Try this: Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – May 15,
2017
by Thane Gustafson
A review @ Amazon:
Thane masterfully succeeded in uncovering the fundamental drivers of the Russian oil
industry and its interdependency with the political complex through a comprehensive and
convincing historical analysis, with plenty of meaningful insights and endearing anecdotes.
Rooted in Soviet legacy and having gone through the 90s bust-boom roller coaster and 2000s
state reconsolidation the industry is a unique globally isolated eco system, and, with
Russia as a whole, is at a crossroads. A must read for any decision maker in the O&G
business.
This month, the energy consulting firm Wood MacKenzie gave an
online presentation that basically debunked the whole business model of the shale industry.
In this webinar, which explored the declining
production rates of oil wells in the Permian region , research director Ben Shattuck noted
how it was impossible to accurately forecast how much oil a shale play held based on estimates
from existing wells.
" Over the years of us doing this, as analysts, we've learned that you really have to do it
well by well," Shattuck explained of analyzing well performance. "You cannot take anything for
granted."
For an industry that has raised hundreds of billions of dollars promising future performance
based on the production of a few wells, this is not good news. And particularly for the
Permian, the nation's most
productive shale play , located in Texas and New Mexico.
Up until now, the basic premise of the fracking business model has been for a company to
lease some land, drill until finding a high-volume well, hype to the press this well and the
many others it plans to drill on the rest of its acreage, and promise a bright future, all
while borrowing huge sums of money to drill and frack the wells.
Throughout the seminar, Wood MacKenzie analysts emphasized that companies can't reliably
predict future oil production by "clustering" wells, that is, estimating volumes of many future
wells based on the performance of a small number of nearby existing wells, and described the
practice as potentially "misleading."
Shattuck called out how the old business model of firms borrowing money from investors while
hoping for future payouts on record-breaking wells no longer works. He summed up the
situation:
" We're transitioning to a point in time, where the investment community was enamored of
the next well and how big it might be. That has changed for a variety of reasons. One very
important reason is the next well might not be bigger. It might be smaller."
The fracking industry is now being asked to produce positive financial results -- not just
promises of new
super wells, or cube development, or artificial intelligence. And yet the industry couldn't
deliver profits while drilling all the best acreage over the last decade. Now, shale companies
need to do that with oil wells that may not produce as much.
Seven years ago, Rolling Stone referred to the fracking industry as a "
scam " while profiling the "Shale King" Aubrey McClendon, the man generally credited with
inventing the business model the shale industry has used the past decade. Today, McClendon's
old company Chesapeake Energy is
in danger of going bankrupt .
Perhaps investors are finally catching on.
Are Child Wells the New Normal?
Last year I covered the issue of
child wells , or secondary wells drilled close to an existing "parent" well, and the risk
they posed to the fracking industry. Child wells often cannibalize or damage parent wells,
leading to an overall drop in oil production.
At the time, I cited a warning about this situation from Wood MacKenzie, which said,
"Closely spaced child well performance presents not only a risk to the viability of the ongoing
drilling recovery but also to the industry's long-term prospects."
Over a year later, has the shale oil industry abandoned this approach or are child wells
still an issue?
During this month's webinar, Ben Shattuck answered that question, making a statement that
should strike fear in the heart of shale investors and the owners of all this shale
acreage:
" We know we're on the cusp of a child-well world."
One of the biggest problems with fracked oil well production is child wells, and according
to Shattuck, that looks like the new normal. When the bug in an unprofitable business becomes
the main feature of the business model, its future is definitely at "risk."
In the Eagle Ford shale, average production per foot of well length and per pound of
"proppant" has been falling steadily. Mr Kibsgaard blamed the decline on a rising proportion
of child wells, which are now up to about 70 per cent of all new wells drilled https://t.co/uG58KcNNJp
As long as shale firms could keep borrowing and losing money to drill new wells, producing
more oil was simple. When profits weren't a concern, the debt-heavy business model worked. But
similar to the dot com boom and bust, the fracking industry is learning that if you want to
stay in business, you need to make a profit.
Without a doubt, drilling and fracking shale can produce a lot of oil and gas in the right
geological regions. It just usually costs more to get the oil and gas out of the rock than the
fossil fuels are worth on the free market. Now, however, the much-lauded "shale revolution" is
facing two big issues -- the best rock has been
drilled and few are eager to
loan money to drill the remaining acreage.
E&E News recently highlighted
what this reality means for Texas's Eagle Ford shale play, where production is now 20 percent
lower than at its peak in early 2015. For an oil basin that's only been producing oil via
fracking for
just over a decade , that is a pretty grim number. However, an analyst quoted by E&E
News highlights the secret to making money while fracking for oil: Simply stop fracking.
"Generating free cash is easy: Stop spending on new wells," said Raoul LeBlanc, vice
president for North American unconventionals at IHS Markit. "The catch is that production will
immediately move into steep decline in many cases."
# IHSM arkit
forecasts capital spending for shale drilling & completions to fall by 10% to $102
billion this year. By 2021, we'll see a near $20 billion decline in annual spending. What's
causing this? Raoul LeBlanc comments- https://t.co/7q1QTiWZVs @HoustonChron
Ah, the catch. To generate cash while fracking requires companies to stop fracking and sell
whatever oil they have left from rapidly declining wells. Because fracked wells decline quickly
even when everything goes perfectly, if a producer isn't constantly drilling new wells, then
the oil production of a field drops off very quickly -- the "steep decline" noted by
LeBlanc.
That's exactly what happened in the Eagle Ford shale, an early darling of the fracking
industry, and most of the top acreage
in the Bakken shale play in North Dakota and Montana has already been drilled, and will
likely see similar declines.
LeBlanc emphasizes this point again in the Journal of Petroleum Technology
, where he is recently quoted saying that the decline rates in the Permian region have
"increased dramatically" for new fracked wells.
A year and a half ago, DeSmog launched a special series exploring the finances
of the fracking industry , putting a spotlight on its financial failings. At the time,
optimism about the future of fracking was still filling the pages of the financial press.
Hughes told DeSmog that with the finances of fracking, "Ultimately, you hit the wall. It's
just a question of time."
With the industry on the cusp of a "child-well world," that wall appears to be approaching
quickly -- unless you still believe the industry promises that fracking's big money is right
around the corner.
As the article says, the key scary thing for investors and the industry about fracking is
that fracked wells don't tail off over years like conventional ones – they stop
producing quite abruptly. Once the sweet spots are sucked dry, the drop off in production
will be calamitous with all sorts of potential impacts through both the oil/gas and the
finance world. It will probably happen far too quickly for most investors to jump off the
carousel in time. It will be a game changer when it happens (and probably, sadly, quite good
news for the Gulf States).
In past years, whenever I've expressed scepticism about the finances of fracking, the
usual response is 'but those guys wouldn't be putting in billions unless they knew there was
lots of oil and gas there'. What they don't seem to grasp is that making money from oil and
gas exploration is not the same as making money from oil production. Its not about selling on
the fuel. Its about first of all extracting money from investors for the exploration (and
getting your cut), then its about developing a prospect and selling it on for a big profit.
They don't really care if the well is profitable in the long term or not. I know of at least
one oil company (not in fracking, mostly off-shore), which has made millions for its owners
over the 40 years of its existence, despite the fact that it has never sold one barrel of
oil, nor ever found a field which could be brought to full production. All their profits have
come from their cut in selling on prospective fields, not one of which has ever come to
production.
===Its about first of all extracting money from investors for the exploration (and getting
your cut)==
==All their profits have come from their cut in selling on prospective fields, not one of
which has ever come to production===
What that tells me is there are a lot of investors that have soo much idle money floating
around the world and can literally throw huge sums of money at some venture and if the
venture fails oh well.
Many authors (Susan Strange, etc.) have used the term Casino Capitalism and this seems to
fit that.
It's like taking millions of dollars and making an idle bet at the roulette wheel and if
you lose oh well it was just pocket change or I'll just make up the losses on some other
scam. Meanwhile millions of people are homeless, without healthcare, hungry, etc. It's is
long past time to storm the castles! Pitchforks Up!!
I predict a nightmare of numerous abandoned wells as the many unprofitable fracking
companies go belly up, leaving the public with an expensive environmental mess to clean
up.
Just another example of western cronie capitalism where you privatise all profit, and
socialise all losses including both monetary and environmental.
The only way to stop this is to make shareholders personally responsible for such losses
including environmental clean up, even after a company goes belly up. Only then will
shareholders demand long term viability and more sustainable environmental practices, instead
of only short term profits.
A much simpler way is to simply insist that any license to drill can only be granted if it
is tied to a certified insurance bond for correct capping and abandonment. It would be
interesting to see just how many insurance companies would be willing to take on that
risk.
This should be the norm for all resource extraction permits: mining, logging, drilling,
whatever. A "restoration bond" has to be in place to finance the restoration of the site
after the valuable resources have been carted away.
This would be cheap in some cases, and very expensive in others (e.g., uranium mining). It
would be a way of factoring the externalities (as economists like to call them) into the
overall cost of the project, as well as decreasing the odds that fly by night operators will
trash the planet.
"You wouldn't know you were near an uranium mine any more ."
Alas, the residents of Red Shirt, South Dakota, a tiny Lakota community on the fringes of
the Pine Ridge Reservation, know about uranium mining. Past uranium mining
activity has resulted in the leaching of radioactive materials into their ground water
and wells. Even the nearby Cheyenne River has been contaminated. They can't drink the water.
Or use it for irrigation or fishing. The entire region is an official National Sacrifice
Area. Just a bunch of poor Indians.
The Defenders of the Black Hills are now fighting efforts to mine uranium using in-situ
leach mining. In this process, holes are dug, water and solvents injected to dissolve the
uranium, then the waste water is brought to the surface and temporarily stored in mud waste
ponds. Sounds like 'fracking?' Concerns are for the spread of contaminants in ground water
and aquifers. Where you can't see it.
Granted, no type of mining is without its problems.
But you could live in an area like mine where well water has to be tested routinely for
the high levels of uranium that occurs naturally in our water. No uranium mines around
here.
I'm going to be polite and ignore the tone of your comment. I was merely pointing out that
uranium mining is not the only reason for high uranium levels in ground water. There is a lot
of uranium in the earth's crust and it is dissolvable in water. All well water should be
checked for uranium levels but it is rarely done.
I'd favor forcing the investors and executives that want to erect these horrors to
personally (along with their family members) do the on-site labor of closing and cleanup,
while breathing the air and drinking the water that locals do. Still, of course, possible to
game even that by capturing the regulatory process of setting cleanup standards and
requirements, a la the federal and state Superfund programs.
Malum prohibitum vs. malum in se
" Latin referring to an act that is "wrong in itself," in its very nature being illegal
because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In
criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created
by statute, which are "malum prohibitum." Example: murder, rape, burglary and robbery are
malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most "white collar
crimes" are malum prohibitum." https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1201
The public won't be asked to fund the cleanup because there will be no cleanup. The
responsible parties aren't interested, and our government is no longer interested either.
It's another one of those issues in which communities without power will insist on government
action, and they will be ignored.
I wonder if could it be the case that some government considers strategically important to
keep production from free-falling, no matter if the economics are not sound, and shifting the
cost to the Treasury. MMT to the rescue of shale plays and financiers.
If the article is correct, calling for a plateau as soon as in 2021, the shale boom will
prove more transient than expected.
I can't keep up with all the interlocks and back-scratches. But Banksters are getting
rich, the intermediators in exploration and production are getting rich, the petroleum Bigs
are getting rich and using the notional global competition and Market to damage one
"nation's" comparative advantage to their own ends. And as with all the behaviors leading to
the conclusion that humanity is a failed, and maybe more honestly a plague species, all the
incentives and flows of power are in the direction of what I believe it was a Reagan
appointee offered as the moral underpinning of globalization and ruination: "God gave us
dominion over the planet, and Jesus is coming back real soon and if we have not used up the
whole place in accordance with His Holy Word as i read it, He is going to be really pissed
"
As with all the stuff we NCers read here, everything seems to drive the truly awake soul
in the direction of despair and that sense of vast futility, and that mindset of "Eat, drink
and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die " And screw future generations – past
generations said that to us, so why should we, or some small elite among us, who now are in a
position to have all our pleasure centers fully engaged and satiated to the max, behave
"Responsibly?" "Responsible people maximize shareholder value (and executive looting)!"
5 million EV takes inevitably back to nuclear energy. Without nukes you can anticipate
losing your residential AC for several hours/day. PG&E is the future.
The Forbes article is crap. Any analysis of electricity costs coming from renewable power
that does not include the costs of the energy storage systems required at high
penetration levels will underestimate the costs. Badly. The solar panels and wind turbines
are the easy part. The energy storage systems will easily cost 10X as much (and take 10X as
much time). Because of this, we've seen renewable energy deployment efforts stall out in
Germany, Spain, China, Denmark, and elsewhere, as they bumped into grid stability issues that
require storage to mitigate. And the storage costs too much.
Using "batteries" also produces a 10%* net loss to charge the batteries right off the bat.
You need 110% of the electricity to get to same 100% you were getting before the battery.
Rather than batteries helping, they actually end up using more electricity. That's also
before counting the electricity to make the battery.
* that's best case, theoretical, scenario.
Batteries are net users of electricity. The do not make it.
The Forbes article talks about balancing the grid so that variable energy sources can be
incorporated reliably. To whit:
Actually, battery storage, though often cost-effective today, is rarely needed to "firm"
the output of variable renewables (photovoltaics and windpower), because there are eight
ample cheaper methods.
I believe the author's thesis is for the electricity from renewables to be fed into the
grid when it is available, not to store it.
Do you think nuclear power plants run continuously and are never taken off the grid? Do
you think we use huge storage batteries when they are down?
Both your quote, and the pdf 'talk about' that. That's all they do. The forbes author
really is a treat. "There are 8 ample, cheaper methods" What are those eight methods? why
only 8? No further details.
"I believe the author's thesis is for the electricity from renewables to be fed into the
grid when it is available, not to store it."
It seems you noticed it too. No details, just numbers spelled out as words and asserted as
evidence.
Well, unfortunately the link that explains his 8 methods is behind a paywall.
But I think we are talking apples and oranges here.
The author of the Forbes article is talking about how a grid works. When a power plant is
taken off the grid, energy is moved in from some other area to take up the slack as long as
that power plant is offline. He expects that should be done with renewable energy also.
If you are depending on only one form of renewable energy, then of course you would need
batteries when that form of energy is not available. But batteries are an added cost and not
as efficient as moving energy via the grid. A better method would be to have many types of
renewable energies available so that you can switch between them as necessary. It is what he
means when he is talking about needing to firm the output of variable renewables.
So for example, in my area, the winds kick up when the sun goes down so it makes sense to
switch from solar to wind power at dusk.
I'm don't buy Amory Lovins' thesis. Bob's criticism is correct. The other 8 methods aren't
listed. The required sizes and associated costs aren't listed. It is impossible to judge the
viability of the scheme he envisions when the relevant information is missing.
A real plan would list nameplate GW for all types of generation assets and GW and
GWh for all energy storage assets. In other words, full details.
The only "plan" I've seen for supplying US energy needs with 100% renewable power that
actually contained full details came from Mark Jacobson of Stanford University: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
. To his credit, he did the time-domain analysis necessary to determine the amount of
load-sharing and energy storage necessary to keep the lights on through even extended periods
of unfavorable weather.
Unfortunately, his "solution" required two things: (1) expanding US hydro capacity by a
factor of 10, and (2) deploying a stupendous 541 TWh of energy storage. Neither is feasible.
The first would cause massive flooding and ruin river ecosystems if ever run at full power,
and the second would cost over $100 trillion at today's energy storage costs of $200/kWh. His
plan was so wildly unrealistic (and yet popular with Democrats) that a team of scientists and
engineers issued a formal rebuttal: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722 .
Jacobson's plan has been debunked .
The South Koreans deployed their nuclear fleet for approximately $3000/kW. At this cost,
we could completely de-carbonize the US electrical system for less than $2.5 trillion. It
would be quite the bargain in comparison.
The South Koreans do have one of the lowest costs for nuclear energy production – a
LCOE of about $2021/kWe compared to the US of $4100/kWe and the world average of $4702/kWe
– but the way they do that is by having much looser regulations and by severely
underestimating the decommissioning, waste management, and accident compensation costs. Is
that what you want for nuclear energy in the US?
I think it's kind of dangerous to just throw numbers around unless you understand what
they actually mean.
Ah, the wonderful "Heaters". They are situated outside EBR-1, just south of ID-20, west of
Idaho Falls, and east of Arco.
The whole of the area around there is a fascinating place to visit for a nuclear nerd like
me, plus you have the wonderful Craters of the Moon NM there too.
Other interesting places to visit are Atomic City, which has a population of around 25,
and is a weird time capsule from the '60s, plus Big Southern Butte, which is a, er, big
butte.
You can also find a gate leading off ID-20 to the north, into INL (Idaho National
Laboratory), which used to be the access road to the army's SL-1 reactor, which underwent a
steam explosion due to a core excursion in 1961, and is (as far as is admitted) the only
nuclear accident that led to immediate deaths in the US.
For a really interesting review of nuclear history read the three books by James Mahaffey.
He was a nuclear plant operator for a while, and describes the little pastime of "reactor
racing", which was seeing who could get a reactor up to nominal operating capacity in the
shortest time.
I guess that this means that Trump and his crew will make another run at Venezuela –
before the fracking industry goes down the gurgler. All of Venezuela's oil fields are like a
big box of chocolates in America's backyard. But if they try to take it, like life, you never
know what you are going to get.
Am I right in guessing that this will significantly impact forecasts of aggregate US
domestic oil production? Do we remain the global "swing" producer?
As PlutoniumKun says above, the collapse of the shale field production will be great news
for the Gulf Coast's petroleum industry. Not only is the Gulf a proven reserve, but with the
inevitable higher prices for crude oil, many more of the offshore wells will become
profitable.
The American shale collapse will also be good news for other world producers of petroleum.
OPEC will regain some of it's lost political influence.
On the down side; all forms of shipping and transportation will have a spike in per unit
costs. A canny politician could use this factor to push an onshoring of lost industrial and
manufacturing capacity. Put Americans back to work in America. That will be a winning
strategy.
Yes, well, I generally assume that the definition of "profitable" in use in the board
rooms of the giant conglomerates 'rules the day.' Until some method of 'regulating' the
actions of the board rooms of industry are brought into play, I'm afraid we are stuck with
some version of the status quo.
Just as the German usual suspects moved nations into 'Realpolitik' after the War, so too have
the modern Austrian usual suspects moved the world into 'Realeconomik.' Both have led our
best of all possible worlds into a Neoliberal Paradise.
Didn't Chesapeake Energy declare bankruptcy a good ten years ago? And then restructured
itself into a shale fracking company with the extreme help of the Obama administration? When
Obama "pivoted" away from KSA he went straight to US drillers. Allowing any hype necessary to
get the needed investments. Obama was clearly panicked. I wonder if it is possible that that
is when he learned that Aramco's reserves were only a fraction of the Saudi hype? Bin
Sawbones was subsequently allowed to provide the estimate of the worth of KSA's oil reserves
at 2 Trillion. The IPO went forward at that estimate and just today there is an article in ZH
about Aramco's actual value being much less. It looks to me like we just up and left KSA. Why
on earth would we do that unless they were running dry? And why would they have fought that
obscene war with Yemen unless they (the Saudis) were getting desperate? Secure people
generally don't do things that stupid. And the next logical question might be, How long will
Russian reserves hold up as they supply both China and the EU? The simple answer is it is all
just a question of time. We need to envision a lifestyle that is far more compatible with the
planet. Fracking was just a distraction. A farce. It would be better to own warm sox than oil
shares. And electricity is not going to help us out if we do not aggressively restrict our
use. I'd just like to know why we can't all come together and admit this one elemental
fact.
Drainage! Draaaainage, Eli, you boy! Drained dry. I'm so sorry.
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is,
that's a straw, you see? You watching? And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts
to drink your milkshake.
I drink your milkshake! slurp I drink it up! Every day I drink the Blood of Lamb from
Bandy's tract.
The last man standing might be profitable.
Not so long ago gas was much higher I think the peak during a pre fracking cold winter was
$15 now under $3. Plus we're exporting the stuff bc us price is so far below Eu price. But us
price is clearly unstable Bc it's too low for frackers to break even, much less make
money.
It's the large fracking production that's driven price down to sub $3. Maybe foolish
investors and banks will soon stop burning $, after which price will rise towards $10 as this
happens utilities will really jump on solar bc gas will be increasingly non competitive.
Ca should refuse all utility requests to build more gas-fired generating plants existing ones
will be shut over the next decade as solar plus storage price continues falling and gas price
rises.
From graphs 2 and 3, you can see that half or more of the national oil production comes
from about 50,000 high producing wells (out of roughly 1mm total). These are of course on the
treadmill of decline and need continuous investment to be renewed.
Anyway after 2014 the national production responded to the price collapse within about a
year. This is what is somewhat different about fracking -- the short time horizon and the
outsize contribution of the "top" wells -- constant depletion and investment -- results in a
fairly fast response to the price environment.
Factor in pipeline capacity shortages come and go, affecting the share of $$ taken by the
midstream. In any case, they're losing money when the WTI price is in the $50-$60 range. What
does that mean? Great question.
So, the shale/fracking industry has ~$200bn in debt, god only knows how much market cap is
at risk on Shale and fracking alone, and it's COMPLETELY UN PREDICTABLE. And people buy
shares in this snake oil on the market? SEC sleeping? what a crock.
I suspect that shale plays like OXY, with marketwatch assigning a "beta" of (get this!)
0.99 to this stock, are fundamental misallocations of capital. In a political sense, it's a
red state SOE type play that doesn't pass snuff. I saw the entire Wood MacKenzie webinar
linked in Lambert's article, and even THEY themselves are amazed at the range of valuations
in the shale sector. No two wells can be compared truly. The webinar references when Ben
Shattuck asked a wall street analyst for their comps on some company, and Wood MacKenzie's
analysis using on the ground depletion knowledge, was 40% lower, versus a higher paid wall
street "comps" analysis!
This entire sector is SNAKE OIL, imho, not to mention the environmental degradation not on
the balance sheets. But it is politically privileged, so we must zip it.
HB. I have used leases developed in our field in the past ten years to demonstrate that shale
is high cost. Again, rule of thumb the cost of a conventional well in our field is
approximately 1/100 of a shale oil well ($70K range v $7 million range).
Here are some examples with production through 10/31/19:
8 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative BO 83,466. YTD BO 2,085. First production
4/2003.
10 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative BO 116,065. YTD BO 2089. First production
9/2005.
10 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative Bo 55,595. YTD BO 3,023. First production
3/2006.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 37,418. YTD BO 1,289. First production
8/2008.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative BO 42,494. YTD BO 2,328. First production
10/2008.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 19,216. YTD BO 1,220. First production
12/2010.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative BO 46,463. YTD BO 1,877. First production
8/2011.
4 producers 2 injection wells. Cumulative BO 10,700. YTD BO 634. First production
10/2011.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative 59,592 BO. YTD 4,956 BO. First production
11/2011.
1 producer. Water disposed of in adjoining lease. Cumulative BO 7,872. YTD BO 444 BO.
First production 5/2012.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative 56,500 BO. YTD 3,858 BO. First production
6/2012.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 11,758. YTD BO 1,457. First production
6/2013.
2 producers. Water disposed of on adjoining lease. Cumulative 3,524 BO. YTD BO 393. First
production 11/2013.
6 producers Two injection wells. Cumulative 25,988 BO. YTD 3,233 BO. First production
9/2014.
Figure in anywhere from $60K-80K to drill, complete and equip each well including
electric, flow and/or injection lines. Figure another $20-30K for a tank battery.
Assume anywhere from 12.5 to 20 percent royalty.
Of course, some projects do better than others. But compare this to shaleprofile.com
wells.
There was very little drilling in our field from 1987 to 2003. There has been very little
since 2015. Century plus year old stripper field.
There have also been many reclamation projects in our field during 2005-2014 of abandoned
wells wherein the producers went bust in the 1990s, with 1998 being a knockout blow.
We took over 2 wells drilled in the 1950s they were abandoned in 1998. We just had to
equip them and build a new tank battery. We also took over three wells also drilled in the
1950s where we had to do the same, plus plug the injection well and convert one producer to
an injector. These work well at $55-65 WTI also.
I can also point to many projects developed in our field in the 1980s where cumulative per
well has topped 40K BO to date.
Conventional oil is a much better deal than shale usually when you can find it. And also
when you aren't trying to pay for 8 figure CEO pay, skyscrapers and jets out of it.
Shale just has the scale. Huge scale. Worldwide game changing size.
Shallow, I can't thank you enough. Alot to digest here. My first glance gave me the feeling
shale drilling dollars are about half as productive. Maybe you have a better number.
When a new field is drilled, is it always under pressure without the cost of lifting it
from the hole? Then once the pressure is exhausted it becomes a stripper?
A lot of the Huntington Beach field lays under the ocean. There is over a mile long row of
wells along the shoreline. I'm assuming they go horizontal under the ocean. Only a few wells
have lift Jacks. Can strippers wells go horizontal?
There isn't enough down hole pressure here for natural flow. Everything goes on pumping unit
immediately and injection wells are also drilled at the same time as production wells.
To put into perspective, the field was originally drilled over 100 years ago. Waterflood
was initiated on a large scale right after WW2. Many wells were plugged in the late
1960s-early 1970s when oil prices were low. The field was redrilled in the late 1970s –
early 1980s. Little activity after 1986, until prices took off during the Iraq War.
For example, we operate a lease that was originally drilled in the 1950s. It was plugged
out in 1972. In 1979-81, all of the plugged wells were drilled out (casing had not been
pulled). New injection wells were drilled.
Cumulative from 9 producing wells since 1979 is over 140K BO with production currently at
5.5 BOPD. It is difficult to tell what these wells produced from 1953-1972, because they were
part of a larger unitized waterflood project. Our guess is around 200-250K BO during that
time frame.
Only a small company would be interested in 9 wells making 5.5 BOPD, but they have been
economic even during the worst part of 2016 (barely during Q1 – 2016).
There haven't been HZ wells drilled in the shallow zones (1,500' and below). However,
there has been some success with 1,800'-5,000' TVD hz wells. Not sure of the economics.
There has been success with slick water fracks in deeper vertical wells also.
No way. It's already here, and there will be no rebound. BTW I did carefully read your
comments above Dennis and thank you for your time to respond. As always, your responses are
significantly better than what my caustic remarks deserve.
As has been said many times, money does not equal geology. Even if a new tranche of
'investment' could be begged, borrowed, or stolen (likely stolen) it would be spent to build
new drilling equipment, pay for new leases/roads/infrastructure, with all of it into new
wells that will produce less than any before them. If inflation is a factor (and it is), the
borrowed & eventually defaulted upon money will buy less than before.
Shale started bad, and it will stay bad. No shale well was a gusher instead, they all
needed huge horsepower, millions of gallons of water, hundreds of tons of sand, and lots of
investment dollars just to get started. None of these were ever a Texas gusher. To me, this
is no business model to follow, it is a debacle.
We have seen hundreds of shale companies go bankrupt over the last couple of years. Going
forward, there won't be hundreds of bankruptcies because there won't be hundreds of shalies
to go bankrupt. Like the motorcar companies of old, it'll go from dozens of market
participants to a handful through M&A and bankruptcies. There is still plenty of surface
carnage to come and it is far from over. Bear in mind, this is largely the same crowd that
kept exclaiming a dropping 'breakeven' price from 2010 forward, to the point where $20 was
wildly shouted from the rooftops (particularly from John Mauldin) as the point of
profitability. Of course, none of it was true. Now we see at long last that $60 (and probably
$75) was the true breakeven point. Lots of C-suite executives should be in jail for their
malfeasance, but of course none are and with the exception of Aubrey McClendon, all of them
are still 'at large'.
So with all this in mind and to round off a long screech, I summarize by saying that 2019
is peak shale.
The small companies, which have gotten only B class land will have to reduce, leading the
decline.
The bigger ones can continue to grow to a certain amount – but using up their A
class land. Especially all non-Permian will see this very soon and start declining. So
Permian growth soon will not be enough to keep up all shale decline – and this at the
cost of the Permian Tier A claims.
Oil production from shale will have a long future if prices settle at 100$ – but
with worse land it will just not be a bit boom.
A boom means high drilling everything costs, in a long calm era everything has more normal
prices (why should a truck driver carrying fertiliser to farm tows earn much less than a
truck driver delivering sand to a hole). And so finally some money can be earned in the oil
spot.
If the Democrats take over and get more green, taxes on oil production will be increased
anyway, and tax credits cut – so more calm drilling anyway. This is a big "if", I don't
know how the D – R battle stands now.
" The golden age of U.S. shale is far from over, with an expected slowdown in the Permian
Basin likely to be temporary, according to the new U.S. Energy Secretary.
The shale boom helped transform the U.S. into a net exporter of crude and petroleum
products in September from a major importer a decade ago. Even as growth is set to slow next
year in the Permian and elsewhere as drillers respond to investor demands for capital
restraint, Dan Brouillette said the shale boom has further to run."
Permian Drillers Are Struggling To Keep Output Flat
Newer wells in the Permian see their oil and gas production declining much faster than
older wells, and operators will need to drill a large number of wells just to keep current
production levels, an IHS Markit analysis showed on Thursday.
IHS Markit has analyzed what it calls the "base decline" rate, calculating the actual or
expected production of all the operating wells at the start of the year and tracking their
cumulative decline by the end of the year. Over the past decade, the base decline rate of
the more than 150,000 producing oil and gas wells in the Permian has "increased
dramatically," according to the analysis.
Your article goes into a lot of depth. I noticed these statements:
"The main driver of Legacy Loss is Total Production, which is logical.
In Permian, higher Initial Production (IPt) increased legacy loss, probably because new wells
deplete faster than old wells"
New wells depleting fasting than old wells partly explains why the monthly legacy loss
keeps increasing from month to month. It's now close to 600kbd/month, according to EIA
DPR.
The chart below from the article shows Jan 2015 as Peak Shale No 1 as legacy loss was
above new monthly shale production. The author says when "red line gets above new monthly
initial production then that's Peak Shale No 2", which might happen as soon as early 2020.
This is shown by the dashed line "IPt minus Legacy Loss" reaching zero, which means Peak
Shale No 2. The author says that this could happen if WTI stays at $55.
The basic premise is that productivity per completion has stalled, and there is no longer
a huge overhang of cheap frac spreads keeping the frac market oversupplied.
And what, Dennis? How, pray tell, will 17 million horsepower -and other infrastructure
including manpower – magically re-appear in 2020 and inflate another peak? With
existing shale finances in the tank, $300 billion of already accumulated and un-repayable
debt, and Wall Street financiers demanding repayment on their investments, your
prognostication for a rebound has a tinge of 'wildly unrealistic' about it.
ExxonMoble boe per day is 2.25 millon and has a market value of $300 billion. The tight oil
shale play over the last decade has increased production 7 million bpd. Is $300 billion of
debt really out of line? Do you have CFO experience with a multi-billion dollar company?
In the trucking industry the major freight companies running 24/7 turn their tractor fleet
over on a 5 year rotation receiving 20 cents on the dollar at retirement. Ready mix trucks
are turned over after 10 years rotation at 20 cents or less on the dollar running 12/5. When
the business environment is good. It's easy to delay retirement a little to meet demand. When
times are difficult, the old trucks sit in the yard and can be stripped for parts.
I have to question your hair on fire comment. Do you know the life expectancy of a
drilling rig for a large corporation ? The related article is talking about retiring 10
percent. That's a 10 year rotation. Maybe replacement is just cost efficient verses down
time. The big boys don't work on the same time frame as the little guy.
HB. $300 billion divided by 7 million comes to over $42,000 per barrel of debt. IMO that
is a high level of debt unless oil prices recover to 2011-14 levels.
Only the best oil production is selling for that in our part of the world and that is
production with a decline rate of 3% per year or less.
Regarding XOM, keep in mind that includes not just the upstream, but the midstream and
down stream, both of which are substantial.
XOM also has substantial international upstream assets which are generating substantial
cash flow at $60s Brent.
The only reason there is any production of shale oil at all is that there is a combination of
cheap money and a plethora of desperate investors starved for yield. Well guess what, the
investors want a return on their investment and the cheap money is drying up. So, artificial
life support is being withdrawn and the patient is now expected to get off the emergency room
gurney and start working for his keep. We shall see how that turns out.
This whole exercise in perfidy is much like Uber, that has never made a profit to date,
and yet was supported by billions of investor dollars. The whole ignominious affair put
hundreds of thousands of cabbies into destitution and bankruptcy, i.e those who didn't enjoy
the largess of investors willing to put up with loss-making operations for years on end.
Uber and Shale; the twin shitstorms of inequity, capital misalocation, and widespread
collateral damage to their respective proximal markets.
I agree with your concerns Mike. It seems to me that debt will be accumulated in the system
until it needs to be defaulted on. The governments of the world have become expert on kicking
the can down the road.
But that path will end one day, perhaps suddenly. Default will come via one of several
mechanisms- currency devaluation and debt write-off, for example. Whatever method, it will
severely hurt those who were expecting pensions or government payments (Medicare/SS), or to
live on savings or investment yield. These things will be massively de-valuated. Negative
interest rates you have been hearing about are just the early symptom of this process. A
president who cannot release his tax returns because he has a long pattern of committing
severe financial crimes, is another. The extreme accumulation of wealth among the super
wealthy is yet another.
I have given up expecting a 'fair' or rational game.
The EIA has December 2019 C+C production at 12.99 million bpd. They have December 2020 at
13.28 million bpd. That is an increase, December to December of .29 million bpd. Quite a
comedown from the over 2 million bpd increase in 2018.
HB. The problem with shale is that it is expensive oil, despite what companies such as XOM
and CVX put out publicly. However, it has a big advantage in that it is onshore, USA.
I think part of the reason that XOM, CVX, COP, MRO and other companies with worldwide
operations keep at it is because it is onshore lower 48.
I remember when everything that these companies were doing was international. It required
employees to live in some less than desirable places. Recall the stories I have related here
about employees of these companies having less than 24 hours to leave Libya, or being herded
out of the office in Venezuela at gunpoint.
Working offshore can't be a picnic. Also, the liability is great, see BP's disaster.
The management and employees want shale to work very badly. And it does at a high enough
oil price. Unfortunately, the price hasn't been there since 2014. But they keep making stuff
up because they don't want to be sent back to the Middle East and other tough places, or work
offshore deepwater.
But what has been bad for the companies has been great for consumers. I can't believe how
much Bernie and Elizabeth ignore the benefit shale has been to the US economy.
What would have happened without US going from less than 5 million BOPD to almost 13
million in eleven years? I suspect a lot of bad things. My primary beef is that the companies
lie about what price they need for shale to work and completed too many wells when prices
were low.
I think maybe shale is finally figuring out they need above my preferred $55-65 WTI
price band. We have been slightly below that and it appears things are really slowing
down.
Also lots of Goldman Sachs charts, with the one below showing a peak plateau from 2022 to
2025. The legend is missing 3 shale plays. The bottom dark blue is Delaware (Permian),
Midland (Permian) above and Bakken, the grey.
"... Given decreasing money available to shale oil, declining frac spread counts and falling rig counts, I now guess that US peak oil month is Nov 2019. Permian oil production should continue increasing slowly but it's not enough to offset falling production from other shale basins and other conventional oil basins. ..."
EIA STEO says US oil production in 2019 is 12.25 mbd. That means that IHS is forecasting
12.69 mbd in 2020. This 0.44 mbd growth is assumed to come from the 7 US shale regions on EIA
DPR. In 2019, shale region production was 8.60 mbd. 2020 shale region production is forecast
to be 9.04 mbd, after 0.44 mbd growth. EIA DPR says that Jan 2020 shale region production is
9.14 mbd which is greater than 9.04 mbd which means that IHS 0.44 mbd 2020 growth implies
that a US peak oil is happening about now.
IHS says that modest growth is expected in 2022, but they don't quantify how much growth.
I believe this sentence was added because IHS does not want to be accused of implying US oil
production has peaked. Dan Yergin, vice chair of IHS, founded CERA in 1982 which is now owned
by IHS. Dan Yergin "clearly doesn't care about converting peak oilers. He really wants to
influence Washington." In other words, IHS says modest growth in 2022, to please Washington
politicians. US shale growth might increase in 2022, even with higher oil prices, but I'm
guessing it won't. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/whos-afraid-of-daniel-yergin/
Given decreasing money available to shale oil, declining frac spread counts and
falling rig counts, I now guess that US peak oil month is Nov 2019. Permian oil production
should continue increasing slowly but it's not enough to offset falling production from other
shale basins and other conventional oil basins.
"... One key, yet often overlooked, player behind the push to prevent a full U.S. troop withdrawal in Syria in order to "keep the oil" was current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield ..."
"... Over the course of his long diplomatic career, Satterfield has been known to the U.S. government as an Israeli intelligence asset embedded in the U.S. State Department. Indeed, Satterfield was named as a major player in what is now known as the AIPAC espionage scandal, also known as the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, although he was oddly never charged for his role after the intervention of his superiors at the State Department in the George W. Bush administration. ..."
"... WINEP's close association with AIPAC, which has spied on the U.S. on behalf of Israel several times in the past with no consequence, combined with Jeffrey's long-time acquaintance with key U.S. figures in Iraq, such as McGurk, provided an ideal opening for Israel in Iraq. Following the implementation of Jeffrey's plan, Israeli imports of KRG oil constituted 77 percent of Israel's total oil imports during the KRG's occupation of Kirkuk. ..."
"... the role played by the U.S. Israel lobby in this capacity, particularly in terms of orchestrating oil sale agreements for Israel's benefit, is hardly exclusive to Iraq and can accurately be described as a repeated pattern of behavior. ..."
The outsized role of U.S. Israel lobby operatives in abetting the theft of Syrian and Iraqi oil reveals how this
powerful lobby also facilitates more covert aspects of U.S.-Israeli cooperation and the implementation of policies that
favor Israel.
Kirkuk, Iraq
--
"We want to bring our soldiers home. But we did leave soldiers
because we're keeping the oil," President Trump stated on November 3, before adding, "I like oil. We're keeping the
oil."
Though he had promised a withdrawal of U.S. troops from their illegal occupation of Syria, Trump shocked many with
his blunt admission that troops were being left behind to prevent Syrian oil resources from being developed by the
Syrian government and, instead, kept in the hands of whomever the U.S. deemed fit to control them, in this case, the
U.S.-backed Kurdish-majority militia known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Though Trump himself received all of the credit -- and the scorn -- for this controversial new policy, what has been
left out of the media coverage is the fact that key players in the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby played a major role in its
creation with the purpose of selling Syrian oil to the state of Israel. While recent developments in the Syrian conflict
may have hindered such a plan from becoming reality, it nonetheless offers a telling example of the covert role often
played by the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby in shaping key elements of U.S. foreign policy and closed-door deals with major
regional implications.
Indeed, the Israel lobby-led effort to have the U.S. facilitate the sale of Syrian oil to Israel is not an isolated
incident given that, just a few years ago, other individuals connected to the same pro-Israel lobby groups and Zionist
neoconservatives manipulated both U.S. policy and Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in order to allow Iraqi oil
to be sold to Israel without the approval of the Iraqi government. These designs, not unlike those that continue to
unfold in Syria, were in service to longstanding neoconservative and Zionist efforts to balkanize Iraq by strengthening
the KRG and weakening Baghdad.
After the occupation of Iraq's Nineveh Governorate by ISIS (June 2014-October 2015), the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) took advantage of the Iraqi military's retreat and, amidst the chaos, illegally seized Kirkuk on June
12. Their claim to the city was supported by both the U.S. and Israel and, later, the U.S.-led coalition targeting ISIS.
This gave the KRG control, not only of Iraq's export pipeline to Turkey's Ceyhan port, but also to Iraq's largest oil
fields.
Israel imported massive amounts of oil from the Kurds during this period, all without the consent of Baghdad. Israel
was also the
largest customer of oil
sold by ISIS, who used Kurdish-controlled Kirkuk to sell oil in areas of Iraq and Syria
under its control. To do this in ISIS-controlled territories of Iraq, the oil was sent first to the Kurdish city of
Zakho near the Turkey border and then into Turkey, deceptively labeled as oil that originated from Iraqi Kurdistan. ISIS
did nothing to impede the KRG's own oil exports even though they easily could have given that the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export
pipeline passed through areas that ISIS had occupied for years.
In retrospect, and following
revelations from Wikileaks
and new information regarding the background of relevant actors, it has been revealed
that much of the covert maneuvering behind the scenes that enabled this scenario intimately involved the United States'
powerful pro-Israel lobby. Now, with a similar scenario unfolding in Syria, efforts by the U.S.' Israel lobby to
manipulate U.S. foreign policy in order to shift the flow of hydrocarbons for Israel's benefit can instead be seen as a
pattern of behavior, not an isolated incident.
"Keep the oil" for Israel
After recent shifts in the Trump administration in its Syria policy, U.S. troops have controversially been kept in
Syria to "
keep
the oil
," with U.S. military officials subsequently claiming that doing so was "a subset of the counter-ISIS
mission." However, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
later claimed
that another factor behind U.S. insistence on guarding Syrian oil fields was to prevent the extraction
and subsequent sale of Syrian oil by either the Syrian government or Russia.
One key, yet often overlooked, player behind the push to prevent a full U.S. troop withdrawal in Syria in order to
"keep the oil" was current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield. Satterfield was previously the assistant
secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, where he yielded great influence over U.S. policy in both Iraq and Syria
and worked closely with Brett McGurk, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran and later special
presidential envoy for the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" coalition.
Over the course of his long diplomatic career, Satterfield has been known to the U.S. government as an Israeli
intelligence asset embedded in the U.S. State Department. Indeed, Satterfield was named as a major player in what is now
known as the AIPAC espionage scandal, also known as the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, although he was oddly never
charged for his role after the intervention of his superiors at the State Department in the George W. Bush
administration.
David
Satterfield, left, arrives in Baghdad with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, and Joey Hood, May 7, 2019. Mandel
Ngan | AP
In 2005, federal prosecutors cited a U.S. government official as
having illegally passed
classified information
to Steve Rosen, then working for AIPAC, who then passed that information to the Israeli
government. That classified information included intelligence on Iran and the nature of U.S.-Israeli intelligence
sharing. Subsequent media reports from the
New York Times
and other outlets revealed that this government
official was none other than David Satterfield, who was then serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near
East Affairs.
Charges against Rosen, as well as his co-conspirator and fellow AIPAC employee Keith Weissman, were dropped in 2009
and no charges were levied against Satterfield after State Department officials shockingly claimed that Satterfield had
"acted within his authority" in leaking classified information to an individual working to advance the interests of a
foreign government. Richard Armitage, a neoconservative ally with
a long history
of ties to CIA covert operations in the Middle East and elsewhere,
has since claimed
that he was one of Satterfield's main defenders in conversations with the FBI during this time
when he was serving as Deputy Secretary of State.
The other government official named in the indictment, former Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin, was not so lucky
and was charged under the Espionage Act in 2006. Satterfield, instead of being censured for his role in leaking
sensitive information to a foreign government, was subsequently promoted in 2006 to serve as the Coordinator for Iraq
and Senior Adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
In addition to his history of leaking classified information to AIPAC, Satterfield also has a longstanding
relationship with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a controversial spin-off of AIPAC also known by its
acronym WINEP. WINEP's website has long listed Satterfield as
one of its experts
and Satterfield has spoken at several WINEP events and policy forums, including several
after his involvement
with the AIPAC espionage scandal became public knowledge. However, despite his longstanding
and controversial ties to the U.S. pro-Israel lobby, Satterfield's current relationship with some elements of that
lobby, such as the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is complicated at best.
While Satterfield's role in yet another reversal of a promised withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria has largely
escaped media scrutiny, another individual with deep ties to the Israel lobby and Syrian "rebel" groups has also been
ignored by the media, despite his outsized role in taking advantage of this new U.S. policy for Israel's benefit.
US Israel Lobby secures deal with Kurds
Earlier this year, well before Trump's new Syria policy of "keeping the oil" had officially taken shape, another
individual with deep ties to the U.S. Israel lobby secured a lucrative agreement with U.S.-backed Kurdish groups in
Syria.
An official document
issued earlier this year by the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), the political arm of the
Kurdish majority and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a New Jersey-based company,
founded and run
by U.S.-Israeli dual citizen Mordechai "Motti" Kahana, was given control of the oil in territory held by the SDC.
Per the document, the SDC formally accepted the offer from Kahana's company -- Global Development Corporation (GDC) --
to represent SDC in all matters pertaining to the sale of oil extracted in territory it controls and also grants GDC
"the right to explore and develop oil that is located in areas we govern."
The
SDC's formal acceptance of Global Development Corporation's offer to develop Syrian oil fields. Source |
Al-Akhbar
The document also states that the amount of oil then being produced in SDC-controlled areas was 125,000 barrels per
day and that they anticipated that this would increase to 400,000 barrels per day and that this oil is considered a
foreign asset under the control of the United States by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
After the document was made public by the Lebanese outlet
Al-Akhbar
, the SDC claimed that it was a forgery,
even though Kahana had
separately
confirmed
its contents and shared the letter itself to the
Los Angeles Times
as recently as a few weeks
ago. Kahana previously attempted to distance himself from the effort and
told the Israeli newspaper
Israel Hayom
in July that he had made the offer to the SDC as means to prevent
the "Assad regime" of Syria from obtaining revenue from the sale of Syrian oil.
The Kurds currently hold 11 oil wells in an area controlled by the [Syrian] Democratic Forces. The overwhelming
majority of Syrian oil is in that area. I don't want this oil reaching Iran, or the Assad regime."
At the time, Kahana also stated that "the moment the Trump administration gives its approval, we can begin to export
this oil at fair prices."
Given that Kahana has openly confirmed that he is representing the SDC's oil business shortly after Trump's adoption
of the controversial "keep the oil policy," it seems plausible that Kahana has now received the approval needed for his
company to export the oil on behalf of the SDC. Several media reports
have speculated
that, if Kahana's efforts go forward unimpeded, the Syrian oil will be sold to Israel.
However, considering Turkey's aversion to engaging in any activities that may benefit the PKK-SDF – there are
considerable obstacles to Kahana's plans. While the SDF -- along with assistance from U.S. troops -- still controls
several oil fields in Syria, experts assert that they can only realistically sell the oil to the Syrian government. Not
even the Iraqi Kurds are a candidate, considering Baghdad's firm control over the Iraq-Syria border and the KRG's
weakened state after its failed independence bid in late 2017.
Regardless, Kahana's involvement in this affair is significant for a few reasons. First, Kahana has been a key player
in the promotion and funding of radical groups in Syria and has even been
caught hiring
so-called "rebels" to kidnap Syrian Jews and take them to Israel against their will. It was Kahana,
for instance, who financed and orchestrated the now infamous trip of the late Senator John McCain to Syria, where he met
with Syrian "rebels" including Khalid al-Hamad – a "moderate" rebel who gained notoriety after a video of him eating the
heart of a Syrian Army soldier
went viral online
. McCain had also
admitted meeting
with ISIS members, though it is unclear if he did so on this trip or another trip to Syria.
In addition, Kahana was also the mastermind behind the "Caesar" controversy, whereby a Syrian using the pseudonym
"Caesar" was brought to the U.S. by Kahana and went on to make claims regarding torture and other crimes allegedly
committed by the Assad-led government Syria, claims which were
later discredited
by independent analysts. He was also
very involved
in Israel's failed efforts to establish a "safe zone" in Southern Syria as a means of
covertly expanding Israel's territory
from the occupied Golan Heights and into Quneitra.
Notably, Kahana has deep ties -- not just to efforts to overthrow the Syrian government -- but also to U.S. Israel
lobby, including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) where Satterfield is as an expert. For instance,
Kahana was a key player in
a 2013 symposium
organized by WINEP along with Syrian opposition groups intimately involved in the arming of so-called "rebels." One of
the other participants in the symposium alongside Kahana was Mouaz Moustafa, director of the "Syrian Emergency Task
Force" who assisted Kahana in bringing McCain to Syria in 2013. Moustafa
was
listed
as a WINEP expert on the organization's website but was later mysteriously deleted.
Kahana is also intimately involved with the Israeli American Council (IAC), a pro-Israel lobby organization, as
a team member
of its national conference. IAC was co-founded and is chaired by
Adam Milstein
, a multimillionaire and convicted felon who is also on the boards of AIPAC, StandWithUs, Birthright
and other prominent pro-Israel lobby organizations. One of IAC's top donors is Sheldon Adelson, who is also the top
donor to President Trump as well as the entire Republican Party.
Though the machinations of both Kahana and Satterfield to guide U.S. policy in order to manipulate the flow of
Syria's hydrocarbons for Israel's benefit may seem shocking to some, this same tactic of pro-Israel lobbyists using the
Kurds to illegally sell a country's oil to Israel was developed a few years prior, not in Syria, but Iraq. Notably, the
individuals responsible for that policy in Iraq shared connections to several of the same pro-Israel lobby organizations
as both Satterfield and Kahana, suggesting that their recent efforts in Syria are not an isolated event, but a pattern.
War against ISIS is a war for oil
In
an email
dated June 15, 2014, James Franklin Jeffrey (former Ambassador to Iraq and Turkey and current U.S. Special
Representative for Syria) revealed to Stephen Hadley, a former George Bush administration advisor then working at the
government-funded United States Institute of Peace, his intent to advise the KRG in order to sustain Kirkuk's oil
production. The plan, as Jeffery described it, was to supply both the Kurdistan province with oil and allow the export
of oil via Kirkuk-Ceyhan to Israel, robbing Iraq of its oil and strengthening the country's Kurdish region along with
its regional government's bid for autonomy.
Jeffrey,
whose hawkish views on Iran and Syria are well-known
, mentioned that Brett McGurk, the U.S.' main negotiator between
Baghdad and the KRG, was acting as his liaison with the KRG. McGurk, who had served in various capacities in Iraq under
both Bush and Obama, was then also serving Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran. A year later, he would
be made the special presidential envoy for the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" coalition and, as previously mentioned, worked
closely with David Satterfield.
James
Jeffrey, left, meets with Kurdish Regional Government President Massoud Barzani, April 8, 2011, at an airport in
Irbil, Iraq. Chip Somodevilla | AP
Jeffrey was then a private citizen not currently employed by the government and was used as a non-governmental
channel in the pursuit of the plans described in the leaked emails published by WikiLeaks. Jeffrey's behind-the-scenes
activities with regards to the KRG's oil exports were done clandestinely, largely because he was then employed by a
prominent arm of the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby.
At the time of the email, Jeffrey was serving
as a
distinguished fellow
(2013-2018) at WINEP. As previously mentioned, WINEP is a pro-Israel foreign policy think-tank
that espouses neoconservative views and was created in 1985 by researchers
that had hastily left AIPAC to escape investigations
against the organization that were related to some of its
members conducting espionage on behalf of Israel. AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is the largest
registered Israel lobbyist organization in the US (albeit registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act would
be more suitable), and, in addition to the 1985 incident that led to WINEP's creation, has had members indicted for
espionage against the U.S. on Israel's behalf.
WINEP's launch was funded by former President of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Barbara Weinberg, who is its
founding president and constant Chairman Emerita. Nicknamed 'Barbi', she is the wife of the late Lawrence Weinberg who
was President of AIPAC from 1976-81 and who JJ Goldberg, author of the 1997 book
Jewish Power,
referred to as
one of a select few individuals
who essentially dominated AIPAC regardless of its elected leadership.
Co-founder alongside Weinberg was Martin
Indyk. Indyk, U.S. Ambassador to Israel (1995-97) and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1997-99),
led the AIPAC research time that formed WINEP to escape the aforementioned investigations.
WINEP
has
historically
received funding from
donors
who donate
to causes of special interest for Zionism and Israel. Among its trustees are extremely prominent names in political
Zionism and funders of other Israel Lobby organizations, such as
Charles and Edgar Bronfman
and
the Chernicks
.
Its
membership
remains dominated by individuals who have spent their careers promoting Israeli interests in the U.S.
WINEP has become more well-known, and arguably more controversial, in recent years after its research director
famously called for false-flag attacks to trigger a U.S. war with Iran in 2012, statements well-aligned with
longstanding attempts by the Israel Lobby
to bring about such a war.
A worthy partner in crime
Stephen Hadley, another private citizen who Jeffrey evidently considered as a partner in his covert dealings
discussed in the emails, also has his own past of involvement with Israel-specific intrigues and meddling.
During the G.W. Bush administration, Hadley tagged along with
neoconservatives
in their numerous creations of fake intelligence and efforts to incriminate Iraq for possessing
chemical and nuclear weapons. Hadley was one of the promoters from within the U.S. government of the false claim that
9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.
What this particular claim had in common with the
'Iraq meets Atta in Prague'
disinformation, and other famous lies against Iraq fabricated and circulated by the
dense neocon network, was its source: Israel and pro-Israel partisans.
The distribution
network
of these now long-debunked claims was none other than the neoconservatives who act a veritable Israeli fifth
column that has long sought to promote Israeli foreign policy objectives as being in the interest of the United States.
In this, Hadley played his part by helping to ensure that the United States was railroaded into a war that had long been
promoted by both Israeli and American neoconservatives, particularly Richard Perle -- an advisor to WINEP -- who had been
promoting regime change in Iraq
for Israel's explicit benefit
for decades.
In short, for covert intrigues to serve Israel that would likely be met with protest if pitched to the government for
implementation as policy, Hadley's resume was impressive.
Israeli interests pursued through covert channels
Given his employment at WINEP during this time, Jeffrey's intent to advise the KRG to sustain Kirkuk's oil production
despite the seizure of the Baiji oil refinery by ISIS is somewhat suspect, especially since it required that 100,000
barrels per day pass through ISIS-controlled territory unimpeded.
Jeffrey's email from June 14, therefore, demonstrated that he had foreknowledge that ISIS would not disturb the KRG
as long as the Kurds redirected oil that was intended originally for Baiji to the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export pipeline,
facilitating its export and later sale to Israel.
Notably, up until its liberation in mid-2015 by the Iraqi government and aligned Shia paramilitaries,
ISIS kept the refinery running
and, only upon their retreat, destroyed the facility.
One would normally expect ISIS to be opposed to such collusion given that the KRG, while a beneficiary of the
ISIS-Baghdad conflict, was not an ally of ISIS. Thus, a foreign power
with strategic ties to ISIS
used its
close ties to the KRG
and assurances that it was on-board for the oil trade, to deliver a credible guarantee that
ISIS would 'cooperate' and that a boom in production and exports was in the cards.
This foreign power -- acting as a guarantor for the ISIS-KRG understanding vis-a-vis the illegal oil economy,
represented by Jeffrey and clearly not on good terms with Iraq's government -- was quite clearly Israel.
Israel
established considerable financial support
as well as the provision of armaments to other extremist terrorist groups
active near the border between the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and Southern Syria when war first broke out in Syria
in 2011. At least four of these extremist groups were led by individuals
with direct ties to Israeli intelligence
. These same groups, sometimes promoted as 'moderates' by some media, were
actively fighting Syria's government – an enemy of Israel and ally of Iran – before ISIS existed and
eagerly partnered with ISIS
when it expanded its campaign into Syria.
Israel has also long promoted the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, with Israel having provided Iraq's Kurds with
weapons, training and teams of Mossad advisers
as far back as the 1960s
. More recently,
Israel was the only state
to support the KRG independence referendum in September 2017 despite its futility, hinting
at the regard Israel holds for the KRG. Iraq's government subsequently militarily
defeated the KRG's push for statehood
and reclaimed Kirkuk's oil fields with assistance from the Shia paramilitaries
which were responsible for defeating ISIS in the area.
A
2014 map shows the areas under ISIS and Kurdish control at the time. Source |
Telegraph
This arrangement orchestrated by Jeffrey, served the long-time neoconservative-Israeli agenda of empowering the
Kurds,
selling Iraqi oil
to Israel and weakening Iraq's Baghdad-based government.
WINEP's close association with AIPAC,
which has spied on the U.S. on behalf of Israel
several times in the past with no consequence, combined with
Jeffrey's long-time acquaintance with key U.S. figures in Iraq, such as McGurk, provided an ideal opening for Israel in
Iraq. Following the implementation of Jeffrey's plan, Israeli imports of KRG oil constituted
77
percent of Israel's total oil imports
during the KRG's occupation of Kirkuk.
The WINEP connection to the KRG-Israel oil deal demonstrates the key role played by the U.S. pro-Israel Lobby, not
only in terms of sustaining U.S. financial aid to Israel and ratcheting up tensions with Israel's adversaries but also
in facilitating the more covert aspects of U.S.-Israeli cooperation and the implementation of policies that favor
Israel.
Yet the role played by the U.S. Israel lobby in this capacity, particularly in terms of orchestrating oil sale
agreements for Israel's benefit, is hardly exclusive to Iraq and can accurately be described as a repeated pattern of
behavior.
caucus99percent
free-range politics, organic community
Trump is stealing Syria's oil for the Saudis
gjohnsit
on Fri, 12/20/2019 - 4:28pm
President Trump recently said the quiet part
out loud
.
"We may have to fight for the oil. It's O.K.," he said. "Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in
which case they have a hell of a fight. But there's massive amounts of oil." The United States,
he added, should be able to take some of Syria's oil. "What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a
deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly," he
said. The goal would be to "spread out the wealth."
At the very least this amounts to pillaging, but then respect for the law isn't on Trump agenda.
Trump is "protecting" Syria's oil in the
exact
same way that the mob "protects" a
small businessman from arson.
Not
kind of
the same way. EXACTLY the same way.
Trump comment US intends to keep the oil in
Syria. Guard with US armored forces. Bring in US oil companies to modernize the field. WHAT ARE
WE BECOMING.... PIRATES? If ISIS is defeated we lack Congressional authority to stay. The oil
belongs to Syria.
https://t.co/Leko5s1hXF
So what "great companies" would be willing "to go in there" and "spread out the wealth?"
That company turned out to be
ARAMCO
.
Sources have disclosed that the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, commonly referred to as Aramco, has
sent a delegation of experts to discuss
investment opportunities in the oil fields and
wells in the Eastern Syrian city of Deir Ez-Zor.
According to the oppositionist news site Deir Ezzor 24, Aramco "started implementing
practical steps in this field, where a group of the company arrived in an official mission to
al-Omar oil field in the eastern Deir Ezzor countryside."
There is no legal means to do this. This is the outright theft of resources.
And it keeps getting worse.
It is believed that the
investments will be made through contracts signed between Aramco
and the US government
, whose armed forces have steadily been increasing their military
presence in terms of manpower and equipment around the oil fields.
That is trafficking in the sale of stolen property, but it gets even worse than that.
The Kurdish Syrian Defence Forces (formerly known as the YPG) currently control most of the
country's oil fields and have shifted towards an alliance with the Syrian government after
losing American protection in the north-east of the country in the wake of Trump's "withdrawal"
and ensuing Turkish offensive dubbed "Operation Peace Spring" to clear the area of Kurdish
militias
So we can't even pretend to be doing this for the benefit of the local population, our regional
allies, or any other justification except naked theft.
Trump should be in jail for this.
"I think in this case we are not talking about an operation associated with a huge share of
risk, but, on the contrary, about a well-thought-out operation."
- Professor RSUH Grigory Kosach
The Pentagon is enthusiastically cooperating in this blatant violation of international law.
US troops have
returned
to six out of 16 bases in Syria that had been previously abandoned during the October
withdrawal.
What's more, our military is
settling in
for the long haul.
Barely two months after US President Donald Trump's demagogic announcement that he was pulling
US troops out of northeastern Syria to fulfill his campaign promise to bring a halt to
Washington's "endless wars," the senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon chiefs told a House
panel Wednesday that
there is no foreseeable end to the American presence there.
...
Esper went even further, insisting that US military forces had to remain in Syria not so much to
counter any existing military force, but rather an "ideology".
"I think the defeat, if you will, will be hard because it's an ideology," Esper told the
House panel after repeated questions regarding US strategy in Syria.
"It's hard to
foresee anytime soon we would stamp it out,"
he added.
Everyone that somehow finds a way to defend Trump based on his so-called aversion to foreign
wars needs to take a good, hard look at this. Because THIS is 100% Trump's doing.
US-led forces have blown up three oil tankers in Syria as the United States increases
its pressure on Syria by thwarting the oil trade between the PKK/YPG and the Assad
regime, according to local sources quoted by several media sources.
The YPG are our Kurdish allies that the warmongers were so concerned about just a few
months ago. We "care" about them, right up until they want to sell oil to the Assad
regime. Then they deserve death.
That's OUR oil.
I think the powerful foreign policy cabal in Washington have him by the balls and give
them a squeeze when he gets off point.
One day he is pulling out. The next day he says
he staying in to "protect" the oil fields. The third day he sends US forces back in so he
can sell the oil so that the Syrians don't "steal" it.
What's going to happen on the fourth day when a half dozen American soldiers get
eviscerated by a roadside bomb while on patrol?
but just like congress won't make him withdraw troops from Yemen and stop supporting the
Saudis, they are in complete agreement with him doing that.
Israel bought Syria's oil from ISIS all during Obama's tenure as he watched them take
it out through Turkey.
But it's Russian aggression that is causing all the problems in the Middle East right?
And Iran's too. Why we can't make deals for resources instead of spending gawd only knows
how much money. But then the defense companies wouldn't get all of our money now would
they? We pay for the defense companies CEOs large bonuses and salaries. Great gig!
Regarding your last sentence: this is the great truth that Washington's world hegemonists would have you forget. Taking into
account the untapped vast resources of Canada and Alaska and its expansive offshore economic zones extending deep into the Atlantic,
the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean, the North American anglosphere could be entirely self-sufficient and do
quite nicely on its own for hundreds of years to come, it just wouldn't be the sole tyrannical state presumably ruling the entire
planet.
Why, it might even entertain the idea of actually cooperating with other regional powers like Russia, China, the EU, India,
Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, greater central Asia, Latin America and even Africa to everyone's benefit, rather than bullying
them all because god ordained us to be the boss of all humans.
America's major malfunction is its lack of historical roots compared to the other societies mentioned. All those places had
thousands of years to refine their sundry cultures and international relationships, certainly through trial and error and many
horrible setbacks, most notably wars, famines, pestilence, genocide and human bondage which people did not have the foresight
to nip in the bud. They learned by their mistakes and some, like the great world wars, were doozies.
The United States, and some of its closest homologues like Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina, were thrown together very
rapidly as part of developing colonial empires. It was created through the brute actions of a handful of megalomaniacal oligarchs
of their day. What worked to suppress vast tracts of aboriginal homelands, often through genocide and virtual extinction of the
native populations, was so effective that it was institutionalized in the form of slavery and reckless exploitation of the local
environment. These "great leaders," "pioneers" and "founding fathers" were not about to give up a set of principles -- no matter
how sick and immoral -- which they knew to "work" and accrued to them great power and riches. They preferred to label it "American
exceptionalism" and force it upon the whole rest of the world, including long established regional powers -- cultures going back
to antiquity -- and not just conveniently sketched "burdens of the white man."
No, ancient cultures like China, India, Persia and so forth could obviously be improved for all concerned merely by allowing
a handful of Western Europeans to own all their property and run all their affairs. That grand plan fell apart for most of the
European powers in the aftermath of World War Two, but Washington has held tough and never given up its designs of micromanaging
and exploiting the whole planet. It too is soon to learn its lesson and lose its empire. Either that or it will take the world
down in flames as it tries to cling to all that it never really owned or deserved. The most tragic (or maybe just amusing) part
is that Washington still had most of the world believing its bullshit about exceptionalism and indispensability until it decided
it had to emulate every tyrannical empire that ever collapsed before it.
Realist , April 30, 2019 at 02:08
"ex·tor·tion /ik?stôrSH(?)n/ noun The practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
"Racketeering refers to crimes committed through extortion or coercion. A racketeer attempts to obtain money or property from
another person, usually through intimidation or force. The term is typically associated with organized crime."
I see. So, American foreign policy, as applied to both its alleged enemies and presumed allies, essentially amounts to an exercise
in organised crime. So much for due process, free trade, peaceful co-existence, magical rainbows and other such hypocritical platitudes
dispensed for domestic consumption in place of the heavy-handed threats routinely delivered to Washington's targets.
That's quite in keeping with the employment of war crimes as standard "tactics, techniques and procedures" on the battlefield
which was recently admitted to us by Senator Jim Molan on the "60 Minutes" news show facsimile and discussed in one of yesterday's
forums on this blog.
Afghanistan was promised a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs as incentive to bend to our will (and that of Unocal which,
unlike Nordstream, was a pipeline Washington wanted built). Iraq was promised and delivered "shock and awe" after a secretary
of state had declared the mass starvation of that country's children as well worth the effort. They still can't find all the pieces
left of the Libyan state. Syria was told it would be stiffed on any American contribution to its rebuilding for the effrontery
of actually beating back the American-recruited, trained and financed ISIS terrorist brigades. Now it's being deliberately starved
of both its energy and food requirements by American embargoes on its own resources! North Korea was promised utter annihilation
by Yankee nukes before Kim's summit with our great leader unless it submitted totally to his will, or more likely that of Pompous
Pompeo, the man who pulls his strings. Venezuela is treated to cyber-hacked power outages and shortages of food, medicines, its
own gold bullion, income from its own international petroleum sales and, probably because someone in Washington thinks it's funny,
even toilet paper. All they have to do to get relief is kick out the president they elected and replace him with Washington's
chosen puppet! Yep, freedom and democracy blah, blah, blah. And don't even ask what the kids in Yemen got for Christmas from Uncle
Sam this year. (He probably stole their socks.) A real American patriot will laughingly take Iran to task for ever believing in
the first place that Washington could be negotiated with in good faith. All they had to do was ask the Native Americans (or the
Russians) how the Yanks keep their word and honor their treaties. It was their own fault they were taken for suckers.
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
It is believed that the investments will be made through contracts signed between Aramco
and the US government, whose armed forces have steadily been increasing
their military presence in terms of manpower and equipment around the oil fields. Despite
initially claiming to
scale back troops from Syria, US President Donald Trump announced in October that
America had " secured " and
taken control of the oil in the Middle East.
The sad reality is that the Washington Post, New York Times and most of the mainstream TV
and radio media are worse liars and better propagandists for the US Military-Industrial
Complex than Pravda was for the Soviet Communist Party. There is no and never was an fair and
balanced journalism. There's even no professional journalism!
My Russian opponents and Latin friends now laugh that I don't believe anything coming from
US media today and I'm hoarding hard and untraceable assets just like they do in the Eastern
Bloc, Middle East and Cuba. The 21st Century might yet be the century of dictators and their
storm troopers who learned their lessons from Hitler and Stalin.
If populism and Trump don't survive the coup it'll be pretty grim times for the non-elites
in America. The revenge from the weirdos and the leftist globalist Marxists will definitely
start US Civil War 2.
Yes and thank you for stating fundamental and obvious truths ..
on the other hand ,
"The Washington Post performed a service to the country by shedding light on the
disinformation used to sustain endless war. But the Post's intentions are also political,
seeking to undermine Trump's electoral chances by damaging Trump's military credentials as
well as his standing amongst military personnel. What Washington's elite and the Post do not
know, or perhaps prefer to ignore, is that such media investigations directed against
political opponents actually end up doing irreparable damage to the political and military
prestige of the United States."
The Washington Compost May well have an ax to grind with and motive for publishing
newfound truthiness, it's a miracle ! I fail to see however, just how Trump takes credit in
the bull **** fog, of the longest running war, motivations department.
other than that ...
And so in closing, I would be more inclined to believe sir, propagandizing, the
propaganda, with such an opinion, is just another kin to, let's say, the impeachment farce in
example. Or in the words of "The father of modern day marketing", an obvious attempt at
further shaping public opinion, for the masses, an opinion that grows more weary, more
suspicious, more distrustful, and divergent from government and their various mouth pieces,
by the day.
Stating obvious points such as you have, and blowing it with flawed analysis, is not a
good look ..
Washington Compost, has a much more simple, damaging ,and nefarious agenda.
Truth is being revealed, regarding the mountain of year on year lies, spoon fed to the
bewildered, inflamed, dispassionate, and cowed citizenry, as the bull **** gets harder to
peddle, more impossible to digest whole.
And is happening with or without the post, and likewise, various other "main stream" mouth
pieces and government hacks (in the interests of national security, of course.)
I think it should have been seen as a thirty year campaign and the same with Iraq and Libya.
The northern Ireland campaign took 30 years and many people are as bitter as they ever were
much of it secondhand from younger people who weren't even alive during the conflict. The
idea of a quick war is a very big mistake I think and flawed short-term thinking.
The West and the USA in particular have always taken the stand that their ideology is the
only right one. That they have a right to interfere in the interns, affairs of other
countries but their own internal affairs are sacrosanct.
So - USA, with UK support decided that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. They moved in to
do so - they killed Saddam but had no plan to return the country to a functioning nation.
Instead they facilitated the unleashing of internal wars and have now left the citizens of
that country in utter turmoil.
& then went and repeated the exercise n Libya.
Decades ago, Britain decided that Palestinians could be thrown out of their homes to make
way for the creation of Israel and laid the foundation for the Middle-East turmoil that has
caused untold misery and suffering. They followed that up with throwing out the Chagosians
out of their homes and making them homeless. Invited Caribbean's to the 'Mother Country' to
serve their erstwhile lords, ladies, masters and mistresses only to then drive to despair the
children and grandchildren of the invitees who had contributed to the 'Mother Country' for
decades.
We are 18 years into an illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We are the invaders,
the terrorists. The Taliban are fighting for their country, they may use brutal methods but
so did the French, Dutch, Russian freedom fighters during the Nazi invasions. America's
puppet regime in Afghanistan is reminiscent of the Quislings of WW2. And to use drones to
kill Afghans and to say it is progress that there is more transparency is the height of
hubris. All it does is show the corrosive effect of unfettered power in America and it's
military. Why do we tolerate this inhuman action on another country's society? America is by
far the greatest contributor to the rise in terrorism in the world and if not somehow stopped
the greatest threat to world peace. It keeps on invading country after country with it's MSM
propaganda machine claiming it is spreading Democracy throughout the globe. Thank you America
!
Another fun chart with oil prices and the implicit price deflator. Oil used to mostly
follow the implicit deflator, until 2014.
The index start is different so there is some data discrepency, but it is clear that we
have become an oil economy, we dig it up and sell it to more advanced economies, just like
Nigeria.
Further, it you were to include the median home price over the housing bubble you will see
that median, aggregate home price rose with oil, mainly because oil is about 15% of the input
to home construction, and oil tripled in price.
The true home bubble was in California and Florida, a result we discovered in about 2010,
and was reported on this blog.
We knew what was happening with oil shocks and chose to ignore it so we could have a nice
Dean Baker style narrative. That is, we knew the truth and preferred the deception, which we
also knew at the time. Ex post it is obvious our fake narrative resulted in increased
inequality, which we have now proven.
We, the folks on this blog, were a natural experiment, mostly a natural experiment of
boomers faking it, in full knowledge of the consequences. We got the expected result, low
real GDP growth while interest charges, as a percentage of real growth, going through the
roof.
Now we have another natural experiment. Either the price deflator has to drop rapidly, or
oil has to rise dramatically or we get an MMT moment. Dunno the outcome. But we are really
good at having the MMT moments. We can show that we have become better MMTers as each
generation gains more technology and knowledge applied to central banking.
The financial struggles of the U.S. shale industry are
becoming increasingly hard to
ignore,
but drillers in Appalachia are in particularly bad shape.
The Permian has recently seen
job
losses
, and for the first time since 2016, the hottest shale basin in the world has seen job
growth lag the broader Texas economy.
The industry is cutting back amid heightened
financial scrutiny from investors, as debt-fueled drilling has become increasingly hard to justify.
But E&P companies focused almost exclusively on gas, such as those in the Marcellus and Utica
shales, are in even worse shape. An IEEFA
analysis
found
that seven of the largest producers in Appalachia burned through about a half billion dollars in
the third quarter.
Gas production continues to rise, but profits remain elusive.
"Despite booming
gas output, Appalachian oil and gas companies consistently failed to produce positive cash flow
over the past five quarters," the authors of the IEEFA report said.
Of the seven companies analyzed, five had negative cash flow, including Antero Resources,
Chesapeake Energy, EQT, Range Resources, and Southwestern Energy. Only Cabot Oil & Gas and Gulfport
Energy had positive cash flow in the third quarter.
The sector was weighed down but a sharp drop in natural gas prices, with
Henry
Hub
off by 18 percent compared to a year earlier. But the losses are highly problematic. After
all, we are more than a decade into the shale revolution and the industry is still not really able
to post positive cash flow. Worse, these are not the laggards; these are the largest producers in
the region.
The outlook is not encouraging.
The gas glut is expected to stick around for a
few years. Bank of America Merrill Lynch has repeatedly warned that unless there is an unusually
frigid winter, which could lead to higher-than-expected demand, the gas market is headed for
trouble. "A mild winter across the northern hemisphere or a worsening macro backdrop could be
catastrophic for gas prices in all regions," Bank of America
said
in
a note in October.
The problem for Appalachian drillers is that Permian producers are not really interested in all
of the gas they are producing. That makes them unresponsive to price signals. Gas prices in the
Permian have plunged close to zero, and have at times turned negative, but gas production in Texas
really hinges on the industry's interest in oil. This dynamic means that the gas glut becomes
entrenched longer than it otherwise might. It's a grim reality plaguing the gas-focused producers
in Appalachia.
With capital markets growing less friendly, the only response for drillers is to cut back. IEEFA
notes that drilling permits in Pennsylvania in October fell by half from the same month a year
earlier. The number of rigs sidelined and the number of workers cut from payrolls also continues to
pile up.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of
must-read stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try
again.
The negative cash flow in the third quarter was led by Chesapeake Energy (-$264 million)
and EQT (-$173 million), but the red ink is only the latest in a string of losses for the sector
over the last few years. As a result, the sector has completely fallen out of favor with investors.
But gas drillers have fared worse, with share prices lagging not just the broader S&P 500, but
also the fracking-focused XOP ETF, which has fallen sharply this year. In other words, oil
companies have seen their share prices hit hard, but gas drillers have completely fallen off of a
cliff. Chesapeake Energy even
warned
last
month that it there was "substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern." Its
stock is trading below $1 per share.
Even Cabot Oil & Gas, which posted positive cash flow in the third quarter, has seen its share
price fall by roughly 30 percent year-to-date.
"Even though Appalachian gas companies
have proven that they can produce abundant supplies of gas, their financial struggles show that the
business case for fracking remains unproven,"
IEEFA concluded.
Tags
Business Finance
Islam is not the angloamerican's problem, it's their creation (as in they made it into a
problem). It serves their interest in keeping the oil rich Middle Eastern countries divided
among tribal and sectarian lines and ruled by backward cryptotheocratic despotic dynasties.
The fundamentalist extremist jihadists can be sicked on Europe, Southern Russia and Western
China, to upset society when required by strategic interests.
You totally disregard my objection that there is no need for the Russians to become
aggressive towards (the rest of) Europe. Good trade relations are their best interest. If and
when Europe would socially and economically collapse, they would rather keep the problems
out, instead of getting sucked in themselves.
The US openly occupies parts of Syria, boasts of taking it resources and supported the
attempts of the Kurds to set up their own little state, until the Turks blew a hissy fit.
And
yet it has the gall to call out what Russia does in the Ukraine as a breach of international
law.
US military commanders overseeing Syria operations are still waiting for precise
battlefield orders from the White House and Pentagon on their exact mission to protect
oilfields in eastern Syria, according to a defense official directly familiar with the
matter.
Nearly three weeks after President Donald Trump ordered troops out of northern Syria,
publicly declaring he was taking "control" of the oil and sending troops and armored carriers
to protect it from ISIS, US commanders lack clarity on the most basic aspects of their
mission, including how and when troops can fire their weapons and what, exactly, that mission
is.
The lack of precise orders means troops are on the ground while critical details are still
being worked out -- exactly where they will go, when and how they will stay on small bases in
the area, and when they go on patrol.
Perhaps most crucially, there is no clarity about exactly who they are operating against
in the oilfields.
Everything the Trump administration has done in Syria has been horribly confused, so it
makes sense that the latest version of the policy would be baffling to our own troops. U.S.
commanders lack clarity about the mission because it was cooked up to appeal to the president's
desire for plundering other countries' resources. It was thrown together on the spur of the
moment as an excuse to keep U.S. troops in Syria no matter what, and now those troops are stuck
there with no instructions and no idea what they are expected to do. This is the worst kind of
unnecessary military mission, because it is being carried out simply to keep a U.S. foothold in
Syria for its own sake. The "critical details" aren't being worked out so much as a plausible
justification after the fact is being conjured out of thin air. There is no reason for these
troops to be there, and there is nothing that they can do there legally, but the administration
will come up with some bad argument to keep them there anyway.
Meanwhile, Trump is very proud of his clownish, illegal Syria policy:
Trump labors under the delusion that the oil is ours to "distribute." which everyone else
knows to be false. The oil belongs to the Syrian government, and that oil can't be sold and
revenues from those sales cannot be used without the permission of the government that owns it.
Syria's oil resources are not that great, and the infrastructure of many of the fields has been
damaged or destroyed, so if it were legal to loot the spoils there wouldn't be very much to
loot. The president thinks that seizing Syrian oil is worth boasting about, but in reality it
is one of the most absurd and indefensible reasons for deploying troops abroad. In addition to
damaging the country's international standing with allied and friendly governments with this
open thievery, Trump's "take the oil" fixation is a propaganda coup for hostile governments and
groups. As Paul Pillar pointed out last week, it plays into the
hands of jihadist groups and aids them in their recruitment:
Trump's Sunday appearance before the press played right into this theme. Referring back to
the Iraq War, Trump described as his own view at the time that if the United States was going
into Iraq, it should "keep the oil." As for Syria's oil, he said it can help the Kurds but
"it can help us because we should be able to take some also. And what I intend to do,
perhaps, is make a deal with an Exxon Mobil or one of our great companies to go in there and
do it properly." A propagandist for ISIS or al-Qaeda would hardly have written the script
differently.
Keeping troops in Syria to "take the oil" is divorced from genuine American security
interests just like any other unnecessary military intervention. The president is exposing U.S.
military personnel to unnecessary risk, and he is also putting them in legal jeopardy by
ordering them to commit what is essentially the war crime of pillaging. The president has
managed to take a Syria policy that was already incoherent and chaotic and he has made it even
worse.
I agree with you 100% on Trump and Syrian oil. It is smoke and mirrors forced by the
resistance of the Elites. I think Trump knows - and accepts - that grabbing to oil is not
viable and that the US will be forced eventually to relinquish it, but it would be
domestically too difficult to do so at the moment.
i wonder if they're turkish or usa arms that were given these goons? the usa is being
attacked by weapons that gave to the friendly moderate headchoppers? the irony is rich if
so...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
yeah, perhaps. President Assad has an interesting perspective on occupation ...a
much more profound and apparently longer view (from a recent interview )
Journalist:returning to politics, and to the United States, in particular,
President Donald Trump announced his intention to keep a limited number of his troops in
Syria while redeploying some of them on the Jordanian borders and on the borders of the
Israeli enemy, while some of them will protect the oil fields. What is your position in this
regard, and how will the Syrian state respond to this illegitimate presence
President Assad:Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the
Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is
the same. Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with
the reality. When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we
reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and
say that we will send the army to face the Americans. We are talking about a super power. Do
we have the capabilities to do that? I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians. Do we
choose resistance? If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their
fate in Iraq. But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the
opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of
resistance. The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary
conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to
one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of
certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents
which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents
of foreigners – Syrian traitors. Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with
the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes. We should be dealing with those
Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore
patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors. To
ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a
mere difference over a political issue. We should all be united against occupation. When we
reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they
will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be
able to remain in Syria. This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq
at a later stage. I think this is the right solution
I think Trump has been being loud and blunt about America taking Syria's oil precisely
because he knows that it is neither legal nor viable. If he can establish the narrative that
all it is now about is oil then the US will be forced to do as Trump has wanted all along and
leave Syria.
Reverse psychology.
The role the American President is supposed to be playing for the empire right now
is pushing the narrative of a need for more humanitarian murder and
downplaying/dismissing any suggestion that the US is in Syria for any reason other than pure
altruism. Trump outright stating that the US is going to take the oil is utterly destroying
the only narratives that the US can use to stay in Syria.
That is much more clever than I had ever given Trump credit for being.
> [Lt.Col. Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as
an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to coerce
a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. <
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC staffer
who Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad
construct :
> Any involvement by Mr. Patel in Ukraine issues would signal another attempt by Mr.
Trump's political loyalists to go around American policymakers to shape policy toward Kiev.
<
Former U.S. supplied proxy forces kill other former U.S. supplied proxy forces with U.S.
supplied weapons (video):
Cᴀʟɪʙʀᴇ Oʙsᴄᴜʀᴀ @CalibreObscura -
8:24
PM · Nov 2, 2019
TFSA hitting a YPG/SDF vehicle (Humvee?) with a likely originally US-supplied BGM-71 TOW
ATGM. video
> [Lt.Col. Vindman] told lawmakers that he was deeply troubled by what he interpreted as
an attempt by the president to subvert U.S. foreign policy and an improper attempt to
coerce a foreign government into investigating a U.S. citizen. <
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC
staffer who Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad
construct :
> Any involvement by Mr. Patel in Ukraine issues would signal another attempt by Mr.
Trump's political loyalists to go around American policymakers to shape policy toward Kiev.
<
Former U.S. supplied proxy forces kill other former U.S. supplied proxy forces with U.S.
supplied weapons (video):
Cᴀʟɪʙʀᴇ Oʙsᴄᴜʀᴀ @CalibreObscura
- 8:24 PM · Nov 2,
2019
TFSA hitting a YPG/SDF vehicle (Humvee?) with a likely originally US-supplied BGM-71 TOW
ATGM. video
From Caitlin Johnstone's piece...
"We were told that the US must intervene in Syria because the Syrian government was
massacring its people. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria in order to promote
freedom and democracy in the Middle East. We were told that the US must intervene in Syria
because Assad used chemical weapons. We were told that the US must occupy Syria to fight
ISIS. We were told that the US must continue to occupy Syria to counter Iranian influence. We
were told the US must continue to occupy Syria to protect the Kurds. Now the US must continue
to occupy Syria because of oil."
US is in Syria for Israel. Keeping the Syrian oil now is about covering the cost of US
long term occupation of the Syrian border for Israel.
Now to see if Trump can come out of the Iraq color revolution holding Iraq's oil. Whatever
the outcome in Iraq, the current operation against it has prevented Iraq making any noises
about what US is doing in Syria and US access of border crossings into Syria.
Iran warned months ago it would take further action to free itself from JCPOA restrictions
if Europe was not going to stand up to USA bullying and that is supposed to happen later this
week. That would likely mean the initiation of the "snap back" process to reimpose UN
sanctions.
We should see some sort of resolution of the Israeli election. Netanyahu's former Defense
Minister is the key decision-maker. Will he bend the knee or force a third election?
I might be willing to explore how democracy is being endangered (by endorsing anything) if I
could find any example of democracy beyond a ham-radio club or boy scout patrol.
The deep state, and every state shallow deep or in-between, "limits" democracy... This is
the essence of all states. And this limitation means that the "democracy" is essentially a
fraud, a deception, a ringer, a method of "perception management" - a way of making the mark
believe in the con.
I don't mind this reality, it's normal and probably a good thing (think about it).
But I do object to the implications, such as, inter alia, that democracy exists in reality
on any significant scale, and that it's desirable - and worst of all, that's it's not a
costume - wizard of oz time boys and girls?
You bet... Now go watch the magic show and stop thinking...
Newer estimates bet on USD 1.7 trn -- much less than the earlier ones. The process will be
slow ("very cautious") and it's not disclosed if they will be negotiated at the LSE or Wall
Street.
The capitalists bet on China capitulating to a "capitalist reform" and opening up its
precious productive chains and financial sector to open exploitation by Western capital. It
didn't happen and now they will sack Saudi wealth. Saudi Arabia will have to "take one for
the team"; as a sweetener, they will probably receive nuclear energy technology from the
Americans (a technology which, as we already know, can be adapted to develop nuclear
weapons).
This notion of USA profiting from the oil is a smokescreen. It seems much more likely that
the oil will be used by, any profits received by, whatever local Syrian organization USA
approves of.
Notice that CJ doesn't cite Israel among the many reasons for USA to stay - despite
Trump's having done so (he did!). And, while she attacks USA's evil intentions, she's careful
not to support Assad ( "I'm not an Assadist -- he's a Caitlinist" ).
I see Joshua Landis' twitter says "In 2012, Erdogan asked al Assad to put Muslim Brothers
into his Cabinet. When al Assad refused, the former minister said, Erdogan made clear that he
would back all efforts to remove the president and replace him with Islamists."
"Turkey May Have Stepped Into Its Own 'Endless War' in Syria"
Ok... and now an entirely unrelated coincidence...Cosmic disaster: Massive fire ravages
astronomy center in Turkish capital (VIDEO)
Also worthy of note is Pat Lang's censorship of a comment that made about how bogus
Russiagate and Ukrainegate are.
Both the Left and the Right love the partisan food fight that distracts and entertains the
masses. LOL.
But it wasn't enough to simply delete the comment, he felt it necessary to smear me, first
as a bitter old pensioner, then as a marxist: A
rule about comments and commenters .
Gabbard. I read the OFF act today. Compared to AOC's Green New Deal, my take.
AOC is more mainstream than TG., third-wayer USA style, supports Sanders (OK.. in the pol
landscape..) and is more influential / accepted in the establishment. Gabbard far better, on
anti-war and other.
A brief look at climate + energy.
Both are pie-in-the sky and 'claim' meeting 100 percent of the power demand in the
United States through clean, renewable, and zero-emission energy sources.
AOC p.7.. TG similar.
Both propose an aim of "zero carbon emissions" or "net zero carbon" by 2035. (not the same
thing of course, but much is confused...)
AOC includes very sweeping societal aims (green jobs etc.), international collab,
education, and even:
ensuring a commercial environment where every businessperson is free from unfair
competition and domination by domestic or international monopolies
Heh! in the US?
..but is prudent in its language, the phrase as much as technologically feasible is
used v. often. Ex.
working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove
pollution and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is techno-
logically feasible ..
AOC promotes removing greenhouse gases from the atmosphere aka,'new' carbon
capture tech (p. 9.)
*Vs.* TG, the language is clear, the position hard and logically consistent, a "zero
carbon economy, using only renewable generation by 2035", > all electric, as nuclear power
is also verboten.
/ -- How and where the electric energy is produced, stored, delivered to the end user, is
not addressed by either bills. Both are against nuclear. These are pol. discourses, and not
based on any analysis of 'energy' -- /
TG OFF act is more sympathetic imho in the sense that it details impacts on poor
communities and that these must be adressed, reversed. Many of the points in it are excellent
(but only tangentially linked to energy policy.. or climate..), she wants to stop / reverse
harm, vs. AOC who touts fantastico green jobs.
Jackrabbit "And, while she attacks USA's evil intentions, she's careful not to support Assad
("I'm not an Assadist -- he's a Caitlinist")."
This seems common amongst those that identify as green or progressive and not just on
Syria and Assad. Assange was similar.
Not long back, I was reading the twitter accounts of a few young and foolish journalists that
believed the crap put out by the likes of bellingcrap, so went to Syria to report on the
'revolution'. They ended up featuring in snuff movies but their twitter accounts are still
open.
Robert Reich:
Thanks to Trump's trade wars, US farm bankruptcies in Sept. soared to 24% -- highest level
since 2011. Nearly 40% of projected farm profit this year will come from trade aid,
disaster assistance, & federal subsidies. Farm aid has now cost more than double the
2009 auto bailout.
thanks b! it's always interesting and thought provoking..
regarding the M. K. BHADRAKUMAR article on nord 2, it seems to me that the coming together
of russia and europe is only a matter of time.. as much as the usa would like to impede this,
i can't see them being successful.. fact is russia is a part of europe! trying to keep them
separate can't work.. new world order...
@7 jackrabbit.. i think where you and i differ is in that you will take a shred of truth -
a molehill - and make a mountain out of it.. that's what it looks like with the cj analysis..
i have to say it seems you do the same with the deep state too.. sure there is some truth to
what you say, but i think your conclusions are wrong mostly because who make a mountain out
of a mole hill.. but regardless, i still appreciate how attached you are to your mountains -
but i just don't see it like you..
@12 noirette... thanks for sharing your perspective on all that! it seems to me AOC has
been given the fast track hard sell in the msm, where as TG has been given the cold
shoulder... someone is really preening AOC for future exploitation as i see it.. i could be
wrong.. i have said this before as well..
Forgetful Biden gave an interview with the WSJ. He speaks for Israel. The same Israel's plan
of some 45 years ago: break up the surrounding countries into warring statelets and we can
live and steal in peace; piece by piece.
[.] Leaving troops behind like [Trump's] doing now – he says that what he wants to do
is we're going to occupy the oil fields and we're going to take 'em. That's like a giant
300-foot recruiting poster for ISIS," Biden said, speaking to the Wall Street Journal.[.]
"Russia's position in the region has just been strengthened. [Syrian President
Bashar] Assad's position has been strengthened. Iran now has a pathway all the way to Syria
and even to Lebanon. If I'm the Israelis I'm not going to be very happy about that. So the
whole thing has been turned upside down and we're in there alone now, basically," the
former vice president said.[.]
Timber Sycamore
During his tenure as Barack Obama's vice president, Biden was a key supporter of sending
US arms to the militants fighting against Damascus. He was involved in the Central
Intelligence Agency's classified weapons supply and training programme, known as Timber
Sycamore, which equipped and trained thousands of fighters between 2012 and 2017, when it
was closed down by the Trump administration.
Those lapel flag pins with the stars and stripes should be replaced by the blue and white
star of David flag pins because it is what it is.
Western/Central Europe coming to terms with Russia and settling down for good relations
between neighbours should've been the obvious path back in 1990. I mean, they did it between
UK-France and Germany after 1945, it was only logical that they would do the same with Russia
- I mean, there's less bad blood between them, overall. Of course, countries like Poland
wouldn't be as enthusiastic, for obvious reasons, so it would've been better to come to a
common understanding before the former Soviet bloc joined EU, and definitely way better to
set up some spheres of influence before the Ukraine mess.
Jackrabbit: Pat Lang can be quite the old thin-skinned "Commies - bad" curmudgeon, which
is at best frustrating. On the other hand, I always have a kick at seeing him campaigning for
the dissolution of CIA and FBI, like in his latest post. I get that he's also arguing from an
efficiency point of view, and I'd agree with him about the efficiency gains, even if I'd be
more interested by the mere fact that US agencies would greatly reduced their fucking-up with
the rest of the world, if these agencies were gone for good. Heck, I could live with a USA
with more efficient agencies this way, since it would still mean them having to get rid of
their Full Spectrum Dominance and Global Hegemon wet-dream, and instead focusing on fighting
against clear and present danger and genuine threats against the US as a country, not as a
global economic and political empire. Heck, I'd be already relieved if not glad if the US
went back to Monroe doctrine and were to submit to a reverse-Monroe (as in the US stops
messing with the Old World once and for all and doesn't interfer with any country outside the
Americas).
@14 US farmers appreciate the $28bn aid package and most of them probably still like Trump.
Aid like that would be called socialism if any other country did it.
It struck me how careful she was about not being viewed as supporting Assad ... while the
elevation of Max B. to be the equal of Assange is just an unimportant detail?
MANY journalists that have suffered much worse than Max B. They don't get elevated to
being the equal of Assange. A few of them:
There's the woman who reported about ISIS (I think she was Turkish) who was killed.
There's Hitchens.
There's the woman who just reported on the paper trail of weapons purchased for the
Syrian "rebels". She's from Bulgeria, I think.
There's Khashoggi.
Assange's struggle is for ALL journalists. It's offensive when used to elevate ONE
journalist. Especially, I might add, THIS journalist who 1) has a deep and abiding connection
to Assange's Deep State adversaries and 2) has previously demonstrated his willingness to act
in a way that furthers Deep State goals.
Regarding that post by Pat Lang so derogatory in image illustrating, and following mockery
he made of pensioners who receive their well deserved pension check, I wonder what this man
who during life long benefitted from such a socialist system like the USAF to enjoy a labour
life fixed job , from recruiting to retirement ( whose only requirement was fullfill
orders...) and limitless access to free of charge education, which allowed him once retired
at such privileged ( with respect the rest of working masses ) young age, be able to profit
in the private sector from the knowledge and experience he gained in the public duty, has
against public pensions, being himself beneficciary of one ( at least I have not notice he
has refused it...and I fear it is not meager...) along with a free of charge full coverage
social health system financed by Us taxpayers including those who he makes mockery of.
For the few I know him, he is still angry about the few taxes he has to pay under Trump
rule feeling that some of what he pays could go to this pensioners....Of course, like every
selfish far-right wing in the military, forgetting that it was those pensioners through their
taxes who payed for their education and salary while in the military.
The more I know the man, I have nowhere to catch him from, and it is not only hiss patent
arrogance and bigotry, nad hatred for everything which could sound social, it is the absolute
lack of solidarity with other human beings ( including those who contributed to what he
is...) except those who form his own close circle, unit, or his own, recently reached, upper
class.
To me it smells of a new rich all that way from Virginia to here...Un asco!
Honestly, I can not see that astounding value some here find in his site, unless the
astounding value to extend the Trump presidency for 4 years more...
Has he pronounced himself about the already recognized stealing of Syrian oil recently? No,
there they are he and that Larry Johnson focussed in what more matters ( for them...) the
shenanigans on fake theater ( and they both know it, because of insiders of the IC..)of the
bipartisan mafiosi system which they beneffit from.
Bhadrakumar "The amazing part has been the dogged resistance by Germany to the US pressure
tactic to abandon Nord Stream 2."
Think Deutsche Bank, Volkswagen plus the rest of the crap US has been pulling to keep
Germany down.
German business had to rebel against this at some point.
working collaboratively with farmers and ranchers in the United States to remove pollution
and greenhouse gas emissions from the agricultural sector as much as is techno- logically
feasible ..
Someone needs to get out of their ivory tower once in a while. No diesel, no food. It's as
simple as that, unless farmers return to the days of huge crowds of cheap migrant workers and
millions of horses to pull small-scale equipment. I don't see many windmill and solar
promoters signing up to hoe cotton by hand. I wonder if all those horses would be allowed
because of horse farts. Maybe someone can invent a horse and cow fart collector.
Some of the first farm tractors were huge steam powered beasts. If steam tractors burned
wood pellets, would that be acceptable?. How big a battery it would take to operate a 300 Hp
tractor for 12 or more hours per day - as big as a house?
Well the good news is there is no actual evidence the sky is falling (Correlation is not
Causation). Man-made global warming is like "democracy" and "freedom". If any of these
actually existed, would the propaganda machines have to tell us a hundred times a day, every
day? In the end, reality has a tendency to shred fanciful plans and it doesn't care what
anybody believes.
@ Hoarsewhisperer who wrote at the end of the last Open Thread
"
I can't shake off the suspicion that cosmology is more about beating around the bush and
obfuscation than about fact-finding - especially the more recent Dark Matter trope...
"
I have only had one college course in Astronomy but I found a sure fire way to stop the
cosmologists in their tracks is to posit that Dark Energy and Dark Matter are not just "out
there" but just as much part of us as well...and where are the studies about that stuff in
us?
another climate change denier troll? the science isn't based on a "propaganda machine". you
know what is? the fossil fuel company funded propaganda campaign that pretends the science is
based on correlation.
" US farmers appreciate the $28bn aid package and most of them probably still like Trump.
Aid like that would be called socialism if any other country did it."
- And aid like that would be called socialism by farmers if it went to people with dark
complexions who live in large cities.
@Posted by: Trailer Trash | Nov 3 2019 17:13 utc | 22
Not to mention that all the allegedly "ecologic" measures which have been promoted so far
result equally if not more polluting than the existing ones. As a sample, this article about
the pollution which will come from solar pannels and electric cars batteries and their costs
of production and elimination who will push the carbon footpirnt to stratospheric levels.
The new "ecocapitalism" is a new form of oblying the working masses to change car more
often that they will be able to aforrd due the frozen wages and increasing of prices, and pay
more for basic goods like electricity and water, plus adding taxes that will be difficult to
justify in a coming environment of recession and economic crisis. This is only the new niche
of gainings some "smart" people of always have found to continue increasing their tax of
profit.
@pretzelattack
So, if one asks questions : 1) Is the climate actually changing (warming), rather than going
through a temporary cycle as in the thirties?
2) If there is a climate change is it totally due to human activities, or only partially, or
is it due to natural factors?
3) If the climate changes, ie warms by a degree or two centigrade, is that change a
catastrophic event or is it benign and requiring
minor adaptations by humans?
Does that make one a troll in your estimation?
These remarks about climate change are a reminder that, as a society, we have lost our
ability to reason together. The discussion is poisoned, largely, by vested
interests-including the fossil fuel industry- using enormous amounts of money to prevent us
from reaching conclusions based upon the objective measurement of empirical data and taking
action accordingly.
Instead of reason "the market" rules: the market buys scientists and publicists, controls
presses and dominates the media. In Congress or Parliament it owns majorities.
My guess is that climate change is real and represents a real threat but that ought not to be
a licence for every demagogue and chancer to impose 'solutions' through government or public
pressure. The future of humanity is too important a subject to be left to liars and
narcissists to play with; it is a matter for serious, considered, unpolluted discussion at
every level. In such discussion idiots will be revealed as such, loudmouths discovered to be
empty and irresponsible and the weight of truth, revealed in masses of observations testable
and available for examination, will lead to popular decision making on a matter too important
to be left to others.
Unlike Greyzone reporting, here we are given specific information about Max's arrest,
including the identify the person who made the charge, the statement that they made, and the
alleged existence of video evidence.
<> <> <> <> <> <> <>
And now thegreyzone.com is out with a follow-up to their reporting last week. Aaron
Maté interviews Max B.
Max B.: It's highly unusual, the whole thing is highly unusual, it's an obvious case of
political persecution and it should be a source of outrage but of course we've heard
nothing from the press ngo's. I guess Press Freedom Track, I just saw them say that uh, I
wasn't involved in reporting at the time so I was .. um .. so I don't count; they said
something like that on twitter in a response to Margret Kimberly. So it's revealing to see
the response but it's also encouraging to see the really organic grassroots solidarity that
I'm getting.
Aaron Mate: Well, you were involved in reporting at the time, broadly, 'cause you were
covering that protest; at the time, specifically, of the incident, you were around when
some food was being delivered inside, right?
Max B.: Well, all I can say is that I'm completely innocent, the charges are fake,
they're phony ...
The shadowproof reporting and this dodge from Max B. suggests to me that Max B. had
decided to help outside activists to deliver food to the activists inside. Thus, he had
joined the activists and was no longer acting as a reporter !
Max B.: The second component [the first being the arrest] of how I was treated - that's how
poor people in Washington D.C and across America are typically treated in the criminal
justice system. People were ALL denied phone calls, they were shackled for long periods. We
were held in cages in extremely cold temperatures for long periods ...
Persecution? Nah, just another day in the US criminal justice system.
Even if the charges against him are false, it's not clear that this is really a matter of
press freedom.
Peter...re the reason for US troops staying Syria...
I think the Al Tanf presence is for Israel's benefit...
But in northeast Syria I think another dynamic is at play...I think Trump really wanted to
get out completely and I think he still does...but he simply has not had the power to pull
this off...
The entire 'foreign policy' establishment plus their media servants went totally berserk
and Trump had to walk back at least some of his plan...
I don't think Syria's oil has much to do with it...Trump simply latched onto that [quick
improvisation there] to justify his reversal to his own base that is feeling frustrated that
their hero can't even fulfill one of his major promises...
As for the establishment's idea for Syria, I think it has more to do with the Kurds...they
are howling about 'betraying' the Kurds...but really it is about USING the Kurds for their
own dream of partitioning Syria...
They just can't let go of that...even as the taillights get dimmer and dimmer in the
distance...these people are not big on reality...
Plus, they do see a situation with the Kurds that they can exploit...some among the Kurds,
like their military commander Mazloum Abdi are totally devoted to the US and will play a
willing spoiler role in the northeast if given half a chance...
If this opportunity to continue at some level with the Kurds was not there, the US
military command would not go along with a harebrained scheme like staying in a region of
Syria that is now more or less controlled by the Syrian government...the shrunken US
footprint means you are isolated and really quite meaningless...
So the situation is still in flux...but here's the thing...the Kurdish political
leadership is a little smarter than people like Mazloum...they see that they have already
lost huge swaths of their heartland to Turkey...not just in the latest incursion, but also
Afrin before that and Euphrates Shield etc...
They realize they will lose everything if they do not start playing ball...with Russia
especially, the only honest broker in Syria...
So today we have a
report that a joint SDF-Russian 'coordination and operations center' has been established
in northern Raqqa province...
Notably, the SAA isn't included in this...probably at the insistence of the SDF, which
like I said is still not on board with reconciling with the SAA...although we note that in
the periphery of the Turkish 'Peace Spring' incursion zone the SDF fighters are fighting
alongside the SAA to repel Turkish-backed militants...
SAA has now also moved heavy weapons to the vicinity of the Ras al Ayn border town which
is in Turkish hands...
So the dynamics of the fighting are already forcing the SDF to throw in their lot with the
SAA...at some point the break will come and the shrinking US influence in the area is not
going to be worth anything tangible to the SDF fighters...
We see also that the US has now evacuated its biggest base with the longest airfield...
Sarrin...
That's where that huge convoy of empty trucks headed to...
So the situation on the ground does not bode well for some kind of continuing partnership
between the SDF and the remaining US forces...especially as the SAA consolidates its control
over the areas in which it has already entered...
So the way I see it, this is a desperate Hail Mary from the die-harders in the
regime-change business...they are grasping at straws, literally...the US footprint has
already shrunk so dramatically, and the SAA footprint taken its place that there is no going
back...
For now the US still have some support among the SDF fighters, as exemplified by that
Mazloum character...but as things progress neither the Kurd population in general, nor the
Arabs in the area are going to continue partnering with the US...for the simple reason that
the US has nothing to offer them...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
That the WaPo scribe lets it stand without pointing out that, constitutionally, the
president sets foreign policies is even worse. An earlier NYT piece about an NSC staffer who
Trump likes and had asked about the Ukraine had a similar bad construct
As Rumsfeld once claimed, "We create our own reality". However there is nothing real about
that so-called reality. More accurate would be "We create our own fantasy, are deluded by it,
and cling desperately to our belief in the reality of it".
@31 flankerbandit.. good overview.. i tend to see it in a similar manner.. thanks!
i got a kick out of one of the commenters on that southfront link -
"Latest News: Even though Vladimir Putin has promised to withdraw all Russian troops from
the US, Russian forces still does not want to leave the US completely, arguing that it wants
to secure oil fields in Texas from ISIS supported by Canada and Mexico, while helping Indians
and Indian Democratic Forces (IDF) who did not want to rejoin the US government and refused
an offer to dissolve the IDF and join the US army. Although initially Russian troops stopped
their support for the IDF.
Wait, there seems to be something wrong with this news! :)"
These remarks about climate change are a reminder that, as a society, we have lost our
ability to reason together. The discussion is poisoned, largely, by vested
interests-including the fossil fuel industry- using enormous amounts of money to prevent us
from reaching conclusions based upon the objective measurement of empirical data and taking
action accordingly.
Posted by: bevin | Nov 3 2019 18:37 utc | 29
Thanks for your well articulated remarks, Bevin. Climate-change science is not something
that can be researched by every Tom Dick and Harry in their kitchen, but, well, some people
still think they can. As a very wise person once remarked: The fool who thinks he is wise is
a fool indeed; but the fool who knows he is a fool, to that extent at least is wise.
Posted by: flankerbandit | Nov 3 2019 18:43 utc | 31
I agree with you 100% on Trump and Syrian oil. It is smoke and mirrors forced by the
resistance of the Elites. I think Trump knows - and accepts - that grabbing to oil is not
viable and that the US will be forced eventually to relinquish it, but it would be
domestically too difficult to do so at the moment.
i wonder if they're turkish or usa arms that were given these goons? the usa is being
attacked by weapons that gave to the friendly moderate headchoppers? the irony is rich if
so...
And as soon as the SDF fighters make that final break from the US...then it's game
over...it is really inevitable...the die is already cast...
yeah, perhaps. President Assad has an interesting perspective on occupation ...a
much more profound and apparently longer view (from a recent interview )
Journalist:returning to politics, and to the United States, in particular,
President Donald Trump announced his intention to keep a limited number of his troops in
Syria while redeploying some of them on the Jordanian borders and on the borders of the
Israeli enemy, while some of them will protect the oil fields. What is your position in this
regard, and how will the Syrian state respond to this illegitimate presence
President Assad:Regardless of these statements, the reality is that the
Americans are occupiers, whether they are in the east, the north or the south, the result is
the same. Once again, we should not be concerned with his statements, but rather deal with
the reality. When we are finished with the areas according to our military priorities and we
reach an area in which the Americans are present, I am not going to indulge in heroics and
say that we will send the army to face the Americans. We are talking about a super power. Do
we have the capabilities to do that? I believe that this is clear for us as Syrians. Do we
choose resistance? If there is resistance, the fate of the Americans will be similar to their
fate in Iraq. But the concept of resistance needs a popular state of mind that is the
opposite of being agents and proxies, a patriotic popular state which carries out acts of
resistance. The natural role of the state in this case is to provide all the necessary
conditions and necessary support to any popular resistance against the occupier. If we put to
one side the colonial and commercial American mentality which promotes the colonization of
certain areas for money, oil and other resources, we must not forget that the main agents
which brought the Americans, the Turks and others to this region are Syrians acting as agents
of foreigners – Syrian traitors. Dealing with all the other cases is just dealing with
the symptoms, while we should be addressing the causes. We should be dealing with those
Syrians and try to reformulate the patriotic state of the Syrian society – to restore
patriotism, restore the unity of opinion and ensure that there are no Syrian traitors. To
ensure that all Syrians are patriots, and that treason is no longer a matter of opinion, a
mere difference over a political issue. We should all be united against occupation. When we
reach this state, I assure you that the Americans will leave on their own accord because they
will have no opportunity to remain in Syria; although America is a superpower, it will not be
able to remain in Syria. This is something we saw in Lebanon at a certain point and in Iraq
at a later stage. I think this is the right solution
>Does that make one a troll in your estimation?
> Posted by: erik | Nov 3 2019 18:05 utc | 27
As in any religion, questions are not allowed. The constant shouting about oil company
anti-"The Sky Is Falling" campaigns is particularly silly. I have never seen a single ad or
even a spokesman on TV or radio saying man-made global warming isn't real. Not this year. Not
last year. Not ever. Global warming promoters have a giant podium and use it all day every
day to shout that they have no voice and drown out everyone else. It's not a good look.
I am no fan of oil companies. I very much resent that people who happen to live on top of
the oil are exposed to sometimes awful conditions. There's no need to make a mess, and not
cleaning up after oneself, harming people in the process, is unforgivable. That's something
oil company managers should have learned in kindergarten.
Currently there is no way to replace petroleum in many applications. People burning whale
oil lamps while watching whale populations decline knew they needed a better way, but would
have had no way to predict that better way would be petroleum. Funding basic research might
find a better way. Building more useless low-density intermittent windmills won't move
anybody off petroleum, except in a few unique situations.
I think Trump has been being loud and blunt about America taking Syria's oil precisely
because he knows that it is neither legal nor viable. If he can establish the narrative that
all it is now about is oil then the US will be forced to do as Trump has wanted all along and
leave Syria.
Reverse psychology.
The role the American President is supposed to be playing for the empire right now
is pushing the narrative of a need for more humanitarian murder and
downplaying/dismissing any suggestion that the US is in Syria for any reason other than pure
altruism. Trump outright stating that the US is going to take the oil is utterly destroying
the only narratives that the US can use to stay in Syria.
That is much more clever than I had ever given Trump credit for being.
>the weight of truth, revealed in masses of observations
> testable and available for examination, will lead to popular
> decision making on a matter too important to be left to others.
> Posted by: bevin | Nov 3 2019 18:37 utc | 29
Yes, actual observations, please, instead of models that don't work. The paleo record
seems to show that temperatures rise before CO2 increases. The modern record shows no
correlation, as in the recent multiyear "pause" in warming while CO2 was steady
increasing.
Claims that global warming causes every kind of unpleasant weather are silly. Too hot, too
cold, too wet, too dry, more snow, less snow, it's all caused by an increase in a trace
molecule. If the weather is unpleasant, it's "carbon". If the weather is good, there's no
comment. That's not very scientific.
regarding "securing syrian oil" - I'd say it was always more about blocking a possible
Iraq-Syria pipeline, which would give Iraq and potentially Iran a route to the Mediterranean
without either Saudi Arabia or Turkey or perhaps a Kurdistan being in the way.
flankerbandit
I have tossed this around myself when thinking about what is happening.
"I don't think Syria's oil has much to do with it...Trump simply latched onto that [quick
improvisation there] to justify his reversal to his own base that is feeling frustrated that
their hero can't even fulfill one of his major promises..."
Ending endless wars, expensive wars, bring the troops home, vs extra US military spending,
vetoing the congress resolution to pull out of the Yemen war, then there is the US deep state
aspect. And then Trumps past statements on the countries US has attacked.
Easy enough to pass off as as a person no deeper than his twitter persona for the seeming
inconsistencies.
Trump is overturning the norms or what developed as norms in the post WWII era. One of those
norms is that the US must try to give an appearance of moral leadership of the world.
Thinking outside the box of the post WWII era, a strategy can be seen in what Trump is
doing.
When it comes to foreign policy, Trumps focus is on oil and Israel. China ties in with the
focus on oil. Russia may well block what I believe to be Trump's strategy in the middle east
and if they do, I may never know for sure if I am right or wrong about the Trump admins
intentions.
But at the moment, I have to take it that Trump's moves are based around 'energy dominance'
and that includes owning other countries oil.
What you posit echoes what Climatologist Michael Mann wrote in Climate Wars .
In Assad's recent interview, on the Outlaw US Empire's illegal occupation and theft of
Syrian property, he's willing to be patient and take care of those areas Syria and its allies
can return to the national fold. Russia, Iran and Assad are all on the same page and of the
same mind when it comes to dealing with the illegal occupation, which they know is untenable
in the long run. In fact, it actually serves an excellent purpose in providing the impetus
for nations to dedollarize and beware of accepting any sort of aid it offers--this is
particularly important in Africa and Latin America. Monthly like clockwork, Lavrov or another
top Russian official calls for the Outlaw US Empire to remove its illegally deployed troops,
which reminds the world of what the Outlaw US Empire is and its aims being opposite of its
rhetoric--Truth is far more potent than propaganda.
"... Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other main rival in the region, Damascus. ..."
Before the evacuation of 1,000 American troops from northern
Syria to western Iraq, the Pentagon had 2,000 US forces in Syria.
After the drawdown of US
troops at Erdogan's insistence in order for Ankara to mount a ground offensive in northern Syria,
the US has still deployed 1,000 troops, mainly in oil-rich eastern Deir al-Zor province and
at al-Tanf military base.
Al-Tanf military base is strategically located in southeastern Syria on the border between Syria,
Iraq and Jordan, and it straddles on a critically important Damascus-Baghdad highway, which
serves as a lifeline for Damascus.
Washington has illegally occupied 55-kilometer area around
al-Tanf since 2016, and several hundred US Marines have trained several Syrian militant groups there.
It's worth noting that rather than fighting the Islamic State, the purpose of continued presence
of the US forces at al-Tanf military base is to address Israel's concerns regarding the expansion of
Iran's influence in Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.
Regarding the oil- and natural gas-rich Deir al-Zor governorate, it's worth pointing out
that Syria used to produce modest quantities of oil for domestic needs before the war – roughly 400,000
barrels per day, which isn't much compared to tens of millions barrels daily oil production in the
Gulf states.
Although Donald Trump crowed in a characteristic blunt manner in a tweet after the withdrawal of
1,000 American troops from northern Syria that Washington had deployed forces in eastern Syria where
there was oil,
the purpose of exercising control over Syria's oil is neither to smuggle oil
out of Syria nor to deny the valuable source of revenue to the Islamic State.
There is no denying the fact that the remnants of the Islamic State militants are still found in
Syria and Iraq but its emirate has been completely dismantled in the region and its leadership is on
the run. So much so that the fugitive caliph of the terrorist organization was killed in the bastion
of a rival jihadist outfit, al-Nusra Front in Idlib, hundreds of kilometers away from the Islamic State
strongholds in eastern Syria.
Much like the "scorched earth" battle strategy of medieval warlords – as in the case of the Islamic
State which early in the year burned crops of local farmers while retreating from its former strongholds
in eastern Syria –
Washington's basic purpose in deploying the US forces in oil and
natural gas fields of Deir al-Zor governorate is to deny the valuable source of income to its other
main rival in the region, Damascus.
After the devastation caused by eight years of proxy war, the Syrian government is in dire need
of tens of billions dollars international assistance to rebuild the country. Not only is Washington
hampering efforts to provide international aid to the hapless country, it is in fact squatting over
Syria's own resources with the help of its only ally in the region, the Kurds.
Although Donald Trump claimed credit for expropriating Syria's oil wealth, it bears mentioning
that "scorched earth" policy is not a business strategy, it is the institutional logic of the deep
state.
President Trump is known to be a businessman and at least ostensibly follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the craft of international diplomacy, however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and Washington's national security establishment.
Regarding Washington's interest in propping up the Gulf's autocrats and fighting their wars in regional
conflicts, it bears mentioning that in April 2016, the Saudi foreign minister
threatened
that the Saudi kingdom would sell up to $750 billion in treasury securities and other
assets if the US Congress passed a bill that would allow Americans to sue the Saudi government in the
United States courts for its role in the September 11, 2001 terror attack – though the bill was eventually
passed, Saudi authorities have not been held accountable; even though 15 out of 19 9/11 hijackers were
Saudi nationals.
Moreover, $750 billion is only the Saudi investment in the United States, if we add its investment
in Western Europe and the investments of UAE, Kuwait and Qatar in the Western economies, the sum total
would amount to trillions of dollars of Gulf's investments in North America and Western Europe.
Furthermore, in order to bring home the significance of the Persian Gulf's oil in the energy-starved
industrialized world, here are a few stats from the OPEC data:
Saudi Arabia has the world's
largest proven crude oil reserves of 265 billion barrels and its daily oil production exceeds 10 million
barrels; Iran and Iraq, each, has 150 billion barrels reserves and has the capacity to produce 5 million
barrels per day, each; while UAE and Kuwait, each, has 100 billion barrels reserves and produces 3
million barrels per day, each; thus, all the littoral states of the Persian Gulf, together, hold 788
billion barrels, more than half of world's 1477 billion barrels of proven oil reserves.
No wonder then, 36,000 United States troops have currently been deployed in their numerous military
bases and aircraft carriers in the oil-rich Persian Gulf in accordance with the Carter Doctrine of
1980, which states: "Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of the United
States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary, including military
force."
Additionally, regarding the Western defense production industry's sales of arms to the Gulf Arab
States,
a report
authored
by William Hartung of the US-based Center for International Policy found that the Obama administration
had offered Saudi Arabia more than $115 billion in weapons, military equipment and training during
its eight-year tenure.
Similarly, the top items in Trump's agenda for his maiden visit to Saudi Arabia in May 2017 were:
firstly, he threw his weight behind the idea of the Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to counter Iran's influence
in the region; and secondly, he announced an unprecedented arms package for Saudi Arabia. The package
included between $98 billion and $128 billion in arms sales.
Therefore, keeping the economic dependence of the Western countries on the Gulf Arab States in mind,
during the times of global recession when most of manufacturing has been outsourced to China, it is
not surprising that when the late King Abdullah of Saudi Arabia decided to provide training and arms
to the Islamic jihadists in the border regions of Turkey and Jordan against the government of Bashar
al-Assad in Syria, the Obama administration was left with no other choice but to toe the destructive
policy of its regional Middle Eastern allies, despite the sectarian nature of the proxy war and its
attendant consequences of breeding a new generation of Islamic jihadists who would become a long-term
security risk not only to the Middle East but to the Western countries, as well.
Similarly, when King Abdullah's successor King Salman decided, on the whim of the Crown Prince Mohammad
bin Salman, to invade Yemen in March 2015, once again the Obama administration had to yield to the
dictates of Saudi Arabia and UAE by fully coordinating the Gulf-led military campaign in Yemen not
only by providing intelligence, planning and logistical support but also by selling billions of dollars'
worth of arms and ammunition to the Gulf Arab States during the conflict.
In this reciprocal relationship, the US provides security to the ruling families of the Gulf Arab
states by providing weapons and troops; and in return, the Gulf's petro-sheikhs contribute substantial
investments to the tune of hundreds of billions of dollars to the Western economies.
Regarding the Pax Americana which is the reality of the contemporary neocolonial order,
according to a January 2017
infographic
by the New York Times, 210,000 US military personnel were stationed all over the world,
including 79,000 in Europe, 45,000 in Japan, 28,500 in South Korea and 36,000 in the Middle East.
Although Donald Trump keeps complaining that NATO must share the cost of deployment of US troops,
particularly in Europe where 47,000 American troops are stationed in Germany since the end of the Second
World War, 15,000 in Italy and 8,000 in the United Kingdom, fact of the matter is that the cost is
already shared between Washington and host countries.
Roughly, European countries pay one-third of the cost for maintaining US military bases in Europe
whereas Washington chips in the remaining two-third. In the Far Eastern countries, 75% of the cost
for the deployment of American troops is shared by Japan and the remaining 25% by Washington, and in
South Korea, 40% cost is shared by the host country and the US contributes the remaining 60%.
Whereas the oil-rich Gulf Cooperation Countries (GCC) – Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait and Qatar – pay
two-third of the cost for maintaining 36,000 US troops in the Persian Gulf where more than half of
world's proven oil reserves are located and Washington contributes the remaining one-third.
* * *
Nauman Sadiq is an Islamabad-based attorney, columnist and geopolitical analyst focused on the
politics of Af-Pak and Middle East regions, neocolonialism and petro-imperialism.
I am always amazed (and amused) at
how much smarter "journalists" are
than POTUS. If ONLY Mr. Trump would
read more and listen to those who
OBVIOUSLY are sooo much smarter!!!!
Maybe then he wouldn't be cowed and
bullied by Erdogan, Xi, Jung-on,
Trudeau (OK so maybe that one was
too far fetched) to name a few.
Please note the sarcasm. Do I really
need to go in to the success after
success Mr. Trump's foreign policy
has enjoyed? Come on Man.
What a load of BOLOCKS...The ONLY, I
mean The Real and True Reason for
American Armored presence is one
thing,,,,,,,Ready for IT ? ? ? To
Steal as much OIL as Possible, AND
convert the Booty into Currency,
Diamonds or some other intrinsically
valuable commodity, Millions of
Dollars at a Time......17 Years of
Shadows and Ghost Trucks and Tankers
Loading and Off-Loading the Black
Gold...this is what its all
about......M-O-N-E-Y....... Say It
With Me.... Mon-nee, Money Money
Mo_on_ne_e_ey, ......
From the sale of US oil in Syria
receive 30 million. dollars per
month. Image losses are immeasurably
greater. The United States put the
United States as a robbery bandit.
This is American democracy. The
longer the troops are in Syria, the
more countries will switch to
settlements in national currencies.
"Our interests", "strategic
interests" is always about money,
just a euphemism so it doesn't
look as greedy as it is. Another
euphemism is "security' ,meaning
war preparations.
...The military power of the USA
put directly in the service of "the
original TM" PIRATE STATE.
U are
the man Norm! But wait... now things
get a little hazy... in the
classic... 'alt0media fake
storyline' fashion!
"President Trump is known to be a
businessman and at least ostensibly
follows a non-interventionist
ideology; being a novice in the
craft of international diplomacy,
however, he has time and again been
misled by the Pentagon and
Washington's national security
establishment."
Awww! Poor "DUmb as Rocks
Donnie" done been fooled agin!
...In the USA... the military men
are stirring at last... having been
made all too aware that their
putative 'boss' has been operating
on behalf of foreign powers ever
since being [s]elected, that the
State Dept of the once Great
Republic has been in active cahoots
with the jihadis ...
and that those who were sent over
there to fight against the
headchoppers discovered that the
only straight shooters in the whole
mess turned out to be the Kurds who
AGENT FRIMpf THREW UNDER THE BUS
ON INSTRUCTIONS FROM JIHADI HQ!
Arguably some of the most significant events since the eight-year long war's start have played out in Syria with rapid pace over
just the last month alone, including Turkey's military incursion in the north, the US pullback from the border and into Syria's oil
fields, the Kurdish-led SDF&# deal making with Damascus, and the death of ISIS leader Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi. All of this is why a
televised interview with Presiden39;st Bashar Assad was highly anticipated at the end of this week.
Assad's commentary on the latest White House policy to "secure the oil" in Syria, for which US troops have already been redeployed
to some of the largest oil fields in the Deir Ezzor region, was the biggest pressing question. The Syrian president's response was
unexpected and is now driving headlines, given what he said directly about Trump, calling him the "best American president" ever
– because he's the "most transparent."
"When it comes to Trump you may ask me a question and I'll give you an answer which might seem strange. I tell you he's the best
American president," Assad said, according to a
translation provided by NBC.
"Why? Not because his policies are good, but because he is the most transparent president," Assad continued.
"All American presidents commit crimes and end up taking the Nobel Prize and appear as a defender of human rights and the 'unique'
and 'brilliant' American or Western principles. But all they are is a group of criminals who only represent the interests of the
American lobbies of large corporations in weapons, oil and others," he added.
"Trump speaks with the transparency to say 'We want the oil'." Assad's unique approach to an 'enemy' head of state which has just
ordered the seizure of Syrian national resources also comes after in prior years the US president called Assad "our enemy" and an
"animal."
Trump tweeted in April 2018 after
a new chemical attack allegation had surfaced: "If President Obama had crossed his stated Red Line In The Sand, the Syrian disaster
would have ended long ago! Animal Assad would have been history!"
A number of mainstream outlets commenting on Assad's interview falsely presented it as "praise" of Trump or that Assad thinks
"highly" of him; however,
it appears the Syrian leader was merely presenting Trump's policy statements from a 'realist' perspective , contrasting them from
the misleading 'humanitarian' motives typical of Washington's rhetoric about itself.
That is, Damascus sees US actions in the Middle East as motivated fundamentally by naked imperial ambition, a constant prior theme
of Assad's speeches , across administrations, whether US leadership dresses it up as 'democracy promotion' or in humanitarian terms
characteristic of liberal interventionism. As Assad described, Trump seems to skip dressing up his rhetoric in moralistic idealism
altogether, content to just unapologetically admit the ugly reality of US foreign policy.
I see Americans keep calling Assad and Putin a ''dictator'' Hey, jackasses, they were ELECTED in elections far less corrupt than what you have in the USSA
Assad is a very eloquent speaker. Witty, sharp and always calm when speaking with decadent press. Of course the MSM understood
what he DID mean, but they cannot help themselves, but parse anything to try hurting Trump.
If true. It means the Vatican (the oldest most important money there is) like Saudi Arabia and the UAE sure do seem to care
about stuff like purchasing power in their "portfolios" and a "store of value"?...
I see lots of EU participants taking their money to Moscow as well with that Arctic bonanza that says "come hither" if you
want your money to be worth something!!!
It's always been about oil. Spreading Freedumb, Dumbocracy and Western values, is PR spiel. The reality is, the West are scammers,
plunderers and outright thieves. Forget the billions Shell Oil, is holding for the Biafran people/region in Nigeria, which it
won't give to either the Bianfran states in the east, nor the Nigerian government, dating back to the secessionist state of Biafra/Nigerian civil war 1967-70. The west are nothing more than gang-bangers, but on the world stage.
Yet the department for trade and industry is scratching its head, wondering why their are so few takers for a post-Brexit trade
deal with the UK, where the honest UK courts have the final say? lol
Too bad it is political suicide for an American president to try to establish communication with Assad. He seems like a pretty
practical guy and who knows, it might be possible to work out a peaceful settlement with him.
economic warfare on the syrian civlian population through illegal confiscation of vital civilian economic assets, and as conducted
in venezeula, is called ________________
Assad is saying where before the UKK was a masked thief, with Trompas and his egotism alias exceptionalism, has not bothered
withthe mask. He is still a murderer and thief.
Now Assad has some idea why Trump is so popular with his base, they love him for not being politically correct, for "telling
it like it is". He's like the wolf looking at the sheep and telling them he's going to eat them and the sheep cheering because
he's not being a wolf in sheep's clothing.
Unfortunately in the case of Trump's sheeple, they don't even have a clue they're going to be eaten, the Trumptards all think
he's going to eat someone else like the "deep state" or the "dumbocrats". Meanwhile he's chewing away at their health care, their
export markets, piling up record deficits, handing the tax gold to the rich and corporations while they get the shaft, taking
away program after program that aided students, the poor, and the elderly, appointing lobbyists to dismantle or corrupt departments
they used to lobby against, and in general destroying the international good will that it's taken decades to build.
Good historical rundown of
Uncle Sam's blatant theft of resources in Syria .. has historical precedent too I believe;
the wars in Southeast Asia (the golden triangle and the drug trade). Afghanistan (heroin and
the poppies); imagine, we come and destroy your country and then steal your resources in the
aftermath. Sickening
@joost #33 I like to think that Trump's saying that the US army are going to steal Syria's
oil is very much the same strategy. What better way to turn world opinion against US
occupation of Syria?
Good historical rundown of
Uncle Sam's blatant theft of resources in Syria .. has historical precedent too I believe;
the wars in southeast asia (the golden triangle and the drug trade). Afghanistan (heroin and
the poppies); imagine, we come and destroy your country and then steal your resources in the
aftermath. Sickening
@49 Tim Glover. Exactly, imagine Obama saying that. Trump seems to have a habit of using
reverse psychology on people. This strategy works very well when nobody likes you and you
have the power of Twitter at your disposal.
People tend to overestimate the power of the US president. Every one of them, being democrat
or republican, gets assimilated by the borg. Resistance is futile, unless you are perceived
to be an idiot and do just enough to please your overlords. The Borg likes what he says, "we
are there for the oil" and they are getting reckless, exposing themselves for what they are.
Group think distorts perception and that is their weak spot. The borg will get more open
about their crimes and their true intentions. This breaks global support for the petrodollar
and that will be the end of the "outlaw" US empire.
I am surprised that I've not seen any commentary regarding the US's announcement that they
will continue to steal Syria's oil, and more importantly what anyone - Syria, Russia or
anyone else - might do about this blatant crime.
Clearly this challenges Syria's sovereignty as well as Russia's declared aim to restore
Syrian territory in full.
Any thoughts how this situation might evolve? IMO Russia has to remain a facilitator
rather than an actor. A "no-fly zone" enforced by Syrians and SAA ground troops?
Stripes: Carolina Army Guard troops move into eastern Syria with Bradley Fighting Vehicles
WASHINGTON – National Guard members from North and South Carolina began moving into
eastern Syria with heavy armored vehicles on Thursday as part of the Pentagon's new mission
to secure oil fields wrestled from the Islamic State, a military spokesman said.
Soldiers with the North Carolina-based 4th Battalion, 118th Infantry Regiment and the
South Carolina-based 218th Maneuver Enhancement Brigade were deployed to Deir al-Zour to
protect American-held oil fields around that city, Army Col. Myles Caggins, the spokesmen
for the U.S.-led anti-ISIS mission known as Operation Inherent Resolve, tweeted Thursday.
Caggins' tweet included photos of soldiers loading M2A2 Bradley Fighting Vehicles onto Air
Force C-17 Globemaster cargo jets to be used on the mission. . . .
For now, the new deployment will not include M1 Abrams tanks, the Pentagon official said
Thursday.
here
Why use regulars when we can call up the National Guard?
US hold on the oilfields depends mostly on Iraq. The oilfields of Deir Ezzor are in open
country with few towns and apart from the Euphrates flood plain is sparsely populated.
The only cover for guerrilla style attacks against US or its proxies on the oilfields will
be the occasional dust storm.
Apart from Iraq, syria setting up S-300 at deir Ezzor and taking control of the airspace
would also be a game changer but this may not happen.
Lebanon and Iraq are both undergoing US color revolutions at the moment so its a matter of
waiting for the dust to settle on both these moves to see where US is positioned in the
region.
Yet the US military is overwhelmingly the #1 most trusted US institution among Americans,
despite it forcibly wasting their hard earned money to kill tens of millions of innocents
abroad. At the same time the US is also filled to the brim with draft dodgers.
If anybody thinks Bolton and his chickenhawking buddies isn't representative of the whole
US, think again.
Don Bacon 73 "Really? I thought the protests were like many other protests around the world,
over economic issues."
As was the Syrian 'revolution'. Plenty of small US companies willing to go in. US already
has buyers as they have been shipping oil out of east Syria for some time. Turkey, Israel ect
plus many more willing to buy at a discount. And considering the oilfields are simply stolen,
oil can be sold at a discount.
MOSCOW, October 26, 2019 – RIA Novosti – The Russian Ministry of Defense has
published satellite intelligence images , showing American oil smuggling from Syria.
Image 1: Situation in the Syrian Arab Republic as of October 26, 2019.
According to the ministry, the photos confirm that "Syrian oil, both before and after the
routing defeat of the Islamic State terrorists in land beyond the Euphrates river , under the
reliable protection by US military servicemen, oil was actively being extracted and then the
fuel trucks were massively being sent for processing outside of Syria."
Image 2: Daman oil gathering station, Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 42 km east of Deir
ez-Zor, August 23, 2019.
Here, in a picture of the Daman oil gathering station (42 kilometers east of the Deir-ez-Zor
province), taken on August 23, a large amount of trucks were spotted. "There were 90 automotive
vehicles, including 23 fuel trucks," the caption to the image said.
In addition, on September 5, there were 25 vehicles in the Al-Hasakah province, including 22
fuel trucks. Three days later, on September 8, in the vicinity of Der Ez-Zor, 36 more vehicles
were recorded (32 of them were fuel trucks). On the same day, 41 vehicles, including 34 fuel
trucks, were in the Mayadin onshore area.
Image 3: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Al-Hasakah province, 8 km west of Al-Shaddadi,
September 5, 2019.
As the official representative of the Defense Ministry Igor Konashenkov noted, the Americans
are extracting oil in Syria with the help of equipment, bypassing their own sanctions.
Igor Konashenkov:
"Under the protection of American military servicemen and employees of American PMCs, fuel
trucks from the oil fields of Eastern Syria are smuggling to other states. In the event of
any attack on such a caravan, special operations forces and US military aircraft are
immediately called in to protect it," he said.
According to Konashenkov, the US-controlled company Sadcab , established under the so-called
Autonomous Administration of Eastern Syria , is engaged in the export of oil, and the income of
smuggling goes to the personal accounts of US PMCs and special forces.
The Major General added that as of right now, a barrel of smuggled Syrian oil is valued at
$38, therefore the monthly revenue of US governmental agencies exceeds $30 million.
Image 4: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 10 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
"For such a continuous financial flow, free from control and taxes of the American
government, the leadership of the Pentagon and Langley will be ready to guard and defend oil
fields in Syria from the mythical 'hidden IS cells' endlessly," he said.
According to Konashenkov, Washington, by holding oil fields in eastern Syria, is engaged in
international state banditry.
Image 5: Gathering of vehicles in Syria, Deir ez-Zor province, 14 km east of Mayadin,
September 8, 2019.
The reason for this activity, he believes, "lies far from the ideals of freedom proclaimed
by Washington and their slogans on the fight against terrorism."
Igor Konashenkov:
"Neither in international law, nor in American legislation itself – there is not and
cannot be a single legal task for the American troops to protect and defend the hydrocarbon
deposits of Syria from Syria itself and its own people, " the representative of the Defense
Ministry concluded.
A day earlier, the Pentagon's head, Mark Esper declared that the United States is studying
the situation in the Deir ez-Zor region and intends to strengthen its positions there in the
near future "to ensure the safety of oil fields."
The Ruskies are mad - Trump is stopping them from taking the oil, it belongs to the Kurds
for their revenue and if US wants to help them have it so what....US is staying to secure
those oilfields against ISIS taking it again!
If everyone listened to the President when he talks there wouldn't be any spin that anyone
could get away with.
The oil is on Kurdish land. This part of Syria is just a small sector of Kurdish territory
that has been stolen from them by dividing it between four "countries", each of which has
oil. This is why the territory was stolen and why the Kurds have become the world's best
fighters.
Putin brokered a deal to stop Turkey wiping the Kurds by having their fighting force
assimilate with the Syrian military and required Russian observers access to ensure the Turks
keep their word and not invade to wipe all the Kurd civilians in order to also take their
Syrian oil.
So the corrupt US generals get caught in the act. Their senators and reps on the payroll
are going to need some more of that fairy tale PR for POTUS to read to us at bedtime.
If we are to believe that this is to protect the oil fields then the oil revenue should be
going to Syria, even though the Kurds are on the land. Follow the money to find the truth
because there is no one you can trust on this stage.
MSM are simply not covering this story. Or the other story about the supposed gas attack
at Douma where evidence was adulterated and/or ignored completely under US pressure.
Expect the same from MH17.
WTF is going on with our leaders and corporate MSM....can no one in a leadership position
distinguish between lies and the truth? Or fantasy and reality? Where are the 'journalists'
who will stand up and tell the truth in MSM? They no longer exist.
18 wheel fuel trucks around here hold 10K gal. 50 truck loads 500K of un processed oil if
it's true? I though they just got there. but no telling who might steal under those
conditions.
That was August. this is now. The Russians must have really wanted that oil to finance
their occupation. Trump is preventing ISIS from using the oil as their piggy bank.
Wasn't Erdogan doing the same not too long ago? Shortly after Erdogan became close friends
with Putin. Does this mean Trump and Putin will become close friends as well? Or is this
simply a common practice between two people who undeservingly place relatives in government
positions? First Turkey hands over Al Baghdadi (he received medical treatment in Southern
Turkey in a private clinic owned by Erdogan's daughter guarded by MIT agents) so that they
can continue to commit genocide against Kurds in Turkey and Syria... and now the US is
stealing Syrian oil like how the Turks initially were doing. What a mess and a
disappointment. Hopefully Erdogan visits DC and unleashes his security guards beating any
person freely walking the streets while Trump smiles and describes him as a great leader.
Watch in coming weeks as the tanker convoys are proven to be rogue operations from an out
of control CIA / Cabal network. Trump removed the troops, and now Russia is shining a light
on it.
No coincidence another article on ZH brung attention to the Ukrainian wareehouse arsos..12
in 2 yrs..2017-2018 where stored munition were carted away...not to fight rebels n Donbass
but sold to Islamic groups in Syria..it was one of Bidens pals..one keeps the wars going
while the others steal siphon of resources..whatever isn't nailed down..I've never seen
anything like this..Democrats are truly CRIME INC
w/o that oil..Syria can never reconstruct itself..Usually in a War or ,after that is, the
victors help rebuild..what we see is pillaging and salting the earth and walk away.. as the
Romans did to enemies like Carthage..it will resemble Libya ...a shambles
So the smuggling is protected by air cover and special forces? Light up the fields using
some scud missiles. I'm sure Iran or Iraq have a few they could lend Syria. Can't sell it if
its burning.
Brits and Americans have pillaged, as any other empire, wherever they conquered.
After WW1 the 'Allies' robbed Germany of all foreign currency and its entire gold. This
triggering hyperinflation and mega crisis.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated' across
Europe.
In more recent history, the gold of Iraq, Ukraine and Libya was flown to Fort Knox.
All well documented.
This is common practice by empires. Just please stop pretending you were the good
guys , spreading freedom and democracy, because that's really a mockery and the
disgusting part of your invasions.
During WW2 central bank gold was pillaged from countries that were 'liberated'.
Exactly, that's where the US got its 8,000 tons of gold. Before WWII, the US had 2000 tons
of gold, after WWII it had 8,000 tons. Even today the US always steals the gold of the
countries it "liberates"
Help me understand why the USA would want to smuggle oil from Syria. When the USA has more
oil than all of the middleast.
Now I can see why Russia would blame the USA if smuggling Oil from Syria. Russia needs
that oil really bad. So to get the USA away from the Syrian oil fields they would of course
create a reason for the rest of the world that the USA is Dishonerable and must not be
trusted with Syrian oil. It is just too obvious to me, what Russia is trying to
accomplish.
Huh? The US is stealing the oil to deprive the Syrian people energy they need to rebuild
the country we destroyed. This is collective punishment of Syrians because they won't
overthrow Assad.
Collective punishment is a crime against humanity according to international law. There's
your impeachable offense. But don't worry, that kind of crime is ok with Shifty Schiff and
the rest of the Israel ***-kissers in Congress.
The US is NOT stealing the oil - the American Military have become PIRATES - no different
than Somali Red Sea Pirates or looters in Newark stealing diapers and TV's
This is nothing new. We've been stealing oil from dozens of countries for the past 75
years since WWII. The only difference is that Trump is being blatant about it which in a way
is weirdly refreshing.
Read the transcript of Trump's announcement this morning. He explicitly says he is keeping
the oil, and might invite in Exxon to use it. Logistics are sketchy, because who will buy it?
The pipelines will go through Syrian controlled territory. But he also says that a deal might
be possible. It's ridiculous.
Revenue from Syria's oilfields is about a $million/day. That is a small fraction of what it
costs to maintain even one little US military base in Syria.
Try to hold tight to a sense of perspective, folks. Trump is a businessman. Not a very
good one, perhaps, but certainly not so stupid that he cannot see that as an incredibly bad
deal. This "keeping the oil" nonsense is empty posturing intended to appeal to shallow
thinkers who don't know the difference between Syria and Venezuela and who don't really care
what American foreign policy is so long as it is done with an arrogant swagger. Now that may
be the majority of the US population, but these kinds are not even going to remember the
tweet this time next week, much less even care.
"Keeping the oil" is not only tactically, strategically, and logistically
untenable, it is such a baldfaced violation of so many US and international laws, treaties,
and agreements that even America's fig leaf of last resort, Canada, would have to condemn it.
This is just childish posturing to throw the appearance of bravado on America's exit from the
theatre. People functioning at the level of many posters here need to stop taking it so
seriously.
Revenue from Syria's oilfields is about a $million/day. That is a small fraction of what it
costs to maintain even one little US military base in Syria.
Try to hold tight to a sense of perspective, folks.
Posted by: William Gruff | Oct 27 2019 18:18 utc | 45
The point of "keeping the oil" is not to profit from it, but to deny it to the Syrians.
That's what Bibi wants.
@ 53
"Keeping the oil" is also meant to send a political message that you-know-who is still in
charge here, a Carter Doctrine policy that has been in tatters recently.
On the Syrian oil, US apparently was raking in 30 million a month in an operation that was
small enough to be kept from the public. If they take over the oilfields publicly and boost
oil infrastructure, the monthly take will rise considerably.
The oil fields on the east bank of the Euphrates produced the bulk of Syrian oil. If
production there was only 50% of Syrian production, the figures in dollar terms would still
be high.
200,0000 BPD would be just over half Syria pre war oil production, so 200,000 X say $40
per barrel brings the take up to $8 million per day. Not bad when its money for nothing.
William Gruff
Trump has made no effort or even noises to pull out of Tanf. I think he wants to continue
holding the Syrian border where he can. Denying the oil to Syria is a plus for him and that
also has the bonus of partly paying the cost of stationing the US along that border.
Zionism, oil, getting returns on military expenditure seems to be Trump's foreign policy or
as foreign policy is termed in the US 'War Policy"
"Keeping the oil" is also meant to send a political message that you-know-who is still in
charge here, a Carter Doctrine policy that has been in tatters recently.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Oct 27 2019 18:51 utc | 60
Sure, that's also true. The NeoCon warmongers only got convincing very late in the game,
when US Special Forces were already withdrawing from most of Rojava, and could not be
stopped, except for this massively mounted late defence of the oil-fields. As the NeoCons
were resisting from the beginning, what was it that changed Trump's mind? Bibi sounds like
the answer, but I'm open to others.
"So why did Trump state so emphatically that Russia and China love U.S. presence
there???"
Reverse psychology. If Trump can get that narrative to fly then the mindless Russophobic
and Sinophobic brainwash victims in the US will start screaming for the US to get out. After
all, jello-brained Americans believe they must do the opposite of whatever China and Russia
think is good. The USA certainly cannot do anything that China or Russia might approve of,
right? So if they want us to stay then we have to leave.
Russia loves the US stealing Syria's oil. Listen, Russia delivered a beat down to murican
regime change policy the likes of which the world has never seen before. It is epic
humiliation beyond all endurance! The Syrian state is saved and the prospects of a Libya just
a few hours from Russia's border are now gone! The US is scared shittless to attack Iran head
on, so the status quo is returning to this region faster than murica's tiny brain can
process. So what to do? Grab the oil! Be a thug and criminal! No more pretense, just sin
proudly like the evil turd you are! Lol! And Russia can point at that turd and condemn it on
the world stage for the whole world to see. No excuses...no sympathy. Of course that bravado
wont last long. When push comes to shove, murica will fold like the dodgy piece of toilet
paper it is and go home. Be patient and enjoy the Evil Empire's death agony a while
longer...make popcorn...
The Redirection, Mar 5, 2007
Is the Administration's new policy benefitting our enemies in the war on terrorism?
By Seymour M. Hersh
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
cooperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations that are
intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The U.S. has
also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A by-product of
these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse a militant
vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda. . . here
InsurgeIntel, May 22, 2015
Pentagon report predicted West's support for Islamist rebels would create ISIS
Anti-ISIS coalition knowingly sponsored violent extremists to 'isolate' Assad, rollback 'Shia
expansion'
by Nafeez Ahmed
The newly declassified DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency -- headed by General Flynn!] document
from 2012 confirms that the main component of the anti-Assad rebel forces by this time
comprised Islamist insurgents affiliated to groups that would lead to the emergence of ISIS.
Despite this, these groups were to continue receiving support from Western militaries and
their regional allies. . .
here
Some more history on how Russia's changed the US attitude toward Syria oil shipments to
foreign customers. Specifically, whereas until 2015 US air force pilots were not given
permission to fire on ISIS oil shipments, that policy changed when Russia entered the war.
In September 2015, the Federation Council, Russia's upper house of parliament authorised
the Russian president to use armed forces in Syria.[9][10] Russia acknowledged that Russian
air and missile strikes targeted not only ISIL, but also rebel groups in the Army of Conquest
coalition like al-Nusra Front, al-Qaeda's Syrian branch, and even FSA.
On 30 September 2015, Russia launched its first airstrikes against targets in Rastan,
Talbiseh, and Zafaraniya in Homs province of Syria. Moscow gave the United States a one-hour
advance notice of its operations. The Homs area is crucial to President Bashar al-Assad's
control of western Syria. -- wiki here
CBSNEWS, Nov 23, 2015
U.S. airstrikes against ISIS target oil tanker trucks
Two airstrikes, the most recent over the weekend, have destroyed almost 500 tanker trucks
ISIS uses to smuggle oil and sell it on the black market.
By one estimate, these attacks have destroyed roughly half the trucks ISIS uses to bring in
$1 million a day in revenues.
Until now, the U.S. has not gone after the tankers for fear of killing the civilian drivers.
. . here
That's the first time (and probably the last time) ever that the US military had any
consideration for civilian casualties. But they were ISIS employees so. . .cut 'em some
slack. Still, only half the trucks were destroyed at that time (more were destroyed much
later).
"... The below analysis is provided by " Ehsani " -- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical analysis blog, Syria Comment . ..."
"... An M1 Abrams tank at the Udairi Range Complex in Kuwait, via Army National Guard/Military Times. ..."
Here's
Why Trump's "Secure Syria's Oil" Plan Will Prove Practically Impossible
by
Tyler Durden
Sat, 10/26/2019 - 23:30
0
SHARES
The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
" -- a Middle
East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst who visits the region frequently and writes
for the influential geopolitical analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.
Much has been debated since President Trump tweeted that
"The U.S has secured the oil"
in Syria. Is this feasible? Does it make any sense? The below will
explain how and why
the answer is a resounding
NO
.
Al-Omar and Conoco fields are already secured by Kurdish-led SDF and U.S forces. Some of the oil
from these fields was being sold through third parties to Syria's government by giving it in crude
form and taking back half the quantity as refined product
(the government owns the
refineries).
Syria's government now has access to oil fields inside the 32km zone
(established
by the Turkish military incursion and subsequent withdrawal of Kurdish forces). Such fields can produce
up to 100K barrels a day and will already go a long way in terms of meeting the country's immediate
demand.
So the importance of accessing oil in SDF/U.S hands is not as pressing any longer.
SDF/U.S forces can of course decide to sell the oil to Iraq's Kurdistan Regional Government (KRG)
but Syria's government now has control over the border area connecting Syria to KRG territory through
both Yaaroubia and Al-Mallkiya.
The Syrian government also now has control over supply of electricity. This was made possible by
taking control of the Tishreen and Furat dams.
Operating those fields needs electric power
supply and the state is now the provider.
Securing and operating these fields also entails paying salaries to those operating the fields.
International companies would be very reluctant to get involved without legal backing to operate
the fields.
"Securing the oil" therefore
can only mean preventing the Syrian state from accessing al-Omar/Conoco
only (not oil in the north)
. It's unlikely anything can be sold or transported.
And let's not forget "securing" this oil would need
ready air cover, and all for what?
SDF composition included Arab fighters and tribes who accepted Kurds in leadership since they had
American support and key cities in north. Many of those Arabs are already switching and joining the
Syrian Army.
"Securing" oil for benefit of the Kurds is likely to antagonize the Arab fighters
and tribes in the region.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more
than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
The psychopaths destroyed the last secular country in the ME. Same
with Lybia. Now all we get are extremists on all sides. Mossad doing
what it knows best, bringing chaos for the psychopaths.
By withdrawing from Northern Kurdistan and by making an exception
for the oil fields, Genius President Trump just told the world a number
of things:
To trust the U.S.A. as an ally is sheer stupidity
The "alternative media" theory that it is all about oil (and
possible gas) has been proven true
The U.S.A. is being ruled by a hobbyist who has no strategic
plans, replacing them with a "random walk" concept
Of course, the European allies (except Turkey) are still refusing
to learn from this experience. "Duck and cover until November 2020"
is their current tactics. Not sure if this is a good idea.
Turkey has learned to go their own ways, but I don't think it is
a good idea to create ever more enemies at one's borders. Greece,
Armenia, the Kurdish regions, Syria, Cyprus, not sure how their stance
is towards Iran. Reminds me of Germany before both World Wars. Won't
end well.
"America/The US", a label, is
actually just a location on a map and is not a reference to the actual
identities of those who start wars for profit.
Also it is hilarious to use that label as if an area of the planet
is or has attacked another area. Land can not attack itself, ever,
just as guns don't kill people, people kill people.
Trump is not claiming posession of oil in syria by leaving some
troops behind. Just as he did not declare war, nor start any EVER.
Every conflct on earth has it's roots with very specific individuals,
none of whom are even related to Trump.
Syria was a conflicting mess before he took office and he is dutifully
attempting to pull US soldiers out of a powder keg of nonsense he
wants no part of. Nor does any sane American want more conflict in
battles we can't afford, in countries we'll never even visit.
Like I said before, Trump can't just abruptly yank all our troops.
It's simply not that simple. And for those pretending he is doing
syria a disservice, I dare any one of you to go there yourselves and
see if you bunch of complete dipshits can do better. Who knows, maybe
you'll find the love of your life, ******* idiots.
First, the US invades Syria in violation of the Geneva Convention
on War making it an international criminal. Then it funds and equips
the most vile terrorists on the planet which leads to the killing
of thousands of innocent Syrians. And now it has decided to stay and
steal oil from Syria. The US is now the Evil American Empire owned
and run by crooks, gangsters and mass murderers. The Republic is dead
along with morality, justice and freedom.
Let's limit the culprits to: The Obama regime... and
not all the US. This is why these devils need to be brought
to trial and their wealth clawed out of their hiding places to
pay reparations to some of the victims.
The US has been an Evil American Empire for a long time, since
at least the Wilson administration, and Republican or Democrat...it
make little difference. World wars, the Fed, IRS, New Deal,
Korea, Vietnam, War OF Terror, assassinations, coups, sanctions,
Big Pharma, Seeds of Death and Big Agri...and the list goes
on and on. Please understand that America is not great and one
day all Americans will have to account for what their country
did in their name. If you believe in the Divine, then know that
their will be a reckoning.
The Obama regime was merely a continuation of the Chimpy Bush
regime, which was merely a continuation of the Clinton regime,
which was merely a continuation of the Pappy Bush regime, which
was merely a continuation... etc.
More chinks in the petrodollar armor will be the outcome of this. The credibility of murica is withering
away as every day passes. Iraqi pressure upon foreign troops there
to leave and/or drawdown further will also make this venture even
more difficult to manage.
The Kurds
may not be the smartest with regards to picking allies, but even they
may by now have learned that sticking to murica any longer will destroy
any semblance of hope for any autonomy status whatsoever once the
occupants have left. Likewise, the Sunni tribes around this area don't
want to become another Pariah group once things revert to normal.
Assad will eventually retake all his territory and
this is speeding up the process of eventual reconciliation in Syria.
They've spent far more on these wars than they've made back by stealing
other countries' resources. Trillions wasted in exchange for mere
billions in profit, to say nothing of the massive loss of life and
destruction incurred.
'The below analysis is provided by "
Ehsani
"
-- a Middle East expert, Syrian-American banker and financial analyst
who visits the region frequently and writes for the influential geopolitical
analysis blog,
Syria Comment
.'
this quote was my first red flag.
so POTUS outsmarts Erdongan, takes out ISIS leader BAGHDADI along
with Erdongan MIT agents meeting with him. sorry, Ehsani, i think
your full of sh*t.
CIA & MOSSAD LLC
friends ISIS is just the excuse the american
an israeli terrorists used and use in order to keep trying to remove
Assad from the Government.
They just can't accept defeat and absolute failure. What's worse
than an american/israeli terrorist destroyed ego?!
All info needs verification. US sources are not trustworthy including
anyone where money originates from the usual fake info instigators/
players.
POTUS is so misled by the deep state MIC /CIA/ FBI et al and their
willing fake media cohorts that he agreed to give the White Helmets
more public money for more fake movies, as has been properly proven
and widely reported.
Either they have taken control of his mind with a chip insert or
they have got his balls to the knife.
The false flags have been discredited systematically and only a
very brainwashed or a very frightened person would believe anything
from the same source until after a thorough scourge is proven successfully
undertaken.
It is evident that even the last hope department has been got at
by the money-power.
If they can do 9/11 and get away with it, as they have, then they
will stop at nothing to remain entrenched.
90% of oil is traded in U.S. dollars if that stops living standards
will drop in the U.S.. We dropped from 97% look how bad its now
with 7% imagine going down to 50% life would be unlivable
here.
...meanwhile, both according to
russia today
as well as the
(otherwise lying rag of a newspaper)
guardian
, the russian
government seems to take a different position to the views expressed
here by "a middle east expert".
russian state media is reporting that US troops are in the process
of taking control of syrian oil fields in the deir el-zour region
and have described such actions as "banditry". the crux of the matter
is this: if the US were not actually illegally taking control of Syrian
oil, then Russia would not be reporting this. Contrary to western
mainstream media, Russian sources have repeatedly shown themselves
to be factual.
Shame the "withdrawl" from Syria is tainted with "securing the oil".
US doesnt need that oil at all. So Orwellian! Unless the Kurds somehow
get rights to it.
Preventing rise of ISIS is likely to entail securing support of the region's Arabs and tribes more than that of the Kurds. This Kurd/Arab issue is yet another reason why President Trump's idea of
"securing" the oil for the benefit of the Kurds just doesn't make sense nearly on every level
.
Trump
is
securing
the
oil
not
for
the
Kurds
or
anything
in
the
middle
east-
his
doing
it
as
a response
to
the
media
backlash
he
received
when
he
announced
he's
abandoning
the
Kurds.
this is nonsense. thinking of the kurds and their interests is the absolutely last thing on trump`s mind: what counts for trump is how he is viewed by his voter base, no more, no less.
As is usually the case in theaters of combat, reality on the ground differs widely from the
sharp and clear lines that are presented to uninformed outside observers. Good case in point is
the state of Syrian oil. I am told by a well-informed source that the Syrian Democratic Forces
led by the Kurds have been selling much of the oil in northeast Syrian territory they
controlled until recently to the Syrian National Oil Company--the Assad government.
Some of that oil has also been sold to the Turks,,,
As we know, in the past, when ISIS controlled some of the Syrian oil, they were trucking it
across the border to Turkey and selling it to Erdogan's minions at a steep discount. The SDF
has continued doing that.
... Those tanker lines that Daesh was running into Turkey were done with the blessing of the
US. It was the resistance and in particular Russia that blew all that up.
What Harper meant to say is that some of the oil goes by tanker TRUCK from Turkey to Iran.
The oil thus trans-shipped to Iran is sold on as refined product to North Korea. The Turks
have been getting it at a very cheap prices from the SDF The Iranians add these products to
domestic production shipped east.
So, an oil-swap deal? Just like the currently defunct gas-swap deal that used to obtain
between Iran and Turkmenistan a few years back. Kurds and Turks acting like middlemen; how
very Middle-eastern!
The SDF/SNOC oil deal was negotiated by Russia 18 months ago. The SDF does NOT sell the oil
to the SNOC. Under the Russian deal, they get a share of the oil. The rest is turned over to
a broker from Raqqa who transports it in tanker trucks to Baniyas and Homs refineries.
If any oil is being diverted to Turkey, the it is the Raqqa brokers doing so. They are the
reportedly the brokers that used to deliver ISIS oil to Turkey via Erdogan's son-in-law.
... it was a deal negotiated by Russia with full agreement of Assad and his government and
the SNOC. My understanding is also that they did not choose the middleman from Raqqa.
Apparently he was the only one with tankers and with drivers who had no problem driving
through areas controlled by SDF, other areas controlled by SAA, and a few risky areas where
Daesh hijackings were a possibility.
"... StateImpact Pennsylvania noted that costs to reclaim a well could add up to $20,000, and DEPspokesperson Fraley said they could be "much, much higher." The GAO report noted that "low-cost wells typically cost about $20,000 to reclaim, and high-cost wells typically cost about $145,000 to reclaim." ..."
"... The Western Organization of Resource Councils summarized bonding requirements by state, and none of them came even close to being adequate to cover estimated costs to deal with old wells. In North Dakota, a $50,000 bond is required for a well. But a $100,000 bond can cover up to 6 wells, which comes out to $16,667 per well -- or approximately one tenth of the estimated cost to reclaim a well in that state. ..."
"... By any measure, the amount of private money currently allocated in the U.S. to plug and reclaim oil and gas wells is a small fraction of the real costs. That means oil and gas wells -- and the U.S. had one million active wells in 2017 , and even more abandoned -- will either be left to fail and potentially contaminate the surrounding water, air, and soil, or the public will have to pick up the tab. This represents just one of the many ways the public subsidizes the oil and gas industry. ..."
"... The mineral extraction business model in the U.S. is set up to maximize profits for executives, even as they lose investor money and bankrupt their companies. That is true of the coal industry and that is true of the shale oil and gas industry . ..."
Increasingly, U.S. shale firms appear unable to pay back
investors for the money borrowed to fuel the last decade of the fracking boom. In a similar
vein, those companies also seem poised to stiff the public on cleanup costs for abandoned oil
and gas wells once the producers have moved on.
"It's starting to become out of control, and we want to rein this in," Bruce Hicks,
Assistant Director of the North Dakota Oil and Gas Division,
said in August about companies abandoning oil and gas wells. If North Dakota's regulators,
some of the
most industry-friendly in the country , are sounding the alarm, then that doesn't bode well
for the rest of the nation.
In fact, officials in North Dakota are using Pennsylvania as an example of what they want to
avoid when it comes to abandoned wells, and with good reason.
The first oil well drilled in
America was in Pennsylvania in 1859, and the oil and gas industry has been drilling -- and
abandoning -- wells there ever since. Pennsylvania's Department of Environmental Protection
(DEP) says that while it only has documentation of 8,000 orphaned and abandoned wells, it
estimates the state actually has over a half million.
"We anticipate as many as 560,000 are in existence that we just don't know of yet," DEP
spokesperson Laura Fraley told
StateImpact Pennsylvania . "There's no responsible party and so it's on state government to
pay to have those potential environmental and public health hazards remediated."
According to StateImpact, "The state considers any well that doesn't produce oil and gas for
a calendar year to be an abandoned well."
That first oil well drilled in Pennsylvania was 70 feet deep. Modern fracked wells, however,
can be well over 10,000 feet in total length (most new fracked wells are drilled vertically to
a depth where they turn horizontal to fracture the shale that contains the oil and gas).
Because the longer the total length of the well, the more it costs to clean up, the funding
required to properly clean up and cap wells has grown as drillers have continued to use new
technologies to greatly extend well lengths. Evidence from the federal government points to the
potential for these costs being shifted to the tax-paying public.
The Government Accountability Office (GAO)
released a report this September about the risks from insufficient bonds to reclaim wells
on public lands. It said, "the bonds operators provide as insurance are often not enough to
cover the costs of this cleanup." The report cited a Bureau of Land Management (BLM) official's
estimate of $10 a foot for well cleanup costs.
StateImpact Pennsylvania noted that costs to reclaim a well could add up to $20,000, and
DEPspokesperson Fraley said they could be "much, much higher." The
GAO report noted that "low-cost wells typically cost about $20,000 to reclaim, and
high-cost wells typically cost about $145,000 to reclaim."
In North Dakota, where state regulators have raised concerns about this growing problem, one
of the top industry regulators, State Mineral Resources Director Lynn Helms, estimated that
wells there cost
$150,000 to plug and reclaim.
And this problem isn't just in the U.S. Canada is facing a similar cleanup crisis.
Financial Bonding Requirements for Well Cleanup
Legally, oil and gas companies are required to set aside money to pay for well cleanup
costs, a process known as bonding. These requirements vary by state and for public lands, but
in all cases, the amounts required are so small as to be practically irrelevant.
The GAO report reviewed the bonds held by the Bureau of Land Management for wells on public
lands and found that the average bond per well in 2018 was worth $2,122.
The Western Organization of Resource Councils summarized bonding requirements by
state, and none of them came even close to being adequate to cover estimated costs to deal with
old wells. In North Dakota, a $50,000 bond is required for a well. But a $100,000 bond can
cover up to 6 wells, which comes out to $16,667 per well -- or approximately one tenth of the
estimated cost to reclaim a well in that state.
North Dakota has a history of bending to oil and gas industry pressure when it comes to
regulations. While North Dakota's bonding rules fall far short of what's needed to actually
cover full cleanup costs, the reality on the ground is much worse. Regulators allow companies
to
"temporarily abandon" wells, which requires no action from companies for at least seven
years. Wells can hold this "temporary status" for decades. And another practice in the state
allows a company to sell old, under-performing wells to another company, passing along the
liability but not the bonding funds.
By any measure, the amount of private money currently allocated in the U.S. to plug and
reclaim oil and gas wells is a small fraction of the real costs. That means oil and gas wells
-- and the U.S. had one million
active wells in 2017 , and even more abandoned -- will either be left to fail and
potentially contaminate the surrounding water, air, and soil, or the public will have to pick
up the tab. This represents just one of the many ways the public subsidizes the oil and gas
industry.
A South Dakota Case Study
South Dakota allows companies to post a $30,000 bond for as many wells as the company
chooses to drill. Spyglass Cedar Creek is a Texas-based company that was operating in South
Dakota and recently
abandoned 40 wells, which the state has estimated will have a cleanup cost of $1.2
million.
However, there is a twist to this story. That $30,000 bond doesn't really exist. The owners
of the company had put $20,000 of it into a Certificate of Deposit. But when the state went
looking for that money, the owners said they had cashed it in 2015 because, as reported by the
Rapid City Journal , "company officials did not remember what the money was for."
Spyglass Cedar Creek does not have the money set aside that was required to clean up these
wells, the state does not have recourse to get that money, and some of the wells are reportedly
leaking. So, what can be done?
According to Doyle Karpen, member of the South Dakota Board of Minerals and Environment, the
answer is for the taxpayers of that state to cover the cost.
" I think the only way we can correct this is go to the Legislature and ask for money,"
Karpen
said earlier this year.
Following the Coal Industry Business Model
What is starting to unfold with the oil and gas industry is very similar to what has already
been playing out with the U.S. coal industry.
The paper notes how the bankruptcy process is used by coal companies to rid themselves of
environmental cleanup liabilities and pension costs "in a manner that has eviscerated the
regulatory schemes that gave rise to those obligations."
This summer, Blackjewel famously failed to pay its coal miners, and even pulled funds out of
their bank accounts, after the company suddenly declared bankruptcy in July. That prompted
workers to sit on train tracks in Kentucky, blocking a $1 million shipment of coal, in a
two-month protest . And Blackjewel is poised to leave behind
thousands of acres of mined land in Appalachia without adequate reclamation.
Privatize the Profits, Socialize the Losses
The mineral extraction business model in the U.S. is set up to maximize profits for
executives, even as they lose investor money and bankrupt their companies. That is true of the
coal industry and that
is true of the shale oil and gas industry .
At the same time, the regulatory capture by these industries at both state and federal
levels allows private companies to pass on environmental cleanup costs to the public, and the
inadequate bonding system for oil and gas well reclamation represents just one more
example.
The so-called fracking revolution in America has resulted in many new records: record
amounts of U.S. oil and gas exported (to the detriment of a livable climate), new levels of
human
health impacts on surrounding communities, record numbers of industry-induced earthquakes , record amounts of flaring
natural gas
in oil and gas fields, and record-breaking
depths and lengths of wells.
And the cleanup costs for the fracking boom are also poised to be staggering.
The answer to the question posed is yes. History confirms this. Present laws allow
companies to get away with this. I don't see this changing in the future.
Socializing the cost of cleanup/decommissioning was one of the reasons the people in our
township fought, and won, to stop Duke Energy's wind power project which would have put a few
hundred industrial turbines over three townships.
I was offered a contract and it was truly toxic. Duke would not have been required to fund
decommissioning until 20 years into what is a 25 year lifespan for the generators and that
bond would have been held in Duke's accounts. Duke could have merely walked away before 20
years leaving a liability for any landowner. My expectation would be a $250,000 escrow for
each tower/generator and held by the landowner so that Duke would have no access to it until
decommissioning.
My reaction to seeing the headline was "is the Pope Catholic?"
Of course, the public will pay. Texas govt already pays to cap abandoned wells.
As for decommissioning costs, utilities typically keep decom accounts, and include the costs
of decom in their revenue requirement, when coming in for a rate case. The money should be
there, when needed. (Of course, anything can happen – but if that were the case, we'll
have bigger things to worry about than the decommissioning of wind turbines.)
Rich Texans like small government when they can profit from governmental smallness.
Rich Texans like big government when they can profit from governmental bigness. If Rich
Texans can make the Texas government pay bigly for capping abandoned privately profitable
frack well, such Texas big government payments to cap the abandoned wells just make the Rich
Texans richer by relieving them of paying themselves for the costs they themselves caused by
fracking those wells.
1. Increase the EPA budget tenfold or more for cleanup, adding fracksites to the superfund
list. This will provide much-needed jobs for millions of Americans as they help in greening
Earth.
2. Require that Native American tribes get busy recovering natural resource damages. If
they refuse, this would provide a much-needed opportunity to establish military bases on
reservations to quell rebellions against superfund cleanup.
3. Some alarmists have alleged that cleanup of toxic superfund sites can pose health
risks, which is a well-known talking point of enemies of Earth. Even so, Congress can require
healthcare providers to deliver all necessary treatments to superfund workers in order to
assuage any concerns of the workforce.
4. Congress can relax labor laws so that undocumented migrants and their children are
allowed to participate in healing Earth by joining the superfund cleanup workforce.
These measures will ensure Full Employment, Earthhealth, Native Pacification, and
Demographic Diversity throughout the nation.
>>>Require that N<ative American tribes get busy recovering natural resource
damages. If they refuse, this would provide a much-needed opportunity to establish military
bases on reservations to quell rebellions against superfund cleanup.<<<
It has been a decade since I have done any research, but that said, requiring the
destitute to demand that they somehow get the money needed to get recompense from the Feds
and corporations is silly. Many tribes are dirt poor and others are marginal, even though
many nations have been trying for decades, perhaps longer than anyone alive, to get the
payments owned from the mineral and oil extraction from their lands. Records and payments
that the federal government are supposed to manage, but never have. Records go missing, the
decision making process is obfuscated, and billions have gone missing.
One of the big reasons I just loathe Identity Politics, victim blaming, and other current
dodges is that the current political establishment and all their little minions in social
media and nonprofits pay no mind to the continuing financial, political, legal and social
rape, impoverishment, and degradation of millions of Americans have and do endure is just
ignored. Although Standing Rock was a nice blip. At least the Disposables are worthy of
conscious contempt. The Indians are sent to oblivion where they can go finish
dying.
Well, yes and no. Yes, the public will pay for any 'cleanup' that is actually done (ie,
YOOGE dollars to 'remediation' companies), but really, my bet is that most of these orphan
wells and mines will just be left as they are.
Exactly what I was about to say. The wells will leak their toxins, the rich will escape to
some idyllic bunker, while the poor are offered oxycodone or fentanyl to alleviate their
suffering.
Cleveland is an example not one of the dying industries that once flourished here cleaned
up after themselves before they shut down most of the former degraded sites don't rise to the
level of a superfund problem, but they are virtually irredeemable nonetheless
do not know how the figure for abandoned well cleanup is derived. In Canada, estimates by
the industry friendly Fraser Institute and the CD Howe Institute claim those figures:
C.D. Howe estimates there are more than 155,000 wells with no economic potential that
must be reclaimed, with cleanup costs for an orphan well ranging from $129 million to $257
million, with a total provincial cleanup bill of $8 billion. Glen cites a far higher
estimate from the Orphan Well Association -- $47 billion.
And the problems regarding financing are the same as in the USA – although the
Supreme Court of Canada has ruled in favour of clean-up cost coverage before debtor
payout:
Glen quotes Daryl Bennett of My Landman Group who observes that not only are the funds
on deposit insufficient, but "the cost to reclaim all these assets is now far higher than
the value of those assets." With the oil and gas sector unable to shoulder these costs, the
costs look likely to land in two places -- the pockets of landowners with land dotted with
abandoned wells, and the taxpayers who will pay those landowners to ensure the land is kept
in productive use.
Energy companies must fulfil their environmental obligations before paying back creditors
in the case of insolvency or bankruptcy, Canada's Supreme Court has ruled.
The top court's ruling released Thursday overturns two lower court decisions that said
bankruptcy law has paramountcy over provincial environmental responsibilities in the case
of Redwater Energy, which became insolvent in 2015. That meant energy companies could first
pay back creditors before cleaning up old wells. In practical terms, that means energy
companies could walk away from old oil and gas wells, leaving them someone else's
responsibility.
I live in the hills of SE Ohio. Gas is everywhere down here, but (fortunately) not in the
commercial quantities needed for major fracking operations. Small gas wells dot the
landscape. Due to the crash and the oversupply of the fracking boom, gas prices fetch a small
fraction (about 20%) of their previous peak. No new wells have been placed in years.
A neighbor of mine has a has well that has ceased commercial operation. He still gets free
gas from it as per the lease agreement, but the small local gas company no longer wants to
pay to maintain and operate it, as in no longer yields any appreciable commercial output. The
gas company initially said that they would sell him the well for $7,000, and he agreed
(verbally, I believe) to that price. The gas company then said it wasn't even worth that, and
would just give him the well.
It struck me as decidedly odd that a business, which by all accounts is cash-strapped and
barely getting by, would voluntarily forgo any amount of money. It makes me think that there
must be certain laws and regulations that apply to a commercial transaction that do not apply
to what is in effect a donation.
Does anyone know if there are reasons why someone would give away as opposed to sell an
asset, particularly one that has clear and significant liabilities and/or associated cleanup
expenses? I know that the landowner should be responsible for cleanup and capping costs
whether they bought for money or were given the gas well for free, but does the gas company
get out of something by giving as opposed to selling the asset? They certainly did not do it
out of the kindness of their hearts; they hate that landowner. He opened up a business and a
commercial kitchen and hooked it to his gas well, which was almost certainly responsible for
its commercial depletion.
Can't give you that answer but have a similar observation. My homeplace is just up the
road a bit–bought sans Mineral Rights in the 1960's–and had a well placed just
off the property line on a pad located in the swamp/drainage next door in 1981.
We got no free gas–but hundreds in the Township couldn't resist. Too good to be true.
Lots of wells installed–with FREE GAS and a Royalty Check which helped many heat
through winter and constant Lay-offs in that churning, rust-belting economy of late 80's and
90's
It was a 90 day drill–24/7, then pumped with an electric skip jack until early 2000s
when production petered out.
Still idled–however that swampland finally sold 2 months ago–and Seller was
insistent that well ownership transferred with the sale. No transfer–No Sale. There was
a token of 1,000$ for the well included in the Land Price. The five adjoining landowners (all
No Mineral Rights and 2 with located wells) all looked at purchase and walked
away–partly because of the Lay(2 of 7 acres high ground) but all because you had to
take the "dead well" with the land.
Locals thought that was just plain "fishy" about something.
Ohio EPA isn't very effective–note the Mud Spill at the Tuscarawas R–and as more
and more well plays are petering out and Service Co.'s going out of business concern IS
rising among landowners.
I won't say my Homesteads neighbors are environmentalists as much as PO'd that the access
roads have not been graded and graveled and that inconsistent gas flows are causing them to
go Propane
It might come under Real Estate full disclosure laws, which require a seller to notify
buyers of any liabilities – like the cost of closing and cleanup of a well. Might not
apply to a "gift."
If course, if the owner keeps it operating for their own use, they don't have to cap and
restore it – but it will run out some day.
Not well understood is the fact that:
State taxpayers fund state spending, and
County taxpayers fund county spending, and
City taxpayers fund city spending, but
Federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending.
The federal government neither needs nor uses tax income for anything. In fact, federal
taxes are destroyed upon receipt.
The federal government, being Monetarily Sovereign, creates brand new dollars, ad hoc, by
spending.
Thus, all the federal spending to remediate any polluted sites in America add dollars to
the economy, and thereby benefit taxpayers.
Benefits natural-person taxpayers just how? By underwriting the looting behaviors of
corporations and their executives, sparing them from having to internalize the "costs" that
leavings from industry impose on "neighbors" and all the natural persons, and nature,
downwind and downstream and living next to those industrial and extractive spots? Not much
healthy incentive or public benefit in that formulation.
The federal "Superfund" was funded by a tax on feedstock chemicals, and "responsible
parties" that caused or contributed to the release of hazardous substances, anyone related by
contract to them, and site owners, were to pay all removal and remedial response costs. Why
not that model, which sought to force the costs back into the calculus? And yes, the
Superfund program had its share of problems, still does -- contractor gold-plating,
goldbricking, and fraud, corruption of the processes, and others, and of course the exemption
of "petroleum products" from the definition of hazardous substances. But it did effect some
significant changes, along with the federal Resource Conservation and Recovery Act, in
generation and disposal of hazardous substances.
Its pretty simple. Most governments have been collecting royalties on the extracted oil
and gas. They can just repurpose that past and future money to cleanup. The politicians said
it would pay for schools and firemen but future politicians will likely need to repurpose
money. At least Superfund exists, so there is a mechanism to do it.
In Colorado there are 60,000 active oil and gas wells and 20,000 that are abandoned. That
count is from 2017. Several thousand more wells have been permitted and drilled since
then. https://corising.org/colorado-map-oil-gas-wells/
A more-to-the-point question in response to this title is; When has Big Oil, Big Mineral,
Big any natural resource exploiter ever paid to clean up their mess? The answer is only when
there is a gun at its head and all the owners have not yet run off with their booty.
Beulah, North Dakota, has a coal gasification plant, open for free public tours. It's a
closed loop – shallow strip mining on their property, has sold to a single nearby
customer. The size of the equipment is mind-boggling. They are required to recontour the land
to exact pre-mining measurements and to replace every shrub and tree. The reclaimed land
looked lovely.
As a passing tourist, I know nothing in depth, but I was impressed and see no reason why
the same is not required of any resource extraction.
I think it's time we take a long hard look at this country's bankruptcy laws. For as long
as I can remember, bankruptcy has been a "tool" of business to escape what is most often the
responsibility of the business and/or business owner. See DJT et.al. The idea that a business
like the ones in this article can declare bankruptcy , dump the debt owed to creditors, and
continue to give huge bonuses to management members is foolish. When a business like the
fracking industry operators can't pay it's debts, the doors should close, the assets sold and
the creditors (in this case, the state involved) receive everything necessary to "clean up"
the mess. Most cases involving fracking wells would need more in funds than the company has
in assets. Bottom line, that's it folks. The state gets it all (which will almost never be
enough) and the folks go home, no bonus, no car, end of story. Many things would change in a
system that does not allow the dumping of debt onto society so people who were very bad at
running a business can continue to be rewarded. Just sayin ..
In many cases, the state could impose a unit royalty dedicate to future clean-up. The
royalties could go into a dedicated trust fund. The cash flow of producing wells would set
aside the means to cleanup many wells.
If by "the public," the author is referring to federal taxpayers, the answer is, "NO." Not
well understood is the fact that:
State taxpayers fund state spending, and
County taxpayers fund county spending, and
City taxpayers fund city spending, but
Federal taxpayers do not fund federal spending.
But, but, but we are "energy-independent!". Surely a small price to pay for massive
environmental despoliation in the era of late-capitalism, where "externalities" are booked on
the public ledger.
Yes, so Dubya invades Iraq to make sure the supply of black gold to the US is not
interrupted (and hey Dad – look, we got Saddam .), then the pendulum swings and Obama
mostly pulls out of the ME and " encourages" fracking to get domestic oil security. In the
meantime the political vacuum caused allows the rise of ISIS, so Syria is destroyed and
millions of refugees overwhelm Jordan, Turkey and Europe. Then along comes Trump and doubles
down, allowing the Saudis to commit unfettered genocide in Yemen (with a nice little side in
US arms sales), and now the Turks to indulge in a bit of "ethnic cleansing" of their Kurds
– you know that mob who have fighting for a bit of their own country for a hundred
years since they were unfortunately overlooked when the British and French divided up the
Middle East.
We all really need to get off this addiction to fossil fuels ASAP and convert to electric
cars and road transport and household and industry power derived from solar, wind and hydro
electricity.
It is not just climate change which is the " collateral damage" of fossil fuel use.
And in my country we have to do the same, and STOP MINING F .. COAL and allowing new coal
mines to be run by environmental vandals like Adani. AAAAAAAGH!
Obama pulled out of the ME? I must missed that during the US invasion/occupation of parts
of Syria as part of its illegal regime change war, that provided safe haven for jihadists and
ISIS in Syria
Skip-As I read it Obama pulled many, but not all obviously ,of the troops from Afghanistan
and Iraq, – and was widely criticised for doing so "prematurely" by the media and
commentariat.
Mind you, that could have been just " fake news" .
Of course that the Public will pay for the environmental cleanup of the pollution of dead
fracking wells. Just as they will pay for dead oil platforms in high seas, or
"decommissioning" of spent nuclear fuel (when someone figures out how that's done), or
underfunded pension plans or any other such scam that was advertised as doing something for
greater good but which always was, and always will be, extraction of something out of
presumed public ownership (earth) for benefit of those who figured out what to extract.
Bottled water comes to mind too.
How will public pay? Entropy, of course. No need to involve printed papers masquerading as
"money". Public will simply work harder and harder, but will have less and less of
everything, firstly less hospitals and schools, then less police and firefighters, then less
judiciary and then less water, less food and less air suitable for breathing.
The sad part is, we taxpayers, continue to live in an imaginary world where we expect that
"government" will do "something for us, the people". Governments do not look at it that way.
"Governments" are just an extraction apparatus, by which those that can extract, extract, and
those that cannot, provide the extracted material.
I looked at governments and economical systems all over the world and there is no
exceptions to this. The conundrum is, what to do about it and how?
I apologise to the commentariat but I simply must enclose two links to my favourite brain
washing outlet, BBC, here in UK. While our parliament continues to work for everyone else but
the British People, the Big Brother outfit goes on to disseminate dross like this:
It seems as if ole David Hughes, which I have a lot of respect, decided to come on the
website and leave a few comments. Basically, Hughes's reply was, "WHAT'S THE BIG DEAL IN
2018?" He went on to say that we all know these wells decline 50+% in the first year, so why
start to make a STINK about it now?
I also had several email replies from some other folks. And then we had a bit of a TIT for
TAT here in this blog with HUNTY.
However, what is going on in the Permian is only a small part of the overall situation.
Regardless if we bicker about the future Permian revisions due to the incomplete TRRC data,
the fact remains, if you look at the "Annual Compounded Decline Rate" presently, it resembles
a 70-75% STEEP CLIFF. And, the Permian isn't the only one that looks like that. You can add
the Bakken and Eagle Ford to varying degrees.
So, while a portion of the "OIL FOLKS" and a large percentage of the "DUMBED DOWN PUBLIC"
believe there is NOTHING TO SEE HERE, they couldn't be more wrong.
Furthermore, the U.S. public debt just ballooned by $227 billion in less than two weeks
and $814 billion since August 1st. While everyone has seemingly become NUMB to the amount of
these figures, the rate at which debt is being added in the United States and globally is
heading up in an exponential trend. But, there is nothing to see here.
And, then we have the fun taking place in the REPO MARKETS when, according to a specialist
in the field, a large BLOCK of CASH has been removed from the market and hasn't come back, I
gather it's just another sign that EVERYTHING IS OKAY . .nothing to see here.
Also, ExxonMobil, the largest U.S. oil company, had to borrow $7 billion in August to
repay the huge $11 billion in short term paper it borrowed 1H 2019 in order to pay dividends
and fortify its balance sheet as its Permian stake is destroying its bottom line.
And today, we see that ExxonMobil just sold its $4.5 billion upstream assets in Norway.
Yes, this is part of Exxon's plan to sell $15 billion by 2021 to focus on KEY ASSETS. I
gather that really means, they are going to have to fill in the RED they will be suffering in
the Permian as its U.S. upstream earnings continue to suffer. But again nothing to see
here
Lastly while the NOTHING TO SEE here mentality will continue even as the U.S. and global
economy heads over the cliff, taking the highly leveraged debt-based financial system down
with it, I'll make sure that I schedule some time from my day to come in here and read all
the "I TOLD YOU SO" comments.
There is trouble underlying when the US military does something because of good partner
relations rather than obvious contribution to a clearly defined strategy. See Vietnam and
dominoes.
US is sending more "deterrent" equipment and military personnel [as targets also to
improve ARAMCO IPO oil assets] into the kingdom of Saudi Arabia.
New SecDef says Saudi princes have been "good partners", especially as the ARAMCO IPO is
coming on. If you and I protect the ARAMCO facilities in the kingdom the IPO may go based on
$2T instead of $1.5T, as some investment bankers might suggest.
Two fighter squadrons (likely F-15's, F-35 too slow, F-16 too low cost), two more Patriot
missile batteries, a THAAD warning and control system (the H in THAAD is high altitude, not
so good on drones and cruise missiles), etc. And prince bone Saws may pay the freight to keep
them in the kingdom.
Most obvious and least reported is 1800 more US soldiers and airmen to be
tripwires/excuses if they are harmed.
Deterrent and escalation; terms that go together when the new SecDef speaks.
The recent attacks on Saudi oil facilities by Yemeni Houthi forces demonstrate once again
that an aggressive foreign policy often brings unintended consequences and can result in
blowback. In 2015 Saudi Arabia attacked its neighbor, Yemen, because a coup in that country
ousted the Saudi-backed dictator. Four years later Yemen is in ruins, with nearly 100,000
Yemenis killed and millions more facing death by starvation. It has been rightly called the
worst humanitarian catastrophe on the planet.
But rich and powerful Saudi Arabia did not defeat Yemen. In fact, the Saudis last month
asked the Trump Administration to help facilitate talks with the Houthis in hopes that the war,
which has cost Saudi Arabia tens of billions of dollars, could finally end without Saudi crown
prince Mohammad bin Salman losing too much face. Washington admitted earlier this month that
those talks had begun.
The surprise Houthi attack on Saturday disrupted half of Saudi Arabia's oil and gas
production and shocked Washington. Predictably, however, the neocons are using the attack to
call for war with Iran!
Sen. Lindsay Graham, one of the few people in Washington who makes John Bolton look like a
dove, Tweeted yesterday that, "It is now time for the US to put on the table an attack on
Iranian oil refineries " Graham is the perfect embodiment of the saying, "when all you have is
a hammer, everything looks like a nail." No matter what the problem, for Graham the solution is
war.
Likewise, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – who is supposed to represent US diplomacy
– jumped to blame Iran for the attack on Saudi Arabia, Tweeting that, "Iran has now
launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply." Of course, he provided no
evidence even as the Houthis themselves took responsibility for the bombing.
What is remarkable is that all of Washington's warmongers are ready for war over what is
actually a retaliatory strike by a country that is the victim of Saudi aggression, not the
aggressor itself. Yemen did not attack Saudi Arabia in 2015. It was the other way around. If
you start a war and the other country fights back, you should not be entitled to complain about
how unfair the whole thing is.
The establishment reaction to the Yemeni oilfield strike reminds me of a hearing in the
House Foreign Affairs Committee just before the US launched the 2003 Iraq war. As I was arguing
against the authorization for that war, I pointed out that Iraq had never attacked the United
States. One of my colleagues stopped me in mid-sentence, saying, "let me remind the gentleman
that the Iraqis have been shooting at our planes for years." True, but those planes were
bombing Iraq!
The neocons want a US war on Iran at any cost. They may feel temporarily at a disadvantage
with the departure of their ally in the Trump Administration, John Bolton. However, the sad
truth is that there are plenty more John Boltons in the Administration. And they have allies in
the Lindsay Grahams in Congress.
Yemen has demonstrated that it can fight back against Saudi aggression. The only sensible
way forward is for a rapid end to this four-year travesty, and the Saudis would be wise to wake
up to the mess they've created for themselves. Whatever the case, US participation in Saudi
Arabia's war on Yemen must end immediately and neocon lies about Iran's role in the war must be
refuted and resisted.
Oil prices only 7.2% above Friday. S&P 500 within 1% of record. This is not normal
behavior after "Pearl Harbor" type event. Something smells fishy, very fishy.
Stocks fell 4% after Pearl Harbor, 7% after 911.
Who is assuaging the markets' uncertainty about the dire consequences of SA attacks?
After looking at a number images on Google, I have yet to see anything that shows substantial
fire damage apart from the blackened structures in the lower left hand corner of the
satellite phot shown here.
Could this be false flag like the chemical weapons attacks in Syria? In this case, lots of
fire, but set in such a way as to avoid actual damage?
Having seen the battle damage photos published online, it seems clear to me that the Houthis
are not responsible for this strike. First off, the Houthis claim to have launched only 10
suicide drones...the photos show 17 impact points.
But more importantly, the strike did not just hit the facility, it hit several very
specific tanks within the facility, and it hit them with extreme precision. If the Houthis
did this, then the Saudis should sue for peace immediately!
No, there seem to be just two plausible scenarios here, either the Iranians struck the
Saudi facility themselves (which seems unlikely to me) or the Israelis carried out the strike
as part of Bibi's re-election campaign (which seems much more likely). Cui bono?
What missing from the discussion of the Houthi strike against Abqaig is that these are long
'pipelines' of continuous chemical processes that must be gradually started up in sequence,
and if necessary taken down in the same way.
The idea that after KSA was forced to suddenly take more than 50% of their petrochemical
output offline as a result of the disastrous missile attack, they could start them up again
like flipping a light switch, is pure propaganda.
The attack is as much about spiking the long touted sellout of Aramco to foreign interests
than anything else. And indeed that must have been one the major strategic considerations
that motivated the attack.
Puncturing a containment tank with a small yield explosive would be similar to operating a
propane/butane blow-torch. The pressure of the released gasses upon puncture would either
completely extinguish any flame or the gasses would ignite but burn 20-30 feet away from the
tanks themselves. The flame would not follow the gasses back into the tank, as the pressure
of the exiting gasses would prevent that.
So, no, you wouldn't have an intense fire, nor large burn marks nor warping of the walls,
you would have pretty much what you see in the satellite images.
That said, the media has been exaggerating the long-term effects of the Houthi's strike.
The precision and range is impressive, and serves to warn against continued aggression, but
with such small yield explosive devices, the long-term damage isn't going to be that
great.
Seems to me that a total focus on offense is what it takes to create an empire: conquest,
subjugation, control are essential stepping stones to empire status. Once there, any
potential challenge, disloyalty, stepping out of line has to be met with aggression to
maintain the status quo.
As there will be no viable opposition, why be concerned about defense. That at least is
the theory. In the case of Russia and China the empire was asleep at the switch and by the
time this was realised it was too late to contain them, especially as they are joined at the
hip in their opposition. End of empire.
I have to agree with Paul Roberts that Israel is the only likely attacker of KSA.
The attack occurred the day before their election, and incumbents always benefit from war
fever, so this was made by and for Netanyahu. Like the fake Syria chemical weapons attacks,
made just when inspectors were visiting Syria, this is obviously a false-flag attack by an
enemy of Iran, and it certainly was not KSA or UAE. That leaves Israel, the only candidate
that would benefit.
Others will recall that the fake Iraq-WMD scandal was made entirely by zionists: DefSec
Wolfowitz installed known Israeli agents Perle, Wurmser, and Feith to run the offices at CIA,
DIA, and NSA that "stove-piped" known-bad WMD "intelligence" directly to Cheney and Bush to
start a war for Israel. All three of them had worked to convince Netanyahu himself to trick
the US into a war for Israel. After exposure of the scam they were all given medals by
Israel, as was Pollard, their spy who stole nearly all US nuclear weapons secrets and gave
them to Israel, which sold them to the USSR. With friends like Israel and KSA, who needs
enemies?
This attack on Saudi oil facilities has been perfectly timed for maximum benefit to impact
yesterday´s Israeli election result hopefully swaying voters towards the safest pair of
hands they know in times of war,poll struggler PM Bibi with his new US mutual defense pact on
the table.
10 Houti drones launched from the direction of Yemen plus an unknown number of likely zionist
owned cruise missiles adding muscle to guarantee success by piggy backing on that attack. If
results differ from polls then it will have been a worthwhile deceptive action. Saudis &
US Frackers get the higher oil prices they need for their budget and perhaps Lloyds of London
the 9-11 big losers are also on the hook for rebuilding Saudi´s ruined plant.Russia
gets to sell Saudis defensive systems and America gets a recession with higher oil prices and
Trump´s chances of re-election take a nose dive just days after Bolton resigned.
The Israelis did it! Way too many intentionally unanswered questions about launch and
incoming direction. We have capability to find and examine a knat from outer space. But do
not know origin or position of launch? A few reasons for event.
1. Reelect Satanyahu. And keep him out of jail.
2. Continue the Yinon plan--conquer the territory from the brook of Egypt (the Nile River) to
the
Euphrates River, and NEVER allow the peace word to be uttered.
3. Every time Iran makes any suggestion of negotiations with the US, create an event that
snuffs out any
peace effort.
4. Mollify the criminals of Saudis and Israelis who believe that the iron is hot, and this
may be their
last good chance to take out Iran.
The only buffer against the warmongering Israeli Zionist faction that is restraining war now
is the overpowering side of Judaism (the Rothschild Group) who do not want war that will blow
up their world assets. And they still control most of the Israeli intelligence.
after nearly everybody converges in agreeing the attack came from the ragtag houthis... let s
see the overal fall out of the episode.
1- Saudi arabias country is vulnerable, the king s assets are very vulnerable from now
on...
2-the US protection, US weapons and promises are close to a monstruous pile of shit;
3-Leaders all along the ME, Africa and else where are learning how to evaluate the American
friendship and alliances
4-If and to the extent where the Salmans entourage manages to quickly recover the Saudi oil
supply... Iran and Houthis will can quietly and accordingly assess and improve their weapons
and strategies for the future.
Clear like sunshine.
Oil supply is back to what it was before the attack, but we don't know yet who is
responsible - Saudi energy minister
Posted by: vk | Sep 18 2019 13:53 utc | 138
As I understand it - based on previous official Saudi announcements - that message is
deceptive and really means the following:
1) "Oil supply" means what the Saudi's make available to the market, it does not mean
production.
2) They previously announced they would make available 3 million BPD from Aramco reserves
both within SA and overseas such as in Rotterdamm.
3) They previously announced the previous production was just under 10 million BPD.
4) Assuming over 50% of production is down for several weeks, they might be producing
around 4 million BPD plus 3 million from reserves makes around 7 million BPD which is short
of their claims.
5) The Houthis have announced more attacks are coming within a few days, so it looks like
by next week the Saudis might not manage even the 7 million BPD.
6) Someone posted news on the previous thread that Saudi are even buying petrol from Iran,
for domestic use because of shortages!
Casting itself once again as the world's judge, jury and executioner, US imperialism is
recklessly hurtling toward yet another war in the Middle East, with catastrophic
implications. This time, Washington has seized upon Saturday's attacks on Saudi installations
as its pretext for war against Iran.
The reaction of US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to these attacks, which have cut the
kingdom's oil production by almost half and slashed global daily output by 6 percent, was as
noteworthy for its haste as for its peculiar wording.
"Iran has now launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply," Pompeo
tweeted late Saturday, adding, "There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
This
image provided on Sunday, Sept. 15, 2019, by the U.S. government and DigitalGlobe and
annotated by the source, shows damage to the infrastructure at Saudi Aramco's Abaqaiq oil
processing facility in Buqyaq, Saudi Arabia. (U.S. government/Digital Globe via AP)
The indictment of Iran for attacks that set off a series of fires which devastated two oil
facilities in eastern Saudi Arabia came without a shred of supporting evidence, outside of
the bald assertion that there was "no evidence" that they were launched from Yemen.
Yemen had to be discounted, according to the secretary of state's predatory logic, because
the Houthi rebels, who control most of the country, had claimed responsibility for the
attacks and had a clear motive -- given the kingdom's near-genocidal war against Yemen's
civilian population -- for carrying them out. The US mass media has by and large echoed
Pompeo's allegations as absolute truth. On Monday night, television news broadcasts quoted
unnamed intelligence sources, citing unspecified evidence, claiming Iranian responsibility
for the attacks. No doubt this "evidence" will prove just as compelling as that of the Gulf
of Tonkin in Vietnam and "weapons of mass destruction" in Iraq. These same media outlets have
made virtually no mention of Saudi crimes in Yemen.
For the last four and a half years, Saudi Arabia has waged a near-genocidal war against
Yemen, the Middle East's poorest country. The violence has claimed the lives of nearly
100,000 Yemenis outright -- the greatest share through a relentless bombing campaign against
civilian targets -- while pushing some 8 million more to the brink of starvation.
Washington is a direct accomplice in this bloodbath, providing the warplanes, bombs and
missiles used to carry it out, along with logistical support and, until the end of last year,
mid-air refueling that allowed Saudi bombers to carry out uninterrupted carnage. Meanwhile,
the US Navy has helped enforce a blockade that has starved Yemen of food and medicine.
If what the Yemeni Houthis say is true, that they sent a swarm of 10 weaponized drones to
attack the Saudi facilities, then the action was clearly an act of self-defense, far less
than proportionate to the slaughter inflicted by the Saudi regime against Yemen.
Meanwhile, Washington's new ambassador to the United Nations, Kelly Craft, repeated the
charges against Iran on Monday before a United Nations Security Council meeting on Yemen.
Providing no more proof than Pompeo did two days earlier, merely repeating the formulation
that "there is no evidence that the attacks came from Yemen," she described the damage to the
Saudi oil installations as "deeply troubling."
Like the government she represents, the UN ambassador -- the wife of billionaire Kentucky
coal baron Joe Craft and a top Republican donor -- clearly finds the spilt oil of the Saudi
monarchy far more upsetting than the spilt blood of tens of thousands of Yemeni men, women
and children.
On Saturday night, President Donald Trump made a call to Crown Prince Mohamed bin Salman,
the kingdom's de facto ruler, offering his condolences and unqualified support to a man
exposed as a cold-blooded murderer. Bin Salman is responsible not only for the grisly
assassination and dismemberment of the Washington-based journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the
Saudi consulate in Istanbul nearly a year ago, but also the beheadings of at least 134 people
in just the first half of this year, 34 of them political activists slaughtered en masse on
April 23.
Trump subsequently announced that the US was "locked and loaded" to avenge Saudi oil with
military force. (This was a variation on his assertion in June that the Pentagon had been
"cocked and loaded" when he came, by his own account, within 10 minutes of launching
devastating attacks on Iran after it shot down an unmanned US spy drone over its
territory.)
If there is, as Washington claims, "no evidence" that the attacks were launched from
Yemen, one could, with equal if not greater justification, observe that there is likewise "no
evidence" that they were not launched by the US itself, or by its principal regional ally,
Israel.
If one proceeds from the age-old detective maxim of Cui bono? or "Who benefits?",
Tehran is the least likely suspect. There is clearly more to Washington's rush to judgment
than meets the eye.
The attack on the Saudi oil facilities provides a casus belli desired by a major
section of the US ruling oligarchy and its military and intelligence apparatus, which is
determined to prosecute a war for regime change in Iran. Such a war would be the latest
installment in Washington's protracted drive to reverse by military means the decline of US
imperialism's global hegemony, in particular by claiming unfettered US control over the
world's energy reserves and the power to deny them to its rivals.
The thinking within these layers was expressed in an editorial published Monday by the
Wall Street Journal, the mouthpiece of US finance capital. The Journal
warned that Iran was "probing Mr. Trump as much as the Saudis." It continued, "They are
testing his resolve to carry out his 'maximum pressure' campaign, and they sense weakness."
It pointed disapprovingly to Trump's failure to launch airstrikes in June following the
downing of the US drone.
The Journal approvingly cited calls by Republican Senator Lindsey Graham for
bombing Iranian oil refineries in order to "break the regime's back" and suggested that Trump
"apologize to John Bolton, who warned repeatedly that Iran would take advantage of perceived
weakness in the White House." Bolton, a long-time advocate of bombing Iran, resigned as
Trump's national security adviser last week, reportedly over differences on policy toward
Tehran.
The attack on the Saudi oil facilities also provides leverage for Washington in corralling
the Western European powers -- the UK, France and Germany -- behind US war aims. Signatories
to the Iranian nuclear accord that the Trump administration renounced, they have made feeble
gestures toward countering Washington's "maximum pressure" sanctions regime in an attempt to
salvage their own imperialist interests. While thus far failing to endorse US charges of
Iranian responsibility, they could, by means of the attack on Saudi Arabia, be swung behind
the US drive to war.
Israel and its beleaguered Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu also have ample motive to
stage a military action aimed at provoking war with Iran. On the eve of Tuesday's Israeli
election, the threat of a major war with Iran serves the political interests of Netanyahu,
whose political fortunes are inextricably tied to the escalation of military conflict in the
Middle East. The Israeli state, moreover, had become increasingly concerned over an apparent
cooling of the appetite of the ruling monarchies in both Saudi Arabia and the United Arab
Emirates for a confrontation with Iran.
Recent drone strikes against Shia militias in Iraq that had allegedly received Iranian
weapons were, according to a report by the web site Middle East Eye, staged by Israeli drones
operating out of bases controlled by the so-called Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), the main
US proxy force in Syria. A similar covert US-Israeli collaboration could easily have produced
the attacks on the Saudi oil installations.
Whatever the exact circumstances of the attacks on the Saudi oil facilities, they are
being exploited for the purpose of dragging the American people and all of humanity into a
war that can rapidly escalate into a regionwide and even global conflagration.
US strikes against Iran carried out under the pretext of retaliation for the attacks on
Saudi Arabia can trigger Iranian counterstrikes, sending US warships to the bottom of the
Persian Gulf and wreaking havoc on American military bases throughout the region.
The prospect of thousands of US soldiers and sailors dying as a result of Washington's
conspiracies and aggression carries with it the threat of the US government assuming
emergency powers and implementing police-state measures in the US itself in the name of
"national security."
This would, by no means, be an unintended consequence. The buildup to war is driven in
large measure by the escalation of social tensions and class struggle within the United
States itself, which has found fresh expression in the strike by 46,000 autoworkers against
General Motors. There is a powerful incentive for the US ruling class to direct these
tensions outward in the eruption of military conflict, while creating the pretext for mass
repression.
The threat of a US assault on Iran paving the way to a third world war must be answered
through a politically conscious and independent intervention of the working class to put an
end to imperialism and reorganize society on socialist foundations.
Iran Rejects US Accusation It Is Behind
Saudi Attacks https://nyti.ms/30iNte7
NYT - Michael Wolgelenter - September 15
Iran on Sunday forcefully rejected charges by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo that it was
responsible for drone attacks that caused serious damage to two crucial Saudi Arabian oil
installations, with the foreign minister dismissing the remarks as "max deceit."
The attacks on Saturday, which hold the potential to disrupt global oil supplies, were
claimed by Houthi rebels in Yemen. Mr. Pompeo said that Iran had launched "an unprecedented
attack on the world's oil supply," although he did not offer any evidence and stopped short
of saying that Iran had carried out the missile strikes.
The Houthis are part of a complex regional dynamic in the Middle East, receiving support
from Iran while the Saudis, Tehran's chief rival for supremacy in the region and the leader
of a coalition that is fighting the Houthis in Yemen, are aligned with the United States.
Seyed Abbas Mousavi, a spokesman for the Iranian Foreign Ministry, castigated the Saudis
for their role in the war in Yemen, where the Saudis have directed airstrikes that have
caused heavy civilian casualties and exacerbated a humanitarian crisis. He also ridiculed Mr.
Pompeo's comments.
The semiofficial Fars news agency reported on its English-language website that Mr.
Mousavi described Mr. Pompeo's allegations as "blind and fruitless remarks" that were
"meaningless" in a diplomatic context.
Saudi Arabia has yet to publicly accuse Iran of involvement in the attack. On Sunday, its
Foreign Ministry urged international action to preserve the world oil supply in response to
the attack, but it said nothing about assigning blame or striking back.
The developments come at a moment of rising tensions between Iran and the United States,
which have mounted since President Trump pulled out of the 2015 accord in which Iran agreed
with the West to restrict its nuclear program. Since the American withdrawal, Iran has
gradually pulled away from its some obligations under the agreement. ...
... "US & its clients are stuck in Yemen because of illusion that weapon superiority will
lead to military victory," Mr. Zarif wrote on Twitter. "Blaming Iran won't end disaster.
Accepting our April '15 proposal to end war & begin talks may.
The attack on Saturday, which the Houthis said involved 10 drones, represented the rebels'
most serious strike since Saudi Arabia inserted itself into the conflict in Yemen four years
ago. That the rebels could cause such extensive damage to such a crucial part of the global
economy astonished some observers. ...
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
"... Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in fact have been a missile strike ..."
"... But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's? ..."
"... Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed. ..."
"... In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu. ..."
"... That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS Liberty. ..."
"... Israel has the means, plus the motive (Bib's reelection), and might have taken the opportunity to attribute the attack to Iran and force Trump's hand. ..."
"... I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess. ..."
"... There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran and the United States. ..."
"... Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions. ..."
"... I do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone, neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any better. ..."
"... However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see. ..."
"... It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ (dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded" ..."
"... The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran but because they were brutalized for almost a century. ..."
"... One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi . According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on going attacks and the IPO proceeds? ..."
"... We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability. Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors. ..."
"... In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints behind - at least based on recent events. ..."
"... Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar soon to prove they are responsible. ..."
"... israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things. ..."
"... ''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup. And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day. ..."
"... And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE, and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment. ..."
"... Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made sense. We are so messed up. ..."
"... Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. ..."
"... It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing: ..."
"... "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." ..."
"... Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said "valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch (humint or cyber component to one attack vector). ..."
"... It cries out "sure, it's bad, but it is reversible." ..."
"... Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the curtailing of Iran's nuclear program. ..."
"... Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10 billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be strong action against the rogues. ..."
"... Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a UN investigation into the source of the attacks. ..."
"... "The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government coalition. ..."
What made this attack different from other recorded Houthi drone attacks was not only the
unprecedented amount of material damage caused but also lingering doubt about the nature and
the attribution of the attack. First,
a video allegedly showing flying objects entering Kuwaiti airspace led to speculation that
like a
previous "Houthi" drone attack this strike might actually have originated in Iraq or even
Iran. While the video remains unverified, the fact that the Kuwaiti government
launched a probe into the issue lends some credence to the idea that something might have
happened over Kuwait that day. Speculation about the origins of the attack was further fueled
by a tweet
by Mike Pompeo in which he claimed that there was no evidence the attacks came from
Yemen.
Then the question arose whether drones had been used at all, or whether the attack might in
fact have been a missile strike. Previous Houthi drone strikes against oil facilities tended to
result in quite limited damage which could be an indication that a different weapons system was
used this time. Indeed, Aramco
came to the conclusion that its facilities were attacked by missiles. Even more curious,
several pictures began to emerge on social media purportedly showing the wreckage of a missile
in the Saudi desert. While the images appear real, neither the date the photos were taken nor
their location can be verified.
Social media users quickly claimed the images showed a crashed
Iranian-made Soumar cruise missile. The Soumar and its updated version, the Hoveyzeh, are
Iran's attempts at reverse-engineering the Soviet-designed KH-55 cruise missile, several of
which the country
illegally imported from Ukraine in the early 2000s . Others claimed it was the Quds 1, a
recently unveiled Houthi cruise missile often claimed to be a rebranded Soumar."
armscontrolwonl
---------------
TTG raised the issue of whether or not this wave of strikes was done by UAVs or cruise
missiles. IMO this cruise missile could be built in Yemen with Iranian assistance. I am very
interested in the question of what the actual vector of the attacks was in this case. pl
The accuracy of the strikes in the spherical pressurized gas storage containers all being in
the same place relative to each target is the place to start for those who, unlike me, are
capable of analyzing these things.
But regardless, the game has escalated up one more rung up the ladder. How many more will
it take for the world to put its interests ahead of Israel's?
Next escalation rung: a loading dock for supertankers: either the port of Yanbu or Ra's
Tanura. Followed by desalination facilities, if Western politicians still pretend to turn a
blind eye and prefer to follow the dictates of their Israeli masters. Nuff Sed.
In asking the question, qui bono, you do have to include Netanyahu, who is up for reelection
tomorrow. There's nothing like striking fear into the heart of the electorate on the eve of
an election for firming up support for a proven incumbent. And if the US attacks Iran before
tomorrow, so much the better for Netanyahu.
That said, I don't think that Netanyahu's buddies in Riyadh would be amused if this were
proven. However, poking a friend in the eye never seemed to stop Israel before think USS
Liberty.
"The Israeli military is armed with the latest fast jets and precision weaponry, yet it has
turned to its fleet of drones to hit targets in Iraq. Deniability has played a big factor
– the ability of drones to elude radar and therefore keep targets guessing about who
actually bombed them is playing well for Israeli leaders who are trying to prevent an
increasingly lethal shadow war with Iran from developing into an open conflict."
The Samad 3 is laden with explosives that allow it to detonate a shaped charge which
explodes downwards towards its target. Footage provided to MintPress by Yemen's Operations
Command Center shows the Samad landing on an asphalt runway, confirming that the drone is
now capable of conducting operations and then returning to base.
There is a huge sea water desalination plant not far away that provides all the treated water
via pipeline for injection into the oil reservoirs to improve recovery of oil. Target that
and not only have you already impacted the processing of the oil produced but would then
impact the total volume of oil available for processing.
I can see no happy ending short of
negotiation between interested parties. MBZ looks to have already reached that conclusion in
respect of the UAE. what will be the self preservation response for the House of Saud
Could the Committee speculate on possible 'steps of retaliation' operating, for theoretical
purposes, at the moment, on the assumption that regardless of where the 'bullets' were fired
from, or from what 'gun' they were fired, Iran paid for deed. What steps are open for action?
I am assuming, myself, personally, this action was taken to prevent a meeting in NYC between
Trump and the President of Iran. That is my guess.
There was never going to be a meeting between Rouhani and Trump. I expect to be dead of old age before there would be any substantive meetings between Iran
and the United States.
Supreme Ayatollah Khamenei has said there will be no meeting until the U.S.ends sanctions.
I
do not for a moment believe Bolton would have stood for it, and even though he's gone,
neither will Pompeo or Pence. Both appear to be fanatically devoted to Israel. There may be
meetings between low level functionaries, and Trump seems to want one very much, but Rouhani
has said there is no way to trust America, so no point to talking. The situation may change
if Netanyahu loses the election, although I have no reason to believe Avigdor will be any
better.
With all due respect, I think one of us fails to grasp the true nature of Trump. If he puts
his mind to it, and thinks it will benefit him, nobody, not Bolton, not Pompeo, not the whole
Neocon cabal, Israeli govt, the present one or the next one, will stop him if he is President
and alive. He will do what is best for Trump.
And trust has nothing to do with this. Why in the hell should I trust Iran? Hell, why
should I trust the UK? I trust that people and nations have interests. That's all I trust.
But that does mean I could not reach a deal with them. Now, as to whether that deals
holds...that is another question. However, if Trump DOES cut a deal, he will not try and
fluff it off as an "Executive Agreement"....if Trump cuts a deal he knows he will have to
bring it to Congress. Thee Lobby may kill it there...or not. We'll see.
Babak, I value your input here. However, I hope you are wrong and that a meeting or meetings
(substantive or not) will start as soon as the dealbreaker is out of office, and the
sanctions are called off. But I would never wish you an early death. May you live a hundred years.
Thank you very kindly.
I would like to ask the following questions:
Will the United States restore sovereign immunity to Iran?
Will the United States Congress rescind all the laws against Iran that form the basis of
economic war against Iran?
Will the United States rescind the sanctions against Ayatollah Khamenei, Dr. Zarif,
General Soleimani, etc., etc. etc.?
Will the Protestant Christians in the United States ever tire of their unrequited love for
all things Old Testament?
In my opinion, the answer to all of these are "no". Unfortunately, even if a man with the caliber of an FDR or a Nixon is elected to the US
Presidency, he will not be able to accomplish much because of the difficulty, nay the
impossibility, of untangling the rules and regulations that US has woven against Iran.
In my opinion, all of that was predicated on the strategic defeat of Iran and her
surrender.
If I WERE ANSWERING. I got some demands of my own..but we can put them aside for the moment.
In general, I would be inclined to respond: Yes, to the "sovereign immunity" question.
Certainly. Regarding "economic warfare", you would have to give me your legal definition of
such a broad phrase, but in principle, yes. Whole heartedly yes. Sanctions against Iran, and
it individuals officers? Yes, absolutely. Sick of sanctions, in general. It is not in my
power to answer the "unrequited love" issue, but I do solemnly state that I would agree to
stop laughing--in public, anyway, at the question. Wanna meet?
Nassim Nicolaas Taleb, author of "Black Swan":
"SAUDI FIELDS It's not just Yemen. People forget there is an oppressed Shiite minority near the Aramco HQ
(dispossessed of the oil fields, located in their ancestral area & treated like
sub-sub-citizens); they get periodically beheaded"
The Al Saud gang, under the Clown Prince Muhammad Bone Saw, can not count on those Shiite
inhabitants of the oil rich region, not necessarily because of the latter's sympathy for Iran
but because they were brutalized for almost a century.
Why would Iran have done it? Just to show they can or to provoke a attack on Iran?
One to benefit from it that I see so far is Saudi's Aramco IPO which is critical to Saudi
. According to WSJ they were considering delaying it because of low oil prices, they needed
oil to reach $80 barrel to make it viable. The attack sent prices up but now market is
talking about risk if there are 'on going attacks'. What could we deduce if there are no on
going attacks and the IPO proceeds?
Only other beneficiary would be Israel if the attack actually does and likely has killed
any Trump-Iran meeting.
Yemenis claimed credit for it, Iran and Iraq said they didn't do it. First word out of US
mouth is Iran did it. The mouth I am least likely to believe is the US. I remember Iraq has
WMDs propaganda....and those it came from.
Oh well, if Iran says they did not do it.......the US govt lies. The Iranian govt lies, the
Saudis surely lie. This is not about innocents. That search is for children and mighty young
ones at that.
The Quds-1 cruise missile is a UAV (unmanned aerial vehicle). The remotely piloted aerial
vehicles, which are more commonly referred to as drones are also UAVs. The difference is in
the degree of autonomy in flight control. On board autonomous flight control negates the need
for LOS radio or satellite communications with the cruise missile. Cruise missiles, with
their autonomous control, were always characterized by their high degree of accuracy.
I've
started looking a little closer at the Arduino/RasberryPi and model aircraft hobbyist groups.
With the availability of affordable microcontrollers and sensors, along with the massive
library of open source software, I am convinced a hobbyist could put together a guidance
system in his garage workshop capable of doing what the Quds-1 just did in SA. I also agree
with Colonel Lang that an airframe like the Quds-1 could easily be built in war-torn Yemen. A
cave would make an outstanding workshop.
Even if Iran exported dual use components or even blue prints; it should be counted as part
of the unfortunate world weapons market & wouldn't be illegal.
Your point TTG was nicely illustrated in b's video of the Russian guy building in his
workshopa turbofan engine that flew . Providing there is a set of plans it can be constructed
and it only has to have a one time reliability.
Evidence for what delivered the strike will be found within the complex and there will be a
lot of skills on the ground looking for those answers. The projectiles that struck the
spheres looked to have had penetrating qualities rather than high explosive, putting a hole
in a pressure vessel is sufficient to destroy its usefulness. I would be interested to know
if the projectiles that struck the train were explosive to maximise damage there. Do we need
to be considering what could deliver multiple targeted projectiles or were there simply
multiple independent units or some combination as there were more strikes logged over two
target complexes than the ten delivery platforms mentioned in the Al Ansar press release. Was
there a flight controller and if so where were they located also comes to mind.
There is also the TJ200 built bij Polaris from Brazil with the following description::
"Turbine TJ200:
TJ200 was specially designed to be used in either small cruise missiles or small high
performance UAVs. The most important advantage of TJ200 engine is small diameter and a
relatively low SFC (Specific Fuel Consumption) when compared to other engines of the same
thrust, what makes TJ200 perfect to be used in long range small missiles."
http://www.polaristec.com.br/products.html
That's a pretty specific description. So there are a number of COTS engines out there.
I'd have more confidence in the reporting if I could match it up better with what I can see
in Google Maps/Earth.
The only two satellite pictures I've seen of "burning oil plants" disticntly show a large
plume of black smoke centered a little ways away from the actual refinery area, in some kind
of rectangular area outside the actual "plant". Are those wellheads burning? or adjacent
underground storage? or what?
And the pictured of a burning plant labeled "Haradh Gas Plant" is actually (according to
Google Maps & my eyeballs) the Hawiyah Gas Plant, about 60 miles NNE of Haradh.
In Google Maps/Earth, the Abqaiq facility is on the East side of the city/town of Buquaiq,
and the details match the recent pix. The plume lines up with an empty square patch of desert
at the end of a pipeline running SSE out of the plant.
I've looked all around Khurais, and haven't found anything which could possibly be the
"Oil/Gas Infrastructure at Khurais", as the pictures of the damaged facility there are
labeled.
Elkern, I was referring to the pictures of the cruise missile parts in the sand. Seems to me
they are old from previous attacks.
As far as I can tell the pics of damage at Buqaiq and Khurais are valid. With the
exception of the eleven spherical tanks, which I believe were NOT hit. But I've been wrong
before and am no expert on imagery analysis.
We know Yemen has the Quds-1 and has surprised us before with their technical capability.
Combine that with the video of Yahya Sari claiming full responsibility for the attack and I'm
not sure there is any reason to speculate about conspiracies involving other actors.
The Houthis are not an Iranian "proxy" and I highly doubt they would accept responsibility
for something they didn't do.
Moon of Alabama links some photos and has discussion that suggests very high precision
5-10 m. That is not easily achievable with commercial GPS absent a lot of additional
correction hardware. On the other hand, drones can easily do so. Further, it would be
negligent for SA not to have GPS jamming around such facilities.
In addition, the specificity of the targets hit suggests good intel. I would suspect that
Houthi's have linked with disaffected groups in SA (lots!) and improved their Humint. It
seems highly unlikely that Iran would do something like this AND leave their fingerprints
behind - at least based on recent events.
Never underestimate the feckless laziness of the Saudis. In my experience they turn off
all ATC and air defense systems that require manning or watch keeping when they find them
inconvenient as on the weekend. IMO if Ansarallah did this they will do something similar
soon to prove they are responsible.
imo, the saudi's and washington are going to have to take one for the team. the team being
the global oil based world economy and all the notional value FOR THE present ONLY oil
derivatives and interest rate derivatives burdening the western banking system.... think the
insolvent deutsche bank et al.
a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran
which both russia and china can not.. will not allow to die.
israel gets a lot of press and speculation on this board as well as everywhere else for
all their conspiracies and supposed omnipotent power and control but in this writers opinion
THEY have been punching way above their actual weight for years and current reality has
exposed how feckless and puny they really are in the scheme of things.
i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if
israel were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations
israel is viewed as responsible for.
''i suspect the whole 'jew' thing regarding israel is what animates people so much. if israel
were all zoroastrians i doubt the world would credit them with all the machinations israel is
viewed as responsible for.'' A Cult is a Cult regardless of it members makeup.
And Israel is looking more like a Jim Jones farm every day.
Only one tank appears to have minor sooting or scorching. As though they were emptied after
an initial strike then targeted in a second strike, but no reports of a second strike.
In the sat pic showing targets in red boxes, top square, the target appears to be smaller
spheres which do look darkened.
Several correspondents here, including Adrestia and b, seem to lack faith in an autonomous
navigation and terminal guidance system for these cruise missiles. They do not need a radio
or cell phone communication link. This could have been even without a GPS signal. Given that
the strikes appear to come from the west, the smartest route would be to fly north to the
pipelines and then east to the targets. Once the missiles are close to the target either a
visual terminal guidance system could take over or the targets are marked and the missiles'
terminal guidance systems just home in on the marked targets. The marks could be laser
illumination, small IR strobes or offset targeting devices. These offset targeting devices
are emplaced with the exact azimuth and distance to the desired target programmed into the
missiles' terminal guidance system. As I said before, we did this in the early 80s. In the
90s, I used the IR strobes. These were tiny lights snapped to the top of a 9V battery. You
could carry a dozen in your pocket. I personally like the idea of emplacing small IR strobes
on target or a set distance and azimuth from the target. The missiles could home on a spot
say due east and 100 meters from the strobe. I'm sure there are other methods I haven't
thought of yet. My educated guess is that this strike was well thought out with both
intelligence and operational support on and near the target site. Anyone who thinks the
Houthi and their Yemeni allies are incapable of planning and executing this is magnificently
ignorant.
GPS is not accurate enough for the last 10-30 feet. Another possiblity that doesn't need
any human terminal guidance could be a creative use of sensors.
Using CARVER select suitable targets. Pick something that is hot, big or fumes gas.
Then use a combination of gas-sensing, parking-sensors, heat-sensing sensors for the last
few feet.
I'm reading the manual for an FY41AP autopilot right now. About $250, made in china.
As for optical guidance, the attacks happened about 0400 - night or dawn?
This autopilot has a video link as well as autonomous and ground based control modes I think.
If the Yemenis had a guy with a transceiver near abqaiq, then maybe they could send these
things over from yemen using gps and a guy with transceiver provided terminal guidance. If
that were to happen the drones would need to be launched at set intervals.
Your last sentence is true enough as far as it goes, but also, if Israel were all
Zoroastrians (or any other group) the world would have dealt with their paranoid and
psychopathic behavior decades ago. The only reason they get away with everything is because
they are Jewish.
Bacevich in NYT op ed. Behind a paywall, here is a copy. Please do not post if it is too long or off topic
Iran Might Be America's Enemy, but Saudi Arabia Is No Friend
After last week's refinery attack, Trump should be careful about throwing America's weight
behind an unreliable "ally."
By Andrew J. Bacevich
Mr. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft.
Sept. 16, 2019
Image The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987. The American frigate Stark, which was hit by two missiles fired from an Iraqi fighter
plane during the Iran-Iraq war in 1987.
In 1987, an Iraqi warplane attacked an American Navy frigate, the Stark, on patrol in the
Persian Gulf. Accepting Saddam Hussein's explanation that the attack, which killed 37
sailors, had been an accident, American officials promptly used the incident, which came at
the height of the Iran-Iraq war, to ratchet up pressure on Tehran. The incident provided the
impetus for what became a brief, and all but forgotten, maritime war between the United
States and Iran.
Last week, someone -- precisely who remains to be determined -- attacked two oil
refineries in Saudi Arabia. American authorities have been quick to blame Iran, and the
possibility of a violent confrontation between the two countries is once again growing.
Before making a decision on whether to pull the trigger, President Trump would do well to
reflect on that 1987 episode and its legacy.
Back then, the United States had become involved in the very bloody and seemingly
interminable Iran-Iraq war, which Hussein had instigated in 1980 by invading Iran. As that
war turned into a brutal stalemate, President Ronald Reagan and his advisers persuaded
themselves that it was in America's interests to come to Iraq's aid. Iran was the "enemy" so
Iraq became America's "friend."
After the Stark episode, American and Iranian naval forces in the Gulf began jousting, an
uneven contest that culminated in April 1988 with the virtual destruction of the Iranian
Navy.
Yet the United States gained little from this tidy victory. The principal beneficiary was
Hussein, who wasted no time in repaying Washington by invading and annexing Kuwait soon after
his war with Iran ground to a halt. Thus did America's "friend" become America's "enemy."
The encounter with Iran became a precedent-setting event and a font of illusions. Since
then, a series of administrations have indulged the fantasy that the direct or indirect
application of military power can somehow restore stability to the Gulf.
In fact, just the reverse has occurred. Instability has become chronic, with the
relationship between military policy and actual American interests in the region becoming
ever more difficult to discern.
In 2019, this now well-established penchant for armed intervention finds the United States
once more involved in a proxy conflict, this time a civil war that has ravaged Yemen since
2015. Saudi Arabia supports one side in this bloody and interminable conflict, and Iran the
other.
Under President Barack Obama and now President Trump, the United States has thrown in its
lot with Saudi Arabia, providing support comparable to what the Reagan administration gave
Saddam Hussein back in the 1980s. But American-assisted Saudi forces have exhibited no more
competence today than did American-assisted Iraqi forces back then. So the war in Yemen drags
on.
ImageSmoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco
oil facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.
Smoke billowing from one of the oil facilities hit by drone attacks on two Saudi Aramco oil
facilities in Abqaiq, in Saudi Arabia's eastern province, on Saturday.CreditAgence
France-Presse -- Getty Images
Concrete American interests in this conflict, which has already claimed an estimated
70,000 lives while confronting as many as 18 million with the prospect of starvation, are
negligible. Once more, as in the 1980s, the demonization of Iran has contributed to a policy
that is ill advised and arguably immoral.
I am not suggesting that Washington is supporting the wrong side in Yemen. I am
suggesting, however, that neither side deserves support. Iran may well qualify as America's
"enemy." But Saudi Arabia is not a "friend," regardless of how many billions Riyadh spends
purchasing American-manufactured weaponry and how much effort Crown Prince Mohammed bin
Salman invests in courting President Trump and members of his family.
The conviction, apparently widespread in American policy circles, that in the Persian Gulf
(and elsewhere) the United States is compelled to take sides, has been a source of recurring
mischief. No doubt the escalating rivalry between Saudi Arabia and Iran poses a danger of
further destabilizing the Gulf. But the United States is under no obligation to underwrite
the folly of one side or the other.
Supporting Iraq in its foolhardy war with Iran in the 1980s proved to be strategically
shortsighted in the extreme. It yielded vastly more problems than it solved. It set in train
a series of costly wars that have produced negligible benefits. Supporting Saudi Arabia today
in its misbegotten war in Yemen is no less shortsighted.
Power confers choice, and the United States should exercise it. We can begin to do so by
recognizing that Saudi Arabia's folly need not be our problem.
Andrew J. Bacevich is president of the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and the
author of the forthcoming "The Age of Illusions: How America Squandered Its Cold War
Victory."
"a war on iran will do every bit as much damage or MORE to the west as it does to iran"
And Iran has demonstrated that they can cause months worth of damage on the KSA, the UAE,
and Kuwait. I can't believe the number of Congressman who simultaneously believe that Iran
was able to glide over U.S. made air defenses without detection and also believe that we can
simply carpet bomb their refineries without any repercussion. How can one believe both things
at the same time? That Iran is responsible for a sophisticated ghost attack and that they are
incapable of retaliating in a target rich environment.
Not only did Graham say this but the loon from Maryland repeated it. These people are
insane but MSM hosts encourage it, just saw Cavuto snear at Ron Paul because he actually made
sense. We are so messed up.
use the pic released by USG of the damage to get an idea of the orientation of the incoming
projectiles, I used that rectangularish pond behind as an aid,
Everyone keeps misunderestimating the Yemenis. The Houthis are fighting as part of a coalition that includes a large part of the Yemeni
military and intelligence services. This coalition is carrying out a war under guerrilla
conditions, but that war is led by professional military men. Yemen had a serious air force
consisting mostly of missile systems before the war. Much of it was destroyed by the bombing
campaign carried out for Saudi Arabia, but the military organization survived. They have now
reconstituted the Yemeni air forces under fire and in the midst of famine, blockade and
invasion.
Stock up on popcorn, the show has only just begun.
Using my CAD and graphic tools and Google Earth along with the photo showing the four
perforated pressure tanks, I have estimated the four vectors as:
E1 280W. E2 279W, E3 281W and E4 273W. I have numbered the tanks from the most eastwards (the
furthermost away in the photo). Angles from true north (0/360 deg). This averages as 278N
with a STDEV of 3 degrees. Its almost due west. Must be very difficult for autopilots (or
real pilots) could perform more than one group-turning maneuver and still maintain final-run
accuracy to what was achieved.
p.s. I'm not specialist in this field apart from terrestrial navigation and drafting
experience.
RobW
The Czech company which produces the TJ100 does have strong links with Iran.
"2005 TPP Iranshahr Iran, the largest project in the company's history, a turnkey project
- four power plant units." But then again. Creating a crash site in the desert with some COTS components in it is
also easy to do. I would be surprised if Iran is launching missiles now. That would be pretty
stupid to do.
I know. I was attempting a comparison between the way most Americans perceive the desert
peoples and the way most Americans fail to extrapolate from their beliefs of one groups
capabilities and motivations and another group closer to home. The perfumed fops in Ryadh and
the Perfumed Princes in DC are very similar under the perfume.
I remember in the mid sixties how the "benighted" Vietnamese and VC were on their last legs,
unable to do anything militarily significant, that the war would be over in 67. This was that
generations perfumed princes attitude towards a people who had been fighting against invaders
since the 1850s. I remember 68 and the most unexpectedly successful operational and strategic
level victory by the NVA and the VC that was TET.
From an infotainment/Cronkite perspective
the important thing was that the Saigon embassy was broached. From and operational
perspective a "defeated" enemy launched several hundred simultaneous attacks all over South
Vietnam while holding down as a diversion the Dien Bien Phu look alike that was Khe San. 51
years 2 and 1/2 generations and today we make the exact same mistakes in evaluating the
current situation.
It is the benefit of being a perfumed prince or fop or neo-con that history has no meaning
because history ended sometime in the 90's. Somehow I hear the voice of a Rove lecturing:
"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."
I have seen articles over the last month or so (sorry, no links) saying that because they are
not able to send large amounts of material aid through the Saudi and U.S. Navy blockade of
Yemen, the Iranians sent blueprints and a few engineers and the Ansar Allah have been
building them in Yemen.
What looks like missile hits at identical positions on those spherical tanks are not.
They are the locations of pressure relief valvaes that blew when the towers hit, venting gas
up out and away.
I am in full agreement with your assessment Dave. I don't see any penetrations on those 11
spherical tanks. Look at the complete devastation on the three smaller spherical pressure
tanks.
Unless we get higher resolution pics that definitely show those tanks were pierced there
is no way I am going to believe those tiny scorch marks are UAV or missile hits. Much too
symmetrical! No amount of geometrical explaining of drone tracks will account for that
symmetry.
Yes indeed. Dave deserves hearty congratulations though we might add a caveat. The said
"valves" could have been blown out in advance via software or person throwing a switch
(humint or cyber component to one attack vector). Yes, tremors or shakes triggering sensor
which blows valve is possible, I suppose. But the thing that had me up at night was the
nagging sense that this was a prearranged message of sorts.
It cries out "sure, it's bad, but
it is reversible." So I had been wondering about invitation for pow-wows given UN upcoming
meeting in NY. I'm tending to lean toward an advance blowout rather than blowout in reaction
to stress. Why damage such delicate, custom equipment as those beautiful tanks? As you say,
it has to be something intrinsic/internal to the construction of the tanks. So - before or
after remains to be discussed. Assuming the pics are legitimate. But that's why I thought
especially there was a subtle message sent. If they are legit - see above. If not legit -
then it is howling reversibility or caution at the very least.
The processor trains are a linear series of stabilizer columns that help separate the sour
hydrogen sulfide gas from the crude oil. They are at the heart of the process and probably
the highest value target. They are to the left of the 11 pressure tanks in the pictures
shown, or perhaps just NNW of those tanks.
I buy the idea of HUMINT assets having collected target informatoin but the idea of
mini-strobes, etc. seems to me to be too difficult to do given the separation of the missile
force and the HUMINT assets. Very hard to coordinate.
Houthis have every reason to utilize their advanced weapons systems against Saudi targets to
bring the war to an end. As for Iran, seems they have been on a semi-successful diplomatic
campaign to counter US maximum pressure with their own maximum pressure on Europeans, Russia
and China to deliver on the economic benefits that are as important in JCPOA as the
curtailing of Iran's nuclear program.
Trump talking about meeting Rouhani in New York, Zarif
in China getting at least $50-100 billion in pledged economic support, Russia suggesting $10
billion investment in the Iranian energy sector: Why would Iran at this moment make a direct
move to turn the world fully against them? Perhaps a rogue faction of IRGC out to stop any
diplomatic action, but even that would have to come with OK from Khamenei--or there would be
strong action against the rogues.
Pressure on Trump to maintain the hardline against Iran following Bolton ouster? Pompeo
has been leading the diplomatic back channels and repeating Trump's goal of forcing Iran to
the table. Even the Saudis are for the moment hesitant to blame Iran, actually calling for a
UN investigation into the source of the attacks.
2) a general redirection of attention is achieved from 2 points:
- from Syria
In the issue of National Geographic Bulgaria of 04.2019, April 2019 number 4 (162),on p.29
there is a map of the migratory route of a bird - Ethiopia, Yemen, Saudi Arabia, Iraq,
Turkey, Bulgaria. BUT the name of Syria is missing, just an empty space within its current
borders.
Maybe, I sincerely hope not, it was just a part of a campaign of mass indoctrination - the
"former Syria" to be divided between neighbors with a US military base here and there or to
turn onto a No Man's land of lawlessness right there, flanking the EU, Russia's Muslim areas,
China's silk road etc
"The Iran did it" narrative as an attempt to keep on undermining the pro-Syrian government
coalition.
- from the temptation to mix with West's "rivals" internal issues
A strange coincidence that there was such a recent burst of "opposition" activity first in
Russia, then in China. The velvet revolution recipe of the Arabian spring, Ukraine, etc (if
it was such) didn't quite work however.
And the "empires strike back" - subtly and not so subtly. China offers for the London
stock exchange (let's not forget that the Chinese take-over of the London metal exchange went
without a fuss). Saudi Arabia next.
Maybe the message is "Just stay out of your ex-colonies"
Richard Gill, managing director of the UK company Drone Defence:
"But [drone defence is] military-grade technology and it's massively expensive. To install a
defensive system is extremely complex and the threat is evolving at such a rate that it's
very hard to keep up to date, because the adversaries change the type of technology they use
in a way that almost renders the defence moot."
"Iran has launched an unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply,"
declared Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Putting America's credibility on the line, Pompeo accused Iran of carrying out the devastating
attack on Saudi oil facilities that halted half of the kingdom's oil production, 5.7 million
barrels a day.
On Sunday, President Donald Trump did not identify Iran as the attacking nation, but did appear,
in a tweet, to back up the secretary of state:
"There is reason to believe that we know the culprit, are locked and loaded depending on
verification, but are waiting to hear from the Kingdom (of Saudi Arabia) as to who they believe
was the cause of this attack and under what terms we would proceed!"
Yemen's Houthi rebels, who have been fighting Saudi Arabia for four years and have used drones
to strike Saudi airport and oil facilities, claim they fired 10 drones from 500 kilometers away to
carry out the strikes in retaliation for Saudi air and missile attacks.
Pompeo dismissed their claim,
"There is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen."
But while the Houthis claim credit,
Iran denies all responsibility.
Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif says of Pompeo's charge, that
the U.S. has simply
replaced a policy of "maximum pressure" with a policy of "maximum deceit." Tehran is calling us
liars.
And, indeed, a direct assault on Saudi Arabia by Iran, a Pearl Harbor-type surprise attack on
the Saudis' crucial oil production facility, would be an act of war requiring Saudi retaliation,
leading to a Persian Gulf war in which the United States could be forced to participate.
Tehran being behind Saturday's strike would contradict Iranian policy since the U.S. pulled out
of the nuclear deal. That policy has been to avoid a military clash with the United States and
pursue a measured response to tightening American sanctions.
U.S. and Saudi officials are investigating the sites of the attacks, the oil production facility
at Abqaiq and the Khurais oil field.
According to U.S. sources, 17 missiles or drones were fired, not the 10 the Houthis
claim, and cruise missiles may have been used. Some targets were hit on the west-northwest facing
sides, which suggests they were fired from the north, from Iran or Iraq.
But according to The New York Times, some targets were hit on the west side, pointing away from
Iraq or Iraq as the source. But as some projectiles did not explode and fragments of those that did
explode are identifiable, establishing the likely source of the attacks should be only a matter of
time. It is here that the rubber meets the road.
Given Pompeo's public accusation that Iran was behind the attack, a Trump meeting with Iranian
President Hassan Rouhani at the U.N. General Assembly's annual gathering next week may be a dead
letter.
The real question now is what do the Americans do when the source of the attack is known and the
call for a commensurate response is put directly to our "locked-and-loaded" president.
If the perpetrators were the Houthis, how would Trump respond?
For the Houthis, who are native to Yemen and whose country has been attacked by the Saudis for
four years, would, under the rules of war, seem to be entitled to launch attacks on the country
attacking them.
Indeed, Congress has repeatedly sought to have Trump terminate U.S. support of the Saudi
war in Yemen.
If the attack on the Saudi oil field and oil facility at Abqaiq proves to be the work of Shiite
militia from inside Iraq, would the United States attack that militia whose numbers in Iraq have
been estimated as high as 150,000 fighters, as compared with our 5,000 troops in-country?
What about Iran itself?
If a dozen drones or missiles can do the kind of damage to the world economy as did those fired
on Saturday -- shutting down about 6% of world oil production -- imagine what a U.S.-Iran-Saudi war
would do to the world economy.
In recent decades, the U.S. has sold the Saudis hundreds of billions of dollars of military
equipment. Did our weapons sales carry a guarantee that we will also come and fight alongside the
kingdom if it gets into a war with its neighbors?
Before Trump orders any strike on Iran, would he go to Congress for authorization for his act of
war?
Sen. Lindsey Graham is already urging an attack on Iran's oil refineries to "break the
regime's back,"
while Sen. Rand Paul contends that "there's no reason the superpower of
the United States needs to be getting into bombing mainland Iran."
Divided again:
The War Party is giddy with excitement over the prospect of war
with Iran, while the nation does not want another war.
How we avoid it, however, is becoming difficult to see.
John Bolton may be gone from the West Wing, but his soul is marching on.
Small, precise bombs do small precise damage which is mostly easy to fix.... sort of like
US in Vietnam doing large imprecise bombing doing in consequential damage outside of the
selling by the US airplane builders.
If the attack was "low flying cruise missiles" from a land site somewhere near Kuwait.....
someone near Kuwait is technically very sophisticated.
"... I guess America does not need Saudi oil any more, cause it looks like Israel is about to be made king of the Oil Kingdoms in the middle east.? ..."
I think you are correct there maybe many Americans in the USA.. It may take the few Americans who have been
allowed to see the big picture at the USA...
"... USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions... ..."
"... Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of its wealth. ..."
It's Monday September 16th, 2019 and the weeks starts off like this:
GM's UAW Strike
Yemeni Houti Rebels Drones wipe out 50% of Saudi Arabia's oil production
Trump tweets in response is "locked and loaded" implying a new US war in the ME
One of Trump's White House flunky's declared "it is better if Trump does not study an
issue" before making decisions (oh yea,"Stupid is what Stupid does")
Biden and S. Warren tied in the DEM race for 2020
Piketty's new Economics tome is out
PM Netanyahu is losing his re-election bid in Israel, to be determined by tomorrow's
Election
We live in interesting times...
...the question I pose for the times is 'Are the People are better lead by businessmen,
politicians, academics, or intellectuals?
Personally, I choose to be lead by people that do the right thing long term for the People,
not the most politically expedient or the one that makes the most money in the short run or
the smartest, etc.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions about USA
capability. Have not yet seen any press questions in that direction.
USA has been doing nearly everything in the Yemen war except pilot the planes. That Yemen can
sneak some drones into sensitive Saudi areas would seem to raise some questions...
Strategically what this means is that after wantonly bombing and attacking woefully poor
Yemen for years, rich Saudi Arabia is not capable of protecting almost the entire source of
its wealth.
The Americans have gotten themselves in a real bind with their maximum pressure campaign on Iran. This latest attack on Saudi
Arabia's oil production looks like an escalation of the previous attacks on shipping and the spy drone. It is not evident how
the Americans can respond to this latest attack.
As I see it their options are:
1. To let KSA respond to the Houthi attack and continue with their campaign to shut down Iranian oil production, without any
direct U.S. response to the attack. However this will achieve nothing, as next month Iran will up pressure again with another
attack on Middle-East oil assets, and we'll be back to the same place.
2. To bomb Iran's oil industry, as Pompeo and Graham suggest. However this risks blowing up the whole Middle East, as well
as the World's oil market and their own (Western) economies.
3. Forget about Iran and move the fight to maintain U.S. global hegemony to another front: back to Venezuela? Serbia? Hong
Kong? Taiwan? However the end result of such a move would more than likely be another humuliating defeat for the U.S.
4. Do as Stephen Wertheim / New York Times suggest and sue for peace. This will end the dream of U.S. World dominance, Globalization
and the current western based financial system. The U.S. will become no more than a heavily indebted regional power in a 'Multi-polar
World Order' led by China and Russia.
As I see it, the U.S. is out of options to continue their war for global dominance. #4 is the only viable option. But, as one
author argued in a recent paper (I don't have the reference), wars continue long after the victor is clear, because the loser
can't admit defeat (at heavy additional costs to the loser). I think that this is the position that the U.S. finds itself in now.
What the attack on Saudi oil infrastructure shows us, is that now Iran has united her proxys into one united front.
While they were cautious to not leave evidence of their involvment with the Houtis before, they now are putting their support
more and more into the open.
The attack seemed to have involved not only Houti drones (already build with help from Iran), but also Iranian backed forces
in Iraq, AND pro Iranian forces in Saudi Arabia itself. And maybe even other actors.
This is a major new development. Not only for the war on Yemen, but also in the context of Iran providing a credile detterence
against US+Saudi aggression.
They excalated with increasing levels, and one wonders, what could top this last attack off.
And i am pretty sure, we will find out sooner rather than later.
@ 27
WaPo: Abqaiq . .damaged on the west-northwest sides
That's it! It was Hezbollah for sure. (not)
Actually there were two targets, the Buqaiq (Abqaiq) oil processing plant and the Khurais oil field, both in the Eastern Province.
These attacks are not the first -- from longwarjournal:
Last month, the Houthis claimed another drone operation against Saudi's Shaybah oil field near the United Arab Emirates. At
more than 1,000 miles away from it's Yemen territory, that strike marked one of the Houthis farthest claimed attacks.
The Houthis also claimed a drone strike on the Abu Dhabi airport last year, but that has been denied by Emirati officials.
Additionally, a drone strike on Saudi's East-West oil pipeline near Riyadh earlier this year, which the Houthis claimed responsibility,
was allegedly conducted by Iranian-backed Iraqi militants. If accurate, that means the Houthi claim of responsibility acted
as a type of diplomatic cover for the Iraqi militants.
Since beginning its drone program last year, the Houthis have launched at least 103 drone strikes in Yemen and Saudi Arabia
according to data compiled by FDD's Long War Journal. . .
here . . .and more
here .
Really appreciated the write up on the Houthis attack.
Sounds like the attack left substantial damage. Another bigger issue underlying all of this, aside from Saudi inability to get
what it wants now from it's IPO, is the fact that the US Patriots did not detect this attack.
The Saudis spent billions last year on this defense system. Sounds like the clown Prince better give Russians a call about their
S-400.
But the US wouldn't appreciate that much, would they?
As Bloomberg notes, "for oil markets, it's the single worst sudden disruption ever,
surpassing the loss of Kuwaiti and Iraqi petroleum supply in August 1990, when Saddam Hussein
invaded his neighbor. It also exceeds the loss of Iranian oil output in 1979 during the Islamic
Revolution, according to data from the U.S. Department of Energy."
Furthermore, in light of news that the
Saudi outage could last for months , this could be just the start. As a reminder, according
to Morningstar research director, Sandy Fielden, "Brent could go to $80 tomorrow, while WTI
could go to $75... But that would depend on Aramco's 48-hour update. The supply problem won't
be clear right away since the Saudis can still deliver from inventory."
Of course, should Aramco confirm that the outage - which has taken some 5.7mmb/d in Saudi
output after 10 drones struck the world's biggest crude-processing facility in Abqaiq and the
kingdom's second-biggest oil field in Khurais - will last for weeks, expect the crude
juggernaut to continue until the price hits $80, and keeps moving higher. Finally, here is the
price summary from Goldman commodity strategist Damien Courvalin, who earlier today laid out
four possible shutdown scenarios, and the price oil could hit for each:
A very short outage – a week for example – would likely drive long-dated
prices higher to reflect a growing risk premium, although short of what occurred last fall
given a debottlenecked Permian shale basin, a weaker growth outlook and prospects of strong
non-OPEC production growth in 2020. Such a price impact could likely be of $3-5/bbl.
An outage at current levels of two to six weeks would, in addition to this move in
long-dated prices, see a steepening of the Brent forward curve (2-mo vs. 3-year forward) of
$2 to $9/bbl respectively. All in, the expected price move would be between $5 and $14/bbl,
commensurate to the length of the outage (a six month outage of 1 mb/d would be similar to a
six week one at current levels).
Should the current level of outage be announced to last for more than six weeks, we
expect Brent prices to quickly rally above $75/bbl, a level at which we believe an SPR
release would likely be implemented, large enough to balance such a deficit for several
months and cap prices at such levels.
An extreme net outage of a 4 mb/d for more than three months would likely bring prices
above $75/bbl to trigger both large shale supply and demand responses.
What are the broader implications from this move? According to Ole Hansen, head of
commodities strategy at Saxo Bank A/S in Copenhagen, "the global economy can ill afford higher
oil prices at a time of economic slowdown." But Peter Boockvar's hot take may be the best
one.
Bibi is desperate for war with Iran to avoid election defeat and prison and Bolton is
fired/resigns only to predict "Iranian deception" on the way out the door. This is obviously
another Mossad/CIA/Saudi false flag on the anniversity of 9/11 to serve multiple interests:
Bibi's re-election, the central bankers, the MIC's aspirations for war with Iran & Trump
has an economic scapegoat ensuring a free pass for 2020.
Update 2 : In a sharp, if perhaps not unexpected, escalation, US Secretary of State - now
without John Bolton by his side - tweeted at 4pm on Saturday, that contrary to earlier reports,
"there is no evidence the attacks came from Yemen" and instead accused Iran of launching
today's "unprecedented attack on the world's energy supply" which has now indefinitely taken
offline as much as 5mmb/d in Saudi crude production.
In a follow up tweet, Pompeo said that he calls "on all nations to publicly and
unequivocally condemn Iran's attacks" which is odd as not even Saudi Arabia accused Iran of
today's aggression (which many speculated could have been a Saudi false flag in hopes of
sending the price of oil soaring ahead of the Aramco IPO). Pompeo concluded that "the United
States will work with our partners and allies to ensure that energy markets remain well
supplied and Iran is held accountable for its aggression."
Will this pivot away from Houthis to Iran as the "origin" of the attack be sufficient
grounds to re-inflame tensions between the US and Iran, especially following last week's news
that one of the reasons Bolton was fired was due to his hard-line stance on Iran even as Trump
was willing to sit down with the Tehran regime for negotiations. Since the deep state stands to
make much more money from war rather than peace, our guess is that the answer is a resounding
"yes." Update: The WSJ is out with an update hinting at just how much the price of oil is set
to soar when trading reopens
late on Sunday after the Saudi Houthi false-flag drone attack on the largest
Saudi oil processing plant:
Saudi Arabia is shutting down about half of its oil output after apparently coordinated
drone strikes hit Saudi production facilities, people familiar with the matter said, in what
Yemen's Houthi rebels described as one of their largest-ever attacks inside the kingdom.
The production shutdown amounts to a loss of about five million barrels a day , the people
said, roughly 5% of the world's daily production of crude oil . The kingdom produces 9.8
million barrels a day.
And while Aramco is assuring it can restore output quickly, in case it can't the world is
looking at a production shortfall of as much as 150MM barrels monthly, which - all else equal -
could send oil soaring into the triple digits. Just what the Aramco IPO ordered.
What appears to be the most devastating Yemen Houthi rebel attack on Saudi Arabia to date,
took place overnight on the world's largest oil processing facility as stunning videos emerged
of massive explosions rocking the major Aramco Buqyaq facility .
Fires burned into the morning daylight hours, with explosions also reported at the Khurais
oil field, in what the Houthis said was a
successful attack involving ten drones . "These attacks are our right, and we warn the
Saudis that our targets will keep expanding," a rebel military spokesman
said on Houthi-operated Al Masirah TV .
Saudi authorities -- initially slow or reluctant to identify the cause of the major blaze --
on Saturday issued a confirmation via the Saudi Press Agency: "At 4.00am (01:00 GMT) the
industrial security teams of Aramco started dealing with fires at two of its facilities in
Abqaiq and Khurais as a result of... drones," an interior ministry statement
said , which further claimed the fires were "under control" .
However, the Saudis have stopped short of acknowledging the Houthis were behind the attack,
which Riyadh is also likely to blame on Iran , which has lately promised that if it can't
export its oil then "no one will".
It remains unclear according to early statements whether there were injuries or casualties
in the twin oil facility attacks.
The impact on global oil markets - closed for the weekend - could be significant given the
Khurais field produces about 1% of all the world's oil (estimated at over 1M bpd and reserves
of over 20BN bpd) and more importantly Abqaiq, which based on the stunning local footage bore
the brunt of the drone attacks, remains the most crucial of the kingdom's processing
plants.
Located 37 miles southwest of Aramco's Dhahran headquarters, it controls all the flows from
fields like the giant Ghawar field to coastal export terminals like Ras Tanura. Saudi Aramco
describes the Buqyaq facility as "the largest crude oil stabilization plant in the world."
Meanwhile, the United States was quick to "strongly condemn" the attack amid already soaring
tensions in the gulf after a summer of "tanker wars" and Iranian threats of walking away
altogether from the 2015 nuclear deal (JCPOA).
The U.S. envoy to Saudi Arabia issued
a statement saying , "The U.S. strongly condemns today's drone attacks against oil
facilities in Abqaiq and Khurais. These attacks against critical infrastructure endanger
civilians, are unacceptable, and sooner or later will result in innocent lives being lost."
According to Reuters reports the drone attacks will impact up to 5 million bpd of oil
production, which suggests that the price of oil - already severely depressed by the recent
news that John Bolton is out, making de-escalation with Iran far more likely - is set to soar
when trading reopens late on Sunday, just what the upcoming Aramco IPO desperately needs ,
which in turn has prompted some to wonder if the "Yemen" attack on Saudi Arabia wasn't in fact
orchestrated by Saudi interests. 18 years after Sept 11, this shouldn't sound all that
outlandish...
Oil companies want higher prices. Israel wants US to war with Iran. Jews want Bolt-on to
be proven right. Hmm, how can we get all those things with one shot. Oy-vey, I have an
idea.
If the U.S. attacks Iran, it will only raise oil prices even more. If the Houthis have the
ability to destroy Saudi oil infrastructure, then Iran has the ability to wipe it out for
years to come. How can the U.S. protect Saudi oil production? If there was a simple way to do
it, you'd think it would have already been implemented. It's looking like Iran wasn't kidding
when they said if they can't sell their oil then neither will the Saudis.
$100 oil might get people more interested in electric vehicles that all manufacturers have
been forced to invest billions in that the public dont want.
What appears to be the most devastating Yemen Houthi rebel attack on Saudi Arabia to
date
What is missing from that article is the fact that actually this attack was not performed
by the Houthi rebels themselves, and not from Yemen. This attack was actually performed by
another Iranian proxy, the PMU, and the drones were sent into Saudi Arabia's territory from
Iraq, North West of the country, not from Yemen.
This just underscores the way Iran's ring of proxy terror militias are all connected and
acts in tandem under the control of Iran,
Out of its twisted interpretation of Islam's Quran, Iran's mission is to bring about a
regime change to moderate Islamic countries (including allies of the US), forcing them into
its extremist, US hateful, Shia Islam. The way they do it is by arming and financing
terrorist proxy militias in various regions, spreading death and destruction. Iran arms and
finances the Houthis in Yemen, The Islamic Jihad in Gazza, Hashd Al-Shaabi in Iraq, Hezbollah
in Lebanon, Fatemeyoun Brigades in Syria, various terrorist groups in Africa, and more.
Iran has perfected the art of gradually conquering a country without replacing its flag by
planting cancer cells in the form of terror proxy militias.
Iran spends billions of Dollars on those militias, at the expense of the well being of
common Iranian people. All this money is deprived from their own people, cutting food and gas
subsidies. Iran has abundance of oil reserves but a large chunk of the oil revenues goes to
support insurgent groups in other countries while Iran's citizens live in misery and hunger.
Heck, just on Lebanon's Hezbollah, Iran spends one Billion Dollars each year.
Iran's aim is to directly hurt our national interests by turning friendly Muslim countries
against the US. Iran is not shy of demonstrating its hatred to the US. Iran states openly,
and with great force, "Death to America!" They burn American flags in their parliament.
Half of Saudi Arabia's oil production has gone offline following a surprise drone strike.
Drones attacked Abqaiq facility in Saudi Arabia and the Khurais oil field run by Saudi Aramco early Saturday morning, the
kingdom's interior ministry
said
,
sparking a massive fire at a crude processing plant essential to global oil supplies.
The closure will impact nearly
5
million barrels of crude processing per day
, affecting 5 percent of the world's daily oil production. And while Aramco is
confident that it can recover quickly, if it can't, however, the world could face a production shortage of as much 150MM
barrels per month. An outcome which could send oil prices into the triple digits.
Houthi rebels-- who are backed by Iran in a yearlong Saudi-led battle in Yemen-- have apparently asserted responsibility for
the strikes and pledged that more assaults can be expected in the future.
A Houthi spokesperson explained, "We promise the Saudi regime that our future operations will expand and be more painful as
long as its aggression and siege continue," adding that the attack involved ten drones.
The Iran-backed Houthis have recently been behind a number of assaults on Saudi pipelines, vessels and other energy
infrastructure as tensions grow in the region.
There have been no details on the severity of the damage but Agence France-Presse quoted interior ministry spokesperson
Mansour al-Turki as saying that there were no human casualties as a result of the attack.
This latest strike highlights the risk posed by the Houthis to Saudi Arabia's
oil
infrastructure
as tensions between the groups continues to escalate.
The growing power of the Houthis' drone operations is likely to reignite the debate on where the militant group is securing
these weapons. It could very well be that the group has weaponized noncombatant drones, or in a darker scenario, they are
receiving the militarized drones from Iran.
A Saudi-led coalition has been at
war
with
the Houthi movement in Yemen since March 2015. The Iranian-backed rebels hold the funding, Sana'a, and other areas in the Arab
world's most impoverished nation.
The battle has created one of the world's worst humanitarian crisis. The violence has pressed Yemeni citizens to the brink of
starvation. And the death toll has soared to more than 90,000 individuals since 2015, according to the US-based Armed Conflict
Location & Event Data Project, which tracks the conflict.
(Bloomberg) -- Middle East geopolitics have come back with a vengeance to hit the oil
market. What everybody feared has happened. An attack has penetrated the defenses of Saudi
Arabia's massive Abqaiq oil processing facility, the heart of the kingdom's oil production and
export infrastructure, causing an unknown amount of damage. Crude prices will react and
emergency stockpiles will be tapped.
Fires at the plant were brought under control within hours, but the flow of crude from Saudi
Arabia, the world's biggest exporter, will almost certainly be affected, although we don't yet
know by how much or for how long. Traders who have shrugged off tensions in the Middle East for
months will respond to this attack when markets open on Monday.
The height of the price spike will depend on how much we know about the extent of the damage
and how long it will take to repair. An absence of information will lead traders to assume the
worst.
The Abqaiq crude processing plant is the single most important facility in the Saudi oil
sector. In 2018 it processed about half of the kingdom's crude oil production, according to a
prospectus published in May for the state oil company's first international bond. That's
roughly 5 million barrels a day, or one in every 20 barrels of oil used worldwide.
Abqaiq is more important to the Saudi oil sector than the kingdom's Persian Gulf export
terminals at Ras Tanura and Ju'aymah, or the Strait of Hormuz that links the Gulf to the Indian
Ocean and the high seas. Crude can be diverted away from the Persian Gulf and Hormuz by pumping
it across the country to the Red Sea through the East-West oil pipeline. But it cannot bypass
Abqaiq. The East-West pipeline starts at Abqaiq and output from the giant Ghawar, Shaybah and
Khurais fields is all processed there, so an attack on the facility will impact crude flows to
export terminals on both coasts.
The latest attack comes just months after drones, allegedly launched from Iraq by Yemen's
Houthi rebels, targeted pumping stations on the oil pipeline. The damage caused by that earlier
attack was minimal, but highlighted the vulnerability of Saudi Arabia's oil infrastructure,
even when located hundreds of miles from the country's borders.
So what happens now?
Saudi Arabia will probably seek to maintain export levels as much as possible by supplying
customers from stockpiles. It holds crude in storage tanks in the kingdom, as well as at sites
in Egypt, Japan and the Netherlands. But it has been running its crude hoard down since the
beginning of 2016 and it is now back at levels not seen since 2008, according to data from the
Joint Organisations Data Initiative. That means the kingdom has much less to draw on than it
did three years ago.
The attack will also test stockpiles in oil-consuming countries. Members of the
International Energy Agency are required to hold 90 days' worth of oil imports in emergency
stocks and those will be pressed into service if the outage at Abqaiq is prolonged. Non-member
countries like China and India have also been building up their own emergency reserves. Those,
too, will be pressed into service.
Neighboring countries who, just days ago, were being exhorted to stick to output quotas
agreed in December will now pump as much as they can to make up for any losses from Saudi
Arabia. The United Arab Emirates, Kuwait and Iraq will all boost output as much as they are
able. But the one country with lots of spare capacity, Iran, won't see any easing of the
restrictions placed on its oil sales by the U.S. Quite the opposite. Its support for the Houthi
rebels in Yemen, who have claimed responsibility for the attack on Abqaiq, will ensure that any
easing of the pressure being exerted on it remains a distant prospect.
To contact the reporter on this story: Julian Lee in London at [email protected]
To contact the editors responsible for this story: Alaric Nightingale at
[email protected], Steve Geimann
ODESSA, Texas (Reuters) - Oil producers and their suppliers are cutting budgets, staffs
and production goals amid a growing consensus of forecasts that oil and gas prices will stay
low for several years.
---
Debt deflation. The interest charges they pay derived from the period between 2010 and
2014 when opil prices remained in the $80 range. The oil companies were relying on bad
theory.
What about 'inflation' are things getting bigger? Let me pick a price index, say CPI, and
compare that to oil prices. (click,click.. the sound of me doing a Fred graph).
There bingo, CPI generally tracks oil, mainly because of something called entropy makes
energy a part of everything. The CPI eventually reverts to oil index. But oil has not really
changed in price much since 2015, while CPI kept on rising. So expect a large dose of debt
deflation.
Pop on over to the BP spreadsheet and find the regional consumption tab. For some regions
there are countries broken out and for others, not. But on this tab you can get granularity
on what kind of oil, what constituent part of crude, was consumed.
Japan. The population decline is actually pretty recent -- only since 2010. Their decline
in consumption is popularly attributed to population reduction, and I have gotten this wrong,
too, but consumption decline has been since 1995 with population gain for 15 of those years.
In more detail, their consumption decline is not gasoline. They have increased gasoline burn
since 1995. (The Prius is the 2nd most popular car in Japan and it first went on sale in
1997, so Prius didn't kill gasoline burn, which has increased).
It's middle distillates and Fuel Oil that are way down. Stuff that fuels big commercial
engines. That's what has fallen. Fuel Oil is more than maritime bunker fuel. It powers big
stuff. There was a sharp uptick of Fuel Oil consumption . . of 44% in 2012 because it was
Fuel Oil that was called on to generate electricity when all the reactors were shut down
during the quake panic. But the reactors returned and Fuel Oil resumed its decline.
One last thing that could blow all those paras out of the water. Japan had until recently
more refinery capacity than internal consumption. It's a lot like Singapore. The crude comes
in and product exports and this seems to somehow corrupt all measurements. The govt recently
shut down many of the refineries. It wasn't voluntary. Gov't ordered. Now Japan has to import
fuels, not just crude. Quite a lot. Which likely confuses the consumption measurements
further.
Ok I read this blog quite regularly but now I'm confused. US oil production has actually
fallen since the start of the year?
Dennis, can you respond to that? I thought I was just reading in the last post that the
current completion rate in the Permian was enough to raise production for five more years or
so. July is probably skewed because of the hurricane, but what gives?
It's definitely slowing. See my first post on June monthly production. When you add all the
states with shale production, there is no growth from May to June. Yes, July should be down
significantly due to the hurricane, but I expect no growth from shale.
Dennis sees an increase, Ron sees it plunging. I see it flat for a few months, and slowly
trending down. Pick your poison.
Yes the increase is pretty small for tight oil over the next 5 years only an average
annual rate of increase of 344 kb/d for US tight oil from 2019 to 2024 for the flat
completion rate scenario. This is a far cry from the 1620 kb/d increase in US tight oil
output from Dec 2017 to Dec 2018, a factor of 4.7 times slower on average than the rapid rate
of increase in 2018.
No US C+C output in June 2019 was 12,082 kb/d and in Dec 2018 US C+C output was 12,038
kb/d, so output has risen, but not by much. Yes a flat completion rate could lead to a rise
in tight oil output until 2025, though conventional output could fall to offset this.
Conventional output has been falling of late as fewer new conventional wells have been
completed for the past 6 months.
The current financial strain on shale producers is likely to intensify as many companies that
took on debt after the 2016 oil slump face large debt maturities in the next four years. As
of July, about $9 billion was set to mature throughout the remainder of 2019, but about $137
billion will be due between 2020 and 2022, according to S&P.
Seems that there will be more bancurupt filings in the years to come.
What is interesting is the footnotes. The first one says: " The supply of existing oil
production naturally declines at an **estimated 7 percent per year** without further
investment. Significant investment is needed to offset this natural decline and meet the
projected demand growth." The 7 percent figure caught my eye.
Also see the footnote about the switch over to Biofuels but Biofuels are such a very small
amount.
Continuing to look at the Regional Consumption tab from the World Stat stuff.
There is this category called Others. BP defines it as:
" 'Others' consists of refinery gas, liquefied petroleum gas (LPG), solvents, petroleum
coke, lubricants, bitumen, wax, other refined products and refinery fuel and loss."
This is not trivial afterthought. This is over 20% of the total oil consumption for nearly
all countries/regions. 24% for the whole world, and that deserves a !!!
It's 41% for India, also deserving a !!! I happen to know this derives from LPG, a hugely
popular transportation fuel in India.
China, 30%.
US 22.6%
India's total oil consumption last year was 5.9%. Light distillates had 10% growth,
gasoline 8.9%. Others, 6%. EVs and hybrids did nothing to gasoline burn there, which you
would expect for such a narrow niche product for rich people in year-round warm cities. They
didn't drive much anyway. And of course rural driving is a big thing in India, per the recent
item about political campaigns travelling place to place by road.
China's total oil consumption last year was +5.6%. Light distillates +7.3%. Kerosene/jet
fuel + 14% (!!!) Others, 7.1%.
And ditto.
As noted above Japan's consumption drop has been from lost economic activity, not
population, and it burns more gasoline today than in 1995, so Prius didn't do much there.
Their big loss is in middle distillates, because they shut down a lot of factories. Repeat,
population ROSE in Japan up to 2010. Only since then has it fallen and middle distillate
consumption (and Others consumption) has been falling steadily since 1995, even when
population was rising.
First you lose your economy, then you lose your food.
(Caveat about refinery exports from previous comment)
From the EIA monthly I see the US oil and condensate production was:
April 12. 123 Mbpd
May 12. 115 Mbpd ( – 8 000 bpd / 0,1%)
June 12. 082 Mbpd ( – 33 000 bpd/ 0,3%).
Will be very i teresting to see the production for July and August including new pipeline
capacity. To me it seems like the DUCS that was good have now been used, Baker Hughes drill
statistick document number of riggs still go down. In January EIA and Rystad believed US oil
production would reach 13 Mbpd in 4th Quartile 2019, the truth is this might already be below
12 Mbpd . As they told the growth in US shale have be funded by borrowed money , now
investors have far from get back what they where promissed, they are pissed off
There is no good real time data, at least not publicly available, on global stocks but US
stocks have declined so far this year ( https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/hist/LeafHandler.ashx?n=PET&s=WCESTUS1&f=W
). It seems to me that we are starting to see the effect now on lower OPEC production (cut or
whatever reasons) and LTO not growing as fast as forecasted.
A quote from IEA's last OMR (
https://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2019/august/economic-woes-hold-sway-over-geopolitics.html
): "If the July level of OPEC crude oil production at 29.7 mb/d is maintained through 2019,
the implied stock draw in 2H19 is 0.7 mb/d, helped also by a slower rate of non-OPEC
production growth." Note that this assumes LTO-growth in US causing the market to be
oversupplied next year
The market sentiment is currently bearish on oil for whatever reason (US LTO growth,
economic slowdown, etc.), you can see this on the yield curve that Art provides, the curve
has become more flat ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/EDENJx2XUAIR5lC.png:large
). I find the herd mentality of the oil market interesting and would not be surprised if the
herd changes direction in a not too distant future. The big question mark I see is what will
happen with the Iran-deal if/when stocks continue to decline.
Even though Norway is "the darling of alternative transport", EV sales are still a small part
of their transportation mix. All-electric 7.8%, Plug-In hybrids, 3.6%, and Hybrids 4.0%.
Without the impact of EVs, their consumption would likely have been higher.
It looks like Nick Cunningham, the author of the article below, reads peakoilbarrel.com
"The more important point is that the oil industry is slowing down more generally.
Most oil forecasters expected explosive production growth to continue through this year
and into 2020. But with June U.S. production at 12.082 mb/d, output is only about 80,000 bpd
above levels seen at the end of 2018. In other words, growth has been pretty slow this
year.
Financial stress is really setting in, forcing drillers to cut back. The rig count fell by
12 in the last week of August, part of an ongoing slide since reaching a peak late last year.
Bankruptcies are on the rise. As the Wall Street Journal notes, an estimated 26 U.S. oil and
gas companies have declared bankruptcy this year, which is close to the full-year 2018 total.
More are expected.
Worse, there is a tsunami of debt that comes due in the years ahead. According to the WSJ,
roughly $9 billion worth of debt was set to mature over the second half of 2019. But a
whopping $137 billion in debt matures between 2020 and 2022, a massive total that stems from
the huge debt issuance following the oil market meltdown a few years ago. A serious reckoning
is just around the corner."
Raymond James recently estimated that over the last three years the U.S. decline rate for oil has doubled from
1.6 to 3.2 million barrels per day. The drilled but uncompleted well inventory ("DUC") is back to normal, so the
number of wells being drilled and the number of wells being completed is now about the same. We need over 12,000 new
horizontal oil wells completed each year to hold production flat and the number of completed wells will need to go up
each year.
The U.S. Energy Information Administration ("EIA") forecast at the beginning of this year was that the U.S.
shale oil plays were just getting started and that production would increase by at least 2 million barrels of oil per
day ("MMBOPD") each year for several more years.
Now if you believe that U.S. shale production will increase by 2 million barrels per day each year for several
more years, then I have a bridge that I think you might be interested in. But let's just play "what if", or what if
it really did increase by 2 million barrels per day for the next five years.
According to the EIA's Drilling Productivity Report, December 2018 shale production, all basins, was 8,232,750
barrels per day and the legacy decline, for all basins, averaged 6.14 percent per month or 505,737 barrels per day.
Legacy decline of over one million barrels per day would be a crippling requirement of shale producers. But not to
worry, that is simply not going to happen. Now total US production did increase by two million barrels per day 2018.
In fact, according to the EI.s Monthly Energy Review, US production increased by 2,064,000 barrels per day in 2018.
But for the first 7 months of 2019, total US production has declined by 54,000 barrels per day.
USA production appears to have hit a snag. July production is now below November 2018 production.
In my opinion, legacy decline in shale production has reached a point where new production only replaces legacy
decline. In fact, legacy decline may have reached a point where it is crippling shale oil production.
Those who have followed this blog for years know that Texas oil production is reported by the Texas Railroad
Commission. But their data is very slow coming in, sometimes it is more than a year before all the data has come in.
However, Dean Fantazzini, Energy economist, Deputy Head of MSU's Chair of Econometrics and Mathematical Methods in
Economics, has developed a program that uses the vintage data to make a pretty good estimate of the actual data. His
past corrected data has been relatively accurate.
If Dr. Fantazzini's data is correct then Texas peaked in December 2018 and has declined by 280,000 by June.
All the below charts were created from the EIA's Drilling Productivity Report. The data is through September 2019
and the last few months is, of course, an estimate. Historically the estimate for those last few months has been
overestimated.
Notice the last six months is pretty much a straight line. That is because most of it is just an estimate.
It looks like the Permian is pretty much the story as far as US shale is concerned.
The Permian is now just over 50% of total US shale production.
Permian Legacy Decline has been slowly rising and now sits at about 6%.
Eagle Ford has the highest legacy decline rate, now about 8.5% per month.
It looks like shale production, outside the Permian, has pretty much hit the wall. Pay no attention to those last
four months. They are just the EIA's wild ass guess.
In conclusion: Very high legacy decline, now over 6% per month, is shale's Achilles heel. Of course, there are
other problems as well. Bankruptcies are rampant, running out of sweet spots and the price of oil is just not high
enough. It appears that the USA has peaked, or peaked until the price of oil rises at least $20 a month.
Dean's charts self correct after a couple of months. Good estimates. Red Queen is already catching up. And,
it will catch up faster the next six months from June, as most of the independents have severely cut back on
capex.
Your Wall Street journal link has a firewall. Never mind, I got through. Good post.
Pioneer has not only reduced its capex, it's reduced its workforce by 25%. Apache has given up on
the Alpine High, their biggest capex. It's 90 % gas, how stupid can you get? Yadda, yadda, Yadda. Just
google the company for capex, and put 2nd quarter 2019. Voila!
Your sure to get a positive statement from the company, but just concentrate on the capex going
forward. For example, we're losing money had over fist, translates to reduced operating expenses will
provide an increased return for 2019. Get serious. None of these companies are going to say, we are
screwed.
EOG could make it, most of the rest are totally screwed.
"I have no doubt in my mind that U.S. shale will peak, plateau and then decline like every other basin in
history," Al-Falih told reporters at OPEC's Vienna headquarters. "Until it does I think it's prudent for
those of us who have a lot at stake, and also for us who want to protect the global economy and provide
visibility going forward, to keep adjusting to it."
Dr. Raymond Pierrehumbert will be proven right belatedly.
The article does say US production still has an up side, but prices would have to be higher.
If there is
not enough supply then oil prices will obviously go higher as the did in 2003-2005 and in 2012-13.
US drilling rig count is very low at the moment being only 742, at it's highest recently the US could
have 1,400 drilling rigs working.
1,400 drilling rigs will certainly complete enough wells so new supply would exceed decline rates. When
oil prices are over $100 as they were in 2012 and the number of drilling rigs are 1,400 then you can wake me
up.
You want to focus on horizontal oil rigs. The count was as high as 1100, but many of those rigs
were lower power rigs no longer economic to operate, a lot of the current rigs are higher power and far
more efficient at drilling 3300 meter laterals commonly drilled today.
Holy f*ck Hugo, you are a raving lunatic. The oil prices can't go higher, otherwise there will be a
repeat of 2008. Clearly you are incapable of learning from the past.
Yeah, there is sort of a contradiction there. Sorry about that. But we are seeing the physical limits hit
in much of the world, regardless of the price. But if oil hits $80 to $100 a barrel, a lot more shale
could be produced. But that will not change things in the long run. It could delay peak oil by a year or
two.
Essentially we hybrids you can cut consumption in half for personal transportations. That's a
lot of oil saved. Also hybrids have much smaller battery then EV and as such use it more
efficiently.
(1) Oil fired power plants were phased out after the 1st (US peak 1970 allowed OPEC to impose
embargo) and 2nd oil crisis (peak oil in Iran 1975) not because of a planned, voluntary
transition
(2) Hirsch's slow mitigation. The 2008 oil price shock was a warning. Where are we 10 years
later? Are we on a path away from oil?
(3) EV maintenance cost must include replacement batteries in the car and in your garage (to
store power from solar panels – drive less in winter). The inverter for my solar panels
lasted only 5 years
(4) EV s recharged from grid are mainly coal power driven
(5) The era of cheap, easy oil ended in the early 2000s (when the North Sea peaked), before
the Iraq war
"EV s recharged from grid are mainly coal power driven"
Not in the USA, where coal makes up less than 25% of electricity generating capacity, down
from 40% in less than 10 years (primarily due to replacement with tight nat gas
production).
And some states, like the biggest in the country, get less than 5% electricity from coal,
imported from neighboring states via the grid.
In a
study of 29 fracking-focused oil and gas companies by the Sightline Institute and the
Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis (IEEFA), only 11 companies posted
positive free cash flow. Even then, the figures were paltry. Collectively, the group only
reported $26 million in free cash flow for the second quarter, "far too modest to make a
significant dent in the more than $100 billion in long-term debt owed by these companies, let
alone reward equity investors who have been waiting for a decade for robust and sustainable
results," the report said.
I think a key point about a future shale bust is that it will leave very little in long
term assets. In other busts, someone comes along to cherrypick the assets with potential
profitability – its the early investors who get burnt. But if shale operators aren't
even breaking even on cashflow excluding early borrowings, then its likely that any attempt
to consolidate and shrink the industry to make it profitable would fail in the absence of a
significant price rise. Since a typical fracked well for tight oil or gas has about 18 months
production, this means that constant capital inputs are essential, an investor can't just get
a free ride for a few years on past investments.
What this means in reality is that a year or more after the inevitable bust, there will be
a massive drop off in production. Ironically of course this will lead to exactly the sort of
price rise the industry is craving – but by then it may be too late. It could of course
also be highly disruptive to the world fuel market if the US suddenly finds itself needing a
few million barrels a day of SA crude.
I tend to think of shale as an out of the money option, that the industry keeps on early
exercising to generate the appearance of a going concern, despite it losing money. As absurd
as this model of events sounds, it would predict that in a consolidation, these assets would
be picked up by oil majors, who would "mothball" till higher prices. Of course the longer
these bozos are allowed to pump at capital depleting oil prices, the less there is for the
eventual buyer in bankruptcy.
There's an interesting story in Reuters today about how towns in the Permian are starting
to make long-term bets on shale production there, in the form of investing in education and
infrastructure. It seems like the entrance of oil majors sent a signal to people there that
the bust hasn't come yet and apparently won't come for a little while. After reading the
coverage of fracking on NC and Bethany McLean's book Saudi America this seems like a bad
idea, as the financial problems of fracking stem from physical limitations of the technology.
It doesn't seem like a big oil company would be able to solve this problem, besides maybe
having deeper pockets and greater ability to ride out low prices, but that still doesn't make
fracking profitable, just less unprofitable. Here's the link:
Yes, I fwded that link to Yves & Lambert earlier today – the key thing to me is
that the oil majors don't make such long-term investments lightly. From the story:
Some of the smaller producers that pioneered shale drilling in the Permian, such as
Concho Resources (CXO.N), Laredo Petroleum (LPI.N) and Whiting Petroleum (WLL.N), are
downshifting as West Texas oil prices have lost 16% and natural gas has tumbled 36% over
the past year.
But the world's biggest oil majors are increasingly taking control of the Texas shale
business, and their drilling plans – sometimes sketched out in decades rather than
years – are envisioned to withstand the usual price drops.
The Permian Strategic Partnership, a group of 20 energy companies operating in the area,
promises to spend $100 million to promote training, education, health care, housing and
roads. The partnership chipped in $16.5 million for the charter school initiative, which
will open its first campus in August 2020 and plans to offer public education to 10,000
students over time.
The only thing in all this that is baffling me is that Wall st. just keeps giving loans to
and buying bonds for these companies to the tunes of 10s of billions of dollars. Everyone on
Wall St can't all be willfully in denial and completely blind to the fact that these were bad
investments from the beginning and that continuing to give them money is just throwing good
money after bad. Everyone makes a bad investment from time to time, but the solution isn't to
just burn money indefinitely to turn it into a zombie corporation when there are no signs it
will ever be profitable – indeed from what I have read fracking and shale's best ROI is
right after the well is turned on, after that it only gets worse so these bad investments are
only gangrening and rotting faster and faster. Yet still, ever more more money from Wall st.,
the same people who chide any and all public services for being unprofitable and engendering
unprofitable subsidized behavior.
So if they can't all be that stupid, the only other explanation is that at least some of
them are just plain evil. In this case that would entail them working on "greater fool
theory" where they are planing something like the old sub-prime mortgage CDOs. Something
like: 1. package all this festering financial garbage they created into illegible little
financial products; 2. pay-off the rating's agency to give this repackaged garbage AAA
rating; 3. sell to sovereign wealth, retirement, and pension funds; 4. take out
credit-default swaps and other bets against the garbage they have sold off because they know
it is going to imploade; 5. run like hell; 6. blame poor people for destroying the economy
while begging for a government bailout as a result of fallout from destroying the world
again.
I'm somewhat familiar with Noble Energy, one of the 29 companies the authors claim to have
examined.
They report Noble as having a cash flow deficit of $499 million, a full 20% of their grand
total for all 29 companies. The grand total, of course, purports to demonstrate the weakness
of the US shale plays.
The thing is, the cash flow from Noble's shale operations in Texas and Colorado is solidly
positive. The company has a cash flow deficit because it is finishing up its share of the
Leviathan project offshore Israel, which by this time next year will have that country energy
independent while enabling a massive shift from coal to natural gas as their primary energy
source. Not a bad thing, IMO.
The anti-hydrocarbon jihadists have some valid points, but they also generate a lot of
propaganda that has no relation to reality. This "study" is an example of what happens when
you know the answer you want before you do your investigation.
The risks and benefits of hydrocarbon energy is an important question. Unfortunately
there's a lot of garbage produced on both sides.
Why should the Shale Business feel bad about bleeding money? It isn't their money. It is
"other peoples' money". It is investors' money. As long as the Shale Business operators are
retaining for their personal selves some of the "investor peoples' money" which they are
bleeding from investors, why should they feel bad about it? Maybe their whole business model
was based on bleeding other peoples' money till other people have no more money left to
bleed. . . . and keeping a little bit of the money-bleed for themselves.
It's like with mosquitoes . . . . mosquitoes aren't "bleeding" blood. They are sucking
blood. It is the animals they are sucking blood FROM . . . which are bleeding blood. If the
animals eventually die from blood loss, the mosquitoes at least got some blood in the
meantime.
And so it is with the shale frackers. They aren't bleeding money. They are sucking money.
The investors they suck money from are the people who are bleeding money. And if the
investors finally die from money loss, the shale frackers at least got some money in the
meantime.
The only production preventing Oil from peaking as far back as 2013-2014 was US Shale,
which can only function by borrowing Billions from gullible investors that will never be paid
back. If investors were not so gullible, US production would have peaked years ago. Global
Peak Oil is controlled by cheap & easy credit. Take away the credit punch bowl and US
Shale production collapses, and global production peaks. PO is no longer dependent of
geology, but credit.
FWIW: I suspect Shale drillers are going to have a hard time finding more investors
willing to part with their capital, especially when Oil prices are very low. That said its
possible that the Federal gov't (via Fed) will step in and start buying billions of shale
debt (via QE or some other financial bailout mechanism) so Shale drilling can continue on. It
appears that the US is running into liquidity problems again as Bond markets are showing
signs that they are freezing up again.
Banks and investors took away the punch bowl, and second quarter losses reflect that. Third
is going to be the same, and too late for any price increases to reflect anything but losses
for this year. No positives going into 2020. Their best option is to find adoption. And being
a bunch of spoiled brats, that's going to be somewhat difficult.
I agree that shale has been the biggest contributor to increase in global oil supply.
However it has also distorted the entire industry.
If the shale companies had to make a profit each year, global supply would have been a
less and prices much higher.
This in turn would have supported e&p investment around the world. The fall in
investment has been due entirely to shale companies that have been allowed to run at a loss
for so many years.
I don't think we would see a massive rebound in E&P if US shale was eliminated. Shell,
Exxon, BP and other started pulling back on Megaprojects back in 2012-2013, since it was
doubtful that it would be economical. Basically megaprojects (deepwater & arctic)
required $120 to $150 (in 2013 dollars) per bbl to be economically. I don't believe those
prices would be sustainable as it would result in demand destruction as consumers would cut
back on consumption. The fact that Oil majors were looking at Arctic and deepwater back in
2010-2013 indicates they are reaching the bottom of the barrel for production. There was a
long term trend of declining exploration finds even when exploration budgets increased.
At this point any major rebound isn't going to make a difference, if a Oil major started
on a new megaproject it would be between 5 and 7 years before new oil reaches the market, and
very unlikely to offset declines from existing production (5% to 7% annual declines). We are
already behind the curve on gains from any new projects to offset ongoing declines with out
shale growth). Perhaps a some of the declines in existing fields could be offset some with
higher oil prices. Still reaching to scrap the bottom by trying to extract trapped oil in
fields in terminal decline. With all of the supergiants in terminal decline (with the
exception of Kazakhstan), its going to be very difficult to expand production further.
Personally I am guessing that global production has already peaked or within the next 18
months if we are lucky). Its difficult to pinpoint an exact period since their are way to
many variables to gage effectively. That said I cannot say my record for guessing peak
production is any better than winning a lottery, but as the window narrows due to depletion
and a shrinking supply of future projects the guessing gets a lot easier.
Shale had already taken off by then and predictions of possible productions were being
made and importantly have come true.
The majors would have realised there would be too much oil in the short to medium term, so
they sensibly postponed more expensive drilling.
How this mess with heavy indebted shale companies and years of under investment plays out
I am not sure.
Probably a lower and sooner peak oil than would otherwise have been.
Not sure anyone has said US has peaked, the point is that US tight oil growth will slow
and it is not apparent that any other nations are increasing output in 2019, so far the drop
by OPEC/NOPEC has been greater than any US increase in 2019 and it is looking like 2019
output will be lower than 2018 if current trends continue. When we get to the point that oil
prices rise to $80/b, I expect OPEC/NOPEC will increase output, but we do not know when that
will be and it is certainly possible that US output might be falling at a faster rate than
the rest of the World's rise in output so the net might be a plateau or decline.
Note also that my "medium URR" estimates might be too optimistic, if my "low URR
scenarios" prove correct, the peak is likely to be earlier (2022/2023), and if there is a
fast transition to EVs, more public transport, etc perhaps the peak in World C+C output could
be earlier still. I doubt this will be the case, but in the past I doubted that World C+C
output would exceed 80 Mb/d, I was wrong then and I may be wrong now.
Hugo, something peaked in 2011, so I'd say the peak oil gang is onto something worth
listening to. Perhaps you disagree. The graph is a bit dated, but you get the point I'm
sure.
I'd say calling peak oil to be in 2018/2019, vs to be within 2022 to 2026 time frame, is
pretty much splitting hairs. Perhaps you're just smarter than everyone else here and don't
tolerate such loose parameters?
How did you come to your prediction, riding on Dennis' coattails, or do you have any original
ideas of your own to contribute?
The assumptions make all the difference. And no one can accurately predict what will happen
the rest of the day, much less tomorrow.
The key to the future, so far, is how the majority of independents will fare. Dennis sees
prices improving so that many of them heal up, and production is restored to a norm. Ron sees
them as totally messed up, which is more my take.
And I am also betting on the majors. They don't lay out hundreds of billions of dollars
for downstream without a big plan in mind. And, that plan could not call for those
investments to be totally useless in ten years. It wouldn't surprise me to see the skies over
the shale areas filled with golden parachutes.
Ten years, or less, based on EOGs quarterly tell sheet. Do you opt for the golden
parachute soon, or use your own just before the plane crashes?
This attack was 750 miles from Houthi territory.
Round trip would be 1,500 miles.
A Predator has a published range of 1,150 miles.
My guess is they are infiltrating Saudi Arabia, attacking from much closer than 750 miles out
and maybe sacrificing the drone. Sort of like the Jimmy Doolittle raid on Tokyo in WWII, for
similar purpose. With a similar result. Message sent, message received.
It's a one way trip. The drones used by houthis don't fire a missile and then fly home, they
are the missile. The drone is mounted with a 30kg warhead and it is flown into the target,
usually in a swarm attack.
The White House policy of taking Iranian oil exports to "zero" still has a long way to go,
thanks in no small part to China ,
and also despite Pompeo
touting this week that US sanctions have removed nearly 2.7 million barrels of Iranian oil
from global markets.
US frustration was evident upon the release of the Adrian Darya 1, with Gibraltar resisting
Washington pressures to hand over the Iranian vessel, given as its en route to Greece, American
officials are now warning that they will sanction anyone
who touches the tanker .
Seizing on Washington's frustration as part of its own "counter-pressure" campaign of recent
weeks, Iran has again stated if it can't export its own oil, it will make waterways unsafe and
"unpredictable" for anyone else to to so .
It appears that the US (25% of global oil consumption/waste?) has but 3 choices. 1. Become
Trading partners with Russia and Iran. 2. Get serious on Energy Transition execution. 3. War,
Terror and more regime change 4. Deploy the Alan Parsons Project. https://youtu.be/Ei_GZnrr1nw?t=23
What say You?
Usually 1 and 3 are combined in the resource rich country aren't they? Then it goes wrong
some way down the road when the new regime 'turn', and things get worse than before
Here you go, chew on this. The day there are the initial 2 mile long lines at gasoline
stations, not just in the US but all over the world . . . that day we will still see
announcements of record oil production globally.
This is species killing stuff. Wall Street popular saying . . . no one rings a bell at the
top. Well, no one is going to give you any warning whatsoever that oil scarcity deaths start
that month. You will know nothing of it. You will be told it is all from some temporary
factor that will soon be fixed.
So if you see something now that looks like a warning sign, it's probably not legit.
Perhaps. OPEC is producing at 2011 levels. The world is kept at bay from peak oil only by US
shale production. And US shale production is on shaky legs, just trying to stay ahead of the
red queen.
I just don't see this blind optimism that US shale will continue upward for the next 5 to
6 years.
I well remember when it was said that: "When Saudi Arabia peaks, the world peaks". That
was just not correct. But now it is obvious that when the US of A peaks, the world peaks.
Sanctions are not affecting Venezuela's oil production. It is collapsing for another
reason. And it will take them a decade or more to recover when they finally settle their
economic problems.
But there will always be political problems. They are likely to get worse, not better.
Peak oil will be when the most oil is produced, not what could be produced if there were
no political problems anywhere in the world.
Opec will not save the world and neither will USA . The problem is that all the increase in
the last few years is from shale or LTO ,call it what you will . Problem is that this is
mostly + 45 API so poor in middle distillates . In reality peak oil is when the^ black goo^
peaks . NGL's ,NGPL,s ,bio fuels, LTO and the term ^all liquids^ are used as a fig leaf to
hide the real peak of the ^black goo ^ . We are past peak as far as the ^black goo^ is
concerned .
"The problem is that all the increase in the last few years is from shale or LTO ,call it
what you will . Problem is that this is mostly + 45 API so poor in middle distillates . "
In 2005 (!) on Bloomberg tv channel someone said, in other words, that the most valuable
oil to make kerosene of is increasingly difficult to get. I guess that kerosene is a middle
distillate.
The shale oil boom might last for many decades, for what it is worth
The shale oil boom might last for many decades, for what it is worth.
Shale production may continue for a decade, or a bit longer, but not decades. However,
that is not the point. The point is, how long can shale continue to increase
production.
The legacy decline for shale varies between 5% and 6% per month! The EIA's Drilling
Productivity Report says US Shale production will increase by 85,000 barrels per day in
September. Probably not, but that is not the point. To get an increase of 85,000 barrels per
day, they had to have new well production of 649,000 barrels per day. That is because they
had 564,000 barrels per day of legacy decline. For every one barrel per day of increased
production, they had to produce 7.64 barrels per day of new oil because they had 6.64
barrels per day of legacy decline.
The more they produce the more they have to produce just to stay even.
For every one barrel per day of increased production, they had to produce 7.64 barrels per
day of new oil.
This is the key point regarding shale oil production. The higher the production, the more
new production is needed to increase production. It's essentially an exponential function.
Shale oil production will not increase for much longer because it's not physically possible
to drill/frack at a sustained exponential rate.
Shale production is not oil production, it's mining.
You need 3 drilling teams, 4 fracking teams and get over long time a constant production.
When you want to increase (say you have enough acres, as enough ore in a iron mine) you hire
2 new teams, as in mining employing a new excavator and conveyor belts.
So, like in a mine, when you fire a team production drops almost immediately.
The big ones (XON) in the Permian do Shale oil mining exactly like this – they have
own drilling and fracking team, working constantly.
The same thing as mining is when you have to drill your b-class acres. As in a mine when
the ore veins run out in thickness.
So either close your mine, hire more teams to maintain production or life with decreasing
production at constant costs when the qulity is declining.
I've left out technical progress. This is just a cost reducer (need less drilling /
fracking teams to do the same output).
Eulenspiegel, your mining example is not a good comparison at all. That is because new mines
don't decline in production by 6% per month.
Here is the exponential function of shale oil. They must produce new oil at the decline
rate just to stay even. Growth in production is only accomplished if they produce more oil
than declined that month.
But if they do produce more oil than the decline rate, then the decline will be even
higher the next month. That is, if they had to produce 649,000 barrels of new oil in
September to grow production by 85,000 barrels, then to grow oil by a like amount in October,
they will have to produce more than 649,000 barrels. The more they increase production each
month, then the more they will have to produce the next month just to stay even.
When production increases, the monthly loss through legacy decline also increases.
Therefore just producing the same increase as they did last month will not do. They must
always continue to increase by more than they did last month just to stay even.
Ron, in my opinion it is a better model than conventional oil.
In conventional oil, you can pump 20 years after drilling. For 50 you'll have to do more
things like water flooding etc. So increasing production is just drilling a few more holes
(and install the additional infrastructure).
In mining, you have a decline rate of 100% / day.
You send a team in, they mine 100 tons of ore in their shift, move out and production after
their shift is 0.
When you want more ore, you have to send in a team next day again.
Having 1 minint team gives you constant ore / day. Firing them gives you sudden production
of 0.
So with LTO you send a fracking team in to create 1 well, produce oil for a few months
(I'm exaggerating) and then you have 0 production again.
So you have to send in the team again. And again.
If you use 1 team drillling constantly new holes. you'll have nearly constant production
(after the first ramp up time of overlaying declining productions, in reality a few
years).
Increasing production means more teams constantly drilling new holes (as in mining: drill
hole, fill with explosives, boom, carry away ore, repeat).
The big question for the peak shale oil is here: How many drilling/fracking teams can be
payed and supplied with anything they need for working efficient. It's not just hiring
teams.
To employ more teams they need more road capacity, sand capacity, water transport, take
away pipelines, more stuff you know better than me.
As in deep mining: The elevator capacity / tunnel train capacity limits the maximum
possible production. For increasing production, you have to increase everything, and then
hire new teams.
So the question is: How much money do they invest to stretch all these capacities.
Well the world's conventional oil production certainly peaked a while ago. Even if one treats
Venezuela and Canada as conventional because their production was usually in forecasts, the
USA fracking has to be considered a separate thing. The industry cycle is different, the
grade produced is different, the economics are "different." The tail is *very* different as
without new drilling the entire patch would disappear in less than three years. Blap, gone to
stripper wells.
This is the age of Trump. I know for us simpletons it makes sense the average would be
production. I'm not sure how Trump would do it, but I'll bet the tangerine could make 2019
peak the best ever. A world depression followed by war.
No, but OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 58% of world oil production, is down 667,000 barrels
per day, April to July. I doubt that the other 42% of world oil production is up anywhere
near that amount.
The 2019 7 month average for OPEC + Russia + Canada is 1,629,000 barrels per day below
their 2018 average.
I have posted that chart up top, just below OPEC+ Russia.
Inventory draws should begin to pick up for the US soon. 1 million in pipeline from the
Permian to the coast. Exports to increase, Cushing to decrease, and production mostly flat. A
lot of the Permian production has been going to Cushing as an outlet. Depends on how much can
be loaded on to ships, now, and how much lite oil can be sold. Pipelines are going to be
losers for awhile. Additional pipelines need to take note.
There are two, sure fire, statistics and reports that will define where we are going. You can
argue them, but you will lose. One is the EIA monthly 914 report, the other is the Texas RRC
permits. There's some DUCs, but by this time, I consider them as normal DUCs between drilling
and completion as is norm. And the 914 May show it up a little for June, but I don't see it
going up further. Or, much more.
Attached is the latest LTO data from the monthly EIA 914 page. The main difference that I
can see is the drop in the monthly production growth from 2018 to 2019. 2018 production
growth averaged 153 kb/d/mth. 2019 production growth over the first seven months has dropped
to an average of 97 kb/d/mth. The total July increase over June was 107 kb/d/mth. The biggest
increases for July came from Sprayberry (33 kb/d) and Wolfcamp (46 kb/d).
Every week we watch these invenstory draws/builds and every week the commentariat is out
to explain how they drive the price fluctuations. Except there's -80% correlation between oil
price and USD Index. Implying that events that have nothing to do with these blessed
draws/builds have much greater pull on price changes... More here: "
Failure of price forecasting: the unit of account conundrum "
It looks like an accumulation at the time crude oil wti.
After the price will cross any border of the triangle with powerful candle we can open
BUY/SELL entry. Potential profit will be in 3...5 times bigger than risk.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was
the age of foolishness, it was the epoch of belief, it was the epoch of incredulity, it was
the season of Light, it was the season of Darkness, it was the spring of hope, it was the
winter of despair, we had everything before us, we had nothing before us, we were all going
direct to Heaven, we were all going direct the other way -- in short, the period was so far
like the present period, that some of its noisiest authorities insisted on its being
received, for good or for evil, in the superlative degree of comparison only. - Charles
Dickens
"... "Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have #Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations, tweeted . ..."
"... As TAC previously reported , the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions. ..."
"... "The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions," writes Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of merchant ships through international straits." ..."
British Gibraltar ordered the ship's release to ease tensions. Washington wasn't having any of it.
•
A ship approaches supertanker Grace 1 off the coast of Gibraltar on July 6, 2019. – Iran demanded on July 5, 2019
that Britain immediately release an oil tanker it has detained in Gibraltar, accusing it of acting at the bidding of
the United States. Photo by JORGE GUERRERO / AFP) (Photo credit should read JORGE GUERRERO/AFP/Getty Images)
Despite eleventh hour efforts on the part of the U.S. to detain the Grace
1 Iranian oil tanker seized by the Royal Navy in July, the vessel was released Thursday. Gibraltar's Chief Minister said
he had accepted a pledge from Iran that if the tanker was released, it would not be taken to Syria.
The Grace 1 was seized last month by the British Royal Navy for alleged
European Union sanctions violations. The British claimed that Iran was using the tanker to ship oil to Syria.
Before the last minute U.S. legal action, authorities in Gibraltar had
announced they would release the Grace 1 and drop legal actions against the ship's captain and crew in order to ease
tensions.
The U.S. application was scheduled to be heard later on Thursday by the
Gibraltar Supreme Court. The U.S. Department of Justice sought to extend the detention of the oil tanker, but the
Gibraltar Supreme Court later dropped the detention order, essentially moving evaluation of the U.S. request to another
government agency for consideration,
according
to CBS. In the mean time, the tanker is free to leave.
The U.S. filing seems to confirm
reports
that the U.S. urged the British detention of the Iranian ship in July.
"
Having failed to accomplish its objectives
through its
#EconomicTerrorism
-- including
depriving cancer patients of medicine -- the US attempted to abuse the legal system to steal our property on the high
seas," tweeted Iran's Foreign Minister Javad Zarif. "This piracy attempt is indicative of Trump admin's contempt for the
law."
After the British decision to detain the Grace 1 in July, Iran seized
the British-flagged oil tanker Stena Impero as it traveled through the Strait of Hormuz.
Tensions with Tehran have escalated since the Trump administration
withdrew from the Iran nuclear deal and resumed economic sanctions against the Islamic Republic. Without citing specific
evidence, the
U.S. has blamed Iran
for recent attacks on other oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz.
"Designed to provoke Tehran: Just as #Iran-UK-#Gibraltar were set to have
#Grace1 tanker released today, #Trump admin moves in to spoil the effort. Will become another source of tension in
Europe-US relations over Iran policy," Ellie Geranmayeh, Iran expert at the European Council on Foreign Relations,
tweeted
.
As
TAC
previously
reported
,
the legal rationale for detaining the Iranian vessel and its crew is questionable, because Iran is not a member of the
European Union and thus can not violate EU sanctions.
"The UK had no legal right to enforce those sanctions,"
writes
Gareth Porter, and the seizure "was a blatant violation of the clearly defined global rules that govern the passage of
merchant ships through international straits."
It is unclear whether UK Prime Minister
Boris Johnson
will support Washington's maximum pressure campaign
against Iran. But the American decision to pursue its case in
Gibraltar's courts may indicate that Britain is unwilling to further escalate tensions with the Islamic Republic.
Barbara Boland is
's foreign policy and national security reporter. Follow her
on Twitter
@BBatDC.
How current prices correlate with Pompeo statement that "We have taken over 95 percent of the
crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the
market." ? Something really strange is happening here.
Notable quotes:
"... Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the public in order to defend a dangerous policy. ..."
"... Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with that. ..."
"... When Pompeo has been asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the Iranian government's behavior, and instead he boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people: ..."
"... We have taken over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we have taken it off the market. ..."
"... Pompeo is deception, lies, absolute dishonesty. But of course that is the mark of the trump regime in general terms. ..."
Given these statements, it is difficult to escape the conclusion that Pompeo is not
being entirely honest when he claims the maximum pressure campaign is succeeding. Rather than
leveling with the American people and making an argument about why the administration is
persisting with the policy in spite of the lack of progress, he has chosen to deceive the
public in order to defend a dangerous policy.
Pompeo has made a habit of deceiving the public as Secretary of State on a range of
issues from Yemen to North Korea, but for the most part he has been allowed to get away with
that. He probably thinks that there is no price to be paid for constantly lying and
misrepresenting things to the public and Congress, and so he keeps doing it.
The more important reason why Pompeo keeps deceiving the public is that he is also eager to
please the president, and so he has to keep claiming success for failing policies because
reports of success are what the president wants to hear. When Pompeo's ridiculous op-ed came
out last week, one of the common questions that many people asked was, "Who is the audience for
this?" The point these people were making was that the "argument" in the op-ed was so facile
and nonsensical that it can't possibly have been intended to persuade anyone, so the purpose of
it had to be to placate Trump and reassure him that the policy "works."
Miller does an outstanding job picking apart Pompeo's various claims and using Pompeo's
previous contradictory claims against him, and he shows that the Secretary's defense of
"maximum pressure" is a joke to any minimally informed person. But as far as Pompeo is
concerned, all that matters is that Trump sticks with the policy. When Pompeo has been
asked for proof that the sanctions are "working," he cannot point to any positive change in the
Iranian government's behavior, and instead he
boasts about the harm that has been done to Iran's economy and its people:
I remember, David – I'm sure no one in this room, but many here in Washington
said that American sanctions alone won't work. Well, they've worked.We have taken
over 95 percent of the crude oil that was being shipped by Iran all around the world, and we
have taken it off the market.
Miller addressed Pompeo's use of economic damage as proof of the policy's success this
way:
Using economic damage to gauge the success of sanctions is like using body counts to
measure success in counter-insurgency -- it's an indicator that your policy is having an
effect, but does not necessarily imply you're any closer to achieving strategic
objectives.
For a hard-liner like Pompeo, continuing with a destructive and bankrupt policy is a matter
of ideology and an expression of hostility towards the targeted country. It doesn't matter to
hard-liners if the policy actually achieves anything as long as it does damage, and so they
take pride in the damage that they cause without any concern for the consequences for the U.S.
and Iran. Rational critics of this policy rightfully object that this is just aimless
destruction, but the destruction is the point of the policy.
It only appears incompetent until you discover who benefits, and it isn't the majority of
Americans. Who has benefited so far? The Plutocrats, oligarchs, Israel, Saudi, MIC, Big Oil,
Big Rx, immigration related services. This is just a partial list, but guess who it doesn't
include?
Any nation that allows "freedom of speech" has made the assumption that either everyone is
honest or everyone is smart enough to know bull sh !t when they hear it.
"... It is bizarre that Qatar was the one country/sheikdom in the Gulf that openly stood by Iran ..."
"... Shale is already deeply unprofitable and always has been. Big-dollar investors like pension funds have continued funding it due to (a) hype and (b) lack of alternative putative sources of return, but it's finally starting to sink in that shale has no future. ..."
Lambert
here: "Both MBS and MBZ consider the last-minute cancellation of the US retaliatory strike [for
Iran shooting down a US drone] a personal affront and humiliation because Trump did not accept
and follow their positions and demands for action. Both MBS and MBZ are now convinced that not
only the US demonstrated weakness and lack of resolve, but that Pres. Trump was personally not
committed to fighting Iran on behalf of Saudi Arabia and the Gulf sheikhdoms." Oh, let's you
and him fight!
By Yossef Bodansky, Director of Research at the International Strategic Studies
Association (ISSA) and Senior Editor of Defense & Foreign Affairs publications (including
the Global Information System: GIS), was, for more than a decade, the Director of the US House
of Representatives Task Force on Terrorism and Unconventional Warfare.
Originally published at OilPrice.com .
All attention is focused on the twists-and-turns of the very noisy US-Iran dispute in the
Persian Gulf, but all the while the People's Republic of China (PRC) is rapidly and quietly
consolidating a dominant presence in the area
with the active support of Russia.
Beijing, as a result, is fast acquiring immense influence over related key dynamics such as
the price of oil in the world market and the relevance of the petrodollar. The PRC and the
Russians are capitalizing on both the growing fears of Iran and the growing mistrust of the US.
Hence, the US is already the main loser of the PRC's gambit.
The dramatic PRC success can be attributed to the confluence of two major trends:
(1) The quality and relevance of what Beijing can offer to both Iran and the Saudi-Gulf
States camp; and
(2) The decision of key Arab leaders -- most notably Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman
bin 'Abd al-'Aziz al Sa'ud (aka MBS) and his close ally, the Crown Prince of Abu Dhabi,
Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan (aka MBZ) -- to downgrade their traditional close
ties with the US, and reach out to Beijing to provide a substitute strategic umbrella.
Hence, the PRC offer to oversee and guarantee the establishment of a regional collective
security regime -- itself based on the Russian proposals and ideas first raised in late July
2019 -- is now getting considerable positive attention from both shores of the Persian Gulf.
Iran, Saudi Arabia, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), Qatar, and Oman appear to be becoming
convinced that the PRC could be the key to the long-term stability and prosperity in the
Persian Gulf and the Arabian Peninsula.
Iran is also considering the expansion of security cooperation with Russia as an added
umbrella against potential US retaliation.
Overall, according to sources in these areas, the US was increasingly perceived as an
unpredictable, disruptive element.
The profound change in the attitude of the Saudi and Emirati ruling families, who for
decades have considered themselves pliant protégés of the US, took long to
evolve. However, once formulated and adopted, the new policies have been implemented
swiftly.
The main driving issue is the realization by both MBS and MBZ that, irrespective of the
reassuring rhetoric of US Pres. Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, their bitter nemesis -- Qatar
-- is far more important to the US than the rest of the conservative Arab monarchies and
sheikhdoms of the GCC. The last straw came in early July 2019 in the aftermath of the visit of
the Emir of Qatar, Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani, to Washington, DC.
Sheikh Tamim received an extravagant reception from both Pres. Trump in person and
official Washington. Trump lavished praises on Qatar and the Emir , and emphasized the
US renewed commitment "to further advancing the high-level strategic cooperation between our
two countries".
There are good reasons for the US preference of Qatar.
The Al-Udeid Air Base in Qatar is by far the most important US base in the entire greater
Middle East. Qatar is mediating between the US and several nemeses, including Afghanistan,
Iran, and Turkey. Qatar is providing "humanitarian cash" to HAMAS in the Gaza Strip, thus
buying quiet time for Israel. Qatar has given generous "political shelter" to numerous leaders,
seniors, and commanders of questionable entities the US would like to protect but would never
acknowledge this (including anti-Russia Chechens and other Caucasians, and anti-China Uighurs).
Related:
Gibraltar Releases Iranian Tanker
Qatari Intelligence is funding and otherwise supporting the various jihadist entities
which serve as proxies of the CIA and M?T ( Milli ?stihbarat Te?kilat?: the Turkish
National Intelligence Organization) in the greater Middle East (mainly Syria, Iraq, Libya,
Jordan, Yemen) and Central Asia (mainly Afghanistan-Pakistan, China's Xinjiang and Russia's
Caucasus and the Turkic peoples of eastern Siberia).
On top of this, Qatar is purchasing billions of dollars' worth of US-made weapons; and
paying cash on-time (unlike the habitually late Saudis who now cannot afford to pay what
they've already promised).
Moreover, the Middle East is awash with rumors that Qatari businessmen saved the financial
empire of the Kushner family by investing at least half-a-billion dollars in the 666 5th Avenue
project in New York. The rumors are very specific in that the investment was made for political
reasons on instruction of the Emir . In the conspiracies-driven Arab Middle East, such
rumors are believed and serve as a viable motive for the policies of the Trump White House: an
ulterior motive the Saudis and Gulfies cannot challenge.
"They discussed coordination of forthcoming regional crises and diplomatic initiatives.
They agreed that the current dynamic vis-à-vis the US could lead to either a US
capitulation and withdrawal, or to a major escalation all over the greater Middle East.
Soleimani believed the latter option was more likely. Therefore, Soleimani and Zarif
discussed how to better utilize the Russian and PRC umbrella to not only shield Iran against
US onslaught, but to also convince the Arab states to stay out of the fighting."
A lot of focus on the Arabs but only a brief mention of the Israelis. I suspect this is
why Soleimani believes escalation is likely: the Israelis are the main driving force pushing
the U.S. take out Iran. My question: How tight is Adelson and Netanyahu's grip on the strange
orange man?
'How tight is Adelson and Netanyahu's grip on the strange orange man?'
I think the refusal to retaliate against Iran for shooting down a drone has already given
an answer to this question. If my guess is correct then we can expect a new outbreak of the
wars between the Deep State and the various populist factions now gaining ground. It seems
the folk are tired of the burdens of empire in spite of being propagandized by their betters
day and night. Better watch out for another major terrorist attack, I suppose.
It is bizarre that Qatar was the one country/sheikdom in the Gulf that openly stood by
Iran, if only because of the idiotic Saudi attempted embargo of it, while at the same time
Qatari funded mercenaries in Syria fought Iranian backed Hezbollah forces there.
As bizarre
as Russia sending S-400s to Turkey last month and Turkish-allied militants shelling a Russian
observation post in Syria yesterday. Also, maybe Qatar's importance to the US is its regional
support for Iran.
China's largest oil company backed out of a large Venezuelan crude purchase last week and
it will be interesting to see if they continue to violate US sanctions on Iran.
Shale is already deeply unprofitable and always has been. Big-dollar investors like
pension funds have continued funding it due to (a) hype and (b) lack of alternative putative
sources of return, but it's finally starting to sink in that shale has no future.
If the bubble doesn't pop by itself, a Chinese end-run would likely do so, thereby
ratcheting the stakes up in the Middle East that much higher. Then we're back to Soleimani's
"latter option".
Different take from MOA, particularly re Russians stationed in Iran which none may call
bases.
None of this in msm but of course, because this is news the contradiscts official narrative.
Msm is reporting Iran oil trans shipped between tankers to bust sanctions but if China takes
large, say 2 million b/d, can't be hid what will us do?
Probably not much if in China ships.
More tariffs?
"... The field's distance from rebel-held territory in Yemen demonstrates the range of the Houthis' drones. U.N. investigators say the Houthis' new UAV-X drone, found in recent months during the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen, likely has a range of up to 1,500 kilometers (930 miles). That puts Saudi oil fields, an under-construction Emirati nuclear power plant and Dubai's busy international airport within their range. ..."
"... The outcome was a forgone conclusion. The smash, destroy, and destabilize campaign in the region could have only come from the most powerful lobby in the US. We all know who that is. ..."
Today Saudi Arabia finally lost the war on Yemen. It has no defenses against new weapons
the Houthis in Yemen acquired. These weapons threaten the Saudis economic lifelines.
This today
was the decisive attack:
Drones launched by Yemen's Houthi rebels attacked a massive oil and gas field deep inside
Saudi Arabia's sprawling desert on Saturday, causing what the kingdom described as a
"limited fire" in the second such recent attack on its crucial energy industry. ... The Saudi acknowledgement of the attack came hours after Yahia Sarie, a military spokesman
for the Houthis, issued a video statement claiming the rebels launched 10 bomb-laden drones
targeting the field in their "biggest-ever" operation. He threatened more attacks would be
coming.
New drones and missiles
displayed in July 2019 by Yemen's Houthi-allied armed forces bigger
Today's attack is a check mate move against the Saudis. Shaybah is some 1,200 kilometers
(750 miles) from Houthi-controlled territory. There are many more important economic targets
within that range:
The field's distance from rebel-held territory in Yemen demonstrates the range of the
Houthis' drones. U.N. investigators say the Houthis' new UAV-X drone, found in recent
months during the Saudi-led coalition's war in Yemen, likely has a range of up to 1,500
kilometers (930 miles). That puts Saudi oil fields, an under-construction Emirati nuclear
power plant and Dubai's busy international airport within their range.
Unlike sophisticated drones that use satellites to allow pilots to remotely fly them,
analysts believe Houthi drones are likely programmed to strike a specific latitude and
longitude and cannot be controlled once out of radio range. The Houthis have used drones,
which can be difficult to track by radar, to attack Saudi Patriot missile batteries, as
well as enemy troops.
The attack conclusively demonstrates that the most important assets of the Saudis are now
under threat. This economic threat comes on top of a seven percent budget deficit
the IMF predicts for Saudi Arabia. Further Saudi bombing against the Houthi will now have
very significant additional cost that might even endanger the viability of the Saudi state.
The Houthi have clown prince Mohammad bin Salman by the balls and can squeeze those at will. There is a lesson to learn from that. But it is doubtful that the borg in Washington DC
has the ability to understand it.
The outcome was a forgone conclusion. The smash, destroy, and destabilize campaign in the
region could have only come from the most powerful lobby in the US. We all know who that
is.
I'm afraid the only lesson the Borg in Washington will learn is to continue squandering US
resources and manpower on pursuing and inflicting chaos and violence in the Middle East.
Clown prince Mohammed bin Salman will not learn anything either other than to bankrupt his
own nation in pursuing this war.
Israel has driven itself into its own existential hell by persecuting Palestinians over
70+ years and doing a good job of annihilating itself while denying its own destruction. If
Israel can do it, the Christian crusaders dominating the govts of the Five Eyes nations
supporting Israel will follow suit in propping up an unsustainable fantasy. Samson option
indeed.
I am sure that the Suads will be looking to their zionist allies to supply them with the Iron
Dome system that the US military just wasted millions of tax payer dollars and purchased
several days ago. The irony of that system is that is was overwhelmed several times when the
Palestinian freedom fighters launched a wave of home made rockets at Occupied Palestine. I
hope the Sauds learn a lesson..doubt it though.
let me throw something out there. Israel has entrenched itself in the US political and media
systems. There is no logical path to eliminate or reduce that influence, and thus perhaps the
plan that has been hatched is to strengthen Iran to the point that it can confront Israel.
I anticipated just this sort of event 2+ months ago to go along with the tanker sabotaging to
expand on b's thesis about Iran having the upper hand in the current hybrid Gulf War. The
timing of this new ability dovetails nicely with the recent Russian collective security
proposal, with the Saudis being the footdraggers in agreeing about its viability due to its
pragmatic logic. So, as I wrote 2 days ago, we now have an excellent possibility of seeing an
end to this and future Persian Gulf Crises along with an idea that can potentially become the
template for an entire Southwest Asian security treaty, whose only holdout would be Occupied
Palestine. The Outlaw US Empire is effectively shutout of the entire process. And as I also
wrote, it's now time for the Saudis to determine where their future lies--with Eurasia or
with a dying Empire.
So the U.S. bought the Iron Dome stuff from Israel? I guess that means we paid for it
twice, eh? Glad to know my tax dollars are hard at work "keeping us safe."
Wonder what they might be planning for with that one?
The Yemenese military had lots of technological capabilities remaining from the Cold War
along with factories, technicians and raw materials. For example, Yemen's aerospace forces
allied with the Houthi and are the ones producing and shooting the missiles and drones. One
doesn't need to import a complete drone; technical blueprints on a floppy, CD-ROM, DVD,
thumb-drive, are all that's required. The humanitarian crisis due to food and medicine
shortages played on the minds of people such that an image of a poor, backward,
non-industrial capable society was generated that wasn't 100% correct.
And of course, this makes the threat by Iran to hit back against military and industrial
installations on the other side of the Persian Gulf that much stronger.
It would be rich indeed if Iran were to be the entity that ultimately manages to loosen
the stranglehold that the Zionists have on the USA Congress, media, president, donors to
political parties, etc.
I can imagine the shale oil producers smiling right now...100 a barrel oil will be just
what they need! Cost-push inflation leading to a return of bell bottoms and leisure suits. No
wonder all these 70's band retreads are touring again :)
So, poor Yemen wasted via siege warfare waged by NATO since 2015 though its Saudi, UAE and
terrorist proxies that came very close to success, finds the initiative to counterattack with
what little it has at its disposal--All accusations of Iranian help have never been
proven --and thanks to the Outlaw US Empire's threats against Iran force UAE to
withdrawal and seek peace with Iran with Saudi soon to follow. And the situation is all
Iran's fault?! Note the date above--it precedes Trump's election, his illegal withdrawal from
the JCPOA and institution of the illegal sanctions regime against Iran.
Europe is on board with Russia's collective security proposal. Europe had representatives
at the meet between Khamenei and the Houthi negotiator. Europe--even the UK--still working to
salvage the JCPOA via the non-dollar trade conduit. And you conclude that the Outlaw US
Empire "might actually get European support to attack Iran."
First Afghanistan, then Yemen. Maybe the western media's imaging of these people as towel
headed, sandal wearing primatives is just a tad misguided......
It's mostly about the control of Mid East oil and Israel status in the region ...
And despite all those positive things mentioned bellow Iran is still a theocratic state. It
is definitely not Saudi Arabia but still..
Notable quotes:
"... Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand. ..."
"... Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State. ..."
"... Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes, there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why. ..."
"... Iran’s real “crime” is twofold: 1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and 2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing, which would cut into the lucrative US market. ..."
"... There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which nobody appreciates… ..."
"... In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if needed. ..."
"... There is also the issue of the illegality of Trump tearing up the deal…which was adopted [unanimously] by the UN Security Council Resolution 2231… ..."
"... The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states… ..."
"... So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions… ..."
"... The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied territories…is simply unacceptable… ..."
As I pen this short essay, Iran is standing against the mightiest nation on earth. It is
facing tremendous danger; of annihilation even, if the world does not wake up fast, and rush to
its rescue.
Stunning Iranian cities are in danger, but above all, its people: proud and beautiful,
creative, formed by one of the oldest and deepest cultures on earth.
This is a reminder to the world: Iran may be bombed, devastated and injured terribly, for
absolutely no reason. I repeat: there is zero rational reason for attacking Iran.
Iran has never attacked anyone. It has done nothing bad to the United States, to the United
Kingdom, or even to those countries that want to destroy it immediately: Saudi Arabia and
Israel.
Its only 'crime' is that it helped devastated Syria. And that it seriously stands by
Palestine. And that it came to the rescue of many far away nations, like Cuba and Venezuela,
when they were in awful need.
I am trying to choose the simplest words. No need for pirouettes and intellectual
exercises.
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is currently
occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the nuclear deal. This
information was leaked by his own staff. This is not about who is a bigger gangster. It is
about the horrible fact that antagonizing Iran has absolutely nothing to do with Iran
itself.
Which brings the question to my mind: in what world are we really living? Could this be
tolerable? Can the world just stand by, idly, and watch how one of the greatest countries on
earth gets violated by aggressive, brutal forces, without any justification?
I love Iran! I love its cinema, poetry, food. I love Teheran. And I love the Iranian people
with their polite, educated flair. I love their thinkers. I don't want anything bad to happen
to them.
You know, you were of course never told by the Western media, but Iran is a socialist
country. It professes a system that could be defined as "socialism with Iranian
characteristics". Like China, Iran is one of the most ancient nations on earth, and it is
perfectly capable of creating and developing its own economic and social system.
Iran is an extremely successful nation. Despite the embargos and terrible intimidation
from the West, it still sits at the threshold of the "Very high human development", defined by
UNDP; well above such darlings of the West as Ukraine, Colombia or Thailand.
It clearly has an internationalist spirit: it shows great solidarity with the countries that
are being battered by Western imperialism, including those in Latin America.
I have no religion. In Iran, most of the people do. They are Shi'a Muslims. So what? I do
not insist that everyone thinks like me. And my Iranian friends, comrades, brothers and sisters
have never insisted that I feel or think the same way as they do. They are not fanatics, and
they do not make people who are not like them, feel excluded. We are different and yet so
similar. We fight for a better world. We are internationalists. We respect each other. We
respect others.
Iran does not want to conquer anyone. But when its friends are attacked, it offers a helping
hand. Like to Syria.
In the past, it was colonized by the West, and its democratic government was overthrown, in
1953, simply because it wanted to use its natural resources for improving the lives of its
people. The morbid dictatorship of Shah Pahlavi was installed from abroad. And then, later,
again, a terrible war unleashed against Iran by Iraq, with the full and candid support of the
West.
I promised to make this essay short. There is no time for long litanies. And in fact, this
is not really an essay at all: it is an appeal.
As this goes to print, many people in Iran are anxious. They do not understand what they
have done to deserve this; the sanctions, the US aircraft carriers sailing near their shores,
and deadly B-52s deployed only dozens of miles away.
Iranians are brave, proud people. If confronted, if attacked, they will fight. And they will
die with dignity, if there is no other alternative.
But why? Why should they fight and why should they die?
Those of you, my readers, living in the West: Study; study quickly. Then ask this question
to your government: "What is the reason for this terrible scenario?"
Rent Iranian films; they are everywhere, winning all festivals. Read Iranian poets. Go eat
Iranian food. Search for images of both historic and modern Iranian cities. Look at the faces
of the people. Do not allow this to happen. Do not permit psychopathic reasoning to ruin
millions of lives.
There was no real reason for the wars against Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya and Syria. The West
perpetrated the most terrible imperialist interventions, ruining entire nations.
But Iran -- it all goes one step further. It's a total lack of logic and accountability on
the part of the West.
Here, I declare my full support to the people of Iran, and to the country that has been
giving countless cultural treasures to the world, for millennia.
It is because I have doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.
[First published by NEO -- New Eastern Outlook]
Andre Vltchek is a philosopher, novelist, filmmaker and investigative journalist. He has
covered wars and conflicts in dozens of countries. Four of his latest books are ...
Thousands, millions of Iranians may soon die, simply because a psychopath who is
currently occupying the White House wants to humiliate his predecessor, who signed the
nuclear deal.
Certainly war with Iran is not because Trump wants to humiliate Obama. There is very
serious pressure on Trump to go to war with Iran, and that pressure comes from sources
including Sheldon Adelson, Netanyahu, John Bolton, and elements within the military
industrial complex and oil industries both of which would be able to capitalize on such a
misadventure. It is very possibly Trump’s misgivings about a war with Iran (in spite of
the idiotic rhetoric) that is keeping the US from attacking Iran.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies. It was much to Obama’s credit
to enter into the agreement with Iran, and the opposition to doing so obviously runs much
deeper than Trump’s desire to make Obama look bad.
@Andre
Vltchek Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for
expediency there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other
things, Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.”
But the way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal
psychopathy driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken. The jury is
not out on this one yet, and Trump’s resistance to war with Iran is a thread of hope
keeping it from happening. I am not trying to split hairs. It is important because there is a
tendency to focus on the face in the white house and not on the forces that are behind the
mischief. It also probably gets more likes among a broader audience who want to blame Trump
or Obama when they are more like two leaves being blown by a strong wind than the leader of
the free world or any other nonsensical title given to the president. Take it for a slight
literary critique and not for any disagreement with the overall sentiment or quality of the
article.
It was at that point I knew this wasn’t an intellectually honest essay. You
don’t even need to go back six months to see what a peaceful little lamb Iran is, as
it attacked merchant ships in the Straight of Hormuz. Perhaps your intended audience is
ignorant to facts, but Iran is, by no means, a country of innocent intent.
What would USA do if Iranian or any other non-friendly nation surrounded USA, including
sending heavily armed ships into its harbors?
This map from Democratic Underground puts a star on every U.S. military base in the
region, and aside from the Caspian area to the North, American forces pretty much have
Tehran surrounded (via Informed Comment).
[Non-violent resistance is not necessarily futile, but a feint]: We cannot delude
ourselves.
People ask, What about nonviolent, peaceful forms of resistance? And you know, the answer
is, There is no such thing as nonviolence.
Nonviolence is a form of disruption and only works if you are facing those who are
constrained in their use of violence, or works best if you can use your enemy’s
violence against them.
Take for example, Dr. Martin Luther King . . . [he learned from Gandhi and others that]
nonviolence is a mechanism of goading your opponent into being violent.
Once they become violent, you can call on your friends to be even more violent against
them. And he knew he could goad the sheriff into behaving violently and stupidly, and then
the FBI would descend on them.
You know, we always want to delude ourselves that war is not the answer. It would be good
if that were true, but unfortunately it is very often the key answer, the only answer.
https://www.c-span.org/video/?323264-1/the-worth-war&start=599
USA is being deliberately provocative, goading Iran to throw the first punch, whereupon
USA will “descend on them.”
It’s not the first time USA & its allies have used the tactic.
I dunno … If the West was going to attack, it should have happened several weeks ago,
if not earlier. Do you think Trump’s stand-down of an attack allegedly in progress was
to save a couple hundred Iranian lives, or might it make more sense that it became clear a
couple hundreds or thousands of coalition lives were at serious risk? The leadership knows
this will be far messier than Iraq if it goes kinetic, and they would prefer to continue to
starve Iran into submission while making a lot of noise about the ‘evil and suicidal
death-cult’ regime in Tehran.
Andre Vltchek gives a passionate defence of Iran, and the reasons for not attacking it. I
agree there are ‘doubts that if Iran is destroyed, the human race could survive.’
If the US, and its allies, were to destabilize Iran to such an extent as to threaten regime
change China and Russia would have to intervene. The world should avoid war on Iran, even if
it is for selfish reasons. All the indications point to world war. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
@anonymous
Because the JIDF/Zionist has the modus operandi of falsifying consensus. Large numbers of
seemingly reasonable people all pushing the same view point has the unconscious effect of
making an unwary reader adopt that same viewpoint. Of course, they’re hoping you dont
go trawling through their comment history or else the whole thing blows up.
While I agree with your sentiment in this article, it is unfortunate to make
over-simplifications that cheerlead a false narrative that one person is to blame for a
complex problem that spans party lines and presidencies.
Trump is President of the US. He is responsible for the actions of the US in foreign
affairs. Trump is a willing sycophant of the Deep State.
People need to realize that it’s been a RedBlue puppet show of the same empire
since – for purposes of Iran – 1953. Blaming one politician as opposed to the
other plays right into the hands of those who want to run the world from Washington.
The past can not be changed. Trump is responsible for the here and now.
Yet another article, pointing out that there is no reason for the US to attack Iran. Yes,
there is. Iran is an enemy of Israel (although with the US behind them, there isn’t
much they can actually do), and Israel wants Iran destroyed. The influence of Israel in
American politics is enormous. THAT is the reason. Please stop the head-scratching over why
oh why the US would want to destroy Israel. Everyone knows why.
The Iran never attacked anyone narrative has long been a favourite. What is buried somewhere
in cyberspace, is an article written over 20 years ago about the causes of the Iraq –
Iran war. The article laid out several instances of Iranian revolutionaries attacking several
Iraqi border towns. It also pointed out that Iraq’s original invasion into Iran stopped
about 8 miles into Iran, apparently understanding that it was never going to defeat Iran
territorially. The article also stated that Iraq was egged on by the US to attack, in hopes
to dislodge the new regime. However, it was the Shah who attacked Iraq in the 70s over the
Shat al Arab waterway. The subsequent peace agreement settled the issue.
https://www.nytimes.com/1975/03/07/archives/iraq-and-iran-sign-accord-to-settle-border-conflicts-iraq-and-iran.html
One reason given by Iraq for its invasion of Iran, post revolution, was that it viewed the
border attacks by Iranian revolutionaries, as a refutation of the treaty.
Iran’s real “crime” is twofold:
1) It sells oil in denomiations other than the US dollar; and
2) If allowed its rights under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, it would be producing
vast amounts of low cost molybdenum and/or technetium which are used in medical testing,
which would cut into the lucrative US market.
The USA-Israel-Nato menaces to Iran are criminal horseshite BUT –
Iran is horrifyingly brutal toward its own citizens, one of the most savage of all
countries in per capita executions of its own people, sometimes hanging 100 people or so in a
month, typically done by slow-torture hanging, often in groups of 6 or 8 people in public
squares.
It seems that usually, Iran does not even try to break the neck of its hanging victims
with a long drop, which can induce a merciful coma before the victim dies, typically some 15
minutes to an hour later. As is often observed in Iran, smaller people such as women
typically die more slowly, their lighter weight leading to a longer period of torturous
choking.
And Iran has a bunch of other Islamic barbarisms … Iran burying women alive up to
their necks, only their veiled heads above the ground, and stoning them to death; the
floggings and amputations, sometimes the victim marked for death is flogged bloody before
being hanged from a crane etc
But André Vltchek thinks Iran is a great place …
Iran is also a bizarre social experiment in extreme social dysfunctionality, with the
‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is essentially
legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do, one of those can
be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the imam to be
officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning, e.g., by
saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise themselves as
‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for a small marital
‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
Between temporary marriage, and Iran’s practice of educating its women – often
‘bad’ for Muslim fertility – Iran’s birth rate has collapsed even
more than in much of Europe.
A great shame the US CIA overthrew the secular socialist Iranian government in 1953. May
the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
…‘temporary marriage’ provision in Shia religious practice that is
essentially legalised prostitution. Not only can Iranians have 4 wives as the Sunnis do,
one of those can be a ‘wife for the weekend’, legally, provided you go to the
imam to be officially ‘married’ … you can then divorce Monday morning,
e.g., by saying the word ‘talaq’ 3 times. Iranian women sometimes advertise
themselves as ‘temporary wives’ (not ‘prostitutes’ of course!) for
a small marital ‘gift’ of € 60 or so.
May the Iranian people be soon free of both Western-Israeli menace, and their own mad
mullahs.
Well, the price for the later is the former, apparently.
Yes, you can’t say everything in every piece that you write, and for expediency
there is simplification. You can get away with it by saying “among other things,
Trump’s desire to humiliate Obama may lead us into a devastating war.” But the
way you wrote it certainly insinuates that it is in fact Trump and his personal psychopathy
driving the country towards war. In that, I think you are mistaken.
I don’t see it that way…..Vltchek has been around unz for a while…..so
it would not be wrong for him to assume most of unz knows the real forces behind Trump
and the Iran war push.
@Brabantian
You come off sounding like a Soros acolyte by parroting ‘human rights porn’ that
is largely fabricated bullshit…and disseminated by the usual NGO suspects and their
MSM partners…
That’s not to say there is no merit to your basic beef…Iran is a
theocracy…religious fanaticism has been a curse on humanity over the
ages…religion in general really…
Iran does execute a lot of people…Vltchek is overly enthusiastic about
Iran…I would say probably because he sympathizes a lot with their essentially
‘socialist’ approach [as do I]…but Iran is no angel…
But then who is…?…US cops gun down 1,000 people a year…
Also some mitigating facts to consider…a lot of the criminals Iran executes are
drug traffickers…Afghanistan next-door is heroin central…run by the CIA with
help from their ISIS private army…
This is nothing new…the deep state of empire has been running the global drug
racket for a couple of centuries now…and using it as a geopolitical weapon against
perceived ‘enemies’…going back to the opium wars that were used by the
British to ‘crack open’ China…and today aimed against Russia, Central Asia
and Iran…not to mention ‘neutralizing’ large swaths of the domestic
population by turning them into drug zombies…
Iran’s drug laws are not nearly as draconian as in other jurisdictions in the Muslim
world…capital punishment goes only for those caught with over 30 grams of hard drugs
like heroin…which is far bigger than user amounts…the death sentence is not
applied for first offenders, or even for repeat offenders of 30 to 100 grams…so really
it is the hardcore traffickers that are getting offed…I have no problem with
that…[neither do leaders like the Philippines’ Duterte who is much less tolerant
than Iran…]
There is some truth to claims about Iran’s belligerence…the Russians
aren’t thrilled about everything they’re doing in Syria, which includes Shia
colonizing in regions they’ve seized, which is a sign of attempting to entrench their
agenda in that suffering country…and hence the continuing Israeli attacks, which
nobody appreciates…
They are also spurning Russian offers of help…
In Iran, sources confirm that “…Russia offered to sell one million
barrels daily for Iran, and to replace the European financial system with another if
needed.
[Probably because they resent Russia for pressuring them to reign in their activities in
Syria…it just shows the all or nothing mentality of religious fanatics…]
All in all it is crazy to think that religious zealotry can lead to anything
good…it never has…
But there is a bigger principle here… it’s their country…
Nobody gives us the right to tell them how to live their lives…certainly compared
to Saudi Barbaria and the other gulf theocracies…not to mention serial criminal
Israel…nobody has good cause to be pointing fingers at Iran…
The US signed that resolution…and let us remember that UNSC resolutions are
INTERNATIONAL LAW…they are LEGALLY BINDING on all UN member states…
So the US is breaking international law…the sanctions are illegal also, since
only the UNSC had the legal authority to impose sanctions…
The US’ disregard for the supreme international legal order…along with
Israel similarly flouting UNSC resolutions for 50 years to pull out of the occupied
territories…is simply unacceptable…
So let’s not lose sight of the ball…this has nothing to do with Iran’s
domestic behavior…and everything to do with serial criminal USA…
@SteveK9
Yes, SteveK9, but you meant, of course, to say “why oh why the US would want to destroy
Iran”–not Israel. Israel has been trying to maneuver Uncle Sam into a shooting
war with Iran for a decade or more. Israel’s American neocons have succeeded in getting
America to destroy Iraq, Libya, Syria, Afghanistan, Iran is the last country standing in the
way of Israel’s total dominance of the Middle East. No Israel, no war, it’s as
simple as that.
@Brabantian
Standard muslim stuff. It’s their country so up to them what they do. But Iran was
cooperating with Al Qaida in Bosnia in the 1990s chopping heads of Christians and atheists.
In fact they were aligned with USA and NATO there but now US is using that involvement
against them as proof of “terrorism” activity.
And here’s Andre praising them. It was well known that they were supplying weapons
disguised as humanitarian aid but US and NATO did nothing to stop them at the time.
@Commentator
Mike There was an embargo on any weapons getting through to Bosnia at the time. The
Bosnians were massively outgunned by the Serbs that had possession of almost all the serious
hardware after the break up of Yugoslavia. The Muslim world was not about to let this
discrepancy go unanswered.
AQ at that stage was still mostly the “foreign legion” global defense
initiative that was the initial vision of Shaykh Abdullah Azzam so it’s not surprising
the Iranians were cooperating with them at the time. It would later progressively warp into
the terrorism outfit over time in the 90’s especially with the African embassy
bombings.
@Commentator
Mike Maybe you could take a look at what is going on there as we speak.
As European, you could do it. Americans and the rest of colonists can’t.
Let’s just say there is a significant Iranian presence in Bosnia.
Serbs and Croats in the region won’t be displeased should the regime in Tehran get
smashed into pieces. Really small pieces.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for the
much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place in the
world. And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
Actually one can work even within those hatreds unless they’re given a chance to
flare up, and obviously certain forces work on doing just that, as we have seen in Ukraine.
Oh yes, and the Muslims aren’t helping much to bring peace about in that region.
Thanks but no thanks. Since Supreme Commander Al Baghdadi ordered muslims to get us by any
and every means I strictly avoid eating anywhere muslims work, cook, or serve, despite liking
their food. Didn’t you hear of the three Albanian Kosovars who were arrested in Italy
plotting a bombing campaign? They worked as waiters in Venice, Italy’s tourist hub. I
pity those tourists who went through their restaurant before the Kosovars decided to move
onto bigger actions. And he did mention poison, whatever, even spitting.
The problem with the Balkans is that there is so much hatred and animosity between the
various white ethnicities, because of historical reasons, that they have a blind spot for
the much greater danger posed to them all by the massive demographic changes taking place
in the world.
As for this:
And if that kind of intra-white hatred were to spread to the rest of Europe it will be
even harder to salvage anything of the white European sovereignty.
A Saudi royal, Ahmed Bin Abdul Aziz, yesterday warned against "the kingdom's involvement in a
war with Iran."
"I'd oppose the Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed Bin Salman if he decided to join a US-British
military alliance to confront Iran," The New Khalij quoted Abdul Aziz as saying.
The brother of the Saudi King added that it was important for Riyadh to take measures to
unify the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) instead of responding to US President Donald Trump's
plans, which he described as "pushing the region to the brink of war."
Scott interviews Gareth Porter about John Bolton's most recent efforts to raise tensions
with Iran. He and Scott speculate about Iran's ability to disrupt international trade in the
region by shutting down the Strait of Hormuz, and the likelihood that they would do so given
the risks of inciting more serious conflict as a result.
I wonder how Eisenhower was persuaded to permit the 1953 coup in Iran.
The British wanted to preserve BP's oil concessions in Iran, but MI6 was not powerful
enough to stage a coup without help from the CIA. So the Brits pretended that Mosaddegh
leaned towards the Soviets, and the Americans pretended to believe them.
After the coup, the Shah's government transferred the majority of BP's rights to American
oil companies. It would have been much better for the Brits if they had done a deal with
Mosaddegh.
@James N. Kennett 1952: Mosaddeq Nationalization of Iran's Oil Industry Leads to Coup
Time Magazine's Man of the Year cover for 1951. Mohammad Mosaddeq
]
Iranian President Mohammad Mosaddeq moves to nationalize the Anglo-Iranian Oil Company in
order to ensure that more oil profits remain in Iran. His efforts to democratize Iran had
already earned him being named Time Magazine's Man of the Year for 1951. After he
nationalizes it, Mosaddeq realizes that Britain may want to overthrow his government, so he
closes the British Embassy and sends all British civilians, including its intelligence
operatives, out of the country.
Britain finds itself with no way to stage the coup it desires, so it approaches the
American intelligence community for help. Their first approach results in abject failure when
Harry Truman throws the British representatives out of his office, stating that "We don't
overthrow governments; the United States has never done this before, and we're not going to
start now."
After Eisenhower is elected in November 1952, the British have a much more receptive
audience, and plans for overthrowing Mosaddeq are produced. The British intelligence
operative who presents the idea to the Eisenhower administration later will write in his
memoirs, "If I ask the Americans to overthrow Mosaddeq in order to rescue a British oil
company, they are not going to respond. This is not an argument that's going to cut much
mustard in Washington. I've got to have a different argument. I'm going to tell the Americans
that Mosaddeq is leading Iran towards Communism." This argument wins over the Eisenhower
administration, who promptly decides to organize a coup in Iran (see August 19, 1953).
[Stephen Kinzer, 7/29/2003]
Entity Tags: Dwight Eisenhower, Harry S. Truman, Muhammad Mosaddeq
Timeline Tags: US confrontation with Iran, US-Iran (1952-1953)
"... He says everything USA lower 48 other than shale is completely dead, and has been for sometime. He said look at Kansas since 2014. That is pretty much the rest of conventional lower 48. ..."
"... They are also concerned about 2020 big time. A lot of wasted money on new pipes if there is a fracking ban, which they are taking seriously. ..."
"... I would say that as far as the shale industry is concerned, the shit is about to hit the fan. ..."
"... Yes, all liquids includes ethanol from corn or sugar cane. ..."
I talked to a guy with a pretty key position in a pipeline company recently.
He says everything USA lower 48 other than shale is completely dead, and has been for
sometime. He said look at Kansas since 2014. That is pretty much the rest of conventional
lower 48.
He also said they are getting nervous about shale because the financial people in New York
are turning against it. He says it is not profitable sub $75 WTI and if the money is cut off,
it's going to fall like a rock.
They are also concerned about 2020 big time. A lot of wasted money on new pipes if there
is a fracking ban, which they are taking seriously.
We still do not know how, when and where the Iranian tanker was captured. There are two
mutually exclusive narratives.
1) Grace 1 "freely navigated into UK territorial waters" as Jeremy Hunt claims.
2) The capture of Grace 1 was ordered by the US long before Grace 1 entered
the Strait. Panama revoked the ship's registration and Gibraltar changed its sanction
laws.
Would the US know weeks in advance that Grace 1 is about to stop in Gibraltar? On
the other hand, If Grace 1 had known that its registration had been revoked, would it
not have avoided British waters.
I suspect Grace 1 was captured out on the Atlantic, days before the news was made
public. The Royal Marines would then reprogram the automatic identification system (AIS) to
show Gibraltar as the destination. We still have not heard from the crew. What is their
story?
Thanks for the link to Craig Murray 's article. I have been collecting sources and
analysis on the tanker seizures here
.
If you know which shipping company owns a certain cargo ship or tanker, you can usually
look up that company's database and find the ship's scheduled voyage. This is crucial
knowledge because usually cargo ships will be carrying several lots of cargo to be offloaded
at ports along the way, and new cargo taken on at the same time, so importers and exporters
need to know exactly when the ship docks at X place and when it leaves. It would be very easy
for the UK or the US to know in advance when the Grace 1 docks at Gibraltar; they only
need to know who owns the tanker, find the owner's website and look up the schedules of all
the owner's ships.
In fact the Grace 1 tanker might not have been the specific target; as long as
there was a ship purportedly carrying Iranian oil passing through the Straits of Gibraltar,
it would have been fair game. So all the British would have needed to know is which tanker or
tankers from the Middle East would have been scheduled to dock in at Gibraltar and they get
that information from the relevant port authorities.
Economics is the only profession where the more an idea fails, the more it is believed.
Consider the following theory:
Low interest rates lead to higher growth and higher inflation.
If it were true, then a decade of the lowest rates in recorded history would have seen the
global economy go gangbusters. Instead it's been mostly the opposite, leading any reasonable
person to at least question this theory.
But wait a second! A wunderkind econ whippersnapper fresh from Davos interrupts.
If not for low interest rates, things would have been even worse!
This kind of defensive argument is popular among failed forecasters. And to be fair, I can't
prove that it isn't true and low rates didn't prevent some unforeseen calamity. That's the
beauty of the Hyperbolic Avoided Hypothetical (HAH! for short) and why it has become a favorite
of the Central Banking elite. But it's junk science, because you can't disprove it either. For
example: I just used my superpowers to prevent a zombie apocalypse. Go ahead and prove that I
didn't. ( Do you see any zombies? No? You're welcome. )
These twin tendencies of believing an idea that keeps disappointing and justifying it with
all the worse outcomes that didn't happen are the pillars of the global liquidity trap that is
slowly pulling us all under. Ten years ago, there was a plausible theory that lower rates were
a good idea. When they failed, rates were taken to zero (zero interest rate policy, or ZIRP).
When that failed, they were taken negative (negative interest rate policy, or NIRP). At no
point was it ever even considered that maybe, just maybe, it's the theory that's wrong.
My belief is that in the short term, artificially low rates are deflationary, as they result
in investing booms that create excess capacity and misallocation of resources that hurts
growth. Uber, Lyft, WeWork and AirBnb have caused plenty of deflation by constantly raising
money to operate at a loss. Cheap debt enabled a fracking boom that's flooded the oil market.
Public companies that can borrow for nothing are more likely to spend that money on buybacks
than wages.
"... China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205 barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General Administration of Customs, cited in a recent Reuters report . ..."
"... Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the region and that multilateralism must be upheld. ..."
Following China's crude imports from Iran plunging this summer, sinking almost 60% in June
compared to
a year earlier - which corresponded to Washington shutting down the waiver program in May -
leaders in Tehran are urging China to buy more Iranian oil .
China's crude shipments from Iran totaled 855,638 tons last month, which averages to 208,205
barrels per day (bpd), compared with 254,016 bpd in May, according figures from the General
Administration of Customs, cited in a recent
Reuters report .
Iran's Vice President Jahangiri made the appeal to Beijing and "friendly" countries to up
their Iranian crude purchases in statements Monday. "Even though we are aware that friendly
countries such as China are facing some restrictions, we expect them to be more active in
buying Iranian oil ," Jahangiri
reportedly told visiting senior Chinese diplomat Song Tao. He said this while also on
Monday issuing a statement saying Iran stood ready to "confront" American aggression in the
region and that multilateralism must be upheld.
"The foreign policy of the Islamic Republic of Iran is to protect multilateralism and
confront American hegemony,"
Jahangiri said , according to the IRIB news agency.
He added that Iran's recent move to breach uranium enrichment caps could be reversed should
other parties return to upholding their side of the nuclear agreement.
Simultaneously, China's oil purchases from Iran's rival Saudi Arabia have soared to record
volume , totaling 1.89 million barrels a day last month, according to numbers cited in
Bloomberg . "Shipments from the OPEC producer made up almost a fifth of its total oil
purchases in June and was 64% higher than the previous month," while at the same time "Imports
from Iran fell to the lowest since May 2010," according to
Bloomberg .
Meanwhile, in a crucial development related to Iran's trying to weather the severe US-led
sanctions storm, a long anticipated plan for gasoline export has begun with an inaugural
shipment to neighboring Afghanistan.
The Fars news agency said on Monday that a first consignment of export gasoline will start
trading in Iran's Energy Exchange (IRENEX) later this week .
It said some 10,000 tons of gasoline with octane number of 91 will be available for sale
to Afghanistan through IRENEX on Wednesday, adding that the trade will take place both in the
Iranian rial and in major international currencies.
Iran's refining capacity has grown significantly over the past years as the country slashed
fuel imports while also coping with increased domestic demand.
Officials have expressed hope that Iraq along with Afghanistan, as well as Caspian Sea
countries would become main destinations for gasoline export.
A country knocking on the doors of other countries to be able to sell it's product to
sustain it's economy and support it's population all the while "civilized, humane, peaceful,
and law abiding" people in the west enjoying their lives at the expense of the very same
people who they insult for not being able to stole the way they did, arguing and trying to
convince everyone else how Mullah's are oppressing their people while they're trying to
help.
China will buy more Iranian oil and so will Russia. They will have the last word whilst
the US empire will be the laughing stock of the world (well it already is).
Cruelty and Stupidity are the hallmarks of moves this century.
"What's Iran to do? It seems straightforward. Respond in kind but no more than in kind to
aggression on Iran's interests, make sure the craven Trumpists and allies realize Iran isn't
kidding about shutting down resource shipments through the Persian Gulf and the destruction
of the vast petroleum infrastructure in the Persian Gulf if Iran is attacked militarily, and
above all remain cool headed and patient. The US empire is beginning to implode."
OK so last week there was millions of barrels of Iranian oil sitting in storage tanks in
China but has not officially changed hands because of sanctions. Today imports from Iran to
China have plunged. Do you not see the correlation? It was in your own ******* article. Do
you even read some of the **** you publish?
I miss Marla...**** was straight when she was around.
See what you mean re: Marla. Nowadays most articles get published on the merit of fitting
an agenda, beyond that content seems irrelevant. And I'm not sure 'Tyler' even knows there is
an active comment section, if you see what I mean.
The Chinese have planned for (and thus probably will achieve) a SPR holding 90 days of
oil. They are past 60, maybe already past 70 these days.
Oil consumption is flat thanks to engine improvements. The turd world (Russia included) is
nervous because their oil welfare is going to come to an end.
It would be pretty tough for the U.S. to enforce any sanctions, if China agreed to buy
more oil from Iran. And there is no way the U.S. can stop them, once the Belt and Road system
is completed through the Middle East region. And since China has already lined up 152
countries to cooperate in the BRI, it is extremely difficult for the U.S. to deny them a shot
at improving their economies, especially when it comes to the subject of Iran.
So much for the "China and Russia will save Iran" crowd's desperate assertions. Russia
does not want VZ or Iranian crude on the market as it will push oil prices even lower. As I
said, there will be no WW3 over Iran. There will be no grand assemblage of minor states over
Iran. Iran is on its own.
I'm a little bit suspicious of Rystad because they tilt bullish consistently, and I'm
specifically suspicious because only 10% of the shale companies operating int he US have
positive free cash flows.
If these wells were really spitting out mid to high double digit IRR's then these
companies would be rolling in cash.
They are not.
Despite saying "fully burdened" multiple times, it wasn't until I got to the very last
paragraph of the report where I found this:
++++++++++
"While the economics of recent vintages in the most prospective US liquid basin remain
exceptionally robust, we should note that these ATAX IRRs still do not correspond to
fully-burdened returns.
For a complete picture, we also need to take into account land cost, where the variability
between early and late entrants is expected to be significant. We aim to tackle this
assumption in a forthcoming analysis."
+++++++
Oh.
They left out land costs. You know, one of the largest line-item expenses there is.
Put those back and these wells are negative I will bet you. And that's a decidedly
"bearish tilting" discovery.
Yeah, the "singers" leave off land cost, road cost, earth moving equipment, tanks, and
pipelines, which can easily add up to a couple of million more per well.
Thanks Chris
I missed that. For some basins there might be a 10% IRR at 65 per barrel for the average new
well over its productive life for all costs including land.
Howdy from a hot S. Texas, Chris. IRR is a bad financial metric for the shale oil biz; its
easily manipulated, much like break'even prices. And generally speaking it's the same folks
always doing the manipulating. The IEA and the EIA are Rystad, DI and IHS's biggest clients.
Good news sells, bad news, not. As George says, it's not a lie if you believe it.
ROI's on CAPEX have always been an important, and overlooked key to the failed shale oil
business model. The possibility (often based on exaggerated EUR's to begin with) of earning
$13MM undiscounted cash flow on a $8.5MM dollar investment, over 15-20 years, no less, was
never conducive to staying out of debt to grow. And current 165% ROI's on the very BEST of
wells are not now conducive to paying interest, reserve replacement and ultimately, we hope,
deleveraging debt. It simply does not work. The "models" that predict growth, and debt
reduction, short of $85 oil prices, sustained for many consecutive years, are ridiculous. By
year end '19 we'll see how ridiculous.
The American shale oil phenomena (not to be confused with the American oil industry) is a
textbook example of "non-profit capitalism." From printing press to Central Banks to lenders
to shale companies, the end result is suppose to benefit the American consumer at the pump
and burner tip and is a great redistribution of wealth in our nation. But it's the people in
the middle that are making the killing, the lawyers that put the deals together, the banks
that get the yields, the CEO's that make the +$20MM annual compensation packages while their
EPS suck the royalty owners getting the free money, they are the big winners. And none of
those folks want to see it end. EVER. They could care less about 2 BCFPD of associated gas
being flared, or all the LTO getting exported at $20 discounts to Brent, or ground water
levels in Reeves County they love the shale thing because it makes them money. And they all
do whatever they can to make sure people believe it's a miracle, a revolution; a game
changer.
Phftttttt.
The real oil business, the real America, works on profit. Debt is for pussies, for
weenie-necks, for dads who do not care what sort of life they leave for their kids.
Yeah, $85 and above would work for some, not all. $65 would work for a lot less of them, and
$55 is pretty much a sucking action for cash on almost all. And as a royalty owner, I would
much prefer them not to drill until $85. But, royalty owners do not run the damn companies.
Faulting them is like laughing at the homeless. I have about 30, or more, wells that can be
drilled on my lease, and I have a tiny ownership. Do you think I am happy with $55 to $60
drilling on it, you are wrong. It's about the last hope in life I have, and I am happy with
wasting it??? GD, I am 70, but not that senile, yet. Ok, I may be an exception, but, at
least, you could say some, or maybe even a lot. Otherwise, it's discrimination, which for
you, I would not guess. But, all royalty owners, is like downgrading the homeless. Most, do
not have a clue they could have had steaks, instead of mush.
I am "discriminating" against greed and in any way I can trying to draw attention to the need
to conserve America's remaining resources. Continuous 120 day drilling commitments in MOST
oil and gas leases, term assignments and/or farmouts has led to over drilling, increased GOR
and potential loss of BHP and recovery rates. It's also led to excessive flaring and the
waste of associated gas, overproduction, much lower product prices and more debt. If
operators (Lessees/Assignees) do not comply with these continuous drilling provisions they
typically lose acreage they've paid thousands of dollars per acre to lease.
I am a royalty owner and consider it one of America's great privileges. By proper
management of my minerals I have ensured my family will benefit from them for many, many
decades. Onerous drilling to earn provisions, however, are part of why the shale oil and
shale phenomena in America is, essentially, out of control and on a mission to drain the last
of our country's hydrocarbon resources as fast as borrowed capital will allow. If your leases
do not contain Pugh clauses and drilling commitments then ignore my observations and
goodonya.
I guess I see a different picture of most royalty owners than you, and I will just
concentrate on the EF, as that's where I am. Most of the EF was leased up by around 2009, far
before public knowledge of the field. Ours was originally with Cheatapeak for about $800 a
net acre. The common way to lease it, was through third party land men, who would lie with
impunity. The standard story was, if you don't lease it, with our lease, you may not get
anything if they find oil. In return for signing their lease, as is, was a generous quarter,
rather than the usual eighth. I knew the rest was BS, but a quarter sounded pretty good. The
continuous drilling clause in that, was so weak to be non-existent. No Pugh clause. That was
standard. I actually did not sign with Cheatapeake, nor EOG, but the lease wording was
basically the same. My guess, is the vast majority of mineral right owners were given the
same deal. Maybe not the majority of land, but certainly the number of signers. Most of the
Permian was leased many years ago, with an eighth, or less. Chevron actually owns 100% on a
lot, and so does Oxy, no doubt. Exxon's acquisition of the Bass families' holdings in the
Delaware span 4 decades. EOG's entry into the Delaware was through purchase of Yates. I
believe the picture you are painting of royalty owners is distorted, for most. With, at
least, the big holders, the number of wells is determined by the company. Not the lease. And
most of the rest have very little capex to complete with.
There are so many mineral owners in so many different situations that it is difficult to
paint all with a broad brush.
However, management of shale weren't playing with their own money, and so what happened
happened.
If we could just not keep having these quick drops like Q4 2018 and Q2 2019.
I think that it will be interesting to see what happens to all of the sub 10 BOPD shale
wells. Better hope no down hole failures. Pretty hard to pay 8 figure pay packages to
management on the backs of those. Lol.
I think all investors need to think about what happens when these companies start to run
out of shale locations and have falling production.
Just go to shaleprofile.com and run some calculations on 2014-2016 wells in the various shale
basins.
By the time you subtract 25% royalty, then severance, LOE, G & A, it's apparent that
the majority of the wells cannot payout in a reasonable time. 3-5 years.
I guess in early 2015 those of us in the conventional upstream arena were saying this.
Vertical wells fell off a cliff. But shale wells (with OPM) kept on trucking.
And the stories told about break evens, which we knew were fraudulent, have proven
such.
It is not necessary I "distort" the truth or generalize the role greedy mineral owners have
in the overdrilling and premature depletion of America's shale oil resources; the evidence is
in every courthouse in every county in every shale oil basin in America. Google it, or better
yet, go research public records yourself, as I often have to do. It is abysmal, the
requirements made of Lessees, Assignees and Farmoutees to develop those shale oil resources,
regardless of price, or pressure preservation or common sense. It is very much part of the
problem the shale industry faces. They, and the regulatory agencies that protect them, may
have brought it on themselves when they changed applicable field rules nevertheless the big
winner in all of this shale gig is the American royalty owner, RI and ORRI combined. I
estimate to the tune of about $800 billion in free money the past decade. Those are just the
facts, as painful as they may be.
As a side note, the Texas DPS reports 30 people have been killed on Texas oilfield roads
in July so far all in a hurry to deplete America's last remaining hydrocarbon resources,
flare its associated gas, and export the shit to Korea.
I'm not familiar with Texas shale leases nor who the mineral owners tend to be, so I am
not qualified to comment as I did.
Where I am, several royalty companies have bought fractional interests in active leases
and also where production is inactive.
During the high prices we tried to lease a tract offsetting us, which had been abandoned.
The wells are in the state plugging fund. The mineral owners are from a shale state, and they
wanted a large royalty, much larger than had been granted here. Plus cash upfront. Plus
wanted us to drill the two remaining locations within a certain time or forfeit them (which
made no sense given the lease boundaries, etc. So we passed. It has sat abandoned for several
more years, Wells haven't been plugged either.
However, we have reactivated several leases from 1990s to present, and we are working on
two more small ones that offset us right now. In each case the mineral owners have been
relatively easy to work with.
I ballpark that we have produced over 50K BO from those reclamation projects. With
royalties from 1/6 to 1/8, I'd say those that worked with us have fared pretty well.
I guess maybe when you aren't operating near shale things are a lot easier.
This is a whole different topic: Kayross (I haven't heard of them) are quoted on Rigzone
today as saying that Permian CAPEX data for 2018 have been underreported by some $4.1
billion. They quote Andrew Gould: Average production costs have been underestimated and
production per well overestimated. He says that current shale-oil production is substantially
more water- and sand- intensive than commonly believed.
Kayross: Sand and water intensity in Permian tight-oil production in 2018 is 23% higher
than previously recorded, with sand demand underestimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water by
12.5 billion gallons.
Chart below from that Bloomberg piece suggests that without all the external capital, US
tight oil output would be only about 2 Mb/d instead of 7.5 Mb/d in May 2019. We might see
relatively flat growth going forward, much will depend on future oil prices (low prices might
result in decline, medium prices, flat output and high prices a small increase, perhaps to 9
Mb/d or so.
Even EOG. Flat, at best. One could expect more rig count drops soon. Because, this does
not reflect the multitude of smaller companies that make up a good portion of production.
This can be used for reference to the article for perspective. https://www.rrc.state.tx.us/media/50413/top32producers2018.pdf
Oxy is actually three of those companies, now. Both the Oxies and Anadarko.
" Chinese consumption is enroute to a 6-7% growth year .It's relentless'
I'll leave other to respond to the call for war, if they so choose.
But I will say that the USA would be wise to have no plan to import oil from beyond this
hemisphere, because others, including China, will be consuming all that is available from
Africa and Asia.
There will come a time when EV's look brilliant. To some they already do.
The early season hurricane in the GOM is going to put a major dent in US July crude output.
Around 60% of production is shut-in and will be that way for around a week. This storm is
weak but so sprawling there is a huge area of the Gulf flying helicopters is dangerous
Not the Big One for the industry, New Orleans or Houston by any means. Still, Gulf is hot
and favorable for storms this year.
As long as this BS continues, oil prices will stay low. More BKs and mergers, and flat
shale output. Because, it's now official, big oil determines Permian output. Which will not
be recognized much until 2020. Because, the elevator do not go to upper floors. I wasn't
going to call it until an Oxy takeover by a major, but I can finish the sentence with the
words we have. Final conclusion will have to wait for the official autopsy, but the doc needs
to be smart enough to know that the patient died. May be quite smelly by then.
Lots of Ag professors at major universities study grain trade. I listen to some of their
podcasts. This is what they say in unison.
Right now the US corn and soybean crop is not looking good. But the funds do not so crop
tours, talk to farmers, fly drones over fields, etc. So as long as USDA says all is well,
grain prices stay low.
USDA estimated 91.7 million acres of corn planted most recently. None of the Ag professors
believe the number, nor do the various independent traders I listen to. But the funds went
with it and corn sold off limit down.
Crude -1.401M Cushing: -1.115 M Gasoline -476K Distillate +6.226M
U.S. crude stocks fell less than expected last week, while gasoline inventories decreased
and distillate stocks built, industry group the American Petroleum Institute said on Tuesday.
Crude inventories fell by 1.4 million barrels in the week to July 12 to 460 million, compared
with analysts' expectations for a decrease of 2.7 million barrels. Crude stocks at the
Cushing, Oklahoma, delivery hub fell by 1.1 million barrels, API said. Refinery crude runs
rose by 17,000 barrels per day, API data showed. Gasoline stocks fell by 476,000 barrels,
compared with analysts' expectations in a Reuters poll for a 925,000-barrel decline.
Distillate fuels stockpiles, which include diesel and heating oil, rose by 6.2 million
barrels, compared with expectations for a 613,000-barrel gain, the API data showed. U.S.
crude imports fell last week by 41,000 barrels per day to 7 million bpd.
Just as I predicted, plant condensate which is not crude has entered the refinery as crude.
Mason Hamilton of EIA confirmed it in his tweets yesterday.
The adjustment factor will likely remain above 500 KBD as a portion of plant condensate has
entered the refinery as input on a consistent basis. The plant condensate can be directly
used as gasoline blend material just as butane in winter months. Expect gasoline production
to remain high as a result.
These NG shale management folks have even less of a brain that shale oil folks. The NG
stocks have pummeled and many stocks such as RRC and AR hit 52 week lows.
Enno posted yesterday that the shale decline rate is running at the rate of 350KBD/month (or
4.2 MBD/year). I expect the treadmill effect to slow down the shale growth to a virtual crawl
sooner rather than later.
An answer to my own Q from The (IEEFA) – Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis.
"EQT's former CEO Steve Schlotterbeck recently made headlines when he called fracking an
"unmitigated disaster" because it helped crash prices and produce mountains of red ink."
"In fact, I'm not aware of another case of a disruptive technological change that has done so
much harm to the industry that created the change," Schlotterbeck said at an industry
conference in June.
Amazingly Appears EQT displaced CHK as the GASSEST one to rule them all with an Unresolved
Strategy to bury their stakeholders even deeper in doom. https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2019-07-22/why-us-shale-doomed-no-matter-what-they-do
https://www.rigzone.com/news/permian_fracking_activity_underreported_in_2018-23-jul-2019-159378-article/
Latest news from Rig zone , fracking underreported in permian in 2018. Seems there are not
maby DUCs left to compleate and the oroduction each well is lower than reported that increase
the break even price each barrel.significant. If this is true EIA need to revice their shale
play forcast, also the majours their plans if they used the data reported that was wrong
U.S. crude stocks fell more than expected last week, while gasoline and distillate
inventories built, industry group the American Petroleum Institute said on Tuesday.
Crude inventories fell by 11 million barrels in the week to July 19 to 449 million,
compared with analysts' expectations for a decrease of 4 million barrels.
Crude stocks at the Cushing, Oklahoma, delivery hub fell by 448,000 barrels, API said.
Refinery crude runs fell by 396,000 barrels per day, API data showed.
Gasoline stocks rose by 4.4 million barrels, compared with analysts' expectations in a
Reuters poll for a 730,000-barrel decline.
Distillate fuels stockpiles, which include diesel and heating oil, rose by 1.4 million
barrels, compared with expectations for a 499,000-barrel gain, the API data showed.
U.S. crude imports fell last week by 467,000 barrels per day to 6.6 million bpd.
Hi guys, please read this article in the Oil&Gas journal:
"Oil and gas companies under-reported hydraulic fracturing activity for producing light,
tight oil by more than 20% in the Permian basin during 2018, estimates Kayrros, a data
analytics company serving energy markets.
Using optical and synthetic aperture radar imagery tracking coupled with proprietary
algorithms to identify rigs and fracturing crews, Kayrros found that more than 1,100 Permian
wells were completed but not reported through state commissions or FracFocus, a public
repository for information on fracturing chemicals.
Kayrros counted 6,394 completed wells for 2018, representing a 21% increase on the FracFocus
estimate of 5,272 wells as of June 20.
The backlog of drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells is considerably smaller than believed,
Kayrros said. In any given month, Kayrros evaluates the Permian DUC inventory at just about
1,000 wells."
If this were true, it would be a massive fraudulent behavior, more typical of an emerging
market with a large black economy. I am somewhat speechless and waiting for more
information.
That part may not be illegal but it certainly sounds like the average return per well is 20%
less than we thought. So, the already poor productivity of shale wells is now 20% less than
previous estimates.
Commenting on the discovery, Andrew Gould, former Chairman of BG and Chairman CEO of
Schlumberger and Kayrros advisory board chairman, said: "Misperceptions about shale oil in
general and the Permian in particular have consequences, hence the importance of these
measurements that show Permian production per well has been substantially overestimated. By
the same token, average production costs per well are understated. With far more wells
contributing to Permian and US oil production than accounted for, current shale oil
production is substantially more water- and sand-intensive than is commonly believed."
The findings have significant implications for the assumed efficiency of the Permian
Basin. The analysis revealed that while oil production is accurately measured in monthly US
statistics, it took many more wells to account for that production in 2018 than were
reported. Assuming a cost of $5 million per horizontal completion, 2018 operator capex is
also underestimated by as much as USD 4.1 billion. Further, the sand and water intensity of
Permian tight oil production in 2018 was 23% greater than previously recorded with sand
demand being underestimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water by 12.5 billion gallons.
Seems this finding by Kayrros could be a really big deal. I am unclear on how exactly a well
gets completed and put into production without triggering the state reporting mechanisms
seems nigh impossible to me.
But it's a heavy-hitting firm with Andrew Gould on its board. From the Kayrros media page
of their website:
+++++++++++++++
New Satellite Data Highlight Large Underreporting of Hydraulic Fracturing Activity
Houston, 23 July 2019
Kayrros, the leading data-driven analysis company serving the energy markets, disclosed
today that hydraulic fracturing activity (fracking), the process for producing light tight
oil, was underreported by more than 20% in the Permian, the most prolific US basin, in
2018.
Using optical and synthetic aperture radar imagery tracking together with proprietary
algorithms to identify rigs and frac crews, Kayrros found that in 2018 alone, more than 1,100
wells were completed in the Permian basin but not reported through state commissions or
FracFocus, a public repository for information on the chemicals used during fracking. The
total figure of 6,394 completed wells counted by Kayrros for 2018 represents a 21% increase
on the FracFocus estimate of 5,272 wells as of June 20, 2019.
US light tight oil (commonly referred to as "shale oil") has been the world's fastest
growing source of oil supply in the last 10 years, turning the United States into the largest
liquids producer and a major exporter of crude oil and refined products. Experts rely their
analysis of the sector on data submitted by operators to state commissions and FracFocus.
Kayrros measurements reveal that public data fail to capture the full scale of fracking.
The macroeconomic implications of this underreporting are far-reaching. For one thing, the
backlog of drilled but uncompleted (DUC) wells is considerably smaller than thought. In any
given month, Kayrros evaluates the Permian DUC inventory at just around 1,000 wells. Most of
this rolling inventory results from regular drilling and completions operations. Over time,
the number of wells drilled generally matches that of wells completed, leaving DUC
inventories relatively unchanged.
The prevalent view that shale operators sit on a large backlog of DUCs that could be
quickly brought to production in the event of an oil crisis even without further drilling is
thus deeply misleading. There is just no such inventory.
The findings also transform the perception of light tight oil economics. In light of these
measurements, the average well is both less productive and higher-cost than reflected in
public data.
Commenting on the discovery, Andrew Gould, former Chairman of BG and Chairman CEO of
Schlumberger and Kayrros advisory board chairman, said: "Misperceptions about shale oil in
general and the Permian in particular have consequences, hence the importance of these
measurements that show Permian production per well has been substantially overestimated. By
the same token, average production costs per well are understated. With far more wells
contributing to Permian and US oil production than accounted for, current shale oil
production is substantially more water- and sand-intensive than is commonly believed."
Kayrros Chief Analyst and Co-Founder Antoine Halff added: "For all its revolutionary
impact on the oil industry, shale remains poorly understood. Publicly available data based on
old-fashioned company reporting have their limits. Hard measurements unlocked by new data
technologies show that contrary to public belief, there is no great buildup of DUCs just
waiting to be brought online. The whole idea that the market can rely on this sort of de
facto spare production capacity is an illusion. The industry is actually running on a much
tighter leash than that."
The findings have significant implications for the assumed efficiency of the Permian
Basin. The analysis revealed that while oil production is accurately measured in monthly US
statistics, it took many more wells to account for that production in 2018 than were
reported. Assuming a cost of $5 million per horizontal completion, 2018 operator capex is
also underestimated by as much as USD 4.1 billion. Further, the sand and water intensity of
Permian tight oil production in 2018 was 23% greater than previously recorded with sand
demand being underestimated by 9.2 billion pounds and water by 12.5 billion gallons.
+++++++++++++++++++++
Enno Peters reports 4832 horizontal wells completed in the Permian basin in 2018, his data
tends to be quite good, though over time more data shows up at the state agencies so this
number will likely get revised higher. The most recent Permian basin report has 3583 Permian
wells completed in 2017, in July 2018 the estimate was 3251 Permian wells completed in 2017,
so about 91% of wells were reported after 7 months, if this rate is consistent (and it may
not be) this suggests perhaps 5310 total wells will be reported for 2018 by July 2020. Pretty
convinced that Enno Peters gets this right.
There is a bit of discussion of this at shaleprofile.com
"... I thought all these foreign countries were international." He explained that "international" means countries that are not really countries. They're Liberia and Panama, countries that only use the US dollar, not their own currency. So the oil industry doesn't have a currency risk. They are flags of convenience and they don't have any income tax. ..."
"... He explained to me that Standard Oil sold its oil at a very low price from the Near East to Liberia or Panama or Lagos, or wherever they have a flag of convenience and no income tax. Then they would sell it at a very high price to its refineries in Europe and America, at such a high price that these "downstream" affiliates don't make any income. So there's no tax to pay. ..."
"... Standard Oil and other U.S. oil companies – and also mining companies – don't earn an income there, because they sell it so low, all the profits are reported to be taken in Liberia or Panama. These are non-countries. ..."
"... Here is a report. I'm from the State Department (I assumed that this meant CIA). "We want to calculate how much money the US could get if we set up bank branches and became the bank for all the criminal capital in the world." He said, "We figured out we can finance, (and he said this in an elevator), we can finance the Vietnam War with all the drug money coming into America, all of the criminal money. Can you make a calculation of how much that might be?" ..."
"... I found that the entire US balance of payments deficit in the 1960s, since the Vietnam War, the entire balance of payments deficit was military spending abroad. The private sector's trade and investment was exactly in balance; tourism, trade and investment were exactly in balance. All the deficit was military. ..."
"... Mr. Barsanti said that McNamara said that Arthur Andersen would never get another government contract if it published my report. ..."
"... There were three people, known as the Columbia Group, saying the Vietnam War was going to destroy the American monetary system as we know it. The group was composed of Terence McCarthy, my mentor; Seymour Melman, a professor at Columbia University's School of Industrial Engineering where Terence also taught; and myself. We would basically go around the New York City giving speeches. ..."
I worked at Chase Manhattan until 1967, then finally I had to quit to finish the
dissertation. I spent a year on that. At Chase I had become the specialist in the oil
industry's balance of payments. When the Vietnam War began and escalated, President Johnson
in January 1965, right after I joined the bank in December 1964, passed the voluntary –
in reality, compulsory – foreign investment rules blocking American companies from
investing more than 5% of the growth of the previous year's investment. The oil industry
objected to that. They came to David Rockefeller and said we've got to convince the
government that we're ripping off other countries so fast, we're able to exploit them so
rapidly, that it really helps the US balance of payments to let us continue investing more
abroad. Can you help us show this statistically?
So David Rockefeller asked me to do a study of the balance of payments of the oil
industry. Rockefeller said, "We don't want to have Chase's oil and gas department do it,
because they would be thought of as lobbyists. Nobody knows who you are, so you're neutral.
We want to know what the real facts are, and if they're what we think they are, we'll publish
what you write; if we don't like it we'll keep it to ourselves, but please just give us the
facts." He said, "You can ask the oil companies all the questions you want. They will fill
out the forms you design for a statistical accounting format. We'll give you a year to write
it all up." To me this was wonderful. Oil was the key sector internationally. It turned out I
found out that the average dollar that actually was invested abroad by oil companies was
recaptured by the US economy within 18 months. The payback period was that fast.
The report that I wrote was put on the desk of every senator and every representative in
the United States and I was celebrated for being the economist of the oil industry. So this
taught me everything about the balance of payments which, as I said, is a topic that's not
taught in any university. So I finished that, finished the dissertation, and then I developed
a methodology for the overall US balance of payments. Most of the balance of payment
statistics were changed when they designed the gross national product accounts. The accounts
now treat exports and imports as if they were paid for fully for cash. So if you make a
million dollars worth of grain exports, you are assumed to bring a million dollars into the
economy. And if you export a million dollars of arms, of military, it all comes back.
What I found out is that only a portion actually of exports actually comes back. And
imports have an even lower balance-of-payment costs as compared to their nominal valuation.
For instance, all of America's oil imports are from American oil companies, so if you pay a
hundred dollars for oil, maybe thirty dollars of that is profit, thirty dollars is
compensation to American management, thirty dollars is the use of American exports to
physical equipment, oil drilling equipment and others to produce the oil.
The closest people that I worked with for the study were at the Standard Oil Company,
which was always very close to the Rockefellers, as you know. So I went over the statistics
and I said, "In the balance of payments, I can't find where Standard Oil makes the profit.
Does it make the profit by producing oil at the production end? Or does it make it selling it
at the gas stations, at the retail sales end?" The treasurer of Standard Oil said, "Ah I can
tell you where we make them. We make them right here in my office." I asked how. "What
countries could I find this in? I don't find it in Europe, I don't find it in Asia, I don't
find it in Latin America or Africa." He said, "Ah, do you see at the very end of the
geography headings for international earnings, there's something called international?"
I said, "Yes that always confused me. Where is it? I thought all these foreign countries
were international." He explained that "international" means countries that are not really
countries. They're Liberia and Panama, countries that only use the US dollar, not their own
currency. So the oil industry doesn't have a currency risk. They are flags of convenience and
they don't have any income tax.
He explained to me that Standard Oil sold its oil at a very
low price from the Near East to Liberia or Panama or Lagos, or wherever they have a flag of
convenience and no income tax. Then they would sell it at a very high price to its refineries
in Europe and America, at such a high price that these "downstream" affiliates don't make any
income. So there's no tax to pay. For all US oil investment in Europe, there's no tax to pay
because the oil companies' accountants price it so high, and pay so little per barrel to
third world countries such as Saudi Arabia, that they only get a royalty. Standard Oil and
other U.S. oil companies – and also mining companies – don't earn an income
there, because they sell it so low, all the profits are reported to be taken in Liberia or
Panama. These are non-countries.
That gave me the clue about what people these days talk about money laundering. In the
last few months that I worked for Chase Manhattan in 1967, I was going up to my office on the
ninth floor and a man got on the elevator and said, "I was just coming to your office,
Michael. Here is a report. I'm from the State Department (I assumed that this meant CIA). "We
want to calculate how much money the US could get if we set up bank branches and became the
bank for all the criminal capital in the world." He said, "We figured out we can finance,
(and he said this in an elevator), we can finance the Vietnam War with all the drug money
coming into America, all of the criminal money. Can you make a calculation of how much that
might be?"
So I spent three months figuring out how much money goes to Switzerland, from drug
dealings, what's the dollar volume of drug dealings. They helped me with all sorts of
statistics on that, and said, "We can become the criminal capital of the world and it'll
finance the dollar and this will enable us to afford the spending to defeat communism in
Vietnam and elsewhere. If we don't do that, the bomb throwers will come to New York."
So I became a specialist in money laundering! Nothing could have better prepared me to
understand how the global economy works! I had all the statistics, I had the help of the
government people explaining to me how the CIA worked with drug dealing and other criminals
and kidnappers to raise the money so it would be off the balance sheet funding and Congress
didn't have to approve it when they would kill people and sponsor revolutions. They were
completely open with me about this. I realized they'd never done a security check on me.
So I wanted to do a study of the balance of payments of the whole United States. I went
to work for Arthur Andersen, which was at that time was one of the Big Five accounting firms
in the United States. Later it was convicted of fraud when it got involved in the Enron
scandal and was closed down. But I was working before the other people went to jail, before
they closed down Arthur Andersen. So I spent a year applying my balance of payments analysis
to the US balance of payments. When I finally finished, I found that the entire US balance of
payments deficit in the 1960s, since the Vietnam War, the entire balance of payments deficit
was military spending abroad. The private sector's trade and investment was exactly in
balance; tourism, trade and investment were exactly in balance. All the deficit was
military.
So I turned in my statistics. My boss Mr. Barsanti, came in to me three days later and
he said, "I'm afraid we have to fire you." I asked, "What happened?" He said, "Well, we sent
it to Robert McNamara." (who was the Secretary of Defense and then became an even more
dangerous person with the World Bank, which probably is more dangerous to the world than the
American military. But that's another story). Mr. Barsanti said that McNamara said that
Arthur Andersen would never get another government contract if it published my report.
In all of the Pentagon Papers that later came out of McNamara's regime, there's no
discussion at all of the balance-of-payments cost of the Vietnam War. This is what was
driving America off gold. At Chase Manhattan from 1964 until I left, every Friday the Federal
Reserve would come out with its goal, its weekly statistics. We could trace the gold stock.
Everybody was talking about General de Gaulle cashing in the gold, because Vietnam was a
French colony and the American soldiers and army would have to use French banks, the dollars
would go to France and de Gaulle would cash it in for gold.
Well, Germany actually was cashing in more gold than de Gaulle, but they didn't make
speeches about it. So I could see that the war spending was going to drive America off gold.
There were three people, known as the Columbia Group, saying the Vietnam War was going to
destroy the American monetary system as we know it. The group was composed of Terence
McCarthy, my mentor; Seymour Melman, a professor at Columbia University's School of
Industrial Engineering where Terence also taught; and myself. We would basically go around
the New York City giving speeches.
"... One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. ..."
"... We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. ..."
"... It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP. http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/ ..."
"... Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists. ..."
"... Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated" near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow, doubt it. ..."
"... This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia. ..."
"... Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat. ..."
"... Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize." ..."
"... You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable. ..."
An article by Robert Berke in oilprice.com, which describes itself as "The No. 1 Source for Oil & Energy News," illustrates how interest
groups control outcomes by how they shape policy choices.
Berke's article reveals how the US intends to maintain and extend its hegemony by breaking up the alliance between Russia, Iran,
and China, and by oil privatizations that result in countries losing control over their sovereignty to private oil companies that
work closely with the US government. As Trump has neutered his presidency by gratuitously accepting Gen. Flynn's resignation as National
Security Advisor, this scheme is likely to be Trump's approach to "better relations" with Russia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China. Should Putin fall for such a scheme, it would be a fatal strategic blunder
from which Russia could not recover. Yet, Putin will be pressured to make this blunder.
One pressure on Putin comes from the Atlanticist Integrationists who have a material stake in their connections to the West
and who want Russia to be integrated into the Western world. Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent
to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
We agree with President Putin that the sanctions are in fact a benefit to Russia as they have moved Russia in self-sufficient
directions and toward developing relationships with China and Asia. Moreover, the West with its hegemonic impulses uses economic
relationships for control purposes. Trade with China and Asia does not pose the same threat to Russian independence.
Berke says that part of the deal being offered to Putin is "increased access to the huge European energy market, restored western
financial credit, access to Western technology, and a seat at the global decision-making table, all of which Russia badly needs and
wants." Sweetening the honey trap is official recognization of "Crimea as part of Russia."
Russia might want all of this, but it is nonsense that Russia needs any of it.
Crimea is part of Russia, as it has been for 300 years, and no one can do anything about it. What would it mean if Mexico did
not recognize that Texas and California were part of the US? Nothing.
Europe has scant alternatives to Russian energy. Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology
is superior to that in the West. And Russia most certainly does not need Western loans. Indeed, it would be an act of insanity
to accept them.
It is a self-serving Western myth that Russia needs foreign loans. This myth is enshrined in neoliberal economics, which is
a device for Western exploitation and control of other countries. Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
The Russian central bank has convinced the Russian government that it would be inflationary to finance Russian development
projects with the issuance of central bank credit. Foreign loans are essential, claims the central bank.
Someone needs to teach the Russian central bank basic economics before Russia is turned into another Western vassal. Here is the
lesson: When central bank credit is used to finance development projects, the supply of rubles increases but so does output from
the projects. Thus, goods and services rise with the supply of rubles. When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money
supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into
its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence
of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Foreign capital is not important to countries such as Russia and China. Both countries are perfectly capable of financing their
own development. Indeed, China is the world's largest creditor nation. Foreign loans are only important to countries that lack the
internal resources for development and have to purchase the business know-how, techlology, and resources abroad with foreign currencies
that their exports are insufficient to bring in.
This is not the case with Russia, which has large endowments of resources and a trade surplus. China's development was given a
boost by US corporations that moved their production for the US market offshore in order to pocket the difference in labor and regulatory
costs.
Neoliberals argue that Russia needs privatization in order to cover its budget deficit. Russia's government debt is only 17 percent
of Russian GDP. According to official measures, US federal debt is 104 percent of GDP, 6.1 times higher than in Russia. If US federal
debt is measured in real corrected terms, US federal debt is 185 percent of US GDP.
http://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2014/07/08/deteriorating-economic-outlook/
Clearly, if the massive debt of the US government is not a problem, the tiny debt of Russia is not a problem.
Berke's article is part of the effort to scam Russia by convincing the Russian government that its prosperity depends on unfavorable
deals with the West. As Russia's neoliberal economists believe this, the scam has a chance of success.
Another delusion affecting the Russian government is the belief that privatization brings in capital. This delusion caused the
Russian government to turn over 20 percent of its oil company to foreign ownership. The only thing Russia achieved by this strategic
blunder was to deliver 20 percent of its oil profits into foreign hands. For a one-time payment, Russia gave away 20 percent of its
oil profits in perpetuity.
To repeat outselves, the greatest threat that Russia faces is not sanctions but the incompetence of its neoliberal economists
who have been throughly brainwashed to serve US interests.
When Russia borrows foreign currencies from abroad, the money supply also increases, but so does the foreign debt. Russia
does not spend the foreign currencies on the project but puts them into its foreign exchange reserves. The central bank issues
the same amount of rubles to pay the project's bills as it would in the absence of the foreign loan. All the foreign loan does
is to present Russia with an interest payment to a foreign creditor.
Yes, correct. But this is an IMF rule, and Russia is an IMF member. To control its monetary policy it would have to get out.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important
to Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"!
This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to be lifted, because this will also force
us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been expanding by leaps and bounds for the last
two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder – 2-3% of the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St.
Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West, who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions
didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up?
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Another pressure comes from the affront that sanctions represent to Russians. Removing this insult has become important to
Russians even though the sanctions do Russia no material harm.
Oh dear, neolibs at their "finest"! This "theory" is simply not true. If anything, Russians don't want the sanctions to
be lifted, because this will also force us to scrap our counter-sanctions against the EU. The agro-business in Russia had been
expanding by leaps and bounds for the last two years. This persistent myth that "the Russians" (who exactly, I wonder - 2-3% of
the pro-Western urbanites in Moscow and St. Pete?) are desperate to have the sanctons lifted is a self-deception of the West,
who IS desparate of the fact that the sanctions didn't work.
Russia's most dangerous threat is the country's neoliberal economists.
Yes! Ulyukayev is, probably, feeling lonely in his prison. I say - why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him
up? ;)
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed. Too
bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against humanity
and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine face I, somehow,
doubt it.
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign. At any
rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that fears gentile
nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is ... Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
I say – why not send Chubais, Siluanov and Nabiulina to cheer him up?
Most of Russia's economic block has to be literally purged from their sinecures, some, indeed, have to be "re-educated"
near Magadan or Tyumen, or Saransk. Too bad, two of these places are actually not too bad. Others deserved to be executed.
Too bad this jackass Gaidar (actually no blood relation to Arkady whatsoever) died before he could be tried for crimes against
humanity and genocide. Albeit, some say he died because of his consciousness couldn't take the burden. Looking at his swine
face I, somehow, doubt it.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin a little
bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough to see
through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
The Russians can't be flummoxed, they aren't children. Russia and China border each other so they have a natural mutual interest
in having their east-west areas be stable and safe, particularly when the US threatens both of them. This geography isn't going
to change. Abandoning clients such as Syria and Iran would irreversibly damage the Russian brand as being unreliable therefore
they'd find it impossible to attract any others in the future. They know this so it's unlikely they would be so rash as to snap
at any bait dangled in front of them. And, as pointed out, the bait really isn't all that irresistible. It's always best to negotiate
from a position of strength and they realize that. American policy deep thinkers are often fantasists who bank upon their chess
opponents making hoped-for predictable moves. That doesn't happen in real life.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy for.
It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot fathom
why he hasn't done this already.
I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this already.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia–a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within the
largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin adjusted
his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that many of
them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced to get down
from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a good hint on
where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still–I personally am not convinced yet. We'll see.
In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains still being around–people
who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov. Let's not forget that
despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure as a Director of FSB,
Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his career. I know for a
fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry. Enough to mention
his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main ideologue behind Russia's
military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade) but who never served a day
in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing with the consequences.
This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation–hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
He has not done it already because he just cannot let go of his dream to have it as he did in 2003, when Russia Germany and
France together blocked legality of US war in Iraq. Putin still hopes for a good working relationship with major West European
powers. Italy France and even Germany.
He still hopes to draw them away from the US. However the obvious gains from Import substitution campaign make it apparent
that Russia does benefit from sanctions, that Russia can get anything it wants in technology from the East rather than the West.
So the break with Western orientation is in the making. Hopefully.
You forgot to mention the "moderate" jihadis, including the operatives from NATO, Israel, and US. (It seems that the Ukrainian
"patriots" that have been bombing the civilians in East Ukraine, also include special "patriots" from the same unholy trinity:
https://www.roguemoney.net/stories/2016/12/6/there-are-troops-jack-us-army-donbass
). There has been also a certain asymmetry in means: look at the map for the number and location of the US/NATO military bases.
At least we can see that RF has been trying to avoid the hot phase of WWIII.
http://russia-insider.com/sites/insider/files/NATO-vs-Russia640.jpg
If the US continues to antagonize Russia, Russia will have to grow even more independent, nationalist, and sovereign.
At any rate, this issue cannot be addressed until we face that the fact that globalism is essentially Jewish Supremacism that
fears gentile nationalism as a barrier to its penetration and domination.
This is not a US vs Russia issue. The real conflict is Jewish Globalism vs Russian nationalism and American nationalism. But
since Jews control the media, they've spread the impression that it's about US vs Russia.
Same thing with this crap about 'white privilege'. It is a misleading concept to fool Americans into thinking that the main
conflict is between 'privileged whites' and 'people of color'. It is really to hide the fact that Jewish power and privilege really
rules the US. It is a means to hoodwink people from noticing that the real divide is between Jews and Gentiles, not between 'privileged
whites' and 'non-white victims'. After all, too many whites lack privilege, and too many non-whites do very well in America.
On the power and privilege that really rule the US:
"Sanctions – economic sanctions, as most of them are, can only stand and 'succeed', as long as countries, who oppose Washington's
dictate remain bound into the western, dollar-based, fraudulent monetary scheme. The system is entirely privatized by a small
Zionist-led elite. FED, Wall Street, Bank for International Settlement (BIS), are all private institutions, largely controlled
by the Rothschild, Rockefeller, Morgan et al clans. They are also supported by the Breton Woods Organizations, IMF and World Bank,
conveniently created under the Charter of the UN.
Few progressive economists understand how this debt-based pyramid scam is manipulating the entire western economic system. When
in a just world, it should be just the contrary, the economy that shapes, designs and decides the functioning of the monetary
system and policy.
Even Russia, with Atlantists still largely commanding the central bank and much of the financial system, isn't fully detached
from the dollar dominion – yet."
"I cannot fathom why he hasn't done this (nationalize the "central bank) already".
I read about a rumor a few years ago that Putin has been warned that nationalizing the now private Russian central bank will
bring absolutely dire consequences to both him and Russia. It is simply a step he cannot take.
How dire are the potential consequences? Consider that the refusal of the American government to reauthorize the private central
bank in the US brought about the War of 1812. The Americans learned their lesson and quickly reauthorized the private bank after
the war had ended.
Numerous attempts were made to assassinate President Andrew Jacksons specifically because of his refusal to reauthorize the
private central bank.
Here it is in audio form so you can just relax and just listen at your leisure.
*ALL WARS ARE BANKERS' WARS* By Michael Rivero https://youtu.be/WN0Y3HRiuxo
I know many people have a great deal of difficulty comprehending just how many wars are started for no other purpose than to
force private central banks onto nations, so let me share a few examples, so that you understand why the US Government is mired
in so many wars against so many foreign nations. There is ample precedent for this.
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
300 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
This is rich from a Ukrainian nationalist ruled by Groysman/Kagans.
First, figure out who is your saint, a collaborationist Bandera (Babiy Yar and such) or a triple-sitizenship Kolomojski (auto-da-fe
of civilians in Odessa). If you still want to bring Holodomor to a discussion, then you need to be reminded that 80% of Ukrainian
Cheka at that time were Jewish. If you still think that Russians are the root of all evil, then try to ask the US for more money
for pensions, education, and healthcare – instead of weaponry. Here are the glorious results of the US-approved governance from
Kiev: http://gnnliberia.com/2017/02/17/liberia-ahead-ukraine-index-economic-freedom-2017/
"Liberia, Chad, Afghanistan, Sudan and Angola are ahead of Ukraine. All these countries are in the group of repressed economies
(49.9-40 scores). Ukraine's economy has contracted deeply and remains very fragile."
Here are your relationships with your neighbors on the other side – Poland and Romania:
"The right-winged conservative orientation of Warsaw makes it remember old Polish-Ukrainian arguments and scores, and claim its
rights on the historically Polish lands of Western Ukraine"
http://www.veteranstoday.com/2016/01/17/poland-will-begin-dividing-ukraine/
" the "Assembly of Bukovina Romanians" has recently applied to Petro Poroshenko demanding a territorial autonomy to the Chernivtsi
region densely populated by Romanians. The "Assembly" motivated its demand with the Ukrainian president's abovementioned statement
urging territorial autonomy for the Crimean Tatars."
https://eadaily.com/en/news/2016/06/30/what-is-behind-romanias-activity-in-ukraine
And please read some history books about Crimea. Or at least Wikipedia:
"In 1783, Crimea was annexed by the Russian Empire. In 1954, the Crimean Oblast was transferred to the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist
Republic by Nikita Khrushchev (a Soviet dictator). In 2014, a 96.77 percent of Crimeans voted for integration of the region into
the Russian Federation with an 83.1 percent voter turnout." You see, the Crimeans do not like Nuland-Kagan and Pravyj Sector.
Do you know why?
100 Words @Seamus
Padraig Does PCR really think that Putin is stupid enough to fall for Kissinger's hair-brained scheme? I mean, give Putin
a little bit of credit. He has so far completely outmaneuvered Washington on virtually ever subject. I'm sure he's clever enough
to see through such a crude divide-and-rule strategy.
well it depends. if putin is just out for himself, I can see him getting in bed with kissinger and co. if he is about russia,
he would not. that is how I see it. it isn't about if putin is smart or stupid. just a choice and where his royalty lies.
100 Words @Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine.
How so? #Krymnash
Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves.
If by "decline" you mean "expects this year a modest growth as opposed to previous years" then you might be right.
I've been reading about Russia's imminent collapse and the annihilation of the economy since forever. Some no-names like you
(or some Big Names with agenda) had been predicting it every year. Still didn't happen.
Putin is almost down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid
now.
Can I see a source for that?
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
False equivalence.
P.S. Hey, Quart – how is Bezviz? Also – are you not cold here? Or are you one of the most racally pure Ukrs, currently residing
in Ontario province (Canada), from whence you teach your less lucky raguls in Nizalezhnaya how to be more racially pure? Well,
SUGS to be you!
@Quartermaster
Trump has not been neutered. Buchanan has the right on this and Flynn's actions.
Sorry, but Crimea is Ukraine. Russia is in serious economic decline and is rapidly burning through its reserves. Putin is almost
down to the welfare fund from which pensions are paid, and only about a third of pensions are being paid now.
If Sanctions are of benefit to Russia, then the sanctions against Imperial Japan were just ducky and no war was fought.
Roberts is the next best thing to insane.
Do you have any links to verify this that Russia is down to bedrock,from everything I read and have read Russia's do pretty
damn good, or is this just some more of your endless antiRussian propaganda,,
A scandal of a EU member Poland:
http://thesaker.is/zmiana-piskorski-and-the-case-for-polish-liberation/
Two days after he [Piskorski] publicly warned that US-NATO troops now have a mandate to suppress Polish dissent on the grounds
of combatting "Russian hybrid war," he was snatched up by armed agents of Poland's Internal Security Agency while taking his children
to school on May 18th, 2016. He was promptly imprisoned in Warsaw, where he remains with no formal charges to this day."
With the Poland's entry into EU, "Poland did not "regain" sovereignty, much less justice, but forfeited such to the Atlanticist
project Poland has been de-industrialized, and thus deprived of the capacity to pursue independent and effective social and economic
policies Now, with the deployment of thousands of US-NATO troops, tanks, and missile systems on its soil and the Polish government's
relinquishment of jurisdiction over foreign armed forces on its territory, Poland is de facto under occupation. This occupation
is not a mere taxation on Poland's national budget – it is an undeniable liquidation of sovereignty and inevitably turns the country
into a direct target and battlefield in the US' provocative war on Russia."
" it's not the Russians who are going to occupy us now – they left here voluntarily 24 years ago. It's not the Russians that
have ravaged Polish industry since 1989. It's not the Russians that have stifled Poles with usurious debt. Finally, it's not the
Russians that are responsible for the fact that we have become the easternmost aircraft carrier of the United States anchored
in Europe. We ourselves, who failed by allowing such traitors into power, are to blame for this."
More from a comment section: "Donald Tusk, who is now President of the European Council, whose grandfather, Josef Tusk, served
in Hitler's Wehrmacht, has consistently demanded that the Kiev regime imposed by the US and EU deal with the Donbass people brutally,
"as with terrorists". While the Polish special services were training the future participants of the Maidan operations and the
ethnic cleansing of the Donbass, the Polish Ministry of Foreign Affairs made this official statement (02-02-2014): "We support
the hard line taken by the Right Sector The radical actions of the Right Sector and other militant groups of demonstrators and
the use of force by protesters are justified The Right Sector has taken full responsibility for all the acts of violence during
the recent protests. This is an honest position, and we respect it. The politicians have failed at their peacekeeping function.
This means that the only acceptable option is the radical actions of the Right Sector. There is no other alternative".
In short, the US has been the most active enabler of the neo-Nazi movement in Europe. Mrs. Clinton seemingly did not get a
memo about who is "new Hitler."
Do you happen to know anything about western financial giants' influence upon Russia's "Atlanticist Integrationists"?
It's low hanging fruit for me to take a pick, but I am thinking The Goldman Sachs Group is well ensconced among Russian "Atlanticist
Integrationists."
You guys are top seeded pros at uncovering Deep State-banker secrets. In contrast, I drive school bus and I struggle to even
balance the family Wells Fargo debit card!
However, since our US Congress has anointed a seasoned G.S.G. veteran, Steve Mnuchin, as the administration's Treasury Secretary,
he has become my favorite "Person of Interest" who I suspect spouts a Ural Mountain-level say as to how "Atlanticist Integrationists"
operate.
Speaking very respectfully, I hope my question does not get "flummoxed" into resource rich Siberia.
Berke reports that Henry Kissinger has sold President Trump on a scheme to use the removal of Russian sanctions to pry President
Putin away from the Russian alliance with Iran and China.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead.
Kissinger, like Dick Cheney or George Soros, will probably never be completely dead
.
Most likely the Spirit of Anti-Christ keeping them alive to do his bidding.
@Priss Factor
Here is proof that there is no real Leftist power anymore.
Voltaire once said, "To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."
If the Left really rules America, how come it is fair game to criticize, condemn, mock, and vilify Marx, Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin,
Bakunin, Emma Goldman & anarchists, Castro, Che(even though he is revered by many, one's career isn't damaged by attacking him),
Tito, Ceucescu, Mao, Ho Chi Minh, Gramsci, Eurgene Debs, Pete Seeger, Abbie Hoffman, Bill Ayers, and etc.
You can say whatever you want about such people. Some will agree, some will disagree, but you will not be fired, blacklisted,
or destroyed.
If the Left really rules, why would this be?
Now, what would happen if you name the Jewish Capitalists as the real holders of power?
What would happen if you name the Jewish oligarchic corporatists who control most of media?
What would happen if you said Jews are prominent in the vice industry of gambling?
What would happen if you named the Jewish capitalists in music industry that made so much money by spreading garbage?
What would happen if you said Jewish warhawks were largely responsible for the disasters in Iraq, Libya, Syria, and Ukraine?
And what would happen if you were question the MLK mythology and cult?
What would happen if you were to make fun of homos and trannies?
Now, keep in mind that blacks and homos are favored by Jews as their main allies.
(Some say the US is not a pro-minority nation, but it's still permissible to criticize, impugn, and vilify Chinese, Iranians,
Muslims, Mexicans, Hindus, and etc. Trump was hard on China, Iran, Muslims, and Mexicans, and he got some flak over it but not
enough to destroy him. Now, imagine what would have happened if he'd said such things about blacks, Africa, homos, Jews, and Israel?
American politics isn't necessarily pro-minority. If it is, it should favor Palestinian-Americans just as much as Jewish-Americans.
Actually, since there are fewer Palestinian-Americans than Jewish-Americans, the US, being pro-minority, should favor Palestinians
over Jews in America. In reality, it is AIPAC that draws all the politicians. America is about Pro-Power, and since Jews have
the Power and since Jews are a minority, it creates the false impression that the US is a minority-supremacist nation. But WHICH
minority? Jews would like for us think that all minorities are represented equally in the US, but do Eskimos, Hawaiians, Guatemalans,
Vietnamese, and etc. have the kind of power & protection that the Jewish minority has? Do we see politicians and powerbrokers
flock to such minorities for funds and favors?)
So, what does it about the real power in America? So many 'conservatives' say the Left controls America. But in fact, an American
can badmouth all true bonafide leftist leaders and thinkers(everyone from Lenin to Sartre). However, if an American were to badmouth
Sheldon Adelson as a sick demented Zionist capitalist oligarch who wants to nuke Iran, he would be blacklisted by the most of
the media. (If one must criticize Adelson, it has to be in generic terms of him a top donor to the likes of Romney. One mustn't
discuss his zealous and maniacal views rooted in Zionist-supremacism. You can criticize his money but not the mentality that determines
the use of that money.) Isn't it rather amusing how the so-called Liberals denounce the GOP for being 'extreme' but overlook the
main reason for such extremism? It's because the GOP relies on Zionist lunatics like Adelson who thinks Iran should be nuked to
be taught a lesson. Even Liberal Media overlook this fact. Also, it's interesting that the Liberal Media are more outraged by
Trump's peace offer to Russia than Trump's hawkish rhetoric toward Iran. I thought Liberals were the Doves.
We know why politics and media work like this. It's not about 'left' vs 'right' or 'liberal' vs 'conservative'. It is really
about Jewish Globalist Dominance. Jews, neocon 'right' or globo-'left', hate Russia because its brand of white gentile nationalism
is an obstacle to Jewish supremacist domination. Now, Current Russia is nice to Jews, and Jews can make all the money they want.
But that isn't enough for Jews. Jews want total control of media, government, narrative, everything. If Jews say Russia must have
homo parades and 'gay marriage', Russia better bend over because its saying NO means that it is defiant to the Jewish supremacist
agenda of using homomania as proxy to undermine and destroy all gentile nationalism rooted in identity and moral righteousness.
Russia doesn't allow that, and that is what pisses off Jews. For Jews, the New Antisemitism is defined as denying them the supremacist
'right' to control other nations. Classic antisemitism used to mean denying Jews equal rights under the law. The New Antisemitism
means Jews are denied the right to gain dominance over others and dictate terms.
So, that is why Jews hate any idea of good relations with Russia. But Jews don't mind Trump's irresponsible anti-Iran rhetoric
since it serves Zionist interest. So, if Trump were to say, "We shouldn't go to war with Russia; we should be friends" and "We
should get ready to bomb, destroy, and even nuke Iran", the 'liberal' media would be more alarmed by the Peace-with-Russia statement.
Which groups controls the media? 'Liberals', really? Do Muslim 'liberals' agree with Jewish 'liberals'?
Anyway, we need to do away with the fiction that Left rules anything. They don't. We have Jewish Supremacist rule hiding behind
the label of the 'Left'. But the US is a nation where it's totally permissible to attack real leftist ideas and leaders but suicidal
if anyone dares to discuss the power of super-capitalist Jewish oligarchs. Some 'leftism'!
What an amazing whoring performance for the war-manufacturers! And here is an interesting morsel of information about the belligerent
Frau der Leyen:
http://www.dw.com/en/stanford-accuses-von-der-leyen-of-misrepresentation/a-18775432
"Stanford university has said Ursula von der Leyen is misrepresenting her affiliation with the school. The German defense minister's
academic career is already under scrutiny after accusations of plagiarism." No kidding. Some "Ursula von der Leyen' values" indeed.
I doubt we'll see little change from the Trump administration toward Russia.
From SOTT:
Predictable news coming out of Yemen: Saudi-backed "Southern Resistance" forces and Hadi loyalists, alongside al-Qaeda of
the Arabian Peninsula (AQAP), launched a new offensive against the Houthis in western Yemen on Wednesday.
This is not the first time Saudi-backed (and by extension, Washington-backed) forces have teamed up with al-Qaeda in Yemen
.
Yemen is quickly becoming the "spark that lights the powder keg". The conflict has already killed, maimed and displaced
countless thousands (thanks to the stellar lack of reporting from trustworthy western news sources, we can only estimate the
scale of Saudi/U.S. crimes in Yemen), but now it seems that elements of the Trump administration are keen on escalation, likely
in hopes of giving Washington an excuse to carpet bomb Tehran.
Apparently, we feel satisfied fighting with our old allies, al-Qaeda and Saudis.
I think that the authors may be underestimating Putin in his determination to keep Russia and the Russian economy independent.
For example, I find this rumoured offer of "increased access to the huge European energy market" very funny, for at least two
reasons:
1) US wants to sell hydrocarbons (LPG) to the European market at significantly higher prices than the Russian prices, and
2) the current dependence of EU countries on the Russian energy would have never happened if there were better alternatives.
In other words, any detente offer that the West would make to Russia would last, as usual, not even until the signature ink
dries on the new cooperation agreements. Putin does not look to me like someone who suffers much from wishful thinking.
The Russian relationship with China is not a bed of roses, but it is not China which is increasing military activity all
around Russia, it is the West. Also, so far China has shown no interest in regime-changing Russia and dividing it into pieces.
Would you rather believe in the reform capability of an addict in violence or someone who does not need to reform? Would the West
self-reform and sincerely renounce violence just by signing a new agreement with Russia?
The new faux detente will never happen, as long as Putin is alive.
Trump is an ultra-zionist for Sheldon Adelson and prolongs & creates wars for the Goldman banking crimesyndicat.
The only one stopping Trump is Putin or Russia's missile defenses.
Indeed, Putin's main inside enemy is Russia's central bank, or the Jewish oligarchs in Russia (Atlanticists). Also Russia needs
to foster and encourage small&medium enterprises, that need cheap credit, to create competitive markets, where no prices are fixed
and market shares change. These are most efficient resource users.
In the US, Wallstreet controls government = fascism = the IG Farben- Auschwitz concentration camps to maximize profits. This
is the direction for the US economy.
Meanwhile in the EU, the former Auschwitz owners IG Farben (Bayer(Monsanto), Hoechst, BASF) the EU chemical giants, who have
patented all natures molecules, are in controll again over EU. Deutsche bank et allies is eating Greece, Italy, Spain's working
classes, using AUSTERITY as their creed.
So what is new? Nothing, the supercorporate-fascist elites are the same families, who 's morality is unchanged in a 100 years.
I'm generally a big fan and admirer of Putin, but this is definitely one criticism of him that I have a lot of sympathy
for. It is long past time for Putin to purge the neoliberals from the Kremlin and nationalize the Russian Central Bank. I cannot
fathom why he hasn't done this already.
I would really love to like Putin and I am trying but him protecting all those criminals and not reversing the history greatest
heist of 90′s makes it impossible. While I am behind all his moves to restore Russian military and foreign policy, I am still
waiting for more on home front. Note, not only the Bank must be nationalized. Everything, all industries, factories and other
assets privatized by now must be returned to rightful owner. Public which over 70 years through great sacrifice built all of it.
Partially, because Putin himself is an economic liberal and, to a degree, monetarist, albeit less rigid than his economic block.
The good choices he made often were opposite to his views. As he himself admitted that Russia's geopolitical vector changed with
NATO's aggression against Yugoslavia--a strengthening of Russia has become an imperative. This comeback was impossible within
the largely "Western" monetarist economic model. Russia's comeback happened not thanks but despite Putin's economic views, Putin
adjusted his views in the process, his economic block didn't. But many of them still remain his friends, despite the fact that
many of them are de facto fifth column and work against Russia, intentionally and other wise. Eventually Putin will be forced
to get down from his fence and take the position of industrialists and siloviki. Putin's present for Medvedev's birthday was a
good hint on where he is standing economically today and I am beginning to like that but still--I personally am not convinced
yet. We'll see. In many respects Putin was lucky and specifically because of the namely Soviet military and industry captains
still being around--people who, unlike Putin, knew exactly what constituted Russia's strength. Enough to mention late Evgeny Primakov.
Let's not forget that despite Putin's meteoric rise through the top levels of Russia's state bureaucracy, including his tenure
as a Director of FSB, Putin's background is not really military-industrial. He is a lawyer, even if uniformed (KGB) part of his
career. I know for a fact that initially (early 2000s) he was overwhelmed with the complexity of Russia's military and industry.
Enough to mention his creature Serdyukov who almost destroyed Command and Control structure of Russia's Armed Forces and main
ideologue behind Russia's military "reform", late Vitaly Shlykov who might have been a great GRU spy (and economist by trade)
but who never served a day in combat units. Thankfully, the "reforms" have been stopped and Russian Armed Forces are still dealing
with the consequences. This whole clusterfvck was of Putin's own creation--hardly a good record on his resume. Hopefully, he learned.
Smoothie, you seem to have natural aversion towards lawyers
Albeit, the first Vladimir, I mean Lenin also was a lawyers by education still he was a rather quick study. Remember that military
communism and Lenin after one year after Bolsheviks took power telling that state capitalism would be great step forward for Russia
whcih obviously was backward and ruined by wars at the time and he proceeded with New Economic Policy and Lenin despite not being
industry captain realized pretty well what constituted state power hence GOELRO plans and electrification of all Russia plans
and so forth which was later turned by Stalin and his team into reality.
Now, Lenin was ideologically motivated and so is Putin. But he clearly has been trying to achieve different results by keeping
same people around him and doing same things. Hopefully it is changing now, but it is so much wasted time when old Vladimir was
always repeating that time is of essence and delay is like death knell. Putin imho is away too relax and even vain in some way,
hence those shirtless pictures and those on the bike. And the way he walks a la "Я Московский озорной гуляка". As you said it
looks like he is protecting those criminals who must be prosecuted and yes, many executed for what they caused.
I suspect in cases when it comes to economical development he is not picking right people for those jobs and it is his major
responsibility to assign right people and delegate power properly, not to be forgotten to reverse what constitutes the history
greatest heist and crime so called "privatization". Basically returning to more communal society minus Politburo.
There is a huge elephant in the room too. Russia demographic situation which I doubt can be addressed under current liberal
order. all states which are in liberal state of affairs fail to basically procreate hence these waves of immigrants brought into
all Western Nations. Russia cannot do it. It would be suicide which is what all Western countries are doing right now.
Russia does not need Western technology. Indeed, its military technology is superior to that in the West.
You write about Russia but have not done your homework. Russia is very dependent on Western technology and its entire high-tech
industry depends on the import of Western machinery. Without such machinery many Russian factories, including military ones, would
stall. Very important oil industry is particularly vulnerable.
Some home reading (sorry, they are in Russian, but one ought to know the language if one writes about the country).
I see the parallels, but not that one. I think the neocons hope to force the Iranians into
making that "all-in" call though. Perhaps as the neocons see it, such a strike would
magically rally the American populous to the war they so desire. Imperial conquest performed
as a defensive reflex. So they needle nearly everyone in the hopes of triggering a replay of
the WW2 saga which has taken on a mythical good vs evil aura in the US. Ironically, I would
say it is the neocons who think they need to start a war with the Iranians so that they can
be the men they think they are. The only thing still holding them back is the
passive-aggressive need to make it look like someone, anyone, else started it so they can
play the victim card once the body bags start coming home.
USN CDR A. H. McCollum was the man who conceived the so-called "Eight Action Plan" which he
outlined in his Oct 7, 1940 memo. This was his proposal for the U.S. and Britain to initiate
actions which would essentially force Japan into making a decision to wage war against the
United States.
The key elements of the plan, as outlined in McCollum's memo, include the following:
A. Make an arrangement with Britain for the use of British bases in the Pacific,
particularly Singapore
B. Make an arrangement with the Netherlands for the use of base facilities and acquisition of
supplies in the Dutch East Indies
C. Give all possible aid to the Chinese government of Chiang-Kai-Shek
D. Send a division of long range heavy cruisers to the Orient, Philippines, or Singapore
E. Send two divisions of submarines to the Orient
F. Keep the main strength of the U.S. fleet now in the Pacific[,] in the vicinity of the
Hawaiian Islands
G. Insist that the Dutch refuse to grant Japanese demands for undue economic concessions,
particularly oil
H. Completely embargo all U.S. trade with Japan, in collaboration with a similar embargo
imposed by the British Empire
Not too terribly different from the squeeze currently being placed on Iran by the team of
Pompeo/Boton.
The journalist Robert Stinnett in his now 20 year old book 'Day of Deceit: The Truth About
FDR and Pearl Harbor' made the case that FDR was aware of McCollum's memorandum. I have not
read Stinnett's book, but historians apparently doubted the veracity of Stinnett's thesis
regarding FDR's knowledge of the McCollum memo.
You are correct that initial embargoes of essential defense materials went to effect under
the Export Control Act during the summer of 1940. Additional items were added to the list of
embargoed materials subsequent to October 1940, following the drafting of the McCollum
memo.
So no FOR did not approve of that plan, but some guy wrote a book 20 years ago, one you
didn't read. That's quite helpful in evaluating current war mongering over Iran today.
I read Day of Deceit a month ago and found Stinnett's analysis and sourcing quite
convincing. He demolishes the standard narrative that the attack was a total tactical
surprise and to a large extent a strategic one as well. Admiral Yamamoto's orders to maintain
radio silence were honored very much in the breach, one of the worst offenders being the
at-sea mission commander himself, Admiral Nagumo. Many individual ship captains continued
reporting their positions at specified times of the day, as was their peacetime practice.
This enabled the US, British and Dutch signals monitoring stations, which were sharing
information in spite of the fact that the US was not yet a combatant, to triangulate and
track the Japanese mission fleet from its assembly point near the Kurile Islands eastward to
their launch position several hundred miles north of Oahu. Stinnett assembles a strong
circumstantial case asserting this information was available to the intelligence circles in
Washington DC and in the US radio detection/cryptanalysis stations at Corregidor, the
Aleutian Islands, and Station H on Oahu itself, practically within sight of Admiral Kimmel's
office, but it never made it to the admiral himself or to General Short. He got much of the
supporting information through the FOIA process, but some of the most damning documents he
cited he found by walking into various historical archive sites outside of the DC area and
simply asking to see what they had. He makes the point that many of the documents he cites
never saw the light of day during any of the three formal investigations of the affair: in
the months immediately after the attack; shortly after the end of the war; and half a century
later in the early 1990s. What he is unable to cite are documents that concretely connect the
president, Admiral Stark the CNO, or General Marshall the Army Chief of Staff with knowledge
of the available intelligence. Those known to have existed which might have been smoking guns
that he sought via the FOIA were either still highly classified or were "unable to be found."
However the circumstantial case that they must have known and been on board, in some cases
reluctantly, is strong. For example, it is known that the McCollum memo gained the attention
of FDR himself soon after it was published, and the White House chief usher's log documents
that the commander had several meetings with the president. McCollum, a USNA graduate, had
spent much of his childhood in Japan as the child of Christian missionaries and was almost
natively fluent in the language as well as deeply steeped in the culture.
I don't know if it came from the McCollum memo or not, but at the ABC-1 meetings in early
1941, the British delegation proposed that the US take over the defense of Singapore from the
Royal Navy, a proposal that was rejected by the American delegation.
The minutes of the ABC-1 meetings were published by the British National Archives some
years ago and I have it somewhere on my hard drive but I couldn't give you a link. As I
recall, it was interesting to see the American side rejecting the Singapore and other schemes
to get the US to defend British colonial territories.
It would seem that the best strategic option for Iran is to lay low and absorb the
economic squeeze. The Chinese are unlikely to support the oil sanctions, so they'll be able
to continue to sell them until the US navy starts to interdict their tankers. But oil is
fungible.....
It would also seem that their best military strategy is a defensive one. Obtaining the
best air defense systems and significant medium-range missiles with high payload capacity and
accuracy. At the very least they'll be able to give a black-eye while going down.
Of course the question is how the Ayatollah controls his fire breathing, martyrdom loving
hawks who bristle at their treatment by the US, Israel & the Saudis. My sense is Bibi
will get more itchy than the Ayatollah to take advantage of his perception of complete
control of Trump.
I've wondered if the Chinese will use their own tankers to pick up Iranian oil or re-flag
Iranian ones with Chinese colors as the US did for Kuwait during the Iran-Iraq war in the
1980's.
I can see the neocons wanting open conflict with Iran, but I don't know if they would risk
war with China.
I'm not sure how much control Iran has of its proxies (the Houthi rebels, Hezbollah, the Shia
Militias in Iraq, etc.). That strikes me as a reason fo both the US/Britain AND Iran to go
carefully and slowly.
Nice map, I assume it can't be considered a chart. Maps make me think. Anyway, when I
heard about the four tankers at Fujairah damaged by "sabotage" I took a look up at Qeshm
island in front of Bandar Abbas (it looks to me like a shark) and wondered how far it was
down to Fujairah. I get about 140 nautical miles.
I know that there are hardened sub-pens on the land side of Queshm Island probably out to
the western end. Recently I have read comments speculating what the Iranian class of mini- or
midget subs would be useful for. One learns that one use would be to deliver a sea-mine;
another to launch the one torpedo it can carry; and another would be as a transport for naval
commandos, or swimmers trained in demolition and mine warfare.
Then I remembered something. I took a look at the last place down on the right side of the
map on the Iranian mangrove shore, Trask, once an old fishing port. Trask is also where the
pipeline down from the CIS countries will end, and a large refinery, manufacturing, and
shipping complex is planned. Since 2008, Trask has been developed for a number of military
uses. First as a naval base which berths fast motor patrol boats of the kind that can launch
missiles like the Qader, a sea-skimmer carrying a warhead of 200 kilos which can reach out to
186 miles; also as a drone base, complete with a rail launcher which could indicate
proficiency in big stay-aloft reconnaisance drones, soon enough to be weaponized, if not
already. Significantly, it is also a base for littoral-class submarines, which would include
mini-subs design based on the North Korean Yono class, submarines that would be similar to
the one that is thought to have sunk the ROKS Cheonan in 2011 with a torpedo. Travelling at
nine or ten knots, the Iranian model of the Yono, the Ghadir, could make the crossing to
Fujairah in about twelve hours. That's a distance of 127 miles or so.
It looks to me as if the stern location of the tanker the news videos show would not have
been hit unless the ship backed into a mine. And it doesn't look like the kind of damage a
naval mine would do. A naval mine would have made an enormous ten or twenty foot cavernous
dent in that stern, at the least. What it looks like to me was that a swimmer or swimmers
placed a sticky explosive or satchel charge. (?) I think it is meant as a warning. 'We can
get you any time..."
There's another message. Fujairah and also the ports of Salalah, Sohar, and Duqm, in Oman,
have been billing themselves as "the Gateway to the Arabian Gulf." (For that historical and
scholarly insult alone they should pay.) Fujairah is the only one of the UAE that is on the
eastern side of the Musandam Peninsula. It has been advertised as the emirate that would not
be involved in a Gulf war. Out of range. Think again me buckaroos.
The United States has just signed an agreement in late March with Oman which allows US
naval and air forces to use the new state- of-the art port facilities and airport at Duqm,
down in the middle of the Oman coast, and also Salalah. Sultan Qaboos, a very impressive
leader, one of the best, who happens to be gay (but the father of his country), balances
carefully between the various powers he must deal with. Iran is already there in Oman and has
the right to establish companies and to store materiel there, and to ship cargoes. Just as
Iran does in Qatar, where two hundred trucks come across from Bushire every day and have
since June 2017 since Trump the Brain gave the OK to Mohammed Bin Salman to lay siege to
Qatar. Consider this: "Sohar Freezone has options for leasing pre-built warehouses and
commercial offices, as well as 100% foreign ownership...and a One-Stop-Shop for all relevant
permits and clearances." (From Overview--SOHAR Port and Freezone.) As to how you get this
cargo to points south, that is an interesting question...
Russia will come in if push comes to shove. Russia will not countenance the idea of an
America naval and drone base on the Caspian, which is what will happen if Iran is bombed
flat. Russia will second pilots to the Iranians and will send bombers like the Tu-95 Bear or
the Backfire capable of carrying the KH-101 which will carry Iranian markings etc. These
bombers, with enormous range, could wreck havoc on Diego Garcia, and could destroy a carrier
group.
The Iranians show us now that they were the ones who invented the game of chess. Trump can
look at China, and then he can look at Fujairah, and he can see the American economy going
down... The Iranian move is worthy of a grand master...
Great comment!
I think transferring a Tu-95 bomber will be a bit too much since the Iranians don't have much
of an air force. But missiles will do the job anyways, so why bother with planes. You don't
need to hit Diego Garcia, Israel is close enough. So is Al Udeid. Plus there will be attacks
on all US bases spread across Iraq and I suspect Syria. There is no shortage of targets for
sure for the Iranians, it this leads to war.
By the way, Chess was invented in India not ancient Persia. So was the numeral system which
is now called Arabic numerals (the Arabs have been trying to give their names to stuff which
is not theirs for a long time now) including the decimal system and negative numbers.
Thank you for your comment. You remind me that I have a group of expensive, unread books
about that part of the world. I may never read them, the way things are going.
I want to stress that Russia and Iran have already worked out the diplomatic agreements
which allow Russia to have based bombers at Hamadan, from which attacks were made on Isis in
Syria. In other words, Russia knows the way. The question is, is Russia going to stand by and
do nothing while the United States bombs Iran back to the stone ages, as it did in North
Korea during the Korean conflict? I find that hard to believe. I assume that at some point
Russia will, as Russia has previously done in other conflicts, or places, such as in Yemen,
in the 1970s and early 80's, assign pilots, and transfer planes ostensibly to the control of
the Iranian military.
Diego Garcia is an atoll in the middle of the Indian Ocean. It is a critical anchorage for
prepositioning supply ships for any land operations, such as the invasion of Iraq; it is also
a support facility, where submarines and other ships can get repairs. It is also an airbase,
where B-2 bombers might be assembling as I write, though given everything else that is NOT
happening, I assume that is doubtful. Speaking in a general way, the distance from the
Persian Gulf, Muscat, or Bahrain, say, to Diego Garcia, is about 2600 or 2700 miles.
If Russia seconded a squadron of bombers such as the TU-22M3 (NATO reporting name Backfire
C) under the aegis of Iran, and based them out of Bandar Abbas, Iran will have gotten a lot
of reach out into the Indian Ocean, since the Backfire has a combat radius of about 1300-1500
miles.
The missile it will be carrying would be the standard Russian cruise missile--it is not
hypersonic-- but it is a sea-skimmer, with a range of about 1550 miles. This is the
KH-101/102 (nuclear). It seems certain to me that the Backfire can get the KH-101 (Raduga)
missile out there; as can the Blackjack and the Bear. The mission of four or five bombers
delivering each about eight missiles could be to sink some of those prepositioning ships; and
to wreck the drone base/the airfield, and certain warehouse facilities. There is another
thing such an attack could do. Diego Garcia has more than ample rainfall. As things stand
today, it has never had a better fresh water supply system. Pipes and water storage, all has
been greatly improved. Fresh water for two to three thousand support personnel and base
activities is not a problem. I don't think Diego Garcia even needs to have a desalination
system. There is one thing, though. Diego Garcia is built on a series of coral reefs, the one
stacked on the other in geologic history as ocean levels rose 300 feet from 13,000 years ago.
The coral beneath the island is permeated with salt water. The fresh water aquifers of the
atoll sit on top of the salt water in what are called "lenses". These lenses hold an enormous
amount of water kept stable and tappable by isostatic pressure, I am guessing. If an attack
were made by JDAM missiles in areas determined from studies of the island to have these lense
aqufiers, and if the missiles went deep into them before exploding, then I think the entire
fresh water structure of the island could be ruined. The lenses would be penetrated and
ruined. Salt water would permeate, mix and spread through the aquifer. It would become like
Basra Governate, which now has an evil polluted salt brine aquifer where once it had fresh
water. (And which means that there is already considerable migration from southern Iraq into
Kurdish areas around Irbil, to the north.)
Iran should arrange with Italy for a meeting in Rome with Putin, Xi Jinping, and Trump. The
Donald could take the role of Churchill in that meeting, who got an inkling that he was the
odd-man out.
Six months later, Mark Clark went to Rome alone rather than execute the British - American
pincer plan.
Historian Andrew Buchanan argues that Clark was ordered to take that action by FDR himself
in a meeting with Clark at Bernard Baruch's plantation in North Carolina https://www.c-span.org/video/?322137-1/discussion-us-engagement-italy-world-war-ii
US forces in control of Rome shut out all diplomats, including Churchill's representatives,
from the diplomacy that then took place that determined Italy's future; USA became,
effectively, in charge of Mediterranean and trade routes to Levant and North Africa.
Israel and its US lobbies, Jewish & Christian, have GOT to be reined in, or the
American empire is on its way to the dustbin of history.
That historian Andrew Buchanan does not know that Bernard Baruch's plantation was off of
Winyah Bay on Waccamaw Neck across from Georgetown, SOUTH Carolina, is, in my view, a red
flag about his scholarship. The plantation, Hobcaw Barony, was for FDR, in 1944, a month-long
retreat which made it, in effect, the southern White House. Buchanan obviously doesn't know
anything at all about southerners in FDR's administration and the New Deal. I cannot help but
wonder if Buchanan has ever looked at the papers of James Francis Byrnes, which are held at
the University of South Carolina. My guess is that Byrnes might have made some comment about
significant matters which happened at Hobcaw, including the visit of General Clark. Shrewd,
devious Byrnes is a fascinating figure. (His handiwork is the Santee-Cooper hydroelectric
project which you get a glimpse of on I-95 as you drive over lake Marion there, created by
damming the Santee. It provided electricity for the whole depression hit state of South
Carolina.) Byrnes knew them all, including Stalin. Also, it ought to be noted that Buchanan
himself says that there is not a shred of evidence that at Hobcaw FDR personally ordered Mark
Clark to disobey the clear orders of Field Marshall Alexander and break away from what could
have been a decisive victory and instead go into Rome. It ought to be noted as well that
Buchanan's argument that by putting into power the more left-wing politician Ivanoe Bonomi
instead of the British backed General Pietro Badoglio, it meant that the communist partisans
in northern Italy therefore accepted the new government and willingly laid down their arms,
whereas under Badoglio and the King they might not have. I don't think they had a choice; and
I wonder if they actually didn't maintain a clandestine arsenal thereafter. They were by no
means ready to quit. A quick look at Wikipedia tells us that it was Churchill's government
that persuaded Bonomi, who came in in June and was ready to quit by November, to stay on. He
did so. The communists were a powerful force in Italy all the way up almost into the
1980s--it was the Red Brigade which kidnapped and murdered Aldo Moro, for example. Further,
as a reaction , to the communist threat, there is the whole question of "strategic tension"
which gave Italy the "years of lead"-- years of terror bombings by the right, such as the
Bologna train station bombing, the bombing of the passenger plane which fell off of Ustica,
and the whole mysterious thing that was Gladio. Michael Scammel in 'Koestler', his biography
of the writer Arthur Koestler, gives an account of the near hysteria in western Europe in
1948 after the Communist coup in Czechoslovakia. "The coup fulfilled Koestler's direst
predictions and worst fears: there was no room for a third force in Europe anymore--not, at
least, in countries where the Communists were strong. In France, rife with rumors of a coup
of its own and convulsed by increasingly violent strikes, he found a populace growing more
jittery by the day. Malraux talked darkly of a plot to foment civil war and publicly
threatened "a reorganization of the Resistance" to oppose communism. Charles "Chip" Bohlen,
the new American ambassador, talked wildly about dropping an atom bomb on Baku, and
newspapers were full of the threat of a new world conflict." (Page 311.) Koestler, when he
left Europe for the United States, actually believed that Europe was going to go communist.
That Europe was a lost cause.
This is not to say that I am disagreement with what you are saying overall. I find Andrew
Buchanan someone new and interesting. Very provocative. Perhaps he overreaches. Don't know
enough, really, to make the call. Thank you for the introduction to him. Hobcaw Barony is now
a large natural preserve for environmental, oceanographic and coastal studies. Remarkable
story about how the foundation was created, mostly by Baruch's daughter, who must have worked
a lifetime on it. Sixteen thousand acres on a neck of land that has the Atlantic ocean on one
side and marshes and Winyah Bay on the other. It's worth a visit.
if the true goal of the neocons is war, provoked upon iran then any naval battle group which
includes a usa carrier sent into the persian gulf is the match the neocons are looking for
once they decide to ''remember the maine'' to it sending it to the bottom, then use that
false flag as their pretext.
if its obvious to me wouldn't you suppose its obvious to the pentagon?
An apt comparison, no doubt, to "The Day of Deceit."
Then there is the high probability that, even if Iran shows restraint and plays the long
game, a provocation in the manner of "Assad gasses his own people" will be arranged for
them.
Even so, time is not on the side of the US Entity. How much longer can the Fed's
fraudulent T-bill scheme keep running? My sense is that they wouldn't be weaponizing the
dollar if they had other actual weapons to hand.
Saudi Arabia said two of its oil tankers were sabotaged off the coast of the United Arab
Emirates and described it as an attempt to undermine the security of crude supplies amid
tensions between the United States and Iran.
The reports come as the US warned ships that "Iran or its proxies" could be targeting
maritime traffic in the region, and as the US is deploying an aircraft carrier and B-52
bombers to the Gulf to counter what it called "threats from Tehran".
Exceptionally good argument. I would also posit that the element of religious belief makes
the argument even more potent.
I can't help but think back to more recent instances where the neocons were basically daring
the other party to do something - anything. Ukraine in 2014 and Syria later on, come to mind.
They had been waiting for the Russians to send in their troops to Ukraine after which they
could have totally choked the economy. They also waited for mistakes from Assad, which he
wisely avoided.
Similarly, Iran will be wise to avoid reacting in any way to these provocations. Since these
provocations are meant to provoke a reaction, if the Iranians bite their lips and hold their
hands, they would do more to hurt the neocons than by reacting blindly as the situation and
their nature perhaps goads them towards.
I humbly suggest you watch this series. Unfortunately, I don't know Persian so I can't help
with translation. I watched these series with my sister in law who is a Persian Jew with an
excellent command of Farsi; the videos are pretty informative.
Pat,
I share your concern, but for the neocons I fear that they see that backing Iran into a
position where it has nothing to lose with a war is a feature, not a bug.
~Jon
In my opinion, the critical element is the forthcoming deployment of advanced Russian and
Chinese systems such as the Sarmat heavy ICBM, scheduled I think for 2021, new submarines,
etc., etc. and I am not even talking about joint Russo/sino developments.
As Col. Lang/Gingrich explained, we are talking economics here. But unlike Japan, the
Russian, Iranian, Syrian, Chinese and associated economies under the stimulus of OBOR are
only going to get stronger if left to themselves. The American economy, in my opinion, is no
longer capable of replacing ageing infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical
capabilities, fielding a million man Army and supporting allies like Korea, Taiwan,
Australia, Japan, Poland, etc. without beggaring its population.
To put that another way, the American economic marvel of military production came off a
low base with millions of underemployed work hungry people available as a result of the
depression. I don't think those conditions obtain today.
Hence the Washington logic of picking off the weakest of the Axis - Iran, right
now.
You mean a million H1B visa holders and 20 million illegal immigrants aren't our strength?
Who knew! Maybe we should outsource more manufacturing to China, that'll teach the bastards
to mess with us!
The "American Political class," rather than the US economy - solutions are available and
affordable, but not within the current US political and economic and legal and hence power
structures.
FIRE take up too much of the US economy and the best and brightest and has bought the
political class hook, line and Epstein.
"The American economy, in my opinion, is no longer capable of replacing ageing
infrastructure, matching Russo Chinese military technical capabilities"
I was in Russia for the first time last summer. I loved it, but I was surprised by how
poor they are. Our debt load aside, they have do have more limited resources.
I think the key difference is that Japan was isolated on its continent when it made the
decision to go to war. (only being allied with Nazi Germany and Italy, which were so far away
that the alliance made little difference to Japan's economic situation in 1941)
Going to war must appear more attractive when you have your back against the wall than
when you have regional allies who are still willing to support you politically and
economically in a meaningful way.
I have to admit Colonel that this post reminded me of an April 29th profile in the New Yorker
of John Bolton. Several days ago after reading the lengthy New Yorker piece I realized how
slowly but surely, the Trump admin has been consistently heading toward outright madness with
the gradual departure of people like Tillerson, J. Kelly, and Mattis from the office. It was
mentioned in the piece how Gen. Mattis thwarted multiple outright crazy attempts by McMaster
(who is now at FDD shilling for the "Long War" strategy; once a neocon, always a neocon),
Bolton and Mira Ricardel aimed at declaring war against Iran. Now that there are a few key
vacant positions in the administration such as the UN Ambs, Homeland Sec, a few at the State
Dep, and most importantly at the Pentagon, shouldn't these vacancies act as major restraining
factor against war or the Trump admin "is" stupid enough to go full war mode regardless? IMO
some things still just do not add up. just wondering...
Just curious about something. I hear news stories that we are sending the Lincoln inside the
Persian Gulf. That seems like it would negate a lot of our advantage if we actually did fight
Iran. It would be in range of every anti-ship missile they have as well as most of their navy
which is designed specifically for the Gulf and not much of a blue water navy. Why wouldn't
we keep it just outside the Gulf in the open water where our carrier and escorts would
seemingly have a bigger advantage?
I don't want a fight and I'm not pretending that I understand naval tactics, but this just
seems a bit odd to me.
The damage was above the water line and a slash as if perhaps a missile but did not
penetrate the oil bunkers. It does not look like a limpet mine. There are no reports of
airplanes or ships but is described as sabotage. It is unlikely to be a false flag. Media
reporting has been muted. Simply that it is being investigated. But as pointed out here
before there is no stockpiling of supplies needed for an invasion of Iran by a million-man
army. Inside the Persian Gulf is the last place the Commander of the Carrier Group wants to
be if war breaks out. My guess is that the sabotage to four tankers was a signal of what the
Revolutionary Guards could do if they really wanted to and as a counter to ultra-mad man U.S.
diplomacy and sanctions. Lloyd's of London must raise their insurance rates. This will raise
oil prices at the same time as prices rise due to Mid-West flooding, China's African Swine
Fever outbreak, and the imposing of a 25% tariff on Chinese imports. All sorts of bad things
are happening at once. Rather than 2003's misleading Shock and Awe propaganda, the 2019
Iranian war drums indicate total incompetence.
The Imperial Japanese believed that Americans were soft and that US troops would crumble when
faced with the mighty spirit of Bushido. They were ultimately banking on that mistaken
conclusion. I don't think the Iranians have any such delusions.
I don't see how Iran can do anything more than make some trouble that is minor in the big
scheme of things - and which will dig their hole deeper - and then lose.
I don't approve of what is being done, but I think the current Iranian regime could be
destroyed if the neocons have their way; albeit with US casualties and great material and
financial expense. I don't like how US troops and sailors may be used as bait by the
neocons.
I should add that to my mind the real question is what would follow in the wake of war. Would
the Iranians be happy to be free of the Islamic Revolutionary govt? Or would they go on for
generations with wounded pride that demands revenge, like the Palestinians? I think the
latter. In which case war/regime change solves nothing. I'm willing to bet the neocons, as
usual, have their own delusions about flowers, candy, purple thumbs, smiling faces and
freedom.
They had a front row seat for OIF and what came after. I suspect they have a good feeling for
our capability and weaknesses . . . whether they can exploit that or not, might be the issue.
Eric Newhill - IMO you are underestimating how much damage Iran could do to the fleet in a
transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed them. As for
the illusion about US willingness to fight, all our opponents have believed the same thing
before the house fell on them.
Sir,
Oh, I understand what Iran could do. As you know, it has been war gamed and the US Navy gets
hit pretty hard.
But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush Iran
that much harder.
Again, I am in no way approving of what I think may happen. I have been told by someone I
know well in the DIA that we are doing to war with Iran sooner or later. The first time I was
told this was when Obama was still in office. Then I was told that the election of Trump has
changed nothing. Make what you will of that.
"in a transition to war situation before the US Navy got its ducks in line and crushed
them" what damage could Iranian ballistic missiles do to UAE, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia?
Could they devastate oil & gas, LNG, port and pipeline infrastructure sufficiently that
it would take a year to re-build back to full capacity?
It seems it would be a lose-lose proposition for everyone including Trump's re-election
prospects. I have seen private surveys of working class people in the mid-west and the south
who by an overwhelming majority oppose a war with Iran when informed about some of the
potential consequences.
Well, Sir, unfortunately I think you called this one spot on.
IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it. Their the
ones most impacted (though I recognize that everyone in the global markets will feel the pain
resulting from a closure of the straight).
Of course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this. Still
holding out hope that some kind of negotiation is possible, but becoming skeptical. The
Iranians want to prove they are the men they thought they were. Still, maybe a good deal will
satisfy that need.
The Bolton/neoconservative plan of starting a war with Iran is working perfectly. In a tit
for tat action, Iran has captured one or more U.K. tankers. My hopes for avoiding a
completely unnecessary war with Iran, one we have a fair chance of losing, are becoming
slimmer and slimmer.
Eric, I'm in Europe right now and I don't think any Europeans are prepared in the slightest
to support a war with Iran. For starters, if Iran did not surrender instantaneously, an oil
shortage will collapse the European and Chinese economies and that is only one of the minor,
first order effects.
The question of "not being the men they thought they were" cuts both ways. Does the
European union want to see war with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to see Britain, egged on
by the Neocons, take "a hard line" with Iran? No. Do the Europeans want to aid and abet the
U. S. in fighting a war with Iran through NATO? No. Do they want to be "saved from Iran " by
the U.S. galloping all over hemisphere as in 1944? No.
So do you really want to see NATO and American relationships with Europe, Russia and
China, India and the rest of the world put under severe stress in a @#@# waving contest
between Trump and the Mullahs? At the behest of Israel? Because that is what you are going to
get.
Then there is the prospect of the Chinese and Russians retaliating, and I don't even want
to go there.
The Mullahs have ruined the weekend for the leaders of each and every major nation. What
will be happening this weekend in every capital is a series of committee meetings asking the
same questions; What should our response to Iran be? What should our response to possible
American action be? What is the likely effect of war with Iran on our energy supplies? What
is the likely effect of war with Iran on our own security? What is the likely effect of war
with Iran on our economy? Public servants will be working late into the night to answer these
questions. The only thing for sure is that the price of gold is going to skyrocket when
markets open and that a lot of troops are going to get warning orders about notice to move
monday morning.
This is the same type of situation that started WW1. ....... So we decide to give those
pesky Iranian Mullahs a good whupping because they had it coming. Should be easy, after all
they are just more sand niggers, right? All of a sudden Russia drops an air defence regiment
into Tehran, We lose aircraft. China let's North Korea off the leash and at the same time
issues an ultimatum to Taiwan. Suddenly we are taking losses, have three war theatres going
at the same time. What happens then?
I suppose you think nothing is going to affect the continental U.S., so who cares?
There I must disagree:
Nethanyaou is again in election campaign same goes for President Trump; IMHO no war for the
newt 6 months and probably never.
A deal is possible ? maybe
but it should encompass the Syrian issue from where all this Iranian crisis is actually
born-again.
For example Iran could agree to withdraw its troops from Syria if USA and partners did the
same as Trump was considering.
This move would surely have some effect on the YPG position, thus on Turkey's activism along
its frontier with Syria (Afrin being not included).
Entering in negociations for a JCPOA bis will not be acceptable for Iran if sanctions (some
at least) are not lifted. My educated guess is that is precisely what's going on.
I was hoping yesterdays Zarif/Rand Paul discussion would lead to a ratcheting down of
tensions. But the hardliners on both sides would hate to have that happen and will attempt to
wreck any détente.
Did Zarif offer the idea of allowing more intrusive inspections of its nuclear program
before or after his meeting with Paul? In any case some unnamed US officials said it was a
non-starter. Probably the unnamed ones were the Mousetache-of-Idiocy and his minions?
Never should have cancelled JCPOA. Why should we have to do Israel/KSA/UAE's dirty
work?
Sir;
Isn't the "wild card" here the Israelis?
I can imagine an Iranian government, or perhaps the IRGC in a 'bitter ender' phase targeting
Israel proper before they collapse. As the fate of Gerald Ball indicates, the Israelis are
understandably paranoid about their regional competitors.
We are now engaging in cartoon villainy in terms of trying to squeeze Iran into a tiny
box. Iran cannot transact in dollars so they are reduced to bartering with Brazil for corn.
Oops, even their urea export is sanctioned but that doesn't matter because we won't let
Brazil sell them fuel oil to ship corn back to their home port. This is flat out evil.
I wondering if the former Iran President Mahmoud Ahmadinejah ...2005 to 2013 and His
"Apocalyptic Shiites" were put in the background...with disinformation about His falling out
of Favor....So Iran could play strategic games with the P5+1 agreement IN 2015 especially
with President Obama..
"But Iran still loses. Each hit the US Navy takes, strengthens the resolve to crush
Iran that much harder."
Cm'on man... wake up and open your eyes...
The US hasn't won any war since... Eternity...
Do I have to remind you what happens in Afghanistan, in Irak or more recently in Syria ?
Well Iran is FIVE times bigger than Syria and is not a divided
multicultural/multi-religious country. Do you think that anything you do could change the
fact that those 80 something millions people will survive and will ALL be behind their
leaders whoever he might be ?
If I was Iranian and even if the leader of the country was Adolf Hitler or some fanatic
religious Abu Satanist al Muslim, I would still be behind him if my country was attacked by
some foreign bully. My guess is that 99% of the Iranians think the same way....
Forget about allies like Hamas, Hezbollah or Houtis or even China and Russia.
Iran exists since 7000 BC and you really think that the new kid in the block with a couple
hundred years of existence would be able to take it out ?
Given your history of military victories ???!!! Don't make me laugh...
Even if you naively believe that, do you think about the consequences of such a war ? Not
on Iran, OK, you might level part of the country, but then what ?
Israel would most probably cease to exist. But so as the middle eastern Arab monarchies
and most the world's oil industry, which we all depend on...
Which means that the whole planet will suffer for years to come...
If I can't feed my kids because my country can't get enough oil thanks to some nutcase in
WDC guess how I'll feel about the US ?
Most of the world already hate you for a reason. If you want to be not just hated but
treated like enemies where ever you go, go ahead, bomb Iran, start a war, have the whole
world crumble...
And for what ???
Just "because you can" is not a valid answer...
"IMO, if there's going to be war, then the Europeans and Brits should fight it... Of
course none of them will step up on their own and the US will have to do this."
Will HAVE TO do this ???!!!
Who the hell is forcing you not to mind your own business ?
Has Iran attacked the US ? Or Britain ? Or Europe ?
Or anyone else in the past several hundreds of years ?
No...
But.... Does the US oil industry would like the oil prices to go up ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in DC want to make more money by selling more weapons ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Wahabistan hate the Shias and want to get rid of them ? YES !!!
Do the crazies in Israel want to get rid of a powerful neighbor ? YES !!!
Do even some crazies in the US want Israel to go in flames so that Jesus comes back ?
Charles Michael
You are not correct. The Israelis have a deep psychopatholgy about Iranian ballistic missiles
and a possible nuclear weapon that might - might exist someday. That has nothing to do with
Syria.
I think the comment by 'Elliot' back in May reflects assumptions which are very
deep-seated in the West, are questionable, and if wrong, could prove extraordinarily
dangerous. So an extended response seems appropriate.
Of course the Russians have far more limited resources than the United States. What is
important is to understand the implications of that fact for their strategic thinking.
On this I would strongly recommend two pieces at the top of the 'Russia' page on the
'World Hot Spots' section of the 'Army Military Press' site.
The first is a translation of a 2017 article from the journal of the 'Academy of Military
Science', entitled 'Color Revolutions in Russia', by A.S. Brychkov and G.A. Nikonorov.
Among other things, this illustrates very well the rather central fact that Russian
military strategists are very well aware that one of the things that wrecked the Soviet Union
was the attempt to maintain permanent preparedness for a prolonged global war with a power
possessing an enormously greater military-industrial potential.
As to the implications for contingency planning for war, these are spelt out in a piece,
also published in 207, by the invaluable Major Charles K. Bartles of the Foreign Military
Studies Office at Fort Leavenworth, entitled 'Recommendations for Intelligence Staffs
Concerning Russian New Generation Warfare.'
At the risk of glossing his meaning overmuch, what is involved is a kind of 'higher
synthesis' of the ideas of two figures who were on opposing sides of the arguments of the
'Twenties of the last century, Georgiy Isserson, the pioneering theorist of 'deep
operations', and Aleksandr Svechin, who cautioned against an exclusive focus of the
'Napoleonic' strand in Clausewitz.
Both are quoted by the Chief of the General Staff of the Armed Forces of the Russian
Federation, General Valery Gerasimov, in his crucial and much misunderstood address to the
Academy of Military Science in February 2013, reproduced on the same page as the articles to
which I have referred.
What Svechin was saying, in essence, was that an attentive reader of Clausewitz would
realise that 'toujours la'audace' should be replaced as a motto by 'l'audace at the right
place and time'.
It was crucial to be able to judge when an offensive approach was absolutely the right
choice, and caution suicidal, and when the promise of a decisive victory was a snare and a
delusion, and defensive and attritional responses appropriate.
(This argument crops up in many contexts: the 'Tabouleh Line' strategy adopted by
Hizbullah, which Colonel Lang discussed in posts during and following the 2006 Lebanon War,
and also that advocated by James Longstreet at Gettysburg, are classic examples of what
Svechin would have seen as circumstances where a sound 'defensive' strategy was the key to
victory.)
As regards contemporary Russian thinking, an implication is that one of things they have
been trying to create is the ability, in appropriate situations, to use characteristics of
'deep operations' – surprise, speed, shock – in support of clearly limited
objectives.
The kind of possibility involved was alluded to in the conversation between the 'Security
Adviser' and the 'American Soldier' – seemingly involved on the ground in the
'deconfliction' process – which accompanied Seymour Hersh's June 2017 article in 'Die
Welt' on the Khan Sheikhoun sarin incident the previous April, and the U.S. air strikes that
resulted.
'SA: There has been a hidden agenda all along. This is about trying to ultimately go after
Iran. What the people around Trump do not understand is that the Russians are not a paper
tiger and that they have more robust military capability than we do.
'AS: I don't know what the Russians are going to do. They might hang back and let the
Syrians defend their own borders, or they might provide some sort of tepid support, or they
might blow us the fuck out of the airspace and back into Iraq. I honestly don't know what to
expect right now. I feel like anything is possible. The russian air defense system is capable
of taking out our TLAMs. this is a big fucking deal...we are still all systems go...'
And that brings one to another critical strand in the approach of contemporary Russian
strategic thinkers.
Not simply for war-fighting, but, critically, for 'deterring' the United States from
escalating if the Russians do successfully achieve limited objectives, they have been
concentrating on 'asymetric' involving focused investment in specific technologies.
So, Bartles explains that the Russian Ground Forces are 'significantly ahead' of the U.S.
Army in electronic warfare, key objectives being to disrupt the demonstrated American
capability for precision strikes, and also exploit the latent vulnerabilities involved in the
dependence of so much equipment on GPS. (As an Army man, he does not discuss the interesting
question of naval and air applications.)
And crucially, there has been a focus on developing a very wide range of missiles which
'missile defence' technologies are not going to be able to counter effectively in any
forseeable future, and which have steadily increasing range, accuracy and lethality. One
central purpose of this, which Gerasimov has spelt out in later addresses to the Academy of
Military Science, also available on the page to which I have linked, is to provide
non-nuclear 'deterrence' options.
It is, of course, always difficult to be clear as to what is, or is not, hype in claims
made for new weapons systems. That said, it is I think at least worth reading some
contributions by the Brussels-based American analyst Gilbert Doctorow.
In February, he produced a piece entitled 'The INF Treaty is dead: will the arms race be
won this time by the most agile or by the biggest wallet?', and another, headlined 'The
Kremlin's Military Posture Re-considered: strategic military parity with the U.S. or absolute
military superiority over the U.S.'
Certainly, a good many assertions Doctorow made merit being taken with a pinch of salt, if
not a great deal more. However, before one empties the full salt-cellar over them, a few
observations are worth making.
How much salt should be applied to Shoigu's assertion that the cost of the systems being
developed is hundreds of times less than that of the systems being developed by the United
States against Russia I cannot say.
Some questions are however worth putting. It would be interesting to be clearer than I am
as to how relevant, or irrelevant, is the fact that for a long time now Russian universities
have, frankly, wiped the floor with their Western counterparts in international programming
competitions is one.
Another relevant range of issues relates to how expensive the 'software' component of the
relevant weaponry actually produced, once it is developed. A third relates to that of how far
the new missiles, with their greater range, can be effectively deployed, either by updating
old platforms – like Soviet-era bombers – or by creating relatively low
cost-ones.
And then of course one comes to the question of how the technical military issues interact
with the 'geopolitics' involved. In recent years, a range of different Russian analysts have
been claiming, in essence, that the 'Petrine' era of Russian history is over. Three examples,
from Dmitri Trenin, Sergei Karaganov, and Vladislav Surkov, can be found at
If, as Trenin argued back in 2016, Russia has moved from aspiring to become part of a
'Greater Europe' to seeing itself as a central part of a 'Greater Eurasia', then this has
implications for how it should react to the asymetry which was central to Soviet views of INF
in the 'Eighties.'
Put simply, INF in Europe can pose a 'decapitation' threat to Russia, while Russian INF do
not do so to the United States.
At that time, the deployment of cruise and Pershing II helped to encourage a burgeoning
awareness among important sections of the 'security intelligentsia' in Moscow of the extent
to which their own security policies – of which the SS-20 deployment was just one of
many examples – had created suspicion, fear and antagonism.
The conclusion – classically expressed in Georgiy Arbatov's joke about the terrible
thing that Gorbachev was going to do to the United States, deprive it of an enemy –
turned out hopelessly naive. The liquidation of the existing Soviet security posture did not
lead to any lesssening of Western antagonism.
In his second piece, Doctorow has an interesting discussion of views expressed by Yakov
Kedmi, the sometime 'refusenik' who became a pivotal figure in organising Russian Jewish
emigration to Israel, and is now a regular guest on Russian television. And he writes:
'Perhaps Kedmi's most interesting and relevant observation is on the novelty of the
Russian response to the whole challenge of American encirclement. He noted that for the past
200 or more years the United States considered itself secure from enemies given the
protection of the oceans. However, in the new Russian military threat, the oceans will now
become the most vulnerable point in American defenses, from which the decapitating strike can
come.'
Putting the point another way. Potentially at least, the 'Greater Eurasia' as Trenin
describes it includes the Western European countries – indeed, it appears to include
Ireland. It is, obviously, enormously in the interest of the Russians to include these, in
that doing so both makes it possible to isolate the 'Anglo-Saxons', and also to provide a
counterweight to Chinese preponderance.
To do so however – and at this point I am moving towards my own speculations, rather
than simply relying upon better-informed observers – requires a complicated balancing
act.
On the one hand, the West Europeans – above all the Germans – have to be
persuaded that if they persist in following with the 'Russia delenda est' agendas of
traditional 'Anglo' Russophobes, and 'revanchists' from the 'borderlands', they should not
think this is going to be cost-free.
But on the other, the promise has to be implied that, if they 'see sense' and realise that
their future is with a 'Greater Eurasia', without their needing to 'remilitarise' in any
serious way, then they will not be threatened militarily.
This balancing act, ironically, makes it absolutely imperative for the Russians not to
threaten the Baltics – particularly given their historical links to Germany.
By the same token, it provides a particularly cogent reason for threatening to respond to
new American IMF deployments in Europe with ones that target the United States.
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" /> Iran has
also said that it will not only follow graded response to the sanctions, including possible
exiting from the JCPOA, but also reconsider its participation in the Nuclear Non-Proliferation
Treaty, a thinly veiled threat to follow in North Korea's footsteps. It is clear that Iran will
fight the status quo arising out of Trump's maximum pressure policies in various ways, and not
allow itself to be economically strangulated.
The UK's position has now become very dubious. Why did it seize Iran's supertanker Grace
1 in the Gibraltarwaters? Four of Grace 1 's officers, including the ship's captain,
all Indians, have been charged in a Gibraltar court and are now out on bail.
In a new twist on this issue, we now know that Gibraltar changed its law
underpinning the seizure just one day before it occurred . This adds weight to reports in
Spain quoting government sources that the UK carried out the seizing of the tanker under
U.S.instructions.
The argument that Grace 1 was carrying crude oil to Syria's Baniyas refinery, and so
was violating European sanctions on Syria, sounds weak on various counts.The
Gibraltar court's order mentions EU Regulation 36/2012 on sanctions on Syria as the basis
for action against Grace 1 . Oil exports from Syria to the EU have been
banned, but not oil imports to Syria under EU regulations. Also, imports to the Baniyas
refinery are banned for machinery and equipment , not oil.
More important: In international trade, do countries through which transit takes
place have the right to impose their laws on the merchandise in transit? For example, can
pharmaceutical products from India, which arein consonance with Indian and the receiving
country's laws, be seized in transit in Europe if they violate the EU's patent laws? Such
seizures have happened , creating a trade dispute between India and the EU. The EU finally
agreed not to seize such goods in transit. So can the EU extend its sanctions to goods
in transit through its waters? Assuming the crude was indeed for Syria -- which Iran has denied
-- do EU sanctions apply when transiting through Gibraltar waters? In short, was the UK
imposing EU sanctions on Syria -- or U.S.sanctions on Iran?
There has also been another
incident involving Iran and the UK in the developing Tanker War 2. This makes the UK's role
even more suspect. Iran has denied the UK's story of its empty tanker Heritage being
blocked by Iranian boats in the Persian Gulf. The U.S., which first broke the story, claimed it
was five Iranian boats that tried to seize a British tanker. The UK authorities
claimed that it was three Iranian boats that were impeding the tanker's journey,
which were driven off by a British warship. The Iranians deny that any such incident took
place. No video or satellite image of the incident has been made public, though a U.S.aircraft
reportedly took video
footage of the incident. In his Twitter feed, BBC's Defense Correspondent Jonathan Beale
condemned the failure of the British government to release images of the incident: "UK MOD say
they will NOT be releasing any imagery from incident in Gulf when @HMS_MONTROSE confronted #Iran IRGC boats. Shame as far as I'm
concerned."
What remains unexplained is why the empty UK tanker switched off
its transponder before the alleged incident for about 24 hours, particularly in the period
when it was passing through the Strait of Hormuz -- or why an empty tanker was accompanied by a
British warship. Was the UK baiting Iran by manufacturing a maritime incident in the Gulf?
UK Foreign Secretary Jeremy Hunt has said on Twitter that after a phone call with Javad
Zarif, Iran's foreign minister, he
offered to release the tanker Grace 1 on the condition that it will not send the oil
to Syria. This still begs the question of the UK's locus in deciding the destination of Iranian
oil -- or why Iran should accept EU sanctions.
Washington's aggression is part
of a decades-long quest to control the spigot in the Persian Gulf.
Notable quotes:
"... As it happens, the world economy -- of which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would their country's nuclear supremacy. ..."
"... True, Washington fought wars in the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic independence," he told a nationwide TV audience. ..."
"... All told, 33.6 percent of world energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables. ..."
"... Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105 million barrels in 2040. ..."
"... More dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040, its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products. ..."
"... To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president in 1981, made the RDJTF into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East). ..."
"... When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging" mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later recall in his memoir Fighting for Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the Persian Gulf. ..."
"... Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a report on the geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much more explicit than that. ..."
"... As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost. ..."
EDITOR'S NOTE: This article originally appeared
at TomDispatch.com .
It's always the oil. While President Trump was hobnobbing
with Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman at the G-20 summit in Japan, brushing off a
recent UN report about the prince's role in the murder of Washington Post columnist
Jamal Khashoggi, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was in Asia and the Middle East,
pleading with foreign leaders to support "Sentinel." The aim of that administration plan: to
protect shipping in the Strait of Hormuz and the Persian Gulf.
Both Trump and Pompeo insisted
that their efforts were driven by concern over Iranian misbehavior in the region and the need to
ensure the safety of maritime commerce. Neither, however, mentioned one inconvenient three-letter
word -- O-I-L -- that lay behind their Iranian maneuvering (as it has impelled every other
American incursion in the Middle East since World War II).
Now, it's true that the United States
no longer relies on imported petroleum for a large share of its energy needs. Thanks to the
fracking
revolution , the country now gets the bulk of its oil --
approximately 75 percent -- from domestic sources. (In 2008, that share had been closer to 35
percent.) Key allies in NATO and rivals like China, however, continue to depend on Middle Eastern
oil for a significant proportion of their energy needs.
As it happens, the world economy -- of
which the United States is the leading beneficiary (despite President Trump's self-destructive
trade wars) -- relies on an uninterrupted flow of oil from the Persian Gulf to keep energy prices
low. By continuing to serve as the principal overseer of that flow, Washington enjoys striking
geopolitical advantages that its foreign policy elites would no more abandon than they would
their country's nuclear supremacy.
This logic was spelled out clearly by President Barack Obama
in a September 2013 address to the UN General Assembly in which he
declared that "the United States of America is prepared to use all elements of our power,
including military force, to secure our core interests" in the Middle East. He then pointed out
that, while the United States was steadily reducing its reliance on imported oil, "the world
still depends on the region's energy supply and a severe disruption could destabilize the entire
global economy."
Accordingly, he concluded, "We will ensure the free flow of energy from the
region to the world." To some Americans, that dictum -- and its continued embrace by President
Trump and Secretary of State Pompeo -- may seem anachronistic. True, Washington fought wars in
the Middle East when the American economy was still deeply vulnerable to any disruption in the
flow of imported oil. In 1990, this was the key reason President George H.W. Bush gave for his
decision to evict Iraqi troops from Kuwait after Saddam Hussein's invasion of that land. "Our
country now imports nearly half the oil it consumes and could face a major threat to its economic
independence," he told a nationwide
TV audience.
But talk of oil soon disappeared from his comments about what became Washington's
first (but hardly last) Gulf War after his statement provoked
widespread public outrage .
("No Blood for Oil" became a widely used protest sign then.) His son, the second President Bush,
never even mentioned that three-letter word when announcing his 2003 invasion of Iraq. Yet, as
Obama's UN speech made clear, oil remained, and still remains, at the center of US foreign
policy. A quick review of global energy trends helps explain why this has continued to be
so.
THE WORLD'S UNDIMINISHED RELIANCE ON PETROLEUM
Despite all that's been said about climate change and oil's role in causing it -- and about
the enormous progress being made in bringing solar and wind power online -- we remain trapped
in a remarkably oil-dependent world. To grasp this reality, all you have to do is read the
most recent edition of oil giant BP's "Statistical Review of World Energy," published this
June. In 2018, according to that report, oil still accounted for by far the largest share of
world energy consumption, as it has every year for decades. All told, 33.6 percent of world
energy consumption last year was made up of oil, 27.2 percent of coal (itself a global
disgrace), 23.9 percent of natural gas, 6.8 percent of hydro-electricity, 4.4 percent of
nuclear power, and a mere 4 percent of renewables.
Most energy analysts believe that the global reliance on petroleum as a share of world
energy use will decline in the coming decades, as more governments impose restrictions on
carbon emissions and as consumers, especially in the developed world, switch from oil-powered
to electric vehicles. But such declines are unlikely to prevail in every region of the globe
and total oil consumption may not even decline. According to projections from the International
Energy Agency (IEA) in its " New Policies Scenario " (which assumes significant
but not drastic government efforts to curb carbon emissions globally), Asia, Africa, and the
Middle East are likely to experience a substantially increased demand for petroleum in the
years to come, which, grimly enough, means global oil consumption will continue to rise.
Concluding that the increased demand for oil in Asia, in particular, will outweigh reduced
demand elsewhere, the IEA calculated in its 2017 World Energy Outlook that oil will remain the world's
dominant source of energy in 2040, accounting for an estimated 27.5 percent of total global
energy consumption. That will indeed be a smaller share than in 2018, but because global energy
consumption as a whole is expected to grow substantially during those decades, net oil
production could still rise -- from an estimated 100 million barrels a day in 2018 to about 105
million barrels in 2040.
Of course, no one, including the IEA's experts, can be sure how future extreme
manifestations of global warming like the severe heat waves recently tormenting
Europe and
South
Asia could change such projections. It's possible that
growing public outrage
could lead to far tougher restrictions on carbon emissions between now and 2040. Unexpected
developments in the field of alternative energy production could also play a role in changing
those projections. In other words, oil's continuing dominance could still be curbed in ways
that are now unpredictable.
In the meantime, from a geopolitical perspective, a profound shift is taking place in the
worldwide demand for petroleum. In 2000, according to the IEA, older industrialized nations --
most of them members of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) --
accounted for about two-thirds of global oil consumption; only about a third went to countries
in the developing world. By 2040, the IEA's experts believe that ratio will be reversed, with
the OECD consuming about one-third of the world's oil and non-OECD nations the rest.
More
dramatic yet is the growing centrality of the Asia-Pacific region to the global flow of
petroleum. In 2000, that region accounted for only 28 percent of world consumption; in 2040,
its share is expected to stand at 44 percent, thanks to the growth of China, India, and other
Asian countries, whose newly affluent consumers are already
buying cars, trucks, motorcycles, and other oil-powered products.
Where will Asia get its oil? Among energy experts, there is little doubt on this matter.
Lacking significant reserves of their own, the major Asian consumers will turn to the one place
with sufficient capacity to satisfy their rising needs: the Persian Gulf. According to BP, in
2018, Japan already obtained 87 percent of its oil imports from the Middle East, India 64
percent, and China 44 percent. Most analysts assume these percentages will only grow in the
years to come, as production in other areas declines.
This will, in turn, lend even greater strategic importance to the Persian Gulf region, which
now possesses more than 60 percent of the world's untapped petroleum reserves, and to the
Strait of Hormuz, the
narrow
passageway through which approximately one-third of the world's seaborne oil passes daily.
Bordered by Iran, Oman, and the United Arab Emirates, the Strait is perhaps the most
significant -- and contested -- geostrategic location on the planet today.
CONTROLLING THE SPIGOT
When the Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979, the same year that militant Shiite
fundamentalists overthrew the US-backed Shah of Iran, US policy-makers concluded that America's
access to Gulf oil supplies was at risk and a US military presence was needed to guarantee such
access. As President Jimmy Carter
would say in his
State of the Union Address on January 23, 1980,
The region which is now threatened by Soviet troops in Afghanistan is of great strategic
importance: It contains more than two thirds of the world's exportable oil. The Soviet effort
to dominate Afghanistan has brought Soviet military forces to within 300 miles of the Indian
Ocean and close to the Strait of Hormuz, a waterway through which most of the world's oil
must flow. Let our position be absolutely clear: an attempt by any outside force to gain
control of the Persian Gulf region will be regarded as an assault on the vital interests of
the United States of America, and such an assault will be repelled by any means necessary,
including military force.
To lend muscle to what would soon be dubbed the "Carter Doctrine," the president created a
new US military organization, the Rapid Deployment Joint Task Force (RDJTF), and obtained
basing facilities for it in the Gulf region. Ronald Reagan, who succeeded Carter as president
in 1981, made the RDJTF
into a full-scale "geographic combatant command," dubbed Central Command, or CENTCOM, which
continues to be tasked with ensuring American access to the Gulf today (as well as overseeing
the country's never-ending wars in the Greater Middle East).
Reagan was the first president to
activate the Carter Doctrine in 1987 when he ordered Navy warships to escort Kuwaiti tankers, "
reflagged " with the stars and stripes, as they traveled through the Strait of Hormuz. From
time to time, such vessels had been coming under fire from Iranian gunboats, part of an ongoing
" Tanker War ," itself part
of the Iran-Iraq War of those years. The Iranian attacks on those tankers were meant to punish
Sunni Arab countries for backing Iraqi autocrat Saddam Hussein in that conflict. The American
response, dubbed Operation Earnest Will , offered an
early model of what Secretary of State Pompeo is seeking to establish today with his Sentinel
program.
Operation Earnest Will was followed two years later by a massive implementation of the
Carter Doctrine, President Bush's 1990 decision to push Iraqi forces out of Kuwait. Although he
spoke of the need to protect US access to Persian Gulf oil fields, it was evident that ensuring
a safe flow of oil imports wasn't the only motive for such military involvement. Equally
important then (and far more so now): the geopolitical advantage controlling the world's major
oil spigot gave Washington.
When ordering US forces into combat in the Gulf, American presidents have always insisted
that they were acting in the interests of the entire West. In advocating for the "reflagging"
mission of 1987, for instance, Secretary of Defense Caspar Weinberger argued (as he would later
recall in his memoir Fighting for
Peace ), "The main thing was for us to protect the right of innocent, nonbelligerent
and extremely important commerce to move freely in international open waters -- and, by our
offering protection, to avoid conceding the mission to the Soviets." Though rarely so openly
acknowledged, the same principle has undergirded Washington's strategy in the region ever
since: The United States alone must be the ultimate guarantor of unimpeded oil commerce in the
Persian Gulf.
Look closely and you can find this principle lurking in every fundamental statement of US
policy related to that region and among the Washington elite more generally. My own personal
favorite, when it comes to pithiness, is a sentence in a
report on the
geopolitics of energy issued in 2000 by the Center for Strategic and International Studies , a Washington-based
think tank well-populated with former government officials (several of whom contributed to the
report): "As the world's only superpower, [the United States] must accept its special
responsibilities for preserving access to [the] worldwide energy supply." You can't get much
more explicit than that.
Of course, along with this "special responsibility" comes a geopolitical advantage: By
providing this service, the United States cements its status as the world's sole superpower and
places every other oil-importing nation -- and the world at large -- in a condition of
dependence on its continued performance of this vital function.
Originally, the key dependents in this strategic equation were Europe and Japan, which, in
return for assured access to Middle Eastern oil, were expected to subordinate themselves to
Washington. Remember, for example, how they
helped pay for
Bush the elder's Iraq War (dubbed Operation Desert Storm). Today, however, many of those
countries, deeply concerned with the effects of climate change, are seeking to lessen oil's
role in their national fuel mixes. As a result, in 2019, the countries potentially most at the
mercy of Washington when it comes to access to Gulf oil are economically fast-expanding China
and India, whose oil needs are only likely to grow. That, in turn, will further enhance the
geopolitical advantage Washington enjoyed as long as it remains the principal guardian of the
flow of oil from the Persian Gulf. How it may seek to exploit this advantage remains to be
seen, but there is no doubt that all parties involved, including the Chinese, are well aware of
this asymmetric equation, which could give the phrase "trade war" a far deeper and more ominous
meaning.
THE IRANIAN CHALLENGE AND THE SPECTER OF WAR
From Washington's perspective, the principal challenger to America's privileged status in
the Gulf is Iran. By reason of geography, that country possesses a potentially
commanding position along the
northern Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz, as the Reagan administration learned in 1987–88
when it threatened American oil dominance there. About this reality President Reagan couldn't
have been clearer. "Mark this point well: The use of the sea lanes of the Persian Gulf will not
be dictated by the Iranians," he
declared
in 1987 -- and Washington's approach to the situation has never changed.
In more recent times, in response to US and Israeli threats to bomb their nuclear facilities
or, as the Trump administration has done, impose economic sanctions on their country, the
Iranians have threatened on numerous occasions to block the Strait of Hormuz to oil traffic,
squeeze global energy supplies, and precipitate an international crisis. In 2011, for example,
Iranian Vice President Mohammad Reza Rahimi
warned that should the West impose sanctions on Iranian oil, "not even one drop of oil can
flow through the Strait of Hormuz." In response, US officials have vowed ever since to let no
such thing happen, just as Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta did in response to Rahimi at that
time. "We have made very clear," he
said , "that the
United States will not tolerate blocking of the Strait of Hormuz." That, he added, was a "red
line for us."
It remains so today. Hence, the present ongoing crisis in the Gulf, with fierce US sanctions
on Iranian oil sales and threatening Iranian gestures toward the regional oil flow in response.
"We will make the enemy understand that either everyone can use the Strait of Hormuz or no
one,"
said Mohammad Ali Jafari, commander of Iran's elite Revolutionary Guards, in July 2018. And
attacks
on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman near the entrance to the Strait of Hormuz on June 13
could conceivably have been an expression of just that policy, if -- as
claimed by the United States -- they were indeed carried out by members of the
Revolutionary Guards. Any future attacks are only likely to spur US military action against
Iran in accordance with the Carter Doctrine. As Pentagon spokesperson Bill Urban
put it in response to Jafari's statement, "We stand ready to ensure the freedom of
navigation and the free flow of commerce wherever international law allows."
As things stand today, any Iranian move in the Strait of Hormuz that can be portrayed as a
threat to the "free flow of commerce" (that is, the oil trade) represents the most likely
trigger for direct US military action. Yes, Tehran's pursuit of nuclear weapons and its support
for radical Shiite movements throughout the Middle East will be cited as evidence of its
leadership's malevolence, but its true threat will be to American dominance of the oil lanes, a
danger Washington will treat as the offense of all offenses to be overcome at any cost.
If the United States goes to war with Iran, you are unlikely to hear the word "oil" uttered
by top Trump administration officials, but make no mistake: That three-letter word lies at the
root of the present crisis, not to speak of the world's long-term fate.
Michael T.
Klare The Nation 's defense correspondent, is professor emeritus of peace and world-security
studies at Hampshire College and senior visiting fellow at the Arms Control Association in
Washington, DC. His newest book, All Hell Breaking Loose: The Pentagon's Perspective on
Climate Change , will be published this fall.
"... It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary ..."
"... But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position. ..."
"... Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different amounts. ..."
Crooke points out, correctly I believe, that the real issue is not nuclear, or the
oft-repeated foolish "largest state sponsor of terrorism," it is the revolutionary basis of
Iran's success in the Middle East, besting the Gulf dictators.
That bit about the revolution, I don't agree with. It's more the Iranian
renaissance that the Gulf States fear.
Two separate aspects need to be distinguished:
1) It is the Iranian (upper/middle class) exiles who hate and detest the revolutionary regime, because the regime has
deprived them of the right to rule, that they thought was their hereditary right. Even within Iran, upper/middle class people I met had the same
attitude - a kind of hurt that they weren't running the country. The regime is of course
populist.
2) But the Gulf States don't give a fig about that. They are concerned about the simple
renaissance of Iranian power, which might deprive the Sunni potentates of their own position.
The classic case is of course Bahrain, where the "king" is Sunni, and the vast mass of the
population Shi'a, and they're kept down by force, supported by the guns of the US 5th fleet.
But the case of Saudi is much more serious, because it's so much bigger, and every single oil
well is sitting under the feet of the Shi'a, and there are none anywhere else, certainly not
in the Saudi homeland of Najd, which is real camel-herder territory (to which we can expect
the Saudi princes to return, if ever the poor suffering Shi'a ever manage a successful
revolt).
Yes, it is precisely Iran's success that threatens the Gulf Autocrats, Israel, and Uncle
Sugar, each for slightly different reasons, or perhaps the same reasons in different
amounts.
Those being: it's Shiia, it's populist, and it was indeed a political revolution. And for
all of them it represents a viable alternative to the way they wanted things to be. Now, I
think, it's too late. Many will take note of what they have done and how, it will be
studied.
As b mentioned, stay tuned for a major op. against the British East India
Company.
from the Tehran Times:
TEHRAN – Iran's Judiciary Chief Ebrahim Raisi has demanded an immediate release of
an Iranian oil tanker seized by the British government, Fars reported.
"It seems that the British and Europeans are well aware of the Islamic Republic's reach
and potential , and accordingly, it is to their own benefit that they immediately release
this oil tanker, otherwise they should await the ramifications of their action," Raisi said
on Monday.
"... There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it. ..."
"... The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as related in a popular fairy tale. ..."
"... Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system. ..."
"... Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then. ..."
"... Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR. ..."
"... Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel to become the “western” power in the middle east. ..."
"... The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war. ..."
"... America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America. ..."
"... By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began. ..."
"... Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s absolute capitulation. ..."
"... For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations, but the US refused. ..."
"... Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention the most powerful Shia Muslim nation. ..."
>>US President Donald Trump’s ruthless use of the centrality of his country’s financial system and the dollar to force economic
partners to abide by his unilateral sanctions on Iran has forced the world to recognise the political price of asymmetric economic
interdependence.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Just spit-balling here: The Iranian leadership, with good cause, wants to diminish or eliminate the U.S. grip on the region
and this subversive, potentially destabilizing sentiment resonates among the citizenry of various Middle Eastern countries.
There is at present no other powerful leadership group that is so adamantly unwilling to compromise with the U.S. The potential
loss of U.S. control over Middle East oil being at the root of it.
The Saudis et al have it, and Israel is a forward operating base for protecting it. The Saudi royal family rightly fear
an Iran-inspired popular uprising against them and Israel fears the loss of lands granted to them by their invisible friend as
related in a popular fairy tale.
This is hardly definitive and I’m sure others could elaborate.
Iran is a relatively large country with a semi independent foreign policy and banking,/ financial system, and they want to
control their own resources independent of western dictates about opening up their system to the neo liberal system.
I’m sure this is obvious to most people at this kind of web site and is overly simplistic but i sense sometimes some people
are shocked about the conflict with Iran and don’t get that basic dynamic of this conflict.
Why is Iran such a high priority for so many US elites?
Iran was after WW2 a client state of both the US and the UK, the latter installing the Shah as a ruler. Iran was important
for the US and the UK through its oil resources and its border with the USSR.
Mossadegh, by nationalising the oil supply until, played against the status and he was overthrown in a MI/CIA sponsored coup
in 1953, leaving the Shah as the sole ruler in Iran till the revolution of 1979 when Iran came under theocratic rule and basically
diminished the power the US had throughout the years of the Shah’s rule.
The US was also shown to be quite powerless -- short of an invasion -- to deal with the hostage crisis in the US embassy, which
was finally after more than a year resolved with the help of Canada.
Iran is still a major player when it comes to oil, but contrary to the Shah years quite hostile to the aspirations of Israel
to become the “western” power in the middle east.
The enmity clearest showed up when Israel and the USA supplied Saddam Hussein with intelligence and Germany and France with
the capability to produce chemical weapons during the Iraq/Iran war.
This U.S. approach towards Iran has been the result of its lack of an intrinsic interest in the country. The same was true
of Britain. The late Sir Denis Right, the UK’s ambassador to Iran in the 1960s, put it best by writing that Britain never considered
Iran of sufficient value to colonize it. But it found Iran useful as a buffer against the competing great power, the Russian
Empire. Thus, British policy towards Iran was to keep it moribund but not dead, at least not as long as the Russian threat
persisted.
America essentially followed the old British approach towards Iran: keep it semi-alive so that it can put up enough resistance
to the USSR until America’s more important and intrinsic interests, such as those in the Persian Gulf, were safeguarded. But
Washington never wanted to turn Iran into a strong ally that one day might be capable of challenging America.
By changing the international balance of power and removing the risk of Soviet penetration, the USSR’s fall eliminated
Iran’s value to the United States even as a buffer state. In fact, the fundamental shift to a US approach based on the principle
of no compromise, can be traced to 1987, when Gorbachev’s reforms began.
Since then, the United States has refused to accept any solution to the Iran problem that has not involved the country’s
absolute capitulation.
For instance, in 2003, Iran offered to put all the outstanding issues between the two countries on the table for negotiations,
but the US refused.
Because Iran refuses to be a second-class citizen in its own neighborhood. Theirs is an ancient culture whose legacy to the
world is enormous, their history is the stuff of legend, and they are the geopolitical power player in the region, not to mention
the most powerful Shia Muslim nation.
"... Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang. ..."
"... I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth. ..."
"... There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos". To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos. ..."
"... You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras. ..."
"... I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day. ..."
"... The purpose, and effect, of empire is theft. ..."
By Raúl Ilargi Meijer, editor of Automatic Earth. Originally published at
Automatic Earth
How do you define terror? Perhaps, because of the way the term has evolved in the English
language, one wouldn't call the west 'terrorists' per se, but 'we' are certainly spreading
terror and terrorizing very large groups of people. Yeah, bring on the tanks and parade them
around town. Add a marching band that plays some war tunes.
The 'official' storyline : at the request of the US, Gibraltar police and UK marines have
seized an oil tanker in Gibraltar. The super-tanker, 1000 feet (330 meters) long, carrying 2
million barrels, had stopped there after sailing all around the Cape of Good Hope instead of
taking the Suez canal on its way, ostensibly, from Iran to Syria.
And, according to the storyline as presented to and in the western press, because the EU
still has sanctions on Iran, the British seized the ship. Another little detail I really
appreciate is that Spain's acting foreign minister, Josep Borrell, said Madrid was looking into
the seizure and how it may affect Spanish sovereignty since Spain does not recognize the waters
around Gibraltar as British.
That Borrell guy is the newly picked EU foreign policy czar, and according to some sources
he's supportive of Iran and critical of Israel. Them's the webs we weave. He's certainly in
favor of Palestinian statehood. But we're wandering
Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because potential
problems were anticipated in the Suez canal. But also: why dock in Gibraltar? Because no
problems were anticipated there. However, the US had been following the ship all along, and set
this up.
A trap, a set-up, give it a name. I would think this is about Iran, not about sanctions on
Syria; that's just a convenient excuse. Moreover, as people have been pointing out, there have
been countless arms deliveries to Syrian rebels in the past years (yes, that's illegal) which
were not seized.
The sanctions on Syria were always aimed at one goal: getting rid of Assad. That purpose
failed either miserably or spectacularly, depending on your point of view. It did achieve one
thing though, and if I were you I wouldn't be too sure this was not the goal all along.
That is, out of a pre-war population of 22 million, the United Nations in 2016 identified
13.5 million Syrians requiring humanitarian assistance; over 6 million are internally displaced
within Syria, and around 5 million are refugees outside of Syria. About half a million are
estimated to have died, the same number as in Iraq.
And Assad is still there and probably stronger than ever. But it doesn't even matter whether
the US/UK/EU regime change efforts are successful or not, and I have no doubt they've always
known this. Their aim is to create chaos as a war tactic, and kill as many people as they can.
How do you define terror, terrorism? However you define it, 'we' are spreading it.
That grossly failed attempt to depose Assad has left Europe with a refugee problem it may
never be able to control. And the only reason there is such a problem is that Europe, in
particular Britain and France, along with the US, tried to bomb these people's homelands out of
existence. Because their leaders didn't want to conform to "our standards", i.e. have our oil
companies seize and control their supplies.
But while you weren't looking some things changed, irreversibly so. The US and Europe are no
longer the undisputed and overwhelming global military power they once were. Russia has become
a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their armies, assembled in NATO,
wouldn't stand a chance.
China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either. Their military prominence ended around the turn
of the century/millennium, and they're not going to get it back. Better make peace fast.
So what we've seen for a few decades now is proxy wars. In which Russia in particular has
been reluctant to engage but decisive when it does. Moscow didn't want to let Assad go, and so
they made sure he stayed. Syria is Russia's one single stronghold in the Middle East, and
deemed indispensable.
Meanwhile, as over half of Syrians, some 11 million people, have been forced to flee their
homes, with millions of them traumatized by war, 'we' elect to seize a tanker allegedly headed
for a refinery in the country, so we can make sure all those people have no oil or less oil for
a while longer.
So the refugees that do have the courage and will to return will find it that much harder to
rebuild their homes and towns, and will tell those still abroad not to join them. At the same
time Assad is doing fine, he may be the target of the sanctions but he doesn't suffer from
them, his people do.
Yes, let's parade some tanks around town. And let's praise the heroic UK marines who seized
an utterly defenseless oil tanker manned by a bunch of dirt-poor Philippinos. Yay! There is
probably some profound irony that explains why Trump and Bolton and Pompeo want a military
parade at the very moment the US military must concede defeat in all theaters but the
propaganda one.
Still there it is. The only people the US, the west, can still credibly threaten, are
defenseless civilians, women, children. The leaders of nations are out of reach. Maduro, Assad,
let alone Putin or Xi.
Happy 4th of July. Not sure how independent you yourself are, but I can see a few people who
did achieve independence from western terror. Just not the poor, the ones that count. But don't
look at the tanks, look at the wind instead. The winds are shifting.
The EU has been a sticking plaster and a shot of Novocain at the open wound that is
Gibraltar. Without that stabilising influence, that plaster is about to be ripped off and a
slash of neat peroxide is about to be poured onto it.
Watch for more -- unpleasant -- developments coming soon on this one.
I wondered about that myself. There could be an unspoken message now out that the UK gets
to say who gets to use the Straits of Gibraltar. I am sure that the Spanish would see no
problem with that. One thing is sure. That is a few more countries that the UK has completely
antagonized now which will come back to bite it post-Brexit.
Thank you and well said, Gentlemen, Clive, the Reverend and the author, and to Yves for
sharing.
The winds are indeed shifting, but as long as defeat is not obvious in the propaganda
theatre, that's all that matters.
The NC community, especially Anonymous 2, David and Harry, have often written about the
calibre of civil servants in the Treasury with regard to Brexit, it's the same with the
Foreign Office and the Ministry of Defence.
Middle East experts, often termed "Arabists", have left, often forced out for ideological
reasons. They would have cautioned against such adventures. The newer and younger breed of
Foreign Office officials, e.g. the co-author of the dodgy / sexed up (WMD) dossier Matthew
Rycroft, and some veterans like John Scarlet, now retired and consulting with former Tory MP
James Arbuthnott (whose wife "presided" over Assange's recent hearing), are far more
ideological (neo con) and willing to blur the boundaries between impartial advice and
enabling what politicians want. There are few, if any regional, specialists at the Foreign
Office any more.
Sadly, it's the same with the officer corps, more ideological, enablers and less, if at
all, cognizant of the strategic implications of such actions.
As the above happens, HMG becomes more and more dependent on advice from the likes of US
neo con think tanks, especially the Henry Jackson Society. Unlike at the Treasury and Bank of
England, so far, no such neo cons and neo liberals have been imported from the former
colonies by the Foreign Office.
As both Clive and the Reverend conclude, watch out for more unpleasant developments things
that come back to bite the UK.
Maybe there is something else behind it, but it does seem to be a very clumsy operation
– its annoyed a lot of important people (not least in Spain) at just the time when this
isn't needed for the UK. I wonder if the neocon element in Whitehall is using the interregnum
in power to seek to bind the UK even more firmly to the US post Brexit.
"Russia has become a target they cannot even consider attacking anymore, because their
armies, assembled in NATO, wouldn't stand a chance."
I am not sure the current crop of politicians and bureaucrats in the UK (or the US) know
this.
As the Colonel observes, people with specialist knowledge are being replaced with
ideologically-motivated enablers. And the Pentagon and its NATO assets stress their ability
to wage a "limited" nuclear war
"China is not yet at the 'might' level of Russia, but US and NATO are in no position to
attack a country of 1.4 billion people either."
Indeed. And I would suggest China's "might level" is very close to not only Russia's but the
US's. Just as a for instance: the PLAN (Peoples' Liberation Army Navy) has instituted
probably the largest ship building program in history. All its newer vessels are equal to or
(significantly?) better than comparable US types.
All this war talk about just how fabulously strong, or not, this and that polity is
annoyingly ignorant; let's look at the reality that China, India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, and
the Philippines, would all be facing strong food shortages without any harvest failures. With
even moderate shortfalls, add in the rest of the world as countries start scrambling for food
to stockpile even those who are completely self sufficient. The United States has destroyed
it industrial base so much that it cannot provide all the parts, tools, white goods,
clothing, etc that it needs just to function daily. I have not checked Russia's economy, but
I suspect that like the UK, or any European country it needs other countries to survive.
One of the reasons that the British almost lost World War One, that Germany did, and the
nations that used to be the Austro-Hungarian Empire did so poorly after that war was the
breaking up of all those trade connections. Everyone was gung-ho on war or independence, but
no-one has made any plans whatsoever on to run their economy(ies) after the first few years
of war or peace. And no, sticking it all on the Germans did not work either.
I'm starting to get that last election feeling where previous sorts went a bit curious
when confronted with the choices and the past went poof . strangest thing[s]
Peace though procurement malpractice. The current batch of military hardware is so much
garbage that when the President wants to use the "superb" pieces of crap (F35 and the new
boats are prime examples) a general will have to become the sacrificial lamb and give the
president the news that this stuff is for show only.
The Israelis claim to like the F-35 and to have used it in Syria to attack Syrian Air
Defense installations after the Syrian Air Defense installations fired at their other manned
aircraft.
That's something of an endorsement of it's capabilities. How much I don't know.
I think the issue of Israeli use of US aircraft is complex – the US seems to have
pressurised Israel to drop its own aircraft, the Lavi , and it may well have been that giving
Israel priority with the F-35 was part of the quid quo pro over that. For many
countries, choosing the F-35 seems to owe more to politics than defence considerations.
I have, for some time, been of the opinion that one of the (relatively minor) reasons that
Turkey went with the S-400's is that it gets them out of the F-35 contract without legal
financial penalties. I bet the reports of the Turkish crews training in the US have been
scathing.
I have wondered if the Saab JAS 39 Gripen or the Su-57 might be good contenders.
I think it was RT that reported the other day that Russia is planning on starting full
production of the Su-57 in 2020. Given that it was speculated that production of the Su-57
was too expensive with the Russian Federation as the only customer, I wonder who might be
interested. China? Renewed Indian interest? Turkey ?
Personally, I think we in Canada should ask Sukho to submit a bid for our fighter
replacement program.
> But this time I thought how awful it would be to hear those monsters and know they
were loaded with missiles and there was no safe place to hide.
Around here there is a boat race where the military flies jets for show and quite a few
years ago, on a Saturday,while I was tinkering in the garage, this one pilot, and he or she
must have been having a grand old time, really put on a show. For half an hour to an hour the
neighborhood was subjected to the most thunderous roar, it made my skin crawl and hair stand
up, and I started thinking about and getting a tiny taste of the terror people that are
actual targets of this machine get.
On Sunday, there was no "air" show. So many people bitched and complained about Saturday
the military or show organizers called it off. Phone calls to stop the jets does not work in
the middle east, however.
Am I supposed to feel sorry for the sanction-busting war profiteers losing their illicit
cargo? Or am I supposed to feel sorry for Assad not being able to top off the gas tank on his
human rights violating war wagon?
Nobody's cool with the jingoism coming from the White House. But if the tanks come out for
only just this one very special episode of the Apprentice, the people of earth have dodged a
very obnoxious golden BB.
You're supposed to feel sorry for millions America killed in Syria and many other nations,
and the tens of millions she displaced from their homes.
According to the U.N., Nobel Peace prize winning Obama caused the greatest refugee crisis
since WW2 with all the browned skinned nations he bombed until America ran out of bombs and
then he made more and bombed again – Libya, Syria, Yemen, Somalia, Afghanistan, Iraq,
Pakistan, Ukraine who have I missed there so many .
Said another way, The War on Terror IS terrorism.
About 10 years I started to realize the U.S. is an Evil Empire, a force for evil in the
world.
Happy 4th.
And may the bombing continue until there is peace. There are so many countries this great
nation has not yet bombed. Maybe we're just getting warmed up.
Google "UN says greatest refugee crisis since world war" and you'll annual reports
starting about 2014 till about 2017 – the Apex of the Obama wars – each year
replacing the previous year as all time records as humanitarian disasters.
Interesting word "illicit" meaning "outside the law." So exactly what law gives the
Americans and their faithful poodles the authority to do this?
Gibraltar was once the playground of the Barbary Pirates so it is an appropriate venue for
the hegemon to engage in a little piracy of its own. But Ilargi may be right that the winds
are shifting and bullies will get their comeuppance.
Yes. It's piracy. USA a Pirate Nation. UK a useful part of the gang.
I mean, empires have always been expansionist, violently expansionist. I mean, this is
bad, but the empire is the empire. What bothers me is the lying. The filthy unbelievable lies
emanating from the likes of Hillaria Terroristica and Pompeus Maximus and even from Obama the
Salesman emperor, Emperor Tex Bush the second, and our current Carnival Barker Emperor
Trumpius the Rube Caller. Let alone the generals lying thru their teeth.
It makes the whole enterprise ridiculous – no one but the stupidest and most
brainwashed believes the filthy liars. Terrible that our ruling class are traitors to the
country – because why lie unless you have no respect for those ruled? Lie to the stupid
cattle – let them repeat the lies and laugh at their stupidity.
The Iranians are calling it piracy and now claim the right to seize any British oil tanker
in their waters. Perhaps they have passed "sanctions" against the Brits or the EU.
I'm thinking of passing some sanctions myself under my sovereign powers and seizing some
stuff. Hey why not? EU says it's ok.
Sanctions are for OUR profiteers, not their. We impose them so that our corporations and
profiteers can benefit from higher blackmark prices. When others cut into the profit it will
not be tolerated.
I think the glass jaw is appropriate, long time PR machinations are finding it harder to
peddle, considering the outcomes, hence the need for rather vulgar public displays of
military Sergeant Major marching up and down the field too imbue greatness on the unwashed by
proxy whilst swirling down the gurgler.
This is made even more surreal by grandiose gestures of minuscule proportions magnified
way beyond their scope in the big scheme of things sans a modern news cycle.
For some ridiculous reason I keep envisioning all the new data on shipwrecks during the
east indies company era and the findings .. silly me
I still don't understand why so many "commentators" have to try discussing
important topics without considering basic facts.
There are classes of ships called, for instance, Panamax or now specifically Suezmax.
These are the largest vessels that can transit said canals. The Panama Canal has locks
of a specific size and therefore there is a hard limit. Suezmax is a bit harder to define
because, without locks, it can vary some.
But there is a maximum and at just a first glance this vessel is at least near it.
"Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline? Because
potential problems were anticipated in the Suez canal." Well, yes. But which problems.
There seem to be many, starting with the fact that the Grace 1 is under the Iranian
flag. But besides that, it is not at all unusual for a vessel of that size to sail around
the
Cape. There are many reasons. I, myself, have made a longer passage in a smaller
vessel – 13100 nautical miles from Kharg Island in Iran to New Brunswick
(Irving refinery). Around the Cape. Nobody was particularly surprised.
Reminiscent of all those US "journalists" piling on to an Aeroflot flight to Havana in
search of Edward Snowden. They, and the world, were certain he was aboard, until
the craft flew over downtown Miami.
Yes, that would be unusual but according to the articles of engagement
it could happen.
More relevant though is that there are lots of reasons for
a loaded tanker to take an indirect route not necessarily having
much to do with the ownership of the cargo. The "tanker trackers"
don't seem to be unduly surprised by the itinerary. Happens every
day.
Incidentally, I was once on a tanker sailing from Providence, RI
with orders to "steam due south until you hear from us". That could
have led to some interesting results. In the event, however, we
ended up in India after a change in engagements. The return leg
of that voyage was the 13100 mile passage I mentioned earlier.
Another time I thought I was going somewhere in the Caribbean and
ended up on a circumnavigation. Hey, it's normal. Let's not get too
excited about somebody who wants to go around the Cape instead
of risking Suez.
By the way, my experiences all occurred under the US flag so why
try to find some strange dirt on the Iranians when they are only
doing what everybody else does.
I don't think that you get it. The US seized a North Korean ship a few weeks back and now
the US had the UK seize an Iranian ship on 'suspicions'. Do you really want to see an
international situation for trade where ships can be seized as political pawns and sold? Or
maybe airplanes as well? The big insurance companies certainly want to know. The Iranians are
saying that they now have the right to seize a British ship in retaliation. Will the Brits
sell that captured ship? Will they sell the oil aboard or take it back to the UK for their
own use? Do we really want to see a widespread return to Prize Laws again?
Can we give you some sort of award for admitting you made a mistake with your first post,
and then admonishing us to "engage brain before operating mouth" ?
"Game of Thrones" LOL!! The more time changes the more it stays the same!
It's "piracy" if "they" do it to us (or our co-conspirators); it's "legal sanctions" if we do
"it" to "them".
What a farcical, lying, two-faced world we live in!
There should have a new slogan for this international cabal -- "Strength through Chaos".
To be precise, OUR strength through THEIR chaos.
Has this been the "plan" for this period
since the end of World War Two? Even if it is not a "conspiracy", but rather a "concatenation
of interests", what difference does this terminology make to those suffering the boot
heel?
You could safely leave out anywhere in the Americas, I think, after reading Confessions
of an Economic Hitman . Less bombs, same benevolent results. The US/Mexican Border comes
to mind, filled with refugees from Guatemala and Honduras.
Neither the Reagan Years (and those years before) nor the Obama Years have been a picnic
for many that live anywhere in CA (other than possibly CR and Panama). Not that most of those
running those countries are in any way innocent, particularly those that we funneled arms and
money to.
I very much agree with Illargi on this. Nothing good can come from the "heroic" seizure of
the tanker. Mission accomplished: we are more idiotic every passing day.
re: Why did the tanker take that giant detour along the African coastline?
in case anyone else has not yet noted it, super tankers, VLCCs that can carry as much as 2
million barrels, cannot get through the Suez canal, which is limited to oil tankers in the
aptly named "Suezmax" class, less than half that size
Yeah this is not a well educated writer. Contradicts his own story at one point, and no
the US can't afford to get into a major war,but that does mean they lose either, the other
side would still lose more.
The winds change are blowing, indeed. Is that the fog of war on the horizon, or the
smokestacks of progress? Neither is good for the environment but as they say, fight one
battle at a time.
America's War On Terror has long since become the War OF Terrorism and it's good to see
the rest of the world has not only caught on but is doing something about it. Great Britain
went quietly and prospered. Will America do the same or will it struggle against the
inevitable? I suspect a bit of both. We do love to kill poor innocent brown people, after
all. It's what we're best at.
Time to find another line of work. Surely we can find something more productive to do?
The war on terror is a war on non-combatants. Its western terrorists, spooks and soldiers,
against Asian terrorists, Muslims.The other form of terrorism against non-combatants is
nuclear war – that's when the military attacks civilian targets like we did in WWII in
Hamburg and Dresden and Tokyo but using more destructive ordinance.
Can we say, in light of the regular failures of our initiatives overseas, that we the
people are expecting something that is not intended. We imagine war is fought to achieve
unconditional surrender and bring the humiliated enemy to our feet begging for life but
perhaps these attacks in the Middle East and North Africa are not for a military victory at
all but to take away the natural resources of those countries, using the fog of war to
conceal our purpose?
China calls Trump's bluff; Trump blinks on sanctions threat
span ed by gjohnsit on Fri, 07/05/2019 - 4:37pm
Trump made it perfectly clear: No one will buy Iranian oil and still do business with
America. That includes
China .
Two Trump administration officials said on Friday that neither a wind-down period nor a
short-term waiver on China's oil purchases from Iran are being contemplated after Washington
surprised Iran's customers on Monday by demanding they halt the purchases by May 1 or face
sanctions.
The administration has been clear to China, Iran's top oil consumer, about no additional
waivers to the sanctions after the ones granted last November, one of the senior officials
said.
No additional waivers. No wind-down period.
It's clear and final.
China is buying Iranian oil in defiance of US sanctions and providing what Tehran hopes will
be a financial lifeline for the country's buckling economy.
Although Beijing customs data show crude purchases from Iran are down month-on-month,
China is still importing Tehran's oil despite US measures designed to cut exports to
"zero".
Last week the Chinese received their first delivery of an Iranian oil cargo since the
Trump administration in May scrapped exemptions on Iranian sanctions.
So Trump is a big, tough, strongman. So what do you think he's going to do when he's
challenged?
He's going to fold .
But according to three U.S. officials, the department's Iran czar, Brian Hook, and his team
of negotiators have discussed granting China a waiver to a 2012 law intended to kneecap the
Iranian oil industry. The alternative is allowing China, which recently welcomed a shipment
of approximately a million barrels of Iranian oil, openly to defy U.S. sanctions.
...
The 2012 Iran Freedom and Counterproliferation Act targeted the Iranian shipping,
shipbuilding and energy sectors, requiring states or companies that wish to import Iranian
oil and conduct business with the U.S. to obtain waivers from the U.S. government. A separate
law targeted purchases, rather than imports of that oil.
Officials say the State Department is discussing an arrangement that would allow China to
import Iranian oil as payment in kind for sizable investments of the Chinese oil company
Sinopec in an Iranian oil field -- and administration officials have offered to issue a
waiver for the payback oil in official correspondence between the State Department and
Sinopec, according to a source familiar with the situation.
The waiver is merely a face-saving measure. China is going to continue to defy the sanctions
one way or another.
And if China gets a waiver then
India will too.
As it stands, India has halted buying Iranian oil, but that has just pushed them into buying
more
Russian oil .
"While #ISIS was stealing the Syrian oil & selling it to #Turkey, the so-called #US
led coalition (#UK included) against Daesh wasn't interested in stopping the theft of
#Syria's oil.
"But today the UK stopped an oil tanker delivering energy to the Syrian people."
Quite witty, IMO. Note the EU-3 all supported the terrorist invasion of Syria, the
destruction of Libya, and NATO's accusing Iran of sponsoring terrorism.
Spain's caretaker Foreign Minister Josep Borrell said the British targeted the tanker on a
request from the US. He added that Spain, which considers the waters off Gibraltar as its
own, was assessing the implications of the operation.
Iran has reportedly acknowledged ownership of the cargo. Its foreign ministry summoned the
British ambassador in Tehran to protest the "unlawful seizure of the Iranian tanker,"
according to the IRNA news agency.
According to Reuters, the MT Grace 1 has been used by Iran in the past to ship crude to
Singapore and China in defiance of unilateral sanctions imposed against Iran by the US. The
current trip allegedly started in Iran's port of Bandar Assalyeh, thought the papers state
that the crude was loaded in the Iraqi port of Basra.
In seizing the tanker under the pretext of sanctions on Syria, the EU seems to be at least
partially siding with Washington, which is trying to cripple the Iranian economy through
harsh economic sanctions. The pressure campaign was escalated after the US broke its
commitment under the 2015 nuclear deal with Iran.
"Maybe the EU was trying to show that it was siding with the Americans, playing its part
in anti-Iranian policy? We know that the Trump administration has been critical of the
European countries," Ali Rizk, a Middle East-based journalist and writer, told RT.
"And it's likely a demonstration against Syria. It all helps an ongoing plan of parting
Syria with its allies."
@1 Allegedly(?), this oil tanker sailed from Basra in Iraq (not Iran) and remarkably went
around Africa rather than sail through the Suez, and further it allegedly also turned it's
transponder off(?)... as usual, we'll have to wait for real facts to emerge. It's still quite
unusual to intercept an oil tanker so blatantly when much more nefarious shipments are going
on.
Seems to me certain western governments do whatever they want, and no longer care about
international legalities.
She is now Panama flagged (presumably) Russian owned
IMO number 9116412
Name of the ship GRACE 1
Type of ship CRUDE OIL TANKER
MMSI 355271000
Gross tonnage 156880 tons
DWT 273769 tons
Year of build 1997
Builder HYUNDAI HEAVY INDUSTRIES - ULSAN, SOUTH KOREA
Flag PANAMA
Class society LLOYD'S SHIPPING REGISTER
Manager & owner RUSSIAN TITAN SHIPPING LINES - DUBAI, UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Former names MERIDIAN LION until 2013 Mar
OVERSEAS MERIDIAN until 2011 Jun
MERIDIAN LION until 2006 Feb
The reason for holding the ship is given as breaking EU sanctions on Syria. Not JCPOA
related (in principle).
Here is a short but incomplete primer on Gibraltar territorial waters. The even more
extreme Spanish view is that only the port is Gibraltarian, or simply that Gibraltar is
Spanish.
Just to note Grace1 is anchored off the south east of Gibraltar, within the 3 mile
Gibraltar limit now, I don't know if she was stopped inside that zone, or why she would
venture into that 3 mile zone. In short it will be important to know what position she was
when boarded, the only info I have is that she veered hard to port into the Gibraltar 3 mile
limit, but am not sure if before or after being boarded. The Spanish government has said it
tolerates Gibraltar "acting in its waters" in this case because the action was based on EU
sanctions.
This shale oil/gas is no less important news. Careful analysis already knew shale oil/gas was
a farce: the problem with it is that it provides a boom of production followed quickly by a
bust (like an ejaculation). It follows a free-fall graphic line.
This is awful for investors,
who expect a more rollercoaster-like productivity typical of the normal oil reserves (slowly
crescent production, with an apex, followed by a slow decline in output).
The USA will never be self-sufficient in oil. The government's official projections are a
farce and they know it.
https://cdn.districtm.io/ids/index.html Russia's oil production in June was 50,000 bpd below
the level Moscow had pledged under the OPEC and non-OPEC production cut agreement, Russian
Energy Minister Alexander Novak said on Monday, as carried by Russian news agency Interfax .
As part of the OPEC+ production cuts between January and June, Russia is taking the lion's
share of the non-OPEC cuts and pledged to reduce production by
230,000 bpd from October's post-Soviet record level of 11.421 million bpd, to 11.191
million bpd.
Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to
find himself: It may already be too late. He is there.
Professor Russell-Mead tells us "that the key
to the president's Iran policy is that his nose for power [and Trump is a keen judge of power,
R-M insists] is telling him Iran is weaker, and the US stronger than the foreign-policy
establishment believes What Mr. Trump wants is a deal with Iran that matches his sense of the
relative power of the two countries " (emphasis added).
"At the level of public diplomacy, [Trump] is engaging in his standard mix of dazzle and
spin[turning American politics into the Donald Trump Show, with the country and the world
fixated on his every move, speculating feverishly about what will come next, R-M suggests] And
at the level of power politics he is steadily and consistently tightening the screws on Iran:
arming its neighbors and assuring them of his support, tightening sanctions, and raising the
psychological pressure on the regime.
"Mr. Trump well understands the constraints under which his Iran policy is working.
Launching a new Middle East war could wreck his presidency. But if Iran starts the war, that's
another matter. A clear Iranian attack on American or even Israeli targets could unite Mr.
Trump's Jacksonian base like the attack on Pearl Harbor united America's Jacksonians to fight
Imperial Japan."
Russell-Mead's analysis probably has it right. But there is more to it than that: Trump's
approach is based on some further underlying key assumptions: Firstly, that, with the Iranian
economy tanking, and inflation soaring (Trump repeats this unfounded assertion frequently), the
Iranian revolutionary system will either implode, or approach Washington, on its knees, asking
for a new nuclear deal.
Two: Trump can afford to wait out this impending implosion, and just lever up the economic
pressures in the meanwhile. Three: Trump claims that a war with Iran would be short: "I'm not
talking boots on the ground,"
he said . "I'm just saying if something would happen, it wouldn't last very long". And
four: Trump said, (and appears to believe), that he wouldn't
need an "exit strategy" in the event of a war with Iran, which suggests that he may really
think that the war would be limited to a brief air campaign, and then it would be over.
What to say? Well, only that all of these assumptions are almost certainly wrong –
and, as Daniel Larison in The American Conservative notes ,
"if the US president thinks that a war with Iran "wouldn't last very long," he is probably
going to be more willing to start it. Iran hawks are already predictably emphasizing that
attacking Iran wouldn't be like Iraq or Afghanistan, and they are saying that in part to
overcome Trump's apparent reservations about getting bogged down in a protracted conflict".
Iran indeed would not be like Afghanistan or Iraq, but in an entirely different way to that
claimed by the hawks.
Well, Iran will not be imploding economically: On Friday, Russia signalled its commitment
to secure Iran's oil and banking sectors, should the EU's INSTEX clearing mechanism not be
working effectively by 7 July (when Iran's window to Europe on this issue closes). Russian
Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov said on Friday that Moscow is ready to help Iran export
its crude and ease restrictions on its banking system should Europe
fail to make INSTEX a viable mechanism. China too, has stated that "normal energy dealings"
with Tehran are in accordance with law, and should be respected. The Governor of the Central
Bank of Iran said this week that Iran has "climbed past the peak of sanctions. Our oil exports
are on the rise", Hemmati said .
If the 'implosion hypothesis' is flawed, so too is the claim that Iran will come begging for
a new nuclear deal from Mr Trump. Here, by way of illustration, is the (Iranian) account of what the
Supreme Leader said to Prime Minister Abe:
"During the meeting with Abe Shinzo (on 13 June), the latter told Ayatollah Khamenei that "I
would like to give you a message from the President of the United States".
"Ayatollah Khamenei responded by pointing to the US ingenuity and untrustworthiness, and
argued, "We do not doubt your [Abe's] sincerity and goodwill. However, regarding what you
mentioned about the President of the US, I do not consider Trump as a person worth exchanging
any message with and I have no answer for him, nor will I respond to him in the future
."
"[But] what I am going to say, is said to you as the Japanese Prime Minister, and because we
consider Japan a friend of ours
"Ayatollah Khamenei noting Shinzo's assertion that the US intends to prevent Iran's
production of nuclear weapons said, "We are opposed to the nuclear weapons and my religious
Fatwa bans production of nuclear weapons; but you should know that if we intended to produce
nuclear weapons, the US could do nothing; and its non-permission [would] not be any
obstacle."
"The Supreme leader, in response to the message that "the United States is not after
regime change in Iran", insisted that "Our problem with the United States is not about regime
change. Because even if they intend to pursue that, they won't be able to achieve it When Trump
says that he is not after regime change, it is a lie. For, if he could do so, he would.
However, he is not capable of it."
"Ayatollah Khamenei similarly referred to the Japanese prime minister's remarks regarding
the United States' request to negotiate with Iran about the nuclear issue, and said, "The
Islamic Republic of Iran negotiated for 5 to 6 years with the United States and the Europeans
-- the P 5+1 -- which led to an agreement. But the United States disregarded and breached this
definite agreement. So, does common sense permit negotiations with a state that has thrown away
everything that was agreed upon?"
"He pointed to the forty years of hostility that the US has showed to the Iranian nation and
its continued hostility, and said, "We believe that our problems will not be solved by
negotiating with the US, and no free nation would ever accept negotiations under pressure."
And 'pressures' are precisely what the US is adding: i.e. increasing pressures, rather than
easing them – which stands probably as the sine qua non to resuming negotiations with
Iran. But then Trump holds to the view that America is entitled – by virtue of its
greater power – to negotiate with others only when the counterparties are under 'maximum
pressure'. Plainly, he has not been briefed well on the Iranian history of stoically enduring
far worse and violent cataclysms. Nor, that Iranians can draw on a stratum of spiritual
resilience from the narrative of Imam Hussein at times of crisis.
How so? The notion of an 'Iran on the cusp of collapse' is a meme being peddled by
various disgruntled Iranian exiles, and by the MEK, as well as by prominent hawks in the US.
But equally – and importantly, given Trump's own family predilections – this
narrative of 'just one push' and the Iranian Revolution 'is over' is being constantly urged by
Netanyahu. (Other Israelis are not so happy at their PM's open and avid support for Trump's
policy on Iran – recalling how Israel (and Netanyahu) were accused of having pushed for
the 2003 Iraq war).
So. If the assumption that Iran will either collapse, or capitulate under economic
pressure, is false; and that the presumption that 'no exit strategy' is required, because Iran
is weak and the US is militarily strong (implying that a short, quick air strike would settle
matters) – is similarly flawed, where then are we headed?
If these underlying assumptions continue to pass without serious challenge, then, as time
passes, Iran will neither have imploded, nor capitulated, as presaged; but rather, it will have
continued to send calibrated,
incrementally ascending 'messages' to demonstrating the potential costs of pursuing such a
policy – with the pain being experienced principally by those US allies who continually
advocate for harsh US 'measures' against Iran.
Ultimately, Trump will find himself in a corner in which he never wished to find himself:
It may already be too late. He is there. Either having to react militarily to Iranian
'messages', with all the potential for asymmetric Iranian counterstrikes and ratchetting
escalation: A prospect from which instinctively he recoils, because he fears this route of
indecisive military tit-for-tat may not play out well for him in terms of the 2020 elections.
And even could risk his Presidency.
Or, a humiliating, concessionary journey of return into a process closely mirroring the
(despised) JCPOA – whatever be its new name: And hope to call the defeat as
'victory'.
Quite possibly, President Putin may have it in mind to lay out some of this prospective
landscape when he met with Trump at Osaka. We probably won't be told. We'll never know.
"... To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program, and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach. ..."
"... What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike." ..."
"... D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them. ..."
"... D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here. These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular. ..."
"... It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence. ..."
"... These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran. ..."
In 2017, the U.S. Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) created a special unit -- the Iran Mission Center -- to focus attention on
the U.S. plans against Iran . The initiative for this unit came from CIA director John Brennan, who left his post as the Trump administration
came into office. Brennan believed that the CIA needed to focus attention on what the United States sees as problem areas -- North
Korea and Iran, for instance. This predated the Trump administration.
Brennan's successor -- Mike Pompeo, who was CIA director for just over a year (until he was appointed U.S. Secretary of State)
-- continued this policy. The CIA's Iran-related activity had been conducted in the Iran Operations Division (Persia House). This
was a section with Iran specialists who built up knowledge about political and economic developments inside Iran and in the Iranian
diaspora.
It bothered the hawks in Washington -- as one official told me -- that Persia House was filled with Iran specialists who had no
special focus on regime change in Iran. Some of them, due to their long concentration on Iran, had developed sensitivity to the country.
Trump's people wanted a much more focused and belligerent group that would provide the kind of intelligence that tickled the fancy
of his National Security Adviser John Bolton .
To head the Iran Mission Center, the CIA appointed Michael D'Andrea. D'Andrea was central to the post-9/11 interrogation program,
and he ran the CIA's Counterterrorism Center. Assassinations and torture were central to his approach.
It was D'Andrea who expanded the CIA's drone strike program, in particular the signature strike. The signature strike is a particularly
controversial instrument. The CIA was given the allowance to kill anyone who fit a certain profile -- a man of a certain age, for
instance, with a phone that had been used to call someone on a list. The dark arts of the CIA are precisely those of D'Andrea.
What is germane to his post at the Iran Mission Center is that D'Andrea is close to the Gulf Arabs, a former CIA analyst told
me. The Gulf Arabs have been pushing hard for action against Iran, a view shared by D'Andrea and parts of his team. For his hard-nosed
attitude toward Iran, D'Andrea is known -- ironically -- as "Ayatollah Mike."
D'Andrea and people like Bolton are part of an ecosystem of men who have a visceral hatred for Iran and who are close to the
worldview of the Saudi royal family . These are men who are reckless with violence, willing to do anything if it means provoking
a war against Iran. Nothing should be put past them.
D'Andrea and the hawks edged out several Iran experts from the Iran Mission Center, people like Margaret Stromecki -- who had
been head of analysis. Others who want to offer an alternative to the Pompeo-Bolton view of things either have also moved on or remain
silent. There is no space in the Trump administration, a former official told me, for dissent on the Iran policy.
Saudi Arabia's War
D'Andrea's twin outside the White House is Thomas Kaplan, the billionaire who set up two groups that are blindingly for regime
change in Iran. The two groups are United Against Nuclear Iran (UANI) and Counter Extremism Project. There is nothing subtle here.
These groups -- and Kaplan himself -- promote an agenda of great disparagement of Muslims in general and of Iran in particular.
Kaplan blamed Iran for the creation of ISIS, for it was Iran -- Kaplan said -- that "used a terrible Sunni movement" to expand
its reach from "Persia to the Mediterranean." Such absurdity followed from a fundamental misreading of Shia concepts such as taqiya,
which means prudence and not -- as Kaplan and others argue -- deceit. Kaplan, bizarrely, shares more with ISIS than Iran does with
that group -- since both Kaplan and ISIS are driven by their hatred of those who follow the Shia traditions of Islam.
It is fitting that Kaplan's anti-Iran groups bring together the CIA and money. The head of UANI is Mark Wallace, who is the
chief executive of Kaplan's Tigris Financial Group, a financial firm with investments -- which it admits -- would benefit from "instability
in the Middle East." Working with UANI and the Counter Extremism Project is Norman Roule, a former national intelligence manager
for Iran in the U.S. Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Roule has offered his support to the efforts of the Arabia Foundation, run by Ali Shihabi -- a man with close links to the Saudi
monarchy. The Arabia Foundation was set up to do more effective public relations work for the Saudis than the Saudi diplomats are
capable of doing. Shihabi is the son of one of Saudi Arabia's most well-regarded diplomats, Samir al-Shihabi, who played an important
role as Saudi Arabia's ambassador to Pakistan during the war that created al-Qaeda.
These men -- Kaplan and Bolton, D'Andrea and Shihabi -- are eager to use the full force of the U.S. military to further the
dangerous goals of the Gulf Arab royals (of both Saudi Arabia and of the UAE). When Pompeo walked before cameras, he carried their
water for them. These are men on a mission. They want war against Iran.
Evidence, reason. None of this is important to them. They will not stop until the U.S. bombers deposit their deadly payload on
Tehran and Qom, Isfahan and Shiraz. They will do anything to make that our terrible reality.
This article was produced by Globetrotter ,
a project of the Independent Media Institute.
"... India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose. ..."
"... Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding behind Uncle Sams petticoat. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Trump is a bull in a china shop. Someone will have to pick up the pieces and it won't be the one percent. YOU and I are expendable. ..."
"... Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ... ..."
"... Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants. ..."
leveymg on Fri, 06/28/2019 - 4:41pm In a surprise move, the EU special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran (INSTEX)
exercised its first trade today. The body was set up to facilitate exports of Iranian oil without U.S. dollars, avoiding a sanctions
regime imposed unilaterally by the U.S.
Instex is now operational despite U.S. threats to European banks and officials of reprisal sanctions if they violated Iran sanctions.
Bloomberg had reported on May 7 the Treasury Department's undersecretary for terrorism and financial intelligence, Sigal Mandelker,
issued a warning letter that Instex and anyone associated with it could be barred from the U.S. financial system if it goes into
effect.
In defiance of U.S. pressure, Instex was set up by EU diplomats in January as a means to prevent total collapse of the Iranian
nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA). The first official trades occurred today, in the
shadow of the Group of 20 Summit meeting.
https://www.thenational.ae/world/europe/eu-claims-iran-deal-held-togethe...
A senior EU diplomat has said the first transactions were being made by a special purpose vehicle for trade with Iran at a
meeting of the remaining members of the 2015 nuclear deal in Vienna.
Friday's meeting in Vienna featured "constructive discussions," Helga Schmid, the head of the EU diplomatic service said, confirming
the entity, named Instex, was making its first transactions.
"INSTEX now operational, first transactions being processed and more EU Members States to join. Good progress on Arak and Fordow
[fuel enrichment] projects," she posted.
The Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges (Instex) is designed to facilitate trade of essential goods, such as food and
medicine, mainly from the EU to Iran. A Chinese official said Beijing was open to using the facility.
The platform has been set up in France, with a German managing director in a coordinated European effort to counterbalance
the US economic power displayed by its sanctions policy.
President Donald Trump last year pulled out of the Iranian nuclear deal, officially called the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA), which curbed Iran's nuclear activities in return for the lifting of sanctions.
According to today's report:
As the talks kicked off on Friday, seven EU nations expressed support for Instex and the JCPOA, asking Iran "to abide by and
fully respect the terms and provisions of the nuclear agreement".
"We are working with France, Germany and the United Kingdom, as well as with the European External Action Service and the European
Commission, to establish channels to facilitate legitimate trade and financial operations with Iran, one of the foremost of these
initiatives being the establishment of Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges," read the statement from Austria, Belgium, Finland,
the Netherlands, Slovenia, Spain and Sweden.
Whether the declaration of support and first tranche of transactions will be enough to keep Iran committed to the 2015 nuclear
deal is still in question.
Crucial for INSTEX's success will be whether participating states also develop mechanisms for European companies and their
employees that protect them from the expected American sanctions and compensate for any damages incurred. The legislative instrument
for this exists: The EU's blocking statute. It just needs to be updated to meet the new requirements.
Read more: US welcomes German firms' compliance on Iran sanctions
International transactions independent of the dollar
The knowledge and experience gained in the process could later be transferred to other areas, such as European initiatives
in international monetary transactions. This expertise could then come in handy for establishing payment channels independent
of the American financial system and the dollar, which the US also uses as a lever in its sanctions policy.
Two pieces of good news in two days, Tulsi Gabbard winning acknowledgement and respect in the debate, and this encouraging
sign from Europe. A person could almost get used to thinking common sense is gaining ground. Thank you, leveymg, for posting
this.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this baffling
part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week, Iranian
Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would mainly
be for medicines and...food (?)
Right now, it's unclear which way this is going to go. If Europe bows to American power, again, it will turn out very badly
for everyone. Iraq times ten.
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
...just fine. India pays Iran for oil in gold. Europe would be smart to convert to the Yuan/gold convertible bond as a trading
currency to use with Iran, and hold reserves in that. It's redeemable for gold at many settlement banks around the world. It was
designed as a trading currency to use outside the SWIFT system. All the groundwork was painstakingly laid just for this purpose.
Food for oil. What an insult. Europe wants it both ways. They should grow up and start leading the world instead of hiding
behind Uncle Sams petticoat.
[edited to correct]
this news. earlier today (yesterday?) i'd grabbed this
link at RT.com that includes this
baffling part toward the end, with zero citation, i'll add:
"However, the EU's efforts to set up the long-promised payment channel have not satisfied Tehran. Earlier this week,
Iranian Foreign Ministry spokesman Seyed Abbas Moussavi called INSTEX a " faux thing of no practical use ," according to
Iranian media.
He later said that if this turns out to be the case, the Islamic Republic will not accept it and may change its commitments
under the nuclear deal that Brussels is trying to hold on to."
i do remember tehran had complained earlier (as the EU dithered) that it wasn't operational, and when it was so, it would
mainly be for medicines and...food (?)
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it did
before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the agreement.
But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear what they can
do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum of
our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest in
Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
Iran's main demand in talks aimed at saving its nuclear deal is to be able to sell its oil at the same levels that it
did before Washington withdrew from the accord a year ago, an Iranian official said on Thursday. ...
Senior officials from Iran and the deal's remaining parties will meet in Vienna on Friday with the aim of saving the
agreement. But with European powers limited in their ability to shield Iran's economy from U.S. sanctions it is unclear
what they can do to provide the large economic windfall Tehran wants.
"What is our demand? Our demand is to be able to sell our oil and get the money back. And this is in fact the minimum
of our benefit from the deal," the official told reporters on condition of anonymity. "We are not asking Europeans to invest
in Iran... We only want to sell our oil."
"... Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or secret operations will be involved. ..."
"... Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial crisis of immense proportions around the world ..."
"... The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200 - $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're talking BIG MONEY!!} ..."
"... Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the Global Derivatives markets. ..."
The official story, as usual, is a bunch of hooey. Trump wouldn't bat an eye over the death
of 150 Iranians. In addition to the worries about losing an aircraft carrier: the military
high command probably let him know that the much vaunted, and outlandishly expensive, force
of F-35s, will quickly lose its effectiveness if exposed to probing by the high tech radars
the Russians have developed, and that are used in conjunction with at least the S-400
antiaircraft and antimissile defense system.
So the question is, if the stealth advantage of the F-35 is only good for a limited time,
is this particular geostrategic confrontation worth using up that particular asset??
Then there is the whole question of whether the Iranians would close the Straits of Hormuz
in response to a major air raid on their nuclear facilities; this leads to some much more
important issues.
Despite the blathering about "international waters" and "freedom of navigation" the
facts are that the Straits of Hormuz are only 21 miles wide. So all the water in them is
either in Iranian territory to the north or Omani to the south. They would be entirely within
their rights, as elucidated in the International Law of the Sea, to close the straits after
some sort of military strike against them (for what that is worth, which is something at
least as far as public opinion outside of the U.S. is concerned). The Iranians have stated
that if and when they close the straits they will announce it publicly, no subterfuge or
secret operations will be involved.
Since nearly 30% of the World's oil moves through those straits cutting them off will
cause an immediate spike in oil prices. Prices of $100 - $300 a barrel would be reached
within a few days. If the Straits of Hormuz were closed for a longer period we could easily
see prices rise to $1,000 a barrel according to Goldman Sachs projections (see Escobar
article cited below).
Anything over $150 a barrel would trigger an economic, industrial, and financial
crisis of immense proportions around the world . The financial and speculative house of
cards, that the ruling classes of the U.S.-led Finance Capital Bloc depends on for their
dominance of world capital and markets, would likely come tumbling down.
The amount of derivatives that are swirling about the planet and that are traded and
created constantly is estimated to be from $1.2 - $2.5 Quadrillion. That's right from $1,200
- $2,500 Trillion or $1,200,000 - $2,500,000 Billion {remember Illinois Senator Everett
Dirksen, who once said "a billion here and a billion there and first thing you know, You're
talking BIG MONEY!!} (See "World Derivatives Market Estimated As Big As $1.2 Quadrillion
Notional, as Banks Fight Efforts to Rein It In", March 26, 2013, Yves Smith, "Naked
Capitalism", at <
https://www.nakedcapitalism... >, and "Iran Goes for 'Maximum Counter-pressure' ",
June 21, 2019, Pepe Escobar, "Strategic Culture Foundation", at <
https://www.strategic-cultu... >, and "Global Derivatives: $1.5 Quadrillion Time
Bomb", Aug 24, 2015, Stephen Lendman, Global Research, at <
https://www.globalresearch.... >).
Just like during the 2007 - 2008 crisis the various elements of shadow banking, and
speculation would collapse. Remember that total world production of and trade in actual
products is only about about $70 - $80 Trillion, or perhaps less than 1/31st the size of the
Global Derivatives markets.
All the world's elite capitalists, be they Western or Asian or from elsewhere, maintain
homes in numerous places. One reason for this is so they have somewhere to go, if they need
to flee from environmental and/or socioeconomic disaster and the resultant chaos in their
primary place of residence. As we move ever deeper into this extremely severe and ongoing
Crisis of Capitalism, these issues will continue to become more acute.
So we can rest assured that; in addition to the crazed war-mongers Bolton and Pompeo (and
their supporters and backers) whispering in Trump's ear to "go ahead and attack the
Iranians"; and in addition to the somewhat more sober counsel of General Dunford and other
members of the top military command; that titans of finance capital were undoubtedly on the
phone warning "Bone-Spur Don" that his digs in Manhattan and Florida might not be entirely
safe if the worst were to happen in response to a military strike. The absurd story of Don
worrying about 150 Iranians is so ludicrous that it did not even pass the smell test with the
corporate controlled media for very long.
"... Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or with Security Council approval. ..."
"... UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years. In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still refuses to join or allow inspections. ..."
"... When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers became a festering sore. ..."
Any US attack on Iran in these circumstances could be a violation of the United Nations
Charter, which only allows the use of military force in self-defense after an armed attack or
with Security Council approval.
Let's remind ourselves of earlier US aggression and dishonesty during the Iran-Iraq war,
as recorded in Wikipedia:
In the course of escorts by the US Navy, the cruiser USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air
Flight 655 on 3 July 1988, killing all 290 passengers and crew on board. The American
government claimed that Vincennes was in international waters at the time (which was later
proven to be untrue), that the Airbus A300 had been mistaken for an Iranian F-14 Tomcat,
and that Vincennes feared that she was under attack. The Iranians maintain that Vincennes
was in their own waters, and that the passenger jet was turning away and increasing
altitude after take-off. US Admiral William J. Crowe later admitted on Nightline that
Vincennes was in Iranian territorial waters when it launched the missiles. At the time of
the attack, Admiral Crowe claimed that the Iranian plane did not identify itself and sent
no response to warning signals he had sent. In 1996, the United States expressed their
regret for the event and the civilian deaths it caused.
Trump now wants to impose further crippling sanctions on Iran and her people while the
UK's Foreign Office minister Andrew Murrison has just been to Tehran calling for "urgent
de-escalation" and cheekily criticising Iran's "regional conduct" and its threat to stop
complying with the nuclear deal, which the US recklessly abandoned but the UK remains
committed to.
Good news about Murrison, though. A medical man, he voted against the Iraq war but as a
Navy reservist was called up to do a 6 month tour of duty there. Perhaps Murrison should go
see Trump and ask:
Why is he not more concerned about Israel's nuclear arsenal and the mental state of the
Israeli regime, which are the real threat to the region and beyond?
Why isn't he slapping sanctions on Israel for its refusal to sign up to the NPT or
engage constructively on the issue of its nuclear and other WMD programmes, not to mention
its repeated defiance of international and humanitarian laws in the Holy Land?
Trump meanwhile has signed an executive order targeting Iran's leadership with
hard-hitting new sanctions supposedly needed to deny their development of nuclear weapons.
"Never can Iran have a nuclear weapon," Trump has decreed. He added: "We will continue to
increased pressure on Tehran until the regime abandons its dangerous activities and its
asperations, including the pursuit of nuclear weapons, increased enrichment of uranium,
development of ballistic missiles, engagement and support for terrorism, fuelling of foreign
conflicts and belligerent acts...." Achingly funny. Who else could all that apply to, I
wonder? Exactly. The Bully-Boy-in-chief himself and his best buddies in Tel Aviv.
Sowing the seeds of hatred
We have conveniently short memories when it comes to our abominable conduct towards the
Iranians in 1951-53 when a previous Conservative government, in cahoots with the USA, snuffed
out Iran's fledgling democracy and reinstated a cruel dictator, the Shah. This eventually
brought about the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and created the deep distrust between Iran and
the West. Is it not shameful that the present Conservative government is spoiling for another
fight? Shouldn't the Foreign Office now focus on exerting influence through trade and
co-operation?
The Iranian regime, like many others, may not be entirely to our liking but nor was Dr
Mossadeq's democracy 65 years ago. Besides, what threat is Iran to Britain? And why are we
allowing ourselves to be driven by America's mindless hatred?
When new recruits join British Petroleum (BP) they are fed romantic tales about how the
company came into being. William Knox D'Arcy, a Devon man, studied law and made a fortune
from the Mount Morgan gold-mining operations in 1880s Australia. Returning to England he
agreed to fund a search for oil and minerals in Persia and began negotiations with the
Mozaffar al-Din Shah Qajar in 1901. A sixty year concession gave D'Arcy the oil rights to the
entire country except for five provinces in the north. The Persian government would receive
16% of the oil company's annual profits.
Mozzafar ad-Din was naive in business matters and unprepared for kingship when the time
came. He borrowed heavily from the Russians and in order to pay off the debt he signed away
control of many Persian industries and markets to foreigners. The deal D'Arcy cut was too
sharp by far and would eventually lead to trouble.
He sent an exploration team headed by geologist George B Reynolds. In 1903 a company was
formed and D'Arcy had to spend much of his fortune to cover the costs. Further financial
support came from Glasgow-based Burmah Oil in return for a large share of the stock.
Drilling in southern Persia at Shardin continued until 1907 when the search was switched
to Masjid-i-Souleiman. By 1908 D'Arcy was almost bankrupt. Reynolds received a last-chance
instruction: "Drill to 1,600 feet and give up". On 26 May at 1,180 feet he struck oil.
It was indeed a triumph of guts and determination. The Anglo-Persian Oil Company was soon
up and running and in 1911 completed a pipeline from the oilfield to its new refinery at
Abadan. But the company was in trouble again by 1914. The golden age of motoring hadn't yet
arrived and the industrial oil markets were sewn up by American and European interests. The
sulphurous stench of the Persian oil, even after refining, ruled it out for domestic use, so
D'Arcy had a marketing problem.
Luckily Winston Churchill, then First Lord of the Admiralty, was an enthusiast for oil and
wanted to convert the British fleet from coal especially now that a reliable oil source was
secured. He famously told Parliament: "Look out upon the wide expanse of the oil regions of
the world!" Only the British-owned Anglo-Persian Oil Company, he said, could protect British
interests. His resolution passed and the British Government took a major shareholding in the
company just in time, for World War One began a few weeks later.
During the war the British government seized the assets of a German company calling itself
British Petroleum for the purpose of marketing its products in Britain. Anglo-Persian
acquired the assets from the Public Trustee complete with a ready-made distribution network
and an abundance of depots, railway tank wagons, road vehicles, barges and so forth. This
enabled Anglo-Persian to rapidly expand sales in petroleum-hungry Britain and Europe after
the war.
In the inter-war years Anglo-Persian profited handsomely from paying the Iranians a
miserly 16%, and an increasingly angry Persia tried to renegotiate terms. Getting nowhere,
they cancelled the D'Arcy agreement and the matter ended up at the Court of International
Justice at The Hague. A new agreement in 1933 provided Anglo-Persian with a fresh 60-year
concession but on a smaller area. The terms were an improvement for the Persians but still
didn't amount to a square deal.
In 1935 Iran formally replaced Persia as the country's official name internationally and
Anglo-Persian changed to Anglo-Iranian Oil Company. By 1950 Abadan was the biggest oil
refinery in the world and Britain, with its 51% holding, had affectively colonised part of
southern Iran.
Iran's small share of the profits became a big issue and so did the treatment of its oil
workers. 6,000 withdrew their labour in 1946 and the strike was violently put down with 200
dead or injured. In 1951 Anglo-Iranian declared £40 million profit after tax but handed
Iran only £7 million. Meanwhile Arabian American Oil was sharing profits with the
Saudis on a 50/50 basis. Calls for nationalisation were mounting.
As a result of the Persian Constitutional Revolution the first Majlis (parliament) was
established in 1906 and the country became a constitutional monarchy with high hopes. By
mid-century Iran not unreasonably wanted economic and political independence and an end to
poverty. In March 1951 its Majlis and Senate voted to nationalise Anglo-Iranian, which had
controlled Iran's oil industry since 1913 under terms disadvantageous to Iran. Respected
social reformer Dr Mohammad Mossadeq was named prime minister the following month by a 79 to
12 majority. On 1 May Mossadeq carried out his government's wishes, cancelling
Anglo-Iranian's oil concession due to expire in 1993 and expropriating its assets.
His explanation, given in a speech in June 1951 (M. Fateh, Panjah Sal-e Naft-e Iran
, p. 525), ran as follows...
"Our long years of negotiations with foreign countries have yielded no results this far.
With the oil revenues we could meet our entire budget and combat poverty, disease, and
backwardness among our people. Another important consideration is that by the elimination of
the power of the British company, we would also eliminate corruption and intrigue, by means
of which the internal affairs of our country have been influenced. Once this tutelage has
ceased, Iran will have achieved its economic and political independence.
"The Iranian state prefers to take over the production of petroleum itself. The company
should do nothing else but return its property to the rightful owners. The nationalization
law provides that 25% of the net profits on oil be set aside to meet all the legitimate
claims of the company for compensation It has been asserted abroad that Iran intends to expel
the foreign oil experts from the country and then shut down oil installations. Not only is
this allegation absurd; it is utter invention "
For this he would eventually be removed in a coup by MI5 and the CIA, imprisoned for 3
years then put under house arrest until his death.
Britain, with regime change in mind, orchestrated a world-wide boycott of Iranian oil,
froze Iran's sterling assets and threatened legal action against anyone purchasing oil
produced in the formerly British-controlled refineries. It even considered invading. The
Iranian economy was soon in ruins.... sounds familiar, doesn't it? Attempts by the Shah to
replace Mossadeq failed and he returned with more power, but his coalition was slowly
crumbling under the hardships imposed by the British blockade.
At first America was reluctant to join Britain's destructive game but Churchill let it be
known that Mossadeq was turning communist and pushing Iran into Russia's arms at a time when
Cold War anxiety was high. It was enough to bring America's new president, Eisenhower, on
board and plotting with Britain to bring Mossadeq down.
Chief of the CIA's Near East and Africa division, Kermit Roosevelt Jr, arrived to play the
leading role in an ugly game of provocation, mayhem and deception. An elaborate campaign of
disinformation began, and the Shah signed two decrees, one dismissing Mossadeq and the other
nominating the CIA's choice, General Fazlollah Zahedi, as prime minister. These decrees were
written as dictated by Donald Wilbur the CIA architect of the plan
The Shah fled to Rome. When it was judged safe to do so he returned on 22 August 1953.
Mossadeq was arrested, tried, and convicted of treason by the Shah's military court.
He remarked
"My greatest sin is that I nationalised Iran's oil industry and discarded the system of
political and economic exploitation by the world's greatest empire With God's blessing and
the will of the people, I fought this savage and dreadful system of international espionage
and colonialism.
"I am well aware that my fate must serve as an example in the future throughout the Middle
East in breaking the chains of slavery and servitude to colonial interests ."
His supporters were rounded up, imprisoned, tortured or executed. Zahedi's new government
soon reached an agreement with foreign oil companies to form a consortium to restore the flow
of Iranian oil, awarding the US and Great Britain the lion's share - 40% going to
Anglo-Iranian. The consortium agreed to split profits on a 50-50 basis with Iran but, tricky
as ever, refused to open its books to Iranian auditors or allow Iranians to sit on the
board.
A grateful US massively funded the Shah's government, including his army and secret police
force, SAVAK. Anglo-Iranian changed its name to British Petroleum in 1954. Mossadeq died on 5
March 1967.
Apologise? Hell no Let's demonise Iran!
But the West's fun came to an abrupt halt with the Islamic Revolution of 1979 and a great
British enterprise that started heroically and turned nasty ended in tears.
The US is still hated today for reimposing the Shah and his thugs and demolishing the
Iranians' democratic system of government, which the Revolution unfortunately didn't restore.
The US is widely known by Iranians as Big Satan and its regional handmaiden Israel
rejoices in the name Little Satan . Britain, as the instigator and junior partner in
the sordid affair, is similarly despised.
Moreover, Iran harbours great resentment at the way the West, especially the US, helped
Iraq develop its armed forces and chemical weapons arsenal, and how the international
community failed to punish Iraq for its use of those weapons against Iran in the Iran-Iraq
war. The US, and eventually Britain, leaned strongly towards Saddam in that conflict and the
alliance enabled Saddam to more easily acquire or develop forbidden chemical and biological
weapons. At least 100,000 Iranians fell victim to them.
"The United States used methods both legal and illegal to help build Saddam's army into
the most powerful army in the Mideast outside of Israel. The US supplied chemical and
biological agents and technology to Iraq when it knew Iraq was using chemical weapons against
the Iranians. The US supplied the materials and technology for these weapons of mass
destruction to Iraq at a time when it was know that Saddam was using this technology to kill
his Kurdish citizens. The United States supplied intelligence and battle planning information
to Iraq when those battle plans included the use of cyanide, mustard gas and nerve agents.
The United States blocked UN censure of Iraq's use of chemical weapons. The United States did
not act alone in this effort. The Soviet Union was the largest weapons supplier, but England,
France and Germany were also involved in the shipment of arms and technology."
While Iranian casualties were at their highest as a result of US chemical and biological
war crimes Trump was busy acquiring the Mar-a-Lago estate in Palm Beach, Trump
Castle , his Taj-Mahal casino, the Plaza Hotel in Manhattan and was
refitting his super-yacht Trump Princess . What does he know, understand or care about
Iran?
On the British side Foreign Secretary Jaremy Hunt was messing about at Oxford University;
and the front-runner to fill our Prime Minister vacancy, Boris Johnson, former Foreign
Secretary, was similarly at Oxford carousing with fellow Old Etonians at the Bullingdon Club.
What do they know or care?
Which brings us to today Why are we hearing nonstop sabre-rattling against Iran when we
should be extending the hand of reconciliation and friendship? And why are these clueless
leaders demonising Iran instead of righting the wrongs? Because the political establishment
is still smarting. And they are the new-generation imperialists, the political spawn of those
Dr Mossadeq and many others struggled against. They haven't learned from the past, and they
won't lift their eyes to a better future.
It's so depressing.
Economic sanctions: are they moral, or even legal?
The US and UK have led the charge on oil sanctions and other measures to make life hell
for Iranians. But are they on safe legal ground?
The International Association of Democratic Lawyers (IADL) in a statement on 26 November
2011, said they were deeply concerned about the threats against Iran by Israel, the United
States, and the United Kingdom. Referring to a report by the International Atomic Energy
Agency, IADL stated that those threats were unacceptable and dangerous not only for all the
region but for the whole of humanity, and that Article 2.4 of the UN Charter forbids not only
use of force but also the threat of force in international relations. The right of defence
does not include pre-emptive strikes.
The IADL also pointed out that while Israel was quick to denounce the possible possession
of nuclear weapons by others, it had illegally possessed nuclear weapons for many years. The
danger to world peace was so great as to require the global eradication of all nuclear
weapons, and to immediately declare the Middle East a nuclear free zone and a zone free of
all weapons of mass destruction, as required by UN Security Council resolution 687.
Furthermore, Article 33 states that "the parties to any dispute, the continuance of which
is likely to endanger the maintenance of international peace and security, shall, first of
all, seek a solution by negotiation, enquiry, mediation, conciliation, arbitration, judicial
settlement, resort to regional agencies or arrangements, or other peaceful means..." Economic
'terror' tactics such as the vicious sanctions deployed by the US, UK and their allies
– and the similar measures used by Britain and America in the 1950s to bring down the
government of Dr Mossadeq and reinstate the Shah – are simply not part of the approved
toolkit.
Remember the context
UN Security Council resolution 487 of 1981 called on Israel "urgently to place its nuclear
facilities under IAEA safeguards". Israel has been allowed to ignore it for nearly 40 years.
In 2009, the IAEA called on Israel to join the Non-Proliferation Treaty, open its nuclear
facilities to inspection and place them under comprehensive IAEA safeguards. Israel still
refuses to join or allow inspections.
The Zionist regime is reckoned by some to have up to 400 nuclear warheads at its disposal.
It is the only state in the region that is not a party to the Non-Proliferation Treaty (Iran
is). It has signed but not ratified the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty. As regards
biological and chemical weapons, Israel has not signed the Biological and Toxin Weapons
Convention. It has signed but not ratified the Chemical Weapons Convention.
In early 2012 the US intelligence community was saying that Iran hadn't got an active
nuclear weapons programme, and Israeli intelligence agreed. The Director of the National
Intelligence Agency, James Clapper, reported: "We assess Iran is keeping open the option to
develop nuclear weapons We do not know, however, if Iran will eventually decide to build
nuclear weapons..."
So the continual focus on Iran has been a deliberate distraction. We repaid Iranian
co-operation in D'Arcy's oil venture with corporate greed and diplomatic double-cross.
America and Britain are still smarting from the time when Iran democratically elected Dr.
Mossadeq, who sensibly nationalized her vast oil resources. Up till then the grasping British
were raking in far more profit from Iranian oil than the Iranians themselves.
Back in the 1920s the US State Department had described the oil deposits in the Middle
East as "a stupendous source of strategic power, and one of the greatest material prizes in
world history". Ever since, its designs on Iraq and Iran have been plain to see and it is
still ready to pounce on every opportunity.
When the CIA-engineered coup toppled Dr. Mossadeq, reinstated the Shah and his secret
police, and let the American oil companies in, it was the final straw for the Iranians. The
British-American conspiracy backfired spectacularly 25 years later with the Islamic
Revolution of 1978-9, the humiliating 444-day hostage crisis in the American embassy and a
tragically botched rescue mission. What should have been a sharp lesson for Western meddlers
became a festering sore.
The quest for the energy prize is not over. But it is no longer just about oil. Zionist
stooges in controlling positions in the West's corridors of power are pledged to ensure
Israel remains the only nuclear power in the Middle East and continues to dominate the region
militarily. And they are willing to spill Christian blood and spend Christian treasure in
that cause.
US National Security Adviser John Bolton, recipient of the Defender of Israel Award last
year and the Guardian of Zion Award the year before, is one such super-stooge. His stupefying
remark: "No-one has granted Iran a hunting licence in the Middle East" typifies the arrogance
of his ilk.
Stuart
Littlewood worked on jet fighters in the RAF. Various sales and marketing management
positions in manufacturing, oil and electronics. Senior associate with several industrial
marketing consultancies. Graduate Member of the Chartered Institute of Marketing (MInstM). BA
Hons Psychology, University of Exeter.
"... I'm going to go against the grain of the belt and road initiative theory above, and I admit the US is often hostile to Chinese relations with Europe, especially infrastructure. That might be so because the US hopes to compete in that market, just as to control eurasian access would give it a hegemonic position in new trade through the region. So I think that it is not aimed at stopping that initiative, it is about finding ways to control it. ..."
"... I think that the amplification of differences between Iran and US is an antagonism not viewable by the US public as other than part of either longstanding differences or due to US policy error, but I think that it should be considered that this confrontation is actually being framed up to place the US frontline, something the US itself maybe unwittingly invites by its own rhetoric and posturing of dominance. ..."
"... If the above is the true scenario, then I see little room for de-escalation left. ..."
"... Mental retarded is one form of mental disability. This isn't quite the whopper as "wiping Israel off the map " was. I do expect to see limited strikes against Iran within the next week. Predictions are usually wrong though as events are increasingly unpredictable. I sometimes think that the simple act of predicting something which is actually planned can cause the plan to change. Kind of like Quantum physics where observation of a quantum wave can change its quantum state. Observation alters reality. ..."
"... Trump needs Adelson's continued financial support to get reelected, and he wants a ROI, so I think something happens. Big or small? I expect a limited strike, at least I hope so. Something Iran can ignore at least cause only a token retaliation to save face and not cause escalation. ..."
"... TEHRAN – The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday that U.S. officials' claims seeking negotiations with Tehran is an act of "deception," saying such an offer is merely aimed at disarming the Iranian nation of its "elements of power." ..."
"... "Having failed to achieve its goal through pressure, the enemy is coming forward with an offer of talks, while assuming the Iranian nation is simple-minded," the Leader said, according to a Press TV report of his statements. ..."
"... Thanks for posting that link to the ProPublica investigation of the 2016 incident when Iran captured the US sailors in its waters. The whole story is quite large and I haven't finished it yet, but already it paints a very disturbing picture of the US Navy. ..."
Language isn't a problem as Pepe Escobar reports on The
Big Picture on the cusp of the G-20, which revolves round what appears to be the sold
front posed by RIC--Russia, India, China. A tidbit:
"What matters is that the Xi-Modi bilateral at the SCO was so auspicious that Foreign
Secretary Vijay Gokhale was led to describe it as "the beginning of a process, after the
formation of government in India, to now deal with India-China relations from both sides in a
larger context of the 21st century and of our role in the Asia-Pacific region." There will be
an informal Xi-Modi summit in India in October. And they meet again at the BRICS summit in
Brazil in November."
Clearly when the Big Picture's considered--as it ought to always--Iran's seen as the
weak-link in BRI/Eurasian integration by Outlaw US Empire planners, which is the actual
target beyond Iran. Given the number of nations climbing onboard the BRI Train, Trump won't
get many nations aboard his coalition. Aside from Saudi, UAE, Occupied Palestine, and UK, how
many nations have swallowed TrumpCo's lie that Iran's responsible for the current crisis?
Canada, Ukraine, Poland, Albania, Brazil, Netherlands, The Baltic States?
I'm going to go against the grain of the belt and road initiative theory above, and I admit
the US is often hostile to Chinese relations with Europe, especially infrastructure. That
might be so because the US hopes to compete in that market, just as to control eurasian
access would give it a hegemonic position in new trade through the region. So I think that it
is not aimed at stopping that initiative, it is about finding ways to control it.
This rubs off on Syria, which is the Mediterranean access point. To control Syria gives
control of that access point, it would remove direct Russian Mediterranean access also, as
well as buffer Israel. I think EU is more interested in securing the Mediterranean than any
new Eurasian trade route, except for similar reasons to US in terms of control and profit. As
stands I don't see EU achieving any great new trade by that route. So that ties Europe more
closely with US in my opinion. If you look at relations towards Russia, say Cyprus or Ukraine
or sanctions, they do not demonstrate a great friendship or trust, just a balance of power
and certain understandings.
I think that the amplification of differences between Iran and US is an antagonism not
viewable by the US public as other than part of either longstanding differences or due to US
policy error, but I think that it should be considered that this confrontation is actually
being framed up to place the US frontline, something the US itself maybe unwittingly invites
by its own rhetoric and posturing of dominance.
If the above is the true scenario, then I see little room for de-escalation left. To cede at this point by US
would be tantamount to giving Russia, China and Iran hegemony of the region, and I just don't think that is on the books, I
don't think China or Russia will be able to provide the reassurance western or US allied nations or states would accept. For
the US the main state it would not abandon would be Israel, but I don't think the US would just give up the hegemony that it
still has in the region just like that either.
"... [F]inding ways to control it" differs little from "stopping that initiative,"
particularly within the context of the stated #1 policy goal of the Outlaw US Empire--Full
Spectrum Domination. (Oh, and welcome to the forum.)
Pardon me for asking a few questions. First, have you read the White Paper (doc format)
issued by China's Politburo explaining to the Outlaw US Empire why it ceased trade
negotiations and set forth its conditions for their resumption? Second, Have you read Michael
Hudson's short
appraisal of that paper as it integrates with his analysis of the overall Outlaw US
Empire project?
Lastly, please elaborate on what you mean here: "... I don't think China or Russia will be
able to provide the reassurance western or US allied nations or states would accept." I look
forward to your reply.
Mental retarded is one form of mental disability. This isn't quite the whopper as "wiping
Israel off the map " was. I do expect to see limited strikes against Iran within the next week. Predictions are
usually wrong though as events are increasingly unpredictable. I sometimes think that the
simple act of predicting something which is actually planned can cause the plan to change.
Kind of like Quantum physics where observation of a quantum wave can change its quantum
state. Observation alters reality.
Anyways, assuming the strikes happen what happens afterward should be interesting. As
Trump said this wont include boots on the ground so it will be an air show. There is the law
of unintended consequences that applies, so who can say for sure.
But Trump needs Adelson's continued financial support to get reelected, and he wants a
ROI, so I think something happens. Big or small? I expect a limited strike, at least I hope
so. Something Iran can ignore at least cause only a token retaliation to save face and not
cause escalation.
"The Iranian Leader Sayyed Ali Khamenei has reminded Iranian officials of what Imam Khomeini
said during the US-Iran crisis in the 80s. He said: "The behaviour of the US can be compared
to the story of a lion in Persian stories. Carter most probably didn't know about this story.
Although it pains me to compare Carter to a lion, the story fits him perfectly. When a Lion
faces his enemy, it roars and breaks wind to scare his enemy. The lion ends by shaking his
tail, hoping for a mediator. Today the US is mimicking the lion's behaviour: the shouting and
the threats (roaring) don't scare us, and the US's continual announcement of new sanctions is
to us just like the lion breaking wind"."
TEHRAN – The Leader of the Islamic Revolution Ayatollah Ali Khamenei said on Wednesday
that U.S. officials' claims seeking negotiations with Tehran is an act of "deception," saying
such an offer is merely aimed at disarming the Iranian nation of its "elements of power."
Ayatollah Seyyed Ali Khamenei made the remarks in response to numerous offers of negotiations
recently put forward by U.S. President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo amid a
campaign of "maximum pressure" against Tehran.
"Having failed to achieve its goal through pressure, the enemy is coming forward with an
offer of talks, while assuming the Iranian nation is simple-minded," the Leader said,
according to a Press TV report of his statements.
"The Iranian nation will definitely make progress, but without you and on the condition that
you don't approach it," he said to U.S. officials.. .
here
Thanks for posting that link to the ProPublica investigation of the 2016 incident when
Iran captured the US sailors in its waters. The whole story is quite large and I haven't
finished it yet, but already it paints a very disturbing picture of the US Navy.
The dysfunctions and failures in the hierarchies read more like an old and rigid
institution than like anything one thinks of as military characteristics. I guess, then, the
truth is that the US Navy is such an institution - antiquated, privileged, and beyond
accountability.
I am not a fan of the US military but it still feels strangely sad to read of such decay.
One hates to see degradation in anything. It explains why warships run into things as if
blind, and why sailors seem impossibly incompetent. I have no doubt that the generals and
admirals of the world make their appraisals of US incompetence accordingly, and probably, as
professionals themselves, equally sadly.
It's off-topic but a very important article that I hope we see more discussion of in an
open thread or one relating to US military. That link again, this one to the source:
In 2016, 10 sailors were captured by Iran. Trump is making it a political issue. Our
investigation shows that it was a Navy failure, and the problems run deep.
by Megan Rose, Robert Faturechi, and T. Christian Miller June 24, 2:15 p.m. EDT
@ Grieved 102 I am not a fan of the US military but it still feels strangely sad to read of such
decay.
The Navy doesn't hit moving ships any longer, they've shifted to stationary ones -- alliding.
Jun 25, 2019
US warship allides with moored bulker in Montreal
A US Navy Freedom-class littoral combat ship (LCS) struck a moored commercial vessel in
Montreal as it was about to sail out for its new homeport of Mayport, Florida, on Friday,
June 21.
Eyewitnesses reportedly saw USS Billings, which is scheduled to be commissioned in August,
allide with the moored bulk carrier Rosaire A. Desgagnes as the former departed the wharf
at Montreal with an escort of tugs.
The warship was said to have lost control and ended up hitting the bulk carrier after its
mooring lines were let go. . .Billings' starboard side bridge wing suffered visible minor
damage. .
here
Save you the trouble, allide: To impact a stationary object.
Thank you Don Bacon #79 I have noticed that it is almost always the Navy that f#ucks up or
hoists the false flag, Gulf of Tonkin, USS Vincennes, playing chicken with enormous container
carriers in the sea of Japan, perhaps even the Japanese oil tanker in early June. The list is
much longer than this small excerpt.
Only last week another of USA great new destroyers clips a moored container vessel in
Canada. They are a maritime menace.
Is it a psychosis or a deliberate mission by narcissistic ships commanders? Something is
seriously out of control in the US Navy.
Navy Times, Jan 13 Worse than you thought: inside the secret Fitzgerald probe the Navy doesn't want you to
read
A scathing internal Navy probe into the 2017 collision that drowned seven sailors on the
guided-missile destroyer Fitzgerald details a far longer list of problems plaguing the
vessel, its crew and superior commands than the service has publicly admitted.
Obtained by Navy Times, the "dual-purpose investigation" was overseen by Rear Adm. Brian
Fort and submitted 41 days after the June 17, 2017, tragedy.
. . .Their report documents the routine, almost casual, violations of standing orders on a
Fitz bridge that often lacked skippers and executive officers, even during potentially
dangerous voyages at night through busy waterways.
When Fort walked into the trash-strewn CIC in the wake of the disaster, he was hit with the
acrid smell of urine. He saw kettlebells on the deck and bottles filled with pee. Some
radar controls didn't work and he soon discovered crew members who didn't know how to use
them anyway.
Fort found a Voyage Management System that generated more "trouble calls" than any other
key piece of electronic navigational equipment. Designed to help watchstanders navigate
without paper charts, the VMS station in the skipper's quarters was broken so sailors
cannibalized it for parts to help keep the rickety system working.. .
here
The US attempt to destroy the Iranian economy by bringing its oil exports to zero, thereby
causing untold suffering and death, is an act of war, and should be treated as such, think
sanctions on Iraq causing the deaths of 500,000 children. It is impossible to expect any self
respecting nation to even engage in a conversation when the US holds a gun to Iran's head. So
much for the hubris of the US hegemon that they feel insulted whenever a weaker country says
no, that they feel their credibility is at stake, then they double down on the threats.The US
only wants vassals, such an attitude can only result in war.
The US attempt to destroy the Iranian economy by bringing its oil exports to zero, thereby
causing untold suffering and death, is an act of war, and should be treated as such, think
sanctions on Iraq causing the deaths of 500,000 children. It is impossible to expect any self
respecting nation to even engage in a conversation when the US holds a gun to Iran's head. So
much for the hubris of the US hegemon that they feel insulted whenever a weaker country says
no, that they feel their credibility is at stake, then they double down on the threats.The US
only wants vassals, such an attitude can only result in war.
"... Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs. ..."
"... even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation. ..."
"... On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure. ..."
"... To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping tight control over the entire country at the same time. ..."
Iran's downing of a US military surveillance drone last week predictably led to another
flare-up in tense relations between Tehran and Washington. What could be the implications of a
potential conflict between the two nations? Right after the Global Hawk UAV was shot down, the
New York Times reported that US President Donald Trump approved military strikes against Iran,
but then changed his mind.
Let's start by saying that the decision to launch a military operation against Iran (which
is what this is really about), including the specific time and place, would have to be taken by
a very small group of top US political and military officials. At such meetings, no leaks could
possibly occur by definition.
Now, let's take a look at some of the details. The difference between a 'strike' and an
'operation' is quite significant, at the very least in terms of duration, and forces and
equipment involved. It would be nice to know if the NYT actually meant a single airstrike or an
entire air operation.
Amusingly enough, the publication reported that the strikes were scheduled for early morning
to minimize the potential death toll among the Iranian military and civilians. It's worth
pointing out that the US has never cared about the number of victims either among the military
personnel or the civilian population of its adversaries.
Moreover, the purpose of any military conflict is to do as much damage to your enemy as
possible in terms of personnel, military hardware and other equipment. This is how the goals of
any armed conflict are achieved. Of course, it would be best if civilian losses are kept to a
minimum, but for the US it's more of a secondary rather than a primary objective.
The US Navy and Air Force traditionally strike before dawn with one purpose alone – to
avoid the antiaircraft artillery (both small and medium-caliber), as well as a number of air
defense systems with optical tracking, firing at them. Besides, a strike in the dark hours of
the day affects the morale of the enemy personnel.
Here we need to understand that Iran would instantly retaliate, and Tehran has no small
capabilities for that. In other words, it would be a full-scale war. For the US, it wouldn't
end with one surgical airstrike without consequences, like in Syria. And the US seems to have a
very vague idea on what a military victory over Iran would look like.
There is no doubt that a prolonged air campaign by the US will greatly undermine Iran's
military and economic potential and reduce the country to the likes of Afghanistan, completely
destroying its hydrocarbon production and exports industries.
To say how long such a campaign could last would be too much of a wild guess, but we have
the examples of Operation Desert Storm in 1991 when airstrikes lasted for 38 days, and
Yugoslavia in 1991 when the bombing continued for 78 days. So, theoretically, the US could bomb
Iran for, say, 100 days, wrecking the country's economy and infrastructure step by step.
However, the price the US would have to pay for starting such a military conflict may turn
out to be too high.
For instance, Iran can respond to US aggression by launching intermediate and shorter-range
ballistic missiles to target oil and gas fields and terminals in Saudi Arabia, Qatar, Kuwait,
and the UAE.
Should such a war really happen, the stakes would be very high, so there is every reason to
assume that Iran's missiles would not only be equipped with conventional high explosive
fragmentation warheads, but would also carry toxic agents and dirty bombs.
Firstly, it should be pointed out that even though the capabilities of US intelligence
agencies are almost limitless, quite a few Iranian missile launching sites remain undiscovered.
Secondly, US air defense systems in the Persian Gulf, no matter how effective, would not shoot
down every last Iranian missile. And even a handful of Tehran's missiles reaching critical
infrastructure in the Persian Gulf region would be enough to cause devastation.
On top of that, there are more questions than answers regarding the reliability of the
antimissile and air defense systems that the Persian Gulf monarchies deployed to defend their
hydrocarbon terminals and other oil and gas infrastructure.
If such a scenario came true, that would bring inconceivable chaos to the global economy and
would immediately drive up oil prices to $200-250 per barrel – and that's the lowest
estimate. It is these implications that are most likely keeping the US from attacking Iran.
To solve the problem of Iran once and for all, the US would need to mount a large-scale
ground operation, with the US Army invading the country. America would have to wipe out both
regular Iranian forces and the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, unseat the current leadership
of Iran, and have a military presence in every major city for the next 10 to 15 years, keeping
tight control over the entire country at the same time.
For the record, the US failed to do that even in Afghanistan, which is several times smaller
than Iran in terms of both territory and population. And almost 18 years of fighting later, the
US has achieved next to nothing.
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
The statements, views and opinions expressed in this column are solely those of the author
and do not necessarily represent those of RT.
GREG WILPERT It's not clear what impact these new sanctions will have on Iran, but the sanctions
that have already been imposed since the US withdrew from the JCPOA last year have had a
serious effect on Iran's economy. According to oil industry analysts, Iranian oil exports have
dropped from 2.5 million barrels per day in April 2013, to about 300,000 barrels per day
currently. The latest sanctions come on the heels of heightened tensions. Last week, Secretary
of State Mike Pompeo accused Iran of attacking two oil tankers in the Strait of Hormuz. Then
later that week, Iran downed an expensive US drone over the same strait saying that it had
entered Iranian airspace. President Trump later revealed that the US was about to retaliate
over the weekend with an airstrike against Iran, but Trump changed his mind in the last minute
and launched a cyber-attack against Iranian military facilities instead. Joining me now to
discuss the latest in the confrontation between the US and Iran is Colonel Larry Wilkerson. He
is former Chief of staff to the Secretary of State Colin Powell, and now a Distinguished
Adjunct Professor of Government and Public Policy at the College of William and Mary. Thanks
for joining us again, Larry.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be with you.
GREG WILPERT So let's start with the sanctions. As I said, it's far from clear whether these
latest sanctions mean anything, but the earlier sanctions are certainly having an effect on
Iran, shrinking its economy and causing shortages. Now Trump argued that he called off the
airstrike on Iran because he had been told that up to 150 people could have been killed, and
that this would have been a disproportionate response to shooting down their drone, but there
are reports that Iranians are having trouble accessing lifesaving medicines, such as for cancer
treatment. Now, what do you make of this rationale for calling off the airstrike but then at
the same time intensifying sanctions?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON There is no question that the sanctions we have on Iran -- and for
that matter on North Korea, and on Venezuela, perhaps even still do on Venezuela -- constitute
economic warfare. That's the reality that the world doesn't seem to want to address because the
United States is so powerful and that their economies and financial networks are so wrapped up
with us. That said, it's not like -- And the crassness of the United States with regard to
these sanctions was about saved by none other than Madeleine Albright best when she was
confronted with a number of Iraqi children who were dying as a result of the sanctions we had
on Saddam Hussein. And she simply said, well I thought it was worth it. Worth it -- to kill all
those children? The sanctions regimes we execute though, are a little bit more sophisticated, a
little bit more well-aimed, more precisely aimed these days.
I was very much associated with the ones on North Korea, ones on Iraq, the way we tried to
smarten them up and so forth. The ones on Iran I think are having a very meaningful impact in
terms of cutting down on Iran's ability to do everything that it does, including as you pointed
out to sell oil. But that said, if Saddam Hussein could evade the sanctions that were on him to
the extent that we now know he did, and we know from past experience how well the Kims evaded
sanctions in North Korea and invented ways to get around them -- criminal activity like
counterfeiting American hundred-dollar bills, for example. And other things that I know about
sanctions, I would say the Iranians would be able to survive these no matter how tight we think
we've made them. By and large, the Iranian government -- the Majlis, the judiciary, the
Ayatollahs, the Guardian Council, the IRGC, the Quds Force -- they don't care about the Iranian
people. That's one thing we ought to say more often and more frequently because it's true.
Corruption is so rife in Iran and all sanctions do is increase the money in the hands of
those who are corrupt, like the IRGC and the Quds Force. So despite all these statistics and
everything -- Look at oil, for example. ISIS, we now know, survived quite richly off its oil
sales and we know that Turkey was behind most of the facilitation of those oil sales. The same
thing is going to happen with Iran, so official statistics are really meaningless. That said,
the sanctions are biting, but I don't think they're ever going to bite to the extent that
someone's going to come forward like our Mr. Zarif and say, okay John. Okay Mike. Okay Donald.
We're ready to talk. It is just not gonna happen.
Even a so-called "surgical strike" on targets within Iran risks the Iranians closing the
straight of Hormuz and blocking all oil shipments– somewhere between 20%- 30% or
world's oil exports. World oil prices would skyrocket and the entire world's economy would be
in chaos. Trillion$ in derivatives would instantly be at risk. There is no way the US
military, or the Saudis can prevent this. I believe this is the real reason Trump supposedly
cancelled the planned retaliatory strike for Iran's shoot-down of our drone.
Iran knows that sanctions on Iraq during the 90's killed over 500,000 Iraqi children. Even
though Col. Wilkerson says Iran's leadership doesn't care about its people, they certainly
care more than the US does and won't be willing to sit on their hands and watch this happen.
They will resist with force if necessary and make the US and its subservient allies pay the
price.
This is about gas, but most info probably can be extrapolated on oil well too...
Notable quotes:
"... " While hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits have accrued to hundreds of millions of people, the amount of shareholder value destruction registers in the hundreds of billions of dollars," he said. "The industry is self-destructive." ..."
"... Schlotterbeck's remarks, delivered to petrochemical and gas industry executives at the David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, come from an individual uniquely positioned to understand how major Marcellus drillers make financial decisions -- because he so recently ran a major shale gas drilling firm. Schlotterbeck now serves as a member of the board of directors at the Energy Innovation Center Institute, a nonprofit that offers energy industry training programs. ..."
"... Since 2015, there's been 172 E&P company bankruptcies involving nearly a hundred billion dollars of debt." ..."
"... At the Friday conference, he displayed a slide showing the stock prices of eight major Marcellus shale gas drillers: Antero, Range Resources, Cabot Oil and Gas, Southwestern Energy, CNX Gas, Gulfport, Chesapeake Energy, and EQT , the company that Schlotterbeck ran until he resigned in March 2018. Seven of the eight companies saw their stock prices fall between 40 percent and 95 percent since 2008, the slide showed. ..."
"... " Excluding capital, the big eight basin producers have destroyed on average 80 percent of the value of their companies since the beginning of the shale revolution," Schlotterbeck said. "This is not the fall from the peak price during the shale decade, this is the drop in their share price from before the shale revolution began." ..."
"... " Nearly every American has benefited from shale gas, with one big exception," he said, "the shale gas investors." ..."
"... " The fact is that every time they put the drill bit to the ground, they erode the value of the billions of dollars of previous investments they have made," he said. "It's frankly no wonder that their equity valuations continue to fall dramatically." ..."
"... " As a result of investor pressure, all these companies have committed to lower growth rates and to live within cash flow," said Schlotterbeck. He noted that the drillers had slashed their gas production growth forecasts from over 20 percent down to 11 percent this year. "Yet both the gas commodity market and the equities market are saying this is not nearly enough of a cut." ..."
"... " And at $2 even the mighty Marcellus does not make economic sense," he said, later clarifying that that included both "dry" gas wells, which produce mostly methane, and "wet" gas wells, which also produce the natural gas liquids ( NGL s) that can be used by the petrochemical industry as raw materials for making plastic and chemicals. "Wet gas is better, but nobody's making money at $2 gas." ..."
"... " I tell you this because the current gas commodity price environment is not sustainable and higher gas prices are required for the shale revolution to continue," Schlotterbeck said. "Exactly what prices are required for the industry to become reasonably healthy is hard to predict." ..."
By Sharon Kelly, an attorney and freelance writer based in Philadelphia. She has reported
for The New York Times, The Guardian, The Nation, National Wildlife, Earth Island Journal, and
a variety of other
publications. Prior to beginning freelance writing, she worked as a law clerk for the ACLU of
Delaware.
Originally published at DeSmogBlog .
Steve Schlotterbeck, who led drilling company EQT as it expanded to become the nation's
largest
producer of natural gas
in 2017 , arrived at a petrochemical industry conference in Pittsburgh Friday morning with
a blunt message about shale gas drilling and fracking.
" The shale gas revolution has frankly been an unmitigated disaster for any buy-and-hold
investor in the shale gas industry with very few limited exceptions," Schlotterbeck, who left
the helm of EQT last year, continued. "In fact, I'm not aware of another case of a disruptive
technological change that has done so much harm to the industry that created the change."
" While hundreds of billions of dollars of benefits have accrued to hundreds of millions of
people, the amount of shareholder value destruction registers in the hundreds of billions of
dollars," he said. "The industry is self-destructive."
Schlotterbeck is not the first industry insider to ring alarm bells about the shale
industry's record of producing vast amounts of gas while burning through far more cash than it
can earn by selling that gas. And drillers' own numbers speak for themselves. Reported spending
outweighed income for a group of 29 large public shale gas companies by $6.7 billion in 2018,
bringing the group's 2010 to 2018 cash flow to a total of negative $181 billion, according to a
March 2019
report by the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis.
But Schlotterbeck's remarks, delivered to petrochemical and gas industry executives at the
David L. Lawrence Convention Center in Pittsburgh, come from an individual uniquely positioned
to understand how major Marcellus drillers make financial decisions -- because he so recently
ran a major shale gas drilling firm. Schlotterbeck now serves as a member of the board of
directors at the Energy Innovation Center Institute, a nonprofit that offers energy industry training programs.
His warnings on Friday were also offered in unusually stark terms.
'Destroyed on
Average 80 Percent of the Value of Their Companies'
" The technological advancements developed by the industry have been the weapon of its own
suicide," Schlotterbeck added, referring to the financial impacts of shale gas drilling on
shale gas drillers. "And unfortunately, the industry still has not fully realized how it's
killing itself. Since 2015, there's been 172 E&P company bankruptcies involving nearly a
hundred billion dollars of debt."
" In a little more than a decade, most of these companies just destroyed a very large
percentage of their companies' value that they had at the beginning of the shale revolution,"
he said. "It's frankly hard to imagine the scope of the value destruction that has occurred.
And it continues."
At the Friday conference, he displayed a slide showing the stock prices of eight major
Marcellus shale gas drillers: Antero, Range Resources, Cabot Oil and Gas, Southwestern Energy,
CNX Gas, Gulfport, Chesapeake Energy, and EQT , the company that Schlotterbeck ran until he
resigned in March 2018. Seven of the eight companies saw their stock prices fall between 40
percent and 95 percent since 2008, the slide showed.
" Excluding capital, the big eight basin producers have destroyed on average 80 percent of
the value of their companies since the beginning of the shale revolution," Schlotterbeck said.
"This is not the fall from the peak price during the shale decade, this is the drop in their
share price from before the shale revolution began."
Mr. Schlotterbeck credited the shale rush with lowering power and natural gas bills
nationwide and offering significant economic benefits since 2008, when he said the shale
revolution began.
" Nearly every American has benefited from shale gas, with one big exception," he said, "the
shale gas investors."
Residents of communities where shale gas drilling and fracking have caused disruptions and
health issues might take exception to Mr. Schlotterbeck's categorical description of the
beneficiaries of shale gas, as might climate scientists who have warned that the shale
industry's greenhouse gas emissions are so severe that burning gas for power may be worse for
the global climate than burning coal.
Only Cabot Oil and Gas, which owns the rights to drill gas from roughly 174,000 acres , mostly in one county
in the northeastern corner of Pennsylvania, saw its stock price rise since 2008, according to
Schlotterbeck's presentation.
Cabot remains at the center of disputes
tied to water contamination, a gas well blow-out, and other problems in Dimock, PA . One major
lawsuit in that dispute was filed against Cabot back in November 2009 and legal battles
have continued since. The company has denied liability and settled on undisclosed terms with landowners along Carter
Road in Dimock.
Schlotterbeck made no mention of Dimock, focusing his remarks on the economic decisions made
by the shale gas industry's corporate management and boards of directors -- not just in the
past, but also in the present.
" The fact is that every time they put the drill bit to the ground, they erode the value of
the billions of dollars of previous investments they have made," he said. "It's frankly no
wonder that their equity valuations continue to fall dramatically."
Slowing the Flow?
More recently, shale gas producers have begun to feel the heat from investors who are
pushing to see signs that the gas can be produced not just in high volume, but also at a
profit.
" As a result of investor pressure, all these companies have committed to lower growth rates
and to live within cash flow," said Schlotterbeck. He noted that the drillers had slashed their
gas production growth forecasts from over 20 percent down to 11 percent this year. "Yet both
the gas commodity market and the equities market are saying this is not nearly enough of a
cut."
He noted that the at-the-wellhead price of natural gas in the Marcellus region was around
$8/ MMB tu back in 2008, and had plunged to less than $2/ MMB tu today. That price plunge was caused by a massive glut of shale gas production as drillers raced
first to hold acreage by producing gas, then competed to see who could make individual wells
produce at higher rates by using tactics like drilling longer horizontal well bores and
experimenting with the proppants used during fracking.
" And at $2 even the mighty Marcellus does not make economic sense," he said, later
clarifying that that included both "dry" gas wells, which produce mostly methane, and "wet" gas
wells, which also produce the natural gas liquids ( NGL s) that can be used by the
petrochemical industry as raw materials for making plastic and chemicals. "Wet gas is better,
but nobody's making money at $2 gas."
" Over the past year or so, most of the producers have shifted away from the phenomenal
growth rates of the past to more moderate growth projections," Schlotterbeck said. "The market
is clearly telling them that they haven't slowed down enough."
" Now I tell you all this because I think it has long-term implications for the end users of
natural gas. This situation cannot continue indefinitely," Schlotterbeck continued. "There will
be a reckoning and the only questions is whether it happens in a controlled manner or whether
it comes as an unexpected shock to the system."
Schlotterbeck's presentation separately
described additional challenges facing shale gas producers. Credit: Sharon Kelly
Frackers Projected Returns 'Should Not Exist' -- and Don't
He pointed to profit predictions in a "current investor presentation" by a shale driller he
did not name but described as one of the eight largest in the Marcellus. That driller, he said,
presently predicts it can make a 46 percent internal rate of return by drilling their dry gas
wells at current gas prices, and 61 percent internal returns from the same wells if gas prices
rise 36 percent.
" Economics and common sense will tell you that in a world of abundant similar
opportunities, rates of return at that level should not exist," Schlotterbeck said. "And they
don't."
" Really indicates to me that there's a lot of these companies that still don't get it," he
said. "They still think they're gonna earn 40, 50, 60 percent returns on their investment, even
after six years now of saying that and getting negative returns."
Schlotterbeck said there was a reason he made his presentation to the petrochemical industry
in Pittsburgh, where industry plans a massive construction spree to build plastics and chemical
factories in large part because gas prices have fallen so sharply. In December, the Department
of Energy cited the "tremendous low-cost resource from the Marcellus and Utica shales" as it
announced publication of a report touting benefits from building new petrochemical
infrastructure in Appalachia.
Drillers' financial troubles could have significant implications for the petrochemical
build-out in the Ohio River Valley.
" I tell you this because the current gas commodity price environment is not sustainable and
higher gas prices are required for the shale revolution to continue," Schlotterbeck said.
"Exactly what prices are required for the industry to become reasonably healthy is hard to
predict."
His own personal prediction, he added, was that prices would rise 60 to 80 percent, reaching
$3.50 or $4 per thousand cubic feet (mcf). And production growth will have to slow.
In response to an audience question about the impact of demand from new petrochemical plants
currently planned for the region, Schlotterbeck said that for drillers, those plans were "great
news on the demand side."
" But when producers are growing 11 percent per year, I don't think demand can keep up at
that pace," he added.
" The large gas producers will need to make further reductions in their drilling activity,"
he said. "Whether they do it on their own accord or if shareholders and bondholders revolt and
force them to, I think remains to be seen."
Shale Crescent USA , a petrochemical industry group pushing to transform the Ohio River
Valley and Appalachia into a plastics and chemical manufacturing center to rival the one on the
Gulf Coast -- known locally as "cancer alley" -- offered their projections, which predict
production will continue to grow rapidly, in a presentation following Schlotterbeck's.
Shale Crescent USA 's Wally Kandel and Jerry James presented at the Northeast Petrochemical
Exhibition and Conference in Pittsburgh on Friday. Credit: Sharon Kelly, DeSmog
Shale Crescent USA 's pitch to policy-makers in Pennsylvania, Ohio, West Virginia and
Kentucky and to plastics and chemical manufacturers has heavily emphasized the low cost of
shale gas and NGL s in the region.
On Friday, Wally Kandel, a Solvay Specialty Polymers vice president, and Jerry James,
president of Artex Oil Co., played back a video segment about Shale Crescent USA
aired by Bloomberg in June 2018.
" In Shale Crescent USA , you have the most abundant natural gas, the cheapest natural gas
in the developed world," Kandel told Bloomberg in the clip.
" It was that rapid increase in production that got us to start Shale Crescent USA ," James
told the conference in Pittsburgh Friday.
James didn't take issue with Schlotterbeck's conclusions about the shale revolution. "It's
profoundly changed the market," said James. "It's just absolutely amazing what we've been able
to do."
" We've achieved everything but big profits -- and I agree with him," James continued,
referring to Schlotterbeck, "but for people on the downstream side [i.e. industrial consumers
of shale gas and NGL s], this is revolutionary."
In brief comments following Schlotterbeck's remarks, Charles Schliebs of Stone Pier Capital
Advisors recalled an earlier -- but failed -- plan to drive demand for shale gas, one heavily
pushed by former Chesapeake Energy CEO Aubrey McClendon, who died in a car crash a day after
being indicted
by federal prosecutors with the Department of Justice over alleged bid-rigging.
McClendon, Schliebs recalled, had urged car makers to start building cars that would run on
compressed natural gas, or CNG . "Aubrey had amazing plans and was spending a lot of money and
doing things to push CNG in cars and in light trucks," Schliebs recalled.
These days, CNG passenger vehicles seem more like a passing fad, overshadowed by the rise of
electric vehicles. Schliebs noted that just two or three weeks before the petrochemical
conference, EQT 's CNG fueling station in Pittsburgh's strip district closed permanently and
quietly, adding that he'd been told its owners had no plans to open a replacement.
"... What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the lessons. ..."
"... The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons. ..."
"... Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle East." ..."
"... The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'. ..."
Iran forces will attack the US in peripheral areas including especially Iraq. ..news
reports...
U.S. officials are concerned that Iran has given the green light to Iranian-backed
militias in Iraq to attack the more than 5,200 U.S. forces helping Iraqi Security Forces. And
reflecting the unique situation in Iraq, some of those security forces are Iranian-backed
militias that fall under the control of the Iraqi government.
For three days in a row this week, rockets have been fired at areas where U.S. forces or
U.S. interests are located in Iraq. On Monday, rockets targeted Camp Taji, where the U.S.-led
coalition against ISIS is training Iraqi security forces. On Tuesday, more rockets were fired
at a compound in Mosul where U.S. troops are based. Then, another attack on Wednesday struck
an oil facility near where ExxonMobil has employees.
Rocket attacks Wednesday on American and Turkish oil facilities in southern Iraq, which
may have been carried out by Iranian-backed militias, are the latest example of how Iraq
finds itself squarely in the middle of increasing tensions between its two closest partners,
the United States and Iran.
Security measures were increased at one of Iraq's largest air bases that houses American
trainers following an attack last week, a top Iraqi air force commander said Saturday. The
U.S. military said operations at the base were going on as usual and there were currently no
plans to evacuate personnel. The stepped-up Iraqi security measures at Balad air base, just
north of the capital, Baghdad.
In Iran's immediate vicinity the US Navy is especially vulnerable. Iran has thousands of
rockets and missiles, and knows how to use them, plus 34 submarines wirh 533mm torpedoes.
There's the potential of over sixty torpedoes in the water in one salvo.
from USNI:
On Sunday, the Boxer Amphibious Ready Group with embarked 11th Marine Expeditionary Unit
entered the U.S. 5th Fleet area of responsibility, joining the Abraham Lincoln Carrier
Strike Group already on station in 5th Fleet.
As a result, the Navy now has 28,000 personnel deployed to the region. In comparison, the
Navy currently has 24,000 personnel deployed to the Western Pacific and Indian Oceans,
according to Navy data reviewed by USNI News.
"All of our training and our transit to 5th Fleet have made us prepared to respond to any
crises across the range of military operations," Capt. Brad Arthur, commander of Amphibious
Squadron 5 and the Boxer ARG/11th MEU team, said in a statement. . .
here
Don Bacon , Jun 25, 2019 9:35:55 AM |
179somebody , Jun 25, 2019 9:39:52 AM |
180
@Yeah, Right | Jun 25, 2019 9:06:21 AM | 175
What usually stops the US are elections. The Vietnam War deeply threatened the US establishment and they "think" they learnt the
lessons.
- no conscripts
- as few dead soldiers as possibele - see Iraq or
Afghanistan never mind the death of foreign civilians
So either others have to do the fighting (Syria) or the US bomb the country extensively to
make it safe for their soldiers. They miscalculated on this in Iraq.
This here is John Helmer's take - who I assume, gets his information
from the Russian military
The range of the new surveillance extends well beyond the S-300 strike distance of 200
kilometres, and covers US drone and aircraft bases on the Arabian peninsula, as well as US
warships in (and under) the Persian Gulf and off the Gulf of Oman. Early warning of US air
and naval-launched attacks has now been cut below the old 4 to 6-minute Iranian threshold.
Counter-firing by the Iranian armed forces has been automated from attack warning and
target location.
This means that if the US is detected launching a swarm of missiles aimed at Iran's
air-defense sites, uranium mines, reactors, and military operations bunkers, Iran will
launch its own swarm of missiles at the US firing platforms, as well as at Saudi and other
oil production sites, refineries, and pipelines, as well tankers in ports and under way in
the Gulf.
"The armed forces of Iran," said a Russian military source requesting anonymity, "have
air defence systems capable of hitting air targets at those heights at which drones of the
Global Hawk series can fly; this is about 19,000 to 20,000 metres. Iran's means of air
defence are both foreign-purchased systems and systems of Iran's own design; among them, in
particular, the old Soviet system S-75 and the new Russian S-300.
Recently, Iran
transported some S-300's to the south, but that happened after the drone was shot down
[June 20]. Russian specialists are working at Bushehr now and this means that the S-300's
are also for protection of Bushehr."
... ... ...
The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and
Iranian military staffs. "About coordination, of course there is participation of Russia in
intelligence-sharing because of Bushehr and ISIS. We have a long and successful partnership
with Iran, especially in terms of fighting against international terrorism." Two days after
the drone incident, Russian specialist media published Iranian video footage of the
movement of S-300's on trailer trucks. This report claims that although the S-300's are
wheeled and motorized for rapid position changes, the use of highway transporters was
intended to minimize road fatigue on the weapons.
Iranian military sources have told western reporters they have established "a joint
operations room to inform all its allies in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen and Afghanistan of
every step it is adopting in confronting the US in case of all-out war in the Middle
East."
... ... ...
In briefings for sympathetic western reporters, Iranian commanders are emphasizing the
Armageddon option; that is, however weak or strong their defenses may prove to be under
prolonged US attack, the Iranian strategy is not to wait. Their plan, they say, is to
counter-attack against Arab as well as American targets as soon as a US missile attack
commences; that's to say, at launch, not in-flight nor at impact.
The US cannot sustain any prolonged war with Iran (see elections, dead soldiers), nor can
they risk an escalation of small attacks. Nor can they isolate Iran diplomatically.
The Russian military source says there is now active coordination between Russian and
Iranian military staffs.
from Mehr News today
Heading a high delegation of Iran's Defense Ministry and the Army, Iranian Deputy Defense
Minister Brigadier General Ghasem Taghizadeh traveled to Moscow at the invitation of
Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoygu on Tuesday morning.
He will hold talks with Russian Defense Minister and officials, as well as visit
International Military-Technical Forum (ARMY-2019). . . here
@imo@142 - Your remark about MMT and my reply have magically gelled (in my simian brain) for a
grand unified conspiracy theory that explains a lot of oddities everyone has pointed out
previously.
The plan for last Thurs/Fri:
The incident happened Thursday before U.S. markets opened. There was the usual confusion
about exactly what happened most of the day and we had that odd statement by Trump just
before Thursday market close to the effect that maybe a rouge Iranian general made a mistake
in shooting down the (in this case: manned P-8A) in 'international waters'.
Worry, but not
panic in the markets on Friday. Oil prices would still have jumped, but derivatives don't
implode. War doesn't seem imminent. The public would have been admonished by Trump and the
MSM to 'wait for the facts' before rushing to judgement (also calming the markets). Iran
would have said nothing on Friday fearing the worse. It really couldn't have been planned
better - plenty of time to start the buzz before the weekend but avert derivative Armageddon
on Quad witching day.
Saturday is hate Iran a lot day:
The U.S. would hold off on any kind of confirmation until the weekend. CNN would
immediately roll out videos of weeping children and widows of 'our brave heros' and document
the impromptu memorials: pictures of the sailors, flowers, Teddy bears in camo, candles.
Outraged politicians would call for Iranian blood. And, of course, oil prices would have
skyrocketed.
The U.S. either conduct an attack on Iran this week or announce an impending one after
sufficient grief was milked from the 38 deaths. Trump would be shown solemly saluting the
flag-draped coffins in the C-5s arriving at Dover. If it *had* occurred in 'international
waters', the U.S. Nave would have recovered everything and kept the Iran Navy away from the
area. Casus belli - only a monster or traitor would dare question 'the facts'. Bibi would be
shrieking nonstop about how he told us so and encourage us to hurry up and destroy Iran for
them.
No sailors would have been hurt in this ruse:
I'm not making light of the thought of 38 dead U.S. sailors - none would have really died
in this scenario. The P-8A would certianly have been stripped of it's radars and advanced
electronics 'just in case'. Now there's plenty of extra room for those 38 frozen corpses
dressed in the appropriate Navy flight uniforms. Load 'em up! A USN P-8A pilot somewhere
safely ashore would be flying it via satellite just like regular drone pilots. Thanks, secret
Honeywell mystery box in the electronics bay!
Iran would have been screwed:
Video of USN ships recovering those broken (and now unthawed) bodies from the Straits
would have been required for the propaganda value. What could Iran say then? "We were
targeting the drone in our airspace, not the P-8. Honest!" Too late of course. WAR:ON.
Nobody would believe evil Iran.
Why even use a drone?
The drone would have to have been used for bait because Iran wouldn't intentionally shoot
at a P-8A (stuffed with frozen bodies or not) flying the same non-threating routes in the
middle of the Strait that they usually fly. The drone would also have been stripped but all
it's remaining cameras to capture the horrible, intentinal massacre by Iran. The plan would
have put that in Iranian airspace without explaining anything to Iran. It was suppose to draw
SAM fire.
What could have gone wrong?
The U.S. must have had enough EW on both aircraft to ensure the MQ-4A became invisible to
an approaching missile, which would eventually only seen the P-8A on it's terminal guidance
radar, not the drone. Except the Iraqis fired a SAM that used IR for terminal guidance, not
radar, ignoring whatever trick the U.S. used. The Iranian SAM may have also used a proximity
fuse, detonating it near the drone anyway. "Damn you, sneaky Iranians and your primative
IR-seeking SAMs with secret proximity fuses! Do you realize how much time and effort we put
in with our F-35s to figuring out the required radar tricks for this elaborate
scheme?"
Opening salvo:
This could also explain the bizzare 150 dead Iranian people figure Trump claimed.
There would have been a pre-planned retalitory strike on the Iranian SAM sites, but only
after market closed on Friday or on Saturday. An opening salvo only - total war would surely
follow. The U.S. would offer some fake deal. Iran would be spared destruction if they got on
their knees to their U.S. and Israeli masters. That just wouldn't ever happen, so WAR:ON. If
the U.S. went ahead with the retaliory strike based only on the drone alone, then we would
have looked like the bad guys.
How much might Iran have known?
Odd that the P-8A track wasn't also published by Iran. I wonder how they knew about the 35
frozen bodies or if they really thought there were 35 live crew? Guess we'll never know, and
nobody would believe such a nutty claim by Iran now. Frozen bodies? Remote controlled P-8As?
'Bait drone'? Hah - sounds like somethig that crackhead Paveway would dream up! Things may
have been differnt than this, but I think most people (here, anyway) were surprised by the
initial bewilderment of the Trump administration and DoD.
"What? They actually shot the drone down, not the P-8? *%^&! Why did they do
that? Get rid of the plane and dump those damn frozen bodies somewhere really deep. If you
suspect anybody on our team might be the whistleblowoing type, report them our CIA cleaner
pals to be disappeared. Hell, what do I care? My broker just called. I'm rich! F*ck the
navy - I'm retireing. See ya!"
And where the hell do you get frozen bodies today that can pass for U.S. military? Does
the Pentagon have a freezer of them somewhere for emergency use?
Some folks probably made some money [sigh...]
All I can say now is glad nothing happened as planned. I would give anything to know how
many commanding elite in the U.S. military and in-the-know congress things were buying oil
call options through proxies last week. Netanyahu and MbS were sure to have loaded up - they
LOVE money.
Thanks to somebody above with the Russia is behind Iran facts that show that attacks on
Iran are not possible but for show.
Thanks to PavewayIV with the curious scenario and confirmation that for some it is all
about MONEY
I think the EU leaders are a bit conflicted in anticipation of the G20, eh? Are they going
to join the Coalition of he Willing like their money boys tell them or do something else?
What a way to fight a war.......lets hope the fighting does not go stupider.
Existence of financial derivatives on oil (aka "paper oil") and the size of trade involving
them in world markets changes the whole situation. The USA can shoot themselves in a foot even if
the US armed forces would be able to completely destroy the Iraq army air defenses and bomb
strategic targets.
There seems to be a common theme in many articles that 'shock and awe' military strikes
will force Iran's leaders into unconditional surrender. While the US has the capability to
do this on its own, for political reasons the US is actively seeking coalition partners.
The reality is it doesn't matter how many partners the US can convince to attack Iran. No
matter how sophisticated Iran's cyber, missile or air defenses are, based on simple
logistics Iran will eventually lose a shooting war against the US and any coalition
partners. Iran knows this.
The real question when the bombing starts, is not the number of casualties that Iran can
inflict on her enemies but how long before Iran realizes it will lose and calls on all of
its asymmetric regional forces to attack in Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Yemen, UAE, Saudi Arabia
and the Straits of Hormuz.
Iran doesn't have to win a shooting war, it only has to buy enough time that its forces
can disrupt oil shipments to China, India, Japan, South Korean and Europe to break the
supply chains to the US. Currently the US imports/exports over 5T dollars per year, even
impacting this by only 20% should cause the trillions in derivatives to crush the world
economy. Given that war should always be the option of last resort is there still the
possibility for negotiations?
Iran has too many examples of the promises of US and West not matching our actions. The
current sanctions are crippling the economy and backing Iran into a corner. No matter what
Iran does what guarantees can be provided that sanctions won't be reapplied. Absolutely
none. The criteria constantly change. There is an old saying in martial arts, in a fight an
opponent with no way out is far more formable than an opponent who can walk away.
Even a wide scale nuclear attack that wipes out a third of Iran's citizens in the ten
major cities and a majority of the armed forces probably won't succeed. Once nuclear
weapons are used, Iran's leaders are no longer constrained to any regional targets. If
Russia and China jump in to the fray then it could get real, as in WWIII awfully quickly.
Even without Russia and China getting involved, Iran's leaders just might consider 30M or
more deaths acceptable if her enemies are crushed. There is precedent for this. Estimates
put Russia's losses due to all causes in WWII at 25-30M people, and Russia called it a
win.
So all the babble that Iran will fold in the face of 'shock and awe' is naïve. Iran
can't win a shooting war but if can lose with style. To think that Iran can be defeated
like Iraq is folly. Iran is not Iraq. Iraq is a local power, Iran is a regional one. Iran
is too large to be attacked by ground forces. That leaves airpower. Once the bombs start to
drop, all Iranian combat units have a minimum of 72 hours of war supplies. If the US and
the coalition partners don't achieve, 'unconditional surrender' in the initial strikes then
all bets are off for keeping the conflict local.
Many articles claim the tanker and pipeline attacks of the past two weeks are 'false
flags'. Hopefully they were, because if they were not, then Iran has just proven it's ready
and has the capability to strike anywhere in the region. Iran is quickly running out of
options and has no choice but to continue escalating regional tensions until something
gives. We are indeed living in interesting times.
Posted by: Don Bacon | Jun 24, 2019 4:58:26 PM | 59
Just to add on my recent visit to Iran. They are nearly western, much more so than
neighbouring Arab countries. But there are curiosities which keep them apart, like the hijri
solar calendar, which puts them in 1398, and the 1st of the year on 21st March. Impossible to
calculate the western date without mechanical aid.
Most that I met were anti-regime. but then they were middle class. It's not the middle
class which is voting for the regime. Rather it is a populist regime, like Trump's.
As a follower of Christ, and seasoned "fruit inspector"* I can confidently state the there
is more godly wisdom & compassion for humanity displayed by Iran, Russia, Iraq, Syria
& Palestine than ALL of the West & especially not by the likes of Pompeo, Pence,
Robertson, etc
* "By their fruits you shall know them" NOT by words alone
This may be totally naive, but how about this... Iran gets a couple nukes from somewhere,
ie. NK, Russia, Pakistan, India, Walmart... and announce it & put an end to this drawn
out dance... and force Israel, US, etc to come to terms with it. This is a war after all, and
Iran has been bullied long enough (as have we all)
I admit I have never been to Iran though I've met people who have visited the country as
tourists. I have done some reading on the country's history.
Being an Islamic theocracy, the fact that Iran uses the hijri calendar is no surprise. The
calendar is actually a lunar calendar of 12 months that is at least a week or a fortnight
shorter than the Gregorian calendar we normally use. (This explains why every year Ramadan
starts earlier than it did the previous year.) 21st March on the other hand is Nowruz
(Persian New Year) which among other things celebrates the spring equinox and is an
inheritance from pre-Islamic Persia.
I have read some information about the bonyads (charitable foundations) owned / managed by
the IRGC and other government organisations. These trusts (non-profit so they are exempt from
taxation) invest huge amounts in Iran's industries. Just the other day I was commenting at
another blog about a senior military guy in the Iranian armed forces, General Hossein Salami,
who works with a huge
IRGC-associated engineering firm that controls over 800 firms and employs over 25,000 mostly
technical and engineering staff . The income that bonyads obtain from a firm like
Salami's firm and others, which in Western countries would be considered "profit", is
distributed among IRGC members (or members of the other government agencies that run them) in
the form of subsidies for education up to and including college / university level,
healthcare and other social services.
My understanding is that most people who are members of the IRGC come from working class
families and especially families who lost breadwinners or other men of draft age during the
Iraq-Iran war (1980 - 1988).
Middle class and upper middle class layers would be the hardest hit by US sanctions on
Iran (they are the ones importing and buying overseas goods, and have the most contacts with
the Iranian diaspora) and won't have the protection of subsidies provided by bonyads or other
government organisations.
I have to say I find this talk of "the mullahs" disturbing.
I never see any collateral to demonstrate that the religious layer of Iran is actually
harmful to the people in any way. And on the contrary, everything I read about how the
religious layer is part of the governing system and the culture and welfare of the nation
seems pretty reasonable to me.
I keep coming back to the thought that this is after all the religion of the people of
this country. It is the particular way in which they approach the sacredness of the universe.
I'm not persuaded that it's more intelligent to regard the universe as being not-sacred.
To accept the benignity of religious people in positions of power and influence within a
state, you have to accept the positive aspects of religion, as well as the negative aspects.
This is where a lot of potential acceptance fails, of course.
~~
We keep hearing that it is the middle and upper classes that are disaffected with the
government (although typically the term "regime" is used). But in this cold-hearted,
neoliberal economic wasteland, surely the fact that the poor and the unprivileged are in
support of their government is not a study in "populism" but rather a study in successful
socialist principles at work?
And the link provided in the previous thread regarding Iran's leadership in the war on
drugs stated that over 8,000 Iranian police have died fighting the flow of opium from
Afghanistan. The position of the US in this trade is clear to everyone, and the reason to
sanction Iran - precisely to shackle the Iranian interdiction of the drug flow - is also
clear.
Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit
are greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a
socialist, revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue
actions purely from moral concern.
I like Khamenei. I envy a country that has a moral anchor such as he, a force that acts
not as its captain but as its pilot.
~~
No particular point to make. Just some words in support of devotion to the sacred, and the
moral strength to live a life, and direct a country, along moral lines, rather than
criminal.
The Shah came to power with USA + UK coup on 1953, he lacked legitimacy, that was his main
problem, he was not an indepdendt legimtimate ruler.
Understanding Iran revolution and the long historical march is too complicated. On the
surface and apperance it seems on political, ideoligical/ theoligical levels, but the
movement is deeply in cultural and social level. Otherwise it would not be able to survive,
resist and grow for 40 years. It may take another 40-50 years the movement bear fruits.
The Shah was a tragic figure in many ways. You are correct about being the servant of his
masters until he outgrew that and started having Persian Empire ambitions. Perhaps too soon
for the politics of the era. The west of the 1970's preferred a King Hussein of Jordan.
Quiet, unpretentious and cooperative.
The Shah was a super intelligent, extremely well informed and well-read, and a great
debater. No journalist was a match for him, not even the crass and arrogant Mike Wallace. But
inherently, he was a weak man with a character that did not match his ambitions. That
weakness did not allow him to follow through with his plans and he had great plans for his
country.
Having said that, IMHO, the Seven Sisters' decision to remove him, and him capitulating so
easy, was one the biggest mistakes in modern geopolitics. Look what has happened since then.
Furthermore, Dynasties and kings are in Persian DNA. I often laugh at the talk of democracy
in Iran, as you cannot have 4-5 Iranians sit together and agree to disagree. One idea always
has to come on top and the rest be damned.
Obviously, there are so many other factors and it would a lengthy discussion best to have
over a nice Cuban cigar and a single Malt.
@ C I eh? who wrote
"
Iran can pursue the strategy of Russia, patience and double dealing, indefinitely or till the
cows come home.
"
Totally agree.
In the case of bullies the best offense is a good defense and Iran showed it has good
defense to shoot down the spy plane and not the one with cannon fodder nearby
How many more bully nations other than Israel and the US are currently "active"?
None.
This is why the G20 will be interesting to see how much the global finance power struggle
shows itself.....the cows are coming home perhaps....
As alluded to by several and directly pointed to by me, Iran's defensive capabilities have
placed the Outlaw US Empire's King in check and have forced it to move into hiding on the
board behind what amounts to nothing of substance. I think it an amazing admission that the
self-proclaimed most powerful military EVER on Earth must ask for assistance to overthrow
what is a popular Iranian government--a government and people in a strategic location within
Eurasia on the cusp of initiating an geoeconomic/geopolitical system capable of upending the
Empire's #1 policy goal of attaining Full Spectrum Dominance. What nation other than the
usual co-outlaws will join in an action that is totally against its interests--what nation
wants, desires, to be dominated by another?
As I see it, the next move on the global chess board will occur at the G-20, and the King
will be placed in check again. However, the move required to get away from the check
situation won't be as simple as was just done today. It will require complex finesse of a
sort TrumpCo has yet to exhibit. It seems likely Trump will try to
redirect attention away from his Iranian failure, but that won't alter the fact that he
must move his King.
There has been much recent speculation about the restoration of monarchy in Iran in Western
news media which would suggest this is something currently occupying the minds of the, uh,
"best" and "brightest" brains over at Langley, Foggy Bottom and the bizarre ziggurat building at Vauxhall
Cross in London.
One little problem that our Western news media and their feeders may have overlooked is
that traditionally only men inherit the throne in Iran.
The current Crown Prince Reza Pahlavi has only three daughters. His younger brother Ali
Reza (committed suicide in January 2011) left behind one daughter.
Iran strikes me very much as being like Cuba, in that its good works that yield no profit are
greater than any that come from the western nations. Ir almost seems that only a socialist,
revolutionary nation has freed itself from the shackles of greed enough to pursue actions
purely from moral concern.
Posted by: Grieved | Jun 24, 2019 7:59:24 PM | 98
How does Iran strike you in this way? You have traveled in Iran? You have lived in
Iran?
Do actually you give a fuck about Iran and Iranians? (Be honest. I mean care they way you
care about your FAMILY.)
Iran has been kept artificaly retarded and its development plans halted. A million
Iranians perished in a needless war. Iranians are forced to accept outrageous intrusions on
Iran's sovereignty. Our best minds continue to leave. And now we're being threatened with
nuclear bombardment.
"Winning"?
Why don't you wish that on your own people. Hah?
One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of Iran
announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar. Can you imagine a developed Iran, in good
international standing, with a thriving modern port right on the Ohormozd [Hormoz] Strait? Do
recent events jingle a bell somewhere there, Grieved?
"Socialist"
A welfare state is not the same thing as a "socialist" system.
IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely
corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.
The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of that
species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical
snakes.
[Obviously mature readers recognize that in any gross characterization we omit stating the
obvious fact that "in most every grouping of people there are exceptional and principled
members." We state this here for those who are not.]
I highly doubt that Khamenei has even $0.01 worth of assets in the US, however the real
purpose of sanctioning Khamenei and other Iranian government officials (supposedly including
the Iranian Foreign Minister, Javad Zarif) is not to seize their assets but to make
international diplomacy more difficult. For example, if Khamenei were to travel to Iraq to
face to face discussions with the Iraqi Prime Minister the US would now have the legal
framework to sanction any company involved in the travel arrangements, accommodations,
insurance, etc... Sanctioning Javad Zarif is an especially dick move as he is one of the
leading Iranian moderates and was in favor of the original JCPOA agreement. I suspect that
when Javad Zarif tries to attend the next UN summit in New York the US will attempt to
sabotage his travel based on these sanctions.
This is also more proof that the US wants a war with Iran as they are trying to crush the
moderates within Iran in the hopes that 1) the hardliners will become ascendant within Iran
and that they will pursue policies that will make it easier for the US to justify their
eventual attack on Iran and 2) making it more difficult for senior government officials to
travel aboard will make Iran's international diplomacy less effective in developing a
international coalition in opposition to the war. China and Russia acting as proxies and
advocates for Iran will be vital for future discussions
(1) "Iran has been kept artifically retarded and its development plans halted. A million
Iranians perished in a needless war."
Do you realize that Iran was attacked by Saddam who was supported by the US and that the US
provided Saddam with vast quantities of chemical and biological weapons? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran%E2%80%93Iraq_War
(2) "One imagines it must have been very alarming to the Global Mafia when the Shah of
Iran announced the plans for the Port of Chabahar."
Did you know that the Shah was installed on 19 August 1953 following the overthrow of
democratically elected Prime Minister Mohammad Mosaddegh in Operation Ajax by the US and the
United Kingdom? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1953_Iranian_coup_d%27%C3%A9tat
(3) "IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side."
Sounds like the US system where the two wings of the bird of prey are the Democrats and
the Republicans (Upton Sinclair, 1904). Please read up on US Neofeudal Oligarchy before
throwing stones at regimes that do not meet your ideological viewpoint. https://www.oftwominds.com/blogjune19/lessons-rome6-19.html
Yes I understand why the US would want to rape Iran and Venezuela for their energy
resources. Without these pools of liquid energy the US Empire will collapse on itself. I
suggest you read 1Pathfinding Our Destiny for a reality check on the US system. https://www.oftwominds.com/Pathfinding-Our-Destiny-sample2.pdf
I suggest that you worry about the US Zionist "christian" endtimers seeking the rapture
than the Iranian Mullahs.
/div> Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate?
Or Brazil's? Or El Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian
issue. I live in a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and
maiming them but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and
I and my fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have?
What advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the
power, as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here
is not particularly enlightning for anyone.
Posted by: the pessimist , Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM |
132
Realist, what are you asking for? Are you wishing for Ukraine's fate? Or Brazil's? Or El
Salvador's? The political situation in Iran should be, by rights, an Iranian issue. I live in
a country that spends trillions making life miserable for others, killing and maiming them
but cannot afford to look after it's own people. This is by rights my problem, and I and my
fellow citizens should be working to correct this imbalance. What advice do you have? What
advice should I give you? We are caught in a terrible, foolish dance but have not the power,
as individuals, to escape. This is life. Enjoy some tahdig. Railing against people here is
not particularly enlightning for anyone.
Posted by: the pessimist | Jun 24, 2019 11:39:51 PM |
132
IRI runs a welfare state to keep the lower classes on their side. They are hugely
corrupted, even Ahmadinejad was screaming about it. It is not even remotely a secret.
The greed of the Mullahs is legendary. You clearly have never dealt with a member of
that species. I suggest you acquaint yourself with Iranian's assessment of our clerical
snakes.
I have had quite a few Iranians describe that situation to me. It is amazing how the
Christian religious leadership gets bashed, mostly rightly so, and the Mullahs get a pass. I
am sure they do get the job done shaking down the flock. Probably not as mullaevangelists on
TV but there are other ways. I bet one could amass quite a flock of daughters to your
harem.
A quick question: if there really were 35/38 American servicemen jammed into a P-8 and
dangled before the Iranians like a juicy bait on a hook then how, exactly, are they going to
view that display of casual recklessness w.r.t. their lives?
Wouldn't they be more than a little pissed off with the revelation that the Iranian
military cared more about their mortal souls than did their own superiors in the US chain of
command?
I was listening to a recent interview of Liberty survivors. One survivor just joined the
group after retiring from the intelligence establishment. He was on the fantail after the
ship got hit and described the whole thing including the Israeli torpedo boats flying their
flags firing at the Liberty. Later at port he had to retrieve the dead. He was threatened by
the naval brass to be silent and went on to work for them for the rest of his life.
DC is full of these guys "afraid for their careers and pension". Do not expect to much out
of them.
Grieved
I agree with you summation of the Governance of Iran. The supreme Leader has a fatwa on the
creating/ion of Nuclear weapons which he says is immoral. Well their you have it, a gaggle of
US presidents who only live to breathe the threaten use of nuclear weapons upon 'their
enemies', against a leader who wishers not the power of such a immoral weapon..
Oscar Peterson@48 - "...Targeting Saudi or UAE oil infrastructure is possible, but that
will be hard (and risky) if deniability is a goal..."
The second Iran is forced to resort to hitting Saudi or UAE oil infrastructure, we'll see
the Pepe
Escobar-described $1.2 quadrillion global financial Ponzi of fake money (derivatives)
implode and financial markets everywhere will be locked shut. In a matter of hours, not
days.
Now the Swiss banker's claim may be off by a few hundred trillion either way, but it
really doesn't matter. That's way too much money for some kind of secretive global financial
bailout - in fact, there isn't that much REAL money available in the whole world. The guy
that bought oil futures for pennies at $1000/bbl will now be a trillionaire. Except there
won't be anyone that can or will pay him. "But it's a futures contract - someone has to
buy his $1000/bbl oil. That's the rulez!" Yeah, he may as well have bought a stack of
Zimbabwe $10 trillion dollar notes instead and been a hundred trillionaire, for what that's
worth.
Pepe uses extremes to make his point, but oil doesn't really need to go to $1000/bbl. or
even $500/bbl. - $200/bbl oil will lock the oil derivative markets. Which will keep all
linked financial derivative markets (virtually all of them) locked or wiped out. The big
banks will be herding cats at that point and imploding themselves, and nobody will care about
fighting anyone in the Persian Gulf. Besides, all CENTCOM and USSOCOM personnel will be
needed back here in the United States to protect the government from the people.
Iran won't be affected much because the U.S. and Israel made sure they were never
allowed in the global financial sandbox. Poor countries with massive IMF loans? Yeah, they
won't care - the little people never saw a dime of that, anyway. Russia is as prepared as
possible and will do fine. China? Sorry. They're going down with everyone else. I'll let
everyone know how the food riots in the U.S. turn out. That's if I survive until 2025 when
the internet comes back up and if the planet isn't ruled by talking apes. Wait... that last
part already happened. Forget it.
I guess I'll just head north to steal a few barrels of tar sands from Canada. James: how
do I get there from Minnesota on foot? I won't have Google Maps. Nobody will. Do you have any
spare barrels?
Tensions in the Persian Gulf are reaching a
point
of no return
.
In recent weeks,
six
oil tankers
have been subjected to
Israeli
sabotage
disguised to look like Iranian attacks to induce the United States to take
military action against the Islamic Republic. Some days ago Iran rightfully shot out of the sky a
US Drone. In Yemen, the Houthis have finally started
responding
with
cruise and ballistic missiles to the Saudis' indiscriminate attacks, causing damage to the Saudi
international airport of Abha, as well as blocking, through
explosive
drones
, Saudi oil transportation from east to west through one of the largest
pipelines in the world.
As if the political and military situation at this time were not
tense
and complex
enough, the two most important power groups in the United States, the Fed and the
military-industrial complex, both face problems that threaten to
diminish
Washington's status as a world superpower
.
The Fed could find itself defending the role of the US dollar as the world reserve currency
during
any conflict
in the
Persian Gulf that would see the cost of oil rise to
$300
a barrel
, threatening
trillions
of dollars in derivatives
and toppling the global economy.
The military-industrial complex would in turn be involved in a war that it would struggle to
contain and even win, destroying the United States' image of invincibility and inflicting a mortal
blow on its ability to project power to the four corners of the world.
Just look at how surprised
US
officials
were about Iran's capabilities to shot down an advanced US Drone:
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the region."
The Fed and the defense of the dollar
The US dollar-based economy has a
huge debt problem
caused
by post-2008 economic policies. All central banks have lowered interest rates to zero or even
negative, thus continuing to feed otherwise dying economies.
The central bank of central banks, the Bank for International Settlements, an entity hardly
known to most people, has
stated
in writing
that "the outstanding notional amount of derivative contracts is 542 trillion dollars." The total
combined GDP of all the countries of the world is around 75 trillion dollars.
With the dimensions of the problem thus understood, it is important to look at how Deutsche Bank
(DB), one of the largest financial institutions in the world, is dealing with this. The German bank
alone has assets worth about 40 trillion dollars in derivatives, or more than half of annual global
GDP.
Their solution, not at all innovative or effective, has been to create yet another bad bank into
which to pour at least 50 billion dollars of long-term assets, which are clearly toxic.
"The bad bank would house or sell assets valued at up to 50 billion euros ($56 billion) –
after adjusting for risk – and comprising mainly long-dated derivatives.
The measures are part of a significant restructuring of the investment bank, a major
source of revenue for Germany's largest lender, which has struggled to generate sustainable
profits since the 2008 financial crisis."
Thus, not only has Deutsche Bank accumulated tens of billions of dollars in unsuccessful options
and securities, it seeks to obtain a profit that has been elusive since 2008, the year of the
financial crisis. Deutsche Bank is full of toxic bonds and inflated debts kept alive through the
flow of quantitative easing (QE) money from the European Central Bank, the Fed and the Japanese
Central Bank. Without QE, the entire Western world economy would have fallen into recession with a
chain of bubbles bursting, such as in public and private debt.
If the economy was recovering, as we are told by soi-disant financial experts, the central-bank
rates would rise. Instead, rates have plummeted for about a decade, to the extent of becoming
negative loans.
If the Western financial trend is undoubtedly heading towards an economic abyss as a result of
the monetary policies employed after 2008 to keep a dying economy alive,
what is the rescue
plan for the US dollar, its status as a global-reserve currency, and by extension of US hegemony?
Simply put, there is no rescue plan.
There could not be one because the next financial crisis will undoubtedly wipe out the US dollar
as a global reserve currency, ending US hegemony financed by unlimited spending power.
All
countries possessing a modicum of foresight are in the process of de-dollarizing their economies
and are converting strategic reserves
from US or US-dollar government bonds to primary
commodities like gold.
The military-industrial complex and the harsh reality in Iran
In this economic situation that offers no escape, the immediate geopolitical effect is a surge
of war threats in strategic locations like the Persian Gulf. The risk of a war of aggression
against Iran by the Saudi-Israeli-US axis would have little chance of success, but it would
probably succeed in permanently devastating the global economy as a result of a surge in oil
prices.
The risk of war on Iran by this triad seems to be the typical ploy of the bad loser who,
rather than admit defeat, would rather pull the rug out from under everyone's feet in order to
bring everybody down with him.
Tankers being hit and then blamed on Iran with no evidence
are a prime example of how to create the
plausible
justification
for bombing Tehran.
Upon closer examination, it becomes apparent that the actions of Bolton and Pompeo seem to be
aligned in prolonging the United States' unipolar moment, continuing to issue diktats to other
countries and failing to recognize the multipolar reality we live in. Their policies and actions
are accelerating the dispersal of power away from the US and towards other great powers like Russia
and China, both of which also have enormous influence in the Persian Gulf.
The threat of causing a conflict in the Persian Gulf, and thereby making the price of oil soar
to $300 a barrel, will not save US hegemony but will rather end up accelerating the inevitable end
of the US dollar as a global reserve currency.
Trump is in danger of being crushed between a Fed that sees the US dollar's role as the world's
reserve currency collapse, and the need for the Fed to blame someone not linked to the real causes
of the collapse, that is to say, the monetary policies adopted through QE to prolong the
post-crisis economic agony of 2008.
At the same time, with Trump as president, the neocon-Israeli-Saudi supporters see a
unique opportunity to strike Iran, a desire that has remained unchanged for 40 years.
As foolish as it may seem, a war on Iran could be the perfect option that satisfies all power
groups in the United States. The hawks would finally have their war against Tehran, the world
economy would sink, and the blame would fall entirely on Trump. The Donald, as a result, would lose
any chance of being re-elected so it makes sense for him to call off possible strikes as he did
after the US drone was shot out of the sky.
While unable to live up to his electoral promises, Trump seems to be aware that the path laid
out for him in the event of an attack on Iran would lead to his political destruction and probably
to a conflict that is militarily unsustainable for the US and especially its Saudi and Israeli
allies. It would also be the catalyst for the collapse of the world economy.
In trying to pressure Iran into new negotiations, Trump runs the risk of putting too much
pressure on Tehran and giving too much of a free hand to the provocations of Pompeo and Bolton that
could end up triggering a war in the Strait of Hormuz.
Putin and Xi Jinping prepare for the worst
Our current geopolitical environment requires the careful and considered attention of relevant
heads of state. The repeated meetings between Putin and Xi Jinping indicate that Russia and China
are actively preparing for any eventuality. The closer we get to economic collapse, the more
tensions and chaos increase around the world thanks to the actions of Washington and her close
allies.
Xi Jinping and Putin, who have inherited this chaotic situation, have met at least a
dozen times over the last six months
, more recently meeting at least three times over two
months.
The pressing need is to coordinate and prepare for what will inevitably happen,
once again trying to limit and contain the damage by a United States that is completely out of
control and becoming a danger to all, allies and enemies alike.
As Putin just recently said:
"The degeneration of the universalistic model of globalization and its transformation
into a parody, caricature of itself, where the common international rules are replaced by
administrative and judicial laws of a country or group of countries.
The fragmentation of global economic space with a policy of unbridled economic
selfishness and an imposed collapse. But this is the road to infinite conflict, trade wars and
perhaps not just commercial ones. Figuratively, this is the road to the final struggle of all
against all.
It is necessary to draft a more stable and fair development model. These agreements
should not only be written clearly, but should be observed by all participants.
However, I am convinced that talking about a world economic order such as this will
remain a pious desire unless we return to the center of the discussion, that is to say, notions
like sovereignty, the unconditional right of each country to its own path to development and,
let me add, responsibility in the universal sustainable development, not just its own."
The spokesman of the Chancellery of the People's Republic of China, Hua Chun Ying, echoed this
sentiment:
"The American leaders say that 'the era of the commercial surrender of their country has
come to an end', but what is over is their economic intimidation of the world and their
hegemony.
The United States must again respect international law, not arrogate to itself
extraterritorial rights and mandates, must learn to respect its peers in safeguarding
transparent and non-discriminatory diplomatic and commercial relations. China and the United
States have negotiated other disputes in the past with good results and the doors of dialogue
are open as long as they are based on mutual respect and benefits.
But as long as these new trade disputes persist, China informs the government of the
United States of America and the whole world that it will immediately impose duties on each
other, unilaterally on 128 products from the United States of America.
Also, we think we will stop buying US public debt. It's all, good night!"
I wonder if Europeans will understand all this before the impending disaster. I doubt
it.
U.S. Navy photo by
Mass Communication Specialist 2nd Class John Philip Wagner, Jr./Released◄►◄►▲▼ Remove from
Library B Show Comment Next
New Comment Next New Reply Read More Reply Agree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This
Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
AgreeDisagreeLOLTroll
These buttons register your public
Agreement, Disagreement, Troll, or LOL with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to
recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information'
checkbox, and may also ONLY be used once per hour. Email Comment Ignore Commenter Follow
Commenter Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲▼ Search
Text Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
Search Clear Cancel
Sooner or later the US "maximum pressure" on Iran would inevitably be met by "maximum
counter-pressure". Sparks are ominously bound to fly.
For the past few days, intelligence circles across Eurasia had been prodding Tehran to
consider a quite straightforward scenario. There would be no need to shut down the Strait of
Hormuz if Quds Force commander, General Qasem Soleimani, the ultimate Pentagon bête
noire, explained in detail, on global media, that Washington simply does not have the military
capacity to keep the Strait open.
would destroy the American economy by detonating the $1.2 quadrillion derivatives market;
and that would collapse the world banking system, crushing the world's $80 trillion GDP and
causing an unprecedented depression.
Soleimani should also state bluntly that Iran may in fact shut down the Strait of Hormuz if
the nation is prevented from exporting essential two million barrels of oil a day, mostly to
Asia. Exports, which before illegal US sanctions and de facto blockade would normally reach 2.5
million barrels a day, now may be down to only 400,000.
Soleimani's intervention would align with consistent signs already coming from the IRGC. The
Persian Gulf is being described as an imminent "shooting gallery." Brigadier General Hossein
Salami stressed that Iran's
ballistic missiles are capable of hitting "carriers in the sea" with pinpoint precision.
The whole northern border of the Persian Gulf, on Iranian territory, is lined up with anti-ship
missiles – as I confirmed
with IRGC-related sources.
We'll let you know when it's closed
Then, it happened.
Chairman of the Chiefs of Staff of the Iranian Armed Forces, Major General Mohammad Baqeri,
went straight
to the point ; "If the Islamic Republic of Iran were determined to prevent export of oil
from the Persian Gulf, that determination would be realized in full and announced in public, in
view of the power of the country and its Armed Forces."
The facts are stark. Tehran simply won't accept all-out economic war lying down –
prevented to export the oil that protects its economic survival. The Strait of Hormuz question
has been officially addressed. Now it's time for the derivatives.
Presenting detailed derivatives analysis plus military analysis to global media would force
the media pack, mostly Western, to go to Warren Buffett to see if it is true. And it is true.
Soleimani, according to this scenario, should say as much and recommend that the media go talk
to Warren Buffett.
The extent of a possible derivatives crisis is an uber-taboo theme for the Washington
consensus institutions. According to one of my American banking sources, the most accurate
figure – $1.2 quadrillion – comes from a Swiss banker, off the record. He should
know; the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) – the central bank of central banks
– is in Basle.
The key point is it doesn't matter how the Strait of Hormuz is blocked.
It could be a false flag. Or it could be because the Iranian government feels it's going to
be attacked and then sinks a cargo ship or two. What matters is the final result; any blocking
of the energy flow will lead the price of oil to reach $200 a barrel, $500 or even, according
to some Goldman Sachs projections, $1,000.
Another US banking source explains; "The key in the analysis is what is called notional.
They are so far out of the money that they are said to mean nothing. But in a crisis the
notional can become real. For example, if I buy a call for a million barrels of oil at $300 a
barrel, my cost will not be very great as it is thought to be inconceivable that the price will
go that high. That is notional. But if the Strait is closed, that can become a stupendous
figure."
BIS will only commit, officially, to indicate the total notional amount outstanding for
contracts in derivatives markers is an estimated $542.4 trillion. But this is just an
estimate.
The banking source adds, "Even here it is the notional that has meaning. Huge amounts are
interest rate derivatives. Most are notional but if oil goes to a thousand dollars a barrel,
then this will affect interest rates if 45% of the world's GDP is oil. This is what is called
in business a contingent liability."
Goldman Sachs has projected a feasible, possible $1,000 a barrel a few weeks after the
Strait of Hormuz being shut down. This figure, times 100 million barrels of oil produced per
day, leads us to 45% of the $80 trillion global GDP. It's self-evident the world economy would
collapse based on just that alone.
War dogs barking mad
As much as 30% of the world's oil supply transits the Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz.
Wily Persian Gulf traders – who know better – are virtually unanimous; if Tehran
was really responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident, oil prices would be going through
the roof by now. They aren't.
Iran's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz amount to 12 nautical miles (22 km). Since
1959, Iran recognizes only non-military naval transit.
Since 1972, Oman's territorial waters in the Strait of Hormuz also amount to 12 nautical
miles. At its narrowest, the width of the Strait is 21 nautical miles (39 km). That means,
crucially, that half of the Strait of Hormuz is in Iranian territorial waters, and the other
half in Oman's. There are no "international waters".
And that adds to Tehran now openly saying that Iran may decide to close the Strait of Hormuz
publicly – and not by stealth.
Iran's indirect, asymmetric warfare response to any US adventure will be very painful. Prof.
Mohammad Marandi of the University of Tehran once again reconfirmed, "even a limited strike
will be met by a major and disproportionate response." And that means gloves off, big time;
anything from really blowing up tankers to, in Marandi's words, "Saudi and UAE oil facilities
in flames".
Hezbollah will launch tens of thousands of missiles against Israel. As
Hezbollah's secretary-general Hasan Nasrallah has been stressing in his speeches, "war on
Iran will not remain within that country's borders, rather it will mean that the entire [Middle
East] region will be set ablaze. All of the American forces and interests in the region will be
wiped out, and with them the conspirators, first among them Israel and the Saudi ruling
family."
It's quite enlightening to pay close attention to what this Israel intel op is saying .
The dogs of war though are barking mad .
Earlier this week, US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo jetted to CENTCOM in Tampa to discuss
"regional security concerns and ongoing operations" with – skeptical – generals, a
euphemism for "maxim pressure" eventually leading to war on Iran.
Iranian diplomacy, discreetly, has already informed the EU – and the Swiss –
about their ability to crash the entire world economy. But still that was not enough to remove
US sanctions.
War zone in effect
As it stands in Trumpland, former CIA Mike "We lied, We cheated, We stole" Pompeo
– America's "top diplomat" – is virtually running the Pentagon. "Acting" secretary
Shanahan performed self-immolation. Pompeo continues to actively sell the notion the
"intelligence community is convinced" Iran is responsible for the Gulf of Oman tanker incident.
Washington is ablaze with rumors of an ominous double bill in the near future; Pompeo as head
of the Pentagon and Psycho John Bolton as Secretary of State. That would spell out War.
Yet even before sparks start to fly, Iran could declare that the Persian Gulf is in a state
of war; declare that the Strait of Hormuz is a war zone; and then ban all "hostile" military
and civilian traffic in its half of the Strait. Without firing a single shot, no shipping
company on the planet would have oil tankers transiting the Persian Gulf.
American government arrogance under the control of sickos has not shied away from the belief
that destroying countries that do not cave in to Washington's demand of "surrender or perish"
-- an ultimatum made in Israel. Indeed it regards that despicable policy as an entitlement
– to protect the "international community". Iran may well be the nation that will do
away with the nations of turbaned lapdogs and absolute monarchs who have been kept in power
by the dozens of US military bases in the area. Maybe a serious jolt of the global economy is
long overdue, to bring the Washington dogs of perpetual war to come to their senses.
Was Iran succumbing to the JCPOA provisions and abiding by them not sufficient
capitulation for the insane leaders in Washington?
I hope we don't go into another stupid war. Bring all our troops home from all around
the world. Just protect this Republic. We're not the policemen of the world.
@joeshittheragman
It astonishes me that people are still using the phrase "policemen of the world" to define US
behavior.
The last time I recall The US even remotely acting as the "worlds's policeman" was in
1991, when we pushed Saddam out of Kuwait.
The Iraq 2003 "debacle", the Libya"shit show" and the Syria" fiasco" have all proven, over
time, to be acts of wanton carnage and illegal aggression, . not "police work".
The United States, under Neocon tutelage , is no "policeman" .not by any stretch
It is more like a humongous version of "Bernie Madoff meets Son of Sam."
We have become a grotesque, misshapen empire .of lies fraud .,illegal war, .mass murder
..and heinous f#cking debt.
You have to hand it to the Iranians for basically announcing their intentions to destroy the
US economy via the derivatives market that the US financial industry largely produced. Kill
them with their own weapon.
A show down between the US and some entity is inevitable. Be it Iran, China or Russia, the
US will be over extended and their very expensive weaponry will, I believe, come up wanting
on all counts. The MIC has been scamming the country for decades. The military brass is just
bluster. When it comes down to an actual confrontation, the US military will come up short as
BS won't cut it.
Yes, they will destroy lots of stuff and kill lots of people but then their toys will run
out and then what? Missiles will take out the aircraft carriers and the world will see that
the emperor is naked.
In June of 2014, as the forces of the Islamic State swept toward Baghdad, President
Barack Obama began to recommit American military forces to Iraq. He also observed that
"Iran can play a constructive role, if it sends the same message to the Iraqi government
that we're sending, which is that Iraq only holds together if it is inclusive." In an
instantly famous article by Atlantic magazine correspondent and White House amanuensis
Jeffrey Goldberg, Obama indicated that Saudi Arabia and other Arab states had to learn to
"share" the Middle East with Iran.
In imagining a kind of strategic partnership with Tehran, Obama is recycling a deeply
held belief of late-Cold War "realists" like former National Security Adviser Brent
Scowcroft. "For U.S. strategy, Iran should be viewed as a potential natural partner in
the region, as it was until 1979," when Shah Reza Pahlavi was toppled in the Khomeini
revolution." "Envisioning 2030: U.S. Strategy for a Post-Western World," foresaw that "a
post-Mullah dominated government shedding Shia political ideology could easily return to
being a net contributor to stability by 2030
https://en.mehrnews.com/news/143606/Mearsheimer-S-Arabia-a-threat-not-Iran
"The truth is that it is the United States that is a direct threat to Iran, not the other
way around. The Trump administration, with much prompting from Israel and Saudi Arabia, has
its gunsights on Iran. The aim is regime change.
America does not seem to think the Iranian regieme can do anything except bluster as they
are slowly smothered.
Famous last words -- review what Bernanke said just before subprime exploded: 2007 --
Bernanke: Subprime Mortgage Woes
Won't Seriously Hurt Economy -- that said, I have no idea what will happen if Iran
decides to interfere with shipping in the straits -- or how likely that is.
The biggest long-term threat to the US is the end of the petrodollar scheme -- due to its
unmatched worldwide political and military hegemony, and 'safe haven' status, the dollar has
largely been insulated from the consequences of what are in reality staggering, almost
structural (at this point) US deficits -- but that can't and won't go on forever.
In reality, the US is today far less dependent on imported oil than most people probably
imagine, and therefore far less vulnerable to any import supply issue.
Israel and the zio/US has interfered in Iran since the 1953 CIA/Mossad coup and at intervals
ever since then and have brought this problem on by the zio/US and Israeli meddling in the
affairs of Iran and an all out war via illegal sanctions which in fact are a form of war.
Iran has not started a war in over 300 years and is not the problem , the problem is the
warmongers in the zio/US and Israel and will not end as long as the warmongers remain in
power.
A good start to ending these problems would be to abolish the CIA!
@MLK
Yes, the sanctions on Iran are having an effect, and the recent Iranian actions acknowledge
this; but that does not mean Iran is weak. Iran is telling the U.S. that it is NOT Venezuela
or North Korea. Kim is all bark, but no bite; Trump was quite right to call him "little
rocket man." Even he, with his singular lack of style and grace, is not doing this to the
Iranian leadership.
The economic sanctions against Iran already constitute acts of war. The Iranians have just
demonstrated that they can disrupt oil flow from the Middle East in retaliation, and not just
in the Street of Hormuz. In addition, they have now shown that they can take down American
aircraft, stealth or not, with precision. This means Iran is able and willing to strike back
and escalate as it sees fit, both economically and militarily. If the U.S. don't relent, Iran
WILL send the oil prices through the roof, and it will humiliate the U.S. on the world stage
if they are stupid enough to go to war over it.
The Iranian messages are simple, clear, and consistent. Compare this to the confused
cacophony that emerges from the clown troupe in Washington, and you can easily tell which
side has been caught unawares by recent events.
This is a watershed moment for Trump – he will either assert himself, return to
reason, and keep the peace; or he will stay aboard the sinking ship. No good options for him
personally, of course; his choices are impeachment, assassination, or staying in office while
presiding over the final act of the U.S. empire.
The US is committed to conflict not only most obviously against Iran, but also with
Russia.
US, or rather a bunch of lunatics infesting Trump's Admin, might be committed, but it
absolutely doesn't mean that the US has resources for that. In fact, US doesn't have
resources to fight Iran, let alone Russia. By now most of it is nothing more than
chest-thumping and posturing. Today Bolton's statement is a further proof of that.
Instead, Bush saw that situation, within the unique moment of US no longer constrained
by a rival superpower, as an opportunity to exert US global dominance.
The much derided Chomsky
There were once two gangsters in town, the USA and USSR, there's relative peace cuz each
was constrained by the rival's threat.
NOW that the USSR is gone, the remaining gangster
is running amok with total impunity.
Now I dunno if the USSR was a 'gangster' ,
as for uncle scam, .. needs no introduction I presume ?
"Iran's ability to target and destroy the high-altitude American drone, which was
developed to evade the very surface-to-air missiles used to bring it down, surprised some
Defense Department officials, who interpreted it as a show of how difficult Tehran can make
things for the United States as it deploys more troops and steps up surveillance in the
region.– "
@Wally
It's all cashflow and OPM, on the hope of hitting the big-time when prices spike. A giant
house of cards waiting to implode, and that is before one takes into account all the hugely
negative externalities associated with fracking that give it any hope of profitability, which
would vapourise if the costs of the externalities were charged to the operators.
According to preliminary data for 2018, oil demand surpassed 20 mmb/d for the first time
since 2007 and will be just shy of the 2005 peak (20,524 mb/d versus 20,802 mb/d in
2005).
It's really tragic to see two brotherly ideologies Capitalism and Islam (both want to rule
the world) go at each other throats in this manner. After all, they have fought shoulder to
shoulder a holly jihad against socialism in such far flung places as Afghanistan, Iraq and
now Syria.
I think that based on this latest conflict, people can see what a principled country US
is. People used to think that US hates only socialist revolutions. Until Iran's Islamic
revolution came along – and US was against it too. So, it's safe to say that US are
against ANY revolutions – be they Socialist or Islamic. I guess we can call them
contra-revolutionaries.
At least 95% of the American people do not want war with Iran. For that matter the same
percentage did not want war with Iraq, Afghanistan, Vietnam or Korea. But the powers that be
do not ask the American people if they want to go to war, they just do it based on the
authority they assume is theirs. Meanwhile, our elected representatives who do have the
authority to start or prevent wars turn a deaf ear to their constituents because the voices
they hear in protest are weak or muted. Let's face it, the wars since WWII have affected only
a relatively minor segment of our population. A hell of a lot more people die in traffic
accidents than on the battlefield so what's to get excited about. Keeping a large standing
army, navy and air force is good for the economy, the troops have to be provided the latest
best of everything and as for the troops themselves for many it's not a bad way to make a
living with a retirement and health care system better than many jobs in the civilian sector.
So my message to the American people is if you really do not want war with Iran you had
better speak up louder than you are now.
CAN IRAN ENTER ITO NEGOTIATION WITH IRAN? IT CANT. BECAUSE ISRAEL WITH NO FOOT IN THE DOOR OF
THE HELL IS WAGING THE WAR AND GETTING US PUNISHED .
UC Berkeley journalism professor Sandy Tolan, Los Angeles Times, December 1, 2002–
[Richard] Perle, in the same 1998 article, told Forward that a coalition of pro-Israeli
groups was 'at the forefront with the legislation with regard to Iran. One can only speculate
what it might accomplish if it decided to focus its attention on Saddam Hussein.' Now,
Israeli Prime Minister Ariel Sharon has joined the call against Tehran, arguing in a November
interview with the Times of London that the U.S. should shift its focus to Iran 'the day
after' the Iraq war ends
[Hide MORE]
-- -- -
They want to foment revolution in Iran and use that to isolate and possibly attack Syria in
[Lebanon's] Bekaa Valley, and force Syria out," says former Assistant Secretary of State for
Near East Affairs Edward S. Walker, now president of the Middle East Institute. http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
03/14/03
--
in 2003 Morris Amitay and fellow neocon Michael Ledeen founded the Coalition for Democracy
in Iran, an advocacy group pushing for regime change in Iran . According to the website, it
will be un-American,immoral and unproductive to engage with any segment of the regime .
During a may 2003 conference at the AEI on the future of Iran,Amitay sharply criticized the
U.S State Department's efforts to engage the Islamic Republic ,claimed the criticism of Newt
Gingrich did not go far enough . Amiaty was introduced by M Ledeen as the "Godfather" of
AIPAC Amitay admitted that direct action against Iran would be difficult before 2004
election.
Nostalgia for the last shah's son, Reza Pahlavi ? has again risen," says Reuel Marc
Gerecht, a former CIA officer who, like Ledeen and Perle, is ensconced at the AEI. "We must
be prepared, however, to take the battle more directly to the mullahs," says Gerecht, adding
that the United States must consider strikes at both Iran's Revolutionary Guard Corps and
allies in Lebanon. "In fact, we have only two meaningful options: Confront clerical Iran and
its proxies militarily or ring it with an oil embargo." http://prospect.org/article/just-beginning
March 14,2003
"Neoconservatives in the Bush Administration have long targeted Iran. Richard Perle,
former Defense Policy Board member, and David Frum, of the neo-com Weekly Standard,
co-authored "An End to Evil," which calls for the overthrow of the "terrorist mullahs of
Iran." Michael Ladeen of the influential American Enterprise Institute argues that "Tehran is
a city just waiting for us." http://www.counterpunch.org/2004/05/26/the-oil-connection/
According to the 2016 documentary Zero Days by director Alex Gibney, Israel's incessant
public threats to attack Iran coupled with intense secret demands for cyber warfare targeting
Iran were the catalyst for massive new US black budget spending
NSA Director (1999-2005) and CIA Director (2006-2009) Michael Hayden claimed in Zero Days
that the goal of any Israeli air attack against Iran's nuclear facilities would be to drag
the United States into war.
"Our belief was that if they [Israel] went on their own, knowing the limitations No, they're
a very good air force, alright? But it's small and the distances are great, and the targets
dispersed and hardened, alright? If they would have attempted a raid on a military plane, we
would have been assuming that they were assuming we would finish that which they started. In
other words, there would be many of us in government thinking that the purpose of the raid
wasn't to destroy the Iranian nuclear system, but the purpose of the raid was to put us [the
United States] at war with Iran."
https://original.antiwar.com/smith-grant/2018/11/06/israel-and-the-trillion-dollar-2005-2018-us-intelligence-budget
Emergence of ISIS is linked to US efforts to weaken Iran
-In "The Redirection", written in 2008(!) – years before the 2011 uprising, Seymour
Hersh wrote of plans to use extremists in Syria.
Excerpts:
To undermine Iran, which is predominantly Shiite, the Bush Administration has decided, in
effect, to reconfigure its priorities in the Middle East. In Lebanon, the Administration has
coöperated with Saudi Arabia's government, which is Sunni, in clandestine operations
that are intended to weaken Hezbollah, the Shiite organization that is backed by Iran. The
U.S. has also taken part in clandestine operations aimed at Iran and its ally Syria. A
by-product of these activities has been the bolstering of Sunni extremist groups that espouse
a militant vision of Islam and are hostile to America and sympathetic to Al Qaeda.
Nasr compared the current situation to the period in which Al Qaeda first emerged. In the
nineteen-eighties and the early nineties, the Saudi government offered to subsidize the
covert American C.I.A. proxy war against the Soviet Union in Afghanistan. Hundreds of young
Saudis were sent into the border areas of Pakistan, where they set up religious schools,
training bases, and recruiting facilities. Then, as now, many of the operatives who were paid
with Saudi money were Salafis. Among them, of course, were Osama bin Laden and his
associates, who founded Al Qaeda, in 1988.
This time, "
@Simply
Simon In the old days, the orders for the US government were coming down from the
Tri-Lateral Commission and the 6-7 major companies. Rockefeller took the TLC underground
ground with himself. The oil companies continue asking the US government for protecting the
ME/NA resources. Then Neocons replaced the TLC which their focus was twofold.
1. Destabilize the regions for protecting Israel
2. Control the resources militarily
3. Keep the Chinese out and cut their access to the resources
Guess what, Chinese have penetrated the regions constructively and quietly. America with its
unjustified fucking wars is being hated even more than 1953.
@KA
Very true! Unfortunately the presidents were misinformed or uninformed about the proxies
created by the CIA. The first created to fight the Soviets in Afghanistan manned and financed
by the Saudis, recruited by Mossad and intelligence was provided by the CIA. Sound really
really good to the Americans since it was free of charge with no loss of life! Then during
the Iraq war its neighbor Syria was getting destabilized so the CIA replicated Al-Qaeda and
formed a new gang which called themselves ISIS. The function of ISIS was to overthrow
Al-Bashar of Syria. The secondary mission for both groups was to bug Iran from its western
and eastern front.
Manning both of these groups with Sunnis was the biggest mistake that KSA, Mossad and the CIA
made. See the Sunnis are not fighters without sophisticated weapons from the West. On the
other Shiites can fight with a sword and empty handed if they have to. They remind me of VC's
in Vietnam. The Shiites decimated the ISIS and most of AlQaeda now the US is trying to get
credit for that but they know better now. So my recommendation to the US is please don't
aggravate the Shiites otherwise they will embarrass us just the VC's
@Monty
Ahwazi{ All insurance companies will drop their coverage of the oil tankers
immediately.}
During the Iran-Iraq war, US re-flagged Kuwaiti tankers and ran them under US flag and
protection through the straight.
Same thing can be done again.
And if insurance companies drop coverage, US Treasury will provide the coverage: some US
insurance company will be "convinced" by US Gov to provide the coverage and US Treasury will
guarantee _any_ losses incurred by the insurance company or companies.
US can always add to the national debt ( .i.e. print more dollars).
So, no: declaration won't do.
Only destroying stuff works.
{You guys sitting here and making up these nonsensical policies}
Nobody is making policy here: we are not a government.
We are exchanging opinions.
btw: where are you sitting?
Are your personal opinions considered 'policy', because you are ..what?
@anon
That was buried deep in the article. (Thanks for posting link.) Next lines, the NYT is
skeptical of US claims. Too bad this isn't first pararaphs!)
Lt. Gen. Joseph Guastella, the Air Force commander for the Central Command region in the
Middle East, said the attack could have endangered "innocent civilians," even though
officials at Central Command continued to assert that the drone was over international
waters. He said that the closest that the drone got to the Iranian coast was 21 miles.
Late Thursday, the Defense Department released additional imagery in an email to support
its case that the drone never entered Iranian airspace. But the department incorrectly
called the flight path of the drone the location of the shooting down and offered little
context for an image that appeared to be the drone exploding in midair.
It was the latest attempt by the Pentagon to try to prove that Iran has been the
aggressor in a series of international incidents.
@Zumbuddi
Thank you. If the US were a real [HONEST] policeman, they would have stopped Kuwait from
stealing Iraqi oil. But no, Bush was a dirty cop, on the take.
@dearieme
Read "JFK and the Unspeakable" by James W. Douglass. JFK was getting us out of Vietnam. In
his time, there was not massive amounts of US troops in Vietnam, only advisors. JFK planned
to get all the troops out after he was re-elected.
It was during Johnson's presidency that the Vietnam war became a huge war for the US.
Johnson set up the Gulf of Tonkin false flag on August 2 1964. This started the huge draft of
young men for Vietnam war that dragged on till the early 1970s.
Johnson also allowed Israel to do a false flag on the US on June 8 1967. Israel attacked
the USS Liberty. 34 servicemen killed and 174 injured. Israel wanted to kill them all and
blame it on Egypt, so US would nuke Egypt. Lovely nation is little Israel. The song " Love is
all you need" by the Beatles was released on June 7 1967. Summer of Love, Hippies in San
Francisco, all planned to get Americans into drugs and forget about what Israel is doing in
the Middle East. It worked, nobody noticed what Israel did since we have a "free" 500 Zion BC
press in the US in 1967 and we still do these days.
Iran is pretty self sufficient with minimal foreign debt. Their Central Bank is under their
control and works for the people. They should just hunker down and hope Trumps crew is out of
a job after the elections next year
If the US strikes they can block the straits. However, the US would probably knock out the
refineries so that will hurt
They shot down the drone because it was collecting intelligence on targets the US plans to
strike. Thats defensive not provocative
If the US wants to go at Iran they will manufacture something. People are so dumbed down
they can made to believe anything, as events 18 years ago and since have proven
Hopefully this is just distraction to cover up some nefarious plan to loot the working
class some more. Or maybe getting the straits closed is part of the plan. Who knows?
THE TICK TOCKS WHY TRUMP DIDN'T BOMB IRAN NYT'S PETER BAKER, MAGGIE HABERMAN and THOMAS
GIBBONS-NEFF:
"Urged to Launch an Attack, Trump Listened to the Skeptics Who Said It Would Be a Costly
Mistake": "He heard from his generals and his diplomats. Lawmakers weighed in and so did his
advisers. But among the voices that rang powerfully for President Trump was that of one of
his favorite Fox News hosts: Tucker Carlson.
"While national security advisers were urging a military strike against Iran, Mr. Carlson
in recent days had told Mr. Trump that responding to Tehran's provocations with force was
crazy. The hawks did not have the president's best interests at heart, he said. And if Mr.
Trump got into a war with Iran, he could kiss his chances of re-election goodbye.
"The 150-dead casualty estimate came not from a general but from a lawyer, according to the
official. The estimate was developed by Pentagon lawyers drafting worst-case scenarios that,
the official said, did not account for whether the strike was carried out during daytime,
when more people might be present at the targets, or in the dark hours before sunrise, as the
military planned.
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
"That estimate was passed to the White House counsel, Pat A. Cipollone, without being cleared
with [Patrick] Shanahan or General [Joseph] Dunford. It was then conveyed to the president by
the White House lawyers, at which point Mr. Trump changed his mind and called off the
strike." NYT NYT A1
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home
.
Saddam was given the assurance by US ambassador to Iraq April Glaspie, that the USA
supported his retaliatory action against Kuwait. Same usual trap and deliberate provocation;
all the rest is obfuscation.
@AnonFromTN
The loss of two American aircraft carriers appears to be the assumption you are making to
guarantee an Iranian victory.
Such a loss is by no means assured.
The idea that American willpower will collapse in the event of the loss of two capital
ships is your second assumption, and it's both a fanciful and dangerous assumption.
I'm not myself terribly impressed by American military power, but comparing naval combat
to counterinsurgency operations is absurd.
Your economic assumptions appear to come from the permabear school. Actual economies and
governments don't work that way. A major reduction in global supplies will result in
compulsory conservation, rationing, price controls, etc. This was done in recent memory in
the 1970s in both North America and Western Europe, when you were still behind the Iron
Curtain and perhaps not aware.
@alexander
Saddam was given plenty of time, and plenty of resolutions to pack up his troops and go
home."
Efforts by Egypt to arrive an Arab initiated solution was ignored and dismissed by USA
Initial Saudi effort to find a face saving exit by Saddam was met with resistance and then
a manufactured satellite image of Saddam massing his soldiers for invasion of Saudi was
widely disseminated by US.
Saddam crimes was no less or more egregious than what Israel was enjoying with US dollars
and with US support and with impunity ( It was still occupying Pastien and Parts of Syria and
Lebanon )
It was Levy the Israeli FM who threatened that his country would attack Iraq if US did
not.
War against Saddam was orchestrated by Jewish members of Thatcher and by Democrats of USA
) Solarz – NY Senator was one of the guys and the AIPAC whose president Mr. Dine
confessed the crimes )
@alexander
UN has been abused by USA taking the advantage of the collapse of Soviet . (This is what
Wolf0owitz told Wesley Clarke in 1992 in Feb : This was the time we can and we should take
care of these countries Iran Iraq Syria Libya and Yemen while Russia is still weakened and
unable to help its erstwhile vassals states) .
USA had no right to ask Saddam to leave . Subsequent behaviors of USA has proved it.
Israel also in addition has no right to exist .
If correction had to come from Iran Hezbollah and Syria- then so be it. That news would be
best thing that would happen to humanity within last 200 yrs .
@Iris
but -- but -- but (sputters Alexander the otherwise sage commenter), The UN -- that's the
U-nited Nations!! fer pete's ache, Agreed!! ( Agreed is Diplomatese for: "Please stop
twisting my arm; Please stop bankrupting my country; Please stop threatening to tell my wife
-- ).
in other words, the UN is a toy and a ploy for someone like G H W Bush salivating at the
once in a lifetime opportunity to exert world dominance -- 'scuse me: "Create a New World
Order" -- in the context of a power vacuum / dissolution of the Soviet Empire, previously the
only counterbalance to US superpower status.
No doubt the UN was got on board. It acted like the paid-for- judge and show-trial in a
case the prosecutor had already rigged.
imho, what is more significant, and what it takes years to unearth, is the decision making
and back-room dealing that came BEFORE the UN was induced to stamp its imprimatur.
Tony Blair endorsed Bush the Lesser's war on Iraq. Does that grant it legitimacy, or in
any way explain why US waged that war?
I don't care about numbers.
50 (proper) sea mines backed up by 20 air/land-sea missiles do the job. Block the Hormuz.
I am sure the regime in Tehran has that number.
Does anyone?
Don't think so.
Mines in particular.
While missiles could be tricky to produce even smart sea mines are not.
A lot of explosive-check.
A couple of sensors (acoustic/magnetic)-check.
A couple of hardened micro controller boards-check.
That's it.
In this very game there are, really, only two elements that interest me:
Tactical nukes.
Selective draft.
What hehe really interests me is the escalation from "tactical" to "strategic".
@Thorfinnsson
Let me make this clear: there won't be Iranian victory. Iran will pay a hefty price. There
will be the defeat of the Empire, though, a major climb down. The worst (for the Empire) part
would be that the whole world would see that the king has no clothes. Then the backlash
against the Empire (hated by 6/7th of the Earth population) starts, and that would be
extremely painful for everyone in the US, guilty and innocent alike (myself included).
Compulsory rationing and price controls were possible when the governments actually
governed. When the whole governments and legislatures are full of corporations' marionettes,
as is the case now in the US and EU, these measures are impossible. Profiteers will have
their day. They will crush Western economies and therefore themselves, but never
underestimate the blinding force of greed. The same greedy bastards are supplying the US
military with airplanes that have trouble flying and with ships costing untold billions that
break down in the Panama canal, of all places. The same greedy scum destroyed the US industry
and moved all production to China, in effect spelling the doom of the only country that could
have protected their loot from other thieves. That's the problem with greed: it makes people
incredibly shortsighted.
So what? That nice lessons are being imparted slowly to the Israeli slave USA.
USA does what other countries are accused of before invading . USA throws out any qualms
any morality any legality . It uses UN . Right now it is illegally supplying arms to Saudi to
Israel and to the rebels in Syria. These are the reasons US have gone to wars against other
countries for. Now some countries are standing up and saying – those days are gone ,
you can't attack any country anymore just because someone has been raped or someone has been
distributing Viagra.
As a matter of fact, the whole world began to ask, you are willing to launch your military
to eject Saddam from Kuwait Bravo! ..Now what are willing to do about Israels illegal seizure
of Palestinian territory in the West bank .It is more or less the exact same crime, Isn't
it?
George Bush Senior was the last US President in American History to withhold all loans to
Israel, until it ceased and desisted from illegal settlement activity in the Palestinian
Territories.
Many believe it was his willingness to hold Israel to the same standard as everyone else,
which cost him his second term.
@Thorfinnsson
Iran shot down a US Navy RQ-4A intel drone that cost $250: A model that is marketed as being
hard to shoot down since it has an 11 mile high altitude ceiling and a long operational
range. That a coastal AA missile battery knocked it down with one shot answers several
questions.
"... Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines ..."
"... It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western 1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why? ..."
...Russia on Friday announced it was ready to help Iran export its crude and ease
restrictions on its banking system if Europe fails to launch its dollar-evading SPV, Instex
(Instrument in Support of Trade Exchanges) with Tehran, according to Interfax and PressTV .
The
three European signatories to the 2015 nuclear agreement, officially known as the Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), unveiled late in January the direct non-dollar payment
mechanism meant to safeguard their trade ties with Tehran following the US withdrawal from the
nuclear deal and in the face of the "toughest ever" sanctions imposed by the United States
against the Islamic Republic. In its initial stage, INSTEX would facilitate trade of
humanitarian goods such as medicine, food and medical devices, but it will later be expanded to
cover other areas of trade, including Iran's oil sales.
However, it has not resulted in any trade deals so far. In late May, the US threatened
Europe with "
loss of access to the US financial system " if it rolled out the SWIFT-evading SPV, which
appears to have crushed Europe's enthusiasm to pursue alternative financial transactions with
Tehran, forcing it to conceded to Washington (again).
Earlier this month, Iranian Foreign Ministry Spokesman Abbas Moussavi said European
governments have failed to meet their expectations in implementing INSTEX to protect the JCPOA,
criticizing their "lack of will" to deal with America's pressure against Tehran.
What this means is, China will have access to a lot cheaper oil than western market prices, including to the
hilt subsidized, with colossal hidden losses, US shale oil. Well done Trump. The Tariffs, Americuhns are the ones paying for those as well. Imbeciles.
We are seeing a return to "Gun Boat Diplomacy"... Even THAT will not work.. ultimately. Brinkmanship, of this order reveals a Disturbed mind.. the US criminal elite psyche.. Or as Jidu KrishnaMurti said so aptly..The constant assertion of belief is an indication
of fear.
The USA continues to publicize its belief.. that it is the viral of democracy.. And leader
of the Free World. Hollow words.. which it will be forced to eat.. before too long. That time of
confrontation.. is Not Far OFF !! This desperation is that of a deranged mind.. that is going down the tube.. breaking
down.. A society in free fall..
This is exactly how it will always work out when psychopaths are in charge because normal
society doesnt manage them.They come from all backgrounds but some genetic varieties of people seem to have YUGE
problems with it. I also believe inbreeding has a role.
Europe is being clobbered by the USA on multiple fronts - at little cost to the USA: 1- Russian sanctions; 2- Oil - sanctioning Iran raises oil price and risks a blowout of prices; 3- Gas - sanctioning companies working on Russian gas and pipelines
It's not the actual physical oil Russia is helping Iran with, numbnuts -- it is brokering
and facilitating the sale of oil without having the Jewish shysters in London and NY involved
- the same reason the Chinese set up their own oil bourse.
Costa. People don't understand the system. The Brits bad mouthed Russia over the Novichok
false flag incident last winter and jumped on the sanction crap. But they gladly accepted a
load of LNG from a Rotterdam energy broker to keep their asses from freezing. It was Yamal
LNG from RUSSIA. Brokers take the energy (including world-wide trades) and sell it off taking
a small bit from each "barrel"as their profit.
I'm sure the Iranians already know this. The EU is just an extension of US power. They
were never serious about allowing the free flow of trade with the Iranians. One must get rid
of the EU if a real Peace plan with Iran is to take place. But this will never happen under
Trump.
European politicians are cucks bribed to the teeth by the evil empire to toe the Zionist
line. Europe is all but an emasculated world power. Pathetic. Kick US forces out and take a
******* stand against all this ******** America is stirring on Europe's doorstep. Refugees,
terrorism, bad relations with Russia....all thanks to the Anglo Zionists. Europeans keep
taking it. The Marshall Plan guilt-trip is working well.
True but the Zionist banker noghtmare spread to the US from the British empire, so Europe
has been perpetually screwed, thus all the world wars that took place there, etc.
Europe is not a power, it is an artificial construction with no real leadership.No military to back its decisions and a bunch of feminists and homos that make up its
culturally diverse parliaments. European women act like men and the men act like women. There is no fight left in Europe..
China and Russia need to preserve Iran for the BRI which is the lifeline for everyone who
has had a belllyfull of JewSA ********. China and Russia will facilitate Iranian trade and
Iranian nuclear ICBM peacemakers will soon follow.
Trump is loosing, he scares Europeans and Turks but don't let be fooled, Americans are
not allowed near Iranian border of Turkey, why do you think is that restriction?
It's about the financial derivatives Iran, the derivatives.. The Europeans, even if they desired honesty, are shackled by their financial
shenanigans.. One bad move on their part, and the Potemkin contraption collapses, wiping out the western
1%. They're trapped, and unlike before, war is a lose for them and why?
Because the kinetic advantage is no longer with them, it's now in the East. Nevertheless, their innocent youth can still be salvaged, provided they desire salvage. No
more impunity without retribution, cheers...
So India stop importing Iranian oil in order to buy the same oil from Russia for much more
since thy where buying that same oil from Iran at great discount. India looks to Russian crude as Iranian imports crash
"... Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff. ..."
"... Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies. This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real. ..."
"... Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately. There have been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best. ..."
"... As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article, Iran's threats against global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se. There's plenty of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S. military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to oil traffic. ..."
"... It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole of Europe. ..."
"... Last week I asked whether Trump's "B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman , staging a potential false flag over some oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it. ..."
Iran has had enough.
I think it's fair to say that after
60+ years of U.S. aggression towards Iran that the decision to shoot down a U.S. drone represents
an inflection point in world politics.
In the first few hours after the incident the fog of war was thick. But a day later much of it
has cleared thanks to Iran's purposeful poke at U.S. leadership by coming clean with their
intentions.
Iran chose to shoot
down this drone
versus hitting the manned P-8 aircraft and then chose not to lie about it in
public, but rather come forward removing any deniability they could have had.
They did this after President Trump's comments yesterday during a news conference with Canadian
Prime Minister Justin Trudeau where Trump described the attack as "a big mistake" and "not
intentional."
But it was intentional.
And the reason for this was that despite Trump's assurances yesterday there is considerable
debate as to where the drone actually was.
According
to a report from the NY Times
(and buried deep in a very long article):
Still, there remained doubt inside the United States government over whether the drone, or
another American surveillance aircraft, this one flown by a military aircrew, did violate
Iranian airspace at some point, according to a senior administration official. The official said
the doubt was one of the reasons Mr. Trump called off the strike -- which could under
international norms be viewed as an act of war.
The delay by United States Central Command in publicly releasing GPS coordinates of the drone
when it was shot down -- hours after Iran did -- and errors in the labeling of the drone's flight
path when the imagery was released, contributed to that doubt, officials said.
A lack of provable "hard evidence" about the location of the drone when it was hit, a defense
official said, put the administration in an isolated position at what could easily end up being
the start of yet another war with a Middle East adversary -- this one with a proven ability to
strike back.
This means a couple of things. First,
it is likely that Trump was not properly briefed
on the issue by his National Security Council, who were pushing him to strike back hard and who are
itching to get the U.S. into an armed conflict with Iran.
Framing the attack as a mistake Trump was handing Iran the opportunity to de-escalate things. To
me, this signaled that Trump was told through back channels this was an operation designed by us to
put Iran in a no-win situation -- either allow encroachment of their airspace or shoot down a drone
that would land in international waters.
Moreover,
doubts as to the drone's position, remember, with a plane carrying actual
ordnance on its wing, put Trump in a real bind.
And he knew it at the presser. That's the way Trump tried to frame this the way he did. Because
the implications here are that he is being boxed in on all sides by his administration and his
allies -- the Saudis, Israelis and the UAE -- and frogmarched to a war he doesn't want.
He wants Iran to heel but he doesn't know how to go about it.
That Iran then chose the next day to openly declare that they were not confused or misled and
knew exactly what they were doing puts Trump in an even worse position.
Because an unmanned drone, as he said in his futile tweetstorm, is not worth going to war over,
especially one whose position in in dispute.
And everyone knows it. Europe wouldn't condemn Iran here. No one did. Only the U.S. And that
silence is deafening as Pompeo, Bolton and Haspel again over-extend themselves.
Trump is right that he can afford to be patient and now re-frame this as him being the
magnanimous God-Emperor but what he's really doing is talking capital markets off a cliff.
Because that's where the U.S. is the most vulnerable and where Iran's greatest leverage lies.
This incident should have sent oil prices far higher than they did if the threat of war was real.
Why? Because the markets discounted the U.S.'s stories immediately.
There have
been so many incidents like this that should have started a war in the past three years which turn
out to be bogus that the market reaction was muted, at best.
It also tells you just how quickly the global economy is slowing down if a major military
incident between Iran and the U.S. near the Strait of Hormuz only pushed the price of Brent Crude
up to fill the gap on the weekly chart and confirm the recent low.
... ... ...
As Pepe Escobar lays out convincingly in his latest article,
Iran's threats against
global oil shipping aren't aimed at disrupting the global economy per se.
There's plenty
of oil stored in Strategic Reserves around the world to keep things operating during any U.S.
military operation to destroy Iran's navy (which wouldn't take very long) and open the strait to
oil traffic.
It is that a disruption in the price of oil will force the unwinding of
trillions in interest rate swap derivatives already at risk because of the tenuous hold on reality
Deutsche Bank has, since DB clears a super-majority of all such derivative contracts for the whole
of Europe.
No one wants to see $300 per barrel oil. That Goldman Sachs is posting potential targets of
$1000 per barrel tells you where they are positioning themselves, as if they know something?
Goldman? Have insider knowledge?
Please! It is to laugh.
What we are looking at here is the ultimate game of brinkmanship.
Trump
is saying his maximum pressure campaign will break Iran in the end and if they go one step further
(which they won't directly) he will eliminate them.
Iran, on the other hand, is stating categorically that if Trump doesn't allow Iran to trade than
no one will. And that threat is a real one, given their regional influence. Incalculable financial
and political damage can be done by Iran and its proxies around the region through attacks on oil
and gas infrastructure.
Governments will fall, markets will collapse. And no one gets out without scars.
It's the kind of stand-off that needs to end with everyone walking away and regrouping but is
unlikely to do so because of entrenched interests on both sides and the historical grudges of the
men involved.
What's important is to know that the rules of the game have changed. Iran has taken all the
punches to the nose it will take from Trump without retaliating. When you corner someone and give
them no way out you invite the worst kind of counter-attack.
Last week I asked whether
Trump's
"B-Team" overplayed their hand in the Gulf of Oman
, staging a potential false flag over some
oil tankers to stop peace breaking out and arrest the slide in oil prices. Today everyone wants to
think Iran overplayed its hand by attacking this drone. But given the amount mendacity and the
motivations of the people involved, I'd say that it was yet another attempt by the enemies of peace
to push us to the brink of a world war in which nothing good comes of it.
I give Trump a lot of credit here for not falling into the trap set for him.
He now has to begin removing those responsible for this quagmire and I'm sure that will be on
the docket when he meets with Vladimir Putin and Xi Jinping next week at the G-20.
It starts with John Bolton and it ends with Mike Pompeo.
And if he doesn't replace them in the next six to eight weeks then we know Trump
isn't serious about keeping us out of war.
He's just interested in doing so until
he gets re-elected
US threats and the drone shoot down did effect oil shipments from the gulf:
"Insurance rates also soared after those incidents, with companies charging at least
$180,000 in premiums to go to the Persian Gulf. They were about $30,000 early this year
before tensions began to escalate."
As a result:
"Oil tanker owners are raising the prices they charge to export Middle East crude as tensions
surge in a region that accounts for about a third of all seaborne petroleum shipments."
Rates for transporting 2 million-barrel cargoes from Saudi Arabia to China jumped to
almost $26,000 a day on Thursday, more than double where they were at the start of June,
according to Baltic Exchange in London."
Meanwhile, the punishing sanctions on Iran has been crafted and applied by an Israeli
immigrant to the United States named Sigal Mandelker who is the Israeli-American dual
national who runs the Office of Terrorism and Financial Intelligence (TFI) at the Dept. of
the Treasury.
$150,000 in increased insurance costs on a 2 million bpd tanker = very tiny increase in oil
cost. It isn't nothing, but the primary issue is availability...
Together, five of China's leading crude petroleum suppliers (Russia, Saudi Arabia, Angola,
Iraq plus Oman) represent over half (55.2%) of overall Chinese crude oil imports for
2018.
China's top 10 crude petroleum providers supply almost four-fifths (79%) of its imported
crude oil.
Fastest-Growing Suppliers of China's Imported Crude Oil
The value of Chinese purchases of crude oil from its 15 top suppliers amounted to a subtotal
$216.7 billion in 2018, up by an average 50.7% from the $143.8 billion worth of imported
crude from those same 15 providers during 2017.
Libya: Up 248.1% since 2017
United States: Up 112.8%
Malaysia: Up 79.9%
Congo: Up 76.7%
Brazil: Up 76.6%
Kuwait: Up 67.8%
Iraq: Up 62.3%
United Arab Emirates: Up 60.8%
Russia: Up 58.6%
Colombia: Up 50.6%
Saudi Arabia: Up 44.6%
Oman: Up 40%
Iran: Up 25.8%
Angola: Up 23.6%
Venezuela: Up 6.2%
"... iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take for each side. there are NO international waters here. ..."
"... It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500 homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one wondering what else we are unaware? ..."
"... Iran's Air Defense Force has some really quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense complexes with serious sensors. ..."
"... Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts. Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of Hormuz. ..."
iran and oman share the straits as they enter the indian ocean. these waters are THEIR
territorial waters and have been agreed upon for decades by the world. 12 miles give or take
for each side. there are NO international waters here.
if oil ships stop transiting for any reason the western economic and banking system
implodes as the notional value of all those trillions in derivatives (oil at least) become
real once the price rises. not a shot need be fired to collapse the western world living
standards and there is nothing the pentagon can do about even IF it could which it CAN'T.
peace is the only sane option IF the west wants to remain upright and obstensibly
solvent.
The Trump administration has to come up with an explanation for this. Otherwise everyone will
believe that that the red phone rang. "Mr. Putin on the line, sir." Another ripe conspiracy
theory waiting in the wings is that Iran turned on some unexpected radar and showed just what
the planes were flying into. Some logical, plausible, and not too embarassing alternative
story is needed. Fast.
Let us hope Trump's alleged caution holds. For the moment, anyway. However, let us also hope
wiser heads prevail in Iran. It seems clear to me (which I do not mistake for assuming I am
automatically correct) that there has been a PATTERN of increased, violent actions coming
from Iran. i.e. increased shelling of US positions, or, near them, anyway, in Iraq. Along
with the tanker attacks and drone attacks, two, I might add. These seem calculated, at the
moment, at avoiding US loss of life. So, they are playing around with us, testing us. This
reflects, to me, ONE kind of thinking in Iran. However, there are other sides there, I
believe.
And in the meantime Trump is, essentially, bereft of support within DC. Unless it be in
the military. One side of the elite community hates Trump, but for the moment, goes along
with him. Trying to push and prod him forward to their ends. The NeoCons and Never Trumpers.
The other side basically loathes Trump and opposes whatever position he is taking.
Reflectively. Thoughtlessly. This leaves him essentially alone. IN DC. He should get out of
the Capital more often. To his Base. Away from the talking heads. In the meantime Iran should
give pause for thought. They may think the world will be on their side, if only to oppose
Trump. But they won't get much support other than soft and meaningless words, if they keep
poking the Bear. And they just might get eaten...hard as a meal as that would be to
digest.
My poorly informed speculation drawing upon my career as a chemist (i.e., no military
training or experience, the navy rejected me when I tried to join the NROTC in 1963) I am
inclined to disbelieve our claims that our drone was in international air space. One
commentator on MoA claimed there is no international air space over the Gulf of Hormuz. The
relevant treaties address only marine access.
It would appear the Iranians tracked our drone essentially from time time of departure
until its demise. The folks on the web would have us believe the Iranians used a $2,500
homemade missile to bring down a $120,000,000 drone. Let that soak in. Am I the only one
wondering what else we are unaware?
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Combined with the possibility that Iran can present convincing evidence that the drone
penetrated their air space, Trump would be in a poor position to defend himself against war
crime charges should he order an attack. Might not play well in the upcoming election
cycle.
As a businessman, he could have decided the rewards of an attack did not justify these
risks.
Regarding the aborted attack, my suspicion is that someone informed Trump of the
possibility of an unsuspected Iranian asset bringing down an F-22, or horrors, an F-35. Not
likely to help our export programs.
Certainly one of major considerations. Unlike Iraq's "integrated" (a propaganda
cliche--antiquated should have been the term), Iran's Air Defense Force has some really
quirky own designed and manufactured, mostly Chinese and Russian knock-offs) air defense
complexes with serious sensors.
It also has Russian S-300PMU2. In general, Iran is nothing
like Iraq, Libya or Syria before Russia intervened.
I would put Iran's medium range (up to
100 kilometers range and up to 20 kilometers altitude) AD capabilities as robustly good.
And
then, of course, tactical-operational ballistic missiles with an easy reach anywhere in ME
(Qatar rings the bell, among many other) and, finally, who knows how many (very-very many)
and what capability anti-shipping missiles.
Rumor has it--Iran has a number of Yakhonts.
Those are very bad news for anything on the surface in Persian Gulf and the Strait of
Hormuz.
Probably a face saving gesture - can seem tough and reasonable simultaneously. It's shaping
up as de-escalation on both sides for now, which I deduce from recent press releases on
behalf of Iranian authorities saying that they refrained from shooting down a US P-8 plane
carrying 35 people, which was accompanying the unmanned drone which they acknowledge shooting
down. So they're mirroring each other IMO - it's not going to escalate.
Eric Newhill,
IMO,it is the izzies who are pushing for the destruction of Iran, with their BS about Amalek,
their god-given title to Palestine, and their attempts to re-mold the ME in their image. The
presence of Nasrallah&Co. and their rocket forces-mostly supplied by Iran-is the primary
issue. Most of the current ills of the ME can be traced to the izzies. Think Syria.
While there is no doubt that US can pound Iran into the stone age without really working a
sweat, she probably would not have gotten off w/o a few bruises for her pains. In addition,
more importantly in my view, the izzies might have also gotten a few surprises.
My friends were glad to end last night with no emergencies on their watch. We were all very,
very worried.
Ishmael Zechariah
Flying a plane into their territory, getting shot down, and then not attacking and calling it
an opportunity to deescalate. That's rich. The only thing these whole farcical attempt at
diplomacy has proven from the day the deal was denounced as being a bad deal is that those at
the top know little of Iran and Iranians. Nor do we want to know, since virtually every time
I watch TV and they bring on an "expert" to talk about Iran, they are not only not Iranian
but half the time Jewish.
Trump has come out through the usual direct communication channel, saying the reason he
called off a strike was that casualties were certain to occur and thus would not be
proportionate to an unmanned drone--
"On Monday they shot down an unmanned drone flying in International Waters. We were cocked
& loaded to retaliate last night on 3 different sights when I asked, how many will die.
150 people, sir, was the answer from a General. 10 minutes before the strike I stopped it,
not proportionate to shooting down an unmanned drone. I am in no hurry, our Military is
rebuilt, new, and ready to go, by far the best in the world. Sanctions are biting & more
added last night. Iran can NEVER have Nuclear Weapons, not against the USA, and not against
the WORLD!" Pres Trump tweet
Yes. Trump is more cool headed than a lot of people give him credit for being.
His actions have nothing to do with him being cool headed. He is very confused man as of
today. But in this particular case we all may be thankful for none other than Tucker Carlson
who, if to believe number of American sources, does advise Trump and that, in itself, is a
really good news for everyone on the planet. In fact, if Trump wants second term, among many
things he ought to do is to remove Bolton and appoint Tucker his NSA. Carlson surely is way
more qualified for this job than Bolton. Come to think about it, Tucker could make a decent
Secretary of the State too.
I've always felt that President Trump is impulsive and that impulsiveness is one of the
things that makes him unfit to be President. My question is not 'did he order airstrikes'. My
question is 'did an adult in the room step in' or 'did he actually change his mind'. I
suspect the answer to that question will break down along the typical partisan lines.
It does make clear that he has no overall plan or strategy in place. These actions
demonstrate that our President is unpredictable. While unpredictability has its own value
(perhaps especially in the political arena) I don't want to see miscalculations creep in when
we are talking about getting involved in a new war in the ME.
I thank Generals Dunford and Selva at the JCS for putting the brakes on Moron Bolton and
SecState Pompous. Particularly General Selva who says protecting oil shipments thru the
Strait is not our job; and who also pushed back hard against escalation in Venezuela in late
April.
The ships and aircraft of all nations, including warships, auxiliaries, and military
aircraft, enjoy the right of unimpeded transit passage in the Strait and its approaches.
That is true elsewhere also. The international legal regime of transit passage exists not
only at the Strait of Hormuz but also in the Strait of Gibraltar, the Dover Strait, the
Bab-el-Mandeb, and the Strait of Malacca.
Looks like impeachment for Russian collusion is off the table, Joe 'foot in mouth' Biden
gets some cover and even Democrats in congress are talking about how the AUMF is outdated.
Fixing the later, well that would take Pelosi allowing some legislation to come up for a
vote.
Prudent move by the President. It is encouraging that he put in play the concept of
proportionality. Although the scale of challenge represented by Hungary in 1956,
Czechoslovakia in 1968, and the Pueblo in 68 exceeded this event, Trump's reasoning in this
situation demonstrated a level of akin sobriety that has all too frequently been lacking in
the course of the last three presidencies. The lunatic fringes will no doubt find some way to
undercut him, the left for their usual obscene political reasons and the neo-cons because
they are neo-cons in service to their 'higher calling' but Trump by now has become accustomed
to the craven antics of former; and hopefully this unfolding will so contrast his reasoning
with the reasoning of his card carrying neo-con advisors that he will realize he needs to
clean house for the next time.
What "challenge" in Hungry? Ike made it clear, in 1944, never mind 1956, where our sphere of
interest was. There was never any doubt in Ike's mind, anyway. And who had enough gravitas
and knowledge to try and talk him out of his views? Czechoslovakia in 1968? Come on...we were
a bit, cough, cough, distracted in 1968. That was never in question either. Pueblo? Come on..
Jack posted an interesting tweet on another thread. It seems there may also be an alternate
explanation on why Trump called off the attacks.
Apparently Iran was informed of the imminent attacks. They responded through Oman &
Switzerland that they wouldn't play ball and any attack would escalate.
It is high time for Trump to eject the neocons from his administration.
There was a palpable lack of enthusiasm for a new war on FOX's programs last night.
IMO unless Trump comes to believe his re-election chances would be enhanced by a new war
or the IRG conducts ops too violent to be ignored he is likely to keep it holstered.
"... One of the first major confrontations with the US by Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the participating governments. ..."
"... The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market. ..."
"... And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it, Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks. ..."
One of the first major confrontations with the US by
Russia and the PRC was to be over the greater Middle East. The main reason was the advance
negotiations with all key oil producers -- including Saudi Arabia, Iraq, and Iran -- on
substituting the petrodollar with a basket of currencies where the yuan , the
euro and the ruble dominate. Using the currency basket would enable the sellers
and buyers to go around the US-imposed sanctions and quotas. Indeed, Beijing and Moscow were
now enticing the oil producers with huge, long-term export deals which were both financially
lucrative and politically tempting by offering guarantees for the well-being of the
participating governments.
The crux of the proposal is regional and includes flagrant disregard of the US sanctions on
Iran.
However, the key to the extent of the commitment of both Beijing and Moscow lies in the
growing importance and centrality of the New Silk Road via Central Asia.
Persia had a crucial rôle in the ancient Silk Road, and both the PRC and Russia now
expect Iran to have a comparable key rôle in the New Silk Road.
The growing dominance of heritage-based dynamics throughout the developing world, including
the greater Central Asia and the greater Middle East, makes it imperative for the PRC to rely
on historic Persia/Iran as a western pole of the New Silk Road. It is this realization which
led both Beijing and Moscow to give Tehran, in mid-May 2019, the original guarantees that
Washington would be prevented from conducting a "regime change".
Therefore, even though both Russia and the PRC were not satisfied with the Iranian and
Iran-proxy activities and policies in the Iraq-Syria-Lebanon area, it was far more important
for them to support Iran, and also Turkey, in their confrontations with the US in order to
expedite the consolidation of the New Silk Road.
Tehran and its key allies in "the Middle Eastern Entente" -- Turkey and Qatar -- are
cognizant of the core positions of Russia and the PRC. Since mid-May, Tehran and, to a lesser
extent, Ankara and Doha, were appraised by Moscow and Beijing of their overall direction of
political decisions. Hence, since early June 2019, Tehran has felt confident to
start building momentum of Iranian assertiveness and audacity.
Tehran has been raising its profile in the region.
Tehran insists that it is now impossible to make decisions, or do anything else, in the
greater Middle East without Iran's approval. On June 2, 2019, the Chief of Staff of the Iranian
Armed Forces, Maj.-Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, touted the new strategic posture of Iran. "The
Islamic movement has affected the entire world and on top of that, it has succeeded in
intimidating the American hegemony and Zionism," he said. Bagheri attributed the new influence
of Iran to the acquisition of regional strategic depth; that is, reaching the shores of the
Mediterranean
Mamdouh Salamehon June 18 2019
Some quarters in the West belittle the strategic partnership between China and Russia describing it as a “marriage of
convenience”. They even had the temerity to urge President Putin to make a choice between China and the West.
President Putin will never sacrifice his strategic partnership with China for the West. Both Russia and China rank their ties
as the “peak” in mutual history. This can be judged by two analytical frameworks: their converging visions of the future
world order and their harmonized national interests.
The Chinese view on the world order at this historical juncture is shared and dovetailed by Putin’s Russia. Both sides hold
the view that Washington’s alienation from both Beijing and Moscow is reflected by the deeply rooted fear of the US losing
hegemonic status as the “only indispensable superpower”. The indications of the US fear are plenty. From Beijing’s point of
view, they manifest themselves by the U.S. decision to restart a Cold War containment strategy of China and by the trade war
it is waging against it. From Moscow’s perspective, US fears manifest themselves by the US attempts to undermine Russia’s
dominance in global energy and also by the Western alliance pushing the Western sphere of influence towards the Russian
border.
In sharp contrast to mutual suspicion and deteriorating relationship between Washington and Beijing, the Chinese-Russian tie
has proved to be a stable strategic partnership built on mutual understanding, respect and national interests.
The Russia-China strategic alliance is destined to shape the global economy and the geopolitics of the world in the 21st
century converting it from a unipolar to a multipolar world.
Relations between China, the world’s largest economy based on purchasing power parity (PPP) and Russia, the world’s energy
superpower, are deepening at a time of profound change in the global geopolitical landscape.
Their tools are the petro-yuan and the Silk Road better known as the Belt & Road Initiative (BRI).
The 26th of March 2018 will go in history as the most momentous day for the United States’ economy, China’s economy and
the petrodollar and also for China’s status as an economic superpower. In that day China launched its yuan-denominated crude
oil futures in Shanghai thus challenging the petrodollar for dominance in the global oil market.
Right now, China is the number one exporter on the globe, the largest crude oil importer in the world and also the world’s
biggest economy. The Chinese would like to see global currency usage reflect this shift in global economic power. The
petrodollar system provides at least three immediate benefits to the United States. It increases global demand for US
dollars. It also increases global demand for US debt securities and it gives the United States the ability to buy oil with a
currency it can print at will. In geopolitical terms, the petrodollar lends vast economic and political power to the United
States. China hopes to replicate this dynamic.
The launching of the crude oil benchmark on the Shanghai exchange could mark the beginning of the end of the petrodollar.
It is probable that the Chinese yuan will emerge as the world’s top reserve currency within the next fifteen years with the
petro-yuan emerging as the top oil currency.
Another tool of the Russian-Chinese strategic partnership is BRI. The BRI is a massive undertaking involving investments
programmes worth trillions of dollars, which will go toward connecting Asia and Europe by sea, rail, and road to promote more
trade between the continents.
And with tensions escalating between Iran and the United States, Iran figures prominently in the Russia-China
strategic partnership. It is an important link in the BRI. Moreover, Iran has recently become more confident in its ability
to confront the United States by the joint guarantees of support it received from Russia and China in the event the US moved
to strangle it and attempt a regime change. Iran’s understanding is that were the US to take military action against it,
Russia and China would prevent an Iranian defeat even if there were major setbacks.
Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
"... The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in Southeast Asia. ..."
There have always been people who have tried to gain power and control. The only
distinction was the mechanism through which they planned to achieve it: brute force or
something more original. For example, researchers manipulate data to attain the results they
want, while traders try to manipulate and influence market prices by disseminating erroneous
information. Some go even further by conducting so-called "false flag" and "fake news"
operations.
However, it is a gradual process. First, the technique of misinformation is implemented
– as you may remember, in 2016, the Internet was filled with fake news aimed at
distorting public opinion and helping one of the candidates to become president of the United
States of America. This year, intelligence agencies and non-government entities have decided to
use similar ploys to influence oil prices.
According to Wikipedia, a
false flag is "intentional misrepresentation or covert operation designed to deceive; the
deception creates the appearance of a particular party, group, or nation being responsible for
some activity, disguising the actual source of responsibility." Recently it became popular for
countries to "organize attacks on themselves and make the attacks appear to be by enemy nations
or terrorists, thus giving the nation that was supposedly attacked a pretext for domestic repression and foreign
military or economic aggression."
Recently there were news report that two oil tankers had been damaged in a suspected attack
in the waters between the United Arab Emirates and Iran as they were leaving the Persian Gulf.
And predictably, the United States claimed that Iran was responsible for
damaging the vessels in the Gulf of Oman. This was the second such incident in four weeks.
The question that must be raised is who gains what from these incidents. Let's start from
saying that even if Tehran had nothing to do with these attacks, it will still suffer the
consequences. It is enough to recall the Gulf of Tonkin incident that took
place in August 1964. Back then, a US-staged false flag initiated full-scale conflict in
Southeast Asia.
Iran has already accused the US of lying about a "torpedo attack" on an American-linked oil
tanker. "The US and its regional allies must stop warmongering and put an end to mischievous
plots and false-flag operations in the region," Iran's mission to the United Nations said .
As history has shown, the Americans won't back down. Does it mean that Iran is next on its
target list for war? Only time will tell.
Nevertheless, without waiting for the results of an investigation, Brent prices spiked after the reports
of the attacks on tankers leaving the Persian Gulf.
The Brent
crude quote won 4.45% on Thursday, shortly after news of the attacks broke, but it has
since slightly decreased, or, should we say, corrected. Without any doubt, someone managed to
put up a really good million-dollar front.
Interesting that this Israeli-First traitor Clawson mentions Lincoln and Ft. Sumter. He finally admits what genuine historians
of the Civil War long knew: Lincoln was a warmonger and tyrant, not an emancipator. The Civil war was fought to eliminate true
freedom and equality in this country and it has been downhill ever since. The working class and soldier-class in America today
are slaves in every sense of the word. Slaves to Zion. No wonder the certified warmonger and racist Lincoln is worshiped equally
by Left and Right today, whilst genuine American patriots like Robert E. Lee have their legacy torn down. Lincoln was the proto-Neocon.
Tom Dilorenzo summed up the real Lincoln when he wrote in Lincoln Unmasked:
"Imagine that California seceded from the union and an American president responded with the carpet bombing of Los Angeles,
San Diego, and San Francisco that destroyed 90 percent of those cities. Such was the case with General Sherman's bombardment of
Atlanta; a naval blockade; a blocking off of virtually all trade; the eviction of thousands of residents from their homes (as
occurred in Atlanta in 1864); the destruction of most industries and farms; massive looting of private property by a marauding
army; and the killing of one out of four males of military age while maiming for life more than double that number. Would such
an American president be considered a 'great statesman' or a war criminal? The answer is obvious.
A statesman would have recognized the state's right to secede, as enshrined in the Tenth Amendment, among other places, and
then worked diligently to persuade the seceded state that a reunion was in its best interest. Agreat statesman, or even a modest
one, would not have impulsively plunged the entire nation into a bloody war.
Lincoln's warmongering belligerence and his invasion of all the Southern states in response to Fort Sumter (where no one was
harmed or killed) caused the upper South -- Virginia, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Arkansas -- to secede after originally voting
to remain in the Union. He refused to meet with Confederate commissioners to discuss peace and even declined a meeting with Napoleon
III of France, who offered to broker a peace agreement. No genuine statesman would have behaved in such a way.
After Fort Sumter, Lincoln thanked naval commander Gustavus Fox for assisting him in manipulating the South Carolinians into
firing at Fort Sumter. A great statesman does not manipulate his own people into starting one of the bloodiest wars in human history."
mathias alexand
Here's a man who holds a press conference to announce a secret plan. Only in America.
False flags here, false flags there, false flags everywhere. All too further the aims of the 'masters of the universe'. We know
who was responsible for the tanker attacks. Who are the 3 countries absolutely desperate to take Iran down and install a completely
pliant puppet regime answerable to Washington, Tel Aviv and to a lesser extent Riyadh. And creatures like Clawson, and all the
other vermin can only see $$$$. Thats all they care about. Opening up more markets to further enrich themselves. I echo the other
commenters also. The evil men stoop to for greed, power and control. Psychopaths.
harry law
The Foreign Office issued a statement saying: "It is almost certain that a branch of the Iranian military – the Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps – attacked the two tankers on 13 June. No other state or non-state actor could plausibly have been responsible."
Unbelievable, The UK vassal will use this to as one more reason to evade their responsibilities in implementing the JCPOA.
Well they would say that, wouldn't they. The UK vassal state will spout any peice of crap in their assigned role as vassal state.
Australia is just as gushingly sycophantic and cravenly jellified.
Er . just a rough guess Bill going on the belligerent foaming at the mouth by people in those places along with the likes of Bolton
and Pompeo. In fact, you can probably go all the way back to about 1980 or so.
mark
I think the real giveaway was when all three rogue states openly stated their intention of doing this 1,000 times over the past
10 years. That was the crucial clue Sherlock Holmes was looking for.
Wilmers31
And who funds the Washington Institute? Last time I looked the International Crisis Group existed thanks to Soros and is usually
treated like a serious organisation.
Many Europeans are not in love with the idea of war with Iran, just to achieve obedience to the US. 90 million people is bigger
than Germany.
wardropper
These are the shysters, the spivs and the con men of bygone times. They are the ones who lurked at street corners, waiting for
someone to come along who was gullible enough to buy the Moon from them.
But, for some reason, they are all in politics today.
Now how could that be?
Only because there are people whom it currently suits to use shysters, spivs and con men in order to create enough chaos for
us to want to give up and just let those people have their way.
I agree with Rhys below. There is no more disgusting example of sub-humanity to be found on earth than these warmongers.
To deal with them, however, we will have to realize that their "philosophy", if you can call it that, runs very deep. It didn't
just enter their heads last week.
They are reared and trained in it.
It will be a tough battle.
wardropper
I should add that, in bygone times, the police and the law were usually able to deal with the shysters, spivs and con men, since
their lack of conscience often gave them away.
The modern version, however, which has moved into politics, was shrewd enough to use a few decades of bribery and threats in order
to build around itself a nice little shell, through which the law simply cannot penetrate, except on special occasions, mainly
for show.
Rhys Jaggar
There is a big cabal of warmongers who stoke the fuel but never see action. I find those people more disgusting than anyone on
earth.
Draft dodgers, academics, 'historians' etc etc.
Ball-less pricks is what I call them .
mark
All fully paid up members of the Bill Clinton Light Infantry.
William HBonney
Yeah, well I'm not a great fan of those who would appease Assad, Putin, Hussein, Gaddafi
You must be so proud.
andyoldlabour
The appeasers would include the US who fully supported Saddam Hussein in his war against Iran, who provided him with chemical
weapons and logistical help in using those weapons, which killed around 50,000 Iranian troops and Kurdish civilians.
The same appeasers armed and funded the Taliban (Mujahideen) against the Soviets.
The US are the single largest force for terrorism the World has ever seen.
William HBonney
The easiest, and perhaps best metric by which to judge a country, is 'do people aspire to live there? '.
I see you admire the Soviet Union, but at its dissolution, people were queuing to leave. And yet the US, and the UK, according
to you, iniquitous places of tyranny, are oversubscribed. Could it be, that for all your implied erudition, you are merely a bellend?
axisofoil
You must be a big fan of CNN and the NYT. Ignorance is bliss, isn't it?
BigB
Well, even as a pacifist: if that is his sentiment – I hope he has sons or daughters in the military stationed in CENTCOM in Qatar.
I bet he hasn't, though.
Rhisiart Gwilym
He should be right there on the frontline himself. That would straighten the disgusting creep's ideas out about the 'usefulness'
of deliberately provoking war
Standing at the forefront of game-changing innovations in undersea warfare, Navy Cmdr.
Scott Smith has only one small request. Don't call the Navy's fleet of unmanned undersea
vehicles "drones." "It has a negative connotation," Smith said. "We think of drone strikes
as taking out Taliban, and we're nowhere near that." Not yet, anyway. But the Pentagon is
trying quickly to get there.
Last fall, the Navy named Smith as the first-ever commander of the new Unmanned Undersea
Vehicle Squadron 1, or UUVRON-1. It's spearheading the service's development and deployment
of unmanned underwater vehicles. Called UUVs, they're are already being used for
surveillance and to clear mines and map the ocean floor, according to Bryan Clark, a
retired submariner who is now a senior fellow with the Center for Strategic and Budgetary
Assessments.
So don't get it twisted, this ascendent FUKUS drone army is doubleplusgood; it's designed
for mapping and minesweeping! Sort of like a bunch of little Indian Joneses! Of course the
article does go on to brag:
There are even ongoing efforts to launch UUVs from Virginia-class submarines to conduct
surveillance or deliver payloads. He said that over the next decade sailors should expect
to use the underwater robots to bring sonar arrays and mines to the seabed, launch
torpedoes or become torpedoes themselves to destroy enemy warships . Smith wants to see
UUVs in all kinds of sizes to fill gaps in future missions. "Those missions that are too
dangerous to put men on," Smith said.
It is absolutely side-splitting though that they think they can achieve Total Spectrum
Dominance with these toys. Sorry, I'm looking for any old silver lining these days.
Posted by: sejomoje | Jun 13, 2019 1:59:56 PM |
10 5 No matter the culprit in this latest incident, I lay this current world unrest at
the feet of our current empire.
The economic terrorism, imposed on other nations through U$ sanctions, is the real
problem..
"US officials, however, were quick to point the finger at Iran. "It's clear that Iran is
behind the Fujairah attack. Who else would you think would be doing it? Someone from Nepal?"
said US National Security Adviser John Bolton.
In turn, US Secretary of State Pompeo alleged that Iran had attacked the tankers to raise
the global price of oil.
Tehran has denied any involvement and called for an investigation."
"On the previous day, a fire broke out on an Iranian oil platform of the South Pars gas
field in the Persian Gulf and was subsequently contained and no fatalities were
reported."
Recall the plot of the movie A Fistful of Dollars and another can of worms becomes
possible.
Whenever the US has their conclusion this quickly, before even the appearance of an
investigation (as with MH17, and Syria "chemical" attacks), I feel it is almost certain that
they are making $&!% up, and the reality is likely the opposite of what they have
said.
Both Israel and the Saudis are far too incompetent to carry out a sophisticated attack like
this - see, ships didn't sink but a message was delivered nonetheless. Probable some military
contractor idling in Syria was reassigned to do this.
An obvious question is why the US is not providing evidence to support its claims.
On possible explanation is that there is no evidence.
Another would be that there is evidence but that if the US produced the evidence, then it
would be constrained to "do something." In the scenario in which Iran is conducting these
quasi-attacks to warn of impending greater escalation if the US continues to starve it, both
sides want the other to initiate any violence, and the US doesn't really want the global
economic chaos that hostilities would inevitably bring--especially in conjunction with the
trade/tech war with China. Therefore, it is pulling its punches and withholding the evidence
it has.
Iran may sense that given the US-China and US-Russia issues and the 2020 election, they
had better escalate now or be slowly bled to death. But they would like the US to provide a
pretext for Iran to take real action to block traffic into and out of the Persian Gulf. But
the US wants to be able to portray Iran as the aggressor.
Hence the cat-and-mouse game ongoing. I have to admit, it does make a certain
comprehensive sense.
The Japanese Prime Minister was visiting Tehran at the time of the attack upon a Japanese
tanker.
What a perfect time to attack a Japanese tanker.
Such a plan reeks of incompetence.
Incompetence is a finger print of the Saudis.
Reminder that they butchered journalist Jamal Khashoggi in their own embassy. They mailed
bombs (hidden in printers) to the US and Britain
and kept the tracking slips of the packages - nice plan ! All bombers must remember to save
their tracking slips.
They tried to embarrass Iran by attacking a Japanese tanker while the Japanese Prime
Minister was having a positive visit to Tehran.
the usa has produced 'phony' hard evidence in the past... it typically goes with false
flags.. i am not saying this will come out of this, or that iran is not involved, but i lean
strongly to the ramp up in a focus on the strait of hormuz as all part of a longer strategy
of creating stress on iran and potentially dragging them into war.. either way as OP mentions
in his last line @128...
Evidence versus claims. I give you the recent near collision between Russian and USN
warships where USN claimed Russian fault whereas the evidence decisively proved otherwise.
USN shut-up rather quickly and the incident went to the dust bin. In an earlier comment, I
speculated that an IED-type device was used and that it was installed while the ships laded.
Torpedoes were certainly not used, and the limpet mine assertion remains that until a
forensic examination is done, and that won't happen until the ships return to a port where
repairs can be made. Also, we have the much less reported attacks on Iranian ships and
extraction infrastructure--the tit for tat where we'll only be treated to the tits as I
commented in a trivial comment that disappeared. The upshot is, the Outlaw US Empire has
scant credibility when it comes to making claims about anything sans extraordinary evidence.
Iran, of course, knows that. But given the overall context, I doubt Iran's responsible and
stand by my earlier prediction of a CIA/MI-6 proxy doing the deed.
I agree that US credibility on many things is weak--especially in connection with
Iran--but the point is that there is a plausible scenario in which Iran is ready to
escalate--or threaten to escalate--to break out of the US stranglehold but needs to execute
the escalation very carefully.
I also agree that the false flag scenario is still very much in play.
Here're links to a couple of things bouncing around the Twitterverse. The first is a
video clip of
Bolton Caitlin does an excellent job of
unpacking again . It's actually a good thing this video was saved as it needs to be
distributed once again.
The second is a pic of Bolton framed at
the header by "Iran is going to attack us" and at the footer with "Even if we have to do it
ourselves."
Both IMO are worthy of viral retweeting provided you have an account.
DW interviewed a guy today who said it could be Iran but that it could also be a false flag
by one of the Emirates. His interview didn't last long before they went to someone with more
of the US voice. The whole time I was thinking they said it was a torpedo and we know Israel
has at least one submarine. I wonder where it is right now. Meanwhile the official US
statement sounds similar to early declarations about Russians hacking HRC's email: "We assess
..."
librul 141
I thought the same thing. It's like the chemical weapons attack in Syria that happened on the
same day the inspectors arrived. It's like the White Helmets being wherever HTS is. The alt
media is the only arena where people say this sounds fishy.
You shouldn't be misled. Iran does not want war, because the leadership knows that it will
definitely lead to gigantic damage in its own country. In Tronald's administration and
elsewhere, on the other hand, there are people who absolutely want a war, the four B's in the
first place. Tronald himself doesn't really want one, but is caught between a rock and a hard
place. He absolutely wants to make the economy look positive until the next elections, but
this is difficult because there are signs of recession everywhere in the world. An important
factor is the price of oil. Despite the sanctions against Iran, it has not yet risen, the
fracking industry, which produces what it can do due to its debts service necessities,
continues to lose money at these prices. It will be difficult to avoid collapses. So Tronald
may be willing to do more to push up the price of oil. For example, a nice little false flag
action. The Relotius media are almost convinced, no wonder if even someone like B is
wobbling.
But, people; the empire is the empire, we know how it works, that doesn't change. That's
Tonkin 2.0.
United States officials say they are outraged by a government-funded troll campaign
that has targeted American citizens critical of the administration's hardline Iran policy and
accused critics of being loyal to the Tehran regime.
State Department officials admitted to Congressional staff in a closed-door meeting on
Monday that a project they had funded to counter Iranian propaganda had gone off the rails.
Critics in Washington have gone further, saying that the programme resembled the type of
troll farms used by autocratic regimes abroad.
Alright then, how is WWIII going for everyone? Everyone got their pith helmet at the ready?
I agree with the sentiments that think this is a warning to empire instead of false flag
because no body bags
I feel sorry for those MoA barflies that continue to have some faith that Trump has a
scintilla of humanism in him and continue to ask for some proof other than BS Q spewment.
Show me ANY example of Trump showing compassion, empathy for other than his fellow war
criminals he is rumored to pardon. Trump is a very hurt human being who is being used as such
by those that control empire for their purposes. To the extent that he agrees to do their
bidding, he is just another in a string of president war criminals of the US, since Jimmy
Carter.
The world outside the West is playing the long game and the West is now very punch drunk
and coming to the end of its run of empires. I read a posting from Reuters in the last 48
hours or so where some pundit was quoting folks "telling" China that they should not include
private finance in this trade war thing......GRIN
The West is holding a very weak hand except for the extinction card. Will they play it
because they are sore losers? Given what they have done to our planet, it would not surprise
me for them to have the ultimate hubris to call the game over......sigh The Cosmos may be
better for it but we have potential if we try.....
pat lang makes a
good distinction on what is a us gov't assessment, verses an intel assessment..
@160 karlof1 / 161 john.. thanks for those links.. my position - all that is no
surprise... i find it surprising some are surprised.. the usa is thick into propaganda at
this point and said they would spend good money on war propaganda.. videos of bolton saying
lying is okay aren't helpful to their cause though..
"'We have no interest in engaging in a new conflict in the Middle East. We will defend
our interests, but a war with Iran is not in our strategic interest, nor in the best interest
of the international community.' --@CENTCOM spokesman Lt. Col. Earl Brown."
Seems the Pentagon has flipped the bird to Pompeo and Bolton, which happened before
during BushCo.
--------------------------
Maybe such a war with Iran is not in the interests of the United States, but certainly in
the interests of Israel.
Trump ratchets up the sanctions before and Abe visits Iran which does reflect his
negotiating style. Iran allegedly hits a tanker while Abe is taking to Iran. Now Abe has to
go back towing the US line, as usual, saying it was Iran's fault and he loses face being
insulted by Iran. What a perfect way to step up the tensions and garner more UN support.
These events will continue and slowly get worse until the coup de gra, which would be
something like the sinking of a large US naval vessel in the Persian gulf. The US peoples
minds are not right yet and it will take time for their minds to be framed back into war.
During the Iran Iraq war the US re flagged Kuwait tankers during the Tanker War. We could easily
see a new Tanker War but on a much lower lever driven by the third party actors who stand to
profit.
War with Iran will be a disaster for everyone involved except one small nation that knows
how to cover their tracks.
Iran will be demolished eventually. Those who gain from destroying Iran are behind
presstv. published a video showing 44 people saved from two on fire sinking ships. I know how
difficult it is to identify these people from their faces, especially a 44 crew member crowd
but I think even stinkcom could manage to do that. The media BS about this incident suggest,
who ever done it, is dealing with something that went very wrong.. Iran saves 44 sailors and
shows them on TV.. the west claims, with no proof whatsoever, that the Iranians did not save
these sailors even though the sailors are safe in Iran? Hmmm!
I suggest the reporters and journalist that reported this, be tasked to investigate the
suspicious looking dark hole named "false flag". Its a possible threat to Israel and Saudia
Arabia. Its approximate location is about 200 trillion light years due East from here.. The
media are saying Iran and Russia teamed up to dig a hole in space, and once the Iran-Russian
team managed to get the hole dug, they climbed deep inside of the hole and turned its lights
off. The west is saying they flipped the switch in the WH to keep the Iranian-Russian team
from claiming its "light out" success. When the reporters and journalist get back, I am sure
we will be all ears to hear the how the Russian and Iranian team managed to make a hole in
space, dark.
@karlof1 - I read the Luongo piece and I find it the most pivotal of all current
commentary - largely because it's about the oil situation globally. Neither Iran nor Russia
need the price of oil to go up in order to prosper - the US and Saudi Arabia do need the
price to go up.
Having said that, I don't know that insurance rates rising are actually adding to the
producer's revenue at the wellhead/refinery.
I do know that oil is self-regulating, in that whenever it gets around $100 a barrel and
over, the global economy stalls and the demand for oil goes down, resulting in glut for a
time and lower prices - not to mention global recession. As Luongo illustrates, right now the
world is in a large glut. There's nothing to push the price up (which Trump desperately
needs) except tightening production, which Saudi wants, but which Russia doesn't want to
do.
~~
So imagine a world filled to the brim with bluster, and yet once again what actually moves
on the ground (or below the waves) is actually very little. Enough bluster to scare everyone
and increase leverage of the security apparatus, and just enough damage to inch the oil price
up without crashing the global economy. Expect more such ratcheting.
Iran didn't do this latest episode. The US and Israel are the likely actors, with Saudi
and UAE providing lunch money for the excursion. Also, the false flag works fine without dead
bodies if the intent is not for a war with Iran - which the US military absolutely knows
cannot be won - but to trigger oil prices up. At times, commercial interests take over, and
ride the wave of military activity, and I suspect this one is about the money.
And these neocons, by the way, seem able to live on pure fantasy. I don't think they'll
achieve a real war. They visibly make their points - increase their stature - in their peer
group purely from grandstanding.
It's worth linking the Tom Luongo piece again for a nice understanding of oil fundamentals in
the region and the world currently. It's important to understand how illusory and temporary
the US fracking phenomenon is:
Trump Thinks US Oil Is His Strength When It's His Achilles' Heel
As a commenter here (David on May 13) said recently, the US fracking industry's appalling
indebtedness comes due in 2023. This is far enough through Trump's potential second term that
he can blame everyone else and move on. I've made a personal note to expect a US economic
plunge in that year.
To see Trump's acts as merely keeping the ponzi scheme going for as long as possible, and
for as much short-term reward through the second term, is the best understanding of White
House policy I think.
Grieved @184 thanks for that link. Just saw an update on Fox stating Iran has formally denied
any part of this incident but can't find a solid Iranian news source to confirm.
@ Pnyx 181 . . . for the usa it is not the same. Their homeland is far away, while Iran would suffer
extreme devastation in the event of a war - whatever the final result. So I think it is
absolutely unthinkable that Iran would do anything to increase the risk of war.
You don't understand -- every US death in war is now a news item. When 5 or 6 dies it's
huge news. This is not Vietnam with 200 dying every week. Its different now. So if a thousand
soldiers die in the beginning of a conflict with Iran it's HUGE. No American cares how many
Iranians would die, but they DO care if Americans die, homeland or not. THAT's why the
generals are against it too. . .PS: If the Iranians sink that carrier, it's 5,000+ American
dead. Unacceptable.
So that's why Iran is free to dispute the aggression against them with some violent
events. More power to them.
I would think that if the Iranian's held the crew and took off an unexploded bomb that they
can ask the crew how they might have gotten there......
Were the ships in Iran controlled waters such that the empire side could not retrieve the
unexploded bomb? If that is the case then I suspect the unexploded bomb may show up in
pictures we see that show where it might have come from.....
from the grasping at straws mines department.
news report
Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!
The U.S. military has released a video it says implicates Iran's Islamic Revolutionary
Guard Corps (IRGC) in the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman, the latest violent
incident the United States and its allies blame on Tehran.
The U.S. Central Command on June 13 said the video shows crews from IRGC boats removing
what looks like an unexploded mine from the side of one of the two attacked oil tankers. .
.
here
the US has met its match, asking for a seizure at the UNSC --
Earlier in the day at the UN, U.S. acting Ambassador Jonathan Cohen called on the Security
Council to confront the "clear threat" posed by Tehran in the region.
The attacks "demonstrate the clear threat that Iran poses to international peace and
security," Cohen told reporters following the closed-door Security Council meeting.
Cohen said that "no proxy group in the area has the resources or the skill to act with this
level of sophistication."
"Iran, however, has the weapons, the expertise, and the requisite intelligence information
to pull this off," he said.
"I've asked the Security Council to remain seized of the matter and I expect that we will
have further conversations about it, and how to respond in the days ahead," he added.
Loud chuckling was heard in Tehran.
Don Bacon , Jun 13, 2019 11:06:34 PM |
195Anon , Jun 13, 2019 11:20:05 PM |
196
So this is what comes to mind...
Houthi or al. are responsible for first event. They target Saudi/Nor. ships.
Saudi et. al. target ships friendly to Iran.
Understand though that in these events there is a total asymmetry at play. That is to say
that actions will not follow any logic we know of. The above is the closest I get to making
sense BUT as far as I know each side might have been responsible for the actions that seemed
most counterproductive to itself. Planners know the mindset of society, a false false flag is
an option.
We are left with qui bono, and I think the reply to that is as reliant on the global
geopolical and economic environment, as well as who will de facto gain the upper hand. It
seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned by
the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.
A fluid situation for sure. I wish I had had the time to follow things more closely. Thanks
karlof, Oscar for all the links and info.
Can't add anything substantial apart from a general maxim: when the Empire had proof the
'other' is to blame, they readily display said proof. When they are to blame... Skripols,
Mari Marmara, MH17, etc.
@ Anon who wrote
"
It seems to me to be a form of psychological warfare where expansion of power is questioned
by the appearance or reality of being goaded. This is not a good circumstance at all.
"
The first part is confusing to me
I think you meant
Psychological warfare is going on
I assume you mean the West that is questioning "by the appearance or reality of being
goaded".
Your "expansion of power" leaves me wanting the meat
Yes, China/Russia and aligned are collaborating in ways that reduces the power of empire
but not necessarily in ways that translates into the same sort of power......That said,
global private finance versus "socialism is the eye of the storm and everything else is
proxy. We are not seeing the beginning of socialism but we are seeing the end of global
private finance which I think your "expansion of power" misrepresents because one supports a
few and the other supports all......maybe it would be clearer to say the elimination of power
by a few and the assumption of the power by the many.
I think it is a good circumstance and way past due for our species to survive.
@193 dh... i thought you could... what happened? are you one of those long lost draft
dodgers?
hey - maybe he can hide under his mustache if the bombs start falling? it is almost big
enough... either that, or bugs bunny can grab it when he ain't watching.. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQ-BOqQw_TQ
@194 Is it my imagination or is that video showing a "limped mine" that is on THE OTHER SIDE
of the ship than the one that is aflame?
If that is true - and it looks like it - then we have to assume that the Dastardly
Iranians(tm) stuck limpet mines to both sides of that ship.
Why do that?
It maximizes your chances of being detected, and maximises the time it takes to attach the
limpets, and with no discernible benefit.
Why do that, when speed and stealth are at a premium?
Don Wiscacho , Jun 14, 2019 12:12:46 AM |
205David Gibson , Jun
14, 2019 12:57:54 AM |
206
MOA 14/06/19
If the strategic aim of the Imperialist powers is to still claim all of the Middle East oil
and resources and to crush any movement towards independence then the stumbling block is Iran
and Russia who have stood in their way vis-a-vie Syria.
NATO has succeeded in Iraq and Libya and almost succeeded in Syria but are still trying
using the flip/flop position of Turkey and Idlib as a Castle in the game to defeat any
independence movement out of US hegemony.
At this time no oil or chemicals have spilled into the Gulf waters. This is by design.
Whilst the comments pertaining to the main article are informative and useful most are
getting bogged down and arguing about details and missing the overall global plans of the
Imperialist plans.
The Imperialist plan remains the same whilst their tactics can and do change. Their bag of
dirty tricks is quite bottomless and yes they think they can fight against any move for
National Independence anywhere in the world.
Latin America most notably Venezuela, Africa with AFRICOM already using drones.
Australia, fully under MI6/CIA control. No defence of Assange an Australian Citizen, plus
the coup against Gough Whitlam.
The UK, with either Boris, or Hunt being in bed with Donald, both lap dogs to the USA and
like with Harold Wilson they won't allow Corbyn to become PM.
France with Macron the poodle trying to show he is as tough as Trump by being more stupid.
We all know the situation of an Empire in decline. It isn't all about oil!
David Gibson ,
Jun 14, 2019 12:57:54 AM |
206Jen , Jun 14, 2019 1:07:57 AM |
207
Psychohistorian @ 189:
The crews of both tankers were rescued by an Iranian rescue ship so I would say both
tankers were in Iranian waters in the Gulf of Oman.
Don Wiscacho
I take it that Abe on this exercise was no more than a US asset. Iran has stuck to the Nuke
agreement and US has reneged so nothing to negotiate or mediate on Iran's side. Abe going to
Iran as mediator means he was asking for concessions from Iran - that Iran make some moves to
appease the US.
US is the type that if you give an inch, they take a mile. If Iran made one concession then
US would take it as a sign of weakness and expect them to make more.
I might have missed mention of it in all the hullabaloo, but I have seen nothing of the US
Navy response which would involve tracking down the perpetrators, and ensuring no further
acts were committed.
It is that absence of obvious response which causes me to think that our host might be
incorrect in his assessment, and that the perpetrator is a party the US Navy would sooner not
apprehend.
Iran would be crazy to take on the US so why provoke them. They stand to lose their oil then
anyway. War is an economy and Everyone knows that Bolton is a war monger and that Iran is a
thorn in Israels side and he needs an excuse to go to war. Also he can't use the WMD card
again to start a war and JumpStart the US economy.
I have not followed this closely. There is real proof of "attack" and not accidental or set
fire? There is video of a crew "abandoning ship? But then again, in 2019 there is no such
thing as video or image proof, at least without expert verification.
guys its BIG OIL... TRUMP approved Ethanol 15 for YEAR ROUND USE a few days ago... that means
GAS PRICES would be cheaper for Americans as more corn instead of oil would be used in
Automobiles. That drove OIL prices down! This attack on the two ships immediately drove CRUDE
OIL up 2.87%!
It seems that TRUMP pissed off some very powerful big oil men & oil-rich Arab nations
when he approved the E15!
Why blame Iran? No idea.
Why attack the ships owned by Japan while Shinzo Abe is there negotiating peace? No Idea.
Who carried out the attack? No Idea.
Interesting and sane interview on 'today program' news radio 4 bbc U.K. 7.50am ish.
Admiral Lord west - - - could be any US - proxy group in Middle East looking to gain by
escalating US -Iran conflict !
He said it could well be ''a pro US group in Iran'' similar to the US backed opposition in
Venezuela !
My view is this makes the most sense!
Probably given the nod by Bolton/Trump ect
Definitely funded and armed by US !
Just as in Venezuela.
Plus- bare in mind the main motive will be western public voter deception, same as anti
Russia/ Skripal, Anti Syria / chloride. Venezuela/opposition.
Criminal psychopath profile tells us -> USA Trump.
Meanwhile Twitter censorship thousands of iranian accounts. Pro-american accounts for war is
of course never removed.
Twitter has announced that it is removing 4,779 accounts associated or backed by
Tehran, the latest strike in the ongoing anti-Iran campaign perfectly timed to coincide with
the attack on two oil tankers in the Gulf of Oman. https://www.rt.com/op-ed/461825-iran-trolls-gulf-tonkin-twitter/
Don Bacon
Iran removed a mine from a ship, so that proves that Iran put it there!
Indeed, that is the illogical proapganda MSM use now, very disturbing. Its Tonkin once
again.
Not to mention, is it iranians? Is it a mine to begin with? Is that really how you handle
a mine? Just pull it off with your bare hands around 10 plus people on a small boat?
Interesting also that US just happend to be there spying.
IRO that 'high-res' video footage from the usual suspects.
By coincidence they've had a surveillance drone or a chopper on location? Maybe, I don't
know.
The Iranians do have the means to spot drones and choppers, we do know this ever since they
hijacked and/or crashed RQ-170 and MQ-9 vehicles a couple of years back.
Are we to believe them - the Iranians - being that stupid to launching such an operation
while knowing full well they are being watched by their main adversary?
Regarding technicalities:
Iran has got the know-how to build limpet mines? So it must have been done by Iranian forces?
You don't say. Building a limpet mine is trivial. Get your hands on a bunch of Nd-magnets, a
3rd grade chemist cooking up a couple of kilos of a HEI composition, a mechanical engineer
for the hardware and a physicist assisting in creating the fusing system and you're all
set.
I, for one, am being positive Lichtenstein did it - most likely on direct orders of the
ruling prince - after all there's chemists, physicists and mechanical engineers inhabiting
that tiny speck of land.
Would be intreresting if iranians actually picked up a mine though and it was an american
made, israeli made mine. Iran has a big chance now to frame the incident.
Good points zanon
To add - If the US start all-out War with Iran, how many refugees would that create ?
millions !
And if so, would we blame them/ the victems and drive them back from safety to the conflict
area, or do we blame the US and demand they compensate their victems.
If we are to return to a sane world, the perpetrators MUST pay the price and receive full
punishment .
American politicians always say ' we will do what is in America's interest' and right there
is the problem - - - not able to anticipate the outcome of there own actions !
Example - all recent conflict.
One definition of insanity is making the same mistake over and over again !!
@224 Bizarre. The photo shows the limped mine on the starboard side of the ship. The video
from the Bainbridge shows the Iranians removing that limped mine on the port side of the
ship.
The photo doesn't appear reversed - the name is clearly seen - so why would the US reverse
the video?
Okay, not a torpedo. Now it's a mine. But wait a minute, the Japanese say something was
flying above the water. The US shows a video of the Iranians removing a limpet mine. The
Japanese contest the "assessment" of the US and the US video shows the Iranians removing a
mine NOT placing one.
The story gets stranger as the neoclowns push for war.
If infact the Iranians did recover from either ship an explosive machine, a mine, flying
machine, rocket, unexploded torpedo,etc, or indeed any forensic material, that and the
debriefings of the crews will make for great political theater...that stuff is fairly
festooned with serial numbers... "film at 11", as they used to say...
"What? Only three booms? But we gave those idiots we hired four mines to attach
to that ship! Oh, cr@p, the place is swarming with drones by now. What do we do about the
fourth mine now? Can we pretend the Cubans stole it from us with their killer crickets and
gave it to Iran?
Moon of Alabama lost all credibility with this article. Israel has a huge online troll party
going on blaming Iran for this. Attack 2 tankers tied to Japanese interests,while the
Japanese Leader is conferring with Iran's leader, outside the mouth of the Persian Gulf is
too much codswallop to swallow.
Two comments: "Blamed Iran but did not present any evidence" says it all. These incidents
remind one of the Vietnam Gulf of Tonkin "incident" in which the US government claimed their
forces were attacked by North Vietnam. Subsequently it was proven by the NSA and others that
there was no attack. It was simply propaganda to give the Americans an excuse to escalate the
war. It would surprise no one, if it turned out that the US or Saudi's hired black operatives
to stage these attacks so that they could escalate tensions with Iran.
and.
It was previously reported that the limpet mine was still attached to the ship. So why
didn't the US, in need of solid evidence, go to the ship and remove the mine thereby
obtaining hard evidence that could be evaluated? Instead, the US did nothing, Iran undertook
its removal not wanting it to explode which makes sense. Then the US used it's removal by
others to suggest complicity. The US is either incompetent or just making plots up (lying as
usual). Iran's removal of the mine means nothing.
@134 Yonatan - A little frightener to Japan - this makes great sense and should have been
obvious. Thanks for pointing it out.
@198 psychohistorian - it was a mouthful, but actually makes sense. Anon is saying that
under the guise of seeming to be provoked and acting purely in reaction (to the bad actions
of Iran, etc), the US is actually exerting and expanding its power in the region, all the
while making the narrative say that it's the other unruly elements causing the ruckus.
I agree with Anon that it's more a case that a psy-ops theater has intensified, which
tells several departments of the empire that the game can get a little harsher, and they can
get away with it. It doesn't hurt that increased violence and aggravation on the region will
raise the price of oil, which fits US thinking. In fact, with Bolton accusing Iran of trying
to raise the price of oil, we now know with virtual certainty that these words reflect a US
intention somewhere in the mix.
[Sidebar: Funny how they never dropped that old propaganda thing of accusing the target of
your own actions before the target can accuse you of this act. I suspect this is an ancient
ploy of evildoers - when you can't seize the moral high ground because you have no place
there, then you must steal the moral high ground. Plunder and occupation by another
name.]
The warning to Japan to hold steady to its western mission is very plausible. And anything
that happens can be blamed on Iran anyway - the perfect patsy for all kinds of mayhem. And
still Israel would like to provoke the US military into a suicidal attack on Iran.
So, several incentives for several players, several actions, and more to come, all under
the virtual fog of virtual war.
The US has claimed that the tanker attacks showed "a level of sophistication implicating a
nation, not a random terrorist". Again this is pure bullshit and propaganda from the Trump
bunch. I recall the attack on the guided missile carrier, USS Cole in which the ship was
damaged and a number of sailors were killed. The USS Cole was attacked successfully by a
small fiberglass boat loaded with C4. Successful yet hardly "sophisticated". The US has been
selling limpet mines and other armaments to every whack job group and country for decades.
That a few of these made it onto a small boat and were delivered to the tankers is hardly
surprising and does not require any sophistication at all. So once again, we have deception,
lies, and war mongering coming out of the Blight House and its Trumpian orifices.
I am guessing those Iranian mine removers accidentally left passport behind?
Or was flag on boat and Iranian Guard uniforms were give-away.
Thank goodness for the I/C - you can never have enough intelligence (or war).
This is my first time commenting in this blog. With all due respect to the writer and the
quality of his journalism, sometimes it is easy to miss the distinction between causality
versus correlation between events.
We tend to find patterns where they might not exist. From Iranian perspective, it was the
first time they were being sanctioned for petrochemical materials versus raw oil. Not a fan
of any government, but I believe true journalism should stay away from any judgment or
speculation.
Thanks for all the great articles and analyses.
"flying objects" = drones?
...from JapanToday Operator of tanker says sailors saw 'flying objects' just before attack
The Japanese operator ship operator of one of two oil tankers attacked near the Strait of
Hormuz on Thursday said that sailors on board its vessel, the Kokuka Courageous, saw
"flying objects" just before the attack, suggesting the tanker wasn't damaged by mines.
That account contradicts what the U.S. military has said as it released a video it says
shows Iranian forces removing an unexploded limpet mine from one of the two ships in the
suspected attack.
Speaking at a news conference in Tokyo, Yutaka Katada, president of Kokuka Sangyo Co, said
he believes the flying objects seen by the sailors could be bullets, and denied possibility
of mines or torpedoes because the damages were above the ship's waterline. He called
reports of mine attack "false." . .
here
The two tanker vessels attacked Thursday are adrift in the Gulf of Oman today as the U.S.
military is directing everyone's attention to a newly released, low-resolution video that
allegedly shows a group of people in a watercraft removing an unexploded mine from the
damaged hull of the M/T Kokuka Courageous in broad daylight and in clear view of the U.S.
Navy's guided-missile destroyer, USS Bainbridge.
U.S. Central Command claims the small watercraft in the video belongs to Iran's
Revolutionary Guard Corps: "an IRGC Gashti Class patrol boat," according to one of two
evening statements by CENTCOM officials.
Worth noting: The boat's clear and distinct connection to Iran or the IRGC, however, is not
evident in the video itself. Nor is it clear from the video (1) where the boat came from,
(2) who the occupants were, (3) whether what was allegedly removed was in fact a limpet
mine (as the OSINT folks at Bellingcat pointed out this morning), or (4) where the boat
went to after its occupants concluded their activity from the side of the Courageous. . .
here
comment from craig murray poster spencer eagle- "There's one glaring thing wrong about
that US video of Iranians allegedly removing a limpet mine from that tanker, too many
spectators. Even if they did plant the mine, no crew in their right minds would gather round
as their colleague made safe a live mine from a bobbing boat."
from LongWarJournal Yemen's Houthis target Saudi airports
Over the span of 24 hours, Yemen's Houthi insurgent movement has twice targeted the Abha
international airport with missiles and suicide drones.
At least 26 people were wounded on Wednesday after the Houthis launched a cruise missile at
the Abha airport. Video of the bombing released by Saudi Arabia shows the moment the
missile struck the airport. The use of a cruise missile on a civilian infrastructure
represents a major shift in the war between Saudi Arabia and the Houthi insurgents.
Speaking to the Houthi-ran Al Masirah News, an official spokesman said that the strike came
in response to Saudi aggression in Yemen and civilians should avoid "vital and military
areas as they have become legitimate targets to us." . . here
I've just seen the Navy video. I've got some problems with the shadows. They seem too long.
The incident has supposedly happened at 4 pm local time. The location is almost exactly
situated on the Tropic of Cancer, i.e now, Mid June, the sun creates almost vertically
shadows at midday. At 4 pm, the angle should still be 60 degree or so. Correspondingly the
shadows should still be very short. The shadows in the video to me appear to be created by a
30 degree sun angle at most. This is of course only a preliminary estimation.
Bottom line: The video doesn't match the supposed time and location of the incidence.
Also lacking any resolution is what can the US do next, since its options are severely
limited.
IMO Iran has the US by the short hairs. In fact Iran may provide an encore,just to rub it
in.
After hundred of sanctions on Iran, Trump is now faced with a tough decision.
1- Order military attacks on Iran and start a tit for tat escalation that would to a disaster
in the region and hampers Trump re-election
2 Attack Iran's so called proxies: Hezbollah, Houthis, Syria then regional allies of the USA,
ie the UAE, Saudi Arabia and Israel will get more of these 'mini attacks' that will disrupt
oil supplies and Israel security. These attacks will show the world that Trump's big talk and
economical sanctions are totally ineffective
I think that while Iran may not be responsible for the attacks in the Oman Gulf, I am sure
that they condone them without hesitation. Who ever is doing it intentionaly or not is giving
to Iran a posture that Trump will have to match.
That is why Trump's only choice other than war is to fire Bolton and scapegoat him at the
risk of losing the Israeli lobby and the neocons support for his re election.
Yet if he wants to keep the Israeli lobbies support, Trump will need to have Netanyahu
re-elected..
That is his only choice
Already foreign medias are demonizing Bolton as a prelude to his firing
Is John Bolton the most dangerous man in the world?
Intersting that the boarding crew on one of the boat were russians, also a puzzle?
Don Bacon
US could of course do anything they want, as they have in Iraq, Syria, Afghanistan,
Pakistan - you name it.
Next thing could be an explosion on a military US frigate or something similar. We all know
who would be blamed and call for US attacks would be real simple.
from CDR Salamander
Let's break that in to little bits.
1. No USA ships are involved.
2. No USA citizens are involved.
3. No USA territory or waters are involved.
4. All cargo was headed to Asia.
. . .This. Is. Not. Our. Problem.
What is Norway doing? Japan? They are both our allies, but they have the lead on this - not
us.
Who really benefits from this? It isn't Iran. It certainly is not the USA.
Everyone needs to take a powder and take a step back.
This talk of military action this soon is insanity. This is irresponsible. . . here
If drone-delivered: the mines would be heavy so a long-range drone would be needed. However,
if the drone took off from a near-by ship then then a less complex drone could be used. But a
small ship lacks space for a runway. It would need some sort of launcher/catapult. Oh, here's one .
What is needed now is information what really happend - I dont see any info on what was
actually happend but people that call for war.
Was it a mine? Missile? Torped? Grenade? Lets say it was a type of missile that was produced
by nation X, who fired it?
Who/what was put there?
Was it an exercise that these ships accidently moved in to? - Was it an accident?
Relates to security of transport through the straight.
If Iran were in fact responsible, would make me question their sanity.
Barring that they are insane, I cannot see how it could be Iran, could be anybody except
Iran.
To state the obvious: Look at motive and opportunity.
If Trump were not insane/idiot, he might suggest that there are many with possible motive and
that it should be carefully investigated before action or even comment is made - more babies
from incubators and dead ducks. How stupid is Trump really.
"Our crew said that the ship was attacked by a flying object," Mr. Katada said of the
incident on Thursday.
What kind of flying object? Apparently it is as of yet unidentified.
In other words, the NYT is reporting that the operator of the ship is claiming that the
ship was hit by a UFO (Unidentified Flying Object.) Whoo, Whoo!
Iran tightens the screws....
from TehranTimes B-Team launching 'sabotage diplomacy' against Iran, Zarif warns
TEHRAN – Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif on Friday accused Washington
of jumping "to make allegations against Iran without a shred of factual or circumstantial
evidence" as two oil tankers were attacked in the Gulf of Oman on Thursday. . . here
The propaganda war has already been won by the US, it is Iran Iran Iran and the MSM and even
some people here talk about Iran having or might have some culpability. Meanwhile NO ONE
could show any evidence or reason for the argument.
Think about that, how easily desinformation works and how illogical it really is.
Murray makes good points--as usual. The bit out the Norwegian tanker's owners having a
history of cooperation with the Iranian government is interesting.
@mk 254
The timeline in the CENTCOM release is interesting, claiming that the alleged IRGC craft
arrived at the Japanese ship around 0800 but didn't take the "limpet mine" or whatever it was
until 1600. If the boat were IRGC and was trying to remove evidence--a command-detonated
explosive that failed to explode?--you'd think they would do it immediately. Also, I can't
tell what kind of video the released clip is--EO or IR? It doesn't look like EO taken in
daylight.
The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:
It is important to realize that Chief of Naval O[erations Admiral John Richardson, a
creature of former Secretary of Defense Ashton Carter, is taking the lead in this
warmongering against Iran.
He and Carter were opposed to the nuclear agreement that the Obama administration worked
out with Tehran, and are now working to deneuclarize the Iranian regime.
Richardson had the Navy look allegedly for those two sunk subs found soon after they
disappeared, the USS Scorpion and Thresther, when they were actually looking for the USS
Batfish and Puffer which were sunk in 1982 in the Anglo-American War against Sweden soon
after Ricgardson joined the submarine corps.
He is a full blown warmonger against America's alleged enemies.
I am surprised to see some posters and Bevin proposing that maybe it was Iran, at this
point.
Seems premature. Though it is possible, barring substantial evidence, it would be my starting
point that that is the least likely scenario.
And the jump to conclusion (as by Trump et al) suggests bias or motive.
Distance to target would be reduced by heavy mines but using multiple drones would help
with that problem.
<> <> <> <> <> <>
It's not just the drone tech that's important. If you're going to do a 'op' like this
where you want guaranteed non-attribution, then you've got to have the tech well tested and
very reliable. A drone failure or mission foul-up could be devastating.
So, its not an off-the shelf drone and it's a hand-picked crew that has been trained on
such a mission over months and it's "off the books" and it's carried out by an organization
that can ensure secrecy (implying intelligence organization). Thus, a "state actor".
I think that concluding now that Iran didn't do it is a mistake.
> We don't know who did it.
> Tehran clearly indicated it had enough of the US aggressive baseless sanctions, and
would do something.
> Tehran is controlling the discourse ("lack of evidence," etc).
> US (AKA world-power) choices are extremely limited; Iran's aren't.
Virgil suggests above that Trump's only choices to deal with this incident is to start a
war or fire Bolton. He goes onto suggest if Trump fired Bolton he'd lose the neocon vote and
Israel's support.
WRONG. Please go to conservative sites. Any of them. During the primaries and campaign.
Read and learn for yourself what the conservative voter was demanding of the nominee in
comment sections. Please. Folks make these declarations that are not true. Trump voters do
not want war. Trump voters do not want regime changes. And Trump voters are as suspicious if
not more so of Bolton than many here are.
Neocons aka Never Trumpers after the campaign took their toys and left the right side of
the aisle. They embraced their kissing cousins the neo libs who own the Dem Party.
Conservatives loathe the neocons. The neocons loathe conservatives.
Only warmongers and its profiteers want war - NeoCons and NeoLibs. The rest of us
Americans - right, left, middle, indy, green whatever DO NOT WANT WAR WITH ANY DAMNED
BODY.
@ Zanon 269 The american admiral in charge is fanatically anti-iranian:
The CNO has no authority over naval operations, that takes place in the combat commands,
CENTCOM (Tampa) in this case.
Johstone linked @ 276
". . .the US has been provoking Iran with extremely aggressive and steadily tightening
sanctions, which means that even if Tehran is behind the attacks, it would not be the
aggressor and the attacks would most certainly not have been "unprovoked". Economic sanctions
are an act of war; if China were to do to America's economy what America is doing to Iran's,
the US would be in a hot war with China immediately. It could technically be possible that
Iran is pushing back on US aggressions and provocations, albeit in a strange and
neoconservatively convenient fashion."
Excellent comment.
But neocons and zionists are taking over the Trump agenda.
Trump supporters are becoming confused about what they support - they support Trump so they
are increasingly defending this ziocon crap.
But your point is I think very excellent, the public (and Trumps original supporters in
particular) does not want war (with the exception of some religious kooks, perhaps).
Neocons aren't solely responsible for anything, but depended upon support form "liberals" AKA
neo-libs for the various mistaken wars. That includes people like: Gore, Biden, Obama, and
the Clintons.
Trump is anti-establishment for the most part so that is a good thing, in regard to Russia
for one specific thing, but nothing in life is perfect.
I would remind everyone that the greatest pressure against US+allies strategy of economic
strangulation of Iran and Syria is the current operation to retake Idlib.
Yesterday's attacks against shipping will almost certainly be used as an excuse to
increase US troop levels and/or act belligerently in defense of their "interests" such as
retaining Idlib.
From SST (see link provided by james @245):
As for what the US might do about it, the New York Times reports that yesterday morning,
after the news of the attack began to break, there was a previously scheduled meeting in
"the Tank" at the Pentagon, involving Shanahan, Dunford and other top officials to discuss
threats in the Middle East and US troop levels. The Times reports that weeks prior
Centcom chief Gen. McKenzie had actually asked for 20,000 troops but that Dunford expressed
the fear that if that many were ordered to the Gulf, it would be provocative "and perhaps a
sign that, despite denials, the Trump administration's real goal was regime
change."[Note: 1,500 troops were reported to have been approved]Prior
to yesterday's meeting Shanahan and Dunford were ready to make the case that Mr. Trump had
told the Pentagon to reduce American forces and United States involvement in the current
wars in the Middle East, and avoid direct confrontation with Iran ...
Now Tehran has the option to say to the US: Drop those thirteen demands and we'll talk.
It has other options also, now that the air has been cleared a bit.
Khamenei will have to approve whatever it is, and he's a realist
https://www.bs-shipmanagement.com/en/media/emergency-response
14 June 2019
Media Statement
"Update - Kokuka Courageous incident – Gulf of Oman
The Bernhard Schulte Shipmanagement (BSM) managed product carrier Kokuka Courageous is now
safely undertow in the Gulf of Oman heading towards Kalba Anchorage, UAE....
...The vessel was about 70 nautical miles from Fujairah and about 16 nautical miles from
the coast of Iran
BSM is actively monitoring the situation in the Gulf of Oman and will issue another statement
when we have further details."
....
A search of the internet brings up no photos whatsoever of this ship under tow or at any
time after it was attacked... apart from the microsoft paint job. I guess the damage does not
match the US narrative.
Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains before proposing
something that ludicrous!
Why not look at what occurred in the Brent Oil Market for drones instead. This chart
shows trading volume and price before and after event. What you see is a massive shorting
followed by covering, followed by another short play, then further covering. Some entity(ies)
made a lot of money with their prior knowledge of the event. The tankers didn't need to be
sunk to drive that play; just a little Flare to provide visibility. How do I know what's
depicted by the chart is shorting followed by covering? I've seen such behavior a great
number of times before, particularly in the run-up to the massive financial takedown in
2007-8 when many mortgage writing firms were shorted massively so they could be bought-up for
next to nothing. Such behavior has CIA/Mossad stamped all over it, which is what I thought to
begin with.
Well, Iran did do it. You know they did it, because you saw the boat, I guess one of the
mines didn't explode and it's probably got, essentially, Iran written all over it," he
said. "And you saw the boat at night trying to take the mine off , and successfully
took the mine off the boat and that was exposed. And that was their boat, that was them.
And they didn't want the evidence left behind.
Trump:
While Trump added that Iran must not have known the U.S. has nighttime surveillance
capabilities , a timeline from U.S. Central Command accompanying the video's release
indicates the apparent mine removal happened in broad daylight , which would make
the operation even more brazen."
Hmmmm........
These attacks could have only been the work of a sophisticated nation state actor.
Specifically a sophisticated nation state actor that does not know that the US has "nighttime
surveillance capabilities".
@ Zanon 284 Trump has been as bad on Russia as the "establishment"
Not by choice, I believe, and the US president is not a total dictator. Often he must do what
he's told, especially when the establishment (especially the "intelligence" community) is out
to get him, and they don't take prisoners.
@ karlof 288 Seriously, a drone attaching a limpet mine?! Please use your brains ..
Where did you read that?
A reference would be helpful.
Or are you kidding. Must be. So say so?
The US has not only lost the narrative, it has royally screwed the pooch, getting in deeper
and deeper with its falsehoods. Can a laughing-stock rule the world?
I agree. Trump can only do this election wise if it is a quick campaign that lets him
claim victory fast and does not involve dying US soldiers.
As is, there is a huge problem already for the US to leave Afghanistan.
Saudi might have been crazy enough to do it as they need serious help with the
Houthis.
I doubt Israel is interested in a war that might get them into Hezbollah's crosshairs.
I don't think, by the way, that economic problems from the sanctions are forcing Iran, as
there is this
Chinese - Pakistan - Iran sea route. There is also a
connection to Russia via the Caspian . And I don't doubt they have good relations to the
-stans.
They simply own one of the most strategic places the world has to offer. With mountains .
"... The Wall Street Journal today has an article about how sources of funding have dried up for frackers. ..."
"... LTO is going to have to slow down with low prices and less access to capital. North Dakota drilling in at least the past 8 months is going to lose money. Getting mid-$40s at best and in December much worse in the initial flow burst is no bueno. Even if hedged, it's still an overall economic loser with operators having no positive free cash flow. ..."
"... Cash for additional drilling *has* to come from investors or lenders. That gets choked off, theres no money to pay the up front capital and labor costs of new wells. ..."
The Wall Street Journal today has an article about how sources of funding have dried up for
frackers.
I'm not sure substitution will kill oil prices. And while I know peak oil will happen,
putting a date on it doesn't much matter to me.
What most interests me is when investors, lenders, and execs at oil companies decide
having their money tied up in petroleum just doesn't make financial sense and it is time to
bail.
LTO is going to have to slow down with low prices and less access to capital. North Dakota
drilling in at least the past 8 months is going to lose money. Getting mid-$40s at best and
in December much worse in the initial flow burst is no bueno. Even if hedged, it's still an
overall economic loser with operators having no positive free cash flow.
Cash for additional
drilling *has* to come from investors or lenders. That gets choked off, theres no money to
pay the up front capital and labor costs of new wells.
According to Mark Papa in Q4 2018 presentation EOG did not see any possibility to increase
oil production as they need 75 usd / bbl WTI. They priority to pay depth , interest and
dividend to their investors.
If the vreak even price WTI average shale oil is 65 usd today ,
I doubt this will be reduced the next 3-5 years as the rock formation will have reduced
production Quality, the max. latitude lenght and number each drill pad might be reach, now I
read gaz is injected to stimulat production the impact of this remain to see.
Higher labour
cost , increase cost of funding as oil & Gaz is already less popular because of
environmental issues. Than there is some increase offshore activity, and onshore drilling in
Europe.
But even the oil majours want cheeper wells and service work it will not be any
cheaper because all need profit to grow a healthy Buisiness. In the mean time about 15% of
the oil produced are replaced adding 6-7% decline rate to that and at least 1% growth in
demand even with trade war it seems clear the world need significant more oil that is
profittable to develop to a cost consumers around the globe , mostely poor in development
Country can afford to buy and during time there need to be less energy made from fosil fuel.
I saved the Rystad article that has US at 12.5 now, and 13.4 by the end of the year. I will
revisit it from time to time. It's classic BS to the point of being really funny. Like
"Little shop of Horrors" (the original, not the 1986 remake) the really bad SF movie.
I mean, really. We were at 11.9 the end of March per EIA monthlies. With no substantial
increase in completions and drops in active rigs, we have increased 600k in two months???
Then in the last half of 2019, we are going to increase another 900k per day, when prices are
less than $55 now? Well, if your going to lie, tell a big one. My Venus flytrap ate my
homework :-)
In 2018 World C+C average output was about 82.84 Mb/d, so my "best guess" (which could
indeed be incorrect) scenario sees an increase of 4.46 Mb/d from 2018 to 2026.
Okay, that ain't all that unreasonable except except you have C+C production in 2019
increasing by 1,449 over the average of 2018. February 2019 World C+C production was
82,389,000 barrels per day. Your 2019 average is 1,901,000 barrels per day above that figure.
Dennis, that just ain't gonna happen.
OPEC + Russia + Canada accounts for 55% of the World's oil production. These 14
OPEC nations plus Canada plus Russia averaged 47,849,000 barrels per day in 2018. Their
average for the first four months of 2019 was exactly 46,000,000 barrels per day or 1,848,000
barrels per day below their 2018 average. Their April output was 2,352,000 barrels per day
below their 2019 average.
If World C+C is higher in 2019 than in 2018, who will make up this huge difference. US
Shale?
Canada still has lots of potential, their tars sands are just declining because of low oil
prices.
I believe that the Aberta Tar Sands are pretty much "guaranteed" (much less risk compared
to drilling for nothing) as long as the price is right. They are definitely there.
I am sure that statement will be destroyed by oil professionals (which I am not). But
RockMtnGuy from Oil Drum who used to work on them I think, said pretty much the same
thing.
Isn't the answer the difference will be made up by drawing from storage until the price gets
high enough to bring more production on? $120 barrel is going to get offshore fired back up
and maybe even Venezuela.
No, there is just not that much storage. A nation can draw from storage for only a couple of
months until they run out of storage. That is unless they have a tremendous amount of
storage. Not many nations have that much storage. 120$ a barrel? You're dreaming. Perhaps in
a decade or so.
What role do the giant oil fields play? As I write in my book "When trucks stop running:
the average size of new oil fields has declined, leaving us heavily dependent on the
original giant oil fields discovered many decades ago.
Of the roughly 47,500 oil fields in the world, 507 of them, about one percent, are
giant oil fields holding nearly two-thirds of all the oil that has ever been, or ever
will be produced, with the largest 100 giants, the "elephants," providing nearly half of all
oil today
Since giant oil fields dominate oil production, the rate they decline at is a good
predictor of future world oil production. In 2005, they provided 60 % of world oil. Giant
fields only begin to decline after a long plateau phase where production
fluctuates within a 4 % range. In 2007, the 261 giants past their plateau phase were
declining at an average rate of 6 % a year. Their decline rate will continue to increase by
0.15 % a year, to 6.15, 6.3, 6.45 % and so on. By 2030 these giants, and the other giants
joining them as time goes on, will be declining at an average rate of over 9 % a year
Since nongiant oil fields decline at much higher rates, especially offshore and tight
oil, by 2030, the average decline rate of all oil fields past their peak production
will be higher than 9 percent.
by 2030, from half to two-thirds of global crude oil production will need to be replaced --
40 to 50 Mb/d of today's 77.8 Mb/d
Making up this shortfall will be difficult, since four out of five barrels now
come from fields found before 1973 and the majority of them are declining.
So far, Enhanced oil recovery in giant fields has increased the decline rate after peak
production, because oil extracted now is unavailable after the peak, making the decline rate
steeper. For example, Cantarell in Mexico, the second largest oil field ever found,
declined at 20 % rates due to the EOR used to increase the maximum rate of production
Aleklett, K., et al. 2012. Peeking at peak oil. Berlin: Springer.
Hook, M., et al. 2009. Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world
oil production. Energy Policy 37(6):2262–2272.
Murphy, D.J., et al. 2011. Energy return on investment, peak oil, and the end of economic
growth. Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 1219: 52–72.
Thanks Alice, that was very informative. That is why I believe the decline curve will be much
steeper than the ascension curve. Individual fields, of course, reach their peak production
in only a few years and their decline could take many years. But I am speaking of all the
world's production combined. I think the decline curve will shock most people.
I once made a large poster about this 1978 Rand study. Had become interested in resource
studies years earlier and occasionally lectured at ZPG and elsewhere. https://www.rand.org/pubs/reports/R2284.html
That's very informative, Alice. Very rough estimation from that, is that if shale were able
to eke out another 600k increase a year, for a year or two, it could not possibly keep up
with current decline rates in the bigger fields. Especially, when that shale increase is not
going to start in 2019. World will be down, and add on another year of decline. 2018 will be
looking more like peak year.
This poster has been considering post peak for, obviously, years. Kudos, this stuff is
good! http://energyskeptic.com/
First of all, oil field geography (not geology) can be changed. So that can be one source of
corruption in whatever number you want to quote for field production.
Second of all, choke management can also corrupt whatever number you want to quote for
field production.
And how about third of all you can change the definition of oil and call all sorts of
liquids coming up the well bore "oil" regardless of API density and corrupt whatever number
you want to quote for field production. Executives are paid for production, agencies collect
taxes for production, royalty recipients are paid regardless of profit, so who is it that
would oppose manufacturing any number for production you want to quote? Lenders? The Fed is
providing nearly 0% interest rates. Why would lenders care? Maybe refineries would care, but
you can probably cut them in.
So you can pretty much put numbers and conclusions about flow to bed.
I do think that geological depletion isn't the only factor that could knock it up to
6%.
Very little oil has been explored for and found in the past 5 years, plus add on another
10 years to develop what's discovered
As the contribution declines from the Giants more will have to be provided by the other
50,000 fields that have much higher decline rates. Onshore may be 3.5%, but a lot of new oil
is offshore with a much higher decline rate, perhaps higher than it needs to be. I've heard
that oil is left offshore due to the haste in building these rigs to pay investors off as
quickly as possible.
Since diesel is all that matters in keeping civilization alive, and U.S. shale oil is only
good for plastics, we depend on heavy oil producers like venezuela, mexico, Iran, and
canadian tar sands which are all problematic
I'm not so sure there are a lot of good places to drill. A quarter of remaining oil is in
the arctic and can't be obtained because of ice bergs, nor is it likely fields will be
developed on land in Alaska due to the challenges of permafrost.
A financial crash stops or slows much of the exploration and production. Potentially for a
long time, since unlike in the Great Depression, we won't have fossils to recover with as we
did back then.
Oil is a global commodity today, but will it be when production declines? If not, that
will accelerate the decline rate for nation's that can't get oil (i.e. the export land model
of Jeffrey Brown).
Though we'll be just fine, I'm sure most nations will be keen to send us diesel in
exchange for U.S. fracked plastic.
This is only true to an extent. Because refineries we're designed over the years to process
heavier oils than LTO the ones that exist have trouble handling all the light stuff. And the
light stuff has less of the distillates needed for diesel. However, they don't produce no
diesel at all, and refineries can be modified/upgraded to produce diesel from pretty much
whatever oil you want, for a cost.
What products you get out from the refinery is a function of both what oil you put into it
and what refinery you have. There is some diesel in LTO but not as high as conventional oil.
Getting a higher share diesel requires a complex refinery (and is costly). It currently makes
more sense for refineries to blend with medium and heavy oil.
Oil demand has over time shifted to higher API oil. LTO is too high but perhaps not that
bad. I think the main issue is that supply of LTO has increased very fast and demand was not
as responsive due to lack of investments in US refineries and export capacity.
In addition to what Jeff said, LTO is just that Light Tight Oil. Light implies short
polymers. Gasoline has (ideally) 8 carbon atoms, kerosene 12 to 15 and diesel 16, or mostly
around 16. So you can see that in very light oil, only a tiny fraction would have polymers
that long.
In petroleum molecules, the carbon atoms are all in a string. That's why they call them
polymer strings.
"... This is classic overproduction based on time-preference mis-coordinating the use of capital due to artificially-low interest rates. It has nothing to do with a normally functioning market. ..."
All of President Trump's foreign policy can be summed up by two
themes,
making the world safe for Israel and controlling the price of energy.
He calls the latter "Energy Dominance."
And to those who still believe Trump has a
plan, these two things are the only ones consistently in evidence.
His reactions to things contrary to his plan, however, are purely limbic.
These two themes converge completely with Iran.
Trump wants Iran neutered to force
Jared Kushner's
now-delayed
again
, "Deal of the Century" onto the Palestinians while also taking Iran's oil off the market to
support surging U.S. domestic production in the hopes of taking market share permanently.
Everything Trump does is in support of these two themes while throwing some red meat at his base
over China, Mexico and the border.
It was never his intention to leave Syria back in December, really. Look how easy was it for John
Bolton and the Joint Chiefs to convince him to stay because how else would we cut Iran's exports to
zero if we didn't stop the land route through Iraq?
This is why we're still harboring ISIS cells in the desert crossing around Al-Tanf at the
Jordan/Iraq/Syria border, to stop Iranian oil from coming into the country.
This feeds right into hurting all of Syria's allies to strengthen Israel's position.
To paraphrase the song from Aladdin, "It's stupid, but hey, it's home."
If the average Trump voter truly understood the lengths we are going to starve the Syrian army from
having enough energy to finish wiping out the Al-Qaeda-linked groups in Idlib and Homs provinces they
would burn their MAGA hats and stay home next November.
But they don't so Trump's approval rating keeps climbing.
On the other hand, people mostly understand exactly what the "Bay of Fat Pigs" operation in
Venezuela was all about, protecting domestic oil production and getting control of Venezuela's.
The sad truth is that many Americans consider this comeuppance for being stupid enough to elect
Nicolas Maduro President.
But this is the guts of Trump's "Energy Dominance" policy. Use tariffs, sanctions, threats and
hybrid warfare to destroy the competition and therefore MAGA.
It would be sad if it wasn't so pathetic.
And the irony is that the whole plan is predicated on sustainable and nigh-exponential growth of
U.S. domestic production.
There's only one problem with that. It's completely unsustainable.
The greatness of the U.S. production story is evident if you only look at the number of barrels
produced. But that story turns into a nightmare the minute you look one inch deeper to see what the
cost of those barrels are and what profit, if any, they produce.
Heading into 2019, the industry promised to stake out a renewed focus on capital discipline and
shareholder returns. But that vow is now in danger of becoming yet another in a long line of unmet
goals.
"Another quarter, another gusher of red ink," the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial
Analysis, along with the Sightline Institute, wrote in a joint report on the first quarter earnings
of the shale industry.
The report studied 29 North American shale companies and found a combined $2.5 billion in
negative free cash flow in the first quarter. That was a deterioration from the $2.1 billion in
negative cash flow from the fourth quarter of 2018. "
This dismal cash flow performance came
despite a 16 percent quarter-over-quarter decline in capital expenditures," the report's authors
concluded.
You can't hide a lack of profitability forever with financial engineering folks. Even Elon Musk is
beginning to figure this out. And, once that reaches critical mass, to quote one of my favorite
philosophers, The Tick, "Gravity is a harsh mistress."
What was that old joke?
"So if we're selling dollars for ninety-cents how do we make money?"
"Volume."
If that doesn't sum up where we are today in the energy space I don't know what does.
All of this is a product of the Fed's ridiculous zero-bound interest rate policy allowing
energy drillers to issue obscene amounts of low-quality shares and lower-quality debt packaged in such
a way to yield the magic 7.5% most pension funds need to maintain their defined benefit payouts
without going broke.
This cycle is only partially derailed by the Fed raising rates a couple of points to 2.75%.
All Trump cares about is getting a 4% GDP print before next year's election to prove his critics
wrong. This is why he wants the Fed to lower rates.
It will keep the shale boom going pumping massive amounts of oil which we can't ship to the
coasts to sell to people who don't want it.
And even if all of the new pipeline capacity alleviates the internal glut that doesn't mean there's
a market for more of it. Remember, shale produces ultra light sweet crude which most refiners have to
blend with heavier feedstock so there really is an upper limit as to how much of this stuff the market
wants.
The current and persistent discount of West Texas to Brent, which is still over $9 per barrel is a
measure of this since most oil is priced in relation to Brent, even heavy sour grades like Russian
Urals,
which
we're importing more of to feed domestic refineries
strapped for stock now that we've embargoes
Venezuelan oil.
Rystad puts it into context, noting that the most productive gas facility in the U.S. Gulf of
Mexico – Shell's Mars-Ursa complex – produces about 260 to 270 MMcfd of gross natural gas.
In
other words, the most productive gas project in the Gulf of Mexico only produces about 40 percent
of the volume of gas that is being flared and vented in West Texas and New Mexico every single day.
Given this situation I think we've reached that part of the story where someone just let a really
big one rip and no one is willing to acknowledge it.
Dood Natural Gas is Awesome!
This is classic overproduction based on time-preference mis-coordinating the use of capital
due to artificially-low interest rates. It has nothing to do with a normally functioning market.
But this situation can go on a lot longer thanks to the realities outside of the U.S. shale
industry.
When the Fed finally does lower interest rates it won't be to save the energy producers in North
Dakota. It will be to save the banking system from a dollar liquidity shock that will implode Europe.
The market's reaction to Friday's horrific jobs report was pure front-running that rate cut
mixed with
safe-haven
behavior knowing that the global growth story is dead.
The U.S. yield curve imploded another 6 basis points. Gold popped to a 2019 high, the Dow put in a
major reversal and the euro rallied after a massive run-up in euro-bonds before the New York open
reversed some of that.
And there's Trump demanding lower oil prices on Twitter which is just feeding the problems of the
shale drillers already underwater. Rock meet hard place.
Dollars for eight-five cents? MOAR volume!
So Trump has gotten what he wants but not for the reasons he wants it. With growth dying thanks, in
part, to his random acts of financial terror, oil prices are now in free fall.
I identified the signals for
my Patrons in a Market
Report on May 26th
, noting a back-to-back-to-back set of reversals I deemed "
hugely
bearish.
" Sometimes, it's just that easy. More often than not the market is telling you
what you need to know, if you would only turn off the spin-machines and read the tape.
But the sad truth is that once the Fed lowers rates the drillers will be encouraged to go
back to the credit well one more time because there will be even more demand for their crappy paper.
In a yield-starved world everyone is trying to stave off the day of reckoning for as long as possible.
And right now, U.S. pension managers are a shale drillers' best friend. And so is an ECB trapped
like an egg in a vice between a faltering German economy and political system undermining what's left
of growth across Europe.
But not a U.S. President intent on creating a world few want and fewer benefit from while wasting a
precious energy by the cubic shit load for a couple hundred thousand votes more than a year from now.
A full-fledged war with Tehran will tank the US economy because the fighting will
immediately make the price of oil skyrocket, an adviser to Iran's supreme leader warned. US
leaders will not go to war against Tehran if they care for the economic wellbeing of their
country, Major General Yahya Rahim Safavi, aide and adviser to Iran's Supreme Leader Ali
Khamenei,
told Fars News Agency.
The first bullet fired in the Persian Gulf will push the oil prices well above $100. It
will be unbearable for the US and Europe, as well as American allies like Japan and South
Korea.
Safavi, who has led the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) in the past, stated that
Washington prefers to wage "economic and psychological war" against the nation. The US
knows there will be "significant costs" should a full-fledged conflict erupt, he
said.
The Pentagon had earlier announced plans to deploy marines and Patriot air defense missile
systems to join an aircraft carrier strike group operating near the Persian Gulf. Officials in
Tehran have been downplaying the military buildup by the US near its borders but vowed to
strike back if attacked.
Last month, Iran partially suspended its commitments under the 2015 deal on its nuclear
programs, known as the JCPOA. The step followed several rounds of sanctions reimposed on Iran
by the US which withdrew from the agreement a year ago.
Posted on
May 30, 2019 by Yves Smith Yves here. I don't know
enough about the structure of the Iranian economy to assess whether oil export revenue is as
critical as this article suggests. Iran clearly needs foreign currency (exports) to buy imports
like pharmaceuticals and any critical materials and products they don't produce domestically
like chips.
I was under the impression that Iran had become pretty autarchical due to having been under
sanctions for so long. But it may still have enough import dependence to prevent it from simply
net spending. If the sanctions have indeed meaningfully reduced domestic productive capacity,
"printing" would produce inflation pronto. The Western press says yes. However an academic who
visited the country in the last year (but before the latest round) said they didn't see any
signs of distress during several weeks there when he went about freely (and this individual
spends most of his time in developing economies).
It's hard to predict what will happen in the oil market as the U.S. sanctions on Iran
tighten. For now, it looks like India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey will hold off from buying
Iranian oil. These countries -- with China -- had been the main sources of Iran's foreign
exchange. It is unlikely -- at the present time -- that India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey
will break the U.S. siege on Iran. They have made it clear that they do not want to rattle the
U.S. cage. Request for new waivers from the U.S. came to naught. India's government had said
that it would reassess the purchases of cheap Iranian oil after the elections. It is likely
that India will restart some buys, but certainly not enough to prevent economic collapse in
Iran.
As the May deadline for the U.S. sanctions loomed, these countries bought vast amounts of
oil from Iran to create their own buffer stocks. Revenues from the export of oil reached $50
billion for the Iranian financial year of 2018-19 (ending March 20). The oil sector contributed
to 70 percent of Iran's exports. This income is essential for running Iran's government and
paying its 4.6 million employees. The cost of the government is roughly $24 billion. With the
collapse of sales to India, Japan, South Korea and Turkey, Iran will have a very difficult time
raising revenues to maintain its economy. The National Development Fund and the hard currency
reserves have already begun to be depleted, with dollar holdings now in the tens of
billions.
New Silk Road
Tehran has long been hoped that China would continue to buy Iranian oil and prevent the
meltdown of Iran's economy and its government. There are two reasons why China would want to
ignore U.S. sanctions and continue to buy Iranian oil. The first has to do with the fact that
Iran's oil is cheap and of a quality that Chinese refiners prefer. The second has to do with
Iran's crucial location along the line of China's Belt and Road as well as its String of Pearls
initiatives. Chaos in Iran or a government in Tehran that is pliant to the United States would
be unacceptable to Beijing. Roads, trains and pipelines -- the infrastructure of the Belt and
Road Initiative -- are to run from the Chinese territory through Central Asia into Iran and
then outward toward West Asia and -- via Turkey -- into Europe. Iran's centrality to this
project should not be underestimated.
In the first few months of 2019, China bought about half of Iran's crude oil exports. It has
become a crucial pillar for Iran, whose diplomats say quite openly that if China no longer buys
Iran's oil or invests in Iran, the problems for the country will be grave. Massive oil buys
from China in the weeks leading to the end of the U.S. waivers are, however, no indication of
the continuation of this relationship. Chinese oil companies put in large orders to stockpile
oil in anticipation of the cuts. Oil analysts suggest that the two major Chinese oil importers
-- China Petrochemical Corporation (Sinopec) and China National Petroleum Corporation (CNPC)
have not put in any buys since the U.S. waivers expired.
Why China Is Not Buying Iranian Oil
China -- the world's fastest-growing consumer of oil -- continues to buy oil from the United
States -- the world's fastest-growing producer of oil. These two countries are locked in a
trade war, with tariffs rising on a raft of products from steel to soybeans. China has not
placed any tariffs on U.S. crude oil imports, but it has reduced its purchases of U.S. oil by
80 percent. Despite China's withdrawal from the U.S. oil market, it has not closed the door on
future purchases. Meanwhile, China has increased its oil purchases from Saudi Arabia by 43
percent in April. There is every indication that China will continue to increase its buys from
the kingdom during the course of this year -- to substitute for Iranian oil and, perhaps, for
U.S. oil. China has also been slowly increasing its natural gas imports from Australia, a
tendency that is expected to rise.
New surveillance technology of tankers, low oil prices and more constraints on settling
bills have made it difficult to smuggle oil out of Iran. Last year, smuggled oil out of Iran
totaled a minuscule 0.3 million barrels per day. This is not enough to compensate for the oil
purchases stopped by East and South Asian countries. U.S. sanctions, in this climate, have made
tanker owners and insurers skittish about carrying Iranian oil.
Chinese firms are susceptible to this pressure. Nonetheless, the Liberian-flagged tanker
Pacific Bravo is said to have loaded Iranian oil after the expiry of the waiver and is
making its way to China. As of this writing, the tanker is off the coast of Sri Lanka. When it
arrives in China and offloads its cargo, how will the U.S. respond?
Iran-Iraq-Syria
Iran's Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif was in Baghdad on May 26. He met with Iraq's
Foreign Minister Mohamed al-Hakim, who said that Iraq's government does not believe that the
"economic blockade" -- namely the U.S. sanctions -- was good for the region. "We stand with
Iran in its position," Hakim said.
Earlier in May, Iraq's Oil Minister Thamer Gadhba said that his country would continue to
buy Iran's natural gas -- essential for Iraq's electricity grid. This was despite U.S. pressure
to cut natural gas purchases from Iran and to substitute this through a $14 billion deal with
U.S. energy firms (including General Electric). Indications show that Iraq will not bend to
U.S. pressure at this time. Nor will Iraq block Iranian oil from going to Syria by truck -- an
energy source that is essential to Syria.
China's Shield
U.S. troops continue to arrive in the Gulf region, threatening Iran. Zarif and al-Hakim
jointly said that this is a dangerous development. Pressure on Iran increases daily.
China has made it clear that it could buy Iranian oil if it can pay in yuan or euros, but it
does not want to make Iran part of its dispute with the United States. The appetite to bring
Iran onto the bargaining table with the United States does not exist in Beijing. Nor is Beijing
willing to provide Iran with a protective shield.
But there are pressures on China not to ignore its own interests in the region. China built
a large port in Gwadar, Pakistan, which was intended to circumvent the long transit of goods
(and oil) from the Gulf through the Straits of Malacca to the South China Sea. But there are
tensions here, as Baloch Liberation Army attacks mount on Chinese targets. One hundred and
fifty kilometers west of Gwadar is the Iranian port of Chabahar, developed with Indian
assistance. The United States -- at a request from the Afghan government -- has turned the
other way to continued Indian involvement in that port, which includes transportation lines to
the Afghan border through Iran. Iran has signaled that it would be interested in giving China a
role in this port if India begins to drift away.
China has increased its engagement in West Asia, but not to the point of getting sucked into
a conflict that it sees as unfortunate. What this means is that Iran cannot rely fully on
China. And yet, China is the only antidote to the U.S. suffocation of Iran.
Global oil production is high, as are oil inventories. Oil prices, consequently, are low and
will likely be lowered by reduced global demand. Projected low oil prices should raise more
alarms in Tehran, since Iranian external revenues will decline and so too will its importance
to Chinese importers. The only reason for China to throw a shield around Iran is to protect the
Belt and Road Initiative. Not for the oil.
I've no insights into the internal economy of Iran, but i would have assumed that the
victory in Syria will take a lot of pressure off – its support for Assad cost Iran many
billions in foreign currency which it can now hopefully wind down, especially as it looks
like the Chinese and Qatari's will step up in providing recovery aid for Syria.
Another potential major source of revenue is Qatar, which is of course still in conflict
with its Gulf neighbours. Qatar shares its vast off-shore gas reserves with Iran with a
variety of secret protocols. It would hardly be a surprise if it turned out much of the gas
they sell is in fact Iranian. The Saudis are dependent on Qatari gas for their electricity
supply, so they could well be inadvertently providing funding for Iran.
But the biggest problem for Iran is surely consistent low oil prices and the fact that
their main customers have built up very large stockpiles. Also, low prices for Irans other
exports, such as plastics, fertilisers, copper and aluminium can't be helping. I believe
climate change might also be impacting on their long term prospects for exporting
agricultural produce, especially nuts and fruit. Iran future may be as dependent on avoiding
drought as it is on rising oil prices.
Yes, sorry, my mistake, out of date information – KSA used to get natural gas from
the South Pars field in Qatar prior to the LNG boom, but is seemingly now self sufficient for
electricity generation. I was getting my pipelines mixed up.
I wonder whether the aggressive stance against Iran has more to do with blocking the Silk
Road Initiative rather than just Iran herself and Iran's oil. Probably Xi Jinping feels this
and will support Iran, in agreement with Prashad's statement in this sense. I also believe
that some EU leaders share this view. Given the importance of Iran this migth result in an
acceleration of the development of swift independent payment systems. We will see.
Xi knows the Silk Road importance, and Obama's forgotten Pivot to Asia wasn't a feel good
initiative.
I think US foreign policy types are hold deeply racist convictions. Iran is still the
target because Iran dumped our man In Tehran. How dare those little people reject a US
approved choice? Combined with an expat crowd of SAVAK every bit as deluded as the Cubans who
came after the fall of Batista who have it on "good authority" they are about to be returned
to power I mean democracy is about to flourish, the usual thugs in Washington have what they
need to rant and rave.
As a counter narrative, the problem is Iran is another country I wouldn't normally worry
about. I don't have a monthly premium I send to Iran or went to Iran's for school when I was
a kid. Naturally only the SAVAK narrative gets pushed. Like anything, my guess is this is a
bit of a last hurrah. 1979 was so long ago.
I think part of the justification for a hardline on Iran is indeed to block the Silk Road
initiative, but its a clumsy and stupid one if that's the case. You could argue that a more
open Iran, trading freely with Europe and the US on its own terms would be much more cautious
about being used as a transit hub for China. But Iran really has very little choice now but
to make itself indispensable to China.
From what I understand from the business media, it seems the US really is taking a hard
line on the EU's attempt to bypass the Swift system and most European companies are
reluctantly falling in line with the sanctions. The EU may be given no choice but to accept
the sanctions or overtly challenge them at every level – the latter being unlikely as
it would need a unanimity and toughness the EU rarely shows, especially when it comes to the
US.
Interesting how this fits in or contrasts with the recent (and remarkably well written)
article on What does it Mean to Live in a Multi Polar World? We May Be About to Find
Out. It's clear from China's behavior as described in this present article that the
United States still has considerable and, given how much it's been abused, remarkable clout.
One can justifiably be boggled that the United States' indiscriminate weaponization of
economic sanctions hasn't already exerted a devastating price internationally for US
credibility that Trump – setting the world ablaze merely to distract his base and keep
the virtually insane thugs in his administration happy – could care less about.
Regardless that Trump is merrily squandering (more blatantly but hardly having a monopoly
over recent US Presidents) any residual US credibility in unilateral power being a beneficial
force, the suggestion that "Even the historic tendency to focus on state power should be
questioned in this moment," from the Multi Polar article, is well couched as a
question rather than an assertion.
It seems inconceivable that Trump is aware of it, but his self serving conflagrational
antics if they don't set off a major military conflict that could easily spread out of
control, may be beneficial in the long run, but we're not there yet.
Mention of Russia and it's reaction is unfortunately missing from the article (or I missed
it).
Yes, Trump looks not aware of much which doesn't fall within his narrow set of
interests.Regarding Russia, what I've heard is that it has an ambivalent position. In one
side Russia fears the US but in the other side migth somehow fear the increasing power of
China. Regarding oil they won't protest high prices if this is a consequence of US politics,
but Russia economically depends on Europe so they should be interested on diversification.
And Russia's leadership hate climate change initiatives of course. Just to make things
clearer hahahahahahah
Actually, the points you raise are exactly what would have been interesting to at least
touch on in this article.
Re Russia, I suppose this article is more about oil consuming nations than oil producing
ones, but since US hegemony and the apparent lack of push back is so intrinsic to the
discussion, it would have been helpful to include some mention of Russia.
Also, as I look at it, my point that the US as a nation state still has clout can be
turned on it's head and align more with the question mark raised in the Muilti Polar article
if one argues that the US instigated conflict with Iran stems more from perceived interests
of the oil and fossil fuel industries and that Washington or more specifically puppet Trump,
fickle as he is, is simply going along to get along and trying at the same time to use it for
his own ends as much as possible.
I've been reading up on the natgas angle (Iran uses its big natgas supply mostly
domestically, but this is related)
Pakistan seems willing to block the Iran connection for now – the unfinished Peace
pipeline (natgas) is an indicator.
Also in natgas, Asian spot prices collapsed in the past year to the $4 range due to both
LNG and pipeline supply racing ahead of demand (import terminals, power plants), and also
Japan in the process of reactivating its nuke electric. Asian NG was around $10 when the gold
rush started, post Fukushima. This is also part of the story.
At the same time, much seaborne LNG import capacity is being built in SE asia (Japan a big
player in development apparently), due in mid 2020s. Together with Chinese and other NG
plants being built to displace oil, this is supposed to drive prices to recover and probably
overshoot in 4 years or so.
For now, the economic pressure on gas importers is unusually low, and pressure on gas
exporters is higher. The US is still basically neutral in net import/export, which is the
best way to be. It is not good for Iran, since their natgas export will not be developed
until this market phase passes. It does make it harder for US energy exports to work as
leverage over importers in general (China, India, Pak.).
I think this author is too influenced by the power of money and neglects the power of
nationalism and justice. Hardship brings people together in a delightful way, a shared burden
and a real sense of "we are all in this together" – the sense that Cameron tried and
failed to activate in UK because society had been destroyed by Thatcher. The Iranian people
are strengthened by sanctions. I expect Chinese energy purchases will increase when the
railway connection is perfected and shipments are no longer exposed to maritime attack by
pirates or governments.
I was glad to see this author characterise the sanctions as a blockade. We need to be
straightforward in our terminology and Ron Paul was right to give them their proper name
– blockade is an act of war, placing warships off another country's commercial ports to
prevent trade in and out. Lat's be frank about that.
Why is the Baluchi Liberation Army focused on attacking China? How does that enhance the
prospects of independence for Baluchistan? There has been nothing on this in the western
press to my knowledge. It sounds like cover for a gang of crooks. Can anyone help?
Neocon hawks are destroying US economics very effectively by supersizing military expenses and the costs of foreign wars.
Essentially Trump administration is acting in Israeli and Saudi interests in this case
Notable quotes:
"... Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different. The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. ..."
"... Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect. This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives to nod in agreement. ..."
"... Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of the administration's goals and means. ..."
"... Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless. ..."
"... Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against the Iranian people. ..."
"... Of course this statement is not for Iran, it is for the U.S. public to make the case for 'we tried' when in actuality, 'we lied'. ..."
Pompeo
made a statement about talks with Iran that is much less meaningful than it seems:
The United States is prepared to engage with Iran without pre-conditions about its nuclear program but needs to see the country
behaving like "a normal nation", U.S. Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said on Sunday.
Iran dismissed the offer as "word-play".
Like many other phony administration offers to negotiate, Pompeo's proposal doesn't really include anything new or different.
The administration is still insisting on the preposterous demands that the Secretary of State delivered last year. That is what
Pompeo's "normal nation" reference means. In other words, the administration still expects Iranian capitulation, and they are willing
to meet with Iranian officials to accept their surrender. The report continues:
"We are certainly prepared to have that conversation when the Iranians can prove that they want to behave like a normal nation,"
he told a joint news conference with his Swiss counterpart Ignazio Cassis.
Of course, this would not be a "conversation," which implies give-and-take between equals who speak to each other with respect.
This would amount to something much more like a demarche where the U.S. tells Iran what it must do and then expects Iran's representatives
to nod in agreement.
The Iranian government's dismissive response is to be expected. For one thing, the distrust between Washington and Tehran is
immense, so Iran's government is bound to view any offer with suspicion. The Iranian government has already explained what the U.S.
has to do if they want to talk about anything, and the administration has no intention of doing any of those things. As far as Iran
is concerned, their nuclear program isn't up for discussion, so what would be the point of meeting with U.S. officials when the
administration remains committed to its outrageous policy of economic warfare and collective punishment?
Pompeo is an Iran hawk, but he is also a yes-man who seeks to curry favor with the president at all times. If he thinks that
the president wants him to make diplomatic-sounding noises, he will make those noises, but it doesn't mean very much in terms of
the administration's goals and means.
Iran hawks are used to feigning interest in diplomacy while doing everything they can to undermine
and poison it. As always, judge the administration by what it does and not what it happens to be saying at the moment. As long as
the U.S. keeps its illegitimate sanctions in place and continues to make unrealistic and excessive demands, offers to talk are meaningless
because the administration has already rendered negotiations useless.
There is an understandable temptation to seize on comments from administration officials as proof that they are giving up on
a destructive and fruitless policy, but until the administration translates its rhetorical gestures into actions we should assume
that the policy remains unchanged.
Pompeo is an unskilled purveyor of "smoke & mirrors" diplomacy: he thinks the world is unaware that preconditions with Iran
have been in place since May 2018 when Trump unilaterally tore up the JCPOA followed by a slew of unprecedented sanctions against
the Iranian people.
The exodus of qualified State Department careerists can't be plugged by promoting the likes of
Brian Hook.
Western corporate mass media is cherry-picking what China has said: "Restrictions
imposed by the UN Security Council on Iran have been fully implemented in the HKSAR under the
United Nations Sanctions [Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action – Iran] Regulation
[Chapter 537BV of the Laws of Hong Kong]."
"Woohoo! China's on our side! They are backing US sanctions!" -gullible American
mass media consumer
Fake western "journalists" leave out the very next three sentences: "However, the UN
Security Council has not imposed any restrictions on the export of petroleum from Iran.
Certain countries may impose unilateral sanctions against certain places on the basis of
their own considerations. Those sanctions are outside the scope of the UN Security Council
sanctions implemented by the HKSAR."
In other words, "Go f#$k yourselves, you exceptional fools!" , though of
course the Chinese are too polite to say that outright.
"... The shipments to Cuba and Russia and possibly a few others just aren't enough. Remember that Venezuela's population in 1989 was 19.3 million while today it is 32.7 million. And back then that nation didn't have to cope with smothering economic sanctions of every kind along with the physical attacks and sabotage of infrastructure. ..."
"... I believe Russia buys oil from Venezuela. US refiners then buy oil from Russia to replace the Venezuelan oil. ..."
Venezuela oil exports seem to be imploding. Headline:
Venezuela Oil Exports Slump to a 28-Year Low
By Lucia Kassai January 2, 2019
More recent:
Shipping data shows that imports of fuel and diluents necessary to make Venezuela's extra
heavy crude refinable have dropped to 86,000 b/d in the first part of May from 225,000 b/d
for April. Fuel rationing is being overseen by the military as shortages begin to bite
deeper. As local crude oil production continues to fall, and refineries operate much below
capacity, the lines at gas stations outside of the capital are now miles long.
The shipments to Cuba and Russia and possibly a few others just aren't enough. Remember
that Venezuela's population in 1989 was 19.3 million while today it is 32.7 million. And back
then that nation didn't have to cope with smothering economic sanctions of every kind along
with the physical attacks and sabotage of infrastructure.
... and a worthwhile analysis of the causes of the Venezuelan economic collapse (including
a lot of analysis of their oil export industry) from Francisco Rodriguez who Mark Weisbrot
(from the 40k deaths report with Jeffrey Sachs) says knows more about the Venezuelan economy
than anyone in the world (although he is a critic of Chavez and Maduro).
"... No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq. Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster by the Zio-American bully. ..."
"... For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable. ..."
"... Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region. ..."
"... As shown in a previous article, "The Return of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight. ..."
"... When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war. ..."
"... I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME. ..."
"... The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity. There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel? ..."
"... However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises. ..."
"... I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they might not. ..."
"... "War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read. As true today as it was back when he wrote it. ..."
"... "The Axis of Sanity" – I like it, I like it! Probably quite closely related to the "reality-based community". ..."
"... "Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets. ..."
"... He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000. ..."
"... Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed. ..."
"... first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies, controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of the seats of power at the 527 person USA. ..."
"... This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation. ..."
"... Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push things too far. Karma can be a bitch. ..."
No other country in the Middle East is as important in countering America's rush to provide Israel with another war than Iraq.
Fortunately for Iran, the winds of change in Iraq and the many other local countries under similar threat, thus, make up an unbroken
chain of border to border support. This support is only in part due to sympathy for Iran and its plight against the latest bluster
by the Zio-American bully.
In the politics of the Middle East, however, money is at the heart of all matters. As such, this ring of defensive nations is
collectively and quickly shifting towards the new Russo/Sino sphere of economic influence. These countries now form a geo-political
defensive perimeter that, with Iraq entering the fold, make a US ground war virtually impossible and an air war very restricted in
opportunity.
If Iraq holds, there will be no war in Iran.
In the last two months, Iraq parliamentarians have been exceptionally vocal in their calls for all foreign military forces- particularly
US forces- to leave immediately. Politicians from both blocs of Iraq's divided parliament
called
for a vote to expel US troops and promised to schedule an extraordinary session to debate the matter ."Parliament must clearly
and urgently express its view about the ongoing American violations of Iraqi sovereignty," said Salam al-Shimiri, a lawmaker
loyal to the populist cleric
Moqtada al-Sadr
.
Iraq's ambassador to Moscow, Haidar Mansour Hadi, went further saying that Iraq "does not
want a new devastating war in the region." He t old a press conference in Moscow this past week, "Iraq is a sovereign
nation. We will not let [the US] use our territory," he said. Other comments by Iraqi Prime Minister Adil Abdul-Mahdi agreed.
Other MPs called for
a timetable for complete US troop withdrawal.
Then a motion was introduced
demanding
war reparations from the US and Israel for using internationally banned weapons while destroying Iraq for seventeen years and
somehow failing to find those "weapons of mass destruction."
As Iraq/Iran economic ties continue to strengthen, with Iraq recently signing on for billions of cubic meters of Iranian natural
gas, the shift towards Russian influence- an influence that prefers peace- was certified as Iraq sent a delegation to Moscow to negotiate
the purchase of the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft system.
To this massive show of pending democracy and rapidly rising Iraqi nationalism, US Army spokesman, Colonel Ryan Dillon, provided
the kind of delusion only the Zio-American military is known for, saying,
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government."
Good luck with that.
US influence in Iraq came to a possible conclusion this past Saturday, May 18, 2019, when it was reported that the Iraqi parliament
would vote
on a bill compelling the invaders to leave . Speaking about the vote on the draft bill, Karim Alivi, a member of the Iraqi parliament's
national security and defense committee, said on Thursday that the country's two biggest parliamentary factions -- the Sairoon bloc,
led by Shia cleric Muqtada al-Sadr, and the Fatah alliance, headed by secretary general of the Badr Organization, Hadi al-Ameri --
supported the bill. Strangely, Saturday's result has not made it to the media as yet, and American meddling would be a safe guess
as to the delay, but the fact that this bill would certainly have passed strongly shows that Iraq well understands the weakness of
the American bully: Iraq's own US militarily imposed democracy.
Iraq shares a common border with Iran that the US must have for any ground war. Both countries also share a similar religious
demographic where Shia is predominant and the plurality of cultures substantially similar and previously living in harmony. Both
also share a very deep seeded and deserved hatred of Zio- America. Muqtada al-Sadr, who, after coming out first in the 2018 Iraqi
elections, is similar to Hizbullah's Hassan Nasrallah in his religious and military influence within the well trained and various
Shia militias. He is firmly aligned with Iran as is Fattah Alliance. Both detest Zio- America.
A ground invasion needs a common and safe border. Without Iraq, this strategic problem for US forces becomes complete. The other
countries also with borders with Iran are Armenia, Azerbaijan, Turkmenistan, Turkey, Afghanistan and Pakistan. All have several good
reasons that they will not, or cannot, be used for ground forces.
With former Armenian President Robert Kocharian under arrest in the aftermath of the massive anti-government 2018 protests, Bolton
can check that one off the list first. Azerbaijan is mere months behind the example next door in Armenia,
with protests increasing and indicating
a change towards eastern winds. Regardless, Azerbaijan, like Turkmenistan, is an oil producing nation and as such is firmly aligned
economically with Russia. Political allegiance seems obvious since US influence is limited in all three countries to blindly ignoring
the massive additional corruption and human rights violations by Presidents Ilham Aliyev and
Gurbanguly Berdimuhamedow .
However, Russian economic influence pays in cash. Oil under Russian control is the lifeblood of both of these countries.
Recent developments and new international contracts with Russia clearly show whom these leaders are actually listening to.
Turkey would appear to be firmly shifting into Russian influence. A NATO member in name only. Ever since he
shot down his first-
and last – Russian fighter jet, Turkish president Recep Tayyip Erdogan has thumbed his nose at the Americans. Recently
he refused to succumb to pressure and will receive Iranian oil and, in July, the Russian S-400 anti-aircraft/missile system. This
is important since there is zero chance Putin will relinquish command and control or see them missiles used against Russian armaments.
Now, Erdogan is considering replacing his purchase of thirty US F-35s with the
far superior Russian SU- 57 and a few S-500s for good measure.
Economically, America did all it could to stop the Turk Stream gas pipeline installed by Russia's Gazprom, that runs through Turkey
to eastern Europe and will provide $billions to Erdogan and Turkey
. It
will commence operation this year. Erdogan continues to purchase Iranian oil and to call for Arab nations to come together against
US invasion in Iran. This week, Turkish Defense Minister Hulusi Akar renewed Turkey's resolve, saying his country
is preparing for potential American
sanctions as a deadline reportedly set by the US for Ankara to cancel the S-400 arms deal with Russia or face penalties draws
near.
So, Turkey is out for both a ground war and an air war since the effectiveness of all those S-400's might be put to good use if
America was to launch from naval positions in the Mediterranean. Attacking from the Black Sea is out since it is ringed by countries
under Russo/Sino influence and any attack on Iran will have to illegally cross national airspace aligned with countries preferring
the Russo/Sino alliance that favours peace. An unprovoked attack would leave the US fleet surrounded with the only safe harbours
in Romania and Ukraine. Ships move much slower than missiles.
Afghanistan is out, as the Taliban are winning. Considering recent peace talks from which they walked out and next
slaughtered a police station near the western border with
Iran, they have already won. Add the difficult terrain near the Iranian border and a ground invasion is very unlikely
Although new Pakistani President Amir Khan has all the power and authority of a primary school crossing guard, the real power
within the Pakistani military, the ISI, is more than tired of American influence
. ISI has propagated the Taliban for years and often gave
refuge to Afghan anti-US forces allowing them to use their common border for cover. Although in the past ISI has been utterly mercenary
in its very duplicitous- at least- foreign allegiances, after a decade of US drone strikes on innocent Pakistanis, the chance of
ground-based forces being allowed is very doubtful. Like Afghanistan terrain also increases this unlikelihood.
Considerations as to terrain and location for a ground war and the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously
when, in 2006 Hizbullah virtually obliterated its ground attack, heavy armour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon.
In further cautionary detail, this failure cost PM Ehud Olmert his job.
For the Russo/Sino pact nations, or those leaning in their direction, the definition of national foreign interest is no longer
military, it is economic. Those with resources and therefore bright futures within the expanding philosophy and economic offerings
of the Russo/Sino pact have little use any longer for the "Sorrows of Empire." These nation's leaders, if nothing more than to line
their own pockets, have had a very natural epiphany: War is not, for them, profitable.
For Iran, the geographic, economic and therefore geo-political ring of defensive nations is made complete by Syria, Lebanon and
Iraq. Syria, like Iraq, has every reason to despise the Americans and similar reasons to embrace Iran, Russia, China and border neighbour
Lebanon. Syria now has its own Russian S-300 system which is already bringing down Israeli missiles. It is surprising that Lebanon
has not requested a few S-300s of their own. No one knows what Hizbullah has up its sleeve, but it has been enough to keep the Israelis
at bay. Combined with a currently more prepared Lebanese army, Lebanon under the direction of Nasrallah is a formidable nation for
its size. Ask Israel.
Lebanon and Syria also take away the chance of a ground-based attack, leaving the US Marines and Army to stare longingly across
the Persian Gulf open waters from Saudi Arabia or one of its too few and militarily insignificant allies in the southern Gulf region.
Friendly airspace will also be vastly limited, so also gone will be the tactical element of surprise of any incoming attack. The
reality of this defensive ring of nations means that US military options will be severely limited. The lack of a ground invasion
threat and the element of surprise will allow Iranian defences to prioritize and therefore be dramatically more effective. As shown
in a previous article, "The Return
of the Madness of M.A.D," Iran like Russia and China, after forty years of US/Israeli threats, has developed new weapons
and military capabilities, that combined with tactics will make any direct aggression towards it by American forces a fair fight.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Regardless, a lengthy public ramp-up to stage military assets for an attack by the US will be seen by the vast majority of the
world- and Iran- as an unprovoked act of war. Certainly at absolute minimum Iran will close the Straits of Hormuz, throwing the price
of oil skyrocketing and world economies into very shaky waters. World capitalist leaders will not be happy. Without a friendly landing
point for ground troops, the US will either have to abandon this strategy in favour of an air war or see piles of body bags of US
servicemen sacrificed to Israeli inspired hegemony come home by the thousands just months before the '20 primary season. If this
is not military and economic suicide, it is certainly political.
Air war will likely see a similar disaster. With avenues of attack severely restricted, obvious targets such as Iran's non-military
nuclear program and major infrastructure will be thus more easily defended and the likelihood of the deaths of US airmen similarly
increased.
In terms of Naval power, Bolton would have only the Mediterranean as a launch pad, since using the Black Sea to initiate war will
see the US fleet virtually surrounded by nations aligned with the Russo/Sino pact. Naval forces, it should be recalled, are, due
to modern anti-ship technologies and weapons, now the sitting ducks of blusterous diplomacy. A hot naval war in the Persian Gulf,
like a ground war, will leave a US death toll far worse than the American public has witnessed in their lifetimes and the US navy
in tatters.
Trump is already
reportedly
seething that his machismo has been tarnished by Bolton and Pompeo's false assurances of an easy overthrow of Maduro in Venezuela.
With too many top generals getting jumpy about him initiating a hot war with Iraq, Bolton's stock in trade-war is waning. Trump basks
in being the American bully personified, but he and his ego will not stand for being exposed as weak. Remaining as president is necessary
to stoke his shallow character. When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war
with Iran more than they want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren
political prostitute instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
In two
excellent articles in Asia times by Pepe Escobar, he details the plethora of projects, agreements, and cooperation that are
taking place from Asia
to the Mid-East to the Baltics . Lead by Russia and China this very quickly developing Russo/Sino pact of economic opportunity
and its intentions of "soft power" collectively spell doom for Zio-America's only remaining tactics of influence: military intervention.
States, Escobar:
"We should know by now that the heart of the 21 st Century Great Game is the myriad layers of the battle between
the United States and the partnership of Russia and China. The long game indicates Russia and China will break down language and
cultural barriers to lead Eurasian integration against American economic hegemony backed by military might."
The remaining civilized world, that which understands the expanding world threat of Zio-America, can rest easy. Under the direction
of this new Russo/Sino influence, without Iraq, the US will not launch a war on Iran.
This growing Axis of Sanity surrounds Iran geographically and empathetically, but more importantly, economically. This economy,
as clearly stated by both Putin and Xi, does not benefit from any further wars of American aggression. In this new allegiance to
future riches, it is Russian and China that will call the shots and a shooting war involving their new client nations will not be
sanctioned from the top.
However, to Putin, Xi and this Axis of Sanity: If American wishes to continue to bankrupt itself by ineffective military adventures
of Israel's making, rather than fix its own nation that is in societal decline and desiccated after decades of increasing Zionist
control, well
That just good for business!
About the Author:Brett Redmayne-Titley has published over 170 in-depth articles over the past eight years for news
agencies worldwide. Many have been translated and republished. On-scene reporting from important current events has been an emphasis
that has led to his many multi-part exposes on such topics as the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations, NATO summit, Keystone XL
Pipeline, Porter Ranch Methane blow-out, Hizbullah in Lebanon, Erdogan's Turkey and many more. He can be reached at: live-on-scene
((at)) gmx.com. Prior articles can be viewed at his archive: www.watchingromeburn.uk
When Trump's limited political intelligence wakes up to the facts that his Zio masters want a war with Iran more than they
want him as president, and that these forces can easily replace him with a Biden, Harris, Bernie or Warren political prostitute
instead, even America's marmalade Messiah, will lose the flavor of his master's blood lust for war.
I believe you are far
too generous in your estimation of his ability to distinguish between flavors of any type. Otherwise, your analysis is insightful
and thorough.
The U.S. is in the same position today that we were aboard Nimitz back in 1980. Too far from Tehran to start a war or even to
find our people. We are perhaps in even a far worse position in that today, Iran holds no hostages. There's nothing so 'noble'
as 44 hostages to inspire war today. This here is merely at the behest of Israel and the deep state profit centers for mere fun
and games and cash and prizes. Iran, overall, is nothing. Obama put Iran away for what, a billion-five? And Jared, Bolton and
Pompeo dredged it all back up again? Care to guess the first-night expense of a shock and awe on Tehran? It's unthinkable.
I used to like Israel. The Haifa-Tel Av-iv-Jerusalem-Galili loop was pretty cool. The PLO hadn't quite started their game,
we could move freely about the country. It's where the whole thing started. And, unlike Italy and Spain, they treated us Americans
ok. They were somewhat war torn. But now? They're a destructive monolith, they're good at hiding it and further, they make disastrous
miscalculations. Eliminating Saddam was huge. Turns out, Saddam was the only sane one. The last vestiges of Saddam's nuclear program
went up in the attacks on the Osirak reactor that Israel bombed in 1981. Why did they push for the elimination of Saddam afterwards?
Why the lies? Miscalculation.
This here with Iran won't travel further than threats and horseshit. I hope. Lots of bleating and farting. Someone agrees.
Oil dropped three or four bucks today.
"the resulting failure of not doing so was shown to Israel previously when, in 2016 Hezbollah virtually obliterated its ground
attack, heavy amour and battle tanks in the hills of southern Lebanon."
I do particularly agree that elimination of Sadam was the greatest mistake US committed in Middle East. Devastating mistake
for US policy. In the final evaluation it did create the most powerful Shi_ite crescent that now rules the Levant. Organizing
failing uprising in Turkey against Erdogan was probably mistake of the same magnitude. Everything is lost for US now in the ME.
Threatening Iran is now simply grotesque.
Concerning the article. The article evaluating the situation in ME is outstanding and perfect. Every move of US is a vanity.
There is no more any opportunity to achieve any benefit for US. Who is responsible for all those screw ups ? US or Israel?
However, the other side of the military coin is economic -- specifically sanctions
on Iran (& China). Here ( I suspect) the US has prospects. Iran has said it has a "PhD" in sanctions busting. I hope that optimism
is not misplaced. That US sanctions amount to a declaration of war on Iran is widely agreed. Sadly, it seems the EU in its usual
spineless way will offer Iran more or less empty promises.
Is the author unaware of the nation of Saudi Arabia and the fact that they are new BFFs with Israel. They have come out quite
openly they'd like to see Iran attacked. That whole Sunni Wahabism vs. Shia thing is a heck of alot older than this current skirmish.
Being that SA has a border w/ the Persian Gulf and that Kuwait who is even CLOSER may be agreeable to be a staging area, why
the hand wringing about this nation & that nation, etc. The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases
followed up by amphibious troop deployment if need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as
a land bridge, in a pinch.
So will we expect the follow up article discussing this glaring omission, or am I missing some great development re: S.Arabia's
disposition and temperament regarding all this.
The transformed relationship between Russia and Turkey illustrates perfectly the shifting sands of strategic alliances as we cross
the desert towards destiny. https://www.ghostsofhistory.wordpress.com/
I don't know if Russia and China have been showing restraint or still don't feel up to taking Uncle on very publicly or even
covertly. The author assumes they might be willing to step up now for Iran, but the action in places like Syria suggests they
might not.
As for the costs of taking on Iran, while one cannot underestimate the cocksuredness of Uncle to take on Iran with a 2003 "Iraq
will be a cakewalk" attitude, the resulting air war will likely not be as costly to Uncle as the author believes, but the thought
of flag-draped coffins in the thousands will certainly deter a land invasion. If there is any action at all, it will be air interdiction
and missile attack.
It is curious that Uncle has not already resorted to his favorite tactic of declaring a No-Fly zone already but instead merely
hinted that airliner safety cannot be guaranteed; this is likely just another form of sanction since Iran receives money for each
airliner that transits its airspace, and a couple of Uncle's putative allies supply Iran with ATC equipment and services.
Uncle's Navy has already demonstrated a willingness to shoot down an airliner in Iranian airspace, so it is no idle threat,
kind of like the mobster looking at a picture of your family and saying, "Nice family you have there; it would be a shame if anything
happened to them."
"War is a Racket" by Gen Smedley Butler (USMC – recipient of two Medals of Honor – no rear echelon pogue) is a must read.
As true today as it was back when he wrote it.
If the US launches a war it will go it alone except for the few remaining US lapdogs like the UK, France, Germany and Australia,
but with anti-US emotions running as wild across the EU as in the southern Caspian nations, the support of these Zionist influenced
EU leaders is not necessarily guaranteed.
Stasi " Merkel muss weg " (Merkel must go) is too weak to even think about taking Germanstan into such a foolish adventure.
Maybe the Kosher Kingdom of simpletons, especially under American-born Turkish "Englishman" (((Boris Kemal Bey))), another
psycho like (((Baron Levy's))) Scottish warmonger Blair.
Iraqi MP: US after Turning Ain Al-Assad into Central Airbase in Iraq
FARSNEWS
"Karim al-Mohammadawi told the Arabic-language al-Ma'aloumeh news website that the US wants to turn Ain al-Assad airbase
which is a regional base for operations and command into a central airbase for its fighter jets.
He added that a large number of forces and military equipment have been sent to Ain al-Assad without any permission from
the Iraqi government, noting that the number of American forces in Iraq has surpassed 50,000.
Al-Mohammadawi said that Washington does not care about Iraq's opposition to using the country's soil to target the neighboring
states.
In a relevant development on Saturday, media reports said that Washington has plans to set up military bases and increasing
its troops in Iraq, adding the US is currently engaged in expanding its Ain al-Assad military base in al-Anbar province."
The US would be welcome to stage an air and sea assault using Saudi bases followed up by amphibious troop deployment if
need be. But given the proximity they could probably strong arm Kuwait to act as a land bridge, in a pinch.
Sea assault? Amphibious troop deployment? Are you serious? This is not WWII Normandy, Dorothy. That would be an unmitigated
massacre. Weapons have improved a bit in the last 70 years if you have not noticed.
Also minor point, LOL, but Kuwait is a "landbridge" between Saudi Arabia and Iraq Unless you are proposing the US attacks
Iraq (again!) which it would have to do to achieve a "landbridge" to Iran. Another good reason Iraq is acquiring the S-400.
More minor points: 1. South Iraq is ALL shiite. 2. Kuwait is SMALL i.e. a BIG target for thousands of missiles
@Ilyana_Rozumova
your question of responsibility is very intuitive.. two general answers.. both need deep analysis..
first is a conspiracy of Israeli owned, Wall Street financed, war profiteering privatizing-pirate corporations These corporations
enter, invade or control the war defeated place and privatize all of its infrastructure construction contracts from the defeated
place or state (reason for massive destruction by bombing) and garner control over all the citizen services: retail oil and gas
distribution, food supplies, electric power, communications, garbage and waste collection and disposal, street cleaning, water
provisioning. traffic control systems, security, and so on.. Most of these corporations are privately owned public stock companies,
controlled by the same wealthy Oligarchs that control "who gets elected and what the elected must do while in sitting in one of
the seats of power at the 527 person USA.
2nd is the impact of the laws that deny competition in a nation sworn to a method of economics (capitalism) that depends on
competition for its success. Another group of massive in size mostly global corporations again owned from Jerusalem, NYC, City
of London, etc. financed at wall street, use rule of law to impose on Americans and many of the people of the world, a blanket
of economic and anti competitive laws and monopoly powers. These monopolist companies benefit from the copyright and patent laws,
which create monopolies from hot thin air. These laws of monopolies coupled to the USA everything is a secret government have
devastated competitive capitalism in America and rendered American Universities high school level teaching but not learning bureaucracies.
Monopolies and state secrets between insider contractors were suppose to deny most of the world from competing; but without
competition ingenuity is lost. Monopoly lordships and state secrets were supposed to make it easy for the monopoly powered corporations
to overpower and deny any and all would be competition; hence they would be the only ones getting rich.. But China's Huawei will
be Linux based and Tin not Aluminium in design, far superior technology to anything these monopoly powered retards have yet developed
especially in the high energy communications technologies (like 5G, Artificial Intelligence, and Robotics). In other words copyrights,
patents and the US military were suppose to keep the world, and the great ingenuity that once existed in the person of every American,
from competing, but the only people actually forced out of the technology competition were the ingenious, for they were denied
by copyright and patents to compete. Now those in power at the USA will make Americans pay again as the corporations that run
things try to figure out how to catch up to the Chinese and Russian led Eastern world. Modi's election in India is quite interesting
as both China and Russia supported it, yet, Modi says he is going to switch to the USA for copyrighted and patented stuff?
on the issue of continued USA presence in Iraq, Syria, Yemen, Lebanon, ..
"Our continued presence in Iraq will be conditions-based, proportional to need, in coordination with and by the approval of
the Iraqi government." <that's a joke, first off, I never desired to be in Iraq, and I do not desire USA military or American
presence in Iraq, do You? <blatant disregard for the needs of America.. IMO. Bring the troops home. If the USA would only leave
Iraq to the Iraqis and get to work making America competitive again they would once again enjoy a great place in the world. But
one thing i can tell you big giant wall street funded corporations, and reliance on degree credentials instead of job performance,
will never be the reason America is great.
This article by Mr. Titley is the most hopeful article I've yet read demonstrating the coming death of US hegemony, with most
of the rest of the civilized world apparently having turned against the world's worst Outlaw Nation.
Trump has allowed madmen
Bolton and Pompeo to get this country into an awful mess – all for the sake of Israel and the Zionists.
He needs to find a face-saving
way to get out before Washington gets its long needed comeuppance. But how can Trump accomplish this as long as Bolton, in particular,
continues to be the man who most has his ear? If Titley is correct, then Trump had better start listening to his military leaders
instead.
Netanyahu and the Ziocons better think twice about their longed for dream of the destruction of Iran. The Jews always push
things too far. Karma can be a bitch.
"... The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past – Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through additional disruptions to supply. ..."
"... This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former. ..."
"... On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump administration's "no waiver" oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons. ..."
As tensions between Iran and the US continue to escalate, analysts have begun to consider the likelihood and consequences of an
Iran war. There has been much talk of an Iran War in recent weeks, but the likelihood of a war, whether intentional or accidental,
is relatively small for the simple reason that the leaders of Iran and the US don't want one. President Donald Trump, who has been
remarkably faithful to his campaign promises, to the chagrin of many, doesn't want another Iraq-like war – with a quick victory
followed by a long defeat. Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, Supreme Leader of Iran, doesn't want his revolution and country crushed by the
massive military might of America.
This is not to say there aren't powerful individuals in the Trump administration – such as National Security Advisor John Bolton
and possibly Secretary of State Mike Pompeo – and regional allies – Israel, Saudi Arabia and United Arab Emirates (UAE) – who want a
war to bring about regime change in Iran, and who are willing to stir the pot in an attempt to make it happen.
Trump's personal preference for Iran may also be regime change, with a negotiated neutering of the Islamic Republic his next best
outcome. But he probably would settle for long-term containment of Iran through his
"maximum pressure"
campaign, accepting that the Iranian regime would likely be able to sustain itself though skirting sanctions.
Iran has made huge geopolitical gains in the Middle East since the US inadvertently pushed Shiite-majority Iraq into the Iranian
sphere of influence by imposing democracy on the country following the 2003 war. Tehran now directly or indirectly controls an arc
of territory north of Saudi Arabia – Iraq, Syria and Lebanon – while supporting Houthi rebels to the south of the kingdom in Yemen.
Although US sanctions on Iran's oil and metal exports are unlikely to bring about regime change, they will make it significantly
more difficult for the Islamic Republic to consolidate its territorial gains and sustain its regional proxy network, as the
government will have to prioritize domestic spending to maintain social stability. Simply put, the sanctions make it more difficult
for Iran to directly challenge its regional enemies, Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE and score additional foreign policy victories.
Despite an aversion to war with the US, it appears Khamenei has given Qassem Suleimani, leader of Iran's powerful Quds Force and
national hero, permission to encourage foreign militias aligned with Tehran to cause mischief for US and allied forces in the Middle
East, and if possible, disrupt the flow of oil from the region through non-attributed actions.
The Iranian goal is to break the resolve of the US, given American military retreats from the Middle East in the past –
Lebanon (1984), Iraq (2011), and Syria (presently) – and to increase the cost of Iranian oil sanctions on the global economy through
additional disruptions to supply.
This is obviously a dangerous game that could lead to real war, not just proxy war. As a result, it is important to explore
the potential impact of both on the world oil market, despite the latter being significantly more likely than the former.
US Perspective
Pompeo laid out the Trump administration's rationale and strategy for dealing with the Islamic Republic in
"Confronting Iran,"
an article in the November-December 2018 issue of
Foreign Affairs
. He argued the deal the Obama administration and international community struck with Iran in 2015 – the Joint Comprehensive
Plan of Action (JCPOA) – was fundamentally flawed as it failed to end the country's nuclear weapons ambition. Instead, the deal
simply postponed Iran's nuclear ambitions while the regime continued its ballistic missile program to allow it to deliver a nuclear
payload.
At the same time, the deal gave
"Tehran piles of money, which the supreme leader has used to sponsor all types of terrorism throughout the Middle East (with few
consequences in response) and which have boosted the economic fortunes of a regime that remains bent on exporting its revolution
abroad and imposing it at home."
The core of the Trump administration's maximum pressure campaign are economic sanctions designed to
"choke off revenues"
to Iran to force its government to negotiate a
"new deal"
covering its nuclear activities, ballistic missile program and
"malign behaviour"
across the Middle East, while providing sufficient military deterrence to keep Tehran from lashing out at US forces and allies
in the region.
Trump withdrew the US from the Iran nuclear deal in May 2018, and has since ratcheted up economic sanctions on the Islamic
Republic in August and November of last year, while going the full monty on Iranian crude and condensate exports at the beginning of
May.
On the deterrence front, the US has moved numerous military assets to the Persian Gulf region since the Trump
administration's
"no waiver"
oil sanctions came into effect. These include: hastening the arrival of a carrier strike group; deployment of a bomber
task-force; additional Patriot missiles; and as reported by The New York Times, drawing up plans to send up to 120,000 US troops to
the Middle East, if Iran attacks US forces or rushes to develop nuclear weapons.
It should be noted that a military buildup of this size would take months, and the 120,000 number is widely viewed as
insufficient for a full-scale invasion of Iran. The Islamic Republic has been planning and building up asymmetric military
capabilities to thwart a US attack since the 1990s, while the country is larger in size and population than Iraq. The US military
plan reported by the New York Times did not call for a land invasion of Iran.
On May 14, Trump denied the New York Times report, but in characteristic fashion appeared to up the ante.
"Now, would I do that? Absolutely,"
Trump said.
"But we have not planned for that. Hopefully we're not going to have to plan for that. If we did that, we would send a hell of a
lot more troops than that."
But in the Foreign Affairs
article Pompeo wrote that Trump does not want the US to go to war with Iran:
"President Trump does not want another long-term US military engagement in the Middle East -- or in any other region, for that
matter. He has spoken openly about the dreadful consequences of the 2003 invasion of Iraq and the 2011 intervention in Libya."
Iranian Perspective
On May 14, Khamenei explicitly said that Iran does not want to go to war with the US, and suggested the same of America, as a war
would be in neither country's interest.
"There won't be any war,"
he said.
"Neither we nor they seek war. They know it will not be in their interest."
In terms of Iran's current situation, David Petraeus, ex-CIA director and America's former top general in the Middle East,
possibly put it best.
"Certainly, if Iran were to precipitate that [a war], it would be a suicide gesture,"
Petraeus said on May 9.
"It would be very, very foolhardy. And they know that."
The Islamic Republic has done an excellent job of marshaling relatively limited financial and military resources to expand its
influence and control through the Middle East since 2003, but its defense budget of about US$16 billion – or a mere 3.7 percent of
GDP – falls considerably short compared to regional rivals Israel, Saudi Arabia and UAE on an individual basis, let alone a
collective one. The military capabilities of the US dwarf those of Iran on every conceivable measure, which should come as no
surprise since America's most recent defense budget is a massive US$686 billion.
Khamenei also said his country has no desire to negotiate with the US, given the Trump administration's extreme demands and
unilateral breaking of the nuclear pact, and suggested the current crisis will likely be a long one, a view supported by Hassan
Rouhani, the democratically elected president of Iran.
"The Iranian nation has chosen the path of resistance,"
Khamenei said.
Rouhani was even more explicit. Speaking to activists from a wide range of political factions on May 12, he said Iran is facing
"unprecedented"
pressure from US sanctions and suggested economic conditions may become worse than during the 1980-88 Iran-Iraq War.
"The pressures by enemies is a war unprecedented in the history of our Islamic revolution,"
Rouhani said, according to the state news agency IRNA.
"But I do not despair and have great hope for the future and believe that we can move past these difficult conditions provided
that we are united
."
Or maybe it is just one front: I.e. making globalisation difficult for the Chinese :
by pushing non Chinese Asians countries to de-integrate their supply chains with China
and
by cutting its supply of oil though shortages induced by tensions in the Gulf.
The US knows that it can't be the sole superpower anymore any longer, so the strategy is to
reverse globalisation so that no other global superpower (a Russian-Chinese with a dominating
Persia in the Middle East) can emerge.
Far too early to say if the strategy will be successful or not.
As far as I am concerned, the silver linings would be that a long period of oil shortage
could finally be the trigger to switch industrial infrastructure worldwide away from liquid
and gaseous fossils, and that less globalised supply chain would be more robust to shocks,
but if these silver linings were the ultimate goals, I could think of less adversarial ways
to achieve that globally, with less money wasted on the military
The benefits of joint pricing mechanisms are also enormous. Currently, Iran has no choice
because of the sanctions but to sell its oil – including from the shared fields –
at massively reduced pricing that is comprised of its official selling price (OSP) minus the
sanctions discount minus the incremental risk discount. This has resulted in Iran offering
'cost, insurance, and freight' cargoes for 'free on board' pricing, with the difference
between the two covered by Iran. "Under this new agreement, Iranian oil from these shared
fields will be sold based on Iraq's much higher three month moving average OSP pricing for
cargoes, with no discounts at all, and the three month moving average for the effective spot
market that Iraq has created and now controls," said the oil source.
Thanks for the in-depth info. Lots to digest and research.
the US has acted in such bad faith so often in the early stages of conflicts that it's
sensible to wonder how much of this account is accurate. It is very frustrating to be
dealing with an informational hall of mirrors.
It's depressing to say but I when I read anything from domestic official sources or the
media I can't help but think it's mostly lies. Not under the illusion that foreign actors are
all righteous and benevolent, but as you said, our nation's track record with the truth in
these scenarios is pretty tainted at this point. Just as we found out with Saddam and
Qaddafi, these leaders have little reason to poke the dragon, and a lot of reason to build up
defenses.
Interesting observations if true, and they certainly do make sense of a lot of the things
that have been happening.
I see it hasn't dissuaded Trump though, this morning he is reported as doubling down on
his threats to Iran. A big fear now is that Iran does not seem to be in the mood to give
Trump the sort of symbolic 'win' he can use to climb down gracefully (and sack Bolton). The
Saudi's can probably be scared into stepping back, but the Israeli's and the neocons want a
hot war.
Its easy to see this gradually ratchet up step by step into an uncontrolled region wide
conflict.
Not sure what to make of this article but the Anglo-American press is not providing much
context for the recent ratcheting up of confrontation with Iran.
The MSM is mostly stenographers and right leaning pundits. If no one tells them, they
wouldn't know.
Also, the DC elites were pretty irked by Obama's Iran deal. They deferred to Obama and the
Europeans who demanded the deal, but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the
enemies of the American people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to
grips with this.
but I think they live in a world where DC's enemies are the enemies of the American
people who overwhelmingly supported the Iran deal. DC hasn't come to grips with this.
Yes, because all pain, real blood and death, misery and horror that they cause in fighting
what they assume putatively are "the American people's enemies" are never suffered by them,
but only everyone else including the American people; all the financial benefits do go to
them so it is all gain and no cost.
Will Lavrov and Wang Yi's guarantees prevent an Israeli nuclear attack on Iranian
facilities, followed by US pledges to fully support Israel's right to self defence?
There are two kinds of weapons in the world offensive and defensive. The latter are
cheaper, a fighter plane compared to a bomber. If a country does not (or cannot afford to)
have offensive intent, it makes sense to focus on defense. It is what Iran has done.
Moreover, its missile centered defense has a modern deadly twist -- the missiles are
precision-guided. As an Iranian general remarked when questioned about the carrier task
force: some years ago it would've been a threat he opined; now it's a target. Iran also has a
large standing army of 350,000 plus a 120,000 strong Revolutionary Guard and Soviet style air
defenses. In 2016 Russia started installation of the S-300 system. It has all kinds of
variants, the most advanced, the S-300 PMU-3 has a range similar to the S-400 if equipped
with 40N6E missiles, which are used also in the S-400. Their range is 400 km, so the Iranian
batteries are virtually S-400s. The wily Putin has kept trump satisfied with the S-300
moniker without short-changing his and China's strategic ally. The latter continuing to buy
Iranian oil.
Iran has friends in Europe also. Angela Merkel in particular has pointed out that Iran has
complied fully with the nuclear provisions of the UN Security Council backed Joint
Comprehensive Plan of Action i.e. the Iran nuclear deal. She is mustering the major European
powers. Already alienated with Trump treating them as adversaries rather than friends, they
find Trump's bullying tiresome. President Macron, his poll ratings hitting the lowest, is
hardly likely to engage in Trump's venture. In Britain, Theresa May is barely able to hold on
to her job. In the latest thrust by senior members of her party, she has been asked to name
the day she steps down.
So there we have it. Nobody wants war with Iran. Even Israel, so far without a
post-election government does not want to be rained upon by missiles leaky as its Iron Dome
was against homemade Palestinian rockets. Topping all of this neither Trump nor Secretary of
State Pompeo want war. Trump is as usual trying to bully -- now called maximum pressure --
Iran into submission. It won't. The wild card is National Security Adviser John Bolton. He
wants war. A Gulf of Tonkin type false flag incident, or an Iranian misstep, or some accident
can still set it off. In Iran itself, moderates like current President Hassan Rouhani are
being weakened by Trump's shenanigans. The hard liners might well want to bleed America as
happened in Iraq and Afghanistan.
I don't trust those air defenses too much, where have they ever performed well? The scary
part is where Iran assumes that USA can through repeated air strikes wipe out their missiles.
They will from the start find themselves in a "use them or lose them" scenario and may launch
everything as response to even a limited US strike, since they can't know if it is limited or
the beginning of a full scale attack, and I doubt Iran is willing to go down without doing
everything it can to hurt their enemies. (Possibly excluding Israel which is crazy enough to
go nuclear in response).
Yves here. Glenn F sent along this story about recent events in the US-Iran conflict, many of
which don't appear to have been reported in the English language press. Interestingly, the
article takes the position that it is the Saudis that have been doing their best and largely
succeeding in suppressing these reports.
Going into the weekend, it looked as if the US was trying to turn down the Iran threat meter
a notch. Both Iran and the Saudis said they didn't want war but were prepared for one. Then a
mystery rocket landed in the Green Zone in Baghdad. Oopsie.
From the Wall Street Journal:
No major destruction was inflicted by the rocket, which landed near a museum displaying
old planes and caused some damage to a building used by security guards, according to an
official in the interior ministry.
The interior ministry official, who declined to be identified, said the rocket had landed
around a kilometer from the U.S. Embassy inside Baghdad's Green Zone, where many other
diplomatic missions and Iraqi government offices are located.
No group claimed responsibility. But security officials said security forces had found and
seized a mobile rocket launcher in an area of Baghdad where Shiite militias, including some
with close links to Iran, have a presence.
But also note this:
The Trump administration last week ordered a partial evacuation of its diplomatic missions
in Baghdad and Erbil citing increased threats posed by Iran and its allies in Iraq. The Iraqi
government has varying degrees of control over an array of armed groups, some of which are
closely affiliated with Iran.
"If President Trump had ever read Mackinder -- and there's no evidence he did -- one might
assume that he's aiming at a new anti-Eurasia integration pivot centered on the Persian Gulf.
And energy would be at the heart of the pivot.
If Washington were able to control everything, including "Big Prize" Iran, it would be
able to dominate all Asian economies, especially China. Trump even said were that to happen,
"decisions on the GNP of China will be made in Washington."...
...Arguably the key (invisible) takeaway of the meetings this week between Foreign
Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi, and then between Lavrov and Pompeo, is that Moscow made
it quite clear that Iran will be protected by Russia in the event of an American showdown.
Pompeo's body language showed how rattled he was.
What rattled Pomp: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it
small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our
country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,"
Trump may not have read Mackinder but Kissinger sure would have.
"... Upstream spending rose by a modest 4 percent, which only partially repairs the savage cuts following the 2014 bust, which saw upstream spending fall by about 30 percent. However, the IEA said that 2019 could be a bit of a turning point, with a "new wave of conventional projects" in the works. ..."
"... Despite the increase in spending on new oil projects, "today's investment trends are misaligned with where the world appears to be heading," the IEA said. "Notably, approvals of new conventional oil and gas projects fall short of what would be needed to meet continued robust demand growth." ..."
"... Geographically, investment [in solar and wind] is concentrated in rich countries. Roughly 90 percent of total energy investment – both for fossil fuels and for renewable energy – was funneled into high- and upper-middle income regions. Rich countries alone accounted for 40 percent of total energy investment, despite only making up 15 percent of the global population. ..."
Global energy investment "stabilised" at just over $1.8 trillion in 2018, ending three years
of declines.
Higher spending on oil, natural gas and coal was offset by declines in fossil fuel-based
electricity generation and even a dip in renewable energy spending. China was the largest
market for energy investment, even as the U.S. closed the gap.
After the 2014-2016 oil market bust, spending on oil and gas plunged, and only started to
tick up last year. But the oil industry is not returning to its old spending ways. New
investment is increasingly concentrated in short-cycle projects, namely, U.S. shale, "partly
reflecting investor preferences for better managing capital at risk amid uncertainties over the
future direction of the energy system," the IEA wrote in its report.
Upstream spending rose by a modest 4 percent, which only partially repairs the savage
cuts following the 2014 bust, which saw upstream spending fall by about 30 percent. However,
the IEA said that 2019 could be a bit of a turning point, with a "new wave of conventional
projects" in the works.
Despite the increase in spending on new oil projects, "today's investment trends are
misaligned with where the world appears to be heading," the IEA said. "Notably, approvals of
new conventional oil and gas projects fall short of what would be needed to meet continued
robust demand growth."
... ... ...
The good news is that costs continue to fall. Solar PV has seen costs decline by 75 percent
since 2010, and onshore wind and battery storage costs are down by 20 percent and 50 percent,
respectively. As such, a dollar spent on renewables buys a lot more energy than it used to, so
flat investment is not entirely negative. And in a growing number of places, solar and wind are
the cheapest option for power generation – increasingly
cheaper than existing coal plants .
Geographically, investment [in solar and wind] is concentrated in rich countries.
Roughly 90 percent of total energy investment – both for fossil fuels and for renewable
energy – was funneled into high- and upper-middle income regions. Rich countries alone
accounted for 40 percent of total energy investment, despite only making up 15 percent of the
global population.
Nothing, no EV's, solar, wind, coal or uranium is going to help. No tight shale, Arctic or
North Slope oil is going to lift this sinking ship. There are no more new oil reserves to
find and all the old fields are in a state of desperate high-tech extraction. We took all the
easy stuff, Bakken and Permian are the last ditch effort. That's why all the playas have
negative cash flow. That's why we are fecked.
That was the last great elephant field. The largest resource ever discovered on the
planet. Finally in decline. So goes Saudi Arabia. So goes OPEC. So goes mankind.
Cheap crude was a 100 year party, the hangover has already begun. Fracked oil, tar sands,
were a rescue remedy, funded by low interest rates, (debt). The massive population boom of
the last century and a half directly coordinates with increasing oil production. If you
aren't preparing yourself and your children for energy-down/population-down, you are insuring
that YOUR decedents won't be among the 100 million or so people scratching out a living in
North America in 100 years.
Before 1850 and the discovery of oil and coal, there were 1 billion people on the planet.
Now there are 7 billion. 6 billion will die as the oil economy and oil infrastructure grinds
to a halt. Better make you peace. Your plans are too late.
"...Declining uranium production will make it impossible to obtain a significant increase
in electrical power from nuclear plants in the coming decades."
Thorium Reactors...
"...A similar fate was encountered by another idea that involved "breeding" a nuclear fuel
from a naturally existing element -- thorium. The concept involved transforming the 232
isotope of thorium into the fissile 233 isotope of uranium, which then could be used as fuel
for a nuclear reactor (or for nuclear warheads). The idea was discussed at length during the
heydays of the nuclear industry, andit is still discussed today; but so far, nothing has come
out of it and the nuclear industry is still based on mineral uranium as fuel..."
OPEC was the necessary cartel that helped to stabilize production and prices.
Now all of it including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest, all 14 nations past and present,
is defunct. Output has been in decline since Nov. 2016. See IEA data or peakoilbarrel for a
summary
Cool..How do I fill my BMW up with coal? How about that just in time delivery. Anyone ever
try to power a semi-truck with coal? Eactly what do we pave the road ways with? Coal?
Yeesh. All wrong. Most important, slick Willie gave us our china trade problems, and then
demand for raw commods in china soared. In response, his geniuses gave us the cfma, which was
passed to let the JPMs of the world naked short commodities till the cows came home. However,
china demand growth was so far in excess of supply growth that several of the WS firms saw
the writing on the wall and went long. Thus the pols amazement when finding out v=bear
stearns was actually long oil. Finally prices got high enough that supply growth started
overtaking demand growth. We have been going down , on average, since. china demand late 90s
oil wa 3Mbpd, currently 13Mbpd
Buffett put it very simply. If oil prices go up OXY can make a lot of money.
$100 oil they will make a lot, especially on their CO2 projects in the Permian, and in
Oman, where they own a decent chunk of flowing BOPD.
It's a bet on oil going up, plus getting 8% interest for loaning them $10 billion. They go
with preferred stock for the favorable dividend tax treatment.
It is only a bad deal if oil stays here or below long term. Assuming a 10-15 year cycle,
by 2025-2030 oil will surely rocket up.
It's a good deal for Berkshire, but not a good deal for Occidental.
"The 8 percent yield on the preferreds is way above Oxy's pre-bidding dividend yield of
4.7 percent and equivalent to a pre-tax cost of debt of about 10 percent, roughly triple the
company's bond yield. That's before counting the warrants, equivalent to 9 percent dilution
on the pro forma share count, plus the redemption premium.
This wasn't a bet on Oxy, the Permian shale basin or even oil prices; Buffett could have
just bought stock in the open market for that. This was about extracting as much as possible
from a company that really needed the promise of a big slug of cash."
According to Buffett, he is betting on oil prices and the Permian.
Also, Berkshire might have bought Anadarko directly, if asked. Which seems odd.
"Asked why Berkshire wouldn't just buy Anadarko itself, Buffett said, 'That might have
happened if Anadarko came to us, but we wouldn't jump into some other deal that we heard
about from somebody else coming to us seeking financing.'
Later in the interview, longtime investing partner and vice chairman Charlie Munger
responded to the question as well, saying, 'Nobody asked us to.'"
currently they are forecasting about a 750 kb/d increase annually from Dec 2018 to Dec
2020.
Yes, but they are predicting the lions share of that gain in 2019. That is they are
predicting a US increase in production of 1,200 kb/d in 2019 and a gain of 350 kb/d in 2020.
(Dec. to Dec. in each case.)
Note: This is C+C, not Total Liquids.
Obviously, they are expecting a slowdown in the oil patch in 2020. That slowdown just may
come about a year earlier than expected.
I agree, 2019 is too high, but I still think the overall change from Dec 2018 to Dec 2020
will be about right (2019 increase will be less than STEO, but 2020 increase will be
greater).
It is doubtful their forecast will be precisely correct, nor will anyone's, but the
overall increase from Dec 2018 to Dec 2020 seems pretty reasonable. I agree that the expected
increase in 2019 will be less than the 1.2 Mb/d the EIA currently forecasts, about 700 kb/d
this year and 850 kb/d next year seems more reasonable if Brent oil prices gradually rise to
$85/b (2018$) over the May 2019 to Dec 2020 period as I expect (with lots of volatility along
the way). Basically I expect the centered average 5 week Brent spot price may reach $85/b
some time before Dec 31, 2020.
Dennis, the EIA clearly sees the slowdown in the shale oil patch coming. They think it will
hit next year, 2020. The EIA has a history of being overly optimistic. Yet yet, in this case,
you think they are being pessimistic. You see shale production increasing in 2020 over 2019.
That just seems very strange to me.
However, I will just have to leave it at that. We will both just have to wait and see.
I expect oil prices will be higher towards the end of 2019, profits for tight oil
producers will be higher, there will be a higher well completion rates (higher capital
spending budgets) in 2020 as a result and the rate of increase in tight oil output will
increase a bit (I am assuming 700 kb/d in 2019 and 800 kb/d in 2020, this is essentially no
change in the rate of increase). In the end we don't know as we don't know future oil prices
and how they will affect investment decisions. The main point is that in the end the output
in Dec 2020 may be pretty close to the EIA estimate. That estimate is neither pessimistic or
optimistic, it is realistic. The path that output will take from March 2019 to Dec 2020 is
impossible to predict, a straight line guess is as good as any.
I understand Dennis, hope springs eternal in the shale oil patch, for some folks anyway.
I agree that oil prices are about to spike. World oil production is currently falling like
a rock. Brent prices are in backwardation, meaning traders also expect prices to rise.
However, I do not believe, as you do, that this will automatically cause a dramatic increase
in oil production. The effect will be feeble at best. Well, in my opinion anyway.
I also do not expect a dramatic increase, I actually expect the recent rate of annual
increase of 1.6 Mb/d to slow to about half of the previous rate (0.8 Mb/d) and continue to
slow over time to near zero by 2024.
Attached are the changing monthly STEO projections for February, March and April for the
lower 48 production. Today's projection, April, has added 230 kb/d day by year end 2019 to
the March projection and close to 300 kb/d in 2020. The April projection also shows an
increase of 960 kb/d from Dec 18 to Dec 19. For Dec 19 to Dec 20, the increase is only 420
kb/d, less than half of the 18 to 19 increase. Any speculation/ideas for the lower increase
for 19 to 20. The G of M drops by 70 kb/d from Dec 19 to Dec 20.
You notice that the April 19 STEO has the lowest production numbers for Jan. Feb. and
April 2019 but the highest numbers as they move into the second half of 2019 and all of
2020.
I don't know what to make of this except that I find it rather amusing.
I found it insulting to my intelligence (not an exceptionally difficult task), but now that
you mention it, I can imagine some Lewis Carroll feel to it.
How are they adding 100k+ net non-Gulf when their own drilling productivity reports have the
Permian at less than half that growth? With Eagle Ford and Bakken not growing. Doesn't add up
even before taking out legacy decline elsewhere.
"... A word about the LTO metric of the month, free cash flow. Cash flow ain't "free" if one is still in debt. IMO, 1Q19 was awful for the US shale oil industry. It used cash flow for buy backs, to meet dividend demands by pissed off investors, to pay absurd prices for undeveloped acreage in the Permian, for reserve replacement (75% of ALL wells now drilled in America's shale basins simply offset last year's annualized decline) and still eked out a little growth. Nothing to very little went of nothing went to voluntary deleveraging. At less than $75-80, it can't be done. ..."
Dennis. Things were going good until 11/18, when the price started to crater. Thankfully we
are back up. However, our price for December through March averaged $48 and change, which is
making money, but not much.
Expenses have stayed relatively stable. Labor goes up a little each year. Electricity has
actually dropped a few percent. Chemicals have stayed the same since we received a 10% cut in
2016. Steel is up some, so rods and tubing are a little higher.
$55-65 WTI would still be ok. Liked $70s last fall, before the Donald got involved with
Iran waivers and tweets.
My comment was poking at the Donald, et al, who think that since $25 was a great price in
1990 it should still be ok today.
Clearly, although $55-65 is good for us, maybe not good enough for others. In particular,
the service companies who continue to lay bleeding to death on the side of the road.
We still have no plans to drill. Have five workovers planned for summer to fight the
decline.
Dennis, you are kind; thank you. My belief is that if one can't make money at $50/2.50, and
cope with 30% price swings for months at a time, one should be in the lawn mowing business
instead. The US shale oil industry could therefore keep most of America looking like Augusta
National.
A word about the LTO metric of the month, free cash flow. Cash flow ain't "free" if one is
still in debt. IMO, 1Q19 was awful for the US shale oil industry. It used cash flow for buy
backs, to meet dividend demands by pissed off investors, to pay absurd prices for undeveloped
acreage in the Permian, for reserve replacement (75% of ALL wells now drilled in America's
shale basins simply offset last year's annualized decline) and still eked out a little
growth. Nothing to very little went of nothing went to voluntary deleveraging. At less than
$75-80, it can't be done.
Hughes has a new report out clearly showing Mother Nature is having Her say in the shale
oil phenomena. Nobody messes with Mother Nature.
Agree higher oil prices are needed for tight oil producers to reduce their debt. If long
term oil prices remain $50/b, they are toast.
I read a blurb on the new Hughes paper, but I am a bit of a cheapskate and was not willing
to put down $250 for the report so I have not read it.
From your perspective, do you think oil prices are likely to remain $50/b long term? (lets
call it the 52 week average oil price). It seems to me there will not be adequate supply on
the World oil market at $50/b, perhaps $65 or $70/b (in 2019 US$) would do it.
You know infinitely more than me about the oil business and you have been in it for a
while (40+ years as an owner I believe), so your take would be of interest to me and I
imagine everyone who reads this blog.
As many of you, I don't expect business as usual to continue. We get projections based on
past trends, but with oil being finite and the globe already showing the effects of climate
change, I think we are in for a tumultuous future.
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 05/10/2019 - 11:48am The Trump Administration made it
perfectly clear: no more waivers on Iranian sanctions.
No exceptions .
"We're going to zero. We're going to zero across the board," US Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo told reporters after the White House made the announcement in a statement. "There are
no (oil) waivers that extend beyond that period, full stop," he said, adding that there would
be no grace period for those economies to comply.
Got it? No exceptions. This is about values and principles. This is about Iranian terrorism
(or some such nonsense).
Wait a sec. What happened to 'no more waivers, no exceptions'?
Well, ya see, a funny
thing happened along the way.
Iraq will soon finalize a large-scale, long-term deal for the development of oil fields in
the South with Exxon and PetroChina. The 30-year contract will involve investments of US$53
billion and potential returns for Baghdad of as much as US$400 billion over its lifetime,
Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi told media this week.
I know what you are thinking, but I am here to tell you conclusively that the timing is all
a coincidence. Billions of dollars in Exxon profits
have no effect on our foreign policy decisions.
Iraqi Prime Minister Adel Abdul Mahdi said on Tuesday there was no link between an initial
oil agreement his government was about to sign with Exxon Mobil and its receipt of waivers
from the United States exempting it from sanctions on Iran.
There you go. A deeply corrupt Iraqi politician denies that the two events are related. What
more proof do you want?
I know what you are thinking, but I am here to tell you conclusively that the timing is all a
coincidence. Billions of dollars in Exxon profits have no effect on our foreign policy
decisions.
Of course it's a coincidence! Have you never heard about America's great humanitarian wars,
a phrase which we owe to great patriot Susan Powers? And, do you not fail to realize that
Barack Hussein O'Bama* was our greatest president since Franklin Pierce?
*You know also that BHO is a black Irishman (groan).
The US is an oil company masquerading as a
country .
Iraq should have said that they will buy Iranian oil for as long as they want in exchange
for signing the agreement. But I'm guess that the guy who inked the deal is one of our
puppets?.
@snoopydawg
Iranian oil as their own, ad infinitum?
Iraq should have said that they will buy Iranian oil for as long as they want in
exchange for signing the agreement. But I'm guess that the guy who inked the deal is one of
our puppets?.
"... Arthur Berman has been predicting exactly this for year. They'll spend more and more pushing production up, but eventually you get diminishing returns – the drop off in production, when it happens, will be quite dramatic as the sweet spots run dry. ..."
"... Just to add – one possible catastrophic outcome for the planet of a shale bust is poorly capped wells. Properly capping a fracked well is very difficult (you need to plug each individual geological layer, its not just a matter of putting a concrete plug on the well head). If they are not properly plugged, they will leak gas for decades and its extremely difficult and expensive to properly plug. In theory of course they are supposed to be properly capped by the operators, but if they go out of business . ..."
"... So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2 emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate. ..."
"... Natural gas is methane, so badly capped fracked gas wells would be really bad for climate change. ..."
"... Fracking the modern equivalent to hydrological gold mining. But money [tm] was made some confuse this with value ..."
"... This is old news. Drillers over estimated the production length for fracked wells to help their Ponzi Scheme. For a natural gas well the production tanks in most cases in 3 years. To keep production up more wells had to be drilled. Eventually places to drill become hard to locate.I witnessed this in northern PA. It was boom for about 5 years then came the bust. Although there is still some fracking it is only minor compared to what it was. A few made money but the cost to the environment was passed on to the taxpayers. ..."
"... Venezuelan oil is very important to frackers because almost all refineries in the US were built to handle the mid-density oils from Texas and Alaska. Tight oil (fracked) is super light (it can't be fracked otherwise), and so it needs to be mixed in with heavy grade oil to make it refinable. This is where heavy Venezuelan crude and Canadian tar sand oil comes in – they are essential to create a crude that can be refined in existing plants. ..."
"... So the relationship between the US tight oil industry and Venezuela/Canada is quite complex – they all need each other to some extent otherwise they are stuck with oil that can't be refined. This is of course one reason why Washington absolutely hates not having firm control of Venezuelan production. But its also why they can't afford to shut it down entirely (which would happen if there was a military invasion or civil war). ..."
"... The fracked oil and gas often have low market value. The gas wells may produce relatively low quantities of high value natural gas liquids. The oil often is so light that it produces low quantities of high value distillates like diesel fuel. The fracked crude may contain high amounts of impurities that make it difficult and expensive to refine. ..."
"... Venezuela oil can be delivered directly to the Gulf Coast refineries in tankers that require no permitting or construction. Canadian oil requires pipelines (e.g. Keystone XL) which are held up in permitting. So it is ironic that the Keystone pipeline permitting quagmire is likely to be a proximate cause for the Trump administration dabbling in Venezuela as many Gulf Coast refineries are geared for Alberta/Venezuela oil. ..."
"... It was the fruits of Bush admin energy policy. Doubt it was primarily geopolitical, more like tail wagging the dog. Though the distinction is increasingly blurry now. ..."
"... Destroying limited fresh water is insane. This is a perfect example of the horrible consequences of capitalism. Profit corrupts the political system as the state merges to serve the oligarchs. ..."
By Nick Cunningham, a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate
change, energy policy and geopolitics based in Pittsburgh, PA. Originally published at
OilPrice
The shale industry faces an uncertain future as drillers try to outrun the treadmill of
precipitous well declines.
For years, companies have deployed an array of drilling techniques to extract more oil and
gas out of their wells, steadily intensifying each stage of the operation. Longer laterals,
more water, more frac sand, closer spacing of wells – pushing each of these to their
limits, for the most part, led to more production. Higher output allowed the industry to
outpace the infamous decline rates from shale wells.
In fact, since 2012, average lateral lengths have increased 44 percent to over 7,000 feet
and the volume of water used in drilling has surged more than 250 percent, according to a
new report for
the Post Carbon Institute. Taken together, longer laterals and more prodigious use of water and
sand means that a well drilled in 2018 can reach 2.6 times as much reservoir rock as a well
drilled in 2012, the report says.
That sounds impressive, but the industry may simply be frontloading production. The suite of
drilling techniques "have lowered costs and allowed the resource to be extracted with fewer
wells, but have not significantly increased the ultimate recoverable resource," J. David
Hughes, an earth scientist, and author of the Post Carbon report, warned. Technological
improvements "don't change the fundamental characteristics of shale production, they only speed
up the boom-to-bust life cycle," he said.
For a while, there was enough acreage to allow for a blistering growth rate, but the boom
days eventually have to come to an end. There are already some signs of strain in the shale
patch, where intensification of drilling techniques has begun to see diminishing returns.
Putting wells too close together can lead to less reservoir pressure, reducing overall
production. The industry is only now reckoning with this so-called "parent-child" well
interference problem.
Also, more water and more sand and longer laterals all have their limits .
Last year, major shale gas driller EQT drilled a lateral that exceeded 18,000 feet. The company
boasted that it would continue to ratchet up the length to as long as 20,000 feet. But EQT
quickly found out that it had problems when it exceeded 15,000 feet. "The decision to drill
some of the longest horizontal wells ever in shale rocks turned into a costly misstep costing
hundreds of millions of dollars," the Wall Street Journal reported
earlier this year.
Ultimately, precipitous decline rates mean that huge volumes of capital are needed just to
keep output from declining. In 2018, the industry spent $70 billion on drilling 9,975 wells,
according to Hughes, with $54 billion going specifically to oil. "Of the $54 billion spent on
tight oil plays in 2018, 70% served to offset field declines and 30% to increase production,"
Hughes wrote.
As the shale play matures, the field gets crowded, the sweet spots are all drilled, and some
of these operational problems begin to mushroom. "Declining well productivity in some plays,
despite application of better technology, are a prelude to what will eventually happen in all
plays: production will fall as costs rise," Hughes said. "Assuming shale production can grow
forever based on ever-improving technology is a mistake -- geology will ultimately dictate the
costs and quantity of resources that can be recovered."
There are already examples of this scenario unfolding. The Eagle Ford and Bakken, for
instance, are both "mature plays," Hughes argues, in which the best acreage has been picked
over. Better technology and an intensification of drilling techniques have arrested decline,
and even led to a renewed increase in production. But ultimate recovery won't be any higher;
drilling techniques merely allow "the play to be drained with fewer wells," Hughes said. And in
the case of the Eagle Ford, "there appears to be significant deterioration in longer-term well
productivity through overcrowding of wells in sweet spots, resulting in well interference
and/or drilling in more marginal areas that are outside of sweet-spots within counties."
In other words, a more aggressive drilling approach just frontloads production, and leads to
exhaustion sooner. "Technology improvements appear to have hit the law of diminishing returns
in terms of increasing production -- they cannot reverse the realities of over-crowded wells
and geology," Hughes said.
The story is not all that different in the Permian, save for the much higher levels of
spending and drilling. Post Carbon estimates that it the Permian requires 2,121 new wells each
year just to keep production flat, and in 2018 the industry drilled 4,133 wells, leading to a
big jump in output. At such frenzied levels of drilling, the Permian could continue to see
production growth in the years ahead, but the steady increase in water and frac sand "have
reached their limits." As a result, "declining well productivity as sweet-spots are exhausted
will require higher drilling rates and expenditures in the future to maintain growth and offset
field decline," Hughes warned.
I think everybody knew that the shale boom would prove to be transient –I consider
several years as transient– and it will end with holes in earth and wallets. The Bakken
and Eagle Ford have become mature plays in a relatively short period and we will learn,
sooner than later, how the decline of these plays unfolds. Somehow the shale business model
depends on ever increasing production and production would have increased even faster if it
wasn`t for resource constraints (takeaway capacity, crew availability ). According to the EIA
the Permian is now filled with DUCKS, sorry, DUCs (drilled but uncompleted wells) waiting for
production. Those are waiting for new pipelines and, "hopefully", oil price increases
engineered by the US by production suppression in Venezuela and Iran.
Count me amongst those that would like oil price increases, although for different
reasons.
The forecasts I saw earlier were that production would peak in the early 2020s, decline
gradually for the rest of the decade, and then fall off sharply.
Arthur Berman has
been predicting exactly this for year. They'll spend more and more pushing production up, but
eventually you get diminishing returns – the drop off in production, when it happens,
will be quite dramatic as the sweet spots run dry.
The equally big question though is the influence of oil and gas prices. A crisis in the
shale fields might be precipitated not by a drop in production, but further downward pressure
on prices. Or likewise, a spike in oil prices could give a boost to yet more capital
investment in those fields. For now, I suspect the producers are far more worried about low
prices than running out of oil/gas. A lot of them are betting on substantial rises in the
future in order to make their balance sheets look better. So that's a lot of rich people who
would welcome a Middle East war.
Just to add – one possible catastrophic outcome for the planet of a shale bust is
poorly capped wells. Properly capping a fracked well is very difficult (you need to plug each
individual geological layer, its not just a matter of putting a concrete plug on the well
head). If they are not properly plugged, they will leak gas for decades and its extremely
difficult and expensive to properly plug. In theory of course they are supposed to be
properly capped by the operators, but if they go out of business .
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
States and provinces have started program to cap old O&G wells abandoned decades ago
that are leaking methane. All they need to do for new fracking wells is put in tight
regulations and enforce them. But that requires political will.
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
When we'd fish, mountain bike or varmint hunt in Western PA., many decades ago (ie:
ancient conventional oil & gas wells only) it was clear; not only was none of the leaking
gas ever flared, but folks were tapping the rusted christmas trees. By the 80's, as we were
building the rail trails, it was far worse than our memories. Fracked ethane/ wet gas wells
are off-limits, unless you have FLIR drones.
Well, gold does a: not explode (oh, yes it DOES!) b: does not cause 20%-89% more global
warming than CO2 (oh yes it DO!) c: "water is precious, sometimes more precious than gold?"
Walter Houston, as Howard: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, who called Bogart, "no, not ME
baby!"
This is old news. Drillers over estimated the production length for fracked wells to help
their Ponzi Scheme. For a natural gas well the production tanks in most cases in 3 years. To
keep production up more wells had to be drilled. Eventually places to drill become hard to
locate.I witnessed this in northern PA. It was boom for about 5 years then came the bust.
Although there is still some fracking it is only minor compared to what it was. A few made
money but the cost to the environment was passed on to the taxpayers.
There may be another factor at work here. Granted that the shale boom was always going to
be a short term play, maybe the move on Venezuela is all about having oil to replace US
production as it taps out – slowly at first, then all at once. Trump & Co could
always buy Venezuelan oil at a market price but I think that the idea is to seize it to
control more of the international oil market by being able to control international prices
and you can't do that if Venezuela is an independent country. I just wonder how much damage
is going to be done in America in terms of the environment and more importantly water
supplies by all the chemicals pumped into the ground. It is going to be a toxic legacy that
will be there for generations to come.
Venezuelan oil is very important to frackers because almost all refineries in the US were
built to handle the mid-density oils from Texas and Alaska. Tight oil (fracked) is super
light (it can't be fracked otherwise), and so it needs to be mixed in with heavy grade oil to
make it refinable. This is where heavy Venezuelan crude and Canadian tar sand oil comes in
– they are essential to create a crude that can be refined in existing plants.
So the relationship between the US tight oil industry and Venezuela/Canada is quite
complex – they all need each other to some extent otherwise they are stuck with oil
that can't be refined. This is of course one reason why Washington absolutely hates not
having firm control of Venezuelan production. But its also why they can't afford to shut it
down entirely (which would happen if there was a military invasion or civil war).
So the calculations are complex, and they are being made by idiots, so there is no telling
what they are planning.
There are several facets to this. The light oil from fracking and elsewhere is needed as a
dilutent for the very heavy Venezuelan crude to enable it to be pumped on and off tank ships
and through pipelines. Dilutents are also needed for the bitumen from the Alberta tar sands.
The reason for the Keystone pipeline system is to pump diluted bitumen (dilbit) from Alberta
to the Texas refineries is that are equipped to process this very heavy material similar to
the very heavy Mexican and Venezuelan crudes. (Crude oils around the world vary greatly in
composition. Refineries are equipped to process only certain types of crude.)
The fracked oil and gas often have low market value. The gas wells may produce relatively
low quantities of high value natural gas liquids. The oil often is so light that it produces
low quantities of high value distillates like diesel fuel. The fracked crude may contain high
amounts of impurities that make it difficult and expensive to refine.
The problem seems to be a lack of pipelines to get the gas to customers.
Not that I disagree with "the boom is over" too much, but Permian is a large area and has a
way to go. But it will fizzle out in time.
Venezuela oil can be delivered directly to the Gulf Coast refineries in tankers that
require no permitting or construction. Canadian oil requires pipelines (e.g. Keystone XL)
which are held up in permitting. So it is ironic that the Keystone pipeline permitting
quagmire is likely to be a proximate cause for the Trump administration dabbling in Venezuela
as many Gulf Coast refineries are geared for Alberta/Venezuela oil.
Using data from field experiments and computer modeling of ground faults, researchers have
discovered that the practice of subsurface fluid injection used in 'fracking' and wastewater
disposal for oil and gas exploration could cause significant, rapidly spreading earthquake
activity beyond the fluid diffusion zone. The results account for the observation that the
frequency of man-made earthquakes in some regions of the country surpass natural earthquake
hotspots.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the largest earthquake induced by fluid injection
and documented in the scientific literature was a magnitude 5.8 earthquake in September 2016
in central Oklahoma. Four other earthquakes greater than 5.0 have occurred in Oklahoma as a
result of fluid injection, and earthquakes of magnitude between 4.5 and 5.0 have been induced
by fluid injection in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas.
I seriously doubt that the shale boom was ever about being profitable. I have long held
that the shale industry has been artificially elevated as a hedge against risks induced by
the long term Middle East geopolitical and military strategy. It was always expected to loose
money and have negative secondary effects, but it had been decided to be necessary. Shale has
survived because of a gentleman's agreement by the power players to cover the costs of the
shale strategy; that along with investment media hype and stealthy subsidies to try to induce
outside suckers to reduce some of the burden of those behind the hedge.
The shale industry was largely small to mid-sized firms that figured out the technology to
go into low-priced leases because the oil was inaccessible. Junk bonds have fueled their
growth and operations. As long as they get the cash flow from wells to pay their junk bond
interest payment, it can keep going. Once they can't, expect a Wile E. Coyote splat in the
junk bonds market and the fracking oil patch. The majors have moved in so they might be a bit
of a flywheel for the system, but ultimately if prices are too low to support drilling, then
the majors will pull the plug as fracking is not a long-term investment play over multiple
price cycles in the same way an offshore oil field is. Instead, it can be turned on and off
at will with new drilling always required to sustain production, so you just stop drilling
when prices are too low.
a couple of on the ground, as it were, observations:
i live in frac sand country("Brady Brown"). there was a crisis of late to my north, as 2 of
the 3 sand plants in and around Voca and Brady Texas suddenly closed(after a few years of
financial shenanigans/scandal, and them being sold to multnational outfits, etc). West Texas
found a way to use the more local, white sand for their purposes, and stopped buying the
Brady Brown.
Immediate local Depression, folks moving if they could sell their houses( for sale signs there
are routinely a decade old ), local pols/big wigs freaking out.
one of them just reopened and all of a sudden, there's gobs of sand trucks heading
South(Eagle Ford). first time in prolly 8 years.
Both of my brothers in law work in the patch in the Permian roughnecking. When i probe them for anecdotes being careful not to ask leading questions they expect more
or less permanent employment. one, against my advice(which he asked for), just bought a house
in Sanderson which has no reason for being save oil.
My cousin, in East Texas, just hired on with a pipeline company headed to either the Permian
or the Bakken(he's waiting to find out).
So there's a spurt of renewed activity in South Texas, and the expectation(both in the
workforce, and in the boardroom) that West Texas(and Dakota) will continue for some time.
and i just remembered my last trip through Pasadena, Texas a year ago
the great big refinery on 225(I think it's Exxon) was putting in a gigantic separater(or
whatever you call those things) easily as tall as the smaller skyscrapers in downtown
houston(maybe 20+ stories) using 2 of the biggest, tallest cranes i've ever seen or heard
of.
Dad says it's for heavy, sour crude(a la Venezuela and Iran). so there's at least year old
expectations there, as well ie: exxon thinks it's gonna need much more refining capacity for
that oil.
it can't last forever, of course.
Midland & Odessa are definitely planning on the continuation of oil production and are
forecasting no busts. This hurts my head to understand as there are still people alive there who have been thru
multiple booms and busts over the past 70 years.
I would imagine its for the same reason there is no global warming or climate change in
Florida. Its bad for business. Those guys know the truth. But theres no advantage in talking
about it.
I don't know about that particular cracker but Exxon is building up refining capability
for the light tight oil and condensate coming out of the Permian. That work is in the Houston
area.
The idea may be Why ship it out when we can make money out of the products? I dunno.
In summary: If you're leaving an exceedingly expensive, but eminently walkable major city,
with acceptable (off peak) mass tramsit, prodigeous gas/coal/nuclear/hydroelectric sources
immediately available to move to a "normal" southern Appalachian city? Don't neglect to
research PV, geothermal, "passive" convection, and plug-in hybrid or EV transportation
options? When we were awaiting news from LA/MS friends in 2005, I'd been wondering about what
my actually retiring atop the Marcellus would be like. We'd all figured Katrina's tour of
Mars, Ursa, Mensa, Bullwinkle & Ram Powell platforms would (given Halliburton ruling the
country) touch off a slick water fracking pyramid scheme that would have the Acela
megalopolis simply killing us for our fracked gas, as they'd simply stolen our coal, gas, oil
and nuclear energy? Silly, substance abusing, deplorables!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
The evidence for production-suppression is opposition to the new Russia to Germany
pipeline and US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. Poland is America's stalking horse in Europe
but is not getting much support from its neighbors.
Its my suspicion that vast sums of speculative money have gone into fracking in USA and UK
because there was nothing better to do with the great increase in the money supply. That
seems to be what's keeping the industry afloat for the time being.
Plutonium Kun's advice about plugging wells points to the frightful environmental effects
that are coming to those countries that have allowed fracking. It will be the people that
suffer.
It was the fruits of Bush admin energy policy. Doubt it was primarily geopolitical, more
like tail wagging the dog. Though the distinction is increasingly blurry now.
Every presidency seems to have a couple of these programs. Mixed range of soundness as
policy
Market innovation (Enron), corn ethanol, developing H2 fuel cells (with the H2 coming from
natgas at the time), subsidies (and loan guarantees!) for electric cars, even bigger ones for
luxury electric cars, natgas import facilities, natgas export facilities, favor pipe to
Canada and block the rail, favor rail to Canada and block the pipe, govt indemnifying the
nuke industry from lawsuit damages arising from accidents, allowing utilities to "bail in"
customers in case of losses from nuke projects, exempting any and all fracking waste products
from clean water regs, actually subsidizing solar and wind, actually retiring coal, also
actually sanctioning or invading no less than big 5 oil producing countries
Whew! Policy!
Destroying limited fresh water is insane. This is a perfect example of the horrible
consequences of capitalism. Profit corrupts the political system as the state merges to serve
the oligarchs.
https://acdn.adnxs.com/ib/static/usersync/v3/async_usersync.html <img
src="http://b.scorecardresearch.com/p?c1=2&c2=16807273&cv=2.0&cj=1" />
The Shale
Boom Is About To Go Bust Posted on May 10,
2019 by Yves
SmithBy Nick Cunningham, a freelance writer on oil and gas, renewable energy, climate
change, energy policy and geopolitics based in Pittsburgh, PA. Originally published at
OilPrice
The shale industry faces an uncertain future as drillers try to outrun the treadmill of
precipitous well declines.
For years, companies have deployed an array of drilling techniques to extract more oil and
gas out of their wells, steadily intensifying each stage of the operation. Longer laterals,
more water, more frac sand, closer spacing of wells – pushing each of these to their
limits, for the most part, led to more production. Higher output allowed the industry to
outpace the infamous decline rates from shale wells.
In fact, since 2012, average lateral lengths have increased 44 percent to over 7,000 feet
and the volume of water used in drilling has surged more than 250 percent, according to a
new report for
the Post Carbon Institute. Taken together, longer laterals and more prodigious use of water and
sand means that a well drilled in 2018 can reach 2.6 times as much reservoir rock as a well
drilled in 2012, the report says.
That sounds impressive, but the industry may simply be frontloading production. The suite of
drilling techniques "have lowered costs and allowed the resource to be extracted with fewer
wells, but have not significantly increased the ultimate recoverable resource," J. David
Hughes, an earth scientist, and author of the Post Carbon report, warned. Technological
improvements "don't change the fundamental characteristics of shale production, they only speed
up the boom-to-bust life cycle," he said.
For a while, there was enough acreage to allow for a blistering growth rate, but the boom
days eventually have to come to an end. There are already some signs of strain in the shale
patch, where intensification of drilling techniques has begun to see diminishing returns.
Putting wells too close together can lead to less reservoir pressure, reducing overall
production. The industry is only now reckoning with this so-called "parent-child" well
interference problem.
Also, more water and more sand and longer laterals all have their limits .
Last year, major shale gas driller EQT drilled a lateral that exceeded 18,000 feet. The company
boasted that it would continue to ratchet up the length to as long as 20,000 feet. But EQT
quickly found out that it had problems when it exceeded 15,000 feet. "The decision to drill
some of the longest horizontal wells ever in shale rocks turned into a costly misstep costing
hundreds of millions of dollars," the Wall Street Journal reported
earlier this year.
Ultimately, precipitous decline rates mean that huge volumes of capital are needed just to
keep output from declining. In 2018, the industry spent $70 billion on drilling 9,975 wells,
according to Hughes, with $54 billion going specifically to oil. "Of the $54 billion spent on
tight oil plays in 2018, 70% served to offset field declines and 30% to increase production,"
Hughes wrote.
As the shale play matures, the field gets crowded, the sweet spots are all drilled, and some
of these operational problems begin to mushroom. "Declining well productivity in some plays,
despite application of better technology, are a prelude to what will eventually happen in all
plays: production will fall as costs rise," Hughes said. "Assuming shale production can grow
forever based on ever-improving technology is a mistake -- geology will ultimately dictate the
costs and quantity of resources that can be recovered."
There are already examples of this scenario unfolding. The Eagle Ford and Bakken, for
instance, are both "mature plays," Hughes argues, in which the best acreage has been picked
over. Better technology and an intensification of drilling techniques have arrested decline,
and even led to a renewed increase in production. But ultimate recovery won't be any higher;
drilling techniques merely allow "the play to be drained with fewer wells," Hughes said. And in
the case of the Eagle Ford, "there appears to be significant deterioration in longer-term well
productivity through overcrowding of wells in sweet spots, resulting in well interference
and/or drilling in more marginal areas that are outside of sweet-spots within counties."
In other words, a more aggressive drilling approach just frontloads production, and leads to
exhaustion sooner. "Technology improvements appear to have hit the law of diminishing returns
in terms of increasing production -- they cannot reverse the realities of over-crowded wells
and geology," Hughes said.
The story is not all that different in the Permian, save for the much higher levels of
spending and drilling. Post Carbon estimates that it the Permian requires 2,121 new wells each
year just to keep production flat, and in 2018 the industry drilled 4,133 wells, leading to a
big jump in output. At such frenzied levels of drilling, the Permian could continue to see
production growth in the years ahead, but the steady increase in water and frac sand "have
reached their limits." As a result, "declining well productivity as sweet-spots are exhausted
will require higher drilling rates and expenditures in the future to maintain growth and offset
field decline," Hughes warned.
I think everybody knew that the shale boom would prove to be transient –I consider
several years as transient– and it will end with holes in earth and wallets. The Bakken
and Eagle Ford have become mature plays in a relatively short period and we will learn,
sooner than later, how the decline of these plays unfolds. Somehow the shale business model
depends on ever increasing production and production would have increased even faster if it
wasn`t for resource constraints (takeaway capacity, crew availability ). According to the EIA
the Permian is now filled with DUCKS, sorry, DUCs (drilled but uncompleted wells) waiting for
production. Those are waiting for new pipelines and, "hopefully", oil price increases
engineered by the US by production suppression in Venezuela and Iran.
Count me amongst those that would like oil price increases, although for different
reasons.
The forecasts I saw earlier were that production would peak in the early 2020s, decline
gradually for the rest of the decade, and then fall off sharply.
Arthur Berman has
been predicting exactly this for year. They'll spend more and more pushing production up, but
eventually you get diminishing returns – the drop off in production, when it happens,
will be quite dramatic as the sweet spots run dry.
The equally big question though is the influence of oil and gas prices. A crisis in the
shale fields might be precipitated not by a drop in production, but further downward pressure
on prices. Or likewise, a spike in oil prices could give a boost to yet more capital
investment in those fields. For now, I suspect the producers are far more worried about low
prices than running out of oil/gas. A lot of them are betting on substantial rises in the
future in order to make their balance sheets look better. So that's a lot of rich people who
would welcome a Middle East war.
Just to add – one possible catastrophic outcome for the planet of a shale bust is
poorly capped wells. Properly capping a fracked well is very difficult (you need to plug each
individual geological layer, its not just a matter of putting a concrete plug on the well
head). If they are not properly plugged, they will leak gas for decades and its extremely
difficult and expensive to properly plug. In theory of course they are supposed to be
properly capped by the operators, but if they go out of business .
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
States and provinces have started program to cap old O&G wells abandoned decades ago
that are leaking methane. All they need to do for new fracking wells is put in tight
regulations and enforce them. But that requires political will.
So even if gas and oil fracking stopped today, they will be a major source of CO2
emissions for decades to come, one that will cost many billions to mitigate.
When we'd fish, mountain bike or varmint hunt in Western PA., many decades ago (ie:
ancient conventional oil & gas wells only) it was clear; not only was none of the leaking
gas ever flared, but folks were tapping the rusted christmas trees. By the 80's, as we were
building the rail trails, it was far worse than our memories. Fracked ethane/ wet gas wells
are off-limits, unless you have FLIR drones.
Well, gold does a: not explode (oh, yes it DOES!) b: does not cause 20%-89% more global
warming than CO2 (oh yes it DO!) c: "water is precious, sometimes more precious than gold?"
Walter Houston, as Howard: The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, who called Bogart, "no, not ME
baby!"
This is old news. Drillers over estimated the production length for fracked wells to help
their Ponzi Scheme. For a natural gas well the production tanks in most cases in 3 years. To
keep production up more wells had to be drilled. Eventually places to drill become hard to
locate.I witnessed this in northern PA. It was boom for about 5 years then came the bust.
Although there is still some fracking it is only minor compared to what it was. A few made
money but the cost to the environment was passed on to the taxpayers.
There may be another factor at work here. Granted that the shale boom was always going to
be a short term play, maybe the move on Venezuela is all about having oil to replace US
production as it taps out – slowly at first, then all at once. Trump & Co could
always buy Venezuelan oil at a market price but I think that the idea is to seize it to
control more of the international oil market by being able to control international prices
and you can't do that if Venezuela is an independent country. I just wonder how much damage
is going to be done in America in terms of the environment and more importantly water
supplies by all the chemicals pumped into the ground. It is going to be a toxic legacy that
will be there for generations to come.
Venezuelan oil is very important to frackers because almost all refineries in the US were
built to handle the mid-density oils from Texas and Alaska. Tight oil (fracked) is super
light (it can't be fracked otherwise), and so it needs to be mixed in with heavy grade oil to
make it refinable. This is where heavy Venezuelan crude and Canadian tar sand oil comes in
– they are essential to create a crude that can be refined in existing plants.
So the relationship between the US tight oil industry and Venezuela/Canada is quite
complex – they all need each other to some extent otherwise they are stuck with oil
that can't be refined. This is of course one reason why Washington absolutely hates not
having firm control of Venezuelan production. But its also why they can't afford to shut it
down entirely (which would happen if there was a military invasion or civil war).
So the calculations are complex, and they are being made by idiots, so there is no telling
what they are planning.
There are several facets to this. The light oil from fracking and elsewhere is needed as a
dilutent for the very heavy Venezuelan crude to enable it to be pumped on and off tank ships
and through pipelines. Dilutents are also needed for the bitumen from the Alberta tar sands.
The reason for the Keystone pipeline system is to pump diluted bitumen (dilbit) from Alberta
to the Texas refineries is that are equipped to process this very heavy material similar to
the very heavy Mexican and Venezuelan crudes. (Crude oils around the world vary greatly in
composition. Refineries are equipped to process only certain types of crude.)
Well, and then there is this: https://www.worldoil.com/news/2019/4/11/permians-flaring-rises-by-85-as-oil-boom-continues
"The Permian Basin has produced so much natural gas that by the end of 2018 producers were
burning off more than enough of the fuel to meet residential demand across Texas. The
phenomenon has likely only intensified since then."
The problem seems to be a lack of pipelines to get the gas to customers.
Not that I disagree with "the boom is over" too much, but Permian is a large area and has a
way to go. But it will fizzle out in time.
Venezuela oil can be delivered directly to the Gulf Coast refineries in tankers that
require no permitting or construction. Canadian oil requires pipelines (e.g. Keystone XL)
which are held up in permitting. So it is ironic that the Keystone pipeline permitting
quagmire is likely to be a proximate cause for the Trump administration dabbling in Venezuela
as many Gulf Coast refineries are geared for Alberta/Venezuela oil.
Using data from field experiments and computer modeling of ground faults, researchers have
discovered that the practice of subsurface fluid injection used in 'fracking' and wastewater
disposal for oil and gas exploration could cause significant, rapidly spreading earthquake
activity beyond the fluid diffusion zone. The results account for the observation that the
frequency of man-made earthquakes in some regions of the country surpass natural earthquake
hotspots.
According to the U.S. Geological Survey, the largest earthquake induced by fluid injection
and documented in the scientific literature was a magnitude 5.8 earthquake in September 2016
in central Oklahoma. Four other earthquakes greater than 5.0 have occurred in Oklahoma as a
result of fluid injection, and earthquakes of magnitude between 4.5 and 5.0 have been induced
by fluid injection in Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas and Texas.
I seriously doubt that the shale boom was ever about being profitable. I have long held
that the shale industry has been artificially elevated as a hedge against risks induced by
the long term Middle East geopolitical and military strategy. It was always expected to loose
money and have negative secondary effects, but it had been decided to be necessary. Shale has
survived because of a gentleman's agreement by the power players to cover the costs of the
shale strategy; that along with investment media hype and stealthy subsidies to try to induce
outside suckers to reduce some of the burden of those behind the hedge.
The shale industry was largely small to mid-sized firms that figured out the technology to
go into low-priced leases because the oil was inaccessible. Junk bonds have fueled their
growth and operations. As long as they get the cash flow from wells to pay their junk bond
interest payment, it can keep going. Once they can't, expect a Wile E. Coyote splat in the
junk bonds market and the fracking oil patch. The majors have moved in so they might be a bit
of a flywheel for the system, but ultimately if prices are too low to support drilling, then
the majors will pull the plug as fracking is not a long-term investment play over multiple
price cycles in the same way an offshore oil field is. Instead, it can be turned on and off
at will with new drilling always required to sustain production, so you just stop drilling
when prices are too low.
a couple of on the ground, as it were, observations:
i live in frac sand country("Brady Brown"). there was a crisis of late to my north, as 2 of
the 3 sand plants in and around Voca and Brady Texas suddenly closed(after a few years of
financial shenanigans/scandal, and them being sold to multnational outfits, etc). West Texas
found a way to use the more local, white sand for their purposes, and stopped buying the
Brady Brown.
Immediate local Depression, folks moving if they could sell their houses(for sale signs there
are routinely a decade old), local pols/big wigs freaking out.
one of them just reopened and all of a sudden, there's gobs of sand trucks heading
South(Eagle Ford). first time in prolly 8 years.
Both of my brothers in law work in the patch in the Permian roughnecking.
when i probe them for anecdotes being careful not to ask leading questions they expect more
or less permanent employment. one, against my advice(which he asked for), just bought a house
in Sanderson which has no reason for being save oil.
My cousin, in East Texas, just hired on with a pipeline company headed to either the Permian
or the Bakken(he's waiting to find out).
so there's a spurt of renewed activity in South Texas, and the expectation(both in the
workforce, and in the boardroom) that West Texas(and Dakota) will continue for some time.
and i just remembered my last trip through Pasadena, Texas a year ago
the great big refinery on 225(I think it's Exxon) was putting in a gigantic separater(or
whatever you call those things) easily as tall as the smaller skyscrapers in downtown
houston(maybe 20+ stories) using 2 of the biggest, tallest cranes i've ever seen or heard
of.
Dad says it's for heavy, sour crude(a la Venezuela and Iran). so there's at least year old
expectations there, as well ie: exxon thinks it's gonna need much more refining capacity for
that oil.
it can't last forever, of course.
I would imagine its for the same reason there is no global warming or climate change in
Florida. Its bad for business. Those guys know the truth. But theres no advantage in talking
about it.
I don't know about that particular cracker but Exxon is building up refining capability
for the light tight oil and condensate coming out of the Permian. That work is in the Houston
area.
The idea may be Why ship it out when we can make money out of the products? I dunno.
In summary: If you're leaving an exceedingly expensive, but eminently walkable major city,
with acceptable (off peak) mass tramsit, prodigeous gas/coal/nuclear/hydroelectric sources
immediately available to move to a "normal" southern Appalachian city? Don't neglect to
research PV, geothermal, "passive" convection, and plug-in hybrid or EV transportation
options? When we were awaiting news from LA/MS friends in 2005, I'd been wondering about what
my actually retiring atop the Marcellus would be like. We'd all figured Katrina's tour of
Mars, Ursa, Mensa, Bullwinkle & Ram Powell platforms would (given Halliburton ruling the
country) touch off a slick water fracking pyramid scheme that would have the Acela
megalopolis simply killing us for our fracked gas, as they'd simply stolen our coal, gas, oil
and nuclear energy? Silly, substance abusing, deplorables!
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
I'm surprised no one has mentioned in passing Chevron's walk-away from the Anadarko deal.
CVX knows exactly what Anadarko's actual and potential wells are worth to them under a
variety of pricing scenarios. They'd rather pocket the $1bn break-up fee than overpay for a
bunch of marginal wells. Good pricing/ROI discipline = not succumbing to deal-fever: A tip of
the chapeau to them.
The evidence for production-suppression is opposition to the new Russia to Germany
pipeline and US sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. Poland is America's stalking horse in Europe
but is not getting much support from its neighbors.
Its my suspicion that vast sums of speculative money have gone into fracking in USA and UK
because there was nothing better to do with the great increase in the money supply. That
seems to be what's keeping the industry afloat for the time being.
Plutonium Kun's advice about plugging wells points to the frightful environmental effects
that are coming to those countries that have allowed fracking. It will be the people that
suffer.
It was the fruits of Bush admin energy policy. Doubt it was primarily geopolitical, more
like tail wagging the dog. Though the distinction is increasingly blurry now.
Every presidency seems to have a couple of these programs. Mixed range of soundness as
policy
Market innovation (Enron), corn ethanol, developing H2 fuel cells (with the H2 coming from
natgas at the time), subsidies (and loan guarantees!) for electric cars, even bigger ones for
luxury electric cars, natgas import facilities, natgas export facilities, favor pipe to
Canada and block the rail, favor rail to Canada and block the pipe, govt indemnifying the
nuke industry from lawsuit damages arising from accidents, allowing utilities to "bail in"
customers in case of losses from nuke projects, exempting any and all fracking waste products
from clean water regs, actually subsidizing solar and wind, actually retiring coal, also
actually sanctioning or invading no less than big 5 oil producing countries
Whew! Policy!
Destroying limited fresh water is insane. This is a perfect example of the horrible
consequences of capitalism. Profit corrupts the political system as the state merges to serve
the oligarchs.
"... ...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes. At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed. Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is highly volatile. ..."
The removal of U.S. waivers for leading oil importers of Iranian oil and gas is putting the
Tehran regime under severe pressure. While Trump's target of reducing Iranian production to
zero is unrealistic, the impact of the sanctions is undeniable.
...The Saudi-led OPEC+ production cut strategy is still in place, but it is partly
successful due to the negative repercussions of the sanctions on Iran and Venezuela. The high
level of compliance with the agreement (128%) is based on the loss of these particular volumes.
At the same time, Saudi Arabia, UAE and Russia, are sticking to their roles, cutting as needed.
Optimism about Iraq is based on uncertain assumptions, while Libya's overall situation is
highly volatile.
...In the coming weeks, as analysts focus on production figures, storage volumes and demand,
OPEC will be focusing on defusing pressure to increase production, while at the same time the
Saudi-led faction will likely confront the Tehran-Venezuela (and possibly Iraqi) axis. Iran has
openly threatened to undermine OPEC's stability if no support can be gathered before the June
meeting. In several statements to the press, Iran's oil Minister has warned that OPEC is in
danger of collapse. Tehran threatens at present to take all necessary measures to block oil and
gas flows from OPEC members that are supporting the U.S. sanctions regime. At the same time,
Tehran has warned to take measures against countries trying to fill in the supply gap left by
Iran. Zanganeh reiterated the latter during a meeting with OPEC secretary general Barkindo in
Tehran. Barkindo reacted by saying that OPEC will do its utmost to depoliticize oil and gas
policies of the organization. OPEC's SG statements however look very bleak in light of the
growing heat in the conflict between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
Much of the shambolic belligerence and pointless aggression of Not-A-Neocon Trump can be
seen as cutting down world oil production in service of higher prices for SA's royals and, a
very distant second, US shale producers. Venezuela isn't an existential threat to the US, not
like Goldman Sachs, but embargoes on oil would keep the price up. Iran's not an existential
threat, but oil embargoes... Syria's not an existential threat but putting the oil on the
black market...
"... First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration. ..."
"... Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger. ..."
"... The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile? ..."
"... Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed upon him. ..."
"... He was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan Heights. ..."
"... It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are few wise heads in this administration. ..."
"... You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to "improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda. ..."
"... Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it? ..."
"... Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy. ..."
Patrick Lawrence gauges the backfiring potential of Pompeo's withdrawal on Thursday of U.S.
sanction waivers from eight major importers.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo's announcement last
week that no importer of Iranian oil will henceforth be exempt from U.S. sanctions is as risky
as it is misguided. The
withdrawal of waivers as of this Thursday effectively gives eight importers dependent on
Iranian crude -- India, Japan, South Korea, China, Turkey, Taiwan, Italy, and Greece -- 10
days' notice to adjust their petroleum purchases.
This is now a full-court press: The intent is
to cut off Iran's access to any oil market anywhere as part of the administration's "maximum
pressure" campaign against Tehran. "We are going to zero,"
Pompeo said as he disclosed the new policy.
Nobody is going to zero. The administration's move will further damage the Iranian economy,
certainly, but few outside the administration think it is possible to isolate Iran as
comprehensively as Pompeo seems to expect.
Turkey immediately rejected "unilateral sanctions and impositions on how to conduct
relations with neighbors," as Foreign Minister Mevlüt Çavusoglu put it in a Twitter
message.
China could do the same, if less bluntly.
Other oil importers are likely to consider
barter deals, local-currency transactions, and similar "workarounds." In the immediate
neighborhood, Iraq is so far
ignoring U.S. demands that it cease purchasing natural gas and electricity from
Iran.
Insights on Overreach
There are a couple of insights to be gleaned from this unusually aggressive case of policy
overreach.
First, the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat
for President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders. It is
now very unlikely Trump will achieve any of his policy objectives, a number of which represent
useful alternatives to the stunningly shambolic strategies advanced by Pompeo, National
Security Advisor John Bolton, and other zealots in the administration.
Weakened by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little
chance now of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North
Korea, as he has long advocated.
In a Face the Nationinterview Sunday, Iranian
Foreign Minister Mohammad Javad Zarif said Tehran would be open to bilateral talks under the
right conditions. It was the second time in a week that Zarif made this point. But those around
Trump, not least Bolton and Pompeo, are sure to block any such prospect -- or sabotage talks if
they do take place, as they did
Trump's
second summit with Kim Jong-un, North Korea's leader, in late February.
Second, this administration's foreign policy has steadily assumed an irrational character
that may be unprecedented in U.S. history. This is perilous. The administration's
near-paranoiac hostility toward Pyongyang and Moscow are cases in point. So is its evident
indifference to alienating longstanding allies across the Atlantic and in Asia. As of this
week, however, Pompeo's "down to zero" policy makes Iran the most immediate danger.
Persian Gulf Chokepoint
Iranian officials, including Zarif, now
threaten to close the
Strait of Hormuz, chokepoint of the Persian Gulf, if Iranian tankers are prevented from passing
through it. This is an indirect warning that the Iranian military could confront the U.S. Fifth
Fleet, which operates in the Gulf and adjacent waters.
A sharp spike in oil prices is another danger with which the administration now lands
itself. Taken together, U.S. sanctions against Venezuela and Iran are intended to take roughly
2 million barrels of oil a day out of the market.
Saudi Arabia has pledged to make up the lost supply, but
many analysts question its ability to sustain an increase in output given the advancing
depletion of its long-productive Ghawar field. Spare capacity among producers is already
wafer-thin. Do we need to risk another oil crisis, given the flagging global
economy?
Trump's foreign policy minders also risk alienating allies -- South Korea, Japan, India, the
Europeans -- whose cooperation the U.S. needs on numerous other policy questions. In the case
of China, the administration puts progress on a
nearly
complete trade deal and Beijing's leverage with North Korea in jeopardy.
There are other cases demonstrating the Trump administration's apparently thorough
indifference to collateral damage and the animosity of allies. Since the U.S. abandoned the
Paris climate
pact and the 2015 accord governing Iran's nuclear program, the Europeans have hardly
contained their anger; they are openly furious now about the tightened sanctions against Iran.
The South Koreans, frustrated with Washington's intransigent stance toward Pyongyang, now search
for ways to engage the North despite many layers of UN and U.S–imposed sanctions.
The question is why this administration's foreign policies are so amateurish and
discombobulated. Corollary question: Why is the president surrounded by policy advisers so
thoroughly at odds with those of his objectives that are worthwhile?
Trump arrived in Washington an outsider: This is where answers to these questions begin.
This limited the New York dealmaker to a shallow pool from which to build his administration.
His never-ending Russia-gate problem further handicaps him. This administration is among the
most opaque in recent history, so certainties as to its internal workings are hard to come by.
But Trump may not have chosen his foreign policy team so much as its members have been imposed
upon him.
However his advisers arrived in the administration, they are a toxic combination of
neoconservatives, many
drawn from the Heritage Foundation , and
evangelical
Christians . Bolton is emblematic of the former, Pompeo of the latter. This is the current
complexion of American foreign policy.
Zealots and Crusaders
Both camps are populated with zealots and crusaders; both cultivate irrational world views
rooted in extremist ideology and sentiment. Bolton's obsession is the restoration of
unchallenged U.S. supremacy. Pompeo is said to view adversaries such as North Korea and Iran as
George
W. Bush did : The U.S. is in an "end times" war with Gog and Magog, biblical manifestations
of the evil abroad in the world.
To be clear, there is more wrong than right in the president's foreign policy thinking. He
was self-evidently behind the decision to move the U.S. embassy in Israel to Jerusalem and the
announcement in March that Washington recognizes Israeli jurisdiction over the Golan
Heights.
"This is very important strategically for victory, heights, because you're up high, very
important,"
Trump said over the weekend. "Fifty-two years ago this started [when Israel captured Golan
from Syria in the 1967 war] and I did it quickly. Done. It's all done."
It is unlikely anything is all done in connection with the embassy move and the Golan
Heights decision. Both run diametrically counter to international law and both have
significantly damaged U.S. credibility in the Middle East. Trump, in short, makes his own
miscalculations, and they are as grave as any made by the Pompeo–Bolton axis. There are
few wise heads in this administration.
At the same time, Trump's desire to negotiate with adversaries -- Russia, Iran, North Korea
-- is entirely defensible. But the "down to zero" Iran policy to take effect this week can be
read as a signal of the president's failure to counter the foreign policy Manicheans who
surround him.
There may be skirmishes to come, but the battle is over. We must now watch as extremist
ideologues accelerate America's already evident decline as a global power -- along with its
increasing isolation.
Patrick Lawrence, a correspondent abroad for many years, chiefly for the International
Herald Tribune , is a columnist, essayist, author, and lecturer. His most recent book is
"Time No Longer: Americans After the American Century" (Yale). Follow him @thefloutist. His web
site is www.patricklawrence.us. Support his work via www.patreon.com/thefloutist .
Brian James , May 2, 2019 at 12:23
Apr 30, 2019 A New Mega Cartel Is Emerging In Oil Markets
China and India -- two of the world's largest oil importers and the biggest demand growth centers globally -- are close
to setting up an oil buyers' club to have a say in the pricing and sourcing of crude oil amid OPEC's cuts and U.S. sanctions
on Iran and Venezuela, Indian outlet livemint reports, citing three officials with knowledge of the talks.
Thanks for that link, I'm sure I'll follow this. I feel the same apprehension the
narrator's inflection seemed to convey in closing "We'll have to see where this leads." That
apprehension is that this will push the war-mongers to accelerate the timetable for an attack
on Iran.
Stuart Davies , May 1, 2019 at 09:00
Sorry to see that Consortium News still maintains their commitment to the ludicrous
premise that Trump is "pro Russian" at heart:
" the new turn in the administration's Iran policy appears to mark a decisive defeat for
President Donald Trump in his long-running battle with his foreign policy minders .Weakened
by relentless "Russia-gate" investigations, for instance, the president has little chance now
of improving ties with Moscow or negotiating with adversaries such as Iran and North Korea,
as he has long advocated."
Utter nonsense. You guys fail to see that the notion that Trump and Co genuinely seek to
"improve ties" with Russia is a key element of the larger "Russiagate" psyop, a truly
laughable idea which is disproved not only by the longer term historical record, but also by
the veritable mountain of evidence that has accrued since Trump came into office
demonstrating that this administration has only EXACERBATED the empire's long running and
profoundly anti-Russian foreign policy agenda.
Irrational foreign policy? I wish the United States would just drop the charade and declare itself a global
empire. What we see is the foreign policy of empire. Is this rational or isn't it?
Asymmetric warfare with Iran has already begun. Internet based "worms" and economic
sanctions have, so far, been successfully coordinated in concert with our rather reluctant
Western Occident allies. These attacks have been more or less been kept at bay. The
alternative, direct military intervention would prove to be a new "holocaust" and would
target roughly seventy separate nuclear research sites and dozens of scattered air force
bases. The weapons of choice would be DU-38 munitions and huge bombs. DU has a proven record
against fortified concrete and armored structures. It has an infamous reputation for leaving
permanent, radioactive "ground shine" wherever used. Lest we all (never) forget the
absolutely horribly deformed children born in southern Iraq who suffered prenatal exposure to
radiation poisoning! In war, it's always the most vulnerable and innocent to suffer the most
for example; Yemeni civilians.
The militant factions of our Pentagon and Congress (found within both sides of the
political aisle) will continue to pursue the long range plan I outlined some time ago in a
CONSORTIUMNEWS commentary. To recap it, this tug-of-war is not so much about trading in the
USD as it is about a global oil glut. I believe it was Bandar bin Sultan who commented that,
and I'm paraphrasing him here; there's plenty of relatively easy oil everywhere, the idea to
grasp is, what countries will be permitted to extract and sell it? Thus, the global and
persistent NeoCon plan seems to be to cap or severely restrict, Libyan, Iranian and Iraqi oil
reserves, meanwhile making backroom deals that permit a few SCO, (reluctantly) Russian,
Saudi, African and US/Canadian reserves to flourish on the open market. Venezuelan oil will
act as the back up resource should, a regional nuclear war in the middle east result in
irreversible damage to "friendly" refineries and ready access to them. Again, ground shine
due to a deployment of neutron A-weaponry (N-Bombs)..most likely from Israel. Ah!, sweet
treachery in times of war eh? Need I remind our CONSORTIUMNEWS readership of Hitlers last
minute betrayal of Stalin? The Israelis want a "piece of the oil action" too!
So sorry to see the country ripped apart. Hatful , boasting reprobates behind the steering
wheel
vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:05
Thank you Mr. Lawrence for, if nothing else, hypothesizing or postulating why the Trump
administration foreign policy is as you say, so amateurish and discombobulated. But I do
agree with Drew Hunkins below that for whatever reasons(*), Trump himself has always vilified
and mocked Iran. He is nothing if not a scurrilous opportunist, and threatening Iran just
fits his personality as a bully. Very few if any of the other kids on the playground have the
guts or integrity to come to Iran's defense.
It lightened my spirit just a little bit when you said that the Trump administration "is
one of the most opaque in recent history." Why, just yesterday I heard our glorious leader
say that his administration is the most transparent ever in American history. I wish that I
should live long enough to see the use of such superlatives disappear from our discourse.
I somehow missed Mr. Zarif's several statements concerning a willingness to engage in
bilateral talks. That is almost flabbergasting. Which Iranians could possibly believe there
is an honest negotiator now anywhere close to the levers of power in DC? But Zarif continues
to hold to and operate in the terms of classic diplomacy: do not close any doors forever,
and; do not relinquish the high ground of sensibleness and integrity to your opponent. But,
surely there aren't ANY Iranians who believe that the US would make any concessions,
de-escalate any of our threats, or place a muzzle on our two rabid dog allies.
(*) It is my firm belief that the overwhelming motivation for much of what Trump does goes
back directly to the annual DC correspondents dinner where Obama publicly and rightfully
humiliated and mocked that fat-assed moron. And well he should have. It didn't miss my notice
that Trump once again skipped that event. He will never attend – it was the absolute
lowest point of his public life (so far), everybody laughing at him and that horrible skinny
n####r twisting the rhetorical knife relentlessly. I'm reminded of a short story of Harlan
Ellison's called "Stardust." I'll leave it to the curious to follow that lead. Narcissism as
a genetic "addiction."
vinnieoh , April 30, 2019 at 10:17
Right after the 2016 election I posted something to the effect that perhaps we should ask
native Americans if they think it is unusual that an unprincipled real estate speculator is
now the captain of the state.
Zhu , April 30, 2019 at 01:22
Thanks for confirming that Pompeo is a Dispensationalist, eager for the End of the
World.
Roberto , April 30, 2019 at 08:01
The neocons, Bolton and Pompeo, are not going to put an end to the world, because the
Greek Islands need nothing from the United States. They only need a little gasoline for their
cars and motor scooters. However, the neocons are going to put an end to the petrodollar,
because no one on earth can trust the "out of control government" of the United States, any
longer.
CitizenOne , April 30, 2019 at 01:06
During the Iraq war there were many calls from conservatives to not stop at the border
with Iran. They supported a plan to roll US tanks and other offensive forces until they
reached Tehran and obliterated it defeating the rogue nation and securing Iranian oil
fields.
The scenario proposed today to strangle resource rich nations by war hawks is similar to
the post war imaginings posed by Patton to keep on going until the US armed forces reached
Moscow. It is similar to the plans of MacArthur to lay down a nuclear radiation barrier along
North Korea's northern border with China to create a lethal ionizing radioactive zone or no
mans land to prevent China from sending Chinese troops across the border.
Each one of these proposed but never implemented war strategies in hind sight would have
probably netted the US great gains at minimal risk.
On one hand, the current administrations strategy and tactics to wage economic war against
US "enemies" which are all rich with oil reserves seems like the right aggressive maneuvers
to make easy wins for the USA. On the other hand the World has changed since those times.
Current US foreign policy is aligned to impose maximum pressure on countries like
Venezuela and Iran in order to pressure those governments and hopefully topple them with
sanctions. The entire World is hungry for oil and the demand for oil is expanding at an
exponential rate which in turn guides US foreign policy.
There is thousands of years of history of nations including the US to takeover the riches
of nations and profit from the resources.
"... The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in practice. ..."
"... Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. ..."
"... Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either. ..."
"The Empire only appears to be strong. In reality it is weak, confused, clueless"
The Empire is not weak, this is poor analysis. India and Europe stopped buying Iranian oil. 1 billion $ of Iranian oil stays blocked in
China, no one wants to touch it. Even Khamenei admitted that Europe left the JCPOA in
practice.
Iran is in deep recession. Venezuela is in deep recession and is surrounded. Almost
all of Latin America now has pro-US governments. CIA linked Bolsonaro took over in Brazil.
Turkey is in deep recession and Erdogan lost the big cities.
India is moving closer to the US. Europe remains a vassal. Russian economic growth is
weak. The US won the trade war against China as Andrei Martyanov himself admitted.
Iraq? US troops are staying there. Syria? US troops are staying there long term. 1 third
of the country containing the biggest oil fields is under US control. There is fuel shortage
crisis due to sanctions. Europe is not stopping its sanctions either.
There is no doubt that they will be weaker in the future, but they will fight hard to stop
this and gain time.
For a sustained hit to growth, economists say oil would need to hold above $100. It also depends on dollar
strength or weakness, given crude is priced in greenbacks. Analysis by Oxford Economics found that Brent at $100
per barrel by the end of 2019 means the level of global gross domestic product would be 0.6 percent lower than
currently projected by end-2020, with inflation on average 0.7 percentage points higher.
"We see increased risks of significantly higher oil prices," Oxford economists John Payne and Gabriel Sterne
wrote in a note. "In the short-run, it is likely the supply impact will be offset by higher production elsewhere,
but the market is tightening and all it would take is one more shock to supply and oil could reach $100."
3. How will Iran and Trump impact the market?
An upending of global oil trade around the Iran-Trump spat could continue to have a sizable impact on financial
markets, as the affected supply is as much as 800,000
barrels
a day. Uncertainties around availability have already
whipsawed oil markets
. And the political sensitivities of these developments have other markets bracing for
volatility.
Trump has pledged to help, alongside Saudi Arabia and the U.A.E., those needing to shift orders from Iran to
another supplier. But U.S. claims that its domestic supply can help offset the loss are a high bar to meet, given
that the daily American output for
similar
crude is about a quarter of Iran's.
4. Who wins from higher oil prices?
Emerging economies dominate the list of oil-producing nations which is why they're affected more than developed
ones. The increase in revenues will help to repair budgets and current account deficits, allowing governments to
increase spending that will spur investment. Winners include Saudi Arabia, Russia, Norway, Nigeria and Ecuador
according to analysis by Nomura.
5. Who loses?
Those emerging economies nursing current account and fiscal deficits run the risk of large capital outflows and
weaker currencies, which in turn would spark inflation. That in turn will force governments and central banks to
weigh up their options: hike interest rates even as growth slows or ride it out and risk capital flight. Nomura's
losers list includes Turkey, Ukraine and India.
6. What does it mean for the world's biggest economy?
While U.S. oil producers try to take advantage of any sales boost from customers moving away from Iran, the
broader U.S. economy won't necessarily see benefits with oil price tags as high as $100 a barrel.
It would be a squeeze on American consumers that are the backbone of
still-steady economic growth
. Prices at the gas pump already have risen more than 7 percent this month to
$2.89 a gallon, which could weigh on retail sales that jumped in March by the most since 2017.
And if things go awry in global oil markets, there's risk that political blame shifts back to the U.S. for the
sanctions, which could mean backlash via investment or other channels that threatens economic stability.
7. Will it lead to higher inflation around the world?
Because energy features prominently in consumer price gauges, policy makers look to core indexes that remove
volatile components. If the run-up in prices proves to be substantial, and sustained, those costs will filter
through to transportation and utilities.
8. What does it mean for central banks?
Led by the Federal Reserve, central banks around the world have taken a
dovish tilt
as the absence of inflation allows policy makers to shift their focus to slowing growth. That's
unlikely to quickly change. The International Monetary Fund this month lowered its global growth forecast and said
the world is in a "delicate moment."
"... In a properly accounted world all of those wells from 2 years ago which cannot be repay their debt should have that debt apply to the new wells that are drilled now -- and erase their profit. This is forever, by the way. Anytime oil drops below whatever 60, or 55 or 50, the wells drilled then and the money borrowed to drill them is essentially guaranteed to get applied to future wells. ..."
"... But this won't happen. When you have to have the oil you get the oil. ..."
Not going to scroll up for the spreadsheet above, not easy where I am sitting right now.
Concerning net revenue and production. The problem is not future price of oil. The problem
is the past price of oil. Two-thirds of the total lifetime production of one of these shale
wells comes out of the ground in the first two years. The price was sub-60 a couple of years
back and that oil flowed and generated only that much money. That well's debt is not going to
get repaid by that well. The oil came out at a lower price and that deal is done.
This means that the month number where revenue becomes negative is much sooner. And if
things were logical and money was not created from thin air, the fact that the well in
question cannot repay its debt does not make the debt go away.
In a properly accounted world
all of those wells from 2 years ago which cannot be repay their debt should have that debt
apply to the new wells that are drilled now -- and erase their profit. This is forever, by
the way. Anytime oil drops below whatever 60, or 55 or 50, the wells drilled then and the
money borrowed to drill them is essentially guaranteed to get applied to future wells.
But this won't happen. When you have to have the oil you get the oil.
"... The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with Iran. ..."
"... We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they are ready to pull out from the deal. ..."
"... He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition. ..."
It's hard to foresee how US efforts to bring Iranian oil exports to zero will play out in
future, Vladimir Putin admitted, saying OPEC members should live up to their obligation to keep
output as low as possible if it comes true. Russia has an agreement with the Organization of
the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) to cut their output by 1.2 million barrels per day,
which remains in effect until July of this year, Putin said. But the US waivers – which
gave a host of countries an exemption from the existing anti-Iran sanctions – expire much
earlier, he reminded.
I don't imagine how the global energy market will react to that.
In November, the US re-imposed sanctions on Iran's energy, shipbuilding and banking sectors
in a bid to deprive Tehran of its main sources of revenue. But it simultaneously issued waivers
to China, India, Japan, South Korea, and Turkey – the main importers of Iranian crude
– so that they can find alternative vendors of oil.
The waivers expire in May, meaning that those countries could potentially face US sanctions
beyond that deadline. China and Turkey, on their part, have strongly condemned the American
restrictions, arguing the US is not in a position to intervene in their trade ties with
Iran.
Commenting on the issue, Putin said he hopes the market will eventually avoid the deficit of
Iranian oil and that Iran will still be able to sell it. The comment came on the heels of
conflicting reports that Donald Trump persuaded Riyadh to ramp up oil output this lowering fuel
costs; these reports were denounced by OPEC officials.
Nevertheless, there is "no evidence" that any country is going to withdraw from the
OPEC+ agreement to drop oil outputs, Putin said.
We don't have any information from our Saudi partners or other OPEC members that they
are ready to pull out from the deal.
He assured that Moscow is "fulfilling its commitments" to the production cuts agreed
by OPEC and several non-OPEC producers in December. Saudi Arabia is also "unlikely" to
withdraw, being the driving force behind the wider coalition.
So oil prices with rise which threaten Trump bid in 2020. Interesting times.
Notable quotes:
"... As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its new patron's will. ..."
The announcement by India's Oil Minister that his country will replace US-sanctioned
Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" despite the dramatic Bollywood show that New Delhi has made up until this point out of "defying" US sanctions makes
one seriously wonder whether India's preparing to ditch Russia next if the US imposes CAATSA
sanctions against it over the S-400s.
Shattering The "Indian Illusion"
The "
Indian Illusion " has been shattered after India's Oil Minister tweeted that his country will
replace US-sanctioned Iranian oil imports with those from "major oil-producing countries" such
as the Islamic Republic's hated GCC foes of Saudi
Arabia and the UAE that America said will
step up their exports in order to stabilize global prices after Washington announced that
it won't renew its anti-Iranian oil sanction waivers. New Delhi made a dramatic Bollywood-like
show over the past year out of "defying" US sanctions, with External Affairs Minister Sushma
Swaraj announcing last May that India will
only obey UNSC sanctions and not those unilaterally imposed by the US in contravention of
international law.
The Oil Minister himself said back in October before the waivers were issued that India will
continue buying Iranian oil in spite of the US sanctions, later
crediting Prime Minister Modi a month later when the US eventually granted it the waiver.
Adding "credibility" to the illusion that India's perception managers were masterfully
creating, it was then reported that the country will
use rupees instead of dollars when trading with Iran, a bold move that even fooled an RT
columnist who headlined his op-ed on this development as a " response to US global
bullying ".
As is now known, however, appearances can be very misleading, and in actuality
the same country that was vowing to "defy" the US actually ended up quietly implementing its
new patron's will.
Some pretty strange ideas if we are taking about oil. What they are smiling at RAND?
Notable quotes:
"... That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms. ..."
"... of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is all so very sad.. ..."
"... No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian ethos.) ..."
"... I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced. ..."
"... Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give “free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets? ..."
According to RAND the best option to overextend and unbalance is to produce more oil:
Expanding U.S. energy production would stress Russia's economy, potentially constraining its government budget and, by extension,
its defense spending. By adopting policies that expand world supply and depress global prices, the United States can limit Russian
revenue. Doing so entails little cost or risk, produces second-order benefits for the U.S. economy, and does not need multilateral
endorsement.
That evaluation is quite strange. The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make
a profit. Increasing production beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers. All recent new U.S. production
comes from shale oil. Optimistic estimates put the break even point for good shale oil fields
at around $50 per barrel. Few fields can produce at lower costs. Most shale oil fields have a higher break even point. There
is also a danger in suppressing oil prices. Many oil producing countries have U.S. friendly regimes. They need high oil prices to
survive. Ruining them will not come cheap for the U.S. in geopolitical terms.
The second best option says RAND is to increase sanctions of Russia. This also doesn't make much sense. Russia can produce everything
it needs and it has free access to the world's largest markets, China and India.
The best military options listed by RAND are all useless. All the new weapon systems Russia has revealed over the last two years
are way more capable than anything the U.S. is able to field. If the U.S., as RAND advocates, invest more in certain fields, it will
only be to catch up. That does not impose any new costs on Russia.
... ... ...
In all I find it a bit impertinent to publicly argue for "overextending and unbalancing Russia". Where is the need to do such?
The study demonstrates again that strategic analysis by U.S. think tanks is woefully shallow-minded. The "experts" writing these
have no deep understanding of Russia, or even of the economic-political complexity of the real world.
Four of the eight best options the RAND study found start with the words "Invest more in ...". It is a sign that the foremost
motive its writers had in mind is to grab more taxpayer money. Fine. Give it to them already. Overextending and unbalancing the U.S.
by more abstruse expenditure for weapon systems that do not work will neither hurt me nor Russia.
thanks b.. of the 8 most promising suggestions - 6 of them are military... it seems to me these think tanks are great pr tools
for the military industrial complex... who cares if the usa continues to move into 3rd world status as a nation, so long as more
money for weapons can be acquired?? that is what these think tanks - rand and etc seem to want to foist on the public... it is
all so very sad..
@1 steven.. well, as i read you, you are essentially supporting a continuation of the usa pouring endless
money into the military then, regardless the accuracy of the accounts on the new Russian weapons.. do i have that right?
No, I think most US weapons procurement gives weapons that don't work as advertised, and wouldn't win wars anyway. I think
it's one reason why the US military is largely only capable of spoiler wars, not actually conquering any place. (The other is
the general unreliability of mercenary forces, which the US army basically is, however much they try to cultivate a militant Christian
ethos.)
However, since I also do not believe spoiler wars help the country as a whole (as opposed to some of the owners) I think
pretty much all a burden, immoral to boot and should be massively reduced.
>> The U.S. government does not produce oil. Private companies do so but only if they can make a profit. Increasing production
beyond the global demand will decrease the oil price for all producers.
Even if you’re sure those companies are entirely private, if you print the current global reserve currency, can you not give
“free” money to frackers and thereby make them more competitive than global peers? Sure, that’s flooding the market with an illegal
subsidy. But, who can conduct proper accounting in opaque markets?
Of course, the money is not “free”. Depreciating the currency, an inflation tax, shows up in lower-quality goods (like frankenfood—
we cannot afford healthy food any more) and higher prices in everything. But, again, who’s counting? The BLS and the media? Yep.
Col. Lawrence Wilkerson says unilateral sanctions against Iran are illegal, and show the
ascendancy of John Bolton; they intensify tension with China and threaten our international
position
The Trump administration is ramping up its campaign against Iran by announcing it will end
waivers allowing eight countries to continue importing Iranian oil -- part of an attempt to
drop Iranian oil exports to zero. This follows the Trump administration's categorization of
part of Iran's army, the Islamic Revolutionary Guard, as a terrorist organization, and
unilaterally withdrawing from the Iran nuclear deal.
"This administration, for all intents and purposes in my view, is working against the
interests of the United States," Colonel Larry Wilkerson told The Real News Network's Marc
Steiner. China and Turkey have already said they will not abide by the U.S. ending of the
waivers, but India will possibly follow along, all of which could lead to a more profound trade
war.
The decision also represents the influence of National Security Advisor John Bolton, who was
in favor of these sanctions, while Secretary of State Mike Pompeo wanted the waivers to
continue.
Steiner noted that the sanctions violate international law and asked whether this brings the
U.S. closer to war with Iran, or if the sanctions are "in lieu of war." Wilkerson explained
that John Bolton wants war even if Trump does not, and that regardless, these oil sanctions are
"economic warfare" -- an especially risky international gamble.
"We're getting away with it [only] because we are the most powerful country in the world,
economically, financially, and militarily," Wilkerson said. "That's not always going to be the
case."
Wilkerson suspects that countries such as China, Russia, or India will eventually respond to
U.S. sanctions with their own, or make an end-run around them.
"I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways we can't really calculate right
now," Wilkerson said. "And by that I mean we're going to have everything from the Chinese
attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar to the Chinese and the Russians
perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial network that
will eventually supplant that of the United States."
He told Steiner that it appears as though the U.S. is "suicidal," lacking any interest in
diplomacy, and continuing to distance itself from its allies.
"We just lost badly in Syria, and we lost to a triumvirate of Syria under Bashar al-Assad,
Russia, and Iran. Look at what happened, what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot of men and
women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion, but
nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we have
in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a boy
king who's losing one war on one flank and alienated Qatar on the other," Wilkerson said. "It's
all falling apart. We're losing everywhere I look in the world, losing badly to that man in
Moscow who picks up the pieces and you know, goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't
like Cuba, goes to Venezuela when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that will
include military force. Putin is the strategist in the world right now picking up on every
piece we drop -- and we're dropping too many." Story Transcript MARC STEINER Welcome to
The Real News Network. I'm Marc Steiner. Great to have you all with us. Trump is stepping up
his campaign against Iran once again, announcing that he will end waivers that allowed eight
countries to continue importing Iranian oil. He wants to drive Iranian oil exports to zero. All
this comes on the heels of officially labeling the Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist
organization and of course, forcing the U.S. to unilaterally pull out of the Iran Nuclear Deal.
Well what course are we on? Are we inching toward a war with Iran? Are these intensified
sanctions just an alternative to all-out war? How could the U.S. just unilaterally impose
international sanctions? Doesn't that violate international law? Can he do it because the U.S.
has a vital role in the international system of finance? Both Turkey and China have already
announced they will not abide by Trump's unilateral declaration of sanctions. Does this
intensify our trade war with China? We'll see. Joining us here at The Real News once again is
Colonel Lawrence Wilkerson, who served as Chief-of-staff to U.S. Secretary of State Colin
Powell, retired from U.S. Army, and is now Distinguished Adjunct Professor at the College of
William and Mary where he teaches U.S. National Security. I welcome and good to have you back
with us here on The Real News.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Good to be back again.
MARC STEINER So before we start, let's run this short piece by Secretary of State Mike
Pompeo and what he had to say about the intensifying of sanctions.
MIKE POMPEO Today I am announcing that we will no longer grant any exemptions. We're going
to zero, going to zero across the board. We will continue to enforce sanctions and monitor
compliance. Any nation or entity interacting with Iran should due it's diligence and err on the
side of caution. The risks are simply not going to be worth the benefits. We've made our
demands very clear to the Ayatollah and his cronies: end your pursuit of nuclear weapons, stop
testing and proliferating ballistic missiles, stop sponsoring and committing terrorism, halt
the arbitrary detention of U.S. citizens. Our pressure is aimed at fulfilling these demands and
others and I will continue to accelerate until Iran is willing to address them at the
negotiating table.
MARC STEINER So what's your instant analysis of what we've just seen here, what we're
seeing, Larry?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON First, the dispute within the administration -- much ballyhooed
between Bolton and Pompeo and Brian Hook, Pompeo's main man on Iran -- is apparently over and
Bolton won. Pompeo and Brian Hook were not in favor of going all the way on oil sanctions. They
were in favor of continuing the waivers for countries like China and India, and so forth. So
that means Bolton's won. That's an ominous victory in my mind. More ominous was Bolton and
Pompeo and Pompeo in particular's testimony to the Congress about the "connections between
al-Qaeda and Iran." I've been there done that. I remember when George Tenet very forcefully and
powerfully in late January-early February of 2003, pointed out to Colin Powell who had just
said, toss that stuff out of my presentation to the United Nations. It stinks. That stuff
being, connections between al-Qaeda and Baghdad over 9/11. Pompeo essentially said to Rand Paul
in questioning him in the Senate and elsewhere, that there were connections between al-Qaeda
and Iran, and implied that those connections gave the president the right to go to war with
Iran without having to go to the Congress of the United States. In other words, the original
A.U.M.F. authorization for the use of military force issued after 9/11, pertained some
seventeen to eighteen years later to Iran.
MARC STEINER And that's where you skin yourself. Most people who know this arena, know that
area, the contradiction of saying Iran and al-Qaeda are one or are working with one another,
just on its face doesn't make any sense.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Nonsense just as it was with Saddam Hussein. We all know now, but it
was a very powerful thing for Colin Powell to tell the U.N. Security Council and even more
powerful for him to tell the American people that. And that's what Trump and Bolton and Pompeo
now are trying to duplicate: another specious case for war.
MARC STEINER So do you think -- speaking of that -- are we inching our way towards war with
Iran, or do you think what we're seeing, these sanctions, are actually in lieu of war? What do
you think the dynamic is here?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I don't think Trump wants war, but I know John Bolton does. So I
have to imagine that there is going to be a come to Jesus meeting or some such resolution with
Donald Trump if Bolton persists in wanting to use military force and Donald Trump doesn't. On
the side of all of this, is Trump's new partner in crime, Bibi Netanyahu. We don't know what
Bibi promised Donald Trump when Donald Trump weighed in on Bibi's election. I'm told by people
who know these sorts of things in Israel, that had Trump not weighed in heavily for Bibi, that
he might not have won, that it might have been a lot closer that it was, and it was pretty
close anyway. So I don't know what Bibi promised Trump in return. It might be that he conducts
whatever military operation is conducted with respect to Iran. Anything's possible here with
these two characters.
MARC STEINER But the whole Bibi question is something we've spent a half-an-hour, hours just
talking about what that relationship is, and who's driving whose foreign policy when it comes
to Iran especially.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Yes. Gideon Levy in Haaretz was right when he said U.S.-Middle East
policy is not made in Washington. It's made, he said Tel Aviv, but now he would say
Jerusalem.
MARC STEINER So let me ask you another question. How can the United States just unilaterally
impose international sanctions? I thought that's something the Security Council would have to
do and people are writing this as a violation of international law. So from your perch when you
were the Secretary of State and now, how does that play into all this?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think it plays very dangerously. We are becoming -- through our
manipulation of the Swiss system and other means in the world for financial transactions -- a
pariah in the world. Very much despised and even hated in the world and increasingly, by our
own friends and allies like Germany, France, Britain, and so forth. This manipulation of this
system that we largely set up for tracking terrorist monies and so forth, has been turned into
a very sophisticated weapon. It's economic warfare in anybody's book and the only reason we're
getting away from it, you just hinted at. We're getting away with it because we are the most
powerful country in the world -- economically, financially, and militarily. That's not always
going to be the case and I suspect there are going to people like China, like Russia, like
India, like other countries in the world, finally getting tired of this and start reciprocating
and building other systems to go around ours.
MARC STEINER Stepping up the sanctions against Iran and saying nobody can buy any oil from
Iran at all, zeroing them out -- China and Turkey have already said we're not abiding by this.
You can't tell us how to run our economy and what we're doing. India is caught between a rock
and a hard place. They don't want to go with this. Ten percent of their crude oil comes from
Iran, but they're in a tough bind given who finances them as well. So how is this going to play
out? This can lead to greater trade wars between China and the U.S. How do you see this all
tumbling out, both in terms of Iran and our relationship with those other nations?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON I think we're going to see other nations objecting in ways that we
can't really calculate right now. By that I mean, we're going to have everything from the
Chinese attempting to use other means of exchange than the dollar, to the Chinese and the
Russians perhaps working together to build an entirely separate and functional financial
network that will eventually supplant that of the United States. So this has enormous potential
for backfiring, just like all the enemies we are creating in the world right now and the allies
that we're distancing ourselves from. These are not positive moves by the United States. If I
were on Mars looking down at the United States right now, and I were some wise Martian
statesmen, and I was trying to figure out what the United States -- the current hegemon of the
world -- was trying to do, I would think we were trying to commit suicide. It's as if we do not
have any means of doing anything diplomatically or otherwise, that doesn't rebound to our
discredit. Look at what's happened. We just lost badly in Syria and we lost to a triumvirate of
Syria under Bashar al-Assad, Russia, and Iran. Look at what has happened in Iraq. We lost a lot
of men and women there. We shed blood and treasure there for an utterly ill-conceived invasion,
but nonetheless we did. Now Iraq is more or less under the influence of Iran. The only ally we
have in the region that we can count on at any time is an authoritarian, brutal state under a
boy-king who's losing one war on one flank, and alienated Qatar on the other. Our latest NATO
in the Middle East just lost its most formidable partner, Egypt. It's all falling apart. We're
losing everywhere I look in the world and losing badly to that man in Moscow who picks up the
pieces and goes to Cuba when Marco Rubio decides he doesn't like Cuba. He goes to Venezuela
when we decide we might have an option for Venezuela that would include military force. Putin
is the strategist in the world right now, picking up on every piece we drop, and we're dropping
too many.
MARC STEINER So very quickly here before we run out of time, one quick question. If you were
sitting in the halls of power at this moment, and your job is Chief-of-staff or the Secretary
of State, I'm curious what you would be saying to a president that said we have to do this.
What would you say is the alternative? What would you be saying at this moment?
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Which one do you want to pick? [laughter] Kim Jong-un is going to
fire a ballistic missile or he's going to do a nuclear test or both sometime around
Christmas.
MARC STEINER Right.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON This administration for all intents and purposes, in my view, is
working against the interests of the United States. So the first thing I would do is sit down
and say, Mr. President, please before I walk out of here and go back to Foggy Bottom and retire
from my position because you are going to fire me, I want to know what you think the national
interests of the United States are. You said you were going to "make America great again." You
are destroying America. You said you were going to bring jobs back. You have only brought the
jobs back that the last three years of the Obama administration generated, because no president
ever generates them instantly. So you haven't done anything yet that looks like it's in the
interest of the United States and you've done a whole load of things that are clearly not in
our interest, not the least of which is to drive our allies away and make many enemies whom you
said all options are on the table confronting. Please, Mr. President. Tell me what you think
our interests are.
MARC STEINER And with that, I want to say thank you once again. Colonel Larry Wilkerson,
always a pleasure to have you here at The Real News. And thanks so much for your thoughts and
wisdom.
COL. LAWRENCE WILKERSON Thank you.
MARC STEINER And I'm Marc Steiner here for The Real News Network. Thank you all for joining
us. Take care.
Indeed, this looks like a potentially much more dangerous situation. If these major nations
obey Trump (I suspect some will not), Iran might be tempted to take more aggressive action,
with blocking the Straits of Hormuz among the more serious. This would really spike the price
of oil, and quite possibly trigger a war. This may be what the Trump people want, with their
real policy apparently being "regime change." However, so far the only regime change seems to
be rising influence of hardliners, with a new hardline commander for the now sanctioned
Revolutionary Guards being appointed. He has been talking about missiles getting fired on
Israel from Lebanon by Hezbollah. Is this what Netanyahu really wants?
I think those who think the Iranian regime will easily be overthrown are more deluded than
those who advocated invading Iraq (and some of them are the same people, see John Bolton
especially). This has the potential of really seriously distracting people from the Mueller
Report, but not at all in a good way.
... ... ...
Another Addendum: In WaPo
this morning they report that the other three nations are Greece, Italy, and Taiwan, and that
they have already stopped buying Iranian oil under US pressure. Also, apparently Japan has been
stockpiling oil from there and has stopped further purchases already in anticipation of just
this move by the US. OTOH, both China and Turkey are talking about not obeying the US order. No
word out of either India or South Korea so far.
Bolton says that this is all designed to make Iran be a "normal country," as if Saudi Arabia
were such. As it is, indeed the hawkish new leader of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards has
spoken publicly of possibly blocking the Straits of Hormuz, as I suggested they may well be
contemplating.
It can manipulate short term trading because that's driven by headline reading computers and
other algos. Anything longer than that, talking price doesn't work if there's a serious
supply or demand issue. It's a near-zero elasticity industrial commodity.
He called OPEC? Just whom at OPEC did he speak with? OPEC is a group of oil exporting
nations. They meet once every six months or so to decide what they will do, if anything.
No one can just call OPEC and OPEC will decide to produce more oil. They have to meet, talk
it over, and decide what to do.
The price of oil slipped on Friday, more than offsetting Thursday's gains on a
"knee-jerk" reaction to the suspension of some Russian exports on quality concerns.
Brent crude, the international oil benchmark, on Thursday rose above $75 a barrel for
the first time in six months as Germany and Poland halted imports from Russia because of
contamination in the Druzhba pipeline.
But analysts said the market had over reacted and Brent pared its gains later in the
day, with the slip in price continuing into Friday as the marker fell 1.3 per cent to
$73.39.
"Fears of a supply shock were greatly exaggerated," said Stephen Brennock, an analyst
at PVM. "After all, refineries usually hold ample crude stockpiles to guard against such
disruptions. Little wonder then that the initial knee-jerk price reaction petered
out."
Damn, and all along I thought Trump got the credit. :-)
Well, I wouldn't classify the loss of one million barrels a day as exactly a knee jerk
reaction. We are supposed to have a 1.3 million barrel a day increase in demand. Ok, that's
2.3 more we need. Oops, US can't supply that, Canada is down, and Brazil and Argentina will
be essentially flat. Oh, oh, we need to add another 600k loss from Venezuela, and probably
another million from Iran, making about 3.9 million more needed. Other depletion .3 to .6
million? Spare capacity from OPEC is 3 million? Or, that's the fairy tale. Yeah, it's ok to
dream.
Just pay attention to how fast the ship is sinking.
Overproduction of capital – seeking a high, no risk return – is a certainty.
Especially with continuing QE. There is no end game now. That capital will find its way into
derivative casino capital gambling – of which only 2% ends up as a commodity changing
hands. The rest is hidden toxic exposure making the banking system untenable. Other outlets
include mergers and acquisitions (toward oligopolies of power); leveraged buyouts; and asset
stripping destroying any last real productive capacity for short term 'Global Death Protocol'
(GDP returns – one of the sensible points Monbiot made it is no substitute Human
Development Index). Pension fund raiding: there is thought to be a $30 tn black hole already
– now they want to release $90tn 'locked assets' without even the slightest chance of
ever getting an ROI. Overproduced capital will also find its way in to the tech bubble
– funding our AI-redundancy. Oil-rent, commodity-rent, bio-pharma-rent, agi-rent, and
tech-rent seems to be a major part of the capitalist death throes. But you cannot rent a host
humanity by making them redundant. Now they also want to rent nature back to us. Add in
spiralling exponential debt; EROI and a slow-burn falling net-energy crisis; and
authoritarian states merging with bureaucratised corporate capital down to the local
infrastructure level its humanity versus corporate state insanity.
And the bleated hope of sheep is that a nativist leader – like Jeremy Corbyn –
will come along and save us. Reality is going to have to hit the majoritarian massif really
hard in the face to wake people up to the systemic fragility of globalised capitalism.
Unfortunately, its internecine internal contradictions may prove fatal before that. My hope
is that something better may rise from the ashes: a humanist society contra all the fatal
contradictions of relentless coercive capital accumulation. Given the level of political and
ecological acumen we encounter on a daily basis I'm presently not too optimistic. But that
can change, rapidly. Consciousness is not timebound or limited by causality (see below). Now!
would be a good time for a consciousness evolutionary explosion a Big Bang of a new reality.
Depending on what the Big Bang of the old leaves intact! There will be a solution. It might
not be optimal though. I presently can't see any smooth transition taking place. Carpe deum
and enjoy the ride over the ever quickening rapids of the net energy falls!
Pepe's item mentions the $2.5 Quadrillion of derivatives "would start a chain reaction of
destruction" in response to rapid spikes in oil price that per previous discussions would
rebound asymmetrically onto Outlaw US Empire and generate a massive crisis far worse than
soaring gasoline prices as that would constitute a direct hit on Deep State interests and it
would take casualties for the first time.
"Diplomatic communication and dialogue coupled with the strong defence these ships provide
demonstrate to Russia that if it truly seeks better relations with the United States, it must
cease its destabilising activities around the world."
Two Imperial carrier groups are now in the Med offering themselves as juicy targets.
Huntsman's bluff and buster is yet another example of Pompeo's idiocy. I thought the
RT headline "Mask off? US ambassador to Russia says US practices diplomacy with
aircraft carriers" more appropriate for its item about Huntsman's hubris.
A check of San Francisco gas prices
via GasBuddy shows a very broad range from $3.99-4.59/gal, while here in Oregon it's
@3.25; and at Refinery Central--Houston--it's not over $3/gal yet. So, there's a ways to go
before the pain threshold is reached nationally.
Today marks day 2 for the 8th annual Moscow Conference on International Security whose
"main topic" this year focuses on Middle East Issues ,
which will certainly include the undeclared hybrid war between Iran and the Outlaw US Empire.
Hopefully we will get some reporting on the discussions taking place there. Shoigu spoke
yesterday, while Lavrov speaks today.
In a related development, the Parliamentary Baghdad Summit had its one day and
reportedly didn't accomplish much aside from getting former adversaries together in the
same room. I'm hopeful of finding a more detailed report. That most of the GCC wasn't invited
seems to be due to the Summit's theme being Iraqi neighbors. One might have expected either
Iran or Saudi to not send a representative given past/current enmity, but both attended and
didn't attack each other. That Saudi and UAE sent flood relief aid to Iran is a very good
sign that the Umma is finally reforming to deal with its primary enemies--Zionistan and the
Outlaw US Empire. Of course, in any armed conflict between Iran and the Empire, being on
better terms with GCC and Saudi will be important--there'll be no coalition of the bullied
and bribed Arab NATO.
What I'm seeing is Iran gaining more regional allies at the expense of the Outlaw US
Empire. The just concluded visit of Pakistan PM Khan to Iran is a major case in point as is
the détente between Iran and Qatar. And continued flack targeting Saudi within the US
Congress is certainly affecting King Salman's viewpoints. Blowback from previous Imperial
hubris initiated by Bolton and Pompeo's CIA predecessors is working against their policy
goals. IMO, the "waiver holders" are unlikely to waver as there're no market substitutes for
Iranian oil. If they get targeted too, then an escalation in blowback will occur as every
Outlaw US Empire move is illegal and immoral.
Most of the of the amateurs reporting "derivative amounts" are stated in notional values,
which is wrong (Love Pepe's work, but he is not a financial economist.) It's the offset value
(not including counter-party amounts) that matter and it's far less than notional. So, no end
of the world hysteria needed.
Also, it's marginal price of gas relative to a person's balance sheet that matters. I
think that's what b is referring to. In english, most people have a fixed monthly income and
gas is a big chunk of expenses (for those who actually work). A gas price increase of $0.25
or more means that they have to reduce expenses somewhere else (unlikely since 'mericans love
their lifestyles) or go further into debt, which means they pull-forward future consumption.
That's what partly causes the slowing of economic future activity. That is ONE reason this
extended (FED) monetary policy is so destructive to the real economy.
a) violate sanctions and risk severe penalties; or
b) go along with sanctions but if Iran pulls the pin on the world economy, China could
very well completely crash economically, to the point that I wonder if there could be a
revolution. Also, everyone knows about China's Muslim issues, Iran could say "it would be
shame if someone armed those tens of million of Muslims you have".
Iranian Foreign Minister Mohammad Zarif has
conducted an interview with Reuters saying Trump didn't want war but could be "lured into
one." As usual, Reuters doesn't just provide a transcript of the interview, only publishing
what it wants to publish. We'll need to await the official Iranian transcript to note what
else was said and what was reported out-of-context.
China will ignore the illegal Outlaw US Empire diktat and carry on as before. If it's
challenged, it has the means to defend itself and will. The Empire is beholden to China not
the other way-round.
@39
Nobody cares what Italy and Greece need. They are good little vassals and will do what told.
Turkey is of course a bigger problem, but might just be mostly overlooked and ignored.
The big fish are China and India. Those are the major users of iranian oil, and neither of
them is likely to desist. What will the US do with them? Not possiple to financially sanction
China.
That's why I think there will be lots of talk, but no action against anyone still buying
iranian oil. Especially since Venezuela is not resolved. Nobody, not even the US, intends to
march into Venezuela to "liberate" any oil wells any time soon.
While Maduro might some day collapse under his camarilla's corruption and his own
incompetence, it will take a long time, probably years. Especially the opposition against him
is similary incompetent. My guess is, it will take longer than Trump will be in office.
One would think hindsight would be 20:20 on the US ending Iran oil waivers on Monday and the
surging
price of oil in the first 48 hours since that happened. The Trump Administration remains
upbeat, however, and confident that what clearly just happened won't happen.
Trump economic adviser Larry Kudlow made comments Tuesday at the National Press Club,
comments which again came two days after the announcement, and after two days of prices going
up substantially, assuring that there would be no price increase.
"I don't see any palpable impact. The world is awash with oil," Kudlow told the audience.
That clearly appears to have been the administration's rationale, with several officials
emphasizing the excess oil on the market before this move was ultimately made.
Their math was a bit off though. Estimates of tens of thousands of additional barrels of oil
supply being available were slammed headlong into a US move that aimed to stop Iran's roughly
one million barrels of daily oil sales. This has already lead to a rush on the market, with
nations trying to secure supply while they can, and at higher prices.
All of this was well predictable. Indeed, financial outlets had already predicted that the
administration would have to keep the waivers program going specifically because they couldn't
afford this increase in global prices. Instead, they deluded themselves into thinking it
wouldn't happen, and when it did, continued to maintain that it didn't, or wouldn't.
Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil
exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil
from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has
Economic Sanctions === Economic Terrorist Attack Recent terrorist attacks indicate that
the United States is using extremist organizations to provoke religious wars. The aim is to
split Eurasia and make troubles for Europe. The United States is very afraid of peace in
Eurasia, because it will make the United States a third world country.
Oil prices are on the rise after the United States announced a new crackdown on Iran's oil
exports aiming to reduce them to zero.
Iran's threatening retaliation by blocking the Strait of Hormuz - the world's lifeline of oil
from all Gulf countries, including Saudi Arabia, Kuwait and Iraq.
The move has
What it really means. 42 more years, and it's gone. 1.531 trillion bbls divided by a no
grow of 100 million bbls consumption a day, simple math. And we rant about finding another 50
billion bbls. That only takes the total of the recoverable oil to 1.581 trillion bbls.
Oil will leave us before we leave oil. We are heading for mass starvation. There are no
electric fire engines, there are no electric ambulances, there are no electric farm
machinery, there are no electric military machinery, there are no electric boats or ships or
ferries, there are no electric airplanes, fighter jets, helicopters, there are 1.4 billion
cars in the world of which 3 million are electric, if Tesla quadruples production it couldn't
replace the gas and diesel powered vehicles in 1200 years, and the Chinese electrics are
crap.
This map is complete BS. No one, especially some spy agency, knows how much of anything is
underground.
The only known fact is current production. "Known Reserves" is a hopelessly politicized
exercise in conjecture, primarily for the purpose of securitizing international loans at
favorable rates.
Proved reserves of crude oil in the United States increased 19.5% (6.4 billion barrels)
to 39.2 billion barrels at Year-End 2017, setting a new U.S. record for crude oil proved
reserves. The previous record was 39.0 billion barrels set in 1970.
The USGS says all 20 billion barrels of oil are "technically recoverable," meaning the
oil could be brought to the surface "using currently available technology and industry
practices."
Between the corrupt politicians, and oil execs. these morons can't even concoct a decent
lie anymore.
You're right. I see people like Robert Kagan's opinions being respectfully asked on foreign affairs, John Bolton and Elliott Abrams
being hired to direct our foreign policy.
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.
It's preposterous and sickening. And it can't be allowed to stand, so you can't just stand off and say you're "wrecked". Keep
fighting, as you're doing. I will fight it until I can't fight anymore.
Fact-bedeviled JohnT: “McCain was a problem for this nation? Sweet Jesus! There quite simply is no rational adult on the planet
who buys that nonsense.”
McCain had close ties to the military-industrial complex. He was a backer of post-Cold War NATO. He was a neoconservative darling.
He never heard of a dictator that he didn’t want to depose with boots on the ground, with the possible exception of various Saudi
dictators (the oil-weaponry-torture nexus). He promoted pseudo-accountability of government in campaign finance but blocked accountability
for the Pentagon and State Department when he co-chaired the United States Senate Select Committee on POW/MIA Affairs with John
Kerry.
And, perhaps partly because of the head trauma and/or emotional wounds he suffered at the hands of Chinese-backed Commies,
it’s plausible to think he was regarded by the willy-nilly plotters of the deep state as a manipulable, and thus useful, conduit
of domestic subversion via the bogus Steele dossier.
Unfortunately, the episode that most defines McCain’s life is the very last one–his being a pawn of M-16 in the the deep state’s
years-long attempt to derail the presidency of Donald Trump.
Measuring success means determining goals. The goals of most wars is to enrich the people in charge. So, by this metric, the war
was a success. The rest of it is just props and propaganda.
“Pyrrhic Victory” look it up the Roman Empire Won but lost if the US is invaded and the government does not defend it I would
like to start my own defense: But the knee jerk politics that stirs America’s cannon fodder citizens is a painful reminder of
a history of jingoist lies where at times some left and right agree at least for a short moment before the rich and powerful push
their weight to have their way.
If All politics is relative Right wingers are the the left of what? Nuclear destruction? or Slavery?
My goodness! I am also a veteran, but of the Vietnam war, and my father was a career officer from 1939-1961 as a paratrooper first,
and later as an intelligence officer. He argued vigorously against our Vietnam involvement, and was cashiered for his intellectual
honesty. A combat veteran’s views are meaningless when the political winds are blowing.
Simply put, we have killed thousands of our kids in service of the colonial empires left to us by the British and the French
after WWII. More practice at incompetent strategies and tactics does not make us more competent–it merely extends the blunders
and pain; viz the French for two CENTURIES against the Britsh during the battles over Normandy while the Planagenet kings worked
to hold their viking-won inheritance.
At least then, kings risked their own lives. Generals fight because the LIKE it…a lot. Prior failures are only practice to
the, regardless of the cost in lives of the kids we tried to raise well, and who were slaughtered for no gain.
We don’t need the empire, and we certainly shouldn’t fight for the corrupt businessmen who have profited from the never-ending
conflicts. Let’s spend those trillions at home, so long as we also police our government to keep both Democrat and Republican
politicians from feathering their own nests. Term limits and prosecutions will help us, but only if we are vigilant. Wars distract
our attention while corruption is rampant at home.
Thanks, I appreciate this article.
I’ll make two points, my own opinion:
it’s the same story as Vietnam, the bull about how the politicians or anti-war demonstrators tied the military ‘hand,’ blah, blah.
Nonsense. Invading a nation and slaughtering people in their towns, houses…gee…what’s wrong with that, eh?
The average American has a primitive mind when it comes to such matters.
Second point I have, is that both Bushes, Clinton, Obama, Hillary and Trump should be dragged to a world court, given a fair trial
and locked up for life with hard labor… oh, and Cheney too,for all those families, in half a dozen nations, especially the children
overseas that suffered/died from these creeps.
And, the families of dead or maimed American troops should be apologized to and compensation paid by several million dollars to
each.
The people I named above make me sick, because I have feelings and a conscience. Can you dig?
Though there is a worldly justification for killing to obtain or maintain freedoms, there is no Christian justification for it.
Which suggests that Christians who die while doing it, die in vain.
America’s wars are prosecuted by a military that includes Christians. They seldom question the killing their country orders
them to do, as though the will of the government is that of the will of God. Is that a safe assumption for them to make? German
Christian soldiers made that assumption regarding their government in 1939. Who was there to tell them otherwise? The Church failed,
including the chaplains. (The Southern Baptist Convention declared the invasion of Iraq a just war in 2003.) These wars need to
be assessed by Just War criteria. Christian soldiers need to know when to exercise selective conscientious objection, for it is
better to go to prison than to kill without God’s approval. If Just War theory is irrelevant, the default response is Christian
Pacifism.
“Iraq Wrecked” a lot of innocent people. Millions are dead, cities reduced to rubble, homes and businesses destroyed and it was
all a damned lie. And the perpetrators are Free.
Now there is sectarian violence too, where once there was a semblance of harmony amongst various denominations. See article link
below.
“Are The Christians Slaughtered in The Middle East Victims of the Actions of Western War Criminals and Their Terrorist Supporting
NATO ‘Allies’”?
We are a globalist open borders and mass immigration nation. We stand for nothing. To serve in this nation’s military is very
stupid. You aren’t defending anything. You are just a tool of globalism. Again, we don’t secure our borders. That’s a very big
give away to what’s going on.
If our nation’s military really was an American military concerned with our security we would have secured our border after 9/11,
reduced all immigration, deported ALL muslims, and that’s it. Just secure the borders and expel Muslims! That’s all we needed
to do.
Instead we killed so many people and imported many many more Muslims! And we call this compassion. Its insane.
Maybe if Talibans get back in power they will destroy the opium. You know, like they did when they were first in power…. It seems
that wherever Americans get involved, drugs follow…
“Yet, we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources, and livelihood are all involved. So is the very
structure of our society. In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether
sought or unsought, by the military-industrial complex.” In Eisenhower’s televised farewell address January 17, 1961.
Rational thought would lead one to believe such words from a fellow with his credentials would have had a useful effect. But it
didn’t. In point of fact, in the likes of Eric Prince and his supporters the notion of war as a profit center is quite literally
a family affair.
The military-industrial complex couldn’t accomplish this all by its lonesome self. The deep state was doing its thing. The two
things overlap but aren’t the same. The deep state is not only or mainly about business profits, but about power. Power in the
world means empire, which requires a military-industrial complex but is not reducible to it.
We now have a rare opportunity to unveil the workings of the deep state, but it will require a special counsel, and a lengthy
written report, on the doings in the 2016 election of the FBI (Comey, Strzok, et. al.), and collaterally the CIA and DIA (Brennan
and Clapper). Also the British government (M-16), John McCain, and maybe Bush and Obama judges on the FISA courts.
"... As the supply-side structure has changed, the spread between sour and the historically far more expensive light, sweet crude has thinned and even flipped in some instances. ..."
"... "All refiners are looking for Urals or a Urals replacement," said a third trader in an international trading firm. "And we see that it won't be enough for everyone." ..."
Initially, Europeans gravitated to heavy, sour Venezuelan oil when sanctions on Iran hit in
early November but then Washington also placed sanctions on the Latin American country in late
January in a bid to oust President Nicolas Maduro.
Even though sanctions on Venezuelan crude will not come into effect until the end of April,
the oil is effectively already untouchable as the U.S. State Department has exerted direct
pressure on foreign companies to stop all dealings.
The two sets of sanctions combined have taken at least 800,000 barrels per day (bpd) out of
the market, which is as much as what the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries
agreed to cut.
The United States granted waivers on Iranian oil to six jurisdictions including three
countries in the region - Italy, Greece and Turkey - but only Turkey was able to continue
purchases. It remains unclear whether the current waivers will be extended in May.
THE SOUR RUSH
The situation is set to worsen as European refiners emerge from their springtime maintenance
just as Middle Eastern Gulf sour crude producers increasingly favor Asia, where refining
capacity in the near term is set to jump.
Saudi Arabia, a major sour crude producer, is shouldering the bulk of the OPEC and non-OPEC
cuts. Between October 2018 and March this year, the kingdom slashed its exports to Europe by
nearly half, Refinitiv Eikon data shows.
Iraq reduced its contracted volumes for European refiners in 2019 and increasingly sells its
oil to the highest bidder via tender. Iraqi supplies to Europe fell by over 40 percent to
355,000 bpd in March compared with 615,000 bpd in October 2018, Refinitiv Eikon data
showed.
Meanwhile, Azerbaijan's 200,000-bpd STAR refinery in Turkey is slowly ramping up and will be
a new competitor for dwindling sour oil.
Designed to run on sour grades such as Russian Urals and Iraqi Basra and Kirkuk, the
refinery took 184,000 bpd of Urals in March, Refinitiv Eikon data showed.
"One expected STAR's launch to be a serious jolt for the market, but little did we know it
would make the sour shortage this bad ... refiners are rushing for sours," a European trader
said.
As the supply-side structure has changed, the spread between sour and the historically far
more expensive light, sweet crude has thinned and even flipped in some instances.
In the Mediterranean, the light grade Kazakh CPC Blend trades at a discount to Urals and
Kurdish crude, which used to be one of the region's cheapest oils.
The Urals price out of the Black Sea has also increasingly traded at a premium to Urals out
of Baltic ports - previously a rare occurrence. The trend has prompted commodity
price-reporting agency S&P Global Platts to start an industry consultation on changing how
the Urals market is assessed.
"All refiners are looking for Urals or a Urals replacement," said a third trader in an
international trading firm. "And we see that it won't be enough for everyone."
gdpetti ·
Regional development for the NWO command structure.... out with the OWO, in with the NWO.... thus the idiocy in the West
as it outs itself in this prep work for global regime change... the American Empire simply isn't needed in it.... 'others'
will take the reins soon enough.... but until then, let the outing continue...
It makes good theater of the absurd.... if we are going to go down in flames, best to enjoy the show, right?
RBHoughton
I believe its not just the departments of the US Government that inhibit purchases of Venezuelan crude or any other
sanctioned goods. There is also the attitude of the banks that handle the transactions. They have been repeatedly hit with
huge fines for facilitating trade to the point that they are reluctant to provide facilities to any country that Washington
DC dislikes whether there are sanctions in place yet or not. This seems to be particularly true of European banks.
The effect on world trade is threatening to us all including USA. The sanctions policy cannot be maintained for long without
hurting us as well. A second limitation on its usefulness is the efforts of the world's trading countries to agree
alternative finance to the USD which is nearly complete now. Once that new financial system is floated, sanctions will have
to end.
"... We can, however, demand reserve transparency in our own country and that we are NOT getting. In essence the lies being said about "economically" recoverable shale oil reserves in America are way bigger whoppers than any lies the Middle East has ever told. ..."
"... U.S. shale drillers have run into a series of problems that have resulted in increased scrutiny on their operations. The difficulties span their operations – production issues, poor financials and less love from Wall Street. ..."
"... Even as WTI has moved solidly above $60 per barrel, the U.S. shale industry is trying to find ways to right the ship. As Reuters reports, a series of drillers, even prominent ones, are laying off workers. Pioneer Natural Resources – often held up as one of the better of the bunch – and Laredo Petroleum announced just this week that they will be cutting staff. As Jennifer Hiller of Reuters points out, Pioneer has not laid off workers since 1998. ..."
"... In March, Devon Energy eliminated 200 jobs. ..."
"... According to a report from Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., the recent layoffs may not be the end of the story. Everyone should expect more job cuts "over the coming quarters as companies address right-sizing the corporate cost structures," the firm said in its report. ..."
Hello Dennis. Have you ever really thought about why the Saudi's would keep their
production info as a state secret? I think it has much less to do about quotas than maintaining
the status quo of a country and society much different than our western norms.
I have guessed their remaining reserves around 80 gb before, and still believe its in that
area. Of course ANYONE without actual production and reservoir info is also guessing whether
they are economists, engineers, geologists, or whoever.
If my guess is correct, we will see KSA production declining on a accelerating rate within a
few years. Kuwait will not be far behind. North American shale will likely be topped out by
then. Gee, that might be post peak.
I hope they have more recoverable oil than my guess, because its going to be a difficult
transition.
Mr. Patterson, thanks for the article. You have defended it quite well, this in spite of
Dennis Coyne's constant interjections.
Estimating remaining reserves from mature fields is not difficult from an engineering
standpoint and how one tinkers with known reservoirs in that field (stuffing gas back into
them, HZ laterals above O/W contacts, etc.) does not magically create "new" reserves, it
simply speeds up the rate of extraction (arrests natural decline rates). The Saudis lie about
their sovereign wealth and it's their right to lie, I suppose; all we can do is try to
outsmart them, as you have. America cannot control the Saudi's, regardless of tweets.
We can, however, demand reserve transparency in our own country and that we are NOT
getting. In essence the lies being said about "economically" recoverable shale oil reserves
in America are way bigger whoppers than any lies the Middle East has ever told.
Mike, thanks for the kind words. I am quite used to Dennis' interjections. They don't bother
me. In fact, I enjoy the dialogue with him. It keeps me on my toes.
I can feel the tide turning concerning peak oil. I think OPEC peaked in 2016, politically
suppressed production notwithstanding. However, the bigger surprise may be right here in the
good old USA. The shale bubble could be bursting a lot sooner than a lot of people think.
U.S. shale drillers have run into a series of problems that have resulted in increased
scrutiny on their operations. The difficulties span their operations – production
issues, poor financials and less love from Wall Street.
Even as WTI has moved solidly above $60 per barrel, the U.S. shale industry is trying
to find ways to right the ship. As Reuters reports, a series of drillers, even prominent
ones, are laying off workers. Pioneer Natural Resources – often held up as one of the
better of the bunch – and Laredo Petroleum announced just this week that they will be
cutting staff. As Jennifer Hiller of Reuters points out, Pioneer has not laid off workers
since 1998.
In March, Devon Energy eliminated 200 jobs.
According to a report from Tudor, Pickering, Holt & Co., the recent layoffs may not
be the end of the story. Everyone should expect more job cuts "over the coming quarters as
companies address right-sizing the corporate cost structures," the firm said in its
report.
Nevertheless, the EIA still expects the boom to continue for years and years. We shall
see.
Nice summary, Ron. Brought to mind the old Oil Drum days. Thanks for taking the time to
provide this information. Given the admittedly not high-confidence prognostications in
Saudi/world oil production, it looks to me like the global economy may be in for at least one
serious oil shock in the 2020s.
"... add to that the usual woes of increasing internal oil consumption (3 mbd and rising fast) and the need to try and build their way out of their demise (requiring more oil and money), and the usual predictions of the 'export land model' look very reasonable, and disastrous for the House of Saud. There will be a tapered end, but the potential for acute instability in production and the in political and social environments of the country within the next decade is real. ..."
A great article that offers a more realistic view of the very old giant oil fields. It is
very obvious that what they are doing to maintain production will result in a more rapid
decline in the future. When that happens KSA will be in a lot of hurt, and the world will
have an abrupt awakening.
So my simple math says: 256 URR was to last 53 years, 74 URR at the same production rate will
last 15 years. Seneca with a vengeance! Rite? EOLAWKI here we come!
add to that the usual woes of increasing internal oil consumption (3 mbd and rising fast)
and the need to try and build their way out of their demise (requiring more oil and money),
and the usual predictions of the 'export land model' look very reasonable, and disastrous for
the House of Saud. There will be a tapered end, but the potential for acute instability in
production and the in political and social environments of the country within the next decade
is real.
"... Oil consumption has been increasing in all sectors and the growing global economy will require more oil in industry. You seem to think oil is just used in transportation. NOT true. ..."
"... Imagine oil production peaked today. In order for aviation to continue to grow, along with other industries that use oil. How many of the 98 million vehicles sold this year would need to be electric cars? How many electric motorcycles would have to be sold? ..."
"... I believe a Seneca cliff scenario would be a catastrophic one hence the reaction to such a scenario would also be catastrophic. ..."
"... World demand is currently over 100 mb/day, while production is at about 99 mb/day. Does that mean we are using up the already produced reserves? ..."
At some point the Seneca Cliff will be hit. If they are doing all this advanced recovery to to keep flow rates up then fields
will probably hit a wall and crash rather than slow decline. Is my thinking correct on that? Karen
Oil consumption has been increasing in all sectors and the growing global economy will require more oil in industry. You seem
to think oil is just used in transportation. NOT true.
Imagine oil production peaked today. In order for aviation to continue to grow, along with other industries that use oil. How many of the 98 million vehicles sold
this year would need to be electric cars? How many electric motorcycles would have to be sold?
The Seneca cliff for World output requires heroic assumptions which are unlikely to be true in practice.
I strongly disagree with that assessment. I believe the probability of a Seneca cliff is increasing. I think oil extraction is an economic phenomena, not a geological phenomena. During economic expansion, a positive feedback loop is in place: oil extraction produces economic growth which encourages investment in oil extraction producing more economic growth. Once peak oil occurs, I anticipate that this feedback loop will go into reverse: decreased oil production will produce economic contraction which will discourage investment in oil extraction reducing extraction rates leading to economic collapse.
Without investment the IEA estimates that production would fall by 50% in 2025 and by 80% in 2040.
I actually think economic collapse is a great opportunity to introduce a new economic system. The one we have is not only unfair, it encourages environmental devastation.
David Graebner asks rhetorically how a theory such as neoclassic economics based on false hypotheses perdures. His answer is that you teach the biggest lies in the first year. That's why false preconceptions about the economy are so common. I think neoclassical economics chose the wrong mathematical tool to analyse the economy, they chose optimisation. I don't see anything optimal in the economy, I think differential systems would be a much more appropriate mathematical tool with which to analyse the economy, keeping track of money flows.
I assume a Seneca cliff scenario would imply rapid economic collapse, as a result i think there will be war over resources.
Between which countries i don't know, but i assume U.S will go to war with Russia and or China, via direct war or proxy wars in
regions were the countries national security depends on specific resources. So the middle east would as usual be a key area of
conflict.
I believe a Seneca cliff scenario would be a catastrophic one hence the reaction to such a scenario would also be catastrophic.
U.S will go to war with Russia and or China, via direct war or proxy wars in regions were the countries national security depends
on specific resources.
Perhaps! However modern warfare tends to be very energy intensive. It seems to me a rather safe bet that in a post peak oil
world, mostly running on renewables, it might be more likely that societies will be trying to conserve their energy resources
and not waste it on war.
But the verdict is not yet in, on whether or not humans are smarter than yeast!
It simply means we are using oil that is being stored, the so-called oil stocks, eventually as these are reduced, oil prices
start to rise and demand (consumption) decreases while supply (production) increases in response to the change in oil price.
Well, no, Ghawar is not declining at 2% per year. Ghawar did not start declining in 2004. And
the southern two fields are not declining at all. The northern three fields reached their
Seneca Cliff somewhere around 2010 and began declining at several times 2%. They will decline
to near nothing in the next few years. Then Ghawar will have level production at somewhere
around 2 million barrels per day and hold that level for a decade or two.
Ghawar cannot possibly be adequately described as one field. It is five different fields
with five different decline and depletion rates.
When Saudi said, in 2006, that their average decline rate was down to almost 2%, that was
the average for all their fields. Some fields were declining at a much faster rate and some
fields were not declining at all. Khurais and Manifa were still to be ramped up. Those fields
had been in mothballs and would be brought back on line. Now they are likely not declining at
all but other fields are declining at a much faster rate than 2%.
But here is the important point. The depletion rate is another matter altogether. That
figure is likely above 8% per year.
Do you have production data for the various fields from 2006 to 2018?
Dennis, you know better than ask such a silly question. Saudi production of individual
fields is a closely guarded secret.
Dennis, have you ever wondered why the Saudis keep all this data such a secret? Why don't
they just let the actual data known to the world? What was the production data from Safaniya
in 2018? Or what was the production data from Manifa in 2018? Or what was the production data
from Khurais in 2018, or from Berri, or from all their other fields? And how did that compare
to the production in 2017, or 2016?
Dennis, we don't know shit about any of this. We don't know because it is a closely
guarded secret. Why, Dennis, Why?
They know Dennis, they know and they don't want you to know. Why?
I know why Dennis. Because what they actually report, which is almost nothing, is a lie.
You simply choose to believe it. I do not. I choose to believe the analysis who try to figure
out why they are lying. You choose to simply believe the Saudis.
Dennis, the idea that Saudi Arabia has 266 billion barrels of reserves is preposterous
beyond belief. Even the Saudis realize that now are trying to slowly reduce that figure. Yet
some people, like you, Robert Rapier and Michael Lynch, seemed perfectly ready to believe
such an absurd figure. That just floored me. Goddammit, have some people gone insane?
Okay, I have said my peace here and showed my ignorance as to what Saudi Arabia actually
can produce for the next 50 years. But you know, it is what they say they can produce.
You believe them. I don't. And neither of us can prove our case. And there it must rest
until the actual production data comes in next year and next year and ..
When this is true, that's the reason China is pushing electric travel as hard as they
can.
They have more possibilites to know the truth (secret service) than we reading reports.
And with SA and Russia having only round about 80 GB left, and producing each round about 10
mbpd, there are not many years left before a major oil incident.
I wonder why oil prices are that stable at the moment. Oil production fell hard this year
so far, down everywhere except USA. And there the growth is decelerated.
And demand is still climbing, it will use up all the US growth projected by the optimistic
EIA.
A 500 kbpd decline from OPEC is not included here, they still calculate with an increase from
opec.
Last question: Where is Russia standing at the moment?
"... Saudi Arabia, in 2018 produced approximately 3.76 billion barrels of crude only. Their BOE produced was approximately 4.75 billion barrels. That would account for the revenue is they sold every barrel of it. But they consumed a lot themselves. So other than that I have no explanation. Do they count their own consumption as revenue? ..."
In the bond prospectus SA revealed their financials. Puzzling to me was the claim of
revenue of $356 billion.
Why puzzling?
Because Brent averaged ~$75/bbl in 2018. Divide $356 by $75 and you come up with 4.75
Gbbl, which when we divide by 365 days in a year, we get 13 million barrels per day
production.
???
I can't get their numbers to work. Even with a 10% premium on their grades of crude
(generous), that leaves 11.7 mbd of production . I can't get anything to line up here.
They also produce NGL and natural gas, in 2016 it was about 1.94 Mb/d or 708 MMb of NGL, I
have no idea what the average selling price is for NGL on World markets, it would depend on
the mix of NGL of course.
Saudi Arabia, in 2018 produced approximately 3.76 billion barrels of crude only. Their BOE
produced was approximately 4.75 billion barrels. That would account for the revenue is they
sold every barrel of it. But they consumed a lot themselves. So other than that I have no
explanation. Do they count their own consumption as revenue?
(2018) Oil production from wells started in 2018 is at: 3,541,921 bo/day, this is 54.4% of the total 6,512,307 bo/day.
(2017) Oil production from wells started in 2017 peaked in December 2017 at 2,889,460 bo/day, they are now producing,
December 2018: 1,178,108 bo/day. Giving a drop from the peak of -59.2% in the last 12 months.
(2016) Production from wells started in 2016 peaked in December 2016 at 1,561,476 bo/day, they are now producing,
December 2018: 416,032 bo/day. Giving a drop from the peak of -73.4% in the last 24 months. After one year they were at, December
2017: 662,907 bo/day. Giving a drop from the peak of -57.5% over 12 months
An annual decline rate of 57.5 percent is insane. Yet 3,541,921 bo/day from 2018 wells is even more insane. Shale oil is a phenomenon
no one would have believed just a few years ago.
But now it is obvious that this juggernaut called shale oil is slowing down. And its crash will likely be more shocking than
its rise.
The decline is likely to be less steep than the increase
Have you heard about a Seneca cliff? It is called that way because Seneca in his letter
number 91 to Lucillius (Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium), written towards the end of the year
AD 64, a year before he died, refers to the fire that destroyed Lugdunum (Lyon) the summer of
that year in the following terms:
It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works, if all
things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of
sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid.
It appears he knew almost two thousand years ago what you don't.
I expect that a long slow declining tail of production will have some abrupt
jolts downward along the way, and end up lower quicker as a result.
The jolts downward will come as producing countries become failed states and the chaos
disrupts operations.
For examples of how this comes to be, just look at the past 5 yrs of Venez and Libya as
examples. Sure they may pick back up at some point, but overall effect is diminished global
production, well below a theoretically well managed industry.
Secondly, (and likely a smaller effect) some deposits will likely be kept in the ground
because of choices some cultures make. For example, I could see the USA deciding to keep its
large remaining coal deposits largely in the ground after 2030. Canada could decide to put a
big constraint on oil sand production, keeping just enough for domestic use, if they so
desired.
Why you think such scenario is so improbable?
Venezuela is living a Seneca cliff in its oil production right now. Did anybody predicted it
before it took place?
We have no idea of what will happen after Peak Oil. Some people assume nothing, while
others think it will be the end of our civilization. Somewhere in between probably. But I
fail to see how the economy can take it well if for most applications we can't substitute
oil. The globalization is run on oil and its derivatives.
Your assumptions can only be valid at this side of the peak. If you think otherwise you
fool yourself.
Saudi Arabia has gone nuclear, threatening the
petrodollar
.
Or has it?
The report from Zerohedge via Reuters
that Saudi Arabia is angry with the U.S. for considering
a bill exposing OPEC to U.S. antitrust law is a trial balloon.
The chances of the U.S. bill known as NOPEC coming into force are slim and Saudi Arabia would
be unlikely to follow through, but the fact Riyadh is considering such a drastic step is a sign
of the kingdom's annoyance about potential U.S. legal challenges to OPEC.
If these things are so unlikely then why make the threat public? There are a number of
reasons.
First, one must remember that the Saudis are hemorrhaging money.
Their
primary budget deficit in 2018 was around 7% of GDP. Since the 2014 crash in oil prices it has
gone from almost zero sovereign debt to $180 billion in debt to finance its spending, or around
22% of GDP.
2019's budget will be even bigger as it tries to deficit spend its way to growth. It's needs
for a higher oil price are built into their primary budget not their production costs, which are
some of the lowest in the world.
Second, the Saudis finally opened up t
he
books on Saudi-Aramco this week.
And it revealed the giant is far more profitable
than thought. It has is eye on acquiring stakes in some of the biggest oil and gas projects out
there these past couple of years. It's floating its first public bond to buy a stake in SABIC to
get into the mid and downstream petroleum markets.
Third, the Saudis budget deficit is tied directly to its having pegged the Riyal to
the U.S. dollar which leaves them at the mercy of the dollar price of oil.
It doesn't
have the flexibility of Russia who free-floated the ruble back in late 2014 to pay local
expenses in devalued local currency when oil prices drop.
This is why the Saudis are struggling financially and why Aramco is looking to use its
financial might to finally begin making friends and influencing people around the world.
Saudis should flip Trump the bird and start selling their
oil in yuan or euro, and buy weapons from Russia. America's
stranglehold over global economics is coming to an end, all
because of Donald Trump.
"Rome" is burning, and that's just what it deserves. Decades of
endless wars and it's "clipping" of the currency, will end with
collapse. Many of its citizens can't raise $400. for an emergency
but they can have their Netflix and Prime subscriptions to pay
for. Hey, War Inc. is reaching its end.
The Saudis are trapped. They have All US military equipment and
have to have US hands to operate their air force and who knows
what else. Plus they have too many skeletons that the US can hurt
them with.
"Peace for Israel" would include outside businesses or
investors sticking to BDS actions. Other than the United States
and Europe, natural law would suggest no of law should instruct
any counterparty as to what Israel entity one should or should not
engage in commerce.
In another time it was called
free market
capitalism.
Israeli lobbies shouldn't be able to squelch the First
Amendment by requiring public servants to sign agreements not to
condemn Israel-related foreign policy or domestic decisions.
The empire of paper currency and oil supported by bankers and
their wars is coming to an end.
Fracking is a desperate attempt
at keeping internal oil production going, it's akin to burning the
roof shingles of your house to keep warm. The costs to get the oil
outweigh the usefulness of the endeavor, the only ones benefiting
are the bankers loaning the money to the frackers.
Rome did the same it self destructed, and rotted internally,
meanwhile the cost of empire drained resources and the vassals
began to act in their own self-interests. The Khazarian bankers
remained the host drained, and they began to leech the new
fledgling empires.
Where do you see bankers in that history? Rome devalued its own
gold coins by mixing tin in with it. The soldiers felt cheated.
Meanwhile, Rome allowed mass migration to Rome and southern
Italy prompting real Romans to move to Gaul (northern Italy was
"Cisalpine Gaul"). Rome wasn't even the capitol when it was
sacked--Ravenna was. Get your history straight. Real Romans
were not willing to fight for city that wasn't their own
anymore.
So too, what will bring down the US is mass
migration from the third world--just what the Comintern wanted
90 years ago.
The US petrodollar reserve currency status has been a disaster for
middle class Americans much to their ignorance. It has allowed
the financial-political cabal elite to enrich themselves at the
expense of deficit and debt expansion while impoverishing the
middle class and bringing in replacement labor serfs. Time to rip
this band-aid off and the American middle class to reclaim their
country, that will probably ultimately lead to revolution.
Suure, blame Saudi Arabia for the "betrayal". But of course
overlook the fact that the US Congress passed a law that put 9/11
squarely on SA's shoulder when
Israhell
is the one that did 9/11
.
Operation Northwoods redux; the Mossad may have had a big role,
but it could not have been pulled off without complete
acquiescence from the DIA. It is all part of the long game.
{See Donald Rumsfield handling empty gurney on Pentagon
grounds}
I would place about as
much credibility in the Aramco books as I would in Bernie Madoff's
books.
Aramco pumps oil, that's about all we really know for sure.
Given the intertwining with the saudi state, it's not a
conventional oil company in any manner, it's much more a PDVSA
then a StatOil.
Buys oil how? You fuckers have been printing paper and
buying resources with it. You guys simply lack the ability
to extrapolate, because if you did, the current lifestyle of
the USSA, without dollar world reserve status and the
petrodollar perk, is utterly ******* horrendous.
Never
will the axiom
"I never knew how good I had it, until it
was gone"
be more apt, when the USSA faces her date with
reality. $22 trillion in debt, world reserve currency,
petrodollar, Wall Street a cesspit of financial fraud, no
adverse market reaction to continuous money printing and has
the audacity to complain trade deficits and OPEC? lol
Death to the USSA cannot come soon enough. A parasite
nation of resource theives and the world knows it.
"... Better propant , longer laterals , some improvement of fluid , improved rigs and pads enable to drill several laterals simultaneously have made the improvement they call shale revolution. ..."
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.
As I read fracking uses a very high hydraulic pressure open up the tight rock layers and
until a few years ago the oil flow dropped at a very early stage because the overlaying
weight and beacuse the oil flow carries with with itself particles that block the fraction.
Later it followed a propant research that was done before but again this gave improvement
and could hold the fracs open for longer.
Than there was research on chemical injected that should reduce friction between oil flow
and rock. There is also lots of other factores like gazes, metal that in certain pressures, temperatures
might react and create pollutant as happened lately when oil cargo was sent back from
Asia.
Better propant , longer laterals , some improvement of fluid , improved rigs and pads
enable to drill several laterals simultaneously have made the improvement they call shale
revolution.
Still very few are able to earn money to pay dividend, loan, interest and finance expansion with
WTI 60 USD.
Now number of rigs increasing again, but why when there are so many DUCS? Probably because investors tells
the business shall be cash neutral. Could it be the DUCS are so closely spaced that using along with the existing wells might
be not
profitable because of interference with nearby wells.
Donald Trump is ramping up his attack on oil prices as US crude hit a 5-month high today. While up to now the US president
has been focused on denouncing high energy costs via Twitter, it appears he now is looking to do more than merely bash OPEC online.
As CNBC reported, the US wants to ensure "dominance" in this sector through a blockbuster executive order designed to boost pipeline
infrastructure. In reality, Trump walks a dangerous tightrope when it comes to crude.
Of course the Saudis are laughing at Trump. The world is laughing at Trump. He is an ignorant baffoon.
Of course the Saudis are laughing at Trump. The world is laughing at Trump. He is an ignorant baffoon.
May be ignorant bully, not only (or so much) baffoon ? He practices what is called “gangster capitalism” on international arena
for some time. Totally ignores international law. Does not even use a fig leaf as previous administrations. Trump is “Full Spectrum
Dominance” in action
In view of the Saudi role of the guarantor of the “dollar as the reserve currency” system his behavior might well be a reckless
move, which totally contradicts Trump’s behavior in Khashoggi case. Kind of direct pressure is Soprano style: “Do what I want,
or…”
If Saudi stop selling oil for dollars that will be a very bad news for the USA. Hopefully they can’t do this being a Washington
vassal, but to insult a vassal is not the best diplomacy, anyway.
Why Trump can’t understand that oil is limited and higher prices might well be the best strategy as they helps to find alternatives,
develop infrastructure (for example for EV passenger cars) and prepare to inevitable shortages, or even the Seneca Cliff in oil
supply.
Why he wants to propel/sustain the US stock market at any cost?
Low oil prices can help to kick the neoliberal can down the road, but they can’t save the USA from the “secular stagnation”
and might not be able to save the USA from the recession too because consumption is low: credit card debt reached 0.87 trillion
in the fourth quarter of 2018 On other words the bottom 80% of the USA population might well be debt slaves of the US banks.
On March 25, 2019 yields curve inverted the first time since mid 2007: The yield on the U.S. 10-year Treasury note dipped below
the yield on the 3-month paper.
In other words secular stagnation is the result of the crisis of neoliberalism both as the ideology and as the social system
dominant in the world. Neoliberalism entered “zombie” stage in 2008 and it continues to exist (and even counterattack, as in Argentina
and Brazil) only due to the fact that there is no acceptable alternative and the return to the New Deal capitalism (which many
wish) is difficult or impossible because management now is allied with the capital owners, not with workers (as was temporary
the case after the Great Depression; that alliance ended in 70th).
Or he is a “naturally stupid” bully, who does not care to learn diplomatic etiquette and some elements of diplomacy, while
on the job.
In both cases he is a real embarrassment for the nation, is not he?
While I do not support Russiagate witch hunt, his behavior really raises questions about fitness for the office.
Also Bush II style (as in Iraq WDM fiasco ) bunch of crazy warmongers, neocons that control Trump administration foreign
policy (Haley in the past, Pompeo, Bolton now ) is not what his voters expected based on his election promises.
In a sense, he proved to be Republican Obama, another master of “bait and switch” maneuver.
Looks like we are living during what Chinese call “interesting times”, aren’t we ?
"... Hubbert wrote in 1948: "How soon the decline may set in is not possible to say, Nevertheless the higher the peak to which the production curve rises, the sooner and sharper will be the decline." ..."
"... In fact, Ghawar is not as resilient as we were led to believe. We just found out that its output has fallen substantially since Aramco previously came clean on its reserves and production. If Ghawar is losing momentum fast, peak oil – remember that theory? – might be closer than we had thought. And Ghawar is just one of dozens of enormous conventional-oil reservoirs scattered around the planet that are in various stages of decline. ..."
"... Those include the North Sea, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and Reguly reminds us that Mexico's Cantarell reservoir used to supply 2.1 million barrels a day and is now down to 135,000. ..."
It seems that the biggest Saudi field is losing its punch.
Years ago we used to talk a lot about peak oil, the prediction made by M. King Hubbert that
the easy oil was going to run out, that it was going to get harder and harder to find the
stuff, and it was going to get more and more expensive to get out of the ground.
Hubbert
wrote in 1948: "How soon the decline may set in is not possible to say, Nevertheless the
higher the peak to which the production curve rises, the sooner and sharper will be the
decline."
According to the predictions made back in 2005, right about now the Saudis are running
out and we are smack in the middle of confusion, heading for chaos. Of course we are not, we
are flooded with fossil fuels, thanks to the fracking boom.
But according to Eric Reguly, writing in the Globe and Mail, there is trouble ahead,
because that prediction about Saudi oil may not be that far off. He writes that the giant
Ghawar field used to produce ten percent of the world's oil, five million barrels a
day.
The US Permian shale basin now supplies 4.1 million barrels a day, but fracked wells
run out pretty quickly, and the fracking companies are all losing money. Better sell that
pickup truck; it may well cost a lot more to fill it. As Reguly concludes, the Ghawar field
is indeed in trouble,"and if it does collapse, peak oil will come a bit sooner."
In fact, Ghawar is not as resilient as we were led to believe. We just found out that its
output has fallen substantially since Aramco previously came clean on its reserves and
production. If Ghawar is losing momentum fast, peak oil – remember that theory? –
might be closer than we had thought. And Ghawar is just one of dozens of enormous
conventional-oil reservoirs scattered around the planet that are in various stages of
decline.
Those include the North Sea, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and Reguly reminds us that Mexico's
Cantarell reservoir used to supply 2.1 million barrels a day and is now down to
135,000.
If you listen to the interview he has lined up the 7 month lag time with Rig Count and
Lagged Production. If this ends up sticking then the production flattening should show up in
July. Just wanted to hear what you guys have to say about it.
Thanks! Karen
Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest conventional oil field, can produce a lot less
than almost anyone believed It was a state secret and the source of a kingdom's riches. It was
so important that US military planners once debated how to seize it by force. For oil traders,
it was a source of endless speculation.
Now the market finally knows: Ghawar in Saudi Arabia, the world's largest conventional oil
field, can produce a lot less than almost anyone believed.
When Saudi Aramco on Monday published its first ever profit figures since its
nationalization nearly 40 years ago, it also lifted the veil of secrecy around its mega oil
fields. The company's bond prospectus revealed that Ghawar is able to pump a maximum of 3.8
million barrels a day - well below the more than 5 million that had become conventional wisdom
in the market.
"As Saudi's largest field, a surprisingly low production capacity figure from Ghawar is the
stand-out of the report," said Virendra Chauhan, head of upstream at consultant Energy Aspects
Ltd. in Singapore.
Three year ago
- almost to the day - Saudi Arabia rattled its first sabre
towards the United States, with an
implicit threat to dump US Treasuries
over Congress' decision to allow the Saudis to be
held responsible for the 9/11 attacks.
In a stunning
report at the time by the NYTimes
, Saudi Arabia told the Obama administration and members of
Congress
that it will sell off hundreds of billions of
dollars' worth of American assets held by the kingdom
if Congress passes a bill that would
allow the Saudi government to be held responsible in American courts for any role in the Sept. 11,
2001, attacks.
Then,
six months ago
, the Saudis once again threatened to weaponize their wealth as
the biggest importer of arms from America in the world.
And now
,
Reuters
reports, citing three unidentified people familiar with Saudi energy policy,
Saudi
Arabia is threatening to drop the dollar as its main currency in selling its oil if the U.S. passes a
bill that exposes OPEC members to U.S. antitrust lawsuits
.
While the death of the petrodollar has long been predicted (as the petroyuan gathers momentum),
this is the most direct threat yet to the USDollar's exorbitant privilege...
"The Saudis know they have the dollar as the nuclear option,"
one of
the sources familiar with the matter said.
"The Saudis say: let the Americans pass NOPEC and it would be the U.S. economy that
would fall apart,"
another source said.
Riyadh reportedly communicated the threat to senior U.S. energy officials
, one
person briefed on Saudi oil policy told Reuters
As Reuters details,
NOPEC, or the No Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act, was first
introduced in 2000 and aims to remove sovereign immunity from U.S. antitrust law, paving the way for
OPEC states to be sued for curbing output in a bid to raise oil prices.
While the bill has never made it into law despite numerous attempts, the legislation has gained
momentum since U.S. President Donald Trump came to office. Trump said he backed NOPEC in a book
published in 2011 before he was elected, though he not has not voiced support for NOPEC as
president.
Trump has instead stressed the importance of U.S-Saudi relations, including sales of U.S.
military equipment, even after the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi last year.
A move by Saudi Arabia to ditch the dollar would resonate well with big non-OPEC oil
producers such as Russia as well as major consumers China and the European Union, which have been
calling for moves to diversify global trade away from the dollar to dilute U.S. influence over the
world economy.
Russia, which is subject to U.S. sanctions, has tried to sell oil in euros and China's yuan but
the proportion of its sales in those currencies is not significant.
Venezuela and Iran, which are also under U.S. sanctions, sell most of their oil in other
currencies but they have done little to challenge the dollar's hegemony in the oil market.
However, if a long-standing U.S. ally such as Saudi Arabia joined the club of non-dollar
oil sellers it would be a far more significant move likely to gain traction within the industry.
And why China suddenly admitted to increased gold reserves...
And why there has been a spike in yuan buying by reserve managers last year, as the IMF pointed out
in a recent report.
So the next time you hear an analyst on CNBC categorically dismiss the notion that the loss of the
dollar's reserve currency status isn't something that markets should take seriously (even as
several credible
voices
have warned that it should be), you'd do well to remember this chart.
Seems US oil production from shale now are declining, seems the growth based on lended money
now will stop.
https://oilprice.com/Energy/Crude-Oil/US-Oil-Production-Dips-For-First-Time-In-Nearly-Six-Months.html From the Rig Count we know this decrease will be strengthening the comming months until
the oil price increase to a level profit will be possible that can pay dividend and growth.
This might take time as soon Trump will tweet again as oil is to expensive and OPEC will be
forced to take action.
I'm sure that so long as the world wide economy remains on its feet that there will be huge
increases in demand for oil for transportation.
But nobody seems to give any thought here to things that will reduce demand. Cars will be
driving themselves soon. Think about trains. Before too much longer, railroaders will be able
to move stuff on trains almost as nimbly as truckers do today, at least on city to city basis
when the cities are at least a couple of hundred miles apart. Long distance trucking may be a
thing of the past within, like camera film and typewriters, within a couple of decades. These
possibilities are worthy of thought if you are in the oil biz for the long haul.
Every country that imports oil is going to have a powerful incentive to reduce demand for
it to the extent it can as depletion sooner or later pushes one exporting country after
another into the importer category. Countries in the Middle East with oil and gas to export
are going to find it so profitable to build wind and solar farms that they will be building
them like mushrooms popping up after a spring rain, because they can sell some or maybe even
most of the oil and gas they are burning now to generate electricity, thereby earning a big
profit on their solar and wind farm investment.
My thinking is that these changes will actually PROLONG our dependence on oil, taken all
around, by helping hold the price down so we can afford to run existing legacy equipment, and
have affordable petrol based chemicals, etc. I don't think anybody currently in the biz needs
to worry about selling out anytime soon, lol. But considerations such as these may have a
huge impact on exploration and development starting within a decade or so.
Times change. Doom doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
Very important that OPEC increase the flow of Oil. World Markets are fragile, price of Oil
getting too high. Thank you!
The real target of this tweet is unmistakably Saudi Arabia, the one OPEC member with enough
idle capacity to make a difference to the producer group's output. It's also the one over which
the U.S. has the most leverage.
Straightforward economic considerations would see Saudi Arabia dismiss the request out of
hand, but political calculations make its choice more difficult.
OPEC production fell by around 1.5 million barrels a day between December and February, and
probably dropped further in March. Saudi Arabia made by far the biggest voluntary reduction .
It contributed almost two thirds of the group's total output cut as measured against individual
baselines in February, and made deeper cuts than it had promised it would implement each month
this year.
They lost control of Saudi Arabia, after trying to take down MBS and then betraying him by unexpectedly allowing waivers on
Iranian oil in November.
The U.S. cannot take down Iran without Venezuelan oil. What is worse, right now they don't have access to enough heavy oil
to meet their own needs.
Controlling the world oil trade is central to Trump's strategy for the U.S. to continue its empire. Without Venezuelan oil,
the U.S. is a bit player in the energy markets, and will remain so.
Having Russia block the U.S. in Venezuela adds insult to injury. After Crimea and Syria, now Venezuela, Russia exposes the
U.S. as a loud mouthed-bully without the capacity to back up its threats, a 'toothless tiger', an 'emperor without clothes'.
If the U.S. cannot dislodge Russia from Venezuela, its days as 'global hegemon' are finished. For this reason the U.S. will
continue escalating the situation with ever-riskier actions, until it succeeds or breaks.
In the same manor, if Russia backs off, its resistance to the U.S. is finished. And the U.S. will eventually move to destroy
Russia, like it has been actively trying to do for the past 30 years. Russia cannot and will not back off.
Venezuela thus becomes the stage where the final act in the clash of empires plays out. Will the world become a multi-polar
world, in which the U.S. becomes a relatively isolated and insignificant pole? Or will the world become more fully dominated by
a brutal, erratic hegemon?
Looks like most participants in the discussion viry form highly incompetent to delusional...
Notable quotes:
"... The oil companies sell the oil at cost to their offshore companies whose headquarters are a P.O Box in Bermuda, Cayman Islands or other low tax/no tax domicile , who in turn sells it to enduser. The US does not collect any Corporate tax. But the Trump friends get richer and the working class will be paying up for it. ..."
"... TRUMP 2020 has already raised $180 Million in donations. Take a look at the list of contributors. Surprise. . . . . Surprise. . . . . Surprise. ..."
"... Trump new slogan, " Make My Friends Richer Again .. .. .. .. .. and Again and Again." ..."
"... So you are saying that the little bait and switch with the Saudis to crash oil prices for the mid terms was selling out the public? LOL! Why don't you stick to oil instead of posting political crap? There was no Bait and Switch. To think that Saudi's/OPEC ever sacrificed for the benefit of the United Stated or world economy is dilutional. They tried to take out US oil enterprise in 1970's , 1985 -1986, 1998-1999 and recently 2015. ..."
Trump Whitehouse just released a report from Council of
Economic Advisors that said high oil prices are good for US economy. A little "wink and a nod" to oil.
Trump recently stated, " I'm comfortable with $65 oil." That's not
a free market pricing.
High oil prices for oil companies and their partners does not outright the
benefit to the consumer and economy . $50 to $55 oil would set the U.S. and world economy booming. Trump
wrote about OPEC INFLATED PRICES in his 2011 book. He campaigned to control OPEC IN 2016.
He sold out the working
class public to please buddies like Harold Hamm of Continental Energy, Oil Companies and the Wall street boys
that sat down with OPEC at Ceraweek for a nice dinner. It has been reported that about two dozen firms
attended.
One Houston Shale producer said the US Shale companies and Banks that finance
them threatened to ruin them.
Some (5) oil companies rightfully declined the invitation such as Conoco.
The CEO stated they are Market driven and will live with the volatility.
Sad. The oil found under the United States is a valuable "Natural Resource"
but it is also a valuable "National Resource" and should benefit all.
The oil companies sell the oil at cost to their offshore companies
whose headquarters are a P.O Box in Bermuda, Cayman Islands or other low tax/no tax domicile , who in turn sells
it to enduser. The US does not collect any Corporate tax. But the Trump friends get richer and the working
class will be paying up for it.
Just like Trump reneged on his campaign promise regard the HUGE Wallstreet
tax loophole "carried interest". He now does so oil as a favor to his buddies.
TRUMP 2020 has already raised $180 Million in donations. Take a look
at the list of contributors. Surprise. . . . . Surprise. . . . . Surprise.
When the traders see this oil will be up today. Need to wait for new
pipelines. . . . Q4.
Oil stabilized in the $50's would set both the US and World economies on
fire.
Trump new slogan, " Make My Friends Richer Again .. ..
.. .. .. and Again and Again."
So you are saying that the little bait
and switch with the Saudis to crash oil prices for the mid terms was selling out the public? LOL!
Why don't you stick to oil instead of posting political crap? There was no Bait and Switch. To think that Saudi's/OPEC ever sacrificed for the benefit of the
United Stated or world economy is dilutional. They tried to take out US oil enterprise in 1970's , 1985 -1986,
1998-1999 and recently 2015.
They do take care if the President wants low oil price or not . Going back to at least the
1980's after the US presidents term ended they were invited to Saudi Arabia or Kuwait to give a speech for $1
Million. Bubba liked the idea so much he started a whole new industry out of it. The Saudi's during
Obama Administration decide "why wait" and the King gave Michelle Obama two necklesses valued over $1.5
million.
As was stated on Bloomberg the major sell off in December was more a demand problem than a supply
problem..
As soon as Trump announced in May '18 that sanctions would go into
effect in November Saudi exports went straight up. Not because they were doing Trump a favor it was because
demand from their clients. They did very well May to Oct. If you are a major importer of OPEC oil
and you hear that sanction are going to effect in Nov what do you do ? ? ? You top off your tanks with
crude. . . . . . . you turn up the volume at your refineries to stock pile finished product of gas, diesel,
etc. (which all of Asia did) When sanctions had to be delayed and did not materialize the demand/price
dropped for a while.
Trump was under extreme pressure due to European and Asian economic downturns.
He didn't want to cause a recession . So he delayed the sanctions.
MONEY TALKS
During the 2016 election the big money from Oil and Wallstreet went to.Hillary.
She knew where her bread was buttered. Why do you think her State Department approved the Keystone XL.
The State Department had a study done on the Keystone XL . The consulting contract was awarded to a firm that
was run by two former Clinton Campaign workers. After her approval the Canadian Chamber of Commerce gave the
Clinton Foundation a large donation. Several large oil companies with interest in the Cd Tar Sand gave the Clinton
Foundation large donations. A setup.
Before she announced in 2016 Clintons personal Lawyer and Clinton Foundation
Lawyer was put on the Board of Blackrock the World's largest Hedgefund whose CEO Fink was an outspoken critic
of legislation to end carried interest.
During 2012 campaign Senator Chuck Schumer (D-NY) Insisted the carried interest
tax loophole had to be eliminated and attacked Romney for benefiting from carried interest. The next election
cycle guess who received the largest portion of the donations from Hedge Funds . . . . that's right
the good Senator Chucky Schumer. He never mentions Carried Interest again.
Democrat or Republican .. .. .. they're all
the same. Show me the Money.
Doesn't anyone believe in free markets anymore. I think Supply and
Demand economics prevails. JH and WS you might want to lighten up on your Shale equities holdings before
the three new pipelines start pumping by the end of year. Before then oil should continue to rise. lol
Yours is an interesting interpretation and conclusion, probably
from the Bloomberg article. Consider the following 4 excerpts from that same report.
"...increased production has undoubtedly served as a boon to the
American position internationally as well as a buffer for American consumers'
sensitivity to oil prices"
"As the United States continues to expand its position as an exporter in
global oil markets, it better insulates itself from the adverse welfare and GDP
consequences of high oil prices and price spikes"
"A second effect of the changing U.S. net petroleum position is that it
may increase protection from the business cycle that is exacerbated by high
oil prices"
"Kilian and Vigfusson (2017) observe that in the period since 1974,
U.S. economic recessions have been universally preceded by increases in the
price of oil"
These 4 quotes are consistent with more US oil on the market and lower prices.
The last quote especially indicates it's doubtful the Trump administration desires high oil prices and would
be contradictory to Mike Pompeo urging oil companies to continue pumping just 2 weeks ago. Not that it would
be unprecedented for government to say contradictory things but I think it's quite clear the US government wants
'low' oil prices.
Here is the quote Bloomberg extracts, leaving out the first sentence.
"The shrinking level of U.S. net imports of petroleum provides indirect
benefits through macroeconomic channels by reducing sensitivity to oil price
shocks. If the United States becomes an annual net exporter of petroleum,
higher oil prices would, on average, help the U.S. economy. In this case, the net
gains for producers, and to their private partners that own mineral deposits,
would outweigh the higher costs for consumers. Such a change would have a
number of important policy implications"
Granted the second to last sentence does seem to favor higher prices but
seems to be contradicted by the first and the above 4 quotes. And it then seems to stress, in the last sentence,
that it is not advocating for higher prices but that it is a consequence that must be considered when choosing
policies. It would not be unheard of for advisors to have conflicting views and is typical of bureaucratic infighting.
You can always count on Bloomberg, or most of the msm
for that matter, to write a clickbaity headline with no substance in the story and a questionable interpretation
(along with a twitter insert). I think the writer simply went to the conclusion of the report and pulled those
sentences out without reading anything else and put "Trump wrong" in the headline. She has a deadline to beat
after all.
Well if you have such a big shale oil industry and China = your
biggest geopolitical rival is also a biggest oil importer imho oil in the 70's is better than in
50's. Because today China imports something like 8 to10 times more oil than USA.
Trump Whitehouse just released a report from Council of Economic Advisors
that said high oil prices are good for US economy.
Not true . Trump wrote about OPEC INFLATED PRICES in his 2011
book. He campaigned to control OPEC IN 2016. He sold out the working class public to please buddies like
Harold Hamm of Continental Energy and the Wallstreet boys that sat down with OPEC at Ceraweek.
Sad. The oil found under the United States is a valuable "Natural
Resource" but it is also a valuable "National Resource" and should benefit all. The oil companies
sell the oil at cost to their offshore companies whose headquarters are a P.O Box in Bermuda, Cayman Islands
or other low tax/no tax domicile , who in turn sells it to enduser. The US does not collect any
Corporate tax. But the Trump friends get richer and the working class will be paying up for it.
Just like Trump reneged on his campaign promise regard the HUGE Wallstreet
tax loophole "carried interest".
TRUMP 2020 has already raised
$180 Million in donations. Take a look at the list of contributors. Surprise. . .
. . Surprise.
When the traders see this oil will be up today.
Need to wait for new pipelines. . . . Q4.
Oil stabilized in the $50's would set the US and World economies on
fire.
Trump new slogan, " Make My Friends Richer Again and Again and
Again."
Whether the US wants higher or lower prices depends on the immediate circumstances.
When Trump was first elected, lower prices may have been better. Now that unemployment has dropped, wages
are rising, and Trump's voters are more confident, slightly-elevated prices may be more advantageous.
Why? Because higher prices accelerate US oil production. This simultaneously improves our economy
and lowers our national defense expenses. Once we're a net exporter, we'll want even higher prices.
Then there's increased investment. When oil prices are higher, less
efficient vehicles get replaced faster, R&D for efficiency technologies takes off, and new companies are founded
to meet emerging needs. Remember: the US economy's greatest competitive advantage is innovation.
We
excel
at at. More so than any other country, we benefit from
stressors and rapid change. High oil prices are that stressor, and we've reached a point where we should
embrace it.
There's also the ever-improving fleet efficiency. As we squeeze more
from each barrel, the price of oil matters less to us. At some point, the price of fuel will be less important
to our economy than the profits we reap in world markets. If we haven't reached that point already, we
certainly will in the near future when electric vehicles will be offered in most market segments.
Finally, there's the COL differential between Trump Country and the People's
Republic of America. The Internet tells me gas is <$3.25/gallon in CA, and of course, everything is expensive
there. I can see how the good comrades of CA would be struggling. Then again, that's why I don't
live in CA. This morning, I drove past a local gas station at $2.40/gallon. When even luxury cars get
30+mpg and there are plenty of jobs near affordable housing, $2.40/gallon is irrelevant. Make it $3/gallon;
let's get this technology & profits show on the road!
Seriously though: the US economy is reaching a point
where consumers can survive higher oil prices, and we'll enjoy other benefits from those higher prices.
I would expect to see the US government progressively less concerned about this issue.
Whether the US wants higher or lower prices depends on the immediate
circumstances.
I make this short.
First when you say "Whether US wants higher or low prices . . . "
Whom are you referring to when you say " . . US . . " ? Trump
Administration ? US consumers ? US oil companies ? Politicians? What all of them should want is Free Market economics.
Supply and Demand Market.
Stabil $50 bbl
oil would create the world's largest economic boom ever. For ALL countries. Including emerging markets.
Why fill the 22,000 Saudi Prices pickets with cash. . . get a job.
First when you say "Wether US wants higher or low prices . . .
"
Whom are you referring to when you say " . . US . . " ?
Trump Administration ? US consumers ? US oil companies ? Politicians?
What all of them should want is Free Market economics.
Supply and Demand Market.
How ignorant to think the world runs on free market. Most of the world
is closed dictatorships/oligarchies whom we have STUPIDLY allowed into our free market and then this statement
is not true either, as the rest of "market driven economies", the EU have ~ no oil, so in effect would be a
monopoly and DID act this way as the USA was the #1 DOMINANT oil producer in the world for its first 50 years.
Oil has NEVER worked on free market principles.
For this reason it is one reason why Thorium salt water
thermal reactors can NOT get funding outside of China. If anyone can get them to work, Coal, oil, NG,
wind, solar, geothermal will disappear overnight. Why? EVERYONE has Thorium in their country.
It is a waste product from nearly every single mining operation around the world. We were very close to
getting them to work in the 70's but Nixon happened who hated any industry outside of S. California and cut
anyones funding outside of this region to zero.
How ignorant to think the world runs on free market. Most of
the world is closed dictatorships/oligarchies whom we have STUPIDLY allowed into our free market and then
this statement is not true either, as the rest of "market driven economies", the EU have ~ no oil, so
in effect would be a monopoly and DID act this way as the USA was the #1 DOMINANT oil producer in the
world for its first 50 years. Oil has NEVER worked on free market principles.
For this reason it is one reason why Thorium salt water thermal
reactors can NOT get funding outside of China. If anyone can get them to work, Coal, oil, NG, wind,
solar, geothermal will disappear overnight. Why? EVERYONE has Thorium in their country.
It is a waste product from nearly every single mining operation around the world. We were very close
to getting them to work in the 70's but Nixon happened who hated any industry outside of S. California
and cut anyones funding outside of this region to zero.
I agree the World doesn't run on a free market. SAUDI's sold US Refiners
$3.00 oil for $120.00 in 2006.
BUT THE U.S. RUNS ON A FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
PRICE FIXING IS AGAINST THE U.S. ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND SHOULD BE ENFORCED TO
THE FULLEST.
As to your other
point . . . . . I just bought a THORIUM SALT WATER THERMAL REACTOR AT HOME DEPOT LAST WEEK.
My other one just
went on me. I had to take cold showers for three days until I could replace it.
Hello JC ,,,, as far as I know one of
the leaders in the field of Thorium Reactor Technology is Moltex Energy. www.moltexenergy.com. it looks very
promising and the Canadian Government is reviewing this technology at this time.Conceptually it looks pretty
darn good.
Hello JC ,,,, as far as I know one of the leaders in the field of Thorium
Reactor Technology is Moltex Energy. www.moltexenergy.com. it looks very promising and the Canadian Government
is reviewing this technology at this time.Conceptually it looks pretty darn good.
Hello JC ,,,, as far as I know one of the leaders in the field of Thorium
Reactor Technology is Moltex Energy. www.moltexenergy.com. it looks very promising and the Canadian Government
is reviewing this technology at this time.Conceptually it looks pretty darn good.
A lot of things look good conceptually. They've been working on fusion reactors
forever. I'm all for new technology . . . . but I wouldn't hold your breath.
I used to be pissed off when GE wouldn't bring to market that light bulb
they invented that never burned out. . . . . Then there was the car Goodyear tire that lasted for 500,000
miles but never saw the light of day . . . Then . . .
I agree the World doesn't run on a free market. SAUDI's sold US Refiners
$3.00 oil for $120.00 in 2006.
BUT THE U.S. RUNS ON A FREE MARKET ECONOMY.
PRICE FIXING IS AGAINST THE U.S. ANTI-TRUST LAWS AND SHOULD BE ENFORCED
TO THE FULLEST.
As to your
other point . . . . . I just bought a THORIUM SALT WATER THERMAL REACTOR AT HOME DEPOT LAST WEEK.
My other
one just went on me. I had to take cold showers for three days until I could replace it.
If the USA cared about price fixing, I agree we should,
then we should be massively increasing tariffs on everyone.... actually I have argued for this, but for freedom
reasons. WTO is the dumbest thing ever as it ACTIVELY works against freedom as it gives power to greedy
power hungry oligarchs around the world.
"... In the ongoing desire on their part to be transparent they have, until Wed., projected their expectations for increases to short-term rates over the next two years to be 4 increases this year and 4 next year. ..."
"... As of Wednesday, that's all gone. The new dot chart says zero increases this year and at most 1 next year. The 10-year treasury immediately cratered its yield to 2.5something percent. ..."
Re shale financing . . . Folks should go and read financial articles from Wednesday afternoon
of this week.
The Fed basically took a sledgehammer to their dot charts. In the ongoing desire on their
part to be transparent they have, until Wed., projected their expectations for increases to
short-term rates over the next two years to be 4 increases this year and 4 next year.
As of Wednesday, that's all gone. The new dot chart says zero increases this year and at
most 1 next year. The 10-year treasury immediately cratered its yield to 2.5something
percent. Still falling. Overseas we see Germany tracking, and Japan, and more and more
maturities on their yield curves return to negative. Not just real negative. Outright nominal
negative.
This is something that Financial media does not talk about. Negative nominal interest
rates from major country government bonds. How could they talk about it? It is utterly
obvious that this specific reality demonstrates that the entirety of all analyses has no
meaning. Their only defense is silence. Shale would prefer that it stay that way.
The Fed also announced an end to balance sheet normalization, which is euphemism for
trying to get rid of all of those bonds and MBS that were purchased as part of QE. They are
ending their purchases late this year. They dare not continue the move towards normal. I
believe that leaves their balance sheet still holding in excess of 3 trillion. That's not
normalization, sports fans. And it has been TEN YEARS.They havent been able to get to
"normal" in ten years, and as of Wed, they will stop trying.
The Treasury notes are the underlying basis for what shale companies have to pay to borrow
money. Thoughts by folks here that the monetary gravy train will shut off shale drilling need
rethinking. Bernanke changed everything. Forever.
These Fed actions are indistinguishable from whimsy. Imagining that Powell is Peak Oil
cognizant and is focused on shale is a tad extreme, but only a tad.
I recall a Bernanke quote during the crisis that made clear he knew what Peak would mean
-- at any price.
"When US Equities are well on their way south US treasury yields will also join the negative
club. But oil will also be $20"
I don't believe Oil will fall much anymore. Oil prices were kept in check by the rising
dollar. Now that the Fed is no longer hiking, and probably will be cutting rates soon, its
likely Oil prices will start rising again. I think we probably will see some short dips in
energy and Stocks, but once the Fed cuts or does more QE, prices will climb back.
I've also noticed that prices for everything are going up. We are back in stagflation with
falling labor demand, but rising costs: materials, Food, imports, etc. My wild ass guess is
that WTI will be higher in Dec 2019 than it is today.
Its possible that the Fed is now trapped: Rising inflation, but failing labor demand.
Prices will likely increase as unemployment increases. My guess is Fed will let Inflation go
unchecked in order to avoid another major recession. If this assessment turns out to be
correct, Holding cash in USD is going to losing strategy.
FWIW: I don't believe the number of job offerings reflect the real labor market. I think
companies are keeping a lot of filled jobs posted due to extreme employee turn over rates.
For instance retail job turnover rates are as high as 81% per year. Often worker quit after a
few months or weeks. Thus it just makes sense for employers to keep the same jobs permanently
listed, even if they have the position currently filled.
$20 oil will CRUSH any exploration and development and NOBODY will spend a dollar on
CAPEX.
No Questions Asked.
A short-term high for consumers but a worse cataclysm than 2015
I am in Central TX, (Bryan/College Station) and remember well the 1980's crash and of course
2015-18.
The offshore oil exploration company I work for here was saved by a TGS contract during that
sh+t show.
We are now so swamped with jobs it is stupid.
Not enough boats or people worldwide- (NEW , unused fleets were cut up for scrap) and
honestly a dozen people I personally know ( some family members) either retired or went to
other technical fields.
They have all refused offers to come back .
Please remember, we are already 3 years behind on Explorati0n and Development and we are just
starting to see the ramifications of that 3 year worldwide "vacation".
Oh, and IMO 2020 is rolling in. Not a problem for us as we have to use .5ppm diesel anyway
.
Plus all the other Producer Countries with their own personal problems .
Yessir, gonna be a wild show.
I was /am no fan of Jimmy Carter but the world should have listened to him back in 1977.
That old grasshopper/ant fable comes to mind
A lot of lost years since then, would have been nice to develop alternates before it got
scary.
But that is what Humans do
Silly creatures .
I started to pay attention to oil during the Carter years. We could have had a very
manageable transition to alternative options to oil if we had used those decades to plan for
it.
Instead, we're going to have significantly more disruption when we can't keep our
petroleum consumption at current levels.
"The latest Brent rally has brought prices to our peak forecast of $67.5/bbl, three months
early," Goldman Sachs wrote in a note. The investment bank said that "resilient demand
growth" and supply outages could push prices up to $70 per barrel in the near future. It's a
perfect storm: "supply loses are exceeding our expectations, demand growth is beating low
consensus expectations with technicals supportive and net long positioning still depressed,"
the bank said.
The outages in Venezuela could swamp the rebound in supply from Libya, Goldman noted. But
the real surprise has been demand. At the end of 2018 and the start of this year, oil prices
hit a bottom and concerns about global economic stability dominated the narrative. But, for
now at least, demand has been solid. In January, demand grew by 1.55 million barrels per day
(mb/d) year-on-year. "Gasoline in particular is surprising to the upside, helped by low
prices, confirming our view that the weakness in cracks at the turn of the year was supply
driven," Goldman noted. "This comforts us in our above consensus 1.45 mb/d [year-on-year]
demand growth forecast."
If so, economics will suffer and chances for Trump for re-election are much lower, of exist at all due to all his betrayals
In the fable of "The Boy Who Cried Wolf," the wolf actually arrives at the end. Never forget that. Peak oil will arrive. We don't
know when, and we are not prepared for it.
Shale play without more borrowed money might be the next Venezuela. .
I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down
and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can
shale oil save us from peak oil?
OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 57% of world oil production.
"I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia
is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all
up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?"
IEA´s Oil 2019 5y forecast has global conventional oil on a plateau, i.e. declines and growth match each other perfectly
and net growth will come from LTO, NGL, biofuels and a small amount of other unconventional and "process gains".
Iran is ofc a jocker, since it can quickly add supply. Will be interesting to see how Trump will proceed.
I am quite original in my opinion about Peak Oil. I think it took place in late 2015. I will explain. If we define Peak Oil as
the maximum in production over a certain period of time we will not know it has taken place for a long time, until we lose the
hope of going above. That is not practical, as it might take years.
I prefer to define Peak Oil as the point in time when vigorous growth in oil production ended and we entered an undulating
plateau when periods of slow growth and slow decline will alternate, affected by oil price and variable demand by economy until
we reach terminal decline in production permanently abandoning the plateau towards lower oil production.
The 12-year rate of growth in C+C production took a big hit in late 2015 and has not recovered. The increase in 2 Mb since
is just an anemic 2.5% over 3 years or 0.8% per year, and it keeps going down. This is plateau behavior since there was no economic
crisis to blame. It will become negative when the economy sours.
Peak Oil has already arrived. We are not recognizing it because production still increases a little bit, but we are in Peak
Oil mode. Oil production will decrease a lot more easily that it will increase over the next decade. The economy is going to be
a real bitch.
Interesting thesis, keep in mind that the price of oil was relatively low from 2015 to 2018 because for much of the period
there was an excess of oil stocks built up over the 2013 to 2015 period when output growth outpaced demand growth due to very
high oil prices. Supply has been adequate to keep oil prices relatively low through March 2019 and US sanctions on Iran, political
instability in Libya and Venezuela, and action by OPEC and several non-OPEC nations to restrict supply have resulted in slower
growth in oil output.
Eventually World Petroleum stocks will fall to a level that will drive oil prices higher, there is very poor visibility for
World Petroleum Stocks, so there may be a 6 to 12 month lag between petroleum stocks falling to critically low levels and market
realization of that fact, by Sept to Dec 2019 this may be apparent and oil prices may spike (perhaps to $90/b by May 2020).
At that point we may start to see some higher investment levels with higher output coming 12 to 60 months later (some projects
such as deep water and Arctic projects take a lot of time to become operational, there may be some OPEC projects that might be
developed as well, there are also Canadian Oil sands projects that might be developed in a high oil price environment.
I define the peak as the highest 12 month centered average World C+C output, but it can be define many different ways.
Our capability to store oil is very limited considering the volume being moved at any time from production to consumption.
I understand that it is the marginal price of the last barrel of oil that sets the price for oil, but given the relatively inexpensive
oil between 2015 and now, and the fact that we have not been in an economical crisis, what is according to you the cause that
world oil production has grown so anemically these past three years?
Do you think that if oil had been at 20$/b as it used to be for decades the growth in consumption/production would have been
significantly higher?
I'll give you a hint, with real negative interest rates and comparatively inexpensive oil most OECD economies are unable to
grow robustly.
To me Peak Oil is an economical question, not a geological one. The geology just sets the cost of production (not the price)
too high, making the operation uneconomical. It is the economy that becomes unable to pump more oil. That's why the beginning
of Peak Oil can be placed at late 2015.
The economic system has three legs, cheap energy, demographic growth, and debt growth. All three are failing simultaneously
so we are facing the perfect storm. Social unrest is the most likely consequence almost everywhere.
If prices are low that means there is plenty of oil supply relative to demand. It also means that some oil cannot be produced
profitably, so oil companies invest less and oil output grows more slowly.
So you seem to have the story backwards. Low oil prices means low growth in supply.
So if oil prices were $20/b, oil supply would grow more slowly, we have had an oversupply of oil that ls what led to low oil
prices. When oil prices increase, supply growth will ne higher. Evause profits will be higher and there will be more investment.
It is you who has it backwards, as you only see the issue from an oil price point of view, and oil price responds to supply
and demand, and higher prices are an estimulus to higher production.
But there is a more important point of view, because oil is one of the main inputs of the economy. If the price of oil is sufficiently
low it stimulates the economy. New businesses are created, more people go farther on vacation, and so on, increasing oil demand
and oil production. If the price is sufficiently high it depresses the economy. A higher percentage of wealth is transferred from
consumer countries to producing countries and consumer countries require more debt. During the 2010-2014 period high oil prices
were sustained by the phenomenal push of the Chinese economy, while European and Japanese economies suffered enormously and their
oil consumption depressed and hasn't fully recovered since.
In the long term it is the economy that pumps the oil, and that is what you cannot understand.
The economy decides when and how Peak Oil takes place. If you knew that you wouldn't bother with all those models.
And in my opinion the economy already decided in late 2015 when the drive to increase oil production to compensate for low
oil prices couldn't be sustained.
Both supply and demand matter. I understand economics quite well thank you. You are correct that the economy is very important,
it will determine oil prices to some degree especially on the demand side of the market. If one looks at the price of oil and
economic growth or GDP, there is very little correlation.
The fact is the World economy grew quite nicely from 2011 to 2014 when oil prices averaged over $100/b.
There may be some point that high oil prices are a problem, apparently $100/b in 2014 US$ is below that price. Perhaps at $150/b
your argument would be correct. Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there
is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.
I agree the economy will be a major factor in when peak oil occurs, but as most economists understand quite well, it is both
supply and demand that will determine market prices for oil.
My models are based on the predictions of the geophysicists at the USGS (estimating TRR for tight oil) and the economists at
the EIA (who attempt to predict future oil prices). Both predictions are used as inputs to the model along with past completion
rates and well productivity and assumptions about potential future completion rates and future well productivity, bounded by the
predictions of both the USGS and the EIA along with economic assumptions about well cost, royalties and taxes, transport costs,
discount rate, and lease operating expenses.
Note that my results for economically recoverable resources are in line with the USGS TRR mean estimates and are somewhat lower
when the economic assumptions are applied (ERR/TRR is roughly 0.85), the EIA AEO has economically recoverable tight oil resources
at about 115% of the USGS mean TRR estimate. The main EIA estimate I use is their AEO reference oil price case (which may be too
low with oil prices gradually rising to $110/b (2017$) by 2050.
Assumptions for Permian Basin are royalties and taxes 33% of wellhead revenue, transport cost $5/b, LOE=$2.3/b plus $15000/month,
annual discount rate is 10%/year and well cost is $10 million, annual interest rate is 7.4%/year, annual inflation rate assumed
to be 2.5%/year, income tax and revenue from natural gas and NGL are ignored all dollar costs in constant 2017 US$.
You do incredible work Dennis and I believe you are correct. Demand for oil is relatively inelastic which accounts for huge price
swings when inventories get uncomfortably high or low. If supply doesn't keep up with our needs, price will rise to levels that
will eventually create more supply and create switching into other energy sources which will reduce demand.
Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being
produced relative to the demand for oil.
You don't seem to be aware of historical oil prices. For inflation adjusted oil prices since 1946 oil (WTI) spent:
27 years below $30
13 years at ~ $70
18 years at ~ $40
10 years at ~ $90
5 years at ~ $50 https://www.macrotrends.net/1369/crude-oil-price-history-chart
And the fastest growth in oil production took place precisely at the periods when oil was cheapest.
You simply cannot be more wrong about that.
And your models are based on a very big assumption, that the geology of the reserves is determinant for Peak Oil. It is not.
There is plenty of oil in the world, but the extraction of most of it is unaffordable. The economy will decide (has decided) when
Oil Peak takes place and what happens afterwards. Predictions/projections aren't worth a cent as usual. You could save yourself
the trouble.
I use both geophysics and economics, it is not one or the other it is both of these that will determine peak oil.
Of course oil prices have increased, the cheapest oil gets produced first and oil gradually gets more expensive as the marginal
barrel produced to meet demand at the margin is more costly to produce.
Real Oil Prices do not correlate well with real economic growth and on a microeconomic level the price of oil will affect profits
and willingness of oil companies to invest which in turn will affect future output. Demand will be a function of both economic
output and efficiency improvements in the use of oil.
Also keep in mind that during the 1945-1975 period economic growth rates were very high as population growth rates were very
high and the World economy was expanding rapidly as population grew and the World rebuilt in the aftermath of World War 2. Oil
was indeed plentiful and cheap over this period and output grew rapidly to meet expanding World demand for oil. The cheapness
of the oil led to relatively inefficient use of the resource, as constraints in output became evident and more expensive offshore,
Arctic oil were extracted oil prices increased and there was high volatility due to Wars in the Middle east and other political
developments. Oil output (C+C) since 1982 has grown fairly steadily at about an 800 kb/d annual average each year, oil prices
move up and down in response to anticipated oil stock movements and are volatile because these estimates are often incorrect (the
World petroleum stock numbers are far from transparent.)
On average since the Iran/Iraq crash in output (1982-2017) World output has grown by about 1.2% per year and 800 kb/d per year
on average, prices have risen or fallen when there was inadequate or excess stocks of petroleum, this pattern (prices adjusting
to stock levels) is likely to continue.
There has been little change when we compare 1982 to 1999 to 1999-2017 (divide overall period of interest in half) for either
percentage increase of absolute increase in output.
I would agree that severe shortages of oil supply relative to demand (likely apparent by 2030) is likely to lead to an economic
crisis as oil prices rise to levels that the World economy cannot adjust to (my guess is that this level will be $165/b in 2018$).
Potentially high oil prices might lead to faster adoption of alternative modes of transport that might avert a crisis, but that
is too optimistic a scenario even for me.
China will be in outright deflation soon enough. Economic stimulus is starting to fail in China. They can't fill the so called
bathtub up fast enough to keep pace with the water draining out the bottom. So to speak.
Interest rates in China will soon be exactly where they are in Europe and Japan. Maybe lower.
In order to get oil to $90-$100 the value of the dollar is going to have to sink a little bit. In order to get oil to $140-$160
the dollar has to make a new all time low. Anybody predicting prices shooting up to $200 needs the dollar index to sink to 60
or below.
The reality is oil is going to $20. Because the rest of the world outside the US is failing. Dennis makes some nice graphs
and charts and under his assumptions his charts and graphs are correct. But his assumptions aren't correct.
We got $20 oil and an economic depression coming.
Peak Oil is going to be deflationary as hell. Higher prices aren't in the cards even when a shortage actually shows up. We
will get less supply at a lower price. Demand destruction is actually going to happen when economies and debt bubbles implode
so we actually can't be totally sure we are ever going to see an actual shortage.
We could very well be producing 20-30% less oil than we do now and still not have a shortage.
Oh and EV's are going to have to compete with $20 oil not $150 oil.
When do you expect the oil price to reach $20/b? We will have to see when this occurs.
It may come true when EVs and AVs have decimated demand for oil in 2050, but not before. EIA's oil price reference scenario
from AEO 2019 below. That is a far more realistic prediction (though likely too low especially when peak oil arrives in 2025),
oil prices from $100 to $160/b in 2018 US$ are more likely from 2023 to 2035 (for three year centered average Brent oil price).
My assumptions are based on USGS mean resource estimates and EIA oil price estimates, as well as BIS estimates for the World
monetary and financial system.
Your assumption that oil prices are determined by exchange rates only is not borne out by historical evidence. Exchange
rates are a minor, not a major determinant of oil prices.
Technically speaking. The most relevant trendline on price chart currently comes off the lows of 2016/02/08. It intersects
with 2017/06/19. You draw the trendline on out to where price is currently. Currently price is trying to backtest that trendline.
On a weekly price chart i'd say it touches the underside of that trendline sometime in April in the low 60's somewhere between
$62-$66 kinda depends on when it arrives there time wise. The later it takes to arrive there the higher price will be. I've been
trading well over 20 years can't tell you how many times i've seen price backtest a trendline after it's been broken. It's a very
common occurrence. And i wouldn't short oil until after it does.
But back to your question. $20 oil what kind of timetable. My best guess is 2021-2022. Might happen 2020 or 2023. And FED can
always step in and weaken the dollar. Fundamentally the only way oil doesn't sink to $20 is the FED finds a way to weaken the
dollar.
But understand the FED is the only major CB that currently doesn't have the need to open up monetary policy. It's really the
rest of the worlds CB ultra loose monetary policy which is going to drive oil to $20.
Countries that have reported their January production (shown on the chart)
OPEC14 -822
Alberta -268
Mexico -87
Russian Federation -78
Brazil -60
Norway -48
Total -1,429 kb/day
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/D12BlLBW0AEDR6G.png
So far for February: Russia, OPEC14, Norway
Total: -330 kb/day
The Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries will once again become a nemesis for U.S.
shale if the U.S. Congress passes a bill dubbed NOPEC, or No Oil Producing and Exporting
Cartels Act, Bloomberg
reported this week , citing sources present at a meeting between a senior OPEC official and
U.S. bankers.
The oil minister of the UAE, Suhail al-Mazrouei, reportedly told lenders at the meeting that
if the bill was made into law that made OPEC members liable to U.S. anti-cartel legislation,
the group, which is to all intents and purposes indeed a cartel, would break up and every
member would boost production to its maximum.
This would be a repeat of what happened in 2013 and 2014, and ultimately led to another oil
price crash like the one that saw Brent crude and WTI sink below US$30 a barrel. As a result, a
lot of U.S. shale-focused, debt-dependent producers would go under.
Bankers who provide the debt financing that shale producers need are the natural target for
opponents of the NOPEC bill. Banks got burned during the 2014 crisis and are still recovering
and regaining their trust in the industry. Purse strings are being loosened as WTI climbs
closer to US$60 a barrel, but lenders are certainly aware that this is to a large extent the
result of OPEC action: the cartel is cutting production again and the effect on prices is
becoming increasingly visible.
Indeed, if OPEC starts pumping again at maximum capacity, even without Iran and Venezuela,
and with continued outages in Libya, it would pressure prices significantly, especially if
Russia joins in. After all, its state oil companies have been itching to start pumping
more.
The NOPEC legislation has little chance of becoming a law. It is not the first attempt by
U.S. legislators to make OPEC liable for its cartel behavior, and none of the others made it to
a law. However, Al-Mazrouei's not too subtle threat highlights the weakest point of U.S. shale:
the industry's dependence on borrowed money.
The issue was analyzed in depth by energy expert Philip Verleger in an Oilprice
story earlier this month and what the problem boils down to is too much debt. Shale, as
Total's chief executive put it in a 2018 interview with Bloomberg, is very capital-intensive.
The returns can be appealing if you're drilling and fracking in a sweet spot in the shale
patch. They can also be improved by making everything more efficient but ultimately you'd need
quite a lot of cash to continue drilling and fracking, despite all the praise about the decline
in production costs across shale plays.
The fact that a lot of this cash could come only from banks has been highlighted before: the
shale oil and gas industry faced a crisis of investor confidence after the 2014 crash because
the only way it knew how to do business was to pump ever-increasing amounts of oil and gas.
Shareholder returns were not top of the agenda. This had to change after the crash and most of
the smaller players -- those that survived -- have yet to fully recover. Free cash remains a
luxury.
The industry is aware of this vulnerability. The American Petroleum Institute has vocally
opposed NOPEC, almost as vocally as OPEC itself, and BP's Bob Dudley said this week at CERAWeek
in Houston that NOPEC "could have severe unintended consequences if it unleashed litigation
around the world."
"Severe unintended consequences" is not a phrase bankers like to hear. Chances are they will
join in the opposition to the legislation to keep shale's wheels turning. The industry,
meanwhile, might want to consider ways to reduce its reliance on borrowed money, perhaps by
capping production at some point before it becomes forced to do it.
Merill Lynch expects oil to rally into the summer.
That's what Hootan Yazhari, head of global frontier markets equity research at Bank of
America Merrill Lynch, revealed in a television interview with Bloomberg earlier this week.
"We think a number of factors will see the oil market tighten in the coming months and, as a
result, as we head into the summer we should expect oil prices to have a seven-handle, maybe
even higher depending on a number of other factors," Yazhari told Bloomberg in the
interview.
Looking at oil price predictions for the year, the Merill Lynch representative highlighted
in the interview that the company was sticking to its forecast of $70 per barrel.
"As things stand we're looking for $70. Just to put that into context, that's a $72 average
from today onwards," Yazhari told Bloomberg.
"We have adjusted down our forecast to reflect the softer start to the year, but our
underlying bullish narrative is unchanged, with positive but slower global economic growth and
supply management from OPEC," FSMR analysts stated in a report sent to Rigzone on March 4.
1. When something is increasing 0.8% a year based on data with, say, 2% or higher margin of error this is not a growth.
This is a number racket.
2. We need to use proper coefficients to correctly estimate energy output of different types of oil We do not know real
EROEI of shale oil, but some sources claim that it is in the 1.5-4.5 range. Let's assume that it is 3. In comparison, Saudi oil
has 80-100 range. In this sense shale oil is not a part of the solution; it is a part of the problem (stream of just bonds produced
in parallel is the testament of that). In other words, all shale oil is "subprime oil," and an increase of shale oil production
is correctly called the oil retirement party. The same is true for the tar sands oil.
So the proper formula for total world production in "normalized by ERORI units" might be approximated by the equation:
where coefficients (I do not claim that they are accurate; they are provided just for demonstration) reflect EROEI of particular
types of oil.
If we assume that 58% of the US oil production is shale oil and condensate then the amount of "normalized" oil extracted in
the USA can be approximated by the formula
total * 0.83
In other words 17% of the volume is a fiction. Simplifying it was spent on extraction of shale oil and condensate (for concentrate
lower energy content might justify lower coefficient; but for simplicity we assume that it is equal to shale oil).
Among other things that means that 1970 peak of production probably was never exceeded.
3. EROEI of most types of oil continues to decline (from 35 in 1999 to 18 in 2006 according to
http://www.euanmearns.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/eroeihalletal.png).
Which means that in reality physical volume became a very deceptive metric as you need to sink more and more money/energy into
producing every single barrel and that fact is not reflected in the volume. In other words, the barrel of shale oil is already
50% empty when it was lifted to the ground (aka "subprime oil"). In this sense, shale wells with their three years of the high
producing period are simply money dumping grounds for money in comparison with Saudi oil wells.
4. The higher price does not solve the problem of the decline of EROEI. It just allows the allocation of a larger portion
of national wealth to the oil extraction putting the rest of the economy into permanent stagnation.
5. If we assume average EROEI equal 3 (or even 5) for shale oil then rising shale oil production along with almost constant
world oil production is clearly a Pyrrhic victory. Again, putting a single curve for all types of oil is the number racket,
or voodoo dances around the fire.
NOTES:
1. IMHO Ron made a correct observation about Saudi behavior: the declines of production can well be masked under pretention
of meeting the quota to save face. That might be true about OPEC and Russia as a whole too. Exceptions like Iraq only confirm
the rule.
Dennis Wrote:
"I think the 4 Mb/d of increased tight oil output from Dec 2019 to Dec 2025 may be enough to
keep World C+C output increasing through 2025, this assumes oil prices follow the AEO 2018
reference case "
I am sure there is sufficient Oil in the ground to delay Peak production to about 2040, if
the consumer demand can afford $300 bbl. Shale drilling is a lot like the housing bubble that
began in 2003 and when bust in 2008. It made no sense to lend people with no job, no income
and no assets, money to buy a home, but Lenders did it anyway and they did it for 5 years
straight. While Shale Drillers aren't Ninja home buyers they continue to fund operations
using debt.
Shale growth is a function of credit available to shale drillers. As long as they can
find a sucker^H^H^H^H lender to finance their growth, it will continue.
My wild-ass guess is that credit growth for shale drillers ends in 2021, because a lot
of old shale debt comes due between 2020 and 2022.
My guess is that the shale drillers will have trouble rolling over the existing debt
will also finding lenders to provide them more credit. In the past I presumed that interest
rates would rise to the point it cut them off from adding new debt. but the ECB & the Fed
continue to keep rates low. Perhaps the Shale drillers will get direct gov't funding to
continue, pseudo nationalization as Watcher has proposed over many years on POB.
I don't see much traction in significantly higher oil prices. with 78% of US consumers
living paycheck to paycheck, already, I don't believe they can absorb any substantial
increase in energy costs.
Its also very likely demographics will start impacting energy consumption in the west
as Boomers start retiring. A lot of boomers have postponed retirement, but I suspect that
this will start to change in the early 2020s as age related issues make it more difficult for
them to keep on working. Usually retired workers, consume considerably less energy as they no
longer commute to work, and usually downsize their lifestyles.
(Global) peak oil comes in phases. The 1st phase 2005-2008 caused the 2008 oil price shock
and the financial crisis. Money printing was used to keep the system afloat and finance the
US shale oil boom. The resulting high debt levels are now limiting economic activities. A lot
of the problems we see in the world come from this chain of events.
I warned the Australian Prime Minister John Howard in 2004/05 but he did not want to
listen.
As Art Berman said, shale oil is oil's retirement party.
When we are down to fracturing rocks and drilling tens of thousands of horizontal wells
that produce tiny streams of oil that decline by 70% in just three years we should
instinctively know that we are reaching the bottom of the proverbial barrel, literally.
Amazing how most people think just the opposite .
.Saudi Arabia
Quota 10,311
.Feb. Production 10,087
.Difference -224
Saudi Arabia produced 224,000 barrels per day less than their quota. Did not anyone
notice this and wonder why? The rest of OPEC was 179,000 barrels per day over their quota.
Iraq was the largest violator being 121,000 bpd over their quota.
Also, Saudi Arabia was the absolute driving force behind these quota cuts implemented in
January.
Noticed, and you could argue that they are showing the way and taking the larger part of the
burden since they want to be so nice to the rest of the opec members ;-).
Or perhaps the level they have been producing at is unsustainable and they are really glad
to officially have an excuse to cut back on production.
• The OPEC+ cuts have likely already tipped the oil market into a supply deficit,
according to Barclays.
• OECD inventories fell dramatically over the past two years, and came back to
the five-year average in 2018, where they have mostly remained.
• The OPEC+ cuts quickly headed off a renewed surplus, and will likely drain
inventories over the course of this year. Inventories are set to fall below the
five-year average.
• Still, Barclays says the market return to balance or even a small surplus in
the second half of 2019.
• Some of the more catastrophic oil forecasts for 2019 centered on a sharp
slowdown in Chinese demand.
• China's car sales actually contracted year-on-year over the last few months,
and car sales could continue to fall this year.
• But China's demand, while slowing relative to years past, is still expected to
grow by 0.5 mb/d in 2019, according to Barclays, the same rate of expansion as
2018.
• Next year, however, China's demand growth could slow a bit more, dipping below
0.4 mb/d, continuing a gradual deceleration in demand growth.
There is an interesting article in the Journal Of Petroleum Technology which summarizes an
SPE article by Schlumberger.
"Yet another SPE paper has concluded that old wells outperform new ones, but this study
offers a lot more detail about development in the Permian.
The paper, authored by Schlumberger (SPE 194310), offers comparisons of five major plays
in the Midland and Delaware basins, including details down to the pounds of proppant pumped
per foot, that show that completions are becoming increasingly similar.
"In general, normalized production from child wells is lower than parent wells," said Wei
Zheng, production stimulation engineer for Schlumberger. Older wells outperform newer ones
even when adjusting for the fact that new horizontal wells extend further through the
reservoir and more proppant is pumped.
"We are getting the same result as 5 years ago when we were spending less," she said
during a presentation at the recent SPE Hydraulic Fracturing Technology Conference."
Figure 2 which adjusts production for lateral length and proppant is particularly
interesting.
It describes especially most comapanies going to a more wide well spacing – so total
recovery of the basin will fall, but drilled wells will be more profitable.
US shale companies' decision to drill thousands of new wells closely together - and close to
already existing wells - is
turning out to be a bust
; worse, this approach is
hurting the performance
of wells
already in existence, posing an even greater threat to the already struggling industry. In order to
keep the United States as an energy supplying powerhouse, shale companies have pitched bunching
wells in close proximity, hoping they would produce as much as older ones, allowing companies to
extract more oil overall while maintaining good results from each well.
These types of predictions helped fuel investor interest in shale companies, who raised nearly $57
billion from equity and debt financing in 2016 – up from $34 billion five years earlier, when oil
was over $110 per barrel.
In 2016, oil prices dipped below $30 a barrel at one point.
And now -
surprise
– the actual results from these wells are finally coming in and they
are quite disappointing.
Newer wells that have been set up near older wells were found to pump less oil and gas,
and
engineers warn that these new wells could produce as much as 50% less in some circumstances.
This is not what investors - who contributed to the billions in capital used by these companies
back in 2016 - want to hear.
Making matters worse, newer wells often interfere with the output of older wells because creating
too many holes in dense rock formations can damage nearby wells and make it harder for oil to seep
out. The "child" wells could also cause permanent damage to older "parent" wells. This is known in
the industry as the "parent-child" well problem. Billionaire Harold Hamm, who founded shale
driller Continental Resources, said last year: "
Shale producers across the country are finding
you can get a lot of interference, one well to the other. Laying out a whole lot of wells can get
you in trouble."
Some of the biggest names in shale, including Devon Energy, EOG Resources and Concho
Resources, have already disclosed that they are suffering from this problem. As a result, they and
many others could be forced to take massive write-downs if they have to downsize their already
optimistic estimates from drill sites.
Companies continue to try and find the perfect balance between using single wells that are
operating at peak productivity and multiple wells that can provide better returns.
Laredo Petroleum is a great example. Two years ago, it was valued at more than $3 billion and
was a strong advocate for packing wells into the Permian Basin. Its CEO Randy Foutch said a year
ago that the company could drill 32 wells per drilling unit, with each producing an average of 1.3
million barrels of oil and gas. In November, the company announced that wells it had fracked in
2018 were producing 11% less than projected, in part due to "parent-child" issues.
Laredo spokesman Ron Hagood told the WSJ: "We tightened spacing during 2017 and 2018 to increase
location inventory and resource recovery in our highest-return formations, and we achieved this
goal."
The company's market value has fallen about 75% to $800 million since the end of 2016.
Goal achieved?
Incidentally, we first
reported
that shale companies may be facing "catastrophic failure ahead" back in October of 2018. Days
before that report, we
said that
shale companies had a "glaring problem". We concluded that the glaring problem with 2018's poor
financial results was that 2018 was supposed to be the year that the shale industry finally turned
a corner.
Earlier in 2018, the International Energy Agency had painted a rosy portrait of U.S. shale,
arguing
in
a report that "higher prices and operational improvements are putting the US shale sector on track
to achieve positive free cash flow in 2018 for the first time ever."
Now, it all appearst to have been a "pipe" - or rather "milkshake" - dream.
In its January Short-Term Energy Outlook (STEO), the EIA
said last week that continuously rising U.S. shale production
would make the United States a
net exporter
of crude oil and petroleum products in the fourth
quarter of 2020.
This whole shale oil boom started back when Baby Bush was
president, and Hugo Chavez announced to the world (at the UN)
that W "smelled of sulfur". To add insult to injury, Hugo sent
aid, in the form of fuel oil and a hospital ship, to help the
victims of Hurricane Katrina, while W was busy eating cake and
clearing brush with Jeff Gannon.
From that moment on, W had it
in for Hugo. Venezuela was doing very well at the time. Besides
sanctions, Bush figured that the best way to attack Hugo and
Venezuela was to crash the price of crude. So suddenly there were
financial incentives and lax regulations in the US regarding
Fracking, and the Shale Oil Boom in America was born! Bush didn't
care that it was costing Americans - both financially and by
ruining the quality of the ground water - the lifeblood of
agriculture. This oil borne of vengence went to market at way
below cost of production, but it succeeded in driving the price of
crude to the point of financial pain for Venezuela.
After all that, Hugo survived several assassination attempts,
only to die suddenly and mysteriously from - depending on the
source - either a heart attack or stroke.
Shale oil had a negative EROEI from the start, it just took
this long for that to be realized.
I'll bet they are understating the loan problem. I think this
industry has real problems along with the banks that financed
them. Someone, somewhere has some data on this issue but I've only
seen it alluded too. With the cost of oil down and these wells
starting to underproduce, I'll bet there is some real risk to
solvency for some banks we are not hearing about.
These articles against shale are so biased. I work in the Delaware
Basin and have intimate knowledge of the financials. The shale BS
spewed on zerohedge only looks at the negative side of things. The
article above is correct about the problem of well spacing, but I
could write 5 positive articles about upward revisions of expected
well productivity those same companies have had as they refined
their frac techniques and got better at drilling laterals.
Zerohedge only reports the negative revisions, not the numerous
positive revisions. These companies are now going on a decade of
growth and their financials are actually improving.
The shale
business is fundamentally sound if you have the right acreage and
don't overpay to get acreage. The naysayers are correct in
that production decline in unconventionals requires ever
increasing investment so as long as the company is trying to grow
they will have negative cash flow and expanding debt loads to
fight the decline curves of unconventionals. (The rig count you
need to just to counteract natural decline keeps growing as you
grow.) But it also doesn't mean jack **** for the profitability of
each well. Unless you are a poorly run shale company like Encana,
BHP, or BP, you would instantly be massively cash flow positive
and easily pay off all your debt if you stopped drilling. In
Delaware Basin, companies like EOG are hitting 40% ROCE (Return on
Capital Employed) and the basin average is probably 20%. Those are
good numbers.
I explain it in my post. Don't confuse profits with cash
flow and debt. The individual projects are profitable and so
are the companies, but to keep growing and fight the decline
they capital budget has to grow in unconventionals. The
shareholders in the company push for more growth, to deliver
that growth they have to first make up the natural decline
plus add to the baseline. As your baseline grows the first
part of the equation, fighting the natural decline, grows
along with you. To show cash flow positive results and
reduce debt, all the companies have to do is keep rig and
frac crew counts constant, and about a year later they will
all show positive cash flow and reductions in debt. However,
by in large most companies are choosing to increase rig and
frac crew counts year over year and thus the cash flow
remains negative and debt grows because the companies
themselves are growing. What the naysayers are doing is just
looking at the liabilities on the balance sheet, while
ignoring the asset growth.
The naysayers are not wrong
about the balance sheets, they are just not talking about
the full picture. Eventually these predictions will be right
as viable acreage runs out and companies start throwing good
money at bad projects just to show production growth, but
that isn't happening yet except for at the weakest players.
And that truth is the same even for conventional fields.
Unconventionals just shorten the lifecycle, but it doesn't
change the fact that the oil business has always been one
where you produce yourselves out of business, and to remain
viability you constantly have to be exploring for new
opportunies. 150 years and still going and people still
write articles without understanding.
Show me a single shale play with an EROEI above 5:1 and
we'll talk.
EDIT: full disclosure: I'm invested in shale, and have
made good money from it. But long-term I still think it's
a loser. Net energy gain is too low to be viable.
These articles have been predicting the demise of US shale
since 2010. As in any industry especially one as
technologically driven as US shale you have good and bad
results across the space, yet the space as a whole will
continue to grow and good operators will thrive.
Shale is end game stuff. At the end of the day the average
jobless consumer can't afford to run a vehicle on 100$+ per
barrel shale. And producers can't really stay in business at
current prices. The funding is mostly zero cost debt provided
to keep the dream alive for a few more years.
I've been in shale for quite awhile, and have made good money.
It's a good investment if you're careful, but it's also a low
EROEI product that the numbers have never really made sense on.
The companies producing it are leveraged to the gills, and if
interest rates were to pop and make it more expensive to roll over
their debt it'd explode like a ******* bomb. On my more tinfoilly
days I wonder if the whole purpose of the '08 financial crisis
(which was deliberately engineered; that much I am sure of) was to
give them excuse to drop the interest rates enough to make shale
viable. Get a hard look at the financials of any company producing
shale... you'll see some serious weirdness in their cash flow.
This was the case even when crude prices were parked around $100.
Hard cold fact: net energy gain on this stuff is positive, but
not by very goddamn much. Left strictly to market forces, it would
not be economically viable at all. Ultimately I think what we're
going to see is some kind of a nationalization of oil supplies as
a security measure; there's plenty of stuff out there that is net
energy positive but still not profitable to extract. But so long
as it takes marginally less energy to get it out than you produce,
it'll be propped up. Once net energy goes negative (and it will;
we always take the low-hanging fruit first) then it's game over.
Mankind build industrial society on 30+ to 1 oil. Shale is
scraping the bottom of the barrel.. tar sands the same. They
take fresh water and natural gas to cook the oil out of the
sand for christ sake.. that's late end game stuff right there.
The late Matthew Simmons called the advanced extraction
thechniques like water injection etc used on legacy oil
fields
"super-straws" sucking the last oil faster and
in no way expanding the total recoverable oil from the
field. We can expect much steeper decline curves because
of it when reservoir pressures are finally depleted.
Cold cold fact:
net energy gain on this stuff is
positive, but not by very goddamn much.
Left strictly to
market forces, it would not be economically viable at all.
Ultimately I think what we're going to see is some kind
of a nationalization of oil supplies as a security measure;
there's plenty of stuff out there that is net energy
positive but still not profitable to extract.
But so long
as it takes marginally less energy to get it out than you
produce, it'll be propped up
. Once net energy goes
negative (and it will; we always take the low-hanging fruit
first)
then it's game over.
Great balanced comment.
I see shale as essentially
thermodynamic
autocannibalism
from the point of view that at an EROEI
of 1.5-3 to 1, it can power it's extraction and refinement and
(sometimes) transport, but not anything else. It cannot provide
the energy needed to run a mid-19th century economy let alone a
parasitic 21st century one. There is no fat to run our
civilization and this is largely a desperate delay mechanism.
The West has used up most it's net positive EROEI to the pump
oil and gas and now it needs to plunder other economies if it
isn't to go down in flames. It will implode after 2030 anyway
as the global EROEI inflects, but these are in denial moves to
delay the inevitable .
Again - great to see a non binary comment here on ZH on this
polarising topic.
Edit
Also your comments about the
probable nationalisation
of the industry
I believe is spot on - not only will it
occur organically as these companies declare huge
bankruptcies
and the policy makers opt for nationalization
(i.e. bail in by Joe taxpayer) rather than bail out. Note also
how such a nationalization will cohere to the increasingly
communist mentality of the political landscape - Big Gov
redistribution & equity outcomes inclinations will all feed
into the state owning and controlling te means of production.
AOC is a ******, but she is simply an expression of broader
psychological and financial vectors. It's coming and
you
can't vote your way out of it.
And yes it WILL be declared a national security issue and NO
MATTER WHAT THE PRICE TO THE REST OF THE ECONOMY while there is
any
net EROEI (net of extraction, refinement and
distribution) it wil continue.
there's plenty of stuff out there that is net energy
positive but still not profitable to extract.
Only caveat I would add is that
it will only be extracted
when "not profitable" only while global fiat parasitism can be
used to skim wealth from outside of the US
. Once the US $
ceases to be able to do this then
profit = net energy again,
and the negative-sum game will no longer be able to be
subsidised nor concealed. The remaining billions of theoretical
barrels if oil at that stage will remain in the ground, of no
utility to maintaining negative entropy civilization.
Before it ceases you will essentially see only the MIC and
'Strategic' government use of US oil and gas ny the early 2030s
and little to no use by the domestic economy at large. Once the
last slither of net calorific benefit is gone, thing go
entropic.
However if they manage to steal Venezuela or Iran, this
would change.
If we assume as 10 million per well total cost, then 200K barrel needs to be extracted to
break even. Assuming average life of the well of 5 years you need to produce on average 1000
barrel a day to break even. In the past that were possible (the average was 143), now it is
not
The Monterrey shale estimate was by the EIA not the USGS. The EIA had a private consultant
do the analysis and it was mostly based on investor presentations, very little geological
analysis.
It would be better if the USGS did an economic analysis as they do with coal for the
Powder River Basin. They could develop a supply curve based on current costs, but they
don't.
Do you have any idea of the capital cost of the wells (ballpark guess) for a horizontal
multifracked well in the Wolfcamp? Would $7 million be about right (a WAG by me)?
On ignoring economics, I show my oil price assumptions. Other financial assumptions for
the Bakken are $8 million for capital cost of the well (2016$). OPEX=$9/b, other costs=$5/b,
royalty and taxes=29% of gross revenue, $10/b transport cost, and a real discount rate of 7%
(10% nominal discount rate assuming 3% inflation).
I do a DCF based on my assumed real oil price curve. Brent oil price rises to $77/b
(2016$) by June 2017 and continue to rise at 17% per year until Oct 2020 when the oil price
reaches $130/b, it is assumed that average oil prices remain at that level until Dec 2060.
The last well is drilled in Dec 2035 and stops producing 25 years later in Dec 2060.
EUR of wells today is assumed to be 321 kb and EUR falls to 160 kb by 2035. The
last well drilled only makes $243,000 over the 7% real rate of return, so the 9 Gb scenario
is probably too optimistic, it is assumed that any gas sales are used to offset OPEX and
other costs, though no natural gas price assumptions have been made to simplify the
analysis.
This analysis is based on the analyses that Rune Likvern has done in the past, though his
analyses are far superior to my own.
I think when seismic, land, surface and down hole equipment is included, the number is much
higher. With $20-60K per acre being paid, land definitely has to be factored in. Depending on
spacing, $1-5 million per well?
I am doing the analysis for the Bakken. A lot of the leases are already held and I don't
know that those were the prices paid. Give me a number for total capital cost that makes sense,
are you suggesting $10.5 million per well, rather than $8 million? Not hard to do, but all the
different assumptions you would like to change would be good so I don't redo it 5 times.
Mostly I would like to clear up "the number".
I threw out more than one number, OPEX, other costs, transport costs, royalties and taxes,
real discount rate (adjusted for inflation), well cost.
I think you a re talking about well cost as "the number". I include down hole costs as part
of OPEX (think of it as OPEX plus maintenance maybe).
Dennis. The very high acreage numbers are for recent sales in the Permian Basin. In reading
company reports, it seems they state a cost to drill and case the hole, another to complete the
well, then add the two for well cost.
This does not include costs incurred prior to the well being drilled, which are not
insignificant. Nor does it include costs of down hole and surface equipment, which also are not
insignificant.
Land costs are all over the map, and I think Bakken land costs overall are the lowest,
because much of the leasing occurred prior to US shale production boom. I think a lot of
acreage early on cost in the hundreds per acre. Of course, there was quite a bit of trading
around since, so we have to look project by project, unfortunately. For purposes of a model, I
think $8 million is probably in the ballpark.
I would not include equipment for the well, initially, as OPEX (LOE is what I prefer to
stick with, being US based). The companies do not do that, those costs are included in
depreciation, depletion and amortization expense.
Once the well is in production, and failures occur, I include the cost of repairs, including
replacement equipment, in LOE. I am not sure that the companies do that, however.
I think the Permian is going to be much tougher to estimate, as there are different
producing formations at different depths, whereas the Bakken primarily has two, and the Eagle
Ford has 1 or 2.
An example:
QEP paid roughly $60,000 per acre for land in Martin Co., TX. If we assume one drilling unit
is 1280 acres (two sections), how many two mile laterals will be drilled in the unit?
1280 acres x $60,000 = $76,800,000.
Assume 440′ spacing, 12 wells per unit.
$76,800,000/12 = $6,400,000 per well.
However, there are claims of up to 8 producing zones in the Permian.
So, 12 x 8 = 96 wells.
$76,800,000 / 96 = $800,000 per well.
Even assuming 96 wells, the cost per well is still significant.
If we assume 96 wells x $7 million to drill, complete and equip, total cost to develop is
$.75 BILLION. That is a lot of money for one 1280 acre unit, need to recover a lot of oil and
gas to get that to payout.
I am neither an oil man nor an accountant, so regardless of what we call it I am assuming
natural gas sales (maybe about $3/barrel on average) are used to offset the ongoing costs to
operate the well (LOE, OPEX, financial costs, etc), we could add another million to the cost of
the well for surface and downhole equipment and land costs.
Does an average operating cost over the life of a well of about $17/b ($14/b plus natural
gas sales of $3/b of oil produced)seem reasonable? That would be about $5.4 million spent on
LOE etc. over the life of the well (assuming 320 kbo produced). Also does the 10% nominal rate
of return sound high enough, what number would you use as a cutoff?
You use a different method than a DCF and want the well to pay out in 60 months. This would
correspond to about a 14% nominal rate of return and an 11% real rate of return (assuming a 3%
annual inflation rate.)
"The Monterrey shale estimate was by the EIA not the USGS. The EIA had a private consultant do
the analysis and it was mostly based on investor presentations, very little geological
analysis."
Exactly. USGS' estimate as of October 2015 is very conservative:
"The Monterey Formation in the deepest parts of California's San Joaquin Basin contains an
estimated mean volumes of 21 million barrels of oil, 27 billion cubic feet of gas, and 1
million barrels of natural gas liquids, according to the first USGS assessment of continuous
(unconventional), technically recoverable resources in the Monterey Formation."
"The volume estimated in the new study is small, compared to previous USGS estimates of
conventionally trapped recoverable oil in the Monterey Formation in the San Joaquin Basin.
Those earlier estimates were for oil that could come either from producing more Monterey oil
from existing fields, or from discovering new conventional resources in the Monterey
Formation."
Previous USGS estimates were for conventional oil:
"In 2003, USGS conducted an assessment of conventional oil and gas in the San Joaquin Basin,
estimating a mean of 121 million barrels of oil recoverable from the Monterey. In addition, in
2012, USGS assessed the potential volume of oil that could be added to reserves in the San
Joaquin Basin from increasing recovery in existing fields. The results of that study suggested
that a mean of about 3 billion barrels of oil might eventually be added to reserves from
Monterey reservoirs in conventional traps, mostly from a type of rock in the Monterey called
diatomite, which has recently been producing over 20 million barrels of oil per year."
I am corrected, RE; USGS and Monterrey. I still don't believe there is 20G BO in the Wolfcamp.
Most increases in PB DUC's are not wells awaiting frac's but lower Wolfcamp wells that are TA
and awaiting re-drills; that should tell you something. With acreage, infrastructure and water
costs in W. Texas, wells cost $8.5-9.0M each. The shale industry won't admit that, but that's
what I think. What happens to EUR's and oil prices after April of 2017 is a guess and a waste
of time, sorry.
What most interests me are suggestions that there is so much available oil in Wolfcamp and what
that will do to oil prices and national policy.
Seems like any announcement of more oil will likely keep prices low. And if they stay low,
there's little reason to open up more areas for oil drilling.
"Their assessment method for Bakken was pretty simple – pick a well EUR, pick a well
spacing, pick total acreage, pick a factor for dry holes – multiply a by c by d and
divide by b."
USGS estimates for average well EUR in Wolfcamp shale look reasonable: 167,ooo barrels in the
core areas and much lower in other parts of the formation.
I do not know if the estimated potential production area is too big, or assumed well spacing
is too tight.
The key question is what part of these estimated technically recoverable resources are
economically viable at $50; $60; $70; $80; $90, $100, etc.
Significant part of resources may never be developed, even if they are technically
recoverable.
Keep in mind these USGS estimates are for undiscovered TRR, one needs to add proved reserves
times 1.5 to get 2 P reserves and that should be added to UTRR to get TRR. There are roughly 3
Gb of 2P reserves that have been added to Permian reserves since 2011, if we assume most of
these are from the Wolfcamp shale (not known) then the TRR would be about 23 Gb. Note that
total proved plus probable reserves at the end of 2014 in the Permian was 10.5 Gb (7 Gb proved
plus 3.5 GB probable with the assumption that probable=proved/2). I have assumed about 30% of
total Permian 2P reserves is in the Wolfcamp shale. That is a WAG.
Note the median estimate is a UTRR of 19 Gb with F95=11.4 Gb and F5=31.4 Gb. So a
conservative guess would be a TRR of 13.4 Gb= proved reserves plus F95 estimate. If prices go
to $85/b and remain at that level the F95 estimate may become ERR, at $100/b maybe the median
is potentially ERR. It will depend how long prices can remain at $100/b before an economic
crash, prices are Brent Crude price in 2016$ with various crude spreads assumed to be about
where they are now.
Dennis,
where your number for proven reserves in the Permian comes from?
In November 2015, the EIA estimated proven reserves of tight oil in Wolfcamp and Bone Spring
formations as of end 2014 at just 722 million barrels.
I just looked at Permian Basin crude reserves (Districts 7C, 8 and 8A) and assumed the
change in reserves from 2011 to 2014 was from the Wolfcamp. I didn't know about that page for
reserves. It is surprising it is that low.
In any case the difference is small relative to the UTRR, it will be interesting to see what
the reserves are for year end 2015.
Based on this I would revise my estimate to 20 Gb for URR with a conservative estimate of 12
Gb until we have the data for year end 2015 to be released later this month.
My guess is that the USGS probably already has the 2015 year end reserve data.
The EIA proved reserves estimate for 2015 will be issued this month. I think we will see a
significant increase in the number for the Permian basin LTO.
Also note that USGS TRR estimate is only for Wolfcamp.
I can only guess what could be their estimate for the whole Permian tight oil reserves.
But the share of Wolfcamp in the Permian LTO output is only 24% (according to the
EIA/DrillingInfo report).
That makes sense. I also imagine the USGS focused on the formation with the bulk of the
remaining resources. It is conceivable that the 30 Gb estimate is closer to the remaining oil
in place and that more like 90% of the TRR is in the Wolfcamp, considering that the F5 estimate
is about 30 Gb. That older study from 2005 may be an under estimate of TRR for the Permian,
likewise the USGS might have overestimated the UTRR.
If oil prices go back to $100/b in 2018 as the IEA seems to be concerned about, it could
ramp up at the speed of the Eagle Ford (say 2 to 3 years). It will be oil price dependent and
perhaps they won't over do it like in 2011-2014, but who knows, some people don't learn from
past mistakes. If you or Mike were running things it would be done right, but the LTO guys, I
don't know.
"This estimate is for continuous (unconventional) oil, and consists of undiscovered,
technically recoverable resources.
Undiscovered resources are those that are estimated to exist based on geologic knowledge and
theory, while technically recoverable resources are those that can be produced using currently
available technology and industry practices. Whether or not it is profitable to produce these
resources has not been evaluated."
If it requires slave labor at gunpoint to get the oil out, then that's what will happen
because you MUST have oil, and a day will soon come when that sort of thing is reqd.
Nice apocalyptic vision of the future you've got there!
Whatever happened to the ideals of democracy, capitalism, business, profits, free markets
etc ? Don't worry, no need to answer, that was purely a rhetorical question. I'm quite aware of
the realities of the world!
However, not to pour too much sand on your vision, But I have to wonder? Since your
potential slaves in 21st century America are already armed to the teeth, they might decide not
to just go with the flow. (pun intended)
Anyways slaves don't buy cars or too many consumer goods so that might, in and of itself,
put a bit of a damper on the raison d'etre, excuse my french, of the oil companies and the very
existence of these future slave owners.
because you MUST have oil
Really now?! You know, as time goes by, I'm less and less convinced of that!
This follows on from reserve post above (two a couple of comments). In terms of changes over
the last three years – there really weren't anything much dramatic. We'll see what 2016
brings, especially for ExxonMobil, but it looks like they already knocked a big chunk off of
their Bitumen numbers already in 2015.
Note I went through a lot of 20-F and 10-K reports watching the rain fall this morning and
copied out the numbers, I'm not guaranteeing I got everything 100%, but I think the general
trends are shown.
Note the figures are totals for all nine companies I looked at.
IEA WEO is out: http://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2016/november/world-energy-outlook-2016.html
presentation slides, fact sheet and summary are available online (report can be purchased). IEA
seems to be _very_ concerned about underinvestment in upstream oil production. Several pages of
the report is devoted to this, the title of that section is "mind the gap". More or less all of
the content has been discussed on this website, including the issue with high levels of debt
and that this can affect suppliers' capacity to rebound, and how much demand can be reduced as
a result of a stringent carbon cap.
From the fact sheet (available free of charge):
"Another year of low upstream oil investment in 2017 would risk a shortfall in oil production
in a few years' time. The conventional crude oil resources (e.g. excluding tight oil and oil
sands) approved for development in 2015 sank to the lowest level since the 1950s, with no sign
of a rebound in 2016. If there is no pick-up in 2017, then it becomes increasingly unlikely
that demand (as projected in our main scenario) and supply can be matched in the early 2020s
without the start of a new boom/bust cycle for the industry"
Presentation 1:09 – Dr. Birol gives his view: "depletion never sleeps"
I wonder who that paragraph is aimed at. As I indicated above the companies that would be
investing in long term conventional projects don't have a very large inventory of undeveloped
reserves (17 Gb as of end of 2015, some of this has gone already this year and more is in
development and will come on stream in 2017 and 2018 (and a small amount in later years for
approved projects). I'd guess there might only be less than 10 Gb (and this the most expensive
to develop) that is currently under appraisal among the major western IOCs and larger
independents; allowing for their partnerships with NOCs in a lot of the available projects that
could represent 20 to 30 Gb total. That really isn't very much new supply available, and a
large proportion is in complex deep water projects that wouldn't be ramped up fully until 6 to
7 years after FID (i.e. already too late for 2020). Really the main players need to find new
fields with easy developments, but they obviously aren't, probably never will, and actually
aren't looking very hard at the moment.
My interpretation is that this is IEAs way of saying that it does not look good. Those who can
read between the lines get the message. Also, a few years from they will be able to say "see we
told you so".
It's impossible for IEA to make statements like: "the end of low cost oil will negatively
affect economic growth", "geology is about to beat human ingenuity" etc.
WEO have become more and more bizarre over the years. On the one hand they contain
quantitative projections which tell the story politicians wants to hear. On the other hand, the
text describes all sorts of reason of why the assumptions are unlikely to hold. Normally, if
you don't believe in your own assumptions you would change them.
Here is the production graph. Not that much has happened. There was a big drop for 2011. 2009
on the other hand saw an increase. Up to the left, which is very hard to see, 2015 continues to
follow 2014 which follows 2013 which follows 2012. Will we see 2013 reach 2007 the next few
months?
Its on purpose both because I wanted to zoom in and because the data for first 18 months or so
for the method I used above is not very usable. Bellow is the production profile which is
better for seeing differences the first 18 months. Above graph is roughly 6 months ahead of the
production profile graph.
And I guess we can all see no technological breakthru. 2014's green line looks superior to
first 3 mos 2015.
2016 looks like it declines to the same level about 2.5 mos later, but is clearly a steeper
decline at that point and is likely going to intersect 2014's line probably within the
year.
There is zero evidence on that compilation of any technological breakthrough surging output
per well in the past 2-3 yrs.
In fact, they damn near all overlay within 2 yrs. No way in hell there is any spectacular
EUR improvement.
And . . . in the context of the moment, nope, no evidence of techno breakthrough. But also
no evidence of sweetspots first.
I suppose you could contort conclusions and say . . . Yes, the sweetspots were first - with
inferior technology, and then as they became less sweet the technological breakthroughs brought
output up to look the same.
clarifying, the techno breakthrus are bogus. They would show in that data if they were real.
And it would be far too much coincidence for techno breakthrus to just happen to increase
flow the exact amount lost from exhausting sweet spots.
This suggests the sweetspot theory is also bogus, unless there are 9 years of them, meaning
it's ALL been sweetspots so far. 9 yrs of sweetspots might as well be called just normal rather
than sweet.
It is pretty much all bogus, yes, Watcher. With any rudimentary understanding of volumetric
calculations of OOIP in a dense shale like the Bakken, there is only X BO along the horizontal
lateral that might be "obtained" from stimulation. More sand along a longer lateral does not
necessarily translate into greater frac growth (an increase in the radius around the horizontal
lateral). Novices in frac technology believe in halo effects, or that more sand equates to
higher UR of OOIP per acre foot of exposed reservoir. That is not the case; longer laterals
simply expose more acre feet of shale that can be recovered. Recovery factors in shale per acre
foot will never exceed 5-6%, IMO, short of any breakthroughs in EOR technology. That will take
much higher oil prices.
Its very simple, actually bigger fracs (that cost lots more money!!) over longer laterals
result in higher IP's and higher ensuing 90 day production results. That generates more cash
flow (imperative at the moment) and allows for higher EUR's that translate into bigger booked
reserve assets. More assets means the shale oil industry can borrow more money against those
assets. Its a game, and a very obvious one at that. Nobody is breaking new ground or making big
strides in greater UR. That's internet dribble. Freddy is right; everyone in the shale biz is
pounding their sweet spots, high grading as they call it, and higher GOR's are a sure sign of
depletion. Moving off those sweet spots into flank areas will be even less economical (if that
is possible) and will result in significantly less UR per well. That is what is ridiculous
about modeling the future based on X wells per month and trying to determine how much
unconventional shale oil can be produced in the US thru 2035. The term, "past performance is
not indicative of future results?" We invented that phrase 120 years ago in the oil
business.
That, sir, is pretty much the point. I see what looks like about 20% IP increase for the extra
stages post 2008/9/10. How could there not be going from 15 stages to 30+?
I see NO magic post peak. They all descend exactly the same way and by 18-20 months every
drill year is lined up. That's actually astounding - given 15 vs 30 stages. There should be
more volume draining on day 1 and year 2, but the flow is the same at month 20+ for all drill
years. This should kill the profitability on those later wells because 30 stages must cost
more.
But profit is not required when you MUST have oil.
Freddy, is there something going on in the data? How can 30 stage long laterals flow the
same at production month 24 as the earlier dated wells at their production month 24
–whose lengths of well were MUCH shorter?
I can only speculate why the curves look like they do. It could be that the newer wells would
have produced more than the older wells, but closer well spacing is causing the UR to go down.
Here is the updated yearly decline rate graph. 2010 has seen increased decline rates as I
suspected. The curves are currently gathering in the 15%-20% range.
2007 only has 161 wells. So it makes the production curve a bit noisy as you can see above.
Current yearly decline rate for 2007 is 7,2% and the average from month 98 to 117 would
translate to a 10,3% yearly decline rate. The 2007 curve look quite different from the other
curves, so thats why I did not include it.
Thanks. The 2008 wells were probably refracked so that curve is messed up. If we ignore
2008, 2007 looks fairly similar to the other curves (if we consider the smoothed slope.) I
guess one way to do it would be to look at the natural log of monthly output vs month for each
year and see where the curve starts to become straight indicating exponential decline. The
decline rates of many of the curves look similar through about month 80 (2007, 2009, 2010,
2011) after 2011 (2012, 2013, 2014) decline rates look steeper, maybe poor well quality or
super fracking (more frack stages and more proppant) has changed the shape of the decline
curve. The shape is definitely different, I am speculating about the possible cause.
2007 had much lower initial production and the long late plateau gives it a low decline rate
also. But yes, initial decline rates look similar to the other curves. If you look at the
individual 2007 wells then you can see that some of them have similar increases to production
as the 2008 wells had during 2014. I have not investigated this in detail, but it could be that
those increases are fewer and distributed over a longer time span than 2008 and it is what has
caused the plateau. If that is the case, then 2007 may not be different from the others at and
we will see increased decline rates in the future.
Regarding natural log plots. Yes it could be good if you want to find a constant exponential
decline. But we are not there yet as you can see in above graph.
One good reason why decline rates are increasing is because of the GOR increase. When they
pump up the oil so fast that GOR is increasing, then it's expected that there are some
production increases first but higher decline rates later. Perhaps completion techniques have
something to do with it also. Well spacing is getting closer and closer also and is definitely
close enough in some areas to cause reductions in UR. But I would expect lower inital
production rather than higher decline rates from that. But maybe I´m wrong.
Ok Enno's data from NDIC shows 73 well completions in North Dakota in Sept 2016, 33 were
confidential wells, if we assume 98% of those were Bakken/TF wells that would be 72 ND
Bakken/TF wells completed in Sept 2016.
I have 75 in my data, so about the same. They have increased the number of new wells quite alot
the last two months. It looks like the addtional ones mainly comes from the DUC backlog as it
increased withouth the rig count going up. But I see that the rig count has gone up now too.
Ron you say " Bakken production continues to decline though I expect it to level off soon."
A few words of wisdom as to the main reasons why it would level off? Price rise?
Even though you asked Ron. He might think that the decline in the number of new wells per
month may have stabilized at around 71 new wells per month. If that rate of new completions per
month stays the same there will still be decline but the rate of decline will be slower.
Scenario below shows what would happen with 71 new wells per month from Sept 2016 to June 2017
and then a 1 well per month increase from July 2017 to Dec 2018 (89 new wells per month in Dec
2018).
I am not so convinced that either Texas or the Bakken is finished declining at the current
level of completions. There was consistent completions of over 1000 wells in Texas until about
October of 2015. Then it dropped to less than half of that. The number of producing wells in
Texas peaked in June of this year. Since then, through October, it has decreased by roughly
1000 wells a month. The Texas RRC reports are indicating that they are still plugging more than
they are completing.
I remember reading one projection recently for what wells will be doing over time in the Eagle
Ford. They ran those projections for a well for over 22 years. Not sure which planet we are
talking about, but in Texas an Eagle Ford does well to survive 6 years. They keep referring to
an Eagle Ford producing half of what they will in the first two years. In most areas, I would
say that it is half in the first year.
The EIA, IEA, Opec, and most pundits have the US shale drilling turning on a dime when the oil
price reaches a certain level. If it was at a hundred now, it would still take about two years
to significantly increase production, if it ever happens. I am not a big believer that US shale
is the new spigot for supply.
The wells being shut in are not nearly as important as the number of wells completed because
the output volume is so different. So the average well in the Eagle Ford in its second month of
production produces about 370 b/d, but the average well at 68 months was producing 10 b/d. So
about 37 average wells need to be shut in to offset one average new well completion.
Point is that total well counts are not so important, it is well completions that drive
output higher.
Output is falling because fewer wells are being completed. When oil prices rise and profits
increase, completions per month will increase and slow the decline rate and eventually raise
output if completions are high enough. For the Bakken at an output level of 863 kb/d in Dec
2017 about 79 new wells per month is enough to cause a slight increase in output. My model
slightly underestimates Bakken output, for Sept 2016 my model has output at 890 kb/d, about 30
kb/d lower than actual output (3% too low), my well profile may be slightly too low, but I
expect eventually new well EUR will start to decrease and my model will start to match actual
output better by mid 2017 as sweet spots run out of room for new wells.
Guess I will remember that for the future. The number of producing wells is not important.
Kinda like I got pooh poohed when I said the production would drop to over 1 million barrels
back in early 2015.
Do you agree that the shut in wells tend to be low output wells? So if I shut down 37 of
those but complete one well the net change in output is zero.
Likewise if I complete 1000 wells in a year, I could shut down 20,000 stripper wells and the
net change in output would be zero, but there would be 19,000 fewer producing wells, if we
assume the average output of the 1000 new wells completed was 200 b/d for the year and the
stripper wells produced 10 b/d on average.
How much do you expect output to fall in the US by Dec 2017?
Hindsight is 20/20 and lots of people can make lucky guesses. Output did indeed fall by
about 1 million barrels per day from April 2015 to July 2016, can you point me to your comment
where you predicted this?
Tell us what it will be in August 2017.
I expected the fall in supply would lead to higher prices, I did not expect World output to
be as resilient as it has been and I also did not realize how oversupplied the market was in
April 2015. In Jan 2015 I expected output would decrease and it increased by 250 kb/d from Jan
to April, so I was too pessimistic, from Jan 2015 (which is early 2015) to August 2016 US
output has decreased by 635 kb/d.
If you were suggesting World output would fall from Jan 2015 levels by 1 Mb/d, you would
also have been incorrect as World C+C output has increased from Feb 2015 to July 2016 by 400
kb/d. If we consider 12 month average output of World C+C, the decline has been 340 kb/d from
the 12 month average peak in August 2015 (centered 12 month average).
The dropping numbers are not as much from the wells that produce less than 10 barrels a day,
but from those producing greater than 10, but less than 100. The ones producing greater than
100 are remaining at a consistent level over 9000 to 9500. The prediction on one million was as
to the US shale only. It is your site, you can search it better than I can,
But then don't take my word for it. You can find the same information under the Texas RRC site
under oil and gas/research and statistics/well distribution tables. Current production for Sep
can be found at online research queries/statewide. It is still dropping, and will long term at
the current activity level. Production drop for oil, only, is a little over 40k per day
barrels, and condensate is lower for September. Proofs in the pudding.
My guess is that you would see a lot more plugging reports, if it were not so expensive to plug
a well. At net income levels where they are, I expect they would put that off as long as they
could.
I trust the NDIC numbers much more than the EIA numbers which are based on a model. Enno
Peters data has 66 completions in August 2016, he has not put up his post for the Sept data yet
so I am using the Director's estimate for now. I agree his estimate is usually off a bit, Enno
tends to be spot on for the Bakken data, for Texas he relies on RRC data which is not very
good.
Dennis. Someone pointed out Whiting's Twin Valley field wells being shut in for August.
It appears this was because another 13 wells in the field were recently completed.
It appears that when all 29 wells are returned to full production, this field will be very
prolific initially. Therefore, on this one field alone, we could see some impact for the entire
state.
Does anyone know if these wells are part of Whiting's JV? Telling if they had to do that on
these strong wells. Bakken just not close to economic.
I also note that average production days per well in for EOG in Parshall was 24. I haven't
looked at some of the other "older" large fields yet, but assume the numbers are similar.
I agree higher prices will be needed in the Bakken, probably $75/b or more. To be honest I
don't know why they continue to complete wells, but maybe it is a matter of ignoring the sunk
costs in wells drilled but not completed and running the numbers based on whether they can pay
back the completion costs. Everyone may be hoping the other guys fail and are just trying to
pay the bills as best they can, not sure if just stopping altogether is the best strategy.
There is the old adage that when your in a hole, more digging doesn't help much.
So my model just assumes continued completions at the August rate for about 12 months with
gradually rising prices as the market starts to balance, then a gradual increase in completions
as prices continue to rise from July 2017($78/b) to Dec 2018 (from 72 completions to about 90
completions per month 18 months later). At that point oil prices have risen to $97/b and LTO
companies are making money. Prices continue to rise to $130/b by Oct 2020 and then remain at
that level for 40 years (not likely, but the model is simplistic).
I could easily do a model with no wells completed, but I doubt that will be correct.
Suggestions?
Dennis. As we have discussed before, tough to model when there is no way to be accurate
regarding the oil price.
I continue to contend that there will be no quick price recovery without an OPEC cut.
Further, the US dollar is very important too, as are interest rates.
At some point OPEC may not be able to increase output much more and overall World supply
will increase less than demand. My guess is that this will occur by mid 2017 and oil prices
will rise. OPEC output from Libya an Nigeria has recovered, but this can only go so far, maybe
another 1 Mb/d at most. I don't expect any big increases from other OPEC nations in the near
term.
A big guess as to oil prices has to be made to do a model.
I believe my guess is conservative, but maybe oil prices will remain where they are now
beyond mid 2017.
I expected World supply to have fallen much more quickly than has been the case at oil
prices of $50/b.
"EIA does this by using a relatively new dataset-FracFocus.org's national fracking chemical
registry-to identify the completion phase, marked by the first fracking. If a well shows up on
the registry, it's considered completed "
There is an unlikely peak oil related editorial writer hiding in the most unlikely place: a
weekly English business paper called Capital Ethiopia. The latest editorial is again putting an
excellent perspective on world events. http://capitalethiopia.com/2016/11/15/system-failure/#.WC1ZCvl9600
For the record, I have no interest or connection to this publication other than that of a
paying reader.
Wouldn't it be nice if mainstream publications would sound a bit more like this.
Thanks all. I thought that the red queen concept meant that there had to be an increase in the
rate of completions. So that 71 year-on-year in north Dakota would only stabilise temporarily.
Perhaps the loss of sweet spots are being counteracted by the improvements in technology? I'm
assuming that even with difficulties of financing there will be a swift increase in completions
should the oil price take off, but not sure how sustainable this would be
Sometimes I think that once the price of oil is up enough that sellers can hedge the their
selling price for two or three years at a profitable level, it will hardly matter what the
banks have to say about financing new wells.
At five to ten million apiece, there will probably be plenty of money coming out of various
deep pockets to get the well drilling ball rolling again, if the profits look good.
Sometimes the folks who think the industry will not be able to raise money forget that it's
not a scratch job anymore. The land surveys, roads, a good bit of pipeline, housing, leases,
etc are already in place, meaning all it takes to get the oil started now is a drill and frack
rig.
I don't know what the price will have to be, but considering that a lot of lease and other
money is a sunk cost that can't be recovered, and will have to be written off, along with the
mountain of debts accumulated so far, the price might be lower than a lot of people
estimate.
Bankruptcy of old owners results in lowering the price at which an old business makes money
for its new owners.
The Red Queen effect is that more and more wells need to be completed to increase
output. As output decreases fewer wells are needed to maintain output. So at 1000 kb/d output
it might require 120 wells to be completed to maintain output (if new well EUR did not
eventually decrease), but at 850 kb/d it might require about 78 new wells per month to maintain
output.
I think your numbers reflect numbers reported from ND DMR but Bloomberg might be closer to
reality for wells that will actually ever be completed (just a guess by me though). How do
Bloomberg get their numbers (e.g. removing Tight Holes, or removing old wells, not counting
non-completed waivers etc.)?
Yes indeed. The difficulty with DUCs is always, which wells do you count. I don't filter old
wells for example, and already include those that were spud last month (even though maybe
casing has not been set). I don't do a lot of filtering, so the actual # wells that really can
be completed is likely quite a bit lower. I see my DUC numbers as the upper bound. I don't know
Bloombergs method exactly, so I can't comment on that.
Concerning Freddy's chart of production profile of wells drilled in various years.
They all line up by about month 18 of production. This should not be possible. The later
wells have many more stages of frack. They are longer, draining more volume of rock. But the
chart says what it says. At month about 18 the 2014 wells are flowing the same rate as 2008
wells. We know stage count has risen over those 6 yrs. 2014 wells should flow a higher rate.
The shape of the curve can be the same, but it should be offset higher.
Explanation?
How about above ground issues . . . older wells get pipelines and can flow more oil . . .
nah, that's absurd.
There needs to be a physical explanation for this.
These new wells have higher IPs, but also higher decline rates.
Closer spacing (see Freddy's comment above) and depletion of the sweet spots may also impact
production curves and EURs.
That doesn't make sense. They are longer. By a factor of 2ish. How can a 6000 foot lateral flow
exactly the same amount 2 yrs into production as a 3000 foot lateral flows 2 yrs into
production?
Look at the lines. At 18 months AND BEYOND, these longer laterals flow the same oil rate as
the shorter laterals did at the same month number of production. Higher IP and higher decline
rate will affect the shape, but There Is Twice The Length..
I don't think we have information on the length of the wells, since 2008 the length of the
lateral has not changed, just the number of frack stages and amount of proppant. This seems to
primarily affect the output in the first 12 to 18 months, and well spacing and room in the
sweet spots no doubt has some effect (offsetting the greater number of frack stages etc.).
The combination of longer lateral lengths and advancements in completion technology has
allowed operators to increase the number of frac stages during completions and space them
closer together. The result has been a higher completion cost per well but with increased
production and more emphasis on profitability.
In the past five years, DTC Energy Group completion supervisors in the Bakken have helped
oversee a dramatic increase from an average of 10 stages in 2008 to 32 stages in 2013. Even
40-stage fracs have been achieved.
One of the main reasons for this is the longer lateral lengths – operators now have
twice as much space to work with (10,000 versus 5,000 feet along the lateral). Frac stages are
also being spaced closer together, roughly 300 feet apart as compared to spacing up to 800 feet
in 2008, as experienced by DTC supervisors.
By placing more fracture stages closer together, over a longer lateral length, operators
have successfully been able to improve initial production (IP) rates, as well as increase EURs
over the life of the well.
blah blah, but they make clear the years have increased length. Freddy was talking about
well spacing, this text is about stage spacing, but that is achieved because of lateral
length.
Freddy can you revisit your graph code? It's just bizarre that different length wells have
the same flow rate 2 yrs out, and later.
Take a look at Enno´s graphs at https://shaleprofile.com/ . They look the same as my graphs and
we have collected and processed the data independently from each other.
If the wells have the same wellbore riser design irrespective of lateral length (i.e. same
depth, which is a given, same bore, same downhole pump) then that section might become the main
bottleneck later in life and not the reservoir rock. With a long fat tail that seems more
likely somehow compared to the faster falling Eagle Ford wells say (but that is just a guess
really). But there may be lots of other nuances, we just don't have enough data in enough
detail especially on the late life performance for all different well designs – it looks
like the early ones are just reaching shut off stage in numbers now. I doubt if the E&Ps
concentrated on later life when the wells were planned – they wanted early production,
and still do, to pay their creditors and company officers bonuses (not necessarily in that
order).
Hmmm. I know it is speculation, but can you flesh that out?
If some bottleneck physically exists that defines a flow rate for all wells from all years
then that does indeed explain the graphs, but what such thing could exist that has a new number
each year past year 2?
We certainly have discussed chokes for reservoir/EUR management, but the same setting to
define flow regardless of length?
The flow depends on the available pressure drop, which is made up of friction through the rock
and up the well bore (plus maybe some through the choke but not much), plus the head of the
well, plus a negative number if there is a pump. The frictional and pump numbers depend on the
flow and all the numbers depend on gas-oil ratio. Initially there is a big pressure drop in the
rock because of the high flow, then not so much. Once the flow drops the pressure at base of
the well bore just falls as a result of depletion over time, the effect of the completion
design is a lot less and lost in the noise, so all the wells behave similarly. That's just a
guess – I have never seen a shale well and never run a well with 10 bpd production,
conventional or anything else.
A question might be if the flow is the same why doesn't the longer well with the bigger
volume deplete more slowly, and I don't know the answer. It may be too small to notice and lost
in the noise, or to do with gas breakout dominating the pressure balance, or just the way the
the physics plays out as the fluids permeate through the rock, or we don't have long enough
history to see the differences yet.
RRC Texas for September came out recently. As others will probably elaborate more on the data,
I just want to show if year over year changes in production could be use as a predictive tool
for future production (see below chart).
It is obvious that year over year changes (green line) beautifully predicted oil production
(red line) at a time lag of about 15 month. Even when production was still growing, the steep
decline of growth rate indicated already the current steep decline.
The interesting thing is that the year over year change is a summary indicator. It does not
tell why production declines or rises. It can be the oil price, interest rates or just
depletion – even seasonal factors are eliminated. It just shows the strength of a
trend.
I am curious myself how this works out. The yoy% indicator predicts that Texas will have
lost another million bbl per day by end next year. That sounds quite like a big plunge. One
explanation could be the fact that we have now low oil prices and high interest rates. In all
other cycles it has been the other way around: low oil prices came hand in hand with low
interest rates. This could be now a major obstacle for companies to grow production.
This concept of following year over year changes works of course just for big trends, yet
for investment timing it seems exactly the right tool. Another huge wave is coming in electric
vehicles which are growing in China by 120% year over year. Here we have the same situation as
for shale 7 years ago: Although current EV sales are barely 1 million per year worldwide, the
growth rate reveals already an huge wave coming. So as an investor it is always necessary to
stay ahead of the trend and I think this can be done by observing the year over year%
change.
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. ..."
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
Saudi
Arabia's crude oil exports to U.S. are falling sharply, with shipments so far this month at
just 1.6 million barrels, according to data compiled by
Bloomberg , versus 5.75 million barrels a year ago.
For the whole of January, Saudi Arabia exported just 2.69 million barrels of crude to the
United States. The decline follows Saudi Arabia's decision to cut its crude oil production --
primarily heavy crude grades -- by more than it agreed to at the December OPEC+ meeting as it
seeks higher oil prices.
One analyst told Bloomberg oil exports from the Kingdom to U.S. refiners could even fall to
zero but that was unlikely to happen.
"We could see Saudi oil imports declining to zero into the U.S. Gulf Coast," Andy Lipow from
Lipow Oil Associates said. "OPEC and non-OPEC members feel prices are too low, and they will do
what it takes to put the market back in balance."
Peak oil is the simplest label for the problem of energy resource depletion, or more
specifically, the peak in global oil production.
Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, one that has powered phenomenal economic and
population growth over the last century and a half.
The rate of oil 'production', meaning extraction and refining (currently about 85 million
barrels/day), has grown almost every year of the last century.
Once we have used up about half of the original reserves, oil production becomes ever more
likely stop growing and begin a terminal decline, hence 'peak'.
The peak in oil production does not signify 'running out of oil', but it does mean the end
of cheap oil, as we switch from a buyers' to a sellers' market.
For economies leveraged on ever increasing quantities of cheap oil, the consequences may
be dire.
Without significant successful cultural reform, severe economic and social consequences
seem inevitable.
There's no doubt that economies suffer under high energy prices. Recently POTUS
acknowledged this when he said oil is too damn high.
Oil producers (frackers) have to be profitable and they just aren't. It seems to unclear
what the break even point is for fracking operations in the US, but let's say $50 per barrel
goes to production costs. That doesn't leave much room. If oil is selling for less than that
on the open market, the frackers are forced to finance their operations. This can't go on.
Clearly the cheap oil era has peaked.
Globalization was fueled by cheap oil. end of cheap oil means the end of globalization.
It looks like people started to notice the "gangster capitalism" nature of Trump administration.
If also raises the speculation that the end of "cheap oil" might signify the end of neoliberalism as a social system. At least
the "classic" version. Whether Trump inspired the evolution of neoliberalism into "national neoliberalism" improves the survival
chances of this social system remains to be seen.
Notable quotes:
"... The whole "political play" going on now seems to be Trump pressuring Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) for the assumable extensive spare capacity that they have. But the problem is, the reality is high oil prices were needed to avoid a deficit in the whole scheme of things. I still guess reality will be hard late 2019/20 as has always been my prediction. ..."
"... To avoid blackmail when it comes to oil the future; sooner or later there is going to be a transition to natural gas (for some decades) and renewable in the West and Asia first. That is how the story goes in my view. The transition to renewable is most likely not going to be smooth, but hurt someone (some part of the population and some countries maybe). Interesting future energy and other resources (e.g lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare magnet ingredients needed for batteries) are going to be even more in focus than today I guess. ..."
I think there are a lot of people that need a delusion check. Because a surplus of oil is
advocated by "western trustable sources" against the natural investment circle of the oil
industry does not automatically mean that the market balance is under control; it is in fact
never going to work.
The whole "political play" going on now seems to be Trump pressuring
Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) for the assumable extensive spare capacity that they have. But the
problem is, the reality is high oil prices were needed to avoid a deficit in the whole scheme
of things. I still guess reality will be hard late 2019/20 as has always been my prediction.
It is difficult to change my mind about the oil market; after all it is not supersonic
speed in this mature market. The digitalisation of data gathering (seismic and reservoir
control) together with horizontal wells represent probably huge gains and I would guess alone
can explain why for example Russia has been doing so well the last decade.
The next point is
that the world is not running out of oil yet, but potential oil reserves are not under
western control (most potential reserves are in Africa, Middle East, Ex USSR countries and
the Arctic). And that makes for an unstable political future between the west and the rest of
the world.
To avoid blackmail when it comes to oil the future; sooner or later there is going to be a
transition to natural gas (for some decades) and renewable in the West and Asia first. That
is how the story goes in my view. The transition to renewable is most likely not going to be
smooth, but hurt someone (some part of the population and some countries maybe). Interesting
future energy and other resources (e.g lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare magnet ingredients
needed for batteries) are going to be even more in focus than today I guess.
To Wall Street, the shale industry has lost a lot of its allure. A decade's worth of
promises have failed to materialize, and Big Finance is cutting some of its ties with smaller
shale drillers who have not delivered.
The Wall Street Journal
reports that the shale industry only saw $22 billion in new bond and equity deals, down by
more than half from 2016 levels, which was a much worse time for the market.
The steep decline in new debt and equity issuance is a sign that major investors are no
longer rushing to finance unprofitable shale drilling. It's worth noting that this is a new
development. For years Wall Street financed unprofitable drilling, holding out on the promise
that rapid production growth would eventually pay off.
Shale wells suffer from precipitous decline rates, with as much as three quarters of a
well's total lifetime production coming out in the first year or two. After an initial burst of
output, shale wells enter a steep decline.
Of course, this has been known since the beginning and Wall Street has long been fully
aware. But major investors hoped that shale companies would scale up, achieve efficiencies and
lower breakeven prices to the point that they could turn a profit.
However, that has not been the case. While there are some drillers that are profitable,
taken as a whole the industry has been cash flow negative essentially since its beginning in
the mid-2000s. For instance, the IEA estimates that the shale industry posted cumulative
negative free cash flow of over $200
billion between 2010 and 2014.
The red ink has narrowed since then, but so too has the patience from Wall Street. In 2018,
even as oil prices hit their highest levels in years, new debt and equity issuance plunged.
That makes it harder for small and even medium-sized companies to finance growth. It's not all
that surprising, then, that a wave of spending cuts have cropped up in the last few months.
The WSJ notes that the credit environment also worsened when the market hit its nadir in
2016. Regulators tightened lending requirements, raising the cost of capital for indebted
drillers. That, of course, made it even more difficult for these drillers to turn a profit.
To top it off, all of these pesky investors are much more demanding than they used to be,
calling on companies to stop spending so much and instead return cash to shareholders. That
leaves less capital available to inject back into the ground. Earlier this month Barclays
issued a double-downgrade to Occidental Petroleum, lowering it from Overweight to
Underweight, citing the company's deficit after dividends at a time when the driller still
expected to aim for an aggressive production target.
But some companies are between a rock and a hard place. The WSJ notes that CNX Resources has
lost over 20 percent since late January when it announced that it was bowing to investor
pressure to cut spending. That led to speculation that the company wouldn't meet its production
target. It's a no-win situation for some.
What to make of all of this? As Liam Denning of
Bloomberg Opinion put it, "[t] the prevailing financial model for many frackers has hit a
wall ." Denning points out that the shale industry has not posted a return on capital above 10
percent any year since 2006, which says is a "feature of shale, not a bug."
According to Rystad Energy, the 33 largest publicly-traded shale companies, accounting for
39 percent of U.S. shale output, will struggle to please shareholders while also trimming debt.
"Shale E&Ps struggle to please equity investors and reduce leverage ratios simultaneously.
Despite a significant deleverage last year, estimated 2019 free cash flow barely covers
operator obligations, putting E&Ps on thin ice as future dividend payments remain in
question," Rystad Energy senior analyst Alisa Lukash said in a
statement .
Taking a step back, explosive shale growth was only possible because in the context of the
post-2008 financial crisis and the response by the Federal Reserve to drop interest rates close
to zero, something Bethany McLean argues in her book, "Saudi America." Cheap money financed the
debt-fueled shale revolution.
Rystad finds that over half of the total debt pile for the 33 companies it analyzed is due
within the next seven years. Ultimately, the industry may have to erase $4 billion in promised
dividend payments. "The obvious gap in expected versus likely dividend payments confirms the
industry's inability to deliver sustained investors' payback while simultaneously
deleveraging," Lukash said.
That doesn't mean that production is going to fall off of a cliff. These days, the shale
drilling frenzy is being pushed along increasingly by the oil majors, who have gobbled up
smaller companies. ExxonMobil and Chevron, for instance, can take a long view, and put
mountains of cash into drilling. Investor pressure is different for these multinationals and,
in any event, they are much more profitable than smaller shale companies due to various assets
in refining, chemicals, offshore and otherwise conventional production.
As such, production growth will continue for a while longer. But the go-go days are
over.
My understanding is that there are proved undeveloped reserves, those require new
wells.
Dennis, I need to know just how you arrived at this understanding? It is my understanding
that these are infill wells. The word "infill" implies developed, not undeveloped.
1. n. [Enhanced Oil Recovery]
The addition of wells in a field that decreases average well spacing. This practice both
accelerates expected recovery and increases estimated ultimate recovery in heterogeneous
reservoirs by improving the continuity between injectors and producers. As well spacing is
decreased, the shifting well patterns alter the formation-fluid flow paths and increase sweep
to areas where greater hydrocarbon saturations exist.
Infill drilling does increase the ultimate recovery as it gets gaps near the top of the
reservoir that otherwise might be missed. But mostly it just pulls the oil out faster. That
is most of the oil recovered by infill drilling is not oil that would otherwise be
missed.
There are no longer any undeveloped fields in Saudi Arabia. These wells are in the very
well developed Ghawar, and I assume the field to the west is Khurais. Both fields are not
just developed, but overly developed. They have been doing infill drilling in Ghawar for
almost two decades. I assume these new Ghawar wells will be in the very southern two
fields.
From what I understand it was also stated by Schlumberger that they are in-fill (infill?)
wells Just sticking more straws in an almost empty bucket. It seems to me that that will
bring forward future production(to sustain a plateau) and the eventual decline rate in the
future will necessarily be steeper, like a bell curve vs a Seneca Cliff type curve.
I would suggest infill drilling is a good indicator of what KSA feels it's oil development
priorities are. One could make an assumption about why they feel that way. I assume it's
because they don't have anything better to do with the drilling rigs.
Ron, what is your opinion on Saudi Arabia? A I have said here before, I think that the Ghawar
could water out at any time, reducing Saudi output by somewhere in the region of 3 mbpd in
short order. It could happen tomorrow, next week, next year, who (outside of Aramco) knows?
Islandboy, Ghawar is not one field, it is five fields. From north to south there is Ain Dar,
Shedgum, Uthmaniyah, Hawiyah and Haradh. Ghawar was developed from north to south.
Ghawar is currently estimated to account for about six percent of the world's total
daily crude oil output. The field's production peaked at 5.7million barrels per day in 1981
and later slipped below the five million mark. The development of the southern Hawiyah and
Haradh areas during 1994 and 1996, however, raised the production to five million barrels per
day again.
Ain Dar, Shedgum, and Uthmaniyah are all in decline and likely in steep decline. Hawiyah
and Haradh likely have not yet peaked. However, it is production from Khurais and Manifa and
Shaybah that is keeping the decline in Saudi production from becoming obvious. All other
fields, other than the bottom two Ghawar fields, and these three latest developed fields, are
in steep decline.
Khurais and Manifa were in mothballs for decades. Then they were brought on line, at great
expense, to counter the decline in all the other super-giant fields. But the decline in these
old super-giants is getting steeper.
In the third decade of the XXI century, which is about to come, one of the main problems
facing humanity, again, as in the 60s, will be its energy supply, as well as the search for
the main "energy carrier of the future."
The three whales that the world's energy industry today holds: oil, natural gas and coal
are, by their nature, non-renewable sources of energy. True, with regard to oil and gas, this
thesis is actively debated at the academic level, but for practical purposes it is
indisputable: modern civilization consumes so much hydrocarbons that their natural
substitution, if it exists, is not able to compensate for this exemption. The energy sources
mentioned above in 2017 accounted for about 81% of world primary energy production, and they
still define the image of our modern industrial world, while all renewable energy sources
provide only about 14% of primary energy production, and about 5% The balance comes from
nuclear energy (International Energy Agency, 2017).
At the same time, the situation with renewable sources is not at all as rosy as it may
seem at first glance: out of 14% of renewable sources, 10% is the energy from burning wood
and biomass, and 2.5% is hydropower. At the same time, the "fashionable" in the last decade,
and having received at the same time gigantic, almost trillion-dollar investments in solar
and wind energy projects, are not as high as 2% in the overall balance of the production of
primary energy. At the same time, it is not even about the absolute figures for the
introduction of new capacities of green energy, which may seem impressive, but about the
exponential dynamics of the relationship between "oil-coal-gas" and "green" in the long term.
After all, a decade ago, in 2008, the world balance of power generation looked like this: 78%
were oil, natural gas and coal, 5% were atomic energy, 3% were hydropower, about 13.5% were
wood and biomass, and 0, 5% produced wind and solar energy. Surprisingly, over the past ten
years, the transition from "wood and straw" to the energy of oil, natural gas and coal, which
occurred naturally, turned out to be two and a half times more significant for the global
energy balance than the development of "green" energy technologies.
The phenomenon of such meager growth of "green" energy is interesting in itself: for the
first time the capitalist mode of production, in which investments in fixed assets imply
quick returns in the form of profits, gives an obvious, albeit programmed failure. Its
essence becomes clear if we take into account in the picture the "quiet" transition of the
world from "firewood and straw" to oil, gas and coal, which lasted throughout the decade of
2008–2018. This process, which no one financed in a targeted manner or advertised in
the world media or Western scientific publications, went forward thanks to economic
expediency. At the same time, the planting of green energy was accompanied not only by a
powerful public relations campaign and trillions of financing, but also forced almost all
countries to accept special, non-economic overpriced tariffs for the purchase of green energy
in order to somehow force capital to finance unprofitable production. energy with wind
turbines and solar panels.
World energy: a general view
Several reputable organizations are engaged in the problem of the global energy balance.
These include the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the International Energy Agency
(IEA), located in Paris, and the well-known oil company BP (ex-British Petroleum). Each of
these organizations publishes annual reports on the situation in the global energy industry
and the prospects for its development. These reports are compiled on the basis of an analysis
of the mass of primary information, often of an incomplete and contradictory nature.
Nevertheless, due to a certain averaging of all the initial data, the annual reports of these
organizations quite fully and clearly reflect the overall world dynamics. In this article, in
order to bring the data to one standard, we will rely on the annual reports of BP, unless
otherwise explicitly stated in the text.
In accordance with the latest available BP report, global energy consumption reached
13,511 million tons of oil equivalent in 2017 (TNE, eng. "Tonne of oil equivalent", TOE). At
the same time, over the decade between 2007 and 2017, world primary energy consumption grew
by an average of 1.5%. That is, the dynamics of energy consumption correlate well with the
observed growth rates of the global economy over the same period – an average of 3.2%
per year (World Bank and IMF, 2018).
The fluctuations of this second parameter, associated with economic crises and recessions
observed in the period under review, make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the
notorious "energy efficiency" to the global growth in demand
No, there does not even remotely a hint of abiotic oil. Read the last two paragraphs again.
That is what it hints to. An average growth of 1.5% in energy consumption and a growth of
3.2% in the global economy has been enabled by a continual growth in energy efficiency. This
cannot possibly continue, especially the 3.2% growth in global economy. When the global
economy does not grow it receeds. This is called a recession.
> It is very likely that Russia+ Canada will peak within the next two years.
I agree that Russia is close to its peak. But, at the same time, Russia has a huge Arctic
territory with a very low density of population (due to harsh conditions), which probably is
not explored that well. Also with their gas reserves, they might be able to increase the
condensate production considerably, repeating the USA path.
The other possibility is Russia sliding in chaos after Putin retirement, as there is no
any politician of equal caliber able to pick up the helm among the current elite. And there
will be "external helpers" like after Brezhnev's death who will try to get some comprador at
the top. Also, the leadership change historically is a huge problem in Russia.
Russia is a kind of 'A riddle wrapped up in an enigma.' Everybody wrote Russia off in late
90th. It is difficult to make predictions about Russia.
If I remember correctly, Fernando Leanme used to work at Russia in the past, and he might
share his thoughts about this issue.
What is interesting is that due to the use of natural gas in transport, Russia does not
consume that much oil internally, which makes an important difference with KSA.
Increasing Russia's Arctic production is feasible, but this will take many years, and I don't
think it can offset decline to make much of a difference. Yamal has huge gas condensate
reservoirs located under the Cenomanian, but they need many more wells. I believe they can
produce 1 mmbopd of condensate, but that would take 15 to 20 years.
I believe Putin is smart enough to set up a successful replacement, and the Russian elite
will also be keen on a smooth transition because they think they are under attack (yes, they
are convinced the USA, Germany, France and others are very keen on making them submit).
1.Russians are not very happy with Putin
2. Most Russians will support him in any circumstances. This is a principle. Otherwise,
chaos.
3.95% Rosiyan has a negative attitude towards liberals, as well as to "democratic values"
(this is a declaration that has no common with reality)
4.Most Russians dissatisfied with property inequality that appeared in the last 25 years
5. The greatest dissatisfaction is the destruction of industry. The lack of productive labor.
(We live with the income of hydrocarbons, the country-gas station). The consequence of
globalism.
>>>
During 2016-2017 Rosneft and the Russian government have been elaborating in details
additional options for the development of unique Samotlor field. As a result a joint decision
was made for an investment incentive in the form of an annual mineral extraction tax
reduction of RUB 35 billion during 10 years.
The Board has confirmed the Company's obligations to drill over 2,400 wells during
2018-2027 that would provide additional output in the amount of more than 50 mtoe. The
extended Samotlor development program would result in an increase of tax liabilities to
budgets of all administrative levels to RUB 1.7 trln. The investment incentives should give
new momentum to the development of one of the largest fields in the country and bring
significant multiplicative effect for Russian economy.
<<<
2,400 wells in a decade is 240 a year. This article is discussing just Samotlor.
A conventional field drilling a well more often than once every two days. Quite a bit more
than that I imagine in the good time of the year with the swings in Siberian weather
conditions.
That's nuts. It's also going to shark fin at some point.
Interesting, Schlumberger said during q&a in their q3 they they had a contract for 400
wells 2019-2021 for the saudis, it was ghawar and one neighbouring field to the west that i
cant remember name of that all 400 wells were going into. They were also quite honest about
its purpose that it was to mitigate declines.
So that makes it pretty much exactly 50% of the russian drill rate per day in samotlor you
mention abowe.
I asked in previous thread why that many wells were needed if we are to believe saudis
200gb+ of world class reserves remaining. In my opinion i didn't get any answer to that
question.
Somebody way up above said because Russia uses natgas for transport they don't consume much
oil.
Gas consumption growth last year was 1.3% Oil consumption growth was 1%.
Russian car sales grew 18% last year after a double digit gain the previous year. Lada
dominates their sales, and as best I can see they are all petrol fueled. Hyundai and Kia are
a substantial presence as well, but I see no evidence in general of natgas dominating
transport.
American model sales seem at best obscure. It's Lada, Hyundai, Kia, BMW, VW.
The statement about Russia using natural gas heavily for transport is simply inaccurate.
Russia "only" consumes 3.2 million barrels per day of oil. But that's more because the
country does not have anywhere near the continent-wide car infrastructure and other wealthy
sprawl the United States built out.
And that was just overnight. On Friday morning, another activist, Kimmeridge Energy
Management Co., announced it had taken a stake in PDC Energy Inc., an exploration and
production company with operations in Colorado and Texas. Kimmeridge wants PDC to overhaul
its financial priorities, costs, governance and maybe, given the line about "considering
all strategic alternatives," its entire identity.
Fracking has helped the USA boost oil production, but that is pressuring to get oil out of
older wells. Once those have been sucked dry, we'll need to import lots more. You read news
about occasional big new discoveries in the USA, but read the details to see that each
amounts only to a few days of oil consumption in the USA.
The world still runs on oil and the USA wants to control it all. If you doubt the
importance, look at a freeway or airport or seaport to see oil at work.
I just copied this from Quora, posted as part of a long comment by a person who understands
the basics of the oil biz.
"Oil is becoming difficult to extract, and this operation is becoming increasingly expensive.
While it is true that the use of fracking has enabled the extraction of previously
inaccessible deposits, this just buys us a little more time. As it is, a Goldman Sachs study
found that the cost of extracting crude oil went up over 15% a year in the decade prior to
the economic slowdown (and is still rising by possibly 10% a year)."
Obviously enough, the cost of getting tight oil out is declining, but tight oil is only a
small part of total oil production. I'm not sure about the costs of tar sands oil, it may be
declining in real terms, or rising. I haven't seen anything recent on the costs of tight
oil.
Hopefully somebody in the biz will have something to say about the cost of conventional
oil production is changing, based on their personal knowledge.
If it is going up anywhere close to ten percent a year, in real terms, world wide, the
price of oil will HAVE to get back into the hundred dollar plus range within five or six
years, maybe sooner.. economic troubles can lead to some countries selling for less than
production costs.
My opinion is since the crack in 2014 aproximately all exploration offshore stopped, there
have been some discoveries near exsisting infrastructure that some have been built out as
tieback. In General even with cut in drilling cost , subsea tecnology , remote controlled
platforms a brent price of 65 usd bbl will make some profit for oil Companies but you will
never see a huge increase in activity to find billions of new barrels that is needed. There
is also a fact less discoveries are made each 100 wells drilled and size declining in
average. This trend together with increase labour cost , everything else in general will
demand higher oil price to solve a global supply crize..
This doesn't explain why the Saudi's spend billions building and operating peripheral water
injection systems and refineries that can handle oil with vanadium. If they truly have 266
billion barrels in the ground, all they would have to do is drill some wells and millions of
cheap, extra barrels/day would gush out of the ground.
They say, total new shale oil produced in March will be 628,526 barrels per day. (Net
increace+Legacy decline)
Net Increase will be 84,406 barrels per day.
Legacy Decline will be 544,119 barrels per day
Therefore for every 1 barrel per day increase, 7.45 barrels of new oil had to be produced.
Therefore for every 1 barrel per day increase, 7.45 barrels of new oil had to be
produced.
This is simply mind-blowing. And the more oil they produce, the more oil they need to
produce to keep from going negative. How long can they keep this up?
https://www.rigzone.com/news/permian_oil_and_gas_production_to_hit_new_records-21-feb-2019-158209-article/
Seems EIA predict production in Permian will increase from 3.98 MMbpd to 4.02 MMbpd next
month. Guess it have been mostely flat at least US production have been 11.9 MMbpd since
January. Think than an increase of 40 000 /3 month = 13. 333 x12 = 160 000 barrels for 2019
increase seems reasonable. World demand seems increase by 1.5-2.0 MMbpd. Hopefully Permian
production will increase significant when tje new pipeline is compleated 4th Quartile 2019
but that remaind to see.
Reviewing this past weekly(2/15) oil inventory report reveals import of 7.5 million
barrels/day and 7.0 million barrels/day for the past 4 weeks. Yet I hear how we are down to
perhaps 1-2 million/day and even that we are a net exporter. Could someone Help me understand
what is going on to this non oil person! Thanks in advance
I'm not one of the experts, but I can nevertheless answer your question!
Short answer:
The fossil fuel industry is in bed with certain politicians whose mascot is the elephant,
and together they put out a continuous stream of half facts, cherry picked facts, and
outright lies in furtherance of their own ends.
You're at the right place to get the straight dope. HERE.
Crude imports on line 5 as 7,522 kbpd, crude exports on line 9 are 3,607 kbpd for net
crude imports on line 4 of 3,915 kbpd.
Other supply includes products and natural gas liquids. It shows net imports on line 21 of
-2,809 kbpd. Total net imports of Crude and Petroleum Products on line 33 are 1,106 kbpd.
Why on earth would Saudi stocks be falling at such a rate? If Saudi is concerned about low
oil prices, they do not need to cut production, they only need to cut exports.
Saudi has 266 billion barrels of oil in the ground, and in the dead of winter, their
lowest crude burn season, their stocks are falling? Something just don't add up here.
Saudi Crude Exports Slump to 6.2M B/D in 1H February: Kpler
Shipments tumble by 1.34m b/d in 1H February, compared with same period in January,
consultant says in report.
BBG #OOTT
Are there any (public) estimates of how much SA produce vs. draw from inventory to cover
their exports or are all these charts based on their own reported figures?
There are several issues with the reported numbers that appears odd to me.
I found, back when I was reporting JODI data, that for OPEC, they used the "direct
communication" data rather than the "secondary sources" data for their OPEC production data.
But that was several years ago.
It's just their own reported figures. I know that the secondary sources quoted in OPEC MOMR
use tanker tracking and reported refinery runs to check OPEC production but beyond that I
don't know.
In summary, while I have not proven that Saudi has 270 billion barrels of proved oil
reserves, I think the evidence points in that direction. And if you accept a much lower
number, you essentially accept that there is a vast conspiracy involved in hiding the real
numbers.
An old post by me, maybe I got the idea from Robert Rapier. I hadn't realized he had
written something on this at the time. (If so I apologize to Mr. Rapier for the lack of
citation.)
I don't find Mr. Rapier's logic even close to impeccable.
Mr Rapier does not address a number of issues which concern Saudi reserves in his article.
For instance, KSA reserves are known to consist mostly of a relatively small number of giant
fields, as compared to the USA which has a much larger geographic area, many small fields and
perhaps close to a million wells drilled.
In KSA most of its oil resources are concentrated in about a fifth of its 830,000 square
mile geographic area. It has conducted a systematic and thorough search using seismic,
drilling and other tools to explore for other resources. I believe their best undeveloped
findings have been deeper gas in the known oily areas. The Shaybah oil field, said to be the
last of the elephants, was discovered in 1968. Remote and relatively expensive, it was not
developed until 1998. Likewise, the development of Ghawar also proceeded slowly, with the
last southern parts not being developed until around 2000.
The manner in which the country's resources have been developed has not been addressed. In
the USA every promoter with access to OPM has drilled, including many wells of questionable
economics. Would the LTO currently developing here be brought on at all, or very slowly
anywhere else? Is LTO really economic at today's prices?
In KSA the government owned oil company has systematically developed their resources, and
by most accounts they have been thorough, methodical, and have used cutting edge technology.
In the early 2000's they combined advanced seismic, drilling, and completion technologies to
create multi-lateral super wells which have been used to develop Shaybah as well as to
rejuvenate many older worn out fields such as Abqaiq. These super wells have allowed KSA to
maintain its massive production but when these traps have been depleted there is not likely
to be an encore.
The nature of the giant Saudi fields is different from the USA. Ghawar has been described
as the perfect trap. With high perm and porosity KSA expects to produce a large percentage of
original oil in place. The old reserve reports Rapier referenced also expected to recover
high percentages of original oil. Technology has certainly increased the amount of oil KSA
will recover but I believe they are looking at increasing recovery by a few, maybe up to 10
percentage points in each field. Their best result, is pulling forward production with their
super wells, not creating recoverable oil from resources such as shale which were previously
considered uneconomic.
Rig counts in KSA were around 10 for much of the 90's. They have increased sharply since
with the push to maintain their production around 10 million bpd. Current levels of around
130 rigs seem needed to maintain 10, not 25.
Of course, the underlying problem comparing USA reserves with KSA is the geology, and I am
not a geologist, but my understanding is that the persian gulf area is unique and not
comparable to USA.
EIA used to publish stats regarding number of US oil wells, gas wells and average TD per
well.
I guess there are over one million active oil/gas wells in US, including Alaska and GOM.
There are over 100K "shale wells already and US is adding 10K +/- per year.
Schlumberger had a graphic awhile back comparing the drilling intensity of the US to both
Russian and the Middle East. Was an eye opener.
After reviewing recent comments, I see an additional area to address, that of the D&M
reserve review. As one who used to do audits, I can tell you that auditors rely heavily on
management to present them with a basis for their opinion. Auditors cannot review everything,
and most are familiar with some of the noted failures such as Enron and Billie Sol Estes.
One of the old standard auditor jokes goes like this.
A prospective client interviews three firms and asks each the same question: What is 2
plus 2.
First firm answer is : We pride ourselves on our expertise, the answer is 4. They do not get
the job.
Second firm: We would like to research this question and provide you with a suitable answer.
No job.
Third firm: What did you have in mind? Job!
A bigger question is why would KSA want to overstate its reserves. At its face value, the
answer is they would not, lower reserves should lead to higher prices realized from their
oil. I don't think it is that simple. The Saudi regime is an oppressive dictatorship that
oddly relies on extensive welfare type payments to maintain power. They do have a national
interest in overstating their reserves, its sort of an Emperor's new clothes thing.
And if you accept a much lower number, you essentially accept that there is a vast
conspiracy involved in hiding the real numbers.
That sentence is total nonsense. In 1980 ARAMCO suggested that quotas would be allocated
on the amount of proven reserves each country has. That is, the greater their proven
reserves, the higher their quota would be. Within the next few years, every OPEC nation
started increasing their "proven reserves" with a pencil. And their reserves just kept
growing and growing and growing. They never did allocate quotas based on proven reserves, but
that did not deter any of them from continually increasing their numbers.
But it is just downright silly to suggest that there is a conspiracy to hide their true
reserves. Of course their true reserves, like those of Iran, Iraq, Kuwait and the UAE are
closely garded secret while their published reserves are published everywhere. But no
conspiracy is needed to keep their true reserves a secret. All they have to do is deny all
other published numbers. Besides, most OPEC officials really believe those numbers. It is not
really hard to believe something you really desire to believe.
I find it astonishing that you Dennis, or Robert, thinks a conspiracy is needed to claim
those absurded numbers. No, no, no. It's just a gross exaggeration, nothing more. A gross
exaggeration does not require a conspiracy and it is just absurd to claim it does.
Saudi Arabia published the first audit of its vast oil reserves since it nationalized its
energy industry about 40 years ago, saying its reserves total 268.5 billion, slightly more
than the 266.3 billion figure that the government published previously.
The audit, conducted by Dallas-based consultant DeGolyer & MacNaughton Corp., is the
first since Riyadh fully nationalized Saudi Aramco between 1976 and 1980, and it comes as the
kingdom tries to generate interest in Aramco ahead of a potential initial public
offering.
"This certification underscores why every barrel we produce is the most profitable in the
world, and why we believe Saudi Aramco is the world's most valuable company and indeed the
world's most important," Saudi Energy Minister Khalid Al-Falih said in a statement posted on
the state news agency's website.
This is a link from DeGolyer & MacNaughton about their audit on Saudi oil reserves. There
is no field by field split of the reserves or the quality – heavy, light, sweet etc
Feb 12, 2019
https://www.demac.com/dm-confirms-independent-assessment-of-reserves-in-saudi-arabia-for-the-saudi-arabian-oil-company/
DeGolyer and MacNaughton is pleased to acknowledge the recent completion of the first
contemporary independent assessment of reserves in Saudi Arabia for the Saudi Arabian Oil
Company. The study encompassed a highly detailed independent analysis of a massive dataset
and onsite review. More than 60 geophysicists, petrophysicists, geologists, simulation
engineers, reserves engineering specialists, and economists were involved in the 30-month
effort.
In 1943, one of our founders, Everette DeGolyer, surveyed the Middle East and Persian Gulf
area as part of the war effort. Mr. DeGolyer was quoted at the time as declaring, "The oil in
this region is the greatest single prize in all history." At the time of this survey, Mr.
DeGolyer's estimates and predictions that the Middle East would become the center of the
world's oil production were considered by some to be massive exaggerations, but his work has
since been found to be quite conservative. DeGolyer and MacNaughton's work in the Kingdom of
Saudi Arabia continues Mr. DeGolyer's legacy of knowledge and integrity, and the firm remains
at the forefront of the petroleum consulting services industry.
Below is a compilation of article links where you can find further information regarding
our most recent work in Saudi Arabia. At this time, DeGolyer and MacNaughton will make no
further comments on this extensive project.
More than 60 geophysicists, petrophysicists, geologists, simulation engineers, reserves
engineering specialists, and economists were involved in the 30-month effort.
All audits are paid for, so I guess that means we cannot believe any of them.
A reputable firm does not lie when they make these evaluations, they make their best
estimate as their reputation for honesty is the core of their business.
Just like tobacco danger audits funded by the tobacco industry were entirely credible
because the analyzing firms had to be so very careful about their reputation.
I also recall the brain cancer/cellphone linkage study was funded by Motorola and
challenging it on that basis never really got traction.
Why do they want to produce from the neutral zone – not really necessary the next 50
years with that reserves?
Why do they produce the expensive off shore fields? They could wait for a few decades more
before spending this money.
Normally, a tapped giant field produces for 50-60 years – so with an original 4-500
GB ressources(this survey + everything they produced already) they should have capacity for
up to 20 or 25 mb / day. They have erverything tapped they have, not some giant fields
untapped as reserve.
Russia produces 11 mb/day from reserves of round about 100GB.
Exactly, why would you develop more expensive and complicated offshore if you have
"unlimited" resources left in cheap and easily accessible already developed areas?
Dont they need that money to pave the streets with gold, balance the budget, keep people
happy? What king or politician would make that desicion? Lets develop the more expensive
stuff we dont need so i have less money to throw around.. makes sense?
Schlumberger mentioned in their q3 in the q&a they had contact for drilling 400 infill
wells for saudi during the next 3 years think starting year was 2019. Why is that needed if
these unlimited reserves are there?
Or should we look at it the different way, 400 new holes unlocks these reserves or perhaps
even more future reserves?
The Saudis have had 270B barrels of oil since the 80s even though they've been producing
3-4B/yr. An independent audit found, miraculously, that they still have 270B barrels of oil.
As a small business owner I can tell you that my books can be audited and deemed in good
order, and the auditor will never have gone back in the warehouse to see if there is actually
any of the stock that I have listed in the books. The Saudis will have 270B barrels of oil,
until, one day, they have none.
It's the 270 GB that implies they are lying – how much is unknown.
Reserve growth and production never is hand in hand – it would be slowly decrease to
200 during the 90s, increase to 300 with higher oil prices for reclassifying marginal fields
or introduction of new recovery technic, and reducing again.
Or a bump up with the discovery of a new field (this is always good for propaganda
reasons).
Instead it was constant 270 over almost 40 years – not believable. And the audit was
too near at this 270 – a 300 or a 250 would have been more believable.
So we still know nothing yet – perhaps it's 150, perhaps even 300.
Mamdouh G Salameh's Response to Robert Rapier's article
Jeffrey J. Brown
9:35 AM
From Oilprice.com (Dr Mamdouh G Salameh):
In a paper titled:"Saudi Proven Crude Oil Reserves: The Myth & the Reality Revisited"
I gave at the 10th IAEE European Energy Conference in Vienna, 7-10 September 2009, I reached
the conclusion that Saudi proven crude oil reserves actually range from 90-125 billion
barrels (bb) and not the 264 bb the Saudis were claiming then. That was 2009.
However, there has recently been claims that an independent audit has put Aramco's Oil
Reserves at $270 billion Barrels". It transpired that the audit was neither independent nor
unbiased since some of the companies that conducted the audit (DeGolyer, MacNaughton, and
Baker Hughes' Gaffney, Cline, and Associates) have or have had service contracts with Saudi
Aramco, so it can't truly be classified as an independent audit.
Still, I decided to make a new estimate of Saudi proven reserves by adding Saudi
production since the discovery of oil in 1938 till now (for which we have figures) and then
deducting them from Saudi claimed proven reserves along with an annual depletion rate of
Saudi aging fields averaging 5%-7% for the same period. My calculations came to around 70-74
bb of remaining reserves compared with the figure in 2009 allowing for production since
2009.
The fact that Saudi Arabia's proven reserves remained virtually constant year after year
despite sizeable annual production and a lack of major new discoveries since 1965 is due to
the Saudis increasing the oil recovery factor (R/F) and the oil initially in place (OIIP) to
offset the annual production. The Saudis have been declaring an R/F of 52% or even higher
when the global average is 34%-35%. They have also increased the OIIP from 700 bb to 900 bb
on the basis of Saudi Aramco projecting new discoveries which are yet to be discovered.
Venezuela does have the world's largest proven reserves estimated at 303 bb and growing.
However, the United States Geological Survey (USGS) estimates that there may be more than 513
bb of extra-heavy crude oil and bitumen deposits in Venezuela's Orinoco belt region. The fact
that the bulk of the reserves consists of extra-heavy oil doesn't detract from the fact that
they are proven and have been refined in Venezuela's own refineries in Texas and sold in the
United States as gasoline and diesel. Moreover, it is virtually no different from Canada's
tar sand oil.
Your argument that the rise of oil prices to triple digits has made Venezuela's extra
heavy oil economical to produce applies also to Canada's tar sand oil and US shale oil
(though shale oil is light).
Your argument that Saudi barrels were deemed to be economical to produce even before oil
prices spiked is a valid one but it misses the point about reserves. Irrespective of whether
crude oil reserves consist of light or medium or heavy or extra-heavy crude, once they are
proven they are all categorized as oil reserves. Of course, cost of production is a very
important factor in the economics of oil and the profitability of production. In this regard,
the production of Venezuela's extra-heavy oil at current prices is not different from an
economic point of view from US shale oil production or Canadian tar sand oil production.
Finally, the claimed audit about Saudi reserves smacks of a blatant attempt by Saudi
Aramco abetted by foreign oil companies which are beneficiaries of Saudi Aramco largess to
resurrect the IPO of Saudi Aramco. The IPO is dead and buried. We now know that the
withdrawal of the IPO was because of risk of American litigation related to the 9/11
destruction of the World Trade Centre in New York and question marks about the true size of
Saudi proven oil reserves. However, when Saudi King Salman called off the IPO, he justified
his decision by saying that he didn't want to expose Saudi Aramco's finances or reserves to
be scrutiny. His words speak volumes about Saudi reserves.
Dr Mamdouh G Salameh
International Oil Economist
Visiting Professor of Energy Economics at ESCP Europe Business School, London
The data suggest that on a net exports basis, after subtracting out rising domestic
liquids consumption, Saudi Arabia has been supply constrained since 2005.
Their net exports of total petroleum liquids (BP data base) increased from 7.1 million bpd
in 2002 to 8.7 million bpd in 2005, but their net exports have been below the 2005 level for
12 straight years, through 2017, averaging only 7.9 million bpd for 2006 to 2017
inclusive.
Note the large increase in Saudi net exports from 2002 to 2005 as annual Brent crude oil
prices approximately doubled from $25 in 2002 to $55 in 2005.
However, as annual Brent crude oil prices doubled again, from $55 in 2005 to $110 for 2011
to 2013 inclusive, Saudi net exports averaged only 8.0 million bpd during this three year
period of triple digit oil prices, versus 8.7 million bpd in 2005.
How they can claim that US tight oil will be produced in larger quantities if they predict stagnant oil prices and at those price
the US production is unprofitable.
So from now on it's all condensate, and very little heavy and medium oil.
I like BP propaganda: "The abundance of oil resources, and risk that large quantities of recoverable oil will never be extracted,
may prompt low-cost producers to use their comparative advantage to expand their market share in order to help ensure their resources
are produced." That's not only stupid but also gives up the intent...
Notable quotes:
"... In the ET scenario, global demand for liquid fuels – crude and condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and other liquids – increases by 10 Mb/d, plateauing around 108 Mb/d in the 2030s. ..."
"... All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies. Consumption of liquid fuels within the OECD resumes its declining trend. ..."
"... The increase in liquid fuels supplies is set to be dominated by increases in NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude ..."
In the ET scenario, global demand for liquid fuels – crude and condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and other liquids
– increases by 10 Mb/d, plateauing around 108 Mb/d in the 2030s.
All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies.
Consumption of liquid fuels within the OECD resumes its declining trend. The growth in demand is initially met from non-OPEC
producers, led by US tight oil. But as US tight oil production declines in the final decade of the Outlook, OPEC becomes the main
source of incremental supply. OPEC output increases by 4 Mb/d over the Outlook, with all of this growth concentrated in the 2030s.
Non-OPEC supply grows by 6 Mb/d, led by the US (5 Mb/d), Brazil (2 Mb/d) and Russia (1 Mb/d) offset by declines in higher-cost, mature
basins.
Consumption of liquid fuels grows over the next decade, before broadly plateauing in the 2030s
Demand for liquid fuels looks set to expand for a period before gradually plateauing as efficiency improvements in the transport
sector accelerate. In the ET scenario, consumption of liquid fuels increases by 10 Mb/d (from 98 Mb/d to 108 Mb/d), with the majority
of that growth happening over the next 10 years or so. The demand for liquid fuels continues to be dominated by the transport sector,
with its share of liquids consumption remaining around 55%. Transport demand for liquid fuels increases from 56 Mb/d to 61 Mb/d by
2040, with this expansion split between road (2 Mb/d) (divided broadly equally between cars, trucks, and 2/3 wheelers) and aviation/marine
(3 Mb/d). But the impetus from transport demand fades over the Outlook as the pace of vehicle efficiency improvements quicken and
alternative sources of energy penetrate the
transport system . In contrast, efficiency gains when using oil for non-combusted uses, especially as a feedstock in petrochemicals,
are more limited. As a result, the
non-combusted use of oil takes over as the largest source of demand growth over the Outlook, increasing by 7 Mb/d to 22 Mb/d
by 2040.
The outlook for oil demand is uncertain but looks set to play a major role in global energy out to 2040
Although the precise outlook is uncertain, the world looks set to consume significant amounts of oil (crude plus NGLs) for several
decades, requiring substantial investment. This year's Energy Outlook considers a range of scenarios for oil demand, with the timing
of the peak in demand varying from the next few years to beyond 2040. Despite these differences, the scenarios share two common features.
First, all the scenarios suggest that oil will continue to play a significant role in the global energy system in 2040, with the
level of oil demand in 2040 ranging from around 80 Mb/d to 130 Mb/d. In all scenarios, trillions of dollars of investment in oil
is needed Second, significant levels of investment are required for there to be sufficient supplies of oil to meet demand in
2040. If future investment was limited to developing existing fields and there was no investment in new production areas, global
production would decline at an average rate of around 4.5% p.a. (based on IEA's estimates), implying global oil supply would be only
around 35 Mb/d in 2040. Closing the gap between this supply profile and any of the demand scenarios in the Outlook would require
many trillions of dollars of investment over the next 20 years.
Growth in liquids supply is initially dominated by US tight oil, with OPEC production increasing only as US tight oil declines
Growth in global liquids production is dominated in the first part of the Outlook by US tight oil, with OPEC production gaining
in importance further out. In the ET scenario, total US liquids production accounts for the vast majority of the increase in global
supplies out to 2030, driven by US tight oil and NGLs. US tight oil increases by almost 6 Mb/d in the next 10 years, peaking at close
to 10.5 Mb/d in the late 2020s, before falling back to around 8.5 Mb/d by 2040. The strong growth in US tight oil reinforces the
US's position as the world's largest producer of liquid fuels. As US tight oil declines, this space is filled by OPEC production,
which more than accounts for the increase in liquid supplies in the final decade of the Outlook.
The increase in OPEC production is aided by OPEC members responding to the increasing abundance of global oil resources by reforming
their economies and reducing their dependency on oil, allowing them gradually to adopt a more competitive strategy of increasing
their market share. The speed and extent of this reform is a key uncertainty affecting the outlook for global oil markets (see pp
88-89).
The stalling in OPEC production during the first part of the Outlook causes OPEC's share of global liquids production to fall
to its lowest level since the late 1980s before recovering towards the end of the Outlook.
Low-cost producers: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq and Russia
The abundance of oil resources, and risk that large quantities of recoverable oil will never be extracted, may prompt low-cost
producers to use their comparative advantage to expand their market share in order to help ensure their resources are produced.
The extent to which low-cost producers can sustainably adopt such a 'higher production, lower price' strategy depends on their
progress in reforming their economies, reducing their dependence on oil revenues.
In the ET scenario, low-cost producers are assumed to make some progress in the second half of the Outlook, but the structure
of their economies still acts as a material constraint on their ability to exploit fully their low-cost barrels.
The alternative 'Greater reform' scenario assumes a faster pace of economic reform, allowing low-cost producers to increase their
market share. The extent to which low-cost producers can increase their market share depends on: the time needed to increase production
capacity; and on the ability of higher-cost producers to compete, by either reducing production costs or varying fiscal terms.
The lower price environment associated with this more competitive market structure boosts demand, with the consumption of oil
growing throughout the Outlook.
Growth in liquid fuels supplies is driven by NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude oil production
The increase in liquid fuels supplies is set to be dominated by increases in NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in
crude.
US reserves are estimated by some to about 50 billion barrels. Oil production, along with
reserve estimates, are growing in the US for one reason and one reason only, the advent of shale
oil. Reserve estimates before 2008 were based on conventional oil.
Onshore conventional oil production in the USA is in steep decline. Shale oil production is
intrinsically connected with financing and it produce along with oil a stream of junk bonds. At
some point investors might do not want them of the bubble start deflating. Then what.
Notable quotes:
"... Next three years for Shale Drillers may be a problem. I believe something like $150B in debt comes due between now and 2023. That's a lot of debt to roll over, as well as take on more debt to fund CapEx. ..."
"Dennis, with his calculation of a peak in 2025 + or – 3 years is about right."
That really depends on how much debt the Shale Drillers can take on, and presumes there is
not another global recession before 2025. Next three years for Shale Drillers may be a
problem. I believe something like $150B in debt comes due between now and 2023. That's a lot
of debt to roll over, as well as take on more debt to fund CapEx.
Without constant US Shale
production increases, world production peaks.
US reserves are estimated by some to about 50 billion barrels. Oil production, along with
reserve estimates, are growing in the US for one reason and one reason only, the advent of shale
oil. Reserve estimates before 2008 were based on conventional oil.
Onshore conventional oil production in the USA is in steep decline. Shale oil production is
intistically connected with financing and it produce along with oil a stream of junk bonds. At
some point investors might do not want them of the bubble start deflating. Then what.
Hugo Wrote:
"Dennis, with his calculation of a peak in 2025 + or – 3 years is about right."
That really depends on how much debt the Shale Drillers can take on, and presumes there is
not another global recession before 2025. Next three years for Shale Drillers may be a
problem. I believe something like $150B in debt comes due between now and 2023. That's a lot
of debt to roll over, as well as take on more debt to fund CapEx. Without constant US Shale
production increases, world production peaks.
Oil climbed as Saudi Arabia was said to curtail some output from its Safaniyah offshore oil
field, the largest in the world.
Futures in New York rose as much as 2.2 percent Friday, pushing toward its biggest weekly
gain in a month. Saudi Arabia was said to trim supply from Safaniyah to repair a damaged power
cable, while Russia plans to accelerate the output cuts it agreed to with OPEC+.
... ... ...
Saudi Arabian Oil Co.'s Safaniyah field has the capacity to pump 1.2 million to 1.5 million
barrels of crude a day, and is a major component of the Arab Heavy grade. The cable was damaged
in an accident about two weeks ago and repairs are expected to be completed by early March,
people with knowledge of the matter said.
"... I have been suspicious for some time that production numbers can be corrupted by fuzzy definitions. ..."
"... 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. ..."
I have been suspicious for some time that production numbers can be corrupted by fuzzy
definitions. Iran is being sanctioned, but Iran shares that enormous gas field under the
Persian Gulf with Qatar. Gas production yields condensate and it yields NGLs.
High vapor pressure NGLs get labeled liquefied petroleum gas, and that is used for
transportation fuel in India. Pentane Plus is used or called something akin to natural
gasoline.
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. Iran is using this to dodge
sanctions, or they did use it when condensate was not restricted. Don't recall if that
loophole was closed in the current sanctions. That would be a good thing to know.
The same thing can happen with shale. We hear all sorts of talk about how much gas is
being flared and how much gas is being captured, and you know perfectly well there has to be
condensate involved. There was an article a year or so ago about NGL capture in the Bakken,
but I don't recall any follow-up. It shouldn't take too much of a stretch on the part of
state regulators to find a way to count the high vapor pressure portion of NGL as oil.
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.
Exactly. And this, in turn, allows Wall Street to suppress the price of "prime oil"
using fake production numbers, fake storage glut (which is essentially condensate glut)
and similar tricks. Please note that the US refineries consume mainly "prime oil" while
the USA mainly produces (and tries to export at a discount) "subprime oil."
Pretty polished and sophisticated racket. It might well be that shale oil companies are
partially financed from those Wall Street profits as nobody in serious mind expect those
loans to be ever repaid.
So OPEC cuts are the only weapon that OPEC countries have against this racket.
In any case, I think all those nice charts now need to be split into "prime oil" and
subprime oil parts and analyzed separately. In the current conditions, treating "heavy
oil" and condensate as a single commodity looks to me like pseudoscience.
I do not follow Laredo Petroleum closely, however their recent year-end results and
operations summary contained disclosures that may affect north American shale production more
broadly, or perhaps they are company specific, I don't know.
Laredo is a nice sized E&P producing around 70,000 boepd in the permian, mostly in
Glasscock and Regan counties. Much of their production is horizontal Wolfcamp.
Laredo has been disappointed with its oil production recently, as well as an increasing
GOR.
"Laredo has taken action to address the reduced oil productivity experienced in 2018 that
we believe was impacted by the tighter spacing of some wells drilled in 2017 and 2018.
Responding to these results, the Company began widening spacing on wells spud in the first
quarter of 2019. Laredo expects this shift in development strategy to drive higher returns
and increased capital efficiency versus 2018 as widening spacing is anticipated to address
one of the causes of higher oil decline rates."
They have changed their developmental strategy to widen spacing to improve recovery and
mitigate the increasing GOR. They have also reduced their capex by around 35 % from $575
million in 2018 to a planned $365 million in 2019.
"Responding to the current commodity price environment of WTI strip pricing of
approximately $54 per barrel, Laredo expects to invest approximately $365 million in 2019,
excluding non-budgeted acquisitions. This budget includes approximately $300 million for
drilling and completion activities and approximately $65 million for
production facilities, land and other capitalized costs. Laredo anticipates adjusting capital
spending levels to match operating cash flow if operating cash flow does not meet budgeted
expectations. Should operating cash flow exceed budget expectations, free cash flow could be
used to complete additional wells, repurchase stock or pay
down debt.
By the third quarter of 2019, enabled by the Company's operational flexibility, Laredo
anticipates reducing activity from the current three horizontal rigs and two completion crews
to operating one horizontal rig and utilizing a single completion crew, as needed. The
front-loaded completion schedule and disciplined reduction in activity should drive free cash
flow generation in the second half of 2019 that is expected to balance capital expenditures
with cash flow from operations for full-year 2019."
Of course this is just one producers take on productivity concerns. Link below.
Interesting. They are more a gas company than an oil company with only 23000 of the 70000
BOEs being oil. Interestingly, they are forecasting oil production to decline 5% year over
year while BOEs rises high single digits, showing how gas to oil keeps rising.
As such a tiny oil producer (23000 barrels) its pretty meaningless in the grand scheme,
but very interesting nonetheless. Thanks for sharing.
"... The unplanned shutdown takes out another 1 million barrels a day of heavy oil from the market, Alex Schindelar, executive editor of content & strategy at Energy Intelligence Group tweeted Thursday, adding that the heavy crude oil market was already tight because of the OPEC output cuts and U.S. sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela. ..."
Saudi Aramco halts oil output at the world's largest offshore oilfield: report
Saudi Aramco halted oil output this week at Safaniyah, the world's largest offshore
oilfield, Energy Intelligence reported Thursday, citing sources familiar with the matter,
according to a tweet from Amena Bakr, senior correspondent at the news and research service
provider. Further information was only available through subscription-based Energy
Intelligence.
The potential impact on oil prices depends on how long output at the oilfield is down,
said Phil Flynn, senior market analyst at Price Futures Group.
"The thinking is that the field produces heavy crude, and the world is short of that [type
of] oil."
The unplanned shutdown takes out another 1 million barrels a day of heavy oil from the
market, Alex Schindelar, executive editor of content & strategy at Energy Intelligence
Group tweeted Thursday, adding that the heavy crude oil market was already tight because of
the OPEC output cuts and U.S. sanctions on both Iran and Venezuela.
In electronic trading, March WTI oil CLH9, +1.06% was at $54.51 a barrel, after settling
at $54.41 on the New York mercantile Exchange.
Okay, you will have to read the article to see how Robert arrived at his conclusion. But
his conclusion is:
So, I have no good reason to doubt Saudi Arabia's official numbers. They probably do
have 270 billion barrels of proved oil reserves.
I find his logic horribly flawed. Robert compares Saudi's growing reserve estimates with
those of the USA.
First, the US Securities and Exchange Commission have the strictest oil reporting laws in
the world, or did have in 1982. Also, better technology has greatly improved reserve
estimates. And third, the advent of shale oil has dramatically added to US reserve
estimates.
Saudi has no laws that govern their reserve reporting estimates.
From Wikipedia, US Oil Reserves: Proven oil reserves in the United States were 36.4
billion barrels (5.79×109 m3) of crude oil as of the end of 2014, excluding the
Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The 2014 reserves represent the largest US proven reserves since
1972, and a 90% increase in proved reserves since 2008.
Robert says US reserves are 50 billion barrels. I don't know where he gets that number but
it really doesn't matter. Oil production, along with reserve estimates, are growing in the US
for one reason and one reason only, the advent of shale oil. Reserve estimates before 2008
were based on conventional oil. Onshore conventional oil production in the USA is in steep
decline.
Robert Rapier is brillant oil man, but a brilliant downstream oil man. Refineries are his
forte. He should know better than the shit he produced in that article.
100 percent of Saudi Arabia's reserves are based on conventional oil. Their true reserves
are very likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 billion barrels.
As Ron Patterson explained several times here, OPEC members cheat. They cut from the
elevated, unsustainable level, achieved specifically to accommodate cuts.
So "after cut" level is often not that different from a reasonable "normal," sustainable
production level in their current production conditions, plus some, related to previously
delayed maintenance, shutdowns.
Four years of capital underinvestment bite production both in OPEC and non-OPEC. So
talking about excess capacity is somewhat problematic and we now need to distinguish between
"prime oil" and "subprime oil."
Most people who talk about "excess capacity" are interested in lower oil price (the list
includes US and EU governments ) That's why condensate and other "subprime oil" is counted in
total oil output. Supply of "prime oil" now is stressed.
In other words, everything connected with oil is now politically charged. That means that
it is not wise to take IEA data and their forecasts at face value. It should be viewed as an
opinion of the agencies deeply (institutionally) interested in the low oil price.
You need the ability to read between the lines, much like readers of the press in the
USSR. And as several experts here do. You need the acute ability to cut through "official
bullsh*t".
And neutral expert opinion is very difficult to come by. That's why this blog has so much
value.
Heads up. Some scroll upwards there is a quoted article from oilprice.com.
The writer is Nawar Alsaadi. I suspect we fell victim of presumption. He has an Arabic
sounding name, and that leads us to suspect he knows something about oil.
Look into this guy. There's nothing ugly or horrible about his background, but there is
nothing in it that shouts out expert. He is a writer. Including publishing fiction.
He's also "with" some investment firm. Turns out he's president and CEO of the firm and
conveniently an employee count is not easily found.
I'm curious – does anybody know, by the data trends, which OPEC country is likely to
run so low on oil that they become a net importer, next? I do understand this event may take
some time to occur.
If you take a look at PXD announcements, I reach the conclusion that Permian is slowing. Like
Dennis Coyne, I look at growth after fourth quarter 2018. Oil production in fourth quarter is
199.2 Kilo barrels/day. The guidance for 2019 is between 203 to 213 Kilo barrels/day. PXD is
spending 300 MM dollars for gas processing and water treatment infrastructure.
OPEC says they have 1214.21 billion barrels of proven reserves. And they say non-OPEC has
268.56 billion barrels of proven reserves. Average OPEC C+C production, over the last four
years, has been 12.78 billion barrels per year according to the EIA. The EIA says the average
non-OPEC C+C production over the last four years has been 16.8 billion barrels per year.
Okay, here is the killer. If those numbers are correct then the average non-OPEC nation
has an R/P ratio of 16 while the average OPEC nation has an R/P ratio of 95. If you think
those R/P ratio numbers are even remotely correct then I have a bridge I would like to sell
you.
I agree that the R/P numbers seem very suspicious. But if this is true then OPEC reserves
are closer to 400-500 billion barrels not 1.2 trillion barrels. That would give us another
trillion barrels at best to consume in the future in addition to the 1.3 trillion already
consumed. This brings the URR to 2.2-2.5 trillion barrels at best including extra heavy. What
do you think of the URR of 3.1 trillion barrels that is commonly assumed? Also canadian tar
sands and venezuelan heavy oil have very low EROI which brings down the extractable oil
reserves further. Do you think that is taken into account?
This fallacious narrative of the U.S. tight oil industry overcoming the oil price crash of
2014 through innovation and better efficiency is the product of bundling various tight oil
basins under one umbrella and the presentation of the resulting production data as a proof U.S.
shale resiliency.
To properly understand the impact of the oil price crash of 2014 on U.S. tight oil
production one must focus on shale basins with sufficient operating history prior to the oil
price crash and examine their performance post the crash.
To that end, the Bakken and the Eagle Ford are the perfect specimen.
The Bakken and the Eagle Ford are the two oldest tight oil basins in the United States, with
the former developed as early as 2007 and the latter in 2010.
Examining the production performance of these two basins in the 4 years preceding the oil
crash and contrasting it to the 4 years subsequent to it, offers important insight as to the
resiliency of U.S. tight oil production in a low oil price environment.
... ... ...
Both the Bakken and the Eagle Ford grew at a phenomenal rate between 2010 and
2014. The Eagle Ford grew from practically nothing in 2010 to 1.3M barrels by 2014, while the
Bakken grew five fold from 190K barrels to 1.08M barrels. Following the collapse in oil prices
in late 2014, the Bakken and Eagle Ford growth continued for another year, albeit at a slower
pace, as the pre-crash momentum carried production to new highs. However, by 2016, both the
Bakken and the Eagle Ford went into a decline and have hardly recovered since. It took the
Bakken three years to match its 2015 production level, meanwhile the Eagle Ford production
remains 22% below its 2015 peak. During the pre-crash years these two fields grew by a combined
yearly average of 600K to 700K barrels from 2012 to 2014. Post the oil price collapse, this
torrid growth turned into a sizable decline by 2016 before stabilizing in 2017.
Growth in both fields only resumed in 2018 at a combined yearly rate of 210K barrels, a 70%
reduction from the combined fields pre-crash growth rate.
The dismal performance of these two fields over the last few years paints a different
picture as to U.S. tight oil resiliency in a low oil price environment. The sizable declines,
and muted production growth in both the Bakken and the Eagle Ford since 2014 discredit the leap
in technology and the efficiency gains narrative that has been espoused as the underlying
reason beyond the strong growth in U.S. oil production. As we expand our look into other tight
oil basins, it becomes apparent that it was neither technology or efficiency that saved the
U.S. tight oil industry, although these factors may have played a supporting role. In simple
terms, the key reason as to the strength of U.S. production since the 2014 oil crash is better
rock, or rather, the commercial exploitation of a higher quality shale resource, namely the
Permian oil field.
... ... ...
The Permian oil field, unlike the Bakken and the Eagle Ford, was a relative latecomer to the
U.S. tight oil story. It was only in 2013, only a year before the oil crash, that the industry
commenced full scale development of that giant field's shale resources. Prior to 2013, the
Permian lagged both the Bakken and the Eagle Ford in total tight oil production and growth. As
can be seen from the preceding graph, the oil crash had only a minor dampening effect on the
Permian oil production growth. By 2017, Permian tight oil growth resumed at a healthy clip, and
by 2018, Permian tight oil production growth shattered a new record with production
skyrocketing by 860K barrels in a single year to 2.76M barrels. This timely unlocking and
exploitation of the Permian oil basin masked to a large degree the devastation endured by the
Bakken and the Eagle Ford post 2014. In essence, the U.S. tight oil story has two phases
masquerading as one: the pre-2014 period marked by the birth and rise of the Bakken and Eagle
Ford, and the post-2014 period, marked by the rise of the Permian.
To speak of the U.S. tight oil industry as one is to mistake a long-distance relay race
for the accomplishment of a single runner.
The performance divergence between the Bakken, Eagle Ford, and the Permian has major
implications as to the likelihood of U.S. tight oil production suppressing oil price over the
medium and long term. A close examination of U.S. tight oil production data leads to a single
indisputable conclusion: without the advent of the Permian, the U.S. tight oil industry would
have lost the OPEC lead price war. Hence, it's a misnomer to treat the U.S. tight oil industry
as a monolith, in many ways, the Bakken and the Eagle Ford tight oil fields are as much a
victim of the Permian success as the OPEC nations themselves.
... ... ...
Considering that the majority of U.S. tight oil production growth is
generated by a single field, the Permian, changes in the growth outlook of this basin have
major implications as to the evolution of global oil prices over the short, medium and long
term. Its important to keep in mind that the Permian oil field, despite its large scope, is
bound to flatten, peak and decline at some point. While forecasters differ as to the exact year
when the Permian oil production will flatten, the majority agree that a slowdown in Permian oil
production growth will take place in the early 2020s.
According to OPEC (2018 World Oil Outlook), the Permian basin oil production curve is likely
to flatten by 2020, with growth slowing down from 860K barrels in 2018 to a mere 230K barrels
by 2020:
Saudi Arabia planning to drop March crude output by more than a half a million barrels per
day below its initial pledge.
... ... ...
OPEC said on Tuesday it had reduced oil production almost 800,000 bpd in January to 30.81
million bpd under its voluntary global supply pact.
Saudi Arabia Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih told the Financial Times that the kingdom would
reduce cut production to about 9.8 million bpd in March to bolster oil prices.
"... they expect maybe 200 kb/d higher output in the GOM and my interpretation of George Kaplan's and SouthLaGeo's recent comments is that flat or possibly declining GOM output is a more likely scenario. ..."
The EIA's STEO released today. https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/steo/
They forecast US C+C production to increase +0.79 million barrels per day during 2019
From Dec 2018 11.93 million barrels per day
To Dec 2019 12.72 million barrels per day
The EIA's forecast might not be too far off, but I think they expect maybe 200 kb/d
higher output in the GOM and my interpretation of George Kaplan's and SouthLaGeo's recent
comments is that flat or possibly declining GOM output is a more likely scenario.
Venezuela production should take a larger drop in February. Today Interim President
Guaidó announced Feb 23 would be the day a big push would be made to push humanitarian
aid columns into Venezuela. Collection points for food and medicine are now available in
Colombia and Brazil, and others are being prepared.
Maduro moved 700 special forces (FAES) which are usually kept serving as death squads in
large cities, to cover the bridges between Ureña in Venezuela and Cucuta in Colombia,
with orders to fire on the humanitarian relief trucks. Guaidó responded the border was
plenty long and Maduro lacked enough FAES and Cubans to stop the relief from crossing the
border. He also pointed out that if Maduro had to use death squads to patrol the border it
meant he didn't trust the Army, the National Guard or the National Police, so he asked for
volunteers inside Venezuela to help overcome Maduro's thugs with sheer numbers.
Today it became very common to see an individual scream "Maduro!" and the crowd respond "f
k you!". It's the way people pass the time at metro stations and while waiting in line. And
the police seem to have abandoned the usurper, because they seldom do anything about it.
Middle East oil benchmarks Dubai and DME Oman have nudged above prices for Brent crude, an
unusual move as U.S. sanctions on Venezuela and Iran along with output cuts by OPEC tighten
supply of medium to heavy oil, traders and analysts said.
Heavier grades, mainly produced in the Middle East, Canada and Latin America, typically have
a high sulphur content and are usually cheaper than Brent, the benchmark for lighter oil in the
Atlantic Basin.
"... By Justin Mikulka, a freelance writer, audio and video producer living in Trumansburg, NY. Originally published at DeSmog Blog ..."
"... Hints that gas investors are no longer happy with growth-at-any-cost abound. For starters, several major natural gas producers have announced spending cuts for 2019. After announcing layoffs this January, EQT, the largest natural gas producer in the U.S., also promised to decrease spending by 20 percent in 2019. ..."
"... As DeSmog has reported, the historically low interest rates following the 2008 housing crisis were a major enabler of the free-spending and money-losing attitudes in the shale industry. Wall Street has funded a decade of oil and gas production via fracking and incentivized production over profits. Those incentives have worked, with record production and large losses. ..."
"... However, much like giving mortgages to people without jobs wasn't a sustainable business model, loaning money to shale companies that spend it all without making a profit is not sustainable. Wall Street investors are now worried about getting paid back, and interest rates are rising for shale companies to the point that borrowing more money is too financially risky for them. And because they aren't earning more money than they spend, these companies need to cut spending. ..."
"... The days of unlimited low-interest loans for an industry on a decade-long losing streak might be coming to an end. As Bloomberg credit analyst Spencer Cutter explained to CNN : "Investors woke up and realized this was built on debt." ..."
"... One reason natural gas is so cheap right now is that fracking for oil in the U.S. ends up producing huge amounts of gas at the same time. This gas that comes out of the wells with the oil is known as "associated gas." And it is so plentiful that in places like the Permian Basin in Texas, the price of natural gas has actually gone negative . Paying someone to take the product that a company spent money to produce is not a sustainable business model. ..."
"... While U.S. politicians from both parties have given standing ovations for the U.S. oil and gas industry , investors appear to be losing their enthusiasm. The so-called shale revolution, the fracking miracle, may have resulted in record oil and gas production in North America, but the real miracle -- in which shale companies make money fracking that oil and gas -- has yet to occur. ..."
"... This has long been one of my concerns in the field. I've long held that the federal government should simply outlaw the practice, forcing drillers to find something to do with the gas (bury it, ship it or use it to create electricity). At the very least, it should be prohibited on federal lands as part of the contracts that are signed. ..."
By Justin Mikulka, a freelance writer, audio and video producer living in Trumansburg,
NY. Originally published at
DeSmog Blog
The fracked gas industry's long borrowing binge may finally be hitting a hard reality:
paying back investors.
Enabled by
rising debt , shale companies have been achieving record fracked oil and gas production,
while promising investors a big future payoff. But over a decade into the "
fracking miracle ," investors are showing signs they're worried that payoff will never come
-- and as a result, loans are drying up.
Growth is apparently no longer the answer for the U.S. natural gas industry, as Matthew
Portillo, director of exploration and production research at the investment bank Tudor,
Pickering, Holt & Co., recently told The Wall Street
Journal .
"Growth is a disease that has plagued the space," Portillo said. "And it needs to be cured
before the [natural gas] sector can garner long-term investor interest."
Hints that gas investors are no longer happy with growth-at-any-cost abound. For starters,
several major natural gas producers have
announced spending cuts for 2019. After
announcing layoffs this January, EQT, the largest natural
gas producer in the U.S., also promised to decrease spending by 20 percent in
2019.
Such pledges of newfound fiscal restraint are most likely the result of natural gas
producers' inability to borrow more money at low rates.
As
DeSmog has reported, the historically low interest rates following the 2008 housing crisis
were a major enabler of the free-spending and money-losing attitudes in the shale industry.
Wall Street has funded a decade of oil and gas production via fracking and incentivized
production over profits. Those incentives have worked, with record production and large
losses.
However, much like giving mortgages to people without jobs wasn't a sustainable business
model, loaning money to shale companies that spend it all without making a profit is not
sustainable. Wall Street investors are now worried about getting paid back, and interest rates
are rising for shale companies to the point that borrowing more money is too financially risky
for them. And because they aren't earning more money than they spend, these companies need to
cut spending.
CNN
Business recently reported that oil and gas companies stopped borrowing money in October
2018, but not out of restraint. Instead, CNN wrote, "investors, fearful of defaults, demanded a
hefty premium to lend to energy companies."
The days of unlimited low-interest loans for an industry on a decade-long losing streak
might be coming to an end. As Bloomberg credit analyst Spencer Cutter explained
to CNN : "Investors woke up and realized this was built on debt."
Canada's Natural Gas Market Facing 'A Daunting Crisis'
Prospects for natural gas don't look much better north of the U.S. border. Like the Canadian tar
sands oil market , the Canadian natural gas market is also in the midst of a long losing
streak. The problems facing the natural gas market in Alberta, Canada, is "far worse than it is
for oil," said Samir Kayande, director at RS Energy, according
to Oilprice.com .
Canadian natural gas producers are being crushed by the free-spending American companies
that could produce records amounts of gas at a loss while using borrowed money.
One reason natural gas is so cheap right now is that fracking for oil in the U.S. ends up
producing huge amounts of gas at the same time. This gas that comes out of the wells with the
oil is known as "associated gas." And it is so plentiful that in places like the Permian Basin
in Texas, the price of natural gas has actually
gone negative . Paying someone to take the product that a company spent money to produce is not a
sustainable business model.
Additionally, the U.S. oil and gas industry chooses to flare large
amounts of natural gas in oil fields because it's cheaper than building the necessary
infrastructure to capture it -- literally burning its own product instead of selling it. And the Canadian producers, who used to sell gas to the U.S. market, simply can't
compete.
A natural gas advisory panel to Alberta's energy minister addressed the crisis for Canadian
natural gas producers in the December 2018 report "
Roadmap to Recovery: Reviving Alberta's Natural Gas Industry ." The report's opening line
summarizes the problem:
" Traditional markets for Alberta natural gas are oversupplied. Prices, and therefore
industry and government revenues, are crushingly low and have been increasingly volatile
locally since the summer of 2017."
Noting the dire situation, one natural gas executive
predicted that "this will only get worse in 2019." Too much supply, not enough demand. To remedy this problem, the report recommended expanding supply, decreasing regulation, and
bailing out companies with financial backing from the government, with the ultimate goal of
producing more gas and exporting it to Asia.
With Alberta's reliance
on oil and gas to support its economy, it is easy to see why its politicians are loathe to
recognize the economic realities of the natural gas (and tar sands oil) industries. However, some politicians feel the same way about the American coal industry, and that
is dying
primarily because renewables and natural gas are cheaper ways to produce electricity.
Desperate Times for Leading Gas Producer
Chesapeake Energy is often held up as a case study
for the fracking boom. It was a huge early financial success story (based on its stock
price, not actual profits), and in 2008, its then- CEO Aubrey McClendon, known as the "Shale
King," was the highest paid
Fortune 500 CEO in America. Since those high times, it has been a rough decade for Chesapeake. The stock price is near
all-time lows -- where it has remained for years.
Chesapeake has stayed afloat by borrowing cash and currently owes around $10 billion in
debt. Unable to make money fracking gas in America since the days of the Shale King, Chesapeake
has a new strategy -- fracking for oil.
The Wall Street Journal
recently reported this shift in Chesapeake's strategy, referring to it as "ill-timed" and
"straining already frayed finances."
But Chesapeake is all-in on this new strategy. According to The Wall Street Journal,
Chesapeake CEO Doug Lawler said the company "plans to dedicate at least 80 percent of 2019
capital expenditures to oil production because it sees crude as the key to a more profitable
future."
One of the top gas producers in America and a "fracking pioneer" is abandoning fracked gas
as a path to a profitable future. The fact that Chesapeake now believes fracking for oil is a
path to a profitable future -- despite all the evidence
to the contrary -- gives this move an air of desperation.
While U.S. politicians from both parties have given standing ovations for the
U.S. oil and gas industry , investors appear to be losing their enthusiasm. The so-called
shale revolution, the fracking miracle, may have resulted in record oil and gas production in
North America, but the real miracle -- in which shale companies make money fracking that oil
and gas -- has yet to occur.
The North American natural gas industry is facing a crisis with an oversupplied market and
producers that are losing money. Those producers desperately need higher natural gas
prices. However, higher gas prices mean renewables become even more attractive to investors, which
may lead to gas following in the footsteps of coal -- dying at the hands of the free
market. It may take some time, but eventually investors wake up -- or run out of money.
I no longer wonder why US press treats the Nord Stream 2 as "controversial" with this glut
of debt fuelled natl. gas. Instead, the media should be clamoring against gas flaring, a
practice that should be banned. ClimateChange101 regulation.
It does illustrate what any Green New Deal would be up against. Not only are simple
environmental steps like no flaring opposed, but investors and drillers cling to an
extraction process that doesn't even make money rather than give in to a more rational,
government planned energy system. You begin to think it's not even about the money but more
about who's in charge. Before we conquer AGW we may have to conquer human nature. The
assumption behind the GND and indeed all AGW activism seems to be that if the world is just
shown the rational path then the world will take it. The above illustrates how very
irrational the world really is.
But the real miracle -- in which shale companies make money fracking that oil and gas --
has yet to occur.
Which will be a miracle.
I was involved in the service part of the Peace River area gas extraction (and some oil)
since the early 1980, and also when the shale gas extraction started in the early 2000's with
horizontal drilling changing the face of gas production.
By 2006/8 there was talk after heavy investment by Petronas of up to TEN LNG plants at the
west coats in the Kitimat area not one has been build to date, no pipeline exists and no
means to get any gas to market other than to the internal Canadian and the now oversupplied
US market. It was a failure of politicians and regulatory agencies to speed up the
permissions and likely as well the dithering by investors, that now Australia has taken on
the supply of the Asian market.
Granted they are speaking of Canada as the source of bailout, but the country will be
bailing globalist investors which maybe has gone on long enough? Anyway, the same neoliberal
playbook "I got your free market right here shame if somethin' was to happen to it "
To remedy this problem, the report recommended expanding supply, decreasing
regulation, and bailing out companies with financial backing from the government, with the
ultimate goal of producing more gas and exporting it to Asia.
This has long been one of my concerns in the field. I've long held that the federal
government should simply outlaw the practice, forcing drillers to find something to do with
the gas (bury it, ship it or use it to create electricity). At the very least, it should be
prohibited on federal lands as part of the contracts that are signed.
>in the U.S. ends up producing huge amounts of gas at the same time.
And thus they were family-blogged. For the simple reason that this wasn't your, let alone
your father's "oil bidness" anymore. Once upon a time wells were dug for water. You pumped water out, more seeped in. Should
have been forever but well that's another discussion. Then you dug wells for oil. They were finite, but they lasted decades. Now you think you are "digging wells", but what you really are doing is building an
underground factory. In a factory, you seed the inventory and say "go" and stuff comes out
the other end. To make another batch the crank needs to be turned again.
They don't have any model in their heads that matches this. Thus they wind up with what to
a manufacturer is obviously "scrap" production, aka stuff that they don't have a market for.
Why it took Wall Street so long to understand this is a mystery, except I do wonder if many
of them knew it but just wanted to "screw the greenies". They aren't going to miss any meals,
so why not I guess.
This is just f*&%"#g depressing. A decade of using debt that will be never be paid
back to put carbon into the atmosphere that will never go back in the ground, sometimes not
even extracting the energy from it first. We deserve what is coming.
I read "investors are showing signs they're worried that payoff will never come" as
"investors can't borrow money for cheap anymore now that the Fed has raised rates". If the Fed were to reverse course and CUT interest rates, the party will continue. Wanna
bet? In another topic, how would MMT prevent people from investing in fracking?
Talking to a 2nd or 3rd generation owner of a small family run oil and gas company that
maintains local wells about 8 months ago. I expressed my concern about fracking locally. He
laughed. Then said in a serious and not at all condescending tone that there is no money
going into fracking at these NG prices and it's unlikely to change in the future. He went on
to explain where the deposits were, the expense and environmental issues the large frackers
are up against and basically said he doesn't see a scenario where it's ever expanded close to
populated areas, if it recovers at all. He genuinely didn't see much future in it.
Of course there is no future in it. Shale deposits are vertically small that horizontally
extend large distances, which means horizontal drilling. Not only that, usually you need
parallel wells for water injection to force the oil or gas out. The cost are much greater
compared to conventional vertical drilling with the technical solutions necessarily involved.
The wells deplete rapidly within a few years, requiring new wells.
I have been on sites in the Peace where wells were producing mainly water after three
years.
Those opposed to fracking for environmental reasons should perhaps also consider opposing
it on national security grounds, since, given the limitations/costs of fracking, those
resources should be seen as emergency rations, to be tapped only when absolutely
necessary.
That fracked oil and gas is being spewed into the atmosphere when prices are low and
falling, and more easily-obtained stocks are plentiful elsewhere, is just compounding the
mania with insanity.
It also suggests to me that, since there isn't real money being made, there are
geo-strategic, National Security State-related reasons for the US' sudden impulse to jack up
oil production.
These Wall Street fracking and shale subsidies percolate through the entire economy. In
addition to obvious hangers-on like the automobile industry, you have privately owned
electrical utilities rushing to load up on as much stranded asset, centralized fossil fuels
generation and distribution infrastructure as they can jam through their respective state
public utilities commission before the gas bubble bursts.
What is important here is extending and preserving stock price rallies, elevated CEO
salaries and coupon-clipping opportunities for rentiers as possible, not economic
efficiency in any form that could be understood by anyone but bankers and financiers.
> Are Investors Finally Waking up to North America's Fracked Gas Crisis?
No, because they are not investors but gamblers.
Wall Street has funded a decade of oil and gas production via fracking and incentivized
production over profits.
More to the point, no Wall Street criminal was harmed because not one was stupid enough to
throw his or her own money on the roll of the dice, but they certainly took the gamblers
money and for a fat fee, throw the dice for them.
This is getting old. Why does anyone believe in free-market economics in an emergency?
It's puzzling that just when oil went into a huge glut and the heavy, full-to-the-brim
tankers lined up in all the deep ports, like treasure chests, and the price of oil dropped
because the global economy had been slashed by a third it was just at this time that Obama
made his panicked decision to frack, to deregulate, and to subsidize it. So these so-called
"investors" who are raising their prices for loans, have either seen demand come back and
want their fair share of the whole ponzi operation, or the QE that facilitated it all has
been tapped out politically, regardless of the economics. No one seemed to care that all the
natgas blown off each well was accelerating the CO2 effect, measurably. No one cared about
the polluted ground water. Nobody acknowledged that Germany didn't want our LNG. Only free
money could have caused this perversion of productivity, all this destruction, this gold rush
to nowhere. Our sovereign money should be distributed wisely. Never like this. And never into
a deregulated market.
Yikes, ugh, and AAARRRRRGH! Not the 1st I've heard of this (Gas Bubble), but this nails it
all down.
Was this (partly/directly) caused by QE? My impression is that QE pumped a bunch of
"money" into the top end of the economy (Assets/Wall Street), propping up the Stock Market,
but I've never gotten exactly HOW they did it.
Did the Fed just buy lotsa Stock (or Corp Bonds)? If so, did they (partly) create the Gas
Bubble by (over-) investing in Fracking companies? If so, they are now stuck bursting that
bubble as they "De-QE"; either they (We!) get out of that market early – blowing it up
sooner – or wait until it deflates "normally" and lose a bunch of (Our?) money.
Are the details of QE (how much of which assets the Fed bought) public?
"... Last year, oil production dropped by 37% compared with 2017. So, Maduro has been struggling to pay back the loans and last year, Sechin had to fly to Caracas to negotiate with the Venezuelan leader over delayed oil supplies. ..."
As of 2017, Russia controlled 13% of Venezuela's crude exports, Reuters
reported . According to some experts, Rosneft has been taking advantage of Venezuela's
difficulties to secure deals which will be profitable in the long term.
... ... ...
The beleaguered country's economy is on the verge of collapse and the oil sector, which
accounts for over 90% of national export revenues, has not been spared. Last year, oil
production dropped by 37% compared with 2017. So, Maduro has been struggling to pay back the
loans and last year, Sechin had to fly to Caracas to negotiate with the Venezuelan leader over
delayed oil supplies.
Russia's concern about a collapse in Venezuela's economy is tangible. A delegation of
high-ranking Russian officials flew to Caracas in October to advise the government on how to
overcome the crisis. With the country in a state of turmoil, Russia's Deputy Minister of
Finance Sergei Storchak
said he expects Venezuela to struggle to repay its debt, and the next $100 million tranche
is due next month.
Nations should explore better system to break US hegemony
"The US dollar is used for the international oil and gas trade and a wide part of global
trade. This gives the US an exorbitant privilege to sanction countries it opposes.
..
The latest sanctions on Venezuela's state-owned oil company aim to cut off source of foreign
currency of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro's government and eventually force him to step
down.
..
A new mechanism should be devised to thwart such a vicious circle"
My question is really about those at the top of the power pyramid (those few hundred
families who own the controling share of the wealth of the world) -- those who position
idiots like Bolton to do their work, do they comprehend 'exergy' decline ?
If we can, then can they not? I agree with Parenti that they are not
'somnambulists'. They are strategists looking out for their own interests, and that means
scrutinising trends in political movements, culture, technology and, well, just about
everything. I find it hard, the idea that all these people -- people who have seen their
businesses shaped by resource discovery, exploitation and then depletion, have no firm grasp
on the realities of dwindling returns on energy.
The models were drawn up 47 years ago. I think that some of them at least, do
understand that economic growth is coming to a halt, and have understood for decades. If true
then they are planning that transition in their favour.
These hard to swallow facts about oil are still on the far fringes of any political
conversation. The neoliberal cultists are deaf to them for obvious reasons; the socialist
idealists believe that a 'New Deal' can lead us off the death train, but mostly ignore the
intractable relationship between energy decline and financial problems; even the anarchists
want their work free utopia run by robots and AI but stop short of asking whether solar
panels and wind turbines can actually provide the power for all that tech. It's the news that
nobody wants to think about, but which they will be forced to thinking about in the very near
future.
The Twitter feed 'Limits to Growth' has less than 800 followers (excellent though it
is).
I do not want to get into the mind of the Walrus of Death Bolton! I do not want to know
what he does, as he does. But at lower levels of government, and corporatism, there is an
awareness of surplus energy economics. And as Nafeez has also pointed out, the military (the
Pentagon) are taking an interest. And though it could rapidly change, who really appreciates
the nuances of EROEI? I'm guessing at less than a single percent of all populations? And how
many include its effects in a integrated political sense?
Its appreciation is sporadic: ranging from tech-utopia hopium to a defeated fatalism of
the inevitability of collapse. Unless and until people want to face the harshness of the
reality that capitalism has created: we are going to be involved in a marginal analysis.
There are very few people who have realised that capitalism is long dead.
Dr Tim Morgan estimates that world capitalism has conservatively had $140tn in stimulus
since 2008 -- without stimulating anything or reviving it at all. In fact, that amounts to
the greatest robbery in history -- the theft of the future. Inasmuch as they can, those
unrepayable debts -- transferred to inflate the parasitic assets of capitalists -- will be
socialised. Except they cannot be. Not without surplus energy.
Brexit, gilets jaunes, Venezuela, unending crises in MENA, China's economic slowdown, etc
-- all linked by EROEI.
It is a common socio-politico-economic energy nexus -- but linked together by whom? And
the emergent surplus energy-mind-environmental ecology nexus? All the information is
available. The formation of a new political manifesto started in the 1960s with the New Left
but it seems to have been in stasis since. Perhaps this might stimulate the conversation.
According to Nate Hagens: there is 4.5 years of human muscle power leveraged by each
barrel of oil. We are all going to be working for a very long time to pay back the debts
the possessing classes have built up for us -- with absolutely no marginal utility for
ourselves.
We are subsidising our own voluntary slavery unless we develop an emergent ecosocialist
and ecosophical alternative to carbon capitalism. We cannot expect paleoconservative carbon
relics like Bolton -- or anyone else -- to do it for us. The current political landscape is
dominated by a hierarchical, vested interest, carbon aristocracy. We can't expect that to
change for our benefit any time ever. Expect the opposite.
Graeber has a point, though. We could already have a post-scarcity, post-production society
but for the egregious maldistribution of resources and employment. Andre Gorz said as much 50
years ago (Critique of Economic Reason). Why do we organise around production: it makes no
sense but for the relations of production are, and remain, the relations of hierarchical
rule. So long as we assign value to a human life on the basis of meritocratic productivity --
we will have dehumanisation, marginalisation, and subjugation (haves and have nots). So why
not organisation around care, freedom and play?
Such a solution would require the transversalistion of society and not-full-employment: so
that no part of the system is subordinate, and no part is privileged. All systems and
sub-ordinate (care) systems would be co-equal, of corresponding value and worth. So, without
invoking EROEI, that would go a long way to solve our exergy, waste, pollution, and
inequality problems. It is the profligate, unproductive superstructure: supporting rentier,
surplus energy accumulating, profit-seeking suprasocieties -- that squanders our excess
energy and puts expansive spatio-temporal pressures on already stretched biophysical
ecological systems that engenders potential collapse. It is their -- the possessing classes
-- assets that are being inflated, at our environmental expense. When it comes to
survivability, we cannot afford a parasitic globalised superstructure draining the host --
the ecologically productive base. Without the over-accumulation, overconsumption, and wastage
(the accursed share) associated with the superstructure of the advanced economies -- and
their cultural, credit, military imperialisms I expect we could live quite well. Without the
pressures of globalised transportation networks, and unnecessary military budgets -- the
pressure on oil is minimised. It could be used for the 1001 other uses it has, rather than
fuelling Saudi Eurofighters bombing Yemeni schoolchildren, for instance. The surplus energy
could be used to educate, clothe and feed them instead. That would be a better use of
resources, for sure.
If we took stock of what we really have, and what we really are -- a form of spiritual
neo-self-sufficiency, augmented and extended into co-mutual care and freedom valorising
ecologies we wouldn't need to chase the perceived loss all over the globe, killing everything
that moves. The solutions are not hard, they are normative, once we are shocked out of this
awful near-life trance state of separationism. Thanks for the link.
It seems to me that there are two parallel arguments going on.
One is about social organisation, attitudes towards and policies determining work, money,
paid employment, technological development and the distribution of weath.
The other is fundamentally based on the laws of thermodynamics and concerns resource limits,
energy surpluses, the role of 'stored sunlight' in producing things and doing work for each
other, pollution and projections about these into the future.
I am surprised that Graeber (just as an example) seems to basically ignore the second of
these even though he clearly is an incisive thinker and makes good points about the first. It
is taken as a given that, theoretically at least, human civilisation could re-organise around
a new ethic, transform the economy into a 'caring economy', re-structure money, government
and do away with militarism. In terms of what to do now, as an individual, what choices to
make, it is disconcerting to me when talk of these ideals seems to ignore those latter
questions about overshoot.
I wonder if the egalitarian nature of much of indiginous North American society was
inescapably bound with the realities of a low population density, low technology,
intimate relationship with the natural world and a culture completely steeped in reverence
for Mother Earth.
The talk I hear from Bastani or Graeber along the lines of 'we could be flying around in jet
packs on the moon, if only society was organised sensibly' rings hollow to me.
Welcome to my world! Apart from as a managerial tool, systems thinking has yet to catch on
in the wider population. According to reductive materialism: there are two unlinked
arguments. According to Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) there is only one integrated argument --
with two inter-connected correlative aspects. We can only organise around what we can
energetically afford. Consequently, we cannot organise around what we cannot afford -- that
is, global industrialised production with a supervenient elitist superstructure.
Let's face it : ethical arguments carry little weight against organisation around
hierarchical rule. The current talk of an ethical capitalism -- in mixed economies with
'commons' elements -- is an appeasement. and distractional to the gathering and ineluctable
reality.
The current (2012) EROI for the UK is 6.2:1 -- barely above the 'energy cliff' of 5:1. The
GDP 'growth' and bullshit jobs are funded by monetised debt (we borrow around £5 to
make every £1 -- from Tim Morgan's SEEDS). From the Earth Overshoot Day website: the UK
is in economic overshoot from May 8th onward.
These are indicators that we will not be "flying jetpacks on the moon": even if we
reorganise. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will have to make do with less. A lot less.
Everything would have to be localised and sustainable. Production would be minimised, and not
at all full. Two major systems of production -- food (agroecology) and energy -- would have
to be sustainable and self-sovereign. And financialisation and the rentier, service economy?
Now you can see why no one, not even Dave the crypto-anarchist, is talking about reality.
Elitism, establishment and entitlement do not figure in an equitable future. We can't afford
it, energetically or ethically.
So when will the debate move on? Not any time the populace is bought into ideational
deferred prosperity. All the time that EROEI is ignored as the fundamental concept governing
dwindling prosperity -- no one, and I mean no one, will be talking about a minimal surplus
energy future. The magic realism is that the economic affordances of cheap oil (unsustainably
mimicked by debt-funding) will return sometime, somehow (the technocratic superfix). The
aporia is that the longer the delay, the less surplus energy we will have available to
utilise. Something like the Green New Deal -- that has been proposed for around two decades
now -- may give us some quality of life to sustain. Pseudo-talk of a Customs Union, 'clean'
coal, and nuclear power, will not.
An integrated reality -- along the model of Guattari's 'Three Ecologies' -- of mind,
economy, and environment is well, we are not alone, but we are ahead of the curve. The other
cultural aporia is that we need to implement such vision now. Actually, about thirty years
ago but let's not get depressive!
We are going to need that cooperative organisation around care and freedom just to get
through the coming century.
As mentioned elsewhere here, Venezualan oil deposits are not all that the hype cracks them up
to be. They are mostly oil sands that produce little in the way of net energy gain after the
lengthy process of extraction.The Venezuala drama is about the empire crushing democracy
(i.e. socialism), not oil. [not that this detracts from Kit's essential point in the
article].
The Left (as well as the Right), by and large have not come to terms with the realities of
the decline in net surplus energy that is unfolding around the world and driving the
political changes that we see. So they still view geopolitics in terms of the oil economy of
pre-2008.
The productive economies of Europe are falling apart (check Steve Keen's latest on Max and
Stacy -- although even i he doesn't delve into the energy decline aspect).
The carbon density of the global economy has not changed in the 27 years since the founding
of the UNFCCC.
The Peak Oil phenomenon was oversimplified, misrepresented and misunderstood as a simple
turning point in overall oil production. In truth it was a turning point in energy
surplus.
I predict that by the end of this or next year, everyone will be talking about ERoEI.
Everyone will realise that there is no way out of this predicament. Maybe there are ways to
lessen the catastrophe, but no way to avert it. This will change the conversation, and even
change what 'politics' means (i.e. you cannot campaign on a 'new start' or a 'better,
brighter future' if everyone knows that that physically cannot happen).
Everyone will understand that their civilisation is collapsing.
Does Bolton understand this?
If you were referring to my earlier comments about Venezuelan extra heavy crude: it's
still massively about the oil. The current carbon capitalist world system does not understand
surplus energy or EROEI, as it is so fixated on maximal short term returns for shareholders.
It can't comprehend that their entire business model is unsustainable and self cannibalising.
Which is bad for us: because carbon net-energy (exergy) economics it is foundational to all
civilisation. The ignorance of it and subsequent environmental and social convergence crises
threatens the systemic failure of our entire civilisation. The Venezuelan crisis affects us
all: and is symptomatic of a decline in cheap oil due to rapidly falling EROEI.
I can't find the EROEI specifically for Venezuelan heavy oil: but it is only slightly more
viscous than bitumen -- which has an EROEI of 3:1. Let's call it 4:1: the same as other tight
oils and shale. Anything less than 5:1 is more or less an energy sink: with virtually no net
energy left for society. The minimum EROEI for societal needs is 11:1. Does Bolton understand
this? Francis hit the nail on the head there.
Do any of our leaders? No. If they did, a transition to decentralisation would be well
under way. Globalised supply chains are systemically threatened and fragile. A globalised
economy is spectacularly vulnerable. Especially a debt-ridden one. Which way are our leaders
trying to take us? At what point will humanity realise we are following clueless Pied Pipers
off the Seneca Cliff -- into globalised energy oblivion?
The rapid investment -- not in a post-carbon transition -- but in increased
militarisation, and resource and market driven aggressive foreign intervention policies
reveal the mindset of insanity. As people come to understand the energy basis of the world
crisis: the fact of permanent austerity and increased pauperisation looms large. What will
the outcome be when an armed nuclear madhouse becomes increasingly protectionsist of their
dwindling share? Too alarmist, perhaps? Let's play pretend that we can plant a few trees and
captive breed a few rhinos and it will all be fine. BAU?
The world runs on cheap oil: our socio-politico-economic expectations of progress depend
on it. Which means that the modern human mind is, in effect, a thought-process predicated on
cheap oil. Oleum ergo sum? Apart from the Middle East: we are already past the point where
oil is a liability, not a viability. Debt funding its extraction, selling below the cost of
production -- both assume the continual expansion of global GDP. Oil is a highly subsidised
-- with our surplus socialisation capital -- negative asset. We foot the bill. A bill that
EROEI predicts will keep on rising. At what point do we realise this? Or do we live in hopium
of a return to historical prosperity? Or hang on the every word of the populist magic realism
demagogue who promises a future social utopia?
EROEI = Energy Returned on Energy Invested (also known as EROI = Energy Return on Investment)
EROEI refers to the amount of usable energy that can be extracted from a resource compared
to the amount of energy (usually considered to come from the same resource) used to extract
it. It's calculated by dividing the amount of energy obtained from a source by the amount of
energy needed to get it out.
An EROEI of 1:1 means that the amount of usable energy that a resource generates is the
same as the amount of energy that went into getting it out. A resource with an EROEI of 1:1
or anything less isn't considered a viable resource if it delivers the same or less energy
than what was invested in it. A viable resource is one with an EROEI of at least 3:1.
The concept of EROEI assumes that the energy needed to get more energy out of a resource
is the same as the extracted energy ie you need oil to extract oil or you need electricity to
extract electricity. In real life, you often need another source of energy to extract energy
eg in some countries, to extract electricity, you need to burn coal, and in other countries,
to extract electricity you need to build dams on rivers. So comparing the EROEI of
electricity extraction across different countries will be difficult because you have to
consider how and where they're generating electricity and factor in the opportunity costs
involved (that is, what the coal or the water or other energy source -- like solar or wind
energy -- could have been used for instead of electricity generation).
That is probably why EROEI is used mainly in the context of oil or natural gas
extraction.
@Ilyana_Rozumova Despite huge increases in domestic oil production in the last years the
USA is still the second largest net oil importer in the word (behind China).
Also the USA is extracting its proven reserves at a much faster rate than any other large
producer (a pattern it also had in the past, leading to high fluctuation in its production)
so unless new reserves are discovered US production will likely start to decline again within
a few years.
@Ilyana_Rozumova Condensate, not oil. Only good for gas or lighter fluid. It may be
called oil but that's a deliberate misnomer.
Only financial engineering makes it appear profitable. Its a money losing psychopaths
power play, not a business. Without a heavy real oil to blend it with its useless, heavy oil
is where Venezuela comes in.
@Ilyana_Rozumova "Main factor here is that US due to fracking become self sufficient,
what actually nobody could foresee. Just a bad luck".
Bad luck for the USA. They have fallen into an elephant trap, because fracking has already
become unprofitable and is only being financed by ever-increasing debt.
Admittedly this gives them some advantage, but only in the very short term.
Of course, it doesn't really matter – in the short to medium term – whether
fracking is profitable or grossly unprofitable. They can still pay for it by printing more
dollars, as long as the "greater fools" (or heavily bribed officials) in other countries go
on accepting dollars.
"America's energy security just got a lot more secure . Located in the Wolfcamp Shale
and overlying Bone Spring Formation, the unproven, technically recoverable reserves are
officially the largest on the planet."
None of these breathlessly optimistic articles say how expensive it will be to get this
oil. If a dollar's worth of oil costs you more than a dollar to recover, you are obviously
losing in the deal. If you print the dollars, your entire economy loses.
DUBAI/LONDON (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia, the world's top oil exporter, cut its crude output in
January by about 400,000 barrels per day (bpd), two OPEC sources said, as the kingdom follows
through on its pledge to reduce production to prevent a supply glut.
Riyadh told OPEC that the kingdom pumped 10.24 million bpd in January, the sources said.
That's down from 10.643 million bpd in December, representing a cut that was 70,000 bpd deeper
than targeted under the OPEC-led pact to balance the market and support prices.
The Organisation of the Petroleum Exporting Countries, Russia and other non-OPEC producers -
an alliance known as OPEC+ - agreed in December to reduce supply by 1.2 million bpd from Jan.
1.
The agreement stipulated that Saudi Arabia should cut output to 10.311 million bpd, but
energy minister Khalid al-Falih has said it will exceed the required reduction to demonstrate
its commitment.
Crude shipments to the U.S. from OPEC and its partners fell to 1.41 million barrels a day in
January, the lowest in five years, according to data from cargo-tracking and intelligence
company Kpler. Shrinking Iraqi imports and deep output cuts by Saudi Arabia fueled the
decline
So Trump imposed sanction on the USA too. Of he hopes that Strategic petroleum reserve will
compensate for shortages... If Venezuela color revolution develops into Libya scenario, which
they could oil output can be suppressed for years to come. In other words Trump really has
chances to became Republican Obama.
Moreover, not only are the effects of the sanctions more far-reaching, but also more
immediate than first thought. At first, the U.S. seemed to exempt shipments that were underway,
outlining a sort of phased approach that would allow a handful of American refiners to
gradually unwind their oil purchase from Venezuela. The phased approach, which was supposed to
be extended into April, would help "to minimize any immediate disruptions," U.S. Secretary of
Treasury Steven Mnuchin said in late January.
But that now does not appear to be what is unfolding. PDVSA has demanded upfront payment,
likely because it fears not being paid at all or having the revenues steered to the opposition.
Indeed, the U.S. effort to steer PDVSA and its revenues into the hands of the U.S.-backed
opposition leader Juan Gauidó appears to be a decisive turning point.
Oil tankers linked to Chevron, Lukoil and Respsol are delayed, redirected or sitting
offshore because of lack of payment. The WSJ says that several of those tankers had recently
sent oil to Corpus Christi, Texas, but are now anchored off the coast of Maracaibo sitting
idle. "This is an absolute disaster," Luis Hernández, a Venezuelan oil union leader,
told the WSJ. "There's almost no way to move the oil."
Unable to sell any oil, Maduro's regime could quickly run out of cash. The result could be a
humanitarian catastrophe, a merciless and destructive objective that the Trump administration
seems to have in mind. The U.S. government is essentially betting that by driving the country
into the ground, the military and the people will turn on Maduro. It could yet turn out that
way, but it could also deepen the misery and exact an unspeakable toll on the Venezuelan
population, the very people the Trump administration says it is trying to help.
In the meantime, oil exports are likely heading into a freefall. The WSJ says that labor
problems, including "mass defections of workers" are accelerating declines. PDVSA could soon
run out of refined fuel.
Officials with knowledge of the situation told the WSJ that Venezuela's oil production has
likely already fallen well below 1 million barrels per day (mb/d), down more than 10 percent
– at least – from December levels.
Wood Mackenzie estimates that production
probably stands a little bit higher at about 1.1 mb/d, but that it could soon fall to 900,000
bpd.
... ... ...
That would push up oil prices significantly. But the U.S. government has blown past the
point of no return, leaving it with no other options except to escalate. That means that
Venezuela is set to lose a lot more oil than analysts thought only two weeks ago .
Will loss of Vezuellian oil exports to the USA be compensated from the USA strategic
reserve? Who will compensate this oil? Canada ? Or Trump administration decoded that temporary rise of oil prices is OK in
view of more strategic goal ?
Notable quotes:
"... As for Venezuela's over-reliance on oil exports to support its economy, this is the result of past government policies before Chavez came to power. The US treated Venezuela as a petrol station and pro-US governments in the country turned it into a petrol station. ..."
Bart Hansen@20 - Oil production costs are complex, secret and mostly lies. With that caveat,
Venezuela was thought to have about $10 - $15 production costs on average. That includes
their light and medium crude, and zero investment in repair of their distribution networks.
Well over half of Venezuela's reserves are Orinco extra-heavy, sour crude. Essentially tar
sands, but buried 500m - 1500m deep that require solvent or steam extraction. So (guess)
maybe $30-range/bbl for production. Those tar sand oils produced are so heavy that they need
pre-processing and dilution before they can be refined or exported. Naphtha or other refined
products are used as dilutent and cost maybe $55/bbl today, but were around $75/bbl last
October.
U.S. refineries were pretty much the only ones paying cash for their 500,000 b/d of
Venezuelan crude. Trump's sanctions not only ban those imports, but also ban the 120,000 b/d
of naphtha and other dilutents we sold them.
Interesting to note that part of Trump's beat-down of the Venezuela little people is a ban
on the 120,000 b/d of dilutent last week. That will completely shut down their exports. They
could find another source of naphtha, but that source will be looking for $6.6 million a day
hard cash for it.
Maduro needs to sell Venezuela's gold to buy naphtha to export oil for ANY revenue. The
$2.5 billion the Bank of England can't find and won't deliver is meant to hasten the food
riots and CIA-orchestrated coup. But Mercy Corps is setting up concentration camps on the
Colombian border and we're delivering food aid, so the U.S. is really the hero, here. God
bless America! Obey, or die.
Red Ryder @ 30: Venezuela's economy is as much ruined by US economic sanctions against the
country and (at US behest) Saudi Arabia's flooding of the global oil market that sent oil
prices down in order to crash the economies of other countries like Iran and Russia that were
presumed to be dependent on oil exports, as by mismanagement or poor leadership on Chavez or
Maduro's part.
On top of that, major food importers and producers (several of which are owned by
companies or individuals hostile to Chavez and Maduro) have been withholding food from
supermarkets to manipulate prices and goad the public into demonstrating against the
government.
As for Venezuela's over-reliance on oil exports to support its economy, this is the
result of past government policies before Chavez came to power. The US treated Venezuela as a
petrol station and pro-US governments in the country turned it into a petrol
station.
Chavez did try to encourage local food production and carried out some land redistribution
to achieve this. But his efforts did not succeed because importing food was cheaper than
producing it locally and farm-workers apparently preferred jobs in the oil industry that paid
better and were more secure.
I do not know how the collectives were organised, whether they had some independent
decision-making abilities or not, or whether they were organised from top down rather than
bottom up, so I can't say whether their organisational structures and the internal culture
those encouraged worked against them.
The bank expects oil supply to tighten in the first quarter as top exporter Saudi Arabia
cuts production , but Citi's Ed Morse also forecasts a soft spot for demand in the opening
months of 2019. Further complicating matters are a series of geopolitical and market dramas
that will play out through the beginning of May.
This follows a three-month period that saw oil prices spike to nearly four-year highs as the
market braced for U.S. sanctions on Iran. Prices then tumbled more then 40 percent to 18-month
lows, blowing up long-held trading strategies and forcing drillers to rethink their 2019
budgets.
"The volatility every year is a good $20 to $25 a barrel between low and high," Morse said.
"December was kind of the nightmare for the world where the swings were $50 at a low, $86 at a
high and $68 for the average of Brent."
... ... ...
Citi expects Brent crude to continue rising into the mid-$60 range and hit $70 before year
end. That will be enough to keep in play another wild card: surging U.S. oil production.
Feb 2, 2019 The REAL Reason The U.S. Wants Regime Change in Venezuela. The U.S. and its
allies have decided to throw their weight behind yet another coup attempt in Venezuela. As
usual, they claim that their objectives are democracy and freedom. Nothing could be farther
from the truth.
Feb 3, 2019 Venezuela's Oil Enough for World's 30 Year Energy Needs
The long bankrupt fiat financial system is pushing the Deep State to target Venezuela for
the latter's natural resources that dwarfs that of its satellite province Saudi Arabia.
Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what
having that oil control will mean for the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we
blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has
Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the
Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran,
figuratively or literally. The US signed a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply
Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.
"... Big oil has its benefits, and this benefit fits into big oil's need for future existence. When the price of oil goes up, then what's the projected stock price of Exxon or Chevron? They will be back into the mode they were in decades ago, start to finish. ..."
Motiva had previously upgraded refinery capacity to accept light oil, Exxon keeps adding
more, and now Chevron will, no doubt, expand.
Maybe the big oil will buy up some more of the weaker Permian players, which could slow
down the insane growth; and make the Permian more of a feeder for their refineries than an
export source. I really can't imagine that they are spending billions on refineries with the
expectation that it may start to expire in five years. Exxon and Chevron are already two of
the top ten producers in the Permian, and they can get bigger, if they want to.
Gobbling up most of these producers would only amount to a snack for them. And doing it
while the pure Permian producers a floating in the doldrums of 2019 would fit perfectly.
That could affect projections for US shale growth. The refiners would look at it over a
longer term usage, and not how much they can ship out. However, it could still lower net
imports. Win, win.
Thus, possibly saving West Texas from extinction, and move away from boom or bust some.
Add pipelines to the East and West coast, and upgrade refineries, and you have a longer term
solution.
With Canadian and Mexican heavy oil and sprinkle in some EOR, we could get by for a longer
period of time. Peak oil is a meaningful event, but it does not, absolutely, have to affect
the US for a while.
On a different topic, a Japanese company is interested in becoming an Eagle Ford player.
Japan needs LNG. Eagle Ford has a largely untapped huge gas window. So, even if we do not use
the planned upgraded ports for oil, we may still be using them for LNG.
Ok, it's only a dream, now, but the parts are beginning to come together. Big oil has
its benefits, and this benefit fits into big oil's need for future existence. When the price
of oil goes up, then what's the projected stock price of Exxon or Chevron? They will be back
into the mode they were in decades ago, start to finish.
This rings true to me. The big boys have few other options left for expansion (Guyana, Mexico
and/or Brazil if they can work their way through the corruption) other than the Permian. Oil
prices are likely to remain volatile for the foreseeable future, generating occasional buying
opportunities for companies with lots of cash on hand. Kind of the way the tech giants like
Apple and Amazon and Facebook bought up all the small fry app/tech companies for lack of
anything better to do with their money. If this happens I would expect a slower pace of
development to emerge for tight oil over the next decade and a longer tail.
Yeah, that's what I'm thinking. Make peak closer to the time period of somewhere pretty
close. I think we better move, we may be sitting to close to that smelly fan.
Chevron's holdings are the size of Yellowstone, and Exxon is not far behind. Will they
pick up any additional acreage if the get a good buy? Does a dog bark?
This says nothing about the quality of rock, but lists acreage by the top holders. Oxy,
ConocoPhillips, and EOG will be more conservative in development, and are not really prime
acquisition targets. But adding them and Exxon and Chevron, you get most of the acreage.
Energen and Diamondback have merged.
Leach, chairman and chief executive officer of Concho Resources, cited statistics
indicating Permian Basin crude production is expected to climb from the current 4 million
barrels a day to 6 million barrels a day in just six years. That, he told the sold-out crowd
at the Horseshoe, would comprise 7 percent of total world oil production and 40 percent of
U.S. production. In addition, the Permian Basin could see 45,000 new high-paying technical
jobs on top of the 50,000 jobs that have been created since about 2000.
"Companies operating here today will be investing $50 billion a year in drilling and
completing wells," leading to over $1 trillion in spending in that same timeframe, he said.
That has created numerous opportunities throughout the Permian Basin, but also significant
challenges, he said.
When he and other leaders of local oil companies review their business plans and consider
their greatest concerns, he said it's not sand or pipeline capacity or technology.
"Collectively, they say it's schools, roads, doctors and housing."
The problem is that the decline of the conventional fields does not sleep...
Notable quotes:
"... If it takes more energy to extract the oil from shale than you get from the oil you pump out then it is a sink, not a source. For instance it would be extremely difficult to extract oil from offshore shale. You would have to ship the sand out by barge, build huge platforms for every well to hold all that fracking equipment and so on. ..."
"... Return on investment is the primary problem with shale. If it cost more in time and energy than you receive from the extracted producte, it will stay in the ground. Anyway, that's just my unprofessional opinion. Some of the professionals on this blog may have a better educated opinion. ..."
"... New shale production, which is subject to extraordinarily fast decline in and of it self, would have to be brought online fast enough to offset both its own decline PLUS the decline of the worlds giant conventional legacy oil fields. ..."
"... Even if it's profitable to do so, and in large enough quantities, at some particular price, this does not necessarily mean that it will be possible to muster enough capital, equipment, skilled labor, and political will to make it happen FAST ENOUGH to offset conventional legacy oil declining production. ..."
"... I have read from news lately a more strict requirements from investors, banks, hedge funds makes it reasonable that investment in shale oil compeared to 2018.budget will be reduced by 19%. ..."
"... I doubt there will be lots of investments in US shale with oil price in range 50-60 USD, because there is significant documentation only a very limited part ( decreasing) within core area is profitable as of now. Beside this a oil price in range 50-60.WTI or 55- 65 usd each barrel Brent is not enough to pay the cost of exploration drilling offshore, build new infra structure. ..."
New here, been lurking for a while. I'm a geologist with a small oil and gas exploration and
operating company. We explore conventional only. I have however read all your predictions of
peak oil etc. but don't you think that given higher prices, other basins world wide that are
similar to the Permian could be successfully exploited for years to come holding off peak oil
for decades? I'm no expert but I would venture there are hundreds of basins that could as
good or better than the Permian. Just in the U.S., we have the Permian, Bakken, Niobrara,
Eagleford and about a dozen others. Surely our success could be duplicated on a global scale
if the price was right.
There is the Vaca Muerte in Argentina, but probably under the scale of the Eagle Ford. There
are a LOT of contraints holding the dead cow back. A lot of countries I have heard of that
have gas potential, e.g. China, even UK. But, I have not heard of a lot of oil potential. The
way my limited understanding goes, the play has to be new enough on the geological age, to
still have oil. As in, the Eagle Ford has three windows which depend on geological age, and
pressure. The oil window is younger, the condensate and gas windows are older. I think the
Permian will have areas, too. But, I received my geology degree from a cracker jacks box
but your last sentence may hold some
validity. For that matter, I don't think shale has given up completely after the first go
round, if the price is right. Would that delay peak to another date? Quien sabe. Money talks.
What price? I know I would keep an ICE around for long trips at $200 a barrel for the
convenience. Food may be higher, though.
Speaking as a geologist, this is incorrect. Thermal maturity depends on far more than age. The Utica gas window is 300 million years older than the eagle fords gas window, just for
example.
Yes, of course there are more shale sources out there. But perhaps not as many as you think.
All reservoir rock is not so tight as to hold most of its oil in place. There is, or rather
was, lots of oil in West Texas but not much shale oil. The same is true for Southern
California. I suspect most of the Middle east is similar.
Also there is the cost. If it takes more energy to extract the oil from shale than you get
from the oil you pump out then it is a sink, not a source. For instance it would be extremely
difficult to extract oil from offshore shale. You would have to ship the sand out by barge,
build huge platforms for every well to hold all that fracking equipment and so on.
There are lots of shale oil sources in Russia. And if prices get high enough, they will
probably try to extract it. Imagine hauling train loads of sand to the north slope of Alaska,
then trucking it over the tundra by truck to every well. You would have similar problems in
Western Siberia.
Return on investment is the primary problem with shale. If it cost more in time and energy
than you receive from the extracted producte, it will stay in the ground. Anyway, that's just
my unprofessional opinion. Some of the professionals on this blog may have a better educated
opinion.
"If it cost more in time and energy than you receive from the extracted producte, it will
stay in the ground."
@Ron Patterson, you seem to be saying that extraction will go forward as long as there is
the potential for *any* marginal return, at least expressed in money if not in EROEI. So for
example, as long as I can charge $101 for a barrel of oil that cost me $100 to get out of the
ground, I'll keep doing it (or someone else will). Do you really think this is the case, or
is there a threshold/floor below which it won't make economic sense due to produce oil? Due
perhaps to knock-on factors in the larger economy? Obviously I'm no expert on any of this, so
please take it easy on me in any replies. Thanks!
Phil, I really have no idea at what point oil companies will decide it is not worth the
effort due to low profits or other causes, they will cease drilling. However it must be noted
that a majority of oil companies producing shale oil today are doing it at a loss. Of course
they all expect to be making money sometime soon. They expect prices to rise so they are just
trying to hang on until they are profitible.
So you see it is just not that simple. They may produce oil at a loss for some time before
they fold. But obviously they cannot produce oil at a loss forever. There are many factors
that govern their decision to fold their tents and walk away. I think it is impossible to
predict exactly at what or when that point is. At least it is beyond my ability to do so.
I don't have any better idea how much shale oil is out there, or whether it can be produced
profitably, than you do.
But I will add this much to the discussion. Even if it is out there , and can be produced profitably, this is no guarantee that shale
oil can prevent peak oil happening.
New shale production, which is subject to extraordinarily fast decline in and of it self,
would have to be brought online fast enough to offset both its own decline PLUS the decline
of the worlds giant conventional legacy oil fields.
Even if it's profitable to do so, and in large enough quantities, at some particular
price, this does not necessarily mean that it will be possible to muster enough capital,
equipment, skilled labor, and political will to make it happen FAST ENOUGH to offset
conventional legacy oil declining production.
It's been a while since I paid much attention to the actual numbers, but I know you are
well acquainted with them.
So what's your estimate, these days, of the conventional legacy oil decline rate? Have you
raised it or lowered it recently?
As I have read from news lately a more strict requirements from investors, banks, hedge funds
makes it reasonable that investment in shale oil compeared to 2018.budget will be reduced by
19%.
One significant player will reduce their number if riggs from 24 to 18 as they expect
oil price WTI in 2019 to be in mid 50 usd range.
To me it seems the confident among investors
to US shale have changed significant espesialy 4th quartile of 2018. Now they only want to
support projects that give cash return , seems they are tiered of promises as there have been
to much of and shale oil depth have never been higher.
Since oil demand is linked to groth
in world economy that is also same for interest of liability. EIA , and some other analyst
like Rystad sees US shale production in 2019 will continue with strong increase and predict
we only have seen the beginning. After working within oil and gaz projects in many years I
know the oil majours dont want to loose money ,when a project seems not profittable they stop
until oil price incresse or they get cost down.
I doubt there will be lots of investments in
US shale with oil price in range 50-60 USD, because there is significant documentation only
a very limited part ( decreasing) within core area is profitable as of now. Beside this a
oil price in range 50-60.WTI or 55- 65 usd each barrel Brent is not enough to pay the cost of
exploration drilling offshore, build new infra structure.
"... Production is likely to head south, so nobody will get it. Perfect storm. Iran sanctions, Saudis are going to cut to 10.1 instead of 10.3, Venezuela production to plummet, and US oil is on a hiatus. What a glut. ..."
Production is likely to head south, so nobody will get it. Perfect storm. Iran
sanctions, Saudis are going to cut to 10.1 instead of 10.3, Venezuela production to plummet,
and US oil is on a hiatus. What a glut.
Oil prices are on track for strong gains this week, and the price increases are not only the result of
the crisis in Venezuela.
The oil market received a boost from the US Federal Reserve this week, which signaled on Wednesday
that it would essentially suspend its plans to hike interest rates this year. Fed chairman Jerome
Powell said that economic growth remained
"solid"
but that the central bank had
"the
luxury of patience"
when deciding on further rate hikes. That is a big change from prior
guidance, in which the Fed very clearly outlined multiple rate increases in 2019.
"The case for
raising rates has weakened somewhat,"
Powell said. Slowing growth in China and Europe, a
weakening housing market, tepid inflation – these are not exactly the ingredients that call for
aggressive rate tightening.
The announcement contributed to strong gains for oil prices on Wednesday and Thursday. At the time
of this writing, WTI was trading in the mid-$50s, with Brent above $62 per barrel, both close to
two-month highs.
A more dovish position from the Fed boosts the bullish case for oil in two ways. First,
lower-than-expected interest rates will provide a jolt to the economy. Stock markets rose on the news.
But second, a softer rate outlook also undercuts the US dollar a bit. A weaker dollar stokes crude oil
demand in the rest of the world, and historically the dollar has had an inverse relationship with oil
prices.
Meanwhile, the oil market received a more direct boost this week on news that Saudi Arabia slashed
shipments to the United States. The US has the most transparent and up-to-date data on the oil market,
which include weekly releases on production levels, imports and exports, and inventories. That kind of
visibility is not readily available in most places around the world.
As a result, Saudi Arabia appears to be deliberately targeting that data. By reducing shipments to
the US specifically, Riyadh can help create the appearance of a tightening oil market. Saudi shipments
to the US dropped by 528,000 bpd last week to just 442,000 bpd, the lowest weekly total in more than
two years.
More to the point, OPEC's production declined by 890,000 bpd in January, according to a
Reuters
survey, the largest monthly decline since early 2017 (the month that the first round of
OPEC+ production cuts took effect). Iraq produced above its production ceiling, but aside from that,
the cartel is well on its way to implementing the production curbs.
In fact, there is suddenly a remarkable confluence of events pushing oil in a bullish direction.
First and foremost are the OPEC+ production cuts of 1.2 mb/d that are phasing in. But beyond that, US
shale is starting to slowdown, and while output is still expected to grow this year, the increase
could be the smallest in years.
Then there are the supply outages. Libya lost some output unexpectedly in December, with some of
its production still offline. Iran sanctions waivers are set to expire in May, and the US
hopes
to further cut into Iranian oil exports. The new
sanctions
on Venezuela threaten to create yet another major source of supply outages.
In fact, when considering that OPEC+ is determined to keep 1.2 mb/d of supply off of the market,
and painful US sanctions on Venezuela and Iran threaten to shut in even more output, it's pretty
amazing that Brent crude is only trading at $62 per barrel. The Fed backing off interest rate hikes is
the cherry on top.
Traders and investors are starting to wake up to this bullish sentiment.
"The market is more
convinced that there will be aggressive production cuts and the macro picture has improved a bit.
That's positive for prices going forward,"
Jean-Louis Le Mee, CEO of London-based oil hedge fund
Westbeck Capital,
told
the Wall Street Journal.
Another investor echoed that sentiment in comments to the WSJ.
"The Saudis are sincere about
higher oil prices, they need to balance their budget. The OPEC cuts will lower stocks so I'm pretty
bullish,"
said Mark Gordon, portfolio manager at the Ascent Oil Fund.
Oil prices are back up to where they were in November, and significant outages from Venezuela in
the short run could pave the way for more price increases.
Karl- I see that you asked 'what' rather than when.
Seneca Cliff refers to a very rapid decline in a feature (such as global oil production)
after it has achieved a peak. This is as opposed to a very slow decline.
Obviously for oil, a fast decline would be catastrophic.
US production will be close to flat 2019, and if ports are not improved much until late
2020, then 2020 will not be great. After that, I don't see it catching up.
As stated many times on 'theoildrum', State of the art EOR projects deplete oilfields, who
without EOR would go in terminal decline much earlier, very rapidly. So a world oilproduction
cliff cannot be ruled out, especially if money reserves from oil companies dry up.
Oil prices are likely to rise if there is a shortage of oil, this will mean oil companies
will have plenty of financial resources as long as demand is sufficient to consume the oil
produced. Not suggesting there will not be a decline, just unlikely there will be a cliff
unless oil prices drop, so far there is no evidence of a cliff and given World stock level
trend, prices are unlikely to drop further and are more likely to increase in the future.
But to repeat a cliché: depletion never sleeps. Already about fifteen years ago EOR
projects were started that extracted oil from (quite) 'past peak' or 'on plateau production'
oilfields. EOR projects in case of 'quite past peak' fields, to get 'the last recoverable'
barrel out resulting in oil production/day far less than peak production.
I know, the recoverable quantity increases with rising oilprices and better extraction
techniques, but still the production/day way past peak will be much less than on peak.
What will happen when oilprices don't increase a lot for the next ten years, for a
combination of reasons ?
At a certain point in time all the money in the world couldn't prevent world production
decline and the further that point will be in the future, the steeper will be the decline I
think. So better sooner than later oilprices begin to increase significantly, to buy some
time for the transition to EV's, etc.
I am not an expert in engineering nor in geology, far from that, just expressing a feeling
that I got after having read the many posts on theoildrum regarding this matter.
"... US need for heavy oil is also due to declines in conventional oil production. Fracking "oil" ( high in condensates) has been used to mask the peak (real) oil declines and also has a lower energy content/barrel and must be blended with heavy oil for the refineries to process it. Thus, "Prices of heavier U.S. grades like Mars Sour, an offshore medium U.S. crude, and Heavy Louisiana Sweet crude have risen as buyers scramble for supply". ..."
"... Mars currently trades at a premium to U.S. crude at $58.19 vs $53.69 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI)". Currently, the US also imports 500,000 barrels of Venezuelan crude a day to meet refinery blending requirements. ..."
"... All other shale fracking regions than the Permian have peaked or are in decline as shown by http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2018/Shale-is-dead-long-live-conventional-oil.pdf ..."
He neglects other factors such as:
(1) poor soil management practices;
(2) demographics such as some 3 million Columbian citizens fleeing the Fascist Columbian
military attacks and putting extra stress on the social programs;
(3) Increasing US needs for Venezuela heavy crude to blend with the light fractions coming
from fracking operations (e.g. Eagle Ford light "oil" condensates;
(4) US military need for War to support funding levels (e.g. Smidley Butler's "war is a
racket";
(5) batshit crazy neocon and neoliberal ideology and world domination.
The EROI issue is worse that many consider. See Gail Tverberg article "How the Peak Oil
Story Could Be "Close," But Not Quite Right". The article points out that wellhead costs do
not capture the downstream costs of production and tax capture that bust further reduce the
EROI. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/01/peak-oil-story-close-not-quite-right.html
US need for heavy oil is also due to declines in conventional oil production. Fracking
"oil" ( high in condensates) has been used to mask the peak (real) oil declines and also has
a lower energy content/barrel and must be blended with heavy oil for the refineries to
process it. Thus, "Prices of heavier U.S. grades like Mars Sour, an offshore medium U.S.
crude, and Heavy Louisiana Sweet crude have risen as buyers scramble for supply".
The economics of the US fracking light oil condensates industry is much worse when you
consider the offloading of pollution costs (drinking water), health effects, wear and tear of
highways from trucking the oil, water and fracking sands (one pound/barrel), climate change
from massive methane flaring, volatile organic compounds (VOC) release and earthquake damage
from deep injection of the water cut fluids.
"... UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington. ..."
"... It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT. ..."
"... No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis, living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being a fool? ..."
"... The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it. ..."
"... Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS. ..."
"... By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today ..."
"... Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces. ..."
"... If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum, by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner measures. ..."
"... Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization. ..."
Agent76 says:
January 30, 2019 at 7:21 pm GMT 100 Words Jan 24, 2019 Catastrophic Consequences What's Really Happening in Venezuela
In this video, we give you the latest breaking news on the current situation in Venezuela with Maduro, the election, and Trump's
response.
UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the
synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington.
@Sergey Krieger Negotiations are not necessarily a sign of weakness. However, Maduro should negotiate with the puppet masters,
not with the puppet. I don't think that killing that pathetic Guaido is a good strategy: you don't want to make a martyr out of
nonentity.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
FUCK YOU! Venezuela is not "our" back yard. And the oil does not belong to "us".
[Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end
of the old republic. ]
It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the
end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter,
Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR
RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the
deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT.
The ignorant Jewish mafia 'president' IS MORE DANGEROUS because he like his 'advisors' is totally ILLITERATE. It is a family
business dummies.
Are dummies going to hold petty people like Bolton who lie to get money from MEK to buy a new suit and new shoes, is responsible
for the policy of the Trump regime where he wages WARS, economic sanction, to starve children to surrender? Then NO ONE Trusts
you. MEK people are not more than 20, but are funded by the US colony, Saudi Arabia where MBS transfers money to the Jewish mafia
family funding US wars.
Maduro has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to arrest Juan Guiado, a gigolo who is taking orders from a US and an illiterate 'president',
where its dark history known to every living creature on earth. US has massacred millions of people in all continents including
Latin America.
Maduro has every single right to arrest him and put on trail and execute him as a traitor and an enemy of the state. How many
years the people in Venezuela should suffer for the US 'regime change' and its crimes against humanity in Venezuela to STEAL ITS
RESOURCES.
"So let me get this straight: The Russians brought America to its knees with a few facebook ads, but Uncle Sam's concerted and
ongoing efforts to overthrow governments around the world and interfere with elections is perfectly fine? Because democracy? Riiiiiiight."
:
[The last Venezuelan Presidential election was a joke. ]
YOU ARE A JOKE ZIONIST IDIOT.
The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup Leader
[Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as
a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.]
Illiterate Jewish Mafia 'president' must be kicked out of the office. Hands of Israel is all over the SELECTION.
The ignorant 'president' is MORE DANGEROUS THANT OTHER CRIMINAL US REGIMES because on top of being a criminal, he is ILLITERATE
as well.
[In 2009, the Generation 2007 youth activists staged their most provocative demonstration yet, dropping their pants on public
roads and aping the outrageous guerrilla theater tactics outlined by Gene Sharp in his regime change manuals.This far-right group
"gathered funds from a variety of US government sources, which allowed it to gain notoriety quickly as the hardline wing of opposition
street movements," according to academic George Ciccariello-Maher's book, "Building the Commune."
That year, Guaidó exposed himself to the public in another way, founding a political party to capture the anti-Chavez energy
his Generation 2007 had cultivated.]
@By-tor See, this is the typical lie. Socialism fails, so the socialist blames the outside wrecker for causing the problem.
If Moscow freezes, then it is because of the wreckers. If Moscow starves, then it is because of the wreckers.
If Venezuela collapses, then it is because of "sanctions," not the failure of the new socialist economy.
America has the right to lock anyone out of its economy that it wants, for whatever reasons. This should not matter because
that nation can still trade with the rest of the world, like China. Venezuela could get everything it wants by simply selling
oil to China in exchange for goods. The problem is, there is not enough oil production to do so and other nations are reluctant
to replace American investment for fear of losing their assets as well.
Think about how wrong-headed the Chavez policy has been. If the Venezuelans have problems with their local ruling class and
want to get rid of them fine do so. But, why go after the American oil company? The Americans don't care who rules Venezuela as
long as their contracts are honored. Chavez could have then been a true socialist an allocate a greater dividend to Venezuelans
that was previously being hoarded by the ruling class an arrangement similar to what Alaskans have with American oil companies.
But no there was an immediate seizure of assets because the only purpose of socialism is to make the socialist leaders rich.
And Chavez and Maduro became very rich indeed.
@AnonFromTN I would happily martyr gorbachov , Yeltsin and all their gang. I think everybody would have been far better of
then. Same is applied to the puppet. Nikolai II was martyred and things got a lot better. What is important is winning and final
outcome, while making some martyrs in the process.
@Harold Smith Trump's personnel picks are mind-boggling. I cannot see how he disapproves Eliot Abrams for deputy SoS with
one breath, then blandly allows Pompeo to appoint him an envoy to a trouble-spot. Bolton, Pompeo, Goldberg et al.
NEOCON America does not want Russian bombers in South America.
Real America doesn't give a f*ck. Bombers are so last century, might as well put up machine-gun equipped Union Pacific Big
Boys to make it marginally more steampunk and become a real danger for the USA.
@Tyrion 2 There is not a single complaint here that did not exist before the election or before Pres Chavez.
There are poor management leaders all over the globe. That';s their business. Hey we have some right here in the US I take
it your solution is a military coup or better yet a coup fostered by the EU or the OAS, or maybe ASEAN or SDG . . .
It would be nice if someone simply asked Trump why it is he originally wanted to get along with Russia and pull out of the middle
east and generally opposed the "neoconservative" approach and now seems to be hiring neocons and doing what they want. Is he trying
to placate Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's lackeys, or what? I don't know of his being asked about this directly.
Venezuelan lawmaker Jose Guerra dropped a bombshell on Twitter Tuesday: The Russian Boeing 777 that had landed in Caracas the
day before was there to spirit away 20 tons of gold from the vaults of the country's central bank. Guerra is a former central
bank economist who remains in touch with old colleagues there. A person with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg News
Tuesday that 20 tons of gold have been set aside in the central bank for loading. Worth some $840 million, the gold represents
about 20 percent of its holdings of the metal in Venezuela.
No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they
couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis,
living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all
that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being
a fool?
No, Chavez had popular legitimacy. Maduro has nothing but force to keep himself in power now. Yes, there's easy definition
for the above but Chavismo is decrepit.
Pressure for a reasonable Presidential election is based on that.
The Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong.
There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens after I leave White House.
Chavez had popular support . He felt the need to intimidate opponents from the beginning. Like Bill Bellicheck and Tom
Brady feeling the need to cheat.
Makes sense. They owe a big chunk of money to Russia and a payment of 100 million is coming due. Russia gets security for future
payments while it holds their gold in a safe place. They may ship the rest to China if they are smart
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join
protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone
at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their
President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
She's being paid no doubt by the usual suspects. She is personally 1 million in debt and has signed with a Speakers agency
to give speeches for 200,000 a pop.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV)
"Haley is currently quoting $200,000 and the use of a private jet for domestic speaking engagements, according to CNBC
In October 2018, when Haley resigned, she said, she would be taking a "step up" into the private sector after leaving the U.N.
According to a public financial disclosure report based on 2017 data, at the rate quoted for her engagements, just a handful would
pay down more than $1 million in outstanding debt that was accrued during her 14 years
3. There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every
minute, meaningless issue.
Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what having that oil control will mean for
the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams
project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran, figuratively or literally. The US signed
a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.
@Hibernian I hate those two guys so much, and the owner Kraft also. I'm hoping for a helmet to helmet collision for Brady
early in the second quarter with his bell ringing for the rest of the game. (Evil grin)
@Tyrion 2 Yes, the int'l monitors said the elections were fair as Maduro received over 60% of the vote. You think the 'deplorables'
of venezuela elected the known US-Wall Street neo-liberal puppet Guaido? No, the US Tape Worm groomed this twerp, all-the-while
his backers and paymasters in the American neo-Liberal ruling class claim Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections. The shamelessness
and hypocrisy is astounding.
@Tyrion 2 Pres Hugo Chavez's admin was very controversial. And the conditions you speak of have plagued Venezuela even before
Pres Chavez came to government.
This really is none of our affair. We don't have a mandate to go about the planet tossing out whoever we think is crazy. He
is not a threat to the US. There's no indication that he intends to harm US businesses.
Their polity means their polity. You'll have to do better than he's crazy, mean, a despot, etc. That's for them to resolve.
@Commentator Mike Seems some will never learn the definition of insanity, especially the NeoCons who have been running America
for far too long. I recommend John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for the less informed among us here today. Maybe
at some point they will get a clue.
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did Hugo Chavez when he was in power.
I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his
family resolutely oppose Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the economy
of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been
that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed,
poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate "government" we have here. We let them
get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a
mess in Africa. All the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA crimes, more
will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all of them are, and there are lots of
Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one
one group, I think Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St, Corporations, Banks, The
MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists. I think
Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to
control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they dicovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control
over the world it would give them to control it. Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists"
here are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can claim to be a Jew. So how do you
solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to
enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want. Capitalism is the problem always has
been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral, unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force
is maximizing profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced form of capitalism because
it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us, taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money
while paying little to no taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody dares say
it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it, again paying little or no taxes
on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and
they used the money for the people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors running
our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system of ours, don't you think we should try something
else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism,
that is what all of this is about, follow the money. Just muh opinion
@Tyrion 2 From the people fool not by the C.I.A. declaring that well we like the other fellow best for president,after all
using the logic you fail to have Hillary could have said call me madam president and leave the orange clown out in the dark,stupid,stupid
people
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and
economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
OMG, Cathey really said that. Is he always such a shit? He certainly has Venezuela completely wrong.
@AnonFromTN This phylosophical questions should not led to no actions. Modern Russia is actually in much better position now
than it was in 1913. True. There is never final. Sorry for wrong words choice. Dialectics.
@Wizard of Oz The scenario you describe is an accurate. And requires me to make judgments about a dynamic I am unfamiliar
with -- no bite. Several sides to this tale and I have heard and seen it before.
I may however make a call.
In 2017 2/3 of the states in the region chose not to interfere. They have not changed their minds on intervention.
ohh by the way I did ask and here's the familial response:
But reading the data sets makes it clear that what they want is some humanitarian relief. B y and large I have the family telling
me to mind my own business, but they would like a meal, some medicine and some water.
By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he
have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today.
Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces.
In Trump's remaining 2 years he must throw off the parasites, bring in real men, and go to work on infrastructure, health
care, and real jobs. He has to out the naysayers, the creeps and the war mongers. Throw Bolton from the train, and divorce Netanyahu
and Israel. Appeal directly to the public.
If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum,
by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner
measures.
@RobinG That would be an easy, almost optimistic explanation: some people are venal enough to say or write anything for money.
Pessimistic explanation is that some people who can read and write are nonetheless dumb or brainwashed enough to sincerely believe
the BS they are writing.
Can you define what capitalism is ? Once that idea is refined, finessed, and compared to multiple color changes of capitalism,
it becomes easier who to fit in the plastic infinitely expandable box of ideas of capitalism starting with the chartered company
to patient laws to companies making military hardwares paid by tax payers to tax cut by government to seizure of foreign asset
by US-UK to protection of the US business by military forces to selling military gadgets to the countries owned by families like
Saudi royals Gulf monarchs and to the African ( American installed ) dictators to printing money .
A great article I posted in another thread few days ago dives deep into who Juan Guaido is and his past grooming for the past
10+ years:
Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing
as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.
"Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed."
The thing is, Trump just didn't fail to drain the swamp, he "took the ball and ran with
it." Apparently he's an enthusiastic imperialist who gets off on the illegitimate use of
military force. (His attack on the Shayrat airbase in Syria should end any debate about
that).
Supposedly he's been wanting to attack Venezuela for a while:
I can understand Trump's die-hard supporters' argument that Trump is being coerced into
doing evil things (although I don't agree with it), but how can they explain Trump's apparent
enthusiasm?
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Trump's anti-war/anti-interventionist
tweets from 2013 were insincere and his whole presidential campaign was a brazen fraud.
Edit: I just saw your comment #71; so you apparently see it the same way I do.
@By-tor Maduro is just Venezuelan Mugabe. Has it really come to this? That people on Unz
will support any random lunatic as long as he mouths off about America or Israel every now
and again?
Oh, but the sanctions! Proper economic sanctions were only very recently applied. The
Venezuelan economy was already utterly wrecked by their joke of a government.
Liken the US not trading with Venezuela to a medieval siege if you like, but I suggest you
read up on medieval sieges first. Hint: they weren't merely a government run boycott.
@onebornfree Some all to rare common sense – a writer who understands that both big
government Trump and the big government "opposition" to Trump are not, never were , and never
will be, "the answer":
"The Real Problem Is The Politicization Of Everything"
" While on the market and in radically decentralized systems, disagreements and
polarization are not a problem, centralized political decision-making has in its nature that
only one view can prevail. Suddenly, who is in the White House or whether regulation X or Y
is passed does matter a great deal, and those with a different opinion than you on it may
seem like actual enemies. Within voluntary settings, one can live with people that one
disagrees with. All parties curate a way of life that works while living in peace with
others.
To regain civility in human interactions and finally treat other human beings as human
beings again, we would do well to get politics out of human affairs."
For those who think this coup attempt was sudden, here is something from my blog:
Oct 9, 2018 – Ambassador Supports Coup
Few Americans know that our nation imposed harsh economic sanctions on Venezuela because
the Neocons want to overthrow its democratic government. They hate that oil rich Venezuela
insists on controlling its oil production rather than allowing big American corporations to
run things. Almost three years ago, Neocon puppet Barack Obama declared a national emergency
to impose sanctions by designating Venezuela an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to
national security, and Trump continued sanctions.
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest
neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the
democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York
rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to
overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
Jimmy Dore assembled this great video of CNN presenting their expert calling the President of
Venezuela paranoid for saying the USA wants to overthrow his government. A few hours later, a
different CNN report documented recent efforts by the USA to overthrow his government!
@Tyrion 2 This is not about Maduro, or Guaido, who is likely an even bigger shit, as he
clearly serves foreign masters. Don't you think it should be up to the people of Venezuela to
change their president? The US meddling is against every rule of behavior of countries
towards other countries. How would you feel if Burkina Faso told you who should be the
president of the US? That's exactly how every Venezuelan who has dignity feels, regardless of
their opinion of Maduro and his coterie.
@Tyrion 2 The US has been plotting against Venezuela since the last Wall Street puppet
Pres. Rafael Caldera was defeated by Chavez and ownership of oil assets returned to Venezuela
thereby cutting out anf angering the NYC-London predatory globalist cabal. Trump's hitmen are
now preventing the Venezuelan state from accessing credit and from withdrawing its own money
and gold foolishly deposited in US and London banks. The Venezuelan corporate elite act
against the general population. You do not fully understand the situation.
Ethnonationalist stuff is ridiculous, it's stupid on the face of it, it's ridiculous,
I've said it from day one. Ethnonationalism is a dead end, it's for losers. Economic
nationalism and civic nationalism bind you together as citizens, regardless of your race,
regardless of your ethnicity, regardless of your religion
@Digital Samizdat Digital Samizdat -- As civic nationalism is no kind of nationalism and
presents no obstacle to race replacement, I imagine Jewry will be happy with it. Jewry will
also be happy that
Bannon the race realist ('It's been almost a Camp of the Saints-type invasion into
Central and then Western and Northern Europe') has been successfully neutered.
"... In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 's first pick for Deputy Secretary of State , but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were supportive of Abrams , but Trump opposed him because of Abrams' opposition during the campaign. ..."
"... On January 25, 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United States' Special Envoy to Venezuela ." ..."
There he was, right there on the stage to the right side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo
who was briefing the press on America's position concerning the recent coup in Venezuela. I
rubbed my eyes -- was I seeing what I thought I was seeing?
It was Elliot Abrams. What was HE doing there? After all, back in February 2017, after
then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had pushed for his nomination as Deputy Secretary of
State, it was President Trump himself who had vetoed his appointment.
Here is how the anodyne account in Wikipedia describes it:
In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 's first pick
for Deputy Secretary of
State , but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were
supportive of Abrams , but Trump opposed him because of Abrams' opposition during the
campaign. [emphasis mine]
Abrams during the 2016 campaign had been a NeverTrumper who vigorously opposed Donald Trump
and who had strongly attacked the future president's "Make America Great Again," America First
foreign policy proposals.
Abrams, a zealous Neoconservative and ardent globalist was -- and is -- one of those foreign
policy "experts" who has never seen a conflict in a faraway country, in a desert or jungle,
where he did not want to insert American troops, especially if such an intervention would
support Israeli policy. He was deeply enmeshed in earlier American interventionist miscues and
blunders in the Middle East, even incurring charges of malfeasance.
Apparently, President Trump either did not know that or perhaps did not remember Abrams's
activities or stout opposition. In any case, back in 2017 it took an intervention by a
well-placed friend with Washington connections who provided that information directly to Laura
Ingraham who then, in turn, placed it on the president's desk And Abrams' selection was
effectively stopped, torpedoed by Donald Trump.
But here now was Abrams on stage with the Secretary of State.
What was that all about?
Again, I went to Wikipedia, and once again, I quote from that source: " On January 25,
2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United
States' Special Envoy to Venezuela ."
Despite President Trump's resolute veto back in February 2017, Abrams was back, this time as
a Special Envoy, right smack in the department that President Trump had forbade him to serve
in. Did the president know? Had he signed off on this specially-created appointment? After all,
the very title "Special Envoy on Venezuela" seems something dreamed up bureaucratically by the
policy wonks at State, or maybe by Mike Pompeo.
Then there was the widely reported news, accompanied by a convenient camera shot of National
Security Adviser John Bolton's note pad (which may or may not have been engineered by him),
with the scribble: "5,000 troops to Colombia."
What gives here?
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela, with the head of the national
assembly, Juan Guiado, proclaiming himself as the country's new and rightful president, and the
theoretical deposition of then-current President Nicolas Maduro. And we were told that this
action was totally "spontaneous" and an "act of the Venezuelan people for democracy," and that
the United States had had nothing to do with it.
If you believe that, I have an oil well in my backyard that I am quite willing to sell to
you for a few million, or maybe a bit less.
Of course, the United States and our overseas intelligence services were involved.
Let me clarify: like most observers who have kept up with the situation in oil-rich
Venezuela, I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I
did Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student
of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose
Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the
economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional
rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by
elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I
support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
But potentially sending American troops -- as many as 5,000 -- to fight in a country which
is made up largely of jungle and impassible mountains, appears just one more instance, one more
example, of the xenophobic internationalism of men like Bolton and the now state department
official, Abrams, who believe American boots on the ground is the answer to every international
situation. Experience over the past four decades should indicate the obvious folly of such
policies for all but the historically blind and ideologically corrupt.
While we complain that the Russians and Chinese have propped up the Maduro government and
invested deeply in Venezuela, a country within our "sphere of influence" in the Western
Hemisphere (per the "Monroe Doctrine") -- we have done the very same thing, even more
egregiously in regions like Ukraine that were integrally part of historical Russia, and in
Crimea, which was never really part of Ukraine (only for about half a century) but historically
and ethnically Russian. Did we not solemnly pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, under George H. W.
Bush, that if the old Soviet Union would dissolve and let its some fourteen socialist
"republics" go their own way, leave the Russian Federation, that we, in turn, would not advance
NATO up to the borders of Russia? And then we did the exact opposite almost immediately go back
on our word and move our troops and advisers right up to the borders of post-1991 Russia?
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still am. In
effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete recouping of
power by the Deep State, the only slight glimmer of light -- that immovable force who stands up
at times to the power-elites and who has perhaps given us a few years of respite as the
managerial class zealously attempts to repair the breach he -- and we -- inflicted on it in
2016.
My major complaint, what I have seen as a kind of Achilles' Heel in the Trump presidency,
has always been in personnel, those whom the president has surrounded himself with. And my
criticism is measured and prudential, in the sense that I also understand what happens -- and
what did happen -- when a billionaire businessman, a kind of bull-in-the-china shop (exactly
what was needed), comes to Washington and lacks experience with the utterly amoral and
oleaginous and obsequious political class that has dominated and continues to dominate our
government, both Democrats and, most certainly, Republicans.
The wife of a very dear friend of thirty-five years served in a fairly high post during the
Reagan administration. Before her untimely death a few years ago, she recounted to me in stark
detail how the minions and acolytes of George H. W. Bush managed to surround President Reagan
and subvert large portions of the stated Reagan Agenda. Reagan put his vice-president
effectively in charge of White House personnel: and, as they say, that was it, the Reagan
Revolution was essentially over.
In 2016 a number of friends and I created something called "Scholars for Trump." Composed
mostly of academics, research professors, and accomplished professionals, and headed by Dr.
Walter Block, Professor of Economics at Loyola-New Orleans, and Dr. Paul Gottfried,
Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, we attempted
to gather real professed believers in the stated Trump agenda. We received scant mention
(mostly negative) in the so-called "conservative" press, who proceeded to smear us as
"ultra-right wingers" and "paleo-conservatives." And, suddenly, there appeared another
pro-Trump list, and that one composed largely of the same kinds of professionals, but many if
not most of whom had not supported Donald Trump and his agenda during the primary
campaigns.
What was certain was that many of the amoral time-servers and power elitists had decided
that it was time for them to attach themselves to Trump, time for them to insinuate themselves
into positions of power once again, no matter their distaste and scorn for that brash
billionaire upstart from New York.
Remember the (in)famous interview that the President-elect had with Mitt Romney who
desperately wanted to be Secretary of State? Recall the others also interviewed -- some of whom
we remembered as Donald Trump's opponents in the campaign -- who came hat-in-hand to Trump
Tower looking for lucrative positions and the opportunity once again to populate an
administration and direct policy? And, yes, work from within to counteract the stated Trump
agenda?
It would be too facile to blame the president completely: after all, the professional policy
wonks, the touted experts in those along-the-Potomac institutes and foundations, were there
already in place. And, indeed, there was a need politically, as best as possible, to bring
together the GOP if anything were to get through Congress. (As we have seen, under Paul Ryan
practically none of the Trump Agenda was enacted, and Ryan at every moment pushed open
borders.)
Our contacts did try; we did have a few associates close to the president. A few -- but only
a few -- of our real Trump Agenda supporters managed to climb aboard. But in the long run we
were no match for the machinations of the power elites and GOP establishment. And we discovered
that the president's major strength -- not being a Washington Insider -- was also his major
weakness, and that everything depended on his instincts, and that somehow if the discredited
globalists and power-hungry Neoconservatives (who did not give Trump the time of day before his
election) were to go too far, maybe, hopefully, he would react.
And he has, on occasion done just that, as perhaps in the case of Syria, and maybe even in
Afghanistan, and in a few other situations. But each time he has had to pass the gauntlet of
"advisers" whom he has allowed to be in place who vigorously argue against (and undercut) the
policies they are supposed to implement.
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only
thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic. The fact that he is so violently and
unreservedly hated by the elites, by the media, by academia, and by Hollywood must tell us
something. In effect, however, it not just the president they hate, not even his rough-edged
personality -- it is what he represents, that in 2016 he opened a crack, albeit small, into a
world of Deep State putrefaction, a window into sheer Evil, and the resulting falling away of
the mask of those "body snatchers" who had for so long exuded confidence that their subversion
and control was inevitable and just round the corner.
President Trump will never be forgiven for that. And, so, as much as I become frustrated
with some of the self-inflicted wounds, some of the actions which appear at times to go
flagrantly against his agenda, as much as I become heartsick when I see the faces of Elliot
Abrams -- and Mitt Romney -- in positions where they can continue their chipping away at that
agenda, despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he
will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is
usually not what you'll get.
I cannot imagine a more evil person to be allowed back into govt than this man, who is
more evil than he looks.
It is over, in my mind, with the trump admin; nothing has been done about the long list of
crimes committed by the obama gang during the election and after. Nothing has been done about
seth rich, I would add michael hastings, and the long list of clinton "suicides" and the
clinton crimes. the list is endless with no progress.
The dimos in doj, fbi, etc have completely out-manuevered trump and he really has no junk
yard dog to protect him-guliani is a joke, even if he is sober as he claims to be.
Linh Dinh on this website (June 12, 2016) predicted both the election outcome and its
meaninglessness. He had by then, of course, been blackballed by Scholars, Inc., and is now
helping to run a recycling operation back in Vietnam. But he has emerged as one of the top
Unz columnists, most of his Heritage American attackers who couldn't see past their DNA
having slunk away.
Conversely, go read the comment thread under Mr. Buchanan's latest. People who used to
fall for the "we/us/our" conflation of their country and Uncle Sam are waking up, due largely
to the President in whom you still place your scholarly hope. We may not be scholars, but we
understand that the blood of people in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and soon enough
Venezuela is on the hands of those who endorse the warmongering imperialism of Exceptionalia.
Your scholarly enabling, such as:
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I
support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
is naive at best. As a scholar, did you support the "economic pressure" rationalized by
Secretary of State Albright that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them
children?
Those of you who still expect the Unz readership to give two sh ** s about Donald Trump or
anyone else in the Washington Puppet Show are fast losing your relevance around here.
Yup, Personnel is Policy; always has been. The scale of it all really precludes the kind of
benefit-of-the-doubt explanation the author struggles to formulate. It's not that Trump tried
to do the right thing but some war-hawks, jews, and Wall-Street shysters got through
regardless. Those were the only people that needed apply because Trump wasn't considering
anybody else. One simply has to conclude that the people that currently surround him are
indeed "his kind of people". And let's not forget that after a crash course in the realities
of government he replaced Tillerson and notorious torturer McMaster because they were not
hawkish, not pro-Israel, enough .
What evidence is there that your definition of "doing the right thing" coincides with
Trump's anyway. Yes he made some non-interventionist noises during the campaign, but that was
mostly during the primary before he'd kissed Adelson's ring in exchange for the shekels. But
he was also "a very militaristic guy" who was all for "taking the oil" and who nonstop hated
on Iran. Face it, it was just the Obama playbook: throw an incoherent mishmash to the proles
in the hope that they remember only those parts they liked.
Isn't Trump's CV rather more illuminating on who he is than his campaign rhetoric: casino
operator and pro-wrestling MC. He gets off on playing the rubes.
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still
am. In effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete
recouping of power by the Deep State
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the
only thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic.
.despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he
will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is
usually not what you'll get.
The US military has kept some 3000 soldiers in Columbia for years. Maybe that has grown to
5000, but Bolton's yellow pad note was a simple trick to fool simpletons. Invading Venezuela
would require at least 50,000 US troops.
Americans are quick to denounce socialists, especially those in the US military who thrive
in a socialist US military. Most Americans do not realize that their police, firefighters,
schools, most universities, roads, water, and electricity are products of socialism. If you
have an emergency in the USA, you dial 9-11 for socialists to help you. Everyone thinks that
is great!
From my blog:
Jan 27, 2019 – A Clumsy Slow Coup
Corporate America media has not reported basic facts about the attempted takeover of
Venezuela. The Deep State has tried to overthrow the popular, elected government of Venezuela
for a decade as it gradually nationalized its oil production. Several coup attempts failed so
the USA imposed sanctions to punish the people for voting wrong. Sanctions caused shortages
and inflation but the elected government remains in power.
In the past, the USA conducted coups by bribing Generals to conduct a quick military
takeover, and always denied participation. The Trump administration gave up on deception and
began a clumsy, slow coup. I suspect Trump's new CIA appointed attorney general told Trump
that he had the power to appoint foreign presidents, so last week he openly appointed a new
president for Venezuela. The Venezuelan army openly backs the existing president so nothing
changed. The UN did not recognize Trump's puppet president nor did any other major world
power. These facts do not appear in our corporate media, although the internet provides
reality via a Paul Craig Roberts article. (posted at unz.com)
Trump has now ordered other nations to send payments for oil purchases to a bank account
controlled by his new president. This infuriates foreign governments because they know oil
shipments will stop if they fail to pay the legitimate government of Venezuela, and oil
prices will rise worldwide as they scramble to buy oil elsewhere. Meanwhile, a massive
humanitarian and refugee crisis is building as the result of this economic embargo.
I do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields
from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do
not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela
were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect
that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)
@Taras77 I agree Taras. Although I much enjoyed reading Boyd Cathey's essay, sadly, I
think he remains too optimistic. With the D's back in charge of the House, and the R's
impotent in the Senate, (McConnell as majority leader is a joke), Trump's stated agenda is
all over. He got nothing in his first two years besides the traditional GOP tax cut for the
rich. And he waited far too long to get serious about the wall. Yes, Koch-man Paul Ryan
opposed it, but surely Trump could have tried harder to get enough R votes to override him.
His only option now, unless Pelosi budges a little, would be to declare a National Emergency
on Feb 15. There is no way he could shut down the government again. Let's see how that goes.
However I disagree with Realist's comment. With Trump being attacked viciously on all
sides, I don't understand how anyone could think he is part of the Deep State. I think Victor
Davis Hanson got it right when he called Trump a "Tragic Hero."
Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign
policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical
gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to
instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another
country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim
country, not in DC.
I do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields
from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do
not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela
were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect
that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)
@Ilyana_Rozumova It is not clear whether you are saying that Trump is trying to raise or
lower oil prices.
If he wants to lower oil prices then why is he making it difficult for Iran to sell its
oil?
If he wants to raise oil prices then why does he want the big US oil companies in
Venezuela to sort out that country's oil business and raise exports?
I suspect he, and those around him, have no idea what they want to achieve. They are
simply trying to demonstrate their "power" and ability to change regimes. To give the Monroe
Doctrine a bit of oxygen. To scare the European vassals.
@Taras77 Correct, Trump is a member of the Deep State. Trump's election and big talk is a
charade. It is hard to believe anyone would not see Trump as a chimera after all his
bullshit.
Also I do not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves
in Venezuela were planed long before
Trump is doing the same thing he did in his businesses ..using 'other people's
money.assests' to cover his ass.
Now picture this ..sanctions on Iran, sanctions on Russia, sanctions on Venezuela + rising US
interest rates + a slowing economy + half of US oil reserves sold to cover government
spending.
Hope people get use to riding a bike when this perfect storm hits.
U.S. sells 11 million barrels of oil from reserve to Exxon, five other
firmshttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-reserve/u-s-sells-11-million-barrels-of-oil-from-reserve-to-exxon-five-other-firms-idUSKCN1LG2WT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Six companies, including ExxonMobil Corp, bought a total of 11
million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a Department of Energy
document showed on Friday, in a sale timed to take place ahead of U.S. sanctions on Iran that
are expected to remove oil from the global market.
Sale of the oil from the reserve was mandated by previous laws to fund the federal government
and to fund a drug program, but the Trump administration took the earliest available time to
sell the crude under the law.
The sale's timing "would appear to reflect President Donald Trump's concern regarding oil
market tightness associated with the reinstatement of Iran oil sanctions," analysts at
ClearView Energy Partners said after the sale was announced on August 20.
@Carlton Meyer A slight correction is needed here. The UK, Germany, Israel and France has
signed onto this.
Just as all four of them were more than willing to help smash Libya to dust so they could
steal their oil fields and all that gold Gaddafi had hoarded up for his independent gold back
African currency.
I think what is happening in Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is connected to a broad
"connect the dots" South American strategy. The other dots are:
1) Bolsonaro's election victory.
2) Changes in structural relationship with Argentina, Chile, Colombia.
3) Cuba isolation.
4) Bolivia isolation.
5) And finally the recent unexpected dam collapse in Brazil, followed by IDF's offer to fly
in hundreds of soldiers to help.
S America is about to become the next Middle East (Syria). Weapons proliferation. War
profiting. Mass scale disruption. Already a profound refugee crisis. And all the traditional
war hawks there – with IDF leading the charge.
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and
I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all,
Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
So in effect, you wish for the success of the globalists in their relentless struggle with
the concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law, and you support American imperialist
efforts to overthrow yet another democratically elected government, no matter how many people
have to die in the process. After all, the victim country is relatively close and its huge
oil reserves make for a reasonable pretext.
Venezuela, the Deep State, and Subversion of the Trump Presidency
Also on UR, link to,
Bolton: We're Taking Venezuela's Oil
Yesterday, Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton made the US position clear in a
FoxNews interview: Washington will overthrow the Venezuelan
RON PAUL LIBERTY REPORT
@Johnny Rico "How many barrels a day does Venezuela pump?"
Something like 50,000 barrels per day. And pumped is perhaps the wrong word more like mined.
Venezuelan oil is locked up in surface tar sands along the Orinoco River and of very low
quality, rich in metals such as vanadium which catalyze sulfur into sulfuric acid rotting out
engines and turbines if not cleaned up. It is actually sold as a emulsion with about 25%
water to get the stuff to flow. The Canadian tar sands now produce something like 500,000
barrels per day. Try driving through the Alberta tar sands to see mommie earth ravaged
without conscience and birds murdered en masse landing on their vast polluted effluent ponds
but then the loathsome colonial denizens of our Canadian satrap to the north don't care as
long as we let them have a couple of hockey teams and legal pot.
Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign
policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical
gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to
instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another
country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim
country, not in DC.
@Tyrion 2 Venezuela is under US sanctions that substitute for a medieval siege, and
Venezuela's comprador ruling class are Wall Street loyalists, not nationalists. The US is
trying to starve the population of Venezuela and economically ruin them wherein a US puppet
gov't will enable predatory Americans to buy coveted resources on the cheap. This usurpation
of int'l law and criminality was pulled off by Obama-Nuland-Soros in Ukraine in 2014. The
majority of Venezuelan 'deplorables' who are bearing the brunt of US sanctions know well what
Uncle Sham's man-on-the-ground Guaido is up to, and have, hopefully, organized and armed
themselves with rifles to defend their lives and property from invaders.
@Amon It's possible that Venezuela will be another Libya. But I question whether the US
Imperialists could get away with weeks of saturation bombing on a country in the same
hemisphere, just to its south. I find it hard to believe that the rest of South America would
take this lying down. Then there's the presence of Russia and China, who both have
substantial investments in the country. Will they just sit on their hands too?
With its jungles and mountains, any US invasion would be more like Vietnam, I think. This
could be, and I hope it is, a Bridge Too Far for the Empire. Empires always eventually
overreach.
But, bbbuuuttt, I thought we were gonna be energy independent and export oil all over the
globe. What need have we of some heavy crude in Venezuela if this forecast is at hand? Just
hedging the BS ya know.
Maduro and Chavez are as socialist as I am capitalism fan. They are indeed populist dictators
and regime is still capitalistic. They just rely upon lumpens and military to hold onto
power. Things wound not change for the better and probably for worse if coup succeeds though.
Now, it is neither USA nor author's business to interfere into other countries affairs as
Americans quite obviously only make things worse and what if when USA finally kicks the
bucket as United country others start interfering in USA affairs ? I actually see it coming
considering demographic and cultural realities on the ground in USA. Once $usd is gone as
reserve currency the process as Gorbachiv stated would start.
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela,
actually the use of the term coup d'etat is incorrect. A coup occurs when the military
disposes the government and replaces it with a military government.
This has not yet occurred. It has not yet been successful, what is actually happening is
the beginning of a civil war, the outcome which is not clear.
The situation bears a certain similarity with the beginning of the Syrian civil War.
If it follows the Ukrainian scenario like what took place in 2014, then I would expect
some type of situation where foreign mercenaries are employed to create divisions in the
population, like firing on the opposition supporters. It is highly likely that some sort of
false flag incident will be use to fire up the situation.
If the military were to revolt and replace it with civilian rule it would be called a
pronunciamiento
Trump just congratulated self-proclaimed US puppet Guaido in Venezuela. So, he can no longer
pretend to be an innocent bystander: he showed himself to be a willing participant in the
criminal activities of the swamp.
Three notes on the bright side. One, the Empire is getting ever more reckless, no longer
bothers even with fig leaves. That looks like an overreach typical of empires in their death
throws. Two, Maduro, despite his obvious failings, appears to be prepared to defend his
country against banditry. So, maybe he is not just a piece of shit, like Yanuk in Ukraine.
We'll see soon enough. Three, Erdogan, who the same gangsters tried to overthrow not too long
ago, remembers that and voiced his support of Maduro in no uncertain terms, despite Turkey
being a NATO member.
"... In the meantime, the strategy for oil and gas executives to appease investors is to focus on "quick cash, quarterly payouts and fast talk," Sanzillo says. "Either way the stocks lack a long-term value rationale." ..."
"... Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. shale industry has been over-hyping the production potential from their wells. The WSJ compared well-productivity estimates from shale companies to those from third parties. After looking at the production data at thousands of wells and how much oil and gas those wells were on track to produce over the course of their lifespans, the WSJ found that company forecasts seemed to be misleading. ..."
"... Schlumberger, for instance, has reported that secondary shale wells near older wells in West Texas have been 30 percent less productive than the initial wells, the WSJ found. Also, many shale companies used data from their best wells and extrapolated forward, projecting enormous growth numbers that have not panned out. ..."
Of course, that is largely just a reflection of the sharp decline in oil prices. But the share prices of most oil and gas companies
are also largely based on oil price movements. So, the steep slide in oil prices in the final two months of 2018 led to disaster
for investors in energy stocks.
"The stock market went to hell in December. And when it got there, it found that the energy sector had already moved in, signed
a lease and decorated the place," Tom Sanzillo, Director of Finance at the Institute for Energy Economics and Financial Analysis
(IEEFA), wrote in a
commentary
.
The energy sector was at or near the bottom of the S&P 500 for the second year in a row, Sanzillo pointed out. And that was true
even within segments of the oil and gas industry. For instance, companies specializing in hydraulic fracturing fell by 30 percent,
while oil and gas supply companies lost 40 percent. "The fracking boom has produced a lot of oil and gas, but not much profit," Sanzillo
argued.
Looking forward, there are even larger hurdles, especially in the medium- to long-term. Oil demand growth is flat in developed
countries and slowing beginning to slow in China and elsewhere. The EV revolution is just getting started.
The last great hope for the oil industry is to pile into
petrochemicals
, as oil demand for transportation is headed for a peak. But profits in that sector could also prove elusive. "The industry's rush
to invest in petrochemicals to maintain demand for oil and gas is likely to continue, but the profit potential in this sector is
more limited than oil and gas exploration, and is likely to keep the energy sector at or near the bottom of the S&P 500," Sanzillo
concluded.
In the meantime, the strategy for oil and gas executives to appease investors is to focus on "quick cash, quarterly payouts
and fast talk," Sanzillo says. "Either way the stocks lack a long-term value rationale."
Meanwhile, the Wall Street Journal reports that the U.S. shale industry has been over-hyping the production potential from their
wells. The WSJ compared well-productivity estimates from shale companies to those from third parties. After looking at the production
data at thousands of wells and how much oil and gas those wells were on track to produce over the course of their lifespans, the
WSJ found that company forecasts seemed to be misleading.
"Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in America's four hottest drilling regions appear
to have been overly optimistic, according to the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers in oil basins
in Texas and North Dakota," reporters for the
WSJ wrote . "Collectively, the companies that made projections are on track to pump nearly 10% less oil and gas than they forecast
for those areas, according to the analysis of data from Rystad Energy AS, an energy consulting firm."
Schlumberger, for instance, has reported that secondary shale wells near older wells in West Texas have been 30 percent less
productive than the initial wells, the WSJ found. Also, many shale companies used data from their best wells and extrapolated forward,
projecting enormous growth numbers that have not panned out.
The upshot is that shale companies will have to step up spending in order to hit the promised production targets. However, so
many of them have struggled to turn a profit, and the recent downturn in oil prices has put even more pressure on them to rein in
costs.
That raises questions about the production potential not just from individual shale companies, but also from the U.S. as a whole.
The problem is that the lower average price of oil, the less capex are for the year. And that creates problems in two to three
years period.
As long as shale oil producers are capable to produce junk bond, they will continue extraction even in prize zone below $60,
where they can't recover the costs. Cheerleaders from IEA will continue to produced nice rising curves.
Rather than troubling you by disagreeing, Tom, may I request, instead, your
basis for selecting $70 as the point where the economy and oil producers meet? My method uses step-wise
accumulation of production, from lowest cost to highest cost, to reach the required 100 MMB/D of worldwide
total demand. The reputable numbers for that exercise suggest lower than $60/B. As Canadian Oil Sands producers
will confirm, the producer does not always cover his cost. So the $60 number is higher than the practical top.
(This explains why the actual average price over history is $40.)
The reality is that as long as you have spare
producing capacity, which we always do, that can produce oil at less than $10/B as your competition, you can
forget recovering your higher cost unless you can hoodwink the traders. Of course, the hoodwinked traders'
motto is "Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice, shame on me!
Nicely put, William.
The niggling thing about the $40 average price over history is that the bulk of the
easy, cheap oil appears to be extracted already. Low-hanging black oil fruit already harvested.
Which means that extraction costs will increase.
So... while $40 is historically accurate for oil, that number is not static, and
seems it must inevitably rise, as it becomes increasingly expensive to extract the black oil fruit from further up
the tree - easy pickings gone already.
U.S. Shale Oil pundits generally seem to agree that $50 or
so is the breakeven point for WTI region light tight oil. Removing existing and earlier compounded debts from the
equation, I reckon that sounds about correct. Add in debts though, and it's probably closer to $80.
If anybody here hasn't heard my hundreds of ad nauseum comments this
entire dang year about my
hope
for
$65 oil [Brent] for 2018 and my
hope
for
$70 oil [Brent] for 2019, please raise your hand, and I can
reiterate
yet again
.
Meanwhile, I'll gently remind that I already warned repeatedly this
year that $80 is simply not sustainable, and that the higher that oil goes above $70 then the harder the
eventual crash would likely be.
And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the pots
of coffee and
stop artificially panicking. Near as I can
tell,
$70
- ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance
between
the global economy and oil producers.
I hope
the current over-reaction on the
oil
price See Saw
will settle back to around $70 by end of
this year or early next year.
Just
my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.
hellenicshippingnews.com said yesterday , that the average
price for WTI had been $65 and $72 for Brent in year 2018 , with a high at 3rd October and low at 24th December
.
Overall , I would predict a lower average for 2019 , than for 2018 ; average
prices like during years 2015 and 2016 ($50) .
Opec+ might throttle supply , but if Iran sanctions will screw further ,
Opec+ will be able to push more oil onto the markets .
Venezuela might get online again , since I can't believe , that China and
Russia will stay neutral in regards to their investments .
Brazil will deliver more , and Mexico probably could reduce domestic oil
theft .
Canada is only capable to throttle production , due to authoritie's measures
, if drillers are left to heir own devices , the production in Canada will rise again .
Without any governmental regulations worldwide (International Socialism) oil
could cost even $20 and less .
Nevertheless , WTI and Brent likely are worth more than many crudes , since
they have short ways to their markets : The lower the transportation costs , the higher the oil price .
Electric Vehicles are still not yet deployed much , but in 10 years may make
up to 10% of cars in use worldwide .
Power-To-Gas and -To-Gasoline will likely become deployed in the next 10
years to come , increasing the pressure on crude oil prices .
If anybody here hasn't heard my hundreds of ad nauseum comments
this entire dang year about my
hope
for
$65 oil [Brent] for 2018 and my
hope
for
$70 oil [Brent] for 2019, please raise your hand, and I can
reiterate
yet again
.
Meanwhile, I'll gently remind that I already warned repeatedly
this year that $80 is simply not sustainable, and that the higher that oil goes above $70 then the
harder the eventual crash would likely be.
And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the
pots of coffee and
stop artificially panicking. Near
as I can tell,
$70
- ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance
between
the global economy and oil producers.
I
hope the current over-reaction on the
oil
price See Saw
will settle back to around $70 by
end of this year or early next year.
Just
my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.
What are your thoughts on the recent news regarding Shale wells drying fast
than they should...I read in WSJ.
Also, $70 doesn't looks that impossible too...yes.
Summer Driving Season and if and when a thaw between
U.S. and China's trade war....can certainly take oil to the said level.
Without any governmental regulations worldwide (International
Socialism) oil could cost even $20 and less
.
Oil could only cost $20, if Saudi Arabia decided to
supply the world with oil by itself - a large amount of our oil supply is from offshore Nigeria, Angola, Gulf
of Mexico (Mexico - USA), North Sea, Brazil, Oil sands, Oil shale, - these locations require $60 oil minimum.
Oil could only cost $20, if Saudi Arabia decided to supply the world
with oil by itself - a large amount of our oil supply is from offshore Nigeria, Angola, Gulf of Mexico
(Mexico - USA), North Sea, Brazil, Oil sands, Oil shale, - these locations require $60 oil minimum.
Well....Mr.
@William
Edwards
here have explained the pricing in a very cogent manner. I'd find the link of the discussion and
post it.here.
If you are buying oil indexes price of
oil is important. If you are buying stocks the question is, will prices go up or down on stocks. There are a
lot of companies that are making a profit at the lower prices. Furthermore there is a lot of companies with
significant cash on hand. They also have low P/E, some in single digits and others in low double digits.
Combine this with the fact that with a little research many of these stocks are rated sells or at best hold and
analysts are rating them as bearish or extremely bearish, there is a good opportunity for some significant
increase. Especially in a market that is still very high. Granted if the market tumbles again, it is hard to
go against the tide. Looks like there is a lot of money to be made in some of these stocks. Some of them will
assuredly be targets for bigger companies wanting to consolidate acreage, others wanting stronger positions in
the Permian, Eagle Ford and SCOOP/STACK plays. Over the next month and maybe 2 there will be a lot of money
made. There is also a lot of insider trading going on, such as the purchase of $4 million in CHK by an exec.
Not a fan of CHK but there are a lot of people who have made a lot of money on them in recent weeks. The
reality is oil prices probably won't plunge even if the stock market goes south in an ugly fashion again, and
with Saudis, Iran and reduction in rigs in the shale plays across America, market sentiment will probably carry
prices at least through mid-Feb. That is plenty of time for oil and gas stocks to claw back some gains based
on the big fall they have had. Just my thoughts after 40 years of working in and watching this industry.
If anybody here hasn't heard my hundreds of ad nauseum comments
this entire dang year about my
hope
for
$65 oil [Brent] for 2018 and my
hope
for
$70 oil [Brent] for 2019, please raise your hand, and I can
reiterate
yet again
.
Meanwhile, I'll gently remind that I already warned repeatedly
this year that $80 is simply not sustainable, and that the higher that oil goes above $70 then the
harder the eventual crash would likely be.
And over to the news, would everyone kindly lay off guzzling the
pots of coffee and
stop artificially panicking. Near
as I can tell,
$70
- ish oil for 2019 still seems about the right balance
between
the global economy and oil producers.
I
hope the current over-reaction on the
oil
price See Saw
will settle back to around $70 by
end of this year or early next year.
Just
my opinion; as always, you are free to disagree.
Rather than troubling you by disagreeing, Tom, may I
request, instead, your basis for selecting $70 as the point where the economy and oil producers meet? My method
uses step-wise accumulation of production, from lowest cost to highest cost, to reach the required 100 MMB/D of
worldwide total demand. The reputable numbers for that exercise suggest lower than $60/B. As Canadian Oil Sands
producers will confirm, the producer does not always cover his cost. So the $60 number is higher than the
practical top. (This explains why the actual average price over history is $40.) The reality is that as long as
you have spare producing capacity, which we always do, that can produce oil at less than $10/B as your
competition, you can forget recovering your higher cost unless you can hoodwink the traders. Of course, the
hoodwinked traders' motto is "Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice, shame on me!
Rather than troubling you by disagreeing, Tom, may I request, instead,
your basis for selecting $70 as the point where the economy and oil producers meet? My method uses
step-wise accumulation of production, from lowest cost to highest cost, to reach the required 100 MMB/D
of worldwide total demand. The reputable numbers for that exercise suggest lower than $60/B. As Canadian
Oil Sands producers will confirm, the producer does not always cover his cost. So the $60 number is
higher than the practical top. (This explains why the actual average price over history is $40.) The
reality is that as long as you have spare producing capacity, which we always do, that can produce oil at
less than $10/B as your competition, you can forget recovering your higher cost unless you can hoodwink
the traders. Of course, the hoodwinked traders' motto is "Fooled me once, shame on you! Fooled me twice,
shame on me!
Nicely put, William.
The niggling thing about the $40 average price over history is that the bulk
of the easy, cheap oil appears to be extracted already. Low-hanging black oil fruit already harvested.
Which means that extraction costs will increase.
So... while $40 is historically accurate for oil, that number is not static,
and seems it must inevitably rise, as it becomes increasingly expensive to extract the black oil fruit from
further up the tree - easy pickings gone already.
U.S. Shale Oil pundits generally seem to agree that $50
or so is the breakeven point for WTI region light tight oil. Removing existing and earlier compounded debts
from the equation, I reckon that sounds about correct. Add in debts though, and it's probably closer to $80.
The niggling thing about the $40 average price over history is that
the bulk of the easy, cheap oil appears to be extracted already. Low-hanging black oil fruit already
harvested.
Which means that extraction costs will increase.
So... while $40 is historically accurate for oil, that number is not
static, and seems it must inevitably rise, as it becomes increasingly expensive to extract the black oil
fruit from further up the tree - easy pickings gone already.
U.S. Shale Oil pundits generally seem to agree that $50 or so is the
breakeven point for WTI region light tight oil. Removing existing and earlier compounded debts from the
equation, I reckon that sounds about correct. Add in debts though, and it's probably closer to $80.
May I differ on one point? Low-hanging fruit is forever!
I do no know for sure, since my x-ray vision fails below 5000 ft, how much cheap oil lies below the Saudi (and
Iraq and Iranian) deserts. But I do know two things. 1) I have been told for forty years that the proven
reserves in Saudi Arabia are 300 Billion barrels. It has not changed even though 10,000,000 B/D are pumped out
continuously. But I do not have to know. I only need to know if it will ever run out. I am sure that it will
not. The oil under the desert will, someday, be worth no more than the sand that covers the desert. 2) Quantity
of reserves is like spare capacity. As long as there is enough, it matters not how much more than "enough"
exists. As long as the Middle East reserves are not running at full capacity and fully depleted, $10 oil will
be available. Must I remind you that the stone age did not run out of stones? Or the nuclear age run out of
uranium? Better replaces inferior.
China, India, Russia seen likely to take more Venezuelan oil
Tight market for heavy crude already a burden to some refiners
Source: Bloomberg
Source: Bloomberg
Refiners in Texas and Louisiana would be hard hit by sanctions on Venezuelan crude under consideration at the
White House, a move that would leave U.S. oil companies struggling to find alternative supplies.
President Donald Trump recognized Juan Guaido as the interim president of Venezuela on Wednesday in the most
provocative move yet against the leftist regime of Nicolas Maduro. Maduro responded by breaking diplomatic
relations with the U.S., giving American diplomats 72 hours to leave the country.
The Trump administration has drafted a slate of sanctions but hasn't decided whether to deploy them, said people
familiar with the matter. Earlier this month, White House officials warned U.S. refiners that sanctions were being
considered, and advised them to seek alternative sources of heavy crude. Some U.S. refiners worried about
sanctions experimented with alternatives last year before ultimately returning to Venezuelan crude.
The hardest-hit would be Citgo Petroleum Corp., the refining arm of
Petroleos de Venezuela SA
, or PDVSA, the state-run oil company. Citgo imported the most Venezuelan crude in
the first 10 months of 2018, followed by Valero Energy Corp.
Royal Dutch Shell Plc
and
Phillips 66
haven't processed Venezuelan crude in their U.S. refineries since the U.S. imposed financial sanctions against
the country and PDVSA in August 2017. Marathon Petroleum Corp.,
Total SA
and
Motiva Enterprises LLC
cut intake by more than a half during that period, and as Venezuelan oil production slumped to the
lowest levels seen since the 1940s.
Oil companies have urged the Trump administration not to limit imports of Venezuelan oil, warning the action could
disadvantage Gulf and East Coast refiners designed to handle the country's heavy crude, while also causing gasoline prices to
rise.
"... That works out to be 320,000 barrels per day. Saudi production increased by 384,000 barrels per day during November. So Saudi's November increase was mostly just emptying their storage tanks. ..."
That works out to be 320,000 barrels per day. Saudi production increased by 384,000 barrels per day during November. So
Saudi's November increase was mostly just emptying their storage tanks.
And from looking at your chart, it looks like the 135,000 barrel per day increase in October was from the same source.
Saudi cuts start from a base of 10,633,000 barrels per day. That is almost their exact production in October. And your chart
shows Saudi inventories had been dropping for months. Saudi had obviously been preparing to "cut" production from a level of production
they reached by emptying their storage tanks.
OPEC released its Oil Market Report in recent days, which showed that the cartel slashed
output by 750,000 bpd in December – sharp reductions that came before the deal even went
into effect. Saudi Arabia led the way with 468,000 bpd in reductions, but its efforts were
aided by the involuntary losses from Iran (-159,000 bpd), Libya (-172,000 bpd) and Venezuela
(-33,000) bpd.
In fact, those three countries have accounted for massive output reductions over the past
two months. The OPEC+ deal is using October as a baseline, calling for 1.2 million barrels per
day (mb/d) in reductions, and the group is well on their way thanks to turmoil in just a few
countries. Over the course of November and December, Iran has lost 561,000 bpd, Libya has lost
190,000 bpd, and Venezuela's output fell by 58,000 bpd. Taken together, the involuntary outages
exceed 800,000 bpd.
But that probably does not not including possible "back channel" from the US government to
major banks which allow them to finance unprofitable oil extraction.
Notable quotes:
"... $70/b by the end of 2019 is very reasonable [estimate] and actually similar to many of the major banks. The $55/b average expectation of oil executives according to Dallas Fed is too low in my opinion. ..."
Agree, Rapier is very good. $70/b by the end of 2019 is very reasonable [estimate] and actually
similar to many of the major banks. The $55/b average expectation of oil executives according
to Dallas Fed is too low in my opinion. Rapier is spot on (within $5/b of being correct) imo.
Much depends on what ROI is acceptable for an oil company, if they require a 15% ROI, then
the average 2017 Permian Basin well (average cost full cycle assumed to be $9.5 million)
needs $66/b at refinery gate ($62/b at wellhead) to meet that hurdle, EUR is about 411
kb.
"... The news that the Saudis will cut even more production than specified in their recent pledge in hopes of raising world prices to $80 a barrel was an important part of last week's price jump. Hopes that the US and China would settle their trade dispute during on-going talks was also an important factor in the recent price jump. ..."
"... While the US economy has been bumping along nicely in recent months, the same is not true for the other major centers of economic power – China and Europe. ..."
Oil prices continued to climb last week and are now some $10 a barrel higher than they were
just before Christmas when recent lows were set. Prices now have retraced about 30 percent of
the $35 a barrel drop that took place between late September and late December. Part of the
recent price correction likely is due to technical factors such as closing out long positions
in the futures markets. The news that the Saudis will cut even more production than specified
in their recent pledge in hopes of raising world prices to $80 a barrel was an important part
of last week's price jump. Hopes that the US and China would settle their trade dispute during
on-going talks was also an important factor in the recent price jump.
Looming over the talk about OPEC+ production cuts and how fast US shale oil production might
grow are the prospects for the global economy. A major recession could drive the demand for oil
so low that even current prices would be difficult to maintain. While there have always been
people convinced that a major economic crash is in the offing, in recent weeks there has been a
noticeable increase in the number and stridency of these predictions.
While the US economy has been bumping along nicely in recent months, the same is not true
for the other major centers of economic power – China and Europe. The Washington Post
headlines that "Economic growth is slowing all around the world," citing declines in the equity
markets; sputtering German factories, and Chinese retail sales growing at their slowest pace in
15 years. Even Beijing is looking for its GDP to grow by 6-6.5 percent this year which is way
off from the heady days of double digits ten years ago.
Eurozone economic forecasts fell last Monday again after a survey of economists found that
GDP is expected to grow just below 1.6 percent this year, 0.4 percentage points lower than an
already conservative estimate from March. A new report from the World Bank, citing a variety of
data, including softening international trade and investment, ongoing trade tensions, and
financial turmoil concludes that "the outlook for the global economy in 2019 has darkened."
Among the darker forecasts for the future are those that speculate on a global depression on
the scale of the 1930s where GDPs fall by 10 to 25 percent. Others are saying that the global
economy may be approaching " The Limits to Growth " as discussed in the famous 1972
book.
... ... ...
Virendra Chauhan of Energy Aspects told CNBC last week that "$50 oil is not a level at which
US producers can generate cash flow and production growth, so we do expect a slowdown." In a
Bloomberg radio interview John Kilduff, founding partner of Again Capital Management, said "we
were getting into the zone where U.S. shale producers stop making money particularly when you
sort of add in all the costs, not just the pure say drilling and extraction. It's going to
start to get tough for them right now."
... ... ...
Iran : Iran's crude exports dropped to 1 million b/d in November from 2.5 million b/d
in April, taking exports back to where they stood during the 2012-2016 sanctions. According to
three companies that track Iranian exports, Tehran's crude shipments remained below 1 million
b/d in December and are unlikely to exceed that level in January. Tracking
... ... ...
Iraq : Baghdad posted its highest monthly export total to date in December and,
combined with Kurdistan, set a nationwide annual record of 4.15 million b/d -- more than
100,000 b/d above the previous record, set in December 2016. The government said on Friday it
is committed to the OPEC+ output-cutting deal and would keep its oil production at 4.513
million b/d for the first half of 2019
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia : According to OPEC officials, Saudi Arabia is planning to cut crude
exports to around 7.1 million b/d by the end of January in hopes of lifting oil prices above
$80 a barrel.
... ... ...
Libya: Tripoli plans to pump 2.1 million b/d of crude oil by 2021 if the security
situation improves, the chairman of the National Oil Corporation said last week. The plan would
represent a doubling of the current rate of production, which currently stands at 953,000
b/d.
... ... ....
4. Russia
Moscow has already lowered its oil output by around 30,000 b/d compared with October
volumes, which is used as the baseline under the latest OPEC/non-OPEC crude production
agreement. Russian energy minister Novak said Friday: "We are gradually lowering output; our
plan is that overall production in January will be 50,000 b/d less than in October."
"... Last year, oil production in Norway fell to 1.49 million barrels per day (bpd), down by 6.3 percent compared to the 1.59 million bpd production in 2017, the oil industry regulator, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), said in its annual report this week. Oil production this year is forecast to drop by another 4.7 percent from last year to reach in 2019 its lowest level in thirty years -- 1.42 million bpd, the NPD estimates show. ..."
"... However, the Norwegian oil regulator warned that "resource growth at this level is not sufficient to maintain production of oil and gas at a high level after 2025. Therefore, it is essential that more profitable resources are proven in the next few years." ..."
"... The industry's problem is that after Johan Sverdrup and Johan Castberg there haven't been major discoveries. ..."
Despite cost controls, increased efficiency, and higher activity offshore Norway, oil
production at Western Europe's largest oil producer fell in 2018 compared to 2017 and is
further expected to drop this year to its lowest level since 1988.
Last year, oil production in Norway fell to 1.49 million barrels per day (bpd), down by 6.3
percent compared to the 1.59 million bpd production in 2017, the oil industry regulator, the
Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), said in its annual report this week. Oil
production this year is forecast to drop by another 4.7 percent from last year to reach in 2019
its lowest level in thirty years -- 1.42 million bpd, the NPD estimates show.
As bad as it sounds, this year's expected low production is not the worst news for the
Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) going forward.
Oil production is expected to jump in 2020 through 2023, thanks to the start up in late 2019
of Johan
Sverdrup -- the North Sea giant, as operator Equinor calls it. With expected resources of
2.1 billion -- 3.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent, Johan Sverdrup is one of the largest
discoveries on the NCS ever made. It will be one of the most important industrial projects in
Norway in the next 50 years, and at its peak, the project's production will account for 25
percent of Norway's total oil production, Equinor says.
The worst news for Norway's oil production, as things stand now, is that after Johan
Sverdrup and after Johan Castberg
in the Barents Sea scheduled for first oil in 2022, Norway doesn't have major oil discoveries
and projects to sustain its oil production after the middle of the 2020s.
The NPD
started warning last year that from the mid-2020s onward, production offshore Norway will
start to decline "so making new and large discoveries quickly is necessary for maintaining
production at the same level from the mid-2020s."
In the report this week, NPD Director General Bente Nyland said:
"The high level of exploration activity proves that the Norwegian Shelf is attractive.
That is good news! However, resource growth at this level is not sufficient to maintain a
high level of production after 2025. Therefore, more profitable resources must be proven, and
the clock is ticking".
Norwegian oil production in 2018 was expected to drop compared to the previous year, but the
decline "proved to be greater than expected," the NPD said, attributing part of the production
fall to the fact that some of the newer fields are more complex than previously assumed, and
certain other fields delivered below forecast, mainly because fewer wells were drilled than
expected.
In October 2018, Germany's Wintershall
warned that its Maria oil and gas field off Norway was not fully meeting expectations due
to issues with water injection. Those issues haven't been solved yet, NPD's Nyland told
Reuters this week.
Exploration activity in Norway considerably increased in 2018 compared to 2017, with 53
exploration wells spud, up by 17 wells compared to the previous year. Based on company plans,
this year's exploration activity is expected to remain high and around the 2018 number of wells
spud, the NPD says.
The key reasons for higher exploration activity have been reduced costs, higher oil prices
lifting exploration profitability, and new and improved seismic data on large parts of the
Shelf, the NPD noted.
However, the Norwegian oil regulator warned that "resource growth at this level is not
sufficient to maintain production of oil and gas at a high level after 2025. Therefore, it is
essential that more profitable resources are proven in the next few years."
Norway still holds a lot of oil under its Shelf, and those remaining resources could sustain
its oil and gas production for decades to come. The industry's problem is that after Johan
Sverdrup and Johan Castberg there haven't been major discoveries.
According to the NPD's resource estimate, nearly two-thirds of the undiscovered resources
lie in the Barents Sea.
"Therefore, this area will be important for maintaining production over the longer term,"
the regulator said.
Operators on the NCS have made great efforts to try to make even smaller discoveries
profitable by hooking them to existing platforms and production hubs. However, these smaller
finds alone can't offset maturing production -- Norway needs major oil discoveries, and it
needs them soon , considering that the lead time from discovery to production is several
years.
Chinese crude oil imports up +9.9% higher in full year 2018 compared to FY 2017.
The month of December up +29.9% higher than Dec 2017
2019-01-14 OilyticsData
Another big crude import number from China (2nd consecutive month of imports above 10 MMB/D).
Low oil prices and startup of mega refineries such as RongSheng and Hengli is helping to keep
these numbers near record levels.(Source; GAC China)
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Dw3fk2GXcAUZ_Vu.jpg
Oilytics https://twitter.com/OilyticsData
"... All of these oil-weighted stocks are part of the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF ( XOP ). They have production mixes of at least 60.0% in liquids based on their latest quarterly production data. Liquids include crude oil, condensates, and natural gas liquids. ..."
The following oil-weighted stocks could be the most sensitive to US crude oil's movements. They might be impacted the most by
oil's price movement based on their correlations with US crude oil active futures in the trailing week:
In the trailing week, US crude oil active futures rose 12.5%. Occidental Petroleum was the third-largest gainer on our list of
oil-weighted stocks. The top gainers, Callon Petroleum ( CPE
) and Whiting Petroleum ( WLL ) rose 30.5% and 20.6%,
respectively, in the trailing week despite having a mild negative correlation with oil prices. The trade talks between the US and
China might have caused these stocks to increase. In the previous part, we discussed that easing trade war concerns might be behind
the rise in oil prices. ConocoPhillips had the highest correlation with oil. ConocoPhillips has risen 4.8% -- the lowest among our
selected oil-weighted stocks.
All of these oil-weighted stocks are part of the SPDR S&P Oil & Gas Exploration & Production ETF (
XOP ). They have production mixes of at least 60.0% in liquids
based on their latest quarterly production data. Liquids include crude oil, condensates, and natural gas liquids.
Questionable, but still interesting perspective. Ignore marketing crap -- clearly there is marketing push within this presentation
-- she wants your subscriptions. "This is Main Street vs Wall Street" dichotomy sounds plausible. Neoliberalism is, in essence, is the
restoration of power of financial oligarchy.
But the idea of secret open bailout might explain why shale oil became so prominent despite high cost of producing it: Wall Street
was subsidised via backchannels for bringing price downand supporting shale companies by the US goverment
$21 trillion in "missing money" at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017
has now become a national security issue. The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently
failed its first ever audit.
Fitts says, "This is basically an open running bailout. Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government
into private ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You can't even know who is
doing it. I'm telling you they just took the United States government, they just changed the governance model by accounting policy
to a fascist government. If you are an investor, you don't know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you do. . .
. If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so for 20 years, and then when somebody calls
you on it, you proceed to change the accounting laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related
entities."
In closing, Fitts says, "We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected President. The President cannot fix this.
We need to fix this. . . . This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you want the United
States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you are going to have to do it, and there is no one else
who can do it. You have to first get the intelligence to know what is happening."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of "The Solari Report." Donations:
https://usawatchdog.com/donations/
Greg, with all due respect I don't you understand what CAF is saying. Forget about a dollar reset. The fascists, using
the Treasury, Exchange Stabilization Fund, HUD, DOD and any agency they choose, have turned the US government into a gigantic
money laundering operation. And they maintain two sets of books - the public numbers are a complete sham. Any paper assets held
by private citizens are not secure, are likely rehypothecated, and when convenient can be frozen or siezed by these fascists in
Washington. There is no limit to how many dollars the FED can create secretly and funnel out through the ESF/Treasury to prop
up and bail out any bank, black ops, pet project, mercenary army or paper assets they choose. The missing $21 trillion is probably
a drop in the bucket as there is no audit and no honest books for us to examine. In sum, all paper asset pricing in dollars is
a fraud and a sham. Any paper assets you think you own, whether it be stocks, bonds, or real estate are pure illusion: they can
be repriced or stolen at any time; in reality, you own nothing. To the man and woman on the street I say this: get out of paper,
get out of these markets and convert to tangibles in your physical possession - and do it secretly and privately, avoid insurances,
records, paper trails. This mass defrauding of the American people by this corrupt government in Washington will come crashing
down when the US dollar is displaced from reserve status; this is what China and Russia and the BRICS are setting the stage for:
world trade without the US dollar. When this happens, your dollars will become virtual toilet paper and all of your paper assets
will go poof.
"We have to fix this". Ok how does the individual fix this? Private armies are running around doing whatever private armies
do and I, the one man, is suppose to fix this. Please, will someone tell us what we are suppose to do, specific instructions not
a mix of large words that say " we must fix this", damn, we need a leader. Greg you ask almost every person you interview what
the middle class should be doing to protect themselves and you never get a "real" answer, just a dance around. Also you ask numerous
people what this coming change is going to look like and again, just silence or dance music, no answers. Damn we need a leader.
Your trying very hard to give us information that will help us weather the coming storm, so thank you for all you do, and you
do more than anyone else out there.
Question, why in part do I feel I am being lied to? Is it subscription hustle or is it, don't you believe your lying eyes!
Without knowing exactly what is what, anyone who would've watched Herbert Walker Bush's funeral with reactions from those who
received cards, whether they be Bush family, the Clintons, the Obamas and entourage. Jeb Bush went from being proud and patriotic
to panic like the funeral that he was at was for the whole family.
Joe Biden looked like he had a major personal accident and no way to get to the bathroom for cleanup.
George W. Bush after being asked a question, of which the answer was, "Yep" then proceeded to appear resigned and stoic! What
ever was on those cards essentially amounted to, for all those receiving a card, "the gig is up" and it appears they all damn
well knew it.
So, Catherine Austin Fitts, explain your, "Trump is colluding with the Bushies," I would say, that Canary in this mine of inquiry
is dead. I'm just an old disabled Vietnam vet of plebeian background and certainly not a revolving door Washington DC Beltway
patrician, so any explanation needs to be delivered in slow, logical step-by-step progression for I have not mastered the art
of selling the sizzle in hopes that the dupes will later pay for the steak. I prefer, Greg, when you actually get more combative
with Ms. Fitts. Make America, great again and do so, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
35 min: Fitts gives a great synopsis of the problem. She never deviates in all of her interviews. greg doesn't seem to understand
at all. She repeats herself MULTIPLE TIMES and greg is still asking the same irrelevant PREPPER questions. IT DOES NOT MATTER
WHAT ASSETS YOU HOLD GREG, AND THAT INCLUDES GOLD!!!! WHEN YOU'RE EXISTING IN A TYRANNICAL SYSTEM THAT STEALS AT WILL FROM ITS'
CONSTITUENCY YOU CAN'T actually OWN ANYTHING!!!! lord! only so many ways to say
She lost credibility when she said Trump has "made a deal with the Bushes." That defies logic. The Bushes made a deal with
Trump! Trump has gained full control of the military with a $ 1 1/2 trillion war chest. Trump and Putin are putting the China
toothpaste back in the tube.
This woman clearly knows nothing about the plan..she has not even mentioned that the world bank president has resigned who
was appointed by obumma. And that is HUGE. She was in government in the corruption, but she doesn't know how things will be fixed..she's
not in that loop of current things in the new reset..shes coming from her own perceptions
This woman always make me sick to my stomach. She comes out and says a bunch of scary stuff and offers no solution. If it's
too much for just one person, then we the people need to take control. We don't need a central bank. We need local and state banks
like the Bank of North Dakota then we can migrate over to them and then shut down the Fed.
2019-01-11 (Bloomberg) Saudi and Canadian cuts are leaving world hungry for heavy crude
Refiners along the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest invested billions of dollars in cokers and
other heavy-oil processing units over the past three decades anticipating supplies of light
oil would become scarce while heavy crude from Canada's oil sands, Venezuela and Mexico would
grow. Instead, the opposite occurred.
The shale revolution, as well as new offshore supplies form Brazil and West Africa, caused a
surge of light oil, while supplies from Venezuela to Mexico declined. Canada's growth has
been stymied by delays in getting new pipelines built.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/saudi-and-canadian-cuts-are-leaving-world-hungry-for-heavy-crude-1.1197259
India – Consumption of Petroleum Products (Without LPG or PetCoke)(kt/day)
December 2018 up +7.01% higher than December 2017
Average full year 2018 up +6.80% higher than full year 2017
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwoYp5xWsAA_vRh.jpg
India Light Distillates Consumption (shown in chart)
Average full year 2018 up +9.74% higher than full year 2017
Chart https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DwoY_yjX4AA-S9K.jpg
India Middle Distillates Consumption
Average full year 2018 up +3.92% higher than full year 2017
ABU DHABI (Reuters) - United Arab Emirates Energy Minister Suhail al-Mazrouei said on
Saturday the average oil price in 2018 was $70 a barrel.
The Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries and other leading global oil producers
led by Russia agreed in December to cut their combined oil output by 1.2 million barrels per
day to balance the oil market starting from January.
"Today we look at an average year of around $70 for Brent," Mazrouei told an industry news
conference in Abu Dhabi, adding that this level would help encourage global oil investments. An
energy ministry spokesman said the minister was referring to the average oil price in 2018.
Same source of info which is the Dallas Fed. Only, this one discusses costs more. As, was
discussed here, previously, WTI needs to be closer to $70 barrel to induce interest.
Notwithstanding recent
oil-price volatility , spending on offshore oilfield services will rise by 6 percent in 2019 reaching $208 billion, before surging
by another 14 percent in 2020, according to Norwegian consultancy
Rystad Energy AS . That's after almost halving since 2014.
U.S. shale industry could struggle if WTI remains below $60-$70 per barrel (differ by the
area and the spots). Investing in $50th range is just "hope" investmnet which is reling og
positive price dynamics, and below them is clear losses for produces, which means additional
junk bond issues.
... ... ...
But even as production held up, drilling activity indicated a sharper slowdown was underway.
The index for utilization of equipment by oilfield services firms dropped sharply in the fourth
quarter, down from 43 points in the third quarter to just 1.6 in the fourth – falling to
the point where there was almost no growth at all quarter-on-quarter.
Meanwhile, employment has also taken a hit. The employment index fell from 31.7 to 17.5,
suggesting a "moderating in both employment and work hours growth in the fourth quarter," the
Dallas Fed wrote. Labor conditions in oilfield services were particularly hit hard.
The data lends weight to comments made by top oilfield service firms from several months
ago. Schlumberger and Halliburton warned in the third
quarter of last year that shale companies were slowing drilling activity. Pipeline constraints,
well productivity problems and "budget exhaustion" was leading to weaker drilling conditions.
The comments were notable at the time, and received press coverage, but oil prices were still
high and still rising, and so was shale output. The crash in oil prices and the worsening
slowdown in the shale patch puts those comments in new light.
What does all of this mean? If oil producers are not hiring service firms and deploying
equipment, that suggests they are rather price sensitive. The fall in oil prices forced
cutbacks in drilling activity. Oilfield service firms in particular are bearing the brunt of
the slowdown. Executives from oilfield service firms told the Dallas Fed that their operating
margins declined in the quarter.
Baker huges reports a current US rig count decrease of 1% in the past two weeks. Several
companies I support in the Permian have stacked rigs and layed off workers. $50 bbl is the
magic number, the longer below that number the worse it will get.
Or it shows how much better the industry has gotten in response to production and prices.
It's like a capital intensive industry that doesn't waste capital drilling for something that
won't make them money. That's preservation of capital.
It doesn't take years or months to respond. It takes weeks.
Yes sure, the easiest datasets to follow in one place are at SRSrocco. Steve StAngelo,
kudos to him, has been onto this for years and has analyzed a lot of data from different
sources.
There are lots of other sources if you duck it (Google is, of course, much more of the
official narrative) but Steve has done a pretty good job of pulling a lot of information
together over many years and for free. Even the paid access business facilities don't have
much information (Surprise?).
The shale industry has been a kind of Ponzi scheme with OPM, entirely dependent on
constant new loans to keep production levels up with new wells, and has never made a profit.
I have often wondered, actually, to what extent the ESF (That is, USG) has supported the
industry as a means of attempting to put more pressure on RRRRUUUUUSSSSSIIIAAAAA!!!!!!! and
its energy income. Ultimately, unsuccessfully so, so perhaps this support might not last too
much longer?
Without subsidies from "someone", it's difficult to understand how an unprofitable
industry could have survived for so long. The Banks are not stupid. Wait, let me re-consider
that last remark!! But not in the way I meant
"... It makes sense for Saudi Arabia to focus its cuts on sales to the U.S., the only country that publishes detailed weekly data on oil imports and inventory levels -- traders watch the reports closely. This means the reductions will be evident more quickly than would similar cuts to other destinations, so a drop in American imports should have a much more immediate impact on price expectations. ..."
There's already less Saudi crude oil getting loaded for export.
The list of things that President Donald Trump criticizes in his tweets varies from one day to the next. He may soon have to direct
his ire to oil prices and the actions of his ally, Saudi Arabia, once again.
The desert kingdom is already making good on its promise to slash supply, and the initial evidence suggests that the biggest cut
is being made in deliveries to the U.S. On top of that, the price it charges American buyers of its crude has been raised to near
record levels for cargoes to be shipped in February. That could be bad news for a president who just celebrated falling gas prices.
The OPEC+ group of countries met in December and,
after Russia took the reins
, eventually agreed to cut supplies by 1.2 million barrels a day from January. For Saudi Arabia,
that meant cutting production to just over 10.3 million, but it pledged to go further -- oil minister Khalid Al-Falih told reporters
and analysts that it would be slashed to 10.2 million barrels a day in January.
The first job was to unwind the output surge made in November that had helped to deliver the price drop hailed by Trump. That
was done last month. Saudi production in December was back below the October baseline used for its (and most other countries') promised
cuts.
Saudi Cuts
Saudi crude production was cut to 10.65 million barrels a day in December from a record 11.07 million in November
That couldn't have been what Trump wanted, given what he tweeted the day before OPEC began its meeting in Vienna -- at the time,
crude prices were in the midst of their worst quarterly decline in four years.
Bloomberg's tracking of crude exports from
Saudi Arabia indicates that the biggest drop in flows from the kingdom was in the volume heading for the U.S. Shipments to ports
on the Atlantic, Gulf and West coasts fell by nearly 60 percent between November and December to just over 350,000 barrels a day.
That's the lowest since Bloomberg started tracking these flows in January 2017.
Cutting Shipments
The flow of Saudi crude heading to the U.S. slumped last month, as the kingdom slashed output
The size of the drop isn't set in stone -- a small number of ships signaling that they are heading for the Suez Canal or Singapore
could eventually go to the U.S. Even so, a decline in Saudi crude shipments to American ports should start to show up in lower deliveries
after about six weeks. By mid-February, U.S. imports of the kingdom's oil could fall to the lowest in more than 30 years, according
to data from the Department of Energy. The last time the flow from Saudi to the U.S. fell below half a million barrels a day was
in the mid-1980s, after the kingdom slashed its production by 80 percent over four years in an ultimately unsuccessful attempt to
prop up oil prices.
Slowing The Flow
Imports of Saudi crude into the U.S. could soon fall to their lowest in more than 30 years
It's not just this volume decline that is going to rile Trump. The price of that oil isn't going to make him happy either.
Saudi Arabia sets its crude prices a month in advance of it being loaded at its export terminals, so it has just published its
price list for February. In common with other producers, it does not set an outright price, but rather a differential to regional
benchmarks for each export grade and each market area.
Price differentials for U.S. buyers have been going up since August and for most grades are now close to record levels. Saudi
heavy crude, which is the closest alternative to dwindling supplies from Venezuela and Mexico, is the most expensive it's been since
2009 in relative terms.
Price Rises
Saudi crude prices for U.S. buyers have risen to near record levels against the regional benchmark
It makes sense for Saudi Arabia to focus its cuts on sales to the U.S., the only country that publishes detailed weekly data on
oil imports and inventory levels -- traders watch the reports closely. This means the reductions will be evident more quickly than
would similar cuts to other destinations, so a drop in American imports should have a much more immediate impact on price expectations.
There is no reason to doubt that Al-Falih will do what he said in Vienna. It was only after slashing exports to the U.S. in July
2017 that oil prices really began to recover, and Saudi Arabia will be hoping for a similar impact this time, too. But don't be surprised
if that also unleashes angry tweets from the U.S. president.
Julian Lee is an oil strategist for Bloomberg First Word. Previously he worked as a senior analyst at the Centre for Global Energy
Studies.
From the piece you linked above which seems to indicate capex spending will be flat to
slightly down there was also this:
Asked to provide a specific price for WTI used for capital planning this year,
executives said they expect prices to average $54/bbl, with responses ranging from $50 to
$64.99. Only 9% thought prices would be below $50.
If their oil price expectation (the average) proves correct, there will not be a lot of
money made in 2019 in the tight oil plays of Texas.
"... The EIA weekly reports are a joke with zero movements for crude inventory for last 2 weeks. And an adjustment factor that nobody understands. Maybe the government shutdown has some influence after all. ..."
It is all a big illusion that oil is cheap like water in my opinion. To manipulate the market
down will only make for more volatility in the future, and it is a good a bet as when the oil
price fell to 30 dollars/b in 2016 that prices will eventually rise again from this level.
It has do with that the tanking of oil prices is out of the usual cycle in the industry
(low investments makes for less oil after 3+ years).
I have started to bet on oil prices going up again even more for the fun of it (a few bets
made too early I have to admit) and now I put some meaningful amount of money in it; to make
it even more fun hopefully.
The EIA weekly reports are a joke with zero movements for crude inventory for last 2
weeks. And an adjustment factor that nobody understands. Maybe the government shutdown has
some influence after all.
To build a wall against the tide water is an illustration of how successful it will be to
keep the oil prices down with illusional data alone. And I stand by that a recession based on
"fear" news alone is fake, but can of course in the end become a self fulfilling
prophecy.
And [there is] the real fear is inflation based on too high oil prices. Extensive tariffs
to hinder trade will also never help prosperity, but it remains to be seen if threats are
made real or if the policy at some point will be revoked.
You guys insist on continuing to think money isn't created from thin air by the Fed and
actually means something in the context of a substance that feeds you food. If you have to
have it, and you do have to have it, things will be done for you to get it. Borrowed money
that was created from thin air . . . who cares if you can't pay it back? You have to eat.
Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because
there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that depends
on physics.
You won't know anything until you find yourself sitting in a line waiting for gasoline.
You won't see it coming. You won't predict it. It will just happen someday.
Some truth to that Watcher. Simplistic thinking in investors. If we aren't making much money,
the US won't be making much money, so the price of oil must go lower. Not just simplistic,
flat out stupid.
And the number of people who think oil supply is limited is fairly scarce in relation to
the population as a whole. Probably less than the number of people who think chocolate milk
comes from brown cows.
On Friday, Bloomberg said
that many of the world's largest banks are forecasting a rebound in oil prices next year as
fears of a recession prove misplaced.
According to a Bloomberg survey of oil analysts, Brent will average $70 a barrel in 2019,
almost a third higher than its price on Thursday. Michael Cohen, head of energy and commodities
research at Barclays Plc in New York, said "we could even see something similar to a V-shaped
recovery next year, on two very important conditions. One, that the reduction in OPEC exports
leads to a reduction in inventories. And two, that we don't see a further deterioration in
macroeconomic conditions."
The Bloomberg report added that despite a recent darkening outlook for the global economy
amid prolonged trade disputes between the U.S. and China, and as the U.S. Federal Reserve
embarks on tightening monetary policy, most commentators aren't seeing an actual recession
biting the oil market next year. The median forecast of 24 oil analysts in the Bloomberg survey
projects that Brent crude futures will average exactly $70 a barrel in 2019. The price on
Thursday was about $53.50 while the average so far in 2018 has been about $72. Meanwhile, the
median forecast for WTI is $61.13. WTI futures traded at about $45.27 on Monday.
America is now the largest producer of oil in the world. For the U.S., this is great news as
the dream of energy independence grows and maybe one day we can tell OPEC to go take a
hike.
However, while the shale oil revolution has helped change the energy landscape forever, we
cannot take shale for granted. We can't just assume that the industry can withstand any price
and that production can keep rising despite the market conditions. We can't assume that shale
oil producers can match OPEC production cuts barrel for barrel.
We also can't assume OPEC, weakened by falling prices of late, won't strike back like they
did in 2014. That's when OPEC declared a production war on U.S. shale producers. The then de
facto head of the OPEC Cartel Ali al-Naimi spoke about market share rivalry with the United
States and said that they wanted a battle with the U.S. There were no winners in that
production war. Ali al-Naimi was sacked as he almost bankrupted Saudi Arabia. It took its toll
on U.S. producers as well, as many were forced into bankruptcy despite making significant
progress on efficiency and cost cutting.
With 2019 underway, OPEC, along with Russia, agreed to remove 1.2 million barrels per day
off the market for the first six months of the year. Early reports on OPEC compliance to the
agreed upon production cuts is overwhelming at a time when there are new questions about how
shale oil producers are faring after this recent oil price drop.
Private forecasters are showing that there are major cuts in Saudi exports and even signs
that OPEC production is falling sharply. Bloomberg News confirmed that by reporting "observed
crude exports from Saudi Arabia fell to 7.253 million barrels per day in December on lower
flows to the U.S. and China." Furthermore, other private trackers believe that the drop may be
the biggest in exports since Bloomberg began tracking shipments in early 2017. Oil saw another
boost after Bloomberg reported that OPEC oil production had the biggest monthly drop in two
years falling by 530,000 barrels a day to 32.6 million a day last month. It's the sharpest
pullback since January 2017.
Rewind to 2017, there was talk that shale oil producers would make up the difference and the
cut would not matter, but that was proven wrong. This time expect the same because it is likely
that shale oil producers may have to cut back as the sharp price drop has put them in a bad
position. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that, even now, some shale oil wells are not
producing as much oil as expected. This coupled with a large declining production rate in shale
swells means that they need capital to keep drilling to keep those record production numbers
moving higher. "Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017
in America's four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic, according to
the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers in oil basins in
Texas and North Dakota. Collectively, the companies that made projections are on track to pump
nearly 10% less oil and gas than they forecast for those areas, according to the analysis of
data from Rystad Energy AS, an energy consulting firm. That is the equivalent of almost one
billion barrels of oil and gas over 30 years, worth more than $30 billion at current prices.
Some companies are off track by more than 50% in certain regions" the Journal reported.
"While U.S. output rose to an all-time high of 11.5 million barrels a day, shaking up the
geopolitical balance by putting U.S. production on par with Saudi Arabia and Russia. The
Journal's findings suggest current production levels may be hard to sustain without greater
spending, because operators will have to drill more wells to meet growth targets. Yet shale
drillers, most of whom have yet to consistently make money, are under pressure to cut spending
in the face of a 40% crude-oil price decline since October."
Of course, none of this matters if we see a prolonged slowdown in the global economy, Demand
may indeed turn out to be the great equalizer. Yet if growth comes back, say if we get a China
trade deal or if they ever reopen the U.S. government, we will most likely see a very tight
market in the new year. The OPEC cuts will lead to a big drawdown in supply and shale oil
producers will find it hard to match OPEC and demand growth barrel for barrel.
OPEC oil supply fell by 460,000 barrels per day (bpd) between November and December, to
32.68 million bpd, a Reuters survey found on Thursday, as top exporter Saudi Arabia made an
early start to a supply-limiting accord, while Iran and Libya posted involuntary declines.
OPEC, Russia and other non-members - an alliance known as OPEC+ - agreed last December to
reduce supply by 1.2 million bpd in 2019 versus October 2018 levels. OPEC's share of that cut
is 800,000 bpd.
"If OPEC is faithful to its agreed output cut together with non-OPEC partners, it would take
3-4 months to mop up the excess inventories," energy consultancy FGE said.
"... Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in America's four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic, according to the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers ..."
"... Collectively, the [shale] companies that made projections are on track to pump nearly 10% less oil and gas than they forecast for those areas, according to the analysis of data from Rystad Energy AS, an energy consulting firm. That is the equivalent of almost one billion barrels of oil and gas over 30 years, worth more than $30 billion at current prices. Some companies are off track by more than 50% in certain regions. ..."
MSM seems to be catching on to the hype in shale, excerpts from an excellent article on
shale on WSJ today:
Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in
America's four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic, according to
the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers in oil basins in
Texas and North Dakota.
Collectively, the [shale] companies that made projections are on track to pump nearly 10% less oil
and gas than they forecast for those areas, according to the analysis of data from Rystad
Energy AS, an energy consulting firm. That is the equivalent of almost one billion barrels of
oil and gas over 30 years, worth more than $30 billion at current prices. Some companies are
off track by more than 50% in certain regions.
-- --
In September 2015, Pioneer Natural Resources, based in Irving, Texas, told investors that
it expected wells in the Eagle Ford shale of South Texas to produce 1.3 million barrels of
oil and gas apiece. Those wells now appear to be on a pace to produce about 482,000 barrels,
63% less than forecast, according to the Journal's analysis.
An average of Pioneer's 2015 forecasts for wells it had recently fracked in the Midland
portion of the Permian basin suggested they would produce about 960,000 barrels of oil and
gas each. Those wells are now on track to produce about 720,000 barrels, according to the
Journal's review, 25% below Pioneer's projections.
In 2014, Parsley Energy, an Austin, Texas-based producer, told investors its average well
in the Midland section of the Permian basin would produce 690,000 barrels, according to a
review of Parsley's quarterly earnings presentations. By 2015, its estimates averaged
1,050,000 barrels.
Parsley is on track to miss its Midland well forecasts for every year from 2014 to 2017 by
an average of 25%, according to the Journal's analysis.
-- --
One reason thousands of early shale wells aren't meeting expectations is that many
companies extrapolated how much they would produce from small clusters of prolific initial
wells, according to reserves specialists. Some also excluded their worst-performing wells
from the calculations, which is akin to eliminating strikeouts when projecting a baseball
player's batting average.
"... Based on first year production numbers supplied by Shallow Sand, production can't increase without borrowing, except in some isolated areas. ..."
"... Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that depends on physics. ..."
As I have posted before, the wells we apply a 60 month payout to have a much lower
decline rate than the shale wells, and are being drilled out of cash flow, not borrowed
money.
For example, a well we drilled in 2006 just passed 10,000 BO and produced 370 BO in
2018. It cost about 1/100 the cost of a shale well ($70K +/-).
Maybe not a valid comparison, but. 100:1 ratio would be cumulative of 1 million BO
and annual of 37,000 BO, which I think a rate you will not find often for any US shale well
after 12.5 years on production.
Our LOE is higher per BO, so not entirely valid, but still maybe somewhat useful for
comparison.
I note in the WSJ article PXD argued that the comparisons weren't valid because they
use a 50 year well life in calculating EUR v 30 year well life in the study.
I would think the PV of years 30-50 would be tiny on a 20,000' hz well producing
under 20 BOEPD! That PXD uses that argument seems to make them look a little foolish? Or am I
being too tough on them?
Shallow, you know they can't run a stripper well like you. Damn thing will be
plugged at seven years. Dennis can calculate his damn curves to twenty to thirty years if
he wants to. I can't disprove it, because we are only in about year eight, and some have
probably been plugged already, although I have no statistics on it. Although, I found one
of EOGs that didn't make it 7 years without trying too hard.
Mike was talking about borrowing on conventional production that has a much
smaller decline rate. You drill one this year, and borrow the next year to drill another,
you are increasing production. Not running on a treadmill.
Don't have the paywall, but you've given the gist. Investors were not happy with
returns. Now, they are being fact checked, and that can look real messy. Borrowing is set
to become restricted for many reasons. I really see some headwinds for future production
increases.
Based on first year production numbers supplied by Shallow Sand, production
can't increase without borrowing, except in some isolated areas.
To get even close to
covering declines from last years wells, they have to, at least, recover most of that
capex cost in the first year of production. That is far from reality, right now. To
increase, or later to even keep up, with production, they will have to borrow money. They
can possibly make a profit in three years, but that is meaningless to providing for
growth. Think it going to start looking nastier.
And to add to Ron's answer, God would have to add, and make each well profitable the
first year.
The miracle of US shale is about to have Toto pull back the curtain and reveal the
real wizard.
Shale was, is, and will be just a supplemental source of oil supply. An investor
could, if it was managed right, put x amount into the business, and in several years get
a marginal return. In two to three years, a second well could be drilled to increase that
income. That would be shale production growth. Not the imaginary growth numbers that are
being thrown out.
The putrid 10Qs and 10ks for 2019 will add to the fire.
You guys insist on continuing to think money isn't created from thin air by the Fed and
actually means something in the context of a substance that feeds you food. If you have to
have it, and you do have to have it, things will be done for you to get it. Borrowed money
that was created from thin air . . . who cares if you can't pay it back? You have to
eat.
Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because
there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that
depends on physics.
You won't know anything until you find yourself sitting in a line waiting for gasoline.
You won't see it coming. You won't predict it. It will just happen someday.
Some truth to that Watcher. Simplistic thinking in investors. If we aren't making much
money, the US won't be making much money, so the price of oil must go lower. Not just
simplistic, flat out stupid.
And the number of people who think oil supply is limited is fairly scarce in relation to
the population as a whole. Probably less than the number of people who think chocolate milk
comes from brown cows.
And if you think I am being unreasonably hard on the average IQ, google who is now
running the country, and consider almost 50% voted for him. Ok, I'll give them somewhat of
a break, as I didn't like the alternative, either. They should allow write ins, so we can
all vote.
And any moron can borrow 20 billion and service the debt for awhile. Maybe all of it, if
they are lucky. Who cares, it's only paper. Not a bad idea. I have an oil company, I can
borrow 20 billion, stick half into BNO, and have a ball with the rest. If I lose, I can
declare bankruptcy, and they can get my prepaid funeral expenses, but none of my gold bars
in the Caymans. And, I am 99.9% certain that is less of a risk than any E&P I can think
of.
"... Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation. ..."
@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with
Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some
point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and
borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they
would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics
manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial
Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of
Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of
the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the
OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their
predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C)
as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began,
even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its
sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap
labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This
demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b).
Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as
over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive
industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of
Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the
cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all
the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded
transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we
need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't
make sense from a normal perspective.
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of
new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is
primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all
the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia.
They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his
drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the
looting .........connect the dots.
The Last but not LeastTechnology 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
FAIR USE NOTICEThis 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.
but your last sentence may hold some validity. For that matter, I don't think shale has given up completely after the first go round, if the price is right. Would that delay peak to another date? Quien sabe. Money talks. What price? I know I would keep an ICE around for long trips at $200 a barrel for the convenience. Food may be higher, though.
Speaking as a geologist, this is incorrect. Thermal maturity depends on far more than age. The Utica gas window is 300 million years older than the eagle fords gas window, just for example.Guym , 01/30/2019 at 2:01 pmI knew I'd be wrong on that, just repeating what I read on a non-technical site. ThanksRon Patterson , 01/29/2019 at 6:16 pmYes, of course there are more shale sources out there. But perhaps not as many as you think. All reservoir rock is not so tight as to hold most of its oil in place. There is, or rather was, lots of oil in West Texas but not much shale oil. The same is true for Southern California. I suspect most of the Middle east is similar.Phil Stevens , 01/29/2019 at 9:58 pm
