|News||Casino Capitalism||Recommended Links||Energy Bookshelf||Oil glut fallacy||Hubbert peak theory||Lump of energy problem|
|Media disinformation about Plato oil and Hubert peak||Great condensate con||Energy returned on energy invested (ERoEI)||A note of ERoEI decline||Paper oil, Minsky finacial instability hypothesis and casino capitalism||Secular Stagnation||Energy disinformation agency and friends|
|Russia oil production||Deflation of the USA shale oil bubble||MSM propagated myth about Saudis defending this market share||Iran return to western oil markets fearmongering||Big Fukushima Debate||The fiasco of suburbia|
|Energy Geopolitics||USA-Russia Gas War||Bakken Reality Check||Junk bond bubble||on Nov 4||US military energy consumption|
|All wars are bankers wars||Fiat money, gold and petrodollar||How Oil Exporters Reach Financial Collapse||Financial Quotes||Financial Humor||Etc|
Plato Oil is the moment in time when, on a global scale, the maximum rate of oil production (per year) is reached. The moment after which oil production, by nature, must decline at the same price level and the same volume can only be achieved only at higher price level. Since Earth is a closed system, next to this production event, there must be an equal demand event: Peak Oil Consumption. As higher price level tent to put economy in recession Peak oil consumption is achievable only on relative low (say below $100 per ballel price levels).
Peak can be achieved at different time for each country on the earth that produces oil. Some some of which are already beyond peak oil production That leads to the assumption the world as a whole soon reaches if not reached the plato oil production and from this point absolute number can only slowly decline. On consumption side while some countries like China and Arab countries (as well as other countries with rapidly growing population) still experience significant growth in oil consumption, some countries are already well beyond Peak Oil Consumption by now. That's probably true for several European countries with very low population growth.
See also Hubbert peak theory
An extensive new scientific analysis published in Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews: Energy & Environment says that proved conventional oil reserves as detailed in industry sources are likely "overstated" by half.
According to standard sources like the Oil & Gas Journal, BP's Annual Statistical Review of World Energy, and the US Energy Information Administration, the world contains 1.7 trillion barrels of proved conventional reserves.
However, according to the new study by Professor Michael Jefferson of the ESCP Europe Business School, a former chief economist at oil major Royal Dutch/Shell Group, this official figure which has helped justify massive investments in new exploration and development, is almost double the real size of world reserves.
Wiley Interdisciplinary Reviews (WIRES) is a series of high-quality peer-reviewed publications which runs authoritative reviews of the literature across relevant academic disciplines.
According to Professor Michael Jefferson, who spent nearly 20 years at Shell in various senior roles from head of planning in Europe to director of oil supply and trading, "the five major Middle East oil exporters altered the basis of their definition of 'proved' conventional oil reserves from a 90 percent probability down to a 50 percent probability from 1984. The result has been an apparent (but not real) increase in their 'proved' conventional oil reserves of some 435 billion barrels."
Global reserves have been further inflated, he wrote in his study, by adding reserve figures from Venezuelan heavy oil and Canadian tar sands – despite the fact that they are "more difficult and costly to extract" and generally of "poorer quality" than conventional oil. This has brought up global reserve estimates by a further 440 billion barrels.
Jefferson's conclusion is stark: "Put bluntly, the standard claim that the world has proved conventional oil reserves of nearly 1.7 trillion barrels is overstated by about 875 billion barrels. Thus, despite the fall in crude oil prices from a new peak in June, 2014, after that of July, 2008, the 'peak oil' issue remains with us."
The study referred to here is: Overview A global energy assessment,
See also: Where did all the oil go? The peak is back
May 18, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter AU 1 , May 18, 2019 2:15:40 AM | linkWithout the oil, Trump has lost. Pepe Escobar is starting to get the picture
"If President Trump had ever read Mackinder -- and there's no evidence he did -- one might assume that he's aiming at a new anti-Eurasia integration pivot centered on the Persian Gulf. And energy would be at the heart of the pivot.
If Washington were able to control everything, including "Big Prize" Iran, it would be able to dominate all Asian economies, especially China. Trump even said were that to happen, "decisions on the GNP of China will be made in Washington."...
...Arguably the key (invisible) takeaway of the meetings this week between Foreign Ministers Sergey Lavrov and Wang Yi, and then between Lavrov and Pompeo, is that Moscow made it quite clear that Iran will be protected by Russia in the event of an American showdown. Pompeo's body language showed how rattled he was.
What rattled Pomp: "Any use of nuclear weapons against Russia or its allies, be it small-scale, medium-scale or any other scale, will be treated as a nuclear attack on our country. The response will be instant and with all the relevant consequences,"
Trump may not have read Mackinder but Kissinger sure would have.
May 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
says: 05/15/2019 at 9:51 amGlobal fossil fuel subsidies hit record $5.2 trillion –
The Free Market in action.
May 15, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Nick Cunningham of Oilprice.com,
Global energy investment "stabilised" at just over $1.8 trillion in 2018, ending three years of declines.
Higher spending on oil, natural gas and coal was offset by declines in fossil fuel-based electricity generation and even a dip in renewable energy spending. China was the largest market for energy investment, even as the U.S. closed the gap.
After the 2014-2016 oil market bust, spending on oil and gas plunged, and only started to tick up last year. But the oil industry is not returning to its old spending ways. New investment is increasingly concentrated in short-cycle projects, namely, U.S. shale, "partly reflecting investor preferences for better managing capital at risk amid uncertainties over the future direction of the energy system," the IEA wrote in its report.
Upstream spending rose by a modest 4 percent, which only partially repairs the savage cuts following the 2014 bust, which saw upstream spending fall by about 30 percent. However, the IEA said that 2019 could be a bit of a turning point, with a "new wave of conventional projects" in the works.
Despite the increase in spending on new oil projects, "today's investment trends are misaligned with where the world appears to be heading," the IEA said. "Notably, approvals of new conventional oil and gas projects fall short of what would be needed to meet continued robust demand growth."
... ... ...
The good news is that costs continue to fall. Solar PV has seen costs decline by 75 percent since 2010, and onshore wind and battery storage costs are down by 20 percent and 50 percent, respectively. As such, a dollar spent on renewables buys a lot more energy than it used to, so flat investment is not entirely negative. And in a growing number of places, solar and wind are the cheapest option for power generation – increasingly cheaper than existing coal plants .
Geographically, investment [in solar and wind] is concentrated in rich countries. Roughly 90 percent of total energy investment – both for fossil fuels and for renewable energy – was funneled into high- and upper-middle income regions. Rich countries alone accounted for 40 percent of total energy investment, despite only making up 15 percent of the global population.
... ... ...
peakpeat , 1 hour ago linkEvil Liberals , 1 hour ago link
Nothing, no EV's, solar, wind, coal or uranium is going to help. No tight shale, Arctic or North Slope oil is going to lift this sinking ship. There are no more new oil reserves to find and all the old fields are in a state of desperate high-tech extraction. We took all the easy stuff, Bakken and Permian are the last ditch effort. That's why all the playas have negative cash flow. That's why we are fecked.peakpeat , 59 minutes ago link
Saudi Ghawar Field, admitted in declineEvil Liberals , 2 hours ago link
That was the last great elephant field. The largest resource ever discovered on the planet. Finally in decline. So goes Saudi Arabia. So goes OPEC. So goes mankind.RDouglas , 2 hours ago link
Should have been building Nuclear Plants the last 20 years - that is Clean Energy.
Just don't build near the shore along the Ring of Fire or along Earthquake Fault Lines.peakpeat , 57 minutes ago link
Cheap crude was a 100 year party, the hangover has already begun. Fracked oil, tar sands, were a rescue remedy, funded by low interest rates, (debt). The massive population boom of the last century and a half directly coordinates with increasing oil production. If you aren't preparing yourself and your children for energy-down/population-down, you are insuring that YOUR decedents won't be among the 100 million or so people scratching out a living in North America in 100 years.SilverSphinx , 5 hours ago link
Before 1850 and the discovery of oil and coal, there were 1 billion people on the planet. Now there are 7 billion. 6 billion will die as the oil economy and oil infrastructure grinds to a halt. Better make you peace. Your plans are too late.Solarstone , 3 hours ago link
Nuclear power generation is still King.
The use of nuclear power has resumed since the Fukushima disaster.
All the countries that swore off of nuclear power have returned to it and restarted their nuclear power plants and resumed construction on new plants.-- ALIEN -- , 3 hours ago link
Let's hope you are right. It's the only viable option to oiliSage , 2 hours ago link
2 words; Peak Uranium
"...Declining uranium production will make it impossible to obtain a significant increase in electrical power from nuclear plants in the coming decades."
"...A similar fate was encountered by another idea that involved "breeding" a nuclear fuel from a naturally existing element -- thorium. The concept involved transforming the 232 isotope of thorium into the fissile 233 isotope of uranium, which then could be used as fuel for a nuclear reactor (or for nuclear warheads). The idea was discussed at length during the heydays of the nuclear industry, andit is still discussed today; but so far, nothing has come out of it and the nuclear industry is still based on mineral uranium as fuel..."
https://www.resilience.org/stories/2017-01-18/peak-uranium-the-uncertain-future-of-nuclear-energy/Cloud9.5 , 8 hours ago link
There is a 1,000 years worth of uranium out west. I don't like the waste, used rods are hot for a long long time.peakpeat , 1 hour ago link
Mexican oil production is in decline. North Sea production is in decline. Alaskan production is in decline. There is a trend here.JimmyJones , 8 hours ago link
OPEC was the necessary cartel that helped to stabilize production and prices.
Now all of it including Saudi Arabia, Iran and the rest, all 14 nations past and present, is defunct. Output has been in decline since Nov. 2016. See IEA data or peakoilbarrel for a summaryafronaut , 8 hours ago link
US has enough coal to power us for over 200 years.Ignorance is bliss , 8 hours ago link
Not to mention natural gasBangDingOw , 7 hours ago link
Cool..How do I fill my BMW up with coal? How about that just in time delivery. Anyone ever try to power a semi-truck with coal? Eactly what do we pave the road ways with? Coal?
Yeesh. All wrong. Most important, slick Willie gave us our china trade problems, and then demand for raw commods in china soared. In response, his geniuses gave us the cfma, which was passed to let the JPMs of the world naked short commodities till the cows came home. However, china demand growth was so far in excess of supply growth that several of the WS firms saw the writing on the wall and went long. Thus the pols amazement when finding out v=bear stearns was actually long oil. Finally prices got high enough that supply growth started overtaking demand growth. We have been going down , on average, since. china demand late 90s oil wa 3Mbpd, currently 13Mbpd
May 13, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Boomer II x Ignored says: 05/12/2019 at 9:09 pmAs many of you, I don't expect business as usual to continue. We get projections based on past trends, but with oil being finite and the globe already showing the effects of climate change, I think we are in for a tumultuous future.
Samuelson points out how flawed economists are.
Apr 25, 2019 | off-guardian.org
BigB says Apr, 24, 2019Overproduction of capital – seeking a high, no risk return – is a certainty. Especially with continuing QE. There is no end game now. That capital will find its way into derivative casino capital gambling – of which only 2% ends up as a commodity changing hands. The rest is hidden toxic exposure making the banking system untenable. Other outlets include mergers and acquisitions (toward oligopolies of power); leveraged buyouts; and asset stripping destroying any last real productive capacity for short term 'Global Death Protocol' (GDP returns – one of the sensible points Monbiot made it is no substitute Human Development Index). Pension fund raiding: there is thought to be a $30 tn black hole already – now they want to release $90tn 'locked assets' without even the slightest chance of ever getting an ROI. Overproduced capital will also find its way in to the tech bubble – funding our AI-redundancy. Oil-rent, commodity-rent, bio-pharma-rent, agi-rent, and tech-rent seems to be a major part of the capitalist death throes. But you cannot rent a host humanity by making them redundant. Now they also want to rent nature back to us. Add in spiralling exponential debt; EROI and a slow-burn falling net-energy crisis; and authoritarian states merging with bureaucratised corporate capital down to the local infrastructure level its humanity versus corporate state insanity.
And the bleated hope of sheep is that a nativist leader – like Jeremy Corbyn – will come along and save us. Reality is going to have to hit the majoritarian massif really hard in the face to wake people up to the systemic fragility of globalised capitalism. Unfortunately, its internecine internal contradictions may prove fatal before that. My hope is that something better may rise from the ashes: a humanist society contra all the fatal contradictions of relentless coercive capital accumulation. Given the level of political and ecological acumen we encounter on a daily basis I'm presently not too optimistic. But that can change, rapidly. Consciousness is not timebound or limited by causality (see below). Now! would be a good time for a consciousness evolutionary explosion a Big Bang of a new reality. Depending on what the Big Bang of the old leaves intact! There will be a solution. It might not be optimal though. I presently can't see any smooth transition taking place. Carpe deum and enjoy the ride over the ever quickening rapids of the net energy falls!
Apr 23, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
1969wasgood , 38 minutes ago linkdeFLorable hillbilly , 1 hour ago link
What it really means. 42 more years, and it's gone. 1.531 trillion bbls divided by a no grow of 100 million bbls consumption a day, simple math. And we rant about finding another 50 billion bbls. That only takes the total of the recoverable oil to 1.581 trillion bbls.
Oil will leave us before we leave oil. We are heading for mass starvation. There are no electric fire engines, there are no electric ambulances, there are no electric farm machinery, there are no electric military machinery, there are no electric boats or ships or ferries, there are no electric airplanes, fighter jets, helicopters, there are 1.4 billion cars in the world of which 3 million are electric, if Tesla quadruples production it couldn't replace the gas and diesel powered vehicles in 1200 years, and the Chinese electrics are crap.Yen Cross , 1 hour ago link
This map is complete BS. No one, especially some spy agency, knows how much of anything is underground.
The only known fact is current production. "Known Reserves" is a hopelessly politicized exercise in conjecture, primarily for the purpose of securitizing international loans at favorable rates.Minamoto , 1 hour ago link
These numbers are complete horse-****.
U.S. Crude Oil, Natural Gas, and Natural Gas Proved Reserves, Year-end 2017
Proved reserves of crude oil in the United States increased 19.5% (6.4 billion barrels) to 39.2 billion barrels at Year-End 2017, setting a new U.S. record for crude oil proved reserves. The previous record was 39.0 billion barrels set in 1970.
USGS Announces Largest Oil And Gas Deposit Ever Assessed In U.S. : The Two-Way : NPR
The USGS says all 20 billion barrels of oil are "technically recoverable," meaning the oil could be brought to the surface "using currently available technology and industry practices."
Between the corrupt politicians, and oil execs. these morons can't even concoct a decent lie anymore.bismillah , 1 hour ago link
Those numbers are somewhat laughable... Venezuela's gigantic reserves require lots of processing to get the oil sands into proper crude.
In addition, Russia's total reserves are underestimated as most of Russia's territory has not been geologically explored.
Most oil reserve claims with OPEC countries are hugely exaggerated.
And reserve claims by others are faked higher than they really are, too.
Apr 12, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Graywulffe x Ignored says: 04/10/2019 at 5:55 pmNice summary, Ron. Brought to mind the old Oil Drum days. Thanks for taking the time to provide this information. Given the admittedly not high-confidence prognostications in Saudi/world oil production, it looks to me like the global economy may be in for at least one serious oil shock in the 2020s.
Yet another titanic wave on the Peak Oil ocean.
Apr 12, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Carlos Diaz : 04/10/2019 at 1:44 pmIt's "coup de grâce."Adam Ash : 04/10/2019 at 5:27 pm
A great article that offers a more realistic view of the very old giant oil fields. It is very obvious that what they are doing to maintain production will result in a more rapid decline in the future. When that happens KSA will be in a lot of hurt, and the world will have an abrupt awakening.So my simple math says: 256 URR was to last 53 years, 74 URR at the same production rate will last 15 years. Seneca with a vengeance! Rite? EOLAWKI here we come!
add to that the usual woes of increasing internal oil consumption (3 mbd and rising fast) and the need to try and build their way out of their demise (requiring more oil and money), and the usual predictions of the 'export land model' look very reasonable, and disastrous for the House of Saud. There will be a tapered end, but the potential for acute instability in production and the in political and social environments of the country within the next decade is real.
Apr 12, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Karen Fremerman : 04/10/2019 at 12:17 pmAt some point the Seneca Cliff will be hit. If they are doing all this advanced recovery to to keep flow rates up then fields will probably hit a wall and crash rather than slow decline. Is my thinking correct on that? KarenHugo : 04/11/2019 at 2:20 amDennisSchinzy : 04/11/2019 at 3:42 am
Oil consumption has been increasing in all sectors and the growing global economy will require more oil in industry. You seem to think oil is just used in transportation. NOT true.
Imagine oil production peaked today. In order for aviation to continue to grow, along with other industries that use oil. How many of the 98 million vehicles sold this year would need to be electric cars? How many electric motorcycles would have to be sold?
Knowing these answers gives us a real understanding of what needs to happen.Iron Mike : 04/11/2019 at 6:05 am
The Seneca cliff for World output requires heroic assumptions which are unlikely to be true in practice.
I strongly disagree with that assessment. I believe the probability of a Seneca cliff is increasing. I think oil extraction is an economic phenomena, not a geological phenomena. During economic expansion, a positive feedback loop is in place: oil extraction produces economic growth which encourages investment in oil extraction producing more economic growth. Once peak oil occurs, I anticipate that this feedback loop will go into reverse: decreased oil production will produce economic contraction which will discourage investment in oil extraction reducing extraction rates leading to economic collapse.
Without investment the IEA estimates that production would fall by 50% in 2025 and by 80% in 2040.
I actually think economic collapse is a great opportunity to introduce a new economic system. The one we have is not only unfair, it encourages environmental devastation.
David Graebner asks rhetorically how a theory such as neoclassic economics based on false hypotheses perdures. His answer is that you teach the biggest lies in the first year. That's why false preconceptions about the economy are so common. I think neoclassical economics chose the wrong mathematical tool to analyse the economy, they chose optimisation. I don't see anything optimal in the economy, I think differential systems would be a much more appropriate mathematical tool with which to analyse the economy, keeping track of money flows.
Our assessment of how the oil cycle will play out can be found here: https://www.tse-fr.eu/publications/oil-cycle-dynamics-and-future-oil-price-scenarios .Hi Ron,Fred Magyar : 04/11/2019 at 8:30 am
I assume a Seneca cliff scenario would imply rapid economic collapse, as a result i think there will be war over resources. Between which countries i don't know, but i assume U.S will go to war with Russia and or China, via direct war or proxy wars in regions were the countries national security depends on specific resources. So the middle east would as usual be a key area of conflict.
I believe a Seneca cliff scenario would be a catastrophic one hence the reaction to such a scenario would also be catastrophic.German Guy : 04/10/2019 at 12:53 pmU.S will go to war with Russia and or China, via direct war or proxy wars in regions were the countries national security depends on specific resources.
Perhaps! However modern warfare tends to be very energy intensive. It seems to me a rather safe bet that in a post peak oil world, mostly running on renewables, it might be more likely that societies will be trying to conserve their energy resources and not waste it on war.
But the verdict is not yet in, on whether or not humans are smarter than yeast!World demand is currently over 100 mb/day, while production is at about 99 mb/day. Does that mean we are using up the already produced reserves?Dennis Coyne : 04/10/2019 at 3:03 pmGerman Guy,
It simply means we are using oil that is being stored, the so-called oil stocks, eventually as these are reduced, oil prices start to rise and demand (consumption) decreases while supply (production) increases in response to the change in oil price.
Apr 12, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson : 04/10/2019 at 4:06 pmWell, no, Ghawar is not declining at 2% per year. Ghawar did not start declining in 2004. And the southern two fields are not declining at all. The northern three fields reached their Seneca Cliff somewhere around 2010 and began declining at several times 2%. They will decline to near nothing in the next few years. Then Ghawar will have level production at somewhere around 2 million barrels per day and hold that level for a decade or two.Ron Patterson : 04/10/2019 at 7:08 pm
Ghawar cannot possibly be adequately described as one field. It is five different fields with five different decline and depletion rates.
When Saudi said, in 2006, that their average decline rate was down to almost 2%, that was the average for all their fields. Some fields were declining at a much faster rate and some fields were not declining at all. Khurais and Manifa were still to be ramped up. Those fields had been in mothballs and would be brought back on line. Now they are likely not declining at all but other fields are declining at a much faster rate than 2%.
But here is the important point. The depletion rate is another matter altogether. That figure is likely above 8% per year.Do you have production data for the various fields from 2006 to 2018?Eulenspiegel : 04/10/2019 at 10:41 am
Dennis, you know better than ask such a silly question. Saudi production of individual fields is a closely guarded secret.
Dennis, have you ever wondered why the Saudis keep all this data such a secret? Why don't they just let the actual data known to the world? What was the production data from Safaniya in 2018? Or what was the production data from Manifa in 2018? Or what was the production data from Khurais in 2018, or from Berri, or from all their other fields? And how did that compare to the production in 2017, or 2016?
Dennis, we don't know shit about any of this. We don't know because it is a closely guarded secret. Why, Dennis, Why?
They know Dennis, they know and they don't want you to know. Why?
I know why Dennis. Because what they actually report, which is almost nothing, is a lie. You simply choose to believe it. I do not. I choose to believe the analysis who try to figure out why they are lying. You choose to simply believe the Saudis.
Dennis, the idea that Saudi Arabia has 266 billion barrels of reserves is preposterous beyond belief. Even the Saudis realize that now are trying to slowly reduce that figure. Yet some people, like you, Robert Rapier and Michael Lynch, seemed perfectly ready to believe such an absurd figure. That just floored me. Goddammit, have some people gone insane?
Okay, I have said my peace here and showed my ignorance as to what Saudi Arabia actually can produce for the next 50 years. But you know, it is what they say they can produce.
You believe them. I don't. And neither of us can prove our case. And there it must rest until the actual production data comes in next year and next year and ..Good work Ron.
When this is true, that's the reason China is pushing electric travel as hard as they can.
They have more possibilites to know the truth (secret service) than we reading reports. And with SA and Russia having only round about 80 GB left, and producing each round about 10 mbpd, there are not many years left before a major oil incident.
I wonder why oil prices are that stable at the moment. Oil production fell hard this year so far, down everywhere except USA. And there the growth is decelerated.
And demand is still climbing, it will use up all the US growth projected by the optimistic EIA.
A 500 kbpd decline from OPEC is not included here, they still calculate with an increase from opec.
Last question: Where is Russia standing at the moment?
Apr 12, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Chris Martensonx : 04/10/2019 at 11:05 amRon,Dennis Coyne : 04/10/2019 at 11:15 am
I'm wondering if you can help solve a mystery.
In the bond prospectus SA revealed their financials. Puzzling to me was the claim of revenue of $356 billion.
Because Brent averaged ~$75/bbl in 2018. Divide $356 by $75 and you come up with 4.75 Gbbl, which when we divide by 365 days in a year, we get 13 million barrels per day production.
I can't get their numbers to work. Even with a 10% premium on their grades of crude (generous), that leaves 11.7 mbd of production . I can't get anything to line up here.
Any ideas?Chris,Ron Patterson : 04/10/2019 at 11:31 am
They also produce NGL and natural gas, in 2016 it was about 1.94 Mb/d or 708 MMb of NGL, I have no idea what the average selling price is for NGL on World markets, it would depend on the mix of NGL of course.Saudi Arabia, in 2018 produced approximately 3.76 billion barrels of crude only. Their BOE produced was approximately 4.75 billion barrels. That would account for the revenue is they sold every barrel of it. But they consumed a lot themselves. So other than that I have no explanation. Do they count their own consumption as revenue?Dennis Coyne : 04/10/2019 at 11:54 amEIA has about 4.5 Gb of total liquids produced by KSA in 2018, that would imply $79/boe average selling price.
I suppose in accounting terms the Saudi Government could pay Aramco for the subsidized oil and the 4.75 Gbo would give us the $75/boe selling price.
Apr 09, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Carlos Diaz: 04/08/2019 at 8:07 pmHickory: 04/09/2019 at 10:12 am
The decline is likely to be less steep than the increase
Have you heard about a Seneca cliff? It is called that way because Seneca in his letter number 91 to Lucillius (Epistulae Morales ad Lucilium), written towards the end of the year AD 64, a year before he died, refers to the fire that destroyed Lugdunum (Lyon) the summer of that year in the following terms:
It would be some consolation for the feebleness of our selves and our works, if all things should perish as slowly as they come into being; but as it is, increases are of sluggish growth, but the way to ruin is rapid.
It appears he knew almost two thousand years ago what you don't.I expect that a long slow declining tail of production will have some abrupt jolts downward along the way, and end up lower quicker as a result.Carlos Diaz: 04/09/2019 at 7:12 pm
The jolts downward will come as producing countries become failed states and the chaos disrupts operations.
For examples of how this comes to be, just look at the past 5 yrs of Venez and Libya as examples. Sure they may pick back up at some point, but overall effect is diminished global production, well below a theoretically well managed industry.
Secondly, (and likely a smaller effect) some deposits will likely be kept in the ground because of choices some cultures make. For example, I could see the USA deciding to keep its large remaining coal deposits largely in the ground after 2030. Canada could decide to put a big constraint on oil sand production, keeping just enough for domestic use, if they so desired.Why you think such scenario is so improbable? Venezuela is living a Seneca cliff in its oil production right now. Did anybody predicted it before it took place?
We have no idea of what will happen after Peak Oil. Some people assume nothing, while others think it will be the end of our civilization. Somewhere in between probably. But I fail to see how the economy can take it well if for most applications we can't substitute oil. The globalization is run on oil and its derivatives.
Your assumptions can only be valid at this side of the peak. If you think otherwise you fool yourself.
Apr 06, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson 04/06/2019 at 12:05 pmRemember Peak Oil? It's back!
It seems that the biggest Saudi field is losing its punch.
Years ago we used to talk a lot about peak oil, the prediction made by M. King Hubbert that the easy oil was going to run out, that it was going to get harder and harder to find the stuff, and it was going to get more and more expensive to get out of the ground.
Hubbert wrote in 1948: "How soon the decline may set in is not possible to say, Nevertheless the higher the peak to which the production curve rises, the sooner and sharper will be the decline."
According to the predictions made back in 2005, right about now the Saudis are running out and we are smack in the middle of confusion, heading for chaos. Of course we are not, we are flooded with fossil fuels, thanks to the fracking boom.
But according to Eric Reguly, writing in the Globe and Mail, there is trouble ahead, because that prediction about Saudi oil may not be that far off. He writes that the giant Ghawar field used to produce ten percent of the world's oil, five million barrels a day.
The US Permian shale basin now supplies 4.1 million barrels a day, but fracked wells run out pretty quickly, and the fracking companies are all losing money. Better sell that pickup truck; it may well cost a lot more to fill it. As Reguly concludes, the Ghawar field is indeed in trouble,"and if it does collapse, peak oil will come a bit sooner."
In fact, Ghawar is not as resilient as we were led to believe. We just found out that its output has fallen substantially since Aramco previously came clean on its reserves and production. If Ghawar is losing momentum fast, peak oil – remember that theory? – might be closer than we had thought. And Ghawar is just one of dozens of enormous conventional-oil reservoirs scattered around the planet that are in various stages of decline.
Those include the North Sea, Alaska's Prudhoe Bay, and Reguly reminds us that Mexico's Cantarell reservoir used to supply 2.1 million barrels a day and is now down to 135,000.
Apr 02, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
OFM x Ignored says: 03/30/2019 at 7:51 amI'm sure that so long as the world wide economy remains on its feet that there will be huge increases in demand for oil for transportation.
But nobody seems to give any thought here to things that will reduce demand. Cars will be driving themselves soon. Think about trains. Before too much longer, railroaders will be able to move stuff on trains almost as nimbly as truckers do today, at least on city to city basis when the cities are at least a couple of hundred miles apart. Long distance trucking may be a thing of the past within, like camera film and typewriters, within a couple of decades. These possibilities are worthy of thought if you are in the oil biz for the long haul.
Every country that imports oil is going to have a powerful incentive to reduce demand for it to the extent it can as depletion sooner or later pushes one exporting country after another into the importer category. Countries in the Middle East with oil and gas to export are going to find it so profitable to build wind and solar farms that they will be building them like mushrooms popping up after a spring rain, because they can sell some or maybe even most of the oil and gas they are burning now to generate electricity, thereby earning a big profit on their solar and wind farm investment.
My thinking is that these changes will actually PROLONG our dependence on oil, taken all around, by helping hold the price down so we can afford to run existing legacy equipment, and have affordable petrol based chemicals, etc. I don't think anybody currently in the biz needs to worry about selling out anytime soon, lol. But considerations such as these may have a huge impact on exploration and development starting within a decade or so.
Times change. Doom doesn't necessarily have anything to do with it.
Apr 02, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News x Ignored says: 04/01/2019 at 1:52 pmBrazil's oil production at 2,489 kb/day during February, which is down -142 from January
2018 average 2,587 kb/day
No press release yet, waiting to see if they mention the new FPSOs ANP -> http://www.anp.gov.br/
Apr 01, 2019 | www.bloomberg.com
Oil just had its best quarter in about a decade. Naturally, President Donald Trump is complaining. Donald J. Trump Verified account @ realDonaldTrump Mar 28
Very important that OPEC increase the flow of Oil. World Markets are fragile, price of Oil getting too high. Thank you!
The real target of this tweet is unmistakably Saudi Arabia, the one OPEC member with enough idle capacity to make a difference to the producer group's output. It's also the one over which the U.S. has the most leverage.
Straightforward economic considerations would see Saudi Arabia dismiss the request out of hand, but political calculations make its choice more difficult.
OPEC production fell by around 1.5 million barrels a day between December and February, and probably dropped further in March. Saudi Arabia made by far the biggest voluntary reduction . It contributed almost two thirds of the group's total output cut as measured against individual baselines in February, and made deeper cuts than it had promised it would implement each month this year.
Mar 30, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
dh-mtl , Mar 30, 2019 5:00:04 PM | link
The U.S. desperately needs Venezuelan oil.
They lost control of Saudi Arabia, after trying to take down MBS and then betraying him by unexpectedly allowing waivers on Iranian oil in November.
The U.S. cannot take down Iran without Venezuelan oil. What is worse, right now they don't have access to enough heavy oil to meet their own needs.
Controlling the world oil trade is central to Trump's strategy for the U.S. to continue its empire. Without Venezuelan oil, the U.S. is a bit player in the energy markets, and will remain so.
Having Russia block the U.S. in Venezuela adds insult to injury. After Crimea and Syria, now Venezuela, Russia exposes the U.S. as a loud mouthed-bully without the capacity to back up its threats, a 'toothless tiger', an 'emperor without clothes'.
If the U.S. cannot dislodge Russia from Venezuela, its days as 'global hegemon' are finished. For this reason the U.S. will continue escalating the situation with ever-riskier actions, until it succeeds or breaks.
In the same manor, if Russia backs off, its resistance to the U.S. is finished. And the U.S. will eventually move to destroy Russia, like it has been actively trying to do for the past 30 years. Russia cannot and will not back off.
Venezuela thus becomes the stage where the final act in the clash of empires plays out. Will the world become a multi-polar world, in which the U.S. becomes a relatively isolated and insignificant pole? Or will the world become more fully dominated by a brutal, erratic hegemon?
All options are on the table. For both sides!
Mar 21, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
HuntingtonBeach x Ignored says: 03/19/2019 at 1:20 am"Perfect Storm" Drives Oil Prices Higher
"The latest Brent rally has brought prices to our peak forecast of $67.5/bbl, three months early," Goldman Sachs wrote in a note. The investment bank said that "resilient demand growth" and supply outages could push prices up to $70 per barrel in the near future. It's a perfect storm: "supply loses are exceeding our expectations, demand growth is beating low consensus expectations with technicals supportive and net long positioning still depressed," the bank said.
The outages in Venezuela could swamp the rebound in supply from Libya, Goldman noted. But the real surprise has been demand. At the end of 2018 and the start of this year, oil prices hit a bottom and concerns about global economic stability dominated the narrative. But, for now at least, demand has been solid. In January, demand grew by 1.55 million barrels per day (mb/d) year-on-year. "Gasoline in particular is surprising to the upside, helped by low prices, confirming our view that the weakness in cracks at the turn of the year was supply driven," Goldman noted. "This comforts us in our above consensus 1.45 mb/d [year-on-year] demand growth forecast."
Mar 16, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?
OPEC + Russia + Canada, about 57% of world oil production.
Jeff says: 03/14/2019 at 1: 50 pm
"I am now of the opinion that 2018 will be the peak in crude oil production, not 2019 as I earlier predicted. Russia is slowing down and may have peaked. Canada is slowing down and Brazil is slowing down. OPEC likely peaked in 2016. It is all up to the USA. Can shale oil save us from peak oil?"
IEA´s Oil 2019 5y forecast has global conventional oil on a plateau, i.e. declines and growth match each other perfectly and net growth will come from LTO, NGL, biofuels and a small amount of other unconventional and "process gains".
Iran is ofc a jocker, since it can quickly add supply. Will be interesting to see how Trump will proceed.
Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 3:23 pmI am quite original in my opinion about Peak Oil. I think it took place in late 2015. I will explain. If we define Peak Oil as the maximum in production over a certain period of time we will not know it has taken place for a long time, until we lose the hope of going above. That is not practical, as it might take years.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 4:57 pm
I prefer to define Peak Oil as the point in time when vigorous growth in oil production ended and we entered an undulating plateau when periods of slow growth and slow decline will alternate, affected by oil price and variable demand by economy until we reach terminal decline in production permanently abandoning the plateau towards lower oil production.
The 12-year rate of growth in C+C production took a big hit in late 2015 and has not recovered. The increase in 2 Mb since is just an anemic 2.5% over 3 years or 0.8% per year, and it keeps going down. This is plateau behavior since there was no economic crisis to blame. It will become negative when the economy sours.
Peak Oil has already arrived. We are not recognizing it because production still increases a little bit, but we are in Peak Oil mode. Oil production will decrease a lot more easily that it will increase over the next decade. The economy is going to be a real bitch.Carlos Diaz,Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 7:18 pm
Interesting thesis, keep in mind that the price of oil was relatively low from 2015 to 2018 because for much of the period there was an excess of oil stocks built up over the 2013 to 2015 period when output growth outpaced demand growth due to very high oil prices. Supply has been adequate to keep oil prices relatively low through March 2019 and US sanctions on Iran, political instability in Libya and Venezuela, and action by OPEC and several non-OPEC nations to restrict supply have resulted in slower growth in oil output.
Eventually World Petroleum stocks will fall to a level that will drive oil prices higher, there is very poor visibility for World Petroleum Stocks, so there may be a 6 to 12 month lag between petroleum stocks falling to critically low levels and market realization of that fact, by Sept to Dec 2019 this may be apparent and oil prices may spike (perhaps to $90/b by May 2020).
At that point we may start to see some higher investment levels with higher output coming 12 to 60 months later (some projects such as deep water and Arctic projects take a lot of time to become operational, there may be some OPEC projects that might be developed as well, there are also Canadian Oil sands projects that might be developed in a high oil price environment.
I define the peak as the highest 12 month centered average World C+C output, but it can be define many different ways.So Dennis,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/14/2019 at 9:20 pm
Our capability to store oil is very limited considering the volume being moved at any time from production to consumption. I understand that it is the marginal price of the last barrel of oil that sets the price for oil, but given the relatively inexpensive oil between 2015 and now, and the fact that we have not been in an economical crisis, what is according to you the cause that world oil production has grown so anemically these past three years?
Do you think that if oil had been at 20$/b as it used to be for decades the growth in consumption/production would have been significantly higher?
I'll give you a hint, with real negative interest rates and comparatively inexpensive oil most OECD economies are unable to grow robustly.
To me Peak Oil is an economical question, not a geological one. The geology just sets the cost of production (not the price) too high, making the operation uneconomical. It is the economy that becomes unable to pump more oil. That's why the beginning of Peak Oil can be placed at late 2015.
The economic system has three legs, cheap energy, demographic growth, and debt growth. All three are failing simultaneously so we are facing the perfect storm. Social unrest is the most likely consequence almost everywhere.Carlos,Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 5:03 am
If prices are low that means there is plenty of oil supply relative to demand. It also means that some oil cannot be produced profitably, so oil companies invest less and oil output grows more slowly.
So you seem to have the story backwards. Low oil prices means low growth in supply.
So if oil prices were $20/b, oil supply would grow more slowly, we have had an oversupply of oil that ls what led to low oil prices. When oil prices increase, supply growth will ne higher. Evause profits will be higher and there will be more investment.No Dennis,Schinzy x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 11:18 am
It is you who has it backwards, as you only see the issue from an oil price point of view, and oil price responds to supply and demand, and higher prices are an estimulus to higher production.
But there is a more important point of view, because oil is one of the main inputs of the economy. If the price of oil is sufficiently low it stimulates the economy. New businesses are created, more people go farther on vacation, and so on, increasing oil demand and oil production. If the price is sufficiently high it depresses the economy. A higher percentage of wealth is transferred from consumer countries to producing countries and consumer countries require more debt. During the 2010-2014 period high oil prices were sustained by the phenomenal push of the Chinese economy, while European and Japanese economies suffered enormously and their oil consumption depressed and hasn't fully recovered since.
In the long term it is the economy that pumps the oil, and that is what you cannot understand.
Oil limits → Oil cost → Oil Price ↔ Economy → Oil demand → Oil production
The economy decides when and how Peak Oil takes place. If you knew that you wouldn't bother with all those models.
And in my opinion the economy already decided in late 2015 when the drive to increase oil production to compensate for low oil prices couldn't be sustained.Carlos,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 3:01 pm
Your reasoning is close to mine. See https://www.tse-fr.eu/publications/oil-cycle-dynamics-and-future-oil-price-scenarios .Carlos,Mario C Vachon x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 6:39 pm
Both supply and demand matter. I understand economics quite well thank you. You are correct that the economy is very important, it will determine oil prices to some degree especially on the demand side of the market. If one looks at the price of oil and economic growth or GDP, there is very little correlation.
The fact is the World economy grew quite nicely from 2011 to 2014 when oil prices averaged over $100/b.
There may be some point that high oil prices are a problem, apparently $100/b in 2014 US$ is below that price. Perhaps at $150/b your argument would be correct. Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.
I agree the economy will be a major factor in when peak oil occurs, but as most economists understand quite well, it is both supply and demand that will determine market prices for oil.
My models are based on the predictions of the geophysicists at the USGS (estimating TRR for tight oil) and the economists at the EIA (who attempt to predict future oil prices). Both predictions are used as inputs to the model along with past completion rates and well productivity and assumptions about potential future completion rates and future well productivity, bounded by the predictions of both the USGS and the EIA along with economic assumptions about well cost, royalties and taxes, transport costs, discount rate, and lease operating expenses.
Note that my results for economically recoverable resources are in line with the USGS TRR mean estimates and are somewhat lower when the economic assumptions are applied (ERR/TRR is roughly 0.85), the EIA AEO has economically recoverable tight oil resources at about 115% of the USGS mean TRR estimate. The main EIA estimate I use is their AEO reference oil price case (which may be too low with oil prices gradually rising to $110/b (2017$) by 2050.
Assumptions for Permian Basin are royalties and taxes 33% of wellhead revenue, transport cost $5/b, LOE=$2.3/b plus $15000/month, annual discount rate is 10%/year and well cost is $10 million, annual interest rate is 7.4%/year, annual inflation rate assumed to be 2.5%/year, income tax and revenue from natural gas and NGL are ignored all dollar costs in constant 2017 US$.You do incredible work Dennis and I believe you are correct. Demand for oil is relatively inelastic which accounts for huge price swings when inventories get uncomfortably high or low. If supply doesn't keep up with our needs, price will rise to levels that will eventually create more supply and create switching into other energy sources which will reduce demand.Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 6:57 pmDennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:33 am
Why would the economy need more oil when oil prices are low? The low price is a signal that there is too much oil being produced relative to the demand for oil.
You don't seem to be aware of historical oil prices. For inflation adjusted oil prices since 1946 oil (WTI) spent:
27 years below $30
13 years at ~ $70
18 years at ~ $40
10 years at ~ $90
5 years at ~ $50
And the fastest growth in oil production took place precisely at the periods when oil was cheapest.
You simply cannot be more wrong about that.
And your models are based on a very big assumption, that the geology of the reserves is determinant for Peak Oil. It is not. There is plenty of oil in the world, but the extraction of most of it is unaffordable. The economy will decide (has decided) when Oil Peak takes place and what happens afterwards. Predictions/projections aren't worth a cent as usual. You could save yourself the trouble.Carlos,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:34 am
I use both geophysics and economics, it is not one or the other it is both of these that will determine peak oil.
Of course oil prices have increased, the cheapest oil gets produced first and oil gradually gets more expensive as the marginal barrel produced to meet demand at the margin is more costly to produce.
Real Oil Prices do not correlate well with real economic growth and on a microeconomic level the price of oil will affect profits and willingness of oil companies to invest which in turn will affect future output. Demand will be a function of both economic output and efficiency improvements in the use of oil.
Thanks Mario.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 10:49 amCarlos,HHH x Ignored says: 03/15/2019 at 9:44 pm
Also keep in mind that during the 1945-1975 period economic growth rates were very high as population growth rates were very high and the World economy was expanding rapidly as population grew and the World rebuilt in the aftermath of World War 2. Oil was indeed plentiful and cheap over this period and output grew rapidly to meet expanding World demand for oil. The cheapness of the oil led to relatively inefficient use of the resource, as constraints in output became evident and more expensive offshore, Arctic oil were extracted oil prices increased and there was high volatility due to Wars in the Middle east and other political developments. Oil output (C+C) since 1982 has grown fairly steadily at about an 800 kb/d annual average each year, oil prices move up and down in response to anticipated oil stock movements and are volatile because these estimates are often incorrect (the World petroleum stock numbers are far from transparent.)
On average since the Iran/Iraq crash in output (1982-2017) World output has grown by about 1.2% per year and 800 kb/d per year on average, prices have risen or fallen when there was inadequate or excess stocks of petroleum, this pattern (prices adjusting to stock levels) is likely to continue.
There has been little change when we compare 1982 to 1999 to 1999-2017 (divide overall period of interest in half) for either percentage increase of absolute increase in output.
I would agree that severe shortages of oil supply relative to demand (likely apparent by 2030) is likely to lead to an economic crisis as oil prices rise to levels that the World economy cannot adjust to (my guess is that this level will be $165/b in 2018$). Potentially high oil prices might lead to faster adoption of alternative modes of transport that might avert a crisis, but that is too optimistic a scenario even for me.China will be in outright deflation soon enough. Economic stimulus is starting to fail in China. They can't fill the so called bathtub up fast enough to keep pace with the water draining out the bottom. So to speak.Lightsout x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 6:25 am
Interest rates in China will soon be exactly where they are in Europe and Japan. Maybe lower.
In order to get oil to $90-$100 the value of the dollar is going to have to sink a little bit. In order to get oil to $140-$160 the dollar has to make a new all time low. Anybody predicting prices shooting up to $200 needs the dollar index to sink to 60 or below.
The reality is oil is going to $20. Because the rest of the world outside the US is failing. Dennis makes some nice graphs and charts and under his assumptions his charts and graphs are correct. But his assumptions aren't correct.
We got $20 oil and an economic depression coming.
Peak Oil is going to be deflationary as hell. Higher prices aren't in the cards even when a shortage actually shows up. We will get less supply at a lower price. Demand destruction is actually going to happen when economies and debt bubbles implode so we actually can't be totally sure we are ever going to see an actual shortage.
We could very well be producing 20-30% less oil than we do now and still not have a shortage.
Oh and EV's are going to have to compete with $20 oil not $150 oil.You are assuming that the oil is priced in dollars there are moves underway that raise two fingers to that.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 7:41 am
https://www.scmp.com/economy/china-economy/article/2174453/china-and-russia-look-ditch-dollar-new-payments-system-moveHHH,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 9:56 am
When do you expect the oil price to reach $20/b? We will have to see when this occurs.
It may come true when EVs and AVs have decimated demand for oil in 2050, but not before. EIA's oil price reference scenario from AEO 2019 below. That is a far more realistic prediction (though likely too low especially when peak oil arrives in 2025), oil prices from $100 to $160/b in 2018 US$ are more likely from 2023 to 2035 (for three year centered average Brent oil price).
HHH,HHH x Ignored says: 03/16/2019 at 6:50 pm
My assumptions are based on USGS mean resource estimates and EIA oil price estimates, as well as BIS estimates for the World monetary and financial system.
Your assumption that oil prices are determined by exchange rates only is not borne out by historical evidence. Exchange rates are a minor, not a major determinant of oil prices.Dennis,
Technically speaking. The most relevant trendline on price chart currently comes off the lows of 2016/02/08. It intersects with 2017/06/19. You draw the trendline on out to where price is currently. Currently price is trying to backtest that trendline.
On a weekly price chart i'd say it touches the underside of that trendline sometime in April in the low 60's somewhere between $62-$66 kinda depends on when it arrives there time wise. The later it takes to arrive there the higher price will be. I've been trading well over 20 years can't tell you how many times i've seen price backtest a trendline after it's been broken. It's a very common occurrence. And i wouldn't short oil until after it does.
But back to your question. $20 oil what kind of timetable. My best guess is 2021-2022. Might happen 2020 or 2023. And FED can always step in and weaken the dollar. Fundamentally the only way oil doesn't sink to $20 is the FED finds a way to weaken the dollar.
But understand the FED is the only major CB that currently doesn't have the need to open up monetary policy. It's really the rest of the worlds CB ultra loose monetary policy which is going to drive oil to $20.
Mar 18, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News, says: 03/17/2019 at 2:49 amCountries that have reported their January production (shown on the chart)
Russian Federation -78
Total -1,429 kb/day
So far for February: Russia, OPEC14, Norway
Total: -330 kb/day
Chart for December which includes the big increases from the USA
China crude oil production
February: 3,813 kb/day
Average 2018: 3,788 kb/day
Mar 02, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
-- ALIEN -- , 15 hours ago linkKimAsa , 22 hours ago link
Peak Oil Explained
Peak oil is the simplest label for the problem of energy resource depletion, or more specifically, the peak in global oil production.
Oil is a finite, non-renewable resource, one that has powered phenomenal economic and population growth over the last century and a half.
The rate of oil 'production', meaning extraction and refining (currently about 85 million barrels/day), has grown almost every year of the last century.
Once we have used up about half of the original reserves, oil production becomes ever more likely stop growing and begin a terminal decline, hence 'peak'.
The peak in oil production does not signify 'running out of oil', but it does mean the end of cheap oil, as we switch from a buyers' to a sellers' market.
For economies leveraged on ever increasing quantities of cheap oil, the consequences may be dire.
Without significant successful cultural reform, severe economic and social consequences seem inevitable.
Keep reading at...
There's no doubt that economies suffer under high energy prices. Recently POTUS acknowledged this when he said oil is too damn high.
Oil producers (frackers) have to be profitable and they just aren't. It seems to unclear what the break even point is for fracking operations in the US, but let's say $50 per barrel goes to production costs. That doesn't leave much room. If oil is selling for less than that on the open market, the frackers are forced to finance their operations. This can't go on. Clearly the cheap oil era has peaked.
Mar 01, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
kolbeinh says: 03/01/2019 at 5:58 pmI think there are a lot of people that need a delusion check. Because a surplus of oil is advocated by "western trustable sources" against the natural investment circle of the oil industry does not automatically mean that the market balance is under control; it is in fact never going to work.
The whole "political play" going on now seems to be Trump pressuring Saudi Arabia (and OPEC) for the assumable extensive spare capacity that they have. But the problem is, the reality is high oil prices were needed to avoid a deficit in the whole scheme of things. I still guess reality will be hard late 2019/20 as has always been my prediction.
It is difficult to change my mind about the oil market; after all it is not supersonic speed in this mature market. The digitalisation of data gathering (seismic and reservoir control) together with horizontal wells represent probably huge gains and I would guess alone can explain why for example Russia has been doing so well the last decade.
The next point is that the world is not running out of oil yet, but potential oil reserves are not under western control (most potential reserves are in Africa, Middle East, Ex USSR countries and the Arctic). And that makes for an unstable political future between the west and the rest of the world.
To avoid blackmail when it comes to oil the future; sooner or later there is going to be a transition to natural gas (for some decades) and renewable in the West and Asia first. That is how the story goes in my view. The transition to renewable is most likely not going to be smooth, but hurt someone (some part of the population and some countries maybe). Interesting future energy and other resources (e.g lithium, cobalt, nickel and rare magnet ingredients needed for batteries) are going to be even more in focus than today I guess.
Feb 26, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Opritov Alexander x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 6:51 amInteresting, New, Informativeyves x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 7:44 am
Alexey Evgenievich Anpilogov
(Алексей Евгеньевич Анпилогов):
New "Dark Ages"?
human energy future
In the third decade of the XXI century, which is about to come, one of the main problems facing humanity, again, as in the 60s, will be its energy supply, as well as the search for the main "energy carrier of the future."
The three whales that the world's energy industry today holds: oil, natural gas and coal are, by their nature, non-renewable sources of energy. True, with regard to oil and gas, this thesis is actively debated at the academic level, but for practical purposes it is indisputable: modern civilization consumes so much hydrocarbons that their natural substitution, if it exists, is not able to compensate for this exemption. The energy sources mentioned above in 2017 accounted for about 81% of world primary energy production, and they still define the image of our modern industrial world, while all renewable energy sources provide only about 14% of primary energy production, and about 5% The balance comes from nuclear energy (International Energy Agency, 2017).
At the same time, the situation with renewable sources is not at all as rosy as it may seem at first glance: out of 14% of renewable sources, 10% is the energy from burning wood and biomass, and 2.5% is hydropower. At the same time, the "fashionable" in the last decade, and having received at the same time gigantic, almost trillion-dollar investments in solar and wind energy projects, are not as high as 2% in the overall balance of the production of primary energy. At the same time, it is not even about the absolute figures for the introduction of new capacities of green energy, which may seem impressive, but about the exponential dynamics of the relationship between "oil-coal-gas" and "green" in the long term. After all, a decade ago, in 2008, the world balance of power generation looked like this: 78% were oil, natural gas and coal, 5% were atomic energy, 3% were hydropower, about 13.5% were wood and biomass, and 0, 5% produced wind and solar energy. Surprisingly, over the past ten years, the transition from "wood and straw" to the energy of oil, natural gas and coal, which occurred naturally, turned out to be two and a half times more significant for the global energy balance than the development of "green" energy technologies.
The phenomenon of such meager growth of "green" energy is interesting in itself: for the first time the capitalist mode of production, in which investments in fixed assets imply quick returns in the form of profits, gives an obvious, albeit programmed failure. Its essence becomes clear if we take into account in the picture the "quiet" transition of the world from "firewood and straw" to oil, gas and coal, which lasted throughout the decade of 2008–2018. This process, which no one financed in a targeted manner or advertised in the world media or Western scientific publications, went forward thanks to economic expediency. At the same time, the planting of green energy was accompanied not only by a powerful public relations campaign and trillions of financing, but also forced almost all countries to accept special, non-economic overpriced tariffs for the purchase of green energy in order to somehow force capital to finance unprofitable production. energy with wind turbines and solar panels.
World energy: a general view
Several reputable organizations are engaged in the problem of the global energy balance. These include the United States Department of Energy (DOE), the International Energy Agency (IEA), located in Paris, and the well-known oil company BP (ex-British Petroleum). Each of these organizations publishes annual reports on the situation in the global energy industry and the prospects for its development. These reports are compiled on the basis of an analysis of the mass of primary information, often of an incomplete and contradictory nature. Nevertheless, due to a certain averaging of all the initial data, the annual reports of these organizations quite fully and clearly reflect the overall world dynamics. In this article, in order to bring the data to one standard, we will rely on the annual reports of BP, unless otherwise explicitly stated in the text.
In accordance with the latest available BP report, global energy consumption reached 13,511 million tons of oil equivalent in 2017 (TNE, eng. "Tonne of oil equivalent", TOE). At the same time, over the decade between 2007 and 2017, world primary energy consumption grew by an average of 1.5%. That is, the dynamics of energy consumption correlate well with the observed growth rates of the global economy over the same period – an average of 3.2% per year (World Bank and IMF, 2018).
The fluctuations of this second parameter, associated with economic crises and recessions observed in the period under review, make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the notorious "energy efficiency" to the global growth in demand"this thesis is actively debated at the academic level".Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 8:17 am
What does that hint to? Abiotic oil?No, there does not even remotely a hint of abiotic oil. Read the last two paragraphs again. That is what it hints to. An average growth of 1.5% in energy consumption and a growth of 3.2% in the global economy has been enabled by a continual growth in energy efficiency. This cannot possibly continue, especially the 3.2% growth in global economy. When the global economy does not grow it receeds. This is called a recession.
Feb 26, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Opritov Alexander x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 3:27 pmI think not allOpritov Alexander x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 3:35 pm
followed the link
article is big.
Maybe someone will be interested
I will write here in several posts.
I hope someone will be interested.
The fluctuations of this second parameter, associated with economic crises and recessions observed in the period under review, make it possible to evaluate the contribution of the notorious "energy efficiency" to the global increase in energy consumption. In a situation of almost "zero growth" of the world economy, which occurred in the period 2008–2009, the consumption of primary energy decreased by 0.8% per year. At the same time, for each percent of economic growth, it is necessary to "pay off" by increasing the consumption of primary energy by about 0.6%.
In an expected way, an improvement in energy efficiency was reflected in monetary indicators: in 2017, each TOE of consumed energy generated $ 8,617 of global GDP, which corresponds to 1.7% of annual growth over the period 2007–2017.
Of course, the world's primary energy is not evenly distributed across countries. Even the top five leaders in the use of primary energy: China, the United States, the European Union, India and Russia – have completely different consumption patterns, which are associated with the historical, geographical, economic and political differences of these countries.
Thus, as of 2017, China has already been the largest global consumer of primary energy: its energy consumption has reached 3.132 billion TOE, which is equal to 23% of the global consumption of primary energy. The growth of Chinese energy consumption is also impressive: in the period from 1990 to 2013, per capita energy consumption in China increased from 0.602 TOE to 2.14 TOE -- that is, almost four times. Since then, energy consumption growth in China has somewhat slowed down, and by 2017, per capita energy consumption there was only 2.26 TOE, which is not only still significantly lower than per capita energy consumption in countries with developed capitalist economies, but and corresponds to an increase in energy consumption of about 1.5% per year (and an economic growth of 2% per year).
If we consider the inertia of this historical trend and additionally take into account the fact that the new policy of the ruling CPC implies a transition to stimulating consumer demand within the country, then we can assume that by 2050 per capita energy consumption in China should reach 5-5.5 TOE. This figure takes into account, in addition, the observed impact of energy efficiency (the same 0.8% per year), but suggests that GDP per capita in China will grow to about the equivalent of $ 50,000 by 2050. At the same time, it should be understood that in a part of the population, a conservative forecast is adopted, according to which the population of China will reach a peak by 2030 and decrease to 1.36 billion by 2050. Taking into account these factors, China's energy demand in 2050 will exceed 7,000 million TOE, i.e., it will grow 2.23 times and make up more than half of the current volume of primary energy production. Information that, according to fertility data, the population of China in 2018 decreased by 1.27 million people, has not yet been officially confirmed, and it is clear that the above figure can be significantly adjusted downward, but in any case, China will pull the world energy "blanket" on themselves.
The United States is the second largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017, the US energy consumption amounted to 2,235 million TOE, which corresponds to 17% of world primary energy consumption. US per capita energy consumption peaked at 8.01 TOE in 2000, which was a historic peak. For the period from 2007 to 2009, per capita energy consumption in the United States decreased from 7.7 to 7.04 TOE, and in 2017 it reached the level of 6.87 TOE. Nevertheless, the United States continues to be the most "voracious" consumer of primary energy per capita, and their ability to further reduce the achieved level is very slim if they are not linked to the global restructuring of their economic and social structure, which is highly unlikely without a deep national crisis. An additional factor is the steady growth of the US population, which has no tendency to slow down until 2050.Still continuing (3):Opritov Alexander x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 3:38 pm
The European Union is the third largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017, the energy consumption of the European Union amounted to 1,689 million TOE, which is equivalent to 13% of world primary energy consumption. Historically, EU per capita energy consumption was the highest before the onset of the 2008 crisis and amounted to 3.71 TOE in 2006. In the future, the European Union immediately fell into a double crisis: the global economic year 2008–2009 and its own financial one, connected with the debts of the Mediterranean countries, first of all – Greece. This led to the fact that energy consumption per capita in the EU was reduced to a minimum of 3.2 TOE in 2014. By 2017, per capita energy consumption in the EU was only partially recovered and reached 3.29 TOE. At the same time, its value has a very pronounced country differentiation, and if for Germany in 2017 this figure was 3.86 TOE, for France – 3.61 TOE, then for the UK – 2.72 TOE, for Poland – 2.71 TOE, for Portugal – 2.23 TOE, and for Romania – 1.69 ToE. In general, this level of per capita energy consumption quite adequately reflects the EU's longstanding efforts towards supporting energy efficiency, but also vividly shows the limits of what can be achieved within the framework of a concept combining a set of measures for energy saving and green energy replacement. As we see, as a result of the implementation of such programs, the European Union did not become "European China" at all, although it became less like "European America" in the energy issue.
Thus, it can be assumed that in the long-term trend, the per capita energy consumption of EU countries will decrease slightly, only by copying the general trend of slow increase in energy efficiency.
India is the fourth largest consumer of primary energy in the world. In 2017, energy consumption in India increased to 754 million TOE, which is 5.6% of the world. India, like China, is characterized by very rapid economic growth, which was expressed in terms of per capita energy consumption: more than twice since 1990, when it amounted to 0.225 TOE, to 0.562 TOE in 2017. If per capita energy consumption in India continues to follow the same pace, by 2050 it should reach a mark of 1.21 TOE, while India's GDP per capita will reach approximately 19 thousand dollars. It is expected that by 2050 the population of India will grow to 1.72 billion people. That is, it can be expected that by 2050 India's energy demand will exceed 2 billion THN – or it will grow 2.65 times, overtaking even China in terms of relative growth, and in absolute figures ahead of the European Union.
And finally, the Russian Federation, which is the fifth of the world's largest energy consumers. In 2017, primary energy consumption in Russia amounted to 698 million TOE, which accounted for 5.2% of world primary energy consumption. In 1990, when Russia was still part of the USSR, per capita energy consumption in Russia was 5.8 TOE. Over the past years, Russia has already passed its historic low, when the economy of the new country was torn to shreds by neoliberal "shock therapy", the short-sighted policy of rapid privatization and the total introduction of the "wild" market – including in the energy sector. This was reflected in the fact that the minimum energy consumption per capita in Russia was achieved by 1998 and amounted to 4.03 TOE. Smaller values of per capita consumption, apparently, are simply impossible in a cold and harsh Russian climate, since heat supply is a vital function in it – therefore, a value of 4.03 TOE can be considered the level of "basic survival" in Russia. An interesting fact: in Canada, where the climate is very similar to that of Russia, per capita energy consumption is 9.5 TOE as of 2017. At the same time, no one in Canada speaks of "cheap electricity" or "too high costs for heat supply," realizing that this is the necessary conditions for the survival of the country's population.
Since 1998, per capita energy consumption in Russia has been steadily growing and reached a level of 4.83 Toe in 2017, which corresponds to about 0.8% per year. Most likely, this trend will continue in the future, since the living standards of the Russian population are still lower than the living standards in the European Union or the United States, and the Russian level of per capita consumption lags behind the level of the late USSR, even taking into account the accumulated "bonuses" in energy efficiency.
World energy: forecast
As noted above, the parameters of GDP and total energy consumption – just as the parameters of per capita GDP and per capita energy consumption – in the current economy have a strong correlation.
Moreover, almost all the leading countries of the world fit into a very clearly traceable ratio, which corresponds to 10 thousand dollars of per capita GDP for every one TOE per capita consumption. Smaller values of this parameter are characteristic of a number of underdeveloped and developing countries, which leads to a "average" value of $ 8,617 per 1 TOE for global GDP.
There are deviations and "up" on the scale of specific energy – this is already mentioned in the text of Russia, Canada and the United States.
For Canada, Russia and the Scandinavian countries, you can build a separate branch of the graph, on which for the "northern" economies it turns out that for every 10 thousand dollars of per capita GDP they need to spend about 2 TOE per capita consumption – twice as much as for those living in tropical or subtropical climate of China or India.
The phenomenon of "overconsumption" of the United States, as is clear, has a different nature – it is associated with the actual "imperial" energy tax for the whole world, which allows the United States to still maintain excessive energy consumption, which is in no way connected with the country's climate the political structure of the United States, which is the world hegemon.
It is important to emphasize that, if we exclude from consideration the "imperial" United States and "northern" Russia and Canada, then the correlation between oil consumption and the GDP of a particular country acquires almost 100% of its character. For example, Japan, not mentioned above, was the sixth largest energy consumer in the world in 2017 and surpassed most EU countries in terms of both per capita GDP and per capita oil consumption! Although, it would seem, the southern conditions of Japan, almost completely located in the subtropical and tropical zones, suggest lower figures for per capita oil consumption.
In 2017, energy consumption in Japan amounted to 456 million TOE, which amounted to 3.4% of world primary energy consumption. Historical peak energy consumption per capita in Japan reached in 2005 and amounted to 4.15 TOE. Since then, energy consumption in Japan has tended to decline, as the country's national economy fluctuated between a hidden recession and sheer economic stagnation. The effect of the largest nuclear accident at the Fukushima nuclear power plant in 2011 is indicative in this respect: despite the radical restructuring of the energy sector in Japan caused by this catastrophe and the almost complete closure of nuclear power plants in the country, the consumption of primary energy in the Land of the Rising Sun has not undergone such a sharp falls: almost all the "fallen out" volumes of atomic energy were promptly replaced by increased consumption of oil and natural gas. And the general trend of growth or reduction of primary energy consumption still showed a correlation with only three parameters: the country's population, the level of per capita GDP of the national economy and the general trend of improving energy efficiency, which in the case of Japan describes the same energy saving parameter of 0.8% per year .
By 2016, per capita energy consumption in Japan decreased to 3.55 TOE, which was even lower than per capita consumption in 1990, with a fundamentally higher GDP and a practically stable population (an increase of only 3 million people with 123 million in 1990). In 2017, per capita energy consumption in Japan grew only slightly to 3.6 TOE, which is quite consistent with the very modest growth of the national economy.
As already mentioned, the practical economic result of "green" energy, observed for the period 2007–2017, can be optimistically described as "zero" or "poorly distinguishable from statistical error". Of course, one can complain that the sun and wind today give only 2% of the global primary energy production and you need to "just give them more time (and money)", but the sad reality is this: supposedly "promising" new energy sources affect the economy. Their implementation in the countries of the European Union did not affect the picture of energy efficiency and did not alter the ratio between GDP and tons of oil equivalent spent on its production, while the global crisis and the debt crisis of the EU itself turned out to be much more significant factors.Still continuing (4):Opritov Alexander x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 3:44 pm
A simple forecast follows from these sad conclusions: even if over the next decade the volume of "green" energy again grows 4 times, then its share will reach only 8%. However, even this level is an almost unrealizable dream: according to most forecasts – for example, the IEA in 2017 and the Energy Information Administration (EIA) in 2018 – the actual relative growth of renewable energy sources will be only about 2–20 years before 2030. 2.5 times. Unknown conclusion: even by 2030, the share of oil, natural gas and coal will be at least 75% of the total primary energy level, which will be related to nuclear and hydropower and the continuing relative waste from the use of wood energy and biomass. During the years 2030-2040, the year can be almost fantastic, and all this will be due to the difficulties that must be achieved in the field of oil, gas and coal in the balance sheet. energy.
An extremely unpleasant situation with such a pessimistic forecast is expected with world oil production. At the moment, its growth was concentrated in only nine oil-producing countries. As an example, oil production in China is expected in 2015, after which it was not even possible to achieve an increase in Chinese oil production.
Today, this "growing oil subsoil" includes the following countries (the estimated year of oil production and data source are shown in brackets): Canada (peak in 2049, BP), USA (2042, EIA), Iraq (2042, BP) , Kuwait (2040, BP), Iran (2039, BP), United Arab Emirates (2037, BP), Russia (2033, IEA), Saudi Arabia (2030, BP), Brazil (2024, BP).
The exit from almost all the "growing" sources of oil production in the world is caused by a drop in production from 2030 to 2040, which means the global energy crisis of humanity. and there is "tasty", and there is energy, and all this economic strategy of modern civilization.
Of course, partial replacement with liquid motor fuel, which is easily obtained from petroleum, can be carried out using natural gas, as well as using chemical reforming in various types of liquid hydrocarbons and molecular hydrogen.
However, this situation is hardly optimistic. In 2015, the world's peak production was observed. Currently, natural gas production growth is concentrated in only ten countries (the estimated year of natural gas production and data source are shown in parentheses): Canada (2074, IEA), USA (2063, EIA), Iran (2046, BP), Qatar (2043 , BP), Saudi Arabia (2037, BP), Algeria (2027, BP), China (2027, BP), Australia (2026, BP), Russia (2026, BP), Norway (2023, IEA).
It is easy to see that already after 2030, the natural gas market will, like the oil market, be practically monopolized by four or five countries, each of which will be able to easily manipulate prices by simply adjusting its own production, since other players simply will not have any -or free capacity. Unfortunately, in the case of Russian oil, and when analyzing the prospects for Russian gas in such an oligopolistic market, it can be noted that Russia will be in the "first echelon" of losers, at whose expense they will try to solve world problems with the energy balance.
Of course, a partial replacement of natural gas and oil can be expected in the form of a return to more "dirty" and expensive coal. By the way, it was precisely such a strategy that China and India chose in the 1990s, who, without having wide access to the oil and natural gas market, relied on their own deposits of hard coal. The incidental damage to ecology and human health in this case was the price paid for the rapid industrialization paid by Indian and Chinese society.
However, even on the "coal" path, humanity has its own problems. Today, the rapid growth of coal production is possible only in four (!) Countries of the world. All other countries have already passed their peak of hard coal mining, some of them more recently, such as the USA (2008), China (2013) or South Africa (2014).
According to estimates by international energy agencies, today, growth in coal production is possible only in the following countries (in brackets is the expected year of peak coal mining and source of data): Russia (2112, BP), India (2052, BP), Australia (2032, IEA) , Indonesia (2031, BP).I apologize forHickory x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 4:43 pm
posting an article here
– It was designed for a reader in Russia.
Mirovaya energiya: stsenariy
World Energy Scenario
The inertial scenario of the development of mankind suggests that by 2050 the world consumption of primary energy will increase one and a half times and will be about 20 billion TOE. This indicator takes into account both the observed effects of energy conservation and a very conservative estimate of future economic growth – within 2–2.5% of the annual increase in global GDP.
However, crisis tendencies will be waiting for us much earlier than in 2050: it seems that the gap between supply and demand on the global energy market will be formed by the early 2030s, when global energy consumption will approach the level of 16-17 billion TNE . As already mentioned, peak years for world production of oil, natural gas and coal are coming in the very near future. According to the IEA, the peak of world oil production will come as early as 2022, when all of humanity will be able to provide about 4,530 million TOE with oil. According to the same forecast, coal will be at its peak in 2028, when at the expense of it it will be possible to get about 6 billion THE (which corresponds to about 8.4 billion tons of physical coal mining, due to its lower energy value). And finally, global natural gas production will peak in 2036, when this energy carrier can provide 3.9 billion ToE.
It is easy to understand that, taking into account the predicted share of oil, coal and natural gas in primary energy of about 75% by 2030, the sum of peak production (14,430 TOE) almost fully corresponds to ¾ the lower bar of estimated consumption in 2030 (16,000 TOE) . It should be understood that the peak values for oil and hard coal in the world will be reached before 2030, after which these energy carriers will only decrease in the volume of physical production. In part, this effect can be compensated for through the involvement of more low-margin fields (as it happened with shale oil and gas), but the limits of such compensatory mechanisms are not unlimited. In addition, a significant increase in the price of primary energy in itself is a sign of the crisis of the existing economic structure, which clearly links social stability with economic growth, and economic growth is fueled precisely by the available (both physically and in price) energy.
Of course, the increase in the price of oil, natural gas and coal will improve the economic prospects of "green" energy (simply due to the banal high cost of any energy available to humanity), but this also means that within future economies huge amounts of energy will simply be spent on maintaining the internal structure economies and the livelihoods of the critically needed primary energy sector.
An idea of this kind of economic structure may well be given by the economic model of the USSR, where such a bias towards the enterprises of "Group A" was dictated by military and state construction, while consumer goods of the enterprises of "Group B" were in short supply. However, in the USSR this mechanism was a reflection of the planned economy, in the case of the supposed "peak" scenario of 2030, it would be formed by purely market mechanisms within the framework of the "classical" capitalist economy.
It is clear that this implies a "contraction" of the final consumption of the population, which will be caused by the forced flow of capital to the high-yielding primary energy production sectors, forced and natural in the framework of the capitalist economy. At the same time, the "welfare society" of the model countries of the "collective West", such as the European Union and, in particular, the United States, will collapse. Faced with this kind of crisis, the "overconsuming" Western countries will unambiguously join the battle for the remnants of mineral energy resources. Such events and wars are likely to surpass even the current "oil conflicts" in the Middle East, North Africa and Latin America, in which the United States and its European allies are directly involved.
Probably, Russia will again be hit, which remains the "last natural storeroom" for large reserves of sufficiently cheap oil, natural gas and coal. Most likely, the "energy predators" will try once again to control the richest natural resources of our country, which, under various pretexts, will strive to declare "the heritage of all mankind". In fact, we will talk about the banal energy robbery of our country, which will hide behind the fig leaf of propaganda.
Another disappointing conclusion follows from the energy "poverty" of the "world of the future": Russia today has to prepare for the fact that our "four hard-earned oil equivalent per capita", which, as noted above, is the basic condition for survival in Russia's severe climate should be in the future provided for the population of the country from sources other than oil, natural gas and coal. The challenges facing the world are facing Russia, but what the United States is the reason for the rejection of overconsumption turns out to be another challenge for Russia in the face of cold and death by starvation.
Unfortunately, the "world of the future" does not promise to be a pleasant and comfortable place to live. And we should prepare for such a negative scenario today.Thank you for the thought provoking thoughts Opritov Alexander.Opritov Alexander x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 5:17 pm
It is useful to hear these ideas from the perspective of those from various countries, such as yours.
The data dovetails closely with what has been presented from other sources, by and large.
The geopolitical ramifications of these challenges is obviously paramount.
I am concerned that countries will be pressured to go to war over the shortfall in energy, through desperation.
A few points about different countries-
The USA could likely decrease it energy use/capita considerably (perhaps 30%), without severe economic repercussion. But it is not taking the issue seriously.
Some countries like Korea will have a very hard time decreasing consumption. They are cold, and heavily industrialized. And rely almost entirely on imported fossil fuel.
I expect India, and China, to lean heavily toward suppliers of fuel as they plan their position in the world and choose allies. Iran and Australia both seem to be prime suppliers considering proximity.
Concerns over global warming will be swamped by concerns over energy shortage, despite the severity of the change, such as food supply disruption and forced migration. These climate problems will likely be much more severe after energy shortage problems develop due to the lag in CO2 effects.
Do you see these issues differently?Mostly I agree with you.Hickory x Ignored says: 02/26/2019 at 6:29 pm
It's hard to imagine the future.
Much will depend on politicians and the willingness of peoples to reduce consumption for the sake of an acceptable standard of living in the future.
Passing the peak of energy consumption will lead to a decrease in global GDP.
This means a decrease in per capita consumption.
Reduced consumption = reduced demand = industrial workload = crisis.
I believe that in order to save people, they will live in multi-storey buildings, perhaps without an elevator (of course, it may not be soon for 50 years), the transport will be public, there will not be enough private cars.
In addition to the peak of hydrocarbons, the peak of copper, gold, silver, tin, and a lot more is coming. How to solve these problems I don't want to dream
Post scriptum. The problem of CO2 and the problem of global warming in Russia is not a popular topic. So much that everyone refuses to discuss it and even think about it. Approximately as an alien topic.I should have added Russia to the list of few countries that both India and China (and many others) will be turning to eager for more energy supply.
Secondly, regarding global warming, Russia may experience a large degree of immigration pressure in later decades.
Feb 22, 2019 | www.unz.com
Carlton Meyer , says: • Website February 21, 2019 at 7:15 pm GMT@Shouting Thomas Wrong, the USA is a net importer of around 4 million barrels of oil per day.
Here is some background on that hoax you repeated.
Fracking has helped the USA boost oil production, but that is pressuring to get oil out of older wells. Once those have been sucked dry, we'll need to import lots more. You read news about occasional big new discoveries in the USA, but read the details to see that each amounts only to a few days of oil consumption in the USA.
The world still runs on oil and the USA wants to control it all. If you doubt the importance, look at a freeway or airport or seaport to see oil at work.
In the ET scenario, global demand for liquid fuels – crude and condensates, natural gas liquids (NGLs), and other liquids – increases by 10 Mb/d, plateauing around 108 Mb/d in the 2030s.
All of the demand growth comes from developing economies, driven by the burgeoning middle class in developing Asian economies. Consumption of liquid fuels within the OECD resumes its declining trend. The growth in demand is initially met from non-OPEC producers, led by US tight oil. But as US tight oil production declines in the final decade of the Outlook, OPEC becomes the main source of incremental supply. OPEC output increases by 4 Mb/d over the Outlook, with all of this growth concentrated in the 2030s. Non-OPEC supply grows by 6 Mb/d, led by the US (5 Mb/d), Brazil (2 Mb/d) and Russia (1 Mb/d) offset by declines in higher-cost, mature basins.
Consumption of liquid fuels grows over the next decade, before broadly plateauing in the 2030s
Demand for liquid fuels looks set to expand for a period before gradually plateauing as efficiency improvements in the transport sector accelerate. In the ET scenario, consumption of liquid fuels increases by 10 Mb/d (from 98 Mb/d to 108 Mb/d), with the majority of that growth happening over the next 10 years or so. The demand for liquid fuels continues to be dominated by the transport sector, with its share of liquids consumption remaining around 55%. Transport demand for liquid fuels increases from 56 Mb/d to 61 Mb/d by 2040, with this expansion split between road (2 Mb/d) (divided broadly equally between cars, trucks, and 2/3 wheelers) and aviation/marine (3 Mb/d). But the impetus from transport demand fades over the Outlook as the pace of vehicle efficiency improvements quicken and alternative sources of energy penetrate the transport system . In contrast, efficiency gains when using oil for non-combusted uses, especially as a feedstock in petrochemicals, are more limited. As a result, the non-combusted use of oil takes over as the largest source of demand growth over the Outlook, increasing by 7 Mb/d to 22 Mb/d by 2040.
The outlook for oil demand is uncertain but looks set to play a major role in global energy out to 2040
Although the precise outlook is uncertain, the world looks set to consume significant amounts of oil (crude plus NGLs) for several decades, requiring substantial investment. This year's Energy Outlook considers a range of scenarios for oil demand, with the timing of the peak in demand varying from the next few years to beyond 2040. Despite these differences, the scenarios share two common features. First, all the scenarios suggest that oil will continue to play a significant role in the global energy system in 2040, with the level of oil demand in 2040 ranging from around 80 Mb/d to 130 Mb/d.In all scenarios, trillions of dollars of investment in oil is neededSecond, significant levels of investment are required for there to be sufficient supplies of oil to meet demand in 2040. If future investment was limited to developing existing fields and there was no investment in new production areas, global production would decline at an average rate of around 4.5% p.a. (based on IEA's estimates), implying global oil supply would be only around 35 Mb/d in 2040. Closing the gap between this supply profile and any of the demand scenarios in the Outlook would require many trillions of dollars of investment over the next 20 years.
Growth in liquids supply is initially dominated by US tight oil, with OPEC production increasing only as US tight oil declines
Growth in global liquids production is dominated in the first part of the Outlook by US tight oil, with OPEC production gaining in importance further out. In the ET scenario, total US liquids production accounts for the vast majority of the increase in global supplies out to 2030, driven by US tight oil and NGLs. US tight oil increases by almost 6 Mb/d in the next 10 years, peaking at close to 10.5 Mb/d in the late 2020s, before falling back to around 8.5 Mb/d by 2040. The strong growth in US tight oil reinforces the US's position as the world's largest producer of liquid fuels. As US tight oil declines, this space is filled by OPEC production, which more than accounts for the increase in liquid supplies in the final decade of the Outlook.
The increase in OPEC production is aided by OPEC members responding to the increasing abundance of global oil resources by reforming their economies and reducing their dependency on oil, allowing them gradually to adopt a more competitive strategy of increasing their market share. The speed and extent of this reform is a key uncertainty affecting the outlook for global oil markets (see pp 88-89).
The stalling in OPEC production during the first part of the Outlook causes OPEC's share of global liquids production to fall to its lowest level since the late 1980s before recovering towards the end of the Outlook.
Low-cost producers: Saudi Arabia, UAE, Kuwait, Iraq and Russia
Oil demand †Download chart and data Download this chart pdf / 64.6 KB Download this data xlsx / 10.1 KB
† Excluding GTLs and CTLs
The abundance of oil resources, and risk that large quantities of recoverable oil will never be extracted, may prompt low-cost producers to use their comparative advantage to expand their market share in order to help ensure their resources are produced.
The extent to which low-cost producers can sustainably adopt such a 'higher production, lower price' strategy depends on their progress in reforming their economies, reducing their dependence on oil revenues.
In the ET scenario, low-cost producers are assumed to make some progress in the second half of the Outlook, but the structure of their economies still acts as a material constraint on their ability to exploit fully their low-cost barrels.
The alternative 'Greater reform' scenario assumes a faster pace of economic reform, allowing low-cost producers to increase their market share. The extent to which low-cost producers can increase their market share depends on: the time needed to increase production capacity; and on the ability of higher-cost producers to compete, by either reducing production costs or varying fiscal terms.
The lower price environment associated with this more competitive market structure boosts demand, with the consumption of oil growing throughout the Outlook.
Growth in liquid fuels supplies is driven by NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude oil production
The increase in liquid fuels supplies is set to be dominated by increases in NGLs and biofuels, with only limited growth in crude.
Feb 15, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 02/14/2019 at 4:37 pmI had to google the link, but it was not hard to find.
How Much Oil Does Saudi Arabia Really Have?
Okay, you will have to read the article to see how Robert arrived at his conclusion. But his conclusion is:
So, I have no good reason to doubt Saudi Arabia's official numbers. They probably do have 270 billion barrels of proved oil reserves.
I find his logic horribly flawed. Robert compares Saudi's growing reserve estimates with those of the USA.
First, the US Securities and Exchange Commission have the strictest oil reporting laws in the world, or did have in 1982. Also, better technology has greatly improved reserve estimates. And third, the advent of shale oil has dramatically added to US reserve estimates.
Saudi has no laws that govern their reserve reporting estimates.
From Wikipedia, US Oil Reserves: Proven oil reserves in the United States were 36.4 billion barrels (5.79×109 m3) of crude oil as of the end of 2014, excluding the Strategic Petroleum Reserve. The 2014 reserves represent the largest US proven reserves since 1972, and a 90% increase in proved reserves since 2008.
Robert says US reserves are 50 billion barrels. I don't know where he gets that number but it really doesn't matter. Oil production, along with reserve estimates, are growing in the US for one reason and one reason only, the advent of shale oil. Reserve estimates before 2008 were based on conventional oil. Onshore conventional oil production in the USA is in steep decline.
Robert Rapier is brillant oil man, but a brilliant downstream oil man. Refineries are his forte. He should know better than the shit he produced in that article.
100 percent of Saudi Arabia's reserves are based on conventional oil. Their true reserves are very likely somewhere in the neighborhood of 70 billion barrels.
Feb 15, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 02/14/2019 at 5 :39 pmFood for thoughtRavi x Ignored says: 02/14/2019 at 11:05 pm
I just did a little math using OPEC's estimate of OPEC and Non-OPEC World proven oil Reserves.
OPEC says they have 1214.21 billion barrels of proven reserves. And they say non-OPEC has 268.56 billion barrels of proven reserves. Average OPEC C+C production, over the last four years, has been 12.78 billion barrels per year according to the EIA. The EIA says the average non-OPEC C+C production over the last four years has been 16.8 billion barrels per year.
Okay, here is the killer. If those numbers are correct then the average non-OPEC nation has an R/P ratio of 16 while the average OPEC nation has an R/P ratio of 95. If you think those R/P ratio numbers are even remotely correct then I have a bridge I would like to sell you.Ron,
I agree that the R/P numbers seem very suspicious. But if this is true then OPEC reserves are closer to 400-500 billion barrels not 1.2 trillion barrels. That would give us another trillion barrels at best to consume in the future in addition to the 1.3 trillion already consumed. This brings the URR to 2.2-2.5 trillion barrels at best including extra heavy. What do you think of the URR of 3.1 trillion barrels that is commonly assumed? Also canadian tar sands and venezuelan heavy oil have very low EROI which brings down the extractable oil reserves further. Do you think that is taken into account?
Feb 13, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News, 02/12/2019 at 2:29 pmThe EIA's STEO released today.Dennis Coyne, 02/12/2019 at 4:12 pm
They forecast US C+C production to increase +0.79 million barrels per day during 2019
From Dec 2018 11.93 million barrels per day
To Dec 2019 12.72 million barrels per dayThe EIA's forecast might not be too far off, but I think they expect maybe 200 kb/d higher output in the GOM and my interpretation of George Kaplan's and SouthLaGeo's recent comments is that flat or possibly declining GOM output is a more likely scenario.
Feb 12, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Fernando L x Ignored says: 02/12/2019 at 5:36 pmVenezuela production should take a larger drop in February. Today Interim President Guaidó announced Feb 23 would be the day a big push would be made to push humanitarian aid columns into Venezuela. Collection points for food and medicine are now available in Colombia and Brazil, and others are being prepared.
Maduro moved 700 special forces (FAES) which are usually kept serving as death squads in large cities, to cover the bridges between Ureña in Venezuela and Cucuta in Colombia, with orders to fire on the humanitarian relief trucks. Guaidó responded the border was plenty long and Maduro lacked enough FAES and Cubans to stop the relief from crossing the border. He also pointed out that if Maduro had to use death squads to patrol the border it meant he didn't trust the Army, the National Guard or the National Police, so he asked for volunteers inside Venezuela to help overcome Maduro's thugs with sheer numbers.
Today it became very common to see an individual scream "Maduro!" and the crowd respond "f k you!". It's the way people pass the time at metro stations and while waiting in line. And the police seem to have abandoned the usurper, because they seldom do anything about it.
Feb 12, 2019 | finance.yahoo.com
Rising oil prices help Venezuela more than it helps the rest of OPEC because Venezuela needs the money more.
Feb 09, 2019 | www.asiatimes.com
As of 2017, Russia controlled 13% of Venezuela's crude exports, Reuters reported . According to some experts, Rosneft has been taking advantage of Venezuela's difficulties to secure deals which will be profitable in the long term.
... ... ...
The beleaguered country's economy is on the verge of collapse and the oil sector, which accounts for over 90% of national export revenues, has not been spared. Last year, oil production dropped by 37% compared with 2017. So, Maduro has been struggling to pay back the loans and last year, Sechin had to fly to Caracas to negotiate with the Venezuelan leader over delayed oil supplies.
Russia's concern about a collapse in Venezuela's economy is tangible. A delegation of high-ranking Russian officials flew to Caracas in October to advise the government on how to overcome the crisis. With the country in a state of turmoil, Russia's Deputy Minister of Finance Sergei Storchak said he expects Venezuela to struggle to repay its debt, and the next $100 million tranche is due next month.
Feb 08, 2019 | off-guardian.org
Narrative says Feb, 1, 2019Nations should explore better system to break US hegemonycrank says Feb, 1, 2019
"The US dollar is used for the international oil and gas trade and a wide part of global trade. This gives the US an exorbitant privilege to sanction countries it opposes.
The latest sanctions on Venezuela's state-owned oil company aim to cut off source of foreign currency of Venezuelan strongman Nicolas Maduro's government and eventually force him to step down.
A new mechanism should be devised to thwart such a vicious circle"
http://www.globaltimes.cn/content/1137847.shtmlFrancis Lee; Big B,BigB says Feb, 1, 2019
OK I phrased that badly.
My question is really about those at the top of the power pyramid (those few hundred families who own the controling share of the wealth of the world) -- those who position idiots like Bolton to do their work, do they comprehend 'exergy' decline ?
If we can, then can they not? I agree with Parenti that they are not 'somnambulists'. They are strategists looking out for their own interests, and that means scrutinising trends in political movements, culture, technology and, well, just about everything. I find it hard, the idea that all these people -- people who have seen their businesses shaped by resource discovery, exploitation and then depletion, have no firm grasp on the realities of dwindling returns on energy.
The models were drawn up 47 years ago. I think that some of them at least, do understand that economic growth is coming to a halt, and have understood for decades. If true then they are planning that transition in their favour.
These hard to swallow facts about oil are still on the far fringes of any political conversation. The neoliberal cultists are deaf to them for obvious reasons; the socialist idealists believe that a 'New Deal' can lead us off the death train, but mostly ignore the intractable relationship between energy decline and financial problems; even the anarchists want their work free utopia run by robots and AI but stop short of asking whether solar panels and wind turbines can actually provide the power for all that tech. It's the news that nobody wants to think about, but which they will be forced to thinking about in the very near future.
The Twitter feed 'Limits to Growth' has less than 800 followers (excellent though it is).CrankBigB says Feb, 2, 2019
I do not want to get into the mind of the Walrus of Death Bolton! I do not want to know what he does, as he does. But at lower levels of government, and corporatism, there is an awareness of surplus energy economics. And as Nafeez has also pointed out, the military (the Pentagon) are taking an interest. And though it could rapidly change, who really appreciates the nuances of EROEI? I'm guessing at less than a single percent of all populations? And how many include its effects in a integrated political sense?
Its appreciation is sporadic: ranging from tech-utopia hopium to a defeated fatalism of the inevitability of collapse. Unless and until people want to face the harshness of the reality that capitalism has created: we are going to be involved in a marginal analysis. There are very few people who have realised that capitalism is long dead.
Dr Tim Morgan estimates that world capitalism has conservatively had $140tn in stimulus since 2008 -- without stimulating anything or reviving it at all. In fact, that amounts to the greatest robbery in history -- the theft of the future. Inasmuch as they can, those unrepayable debts -- transferred to inflate the parasitic assets of capitalists -- will be socialised. Except they cannot be. Not without surplus energy.
Brexit, gilets jaunes, Venezuela, unending crises in MENA, China's economic slowdown, etc -- all linked by EROEI.
It is a common socio-politico-economic energy nexus -- but linked together by whom? And the emergent surplus energy-mind-environmental ecology nexus? All the information is available. The formation of a new political manifesto started in the 1960s with the New Left but it seems to have been in stasis since. Perhaps this might stimulate the conversation.
According to Nate Hagens: there is 4.5 years of human muscle power leveraged by each barrel of oil. We are all going to be working for a very long time to pay back the debts the possessing classes have built up for us -- with absolutely no marginal utility for ourselves.
We are subsidising our own voluntary slavery unless we develop an emergent ecosocialist and ecosophical alternative to carbon capitalism. We cannot expect paleoconservative carbon relics like Bolton -- or anyone else -- to do it for us. The current political landscape is dominated by a hierarchical, vested interest, carbon aristocracy. We can't expect that to change for our benefit any time ever. Expect the opposite.Graeber has a point, though. We could already have a post-scarcity, post-production society but for the egregious maldistribution of resources and employment. Andre Gorz said as much 50 years ago (Critique of Economic Reason). Why do we organise around production: it makes no sense but for the relations of production are, and remain, the relations of hierarchical rule. So long as we assign value to a human life on the basis of meritocratic productivity -- we will have dehumanisation, marginalisation, and subjugation (haves and have nots). So why not organisation around care, freedom and play?crank says Feb, 2, 2019
Such a solution would require the transversalistion of society and not-full-employment: so that no part of the system is subordinate, and no part is privileged. All systems and sub-ordinate (care) systems would be co-equal, of corresponding value and worth. So, without invoking EROEI, that would go a long way to solve our exergy, waste, pollution, and inequality problems. It is the profligate, unproductive superstructure: supporting rentier, surplus energy accumulating, profit-seeking suprasocieties -- that squanders our excess energy and puts expansive spatio-temporal pressures on already stretched biophysical ecological systems that engenders potential collapse. It is their -- the possessing classes -- assets that are being inflated, at our environmental expense. When it comes to survivability, we cannot afford a parasitic globalised superstructure draining the host -- the ecologically productive base. Without the over-accumulation, overconsumption, and wastage (the accursed share) associated with the superstructure of the advanced economies -- and their cultural, credit, military imperialisms I expect we could live quite well. Without the pressures of globalised transportation networks, and unnecessary military budgets -- the pressure on oil is minimised. It could be used for the 1001 other uses it has, rather than fuelling Saudi Eurofighters bombing Yemeni schoolchildren, for instance. The surplus energy could be used to educate, clothe and feed them instead. That would be a better use of resources, for sure.
If we took stock of what we really have, and what we really are -- a form of spiritual neo-self-sufficiency, augmented and extended into co-mutual care and freedom valorising ecologies we wouldn't need to chase the perceived loss all over the globe, killing everything that moves. The solutions are not hard, they are normative, once we are shocked out of this awful near-life trance state of separationism. Thanks for the link.It seems to me that there are two parallel arguments going on.BigB says Feb, 2, 2019
One is about social organisation, attitudes towards and policies determining work, money, paid employment, technological development and the distribution of weath.
The other is fundamentally based on the laws of thermodynamics and concerns resource limits, energy surpluses, the role of 'stored sunlight' in producing things and doing work for each other, pollution and projections about these into the future.
I am surprised that Graeber (just as an example) seems to basically ignore the second of these even though he clearly is an incisive thinker and makes good points about the first. It is taken as a given that, theoretically at least, human civilisation could re-organise around a new ethic, transform the economy into a 'caring economy', re-structure money, government and do away with militarism. In terms of what to do now, as an individual, what choices to make, it is disconcerting to me when talk of these ideals seems to ignore those latter questions about overshoot.
I wonder if the egalitarian nature of much of indiginous North American society was inescapably bound with the realities of a low population density, low technology, intimate relationship with the natural world and a culture completely steeped in reverence for Mother Earth.
The talk I hear from Bastani or Graeber along the lines of 'we could be flying around in jet packs on the moon, if only society was organised sensibly' rings hollow to me.Crankcrank says Jan, 31, 2019
Welcome to my world! Apart from as a managerial tool, systems thinking has yet to catch on in the wider population. According to reductive materialism: there are two unlinked arguments. According to Dynamic Systems Theory (DST) there is only one integrated argument -- with two inter-connected correlative aspects. We can only organise around what we can energetically afford. Consequently, we cannot organise around what we cannot afford -- that is, global industrialised production with a supervenient elitist superstructure.
Let's face it : ethical arguments carry little weight against organisation around hierarchical rule. The current talk of an ethical capitalism -- in mixed economies with 'commons' elements -- is an appeasement. and distractional to the gathering and ineluctable reality.
The current (2012) EROI for the UK is 6.2:1 -- barely above the 'energy cliff' of 5:1. The GDP 'growth' and bullshit jobs are funded by monetised debt (we borrow around £5 to make every £1 -- from Tim Morgan's SEEDS). From the Earth Overshoot Day website: the UK is in economic overshoot from May 8th onward.
These are indicators that we will not be "flying jetpacks on the moon": even if we reorganise. Everyone, and I mean everyone, will have to make do with less. A lot less. Everything would have to be localised and sustainable. Production would be minimised, and not at all full. Two major systems of production -- food (agroecology) and energy -- would have to be sustainable and self-sovereign. And financialisation and the rentier, service economy? Now you can see why no one, not even Dave the crypto-anarchist, is talking about reality. Elitism, establishment and entitlement do not figure in an equitable future. We can't afford it, energetically or ethically.
So when will the debate move on? Not any time the populace is bought into ideational deferred prosperity. All the time that EROEI is ignored as the fundamental concept governing dwindling prosperity -- no one, and I mean no one, will be talking about a minimal surplus energy future. The magic realism is that the economic affordances of cheap oil (unsustainably mimicked by debt-funding) will return sometime, somehow (the technocratic superfix). The aporia is that the longer the delay, the less surplus energy we will have available to utilise. Something like the Green New Deal -- that has been proposed for around two decades now -- may give us some quality of life to sustain. Pseudo-talk of a Customs Union, 'clean' coal, and nuclear power, will not.
An integrated reality -- along the model of Guattari's 'Three Ecologies' -- of mind, economy, and environment is well, we are not alone, but we are ahead of the curve. The other cultural aporia is that we need to implement such vision now. Actually, about thirty years ago but let's not get depressive!
We are going to need that cooperative organisation around care and freedom just to get through the coming century.As mentioned elsewhere here, Venezualan oil deposits are not all that the hype cracks them up to be. They are mostly oil sands that produce little in the way of net energy gain after the lengthy process of extraction.The Venezuala drama is about the empire crushing democracy (i.e. socialism), not oil. [not that this detracts from Kit's essential point in the article].Francis Lee says Jan, 31, 2019
The Left (as well as the Right), by and large have not come to terms with the realities of the decline in net surplus energy that is unfolding around the world and driving the political changes that we see. So they still view geopolitics in terms of the oil economy of pre-2008.
The productive economies of Europe are falling apart (check Steve Keen's latest on Max and Stacy -- although even i he doesn't delve into the energy decline aspect).
The carbon density of the global economy has not changed in the 27 years since the founding of the UNFCCC.
The Peak Oil phenomenon was oversimplified, misrepresented and misunderstood as a simple turning point in overall oil production. In truth it was a turning point in energy surplus.
I predict that by the end of this or next year, everyone will be talking about ERoEI. Everyone will realise that there is no way out of this predicament. Maybe there are ways to lessen the catastrophe, but no way to avert it. This will change the conversation, and even change what 'politics' means (i.e. you cannot campaign on a 'new start' or a 'better, brighter future' if everyone knows that that physically cannot happen).
Everyone will understand that their civilisation is collapsing.
Does Bolton understand this?
https://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/brexit-stage-one-in-europes-slow-burn-energy-collapse-1f520d7e2d89"Does Bolton Understand this/? I think this might qualify as a rhetorical question.BigB says Feb, 1, 2019CrankBigB says Feb, 1, 2019
If you were referring to my earlier comments about Venezuelan extra heavy crude: it's still massively about the oil. The current carbon capitalist world system does not understand surplus energy or EROEI, as it is so fixated on maximal short term returns for shareholders. It can't comprehend that their entire business model is unsustainable and self cannibalising. Which is bad for us: because carbon net-energy (exergy) economics it is foundational to all civilisation. The ignorance of it and subsequent environmental and social convergence crises threatens the systemic failure of our entire civilisation. The Venezuelan crisis affects us all: and is symptomatic of a decline in cheap oil due to rapidly falling EROEI.
I can't find the EROEI specifically for Venezuelan heavy oil: but it is only slightly more viscous than bitumen -- which has an EROEI of 3:1. Let's call it 4:1: the same as other tight oils and shale. Anything less than 5:1 is more or less an energy sink: with virtually no net energy left for society. The minimum EROEI for societal needs is 11:1. Does Bolton understand this? Francis hit the nail on the head there.
Do any of our leaders? No. If they did, a transition to decentralisation would be well under way. Globalised supply chains are systemically threatened and fragile. A globalised economy is spectacularly vulnerable. Especially a debt-ridden one. Which way are our leaders trying to take us? At what point will humanity realise we are following clueless Pied Pipers off the Seneca Cliff -- into globalised energy oblivion?
The rapid investment -- not in a post-carbon transition -- but in increased militarisation, and resource and market driven aggressive foreign intervention policies reveal the mindset of insanity. As people come to understand the energy basis of the world crisis: the fact of permanent austerity and increased pauperisation looms large. What will the outcome be when an armed nuclear madhouse becomes increasingly protectionsist of their dwindling share? Too alarmist, perhaps? Let's play pretend that we can plant a few trees and captive breed a few rhinos and it will all be fine. BAU?
The world runs on cheap oil: our socio-politico-economic expectations of progress depend on it. Which means that the modern human mind is, in effect, a thought-process predicated on cheap oil. Oleum ergo sum? Apart from the Middle East: we are already past the point where oil is a liability, not a viability. Debt funding its extraction, selling below the cost of production -- both assume the continual expansion of global GDP. Oil is a highly subsidised -- with our surplus socialisation capital -- negative asset. We foot the bill. A bill that EROEI predicts will keep on rising. At what point do we realise this? Or do we live in hopium of a return to historical prosperity? Or hang on the every word of the populist magic realism demagogue who promises a future social utopia?
If it's based on cheap oil, it ain't happenin'.Erratum: less viscous than bitumen.wildtalents says Feb, 1, 2019Is it no longer considered a courtesy to the reader to spell out, and who knows maybe even explain, the abbreviations one uses?Jen says Feb, 1, 2019EROEI = Energy Returned on Energy Invested (also known as EROI = Energy Return on Investment)BigB says Feb, 1, 2019
EROEI refers to the amount of usable energy that can be extracted from a resource compared to the amount of energy (usually considered to come from the same resource) used to extract it. It's calculated by dividing the amount of energy obtained from a source by the amount of energy needed to get it out.
An EROEI of 1:1 means that the amount of usable energy that a resource generates is the same as the amount of energy that went into getting it out. A resource with an EROEI of 1:1 or anything less isn't considered a viable resource if it delivers the same or less energy than what was invested in it. A viable resource is one with an EROEI of at least 3:1.
The concept of EROEI assumes that the energy needed to get more energy out of a resource is the same as the extracted energy ie you need oil to extract oil or you need electricity to extract electricity. In real life, you often need another source of energy to extract energy eg in some countries, to extract electricity, you need to burn coal, and in other countries, to extract electricity you need to build dams on rivers. So comparing the EROEI of electricity extraction across different countries will be difficult because you have to consider how and where they're generating electricity and factor in the opportunity costs involved (that is, what the coal or the water or other energy source -- like solar or wind energy -- could have been used for instead of electricity generation).
That is probably why EROEI is used mainly in the context of oil or natural gas extraction.wildtalents: Yes, I normally do. But the thread started from, and includes Crank's link that explains it.Thomas Peterson says Feb, 1, 2019That's true, Venezuela's 'oil' is mostly not oil.
The Wall Street Journal reported oil storage is "filling up" in Venezuela because of a lack of buyers.
Related: Wood Mac: Venezuela's Oil Output To Fall Below 1 Million Bpd
Moreover, not only are the effects of the sanctions more far-reaching, but also more immediate than first thought. At first, the U.S. seemed to exempt shipments that were underway, outlining a sort of phased approach that would allow a handful of American refiners to gradually unwind their oil purchase from Venezuela. The phased approach, which was supposed to be extended into April, would help "to minimize any immediate disruptions," U.S. Secretary of Treasury Steven Mnuchin said in late January.
But that now does not appear to be what is unfolding. PDVSA has demanded upfront payment, likely because it fears not being paid at all or having the revenues steered to the opposition. Indeed, the U.S. effort to steer PDVSA and its revenues into the hands of the U.S.-backed opposition leader Juan Gauidó appears to be a decisive turning point.
Oil tankers linked to Chevron, Lukoil and Respsol are delayed, redirected or sitting offshore because of lack of payment. The WSJ says that several of those tankers had recently sent oil to Corpus Christi, Texas, but are now anchored off the coast of Maracaibo sitting idle. "This is an absolute disaster," Luis Hernández, a Venezuelan oil union leader, told the WSJ. "There's almost no way to move the oil."
Unable to sell any oil, Maduro's regime could quickly run out of cash. The result could be a humanitarian catastrophe, a merciless and destructive objective that the Trump administration seems to have in mind. The U.S. government is essentially betting that by driving the country into the ground, the military and the people will turn on Maduro. It could yet turn out that way, but it could also deepen the misery and exact an unspeakable toll on the Venezuelan population, the very people the Trump administration says it is trying to help.
In the meantime, oil exports are likely heading into a freefall. The WSJ says that labor problems, including "mass defections of workers" are accelerating declines. PDVSA could soon run out of refined fuel.
Officials with knowledge of the situation told the WSJ that Venezuela's oil production has likely already fallen well below 1 million barrels per day (mb/d), down more than 10 percent – at least – from December levels.
Related: OPEC's Oil Princes Are Fighting For Survival
Wood Mackenzie estimates that production probably stands a little bit higher at about 1.1 mb/d, but that it could soon fall to 900,000 bpd.
... ... ...
That would push up oil prices significantly. But the U.S. government has blown past the point of no return, leaving it with no other options except to escalate. That means that Venezuela is set to lose a lot more oil than analysts thought only two weeks ago .
Feb 05, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
PavewayIV , Feb 3, 2019 8:33:23 PM | linkBart Hansen@20 - Oil production costs are complex, secret and mostly lies. With that caveat, Venezuela was thought to have about $10 - $15 production costs on average. That includes their light and medium crude, and zero investment in repair of their distribution networks.Jen , Feb 3, 2019 7:21:08 PM | link
Well over half of Venezuela's reserves are Orinco extra-heavy, sour crude. Essentially tar sands, but buried 500m - 1500m deep that require solvent or steam extraction. So (guess) maybe $30-range/bbl for production. Those tar sand oils produced are so heavy that they need pre-processing and dilution before they can be refined or exported. Naphtha or other refined products are used as dilutent and cost maybe $55/bbl today, but were around $75/bbl last October.
U.S. refineries were pretty much the only ones paying cash for their 500,000 b/d of Venezuelan crude. Trump's sanctions not only ban those imports, but also ban the 120,000 b/d of naphtha and other dilutents we sold them.
Interesting to note that part of Trump's beat-down of the Venezuela little people is a ban on the 120,000 b/d of dilutent last week. That will completely shut down their exports. They could find another source of naphtha, but that source will be looking for $6.6 million a day hard cash for it.
Maduro needs to sell Venezuela's gold to buy naphtha to export oil for ANY revenue. The $2.5 billion the Bank of England can't find and won't deliver is meant to hasten the food riots and CIA-orchestrated coup. But Mercy Corps is setting up concentration camps on the Colombian border and we're delivering food aid, so the U.S. is really the hero, here. God bless America! Obey, or die.Red Ryder @ 30: Venezuela's economy is as much ruined by US economic sanctions against the country and (at US behest) Saudi Arabia's flooding of the global oil market that sent oil prices down in order to crash the economies of other countries like Iran and Russia that were presumed to be dependent on oil exports, as by mismanagement or poor leadership on Chavez or Maduro's part.
On top of that, major food importers and producers (several of which are owned by companies or individuals hostile to Chavez and Maduro) have been withholding food from supermarkets to manipulate prices and goad the public into demonstrating against the government.
As for Venezuela's over-reliance on oil exports to support its economy, this is the result of past government policies before Chavez came to power. The US treated Venezuela as a petrol station and pro-US governments in the country turned it into a petrol station.
Chavez did try to encourage local food production and carried out some land redistribution to achieve this. But his efforts did not succeed because importing food was cheaper than producing it locally and farm-workers apparently preferred jobs in the oil industry that paid better and were more secure.
I do not know how the collectives were organised, whether they had some independent decision-making abilities or not, or whether they were organised from top down rather than bottom up, so I can't say whether their organisational structures and the internal culture those encouraged worked against them.
Feb 04, 2019 | www.unz.com
Agent76 , says: February 3, 2019 at 7:29 pm GMTFeb 2, 2019 The REAL Reason The U.S. Wants Regime Change in Venezuela. The U.S. and its allies have decided to throw their weight behind yet another coup attempt in Venezuela. As usual, they claim that their objectives are democracy and freedom. Nothing could be farther from the truth.
Feb 3, 2019 Venezuela's Oil Enough for World's 30 Year Energy Needs
The long bankrupt fiat financial system is pushing the Deep State to target Venezuela for the latter's natural resources that dwarfs that of its satellite province Saudi Arabia.
Feb 04, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Karl Johnsonx Ignored says: 01/29/2019 at 10:11 amWhats the beginning of the Senneca-Cliff?GuyM x Ignored says: 01/29/2019 at 11:50 amI think it would be this year, if not last year. Ron has said 2019 at one time. Dennis thinks later, around 2025, as I recall.Hickory x Ignored says: 01/29/2019 at 2:14 pmKarl- I see that you asked 'what' rather than when.Guym x Ignored says: 01/29/2019 at 4:00 pm
Seneca Cliff refers to a very rapid decline in a feature (such as global oil production) after it has achieved a peak. This is as opposed to a very slow decline.
Obviously for oil, a fast decline would be catastrophic.
https://cassandralegacy.blogspot.com/2011/08/seneca-effect-origins-of-collapse.htmlAccording to the chart from iRA I posted below, we would be on a Seneca cliff now, without shale oil. Just flattened the drop for awhile.GuyM x Ignored says: 01/29/2019 at 11:39 amhttps://www.iea.org/newsroom/news/2018/november/crunching-the-numbers-are-we-heading-for-an-oil-supply-shock.htmlHan Neumann x Ignored says: 01/31/2019 at 10:58 pm
US production will be close to flat 2019, and if ports are not improved much until late 2020, then 2020 will not be great. After that, I don't see it catching up.As stated many times on 'theoildrum', State of the art EOR projects deplete oilfields, who without EOR would go in terminal decline much earlier, very rapidly. So a world oilproduction cliff cannot be ruled out, especially if money reserves from oil companies dry up.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 02/01/2019 at 10:32 amHan Neumann,Han Neumann x Ignored says: 02/03/2019 at 1:33 pm
Oil prices are likely to rise if there is a shortage of oil, this will mean oil companies will have plenty of financial resources as long as demand is sufficient to consume the oil produced. Not suggesting there will not be a decline, just unlikely there will be a cliff unless oil prices drop, so far there is no evidence of a cliff and given World stock level trend, prices are unlikely to drop further and are more likely to increase in the future.Dennis,
A cliff is unlikely to happen, I agree.
But to repeat a cliché: depletion never sleeps. Already about fifteen years ago EOR projects were started that extracted oil from (quite) 'past peak' or 'on plateau production' oilfields. EOR projects in case of 'quite past peak' fields, to get 'the last recoverable' barrel out resulting in oil production/day far less than peak production.
I know, the recoverable quantity increases with rising oilprices and better extraction techniques, but still the production/day way past peak will be much less than on peak.
What will happen when oilprices don't increase a lot for the next ten years, for a combination of reasons ?
At a certain point in time all the money in the world couldn't prevent world production decline and the further that point will be in the future, the steeper will be the decline I think. So better sooner than later oilprices begin to increase significantly, to buy some time for the transition to EV's, etc.
I am not an expert in engineering nor in geology, far from that, just expressing a feeling that I got after having read the many posts on theoildrum regarding this matter.
Feb 03, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Krollchem , Feb 2, 2019 7:24:19 PM | linkUpdate on comment Krollchem@176
This article by Nafeez Ahmed connects the dots that have led to the Venezuela's current political and economic crisis. The factors include:
(1) predatory global capitalism (see Michael Hudson's work);
(2) government mismanagement e.g. price controls;
(3) corruption at all levels (insiders);
(4) droughts (El-Nino), especially in 2015 and tied to lower hydroelectric electricity production;
(5) oil price flux;
(6) US destabilization efforts;
(7) privatization of oil resources;
(8) low Energy Return on (energy) Invested (EROI);
(9) US use of (corporate socialism) subsidized oil prices as a weapon to punish real oil producers
(10) Energy waste by gas flaring, which is also common in the US.
He neglects other factors such as:
(1) poor soil management practices;
(2) demographics such as some 3 million Columbian citizens fleeing the Fascist Columbian military attacks and putting extra stress on the social programs;
(3) Increasing US needs for Venezuela heavy crude to blend with the light fractions coming from fracking operations (e.g. Eagle Ford light "oil" condensates;
(4) US military need for War to support funding levels (e.g. Smidley Butler's "war is a racket";
(5) batshit crazy neocon and neoliberal ideology and world domination.
The EROI issue is worse that many consider. See Gail Tverberg article "How the Peak Oil Story Could Be "Close," But Not Quite Right". The article points out that wellhead costs do not capture the downstream costs of production and tax capture that bust further reduce the EROI.
US need for heavy oil is also due to declines in conventional oil production. Fracking "oil" ( high in condensates) has been used to mask the peak (real) oil declines and also has a lower energy content/barrel and must be blended with heavy oil for the refineries to process it. Thus, "Prices of heavier U.S. grades like Mars Sour, an offshore medium U.S. crude, and Heavy Louisiana Sweet crude have risen as buyers scramble for supply".
Mars currently trades at a premium to U.S. crude at $58.19 vs $53.69 for West Texas Intermediate (WTI)". Currently, the US also imports 500,000 barrels of Venezuelan crude a day to meet refinery blending requirements.
All other shale fracking regions than the Permian have peaked or are in decline as shown by http://aheadoftheherd.com/Newsletter/2018/Shale-is-dead-long-live-conventional-oil.pdf
Added to this EROI problem is that the new US energy production hope from the Permian basin is beset with water shortages. https://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Is-The-Permian-Bull-Run-Coming-To-An-End.html
The economics of the US fracking light oil condensates industry is much worse when you consider the offloading of pollution costs (drinking water), health effects, wear and tear of highways from trucking the oil, water and fracking sands (one pound/barrel), climate change from massive methane flaring, volatile organic compounds (VOC) release and earthquake damage from deep injection of the water cut fluids.
Jan 28, 2019 | www.unz.com
Agent76 says: January 30, 2019 at 7:21 pm GMT 100 Words Jan 24, 2019 Catastrophic Consequences What's Really Happening in Venezuela
In this video, we give you the latest breaking news on the current situation in Venezuela with Maduro, the election, and Trump's response.
UN should be probing Washington and allies for regime-change crimes Identical condemnations from the US and allies and the synchronicity show that Venezuela is being targeted for regime change in a concerted plot led by Washington.
AnonFromTN , says: January 30, 2019 at 7:58 pm GMT@Sergey Krieger Negotiations are not necessarily a sign of weakness. However, Maduro should negotiate with the puppet masters, not with the puppet. I don't think that killing that pathetic Guaido is a good strategy: you don't want to make a martyr out of nonentity.WorkingClass , says: January 30, 2019 at 8:02 pm GMTanonymous  Disclaimer , says: January 30, 2019 at 8:31 pm GMTAnd, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
FUCK YOU! Venezuela is not "our" back yard. And the oil does not belong to "us".[Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic. ]onebornfree , says: Website January 30, 2019 at 9:15 pm GMT
It is so disappointing that Americans yet to come to realization that this criminal Jewish Mafia does not standing at the end of the old republic. He is DEEPLY involved, but his STYLE is different. He kills and terrorize the same as Regan, Carter, Clinton, Bush, Obama who have killed millions of people. His sanction is the KILLING MACHINE to topple governments TO STEAL THEIR RESOURCES FOR THE DUMMIES. I have NO respect for the liars who are trying to paint a criminal as someone 'standing against' the deep state. TRUMP IS PART OF THE DEEP STATE, ONLY DUMMIES DO NOT GET IT.
The ignorant Jewish mafia 'president' IS MORE DANGEROUS because he like his 'advisors' is totally ILLITERATE. It is a family business dummies.
Are dummies going to hold petty people like Bolton who lie to get money from MEK to buy a new suit and new shoes, is responsible for the policy of the Trump regime where he wages WARS, economic sanction, to starve children to surrender? Then NO ONE Trusts you. MEK people are not more than 20, but are funded by the US colony, Saudi Arabia where MBS transfers money to the Jewish mafia family funding US wars.
Maduro has EVERY SINGLE RIGHT to arrest Juan Guiado, a gigolo who is taking orders from a US and an illiterate 'president', where its dark history known to every living creature on earth. US has massacred millions of people in all continents including Latin America.
Maduro has every single right to arrest him and put on trail and execute him as a traitor and an enemy of the state. How many years the people in Venezuela should suffer for the US 'regime change' and its crimes against humanity in Venezuela to STEAL ITS RESOURCES."So let me get this straight: The Russians brought America to its knees with a few facebook ads, but Uncle Sam's concerted and ongoing efforts to overthrow governments around the world and interfere with elections is perfectly fine? Because democracy? Riiiiiiight." :anonymous  Disclaimer , says: January 30, 2019 at 9:34 pm GMT
Regards, onebornfree[The last Venezuelan Presidential election was a joke. ]map , says: January 30, 2019 at 9:36 pm GMT
YOU ARE A JOKE ZIONIST IDIOT.
The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup Leader
[Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.]
Illiterate Jewish Mafia 'president' must be kicked out of the office. Hands of Israel is all over the SELECTION.
The ignorant 'president' is MORE DANGEROUS THANT OTHER CRIMINAL US REGIMES because on top of being a criminal, he is ILLITERATE as well.
[In 2009, the Generation 2007 youth activists staged their most provocative demonstration yet, dropping their pants on public roads and aping the outrageous guerrilla theater tactics outlined by Gene Sharp in his regime change manuals.This far-right group "gathered funds from a variety of US government sources, which allowed it to gain notoriety quickly as the hardline wing of opposition street movements," according to academic George Ciccariello-Maher's book, "Building the Commune."
That year, Guaidó exposed himself to the public in another way, founding a political party to capture the anti-Chavez energy his Generation 2007 had cultivated.]
Guaido's behind towards washington criminal elite@By-tor See, this is the typical lie. Socialism fails, so the socialist blames the outside wrecker for causing the problem. If Moscow freezes, then it is because of the wreckers. If Moscow starves, then it is because of the wreckers.Hibernian , says: January 30, 2019 at 9:48 pm GMT
If Venezuela collapses, then it is because of "sanctions," not the failure of the new socialist economy.
America has the right to lock anyone out of its economy that it wants, for whatever reasons. This should not matter because that nation can still trade with the rest of the world, like China. Venezuela could get everything it wants by simply selling oil to China in exchange for goods. The problem is, there is not enough oil production to do so and other nations are reluctant to replace American investment for fear of losing their assets as well.
Think about how wrong-headed the Chavez policy has been. If the Venezuelans have problems with their local ruling class and want to get rid of them fine do so. But, why go after the American oil company? The Americans don't care who rules Venezuela as long as their contracts are honored. Chavez could have then been a true socialist an allocate a greater dividend to Venezuelans that was previously being hoarded by the ruling class an arrangement similar to what Alaskans have with American oil companies.
But no there was an immediate seizure of assets because the only purpose of socialism is to make the socialist leaders rich. And Chavez and Maduro became very rich indeed.@WorkingClass No other nation is in our back yard. They are near neighbors.Sergey Krieger , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:02 pm GMT@AnonFromTN I would happily martyr gorbachov , Yeltsin and all their gang. I think everybody would have been far better of then. Same is applied to the puppet. Nikolai II was martyred and things got a lot better. What is important is winning and final outcome, while making some martyrs in the process.RVBlake , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:11 pm GMT@Harold Smith Trump's personnel picks are mind-boggling. I cannot see how he disapproves Eliot Abrams for deputy SoS with one breath, then blandly allows Pompeo to appoint him an envoy to a trouble-spot. Bolton, Pompeo, Goldberg et al.El Dato , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:11 pm GMT@SeanEliteCommInc. , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:33 pm GMT
NEOCON America does not want Russian bombers in South America.
Real America doesn't give a f*ck. Bombers are so last century, might as well put up machine-gun equipped Union Pacific Big Boys to make it marginally more steampunk and become a real danger for the USA.@Tyrion 2 There is not a single complaint here that did not exist before the election or before Pres Chavez.jack daniels , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:40 pm GMT
There are poor management leaders all over the globe. That';s their business. Hey we have some right here in the US I take it your solution is a military coup or better yet a coup fostered by the EU or the OAS, or maybe ASEAN or SDG . . .It would be nice if someone simply asked Trump why it is he originally wanted to get along with Russia and pull out of the middle east and generally opposed the "neoconservative" approach and now seems to be hiring neocons and doing what they want. Is he trying to placate Sheldon Adelson and Adelson's lackeys, or what? I don't know of his being asked about this directly.APilgrim , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:49 pm GMTIs President Nicolas Maduro stealing the strategic gold reserves of Venezuela?Commentator Mike , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:01 pm GMT
'Venezuela Has 20 Tons of Gold Ready to Ship. Address Unknown', Patricia Laya and Andrew Rosati, Bloomberg, January 30, 2019, https://finance.yahoo.com/news/venezuela-20-tons-gold-ready-004013962.html
Venezuelan lawmaker Jose Guerra dropped a bombshell on Twitter Tuesday: The Russian Boeing 777 that had landed in Caracas the day before was there to spirit away 20 tons of gold from the vaults of the country's central bank. Guerra is a former central bank economist who remains in touch with old colleagues there. A person with direct knowledge of the matter told Bloomberg News Tuesday that 20 tons of gold have been set aside in the central bank for loading. Worth some $840 million, the gold represents about 20 percent of its holdings of the metal in Venezuela.@mapTyrion 2 , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:02 pm GMT
No matter the situation in Venezuela, whatever the US government and media are saying is just hostile propaganda as they couldn't give a rat's ass about the people living there. The Libyan people were doing well out of their oil, as were the Iraqis, living in reasonable wealth and security, and look at them now after the US decided to meddle in their affairs. Now after all that, even if something the US government says may be true, why believe it? How many times do you need to be fooled to stop being a fool?@EliteCommInc.peterAUS , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:12 pm GMT
No, Chavez had popular legitimacy. Maduro has nothing but force to keep himself in power now. Yes, there's easy definition for the above but Chavismo is decrepit.
Pressure for a reasonable Presidential election is based on that.@RVBlakeHibernian , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:21 pm GMT
A guy on ZH explained it well, I guess:
- The opposition hates me. I can do no right.
- The Trumptards blindly support me. I can do no wrong.
- There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every minute, meaningless issue.
- I can pretty much do as I please without consequence ..like pay off all my buddies and pander to the jews/globalist/elites.
I'd add: and by doing the last, I could cut a deal with the real TPTBs as to for what happens after I leave White House.@Tyrion 2Pft , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:32 pm GMT
Chavez had popular support . He felt the need to intimidate opponents from the beginning. Like Bill Bellicheck and Tom Brady feeling the need to cheat.@APilgrimrenfro , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:41 pm GMT
Makes sense. They owe a big chunk of money to Russia and a payment of 100 million is coming due. Russia gets security for future payments while it holds their gold in a safe place. They may ship the rest to China if they are smart@Carlton Meyerrenfro , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:43 pm GMT
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it.
She's being paid no doubt by the usual suspects. She is personally 1 million in debt and has signed with a Speakers agency to give speeches for 200,000 a pop.
COLUMBIA, S.C. (WCIV)
"Haley is currently quoting $200,000 and the use of a private jet for domestic speaking engagements, according to CNBC
In October 2018, when Haley resigned, she said, she would be taking a "step up" into the private sector after leaving the U.N. According to a public financial disclosure report based on 2017 data, at the rate quoted for her engagements, just a handful would pay down more than $1 million in outstanding debt that was accrued during her 14 years@peterAUSrenfro , says: January 30, 2019 at 11:59 pm GMT
3. There are not enough independent thinkers to make a difference as the two main sides bitterly fight each other over every minute, meaningless issue.
Well that is true.Well people you need to explore this move to take over Venezuela in the context of what having that oil control will mean for the US and Israel in the increasingly likely event we blow up Iran and up end the ME for Israel.Z-man , says: January 31, 2019 at 12:11 am GMT
Despite Trump selling off half of our US oil reserves last year .. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-reserve/u-s-sells-11-million-barrels-of-oil-from-reserve-to-exxon-five-other-firms-idUSKCN1LG2WT ..the US doesn't currently, at present anyway, need to control Venezuela's oil .
So what could happen that might make control of oil rich Venezuela necessary? Why has Venezuela become a Bolton and Abrams project? Why is Netanyahu putting himself into the Venezuela crisis ?
We, otoh, would need all the oil we could get if we blew up the ME, specifically Iran, figuratively or literally. The US signed a MOU with Israel in 1973 obligating us to supply Israel with oil ( and ship it to them) if they couldn't secure any for themselves.@Hibernian I hate those two guys so much, and the owner Kraft also. I'm hoping for a helmet to helmet collision for Brady early in the second quarter with his bell ringing for the rest of the game. (Evil grin)Z-man , says: January 31, 2019 at 12:14 am GMT@renfro I have nothing but ill will for that mutt Haley.By-tor , says: January 31, 2019 at 12:41 am GMT@Tyrion 2 Yes, the int'l monitors said the elections were fair as Maduro received over 60% of the vote. You think the 'deplorables' of venezuela elected the known US-Wall Street neo-liberal puppet Guaido? No, the US Tape Worm groomed this twerp, all-the-while his backers and paymasters in the American neo-Liberal ruling class claim Russian meddling in the 2016 US elections. The shamelessness and hypocrisy is astounding.EliteCommInc. , says: January 31, 2019 at 12:47 am GMT@Tyrion 2 Pres Hugo Chavez's admin was very controversial. And the conditions you speak of have plagued Venezuela even before Pres Chavez came to government.Johnny Walker Read , says: January 31, 2019 at 12:50 am GMT
This really is none of our affair. We don't have a mandate to go about the planet tossing out whoever we think is crazy. He is not a threat to the US. There's no indication that he intends to harm US businesses.
Their polity means their polity. You'll have to do better than he's crazy, mean, a despot, etc. That's for them to resolve.@Commentator Mike Seems some will never learn the definition of insanity, especially the NeoCons who have been running America for far too long. I recommend John Perkins "Confessions of an Economic Hit Man" for the less informed among us here today. Maybe at some point they will get a clue.redmudhooch , says: January 31, 2019 at 1:30 am GMTbluedog , says: January 31, 2019 at 1:36 am GMT
I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
Hard to take this guy seriously when he spouts Fox News level propaganda.
Why does everyone make Trump out to be a victim, poor ol Trump, he's being screwed by all those people he himself appointed, poor ol persecuted Trump. Sounds like our Jewish friends with all the victimization BS.
Its clear that voting no longer works folks, this is an undemocratic and illegitimate "government" we have here. We let them get away with killing JFK, RFK, MLK, Vietnam, we let them get away with 9/11, Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, Syria. They've made a mess in Africa. All the refugees into Europe, all the refugees from Latin America that have already come from CIA crimes, more will come.
We wouldn't need a wall if Wall St would stop with their BS down there!
You can't just blame Jews, yes there are lots of Jews in Corporate America, bu t not all of them are, and there are lots of Jews who speak out against this. We were doing this long before Israel came into existence. You can't just blame everything one one group, I think Israel/Zionist are responsible for a lot of BS, but you can't exclude CIA, Wall St, Corporations, Banks, The MIC either. Its not just one group, its all of them. They're all evil, they're imperialists and they're all capitalists. I think Israel is just a capitalist creation, nothing to do with Jews, just a foothold in he middle east for Wall St to have a base to control the oil and gas there, they didn't create Israel until they dicovered how much oil was there, and realized how much control over the world it would give them to control it. Those people moving to Israel are being played, just like the "Christian Zionists" here are, its a cult. Most "Jews" are atheists anyhow, and it seems any ol greedy white guy can claim to be a Jew. So how do you solve a "Jewish Problem" if anybody can claim to be a Jew? I think solving the capitalist problem would be a little easier to enforce.
All of the shills can scream about communists, socialists and marxists all they want. Capitalism is the problem always has been always will be. Its a murderous, immoral, unsustainable system that encourages greed, it is a system who's driving force is maximizing profits, and as such the State controlled or aligned with Corporations is the most advanced form of capitalism because it is the most profitable. They're raping the shit out of us, taking our money to fund their wars, so they can make more money while paying little to no taxes at all. Everything, everyone here complains about is caused by CAPITALISM, but nobody dares say it, they've been programmed since birth to think that way.
We should nationalize our oil and gas, instead of letting foreigners come in and steal it, again paying little or no taxes on it, then selling the oil they took from our country back to us. Russia and Venezuela do it, Libya did it, Iraq did it, and they used the money for the people of the country, they didn't let the capitalists plunder their wealth like the traitors running our country. We're AT LEAST $21 trillion in the hole now from this wonderful system of ours, don't you think we should try something else? Duh!
It is the love of money, the same thing the Bible warned us about. Imperialism/globalism is the latest stage of capitalism, that is what all of this is about, follow the money. Just muh opinion
Regime Change and Capitalism
https://dissidentvoice.org/2018/07/regime-change-and-capitalism/@Tyrion 2 From the people fool not by the C.I.A. declaring that well we like the other fellow best for president,after all using the logic you fail to have Hillary could have said call me madam president and leave the orange clown out in the dark,stupid,stupid peopleRobinG , says: January 31, 2019 at 2:10 am GMT@anonymousSergey Krieger , says: January 31, 2019 at 2:15 am GMT
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
OMG, Cathey really said that. Is he always such a shit? He certainly has Venezuela completely wrong.
The Making of Juan Guaidó: How the US Regime Change Laboratory Created Venezuela's Coup Leader https://grayzoneproject.com/2019/01/29/the-making-of-juan-guaido-how-the-us-regime-change-laboratory-created-venezuelas-coup-leader/
Larry Wilkerson on the special meeting of the Security Council
Many Countries at UN Oppose Trump Interference in Venezuela@AnonFromTN This phylosophical questions should not led to no actions. Modern Russia is actually in much better position now than it was in 1913. True. There is never final. Sorry for wrong words choice. Dialectics.RobinG , says: January 31, 2019 at 2:20 am GMT@AnonFromTN Tyrion and Sean are both sicko Zio-trolls.Asagirian , says: January 31, 2019 at 2:25 am GMTWhy not just install the Deep State as president for life? It'd be more honest.EliteCommInc. , says: January 31, 2019 at 2:38 am GMT@Wizard of Oz The scenario you describe is an accurate. And requires me to make judgments about a dynamic I am unfamiliar with -- no bite. Several sides to this tale and I have heard and seen it before.EliteCommInc. , says: January 31, 2019 at 2:47 am GMT
I may however make a call.
In 2017 2/3 of the states in the region chose not to interfere. They have not changed their minds on intervention.
ohh by the way I did ask and here's the familial response:
https://brewminate.com/venezuelans-want-maduro-out-but-oppose-military-intervention-to-remove-him/@Wizard of Oz https://www.thequint.com/news/world/venezuelans-want-prez-maduro-out-but-oppose-foreign-interventionthe grand wazoo , says: January 31, 2019 at 2:59 am GMT
Just to be fair:
But reading the data sets makes it clear that what they want is some humanitarian relief. B y and large I have the family telling me to mind my own business, but they would like a meal, some medicine and some water.
Asking helps figuring out what to do.By now Trump must be near bat shit crazy. Imagine hundreds of vampires descending on every exposed artery and vein. Does he have a chance in 2020? Not with the people who are around him today.AnonFromTN , says: January 31, 2019 at 3:08 am GMT
Regardless of what the MSM reports, the population is fed-up with all the malarkey, and the same old faces.
In Trump's remaining 2 years he must throw off the parasites, bring in real men, and go to work on infrastructure, health care, and real jobs. He has to out the naysayers, the creeps and the war mongers. Throw Bolton from the train, and divorce Netanyahu and Israel. Appeal directly to the public.
If he can he should issue an executive order allowing important items like immigration to go directly to public referendum, by passing congress. We're tired of idiots with personal grudges holding our President hostage. Stern times calls for sterner measures.@RobinG That would be an easy, almost optimistic explanation: some people are venal enough to say or write anything for money. Pessimistic explanation is that some people who can read and write are nonetheless dumb or brainwashed enough to sincerely believe the BS they are writing.Anonymous  Disclaimer , says: January 31, 2019 at 4:19 am GMT@therevolutionwastac , says: January 31, 2019 at 4:58 am GMT
Can you define what capitalism is ? Once that idea is refined, finessed, and compared to multiple color changes of capitalism, it becomes easier who to fit in the plastic infinitely expandable box of ideas of capitalism starting with the chartered company to patient laws to companies making military hardwares paid by tax payers to tax cut by government to seizure of foreign asset by US-UK to protection of the US business by military forces to selling military gadgets to the countries owned by families like Saudi royals Gulf monarchs and to the African ( American installed ) dictators to printing money .A great article I posted in another thread few days ago dives deep into who Juan Guaido is and his past grooming for the past 10+ years:
Juan Guaidó is the product of a decade-long project overseen by Washington's elite regime change trainers. While posing as a champion of democracy, he has spent years at the forefront of a violent campaign of destabilization.
Here is another:
- CNN SHOWS INTERVIEW WITH 'VENEZUELAN ARMY DEFECTORS' APPEALING TO US FOR WEAPONS. THERE IS PROBLEM WITH THEIR UNIFORM
- An internal government document reveals tactics of "economic warfare" and "financial weapons" the US is using against Venezuela in the name of "furthering capitalism."
A great documentary on the 2002 coup d'etat of Chavez: The Revolution Will Not Be Televised, Chavez, The 2002 Coup
Jan 31, 2019 | www.unz.com
Harold Smith , says: January 30, 2019 at 5:43 pm GMT@AnonFromTNTyrion 2 , says: January 30, 2019 at 5:44 pm GMT
"Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed."
The thing is, Trump just didn't fail to drain the swamp, he "took the ball and ran with it." Apparently he's an enthusiastic imperialist who gets off on the illegitimate use of military force. (His attack on the Shayrat airbase in Syria should end any debate about that).
Supposedly he's been wanting to attack Venezuela for a while:
Most recently, even Lindsey Graham (of all people) had to talk Trump out of invading Venezuela:
I can understand Trump's die-hard supporters' argument that Trump is being coerced into doing evil things (although I don't agree with it), but how can they explain Trump's apparent enthusiasm?
The only explanation that makes sense to me is that Trump's anti-war/anti-interventionist tweets from 2013 were insincere and his whole presidential campaign was a brazen fraud.
Edit: I just saw your comment #71; so you apparently see it the same way I do.@By-tor Maduro is just Venezuelan Mugabe. Has it really come to this? That people on Unz will support any random lunatic as long as he mouths off about America or Israel every now and again?Herald , says: January 30, 2019 at 5:45 pm GMT
Oh, but the sanctions! Proper economic sanctions were only very recently applied. The Venezuelan economy was already utterly wrecked by their joke of a government.
Liken the US not trading with Venezuela to a medieval siege if you like, but I suggest you read up on medieval sieges first. Hint: they weren't merely a government run boycott.@follyofwar The Empire has been overreaching for years and it's now well past time it had its grimy grabbing hands chopped off.Jotham Tiarks , says: January 30, 2019 at 5:47 pm GMT@anonymous I fully agree with everything you said I was about to post a comment and then saw yours saying exactly what i was wanting to say!Ilyana_Rozumova , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:06 pm GMT@DieselChadron OMG (Oh my God) Globalists Made a mistake.onebornfree , says: Website January 30, 2019 at 6:07 pm GMT@onebornfree Some all to rare common sense – a writer who understands that both big government Trump and the big government "opposition" to Trump are not, never were , and never will be, "the answer":Ilyana_Rozumova , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:11 pm GMT
"The Real Problem Is The Politicization Of Everything"
" While on the market and in radically decentralized systems, disagreements and polarization are not a problem, centralized political decision-making has in its nature that only one view can prevail. Suddenly, who is in the White House or whether regulation X or Y is passed does matter a great deal, and those with a different opinion than you on it may seem like actual enemies. Within voluntary settings, one can live with people that one disagrees with. All parties curate a way of life that works while living in peace with others.
To regain civility in human interactions and finally treat other human beings as human beings again, we would do well to get politics out of human affairs."
Very well said.
Regards,onebornfree@AnonFromTN Or four the fracking was only Fata Morgana,Carlton Meyer , says: Website January 30, 2019 at 6:13 pm GMTFor those who think this coup attempt was sudden, here is something from my blog:AnonFromTN , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:16 pm GMT
Oct 9, 2018 – Ambassador Supports Coup
Few Americans know that our nation imposed harsh economic sanctions on Venezuela because the Neocons want to overthrow its democratic government. They hate that oil rich Venezuela insists on controlling its oil production rather than allowing big American corporations to run things. Almost three years ago, Neocon puppet Barack Obama declared a national emergency to impose sanctions by designating Venezuela an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to national security, and Trump continued sanctions.
The nuttiest member of the Trump administration is UN Ambassador Nikki Haley. Her latest neo-nazi stunt was to join protestors last week calling for the overthrow of the democratically elected government of Venezuela. She grabbed a megaphone at a tiny New York rally and told the few "protesters" (organized by our CIA) to say the USA is working to overthrow their President. This was so bizarre that our corporate media refused to report it. Jimmy Dore assembled this great video of CNN presenting their expert calling the President of Venezuela paranoid for saying the USA wants to overthrow his government. A few hours later, a different CNN report documented recent efforts by the USA to overthrow his government!@Tyrion 2 This is not about Maduro, or Guaido, who is likely an even bigger shit, as he clearly serves foreign masters. Don't you think it should be up to the people of Venezuela to change their president? The US meddling is against every rule of behavior of countries towards other countries. How would you feel if Burkina Faso told you who should be the president of the US? That's exactly how every Venezuelan who has dignity feels, regardless of their opinion of Maduro and his coterie.bluedog , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:31 pm GMT@Mr McKenna What did you expect,before the oath was out of his mouth he was busy cutting taxes for the 1%,for Trump is the swamp .By-tor , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:35 pm GMT@Tyrion 2 The US has been plotting against Venezuela since the last Wall Street puppet Pres. Rafael Caldera was defeated by Chavez and ownership of oil assets returned to Venezuela thereby cutting out anf angering the NYC-London predatory globalist cabal. Trump's hitmen are now preventing the Venezuelan state from accessing credit and from withdrawing its own money and gold foolishly deposited in US and London banks. The Venezuelan corporate elite act against the general population. You do not fully understand the situation.peterAUS , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:37 pm GMT@Johnny RottenboroughJohnny Rottenborough , says: Website January 30, 2019 at 6:38 pm GMT
Ethnonationalist stuff is ridiculous, it's stupid on the face of it, it's ridiculous, I've said it from day one. Ethnonationalism is a dead end, it's for losers. Economic nationalism and civic nationalism bind you together as citizens, regardless of your race, regardless of your ethnicity, regardless of your religion
Ah, well .maybe some other time.
If ever.@Digital Samizdat Digital Samizdat -- As civic nationalism is no kind of nationalism and presents no obstacle to race replacement, I imagine Jewry will be happy with it. Jewry will also be happy that Bannon the race realist ('It's been almost a Camp of the Saints-type invasion into Central and then Western and Northern Europe') has been successfully neutered.
Jan 31, 2019 | www.unz.com
There he was, right there on the stage to the right side of Secretary of State Mike Pompeo who was briefing the press on America's position concerning the recent coup in Venezuela. I rubbed my eyes -- was I seeing what I thought I was seeing?
It was Elliot Abrams. What was HE doing there? After all, back in February 2017, after then-Secretary of State Rex Tillerson had pushed for his nomination as Deputy Secretary of State, it was President Trump himself who had vetoed his appointment.
Here is how the anodyne account in Wikipedia describes it:
In February 2017, it was reported that Abrams was Secretary of State Rex Tillerson 's first pick for Deputy Secretary of State , but that Tillerson was subsequently overruled by Trump. Trump aides were supportive of Abrams , but Trump opposed him because of Abrams' opposition during the campaign. [emphasis mine]
Abrams during the 2016 campaign had been a NeverTrumper who vigorously opposed Donald Trump and who had strongly attacked the future president's "Make America Great Again," America First foreign policy proposals.
Abrams, a zealous Neoconservative and ardent globalist was -- and is -- one of those foreign policy "experts" who has never seen a conflict in a faraway country, in a desert or jungle, where he did not want to insert American troops, especially if such an intervention would support Israeli policy. He was deeply enmeshed in earlier American interventionist miscues and blunders in the Middle East, even incurring charges of malfeasance.
Apparently, President Trump either did not know that or perhaps did not remember Abrams's activities or stout opposition. In any case, back in 2017 it took an intervention by a well-placed friend with Washington connections who provided that information directly to Laura Ingraham who then, in turn, placed it on the president's desk And Abrams' selection was effectively stopped, torpedoed by Donald Trump.
But here now was Abrams on stage with the Secretary of State.
What was that all about?
Again, I went to Wikipedia, and once again, I quote from that source: " On January 25, 2019, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo appointed Abrams as the United States' Special Envoy to Venezuela ."
Despite President Trump's resolute veto back in February 2017, Abrams was back, this time as a Special Envoy, right smack in the department that President Trump had forbade him to serve in. Did the president know? Had he signed off on this specially-created appointment? After all, the very title "Special Envoy on Venezuela" seems something dreamed up bureaucratically by the policy wonks at State, or maybe by Mike Pompeo.
Then there was the widely reported news, accompanied by a convenient camera shot of National Security Adviser John Bolton's note pad (which may or may not have been engineered by him), with the scribble: "5,000 troops to Colombia."
What gives here?
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela, with the head of the national assembly, Juan Guiado, proclaiming himself as the country's new and rightful president, and the theoretical deposition of then-current President Nicolas Maduro. And we were told that this action was totally "spontaneous" and an "act of the Venezuelan people for democracy," and that the United States had had nothing to do with it.
If you believe that, I have an oil well in my backyard that I am quite willing to sell to you for a few million, or maybe a bit less.
Of course, the United States and our overseas intelligence services were involved.
Let me clarify: like most observers who have kept up with the situation in oil-rich Venezuela, I heartily dislike and find despicable the socialist government of Maduro, just as I did Hugo Chavez when he was in power. I have some good friends there, one of whom was a student of mine when I taught in Argentina many years ago, and he and his family resolutely oppose Maduro. Those socialist leaders in Caracas are tin-pot dictator wannabees who have wrecked the economy of that once wealthy country; and they have ridden roughshod over the constitutional rights of the citizens. My hope has been that the people of Venezuela, perhaps supported by elements in the army, would take action to rid the country of those tyrants.
And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
But potentially sending American troops -- as many as 5,000 -- to fight in a country which is made up largely of jungle and impassible mountains, appears just one more instance, one more example, of the xenophobic internationalism of men like Bolton and the now state department official, Abrams, who believe American boots on the ground is the answer to every international situation. Experience over the past four decades should indicate the obvious folly of such policies for all but the historically blind and ideologically corrupt.
While we complain that the Russians and Chinese have propped up the Maduro government and invested deeply in Venezuela, a country within our "sphere of influence" in the Western Hemisphere (per the "Monroe Doctrine") -- we have done the very same thing, even more egregiously in regions like Ukraine that were integrally part of historical Russia, and in Crimea, which was never really part of Ukraine (only for about half a century) but historically and ethnically Russian. Did we not solemnly pledge to Mikhail Gorbachev, under George H. W. Bush, that if the old Soviet Union would dissolve and let its some fourteen socialist "republics" go their own way, leave the Russian Federation, that we, in turn, would not advance NATO up to the borders of Russia? And then we did the exact opposite almost immediately go back on our word and move our troops and advisers right up to the borders of post-1991 Russia?
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still am. In effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete recouping of power by the Deep State, the only slight glimmer of light -- that immovable force who stands up at times to the power-elites and who has perhaps given us a few years of respite as the managerial class zealously attempts to repair the breach he -- and we -- inflicted on it in 2016.
My major complaint, what I have seen as a kind of Achilles' Heel in the Trump presidency, has always been in personnel, those whom the president has surrounded himself with. And my criticism is measured and prudential, in the sense that I also understand what happens -- and what did happen -- when a billionaire businessman, a kind of bull-in-the-china shop (exactly what was needed), comes to Washington and lacks experience with the utterly amoral and oleaginous and obsequious political class that has dominated and continues to dominate our government, both Democrats and, most certainly, Republicans.
The wife of a very dear friend of thirty-five years served in a fairly high post during the Reagan administration. Before her untimely death a few years ago, she recounted to me in stark detail how the minions and acolytes of George H. W. Bush managed to surround President Reagan and subvert large portions of the stated Reagan Agenda. Reagan put his vice-president effectively in charge of White House personnel: and, as they say, that was it, the Reagan Revolution was essentially over.
In 2016 a number of friends and I created something called "Scholars for Trump." Composed mostly of academics, research professors, and accomplished professionals, and headed by Dr. Walter Block, Professor of Economics at Loyola-New Orleans, and Dr. Paul Gottfried, Raffensperger Professor of Humanities at Elizabethtown College, in Pennsylvania, we attempted to gather real professed believers in the stated Trump agenda. We received scant mention (mostly negative) in the so-called "conservative" press, who proceeded to smear us as "ultra-right wingers" and "paleo-conservatives." And, suddenly, there appeared another pro-Trump list, and that one composed largely of the same kinds of professionals, but many if not most of whom had not supported Donald Trump and his agenda during the primary campaigns.
What was certain was that many of the amoral time-servers and power elitists had decided that it was time for them to attach themselves to Trump, time for them to insinuate themselves into positions of power once again, no matter their distaste and scorn for that brash billionaire upstart from New York.
Remember the (in)famous interview that the President-elect had with Mitt Romney who desperately wanted to be Secretary of State? Recall the others also interviewed -- some of whom we remembered as Donald Trump's opponents in the campaign -- who came hat-in-hand to Trump Tower looking for lucrative positions and the opportunity once again to populate an administration and direct policy? And, yes, work from within to counteract the stated Trump agenda?
It would be too facile to blame the president completely: after all, the professional policy wonks, the touted experts in those along-the-Potomac institutes and foundations, were there already in place. And, indeed, there was a need politically, as best as possible, to bring together the GOP if anything were to get through Congress. (As we have seen, under Paul Ryan practically none of the Trump Agenda was enacted, and Ryan at every moment pushed open borders.)
Our contacts did try; we did have a few associates close to the president. A few -- but only a few -- of our real Trump Agenda supporters managed to climb aboard. But in the long run we were no match for the machinations of the power elites and GOP establishment. And we discovered that the president's major strength -- not being a Washington Insider -- was also his major weakness, and that everything depended on his instincts, and that somehow if the discredited globalists and power-hungry Neoconservatives (who did not give Trump the time of day before his election) were to go too far, maybe, hopefully, he would react.
And he has, on occasion done just that, as perhaps in the case of Syria, and maybe even in Afghanistan, and in a few other situations. But each time he has had to pass the gauntlet of "advisers" whom he has allowed to be in place who vigorously argue against (and undercut) the policies they are supposed to implement.
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic. The fact that he is so violently and unreservedly hated by the elites, by the media, by academia, and by Hollywood must tell us something. In effect, however, it not just the president they hate, not even his rough-edged personality -- it is what he represents, that in 2016 he opened a crack, albeit small, into a world of Deep State putrefaction, a window into sheer Evil, and the resulting falling away of the mask of those "body snatchers" who had for so long exuded confidence that their subversion and control was inevitable and just round the corner.
President Trump will never be forgiven for that. And, so, as much as I become frustrated with some of the self-inflicted wounds, some of the actions which appear at times to go flagrantly against his agenda, as much as I become heartsick when I see the faces of Elliot Abrams -- and Mitt Romney -- in positions where they can continue their chipping away at that agenda, despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is usually not what you'll get.
Taras77 , says: January 29, 2019 at 10:02 pm GMTAbrams did it for me!anonymous  Disclaimer , says: January 30, 2019 at 12:24 am GMT
I cannot imagine a more evil person to be allowed back into govt than this man, who is more evil than he looks.
It is over, in my mind, with the trump admin; nothing has been done about the long list of crimes committed by the obama gang during the election and after. Nothing has been done about seth rich, I would add michael hastings, and the long list of clinton "suicides" and the clinton crimes. the list is endless with no progress.
The dimos in doj, fbi, etc have completely out-manuevered trump and he really has no junk yard dog to protect him-guliani is a joke, even if he is sober as he claims to be.
Big sigh, depressing.Scholars? For Trump? Still?Ma Laoshi , says: January 30, 2019 at 1:09 am GMT
Linh Dinh on this website (June 12, 2016) predicted both the election outcome and its meaninglessness. He had by then, of course, been blackballed by Scholars, Inc., and is now helping to run a recycling operation back in Vietnam. But he has emerged as one of the top Unz columnists, most of his Heritage American attackers who couldn't see past their DNA having slunk away.
Conversely, go read the comment thread under Mr. Buchanan's latest. People who used to fall for the "we/us/our" conflation of their country and Uncle Sam are waking up, due largely to the President in whom you still place your scholarly hope. We may not be scholars, but we understand that the blood of people in places like Iraq, Libya, Syria, and soon enough Venezuela is on the hands of those who endorse the warmongering imperialism of Exceptionalia. Your scholarly enabling, such as:
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
is naive at best. As a scholar, did you support the "economic pressure" rationalized by Secretary of State Albright that killed hundreds of thousands of Iraqis, many of them children?
Those of you who still expect the Unz readership to give two sh ** s about Donald Trump or anyone else in the Washington Puppet Show are fast losing your relevance around here.Yup, Personnel is Policy; always has been. The scale of it all really precludes the kind of benefit-of-the-doubt explanation the author struggles to formulate. It's not that Trump tried to do the right thing but some war-hawks, jews, and Wall-Street shysters got through regardless. Those were the only people that needed apply because Trump wasn't considering anybody else. One simply has to conclude that the people that currently surround him are indeed "his kind of people". And let's not forget that after a crash course in the realities of government he replaced Tillerson and notorious torturer McMaster because they were not hawkish, not pro-Israel, enough .peterAUS , says: January 30, 2019 at 1:31 am GMT
What evidence is there that your definition of "doing the right thing" coincides with Trump's anyway. Yes he made some non-interventionist noises during the campaign, but that was mostly during the primary before he'd kissed Adelson's ring in exchange for the shekels. But he was also "a very militaristic guy" who was all for "taking the oil" and who nonstop hated on Iran. Face it, it was just the Obama playbook: throw an incoherent mishmash to the proles in the hope that they remember only those parts they liked.
Isn't Trump's CV rather more illuminating on who he is than his campaign rhetoric: casino operator and pro-wrestling MC. He gets off on playing the rubes.Excellent, and timely article.Carlton Meyer , says: Website January 30, 2019 at 5:43 am GMT
From mid-2015 on I was a strong supporter of Donald Trump, and, in many ways, I still am. In effect, he may be the only thing that stands in the way of a total and complete recouping of power by the Deep State
Donald Trump, for all that and for his various faults and miscues, is in reality the only thing standing in the way of the end of the old republic.
.despite all that, I continue to pray that his better instincts will reign and that he will look beyond such men, and just maybe learn that what you see first in Washington is usually not what you'll get.
Scholar, a? Man, you ..Anyway.
Impressive.The US military has kept some 3000 soldiers in Columbia for years. Maybe that has grown to 5000, but Bolton's yellow pad note was a simple trick to fool simpletons. Invading Venezuela would require at least 50,000 US troops.Ilyana_Rozumova , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:09 am GMT
Americans are quick to denounce socialists, especially those in the US military who thrive in a socialist US military. Most Americans do not realize that their police, firefighters, schools, most universities, roads, water, and electricity are products of socialism. If you have an emergency in the USA, you dial 9-11 for socialists to help you. Everyone thinks that is great!
From my blog:
Jan 27, 2019 – A Clumsy Slow Coup
Corporate America media has not reported basic facts about the attempted takeover of Venezuela. The Deep State has tried to overthrow the popular, elected government of Venezuela for a decade as it gradually nationalized its oil production. Several coup attempts failed so the USA imposed sanctions to punish the people for voting wrong. Sanctions caused shortages and inflation but the elected government remains in power.
In the past, the USA conducted coups by bribing Generals to conduct a quick military takeover, and always denied participation. The Trump administration gave up on deception and began a clumsy, slow coup. I suspect Trump's new CIA appointed attorney general told Trump that he had the power to appoint foreign presidents, so last week he openly appointed a new president for Venezuela. The Venezuelan army openly backs the existing president so nothing changed. The UN did not recognize Trump's puppet president nor did any other major world power. These facts do not appear in our corporate media, although the internet provides reality via a Paul Craig Roberts article. (posted at unz.com)
Trump has now ordered other nations to send payments for oil purchases to a bank account controlled by his new president. This infuriates foreign governments because they know oil shipments will stop if they fail to pay the legitimate government of Venezuela, and oil prices will rise worldwide as they scramble to buy oil elsewhere. Meanwhile, a massive humanitarian and refugee crisis is building as the result of this economic embargo.I do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.follyofwar , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:04 pm GMT
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)@Taras77 I agree Taras. Although I much enjoyed reading Boyd Cathey's essay, sadly, I think he remains too optimistic. With the D's back in charge of the House, and the R's impotent in the Senate, (McConnell as majority leader is a joke), Trump's stated agenda is all over. He got nothing in his first two years besides the traditional GOP tax cut for the rich. And he waited far too long to get serious about the wall. Yes, Koch-man Paul Ryan opposed it, but surely Trump could have tried harder to get enough R votes to override him. His only option now, unless Pelosi budges a little, would be to declare a National Emergency on Feb 15. There is no way he could shut down the government again. Let's see how that goes.AnonFromTN , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:20 pm GMT
However I disagree with Realist's comment. With Trump being attacked viciously on all sides, I don't understand how anyone could think he is part of the Deep State. I think Victor Davis Hanson got it right when he called Trump a "Tragic Hero."Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim country, not in DC.
Jan 31, 2019 | www.unz.com
Ilyana_Rozumova , says: January 30, 2019 at 6:09 am GMTI do not know how the fracking is going in the winter. I have read somewhere, that yields from fracking are going down. also that fracking companies are moving down to Texas.Also I do not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela were planed long before. so I have to presume that this is all about price of oil.Alfred , says: January 30, 2019 at 9:14 am GMT
Trump quite a while ago, quite eagerly said something about moving on Venezuela.
Trump can be easily triggered by any economic subject by which US gains. But I do suspect that in this case it could be economic necessity. (What would be a real shame.)@Ilyana_Rozumova It is not clear whether you are saying that Trump is trying to raise or lower oil prices.Realist , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:39 am GMT
If he wants to lower oil prices then why is he making it difficult for Iran to sell its oil?
If he wants to raise oil prices then why does he want the big US oil companies in Venezuela to sort out that country's oil business and raise exports?
I suspect he, and those around him, have no idea what they want to achieve. They are simply trying to demonstrate their "power" and ability to change regimes. To give the Monroe Doctrine a bit of oxygen. To scare the European vassals.Realist , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:44 am GMT
Venezuela, the Deep State, and Subversion of the Trump Presidency
You're being rolled. Trump is part of the Deep State. Otherwise explain Bolton, Pompeo, Abrams and all the other dickheads Trump has hired.@Taras77 Correct, Trump is a member of the Deep State. Trump's election and big talk is a charade. It is hard to believe anyone would not see Trump as a chimera after all his bullshit.Realist , says: January 30, 2019 at 10:53 am GMTrenfro , says: January 30, 2019 at 7:29 am GMT
After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves.
There it is .the reason the US is involved in Venezuelain politics .we want their oil.@Ilyana_RozumovaAmon , says: January 30, 2019 at 12:07 pm GMT
Also I do not know the state of strategic reserves, But I definitely suspect that moves in Venezuela were planed long before
Trump is doing the same thing he did in his businesses ..using 'other people's money.assests' to cover his ass.
Now picture this ..sanctions on Iran, sanctions on Russia, sanctions on Venezuela + rising US interest rates + a slowing economy + half of US oil reserves sold to cover government spending.
Hope people get use to riding a bike when this perfect storm hits.
WH Proposes Selling Half the U.S. Strategic Oil Reserve
President Trump's proposal to slim down the national debt includes a plan to sell off about half of America's emergency oil stockpile -- made up of 687.7 million
U.S. sells 11 million barrels of oil from reserve to Exxon, five other firmshttps://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-oil-reserve/u-s-sells-11-million-barrels-of-oil-from-reserve-to-exxon-five-other-firms-idUSKCN1LG2WT
WASHINGTON (Reuters) – Six companies, including ExxonMobil Corp, bought a total of 11 million barrels of oil from the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve, a Department of Energy document showed on Friday, in a sale timed to take place ahead of U.S. sanctions on Iran that are expected to remove oil from the global market.
Sale of the oil from the reserve was mandated by previous laws to fund the federal government and to fund a drug program, but the Trump administration took the earliest available time to sell the crude under the law.
The sale's timing "would appear to reflect President Donald Trump's concern regarding oil market tightness associated with the reinstatement of Iran oil sanctions," analysts at ClearView Energy Partners said after the sale was announced on August 20.
Any wonder they want to control Venezuela oil?@Carlton Meyer A slight correction is needed here. The UK, Germany, Israel and France has signed onto this.Honesty , says: January 30, 2019 at 1:17 pm GMT
Just as all four of them were more than willing to help smash Libya to dust so they could steal their oil fields and all that gold Gaddafi had hoarded up for his independent gold back African currency.
Truly, Venezuela will be a Libya 2.0.I think what is happening in Venezuela is not an isolated event. It is connected to a broad "connect the dots" South American strategy. The other dots are:Harold Smith , says: January 30, 2019 at 1:28 pm GMT
1) Bolsonaro's election victory.
2) Changes in structural relationship with Argentina, Chile, Colombia.
3) Cuba isolation.
4) Bolivia isolation.
5) And finally the recent unexpected dam collapse in Brazil, followed by IDF's offer to fly in hundreds of soldiers to help.
S America is about to become the next Middle East (Syria). Weapons proliferation. War profiting. Mass scale disruption. Already a profound refugee crisis. And all the traditional war hawks there – with IDF leading the charge.jacques sheete , says: January 30, 2019 at 2:23 pm GMT
"And, in effect, I wish for the success of Juan Guaido in his struggle with Maduro, and I support American diplomatic and economic pressure on Maduro to step down. After all, Venezuela is in our back yard with huge oil reserves."
So in effect, you wish for the success of the globalists in their relentless struggle with the concept of national sovereignty and the rule of law, and you support American imperialist efforts to overthrow yet another democratically elected government, no matter how many people have to die in the process. After all, the victim country is relatively close and its huge oil reserves make for a reasonable pretext.nsa , says: January 30, 2019 at 3:12 pm GMT
Venezuela, the Deep State, and Subversion of the Trump Presidency
Also on UR, link to,
Bolton: We're Taking Venezuela's Oil
Yesterday, Trump's National Security Advisor John Bolton made the US position clear in a FoxNews interview: Washington will overthrow the Venezuelan
RON PAUL LIBERTY REPORT@Johnny Rico "How many barrels a day does Venezuela pump?"AnonFromTN , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:20 pm GMT
Something like 50,000 barrels per day. And pumped is perhaps the wrong word more like mined. Venezuelan oil is locked up in surface tar sands along the Orinoco River and of very low quality, rich in metals such as vanadium which catalyze sulfur into sulfuric acid rotting out engines and turbines if not cleaned up. It is actually sold as a emulsion with about 25% water to get the stuff to flow. The Canadian tar sands now produce something like 500,000 barrels per day. Try driving through the Alberta tar sands to see mommie earth ravaged without conscience and birds murdered en masse landing on their vast polluted effluent ponds but then the loathsome colonial denizens of our Canadian satrap to the north don't care as long as we let them have a couple of hockey teams and legal pot.Whoever believed that Trump will drain the swamp must feel disappointed. The US foreign policy is run by the swamp now, like it always was. The US uses full range of classical gangster tactics against Venezuela: blackmail, theft of assets, threats, etc. The US tries to instigate yet another "color revolution" to bring yet another puppet to power in yet another country. The only difference is, Maduro resists. But that's the difference in the victim country, not in DC.By-tor , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:28 pm GMT@Tyrion 2 Venezuela is under US sanctions that substitute for a medieval siege, and Venezuela's comprador ruling class are Wall Street loyalists, not nationalists. The US is trying to starve the population of Venezuela and economically ruin them wherein a US puppet gov't will enable predatory Americans to buy coveted resources on the cheap. This usurpation of int'l law and criminality was pulled off by Obama-Nuland-Soros in Ukraine in 2014. The majority of Venezuelan 'deplorables' who are bearing the brunt of US sanctions know well what Uncle Sham's man-on-the-ground Guaido is up to, and have, hopefully, organized and armed themselves with rifles to defend their lives and property from invaders.follyofwar , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:30 pm GMT@Amon It's possible that Venezuela will be another Libya. But I question whether the US Imperialists could get away with weeks of saturation bombing on a country in the same hemisphere, just to its south. I find it hard to believe that the rest of South America would take this lying down. Then there's the presence of Russia and China, who both have substantial investments in the country. Will they just sit on their hands too?Rags , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:36 pm GMT
With its jungles and mountains, any US invasion would be more like Vietnam, I think. This could be, and I hope it is, a Bridge Too Far for the Empire. Empires always eventually overreach.But, bbbuuuttt, I thought we were gonna be energy independent and export oil all over the globe. What need have we of some heavy crude in Venezuela if this forecast is at hand? Just hedging the BS ya know.Sergey Krieger , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:44 pm GMTMaduro and Chavez are as socialist as I am capitalism fan. They are indeed populist dictators and regime is still capitalistic. They just rely upon lumpens and military to hold onto power. Things wound not change for the better and probably for worse if coup succeeds though. Now, it is neither USA nor author's business to interfere into other countries affairs as Americans quite obviously only make things worse and what if when USA finally kicks the bucket as United country others start interfering in USA affairs ? I actually see it coming considering demographic and cultural realities on the ground in USA. Once $usd is gone as reserve currency the process as Gorbachiv stated would start.republic , says: January 30, 2019 at 4:46 pm GMTAnonFromTN , says: January 30, 2019 at 5:16 pm GMT
Last week suddenly there was a coup d'etat in Venezuela,
actually the use of the term coup d'etat is incorrect. A coup occurs when the military disposes the government and replaces it with a military government.
This has not yet occurred. It has not yet been successful, what is actually happening is the beginning of a civil war, the outcome which is not clear.
The situation bears a certain similarity with the beginning of the Syrian civil War.
If it follows the Ukrainian scenario like what took place in 2014, then I would expect some type of situation where foreign mercenaries are employed to create divisions in the population, like firing on the opposition supporters. It is highly likely that some sort of false flag incident will be use to fire up the situation.
If the military were to revolt and replace it with civilian rule it would be called a pronunciamientoTrump just congratulated self-proclaimed US puppet Guaido in Venezuela. So, he can no longer pretend to be an innocent bystander: he showed himself to be a willing participant in the criminal activities of the swamp.
Three notes on the bright side. One, the Empire is getting ever more reckless, no longer bothers even with fig leaves. That looks like an overreach typical of empires in their death throws. Two, Maduro, despite his obvious failings, appears to be prepared to defend his country against banditry. So, maybe he is not just a piece of shit, like Yanuk in Ukraine. We'll see soon enough. Three, Erdogan, who the same gangsters tried to overthrow not too long ago, remembers that and voiced his support of Maduro in no uncertain terms, despite Turkey being a NATO member.
Jan 14, 2019 | mailchi.mp
Oil prices continued to climb last week and are now some $10 a barrel higher than they were just before Christmas when recent lows were set. Prices now have retraced about 30 percent of the $35 a barrel drop that took place between late September and late December. Part of the recent price correction likely is due to technical factors such as closing out long positions in the futures markets. The news that the Saudis will cut even more production than specified in their recent pledge in hopes of raising world prices to $80 a barrel was an important part of last week's price jump. Hopes that the US and China would settle their trade dispute during on-going talks was also an important factor in the recent price jump.
Looming over the talk about OPEC+ production cuts and how fast US shale oil production might grow are the prospects for the global economy. A major recession could drive the demand for oil so low that even current prices would be difficult to maintain. While there have always been people convinced that a major economic crash is in the offing, in recent weeks there has been a noticeable increase in the number and stridency of these predictions.
While the US economy has been bumping along nicely in recent months, the same is not true for the other major centers of economic power – China and Europe. The Washington Post headlines that "Economic growth is slowing all around the world," citing declines in the equity markets; sputtering German factories, and Chinese retail sales growing at their slowest pace in 15 years. Even Beijing is looking for its GDP to grow by 6-6.5 percent this year which is way off from the heady days of double digits ten years ago.
Eurozone economic forecasts fell last Monday again after a survey of economists found that GDP is expected to grow just below 1.6 percent this year, 0.4 percentage points lower than an already conservative estimate from March. A new report from the World Bank, citing a variety of data, including softening international trade and investment, ongoing trade tensions, and financial turmoil concludes that "the outlook for the global economy in 2019 has darkened."
Among the darker forecasts for the future are those that speculate on a global depression on the scale of the 1930s where GDPs fall by 10 to 25 percent. Others are saying that the global economy may be approaching " The Limits to Growth " as discussed in the famous 1972 book.
... ... ...
Virendra Chauhan of Energy Aspects told CNBC last week that "$50 oil is not a level at which US producers can generate cash flow and production growth, so we do expect a slowdown." In a Bloomberg radio interview John Kilduff, founding partner of Again Capital Management, said "we were getting into the zone where U.S. shale producers stop making money particularly when you sort of add in all the costs, not just the pure say drilling and extraction. It's going to start to get tough for them right now."
... ... ...
Iran : Iran's crude exports dropped to 1 million b/d in November from 2.5 million b/d in April, taking exports back to where they stood during the 2012-2016 sanctions. According to three companies that track Iranian exports, Tehran's crude shipments remained below 1 million b/d in December and are unlikely to exceed that level in January. Tracking
... ... ...
Iraq : Baghdad posted its highest monthly export total to date in December and, combined with Kurdistan, set a nationwide annual record of 4.15 million b/d -- more than 100,000 b/d above the previous record, set in December 2016. The government said on Friday it is committed to the OPEC+ output-cutting deal and would keep its oil production at 4.513 million b/d for the first half of 2019
... ... ...
Saudi Arabia : According to OPEC officials, Saudi Arabia is planning to cut crude exports to around 7.1 million b/d by the end of January in hopes of lifting oil prices above $80 a barrel.
... ... ...
Libya: Tripoli plans to pump 2.1 million b/d of crude oil by 2021 if the security situation improves, the chairman of the National Oil Corporation said last week. The plan would represent a doubling of the current rate of production, which currently stands at 953,000 b/d.
... ... ....
Moscow has already lowered its oil output by around 30,000 b/d compared with October volumes, which is used as the baseline under the latest OPEC/non-OPEC crude production agreement. Russian energy minister Novak said Friday: "We are gradually lowering output; our plan is that overall production in January will be 50,000 b/d less than in October."
Jan 14, 2019 | www.zerohedge.com
Norway's Oil Production To Fall To 30-Year Low
by Tyler Durden Mon, 01/14/2019 - 14:17 9 SHARES Authored by Tsvetana Paraskova via Oilprice.com,
Despite cost controls, increased efficiency, and higher activity offshore Norway, oil production at Western Europe's largest oil producer fell in 2018 compared to 2017 and is further expected to drop this year to its lowest level since 1988.
Last year, oil production in Norway fell to 1.49 million barrels per day (bpd), down by 6.3 percent compared to the 1.59 million bpd production in 2017, the oil industry regulator, the Norwegian Petroleum Directorate (NPD), said in its annual report this week. Oil production this year is forecast to drop by another 4.7 percent from last year to reach in 2019 its lowest level in thirty years -- 1.42 million bpd, the NPD estimates show.
As bad as it sounds, this year's expected low production is not the worst news for the Norwegian Continental Shelf (NCS) going forward.
Oil production is expected to jump in 2020 through 2023, thanks to the start up in late 2019 of Johan Sverdrup -- the North Sea giant, as operator Equinor calls it. With expected resources of 2.1 billion -- 3.1 billion barrels of oil equivalent, Johan Sverdrup is one of the largest discoveries on the NCS ever made. It will be one of the most important industrial projects in Norway in the next 50 years, and at its peak, the project's production will account for 25 percent of Norway's total oil production, Equinor says.
The worst news for Norway's oil production, as things stand now, is that after Johan Sverdrup and after Johan Castberg in the Barents Sea scheduled for first oil in 2022, Norway doesn't have major oil discoveries and projects to sustain its oil production after the middle of the 2020s.
The NPD started warning last year that from the mid-2020s onward, production offshore Norway will start to decline "so making new and large discoveries quickly is necessary for maintaining production at the same level from the mid-2020s."
In the report this week, NPD Director General Bente Nyland said:
"The high level of exploration activity proves that the Norwegian Shelf is attractive. That is good news! However, resource growth at this level is not sufficient to maintain a high level of production after 2025. Therefore, more profitable resources must be proven, and the clock is ticking".
Norwegian oil production in 2018 was expected to drop compared to the previous year, but the decline "proved to be greater than expected," the NPD said, attributing part of the production fall to the fact that some of the newer fields are more complex than previously assumed, and certain other fields delivered below forecast, mainly because fewer wells were drilled than expected.
In October 2018, Germany's Wintershall warned that its Maria oil and gas field off Norway was not fully meeting expectations due to issues with water injection. Those issues haven't been solved yet, NPD's Nyland told Reuters this week.
Exploration activity in Norway considerably increased in 2018 compared to 2017, with 53 exploration wells spud, up by 17 wells compared to the previous year. Based on company plans, this year's exploration activity is expected to remain high and around the 2018 number of wells spud, the NPD says.
The key reasons for higher exploration activity have been reduced costs, higher oil prices lifting exploration profitability, and new and improved seismic data on large parts of the Shelf, the NPD noted.
However, the Norwegian oil regulator warned that "resource growth at this level is not sufficient to maintain production of oil and gas at a high level after 2025. Therefore, it is essential that more profitable resources are proven in the next few years."
Norway still holds a lot of oil under its Shelf, and those remaining resources could sustain its oil and gas production for decades to come. The industry's problem is that after Johan Sverdrup and Johan Castberg there haven't been major discoveries.
According to the NPD's resource estimate, nearly two-thirds of the undiscovered resources lie in the Barents Sea.
"Therefore, this area will be important for maintaining production over the longer term," the regulator said.
Operators on the NCS have made great efforts to try to make even smaller discoveries profitable by hooking them to existing platforms and production hubs. However, these smaller finds alone can't offset maturing production -- Norway needs major oil discoveries, and it needs them soon , considering that the lead time from discovery to production is several years.
Jan 14, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News x Ignored says: 01/14/2019 at 6:22 amChinese crude oil imports up +9.9% higher in full year 2018 compared to FY 2017.
The month of December up +29.9% higher than Dec 2017
Another big crude import number from China (2nd consecutive month of imports above 10 MMB/D). Low oil prices and startup of mega refineries such as RongSheng and Hengli is helping to keep these numbers near record levels.(Source; GAC China)
Jan 12, 2019 | www.youtube.com
$21 trillion in "missing money" at the DOD and HUD that was discovered by Dr. Mark Skidmore and Catherine Austin Fitts in 2017 has now become a national security issue. The federal government is not talking or answering questions, even though the DOD recently failed its first ever audit.
Fitts says, "This is basically an open running bailout. Under this structure, you can transfer assets out of the federal government into private ownership, and nobody will know and nobody can stop it. There is no oversight whatsoever. You can't even know who is doing it. I'm telling you they just took the United States government, they just changed the governance model by accounting policy to a fascist government. If you are an investor, you don't know who owns those assets, and there is no evidence that you do. . . . If the law says you have to produce audited financial statements and you refuse to do so for 20 years, and then when somebody calls you on it, you proceed to change the accounting laws that say you can now run secret books for all the agencies and over 100 related entities."
In closing, Fitts says, "We cannot sit around and passively depend on a guy we elected President. The President cannot fix this. We need to fix this. . . . This is Main Street versus Wall Street. This is honest books versus dirty books. If you want the United States in 10 years to resemble anything what it looked like 20 years ago, you are going to have to do it, and there is no one else who can do it. You have to first get the intelligence to know what is happening."
Join Greg Hunter as he goes One-on-One with Catherine Austin Fitts, Publisher of "The Solari Report." Donations: https://usawatchdog.com/donations/
Stay in contact with USAWatchdog.com: https://usawatchdog.com/join/
All links can be found on USAWatchdog.com: https://usawatchdog.com/secret-money-...
Bob T 20 hours ago
Greg, with all due respect I don't you understand what CAF is saying. Forget about a dollar reset. The fascists, using the Treasury, Exchange Stabilization Fund, HUD, DOD and any agency they choose, have turned the US government into a gigantic money laundering operation. And they maintain two sets of books - the public numbers are a complete sham. Any paper assets held by private citizens are not secure, are likely rehypothecated, and when convenient can be frozen or siezed by these fascists in Washington. There is no limit to how many dollars the FED can create secretly and funnel out through the ESF/Treasury to prop up and bail out any bank, black ops, pet project, mercenary army or paper assets they choose. The missing $21 trillion is probably a drop in the bucket as there is no audit and no honest books for us to examine. In sum, all paper asset pricing in dollars is a fraud and a sham. Any paper assets you think you own, whether it be stocks, bonds, or real estate are pure illusion: they can be repriced or stolen at any time; in reality, you own nothing. To the man and woman on the street I say this: get out of paper, get out of these markets and convert to tangibles in your physical possession - and do it secretly and privately, avoid insurances, records, paper trails. This mass defrauding of the American people by this corrupt government in Washington will come crashing down when the US dollar is displaced from reserve status; this is what China and Russia and the BRICS are setting the stage for: world trade without the US dollar. When this happens, your dollars will become virtual toilet paper and all of your paper assets will go poof.
D Loydel 18 hours ago (edited)
"We have to fix this". Ok how does the individual fix this? Private armies are running around doing whatever private armies do and I, the one man, is suppose to fix this. Please, will someone tell us what we are suppose to do, specific instructions not a mix of large words that say " we must fix this", damn, we need a leader. Greg you ask almost every person you interview what the middle class should be doing to protect themselves and you never get a "real" answer, just a dance around. Also you ask numerous people what this coming change is going to look like and again, just silence or dance music, no answers. Damn we need a leader. Your trying very hard to give us information that will help us weather the coming storm, so thank you for all you do, and you do more than anyone else out there.
Forrest Byers 19 hours ago
Question, why in part do I feel I am being lied to? Is it subscription hustle or is it, don't you believe your lying eyes!
Without knowing exactly what is what, anyone who would've watched Herbert Walker Bush's funeral with reactions from those who received cards, whether they be Bush family, the Clintons, the Obamas and entourage. Jeb Bush went from being proud and patriotic to panic like the funeral that he was at was for the whole family.
Joe Biden looked like he had a major personal accident and no way to get to the bathroom for cleanup.
George W. Bush after being asked a question, of which the answer was, "Yep" then proceeded to appear resigned and stoic! What ever was on those cards essentially amounted to, for all those receiving a card, "the gig is up" and it appears they all damn well knew it.
So, Catherine Austin Fitts, explain your, "Trump is colluding with the Bushies," I would say, that Canary in this mine of inquiry is dead. I'm just an old disabled Vietnam vet of plebeian background and certainly not a revolving door Washington DC Beltway patrician, so any explanation needs to be delivered in slow, logical step-by-step progression for I have not mastered the art of selling the sizzle in hopes that the dupes will later pay for the steak. I prefer, Greg, when you actually get more combative with Ms. Fitts. Make America, great again and do so, in the name of the Lord Jesus Christ, Amen.
sell siliconvalley 19 hours ago
35 min: Fitts gives a great synopsis of the problem. She never deviates in all of her interviews. greg doesn't seem to understand at all. She repeats herself MULTIPLE TIMES and greg is still asking the same irrelevant PREPPER questions. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHAT ASSETS YOU HOLD GREG, AND THAT INCLUDES GOLD!!!! WHEN YOU'RE EXISTING IN A TYRANNICAL SYSTEM THAT STEALS AT WILL FROM ITS' CONSTITUENCY YOU CAN'T actually OWN ANYTHING!!!! lord! only so many ways to say
Andy Mak 17 hours ago
She lost credibility when she said Trump has "made a deal with the Bushes." That defies logic. The Bushes made a deal with Trump! Trump has gained full control of the military with a $ 1 1/2 trillion war chest. Trump and Putin are putting the China toothpaste back in the tube.
Karen Lydon 19 hours ago
This woman clearly knows nothing about the plan..she has not even mentioned that the world bank president has resigned who was appointed by obumma. And that is HUGE. She was in government in the corruption, but she doesn't know how things will be fixed..she's not in that loop of current things in the new reset..shes coming from her own perceptions
A T 20 hours ago
This woman always make me sick to my stomach. She comes out and says a bunch of scary stuff and offers no solution. If it's too much for just one person, then we the people need to take control. We don't need a central bank. We need local and state banks like the Bank of North Dakota then we can migrate over to them and then shut down the Fed.
Jan 13, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News x Ignored says: 01/12/2019 at 2:24 pm2019-01-11 (Bloomberg) Saudi and Canadian cuts are leaving world hungry for heavy crude
Refiners along the Gulf Coast and in the Midwest invested billions of dollars in cokers and other heavy-oil processing units over the past three decades anticipating supplies of light oil would become scarce while heavy crude from Canada's oil sands, Venezuela and Mexico would grow. Instead, the opposite occurred.
The shale revolution, as well as new offshore supplies form Brazil and West Africa, caused a surge of light oil, while supplies from Venezuela to Mexico declined. Canada's growth has been stymied by delays in getting new pipelines built.
Jan 13, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy Newsx Ignored says: 01/11/2019 at 7:57 amIndia – Consumption of Petroleum Products (Without LPG or PetCoke)(kt/day)Energy News x Ignored says: 01/11/2019 at 3:51 pm
December 2018 up +7.01% higher than December 2017
Average full year 2018 up +6.80% higher than full year 2017
India Light Distillates Consumption (shown in chart)
Average full year 2018 up +9.74% higher than full year 2017
India Middle Distillates Consumption
Average full year 2018 up +3.92% higher than full year 2017The increase in barrels is +220 kb/day year/year (without LPG or Petcoke)
2019-01-11 (Bloomberg) The International Energy Agency, which expects the country to be the fastest-growing oil consumer through 2040, cut its 2018 demand forecast for India at least two times. The agency estimated India's oil demand growth at 245,000 bpd in 2018 and 235,000 bpd in 2019.
Jan 04, 2019 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher: 01/02/2019 at 3:32 pmYou guys insist on continuing to think money isn't created from thin air by the Fed and actually means something in the context of a substance that feeds you food. If you have to have it, and you do have to have it, things will be done for you to get it. Borrowed money that was created from thin air . . . who cares if you can't pay it back? You have to eat.GuyM: 01/02/2019 at 4:27 pm
Consumption of oil is up. OPEC and Russia have reduced output. The price falls, because there is no meaning to anything created from thin air when applied to something that depends on physics.
You won't know anything until you find yourself sitting in a line waiting for gasoline. You won't see it coming. You won't predict it. It will just happen someday.
Soon.Some truth to that Watcher. Simplistic thinking in investors. If we aren't making much money, the US won't be making much money, so the price of oil must go lower. Not just simplistic, flat out stupid.
And the number of people who think oil supply is limited is fairly scarce in relation to the population as a whole. Probably less than the number of people who think chocolate milk comes from brown cows.
Jan 04, 2019 | finance.yahoo.com
America is now the largest producer of oil in the world. For the U.S., this is great news as the dream of energy independence grows and maybe one day we can tell OPEC to go take a hike.
However, while the shale oil revolution has helped change the energy landscape forever, we cannot take shale for granted. We can't just assume that the industry can withstand any price and that production can keep rising despite the market conditions. We can't assume that shale oil producers can match OPEC production cuts barrel for barrel.
We also can't assume OPEC, weakened by falling prices of late, won't strike back like they did in 2014. That's when OPEC declared a production war on U.S. shale producers. The then de facto head of the OPEC Cartel Ali al-Naimi spoke about market share rivalry with the United States and said that they wanted a battle with the U.S. There were no winners in that production war. Ali al-Naimi was sacked as he almost bankrupted Saudi Arabia. It took its toll on U.S. producers as well, as many were forced into bankruptcy despite making significant progress on efficiency and cost cutting.
CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX BUSINESS APP
With 2019 underway, OPEC, along with Russia, agreed to remove 1.2 million barrels per day off the market for the first six months of the year. Early reports on OPEC compliance to the agreed upon production cuts is overwhelming at a time when there are new questions about how shale oil producers are faring after this recent oil price drop.
Private forecasters are showing that there are major cuts in Saudi exports and even signs that OPEC production is falling sharply. Bloomberg News confirmed that by reporting "observed crude exports from Saudi Arabia fell to 7.253 million barrels per day in December on lower flows to the U.S. and China." Furthermore, other private trackers believe that the drop may be the biggest in exports since Bloomberg began tracking shipments in early 2017. Oil saw another boost after Bloomberg reported that OPEC oil production had the biggest monthly drop in two years falling by 530,000 barrels a day to 32.6 million a day last month. It's the sharpest pullback since January 2017.
Rewind to 2017, there was talk that shale oil producers would make up the difference and the cut would not matter, but that was proven wrong. This time expect the same because it is likely that shale oil producers may have to cut back as the sharp price drop has put them in a bad position. The Wall Street Journal pointed out that, even now, some shale oil wells are not producing as much oil as expected. This coupled with a large declining production rate in shale swells means that they need capital to keep drilling to keep those record production numbers moving higher. "Two-thirds of projections made by the fracking companies between 2014 and 2017 in America's four hottest drilling regions appear to have been overly optimistic, according to the analysis of some 16,000 wells operated by 29 of the biggest producers in oil basins in Texas and North Dakota. Collectively, the companies that made projections are on track to pump nearly 10% less oil and gas than they forecast for those areas, according to the analysis of data from Rystad Energy AS, an energy consulting firm. That is the equivalent of almost one billion barrels of oil and gas over 30 years, worth more than $30 billion at current prices. Some companies are off track by more than 50% in certain regions" the Journal reported.
"While U.S. output rose to an all-time high of 11.5 million barrels a day, shaking up the geopolitical balance by putting U.S. production on par with Saudi Arabia and Russia. The Journal's findings suggest current production levels may be hard to sustain without greater spending, because operators will have to drill more wells to meet growth targets. Yet shale drillers, most of whom have yet to consistently make money, are under pressure to cut spending in the face of a 40% crude-oil price decline since October."
Of course, none of this matters if we see a prolonged slowdown in the global economy, Demand may indeed turn out to be the great equalizer. Yet if growth comes back, say if we get a China trade deal or if they ever reopen the U.S. government, we will most likely see a very tight market in the new year. The OPEC cuts will lead to a big drawdown in supply and shale oil producers will find it hard to match OPEC and demand growth barrel for barrel.
Jan 02, 2019 | www.moonofalabama.org
Palloy , Feb 20, 2018 8:52:02 PM | linkGer , Feb 21, 2018 7:52:44 AM | link@4 "For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia."
Ever since US Crude Oil peaked its production in 1970, the US has known that at some point the oil majors would have their profitability damaged, "assets" downgraded, and borrowing capacity destroyed. At this point their shares would become worthless and they would become bankrupt. The contagion from this would spread to transport businesses, plastics manufacture, herbicides and pesticide production and a total collapse of Industrial Civilisation.
In anticipation of increasing Crude Oil imports, Nixon stopped the convertibility of Dollars into Gold, thus making the Dollar entirely fiat, allowing them to print as much of the currency as they needed.
They also began a system of obscuring oil production data, involving the DoE's EIA and the OECD's IEA, by inventing an ever-increasing category of Undiscovered Oilfields in their predictions, and combining Crude Oil and Condensate (from gas fields) into one category (C+C) as if they were the same thing. As well the support of the ethanol-from-corn industry began, even though it was uneconomic. The Global Warming problem had to be debunked, despite its sound scientific basis. Energy-intensive manufacturing work was off-shored to cheap labour+energy countries, and Just-in-Time delivery systems were honed.
In 2004 the price of Crude Oil rose from $28 /barrel up to $143 /b in mid-2008. This demonstrated that there is a limit to how much business can pay for oil (around $100 /b). Fracking became marginally economic at these prices, but the frackers never made a profit as over-production meant prices fell to about $60 /b. The Government encourages this destructive industry despite the fact it doesn't make any money, because the alternative is the end of Industrial Civilisation.
Eventually though, there must come a time when there is not enough oil to power all the cars and trucks, bulldozers, farm tractors, airplanes and ships, as well as manufacture all the wind turbines and solar panels and electric vehicles, as well as the upgraded transmission grid. At that point, the game will be up, and it will be time for WW3. So we need to line up some really big enemies, and develop lots of reasons to hate them.
Thus you see the demonisation of Russia, China, Iran and Venezuela for reasons that don't make sense from a normal perspective.Dan @ 4
It is partially tied direct to the economy of the warmongers as trillions of dollars of new cold war slop is laying on the ground awaiting the MICC hogs. American hegemony is primarily about stealing the natural resources of helpless countries. Now in control of all the weak ones, it is time to move to the really big prize: The massive resources of Russia. They (US and their European Lackeys) thought this was a slam dunk when Yeltsin, in his drunken stupors, was literally giving Russia to invading capitalist. Enter Putin, stopped the looting .........connect the dots.
Dec 22, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
GuyM x Ignored says: 12/20/2018 at 6:16 pmLooks like a lot of bubbles bursting. Not likely to bounce back, so not much financing available to float pure Permian players. Doesn't look good for any increase in production. Oil prices will probably stay low with Dow for awhile. Until inventories get closer to zero. Madness.dclonghorn x Ignored says: 12/20/2018 at 10:12 pmInteresting article from Goehring investment bank. They estimate that KSA remaining reserves are around 50 billion bbls, instead of the 260 b claimed. They also (surprise) think that was the reason the Aramco IPO was pulled. I also thought the Aramco IPO would never happen because they would not be able to buy an acceptable reserve report.Iron Mike x Ignored says: 12/20/2018 at 11:59 pm
Fifty billion does seem low, however its probably much closer than KSA's 260.Interesting, they are probably right.dclonghorn x Ignored says: 12/21/2018 at 6:15 am
I knew Aramco would pull out of the IPO. They are one of the most secretive companies. How you going to float on the NYSE or London SE with no transparency, which is required by law.
50 billion sounds about right in my worthless opinion. Interestingly enough that would be more or less close to the Permian basin reserves.
I think peak oil will arrive without many people noticing until after it has occurred.A few more thoughts about the referenced Goering report.
First, the basis or their report: "We have good data going up to 2008, however after that point data becomes difficult to find."
Does anyone else have good data on Ghawar production through 2008. Actual Saudi production data is hard to come by, and I would like to see a table of Ghawar production through 2008 if it is out there.
Based on their 2008 data they have included a Hubbert Linearization which is the basis for their claim.
Second, if their production data and linearization are correct, they have not been adjusted for improved results from better technology. I believe the multi lateral super wells Saleri described in his 2005 SPE paper have allowed KSA to recover several percent of additional original oil in place, as well as to maintain high production rates longer.
Third is that it appears many of those super wells were drilled beginning in mid 2000's. It would make sense that the change in Saudi attitudes regarding production restraint between 2014 and now could be due to those multilateral wells watering out.
Dec 22, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand x Ignored says: 12/20/2018 at 7:54 pmCoffee. I hope if you have been investing in the Appalachian gas players that you have been short.Coffeeguyzz x Ignored says: 12/20/2018 at 9:02 pm
The only investment class in oil and gas that may be worse over the past ten years would be the service sector, particularly the drillers.
Interesting that, despite all the activity, the US onshore drillers are becoming penny stocks. I have pointed out Nabors. The rest are all tanking bad it appears.
You made a big deal out of a very long lateral operated by Eclipse Resources. Eclipse equity closed at 76 cents a share.
I am not so sure that ultra cheap oil and gas is such a great thing for the US, given we are now the world's largest producer of both.Shallowshallow sand x Ignored says: 12/21/2018 at 12:31 am
I never have, nor will I ever in the future, take any financial stake in these or any other companies.
As I have stated numerous times over the years, my primary interest is in operations who is doing what, how it is being done, who is doing it better – or claims to be.
My initial interest in this site way back when was to learn why some people seemed to think this so called Shale Revolution was No Big Deal a retirement party, in the words of Berman.
It was quickly apparent to me that a great deal of unawareness vis a vis industry developments permeated this site's participants.
This, alongside several predisposing factors to NOT want the shale production to explode upwards provided fertile grounds for the soon 12 to 16 million barrels per day US oil production, along with 100+ Bcfd gas production to be a spectaculsrly unforseen reality.
What I prefer or not prefer is secondary to what I believe to be occurring, shallow.
If anyone cares to spend 3 minutes reading the April, 2017 USGS press release accompanying the Haynesville/Bossier assessment, they will read the following from Walter Guidroz, Program Coordinator of the USGS Energy Resources Program
"As the USGS revisits many of the oil and gas basins of the US, we continually find that technological revolutions of the past few years have truly been a game changer in the amount of resources that are now technically recoverable".
Addendum Eclipse is being shut down/folded into another entity.
The lead engineer behind their ultra long laterals is now working with the new outfit from which this technology will continue to spread.No offense meant coffee. I know some who post here like to tangle with you. I am not interested in that, just straightforward discussion.
Shale has surprised the heck out of me, and has made me several times strongly consider liquidating my entire investment in oil and gas, absent maybe keeping just a couple of KSA like cheap (to quote PXD CEO) LOE wells to fool around with. Had I known in 2012-13 that this was coming, would have sold all but those few "piddle around with wells." It has been absolutely no fun when these price crashes occur, and is especially no fun knowing that this shale miracle is less profitable than an operation producing less than one bopd per well from very, very old and tired wells.
You have to admit that the way the shale is being developed is destroying the oil and gas industries that are developing it.
Particularly hard hit are the service companies, many which are already bankrupt.
Even XOM, which I have owned for many, many years (prior to the merger, I owned both Exxon and Mobil) has hit the skids, having fallen through the $70 per share barrier.
Range Resources is at $10.26, a level not seen since 2004. It traded as high as $90 before the 2014 crash.
EQT was over $100. Today $18.55
Whiting was nearly $400 (accounting for a reverse split) and now is $21.98
CHK closed at $1.84. All time high was $64.
Nabors Industries, the largest onshore US driller closed at $2.09. Traded at split adjusted $10 in 1978.
Halcon Resources Corp. was over $3,000 split adjusted at one time, went Ch 11 BK, now at $1.65, looking not so good re: BK again.
We shall soon see who can access what in the way of capital to keep going assuming oil prices stay below $50 WTI for a considerable time.
I guess I am always concerned about whether businesses make money. Seems to me that would be of some importance to you, but it isn't, and I suppose there is no harm in that.
I have yet to work anywhere where making money was not the primary motivation.
If the money wasn't important, the shale executives would not make so much of it, I suppose.
I have always had a hard time understanding why they kept drilling wells in Appalachia when the gas was selling for 50 cents per mcf. Not important to you, but maybe to others.
Anyway, if we didn't have different views, places like this wouldn't be very interesting.
Dec 22, 2018 | finance.yahoo.com
Chinese refineries that used to purchase U.S. oil regularly said they had not resumed buying due to uncertainty over the outlook for trade relations between Washington and Beijing, as well as rising freight costs and poor profit-margins for refining in the region.
Costs for shipping U.S. crude to Asia on a supertanker are triple those for Middle eastern oil, data on Refinitiv Eikon showed.
A senior official with a state oil refinery said his plant had stopped buying U.S. oil from October and had not booked any cargoes for delivery in the first quarter.
"Because of the great policy uncertainty earlier on, plants have actually readjusted back to using alternatives to U.S. oil ... they just widened our supply options," he said.
He added that his plant had shifted to replacements such as North Sea Forties crude, Australian condensate and oil from Russia.
"Maybe teapots will take some cargoes, but the volume will be very limited," said a second Chinese oil executive, referring to independent refiners. The sources declined to be named because of company policy.
A sharp souring in Asian benchmark refining margins has also curbed overall demand for crude in recent months, sources said.
Despite the impasse on U.S. crude purchases, China's crude imports could top a record 45 million tonnes (10.6 million barrels per day) in December from all regions, said Refinitiv senior oil analyst Mark Tay.
Russia is set to remain the biggest supplier at 7 million tonnes in December, with Saudi Arabia second at 5.7-6.7 million tonnes, he said.
19 hours ago This is an economic/political tight rope for both countries. China is the largest auto market in the world with numerous manufacturers located inside its borders. Apple sales will disappoint inside China after Meng's arrest over Iran sanctions (Huawei is a world heavy weight in terms of sales), and this has already begun inside China due to national pride. Canada has already seen one trade agreement postponed over her detention. US firm on the main have already issued orders to not have key employees travel to their Chinese plants unless absolutely necessary for fear of retaliation. Brussels is actively working on a plan to bypass US Iranian sanctions, which are deeply unpopular in Europe.
The key to this solution might be in automotive. Oil is possibly on the endangered bargaining list. Russia is a key trading partner (for years) with China and, along with Saudi Arabia and Iran (or even without Iran) will be able to supply their needs. Our agricultural sector, particularly in soybeans, has been hit hard, forcing the US govt. into farm subsidies. Brazil just recorded a record harvest in soybeans. The US could counter with lifting Meng from arrest in return for an agricultural break, but those negotiations won't make the mainstream news. Personally, I think her arrest was a very ill-thought move on the part of law enforcement, as the benefits don't even begin to outweigh the massive retaliation to US firms operating inside their borders. It is almost akin to arresting Tim Cook of Apple or Apple's CFO. You don't kill a bug with a sledge hammer.
Dec 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Besides that, Saudi Arabia requires the organization to maintain a high level of oil production due to pressure coming from Washington to achieve a very low cost per barrel of oil. The US energy strategy targets Iranian and Russian revenue from oil exports, but it also aims to give the US a speedy economic boost. Trump often talks about the price of oil falling as his personal victory. The US imports about 10 million barrels of oil a day, which is why Trump wrongly believes that a decrease in the cost per barrel could favor a boost to the US economy. The economic reality shows a strong correlation between the price of oil and the financial growth of a country, with low prices of crude oil often synonymous of a slowing down in the economy.
It must be remembered that to keep oil prices high, OPEC countries are required to maintain a high rate of production, doubling the damage to themselves. Firstly, they take less income than expected and, secondly, they deplete their oil reserves to favor the strategy imposed by Saudi Arabia on OPEC to please the White House. It is clearly a strategy that for a country like Qatar (and perhaps Venezuela and Iran in the near future) makes little sense, given the diplomatic and commercial rupture with Riyadh stemming from tensions between the Gulf countries.
In contrast, the OPEC+ organization, which also includes other countries like the Russian Federation, Mexico and Kazakhstan, seems to now to determine oil and its cost per barrel. At the moment, OPEC and Russia have agreed to cut production by 1.2 million barrels per day, contradicting Trump's desire for high oil output.
With this last choice Qatar sends a clear signal to the region and to traditional allies, moving to the side of OPEC+ and bringing its interests closer in line with those of the Russian Federation and its all-encompassing oil and gas strategy, two sectors in which Qatar and Russia dominate market share.
In addition, Russia and Qatar's global strategy also brings together and includes partners like Turkey (a future energy hub connecting east and west as well as north and south) and Venezuela. In this sense, the meeting between Maduro and Erdogan seems to be a prelude to further reorganization of OPEC and its members.
LetThemEatRand , 9 hours ago linkThe Dreadnought , 8 hours ago link
It's crazy to think of all of the natural gas burned off by the world's oil producers. I think of those oil platforms that have a huge burning flame on top. This is the kind of **** that reminds us that the people who control the world care not for the people who live here. Can't make a buck from it? ******* burn it.Koba the Dread , 7 hours ago link
Right fuckin' AMs No , 9 hours ago link
Consider though that those oil producers are only in it for the money; it's not an avocation with them. I imagine if there was a way to salvage the natural gas, it would be done. Mo Muny would dictate it.serotonindumptruck , 8 hours ago link
This could be the beggining of a level 5 popcorn event. It started a year or two ago and when I saw it everybody laughed. Well look at it now. Saudi wants to defect. They have had nothing but problems with the House of Sodomy for quite some time now.
I wonder what Mossad and the CIA are planning.Brazen Heist II , 8 hours ago link
A False Flag operation to block the Strait of Hormuz?Ms No , 9 hours ago link
They are planning on removing Salman junior if he doesn't stop embarrassing their sorry assesjmarioneaux , 9 hours ago link
If this leads to war in the Persian Gulf Edgar Cayce called it. The empire will burn that place down before losing it. They may fail but something is going to go down.
Are the Sauds still full heartedly pushing the Zionist mission in Yemen?
"...submissive allies as Saudi Arabia"
Is that what they call it now?PeaceForWorld , 6 hours ago link
I feel something big is coming with Iran.TeraByte , 9 hours ago link
As an Iranian-American I have been waiting for something big to happen with Iran. I am really tired of waiting. I hope that Iran will grow some balls and fight the coalition. I know that there are 80 million lives in danger, including my mom going back to Iran for a short term. But this has been like a long torture and unending nightmare.
There is no multipolarity yet, but a bipolar hype of the world dominance run by US and its vassals. An awakening will be harsh, when these realize their emperor goes naked.
Dec 08, 2018 | smh.com.au
"U.S. political pressure is clearly a dominant factor at this OPEC meeting, limiting the scope of Saudi actions to rebalance the market," said Gary Ross, chief executive of Black Gold Investors and a veteran OPEC watcher. channelnewsasia.com 10 May 2018
Donald Trump could hardly have chosen a more treacherous economic moment to tear up the "decaying and rotten deal" with Iran. The world crude market is already tightening very fast. Joint production curbs by Opec and Russia have cleared the four-year glut of oil. There is no longer an ample safety buffer against supply shocks. The geopolitical "premium" on prices has returned. Tensions run high:
The Maduro regime in Venezuela is entering its last agonies, and the country's oil industry is imploding. North America has run into an infrastructure crunch. There are not yet enough pipelines to keep pace with shale oil output from the Permian Basin of west Texas, and it is much the same story in the Alberta tar sands. The prospect of losing several hundred thousand barrels a day of Iranian oil exports would not have mattered much a year ago. It certainly matters now.
World leaders respond to President Trump's move to reimpose economic sanctions on Iran while pulling the United States out of the international agreement aimed at stopping Tehran from obtaining a nuclear bomb.
Oil price shock is looming
It is the confluence of simmering political crises in so many places that has driven Brent crude to $US77 a barrel, up 60 per cent since last June. "We believe an oil price shock is looming as early as 2019 as several elements combine to form a 'perfect storm'," said Westbeck Capital. It predicts $US100 crude in short order, with $US150 coming into sight as the world faces a crunch all too reminiscent of July 2008. The fund warns that the investment collapse since 2014 is about to deliver its sting. Declining fields are not being replaced. Output from conventional projects has until now been rising but will fall precipitously by 1.5 million barrels a day next year. By then global spare capacity will be down to a lethally thin 1 per cent. US shale cannot plug the gap. "The mantra after 2014 of lower for longer has lulled oil analysts into a torpor," Westbeck said. Needless to say, a spike to $US150 would precipitate a global recession.The US might hope to weather such a traumatic episode now that it is the world's biggest oil producer but it would be fatal for oil-starved Europe. Such a scenario would test the unreformed euro to destruction. Britain, France and Germany may earnestly wish to preserve the Iran deal but they can do little against US financial hegemony and the ferocity of "secondary sanctions". The US measures cover shipping, insurance, and the gamut of financial and logistical support for Iran's oil industry.In the end, there are infinitely greater matters at stake than barrels of oil.Any European or Asian company that falls foul of this will be shut out of the US capital markets and dollarised international payments system. The EU has talked of beefing up the 1996 Blocking Regulation used to shield European companies from extraterritorial US sanctions against Libya. But this is just bluster. No European company with operations in the US would dare flout the US Treasury. "A choice for corporate Europe between the US and Iran is unequivocally going to fall the way of the US," said Richard Robinson from Ashburton Global Energy Fund.
Rise in oil prices turns malign
He said Europe will have to slash its imports from Iran by 60 per cent because groups such as ENI or Total will refuse to ship the oil, whatever the strategic policy of the EU purports to be. This dooms the nuclear deal (JCPOA) since Iran will not abide by the terms if the EU cannot deliver on its rhetoric, let alone come through with the $US200 billion ($251 billion) of foreign investment coveted by Tehran.
David Fyfe from oil traders Gunvor said we do not yet have enough details from Washington to judge how quickly companies will have to act. He estimates that sanctions will cut Iran's exports by up to 500,000 barrels a day later this year. "It could well be much more in 2019," he said.
Late last year it was still possible to view rising oil prices as benign, the result of a booming world economy. This year it has turned malign. Global growth has rolled over. The broad IHS index of raw materials has been falling since February.
Europe's catch-up spurt fizzled out in the first quarter. Japan's GDP probably contracted. The higher oil price is itself part of the cause.
$US500 billion extra 'tax'
Even at current levels, it acts as an extra $US500 billion "tax" this year for consumers in Asia, Europe and America. Not all of the windfall enjoyed by the petro-powers is recycled quickly back into global spending.
One cause of the slowdown is the credit squeeze in China, which is ineluctably feeding through into the real economy with a delay. Proxy indicators suggest that true growth has fallen below 5 per cent.
My own view is that monetary tightening by the US Federal Reserve - and declining stimulus from the European Central Bank - is doing more damage than widely presumed.
Higher US interest rates are pushing up borrowing costs for much of the world. Three-month dollar Libor rates used to price $US9 trillion of global contracts have risen 76 basis points since January.
The Fed is shrinking its balance sheet, draining international dollar liquidity at a quickening pace. If the Fed is not careful, it will tip the US economy into a stall.
Ominously, we are seeing the first signs of a US dollar rally, tantamount to a "short squeeze" on Turkey, Argentina and Indonesia, among other emerging market debtors.Toxic combination
The combination of a slowing economy and an oil supply shock is toxic, even if the "energy intensity" of world GDP is now half the level of 30 years ago.
Opec and Russia can of course lift their output cap at any time, though that alone will not restore the full 1.8m barrels a day of original curbs. Venezuela is now in unstoppable free-fall.
The Saudis have pledged to uphold the "stability of oil markets" and to help "mitigate the impact of any potential supply shortages". Kuwait and Abu Dhabi could add a little. Yet cyclical forces may be moving even beyond their control.
In the end, there are infinitely greater matters at stake than barrels of oil. Trump is throwing US power behind Saudi Arabia in the epic Sunni-Shia battle for dominance over the Middle East, and behind Israel in its separate battle with Iran.What can go wrong?
Both conflicts are on a hair trigger. Israel attacked an Iranian air base in Syria last month and killed seven revolutionary guards. This is a dangerous escalation from proxy conflict to direct hostilities. The JCPOA nuclear deal may be all that restrains the Iranian side from lashing out.
Saudi Arabia's impetuous young leader Mohammad bin Salman is itching to settle the score of all scores with Iran, the Iranian revolutionary guard are in turn itching to launch a one-year dash for nuclear weapons, and Trump is itching for regime change. What can go wrong?
The Daily Telegraph, London
Nov 29, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Russ , Nov 28, 2018 3:28:31 PM | link
Why are U.S. troops in the Middle East?
In an interview with the Washington Post U.S. President Donald Trump gives an answer :Trump also floated the idea of removing U.S. troops from the Middle East, citing the lower price of oil as a reason to withdraw.
"Now, are we going to stay in that part of the world? One reason to is Israel ," Trump said. "Oil is becoming less and less of a reason because we're producing more oil now than we've ever produced. So, you know, all of a sudden it gets to a point where you don't have to stay there."
It is only Israel, it is no longer the oil, says Trump. But the nuclear armed Israel does not need U.S. troops for its protection.
And if it is no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?
Trump's Secretary of State Mike Pompeo disagrees with his boss. In a Wall Street journal op-ed today he claims that The U.S.-Saudi Partnership Is Vital because it includes much more then oil:[D]egrading U.S.-Saudi ties would be a grave mistake for the national security of the U.S. and its allies.
The kingdom is a powerful force for stability in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia is working to secure Iraq's fragile democracy and keep Baghdad tethered to the West's interests, not Tehran's. Riyadh is helping manage the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war by working with host countries, cooperating closely with Egypt, and establishing stronger ties with Israel. Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations. Saudi oil production and economic stability are keys to regional prosperity and global energy security.
Where and when please has Saudi Arabia "managed the flood of refugees fleeing Syria's civil war". Was that when it emptied its jails of violent criminals and sent them to wage jihad against the Syrian people? That indeed 'managed' to push millions to flee from their homes.
Saudi Arabia might be many things but "a powerful force for stability" it is not. Just ask 18 million Yemenis who, after years of Saudi bombardment, are near to death for lack of food .
Pompeo's work for the Saudi dictator continued today with a Senate briefing on Yemen. The Senators will soon vote on a resolution to end the U.S. support for the war. In his prepared remarks Pompeo wrote:The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot worse.
What could be worse than a famine that threatens two third of the population?
If the U.S. and Britain would not support the Saudis and Emirates the war would end within a day or two. The Saudi and UAE planes are maintained by U.S. and British specialists. The Saudis still seek 102 more U.S. military personal to take care of their planes. It would be easy for the U.S. to stop such recruiting of its veterans.
It is the U.S. that holds up an already watered down UN Security Council resolution that calls for a ceasefire in Yemen:The reason for the delay continues to be a White House worry about angering Saudi Arabia, which strongly opposes the resolution, multiple sources say. CNN reported earlier this month that the Saudi crown prince, Mohammed bin Salman, "threw a fit" when presented with an early draft of the document, leading to a delay and further discussions among Western allies on the matter.
We recently wrote that pandering to the Saudis and keeping Muhammad bin Salman in place will hurt Trump's Middle East policies . The piece noted that Trump asked the Saudis for many things, but found that:There is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him no gain and a lot of trouble.
Trump protected MbS from the consequences of murdering Jamal Khashoggi. He hoped to gain leverage with that. But that is not how MbS sees it. He now knows that Trump will not confront him no matter what he does. If MbS "threws a fit" over a UN Security Council resolution, the U.S. will drop it. When he launches his next 'adventure', the U.S. will again cover his back. Is this the way a super power is supposed to handle a client state?
If Trump's instincts really tell him that U.S. troops should be removed from the Middle East and Afghanistan, something I doubt, he should follow them. Support for the Saudi war on Yemen will not help to achieve that. Pandering to MbS is not MAGA.
Posted by b on November 28, 2018 at 03:12 PM | Permalink
Comments Pompeo: "Saudi Arabia has also contributed millions of dollars to the U.S.-led effort to fight Islamic State and other terrorist organizations."
Everyone knows it's the US presence in the Middle East which creates terrorists, both as proxies of and in resistance to the US imperial presence (and often one and then the other). So reading Orwellian language, Pompeo is saying the US wants to maximize Islamic terrorism in order to provide a pretext for creeping totalitarianism at home and abroad.
lysias , Nov 28, 2018 3:35:15 PM | linkThe real reason is to maintain the petrodollar system, but there seems to be a conspiracy of silence never to mention it among both supporters and opponents of Trump.Ross , Nov 28, 2018 3:41:42 PM | linkjames , Nov 28, 2018 3:47:06 PM | linkThere is really nothing in Trump's list on which the Saudis consistently followed through. His alliance with MbS brought him no gain and a lot of trouble.
He did get to fondle the orb - although fuck knows what weirdness was really going on there.thanks b... pompeo is a very bad liar... in fact - everything he says is about exactly the opposite, but bottom line is he is a bad liar as he is thoroughly unconvincing..uncle tungsten , Nov 28, 2018 3:49:24 PM | link
everyone knows why the usa is in the middle east.. to support the war industry, which is heavily tied to the financial industry.. up is down and down is up.. that is why the usa is great friends with ksa and israel and a sworn enemy of iran... what they don't say is they are a sworn enemy of humanity and the thought that the world can continue with their ongoing madness...
oh, but don't forget to vote, LOLOL.... no wonder so many are strung out on drugs, and the pharma industry... opening up to the msm is opening oneself up to the world george orwell described many years ago...Take a wafer or two of silicon and just add water. The oil obsession has been eclipsed and within 20 years will be in absolute disarray. The warmongers will invent new excuses.karlof1 , Nov 28, 2018 4:33:18 PM | link
A hypothetical: No extraordinary amounts of hydrocarbons exist under Southwest Asian ground; just an essential amount for domestic consumption; in that case, would Zionistan exist where it's currently located and would either Saudi Arabia, Iraq and/or Iran have any significance aside from being consumers of Outlaw US Empire goods? Would the Balfour Declaration and the Sykes/Picot Secret Treaty have been made? If the Orinoco Oil Belt didn't exist, would Venezuela's government be continually targeted for Imperial control? If there was no Brazilian offshore oil, would the Regime Change effort have been made there? Here the hypotheticals end and a few basic yet important questions follow.A. Person , Nov 28, 2018 5:20:13 PM | link
Previous to the 20th Century, why were Hawaii and Samoa wrested from their native residents and annexed to Empire? In what way did the lowly family farmers spread across 19th Century United States further the growth of its Empire and contribute to the above named annexations? What was the unspoken message sent to US elites contained within Frederic Jackson Turner's 1893 Frontier Thesis ? Why is the dominant language of North America English, not French or Spanish?
None of these are rhetorical. All second paragraph questions I asked of my history students. And all have a bearing on b's fundamental question.b says, "And it its no longer the oil, why is the U.S. defending the Saudis?"Tobin Paz , Nov 28, 2018 5:50:19 PM | link
The US has a vital interest in protecting the narrative of 9/11. The Saudis supplied the patsies. Mossad and dual-citizen neocons were the architects of the event. Hence, the US must avoid a nasty divorce from the Saudis. The Saudis are in a perfect blackmailing position.Maybe Trump is unaware, but the fracking boom is a bubble made possible by near zero interest rates:NOBTS , Nov 28, 2018 6:08:53 PM | link
U.S. SHALE OIL INDUSTRY: Catastrophic Failure AheadOf course, most Americans have no idea that the U.S. Shale Oil Industry is nothing more than a Ponzi Scheme because of the mainstream media's inability to report FACT from FICTION. However, they don't deserve all of the blame as the shale energy industry has done an excellent job hiding the financial distress from the public and investors by the use of highly technical jargon and BS.
Oil is the untold story of modern history.S.A. is a thinly disguised US military base, hence the "strategic importance" and the relevance of the new Viceroy's previous experience as a Four Star General. It's doubtful that any of the skilled personnel in the SA Air Force are other than former US/Nato. A few princes might fancy themselves to be daring fighter pilots. In case of a Anglo-Zio war with Iran SA would be the most forward US aircraft carrier. The Empire is sustained by its presumed military might and prizes nothing more than its strategically situated bases. Saud would like to capture Yemen's oil fields, but the primary purpose of the air war is probably training. That of course is more despicably cynical than mere conquest and genocide.Pft , Nov 28, 2018 6:08:56 PM | linkTrump is the ultimate deceiver/liar. Great actor reading from a script. The heel in the Fake wrestling otherwise known as US politics. It almost sounds as if he is calling for an end of anymore significant price drops now that he has got Powell on board to limit interest rate hikes. After all if you are the worlds biggest producer you dont want prices too low. These markets are all manipulated. I cant imagine how much insider trading is going on. If you look at the oil prices, they started dropping in October with Iran sanctions looming (before it was announced irans shipments to its 8 biggest buyers would be exempt) and at the height of the Khashoggi event where sanctions were threatened and Saudi was making threats of their own. In a real free market prices increase amidst supply uncertainty.psychohistorian , Nov 28, 2018 6:35:06 PM | link
Regardless of what he says he wants and gets now, he is already planning a reversal. Thats how the big boys win, they know whats coming and when the con the smaller fish to swim one way they are lined up with a big mouth wide open. Controlled chaos and confusion. For every winner there must be a loser and the losers assets/money are food for the Gods of Money and War
As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. My money is on the US to be in Yemen to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis while in reality we will be there to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about. The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF@ Pft who wrote: "The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF"Augustin L , Nov 28, 2018 6:37:43 PM | link
BINGO!!! Those that control finance control most/all of everything else.Pnyx , Nov 28, 2018 7:02:31 PM | link
Saudi Arabia literally owns close to 8% of the United States economy through various financial instruments. Their public investment funds and dark pools own large chunks from various strategic firms resting at the apex of western power such as Blackstone. Trump and Pompeo would be stupid to cut off their nose to spite their face... It's all about the petrodollar, uncle sam will ride and die with saudi barbaria. If push comes to shove and the saudis decide to untether themselves from the Empire, their sand kingdom will probably be partitioned.The oil certainly still plays an important role, the u.s. cannot maintain the current frack oil output for long. For Tronald's term in office it will suffice, but hardly longer. (The frack gas supplies are much more substantial.)Likklemore , Nov 28, 2018 7:07:15 PM | link
Personal interests certainly also play a role, and finally one should not make u.s. foreign policy more rational than it is. Much is also done because of traditions and personal convictions. Often they got it completely wrong and the result was a complete failure.Let us watch what Trump does with this or if the resolution makes it to daylight:Midwest For Truth , Nov 28, 2018 7:29:46 PM | link
Senate advances Yemen resolution in rebuke to TrumpThe Senate issued a sharp rebuke Wednesday to President Trump, easily advancing a resolution that would end U.S. military support for the Saudi-led campaign in Yemen's civil war despite a White House effort to quash the bill.
The administration launched an eleventh-hour lobbying frenzy to try to head off momentum for the resolution, dispatching Defense Secretary James Mattis and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo to Capitol Hill in the morning and issuing a veto threat less than an hour before the vote started.
But lawmakers advanced the resolution, 63-37, even as the administration vowed to stand by Saudi Arabia following outcry over the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi.
"There's been a lot of rhetoric that's come from the White House and from the State Department on this issue," said Sen. Bob Corker (R-Tenn.), chairman of the Foreign Relations Committee. "The rhetoric that I've heard and the broadcasts that we've made around the world as to who we are have been way out of balance as it relates to American interests and American values." [/]
But Mattis says there is no smoking gun to tie the Clown Thug-Prince to Kashoggi's killing.
And Lyias @ 2 is a bingo. Always follow the fiat.
Soon, without any announcements, if they wish to maintain selling oil to China, KSA will follow Qatar. It will be priced in Yuan...especially given the escalating U.S. trade war with China.
2019 holds interesting times. Order a truckload of popcorn.You would have to have your head buried in the sand to not see that the Saudi "Kings" are crypto-Zionistas. Carl Sagan once said, "One of the saddest lessons of history is this: If we've been bamboozled long enough, we tend to reject any evidence of the bamboozle. We're no longer interested in finding out the truth. The bamboozle has captured us. It's simply too painful to acknowledge, even to ourselves, that we've been taken. Once you give a charlatan power over you, you almost never get it back." And Mark Twain also wrote "It's easier to fool people than to convince them that they have been fooled."karlof1 , Nov 28, 2018 7:59:31 PM | linkGee, not one taker amongst all these intelligent folk. From last to first: 1588's Protestant Wind allowed Elizabeth and her cronies to literally keep their heads as Nature helped Drake defeat the Spanish Armada; otherwise, there would be no British Empire root to the USA, thus no USA and no future Outlaw US Empire, the British Isles becoming a Hapsburg Imperial Property, and a completely different historical lineage, perhaps sans World Wars and atomic weapons.robjira , Nov 28, 2018 8:08:58 PM | link
Turner's message was with the Frontier closed the "safety valve" of continental expansion defusing political tensions based on economic inequalities had ceased to be of benefit and future policy would need to deal with that issue thus removing the Fear Factor from the natives to immigrants, and from wide-open spaces to the inner cities. Whipsawing business cycles driving urban labor's unrest, populist People's Party politics, and McKinley's 1901 assassination further drove his points home.
Nationwide, family farmers demanded Federal government help to create additional markets for their produce to generate price inflation so they could remain solvent and keep their homesteads, which translated into the need to conduct international commerce via the seas which required coaling stations--Hawaii and Samoa, amongst others--and a Blue Water Navy that eventually led to Alfred T. Mahan's doctrine of Imperial Control of the Oceans still in use today.
As with Gengis Khan's death in 1227 that stopped the Mongol expansion to the English Channel that changed the course of European history, and what was seen as the Protestant Wind being Divine Intervention, global history has several similar inflection points turning the tide from one path to another. We don't know yet if the Outlaw US Empire's reliance on Saudi is such, but we can see it turning from being a great positive to an equally potential great negative for the Empire--humanity as a whole, IMO, will benefit greatly from an implosion and the relationship becoming a Great Negative helping to strip what remains of the Emperor's Clothing from his torso so that nations and their citizens can deter the oncoming financialized economic suicide caused by massive debt and climate chaos.
Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole, but it's also possible that disaster could strike with humanity's total or near extinction being the outcome--good arguments can be made for either outcome, which ought to unsettle everyone: Yes, the times are that tenuous. But then, I'm merely a lonely historian aware of a great many things, including the pitfall inherent in trying to predict future events."The suffering in Yemen grieves me, but if the United States of America was not involved in Yemen, it would be a hell of a lot worse." And I'll bet Pompeo said that with a straight face, too. lmfaoimo , Nov 28, 2018 8:25:35 PM | link
And as for "...keep[ing] Baghdad tethered to the West's interests and not Tehran's," I'm guessing the "secretary" would have us all agree "yeah, fk Iraqi sovereignty anyway. Besides, it's not like they share a border with Iran, or anything. Oh, wait..."
p.s. Many thanks for all you have contributed to collective knowledge, b; I will be contacting you about making a contribution by snail mail (I hate PayPal, too)."... a powerful force for stability in the Middle East."karlof1 , Nov 28, 2018 8:52:24 PM | link
"Instability" more like it.
Paid for military coup in Egypt. Funding anti-Syrian terrorists. Ongoing tensions with Iran. Zip-all for the Palestinians. WTF in Yemen. Wahhabi crazy sh_t (via Mosque building) across Asia. Head and hand chopping Friday specials the norm -- especially of their South-Asian slave classes. Ok, so females can now drive cars -- woohoo. A family run business venture manipulating the global oil trade and supporting US-petro-$ hegemony recently out of goat herding and each new generation 'initiated' in some Houston secret society toe-touching shower and soap ceremonies before placement in the ruling hierarchy back home. But enough; they being Semites makes it an offence to criticize in some 'free' democratic world domains.Likklemore @14--Peter AU 1 , Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | link
Instead of the "rebuke to Trump" meme circulating around, I found this statement to be more accurate:
"'Cutting off military aid to Saudi Arabia is the right choice for Yemen, the right choice for our national security, and the right choice for upholding the Constitution,' Paul Kawika Martin, senior director for policy and political affairs at Peace Action, declared in a statement. ' Three years ago, the notion of Congress voting to cut off military support for Saudi Arabia would have been politically laughable .'" [My Emphasis]
In other words, advancing Peace with Obama as POTUS wasn't going to happen, so this vote ought to be seen as an attack on Obama's legacy as it's his policy that's being reconsidered and hopefully discontinued.Trump, Israel and the Sawdi's. US no longer needs middle east oil for strategic supply. Trump is doing away with the petro-dollar as that scam has run its course and maintenance is higher than returns. Saudi and other middle east oil is required for global energy dominance.Pft , Nov 29, 2018 1:15:05 AM | link
Energy dominance, lebensraum for Israel and destroying the current Iran are all objectives that fit into one neat package.
Those plans look to be coming apart at the moment so it remains to be seen how fanatical Trump is on Israel and MAGA. MAGA as US was at the collapse of the Soviet Union.As for pulling out of the Middle East Bibi must have had a good laugh. Remember when he said he wanted out of Syria. My money is on the US to be in Yemen before too long to protect them from the Saudis (humanitarian) and Iranian backed Houthis, while in reality it will be to secure the enormous oil fields in the North. Perhaps this was what the Khashoggi trap was all about.james , Nov 29, 2018 1:57:51 AM | link
The importance of oil is not to supply US markets its to deny it to enemies and control oil prices in order to feed international finance/IMF .@16 karlof1.. thanks for a broader historical perspective which you are able to bring to moa.. i enjoy reading your comments.. i don't have answers to ALL your questions earlier.. i have answers for some of them... you want to make it easy on us uneducated folks and give us less questions, like b did in his post here, lol.... cheers jamesb , Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | linkThis came faster than assumed:jim slim , Nov 29, 2018 4:04:44 AM | link
Yemen war: US Senate advances measure to end support for Saudi forcesThe US Senate has advanced a measure to withdraw American support for a Saudi-led coalition fighting in Yemen.That is quite a slap for the Trump administration. It will have little consequences in the short term (or for Yemen) but it sets a new direction in foreign polices towards the Saudis.
In a blow to President Donald Trump, senators voted 63-37 to take forward a motion on ending US support.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and Defence Secretary Jim Mattis had urged Senators not to back the motion, saying it would worsen the situation in Yemen.
The vote in the Senate means further debate on US support for Saudi Arabia is expected next week.
However, correspondents say that even if the Senate ultimately passes the bipartisan resolution it has little chance of being approved by the outgoing House of Representatives.Pompeo is a Deep State Israel-firster with a nasty neocon agenda. It is to Trump's disgrace that he chose Pompeo and the abominable Bolton. At least Trump admits the ME invasions are really about Israel.mina , Nov 29, 2018 4:14:20 AM | linkduterte...idris deby...so many democrats visiting Netanyahu lately!!Rhisiart Gwilym , Nov 29, 2018 4:49:48 AM | link@Uncle Tungsten, 5:Rancid , Nov 29, 2018 5:58:26 AM | link
Take a look at some of the - informed - comments below the vid to which you linked. Then think again about an 'all electric civilisation within a few years'. Yes, and Father Christmas will be providing everything that everyone in the world needs for a NAmerican/European standard of living within the same time frame. Er - not.
'Renewables' are not going to save hitech industrial 'civilisation' from The Long Descent/Catabolic Collapse (qv). Apart from any other consideration - and there are some other equally intractable ones - there is no - repeat NO - 'renewable' energy system which doesn't rely crucially on energy subsidies from the fossil-hydrocarbon fuels, both to build it and to maintain it. They're not stand-alone, self-bootstrapping technologies. Nor is there any realistic prospect that they ever will be. Fully renewable-power hitech industrial civilisation is a non-deliverable mirage which is just drawing us ever further into the desert of irreversible peak-energy/peak-everythig-else.@16 karlof1. I also find your historical references very interesting. We do indeed seem to be at a very low point in the material cycle, it will reverse in due course as is its want, hopefully we will live to see a positive change in humanity.Russ , Nov 29, 2018 7:24:10 AM | linkJohn 28bob sykes , Nov 29, 2018 7:37:37 AM | link
For example we know Tesla didn't succeed in splitting the planet in half, the way techno-psychotics fantasize. As for that silly link, how typical of techno-wingnuts to respond to prosaic physical facts with fantasies. Anything to prop up faith in the technocratic-fundamentalist religion. Meanwhile "electrical civilization" has always meant and will always mean fracking and coal, until the whole fossil-fueled extreme energy nightmare is over.
Given the proven fact that the extreme energy civilization has done nothing but embark upon a campaign to completely destroy humanity and the Earth (like in your Tesla fantasy), why would a non-psychopath want to prop it up anyway?It is still the oil, even for the US. The Persian Gulf supplies 20% of world consumption, and Western Europe gets 40% of its oil from OPEC countries, most of that from the Gulf. Even the US still imports 10% of its total consumption.y , Nov 29, 2018 7:47:36 AM | linkPeter AU 1 | Nov 28, 2018 9:44:50 PM | 20Guerrero , Nov 29, 2018 10:16:10 AM | link
b | Nov 29, 2018 2:33:04 AM | 23
USD as a world reserve currency could be one factor between the important ones. With non US support the saud land could crash under neighbours pressure, that caos may be not welcomed.Posted by: karlof1 | Nov 28, 2018 7:59:31 PM | 16
"Vico's circle is about to intersect with Hegel's dialectic and generate a new temporal phase in human history. Although many will find it hard to tell, the current direction points to a difficult change to a more positive course for humanity as a whole..."
Humble people around where I live have mentioned that time is speeding up its velocity; there seems to be a spiritual (evolutionary)/physical interface effect or something...
Tolstoy, in the long theory-of-history exposition at the end of War and Peace, challenges 'the great man' of History idea, spreading in his time, at the dawning of the so-called: European Romantic period of Beethoven, Goerte and Wagner, when the unique person was glorified in the name of art, truth, whatever (eventually this bubble burst too, in the 20th C. and IMO because of too much fervent worship in the Cult of the Temple of the Money God. Dostoyevki's great Crime and Punishment is all about this issue.)
Tolstoy tries to describe a scientifically-determined historical process, dissing the 'great man of History' thesis. He was thinking of Napoleon Bonaparte of course, the run-away upstart repulican, anathema to the established order. Tolstoy describes it in the opening scene of the novel: a fascinating parlor-room conversation between a "liberal" woman of good-birth in the elite circles of society and a military captain at the party.
...only tenuously relevant to karlofi1's great post touching upon the Theory of History as such; thanks.
Now as to the question: ¿Why is Trump supporting Saudi Arabia? Let me think about that...
Nov 24, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
RioGrandeImports, 21 seconds ago link
Oil and commodity markets were used as a finishing move on the Soviet system. The book, "The Oil Card: Global Economic Warfare in the 21st Century" by James R. Norman details the use of oil futures as a geopolitical tool. Pipelines change the calculus quite a bit.
Nov 24, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Fred Magyar x Ignored says: 11/22/2018 at 11:34 amhttps://cleantechnica.com/2018/11/22/peak-oil-drastic-oil-shortages-imminent-says-iea/Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 11/22/2018 at 1:59 pm
Peak Oil & Drastic Oil Shortages Imminent, Says IEALOL!Fred Magyar x Ignored says: 11/22/2018 at 4:18 pm
Sorry Fred, but that joke just went right over my head. Why am I not laughing?Twas a sarcastic laugh at the expense of the IEAGeorge Kaplan x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 2:21 amThat discovery chart shows the problem well, I hadn't seen it before. The big blip in deep water discoveries in the 2000s from improved technologies and higher prices contributed greatly to the subsequent glut and price collapse – and now what's left? There hasn't been much of an uptick in exploration despite the price rally, offshore drillers continue to go bust, leasing activity still fairly slow – the tranches get bigger as the last, less attractive bits are released but lease ratio falls, Permian dominates all news stories. Why would the recent decline curve turn around? And the biggest surprise might be that gas is just as bad as oil, so the recent boost in supplies from condensate and NGL might also have run its course.Survivalist x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 9:33 amSo we need to bring on approx 40 million barrels a day by 2025 to stay flat?George Kaplan x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 12:31 pm
Should be an interesting 7 years!I tracked FIDs for oil through 2017, I've been a bit less diligent this year so may have missed some, but for greenfield conventional plus oil sands I have for the remainder of 2018 through 2025: 400, 1770, 1170, 800, 985, 70, 250, 400 kbpd added – about 6 mmbpd total, nothing after 2025, plus another 1 mmbpd from ramp ups from this year. Only pretty small projects could get done now before 2022, and there aren't many of those left. Anything else would need to come from brownfield (in-fill), LTO or new discoveries (including existing known resources that become reserves once a development decision is made).Hugo x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 5:34 amGDP and Energy consumptionFred Magyar x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 5:46 am
The link between GDP and energy consumption is very clearly shown in the graph.
High economic growth matched high growth in energy consumption and recessions saw fall in energy consumption.
Since 90% of the energy consumed comes from burning the stored energy in coal, oil, gas and wood. It is hardly surprising that during high economic growth CO2 emissions increase also.
Those who not not wish to see this link, obviously think Peak Oil is not a problem. GDP growth will continue even though oil becomes more scarce.
If oil production falls by just 1% per year, taking into account new vehicle production. The world would have to produce 90 million electric cars each year in order to prevent oil prices from destroying other users such as the aviation industry.
This year 1.5 million fully electric cars were made and according to several people here peak oil is no more then 4 years away.Since 90% of the energy consumed comes from burning the stored energy in coal, oil, gas and wood. It is hardly surprising that during high economic growth CO2 emissions increase alsoHugo x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 7:40 am
I have a hunch that we are about to see some major changes to that paradigm.FredHickory x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 12:21 pm
I hope you are correct, but I have done some calculations on what is needed.
According to reports around $1.7 trillion was invested in energy supply in 2017. $790 billion on oil, gas and coal supply. $320 billion was spent on solar and wind.
During 2017 oil consumption increased by 1 million barrels per day. Gas consumption increased by 3% and even coal consumption went up.
The world needs to spend about $2.5 trillion per year on wind, solar and batteries in order to meet increased energy demand and reduce fossil fuel burning by about 1% per year. This obviously depends on GDP growth being about average.
Since recent scientific observations have discovered that Greenland, the Arctic and Antarctica melting much faster than anyone thought. The shift needs to be a minimum of 2.5%. Thus a spending of around £4 trillion per year is needed.
I do not see any country spending a minimum of 12 times more on solar and wind in the next 3-5 years. It would take every country doing so.Agreed Hugo. The world is only making token moves towards installation of the necessary wind and solar.GoneFishing x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 12:44 pm
This coming decade will see everyone scrambling to get the equipment built and installed.
Looks like centralized planning (China) is going to beat 'the market' on being the primary supplier. Our 'free' market has tariffs on PV imported. Brilliant.
Does having a 5 (or 10 yr) plan make you communist?
Or just smart."The world needs to spend about $2.5 trillion per year on wind, solar and batteries in order to meet increased energy demand and reduce fossil fuel burning by about 1% per year. This obviously depends on GDP growth being about average."HuntingtonBeach x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 5:14 pm
1% per year? You have got to be kidding.
The global oil consumption for transport is about 39.5 million barrels of oil per day. Using PV to drive EV transport would mean an investment of 2.2 trillion dollars in PV to provide global road transport energy.
So what do we use next year's money for?
."The global oil consumption for transport is about 39.5 million barrels of oil per day"GoneFishing x Ignored says: 11/23/2018 at 6:51 pm
39.5 million is only gasoline in the world. Add diesel and jet fuel and you get to about 75 million barrels a day for transportation or about 75% of oil produced.I was specifically talking about road transport.Hickory x Ignored says: 11/24/2018 at 12:33 am
Argue with these guys.
Did you get the point? That Hugo overstated the cost of renewables to replace fossil fuels by a huge amount and understated their effect by another huge amount.
We have a couple of people that consistently do that on this site.You may have just been talking about transport energy, but the others of us were having some back and forth about fossil fuel replacement in general.
Nov 17, 2018 | theduran.com
The Express UK reports that Russia and Saudi Arabia's 'long-term relationship' will not only survive, but grow, regardless of geopolitical turmoil and internal Saudi scandal as the energy interests between both nations bind them together.
... ... ...
But IHS Market vice chairman Daniel Yergin said the decision was unlikely to jeopardise the relationship between the two allies.
The Saudis have faced significant international criticism in the wake of the killing of journalist Jamal Khashoggi at the Saudi consulate in Turkey.
Speaking to CNBC, Mr Yergin made it clear that Moscow and Riyadh would continue to be closely aligned irrespective of external factors.
He explained: "I think it's intended to be a long-term relationship and it started off about oil prices but you see it taking on other dimensions, for instance, Saudi investment in Russian LNG (liquefied natural gas) and Russian investment in Saudi Arabia.
"I think this is a strategic relationship because it's useful to both countries."
Saudi Arabia and Russia are close, especially as a result of their pact in late 2016, along with other OPEC and non-OPEC producers, to curb output by 1.8 million barrels per day in order to prevent prices dropping too far – but oil markets have changed since then, largely as a result.
The US criticised OPEC, which Saudi Arabia is the nominal leader of, after prices rose.
Markets have fluctuated in recent weeks as a result of fears over a possible drop in supply, as a result of US sanctions on Iran, and an oversupply, as a result of increased production by Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, which have seen prices fall by about 20 percent since early October.
Saudi Arabia has pumped 10.7 million barrels per day in October, while the figure for Russia and the US was 11.4 million barrels in each case.
Mr Yergin said: "It's the big three, it's Saudi Arabia, Russia and the US, this is a different configuration in the oil market than the traditional OPEC-non-OPEC one and so the world is having to adjust."
BP Group Chief Executive Bob Dudley told CNBC: "The OPEC-plus agreement between OPEC and non-OPEC producers including Russia and coalition is a lot stronger than people speculate.
"I think Russia doesn't have the ability to turn on and off big fields which can happen in the Middle East.
"But I fully expect there to be coordination to try to keep the oil price within a certain fairway."
Markets rallied by two percent on Monday off the back of the Saudi decision to cut production , which it justified by citing uncertain global oil growth and associated oil demand next year.
It also suggested waivers granted on US sanctions imposed on Iran which have been granted to several countries including China and Japan was a reason not to fear a decline in supply.
Also talking to CNBC, Russia's Oil Minister Alexander Novak indicated a difference of opinion between Russia and the Saudis, saying it was too soon to cut production, highlighting a lot of volatility in the oil market.
He added: "If such a decision is necessary for the market and all the countries are in agreement, I think that Russia will undoubtedly play a part in this.
"But it's early to talk about this now, we need to look at this question very carefully."
Nov 16, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
likbez says: 11/16/2018 at 1:42 amShallow sand mentioned EV as a sign that oil consumption might go down.
I view EVs as inefficient natural gas powered cars, or worse. And the key problem is its lithium battery. See http://www.epa.gov/dfe/pubs/projects/lbnp/final-li-ion-battery-lca-report.pdf
The cost of producing a large lithium battery is high and it is "perishable product", which will not last even 10 years. The average life expectancy of a new EV battery at about five (Tesla) to eight years. Or about 1500 cycles (assuming daily partial recharge, which prolongs the life of the battery) before reaching 80% of its capacity rating. https://www.quora.com/What-is-the-cycle-lifetime-of-lithium-ion-batteries
Battery performance and lifespan begins to suffer as soon as the temperature climbs above 86 degrees Fahrenheit. A temperature above 86 degrees F affects the battery pack performance instantly and often permanently. https://phys.org/news/2013-04-life-lithium-ion-batteries-electric.html
It is also became almost inoperative at below freezing point temperatures. For example it can't be charged.
So they need to be cooled at summer and heated at winter. Storing such a car on the street is out of question. You need a garage.
And large auto battery typically starts deteriorating after three years of daily use or 800 daily cycles.
Regular gas, and , especially, diesel cars can last 20 years, and larger trucks can last 30 years.
Recycling of lithium batteries is problematic
In a way EVs can be called "subprime cars." Or "California cars", if you wish (California climate is perfect for this type of cars)
Switching to motorcycles for personal transportation can probably help more in oil economy aria then EVs.
That also suggest that "peak oil consumption" for the next five to ten years remains a myth.
Nov 16, 2018 | www.amazon.com
Similarly, the real story of oil is of fortunes lost, betrayal, war, espionage, and intrigue. In the end, inevitably, the story of oil is a story of depletion. Petroleum is a nonrenewable resource, a precious substance that took tens of millions of years to form and that is gone in a comparative instant as we extract and burn it. For many decades, oil-hungry explorers, using ever-improving technology', have been searching for ever-deteriorating prospects as the low- hanging fin its of planet Earth's primordial oil bounty gradually dwindle. Oil wells have been shut in, oil fields exhausted, and oil companies bankrupted by the simple, inexorable reality of depletion.
It is impossible to understand the political and economic history of the past 150 years without taking account of a central character in the drama -- oil, the magical wealth-generating substance, a product of ancient sunlight and tens of millions of years of slow geological processes, whose tragic fate is to be dug up and combusted once and for all. leaving renewed poverty in its wake. With Oil, Power, and War, Matthieu Auzanneau has produced what I believe is the new definitive work on oil and its historic significance, supplanting even Daniel Yergin's renowned The Prize, for reasons I'll describe below.
The importance of oil's role in shaping the modern world cannot be overstated. Prior to the advent of fossil fuels, firewood was humanity's main fuel. But forests could be cut to the last tree (many were), and wood was bulky. Coal offered some economic advantages over wood. But it was oil -- liquid and therefore easier to transport; more energy-dense; and simpler to store -- that turbocharged the modern industrial age following the development of the first commercial wells around the year 1860.
John D. Rockefeller's cutthroat, monopolist business model shaped the early industry, which was devoted mostly to the production of kerosene for lamp oil (gasoline was then considered a waste product and often discarded into streams or rivers). But roughly forty years later, when Henry Ford developed the automobile assembly line, demand for black gold was suddenly as explosive as gasoline itself.
Speaking of explosions, the role of petroleum in the two World Wars and the armament industry' in general deserves not just a footnote in history books but serious and detailed treatment such as it receives in this worthy volume. Herein we learn how Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany literally ran out of gas while the Allies rode to victory in planes, ships, and tanks burning refined US crude. Berlin could be cut off from supplies in Baku or North Africa, and Tokyo's tanker route from Borneo could be blockaded -- but no one could interrupt the American war machine's access to Texas tea.
In the pages that follow, we learn about the origin of the decades-long US alliance with Saudi Arabia, the development of OPEC, the triumph of the petrodollar, and the reasons for both the Algerian independence movement and the Iranian Revolution of 1979. Auzanneau traces the postwar growth of the global economy and the development of consumerism, globalization, and car culture. He recounts how the population explosion and the Green Revolution in agriculture reshaped demographics and politics globally -- and explains why both depended on petroleum. We learn why Nixon cut the US dollar's tether to the gold standard just a year after US oil production started to decline, and how the American economy began to rely increasingly on debt. The story of oil takes ever more fascinating turns -- with the fall of the Soviet Union after its oil production hit a snag; with soaring petroleum prices in 2008 coinciding with the onset of the global financial crisis; and with wars in Iraq, Syria, and Yemen erupting as global conventional oil output flatlined.
As I alluded to above, comparisons will inevitably be drawn between Oil, Power, and War and Daniel Yergin's Pulitzer-winning "The Prize", published in 1990. It may be helpful therefore to point out four of the most significant ways this work differs from Yergin's celebrated tour de force.
The most obvious difference between the two books is simply one of time frame. The Prize's narrative stops in the 1980s, while Oil, Power, and War also covers the following critical decades, which encompass the dissolution of the Soviet Union, the first Gulf War, 9/11, the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, the global financial crisis of 2008. and major shifts within the petroleum industry as it relies ever less on conventional crude and ever more on unconventional resources such as bitumen (Canada's oil sands), tight oil (also called shale oil), and deepwater oil.
Finally, unlike Yergin and other historians of the oil industry, Auzanneau frames his tale of petroleum as a life cycle, with germination followed by spring, summer, and autumn. There is a beginning and a flourishing, but there is also an end. This framing is extremely helpful, given the fact that the world is no longer in the spring or summer of the oil era. We take petroleum for granted, but it's time to start imagining a world, and daily life, without it.
Taken together, these distinctions indeed make Oil, Power, and War the definitive work on the history of oil -- no small achievement, but a judgment well earned.
Over the past decade, worrisome signs of global oil depletion have been obscured by the unabashed enthusiasm of energy analysts regarding growing production in the United States from low-porosity source rocks. Termed "light tight oil," this new resource has been unleashed through application of the technologies of hydrofracturing (tracking) and horizontal drilling.
US liquid fuels production has now surpassed its previous peak in 1970, and well-regarded agencies such as the Energy Information Administration are forecasting continued tight oil abundance through mid-century.
Auzanneau titles his discussion of this phenomenon (in chapter 30), "Nonconventional Petroleum to the Rescue?" -- and frames it as a question for good reason: Skeptics of tight oil hyperoptimism point out that most production so far has been unprofitable. The industry has managed to stay in the game only due to low interest rates (most companies are heavily in debt) and investor hype. Since source rocks lack permeability, individual oil wells deplete very quickly -- with production in each well declining on the order of 70 percent to 90 percent in the first three years. That means that relentless, expensive drilling is needed in order to release the oil that's there. Thus the tight oil industry can be profitable only if oil prices are very high -- high enough, perhaps, to hobble the economy -- and if drilling is concentrated in the small core areas within each of the productive regions. But these "sweet spots" are being exhausted rapidly. Further, with tight oil the energy returned on the energy invested in drilling and completion is far less than was the case with American petroleum in its heyday.
It takes energy to fell a tree, drill an oil well, or manufacture a solar panel. We depend on the energy payback from those activities to run society. In the miraculous years of the late twentieth century, oil delivered an averaged 50:1 energy payback. It was this, more than anything else, that made rapid economic growth possible, especially for the nations that were home to the world's largest oil reserves and extraction companies. As the world relies ever less on conventional oil and ever more on tight oil, bitumen, and deepwater oil, the overall energy payback of the oil industry is declining rapidly. And this erosion of energy return is reflected in higher overall levels of debt in the oil industry and lower overall financial profitability.
Meanwhile the industry is spending ever less on exploration -- for two reasons. First, there is less money available for that purpose, due to declining financial profitability; second, there seems comparatively little oil left to be found: Recent years have seen new oil discoveries dwindle to the lowest level since the 1940s. The world is not about to run out of oil. But the industry that drove society in the twentieth century to the heights of human economic and technological progress is failing in the twenty-first century.
Today some analysts speak of "peak oil demand." The assumption behind the phrase is that electric cars will soon reduce our need for oil, even as abundance of supply is assured by fracking. But the world is still highly dependent on crude oil. We have installed increasing numbers of solar panels and wind turbines, but the transition to renewable is going far too slowly either to avert catastrophic climate change or to fully replace petroleum before depletion forces an economic crisis. While we may soon see more electric cars on the road, trucking, shipping, and aviation will be much harder to electrify. We haven't really learned yet how to make the industrial world work without oil. The simple reality is that the best days of the oil business, and the oil-fueled industrial way of life, are behind us. And we are not ready for what comes next.
Nov 14, 2018 | www.barnesandnoble.com
In this sweeping, unabashed history of oil, Matthieu Auzanneau takes a fresh, thought-provoking look at the way oil interests have commandeered politics and economies, changed cultures, disrupted power balances across the globe, and spawned wars. He upends commonly held assumptions about key political and financial events of the past 150 years, and he sheds light on what our oil-constrained and eventually post-oil future might look like.
Oil, Power, and War follows the oil industry from its heyday when the first oil wells were drilled to the quest for new sources as old ones dried up. It traces the rise of the Seven Sisters and other oil cartels and exposes oil's key role in the crises that have shaped our times: two world wars, the Cold War, the Great Depression, Bretton Woods, the 2008 financial crash, oil shocks, wars in the Middle East, the race for Africa's oil riches, and more. And it defines the oil-born trends shaping our current moment, such as the jockeying for access to Russia's vast oil resources, the search for extreme substitutes for declining conventional oil, the rise of terrorism, and the changing nature of economic growth.
We meet a long line of characters from John D. Rockefeller to Dick Cheney and Rex Tillerson, and hear lesser-known stories like how New York City taxes were once funneled directly to banks run by oil barons. We see how oil and power, once they became inextricably linked, drove actions of major figures like Churchill, Roosevelt, Stalin, Hitler, Kissinger, and the Bushes. We also learn the fascinating backstory sparked by lesser-known but key personalities such as Calouste Gulbenkian, Abdullah al-Tariki, and Marion King Hubbert, the once-silenced oil industry expert who warned his colleagues that oil production was facing its peak.
Oil, Power, and War is a story of the dreams and hubris that spawned an era of economic chaos, climate change, war, and terrorism -- as well as an eloquent framing from which to consider our options as our primary source of power, in many ways irreplacable, grows ever more constrained.
The book has been translated from the highly acclaimed French title, Or Noir .
Oct 31, 2018 | angrybearblog.com
likbez , October 31, 2018 1:03 am
The key question not addressed by the author is how long the period of "plato oil production" (the last stage of the so called "oil age", which started around 1911) might last -- 10, 20 or 50 years. And the oil age is just a very short blip in Earth history.
Let's assume that this means less the $100 per barrel; in the past, it was $70 per barrel that considered the level that guarantees the recession in the USA, but financial system machinations now probably reached a new level, so that might not be true any longer. The trillion dollars question is "How long this period can be extended?"
It is important to understand the US shale oil is not profitable and never will be for prices under $80 or so. At prices below that level, it actually produces three products, not two – oil, gas and junk bonds.
I view it as a very sophisticated, very innovative gamble to pressure oil prices down and get compensation for the losses due to large amount of imported oil (the USA export mainly lightweight oil which is kind of "subprime oil" often used for dilution of heavy oil in countries such as Canada and Venezuela, but imports quality oil).
If the hypothesis that Saudis and Russians are close to Seneca Cliff (Saudi prince recently said that Russian are just 10-15 years from it) and that best days of the US shale and Gulf of Mexico deep oil is in the past if true, then "Houston we have a problem".
That means that in 20 years, or so the civilization might experience some kind of collapse, and the population of the Earth might start rapidly shrinking.
Oct 24, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Hickory x Ignored says: 10/22/2018 at 9:49 pmAny guess what the price of crude would be today if we had no fracking in N. America?ProPoly x Ignored says: 10/23/2018 at 6:36 am
Wild guess is all I've got, but I'm saying $142 (and much lower economic growth over the past 9 yrs- maybe even flat averaged for the whole period).
Any other speculations on this?USA LTO is ~7.5 million bpd. That exceeds global spare capacity over demand as-is today by at least four times. So if the world was still trying to consume what it is today, we would be several million short and would have been short by seven figures for several years.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 10/23/2018 at 10:26 am
I think we would have found out if there really are any huge but uneconomical fields out there by now as the panic from that set in a few years ago. A shortage on that scale means arbitrary prices pending demand cap/destruction.US tight oil output was about 6200 kb/d in August 2018 according to the EIA, not that the DPR includes oil from the region of tight oil plays that is conventional oil, also it is a model that is not very good so I ignore the DPR .Energy News x Ignored says: 10/22/2018 at 1:12 pm
WAG on oil price with zero LTO output is $120/b in 2017$, plus or minus $20/b.Canada (offshore), Hebron is expected to produce around 150,000 barrels a day, from about 40,000 barrels a day now.George Kaplan x Ignored says: 10/23/2018 at 1:28 am
2018-10-22 (The Globe and Mail) It's been one year since ExxonMobil's long-awaited Hebron platform off the southeast coast of Newfoundland started pumping crude from its first well. It took four years, $14 billion, 132,000 cubic metres of concrete and a few thousand workers to bring it online, and so far, it's churning out about 40,000 barrels a day, with the crude bound for markets in the U.S. Gulf states, Europe and much of eastern North America. Eventually, Hebron will drill 20 to 30 wells, and is expected to produce around 150,000 barrels a day.
With an expected reserve of 700 million barrels of recoverable crude, the Hebron project is expected to operate for 30 years. As Newfoundland's fourth offshore platform, it will play a key role in the province's plan to double overall production to more than 650,000 barrels a day by 2030.
https://www.theglobeandmail.com/business/article-why-hebron-has-a-leg-up-on-albertas-oil-sands/Hebron is already at 70 kbpd and has been for a few months. I thinks its expected annual average for oil only is 135 and it will take a year or so to get there as the coming wells will be less productive that the first ones. In the mean time the three other platforms are in decline (Terra Nova was originally due to be taken off line next year – not sure what the latest thinking is). They dropped about 35 kbpd last year but that may accelerate as Hibernia is coming off a secondary plateau.Energy News x Ignored says: 10/23/2018 at 6:18 amYes a more realistic impression of the situation than just reading the article
Oct 24, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
ProPoly x Ignored says: 10/19/2018 at 9:22 amOPEC is, for reasons many expected (involuntary declines in Venezuela and elsewhere), having difficulty delivering on their promised output hike.Guym x Ignored says: 10/19/2018 at 11:30 am
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-opec-oil-exclusive/exclusive-opec-allies-struggle-to-fully-deliver-pledged-oil-output-boost-internal-document-idUSKCN1MT1G0Yeah, that's going to get a lot worse. It's counting Iran production, and not what it can sell. A lot in floating storage, and being stored close to China and elsewhere. US is the only one with an increase, and that increase is on a hiatus until new pipelines come on, regardless of the EIA overstated production numbers. So, we would be short before any demand increase, or non-OPEC declines. But, never worry, as IEA says peak oil is just a figment of our imaginationSurvivalist x Ignored says: 10/21/2018 at 12:40 am"The Saudi government said it would take another month to complete a full investigation, which would be overseen by Mohammed.Watcher x Ignored says: 10/21/2018 at 2:51 am
Mohammad will find that Mohammad had nothing to do with the issue."
Perhaps an anti-KSA Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) Movement will get started. Consumers and competitors might find the idea appealing.
Nice ideas for new KSA flag designs at this link here (I most like the chainsaw instead of the current sword design- reminds me of Scarface- Mo Bin Clownstick™ is about as legitimate and sophisticated as a coke runner):
The Sultan is playing his hand well (drip drip drip Turkish Int. leaks to the news with an intensifying puke factor- one recent read that Khashoggi was dismembered alive and dissolved in acid). Has Mo Bin Clownstick™ met his match?
https://lobelog.com/the-geopolitics-of-the-khashoggi-murder/I can't help but wonder about all those guys he threw into a hotel prison and shook down for billions of dollars. They can afford a lot of media with the money they had remaining.Survivalist x Ignored says: 10/21/2018 at 5:45 pmThe House of Saud appears to be fragmenting quite severely.Energy News x Ignored says: 10/20/2018 at 2:22 pm
Saudi Arabia's missing princes
https://www.bbc.com/news/magazine-40926963The last article he wrote before his deathLightsout x Ignored says: 10/21/2018 at 3:43 am
Jamal Khashoggi: What the Arab world needs most is free expression
By Jamal Khashoggi – October 17, 2018 – Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/amphtml/opinions/global-opinions/jamal-khashoggi-what-the-arab-world-needs-most-is-free-expression/2018/10/17/adfc8c44-d21d-11e8-8c22-fa2ef74bd6d6_story.html ?China demand for diesel only appears to be heading in one direction. Should please Watcher!Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 10/22/2018 at 1:59 pm
https://mobile.twitter.com/PDChina/status/1053843063003525120?p=vShallow Sand,Energy News x Ignored says: 10/22/2018 at 5:27 am
No, not familiar, did you mean article linked below?
Link to full report
From the report:
The $3.9 billion in negative cash flows in the first two quarters of 2018 represented an improvement over the first halves of 2016 and 2017, when red ink totaled $11 billion and $7.2 billion, respectively.
These 33 companies have had positive net income since 2017Q4 and long term debt reached its peak for these companies in 2018Q1 at 138 billion with a gradual decrease to 126 billion in 2018Q2. As prices continue to rise debt will gradually be paid down,
When I look at that report I see an improving situation for these companies. I would prefer it if they broke the data into two groups, oil focused and natural gas focused companies. There has been a better recovery in oil prices than natural gas prices though it looks like we might see a spike in natural gas prices if we have a colder than normal winter.India's crude oil imports, the average for the first 9 months of 2018 is up +279 kb/day compared to first 9 months of 2017Energy News x Ignored says: 10/22/2018 at 5:57 am
Seasonal chart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqGtWDoX4AAYDwJ.jpg
India's crude oil refinery processing, the average for the first 9 months of 2018 is up +231 kb/day compared to first 9 months of 2017
Seasonal chart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DqGttFOW4AAr0Uy.jpgSaudi Arabia spare capacity, there seems to be a consensus that Saudi Arabia can produce 11 million b/day. I guess that producing above that level would be subject to maintenance, outages and natural decline? (Also I'm guessing that the Khurais field expansion might not be ready until later in 2019?)Energy News x Ignored says: 10/22/2018 at 10:53 am
2018-10-22 Saudi Arabia Energy Minister Al Falih speaks to TASS
Saudi Arabia now in October is producing 10.7 million b/day.
And is likely to go up, in the near future, to 11 million b/day on a steady basis.
Our total production capacity is currently 12 million b/day.
And that could be increased to 13 million b/day with an investment of $20 to $30 billion.
Interview with TASS: http://tass.com/economy/1026924
Reuters summary of interview
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-oil-opec-saudi/saudi-arabia-has-no-intention-of-1973-oil-embargo-replay-tass-idUSKCN1MW0JUExxon in Brazil holds potential 41 billion barrels based on preliminary studiesGuyM x Ignored says: 10/22/2018 at 12:41 pm
2018-10-18 RIO DE JANEIRO and HOUSTON (Bloomberg) -- In a single year, Exxon Mobil has gone from being a tiny bit player in Brazil to the second-largest holder of oil exploration acreage, trailing only state-controlled Petroleo Brasileiro.
The last 24 concessions the U.S. giant bought with its partners may hold 41 billion bbl, based on preliminary studies, according to Eliane Petersohn, a superintendent at Brazil's National Petroleum Agency, or ANP. While the existence of the oil still needs to be confirmed, along with whether its extraction will be cost-effective, it's a huge figure -- almost double Exxon's current reserves.
The Irving, Texas-based company is betting big in particular on Brazil's offshore, where a single block is currently producing more than all of Colombia and profitability compares to the best U.S. tight oil, according to Decio Oddone, the head of ANP.
It should take six to eight years for oil to start flowing if economically viable deposits are discovered, according to ANP.
https://www.worldoil.com/news/2018/10/18/exxon-makes-major-bet-on-brazil-as-petrobras-eases-its-gripOther than the plethora of constraints in the Permian, I think this is going to develop into a bigger obstacle of shale growth for awhile. Especially, for those mostly Permian players for the next four quarters.
Almost 30% of gross production may go to service debt.
I think huge shale growth is possible, but only way north of $100 a barrel. At the current price, it is close to max.
Oct 18, 2018 | www.nakedcapitalism.comThis 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."
In July this year, U.S. President Donald Trump said at a meeting with NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg that "Germany is a captive of Russia because they supply." Related: The Implications Of A Fractured U.S., Saudi Alliance
"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 United States looks to sell more liquefied natural gas (LNG) to the European market, including to Germany , to help Europe diversify its energy supply, which is becoming increasingly dependent on Russian supplies. Related: High Prices Benefit Iran Despite Lost Oil Exports
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.
Alex V , October 18, 2018 at 4:43 am
Thankfully liquefying gas and then reconstituting it uses no additional energy, and transportation into major harbors is perfectly safe.
Quentin , October 18, 2018 at 6:23 am
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?
disillusionized , October 18, 2018 at 7:03 am
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).
NotReallyHere , October 18, 2018 at 1:23 pm
"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.
Seamus Padraig , October 18, 2018 at 2:01 pm
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
NotReallyHere , October 18, 2018 at 4:49 pm
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.
Susan the other , October 18, 2018 at 3:02 pm
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.
NotReallyHere , October 18, 2018 at 5:00 pm
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.
JimL , October 18, 2018 at 7:08 am
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.
Ignacio , October 18, 2018 at 7:49 am
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.
Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:23 pm
Leaving 6,000,000 million to be exported, until the shale gas no longer flows. How farsighted.
Ignacio , October 18, 2018 at 7:42 am
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.
PlutoniumKun , October 18, 2018 at 10:36 am
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).
Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 8:26 am
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.
PlutoniumKun , October 18, 2018 at 10:39 am
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.
Synapsid , October 18, 2018 at 11:14 am
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.
Steve , October 18, 2018 at 8:53 am
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?
Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 9:02 am
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?
Anarcissie , October 18, 2018 at 10:46 am
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.
Wukchumni , October 18, 2018 at 10:55 am
This was a fuel-air bomb @ Burning Man about a dozen years ago, emanating from an oil derrick of sorts.
I was about 500 feet away when it went up, and afterwards thought maybe we were a bit too close to the action, as we got blasted with heat
The Rev Kev , October 18, 2018 at 10:56 am
Does this page help Watt4Bob?
Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 2:53 pm
That last one was a doozy as they say!
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.
Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:54 pm
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.
The Rev Kev , October 18, 2018 at 9:05 am
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?
Ignacio , October 18, 2018 at 10:20 am
Apart from cost issues, If American companies rely on shale gas to keep or increase production will they be able to honor 20 year supply contracts?
PlutoniumKun , October 18, 2018 at 10:37 am
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.
The Rev Kev , October 18, 2018 at 10:40 am
Good question that. Poland has just signed a 20 year agreement with the US so I will be curious how that works out for them. Story at - https://www.rt.com/business/441494-poland-us-gas-lng/
jsn , October 18, 2018 at 12:16 pm
Trumps argument appears to be that Germany as a NATO member relies on US DOD for defense, to pay for that they must buy our LNG.
jefemt , October 18, 2018 at 9:25 am
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
Duck1 , October 18, 2018 at 2:51 pm
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.
oh , October 18, 2018 at 10:01 am
The petroleum industry has been
bribinglobbying 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.
vidimi , October 18, 2018 at 10:43 am
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?
John k , October 18, 2018 at 12:48 pm
We do. Shortage here to honor export contracts, as has happened in Australia.
Big Tap , October 18, 2018 at 2:02 pm
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/
Seamus Padraig , October 18, 2018 at 2:14 pm
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!
Unna , October 18, 2018 at 2:24 pm
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.
Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:33 pm
The Empire fights Back.
Study a map of the ME, and consider the silk road Terminii.
Synoia , October 18, 2018 at 3:30 pm
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.
Watt4Bob , October 18, 2018 at 5:31 pm
I dunno, there are other opinions .
Oct 09, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
Authored by Nick Cunningham via Oilprice.com,
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.
Oct 05, 2018 | en.kremlin.ru
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.
Oct 03, 2018 | en.kremlin.ru
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.
Vladimir Putin : Thank you very much.
Oct 05, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 , Oct 5, 2018 6:44:15 PM | linkPer @54--
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.
Oct 02, 2018 | oilprice.com
"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.Read more US sanctions against Iran could give oil a boost to $100 amid dramatic shortfall in supplies
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.Read more Oil surges to 4-year high as investors see no sign of production rise amid Iran sanctions
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.
This article was originally published on Oilprice.com
Sep 27, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
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.
Listen to the full interview below
Sep 21, 2018 | russia-insider.com
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.
Sep 21, 2018 | www.rt.com
Trump blames OPEC for high oil prices, but his polices drive them up – analyst to RT Published time: 21 Sep, 2018 21:03 Edited time: 21 Sep, 2018 21:28 Get short URL 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.
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!-- Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) September 20, 2018
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.Read more Trump demands OPEC lower oil prices, claims US 'protects' Middle East countries
"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."
#US will find it difficult to cut #Iran 's oil exports completely as the oil market is already tight - Tehran https://t.co/T1oiFmGvOq pic.twitter.com/uaJO0Qn8gt-- RT (@RT_com) September 15, 2018
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.
Like this story? Share it with a friend!
Sep 20, 2018 | www.moonofalabama.org
Peter AU 1 , Sep 19, 2018 9:05:12 PM | link
Alastair Crooke's latest at Strategic Culture.
....But a turnaround in Iraq also puts a spike into the balloon of President Trump's aspiration to reassert US energy dominance over the Mideast. Iran – it was hoped – would ultimately capitulate and fall to economic and political pressures, and as the Iranian domino capsized, it would take with it, crashing down into political acquiescence, the Iraqi domino.
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.
Sep 19, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Captjohn x Ignored says: 09/12/2018 at 1:50 pmHere is someone that does have a clue – CEO of Schlumberger:George Kaplan x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 2:52 am
"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.Mike Sutherland x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 10:22 am
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 .
Sep 19, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
conacher says: 09/14/2018 at 10:42 amProbably 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 incomekolbeinh x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 2:00 pmYes, 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.conacher x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 1:38 pmhttps://medium.com/insurge-intelligence/brace-for-the-financial-crash-of-2018-b2f81f85686bRon Patterson x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 2:49 pm
only way to 'pull off above' is both Russia western province and gehwar at "90%" OIP gone.Thanks for the link Conacher. Folks this article makes a prediction that needs to be read.conacher x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 2:56 pm
Brace for the oil, food and financial crash of 2018
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
Global Oil Supply, Will Mature Field Declines Drive Next Supply Crunch?
This thing came out two years ago. Why did I not hear about it before? Has this been posted here and talked about already?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..Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 5:08 pmRon Patterson x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 8:14 pm
"This thing came out two years ago. Why did I not hear about it before? Has this been posted here and talked about already?"
Yes, it was. Here:
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.Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 4:31 am
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.Michael B x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 5:01 am
"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."Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 5:35 am
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.Michael B x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 6:27 am
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):Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 7:39 am
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.Michael,Guym x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 9:20 am
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.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 09/17/2018 at 9:13 am
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.Guym,TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 1:43 am
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.
It is a dollar on Kindle
https://www.amazon.com/General-Theory-Employment-Interest-Illustrated-ebook/dp/B018055I7Q/ref=tmm_kin_swatch_0?_encoding=UTF8&qid=&sr=Ron Wrote:Survivalist x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 11:32 pm
"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.Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 5:08 amHi Survivalist,Dennis coyne x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 8:59 am
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.Carlos,Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 12:42 pm
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.Dennis,Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 09/17/2018 at 9:23 am
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.
Carlos,Dennis coyne x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 8:11 pm
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 183One 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.
Sep 19, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcherx Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 2:27 amSo 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?Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 6:13 am
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,Carlos Diaz x Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 6:35 am
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?Ron,Watcher x Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 12:26 pm
I answered that above
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.Guym x Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 2:20 pm
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.Put it on the credit card and not pay it. Because, it was de fault of the company to give it to you in the first place.Survivalist x Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 7:18 pmThe 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.Fred Magyar x Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 9:30 pmWhen 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'!Hightrekker x Ignored says: 09/13/2018 at 9:17 pm
And that queue can sometimes feel like a hundred milesI remember that -- -TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 12:58 am
It was eye opening.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.Adam Ash x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 3:11 am
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.
" 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!Dennis coyne x Ignored says: 09/14/2018 at 7:31 pmThere is always somebody who wants oil but cannot afford it.farmboy x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 10:52 am
This is unlikely to change in the next 30 to 40 years.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.Adam Ash x Ignored says: 09/16/2018 at 11:05 pmSo 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).Boomer II x Ignored says: 09/17/2018 at 12:43 am
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.The second case is my main interest. And I think we are already there. We wouldn't be looking at LTO and oil sands if there were cheaper options.Eulenspiegel x Ignored says: 09/17/2018 at 3:43 am
LTO decline rates should make the issue more obvious when there are fewer places to drill new wells.LTO decline rate would be no problem by a conventional / state possessed oil company.Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/17/2018 at 6:23 am
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.Dennis Coyne x Ignored says: 09/17/2018 at 9:35 pmAdam Ash,TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 1:23 am
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.
Sep 19, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplanx Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 6:14 am Some interesting figures from the OPEC annual statistical review earlier this year that I missed when it came out: https://asb.opec.org/index.php/interactive-charts
First crude only peaked in 2016, with 2017 below 2016 and 2015.
George Kaplan x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 6:15 amSecond 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.Ron Patterson x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 9:23 am
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.Timthetiny x Ignored says: 09/17/2018 at 1:03 am
That's to be expected.TechGuy x Ignored says: 09/18/2018 at 2:00 am"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."Fernando Leanme x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 9:44 am
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.George Kaplan x Ignored says: 09/15/2018 at 6:15 amThird 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.
Aug 26, 2018 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ignored says: 08/23/2018 AT 5:14 AM
What Really Happens to Nicaragua, Venezuela and Ecuador
" On Venezuela
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. "
Aug 25, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com
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.
skbull44 Cosmicserpent Wed, 08/22/2018 - 21:37 PermalinkCloud9.5 Wed, 08/22/2018 - 21:08 Permalink
"...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.
Aug 25, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org
ALASTAIR CROOKE | 05.06.2018 | WORLD / ASIA PACIFIC | FEATURED STORY
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 FT notes , 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.
Jun 10, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org
According to Alastair Crooke, writing at Strategic Culture, on June 5 th :
"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.
"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.
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.Tags: Energy
Aug 19, 2018 | www.unz.com
All Columnists Ron Unz Gustavo Arellano Robert Bonomo Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn John Derbyshire Linh Dinh Tom Engelhardt Eamonn Fingleton Norman Finkelstein Peter Frost Philip Giraldi Paul Gottfried Michael Hudson JayMan W. Patrick Lang
Books Print Archives
Summary← Making Sense of a Few Rumors About Russ... Blogview The Saker Archive Blogview The Saker Archive Iran's Reply: No War and No Negotiations The Saker August 17, 2018 2,500 Words 81 Comments Reply 🔊 Listen ॥ ■ ► RSS
All Categories Foreign Policy and National Security Race and Ethnicity Economics and Finance Ideology and Politics History Science and TechnologyBloggers
All Columnists Ron Unz Gustavo Arellano Robert Bonomo Pat Buchanan Patrick Cockburn John Derbyshire Linh Dinh Tom Engelhardt Eamonn Fingleton Norman Finkelstein Peter Frost Philip Giraldi Paul Gottfried Michael Hudson JayMan W. Patrick Lang
Email This Page to Someone
Remember My Information
=> ◄ ► ◄ ❌ ► ▲ ▼ 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):