May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)
Bigger doesn't imply better. Bigger often is a sign of obesity, of lost control, of overcomplexity, of cancerous
cells
Since mid 2014 US MSM propagate the following bogus narrative: There is an oil glut in the USA
market in particular despite the fact that the USA increasing their import of oil. To cry about
glut on oil in the country which imports more and more oil is something new to me. That
can happen only if some produced oil is subpar and nobody wants it (comment from blog post
World oil supply and demand
Econbrowser)
The Great Condensate Con?
We have seen a large year over year increase in US and global
Crude + Condensate (C+C) inventories. For example, EIA data show that US C+C inventories increased
by 100 million barrels from late 2014 to late 2015, and this inventory build has contributed significantly
to the sharp decline in oil prices.
The question is, what percentage of the increase in US and global C+C inventories consists of
condensate?
Four week running average data showed the US net crude oil imports for the last four weeks of
December increased from 6.9 million bpd in 2014 to 7.3 million bpd in 2015. Why would US refiners
continue to import large–and increasing–volumes of actual crude oil, if they didn’t have to, even
as we saw a huge build in US C+C inventories? Note that what the EIA calls “Crude oil” is actually
C+C.
I frequently cite a Reuters article that discussed case histories of refiners increasingly rejecting
blends of heavy crude and condensate that technically meet the upper limit for WTI crude (42 API
gravity), but that are deficient in distillates. Of course, what the refiners are rejecting is the
condensate component, i.e., they are in effect saying that “We don’t want any more stinkin’ condensate.”
Following is an excerpt from the article:
U.S. refiners turn to tanker trucks to avoid ‘dumbbell’ crudes (March, 2015)
In a pressing quest to secure the best possible crude, U.S. refiners are increasingly going
straight to the source.
Firms such as Marathon Petroleum Corp and Delek U.S. Holdings are buying up tanker trucks
and extending local pipeline networks in order to get more oil directly from the wellhead, seeking
to cut back on blended crude cocktails they say can leave a foul aftertaste. . . .
Many executives say that the crude oil blends being created in Cushing are often substandard
approximations of West Texas Intermediate (WTI), the longstanding U.S. benchmark familiar to,
and favored by, many refiners in the region.
Typical light-sweet WTI crude has an API gravity of about 38 to 40. Condensate, or super-light
crude that is abundant in most U.S. shale patches, ranges from 45 to 60 or higher. Western Canadian
Select, itself a blend, is about 20.
While the blends of these crudes may technically meet the API gravity ceiling of 42 at Cushing,
industry players say the mixes can be inconsistent in makeup and generate less income because
the most desirable stuff is often missing.
The blends tend to produce a higher proportion of fuel at two ends of the spectrum: light ends
like gasoline, demand for which has dimmed in recent years, and lower-value heavy products like
fuel oil and asphalt. What’s missing are middle distillates like diesel, where growing demand
and profitability lies.
My premise is that US (and perhaps global) refiners hit, late in 2014, the upper limit of the
volume of condensate that they could process, if they wanted to maintain their distillate and heavier
output–resulting in a build in condensate inventories, reflected as a year over year build of 100
million barrels in US C+C inventories.
Therefore, in my opinion the US and (and perhaps globally) C+C inventory data are fundamentally
flawed, when it comes to actual crude oil inventory data. The most common dividing line between actual
crude oil and condensate is 45 API gravity, although the distillate yield drops off considerably
just going from 39 API to 42 API gravity crude, and the upper limit for WTI crude oil is 42 API.
In 2015, the EIA issued a report on US C+C production (what they call “Crude oil”), classifying
the C+C by API gravity, and the data are very interesting:
Note that 22% of US Lower 48 C+C production consists of condensate (45+ API gravity)
and note that about 40% of US Lower 48 C+C production exceeds the maximum API gravity for WTI crude
oil (42 API). The above chart goes a long way toward explaining why US net crude oil imports increased
from late 2014 to 2015, even as US C+ C inventories increased by 100 million barrels, and I suspect
that what is true for the US may also be true for the world, in regard to the composition of global
C+C inventories.
Following is my analysis of global C+C production data versus estimated global crude oil production
data, through 2014, using the available data bases:
How Quickly Can US Tight/Shale Operators Cause US C+C Production to Increase?
Because of equipment, personnel and financial constraints, in my opinion it is going to take much
longer than most analysts expect for US operators to ramp up activity, even given a rising price
environment.
Except for the 2008 “V” shaped price decline (which bottomed out in December, 2008), and the corresponding
US rig count decline, the US (oil and gas) rig count has been around 1,800 to 2,000 in recent years.
Note that it took about five years to go from around 1,000 rigs in 2003 to around 2,000 rigs in 2008,
and it even took two years to go from around 1,000 rigs in 2009 to around 2,000 rigs in 2011.
And assuming a 15%/year rate of decline in existing US C+C production and assuming a 24%/year
rate of decline in existing US gas production, the US has to put on line around 1.5 million bpd of
new C+C production every year and around 17 BCF per day of new gas production every year, just to
offset declines from existing wells. Based on 2013 EIA data, the estimated annual volumetric loss
of production from existing US gas production exceeds the annual dry gas production of every country
in the world, except for the US and Russia.
Generally the idea of oil glut in the USA and simultaneously increasing imports is something from
Orwell novel 1984, where is was called doublespeak. If you’re an oil producer, you don’t pump oil unless
you have orders for it. If you pump oil without orders, then you need your own storage to store it.
You don’t ship any oil without getting paid for it. So oil glut theory claim that they are producers
which have oil stored instead of shipped to customers and nobody wants this oil. So it is rotting in
storage instead. And this bogus "theory" is propagated by MSM for more then 18 month now.
The best example of article that subscribes to this fallacy I found in NYT:
The world is awash in crude
oil, with enough extra produced last year to fuel all of Britain or Thailand. And the price of
oil will not stop falling until the glut shrinks.
The oil glut — the unsold crude that is piling up around the world — is a quandary and a source
of investor anxiety that once again rattled global markets on Friday.
As prices have dropped, the amount of excess production has been cut in half over the last six
months. About one million barrels of extra oil is now being dumped on the markets each day.
But that means the glut is still continuing to grow, and it could take years to work through
the crude that is being warehoused, poured into petroleum depots or loaded onto supertankers for
storage at sea.
The shakeout will be painful, taking an even bigger toll on companies, countries and investors.
I think the author never saw a real oil tanker and does not understand how much it costs to keep
oil in tanker for, say, a year. Regular lease of 200 barrel oil truck is around $4000 a month.
and at $40 the cost of 200 barrels is just $8000. So don't try this in your backyard ;-).
An ultra-large crude carrier, with a 3 million barrel capacity can well cost
around $40,000-60,000 a day. So in one day you burn 1000-1500 barrels (if we assume 40 pre barrel) of
your stored oil. That comes to 10-15% of stored oil in one year just in leasing costs (reuters.com)
As this is a skeptical page, one thing the creates strong doubts in MSM coverage of the current oil
prices slump is the idea of oil glut and Saudis supposed decision to "defend their share of the market"
by supposedly flooding the market with oil (in reality they were unable significantly raise their exports
(only by 0.3 Mb/d in 2016) and used predatory pricing since mid 2014 to slam the oil prices).
There are strong indications that that was the political decision make by Saudi elite to hurt
Iran after decision to lift sanctions was made by G7+Russia in mid 2014. It is due to this decision
the country started to dump their oil on the market at artificially low prices undercutting
other producers. They simply presented discount for each region they sell for their oil, essentially
putting a price on each barrel they sold.
But to cry about glut on oil in the country that imports more and more oil is something new to me.
This is something from Orwell novel 19884 and is called doublespeak. and that's was exactly the
situation with the USA in 2015. So MSM are deceiving the public. But why and what is the real situation,
if we can decipher it ?
The first thing to understand is that at a given stage of developing of drilling and other related
technologies there is such thing as minimal price of oil below which production can be continued only
at a loss. After all a well often costs $8 million, which need to be amortized for life of well. Which
in case of shale/tight oil is approximately five-six years with more half of oil extracted in the first
two years. The cost is much higher for non-conventional oil producers then for conventional producers.
Canadian tar sand production is even more expensive. Deep water drilling is somewhere in between conventional
and non-conventional oil.
There are different estimates, but most analysts agree that shale/tight oil producers need around
$70-$80 per barrel to be able to pay their debts and around $50-$60 to break even. Slightly less for
deep water oil ($40-$50). The picture below illustrated difference prices to produce different types
of oil ( see below) is reproduced from
What Me Worry About Peak Oil Art Berman, December 27, 2015 ):
This means that production of light oil from tight zones need the price of $70-80 per barrel to break
even. The same applies to extra heavy, deep water, and EOR projects. The implication seems to
be that most industry investments do require higher prices and 2010-2013 were gold age for this types
of oil as prices were close or above $100.
There were elements of glut in condensate and light oil before export restrictions were lifted because
the US refineries were tuned to different type of oil. some even rejected blended oil as output from
such oil in various fractions was different from "classic" oil to which refineries got used and that
was cutting their profits. But that's about it.
The key problem for shale/tight oil companies is that they have chance to stay afloat only at around
$70-$80 per barrel and most get to much debt in 2010-2013 trying to increase production to survive the
current price slump. In North America, 42 companies with $17 billion in debt filed bankruptcy in 2015,
the highest level since the financial crisis in 2008. Of these filings, 36 companies with $16.7 billion
in debt filed in the U.S.
Here is an old article
Crude oil is
surging (May 21, 2015) that asks important question "How we can have a glut of oil one week
and the next we don't "
Crude oil is having a big day. West Texas Intermediate crude oil rallied by more than 3% to cross
back above the $60 per barrel mark. On Wednesday, the Energy Information Administration said that
crude inventories fell by 2.7 million barrels last week.
It was the third straight week of declines in inventories, which have seen a huge swell in recent
months to the highest levels in at least 80 years. Earlier this week, we highlighted comments from
Morgan Stanley, noting that following the oil crash, drillers are now prioritizing profitability
over their output of barrels.
Brent crude oil, the international benchmark, was also higher, up by more than 2%. Here's a chart
showing the jump in WTI...
mad man
I can't understand, as everyone of us that are not greedy SOB's. How we can have a glut
of oil one week and the next we don't . I wouldn't leave this country for another , I'll
stand and fight for what we had in the past!
We have to rid this county of the #$%$S that think they are running it! Dem.'s or GOP's are
all #$%$'s! . This is not for the PEOPLE BY PEOPLE any more. WE ALL have to try and fix it .
H e
Crude is surging because the US dollar has no backbone anymore and losing it's world's reserve
currency status.
okeydokey
Market manipulation. Nothing more. As for Business Insider, this is a propaganda rag.
heybert17
I really enjoy reading all the expert opinions on oil. One says it will plummet, another
says it will surge, and another says it will stay steady. What are these people "experts" of?
It can't be oil or they would all say the exact same thing.
I agree with your post about market dynamics between customers having to pay through
their purchasing power in order to retire loans created by financial industry for oil companies.
But there are a few things that make this oil crash little bit “strange” to say at least:
OPEC (and mainly Saudis + GCC) did actually something by not doing anything and that is
refusing to cut their production. Well that is “man made” decision as Oman oil minister said
and not decision by invisible hand of market. I interpret this mainly as political decision
and not economical.
Second. Wall Street was pretty much shocked if not pissed by that Saudi decision. I
interpret that to be political reaction as well.
There is no worldwide collapse of demand that justify 65-70% fall of the oil price.
I am sorry but Wall Street is creating ninja loans for cars, student loans, mortgages from
the thin air with the same speed in the US. I would say that is political decision as well.
Worldwide collapse is not happening as of now either that would justify 65-70% drop of price.
Contraction is happening in Europe but very very gradually except in some marginal countries
like Greece, and war torn countries in ME and Africa. But these marginal countries did not
even have any big consumption to begin with.
Shale oil producers based on their balance sheet were bankrupt from Day 1. Why LTO
even got the loans to begin with? That is also political decision and not an economic. Why
are we waiting even a year after low prices for any major mergers, buyouts or bankruptcies?
I am sorry but 100% of LTO are bankrupt so why Wall Street is extending and pretending and
keeping them on a life support? Well it is again political decision.
So yes there are some market dynamics around this oil crash but there are a lot of political
dynamics as well.
To me too such a dramatic drop of oil prices looks like an engineered event, and is not
only the result of supply and demand discrepancies. I think coming online way too many projects
served a role, but not a decisive role. There was a political will to achieve that result.
One factor that might be in play ( it is NOT 100% reliable info) is that Saudis appropriated
all or large part of Iran quota during sanctions period.
So on July 14, 2014, when agreement about lifting sanctions was reached, Iran asked to Saudis
to compensate them for all this period. Saudis refused and started all this fun with declarations
that they will defend their market share by all means possible.
Obama was surprisingly strongly “pro-deal”: On Tuesday Obama promised to use his veto on any
domestic attempts to undermine the deal. “I am confident that this deal will meet the national
security needs of the United States and our allies, so I will veto any legislation that prevents
the successful implementation of this deal,” he said.”
Subsequently “sell as much as you can” regime for all OPEC members was instituted during the
last OPEC meeting — no countries quotas anymore. Which, in a way, is the dissolution of OPEC.
So this “conspiracy theory” presupposes that this was the way Saudis reacted to lifting Iran
sanctions, which threatened their share of oil market and also empowered their bitter regional
enemy due to high oil prices. And they probably were angry as hell about the US administration
duplicity — betrayal of the most reliable ally in the region, after the same trick with Mubarak.
Also it might well be that the agreement to lift sanctions from Iran was explicitly designed
as a perfect Trojan horse for dropping oil prices to ease pressure from G7 economies which were
in “secular stagnation” state. With Europe suffering from the cut from Russian market. In this
case this was a real masterpiece of “divide and conquer” strategy.
I don’t pay too much attention to the price because the price is just the consequence
of what buyers and sellers agree on. So there is no “engineering” in the classic sense of how
we interpret in the real life. What bothers me is the amount of new and unprofitable shale oil
that come to the market in the relatively short period of time. Well that is political engineering.
I thought for a while that this is all classic bubble of greed but then that did not make
sense either. We know that bankers like bubbles because they always make money on swings, either
going up or down. And that is ok with me; I accept that is how things work on this planet. But
they could make bubbles with tulips and make money too? It has been done before. Oil is little
bit different. You don’t piss oil on these swings when you are not making any money even on upswing.
So it is kind a troubling to see what is really going on. It looks to me that some breakdown
of communication happened between major oil producers and major bankers. But time will tell.
"... it's quite unusual to see such unanimous anti-Saudi reactions from the American political class for the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi – who was just a part-time journalist living in U.S – he was not even an American citizen ..."
"... So, it's quite unusual because the same political class remained muted about the Saudis involvement with ISIS, the bombing and starvation of civilians in Yemen and destruction of Syria, and of course the Saudis involvement in 9/11 terrorist attack in which 3000 American citizens have perished in New York, in the heart of America ..."
"... However gruesome, Mr. Khashoggi's assassination is going to be used by the Trump Administration to help the American Oil Cartel by controlling the Saudi Oil output, hence, to raise the price of Oil and to lower demand for US dollar which is the currency of the global Oil trade. ..."
"... The seemingly well-connected news outlet Voltairenet claims that there has been a plot against MbS and that Khashoggi was involved in it. ..."
"... It fares a atrocial war on Yemen, shits on international laws and regulations, just like Israel, Why would they not murder a juorno entering their land? Now this juorno was a man revealing in practices done by head choppers, so I will not cry much. It just shows these people are savages, all of them. What should be done ? You judge. ..."
"... I've read on Zerohedge that Khashoggi was on the verge of publishing an article about the Saudi's and CIA's involvement in 9/11, specifically about his former boss Turki al-Faisal, who ran Saudi intelligence for 23 years then abruptly resigned 10 days before 9/11 without giving any reason. ..."
"... Kashiggi's not a reformer. He's hard core Muslim Brotherhood ..."
The overplayed drama of Mr. Khashoggi assassination is going to be used by the American Oil
Cartel to control the Saudis Oil output.
it's quite unusual to see such unanimous anti-Saudi reactions from the American political
class for the assassination of Mr. Khashoggi – who was just a part-time journalist
living in U.S – he was not even an American citizen.
So, it's quite unusual because the
same political class remained muted about the Saudis involvement with ISIS, the bombing and
starvation of civilians in Yemen and destruction of Syria, and of course the Saudis
involvement in 9/11 terrorist attack in which 3000 American citizens have perished in New
York, in the heart of America.
So, we must be a bit skeptical about the motive of the American Political Class, as this
again could be just about the OIL Business, but this time around the objective is to help the
American Oil producers as opposed to Oil consumers – with 13.8% of the global daily Oil
production, the US has lately become the world top producer of Crude Oil, albeit, an
expensive Oil which is extracted by Fracking method that requires high Oil price above $70 to
remain competitive in the global Oil market – by simultaneously sanctioning Iran,
Venezuela, and the potential sanction of Saudi Arabia from exporting its Oil, the Trump
Administration not only reduces the Global Oil supply which will certainly lead to the rise
of Oil price, but also it lowers demand for the US Dollar-Greenback in the global oil market
which could lead to subtle but steady devaluation of the US dollar.
And perhaps that's what
Trump Administration was really aiming for all along; a significant decline of the US Dollar
Index and the rise of price of Oil which certainly pleases the American Oil Cartel, though at
the expense of Iran, Saudi Arabia and Venezuela – all of which are under some form of US sanctions.
However gruesome, Mr. Khashoggi's assassination is going to be used by the Trump
Administration to help the American Oil Cartel by controlling the Saudi Oil output, hence, to
raise the price of Oil and to lower demand for US dollar which is the currency of the global
Oil trade.
This seems to explain the motive to kill him. A few mildly critical articles by
Khashoggi's pen scarcely seem to be sufficient for such a high-profile murder, even if we
take into account that MbS appears to be impulsive and little capable of thinking ahead.
First of all, when has the death of a journalist made any difference in the relations between
countries? Why act like it should now?
Second, Khashoggi was not simply a journalist -- he was a member of the Saudi elite, an
Intelligence officer, and an activist for the Muslim Brotherhood (the Die Welt article
established that).
Third, the real question is how this story came out, and why it has come out as it has
("journalist murdered by police state agents"). Turkey pushed this story out into the open.
Apparently a calculation that the crown prince is losing ground, and an effort (perhaps
assisted by bribes) to align the AK party with the crown prince's enemies in Saudi.
It fares a atrocial war on Yemen, shits on international laws and regulations, just like
Israel, Why would they not murder a juorno entering their land?
Now this juorno was a man revealing in practices done by head choppers, so I will not cry
much.
It just shows these people are savages, all of them.
What should be done ? You judge.
It seems quite curious why MBS would go through such trouble to waste a guy whose only crime
was writing a few low key disparaging articles about him that nobody read. Maybe there's more
to this story than meets the eye.
I've read on Zerohedge that Khashoggi was on the verge of publishing an article about the
Saudi's and CIA's involvement in 9/11, specifically about his former boss Turki al-Faisal,
who ran Saudi intelligence for 23 years then abruptly resigned 10 days before 9/11 without
giving any reason. The rumor was he knew about the attack as did CIA, but Saudis and CIA
decided not to do anything to use it as pretext to start the "war on terror" and bring down
Saddam Hussein. Personally I find that a little far fetched but you never know when it comes
to the CIA.
The murder of d'Enghien had no effect on the French Revolution, other countries reactions to
the revolution and the subsequent revolutionary and Napoleonic wars. In fact, most of the
liberal pro French Revolution historians consider the execution as necessary and moral as the
execution of other anti revolutionaries
Koshoggi's murder won't make a bit of difference either once the blame Trump media blast
blows over. The Turkish police appear to be doing a good job. They've arrested 18 people involved. At least the moralist pundits won't be punditing and pontificating about Kavanaugh for a
few days. Kashiggi's not a reformer. He's hard core Muslim Brotherhood
That the Saudi regime commits murders does not surprise me, but getting caught not just with
murder, but also with torture, indeed an unbelievable stupidity.
Why torture the man ?
But what also baffles me is that the journalist wrote for Washpost, a friend of Israel.
That Netanyahu and the Saudi regime cooperate to attack Iran, it is asserted by many, and it
sems quite probable to me.
A technical question, can indeed a smartwatch do what it is supposed to have done ?
If so, then the torturers and murderers are even more stupid, I let the moral issue
undiscussed, than one can imagine.
Then there is the assertion, in cases like this one never knows what the facts are, that the
journalist's girl friend waited outside.
Did he expect trouble ?
Did he ask her to record the trouble ?
Did not the consulate security see her ?
A final remark, what now is the difference in cruelty between IS and the USA's ally ?
Early in WWII FDR was reported that USA oil would be depleted in thirty years time.
So FDR sent Harold L Ickes to Saudi Arabia,where at the end of 1944 the country was made the
USA's main oil supplier.
FDR entertained the then Saud in early 1945 on the cruiser Quincy, laying in the Bitter Lakes
near the Suez Canal.
This Saud and his entourage had never seen a ship before, in any case had never been on board
such a ship.
In his last speech to Congress, seated, FDR did not follow what had been written for him,
but remarked 'that ten minutes with Saud taught him more about zionism than hundreds of
letters of USA rabbi's.
These words do not seem to be in the official record, but one of the speech writers,
Sherwood, quotes them in his book.
Robert E. Sherwood, 'Roosevelt und Hopkins', 1950, Hamburg (Roosevelt and Hopkins, New York,
1948)
If FDR also said to Congress that he would limit jewish migration to Palestine, do not now
remember, but the intention existed.
A few weeks later FDR died, Sherwood comments on on some curious aspects of FDR's death, such
as that the body was cremated in or near Warm Springs, and that the USA people were never
informed that the coffin going from Warm Springs to Washington just contained an urn with
ashes. At present the USA does not seem to need Saudi oil.
If this causes the asserted cooperation between Saudi Arabia and Israel ?
@Harris ChandlerNow it has made alliances with Israel and between them the tail wags
the dog
The Saudi Royal family and the governments of Israel have always been in cahoots. They
both despise and fear secular governments that are not under their own control in the Middle
East. Witness the fear and dread of both of them of president Nasser in the 1960′s, for
example.
The US establishment, 'liberal' or not, just fake an outcry to soften the image of 100′s
of 1000′s of yemenis, iraqis, libyan.. war casualties they are wholly or partly
responsible for. Khashoggi's death is no more brutal than that of Gaddafi. What's the big
deal ?
Whether Khashoggi is an islamist or not is very minor.
(Sunni) Islam is basically a caravan of arab tribal or civilizational power and the house of
Saud just rides this vehicle or caravan to siphon off the oil wealth.
The house of Saud, said to be Jewish in origin, have the option to migrate en mass to Israel
or French Riviera, with their swiss/US/caribbean offshore accounts during time of crisis or
after new forms of energy resource displace oil
Equally important, the Saudis and Emiratis are now closely allied to Israel's far right
government. Israel has been a door-opener for the Saudis and Gulf Emirates in Washington's
political circles. The Israel lobby is riding to the Saudi's defense .
The Israelis are defending Old Saudi (pre MBS) -- not the New MBS/Kushner fix Palestine
cabal. The last thing Israel wants is a defined Israeli border recognized by the world. The sycophant Israeli backing Senators in congress (Graham et al) are all backing Israel
by condemning MBS and calling for his head.
@FKA Max Thanks for the excellent Real News Network interview with someone I hadn't heard
about (As'ad AbuKhalil) who has followed the career of Khashoggi for years.
It seems that Khashoggi was lately different things to different people – one voice
in English at the Washington Post following the Israeli line, and another in Arabic and the
Arab media supporting the Palestinians and the Moslem Brotherhood.
Over the long term he was a propagandist for the rule of the Saudi princes, and his
problem seemed to be his too close connection to the wrong ones, while they were overthrown
by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS). There's the suggestion of a plot against MbS where
he may have been involved.
So why are the Israelis, their MSM and their AIPAC congressmen making such a big thing out
of it? Isn't MbS their friend? And why should they care about the assassination of a
pro-Palestinian journalist?
Maybe they've a better knowledge of the forces at play in Saudi Arabia, and concluded that
MbS was too much of a risk (too isolated and independent – e.g. talking with the
Chinese about a Petro/Yuan). Maybe they decided to Regime Change MbS in a usual Israeli/US
Deep State operation with Khashoggi at the centre (the duplicitous sort of character that
they favor) – with the outrage at MbS unexpectedly striking back. It was in fact MbS'
team of bodyguards who arrived in Istanbul. And it would account for the Deep State anger at
having one of its chief conspirators murdered.
The back story has to be that the US/Israel want control of both Saudi and Iranian oil
priced in US Dollars and they'll go with anyone who can give that outcome (currently not
MbS). Or they invade Saudi Arabia Eastern Province on some pretext or other and just take the
oil directly.
I'm surprised that the Saudis didn't ask the Israelis, who are very good at
assassination and kidnapping, to go after Khashoggi.
They probably did, but Israel is gearing up to invade Gaza AGAIN, and that takes time and
resources that they couldn't afford to let go and do some free-lancing in the Murder Inc
Department.
But Blessed are the War Mongers or something, as that oh-so devout Christian, Pat
Robertson, is against holding KSA accountable:
Prominent evangelical leader on Khashoggi crisis: let's not risk "$100 billion worth
of arms sales"
Pat Robertson, founder of the Christian Broadcasting Network, appeared on its flagship
television show The 700 Club on Monday to caution Americans against allowing the United
States' relationship with Saudi Arabia to deteriorate over Khashoggi's death.
"For those who are screaming blood for the Saudis -- look, these people are key allies,"
Robertson said. While he called the faith of the Wahabists -- the hardline Islamist sect to
which the Saudi Royal Family belongs -- "obnoxious," he urged viewers to remember that
"we've got an arms deal that everybody wanted a piece of it'll be a lot of jobs, a lot of
money come to our coffers. It's not something you want to blow up willy-nilly."
Did Robertson take all of that loot he made from smuggling blood diamonds out of
Africa–using his charity as a front–and invest in the defense industry?
If Pat is headed to Heaven after he expires, then send me to the other place, as I have
no desire to be stuck with hypocrites for all eternity.
"Error" ? "Mistake" ? These people (the KSA) are fucking "stupid" .
Now they're saying he died in a "fist fight" in the consulate !
A 13 year old street criminal would know that that excuse is an admission of guilt. These
guys shouldn't be allowed to run a model railroad.
On television in 1988, Donald Trump said he had bought a
US $200 million 85-metre-long yacht ,'The Nabila', from billionaire arms dealer Adnan
Khashoggi, uncle of just-murdered-in-Istanbul journalist Jamal Khashoggi. The yacht was named
after Adnan Khashoggi's daughter. Trump later sold the yacht to Saudi Prince Al-Waleed bin
Talal.
Donald Trump talking about the boat and arms dealers like Khashoggi – "not the
nicest guys in the world"
Once
again my best House of Saud-connected source RE-CONFIRMED Mohammed Bone Saw (MBS) received
direct info on CIA assets in Saudi Arabia from his close whatsapp pal Jared of Arabia.
Jared could only have access to this top secret info because of his high clearance. That led
to the Ritz-Carlton jail saga - and other arrests.
The CIA protégé Mohammed bin Nayef - who was previously made Crown Prince by
the CIA itself - was also arrested and is still under house arrest. The CIA was grooming Nayef
be King.
The CIA managed to elevate Nayef by plotting to get rid of Bandar Bush - who was fired by
then King Abdullah. When King Abdullah died, Nayef continued to be Crown Prince until ousted by
the new King Salman bin Abdulaziz to the benefit of his son.
Big mistake.
MBS moved against the clergy - who had been neutralized by Nayef. He moved against CIA
friends, ousting former King Abdullah's son Prince Miteb as head of the powerful National Guard
- who's after his blood ever since.
Crucially, Khashoggi was also CIA.
MBS ordered the invasion of Yemen - and turned large sectors of the army against him. He met
with AIPAC in New York, befriended Israel and turned the bulk of the Saudi population against
him.
Only misinformed simpletons believe that the Pulp Fiction in Istanbul op could have
proceeded without his green light. Hubris, arrogance and inter-galactic ignorance are MBS's
trademarks.
What kind of intel op does not know that Turkish secret police would be monitoring the Saudi
embassy 24/7?
The Coward Prince, meanwhile, has had ample time to find not one but TWO fall guys.
Fall Guy Number One is Gen. Ahmed al-Assiri, deputy head of Saudi intel (yes, that's an
oxymoron), a senior air force officer with NO (very important) family connections to the Saudi
two-bit royals.
Fall Guy Number Two is Saud al-Qahtani, who was a sort of Desert Grand Inquisitor - totally
controlling the media and supervising the non-stop purge of any critics. Call him the Saudi
Steve Bannon - as he was known in Qatar. He led a mighty troll army spreading fake news on the
murderous war on Yemen, the pathetic blockade of Qatar and non-stop demonization of Iran.
Turkey for its part has masterfully deployed Death by a Thousand Leaks on MBS.
Now the whole planet knows the detailed description of the 15-men hit squad; pics of all of
them; their role in the "mission"; arrival and departure flights; which hotels they stayed for
a few hours.
The hit squad includes the Bone Saw Master; four intel ops; 6 Royal Guard members; a member
of MBS's personal guard; and a free agent.
Compared to all this evidence, the official "fist fight" Saudi explanation as well as the
Jared of Arabia-spun "rogue killer" spin are inter-galactic jokes designed for suckers.
What remains unexplained is whether MBS was striking some sort of dodgy deal with the Trump
administration, via his best pal Jared, behind the back of his House of Saud many rivals.
Consul Pompeus Minimus was on the phone to MBS immediately after the Pulp Fiction news broke
out. This could well turn out to have been a double-double cross.
Comment: Pepe is probably a little too sure it couldn't have happened without MbS's approval.
He may have been involved and it escalated further than he approved, (as Scott Adams
theorizes ), or
it could've been a rogue operation. Mohammed bin Salman has made enough enemies within the
sprawling Saudi royal family with last year's "anti-corruption purge", that more than one
faction would be happy to pin the assassination on him
"... I agree with Jack that when Brennan is writing an op-ed calling for the head of MbS something fishy is up. Kashoggi has had a long career at the heart of Saudi national security power structures. He's no angel. Clearly he touched a nerve to be murdered so openly with no plausible deniability. Or maybe that was intentional. Then....the reaction of the Deep State. Hmm? ..."
"... Please don't get me wrong. Saudi Barbaria has been a corrupting influence for decades and the role they have played in Syria, Libya is not to be condoned. I fully support walking away from our interventionist position in the Middle East and letting the chips fall there. However, I have a deep distrust of Brennan and his motives. I can't put my finger on why the neocons are reacting in this way in light of their previous attitude of ignoring such atrocities or even abetting them. This is raising suspicions. ..."
"... if that is such a common knowledge that host states always bug the guest embassies and consulates, that would mean that Saudis would have to assume that as well, so that they would make sure that these devices were ´blinded´, ..."
"As for arms sales, someone needs to brief Mr. Trump on the actual results of the promises made to him when he visited Riyadh
last year. As Bruce Riedel of the Brookings Institution
sums it up , "The Saudis have not concluded a single major arms deal with Washington on Trump's watch ." Moreover, an end to
supplies of U.S. spare parts and technical support, something Russia cannot provide, would quickly ground the Saudi air force . That
would have the welcome effect of ending a bloody bombing campaign in Yemen that a
U.N. investigation concluded was probably responsible for war crimes." Washpost
-----------
Once again, I am not a great fan of Bezos or his blog, but two days in a row they have printed something I can agree with. Something
has changed for him.
It has become a meme in the blather that runs shrill and shallow in the US media, that Saudi Arabia is a faithful, and indispensable
ally of the US in the ME. Bezos disputes this and so do I.
A few points:
Yes, they chop heads off after Friday prayers outside the local mosque. They also do hands and feet. They stone to death women
found guilty of adultery. They sew them in bags before the men present throw handy five pound rocks at them. The government is deeply
approving of this. Sound familiar? Yes, it should. The jihadis whom the Saudis sponsor in Syria do the same things. The Sunni jihadis
are nearly defeated in Syria and it has become clear that the Saudi government has been evacuating their leaders, probably with US
connivance, so that they can pursue greater visions of jihad elsewhere.
The importance of Saudi Arabia in the world oil market is IMO now much exaggerated. They can undoubtedly do some damage by manipulating
the short term contract (spot) market but this is something they would pay for heavily. The Kingdom is cash strapped. It was not
for nothing that MBS turned the Ritz Carlton in Riyadh into a prison for the wealthy including many of his own kin in order to squeeze
and in some cases torture them into handing over a lot of their cash to the government. Depressed petro sales at artificial prices
will only further reduce revenue to the government.
The notion that Saudi intelligence contributes much to the GWOT is a joke. Saudi intelligence competence is something that exists
only in pitchmen's claims voiced by TV touts. In fact, they get almost everything they have from the US and are like greedy baby
birds always looking to be fed. They cannot organize a trip to the gold plated toilet. It took 15 of them to ambush Khashoggi, well,
OK, 14 of them and a doctor to carry the electric bone-saw.
We need to sell them more equipment that they cannot use? It does not appear to me that any of the contracts that they promised
to DJT has been signed. Their technique is simple. Keep the hope of profit for the US alive as leverage.
Lastly, the chimera of a great Arab alliance (a la NATO) is delusory. The Saudis lack both the organizational ability for such
a thing and significant military power. They possess one of the world's largest static displays of military equipment. They have
neither the manpower nor the aptitude to use such equipment effectively. As I have written previously, the Gulf Arabs have long had
such an alliance. It is the GCC and it has never amounted to anything except a venue for the Arab delight in meetings and blather.
The basis for the desire for such an alliance is the Israeli strategic objective of isolating Iran and its allies; Syria, Hizbullah
and Hamas with an eventual hope of destroying the Iranian theocracy. Israel is frightened of a possible salvo of many thousands of
missiles and rockets into Israel from Lebanon as well as an eventual successful creation of a missile deliverable nuclear weapon
by the Iranians. These are real and credible threats for Israel, but not for FUKUS . Israel has only two really valuable counter-value
targets; Haifa and Tel Aviv. A hit on one or both with a nuclear weapon would be the end of Israel. The Israelis know that.
Adroit information operations carried out over generations by the Israeli government and its supporters have created in the collective
US mind an image of Iran as a disguised 3rd Reich. This was well done. The same operation was run against Iraq with magnificent results
from the POV of Israel
What happened here that all the neocons like Fred Hiatt and Sen. Lindsey Graham now want the blood of MBS? Jamal Kashoggi was
apparently a good pal of Osama and an insider who worked for Prince Turki al-Faisal both when he ran Saudi intelligence and when
he was in DC. My antenna is up when John Brennan starts writing op-eds. After all he was in Riyadh when Turki was the internal
security chief.
Does this have to do with our Deep State? Who may not be happy that MBS has by-passed them with a direct connection through
Jared?
We didn't do anything or demand anything when the Saudis sent terrorists to attack us on 9/11. What's changed now with the
murder of Jamal Kashoggi in Istanbul?
I'm with Jack. Don't get me wrong: I hate MBS as much as the next man, but I can't say I trust Erdogan or Bezos either. And these
days, whenever the WaPo tells me to zig, my instinct tells me to zag. At the very least, I would like to know more about what's
really going here before committing myself to one side or the other. Kashoggi, after all, was not just some random 'journalist'.
He had intimate contact with, and knowledge of, high-ranking personages in the KSA and beyond. He even knew Osama bin Laden! There
could be any number of parties out there in this world who have felt that he knew too much. It's just too early to jump to conclusions.
Over at Consortium News, Asad Abu Khalil, the 'Angry Arab', has up a good piece arguing that Kashoggi was no reformer. In fact,
up until extremely recently, he was doggedly loyal to the régime. As he puts it:
"Western media coverage of Khashoggi's career (by people who don't know Arabic) presents a picture far from reality. They portray
a courageous investigative journalist upsetting the Saudi regime. Nothing is further from the truth: there is no journalism in
Saudi Arabia; there is only crude and naked propaganda."
It is very unlikely that the people, who time and time again have been found to lack even a shred of human decency, compassion
and fairness, Brennan et al and I include WaPo in that, are now going gaga over the murder of a journo, who had strong links with
the power players in the region.
The way that these things have worked out in the media earlier, I think the order has come from higher up to push this incident
to damage either the relationship with SA or mbs. I think that keeping this incident hot has also kept the oil price high just
before the mid-term elections. surely, a higher oil price hurts trump. that might be a reason for the trump-hating crowd including
wapo to discover decency and fairness and other human virtues just right now. very intriguing, this reaction from the MSM.
I note that the British press is not pressing this issue as much, nor is Haaretz. Only the US MSM is pressing this very hard.
The US and the Brits before us have slavishly courted the Saudi Royals since before WWII. This is a constant through Republican
and Democratic administrations. The Trump administration is no exception. Why the murder of one journalist would challenge a half
century of established US policy at this time is beyond my understanding. Perhaps it's the proverbial straw that broke the camel's
back.
Someone from whose writings I have derived a great deal of instruction, as well as amusement, is Vladimir Golstein, a Russian
Jewish émigré now in charge of 'Slavic Studies' at Brown University.
I introduce his explanation of the response to the Khashoggi killing, in a 'Facebook' post, not because I think it should be
taken as some kind of authoritative truth, but because, as often, Golstein's irreverence is thought-provoking.
The post begins:
'Thank you, Saudi Arabia for exposing the utter hypocrisy and moral bankruptcy of British and American gangsta press and equally
gangsta establishment.
'You've been at it for a very long time. And it seems that finally you've got it right.'
After providing a long list of Saudi delinquencies, Golstein continues:
'I understand that you began to feel more and more desperate. You sided with Israel against Iran and Syria, and the rest
of the world said that it is a moral thing to do and put you on the UN human rights board.
'Well, finally, you hit the right cord. Killing innocent people and abusing your moneyed power by buying newspapers, hotels,
city districts or think tanks, was not enough to produce an outrage in the west, but when you whacked another cynical morally
corrupt journalist that proved too much for the cynical and morally corrupt western press. They decided to stand up for one
of their own.'
This does, I think, point to something rather important. And it leads to the thought that MBS and others may have miscalculated,
as a result of an 'hubris' which many in the West have actually encouraged – just as they have a parallel 'hubris' in Israel.
As Golstein, who has a great deal of complex history behind him, can see very clearly, it is an interesting question when
the 'sympathy' of Western 'liberals' is and is not actually felt.
What I think MBS may have missed is, quite precisely, the realisation that for people like Tom Friedman the fact that –
as Golstein is pointing out – Khashoggi is the same kind of animal as they are means that killing him touches them personally.
Second, he is the kind of figure whom they have, as it were, 'cast' in a 'starring role', in their 'narrative' as to how
somehow 'Saudi Barbaria' is going to 'modernise', and in so doing create a Middle East hospitable to a Jewish settler state.
So, in assassinating him, MBS may have unleashed a curious kind of psychological 'maelstrom.'
But, as well as hypocrisy, there is also a basic stupidity.
In fact, if one is reasonably 'worldlywise', one knows that people's sympathies, including one's own, are very often much more
limited than they profess to be. We commonly find it much easier to feel the griefs and pain of people whom we see as like ourselves,
than we do with those of others.
My own history, ironically, has been a move from finding it relatively easy to sympathise with people who write for the 'New
York Times', or the 'Guardian', or the 'New York Review of Books', to finding it really rather difficult.
There is also, however, about so many of these people, an element of sheer stupidity.
Whether one agrees, or disagrees, with 'deplorables' is relevant, but only partly so. Actually, people who would not appear
at the kind of 'party' which Jon Schwarz so aptly characterises have a very wide range of views, and I often agree in whole or
in part with such people, and also often disagree in whole or in part. It is not a simple matter.
A related but distinct question has to do with common prudence.
People who lock themselves in a kind of bubble of the supposedly 'enlightened' are not only doing the rest of us no favours,
but are inherently bound to head off in directions which are liable to be suicidal for themselves.
Prudent élites take the trouble at least to be aware that the world is not controllable by the comfortable people who appear
at their dinner parties, and realise that if they persist in trying to persuade themselves that it is, sooner or later their self-delusion
will blow up in their faces.
In relation to people like MBS, there is a double stupidity. The problem is not simply that he has been playing to their need
to believe that he wants to 'modernise' Saudi Arabia. It is also that they have wanted to believe that such a venture is possible,
which it almost certainly is not.
Yes, Vladimir Golstein has a point. The DC cocktail circuit have been offended as one of their fellow travelers has been offed.
If this will lead to a break with Saudi Barbaria that will be good. I'm cynical however. Brennan, et al just want their boy in
Riyadh not Jared's buddy.
Wait until it becomes clear that Israel in actuality negotiates her safety with Russia (it is ongoing as I type this)--that's
when the party will start in earnest.
"The US and the Brits before us have slavishly courted the Saudi Royals since before WWII."
TTG, as you are doubtless aware, it goes back even further, to early World War I. David Fromkin's seminal 1989 history, "A
Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East (also subtitled Creating the
Modern Middle East, 1914–1922)":
https://en.wikipedia.org/wi... describes the machinations by British, French, and (later) Americans to play the competing
desert chieftains against each other, alternately catering to and dumping unceremoniously each one as political necessity dictated.
Recommended to readers wishing to further appreciate the roots of the irresolvable turmoil that is the modern Middle East.
Yes, there's clearly more than meets the eye. I agree with Jack that when Brennan is writing an op-ed calling for the head
of MbS something fishy is up. Kashoggi has had a long career at the heart of Saudi national security power structures. He's no
angel. Clearly he touched a nerve to be murdered so openly with no plausible deniability. Or maybe that was intentional. Then....the
reaction of the Deep State. Hmm?
Please don't get me wrong. Saudi Barbaria has been a corrupting influence for decades and the role they have played in
Syria, Libya is not to be condoned. I fully support walking away from our interventionist position in the Middle East and letting
the chips fall there. However, I have a deep distrust of Brennan and his motives. I can't put my finger on why the neocons are
reacting in this way in light of their previous attitude of ignoring such atrocities or even abetting them. This is raising suspicions.
The evidence I see is that a Saudi citizen who used to be a "regime insider" with high level connections and aligned with the
previous head of Saudi intelligence was brutally murdered by Saudi government officials. Turkey leaked this information and in
the leaks claim they have audio and video evidence of the murder. John Brennan and other neocons who previously have not only
supported but also connived in some of the atrocities committed by the Saudi government are demanding that MbS be held to account.
The question that is nagging me is why are the neocons reacting this way now, considering they have always carried water for
the Saudi royals when real dissidents have been routinely executed after show trials?
for example, how did Turks get the audio and possibly video of the deed, the transmission by Apple watch story may be just a red
herring, they may have independent sources and methods which the US is not privy to the word ´their´ in my remark intended to
say ´Turks´. Sorry about the unclear sentence.
I thought you Germans were supposed to be smart. You don't understand that MIT, the Turkish intelligence service had bugged the
consulate? What part of that do you not understand? Go get some strudel and think about it!
hahaha, I will eat it, BUT - if that is such a common knowledge that host states always bug the guest embassies and consulates,
that would mean that Saudis would have to assume that as well, so that they would make sure that these devices were ´blinded´,
and that would mean that there were other devices which they were not able to ´blind´. Just deep thinking, is that also German
trait?
Sounds like Klarity, a German trait. The Saudis probably lacked the skill to find the Turkish bugs. MIT, the Turkish service are
very skilled at installation.
Maybe this new surprising "moral" attitude has something to do with the mid-terms elections. Yes Saudi Arabia is a kind of traditional
commodity platform and surely not an Ally, but DJT did enhance the Saudis status as Partners in his projected Deal of the Century
(still not published).
The Khasoghi murder has become the DJT problem and while raising his expression for the outrage has also
opened the exit door, and provided a possibility to dilute MBS direct responsibility. Of interest is the Erdogan careful but repeated
supply of details.
What 'terrorists' attacked on 911...?...nobody knows what exactly happened on that day, and who was involved...except that the
official narrative is total BS...
Yes, one could lump me under the dismissive and unflattering epithet of 'truther'...after looking into some of the physical aspects
of the matter, the narrative is impossible on grounds of physics...that is not to say I am speculating on who or even the how...which
is where we see a lot of tinfoil hat stuff...but I have a solid engineering and aviation background...it could not have happened
the way we are told...
The President has authority under the Global Magnitsky Act to impose sanctions against
anyone who has committed a human rights violation. Congress has already requested a HR
investigation which Trump must act on and report to them within 4 months
It appears my prediction of Saudi gate may be right. This potentially is good news for
Iran and Russia. Perhaps not so good for Trump and Saidis. Israel may not be happy. Perhaps
his wife's plane troubles were a warning shot to remind him who is boss. Who knows ?
Haleys resignation beginning to make sense now. The House of Trump and House of Saud may
soon fall, and Bibi wont be happy losing Trump and MBS. We all know what they are capable of
to get things back on track
Why did the media held back on this so for so long?
Yemen (and Gaza).
CGTN & Al-Jazeera are the only global news outlets consistently and regularly reporting on the US facilitated
genocides in Yemen and Jewish-occupied Palestine/Gaza.
The never-ending Khashoggi non-mystery mystery keeps Yemen & Gaza out of the Jew-controlled Western Media
headlines. Saudi Barbaria and "Israel" are natural allies because each of them is an artificial Western political
construct with a cowardly and incompetent military apparatus and an anti-heroic penchant for slaughtering undefended
civilians - for psychopathic reasons.
--------
Talking about psychopathy...
Oz's Christian Zionist PM, Sco Mo, is blathering about following Trump's lead and moving Oz's Embassy in "Israel" to
Jerusalem. Sc Mo, who has never had an original idea in his life, still hasn't woken up to the fact that Trump's
Jerusalem gambit was a trap for Bibi. So it's hilarious that Sco Mo The Unoriginal, is planning to take a flying
leap into the same trap!
Anyone with more than half a brain would realise that...
1. No civilised country has followed Trump's lead.
2. Trump can, and will, reverse his (illegal) Jerusalem decision out of a 'new-found respect' for International Law.
Posted by: Hoarsewhisperer | Oct 18, 2018 12:14:08 AM |
83
Whoever is ultimately behind this campaign (which I
suspect is a loose association of interest groups spread throughout SA, Turkey, London citi, wall street, whoever)
they will not stop until MbS is paraded through the streets in chains or at least his head at the end of a lance. At
this point the only question how many days will it take to see his head on a pike?
"Their target that night: Anssaf Ali Mayo, the local leader of the Islamist
political party Al-Islah. The UAE considers Al-Islah to be the Yemeni branch of the worldwide Muslim Brotherhood,
which the UAE calls a terrorist organization. Many experts insist that Al-Islah, one of whose members won the Nobel
Peace Prize, is no terror group. They say it's a legitimate political party that threatens the UAE not through
violence but by speaking out against its ambitions in Yemen."
Getting to the bottom of the Jamal Khashoggi disappearance is a bit like peeling an onion.
It is known that Khashoggi entered the Saudi Arabian Consulate in Istanbul on October 2
nd to get a document that would enable him to marry a Turkish woman. It is also
known, from surveillance cameras situated outside the building, that he never came out walking
the same way he entered. The presumption is that he was either killed inside or abducted,
though the abduction theory would have to be based on a Consulate vehicle leaving the building
with him presumably concealed inside, something that has not been confirmed by the Turks. If he
was killed inside the building and dismembered, as seems likely, he could have had his body
parts removed in the suitcases carried by the alleged fifteen official Saudis who had arrived
that morning by private jet and left that afternoon the same way. The supposition is that the
fifteen men, which may have included some members of Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman's
bodyguard as well as a physician skilled in autopsies who was carrying a bone saw, constituted
the execution party for Khashoggi.
There are certain things that should be observed about the Turks, since they are the ones
claiming that the disappearance of Khashoggi may have included a summary execution and
dismemberment. The Turkish intelligence service, known by its acronym MIT, is very good, very
active and very focused on monitoring the activities of foreign embassies and their employees
throughout Turkey. They use electronic surveillance and, if the foreign mission has local
employees, many of those individuals will be agents reporting to the Turkish government. In my
own experience when I was in Istanbul, I had microphones concealed in various places in my
residence and both my office and home phones were tapped. A number of local hire consulate
employees were believed to be informants for MIT but they were not allowed anywhere near
sensitive information.
As Turkey and Saudi Arabia might be termed rivals if not something stronger, it is to be
presumed that MIT had the Consulate General building covered with both cameras and microphones,
possibly inside the building as well as outside, and may have had a Turkish employer inside who
observed some of what was going on. Which is to say that the Turks certainly know exactly what
occurred but are playing their cards closely to see what they can derive from that knowledge.
The two countries have already initiated a joint investigation into what took place. Turkey's
economy is in free fall and would benefit from "investment" from the Saudis to create an
incentive to close the book on Khashoggi. In other words, Turkey's perspective on the
disappearance could easily be influenced by Saudi money and the investigation might well turn
up nothing that is definitive.
Saudi Arabia, for its part, has a couple of cards to play also even if it did kill and
dismember Khashoggi under orders from the Crown Prince. First of all, the system of
petrodollars, which basically requires nearly all purchases of petroleum to be paid in dollars,
is underwritten by the Saudis. Petrodollars in turn enable the United States to print money for
which there is no backing knowing that there will always be international demand for dollars to
buy oil. The Saudis, who also use their own petrodollars to buy U.S. treasury bonds, could pull
the plug on that arrangement. That all means that the United States will be looking for an
outcome that will not do too much damage to the Saudis.
Second, Saudi Arabia is in bed with Israel in opposition to Iran. This means the Israel
Lobby and its many friends in Congress will squawk loudly about Khashoggi but ultimately shy
away from doing anything about it. It already appears that a cover story is halfway in place to
explain what happened. It is being suggested that a "rogue" element from Saudi Arabia might
have carried out without the knowledge of the Crown Prince an interrogation or abduction
attempt that went too far. Donald Trump speculated on Monday that that might be the case,
suggesting that it may already be part of the official line that will be promoted. Those who
know Saudi Arabia well, however, consider a high-level assassination not ordered by the Crown
Prince directly to be extremely unlikely, but that does not necessarily mean that a cover story
including that feature might not be successfully floated.
In regional terms, Saudi Arabia is also key to Trump's anticipated Middle East peace plan.
If it pulls out from the expected financial guarantees aspect, the plan will fall apart. Riyadh
is also committed to buy tens of billions of dollars' worth of American arms, an agreement that
could be canceled if Washington begins to pressure the Saudis for answers. Beyond that, Saudi
Arabia could stop pumping oil or fail to increase production when Iranian oil becomes subject
to U.S. sanctions early next month, driving the price per barrel up dramatically for everyone.
The Saudi government has already indicated that it will respond forcefully to any attempts to
punish it over Khashoggi and there is no reason to doubt the seriousness of that threat.
There are, of course, possible impediments to selling the fake news narrative. Some early
reports suggested that Khashoggi's fiancé had observed and possibly recorded the
execution inside the consulate using the victim's Apple wristwatch linked to an iPad in her
possession. If that is true, the release of such material to the media will create worldwide
demand to learn the truth that will be difficult to control. Also, there are unconfirmed
reports that U.S. intelligence knew in advance of Saudi plans to abduct Khashoggi, which could
prove embarrassing to the Trump administration and could narrow its options.
The trick will be to see how a bit of extreme brutal behavior by the Saudis can be
manipulated by all interested parties to produce a solution that doesn't damage anyone too
much. It will undoubtedly be far from the truth, but truth doesn't necessarily matter much
these days.
"... This is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing this fundraiser and what we've accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending our reach . ..."
"... By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm. Originally published at OilPrice ..."
"... As long as NATO exists, Washington will continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it benefited Germany's national interest. ..."
"... She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He is leaving the door open. ..."
"... What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018 Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018. ..."
"... Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to exchange ensuring business for many years to come. Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it). Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana. ..."
"... IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere. ..."
"... So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines. ..."
"... Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA. ..."
"... It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil (unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong? ..."
"... The United States should lead by example. Telling Germany not to import Russian gas is rich considering the U.S. also imports from Russia. https://www.forbes.com/sites/rrapier/2018/07/12/russia-was-a-top-10-supplier-of-u-s-oil-imports-in-2017/ ..."
"... I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question. ..."
"... She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria. She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to control virtually all the pipelines into Europe. ..."
This
is Naked Capitalism fundraising week. 1018 donors have already invested in our efforts to
combat corruption and predatory conduct, particularly in the financial realm. Please join us
and participate via our donation page , which shows how to give via
check, credit card, debit card, or PayPal. Read about why we're doing
this fundraiser and what we've
accomplished in the last year, and our current goal, extending
our reach .
Yves here. It's not hard to see that this tiff isn't just about Russia. The US wants Germany
to buy high-priced US LNG.
By Tsvetana Paraskova, a writer for the U.S.-based Divergente LLC consulting firm.
Originally published at
OilPrice
The United States and the European Union (EU) are at odds over more than just the Iran
nuclear deal – tensions surrounding energy policy have also become a flashpoint for the
two global powerhouses.
In energy policy, the U.S. has been opposing the Gazprom-led and highly controversial
Nord Stream 2 pipeline project , which will follow the existing Nord Stream natural gas
pipeline between Russia and Germany via the Baltic Sea. EU institutions and some EU members
such as Poland and Lithuania are also against it, but one of the leaders of the EU and the
end-point of the planned project -- Germany -- supports Nord Stream 2 and sees the project as a
private commercial venture that will help it to meet rising natural gas demand.
While the U.S. has been hinting this year that it could sanction the project and the
companies involved in it -- which include not only Gazprom but also major European firms Shell,
Engie, OMV, Uniper, and Wintershall -- Germany has just said that
Washington shouldn't interfere with Europe's energy choices and policies.
"I don't want European energy policy to be defined in Washington," Germany's Foreign
Ministry State Secretary Andreas Michaelis said at a conference on trans-Atlantic ties in
Berlin this week.
Germany has to consult with its European partners regarding the project, Michaelis said, and
noted, as quoted by Reuters, that he was "certainly not willing to accept that Washington is
deciding at the end of the day that we should not rely on Russian gas and that we should not
complete this pipeline project."
"Germany is totally controlled by Russia, because they will be getting from 60 to 70 percent
of their energy from Russia and a new pipeline," President Trump said.
Germany continues to see Nord Stream 2 as a commercial venture, although it wants clarity on
the future role of Ukraine as a transit route, German government spokeswoman Ulrike Demmer
said last month.
Nord Stream 2 is designed to bypass Ukraine, and Ukraine fears it will lose transit fees and
leverage over Russia as the transit route for its gas to western Europe.
Poland, one of the most outspoken opponents of Nord Stream 2, together with the United
States, issued a joint statement last month during the visit of Polish President Andrzej Duda
to Washington, in which the parties
said , "We will continue to coordinate our efforts to counter energy projects that threaten
our mutual security, such as Nord Stream 2."
The president of the Federation of German Industry (BDI), Dieter Kempf, however, told
German daily Süddeutsche Zeitung last month, that he had "a big problem with a third
country interfering in our energy policy," referring to the United States. German industry
needs Nord Stream 2, and dropping the project to buy U.S. LNG instead wouldn't make any
economic sense, he said. U.S. LNG currently is not competitive on the German market and would
simply cost too much, according to Kempf.
The lower price of Russian pipeline gas to Europe is a key selling point -- and one that
Gazprom uses often. Earlier this month Alexey Miller, Chairman of Gazprom's Management
Committee, said at a gas forum in
Russia that "Although much talk is going on about new plans for LNG deliveries, there is no
doubt that pipeline gas supplies from Russia will always be more competitive than LNG
deliveries from any other part of the world. It goes without saying."
The issue with Nord Stream 2 -- which is already
being built in German waters -- is that it's not just a commercial project. Many in Europe
and everyone in the United States see it as a Russian political tool and a means to further
tighten Russia's grip on European gas supplies, of which it already holds more than a third.
But Germany wants to discuss the future of this project within the European Union, without
interference from the United States.
Maybe the US thinks it will also have to go out of its way to accommodate Germany and the
EU by offering to construct the necessary infrastructure in Europe for the import of LNG at
exorbitant US prices. MAGA. How long would that take?
The question is, is it inevitable that the EU/US relationship goes sour?
Continentalism is on the rise generally, and specifically with brexit, couple this with the
geographical gravity of the EU-Russia relationship makes a EU-Russia "alliance" make more
sense than the EU-US relationship.
Ever since the death of the USSR and the accession of the eastern states to the EU, the
balance of power in the EU-US relationship has moved in ways it seems clear that the US is
uncomfortable with.
To all of this we must add the policy differences between the US and the EU – see the
GDPR and the privacy shield for example.
I have said it before – the day Putin dies (metaphorically or literally) is a day
when the post war order in Europe may die, and we see the repairing of the EU-Russia
relationship (by which I mean the current regime in Russia will be replaced with a new
generation far less steeped in cold war dogma and way more interested in the EU).
"The post war order in Europe will doe and we see the repairing of the EU/Russian
relationship "
I think you mean the German/Russian relationship and that repair has been under way for
more than a decade. The post war order is very very frayed already and looks close to a break
point.
This Nord Stream 2 story illustrates more than most Germany's attitudes to the EU and to
the world at large. Germany used its heft within the EU to 1 ) get control of Russian gas
supplies into Central Europe (Germany insisted that Poland could not invest in the project
apparently and refused a landing point for the pipeline in Poland. Instead it offered a flow
back valve from Germany into Poland that the Germans would control) 2) thumb its nose at the
US while outwardly declaring friendship through the structures provided by EU and NATO
membership.
Even Obama suspected the Germans of duplicity (the Merkel phone hacking debacle).
It's is this repairing relationship that will set the tone for Brexit, the Ukraine war,
relations between Turkey and EU and eventually the survival of the EU and NATO. The point ?
Germany doesn't give a hoot about the EU it served its purpose of keeping Germany anchored to
the west and allowing German reunification to solidify while Russia was weak. Its usefulness
is in the past now, however from a German point of view.
Putin dying isn't going to change Washington. As long as NATO exists, Washington will
continue to use it to drive a wedge between the EU and Russia. Merkel foolishly went along
with all of Washington's provocations against Russia in Ukraine, even though none of it
benefited Germany's national interest.
Come to think of it, maybe Merkel dying off would improve German-Russian relations
She did indeed go along with all the provocations and she sat back and said nothing while
Putin railed against US sanctions. Yet Putin didn't blame Germany or the EU. Instead he said
that the Germany/EU is currently trapped by the US and would come to their senses in time. He
is leaving the door open.
Germany won't lose if NATO and the EU break up. It would free itself from a range
increasingly dis-functional entities that, in its mind, restrict its ability to engage in
world affairs.
I think you are right. Russia and Germany are coming together and there's nothing we can
do about it because "private commercial venture." Poetic justice.
And the economic link will
lead to political links and we will have to learn a little modesty. The ploy we are trying to
use, selling Germany US LNG could not have been anything more than a stopgap supply line
until NG from the ME came online but that has been our achilles heel.
It feels like even if
we managed to kick the Saudis out and took over their oil and gas we still could no longer
control geopolitics. The cat is out of the bag and neoliberalism has established the rules.
And it's pointless because there is enough gas and oil and methane on this planet to kill the
human race off but good.
That exactly right. and Gerhard Schroder has been developing those political relationships
for more than a decade. The political/economic links already go very deep on both sides.
if the rapprochement is occurring, Brexit, the refugee crisis and Italy's approaching debt
crisis are all just potential catalysts for an inevitable breakup. Germany likely views these
as potential opportunities to direct European realignment rather than existential crises to
be tackled.
What US LNG exports? The US is a net importer of NG from Canada. US 2018 NG consumption
and production was 635.8 and 631.6 Mtoe respectively (BP 2018 Stats). Even the BP 2018
Statistical Review of World Energy has an asterisks by US LNG exports which says, "Includes
re-exports" which was 17.4 BCM or 15 Mtoe for 2018.
The US produces annually about 33,000,000 million cubic feet and consumes 27.000.000
million according to the EiA . So there is an
excess to export indeed.
Natural gas negotiations involve long term contracts so there are lots of money to
exchange ensuring business for many years to come.
Such a contract has recently been signed between Poland's PGNiG and American Venture
Global Calcasieu & Venture Global Plaquemines LNG (Lousiana). According to the Poland
representative this gas would be 20% cheaper than Russian gas. (if one has to believe it).
Those contracts are very secretive in their terms. This contract in particular is still
dependent on the termination of liquefaction facilities in Lousiana.
I don't know much about NG markets in Poland but according to Eurostat prices for
non-household consumers are very similar in Poland, Germany, Lithuania or Spain.
Gas contracts are usually linked to oil prices. A lot of LNG is traded as a fungible
product like oil, but that contract seems different – most likely its constructed this
way because of the huge capital cost of the LNG facilities, which make very little economic
sense for a country like Poland which has pipelines criss-crossing it. I suspect the
terminals have more capacity that the contract quantity – the surplus would be traded
at market prices, which would no doubt be where the profit margin is for the supplier (I
would be deeply sceptical that unsubsidised LNG could ever compete with Russia gas, the
capital costs involved are just too high).
IIRC, the US is pushing LNG because fracking has resulted in a lot of NG coincident with
oil production. They've got so much NG coming out of fracked oil wells that they don't know what to do
with it and at present, a lot of it just gets flared, or leaks into the atmosphere.
IMO, the folks responsible for this waste are as usual, ignoring the 'externalities', the
costs to the environment of course, but also the cost of infrastructure and transport related
to turning this situation to their advantage.
So they turn to bullying the EU to ignore the price advantage that Russia is able to
offer, due to the economics of pipeline transport over liquefaction and ocean transport, and
of course the issues of reliability and safety associated with ocean transport, and
high-pressure LNG port facilities compared to pipelines.
This doesn't even take into account the possibility that the whole fracked gas supply may
be a short-lived phenomenon, associated with what we've been describing here as basically a
finance game.
Trump will probably offer the EU 'free' LNG port facilities financed by low-income
American tax-payers, and cuts to 'entitlements', all designed to MAGA.
Just to clarify, fracked gas is not usually a by-product of oil fracking – the
geological beds are usually distinct (shale gas tends to occur at much deeper levels than
tight oil). Gas can however be a byproduct of conventional oil production. 'wet' gas
(propane, etc), can be a by-product of either.
It's common for oil wells both fracked and conventional to produce natural gas (NG) though
not all do. The fracked wells in the Permian Basin are producing a great deal of it.
Natural gas does indeed form at higher temperatures than oil does and that means at
greater depth but both oil and NG migrate upward. Exploration for petroleum is hunting for
where it gets captured at depth, not for where it's formed. Those source rocks are used as
indicators of where to look for petroleum trapped stratigraphically higher up.
It seems we have been maneuvering for a while to raise our production of LNG and oil
(unsustainably) in order to become an important substitute supplier to the EU countries. It
sort of looks like our plan is to reduce EU opposition to our attacking Russia. Then we will
have China basically surrounded. This is made easier with our nuclear policy of "we can use
nuclear weapons with acceptable losses." What could go wrong?
I wonder what the secret industry studies say about the damage possible from an accident
at a LNG port terminal involving catastrophic failure and combustion of the entire cargo of a
transport while unloading high-pressure LNG.
They call a fuel-air bomb the size of a school bus 'The Mother of all bombs', what about
one the size of a large ocean going tanker?
Many years ago, someone was trying to build an LNG storage facility on the southwest shore
of Staten Island 17 miles SW of Manhattan involving very large insulated tanks. In spite of
great secrecy, there came to be much local opposition. At the time it was said that the
amount of energy contained in the tanks would be comparable to a nuclear weapon. Various
possible disaster scenarios were proposed, for example a tank could be compromised by
accident (plane crashes into it) or terrorism, contents catch fire and explode, huge fireball
emerges and drifts with the wind, possibly over New Jersey's chemical farms or even towards
Manhattan. The local opponents miraculously won. As far as I know, the disused tanks are
still there.
A 28-inch LNG underground pipeline exploded in Nigeria and the resulting fire engulfed
an estimated 27 square kilometers.
Here's one from Cleveland;
On 20 October 1944, a liquefied natural gas storage tank in Cleveland, Ohio, split and
leaked its contents, which spread, caught fire, and exploded. A half hour later, another
tank exploded as well. The explosions destroyed 1 square mile (2.6 km2), killed 130, and
left 600 homeless.
The locals in Nigeria drill hole in pipeline to get free fuel.
The Nigeria Government has been really wonderful about sharing the largess and riches of
their large petroleum field in the Niger delta. Mostly with owners of expensive property
around the world.
I am trying to think of what might be in it for the Germans to go along with this deal but
cannot see any. The gas would be far more expensive that the Russian deliveries. A fleet of
tankers and the port facilities would have to be built and who is going to pick up the tab
for that? Then if the terminal is in Louisiana, what happens to deliveries whenever there is
a hurricane?
I cannot see anything in it for the Germans at all. Trump's gratitude? That and 50 cents
won't buy you a cup of coffee. In any case Trump would gloat about the stupidity of the
Germans taking him up on the deal, not feel gratitude. The US wants Germany to stick with
deliveries via the Ukraine as they have their thumb on that sorry country and can threaten
Germany with that fact. Nord Stream 2 (and the eventual Nord Stream 3) threaten that
hold.
The killer argument is this. In terms of business and remembering what international
agreements Trump has broken the past two years, who is more reliable as a business partner
for Germany – Putin's Russia or Trump's America?
I find it impossible to believe that a gas supplier would keep to an artificially low LNG
contract if, say, a very cold winter in the US led to a shortage and extreme price spike.
They'd come up with some excuse not to deliver.
My recollection was that there was a law that prohibited export-sales of domestic US
hydrocarbons. That law was under attack, and went away in the last couple years?
LNG with your F35? said the transactional Orangeman
The fracked crude is ultralight and unsuitable for the refineries in the quantities
available, hence export, which caused congress to change the law. No expert, but understand
that it is used a lot as a blender with heavier stocks of crude, quite a bit going to
China.
The petroleum industry has been bribing lobbying the administration for quite a
while to get this policy in place, The so called surplus of NG today (if there is), won't
last long. Exports will create a shortage and will result in higher prices to all.
also, if Germany were to switch to American LNG, for how long would this be a reliable
energy source? Fracking wells are short lived, so what happens once they are depleted? who
foots the bill?
I just love the fact that Trump is publicly calling out Merkel on this; she has been
nothing but two-faced and hypocritical on the Russia question.
She was one of the ones who pushed the EU hard, for example, to sanction Russia in the
wake of the coup in Ukraine (which she had also supported). And then she pushed the EU hard
to kill off the South Stream pipeline, which would have gone through SE Europe into Austria.
She used the excuse of 'EU solidarity' against 'Russian aggression' to accomplish that only
to then turn around and start building yet another pipeline out of Russia and straight
into Germany! The Bulgarians et al. must feel like real idiots now. It seems Berlin wants to
control virtually all the pipelines into Europe.
So, three cheers for Trump embarrassing Merkel on this issue!
Putting money aside for a moment, Trump, as well as the entire American establishment,
doesn't want Russia "controlling" Germany's energy supplies. That's because they want America
to control Germany's energy supplies via controlling LNG deliveries from America to Germany
and by controlling gas supplies to Germany through Ukraine. This by maintaining America's
control over Ukraine's totally dependent puppet government. The Germans know this so they
want Nord Stream 2 & 3.
Ukraine is an unreliable energy corridor on a good day. It is run by clans of rapacious
oligarchs who don't give one whit about Ukraine, the Ukrainian "people", or much of anything
else except business. The 2019 presidential election may turn into a contest among President
Poroshenko the Chocolate King, Yulia Tymoshenko the Gas Princess, as well as some others
including neo Nazis that go downhill from there. What competent German government would want
Germany's energy supplies to be dependent on that mess?
It has been said that America's worst geopolitical nightmare is an
economic-political-military combination of Russia, Iran, and China in the Eurasian
"heartland". Right up there, if not worse, is a close political-economic association between
Germany and Russia; now especially so since such a relationship can quickly be hooked into
China's New Silk Road, which America will do anything to subvert including tariffs,
sanctions, confiscations of assets, promotion of political-ethnic-religious grievances where
they may exist along the "Belt-Road", as well as armed insurrections, really maybe anything
short of all out war with Russia and China.
Germany's trying to be polite about this saying, sure, how about a little bit of LNG along
with Nord Stream 2 & 3? But the time may come, if America pushes enough, that Germany
will have to make an existential choice between subservience to America, and pursuit of it's
own legitimate self interest.
It's hard to make NG explode, as it is with all liquid hydrocarbons. It is refrigerated,
and must change from liquid to gaseous for, and be mixed with air.
I've also worked on a Gas Tanker in the summer vacations. The gas was refrigerated, and
kept liquid. They is a second method, used for NG, that is to allow evaporation from the
cargo, and use it as fuel for the engine (singular because there is one propulsion engine on
most large ships) on the tanker.
The macabre case of missing journalist Jamal Khashoggi raises the question: did Saudi rulers
fear him revealing highly damaging information on their secret dealings? In particular,
possible involvement in the 9/11 terror attacks on New York in 2001.
Even more intriguing are US media
reports now emerging that American intelligence had snooped on and were aware of Saudi
officials making plans to capture Khashoggi prior to his apparent disappearance at the Saudi
consulate in Istanbul last week. If the Americans knew the journalist's life was in danger, why
didn't they tip him off to avoid his doom?
Jamal Khashoggi (59) had gone rogue, from the Saudi elite's point of view. Formerly a senior
editor in Saudi state media and an advisor to the royal court, he was imminently connected and
versed in House of Saud affairs. As one commentator cryptically put it: "He knew where all the
bodies were buried."
For the past year, Khashoggi went into self-imposed exile, taking up residence in the US,
where he began writing opinion columns for the Washington Post.
Khashoggi's articles appeared to be taking on increasingly critical tone against the heir to
the Saudi throne, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman. The 33-year-old Crown Prince, or MbS as
he's known, is de facto ruler of the oil-rich kingdom, in place of his aging father, King
Salman.
While Western media and several leaders, such as Presidents Trump and Macron, have been
indulging MbS as "a reformer", Khashoggi was spoiling this Saudi public relations effort by
criticizing the war in Yemen, the blockade on Qatar and the crackdown on Saudi critics back
home.
However, what may have caused the Saudi royals more concern was what Khashoggi knew about
darker, dirtier matters. And not just the Saudis, but American deep state actors as as
well.
He was formerly a
media aide to Prince Turki al Faisal, who is an eminence gris figure in Saudi intelligence,
with its systematic relations to American and British counterparts. Prince Turki's father,
Faisal, was formerly the king of Saudi Arabia until his assassination in 1975 by a family
rival. Faisal was a half-brother of the present king, Salman, and therefore Prince Turki is a
cousin of the Crown Prince – albeit at 73 more than twice his age.
For nearly 23 years, from 1977 to 2001, Prince Turki was the director of the Mukhabarat, the
Saudi state intelligence apparatus. He was instrumental in Saudi, American and British
organization of the mujahideen fighters in Afghanistan to combat Soviet forces. Those militants
in Afghanistan later evolved into the al Qaeda terror network, which has served as a cat's paw
in various US proxy wars across the Middle East, North Africa and Central Asia, including
Russia's backyard in the Caucasus.
Ten days before the 9/11 terror attacks on New York City, in which some 3,000 Americans
died, Prince Turki retired from his post as
head of Saudi intelligence. It was an abrupt departure, well before his tenure was due to
expire.
There has previously been speculation in US
media that this senior Saudi figure knew in advance that something major was going down on
9/11. At least 15 of the 19 Arabs who allegedly hijacked three commercial airplanes that day
were Saudi nationals.
Prince Turki has subsequently been named in a 2002 lawsuit mounted by families of 9/11
victims. There is little suggestion he was wittingly involved in organizing the terror plot.
Later public comments indicated that Prince Turki was horrified by the atrocity. But the
question is: did he know of the impending incident, and did he alert US intelligence, which
then did not take appropriate action to prevent it?
Jamal Khashoggi had long served as a trusted media advisor to Prince Turki, before the
latter resigned from public office in 2007. Following 9/11, Turki was the Saudi ambassador to
both the US and Britain.
A tentative idea here is that Khashoggi, in his close dealings with Prince Turki over the
years, may have gleaned highly sensitive inside information on what actually happened on 9/11.
Were the Arab hijackers mere patsies used by the American CIA to facilitate an event which has
since been used by American military planners to launch a global "war on terror" as a cover for
illegal wars overseas? There is a huge body of evidence that the 9/11 attacks were indeed a
"false flag" event orchestrated by the US deep state as a pretext for its imperialist
rampages.
The apparent abduction and murder last week of Jamal Khashoggi seems such an astoundingly
desperate move by the Saudi rulers. More evidence is emerging from Turkish
sources that the journalist was indeed lured to the consulate in Istanbul where he was
killed by a 15-member hit squad. Reports are saying that the alleged assassination was ordered
at the highest level of the Saudi royal court, which implicates Crown Prince MbS.
Why would the Saudi rulers order such a heinous act, which would inevitably lead to acute
political problems, as we are seeing in the fallout from governments and media coverage around
the world?
Over the past year, the House of Saud had been appealing to Khashoggi to return to Riyadh
and resume his services as a media advisor to the royal court. He declined, fearing that
something more sinister was afoot. When Khashoggi turned up in Istanbul to collect a divorce
document from the Saudi consulate on September 28, it appears that the House of Saud decided to
nab him. He was told to return to the consulate on October 2. On that same day, the 15-member
group arrived from Riyadh on two private Gulfstream jets for the mission to kill him.
Official Saudi claims stretch credulity. They say Khashoggi left the consulate building
unharmed by a backdoor, although they won't provide CCTV images to prove that. The Turks say
their own CCTV facilities monitoring the front and back of the Saudi consulate show that
Khashoggi did not leave the premises. The Turks seem confident of their claim he was murdered
inside the building, his remains dismembered and removed in diplomatic vehicles. The two
private jets left the same day from Istanbul with the 15 Saudis onboard to return to Riyadh,
via Cairo and Dubai.
To carry out such a reckless act, the Saudis must have been alarmed by Khashoggi's critical
commentaries appearing in the Washington Post. The columns appeared to be delivering more and
more damaging insights into the regime under Crown Prince MbS.
The Washington Post this week is
reporting that US intelligence sources knew from telecom intercepts that the Saudis were
planning to abduct Khashoggi. That implicates the House of Saud in a dastardly premeditated act
of murder.
But furthermore this same disclosure could also, unwittingly, implicate US intelligence. If
the latter knew of a malicious intent towards Khashoggi, why didn't US agents warn him about
going to the Saudi consulate in Istanbul? Surely, he could have obtained the same personal
documents from the Saudi embassy in Washington DC, a country where he was residing and would
have been safer.
Jamal Khashoggi may have known too many dark secrets about US and Saudi intel collusion,
primarily related to the 9/11 terror incidents. And with his increasing volubility as a
critical journalist in a prominent American news outlet, it may have been time to silence him.
The Saudis as hitmen, the American CIA as facilitators.
"... He is just an agent of one Saudii faction against the MBS faction, a faction just as evil. ..."
"... After Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri, was kidnapped and taken to Riyadh to be re-educated (tortured) Khashoggi left Saudi Arabia . Khashoggi continued with his columns criticizing the Saudi regime, attacking its campaign in Yemen on Al Jazeera. ..."
According to an article in the Duran Khashoggi was an agent in the employ of Riyadh and
the CIA during the Soviet presence in Afghanistan.
Turki bin Faisal Al-Saud was Khashoggi's political protector. Turki bin Faisal Al-Saud was
at the center of relations between Washington and Saudi Arabia against the USSR while it was
in Afghanistan using fighters who later became known as Al Qaeda - armed and trained by
CIA:Pakistan and financed by the Saudis.
Faisal became the leader of Saudi intelligence. He was removed from his post on May 24,
2001, a few months before September 11, 2001 (convenient) .The connections he had with Osama
bin Laden led him to being sued by relatives of 9/11 directed at him and other Saudi
operatives.
In 2005, Turki bin Faisal was appointed Saudi ambassador to the US during the Bush
administration, with Khashoggi accompanying him as a media advisor. During Turki bin Faisal's
ambassadorship in Washington, Khashoggi assumed the position of head of press relations,
coming into direct contact with major national and international organs of US media.
During the Obama administration, Khashoggi supported the Obama administrations strategy of
color revolutions and the Arab Spring to extend US imperialist domination following the
disasters of Iraq and Afghanistan. He was most likely a CIA asset, perhaps also Saudi
intelligence as well
When MBS became the strongman holding power in Saudi Arabia, he triggered a near war with
Qatar with Trumps blessing, and was unhappy over the role of Al Jazeera, which often hosted
Khashoggi and was increasingly critical of MBS.
So whatever the story is I am not losing any sleep over Khashoggi. He is just an agent
of one Saudii faction against the MBS faction, a faction just as evil. Kind of like the
pick between agents of the 2 factions duking it out in the US. Evil does vs Evil do. There
are no white knights here.
After Lebanese prime minister, Saad Hariri, was kidnapped and taken to Riyadh to be
re-educated (tortured) Khashoggi left Saudi Arabia . Khashoggi continued with his columns
criticizing the Saudi regime, attacking its campaign in Yemen on Al Jazeera.
What hypocrisy on display by the US. Unfuckingbelievable. Such concern for a journalist, such
outrage!
There is currently a case working its way through the court system (here in the US)
brought by two journalists, one of them an American, where they are pleading to have their
names removed from the US "kill list". They say their inclusion on the list is erroneous, and
ask that they be given a chance to show that they are not, in fact, terrorists before a drone
blows them into pieces. They are represented by Reprieve lawyers, and they joined their two
suits together as co-plainiffs, although it now appears that the foreign-born journalist was
basically told by the judge he was shit out of luck, having "no standing", since he didn't
sufficiently prove that he was on the list. (He had found his name listed as a "highest
scoring target" on some of Edward Snowden's leaked NSA materials, but that was not enough
"proof" for the judge.)
The American journalist is Bilal Kareem, and the other is a journalist from Pakistan named
Ahmad Zaidan. BTW, both these men were originally targeted under the Obama administration,
but their names remain on the list under Trump. And Trump has increased the use of these
targeted drone killings by 4 to 5 times the number of Obama's, who himself had increased the
assassination program 10 fold over Bush' numbers. Trump has also loosened the "rules" about
where these drone killings can take place, and who can be targeted. US drone warfare has
taken the lives of some 10,858 individuals since 2004, according to the Bureau of
Investigative Journalism (TBIJ).
The Washington Post and the Middle East Monitor both have good stories about the case, but
the best article by far is Matt Taibbi's article in Rolling Stone published on 19 July.
According to
NYT , Khashoggi "had expressed concern to a friend on Monday that he could be
kidnapped and returned to Saudi Arabia if he visited the consulate". He went in at
1:30pm , while his friend and fiancée were waiting outside till 9:00pm .
Isn't it a bit odd that his friend and fiancée, while fully aware the danger of him
being kidnapped insider the consulate, waited for 7:30 hours before alerting Turkish
authorities? Normally it takes 2 or 3 hours get a document, esp. already processed ones.
Why didn't his friend and fiancée alert the Turkish police earlier? Esp. "he
left his cellphone outside with Hatice, who had instructions to alert his friends if Mr.
Khashoggi did not return".
Mr. Khashoggi's wife had remained in Saudi Arabia while he was no longer able to return
freely. Their separation had led to a divorce, and he wanted to remarry to a Turkish woman.
Normally, you don't divorce your wife/husband because of one-year's separation. According
to this NYT article, Khashogg divided his time between the Washington, D.C., London and
Istanbul, how long did he come to know his fiancée? Isn't it a bit too
rush/risky for a 59-year old man suddenly decided to divorce long-year wife and marry a new
Turkish girl friend? Could it be a honey trap?
" Odd dates ?"
- Oct. 2, Khashoggi disappeared.
- Oct. 3, Trump told his supporters that Saudi could last two weeks without American
support.
- Oct. 6, MbS said Suadi could survive 2000 years without US help .
- Now full-blown MSM storm, State Deparment is closely monitor the whole affair, Turkish
government is feeding the media with all sorts of lurid details and claims. (Isn't it much
easier and simpler just to kidnap/shot him on the streets of Istanbul or London than
dismembering his body inside Istanbul consulate?)
Now Saudi is "willing to cooperate" with Turkey, American priest Brauson is set free, plus
MbS now has probably to purchase tens of billions, if not hundreds of billions of US
armaments. What a "coincident" win-win situation for Erdy and Trump.
As another poster commented, something is missing...
It is like a well choreograhped drame, Skripals were the same, this also is tooooo nice
fitting together... Hmfr!
Qui bono? Who makes money on this? I certainly cannot answer that, but lets play safe : The
Russians did it!
They beamed up Kasshoggi to their base on the dark side of the moon, the re killed him in
civilized manner, fucking him to death with nice looking whores and spoonfeeding him Beluga
caviar and interjected wit sips of Russian Starka. He was then made to mush and beamed back
into the Saudi consulate making a real mess. Now poor headchop promoter is all over the
place! He must love that up in his muslum heaven with 72 old hags. There is no martyrdom in
being beamed to the moon and put through a garden shredder, that is nothing special.
So now the Saudi's has Khassoggi al over their faces (literally :)) and the Turks eye a new
way to betray someone (Putin, wake up!!). Ever since democracy was bestowed on these people,
they have made a mess of it.
Back in the day (when I was gung ho Army boy), it was OK for a Turk officer to shoot dead a
couple of conscripts a year, no problemo, the sentries with weapons had no live rounds hi-hi.
Turkey does not need a hard shove and it will crumble, and the Americans will intervene,
unless Russia is first.
This game is about Turkey, and not goat herders in Saudi Sodoma. They have hardly oil left
and the plebs are angry.
The debate about peak oil demand always tends to focus on how quickly electric vehicles will
replace the internal-combustion engine , especially as EV sales are accelerating. However, the
petrochemical sector will be much more difficult to dislodge , and with alternatives far
behind, petrochemicals will account for an increasing share of crude oil demand growth in the
years ahead.
You would have to wonder why Putin opened with the following remarks if you were ignorant of
the global situation:
"You came here to hold an open and trust based discussion on the issues of the
global energy agenda .
"We believe that progress in global energy, as well as the stable energy security of our
entire planet, can only be achieved through global partnership, working in accordance with
general rules that are the same for everyone, and, of course, through conducting transparent
and constructive dialogue among market players which is not politically motivated but is
based on pragmatic considerations and an understanding of shared responsibilities and mutual
interests." [My Emphasis]
His characterization of Skripal came during the Q&A, and there are likely more gems to
be had from that session.
Waging Illegal Aggressive War, Illegal sanctions, Violations of UNSC Resolutions, Breaking
of Contracts, and Ongoing violation of the UN Charter and US Constitution since 1945 are just
a few of the reasons why it must be called the Outlaw US Empire as no other term properly
describes it. 80 years ago, appeasement didn't work, and it's clear it doesn't work today
either. Together the world's nations must bring the Outlaw US Empire to heel and make it obey
the Rule of Law and abandon its unilateral Rule of the Gun.
Ah, there it is. The reason behind this strange week, the dots that few will connect.
Putin speaking at a conference about "sustainable energy in a changing world."
Right there, two phrases that are certain to set off Exxon corp and their puppets in the
political theater. Say "sustainable energy" around an oil giant and watch them shudder. The,
mention "changing world" to any of that class and they have nightmares about their children
having to learn Chinese. Put them all together in one title of a conference at which Putin
himself is speaking and well, now we know why the Shakespearian chorus of Exxon's oil
industry bit players like former Texas Governor Rich "the hair" Perry and former Texas
Senator Hutchinson are suddenly frothing at the bit about the Park Rangers mounting a naval
blockade of Russia (see Yogi Bear for how that's likely to turn out, hey booboo?) and nuclear
first strikes on Russia.
Putin, Sustainable Energy, Changing world .. enough to send some senior executive geezers
at Exxon grabbing for their nitro pills and speed dialing their cardiologists.
For those who like to call Russia "a gas station masquerading as a country" here is Putin's
note on ecology:
"A separate ambitious task for the future is the development of renewable energy sources,
especially in remote, difficult-to-access areas of this country, such as Eastern Siberia, and
the Far East. This is opening a great opportunity for our vast country, the world's largest
country with its diverse natural and climatic conditions.
Friends, in conclusion I would like to tell you the following: sustainable and steady
development of the energy industry is a key condition for dynamic growth of the world
economy, enhancing living standards and improving the wellbeing of all people on our
planet.
Russia is open to cooperation in the energy industry in the interests of global energy
security and for the benefit of the future generations. And we certainly rely on active
dialogue on these subjects and cooperation.
Nothing is going to save us from our energy problems, nothing and especially not renewables.
Spend some time reading and studying Gail Tverberg's material and one will quickly see we
are heading for a financial catastrophe because of affordability issues. On the one hand
there isn't enough money to pay for extraction of oil and gas and on the other the consumer
is strapped because of high pump prices etc. But like she herself says if only the wages of
non elite workers could rise high enough to help pay for the increased costs then likely we
wouldn't have a problem. That though is clearly not happening.
I am deeply afraid we are going to wake up to a world very different from the one we went
to sleep in. Just this one article alone expresses the grave situation the world is in:
Every time Chuck Paar makes the over 500-mile round trip from his home in Mt. Jewett,
Pennsylvania, to Buffalo and Syracuse, New York, his 18-wheel tractor trailer carries 25 tons
of sand or cement and burns about $265 of diesel in one day. That's up from as little as $166
for the same route two years ago, and the increased cost of fuel is squeezing already thin
industry profit margins.
"... "Nobody wants to get caught short, full in the knowledge that more Iranian barrels are poised to be removed from the market, ..."
"... "Against this backdrop of dwindling Iranian oil supplies, the focus will turn to meek levels of global, or more accurately, Saudi spare capacity, ..."
"... "this essentially leaves the world's only swing producer powerless to prevent a supply shock and subsequent price spike in the final quarter of this year," ..."
Crude prices will likely reach $100 per barrel for the first time since 2014, and OPEC has
no leverage to prevent such a scenario, an analyst has warned. "Nobody wants to get caught
short, full in the knowledge that more Iranian barrels are poised to be removed from the
market, " Stephen Brennock, oil analyst at PVM Oil Associates, said in a research note
published on Monday, as quoted by CNBC. Read more Russia's September
oil production set for post-Soviet record high
On Monday, Brent crude surged above $83 per barrel as Iran continues losing its crude
exports ahead of US sanctions which come into force in November. "Against this backdrop of
dwindling Iranian oil supplies, the focus will turn to meek levels of global, or more
accurately, Saudi spare capacity, " Brennock said.
Saudi Arabia has been unable to offset the lost Iranian crude exports. And "this
essentially leaves the world's only swing producer powerless to prevent a supply shock and
subsequent price spike in the final quarter of this year," he added.
Iran could lose up to 1.5 million barrels per day when US sanctions kick in early November.
In May, Iran sold 2.71 million bpd abroad, nearly three percent of daily global oil
consumption.
The US is rapidly increasing its production. In September, it hit a record 11.1 million bpd,
according to data from the Energy Information Administration (EIA). That is an increase of
almost a third since 2016. However, the increase in US production is not enough to offset the
loss of Iranian output.
Ryan Chilcote: President Putin, let's get back to geopolitics. When you were talking
about oil – and when everyone talks about oil and disruptions on the market, they don't
just talk about Iran, they talk about Venezuela – you mentioned Venezuela at the
beginning of our conversation. Last year, I interviewed President Maduro, the President of
Venezuela, here. Venezuela is an ally of Russia. Russia has a lot of oil interests in
Venezuela. Oil production in Venezuela is not going well, and politically, things are going
very poorly, as you know. Millions of people are leaving the country. There's hunger. There is
a lot of talk in the United States, and not only in the United States, in Central and South
America, that perhaps it's time for President Maduro to go. Do you agree with that?
Vladimir Putin: This is up to the people of Venezuela, not anyone else in the
world.
As for various means of influencing the situation in Venezuela, there should be no such
thing All of us influence each other in one way or another, but it should not be done in a way
that makes the civilian population even worse off. This is a matter of principle.
Should we rejoice that life is extremely difficult for people there and want to make things
even worse with a view to overthrowing President Maduro? He was recently targeted in a
terrorist attack, an assassination attempt. Shall we condone such methods of political
resistance too?
I think this is absolutely unacceptable. This and anything like it. The people of the
country should be given a chance to shape their destiny themselves. Nothing should be imposed
from the outside.
This is what has emerged historically in Venezuela. What has emerged historically in the
Persian Gulf has emerged there, and the same in Europe, America and Southeast Asia. Nobody
should go in there like a bull in a china shop without understanding what is taking place
there, instead thinking only that the bull is one of the largest and smartest animals. It is
necessary to take a look and give people a chance to figure it out. I have a very simple
outlook on this.
Indeed, we have now met with the Secretary General and spoke
about our cooperation in detail. I would like to draw your attention to the fact that probably for the first time
in history all participants in the agreements honoured their commitments in full. I believe Russia made a commitment
to reduce production by 30,000 barrels, and we did this, just like all other participants in this agreement.
The market is now balanced. The current growth of oil prices
is by and large not a result of our efforts but triggered by attendant circumstances, expectations of decisions
on Iran – incidentally these decisions are absolutely illegal and harmful to the world economy. The fall in oil
production in North Africa is also linked with political circumstances – a civil war and so on. The reduction
in Venezuela is also taking place for domestic political reasons and in connection with the restrictions it has
introduced. This is what it is all about.
As you said, President Trump considers this price high.
I think he is right to some extent but this suits us very well – $65–$70–$75 per barrel. This is quite enough to ensure
the effective performance of energy companies and the investment process. But let us be straight – such prices have
largely been produced by the activities of the US administration. I am referring to expectations of sanctions against
Iran and political problems in Venezuela. Look what is happening in Libya – the state is destroyed. This is the result
of irresponsible policy that is directly affecting the world economy. Therefore, we must work closer with each other,
not only in the energy industry but also in the political area so as to prevent such setbacks.
As for increasing production – we have already increased it
by 400,000 barrels as we agreed with our partners. We can raise it by another 200,000–300,000 barrels per day if need
be.
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, is it right
for the President of the United States to be so actively trying to manage the price of oil? We're coming up on elections
in the United States, he's concerned about the price of gas. A gallon of gas in the United States costs almost $3.
Traditionally, voters punish the party in power when prices rise ahead of elections. Is he doing the right thing,
or actually should he step out of the oil market and let the market dictate what happens?
Vladimir Putin
: I have already said this and want to repeat
it again: we had a very good meeting with the President of the United States in Helsinki. But if we had talked about
the issue we are discussing now, I would have told him: Donald, if you want to find out who is guilty for the increase
in prices, you should look in the mirror. That's the truth.
We have just spoken about the geopolitical factors behind
the price hikes. They exist and really play a role in the market. It is better not to interfere in these market
processes, not to try and get some competitive advantage by using political instruments and not to try to regulate
prices as the Soviet Union did. This does not end well. After all, when talking about our negotiated actions with OPEC
we do not use non-market instruments. We are merely matching supply and demand in the market, no more than that.
Everything else today has to do with geopolitical factors that influence prices.
As for gas prices, they are calculated on the basis of oil
prices. Oil prices are produced by the market whereas gas prices are linked to oil prices. Gas prices fluctuate
depending on oil prices with a small time lag of five to six months. That is all.
What is happening in the United States? The United States is
one of the world's biggest producers of both oil and gas. We know everything about new technology that is being
countered by environmentalists. I agree with them, this production is often carried out using barbarous methods we do
not use.
Who is trying to exert pressure on the administration? I do
not know. Let us talk about the energy industry. Please do not involve me in domestic political processes and squabbles
in the United States. It is for you to figure out or else we will be accused again of meddling in the domestic political
life of the US.
Ryan Chilcote:
When I spoke about the price
of gasoline in the United States, a gallon of gasoline, I meant the price of petrol, of "benzin," not "gaz."
Vladimir Putin
: As you understand, this is the price
of the end product and this applies to oil products. This price is not simply formed from the primary price of oil
or gas if we are talking about gas fuel. State policy also exerts an influence on the final price for consumers.
And what about taxes? Why do some European countries double
prices on our gas before it reaches the final consumers? This is all state policy.
So it would be best not to point your finger at energy
producers all the time. You should figure out what economic policy is being pursued in a country and what is being done
to make sure the product reaches the customers at affordable prices. That is all.
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, let me ask you about this
EU initiative. What do you make of it?
Vladimir Putin
:
(commenting on the EU initiative
to protect European companies in connection with US sanctions against Iran)
It is a bit delayed but better late than
never. It is delayed because quite recently the President of France speaking, I believe, in New York directly announced
the need to enhance the economic sovereignty of the European Union and reduce its dependence on the United States. This
is certainly right.
And how can it be otherwise if, as I have already said,
someone is trying to gain competitive advantages in business by using political instruments? I think nobody will like
this but this is happening and we are seeing this today.
This is why Europe is thinking about some new opportunities
in connection with these circumstances, for instance about dollar-free settlements that incidentally will undermine
the dollar. In this context – I have said this many times but would like to repeat it again – I believe that our
American partners are committing a huge strategic mistake and undermining confidence in the dollar as today's only
reserve currency. They are undermining confidence in it as a universal instrument and are really biting the hand that
feeds.
This is strange, even surprising, but I think this is
a typical mistake made by any empire when people believe nothing will happen, that everything is so powerful, so strong
and stable that there will be no negative consequences. But no, they will come sooner or later. This is the first point.
And the second point, Europe wants to fulfil its
international commitments – this is how we understand our European partners – in this case, as regards Iran's nuclear
deal, and sees in it, as we do, an element of stability in global affairs, in global politics, which, in one way
or another, is reflected in the global economy, as we have already noted.
< >
Ryan Chilcote:
President Putin, I'd like to go back
to Iran for a second. One of the things that the United States would like to see Iran do is to obviously withdraw from
Syria. The US national security advisor just last week said that the United States is going to now stay in Syria as long
as Iran and its proxies are there. Russia has been very clear. Russia says that the US military's presence in Iran is
illegal. What can you do about the US being in Syria?
Vladimir Putin
: There are two options available
to remedy the situation.
The first is that the United States must obtain the mandate
of the UN Security Council to have its armed forces on the territory of another country, in this case Syria, or receive
an invitation from the legitimate Syrian government to deploy its troops there for whatever reason. International law
does not allow the presence of any country on the territory of another country for other reasons.
Ryan Chilcote:
What can Russia do to change the US'
position? The US says it's going to stay, that Iran has to leave, and the US will stay until Iran pulls out of Syria. So
what can Russia do?
Vladimir Putin
: As we are all well aware, in this
particular case the United States (just read the UN Charter to see that my point is correct, and this is not news
to anyone) is violating the UN Charter and international law by its presence on the territory of another country without
the authorisation of the UN Security Council, without a corresponding resolution and without the invitation
of the government of that country. There is nothing good about it.
We have been operating on the premise that we nonetheless
cooperate with our US partners in fighting terrorism and ISIS in Syria. But as ISIS gradually ceases to exist in Syria,
there is just no other rationale, even outside the framework of international law.
What, in my opinion, can be done and what should we all
strive to achieve? We must strive to ensure that there are no foreign troops from other countries in Syria at all. This
is what we need to achieve.
Ryan Chilcote
: Including Russian forces, of course.
Vladimir Putin
: Yes, including Russian, if the Syrian
government so decides.
Ryan Chilcote
: You just struck a deal with President
Erdogan on Syria. Do you think that that's going to hold?
Vladimir Putin
: How is that related to oil?
Russian
Energy Week International Forum.
Ryan Chilcote
: It's in a very sensitive geopolitical
area.
Vladimir Putin
: Maybe it is related, since Syria also
produces energy resources and influences the market situation one way or another.
In this sense, yes, we need a stable Syria, no question about
it. I am not even talking about other aspects related to international security and fighting terrorism.
This is a very good deal (between Russia and Turkey in this
particular case), because it prevented more bloodshed. As you may recall, it includes our agreement to create
a demilitarised zone 15–20 kilometres deep, a de-escalation zone near the city of Idlib, known as the Idlib zone.
I would like to note that along with our Turkish partners we are now working to implement these agreements. We can see
it and are grateful to them for their efforts, and we will continue to work with them on this matter with the support
of Iran.
Ryan Chilcote
: Let's return to energy, or at least
more directly to energy, President Putin, and talk about Nord Stream 2. That's the pipeline that Gazprom wants to build
between Russia and Germany. Again, the President of the United States has said his opinion about this. He says that
Germany is effectively a hostage already of Russia, because it depends on Russia for so much of its energy and gas
supplies, and that it's vulnerable to "extortion and intimidation" from Russia. What do you make of that?
Vladimir Putin
: My response is very simple. Donald
and I talked about this very briefly in Helsinki. In any sale, including the sale of our gas to Europe, we are
traditionally the supplier, of pipeline gas I mean. We have been doing this since the 1960s. We are known for doing it
in a highly responsible and professional manner, and at competitive prices for the European market. In general, if you
look at the characteristics of the entire gas market, the price depends on the quantity and on sales volumes.
The distance between Russia and Europe is such that pipeline gas is optimal. And the price will always be competitive,
always. This is something all experts understand.
We have a lot of people here in this room, in the first row,
who could easily be seated next to me, and I would gladly listen to them, because each one is an expert, so each of them
can tell you that. And so Nord Stream 2 is a purely commercial project, I want to emphasise this, warranted by rising
energy consumption, including in Europe, and falling domestic production in European countries. They have to get it from
somewhere.
Russian gas accounts for around 34 percent of the European
market. Is this a lot or a little? It is not insubstantial, but not a monopoly either. Europe certainly can and does
actually buy gas from other suppliers, but American liquefied gas is about 30 percent more expensive than our pipeline
gas on the European market. If you were buying products of the same quality and you were offered the same product for 30
percent more , what would you choose? So, what are we talking about?
If Europe starts buying American gas for 30 percent more than
ours, the entire economy of Germany, in this case, would quickly become dramatically less competitive. Everyone
understands this; it is an obvious fact.
But business is business, and we are ready to work with all
partners. As you know, our German partners have already begun offshore construction. We are ready to begin as well. We
have no problems with obtaining any permits. Finland agreed, and so did Sweden, Germany, and the Russian Federation.
This is quite enough for us. The project will be implemented.
< >
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, did you want to jump
in here?
Vladimir Putin:
(following up on the remarks by CEO
of Royal Dutch Shell Ben van Beurden)
We understand the realities and treat all our partners with respect. We have
very good, amiable long-term relations with all our partners, including the company represented by my neighbour
on the left. This company is working in the Russian market and working with great success, but we understand everything
very well and understand the realities. We are carrying out the project ourselves. We do not and will not have any
problems here. That is to say, they may arise, of course, but we will resolve them.
Some things are beyond the realm of political intrigue. Take
supplies to the Federal Republic of Germany. Not everyone knows that the decision was made there to shut down
the nuclear power industry. But that is 34 percent of its total energy balance. We are proud of the development
of the nuclear power industry in the Russian Federation, although the figure for us is just 16 percent. We are still
thinking about how to raise it to 25 percent and are making plans. Theirs is 34 percent and everything will be closed
down. What will this vacuum be filled with? What?
Look at LNG [liquefied natural gas ] which is sold by our
various competitors and partners. Yes, LNG can and should be in the common basket of Europe and Germany. Do you know how
many ports built in Europe are used for LNG transfer? Just 25 percent. Why? Because it is unprofitable.
There are companies and regions for which it is profitable
to supply LNG and this is being done. The LNG market is growing very fast. But as for Europe, it is not very profitable,
or unprofitable altogether.
Therefore, in one way or another we have already seen Nord
Stream 1 through and its performance is excellent. Incidentally, our gas supplies to Europe are continuously growing.
Last year, I believe, they amounted to 194 billion cubic metres and this year they will add up to 200 billion cubic
metres or maybe even more.
We have loaded practically all our infrastructure facilities:
Blue Stream to Turkey, Nord Stream 1 is fully loaded. Yamal-Europe is fully loaded – it is almost approaching 100
percent, while the demand is going up. Life itself dictates that we carry out such projects.
Ryan Chilcote
: President Trump's position on American
LNG exports is perhaps a little bit more nuanced. His point is that instead of buying Russian gas, even perhaps if it's
a bit more expensive, the Germans and other European allies of the United States, because the United States is paying
for their defence, should be buying American gas even if there is, I guess the argument suggests, a little bit
of a higher price for that
Vladimir Putin
: You know, this argument doesn't really
work, in my opinion. I understand Donald. He is fighting for the interests of his country and his business. He is doing
the right thing and I would do the same in his place.
As for LNG, as I have already said, it is not just a little
more expensive in the European market but 30 percent more. This is not a little bit more, it is a lot more, beyond all
reason, and is basically unworkable.
But there are markets where LNG will be adopted, where it is
efficient, for instance in the Asia-Pacific region. By the way, where did the first shipment of LNG from our new company
Yamal-LNG go? Where did the first tanker go? To the United States, because it was profitable. The United States fought
this project but ended up buying the first tanker. It was profitable to buy it in this market, at this place and time,
and it was purchased.
LNG is still being shipped to the American continent. It's
profitable.
It makes no sense to fight against what life brings. We
simply need to look for common approaches in order to create favourable market conditions, including, for example,
conditions conducive to the production and consumption of LNG in the United States itself and securing the best prices
for producers and consumers. This could be achieved by coordinating policy, rather than just imposing decisions
on partners.
As for the argument, "We defend you, so buy this from us even
if it makes you worse off", I don't think it is very convincing either. Where does it lead? It has led to the Europeans
starting to talk about the need to have a more independent defence capability, as well as the need to create a defence
alliance of their own that allegedly will not undermine NATO while allowing the Europeans to pursue a real defence
policy. This is what, in my view, such steps are leading to.
This is why I am sure that a great many things will be
revised. Life will see to that.
< >
Ryan Chilcote:
President Putin, let's get back
to geopolitics. When you were talking about oil – and when everyone talks about oil and disruptions on the market, they
don't just talk about Iran, they talk about Venezuela – you mentioned Venezuela at the beginning of our conversation.
Last year, I interviewed President Maduro, the President of Venezuela, here. Venezuela is an ally of Russia. Russia has
a lot of oil interests in Venezuela. Oil production in Venezuela is not going well, and politically, things are going
very poorly, as you know. Millions of people are leaving the country. There's hunger. There is a lot of talk
in the United States, and not only in the United States, in Central and South America, that perhaps it's time
for President Maduro to go. Do you agree with that?
Vladimir Putin:
This is up to the people of Venezuela,
not anyone else in the world.
As for various means of influencing the situation
in Venezuela, there should be no such thing All of us influence each other in one way or another, but it should not be
done in a way that makes the civilian population even worse off. This is a matter of principle.
Should we rejoice that life is extremely difficult for people
there and want to make things even worse with a view to overthrowing President Maduro? He was recently targeted
in a terrorist attack, an assassination attempt. Shall we condone such methods of political resistance too?
I think this is absolutely unacceptable. This and anything
like it. The people of the country should be given a chance to shape their destiny themselves. Nothing should be imposed
from the outside.
This is what has emerged historically in Venezuela. What has
emerged historically in the Persian Gulf has emerged there, and the same in Europe, America and Southeast Asia. Nobody
should go in there like a bull in a china shop without understanding what is taking place there, instead thinking only
that the bull is one of the largest and smartest animals. It is necessary to take a look and give people a chance
to figure it out. I have a very simple outlook on this.
I would like to return to the previous question. After all,
we are dealing with energy. I would like to confirm what my colleagues said here about Russia's energy resources
and potential. They are indeed enormous. Truly enormous. We are in first place in gas reserves. I believe we have 73.3
trillion cubic metres of gas. The Yamal peninsula was mentioned here but NOVATEK will carry out one more project, Arctic
2, on a neighbouring peninsula. It is about the same size and with the same investment. The first tranche in this
project is $27 billion, and the second tranche is about $25 billion. I believe all this will be carried out.
We have the world's largest coal reserves – 275 billion
tonnes. We are third in oil reserves. Third in the world in oil reserves. We are the world's largest country
by territory. If we take a deeper look we are bound to find many other things. So, we are indeed lucky.
But we were given this not by the Lord alone. Past
generations of ours developed these lands. We should never forget what was done by our predecessors, and we will
continue to build on it. We will work with our partners. Incidentally, almost all major energy companies work in Russia.
Ryan Chilcote:
When we were talking about the EU
initiative to try and allow trade between EU countries and Iran, I couldn't help but remember that Russia itself, faced
with sanctions, is thinking about a plan to wean itself off of the dollar. This is something that many countries have
tried and failed. Why does Russia think that it can succeed in this?
Vladimir Putin
: You used the past tense or is
the translation inaccurate? Faced. Have the sanctions been lifted? Did I miss something?
Ryan Chilcote:
Russia is facing with sanctions.
Vladimir Putin:
Okay then. You know, sometimes I think
that it would be good for us if those who want to impose sanctions would go ahead and impose all the sanctions they can
think of as soon as possible. (
Applause.
) This would free our hands to defend our national interests however we
deem most effective for us.
It is very harmful, in general. It hurts the ones doing it.
We all figured this out long ago. That is why we have never supported and will never support illegal sanctions that
circumvent the United Nations.
Ryan Chilcote:
Since you brought up the subject
of sanctions, as you know after the Skripal poisoning, Russia is facing even more of them, perhaps as soon as November.
What is Russia prepared to do to change the trajectory of relations with the United States and the West?
Vladimir Putin
: We are not the ones introducing
these sanctions against the United States or the West. We are just responding to their actions, and we do this in very
restrained, careful steps so as not to cause harm, primarily to ourselves. And we will continue to do so.
As regards the Skripals and all that, this latest spy
scandal is being artificially inflated. I have seen some media outlets and your colleagues push the idea that Skripal is
almost a human rights activist. But he is just a spy, a traitor to the motherland. There is such a term, a 'traitor
to the motherland,' and that's what he is.
Imagine you are a citizen of a country, and suddenly
somebody comes along who betrays your country. How would you, or anybody present here, a representative of any country,
feel about such a person? He is scum, that's all. But a whole information campaign has been deployed around it.
I think it will come to an end, I hope it will,
and the sooner the better. We have repeatedly told our colleagues to show us the documents. We will see what can be done
and conduct an investigation.
We probably have an agreement with the UK on assistance
in criminal cases that outlines the procedure. Well, submit the documents to the Prosecutor General's Office
as required. We will see what actually happened there.
The fuss between security services did not start yesterday.
As you know, espionage, just like prostitution, is one of the most 'important' jobs in the world. So what? Nobody shut
it down and nobody can shut it down yet.
Ryan Chilcote
: Espionage aside, I think there are
two other issues. One is the use of chemical weapons, and let's not forget that in addition to the Skripal family being
affected in that attack, there was also a homeless person who was killed when they came in contact with the nerve agent
Novichok.
Vladimir Putin:
Listen, since we are talking about
poisoning Skripal, are you saying that we also poisoned a homeless person there? Sometimes I look at what is happening
around this case and it amazes me. Some guys came to England and started poisoning homeless people. Such nonsense. What
is this all about? Are they working for cleaning services? Nobody wanted to poison This Skripal is a traitor,
as I said. He was caught and punished. He spent a total of five years in prison. We released him. That's it. He left. He
continued to cooperate with and consult some security services. So what? What are we talking about right now? Oil, gas
or espionage? What is your question?
Let's move on to the other oldest profession and discuss
the latest developments in that business.
(Laughter.)
Ryan Chilcote
: A lot of what we've discussed today
goes back to Russia's relationship with the United States, and so I'll ask you just a couple of questions about that
and we can move on. The US says you personally ordered the 2016 interference in the elections – I know you deny that.
You have said you wanted Trump elected. What do you want to see in 2018 from these midterm election
Vladimir Putin:
In Russia or the United States? What
are you asking me about?
Ryan Chilcote
: What would you like to see happen
in the 2018 midterm elections in the United States.
Vladimir Putin:
What I want – and I am completely
serious – is that this nightmare about Russia's alleged interference with some election campaign in the United States
ends. I want the United States, the American elite, the US elite to calm down and clear up their own mess and restore
a certain balance of common sense and national interests, just like in the oil market. I want the domestic political
squabbles in the United States to stop ruining Russia-US relations and adversely affecting the situation in the world.
Ryan Chilcote:
I'll ask this final question
on the political front. In Helsinki, you said that you wanted President Trump to win because he favours better relations
with Russia. But in fact, as Russia itself says all of the time, relations between Russia and the United States seem
to get worse every day. Wouldn't it be better for Russia to have a president in the United States that is not
politically compromised by the widely held perception that this country helped him get into the White House?
Vladimir Putin
: Firstly, I do not believe President
Trump was compromised. The people elected him, the people voted for him. There are those who do not like this; those who
do not want to respect the opinion of the American voters. But this is not our business – this is an internal matter
of the United States.
Would we be better off or worse? I cannot say either. As is
known, there are no ifs in politics. Maybe it would have been even worse, how are we to know? We must derive from what
is
, and work with that. Good or bad, there is no other President of the United States; there is no other United
States either.
We will work. The US is the largest world power, a leader
in many spheres, our natural partner in a variety of projects, including global security, the non-proliferation
of weapons of mass destruction, terrorism, climate change, as well as the environment. We have a lot of common problems
which overlap that we have to work on together.
We presume that sooner or later the moment will come when
we will be able to restore full-fledged relations.
< >
Ryan Chilcote
: President Putin, I know you need
to get a meeting with the Austrian Chancellor, so I'm going to wrap this session up with you, sir. The title of our
conversation today is Sustainable Energy for a Changing World. You've been driving Russian energy policy for nearly 20
years now. What changes in the world, or what change in the world, would you identify as the biggest concern for you,
and what gives you the most optimism when it comes to what we're seeing.
Vladimir Putin:
If you allow me, I would stick
to the subject. The questions that you asked concern me as well.
Indeed, we are apparently witnessing global warming, but
the reasons for this are not entirely clear, because there is still no answer. The so-called anthropogenic emissions are
most likely not the main cause of this warming. It could be caused by global changes, cosmic changes, some changes
in the galaxy that are invisible to us – and that's that, we don't even understand what is actually happening. Probably,
anthropogenic emissions influence the situation somehow, but many experts believe they have an insignificant effect.
This is my first point.
Secondly, I already said this, and I can remind you once
again. Everyone blames the United States now. As you see, we have many problems and unresolved matters with the United
States, and the US President and I approach many international affairs differently and evaluate our bilateral relations
differently. But we still have to be objective. There was a time I saw President Bush refuse to sign the Kyoto
agreements. But we still found a solution. I think the same will happen in this case. Well, Trump believes that
the Paris Agreement is unprofitable for his country for a variety of reasons. I will not go into details now, he must
have talked about this many times, and we know his position.
But I think, we should not antagonise the relationship with
the US, because without them it would be impossible to reduce the influence of anthropogenic air pollution on the global
climate even a little bit. Therefore, one way or another we need to involve the US in this discussion and this joint
work. As I understand, President Trump does not object. He says that he dislikes some provisions of the Paris agreement,
but he is not opposed to working with the global community on this matter.
Now, as regards the pollution and the future of the global
energy, in order to fight the heat, we need no less energy resources than to fight the cold. Secondly, my colleagues
were right, millions of people do not have access to energy resources, and we will never prohibit the use
of the contemporary blessings of civilization, it is just unreal. The economy and the industry will keep developing.
Of course, in Russia we also join the best international
practices, so-called energy efficient technology that has a little bit of influence on the environment, and we,
of course, will continue this.
But I also agree with our Saudi colleague. These
alternative sources are very important, but we will not be able to go without hydrocarbons in the next decades. People
will have to use them for many decades to come. We mostly speak about oil, but coal is what is used most.
We are speaking about the need to use electric cars, but
where will the electricity come from? From the socket? Okay, from the socket, but how did it get there? First we need
to burn coal to produce electricity, while gas remains the most environmentally friendly energy resource. So we need
to take a comprehensive approach to all such matters.
Ryan Chilcote
: Patrick Pouyané posed a challenge
to you. He said it would be good if Russia used less coal. Are you prepared to accept that challenge and reduce
consumption of coal here in Russia and production?
Vladimir Putin:
We have signed the relevant Paris
agreements and taken up our responsibilities. We have implemented the first stage of the Kyoto Protocol, and now
the Paris Agreement will replace it. We have taken up all necessary responsibilities and will adhere to them.
The question is not about reducing the usage of coal for domestic needs, we are not the largest emitter, the US
and Asian countries emit much more. Here, we are not the leaders. We sell a lot of coal, but also not more than anyone
else and we only help cover the demand. The question is not about us, but about modern technology that uses primary
energy resources.
Let us go back to the last question, could you please
repeat it?
Ryan Chilcote
: Well, the title of the panel is
Sustainable Energy for a Changing World. You've been driving Russia's energy policy for nearly 20 years now. What
changes, or what is the change that gives you the most hope and what do you think the biggest challenge that you see
amongst the changes is for energy?
Vladimir Putin
: Concern is caused by uncertainty.
In politics, in security, and in the economy. Volatility, in other words. This is it. And the number of uncertainties is
growing. This is what causes concern – the unpredictability of the situation.
Ryan Chilcote
: Are you talking about your colleague,
the President of the United States?
Vladimir Putin
: Not exactly. He certainly makes
a significant contribution to this unpredictability by virtue of being the President of the largest world power, but not
only him. I am talking about the situation in general.
Look at the rise of extremism – where did it come from? Why
is this problem so acute today? Why is this extremism turning into terrorism? Doesn't that concern us? This is what we
need to understand – where it all came from.
I will not go into details because we have a limited amount
of time. But this is happening in many spheres. In the economy – the same thing. This growing uncertainty in all fields
is what causes concern.
Now, what causes optimism? Common sense, I think. No matter
how hard it is, people, humankind have always found ways out of the most difficult situations, guided by the interests
of their countries, their peoples, and it is the goal of any government to ensure the well-being as well as the growth
of the welfare of its people.
I think that sooner or later, and the sooner the better,
the realisation will come that we need to get away from controversy as soon as possible, in any case, away from trying
to resolve this controversy with unacceptable tools and ways that go beyond international law. It seems to me that it is
necessary to strengthen the leading role of the United Nations, and on this foundation, move on.
Ryan Chilcote
: And on that note, please join me
in thanking and congratulating our participants in today's panel and, of course, our host today the President of Russia.
Thanks for your answer, which is what I'd presumed. The bottom line seems to be that
nothing's unhackable--no matter what, it will get hacked.
What follows is OT, but attempts to supply a reason for the propaganda pimple burst. A few
days ago the annual Russian Energy Week conference occurred where Putin gave a speech and
answered numerous questions related to energy and geopolitics. A few of the choice quotes
related to his answers were published, but the transcript portion recording the Q&A had
yet to be published in full at the Kremlin's website. The transcript's now complete regarding
those Q&As directed at and answered by Putin, and what he has to say on a wide spectrum
of issues is highly educational: No one can say they know how Putin feels about a particular
issue without having read his answers. A few days ago, I tried linking to the Kremlin's
website only to have the post eaten by TypePad's Cloud. Here's the link . Reading his answers
and comments might lead Russophobic members of Trump's Swamp to burst a propaganda pimple in
revenge for his honesty.
"... "Barring technology breakthrough beyond what we already assume, we'll need new oil discoveries," ..."
"... "We haven't seen anything like this since the 1940s," ..."
"... "The most worrisome is the fact that the reserve replacement ratio in the current year reached only 11 percent (for oil and gas combined) - compared to over 50 percent in 2012." ..."
"... "The mind set for most E&Ps is still to be conservative, and default is to return capital to shareholders. Yet the duty to shareholders' interests cannot be myopically short term. More of the 'windfall' cash needs to find its way into exploration to sustain the business in the long term," ..."
"... "frontier areas," ..."
"... "Suriname, the Brazilian Equatorial Margin; Mexico; Senegal, Gambia, Namibia and South Africa; Australia and Alaska." ..."
"... "More explorers need to get in on the action if the spectre of 'peak supply' is to be kept at bay," ..."
"The warning signs are there – the industry isn't finding enough oil." That's the
start of a new report from Wood Mackenzie. The report concludes that a supply gap could emerge
in the mid-2020s as demand rises at a time when too few new sources of supply are coming
online.
By 2030, there could be a supply shortfall on the order of 3 million barrels per day (mb/d),
WoodMac argues. By 2035, it balloons to 7 mb/d, and by 2040, it reaches 12 mb/d. "Barring
technology breakthrough beyond what we already assume, we'll need new oil discoveries,"
the report says.
The seeds of the problem were sown during the oil market downturn that began in 2014. Global
upstream exploration spending plunged from $60 billion in 2014 to just $25 billion in 2018,
according to WoodMac. Unsurprisingly, that translated into a steep decline in new discoveries.
In the early part of this decade, the oil industry was discovering around 8 billion barrels of
oil annually. That figure has plunged by three quarters since 2014.
The precise figures vary, but Rystad Energy came a similar conclusion, noting that the total
volume of new oil and gas reserves discovered plunged to a record low in 2017. "We haven't
seen anything like this since the 1940s," Sonia Mladá Passos, Senior Analyst at
Rystad Energy, said in a December 2017
statement . "The most worrisome is the fact that the reserve replacement ratio in the
current year reached only 11 percent (for oil and gas combined) - compared to over 50 percent
in 2012."
This year, the industry has had a bit more success. Spending is on the rebound and new
discoveries are on
track to rise by about 30 percent, although that is heavily influenced by the developments
in Guyana, where ExxonMobil and Hess Corp. have reported nearly a dozen discoveries, and hope
to ramp up production to around
750,000 bpd by 2025.
It still may not be enough. Even if the industry were to somehow return to the good ol' days
prior to the 2014 market crash, and begin discovering around 8 billion barrels of oil each
year, it would only delay the supply crunch into the 2030s, according to WoodMac.
But, of course, that rate of discovery remains far below those levels, so the supply crunch
may take place much sooner. Moreover, because large-scale projects take several years to
develop, the activity taking place today will determine the supply mix in the mid- to
late-2020s.
WoodMac says that the rate of discovery is highly correlated with the level of spending, so
closing the supply gap will require more capital. And because of the run up in oil prices this
year, the industry will have a lot more cash to throw around.
The problem for the industry is that over the last few years the mindset, and the demands of
shareholders, have shifted from production growth to profitability and investor returns.
Shareholders are pressuring executives to return cash in the form of dividends and share
buybacks. Energy stocks are not the darlings of Wall Street in the way they once were,
particularly prior to the 2014 market meltdown. That puts extra pressure on oil and gas
companies to dish out more of their earnings to investors rather than plowing it back into the
ground.
But that means less spending on exploration. "The mind set for most E&Ps is still to
be conservative, and default is to return capital to shareholders. Yet the duty to
shareholders' interests cannot be myopically short term. More of the 'windfall' cash needs to
find its way into exploration to sustain the business in the long term," WoodMac said in
its report.
Shale output will continue to grow, especially after new pipelines come online in Texas,
which will ease the current bottleneck. But the large-scale increases in production in the
medium-term will come from "frontier areas," WoodMac says, as the string of
discoveries in Guyana prove. WoodMac says the areas with the highest potential include
"Suriname, the Brazilian Equatorial Margin; Mexico; Senegal, Gambia, Namibia and South
Africa; Australia and Alaska."
For now, the level of activity is not enough to stave off the supply crunch, WoodMac warns,
unless there is a dramatic increase in spending. "More explorers need to get in on the
action if the spectre of 'peak supply' is to be kept at bay," the consultancy says.
span y gjohnsit on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:16pm Last week the Trump Administration
ranted
against OPEC because the Iranian sanctions are driving up
oil prices .
That's called blowback.
Today we see the next level of
blowback.
The State Department says the U.S. consulate in the southern Iraqi city of Basra is being
evacuated following attacks blamed on Iran-backed militias. The U.S. embassy in Baghdad will
provide full consular services for Basra and the surrounding area, the State Department said.
What's most notable is the reaction by US
secretary of state Mike Pompeo.
US secretary of state Mike Pompeo directly threatened retaliation against Iran on Friday,
after accusing Iranian forces of repeatedly directing attacks against US diplomatic
facilities in Iraq.
"Iran should understand that the United States will respond promptly and appropriately to
any such attacks," Mr Pompeo said in a statement, adding both the US consulate general in
Basrah and the US embassy in Baghdad had been targeted.
Recently, #Iran -supported
militias in Iraq launched rocket attacks against the U.S. embassy in Baghdad and our
consulate in Basra. We'll hold #Iran 's regime
accountable for any attack on our personnel or facilities, and respond swiftly and decisively
in defense of American lives. pic.twitter.com/nqbmogbeCA
What is happening in Iraq could lead directly to a proxy war with Iran in Iraq.
The Pentagon says U.S. forces will
stay in Iraq "as long as needed". There are about 5,200 U.S. troops in Iraq, versus about
100,000 Shia militiamen.
Pompeo is working with Saudi Arabia to form an anti-Iran
coalition known as the Middle East Strategic Alliance.
As recently as April, the U.S. was telling those Shia militias were welcome in
Iraq.
Last month those Shia militias threatened to attack foreign
troops in Iraq if they didn't leave.
span y Amanda Matthews on Fri, 09/28/2018 - 9:59pm
" Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a good
neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."
"Iran-backed militias." That would be Iraqis, no? Is the ultimate plan then to, um,
eliminate Iraq's Shia? I expect to hear, soon, that Iraqi Shia test their chemical weapons on
children.
The UN Charter calls for nations to "live together in peace with one another as good
neighbors." Has the regime in #Iran lived together with other nations in peace? Has it been a
good neighbor? Look around the world and you'll see the answer is a deafening "no."
Why the leaders of the rest of the world didn't walk out on Trump when he threatened other
countries is beyond my comprehension. How much longer will they waste their citizen's lives and
their money just because we told them to jump?
Remember when Obama said that "no country should have to tolerate bombs dropping on them
from outside their borders?
I think those measure have implicit blessing from Washington, which realized how dangerous
withdrawal of Iraq oil from the market can be for the USA economy
The UN General Assembly (UNGA) in New York is a place where world leaders are able to hold
important meetings behind closed doors. Russia, China, the UK, Germany, France, and the EU
seized that opportunity on Sept. 24 to achieve a real milestone.
The EU, Russia, China, and Iran
will create a special purpose vehicle (SPV), a "financially independent sovereign channel,"
to bypass US sanctions against Tehran and breathe life into the Joint Comprehensive Plan of
Action (JCPOA) , which is in jeopardy. "Mindful of the urgency and the need for tangible
results, the participants welcomed practical proposals to maintain and develop payment
channels, notably the initiative to establish a Special Purpose Vehicle (SPV) to facilitate
payments related to Iran's exports, including oil," they announced in a
joint statement. The countries are still working out the technical details. If their plan
succeeds, this will deliver a blow to the dollar and a boost to the euro.
The move is being made in order to save the 2015 Iran nuclear deal. According to Federica
Mogherini , High Representative of the European Union for Foreign Affairs and Security
Policy, the SPV will facilitate payments for Iran's exports, such as oil, and imports so that
companies can do business with Tehran as usual. The vehicle will be available not just to EU
firms but to others as well. A round of US sanctions aimed at ending Iranian oil exports is to
take effect on November 5. Iran is the world's seventh-largest oil producer. Its oil sector
accounts for 70% of the country's exports. Tehran has warned the EU that it should find new
ways of trading with Iran prior to that date, in order to preserve the JCPOA.
The SPV proposes to set up a multinational, European, state-backed financial intermediary to
work with companies interested in trading with Iran. Payments will be made in currencies other
than the dollar and remain outside the reach of those global money-transfer systems under US
control. In August, the EU passed a blocking statute to guarantee the immunity of European
companies from American punitive measures. It empowers EU firms to seek compensation from the
United States Treasury for its attempts to impose extra-territorial sanctions. No doubt the
move will further damage the already strained US-EU relationship. It might be helpful to create
a special EU company for oil exports from Iran.
Just hours after the joint statement on the SPV, US President Trump defended his unilateral
action against Iran in his
UNGA address . US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo condemned the EU initiative ,
stating:
"This is one of the most counterproductive measures imaginable for regional global peace
and security."
To wit, the EU, Russia, and China have banded together in open defiance against unilateral
steps taken by the US. Moscow and Beijing are in talks on how to combine their efforts to fend
off the negative impacts of US trade tariffs and sanctions. A planned Sept 24-25 visit by
Chinese Vice-Premier Liu, who was coming to the United States for trade talks, was cancelled as
a result of the discord and President Trump added more fuel to the fire on Sept. 24 by imposing
10% tariffs on almost half of all goods the US imports from China. "We have far more bullets,"
the president
said before the Chinese official's planned visit. "We're going to go US$200 billion and 25
per cent Chinese made goods. And we will come back with more." The US has recently imposed
sanctions on China to punish it for the purchase of Russian S-400 air-defense systems and
combat planes. Beijing refused to back down. It is also adamant in its desire to continue
buying Iran's oil.
It is true, the plan to skirt the sanctions might fall short of expectations. It could fail
as US pressure mounts. A number of economic giants, including Total, Peugeot, Allianz, Renault,
Siemens, Daimler, Volvo, and Vitol Group have already left Iran as its economy plummets, with
the rial losing two-thirds of its value since the first American sanctions took effect in May.
The Iranian currency dropped to a record low against the US dollar this September.
What really matters is the fact that the leading nations of the EU have joined the global
heavyweights -- Russia and China -- in open defiance of the United States.
This is a milestone event.
It's hard to underestimate its importance. Certainly, it's too early to say that the UK and
other EU member states are doing a sharp pivot toward the countries that oppose the US
globally, but this is a start - a first step down that path. This would all have seemed
unimaginable just a couple of years ago - the West and the East in the same boat, trying to
stand up to the American bully!
The breakout in Brent crude prices above $80 this week has prompted analysts at the sell
side banks to start talking about a return to $100 a
barrel oil . Even President Trump has gotten involved, demanding that OPEC ramp up
production to send oil prices lower before they start to weigh on US consumer spending, which
has helped fuel the economic boom over which Trump has presided, and for which he has been
eager to take credit.
But to hear respected petroleum geologist and oil analyst Art Berman tell it, Trump should
relax. That's because supply fundamentals in the US market suggest that the recent breakout in
prices will be largely ephemeral, and that crude supplies will soon move back into a
surplus.
Indeed, a close anaysis of supply trends suggests that the secular deflationary trend in oil
prices remains very much intact. And in an interview with MacroVoices , Berman laid out his argument using a handy
chart deck to illustrate his findings (some of these charts are excerpted below).
As the bedrock for his argument, Berman uses a metric that he calls comparative petroleum
inventories. Instead of just looking at EIA inventory data, Berman adjusts these figures by
comparing them to the five year average for any given week. This smooths out purely seasonal
changes.
And as he shows in the following chart, changes in comparative inventory levels have
precipitated most of the shifts in oil prices since the early 1990s, Berman explains. As the
charts below illustrate, once reported inventories for US crude oil and refined petroleum
products crosses into a deficit relative to comparative inventories, the price of WTI climbs;
when they cross into a surplus, WTI falls.
Looking back to March of this year, when the rally in WTI started to accelerate, we can on
the left-hand chart above how inventories crossed below their historical average, which Berman
claims prompted the most recent run up in prices.
Comparative inventories typically correlate negatively to the price of WTI. But
occasionally, perceptions of supply security may prompt producers to either ramp up - or cut
back - production. One example of this preceded the ramp of prices that started in 2010 when
markets drove prices higher despite supplies being above their historical average. The ramp
continued, even as supplies increased, largely due to fears about stagnant global growth in the
early recovery period following the financial crisis.
The most rally that started around July 2017 correlated with a period of flat production
between early 2016 and early 2018.
Meanwhile, speculators have been unwinding their long positions. Between mid-June 2017 and
January 2018, net long positions increased +615 mmb for WTI crude + products, and +776 for WTI
and Brent combined. Since then, combined Brent and WTI net longs have fallen -335 mmb, while
WTI crude + refined product net long positions have fallen -225 mmb since January 2018 and -104
mmb since the week ending July 10. This shows that, despite high frequency price fluctuation,
the overall trend in positioning is down.
And as longs have been unwinding, data show that the US export party has been slowing, as
distillate exports, which have been the cash cow driving US refined product exports, have
declined. Though they remain strong relative to the 5-year average, they have fallen relative
to last year. This has accompanied refinery expansions in Mexico and Brazil.
Meanwhile, distillate and gasoline inventories have been building.
Meanwhile, US exports of crude have remained below the 2018 average in recent weeks, even as
prices have continued to climb.
This could reflect supply fears in the global markets. The blowout in WTI-Brent spreads
would seem to confirm this. However, foreign refineries recognize that there are limitations
when it comes to processing US crude (hence the slumping demand for exports).
In recent weeks, markets have been sensitive to supply concerns thanks to falling production
in Venezuela and worries about what will happen with Iranian crude exports after US sanctions
kick in in November.
But supply forecasts for the US are telling a different story than supply forecasts for
OPEC. In the US, markets will likely remain in equilibrium for the rest of the year, until a
state of oversupply returns in 2019. But OPEC production will likely continue to constrict,
returning to a deficit in 2019.
Bottom line: According to Berman, the trend of secular deflation in oil prices remains very
much intact. While Berman expects prices to remain rangebound for the duration of 2018 - at
least in the US - it's likely markets will turn to a supply surplus next year, sending prices
lower once again.
Another landmark for the "Northeastern passage" -- so far only tankers had made the trip
Brendon Petersen
16 hours
ago
|
1,546
5
Explorers and navigators have long searched for a way to move ships through the Arctic Circle as find a faster way
to move goods between the Atlantic and the Pacific without having to go around either Asia or South America.
Groups of people hunted for the fabled Northwest passage through North America for decades. The problem, of
course, is that the Arctic contains too much ice.
Over the past few years, however, ice levels in the Arctic
have been
hitting
record lows
thanks to climate change, and while its effects are almost universally negative, one benefit is
opened northern sea routes. Over the past month, a container ship sailing from Eastern Russia is pioneering a new
Arctic route by
being
the first such ship to cross the Arctic Ocean
.
On August 23, the container ship Venta Maersk left the Russian port of Vladivostok and headed to Bremerhaven in
Germany. Normally, a trip like that would take the Venta Maersk through the Suez Canal on a 34 day trip. Instead,
the ship will sail through the sea north of Russia on a route that will only take 23 days.
Last week, the Venta Maersk passed through the Sannikov Strait, the narrowest and most hazardous part of its
journey, and is expected to arrive in Germany by the end of the week. Once it arrives, it will become the first
container ship to complete a successful route through the Arctic Circle.
We protect the countries of the Middle East, they would not be safe for very long
without us, and yet they continue to push for higher and higher oil prices! We will
remember. The OPEC monopoly must get prices down now!
OPEC does, in fact, control oil supply to a significant extent but that does not necessarily
mean that it is also in full control of the oil prices, Jack Rasmus, a professor of Political
Economy at St. Mary's College of California, told RT, adding that the policies pursued by the
US president himself play a much bigger role in what happens to oil and gasoline prices in the
US.
"The US economy is overstimulated by the Trump $4 trillion tax cuts for investors and
businesses," Rasmus explained, adding that the rising inflation is one of the primary
factors contributing to the oil price surge. Apart from that, Trump's trade war with China and
even with the US allies in the West also drives up the prices, as businesses also have to raise
them to adapt to the tariffs that both the US and its trading partners have imposed
recently.
Trump's sanctions war on Iran also does not make the situation any better. The US sanctions,
which are aimed at bringing Iran's oil exports to "zero," led to a decrease in Iran's
oil sales, thus cutting the supply and driving the prices up. As if it was not enough, Trump's
rhetoric only adds fuel to the fire, according to Rasmus.
"When Trump accuses Iran publicly, it gives the global oil speculators a reason to drive
up the price," he told RT, adding that it is the "global speculators that are driving the
short-term oil prices." "There is a connection between the speculators and Trump policies. When
he makes those statements, it certainly does contribute to the oil prices rise," the analyst
explained.
This rhetoric was more about winning voters' support ahead of the November mid-term
elections than about really remedying the situation in the oil market, Rasmus says. "He is
whipping up his domestic base," the analyst said, adding that "Trump [is] trying to
blame foreigners of all kinds for economic situation in the US."
Trump got elected on a platform of economic nationalism in particular, Rasmus said, adding
that the president now sticks to that narrative and blames foreigners –be they immigrants
or some foreign competitors– for the US' woes. However, this is "another factual
misrepresentation," the analyst said.
As oil prices remain high, prices for gasoline in the US are growing. The average cost of
gasoline has risen 60 percent from $1.87 per gallon in February 2016 to over $3 in
September.
This scenario would leave the US with the main sources of 'low production cost' Middle
East energy in its hands (i.e. Gulf, Iran and Iraqi oil and gas). On the face of this week's
events however, it looks more likely that these resources - or at least, the greater energy
resources of Iran and Iraq - will end up in the Russian sphere (together with Syria's
unexplored Levant Basin prospects). And this Russian 'heartland', energy-producing sphere,
may, in the end, prove to be a more than substantive rival to US (newly emerged as 'the
world's top oil producer') aspirations for restoring its Mideast energy dominance.....
The piece covers both Trump's plans for global energy dominance by taking full control of
middle east oil and also the Trump Kushner moves against the Palestinians.
So what does Trump do before the midterms? Live with higher prices? Quietly drop the
sanctions ? Find a way to get Iranian oil on the market while pretending there are sanctions?
Accept the high prices and blame Obama?
Oil price can rise some, now. It's only a month and a half to go. Gasoline stocks are high,
so it will take some trickle down time. Raiding the SPR is overkill.
I'm betting they don't. Saudi production in September is more likely to be down than up. But
if it is up it will only by a tiny amount, not near enough to affect prices. Saudi Arabis is
just not interested in increasing production by any significant amount. They would like to
keep production steady .if possible.
"Just spoke to King Salman of Saudi Arabia and explained to him that, because of the
turmoil & disfunction in Iran and Venezuela, I am asking that Saudi Arabia increase oil
production, maybe up to 2,000,000 barrels, to make up the difference Prices to high! He has
agreed!" the tweet read.
And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going
to do any of that shit." The Saudis, just like Trump's staff, know he is an idiot.
"And of course, after the King hung up the phone he probably said: "We are not going to do
any of that shit."
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm. My guess
is that Trump has turned up the heat on Iran because of requests from KSA & Israel.
The USA has been helping MbS with is Yemen war, as well as proxy war in Syria. If KSA want
the US to economically crush Iran, than KSA will need to help but increasing its Oil exports.
Perhaps KSA as some oil stashed in storage that it could release for a short period. My guess
KSA would delay using its storage reserves until there is a price spike that might force the
US to back off on Iran.
I doubt that happened but I don't have any inside contacts in the WH to confirm.
You doubt what happened? The quote was a tweet directly from the President. He sent it out
to the world, you don't need an inside contact to the White House. Trump's tweets go out to
the public.
Yes, it did happen. Of course, the part about what the King did afterward was just
speculation on my part. But he did not increase oil production as Trump requested. That much
we do know.
Not arguing the tweet Trumpet made, but your reasoning that the MbS will ignore the
request.
I am reasonably sure MbS wants the USA to go after Iran, and thus has a motive to try to
comply with Trumpet's request for more Oil. That said, I very much doubt KSA can increase
production, but they may have 50 to 150 mmbl in storage they could release if Oil prices
spike.
FYI:
"Why The U.S. Is Suddenly Buying A Lot More Saudi Oil"
" the Saudis are responding to the demands of their staunch ally U.S. President Donald
Trump, who has repeatedly slammed OPEC for the high gasoline prices, urging the cartel in
early July to "REDUCE PRICING NOW!""
"Saudi Arabia cut last week its official selling price (OSP) for its flagship Arab Light
grade for October to Asia by US$0.10 a barrel to US$1.10 a barrel premium to the Dubai/Oman
average"
So it appears that KSA is trying to comply with Trumpet's request. At least by trying to
lower the oil prices via selling their oil at a discount.
** Note: Not trying to be a PITA, just providing an alternative viewpoint. I do value what
you post. Hope you understand.
"The short-term investment focus adopted since 2014 offers a finite set of opportunities
over a limited period of time, and this period is now clearly coming to an end as seen by
accelerating decline rates in many countries around the world," Kibsgaard pointed out.
BAU won't get it done – no quick fixes, 'new shale revolution' or 'reserve
production' to get us through – my interest is mostly how we (as a society and culture)
will react as constraints on the resource 'haves' and 'have nots' set in.
Went through Irma in South Florida last Fall – and in general order was maintained
– but really only out of Gas for about 3 days – and was more of a shock type
shortage. A very slow decline of world supply will hit those who can't pay for it most
– and maybe wake up enough through higher prices to begin planning for what will be the
greatest energy transition that must take place!
The big oil companies are selling a story of long term stability to their investors, partly
so they can justify the long term investments needed for the mega-projects where they get
most of their oil and cashflow (some of those see no net return for many years). They only
need to sell themselves to their investors, not their customers who just buy the cheapest or
most convenient, be it crude to refineries or petrol to motorists.
The service companies live more year to year – they get hired to help develop and
drill a field and then their workload drops a lot except for some well servicing during
operation. Schlumberger is selling itself to its customers (the 'operators' who are the
E&P companies) and investors as the go to guy for the next couple of years as activity
tries to pick up but faces increasing issues as the easy (and now not so easy but still
OK-ish) oil goes away.
Schlumberger is not a typical service provider to the producers, although that is a large
portion of their business. Since their purchase of Cameron International and other oilfield
manufacturing companies, they have been providing facility engineering and fabrication
services to the oil producers worldwide.
In point of fact, Schlumberger does have the information that the producers have, and then
some. They use those numbers as a basis for facility engineering, and as such are arguably in
a better position to interpret them than the producer as of late.
I've regularly read the BP annual report, and have come to regard it as little more than a
curiosity. Schlumberger, Shell and Total have a firmer grip on the world oil situation, based
on my read of their CEO's comments. However that may be confirmation bias on my part. We
shall see .
Probably the more important item is Russian reserves my estimate is we are at 90% depletion
for existing technology and OIP at cost for western Russian reserves. At this point a squeeze
plan in Syria would ensure foreign reserve earnings to into wars and not fuels outcome is
standard wars as a result of miss spending income
Yes, I assume they have some problems since they reformed the tax system in favor of upstream
risky projects and at the same time imposed more taxes on downstream refineries. But to
assume Russia has problems is like assuming the whole world has a problem. Could be perfectly
right, but why expose Russia as opposed to others? Russia has a lot of higher cost oil; just
look at the land mass and offshore mass. How could there not be prospects? Some inside
knowledge is sorely lacking, since I like most western people don't have connections in that
part of the world.
80% of the world's oil has peaked, and the resulting oil crunch will flatten the
economy.
New scientific research suggests that the world faces an imminent oil crunch, which
will trigger another financial crisis.
A report by HSBC shows that contrary to the commonplace narrative in the industry, even
amidst the glut of unconventional oil and gas, the vast bulk of the world's oil production
has already peaked and is now in decline; while European government scientists show that the
value of energy produced by oil has declined by half within just the first 15 years of the
21st century.
The upshot? Welcome to a new age of permanent economic recession driven by ongoing
dependence on dirty, expensive, difficult oil unless we choose a fundamentally different
path.
Then they say: The HSBC report you need to read, now
Real issue is giants, your article in 2015 real issue is 90% ..real issue is squeeze play in
motion in Syria..goal? if don't have it, don't drill it at home, no rig increases so 'end
game' is cut off Isreali/Saudi friendly arab gas to Europe own Caspian area (city I recall
owned by Ukraine under British treaty Yelsin) in end no WW2 buildup during economic issues
(Russia 5M/day, Saudi similar) no Hilter, just preempt what's left..
I downloaded it then, and just had to look at the date the file was created. You probably
also have it in your hard-drive.
It provided a nice confirmation to my thesis that Peak Oil won't happen in the future. It
is taking place now, and the date we entered the Peak Oil plateau was 2015. You also
forecasted that, as I did.
You are correct. Hey, I am 80 years old and I just can't remember shit anymore.
Okay, I posted a few days ago that I thought peak oil would be in 2019. Perhaps I was
wrong. Hell, I have been wrong quite a few times. But now perhaps peak oil is right now.
Perhaps? We shall see.
But my point is everyone seems to be agreeing with me now. Old giant fields are seeing an
ever increase in decline rates. I predicted this a long time ago. Once the water hits those
horizontal laterals at the very top of the reservoir, the game is over.
The decline rate in those old giant fields is increasing at an alarming rate.
Obviously! Fucking obviously. It could not possibly be otherwise. Thank you and
goodnight.
Memory is less necessary these days with internet, computers, and smart phones, where
searches can be run in a moment. Don't worry too much about that.
"But my point is everyone seems to be agreeing with me now."
I discovered your blog in 2014 when looking for confirmation on my suspicion that the oil
price crash was going to result in Peak Oil. I was impressed to see that you were there years
before through your analyses. I have a lot of respect for you and your intellectual capacity,
and I agree with you in many things, besides Peak Oil, including the population problem, and
your worries about the environment.
I don't believe the world cannot increase its oil production, I just believe it won't do
it. Both Saudi Arabia and Russia have the capacity to go full throttle on what they have
left. Shaybah is the most recent supergiant in KSA and expected to produce until 2060 at
current output. No doubt they could increase production from Shaybah by a lot, but it is not
in their interest to do so. Russia lacks the capacity to quickly increase its production, but
there's still plenty of oil in Eastern Siberia, so they could also produce more. Again it is
also unlikely, as it would require an investment and effort that goes against their own
interest.
Peak Oil is not happening because the world is trying to produce more oil and failing, it
is happening by a combination of economical, geological, and political factors that could not
be easily predicted and that were set in motion in the early 2000's when the low-hanging
fruit of conventional on-shore and off-shore crude oil (the cheapest kind to produce) reached
its production limit. Political errors, like taking out Gaddafi, added unnecessary
difficulties. The collapse of Venezuela is the latest political cause. And when things start
to go wrong, it never rains, but it pours.
"Peak Oil is not happening because the world is trying to produce more oil and failing, it is
happening by a combination of economical, geological, and political factors that could not be
easily predicted and that were set in motion in the early 2000's when the low-hanging fruit
of conventional on-shore and off-shore crude oil (the cheapest kind to produce) reached its
production limit."
Isn't this just a distinction without a difference? It's peak oil.
The issue is that Peak Oil has been misunderstood by most people. The argument that Peak Oil
won't happen until this or that date because ultimate reserves are such or such, so often
read in this forum, is incorrect. Even economically recoverable reserves are not decisive. To
make the problem intractable there are many liquids so some might peak while others don't so
discussions about Peak Oil are endless.
But it is very simple. Peak Oil is when the world no longer gets the oil it needs to keep
expanding its economy. And the best way to measure it is through C+C, because crude oil is
what we have been getting since the late 19th C ans is the stuff that produces everything our
economy needs, from asphalt to diesel, plane fuel, and gasoline. NGL won't cut it. Biofuels
won't cut it.
And Peak Oil is being determined by economical and political factors, besides the
geology.
The difference matters because Peak Oil is going to get almost everybody by surprise. Most
won't realize what is the cause of all the troubles we are going to get and they'll be
reassured that there is plenty of oil to be extracted, which is true but irrelevant.
Thanks for the reply. I also tremble at the prospect of what is to happen because of the
failure of the predictions last decade. I can only describe it through an analogy (being a
lay reader and a writer):
In the 2000s, people were saying that we had an ugly wound and that we had better do
something about it. But instead of properly addressing the wound, we just wrapped it in
gauze, and when the blood stopped showing through, we said, "See? All better." That's my
analogy for the "shale revolution" -- it was essentially a Bandaid. The complacency has only
worsened in the last ten years.
This has just made the infection all the worse. When pus starts showing through the
dressing and we unwrap it this time -- we're going to find gangrene.
I am re-reading Joseph Tainter's 1998 book "The collapse of complex societies." It is a
sober reading that shows that in the end the laws of entropy and diminishing returns always
produce the same result. We are not more intelligent than the people that preceded us. If
anything we can only be stupider on average. We just have a very high opinion of
ourselves.
Time for a wake up and a little bit more darwinism in our lives. The problem is the pain.
With so many people it is just going to be unbearable. On a scale never imagined, not even by
writers of bad sci-fi.
That would be a more important definition of peak oil to me, and I think we are definitely
there. Then we have the absolute production definition, which was the original definition, as
to production. It is now anticlimactic to your definition. As to the date or year it happens,
who cares? More importantly, now, is when demand will lower enough to stop draining
inventories. At what oil price will that start occurring? How fast will alternate sources
replace unmet demand? New directions and everyone is likely to be wrong on estimates. EIA and
IEA were totally useless before, and that will probably not change in the near future.
Looking in the past won't give us much, and the future is anybody's guess.
As to current prices, $68 oil won't get any extra interest from E&Ps outside of the
Permian that is stalled. To any measurable extent. Close to $80 oil is not expanding interest
very much outside of the US. We are just living on borrowed time.
Oil prices are likely to continue to rise, especially if your estimates of future
production (roughly similar to my estimates, but perhaps a bit more pessimistic) are correct,
unless consumption of oil stops increasing. My guess is that oil (C+C) consumption will
continue to increase at 400 to 800 kb/d each year , until oil prices get to about $150/b or
more (around 2025 to 2027),by that time or soon after ( maybe 2030) oil consumption growth
may stop either because of the expansion of electric and natural gas powered transport or
because of a second Great Financial Crisis. My hope is it will be the former, but I think the
latter scenario is much more likely.
Hopefully Keynes' General Theory will make a comeback before then.
Ron Wrote:
"I predicted this a long time ago. Once the water hits those horizontal laterals at the very
top of the reservoir, the game is over. "
FWIW: That's already happened. when it occurs, they drill a new horizontal above the old
one. The new lateral also have valves on there ports. so that when the water breaches one or
more of the ports, they shut them off to reduce water cut. I posted Saudi Aramco tech
articles here back between 2014 and 2016 when they were available on the SA website.
Hi Carlos, thanks for the trip down memory lane. I tend to agree with peak oil being now
(ish). From what I recall the peak month for C+C was, so far, in November 2016. I suppose
there is also a peak day, a peak weak, and a peak year. Folks seem to like packaging time in
various proportions. Hell, there's probably a peak decade and a peak hour. My guess is the
peak year will be 2018. I like, because I'm a bit thick at maths, how Ron has added trailing
12 month average to his world production chart. I just look at the 12 month trailing average
for each December to get an idea of how much was produced in each calendar year. It seems
that 12 month trailing average for December 2018 will beat that of 2017. My guess is 2019
won't beat 2018. Or will any other year after that. So, if Ron say's 2019, and I say 2018,
then it seems that I think he is wrong lol he's probably 100 times smarter than me so doesn't
lose sleep over it lol. Up until this time I have always agreed with Ron on peak oil. But
now, I throw down the gauntlet! 2018 vs 2019. Two will enter, one will leave.
The exact week, month, or year when maximal production is reached has only historical
interest. The point is that since the end of 2015 the 12-month averaged C+C production has
barely increased (EIA data) despite the increase in demand.
Dec 2015 80,564 100.0%
Dec 2016 80,579 100.0%
Dec 2017 80,936 100.5%
Apr 2018 81,363 101.0%
We will have to see how it evolves over to the next December, but so far it is annualized
to a 0.4% increase. To me we are in a bumpy plateau since late 2015 and all those meager
gains and more will be lost in the next crisis. The problem will be evident to many when
after the crisis we are not able to increase production above those values.
Peak Oil is a situation, not a date, and we are in that situation since late 2015. The oil
that the world demands cannot be produced so prices are going up, and up. I suppose it is
possible that the powers that be intervene to reduce global oil demand by favoring a crisis
in developing countries, like Argentina, Brazil, Turkey, South Africa, through interest rate
changes. Wait, it is already happening. It is a dangerous tactic, as crises can spread
around, and the interest rise weakens the economy.
Well one has to define the plateau a bit better. If we make the bounds wide enough one
could say the peak was 2005 or even 1980 and we have been on a bumpy plateau since that
point.
Better in my view to define peak as peak in centered 12 month average output wth center
between month 6 and 7.
I use a 13-month centered average, so it is symmetrical with 6 months at each side.
But really, after a clear period of production growth 2010-2014, there was a strong growth
in production 2014-2015 in response to falling prices, and then production got stuck in late
2015.
It is not a question if we are in a plateau (or very reduced growth) period, but what
happens afterwards. After the previous plateau 2005-2009 there was a clear fall 2009-2010,
before tight oil saved the day.
The recent plateau is due to excess inventory and the resulting low oil price level. Oil
inventories have been reduced over the past 12 to 18 months and as oil prices increase,
output will also increase with perhaps a 6 to 12 month lag. How much will it need to rise
above the Dec 2015 level before you no longer consider that output has not risen above your
"plateau". Give me a number, is it 81.5 Mb/d, 82 Mb/b, I prefer to use a year rather than 13
months, that's 182 days on either side of the middle of the 12 month period. On leap years we
can use Midnight of day 183
One issue that has been corrected is that reserve requirements for large banks have
increased.
Also lenders are more careful with their mortgages making a housing bubble less
likely.
In addition, the assumption that higher oil prices played a major role in the GFC is
incorrect.
Perhaps there is a looming recession, whether this happens in 2018, 2030 or some other
year we will only know when it occurs.
Someone who predicts a recession every year will be right eventually.
I maintain my guess of 2023 to 2027 for the 12 month centered average c+c peak and severe
recession GFC2 starting 2029 to 2033, lasting 5 to 7 years.
So people think that oil production next year will not meet demand. Of course consumption
will equal production, but demand will be higher, and we won't be belabor this further
because the point here is a question above -- how does society react too insufficient oil?
The question is never analyzed in a particular way. It's usually evaluated from the
consumer's perspective. Who does what to get the oil they need. We can imagine they bid
higher, we can imagine that day seize the oil enroute to someone else, and we can imagine a
magical agreement on the part of everyone to stop all economic activity not involved in food
production/distribution to reduce global consumption.
What seldom is described is the decision making process within the leadership of oil
producers and exporters. It seems clear that a sudden awareness of insufficiency would yield
leadership meetings making decisions not about how to distribute more oil to customers, but
rather how to keep the oil for future generations of the producing country, without getting
invaded and destroyed.
One would think that the optimal strategy for a country that has oil is to ally itself
with a military power that can deter invasion by some other military power, without having
the ally's troops actually present on the territory. Or perhaps more effective would be
investing in the necessary explosives or nuclear material for one's own oil fields, and
inform potential invaders that the oil will remain the property of the country whose
geography covers it, or the fields will be contaminated for hundreds of years to deny them to
anyone else.
Clearly this is the optimal path for an oil producer and not seeking some technology that
can allow them to drain the resources of future generations more rapidly now.
So people think that oil production next year will not meet demand. Of course consumption
will equal production, but demand will be higher,
Watcher, I assume you think demand is what people want. But there is no way to measure
what people want but can't afford. So "demand" in that sense has no meaning whatsoever. So
what happens is the price of gasoline, or whatever, rises or falls until supply equals
demand. As prices rise, demand falls and as prices fall, demand rises because people can now
afford it. Therefore demand always equals consumption. Demand is what people buy at the
price they can afford. I wish we had a word for what people want but even if we did there
would be no way to measure it. A poll perhaps?
Estimating demand is essential for a company and can determine its survival. Demand is
dependent on price, so demand estimates are essential for deciding the price of a product.
The curves for price and demand cross at a point that maximizes income.
Demand is estimated statistically (polls sometimes), with models, and expert forecast. It
has a large uncertainty.
"there is no way to measure what people want but can't afford."
That is potential demand at a lower price point. It is estimated in the same way.
Companies decide to lower their prices with hopes to realize that lower-price demand.
"demand always equals consumption."
Exactly. Demand becomes consumption when realized, so it only makes sense to talk about
demand in the future or the present (due to lack of real-time data). It doesn't make sense to
talk about past demand, because it becomes consumption or sales.
There is a numerical measure for how much people want gasoline, regardless of price.
It is the length of the line of cars at the gas station in the 1970s. Demand was measured
in 100s of feet. Price somewhat doesn't matter. If you can't afford it, you put it on a
credit card and then default.
The length of the queue is an interesting metric by which to measure the want that people
have for an item. Nice one. I'm gonna use that. Reminds me of my Dad's old story about lining
up for a week to buy tickets to see The Beatles.
When you are lining up to buy tickets to see the Beatles it might be called a 'Want' or a
'Desire'. However, when it is the line at the soup kitchen it becomes 'Hunger' or
'Desperation'!
And that queue can sometimes feel like a hundred miles
The bigger issue is people, Business, & gov'ts servicing their debt. If the cost of
energy increases, it make it more difficult to service their debt. Recall that Oil prices
peaked at $147 right before the beginning of the 2008/2009 economic crisis. Since then 2008
Debt continued to soar as companies & gov'ts piled on more debt. Debt is promise on
future production. Borrow now and pay it back over time.
I recall the presentation Steven Kopits did about 4 or 5 years ago that stated Oil
production was well below demand. I think real global oil demand was projected to be about
120mmbd back in 2012-2013 (sorry don't recall the actual figures).
I think the bigger factor is how steep the declines will be. Presumably all of the super
giants are in the same shape and likely heavily relied on horizontal drilling to offset
natural decline rates. Presuming as the oil column shrinks in the decline rates will rapidly
accelerate. Most of the Artic\Deep water projects were cancelled back in 2014\2015, and I
believe most of those projects would take about 7 years to complete and need between Oil at
$120 to $150/bbl (in 2012 dollars) to be economical. I am not sure the world can sustainably
afford $120+ oil, especially considering the amount of new debt that has been added in the
past 10 years.
Ron Wrote:
" I wish we had a word for what people want but even if we did there would be no way to
measure it"
Perhaps the word "Gluttony" or the phase "Business As Usual". People don't like change,
especially when the result, is a decrease in living standards.
Being willing to pay more for oil may change who gets it. But it will not alter the fact that
someone who wants oil will not get it. That will be a ripple of market information which will
travel around the world pretty quick, I should imagine!
The vast majority in almost all the places in the world would like to use more oil but their
income is not enough so they end up doing with less. That includes me. Who doesn't want a
bigger faster newer lawn mower, truck, or tractor? What person would not prefer the latest
iphone etc. ? or going on vacation, eating out at high end steakhouses? The main reason they
can't is because it would take more and cheaper oil for them to be able to afford it. Else
they can only try to take it away from someone else? The peak in global oil production/person
happened back in 1979, not because folks were tired of using it all but due to the laws of
physics coming into play.
So there are two 'classes' of 'peak oil'. One class is where oil supply is constrained by
price (throwing more money at production sees an increase in production), the second class is
where oil supply is constrained by physical availability at any price (wave more money at
production, but production cannot increase).
In the first case (price constrained) normal market behaviour will apply – folk pay
more (if they can afford it) to get more.
But in the second case (resource constrained), it does not matter how much is offered,
there is simply no more oil to be had.
With the prevailing declining yields and declining discoveries, are we not in the
transition between these two states – moving from price constrained to resource
constrained? And once we get well into resource constrained, the price a buyer can pay will
determine who gets the remaining available oil, and no amount of screeching and
dollar-bill-waving by those who have missed out will improve the supply situation for
them.
LTO decline rate would be no problem by a conventional / state possessed oil company.
They would have a field with tight oil, and then just equip let's say 20 fracking /
drilling teams and start to produce through their field in 30 or 50 years. They would have a
slow decline by starting at the best location and getting to the worse one, while increasing
experience / technic during the years to compensate a bit.
You have a pretty good argument except for the "30 or 50 years" part. That's where the wheels
fell off your go-cart. Just how large would the tight oil reservoir have to be to keep 20
drilling and fracking units for 30 to 50 years? And if you assume other oil companies are in
that same reservoir doing the same thing? They are going to cover a lot of acreage very fast.
It matters very little. At any time t the available supply is limited and the market price
will determine who gets what is available. Those willing to pay more than others will get the
oil. When we reach a point where no more oil can be supplied at price P, there might always
be some more oil that could be at some higher price P', it is simply a matter of oil prices
reaching the point that there are substitutes that can replace the use of oil in some uses.
Today the biggest use for oil is transport and electricity and natural gas may soon replace a
lot of this use, especially as oil becomes scarce and prices increase.
At $100 to $120/b the transition to EVs could be quite rapid, maybe taking 20 to 25 years
to replace 90% of new ICEV sales and then another 15 years for most of the fleet to be
replaced as old cars are scrapped. So by 2055 most land transport uses for oil will be
eliminated.
The higher oil prices rise, the more incentive there will be to switch to cheaper EVs,
even natural gas will probably not be able to compete with EVs as Natural Gas will also peak
(2030 to 2035) and prices will rise. It will probably be unwise to spend a lot of money for
Natural gas fueling infrastructure, though perhaps it might work for long haul trucking, rail
seems a more sensible option.
Adam Ash Wrote:
"So there are two 'classes' of 'peak oil'. One class is where oil supply is constrained by
price (throwing more money at production sees an increase in production), the second class is
where oil supply is constrained by physical availability at any price (wave more money at
production, but production cannot increase)"
Consider this way:
There is already a huge shortage of $10/bbl oil, and a massive glut of $300/bbl oil. There is
always shortage resources. Price is just a system that balances demand with supply.
Adam Ash Wrote:
"But in the second case (resource constrained), it does not matter how much is offered, there
is simply no more oil to be had no amount of screeching and dollar-bill-waving by those who
have missed out will improve the supply situation for them."
Not exactly. People that can only afford $50/bbl Oil get out priced by people willing to
pay $100/bbl. Supply shifts to the people that can afford the hire price at the expense of
people that cannot afford the higher cost. Higher prices will lead to new production, even if
has a Negative EROEI (ie tar sands using cheap NatGas).
In an ideal world, higher prices lead to less energy waste (flying, recreation boating)
and better efficiency (more energy efficient buildings & vehicles). But I am not sure
that will be the case in our world.
The first to suffer from high energy prices will be the people living in poor nations.
Recall back in 2008-2014 we had the Arab spring when people could afford the food costs, and
started mass riots and overthrough gov'ts. This will return when Oil prices climb back
up.
Its possible that the world make continue to experience price swings, as global demand
struction decreases demand. For instance in July 2008 Oil was at $147/bbl but by Jan 2009 it
was about $30/bbl. I doubt we will see such large price swings, but I also doubt that Oil
will continuously move up without any price corrections.
Realistically we are in deflation driven global economy as the excessive debt applies
deflationary force to the economy. However central banks counter deflation with artificially
low interest rates and currency printing (ie Quantitive Easing). My guess is that
industrialized nation gov't will become increasing dependent on QE and other gimmicks that
lead to high inflation\stagnation.
I think Dennis said some time ago that Saudi's 266 billion barrels of reserves that they
claim was perhaps when they raised P2 reserves to P1 reserves.
Naaaa, that's not where they got it. They still claim 403 billion barrels of P2 reserves
and 802 billion barrels of P3 reserves. And that 802 billion barrels will soon be increased
to 900 billion barrels via enhanced recovery techniques.
This is a good article if you need a good belly laugh today. It is brought to you on the
opinion page of Arab News. Arab News is a Saudi Publication just in case anyone is
wondering. I used to get it in hard copy, free, courtesy of ARAMCO, when I was there.
Saudi Aramco, according to its own records, has about 802.2 billion barrels of oil
resources, including about 261 billion barrels of proven reserves; 403.1 billion of probable,
possible and contingent reserves. The company has produced up to 138 billion barrels of oil
to date out of the 802.2 billion barrels.
It plans to raise oil resources to 900 billion barrels from the 802.2 billion over the
long term as its also plans to increase recovery rate of reserves to 70 percent from the
current 50 percent.
P.S. When I was in Saudi they had a word for this kind of thing. They called it
wasta . Wasta means "deliberate exaggeration" as a way of dialogue. That's just the
way they talk. They don't believe they are lying. They really expect you to know they are
just exaggerating. They don't expect you to take it literally.
Second oil reserves have been flat since around 2010, and declining recently for the first
time since the 1970s. Note, before someone points it out, they don't count Canadian Bitumen.
This is so ridiculous it is funny. Oil discoveries have been going down, down, and down, way
below replacement level. Yet so-called "proven" reserves keep going up, up and up.
"This is so ridiculous it is funny. Oil discoveries have been going down, down, and down, way
below replacement level. Yet so-called "proven" reserves keep going up, up and up."
Well to some degree, technology has been able to extract more oil from a field. Thus a
field discovered in 1950 with an initial proven reserve of 100mbbls, may have 125mbbls or
proven reserves as technology has improved recovery rates. That said technology improvements
likely don't match the paper proven reserves.
The Venezuelan heavy oil reserves are overstated (I assume the large bump prior to 2010 is
the booking of the Magna Reserva in the Orinoco Oil belt, which i know are fake). It's fairly
easy to eyeball the better number by substracting 300 billion a flat line around 1200. If you
want to add future bookings in that heavy oil belt, add up to 50 billion gradually. Dont
forget that at the current decline rate Venezuela will be producing about 1.1 million BOPD in
december, and IF things go as I think they will sometime in the first half of 2019 exports
will drop to zero for a few months.
Third gas reserves also flat. If condensate and NGLs have been meeting the increased demand
that crude has been unable to, then that might be about to stop.
"... Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation. ..."
Further oil price increases could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic
growth, which could further complicate the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political
situation. September 12th, 2018
Despite the Trump administration's "
maximum pressure " campaign targeting the Iranian economy, Iran's crude oil and oil product
revenues
jumped a surprising 60 percent from March 21 to July 23. In addition, figures provided by
Iran's Central Bank show that Iran's revenues from oil sales soared by 84.2 percent over that
same period, setting a new record.
The increased revenues seem to have resulted from a jump in oil prices this year as well as
Iran's high oil export volume during part of that period. Notably, the increased revenues were
reported despite the United States' announcement in May that it
would sanction those purchasing Iranian oil starting in early November, with the ultimate
goal of reducing Iranian oil sales to zero in order to place pressure on the Iranian
government.
The U.S.' efforts have had some noticeable effects on Iranian oil exports, as the country's
exports for the month of August were
significantly lower than those of July. However, the drop has only seen exports fall to
near March 2016 levels , when the U.S. was not pursuing a sanctions policy against Iran and
the Iran nuclear deal, officially known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), was
in effect.
Further dashing U.S. hopes of crushing Iranian oil exports have been recent announcements
from Iran's top two customers,
China and
India , that they would continue to import Iranian crude despite the looming threat of U.S.
sanctions. India, along with some other countries, has sought " waivers
" from Washington that would allow them to continue to import Iranian oil and avoid retaliation
from the U.S. for a certain period of time.
In addition, the European Union, which had previously joined the U.S. in targeting Iranian
oil exports in 2012, has shown its unwillingness to follow Washington's lead this time around,
openly
vowing to rebel against the U.S. sanctions regimen and increasing the likelihood that
Europe will continue to buy some Iranian oil despite U.S. threats.
Risks for U.S. and
global economies
Another indication that efforts to curb Iranian oil exports are backfiring for the Trump
administration is
the jump in oil prices that has resulted from concerns about the U.S. sanctions on Iran's
oil exports. The increase in oil prices is likely to be felt domestically in the U.S., the
world's largest consumer of oil, potentially posing a political risk to Trump and his fellow
Republicans ahead of the November 6 midterm elections. In addition, further oil price increases
could trigger a slowdown in domestic or global economic growth, which could further complicate
the U.S.' Iran policy and Trump's domestic political situation.
Such concerns have prompted
U.S. Energy Secretary Rick Perry to meet his Saudi and Russian counterparts in an effort to
convince those two countries to keep oil output high in order to offset a reduction in future
Iranian oil exports. While Saudi Arabia
has already stated it would increase output, Russia is unlikely to comply, given its
relationship with Iran and Washington's threat to impose new sanctions on Moscow. The U.S.,
Saudi Arabia and Russia
are currently the world's three largest oil producers, accounting for about a third of
global crude oil output.
While the Trump administration may have assumed that U.S. oil producers – and the U.S.
economy in general -- would benefit from the elimination of Iranian oil exports, the growing
rejection of the impending U.S. sanctions by other countries shows that these nations are
unwilling
to pay for more expensive American oil or even Saudi oil,
preferring less expensive Iranian oil despite potential future consequences. Furthermore,
efforts to increase U.S. crude production
have fallen short of government expectations, further complicating the U.S.' efforts to
offset an increase in oil prices resulting from Iranian oil sanctions.
Whitney Webb is a staff writer for MintPress News and a contributor to Ben Swann's Truth
in Media. Her work has appeared on Global Research, the Ron Paul Institute and 21st Century
Wire, among others. She has also made radio and TV appearances on RT and Sputnik. She currently
lives with her family in southern Chile.
Basra demonstrators, enraged over polluted water and years of extreme neglect, engage in arson to make their point September
9, 2018 12:48 AM (UTC+8) Basra protesters set the Iranian consulate ablaze on Friday night, the latest manifestation of outrage against
influential actors in Basra city, which should be one of the richest in the country with its massive oil reserves and port, but which
has become one of the most decrepit.
More than 18,000 Basra residents have been poisoned by tap water since the start of the month, according to the Basra province
health directorate. Hospitals, inundated with patients, have collapsed under the pressure.
Basra, like neighboring Iran, is majority Shiite. But in recent years, residents have grown hostile toward Tehran over its dominance
of Iraqi affairs, its support for political parties notorious for public waste and its backing of armed factions that enforce themselves
as morality police.
The torching of the Iranian consulate came just 24 hours after the protesters -- ignoring a government curfew -- set fire to the
offices of powerful Shiite political parties and Iran-backed militias that formed the backbone of the paramilitary Popular Mobilization
Units.
The demonstrators did not spare the local government headquarters and provincial council, setting those ablaze as well.
Basra has been roiled by unrest since July, and the latest round of revolt was met with tear gas and live fire. The first week
of September saw nine demonstrators killed and 93 wounded, according to the UN.
The deadly force has only inflamed the movement. Over the past two nights, security evaporated from the streets while the military
kept to the sidelines. Angry groups of youths roamed the city center, demanding revenge for those killed and for years of neglect.
The city appears out of control.
The unrest has put a spotlight on corruption in Iraq's economic capital, just as the Ministry of Oil seeks foreign investment
– including from China – to transform the country from an importer of oil products to an exporter.
Gulf port closed
Demonstrators on Thursday shut down the country's most important port, Umm Qasr.
Basra province is Iraq's only outlet to the sea, and Umm Qasr is just one of five commercial sea ports that serve as the country's
main gateway for basic necessities.
The costly shutdown prompted the minister of transportation to call for restraint via local radio stations.
"Iraq is losing millions," Kadhim Finjan pleaded over the airwaves. The port was eventually reopened Saturday before dawn.
Like the oil fields, these critical hubs have drawn protesters, who see the wealth they create being siphoned off by corruption.
An officer with the port authority, who spoke to Asia Times on condition of anonymity, said it was "impossible" for security
to control the port
The ports – strategically placed on the Persian Gulf – are shared between the political parties, a phenomenon that saps their
revenues and allows goods to enter without passing through customs.
An officer with the port authority, who spoke to Asia Times on condition of anonymity, said it was "impossible" for security to
control the port.
"The political parties treat the ports like their private property. Goods are exempted from controls and inspection, and the taxes
are reduced for traders dealing with the ruling parties," he said.
Before the ports earned the ire of the demonstrations, it was the oil sector.
Basra's 15 oil fields account for nearly 60% of the country's oil reserves. Revenues from the province generate approximately
$60 million daily, or 3.6 of Iraq's total 4.3 million barrels per day.
The government relies on the sector to finance its activities, but only a fraction of the national budget flows back to Basra.
The stark contrast between Basra's oil wealth and the miserable conditions of the population has prompted demonstrators this summer
to organize sit-ins blocking the gates to the oil fields.
In addition to the 15-hour power cuts and filthy drinking water, they are demanding jobs.
Foreign companies operating in Basra are required to hire locals for at least 50% of job posts, and up to 80% depending on the
contract. But those laws are often flouted.
The government has also allowed foreign companies to acquire vast swathes of agricultural lands to be used as oil fields north
of Basra, resulting in the bulldozing of orchards and date palm fields and increased unemployment.
"The oil extracted from our city lands is not beneficial to us," one demonstrator told Asia Times.
"It is better to stop its extraction than have it stolen," he said, blaming the government and foreign companies alike.
According to provincial council member Ahmed Abdel Hussein, half of Basra residents live in poverty.
The government says unemployment stands at about at 7.8%, but academic studies suggest a far higher rate. There are no official
statistics for the province.
Feared militia takeover
The government in Baghdad fears the deteriorating situation in Basra could disrupt oil production.
"The oil companies have been greatly affected by the protests," said Adel al-Thamari, an academic and investment analyst in Basra.
"The workers cannot access the fields because of the closure of roads or closing of entry gates," he told Asia Times, adding that
"the oil companies have reduced the number of foreign experts for fear of their lives and inability to afford high insurance costs."
The decline in production puts the financial burden on Baghdad. "Companies will raise the terms of credit, which means a great
loss for Iraq, which will have to pay compensation to the companies," he said.
Along with the world's major oil companies, hundreds of logistics and security support companies provide operational services
to the fields in Basra. As security deteriorates, they too will have to withdraw. "The withdrawal of these companies would mean production
stops," Thamari said.
The concerns of oil companies go beyond the protests to fears of a militia takeover.
"The army has taken the position of neutrality toward the demonstrations, and the fear is that the Popular Mobilization Units
will deploy. This would cause a further deterioration of security, because the militias have their own internal divisions and such
an escalation could neutralize the official security forces," Thamari said.
@82 There is some logic to the Iranians fielding a jet fighter of any sort, even if it is
based on a relic of the 1970s.
An Israeli campaign against Iranian nuclear sites is going to involve F-15 and F-16 jets
loaded to the gills with big-arse bombs. Those will be unable to dogfight even a relic like
an F-5 unless they drop that ordinance.
If that is all those Iranians do that then they will have achieved their purpose.
Alternatively, the Israelis could use fighter escorts but then you have to consider that
each escort represents one less bomb-laden F-16 (or, put another way, twice as many
sorties).
Simply put: Absent any Iranian jet fighters then the Israelis can commit ALL of their jets
to the task of bombing Iranian targets, and do so from the very beginning. But once Iranian
fighters are in the mix then the job becomes much harder: the Israelis either have to take
out those jets first before committing to a bombing campaign, or they have to commit half
their force to escort duties from the very start.
Sure, SU-35s would be much better, but an F-5 is still way better than nothing.
"... The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out for US interests. ..."
The US is prepared to use sanctions to drive Iranian oil exports down to zero, the US
national security adviser, John Bolton, has said.
"Regime change in Iran is not American policy, but what we want is massive change in the
regime's behaviour," Bolton said on a visit to Israel, as he claimed current sanctions had been
more effective than predicted.
Donald Trump took the US out of Iran's nuclear deal with the west in May and is imposing
escalating sanctions, both to force Iran to renegotiate the deal and to end Tehran's perceived
interference in Yemen, Syria and Lebanon.
Complete removal of Iranian oil from world markets would cut oil supply by more than 4%
probably forcing up prices in the absence of any new supplies.
SNIP
Fuller US sanctions, including actions against countries that trade in Iranian oil are due to
come into force on 5 November, 180 days after the initial Trump announcement to withdraw.
The measures against Iranian oil importers, and banks that continue to trade with the Central
Bank of Iran, will ratchet the pressure to a higher level.
Pompeo has set up an Iran Action group inside the US State Department to coordinate US leverage
on companies and countries that cannot show that their trade, including in oil, has fallen
significantly by November.
Measures may also be taken against firms that insure ships carrying Iranian crude.
It is expected some of the major Iranian oil importers, such as Russia, China and Turkey, will
either ignore the threat of US sanctions, or, possibly in the case of Iraq, Japan and South
Korea, seek exemptions.
China takes a quarter of all Iran's oil exports, and with Chinese banks little exposed to the
US it can avoid the impact of Trump's sanctions.REPLY
I wonder if China could just take all of Iran's oil? I imagine at the right price they
would be happy to do so. China imports about 8 Mb/d, Iran exports about 2.5 Mb/d of oil,
seems possible.
Also note that if this does occur and there is no drop in Iranian output, the impact of
the Iranian sanctions on the World Oil market will be effectively zero.
I wonder what the capacity is of the Chinese and Iranian oil tanker fleet is? If nobody
else will buy it or ship it then the tanker fleet will have to be owned/insured by either
Iran or China.
I'm interested in knowing if Chinese oil tankers are even capable of hauling 2.5 million
barrels a day home from Iran. It seems doubtful that anybody else will be doing it for them.
I can't find much info on the size of the Chinese owned tanker fleet and it's
capabilities.
While US forces have been known to seize North Korean oil tankers hauling Libyan oil, I
find it doubtful that they will seize Chinese ones, for the reason you mentioned; China
punches back. Nothing spells the end of hegemony like getting your ass kicked.
One would assume its easy for the chinese to buy used oil tankers if they offer a bit over
current market prices. This is a very long term conflict, and they could buy tankers,
reregister them Chinese or Iranian or say Russian and start moving that oil.
The US is run by a somewhat unstable president being advised by nuts like Bolton whose
main focus is following Israeli diktats, therefore i would not expect them to be looking out
for US interests.
Saudi Aramco, apparently there was an audit of their reserves in preparation for the Aramco
IPO. It says Baker Hughes was involved???
2018-04-29 DUBAI/LONDON (Reuters) – An audit of Saudi Aramco's oil reserves – an
essential part of the preparatory work for its planned initial public offering – has
found the state oil giant to have higher reserves than it previously reported, sources familiar
with the matter told Reuters.
Two sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said the independent external audit has
found the proven oil reserves to be at least 270 billion barrels, which is slightly higher than
the 260.8 billion barrels the company reported in its 2016 annual review.
Dallas-based DeGolyer and MacNaughton, and Gaffney, Cline and Associates, part of Baker
Hughes, are involved in the auditing, sources have said.
Did they pay for the audit? I've found that audits often show the results the customer is
looking for. Its not quite a science. More like a combination of fishing and editing.
"In no way should these results be construed as a true representation of the 'real' ."
au·dit
NOUN
an official inspection of an individual's or organization's accounts, typically by an
independent body.
VERB
conduct an official financial examination of (an individual's or organization's
accounts).
"companies must have their accounts audited"
They audited their books! I have no doubt that they found exactly what Saudi had on
their books. But that is likely to bear no resemblance to what field reserves actually are.
At any rate, it is entirely possible that Saudi could have doctored their books in
anticipation of the audit.
How would one go about actually checking the remaining reserves in Ghawar? Or any of the
other Saudi fields?
Dipstick??🤡 Seriously, they are both oil consulting companies. Hardly an audit.
Just high priced consultants. Key phrase is high priced. Nobody is going to jerk their
consulting license if they accept the high price, and give SA what they want. If SA runs out
of oil tomorrow, the worst that could happen is the companies say, whoops, missed that
one.
New blog post by Rune Likvern on credit creation, interest rates and oil price: https://runelikvern.online/2018/08/21/the-price-of-oil/
. He focuses on the demand side and believes that Brent will trade in $55 – $70/bo range
over the coming year. This seems a bit low IMHO., considering the supply side of the equation.
REPLY
I agree with your opinion. There will be a downward pull from multiple directions. Dollar
strength, Rune's analysis, higher price in general, Iran discounting their oil, and maybe
some others. All of those will not keep price from going up if supply is too low. Just keep
an eye on world inventory levels. They tell the long term story.
Also consider that $80/b at 29.5 Gb consumption is about $2.4 trillion for a World economy
of $80 trillion, that's about 3% of World GDP, in 2013 when prices were $108/b and
consumption was 27.8 Gb and World GDP was $76.5T, oil consumption (C+C) was about 3.9% of
World GDP. Perhaps rising interest rates will make spending 3% of World GDP on oil a problem,
but despite Rune Likvern's excellent analysis, I think the connection between credit creation
and oil prices that he reveals may be a spurious correlation.
Certainly higher credit creation will tend to increase aggregate demand (of which oil
consumption is a part) and will tend to increase demand for oil. The price of oil is
determined by both supply (production of oil) and demand (consumption) of oil.
Just as supply does not create its own demand (Say's Law), demand does not create its own
supply. Even if demand for oil should decrease (which I doubt will occur without a major
recession such as the 80s oil shock or the GFC), eventually the supply of oil is likely to
not keep up with the increase in oil consumption (likely by 2019), the lower oil prices are
the more likely this is to occur because oil production will not be profitable at prices
under $70/b for many shale and deepwater plays, thus their will be a lack of oil investment
and oil will become scarce.
I think Euan Mearns prediction of $80/b for oil (made in early 2018) seems
reasonable .
Good question. Getting rid of power plants buring fuel oil and investing in solar power
seems to be the plan. Wonder if they are able to execute it. In addition the removal of
subsidies on gasoline ought to also reduce consumption.
Very short term exports from SA will be impacted by the annual Hajj pilgrimage now in
August. 2.4 million pilgrims demand huge amounts of extra desalinated water supply and
artificial cooling based on more fuel oil electricity. There are reports of much lower
exports in July compared to June, and August seems to be even lower so far.
it is absolutely clear who is behind the food and medicine boycotts (empty supermarket
shelves), and the induced internal violence. It is a carbon copy of what the CIA under
Kissinger's command did in Chile in 1973 which led to the murder of the legitimate and
democratically elected President Allende and to the Pinochet military coup ; except,
Venezuela has 19 years of revolutionary experience, and built up some tough resistance.
To understand the context 'Venezuela', we may have to look at the country's history.
Before the fully democratically and internationally observed election of Hugo Chavez in
1998, Venezuela was governed for at least 100 years by dictators and violent despots which
were directed by and served only the United States. The country, extremely rich in natural
resources , was exploited by the US and Venezuelan oligarchs to the point that the population
of one of the richest Latin-American countries remained poor instead of improving its
standard of living according to country's natural riches. The people were literally enslaved
by Washington controlled regimes .
A first coup attempt by Comandante Hugo Chavez in 1992 was oppressed by the Government of
Carlos Andrés Pérez and Chavez was sent to prison along with his co-golpistas.
After two years, he was freed by the Government of Rafael Caldera.
During Peréz' first term in office (1974-1979) and his predecessors, Venezuela
attained a high economic growth based on almost exclusive oil exports . Though, hardly
anything of this growth stayed in the country and was distributed to the people. The
situation was pretty much the same as it is in today's Peru which before the 2008 crisis and
shortly thereafter had phenomenal growth rates – between 5% and 8% – of which 80%
went to 5% of the population oligarchs and foreign investors , and 20% was to be distributed
to 95% of the population – and that on a very uneven keel. The result was and is a
growing gap between rich and poor, increasing unemployment and delinquency.
Venezuela before Chavez lived practically on a monoculture economy based on petrol. There
was no effort towards economic diversification. To the contrary, diversification could
eventually help free Venezuela from the despot's fangs, as the US was the key recipient of
Venezuela's petrol and other riches. Influenced by the 1989 Washington Consensus,
Peréz made a drastic turn in his second mandate (1989-1993) towards neoliberal
reforms, i.e. privatization of public services, restructuring the little social safety
benefits laborers had achieved, and contracting debt by the IMF and the World Bank. He became
a model child of neoliberalism, to the detriment of Venezuelans. Resulting protests under
Peréz' successor, Rafael Caldera, became unmanageable. New elections were called and
Hugo Chavez won in a first round with more than 56%. Despite an ugly Washington inspired coup
attempt ("The Revolution will Not be Televised", 2003 documentary about the attempted 2002
coup), Hugo Chavez stayed in power until his untimely death 2013. Comandante Chavez and his
Government reached spectacular social achievements for his country.
Washington will not let go easily – or at all, to re-conquer Venezuela into the new
Monroe Doctrine, i.e. becoming re-integrated into Washington's backyard. Imagine this
oil-rich country, with the world's largest hydrocarbon reserves, on the doorsteps of the
United Sates' key refineries in Texas, just about 3 to 4 days away for a tanker from
Venezuela, as compared to 40 to 45 days from the Gulf, where the US currently gets about 60%
of its petrol imports. An enormous difference in costs and risks, i.e. each shipment has to
sail through the Iran-controlled Strait of Hormuz.
In addition, another socialist revolution as one of Washington's southern neighbor –
in addition to Cuba – is not convenient. Therefore, the US and her secret forces will
do everything to bring about regime change, by constant economic aggressions, blockades,
sanctions, boycotts of imports and their internal distribution – as well as outrights
military threats. The recent assassination attempt of President Maduro falls into the same
category. "
The antagonism between Saudi Arabia and Iran sets off a variety of political reverberations
affecting the countries of the Persian Gulf, unsettling the situation between Turkey, Syria,
and Iraq, and entangling Russia and the United States in the ensuring imbroglio.
... ... ...
The role of the Russian Federation cannot be viewed apart from what is happening in the
energy-rich, formerly Soviet Central Asian republics. The so-called -Stans (Kazakhstan,
Uzbekistan, Azerbaijan, and Turkmenistan) are major players in today's energy markets. Whatever
they do, however, cannot be seen as separate from what Russia is doing or from Russia's
intentions. Although some of them, primarily Azerbaijan, have initiated projects that are not
aligned with Moscow's goals, they nevertheless need to behave in ways that do not upset their
powerful northern neighbour on whom they are heavily reliant, to some extent, for their welfare
(due to their dependence on oil and gas pipeline networks).
Politics is therefore deeply intertwined with energy in most of those cases, bringing
diplomacy front and centre as a determinant of behaviour and economic outcomes.
... ... ...
Europe's problem is that, with the exception of North Sea oil and gas, it relies entirely on
imports to provide it with a comfortable level of energy. Thus, events in the Middle East and
the Russian stance toward the continent determines whether it is adequately supplied with
energy or faces shortages.
The deposits in the North Sea have kept some European states (Britain and Scandinavia among
others) well supplied for quite a while. But unfortunately there is a strong suspicion that
these deposits are diminishing at a dangerous rate. As a result Europe will gradually become
dependent on imports from the Middle East, North Africa, Russia, and the Atlantic (Angola,
Brazil, Mexico, and the US). The situation is disquieting since Japan, and more recently,
China, are seeking to buy their own supplies from the same sources.
"...Things started to change after the fracking and shale gas revolution. The United
States suddenly realized that it could not only became absolutely self-sufficient in oil and
gas, but it also emerged as one of the most important exporters to the rest of the
world..."
Ths is factually untrue. The US still depends on crude oil imports to meet its needs. And
if this simple, verifiable fact is misunderstood by the author, then I have to wonder about
the rest of his analysis...
From the middle of the last century to the present, everything has been about oil. The
peak oilers were correct. What they did not consider was the power of debt to hold this whole
thing together long after it should have collapsed. Shale oil is not profitable. That does
not mater as long as debt underwrites the cost of production. What does matter is the rapid
decline rate of shale oil wells. Yes it is true that shale wells are continuing to produce
long after they have reached their peak but it is the volume of production that matters.
If you read the projections put out by the Hirsch Report, the Llyiods Report and the
Bundeswehr Report, things should get interesting in the next couple of years.
"... but neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline" ..."
"... Unleashing American Energy ..."
"... American energy dominance, ..."
"... Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ..."
"... "... an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure homeland for us and ourselves. – Just as you want a secure homeland in Israel." ..."
Two weeks ago, we
wrote about how President Trump's foreign policy somehow had 'folded' into
'neo-Americanism', and quoted US Foreign Affairs Professor, Russell-Mead, suggesting that
Trump's 8 May metamorphosis (the exit from JCPOA), represented something new, a step-change of
direction (from his being principally a sharp Art of the Deal negotiator), toward
– pace, Russell-Mead – "a neo-American era in world politics – rather than an
[Obama-ist] post-American one". "The administration wants to enlarge American power,
rather than adjust to decline (as allegedly, Obama did). For now, at least, the Middle
East is the centrepiece of this new assertiveness", Russell-Mead opined, explaining that this
new Trump impulse stems from: [Trump's] instincts telling him that most Americans are anything
but eager for a "post-American" world. Mr. Trump's supporters don't want long wars, but
neither are they amenable to a stoic acceptance of national decline" .
There is something of a paradox here: Trump and his base deplore the cost and commitment of
the huge American defence umbrella, spread across the globe by the globalists (sentiments
aggravated by the supposed ingratitude of its beneficiaries) – yet the President wants to
" enlarge American power, rather than adjust to decline". That is, he wants
more power, but less empire. How might he square this circle?
Well, a pointer arose almost a year earlier, when on 29 June 2017, the President used a
quite unexpected word when speaking at an Energy Department event: Unleashing American
Energy . Instead of talking about American energy independence , as might be
expected, he heralded instead, a new era of American energy "dominance" .
In a speech "that sought to underscore a break with the policies of Barack Obama", the
FTnotes , Mr Trump tied
energy to his America First agenda..."The truth is we now have near limitless supplies
of energy in our country," Mr Trump said. "We are really in the driving seat, and you know
what: we don't want to let other countries take away our sovereignty, and tell us what to do,
and how to do it. That's not going to happen. With these incredible resources, my
administration will seek not only the American energy independence that we've been looking for,
for so long – but American energy dominance, " he said.
It seems, as Chris Cook explains , that
Gary Cohn, then chief economic adviser to the President had a part in the genesis to this
ambition. Cohn (then at Goldman Sachs), together with a colleague from Morgan Stanley,
conceived of a plan in 2000 to take control of the global oil trading market through an
electronic trading platform, based in New York. In brief, the big banks, attracted huge
quantities of 'managed money' (from such as hedge funds), to the market, to bet on future
prices (without their ever actually taking delivery of crude: trading 'paper oil', rather than
physical oil). And, at the same time, these banks worked in collusion with the major oil
producers (including later, Saudi Arabia) to pre-purchase physical oil in such a way
that, by withholding, or releasing physical crude from, or onto the market, the big NY banks
were able to 'influence' the prices (by creating a shortage, or a glut).
To give some idea of the capacity of these bankers to 'influence' price, by mid –
2008, it was estimated that some
$260 billion of 'managed' (speculative) investment money was in play in energy markets,
completely dwarfing the value of the oil actually coming out of the North Sea each month, at
maybe $4 to $5 billion, at most. These 'paper' oil-option plays would therefore often trump the
'fundamentals' of real supply, and real end-user demand.
'Step one' for Cohn, was therefore, for the US to manage the trading market, both in price
and access – with U.S. antagonists such as Iran or Russia, being able to access the
market on inferior terms, if at all. The putative 'step two', has been to nurse US shale
production, build new American LNG export terminals, and open America to further oil and gas
exploration, whilst strong-arming everyone from Germany to South Korea and China, to buy
American LNG exports. And 'thirdly', with Gulf oil exports already under the US umbrella, there
were then, two major Middle East energy producers beyond the boundaries of cartel 'influence'
(falling more into rival Russia's strategic energy-producing 'heartland'): Iran – which
is now the subject of regime change–style, economic siege on its oil exports, and Iraq,
which is subject of intense (soft) political pressures (such as threatening to sanction Iraq
under the Countering America's Adversaries Through Sanctions Act ) to force its
adherence to the western sphere.
What would this Trump notion of energy dominance mean in simple language? The US
– were energy dominance to succeed – simply would control the tap to the economic
development – or its lack thereof – for rivals China, and Asia. And the US could
squeeze Russia's revenues in this way, too. In short, the US could put a tourniquet on China's
and Russia's economic development plans. Is this why JCPOA was revoked by President Trump?
Here then, is the squaring of that circle (more US power, yet less empire): Trump's US aims
for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of the US defence
umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by
ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in
turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. In this way, Trump can
'bring the troops home', and yet America keeps its hegemony. Military conflict becomes a last
resort.
Senior advisor Peter Navarro said on NPR earlier
this week that "we can stop them [the Chinese] from putting our high tech companies out of
business" and "buying up our crown jewels of technology ... Every time we innovate something
new, China comes in and buys it, or steals it."
Is this then Trump's plan: By market domination and trade war, to prolong America's
'superiority' of technology, finance and energy – and not somehow be
obliged to "adjust to decline"? And by acting in this way, curtail – or at least postpone
– the emergence of rivals? Two questions in this context immediately present themselves:
Is this formula the adoption of neo-conservatism, by the US Administration, which Trump's own
base so detests? And, secondly, can the approach work?
It is not neo-conservatism, perhaps – but rather a re-working of a theme. The American
neo-conservatives largely wanted to take a hammer to the parts of the world they didn't like;
and to replace it with something they did. Trump's method is more Machiavellian in
character.
The
roots to both of these currents of thought lie however – more than partly –
with Carl Schmitt's influence on American conservative thinking through his friend, Leo
Strauss, at Chicago (whether not, Trump has ever read either man, the ideas still circulate in
the US ether). Schmitt held that politics (in contrast to the liberal/ humanist vein) has
nothing to do with making the world fairer, or more just – that is the work of moralists
and theologians – politics for Schmitt, concerns power and political survival, and
nothing more.
Liberals (and globalists), Schmitt suggested, are queasy at using power to crush alternative
forces from emerging: their optimistic view of human nature leads them to believe in the
possibility of mediation and compromise. The Schmittian optic, however dismissed derisively the
liberal view, in favour of an emphasis on the role of power, pure and simple – based on a
darker understanding of the true nature of 'others' and rivals. This point seems to go to the
root of Trump's thinking: Obama and the 'liberals' were ready to trade the 'crown jewels' of
'Our Culture' (financial, technological and energy expertise) through some multilateral
'affirmative action' that would help less developed states (such as rival China up the ladder).
Perhaps such thoughts too, lay behind Trump's withdrawal from the Climate Accord: Why help
putative rivals, whist, at same time, imposing voluntary handicaps on one's own Culture?
It is on this latter, quite narrow pivot (the imperative of keeping American power intact),
that neo-cons and Trumpists, come together: And both also share in their disdain for utopian
liberals who would fritter away the crown jewels of western Culture – for some or other
humanitarian ideal – only to allow America's determined rivals to rise up and overthrow
America and its Culture (in this optic).
The common ground between both currents, is expressed with remarkable candour through
Berlusconi's
comment that "we must be aware of the superiority of our [western] civilisation". Steve
Bannon says something very similar, though couched in the merits of preserving (a threatened)
western Judeo-Christian culture.
This sense of Cultural advantage that must at all costs be recuperated and preserved perhaps
goes some (but not all) way towards accounting for Trump's ardent support for Israel: Speaking
to Israel's Channel Two, Richard Spencer, a prominent leader of the American Alt-Right
(and one component to Trump's base), highlighted the deeply felt
the dispossession of white people, in their own country [the US]:
"... an Israeli citizen, someone who understands your identity, who has a sense of
nationhood and peoplehood, and the history and experience of the Jewish people, you should
respect someone like me, who has analogous feelings about whites. You could say that I am a
white Zionist – in the sense that I care about my people, I want us to have a secure
homeland for us and ourselves. – Just as you want a secure homeland in
Israel."
So, can the attempt to leverage and weaponise the American élites' Culture –
through the dollar, and putative energy hegemony, and its hold over technology transfer –
succeed in holding on to American 'Culture' (in the reductionist construct of Trump's base)?
This is the sixty-four thousand dollar question, as they say. It may just easily provoke an
equally powerful reaction; and a lot can happen domestically in the US, between now, and the
November, US mid-term, elections, which might either confirm the President in power – or
undo him. It is difficult to hold to any analytic horizon beyond that.
But a larger point is whilst Trump feels passionately about American Culture and hegemony;
the leaders of the non-West today, feel just as passionately that it is time for 'the American
Century' to yield place. Just as after WWII, former colonial states wanted independence –
so, now, today's leaders want an end to dollar monopoly, they want an opt-out from the global,
US-led order and its so-called 'international' institutions; they want to 'be' in their own
distinctive cultural way – and they want their sovereignties back. This is not just
cultural and economic nationalism, it portends a significant inflection point – away from
neo-liberal economics, from individualism and raw commercialism – towards a more rounded
human experience.
The tide, in the wake of WWII, surely was irreversible then. I can even recall the former
European colonialists subsequently bemoaning their forced withdrawal: "They'll [the former
colonies] regret it", they confidently predicted. (No, they never did.) The tide today runs
strongly too, and has spread, even, to Europe. Where – who knows – whether the
Europeans will have the spine to push back against Trump's financial and trade machinations: It
will be an important litmus for what comes next.
But what is different now (from then), is that currency hegemony, technological prowess, and
energy 'domination', are not, at all, assured to western possession. They are no longer theirs.
They began their migration, some time ago.
"... Trump's US aims for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals. ..."
"... "Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000, [Trump's U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market platform." ..."
"... "Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum)." ..."
"... "The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [ military ] was obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet – South Pars. ..."
"... Energy Dominance ..."
"... In the four months since President Trump's announcement, the market strategy developed by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view. ..."
"... Firstly, there has been a massive inflow of Managed Money into the oil market, particularly the Brent contract, which has seen the Brent oil price increase by 35% since the starting point, which I believe can be dated to the August Brent/BFOE Crude Oil option expiry on June 27 th 2017. ..."
"... The dominant market narrative is that the backwardation in Brent is evidence of surging global oil demand which has emptied inventories and is leading the price to new sunlit uplands. However, I see the market rather differently. ..."
"... Firstly, whether the Brent spot month is supported by financial, rather than physical demand, the result will still be a backwardation, and because few oil producers expect a price over $60 to be sustainable they therefore hedge and depress the forward price. In support of this view, I am far from the only market observer who believes that Aramco, and Rosneft would not be selling equity if either Saudi Arabia or Russia believed the oil price trajectory will be positive even in the medium term. ..."
"... This still leaves open the $64 billion question of which market participant is motivated and able to support the ICE Brent term structure for years into the future by swapping dollar risk (T-Bills) for long term oil risk (oil reserves leased via prepay purchase/resale contracts). ..."
"... My conclusion by a process of elimination is that this Big Long can only be Saudi Arabia and regional allies, with Saudi Arabia now under the management of the thrusting young Mohammad bin Salman." ..."
"... Although Trump routinely talks about withdrawing U.S. troops, he does the exact opposite. ..."
"... the U.S. economy becomes increasingly dependent upon Big Oil and Big Minerals and Big Money and Big Military, ..."
"... War against King Saud's chosen enemies (Iran, Qatar, Syria) and possibly even against the U.S. aristocracy's chosen enemy, Russia (and against Russia's allies: China, Iran, and Syria) -- seems more likely, not less likely, with Trump's geostrategy. ..."
"... "I want to address what Mr. Cohn was talking about from a standpoint of how important American energy is as an option, not as the only option, but as an option to our allies and to count[r]ies around the world. ..."
"... At the G7 it was really kind of interesting. The first thing they beat on the table talking about the Paris accord, you can't get out of it, and I was kind of like OK. Then we would go into our bilats and they'd go, how about some of that LNG you've got? How do we buy your LNG, how do we buy your coal? And it was really interesting, it was a political issue for them. This whole Paris thing is a public relation[s], political issue for them. We made the right decision, the President made the right decision on this. I think it was one of the most powerful messages that early on in this administration that was sent. ..."
"... We are in a position to be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by being able to deliver to them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in particular. Whether it is Poland, Ukraine, the entirety of the EU. Totally get it, if we can lay in American LNG, if we can be able to have an alternative to Russian anthracite coal that they control in the Ukraine. ..."
"... If that was more the reality of Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" policy than just the pro-global-burnout cheerleading of Trump's mere words, then it seems to be -- in the policy's actual intent and implementation -- more like "send more troops in" than "bring the troops home," to and from anywhere. It is more like energy policy in support of the military policy, than military policy in support of the energy policy. ..."
"... In any aristocracy, some members need to make compromises with other members, no matter how united they all are against the publics' interests. This is the way it's done -- by compromises with each other. ..."
"Trump's US aims for 'domination', not through the globalists' permanent infrastructure of
the US defence umbrella, but through the smart leveraging of the US dollar and financial
clearing monopoly, by ring-fencing, and holding tight, US technology, and by dominating the
energy market, which in turn represents the on/off valve to economic growth for US rivals.
In
this way, Trump can 'bring the troops home', and yet America keeps its hegemony [America's
control of the world, global empire]. Military conflict becomes a last resort."
He bases that crucially upon a landmark 6 November 2017 article by Chris Cook, at Seeking
Alpha, which laid out, and to a significant extent documented, a formidable and complex
geostrategy driving U.S. President Donald Trump's foreign policies. Cook headlined there
"Energy Dominance And
America First" , and noted that,
"Towards the tail end of the Clinton administration and the Dot Com boom in 2000,
[Trump's U.S. Treasury Secretary until April 2018] Gary Cohn of Goldman Sachs had dinner with
his counterpart at Morgan Stanley, John Shapiro. From this dinner was hatched an audacious plan
to take control of the global oil market through a new electronic global market
platform."
This "global market platform," which had been started months earlier in 2000 by Jeffrey Sprecher , is "ICE,"
or InterContinental Exchange, and it uses financial derivatives in order to provide to Wall
Street banks control over the future direction of commodites prices (so that the insiders can
game the markets), by means of the financial-futures markets, locking in future
purchase-and-sale agreements. It also entails Wall Street's
buying enormous commodities-storage warehouses and stashing them with such commodities - such
as, in that case, aluminum) , and so it influences also the real estate markets, and
doesn't only manipulate the commodities markets. Those vast storehouses (and the operation of
the U.S. Government's Strategic Petroleum Reserve, to carry out a similar price-manipulation
function in the oil business) are crucial in order for the entire scheme to be able to
function, because without control over the storehousing of physical commodities, such
futures-price manipulations aren't possible. Consequently, ICE couldn't get off the ground
without major Wall Street partners, which are willing to do that. Cohn and Shapiro (Goldman,
and Morgan Stanley) backed Sprecher's operation; and Wikipedia states that,
"Wall Street bankers, particularly Goldman Sachs and Morgan Stanley, backed him and he
launched ICE in 2000 (giving 80 percent control to the two banks who, in turn, spread out the
control among Shell, Total, and British Petroleum)."
This is today's financial world -- a world in which billionaires control the future
directions of commodities-prices, and thus manipulate markets, and even determine the economic
fates of nations. It's not the myth of capitalism; it is the reality of capitalism. It
functions by means of corruption, as it always has, but the corrupt methods constantly
evolve.
However, Trump's geostrategy goes beyond merely this, especially by bringing into the entire
operation the world's wealthiest person, the trillionaire King Saud, who, as the sole owner of
the Saudi Government, which in turns owns the world's largest corporation Aramco, which in turn
dominates the oil market and which is also #6 in the natural-gas market (far behind the three
giants, which King Saud is trying to destroy -- Russia, Iran, and Qatar -- so that the Sauds
will become able to dominate even there). Trump's geostrategy ties King Saud even more tightly
than before, into America's aristocracy.
King Saud, as Cook noted, is trying to disinvest in petroleum and reposition increasingly
into natural gas, because outside the United States and around the world, people are seriously
concerned to minimize global warming so as to postpone global burnout from uncontrollably
soaring atmospheric carbon. Petroleum has an even worse carbon footprint than does natural gas;
and therefore natural gas is the world's "transition fuel" to a 'survivable' future, while
solar and other alternatives take hold (even if too late). Despite all of the carbon-fuels
industries' propaganda, people outside the United States are determined to delay global
burnout, and the insiders know this. King Saud knows that his petroleum-laden portfolio will
have to diversify fast, because the long-term future for petroleum-prices is decline. And he
won't be able to control prices at all in the natural-gas business unless he's got America's
aristocracy on his side, in the effort to keep those prices up (at least while the Sauds will
be increasing their profits from natural gas). Unlike his dominance over OPEC, Saudi Arabia has
no such position to control natural gas-prices. He thus needs Wall Street's cooperation.
Cook said:
"The second objective was a switch from oil to natural gas, and when the U.S. [
military ] was
obliged to leave Saudi Arabia, they [the U.S.] thereupon established their biggest regional
base in Qatar, who co-own with Iran the greatest single natural gas reserve on the planet
– South Pars.
Energy Dominance
In the four months since President Trump's announcement, the market strategy developed
by Gary Cohn is now being implemented and its elements are emerging into view.
Firstly, there has been a massive inflow of Managed Money into the oil market,
particularly the Brent contract, which has seen the Brent oil price increase by 35% since the
starting point, which I believe can be dated to the August Brent/BFOE Crude Oil option expiry
on June 27 th 2017.
The dominant market narrative is that the backwardation in Brent is evidence of surging
global oil demand which has emptied inventories and is leading the price to new sunlit uplands.
However, I see the market rather differently.
Firstly, whether the Brent spot month is supported by financial, rather than physical
demand, the result will still be a backwardation, and because few oil producers expect a price
over $60 to be sustainable they therefore hedge and depress the forward price. In support of
this view, I am far from the only market observer who believes that Aramco, and Rosneft would
not be selling equity if either Saudi Arabia or Russia believed the oil price trajectory will
be positive even in the medium term.
This still leaves open the $64 billion question of which market participant is motivated
and able to support the ICE Brent term structure for years into the future by swapping dollar
risk (T-Bills) for long term oil risk (oil reserves leased via prepay purchase/resale
contracts).
My conclusion by a process of elimination is that this Big Long can only be Saudi Arabia
and regional allies, with Saudi Arabia now under the management of the thrusting young Mohammad
bin Salman."
However, I do not agree with Alastair Crooke's "In this way, Trump can 'bring the troops
home', and yet America keeps its hegemony [America's control of the world, global empire].
Military conflict becomes a last resort." I explained at Strategic Culture on March 25th
"How the
Military Controls America" and noted there that "on 21 May 2017, US President Donald Trump
sold to the Saud family, who own Saudi Arabia, an all-time-record $350 billion of US
arms-makers' products." This means that not only Wall Street -- the main institutional agency
for America's aristocracy -- and not only American Big Oil likewise, are committed to the royal
Saud family, but U.S. corporations such as Lockheed Martin also are. Vast profits are to be
made, by insiders, in invasions and occupations, just as in gas and oil, and in brokerage.
Although Trump routinely talks about withdrawing U.S. troops, he does the exact opposite.
And even if this trend reverses and America's troop-numbers head down, while
the U.S. economy
becomes increasingly dependent upon Big Oil and Big Minerals and Big Money and Big Military,
America's military budget is, under Trump, the only portion of the entire U.S. federal
Government that's increasing; so, "Military conflict becomes a last resort" does not seem
likely, in such a context. Rather, the reverse would seem to be the far likelier case.
War against King Saud's chosen enemies (Iran, Qatar, Syria) and possibly even against
the U.S. aristocracy's chosen enemy, Russia (and against Russia's allies: China, Iran, and
Syria) -- seems more likely, not less likely, with Trump's geostrategy.
In fact, on 29 June 2017, when President Trump first announced his "Unleashing American
Energy Event," the President spoke his usual platitudes about the supposed necessity to
increase coal-production, and what he said was telecast and
publicized ; but his U.S. Energy Secretary, the barely literate former Governor of Texas,
Rick Perry, also delivered a speech, which was never telecast nor published, except that a few
days later, on July 3rd, an excerpt from it was somehow published on the website of Liquified
Natural Gas Global, and it was this:
"I want to address what Mr. Cohn was talking about from a standpoint of how important
American energy is as an option, not as the only option, but as an option to our allies and
to count[r]ies around the world.
At the G7 it was really kind of interesting. The first thing they beat on the table
talking about the Paris accord, you can't get out of it, and I was kind of like OK. Then we
would go into our bilats and they'd go, how about some of that LNG you've got? How do we buy
your LNG, how do we buy your coal? And it was really interesting, it was a political issue
for them. This whole Paris thing is a public relation[s], political issue for them. We made
the right decision, the President made the right decision on this. I think it was one of the
most powerful messages that early on in this administration that was sent.
We are in a position to be able to clearly create a hell of a lot more friends by
being able to deliver to them energy and not being held hostage by some countries, Russia in
particular. Whether it is Poland, Ukraine, the entirety of the EU. Totally get it, if we can
lay in American LNG, if we can be able to have an alternative to Russian anthracite coal that
they control in the Ukraine. That singularly will have more to do with keeping our allies
free and building their confidence in us than practically anything else that I have seen out
there. It is a positive message around the world right now."
If that was more the reality of Trump's "Unleashing American Energy" policy than just
the pro-global-burnout cheerleading of Trump's mere words, then it seems to be -- in the
policy's actual intent and implementation -- more like "send more troops in" than "bring the
troops home," to and from anywhere. It is more like energy policy in support of the military
policy, than military policy in support of the energy policy.
This sounds even better for the stockholders of Lockheed Martin and other weapons-firms than
for the stockholders of ExxonMobil and other extractive firms. On 6 March 2018, Xinhua News
Agency reported that, "U.S.
President Donald Trump's chief economic adviser Gary Cohn has summoned executives from U.S.
companies that depend on aluminum and steel to meet with Trump this Thursday, in a bid to
persuade the president to drop his tariff plan, media reported Tuesday." After all: Goldman has
warehouses full of aluminum, and has the futures-contracts which already commit the Wall Street
firm to particular manipulations in the aluminum (and other) markets. Controlling the
Government so that it does only what you want it to do, and only when you want the Government
to do it, is difficult. In any aristocracy, some members need to make compromises with
other members, no matter how united they all are against the publics' interests. This is the
way it's done -- by compromises with each other.
"... Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against the wall, just to show the world we mean business ..."
"... there will be no war and no negotiations ..."
"... carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme Leader of Iran, who functions as the country's head of state ..."
"... Trump's ALL IN CAPS meme ..."
"... This is where Ali Khamenei's stance is more puzzling, at least to me: when he says that there will be no war, does he mean that the US threats are not credible or does he mean that Iran has the means to deter a US attack? His words make it sound like he is quite certain that there will be no war. How can he be so sure? I am especially amazed by the apparent Iranian confidence that the AngloZionists will not attack them when I compare it with the obvious Russian policy of actively preparing for war since at least 2014 (also see here , here , here , here , here and here ). Of course, Iran has been preparing for war with the US for almost 40 years now whereas the Russians only woke up to reality comparatively recently. I see several potential explanations for Ali Khamenei's statement (there might be more, of course) ..."
"... Personally, every time I think of a possible US attack on Iran I think of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 which happened in spite of the fact that it was plainly visible to everybody that the Israelis were waltzing straight into a conflict which they could not win and which, in fact, resulted into one of the most abjects defeats in military history. Conversely, while Hezbollah did win a truly historical victory, it also remains a fact that Hezbollah leaders did not expect the Israelis to launch a full-scale ground offensive. Finally, history is full of examples of wars which were started in spite of all objective factors indicating that they would end up in disaster. ..."
"... If it weren't for its nuclear arsenal, the US could be dismissed as a particularly obnoxious country led by ignorant leaders with bloated and mostly ineffective armed forces. Alas, the US nuclear arsenal is very real (and still very capable) and we know that top-level US Neocons have already considered using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state's conventional force in the past . In a twisted way, this makes sense: if you are a megalomaniac infused with a sense of messianic superiority then international or even civilizational norms of behavior are of no interest (or even relevance) to you. Listening to US Presidents, pretty much all of them (but especially Obama and Trump) it is pretty clear that these folks consider themselves to be the Kulturträger ..."
"... Shaytân-e Bozorg ..."
"... It would be a big mistake to dismiss the US because of its incapable military or moral bankruptcy. The truth is that in terms of aggregate national power, the US still remains the most powerful country on the planet (even if we don't include nuclear weapons). Anyone doubting that needs to look how how the currencies of the countries the US is singles out for attack suddenly began slipping: the Russian ruble (which has since bounced back), the Iranian rial, the Venezuelan bolivar, the Turkish lira , etc.) or how little time it took Trump to bring the (admittedly spineless) Europeans to heel . ..."
"... As for Russia, for all her military might, she remains only a semi-sovereign country in which the pro-US/pro-Israeli "Atlantic Integrationists" continue to try to sabotage (often successfully) everything Putin and his supporters are doing . I would not place big hopes in China either, especially considering the lack of meaningful Chinese action in Syria where Russia and Iran did all the heavy lifting. ..."
"... So count with yet another imperial war of aggression, a barrel of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation, job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?). But don't worry: there will still be a huge supply of Chinese-made US flags to wave! ..."
=>
◄ ► ◄ ❌
► ▲ ▼ Remove from Library
B Show Comment Next New Comment
Next New Reply Add to Library
Bookmark Toggle All ToC ▲ ▼ Search Text
Case Sensitive
Exact Words
Include Comments
List of Bookmarks
We can all thank God for the fact that the AngloZionists did not launch a war on the DPRK, that no Ukronazi attack on the Donbass
took place during the World Cup in Russia and that the leaders of the Empire have apparently have given up on their plans to launch
a reconquista of Syria. However, each of these retreats from their hysterical rhetoric has only made the Neocons more frustrated
and determined to show the planet that they are still The Hegemon who cannot be disobeyed with impunity. As I wrote after the failed
US cruise missile strike on Syria this spring, " each click brings us closer
to the bang ". In the immortal words of Michael
Ledeen , " Every ten years or so, the United States needs to pick up some small crappy little country and throw it against
the wall, just to show the world we mean business ". The obvious problem is that there are no "small crappy little countries"
left out there, and that those who are currently the object of the Empire's ire are neither small nor crappy.
Having now shown several times that for all its hysterical barking the Empire has to back down when the opponent does not cower
away in fear, the Empire is now in desperate need to prove its "uniqueness" and (racial?) superiority. The obvious target of the
AngloZionist wrath is Iran. In fact, Iran has been in the cross-hairs of the Empire ever since the people of Iran dared to show the
AngloZionists to the door and, even worse, succeed in creating their own, national and Islamic democracy. To punish Iran, the US,
the USSR, France and all the other "democratic" countries unleashed their puppet (Saddam Hussein) and gave him full military support,
and yet the Iranians still prevailed, albeit at a terrible cost. That Iranian ability to prevail in the most terrible circumstances
is also the most likely explanation for why there has not been an overt attack on Iran for the past four decades (there have, of
course, there has been plenty of covert attacks during all these years).
I won't list all the recent AngloZionist threats against Iran – we all know about them. The bottom line is this: the US, Israel
and the KSA are, yet again, working hand in hand to set the stage for a major war under what we could call the " Skripal-case rules
of evidence " aka " highly likely ". And yet, in spite of all this saber-rattling, Iranian Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei has summed
up Iran's stance in
the following words " there will be no war and no negotiations ".
First, let's first look at Iranian rationale for "no negotiations"
The obvious: "no negotiations"
Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has been very clear in his explanations for why negotiating with the US makes no sense. On his Twitter
account he wrote:
The Iranian Supreme Leader even posted a special graphic summary to summarize and explain the Iranian position:
Finally, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei reiterated his fundamental approach towards the AngloZionist Empire:
The contrast between the kindergarten-level low-IQ bumbling hot air and threats coming out of the White House and the words of
Ali Khamenei could not be greater, especially if we compare the words the two leaders decided to post all in caps;
Trump : To Iranian President Rouhani: NEVER, EVER THREATEN THE UNITED STATES AGAIN OR YOU WILL SUFFER CONSEQUENCES THE LIKES
OF WHICH FEW THROUGHOUT HISTORY HAVE EVER SUFFERED BEFORE. WE ARE NO LONGER A COUNTRY THAT WILL STAND FOR YOUR DEMENTED WORDS
OF VIOLENCE & DEATH. BE CAUTIOUS!
Khamenei : THERE WILL BE NO WAR, NOR WILL WE NEGOTIATE WITH THE U.S..
Notice first that in his typical ignorance, Trump fails to realize that Hassan Rouhani is only the President of Iran and that
threatening him makes absolutely no sense since he does not make national security decisions, which is the function of the Supreme
Leader. Had Trump taken the time to at the very least check
with Wikipedia he would have understood that the Iranian President " carries out the decrees, and answers to the Supreme
Leader of Iran, who functions as the country's head of state ". It is no wonder that Trump's infantile threats
instantly
turned into an Internet meme !
In contrast, Khamenei did not even bother to address Trump by name but, instead, announced his strategy to the whole world.
Trump's ALL IN CAPS meme
Of course, issuing ALL IN CAPS threats just to be treated with utter contempt by the people you are trying to hard to bully and
having your words become a cause of laughter on the Internet will only further enrage Trump and his supporters. When you are desperately
trying to show the world how tough and scary you are, there is nothing more humiliating as being treated like some stupid kid. Therein
also lies the biggest danger: such derision could force Trump and the Neocons who run him to do something desperate to prove to the
word that their "red button" is still bigger than everybody else's.
ORDER IT NOW
It is important to note here that making negotiations impossible is something the Trump administration seems to have adopted as
a policy. This is best illustrated by the conditions attached to the latest sanctions against Russia which, essentially, demand that
Russia admit poisoning the Skripals. In fact, all the western demands towards Russia (admitting that Russia is guilty for the Skripal
case, that Russia shot down MH-17, that Russia hand over Crimea to the Ukronazis, etc.) are carefully crafted to make absolutely
sure that Russia will not negotiate. The sames, of course, goes for the ridiculous
Pompeo demands towards the DPRK
(including handing over to the US 60 to 70 percent of its nukes within six to eight months; no wonder the North Koreans denounced
a "gangster-like" attitude) or the latest US grandstanding towards Turkey. Sadly, but the Neocon run media has successfully imposed
the notion that negotiations are either a sign of weakness, or treason, or both. Thus to be "patriotic" and "strong" no US official
can afford to be caught red-handed negotiating with the enemy of the day.
Under these conditions, why would anybody want to negotiate with the US?
Frankly, the "no negotiations" approach makes perfectly good sense, and while the Iranians are the only ones who have openly said
so, the Russians have hinted to the same on many occasions (see their words about the US being "non-agreement capable" or about US
diplomats confusing Austria and Australia). To any objective observer it should by now be completely obvious by now that a) the US
cannot negotiate (due to intellectual, cultural and political limitations) and b) the US has no desire to negotiate. This is, of
course, a highly undesirable and dangerous situation, but it would only make things worse to pretend that civilized negotiations
with the US are possible.
So, if both sides agree on "no negotiations", what about war?
The not so obvious: No war?
This is where Ali Khamenei's stance is more puzzling, at least to me: when he says that there will be no war, does he mean
that the US threats are not credible or does he mean that Iran has the means to deter a US attack? His words make it sound like he
is quite certain that there will be no war. How can he be so sure? I am especially amazed by the apparent Iranian confidence that
the AngloZionists will not attack them when I compare it with the obvious
Russian policy of actively preparing for war
since at least 2014 (also see
here
, here ,
here ,
here ,
here and
here ). Of course,
Iran has been preparing for war with the US for almost 40 years now whereas the Russians only woke up to reality comparatively recently.
I see several potential explanations for Ali Khamenei's statement (there might be more, of course):
Political: Iran is trying to demonstrate that it will do everything possible to avoid a war so that if a war should break out,
it would be absolutely clear to everybody that Iran did not want it, Iran did not trigger it and the responsibility for the consequences
fall entirely and solely upon the US and Israel. Deception: Iran knows that a war is coming but is trying to pretend like it won't
to better conceal the war preparations and lure the Empire into a sense of complacency resulting into an ineffective/costly attack.
Intelligence: the Iranians might have intelligence indicating to them that all the US threats are just hot air spewed in order
to appease the Israel Lobby and to look "patriotic" in preparation for the upcoming elections this Fall. Miscalculation: the Iranians
might underestimate the level of hubris, arrogance and stupidity of the US leadership and mistakenly conclude that since an attack
on Iran makes no sense and the US cannot "win", such an attack will therefore not happen.
Personally, every time I think of a possible US attack on Iran I think of the Israeli attack on Lebanon in 2006 which happened
in spite of the fact that it was plainly visible to everybody that the Israelis were waltzing straight into a conflict which they
could not win and which, in fact, resulted into one of the most abjects defeats in military history. Conversely, while Hezbollah
did win a truly historical victory, it also remains a fact that Hezbollah leaders did not expect the Israelis to launch a full-scale
ground offensive. Finally, history is full of examples of wars which were started in spite of all objective factors indicating that
they would end up in disaster.
It seems to me that in purely military terms (not in political ones!) Israel could be seen as a stand-in for the US and Hezbollah
as a stand-in for Iran and that the outcome of any future US-Iranian war will be very similar to the outcome of the war in 2006,
albeit on a much larger (and bloodier) scale. I am confident that the folks in the Pentagon realize that, but what about their Neocon
bosses – do they even care about Iranian or, for that matter, US casualties? I highly doubt it: all they care about is their power
and messianic ideology.
If it weren't for its nuclear arsenal, the US could be dismissed as a particularly obnoxious country led by ignorant leaders
with bloated and mostly ineffective armed forces. Alas, the US nuclear arsenal is very real (and still very capable) and we know
that
top-level US Neocons have already considered using tactical nuclear weapons against a non-nuclear state's conventional force in the
past . In a twisted way, this makes sense: if you are a megalomaniac infused with a sense of messianic superiority then international
or even civilizational norms of behavior are of no interest (or even relevance) to you. Listening to US Presidents, pretty much all
of them (but especially Obama and Trump) it is pretty clear that these folks consider themselves to be the Kulturträger
and the Herrenvolk of the 21st century and their messianism is in no way less delusional than the one of their Nazi predecessors
(or, for that matter, the one of the Popes of the past 1000 years). And why would the people who nuked two Japanese cities under
the (entirely fallacious) pretext of "shortening the war" (almost a humanitarian operation!) not do the same thing in Iran?
Of sure, they probably realize that using nukes will result in a massive political backlash, but they are confident that no matter
what happens in the end, they will always be able to say "screw you!" to the rest of the planet. After all, this is something which
Israel and the US have been doing with almost total inpunity for decades already – why would they stop now? As for the fact that
the Persian people have been dealing with all kinds of invaders since no less than 2500 years will not stop the AngloZionists from
trying to crush them. After all, having laid waste to a country which many see as the cradle of civilization, Iraq, why not do the
same thing to Iran? Iraq, Iran – what's the difference, they are all just "sand niggers" and our red button is bigger than theirs,
right?
Standing up to Shaytân-e Bozorg (almost alone?)
It would be a big mistake to dismiss the US because of its incapable military or moral bankruptcy. The truth is that in terms
of aggregate national power, the US still remains the most powerful country on the planet (even if we don't include nuclear weapons).
Anyone doubting that needs to look how how the currencies of the countries the US is singles out for attack suddenly began slipping:
the Russian ruble (which has since bounced back), the Iranian rial, the Venezuelan bolivar, the
Turkish lira , etc.) or
how little
time it took Trump to bring the (admittedly spineless) Europeans to heel .
As for Russia, for all her military might, she remains only a semi-sovereign country in which the pro-US/pro-Israeli "Atlantic
Integrationists" continue to try to
sabotage (often successfully)
everything Putin and his supporters are doing . I would not place big hopes in China either, especially considering the lack
of meaningful Chinese action in Syria where Russia and Iran did all the heavy lifting.
Sadly, but the only ally Iran can truly count on is Hezbollah. And while Hezbollah is considered a "non-state actor", it has a
formidable capability to strike at the US's colonial masters,
especially in terms of missiles .
This will not protect Iran, but it could serve as a very real deterrent to the Israelis, especially since Hezbollah Secretary
General Hassan Nasrallah he has made it clear that Hezbollah more than capable
of taking on Israel .
Does that look to you like there will be no war against Iran?
I hope so. But to me it very much looks like an attack is pretty much inevitable. I have been predicting such an attack since
2007 and, so far, I have been completely wrong (and thank God for that!). The very first article I ever wrote for my blog was entitled
" Where the Empire meets
to plan the next war " ended with the following words:
So count with yet another imperial war of aggression, a barrel of crude at over 100$ and oil shortages, rocketing inflation,
job losses, a stagnant real estate market and stock exchange, and a national debt and government deficit which would make even
Reagan proud. And plenty of dead Americans (nevermind the Iranians, right?). But don't worry: there will still be a huge supply
of Chinese-made US flags to wave!
And yet, 11 years later, the AngloZionist attack which looked so imminent in 2007 has not happened yet. Could it be that this
time again an attack on Iran can be avoided? Ayatollah Ali Khamenei appears to be very confident that it will not happen. I am not
so sure, but I fervently hope that he is right.
Analysts told RT that what Khamenei said is not really surprising given the worsening
economic situation inside the country after the relations with the US went on a downward
spiral. The supreme leader has been trying to keep Iranian society balanced by taking a neutral
position between the liberal and conservative parts of the establishment. Now the former,
including President Hassan Rouhani, are finding themselves in a weaker position, according to
Irina Fedorova from the Russian Academy of Sciences' Center for Middle Eastern Studies.
"The Ayatollah has needed to explain who is to blame for the current situation, to prop
up his regime," Fedorova told RT. She said that "the opponents of the
conservatives," and Rouhani in particular, who supported the JCPOA, will fall victims of
this approach. But it will not lead to his resignation, the researcher noted. However, this
means the conservatives' positions, such as those of Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, are to
strengthen significantly.
The statement may also mean a reshuffling of the political elite as well as some economic
changes, Jamal Wakeem, professor of history and international relations at Lebanese University
in Beirut, told RT. He said that "reformists" and those who pressed for the deals with
the West are to be targeted, while the leadership is going to seek alternatives to the West,
including a partnership with Russia and China.
The US reinstated certain economic sanctions against Iran last week, with President Trump
promising more to come in November. The restrictive measures had been lifted under the historic
Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), but Washington unilaterally withdrew from the
landmark deal despite international condemnation, including from its EU allies. The 2015
agreement placed tight controls on Tehran's nuclear program in exchange for the lifting of
international sanctions. Iran's commitment has been confirmed by the IAEA since then.
Tehran has repeatedly blasted the US for the move, vowing to restart its nuclear program in
retaliation against any foreign restrictions. While the US has been pressing its allies to
completely refuse Iranian oil imports, the Islamic Republic has threatened to close the Strait
of Hormuz, effectively blocking all the oil shipments from the Persian Gulf, should they accede
to American demands.
The row between the US and Iran escalated last month, when their respective leadership
exchanged a barrage of threats. Back then, Iranian President Hassan Rouhani said that a
conflict with Iran would be "mother of all wars," provoking Trump's harsh response
when he promised "consequences the likes of which few have ever suffered before."
Think your friends would be interested? Share this story!
France must be kicking themselves for listening to the US. At this rate, China/Russia will
take all the oil business, leaving Western companies sitting on the sidelines. On the other
hand, I wonder if US O&G companies are waiting for other Western competitors to go
bankrupt.
Uncoy @22:
US sanctions have already failed. Other nations will give lip service, then turn around to
continue on whatever they were doing.
Washington cannot dictate trade rules to others, Germany's economy minister said, adding
that his country should be more assertive and defy American sanctions – particularly
by investing more in Iran.
"We don't let Washington dictate [their will] on trade relations with other countries,"
German Economy Minister Peter Altmaier told Bild newspaper on Saturday. He said the US
sanctions on Iran are one instance in which America's neglect of its partners are clearly
shown.[.]
Only 1/3 of US debt is owed to foreigners and that is denominated in their own currency.
They just print whatever is due.
A country with the land and natural resources the US has to go along with with its
agricultural, human and military capital can never go bankrupt, especially when they control
the debt collectors
As for Germany they are an occupied country, as are many countries. Between the military
bases and CIA controlled NGO's they dance to whatever musuc is played. Some squawking is
permitted for appearances sake so people can maintain their illusions of nationalist
control.
I dont rule out a major financial adverse event in the US (and global) soon so the elite
can profit off the collapse and shrink the wealth of the bottom 90%, but that wont affect
much at all and much of the world will suffer in much the same way
When one looks at the major financial disasters over the last century, many seem to come
in the 8th-9th year of the decade. After the elections we should see a great fall as bubbles
are burst and the 17 trillion dollar + investment firms that maintain liquidity will swoop in
and buy low. This time around the banks wont need a government bail out as the laws have
authorized them to seize deposits like what was done in Greece.
Trump speaks at Washington rally against the Iran deal back in September 2015. Credit:
Olivier Douliery/Sipa USA/Newscom Steven Simon and Jonathan Stevenson
chide Trump for his dangerous Iran obsession:
The United States' treatment of Iran as a serious strategic competitor is deeply
illogical. Iran imperils no core U.S. interests.
Trump's Iran obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it
is also the most irrational. The president's reflexive hostility to Iran is one of the few
constants in his view of the world, and it is one that aligns him most closely with his party's
hawks and parts of the foreign policy establishment. This has been clear for several years ever
since
Trump declared his
opposition to thenuclear
deal and surrounded
himself with hard-liners .
The Iran obsession is among the worst aspects of Trump's presidency, but it is also one of the
least surprising. Over the last eighteen months, Trump's Iran obsession has become more of a
derangement ,
and it is putting the U.S. and Iran on a collision course at the expense of our relations with
many other states and our own economic interests. The risk of unnecessary war continues to rise
because the president and his allies insist on making maximalist demands of Iran while imposing
stringent sanctions on the country without justification.
As Simon and Stevenson capably explain, there is no valid reason to view Iran as a major
threat to the U.S. Contrary to the fevered warnings about Iranian "expansionism," Iranian
military power in the region is quite limited:
Yet Iran's foreign policy has evolved essentially on the basis of opportunistic realism
rather than especially aggressive revisionism, and, as noted, it has a sparse military
presence in the region.
There is certainly no reason for our government to treat Iran as if it were a major
competitor. Our government's fixation on Iran as the source of all the region's problems
exaggerates Iran's influence and puts the U.S. at odds with a regional power whose interests
are sometimes aligned with our own. The obsession simply makes no sense:
Casting Iran as a major strategic rival simply doesn't make sense in terms of traditional
international relations considerations such as threat- and power-balancing.
The authors list a number of causes for the unwarranted obsession with Iran, including
"pro-Israel" influence and the influence of the Saudis and Emiratis in Washington, and I agree
with them. Our political leaders' enthusiasm for engaging in threat inflation and credulously
accepting the threat inflation of others would has to figure prominently in any explanation as
well. Obsessing over a non-existent Iranian threat to U.S. interests obviously has nothing to
do with American security, and it represents an unhealthy subordination of American interests
to those of its reckless regional clients. Indulging those clients in their paranoia about Iran
will only stoke more regional conflicts and ensure that the U.S. becomes more deeply involved
in those wars, and the result will be greater costs for the U.S. and greater turmoil,
instability, and loss of life throughout the region.
Obama's Yemen obsession is probably the most conventional part of his foreign policy and it
is also the most irrational.
Cluster bombs, drone strikes, covert kill teams and, most importantly, the backing for
Saudi Arabia and the UAE to cross the blood-red line and commence an aggressive illegal
bombing campaign, invasion and occupation of Yemeni territory did not start with Trump.
Direct participation of US military logistics personnel and US military assets in this
military aggression – while other US forces operate in the same territory under the
"separate but equal" Authorization To Use Military Force – did not start with
Trump.
Trump might apply his Reverse Midas Touch to this aspect of Obama's legacy as well, but
just because Obama manufactured another transient executive "achievement" in JCOPA does not
mean that his policy with respect to Yemen was any more irrational than Trump's policy
towards Iran, or that Obama's willingness to hire out US military forces to support Saudi
aggression for 100 billion dollars in blood money is any less venal, corrupt and despicable
than Trump's willingness to do the same.
Mattis didn't become fixated on Iran when he joined the Trump administration either,
although he might just be blaming – in the absence of conclusive evidence – Iran
today for the 1983 Beirut barracks bombing targeting Reagan's negligent use of the Marine
Corps. That is even less of a defensible foundation for foreign policy and military
aggression that profiteering.
It is a good guess that Obama's obsession with Yemen was rooted in printer cartridges,
shoe bombs, and the fear to have any terrorist attack "succeed". For Obama & Co. the fear
of the Next Big Blowback led them to Yemen. It would appear that Pence has supplied the Trump
administration with a Grand Unified Theory that all campaigns in the Great War On Terror
ultimately lead to Tehran – or the Trump administration made him their willing
mouthpiece.
Pence is so desperate to connect terrorism to Iran that he has to reach back almost 40yrs to
pin an at best Hezbollah pre-cursor organization on them. Isn't it more telling that
Hezbollah has avoided attacking U.S. troops during their entire existence? Pence doesn't seem
alarmed about the 3,000+ Americans who died on U.S. soil in NYC that we can attribute to the
Saudis and their cohorts.
BTW the Khobar tower bombings was Al Qaeda. The Saudis extracted confessions in their
torture chambers. There was no corroborating evidence that it was a branch of Hezbollah.
This is ,of course, hypothesis by Eric Zuesse, and the idea that the USA elite decided to
abandon EU elite is somewhat questionable, but some of his consideration are interesting...
Notable quotes:
"... Yeah, its the defense contractors. It has nothing to do with the zillions of cars that clog every fucking freeway in this country every morning and every evening, 7 days a week. Its not the assholes cruising around in monster trucks alone, just to show off their stupid trucks. It has nothing to do with the the zillions of jets screaming through the skies carry all those fat assholes to meetings all over the world for no reason. It has nothing to do with the billions of barrels of oil that come to the US on tankers as long as city blocks filled constantly day and night. ..."
The following is entirely from open online sources that I have been finding to be
trustworthy on these matters in the past. These sources will be linked-to here; none of this
information is secret, even though some details in my resulting analysis of it will be entirely
new.
It explains how and why the bottom-line difference between Donald Trump and Barack Obama,
regarding US national security policies, turns out to be their different respective estimations
of the biggest danger threatening the maintenance of the US dollar as the world's leading or
reserve currency. This has been the overriding foreign-policy concern for both Presidents .
Obama placed as being the top threat to the dollar, a breakaway of the EU (America's largest
market both for exports and for imports) from alliance with the United States. He was
internationally a Europhile. Trump, however, places as being the top threat to the dollar, a
breakaway of Saudi Arabia and of the other Gulf Arab oil monarchies from the U.S. Trump is
internationally a Sunni-phile: specifically a protector of fundamentalist Sunni monarchs -- but
especially of the Sauds themselves --
and they hate Shia and especially the
main Shia nation, Iran .
Here's how that change, to Saudi Arabia as being America's main ally, has happened --
actually it's a culmination of decades. Trump is merely the latest part of that process of
change. Here is from the US State Department's official
historian , regarding this history:
By the 1960s, a surplus of US dollars caused by foreign aid, military spending, and
foreign investment threatened this system [the FDR-established 1944 Bretton Woods gold-based US dollar as
the world's reserve currency ], as the United States did not have enough gold to cover
the volume of dollars in worldwide circulation at the rate of $35 per ounce; as a result, the
dollar was overvalued. Presidents John F. Kennedy and Lyndon B. Johnson adopted a series of
measures to support the dollar and sustain Bretton Woods: foreign investment disincentives;
restrictions on foreign lending; efforts to stem the official outflow of dollars;
international monetary reform; and cooperation with other countries. Nothing worked.
Meanwhile, traders in foreign exchange markets, believing that the dollar's overvaluation
would one day compel the US government to devalue it, proved increasingly inclined to sell
dollars. This resulted in periodic runs on the dollar.
It was just such a run on the dollar, along with mounting evidence that the overvalued
dollar was undermining the nation's foreign trading position, which prompted President
Richard M. Nixon to act, on August 13, 1971 [to end the convertibility of dollars to
gold].
When Nixon ended
the gold-basis of the dollar and then in 1974 secretly switched to the current oil-basis,
this transformation of the dollar's backing, from gold to oil, was intended to enable the
debt-financing (as opposed to the tax-financing, which is less acceptable to voters) of
whatever military expenditure would be necessary in order to satisfy the profit-needs of
Lockheed Corporation and of the other US manufacturers whose only markets are the US Government
and its allied governments, as well as of US extractive industries such as oil and mining
firms, which rely heavily upon access to foreign natural resources, as well as of Wall Street
and its need for selling debt and keeping interest-rates down (and stock-prices -- and
therefore aristocrats' wealth -- high and rtising).
This new system didn't only supply a constant flow of Saudi tax-money to the US Government;
it supplied a constant flow of new sales-orders and profits to the military firms that were
increasingly coming to control the US Government -- for the benefit of both aristocracies: the
Sauds, and America's billionaires.
That was near the end of the FDR-produced 37-year period of US democratic leadership of the
world, the era that had started at Bretton Woods in 1944. It came crashing to an end not in
1974 (which was step two after the 1971 step one had ended the 1944 system) but on the day when
Ronald Reagan entered the White House in 1981. The shockingly sudden ascent, from that moment
on, of US federal Government debt (to be paid-off by future generations instead of by current
taxpayers) is shown, right here, in a graph
of "US Federal Debt as Percent of GDP, 1940-2015" , where you can see that the debt had
peaked above 90% of GDP late in WW II between 1944-1948 , and then plunged during Bretton
Woods, but in 1981 it started ascending yet again, until reaching that WW II peak for a second
time, as it has been ever since 2010 , when Obama bailed-out the mega-banks and their
mega-clients, but didn't bail out the American public, whose finances had been destroyed by
those banksters' frauds, which Obama refused to prosecute; and, so, economic inequality in
America got even more extreme after the 2008 George W. Bush crash, instead of less extreme
afterward (as had always happened in the past).
Above 90% debt/GDP during and immediately following WW II was sound policy, but America's
going again above 90% since 2010 has reflected simply an aristocratic heist of America, for
only the aristocracy's benefit -- all of the benefits going only to the super-rich.
Another, and
more-current US graph shows that, as of the first quarter of 2018, this percentage
(debt/GDP) is, yet again, back now to its previous all-time record high of 105-120%%, which had
been reached only in 1945-1947 (when it was justified by the war).
But can the US Government's extreme misallocation of wealth, from the public to the
insiders, continue without turning this country into a much bigger version of today's Greece?
More and more people around the world are worrying about that. Of course, Greece didn't have
the world's reserve currency, but what would happen to the net worths of America's billionaires
if billionaires worldwide were to lose faith in the dollar? Consequently, there's intensified
Presidential worrying about how much longer foreign investors will continue to trust the
oil-based dollar.
America's political class now have two competing ideas to deal with this danger , Obama's
versus Trump's, both being about how to preserve the dollar in a way that best serves the needs
of 'defense' contractors, extractive firms, and Wall Street. Obama chose Europe (America's
largest market) as America's chief ally (he was Euro-centric against Russia); Trump chose the
owner of Saudi Arabia (he's Saudi-Israeli centric against Iran) -- that's the world's largest
weapons-purchaser, as well as the world's largest producer of oil (as well as the largest
lobbies) .
The Saudi King owns Saudi Arabia, including the world's largest and most valuable oil
company, Aramco, whose oil is the "sweetest" -- the least expensive to extract and refine --
and is also the most abundant, in all of the world, and so he can sell petroleum at a profit
even when his competitors cannot. Oil-prices that are so low as to cause economic losses for
other oil companies, can still be generating profits -- albeit lowered ones -- for King Saud;
and this is the reason why his decisions determine how much the global oil-spigot will be
turned on, and how low the global oil-price will be, at any given time. He controls the value
of the US dollar. He controls it far more directly, and far more effectively, than the EU can.
It would be like, under the old FDR-era Bretton Woods system, controlling the exchange-rates of
the dollar, by raising or lowering the amount of gold produced. But this is liquid gold, and
King Saud determines its price.
Furthermore, King Saud also leads the Gulf Cooperation Council of all other Arab oil
monarchs, such as those who own UAE -- all of them are likewise US allies and major
weapons-buyers.
In an extraordinarily fine recent article by Pepe Escobar at Asia Times, "Oil
and gas geopolitics: no shelter from the storm" , he quotes from his not-for-attribution
interviews with "EU diplomats," and reports:
After the Trump administration's unilateral pull-out from the Iran nuclear deal, known as
the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), European Union diplomats in Brussels, off the
record, and still in shock, admit that they blundered by not "configuring the eurozone as
distinct and separate to the dollar hegemony". Now they may be made to pay the price of their
impotence via their "outlawed" trade with Iran.
As admitted, never on the record, by experts in Brussels; the EU has got to reevaluate its
strategic alliance with an essentially energy independent US, as "we are risking all our
energy resources over their Halford Mackinder geopolitical analysis that they must break up
[the alliance between] Russia and China."
That's a direct reference to the late Mackinder epigone Zbigniew "Grand Chessboard"
Brzezinski, who died dreaming of turning China against Russia.
In Brussels, there's increased recognition that US pressure on Iran, Russia and China is
out of geopolitical fear the entire Eurasian land mass, organized as a super-trading bloc via
the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI), the Eurasia Economic Union (EAEU), the Shanghai
Cooperation Organization (SCO), [and] the Asia Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), is
slipping away from Washington's influence.
This analysis gets closer to how the three key nodes of 21st century Eurasia integration
-- Russia, China and Iran -- have identified the key issue; both the euro and the yuan must
bypass the petrodollar, the ideal means, as the Chinese stress, to "end the oscillation
between strong and weak dollar cycles, which has been so profitable for US financial
institutions, but lethal to emerging markets."
It's also no secret among Persian Gulf traders that in the -- hopefully unlikely -- event
of a US-Saudi-Israeli war in Southwest Asia against Iran, a real scenario war-gamed by the
Pentagon would be "the destruction of oil wells in the GCC [Gulf Cooperation Council]. The
Strait of Hormuz does not have to be blocked, as destroying the oil wells would be far more
effective."
And what the potential loss of over 20% of the world's oil supply would mean is
terrifying; the implosion, with unforeseen consequences, of the quadrillion derivatives
pyramid, and consequentially [consequently] of the entire Western financial casino
superstructure.
In other words: it's not the 'threat' that perhaps, some day, Iran will have nuclear
warheads, that is actually driving Trump's concern here (despite what Israel's concerns are
about that matter), but instead, it is his concerns about Iran's missiles, which constitute the
delivery-system for any Iranian warheads: that their flight-range be short enough so that the Sauds will be
outside their range . (The main way Iran intends to respond to an invasion backed by the
US, is to attack Saudi Arabia -- Iran's leaders know that the US Government is more dependent
upon the Sauds than upon Israel -- so, Iran's top targets would be Saudi capital Riyadh, and
also the Ghawar oil field, which holds over half of Saudi oil. If US bases have been used in
the invasion, then all US bases in the Middle East are also be within the range
of Iran's missiles and therefore would also probably be targeted.)
Obama's deal with Iran had focused solely upon preventing Iran from developing nuclear
warheads -- which Obama perhaps thought (mistakenly) would dampen Israel's (and its billionaire
US financial backers') ardor for the US to conquer Iran. Israel had publicly said that their
concern was Iran's possibility to become a nuclear power like Israel became; those possible
future warheads were supposed to be the issue; but, apparently, that wasn't actually the issue
which really drove Israel. Obama seems to have thought that it was, but it wasn't, actually.
Israel, like the Sauds, want Iran conquered. Simple. The nuclear matter was more an excuse than
an explanation.
With Trump now in the White House, overwhelmingly by money from the Israel lobbies (proxies
also for the Sauds) -- and with no equivalently organized Jewish opposition to the pro -Israel
lobbies (and so in the United States, for a person to be anti-Israel is viewed as being
anti-Semitic, which is not at all true, but Israel's lies say it's true and many Americans
unfortunately believe it) -- Trump has not only the Sauds and their allies requiring him to be
against Iran and its allies, but he has also got this pressure coming from Israel: both the
Big-Oil and the Jewish lobbies drive him. Unlike Obama, who wasn't as indebted to the Jewish
lobbies, Trump needs to walk the plank for both the Sauds and Israel.
In other words: Trump aims to keep the dollar as the reserve currency by suppressing not
only China but also the two main competitors of King Saud: Iran and Russia. That's why
America's main 'enemies' now are those three countries and their respective allies.
Obama was likewise targeting them, but in a different priority-order , with Russia being the
main one (thus Obama's takeover
of Ukraine in February 2014 turning it against Russia, next door ); and that difference was
due to Obama's desire to be favorably viewed by the residents in America's biggest export and
import market, the EU, and so his bringing another member (Ukraine) into the EU (which still
hasn't yet been culminated).
Trump is instead building on his alliance with King Saud and the other GCC monarchs, a group
who can more directly cooperate to control the value of the US dollar than the EU can.
Furthermore, both conservative (including Orthodox) Jews in the United States, and also white
evangelical Protestants in the US, are strongly supportive of Israel, which likewise sides with
the Arab oil monarchs against Iran and its allies. Trump needs these people's votes.
Trump also sides with the Sauds against Canada. That's a matter which the theorists who
assert that Israel controls the US, instead of that the Sauds (allied with America's and
Israel's billionaires) control the US, ignore; they ignore whatever doesn't fit their theory.
Of course, a lot doesn't fit their theory (which equates "Jews" with "Israelis" and alleges
that "they" control the world), but people whose prejudices are that deep-seated, can't be
reached by any facts which contradict their self-defining prejudice. Since it defines
themselves, it's a part of them, and they can never deny it, because to do so would be to deny
who and what they are, and they refuse to change that. The Sauds control the dollar; Israel
does not, but Israel does the lobbying, and both the Sauds and Israel want Iran destroyed.
Trump gets this pressure not only from the billionaires but from his voters.
And, of course, Democratic Party billionaires push the narrative that Russia controls
America. It used to be the Republican Joseph R. McCarthy's accusation, that the "commies" had
"infiltrated" , especially at the State Department . So: Trump
kicked out Russia's diplomats, to satisfy those
neocons -- the neoconservatives of all Parties and persuasions, both conservative and
liberal.
To satisfy the Sauds, despite the EU, Trump has dumped the Iran deal . And he did it also to
satisfy Israel, the main US lobbyists for the Sauds. (Americans are far more sympathetic to
Jews than to Arabs; the Sauds are aware of this; Israel handles their front-office.) For Trump,
the Sauds are higher priority than Europe; even Israel (who are an expense instead of a
moneybag for the US Government) are higher priority than Europe. Both the Sauds and Israel
together are vastly higher. And the Sauds alone are higher priority for Trump than are even
Canada and Europe combined . Under Trump, anything will be done in order to keep the Sauds
and
their proxy-lobbyists (Israel) 'on America's side'.
Consequently, Trump's political base is mainly against Iran and for Israel, but Obama's was
mainly against Russia and for the EU. Obama's Democratic Party still are controlled by the same
billionaires as before; and, so, Democrats continue demonizing Russia, and are trying to make
as impossible as they can, any rapprochement with Russia -- and, therefore, they smear Trump
for anything he might try to do along those lines.
Both Obama and Trump have been aiming to extend America's aristocracy's dominance around the
world, but they employ different strategies toward that politically bipartisan
American-aristocratic objective: the US Government's global control, for the benefit of the US
aristocracy, at everyone else's expense. Obama and Trump were placed into the White House by
different groups of US billionaires, and each
nominee serves his/her respective sponsors , no public anywhere -- not even their voters'
welfare.
An analogous example is that, whereas Fox News, Forbes, National
Review, The Weekly Standard, American Spectator, Wall Street Journal, Investors Business Daily,
Breitbart News, InfoWars, Reuters, and AP , are propagandists for the Republican Party ; NPR,
CNN, NBC, CBS, ABC, Mother Jones, The Atlantic, The New Republic, New Yorker, New York
Magazine, New York Times, Washington Post, USA Today, Huffington Post, The Daily Beast , and
Salon , are propagandists for the Democratic Party ; but, they all draw their chief sponsors
from the same small list of donors who are America's billionaires, since these few people
control the top advertisers, investors, and charities, and thus control nearly all of the
nation's propaganda. The same people who control the Government control the public; but,
America isn't a one-Party dictatorship. America is, instead, a multi-Party dictatorship . And
this is how it
functions.
Trump cancelled the Iran deal because a different group of billionaires are now in control
of the White House, and of the rest of the US Government. Trump's group demonize especially
Iran; Obama's group demonize especially Russia. That's it, short. That's America's aristocratic
tug-of-war; but both sides of it are for invasion, and for war. Thus, we're in the condition of
'permanent war for permanent peace' -- to satisfy the military contractors and the billionaires
who control them. Any US President who would resist that, would invite assassination; but,
perhaps in Trump's case, impeachment, or other removal-from-office, would be likelier. In any
case, the sponsors need to be satisfied -- or else -- and Trump knows this.
Trump is doing what he thinks he has to be doing, for his own safety. He's just a figurehead
for a different faction of the US aristocracy , than Obama was. He's doing what he thinks he
needs to be doing, for his survival. Political leadership is an extremely dangerous business.
Trump is playing a slightly different game of it than Obama did, because he represents a
different faction than Obama did. These two factions of the US aristocracy are also
now battling each other for political control over Europe .
The US #1 objective is to protect US$ as the only one reserve currency that is the
foundation of US economic and military power as well as the US economic stability and
prosperity
Zionist Banking Mafia controls US$ and both US major political Parties
The USA can accomplish its goals only by destroying China, Russia, and Iran. The USA
cannot achieve its goals short of having a major military confrontation with China. Russia
is only one power that can provide/satisfy China with raw materials including oil &
gas. However, politically Trump is locked in a corner by the Democratic Party and it's
globalists allies who are trying to destroy Russia due to it's "misguided" policies in
Syria and Iran.
China understands the game and does it's best to confront America. Time is on China's
side. Very shortly China will move it's military to Iran and Syria with Turkey becoming a
serious US headache.
The Bottom Line
Trump and its policies have no chance to succeed neither inside nor outside the USA. The
USA has less than 3-5 years to maintain the present status quo.
Yeah, its the defense contractors. It has nothing to do with the zillions of cars that clog every fucking freeway in this
country every morning and every evening, 7 days a week. Its not the assholes cruising around
in monster trucks alone, just to show off their stupid trucks. It has nothing to do with the
the zillions of jets screaming through the skies carry all those fat assholes to meetings all
over the world for no reason. It has nothing to do with the billions of barrels of oil that
come to the US on tankers as long as city blocks filled constantly day and night.
Its not that, its Lockheed selling them airplanes. Thats how the sand niggers got so much
US money, Lockheed.
What a fucking conspiratorial ass-swipe this guy is.
Eric Zeusse ranks in popularity right along the Gatestone Institute - though Eric may just
be ignorant and opinionated whilst Gatestone is an affirmative disinformation propaganda
organ, both are equally annoying to read. I just came for the comments :).
+1. Eric Zuesse is part-and-parcel of the agenda that the Gatestone Institute
espouses.
Eric Zuesse's real agenda can be revealed by his position on 9/11 (see second link below).
He also blames Obama for everything (he shifts the blame away from Israel onto any other
party which could be blamed due to either direct or indirect ties)
Here is Eric Zuesse in his own words:
Notice the absence of Israel/Zionism
Historic New Harpers Article Exposes Who Controls America
Posted on December 17, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
"The fundamentalist-Sunni royal family of the Sauds have bought the highest levels of the
U.S. government in order to control U.S. foreign policies, especially the ongoing wars to
take down the governments of Iraq, Libya, Syria, and ultimately (they hope) of Russia itself,
which latter nation has allied itself instead with Shia countries. The controlling entities
behind American foreign policies since at least the late 1970s have been the Saud family and
the Sauds' subordinate Arabic aristocracies, which are the ones in Qatar (the al-Thanis),
Kuwait (the al-Sabahs), Turkey (the Turkish Erdoğans, a new royalty), and UAE (its six
royal families: the main one, the al-Nahyans in Abu Dhabi; the other five: the al-Maktoums in
Dubai, al-Qasimis in Sharjah, al-Nuaimis in Ajman, al-Mualla Ums in Quwain, and al-Sharqis in
Fujairah). Other Saudi-dominated nations -- though they're not oil-rich (more like Turkey in
this regard) -- are Pakistan and Afghanistan."
". But, perhaps, one can safely say that the alliance between the U.S. aristocracy and the
royal Sauds, is emerging as a global dictatorship, a dictatorial type of world government.
Because, clearly: those two aristocraciues have been, to a large extent, ruling the world
together, for several decades now. From their perspective, jihadists are themselves a weapon,
not merely a political nuisance.
This is a more realistic explanation of America's decades-long catastrophic failures to
make significant progress in eliminating even a single one of the numerous jihadist groups
around the world: that's how things have been planned to be. It's not just 'intelligence
errors' or 'not being tough enough.' Those 'explanations' are just cover-stories, propaganda,
PR from the aristocrats. It's skillful 'crowd control': keeping the people in their 'proper'
places."
9/11: Israel Didn't Do It; The Plan Was Co-Led by U.S. & Saud Governments
By Eric Zuesse
March 15, 2018
"9/11 was a well-planned operation, whatever it was. Substantial money paid for it, but
little if any of that came from either Iran or Israel. It all came from
fundamentalist-Sunnis.
And, if all of the money was fundamentalist-Sunni, then the only non-Sunni people who
could have been involved in planning the operation would have been George W. Bush and his
friends
The problem certainly isn't Jews nor Muslims. The problem is the aristocracy, which
controls Saudi Arabia, and the aristocracy which controls Israel, and the aristocracy which
controls America. The victim is the public, and the victimizer is the aristocracy. It's not
just 9/11."
Obama's Nazis
Posted on August 17, 2014 by Eric Zuesse.
(Zuesse's obsession with the word nazis or Nazis)
"What Obama has done and is doing in Ukraine is historic, like what Adolf Hitler did, and
like what Slobodan Milosevic* did, and like other racist fascists have done; and he, and we
Americans (if we as a nation continue accepting this), will be remembered for it, like they
and their countries were. Evil on this scale cannot be forgotten. No matter how solidly the
American "news" media hide this history, it is already solidly documented for the history
books. Obama will be remembered as the worst President in U.S. history, just as the
racist-fascist or 'nazi' leaders of other countries are."
Jewish Billionaire Finances Ukraine's Aydar SS Nazi Troops
Posted on April 7, 2015 by Eric Zuesse.
"The hyper-nationalist Ukrainian-Israeli billionaire Ihor Kolomoysky, a friend of the
Obama White House and employer of Joe Biden's son Hunter Biden, is a major donor to far-right
Ukrainian causes. He sides with the followers of Stepan Bandera, the pro-Nazi Ukrainian
leader whom Hitler ditched when Bandera made clear that he wanted Ukraine to be nazi but
independent of Germany's Nazi Party. Briefly, Bandera's #2 in command, Yaroslav Stetsko, led
nazi Ukraine, and approved the slaughter of thousands of Jews there."
"Zuesse is pushing Zionist lies. One of the links in the article goes to a Reuters story,
"Exclusive – Over 100 Russian soldiers killed in single Ukraine battle – Russian
rights activists," that claims to get its info from the "Russian presidential human rights
council."
If you want to read more lies by Zuesse, go to this "AMAZON" link to read reviews of his
book, "Iraq War: The Truth," in which Zuesse claims that GW Bush invaded Iraq to thank Jesus
for his alcohol and drug addiction cure and to neuter the International Criminal Court???
There is one comment lavishing praise on Zuesse's book about the Iraq War by David
Swanson, another Zionist tool and BS artist, who's been outed in the past by the blog,
"American Everyman."
See how fast the internet warriors are to claim the article is rubbish, and not reflecting
reality. No argument to back up their propaganda, but that's not important. Must be
depressing running the Sunday evening shift in the cubicle farm; all the boys in their neatly
pressed uniforms, clicking away to keep us safe from democracy. Well done lads, another day
keeping the evil Russians /Iranians at bay.
I actually find it interesting to see what shakes the foundations, and this article seems
to be something that they don't like, so probably worth a re-read just to get all the
nuances. Of course, the author suggesting that it is not Jews running America will get short
shrift from some commenters, but it is certainly interesting to have pointed out, finally,
that Israel is a net drain, and Saudi Arabia an enormous gain for the US. We always say to
follow the money, and whilst Israel is good profit for the MIC, Saudi Arabia IS the
petrodollar system - mustn't forget that. No oil in Saudi Arabia, no petrodollar. I wonder
how long they have left until it's all gone? That would probably be the over-riding factor in
deciding war with Iran.
I always wondered why the EU did nit make bigger efforts to replace the petrodollar with
the petroeuro but nobody wants to end up as Ghadaffi or Saddam Hussein who threatened to do
just that. Iran has also repeatedly threaten to that. Also Putin has recently said that
Russia wants to move away from the petrodollar. He must know that that is dangerous for one's
health so there must be some sort of alliance against the dollar being formed.
1. Iraq is run by a pro-Iran Shite government that tolerates the US occupation due to the
money provided. Before the USA attacks Iran, it should remove all its 10,000 troops and
10,000 civilians and close its massive embassy there and write that country off. Otherwise,
we'll have thousands of American POWs. Meanwhile, the Kurds will get crushed as the Turks and
Iraqis use the chaos to destroy them.
2. The oil-rich British puppet state of Kuwait is hated by all Iraqis and Iranians. If the
USA attacks Iran, one should expect Iranian and maybe Iraqi units crossing the border, while
Kuwait's army flees as expected. The USA keeps an army brigade there, but that may not be
enough to fend off an invasion, even with air superiority.
3. In past wars, civilian oil tankers did not sail through the straits. The insurers
(mostly Lloyds of London) and others announced they would not cover losses, and unionize ship
crews refused to enter the war zone. So even if the USA keeps the straits open, all that oil
will not flow forth.
4. Iran has a fortified island in the Gulf whose guns cannot be silenced with just air
power. A major amphibious landing is required to clear that island, and it will be bloody.
Note the ship channels in the map. Supertankers are huge, so while the Straits of Hormuz are
large, these big ships can only pass thru these two narrow channels, which are easily
blocked. Iran could park its own tankers in these channels to block them and hope the USA
foolishly sinks them, thus really blocking the entire channel.
These four issues are of more importance than air battles over Iran.
"... "As we go more towards (the fourth quarter) that's when we really see the risk of prices going well into the 80s and potentially even into the 90s but very critical is how much Iranian production we lose," ..."
"... "A lot of people think China can just buy all of the Iranian oil but they came out and said: 'Yes, we may not reduce but we are not going to increase our intake either.' So, you could see a significant crunch in terms of lost supplies into the market and then that obviously means higher prices," ..."
Looming US sanctions against Iran will likely hit Tehran's oil sales abroad, and
it could lead to a price spike in oil contracts. The first round of renewed US sanctions will
take effect on Tuesday with the harshest sanctions, potentially targeting Iran's oil industry,
expected to return in early November.
"As we go more towards (the fourth quarter) that's when we really see the risk of prices
going well into the 80s and potentially even into the 90s but very critical is how much Iranian
production we lose," Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at Energy Aspects,
told CNBC Monday.
Oil was trading at $74 per barrel of Brent benchmark, while the US West Texas Intermediate
stood at $69.77 on Monday.
"A lot of people think China can just buy all of the Iranian oil but they came out and
said: 'Yes, we may not reduce but we are not going to increase our intake either.' So, you
could see a significant crunch in terms of lost supplies into the market and then that
obviously means higher prices," the analyst added.
The new US sanctions will likely slash oil supply. The last time Iran was sanctioned, it
lost half of its exports, which have now returned to 2.4 million barrels per day. Many analysts
have said that this time, the negative impact on Iranian oil trade will be less significant,
and Iran will lose only half of the previous loss.
Meanwhile, other major producers are ramping up their output. This July, OPEC, Russia and
other significant players agreed to gradually raise output for fear of supply deficit on the
market. OPEC+ countries will increase production by 1 million barrels per day, of which 200,000
bpd will be provided by Russia.
Earlier estimates of OPEC have now changed, and there is no increase from June. Probably, a
slight decrease from SA. From OPEC sources, not Platts. I think they would start increasing
if Iran drops, but not much otherwise. I think Sauds and Kuwait joint venture is set up for
that potential.
Changing the way I gage things, into a much simpler format. Now, I look at world inventory
drops, and look at current increases from OPEC and US. Neither will change much, so inventory
drops should continue. Opec needs to come up with a lot more, or it will look damn scary in
2019. With pipeline constraints, Canada is pretty much out of the picture for further
increases this year, and not much, elsewhere.
Yes the outlook for OPEC's July production is looking more flat now. This is a strange
situation because Platts is one of OPEC secondary sources and so I assume that they see all
the numbers
Thank you. This news confirms that world production is stagnating. Possibly very close to the
decline. We will have to be attentive to the inventories. It will be the first place that the
nations get hold of in order to supply themselves with oil.
The US
Congress has revived
the so-called "NOPEC" bill
for countering OPEC and OPEC+.
Officially called the "
No
Oil Producing and Exporting Cartels Act
",
NOPEC is the definition of so-called
"lawfare" because it enables the US to extra-territorially impose its domestic legislation on
others by giving the government the right to sue OPEC and OPEC+ countries like Russia because of
their coordinated efforts to control oil prices.
Lawsuits, however, are
unenforceable
, which is why the targeted states'
refusal to abide by the US courts' likely predetermined judgement against them will probably be
used to trigger sanctions under the worst-case scenario, with this chain of events being catalyzed
in order to achieve several strategic objectives.
The first is that the US wants to break up the
Russian-Saudi
axis
that forms the core of OPEC+, which leads to the second goal of then unravelling the
entire OPEC structure and heralding in the free market liberalization of the global energy
industry.
This is decisively to the US' advantage as it seeks to become an energy-exporting superpower,
but it must neutralize its competition as much as possible before this happens, ergo the
declaration of economic-hybrid war through NOPEC. How it would work in practice is that the US
could threaten primary sanctions against the state companies involved in implementing OPEC and
OPEC+ agreements, after which these could then be selectively expanded to secondary sanctions
against other parties who continue to do business with them.
The purpose behind this approach is to intimidate the US' European vassals into
complying with its demands so as to make as much of the continent as possible a captive market of
America's energy exporters, which explains why Trump also wants to
scrap
LNG export licenses to the EU
.
If successful, this could further erode Europe's shrinking strategic independence and also
inflict long-term economic damage on the US' energy rivals that could then be exploited for
political purposes.
At the same time, America's recently unveiled "
Power
Africa
" initiative to
invest $175 billion
in gas projects
there could eventually see US companies in the emerging energy frontiers
of
Tanzania
,
Mozambique
,
and elsewhere become important suppliers to their country's Chinese rival, which could make
Beijing's access to energy even more dependent on American goodwill than ever before.
If looked at as the opening salvo of a global energy war being waged in parallel with the
trade
one
as opposed to being dismissed as the populist piece of legislation that it's being
portrayed as by the media,
NOPEC can be seen as the strategic superweapon that it
actually is,
with its ultimate effectiveness being dependent of course on whether it's
properly wielded by American decision makers.
It's too earlier to call it a game-changer because it hasn't even been promulgated
yet, but in the event that it ever is, then it might go down in history as the most impactful
energy-related development since OPEC, LNG, and fracking.
No way US can manipulate oil trade at this
point without hurting themselves or helping
their "enemies". Cause and effect, just think
it through.
The world needs energy, Russia has
energy...and a real surplus for sale. The US
is a net energy consumer with no surplus.
China needs energy in a big way. Trying to
cut off Russian and Iranian oil and trying to
blow up the Chinese economy are acts of war.
The West realizes there is no way they can
survive in their current status of moar with
that kind of competition out there. The
BRICST now constitute $17 trillion in
combined GDP. They have the energy sources
(Russia and Iran), they have the
manufacturing base (China), they have the
agricultural base (Russia, Brazil, South
Africa), and they have plenty of
customers.....even outside the BRICST union.
That is a formidable competitive force to
face when you are an economy structured on
infinite growth on a finite planet......that
you control less and less of each year.
War with Iran? I can not imagine a more foolish thing to do.
Of course they will rally with their own Countrymen, everyone hates the USA.
The World economy will be in a complete tailspin, the US will likely finally go broke over it
and chances are pretty good that Israel will be flattened and paved [one positive thing].
You fight Iran you fight China, you don't go messing with their road. Likely not bombs and
guns either most likely money, something America has not much of.
The faster America dumps this crazy fascination with the Jews the faster it will get it's
act together and become a Country again.
What can that possibly mean? We can bomb Iran back into the Stone Age, but Iran does not
need a modern economy or military to close Hormuz. All they need do is fire a few land-based
artillery and anti-ship missiles at a defenseless freighter or tanker. The insurance
companies would do the rest–remove all commercial shipping from the Persian and Oman
Gulf regions. That eliminates 20% of the World's oil supply, and it would collapse the
World's economy, including our own.
Asymmetric warfare would engulf the entire Middle East, including Israel, with its large
native Arab population and its occupation of large Arab populations in Gaza and the West
Bank.
Iran has the upper hand here. We need to be very careful.
Let's face it-when we impose sanctions on Iran, we are already at war with them. Just like we
are already at war with Russia. Imbeciles, all who run this country.
Oil is the vital strategic Western interest in the Persian Gulf. Yet a war with Iran
would imperil, not secure, that interest.
The American Empire's only strategic three letter word interest in the Middle East is O --
I –L.
The WASP/JEW ruling class of the American Empire and the Jew-controlled Neo-Conservative
faction in the Republican Party wants to elevate the three letter word J -- E –W to
paramount importance in the Middle East.
OIL and only OIL should guide the policy making considerations of the American Empire in
the Middle East.
"... "They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," ..."
"... "If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are or not," ..."
"... "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international security." ..."
"... "behaves like a normal country." ..."
"... "require enormous change" ..."
"... "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its revenue from crude oil sales." ..."
"... "the mother of all wars." ..."
"... "confronting possible threats." ..."
"... "The hours of our negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this [negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" ..."
Closing the Strait of Hormuz would be the biggest mistake Iran has ever made, the US
president's national security advisor John Bolton said. He urged Tehran to sit down for talks
on its nuclear and missile programs with the US. Dismissing Tehran's threats to block the
strait if its oil exports are stopped, Bolton on Monday said the Iranians were
"bluffing." He then quickly changed his tone saying that Iran should actually engage in a dialog with the US instead of
issuing threats.
"They could take up the president's offer to negotiate with them, to give up their
ballistic missile and nuclear weapons programs fully and really verifiably not under the
onerous terms of the Iran nuclear deal, which really are not satisfactory," Bolton told
Fox News, referring to the US President Donald Trump's demands to "re-negotiate" the
2015 Iranian nuclear deal, also known as the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA).
"If Iran were really serious they'd come to the table. We'll find out whether they are
or not," Bolton added. The White House national security advisor's remarks came less than
a day before the first round of renewed US sanctions take effect on Tuesday after midnight US
Eastern time. The harshest restrictions are expected to be re-imposed by early November.
Washington decided to reinstate the penalties following Trump's decision to unilaterally
withdraw from the JCPOA in May. Shortly after exiting the agreement, the US penned a 12-point
ultimatum to Iran, which, among other things, demanded that Tehran end its ballistic missile
program, a condition it has repeatedly rejected. The move was then widely condemned by the EU
and other signatories of the deal, including Russia and China, which still consider the
agreement to be an effective means of non-proliferation and have vowed to keep their part of
the deal.
Earlier on Monday, the EU said that starting August, it is enforcing its so-called Blocking
Statute aimed at protecting the European companies doing business in Iran from the
extraterritorial effects of US sanctions. The bloc said that maintaining the nuclear deal with
Iran is a "matter of respecting international agreements and a matter of international
security."
Meanwhile, the US Secretary of State Mike Pompeo vowed to "rigorously" enforce the
sanctions on Iran until it "behaves like a normal country." He added that it would
"require enormous change" on Iran's part for the US to review its increasingly hostile
approach to Tehran.
In July, Brian Hook, the US State Department's director of policy planning, said that
Washington's goal is to "increase pressure on the Iranian regime by reducing to zero its
revenue from crude oil sales."
Iranian leaders repeatedly threatened to shut down the Strait of Hormuz and stop the Persian
Gulf oil exports if its own oil exports are blocked. Iranian President Hassan Rouhani also
cautioned Washington against launching a war against Tehran by saying that it would be "the
mother of all wars." Iran's Revolutionary Guards have recently admitted that its warships
took part in a naval exercise in the Persian Gulf to hone skills in "confronting possible
threats."
Earlier, the Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif has slammed Donald Trump's recent proposal
to enter into talks with Iran by calling it nothing but a PR stunt. "The hours of our
negotiations with America were perhaps unprecedented in history; then Trump signs something and
say all [those negotiations] are void; can you negotiate with this person? Is this
[negotiations offer] anything but a publicity stunt?" he said.
The Trump administration has reportedly requested a meeting with
Rouhani eight times, but the Iranian side refused to participate.
As Iran is preparing for the first wave of returning US sanctions that could largely hamper
its foreign trade, the country's banks appear to have already created a mechanism for imports
of essential goods from
Russia .
Bank Saderat Iran (BSI) announced in a statement on Sunday that it had sealed a deal with
the Moscow offshoot of Bank Melli Iran (BMI) over a re-financing scheme that envisaged
providing €10 million to fund imports of essential commodities, medicines, medical
equipment and the raw materials for industrial units.
New restrictions aim to protect currency from further falls
With US sanctions against Iran officially going back into place on August 6, the Iranian
government is scrambling to take some last minute measures to shore up their economy, and
particularly their currency, before the sanctions start to hit.
Iran wants to make sure that what foreign currency does flow overseas is strictly
allocated to a handful of important industries. The fall of prices for the rial has been
heavy related to the surge in the price of gold, as economic uncertainty has many Iranians
running to precious metals, and gold imports surged in recent weeks.
US sanctions aim to limit, if not totally eliminate, Iran's access to foreign markets.
That also has Iran trying to make some last-minute purchases while they know they still can.
Five new planes were purchased from ATR for the state airline. It's far short of the new
fleet of airliners Iran initially sought, but the best they can do with the US blocking
Boeing and Airbus from fulfilling contracts.
Since the August 6 date has been known for months, it's likely much of the market reaction
to the sanctions is already factored in to Iran's currency pricing. China's refusal to comply
with US sanctions, likewise, is a sign that Iran won't be totally cutoff from world markets.
Still, it will take awhile before the full extent of the US attempt, and its effectiveness,
is known.
"... "As we go more towards (the fourth quarter) that's when we really see the risk of prices going well into the 80s and potentially even into the 90s but very critical is how much Iranian production we lose," ..."
"... "A lot of people think China can just buy all of the Iranian oil but they came out and said: 'Yes, we may not reduce but we are not going to increase our intake either.' So, you could see a significant crunch in terms of lost supplies into the market and then that obviously means higher prices," ..."
"... For more stories on economy & finance visit RT's business section ..."
"As we go more towards (the fourth quarter) that's when we really see the risk of prices
going well into the 80s and potentially even into the 90s but very critical is how much Iranian
production we lose," Amrita Sen, chief oil analyst at Energy Aspects,
told CNBC Monday.
Oil was trading at $74 per barrel of Brent benchmark, while the US West Texas Intermediate
stood at $69.77 on Monday.
"A lot of people think China can just buy all of the Iranian oil but they came out and
said: 'Yes, we may not reduce but we are not going to increase our intake either.' So, you
could see a significant crunch in terms of lost supplies into the market and then that
obviously means higher prices," the analyst added.
The new US sanctions will likely slash oil supply. The last time Iran was sanctioned, it
lost half of its exports, which have now returned to 2.4 million barrels per day. Many analysts
have said that this time, the negative impact on Iranian oil trade will be less significant,
and Iran will lose only half of the previous loss.
Meanwhile, other major producers are ramping up their output. This July, OPEC, Russia and
other significant players agreed to gradually raise output for fear of supply deficit on the
market. OPEC+ countries will increase production by 1 million barrels per day, of which 200,000
bpd will be provided by Russia.
The US Congress has revived the so-called "NOPEC" bill for countering OPEC and OPEC+.
Officially called the " No Oil Producing and
Exporting Cartels Act ", NOPEC is the definition of so-called "lawfare" because it enables
the US to extra-territorially impose its domestic legislation on others by giving the
government the right to sue OPEC and OPEC+ countries like Russia because of their coordinated
efforts to control oil prices.
Lawsuits, however, are unenforceable , which is why the targeted states' refusal to abide by
the US courts' likely predetermined judgement against them will probably be used to trigger
sanctions under the worst-case scenario, with this chain of events being catalyzed in order to
achieve several strategic objectives.
The first is that the US wants to break up the Russian-Saudi axis that
forms the core of OPEC+, which leads to the second goal of then unravelling the entire OPEC
structure and heralding in the free market liberalization of the global energy industry.
This is decisively to the US' advantage as it seeks to become an energy-exporting
superpower, but it must neutralize its competition as much as possible before this happens,
ergo the declaration of economic-hybrid war through NOPEC. How it would work in practice is
that the US could threaten primary sanctions against the state companies involved in
implementing OPEC and OPEC+ agreements, after which these could then be selectively expanded to
secondary sanctions against other parties who continue to do business with them.
The purpose behind this approach is to intimidate the US' European vassals into complying
with its demands so as to make as much of the continent as possible a captive market of
America's energy exporters, which explains why Trump also wants to scrap LNG export licenses to the EU .
If successful, this could further erode Europe's shrinking strategic independence and also
inflict long-term economic damage on the US' energy rivals that could then be exploited for
political purposes. At the same time, America's recently unveiled " Power Africa " initiative to invest $175 billion in gas projects there
could eventually see US companies in the emerging energy frontiers of Tanzania
,
Mozambique , and elsewhere become important suppliers to their country's Chinese rival,
which could make Beijing's access to energy even more dependent on American goodwill than ever
before.
If looked at as the opening salvo of a global energy war being waged in parallel with the
trade
one as opposed to being dismissed as the populist piece of legislation that it's being
portrayed as by the media, NOPEC can be seen as the strategic superweapon that it actually is,
with its ultimate effectiveness being dependent of course on whether it's properly wielded by
American decision makers.
It's too earlier to call it a game-changer because it hasn't even been promulgated yet, but
in the event that it ever is, then it might go down in history as the most impactful
energy-related development since OPEC, LNG, and fracking.
Russia's September oil production set for post-Soviet record high
US sanctions against Iran could give oil a boost to $100 amid dramatic shortfall in supplies
Oil surges to 4-year high as investors see no sign of production rise amid Iran sanctions
FILE PHOTO. © Lucy Nicholson / Reuters The tax and trade policies of Donald Trump are, in fact, what have contributed to the surge in oil prices, a US economics professor told RT, adding that the US President's tough words to OPEC are a political stunt. On Thursday, Trump accused OPEC's Middle East producers of "pushing for higher and higher oil prices" and demanded "they stop it," adding that the US is "protecting those countries." Oil prices showed a mixed reaction to Trump's words. The Brent benchmark fell 43 cents to $78.97 per barrel, while the US Texas Intermediate grew by 9 cents to $71.21.
Trump demands OPEC lower oil prices, claims US 'protects' Middle East countries
FILE PHOTO: Iranian
Parliament © Islamic Consultative Assembly News Agency / AFP In a rare statement Iran's
Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei has lashed out at the country's authorities, accusing
them of poorly handling internal issues. The mismanagement is even worse than US sanctions, he
said. "It is not that the sanctions do not play a role; but a major part of the situation
is the result of [government's own] actions," Khamenei said, according to Irna, as he was
addressing thousands of
Iranians in Tehran on Monday.
Rouhani blasts
Trump's 'psychological warfare' as Iran braces for US sanctions
© China
Stringer Network / Reuters Looming US sanctions against Iran will likely hit Tehran's oil sales
abroad, and it could lead to a price spike in oil contracts. The first round of renewed US
sanctions will take effect on Tuesday with the harshest sanctions, potentially targeting Iran's
oil industry, expected to return in early November.
Is this the end
of ultra cheap gasoline in Venezuela?