working class, but the development of an alliance system that ultimately led to WWI – further, and with regards the development of a welfare state in the UK, it was the Boar War and UK's inability to field a strong and healthy army that resulted in the post 1905 Liberal Government reforms, and, the requirement for a large standing army to deploy in France as a result of the Duel Entente – until that requirement, which needed strong healthy cannon fodder, the authorities could not give a toss – a similar effect rippled over much of Europe – not so Tsarist Russia.

      So, one of the reasons for the development of a welfare state in Western Europe, was not so much the demands of the Working Class, but the huge demands of fielding massive armies when the populations were far smaller than today.

      Hence, it was actually the struggle for supremacy in Europe after German reunification that resulted in what we'd term social democratic states – indeed, such was the dire poverty in the Scandinavia states prior to WWI that emigration to the New World was a major problem.

      Hope this illuminates a little?

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 2:03 pm

      I think both of you are right so some degree but I mostly agree with you. Nation states, from their inception, let's say with 17th century France had as their goal the enrichment and prosperity of society. Yes, the royals got caught up in wasteful stupid wars but their non-war policies tended to favor having a prosperous country whether just to have revenue or not–it was generally accepted that the privileged should take care of their dominions.

      This caring about their subjects was also a factor in the early history of the U.S. Lasch in his great work Revolt of the Elites points out that oligarchs in small towns and cities often competed with each other in buiding libraries, beautiful parks and fine schools for the populations under their control until the post-Civil War era gradually changed all that. The movie It's a Wonderful Life is an example of the old noblesse oblige that was present in smaller communities as late as the 1930s and 40s.

      Our own system is a result of the fact that authority began to be unstable and up for grabs so that there was a competitive advantage to be immoral, selfish and ruthless. So the George Bailey's were replaced by the Mr. Potters and the those were replaced by Mr. Potters sons with MBAs.

      As for the Chinese, their culture has consistently pointed themselves in structuring their society with central authorities motivated by what is best for the society as a whole not out of fear of the peasants but out of logic. That is why their society of guaranteeing that a certain class maintains power and that class be very limited so that while dynastic struggles are present there is no direct need to ruthlessly repress the people as a whole because those people are quite happy to be well-ruled. Good governance, not political freedom, is how people prefer things. Americans too would be happy if they had good governance without political freedom–sadly we have neither which is why we are probably headed for trouble.

      mcgee July 20, 2013 at 12:05 pm

      Change is the only constant with the shape of change being the great mystery. Society has to offer a standard course for success to keep the majority on similar paths that maintains the status quo. The financial crisis was too large a shift towards the oligarchs/plutocrats and left many without a clear path forward. The wild cards are the surveillance state, militarized police, and constatnt propaganda intermixed in the steady drip of infotainment being capable of the level of control necessary as the number of disaffected grows. I lean towards thinking that the surveillance state is a real game changer and has forever upset the familiar historical cycle of government.

      The built in safety valves to bleed off societal stress have been reinforced by active social engineering and the very real threat of violence by the state. Conditions are going to need to get much worse before change happens on the ground in America. The shape of the future isn't one conducive to individual rights and an egalitarian society. Far from it in fact.

      Current population growth and enrironmental degradation will eventually trump the contrivances of modern society but as is standard throughout history, it will be the 99% that will suffer the harshest consequences. Mother nature is one helluva of a clean up batter when the bases are loaded with the excesses of humanity.

      sharonsj July 20, 2013 at 12:36 pm

      I watched the first Obama-Obama debate and gave up after 15 minutes. I was talking to a reporter friend, who commiserated that she had to watch the entire thing. I explained that after 15 mintues neither man had said anything I didn't already know and I wasn't going to waste any more of my time. She said the same thing about the entire debate and added that in fact she had decided to become a Socialist. I started laughing because I'd come to the same conclusion after a lot less time.

      This country desperately needs a real revolution…any kind will do. The level of anger in the country really is alarming and I'd hoped that we'd see more large protests. I wonder if people are just exhausted or if they've given up? Chris, I don't think you can blame a weakened left for the lack of people in the streets. But the generations that used to march are getting to old to do it again. We need the younger generations to wake up and get out there.

      Jim Haywood July 20, 2013 at 1:02 pm

      'I watched the first Obama-Obama debate and gave up after 15 minutes.'

      Hell, I don't blame you.

      What was the preening narcissist doing - talking to himself in the mirror?

      Likely the backward reflection of the teleprompter confused him, never having learned Leonardo's skill of reverse writing.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 2:06 pm

      Very LOL–cool comment. I agree, almost any change is good. Sadly the left is indeed dead for reasons I've given below and other Chris' reasons as well. But that change is likely to come from the right not the left. In fact, I believe the new left will come out of the right somehow by magic perhaps.

      Dave July 20, 2013 at 9:24 pm

      They would just sit around and play games on their smart phones!

      barrisj July 20, 2013 at 12:38 pm

      The late Tony Judt had gone over some of the same ground in his book, "Ill Fares The Land" – albeit from a "Western" perspective (Europe, North America) – in lamenting the fecklessness of contemporary Social democracy in the face of a radical challenge from the Right. Moreover, he asserts that the best a progressive agenda can hope for is, "…[I]ncremental improvements upon unsatisfactory circumstances…", an exceedingly modest and indeed a near-defeatist posture. For Judt as well has all but conceded Advantage Neo-liberalism, and also despairs of any sort of "bottom-up" revolt against abusive capitalism and its enablers and protectors in government.
      In fact, "It is the Right that has inherited the ambitious modernist urge to destroy and innovate in the name of a universal project. From the war in Iraq through the unrequited desire to dismantle public education and health services, to the decades-long project of financial deregulation, the political Right – from Thatcher and Reagan to Bush and Blair – has abondoned the association of political conservatism with social moderation which served it so well from Disraeli to Heath, from Theodore Roosevelt to Nelson Rockefeller".
      Were Judt alive today, he certainly would have included Obama – with his unprecedented expansion of state surveillance, connivance with the financial overlords, suppression of dissent and transparency in government, and continuation of a militaristic foreign policy – as an avatar of the neoliberal or neofascist project. Both political parties, the courts, corporate and financial interests, "law enforcement", all are united in preserving or extending this "project", and in fact consolidate their stranglehold on the people in the aftermath of each inevitable crisis that continues to befall late-capitalism. How, one asks, can a severe pessimistic reading of any chance of meaningful reform be anything other than a realistic assessment of where the future lies.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 1:00 pm

      The left in the U.S. has, traditionally, three sources of "energy": (1)religious/spiritual/ethical people; (2) intellectuals and artists; (3) the labor movement. These forces have been divided and may never come together again in large part due to what was termed identity/ethnic politics. The sixties ended up shattering the alliances that were already fraying–we can't blame any one group of movement other than say that the left was, by the seventies pretty much shattered.

      All the contradictory forces were in conflict of course but the problem, at the time, was that the central figures that offered a clear and realistic alternative vision were shot-down like mad dogs.

      My critique, unlike Hedges, is that the big mistake was to accept, without criticism the official stories on the JFK, RFK and MLK assassinations despite overwhelming evidence to the contrary. There are thousands of researchers that have meticulously deconstructed the official narrative on those assassinations but almost no one on the left has the courage to even look at the evidence–usually they cite the famous Richard J. Hofstadter essay of 1964 "The Paranoid Style in American Politics." Of course Hofstadter made good points and so on but basically it was, as an essay, a typical work of sophistry–certainly conspiracy theories abound about many things most of them based on rumor and fantasy by radically misinformed people. But the 60s assassination "conspiracy theorists" had mountains of evidence and even more now that would, at the very least, be an invitation to dialogue. Instead the liberal and radical left have both categorically rejected the direct evidence in those cases in favor of the official narrative. This is why I consider the American left the "Stasi left."

      To nearly all prominent leftists in this country official government narrative on the assassinations (and nothing else) was a priori as true as the fact the Moon circles the earth. Any contrary opinion cannot be discussed–if you bring the matter up you are clearly insane and belong on medication or in a mental hospital.

      Worse, the left, along with the mainstream, refuse to believe political conspiracies exist in the Unites States. Other countries and other eras, of course had conspiracies as anyone who has read the classical historians can attest but when the U.S. was born conspiracy only existed in a box called "crime" and the political elite are incapable of assassinating rivals or breaking the law to fix elections, plant false stories in the press (except very rarely–in fact the left ignores much of what Frank Church managed to expose about the CIA).

      In my view the intellectual left, by ignoring the assassinations of the 60s, literally has put an end to the rationality and dialectic as a legitimate mode of inquiry. Is it any surprise that so many Americans reject science and rationality? Of course when it's done on the right everyone laughs and I can only think "hypocrites." At least right-wingers usually have the excuse of lacking the tools of analysis.

      The most obvious evidence I know because it is quick to describe and takes a very simple Google search is to cite the fact that Thomas Noguchi's Cornoner's Report was never entered into evidence in the Sirhan's trial. Do you get that? Why? Because it showed that RFK, who would have been the next POTUS, was killed by a gun shot at point blank range from the back and pointing upwards. That's just for starters–the official case is a lie from start to finish as are all the other cases and I won't waste my breath beyond that except to add that sound analysis clearly shows that more than nine shots were fired–you'll have to find for yourself what that means.

      Once you start looking into these matters you will be stunned by how obviously wrong the narrative is. It's not a matter of careful detective work it is staring you right in the face. My own analysis is that all the major assassinations were hits by professional killers and all the assassinations were covered up by all the agencies involved. This is where, of course, the critics of conspiracies balk and say "too many people were involved", again, I have a counter argument but I shouldn't have to argue that–one starts from evidence and then works towards a theory and you cannot discount a theory before looking at the evidence and the American left along with the security services and their stooges in the press have been signing from the same song-book. My experience of being around power at various levels tells me that these people don't f!ck around–if you're in the way they don't blink to kill you or even millions to get what they want and this has been true throughout history.

      So there's my rant–my guess is that none of you have the courage to address this if you accept the official narratives about the history of the past few decades–I've seldom, in any forum, been exposed to anyone willing to debate this issue other than dismiss me as conspiracy nut or kook or whatever which obviously means that I'm hallucinating Thomas Noguchi's Coroner's report because it can't possibly exist. This is the chief reason the left has failed in this country and will continue to fail until it decides to deconstruct the official narrative. Until then, I maintain that the only possibility of positive change comes from the right not the left.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 1:55 pm

      I'm not one for conspiracy theories, and being British, perhaps I'm not the best person to get involved in the detail of your argument.

      I can tell you this, under the UK judicial system, a mock trial was actually held with regards the person accused of slaying MLK for the UK's Channel 4, and the accused, based on all known evidence and forensics was deemed not guilty.

      its also a fact the USA denies much of its own horrendous history and portrays itself purer than the white driven snow – a point Oliver Stone often makes in both his movies and documentaries.

      In the UK, do not fear, conspiracies abound, its now a well known fact that elements within the UK security services in the mid 1970's wished to have an actual coup in the UK and depose a sitting Labour Prime Minister, one Harold Wilson, whom many considered was a Soviet stooge – Mr. Wilson being the British leader who told the US to stuff its Vietnam adventure up its arse – hence we were never involved in that war with you – if only that were true of one Tony Blair.

      However, I do think your attacks on the left are a little unfair, in the UK at least, there has always been a lot of distrust between academics and leaders of the real working class, never mind other progressive movements that constituted the Labour Party.

      to my mind, and understanding of US politics and history, there has never been a true working class party to represent the workers interests, indeed, the closest you got to this was the Wobblies, and look what Woodrow Wilson did to them.

      Indeed, US history is replete in the states utter aberrance and detestation of populist working class movements, its the reason for the 1788/89 Constitutional Convention and creation of a Federal State, rather than the loose alliance or Confederate states that the anti-federalists desired – the anti-federalists being the real supporters of democracy and other rights, rather than that rag you now revere, namely the Constitution, which established a Federal Republic that favoured property and wealth over actual human and civil rights.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 2:15 pm

      In the thirties and forties there was a fairly close connection between the intellectual left and the American labor movement that carried up until the McCarthy era and that is all a very interesting story too long to get into.

      The UK situation is very different and always has been.

      As for conspiracies–in the case of the RFK as I cited there can be no doubt–you either accept that the official story is wrong–the evidence is very obvious or you live in a fantasy world. There was a MLK trial in the U.S. The NYT reported the verdict: http://www.nytimes.com/1999/12/09/us/memphis-jury-sees-conspiracy-in-martin-luther-king-s-killing.html. Note that no mainstream media reporters sent reporters to the trial. No one commented for or against, as far as I know, on the merits of the evidence. Generally the story was ignored. That is, in my view, a conspiracy right there.

      Again, no one ever answers my sort of allegation other than say that they don't believe in conspiracy theories or don't indulge in them as if it was a vice–you cannot understand history without it so then throw out Herodotus, Theucidities, Livy and all the rest of them and burn Machiavelli while we're at it.

      But I enjoyed your comments and appreciated you non-insulting answer.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 3:19 pm

      @banger,

      Actually, the biggest conspiracy at the moment, at least here in Europe, is the lack of comprehensive media coverage concerning the anti-austerity protests in most of Southern Europe – no doubt, our masters learn from the experiences of the media and the Vietnam War, would prefer to with hold all news of protest from us.

      As for differences between the UK and US, its the growing lack of difference that frightens me – our ruling elites being virtually identical, although the Uk's has always been more 'stupid' than its US counterparts.

      psychohistorian July 20, 2013 at 5:38 pm

      Hey Western Bloc country slaves! The ruling elites are not virtually identical, they are a global sect of plutocrats. They play nationalism off between their slave nation states as needed to divide and retain control.

      Wake up and smell your enemy!

      Andrew Watts July 20, 2013 at 6:37 pm

      There's always been a deep relationship between the US/UK power elite. Even during the American revolution leading British opposition leaders like Charles Fox portrayed it as an English civil war. This attitude has always been offensive to the pretenses of American exceptionalism. Or to the average British subject. I believe the 4th of July is called "Go home Yankee!" day in Great Britain.

      As for how stupid the American elite is, TARP was a complete rip-off of the British bailout plan. According to Hank Paulson, the US Treasury had a worst case scenario plan that was judged to be inferior within days of writing it.

      Chris Rogers July 21, 2013 at 3:36 am

      Andrew Sir,

      I'm unsure on that one, yes in one respect the US War of Independence was an 'English Civil War' to all extents and purposes, however, many a historian is of the opinion that the last 'English Civil war' was the actual US Civil War itself, or, as it should more aptly be called, 'the War of Secession', and here the UK was highly supportive of the Southern cause, or State's Right's – its not one of my strong points as far as history or politics is concerned, and obviously, its regrettable that the debate of 'slavery' was very much tied in with the War itself – although not the main cause at its outset.

      Indeed, I'd say the US Civil War was the eruption of violence between the 'anti-federalist' forces in the US and pro-Federal forces, and I for one have always sided with the Anti-Federalists, who cause was just, if regretfully tainted with the horror of slavery.

      Anyway, that's my two cents worth here.

      Andrew Watts July 21, 2013 at 7:00 am

      That makes sense. I've always secretly harbored the opinion that the seeds of the United States' dissolution was sown by the English Civil War. The English people who came to the colonies during and after that time were just as divided by the conflict. With Roundheads settling primarily in New England, and Cavaliers immigrating to Virginia and the southern colonies. It helps explain the cultural and political differences between the Mason-Dixon line.

      As for the future, America is quite advanced in undoing the Glorious Revolution. Many of the rights that were originally derived from it and enshrined into our Constitution have become a dead letter.

      The Black Swan July 20, 2013 at 2:11 pm

      But ignorance is such bliss. I spent a lot of time over the previous winter digging through the internet and have come to almost the same conclusion. Everything we've been taught in History class in school and everything taught by the media is purposefully designed to obfuscate the truth. Maybe it's not all outright lies, but when we get the truth, it's only the truth that TPTB wish us to know. Once you accept that everything you've ever known and believed is a lie, it becomes very easy to see the truth and understand much more of how our modern world works. But I've yet to meet (in person) anyone who was willing to challenge their false beliefs and start to look at the truth. It is a painful experience to confront reality and something most people are not prepared for and mostly uninterested in.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 2:41 pm

      Exactly. It is very painful to experience this. How can you live in normal society and function and understand that most of what other people believe to be true is false. More and more people I know believe being interested in politics is a form of "escape" because it is meaningless–I think they have a point and I've tried to move away from it. But I'm haunted by it since my life has been spent in vicinity to Washington and the whole scene there until recently.

      Well, for me it's not so hard because people I know don't think about public affairs other than when the media makes a big deal of something like the Zimmerman trial and that kind of thing but it's all quickly forgotten in a week and people go on to their private affairs. People are more interested in the TV shows they watch or see politics as comedy. My wife is, for example, utterly uninterested in public affairs (other than local) other than what she watches on Comedy Central–she isn't stupid she understands that the news is bullshit so she may as well laugh about it.

      I think most people, deep down, really don't believe the narrative but they need some kind of intellectual framework and they look around and see nothing so they accept whatever they see. I suppose Comedy Central is better than CNN.

      Yalt July 20, 2013 at 3:08 pm

      One of the things I'm struggling to understand with this is what the fate of the Kennedys is supposed to have to do with the fate of American socialism. Is the idea that JFK was a leftist, knocked off by counterrevolutionaries, and the left's fatal error was to not understand this?

      I supposed by contemporary American standards the Kennedys were, indeed, on the left. Of course, so was Nixon.

      Workers trying to hitch a ride on the wagon of one or another faction of the ruling class seems to me to be a big part of the problem. Warping history so as to be able to do it retroactively doesn't seem likely to be part of the solution. It's not that I think you're wrong so much as I think it's completely irrelevant.

      Massinissa July 20, 2013 at 3:41 pm

      I agree with you in a sense.

      I dont think the Kennedys would really have saved us or anything. That sort of thing is wishful thinking to me.

      But how can we have faith in a political system, where those of the ruling class who buck the status quo in even the very smallest amounts, can get knocked off by even more influential sectors of the ruling class?

      I think understanding that the kennedy's were assasinated in a conspiracy is more important than the influence the assasinations themselves created. The fact is not that it was the Kennedys who were assasinated, but that anyone was assassinated by the PotB at all. How can we have faith in the PotB or our 'democracy' when the elites pull this shit on eachother when they get out of line?

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 3:53 pm

      Whether you believe JFK was on the left or not is irrelevant. The fact he was killed in an illegal coup d'etat is a concern of everyone. He was a social democrat but a careful one. He was killed because he wanted to end the Cold War so the world could resume the movement toward egalitarian societies. The world would have been transformed.

      Go back and read what RFK proposed–I was in the midst of all that at the time and followed events closely. MLK would have united all the left social movements that later dispersed because he may have been the most brilliant leader of his time.

      Frankly, Americans just don't want to face what happened back then. I find this as yet another example of our collective insanity. If read the correspondence between JFK and Khrushchev you will be touched by the desire of both men to get out of the trap they found themselves in. If you just examine closely the Cuban Missile Crisis and what was said–you will realize that almost the entire U.S. military wanted a first-strike on the USSR. Their bloodthirsty evil almost got us all killed but for JFK and Khrushchev. Also in the mix were others including another great man Pope John XXIII.

      Yalt July 20, 2013 at 3:55 pm

      I, personally, think these conspiracy theories have been deliberately nurtured by the authorities to distract the masses from useful analysis of their own plight.

      It's a conspiracy.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:43 am

      So then you are just don't believe in evidence. You are saying that I made up the fact that the official story of the RFK assassination is correct despite the fact the coroner's reports says it's false. Stop hurling accusations around when you are not acquainted with the obvious facts.

      Banger July 20, 2013 at 3:46 pm

      JFK and RFK were opportunists as all politicians are but were both social democrats, clearly. MLK was a radical leftist and regarded as "the most dangerous man in America" by J. Edgar Hoover and, I believe, all the power-elite. JFK confronted the entire power-elite and lost. RFK was going to continue the job and MLK would have represented the social forces that would assure RFK would succeed.

      JFK wanted to end the Cold War and that was the main reason he was killed. RFK would have ended the war and instituted social democracy beyond LBJ and in concert with MLK.

      The left died in '68 not just from the assassination but continuing the denial of what happened.

      Andrew Watts July 20, 2013 at 6:40 pm

      Banger,

      I don't buy that story. It was well-known at the time that the Kennedy family were aspiring social climbers. The Kennedy patriarch stood a good chance of being nominated as a presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. If it wasn't for his pro-Hitler views during his time as American ambassador in London he probably would've been. The fact that he was able to realize his ambitions through his progeny did not make them the natural leaders of the left-wing in American politics.

      The Cold War was still in it's early formative years. Despite that one individual no matter how powerful, was not going to stand against the tide of history. This was a socio-economic and political struggle between aspiring global hegemons. That individuals like De Tocqueville foresaw well in advance. The cult of Kennedy resembles the Obamabots in too many disturbing ways. At some point you have to accept that the Democrats cannot possibly satisfy the grievances of every American radical/dissent group.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:48 am

      Of course you don't buy the story because you are ignorant on the matter–you have not studied the issue because you are afraid to and you are in excellent company. No one wants to look at this stuff–your characterization of the Kennedy's is simple-minded and part of the propaganda of the center. Kennedy was clearly prepared to take concrete steps to end the Cold War–he wanted to blow up the CIA and he opposed all his generals who did want a nuclear war with the USSR because they felt they could destroy the USSR for good and believed that the U.S. would only lose 30 million people. That's a f!cking fact and there is much else you are afraid to look into.

      Andrew Watts July 21, 2013 at 7:09 am

      Banger, that hurts. It was only a week ago in the Snowden post that I mentioned how close we came to atomic warfare over the Stalin-Tito split based upon declassified documents. I am not ignorant of how crazy some of those old Cold Warriors were.

      It was under the Kennedy administration that the top marginal tax rate got a tax cut. What sort of left winger would support that action? Neither Presidents Truman or Eisenhower consented to a tax cut for the very richest people in the country. As for your assertion regarding the CIA… Bay of Pigs. Eisenhower couldn't be fooled into such a moronic plan by the CIA Truman loathed the CIA so much he openly referred to it as the American Gestapo.

      I can overlook the Kennedy brother's personal and political faults, but it seems extremely unlikely that they would accomplish either of the things you think they would've been or become in the future. Besides the whole not starting a nuclear war bit.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 1:08 pm

      Look, Kennedy was a kind of fool–he was constantly fooled and manipulated by the powers that be and then got his head blown off–his instincts were good and his heart was, in my view, in the right place as many men of courage, however foolish, have their hearts in the right place. Compare his travails in WWII with the coward G. Bush senior or junior who was even worse.

      I don't mean to insult you–I respect your thoughts expressed here always thoughtful and well written. But I get impatient with the following: that the assassination reflect a coup d'etat that makes the Civil War pale in comparison. These events are the single most important events to have happened in the history of the U.S. Maybe the Kennedies and MLK were a bunch of mad dogs who would ultimately endanger the world–I certainly can't be sure that they weren't. But it f!cking happened and these people who did these deeds, and the evidence is overwhelming that they did, stole our history from us. I can't possibly see how these events can be ignored. And I assert that no left-wing movement can even come close to having more than a slight effect on politics unless it confronts this reality. This may be one of the chief reasons I believe change can only happen from the right who tend to be more open to alternate visions.

      If I'm wrong and the coroner's report on RFKs murder does not indicate that they got the wrong killer then, of course, I'm a deluded paranoiac. If what I say is true then everything in the mainstream narrative collapses like a house of cards.

      Publius July 20, 2013 at 1:46 pm

      I think we have to go back to Carlyle and Ruskin in England to grasp our present situation. Theory needs to be broomed into the dustbin. The question is a moral one. "Signs of the Times" and the Condition of England Question

      O ye hypocrites, ye can discern the face of the sky;
      But can ye not discern the signs of the times? - Matthew 16:3, King James Bible

      In June 1829,the Edinburgh Review published Carlyle's "Signs of the Times," (text) in which he anticipates the Condition of England Question he raised a decade later in Chartism (1839) and Past and Present (1843). As G. B. Tennyson notes, "Carlyle more than any man before him perceived the changes being wrought by the Industrial Revolution" (XXVIII). He criticised vehemently the ethos of the Industrial Revolution, which, he believed, was destroying human individuality. He expressed his distrust of the spirit of the "mechanical age", which was manifested not only in the technical progress of English society but also in an overwhelming feeling of inanition: "The King has virtually abdicated; the Church is a widow, without jointure; public principle is gone; private honesty is going; society, in short, is in fact falling to pieces; and a time of unmixed evil is come on us" (33). The essay was aimed to draw the attention of the reading public to the spiritual price of social change, caused particularly by the frenetic industrialisation. In "Signs of the Times" Carlyle warned that the Industrial Revolution was turning people into mechanical automatons devoid of individuality and spirituality. For Carlyle, machine and mechanisation had double meaning: they meant literally new technical devices, but also metaphorically mechanistic thought that suppresses human freedom. Carlyle strongly criticised the mechanisation of the human spirit and indicated the high moral costs of industrial change.

      Were we required to characterise this age of ours by any single epithet, we should be tempted to call it, not an Heroical, Devotional, Philosophical, or Moral Age, but, above all others, the Mechanical Age. It is the Age of Machinery, in every outward and inward sense of that word; the age which, with its whole undivided might, forwards, teaches and practises the great art of adapting means to ends. Nothing is now done directly, or by hand; all is by rule and calculated contrivance. [34]

      In this sermon-like essay, Carlyle led a crusade against scientific materialism, Utilitarianism and the laissez-faire system. He believed that the freedom of the emerging mechanical society in England was a delusion, because it made workers into greater slaves than their ancient counterparts had been and mechanisation of society threatened the human ability to think and act creatively:

      Men are grown mechanical in head and in heart, as well as in hand. They have lost faith in individual endeavour, and in natural force, of any kind. Not for internal perfection, but for external combinations and arrangements, for institutions, constitutions, for Mechanism of one sort or other, do they hope and struggle. Their whole efforts, attachments, opinions, turn on mechanism, and are of a mechanical character.

      Brooklin Bridge July 20, 2013 at 1:48 pm

      No matter how bleak things appear, the reality is probably much much worse.

      The greed and corruption that we are discussing will play itself out, possibly with minor social upheavals and attempts to rectify things, and along with that "playing out of corruption" will be irreversible additions to C02 emissions and other climate change triggers that take us way way beyond the tipping point we have already recently crossed. Each degree of temperature rise means a new degree of unstoppable catastrophe. And while that will certainly bring governments down, and corruption along with it, it will do the same to civilizations.

      The idea that if we just stop everything now, right now, we will avoid the existential threat is absurd. We are going full steam ahead with exploitation of the most lethal substances in earth by the most powerful unstoppable global force of corruption in recorded history. We are not going to stop the madness. We are the madness.

      Sure we could stop it (if we were suddenly transformed, say, into angels). But short of something along those dubious lines, we won't stop it any more than we would stop the sea level rising with a tea spoon.

      If we are lucky, humankind will essentially be made up of small nomadic groups of hunter gatherers within a hundred and fifty years (probably made up of the descendants of the 1% no matter how grotesquely unfair that seems). Keeping hold of technology seems iffy. I remember hearing that there is a point of critical mass, population wise, below which we probably go extinct. Either way it will be a blessing for the other species that manage to survive.

      casino implosion July 20, 2013 at 1:49 pm

      Does Chris Hedges deal with any actual people in the course of his activities?

      We're about as close to a revolutionary uprising as we are to the orbit of Neptune.

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 2:01 pm

      Actually Hedges analysis is correct if we use history as a guidance, i.e,. sooner or later an inflection point will be reached and chaos will be unleashed – what will cause this is certainly unknown, but, and on the continuing trajectory the US is following, something will give – and I doubt very much, your so called 'middle class', once the funds run out, as they will given the unlimited greed of your masters, will like the concentration camps your post 9/11 governing officials have in mind for you.

      Greg T July 20, 2013 at 4:54 pm

      Agreed, Chris. Hedges actually knows quite a bit about the mood of the country. He is first and foremost, a reporter. His book Days of Destruction, Days of Revolt is based on his travels in some of the worst economic pockets in the country. If he says the US is a tinderbox, we should take him seriously.

      I don't think he's as optimistic as Yves suggests. In Part 1, he says he's existentially optimistic but practically pessimistic. I think that means he is confident people will come to realize their condition and who is responsible for it, but changing it will be difficult. He does say in the interview that he's not naive enough to believe that 500 K people marching in Washington will immediately change anything, but it would be a necessary step.

      Chris, I think you are correct. With each crisis, more and more people will become ' excess baggage '. Theres something about survival that tends to galvanize people to a purpose.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 7:47 pm

      "Pessimism of the intelligence, optimism of the will." –Gramsci.

      Mark Stevens July 20, 2013 at 1:49 pm

      We have indeed become a culture that is a mixture of both Brave New World and 1984. One aspect of the current situation which is overlooked is the state of our physical health. I can not see a revolution led by people who are too fat to walk a few blocks. How much of the population is dependent on the government for medicaid and medicare? Many of them would be literally risking their lives if their source of medication and treatment were to be cut off. With 50 million food stamp recipients how many would starve without that assistance? I can not see those so dependent leading the charge on Capitol Hill. When the system collapses under its own weight and the population has started to decline there will be nothing to lose, so maybe then.

      Massinissa July 20, 2013 at 3:44 pm

      When the food stamps are cut, and medical care becomes less and less due to the effects of austerity, we may see uprising, at least of a small sort.

      When people cannot survive, they get angry.

      But right now they CAN survive, albeit pitifully. So there is no revolution at the moment.

      People will not revolt until they are forced by their desperation to do so.

      Inverness July 20, 2013 at 6:14 pm

      Massinissa, so many people are absolutely not surviving right now. There are American counties that lack running water, tent cities propped up for the newly homeless, whose numbers continue to rise, not to mention suicides.

      Many of Americans have already reached that breaking point. Maybe we need more of the formerly middle class to join their ranks? I don't know. But the situation has already grown so severe…

      http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/05/health/us-suicide-rate-rose-during-recession-study-finds.html?_r=0

      http://www.theroot.com/views/not-all-americans-have-enough-access-water

      RanDomino July 21, 2013 at 1:11 am

      Anger does not lead to revolution. Organization does.

      Tokai Tuna July 20, 2013 at 1:51 pm

      "I suspect we'll see more and more random violence as frustrated individuals lash out." That's cynical, but it will be very much welcomed as it potentiates opportunity through crisis.
      Business has long succeeded profitably by designing things to fail, or engineering failure or setting things up to fail.
      Controlling information, wind shield wipers or human capital, destroying things to save them. It's worth reminding people that frustration or anger can be helpful and doesn't necessarily mean violence or lashing out.

      optimader July 20, 2013 at 2:07 pm

      For Cris Hedges, wherever he may be lamenting today

      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AdYaTa_lOf4&list=TLqNmIWc-WsxE
      Teddy has an Operation

      allcoppedout July 20, 2013 at 2:59 pm

      Socialist alternatives have been articulated for a long time and most primitive societies are more egalitarian than our clown fest. The communism of the free table was articulated in a slave economy that was sexist. The China of Mao and the USSR of Stalin were disasters. One might even put forward Thatcher as the most Gramscian of our politicians, destroying the hegemony of communities and their representation (unions).

      Philosophy has long had a radical theory,which we might put as Wittgenstein noticing the long history of the subject had produced a hill of beans and language was worth looking at as the cause and re-grouping it a potential solution, complicated by the solution being expressed in language. There is a shed load of critique across the social sciences and our literature, even on how dominant ideologies arise and are maintained. Science, which is apolitical in teaching and practice, produces liberals in massive preponderance, with a tiny GOP/Tory rump – we are not, in the main, products of Critical Theory classes or the excellent line of Mexico. Of course, science as it reaches the public is not what we go through in learning it, but the dunnage on the next diet-fad as Banger tells us.

      I dislike blaming the current squalor on the US – we need to identify the real shadows. We know who they are – the people with massive, hoarded wealth across the planet. Detroit is interesting here because the bankruptcy threatens another form of what we thought hoarded wealth, that expected to pay pensions. This money is probably long gone across the US cities and down a Ponzi drain. I note a judge who co-authored a book on Ponzi unwinding is in charge in Detroit. This could be the tipping point that tells us as a society that our politicians have been engaged in a vast cover-up (or so dumb the could not read the writing on the wall) – I was teaching this as far back as 1992 but may as well have been walking the streets in 'the end of the world is nigh' sandwich-boards. Cops could retire here on two-thirds pay back then.

      Detroit, Gary (Indiana), Birmingham (Alabama) … might just be the touch-paper if substantial numbers of middle-class people find their income gone. We have similar situations in the UK, as does much of the EU. Not long ago we were being told pension pots were brimming full!

      The key thing we don't grok is that most people don't learn very much and are very easily swayed by cultural rot – look how many cop and secret service hero shows hinge on will they won't they sex and a sub-text of personal revenge, heroes nice to children, animals (NCIS is the utter classic) and the notion we the public will do what is right when asked. Young South African boys queue up for ritual humiliation to become 'men' (whilst losing 'manhood' in botched circumcision) – I see little difference in Western cool.

      Young populations are much more likely to rebel. Analysing internal conflicts in 175 nations during the second half of the 20th century, Urdal found that "with every percentage point increase in the youth population, relative to the [total] adult population, the risk of conflict increases by more than 4 per cent." When young adults exceed 35 per cent of all adults, the risk is 150 per cent higher (International Studies Quarterly, vol 50, p 607). The relationship persists, he says, even when factors such as the state of national economic development, democracy and conflict history are filtered out. In a study for the non-governmental organisation Population Action International in 2003, Richard Cincotta, a researcher who currently advises the US government's National Intelligence Council on demography, found that countries in which more than 40 per cent of the adult population is aged between 15 and 29 are more than twice as likely as older societies to experience some form of civil conflict.

      We may not be on the streets because we have become pathetic/apathetic with age. Perhaps we oldies are to blame and should make the trip to 'Lemming Hill' (though lemmings don't actually commit suicide), as a gesture to the future of our species? Bees leave the hive when ill in a form of altruism.

      History tells us any kind of revolution will not do. Why should we have more success if we take to the streets than the Egyptians or most of Eastern Europe? Do we feel racial superiority? The older academics when I was a student almost all supported massive change as we want now. We got human resource management instead (an evil).

      The question has always been how we get things done after the revolution and hanging bankers has become a bore. Money needs to go in its current form as thirty pieces of silver, or whatever the globally arbitraged level that has sunk to. We hardly discuss the needed attitude changes and the new constitution

      Chris Rogers July 20, 2013 at 3:29 pm

      Hate to break the news to you, but any change at all, if its to come out of the UK will be driven by the grey haired brigade, i.e., those most likely to vote, and not the youth you allude to.

      Given the ConDem government in the UK now has its mindset on another 5 years of austerity after 2015 and proposes attacking the benefits of pensioners as it decimates social welfare – somehow, i can't see pensioners buying into this crap.

      Don't expect any change from Ed Miliband's NewNuLabour Party – an absolute disgrace and I certainly will not be voting for them – Green and Plaid Cymru all the way for me from now on.

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 5:20 pm

      FWIW, I think it has to be the diamond geezers plus the youth. This picture from Moral Mondays encourages me:

      Note the younger person also being arrested in the background.

      I heard a similar anecdote locally: Three geezers like me and two young women stopping an oil tank car train.

      * * *

      All defensive, though. Stopping stuff, not starting it. So, back to TINA. Maybe Alperowitz is pointing to the way forward to a real alternative. I'm not sure.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 12:53 pm

      Really nice analysis. Hope you continue in this vein in the future. As for the youth contingent you are right of course and that may be the reason we are all standing around waiting for something to happen.

      However, we can take courage on one central fact: we live in a world that is so radically different that the old criteria just no longer count–something deeper is at work here and we haven't yet been able to grasp it.

      LillithMc July 20, 2013 at 3:13 pm

      The tinderbox was last week with the Zimmerman trial. For the left it was a repeat of the south before the Civil Rights movement. GOP/NRA/ALEC laws passed in all the red states included the Florida version of "stand your ground". The right began an immediate portrayal of Martin as a thug who deserved what he got. Zimmerman was sent home with his gun for 40 days until civil unrest demanded a trial. The right claimed "stand your ground" was not part of the trial although the juror said instructions were from that law. It could be the tinderbox will be something like the Martin trial, the massacre in Newtown or some other event that incites crowds and brings out the armed militia of Homeland Security. Occupy was clearly under Homeland Security attention just as the Civil Rights movement was covered by the FBI with local police alerted to any protest in order to prepare a bloody response. A map of all the red states shows where the new laws are in effect. They involve voter suppression, extreme gerrymanders, restrictions of women's health care rights, corporate reduction of taxes and increased rights to pollute. When the red states show the effects of no health care for the poor (no medicaid), back-alley abortions, millions with concealed gun permits but questionable backgrounds like Zimmerman, we may see a tinderbox. That could also be part of the plan like the billionaire funding of the tea party.

      Waking Up July 20, 2013 at 3:15 pm

      Regardless of his past part in our current state of affairs as a nation, I have to say that I was surprised to hear a former President of the United States… Jimmy Carter… acknowledge the truth that the United States is no longer a functioning Democracy.

      Bravo to Jimmy Carter for speaking the truth!

      Jill July 20, 2013 at 4:07 pm

      I am getting ready to approach my neighbor who belongs to the tea party and the Libertarian party to discuss opposition to the surveillance state. I would also like to talk about the economy, but one thing at a time. I believe a few liberal friends should join in and we should schedule small group talks about this. I picture doing this at our homes or the libray etc.

      I think we should do this together to show that fighting a surveillance state matters to people on both the right and left. We need to come together and I believe this is one area where we share things in common.

      Should anyone like to give me advice on what to say, how to say it, etc. please offer it. I want to hear it. If you have advice on speaking about the economy in plain language, that can cross ideological divides, I want to hear that also.

      Thanks, Jill

      Otter July 20, 2013 at 11:32 pm

      Before you speak, listen.

      Lambert Strether July 21, 2013 at 1:10 am

      @Jill–

      I thought I posted on this somewhere, but I can't find it. So I hope I tell the story the same way….

      * * *

      Last month I was driven home from a permaculture event in Northern Maine with a nice churchgoing couple and they asked me what I did. I explained, in fairly general terms, and the husband asked me What I thought the big stories of the day were, mentioning that he heard a lot about Benghazi. [oh-kaaay…]

      I responded that I felt that most of the big stories weren't covered at all, at least in the news. For example, "Why haven't any bankers gone to jail?" Big nod from the husband, bigger nod from the wife. So commmunication is possible….

      Jill July 21, 2013 at 11:16 am

      Thanks Lambert and Otter!

      To All: When I read these comments I was struck by the amount of love behind them. Even people who disagreed with each other, or whose ideas I personally do not hold–I could tell they were motivated by good will and the desire for things to turn better for other people and our nation.

      LAS July 20, 2013 at 4:17 pm

      Let's not forget to look for resistance in other ways than street protest. Immediately after the Nazi take over of France in WWII, it seemed that the French were compliant to rule by Germans and the Vichy French collaborators. Gatherings by more than 5 persons was illegal. But, in fact, hearts and minds were continuously defecting as each day continued under the occupation. People of all backgrounds joined the resistance and many of them behaved with great heroism performing relatively small acts of sabotage.

      Although they may not be marching in Washington, a high proportion of Americans obviously do distrust schemes of man at a relatively high rate. Where it goes from here, I'm not sure.

      barrisj July 20, 2013 at 5:04 pm

      The late Tony Judt had addressed similar issues to those of Hedges in his "Ill Fares The Land", where he lamented the inability of Social democracy to either preserve the gains made earlier in the 20th Century, or indeed repel the savage attacks on them by "the neoliberal agenda". In fact, Judt concedes that ""incremental improvements upon unsatisfactory circumstances are the best that we can hope for…", a rather tepid and underwhelming outlook, I'm afraid. Judt notes that the forces of reaction have indeed stolen a march on progressivism, and writes: "It is the Right that has inherited the ambitious modernist urge to destroy and innovate in the name of a universal project. From the war in Iraq through the unrequited desire to dismantle public education and health services, to the decades-long project of financial deregulation, the political Right – from Thatcher and Reagan to Bush and Blair – has abandoned the association of political conservatism with social moderation […]."
      He surely would have included Obama as an avatar of the neoliberal project, as his administration has connived with major corporate and financial interests to further protect their interests, has extended the Surveillance State into unprecedented territory, has continued a militaristic foreign policy – fine-tuned, really, with his drone-based "projection" of US power – and generally rewarded "the malefactors of great wealth" at the expense of the vast bulk of the US public. In fact, as late-capitalism careens its reckless way through Western economies, each national or international crisis fomented by the plutocracy elicits even further punishment of its victims. How can anything but an acute pessimistic expectation of any sort of meaningful reform be a valid position?

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 5:51 pm

      I dunno where the touch paper or the spark is, but I'd be thinking seriously about supply chain vulnerability, since AFAIK the supply chain has been highly optimized - i.e., is fragile - since "just in time" days. The supply chain is the common terrain of anti-fracking, anti-pipeline, Walmart protests, and even efforts like local food sovereignty. I'm sure there are more….

      Granted, drones, surveillance, militarized police forces, besides other Leviathon-like tactics but (a) our military just lost two wars applying such tactics internationally, (b) it's a big continent, and (c) check out Lieutenant General Paul K. Van Riper and Millenium challenge.

      nobody July 20, 2013 at 8:14 pm

      You might enjoy a paper introduced at Zero Hedge awhile back as "Nassim Taleb meets Edward Lorenz meets Malcom Gladwell meets Arthur Tansley meets Herman Muller meets Werner Heisenberg meets Hyman Minsky meets William Butler Yeats, and the resultant group spends all night drinking absinthe and smoking opium, while engaging in illegal debauchery in the 5th sub-basement of the Moulin Rouge circa 1890."

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/trade-study-global-systemic-collapse

      Lambert Strether July 20, 2013 at 11:41 pm

      Well, we'll just have to see, won't we?

      Meanwhile, try harder.

      nobody July 21, 2013 at 12:20 pm

      Try looking at things from more angles.

      Otter July 20, 2013 at 11:55 pm

      Somebody should translate that into English.

      RanDomino July 21, 2013 at 1:19 am

      If it's ZeroHedge, you can assume it means "Buy gold!".

      Lambert Strether July 21, 2013 at 1:34 am

      Because now is a always a good time to buy gold!

      I haven't mocked that mindset nearly enough lately.

      nobody July 21, 2013 at 12:18 pm

      It's not from ZeroHedge, I said it was introduced there. I wanted to quote the sentence about absinthe and opium.

      The paper comes from the Foundation for the Economics of Sustainability:

      "Feasta was launched in Dublin in October 1998 to explore the economic, cultural and environmental characteristics of a truly sustainable society, and to disseminate the results of this exploration to the widest relevant audience.

      "The position Feasta has adopted is that many of the world's problems are caused not by bad people but by dysfunctional systems and it sees its purpose as designing better systems. For example, the economic system demands continual growth if it is not to collapse into a catastrophic depression, and this leaves politicians with little alternative but to pursue short-term economic growth more-or-less regardless of the damage that that pursuit might be doing to longer-term environmental and social sustainability.

      "Feasta has spent a lot of time examining the reasons for this growth compulsion to see if an economic system can be devised without it. Feasta has also looked at money systems, agricultural systems, carbon systems, energy systems, taxation systems, rationing systems, land tenure systems and democratic systems and come up with ideas for these.

      "We take it as given that sustainability must benefit everyone in a society, rather than merely those who are financially or otherwise privileged. We consider a society to be sustainable if it can expect to survive for several hundreds of years without being forced to change because it is currently destroying or undermining something on which its survival crucially depends."

      http://www.feasta.org/about/background-2/

      RBHoughton July 20, 2013 at 7:43 pm

      I agree with you that 1/ Obama has done as well as might be expected and 2/ many young people have probably been disabled from taking their usual leading role in protest.

      I should like to make the case for retirees. They are usually dependent on the economic system for their pensions and that will mitigate the effectiveness of many but some will have more freedom to act and they all recall the America of 'Burns and Allen' and 'Happy Days.' They know it does not have to be like it is today.

      Marching does not concern the elites any more but not voting in elections, non-payment of taxes, boycotts of particular products, barter of goods and services and many other tactics can force political attention.

      ohmyheck July 20, 2013 at 10:45 pm

      Anecdote- after reading this article this morning, I sold an item I had on Craigslist. The person who bought it was a man around 40. Very clean-cut, and Mormon.

      He proceeded to tell me that he lost everything–home and a growing business, in 2008. He now works at the North Dakota oil rigs cuz the money is good.

      He told me that in his travels he meets a whole lot of folks who understand very well what is going on in this country, and they believe that there will be a revolt, and that many of them are preparing.

      MSM and others can call them nutjobs, but when the nutjobs reach a certain percentage, well, who is the nutjob? The one who knows the truth or the one in denial?

      Out here in fly-over country, this is very real.

      VietnamVet July 20, 2013 at 11:52 pm

      This is the best commentary on current affairs I've read.

      With the fall of the Soviet Union, the Western Elite ceased to fear a workers revolt and commenced to accumulate wealth any way they could.

      Modern Consumerism works to calm and divert our society. Marketing satisfies our human needs; but, only if you have money to spend. When all your earnings from slinging hash are going to pay off your student loan; material consumption is impossible except to survive. Corporate propaganda continues to message that this is the best of all possible worlds. When it isn't, it's the dead beat's fault. This works i.e. the 28% increase in the middle age suicide rate. But, at some point, when the middle class realizes they about to lose everything; then the aristocrats' heads will roll, once again.

      Chris Rogers July 21, 2013 at 3:58 am

      @Vietnam Vet,

      You are absolutely correct that since the demise of the USSR the Western Power elite have become reckless in their pursuit of more wealth and more power – combined with the establishment of both a single world currency and single world government for want of a better word – this triumphalism is epitomised in Fukuyama's "The End of History and the Last Man."

      Regretfully, TBTB are better advised to read Kennedy's "The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers", rather than Fukuyama's trash.

      It should be no surprise that with the fall of the USSR the Power Elite felt safe enough to begin the final part of its neoliberal economic assault on the masses – epitomised by the election of Clinton in the US and Tony Blair in the UK – the rest is history, but Reagan and Thatcher may well have begun the neoliberal counter-revolution, but it was their progeny in the Democratic Party and NuLabour Party that finished off what they begun.

      Indeed, think how much different history would be if George Bush had won the 1992 Presidential election – not as if I'm a supporter of the Bush clan or the Republicans by the way.

      Paul Tioxon July 21, 2013 at 12:43 am

      There is ongoing work by many people all over the world and all over America to strengthen the things that remain. I just finished "THE PEOPLE'S PENSION" BY ERIK LAURSEN. Bill Black covered it in post here a month or so ago. It is much a manual to understanding the opposition and how to counter it as it is a useful history of recent American politics. Social Security First has been the driving force for a United Political Front of different groups to rally behind. I know I am even more so than before will be using it as an instrument of political organizing in everyday conversation.

      As to building a better future out of the chaos and ruble that is all around us, again, many different anti-Establishment initiatives are taking place. But if you are looking for some great big blowout, it is not predictable or even recognizable at first. Sometime an event is so large as not to be measurable unless it is well past its mid point as a social process. Trayvon Martin, Occupy, The Texas Women Filibuster Movement, The Unions in Wisconsin and Ohio, Teachers in Chicago and Philadelphia and on and on, don't have to been operated out of central control from commie pinko HQ, but a lot is happening now that hasn't been in long while.

      http://www.thealliancefordemocracy.org/links.html

      cadams July 21, 2013 at 1:15 am

      The problem with the egalitarian position, and with most of the posters on this website, is its hollow materialism. Glenn Beck and Sean Hannity will probably always kick your asses because they can speak the cultural language of the American religion: atavist and manichean, of God, religion and family, and the battle between good and evil. Orwell, often mentioned on this website, described brilliantly the problem of the soulless idealist in his essay "Can Socialists Be Happy?"
      http://www.online-literature.com/orwell/895/

      The first problem of the egalitarian is the problem of language and semantics (see also Orwell's "Politics and the English Language"). The language of H.G. Wells, Huxley, and other empty utopians can never compete with that of Dickens, Churchill's 1940 speeches, or of the Four Gospels in the King James Version.

      You can't ever win over people to egalitarian principles if you are also joined to the hip with ideas that are perceived by them as leading to the breakdown of the family, or are perceived as morally wrong. You can't fight culture; you must learn to work within the culture of the American religion.

      RanDomino July 21, 2013 at 1:21 am

      Just because SOME people adhere to that world does not mean that all or even most do. There are many more people in the US who are not part of "American" society than you think.

      Lambert Strether July 21, 2013 at 1:32 am

      And the act of corruption starts with corrupt language.

      However, being able to sense or indict corrupt language (Hedges is not only an English major but the son of a minister) is not at all the same as inventing a new language.

      Emma July 21, 2013 at 2:38 am

      Agreed.
      Corruption on a massive scale is constantly disguised with perverted language so it looks like a Big Mac which the masses are happy to eat up.

      Patricia July 21, 2013 at 9:04 am

      Cadams: I've been recently reading in the online US Evangelical community because I want to see what's going on. I've been away from the church for 35 years.

      I've been fascinated to find deep conflict there over the same issues as in our larger culture. Abusive opaque authoritarianism is rampant with its usual demeaning/controlling of membership (demands, tithing, but getting no voice). Leaders grab/misuse tithes as our gov't does to taxes. There is propagandistic exceptionalism (Christians are "righter and better") that rivals our nation's propaganda of US exceptionalism. Etc.

      And more and more membership are rejecting it. There's been a slowly increasing exodus of members even while many of them do not reject the faith itself.

      In that context, Fox and Beck are the propaganda. Of course, propaganda is not complete BS. It works best in mixture.

      On various sites, I have been commenting about the similarities, here/there, and there's been receptivity, so that's good.

      Thus, your accusation of hollow materialism is merely beam-off propaganda from that corner of the world.

      Ep3 July 21, 2013 at 8:10 am

      Yves, here's my thoughts about when this "neo-fascist" rule began; July 4, 1776. Those guys wanted to be kings too. They were mad that the only way to get there was thru birth. So they opened up the requirements. But I want to fast forward to the depression. Social stirrings were already roaring outside the US. And when they began inside the country, amists the depression, I believe the elites became worried. They felt really threatened that the depression was gonna be the end of their power run. they opened up the pocketbooks and slowly implemented marginal socialist policies. by the time the US was out of the great depression, they had effectively stopped "benefits" and resumed their campaign against "communism" (communism being this fear of an economically healthy middle class). I also think it was partly to do with the fear of the baby boomers. Their voting power had to be contained and focused. Here, by providing well paying jobs with extensive benefits, boomers could be lulled into complacency and a sense of false optimism (they did well, and the myth that the next generation always does better) so that they were no longer a political threat (ongoing). In the 1970s, the political parties and campaign strategies were given the green light. And Reagan was their man. Carter went along with their plans, but Ronny gave then free reign. The absence of active govt from Ford and carter, who appeased the pent up tension from Vietnam and watergate (apathy breed apathy), released the 'Reagan revolution'. Ppl wanted change, and a great media campaign focused that blame at govt.
      So my point is that this "neo-fascism" has been going on for a long time. It's just had a different name and face. It didn't start with Obama, w, Clinton, reagan, etc. it has always existed. And blaming the latest figurehead is just parlor tricks

      Jack Heape July 21, 2013 at 10:36 am

      Maybe not 1776, but for sure when the Constitution replaced the Articles of Confederation. The end of the Civil War consolidated the Federal government as the supreme law of the land, and ever since then the elites have worked to centralize and monopolize. They did this by the creation of the Fed, granting corporations legal personhood and immortality, the income tax (allows the creation of favoritism toward certain classes), public schools (state run propaganda), and media centralization and ownership. Americans have been propagandized into thinking they are exceptional. I see no future for the US. The neo-facists will take over and we will follow 1930's Germany down their road into dictatorship. The game is rigged, elections are a joke, and the police state is in place.

      The Rage July 21, 2013 at 6:55 pm

      Uh, Public Schools were in America since the beginning. Just about all the founders were a favorite of them. If anything, it is the private schooling industrial complex that is the problem.

      The Civil War frankly, "created" the United States. Without it, the country couldn't survive. Capitalism has built up enough. Now Capitalists want to destroy the Federal Government………what does that tell you?

      Your whole post is pathetic and full of internationalism.

      Chris Maukonen July 21, 2013 at 11:12 am

      I will amke the same comment here that I made at FDL to a similar post:

      I agree whole heartedly with Hedges assessment of the situation. His analogy of this being a neo-feudalistic society is spot on. And that the democratic party is an extreme right party with an extreme right agenda.

      HOWEVER I disagree that any solution will be achieved in the voting booth. Any more than it would have been in Stalinist Russia.

      THERE WILL NEVER BE A SOLUTION IN THE VOTING BOOTH PERIOD. The elites will NEVER ALLOW it to happen.

      tongorad July 21, 2013 at 11:35 am

      It is going to be nigh near impossible to get a mass movement underway in our current police/surveillance state, which is only growing stronger and more severe. The tipping point would almost have to be some mega-catastrophic event. Before that, people will be weighing the trade-offs and coming down on the side of passivity and acceptance. For example, should I risk an arrest at the protest down the street that would potentially jeopardize my current and future employment? Previous generations of activists had their own set of problems, we have the computer database.

      ictus92 July 21, 2013 at 4:57 pm

      To paraphrase Madeline Albright: "What's the point of creating a totalitarian police state if you're not going to use it?"

      So where is the American totalitarian state going? If you look at the NDAA and the discussion around repealing the Posse Comitatus Act, the key words include quelling "domestic civil unrest"… So what are the "deep government" types anticipating so hysterically?

      Well, the financial crisis keeps grinding away and is about to enter another phase of collapse as "quantitative easing" has run its course. Interest rates are rising, posing "technical insolvency" of the Federal Reserve itself. What this means is that time's up for the 46 million in the Food Stamp Supplemental Program; 56 million getting Social Security retirement or disability benefits; and at least 20 million more needing full time employment. Obviously there's some overlap, but the total number of people living on the margins of subsistence pushes 30% of the population.

      For these, they face an immediate "Final Solution"… not exactly direct extermination, but death by deprivation, illness etc. Can work camps be far off for these tens of millions and the many millions more living paycheck to paycheck? This population and their sympathizers comprise the tinder for "civil unrest". Hence the corollary to the famous "Collect it all" (communications) is "control it all" (civil disorder following further economic collapse).

      Furthermore, prolonged neglect of key infrastructure will lead inevitably to severe food, water and electric power access - another source of civil unrest potential.

      Of course, overseas the totalitarian police state eliminates all expression of opposition that can change policies in the quest for "Permanent War" and "full spectrum" military dominance. This ends in global military confrontation… just as the financial crisis of the 30's gave rise to another World War… only this time around world war will pitch towards thermonuclear war in short order. That's how totalitarian regimes collapse into catastrophe, dragging the rest of us to an unpleasant demise.

      Unfortunately, I don't think there's a damn thing any of us can do to arrest this beserk Levithan…

      The Rage July 21, 2013 at 6:59 pm

      The Totalitarian state is called "Capitalism"…….once you understand that as the decadent phase of the merchent class.

      The lack of reasoning on this thread is amazing. People simple DO NOT GET IT!!!!

      tongorad July 21, 2013 at 11:42 am

      I do think that things are a lot worse than people want to recognize or realize. I'm in my late 40's and so many of my friends are out of luck and out of hope. One of my friends is currently squatting in a house and is near suicide.
      The situation sure looks hopeless now.

      Nathanael July 21, 2013 at 10:19 pm

      Suicide is what they want. Never commit suicide (unless, y'know, your problems really are your own fault); better to murder whoever ruined your life. I realize this view is unpopular, but it is a view with a pedigree dating back to ancient Sumeria.

      aljamo July 21, 2013 at 12:09 pm

      Banger has it right when questioning the murders of JFK, RFK and MLK. I add JFK jr. to the list. He was a threat to the establishment in 2000. Nearing the 50 year anniversary of JFK's murder, the existing facts completely wash over the obvious blatant lies of the Warren Commission findings. This murder and subsequent murders of important American citizens are still as relevent as the day they happened. These murders have erased our civility as a justice and freedom caring nation, clearly by design of those oppressing our constitution. The truth about JFK's murder is all important.

      Banger July 21, 2013 at 12:42 pm

      The issue is actually greater than just political. The issue is whether we choose to abandon reason or not. The fact that one cannot have a discussion on these issues but, rather, that people who do not believe in the official narrative are simply dismissed as irrational and deluded. No discussion is necessary. We either choose to confront the truth or we don't. I believe the vast majority of the left-intelligentsia refuse to face the truth about the assassinations and, I believe, most everything else in favor of comfort. The sad part is that they criticize religious people for doing just that.

      Nathanael July 21, 2013 at 10:22 pm

      Derren Brown demonstrated that Sirhan Sirhan's story of being hypnotised into assassinating RFK was completely, 100%, plausible.

      So he probably was hypnotized into assassinating RFK.

      I don't think the people who ran the assassination of RFK actually got what they wanted though. If they wanted to stop the Civil Rights movement… fail. If they wanted to promote the Vietnam War… well, the war was lost anyway. Et cetera. Even evil conspirators can be remarkably incompetent when it comes to long-term thinking.

      Nathanael July 21, 2013 at 10:23 pm

      It's worth looking up the Derren Brown show. He hypnotised a random man into assassinating Stephen Fry in a theater. (With a trick rifle, so that Stephen Fry didn't die, obviously). He followed a procedure corresponding tightly to Sirhan Sirhan's memory.

      [Mar 25, 2015] Iran Has a Little Surprise for Oil Market By Grant Smith

      "The first wave to look out for when these sanctions are removed is that stored oil coming back into the market," Miswin Mahesh, an analyst at Barclays in London, said by e-mail on March 23. "Their ability to sell from storage will depend on whether shipping and insurance restrictions are also lifted."
      Mar 25, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

      Lifting oil sanctions on Iran could hit global markets long before the nation starts pumping more crude.

      That's because the OPEC member has been stockpiling oil onshore and in supertankers in the Persian Gulf, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. While estimates of the hoard by shipbrokers and government officials vary from as little as 7 million barrels to as much as 35 million, Barclays Plc and Societe Generale SA predict this crude would be first to be sold abroad if there's an agreement on Iran's nuclear program.

      The U.S. and five other world powers are scheduled to resume talks with Iran this week, offering relief from sanctions on oil exports, shipping and financial transactions if the Islamic Republic curtails its nuclear program and allows inspections to verify compliance. If a deal is reached, the Persian Gulf nation could add its stockpiles into an oversupplied oil market where prices have fallen more than 50 percent since June.

      "The first wave to look out for when these sanctions are removed is that stored oil coming back into the market," Miswin Mahesh, an analyst at Barclays in London, said by e-mail on March 23. "Their ability to sell from storage will depend on whether shipping and insurance restrictions are also lifted."

      Buyers Reluctant

      It would take three to six months after an end-of-June deadline on a final agreement for the Iranian oil to reach the market, according to U.S. government officials who asked not to be identified. The discussions this week are aimed at agreeing on a framework for the accord by the end of this month.

      Iran has stored excess crude on tankers for the past 2 1/2 years as tougher restrictions on its oil sales deterred buyers, according to the International Energy Agency. The country exports about 1 million to 1.1 million barrels of crude per day, down from 2.5 million before the U.S. and European Union added oil sanctions in mid-2012, IEA data show.

      "They'll probably start putting the oil onto the market immediately, once sanctions are lifted," Robin Mills, an analyst at Dubai-based Manaar Energy Consulting who worked with Royal Dutch Shell Plc in Iran into the middle of last decade, said by phone from Dubai March 22. "They're desperate for cash."

      Iranian Tankers

      Thirteen supertankers operated by the National Iranian Tanker Corp. were anchored offshore Bandar Abbas, Assaluyeh or Kharg Island in Iran from March 15 to March 18, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The depth of their hulls in the water suggests the ships, which have spent from three weeks to nine months at their current positions, are laden with crude. Each vessel is able able to carry an average of 2.1 million barrels, the data show.

      Four calls placed to National Iranian Oil Co. in Tehran by Bloomberg this week seeking comment went unanswered. Many offices are closed for the Iranian new year.

      The amount of stored Iranian crude may be less than half the level indicated by the data compiled by Bloomberg, according to the U.S. officials. Iran has between 7 million and 17 million barrels at sea and on land, said the officials. They cited estimates based on satellite photographs and other evidence.

      EA Gibson Shipbrokers Ltd. in London, which has been monitoring Iranian oil storage since 2009, estimates the country has 34.5 million barrels aboard tankers in the Persian Gulf.
      Selling Crude
      There would probably be a delay between the June completion of a deal and the sale of stored crude, said Mike Wittner, head of oil markets research at Societe Generale in New York. The stockpiles could be sold over a three-month period, swelling the current global market surplus by 30 percent, Barclays's Mahesh estimates.

      While Iran's need for revenue may prompt it to sell some stored supplies immediately, the nation would constrain the rate of sales to avoid depressing global oil prices, Manaar's Mills said.

      Brent futures rose $1.81 to $56.92 a barrel on the London-based ICE Futures Europe exchange at 2:13 p.m. New York time. The benchmark for more than half the world's crude has lost 47 percent over the past 12 months.

      The disposal of stockpiled oil would still be speedier than the revival of Iran's oilfields. Restoring the country's output by 800,000 barrels a day to its full capacity of 3.6 million could be achieved in three months of sanctions ending, according to the Paris-based IEA, an adviser to 29 nations on energy policy.

      Iran's Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said March 16 that the nation could increase exports by 1 million barrels a day within a few months of sanctions being removed.

      Other analysts are less optimistic, with Citigroup Inc. estimating an increase of that size would take between six months and a year. A sustained expansion in Iranian production won't become a factor for the market until late 2015 or early 2016, Societe Generale's Wittner said by phone on March 23.

      "Once the oil and banking sanctions are lifted or suspended, and they're allowed to put additional oil in the market, the first oil that's going to be sold is what's in storage," Wittner said.

      To contact the reporters on this story: Grant Smith in London at [email protected]; Anthony DiPaola in Dubai at [email protected]; Julian Lee in London at [email protected]

      To contact the editors responsible for this story: Dan Stets at [email protected]; Alaric Nightingale at [email protected] James Herron, Rachel Graham

      [Mar 24, 2015] Ukraine Asks Bondholders to Reach Deal Now or Risk Bigger Losses

      Mar 24, 2015 | Bloomberg Business
      Ukraine's Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko urged the nation's bondholders, including Russia, to negotiate a debt-restructuring agreement now or risk facing bigger losses.

      "This is the best time for us to do this," Jaresko said in an interview in London on Tuesday. "The situation is relatively peaceful now. They do not want to be in a situation where there is an uncontrolled situation and we are forced to do a much worse deal for them."

      The former Soviet republic has held talks with Franklin Templeton and its 14 other biggest U.K. and U.S. creditors as it seeks new terms on about 29 bonds and enterprise loans, Jaresko said. Russia, which as recently as last week said it wouldn't budge on being paid back a $3 billion bond in full by the December deadline, won't be offered special terms, she said. Ukraine's $2.6 billion of bonds due in July 2017 declined by 0.5 cent on Tuesday to 39.71 cents on the dollar.

      Jaresko's comments show the stakes for Ukraine, whose $17.5 billion International Monetary Fund loan package requires a restructuring deal with bondholders by the end of May. Relations between Russian President Vladimir Putin and Ukraine have fallen apart since Russia's National Wealth Fund bought the debt in December 2013, two months before President Viktor Yanukovych was toppled in a bloody uprising in Kiev.

      Equal Terms

      Since the $3 billion security took the form of a tradeable bond, Russia should be treated on the same terms all other holders, Jarekso said on Tuesday. Her comments are in contrast with those of Russian politicians including Deputy Finance Minister Sergey Storchak, who said March 17 that the nation isn't taking part the debt talks because it's not a private creditor.

      "We need to have a process that is transparent, that has a certain amount of justice, that has inter-creditor equity," Jaresko said. "That means no special terms for any single investor or creditor, regardless of nationality."

      Jaresko was part of a government delegation that held talks last week with Templeton, which owns about $7 billion of Ukraine bonds. While Templeton won't accept a writedown, according to a person familiar with the situation, analysts at Bank of America Corp. said this month current bond prices are consistent with about a 20 percent cut in the principal and a 50 percent reduction in coupon payments.

      [Mar 22, 2015] Economist's View 'Controlling the Past'

      March 22, 2015 | economistsview.typepad.com

      Simon Wren-Lewis:

      Controlling the past: In his novel 1984 George Orwell wrote: "Who controls the past controls the future: who controls the present controls the past." We are not quite in this Orwellian world yet, which means attempts to rewrite history can at least be contested. A few days ago the UK Prime Minister in Brussels said this:

      "When I first came here as prime minister five years ago, Britain and Greece were virtually in the same boat, we had similar sized budget deficits. The reason we are in a different position is we took long-term difficult decisions and we had all of the hard work and effort of the British people. I am determined we do not go backwards."

      In other words if only those lazy Greeks had taken the difficult decisions that the UK took, they too could be like the UK today.

      This is such as travesty of the truth, as well as a huge insult to the Greek people, that it is difficult to know where to begin. ...

      The real travesty ... is in the implication that somehow Greece failed to take the 'difficult decisions' that the UK took. 'Difficult decisions' is code for austerity. A good measure of austerity is the underlying primary balance. According to the OECD, the UK underlying primary balance was -7% in 2009, and it fell to -3.5% in 2014: a fiscal contraction worth 3.5% of GDP. In Greece it was -12.1% in 2009, and was turned into a surplus of 7.6% by 2014: a fiscal contraction worth 19.7% of GDP! So Greece had far more austerity, which is of course why Greek GDP has fallen by 25% over the same period. A far more accurate statement would be that the UK started taking the same 'difficult decisions' as Greece took, albeit in a much milder form, but realized the folly of this and stopped. Greece did not get that choice. And I have not even mentioned the small matter of being in or out of a currency union. ...

      pgl:

      Cameron's fiscal austerity has been awful for the UK but he refuses to admit his incompetence. So he finds an economy doing even worse than the UK - Greece. Why is it doing worse? Because it was forced to have even more fiscal austerity than Cameron choose to impose. But did I not say Cameron refuses to admit austerity was a mistake? So what does he do - accuse Greece of not doing enough austerity. Hey - incompetent political leaders lie a lot.

      Op said in reply to pgl...

      Incompetence

      You idiot

      he's a bald face liar serving the interests of "the city"
      He's a demagogue and a shit faced hog in a clean suit
      Tory politicians should end with a cabinet full of em hanging from a gallows in trafalgar square

      Spluttering about travesty
      Hardly encompasses the grotesque inhumanity of these eight legged monstrosities

      That said

      I blame new labor for all this

      They enabled such idery ghouls to regain power

      pgl said in reply to Op ...

      I see that you flunked pre-K reading comprehension. I said he lied. And he is incompetent too. But do babble on.

      Op said in reply to pgl...

      He is profoundly not incompetent
      He got the results he was after
      He deflected blame wiliest cutting back on the recovery rate

      You need to use words
      as they are customarily used
      Or explicitly define your use
      To you incompetent is just a slur
      Much like shit head

      Peter K. said in reply to Op ...

      I don't have any problem with what Wren-Lewis and pgl have written.

      Cameron says austerity works. It doesn't. That's incompetence. He's also dishonest which makes it worse.

      It's also possible he's lying about wanting to be competent, but why speculate? Why bother?

      What does it matter?

      paine said in reply to Peter K....

      The tory cabinet wanted a slow recovery
      they have little concern about deficits per se

      They use scare tactics

      paine said in reply to Peter K....

      The pm does not give a wit about austerity working

      He wanted a stag

      Cui bono

      Fred C. Dobbs said in reply to pgl...

      Cameron's coalition partner, Nick Clegg of the Liberal Dems, has said Enough With The Austerity already. Not so much that the coalition is threatened,
      y'know, but, please...

      We can end austerity, Clegg tells activists http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/wales-news/nick-clegg-promises-end-era-8844662

      paine said in reply to Fred C. Dobbs...

      Barrys twin

      Fred C. Dobbs said...

      I have read that in recent years, Greece has made much progress, increasing exports, etc.

      Under austerity, they have also laid off a whole lot of guv'mint employees, resulting in 25% unemployed, a LOT of whom would like their jobs back. Would that also be something the Brits dealt with?

      anne said...

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=10O8

      January 15, 2015

      Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for Greece, 2000-2012

      (Percent)


      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=10TQ

      January 15, 2015

      Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for Greece, 2007-2012

      (Percent)

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=11aE

      January 15, 2015

      Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom, 2000-2012

      (Percent)


      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152R

      January 15, 2015

      Government debt and trade balance as shares of Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom, 2007-2012

      (Percent)

      anne said in reply to anne...

      Where government debt as a share of GDP for the United Kingdom was 44.8% in 2007, debt as a share of GDP in Greece in 2007 was 120.4%. The trade balance was -2.6% in the UK in 2007 and -6.5% in Greece.

      Where government debt as a share of GDP for the United Kingdom was 97.2% in 2012, debt as a share of GDP in Greece in 2012 was 163.6%. The trade balance was -5.5% in the UK in 2012 and -9.4% in Greece.

      anne said...

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152T

      August 4, 2014

      Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom and Greece, 2000-2013

      (Percent change)


      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152W

      August 4, 2014

      Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for United Kingdom and Greece, 2007-2013

      (Percent change)

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=152X

      November 1, 2014

      Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United
      Kingdom and Greece, 2000-2011


      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=1530

      November 1, 2014

      Total Factor Productivity at Constant National Prices for United
      Kingdom and Greece, 2007-2011

      mulp said...

      "And I have not even mentioned the small matter of being in or out of a currency union. ..."

      Yeo, if Greece were to still be on the drachma, then Greece could simply print infinite drachma to buy all the imports, especially oil, that it needs because in a free market, the buyer dictates to the seller the price and terms in all cases.

      This is a core principle of free lunch economics!

      If housing subsidies and food stamps were eliminated, then the working poor would be able to buy sirloin and prime rib for 10 cents per pound because that is as much as they can afford, but the buyer sets the price and terms for all sellers. If rent subsidies were eliminated, the number of 1200 sq-ft rentals at $200 per month would explode because the working poor renter can dictate the size of the apartment and rent. That's why its called the free market. Market goods are freely available and free in a free market!

      The problem in Greece is that too many people believe in free lunch economics. They consider taxes theft and paying taxes to be stupidity. But worse, international bankers believe in free lunch economics where they can loan other people's money to people who can not afford to repay the loans, but the high debt creates wealth and that will create more debt funded spending which will pay for all the past debt.

      I don't see any wing of economists willing to reject free lunch economics and return to the principles of capitalism that were established by FDR and then promoted by government until the 70s when conservatives sold Americans on pillage and plunder, on free lunch economics.

      And those free lunch economic principles have been sold all over the world, especially to Greece when international bankers told Greece they can borrow and spend to infinite, trust them.

      [Mar 22, 2015] That Was The Week That Was

      March 20, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
      "Over a protracted period of good times, capitalist economies tend to move from a financial structure dominated by hedge finance units to a structure in which there is large weight to units engaged in speculative and Ponzi finance. Furthermore, if an economy with a sizeable body of speculative financial units is in an inflationary state, and the authorities attempt to exorcise inflation by monetary constraint, then speculative units will become Ponzi units and the net worth of previously Ponzi units will quickly evaporate. Consequently, units with cash flow shortfalls will be forced to try to make position by selling out position. This is likely to lead to a collapse of asset values."

      Hyman Minsky, The Financial Instability Hypothesis

      Gold and silver had a very positive day today, running up to their short term overhead resistance intraday, and holding most of those gains.

      There was intraday commentary on gold and silver here.

      The moves next week will be much more meaningful than this short term run up off a very oversold condition.

      I am ready for anything, given that the character of the bucket shop has not been improved.

      I have included the economic calendar for next week. There will be the *third* revision to 4Q GDP which, unless it is markedly revised lower to give some headroom for the next 1Q estimate, will likely be a trip to the snoratorium.

      The macroeconomics and global situation are much more significant, even if the domestic trade and commentary barely gives it an exceptional nod or acknowledgement.

      Remember me in your prayers, as I remember you.

      Have a pleasant weekend.

      [Mar 22, 2015] The Perfect Storm For Oil Hits In Two Months US Crude Production To Soar Just As Storage Runs Out

      Mar 21, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Less than two weeks ago we warned that based on the current oil production trend, the US may run out of storage for crude as soon as June.

      ... ... ...

      This is what we said back in early March when the BTFDers were hoping WTI in the low $40s would never again be seen:

      Come June, when all available on-land storage is exhausted, each incremental barrel will have to be dumped on the market forcing prices lower and inflicting further pain on the entire US shale complex (just as Q1 results are released which will invariably show huge writedowns as companies will no longer be able to hide behind the SEC-mandated accounting trick that made Q4 results appear respectable). Here's Soc Gen: "...oil markets can be impatient and prices could drop considerably lower. As we have written previously, we are currently more concerned about downside risk than upside risk."

      Since then, as expected, crude tumbled to new post-Lehman lows, confirming the global deflationary wave is raging (for more details please see China), and WTI only posted a rebound on quad-witching Friday as another algo-driven stop hunt spooked all those who were short the energy complex.

      The problem is that despite the latest "dead oil bounce" we have since had to revise our forecast for full US oil storage, and pulled forward the date when this will happen in the aftermath of the latest API inventory data.

      Recall that earlier this week API reported, and EIA later confirmed, that for the 10th week in a row there was a "massive 10.5 million barrels (far bigger than the 3.1 million barrel expectation) and a 3 million barrel build at Cushing. If this holds for DOE data tomorrow (and worryingly API has tended to underestimate the build in recent weeks) it will be the biggest weekly build since 2001."

      ... ... ...

      The DOE indeed confirmed all of this:

      It also means that at the current rate of record oil production, storage will be exhausted in under two months, some time in mid-May. At that point, with no more storage to buffer the record oil production, the open market dumping begins and prices of WTI will crater as every barrel will have to be sold at any clearing price, since the producers will have no other choice than to, literally, dump the oil.

      In other words, a perfect storm is shaping up for oil some time in late May, early June.

      And then we learned something even more startling.

      As the Platts oil blog reports, even as oil prices continue to fall amid flat demand and near-record supply, "North Dakota is likely to see a "big surge" in production this June, potentially besting another supply record even if prices continue to crater, according to Lynn Helms, director of the state's Department of Mineral Resources."

      What make things worse is that this time the production "surge" will have nothing to do with game theory, or beggaring thy oil producing neighbor in hopes that the other, more levered guy goes bankrupt first.

      This surge will be largely propelled by two factors: a state-mandated time limit on drilling and the expected trigger of a major oil tax incentive, Helms said.

      Here is how Bakken production has looked like in recent months:

      Helms, the state's top oil and gas official, reported last week that North Dakota oil production fell about 3%, or about 37,000 b/d, to 1.190 million b/d from December's all-time high of 1.227 million b/d. The reduction was expected as sweet crude prices averaged $31.41/barrel in January, down from $40.74/b a month earlier and the statewide rig count fell by 21 to 161.

      But Helms said he doesn't expect production to tumble dramatically, even as prices continue to fall, and even though he expects the statewide rig count to "bottom out" at about 100 rigs. Production, he said, will likely remain between 1.1 million b/d to 1.2 million b/d over the next few months.

      Nothing surprising.

      And then this will happen: "Bakken production could suddenly skyrocket, by nearly 10%, or an additional 75,000 b/d, to 100,000 b/d in June, Helms said." This means that despite low prices and production curtailments throughout much of North America, oil production in North Dakota could actually shatter a new record this summer!

      This is mainly due to a backlog of between 800 to 1,000 uncompleted wells statewide, about 125 of which need to be completed by the end of June in order to comply with state requirements to complete drilling within a year.

      At the same time, operators may wait until June, when a major oil tax incentive known as the "large trigger" is expected to go into effect. The large trigger, which is aimed at boosting Bakken production at times of low crude prices, enters into force when the WTI crude price averages below $55.09/b for five consecutive months.

      If that incentive is triggered, which Ryan Rauschenberger, North Dakota's tax commissioner, said he expects will happen, the majority of wells will be exempt from a 6.5% oil extraction tax for as long as two years.

      With that tax break in effect and hundreds more wells running up against one-year state deadlines, production in North Dakota could continue to surge even beyond the summer.

      "We're going to ride these waves of production increases," Helms said.

      And that, coming just as US spare oil capacity hits its limit, is precisely what all those BTFDers who bought first junk bonds, and most recently, a desperate scramble in follow-on equity offerings by the universe of cash burning US shale companies, is precisely what they did not want to hear. Because no amount of Fed ramblings about the ever weaker US economy will offset what is about to be a veritable oil tsunami.

      The time to buy asset may be when there is blood on the streets, but the moment to dump crude (and buy deep OTM puts) will be precisely when the majority of investors and algo-programming math PhDs realize that in just about two months the streets are about to become black, covered entirely in oil.

      h/t Lizzy

      [Mar 21, 2015] You Think You're An Investor I Think Not by Raul Ilargi Meijer

      Mar 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      Submitted by Raul Ilargi Meijer via The Automatic Earth blog,

      Let's start with defining what an 'investor' really is. A reasonable definition of an investor seems to be 'someone who puts money into risk bearing assets that promise to produce financial gains through – increased – productivity'.

      If we can agree on that, then furthermore I think we can all agree that investors need markets. And not only that, but they need functioning markets. What defines 'functioning' here is that 'investors' need to be able to discern what the value is of the assets they have already purchased and/or are thinking of purchasing in the future.

      But we haven't had any functioning markets since at least 2008. There is no price discovery left, nobody knows the actual value of anything anymore, and 'traders' pour money into all sorts of 'assets' without having one single clue as to what they are really worth. They don't even care about the real value of the 'assets' they purchase. They don't have to, because the game's so obviously rigged and distorted.

      There is no risk left in the assets, productivity – i.e. the added value – has long since ceased to be an issue, and that leaves financial gains as the only point of our definition above. But that must of necessity also mean that whoever trades in these non-functioning markets – preferably with 'money' borrowed on the cheap -, is not an investor.

      So what are the people who do trade, while still calling themselves investors? Are they then mere 'traders'? That doesn't quite seem to fit.

      What are they then? It may sound a bit harsh to claim they are all just plain grifters, but maybe that's not too far off the truth after all.

      One might conclude, when looking at the excessive attention 'everyone' paid yet again today to Janet Yellen and the Fed, waiting breathlessly to see if she utters the word 'patience', that those people who call themselves 'investors' are not even grifters, they're nothing but yet another group of lazy bums waiting for government – and/or central bank – hand-outs.

      Just much bigger hand-outs than people receive who are on foodstamps (and now you know where that much maligned inequality comes from). But they're still hand-outs.

      Nobody puts money into worthy (for lack of a better term), innovative, productive projects anymore, everyone just waits for what the Fed says and plays it safe (hand-outs). The Fed has thus eroded the investment world, and indeed the entire investment market model.

      And that will come back to bite everyone. There is no more money flowing into any 'worthy' initiatives, it's all going into whatever makes most money fastest, screw – increased – productivity. And since price discovery no longer exists, worthy initiatives will receive funding only through some freak accident (like a billionaire with Alzheimer's), not by design, not through the inherent benefits of the investment model. Which is all but dead.

      This cannot but have far reaching consequences, because we no longer have a model in which the best and brightest and hardest working amongst us can and will get funding to build their dreams. All money goes into either 'Tech Boom The Sequel', or is spent betting against whatever trend looks fit to fall first. Or a combination of the two.

      The smarter amongst you, and I have to doubt that there are too many, will understand that the Fed 'protection racket' that has existed for years, is about to come to an end. It's you against Wall Street now, and most of you don't stand a chance in that arena.

      A rate hike, any rate hike, or two, is the (re-)start of price discovery, at a time when everyone is 'invested' in 'assets' for which price discovery was never even considered at the time of purchasing. How fast can you unload? Who's going to be the buyer? Are there enough fools greater than you left?

      Maybe I should feel better knowing how much y'all stand to lose soon, but I don't, because I also know how much everyone else stands to lose who already don't have anything but debt. Emerging markets are going to get obliterated, all sorts of funds and levels of government, domestic and abroad, are going to get crushed – resulting in more services getting cut for the poor -, and so, whether you like it or not, are most Americans and Europeans who fancy calling themselves 'investors'.

      They're not. They're just a bunch of grifters and bums. They couldn't (have) survive(d) in a marketplace that has actual price discovery. They couldn't have borne the losses and recuperated. Not the way real investors do.

      I found this a good and somewhat amusing summary of the feeling before Yellen's speech today, as expressed yesterday via MarketWatch:

      'Hell Will Break Loose' If Fed Loses Patience

      It could go either way, according to the Fly from the iBankCoin blog, who spoke of extremes. "If we find out this Wednesday that [Janet Yellen] is not, in fact, patient, hell will break loose and 66 seals of hell will be broken - paving way for actual centaurs to roam, wall-kicking people in the faces with their hooves," he wrote. "On the other hand, if Janet is patient and says so, we're all going to make an absurd amount of money."

      Having a rigged, distorted system that fakes being a market and makes a bunch of grifters a lot of money, is not how you build a functioning society.

      Oh, and you know what the worst thing of all is – if it can get any worse -? If the Fed and other central banks, post-2008, would have simply let the markets sort things out, most of the 'money' that has now been so horribly dislocated and mis-invested and debt-riddled, would never have existed in the first place.

      The S&P would have been at 500 or so, bonds would have 'normal' prices and yields, actual investors would have taken their losses, and we would have had at least some sparks of brightness to look forward to. As things are, there's only the headlights of that highspeed train coming at us from the other side of the tunnel.

      4.666665

      [Mar 21, 2015] Guest Post How Putin Can Win The Economic War Against The West by Ron Holland

      Zero Hedge

      03/18/2015

      pravda.ru

      ... ... ...

      Some experts believe that the reason of economic crisis in Russia are not the Western sanctions, but decrease in oil price. What do you think?

      While I think it is an organized action by the US and Saudi Arabia, it's success to date in dramatically lowering oil prices has been possible because of the global recession and worldwide drop in demand for oil. The price of oil would have pulled back in any case but the policy has made the downtrend worse and of a longer duration.

      But understand this is a complicated situation not just aimed at Russia as this also dramatically cuts revenue for Iran another nation in opposition to US hegemony. Also Sunni Saudi Arabia rightly fears Shia Iran, as most of the Saudi oil resources are right across the Persian Gulf from Iran including the world's largest, the Ghawer field and most of the 15% Saudi Shite minority population lives in the area where the reserves are located. Remember the Shite/Sunni divide in Islam makes the Israel/Arab conflict pale in comparison and the Saudi Shites are treated quite badly so they and the Saudi oil reserves could become a fertile ground for Iranian actions.

      Is it an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia? If it is so, then Obama deliberately endangered the shale miracle in the US, didn't he?

      Yes, as I answered in the question above it is an organized act by the US and Saudi Arabia but the leadership of Saudi Arabia jumped both at the chance to close the fracking and shale oil production competition in the United States as well as to put pressure on their arch enemy Iran.

      Also much of the oil production industry votes and supports Republican candidates rather than the Democrats so Obama is not paying a huge political price. Finally although shale oil production is not profitable unless oil is near $100 a barrel, the public had already loaded up on these junk bonds and Wall Street had made their money so it was time to fleece the unsophisticated investors. Regardless of US shale oil production or losses, the opportunity to bring financial pressure against Iran and Russia was worth the cost to the Washington political leadership.

      What is needed for the oil price starting to rise at last? Tyler Durden believes that it is Putin who should surrender Bashar al-Assad, who does not give permission for gas pipeline installation from Qatar to Europe. Do you agree?

      It is too late to surrender Bashar al-Assad and allow the Qatar pipeline as Washington has bigger fish to fry, ie. Russia and Iran the last major energy suppliers outside of US domination and control. Two events have to happen before oil gets expensive again.

      First, the price of oil will rise when the global recession has ended and the world economy picks up again. I believe the recession in China and the rest of the world is just starting and it is related to overhanging amount of government debt and bonds floating around the world. I really don't know how governments and the central banks get us out of the looming debt crisis without wholesale debt repudiation.

      Second, Washington must decide that the disadvantages of artificially low oil prices hurt the US economy more than the intended victims Iran and Russia.

      As for Germany and the EU, Hitler's violent goal of lebensraum for living spaces to farm, trade and grow food for the Reich at the expense of the Russian people has today been modernized to a longing for Russian natural resources ranging from timber, mining to oil and gas in order to benefit Europe and Washington. I believe their goal is economic rather than a military threat and this is just an expansion of an ongoing natural resource grab outside the Middle East as the long-term challenge for world supremacy between Washington & Wall Street VS China and the Asian tigers slowly develop.

      The issuance of unredeemable government debt and bonds are the ultimate control mechanism by the Western interests utilized in order to keep politicians, national leaders and nations in line and march in lockstep to their economic programs. Russia under Putin is not over indebted like almost all other western nations thus allowing Putin to exercise leadership independent of European and Washington demands and this makes Russia in their eyes a threat to the continuation of the fake debt democracy system across the West.

      The ultimate goal is to destabilize Russia by destroying the economy and limiting government revenue and growth by holding oil prices at historically low levels. To do this they must depose Putin, the national leader with the highest poll approval rating in the world and replace him with a compliant quisling type of leadership submissive to western interests as has been done in Ukraine. This goal could be achieved due to Russia's extreme over dependence on energy resource revenue.

      In my view it wasn't the arms race, total failure of Russian communism to benefit the masses nor the inability to compete with the western market economies that overthrew the communist party leadership in the former Soviet Union and the rest of the Warsaw Pact countries. Rather it was the government debt burden of Moscow and it's other eastern European client states that eventually destroyed the Eastern Bloc as political leaders increasingly tried to improve their low standards of living and satisfy consumers through government borrowing from western banks.

      This policy worked for the West and the Soviet style communism is thankfully no more but this is the same policy used today by Washington and in the European Union in order to control the destiny and leadership of what should be independent national governments. As you see with Greece, even in voting democracies where the citizens demand a change, there can be no change because all politicians are subservient to powerful foreign banking interests.

      I would suggest that Washington is indeed acting rationally if their goal is to preserve their power base as well as the support of powerful banking and economic interests. The US Empire has indeed reached it's zenith of power and authority in the world and as America heads downhill as have all major empires in the past. Therefore it is crucial to buy time by attempting to conquer or control energy resources around the world hence why the US is involved across the Middle East and increasingly in the Ukraine and is surrounding Russia and Iran.

      Their goal for Russia, now the ultimate ally of a resurgent China is economic vassalage, territorial dismemberment and the development of "spheres of influence" just like Great Britain did to India and the western countries including Russia did to a weakened China in the 19th century.

      Will Putin go the length of it?

      Well this is a tough question for a non-Russian to comment on. He is the best politician on the planet evidenced by his poll numbers and there is no question he is a patriot and wants the best for his country, the people and of course your powerful oligarchs.

      I love the Washington propaganda always lambasting the evil Russian oligarchs because every country including the United States have their own powerful interests or oligarchs that seek to use government as a tool for their best interests. This is nothing new or sinister as government and politicians everywhere have always operated this way.

      Yes, I believe Putin and Russia will survive this attack on Russian sovereignty and it's over emphasis on energy resource revenue which is a mistake made by Russia not by western interests. This economic war will end in stalemate because Russia cannot be subdued by invasion, history shows us that and the increasing alliance with China and other BRICS will help with better economic growth.

      But I don't consider a standoff as a victory for Putin or Russia. It is just maintaining the status quo with Russia still at risk from western expansionism and the control of your natural resources. Russia is now engaged in an asymmetrical war with the American and European Union primarily over resources and the strategy and tactics really differ between the West and Russia. Washington failed in goading Russia into a military invasion of Ukraine as this could have drawn in other European nations thus further weakening the Russian economy but the economic, currency and financial warfare will continue hopefully short of military action.

      To date Russia only reacts to western sanctions and economic warfare against your energy industry thus there is neither real pain for the west nor any reason for them not to ratchet up the sanctions against individuals, banking and other interests. They are logically attacking your weakest link, the energy and financial sectors and they certainly do not expect a major response from your side. Still dumping Treasury debt by Russia or China would probably be counter productive and both nations would be smart of liquidate US dollar debt in an organized regular fashion during this near term period of tremendous dollar strength. This is probably your last chance to unload US Treasury debt at a profit.

      A defensive war strategy even in an economic war is not a recipe for victory but rather a guarantor of future wars or ultimate defeat. Putin and Russia can win this economic war quite easily if you think and act outside the box so to speak. The West is legitimately attacking your economy at its weakest link, your over dependence on the energy sector hence why low oil prices and the gas pipeline revolution in the Ukraine were smart moves by your energy adversaries.

      Utilize your strengths and western weaknesses in your peaceful economic and financial responses to the challenges they have made to your country. I've spent my entire career in the financial industry and this is not rocket science on how to successfully counter western political moves against you.

      The weakness of the Western banking and economic interests are massive government debt, the end of the dollar as the world reserve currency and nationalism within the EU. There is no way citizens or companies can escape the high taxes, massive debt service costs and the inability of citizens or companies within Europe to escape their high tax, regulatory environment that is killing the economy of Europe in order to defend the primarily German banking interests. Financial privacy and all wealth in Europe are at risk from future bail-ins where depositor's funds are used to pay for excessive bank lending losses. We've already seen it in Cyprus and soon it will happen in Greece and the PIGGS countries.

      To win, you must have other powerful economic interests outside Russia who can benefit and profit from a sovereign independent Russia. The US has destroyed financial privacy and confidentially around the world and no nation can stand up to their powerful threats to other banking interests which means the private wealth of the entire West will eventually be at risk of bank bail-ins, confiscation of retirement funds and confiscatory tax rates when the bond crisis finally hit because there is no secure alternative to protecting honest earned wealth

      As I've written in earlier editorials, Russia can win the financial/energy/economic war only by finding new sources of revenue outside the energy sector and playing on its unique strengths. A low tax rate and friendly regulatory environment to attract European/American industry and money is a start. It appears Russia is now moving to offer economic citizenships and tax advantages in order to attract entrepreneurs as I wrote a couple of months ago and this will help.

      For example, I'm a skier and where can you ski in the winter and enjoy a tropical climate the other 6 months outside of a couple of very expensive locations in Switzerland, Italy and France? You have skiing at Krasnaya Polyana less than an hour from Sochi on the Russian Riviera the site of the 2014 Olympics that could become another Hong Kong with the climate advantages and low taxes and secure banking opportunities. Plus you have a relatively empty Olympic village that could be remodeled into condos and flats for foreign entrepreneurs and investors.

      Finally Russia must get aggressive in the economic war. You can win this economic contest in 24 months, if certain special zones in Russia simply are allowed to copy Swiss banking rules and regulations, as wealth will always flow to secure locations where taxes are low. You know what banking privacy and security did for Switzerland, it made a poor country with few natural resources the wealthiest nation in the world. You will have foreign banks and financial institutions lining up to open offices in Russia if you can guarantee financial privacy to a degree and wealth protection in total.

      This will break the monopoly of West in financial and banking as well as their power to threaten you. The coming bond debacle guarantees this will work as I've written earlier every nation has wealthy interests and their own oligarchs so why not build support for Russia from wealthy foreigners as they transfer a portion of their wealth as taxable income at a very low rate to your nation. This will end the economic war.

      Will there be set peace in Ukraine in the near future? Which role will the US have in it?

      No the Ukraine is caught between competing sides in the East VS West conflict. Sadly it will likely end up like Libya, Iraq and Afghanistan as a battleground and non functioning state at least economically and maybe militarily caught between the US and EU verses Russia. Russia will protect the Russian speakers and likely will open a land route to the Crimea and maybe as far west as Odessa thus cutting off the Ukraine from the Black Sea. Still all Russia needs is a Ukraine non-aligned with the West or a member of NATO. The US will continue to promote instability in the Ukraine for the foreseeable future.

      Ron Holland

      Ronald Holland is the author of several books as well as numerous special reports and hundreds of articles on finance, investments, history and politics. He speaks and moderates frequently at financial and free-market conferences and has developed Swiss oriented financial products in the US and Switzerland and his lived and worked in the US, Switzerland and Canada. He was head of a bank trust department, president of an investment firm licensed in 47 states and involved in resort real estate marketing and sales. He consults with a wide range of individuals, corporations and entities.

      Ben Bernanke Was Right No Rate Normalization During My Lifetime

      Zero Hedge

      With the Fed's credibility terminally smeared across the windshield of the Marriner Eccles-mobile, courtesy of the latest "dots" projection which proved yet again - and beyond any doubt - that the FOMC members are just a pack of chimps throwing darts, and perhaps feces, at a fed funds dart board, we can now honestly say that the one Fed (ex) member who was 100% accurate (if only in this case), and who saw the writing on the wall early on and got the hell out of Marriner Eccles while he could, is Ben Bernanke.

      As a reminder, this is what he said (via Reuters):

      "At least one guest left a New York restaurant with the impression Bernanke, 60, does not expect the federal funds rate, the Fed's main benchmark interest rate, to rise back to its long-term average of around 4 percent in Bernanke's lifetime. "Shocking when he said this," the guest scribbled in his notes. "Is that really true?" he scribbled at another point, according to the notes reviewed by Reuters."

      Yes, it really is.

      [Mar 20, 2015] Oil Prices Will Recover Market Fundamentals Are Working by Dan Steffens

      Mar 19, 2015 | oilprice.com

      There is no doubt in my mind that some of the "narrative" coming from Wall Street analysts is purposely meant to drive down the price of oil. More than 90% of the NYMEX futures contracts are now held by non-commercial "speculators". Many of them are now "short" oil, hoping the price of WTI will fall.

      Once Wall Street gets oil prices as low as they can, they will suddenly change their tone and point out that demand for oil is going up and supplies are falling. I have seen this happen several times in my 35+ years in the industry. What's happening now is not new.

      ... ... ...

      On March 13, the International Energy Agency (IEA) published their monthly Oil Market Report. It cause quite a stir on Friday the 13th and oil dropped more than $2.00/bbl. You can read the highlights of the report here: https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/

      I thought the IEA report contained some rather bullish long-range forecasts, not the least of which is that the IEA believes global demand for refined products will increase 2.0 million barrels per day from where demand is today by the 4th quarter.

      They believe low fuel prices will continue to increase global demand, pushing demand for refined products up over 95 million barrels per day by year-end. I think their estimates may prove to be quite conservative. A year after the last big drop in oil prices that occurred in 2008, demand for liquid fuels increased by 3.3 million barrels per day in 2009.

      So, why are oil prices still so low?
      1. There is a lot of "FEAR" being generated by concerns over the rapidly rising amount of oil in storage. In my opinion, this is way over-blown.
      2. U.S. oil production continues to rise, despite the sharp drop in the active rig count.
      3. Seasonal and unplanned refinery outages have lowered demand for oil.
      4. Traders are worried that President Obama will agree to a deal with Iran and lift the sanctions that are keeping an estimated million barrels per day off the market.
      5. Strength of the U.S. dollar continues to weigh on commodity prices.

      Let's take these issues one at a time.

      Oil Storage: At the end of February, the EIA reported that working oil storage capacity in the U.S. was 40% empty. The most talked about storage location – Cushing, Oklahoma – still has about 20 million barrels of working capacity remaining.

      As the tanks at Cushing approach capacity, the storage fees go up and oil will be directed elsewhere. There are many pipelines that take oil out of Cushing, so the oil is not "stranded" there. Oil will not start overflowing the tanks in central Oklahoma or anywhere else.

      Related: The Truth About U.S. Crude Storage

      It is very important to understand that the weekly EIA oil storage reports (published on Wednesdays) includes pipeline fill and field level storage. Although it is somewhat hazy, it is estimated that the U.S. oil pipeline system and upstream field tanks have approximately 120 million barrels of above ground oil in "storage". It is not included in the ~525 million barrels of commercial storage capacity that many analysts compare to the oil inventory number each week.

      U.S. Production Growth: Investors are puzzled by the reports that U.S. production continues to rise while the number of rigs drilling for oil has dropped more than 45% in six months. The reason for this is simple; the drilling of new wells is not what increases production. It is the connection of those wells to a gathering system that adds production. The lag time from spudding a horizontal well to completing it to connecting the supply to a pipeline can be over six months. There was a large inventory of wells "waiting on completion" when all of this started back in June and it takes time to work through this inventory.

      Several of the companies I follow are now saying they plan to drill wells and hold off on completing them until oil prices move higher. Although I agree with this strategy, it is impossible to estimate how much this will impact daily production rates. My guess is not very much.

      U.S. onshore production should peak this summer and go on decline in the 3rd quarter. There are several Gulf of Mexico projects coming on-line this spring that will increase total U.S. production by approximately 200,000 barrels per day. Gulf of Mexico production is expected to peak at close to 1.7 million barrels per day (BOPD) in the first quarter of 2016, up from 1.4 million BOPD currently.

      ... ... ...

      Strength of the U.S. Dollar: This is a real concern. The spike in the value of the dollar compared to a basket of other currencies can be viewed at: http://www.marketwatch.com/investing/index/dxy/charts

      The dollar is up approximately 25% from where it traded during the 2nd quarter of 2014 and is responsible for at least $25/bbl of the drop in the price of WTI crude oil. Since oil trades in U.S. dollars, there is an inverse relationship between the dollar and the price of oil. This tops my list of "real" concerns when it comes to my long-term outlook for oil prices.

      Conclusion: Your guess as to where oil prices are heading in the next few months is as good as mine. Even though there are plenty of places to store oil, the record high U.S. oil inventories will continue to give the bears support for lower price forecasts. In my opinion, we are nearing the mid-point of the bottoming process for oil. At the beginning of the year I predicted that oil would test the lows several times during February to May, and then begin to rise. I've seen nothing yet to change my opinion.

      In the short-term, I am expecting energy investors to remain on the sidelines until they see U.S. production growth slow and demand increasing.

      Dan Steffens for Oilprice.com

      Jim on March 19 2015 said:

      Unfortunately, demand likely won't spike but will succumb to a worldwide recession. The Chinese slowdown is real, as is the one in North America and Europe. Ditto Latin America.

      The dynamics next year and in the medium term may firm up oil prices around $65 WTI/$75 Brent, but that new normal still will squeeze Russia, OPEC and Latin America with serious geo-political implications.

      istvan peterman on March 19 2015 said:

      "...Although it is somewhat hazy, it is estimated that the U.S. oil pipeline system and upstream field tanks have approximately 120 million barrels of above ground oil in "storage"..."

      ...the pipelines are empty, you pour the oil in and wait for it to come out on the other side - wrong; they are full and pressurized, you add at the entry point x barrels and remove at the endpoint x barrels - sorry they are not empty and available .

      Kimball Kaleach on March 19 2015 said:

      Dear Writer,

      You've neglected one thing ... all of the production that has been shut down or tapered back will come back with a vengeance as soon as the break even price is reached.

      And the break even price keeps going down because of continuous improvements. $100/bbl price is a pipe dream now - you be lucky to get past $75 on the best day, and that will be, for all intents and purposes, FOREVER. FOR - EV - ER.

      nihal on March 20 2015 said:

      Thank you for a very well written article explaining your view. I would like your take on the contango between the current month wti contract and the 1,2,3 month future contract. Its very high, I understand it reflects rising storage costs, but what would explain the extremeness of it.

      How do you see it unfold ?

      [Mar 20, 2015] Majors Could Be The Big Winners Of The Oil Price Crash

      Mar 19, 2015 | Oilprice.com via Yahoo! Finance

      The dominos are starting to fall, and it hasn't been a good March so far for three Texas oil and gas operators. As prices take another nosedive, here come the Chapter 11 filings as struggling producers decide the mounting pressure of debt payments and other obligations won't wait for prices to turn. Tuesday, Quicksilver Resources Inc., a Ft. Worth, Texas shale operator, announced voluntary Chapter 11 filing in the United States Bankruptcy Court in Delaware. BZP Resources Inc. of Houston similarly filed on March 9, saying the current oil price environment made debt refinancing difficult. And as things seem to come in waves of three, Houston's Cal Dive International, Inc. initially tripped the dominos on March 3.

      This kind of thing was not unexpected, and has been heavily discussed in the media, corporate boardrooms and over many business lunches, as prices started to sink below the magical $70 per barrel number that makes lenders quiver. Most astute investors already know that much of the shale boom was financed by heavily-leveraged debt. Debt that worked all day long at $100 oil, but cannot be sustained at prices barely flirting above or below break-even.

      [Mar 20, 2015] U.S. Oil Inventory Expands Faster Than Expected

      Mar 18, 2015 | Bloomberg via Yahoo! Finance
      Oil investors have been glued to the levels of storage tanks, which have been climbing steadily since the oil-price crash started last year. American stockpiles are more than 25 percent above their five-year average.

      [Mar 20, 2015] Fitch Low Oil Prices Mostly a Plus for Securitization and Covered Bonds, But Not Without Some Risk

      'Unemployment is likely to increase in areas that rely heavily on the oil-industry which could translate into modestly higher delinquencies and losses in transactions with high exposure to these areas.'
      Mar 20, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

      Link to Fitch Ratings' Report: Global Crude Fallout: Sensitivity to Prolonged Oil Price Pressure in Structured Finance and Covered Bonds (Net Positive for Asset Performance, Limited Downside Risks)
      http://www.fitchratings.com/creditdesk/reports/report_frame.cfm?rpt_id=863434

      The outlook is largely positive for global securitization and covered bond performance if oil prices continue to hover around $50 per barrel, though some sectors and regions could be susceptible to performance declines over time, according to Fitch Ratings in a new report.

      With oil prices falling more than 50% since the middle of last year, lower gas prices and heating oil costs have made it easier for households to make debt service payments. 'Consumers will benefit from lower oil and gas related expenses which should translate into a mild improvement in arrears on their financial obligations,' said Managing Director Kevin Duignan. 'In particular, consumer assets like credit cards, auto loans, and residential mortgages will benefit.' That said, this benefit may be diluted in some regions by the impact of currency movements upon oil import prices.

      Conversely, some asset types and regions could see a modest negative impact from lower oil prices. 'Commercial and residential mortgage assets in securitizations with high exposure to Texas and Alberta, and covered bond collateral pools with exposure to parts of Norway, for example, would be negatively impacted by continued low oil prices,' said Senior Director George Masek. 'Unemployment is likely to increase in areas that rely heavily on the oil-industry which could translate into modestly higher delinquencies and losses in transactions with high exposure to these areas.'

      Over time, Fitch does not expect significant rating movement on structured finance and covered bond ratings in either direction exclusively in relation to low oil prices. Their positive influence alone on collateral performance would not be enough to lead to rating upgrades. Additionally, Fitch expects only a small number of idiosyncratic downgrades of deals with sizeable concentrations of oil-exposed collateral, or those with ratings linkage to oil-exposed transaction parties.

      The full report titled 'Impact of Low Oil Prices on Global SF and Covered Bonds' is available at 'www.fitchratings.com'.

      [Mar 20, 2015] Oil Junk Bonds Cost Investors Billions

      Mar 18, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      Just two weeks ago, we noted that chasing after high yield debt from beleaguered junior oil producers was likely not the best idea given the fact that geopolitical logrolling, surging supply, and shrinking storage capacity all point to further declines for crude. More specifically, we said the following in an update to a post in which we outlined what a tiny Colorado shale play has in common with a long-gone movie rental chain:

      Update: And just to prove that people are indeed, idiots, moments ago this hits:

      ENERGY XXI GULF COAST, INC. PRICES UPSIZED PRIVATE OFFERING OF $1.45 BILLION OF 11.000% SENIOR SECURED SECOND LIEN NOTES DUE 2020

      As it turns out, we were right to be skeptical because, as Bloomberg reports, these very same notes have cost investors $7 billion in just 10 days:

      Investors lured back into junk-rated energy bonds by their juicy yields are getting burned.

      Oil prices have fallen more than 15 percent since March 4 to a six-year low of $43.5, wiping out $7 billion of market value of high-yield debt issued by energy companies. Prices on $1.45 billion of notes sold less than two weeks ago by Energy XXI Ltd., an oil producer that was being squeezed by its lenders, have fallen by as much as 10 percent…

      Oil producer Energy XXI's second-lien bonds, issued on March 5 to repay borrowings under its line of credit, slid below 90 cents on the dollar on Tuesday after trading as high as 99.9 cents, according to Trace, the bond-price reporting system of the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority.

      The Houston-based company attracted investors by selling the 11 percent notes at a discount to yield as much as 12 percent. That's almost double the average yield on all U.S. junk bonds, according to a Bank of America Merrill Lynch index.

      The losses come at the expense of investors trying to call a bottom in crude prices and much as everyone who piled into oil ETFs while being simultaneously oblivious to the fact that the market was in the widest contango in four years subsequently suffered for their ignorance, so too will the yield-starved buyers of oil junk bonds take a beating for thinking that "buy the dip" is a viable investment strategy:

      Junk-rated energy borrowers have sold about $9.4 billion in bonds this year, doubling the amount issued during the last three months of 2014, according to data compiled by Bloomberg. The companies raised more than $17 billion during the third quarter of last year.

      Oil prices are plunging as U.S. output climbs to the highest in three decades even as explorers idle drilling rigs. The drop to less than $44 a barrel follows a month of relative stability, when prices hovered around $50 after sliding from as high as $107 in June.

      The slump has eaten into February's 2.3 percent gain in junk bonds, which was the biggest advance in 16 months, Bank of America Merrill Lynch index data show. The average speculative-grade rated note has tumbled 1.1 percent in March.

      "Oil prices are having an impact again in the high-yield market," Jim Kochan, chief fixed-income strategist at Wells Fargo Funds Management, said in an interview. "There were a lot of experts who thought that oil prices had fallen too far and that they would correct. Instead, now we're seeing a downdraft."

      Meanwhile, the same companies that are offering investors double-digit yields may ironically be shooting themselves in the foot (and, as we suggested last month, contributing to disinflation) because as the Bank For International Settlements notes, keeping current on debt payments often means maintaining elevated production...

      A new element that can help shed light on this question is the high level of debt of the oil sector. The debt borne by the oil and gas sector has increased two and a half times over, from roughly $1 trillion in 2006 to around $2.5 trillion in 2014. As the price of oil is a proxy for the value of the underlying assets that underpin that debt, its recent decline may have caused significant financial strains and induced retrenchment by the sector as a whole. If the adjustment takes the form of increased current or future sales of oil, it may amplify the fall in the oil price. Similarly, if the need to service debt delays a pullback in production, a lower price may act more slowly to balance supply and demand.

      ...because keeping a leverage-driven bubble inflated means doubling and tripling down...

      As regards financial constraints, the price decline occurred against the backdrop of much higher debt levels of oil producers. By analogy with the housing market, when the underlying assets of a leveraged sector fall in value, the strain imposed by the price decline induces retrenchment - for instance, by trying to sell more of the asset backing the debt.

      … and this is exacerbated by investors' willingness to take on risk if it means squeezing out a few basis points of yield versus "safer" debt which, depending on where you look, may actually produce loses thanks to NIRP…

      The greater willingness of investors to lend against oil reserves and revenue has enabled oil firms to borrow large amounts in a period when debt levels have increased more broadly due to easy monetary policy. Since 2008, companies in the oil sector have borrowed both from banks and in bond markets. Issuance of debt securities by oil and other energy companies has far outpaced the substantial overall issuance by other sectors. Oil and gas companies' bonds outstanding increased from $455 billion in 2006 to $1.4 trillion in 2014, a growth rate of 15% per annum. Energy companies have also borrowed heavily from banks. Syndicated loans to the oil and gas sector in 2014 amounted to an estimated $1.6 trillion, an annual increase of 13% from $600 billion in 2006.

      In the end, we get a high yield market awash in paper floated by US-listed juniors...

      Overall, the stock of debt of energy firms has risen even faster than that of other sectors. Debt issued by oil and other energy firms accounts for about 15% of both investment grade and high-yield major US debt indices, up from less than 10% just five years earlier...

      US oil companies have… borrowed heavily. They account for around 40% of both syndicated loans and debt securities outstanding. Much of this debt has been issued by smaller companies, in particular those engaged in shale oil exploration and production. Indeed, while the ratio of total debt to assets has been broadly unchanged for large US oil firms, it has on average almost doubled for other US producers - including smaller shale oil companies.


      ...which, as we noted six months ago, absolutely will not end well…

      The combination of falling oil prices and higher leverage can lead to financial strains for oil-related firms. First, the price of oil underpins the value of assets that back these firms' debts. Lower prices will tend to reduce profitability, increase the risk of default and lead to higher financing costs. Indeed, spreads on energy high-yield bonds widened from a low of 330 basis points in June 2014 to over 800 basis points in February 2015, much more than the increase for total high-yield debt (Graph 3). Second, a lower price of oil reduces the cash flows associated with current production and increases the risk of liquidity shortfalls in which firms are unable to meet interest payments.

      * * *

      We would also note that all of the above serves to validate what we said in January, which is that as long as easy money policies are effectively subsidizing otherwise bankrupt shale companies, don't expect prices to rise anytime soon:

      OPEC will not cut alone, or in other words, as long as shale companies are out there pumping, kept alive thanks to the Fed's ZIRP policy forcing investors to keep them well capitalized even though bankruptcy may be breathing down everyone's neck in short order, expect the Saudis to keep pumping at the same feverish pace…

      Ironically, it may well end up as a showdown between the Fed and Saudi Arabia, the former doing everything in its power to keep otherwise insolvent companies well-capitalized, and on the other Saudi Arabia doing everything in its power to keep the cash flow drain as high as possible for High Yield debt-funded shale companies, and daring either the Fed, or rather junk bond investors who are scrambling for any source of yield, to back out.

      junction

      Oil bondholders are fracked. They are stuck between shale rock and a hard place. Before the oil price downturn runs its course, thousands of investors will be hammered hard.

      Looking back, in 1923, Shelby, Montana was an oil boomtown when it decided to promote a heavyweight prize fight between Jack Dempsey and Tommy Gibbons. The event turned into a financial bloodbath for Shelby, only 7,000 paying customers showed up. Four of the town's banks closed, they were backers of the fight. The people at Shelby did not know what they were getting into, dealing with sharpies. These Bakken Shale oil investors will also end up getting fleeced.

      http://www.examiner.com/article/shelby-s-folly-recalls-dempsey-gibbons-f...

      KnuckleDragger-X

      ZIRP and oceans of cash equal bad investments in iffy paper and the ocean of cash just HAD to go somewhere.....

      Bill of Rights

      Quicksilver Resources Files Bankruptcy as Gas Price Drops

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-03-17/quicksilver-resources-...

      The Chapter 11 petition filed Tuesday listed $1.21 billion in assets and $2.35 billion in debts. It follows a February warning that the Fort Worth, Texas-based company wouldn't pay interest on $298 million of bonds maturing in 2019.

      At the time, the company said it might not be able to restructure its debt or sell off assets.

      venturen

      In other news "Feds to buy 5 million barrels of oil for emergency stockpile"

      what were you saying?

      Dr. Engali

      Mandates and laws are for little people. I no more believe that Republicans or Democrats run this country than I believe that somebody making $200,000 a year runs the fed.

      doggis

      i think that some oil based dervatives have BLOWN up in the shadows - which is manifesting itself in part to the parabolic rise in the USD$.

      the derivative chain be blowing up in the background........oil IS our black swan......

      northern vigor

      Eventually the wells drilled in the last two years will decline...shortly. Without drilling going on right now, how long before the oil surplus becomes an oil scarcity?

      One year? Two years??

      Mewa

      Gotta love US financial engineering....snake is now eating its own tail...derivatives in the oil sector now compell the markets to produce or have loan convenants pulled and the company dies....

      banks are moving in on the storage issue to drive spot into the gutter so that they can create a deep contango and create yield returns by rolling over contracts while sitting on million of barrels floating on the oceans used for storage after land based storage is filled....

      Spot price will be artificially surpressed the same as nat gas was 2-3 years ago for about a year or two....then for what is left will see gains...even if fracking can get new financing then because it wont be risk free at that point and the cost of financing will be much higher....

      Sorry Obbi better come up with a better energy security policy.....

      [Mar 19, 2015] Boone Pickens Why I see $70 oil by year's end

      Mar 19, 2015 | finance.yahoo.com

      Energy entrepreneur Boone Pickens told CNBC Thursday he sees $70-a-barrel oil by year's end, and between $80 and $90 within 12 to 18 months.

      He said on " Squawk Box " that U.S. producers are in the process of re-balancing the market-pointing to the decline rig count in response to the continued collapse in crude prices.

      But Pickens he did dial down his longer-range forecast from December, when he had then predicted on "Squawk Box" $90 to $100 barrel in 12 to 18 months.

      Last week , oilfield services company Baker Hughes (NYSE: BHI) said rigs seeking oil fell to 866. The U.S. rig count peaked at 4,530 in 1981 and bottomed at 488 in 1999.

      Pickens said U.S. oil producers in recent years ramped-up too much, and overshot demand, which has led to the current crude price slide of about 50 percent since June.

      Oil prices turned sharply lower again in early trading Thursday-under $43 a barrel on U.S. crude- after Kuwait said OPEC had no choice but to keep production steady, refocusing the market on global oversupply.

      Oil had surged Wednesday, after the dovish Fed comments.

      Meanwhile, Pickens also predicted $6 natural gas within five years. Nat gas was lower early Thursday, trading around the $2.90 level.

      Updating progress on the Pickens Plan-calling for trucks to run on nat gas-he said: "It's happening. But man, it's happening slow."

      "The thing you can count on in natural gas, the price isn't going to run up on you, like it does on oil," said Pickens, who's been arguing for years that a switch to nat gas trucks could vastly reduce the nation's oil dependency.

      With more than a half century in the oil and gas business, Pickens spent most of his career building Mesa Petroleum into a powerhouse. After selling Mesa in 1996, he founded BP Capital Management, an investment firm focusing on the energy industry.

      [Mar 19, 2015] Paul Tudor Jones Warns This Disastrous Market Mania Will End By Revolution, Taxes, Or War

      Mar 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      "This gap between the 1% and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist," warns renowned trader Paul Tudor Jones during his recent TED Talks speech, as he addressed the question - can capital be just? Hoping to expand the "narrow definitions of capitalism," that threaten the underpinnings of society, Tudor Jones exclaims, "we're in the middle of a disastrous market mania," adding "one of worst of my life." Perhaps most ominously, he concludes, historically this ends "by revolution, higher taxes or wars. None are on my bucket list."

      As TED blog reports,

      Can capital be just? As a firm believer in capitalism and the free market, Paul Tudor Jones II believes that it can be. Tudor is the founder of the Tudor Investment Corporation and the Tudor Group, which trade in the fixed-income, equity, currency and commodity markets. He thinks it is time to expand the "narrow definitions of capitalism" that threaten the underpinnings of our society and develop a new model for corporate profit that includes justness and responsibility.

      It's a good time for companies: in the US, corporate revenues are at their highest point in 40 years. The problem, Tudor points out, is that as profit margins grow, so does income inequality. And income inequality is closely linked to lower life expectancy, literacy and math proficiency, infant mortality, homicides, imprisonment, teenage births, trust among ourselves, obesity, and, finally, social mobility. In these measures, the US is off the charts.

      "This gap between the 1 percent and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist," says the investor.

      "Historically, these kinds of gaps get closed in one of three ways: by revolution, higher taxes or wars. None are on my bucket list."

      Tudor proposes a fourth way: just corporate behavior. He formed Just Capital, a not-for-profit that aims to increase justness in companies. It all starts with defining "justness" - to do this, he is asking the public for input. As it stands, there is no universal standard monitoring company behavior. Tudor and his team will conduct annual national surveys in the US, polling individuals on their top priorities, be it job creation, inventing healthy products or being eco-friendly. Just Capital will release these results annually – keep an eye out for the first survey results this September.

      Ultimately, Tudor hopes, the free market will take hold and reward the companies that are the most just. "Capitalism has driven just about every great innovation that has made our world a more prosperous, comfortable and inspiring place to live. But capitalism has to be based on justice and morality…and never more so than today with economic divisions large and growing."

      This is not an argument against progress, Tudor emphasizes. "I want that electric car, or the jet packs that we all thought we'd have by now." But he's hoping that increased wealth will bring with it a stronger sense of corporate responsibility. "When we begin to put justness on par with profits, we get the most valuable thing in the world. We get back our humanity."

      Niall Of The Ni...

      Yeah, I'm sure our masters will get right on that. Justness? For them, justice is whatever your bank account and access to weapons of mass destruction will let you get away with. Morality is for fools and slaves.

      Higher taxes? That's what second passports are for.

      Your revolution won't get far, not if it's for real. Who do you think all those nukes are for? Someone who can shoot back? If the banksters are forced to cash out, they will take us with them.

      That leaves war, which is precisely what we're looking at.

      The class war is in full swing. Unfortunately for Marx, not only are the capitalists winning, but their goal is total victory. The people who do all the work will be kept around only for as long as it takes to develop robots able to do anything proles can do and do it better---the Singularity. Then we'll be polished off completely. The Marxists will get the classless society they thought they wanted, and will soon wish they only had to choke on it. The first act of the robotic New Socialist Men will be to exterminate them.

      You know, this is why things have gotten as bad as they have. The good guys don't understand that the bad guys only care about winning (and getting the wherewithal to do so), not fair play. That's why the bad guys are winning.

      The good guys want to get into heaven. The bad guys won't think twice about sending them there.

      The_Dude

      Here is a Tudor quote from the talk:

      "Capitalism has driven just about every great innovation that has made our world a more prosperous, comfortable and inspiring place to live. But capitalism has to be based on justice and morality…and never more so than today with economic divisions large and growing."

      And that is the crux of the problem. We are now a divided country with no shared morality. 50 years ago you could have said we had a shared historical, religious and cultural background. Not any more. We are leaning into becoming a fragmented society and likely fragmented nation.

      Capitalism does rely on on justice and morality like he said. The problem now is that we have destroyed any common morality and view of justice through multiculturalism and diversity. Effectively we have weakened the foundation that the country sits upon and it is only a matter of time for the building to come down.

      Almost like it was planned......

      Radical Marijuana

      "Legal fictions" tend to slip through, gradually at first, then become more and more blatant, as legalized lies, backed by legalized violence. The status of corporations as "persons" in the context of American law appears to have started as a court report:

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood

      ... the court reporter, Bancroft Davis, noted in the headnote to the opinion that the Chief Justice Morrison Waite began oral argument by stating, "The court does not wish to hear argument on the question whether the provision in the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, which forbids a State to deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws, applies to these corporations. We are all of the opinion that it does." While the headnote is not part of the Court's opinion and thus not precedent, two years later, in Pembina Consolidated Silver Mining Co. v. Pennsylvania – 125 U.S. 181 (1888), the Court clearly affirmed the doctrine, ...

      http://www.batr.org/totalitariancollectivism/corporationsandlaw.html

      Corporation:

      Ingenious device for obtaining profit
      without any individual responsibility.

      -- Ambrose Bierce

      alien-IQ previously made this comment:

      To assess the "personality" of the corporate "person," a checklist is employed, using diagnostic criteria of the World Health Organization and the standard diagnostic tool of psychiatrists and psychologists. The operational principles of the corporation give it a highly anti-social "personality": it is self-interested, inherently amoral, callous and deceitful; it breaches social and legal standards to get its way; it does not suffer from guilt, yet it can mimic the human qualities of empathy, caring and altruism. ... Concluding this point-by-point analysis, a disturbing diagnosis is delivered: the institutional embodiment of laissez-faire capitalism fully meets the diagnostic criteria of a "psychopath."

      Corporations especially "have more rights and freedoms than individuals" because flesh and blood individual must die, while corporations have potential immortality with the established social systems. Thus, within the established social pyramid systems based upon legalized lies, backed by legalized violence, corporations are psychopathic demigods.

      Beam Me Up Scotty

      It's not the 1%, its the .01%. Married couples making $250k/year who are "allegedly" in the "top 1%" are NOT living like Warren Buffet and Bill Gates. Just wanted to clarify that point.

      nope-1004

      "Just corporate behavior"? Give me a break. Sounds to me like "just defecation", or teaching a dog exactly where to crap everytime. Animal instincts are animal instincts, and greed is probably the most powerful. In fact, Paul stated that all sin stems but from one emotion: Greed.

      This sounds way too simple and idealistic. War is inevitable IMO.

      JR

      Production goes down, morale goes down and chaos goes up. "It not good." But thank God the U.S. economy is in "recovery" … with just 44% of U.S. adults working full-time, and "full-time" work no longer meaning 40 hours a week but 30 hours or more a week. Which means, 56% of U.S. employees now work less than 30 hours a week. Which is pretty shabby for a "superpower" work force, if you ask me.

      And even at that, Jim Clifton, Gallup's CEO, says the government's employment figures are a lie.

      I guess the truth is, Yen, you can't build an economy with paper. You can make paper airplanes, you can make paper dolls, but you can't make a paper economy. Poor Janet.

      By the way, Yen, I don't drink coffee either; it's tea, too, for me.

      Lore

      I agree. This is simplistically-naive, altruistic-sounding ideological claptrap, a diversion, like the recent "divestment" talk among fund managers and like most of the "sustainability" prattle marketed as part of Agenda 21.

      We're supposed to believe that the same "God's work" control freaks who create all the imbalances can be depended on to clean up their own mess? Sorry, it never works that way. Con men simply move on to the next con, leaving a trail of rape, pillage and destruction behind them.

      You really want to create a "just" environment for capital formation and investment? CUT THROUGH THE GREAT LIES AND TAKE POWER AWAY FROM PSYCHOPATHS.

      Political Ponerology: A Science on the Nature of Evil Adjusted for Political Purposes


      TruthInSunshine

      Here's your latest Yellen balance sheet:

      News Headline Summary

      US Fed balance sheet liabilities increased to USD 4.458trl in the latest week from USD 4.451trl

      http://headlines.ransquawk.com/headlines/us-fed-balance-sheet-liabilitie...

      Yaaaay! 5 trillion is not far away!

      Thirst Mutilator

      What's the OFF balance sheet?... Or do I need a bloody secret decoder penis ring to find out?

      TruthInSunshine

      Yeah, they definitely keep 2 sets of books.

      outamyeffinway

      Was it justice when Jones worked out with Goldman how they would rip off clients with MBS's? What a dick. Him and Nick and the rest of the <1%'ers. Pitchforks and Torches, bitchez!

      Againstthelie

      Againstthelie's picture


      "Capitalism must be just."

      It would be too funny, if it wasn't so tragic.

      Compound interest debt based money creates the necessity of exponential growth and is the driving force behind the fact, that everything is being measured as capability to make profit. GROWTH. GROWTH. GROWTH.

      Capitalism = money makes money.

      Why should a company that takes care of elderly need to growth? Why should the fattest nation consume more and more?

      Just another try to avoid talking about the main problem: exponential growth on a limited planet does not work and that compound interest is the most evil concept ever created.

      OLD YELLER

      Or it could be just another way for the alphabetes (FBI, NSA, GESTAPO, ect.) to draw opposition into the open, and then? Heinz, take them away! We'll let the good Doctor interrogate them!

      Just kidding. It can't happen here.

      Manthong

      "narrow definitions of capitalism"

      If he was honest about the situation he would be lambasting the wide presence of fascism and totalitarianism rather than denigrating capitalism by implying that there is any of it left in this centrally manipulated economy.

      Lore

      Precisely. "The best way to control the opposition is to lead it ourselves." - V.I. Lenin

      On the plus side, the whole thing is bound to fail. Unfortunately, barring some sort of broad-based awakening, the human cost is going to be horrific (as if it isn't already).

      ersatz007

      What's funny is that any attempt to constructively criticize capitalism is immediately jumped on as "denigration" and then twisted into some ridiculous notion that if one criticizes capitalism they must be either a socialist or progressive pansy or an evil totalitarian or fascist.

      Most of these same people then lament that if only capitalism were allowed io function as it was intended then all would be right in the world. Well the same could be said for socialism or communism. But invariably, humans figure out ways to game and rig whatever system they operate in to their own benefit. And that usually means that someone else gets fucked over in the process.

      The problems that result from ANY AND ALL socio-economic-governmental systems are due to HUMAN imperfection. So trying to blame our problem on the fact that capitalism just hasn't been allowed to work freely is like saying the reason I couldn't hammer the nail in was because my a was wrong even though my hammer is broken in the first place.

      None of these systems is perfect. There is no such thing as perfect capitalism...because humans aren't perfect. The market will always be rigged because people will find a way to rig them.

      So the discussion instead should be knowing that each system is gonna manipulated, which system is least susceptible and how do we achieve that. Getting rid of the Fed would probably be a good start. Taxing only income and NOT wages might be another.

      dogbreath

      I find the people that talk about capitalism the most are socialist who think it has to be fixed or changed some how. But like you the capitalism they talk about is the debt based fiat banking capitalism that pays for our equity law socialism and makes the political class rich and powerful. And like you the socialists confuse this perverted capitalism with the libertarian free market capitalism as it was intended that made the producer, the thrifty, the innovative wealthy without having to sell their souls.

      2handband

      The capitalism you're talking about will never exist outside of your imagination. Neither will the socialism Marx dreamed of. Any big system is going to lead to what we have right now. Nobody has ever found a good way to prevent large concentrations of wealth from being leveraged into power.

      Buckaroo Banzai

      ""Just corporate behavior"? Give me a break. Sounds to me like "just defecation", or teaching a dog exactly where to crap everytime. Animal instincts are animal instincts, and greed is probably the most powerful."

      Indeed, however, you can't ascribe human moral deficiencies like greed to a corporation. Corporations are artificial legal constructs that are, by definition, amoral entities. Trying to associate human values like "justice" to an artificial legal construct is an absurd and pointless exercise. Paul Tudor Jones is either a tool, a jackass, or a deliberate misinformer.

      You want justice? Turn the clock back 200 years, to a time when Corporate charters were limited to specific purposes, with limited life spans, and were legally subsidiary to-- instead of legally superior to-- natural human beings.

      2handband

      Make it even better: every time a corporation's actions cause harm to citizens, prosecute every stockholder and every member of the board to the limit of the law. Eliminate profit without responsibility. But wait... if you did that, businesses would either be sole proprieterships, or made up of two or three individuals who trust one another absolutely. Perfect!

      seek

      Yes, they will raise taxes, and once again it will benefit the non-taxpayers on both ends of the spectrum. The inequality will remain, so they will raise them again.

      They're going to blow way past the Laffer curve near the end. It'll effectively be communism without delivering any of the promised equality (so, communism.) Thankfully the system will blow itself apart just as this is being implemented. I'm sure they'll try to keep it going in the 2.0 version, but when TPTB find they can't get even basic medicines or technology because the key workers are starving at home trying to tend a window garden for food, they'll probably back off a notch or two.

      maskone909

      we are in my opinion, waaayyy past the laffer curve. there is simply no way to pay down our liabilities by conventional income taxation. i truely believe this is the real agenda behinde QE.

      Joe Sichs Pach

      As so many here have already said, the machinations of the system of the market in it's current iteration need to be removed so some semblance of "fairness" returns. Of course, the Market Makers have always had inside information and can front run orders or steal a bid in the pits, etc -BUT- there are actual humans behind those actions operating at the speed a human can operate. None of this laser driven, back-bone attaching, automated algo ordering bullshit.

      The markets no longer exist as they once did not all that long ago. The outright theft that has taken place with these changes is enormous. A step in the right direction, not a fix by any means, but a step to improve things would be to ban electronic trading and/or put realistic limitations on what they can do.

      Who determines those limitations? Ahh, isn't that the bitch of it. Someone is always gonna have the upper hand and inside information.

      These things really need to change and I do not know how it's going to happen.

      Model T

      Exactly, it's ridiculous. The Corps. kill thousands of people every year for profits and this windbag thinks they're going to listen to words.

      He either plans to get paid off, or he's in love with the sound of his own voice; I don't have time to listen to this bullshit.

      ajax

      What war? Shut the fuck up about some more war. No one wants more war. No one who I know wants anything to do with war.

      For too many of you 'war' has become a perverse, grotesque solution for unemployment and your own personal gripes with cultures you won't even try to understand let alone live with even from afar.

      If Israelis didn't look and act like slimmer, healthier versions of Americans you'd be advocating war with Israel instead of funding their every disgrace the way you do. And they know it.

      Freddie

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lpYUW0ekPSA

      Here is a better TED speech.

      dogbreath

      napoleon

      rsnoble

      Funny how war is seen as the 'solution'. LOL. What a fucked up species we are, to conclude our solution is destroying the planet.

      Have you ever noticed other places are going the way of Greece, including the US, they are just lagging? Look at millenials in the US for example. No jobs, sitting at home smoking weed and playing video games. Damn, almost jealous. LMAO. Joking aside, pretty damn pathetic.

      Village-idiot

      Over the millennia the elite have always been overthrown by various means, usually by violence. Sometimes from internal forces; sometimes by external forces.

      The problem we have today is that the ruling elite know they have always been overthrown and are getting ready to prevent it from happening this time.

      They're going to use (they think) technology to watch the 99% and to eliminate the trouble-makers, natural leaders, truth-tellers and prophets. These will be incarcerated, indoctrinated, bribed, murdered, etc..

      They are going to use whatever means they can to eliminate the "useless mouths", by indoctrination, vaccinations, withholding health care, supplying them with illegal drugs, police executions, etc..

      Slow deterioration of the health of the average citizen by poisons, GMOs, pesticides in the food, empty calories in over processed food, pushing the use of unnecessary drugs and vaccinations, legalization of formerly illegal drugs, lowering the legal age for alcohol consumption, etc.. By these means people will slowly self-destruct.

      Pushing the ideas of abortion, assisted suicide, euthanasia, etc..

      They will not succeed, because while they are doing all these things, and more, they're literally poisoning the planet. So, in the end, they're just shitting in their own drinking water!

      PirateOfBaltimore

      Capital can neither be just or unjust.

      How it is created and used is another matter. It is unjust to create money out of thin air and distribute it to banks. It is unjust to print money and devalue the meager savings of the poor, while blowing asset bubbles that benefit the rich.

      The above are not that capital is unjust, but that central banks and fiat currency (in which capital is valued) are operating in an unjust fashion.

      End the Fed. Stop the gravy train to the already rich, and let capital flow to where it is truly productive, not where it can front run future injections.

      JR

      An apt description.

      Capitalism involves the private ownership of the means of production: it does not mean stealing the means of production by private use of a government-sanctioned printing press.


      Here is a vignette by a blogger back in 2010 that describes America's dilemma; her banker-controlled economy:

      How many times can we recycle this same tired story?

      The show is over. There will be no curtain call. The piper has demanded payment. But I read the story line a little differently: it wasn't about free markets, imo, it was more akin gangsterism. As one reviewer put it:

      What is with this tendency to have Goldman Sachs alumni in all sectors of decision making? Robert Rubin, Henry Paulson, Tim Geithner! These apparatchiks are akin to the nomenclatura of the communist party. They are spread throughout our society to be the keepers of the faith. They are the heads of the economic inquisition. Any HERETIC will pay the price! In 1998, Brooksley Born who had been appointed the head of the Commodities Futures Trading Commission had the HERETICAL CONCEPT PERCEPTION that the (OTC) OVER THE COUNTER DERIVATIVES HAD TO BE SUPERVISED.

      The Rubin-Goldman Mafia ran her out of town, and here we are with a FRANKENSTEIN OF OVER THE COUNTER DERIVATIVES THAT ARE MORE DESTRUCTIVE THAN THE SUBPRIME DEBT TRIGGER THAT CREATED THE CASCADE OF TIGHTLY COUPLED FINANCIAL INSTRUMENTS INTO A CREDIT FREEZE. When you make heretics pay the price of telling the truth to power, your society has no place but down. In a democracy, there can be no heresy! All ideas must be tested and falsified and adopted if truly functional. THIS IS INHERENT IN EVOLUTIONARY ADAPTATION.

      "It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, can it hunt mice". We as a society decided that only greedy cats who ate our steaks and left us the mice to eat were going to run the financial system.

      Are we morons? Even worse, we now want these greedy cats to literally eat our flesh and leave us as a skeleton country in total debt. The mice are the derivatives that are totally separate from the subprime mortgage crisis. The greedy cats will eat the flesh and the mice will eat the bones.

      EITHER THE GOVERNMENT TAKES CONTROL FROM THE GREEDY CATS, and resets the system to be regulated, or we will fail. We will fail for the same reasons the communists failed. They were inefficient apparatchiks who ran the system for their purposes and subjugated the people with totalitarian ideas.

      The financial elite is the same! They just use more subtle and stealthy methods developed in Madison Avenue. They manufacture consent and root out the heretics.

      Totentänzerlied

      "This gap between the 1% and the rest of America" is perfectly and completely in line with the historical norm of all agricultural societies period. Everyone who continues to take the utterly incredible exception of the 20th century as a baseline rather than a picture of the greatest 6-standard-deviations move in human socioeconomic configurations is a FOOL - it is like expecting one person to hit the two greatest lottery jackpots of all time AND having the idiocy/nerve to be upset when said expectation is dashed.

      What these morons do not understand is that income and net worth inequality are not problems to be solved. They are natural consequences of random processes. Do these braindead fucks not understand that it took half of all the crude oil and most of all the coal generated by this planet over the course of 4 BILLION years to eliminate chattel slavery and compress the inequality spread to Leave It To Beaver 1950s America levels - and this only in the select few luckiest societies on Earth - which is still nothing even remotely approaching conditions of true egalitarian socialism let alone post-state communism.

      All the usable hydrocarbons this planet will ever produce would not be enough to accomplish what these people truly believe should be possible at no cost if we just want it badly enough. Truly. Un. Fucking. Believable.

      izzee

      To add to this.

      "Democracy" as we currently define it, has existed for roughly 200 -250 years in all of "recent ( 4000years) recorded" history. The Norm is some variation of the Lords and Serfs/Slaves theme. The one innovation that propelled "democracy" is mechanization. All the way from farming to basic household drudgery.

      Yes but some still "employ help" to run the vaccum and stuff the washer/drier.

      Toolshed

      People are confusing wealth and standard of living. In the 1980's the average CEO made approx. 40X what the average employee in his corporation made. That number now exceeds 200X. That would be a good place to apply a bit of justice.

      Is Jamie Thieving Scum Diamond worth his pay? Or Blankenfuck? Not hardly. They should be making whatever the pay is for stamping out license plates in the pen.

      rsnoble

      Oxymoron of the day: Corporate responsibility.

      pebblewriter

      Loved these comments by Yardeni.

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2015-03-19/even-ed-yardeni-admits-not-inve...

      Not sure I agree with all his conclusions, but this quote is spot on:

      "This is not investing," exclaims Ed Yardeni in this brief clip, "it is all about central bankers... these markets are all rigged."

      pebblewriter

      "This gap between the 1% and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist"

      For all the talk re the haves and have nots in the US, there's scant little re between the US and the rest of the world. I remember in the depths of the crisis seeing countless books and articles advising investors to dump dollars and put all their money in euros. Flash forward to the present, and it's pretty obvious from the way oil prices and the dollar index are acting that the US is more than happy to throw the rest of the world under the bus.

      The clash between the yen, euro and stocks, oil and the dollar yesterday was a rare opportunity to witness so clearly the blatant manipulation going on behind the scenes. None of it makes much sense until you consider central bankers' true objectives and -- given the corner they've painted themselves into -- their limited choices. All I know is that the Fed won't go down without a fight, even if it means sacrificing the ECB and BOJ.

      First There Is ...

      "Typically" means shit today. Historically, as far as most of us are concerned anyway, this ends in a festering orgy of ambivalence and do nothing apologist excuse making resulting in shoulder shrugging.

      Revolution? When? Before or after iWatch goes on sale? Bitch fucking please. Sick and tired of hearing how fed up the American people are. Cowardly bitch ass trick motherfuckers aren't going to do a goddamn thing and they know it.

      As long as their are table scraps (forget bread) and circuses, the show will go on.....

      hangemhigh77

      And exporting our wealth engine, manufacturing. oooops too late. War is the product of Amerika now. We have flyboys in Newburgh NY Stewart ANG driving Mercedes.

      Murdering people and stealing their shit pays well. And you get to wear fancy clown suits with shiny metal and all the stupid sheeple wave flags at you and thank you for your service.

      Ahahahahaha, if only they knew that you SERVE the BANKS and you'll do ANY EVIL to serve them. Yea, murdering women and children is very proftable.

      SubjectivObject

      Anything about captured regulatory agencies; about corporape purchase of Gimmemint? Corporape Citizens United against sitizens collected (in the oddience)?

      Thought so.

      What a perfect misdirection's screed. The attending ovators think this is great; their fawning acceptance of his framing of the issues. Hey, but we all feel good to be invited here!

      Which is worse ...

      "This gap between the 1% and the rest of America, and between the US and the rest of the world, cannot and will not persist,"

      Unfortunately, completely wrong. It existed for 1000 years during the European Middle Ages. You can't look at the 50s, 60s, and 70s and call that the norm and declare other periods an anomaly.

      Radical Marijuana

      AFTER ridiculously higher taxes, and runaway death insanities, provoked by debt insanities which are mathematically impossible to solve within the established systems, THEN Re-evolution, or (R)evolution. Indeed, runaway taxation and criminally insane wars are still the same old-fashioned "solutions" within the established systems, which are almost nothing but organized crime, surrounded by controlled opposition. Those continue to be, by far, the most probable future scenarios.

      Without being able to actually watch that TED Talk, which does not yet seem to be publicly available (?), but based only on reading the article above, that presentation was merely more of the same old-fashioned reactionary "revolution" promoted by controlled opposition, which gets applauded by the mainstream morons who want their "solutions" to not force them to go through the severe cognitive dissonance required to more fully understand what the problems are.

      Anyone familiar with my kinds of comments posted on Zero Hedge for the last couple of years would be familiar with my views that:

      REVOLUTION IS RE-EVOLUTION.

      Or, as trader1 wrote: (R)evolution.

      A genuine revolution should be based upon a convergence, to create a new starting point, from which regular evolution could again begin to diverge ... There should be a creative synthesis of post-modernizing science with ancient mysticism, such as begins with an appreciation that ENERGY IS SPIRIT, and continues through a radical critique of the concept of entropy, which became historically inverted, so that the understanding of thermodynamics and information theory could remain consistent with the biggest bullies' bullshit world view, which inverts and perverts everything, by presenting everything through ways that result us living in a Bizarro Mirror World, or Wonderland Matrix, of backward absurdities, which includes the bogus "solutions" promoted by the controlled opposition groups, which criticize the established systems of organized crime, whereby governments are the biggest form of organized crime, controlled by the best organized gangs of criminals, who are currently the banksters.

      "Capitalism" should be understood through an approach based on general energy systems, wherein human beings and human civilizations are perceived as entropic pumps of energy flows (where that is also done in ways that reverse the historical inversion of the concept of entropy, as well as appreciate more that ENERGY IS SPIRIT.)

      IF one actually desires some form of "capitalism" that is just and moral, then one has to track back to the source of just morality, the principle of the conservation of energy, which is currently the possibly more scientific way to approach an understanding of God, while a better understanding of entropy is the more scientific way to understand evil. However, the presentation outlined in the article above appeared to me to still be based upon understanding the real mechanisms backwards, and therefore, continues to be based upon old-fashioned false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible ideals, which will continue to backfire badly, and cause the opposite to actually happen in the real world.

      The BASICS are that money is measurement backed by murder, as the most abstract form of private property being based on backing up claims with coercions. Capitalism somewhat operates as entropic pumps of energy flows, however, that has included the development of enforced frauds, whereby the debt controls were backed by the death controls.

      The ONLY genuine ways to change "capitalism" is to change the death control systems which were central to the control of everything else. The currently established forms of "capitalism" are due to the best organized gangs of criminals, the biggest gangsters, the banksters, and the big corporations that have grown up around those big banks as the source of the public "money" supply, as government enforced frauds by those big banks. The ability of the best organized gangs of criminals to apply the methods of organized crime to the political processes has resulted in the the powers of "We the People" being effectively privatized, and used to rob them blind, since enforced frauds are symbolic robbery, and those actually are the foundation of the currently established political economy.

      Real, radical revolution would change who controls the public "money" supply. Such a change cannot be achieved without addressing the ways that money is necessarily measurement backed by murder, because human realities are always organized lies operating robberies, because human beings are always operating as entropic pumps of energy flows, which are able to build mental models of their world, which include mental models of themselves within their mental models of their world.

      At the present time, we are witnessing the growing Grand Canyon Chasms between progress in physical sciences, without any matching progress in political science. Therefore, within the life time of those alive today, there have developed globalized systems of electronic monkey money frauds, backed by the threat of force from apes with atomic bombs ... IF we are going to survive that, then there must be sufficient series of intellectual scientific revolutions in the basic perceptual paradigms through which we comprehend political science, which apply to the combined money/murder systems, so that perceiving those differently enables us to eventually operate those differently.

      While it is theoretically possible to do that, the number of people that want to is vanishingly small at the present time. Prodigious progress in physical sciences has been achieved by understanding general energy systems better, by going through a series of profound paradigm shifts in physical sciences. However, so far, nothing remotely close to being like that has yet happened in political science. I have hinted at what that would take in my comment above. However, I expect that to continue to be mostly ignored by the mainstream morons and reactionary revolutionaries, who want their "solutions" to continue to be expressed through the DUALITIES of false fundamental dichotomies, and the related impossible ideals, rather than through the UNITARY MECHANISMS of changing the dynamic equilibria between the different systems of organized lies operating robberies.

      To save capitalism from the runaway fraudulent "capitalism" that is developing more and more blatantly before us, would take better understanding of real "capitalism" as entropic pumping of energy flows. While that is theoretically necessary, the vast majority of people, inside both the established systems of organized crime, and their controlled opposition groups, would have to go through (R)evolution in the ways that they think!

      I would not hold my breath while waiting for that to happen. Rather, I would expect the established monetary and taxation systems to continue to become more criminally insane, and so, their runaway debt insanities to provoke death insanities ... Meanwhile, I would endeavour to hold on to the irrational hopes that those events may force enough people to being to think in sufficiently different ways about those events, that there might emerge more genuine, revolutionary, resolutions of those problems?

      [Mar 19, 2015] The Central Banks Will Not Be Able to Control This by Phoenix Capital Research

      Mar 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      The biggest issue facing the financial system today is the US Dollar rally.

      The Fed and other Central Banks are trying to maintain the illusion that they have everything in control by talking about interest rates, but the reality is that the US Dollar carry trade is ABOVE $9 trillion in size. That is almost as big as ALL of the money printing that occurred between 2009 and 2013.

      And it's imploding as we write this.

      Globally, the world is awash in borrowed money… most of it in US Dollars. The US Dollar carry trade is north of $9 trillion… literally than the economies of Germany and Japan COMBINED.

      When you BORROW in US Dollars you are effectively SHORTING the US Dollar. So when the US Dollar rallies… you have to cover your SHORT or you blow up.

      And the US Dollar has been rallying… HARD. Indeed, the move that began in July 2014 is already larger par in scope with that which occurred during the 2008 meltdown.

      Moreover, this move has occurred with little to no rest. The US Dollar barely corrected 2% after rallying a stunning 16+% in a matter of months before beginning its next leg up.

      You only get these sorts of moves when the stuff hits the fan. CNBC and the others are babbling about the Fed's FOMC changes, but all of that is just a distraction from the fact that a $9+ trillion carry trade, arguably the largest carry trade in history, has begun to blow up.

      Rate hikes, QE, all of this stuff is minor in comparison to the carnage the US Dollar is having on the financial system. Take a look at the impact it's having on emerging market currencies.

      ... ... ...

      [Mar 19, 2015] How Many Shale Oil Plays Make Money At $37 Per Barrel by Jim Quinn

      Mar 19, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Kirk2NCC1701

      "How Many Shale Oil Plays Make Money At $37 Per Barrel? (Spoiler Alert: None)"

      Ah, but the Big Fish still get to eat the Little Fish (via bankruptcy fire sales) -- thanks to the Fed and its QE: "Money for nothing, and checks for free!"

      Sing along now... "Money for nothing... easy, easy money..."

      Note that Big Fish control Big Gov. Little Fish do not. Place your bets accordingly.
      .

      p.s. "Ditto" for AU and AG mines: "Con-so-li-da-tion", i.e. hostile takeovers and bankruptcy sales.

      You should know by now that it is in the very Fabric/DNA of the current Monetary System (fiat currency + FRB + Derivatives) to culminate in Socialism for the Western Oligarchs (asymmetric Benefits that privatizes profits, and nationalizes debts/losses).

      Amschel Meyer Rothschild must be glowing in his grave, and toasting with Lucifer.

      swmnguy

      "Socialism for the Western Oligarchs (asymmetric Benefits that privatizes profits, and nationalizes debts/losses)" is a great description.

      It's what Mussolini referred to using the word "Fascism."

      Fascism isn't about marching around shouting in cool uniforms, nor about having people lecture you on behavior. Those are surface characteristics that can be found elsewhere. It's about allowing corporate power to take over and subsume state power, for the benefit of the corporate elites. That's why "Islamo-Fascism" is a nonsense term. The Islamists are religious fanatics bent on a repressive and violent theocracy, which is something I want no part of, but it's not "Fascism."

      Same with American Liberals; they're not inclined toward fascism because a lesbian might lecture you on pronouns, or a vegan might lecture you on eating meat. That's annoying, but what makes American Liberals tend toward fascism is that they support measures which put more and more public and state interests into the hands of corporate interests, for the benefit of the corporate interests first and anybody else second if at all (examples being "ObamaCare" with is a bailout of corporate insurance and medical interests which have otherwise priced themselves out of business; "HAMP" which uses public/government money to bail out corporate finance housing lenders who would otherwise lose on investments they never should have made; Any student loan program, which will use public/government money to bail out corporate finance education lenders and their collaborators in the Education industry who have also priced themselves out of business; among many other available examples).

      I hate to get pedantic about word choices, but words have meanings and when the subject is important, it's critical to use the right word to refer to what you're talking about. America's political vocabulary has been very intentionally drained of meaning, and words are used to refer to things other than what the words mean. That has the eventual effect of preventing us from communicating with each other on political topics, and I don't have to tell you who benefits from, and desires, that outcome.

      Thanks for the good, concise description.

      Buckaroo Banzai

      Sorry, but you're wrong. Words do have meanings, and you are misusing the word "fascism". Fascism is defined as NATIONAL SOCIALISM. Under fascism, corporations do work closely with the State, but they maintain a separate identity, and are subsidiary to the State.

      What we have today in this country is an entirely different system. Corporations have evolved into INTERNATIONAL entities, not national entities as they were in the 1930s and 1940s. Furthermore, corporations don't work closely with the State, rather, Corporate EXECUTIVES have been wholly integrated into the ruling elite, which is a class that now consists of corporate executives, national politicians, and SES-level federal bureaucrats. The modern publicly-traded International Corporation has been reduced to a privileged legal entity that is looted by the entire elite class via stock options, stock buybacks, political contributions, lobbying expenses, and the associated revolving doors between the corporate suite, K Street, and capitol hill. Corporations are still nominally owned by the "public", but the wealth and power they generate have been completely co-opted by the Elite class.

      What most people miss is how dramatically corporations have evolved over the last century, and how the role of corporate executive has changed. That is where the confusion lies.

      thamnosma

      Nice explanation. Still, the State hands out benefits to some corporations and punishes others. In that sense, there remains a measure of the classical fascism. Obviously, the international corporations can do some level of moving around, shifting to more favorable State environments. However, that is becoming more difficult as "global governance" moves forward on various levels. I have a hard time sorting out these ruling elite relationships but lean toward the State still maintaining ultimate dominance.

      Buckaroo Banzai

      "Still, the State hands out benefits to some corporations and punishes others. In that sense, there remains a measure of the classical fascism."

      Not really. A better way to look at it is an internal political struggle between competing factions of the elite. And don't forget, if you are a corporate executive at a corporation that is on the losing end of lobbying or politics, you will get paid regardless. Ultimately it is the shareholder that will get screwed, not the executive.

      [Mar 19, 2015] How Many Shale Oil Plays Make Money At $37 Per Barrel (Spoiler Alert None) by Jim Quinn

      Zero Hedge

      I'm tossing you a softball. Now think carefully. The choices are:

      • A. Zero
      • B. Zero
      • C. Zero
      • D. Zero

      I know Americans are math challenged and need a calculator to subtract 10 from 20, but I think even a CNBC bimbo or Princeton economic professor could get this one right.

      Last year there was much banter from the Wall Street shysters and Bakkan shale oil experts about the true breakeven price for shale oil not being $80 (which is the truth) but actually being as low as $58 a barrel. They were spreading this lie in order to keep idiot investors buying the stocks and bonds of these fly by night shale oil companies.

      Well, we are now six months further down the line and Bakkan shale oil this morning is selling for $37 per barrel. Where are the babbling baboons of bullshit with storylines of shale oil breakeven prices of $30? I guess even corrupt lying scum can't work up the gumption to try and convince the ignorant masses of that doozy.

      Think about this for a minute. What business in their right mind would start a project that is guaranteed to lose $43 per barrel produced? How long will these small shale oil companies with gobs of junk bond debt last at these prices? The answer is easy. Not long. The bankruptcies have begun. The rig counts are collapsing at the fastest pace in history. And the number of layoffs is increasing exponentially. It's like watching a devastating car crash in slow motion. And it has only just begun.

      And as OilPrice.com's Andrew Topf explains it's going to get worse...

      100,000 Layoffs And Counting: Is This The New Normal?

      This time a year ago, the oil industry's biggest problem was finding a way to deal with the "retirement tsunami" about to crash down on it as older oilfield workers hung up their cork boots to enjoy freedom-55. Now, with oil prices still in the doldrums, many of those same workers are lucky to be hanging onto their jobs, while others have been booted from the payroll as an ugly wave of layoffs takes hold.

      One of the worst-affected areas is the Canadian oil sands, where a higher per-barrel cost of production than conventional sources has oil companies scrambling to cut capital expenditures and in several cases, put long-term projects on ice.

      On Thursday one of the region's big players, Husky Energy, announced that about 1,000 construction workers employed by a contractor at its Sunrise oilsands project, would be issued pink slips. The bad news for the workers came a day after Husky said that it had started to produce from the $3.2 billion, steam-assisted gravity drainage (SAGD) Sunrise operation, which it co-owns with BP.

      The layoffs by Husky followed Suncor's decision in January to cut 1,000 employees and Royal Dutch's Shell's announcement that it will shed close to 10 percent of the workforce at its Albian sands project – around 300 workers.

      The Canadian Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors, which closely tracks drilling activity, said in February that up to 23,000 jobs could be lost as the number of rigs fall. Since the price started dropping last September, about 13,000 positions in the Alberta natural resources sector, mostly oil and gas, have been eliminated, according to Statistics Canada.

      The bloodletting among the oil majors and their vast web of ancillary services has of course extended to the United States – which appears to be taking far more casualties than Saudi Arabia in the battle for marketshare. In January oilfield services giant Baker Hughes said it will lay off 7,000 employees, about 11 percent of its workforce; that number was rivalled only by its competitor, Schlumberger, which let go 9,000 workers. Shell, Apache, Pemex and Halliburton are among major oil companies to issue recent pink slips to the growing army of unemployed oil workers. In the U.S., the worst pain is, not shockingly, expected to be felt in Houston. Assuming a one-third reduction in oil company capital expenditures this year and 5 percent in 2016, the hydrocarbon capital of the world could lose 75,000 jobs, in a city that has added 100,000 new positions every year since 2011, said a professor at the University of Houston.

      The oil jobs nightmare is in fact spreading like a cancer. According to Swift Worldwide Resources, "the number of energy jobs cut globally has climbed well above 100,000 as once-bustling oil hubs in Scotland, Australia and Brazil, among other countries, empty out," Bloomberg reported recently. Examples include foreign-trained engineers whose promise of employment at LNG plants in Australia have evaporated as projects get delayed; development projects halted in Brazil resulting in the closure of international schools and the relocation of workers; and 8,000 Mexican workers left without paycheques after Petroleos Mexicanos slashed contracts and purchases, Bloomberg said.

      Of course, industry defenders say the oil and gas business is boom and bust by nature, and most veteran oilmen have gone through many a cyclical downturn and lived to fight another day. The question of whether or when the oil price will recover and all those laid-off workers are rehired is best left to the prognosticators. In the meantime, there is a danger in oil companies cutting too deep, according to oil and gas industry recruiters. They say firms that lay off too many workers will put pressure on older workers who may opt for early retirement. That could leave companies in the same situation as the 1980s, when an oil downturn meant few businesses hired and new graduates went into other more promising fields, leaving a serious talent gap.

      "They will be very careful about reducing staff, because they've seen cycles like this before where commodity prices are weak for a certain period time, they lay off employees and they're not well-positioned to get access to high-quality talent," said Mike Rowe, vice president of exploration and production research at Tudor Pickering Holt, an energy investment and merchant bank, in a story run by CNBC on how the layoffs could come back to haunt the industry.

      By the time this plays out, North Dakota, Texas, Oklahoma, and parts of Pennsylvania will be in smoldering ruins of unemployment and dramatically reduced tax revenues. These energy jobs were high paying. Maybe they can get themselves an Obama job – waiter, bartender, hotel room cleaner, social worker, or government drone.

      [Mar 18, 2015] Here Is Why The Fed Can't Hike Rates By Even 0.25%

      Mar 18, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      There was a time when Zoltan Poszar was the most important person at the Fed (and Treasury), because he was likely the only person in the government's employ who grasped the enormity and complexity of the then-$30 or so trillion US shadow banking system. A quick refresh of his bio from the Institute for New Economic Thinking:

      Mr. Pozsar has been deeply involved in the response to the global financial crisis and the ensuing policy debate. He joined the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in August 2008 in charge of market intelligence for securitized credit markets and served as point person on market developments for senior Federal Reserve, U.S. Treasury and White House officials throughout the crisis; played an instrumental role in building the TALF to backstop the ABS market; and pioneered the mapping of the shadow banking system which inspired the FSB's effort to monitor and regulate shadow banking globally. Prior to Credit Suisse, Mr. Pozsar was a senior adviser to the U.S. Department of the Treasury, where he advised the Office of Debt Management and the Office of Financial Research, and served as Treasury's liaison to the FSB on matters of financial innovation. He also worked with the Federal Reserve Board on improving the U.S. Flow of Funds Accounts.

      While Zoltan is currently working in the private sector at Credit Suisse, he is perhaps best known for laying out, back in 2009, the full topographical map of the US shadow banking system in all its flow of assets (or is that contra-assets when it is a repo) beauty.

      Which is also why we bring him up, because in a much welcome follow up to his previous work title "A Macro View of Shadow Banking" which we will discuss further in the coming days because it is not only Zoltan's shadow banking magnum opus and must read for anyone who wants to get up to speed with all the latest development in the unregulated shadow banking space, but because Poszar also provides perhaps what is the most important chart which explains why the Fed is so very terrified of even the smallest possible incremental rate hike of 0.25%.

      Specifically, we look at Poszar's findings about the implied leverage within the fixed income asset space in America's just a little levered buyside community. This is what he says:

      Although no precise measures are available, the presence of leverage among hedge funds with credit and fixed income strategies has been recognized since the LTCM crisis (see Figure 21), as is leverage in separate accounts in the asset management complex.

      While hedge funds and separate accounts are allowed to use leverage liberally – in fact, leverage is the sine qua non of these investment vehicles – it is widely underappreciated that bond mutual funds that are typically thought of as unlevered and long-only also have considerable room to use leverage.

      The extent to which this room to use leverage is utilized is up to bond portfolio managers to decide, and it is not uncommon for the largest bond funds to maximize the leverage they may bear in their portfolio within the limits allowed by the Investment Company Act of 1940, and the SEC's interpretation of the portfolio leverage and concentration incurred through the use of derivatives.

      However, the creep of leverage into what are traditionally thought of as long-only bond funds was missed by the mainstream economics literature and textbooks entirely. For example, recent works that identify asset managers as the core intermediaries behind the "second phase of global liquidity" focus solely on indirect forms of leverage (FX mismatches) embedded in bond portfolios through holdings of dollar-denominated emerging market sovereign and corporate bonds (see Shin, 2013).

      Other works state even more explicitly the widely-held assumption that fixed income mutual funds are unlevered, and analyze episodes of market volatility induced by redemptions without any regard to how direct forms of leverage embedded in fixed income mutual funds may amplify volatility during periods of rising redemptions (see for example Feroli, Kashyap, Schoenholtz and Shin, 2014, Chapter 1 of the International Monetary Fund's October 2014 Global Financial Stability Report, Chapter 6 of the BIS' 84th Annual Report, and Brown, Dattels and Frieda, 2014 (forthcoming)).

      But all of these views sit uncomfortably with the hard evidence presented above, and recent revelations about "perceived" alphas (see Gross, 2014b) and price action in the interest rate derivative markets amidst soaring redemptions from the largest bond portfolio in the global financial ecosystem – the PIMCO Total Return Fund (see Mackenzie and Meyer, 2014). More concretely, a look at the portfolio of this specific fund provides good examples of the forms of leverage discussed above.

      ...

      More broadly, the above example demonstrates the evolution of the traditional core product of the asset management industry – long-only, relative-return funds – as it came under pressure from two directions: from hedge funds, offering absolute return strategies, and from passive index-replication products in the form of low-cost exchange traded funds (ETFs). Core-satellite investment mandates became the trend, with hedge funds providing alpha and index-replication vehicles delivering beta at low cost. Traditional asset managers responded to this challenge a number of ways: some by launching their own, internal hedge funds, and some by incorporating into their core products many of the alternative investment techniques used by the hedge funds. These industry trends were the sources of competitive push that drove the above-mentioned creep of leverage into the industry's traditional, long-only, relative-return bond funds (and hence the rise of levered betas), all designed to stem the flow of assets to the hedge fund competition and command higher fees as the profitability of traditional core products was squeezed (see Bank of New York, 2011 as well as Haldane, 2014).

      And visually:

      In short, what Poszar is saying is that in a world in which the traditional broker-dealers and banks have indeed reduced leverage and instead use $2.5 trillion in Fed reserves as fungible collateral against which to buy credit derivatives (for example as in the case of JPM's CIO office and its attempt to corner the IG9 market) the buyside community, which as we have long discussed has largely avoided equities due to fears of a spectacular market implosion (and certainly minimized levered exposure in the space with the exception of several prominent HFT participants) has instead been forced to chase after fixed income products. And chase with leverage that would make one's head spin as can be seen in the outlier chart above.

      And while Poszar may be quite correct in stating that most have missed the leverage creep he observes above...

      Perhaps the key reasons why economists have missed the creep of leverage into the traditionally long-only world of fixed income mutual funds are the conceptual gaps in the way in which the U.S. Financial Accounts (formerly the Flow of Funds) depict the global financial ecosystem, and by extension, the limited mental map it gives to economists who use it to understand asset prices.

      ... one entity that does understand all this and grasps the momentuous implications of even the smallest quantum of interest rate increase, is the entity where Poszar previously worked: the US Treasury and the Federal Reserve itself.

      And so, the next time someone asks "why is Yellen so terrified of even the smallest possible rate hike", show them this chart above and explain that the Fed vividly remembers what heppened when LTCM blew up. What the Fed doesn't want, is not one but one thousand LTCMs going off at exactly the same time in what is now the world's most levered trade...

      strannick

      So the dollar isnt going up because of America's sound fundamentals? But rather because its newly minted QE is being used to make leveraged, unhedged gambling bets in derivatives markets (ie. CDOs that cant be paid by counter parties like AIG to losers like MF Global) by primary dealers as repo collateral instead of being released into the economy and increasinging the money velocity?

      So the Fed is lying when they say they will soon raise interest rates? Even though raising interest rates .25 % would add 100s of billions in interest to the over 18 trillion dollar debt?

      So there is a quadrillion dollar hidden -shadow- banking system beyond the site of Congress and investors at large? That is potentially worse than a 1000 Lehmans?

      So then shouldn't we be using our overvalued dollars to buy suppressed under valued gold

      waterwitch

      I found this helpful:

      http://www.barclayhedge.com/research/educational-articles/hedge-fund-str...

      ZerOhead

      Crap... It's just like the movie SPEED with Sandra Bullock and Keanu Reeves back in '94 when a former banker rigs a bus loaded with muppets to explode unless he get's paid a million$$ ransom.

      If Yellen let's the speed fall below 50 MPH then the bomb goes off and everyone dies.

      Meanwhile she's desperately looking for an off-ramp called ECONOMIC GROWTH but it ain't there... and now she's running out of road and there's a hole in her gas tank...

      SWRichmond

      we look at Poszar's findings about the implied leverage within the fixed income asset space

      Do you have any idea what the avg rate on the 10 year bond is?

      Of course it is about leverage, it has always been about leverage. There are two ways for control freaks to fight a deleveraging: 1) print money, and 2) re-lever. And since the fixed income markets are by far the largest, guess where the leverage (mostly in the form of swaps) was placed?

      And in order to keep this leverage from blowing up, interest rates have to stay zero, forever. This is not rocket science. Neither, however, is it reality, but that is what they are trying to do.

      Totentänzerlied

      1. Average all-time historical return is 0 or negative. Inflation beyond a few tenths of a percent only became a standard phenomenon during the industrial age. This is one of the key points of metallism and one of the reasons monetarists and chartalists (more like charlatans) hate metallism.

      2. Savers should not have their money in the bank (or brokerage) if they don't want the banks to use it.

      To my knowledge the long-run average coupon on government debt in all places was 3%-5% or less, it was the preferred asset class (in addition to farmland, of course) of the rentier parasites of recent centuries. This high rate is part of why we got national income taxes; careful what you wish for.

      There is no point in calling fiat currency stolen, any more than there is in calling a unicorn stolen. It is all debt, not money. The theft begins as soon as it is loaned into existence. Beyond that, the interest means it by nature requires theft from the future.

      aVileRat
      aVileRat's picture

      Fun fact,

      The mean 'seed' fund runs at around 120% gross and you would think one would do a 'hedged' book, you know, at best 100% leverage, maybe 120% gross in extreme periods right ?

      Saw a fund yesterday, small, about XYZ MM under management, running on 197% gross and 300% net. Yes, you are reading that correct. US Institutional qualified, with more than 10 accounts.

      Now either I'm getting really old, or my idea of risk management is totally shot to shit at this stage in my career, but this guy was balls deep in fixed credit and swaps. Refused to give over his VaR metrics, or altman score, but had a stupidly great sharpe ratio. Some days, when I think about how some junk companies inflate by 20% a day, I think about this guy, and his fund.

      And I wonder, what if this is the new normal. If Bill, Leon, George.... old crew is working away, and there are a whole bunch of wingnuts like this ZYZ nutter who are chasing yield with every risk hedged to keep below your Prime guidebook, but in reality are running at ratios Myron Sholes would have shit himself at.

      Just a food for thought.

      Toten is 100% correct, risk free is a economic concept derived from post-war 1918 sov. growth rates vs. the real 400 years of economic history; While Case Shiller's often trot out CAPE model works great at predicting rate moves using smoothing, that whole thing assumes underlying growth conditions which are not normal; namely a baby boom, accretive fixed capital rates, technical revolutions every 5 to 10 years and monetary stability. Throw CAPE into some funky currency wars, like the 1750's with only 3 varables ? busted like TRIPS.

      Fed policy is going to give stability, which we expected

      Now the rest needs to come from the rest of the world. Arguably the US technocrats are more inclusive and forward looking than the fractionalized govts in Japan (no offense Abe!) so Fiscal policy, has a fighting chance of at least respecting the structural reforms required by US gov, lest major allies switch to RNB; creating the bi-material system Austrians badly want. Where RNB is the 'silver' and UST is the 'gold standard'.

      If they fail to act, and US corps/US Trading partners will continue to plan outlays for tax management & accretive ROE's to optimize their USD purchasing power, and will invest abroad. Which is pretty much what happened when economic powers dropped gold or bi-standard switching the last time this happened; when the world had a band of iron to every corner of the globe.

      In this scenario, US investors can certainly rely on price stability, but as Janet Yellen said in press scrum today: the world is responsible for their own portfolios and yield valuations. Fed does not promise a risk free rate, nor does it target a risk free rate; only inflation & job growth.

      As ZH has spoke about ad nausum, job quality is shit, and projected tax planning & wage growth, when millennials hit 40 is going to be nowhere close to sustaining the AA rating of the USA, let alone its G8+7 trade allies. So until we see 57% of U-5 semi-attached workers actually get with something approaching post-war wage & family formation rates, achieving a 8% risk free world is beyond us. Which is where a Fiscal & technocratic solution comes into play; and requires a global coordinated effort which is inclusive of all the key countries. The alternative ? They'll just fuck off and hit up China, turning a blind eye to middle kingdom 2.0, which was a key behind the dead global growth post- 1 AD, and likely even pre-1AD given Chinas total inability to govern that cesspit since the Bronze Age.

      In this scenario, I think back to that tool, and his reach for yield hyper-LTCM trading vehicle. When that martingale hits zilch, what happens to them? Will it matter at that point ? Will credit origination matter at all when NIRP becomes accepted as a cost of trade, and we simply trade in 1 oligarchy and swap in UST? where the UST becomes a scarce form of barter like gold was in 1500 ?

      Will Primes and Institutional investors be able to tell the difference between technical and productive growth at that point ? Or will the fear of risk, or perhaps the lack of education on industry specific risk lead to a total lack of interest in exploration & moonshot capital ?

      Fun fact, the cotton gin is thought to have been 'invented' in at least 5 instances in history, but it only was when some Jews with a some funny names decided to arb their trade float for a merchant capital fund. This was amid a raging stagflation enviroment, and it worked out well for us since 1680.

      If we are staring down the barrel of another 40 year stagnation ecosystem (at least), and if we assume Washington/NATO gridlock extends as long as the Holy Roman Empire's decline; we could be in for a good long time of NIRP.

      On an end note. ZH lobbied for 'healthy' deflation for 4 years, and now its happening. You cant have a rate hike, and price deflation at the same time. We are done with the Keynsian real time lab study, and now we're onto the Austrian study:

      Austrians propose that Federal reserve money printing is the bane of all evil, and the Fed is the sole originator of all credit default which starts the busines cycle. The fed is now accomodative, and neutral, as 'the market' desired. Now its time for the Austrian system to prove money is all locked into one closed economic system; and fixed capital can thrive in a liquidity moderating system.

      Our current economic model based on the 1929-1941 experiment proved flawed, so lets see what happens. Ball is in 'the market' and ZH's court to prove this works, in my view.

      And for the little meth-Myrons out there, lets hope this NIRP works. If 92/95 happens (it still could with the natural move in rates down by currency flight to USD; esp if ECB is limit bound by QE assets), that is our best solution out. And Gold is at best, a marginal utility vehicle for wealth preservation; which makes Goldbugging a moot point if we're arguging (happily I might add) for creative wealth destruction to prosperity.

      TLDR:

      - Credit risk is a passing fad, they will flame out if growth is going to its pre-1880 level of stangation to -3% for most of Europe; without Antilla's creative destruction no less. Its about 10x worse today than when Rockstar did his very well done study on shadow risk, and how its warping leins & economic momentum.

      - USA's trade partners will eventually conclude its a bad trade partner due how a strong dollar is killing both domestic wealth effects, and the USA's increasing protectionism, USA global policy becomes inert as the USA Dol & T's become a Giffen good

      - Last time something barbaric happened, large debts and a useless Technocratic fiscal govt. had their way with the world, we ended up with a badly FUBAR Europe, and all 14 eras of Chinese society.

      - Settle in, unless the last 2 generate something constructive; you are all fucked. But thats good for doom porn lovers.

      - Yellen looks at the same shit as ZH. In fact, she straight up said she knows it just as well as TD1, and until you see the same numbers they do, which they do, and real time u-5 wages and job quality improves, forcasts changed, because Saudi Arabia had a Taper Tantrum, and while inflation is one part of the puzzle, data dependance is just as transparent as a post on ZH.

      And to hike rates would bail out wall st. Pensions, at the further expense of 'the middle class', and pretty much the entire world. As predicted.

      alphamentalist

      wake up! look at the jefferies numbers of the other day. it is nearly impossible for banks to make money under these conditions. sure they saw some MTM on their rates books back in '10/11/12, but the rest of "earnings" for years running has been from mark-to-fantasy, headcount reductions, buybacks, offshoring, and loss avoidance (delaying foreclosures and repossessions on NPLs). this the-Fed-is-saving-the-banksters meme, while popular, doesn't fit the observable realities. fed policy is--as tiny timmah geithner confessed--the best progressive economics in action.

      it is direct monetary financing of our bloated federal government. when you see a person doing something most people infer the motivation for the action is the reward for the action. in the case of the fed we need to adjust our optics to understand they are doing things not to be rewarded but to avoid consequences (like the Dutch boy with his finger in the dike, no Yellen pun intended). what would happen if they allowed a return to market economics?

      the federal government would have to fund its ever growing shortfall in the rates market. that would probably be possible at first, but the higher rates would slow the remains of the "economy", which would increase demand for services AND retard tax receipts, which would increase the funding shortfall, which would push up rates, which would choke the economy, which would...well, you get the picture. without the Fed, the overlevered federal candy machine would quickly tear itself apart.

      I think the Fed is going to try to raise in order to re-set the shock absorbers before the coming sell off in order to maintain at least the illusion they can stimulate the economy. but it is too little, too late. we will quickly be back to the Fed protecting the politicos by trying to slow the collapse. (to keep this simple I have avoided the obvious asset-inflation scheme as a tool to keep large donors happy, but even analyzing that will bring you back to the same place: the Fed must protect the politicians or die trying.) this is the slow motion death rattle of America's nanny state.

      kaiserhoff

      This is a very popular view, but it is wrong. We are talking about fractions of a percent. Declining oil prices have given them an undeserved window, in which to begin normalization.

      It's true there is no exit strategy. There never was. This is their one last chance to let market rates emerge without complete chaos. They are too stupid to take it. Unfortunately, the consequences will fall on us all.

      tahoebumsmith

      The FED has over 4 Trillion on their balance sheets now compared to 852 billion in 11/08.. The US Government has over 17 Trillion dollars of debt compared to 9.23 Trillion in 11/08... need I say more? That is unless they don't have to pay interest> Were all Japanese now and if inflation forces the 0% interest Ponzi to raise interest rates you might just as well bring the whole herd of deer out Tyler because it will be carnage

      WTFRLY

      9/11 Truth: Judges shocked by first time seeing video of WTC 7 collapse in Denmark court

      walküre

      "Magic" number 7

      US is run by gangsters. Greatest criminal enterprise ever conceived in the history of man.

      KuriousKat

      The hellicopters will come but they won't be dropping money.

      Some folx ain't waitin till September..

      coming to a theater near you.

      http://news.yahoo.com/police-car-burnt-windows-smashed-start-anti-ecb-06...

      Frankfurt (AFP) - Violent clashes between anti-capitalist protesters and German police left dozens injured and a trail of destruction in Germany's financial capital as the European Central Bank opened its new headquarters Wednesday.

      Draghi, addressing some 100 invited guests at a low-key ceremony, rejected blame for the suffering brought by budget cuts and austerity policies amid the financial crisis in Europe.

      MATA HAIRY

      um...those are europeans rising up against their masters. Not americans.

      Americans are cattle and will never do so. At least white americans never will.

      kchrisc

      "There was a time when Zoltan Poszar was the most important person at the Fed (and Treasury), because he was likely the only person in the government's employ who grasped the enormity and complexity of the then-$30 or so trillion US shadow banking system."

      The FedRes is NOT a part of the governmnet, but a PRIVATE branch of the PRIVATE Zionist banking cabal that owns and controls the DC US.

      The FedRes only wants to comprehend the ramifications of their actions the same as a thief does. And like a thief, they wish to keep their loot, and to remain free to thieve more in the future.

      The banksters need to repay us. Guillotine the Fed. Audit the heads.

      yogibear

      LOL, the Federal Reserve can't raise rates.

      Just BS the markets for months and later years.

      The markets may have just figured it out.

      [Mar 16, 2015] List of countries by oil consumption

      Mar 16, 2015 | Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

      This is a list of countries by oil consumption based on the [2]

      Rank Country/Region Oil consumption
      (bbl/day)
      Year
      1 United States 18,840,000 2011 est.
      2 China 9,790,000 2011 est.
      3 Japan 4,464,000 2011 est.
      4 India 3,292,000 2011 est.
      5 Russia 3,196,000 2012 est.
      6 Saudi Arabia 2,817,000 2011 est.
      7 Brazil 2,594,000 2011 est.
      8 Germany 2,400,000 2011 est.
      9 South Korea 2,301,000 2012 est.
      10 Canada 2,259,000 NA
      11 Mexico 2,133,000 2011 est.
      12 France 1,792,000 2011 est.
      13 Iran 1,709,000 2012 est.
      14 Italy 1,454,000 2011 est.
      15 Spain 1,384,000 2011 est.
      16 Singapore 1,380,000 2012 est.
      17 Indonesia 1,322,000 2011 est.
      18 United Kingdom 1,217,000 2013 est.
      19 Australia 1,023,000 2011 est.
      20 Netherlands 1,010,000 2011 est

      World Crude Oil Production by Year (Thousand Barrels per Day)

      year production change
      1980 59,420.56 NA
      1981 55,904.87 -5.92 %
      1982 53,312.60 -4.64 %
      1983 53,130.85 -0.34 %
      1984 54,379.94 2.35 %
      1985 53,843.26 -0.99 %
      1986 56,202.61 4.38 %
      1987 56,536.07 0.59 %
      1988 58,593.86 3.64 %
      1989 59,694.83 1.88 %
      1990 60,404.45 1.19 %
      1991 60,112.96 -0.48 %
      1992 60,093.48 -0.03 %
      1993 60,157.95 0.11 %
      1994 58,805.19 -2.25 %
      1995 59,949.60 1.95 %
      1996 61,282.65 2.22 %
      1997 63,317.67 3.32 %
      1998 64,468.21 1.82 %
      1999 63,322.39 -1.78 %
      2000 66,268.41 4.65 %
      2001 65,865.38 -0.61 %
      2002 64,973.32 -1.35 %
      2003 67,327.29 3.62 %
      2004 70,706.05 5.02 %
      2005 72,176.09 2.08 %
      2006 71,945.59 -0.32 %
      2007 71,611.84 -0.46 %
      2008 72,581.54 1.35 %
      2009 71,317.64 -1.74 %
      2010 73,216.29 2.66 %
      2011 73,485.09 0.37 %
      2012 75,063.80 2.15 %
      2013 75,239.91 0.23 %

      [Mar 15, 2015] North America Crude Oil Production Remains Strong

      Mar 15, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      JustObserving

      North America Crude Oil Production Remains Strong
      Let's give that statement some numbers and context:

      Yet US continues to import at least 7.3 million barrels a day. So does China (7.3 mbd). India imports about 3.9 million barrels a day. World oil production is between 92 and 93 million barrels a day - say, 92.5 million barrels a day

      http://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=MCRIMUS2&f=A

      post turtle saver

      The US and China import because they're the #1 and #2 refiners in the world, respectively. Not everything that's imported into the US and China ends up being used in the US and China... just to add some context to your context...

      JustObserving

      US consumes about 19.5 million barrels a day and produces about 12 million barrels a day from all sources (actual oil production about 9.5 million barrels a day). So imports have to be about 7.5 million barrels a day. It is not as if the US is exporting millions of barrels of oil per day.

      China is using about 10.7 million barrels a day and producing about 4 million barrels a day. So it needs about 6.7 million barrels a day of imports for domestic consumption.

      The oil price decline is mainly due to economic warfare:
      The Engineered Decline in Oil Prices: Economic Warfare is the West's Main Weapon
      For Russia, exports of oil and gas equate to 68 per cent of Russia's total exports, and 50 per cent of its federal revenues

      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-engineered-decline-in-oil-prices-econom...

      DaveyJones

      Considering the US peaked in the early 70s and the world peaked in about 2004 things are a mess. If oil was in abundance how come all the oil seems to live with bad guys wherever we aim our weapons.

      How come it makes skyscrapers defy gravity.

      weird that is

      angel_of_joy

      One year from now the current wells will start showing the rapid exhaustion typical for fracking sources, and production will decline abruptly. By then a lot of companies will be pretty fucked up, will minimal resources for new exploration.

      The whole industry will become another un-holly debt mess... just in time for elections ;)

      dougie

      Most of the increased production is from the already drilled, but uncompleted wells that are decreasing in number as they are completed and not replaced by more drilling. The stock of uncompleted wells will be exhausted in the not too distant future, leading to radically decreased production as fracked wells enter their steep decline. Meanwhile, drilling companies are disappearing as prices are well below the break even point of fracked wells.

      BTW, great irony with the pic of "bomb trains" that are exploding all over the North American continent. Funny stuff.

      Thirtyseven

      Makes one wonder about opportunity costs. Even if producers are producing at a loss, wouldn't their losses be greater if they were not producing at all? Thus: Oversupply.

      Winston Churchill

      Slow motion bankruptcy, is still bankruptcy. A lot of the long term oil hedges start dropping off in April. The counter parties have already been taking a bath, once those hedges have gone, look out below.

      silverer

      It's interesting to see how this is happening. Oil is a magnificent example to show how the entire economic and banking system is predicated on continuous growth only. There is an automatic system in place for growth, but not for shrinkage.

      Oversupply into any market would normally result in lowering productivity of goods. If you can't sell all your widgets, you start to crank out less. It all works out OK if you are still profitable to pay your overhead and debt, or you have no debt. Here's the perfect trap going forward for most businesses: only up works. How can the oil system go backward evenly in an ordered fashion with so many suppliers to keep profits where they need to be at margins dictated by supply and demand?

      With constantly dropping consumption on this scale, even if all the producers worked together, the price/margin math would eventually still not work. This is exacerbated by the fact that there is so little leeway regarding how all this is financed (big time loans to the max!). It might be easier to do if no loans existed against the rigs, but that is the stick poking the bear for sure. At some point, rigs are going to have to be shut down.

      If they were owned outright with no financing, then only the rig owners are impacted. But the loans go way beyond the rigs, to the paper that everyone is holding and all the other crap the banks attach to it. We're about to get a lesson in going backwards, but it isn't going to be a fun one.

      angel_of_joy

      It's going to be a lesson about things to come... full speed ahead, then forced stop !

      knukles

      Yes. It's all about cash flow. It it were textbook theory, they'd just quit, shut down. But this is reality. Debt service and payrolls need to be met, structure run or ruin. It's about cash flow. A lot of rigs can be idled, but production form others gets ramped up. Over simplified, but gets the point across.

      And probably ain't a gonna change at current prices. If we get to, just picking a number, say $20, then things get shuttered for good. Equipment old off, leases sold, etc.

      Youri Carma

      Can Canada's oil sands cope with $50 crude?, Mar 13, 2015 Financial Times https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_YFFL3o-vw

      Oh regional Indian

      Looking at the Crashing BDI etc., I checked and found that global shipping accounts for only 4.5% of annual oil consumption. That is way lower than I thought and thus the shipping slump clearly does not impact demand THAT drastically.

      Americans are still going high on the SUV hog. So there is that. And all the ships (tankers etc.) that are not sailing are storing.

      In short, this oil production constant to increasing and price plummeting looks good for a few months more. When global storage gets full, the bombs will start to fly and we'll see $150 oil in short order again. Turn the other (ass) cheek...

      https://aadivaahan.wordpress.com/2015/03/14/wisdom-for-rawriors/

      fremannx

      Deflationary depressions present economic situations that are hard to understand out of context. Regardless of production levels (which are being financed with borrowed money), crude prices are a function of the deflationary vortex consuming every asset class today.

      Falling crude prices should take a short break and correct somewhat in the near future, but the long-term picture remains down...

      http://www.globaldeflationnews.com/oil-light-sweet-crudeelliott-wave-upd...

      jdtexas

      Low oil prices are helping auto-related sector.....temporarily

      Jack Burton

      The recent wave of US oil production was heavily leveraged and this oil is on the margin. Oil producers are heavily in debt for the costs of production, thus they must produce full out to try and meet payment schedules to banks and investors. If they cease producing due to low prices, they immediately face bankruptcy. The real fall out of low oil prices is not NOW, it is in the following months down the road when producing at a loss, and trying to meet interest payments catches up with high cost of production US oil producers. You gotta face the fact, Saudi oil comes out of the ground at a small fraction of the price of new US and Canadian sources. 1/10th the cost of Tar Sands mining.

      Hohum

      Counterpoint: https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf

      In.Sip.ient

      Of course oil production is strong. US gov't figures show demand outstrips production world wide by about 15Million bbls!

      This is all about the US$

      Specifically, the US$ is being re-priced relative to DC "gold" ( what you and I call "oil" ) in response to the activation of the SCO. A nice suckers rally in US$ is having all sorts of follow on effects in the US$ denominated world. Even makes oil look like a disaster.

      Oh, and it makes the economies in the SCO look like they are faltering or failing. Problem is, that with a large chunk of the worlds economy running through the SCO ( and by definition entirely outside the US$ financial system ) we make a huge mistake assuming the late great US$ based financial system actually indicates anything real in the world economy...

      Wonder if this is why our allies ( like the UK !!! ) are looking at entry into the SCO...???

      [Mar 15, 2015] Big oil's broken model

      Mar 13, 2015 | Asia Times Online

      Many reasons have been provided for the dramatic plunge in the price of oil to about US$60 per barrel (nearly half of what it was a year ago): slowing demand due to global economic stagnation; overproduction at shale fields in the United States; the decision of the Saudis and other Middle Eastern OPEC producers to maintain output at current levels (presumably to punish higher-cost producers in the US and elsewhere); and the increased value of the dollar relative to other currencies.

      There is, however, one reason that's not being discussed, and yet it could be the most important of all: the complete collapse of Big Oil's production-maximizing business model.

      Until last fall, when the price decline gathered momentum, the oil giants were operating at full throttle, pumping out more petroleum every day. They did so, of course, in part to profit from the high prices.

      For most of the previous six years, Brent crude, the international benchmark for crude oil, had been selling at $100 or higher. But Big Oil was also operating according to a business model that assumed an ever-increasing demand for its products, however costly they might be to produce and refine.

      This meant that no fossil fuel reserves, no potential source of supply - no matter how remote or hard to reach, how far offshore or deeply buried, how encased in rock - was deemed untouchable in the mad scramble to increase output and profits.

      In recent years, this output-maximizing strategy had, in turn, generated historic wealth for the giant oil companies. Exxon, the largest US-based oil firm, earned an eye-popping $32.6 billion in 2013 alone, more than any other American company except for Apple. Chevron, the second biggest oil firm, posted earnings of $21.4 billion that same year. State-owned companies like Saudi Aramco and Russia's Rosneft also reaped mammoth profits.

      How things have changed in a matter of mere months. More at Tomgram Michael Klare, Is Big Oil Finally Entering a Climate Change World TomDispatch

      Michael T Klare, a TomDispatch regular, is a professor of peace and world security studies at Hampshire College and the author, most recently, of The Race for What's Left. A documentary movie version of his book Blood and Oil is available from the Media Education Foundation.

      Follow TomDispatch on Twitter and join us on Facebook. Check out the newest Dispatch Book, Rebecca Solnit's Men Explain Things to Me, and Tom Engelhardt's latest book, Shadow Government: Surveillance, Secret Wars, and a Global Security State in a Single-Superpower World.

      (Copyright 2015 Michael T Klare)

      [Mar 15, 2015] Wolf Richter The US Oil Bust Just Got Worse

      Mar 14, 2015 | naked capitalism
      Yves here. Wolf was early to point out the disconnect between declining rig counts, which the mainstream media has touted as proof that the oil glut was about to end, and rising production. That pattern has not abated.

      By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street.

      The price of oil did today what it has been doing for a while: it waits for a trigger and plunges. As I'm writing this, West Texas Intermediate is down 4.4%, trading at $44.99 a barrel, less than a measly buck away from this oil bust's January low. It's down over 20% from the peak of the most recent sucker rally.

      US oil drillers have been responding by slashing capital expenditures, including drilling, in a deceptively brutal manner. In the latest week, drillers idled 56 rigs that were classified as drilling for oil, according to Baker Hughes. Only 866 rigs were still active, down 46.2% from October, when they'd peaked at 1,609. In the 22 weeks since, drillers have taken out 743 rigs, the most dizzying cliff dive in the data series, and probably in history:

      US-rig-count_1988_2015-03-13oil bust

      You'd think this sort of plunge in drilling activity would curtail production. Eventually it might. But for now, the industry has focused on efficiencies, improved drilling technologies, and the most productive plays. Drillers are trying to raise production but with less money so that they can meet their debt payments. Thousands of wells have been drilled recently but haven't been completed and aren't yet producing. This is the "fracklog," a phenomenon that has been dogging natural gas for years.

      So US oil production hit another record of 9.366 million barrels per day for the week ended March 6, according to the Energy Information Administration's latest estimate. This chart shows how the rig count (red) has plunged while production (black) continues to soar:

      US-oil-production-rig-count-2014-2015-Mar13

      But demand is not living up to the level of production and imports. As an inevitable result, US crude oil inventories are piling up. Excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, crude oil stocks, according to the EIA, rose by 4.5 million barrels in the latest reporting week, to a record 448.9 million barrels. A more modest rise than in prior weeks, but the ninth week in a row of increases. Crude oil stocks are now 78.9 million barrels, or 21.3%, higher than at this time last year. Note the beautiful spike:

      US-crude-oil-stocks-2015-01-30

      So when is US storage capacity going to be full? That event would cause all sorts of havoc in the oil markets, including a terrible plunge in price. With no place to put their oil, some production companies would have to turn off the tap and leave the oil in the ground. That would bring production down in a hurry, but it would add to the pent-up supply, the "fracklog," thus dragging out the bust even further.

      How likely is this scenario?

      Last week, the EIA released estimates that crude oil stocks nationwide, as of on February 20, were at 60% of "working storage capacity," up from 48% last year at that time. In critical Cushing, Oklahoma, which accounts for 14% of the national total and is the delivery point for WTI futures contracts, storage facilities were 67% full.

      Given a storage capacity of 521 million barrels, if weekly increases amount to an average of 5 million barrels going forward, it would take about 3 months to fill the remaining capacity. Cushing would be full sooner, which would pose its own set of problems.

      But we're not biting our nails just yet. The largest US refinery strike in 30 years that impacted 12 refineries and a fifth of US refining capacity appears to be settled. A tentative agreement has been reached between the United Steelworkers union and oil companies. Once these refineries are fully operational again, more crude will head their way. The driving season will start soon. SUVs and pickups and even fuel misers have a prodigious appetite collectively and can burn through a lot of gasoline in a hurry. And imports could be throttled back further.

      So there is a very good chance that storage capacity will disappear as a death trap for the price of oil this year. But US oil production is likely to continue to rise, leaving the industry to face an even bigger oil glut and even more price mayhem next year. Yet production won't start declining until the money runs out.

      Some smaller oil and gas companies are already running out of money. For them, "restructuring" and "bankruptcy" are suddenly the operative terms. Read… "Default Monday": Oil & Gas Companies Face Their Creditors

      rjs, March 14, 2015 at 6:41 am

      they're already holding off on fracking, not so much due to lack of storage, but to wait for higher prices…ie, North Dakota production declined by approximately 37,000 barrels per day to 1.19 million barrels per day in January while the number of wells waiting to be fracked rose to 825…all that represents hidden inventory waiting to be added to domestic supply if prices rise…

      joecostello, March 14, 2015 at 6:59 am

      Dont worry it will start going down, always lag between rigs declining and production. And oil stocks dont necessarily have to do with US production as we're still importing 10 mbd or so. Add to that, month to month oil numbers are to say the least no rigorous.

      rjs, March 14, 2015 at 9:11 am

      yes, due to oil being put in storage due to the contango trade, oil imports have only fallen 1.2% YoY while domestic production is up over 15%..

      wbgonne, March 14, 2015 at 8:33 am

      But we're not biting our nails just yet. The largest US refinery strike in 30 years that impacted 12 refineries and a fifth of US refining capacity appears to be settled. A tentative agreement has been reached between the United Steelworkers union and oil companies. Once these refineries are fully operational again, more crude will head their way.

      The driving season will start soon. SUVs and pickups and even fuel misers have a prodigious appetite collectively and can burn through a lot of gasoline in a hurry. And imports could be throttled back further.

      I don't understand how this paragraph relates to storage capacity. Can someone explain? Thanks.

      Synapsid, March 14, 2015 at 4:57 pm

      rjs,

      The contango is real but the contango play is slowing globally–as an example, 30 tankers or more were chartered for oil storage not long ago and all but 12 have been released. Gotta sidestep this fixation on financial doings alone. The US is importing crude oil just as it has been for years, though the amount has decreased (not increased) in the past few months. Contango is not driving US imports of crude.

      Start here: Who in the US imports crude oil?
      Refineries.

      What do they do with it?
      They break down the molecules that make up crude and sort the fragments out into groupings we call gasoline and diesel and jet fuel and some remainders that have their uses too.

      Do US refineries produce products for the US market alone?

      No. About three million barrels a day of crude are refined into products for export to Central and South America, Canada, and Mexico. This earns money for the refineries.

      Can any refinery refine any quality of oil? ("Quality of oil" [not an industry term] would be defined, as a first approximation, on the basis of how viscous it is and how much sulfur it contains.)

      No. A given refinery is optimized for a particular range of oil quality, out of the wide variety offered by producers, and will blend various crudes to produce the oil it needs. (It could handle qualities outside its optimum range but would lose efficiency–and money–and eventually mess up the works.) Most refineries in the Midwest and on the Gulf Coast are optimized for a middle-range quality oil.

      Is the oil building up in storage right now not useful to refineries?

      It is useful for blending but there's too much of it right now. Much of it is from the shales, and is high-quality, low-viscosity crude, and there is much more of it available than the lower-quality, high-viscosity crude it would be blended with.

      Where does that high-viscosity crude come from, then? Is it from the shales too?
      It does not come from the shales, but from various other sources like conventional fields on land and in the Gulf of Mexico. The US produces some and some is imported, especially from Canada, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and Mexico. They're all producing pretty much flat out, or would be if the oil industries in Mexico and Venezuela weren't in such a ghastly state.

      Why don't the shale producers slow production then?

      You go tell them to, and I'll watch. They have been cutting back on drilling and on bringing recent wells into production, but that's because the oil price has fallen too low for them to keep all their operations going. Producing oil and selling it brings in the money to pay your bills and make payments on debt so some production is going on in spite of so much being in storage.

      Some companies are trying to survive right now.

      So, what's the take-away here?

      There's too much of the stuff the shales produce for the refineries to use it all. They would blend it with the higher-viscosity stuff but there's only so much of that available. They do use what they can get, as they have been doing right along. US imports of crude oil aren't suddenly higher than they have been in the past–they're lower if anything–because of the current contango situation. That situation is being taken advantage of by some, sure, but it is not much of an influence on the amount of crude the US imports.

      You can't just turn a refinery on and off, and refineries depend on cash flow just as the rest of the oil patch does. The refineries have been importing crude right along because they need to keep running. When the contango goes away they'll go right on importing crude.

      [Mar 14, 2015] Michael Lewis is Right "Spoofing" Proves Market Rigged on Daily Basis

      Zero Hedge

      Submitted by EconMatters on 03/13/2015

      Watch the Michael Lewis video where he discusses Rigged Markets here.

      Brent Spoofing & HFT

      As the European Market closes today and oil has some bearish sentiment to the trading day, one of the common techniques is to bang the European close in the Brent contract which being a much less liquid contract than WTI can be quite profitable. Usually this takes place around 10:00 to 10:30 am CST but with the time changes this week everything is pushed back an hour here in the US with the European close now being 11:00 to 11:30 am CST.

      Read More >> Cushing and Gulf Coast Storage Filling Up Fast

      Specific Example of Spoofing

      Well as this bang the close strategy is happening in Brent pushing the futures contract down $56.50 to $55.50 in 10 minutes a nice illustration of HFT Algo strategy plays out, in other words blatant market manipulation also called spoofing was conducted by some large firm. Here is the case and this isn`t specific to Brent, Oil, or an unusual event this happens in all markets throughout the trading day. So as Brent is going lower some firm wants it to go lower some more so around the $55.75-80 area they park a large order around 900 futures contracts. Now this isn`t a real order, the seller isn`t really going to sit there and take in 900 buyers, it is meant to manipulate the other trading algos and buyers in general from stepping in and buying oil with the idea of pushing the contract lower. In essence "Scare" the market lower! This usually works and today it worked pushing the Brent contract down to $55.51, and needlessly to say this firm benefited from this technique and covered before eventually pulling the entire order once a couple of contracts hit on the price that the seller parked this large fake sell order.

      Read More >> Six Days Until Bond Market Crash Begins

      Easy to Regulate Spoofing Activity

      Now this kind of activity would be pretty easily to reign in, easily trackable, and easy to identify which firm utilized this spoofing manipulative strategy. Just pull up the Brent trading records on the ICE exchange for 3/13/2015, and see which firm entered an order previously to sell the Brent contract, then wanted to juice their returns or move the market in the direction of their scalp by placing an additional large order all at once as price is going down during the European Close around 11:25 am CST (900) contracts give or take, and then cancels this same large order once it is hit with a couple of offers to buy at that price. Needless to say Brent traded much higher than this original sell order once it was pulled from the market as the objective of pushing the price lower to fill their existing order was already achieved! This is spoofing, a common technique used in markets, often revolving around HFT strategies, is highly manipulative with both intent and market effect, and happens right out in the open for all to observe. This example of HFT manipulation is far more straight forward than some of Michael Lewis`s HFT claims that are much harder to prove beyond a 'reasonable' doubt.

      Read More >> The Bond Market Has Reached Tulip Bubble Proportions

      Spoofing just one HFT Market Manipulation Strategy

      This kind of spoofing strategy usually takes place with 100 order lots in the oil markets, and the 900 contract effort was just hilarious, taking overkill to an entirely new level. I have even seen several firms lined up with 100 contract fake sell or buy orders on consecutive price levels. For example, 100 at $48.51, 120 at $48.52, 150 at $48.53, 105 at $48.54 etc. all with the same intent to move prices in the opposite direction of these orders. They don`t really want to get filled, in fact they will never get filled, as soon as a couple contracts hit one of these orders they are pulled from the market.

      Now big orders get filled all the time but somebody with a big order doesn`t just advertise to the entire world in most cases, and if legit doesn`t cancel the order when it gets hit. Usually large orders are disguised in the market via various methods to maintain a lower or better cost basis on the overall position. This Spoofing Strategy works, and is highly profitable because its frequency has increased over the last three years with more and more firms adopting this HFT trading strategy. There have been a couple of small fines for this behavior, but the blatant occurrence of this strategy and the increasingly brazenness of the manipulative trading technique shows there is no regulatory force enforcing this trading impropriety by participants.

      Markets are Rigged at both the Macro & Micro Level from the Fed to HFT Firms

      Now this is just the tip of the iceberg when it comes to market manipulation, I thought I would just provide a concrete example of the kind of funny business that goes on every day in financial markets. The financial markets are manipulated from the macro perspective by the Federal Reserve with their outright asset purchases and various other market interferences all the way to the micro level of HFT scalping algos.

      There is nothing wrong with scalping per se, but utilizing manipulative techniques like fake orders to ensure the scalp works and to increase the tick size profit of the scalp is illegal, and occurs every day at the micro level of market manipulation, and is one HFT strategy that is easy to prove which firms are conducting this illegal market manipulation activity.

      Accordingly, Michael Lewis is right markets are rigged, but he really is underestimating the extent of market manipulation, financial markets really are the wild west, investors should always be wary of how they are being taken advantage of in financial markets. The phrase Caveat Emptor 'Let the buyer beware' applies here.

      DrExcitement

      Look, everyone needs to stop whining about "spoofing" this has been going on forever. As a former upstairs OTC market maker with a very large firm that no longer exists, I can tell you, professional traders have been doing this for years.

      For example, I have an institutional order to buy say oh, 500K Genetech when it was OTC, my analyst was the axe in the stock, we get 1st crack at the order, so I sell say Cal Teachers 50K to work the balance and control the order. Say I have a 1 pt discretion on the 450K left. My desk wants the sales credits, the coverage broker wants his, the analyst wants the volume and the client wants a good fill and lastly I have my and the firms P and L to worry about. What is the first thing I do, see who's on the offer and if I feel they are real, i.e. are they a size B/D in the name.

      If so, I join them on the offer to hold the price down or to get lifted and see what's out there. My next call is to the largest player on the offer in the name to see what he's got going on, if anything and ask him to stay on the offer for me. If I have a good relationship.

      And it's a professional courtesy amongst big market makers in the name. Is that spoofing? Except we didn't call it that back in the day, we called it "trading". Most of trading is a mind game, and everyone needs to put their big boy pants on and stop crying. I'm sorry the easy days of BTFD are over and now some are beginning to understand that this profession isn't a walk in the park. I was told when I first entered this business, any idiot can make money in up markets, it the real good one's that make money in any market.

      I've worked in equities, options, otc, listed and fixed income, this practice is done across the board and both upstairs and downstairs. So stop friggin' whining about it. Out think them. Like baseball, there's no crying in trading.

      And oh, yeah, I was Cal Teacher's first show on the 500K to buy.... believe that I got a bridge for ya.... Dig into the deeper darker issues, which are the friggin' news algo's.

      One would have to be an idiot not to understand what is going on there. Anyone remember the news leaks from all the journalists back in the the 80's and 90's ? And those were the ones who got caught, many more didn't trust me. Tommorows news today isn't just a saying. Well with the news organizations so integrated into the financial execution app's now, and reporters with inside knowledge of even say 1 minute before a story hits, one would have to be a blooming retard to think that they aren't selling this information to the HFT'S etc who have money to lay fiber optic cable from Chi-town to NJ for a millisecond of speed.

      Chase the real thiefs, the real corruption, not something that is part and parcel to the profession. Stop whining about nothing and understand the business you're in and how you're getting screwed. Just spreading some light.

      Dr. E.

      Meremortal

      This is one of my favorite things about ZeroHedge. Everyone agrees the market is rigged, yet the Tylers constantly post charts of the rigged market and everyone will discuss their meaning in great detail, like witch doctors hovering over chicken bones.

      [Mar 14, 2015] One Last Look At The Real Economy Before It Implodes - Part 2

      Mar 14, 2015 | zerohedge.com

      In the first part of this article series, we discussed the true state of global demand, along with the unstable situation within numerous indicators from exports to retail. Swiftly falling global demand for raw materials as well as consumer goods is an undeniable reality. This is a distinct problem in terms of the U.S., which has been, up until recently, the primary consumption driver for much of the world. As we will show, U.S. demand is about to fall even further into the abyss as real unemployment and personal debt take their toll.

      [Mar 14, 2015] One Last Look At The Real Economy Before It Implodes - Part 1

      Mar 04, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      We are only two months into 2015, and it has already proven to be the most volatile year for the economic environment since 2008-2009. We have seen oil markets collapsing by about 50 percent in the span of a few months (just as the Federal Reserve announced the end of QE3, indicating fiat money was used to hide falling demand), the Baltic Dry Index losing 30 percent since the beginning of the year, the Swiss currency surprise, the Greeks threatening EU exit (and now Greek citizens threatening violent protests with the new four-month can-kicking deal), and the effects of the nine-month-long West Coast port strike not yet quantified. This is not just a fleeting expression of a negative first quarter; it is a sign of things to come.

      Stock markets are, of course, once again at all-time highs after a shaky start, despite nearly every single fundamental indicator flashing red. But as Zero Hedge recently pointed out in its article on artificial juicing of equities by corporations using massive stock buybacks, this is not going to last much longer, simply because the debt companies are generating is outpacing their ability to prop up the markets.

      This conundrum is also visible in central bank stimulus measures. As I have related in past articles, the ability of central banks to goose the global financial system is faltering, as bailouts and low-interest-rate capital infusions now have little to no effect on overall economic performance. The fiat fuel is no longer enough; and when this becomes apparent in the mainstream, all hell will indeed break loose.

      The argument that banks can prop up the system forever is now being debunked. In this series of articles, I will cover the core reasons why this is happening, starting with the basis of all economics: supply and demand.

      The Baltic Dry Index has been a steadfast indicator of the REAL economy for many years. While most other indexes and measures of fiscal health are subject to direct or indirect manipulation, the BDI has no money flowing through it and, thus, offers a more honest reflection of the world around us. In the past two months, the index measuring shipping rates and international demand for raw goods has hit all-time historical lows, plummeting 57 percent over the course of the past 12 months and 30 percent for the year to date.

      The dwindling lack of demand for shipping presents obvious challenges to mainstream talking heads who contend that the overall economic picture indicates recovery. That's because if demand for raw goods has fallen so far as to produce a 57 percent rate drop over the past year, then surely demand for the consumer goods that those raw goods are used to produce must be collapsing as well. The establishment machine has used the same broken-record argument against this conclusion, despite being proven wrong over and over again: the lie that fleet size is the cause of falling shipping rates, rather than a lack of demand for ships. This is the same argument used by pundits to distract from the problems inherent in the severe drop in oil prices: that oversupply is the issue, and that demand is as good as it ever was. Forbes has even attempted to outright dismiss the 29-year low of the BDI and alternative economic analysts in the same lazily written article.

      First, let's address the issue of global demand for goods. Does the BDI represent this accurately? Well, as most of you know, the real picture on manufacturing and export numbers is nearly impossible to come by considering most, if not all indexes fail to account for monetary devaluation and inflation in costs of production. For instance, mainstream propagandists love to argue that manufacturing (like retail) generally posts at least small to modest gains every year. What they fail to mention or take into account is the added costs to the bottom line of said manufacturers and retailers, as well as the added costs to the end consumer. Such costs are often not addressed in the slightest when final numbers are tallied for the public.

      In manufacturing, some numbers are outright falsified, as in the case of China, where officials are forcing plant managers to lie about output.

      In my view, any decline made visible in the false numbers of the mainstream should be multiplied by a wide margin in order to approximate what is going on in the real economy. China, the largest exporter and importer in the world, continues to suffer declines in manufacturing "expansion" as it's PMI suggests orders remain steadily stagnant.

      "Official" statistics show a 3.3 percent decline in Chinese exports in January from a year earlier, while imports slumped 19.9 percent. Exports slid 12 percent on a monthly basis while imports fell 21 percent according to the Customs Administration.

      In Japan, despite the falling Yen which was expected to boost overseas demand, export growth declined for last year, certainly in terms of export volume. The recent "jump" in January does nothing to offset the steady erosion of Japanese exports over the past five years and the flat demand over the past two years.

      Japan's manufacturing expansion has slowed to the slowest pace in seven months.

      In Germany, the EU's strongest economic center, industrial output has declined to the lowest levels since 2009, and factory orders have also plunged to levels not seen since 2009.

      Despite the assumptions in the mainstream media that lower oil prices would result in high retails sales, this fantasy refuses to materialize. Retail sales continue the dismal trend set during the Christmas season of 2014,with the largest decline in 11 months in December, and continued declines in January.

      Oil is certainly the most in-our-face undeniable indicator of imploding demand. Volatility has skyrocketed while pump prices have dropped by half in many places. One may be tempted to only see the immediate benefits of this deflation. But they would be overlooking the bigger picture of global demand. Oil is the primary driver of economic productivity. Dwindling demand for oil means dwindling productivity which means dwindling consumption which means a dwindling economy. Period.

      OPEC reports announce downgraded global demand for oil above and beyond expectations. Oil demand has fallen to levels not seen since 2002.

      Beyond the issue of real global demand for raw goods, the argument that the BDI is being gutted only due to an oversupply of cargo vessels also does not take into account the fact that Shipping companies often SCRAP extra ships when demand falters. I find it rather amusing that mainstream economists seem to think that dry bulk companies would continue a trend of fielding cargo ships they don't use causing an artificial drop in freight rates. As far as I know, such companies are not in the habit of undermining their own profits if they can help it. When an oversupply of ships occurs, companies remove unused vessels either through scrap or dry dock in an attempt to drive freight rates back up to profitable levels. This often works, unless, it is DEMAND for cargo shipping that is the issue, not the supply of ships.

      Ship scrapping boomed in 2013 and has not stopped since. In fact, dry bulk mover COSCO dismantled at least 17 ships in the month of January alone and has been dismantling ships consistently since at least 2013. The trend of scrapping is often glossed over by shippers as a "modernization effort", but the fact remains that cargo companies are always removing ships from supply in order to maximize rates and profits.

      Finally, global shipping giant Maersk Line now openly admits that the primary detriment to shipping rates, the reason the BDI is falling to historic lows, is because of falling demand in nearly every market; ship supply is secondary.

      Does falling demand result in a lack of fleet use and thus "oversupply"? Of course. However, this chicken/egg game that establishment economists play with the BDI needs to stop. Falling demand for goods came first, the number of unused ships came second. This is the reality.

      A rather cynical person might point out that all of the stats above come from the propaganda engine that is the mainstream, so why should they count? I would suggest these people consider the fact that the propaganda engine is constantly contradicting itself, and in-between the lines, we can find a certain amount of truth.

      If manufacturing is in "expansion", even minor expansion, then why are exports around the world in decline? If the Baltic Dry Index is dropping off the map because of a "supply glut of ships", then why are other demand indicators across the board also falling, and why are major shipping agencies talking about lack of demand? You see, this is what alternative analysts mean by the "real economy"; we are talking about the disconnect within the mainstream's own data, and we are attempting to discern what parts actually present a logical picture. The media would prefer that you look at the economy through a keyhole rather than through a pair of binoculars.

      Beyond this lay the true beneficiaries of public oblivion; international corporate moguls, banking financiers, and political despots. Corporations and governments only do two things relatively well - lying and stealing. One always enables the other.

      The establishment has done everything in its power to hide the most foundational of economic realities, namely the reality of dying demand. Why? Because the longer they can hide true demand, the more time they have to steal what little independent wealth remains within the system while positioning the populace for the next great con (the con of total globalization and centralization). I will cover the many advantages of an economic collapse for elites at the end of this series.

      For now I will only say that the program of manipulation we have seen since 2008 is clearly changing. The fact of catastrophic demand loss is becoming apparent. Such a loss only ever precedes a wider fiscal event. The BDI does not implode without a larger malfunction under the surface of the financial system. Oil and exports and manufacturing do not crumble without the weight of a greater disaster bearing down. These things do not take place in a vacuum. They are the irradiated flash preceding the deadly fallout of a financial atom bomb.

      Kirk2NCC1701

      Indeed.

      Brandon, for your assertion to be correct, the graph* in the ZH post below would have to fall off the cliff for the USD.

      In spite of all my concerns, etc, that's a sucker's bet I'm not taking.

      * http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/default/files/images/user3303/imageroot/2...

      BuddyEffed

      The landmass version of BDI should have something to do with rail cars.

      Any body got stats on how many are parked in sidings unused and what the trend is?

      runningman18

      Yeah, all the banksters including Greenspan and Rothschild are admitting that the S is about to HTF, trying to set themselves up as the ones who "predicted" the crash, but certainly all is well. Continue marching blindly into the slaughterhouse citizens while watching the Nasdaq hitting record highs, there is nothing to worry about...

      JuliaS

      Paraphrasing George Carlin: "The economy is not going anywhere. We are!"

      MSorciere

      Deflation and collapse of demand go hand-in-hand.

      This is the new global infectious disease. Thank you Central Bankers.

      I agree that the 'Elite' (read 'Pond Scum') are addicted to sucking the marrow from all bones and the propaganda machine will continue to point away from deflation and the vacuum where demand used to be.

      Then there's the influence of new technology - very deflationary. The price of all goods and services rapidly approaches zero which in turn drags quality down in general (explains the crap ads we are blocking).

      I'm a luddite.

      bentaxle

      MSM is really pushing the latest "whizz" that it's all the fault of "Falling Productivity!"

      Initially, (2007-2009) it was all the fault of borrower's over-indebtedness Then it was the (lack of) Growth i.e inflation across the board, (taxes, profits, wages). Now, because we can't seem to attain "escape velocity," (courtesy of QE crushing liquidity,) it's all the fault of lazy 'mericans, Europeans, Chinese etc and their lack of "Productivity!"

      Problem is sheeple understand "lack of productivity," more than they understand what's really happening, so being sheeple are accepting and ready to blame themselves.

      How best to explain to sheeple, lack of productivity is not the real problem?

      bid the soldier...

      The greatest element of what we call a 'financial bubble' is arguably 'inflated demand'. Unrealistic demand.

      Draw yourself a chart where the horizontal is time and the vertical is money. And where the horizontal and vertical meet on the left is January 1998 and the GDP for 1997.

      Now draw 2 lines from the bottom point on the left.

      The first one is the actual GDP from January 1998 to the beginning of the recession in December 2007.

      Then draw a fictional chart of the economy if THE SUBPRIME BUBBLE HAD BEEN NIPPED IN THE BUD BY GREENSPAN.

      There should be a large gap on the right verticle between the fictional GDP at the bottom and the actual GDP on top.

      If inflated demand is a component of financial bubbles, we can see how much demand is absent for the recovery by the central banks in their attempt to return the economy to its false state somewhere between December 2007 and the crash low of march 2009.

      The greater the bubble the greater the inflated demand and, all things being equal, the more time to return to normal growth.

      Leszek

      "The Baltic Dry Index has been a steadfast indicator of the REALeconomy for many years."

      Yep, it's true. Baltic Index worked as long, as number of ships was a function of real economy. But then China made political decision and build hundreds of ships more.

      Baltic Index is bad indicator nowadays. Better to use volume or value of transported goods.

      Niall Of The Nine Hostages

      Of course there's a lack of demand. Our masters refuse to pay their employees what they're worth. Extending the proles bank credit to keep them quiet and paper profits high worked for a while, but now the proles are up to their eyeballs.

      Remember social credit, anyone? If the money needed for the proles to buy back their product had been printed up and given to the proles outright instead of to the banks (or taxes greatly lowered and the balance made up with debt-free money), the crisis would be long over and most people much better off.

      Something for nothing? For some people it's actually a good idea---for example, couples who could more easily decide to have one of them stay home and raise the kids instead of wearing a name-tag all day and leaving the kids in a day care to catch every communicable disease going around---like TB, courtesy of the dirty Mexican kid.

      I note as well that banksters only object to "something for nothing" when they're not the beneficiaries.

      TeethVillage88s

      British Style Colonialism in the USA: particular examples are New York City & Ferguson Policing Practices and Predatory Business and Government Practices. Of course if you recruit Blacks to be the Police Force in many cities and teach them to target other Blacks and Hispanics this is Colonialism.

      We just have to look at Prison Rates, Drug Law Enforcement, Non-Violent Offenders that go to Prison, compare US Prison Rates with the Rest of the World, look at Prison Rates for the British Empire and that under Monarchs.

      ----------------------------------------
      -- British Colonialism Explains our US -
      ----------------------------------------

      - Tom Ashbrook is "On Point" on NPR Radio Show with some Great Guests and Phone-Ins discussing DOJ Report on Ferguson and Statistical Proof that Mayor, Police Chief, City Council Don't take Responsibility for Correcting the problems. Damning Report appears to show British Colonialism.

      • The city's practices are shaped by revenue rather than by public safety needs.
      • A singled missed, late or partial payment of a fine could mean jail time.
      • And if time is served, no credit for jail time is received and the length of time isn't even recorded by the court.

        http://onpoint.wbur.org/2015/03/05/ferguson-police-racial-bias-doj-micha...

        I wonder if William Banzai could make more about this.

      • I considered who could Run for US "Zionist in Chief" and we have lots of contenders like John McCain, Lindsay Graham, Kelly Ayotte, John Boehner, and leaders of our MIC and Think Tanks.

        But British Colonialism Explains our US Education System, Our Military Republic, the Silent Coup of our Government by MIC Paramilitaries, our Wars, our Protection of Germany & Israel, our Aggressive NATO, the Practices of Nebobs in Free (Slave) Trade, NIRP/ZIRL/LIRP, QE in place of Reforming US Finance and a good Jobs Environment, the Decline of the US Worker power to maintain and ascend to Middle Class, the Loss of Pensions and Retirement Funds, the Loss of Wealth in Home Equity, and the Trend of Elderly working at Fast Food Jobs and Walmart Jobs.

      • Look what we do to our Young Men by giving them imprisonment or fining them through the courts and causing them to lose jobs, lose savings, prevent them from getting jobs, prevent them from getting apartments, forcing them to be dependent on handouts, favors, and welfare
        - In an Expensive Capitalist Culture that Judges it's people on their ability to work, ability to get new jobs with higher compensation, we create "Social Tension", poor cooperation with .gov and Police, and Disenfranchise many while making them into a "poor" class of "Losers" and never do wells
      • Five Class System in USA:
        • Criminal Class,
        • Non-Voting Illegal Class,
        • Lower Class,
        • Middle Class, Upper Class of Diplomats, .gov Officials,
        • Super Wealthy, Royalty, and Bankers
      • US Constitution Suspended at least by 1981 when we created a Super Funding System for Military and MIC Expansion which at some point clearly includes the Wall Street and European Banking System, but which could go back to 1910

      ----------------------------------------
      -- British Colonialism Explains our US -
      ----------------------------------------

      Login or register to post comments

      hedgiex

      The financial economy has detached and gone on an orbit of its own. The brittle link btw the 2 arguably snapped by Umpires/Regulators becoming Players. Hence a Casino of Papers.

      The CAN (Debt) is not budging and has to be kicked by Gadzillon now.

      [Mar 11, 2015] The Gathering Storm

      Mar 1, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
      "I hope I am over wary; but if I am not, there is, even now, something of ill-omen, amongst us. I mean the increasing disregard for law which pervades the country; the growing disposition to substitute the wild and furious passions, in lieu of the sober judgment of Courts; and the worse than savage mobs, for the executive ministers of justice...

      At the close of that [revolutionary] struggle, nearly every adult male had been a participator in some of its scenes. The consequence was, that of those scenes, in the form of a husband, a father, a son or brother, a living history was to be found in every family-- a history bearing the indubitable testimonies of its own authenticity, in the limbs mangled, in the scars of wounds received, in the midst of the very scenes related-- a history, too, that could be read and understood alike by all, the wise and the ignorant, the learned and the unlearned.

      But those histories are gone. They can be read no more forever. They were a fortress of strength; but, what invading foeman could never do, the silent artillery of time has done; the leveling of its walls. They are gone. They were a forest of giant oaks; but the all-resistless hurricane has swept over them, and left only, here and there, a lonely trunk, despoiled of its verdure, shorn of its foliage; unshading and unshaded, to murmur in a few gentle breezes, and to combat with its mutilated limbs, a few more ruder storms, then to sink, and be no more.

      They were the pillars of the temple of liberty; and now, that they have crumbled away, that temple must fall, unless we, their descendants, supply their places with other pillars, hewn from the solid quarry of sober reason. Passion has helped us; but can do so no more. It will in future be our enemy. Reason, cold, calculating, unimpassioned reason, must furnish all the materials for our future support and defence.

      Let those materials be moulded into general intelligence, sound morality, and in particular, a reverence for the constitution and laws: and, that we improved to the last; that we remained free to the last; that we revered his name to the last; that, during his long sleep, we permitted no hostile foot to pass over or desecrate his resting place; shall be that which to learn the last trump shall awaken our Washington.

      Upon these let the proud fabric of freedom rest, as the rock of its basis; and as truly as has been said of the only greater institution, 'the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.'"

      Abraham Lincoln, Lyceum Address, January 27, 1838

      Gold and silver did very little today, despite the brisk sell off in equities. The denizens of the bucket shops were busy picking pockets in other markets.

      The global economy is in a very difficult circumstance, and the Fed is at the heart of it. I have no sympathy for them whatsoever, because they have placed themselves there, repeatedly, by their actions and omissions as manager of the world's reserve currency and key regulator of one of the world's most influential financial markets.

      Will the Fed raise rates as they have now led the world to expect, or will they do nothing, and essentially cut them by once again kicking those who believe them in the expectations?

      Most Americans do not understand what is going on in the rest of the world. It is not pretty. Europe is hanging by a much thinner thread than I think the plutocrats in Frankfurt and Brussels realize.

      The emerging markets are absorbing a great deal of inflation being generated and exported by the US. It would be extremely interesting to have access to a reliable estimate of Eurodollars. I think we are experiencing yet another Eurodollar short squeeze as the debts contracted for by overseas companies in dollars feel the stress of a disjointed global financial system.

      It took a little over twenty years for the unease that Lincoln describes above to explode upon the landscape in a bloody civil war. It might be worth reading his entire Lyceum speech. It surely does not describe what we might think of as domestic tranquility and pastoral bliss. The republic endured, but at a terrible cost.

      In our age reason and morality and honour have fallen to the despicable cheapness of 'greed is good' and the foul god of the market.

      Have a pleasant evening.

      [Mar 11, 2015] U.S. oil production still surging

      Mar 11, 2015 | econbrowser.com | 26 Replies

      The EIA is now reporting that U.S. field production of crude oil averaged almost 8.7 million barrels a day in 2014. That's up 1.2 mb/d from 2013, and is only 0.9 mb/d below the all-time U.S. peak in 1970.

      Production of oil by means of fracturing shale and other tight formations is the main reason. The EIA drilling productivity report estimates that production from the Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara– the main tight oil producing areas– was 1 mb/d higher in 2014 compared to the previous year. I used that estimate to update my graph of U.S. production by source. The tight oil story is pretty dramatic.

      U.S. field production of crude oil, by source, 1860-2014, in millions of barrels per day.  Updated from Hamilton (2014) based on data reported in [1], [2].

      U.S. field production of crude oil, by source, 1860-2014, in millions of barrels per day. Updated from Hamilton (2014) based on data reported in [1], [2].

      And it seems to be continuing. The February drilling report estimates production from those 4 regions will be almost 0.3 mb/d higher this month than it was in December. That's leading to record levels of U.S. inventories.

      Source: EIA.

      Source: EIA.

      How much longer will production keep going up? Much of the new production can't be profitable at current prices, and the number of drilling rigs operating in the tight oil areas has fallen 12% since September.

      Combined oil rig count for Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015.  Data source: EIA.

      Combined oil rig count for Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015. Data source: EIA.

      That presumably means less than a 12% reduction in production from new wells, for two reasons. First, it is the least promising new prospects that will be cut first. Second, there has been a learning curve improving productivity of new wells.

      Average oil production per rig (in barrels per day) across Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015.  Data source: EIA.

      Average oil production per rig (in barrels per day) across Permian, Eagle Ford, Bakken, and Niobrara, January 2007 to January 2015. Data source: EIA.

      Working against these is the fact that production from existing wells continues to decline. But at the moment, it seems further adjustments on the part of drillers will be necessary in order to bring the supply of oil in balance with the demand.

      This entry was posted on March 8, 2015 by James_Hamilton.

      Selected Skeptical Comments
      Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 10:25 am

      Because of declining production, Mexico no longer has sufficient domestic light, sweet crude oil production to meet the domestic demand from refineries designed to process light crude, so they are going to have to start importing light crude, although they remain a net oil exporter.

      In any case, the Pemex official quoted in the following article had an interesting comment about condensate (which is basically natural gasoline that is not of much use as feedstock for producing distillates like diesel fuel).

      As I have previously noted, in my opinion it is very likely that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) probably peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids–condensate and NGL's–have so far continued to increase.

      And when the EIA refers to "Crude Oil," they define it as actual Crude Oil + Condensate (C+C). Just as we don't know for sure what the Condensate to C+C ratio is for US production, we don't know what the ratio is for US C+C inventories, but in both cases, I suspect that the Condensate to C+C Ratio has increased substantially in recent years.

      In any case, US imports of crude oil remain relatively high, at about 44% of the C+C inputs into refineries. I suspect that refiners continue to import a lot of crude oil, because they have to, in order to get the product output that they need.

      Mexico's Pemex aims to start importing light crude this year (2014)

      http://uk.reuters.com/article/2014/08/28/mexico-pemex-idUKL1N0QX2TL20140828

      Aug 28 (Reuters) – Mexican state-owned oil company Pemex wants to launch light crude oil imports later this year, potentially reaching up to 70,000 barrels per day (bpd) and aimed at boosting refinery output, the head of its commercial arm said.

      The imports would mark an abrupt shift from a decades-old devotion to crude oil self-sufficiency in Mexico, long a major exporter to the United States. It also comes after a sweeping energy sector overhaul which seeks to reverse many years of declining output and export volumes.

      "Our objective is that (crude imports) will begin this year," said Jose Manuel Carrera, chief executive officer of PMI Comercio Internacional, Pemex's oil trading arm. His comments are the strongest signals to date on both the timing and potential volumes of light crude imports to Mexico. . . .

      While U.S. companies Pioneer Natural Resources and Enterprise Products Partners have secured permission to ship a type of ultralight oil known as condensate to foreign buyers, Carrera all but ruled out the possibility.

      "Condensate is not necessarily what Mexico needs. It needs crude," he said.

      Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 10:30 am

      A product yield by gravity chart follows, which explains why Pemex, and other refiners, need crude oil, not condensate. Note the substantial decline in distillate yield, just going from 39 API gravity to 42 API gravity (labeled as "Condensate" on the chart):

      http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Refineryyields_zps4ad928eb.png

      And a graph showing API gravity versus sulphur content for several grades of global crude oil (note that the chart scale tops out at 40 API gravity):

      http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/APGravityVsSulfurContentforCrudeOils_zpsc28e149c.gif

      Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 1:46 pm

      EIA Forecast for US Crude + Condensate Production by Type

      Note the forecast for the very modest increase in 40 API gravity and lower crude oil production, versus the total increase in US C+C production:

      http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/US%20Crude%20Oil%20Production%20by%20Type_zpsso7lpqgq.png

      2slugbaits March 8, 2015 at 11:12 am

      Second, there has been a learning curve improving productivity of new wells.

      The standard learning curve formulae and learning curve tables that I know and use typically show a very sharp increase initially and then the curves go very flat very quickly.

      rjs March 8, 2015 at 1:29 pm

      so, i've got a question…if oil inventories are at a record high 444.4 million barrels, up 22.2% from the same period a year ago, as your EIA graph shows, then why did we continue to import 7.4 million barrels a day during the last week of February, 89,000 barrels a day more than we imported during the previous week?

      Jeffrey J. Brown March 8, 2015 at 1:49 pm

      Perhaps because the bulk of the increase in US Crude + Condensate production and inventories consists of condensate?

      SPENCER March 9, 2015 at 6:09 am

      We are probably importing more oil because speculators are to bring home and selling stocks that had been held in tankers offshore as a bet on higher prices.

      They have to cut their loses at some point.

      rjs March 9, 2015 at 6:51 am

      i answered my own question above here: http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/03/09/1369526/-rig-counts-for-February-and-the-week-just-ended-and-what-are-we-gonna-do-with-all-this-oil
      in a word, contango

      Randall Parker March 8, 2015 at 10:11 pm

      Jeffrey J. Brown, Peak oil has been delayed by technology for extraction of tight oil. The future is uncertain. The doomsters of 10 years ago were excessively pessimist. Care to own up to excessive pessimism? I'm guilty.

      The $100 trillion dollar question: can tight gas extraction be made to work outside USA?

      Jeffrey J. Brown March 9, 2015 at 6:46 am

      To be clarify slightly, in my opinion tight/shale plays have delayed Peak Liquids, while the trillions of dollars spent on global upstream capex since 2005 have just kept us on an undulating plateau of actual crude oil production.

      Note that when we ask for the price of oil, we get the price of actual crude oil (45 and lower API gravity crude), but when we ask for the volume of oil, we get some combination of crude + condensate + NGL + biofuels.

      Following is a chart showing normalized values for global gas, global natural gas liquids (NGL) and global Crude + Condensate (with 2005 values = 100%), through the year 2012 (similar trends for 2013):

      http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Slide1_zps45f11d98.jpg

      The following chart, posted up the thread, really tells the tale. It shows the EIA's own projection for the composition of US C+C. As noted up the thread, the distillate yield from 40 and higher API gravity liquids drops tremendously, and what refineries need, in order to meet refined product demand, is mostly 40 and lower API gravity crude (as expressed by the Pemex CEO), while the vast majority of the increase in US liquids production is from 40 and higher API gravity liquids.

      http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/US%20Crude%20Oil%20Production%20by%20Type_zpsso7lpqgq.png

      Condensate & NGL are byproducts of natural gas production, and in my opinion the only reasonable interpretation of the available data is that actual global crude oil production (45 and lower API gravity crude oil) effectively peaked in 2005, while global natural gas production and associated liquids, condensate and NGL, have so far continued to increase.

      The end of civilization as we know it March 9, 2015 at 7:44 am

      @ Jeffrey J. Brown

      Great charts!

      They go a long way in explaining why, in many parts of the US, gasoline now sales for more than low-sulfur diesel. Fifteen years ago that never happened.

      I'm no refinery expert, but I believe many, if not most, of the myriad petroleum byproducts we depend upon also come from the lower-gravity crude oils. See, for example, A partial list of products made from Petroleum (144 of 6000 items). "One 42-gallon barrel of oil creates 19.4 gallons of gasoline," the heading reads. "The rest (over half) is used to make things like:"

      I would add a caveat to your discussion. The decision to send Mexico's low-gravity, high-sulfur Mayan crude to the Gulf Coast for refining also has to do with the high-sulfur content of the crude. It's not all about gravity. Like I said, I'm no refinery expert, but I remember reading that Mexico's current refinery infrastructure lacks the capability to refine high-sulfur crude oils. The Gulf Coast refineries, on the other hand, have a surfeit of this type of refining capability. I do not know how much of the decision to send much of Mexico's low-gravity, high-sulfur Mayan crude to the Gulf Coast has to do with gravity, how much has to do with sulfur content, and how much has to do with other factors, such as US geopolitical exigencies (as is the charge frequently leveled here in Mexico). However, these factors are worth looking into.

      Jeffrey J. Brown March 9, 2015 at 10:43 am

      To clarify slightly, my analysis suggests that gasoline may be in surplus*, relative to distillates like diesel, and the most recent data put the US average retail price for gasoline at $2.46 versus $2.93 for diesel. *Or to be more accurate, refiners don't need any more condensate input.

      I think that the following EIA chart, which shows that US 40+ API gravity C+C liquids increased from 1.4 mbpd in 2011 to an estimated 4.2 mbpd in 2015 (an increase of 2.8 mbpd), versus a projected increase of only about 0.7 mbpd in 40 and lower API gravity crude from 2011 to 2015, really tells the tale, especially when combined with the refinery yield chart that shows that Cat Feed + Distillates drops from about 52% at 39 API gravity to about 20% at 42 API gravity:

      http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/US%20Crude%20Oil%20Production%20by%20Type_zpsso7lpqgq.png

      http://i1095.photobucket.com/albums/i475/westexas/Refineryyields_zps4ad928eb.png

      40 API and lower crude accounted for 75% of US C+C production in 2011, but the projection was that it would only account for 54% of US C+C production in 2015.

      And as noted elsewhere, it took about half the global rig fleet (targeting oil and gas reservoirs) just to show a projected increase of about 0.5 mbpd in quality crude oil production (40 API gravity and lower) from 2011 to 2014.

      Jeffrey J. Brown March 9, 2015 at 8:25 am

      Re: The $100 trillion dollar question: can tight gas extraction be made to work outside USA?

      In areas where tight/shale plays may be commercially feasible outside the US and Canada, the key question is whether operators in a given play can drill and complete wells fast enough to offset the declines from existing wells and add new production. Early last year, US rigs accounted for about half of the total global rig count, which gives one an idea of the scale of the drilling and completion effort that it would take to replace the output from giant declining global oil and gas fields with the output from high decline rate tight/shale plays.

      It's interesting to look at some regional declines in US oil and gas production, e.g., marketed Louisiana natural gas production (the EIA doesn't have dry processed data by state).

      According to the EIA, the observed simple percentage decline in Louisiana's annual natural gas production from 2012 to 2013 was 20%. This would be the net change in production, after new wells were added. The gross decline rate (from existing wells in 2012) would be even higher. This puts a recent Citi Research estimate in perspective.

      Citi estimates that the gross underlying decline rate for overall US natural gas production is about 24%/year. This would be the estimated year over year decline in production if no new wells were put on line.

      Based on the Citi report, the US would have to replace 100% of current natural gas production in about four years, just to maintain current gas production for four years*.

      *Of course existing production would not decline by about 100% in four years at a 24%/year decline rate, but I am stipulating a "What if" steady state production scenario.

      The end of civilization as we know it March 9, 2015 at 7:04 am

      This is an extremely bad example of reporting. Does it get any worse than this?

      What it does is to take the official spin being evangelized by the EIA and other members of the "drill baby drill" crowd - folks like ExxonMobil's chief executive Rex Tillerson - and faithfully and uncritically parrots it.

      It's the same old boilerplate, for example, that we got a couple of days ago from the Financial Times. In its drive to perpetuate what Michael Klare calls the "Reign of Carbon," the Times sublimely reported that:

      Oil production in the Eagle Ford is not going to fall away any time soon: with the benchmark West Texas Intermediate at about $50 a barrel on Friday, it is profitable to keep pumping from most established wells. On Wednesday, Rex Tillerson, ExxonMobil's chief executive, said US shale production would be more resilient than many had expected.

      If the crude price rebounded to $80 or $100, the good times could return.

      Those not enamored of being part of Karl Rove's defactualized "create-your-own-reality" universe, however, might want to go over to the Texas Railroad Commission's Online Research Queries to see what is actually going on in the Eagle Ford shale play.

      Those who do so will make a shocking discovery: Crude oil and condensate production from the Eagle Ford peaked in August 2014 at 356 million barrels (total production for the entire month). By December 2014 it had fallen to 319 million barrels for the month. And this was well before the precipitous decline in the number of drilling rigs operating in the Eagle Ford. In the first week of September 2014, Baker Hughes reports that 202 drilling rigs were actively drilling in the Eagle Ford. That number by the first week of March 2015 had dropped to 149.

      For those skeptical of the future carbon Utopia being touted from inside the Beltway, being spun by the likes of the EIA and Rex Tillerson, IHS has done significant research, and offers a dissident point of view:

      IHS study suggests U.S. oil production to halt by mid-year

      The end of civilization as we know it March 10, 2015 at 9:14 am

      That should read:

      Crude oil and condensate production from the Eagle Ford peaked in August 2014 at 356 35.6 million barrels (total production for the entire month). By December 2014 it had fallen to 319 31.9 million barrels for the month.

      AS March 9, 2015 at 9:12 am

      The End
      Could you repeat your comments is a more succinct way (bullet points?) perhaps without sarcasm. If readers are busy, it is difficult to determine your point without reading all the citations. I am interested in what you have to say, but find it difficult to follow your thread without a lot of clicking.

      The end of civilization as we know it March 9, 2015 at 12:00 pm

      @ AS

      Well I'm not sure that the complexity of the human condition or the universe can be reduced to bullet points. However, I'll give it my best shot:

      • The need to slay the energy vampire (and Russia, Venezuela and Iran at the same time) for fun and profit is great.
      • The US right-wingers have their preferred silver bullet to slay the energy vampire: the US's fabled and highly touted shale gas and oil resource plays. (US left-wingers also have their preferred silver bullet to slay the energy vampire - the envisioned future Green energy Utopia - but that is a topic for a different discussion.)
      • Because the need to slay the energy vampire is so great, there's a lot of lying and wishful thinking going on when it comes to shale gas and oil.
      • As it turns out, the right-winger's silver bullet is a blank. It is little more than a flash in the pan.
      • The Barnett Shale play was the first major US shale play.
      • In 2013, the world was shocked when the Bureau of Economic Geology at the University of Texas concluded that the average EUR from the 16,000 wells in the Barnett Shale would be only 1.44 billion cubic feet.
      • This was a time when industry, and those advocating for US full-spectrum dominance, were still touting average EURs from wells in the Barnett at between 2 and 3 bcf per well.
      • When the University of Texas released its study in February 2013, many felt that even it was too optimistic. Jim Fuquay, for instance, asked in the Fort Worth Star-Telegram, "But what about producers' estimates of 2 or even 3 bcf?"
      • Fuquay pointed out that at that time, even though many of the Barnett shale wells had already been producing for years, "Only 512 wells in the Barnett Shale, or less than 3 percent, have produced 2 bcf in their lives." He added that "A mere 70 wells, less than 1 percent, have hit 3 bcf or more."
      • As it turns out, the University of Texas study was too optimistic. If one takes a pen and traces actual production from the Barnett Shale for the past four years over the graph of the study's production forecast, what we see is that production for a couple of years exceeded the forecast, but then production went into a steep nosedive and has declined much more rapidly than the researchers had predicted.
      • Average EUR from a Barnett Shale well now looks to be well below 1 bcf, or a half, a third or even less of what producers had hyped.
      • There is a long history of distortions and exaggerations, which find fertile ground with true believers in American exceptionalism and full-spectrum dominance, being perpetrated by shale oil and gas producers.
      • There exists considerable evidence which suggests that these distortions and exaggerations have not stopped, and that they continue unabated to this very day.
      • As I said, the need to believe in a silver bullet to slay the energy vampire, despite all factual evidence to the contrary, is great.
      AS March 9, 2015 at 12:39 pm

      The End

      Thanks for your comments. If I understand you correctly you agree with Jeffrey Brown and I think Professor Hamilton that we are past peak oil and that world oil harvesting is in decline, since the harvesting of tight oil is not going to rescue an energy hungry world. What now then for energy sources?

      Nick G March 10, 2015 at 10:52 am

      Well, personal transportation accounts for the majority of oil consumption.

      Personal transportation is easily done with EVs – a Chevy Volt costs less to own and operate than the average US passenger vehicle, and gets 200MPG. A Nissan Leaf is the lowest cost vehicle on the road.

      EVs can be ramped up pretty quickly – They're 3-4% of sales right now (including hybrids). Production volume could be doubled essentially overnight, and doubled every two years thereafter. In 8 years you could be at 80% of new vehicles, and in another 5 years they'd account for 50% of vehicle miles driven. In another 6 years they'd account for 75% (vehicles less than 6 years old account for 50% of VMT). Ethanol accounts for about 10% of passenger transportation fuel, so a fleet of Chevy Volts could be powered with no oil at all.

      There's a pretty straightforward path forward, if we needed a short term fix to get us through a period of fast depletion, or another oil shock while we were transitioning to EVs. The US could reduce passenger fuel consumption by 50% essentially overnight by raising the average passengers per vehicle from 1.2 to 2.4. Look at Uber, look at smartphones for connectin with people. There are very, very few destinations in the US that no one else is going to. On almost any road, look around: there are other people on the road, going in the same direction.

      With an ad hoc smartphone based system, you could find someone going in your direction almost anywhere. And, even with old-fashioned employer-based systems, about 10% of Americans carpool to work right now.

      Carpooling – the horror.

      Mason Inman March 9, 2015 at 4:42 pm

      Dr. Hamilton-I was curious where you got the data points for offshore oil production statistics during the early years (~1950 to 1980).

      The EIA pages that are cited as the sources of the data appear to only have data separated into on-shore and off-shore going back to 1981. Elsewhere, I've seen EIA data showing this split, going back to 1970, but not any earlier than that.

      James_Hamilton Post author March 9, 2015 at 7:05 pm

      Mason Inman: See Annual Energy Review, Table 5.2.

      Mason Inman March 10, 2015 at 1:27 pm

      Thanks so much! I hadn't seen that data set before.

      Steven Kopits March 10, 2015 at 3:16 pm

      Are we surprised there's corruption and incompetence?

      http://money.cnn.com/2015/03/10/news/economy/world-leaders-salaries/index.html?iid=HP_LN

      Anonymous March 11, 2015 at 4:29 pm

      I wonder if it is possible to do an econometric analysis of fuel prices and actual consumption levels.

      We've seen very modest appreciation in fuel efficiency and less driving in the passenger transportation side considering the near tripling of real costs, i.e, how much households spend on gasoline as a percentage of their income.

      So, at what price point does elasticity of demand really kick in, and can we do any realistic quantitative projection, controlling for such factors as employment levels and necessity costs (those households who have no alternatives but to pay more – they can't don't have any substitutes in transit or can't afford to buy more efficient vehicles) .

      [Mar 07, 2015] Lithuania signs US deal to replace Russian gas

      What about the cost of those deliveries?

      Feb 28, 2015 | presstv.ir

      Lithuania said Saturday it had signed a trade agreement to buy liquified natural gas from the United States in a move aimed at reducing the EU Baltic state's heavy dependence on Russian gas deliveries.

      Under the deal with Houston-based Chenier Energy company, the first LNG fuel is expected to arrive in Lithuania as early as next year, state-owned company Litgas said in a statement.

      "This agreement entered into with Cheniere ... will provide us access to the prolific US natural gas market," Litgas General Manager Dominykas Tuckus said.

      Lithuania's first floating LNG terminal started commercial activity in January, becoming the first such facility to sever Moscow's grip on gas deliveries to the Baltic states.

      The nation of three million will initially import 0.54 billion cubic meters of gas from Statoil in 2015, covering about one-fifth of its demand.

      The first US LNG export terminal is expected to starts its operations later this year.

      The Baltic states' reliance on Russia for gas is a legacy of its five decades of Soviet rule, which ended in 1991.

      Members of the EU and NATO since 20014, Lithuania and fellow Baltic states Latvia and Estonia are concerned about Russia's actions in Ukraine and fear that Moscow could attempt to destabilize its Soviet-era Baltic backyard.

      "LNG exports by the US may weaken the position of Russia which uses its energy resources as an energy weapon to blackmail countries dependent on Russian gas," Lithuania's Energy Minister Rokas Masiulis said this week.

      [Feb 28, 2015] Putin threatens to cut gas to Ukraine as showdowns shift to economy

      Feb 25, 2015 | The Washington Post

      ...Putin's warning raised new troubles for Ukraine's economy, which is on the verge of collapse. Among the problems: dangerously low reserves of foreign currency needed to pay for the critical natural gas supplies.

      Putin also said that any cutoff could also hit Europe, raising the prospect that the continent could again face shortages with warmer weather still months away.

      Ukraine is a vital throughway for Russian gas deliveries to Western Europe. Russia has in the past cut off gas to nations with which it was having geopolitical disputes, although it has always denied using energy as a weapon.

      The tough line by Russia underscores its growing tensions with the West during the nearly 11-month uprising in eastern Ukraine by pro-Moscow rebels.

      Ukraine's Western-backed government and its allies claim Russia has sent troops and weapons to aid the separatists in Europe's bloodiest conflict since the Balkan wars of the 1990s.

      Russia strongly denies the charges but has been a key political voice for the rebels - with significant influence over their adherence to a cease-fire pact reached earlier this month.

      "We hope that things won't get as far as these extreme measures and that the gas supply won't be interrupted," Putin said Wednesday. "But this doesn't depend on us alone. It depends on the financial discipline of our Ukrainian partners."

      "Naturally this might create a certain threat for gas transit to Europe," he added.

      The energy dispute stems in part from gas supplies to territories of eastern Ukraine held by pro-Russian rebels.

      Rebel leaders say that they have been cut off by Kiev, although Ukrainian government authorities deny it. Russia, in turn, has started to deliver energy directly to the breakaway territories, and it is charging Ukraine for the service.

      The cutoff of gas to eastern Ukraine, Putin said, "smells of genocide" given the bleak conditions there.

      Russia says that Ukraine has paid for only three to four more days of delivery.

      The new tussling over gas came on the first day in several weeks in which no Ukrainian soldiers were killed on the front lines, a military spokesman said. Rebel leaders also said that the conflict had largely quieted.

      Both sides agreed to a cease-fire starting Feb. 15, but in the days that followed, fighting grew fiercer near the crucial Ukrainian-held railway hub of Debaltseve. Kiev surrendered the town last week in a chaotic retreat.

      Nearly 5,800 people have died in the fighting, according to U.N. estimates, and more than 1 million people have been displaced from their homes.

      As the violence has calmed, Ukraine's economic problems have worsened.

      Ukraine's currency has been shedding value against the dollar, and policymakers in recent days have imposed strict limits on foreign currency transactions in the hopes of stanching the losses. A weakened currency makes everything from energy to weapons to food more expensive for the Ukrainian government and its citizens.

      The currency has lost more than 40 percent of its value this month alone.

      Ukrainian policymakers say they need up to $40 billion in assistance. And although Western nations have promised aid, it has been slow in coming, a stark signal to Ukraine that it may be largely on its own against its far more powerful neighbor.

      Ukrainian Finance Minister Natalie Jaresko said Wednesday that the heads of the International Monetary Fund would meet March 11 to decide whether to approve new loans to the troubled country. But that suggests Ukraine will be left to scrape by until then, and possibly longer.

      Russia has sought to exploit splits in the Western response to the conflict, and on Wednesday Putin met in Moscow with Cypriot President Nicos Anastasiades to sign cooperation agreements that again highlighted European disunity.

      Cyprus, an European Union member, has long been a Russian banking haven, and it took Russian financial support during its 2013 financial crisis. Anastasiades has opposed further E.U. sanctions against Russia even as others in Europe are raising the prospect of more.

      The Russian and Cypriot foreign ministers on Wednesday signed an agreement to allow Russian naval ships to dock at Cypriot ports. The deal was a stark sign of the differences of opinion in Europe about how to handle Russia, since other Western nations have boycotted any military cooperation with Russia

      ... ... ...

      Michael Birnbaum is The Post's Moscow bureau chief. He previously served as the Berlin correspondent and an education reporter.

      [Feb 27, 2015] The EU's plan for an energy union would call Vladimir Putin's bluff by Natalie Nougayrède

      Neocon cause is lost cause. No amount of propaganda can change this fact. This pressitute sings Anglo-American official tune with a little bit too much zeal... Even for Guardian pressitute... From comments: "A military empire (US + EU + NATO) with an hegemonic agenda which conquers territories either peacefully (the 28 EU countries) or violently when there is resistance by destabilization leading to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Mali, Central Africa, Palestine and now Ukraine) or overthrow elected governments (Ukraine, Latin America), or both in total disregard of international law. "
      Feb 27, 2015 | theguardian.com

      ... ... ...

      It's easy to understand why the proponents of an EU energy union would use slightly grandiose language to sell their ideas. They have cast this plan as the "most ambitious European energy project since the Coal and Steel Community" of the 1950s. After all, energy solidarity is what Europe was all about at the start. Having France and Germany share their coal and steel was seen, in the words of Robert Schuman, one of the founders of the European project, as the best way to "make war not only unthinkable but materially impossible". Peace and prosperity were to flow from regional integration.

      Last year, war broke out in the country (Ukraine) through which most of Russia's energy exports transit on their way to many of our homes. A key feature of Putin's Ukraine strategy has been to make sure this country of transit would never quite escape Moscow's domination – and that Gazprom would never lose the possibility of directly controlling Ukraine's gas pipelines to Europe.

      The Brussels commission is right to push for a new union. Energy should be, along with freedom of movement for people, goods and services, a key dimension of the EU. It would help in dealing with Russia's behaviour as well as in tackling climate change. It is of huge strategic importance. Yet it has not happened – so far – because it is so difficult to build politically, and it will be expensive.

      Energy is run nationally – not at EU level – at present. Key countries, especially the UK, France and Germany, have their own views on how energy policy should be run, and they are all different. The UK has a deregulated market, many private players, and no dependency on Gazprom. France is highly centralised, with a handful of , state-controlled big players and 75% of electricity generated by nuclear power (which is anathema to the Germans). Germany dislikes nuclear energy and wants to get rid of it, preferring to burn coal if they run out of gas or renewables. And they have had historically good relations with Gazprom. Poland burns a lot of coal (it prefers that to Russian gas), but Poles also want to look for shale gas. They don't worry that much about greenhouse gases. The list goes on.

      There is a disorderly patchwork of energy policies across Europe. But questions that have been important for years need to be re-addressed. It is too late to settle scores over who wrecked Europe's previous chances of setting up a common energy policy. But Germany does have a special responsibility here. Its large and powerful energy companies, E.ON and RWE, were the first in the early 2000s to carve out long-term contracts with Gazprom without much consultation with European partners. Later, Germany unilaterally signed up to Russia's North Stream pipeline which the Baltic states and Poland could only perceive as an attempt to pressure them geopolitically.

      The new EU plan doesn't aim to dismantle such realities but is pragmatic enough to try to deal with some of Europe's obvious weaknesses. Because energy has been mostly a domestic issue there are very few, interconnecting pipelines and grids. The plan is to build more. This would allow compensation for energy cut offs – such as the ones that Russia created in 2006 and 2009, causing thousands of eastern European homes to be left without heating for weeks.

      Another idea is to diversify energy supplies by working on a southern gas corridor linking Europe to Turkey and Central Asia, or by setting up liquified natural gas hubs in northern Europe that could act as back-up in case of another gas crisis with Russia.

      The complexities are numerous. Some energy business insiders point out that negotiating with a Central Asian country such as Turkmenistan is like landing on another planet. One told me about a meeting with 30 Turkmen government officials sitting immobile behind long tables in the Hall of the Peoples of Turkmenistan's capital, who didn't say a word but just stared. Turkmenistan is a big gas producer whose operatives have been known to sell the same quantity of gas several times over to various buyers (Russians, Chinese, etc).

      ... ... ...

      Bosula -> Fencewalker , 27 Feb 2015 21:39

      How am I an obvious Putinbot because I'm critical of neo cons and journalists who trot out one article after another on the same themes? Follow what this smiley faced right winger writes and you'll see.

      These journalists should be criticised and that is the purpose of free speech and posting on this site.

      Just because you disagree with my posts doesn't make me a Putin bot.

      My family connections are with Ukraine - not Russia.

      irishmand -> JamesPl , 27 Feb 2015 21:31

      "I can't blame you for demanding Putin that pays you in a hard currency! Thanks to him, a rouble isn't worth using as toilet-paper, now.
      A user name 'Irishmand' who only comments on Russian issues and always with a pro-Kremlin view - you know that Astroturf always looks fake, right?"
      1. I am in Canada. Hence, Canadian Dollars.
      2. Read my profile. It explains a lot.
      3. Yes, I love Russia and I like Putin. What is wrong with it? I see the western media lies. Your media became a shame of this "free democratic" society.

      sparrow10 -> joem , 27 Feb 2015 20:36

      I also think the US is desperately trying to 'take out' sources of energy not under their control: for instance Russia and Venezuela.

      We don't have sanctions on Russia because of trouble with Russia, we have trouble with Russia in order to have sanctions. Who do the sanctions hurt? Russia and the EU. Who do sanctions help and not hurt? The US. Cui Bono.

      I see Joem, talking to yourself, is that because no-one else will listen.

      Paul Greenwood , 27 Feb 2015 20:31

      Britain should pay for Ukraine's gas by imposing VAT on newspapers. It seems unfair that Naftogaz should have to pay for gas when it is a natural resource. Britain gets gas free from Qatar shipped in charity tankers so people in Britain do not have energy costs, it is only fair that the EU guarantee free gas EU-wide and that energy be a free good in Greece as well as Britain.

      Bosula jezzam, 27 Feb 2015 19:00

      The US has no issues talking with many right wing undemocratic regimes. I don't follow your point.

      Since WW2 the US have meddled in, waged war against or directly overturned popular and democratically elected countries in 69 UN member nations.

      Bosula -> omasta, 27 Feb 2015 18:49

      I've attending many Holodomor commemorations, but why I stopped going was that many other Ukrainians did not like hearing that millions of other Soviet citizens from across the Union were also starved and sent to Siberia. At this time a few million Russians also starved. With a Ukrainian family I agree the Ukrainians were affected the most, but you should recognise the millions of other Soviets including Russian people who also starved. The problem is that acknowledging Stalin's plans were not just against Ukraine weakens some of the propaganda that has kept into Holodomor.

      Another point - not sure how this is relevant to greed and corruption in Ukraine by the Oligarchs, stealing Russian gas and not paying bills?

      irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 18:37

      What do YOU know about Chechnya, my little far right ultra-nationalist buddy?
      Also, why do you pretend to be Irish?


      I was born in Russia lived there until 2004. I lived in Moscow when Chechens were blowing up residential buildings, buses and subway stations there. I lived in Moscow when Nordost happened. My farther was a high rank police officer, I also worked in the force myself. I worked in the office in Moscow and when Chechens didn't like something in the contract two Mercedeses full of Chechens with AK's came to the office. Chechen criminal group is one of the strongest in Moscow.
      I know people who went to that war. It was a war, yes. It was horrible, yes. This war was going on for 300 years, with more or less intensity.

      Bosula , 27 Feb 2015 18:29

      Why does this neo con reporter not raise any questions about our Saudi oil friends and their support for Islamic extremism not to mention involvement in 9/11?

      It is a pity is that the US State Department will give her another briefing this week and then we will receive another of her anti Russian sermons.

      Any bets on her next topic?

      Perhaps a critique of the EU for its diplomatic focus on East Ukraine rather than taking a hardline arming Kiev to the hilt, even sending in NATO troops.

      Maybe her briefing by the State Department is still to blacken, demonise and soften up the public about everything Russia being awful and a threat.

      irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 18:25

      Also, classy display of chauvinistic nationalism just to prove how "not a fascist" you are.
      Heads up, your lot have shot Nemtsov, in a typically cowardly dick move.

      1. I don't anything chauvinistic nationalism in what I said
      2. There is a principal in Russia: when you speak about a dead person you either say goods things or nothing. I don't think Putin decided to eliminate Nemtsov, he was not a threat to him. It might have been a business issue.

      irishmand -> Polvilho , 27 Feb 2015 18:22

      No you didn't, unless you're over 80.
      Also, why are you pretending to be Irish?

      1. My grandfather died in the war.
      2. I am not, please see my profile. It is just a nickname. I love Cranberries.

      irishmand -> LinneaBorealis, 27 Feb 2015 18:19

      It is a geographic fact that Russia EU/Europe a neighbours but you are totally deluded if you believe EU wants to be partners with a Russia that throws its military power about, bullies and threatens, annexes parts of a neighbouring country. Can't you see what damage Russia has done to itself bringing war and distruction to Ukraine? EU wants to co-operate as equal partners, not being bossed about, lied and dictated to.

      You put too much blame on Russia. Turn around and look at US/EU who installed a fascist regime in Kiev.

      Russia also wants to deal with the partners it can trust. But after what happened in Kiev, who will trust US/EU, only a madman. US/EU clearly demonstrated that the only way they deal with anybody is everybody has to accept US/EU's point of view, otherwise he is hitler, fascist and dictator. US/EU is also ready to lie through thier teeth to get what they want. Is it a democracy?

      Bosula -> Tikibarwarrior, 27 Feb 2015 18:17

      And he doesn't appear to have any links with Ukraine so my guess is he is working in some paid capacity for one of the US agencies that undertake this soft propaganda role ( there are many so it is not obvious which one it might be).

      irishmand -> Rudeboy1, 27 Feb 2015 18:10

      Putin can't afford to cut the gas off. Russia is completely reliant on gas exports. LNG shipping cannot replace pipelines efficiently. Any Russian moves to decrease reliance on supplying Europe dovetail roughly with how long Europe would take to be weaned off Russian gas.

      1. Russia can't afford not to supply gas.
      2. Europe cannot afford not to buy gas.
      3. US wants to sell shale gas in Europe.
      4. Hence, Maidan... US problem solved

      It would take Europe 3-5 years to find an alternative for Russian gas. It will allow Russia to build pipes and LNG terminals to re-direct gas flow to Asia. Everybody is happy.

      irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 18:03

      For those saying Russia has not used gas as a weapon :
      http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/europe/ukraine-crisis-putin-will-cut-gas-to-europe-unless-russia-is-paid-by-the-end-of-the-week-10071475.html

      Yes, the whole theory here is the western media are saying truth, when they are not. So, all you links are just reference to another lie.

      Tikibarwarrior -> maureen mcmillan , 27 Feb 2015 18:03

      I'm in the same boat as you Maureen. I voted for Obama twice but this past year I had my eyes opened. I never thought I would see what I have seen on video in regards to Ukraine.....and I never thought I'd see the US back murderous neo-Nazi fascists. It is has been a truly horrifying, eye opening year.

      mikedow -> ID5868758, 27 Feb 2015 18:01

      This operation has been underway for decades. It's probably been in the planning stage ever since Western Europe made the gas deal with Russia in the beginning. Carter and Reagan both didn't like it back then.

      irishmand -> Gangoffour, 27 Feb 2015 17:59

      The Indians are tiny customers in comparison to the EU. Regardless, there are closer suppliers who easily undercut Gazprom on price.

      1. 1.1B people it is definitely smaller market than EU one, no doubt.
      2. Who is closer and cheaper supplier for India?

      Polvilho -> irishmand, 27 Feb 2015 17:58

      What do YOU know about Chechnya, my little far right ultra-nationalist buddy?

      Also, why do you pretend to be Irish?

      irishmand -> jezzam, 27 Feb 2015 17:57

      Russia has lost the West as a market at a time when there is a glut of oil. It is now set to become China's cut-price gas station. I understand the deal with China was at such a low price that Russia will actually lose money on the deal. Another triumph for Putin's foreign policy. China will be a much worse master for Russia than the West would have been.

      1. Have you seen the contract between Russia and China.
      2. Europe partially lost Russian market. Few people in sane mind will trade with you and trust you after what US/EU did.

      irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:55

      My point is that number is not bigger then the 30% of europes gas meaning Russia will be out of pocket.

      You should try it, so far it was only empty words.

      Tikibarwarrior -> omasta, 27 Feb 2015 17:55

      New Ukraine, deserves the criticism. They are a failed fascist state (that is economically imploding due to mismangement and corruption) that has spent the last year bombing it's own citizens and killing over 10,000 of those citizens. Don't embarrass yourself.

      Chirographer -> ID5868758, 27 Feb 2015 17:53

      It's called a business decision. Based on a net profit. Even more than common sense, it's arithmetic.

      Common sense comes under attack when political calculations are put into the equation.

      irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:53

      all the pipes have the option to flow from other directions.

      1. What direction?
      2. How much the gas flown from another direction costs?
      3. If Russia is so bad, you should stop dealing with Russia completely. Close your borders to Russians and break all the existing ties.

      ID5868758 -> mikedow, 27 Feb 2015 17:50

      And the US Congress votes to give Obama another $500 million tax payer dollars to arm and train those "moderate rebels" he's been arming and raining since the beginning of the phony "civil war" in Syria.

      Tikibarwarrior -> psygone, 27 Feb 2015 17:50

      Psygone, why should you care if they break ties, you've campaigned against Russia at the Guardian for the entire past year?

      irishmand -> jezzam , 27 Feb 2015 17:49

      "You miss the point. The EU is not unwilling to buy oil from Russia because it is a fascist dictatorship, but because it is an unreliable supplier. Other suppliers do not threaten to cut off supplies to further foreign policy aims."
      1. Please provide the examples of Russia being "fascist dictatorship"
      2. Please provide examples of Russia being "an unreliable supplier".

      irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:47

      None of them have invaded their neighbors.

      No they didn't. They had and have corruption, civil wars and genocide, but it is irrelevant, because their governments are loyal to US/EU. So, they are goods guys.

      Don Scott, 27 Feb 2015 17:45

      Maybe the US should have thought about the consequences of undertaking a coup in Ukraine and installing an anti-Russian government there.

      irishmand -> dropthemchammer, 27 Feb 2015 17:43

      He will not be in power next year. there is a general feeling that he will not win elections. THus he is not a dictator.

      You are rrght, he is not, he is a brainless puppet. The puppeteers are not visible. In one year they will install another puppet. It is what's called "illusion of democracy". You an elect a president, but he or she is of no importance and in reality don't make any decisions.

      Polvilho -> irishmand, 27 Feb 2015 17:41

      Also, classy display of chauvinistic nationalism just to prove how "not a fascist" you are.

      Heads up, your lot have shot Nemtsov, in a typically cowardly dick move.

      irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 17:33

      "What, you fascists? I'm not surprised."
      Another snappy answer.
      We Russians, who standing united with other nations of USSR stopped german fascists and their ukrainian friends Bandera and Shukhevich. The Germans have learnt their lesson, but ukranians have not. Now ukranians fascists are back for another lesson, which is being taught to them as we speak.

      irishmand -> Alderbaran, 27 Feb 2015 17:26

      1. Exactly, this is what I was talking about: "Kievan Rus' begins with the rule (882–912) of Prince Oleg, who extended his control from Novgorod south along the Dnieper river valley..."

      2. I would be stupid to argue that there is full blown democracy in Russia. However, Inet is not filtered, there are some opposition newspapers, TV channels and radio stations. You can also install a satellite dish and watch whatever you want. The only thing they will come on you very hard and quickly for is if you start calling for the change of government by force. But nobody in Russia will support this topic seeing what happened to Ukraine after Maidan. Nobody wants Maidan in Russia.

      Also the meaning of the gay regulation law was twisted in the western media. The only thing it prohibits is promotion of gay values in public, which, I am sorry, I support.

      irishmand -> Polvilho, 27 Feb 2015 17:12

      Wow, snappy answer. You have no idea about manners, do you? Well, it is typical. It is how I see people of your kind.

      1) You first, twinkle.
      If it is my choice, then I say there is no funding and arming.

      2) Russian fascists. In Ukraine. Lots of them. Hard to miss. One was Prime Minsister of the DPR before Zakharchenko, who's attitude towards Jews suggests he is also a fascist, despite not being Russian.
      Again, no proof, empty words. No value.

      3) You're right, Russia is clearly not financing the FN and other fascist parties. They must just all support Putin because they see in him a man after their own heart.

      We love Putin. He finally slapped on the face people like you. You are pissed off, of course, but if you keep messing around, he will slap you more.

      Gil Matos-Sequí -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 09:21

      It is too early to say what the results of the suit will be. I think the suit has as much if not more to influence the power of the EU over it's constituent members in negotiating gas prices and contracts. Russia does not stand to loose much in negotiating one price for a huge block as opposed to smaller contracts. This will affect the price of course but it will most likely mean that smaller countries end up paying significantly more than they are paying. As far as the accusations about over pricing by Gazprom, it is ridiculous. The price of Gas is tied to the price of oil and each contract devises a formula relative to the specifics of the deal. Gazprom already envisages itself selling gas to Europe from gas hub via Turkey and Turkey already envisages itself a the major gas hub and transit point for Europe, wether it be gas from Russia, or Azerbaijan, or Turkmenistan, or wherever. This lawsuit will have very limited bearing on geopolitics or real-politik over which the EU frankly has little influence.

      RVictor -> caliento 27 Feb 2015 09:18

      former Chancellor Schroeder

      It is due to Schroeder Germany has now uninterpretable gas supply through the Nord Stream.

      RVictor -> elti97 27 Feb 2015 09:16

      Solar energy, for example, already accounts for 6% of German electricity

      Wow! 6%! Amazing! Especially in winter time on north parts of Germany - solar energy will for sure cover heating needs!

      AtMyAge 27 Feb 2015 09:11

      A key feature of Putin's Ukraine strategy has been to make sure this country of transit would never quite escape Moscow's domination – and that Gazprom would never lose the possibility of directly controlling Ukraine's gas pipelines to Europe.

      OH come on! This is a key feature of the EU's policy - to force Russia to transit gas across Ukraine in order to force Russia to supply Ukraine at below market rates or face losing the EU market.

      Russia has been doing EVERYTHING possible to bypass Ukraine and supply Europe by other routes - but the EU keeps blocking it. Russia fires up the south stream pipeline project and Brussels bullies Bulgaria to stop work on, so Russia announces an alternative route via Turkey, but again the EU refuses to commit to making the connections.

      In short, the EU is using energy policy to attempt to bully Russia - not the other way around.

      Asking to be paid for supplying gas is NOT bullying nor using energy as a weapon. Its called business. When you go to work, you expect to be paid at the end of the week/month the salary that you were promised not insulted and accused of bullying when the money you are owed is not paid and you are reluctant to continue to work for nothing...

      Simon311 -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 08:58

      "It's strategically important to see Gazprom lose its market share in the world's richest and largest trading bloc."

      Is it? Does it make strategic sense to mix economics for a recovering economy with power politics?

      Does it make strategic sense to provoke a nuclear power?

      Tikibarwarrior -> Jeremn 27 Feb 2015 08:55

      The EU is in the process of falling apart due to the misguided policies implemented in Ukraine. This article is past tense. It may have made sense previously but the Greeks are on the edge of leaving due to the huge austerity/ECB rip offs. What people need to understand is that Russia isn't the enemy of the European people. The real problem in Europe is the increasing poverty and growth of right wing extremism/neo-nazism due to crippling austerity policies conducted by the ECB/IMF/EU vassal leaders. The goal for the 1% has been to keep the publics eye on the left hand while it moves the money into their right hands.

      Like the US bailout of 2007, the take a massive chunk of change from 'we the people', they then distribute that money to the banks and the 1%ers who run those banks. They loan it out and put countries into debt slavery. I recommend watching the film "The International" (with Clive Barker) to fully understand how this is done. It is a form of money laundering. The money doesn't trickle down after they create a bailout like the recent EU 500 billion euro self award. The debt is passed on to the public who pay it back ten fold over time. The countries, like Greece, are then trapped and held in debt slavery to the banker 1%. The EU vassals continue the cycle and send in their resource/utility extractors to buy up the assets of the countries, such as what is now going on in Ukraine.

      The US destabilized it, then the EU/IMF give it massive loans it can't pay back, then the big corps/hedge funds come in and buy up all the assets/utilities/farming and fracking land. After the rape is complete the people are stuck in poverty, such as Greece is.

      Look at Spain. Look at the UK these days. Germany has 12% of the population in poverty, but you will never hear this from the compliant, vassal media whose job it is to keep the people in the dark and never address the real root cause of the problem, the greedy 1% who rule us all.

      For the EU, Russia is the least of your worries. Energy independence isn't the problem, sovereign nations and human independence is. The EU needs to break apart so people can be free again.

      Simon311 -> psygone 27 Feb 2015 08:55

      What a ridiculous remark. The last thing the EU needs is a trade war and a hostile stand off with Russia,

      SHappens -> Havingalavrov 27 Feb 2015 08:40

      There is a quiz about Russia on this site you should take.

      I suppose we could say pretty much the same about the EU:

      A single party (bipartisanship hides identical policies) that monopolizes power and denies opponents access to the power.

      Leadership either unelected or elected in "rigged" elections, all deeply discredited in the eyes of people who no longer have any confidence in them as they are almost all at worst crooks or puppets, and, at best, incompetent and uneducated technocrats who have lost touch with reality.

      Elected leaders (parliamentarians), co-opted (EU Commission) appointed (senior) and selected (CAC 40) all from the same "aristocracy" which repeats itself and that has nothing to envy to the one that had generated the Party in the USSR.

      So unpopular leaders that they can not meet the true population. All press conferences and all "errands" of the rulers out of their bunkered palaces are all staged with "extras and accessories" mounted with the complicity of subsidized state media.

      Paralysis of 'governance', incapable of reforming itself as it is mired in its heaviness, its incompetence, corruption, immorality and privileges apparently attempting to binge themselves as much as possible before everything collapses.

      More separation of powers, but almost complete collusion between the executive, legislative, judicial, media, financial and thus criminalization and corruption powers, all accompanied by impunity.

      A military empire (US + EU + NATO) with an hegemonic agenda which conquers territories either peacefully (the 28 EU countries) or violently when there is resistance by destabilization leading to war (Yugoslavia, Libya, Syria, Mali, Central Africa, Palestine and now Ukraine) or overthrow elected governments (Ukraine, Latin America), or both in total disregard of international law.

      Media propaganda lying as they breathe and producing "evidence" sometimes even gross, to deceive and manipulate the public. With less and less success, which promises the collapse of the system.

      The demonization of past victims (Serbs, Libyans, Afghans, Iraqis, etc.), present (Syrians, Ukrainians Autonomist, Palestinians, etc.) and desired (Russians).

      Laws that dictate the story (Law memorial) with imprisonment to those who question the "official version." Liberal laws and laws drafts to prohibit meetings or shows that displease the "device" as well as control the Internet.

      The witch hunt of dissidents, even the most peaceful, who are sometimes forced to flee Russia for having told the truth; this country has in fact become a heaven for dissidents of our system as we welcome former dissidents of the USSR.

      Hatred of religion: slander and defamation attacks of all kinds against two religions in particular, Catholic and Muslim, seen as hotbeds of resistance to the proposed overhaul of liberal-libertarian society pursued by the regime.

      The militarization of riot police used to repress peaceful demonstrations and dissenting, discredit the protesters by provocation under false flags.

      The attack by the army of its own people (Ukraine for example).

      Laxity towards real criminals protected by a corrupt "elite" and towards troublemakers.

      Introduction of a "police of thought" (the equivalent of Soviet political commissioners) to give the power and the means to various groups and pro-system associations to denounce, discredit, sue and even physically attack dissidents.

      Mass spying (NSA-Stasi) and encouraging denunciation.

      And unlike the USSR this time, many things were completely free (health, culture, education, etc.) and where there was no unemployment, destruction of social rights and workers' rights in Europe.

      Back in the USSR.

      [Feb 26, 2015] US Crude Oil Supply Landscape In Four Charts

      Feb 26, 2015 | Jesse's Café Américain
      "Total U.S. liquid fuels consumption rose by an estimated 60,000 bbl/d (0.3%) in 2014. Motor gasoline consumption increased by 80,000 bbl/d (0.8%) reflecting an increase in highway travel that was partially offset by fleetwide increases in fuel efficiency...

      In 2015, total liquid fuels consumption is forecast to grow by 290,000 bbl/d (1.5%). Lower pump prices contribute to an 80,000-bbl/d increase (0.9%) in motor gasoline consumption."

      EIA, Short Term Energy Outlook, 10 February 2015

      The charts below are from today's This Week in Petroleum Report from the US EIA.

      [Feb 26, 2015] Eric Sprott Was Right - Oil Slump Says 'No' to Recovery Story (Sprott's Thoughts)

      Feb 26, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Submitted by Sprott Money on 02/26/2015 16:01 -0500

      Henry Bonner - Sprott Global Resources

      Gas prices are some of the highest in the country in San Diego, California, and it still cost me only $2.96 a gallon to fill up my tank last week.

      There's an excess of oil supplies, according to analysts. You can see from the chart below that global oil production has been rising steadily over the last three years.

      Global Crude Production

      In our new report, we make the case that the oil decline is not merely a supply issue.

      Oil is cheap, but so are copper, uranium, iron ore – all the materials that are used in a growing economy. Increased production of goods and services tends to stimulate consumption of these raw materials.

      This recovery isn't causing an uptick in demand for these metals and energy sources. Hence, copper is near a four-and-a-half year low of $2.661 per pound. Uranium is at $39 per pound, down from $652 per pound in 2011. Iron ore for delivery in 2015 trades below $60 per tonne, down from over $180 per tonne in 2011.3

      Instead, we are seeing an uptick in the demand for US stocks, bonds, real-estate, and other assets whose values have been rising.

      US stocks have soared by around 100% since early 2011. Corporate buybacks and debt issuances have surged too. US corporations are piling on new debt and buying back their shares. In 2014, S&P 500 companies are estimated to have spent 95% of profits on buy-backs and investor payouts.4

      As you can see, stock buybacks have been on the rise since the crisis.

      Buy Backs

      These buybacks are in part fueled by historically low interest rates, allowing companies to borrow cheaply. Around $1.7 trillion in buybacks occurred from 2011 to 2014.5 New corporate debt has increased by around $1.4 trillion during that time – as you can see in the chart below.6

      Corporate Debt

      Sustained low interest rates have also boosted the bond market and helped the housing market where the availability of financing for purchases is crucial.

      US stocks, bonds, and other assets are getting a lift from low interest rates… We have even seen some jobs growth in the last year. This has fueled an optimistic 'recovery' story.

      A prevailing narrative is that the US economy is recovering, while other major consumers of raw materials like China and Europe are not. Thus commodities are cheap despite a recovery in the US.

      Proponents of this thesis look at higher assets prices brought on by ultra-low interest rates as signs of economic growth. Yet the low interest rates that are driving these price increases are symptoms of a tepid economy. Debt is cheap because investors expect weak inflation, or even deflation, and are rushing to safety.

      Eric Sprott wrote in his September note:

      While most have been conveniently blaming the tepid first quarter -2.9% GDP growth figure on the weather, we believe it is just another symptom of a much deeper malaise. […] The U.S. economy has been on life support, graciously provided by Central Planners.

      […] The bottom 40% of households still rely heavily on government assistance, have had stagnant incomes and have been faced with increasing inflation for 'non-discretionary' goods that constitute a very large share of their incomes.

      There clearly is no recovery…

      Cheaper oil prices don't just come 'out of the blue.' Other commodities used for raw materials, construction, and economic growth, have been languishing too. And real median incomes remain stagnant since the Great Recession.

      These are all signs that the recovery we are seeing is mainly asset inflation brought on by cheap debt, not economic growth.

      You can download our full analysis in our new report 'Oil and Gold: Where Do We Go from Here?' Click here.

      • 1, 2, 3 - Bloomberg
      • 4 - Bloomberg online: S&P 500 Companies Spend 95% of Profits on Buybacks, Payouts. October 06, 2014
      • 5 - S&P 500 Dow Jones Indices
      • 6- Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (US)

      Henry Bonner - Sprott Global Resources

      talks his book.

      Kayman

      Last summer and fall Sprott Resources dumped a few hundred million into oil E and P.

      Independence Drilling in Texas plucked $50-60 million from Sprott at $11/share- now down around $5-6/ share.

      Got to be a long term play.... yeah, right....

      Tall Tom

      You mean to tell me that Gas Prices are not $2.96 per Gallon in San Diego County, California, where I live?

      You mean to tell me that all of the data presented here is all fabricated and nothing about it is correct?

      That is what is so laughable about people as yourself.

      You claim that others are "talking their book" when it is obvious to the causual reader that you are just talking your own book.

      Yes you epitomize the psychological phenomena of transference. Wow.

      [Feb 23, 2015] Oil prices extend slide on high supplies

      London (AFP) - Oil prices slid on Monday, extending last week's sharp decline as the dollar strengthens on eurozone strains, and as record supplies in the United States add further downward pressure.

      US benchmark West Texas Intermediate (WTI) for delivery in April shed $1.71 to $49.11 a barrel compared with Friday's close.

      Brent North Sea crude for April lost $1.24 to stand at $59 a barrel in late London deals.

      WTI slumped 4.66 percent and Brent tumbled 2.1 percent during the week to last Friday.

      "Crude oil prices extended declines (Monday)... as investors remained cautious following the ongoing uncertainty in the eurozone, while the strong US dollar currently weighed on market sentiment," said Myrto Sokou, senior research analyst at Sucden brokers.

      "Crude oil inventories continue to remain fairly high, following sharp builds of crude oil stocks in the last few weeks. The continuous large increases of crude inventories verify a possible slowdown of US oil demand," she added.

      Globally, crude supplies are being boosted after oil fields in eastern Libya resumed pumping to the Hariga port after a pipeline was repaired, Bloomberg News reported.

      And Oman, the biggest Middle East producer outside the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries, plans to ramp up output to 980,000 barrels a day this year.

      Crude prices lost around 60 percent of their value between June and late January owing to an oversupply in world markets, a weak global economy and a strong dollar that made oil expensive to purchase for holders of rival currencies.

      The euro continued to be pressured by the dollar Monday despite eurozone ministers tentatively agreeing to extend Greece's bailout by four months.

      While oil prices have won support in recent weeks on a decline in operating US oil rigs and as energy giants cut investment, markets-watchers say volatility is likely to continue for some time.

      Daniel Ang, an investment analyst with Phillip Futures in Singapore, said a sustained rebound for oil prices was unlikely because of a global oversupply of the commodity, noting that US crude production has remained strong at above 9.2 million barrels per day.

      He said a strike in US oil refineries has led to an excess of crude in the American market as less of the product is being sent to the facilities for refining.

      Workers at three major US oil refineries operated with Royal Dutch Shell went on strike on Saturday in a dispute over safer working conditions, the United Steelworkers (USW) union said.

      About 1,350 employees in three refineries and chemical plants are affected by the latest strike action, which mirrored walkouts on other sites launched earlier this month.

      [Feb 22, 2015] Why oil prices keep falling - and throwing the world into turmoil by Brad Plumer

      Jan 23, 2015 | Vox
      Analysts often focus on a metric called the "breakeven price" for oil-drilling projects - the price of oil necessary for a project to produce reasonable returns. ScotiaBank has estimated breakeven prices for various shale and oil sands projects across North America:

      (ScotiaBank)

      US shale projects are especially vulnerable when oil dips below $60 per barrel. Fracking wells tend to deplete quickly - with output falling about 65 percent after the first year - so new wells have to be drilled constantly. So, when the price falls, many companies can respond quickly by scaling back on new drilling. Already, firms are pulling out of places like Texas' Permian Basin, and the number of US rigs has fallen 15 percent from December to January.

      But not everyone is leaving all at once: Some companies have sunk costs and need to keep drilling. Others may try to cut their costs and grit it out. It really varies from company to company. What's more, the situation is different up in Canada: oil sands projects have huge upfront costs, but once those are paid off, they can keep producing oil cheaply for many decades.

      That all makes it hard to predict how this all shakes out - or where global oil prices will bottom out. The US Energy Information Administration still expects that overall US oil production will grow another 700,000 barrels per day in 2015 - though that's slightly lower than the prediction when prices were high. We're about to see if that's right.

      ... ... ...

      Saudi Arabia: There's no question that Saudi Arabia, the world's second-largest crude producer (after Russia), will suffer financially from cheap oil. If oil stays at around $60 per barrel next year, the government will run a deficit equal to 14 percent of GDP.

      Oil-Drop Pain Spreads to Saudi Aramco by Summer Said & Benoît Faucon

      WSJ

      Aramco looks for cut costs, asking oil-services providers for deals; pushing for a phone-bill discount

      Saudi Arabia's refusal late last year to rein in oil production helped trigger the price crash that has hurt oil-producing countries and publicly listed energy companies alike. And now even the kingdom's own oil company is feeling the pain.

      [Feb 20, 2015] The U.S. Economy is Dead

      Has this enormous economic stimulus kick-started the U.S.'s zombie economy? Not at all. Indeed, the collapse in the U.S. retail sector has accelerated throughout this plunge in oil/gasoline prices. This should not be possible. Economic stimulus from lower prices (in any sector) is supposed to be automatic. What does it mean when an economy not only fails to respond to "automatic" stimulus, but continues to rapidly decompose? It means we are dealing with a deceased economy. This is a "surprise" to the irredeemable charlatans who have the audacity to call themselves economists, but it shouldn't have been. Not if any of them were paying attention. Not if any of them lived in the real world.
      Feb 20, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      For the past quarter century; the most effective "stimulus" for the U.S. economy has been a fall in gasoline prices. This is no great surprise, given that the United States had been the most gas-guzzling nation on the planet – and by a wide margin. But times have changed!

      After Barack Obama publicly admitted that the U.S. government had ruthlessly manipulated oil prices lower, as "part of its strategy" of economic terrorism against Russia; global oil prices have been cut in half. The only other time that oil prices have fallen so far or so fast in the last quarter century was the brief/temporary collapse in prices which accompanied the Crash of '08.

      Has this enormous economic stimulus kick-started the U.S.'s zombie economy? Not at all. Indeed, the collapse in the U.S. retail sector has accelerated throughout this plunge in oil/gasoline prices. This should not be possible. Economic stimulus from lower prices (in any sector) is supposed to be automatic.

      What does it mean when an economy not only fails to respond to "automatic" stimulus, but continues to rapidly decompose? It means we are dealing with a deceased economy. This is a "surprise" to the irredeemable charlatans who have the audacity to call themselves economists, but it shouldn't have been. Not if any of them were paying attention. Not if any of them lived in the real world.

      Back in the real world; evidence of the U.S.'s zombie economy is both overwhelming and abundant. It begins with 0% interest rates. As has frequently been noted in the past; 0% interest rates are the economic equivalent of a defibrillator. As with a defibrillator; it is the most-extreme form of stimulus known to us. As with a defibrillator; it is a "therapy" option which is so radical/reckless that it is only ever intended to be used as a last resort, to resuscitate a patient on Death's door.

      ... ... ...

      As we see; the U.S. "heartbeat" (i.e. the flow of money) has nearly stopped, having fallen further/lower than at any time in recorded history. What does it mean when money stops moving, in a "capitalist economy"? What does it mean when the money (i.e. blood) stops moving in the heart of the greatest Capitalist Empire the world has ever seen? R.I.P.

      But there is even further, equally overwhelming proof that this gas-guzzling, consumer economy is dead, and it comes from the gasoline consumption numbers, themselves. "Official" U.S. gasoline consumption has plummeted by nearly 75% from its absolute peak in July of 1998. More pertinently; the gasoline consumption numbers have plummeted by roughly 66% since the start of the U.S.'s (imaginary) "recovery".

      What does it mean when the gas-pumps stop being used in a gas-guzzling economy? It means the same thing as when the money stops moving in a capitalist economy, or when a "patient" fails to respond to a defibrillator. R.I.P.

      This brings us to the ghastly train-wreck known as "the U.S. retail sector", the cornerstone of this consumer economy. Regular readers are already familiar with the "Black Friday Shopping Massacre" in the 2014 U.S. holiday shopping season. Yet despite that horrific 20+% (year-over-year) collapse in U.S. holiday shopping; the "news" from the U.S. retail sector has gotten much, much worse since that initial plunge.

      It began with an equally large/ugly collapse in December retail sales. When adjusted for inflation, and expressed as an annualized number; the "0.9%" drop reported by the statistical liars of the U.S. government translates into a 25% plunge in December retail sales – even worse than the Black Friday collapse.

      It began with an equally large/ugly collapse in December retail sales. When adjusted for inflation, and expressed as an annualized number; the "0.9%" drop reported by the statistical liars of the U.S. government translates into a 25% plunge in December retail sales – even worse than the Black Friday collapse.

      Equally important, and as noted in a recent commentary; these horrific plunges in U.S. retail sales arecumulative. After retail sales collapsed at the end of November, it collapsed by an additional (annualized) 25% in December. And now, as we move to January and a new year; we see yet another, sickening plunge in U.S. retail sales – even as gasoline prices continue falling.

      The "advance estimate" of U.S. January retail sales reports another, enormous, cumulative drop. The "-0.8%" fantasy-number reported by the U.S. government translates into another, additional (annualized) collapse in excess of 20%.

      With U.S. gasoline prices now hovering just above $2/gallon; this represents roughly a $1.50/gallon plunge from average prices through most of 2014. In other words; (for the first time) Big Oil has chosen to pass along to consumers nearly the entire plunge in crude oil prices, in the form of lower gas prices. Yet despite this massive stimulus to the U.S. economy; the U.S.'s pauper consumers haven't even been able to maintain their level of spending.

      Unix

      The near-bankrupt consumers (in this near-bankrupt economy) don't have "more dollars" in their wallets thanks to the huge plunge in gasoline prices, they have simply been going further into debt at a slower rate. The only "benefit" the U.S. economy has received from (much) lower gas prices is that this corpse is decomposing at a slower rate than it would have, if the U.S. government had not manipulated oil prices lower.

      This is akin to the govt saying they have cut spending, LOL, what it really means they have cut the growth in spending only! they are STILL spending more than they take in...

      lies, damn lies and statistics my friends!

      LawsofPhysics

      Goldman Sachs finds Sprott's lack of faith disturbing...


      [Feb 16, 2015] Oil Prices May Reach $90-110 per Barrel in Long-Term Perspective – Rosneft

      Feb 16, 2015 | Sputnik International
      Rosneft CEO claims that global oil prices may reach $90 – 110 dollars per barrel in the long-term perspective if they fail to rebound to $60-80 per barrel in the nearest future and cause industry to mothball the existing production projects instead of opening new ones.

      MOSCOW (Sputnik) - Global oil prices may reach $90 – 110 dollars per barrel in the long-term perspective if they fail to rebound to $60-80 per barrel in the nearest future and cause industry to mothball the existing production projects instead of opening new ones, Russian oil giant Rosneft CEO Igor Sechin said.

      Western Anti-Russia Sanctions Threaten EU Energy Security – Rosneft CEO

      "Look at the market fundamentals and it seems prices should soon rebound to the $60 or $80 a barrel… But if markets are distorted, and the rebound takes longer than it should, many current production projects will be mothballed - and the price will eventually climb to $90 to $110 a barrel," Sechin wrote in an article published by Financial Times on Sunday.

      Sechin noted that the current oil prices do not reflect the market realities and due to the expensive extraction, the fair price for a gallon of oil should be standing between $60 and $100.

      Since June, 2014 the global oil prices have fallen by more than 50 percent due to the market oversupply.

      Earlier in February Bloomberg reported citing the oilfield services company Halliburton that the US oil industry is currently examining the opportunity of re-fracking some 50,000 existing oil wells "using techniques that didn't exist when they were first drilled."

      [Feb 11, 2015] The Problem Of Debt As We Reach Oil Limits Zero Hedge

      Many readers have asked me to explain debt. They also wonder, "Why can't we just cancel debt and start over?" if we are reaching oil limits, and these limits threaten to destabilize the system. To answer these questions, I need to talk about the subject of promises in general, not just what we would call debt.

      In some sense, debt and other promises are what hold together our networked economy. Debt and other promises allow division of labor, because each person can "pay" the others in the group for their labor with a promise of some sort, rather than with an immediate payment in goods. The existence of debt allows us to have many convenient forms of payment, such as dollar bills, credit cards, and checks. Indirectly, the many convenient forms of payment allow trade and even international trade.

      Each debt, and in fact each promise of any sort, involves two parties. From the point of view of one party, the commitment is to pay a certain amount (or certain amount plus interest). From the point of view of the other party, it is a future benefit–an amount available in a bank account, or a paycheck, or a commitment from a government to pay unemployment benefits. The two parties are in a sense bound together by these commitments, in a way similar to the way atoms are bound together into molecules. We can't get rid of debt without getting rid of the benefits that debt provides–something that is a huge problem.

      There has been much written about past debt bubbles and collapses. The situation we are facing today is different. In the past, the world economy was growing, even if a particular area was reaching limits, such as too much population relative to agricultural land. Even if a local area collapsed, the rest of the world could go on without them. Now, the world economy is much more networked, so a collapse in one area affects other areas as well. There is much more danger of a widespread collapse.

      Our economy is built on economic growth. If the amount of goods and services produced each year starts falling, then we have a huge problem. Repaying loans becomes much more difficult.

      zorba THE GREEK

      The problem with debt is that it has now become the #1 asset in the world.

      That is some crazy shit. Banks are concidered more solvent if they hold bonds (someone's debt)

      than if they hold gold. The mental patients have taken over the asylum.

      petkovplamen

      man, that libertarian BS get tiresome after a while....Dont you get tired reciting BS?

      An economy without dept and fake fiat is a real economy where there is no exploitation but the problem is the rich cannot exploit everyone else so of coruse that is not gonna happen.

      You libertarians are worse that Republicans,you live in a fantasy world.

      FAce facts:

      you beloved Ayan Rand was a lesbian psycho Jew who preached against "Socialism" but had no problem accepting Medicare and Social Security when she got old and sick. In one word: a total hypocrite.

      kaiserhoff

      I see no evidence that Gail is a libertarian.

      More a Doomer/Malthusian/Fatalist who denies all progress and that innovation is even possible.

      Like many others, she should get out and work in the real world for a while.

      Carl Spackler

      True. Gail is NOT a Libertarian. She is a member of the Idiot party.

      She does not understand economics or money or "debt." She does not understand accounting systems, either. But she has the nerve to prove the world that she is ignorant.

      In moderation, debt (a promise to do something in the future) is a good thing for promoting the velocity of money and, therefore, economic output.

      Debt facilitates exchange of goods and services, because barter is limited by physical, geographic, and other factors, and barter restricts output potential.

      However...Too much of anything is not a good thing, debt included!
      This us where we are today...over-promising what can realistically be delivered in the future.

      cigarEngineer

      "the new system will have to deal with having an ever-smaller amount of goods and services available for a fairly long transition time"

      I think this is false because technological progress is inherently deflationary and we can continually buy more with less in industries that are not regulated, like tech.

      "Because of this, the new system will have to be very different from the current one. Most promises will need to be of short duration. "

      I don't think that follows. Promise duration will not be affected; a debt default results in a private loss that may or may not be bailed out and turned into a public loss. However, it does nothing to change the system. People go bankrupt all the time, but they continue to function in the same system that existed previouslY.

      Low oil prices will do little to stimulate global growth, Moody's says

      Ratings agency says benefits of reduced energy costs will be offset by weakness in the eurozone and elsewhere

      ...in its global macro outlook report, Moody's left its estimates for growth among G20 countries at less than 3% – broadly unchanged from last year's rate and Moody's earlier 2015 forecast in November.

      ...Brent crude fell 90 cents to $55.53 on Wednesday morning. The price tumbled below $58 on Tuesday after the International Energy Agency said the US shale boom, which has increased the global supply of oil, would cause prices to settle well below levels of the past few years.

      [Feb 08, 2015] Hedge Funds Most Bearish on Crude in 4 Years After Rally Energy

      Bloomberg Business

      WTI advanced $6.82, or 15 percent, to $53.05 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange in the period covered by the CFTC report, the highest this year. The contract rose $1.21 to settle at $51.69 on Feb. 6. The rally began on Jan. 27.

      The CBOE Crude Oil Volatility Index, which measures price fluctuations using options on the U.S. Oil Fund, ended at 63.14 Feb. 5, the most since April 1, 2009.

      Baker Hughes Inc. said Friday that drillers idled rigs for a ninth week, cutting them by 83 to 1,140, the lowest since December 2011.

      ... ... ...

      The drop in rigs has yet to affect supplies. U.S. crude inventories expanded by 6.33 million barrels to 413.1 million in the week ended Jan. 30, the highest in weekly records compiled since 1982, Energy Information Administration data show. Crude output rose 27,000 barrels a day to 9.21 million a week earlier, the most in weekly estimates that started in 1983.

      The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries pumped 30.91 million barrels a day in January, exceeding its target of 30 million for an eighth straight month, a Bloomberg survey showed.

      Global supply will exceed demand by 2 million barrels a day in the first half of 2015, Iranian Oil Minister Bijan Namdar Zanganeh said in an interview on state TV Feb. 4.

      ... ... ...

      Short positions in WTI increased by 1,278 contracts to 106,041 futures and options in the week ended Feb. 3, the sixth straight gain, CFTC data show. Lo

      [Feb 08, 2015] Arthur Berman: Why Today's Shale Era Is The Retirement Party For Oil Production

      Quote: "Or Saudi is doing American bidding in a last desperate Imperial War to destroy Russia, crashing oil being an economic tactic in that American war."
      Feb 08, 2015 | zerohedge.com

      Submitted by Adam Taggart via Peak Prosperity,

      As we've written about often here at PeakProsperity.com, much of what's been 'sold' to us about the US shale oil revolution is massively over-hyped. The amount of commercially-recoverable shale oil is much less than touted, returns much less net energy than the petroleum our economy was built around, and is extremely unprofitable to extract for most drillers at today's lower oil price.

      To separate the hype from reality, our podcast guest is Arthur Berman, a geological consultant with 34 years of experience in petroleum exploration and production.

      Berman sees the recent US oil production boost from shale drilling as short-lived and somewhat desperate; a kind of last hurrah before the lights get turned out:

      The EIA looks at the US tight oil plays and they see maybe five years before things start to fall off. I think it is less, but I am not going to split hairs. The point is that what we found is expensive and we have got a few years -- not decades -- of it.

      So when we start hearing people pounding the table about how the United States should lift the ban on crude oil exports, well that is another topic if we are just talking about free trade and regulation, but what in the world is a country like ours doing still importing 5+ million barrels of crude oil a day and we have got maybe 2 years of supply from tight oil? What are we thinking about when we claim we're going to export oil? That is just a dumb idea. It is like borrowing money from a bankrupt person.

      I'll tell you what they're thinking about: the companies are thinking it is easier for them just to sell the oil directly overseas than it is to go through all the hassle of having to blend it with heavier oil and refine it here in the US and then go sell it overseas, as they have to do today.

      Anyways, I think you just have to be realistic. Let's give ourselves credit for ingenuity. We have done something that a few years ago probably almost no one thought was possible. But let's also be realistic: this is the most mature petroleum province on earth. We are squeezing blood from a stone and as long as prices are high, we will squeeze a little more. And that's it.

      I like to talk about these shale plays as not a revolution, but a retirement party. I mean, you know, this is the kind of bittersweet celebration you have when you are almost out the door and are going to sit around the house and watch Duck Dynasty whatever for your remaining days. It's not really cause for a celebration. It is cause for some sobering concerns and taking stock about what does the future have in store for us as a country, as a world?

      Click the play button below to listen to Chris' interview with Arthur Berman (55m:44s):

      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5tOVp1vSeVA

      knukles

      Just had a semi-off topic thought about "the truth".

      You know, what we're told, how we're molded, how the propaganda and perceptions management works

      So we got Brian Williams, an untrustworthy lying white man. We're gonna replace him with a believable black man, Lester Holt.

      The subliminal message, whether meant to be sent or not, is that it's not good to entrust knowledge to white men, They lie, cheat and steal. In the past (a la The Bammy's speech last week even went so far as to blame shit on Christians, too ... but he does reach out to the Muzzies.... y'all gettin' the picture?) they even had slaves. But all's rectified now. You can believe a black man.

      Perceptions Management, Deluxe.

      Now, what was somebody saying about the Glory of Shale Oil?

      Sorta like that stuff about Ethanol (an energy sink). And manufactured global warming data.

      And the war on terror ... well, I'm afraid things are not right. Does that count?

      NoWayJose

      If shale oil is so 'over-hyped' and is going to run out in a few years anyway - then WHY are the Saudis so afraid of it?

      researchfix

      Because there are only months left before the crash?

      Jack Burton

      Because Saudi is a fraud, and they may very well not have all those reserves they are supposed to.

      Or Saudi is doing American bidding in a last desperate Imperial War to destroy Russia, crashing oil being an economic tactic in that American war.

      I'm not sure Saudi fears American tight oil, but taking back market share and killing it can never be a bad thing, sort of Saudi insurance.

      The Fracking of oil is proof, if proof be needed that no new oil finds are cheap oil, like saudi has, like Russia has. All new oil is on the margine, deep water, deep under ground, fracked, or mined tar. Face it, we would not frack at all IF there was ANY easily recoverable oil.

      saltedGold

      "negatively impact the water supply."

      Ain't nothing wrong with the water supply. Any fracking chemicals are pumped back out after the fracking is complete. Then they truck it all back to where it came from to recycle and dispose. It's not like they'd just dig a different hole and pump all of the fracking waste down it instead. I mean, that would be bad for the water, but that's not what they do. Oh wait...

      alrightee_then

      Oil production will remain high....regardless of shale until there are fewer players and then prices skyrocket

      Energy Company's Consolidate…….Oil Price Cut Working

      Russia Oil Output Hits Post-Soviet High

      Exxon Sees Abundant Oil & Gas Far Into Future

      G20 Profits Off Massive Subsidies For Fake Peak Oil

      ExxonMobil Joint Venture With Russia's Rosneft Begins Production Offshore Russia

      Louisiana's LQT Delivers Oil Rig Housing To Sakhalin Russia

      Hohum

      Why can't all the wonderful economic thinkers on ZH do a marginal cost analysis?

      Here's something to get you started:

      https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf

      Look at new oil fields--does the economics work? If not, you are living off the past and making plans for that retirement party, whether you like it or not.

      [Feb 08, 2015] Ukraine 'Peace' Talks In Tatters: Defiant Putin "Won't Tolerate Unipolar World"; Hollande Proposes "Strong Autonomy...

      One view on oil price crash was that it was orchestrated "to punish Russia". Looks like it has slightly opposite affect.
      Feb 08, 2015 | zerohedge.com

      Just as the existing 'truce' in Ukraine has been made a total farce as 1000s of military and civilians have been killed, so any 'hope' that this weekend's "peace efforts" will result in anything but more talk is rapidly diminishing... Germany's Merkel exclaimed honestly that it's "uncertain whether this will be successful," seemingly resigned to the fact as she added, "but it's at least worth making an attempt."

      French President Hollande admitted that Ukraine's eastern regions likely need "strong autonomy." Ukraine's Poroshenko blustered that he "trusts" Merkel, that the economy is collapsing (more money please), that the country does not need peacekeepers and a lack of arms is fueling conflict (so send us weapons) while pushing for a Russian withdrawal and quick cease-fire.

      Finally Vladimir Putin blasted that Russia is unwilling to tolerate a post-Cold War global system dominated by one absolute leader, to which US VP Joe Biden remarked simply "get out of Ukraine." But apart from that, talks are going great...


      Ayreos

      That sounds slightly too optimistic. The US will send weapons to the Ukies. You might recall them doing the same in places like Iraq, Lybia, Syria... after the weapons come the Intel, air support with no-fly zones, until finally, boots on the ground. Vlad won't just sit while that happens.

      The potential for escalation is enormous, and as early as late spring. All the while Kerry, Nuland and Biden will be screaming about Putin, the devil and his dastardly invasion of Ukraine.

      ebworthen

      Biden: "Get out of Ukraine." What a tool. Bet he never read one page of Russian history. Bet he doesn't know Kiev was once the capital city of Russia. Bet he doesn't realize that fucking with Russia has been the doom of numerous egotistical twits like him.

      El Vaquero

      "a lack of arms is fueling conflict"

      And war is peace, freedom is slavery, yadda yadda yadda. WHAT THE FUCK, COUNT CHOCULA? Sending people in to kill and subjugate other people is what is fueling the fucking conflict you fucking marionette.

      Parrotile

      I am certain Porky-Shenko is being told EXACTLY what to say, and when to say it.

      He is no different in this respect to any other "Western Political Leader" - Obama, Hollande, Merkel, Cameron.

      They are all just the equivalent of "Film Stars" - put there to do a job and project the "right image". Their "job" is to present the image carefully crafted well behind the scenes.

      Never forget, although "Gone With The Wind" was immortalised by Vivien Leigh (as Scarlett O'Hara), without Margaret Mitchell, there would have been no book to base the film on.

      Today's flavour of Western "Politics" is really no different, is it.

      Tax Receipts In Energy-Producing States Plummet Largest Decline Since 2006

      Zero Hedge

      When it comes to the state of the US economy, it is all about surveys. On Friday we got the BLS' establishment and household surveys, both massively revised and seasonally-adjusted, meant to estimate the state of the US job market. Supposedly they were "unambiguously good."

      Here, on the other hand, is Evercore ISI with its Company and State Tax Receipt surveys.

      The verdict, looking at what is happening at both the corporate and state level, and especially the energy-producing tax receipt level which just fell off a cliff, is that "the US Economy is not taking off."

      [Feb 06, 2015] As China's Offshore Yuan Crashes To A 2 Year Low, Beijing Warns Its Citizens Don't Buy Dollars

      So high dollar not only helped to crush oil prices, it also make China much less competative as yuan is linked to dollar.
      Jan 30, 2015 | zerohedge.com

      We won't go into the specific details of China's burst housing bubble, the shady underworld of its pyramid scheme wealth-management products, the fact that any hard asset in China is rehypothecated literally a countless number of times, the nuances of its deflating shadow banking system, or even the complexities of its alleged capital controls (alleged, because as a reminder, they only exist for the common folks - the really wealthy Chinese are naturally exempt from any capital flow constraints). We will point out something even more disturbing.

      Recall that China, a mercantilist, export-driven country, has a currency that is pegged to the dollar in all but name (yes, the technical peg was dropped in 2005 but since then the PBOC controls the daily moves in the strictest and tiniest of increments), a dollar which has soared in the past 6 months to levels which have prompted countless other central banks to ease in recent weeks, and even forced the Swiss National Bank out of the currency wars, waving a flag of surrender. As a result, China's exports have been crushed regardless of what fabricated and goalseeked Chinese data will have gullible observes believing.

      And while the value of the local Yuan, the CNY, is set by bureaucrats and policy makers on a daily basis, and trades in a tight band around a specific, political number and thus never truly reflects the fair value of the Chinese currency, its offshore cousin, the CNH, floats and is impacted by the private demand of the Yuan. As such, the latter is far more indicative of the pressures that face the Chinese economy and what financial interests dictate should be the fair value of the domestic currency.

      It is also the former, the Offshore Yuan, that overnight hit a two-year low, reaching a level not seen since September 2012.

      Why do we bring this up?

      Because in a notice posted on Chinese media yesterday, China is now openly scrambling and on the defensive, when it comes to an ever stronger rush by the locals to get out of their own currency and into the US dollar. As Want China Times reports, "prompted by the robust performance of the US dollar, growing numbers of Chinese are considering converting renminbi to dollar-denominated assets." It is for those "growing numbers" that China has a polite warning: "experts are advising them to think carefully before making the move."

      And this is how China is hoping to keep locals more interested in the Renminbi than in the greenback:

      Chinese-language China Business News reports that yield rates for US-denominated wealth-management products range only 1.2-2.5% per annum at major domestic banks, such as China Merchants Bank, Bank of Shanghai, and Farmers Bank of China, a far cry from renminbi-denominated products, such as deposits at Yu'e bao, the monetary fund under internet giant Alibaba, which hit 4.4%.

      Interest rates for one-year timed deposits at major domestic banks now stand at 3.3%, much higher than the mere 0.95% for corresponding US-dollar deposits.

      Investors in US dollar-denominated assets have the option of subscribing to the existing 10-odd QDII (qualified domestic institutional investor) funds, such as the Guangfa Fund, launched by the Bank of Communications, focusing on investments in US realty, which often generates higher returns but also entails higher risks.

      In other words, China is pitching an investment in Ponzi schemes as a higher-yielding alternative than putting one's money in an appreciating dollar. Which, in retrospect is backed by another Ponzi scheme, so at least superficially it does makes sense. The bigger problem is that it would appear that the local citizens have figured out that in a time when the US Dollar is ascendent, the knock on effects on the Chinese economy are quite dangerous, and from the collapse in exports, to the imploding banks, to the halt in commerce and urbanization, the dollar suddenly looks like a far better option especially when the local currency is unbacked by anything: not gold, not crude, nothing.

      The punchline from the Chinese media:

      A forex trader said that despite the recent plunge in the value of renminbi against the greenback, the exchange rate of the former will fluctuate moderately at most, as the renminbi is essentially pegged to the greenback in value, according to China Business News.

      Yes... unless China does indeed proceed to become merely the latest in a long chain of countries - main export competitors Japan, the Eurozone and Korea included - who have already devalued against the USD: something numerous experts have quietly voiced in recent weekly is not only possible by just a matter of time.

      And why not: after all with China's economy dramatically slowing, it is virtually inevitable that China will have to devalue to spur its export-driven economy.

      Of course, the flipside is that the resultant surge of capital flows in the USD assure that the US economy, with its currency at never before seen heights, grinds to a halt, the stock market crashes, and the US export industry falls like dominoes. In many ways, this would be reminiscent of the short-term pain Greece would suffer if its exits the Eurozone, the financial collapse that would follow and wipe out the legacy wealth but set the country on strong footing with its own currency going forward and a way to fix imbalances not only by cutting wages and welfare, but through its own currency as well.

      And finally, even if China does devalue now, it knows very well that it has a currency put later: after all those thousands of tons of undisclosed gold that the PBOC has accumulated "secretly" since 2009 can very easily be used to backstop a new-regime currency, once which would redefine the global world order, and serve as the world's reserve.

      When will all this happen? Nobody knows, however it is clear that with every passing day that the stronger dollar forces China's exporters into an ever more untenable position, the D(evaluation)- day comes closer.

      Unless, of course, the Fed capitulates in the meantime, and crushes all hope of a rate hike or even proceeds with more quantitative easing or even NIRP. In that case all bets are off, and so is the Fed's credibility, leading to an even more... exciting world.

      [Feb 06, 2015] Fed Watch Upbeat Jobs Report

      The only problem with the statement below is that there is a very sharp difference between good jobs and McJobs.
      Feb 06, 2015 | Economist's View

      Oil and gas extraction jobs declined by 1.9k, but we all know more are coming. But outside of that sector, the economy added 255k jobs. The oil and gas extraction sector itself is only 200k jobs. In short, the fears that this sector is going to topple the US economy are just simply not going to come to pass.

      Peter K.:

      CW at the Economist:

      http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2015/02/americas-labour-market

      "....
      Hopefully, this is the end of a worrying labour-market puzzle. For a while now the American economy has created many jobs, but pay growth has been weak. In many states the unemployment rate is nearing lows of 3% but wages are barely rising. That's not what you would expect: as the unemployment rate falls, workers can usually be choosier about where they ply their trade, meaning that they can demand higher wages.

      Low productivity growth plays a big role in all of this. That may be a secular trend, and much has been written about it.* We discussed another interesting,** cyclical theory in a recent article. It's related to unemployment benefits, and goes something like this:

      At the end of December 2013, Congress refused to reauthorise legislation that provided very long-term benefits to the unemployed. Overnight, in some states the maximum time that you could receive unemployment benefits dropped from 73 weeks to 26 weeks. Almost all states experienced a big drop.

      As people lost benefits, so they were willing to accept lower wages. Employers realised this, and in response were willing to create lots of extra jobs. People filled these jobs, but didn't demand particularly high wages.

      Now that a year has passed since the reform of the benefits system, its effect may be wearing off. People who shifted into low-wage jobs may have built up some experience (and some courage) and may now be asking for wage rises."

      * http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2014/09/americas-economy-0

      ** http://www.economist.com/news/united-states/21641263-stingier-benefits-may-be-behind-americas-blistering-job-growth-incentives-matter

      [Feb 06, 2015] A New Theory Of Energy And The Economy, Part 2 - The Long-Term GDP-Energy Tie

      zerohedge.com

      Submitted by Gail Tverberg via Our Finite World blog,

      In Part 1 of this series, I talked about why cheap fuels act to create economic growth. In this post, we will look at some supporting data showing how this connection works. The data is over a very long time period–some of it going back to the Year 1 C. E.

      We know that there is a close connection between energy use (and in fact oil use) and economic growth in recent years.

      Figure 1. Comparison of three-year average growth in world real GDP (based on USDA values in 2005$), oil supply and energy supply. Oil and energy supply are from BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2014.

      Figure 1. Comparison of three-year average growth in world real GDP (based on USDA values in 2005$), oil supply and energy supply. Oil and energy supply are from BP Statistical Review of World Energy, 2014.

      In this post, we will see how close the connection has been, going back to the Year 1 CE. We will also see that economies that can leverage their human energy with inexpensive supplemental energy gain an advantage over other economies. If this energy becomes high cost, we will see that countries lose their advantage over other countries, and their economic growth rate slows.

      A brief summary of my view discussed in Part 1 regarding how inexpensive energy acts to create economic growth is as follows:

      The economy is a networked system. With cheap fuels, it is possible to leverage the expensive energy that humans can create from eating foods (examples: ability to dig ditches, do math problems), so as to produce more goods and services with the same number of workers. Workers find that their wages go farther, allowing them to buy more goods, in addition to the ones that they otherwise would have purchased.

      The growth in the economy comes from what I would call increasing affordability of goods. Economists would refer to this increasing affordability as increasing demand. The situation might also be considered increasing productivity of workers, because the normal abilities of workers are leveraged through the additional tools made possible by cheap energy products.

      Thus, if we want to keep the economy functioning, we need an ever-rising supply of cheap energy products of the appropriate types for our built infrastructure. The problem we are encountering now is that this isn't happening–more energy supply may be available, but it is expensive-to-produce supply. Our networked economy sends back strange signals–namely inadequate demand and low prices–when the cost of energy products is too high relative to wages. These low prices are also a signal that we are reaching other limits of a networked economy, such as too much debt and taxes that are too high for workers to pay.

      Looking at very old data – Year 1 C. E. onward

      Some very old data is available. The British Economist Angus Maddison made GDP and population estimates for a number of dates between 1 C. E. and 2008, for selected countries and the world in total. Canadian Energy Researcher Vaclav Smil gives historical energy consumption estimates back to 1800 in his book Energy Transitions – History, Requirements and Prospects.

      If we look at the average annual increase in GDP going back to the Year 1 C. E., it appears that the annual growth rate in inflation-adjusted GDP peaked in the 1940 to 1970 period, and has been falling ever since. So the long-term downward trend in world GDP growth has lasted at least 44 years at this point.

      Figure 2. Average annual increase in GDP per capita, based on work of Angus Maddison through 2000; USDA population/real GDP figures used for 2000 to 2014.

      Figure 2. Average annual increase in inflation-adjusted GDP, based on work of Angus Maddison through 2000; USDA population/real GDP figures used for 2000 to 2014.

      A brief synopsis of what happened in the above periods is as follows:

      • 1 to 1000 – Collapse of several major civilizations, including the Roman Empire. Metal was made using charcoal from wood, but this led to deforestation and soil erosion. Egypt and the Middle East had extensive irrigation of crops using river water. Some trade by ship. Most of the population were farmers.
      • 1000 to 1500 – Early use of peat moss for heat energy for industrialization, particularly in Netherlands, leading to increased trade. Continued use of wood in cold countries, with deforestation issues.
      • 1500 to 1820 – European empire expansion to the New World and to colonies in Africa, allowing world population to grow. Britain began using coal. Netherlands added wind turbines beside greater use of peat moss.
      • 1820 to 1900 – Coal allowed metals to be made cheaply. Parts of farm work could be transferred to horses with greater use of metal tools. Coal allowed many types of new technology including hydroelectric dams, trains, and steam powered boats.
      • 1900 to 1940 – Expanded use of coal, with beginning use of oil as a transportation fuel. Depression was during this period.
      • 1940 to 1970 – Post war rebuilding of Europe and Japan and US baby boom led to hugely expanded use of fossil fuels. Antibiotic use began; birth control pills became available. Food production greatly expanded with fertilizer, irrigation, pesticides.
      • 1970 to 2000 – 1970 was the beginning of the great "oops," when US oil production started to decline, and oil prices spiked. This set off a major push toward efficiency (smaller cars, better mileage) and shifts to other fuels, including nuclear.
      • 2000 to 2014 – Another big "oops," as oil prices spiked upward, when North Sea and Mexican oil began to decline. Much outsourcing of manufacturing to countries where production was cheaper. Huge financial problems in 2008, never completely fixed.

      Growth in GDP in Figure 2 generally follows the pattern we would expect, if fossil fuels and earlier predecessor fuels raised GDP and the great "oopses" during the 1970-2000 and 2000-2014 periods reduced economic growth.

      Population Growth vs Growth in Standard of Living

      GDP growth is composed of two different types of growth: (1) population growth and (2) rise in the standard of living (or per capita GDP growth). We can look at these two kinds of growth separately, using Maddison's data. My discussion earlier about cheap energy having a favorable impact on the amount of goods an economy could create relates primarily to the second kind of growth (rise in the standard of living). There would be a carry-over to population growth as well, because parents who have more adequate resources can afford more children.

      If we compare the population growth pattern in Figure 3 with the total GDP growth pattern shown in Figure 2, we notice some differences. One such difference is the lower population growth rate in the 2000-2014 period. Compared to the period before fossil fuels (generally before 1820), the population growth rate is still exceedingly high.

      Figure 3. Average annual increase in world population, based on work of Angus Maddison through 2000; USDA population figures used for 2000 to 2014.

      Figure 3. Average annual increase in world population, based on work of Angus Maddison through 2000; USDA population figures used for 2000 to 2014.

      If we look at world per capita GDP growth by time-period (Figure 4), we see practically no growth until the time of fossil fuels–in other words, 1820 and succeeding periods.

      Figure 4. Average annual increase in GDP per capita, based on work of Angus Maddison through 2000; USDA population/real GDP figures used for 2000 to 2014.

      Figure 4. Average annual increase in GDP per capita, based on work of Angus Maddison through 2000; USDA population/real GDP figures used for 2000 to 2014.

      In other words, in these early periods, civilizations were often able to build empires. Doing so seems to have allowed greater population and more building of cities, but it didn't raise the standard of living of most of the population by very much. If we look at the earliest periods, (Years 1 to 1000; 1000 to 1500, and even most places in 1500 to 1820), the average per capita income seems to have been equivalent to about $1 or $2 per day, today.

      I earlier showed how world per capita energy consumption has grown since 1820, based on the work of Vaclav Smil (Figure 5).

      Figure 5. World Energy Consumption by Source, Based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects together with BP Statistical Data for 1965 and subsequent divided by population estimates by Angus Maddison.

      Figure 5. World Energy Consumption by Source, Based on Vaclav Smil estimates from Energy Transitions: History, Requirements and Prospects together with BP Statistical Data for 1965 and subsequent divided by population estimates by Angus Maddison.

      It is clear from Figure 5 that the largest increase in energy consumption came in the 1940 to 1970 period. One thing that is striking is that world population took a sharp upward turn at the same time more fossil fuel use was added (Figure 6).

      Figure 6. World population growth, based on data of Angus Maddison.

      Figure 6. World population growth, based on data of Angus Maddison.

      While this increase in population holds for the world in total, analyzing population growth by country or country grouping yields very erratic results. This is true all the way back to the Year 1. If we look at percentages of world population at various points in time for selected countries and country groups, we get the distribution shown in Figure 7. (The list of country groups shown is not exhaustive.)

      Figure 7. Share of world population from Year 1 to 2014, based primarily on estimates of Angus Maddison.

      Figure 7. Share of world population from Year 1 to 2014, based primarily on estimates of Angus Maddison.

      Part of what happens is that economic collapses (or famines or epidemics) set population back by very significant amounts in local areas. For example, Maddison shows the population of Italy as 8,000,000 in the Year 1, but only 5,000,ooo in the Year 1000, hundreds of years after the fall of the Roman Empire.

      Per capita GDP for Italy dropped by half over this period, from about double that of most other countries to about equivalent to that of other countries. Thus, wages might have dropped from the equivalent of $3.oo a day to the equivalent to $1.50 a day. None of the economies were at a very high level, so most workers, if they survived a collapse, could find work at their same occupation (generally farming), if they could find another group that would provide protection from attacks by outsiders.

      If we look at the trend in population shown on Figure 7, we see that the semi-arid, temperate areas seemed to predominate in population in the Year 1. As peat moss and fossil fuels were added, population of some of the colder areas of the world could grow. These colder areas soon "maxed out" in population, so population growth had to slow down greatly or stop. The alternative to population growth was emigration, with the "New World" growing in its share of the world's population and the "Old World" contracting.

      Each part of the world has its own challenges, from Africa's problems with tropical diseases to the Middle East's challenges with water. To the extent that work-arounds can be found, population can expand. If the work-around is cheap (immunization for a tropical disease, for example), population may be able to expand with only a small amount of additional energy consumption.

      One point that many people miss is that Japan's low growth in GDP in recent years is to a significant extent the result of low population growth. In the published GDP figures we see, no distinction is made between the portion that is due to population growth and the portion that is due to rise in the standard of living (that is, rise in GDP per capita).

      Growth in Per Capita GDP in the "Advanced Economies"

      As noted above, the big increase in per capita energy use shown in Figure 5 came in the 1940 to 1970 period. No breakdown by country is available, but this period includes rebuilding period after World War II for Europe and Japan, and the period with a huge increase in consumer debt in the United States. Thus, we would expect those three country/groups would benefit disproportionally. In fact, we see very large increases in per capita GDP for these countries, as fossil fuels were added, particularly oil.

      Figure 8. Average increase in per capita GDP for the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, based on work of Angus Maddison.

      Figure 8. Average increase in per capita GDP for the United States, Western Europe, and Japan, based on work of Angus Maddison for 2000 and prior, and USDA real GDP and population data subsequent to that date.

      These three economies (Western Europe, USA, and Japan) are all fairly high users of oil. If we look at long-term world oil production versus price (Figure 9), we see that growth in consumption was rising rapidly until about 1970.

      Figure 9. World oil consumption vs. price, based on BP Review of World Energy data after 1965, and Vaclav Smil data prior to 1965.

      Figure 9. World oil consumption vs. price based on BP Review of World Energy data after 1965, and Vaclav Smil data prior to 1965.

      In fact, if we calculate average annual increase in oil consumption for the periods of our analysis, we find that they are

      • 1900 to 1940 – 6.9% per year
      • 1940 to 1970 – 7.6% per year
      • 1970 to 2000 – 1.5% per year
      • 2000 to 2013 – 1.1% per year

      Growth in oil production "hit a wall" in 1970, when US oil production unexpectedly stopped growing and started declining. (Actually, this pattern had been predicted by M. King Hubbert and others). Oil prices spiked shortly thereafter. The situation was more or less resolved by making a number of changes to the economy (switching electricity production from oil to other fuels wherever possible; building smaller, more fuel efficient vehicles), as well as ramping up oil production in places such as the North Sea, Alaska, and Mexico.

      Oil prices were brought down, but not to the $20 per barrel level that had been available prior to 1970. Most of the infrastructure (roads, pipelines, electrical transmission lines, schools) in the USA, Europe, and Japan had been built with oil at a $20 per barrel level. Changing to a higher price level is very difficult, because repair costs are much higher and because an economy that uses very much high-priced oil in its energy mix is not competitive with countries using a cheaper fuel mix.

      Figure 10. Percentage of energy consumption from oil, for selected countries/groups, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014 data.

      Figure 10. Percentage of energy consumption from oil, for selected countries/groups, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014 data.

      In the 2007-2008 period, oil prices spiked again, leading to a major recession, especially among the countries that used very much oil in their energy mix. With these higher prices, the leveraging impact of oil in bringing down the cost of human energy was disappearing. All of the "PIIGS" (countries with especially bad financial problems in the 2008 crisis) had very high oil concentrations, up near Greece on the chart above. Japan's oil consumption was very high as well, as a percentage of its energy use. When we looked at the impact of the recession, the countries with the highest percentage of oil consumption in 2004 had the worst economic growth rates in the period 2005 to 2011.

      Figure 11. Average percent growth in real GDP between 2005 and 2011, based on USDA GDP data in 2005 US$.

      Figure 11. Average percent growth in real GDP between 2005 and 2011 for selected groups, based on USDA GDP data in 2005 US$.

      Getting back to Figure 9, after the financial crisis in 2008, oil prices stayed low until the United States began its program of Quantitative Easing (QE), helping keep interest rates extra low and providing extra liquidity. Oil prices immediately began rising again, getting to the $100 per barrel level and remaining about at that level until 2014. The combination of low interest rates and high prices encouraged oil production from shale formations, helping to keep world oil production rising, despite a drop in oil production in the North Sea, Alaska and Mexico. Thus, for a while, the conflict between high prices and the ability of economies to pay for these high prices was resolved in favor of high prices.

      The high oil prices–around $100 per barrel–continued until United States QE was tapered down and stopped in 2014. About the same time, China made changes that made debt more difficult to obtain. Both of these factors, as well as the long-term adverse impact of $100 per barrel oil prices on the economy, brought oil price down to its current level, which is around $50 per barrel (Figure 10). The $50 per barrel price is still very high relative to the cost of oil when our infrastructure was built, but low relative to the current cost of oil production.

      Figure 12. World Oil Supply (production including biofuels, natural gas liquids) and Brent monthly average spot prices, based on EIA data.

      Figure 12. World Oil Supply (production including biofuels, natural gas liquids) and Brent monthly average spot prices, based on EIA data.

      If a person looks back at Figure 9, it is clear that high oil prices brought oil consumption down in the early 1980s, and again for a very brief period in late 2008-early 2009. But since 2009, oil consumption has continued to rise, thanks to high prices and the additional oil from US shale.

      The low prices we are now encountering are a message from our networked economy, saying, "No, the economy cannot really afford oil at this high a price level. It looked like it could for a while, thanks to all of the financial manipulation, but this is not really the case." Meanwhile, we see in Figure 8 that for the combination of the EU, USA, and Japan, growth in per capita GDP has been very low in the period since 2000, reflecting the influence of high oil prices on these economies.

      Growth in Per Capita GDP for Selected Other Economies

      In recent years, per capita GPD growth has shifted dramatically. Figure 13 below shows increases in GDP per capita for selected other areas of the world.

      Figure 13. Average growth in per-capita GDP for selected economies, based on work of Angus Maddison for Year 1 to 2000, and based on USDA real GDP figures in 2010 US$ for 2000 to 2014 .

      Figure 13. Average growth in per-capita GDP for selected economies, based on work of Angus Maddison for Year 1 to 2000, and based on USDA real GDP figures in 2010 US$ for 2000 to 2014.

      The "stand out" economy in recent growth in GDP per capita is China. China was added to the World Trade Organization in December 2001. Since then, its coal use, and energy use in general, has soared.

      Figure 14. China's energy consumption by source, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy data.

      Figure 14. China's energy consumption by source, based on BP Statistical Review of World Energy data.

      If we calculate the growth in China's energy consumption for the periods we are looking at, we find the following growth rates:

      • 1970 to 2000 – 5.4% per year
      • 2000 to 2013 – 8.6% per year

      A major concern now is that China's growth rate is slowing, in part due to debt controls. Other factors in the slowdown include the impact pollution is having on the Chinese people, the slowdown in the European and Japanese economies, and the fact that the Chinese market for condominiums and factories is rapidly becoming "saturated".

      There have been recent reports that the factory portion of the Chinese economy may now be contracting. Also, there are reports that Chinese coal consumption decreased in 2014. This is a chart by one analyst showing the apparent recent decrease in coal consumption.

      Figure 15. Chart by Lauri Myllyvirta showing a preliminary estimate of 2014 coal consumption in China.

      Figure 15. Chart by Lauri Myllyvirta showing a preliminary estimate of 2014 coal consumption in China.

      Where Does the World Economy Go From Here?

      In Part 1, I described the world's economy as one that is based on energy. The design of the system is such that the economy can only grow; shrinkage tends to cause collapse. If my view of the situation is correct, then we need an ever-rising amount of inexpensive energy to keep the system going. We have gone from trying to grow the world economy on oil, to trying to grow the world economy on coal. Both of these approaches have "hit walls". There are other low-income countries that might increase industrial production, such as in Africa, but they are lacking coal or other cheap fuels to fuel their production.

      Now we have practically nowhere to go. Natural gas cannot be scaled up quickly enough, or to large enough quantities. If such a large scale up were done, natural gas would be expensive as well. Part of the high cost is the cost of the change-over in infrastructure, including huge amounts of new natural gas pipeline and new natural gas powered vehicles.

      New renewables, such as wind and solar photovoltaic panels, aren't solutions either. They tend to be high cost when indirect costs, such as the cost of long distance transmission and the cost of mitigating intermittency, are considered. It is hard to create large enough quantities of new renewables: China has been rapidly adding wind capacity, but the impact of these additions can barely can be seen at the top of Figure 14. Without supporting systems, such as roads and electricity transmission lines (which depend on oil), we cannot operate the electric systems that these devices are part of for the long term, either.

      We truly live in interesting times.

      [Feb 05, 2015] Price of oil and the disruption of flow of oil dollars to the USA coffers

      Additionally, low oil prices have blocked the flow of petrodollars in the United States. Oil exporters have invested their profits in US bonds. Now OPEC need to reduce state budget and spend some of those bonds that the US is holding. Well, the USA have debts to pay and now it just can't print the money as freely as before.
      1. On the amount of oil that costs $1 accounts there are more then $10 of all kind of securities.
      2. It turns out that the price is determined by Wall street mafia, large funds and holders of those securities, not so much by the producers or consumers of oil.
      3. Low oil prices have an obvious advantage: they inhibits Russia economic growth.
      4. But low oil prices have costs. They already starting to cause bankrupcy of companies extracting shale oil. And again, no so much companies as such, but all the mess of securities (shares, derivatives, insurance, insurance of insurance, etc) connected with them. If things begin to crumble, it might be something like a mini repetition of 2008, which was triggered by the collapse of mortgage giants.
      5. Additionally, low oil prices have blocked the flow of petrodollars in the United States. Oil exporters have invested their profits in US bonds. Now OPEC need to reduce state budget and spend some of those bonds that the US is holding. Well, the USA have debts to pay and now it just can't print the money as freely as before.
      6. Finally, low oil prices make China extremely happy. Strong dollar undermines the US exports.

      In General, the conclusion is as following. Oil is a geopolitical resource and the USA financial cartel is powerful enough to set any price for oil. $30 or, may be even $20 per barrel. But the problem is that at such a low price several problems arise.

      In fact, the oil price is a compromise between the elite U.S and the elite of OPEC designed "to deal with" Russia. But somebody might not be able to endure described economic war for long and associated costs..

      [Feb 05, 2015] Oil Price Blowback by MIKE WHITNEY

      Quote: "It's hard to know which country is going to suffer the most from falling oil prices" This is stupid. The key blow definitely hit Russia, Iran and Venezuela. There are some side effects for the USA (and first of all no more oil dollars flowing into country coffers) but they can't be compared with what Russia, Iran and Venezuela face now. This is an economic war, pretty cruel economic war on the countries that tried to raise their voice against neoliberal world order with headquarters in Washington and that now Washington is trying to crush.
      The key problem for the USA is that they can't keep oil price artificially low forever. Nobody abolished "peak cheap oil" crisis. So time is working against the USA and its partners in this economic war. If they miscalculate the tenacity of Russia, Iran and Venezuela there will be blowback for the USA elite too. But so far the USA economy is revived by low oil prices which represent huge stimulus -- one cent drop of gas prices in the USA is equal approximately one billion in consumer pockets.
      Feb 05, 2015 | counterpunch.org

      Oil Price Blowback

      "If undercharging for energy products occurs deliberately, it also effects those who introduce these limitations. Problems will arise and grow, worsening the situation not only for Russia but also for our partners." – Russian President Vladimir Putin

      It's hard to know which country is going to suffer the most from falling oil prices. Up to now, of course, Russia, Iran and Venezuela have taken the biggest hit, but that will probably change as time goes on. What the Obama administration should be worried about is the second-order effects that will eventually show up in terms of higher unemployment, market volatility, and wobbly bank balance sheets. That's where the real damage is going to crop up because that's where red ink and bad loans can metastasize into a full-blown financial crisis. Check out this blurb from Nick Cunningham at Oilprice.com and you'll see what I mean:

      "According to an assessment from the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas, an estimated 250,000 jobs across eight U.S. states could be lost in 2015 if oil prices don't rise. More than 50 percent of those job losses would occur in Texas, which leads the nation in oil production.

      There are some early signs that a slowdown in drilling could spread to the manufacturing sector in Texas… One executive at a metal manufacturing company said in the survey, "the drop in crude oil prices is going to make things ugly… quickly." Another company that manufactures machinery told the Dallas Fed, "Low oil prices will drive reductions in U.S. drilling rigs, which will in turn reduce the market for our products."

      The sentiment was similar for a chemical manufacturer, who said "lower oil prices will adversely impact margins. Energy volatility will cause our customers to keep inventories tight."

      States like Texas, North Dakota, Oklahoma, and Louisiana have seen their economies boom over the last few years as oil production surged. But the sector is now deflating, leaving gashes in employment rolls and state budgets." (Low Prices Lead To Layoffs In The Oil Patch, Nick Cunningham, Oilprice.com)

      [Feb 04, 2015] Saudi Oil Is Seen as Lever to Pry Russian Support From Syria's Assad By MARK MAZZETTI, ERIC SCHMITT and DAVID D. KIRKPATRICKFEB

      Dirty games around oil as geopolitical weapon might be the real reason of the recent price drop. Saudi Arabia needs the price of oil to be over $100 a barrel to cover its federal spending.
      Feb 03, 2015 | NYTimes.com

      Saudi Arabia has been trying to pressure President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia to abandon his support for President Bashar al-Assad of Syria, using its dominance of the global oil markets at a time when the Russian government is reeling from the effects of plummeting oil prices.

      Saudi Arabia and Russia have had numerous discussions over the past several months that have yet to produce a significant breakthrough, according to American and Saudi officials. It is unclear how explicitly Saudi officials have linked oil to the issue of Syria during the talks, but Saudi officials say - and they have told the United States - that they think they have some leverage over Mr. Putin because of their ability to reduce the supply of oil and possibly drive up prices.

      "If oil can serve to bring peace in Syria, I don't see how Saudi Arabia would back away from trying to reach a deal,"

      a Saudi diplomat said. An array of diplomatic, intelligence and political officials from the United States and the Middle East spoke on the condition of anonymity to adhere to protocols of diplomacy.

      ... ... ...

      The drop in oil prices has been felt in Saudi Arabia, but the country's vast oil reserves and accumulated wealth give it a far greater cushion than other oil-producing nations have. Saudi Arabia needs the price of oil to be over $100 a barrel to cover its federal spending, including a lavish budget for infrastructure projects. The current price is about $55 a barrel, and Saudi Arabia has projected a 2015 deficit of about $39 billion.

      But the monarchy has about $733 billion in savings invested in low-risk assets abroad, and it can afford to dip into that for a few years without much pain. Russia and Iran have no such luxury, and neither do shale-fracking oil producers in North America.

      ... ... ...

      For his part, Mr. Assad has shown no inclination to step aside. He said in a recent interview with Foreign Affairs magazine that the true threat in Syria came from the Islamic State and Qaeda-affiliated groups that, in his words, make up a "majority" of the rebellion.

      American and Arab officials said that even if Russia were to abandon Mr. Assad, the Syrian president would still have his most generous benefactor, Iran. Iranian aid to the Syrian government has been one of the principal reasons that Mr. Assad has been able to hold power as other autocrats in the Middle East have been deposed.

      And as a major oil producer, Iran would benefit if Saudi Arabia helped push up oil prices as part of a bargain with Russia.

      "You are going to strengthen your enemy whether you like it or not, and the Iranians are not showing any flexibility here," said Mustafa Alani, an analyst at the Gulf Research Center who is close to the Saudi royal family.

      But the military aid that Russia provides to Syria is different enough from what Damascus receives from Iran, its other major supplier, that if "Russia withdrew all military support, I don't think the Syrian Army could function," a senior Obama administration official said.

      [Feb 04, 2015] Fitch Ratings @FitchRatings

      Follow

      Russian Oil & Gas Companies Should Withstand Low Oil Prices https://www.fitchratings.com/gws/en/fitchwire/fitchwirearticle/Russia-Oil-%26?pr_id=979000 …

      Russia Oil & Gas Cos Should Withstand Low Oil Prices
      Research Suggests Russian Oil and Gas Firms Can Cope With Low Oil Prices

      [Feb 04, 2015] Exxon Revenues, Earnings Tumble 21% From Year Ago, Sales Miss Expectations By $5 Billion; Stock Buyback Grinds To Near Halt

      Feb 04, 2015 | zerohedge.com

      Moments ago, following our chart showing the devastation in Q1 earning forecasts, Exxon Mobil came out with its Q4 earnings, and – as tends to happen when analysts take a butcher knife to estimates – beat EPS handily, when it reported $1.56 in EPS, above the $1.34 expected, if still 18% below the $1.91 Q4 EPS print from a year earlier. A primary contributing factor to this beat was surely the $3 billion in Q4 stock buybacks, with another $2.9 billion distributed to shareholders mostly in the form of dividends. However, while XOM did the best with margins and accounting gimmickry it could under the circumstances, there was little it could do to halt the collapse in revenues, which printed at $87.3 billion, well below the $92.7 billion expected, and down a whopping 21% from a year ago. And this is just in Q4 – the Q1 slaughter has yet to be unveiled!

      [Feb 04, 2015] When "Rumor Becomes Reality" – This Is The Devastation Across The US Oil Patch

      Feb 04, 2015 | .zerohedge.com

      "This is going to hurt, no question," fears a landowner in Santa Barbara with a dozen oil wells. Layoffs are "kind of like a death in the family," exclaims a geophysicist in the Permian Basin. Houstonians were hoping for a hiccup, says one restauranteir, but now "they're getting more cautious." As WSJ reports, rumor is becoming reality across America as "unambiguously good" news of low oil prices turns from a trickle to a deluge of job losses and insecurity. Cutbacks aren't yet reflected in broad data on employment, home sales or tax collections. But fallout is beginning to affect people, starting with the legions working as suppliers to the energy industry.

      [Feb 01, 2015] Why we are at Peak Oil Right Now

      Notable quotes:
      "... The problem is with those reserves . Todays reserves are just not the same as those earlier reserves. All the good cheap stuff has already been sucked up. We are now left with dredges at the bottom of the barrel. ..."
      "... You are assuming the sum total of all nations other than Canada and the USA cant hold production flat. Thats the big unknown, I suppose. That is a known. If the rest of the world could keep production flat we would have seen it happen while oil prices were sitting comfortably at $100 per barrel. If high prices didnt get the oil out of the rest of the world then how do you expect low prices to do it? ..."
      "... Horizontal drilling just didnt take off, it has been around for decades. Saudi Arabia started horizontal drilling as infill drilling projects well over a decade ago. ..."
      "... I see the likelihood of countries like Venezuela and Russia declining by 4-8% plus as very high considering that they have NO money to drill. ..."
      "... The sweet spots in the two major plays (Bakken EF) are limited in scope. The Permian still has questions surrounding economic recovery rates and thus proven reserves. Given decline rates and the correlation between commodity prices and CAPEX, US proven reserves are very small in comparison to SA, Venezuela and other low cost, high reserve countries. ..."
      "... When you put it in perspective, there is nothing all that significant about US unconventional production aside from how quickly it ramped up. ..."
      "... Its more comparable to tech companies in the late 90s. A bunch sprung up. A bunch failed. The good ones consolidated and are still around today. The major difference being that eventually commercial shale fields will deplete and the companies still standing will have to look elsewhere. ..."
      "... But just to play devils advocate, I do not see a huge plunge in oil production worldwide. As it starts to fall, the Russians, Chinese and Saudis will push shale oil production. This will slow the fall in production and might even cause a second hump or plateau. Further development of North American shale and tar sands as well as some EOR will ease the drop on this side of the world. ..."
      "... Biofuels are not an energy source, and need other energy resources for the conversion. Plants require petrochemicals for productive yields. It takes energy to harvest and process the crop and even more energy to convert it into a usable fuel. The cost of biofuels is considerably more expensive than fossil fuels. ..."
      "... In conclusion. Not only have we reached Peak Oil, Peak Energy Extraction, we also reached Peak CapEx for Energy resources. ..."
      Peak Oil Barrel
      The USA and Canada are responsible for about 120% of the increase in world oil production since 2005, even though they did not begin their grand ascent until 2009. Canada's over 400,000 bpd increase in September is responsible for that last spike upward. But can this continue?

      In a word… no. The gain has been almost all LTO and oil sands. And low prices are killing both. If prices stay low both Canada and the USA will begin to decline by the second half of this year. But even if prices return to the $70 ti $80 range, (it is not likely they are going higher than that), their production will still not increase fast enough to offset the decline in the rest of the world.

      But what about those massive reserves still in the ground? Many say we have not yet produced half the URR, the Ultimate Recoverable reserves, and until we are at least that half way point, we cannot be at peak oil. Well, there are a few really serious problems with that logic. First, what is meant by the word "recoverable"? And at what price? Let's look at really important chart.

      The 2014 data point on the chart below is the average January through November .

      Historic Oil Price

      Here is a chart of Historical Crude Oil Prices . The average price, the blue line, is the average price of oil for that year. The orange line is the average price from 1946 to any point on that line. For instance the average price of oil for the 34 years from 1946 through 1973 was $23.68. And that in today's dollars. From 1946 through 1973 oil companies were getting an average of $23.68 a barrel for their oil, and they were making a pile of money at that price. Today, the price is more than twice that amount, and many of them are losing a pile of money.

      So let's get back to reserves. The reserves produced in 1973 and prior years was very profitable at less than $24 a barrel. Then all hell broke loose in the Middle East and prices skyrocketed. Then for the next dozen years oil companies made windfall profits. But in 1986 oil prices came down to normal. Between 1986 and 2002 oil prices averaged $30.42 a barrel. (Not shown on the chart.) Even at that price oil companies still made huge profits. But today they are losing money at $50 a barrel.

      The problem is with those "reserves". Today's reserves are just not the same as those earlier reserves. All the good cheap stuff has already been sucked up. We are now left with dredges at the bottom of the barrel. All today's new oil is harder to find, depletes a whole lot faster, and cost many times as much to produce. None of the cheap stuff is left except in a few old super giant fields that are undergoing infill drilling like there is no tomorrow.

      Once again, we are at peak oil right now. The peak will straddle the 2014 and 2015 time line. 2016 will be the first full post peak calendar year. It really doesn't matter how many barrels of oil is left in the ground. The point is we will never again pull it out of the ground at the same rate we are pulling it out right now.


      Fernando Leanme , 02/01/2015 at 11:15 am

      I wouldn't bet so hard on a peak just yet. Assuming oil (C&C) production will start declining by mid to late 2015 is reasonable. But this decline will trigger renewed activity. The low interest loans to usa independents will bear a higher interest, the drlling and completion costs will be slightly lower. The sum of these effects should be a much lower decline, or even an increase in production.

      So the key is price expectations, and the response time. And this is really hard to model. As you know, I already bet that oil prices will rebound. This implies tight supply, which leads to more investment. I'm not sure we can be sure such investment won't allow production to increase slightly.

      Stepping out of the real crude oil realm, If prices rise beyond $100 per barrel, I also expect the biofuels industry to go bananas increasing production. And refineries will shift to making more light products, swelling the "refinery gain" (this is the reason why I had asked how you planned to handle refinery gain, I think there's a slight potential to increase yields by adding hydrogen).

      SW , 02/01/2015 at 11:28 am
      I think the problem with that analysis is that North American production has to increase more than slightly to off-set declines elsewhere. It is pretty tough to see enough increases in North America, if they happen to offset production declines in the rest of the world anymore.
      Fernando Leanme , 02/01/2015 at 2:04 am
      You are assuming the sum total of all nations other than Canada and the USA can't hold production flat. That's the big unknown, I suppose. Recall that I also mentioned refinery gains and biofuels? If these take up the slack then we have reached peak crude and condensate for sure. I guess the big question is whether oil companies anticipate what Ron predicts. If they do we should see a fairly steady deep water drilling pace.

      One other comment: the typical reaction by companies in dire straits (such as Petrobras) is to give up shares in their projects. Sometimes they also give up operatorship. I wouldn't expect the Brazilians to sit still and wait for lawsuits to unfold. They will react. And I expect this will lead to really large companies with quality technical capability, cash flow, and credit to step in. I wouldn't be surprised to see something big happen in Brazil.

      ChiefEngineer , 02/02/2015 at 1:24 am
      Well the internets have been around long enough now that we all remember the posts at TOD about how we are now at peak oil. No one was talking than about a few states and a shale play that would produce 4 million additional barrels a day.

      "The problem is with those "reserves". Today's reserves are just not the same as those earlier reserves. All the good cheap stuff has already been sucked up. We are now left with dredges at the bottom of the barrel."

      Ron, you sound like Gail Tvarberg on a bad day. Very short sighted and the prospective of time of a teen age boy finding is manhood his first time.

      I'm with Fernando and think your premature gett'en your peak on .

      The Universe , 02/04/2015 at 12:49 am
      I recall several predictions from TOD that claimed oil production would go up so long as price could go up. It seems that is exactly how it played out. So if we're not at peak now then oil prices must be headed north here pretty quickly. How do you suppose that will happen, and when?
      The Universe , 02/04/2015 at 12:51 am
      "You are assuming the sum total of all nations other than Canada and the USA can't hold production flat. That's the big unknown, I suppose." That is a known. If the rest of the world could keep production flat we would have seen it happen while oil prices were sitting comfortably at $100 per barrel. If high prices didn't get the oil out of the rest of the world then how do you expect low prices to do it?
      Ron Patterson , 02/04/2015 at 1:08 am
      You are assuming the sum total of all nations other than Canada and the USA can't hold production flat. That's the big unknown, I suppose.

      Universe, you are correct. The sum to total of all other nations other than Canada and the USA have not held production flat. It is no great assumption to assume that this trend will continue.

      The Universe , 02/04/2015 at 3:29 am
      Thanks!

      I greatly appreciate your work on this issue. Resource depletion is even more misunderstood than climate science and your work does a good job of trying to correct that.

      Fernando Leanme , 02/04/2015 at 4:45 am
      Timing. Projects take time to engineer and execute. The high price environment kicked in around 2007, there was a hiccup in 2008, then it regained ground. Oil companies don't usually change their internal price forecasts to a high side unless they are really convinced it's going to last.

      I have seen this lag really mess with projects. But let's face it, I don't get an insight on how many projects were launched in 2009 through 2014 and are just now getting ready to start production.

      The question always comes down to expectations. Keep an eye on large solid companies to see how many people they layoff. That should be an indicator.

      Ovi , 02/01/2015 at 11:38 am
      I would hope that the U.S. drillers have learned their lesson and suck on the straw a little slower and enjoy the associated higher prices longer.

      I recall a phrase in "Blade Runner" along the lines of "The brighter it burns, the shorter it lives".

      Ovi , 02/01/2015 at 11:48 am
      Actual quote

      Tyrell: The light that burns twice as bright burns half as long – and you have burned so very, very brightly, Roy.

      Ron Patterson , 02/01/2015 at 11:53 am
      I wouldn't bet so hard on a peak just yet.

      Yeah, but this is not your bet, it's mine.

      Nick Hail , 02/01/2015 at 12:01 am
      The biggest threat to your whole theory is a black swan event. The most probable cause of this is technology. I know of 2 techs being tested that have the ability to render the whole production curve as we know it wrong.

      Just like a prediction of peak oil was valid right up until horizontal drilling took off.

      Jeffrey J. Brown , 02/01/2015 at 12:04 am

      So, you are arguing that the finite sum of the output from high decline rate tight/shale oil wells will show a perpetual rate of increase in production?
      Ron Patterson , 02/01/2015 at 12:18 am
      Horizontal drilling just didn't take off, it has been around for decades. Saudi Arabia started horizontal drilling as infill drilling projects well over a decade ago.

      What took off was the fracking of source rock. That is source rock that was so tight that the oil could not escape. Fracking source rock is very expensive and the production from tight source rock declines extremely fast. In other words, it is scraping the bottom of the barrel.

      Oh, and fracking was not a black swan event, it was a price event. The price of oil rose high enough to make tight oil fracking economical.

      Huckleberry Finn , 02/01/2015 at 12:27 am
      Ron,
      Black Swan Events are likely to help than hurt your cause. I see the likelihood of countries like Venezuela and Russia declining by 4-8% plus as very high considering that they have NO money to drill.
      AlexS , 02/01/2015 at 4:41 am
      I am not sure about Venezuela, but as regards Russia, it seems that you are only reading Western mainstream media, and do not know anything about the Russian oil industry.
      AlexS
      , 02/01/2015 at 8:41 am
      Each year since mid-2000s I've seen forecasts that Russian oil production is about to decline. I'm not saying that it will continue to increase at the current oil price levels, but a decline of 4-8% p.a. is absolutely out of reality. Read, for example, this article to understand why:

      Goldman Sachs Busts Myth Of Impending Russian Oil Collapse

      By ZeroHedge
      Posted on Tue, 27 January 2015
      http://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/Goldman-Sachs-Busts-Myth-Of-Impending-Russian-Oil-Collapse.html

      Ron Patterson
      , 02/01/2015 at 9:06 am
      Two Russian, state sponsored, think tanks predicts Russia oil peak by 2016.

      GLOBAL AND RUSSIAN ENERGY OUTLOOK TO 2040

      Or read My Blog on the subject.
      Sorry, posted the wrong link. This one is to my Russian blog.

      Like BP, OPEC, the EIA and the IEA Russia also publishes an annual energy outlook. It is called the Global and Russian Energy Outlook to 2040. It is published by The Energy Research Institute of The Russian Academy of Sciences and The Analytical Center for The Government of The Russian Federation. I have no idea who these guys are but their titles sound impressive and they seem to be Russian think tanks funded by the Russian Government. But that is just an assumption of mine.

      It is a very large 175 page PDF file that appears to be very scholarly and well researched. However they appear to be very optimistic in their prediction of the future oil supply out to 2040. In one scenario they are not optimistic at all for coal production however.

      Huckleberry Finn
      , 02/01/2015 at 10:35 am
      Great article Alex. Thanks for sharing.

      I think one point here that Goldmann Missed is that Inflation is over 30% in Russia. They are delusional if they think finding costs in Roubles will remain static.

      AlexS
      , 02/02/2015 at 6:34 am
      Huckleberry Finn,

      CPI (consumer price) inflation in Russia has risen above 11% in Dec14 and Jan 2015, but is likely to moderate by the end of the year.
      PPI (producer price) inflation if much lower (5.9% as of Dec 2014).
      (Official data from Goskomstat).
      Oil services costs may have risen slightly in ruble terms, but they are certainly sharply down in dollar terms due to the ruble devaluation. Meanwhile, the large part of the revenue base is dollar-denominated. Coupled with the Russian oil tax system this supports company margins and cashflows.

      The article below is not about Russian oil companies. But it mentions two of them as having the best Free-cash-flow yield among global oil producers:

      "Free-cash-flow yield, a measure of how much cash from operations a business generates relative to its share price, is another way to compare producers, Hubbard said. By that measure, Woodside and ONGC rank behind only OAO Rosneft, Valero Energy Corp. and OAO Tatneft."

      http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2015-01-19/woodside-ongc-among-world-s-best-protected-from-oil-s-plunge.html

      Nick Hail
      , 02/02/2015 at 12:45 am
      I never said fracking was the black swan event. You implied that all by yourself.
      Opritov Alexander
      , 02/02/2015 at 5:38 am

      Oil taxes Russia:

      TechGuy , 02/03/2015 at 12:03 am

      "Oh, and fracking was not a black swan event, it was a price event. The price of oil rose high enough to make tight oil fracking economical."

      And cheap and easy credit to finance it. If interest rates were normal (ie 5%) it would not have been as easy for frack drillers to obtain the capital they needed. The costs to drill would have been higher if the borrowing costs were higher. Most of the frack drillers are deep in debt, and borrowed almost every penny needed to fund drilling operations.

      Even if oil prices move back up, frack drillers will also need low borrowing costs to continue to drill.

      Fernando Leanme , 02/03/2015 at 4:35 am

      You know, lending at 5 % may be justifiable if the entity receiving the loan is locked to say 50 % equity (the hurdle discount rate for this type of investment could be as low as 10 %). You guys seem to know quite a bit about finances. I wonder what such a deal would look like to a lender who also asks for 70 % of the first year's oil production to be covered in the futures market?

      I haven't run the numbers, but it seems to me such lending could make sense. What do you guys think?

      Duanex
      , 02/03/2015 at 4:45 am

      Just look at the way the Linn deal was structured with DrillCo. They're getting a far cry more than one year's coverage in the futures market.

      Ryan C
      , 02/03/2015 at 4:28 am

      The points you folks make regarding LTO extraction, profitability or lack thereof, capital structure, recoverable reserves etc. are fundamentally distorted by the generality of your assumptions regarding the business model. Unconventional reservoirs have no more heterogeneity than the operators who currently control them. In other words, not all companies are created equal. It's true in all other sectors of the economy, certainly no different here.

      To say the shale "revolution" is only made possible by cheap credit is just stupid. Oil and gas business is the most capital intensive business outside of space exploration -- so, of course, access to capital is critical for innovations in production to occur. Incentives for investment in energy have always existed in one form or another. Commodity prices, in this case, were the catalyst for the initial development of shale fields and infrastructure.

      High prices will not be as necessary going forward. The operators who secured the commercial acreage are not relying as heavily on high-yield financing as are the small fries who came to the party late. Economies of scale make LTO work and unfortunately the access to cheap credit and high commodity prices let a bunch of diluted, second rate operators in the marginal areas of the plays. These guys will be wiped out by the credit crunch and lack of overall commerciality of there positions. Who gives a shit. This is the nature of the beast. If anything, it did the EOG's of the world a favor by delineating the economic windows of the play. Most of this was done during times of unusually high prices so the in-ground assets of the failed operators are probably close to neutral in terms of NPV (if you factor in some salvage value).

      The chain of M&A's will be kicking off soon and the rest of the commercial acreage will be absorbed by those with the lowest cost structure and ability to continue without being levered up out the eyeballs. Public companies will use a mix of equity, debt, and free cash flow to develop their leasehold at a reasonable pace and will earn an adequate (not huge) return. In the interim, service companies will capitulate and overall prices will moderate. The real unknown lies in the performance of in-fill wells and the ability to successfully down-space. IMO, no conclusive data is being presented in the major plays to make the case one way or the other. The long-term profit driver for these companies is the ability to manufacture repeatability at minimum spacing after the infrastructure build out and common lease facilities have been largely paid off. In the grand scheme, US shale reserves are small potatoes.

      The chicken littles screaming the I told you so's about the shale biz aren't saying much. It is what it is. It will work as a moderately profitable model for a decent period of time for SOME and others it won't. It will not make the US energy independent and it won't change the world. It's not a black swan or a revolution or anything that dramatic really. It's a nice tale of dedication, perseverance and American ingenuity but its net neutral at best in terms of economic plus or minus.

      Ron Patterson
      , 02/03/2015 at 6:10 am

      Ryan, please learn how to use paragraph brakes. Your post is very hard to read without them. And indicate who you are replying to?

      To say the shale "revolution" is only made possible by cheap credit is just stupid.

      Who wrote that? I did not. However I would not argue with that logic. A lot of small drillers would not be in business without the money from low yield junk bonds. Now junk bonds are yielding a lot more, it will be a lot harder for them to borrow money.

      US shale reserves are small potatoes.

      I don't know about reserves but US shale production is definitely not small potatoes, it is the one thing that has kept the world from hitting peak oil way back in 2005 or 2006.

      Ryan C
      , 02/04/2015 at 4:57 am

      Ron,
      Apologies. And thanks for the advice on forum etiquette. Paragraph breaks dually noted!

      My response was supposed to be directed at this post by Northwest resident which was a carry-over argument from a post SRSrocco made. I am new to this forum and am having trouble following the spider web of comments which seems to pile up at a precipitous rate.

      "We couldn't afford it. It was a "boom" charged to credit with no way to repay. It was like somebody who knows he's going to file for bankruptcy anyway, so why not go out and max the credit cards before filing. If you ask me, the whole shale revolution was an engineered event to buy a little more time, to throw one last really wild party before the lights go out. Now here we are, no more credit, buried in debt, and no more time. Lights out!"

      Anyway, my point is that most successful LTO producers are major, public companies who do not rely solely on bonds to finance their drilling efforts. I can't cite credit ratings for individual entities but I doubt most of them are junk status. The high yield financing is more symptom than cause. Like any market segment, you have winners and losers. Most drillers who relied on high yield debt to finance operations were late establishing positions in commercial areas of the plays which has been and will continue to be the only way to earn a decent ROI and ROE in the unconventional realm. The others simply did it because it could be done and people would lend them the money to do it. Because shale is somehow viewed as a revolution or phenomena, we tend to extrapolate the notion that it is either a success or an abject failure. The correct conceptualization is more akin to conventional production in that capital investment may work for one company and not for another depending on the result of operations.

      The only difference is conventional development is mainly subject to geological risk and unconventional subject to economic risk. In this sense, there is very little significance to North American LTO production outside of the confluence of factors that allowed for many incapable and unsustainable entrants to the plays which , in turn, caused a significant production spike from the US. On a go forward basis, high commodity prices ($85-$100+) are not necessary for good operators to succeed.

      "I don't know about reserves but US shale production is definitely not small potatoes"

      The "sweet spots" in the two major plays (Bakken & EF) are limited in scope. The Permian still has questions surrounding economic recovery rates and thus proven reserves. Given decline rates and the correlation between commodity prices and CAPEX, US proven reserves are very small in comparison to SA, Venezuela and other low cost, high reserve countries.

      Correct me if wrong, but I believe EIA estimates US proven reserves around 40 billion. IEA estimates put SA and Vend at nearly 200 billion MORE THAN US! When you put it in perspective, there is nothing all that significant about US unconventional production aside from how quickly it ramped up. We should stop viewing it in the light that its some exceptional, world-altering discovery.

      It's more comparable to tech companies in the late 90's. A bunch sprung up. A bunch failed. The good ones consolidated and are still around today. The major difference being that eventually commercial shale fields will deplete and the companies still standing will have to look elsewhere.

      Fernando Leanme
      , 02/04/2015 at 5:09 am

      Most of Venezuela's oil resource is in the Orinoco oil belt. That oil is similar to Alberta's "bitumen", but it has a lower viscosity. Under current circumstances a lot of those booked reserves can't be produced. And even if one tries to move ahead it would take years to turn things around.

      The way I see it they got the Brazilian fields, ITT in Ecuador, Vaca Muerta in Argentina. I can think of a few other places, but the other reserves they have will require lots, lots of wells. It's going to get busy in a couple of years.

      Boomer II
      , 02/01/2015 at 12:49 am

      Unless the technology they have created can produce oil over an extended period of time at an affordable price, then it probably isn't going to change anything.

      Name
      , 02/06/2015 at 7:38 am

      Nick Hail > The biggest threat to your whole theory is a black swan event. The most probable cause of this is technology. I know of 2 techs being tested that have the ability to render the whole production curve as we know it wrong.

      "Sustainable Energy – without the hot air"
      http://www.withouthotair.com/Videos.html

      Fernando Leanme , 02/01/2015 at 5:14 am
      I linked this post at Judy Curry's "week in review". I think you'll have some new visitors.
      Allan H
      , 02/01/2015 at 10:26 am

      Ron, excellent presentation. I believe you are correct in calling peak oil in the near future. The fact that the Saudis are investing billions for fracking their shale oil deposits is an indicator that even they see the end of their enhanced oil recovery in historical fields.

      But just to play devil's advocate, I do not see a huge plunge in oil production worldwide. As it starts to fall, the Russians, Chinese and Saudis will push shale oil production. This will slow the fall in production and might even cause a second hump or plateau. Further development of North American shale and tar sands as well as some EOR will ease the drop on this side of the world.

      As price rises, exploration will increase and some new finds will come on line.

      All in all though, this does look like the top. One does have to be wary of new "accounting" methods for oil that might make things look better than they are.

      We can always hope the new method for low temperature conversion of CO2 to methanol comes out of hiding again. That and some other methods will ease the change. It will be quite interesting to see the response when oil descent becomes obvious.

      Storage solutions:

      http://www.vtnews.vt.edu/articles/2013/04/040413-cals-hydrogen.html
      http://www.technologyreview.com/view/512996/a-cheaper-way-to-make-hydrogen-from-water/
      http://cleantechnica.com/2015/01/31/citigroup-predicts-battery-storage-will-hasten-demise-fossil-fuels/

      TechGuy , 02/01/2015 at 12:55 am
      Fern Wrote:
      "This implies tight supply, which leads to more investment…Stepping out of the real crude oil realm, If prices rise beyond $100 per barrel, I also expect the biofuels industry to go bananas increasing production. "

      Its very likely that this dip in price, even if short lived will have a more lasting effect on CapEx spending. Investors and Oil majors will be reluctant to jump back in with both feet, fearing another price collapse. It very unlikely the global economy can sustain $100 oil. As prices creep up, consumers will cut consumption causing demand destruction. This cycle will repeat until the economy finally collapses or World War 3 breaks out. The primary reason why oil prices have fall is because demand has fallen. It appears to me that the massive amount of Central banking has been able to prop up the global economy. The first round of QE implemented ZIRP (Zero Interest Rate Policy) has come to its conclusion. To keep the economy afloat, Central banks will need to implement NIRP (Negative Interest Rate Policy). However I don't expect NIRP to last as long as ZIRP, and there once NIRP is done, there is not else left to prop up the global economy. ZIRP and NIRP are the equivent of eat ones seed corn. Once all of the capital savings are gone the economy will die. ZIRP was an attempt to get savings spent to keep the economy running. NIRP is designed to force the reaming capital to be spend (either spend it or lose it).

      Biofuels are not an energy source, and need other energy resources for the conversion. Plants require petrochemicals for productive yields. It takes energy to harvest and process the crop and even more energy to convert it into a usable fuel. The cost of biofuels is considerably more expensive than fossil fuels.

      The beauty of fossil fuels is that they all originate under-ground and allowing the surface of the planet to be utilized for other uses. For instance. land can be used to raise crops for human and animal consumption, and grow trees for lumber. With the exception of fracking, Water is not required to extract and process fossil fuels. If the economy was to switch to biofuels. Land, water and other resources must be diverted from other productivity (ie growing food) to fuel production. Large scale biofuel production to preserve BAU is walking dead man. Biofuels are also a disaster for the environment as it cases massive deforestation and farmers cut down forests to make room for biofuel crops. The World needs more trees since the are a natural carbon sink and also absorb air and water pollution. Trees are nature's all purpose cleaning system.

      In conclusion. Not only have we reached Peak Oil, Peak Energy Extraction, we also reached Peak CapEx for Energy resources.

      Boomer II , 02/01/2015 at 1:11 am

      Once all of the capital savings are gone the economy will die. ZIRP was an attempt to get savings spent to keep the economy running. NIRP is designed to force the reaming capital to be spend (either spend it or lose it).

      I think another issue we have to deal with is that even if oil were cheap and plentiful, these financial tricks haven't encouraged the rich to invest that money in activities that benefit the middle and lower classes.

      So even if we had cheap plentiful oil, if most of the world's population has little money to spend on it, then demand goes down.

      There's enough income inequality that I don't think cheap oil alone can drive economic growth these days. If you want to pay the poor to buy the cheap oil, then you can keep things running. But if they have no money to buy, then it doesn't matter how cheap it gets.

      Or you could pay the oil producers to generate cheap oil and then they can give it away. However, in order to pay those producers, the governments either have charge the rich more taxes, or the governments have to create more debt.

      So we have a combination of economic and resource problems.

      Fernando Leanme , 02/02/2015 at 5:31 am

      Stu, I guess the idea is fairly simple: fossil fuels do run out, as they do we must have replacements, if replacements don't compete on price with fossil fuels the cost of energy increases, this leads to either population reductions and/or a less energy intensive lifestyle.

      My concern arises because I read unrealistic assessments about renewables, way too optimistic and utopian.

      [Jan 30, 2015] Crude Oil Prices Are Spiking (Again)

      Jan 30, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Because - everything is awesome again. So the machines run the stops for the week but fail to hit $47, and no news, no catalyst, but naturally stocks decide to inch higher on this latest algorithmic idiocy.

      NoWayJose

      Or a LOT of short covering -- there were (and are) real reasons for crude to drop from $100 but this last $10 or so is all banksters.

      Pooper Popper

      Fucking Criminals!

      A build of 19 million barrels in the last 2 weeks......yep fucking criminal!

      buzzsaw99

      top cnbc headline:
      Why crude won't rebound any time soon

      falak pema

      Oil is an Oligarchy game and its managed between Saud and USA...

      Enuff said. What goes on behind the tinsel curtain is hard to ascertain.

      The Hezbollah take over of Syrian plays must have had a chilling effect on Saud.

      And an admission that they need US back-up to survive against mortal enemy, the Shia.

      Potus went there expressedly to take the pulse of new king.

      So the ping pong goes on on Oil price.

      stateside

      Here's why:

      Isis launch large-scale attack on Iraq's oil-rich Kirkuk

      Islamic State (Isis) fighters have launched a surprise attack on Iraq's northern city of Kirkuk, a major oil production centre.

      Isis fighters have captured land and villages to the south-west of the city, killing several peshmerga including a senior officer, according to local reports.

      The attack is believed to have come from three sides, with jihadists taking advantage of a dense fog to attack Kurdish positions overnight. Also, a suicide attack in the city centre has reportedly killed peshmerga general Shirko Rauf, brigade commander of the Kurdish forces in the city.

      Five other members of the Kurdish peshmerga forces were killed in clashes, while 46 more were wounded, according to AFP.

      Meanwhile, a few Isis fighters, some say a dozen, have reportedly broken into Kirkuk Palace hotel and established a foothold there. They are reportedly trapped by peshmerga forces and the clashes are ongoing.

      A curfew has been imposed from 10 am in the city after the attack.

      The militants have also captured Sayyid Ali Bridge and part of the nearby Khabaza gas field, according to some reports.

      http://www.ibtimes.co.uk/isis-large-scale-attack-iraqs-oil-rich-kirkuk-1...

      wrs1

      Exactly like when the market hit 666 in March 2009 and the people here were expecting 400 or lower still. They were absolutely destroyed by the squeeze, same kind of disbelief when silver started collapsing from $50 and gold from $1900. This place has a bunch of linear thinkers that believe they know more than the next guy when the truth is, the information they get is the same as everyone else gets, mostly garbage.

      The key is the elevated gold to oil ratio. If gold won't fall, oil has to rise, a lot. So far, gold has done well by bouncing off it's 200dma and that is part of the reason oil had to rise today. There is no way the gold oil ratio keeps climbing from here. It was exactly one gram per barrel yesterday and now it's back to 27 using front month contracts as a measure. I see oil back to 60 fairly soon if gold can crack $1300. If not, this may be dead cat action and the same for gold. Monday should be interesting.

      For me, I am glad to see them both up significantly on the day since I own both.

      Mayer Amschel Rothschild

      Big picture:

      Per eia.gov website, "U.S. commercial crude oil inventories...are at 406.7 million barrels, the highest level for this time of year in at least the last 80 years."

      nector_collecter

      In 2013, the United States consumed a total of 6.89 billion barrels of petroleum products, an average of 18.89 million barrels per day.1 This total includes about 0.32 billion barrels o406.7 M barrels biofuels.

      406.7 Mbarrels= 21.5 day supply.......but oversupply is definitely growing

      ExploitedCitizen

      I know the Zionists who run the USA are real pissed at Putin, so oil prices will probably keep declining until the $20's.

      Going long right now, I worry monday the bottom will fall out of it. So many people are bottom fishing oil, which might be a good idea when the downtrend breaks, but it is still within a strong downtrend, even if it pops another $5 still intact.

      [Jan 30, 2015] Did somebody stopped supressing oil price using futures ?

      Reuters

      Oil prices roared back from six-year lows on Friday, rocketing more than 8 percent as a record weekly decline in U.S. oil drilling fueled a frenzy of short-covering.

      In a rally that may spur speculation that a seven-month price collapse has ended, global benchmark Brent crude shot up to more than $53 per barrel, its highest in more than three weeks in its biggest one-day gain since 2009.

      The late-session surge was primed by Baker Hughes data showing the number of rigs drilling for oil in the United States fell by 94 - or 7 percent - this week. Earlier gains were fueled by reports of Islamic State militants striking at Kurdish forces southwest of the oil-rich city of Kirkuk.

      Brent LCOc1 settled up $3.86 at $52.99 a barrel, after running to as high as $53.08.

      [Jan 30, 2015] It Begins: Energy Giant Chevron Suspends Stock Buyback, Blames "Cash Flow Squeeze"

      It was less than 24 hours after we posted that either oil will double from here allowing energy companies to grow into a normal P/E multiple, or energy stocks will have to crash by over 40% for the ridiculous 23x to return to its normal, long-term average of 13.6x.

      Moments ago energy giant Chevron admitted that not only does it not see oil doubling any time soon, but that energy prices are almost certain to go far lower from here, and as a result the company decided that after buying back $5 billion of its shares in 2014, i.e., buying high and higher before the stock crashes may not be the best use of dwindling cash flow, and as a result has just suspended its stock buyback program for the rest of 2015. Yes, energy giant Chevron just ended its buyback!

      [Jan 30, 2015] Chevron Slashes 23% Of PA Workforce As US Rig Count Collapses To June 2010 Lows

      For the 8th week in a row (something that hasn't happened since June 2009), US total rig count plunged. This week's 90 rig drop to 1543 is the largest so far (with oil rigs down 94 to 1223 - lowest since Jan 2013). The total rig count is now down 20% in the last 8 weeks to the lowest since June 2010 as it tracks the 4-month lagged oil price perfectly. This is the 2nd biggest 8-week drop in 22 years.

      This - rather unsurprisingly - has led Chevron to decide to cut 23% of its Pennsylvania workforce "due to activity levels."

      Not 'unambiguously positive' as so many in the central planning bureaus would have everyone believe.

      [Jan 28, 2015] Barclays, Goldman forecast bearish first half for oil prices

      Barclays slashed its 2015 Brent crude oil price forecast to $44 a barrel from $72, while Goldman said it expected prices for West Texas Intermediate crude to trade close to $40 per barrel for most of the first half of 2015.

      "We expect to see further downside to prices in the next few months, with both WTI and Brent likely to trade into the high $30s before the oil price decline is arrested," Barclays analyst Michael Cohen said in a note to clients

      [Jan 28, 2015] North Dakota Oil Producers Aim To Cut Radioactive Waste Bills

      Business Insider

      North Dakota's oil industry is pushing to change the state's radioactive waste disposal laws as part of a broad effort to conserve cash as oil prices tumble.

      The waste, which becomes slightly radioactive as part of the hydraulic fracturing process that churns up isotopes locked underground, must be trucked out of state. That's because rules prohibit North Dakota landfills from accepting anything but miniscule amounts of radiation.

      The most common form of radioactive waste is a filter sock, a mesh tube resembling a sandbag through which fracking water is pumped before it's injected back into the earth. Tank and pipeline sludge are also radioactive.

      It's not clear how much of this waste is generated, as North Dakota officials only began requiring tracking last year; final 2014 reports aren't due until next month. Some put the number at 70 tons per day; others say 27 tons.

      Given that, estimates on potential savings aren't precise. But the oil industry says allowing North Dakota's landfills to accept more radioactive material could save at least $10,000 in transportation costs per truckload. There are 11,942 active wells in the state, so assuming each well generates at least one 15-cubic yard Dumpster's worth of radioactive waste each year - a conservative estimate, state officials say - that translates to an annual savings of about $120 million statewide.

      ... ... ...

      Changing the regulation would also make North Dakota's energy industry more self-reliant, oil producers said.

      If other states stop taking the waste - Utah, Washington and California have far more liberal standards but for now aren't planning to close the gates - North Dakota's oil development would stop.

      Clean Harbors Inc's Colorado landfill currently accepts North Dakota's radioactive waste. But allowing the company's North Dakota facility to do the same could represent a boon for the company. Clean Harbors said it supports changing the regulations.

      The proposed changes are not universally popular. During the hearing in Williston last week, some attendees held signs reading: "Protect Health Not Oil's Wealth!" that were plastered with radioactive symbols.

      "The only reason we're doing this today is to cut the oil industry's costs," said Darrell Dorgan, spokesman for the North Dakota Energy Industry Waste Coalition, an environmental group.

      HOW IT WORKS

      The hydraulic fracturing process - commonly known as "fracking" - extracts millions of gallons of water per well alongside oil. That mixture also contains small amounts of radium, a byproduct of uranium, and other sediments.

      After that water is separated from oil, but before it's sent back into the earth, it must be pushed through the mesh filter socks to remove sand, pebbles and other materials that could potentially clog injection wells.

      Filter socks are also used at drilling sites to separate sediment from water that naturally flows back each time a new well is bored.

      In both instances, the radioactive material is actually an afterthought: the filter socks aren't designed to collect it, but become radioactive when they do their jobs.

      North Dakota's landfills currently can only accept waste with radioactive material up to 5 picocuries, a measurement of the radioactivity found in a gram of material. A banana has, on average, 3.5 picocuries of radiation.

      Last year, state officials commissioned Argonne National Laboratory to study what the safest levels of radiation would be for landfills. The answer: 51.5 picocuries. Armed with that information, the state's Department of Health is seeking approval to boost the level for in-state disposal to 50 picocuries.

      The increase is part of broader regulatory power the health department is seeking; current regulations were not written with oil industry waste in mind, officials said. "This is all a part of our efforts to protect the health and safety of North Dakotans," said Scott Radig, head of the department's waste management division, which late Tuesday extended the public comment period to March on the rule change. Even if a legislative panel approves the change - which wouldn't happen until Oct. 1 at the earliest - North Dakota's disposal levels would remain below Utah's (10,000 picocuries), Colorado's (2,000) and Idaho's (1,500).

      "On the radioactive scale," said Radig, "the material we're talking about is extremely low."

      U.S. Shale Boom May Come To Abrupt End

      naked capitalism

      U.S tight oil production from shale plays will fall more quickly than most assume.

      Why? High decline rates from shale reservoirs is given. The more interesting reasons are the compounding effects of pad drilling on rig count and poorer average well performance with time.

      Rig productivity has increased but average well productivity has decreased. Every rig used in pad drilling has approximately three times the impact on the daily production rate as a rig did before pad drilling. At the same time, average well productivity has decreased by about one-third.

      This means that production rates will fall at a much higher rate today than during previous periods of falling rig counts.

      Most shale wells today are drilled from pads. One rig drills many wells from the same surface location, as shown in the diagram below

      ... ... ....

      The Eagle Ford Shale play in South Texas is one of the major contributors to increased U.S. oil production. A few charts from the Eagle Ford play will demonstrate why I believe that the shale boom will fall sooner and more sharply than many analysts predict.


      Ignacio, January 27, 2015 at 3:40 am

      Interesting. According to bakerhughes web page, the rig count in Eagle Ford is slowly decreasing, Put the blame on earthquaques (¿related with so much drilling?). Lets suppose a total decline of 10% in rig count in January about (25/250). According to this post this would imply more than a 10% decline in production in february.


      PlutoKun, January 27, 2015 at 3:55 am


      Very interesting observations. I can't help thinking that oil and gas production projections are so often wrong because the analysts are overwhelmingly economists rather than people with a proper science or engineering background.

      I can't help thinking that if the oil drop was part of a deliberate strategy by the Saudi's, they would have agents ready to buy up mothballed drill rigs as soon as they are available in the market, and scrap them immediately. This would make it far harder for the industry to bounce back in the event of oil prices returning to three figures.

      I wonder though if a sharp drop in shale oil production would really cause international oil prices to return rapidly. Because of refining bottlenecks on particular grades of oil I suspect that the impact would be less than expected – it would cause prices to rise in specific local US markets as demand rises for Gulf, Alaskan or other heavier grades, but I'm not sure it would have any impact on the price of Middle Eastern or Russian crude, as there is little direct overlap in those markets.


      fresno dan, January 27, 2015 at 11:29 am

      "I can't help thinking that oil and gas production projections are so often wrong because the analysts are overwhelmingly economists rather than people with a proper science or engineering background."

      I can't help thinking that oil and gas production projections are so often wrong because the analysts are grifters trying to scam gullible investors….
      Think of the effort, "supposed" legal protections for the evaluation of securities, fiduciary and financial regulations, and than consider housing bonds.
      Consider the MBS representations:
      crafty
      criminal
      deceitful
      devious
      dishonest
      dishonorable
      double-dealing
      dubious
      fraudulent
      illegal
      indirect
      iniquitous
      nefarious
      questionable
      ruthless
      shady
      shifty
      treacherous
      underhand
      unlawful
      unprincipled
      unscrupulous
      untruthful
      ….
      OH, and I forgot LYING!

      Torsten January 27, 2015 at 7:52 am

      I don't mean to second-guess Berman, who has been an astute observer of the fracking scene, but decreased production was always to be expected from the second, third (or … tenth!) horizontal drilled from a pad. Initial horizontals should always be drilled toward the best proven reserve, so subsequent horizontals are ipso facto presumed to be suboptimal.

      The big reason for the coming accelerated crash looks to be the Ponzi scheme: the asset value was grossly inflated. There was never as much oil down the hole as investors were promised, so to cover up this fact new horizontals had to constantly be drilled to support the illusion of boundless supplies. Now the financiers will have to sort out who holds the worthless paper and try to stick the taxpayers with the bad debt.

      weinerdog43, January 27, 2015 at 8:51 am

      My brother in law was a team manager for Schlumberger until last week when he finally retired after 25+ years. He was given the option of early retirement or likely layoff, and chose the former. He was based in the Permian Basin and did a huge amount of work in the Eagle Ford. As you probably know, Schlumberger is the world's largest oil field service company and they are in the process of laying off 9,000 US & Canadian employees. The big operators like them are always ahead of the little guys and shoestring operations, so you this is really just the beginning.

      His boss told him that 'the numbers don't work', and we're cutting expenses right now. At only $40+ per barrel, fracking in the US is effectively dead.

      January 27, 2015 at 9:46 am

      When is a Ponzi Scheme dead? The Banksters will need to keep the game of musical chairs going until they are comfortably seated and whoever they can pass the losses to are standing. Schlumberger is merely the first to sit. If one of the Banksters is not able to find a chair, the Fed will see that a chair is provided. Bet on it!


      Jagger, January 27, 2015 at 11:03 am

      This is the nightmare of fracking: Confirmed: California Aquifers Contaminated With Billions Of Gallons of Fracking Wastewater.

      http://www.desmogblog.com/2014/10/07/central-california-aquifers-contaminated-billions-gallons-fracking-wastewater

      So for whatever reason, if fracking is finished, good riddance. Land becomes unusable without drinkable water.

      Of course this article is from Oct 2014 and yesterday is the first that I heard of it.

      [Jan 25, 2015] IEA - OMR Public

      • The price of oil continued to collapse into January as rising supplies collided with weak demand growth and OPEC maintained its commitment to not cut production. Brent crude futures last traded at $48.40/bbl, near a six-year low. NYMEX WTI was at $47.75/bbl.
      • Macroeconomic weakness continues to restrain global oil demand growth, with 4Q14 deliveries estimated just 0.6 mb/d above year-earlier levels. Despite lower prices, demand growth is only forecast to accelerate to 0.9 mb/d in 2015, unchanged since last month's Report.
      • The oil selloff has cut expectations of 2015 non-OPEC supply growth by 350 kb/d since last month, to 950 kb/d. Effects on North American supply are so far limited to 95 kb/d and 80 kb/d to the Canadian and US forecasts, respectively. Projections for Colombia are cut by 175 kb/d and a further 30 kb/d for Russia.
      • OPEC output rose by 80 kb/d in December to 30.48 mb/d, as Iraqi supply surged to 35-year highs, offsetting deeper losses in Libya. Downward revisions to the non-OPEC supply outlook raise the 'call' on OPEC for 2H15 to an average 29.8 mb/d - just shy of OPEC's official target of 30 mb/d.
      • Global refinery crude throughputs surged to a new record high of 78.9 mb/d in December, lifting the 4Q14 estimate to 78.2 mb/d. Throughputs are forecast however to ease seasonally to 77.8 mb/d in 1Q15 amid brimming product inventories, weakening margins, lower demand and increased refinery maintenance.
      • OECD commercial inventories drew less than usual in November, falling by 8.7 mb to 2 697 mb. As OECD refiners hiked runs, crude stocks drew while product stocks increased. Preliminary data indicate a 12.5 mb build in December, which would see stocks rise to their widest surplus versus the five-year average since August 2010.

      ... ... ...

      The most tangible price effects are on the supply front. Upstream spending plans have been the first casualty of the market's rout. Companies have been taking an axe to their budgets, postponing or cancelling new projects, while trying to squeeze the most out of producing fields. For the most part the supply effects will not be felt immediately, but further down the road, through project delays and faster decline rates. Nevertheless, expectations of non-OPEC supply growth for 2015 have already been downgraded, with growth for the year adjusted downwards by 350 kb/d since last month's Report and more steeply so for 2H15. Colombia and Canada lead the declines. Expectations of US light, tight oil production growth have also been revisited, but so far the cuts do not exceed 80 kb/d compared with our already conservative previous estimates, as many producers appear to be well hedged against short-term price drops.

      ... ... ...

      Rebalancing of the market does not equate to a return to the status quo ante. It is clear that the market is undergoing a historic shift. OPEC's embrace of market forces last November is a game changer. So is the US light, tight oil revolution. Thanks to its short lead-time and low upfront capital costs, LTO may prove quicker to ramp up production than conventional supply.

      Oil's place in the global energy mix is also transforming. While there might be light at the end of the tunnel for producers as far as prices are concerned, the next few years could nevertheless prove a period of reckoning for a market and an industry that, through the course of their 150-year history, have had to periodically reinvent themselves.

      [Jan 25, 2015] Oil price collapse set to end this year, claims IEA

      Jan 17, 2015 |

      The oil price rout could end in the second half of the year, according to the International Energy Agency, which believes that "signs are mounting that the tide will turn".

      The agency, which represents the world's largest energy-consuming nations, said that it expected a slowdown in oil output growth from non-Opec producers, which in turn would help to ease the global glut in crude.

      Oil companies have cancelled dozens of projects that have been rendered unecomonic and have cut spending to weather the downturn.

      [Jan 25, 2015] Oil majors set for dismal results amid price slump by Tim Webb

      January 06, 2015 | The Times

      Oil majors are expected to lay bare the devastating impact of the slump in crude prices next month, when they are forecast to reveal the lowest quarterly returns since 1998.

      Citigroup, the US investment bank, estimates that companies including BP and Shell will report average returns...

      [Jan 25, 2015] Head of Total: to maintain oil production at the same level required huge investments

      January 21, TASS

      Oil prices will return to their previous level, also predicts Patrick Pouyanne.

      To maintain oil production in the world at the same level required huge investments. This was stated by the head of the Total Patrick Pouyanne during the live broadcast at the Davos forum in Davos Live.

      "There is a natural decline in oil production, including why we need to increase gas production. Between now and year 2030 half of the production will disappear, which is about 50 million barrels per day. This means that we should invest a lot of money in production," said Luanne.
      He added that the world requires increasing amounts of energy. "In the next 20 years, the share of hydrocarbons in the global energy balance will remain at 70 per cent," he added.

      A new cycle

      He believes that oil prices will return to their previous level, since this is a cyclical movement.

      Due to the decline in oil prices Total plans in 2015 to reduce costs by $3 billion

      "A new energy cycle now begins Oil costs about $50 per barrel. So I, like most of my colleagues, reduce investments, in parallel, reduced investments in energy saving technologies", - he explained, noting that he could not predict the timing of this cycle.

      "In 2009, it took six months, and in 1986 the years," Patrick Pouyanne noted.

      The previous cycle, according to him, began with the arrival of "big money, followed by the new technologies in the oil and gas sector.

      "New projects everged that create demand for efficient technologies - especially in the US. In 2007, no one was even talking about shale deposits, although all of these technologies have been known. There were no demand for them, while oil prices have not risen to a certain level. At the same time energy-saving technologies were developing too.

      In the end, now the level of supply in the market is high and demand is low," said the head of the Total

      [Jan 25, 2015] Baker Hughes to axe 7,000 jobs

      ft.com

      Oil drilling is falling faster in North America than in the rest of the world, according to Baker Hughes, which on Tuesday announced plans to cut 7,000 jobs in the first quarter of this year in response to the plunge in oil prices.
      The oil services company warned of "challenging" conditions ahead, with the industry in the early stages of a downturn of the type seen once or twice every decade.

      Halliburton, the rival oil services firm that last November agreed a takeover of Baker Hughes now valued at $26.8bn, also on Tuesday highlighted a sharp slowdown in activity.

      Dave Lesar, Halliburton's chief executive, said spending by the oil companies that are its customers had on average been cut 25-30 per cent, "as they adjust their spending to operate within their cash flows" in response to falling oil prices.

      He added that many customers were still revising their budgets down, making it "difficult to size your business in today's US market in particular because it is such a fast-moving target".

      Baker Hughes' planned job cuts represent about 12 per cent of its global workforce of about 59,000.
      Last week Schlumberger, the world's largest oil services group, said it planned to cut 9,000 jobs, or about 7 per cent of its workforce....

      [Jan 25, 2015] Why the U.S. Is Stuck With Saudi Arabia by Matt Schiavenza

      Jan 24 2015 | The Atlantic

      So why does the U.S. put up with Saudi Arabia? The simplest explanation, of course, is oil. The kingdom is the largest and most important producer in the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC), the bloc that controls around 40 percent of the world's oil. Because the United States was until recently the world's top oil importer, an alliance with Saudi Arabia made geopolitical sense.

      The recent shale oil boom in the U.S. has led Washington to hope that before long, its alliance with Riyadh won't be necessary. The U.S. now pumps more than 9 million barrels of oil per day, which almost matches the amount in Saudi Arabia. Observers project that in five years, the U.S. will get 80 percent of its oil from North and South America and will be mostly self-sufficient by 2035. The OPEC decision to not cut supply in response to falling oil prices signaled that the North American boom had fundamentally changed the commodity's global logic.

      Saudi Arabia is well-positioned to survive a sustained drop in the price of oil, currently at $48.71 a barrel. Riyadh generally needs oil to trade at $80 a barrel in order to balance its budget. But with $750 billion stashed away in reserve, the kingdom faces little pressure to reduce supply and raise the price. In addition, Saudi Arabia and fellow OPEC members Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates have proved reserves of 460 billion barrels. The United States, by contrast, has proved reserves of just 10 billion-and the U.S. Energy Information Agency forecasts that American shale oil production will plateau in 2020.

      Given the precarious health of King Salman, who is 79 and alleged to be suffering from dementia, the United States government may well find itself offering condolences to Saudi Arabia on the death of its ruler before much longer. When the time comes, don't expect the reaction to be any less effusive.

      US Rig Count Craters To Lowest Since August 2010

      Zero Hedge

      As T.Boone Pickens so rightly noted, watch the US rig count (and suggested it will need to drop 500 rigs or more before any stability returns).

      • *U.S. OIL RIG COUNT -49 TO 1,317, BAKER HUGHES SAYS
      • US HORIZONTAL DRILLING RIGS DOWN 24 AT 1,229 IN WEEK TO JANUARY 23 -- BAKER HUGHES

      The rig count continues to collapse... as 4-month lagged oil prices lead the way - just as they did before...

      • *ENERGY RIGS IN TEXAS'S EAGLE FORD FORMATION DOWN FOUR TO 181
      • *MISSISSIPPIAN LOSES FIVE RIGS TO 63: BAKER HUGHES
      • *ENERGY RIGS IN PERMIAN BASIN SLIDE BY 6 TO 481: BAKER HUGHES
      • *ENERGY RIGS IN WILLISTON BASIN FALL BY 12 TO 153: BAKER HUGHES
      • *ENERGY RIGS IN MARCELLUS FORMATION GAINS ONE TO 76

      But don't worry - Treasury Secretary Lew says the oil companies can handle it...

      • *LEW SAYS U.S. CRUDE PRODUCERS CAN HANDLE DECLINE IN OIL PRICES

      As credit risk hovers near record highs for the sector

      Romney Wordsworth

      <== Saudis are laughing their asses off

      <== Goldman Sachs is laughing their asses off

      whatsinaname

      Little OT but noticed something weird about some oil companies - some of them had sold Puts on Oil in addition to buying hedges for downside price protection. While hedges might help them, I dont see the point of selling puts alongwith those. Unless of course they were smart enough to cover them before the downdraft.

      madcows

      i think the saudis are trying to drive everyone else out of business.

      GS is just a bunch of a-holes.

      NotApplicable

      Well, other than the fact that their production has already peaked...

      Shit, they can't even get any positive gains from their increased rig count.

      This is classic malinvestment and simply does not require conspiracy theories. Sure, Saudis want to eliminate competition, but they sure as fuck don't have the means to accomplish it. Demand isn't there, yet supply is so leveraged, nearly all producers have no choice but to pump like mad.

      This is but a dog-eat-dog scenario where everyone tries to survive longer than their neighbor until some semblance of balance returns.

      thamnosma

      Lots of jobs going down the drain, unemployment rate up, potential cover for no rate increase.

      Login or register to post comments

      Tsar Pointless

      Hmm...a controlled demolition of the U.S. economy, a la WTC 7.

      "Nobody could have predicted the plunge in oil price would lead to a drastic plunge in the world/domestic economy."

      Pull it.

      Philo Beddoe

      The comittee will adjust its expectations to the data which becomes available and will pursue the correct macroprudential path when that time comes.

      Login or register to post comments.

      wmbz

      Layoffs and bankruptcies are picking up steam.

      Craigslist will be getting more bidness as the "toys" start getting sold off.

      NotApplicable

      I find the terms "undershoot/overshoot" to be a misnomer, as it implies something goes down/up further than necessary. In reality though, it is necessary, as that final capitulation creates the market signal that the true bottom/top is in.

      It's not like you can magically recognize the "correct" level in advance. Especially when there is still price adjustment that needs to occur in order for an investment to present an acceptable level of risk to return. Without the "undershoot/overshoot" event, capital has no incentive to flow, as it is still not needed.

      Soul Glow

      Jobs aren't important, everyone will collect unemployment forever and food stamps until infinity and beyond while the banks print print print moar and moar free monies!

      The Real Unemployment Rate: In 20% Of American Families, Everyone Is Unemployed -

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-04-29/real-unemployment-rate-20-ameri...

      There Has Never Been A Greater Portion Of America Living On Food Stamps -

      http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-12-07/there-has-never-been-greater-po...

      Jack Burton

      When you own a drilling company, and you are leveraged with Junk Bonds and the well head price means every barrel coming out marks up another loss of dollars, you might want to walk away and wait this low price cycle out. But you can't because "you are leveraged with Junk Bonds".

      The interest is due, so you pump and pray for a major spike in oil prices. You and every other high cost producer on the margines, you all pump like mad to service debt while praying for the oil price to spike. Basic economic of supply and demand are driving nails into their coffins, as supply grows as demand has fallen off. The oil markets find a lack of bidders and prices fall even more.

      Until the Saudis squeeze all of the great American Shale Oil Miracle out of the markets. You can only pump at a loss so long, and then all the leveraged producers must default. The default tears through the financially engineered banks system and all the hedges finally dry up, or can't pay up.

      Oil is boom and bust, that is why all the shills pushing you into chasing yield in the Junk Bond market have exposed you to the bust in oil. Banks too lent heavily to producers, chasing yield in the newly energy independent America. The low cost producers can last out North Sea oil, Canadian Tar Sands, American Oil Frackers, and the opening round of Arctic drillers. Saudi want their market share back, they want to be the American's oil supplier with all the political leverage that entails.

      Simple enough, and Washiington DC is on board with the Saudis, allowing the Fracking Miracle to die, in the vaguie hope of collapsing the Russian economy, Iranian economy and Venezuela. The Zionist Neocons in Washington, will happily destroy a million good jobs in America, to bag three enemies of Zionism.

      NotApplicable

      Must default? Sorry Jack, but you're confusing this shit-show with a functional economy that contains risk.

      Producer debt will be securitized and sold to Yellen Inc. long before TPTB allow domestic production to blow-up (in the name of national security, reliance on foreign oil, etc). Sure there will be some that are allowed to fail, but that just creates the activation energy for the next QE 'mandate.'

      This is ALL about the banks, remember?

      [Jan 23, 2015] These Shale Companies Will File For Bankruptcy First Goldman's Best And Worst Shale Matrix

      Jan 23, 2015 | Zero Hedge

      Group 3: Weak balance sheet/strong assets

      This group includes companies with 2015E leverage above 2.5x and assets we rate "B" or higher. Companies include Antero Resources (NC), EP Energy (OP), Laredo Petroleum (NC), Oasis Petroleum (NC), Range Resources (OP), Rosetta Resources (NC), and Whiting Petroleum (U).

      We see companies in this group as being the most attractive targets for Group 1 and Group 2. One theme we heard consistently at the GS Global Energy Conference earlier this month is that management teams are willing to pay up to be in the "cores" of shale plays vs. buying "fringier" acreage at discounted prices. While this theme is not new, we believe it is even truer at $50/bbl WTI.

      From a seller's perspective, we believe the rationale for strategic combinations has also changed. Group 3 companies are the ones that have accumulated strong assets at the expense of limited financial flexibility. Facing likely negative ABL revisions and an unsecured HY E&P debt market that is essentially closed, we believe management teams that were previously committed to corporate independence may reconsider their options.

      In short we believe the "bid/ask" spread for Group 3 has shrunk, and, as a result, we view this group as being the current sweet spot for E&P credit investors. At an average yield of 7.5% and bonds typically trading in the low/mid-$90s, we see potential for double digit returns if our $65/bbl WTI oil price in 2016 plays out. However, we do not see the same downside risk as in Group 4 below if crude remains lower for longer.

      Group 4: Weak balance sheet/weak assets

      This group includes companies with leverage above 2.5x and assets we rate "B-" or lower. Names we highlight are Approach Resources (NC), Exco Resources (NC), Goodrich Petroleum (NC), Halcon Resources (IL), Magnum Hunter (NC), Midstates Petroleum (NC), Rex Energy (NC), Sabine Oil & Gas (U), Samson Investment (NC), Sandridge Energy (IL), and Swift Energy (U).

      We view management teams in this group as facing the most difficult decisions. Given the general lack of "core" assets, we believe strategic interest from a larger acquirer is less likely than for Group 3. Furthermore, with the bonds in this group generally trading below $80, we believe 101% change of control provisions act as de facto "poison pills" for acquirers.

      Given high leverage and the lack of strategic interest, we believe many companies will need to seek alternative sources of capital. While the options here will vary case by case, we note that most of these names have secured debt baskets that can be used to bolster liquidity. Based on the phone calls we receive, investor interest in this type of security remains high, which suggests to us we will see robust second-lien issuance as soon as the conclusion of 1Q earnings. The bottom line is that, for now, we think investors should tread lightly in this group, despite the average bond yield of 19% (excluding obviously distressed names Swift Energy, Samson Investment, and Sabine Oil & Gas).

      Worth noting: the above is actually an optimistic baseline:

      Our ratings are predicated on a $65/bbl WTI oil price in 2016. While we believe the consensus largely shares this view, there are clearly risks to the downside. Therefore – and all else being equal – we believe investors should prefer names with lower base portfolio decline rates. On average, we believe lower decline names will have more flexibility to cut capex and hibernate while waiting for an eventual recovery in prices.

      [Jan 20, 2015] Global Oil Market Shows Signs of Future Prices Recovery, IEA Reports

      "... Oil Market Report for January released by the International Energy Agency says that global oil market is showing signs of possible prices recovery. ..."
      "... According to the IEA, lower oil prices do not stimulate higher demand for oil in most markets except for the United States. "The usual benefits of lower prices - increased household disposable income, reduced industry input costs - have been largely offset by weak underlying economic conditions, which have themselves been a major reason for the price drop in the first place," IEA said. ..."
      Sputnik International

      Oil Market Report for January released by the International Energy Agency says that global oil market is showing signs of possible prices recovery.


      MOSCOW, January 16 (Sputnik) - Global oil market is showing signs of possible prices recovery as cancellation of major new extraction projects signifies future decrease in supply, suggests the Oil Market Report for January released by the International Energy Agency (IEA) on Friday.

      "Today's market participants are not ruling out further declines… But the selloff is having an impact. A price recovery - barring any major disruption - may not be imminent, but signs are mounting that the tide will turn," IEA said on its website adding that "the most tangible price effects are on the supply front."

      IEA noted that decrease in oil prices made many market giants postpone or cancel new ambitious projects which leads to a future decrease in global energy supply. "For the most part the supply effects will not be felt immediately, but further down the road, through project delays and faster decline rates," the organization said stressing that the expectations of non-OPEC supply growth for 2015 have already been downgraded by 350 kilo barrels per day as opposed to December forecasts.

      According to the IEA, lower oil prices do not stimulate higher demand for oil in most markets except for the United States. "The usual benefits of lower prices - increased household disposable income, reduced industry input costs - have been largely offset by weak underlying economic conditions, which have themselves been a major reason for the price drop in the first place," IEA said.

      The dramatic decrease in oil prices that went down by more than 50 percent since last June forced energy giants including Royal Dutch Shell, Premier Oil, Chevron and BP to cut expenses by putting ambitious projects on hold and cutting hundreds of jobs.

      On Thursday, February futures for Brent and WTI made a brief recovery to about $50 dollars a barrel amid the revised OPEC demand forecast published earlier in the day but soon went back to around $48 a barrel. As of 17:58 GMT Friday, March futures for Brent crude oil traded for $49.51 a barrel and February futures for WTI stood at $47.83.

      [Jan 20, 2015] US Should Stop Exporting Light Oil to Keep Domestic Oil Prices Low

      Jan 20, 2015 | Sputnik International

      US Senators Bob Menendez and Edward Markey say the US should preserve the oil export ban and keep American oil prices as low as possible not to narrow the gap between American and world oil prices.

      Weakening of the oil export ban leads to increased oil prices in the United States and the Department of Commerce should reconsider its decision to allow light oil trade, US Senators Bob Menendez and Edward Markey said Tuesday.

      "We understand that both American and world oil prices have fallen dramatically in recent months, but we believe we should vigorously preserve the oil export ban and ensure American oil prices are as low as possible and not pursue policies that will narrow the gap between American oil prices and world oil prices," senators said in a letter to the Secretary of the US Department of Commerce Penny Pritzker.

      The US oil prices were lower than international because of an embargo that prohibited companies to export the commodity. However, in 2014 the Commerce Department corrected the definition of what crude oil was, allowing to trade condensate. This change weakened the embargo and allowed two companies, Enterprise Products Partners and Pioneer Natural Resources, to sell light crude oil abroad.

      As the result of the Commerce Department decision, "that discount for US crude has been nearly erased", senator's letter read.

      "The only interests that do not seem to benefit from cheaper American oil are oil companies who want to be able to fetch higher prices for their product on the world market. That is understandable, but basing policy on what is best for oil companies to the detriment of most American businesses, American consumers, American workers, and our national security simply does not make sense," Menendez and Markey said.

      According to the letter, American oil-producing companies are looking to completely lift the export ban, and amendments regarding this matter will head to the Senate floor next week. Menendez and Markey intend to oppose new legislation

      Richest Russians Repatriate Assets After Putin Turns Tax Screw

      Management fees are gone, although they were small chunk as main tax evaders were not Russians.

      President Vladimir Putin is pushing harder on Russia's richest citizens to repatriate offshore assets amid a slump in the ruble and the imposition of sanctions by the U.S. and the European Union.

      Under new tax rules signed into law by a presidential decree in November, Russian residents will from this year pay a tax of 13 percent on earnings reported by foreign companies and trusts they control. Should authorities prove those entities are managed from Russia and don't have significant assets or employees abroad, the tax rate increases to 20 percent

      [Jan 20, 2015] First Schlumberger Fires 9,000; Now Baker Hughes Unleashes 7,000 More Layoffs

      Presstitutes from MSM will try to swipe this news under the carpet.
      Jan 20, 2015 | zerohedge.com/

      Another day, another unambiguously bad announcement from America's bettered energy sector which are bolting down ahead of the crude storm, and firing thousands. Last week it was Schlumberger which announced it would fire 9000, today it is Baker Hughes which just warned it too will hand out about 7000 pink slips in the first quarter.

      And as a reminder, when it comes to comp: each Baker Hughes job is equivalent to about 10 waiter and bartender jobs, which have been the basis of this "recovery."

      To wit: BAKER HUGHES SEES WORKFORCE REDUCTION OF 7,000 WORKERS

      lakecity55

      16000 well-paid layoffs.

      Yeah, the US is OK.

      Momauguin Joe

      Some folks got fracked.

      Haus-Targaryen

      Wish the Swiss had waited a few months to pull the plug. If the Swiss had time it so it coincided with the secondary junk bond market imploding -- which will occur later this year, we could have finally ended this charade.

      Winston Churchill

      The mortgages in Poland and Hungary denominated in CHF are just the tip of the iceberg.

      I'm guessing the CHF derivatives, vastly excede the oil ones.

      Never One Roach

      Since the median salary of an engineer in the Houston energy sector is $185,000, this will have a pretty substantial impact on their economy, not to mention crushing more Middle Class private sector families.

      Haus-Targaryen

      I would have thought the same thing, but their positions went upside down almost a week ago now. Either these entities are still solvant -- or they are still operating on unicorn piss and skittles.

      Perhaps at the end of the month we'll see another round of bankruptcies, but is there really that much long term CHF demoninated debt that these super institutions cannot eat a 20% increase in just their CHF demoninated notes.

      Maybe I am a bit naive on this one, but I think the biggest blood baths occurred right off the bat. Maybe you can point me in a direction that says otherwise?

      Oldwood

      This is not a problem. All of the new Community College Utopian Indoctrination Centers initiated by Obama's new agenda will be hiring and more than offset lost oil jobs.

      You got to see the bigger picture here...

      lakecity55

      Soon, the people of Texas were reduced to cannibalism, by the design of Leisure Suit Barry.

      "Hahha, Reggie, the YTs are being eaten. Hahhaha!"

      "America will soon be Venezuela, with Me in Charge!"

      " Only Brown people, Muchkins?? Oh, I'm so Hard, Barry. Help me!"

      Money Dries Up for Oil and Gas, Layoffs Spread, Write-Offs Start by Yves Smith

      January 17, 2015 | nakedcapitalism.com
      By Wolf Richter, a San Francisco based executive, entrepreneur, start up specialist, and author, with extensive international work experience. Originally published at Wolf Street

      When money was growing on trees even for junk-rated companies, and when Wall Street still performed miracles for a fee, thanks to the greatest credit bubble in US history, oil and gas drillers grabbed this money channeled to them from investors and refilled the ever deeper holes fracking was drilling into their balance sheets.

      But the prices for crude oil, US natural gas, and natural gas liquids have all plunged. Revenues from unhedged production are down 40% or 50%, or more from just seven months ago. And when the hedges expire, the problem will get worse. The industry has been through this before. It knows what to do.

      Layoffs are cascading through the oil and gas sector. On Tuesday, the Dallas Fed projected that in Texas alone, 140,000 jobs could be eliminated. Halliburton said that it was axing an undisclosed number of people in Houston. Suncor Energy, Canada's largest oil producer, will dump 1,000 workers in its tar-sands projects. Helmerich & Payne is idling rigs and cutting jobs. Smaller companies are slashing projects and jobs at an even faster pace. And now Slumberger, the world's biggest oilfield-services company, will cut 9,000 jobs.

      It had had an earnings debacle. It announced that Q4 EPS grew by 11% year-over-year to $1.50, "excluding charges and credits." In reality, its net income plunged 81% to $302 million, after $1.8 billion in write-offs that included its production assets in Texas.

      To prop up its shares, it announced that it would increase its dividend by 25%. And yes, it blew $1.1 billion in the quarter and $4.7 billion in the year, on share buybacks, a program that would continue, it said. Financial engineering works. On Thursday, its shares were down 35% since June. But on Friday, after the announcement, they jumped 6%.

      All these companies had gone on hiring binges over the last few years. Those binges are now being unwound. "We want to live within our means," is how Suncor CFO Alister Cowan explained the phenomenon.

      Because now, they have to.

      Larger drillers outspent their cash flows from production by 112% and smaller to midsize drillers by a breathtaking 157%, Barclays estimated. But no problem. Wall Street was eager to supply the remaining juice, and the piles of debt on these companies' balance sheets ballooned. Oil-field services companies, suppliers, steel companies, accommodation providers… they all benefited.

      Now the music has stopped. Suddenly, many of these companies are essentially locked out of the capital markets. They have to live within their means or go under.

      California Resources, for example. This oil-and-gas production company operating exclusively in oil-state California, was spun off from Occidental Petroleum November 2014 to inflate Oxy's share price. As part of the financial engineering that went into the spinoff, California Resources was loaded up with debt to pay Oxy $6 billion. Shares started trading on December 1. Bank of America explained at the time that the company was undervalued and rated it a buy with a $14-a-share outlook. Those hapless souls who believed the Wall Street hype and bought these misbegotten shares have watched them drop to $4.33 by today, losing 57% of their investment in seven weeks.

      Its junk bonds – 6% notes due 2024 – were trading at 79 cents on the dollar today, down another 3 points from last week, according to S&P Capital IQ LCD.

      Others weren't so lucky.

      Samson Resources is barely hanging on. It was acquired for $7.2 billion in 2011 by a group of private-equity firms led by KKR. They loaded it up with $3.6 billion in new debt and saddled it with "management fees." Since its acquisition, it lost over $3 billion, the Wall Street Journal reported. This is the inevitable result of fracking for natural gas whose price has been below the cost of production for years – though the industry has vigorously denied this at every twist and turn to attract the new money it needed to fill the holes.

      Having burned through most of its available credit, Samson is getting rid of workers and selling off a chunk of its oil-and-gas fields. According to S&P Capital IQ LCD, its junk bonds – 9.75% notes due 2020 – traded at 26.5 cents on the dollar today, down about 10 points this week alone.

      Halcón Resources, which cut its 2015 budget by 55% to 60% just to survive somehow, saw its shares plunge 10% today to $1.20, down 85% since June, and down 25% since January 12 when I wrote about it last. Its junk bonds slid six points this week to 72 cents on the dollar.

      Hercules Offshore, when I last wrote about it on October 15, was trading for $1.47 a share, down 81% since July. This rock-bottom price might have induced some folks to jump in and follow the Wall-Street hype-advice to "buy the most hated stocks." Today, it's trading for $0.82 a share, down another 44%. In mid-October, its 8.75% notes due 2022 traded at 66 cent on the dollar. Yesterday they traded at 45.

      Despite what Wall-Street hype mongers want us to believe: bottom-fishing in the early stages of an oil bust can be one of the most expensive things to do.

      Paragon Offshore is another perfect example of Wall Street engineering in the oil and gas sector. The offshore driller was spun off from Noble in early August 2014 with the goal of goosing Noble's stock price and loading up the new company with debt. As part of the spinoff, the company sold $580 million in junk bonds at 100 cents on the dollar. When its shares started trading, they immediately plunged. By the time I wrote about the company on October 15, they'd dropped 68% to $5.60. And the 6.75% notes due 2022 were trading at 77 cents on the dollar. Then in November, Paragon had the temerity to take on more debt to acquire Prospector Drilling Offshore.

      Two days ago, Moody's downgraded the outfit to Ba3, with negative outlook, citing the "rapid and significant deterioration in offshore rig-market fundamentals," "the high likelihood" its older rigs might "not find new contracts," and the "mostly debt-funded acquisition" of Prospector Drilling. The downgrade affects about $1.64 billion in debt.

      Today, Paragon's shares trade for $2.18, down another 61% since October 15. Its junk bonds are now down to 58 cents on the dollar.

      Swift Energy – whose stock, now at $2.37, has been declining for years and is down 84% from a year ago – saw its junk bonds shrivel another eight points over the week to 36 cents on the dollar.

      "Such movement demonstrates the challenging market conditions for oil-spill credits, with spotty trades and often large price gaps lower," S&P Capital IQ LCD reported.

      It boils down to this: these companies are locked out of the capital markets for all practical purposes: at these share prices, they can't raise equity capital without wiping out existing stockholders; and they can't issue new debt at affordable rates. For them, the junk-bond music has stopped. And their banks are getting nervous too.

      Their hope rests on cutting operating costs and capital expenditures, and coddling every dollar they get, while pushing production to maximize cash flow, which ironically will contribute to the oil glut and pressure prices further. They're hoping to hang on until the next miracle arrives.

      "We are not panicking," is how a bank CEO responded to the fact that loans to energy companies made up 20% of the bank's loan portfolio.

      Read… How Wall Street Drove the Oil & Gas Drilling Boom That's Turning into a Disaster

      [Jan 18, 2015] The U.S. may lose the war on oil prices

      Jan 14, 2015 | RIA Novosti

      Popular comments

      Niyaz Niyaz Afor, 14.01.2015

      They accumulated oil for a long time to deliver a fatal blow to the enemy by dumping (throw it on the market at once). If Russian economy will survive this blow, as traders say it will be a "dead-cat bounce" in oil prices. This is the last trump thrown on the table by the USA in the oil war, which is very expensive for taxpayers in the "temporarily united" states.

      For those who will survive this drop eventual return to the previous price level is almost guaranteed as on total amount of oil on this planet is limited and most "easy" deposits are gone. After this attack ends, the prices again will be more influenced by the laws of the market, then machinations of politicians.

      BTW I am sure, China and India are buying up this oil, it's on sale! The only problem is the size of their storage tanks.

      [Jan 18, 2015] Falling Oil Prices Could Rock Canada's Politics Expert

      "We urgently must wean ourselves from fossil fuels" this is just a wish... Currently the situation is called TINA: "There is not alternative".
      Jan 18, 2015 | The Tyee

      ... ... ...

      "Dropping oil prices affect international debt as well, creating a high risk of default by countries like Venezuela. Around the world two sets of debt are coming in -- from the high cost bitumen and shale oil producers who borrowed to help create the current supply glut and oil exporting producers who have borrowed heavily. Both affect the entire financial system.

      "The biggest danger of prolonged low prices is a debt-related collapse linked to the rising cost of hydrocarbon extraction. Because low oil prices take a while to work their way through the system, this is not an immediate threat. But we should not forget that falling oil prices and junk bonds all played a role in the crash of 2008."

      Will oil prices stay low for a while?

      "Uncertainty is the name of the game now. The price of oil is more volatile than ever before. Oil is linked to finance more than ever before. And the economies of producing and consuming countries are more intertwined than ever before.

      "Predicting prices is a fool's errand. Oil prices could stay down in 2015. There is a lot of supply and little demand right now. But what happens if unrest increases inside some oil-exporters because their regimes are forced to cut back on their extensive food and oil subsidies? What happens if conflict disrupts supply in Libya, Venezuela, Nigeria, Iraq or Iran? The price of oil could soar overnight.

      "I don't know how things will play out. But there is the tightest of links not only between the global economy and finance but also energy producers, environmental damage and the speed up in climate change. We are in a situation where oil supply limits can cause recessions and oil supply gluts can cause stock market failures.

      "We urgently must wean ourselves from fossil fuels. All we are doing now is moving costs and benefits around in a highly volatile system. Few win, and most people lose. But I am not optimistic that this will happen before the consequences are catastrophic. There is just too much money in oil. As long as these extraordinarily high profits exist, oil will be extracted and politics will be petrolized to prohibit better alternatives."

      ... ... ...

      Does the term petro state fit for places like Alaska, Texas, Louisiana, Alberta and Saskatchewan?

      "Yes and no. When I developed the idea, I referred to the central government, not states in a federalist system. The petro state applied only to capital deficient oil exporting countries with big populations that were late developers.

      "Since the U.S. was a producer but not an exporter, the same effects were not present.

      "I showed that petro-states had the effect of replacing tax mechanisms with excessive oil profits, and this, in turn, then petrolized the whole political and economic environment. Oil influence and oil issues dominated the government.

      "Petro states do not have to bargain or negotiate with their citizens. Their power depends on how they pass around oil revenues, how this wealth is distributed. Regimes that do that well, like the Saudi royal family or the former Venezuelan two party system, stay in power for a long time. Those that keep the revenue too closely inside their own support base, whether this is an autocratic family or a small religious or ethnic group, often don't last as long.

      "In most petro states, government spending is never an issue for public debate. Norway, the exception that proves the rule, has constant debates about oil distribution, even between its citizens today and future generations.

      "A centralized power, to the contrary, just hands out petrodollars, quieting the loudest voices and its own power base. Thus statecraft is stifled. Because petro states invite little debate, nourish no coherent bureaucracy and engage in volatile spending, the state's institutions get weaker and weaker. Stability-wise, this is not good.

      "Alaska and Texas and Alberta are all part of a federal system, but they certainly take on some of the same characteristics of petro states. If you look at Texas or Alaska, and how they distribute oil wealth, they have boom and bust cycles just like an oil state, and they have repeated serious trouble balancing their budgets. But this volatility is mediated by central government.

      "As easy oil becomes scarcer, and the commodity becomes even more valuable, oil politics inside these states have a contagion effect and tend to increasingly influence the central government. I suspect this same phenomenon can be seen in Alberta and the Canadian government."

      There are many such indicators in Alberta and Canada. Pipelines dominate all political discussion. Environmental legislation has been gutted while environmentalists and aboriginals protecting their land have been branded as foreign-funded radicals. The Harper government has centralized power enormously. Climate change is regarded with skepticism. Little money has been saved from oil. Alberta is a fiscal basket case. Foreign policy consists of bashing other petro states because Canada has so-called ethical oil. And scientific dissent has been muzzled.

      "This does not surprise me. Democracies today are especially vulnerable to oil interests. But if oil prices stay low, this political arrangement won't last over time.

      "Instead, if prices continue declining and if they stay low for a few years (two big 'ifs') -- they have already dropped 40 per cent but no one knows whether this price will endure -- expect the following: a rapidly declining Canadian dollar, greater problems over pipelines, the reduction of future investments, and a very bumpy oil ride, especially for Alberta.

      "Any adverse effect low oil prices will have on Canada's high cost oil industry will have a multiplier effect on the economy and polity. Government services will be cut back, house sales will decline, and banking will slow down. Canadians will not be so happy with their government.

      "How long will the prices stay down, and how long will it take for those effects to work their way through the economy? That is the question. If other vulnerable petro-states collapse, like Venezuela or Libya, or if conflict removes oil from the market, prices quickly could soar again."

      Has oil ruined us, as Perez Alfonso feared?

      "For those of us living in advanced industrialized countries, inexpensive oil through 1970 has largely made our current standard of living. But Perez Alfonzo understood that oil is a non-renewable resource. It has huge costs associated with it, not only benefits.

      "Let me be clear: the commodity itself is neither good nor bad.

      "But the excessive profit involved from what Adam Smith called 'reaping what has not been sown' has led to a concentration of power and influence that makes it exceptionally difficult to fight the negative consequences of hydrocarbon dependence. This is true not only in Venezuela, Nigeria, Russia and the Middle East but also in the U.S. and Canada.

      "Today, more than ever before as the 'easy' oil is being used up, the exploitation of petroleum in pristine environments hurts our water and the air we breathe. It threatens our climate. It props up authoritarian regimes and increases the propensity for war. In this respect, Juan Pablo Perez Alfonso was a visionary. He saw something about 'the devil's excrement' before anyone else, and then he was kind enough to show it to me."

      [Jan 18, 2015] The plummeting oil price: a guide to the global shockwaves by Simon Tisdall

      Annual exports to Russia from Western companies are approximately $320 billions. Exports in Russia decreased to 390 billion in January 2013 from 480 billion in December 2012. West can say good buy to most of those. Russia main exports are oil and natural gas (58% of total exports), nickel, palladium, iron and chemical products will also be severely affected. In 2014 "oil producers import $7,6 billion of capital . For comparison, they exported $60 billion in 2013 and $248 billion in 2012 according to BNP Paribas".
      The Guardian

      Oil touches every aspect of our lives and its price is crashing. Here are just some of the mixed blessings that may flow – from cheaper holidays and safer sex to busier roads and more terrorism

      ... ... ...

      Russian tourism dries up

      In recent years, Russian tourists have joined ranks with the Chinese to become major cash cows for holiday destinations around the world. With the conflict in Ukraine, subsequent sanctions from the west and a drop in the value of the rouble, their numbers are already in decline.

      The drop in oil prices will only add to this. "Economic growth might be dented in countries which are oil exporters," says John Kester, trend researcher at the United Nations World Tourism Organization (UNWTO). "The Russias and the Nigerias of the world might see fewer people travelling."

      And this will have knock-on effects for the countries that traditionally host them. As Dr George Filis, associate professor in financial economics at Bournemouth University, explains: "I'm from Greece and one of our largest markets is Russian tourists. So if they stop coming, that could be quite damaging."

      Russia pulls even further away from Europe

      The falling oil price has severely damaged President Vladimir Putin's regime in Russia, which is heavily dependent on oil and gas revenues and cannot balance its budget at current prices. Putin has already signalled public sector wage freezes and spending cuts. The economy is set to shrink by 5% as the rouble's value falls and consumer prices rise. Russia's annexation of Crimea and intervention in eastern Ukraine last year provoked western sanctions, exacerbating economic problems. Putin's generally more aggressive geopolitical stance vis a vis Nato and the west has also raised anxiety levels in Washington.

      As with Iran, it is suggested the US and Saudi Arabia have colluded on oil to punish Russia over Ukraine, curb future expansionism, and weaken its support for Syria's Assad. There is a precedent. In 1998, the Saudis, resentful of Russian competition, sent the oil price plummeting; Russia defaulted on its debts. Russia currently has about $400bn in reserves, but private sector debt amounts to about $700bn.

      If Russia is squeezed enough, it is argued, Putin may back down on Ukraine. But don't hold your breath.

      The Russian leader says the answer is to diversify the Russian economy away from oil. He has also begun to woo China with multi-billion dollar energy deals. This eastwards "pivot" could have long-term strategic implications for Russia's relations with Europe and US, forcing two of the world's most authoritarian regimes into alliance. ST

      [Jan 18, 2015] Why oil is in more trouble than you think by Alex Rosenberg

      Crude oil just can't catch a break.

      After rising more than 6 percent on the day, the battered commodity promptly sold off, falling 9 percent in five hours. And IHS Vice Chairman Daniel Yergin says it could get even worse for crude.

      "There's still this downward pressure that's there. And the kind of thing that's hovering over it, and it affected things today, is the continuing concerns about economic prospects,"

      Yergin said Thursday on CNBC's "Futures Now."

      He says that OPEC's decision not to reduce output targets was partially aimed at stimulating demand, but the global economy hasn't quite cooperated.

      India, Indonesia and Mexico are all looking to reduce oil subsidies, which would raise prices there, Yergin pointed out. Meanwhile, Europe's economy is in dire shape. And "Chinese oil demand is so [strongly] linked to construction and infrastructure, and that's weakening."

      All in all, "the one place you could see demand spike up a little bit is in the United States," he said.

      The concern is that U.S. growth may be somewhat overstated. On Thursday, jobless claims unexpectedly rose to a four-month high, and the Philadelphia Fed survey showed that factory activity slowed a bit. The data seemed to trouble both the stock and bond markets, as the S&P 500 fell for the fifth straight day, and bond yields continued to slide.

      In other words, the United States economy may not be quite as strong as the oil-producing nations hope. And as a result, the incredible crude collapse may not be over just yet.

      Read More: Copper collapses on global growth concerns

      [Jan 17, 2015] Money Dries Up for Oil and Gas, Layoffs Spread, Write-Offs Start

      naked capitalism

      Revenues from unhedged production are down 40% or 50%, or more from just seven months ago. And when the hedges expire, the problem will get worse. The industry has been through this before. It knows what to do.

      Layoffs are cascading through the oil and gas sector. On Tuesday, the Dallas Fed projected that in Texas alone, 140,000 jobs could be eliminated. Halliburton said that it was axing an undisclosed number of people in Houston. Suncor Energy, Canada's largest oil producer, will dump 1,000 workers in its tar-sands projects. Helmerich & Payne is idling rigs and cutting jobs. Smaller companies are slashing projects and jobs at an even faster pace. And now Slumberger, the world's biggest oilfield-services company, will cut 9,000 jobs.

      It had had an earnings debacle. It announced that Q4 EPS grew by 11% year-over-year to $1.50, "excluding charges and credits." In reality, its net income plunged 81% to $302 million, after $1.8 billion in write-offs that included its production assets in Texas.

      cnchal, January 17, 2015 at 8:18 am

      Two days ago, on this post, Jef made a comment that is still rattling around in my head.

      . . . you can not redistribute what does not exist. It is widely talked about here and elsewhere about how there are perhaps 10 times maybe more claims on real resources (aka. wealth) than actually exists.

      Yesterday, in the Toronto Globe and Mail business section in an article written by Barrie McKenna, was this, referring to Canada.

      Oil extraction represents a relatively small percentage of the economy – just 3 per cent. But it's a much larger share of investments (roughly one – third) and exports (14 per cent)

      There is that 10 to 1 ratio, roughly, 3 per cent of the real economy, and 33% of "investments" in Canada's financial markets. I agree with Jef. It's a Ponzi scheme

      Samson Resources is barely hanging on. It was acquired for $7.2 billion in 2011 by a group of private-equity firms led by KKR.

      Will Samson bring KKR's house down? Probably not. They have pension funds to distribute this dreck to.

      Larry, January 17, 2015 at 9:17 am

      I don't think the math is right on this argument. It's not a 10 to 1 ratio because you're talking percentages and not total amounts. That can obscure actual ratios. Now, it is troubling that so much investment is going into energy because those investments will represent real losses for a good deal of people.

      And the McKenna article does a good job of noting the Canadian resource miracle is over. The folding of Target Canada and a housing price correction that starts in Alberta and sweeps east is also mentioned. Canadian home prices have remained strong and seemingly in bubble territory.

      Here's the link to the McKenna article for those that are interested:

      http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/a-boost-to-us-economy-from-low-oil-will-be-canadas-saving-grace/article22473238/

      McMike, January 17, 2015 at 9:58 am

      There's a nice case study right there:

      Shares started trading on December 1. Bank of America explained at the time that the company was undervalued and rated it a buy with a $14-a-share outlook. Those hapless souls who believed the Wall Street hype and bought these misbegotten shares have watched them drop to $4.33 by today, losing 57% of their investment in seven weeks.

      Will there be any consequences to BoA for being so completely, horribly incorrect, right out of the gate (while certainly still raking in fees, protecting their key clients, and probably betting against the stock at the same time)? Nothing. No one will lose their job. No change in BoA stature. No suspension of subsidies. No punishing lawsuits. No loss of clients. No short sale attacks. No congressional investigations. No prosecutions.

      Here's people allegedly in the business of giving advice about value, and when they are horribly wrong – even in this thoroughly rigged system – nothing happens.

      Right now, the hedge funds are killing their energy companies, slashing jobs, cannibalizing the companies they own, crippling our energy infrastructure in an industry deemed critical to national economy and security (purchased with cheap Fed money and tax breaks), yet the one thing they won't do is slash their own fees and compensation, or take a haircut on the debt they hold. The supposedly essential company will be stripped down and left a bankrupt shell, jobs gone, ability to produce energy gone, while every last penny goes to wall street.

      This is a thoroughly corrupt and broken business that serves no purpose except rent extraction.

      The only interesting thing about what comes next is how – while the balloon plummets back to earth – is how Wall Street will be (as I write) ripping the face off of clients, shuttling their losses over to the taxpayers, betting against their own products, and contradicting their own advice.

      PQS, January 17, 2015 at 11:01 am

      It's always Year Zero on Wall Street even as the rest of us replay the movie over and over again.

      Jim A., January 17, 2015 at 11:06 am

      It is a sign of the oversupply of investment money on Wall Street just how many companies make up for their lack of actual profitability through borrowing. The petrol companies are cut off, but what about Amazon and other companies with valuations based not on dividends or profits but rather on speculation and the ability to borrow based on share price?

      We still haven't seen sanity on Wall Street.

      [Jan 17, 2015] So Where Did All the Energy Debt Go

      DEFINITION of 'Collateralized Loan Obligation - CLO' A security backed by a pool of debt, often low-rated corporate loans. Collateralized loan obligations (CLOs) are similar to collateralized mortgage obligations, except for the different type of underlying loan.
      naked capitalism

      And this is from a discussion of a recent JP Morgan investor call:

      High yield energy new issuance has doubled since 2008. It constitutes 16-20% of new issuance since 2011.

      JP Morgan's projected default rates for US high yield energy: at $65 oil, 3.9% in 2015 and 20.5% in 2016. At $75 oil, 3.9% and 4.8%.

      Those forecasts look to be in need of updating to show what would happen if oil prices remain at their current $50 (and below) level.

      Total leveraged loan issuance was $530 billion in 2014 and $606 billion in 2013 (two year total $1.136 billion). If energy made of 16-20% of 2013/2014 issuance, via above info, that would be roughly $182 to $227 billion (16-20% of $1.,136 billion).

      Total US CLO issuance in 2014 was about $120 billion (the most ever) and about $85 billion in 2013. If energy debt didn't exceed 15% of the CLOs issued in those years, that means CLOs bought less than $31 billion of energy debt, vs. around $200 billion of total energy debt issued.

      Mutual funds had been big buyers of leveraged loans, but were net sellers by the second half of 2014. So who was buying all of those energy related leveraged loans – about $170 billion worth?

      According to LeveragedLoan.com, other than CLOs and loan mutual funds, the buyers of leveraged loans were hedge funds, representing 9% of the total 2013-14 loan issuance (about $105 billion) and "other" representing about 6.4% of total 2013/14 loan issuance (about $72 billion). So, if hedge funds and "other" only bought energy loans, that might account for all of the energy debt left looking for a home after CLOs and mutual funds. That seems unlikely.

      WorldisMorphing, January 16, 2015 at 12:03 pm

      What ??
      Regulatory forebearance………..again ?!?
      But, but,….we were doing so well allocating resources such that the system runs smoothly on it's infinite expansion path…

      susan the other, January 16, 2015 at 12:30 pm

      Don't the banks already have that covered with several billion worth of derivatives just in case the price of oil doesn't recover in time?

      And the depositories of all the big banks are stuffed full with these contracts so the banks are covered either way? Is there a regulation that forces the banks to account for the derivatives or are the details being kept secret?

      Another question is why on earth the banks did all this gambling with oil, a commodity, when it is clearly against federal, and Fed, regulations. So technically the Fed cannot bail them out. Right? So either the Fed is complicit or the banks are completely ungovernable.

      Paul Niemi, January 16, 2015 at 1:19 pm

      A ton of money was invested ramping up oil production, in the US by up to 75 percent and at least 5 percent by OPEC. Now that the price of oil has collapsed, who is left holding the bag, and who gained from the collapse?

      We don't know the answer to either question, and the fact we don't know demonstrates the opacity of the actions of financial players in today's environment. I'm not inspired with confidence.

      One observation is that when stimulus was the ostensive objective, the response by whom was to pour money into oil speculation and production as a preference over other possible investments.

      Chauncey Gardiner, January 16, 2015 at 12:58 pm

      Obfuscation and lack of timely and accurate reporting of information about developments that could potentially impact the economic health of the nation and jeopardize the status quo is premeditated and attributable in large part to the success of the large Wall Street banks and their fellow travelers in peddling their "Deregulate!" meme.

      As Yves noted above, deflection is again also playing a big role.

      It's a well-worn playbook:

      … "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage." -MIT Economics professor Jonathan Gruber
      … "Perception is reality." -Lee Atwater

      Maybe they can again just move these "assets" from the "Mark-to-Market" bucket to the "Mark-to-Model" bucket for accounting purposes (If they're not already so categorized). After all it's Liquidity that kills, and that's why we have the Fed… isn't it?

      James B, January 16, 2015 at 2:26 pm

      I can see that it is in the interests of those holding these CLOs to hide these potentially toxic assets and to keep them from wrecking the holder's balance sheet. That is pretty obvious.

      But I do not understand s how large (and how toxic) these assets are relative to the bad financial products created during the real estate bubble. And how much risk this presents to the financial system. For example, will there be defaults?

      I have read a number of analysts who say that the capital that has flowed into energy is a financial bubble that is going to burst and create a a lot of damage. What are the chances of that actually happening?

      Yves Smith, January 16, 2015 at 3:22 pm

      We've discussed this in the past, but I appreciate that not everyone has the time and interest to follow this topic consistently.

      Basically, CLOs do not have the structural defects that led them to fail catastrophically like subprime-related CDOs. Even if there are losses, they will not be as severe.

      But the general question is more important. Where did the energy debt go? How much is on bank balance sheets, directly or indirectly (as in in the form of derivatives, not just cash market exposures).

      Blurtman January 16, 2015 at 2:51 pm

      They are quite fictitious securities. Why anyone regards them as real is beyond me. When they are in the money, they are quite real. When they are horribly underwater, off to the Fed garbage can they go. It's only paper and make believe. Hello.

      MichaelC January 16, 2015 at 3:36 pm

      I suspect a lot of that debt is sitting in Business Development Company (BDC) funds. One of the consequences of the Volcker rule limitation on PE was an explosive growth in BDCs, which are one of the Volcker permissible alternatives for the banks. These are a natural home for high risk investments.

      I need to dig a little deeper to determine the size of BDC relative to the market, and to determine if they are already counted in the 'other' category in the analysis you cited in your piece.

      http://bdcbuzz.blogspot.com/

      It has become obvious that low oil prices are going to be a topic of discussion for BDCs with larger amounts of oil/energy related exposure. This includes portfolio companies and other investments such as CLOs. I do not consider BDCs as an investment only in the financial sector and one of the reasons that I prefer them to other higher yield investments is because they invest in multiple industries. Currently the average BDC has around 6% to 7% of the portfolio invested in oil and energy related companies but this ranges from none to almost 20% for certain BDCs

      Fitch was raising warnings about the sector in Nov
      http://blogs.barrons.com/incomeinvesting/2014/11/10/trouble-ahead-for-high-yielding-bdc-sector-fitch/?mod=BOLBlog

      Daniel, January 16, 2015 at 3:43 pm

      A related question would be who are the counterparties to the oil hedges? I keep reading about the oil producers hedging a part of their future production at huge levels compared with the spot prices. Who's taking these colossal losses?

      For example, I read that Mexico hedged their entire 2015 oil production of 228 mb in November 2014 for the price of $75/b with seven "international financial institutions".

      If we multiply the volume by $30 (75 hedged – 45 spot) = approx $9 billion/year.

      Who are these financial institutions? How do they survive?

      planck, January 16, 2015 at 4:36 pm

      Yeah, yeah. This is the beauty of credit money supply control and futures markets price manipulation. There will be a lot of sell offs of drilling companies who hit real wells to Big Oil & Gas. As expected.

      This is how wealth is concentrated for 500 years of this money system, the owners of which are also the real controlling stake owners of Big Oil & Gas.

      Nothing new here. Only chumps were unsuspecting.

      [Jan 17, 2015] How the Shale Oil Revolution Has Affected US Oil and Gasoline Prices

      naked capitalism
      US shale oil production has grown from about 0.4 million barrels a day in 2007 to more than 4 million barrels a day in 2014. This expansion was stimulated by the high price of crude oil after 2003, which made the application of these new drilling technologies cost competitive. The expansion of US shale oil production soon captured the imagination of policymakers and industry analysts. By 2012, the International Energy Agency projected that the US would become the world's leading crude oil producer, overtaking Saudi Arabia by the mid-2020s and evolving into a net oil exporter by 2030 (International Energy Agency 2012). Pundits envisioned the US becoming independent of oil imports, net oil exports financing the US non-oil trade deficit, and consumers enjoying an era of cheap gasoline with a resulting rebirth of US manufacturing. My recent research, however, suggests that these visions remain far removed from reality (Kilian 2014).

      Uncertainty About the US Shale Oil Boom

      To gauge the importance of shale oil for the US economy it is useful to bear in mind that, as of March 2014, shale oil accounted for almost half of US oil production, but only about a quarter of the total quantity of oil used by the US economy. This magnitude is far from negligible, but to understand the excitement about shale oil one has to consider projections of future US shale oil production.

      Publicly available projections of future shale oil production have to be interpreted with some caution.

      • One concern is that increases in shale oil production are not permanent.Sustained production requires ongoing investment. Projections by the US Energy Information Administration suggest that even under favorable conditions US shale oil production will peak by 2020 (at a level commensurate with US oil production in 1970) and then decline. Moreover, even the peak level would be far below what is needed to satisfy US oil demand.
      • A second concern is that estimates of the stock of shale oil that can be recovered using current technology are subject to considerable error. In the summer of 2014, for example, the Energy Information Administration was forced to lower its previous estimates of the stock of recoverable shale oil by 64%.
      • A third concern is that it is not known how vulnerable the shale oil industry is to downside oil price risk. This concern has become particularly relevant in recent months with the rapid decline in global oil prices. Shale oil production remains profitable as long as the price of oil exceeds marginal cost. There are indications that the initially high marginal cost of shale oil production has been declining substantially, as the shale oil industry has gained experience, but there are no reliable industry-level estimates of marginal cost.

      In short, there is considerable uncertainty about the persistence and scope of the US shale oil boom, and there are many reasons to be skeptical of the notion that the US will soon (or indeed ever) become independent of oil imports.

      Today, the US is the third-largest oil producer, slightly behind Saudi Arabia and Russia, with US crude oil accounting for about 10% of world production. Much has been made of the possibility of the US overtaking Saudi Arabia as the largest oil producer in the world, as the production of shale oil continues to surge. The implicit premise has been that being a large oil producer ensures a country's energy security. It is easy to forget, however, that the US already was the world's largest oil producer in 1973/1974 as well as in 1990. This fact did not protect the US economy from major foreign oil price shocks, suggesting that the focus on becoming the world's largest oil producer is misplaced.

      Imperfect Substitutability Between Different Types of Crude Oil

      Even more importantly, the shale oil debate has largely ignored the fact that shale oil is not a perfect substitute for conventional crude oil, making comparisons across countries difficult. The quality of crude oil can be characterized mainly along two dimensions. One is the oil's density (ranging from light to heavy) and is typically measured based on the American Petroleum Institute (API) gravity formula; the other is its sulphur content (with sweet referring to low-sulphur content and sour to high-sulphur content). Figure 1 provides an overview of how commonly quoted crude oil benchmarks (including West Texas Intermediate (WTI) and Brent oil in the North Sea) can be characterized along these dimensions.

      Shale oil consists of light sweet crude (at most 45 API), ultra-light sweet crude (about 47 API), and condensates (as high as 60API). Thus, not all shale oil is a good substitute for conventional light sweet crude oil such as the WTI or Brent benchmarks, and an aggregate analysis of the crude oil market tends to be misleading. In reality, the impact of shale has been far more complicated.

      The US shale oil boom was preceded by a persistent and growing shortage of light sweet crude oil in world markets. US refiners responded to this trend by expanding their capacity to process heavy crudes that remained in abundant supply, becoming the world leader in this field. They were therefore taken by surprise when the US market was inundated with shale crude oil from the centre of the country after 2010. Not only was much of the refining structure ill-equipped to process this light sweet crude oil, but it proved difficult to ship the shale oil to those refineries on the coasts that would have been able to process it. With the development of shale oil in the interior of the country, large parts of the US oil pipeline infrastructure developed over the preceding 40 years had suddenly become obsolete, and rail and barge transport could not cope with increased demand. Moreover, exports of US shale oil that cannot be processed domestically were (and continue to be) prohibited by US law.

      The resulting local excess supply of light sweet crude oil in the central US caused the WTI price of oil to fall below the Brent price. This discrepancy between domestic and global oil prices resulted from a breakdown of arbitrage between domestic and imported light sweet crude oil. There are signs that the US refining industry is gradually responding to these price differentials. Reconfiguring the US refining and transportation infrastructure, however, is a costly and slow process. For the time being, therefore, the evolution of the US price of oil is inextricably tied to improvements in the US refining, pipeline, and rail infrastructure.

      In sharp contrast, US retail fuel prices have remained integrated with the world market in part because US refined products such as gasoline or diesel (unlike domestically produced crude oil) may be exported freely. As a result, the widely noted decline in US domestic oil prices relative to international benchmarks such as Brent, has not been passed on to the consumer in the interior of the country. This point is important because it removes the basis for any notion of a rebirth of US manufacturing on the basis of low-cost US gasoline and diesel fuel.

      The Beneficiaries of the US Shale Oil Boom

      Thus, the main beneficiary of the US shale oil revolution has been not gasoline consumers or, for that matter, domestic shale oil producers, but the US refining industry, which enjoys a competitive advantage compared to diesel and gasoline producers abroad because of its access to low-cost crude oil. In fact, refiners have every incentive to preserve the status quo and to prevent a lifting of the US ban on exports of domestically produced crude oil. An additional beneficiary of the shale oil revolution has been the transportation sector, notably the railroad industry, and the industries directly serving the oil sector.

      In contrast, the macroeconomic effects on real output and employment have been small, given the negligible share of the shale oil sector in the US economy. It is fair to say that there is no support for the notion that shale oil has been a game changer for the US economy. One area in which the shale oil revolution has made a difference is in reducing crude oil imports on the one hand, and increasing exports of refined products on the other, thus improving the US trade balance (and as a side-effect dampening the effect of foreign oil price shocks on the US economy). Of course, these improvements are small compared with the overall US trade deficit.

      The (Lack of) Impact on the Global Price of Oil

      It may seem that the rapid decline in the global price of oil after mid-2014 may be attributable to sharp increases in US shale oil production, providing direct evidence of the impact of the US shale oil revolution on oil prices after all. Although shale oil is not being exported, it replaces US crude oil imports, reducing the demand for oil in global markets, as do US exports of refined products. Some observers have gone as far as suggesting that shale oil may have become a victim of its own success in that it caused a sharp drop in global oil prices. There is no credible support for this interpretation. Similar price declines also occurred in other industrial commodity markets at the same time, suggesting that the cause of the oil price decline has not been specific to the oil sector, but that it mainly reflects a weakening global economy in Asia as well as Europe, possibly amplified by the decision of many oil producers to preserve oil revenues by increasing oil production in response to falling oil prices. This view is also consistent with the comparatively small magnitude of US shale oil production on a global scale.

      References

      International Energy Agency (2012), World Energy Outlook 2012, Paris: OECD/IEA.

      Kilian, L (2014), "The Impact of the Shale Oil Revolution on U.S. Oil and Gasoline Prices", CEPR Discussion Paper 10304.


      Llewelyn Moss, January 16, 2015 at 8:44 am

      Haha. Not even a passing mention of water aquifer destruction. And poisoned aquifers will never ever ever recover. They can't be steam cleaned like an oil spill. Oh well, we'll just build a water pipeline from the Arctic once all the US water is undrinkable and unbathable.

      jgordon, January 16, 2015 at 10:16 pm

      That's the modern industrial/American way: when you run out of wood in the winter, start burning the house down just to keep warm a few minutes longer.

      E.L. Beck, January 16, 2015 at 9:39 am

      The critical variable here is the U.S. export ban which, with this next Congress coming in January, will drop or certainly ease export restrictions.

      The energy companies never envisioned the primary market for shale oil as being the U.S., but overseas markets, where higher prices can be realized. Even if the shale oil boom produced almost total independence from foreign oil imports, the energy companies would have eventually alleviated that condition by shipping overseas.

      Most of the Alaskan supply gets shipped to Japan, and yet we still import oil. There's an historical precedence for this.

      Jackrabbit, January 16, 2015 at 10:34 am

      Key phrase: "Sustained production requires ongoing investment."

      To "kill" Shale Oil doesn't require low, low oil prices, just a price low enough (with a threat to go lower for good measure) that investors are deterred from financing more drilling. It seems that that price is about $80.

      Shale Oil wells that are already producing will almost certainly keep pumping until they are dry. Since the lifetime of each well is about 2 years (as far as I can determine), most of them will have run dry within 12-15 months.

      And, the world economy has slowed but my sense is that it hasn't fallen off a cliff like 2008-9 (which caused oil prices to plummet).

      Looking forward, the next ordinary OPEC meeting is in June (they can have special/emergency meetings between in the interim). It'll be interesting to see if Saudi Arabia continues to ignore the pleas of other OPEC members to join them in stabilizing the price at a higher level.

      Steven, January 16, 2015 at 1:12 pm

      This country it would seem is no longer capable of the long term planning required for genuine investing. This is enough to make you wonder who if anyone is driving the train.

      One could plausibly argue that domestic energy supplies are so important to national security and the economy, the 2005 "Halliburton Loophole," an exemption for gas drilling and extraction from requirements in the underground injection control (UIC) program of the Safe Drinking Water Act, was a regrettable necessity. But if that were the case why in the divinity's name would we want to sell to people beyond our borders the oil and gas we very possibly are poisoning future generations to obtain? Why would we want to pay – at a minimum – the environmental costs connected with the Keystone pipeline to facilitate the sale of US and Canadian oil and gas?

      And having made that decision, why would we allow Saudi Arabia to destroy an industry we have already paid such a horrendous price to create by dumping cheap oil on the world market? Why would we allow them to destroy the market for electric cars and hybrids, the transition to which is essential if the country is ever to regain control of its foreign policy?

      This sellout of the country's future started more than 60 years ago when Eisenhower was compelled to institute tariffs on Saudi and other OPEC nation cheap oil so domestic producers could continue to profitably drain the country's reserves. (Or 90 years ago when Harry Sinclair was allowed to pump oil from the naval petroleum reserves.)

      This sellout of the country's future has to end NOW!

      Luke The Debtor, January 16, 2015 at 1:43 pm

      Comparatively small magnitude? The price of oil has halved in six months and the largest member of OPEC is reversing its stance on "shale does not concern us" attitude since Nigeria stopped exporting to the U.S. The denial is strong with Mr. Killian.

      different clue, January 16, 2015 at 3:18 pm

      If I understand the article correctly, it is claiming that shale oil is not by itself responsible for the price decline.

      I think he is inviting us to think that a worldwide stealth price-deflation/ silent depression is what is driving down commodity prices, including the price of oil. And attributing that price drop to shale oil is therefor to look for the car keys under the streetlight rather than where they fell in the dark.

      Harry Crane, January 16, 2015 at 3:48 pm

      I thought that Saudi had decided to inject sea water into some of its older, more depleted oil wells and is pretty much forced to keep pumping the oil out or risk contamination?

      Lambert Strether, January 17, 2015 at 1:04 am

      Twilight in the Desert shows the former (for entire fields, not wells), but I don't know about the latter.

      [Jan 17, 2015] Saudi oil minister holds talks with U.S. energy deputy

      Jan 13, 2015 | Reuters

      Saudi Oil Minister Ali al-Naimi met U.S. Deputy Energy Secretary Elizabeth Sherwood-Randall on Tuesday in Riyadh where they discussed oil markets, the official Saudi Press Agency (SPA) reported.

      SPA gave no specific details about the meeting in a brief statement but said the officials looked into cooperation on energy and environmental issues, climate change, solar energy use and mutual investments.

      U.S. crude hit a near six-year low of $44.20 on Tuesday.

      Venezuela's President Nicolas Maduro is in Algeria on a diplomatic push to persuade reluctant fellow members of OPEC to prop up a sinking market by cutting output.

      Saudi Arabia, OPEC's dominant member state and the world's biggest oil exporter, has repeatedly said the group will not cut production.

      On Tuesday, United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail bin Mohammed al-Mazroui stood by OPEC's decision to keep production unchanged.

      Mazroui showed no sign of backing down from OPEC's insistence that other producers, particularly the U.S. shale oil drillers which it blames for oversupplying the market, reduce their output. (Reporting by Reem Shamseddine; Editing by Ruth Pitchford).

      [Jan 16, 2015] Predictions for 2015 by John Quiggin

      January 15, 2015 | crookedtimber.org

      Prediction is very difficult, especially about the future, as Niels Bohr is supposed to have said. I've certainly found it so. Apart from the obvious possibility of being wrong, there's the risk that others will misrepresent you. But, as long as you don't take it too seriously, it's helpful to frame discussion around a sharp prediction. So here are three for 2015

      1. Peak Oil: I predict that global oil production (conventional and shale etc) will decline in 2015 and will never again reach the peak level of 2014.

      My reasoning is that 2014 supply can't be sustained at prices below, say, $75, and (given a downward underlying trend in the developed world), 2014 demand won't be reached again at prices above $75.

      ... ... ...

      Selected Skeptical Comments

      David J. Littleboy 01.15.15 at 9:39 am

      Your peak oil (prices falling because supply exceeds demand) is the opposite of the original peak oil (prices rising because limited resource supply approaches exhaustion). And it sure looks like that's what's going to (continue to) happen.

      It's funny that the stock market is freaking out, because up to now, the pattern has been high oil prices precede crashes and low oil prices precede recoveries/booms.

      ... ... ...

      Zamfir 01.15.15 at 12:35 pm

      @ David, he's not predicting that prices will stay below $75. He's saying that if prices rise above that level again, it will be in an environment with lower demand at those prices. And alternatively, prices might stay low but then supply will be restricted to a limited set of 'easy' sources.

      In other words, he's saying that the previous years were a unique anomaly, with both strongly rising prices and large scale development of 'hard' oil sources, and an economy (and technology) that could not strongly reduce demand in response to the high prices.

      If I read JQ correct, his prediction is that those two factors will not return again together. There might be a new period with high prices and development of difficult sources, but only after the economy has already reduced consumption in the face of the new and elevated 'normal' prices.

      Trader Joe 01.15.15 at 1:54 pm

      #1 Peak oil

      While its possible that weak pricing will induce production cuts that put 2015 supply below 2014 levels, the notion that 2014 represents "peak" production is entirely at odds with all projections. Oil production is slated to grow to over 100 mb/day by 2018 based only on projects that are already fully developed or substantially developed.

      I fully agree with the linked article that demand in the developed world has likely peaked, but developed world demand hasn't been the marginal buyer for sometime. China, Latin America and India have been the marginal buyers and their demand is still rising at a mid-single digit growth rate (or higher).

      IEA.org has all kinds of forecasts that can be sliced and diced however one likes for those who like data with their assertions, even a pretty generous read would challenge this prediction.

      If the timing was 2020 however, I'd be far more prepared to agree.

      Brett 01.15.15 at 5:56 pm

      1. I think we're probably close to Peak Oil Production as well, although the down slope on that will be a lot smoother and more gradual than expected. At a certain price point, it becomes profitable to start turning coal and other carbon into liquid fuels (including CO2 from the air, or from coal-fired power plants) with Fischer-Tropsch.

      It's also why I'm not convinced we'll see people move away from hydrocarbon fuels unless they're legally required to. If we can make it for decades or longer at a price point of $200/barrel, then we will – we'll just drive more efficient, smaller cars or eat the cost of gasoline.

      3. We'll see. I don't think we'll see meaningful action on climate change until the mid-to-late 2020s, when the effects of it will be so undeniable that all but the most diehard reactionaries will be accepting it by then. At which point much of the world will be frantically trying to come up with policies to restrain further warming, much like how we waited until an ozone hole opened up over Antarctica before we got meaningful action on ozone-destroying chemicals

      someguy88 01.15.15 at 6:13 pm

      Anything can happen. India and China could go all in on coal. I could finally get the fusion powered flying car I have always wanted. Japan could tap a limitless supply of Methane. A huge solar break thru could happen.

      I am not even sure this data is correct

      http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=91000

      but it seems to be the most common answer. When I run my mouse over Asia and Africa I see huge long term demand for oil.

      Based on that and the current extraction revolution I would say eventually the Green River Formation becomes economically viable. No peak oil.

      [Jan 15, 2015] Oil Wars Heating Up

      January 13, 2015 | The Daily Bell

      .... ... ...

      In our view, there is a kind of cold war going on between the US and Russia. The US worked to destabilize Ukraine from what we can tell and now along with Saudi Arabia has caused the price of oil to plummet.

      Low prices for oil put pressure on Russia's economy and currency. Moody's has just downgraded Russia and the ruble. This is a kind of war by proxy, one the US seems confident of winning.

      But this article makes the case that in the long run, market forces could prove stronger than manipulation.

      Here's more:

      Representatives of the leading members of the Organization of Petroleum Exporting countries have been saying for weeks they would not pump less oil no matter how low its price goes.

      Saudi Arabian Oil Minister Ali Al-Naimi has said even $20 per barrel wouldn't trigger a change of heart. Initial reactions in the U.S. were confident: U.S. oil producers were resilient enough; they would keep producing even at very low sale prices because the marginal cost of pumping from existing wells was even lower; OPEC would lose because its members' social safety nets depends on the oil price; and anyway, OPEC was dead.

      That optimism was reminiscent of the cavalier Russian reaction at the beginning of the price slide: In October, Russian President Vladimir Putin said "none of the serious players" was interested in an oil price below $80. This complacency has taken Russia to the brink: On Friday, Fitch downgraded its credit rating to a notch above junk, and it'll probably go lower as the ruble continues to devalue in line with the oil slump.

      It's generally a bad idea to act cocky in a price war. By definition, everybody is going to get hurt, and any victory can only be relative. The winner is he who can take the most pain. My tentative bet so far is on the Saudis -- and, though it might seem counterintuitive, the Russians.

      For now, the only sign that U.S. crude oil production may shrink is the falling number of operational oil rigs in the U.S. It was down to 1750 last week, 61 less than the week before and four less than a year ago. Oil output, however, is still at a record level. In the week that ended on Jan. 2, when the number of rigs also dropped, it reached 9.13 million barrels a day, more than ever before.

      Oil companies are only stopping production at their worst wells, which only produce a few barrels a day – at current prices, those wells aren't worth the lease payments on the equipment. Since nobody is cutting production, the price keeps going down; today, Brent was at $48.27 per barrel and trends are still heading downward.

      The article goes on to point out that "All this will eventually have an impact." The basic impact would be felt by producers "shutting-in production at a level where there is a significant reduction in global oil supply. At $40 Brent, 1.5 million barrels per day is cash negative with the largest contribution coming from several oil sands projects in Canada, followed by the U.S.A. and then Colombia."

      The weak link here is US fracking. Frackers, according to the article, will keep pumping at a loss because they have debts: "about $200 billion in total debt, comparable to the financing needs of Russia's state energy companies."

      Eventually this newfound US industry will begin to face bankruptcy. First, will go the highly leveraged producers. But the industry will not contract in an orderly fashion because healthier companies won't be in a position to purchase the unhealthy ones. A crisis of investor confidence will affect all concerned.

      This could be a bloody, prolonged battle with an uncertain outcome. The oil price is rather inelastic to short-term changes in demand and supply. Its course this year will, therefore, be largely dictated by the news and the market's reaction to it. A wave of bankruptcies in the U.S. shale industry will probably drive it up because it will be perceived as a negative factor for supply.

      How high it will go, however, is unpredictable. It may actually rise enough to enable consolidation in the U.S. shale industry, giving it second wind and driving OPEC countries, Russia, Mexico and Norway into greater difficulties – or it might just even out at a level that would make the U.S. forget about its shale boom. That would have dire consequences for the U.S. economic recovery.

      Surprisingly, the article makes the suggestion that the US government might want to start preparing for the day when fracking begins to melt down from a financial standpoint. If the price of oil hovers in the US$40 area, the US may find it is in its strategic interest to "bail out or temporarily subsidize shale producers."

      Conclusion:

      The oil wars have just begun.

      [Jan 15, 2015] The Fed & The Price Of Oil by Charles Hugh-Smith of OfTwoMinds blog,

      Jan 15, 2015 | Zero Hedge
      The Fed flooded the global economy with credit borrowed in U.S. dollars during its quantitative easing programs. Need to borrow billions of dollars to finance new oil production? No problem when the Fed was emitting trillions of dollars into the global financial system.

      Now that the Fed has ended its QE money-printing program, the dollars have dried up. The other source of dollars--U.S. trade deficit--has also contracted as the trade deficit has declined.

      This decline in the availability of U.S. dollars has placed global borrowers with dollar-denominated debt in a vice as the scarcity of dollars meets the pressing need to refinance debt that's coming due and needs to be rolled over.

      Strong demand and reduced supply lead to much higher prices for dollars--which is exactly what the world is seeing.

      Domestic oil producers have a source for financing: the Fed. As I have speculated before, the Fed may not be a passive observer of the domestic oil patch's financial travails. Given the potential for financial losses triggered by oil's price collapse to cascade into the financial sector at large, the Fed may well be forced to intervene either indirectly through proxies or directly.

      As I explained in Will the Fed Intervene in the Oil Market? (December 23, 2014), the Fed has a variety of intervention options, from buying oil futures contracts to buying at-risk oil-based bonds to enabling proxies to roll over oil-based debt.

      Compare the staggering cost to oil exporters in lost income to the modest cost of the Fed financing domestic oil-based debt. If the domestic oil industry needs $100 billion in debt to be buried in a balance sheet somewhere or rolled over, the Fed can arrange this size of financing without raising an eyebrow. Compared to a balance sheet of $4+ trillion and the Fed's essentially unlimited credit spigot, what's $100 billion more in aid to the domestic oil/gas industry?

      The oil exporters who are losing tens of billions of dollars in cumulative revenue do not have any equivalent Sugar Daddy. Their declines in income will have to be matched by declines in spending, declines that will cascade through the oil exporters' economies with devastating impact.

      If you want to deploy the oil weapon, make sure you have a central bank that can intervene at will, in whatever size is necessary, to reduce the impact on your own economy, while maximizing the financial pain inflicted on the targets of the oil weapon.

      [Jan 14, 2015] Oil Why nobody knows how low it will go

      At the moment, demand is continuing to rise, but supply also keeps on pumping. Just a third of the U.S.'s total storage capacity of 439 million barrels was being used in October, according to a Reuters analysis of U.S. data. This means there is space for U.S.-produced shale gas to be stored, rather than sold at a loss, as many feared.

      The U.S., mainly Texas and North Dakota, will account for 75 percent of the increase in global oil production this year, according to Deutsche Bank (Grey Market: DBCQF) estimates.

      Russian politicians and bankers think oil will reach $60-$80 in 2015

      RT Business

      An average oil price in 2015 will probably be in the range of $60 to $80 a barrel, say leading Russian politicians and bankers talking at the Gaidar Economic Forum in Moscow. The Head of Sberbank German Gref suggests oil will return to the level of $60-70 a barrel in the near future. "I do not believe it will continue to be low at $40, but it may stay at $60-70 for several years," Gref told reporters at the economic forum in Moscow Wednesday.

      "The oil price of $25 put forward by the Emirates won't last for long. The deeper we fall today, the faster the rebound will be," said Gref, adding that it's impossible to keep the price in the range of $25-35 a barrel at the current output level.

      Gref believes the current oil prices will inevitably affect the Russian economy. "We will see a reduction in costs," he said, adding that Russia won't be able to avoid a major bank crisis should oil prices stay at the level of $45-50 a barrel. Deputy Minister of Economic Development Aleksey Vedev agreed with the assumptions, saying the estimates of an oil price between $60 and $80 a barrel are "the most reliable."

      [Jan 13, 2015] Oil free market is bad news for US By Martin Hutchinson

      The bonanza from fracking may be about to go into reverse
      Jan 11, 2015 | Asia Times

      The OPEC meeting over Thanksgiving week failed to result in any oil production cuts, immediately sending prices down by US$5 per barrel. Its action made it clear that, for the first time since 1972, there is no cartel able to control the oil market.

      At first sight that looks like excellent news for America's consumers, just in time for their Christmas shopping binge. However, on closer consideration, it locks the US into being the world's high-cost producer of a major commodity. The bonanza from fracking may be about to go into reverse.

      The fall in the oil price is caused by a fundamental shift in the market. Price is now being driven by supply, whereas previously it was driven by demand. This has happened before: the oil price fell from $27 a barrel at the beginning of 1986 to $10 at the year's end, where it remained until around 2000, with only a short blip during the Gulf War. More …

      Martin Hutchinson is the author of Great Conservatives (Academica Press, 2005)

      [Jan 13, 2015] First Of Many: Standard Chartered Hit By Billions In Losses From Commodity Crash

      Jan 13, 2015 | zerohedge.com

      Now that even the pundit brigade has confessed that crashing crude may not be the "unambiguously good" event all of them had sworn as recently as a month ago it surely would be, and stocks are finally comprehending that plunging oil may well be rather "unambiguously bad" because without EPS growth (energy is well over 10% of S&P EPS), without multiple expansion (rumor has it the Fed will hike this year), without a jump in stock buybacks (energy companies account for 30% of the buyback growth in 2015 according to Goldman) and without a boost to GDP (energy capex plans are imploding), the only way is down. But there was one key element missing from the "bad" scenario: impaired banks. At least until now, because as Reuters reports, Asia-focused bank Standard Chartered is the first (of many) bank facing billions in losses resulting from the crude crash.

      Comments: 102

      WTI Crude Higher Than Brent Crude For First Time Since July 2013

      Submitted by Tyler Durden on 01/13/2015 - 11:13

      From almost $30 differentials in 2011, today's bounce in WTI has pushed the Brent-WTI spread negative for the first time since July 2013 briefly (and August 2010 consistently). This is, as the chart below shows, more 'old normal' as pre-QE the Brent-WTI spread oscillated in a very narrow range...

      The Confessions Begin: Goldman, BofA Warn Crude Crash Will Have Negative Impact On GDP, Earnings

      "The plunge in oil prices is unambiguously good for the US economy

      - Virtually every "pundit" with a business suit, who collected a $200 CNBC appearance in the past 3 months

      A week ago we showed that, using Gallup polling data, the crude crush has clearly led to a "spending surge" among US consumers: whereas a year ago all US consumers spent $96 per day, this December, with crude and gasoline prices roughly half off, Americans spent a self-reported whopping, drumroll, $98 per day.

      Worse, as is well-known the biggest marginal beneficiary of low gas prices are not wealthy US consumers, for whom the elasticity of gasoline (and crude) prices is irrelevant, but poorer households, those making under $90,000 a year. It is here that the spending spree was an even more unprecedented $1 more, from $84 a year ago to $85.

      That's the good news.

      The bad news is that contrary to conventional wisdom, as even Bank of America and Goldman now admit, sliding crude prices will have an increasingly more negative impact only not on economic growth but S&P earnings... something we said from day one.

      Here is Bank of America becoming increasingly less cheery:

      Despite conventional wisdom, investors seem to be on edge, with the 10-year yield below 2% and equities stumbling. Global disinflationary fears are growing, with concerns that the US will not be able to decouple from weakness abroad. And despite the benefits of cheaper gasoline, reports of a recent shale default and cuts to energy capex are putting the focus on downside risks. In our view, those risks are contained.

      In our Year Ahead piece, we highlighted the downside risks to the energy patch from falling oil prices. At that time, based on our 2015 oil forecast of $90/bbl, we saw around 0.1%-pts of risk to GDP. But continued declines in the oil price suggest mounting risks. Here, we gauge the downside risk to growth if oil stays at $50/bbl. Already, rig counts have fallen to 1482 in the first week of January from a high of 1609 in October last year (Chart 1), suggesting declines in exploration/drilling outlays.

      Although that 8% drop appears modest relative to history (we saw a 60% decline in the 2009 recession), Chart 1 shows that there's about a four-month lag in the response of rig counts to weaker oil prices, so there's likely more pain to come. Indeed, our Oil Services team sees a near 15% decline in rig counts in 2015. It's important to note that the relationship between oil production and rig counts is non-linear. As our Commodity Strategy team points out, early reductions in rigs don't necessarily imply falling output as operators may initially shift resources to more economic wells, keeping production intact. As prices fall further, the decline in rigs may eventually trigger greater curtailments in production. Thus, we see a notable lag of several months in the response of production to weaker prices.

      The good news is that oil and gas extraction accounts for only 1.8% of GDP directly, suggesting a small hit to the overall economy. For example, if energy production were to fall by 10% in 2015 (just shy of the 14% decline in the recession) the decline in production would slice 0.2% off of GDP.

      Needless to say, oil is not only 10% lower than the $50/bbl price when this note went to print on Friday, but is about 50% below BofA's 2015 oil forecast. So... what were we talking about again?

      And then there is BofA recalling that Investment is a very distinct component of GDP.

      With the oil price falling, capital budgets in the energy sector have come under renewed pressure. According to Census Bureau's Annual Capital Expenditure Survey, roughly 90% of energy capex is allocated to structures investment – namely outlays for exploration and wells. Spending there tracked an annualized rate of $140bn in the first three quarters of 2014, a sum that accounts for a whopping 30% of total non-residential private fixed investment in structures (Chart 2), or about a 1% of GDP.

      In our view, there are important downside risks to the outlook for capital spending. Already, a number of energy firms have announced cuts to capital budgets recently, expressing caution in an environment of falling energy prices. If we use history as a guide, there are five notable periods of decline in energy capex since the early-80s coinciding with falling energy prices.

      Based on the magnitude of the capital spending decline in response to falling energy prices historically (Table 1), we think that if the oil price in 2015 averages $50/bbl (marking a 50% decline relative to 2014), energy sector capex could fall by 40%. That's about 1% of downside risk to non-residential structures, all else equal, or a hit of 0.3%-0.4% of GDP.

      Or, one could just read what we warned back in November when we explained that the "Imploding Energy Sector Is Responsible For A Third Of S&P 500 Capex." We are happy that Wall Street has finally caught up with what our readers knew 2 months ago.

      And then there is Goldman, where the first Mea Culpa came from equity strategist David Kostin who said:

      Reduced energy capex will also hurt profits in other industries. In contrast, lower oil is a positive for the US consumer, but likely not enough to offset the Energy sector drag on overall market earnings.

      The direct negative effect of lower oil prices on Energy earnings is clear. Energy firms account for 8% of S&P 500 market cap and 11% of earnings, and EPS have a strong historical relationship with the commodity. Given this historical relationship and oil futures prices, Energy earnings are likely to drop by more than 50% year/year in 2015. This fall would result in an S&P 500 earnings drag of roughly $65 billion, or more than $7 of EPS vs. 2014.

      Better get that multiple-expansion thesis going then. Oh wait, it was Goldman which two months ago said Multiple Expansion Is Over. Well then...

      But it gets worse, because according to Goldman the biggest driver of stock upside in 2014 and also in 2015 - stock buybacks - is about to be punched in the face.

      Buybacks are also at risk. Energy accounts for 9% of S&P 500 buybacks, in line with their market cap weight. In the past decade, Energy firms have increased the share volume of repurchases during periods of falling crude prices and stock valuations, but buybacks have nonetheless declined in dollar terms. A decrease in Energy buybacks proportional to the fall in oil would represent a $35 billion headwind to the aggregate $107 billion (+18%) growth we forecast for S&P 500 buybacks in 2015. However, the slow start so far in 2015 is not unusual: January is typically quiet, accounting for just 3% of annual repurchase activity, while February sees double that amount.

      In short: dear BofA and Goldman, welcome to the red pill party.

      To summarize what we have said since September, here is Bloomberg:

      Forecasts for first-quarter profits in the Standard & Poor's 500 Index have fallen by 6.4 percentage points from three months ago, the biggest decrease since 2009, according to more than 6,000 analyst estimates compiled by Bloomberg. Reductions spread across nine of 10 industry groups and energy companies saw the biggest cut.

      Earnings pessimism is growing just as the best three-year rally since the technology boom pushed equity valuations to the highest level since 2010. At the same time, volatility has surged in the American stock market as oil's 55 percent drop since June to below $49 a barrel raises speculation that companies will cancel investment and credit markets and banks will suffer from debt defaults.

      One big market risk from lower oil is the prospect that it will freeze energy-related capital spending, according to Savita Subramanian and Dan Suzuki, strategists at Bank of America Corp. Earnings in the S&P 500 may be as much as $6 a share lower than analysts forecast this year should oil stay below $50 a barrel, they estimate.

      "Either there is nothing to worry about and crude is going quickly back to $70 plus, or we have entered an earnings down cycle for an appreciable portion of the market," said Michael Shaoul, who helps oversee $10 billion as chief executive officer of Marketfield Asset Management in New York. "I don't see much room for a middle ground and I don't think the winners will cancel out the losers."

      Precisely. And to complete the humorously circle, here is some more delayed comprehension comedy:

      "My initial thought was oil would take a dollar or two off the overall S&P 500 earnings but that obviously might be worse now," Dan Greenhaus, the New York-based chief strategist at BTIG LLC, said in a phone interview. "The whole thing has moved much more rapidly and farther than anyone thought. People were only taking into account consumer spending and there was a sense that falling energy is ubiquitously positive for the U.S., but I'm not convinced."

      Yes, Dan, in retrospect everything is much more obvious. And thank you Dan for finally SHIFT-F7ing "unamobgiously good" and teaching us the übiqutiously positive" synonym. Even if Wall Street's value-added is boosting one's SAT vocabulary, we will take it...

      [Jan 12, 2015] Goldman tries to make oil prices go lower

      In a note to clients, Goldman Sachs slashed its forecast for oil prices. It now estimates that crude will average $50.40 a barrel this year, far below its previous forecast of $83.75. It also trimmed its forecast for Brent crude, a type used in international markets, to $70 a barrel from $90.
      Jan 12, 2015 | NYTimes.com

      Oil Slides Again, Taking Shares on Wall Street Down With It -

      Falling oil prices dragged the stock market lower on Monday as Exxon Mobil, Chevron and other big energy companies sank along with crude.

      The steep drop in oil prices over recent months has investors second-guessing expectations for the quarterly earnings season that starts this week.

      Sam Stovall, the United States equity strategist at S&P Capital IQ, said that it seemed that every day brought another drop in Wall Street's earnings forecasts.

      "What's happening is that we're seeing the very low bar for fourth-quarter earnings raising anxiety," Mr. Stovall said. "It's the continued decline in oil, but it's also that nearly half of the S.&P. 500's revenues come from overseas. Japan is in recession, and Europe is teetering on the edge of it."

      The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index lost 16.55 points, or 0.8 percent, to close at 2,028.26. The Dow Jones industrial average slid 96.53 points, or 0.5 percent, to 17,640.84, and the Nasdaq lost 39.36 points, or 0.8 percent, closing at 4,664.71.

      ... ... ...

      In a note to clients, Goldman Sachs slashed its forecast for oil prices. It now estimates that crude will average $50.40 a barrel this year, far below its previous forecast of $83.75. It also trimmed its forecast for Brent crude, a type used in international markets, to $70 a barrel from $90.

      Oil prices extended their slide, with American crude losing $2.29 to settle at $46.07 a barrel. Brent lost $2.68 to $47.43. Both were trading at their lowest levels since March 2009.

      [Jan 12, 2015] How low can oil prices go Welcome to the oil market's old normal

      As Saudi Arabia is a USA vassal, this is a joint operation. See Obama statement about punishing Russia via lower oil prices.
      Jan 12, 2015 | The Washington Post
      Third, there is Saudi Arabia. The kingdom is the driving force behind the drop in prices because it has grown weary of cutting its own oil output in order to prop up prices enjoyed by other countries, both in OPEC and especially outside of OPEC.

      How determined is Saudi Arabia? Very. It is now waiting for low prices to discourage investments in new projects such as Russia's Arctic, Canada's oil sands, U.S. shale drilling, and Brazil's costly sub-salt projects in deep offshore waters. Yes, these are long-term projects that rely on long-term oil prices, but companies still tend to pay a lot of attention to what's happening now.

      And Saudi Arabia can afford to wait. Even though prices have tumbled, Saudi Arabia – unlike Venezuela – has a large treasure chest of savings from past years and can weather a long period of low prices. The government is assuming a 32 percent drop in oil-related revenues. In addition, Saudi Arabia has some of the world's lowest production costs, rivaled only by Iraq and some parts of Russia. Production costs in Saudi Arabia are about $4 to $5 a barrel, Naimi said recently.

      The Saudi oil minister al-Naimi's interview in Argus Global Markets should send chills down the spines of oil producers. He noted that "sooner or later, however much they hold out" high cost oil projects such as wells in Brazil's sub-salt offshore region, off the coast of west African, and in the forbidding Arctic would have to scale back in response to low prices. "Will this be in six months, in one year, two years, three years? God knows," said Naimi.

      "I say Gulf countries, and particularly the kingdom, have the ability to hold out."

      Naimi also brushed aside the plight of Russia and Iran, saying that they were not only suffering from low oil prices but also "from their political behavior" that had led to sanctions. "Their problem is more basic" than oil prices, he said.

      How long will Naimi have to wait? The surplus oil production is a small percentage of global consumption, so it's possible that a disruption in supplies in, say, Libya and an uptick in consumption in the United States, Europe and China could bring things into balance. But consumption isn't just a matter of crude oil prices. Gasoline subsidies have been slashed in Indonesia and India, fuel efficiency standards are pushing U.S. carmakers, and Europe's economy remains in the doldrums.

      Meanwhile, new production keeps coming online. Take MEG Energy, for example, a producer in Canada's costly oil or tar sands. MEG has slashed its capital spending budget by 75 percent this year, but its production will still go up about 20 percent.

      The boom in U.S. shale oil is perhaps the most important factor. Estimated global liquids production grew by 1.8 million barrels a day to a total of 92.0 million barrels a day in 2014. U.S. domestic crude oil production alone increased 1.2 million barrels per day in 2014, up 16 percent from 2013. U.S. shale oil production has jumped to about 4 million barrels a day in just six years, more than the output of any OPEC country other than Saudi Arabia. At 8.6 million barrels a day, U.S. production is at the highest level in nearly 30 years.

      How fast will that shale oil activity drop off? So far, not much. The Baker Hughes rig count for onshore U.S. drilling fell to 1,684 down 60 from the week before but still seven higher than a year earlier. Because shale oil wells produce about half their output in 18 to 24 months, this activity should be highly sensitive to prices.

      But lower drilling costs, steady improvements in fracking techniques and a focus on lowest cost areas help offset the effect of lower prices. The EIA said in December that

      "projected oil prices remain high enough to support development drilling activity in the Bakken, Eagle Ford, Niobrara, and Permian Basin, which contribute the majority of U.S. oil production growth."

      The EIA said it expects U.S. crude oil production to average 9.3 million barrels per day in 2015. That's 200,000 barrels a day less than EIA's earlier projections, but it still means an increase of 700,000 barrels a day from 2014.

      Sooner or later, though, the cycle will turn. Naimi in the interview with Argus sounded confident, and patient. "The bet is about the timing of the price rise," he said, "not about if it will occur."

      [Jan 11, 2015] Has The Oil Price Drop Come To An End

      EconoSpeak

      Very likely. Reports from November report that the Saudi government has been preparing its budget for the price of oil to be between $45 and $50 per barrel. The price rose during the last two days and fell slightly today, with Brent crude currently sitting at $48.21 amid rumors of the Saudis playing games in the forward markets. They can afford to do so and have the whip hand on what the world price is.

      So, folks, this may be it. The Saudis have let the price fall about as far as they want it to, but no further. If the price stabilizes for some time about where it is now, you first heard it here. I am not going to attempt to forecast when it might make another move up from this zone, although the Saudi Minister of Petroleum has been quoted as saying, "Do not expect to see prices above $100 per barrel again," although that cannot be ruled out in the longer run.

      Barkley Rosser

      [Jan 11, 2015] Demand Factors in the Collapse of Oil Prices

      Jim Hamilton:

      Demand factors in the collapse of oil prices: The price of oil passed another milestone last week, falling below $50 a barrel, a level that I had not expected to see again in my lifetime.
      It's interesting that we crossed another milestone last week, with the yield on 10-year Treasury bonds falling below 2%. That, too, is something I had not expected to see.
      And these two striking developments are surely related. I attribute sinking yields to ongoing weakening of the global economy, particularly Europe. And slower growth of world GDP means slower growth in the demand for oil. Other indicators of an economic slowdown outside the United States are falling prices of other commodities and a strengthening dollar.
      A month ago I provided some simple analysis of the connection between these developments... The price of oil has fallen another $8/barrel since then, prompting me to update those calculations. ... On the basis of the above regression,... of the $55 drop in the price of oil since the start of July, about $24, or 44%, seems attributable to broader demand factors rather than anything specific happening to the oil market. That's almost the same percentage as when I performed the calculation using data that we had available a month ago.
      So what's been happening on the supply side of oil markets is important. But so is what's been happening on the demand side. ...

      paine said...

      Jimbo is a hack

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:20 AM

      paine said in reply to paine...

      Commodity markets are always
      captives
      of speculation

      players views differ
      But that contains zero useful
      info

      We need global commodity boards
      with limitless credit lines
      And stprage

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:34 AM

      paine said in reply to paine...

      Stprage iputz for stowage capacity

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 10:36 AM

      anne said in reply to paine...

      Commodity markets are always
      captives
      of speculation

      players views differ
      But that contains zero useful
      information

      [ Develop this argument further. ]

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 01:22 PM

      JohnH said...

      Funny that it took economists this long to figure this out. All other possibilities were trotted out first...Saudis out the get Iran and Putin [cheers] ...Saudis out to get shale oil producers [boos].

      With the economies of many major oil importers (Europe, Japan, China) slowing, it only makes sense that slack demand would affect oil prices.

      But for some reason our stupid corporate media couldn't see the elephant in the room, as in so many other instances.

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 11:56 AM

      JohnH said...

      Other curious thing--if deflation is so awful, why are falling oil prices so good? I mean, can't falling oil prices be a cause of deflation?

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:00 PM

      pgl said in reply to JohnH...

      Some of us have been noting the possible downsides to lower oil prices. But Dr. Hamilton is only talking cause and effect. Cause = weak economy in Europe. Effect = lower oil prices as well as lower interest rates,

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 03:30 PM

      Ben Groves said in reply to pgl...

      The economy in Europe has been weak for some time. I really doubt everybody figured that out 2 years later.

      I think the problem is, commodity traders kept on thinking the Saudi's would support them, by slitting their throats to shale and they were wrong. They were losing so much market share, 100$ oil would eventually cost them the same $$$ as 45-50 dollar oil. Now they get to export more while North America's production shuts down making money in the process.

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 05:53 PM

      JohnH said in reply to JohnH...

      So it's not mostly attributable to Dornbush overshoot? Ha-ha-ha-ha

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 03:34 PM

      Ben Groves said...

      I think speculatory factors are more important in the price of oil's fall, based on the rate of decline. Most of these "slowing" Asian economies have been slowing since 2012, yet the price of oil stayed stubbornly high for 2 years, booming exploration. Eventually they ran out of ability to juice the price any further and it collapsed.

      Reply Sunday, January 11, 2015 at 12:53 PM

      anne said...

      http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/graph/?g=WLL

      August 4, 2014

      Real per capita Gross Domestic Product for China, India, Indonesia and
      Philippines, 2007-2013

      (Percent change)

      [ Asian economies were not slowing through 2013 and have not slowed in 2014, as a look to per capita growth in economies counting for about 3 billion people shows. There was no meaningful decrease in demand for oil from Asia. ]

      [Jan 11, 2015] Alternatives to Russian to oil and gas are non existant - so Maidan goes to Moscow by Alexander Zapolski

      regnum.ru
      "This year an interesting trend has been established in Europe. After acute political confrontation with Russia, European countries suddenly made an unpleasant discovery. Their economy is extremly dependent on Russian exports and imports. First of all, in terms of energy. All Europe consumes about 480 billion cubic meters of gas per year. One third of this amount (about 137 billion cubic meters) Europe produces itself, another third (150 billion cubic meters) buys from Russia, the rest gets from other regions (Africa, the Americas and the middle East).

      On the agenda was the question of increasing the energy independence from Russia. Here everybody counted on Norway.

      Why Norway? Because of the 27 countries of the EU only three have substantial oil and gas are: the UK, Netherlands and Norway. Total volume of produced gas is 137 billion cubic metres per year. Te peak of production in the UK and the Netherlands have already passed. The reserves are depleted, the volumes are declining, and this trend is difficult to reverse. So all hopes are on Norway gas. And hope for large and long-term stable volumes.

      For example, all Baltic countries is going in the next few years to completely abandon the Russian gas and change in Norwegian. Finland has similar, though not so radical plans. Brussels hopes for Norwegian gas are are very high too. In all their forecasts, the EU believes that the expansion of production in the Norwegian sector of the continental shelf will be able to compensate for the decline of the British and Dutch energy fields. Ukraine also announced about their plans to transition to the Norwegian gas .

      At the beginning of this year such hope were more or less realistic. Well if not totally realistic at least not too much detached from the ground. Moreover on their deposits Norway produces not only gas, but also oil. More precisely, it all started with the oil, which in 2000 produced 1.13 billion barrels, while gas - only 47.3 billion cubic meters Over time, the oil production fell, but the Directorate of oil (a division of the Ministry of petroleum and energy Norway) gave a soothing forecasts. Yes, oil production decreases. In 2011 it was produced only 664 million barrels, i.e. almost twice less. But at the same time he volume of gas increased dramatically -- With 47.3 billion cubic meters in 2000 to 106 billion cubic meters in 2011) One easily makes up for the other. The hope was that gas will replace oil and will be for many years growing source of national income.

      In a sense it was. Oil production forecast fell to 595 million barrels by 2014. Total European oil consumption is 5.3 billion barrels so Norwegian slice now is around 10% and as such falls under the radar. It is clear that 90% of the oil needs to be imported. Russia's share in imports is small around 480-500 million barrels. Assuming that the growth of gas production volumes continue (from to 112 billion cubic meters in 2014) not only formed a rosy picture of satisfying EU energy needs in this type of fuel, but created in some countries outright illusion that Norwegian gas will suffice for all.

      It caused euphoria, particularly in Latvia and Lithuania. Further - as in a fairy tale: "And then the evil wolf came". In 2014, oil prices collapsed, revealing a number of serious problems with Norwegian industry. Which previously were hidden behind the beautiful forecast charts. Firstly, it was found that they main Norwegian gas field are already past peak. Fresh figures for the current year's nowhere to be found, but to draw conclusions about their possible value we can trace changes in the major areas of production in the period from the date of their inception until 2003.

      • District "Place". Production starts in 1971, its explored reserves amounted to 669 million cubic meters of oil equivalent (ad). By the end of 2003 reserves were less than 216 million cubic meters A.D. 30 years of operation developed for 67.7% of the resource.
      • District Statfjord". Production - 1979. Explored reserves - 647 million cubic meters of BC... In 2003 there were already a total of 51 million cubic meters, D.C. For 24 years developed to 92.1% of the estimated depositis.
      • Area "Gullfaks". Production - 1986. Explored reserves - 361 million cubic meters A.D. In 2003, there are only 43 million cubic meters A.D. For 17 years produced 88% of the estimated depositis.
      • The Area Oseberg. Production - 1988. Explored reserves - 438 million cubic meters A.D. In 2003 the stock was already only 125 million cubic meters of A.D. 15 years developed 73,1% of the estimated depositis.

      In 1995, Norway started the development of the large deposits found on the Norwegian continental shelf, an area of "Troll". Its explored reserves amounted 1612 million cubic meters A.D. In 2003 there were only 1,355 million cubic meters A.D. on the one hand, it would be many more. But on the other... just 8 years already deflated to 15.9%.
      Since then, Norway shock rapidly increased production volumes. So even "Troll" deposits are probably now much less than that if you count just on a linear relationship. Some experts generally say that there remained no more than 6-8 years of production. Similarly exhasted are other fields. And some of them, as, for example, the area "Frigg" can be consited "done with".

      The second important point is the fact that since the end of last century in the North and Barents seas (and not only on the Norwegian shelf) there was never found any really large deposits of energy. This is not to say that new deposits of oil and gas in this area does not exist. But they are smaller. probably much smaller. Explored reserves of only Norway is estimated in the amount of 3.7 billion cubic meters A.D. in existing fields. However, the new, as yet undiscovered, found only 676 million cubic meters. Moreover, the average size of the deposits in a single area does not exceed 32 million cubic meters - if we assume them evenly distributed, dividing the total number by the number of districts (21). And if you look at the real picture, in 13 districts proved reserves do not exceed 10 million cubic meters including 9 districts which do not exceed 5 million cubic meters

      In plain English this means that, as before, recovery will be more costly. Time when you just need to drip qa well and then recover emormous anout of oil andgas are gone. It stocks like "Troll" are at least semi-exhosted there is a a wide range figures as for the cost of production of a barrel. At the beginning you can set any price you wish -- oil and gas flowed and you eventually recovered the cost of exploration and drilling no matter what the price is. With small fields situation is compley different and fixed costs can make them uneconomical to explore if cost of oil is low.

      This means the Norwegia is highly exposed the the fall of oil prices. The fairy tale ended. As the Norwegians say - "Snipp, snapp'snute, så er eventyret ute" (that fairy tales end, and who listened is a good boy).

      Moreover the depletion of old fields cause the inevitable environmental consequences. Drawdown of soil. The destruction of wells. The pressure drop in the reservoir. This requires accelerating the transition from extensive to intensive production technologies. For example, if the original oil and gas was flowing up under internal pressure, now the liques or stream need to be used to push it up. The most common is injection of water. It came to that one produced cubic meter of oil consumed up to 5 cubic meters of water, and one cube of gas up to 16 cubic metres of water. this all means additional costs. With costs constantly increasing each year. Water, inserted into the chalk bags, destroys the walls of the reservuar. This occasionally leads to ecological disasters. In recent times due to the destruction of the reservoir was thrown in the sea over 126 thousand tons of crude oil. You need to dril more wells. That means repeated exploration. You need to undertake repair work on oil wells. Or relace old wells to new in old field were return is already low. In the end, spending more and more money.

      In August this year Bente Nylund, the General Director of tNorway's Petroleum Directorate stated that the country plans to dramatically reduce investments in the oil and gas sector. "We are talking about fiscal discipline". The possition is perfectly easy to understand -- recovery costs might be too high in the current price environment. For ten years, from 2004 to 2014, the annual cost of exploration and organization of production has increased from 70 to 230 billion NOK. I.e., three times. And this despite the fact that 2014 was the year of the maximum size of investment in the industry. Already in 2015 this figure is planned to be $182 billion kroons, which corresponds to the level of 2012. This is confirmed by the statements of the largest Norwegian oil and gas companies lincluding Statoil - they all plan radically revise their investment plans for the next 5-7 years. Its negative contribution contribute to the growing technical problems in the fields "Valhall", "Stroke", "Ula" and "Tamar" running BP. And the Statoil in areas "Njord", "Asgard" and "Troy" things are not going better.

      Will be very interesting to read the next analytical report of the Petroleum Directorate, which will be published in January 2015. Especially the forecasts. I guess there will be some unexpected and interesting news. However, most likely, he already confirm conclusions made by analysts.

      In any case it looks like Norway has passed both the peak oil and gas production. Stocks still there, and quite a lot of them. They might last until 2020-2021. However, even in this case, the total output will be gradually reduced. But slowly. Drastic changes will come after the specified "point of no return". That means that now Europe is becoming more sensitive to fluctuations in world energy prices.

      And, curiously, multidirectionally sensitive. It needs a low gas prices along with high oil prices. High, as it turns out, this means not below 60-62 dollars per barrel. Otherwise the whole Europian oil and gas extraction industry goes belly up. And low gas prices means below 450-500 dollars per thousand cubic meters. That means that Qatari gas which costw around 600-630 dollars per thousand cubic meters and out of reach.

      Another important point is the structure of exports of Norwegian energy.

      The structure of Norwegian exports is as following: Germany - 42,4%; France - 21,3%; the Netherlands 9.7%; Belgium 8.3 per cent; Italy is 6.7%; Czech Republic - 3.9 per cent; Spain - 3.7%; and in all the other countries of 4.0%. It is easy to understand that for deliveries to, say, the Ukraine, there is no Norway gas available. The question is not even in the absence of transport infrastructure in Europe or the money to pay for it in Ukraine. There is no extra gas. As in word "none".

      Moreover, in the medium term it will become from year to year even less. I would not be mistaken if I say that the first from a list of buyers will be kicked all those "other countries", which includes, by the way, all three Baltic States. When there, according to the plans of Lithuania, must come to its gas independence from Russia in 2021? I strongly believe that the Baltic States got into a trap with these projects. And not because of the machinations of "Gazprom".

      In fact, the picture is as follows. In the long term to 2021, i.e. after 7 years, Europe will begin to form a new gas deficit in the amount of up to one third of the total annual demand. And not on any natural gas but of cheap natural gas. No one but Russia not to supply such gas. Apparently, this is the missing reason that forced US to implement the project "Ukraine, Maidan 2.0" project to force Europe to accept the US prices.

      Europe understands this perspective. In 7 years, the share of Russia in the European gas consumption might reach 50%. Because now Brussels has begun forming a new system of European gas purchases. Its main aim is to create instead of individual countries the European single buyer of gas, which Gazprom will have to deal with in Europe. And not with each individual country as it is today. On the one hand, this should improve the overall political stability of the EU. Another is to allow us to align the gas prices for all EU countries and to lower their overall value. For today, every country its contract with Russia concludes individually. Because Macedonia 1 thousand cube made 564.3 buys at dollar, Poland - 525,5, Bosnia - 515, Czech Republic - 503, Bulgaria - 501, Greece - 427, UK - 313, France - 393, Germany - 379.

      However, if Brussels will succeed, for US, this scenario means the collapse of the idea of Transatlantic trade Union. Washington will not be able to offer energy prices are lower than in Russia. Unless Europeans are kicked out of their traditional European centric view of the world, with 50-60% dependence on Russian gas acceleration drift all over Europe in the direction of Moscow is inevitable. Moreover, the natural consequence of this convergence will be the expansion of mutual trade, and hence the consolidation of all the different "not only economic ties. Hence the inevitable separation of Europe from the United States. The gap, which might lead to weakening of American influence on the entire Euro-Asian continent. For US, it actually means the global geopolitical funeral.

      To stop a script America needs total destruction of Russia with the aim of taking under their own control of our oil and gas fields. Or, alternatively, the creation on the territory of the Russian Federation such a level of instability that Russia like in Ukraine experience the destruction of infrastructure which lead into an unrecoverable reduction in supply volumes. Then Europe simply will be nowhere to go. It explains the whole American strategy, as well as the sharp turn the U.S. toward Russian confrontation.

      The US simply have little time. Approximately 7 years. And the countdown is already underway. So in the next year in Russia, we should expect the most fierce, desperate attempts to organize Maidan. Well for Russia's to face aggression of the West is not something new. Importantly, we now know the answers to all key questions: who, what and why."

      [Jan 10, 2015] CrossTalk Oil - How Low

      YouTube
      Ana Surena Vandenberg dos Santos
      The most vulnerable parameter in the oil price game is the huge junk bond bubble that finances the US shale gas market by speculation on profit. Once the bulls start with a stampede caused by the falling oil price the bubble explodes quite inevitably with a massive impact on the US financial market and thus the economies in the developed countries... it's a predictable black swan.

      Rick Cornelius

      Once the feeding frenzy is over the oil price will come back up an level off at around $65 per barrel. The reason Russia decided to float its currency is because the view fixing their sovereign currency to their enemies currency as self defeating in that the dollar for them has been weaponized and they seek to move away from it even if it hurts to do so. China is also doing the same.

      Justyburger

      All these factors such as supply and demand have a relevance but I think the real reason is a manufactured drop to pressure Russia, in the hope that Putin is toppled. This is directly designed to coincide with sanctions, the Kiev Coup D'état and a Ukraine force to fight Russia. This is exactly what Evgeny Fedorov says and I very much agree with him. The trouble is, the West can't keep oil at this price for long and Donbass is making it very difficult for the West to get their Ukraine regime change plans complete.

      This part of the grand geo-political plan by the West looks like it will fail big time and if it does, we may see a New expanded Russian Federation, as the belief in the West drops to an all time low in the Russian world.

      [Jan 10, 2015] Oil-Bust Bloodletting Projects Cancelled, Layoffs Ripple to Other Areas, Default Hits Private-Equity and Pension Funds

      "In the US, the trend has started a week later and is happening more slowly at this point. Rig count dropped by 109 in four weeks, from 1,920 rigs in the week ending December 5 to 1,811 in the most recent week. But the side-effects are already rippling through the economy."

      Jan 7, 2015 | wolfstreet.com
      Drilling for oil these days is all about endless amounts of no-questions-asked cheap money. And now, as the price of oil plunges relentlessly, the cheap money is drying up faster than ceiling paint.

      WTI traded at $46.90 Tuesday evening. Down 56% from June. At these prices, the entire North American oil equation is out of whack, regardless of what Wall Street is telling investors to bamboozle them into surrendering more of their money cheaply in order to keep the house of cards from collapsing. But it seems, investors are catching on.

      After dousing energy companies with super-cheap money for years in a Fed-designed drunken stupor, investors came out of it in the second half of 2014. All heck has since broken loose. Energy stocks, particularly of smaller exploration and production companies, are crashing. Energy junk-bond yields – and spreads over US Treasuries – are spiking beautifully to the highest level since the Financial Crisis (chart).

      And new money, the fuel required to keep the mirage going, has suddenly become scarcer and a lot more expensive. With funding uncertain and oil prices collapsing, capital expenditures are getting slashed, and it's beginning to show up in the Baker Hughes rig count. Rigs drilling for oil and gas in Canada have plunged 64% in five weeks, from 438 rigs on November 26 to 156 by January 2. Canada is shutting down its drilling operations.

      Many of these rigs were operated by smaller drillers. But even oil giants have reacted by cancelling or postponing multi-billion dollar oil-sands projects: Shell's Pierre River project, Total's Joslyn mine, and Statoil's Corner project. Cancelling projects before they become massive capital investments is the easier thing to do. It doesn't lower current production, but it stops the cash drain.

      In the US, the trend has started a week later and is happening more slowly at this point. Rig count dropped by 109 in four weeks, from 1,920 rigs in the week ending December 5 to 1,811 in the most recent week. But the side-effects are already rippling through the economy.

      US Steel is going to shutter plants in Houston, Texas, and Lorain, Ohio, that together produce annually over 800,000 tons of steel pipe for the oil and gas industry. In total, 756 workers will be axed starting in March, the majority in Ohio.

      "The company has suddenly lost a great deal of business because of the recent downturn in the oil industry," wrote Tom McDermott, president of United Steelworkers local 1104 in Lorain, according to the Wall Street Journal. "What appeared just a few short weeks ago as being a productive year, [with new hires in December and extra turns going on], has most abruptly turned sour."

      The steel industry has been one of the big beneficiaries of the fracking boom. A number of steelmakers from around the world have crowded into the space. As the drilling boom craters, orders for steel pipe and tubes – US Steel's "most reliable profit driver," according to Wells Fargo analyst Sam Dubinsky – are fizzling. There will be a lot more bloodletting.

      And so, with projects getting cancelled, orders disappearing, and cheap money drying up, the first default stumbles into the scene: privately-held Canadian oil-sands producer Laricina Energy.

      As so often these days in the oil and gas business, there is a private-equity and "alternative-investment" angle to it. US private equity firm Lime Rock Partners made an initial investment in 2005 when Laricina was founded. Two other US PE firms have invested in it: Kayne Anderson Capital and Mount Kellett Capital. However, the biggest shareholder is Canada's largest pension fund, CPP Investment Board, looking to spike its performance with hot "alternative investments."

      In total, Laricina raised approximately C$1.3 billion in equity financings. It also sold C$150 million in four-year notes, secured by the company's assets, to CPPIB in March 2014. The notes were supposed to provide interim funding for a commercial project.

      "Supposed to" because now, that debt is in default.

      In a statement, Laricina said that it "missed its bitumen production covenant" of the notes as average production in Q4 was 18% below the minimum of 1,225 barrels a day – "an event of default for which there is no cure period under the indenture." It's in discussions with CPPIB, but warns that "the failure to reach an agreement may result in the inability for the Company to operate as a going concern."

      In November, it had already warned that it might not be able to move forward with the commercialization of its projects unless it received C$350 million in additional financing. Alas….

      "The capital markets are not putting a lot of new money to work," CEO Glen Schmidt explained in an interview after the default. "The flow of capital changed materially between the middle of 2014 and the end of 2014 and that clearly had an impact on the numbers of players but also the amounts of capital."

      In other words, his company is confronted with a new reality: there are suddenly fewer investors willing to stick their heads out, and those that are willing, won't stick their heads out quite as far, and they're asking for more yield to be compensated for the risk.

      Meanwhile, the company is trying to slash operating expenses to remain liquid a little longer, as it said, "in this challenging external environment."

      Wall Street and the oil boom are joined at the hip. Years of ceaseless and extraordinary hype brought in piles of new money from investors driven to sheer madness by the pandemic of central-bank zero-interest-rate policies. It forced even pension funds into high-risk deals to make up for the lack of yield on conservative investments. It kept the boom going for years. The likelihood that the price of oil could ever plunge, as it had done periodically in the past, never entered into the equation because central banks, with their ingenious policies, had eliminated all forms of risk.

      Investors in these risk-free investments are learning that some of their capital has already gone up in smoke, and that more of it will go up in smoke. A sense of reality is setting in. Money to fund what is left of the drilling boom is drying up and getting a lot more expensive. And the consequences are spilling into other sectors of the economy.

      But there were supposed to be beneficiaries of the oil-price crash. It was supposed to goose consumer spending, and thus the economy. But companies are not seeing it that way.

      Read… Consumer Companies Issue Most Negative Guidance Ever, Despite Lower Gasoline Prices

      [Jan 10, 2015] Oil and Gas Bloodbath Spreads to Junk Bonds, Leveraged Loans. Defaults Next

      Dec 2, 2014 Wolf Street
      This monthly chart by S&P Capital IQ's LeveragedLoan.com shows the leveraged loan index for the oil and gas sector. Earlier this year, when optimism about the US shale revolution was still defying gravity, these loans were trading at over 100 cents on the dollar. In July, when oil began to swoon, these loans fell below 100 cents on the dollar. The trend accelerated during the fall. And in November, these loans dropped to around 92 cents on the dollar.

      US-Leveraged-Loans-Oil_Gas-Dec-2013_Nov-2014

      How bad is it? The number of leveraged loans in the oil and gas sector trading between 80 and 90 cents on the dollar (blue line in the chart below) has soared parabolically from 0% in September to 40% now. These loans are now between 10% and 20% in the hole! And some leveraged loans are now trading below 80 cents on the dollar (red line):

      US-Leveraged-Loans-Oil_Gas-cents-on-dollar-Dec-2013_Nov-2014

      "If oil can stabilize, the scope for contagion is limited," Edward Marrinan, macro credit strategist at RBS Securities, told Bloomberg. "But if we see a further fall in prices, there will have to be a reaction in the broader market as problems will spill out and more segments of the high-yield space will feel the pain."

      Oil and gas stocks are bleeding: the Energy Select Sector ETF (XLE) is down 21% from June; S&P International Energy Sector ETF (IPW) down 29% from early July; and the Oil & Gas Equipment & Services ETF (XES) down 42% from early July.

      Smaller drillers are in trouble. All of them had horrific single-day plunges, some over 30%, on "Black Friday" after OPEC's Thanksgiving decision to keep production quotas at 30 million barrels per day. By now, "Black Friday" has acquired an entirely different meaning in the oil patch than its classic meaning in retail. Traders who tried to catch these stocks have gotten their fingers sliced off since then:

      • Goodrich Petroleum -88% since June.
      • Energy XXI -86% since June
      • Sanchez Energy -78% since June.
      • Oasis Petroleum -75% since July.
      • Triangle Petroleum -71% since June.
      • Stone Energy -70% since April.
      • Clayton Williams Energy -62% since May.
      • Callon Petroleum -61% since June.
      • EP Energy -60% since June.

      These are the very companies that benefited during the crazy good times from yield-desperate investors who'd been driven to obvious insanity by the Fed's interest rate repression. These investors – such as your bond mutual fund or your pension fund – loaded up on energy junk bonds and leveraged loans. Because it was so easy and cheap, companies loaded up their balance sheets with debt. Now these balance sheets are over-leveraged teetering constructs. And the Fed-inspired financial house, where all risks have been eliminated by QE Infinity and ZIRP, is rediscovering risk.

      Turns out, the Fed, so ingeniously prolific in buying financial assets to inflate their prices, can't buy oil to inflate its price.

      Companies in the sector are now facing a harsh reality: crashing revenues and earnings. Some of them are going to have liquidity problems. Unless a miracle happens that will goose the price of oil pronto, there will be defaults, and they will reverberate beyond the American oil patch [read… Saudi Arabia Declares Oil War on US Fracking, hits Railroads, Tank-Car Makers, Canada, Russia; Sinks Venezuela ].

      But even the 43 largest, most diversified players in the energy sector that are part of the S&P 500 are grappling with the new reality: analysts chopped earnings estimates by 20.5% since September 30, according to FactSet. If this is the final decline for the quarter – though the chopping is likely to continue – it will be the worst decline in EPS estimates since the first quarter of crisis-year 2009.

      As of Friday, analysts expected the energy sector to report a 13.7% drop in revenues. At the beginning of the quarter, they'd expected a decline of only 1.7%, though oil prices had been plunging for three months. And they now expect a 14.6% swoon in earnings, as opposed to the 6.6% gain they still saw at the beginning of the quarter. This chart by FactSet shows the ugly reversal of their EPS expectations (red bar on the far right) – and just how far they lagged behind when the quarter began:

      US-EPS-growth-Q4-2014-Dec5

      All of the energy companies in the S&P 500 got their EPS estimates decimated, even the biggest ones: Exxon Mobil by 20%, Chevron by 25%, Hess by 47%, Murphy Oil by 50%, and Marathon Oil by 63%.

      Exxon CEO Rex Tillerson told CNBC that his company could get by with $40 oil by refocusing on basics, "watching your cash, watching your investment decisions, being very disciplined about everything…." But he didn't elaborate for how long. Lesser companies, particularly those with over-leveraged teetering balance sheets, may run out of options, or cash, long before then.

      The effects are already being noticed as a desperate feeding frenzy takes its course. Read… Corporate Bond Bubble Comes Unglued at the Bottom, Investors Begin to Bleed

      [Jan 10, 2015] Irreversible Decline ?

      Is it so far fetched to think that the United States – which in the last year has imposed harsh economic sanctions on Russia, made every effort to sabotage the South Stream pipeline, and toppled the government in Kiev so it could control the flow of Russian gas to countries in the EU – would coerce the Saudis into flooding the market with oil in order to decimate the Russian economy, savage the ruble, and create favorable conditions for regime change in Moscow? Is that so hard to believe?
      December 29, 2014 | CounterPunch

      Did the U.S. and the Saudis Conspire to Push Down Oil Prices?

      ... ... ...

      Is it so far fetched to think that the United States – which in the last year has imposed harsh economic sanctions on Russia, made every effort to sabotage the South Stream pipeline, and toppled the government in Kiev so it could control the flow of Russian gas to countries in the EU – would coerce the Saudis into flooding the market with oil in order to decimate the Russian economy, savage the ruble, and create favorable conditions for regime change in Moscow? Is that so hard to believe?

      Apparently New York Times columnist Thomas Freidman doesn't think so. Here's how he summed it up in a piece last month: "Is it just my imagination or is there a global oil war underway pitting the United States and Saudi Arabia on one side against Russia and Iran on the other?"

      It sounds like Freidman has joined the conspiracy throng, doesn't it? And he's not alone either. This is from Alex Lantier at the World Socialist Web Site:

      "While there are a host of global economic factors underlying the fall in oil prices, it is unquestionable that a major role in the commodity's staggering plunge is Washington's collaboration with OPEC and the Saudi monarchs in Riyadh to boost production and increase the glut on world oil markets.

      As Obama traveled to Saudi Arabia after the outbreak of the Ukraine crisis last March, the Guardian wrote, "Angered by the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan in 1979, the Saudis turned on the oil taps, driving down the global price of crude until it reached $20 a barrel (in today's prices) in the mid-1980s… [Today] the Saudis might be up for such a move-which would also boost global growth-in order to punish Putin over his support for the Assad regime in Syria. Has Washington floated this idea with Riyadh? It would be a surprise if it hasn't." (Alex Lantier, Imperialism and the ruble crisis, World Socialist Web Site)

      And here's an intriguing clip from an article at Reuters that suggests the Obama administration is behind the present Saudi policy:

      "U.S. Secretary of State John Kerry sidestepped the issue (of a US-Saudi plot) after a trip to Saudi Arabia in September. Asked if past discussions with Riyadh had touched on Russia's need for oil above $100 to balance its budget, he smiled and said: "They (Saudis) are very, very well aware of their ability to have an impact on global oil prices." (Saudi oil policy uncertainty unleashes the conspiracy theorists, Reuters)

      Wink, wink.

      Of course, they're in bed together. Saudi Arabia is a US client. It's not autonomous or sovereign in any meaningful way. It's a US protectorate, a satellite, a colony. They do what they're told. Period. True, the relationship is complex, but let's not be ridiculous. The Saudis are not calling the shots. The idea is absurd. Do you really think that Washington would let Riyadh fiddle prices in a way that destroyed critical US domestic energy industries, ravaged the junk bond market, and generated widespread financial instability without uttering a peep of protest on the matter?

      Dream on! If the US was unhappy with the Saudis, we'd all know about it in short-order because it would be raining Daisy Cutters from the Persian Gulf to the Red Sea, which is the way that Washington normally expresses its displeasure on such matters. The fact that Obama has not even alluded to the shocking plunge in prices just proves that the policy coincides with Washington's broader geopolitical strategy.

      And let's not forget that the Saudis have used oil as a political weapon before, many times before. Indeed, wreaking havoc is nothing new for our good buddies the Saudis. Check this out from Oil Price website:

      "In 1973, Egyptian President Anwar Sadat convinced Saudi King Faisal to cut production and raise prices, then to go as far as embargoing oil exports, all with the goal of punishing the United States for supporting Israel against the Arab states. It worked. The "oil price shock" quadrupled prices.

      It happened again in 1986, when Saudi Arabia-led OPEC allowed prices to drop precipitously, and then in 1990, when the Saudis sent prices plummeting as a way of taking out Russia, which was seen as a threat to their oil supremacy. In 1998, they succeeded. When the oil price was halved from $25 to $12, Russia defaulted on its debt.

      The Saudis and other OPEC members have, of course, used the oil price for the obverse effect, that is, suppressing production to keep prices artificially high and member states swimming in "petrodollars". In 2008, oil peaked at $147 a barrel." (Did The Saudis And The US Collude In Dropping Oil Prices?, Oil Price)

      1973, 1986, 1990, 1998 and 2008.

      So, according to the author, the Saudis have manipulated oil prices at least five times in the past to achieve their foreign policy objectives. But, if that's the case, then why does the media ridicule people who think the Saudis might be engaged in a similar strategy today?

      Could it be that the media is trying to shape public opinion on the issue and, by doing so, actually contribute to the plunge in oil prices?

      Bingo. Alert readers have probably noticed that the oil story has been splashed across the headlines for weeks even though the basic facts have not changed in the least. It's all a rehash of the same tedious story reprinted over and over again. But, why? Why does the public need to have the same "Saudis refuse to cut production" story driven into their consciousness day after day like they're part of some great collective brainwashing experiment? Could it be that every time the message is repeated, oil sells off, and prices go down? Is that it?

      Precisely. For example, last week a refinery was attacked in Libya which pushed oil prices up almost immediately. Just hours later, however, another "Saudis refuse to cut production" story conveniently popped up in all the major US media which pushed prices in the direction the USG wants them to go, er, I mean, back down again.

      This is how the media helps to reinforce government policy, by crafting a message that helps to push down prices and, thus, hurt "evil" Putin. (This is called "jawboning") Keep in mind, that OPEC doesn't meet again until June, 2015, so there's nothing new to report on production levels. But that doesn't mean we're not going to get regular updates on the "Saudis refuse to cut production" story. Oh, no. The media is going to keep beating that drum until Putin cries "Uncle" and submits to US directives. Either that, or the bond market is going to blow up and take the whole damn global financial system along with it. One way or another, something's got to give.

      Bottom line: Falling oil prices and the plunging ruble are not some kind of free market accident brought on by oversupply and weak demand. That's baloney. They're part of a broader geopolitical strategy to strangle the Russian economy, topple Putin, and establish US hegemony across the Asian landmass. It's all part of Washington's plan to maintain its top-spot as the world's only superpower even though its economy is in irreversible decline.

      MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state. He is a contributor to Hopeless: Barack Obama and the Politics of Illusion (AK Press). Hopeless is also available in a Kindle edition. He can be reached at [email protected].

      [Jan 10, 2015] CrossTalk: Oil - How Low?

      Rig count in shale industry already start collapsing
      Jan 9, 2015 | RT

      In 2008 the bottom was around $35. Some elements are similar -- dollar going up. Also in 2008 other commodities collapsed. There is no such effect in 2015.

      Like of shale rig is approximately 12 month. In 12 month it produce 10% of original amount. As drilling of new rigs collapsed in half a year amount of oil pumped will diminish.

      Still price will not go to the previous levels for a while.

      While low oil price is tremendous stimulus for the economy, but the level of uncertainty also increased. The whole USA energy sector is wacked and it was the key component of the US recovery, if there was such thing. Oil industry was the only one that supplied high paying jobs in this "permanent recession"

      Strong dollar also drive US exports down and creates the danger of the USA slipping into deflation. The EU already slipped despite weakening of euro because it was disproportionally affected by cut of Russna export from Western Europe. Strong dollar destroys chances to diminish trade imbalance with China.

      Richard Llewellyn

      The whole system is a scam a fix there is no such thing as free trade the ruling elete old money wankers have it all stitched up . Russia just is not interested in playing in a rigged game and who could blame them , the average Russian seems far more intelligent than your average yank or pommie thats why Mr Putin gets 80% approval rateing when the western leaders find it hard to get 40%...

      mcbillygoat9

      Oil - How low? - As long as the Americans allow the Jews at the Federal Reserve to put American sons and daughters in harms way to protect the Federal Reserve Note as the petrol dollar. Hyper-materialism is cannibalistic in nature. So long as America legitimizes the United Nations and the Federal Reserve, every gallon of gas will have America blood. I think American soldiers deserve better than to be cannibalized.

      Sean Wilkinson8

      Saudi Arabia- wants to protect their market share due to competition from the US shale and Canadian sands. On top of that, they weaken their enemies by hurting the economy of Russia and Iran. Two birds.
      USA - understands the impact shale has on oil prices but is indifferent in the short term to hurt their enemies. But in the long term, will reduce production due to falling revenue and ultimately investment.
      Russia- recognizes the attack and refuses to damage it's economy by draining reserves. Understands the short term nature of events. But is suffering economically from a myriad of imposed reasons.
      World- will be a worse place as a result. Bad year ahead I foresee.

      TheRetiredtrucker

      Russia- recognizes the attack and refuses to damage it's economy by draining reserves

      This time last year Russia had $512 Billion in reserves, right now, sitting on $380 Billion. They have already started to bail out banks and have plans to bail out big businesses this year. Those reserves are draining fast

      lutherheggs

      The price drop is due to the loss of the ability of big oil to control the oil supply. Also, the rest of the world has figured out they need to stop using dollars in trade, which means the federal reserve can't counterfeit as many dollars. Fewer dollars equals a stronger dollar.

      Jefe Hoptosh

      +lutherheggs
      No they don't which is why there is a risk of another bank meltdown...all the small and medium fracking and drilling companies will go bankrupt and today's Rockefellers will consolidate.

      lutherheggs

      I think they are done. Unless of course they can start a major war. I don't see a bank meltdown happening either, unless deliberately done. Disregard anything you hear on mainstream media.

      [Jan 09, 2015] Lower Oil Prices Will Not Turn Producers into Pushovers Paul R. Pillar

      Americans are not very good at ending their involvement in wars or sanctions. Imperial mindset prevent from realistic assessment of options. Once the USA gets involved-for good or for ill-in any one war or sanctions, the US elite has difficulty determining when and how to call it a day and go home. They tend not to see warfare as a continuation of policy by other means, but instead to think of war and peace as two very different conditions with clear dividing lines between them. For example few Americans understand the USA essentially declared a war on Russia. Important dynamics that is commonly developing in such situations is so called mission creep. I think that with oil it will be the same. And mission creep is no solution at all. Certainly is not from the standpoint of wise use of U.S. resources
      January 02, 2015 | Right Web - Institute for Policy Studies

      The belief that lower oil prices push U.S. rivals to make concessions is mistaken and discourages U.S. flexibility in important negotiations.

      The steep drop in the price of oil during the latter half of 2014 has generated much comment about how this development has weakened major oil-producing countries and supposedly made their governments more pliable on issues that separate them from other countries. Such commentary flows partly from the tendency of media and the commentariat to over-analyze any major development and to identify winners and losers. In the current instance it also reflects how people have happily noticed that several of the significant producers whose revenues have been most adversely affected by the price decline are countries commonly identified as adversaries of the United States, including Venezuela, Russia, and Iran. Edward Luttwak remarks that the price decline "is knocking down America's principal opponents without us even trying."

      The commentary reflects in addition a belief that is in evidence whenever similar hopes are placed on the consequences of someone else's economic pain when that pain is imposed not by the market but instead by sanctions. The belief is that there is a reliable and positive correlation between the other country's economic discomfort and the willingness of its government to make diplomatic concessions.

      That belief is mistaken, regardless of whether it is markets or sanctions that have caused the economic and fiscal damage. It is mistaken because the presumed connection between a country's economic discomfort and its regime's diplomatic flexibility considers only one half of the regime's calculations. The other half concerns whether, and how much, that regime believes it can improve its economic situation by making concessions to its adversaries. If it sees no prospect for improvement, it has no incentive to concede.

      The point becomes all the clearer when, as with the recent drop in petroleum prices, it is a market that is causing the economic pain. Markets have no mechanism for pain reduction when someone changes a negotiating position or diplomatic posture. If lower oil prices really are making the leadership of Russia more willing to make concessions regarding the conflict in eastern Ukraine, what is supposed to happen regarding the prices and the pain if such concessions are made? That car-owners in the West will be so happy about this development that they will start driving more, thus burning more fuel, sending crude oil prices back up, and repairing the damage to Russian finances?

      The further, usually implicit, assumption underlying false beliefs about market- induced economic discomfort leading to diplomatic flexibility in cases such as Russia or Iran is that the cumulative effect of both sanctions and lower prices will push a regime past some breaking point beyond which it ceases to resist. The notion of a breaking point has underlain other American foreign policy thinking, which has involved not only economic discomfort but also the infliction of physical pain through kinetic means. The notion was the basis for Operation Rolling Thunder, the Lyndon Johnson administration's prolonged and escalating bombardment of North Vietnam in the 1960s. The notion is somewhat akin to the gambler's fallacy that by persisting and playing a little longer one's results will change for the better.

      The Vietnam War example illustrates another part of the logic pertinent to such situations that is essential but commonly overlooked when people place hopes on the consequences of someone else's pain. That part concerns the importance the other side places on the issues that are at stake. Regimes and nations will endure a great deal of pain on behalf of causes that are very important to them. Moreover, in such bargaining relationships the logic works both ways, and the relative importance to us and to the other guy of the issues at stake is critical, too. If it makes sense for us to think about the other side having a breaking point, then it would make just as much sense for the other side to think about our breaking point, even if that point is to be expressed not in intensity of pain at any one moment but instead in impatience and the duration of stalemate.

      Even if the idea of a breaking point were valid, we Americans are poorly equipped to identify any such point as it applies to others, including the adversaries most at issue today. Russian foreign minister Sergei Lavrov, referring to the oil price drop, said,

      "We have been in much worse situations in our history, and every time we were getting out of these fixes much stronger. This will happen this time."

      He's right about Russian history, which included among other ordeals the incredibly costly fight against the Nazis in World War II. The Iranians also have had their ordeals, with the most salient and costly one for current Iranian leaders being the eight-year war that Saddam Hussein's Iraq launched against their country.

      The false hope being placed on lower oil prices and their presumed effect in softening the positions of adversaries may itself have the damaging effect of discouraging the flexibility that will be needed on the part of the United States to resolve important unresolved issues. Such flexibility, and not just contrition and concession from Vladimir Putin, will be required for even a partial resolution of the prolonged crisis in Ukraine. An even greater potential for damage concerns the nuclear negotiations with Iran. The hope for a more pained and supposedly more pliable Tehran as a result of reduced oil revenue probably is entrenching further the notion that Iran must make all remaining concessions to reach a deal. That notion, if it persists, is likely to mean the failure of the negotiations and the loss of a golden opportunity to resolve the issue and assure that Iran's nuclear program stays peaceful.

      [Jan 09, 2015] Why in 2015-2016 prices for "black gold" will not grow?

      svpressa.ru

      On Christmas day, 7 January, the world Bank (WB) has published excerpts from the report, which assessed the situation on the oil market. The main conclusion of experts - rising prices for "black gold" in the near future is not expected.

      2015 will be a year of low oil prices, and in 2016 they will grow only slightly, the report says. This fact threatens the exploration and development of new deposits, including shale, as well as the production of "black gold" on the sea shelf.

      On oil prices, according to the world Bank, has the effect of changing the political goals of an Organization of countries-exporters of oil (OPEC), as well as the growth of the dollar. While the determining factor in the report is the increase in the supply of oil, in particular, due to the shale energy boom in the United States."

      Low oil prices, the report said, will be a serious challenge for major countries-exporters of oil. However, the report notes, they will have a beneficial effect on the global economy. Thus, the fall of oil prices by 30% promises additional increase global GDP by 0.5%.

      As if to confirm the words of world Bank experts, January 7, the price of Brent crude oil fell below $50 per barrel for the first time since the spring of 2009. Earlier, on 6 January, $50 struck the American WTI, fell to $47 per barrel. Moreover, data on the increase in oil reserves in the U.S. (expected in January) can accelerate the fall, bringing the price of a barrel to turn in $40.

      The devaluation of the "black gold" will hit Russia. Recall: the budget of the Russian Federation to 2015 year was drawn up based on the oil price of $96 per barrel, and now urgently corrected. At $60 per barrel fall of the Russian economy may exceed 5%. Fall to $40 might further exacerbate the recession. Such scenarios are now investigated by the Ministry of Finance and economic development.

      In parallel, the government is trying to determine the scale of spending cuts. According to the results of the message of President Vladimir Putin to the Federal Assembly of the Cabinet of Ministers was instructed to provide a reduction in the years 2015-2017 expenditures of the Federal budget for 5% in real terms annually, except for expenditures on national defense and national security. mainly that plannned to be done by reducing inefficient spending".

      Based on the new projections, it may result in the curtailment in the amount of several hundred billion to two billion rubles.

      What is behind the forecast WB, and the prolonged decline in oil prices threatens the Russian economy?

      - The world Bank is not the first explores the trend in the reduction in oil prices, - said head of Finance and the economy," Institute of contemporary development Nikita Maslennikov. - Recently, a similar work has been published by the Director of the IMF's Research Department Olivier Blanchard. He came to the conclusions close to World Bank estimates: in 2015 due to a decline in oil prices, the global economy could grow by 0.3-0.7 percent.

      But another interesting command output Blanchard - the fall in oil prices could accelerate economic growth, but principally in the development of the world economy, it changes nothing. The risks in this situation are, first of all, fall on the oil exporters. Among them stand out Russia, Venezuela and Iran.

      Iran is a special problem. In the first half of 2015 he will undergo the procedure of exiting from the sanctions, and in the second half of the year, he can again have the right to deliver export oil to western countires. All analysts see the Iranian situation as a complicating factor for the oil market.

      SP: What will happen to the oil market?

      The situation is very ambiguous. First of all, the excess of supply over demand is maintained, and even increased, despite the fact that after OPEC meeting in Vienna, reduced production of 300 thousand barrels per day.

      To balance supply and demand, it is not because nothing can accelerate global growth. Slowing in China is stronger than expected. The Eurozone, contrary to the predictions, in fact, is on the threshold of a new technical recession. At the end of December 2014, the EU economy was in deflation - this is a very alarming signal, and the European Central Bank in January will have to go on unconventional measures in order to avoid slipping into recession.

      All this provokes oil players to dumping. Saudi Arabia promises to buyers of "black gold" discount of two dollars from the barrel - and it is perceived norm.

      It will take a year for the oil market to find a new equilibrium price, according to most analysts. This means that in 2015 we might see an increased volatility in the market. News from Iran, Iraq (which has stated that it will increase the sale of oil at any price) and Libya (the ruling clans cannot agree on a coherent oil policy) will be important.

      A difficult situation in OPEC. The cartel is clearly moving towards a split, some even believe that the organization will not live up to its planned conference in may of this year. Although OPEC is now trying to do something, it is clear that the regulatory function of the organization is lost.

      "SP": - What in this case will end sheikhs their war with the American shale oil?

      - The cost of shale oil is much higher than traditional, and many shale projects are now approaching a critical point. I think the price of 50 dollars per barrel will make unprofitable half of U.S. shale wells.

      But, on the other hand, in the States there is a unique shale, which can be profitable and at the price of $20 per barrel. So war of oil sheikhs against shale oil may continue for a long time. Moreover, the prospects of victory for each party of today is quite illusory. Although I think that the party with best technology will win in the end, That means, Americans.

      The U.S. has not yet opened offshore production and many traditional wells on the continent, which was closed under pressure from environmentalists. To cancel American laws is difficult, however, Washington has space for maneuver as for increasing production of its own oil. And not only shale. As a result, the the USA - if desired - will be able to cover the needs of the "black gold" on their own, without the help of the international oil market.

      This is a very significant factor. In fact, if this situation occurs OPEC can no longer regulate the market, and the new regulator - USA in not interesting in regulating of prices and especially in thier rise. And since there is no regulator, all will fight against all - at least in the next two to three years.

      "SP": - What does this mean for us?

      Russia in this regard, many predict difficult times. Recipe overcome them is clear: accurate stabilization of the budget; proceeding with floating ruble exchange rate; and the main thing - to start to build a new economic model. What should be built is an open question. But it is obvious that the current model might be unsustainable, and that the longer the government will try to maintain the status quo in the economy, the deeper the crisis in Russia will be.

      In recent years more and more traders when buying a futures bet on the price of 40 dollars per barrel. This means that the global oil market is set for a fall. I do not exclude that in two or three weeks we will see the price of oil of 40 dollars.

      Apparently, this will limit the fall - below this level no one plays. This decline will continue, obviously, for a very short period of time - two weeks or so. Then there might be a fairly strong rebound - possibly up to $ 70 per barrel. Next trend will be bearish, but the market volatility is abnormally high.

      If my prediction is correct, the average price for oil by 2015 should be about $60 per barrel. Some say "fork" 55-60 dollars, others about 60-65 dollars. In any case, this is below the values using which the budget of the Russian Federation to 2015 was designed in 2015.

      Therefore, we probably need to take $60 as the stress scenario. In practice, the government of the Russian Federation, during the January, will redo the budget, reformat fiscal policy and reduce costs. Well, the dollar at an oil price of USD 60 per barrel will probably cost about as it is now - about 60 rubles...

      Everybody understands that shale oil production in the U.S. will be reduced. The excess supply of oil directly affect the price drop, - said the Director of the national Institute of energy Sergey Pravosudov. But nobody knows how fast the shale oil production in the States will be reduced, and how much shale oil will be produced in 2015.

      Also no one can tell another how quickly consumption will grow: how much oil will buy China or India? Finally, it remains uncertain situation in the Middle East. It is unclear whehter present relative stability will last -- war, which does not affect oil production.

      Clearly, the US has a two-game scenario. The first is to keep oil prices low, even to the detriment of their own shale oil, in the hope that in the spring of 2015 there will be a serious political crisis in Russia due to the discontent of the population, and the current political regime will collapse. The second scenario is to organize the growing instability in the Middle East, so prices went up. In principle, nothing prevent Americans to perform till spring using the first scenario, and if it failes to switch to the second...

      [Jan 09, 2015] Oil Below $50 Is Still Good News By Peter Coy and Matthew Philips

      US banks are threatened by bankruptcies of oil companies in the same way as in mortgage bubble. "If an oil-induced financial crisis were in the cards, you'd expect to see its impact on the stocks of banks, which would be vulnerable to a wave of defaults."
      Jan 06, 2015 | Businessweek

      ... ... ...

      The fear of a financial crisis is probably overblown. Even Venezuela, the oil producer most often said to be at risk of defaulting, is likely to keep paying its debt as long as prices don't "fall to the low $30s for an extended period of time," says Francisco Rodriguez, who follows Andean economies for Bank of America Merrill Lynch. If Venezuela defaults, he says, it will be because of politics, not necessity. At today's prices, Venezuela's annual export earnings are still more than four times what it owes in principal and interest in 2015. Rodriguez adds that President Nicolás Maduro knows if Venezuela defaults, creditors will try to seize refineries outside the country that are valued at $20 billion. Russia has even less reason to default, says George Abed, director for Africa and the Middle East at the Institute of International Finance: It sits on close to $400 billion in currency reserves.

      If an oil-induced financial crisis were in the cards, you'd expect to see its impact on the stocks of banks, which would be vulnerable to a wave of defaults. It hasn't happened: Stock prices of the Standard & Poor's index of diversified banks-including the likes of JPMorgan Chase and Citigroup-are up more than the overall S&P 500 over the past half year.

      Any further drops in the price of crude would be likely to produce smaller gains for the overall U.S. economy. "The negative impact on investment starts to ratchet up" if oil stays below $50 a barrel, says Douglas Handler, chief U.S. economist at IHS.

      In fact, the price drop might knock so many producers out of the market that there will be a steep price rebound, says Steven Kopits, an analyst at Princeton Energy Advisors

      ... ... ...

      Story: Can Canadian Oil Sands Survive Falling Prices?

      Story: The Relentless Production of Shale Oil Is Breaking OPEC's Neck

      [Jan 09, 2015] EU Observer: Plunging oil prices drive eurozone into deflation

      https://euobserver.com/news/127119

      A Eurosplatter from me:

      EU Observer: Plunging oil prices drive eurozone into deflation

      Prices across the eurozone have fallen for the first time in five years, according to the EU statistics office, raising the prospect of a sustained period of deflation.

      Consumer prices in the single currency area fell by a greater than expected 0.2 percent in December 2014, the first decline in prices since 2009, Eurostat revealed on Wednesday (7 January). A month earlier inflation was 0.3 percent. …

      …The combination of plunging oil prices and weak demand in the the eurozone economy will pile further pressure on the European Central Bank to expand its intervention to stimulate demand.

      Prices fall when consumers and businesses delay purchases and consumption, which in turn reduces overall economic activity and can lead to a so-called 'deflationary spiral'….
      ###

      But, but if we just keep sanctions against Russia going for a little bit longer they'll crack first! Honest. Looks like the US will fight the Russians down to the last European…

      [Jan 09, 2015] Some investors think they have oil all figured out

      As oil sits at its lowest price since 2009, investors are throwing big money into ETFs. Yahoo Finance's Jeff Macke says "People are buying these really vanilla ETFs as a proxy for calling a bottom in crude."

      According to data collected by Bloomberg the top four U.S. oil exchange-traded products raked in a combined $1.23 billion in December alone, the most since 2010. The trend is continuing into the New Year as well. The biggest oil ETF, U.S. Oil Fund (DBO) has already received more than $100 million this month.

      If you're looking to predict where oil's heading, Macke advises you do your homework. Hedging your bets solely on ETFs isn't a smart play. "If you're going to aggressively speculate use something else. This USO is a deeply flawed weird ETF that's not going to give you a one-for-one exchange on the WTI," says Macke.

      Macke says researching stocks that are closely tied to oil is the better way: "Go with the E&P guys(exploration and production). Go with all these stocks. Look at these companies that are all levered up. They die if crude stays here and they live if crude doesn't." Analyzing companies like Halliburton (HAL), whose services and products depend on oil, gives a better snapshot as to where prices are going.

      Macke's bottom line: "Don't gamble in general. But if you are going to gamble, gamble smart and go with something like Transocean (RIG) and maybe control your risk with some calls."

      [Jan 08, 2015] $200 bn in debt looms over American oil and gas

      Still if this was a move initiated by Obama administration it was a brilliant move... "Oil prices lost more than 50 percent in 2014, and have already dropped 10 percent in 2015."
      RT Business

      Plummeting Brent oil prices are putting pressure on North American shale, which has sunk hundreds of billions of dollars into investment, and could soon come crashing down.

      Tempted by big returns, shale companies have borrowed more than $200 billion in bonds and loans, from Wall Street and London, to cover development and projects that may not even come to fruition. Oil producers' debt since 2010 has increased more than 55 percent, and revenues have slowed, rising only 36 percent from September 2014, compared to 2010, according to the Wall Street Journal.

      Fracking, the process of hydraulic fracturing and horizontal drilling on land is much more expensive than the average water-based oilrig. However, over the past years, it has become relatively cheap and fast. Energy companies, eager to get in on the riches of the American oil boom, have been borrowing money faster than they have been earning it.

      On Sunday, the first shale company filed for bankruptcy. WBH Energy LP, a private Texas-based drilling group, filed for bankruptcy after saying that their lender was no longer willing to advance money. The company estimates their debt between $10-50 million. There are hundreds more in the US alone.

      Analysts believe North American shale needs to sell at $60-100 per barrel to break even on the billions of debt accrued by the energy companies. Indebted companies, fearing bankruptcy, may therefore be forced to keep selling oil, even at a loss.

      One way to avoid going bust is to merge, which is what many companies already have on the negotiation bloc.

      "We've already seen Baker Hughes and Halliburton agree to merger, and these were two titans that used to compete head to head," Ed Hirs, managing director independent oil and gas company Hillhouse Resources, told RT.

      "They've decided they can't survive separately, they need to combine," Hirs said.

      The Texas-based driller believes that lower prices and major mergers will hinder progress in the industry.

      "We will see a loss of tech. innovation and a loss of competition in the oil service business," Hirs said.

      Energy companies that can afford it will cut production, but this will prove more difficult for smaller companies with larger debt hanging over their balance sheets.

      Oil prices lost more than 50 percent in 2014, and have already dropped 10 percent in 2015. Futures dramatically dipped when the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries decided not to curb production at their November meeting.

      Some experts believe the decision not to cut production, which would have alleviated oil prices, was a direct strategic move by the cartel to reduce the profitability of North American oil fields, from Alberta to Oklahoma. In the past five years, the US has moved from being one of the world's biggest oil customers to the largest producer, even overtaking Saudi Arabia.

      Bubble burst?

      This 'bubble' of debt could come crashing down on oil companies, as the housing bubble did on the sub-prime mortgage industry in 2008, which sparked a crisis in global financial markets.

      "It begins in one place like fracking in North Dakota or Texas, but it very quickly engulfs the rest of the world. In that way, its very similar to what happened in 2008… when billions of dollars were lent to people to buy homes they couldn't pay off," economist Richard Wolff told RT.

      The industry expanded rapidly, as the method proved capable of extracting oil and gas faster and easier than before, albeit with a certain environmental cost. Fracking can increase seismic activity, as well as penetrate water systems. Many states in the US have followed European nations in banning the oil extraction method.

      [Jan 08, 2015] GE's Oil and Gas Gambit Falters by Ted Mann

      The company has moved so aggressively into energy and energy-related infrastructure that the actual business for GE has become 15% to 20% oil. Roupgly 21% of Ge industiral revienue is exposed to oil and gas business. especially productin of equpment for drilling and pumping. Therefore, company was caught in the crossfire. The way GE expanded in the last year looked brilliant when oil was at $100, but now it's much tougher to fathom.Most enery companies now cut capital spending with ConocoPhillips expecting 20% resultion in 2015.
      Dec 15 2014 | WSJ

      After Bulking Up Through Billions in Acquisitions, CEO Immelt to Address Impact of Crude's Collapse
      Oil and gas has been an exclamation point for General Electric Co. in recent years, as the company assembled a $17 billion division to take advantage of global demand for new energy resources.

      All of a sudden, it's starting to look like a question mark.

      [Jan 08, 2015] U.S. Oil Producers Cut Rigs as Price Declines

      Mr. Triepke predicted that over the next six months, the big three land drilling companies - Helmerich & Payne, Nabors Industries and Patterson-UTI Energy - are "likely to cut approximately 15,000 jobs out of the 50,000 people they currently employ."
      NYTimes.com

      HOUSTON - With oil prices plunging at an ever-quickening rate, producers are beginning to slash the number of drilling rigs around the country.

      The national rig count had remained surprisingly resilient over recent months even as oil prices dropped by more than 50 percent since June, and it still tops the count of a year ago as domestic production continues to surge.

      But an announcement on Wednesday by Helmerich & Payne, the giant contract rig company, that it planned to idle up to 50 rigs over the next month sent shudders through the industry. And that came on top of 11 rigs that it has already mothballed, meaning that in just a few weeks, its shale drilling activity will be reduced by about 20 percent.

      "Low oil prices are increasingly impacting the U.S. land drilling market," the company said in a presentation to a Goldman Sachs energy conference.

      The announcement was an early indication that the oil industry, with its history of booms and busts, was in the early stages of its latest downturn. Energy companies drop rigs when drilling costs outpace the price they think they will attract, leading to lower production and higher prices. But until the effects ripple through the market, consumers and the broader economy will most likely enjoy the benefits of low gasoline and heating oil prices for at least the next six months, energy experts say.

      As for the industry, the signs of retraction are clear. The nation's rig count, a barometer of oil exploration and production activity, fell by 26 in the week that ended Jan. 2, following a drop of 16 the week before, according to the Baker Hughes service company.

      The cuts could eventually be felt in areas where the local economy depends on oil. Each rig represents about 100 jobs, from roughneck field hands to maintenance workers, and the current rig count is down 85, or 5 percent, from a recent peak in late 2014.

      "Demand for rigs is falling off the cliff," said Joseph Triepke, a financial analyst and managing director of Oilpro, an industry publishing company. "Exploration and production budgets are down anywhere from 30 to 40 percent and the cuts are happening faster than we thought."

      Mr. Triepke predicted that over the next six months, the big three land drilling companies - Helmerich & Payne, Nabors Industries and Patterson-UTI Energy - are "likely to cut approximately 15,000 jobs out of the 50,000 people they currently employ."

      Already, day rates that oil companies are willing to pay for rigs have dropped 10 percent, Helmerich & Payne said. That is a sign, analysts said, that producers are trying to squeeze costs before they cut revenue-producing output required to pay dividends and the interest on their debts.

      Even with the reductions, though, large-scale layoffs across the industry are not expected, at least not immediately. Producers contract their rigs for as long as three to four years, and many companies have hedges that lock in higher prices than the going market rates. In addition, producers often need to drill simply to retain their leases or keep their revenue up.

      Nationwide, the oil industry employs about a million people, including extraction, pipeline construction and refining, and the boom has added about 150,000 industry jobs over the last three years, according to Citi Research.

      Industry executives say companies are reluctant to let highly skilled workers go, especially when oil prices are likely to rebound in the next couple of years as global energy demand rises. But rig and fracking crews will inevitably be let go first, they said, since those workers can easily be rehired or replaced when drilling rebounds.

      On Wednesday, the global Brent benchmark dropped below $50 a barrel for the first time since May 2009, before settling around $51. The American benchmark rose slightly, to around $48.


      An oil drilling pump site in North Dakota. Because of a pipeline shortage, Bakken shale producers are selling crude for about $34 a barrel. Credit Shannon Stapleton/Reuters

      But producers in some American fields are receiving far less than that. Because of a shortage of pipelines and the distance to major markets, North Dakota's Bakken shale producers this month so far are selling their crude for as little as $34 a barrel.

      ... ... ...

      Already companies are dropping rigs in nearby Canadian fields at a far faster rate than in the United States.

      There are signs almost every day that the industry is slowly reversing its breakneck drilling spree of the last six years, as exploration and production in new shale fields nearly doubled domestic production. This week, Concho Resources, a major producer in the Permian basin of West Texas, announced its 2015 exploration and production budget would be cut by a third, to $2 billion.

      "In the current environment, we intend to prudently manage our 2015 capital program around anticipated cash flows," said Tim Leach, Concho's chief executive, "and retain significant flexibility to scale our activity up or down depending on service costs and commodity prices." Even with the cuts, Concho projects producing more oil in 2015 than last year, as do many other companies, potentially putting further pressure on oil prices.

      Another big Texas producer, Pioneer Natural Resources, moved on Wednesday to protect itself from the declining market by converting most of its derivative contracts to a fixed-price swap that guaranteed prices for payment.

      The company will receive just over $71 a barrel for 82,000 barrels a day of production. That floor price reflects the industry view that the crude price will rebound, though it may not approach the $100-a-barrel levels of last summer for the next year or two.

      "Restaurants are still full and the traffic is still heavy around Midland," said Dexter Allred, general manager of Rusty's Oilfield Service Company, which serves the Permian Basin, referring to the West Texas oil capital. "But six months from now may be another story."

      [Jan 08, 2015] Oil recovers as Bank of America says Saudi Arabia may 'blink' on cuts By Andrew Critchlow

      This expectation that "rapidly cooling Chinese economy will suppress the market for the rest of 2015"

      Jan 07, 2015 | Telegraph

      Brent crude fell below $50 per barrel on Wednesday for the first time since 2009 as Bank of America-Merrill Lynch warned that the sharp drop in prices could prompt Saudi Arabia and other petro-states into cutting production.

      Although oil traded in London recovered to trade above $51 per barrel at the close of business, markets are continuing to bet that a global oversupply and rapidly cooling Chinese economy will supress the market for the rest of 2015.

      However, BofA Merrill Lynch said: "We see a growing risk of WTI (West Texas Intermediate) and Brent falling to $35 and $40 per barrel near-term to force either non-Opec producers or Saudi to cut."

      Saudi Arabia's influential oil minister Ali Naimi has asserted that the kingdom – the world's largest exporter of crude – intends to persist with its current strategy of keeping its spigots open to win back market share regardless of how much oil prices fall.

      "Whether it goes down to $20, $40, $50, $60, it is irrelevant," Mr Naimi said in an interview with Middle East Economic Survey late last month.

      "The move below $50 a barrel for Brent was short-lived and traders raced to cover their short positions. Whether this upward move is the beginning of a correction or just a blip of buying before the next round of shorting remains to be seen," said David Madden, market analyst at IG.

      In the UK, the government has launched an investigation into whether companies are passing on the benefits to customers of plunging oil and gas prices. Petrol prices are now poised to fall to below £1 a litre for the first time since 2009 should the current rate of decline in the oil price persist, providing consumers with a major boost to their incomes.

      However, the impact of lower oil prices will also hit Britain's oil industry, especially in the vulnerable North Sea. According to consultant Wood MacKenzie, around £55bn-worth of projects in the UK and Europe face the axe as oil exploration and production companies cut back.

      Angelo_Frank

      Ask Goldman Sachs, JPMorgan, et al where oil prices are headed. After all, those too-big-to-fail banks are the ones controlling it all.

      jacksparrow312

      I worked in the North Sea in the 70's when oil was as low as $14. The industry survived then and just prior to the great bust 2007 when oil was approx $50. As everyone took pay cuts on the beach when the economy crashed rather than make workers redundant, why can't the oil industry just ask folks to take a pay cut?

      Msdcs

      think we all know that this is about Russia and them not letting the west steal their resources, we have become nothing more than a mafia, and this paper is a mafia owned paper, give us a picture of the owners holding tommy guns, at least you will be more honest.

      Hospitaller > Msdcs

      Russia's idea of having their resources stolen is to sell them to foreigners? Some theft that is

      volvoxglobator

      Utter rubbish. This is not about Saudi Arabia and US shale producers but about the US using Saudi Arabia, again, to try to break Russia. The US shale oil producers are viewed as expendable in this game.

      snotcricket > volvoxglobator

      Don't forget Syria...the Saudi's would hate you to do that...indeed almost as much as they hate Assad.

      Of course on the upside for the big US oil companies, once the high number of the smaller shale producers in US go to the wall & the price rises...the big boys will hoover up all the production thus control the taps....everyone's a winner, mind you everyone of the big boys/countries of the industry have always been a winner & that includes taxpayer subsidies where applicable.

      sangell

      Given the players, what is at stake geopolitically and the strategic importance of oil it is reasonable to assume there will be active intervention in the oil markets soon. Here is a pretty good analysis of how this could take place. Its very brief too.

      charles hugh smith-Weblog and Essays

      [Jan 07, 2015] Despite Current Glut, Oil Producers Continue Game of Chicken

      January 7, 2015 | naked capitalism

      Clive,

      I've been quite amazed by the over-simplification which has been going on in financial press about the implications of the oil price fall. It seems bizarre that such a well-informed (or, at least, they should be well informed) set of pundits can apparently fail to grasp the very basic concepts of how investment works, how capital is formed, what an industrial project means in terms of certain stage gates which - once passed - cannot be easily or cheaply rowed back without losses, what the creation of an asset through this investment means in accounting terms and how that asset is valued based on the projected returns on that asset. It is textbook stuff.

      So the readings into current events which end up concluding "oh, it's all going to be okay, producers will just stop producing for a while and everything will pan out according to the same parameters that were in play a year ago" get back from me a clear reply of "No". That is simply not how it works. The fact the some commentators are trying to pretend it is makes me wonder about their motives for the Rebecca of Sunnybrook Farm interpretations they are proffering.

      Let's take capex spend committed for these approvals by year for the UK oil industry:

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/385244/Chart_Showing_Capex_Spend_Committed_for_Field_and_FDP_Add.pdf

      So, £30-ish billion has been sunk - spent, the money has been paid out - into relatively new oil production capability creating assets which were, presumably, since investment decisions are made with the intention of creating an asset which exceeds the cost of creating it by some margin within the past 5 years. Now, each investment decision was slightly different and minor variations would have been assumed in the cost of production vs. the assumed prevailing oil price. But I can pretty much guarantee that none of the business cases would have included an oil price much below $80/barrel for any sort of extended period. And anything below $50/barrel would have seemed laughable. If these low oil price assumptions had been made, the business case would not have been viable and the investment would not have been made.

      The investors who put up the £30bn of capital are expecting a return of whatever-%. At the very - very - least, they cannot get the return they were expecting and the income from the productive asset will be less than was assumed. A blip of a, say, $20-30/barrel oil price reduction for a single quarter could would have relatively little impact.

      But you can't suffer a reduction of 50% in actual income vs. assumed income without having to conduct an asset impairment. The asset certainly isn't worth zero. But it simply cannot be treated as retaining "book" value over the accounting lifespan (say, 10, 20 or maybe 30 years) of the asset's life. You can tweak the depreciation of course, to reflect the longer anticipated economic lifespan of the asset (the oil production facility or well) but you still have to factor in the reduced income stream in the near term.

      In conducting an asset impairment review, asset owners, investors and lenders will need to work out whether it is better to stop production, reduce production or keep producing at the same rate in the light of a complex set of variables such as the cost of mothballing (you can't just down tools from an oilfield overnight), the cost of maintenance to keep the asset production-ready, the cost of debt service, the income you expect in 6 months, 12 months and 2 years. Just getting all the impacted parties round the table, resolving the inevitable conflicts of interests that each one has, coming up with an agreed decision then implementing it, literally, "in the field" is not a quick or easy job. In the meantime, whatever the current operations of the asset is, it will have to continue because if it is to change, the interested parties have to work out how they want to change it.

      The trouble is, people who work in finance (myself included, it takes a lot of effort to think outside your own box) are so far removed from the real, actual, productive economy and industry they think it's all just a matter of running some numbers in a spreadsheet and, hey-presto, that's what reality will become.

      Erm, nope.

      Jim McKay, January 7, 2015 at 9:13 am

      Nice, detailed explanation… appreciated. Spoken from POV of honest/ethical accounting.

      Problem: these guys have a way of finding means to transfer losses to "non-interested" parties. When reality of their investment becomes vividly clear they will lose $$, they begin also "thinking outside the box" as you say… not for means to shut down/maintain wells and such.

      Rather, twist political arms for accounting rule changes, wrap assets in some type of masked bond., or any one of multitude of unimagined "Enron" type mirages.

      QuarterBack, January 7, 2015 at 10:25 am

      Speaking of transferring losses, have you noticed the enormous spike in Bloomerberg Radio ads offering "qualified investors" the "opportunity own" a "productive" (I.e. Pumping oil – if not actually making money productive) U.S. oil well?

      Interesting too how the talking points of these ads are only accurate in the period before oil started to retreat from $100 per barrel. They are practically as believable as the Nigerian prince phishing emails.

      TheraP, January 7, 2015 at 9:14 am

      I think what you're describing is the mindset of a gambling addict, someone who's wedded to a fantasy and can't stop believing the fantasy will come true. Every market has its fantasists. We're watching madness in action.

      Whatever the asset, some sellers seem unable to cut their losses and move on. And in other cases, like the frackers, they've painted themselves into a corner their gambler fantasies never envisioned.

      Mind you, I'm no economist, so I can only stand on the sidelines both horrified and transfixed. At least if it were a crazy person we could remove them from the railroad tracks, despite their belief there was a pot of gold buried there.

      Whine Country, January 7, 2015 at 11:45 am

      The trouble with this, the trouble with that, the trouble, the trouble… The trouble is that all of these players are acting perfectly rationally. Why would anyone quit pumping when the person making the decision would immediately lose his or her income. And why would you quit pumping when any losses will be either born by some other individual (or institution) or most likely the taxpayers. These people are real people and make rational decisions everyday according to the facts before them. We allow the creation of the wrong incentives and we get what we have now. The real trouble is, We have met the enemy and he is us. Us, who enable those people to do what they do. A cartoonist named Walt Kelly wrote this many years ago. The underlying tone of most comments on this is that the players are somehow foolish or worse. If there is no downside to keeping on pumping, why would anyone elect not to?

      Luke The Debtor January 7, 2015 at 7:57 am

      US could add 2 million barrels of oil without drilling a single well by allowing the XL pipeline to be built and lifting sanctions against Iran. The US could also do away with the Jones Act and other oil exporting restriction, but even with a "free market" conservative-minded Republican majority congress, that will never happen.

      So far most layoffs in the US have been confined to oil companies and service companies. However, US Steel announced over 700 layoffs.

      Jackrabbit, January 7, 2015 at 9:55 am

      What were the analysts saying 6 months ago? I'll bet drillers were getting financing in September, maybe October.

      Why didn't Saudi Arabia whack the "tight oil" producers years ago?

      Clive's comment agrees with Arthur Burman's: that the "tight oil" producers will pump their current wells for many months but can't raise financing to drill more wells if oil prices are in the low 80's. Knowing that, wouldn't have made more sense for the Saudi's to listen to the pleas of fellow OPEC members and set a price target of about $80? Why lose more money than you have to?

      It seems that anything below $80 targets countries pumping traditional wells, not the "tight oil" producers – but the countries hit hardest are the sanctioned countries: Russia, Iran, and Venezuela.

      Also note: If stabilizing at about $80 could have been accompanied by a Saudi's/OPEC warning that prices could go lower for good measure. No more financing for "tight oil". And maintaining $80-ish oil for the long term is easier than sub-$50's.

      j7915, January 7, 2015 at 10:16 am

      Saudi Arabia is essentially the House of Saud. They could probably get by on a feww billion in revenue per year. However they have to pay for bread and circuses to keep the population from getting restless.

      What happens if ISIL convinces the saudis that the rulers are giving the "peoples oil" away for way too little and to infidels none the less? As mentioned above, civil war?

      Who has the allegiance of the public, the House of Saud or the radical imans?

      Generalfeldmarschall von Hindenburg, January 7, 2015 at 3:37 pm

      Well that's a timely question. The Saud family has put the radical imams in their place at least twice in the country's history. I think it's safe to assume they feel confident they can shorten the leash of the clerics whenever it's necessary.

      But elites do miscalculate.

      PNW_WarriorWoman, January 7, 2015 at 11:59 am

      Working on a theory. When do you remember our gas prices dropping so quickly? I don't remember it before the November election. If you were the President facing your final two years where your only action would be on the international stage and you needed one magic lever to pull to hit Russia, Iran and Venezuela in the chops AND assure the delay of Keystone with a GOP controlled congress AND cripple shale oil drillers because it's all bad for America, AND create an energy price market in the short term to help a future Dem candidate, what would you do?

      Well I know what I'd do. I'd be strategizing in the summer for this outcome, lining up the supply support of my Saudi client and be ready to telegraph to staffers in MY White House that it would be a wonderful miracle if the price of oil dropped fast, hard, and stay low until I moved out in two years.

      Is there any possibility the GOP is secretly thrilled because they know heartland voters don't want Keystone either? Everyone gets cover? Too much tin foil hat in this theory or plausible?

      Yves Smith, January 7, 2015 at 3:13 pm

      *Sigh". It is the fall in Chinese and European demand that led to the oil price plunge. Oil prices are very sensitive to demand. Look at how oil went from $147 a barrel to $60 a barrel in 2008.

      Please stop with this sort of conspiracy theory. This isn't even good CT, since the Dems got slaughtered in the mid-terms.

      likbez, January 7, 2015 at 10:02 pm

      I think all this futures and derivatives games around commodities make oil prices less sensitive to demand and more sensitive to financial manipulation. I wonder how sensitive are oil prices to HFT games. Look at daily volume of OIL ETF for the last year and the recent spike at $50 level.

      c1ue, January 7, 2015 at 1:08 pm

      One possible silver lining: this will serve as a potentially useful example to see what differences there are between $50B/year in profit from top level production injected into the US economy vs. a similar amount injected into consumer wallets – in terms of jobs and economic growth.

      Or in other words – all the money that was formerly trickling down through the production chain vs. money that's going to be directly spent by consumers on mostly foreign stuff.

      steelhead23, January 7, 2015 at 2:05 pm

      First, it is silly to think that production could turn on a dime. Until the price of oil drops below the marginal cost of production from existing developments (excluding sunk costs) it will continue to be wise to produce. This may not be true of large sovereign producers like SA and OPEC as they could affect price by reducing production.

      But for most producers, their production is too small to greatly affect the market – and there are bills to pay – pump away! The real slowdown will be in exploration and development. Let me posit one more time that this situation, where debt-service and the unattractiveness of investment in the oil patch is causing a death spiral of smaller, more indebted companies, is a result of stupid corporate governance.

      Specifically, oil companies are broadly resource rich and cash poor. In recent years they have tended to sink profits into stock buybacks and dividends ("maximizing shareholder value"), leaving themselves vulnerable to what would otherwise be temporary cash flow problems.

      That is, were the companies to have fat bank accounts, they could slow production when prices drop and keep their resource in the ground with the expectation that they would be worth more later. But no, many have debts that exceed annual revenues and if they wish to hold onto their assets, must sell oil at depressed prices to meet their debt burden.

      I expect a number of oil companies to go bankrupt in 2015. Thank you very much Milton Friedman.

      [Jan 07, 2015] 2015: Asymmetric Oil Warfare

      January 7, 2015 | charles hugh smith-Weblog and Essays

      Let's consider some examples of potential asymmetric-warfare tactics as they relate to the price of oil.

      The world has habituated to the never-ending undeclared war over ownership and access to hydrocarbons. Now we are entering a new phase of asymmetric war being waged not over oil but the price of oil. Many observers see a parallel in Saudi Arabia's stated intent to force other exporters to cut their production (if they want to maintain the price of their oil) to the mid-1980s, when a similar oil-pricing war drove prices to lows that helped bankrupt the Soviet Union.

      While there are certainly parallels to that period of superpower confrontation and the Saudis' use of the oil weapon, it seems to me that the current era is less a replay of the 1980s than a new chapter in asymmetric warfare that may see a variety of oil-related weapons being deployed.

      Asymmetric warfare is defined as war between belligerents whose relative military power differs significantly, or whose strategy or tactics differ significantly. Oil exporters come in a variety of sizes and favors, as do major oil producers and consumers (for example, the U.S. is a major producer but it still imports oil from other producers).

      Each party with an interest in the price of oil has a different set of weapons, goals, and relative military/financial power.

      What does that mean in the undeclared war over the price of oil? Let's consider some examples of potential asymmetric-warfare tactics as they relate to the price of oil.

      1. One way to crimp the production of one's perceived opponents is to blow up a few pipelines or port facilities via guerrilla-type strikes, a.k.a. "terrorist attacks" that would have an immediate effect on supply and thus on the global price of oil, which is remarkably sensitive to supply and demand on the margins.

      The ability to exploit physical supply vulnerabilities has become widespread, via proxy irregulars and relatively easy access to explosives.

      The asymmetry between the enormous difficulty in protecting long supply chains and costly infrastructure and the relatively low cost of disrupting supply is obvious.

      2. Digital disruption of supply facilities via Stuxnet-type computer worms. A thumb drive inserted into a network node can unleash all sorts of electronic mayhem that shuts down key oil-supply choke points.

      3. Financial strategies that support one's domestic producers regardless of current global prices. Those producing nations that can print their own credit and currency--for example, the U.S. Federal Reserve -- can quietly underwrite domestic production by buying shale-oil related junk bonds via proxies, effectively burying the debt.

      Defaults? What defaults? The bonds are either refinanced via proxies or enter suspended animation in forbearance, i.e. the interest is not being paid but the owner of the debt (the Fed) doesn't care.

      4. Oil exporters with decrepit oil-production infrastructure can be squeezed by restricting their access to the credit needed to repair/overhaul their infrastructure. Their production will decline as things literally fall apart.

      Alternatively, cheap credit can be extended to underfunded exporters to keep production high.

      5. A key central bank (for example, the Fed) can cease issuing money/credit and thereby trigger a global slowdown that constricts demand. If oil production remains high, price plummets as the erosion in demand takes hold.

      6. A central bank might decide to support the price of oil not by influencing physical supply or demand but by buying up vast quantities of futures contracts. Such buying would eventually trigger a short-covering rally that would push the price of oil significantly higher, at least in the short-term, regardless of physical supply-demand.

      These are a few of many possibilities of asymmetric warfare that could be applied to the price of oil.

      [Jan 6, 2015] Oil and the Economy: Where are We Headed in 2015-16?

      Jan 6, 2015 | ourfiniteworld.com

      Major Concerns

      Inability to restart oil supply, even if prices should temporarily rise. The production of oil from US shale formations has been enabled by very low interest rates. If there is a major round of debt defaults by the shale industry, interest rates are unlikely to fall back to previously low levels. Because of the higher interest rates, oil prices will have to rise to an even a higher price than required in the past–in other words, to more than $100 barrel, say $125 to $140 barrel. There will also be a lag in restarting production, meaning that high prices will need to be maintained for some time. Bringing oil prices to a high level for a long time seems impossible without crashing the economies of oil importers. See my post, Ten Reasons Why High Oil Prices are a Problem.

      Derivatives and Securitized Debt Defaults. The last time we had problems with these types of financial instruments was 2008. Governments around the world made huge payments to banks and other financial institutions, in order to bail them out of their difficulties. The financial services firm Lehman Brothers was allowed to go bankrupt.

      Governments have declared that if this happens again, they will do things differently. Instead of bailing institutions out, they will make changes that will make these events less likely to happen. They will also make changes in how shortfalls are funded. In many cases, the result will be a bail-in, where depositors share in the losses by "haircuts" to their deposits.

      Unfortunately, from what I can see, the changes governments have made are basically too little, too late. The new sharing of losses will have as bad, or worse, impacts on the economy than the previous government bailouts of banks. Regulators do not seem to understand that models used in pricing derivatives and securitized debt are not designed for a finite world. The models appear to work reasonably well when the economy is distant from limits. Once the economy gets close to limits, many more adverse events occur than the models would have predicted, potentially causing huge problems for the system.1

      What we are likely to be encountering now is a combination of defaults of many kinds simultaneously–derivatives, securitized debt, and "ordinary" debt. Many of these risks will be shared among institutions, so that banking problems will be widespread. The sizes of the losses are likely to be very large. Businesses may find that funds intended for payroll or needed to pay suppliers are subject to haircuts. How can they operate in such a situation?

      It is even possible that accounts under deposit insurance limits will be subject to haircuts. While deposit insurance is available in theory, the amount held in reserve is not very great. It could easily be exhausted by a few large claims (the scenario in Iceland a few years ago). If governments choose not to make up for shortfalls in funding of the insurance programs, the shortfalls could end up with depositors.

      Peak Oil. There seems to be a distinct possibility that we will be reaching the peak in world oil supply very soon–2014 or 2015, or even 2016. The way we reach this peak though, is different from what most people imagined: low oil prices, rather than high oil prices. Low oil prices are brought about by low wages and the inability to add sufficient new debt to offset the low wages. Because the issue is one of affordability, nearly all commodities are likely to be affected, including fossil fuels other than oil. In some sense, the issue is that a financial crash is bringing down the financial system, and is bringing commodities of all kinds with it.

      Figure 2 shows an estimate of future energy production of various types. The steep downslope is likely because of the financial problems we are headed into.2

      Figure 2. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings.

      Figure 2. Estimate of future energy production by author. Historical data based on BP adjusted to IEA groupings. Renewables in this chart includes hydroelectric, biofuels, and material such as dung gathered for fuel, in addition to renewables such as wind and solar. (It is based on an IEA inclusive definition.)

      A major point of this chart is that all fuels are likely to decline simultaneously, because the cause is financial. For example, how does an oil company or a coal company continue to operate, if it cannot pay its employees and suppliers because of bank-related problems?

      Our Long-Term Debt Problem. Long-term debt is an important part of our current system because (a) it enables buyers to afford products, and (b) it helps keep commodity prices high enough to encourage extraction. Unfortunately, long-term debt seems to require economic growth, so that we can repay debt with interest.

      Figure 3. Repaying loans is easy in a growing economy, but much more difficult in a shrinking economy.

      Figure 3. Repaying loans is easy in a growing economy, but much more difficult in a shrinking economy.

      Economists conjecture that economic growth can continue, even if the extraction of fossil fuels and other commodities declines (as in Figure 2). But how likely is this in practice? Without fossil fuels, we can exchange baby-sitting services and we can give each other back rubs, but how much can we really do to grow the economy?

      Almost any economic activity we can think of requires the use of petroleum or electricity and the use of commodities such as iron and copper. A more realistic view would seem to be that without the materials we generally use, our economy is likely to shrink. With this shrinkage, long-term debt will become increasingly impossible. This is one of the big problems we are encountering.

      Our Physics Problem. Politicians and businesses of all types would like to advance the idea that our economy will continue forever; the politicians and businesses of every kind are in charge. Everything will turn out well.

      Unfortunately, history is littered with examples of civilizations that hit diminishing returns, and then collapsed. Research indicates that the when early economies underwent collapse, the shape of the decline wasn't straight down–declines tended to take a period of years. Not everyone died, either.

      Figure 4. Shape of typical Secular Cycle, based on work of Peter Turkin and Sergey Nefedov in Secular Cycles.

      Figure 4. Shape of typical Secular Cycle, based on work of Peter Turkin and Sergey Nefedov in Secular Cycles.

      Physics gives us a reason as to why such a pattern is to be expected. Physics tells us that civilizations are dissipative structures. The world we live in is an open system, receiving energy from the sun. Examples of other dissipative structures include galaxy systems, the solar system, the lives of plants and animals, and hurricanes. They are born, grow, and eventually stop dissipating energy and die. New dissipative structures often arise, if sufficient energy sources are available to dissipate. Thus, there may be new economies in the future.

      We would like to think that we can stop this process, but it is not clear that we can. Perhaps economies are expected to reach limits and eventually collapse. It is only if economies can add large amounts of inexpensive energy resources (for example, by discovering how to make use of fossil fuels, or by discovering a less-settled area of the world, or even by adding China to the World Trade Organization in 2001) that this scenario can be put off.

      What Can We Do?

      Renewable energy is has recently been advertised as the solution to nearly all of our problems. If my analysis of our problems is correct, renewable energy is not a solution to our problems. I mentioned earlier that adding China to the World Trade Organization in 2001 temporarily helped solve world energy problems, with its ramp up of coal production after joining (note bulge in coal consumption after 2001 in Figure 5). In comparison, the impact of non-hydro renewables has been barely noticeable in the whole picture.

      Figure 5. World energy consumption by source, based on data of BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014.

      Figure 5. World energy consumption by source, based on data of BP Statistical Review of World Energy 2014. Renewables are narrowly defined, excluding hydro-electric, liquid biofuels, and materials gathered by the user, such as branches and dung.

      Guaranteed prices for renewable energy are likely to be an increasing problem, as the cost of fossil fuel energy falls, and as buyers become increasingly unable to afford high energy prices. Issues with banks, making it difficult to pay employees and suppliers, are likely to be a problem whether an energy company uses renewable energy sources or not.

      The only renewable energy sources that may be helpful in the long term are one that do not require buying goods from a distance, and thus do not require the use of banks. Trees growing in a local forest might be an example of such renewable energy.

      Another solution to the problems we are reaching would seem to be figuring out a new financial system. Unfortunately, debt–and in fact growing debt–seems to be essential to our current system. We can't extract fossil fuels without a debt-based system, in part because debt allows profits to be moved forward, and thus lightens the burden of paying for products made with a fossil-fuel based system. If a financial system uses only on the accumulated profits of a system without fossil fuels, it can expand only very slowly. See my post Why Malthus Got His Forecast Wrong. Local currency systems have also been suggested, but they don't fix the problem of, say, electricity companies not being able to pay their suppliers at a distance.

      Adding more debt, or taking steps to hold interest rates even lower, is probably the closest we can come to a reasonable way of temporarily putting off financial collapse. It is not clear where more debt can be added, though. The reason current debt programs are being discontinued is because, after a certain level of expansion, they primarily seem to create stock market bubbles and encourage investments that can never pay back adequate returns.

      One possible solution is that a small number of people with survivalist skills will make it through the bottleneck, in order to start civilization over again. Some of these individuals may be small-scale farmers. The availability of cheap, easy to use, local energy is likely to be a limiting factor on population size, however. World population was one billion or less before the widespread use of fossil fuels.

      We don't have much time to fix our problems. In the timeframe we are looking at, the only other solution would seem to be a religious one. I don't know exactly what it would be; I am not a believer in The Rapture. There is great order underlying our current system. If the universe was formed in a big bang, there was no doubt a plan behind it. We don't know exactly what the plan for the future is. Perhaps what we are encountering is some sort of change or transformation that is in the best interests of mankind and the planet. More reading of religious scriptures might be in order. We truly live in interesting times!

      Notes:

      [1] Derivatives and Securitized Debt are often priced using the Black-Scholes Pricing Model. It assumes a normal distribution and statistical independence of adverse results–something that is definitely not the case as we reach limits. See my 2008 post that correctly forecast the 2008 financial crash.

      [2] Points are plotted at five-year intervals, so the chart is a bit more pointed than it would have been if I had plotted individual years. The upper limit at 2015 is an approximation–it could be a year or so different.

      [Jan 05, 2015] Tight Oil Reality Check

      Notable quotes:
      "... The EIAs 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. ..."
      "... The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices. ..."
      "... As it has acknowledged, the EIAs track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. ..."
      "... How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period? ..."
      "... Americas energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy cant be overstated. Its for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIAs rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper. ..."
      Sep 24, 2015 | www.resilience.org
      In Drilling Deeper , PCI Fellow David Hughes took a hard look at the EIA's AEO2014 and found that its projections for future production and prices suffered from a worrisome level of optimism.

      Recently, the EIA released its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 and so we asked David Hughes to see how the EIA's projections and assumptions have changed over the last year, and to assess the AEO2015 against both Drilling Deeper and up-to-date production data from key shale gas and tight oil plays.

      Key Conclusions

      • The EIA's 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. The AEO2015 reference case projection of total tight oil production through 2040 has increased by 6.5 billion barrels, or 15%, compared to AEO2014.
      • The EIA assumes West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices will remain low and not exceed $100/barrel until 2031.
      • At the same time, the EIA assumes that overall U.S. oil production will experience a very gradual decline following a peak in 2020.
      • These assumptions-low prices, continued growth through this decade, and a gradual decline in production thereafter - are belied by the geological and economic realities of shale plays. The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices.
      • Perhaps the most striking change from AEO2014 to AEO2015 is the EIA's optimism about the Bakken, the projected recovery of which was raised by a whopping 85% .
      • As it has acknowledged, the EIA's track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. Admittedly, forecasting such things is very challenging, especially as it relates to shifting economic and technological realities. But the below ground fundamentals- the geology of these plays and how well they are understood-don't change wildly from year to year. And yet the AEO2015 and AEO2014 reference cases have major differences between them. As Figure 13 shows, with the exception of the Eagle Ford, the EIA's projections for the major tight oil plays have shifted up or down significantly.
      After closely reviewing the Annual Energy Outlook 2015, David Hughes raises some important, substantive questions:
      • Why is there so much difference at the play level between AEO2014 and AEO2015?
      • Why does Bakken production rise 40% from current levels, recover more than twice as much oil by 2040 as the latest USGS mean estimate of technically recoverable resources, and exit 2040 at production levels considerably above current levels?
      • How can the Niobrara recover twice as much oil in AEO2015 as was assumed just a year ago in AEO 2014?
      • What was the thinking behind the wildly optimistic forecast for the Austin Chalk in AEO2014 that required a 78% reduction in estimated cumulative recovery in AEO2015?
      • How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period?

      America's energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy can't be overstated. It's for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIA's rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper.

      [Jan 05, 2015] Tight Oil Reality Check

      Notable quotes:
      "... The EIAs 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. ..."
      "... The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices. ..."
      "... As it has acknowledged, the EIAs track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. ..."
      "... How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period? ..."
      "... Americas energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy cant be overstated. Its for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIAs rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper. ..."
      Sep 24, 2015 | www.resilience.org
      In Drilling Deeper , PCI Fellow David Hughes took a hard look at the EIA's AEO2014 and found that its projections for future production and prices suffered from a worrisome level of optimism.

      Recently, the EIA released its Annual Energy Outlook 2015 and so we asked David Hughes to see how the EIA's projections and assumptions have changed over the last year, and to assess the AEO2015 against both Drilling Deeper and up-to-date production data from key shale gas and tight oil plays.

      Key Conclusions

      • The EIA's 2015 Annual Energy Outlook is even more optimistic about tight oil than the AEO2014, which we showed in Drilling Deeper suffered from a great deal of questionable optimism. The AEO2015 reference case projection of total tight oil production through 2040 has increased by 6.5 billion barrels, or 15%, compared to AEO2014.
      • The EIA assumes West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil prices will remain low and not exceed $100/barrel until 2031.
      • At the same time, the EIA assumes that overall U.S. oil production will experience a very gradual decline following a peak in 2020.
      • These assumptions-low prices, continued growth through this decade, and a gradual decline in production thereafter - are belied by the geological and economic realities of shale plays. The recent drop in oil prices has already hit tight oil production growth hard. The steep decline rates of wells and the fact that the best wells are typically drilled off first means that it will become increasingly difficult for these production forecasts to be met, especially at relatively low prices.
      • Perhaps the most striking change from AEO2014 to AEO2015 is the EIA's optimism about the Bakken, the projected recovery of which was raised by a whopping 85% .
      • As it has acknowledged, the EIA's track record in estimating resources and projecting future production and prices has historically been poor. Admittedly, forecasting such things is very challenging, especially as it relates to shifting economic and technological realities. But the below ground fundamentals- the geology of these plays and how well they are understood-don't change wildly from year to year. And yet the AEO2015 and AEO2014 reference cases have major differences between them. As Figure 13 shows, with the exception of the Eagle Ford, the EIA's projections for the major tight oil plays have shifted up or down significantly.
      After closely reviewing the Annual Energy Outlook 2015, David Hughes raises some important, substantive questions:
      • Why is there so much difference at the play level between AEO2014 and AEO2015?
      • Why does Bakken production rise 40% from current levels, recover more than twice as much oil by 2040 as the latest USGS mean estimate of technically recoverable resources, and exit 2040 at production levels considerably above current levels?
      • How can the Niobrara recover twice as much oil in AEO2015 as was assumed just a year ago in AEO 2014?
      • What was the thinking behind the wildly optimistic forecast for the Austin Chalk in AEO2014 that required a 78% reduction in estimated cumulative recovery in AEO2015?
      • How can overall tight oil production increase by 15% in AEO2015 compared to AEO2014 while assuming oil prices are $20/barrel lower over the 2015-2030 period?

      America's energy future is largely determined by the assumptions and expectations we have today. And because energy plays such a critical role in the health of our economy, environment, and people, the importance of getting it right on energy can't be overstated. It's for this reason that we encourage everyone-citizens, policymakers, and the media-to not take the EIA's rosy projections at face value but rather to drill deeper.

      [Jan 05, 2015] Oil's Fall Continues Into 2015, and Stock Markets Shudder

      Jan 05, 2015 | NYTimes.com

      Oil prices tumbled below $50 a barrel on Monday, spooking global financial markets and signaling that the remarkable 50 percent price drop since June was continuing this year and even quickening.

      The new drop in American and global benchmarks of more than 5 percent was accompanied by reports of increased Middle Eastern oil exports, continuing increases in American production and renewed worries about the declining economic fortunes of Europe.

      The plunge once again sent fear through global markets. The Dow Jones industrial average fell 331.34 points, or 1.86 percent, to 17,501.65. The Standard & Poor's 500-stock index, a broader benchmark, fell 37.62 points, or 1.83 percent, to 2,020.58. And the Vix, a measure of market volatility that is known as Wall Street's fear gauge, leaped about 12 percent.

      In response, investors sought safety in government bonds around the world. As bond prices rose, the yield on the 10-year Treasury note fell to 2.03 percent on Monday.

      The decline in oil was not the only source of concern in the markets.

      Worries about Greece's ability to stay in the eurozone have reasserted themselves in recent days, for instance. The dollar continued its surge against the euro on Monday.

      Still, as the oil price decline has continued, investors have increasingly seen it as a bad omen for the global economy. The drop may point to lower demand for oil and lower economic activity. And the decline suggests that policy makers have not managed to deal with the threat of deflation, or falling prices.

      "There is certainly a deflationary mind-set in the market," said Jim Vogel, a debt markets strategist for FTN Financial, "and as we enter 2015, it's beginning to nag some people that there could be a deflationary component to the economy."

      Leading the way is oil.

      "It is a very shaky start for the oil market," said Tom Kloza, global head of energy analysis for Oil Price Information Service. "The norm is a lot of money comes into commodity index funds at the beginning of the year, and that can create a market rally. Today, instead of new money coming into oil, you got some more old money going out of oil."

      West Texas Intermediate crude, for example, dipped below $50 a barrel for the first time in more than five years, and Brent crude, the global benchmark, fell more than 6 percent, to under $53 a barrel.

      The drop in prices has led to a rising tide of oil company announcements in recent days of investment cuts for the coming months. Ensign Energy Services, a Canadian drilling contractor, reported that it would be laying off 700 workers, or roughly 10 percent of its work force, in California fields. Several Texas-based companies that have borrowed heavily in recent years to produce in new Texas and North Dakota shale fields are expected to announce steep investment and job cuts in the coming days.

      Consumers continued to benefit from the oil price collapse, with the AAA auto club reporting on Monday that the average national price for regular gasoline had fallen to $2.20 a gallon, 8 cents lower than a week ago, 51 cents lower than a month ago, and $1.11 below a year ago. Energy experts say American families are likely to have as much as $115 billion more in disposable income in 2015 than last year because of lower gasoline prices alone. Additional benefits should come from drops in heating oil and diesel prices.

      The last time oil and gasoline prices fell this low was in the wake of the 2008-9 financial collapse, when crude oil fell from well over $100 to below $40 a barrel in a matter of months. Energy analysts say the current price slump is of an entirely different nature, based primarily on a glut of oil being produced in the United States, along with increased production in Canada, Iraq and a handful of other countries.

      While in the past the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries has sometimes agreed to cut back production to shore up prices, Saudi Arabia and other Persian Gulf producers have decided to protect their global market share by cutting prices in the United States and Asian markets while increasing production somewhat.

      In a recent interview with Middle East Petroleum and Economic Publications, based in Cyprus, the Saudi oil minister, Ali al-Naimi, indicated his country would remain steadfast rather than cut production anytime soon. "If I reduce, what happens to my market share?" Mr. Naimi said. "The price will go up and the Russians, the Brazilians, U.S. shale oil producers will take my share."

      Adding further pressure to prices is the weakening demand for oil and petroleum products in Europe and developing nations. That weakness is compounded as increasingly efficient vehicles come onto the market and China seeks to reduce the oil dependence of its economy.

      There is little reason to believe any of those trends will change until midyear at the earliest, energy experts say. According to Simmons & Company, based in Houston, the 93 million-barrel-a-day global market will continue to be oversupplied by at least one million barrels a day during the first half of 2015.

      "It might be the dead of winter, but it looks as though markets will confront considerably more downside risk in the months ahead," according to a Citi Research report released Sunday night, "and it will likely take well into the year before prices will bottom, let alone achieve a new equilibrium."

      Citi says it is most probable that the oil market will stabilize by the end of 2015, with the Brent price averaging $63 a barrel for the year - several dollars above the current price. But its more bearish forecast, with a 30 percent probability, is for Brent to average $55 for the year, roughly the current price.

      Signs suggest that oil and oil product supplies will soon be increasing. The ramping up of several refineries in Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates is likely to increase exports of products like gasoline and diesel by 500,000 barrels a day in the coming months. Even without the Keystone XL pipeline, other Canadian pipelines coming online will bring as much as 350,000 more barrels onto the market.

      Citi has projected that global investments in oil exploration and production will decline up to 15 percent this year, but American companies continue to produce more efficiently. Rystad Energy, a Norwegian global consulting firm, issued a report on Monday saying that the average break-even price for the principal shale fields in the United States had dropped to $58 a barrel, with the core areas of some fields remaining economical to produce at $50.

      Oil-producing states are expected to suffer economically from the oil price drop, although the top oil-producing state, Texas, has worked hard to diversify its economy after the price bust of the 1980s. With a projected $3.5 billion budget deficit, Alaska has already announced a delay in six important infrastructure projects, including a gas pipeline from the North Slope.

      [Jan 05, 2015] Supply, demand and the price of oil

      Econbrowser
      BC, December 28, 2014 at 2:33 pm

      I anticipate:

      • a decline in US oil extraction to the sustainable (?), long-term average of 5-6MMbb/day by 2016-20 (and thereafter, IF we're lucky), coincident with US recession (average 2- and 4-quarter real final sales of 0.6-1% to as low as negative 0.7-0.4%);
      • little or no growth of nominal GDP over the period (and a decline in the post-2007 trend rate of nominal GDP to 2% and eventually slower);
      • CPI decelerating below 1%; the 10-year yield averaging well below 2% (and eventually testing 1% or lower); claims and the U rate bottoming and rising in 2015-16;
      • the US fiscal deficit increasing again, doubling by fiscal 2016;
      • and the Fed resuming QEternity sometime in 2015 at a similar expansion of bank reserves as in 2009-14, at a minimum to fund the incremental increase in the deficit to prevent nominal GDP from contracting and price deflation from occurring along the way. (Read: Japan, whether we want to admit it or not.)

      Effectively, the US and Canada have achieved "energy independence" but at a price of oil extraction we cannot afford in order to extract and burn at a long-term demand regime, which is significantly lower per capita than what is perceived today through 2020-25.

      That is to say, we have de facto achieved "energy independence" in terms of deep, tight, and tar "oil", but we can't afford it in order to sustain the oil-, auto-, debt-, and suburban housing-based economic model.

      Further, this means we cannot afford to build out in fossil fuel terms per capita so-called "renewables" at the necessary rate and scale (net energetic/exergetic terms per capita) while simultaneously growing real GDP/final sales per capita AND sustain the existing fossil fuel infrastructure.

      QEternity by the Fed since 2009 was intended to liquefy the insolvent banking system, permit levering up 50-80:1 banking system capital to equity index futures via offshore shadow banks' dark pools' pass-through entities utilizing exchange-sponsored high-frequency trading algobots, and fund fiscal deficits to prevent a contraction of nominal GDP and overall prices.

      Hereafter, QEternity II will be primarily to fund fiscal deficits, i.e., "monetization", in the absence of sufficient net private savings (ex equities) to gov't receipts and to GDP, as has been the case in Japan since 1998-2003. Keynesian fiscal deficit spending will provide no net multiplier to GDP hereafter. Rather, deficit spending will go primarily to no-multiplier income supports for the poor and elderly, including spending for unemployment and disability payments, food stamps, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid (for Obamacare), Supplemental Security Income for low-income elders, and making good on shortfalls in veteran and state and federal public employee pension and benefit payouts (while it is possible) for peak Boomers.

      This supports Peak Oil, "Limits to Growth", end of perpetual growth of population and resource consumption per capita on a finite planet, and the end of capitalism (as we have come to know it and extrapolate its perpetual continuance, despite the Marxian implications).

      Therefore, by extension, we can anticipate the end of the Anglo-American imperial trade regime, i.e. "globalization", which in turn implies that China-Asia's growth regime is over, i.e., China, India, and the rest of the world is 40-80+ years too late to the oil-, auto-, debt-, and suburban housing-based model of "growth" and "development".

      The top 0.01-0.1% to 1% western (and FDI-funded Asian) elites have no historical precedent for what is likely to follow, apart from the post-Roman Empire's Medieval "Dark Age" (which was comparatively otherwise for the Islamic world).

      Continued at Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2014

      Recommended Links

      Google matched content

      Softpanorama Recommended

      Top articles

      Oldies But Goodies

      [Sep 26, 2016] War as a Business Opportunity

      [Dec 22, 2017] Beyond Cynicism America Fumbles Towards Kafka s Castle by James Howard Kunstler

      [Nov 30, 2017] Money Imperialism by Michael Hudson

      [Nov 29, 2017] Michael Hudson: The Wall Street Economy is Draining the Real Economy

      [Nov 29, 2017] Positive Feedback Loops, Financial Instability, The Blind Spot Of Policymakers

      [Nov 29, 2017] Attack on Sanders Economic Plan By Former Chairs of the Council of Economic Advisors Irresponsible

      [Oct 10, 2017] The US Economy: Explaining Stagnation and Why It Will Persist by Thomas I. Palley

      [Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey

      [Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering

      [May 27, 2018] Northwestern University roundtable discusses regime change in Russia Defend Democracy Press

      [Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia

      [Feb 03, 2018] JP Morgan Oil Could Hit $78 Within Months

      [Dec 21, 2019] Trump administration sanction companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around the arrival point.

      [Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham

      [Nov 03, 2019] How Controlling Syria s Oil Serves Washington s Strategic Objectives by Nauman Sadiq

      [Oct 10, 2019] There is no reason that anyone should treat George Bush with respect: he is a war criminal, who escaped justice

      [Jul 17, 2019] Oil Is Driving the Iran Crisis by Michael T. Klare

      [Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then

      [Jul 05, 2019] The World Bank and IMF 2019 by Michael Hudson and Bonnie Faulkner

      [Jun 29, 2019] Latest Weapon Of US Imperialism Liquified Natural Gas

      [Jun 22, 2019] Why a U.S.-Iran War Could End Up Being a Historic Disaster by Doug Bandow

      [Jun 21, 2019] Russia accuses U.S. of pushing Iran situation to brink of war RIA - Reuters

      [Jun 20, 2019] The Trump regime wants another pointless war by Ryan Cooper

      [Jun 20, 2019] The Trump-Bolton Duo Is Just Like the Bush-Cheney Duo Warmongers Using Lies to Start Illegal Wars by Prof Rodrigue Tremblay

      [May 31, 2019] US energy department rebrands fossil fuels as 'molecules of freedom'...and this is in The Guardian and not The Onion

      [May 11, 2019] Leaked USA s Feb 2018 Plan For A Coup In Venezuela

      [Apr 22, 2019] Current Neo-McCarthyism hysteria as a smoke screen of the UK and the USA intent to dominate European geopolitics and weaken Russia and Germany

      [Apr 21, 2019] Psywar: Propaganda during Iraq war and beyond

      [Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.

      [Apr 07, 2019] There is no doubt the tight rock structures which are much more difficult to extract oil from than sandstone reservoir can be stimulated in different ways with good result. But that costs a lot of money.

      [Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil

      [Mar 16, 2019] (Global) peak oil comes in phases. As Art Berman said, shale oil is oil's retirement party.

      [Feb 15, 2019] Consumption of liquid fuels grows over the next decade, before broadly plateauing in the 2030s

      [Feb 15, 2019] You can see how the definitions are going to blur and they're going to allow declaring oil production numbers to be anything that they want them to be.

      [Feb 03, 2019] Neoliberalism and Christianity

      [Jan 13, 2019] Catherine Austin Fitts – Federal Government Running Secret Open Bailout

      [Feb 09, 2020] Trump demand for 50% of Iraq oil revenue sound exactly like a criminal mob boss

      [Feb 07, 2020] How They Sold the Iraq War by Jeffrey St. Clair

      [Jan 12, 2020] MIC along with Wall Street controls the government and the country

      [Jan 12, 2020] Luongo Fears "An Abyss Of Losses" As Iraq Becomes MidEast Battleground

      [Jan 10, 2020] The Saker interviews Michael Hudson

      [Jan 09, 2020] Opposing War With Iran: Three Reasons by Anthony DiMaggio

      [Jan 08, 2020] Do you really want to be a one term president? Pompeo can talk big now and then go back to Kansas to run for senator. Where will you be able to take refuge?

      Sites

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2016

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2014

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2013

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2012

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2011

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2010

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2009

      Softpanorama Energy Bulletin, 2008



      Etc

      Society

      Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers :   Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism  : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy

      Quotes

      War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda  : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotesSomerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose BierceBernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes

      Bulletin:

      Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 :  Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method  : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law

      History:

      Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds  : Larry Wall  : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOSProgramming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC developmentScripting Languages : Perl history   : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history

      Classic books:

      The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-MonthHow to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Hater’s Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite

      Most popular humor pages:

      Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor

      The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D


      Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.

      FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.

      This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...

      You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site

      Disclaimer:

      The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.

      Last modified: March, 03, 2020