Europe is willing to defy the U.S. on Nordstream to the point of forcing the U.S. to openly and nakedly destroy its reputation
with European contractors and governments to stop one pipeline in a place where multiple gas pipelines will be needed for future
growth.
This is the diplomatic equivalent of the nuclear option. And the neocons in the Senate just pushed the button. Europe understands
what this is really about, the U.S. retaining its imperial position as the policy setter for all the world. If it can set energy
policy for Europe then it can set everything else.
And it's clear that the leadership in Europe is done with that status quo. The Trump administration from the beginning has used
NATO as an excuse to mask its real intentions towards Europe, which is continued domination of its policies. Trump complains that
the U.S. pays into NATO to protect Europe from Russia but then Europe buys its energy from Russia. That's unfair, Donald complains,
like a little bitch, frankly, even though he right on the surface. But if the recent NATO summit is any indication, Europe is no
longer interested in NATO performing that function. French President Emmanuel Macron wants NATO re-purposed to fight global terror,
a terrible idea. NATO should just be ended.
But you'll notice how Trump doesn't talk about that anymore. He wants more billions pumped into NATO while the U.S. still sets
its policies. This is not a boondoggle for the MIC as much as it's a Sword of Damocles to hold over Europe's head. The U.S.'s involvement
in should be ended immediately, the troops brought home and the billions of dollars spent here as opposed to occupying most of Europe
to point missiles at a Russia wholly uninterested in imperial ambitions no less harboring any of them.
And Trump also knows this but thinks stopping Nordstream 2 is the price Europe has to pay him for this privilege. It's insane.
The time has come for Europe to act independently from the U.S. As much as I despise the EU, to untangle it from the U.S. on energy
policy is the means by which for it to then deal with its problems internally. It can't do that while the U.S. is threatening it.
Circling the wagons against the immediate threat, as it were.
And that means protecting its companies and citizens from the economic depredations of power-mad neoconservatives in the U.S.
Senate like Ted Cruz and Lindsey Graham.
Allseas, the Swiss company laying the pipe for Nordstream 2,
has halted construction for now
, awaiting instructions from the U.S. Gazprom will likely step in to finish the job and Germany will green light any of the necessary
permits to get the pipeline done. Those people will be put out of work just in time for Christmas, turning thousands of people against
the U.S. Commerce drives people together, politics drives them apart.
But, at the same time, the urgency to finish Nordstream 2 on time is wholly irrelevant now because Ukraine and Russia came to
terms on a new five-year gas transit contract. This ensures Gazprom can meet its contractual deliveries to Europe that no one thought
could be done on time. But when the Nazi threat to Zelensky meeting with Merkel, Macron and Putin in Paris failed to materialize,
a gas deal was on the horizon.
And, guess what? U.S. LNG will still not have the marginal lever over Europe's energy policy because of that. Putin and Zelensky
outmaneuvered Cruz, Graham and Trump on this. Because that's what this boils down to. By keeping Russian gas out of Europe, it was
supposed to constrain not only Russia's growth but also Europe's. Because then the U.S. government can control who and how much energy
can make it into European markets at critical junctures politically.
That was the Bolton Doctrine to National Security. And that doctrine brought nothing but misery to millions.
And if you look back over the past five years of U.S./EU relations you will see this gambit clearly for what it was, a way to
continue European vassalage at the hands of the U.S. by forcing market share of U.S. providers into European markets.
Again, it gets back to Trump's ideas about Emergy Dominance
and becoming the supplier of the marginal erg of energy to important economies around the world.
The smart play for the EU now that the gas transit deal is in place is to threaten counter-sanctions against the U.S. and bar
all LNG shipments into Europe. Gas prices are at historic lows, gas supplies are overflowing thanks to fears of a deal not being
in place.
So, a three to six month embargo of U.S. LNG into Europe to bleed off excess supply while Nordstream 2 is completed would be the
right play politically.
But, in reality, they won't need to, because the U.S. won't be able to import much into Europe under current prices and market
conditions. And once Nordstream 2 is complete, LNG sales to Europe should crater.
In the end, I guess it's too bad for Ted Cruz that economics and basic human ingenuity are more powerful than legislatures. Because
Nordstream 2 will be completed. Turkstream's other trains into Europe will be built. Venezuela will continue rebuilding its energy
sector with Russian and Chinese help.
There is no place for U.S. LNG in Europe outside of the Poles literally burning money virtue signaling their Russophobia. Nordstream 2 was a response to the revolt in Ukraine, to replace any potential losses in market share to Europe. Now Russia will
have what it had before passing through Ukraine along with Nordstream 2. By 2024 there will be at least two trains from Turkstream
coming into Europe.
Iran will keep expanding exports, settling its oil and gas trade through Russian banks. And the U.S. will continue to fulminate
and make itself even more irrelevant over time. What men like Ted Cruz and Donald Trump refuse to understand is that when you go nuclear you can't ever go back. If you threaten
the nuclear option, there's no fall back position.
And when those that you threaten with annihilation survive they are made all the stronger for passing through the eye of the needle. Looking at Gazprom's balance sheet right now, that's my take.
Instead of finding the real culprits - ISIS remnants, disgruntled locals, Kurds who want
to regain control over Kirkuk - the U.S. decided that Kata'ib Hizbullah was the group guilty
of the attack....
Yesterday's attacks guarantee that all U.S. troops will have to leave Iraq and will
thereby also lose their supply lines to Syria.
One wonders if that was the real intend of those strikes.
Just like with 9/11 and Iraq where the US government immediately pushed its pre-existing
agenda, so the US doesn't care who really launches attacks on US and US-client positions in
Iraq and Syria but automatically assigns them to Hezbollah and thus to Iran, in accord with
the pre-existing neocon wet dream of provoking a full-scale war with Iran.
If that's the US intent, to escalate against Iran, and if conversely the Iraq government
is serious about kicking out the US military, we'll have the confrontation discussed in the
open thread.
As for the idea that Trump was briar-patching here, wanting a good legalistic pretext to
withdraw troops from Iraq (which would then trigger the practical supply-based pretext to
withdraw them from Syria and not "take the oil" after all), well even if he had such confused
thoughts, we've already seen how spineless he is about trying to assert his will over that of
the neocon bureaucracies, civilian and military. Do we really expect them to agree to vacate
Iraq merely because the legally constituted supposedly sovereign government told them to? It
seems more likely they'll tell the government they're not going anywhere and demand that the
government help them suppress non-governmental resistance to their ongoing presence, or else.
(I don't know if there's yet been a formal order to leave from the Iraqi government, or just
rhetoric in an attempt to save face.)
Being almost 100% sure that Israeli cornering East Mediterranean gas reserves was a done
deal
and after Cyprus gerrymandered its EEZ under UNCLOS -- and Greece signing up
as pipeline terminus in Europe -- Trump put this cart before horse -- and sanctioned
Nord Stream. Europe was to get Israeli gas. Then Turkey and Libya declared EZZ,
and pipeline cannot go!
Also. there will be other claimants to reserves -- Turkey, Syria, Lebanon, Gaza.
Nice try -- but Israel will not be supplying Germany gas any time soon.
Like it was earlier noted, the "New Detente" isn't perfect, as seen most recently by the US'
decision to impose sanctions on
the companies involved in Nord Stream II's construction, but once again, the state of relations
in general are still comparatively better than their nadir in mid-2014 immediately after the
EuroMaidan coup and Crimea's reunification with Russia. The US is still trying to "contain"
Russia with mixed success, while Russia is undertaking its best efforts to break out of this
"containment" noose and even "flip" some of the US' traditional partners such as Turkey, so the
New
Cold War probably won't end anytime soon. Nor, for that matter, did anybody reasonably
expect that it would, but just like during the Old Cold War, there comes a time when the
involved parties believe that it's in their best interests to proverbially take a break and
enter into a period of detente. It seems as though that phase is only now just beginning but
which has finally borne some fruit after Trump promised to pursue this outcome all throughout
the 2016 campaign.
One can argue over why that hasn't already happened to the extent that he promised (or even
if he was fully sincere in the first place), but the point to focus on in the here and now is
that some tangible progress has finally been made concerning the future of Russia's
trans-Ukrainian gas supplies to the EU. From the looks of it, all the relevant players --
Russia, Ukraine, the EU, and the US -- have concrete interests in seeing that this agreement is
upheld. It's convenient for Russia to continue using existing pipelines, Ukraine wants to get
paid for its transit role, the EU desires reliable but cheap gas imports, and the US recognizes
that this outcome perpetuates the geostrategic role of its Ukrainian proxy that it could then
leverage as a "bargaining chip" for reaching a more substantive "New Detente" with Russia
sometime next year or the one afterwards. That said, while each player has their interests,
they don't exactly trust one another for different reasons, which means that the "New Detente"
might still be offset if any of them decides to play the spoiler or is undermined by their
"deep states".
"... Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in the US of A. ..."
https://www.dianomi.com/smartads.epl?id=4777 Washington's Unmasked Imperialism Towards
Europe And Russia by Tyler Durden Sat, 12/28/2019 - 07:00 0
SHARES
Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own politicians are.
Its passing into law – signed by President Trump this week – of sanctions to halt
the Nord Stream-2 and Turk Stream gas supply projects is a naked imperialist move to bludgeon
the European energy market for its own economic advantage.
US sanctions are planned to hit European companies involved with Russia's Gazprom in the
construction of the 1,225-kilometer pipeline under the Baltic Sea which will deliver natural
gas from Russia to Germany and elsewhere across the European Union. The €9.5 billion
($11bn) project is 80 per cent complete and is due to be finished early next year.
It is quite clear – because US politicians have openly acknowledged it – that
Washington's aim is to oust Russia as the main natural gas exporter to the giant EU market, and
to replace with more expensive American-produced gas.
What's hilarious is the way American politicians, diplomats and news media are portraying
this US assault on market principles and the sovereignty of nations as an act of chivalry.
Washington claims that the sanctions are "pro-European" because they are "saving Europe from
dependency on Russia for its energy". The American hypocrisy crescendoes with the further claim
that by stopping Russia earning lucrative export revenues, then Moscow will be constrained from
"interfering" in European nations. As if Washington's own actions are not interference on a
massive scale.
European politicians and businesses are not buying this American claptrap. The vast
overstepping by Washington into European affairs has prompted EU governments to question the
nature of the trans-Atlantic relation. About time too. Thus, Washington's hubris and bullying
are undermining its objective of dominating Europe for its own selfish interests.
Russia, Germany and others have defiantly
told Washington its weaponizing of economic sanctions will not halt the Nord Stream nor the
Turk Stream projects.
As German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas
said earlier this month, "it is unacceptable" for the US to brazenly interfere in European
and Russian energy trade. The American pretext of supposedly "protecting" the national security
of its purported European allies is frankly laughable.
The American agenda is a blatantly imperialistic reordering of the energy market to benefit
US economic interests. To pull off this audacious scam, Washington, by necessity, has to
demonize and isolate Russia, while also trampling roughshod over its European allies. Europe
has partly aided this American stitch-up of its own interests because it has foolishly indulged
in the US antagonism towards Russia with sanctions due to the Ukraine conflict, Crimea and
other anti-Russia smears.
The legislation being whistled through the American Congress by both Republicans and
Democrats (collectively dubbed the War Party) is recklessly fueling tensions between the US and
Russia. In trying to gain economic advantages over Europe's energy, Washington is wantonly
ramping up animus towards Moscow.
Apart from the sanctions against Russian and European companies partnering on Nord Stream,
the US Congress passed separate legislation which seeks to boost American oil and gas
production in the East Mediterranean.
A Radio Free Europe
report this week was headlined: 'Congress Passes More Legislation Aimed At Curbing Russia's
Energy Grip On Europe'.
The headline should more accurately have been worded: 'Congress Passes More Legislation
Aimed At Bolstering America's Energy Grip On Europe'.
The RFE report states: "The bipartisan Eastern Mediterranean Security and Energy Partnership
Act, which was approved on December 19, is the latest piece of US legislation passed this year
that aims to diversify [sic] Europe's energy sources away from Kremlin-controlled
companies."
Again, the American double-think is jaw-dropping. Such is the arrogance of a flailing,
delusional empire when it can publicly justify with a straight face an energy-market-grab with
a veneer of virtue.
US oil and gas giants are moving into the East Mediterranean. Exxon Mobil
announced the discovery of a major natural gas field off Cyprus in February this year.
American firms are also
partnering with Israeli companies to begin gas production in the Leviathan Field located
off the coast at Haifa.
There is no doubt that the US sanctions targeting Nord Stream and Turk Stream are part of a
bigger concerted pincer movement by Washington to corner the EU energy market of 500 million
consumers (more than double the US population).
Colin Cavell, a US professor of political science, commented to Strategic Culture
Foundation: "What should be hammered down in this continuing debate over which country will be
able to deliver oil and natural gas to Europe is the fact that neither the United States nor,
and especially, the Republican Party, stand for so-called free trade."
Free-trade capitalism is supposed to be an ideological pillar of the US. In this ideology,
governments should not interfere with market supply and demand. But paradoxically as far as
US-imposed sanctions on Russian-European energy companies are concerned the American Congress
is "quintessentially anti-free market", notes Cavell.
In its shameless profiteering, Washington is acting aggressively towards Russia and Europe
while flouting its own supposed economic principles and relying on brute force to win its
arguments. America's imperialist agenda towards Europe and Russia is how world wars are
instigated.
"You will buy our more expensive, less efficient, non-market solution, you will pay for it
with King Dollars, and by gawd, YOU WILL LIKE IT, now shuddup, Vassals!" -- Uncle Scam and
the Reloonicans
I live in Denmark, a country Nord Stream 2 is going through. We are (used to be?) one of
the strongest allies to the US. But recent developments have alienated a lot of danes to the
US.
First Trump publicly announced he wanted to buy the isle of Greenland from Denmark.
Greenland is the largest isle in the world and of strategic importance. But you don't just
buy a part of another country, and this offer was firmly refused. As response to the refusal
Trump cancelled a previously planned official visit to Denmark. This was seen by most danes
as an insult.
Denmark was the last country holding out on permissions needed to build Nord Stream 2, but
after this incident we allowed the project to go forward. I believe the Greenland incident
caused the change making Denmark approve Nord Stream 2.
After this we have had other incidents. One is on the Faroe Islands (a part of Denmark),
where both US and Chinese ambassadors interfered in our internal affairs trying to influence
if Huawei could be used for 5G in this self-governing part of our country. Another is a
follow-up to the Greenland incident mentioned, where the US now wants to open a diplomatic
mission on the island, probably in an attempt to influence the local government to accept
that the US buys the island.
During the last year I have seen sentiment among my fellow citizens going from "the US is
great, let us support and follow them" to "we have to be careful of these guys, they
interfere in our internal affairs and try to break up our country".
I believe the US government is underestimating how much they are alienating the Europeans
with this line of foreing policy.
Its a guess but I think there are other hidden issues here nobody wants to talk about. Of
course, Trump idea of buying the island was stupid but I believe it arouse out of
frustration. You see, US wants to build huge military base there. Danes won't permit that.
The reason US wants to do it is because sea between Iceland and England/Norway is a
chokepoint aimed against Russian subs. This is the only place where they can be reasonably
stopped. It is nothing new, the same thing happened during WWII war at so called "war of
Atlantic" where the most of the fighting happened between German U-boats and alliance
marines.
You most certainly can buy land from other countries. Thomas Jefferson purchased the
entire center of N. America from the French and for pennies. We also purchased Alaska from
the Russians for next to nothing as well. Both land masses are much larger than all of
Europe.
You guys don't need Greenland so give it to us for pennies.
Russia has the largest proven reserves of easily recoverable oil and natural gas on Earth.
The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. Economic sanctions, regime change, cyber
attacks...whatever it takes. If the US doesn't utterly break Russia soon, Russia will become
the next, (and last) empire on Earth. NeoConThink.
"The US has about a decade to choke Russia to death. "
Actually you are absolutely wrong on this. It is the other way around. Russia has to get
out of US chokefold NOW or it will likely disintegrate.
Why? In short, economy, geogaphy and even more importantly demographics.
Today there are about 110 million native Russians there. Next to them are about 40 million
muslims living there. Muslims have about twice as big reproduction rate as Russians do. It is
estimated that in 30 years if current trends stand it will be 50/50. Worse, in ten years
there will be only about 90 million Russians living there.
There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube.
Another problem is soldier materiel. It is estimated that only about 30 percent of males
between the age of 18-25 are healthy enough to join military. As of today it is barely
sufficient to fill the ranks. In 10 years Russian military will have to shrink by 20 percent.
From that perspective it is do or die for Russia right now. This is most likely the peak of
their military power, then it will slowly deteriorate. Putin knows that, hence he lashes out
at its neighbours, most notably Poland. Economy shrinks, military is on vane, hence he needs
an enemy to rally his people around. Or else!
Then there is China. Make your best bet what they will do in the far east when Russia lies
prostate.Remember, Russia took over a lot of Chinese territory in late XIX century there.
Yep, the area around Vladivostok and other nearby territories, the size close to that of
today's France..There are millions of Chinese already living there.In the Asian south Chinese already took controll of the former
Russian stans. They rule there, not Putin. You didn't know that?
"There are other issues as well. About 25 percent of Russian men die before the age of 55.
The reason? Alcoholism and drug abuse. Have you ever heard about cheap Rusian drug called
Krokodil?
It kills you slowly first then fast. Your body just ROTS AWAY and falls off. Literally!
Like you have bare bones instead of feet. No kidding. Just check on you tube."
Sorry to burst your bubble, but since the end of the Soviet System (with Western criminal
thieving BILLIONAIRES who rushed in to plunder Russia (Yeltsin Years) ---- Russians now live
longer than the degraded, and impoverished Americans with what the Junk Food Nation serves in
the US of A.
" Washington must think the rest of the world is as stupid as many of its own
politicians are"
No, washington thinks no such thing. It doesnt really understand how stupid its own
politicians are. Nor DOES IT CARE!.
Did anyone watch the impeachment proceedings? Now, THAT was stupid, stupid for the
whole world to watch. And then there is the chocoate cake diplomacy of Trump, the elegance
and sophistication of Pompeo, Bolton, and the digniity of Nikki Haley. Putting Raytheon to
run our Pentagon is a magical touch.
Comment from a friend of mine concerning the statement below. He has excellent security
credentials:
"Our President has made the world far more dangerous by withdrawing from treaties without
attempting to negotiate new ones. No country is well served by this. The situation is very
destabilizing."
The Minister of Defense of the Russian Federation Sergey Shoigu:
- I hope that a full-scale war is not a question today. And all the risks and consequences
that such a full-scale war entails are obvious to everyone.
Regarding the third world war, there are a very large number of different statements. The
most accurate and adequate of them seems to me: "I do not know exactly what the third world
war will be. But I know for sure that she will be the last. "
However, if we talk about the number of threats to our country, then they do not become
less. The United States has already withdrawn from two important nuclear arms control
treaties. So far, the START-3 treaty remains, which is also under discussion in the USA: to
renew it or not to renew it?
As a result of this approach, the world is becoming more unpredictable and less secure. At
the current level of informatization and automation, there is a high probability of errors in
the weapons control system.
That is why recently issues of ensuring information security have come to the fore. When
you are aware of your vulnerability and are interested in maintaining balance and universal
equal security, it makes you turn on your head.
And when you think how the United States continues to believe by inertia that a balance of
power has developed in your favor, a variety of ideas may come to your head, including not
the most reasonable ones. It is in this situation that I see the main threat now, and not
only for Russia, "the minister replied.
It's good cop/bad cop nonsense. Europe is occupied territory, and American huffing and
puffing at Russia is just meant to get Europe "better deals" for their projects with Russia.
The only ones who don't get it are spooks and Neo-Libs/Cons
What is not expected is rational discussion on what I have described here. But since facts
contrary to my expose here are missing I doubt it will happen.
" But remember also that todays Russia is ruled by a Tsar named Putin"
Im amazed at how long this silly meme can be maintained.
Putin is NOT and autocrat, he has to struggle with a delicate balance. between the Atlantic integrationists and Eurasiaon soveriigntists. The oligarchy installed by the US is still strong in Russian. They have not won their
soveriignty yet.
"... Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia. ..."
"... North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks, according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%. ..."
"... Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty... The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies. ..."
"... "As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business," a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday. ..."
"... According to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe." ..."
"... Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday. ..."
"... They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will win out in the end. ..."
"... The Great Gas Game: Vesti Presents a New Documentary Film About Pipelines and Power youtube.com ..."
"... Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria, ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide. ..."
"... Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only 2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners. ..."
"... to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use of fracking. ..."
own goalnoun: (in soccer) a goal scored inadvertently when the ball is struck into the goal by a player on the defensive team.
Time and time again Washington has tightened Russian sanctions in an effort to crush the Russian economy. When virtually every
legal outlet had been sanctioned, Washington has turned to sanctioning third parties that cooperate with Russia.
So what is the
net effect of all of these sanctions?
The Russian stock market has reached record highs this year but still has room to climb further in coming months before paring
gains towards the end of 2020, a Reuters poll of market experts found... The rouble-based MOEX index has reached an all-time high of 3,009.1 in November, taking its year-to-date gain to over 25%, and
is seen finishing this year at 3,000.
That's not exactly what Washington had in mind.
However the real kicker is
this .
North American investors, led fully by Wall Street, account for over half of the foreign capital flowing into Russian stocks,
according to the Moscow Exchange. By comparison, Russia's next door neighbors in Europe account for only 26%.
So what is happening is that Washington is punishing Europe for cooperating with Russia, while turning a blind eye to when their
Wall Street donors cooperate with Russia.
As you may have guessed, this has created some hard feelings
.
Speaking on German TV, Finance Minister Olaf Scholz said the sanctions were an infringement of sovereignty...
The US sanctions have also angered Russia and the European Union, which says it should be able to decide its own energy policies.
"As a matter of principle, the EU opposes the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate business,"
a spokesman for the trading bloc told AFP news agency on Saturday.
Imagine that: countries making their own policy decisions that don't align with Washington's interests? What's the world coming
to?
Allseas, a Dutch-Swiss private company, is going to be significantly harmed by the newest sanctions, and it will delay the Nord
Stream 2 pipeline (but it will only delay it).
However, there is a
bright side
to all of this.
While it costs Moscow hundreds of millions in lost income and additional investments, the country is benefitting on a geostrategic
and political level.
For a mere $9.5 billion, NS2's price tag, Moscow has unintentionally managed to drive another wedge between key Western allies.
Berlin is furious about the sanctions and its already fraught relations with Washington are set to escalate even further. According
to German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, the American sanctions amount to "interference in autonomous decisions taken in Europe."
What is certain is that NS2 will be completed eventually. Most of the work on the 1,230 kilometer or 765 mile long pipeline has
already been finished. Also, the vast majority of the $9.5 billion in investments have already been spent.
Much like our GWOT, we've reached a point in sanctions where staying the course just makes things worse.
It isn't just Russia. The Muslim world is looking for an
alternative trading system to avoid sanctions that Washington hasn't even threatened yet.
Iran, Malaysia, Turkey and Qatar are considering trading among themselves in gold and through a barter system as a hedge against
any future economic sanctions on them, Malaysian Prime Minister Mahathir Mohamad said on Saturday.
..."I have suggested that we re-visit the idea of trading using the gold dinar and barter trade among us," Mahathir said, referring
to the Islamic medieval gold coin.
"We are seriously looking into this and we hope that we will be able to find a mechanism to put it into effect." The leaders agreed they needed do more business among themselves and trade in each other's currencies.
You know that you are using sanctions too much when other nations expect to be sanctioned by you before you even consider doing
it. As for the gold dinar, this is what was proposed by Libya's former leader Gaddafi, and also what got him eventually
killed .
The most recent batch of Clinton emails reveals perhaps the most bizarre morsel of Blumenthal-baked intelligence to date. An April
2, 2011 memo titled "France's client/Q's gold" quotes "knowledgeable individuals" with insider information about French President
Nicolas Sarkozy's motivation for bombing Libya. The military campaign, the anonymous sources say, was designed to quash plans
by Gaddafi to use $7 billion in secret gold and silver to prop up a new African currency. The French worried the move would undercut
the currency guaranteed by the French treasury, known as CFA franc, that's widely used in West Africa and acts as a strong link
between France and many of its former African colonies. After French intelligence officials got wind of this secret plan, the
Blumenthal memo reports, Sarkozy freaked out: "This was one of the factors that influenced [his] decision to commit France to
the attack on Libya."
Kruschev Many remember the quote "We will bury you". I think he was quoting someone else. Lenin?
But they forget the second sentence. "And the capitalists will sell us the shovel."
Greed is indeed a sickness, a mental illness. Not ordinary greed, but Scrooge McDuck greed. The need to have more more more,
when it cannot possibly make any difference in your life.
Not like the guys I worked with that volunteered for every Holiday, every overtime opportunity. The money did make a difference
there, although one can question whether it is worth it. But pursuing an extra billion when you already have tens of billions?
How much is enough? How high is up.
EDIT:
I'm reminded of the old sitcom "Mama's Family". Dim bulb son, Vinton, hears of a new larger lottery jackpot and says, "Wow! Imagine
how many lottery tickets you could buy with that much money!"
EDIT2:
Like an alcoholic that just drinks more and more until he passes out.
@entrepreneur
that capitalism selects for people with this mental illness. A person with a healthy view of life will never be selected as fortune
500 CEO.
excessive are the mountains of paper they accumulate are still stimulated by acquiring more. #1
And whether it be newspapers solidly packing every room in their homes to a depth of 6 feet, leaving barely a 12" crawl space
between the top of the stacks and the ceiling, or be it a pile of money, more than they and their extended family and descendants
can spend in 100 years, it is hoarding, a mental illness.
They have their own undersea pipe-laying equipment and experience. These sanctions will only delay the completion date for
a few more months. Russia under Putin is very patient, resolute and not prone to rash decisions. They play the long game and will
win out in the end.
Nord Stream 2 is financed by leading energy companies from France, Germany, the Netherlands, Great Britain and Austria,
ENGIE, OMV, Shell, Uniper and Wintershall Dea. A multi-billion Euro investment in European industry and services, the project
involves more than 200 companies from 17 countries worldwide.
Well, congratulations Congress and Trump. This will drive a wedge between the US and Europe. Can you just imagine how those
investing in NS2 feel about the US. The US is saying in effect - lose all of your investment because we have determined that the
project is against our geopolitical/economic interests. And to make matters worse the pipeline will be completed, probably only
2 months behind schedule. So the financial backers will get hit, but will eventually see returns due to Russian efforts. Russia
could have built the entire pipeline themselves, but preferred to have European partners.
At the end of WWII most of Europe used coal for energy. The US had a goal to convert Europe to oil, since the US was the major
world exporter of oil. One of the stated reasons was to make Europe dependent on US oil and give the US political leverage over
European countries. So this whole thing is about the US projecting their geopolitical dominance schemes to Russia. As it has turned
out, for more than 70 years Russia and previously the USSR has never done that as a policy. The reason being that once you do
that you lose trust as a trade partner. But this is even worse as the US is interfering in trading among European partners that
has nothing to do directly with the US.
to Europe at the start of the 1980's, the US had just gone through the
Oil Shock of 1978–79 . The US
has not been a net exporter of oil for well over 75 years. It is only this year that this has changed through the extensive use
of fracking.
The oil shortage of the 1970's brought about the end of power generation using oil. The US, a major exporter of coal, was pushing
the use of American coal for energy security in Europe
since WWII.
Trump Makes American Coal Great Again -- Overseas
U.S. coal exports have exploded. Can that continue?
April 4, 2018
...
The export boom is the one part of Trump's pledge to help the coal sector that is coming true.
Production ticked up a bit last year after a disastrous 2016 but is still at the lowest level since 1978. And despite plenty
of promises to bring back jobs to coal country, coal mining employment only grew by some 1,100 jobs last year; mining employment
is down about 40 percent since 2012. Meanwhile, closures of coal-fired power plants continue apace, with more than two dozen
plants shutting down early last year alone, which means less domestic demand for coal.
...
And the Trump administration's other policies don't look like they'll end up helping coal much either. The push to increase
exports of natural gas to Europe, Asia, and Latin America undermines the overseas market for U.S. coal, since both can be used
to generate electricity. And as U.S. coal is shipped abroad, its price at home tends to rise slightly -- making coal even less
attractive as a power source there.
"Unfortunately, most of the policies the Trump administration is pursuing inside and outside of energy do not help domestic
coal production," Book says.
Try this: Wheel of Fortune: The Battle for Oil and Power in Russia – May 15,
2017
by Thane Gustafson
A review @ Amazon:
Thane masterfully succeeded in uncovering the fundamental drivers of the Russian oil
industry and its interdependency with the political complex through a comprehensive and
convincing historical analysis, with plenty of meaningful insights and endearing anecdotes.
Rooted in Soviet legacy and having gone through the 90s bust-boom roller coaster and 2000s
state reconsolidation the industry is a unique globally isolated eco system, and, with
Russia as a whole, is at a crossroads. A must read for any decision maker in the O&G
business.
It's official: "Freedom gas" is the Worst Phrase of the Year, according to the Plain
English Foundation. But where does the expression come from? EURACTIV did not have to look
far to get the answer
So where does the whole story come from?
On 1 May, EURACTIV's energy and climate reporter Frédéric Simon attended
a briefing with US energy secretary Rick Perry in Brussels. He recalls the events
below.
The four journalists in the room had spent about an hour asking Perry a basic question:
why would Europeans choose to pay for expensive LNG imported from the US when they have
access to cheap Russian gas?
"But my surprise soon turned to dismay when Perry suddenly took a grave face and
started talking about the Normandy landings during WWII for which commemorations were planned
days after."
Here's what Perry went on to say: Seventy-five years after liberating Europe from Nazi
Germany occupation, "the United States is again delivering a form of freedom to the European
continent," the US energy secretary told reporters that day.
"And rather than in the form of young American soldiers, it's in the form of liquefied
natural gas," he added. "So yes, I think you may be correct in your observation," he said in
reference to Fred's suggestion about 'Freedom gas' .
####
Quite instructive about the mindset (f/king nuts) they are over in the States. They really
do live in their own universe where no-one picks up their dogs' (and their own) crap. They
neither notice the smell nor link to the slipperyness underfoot to their own actions. They
don't care either.
They like to talk about the European "blood-debt" to the USA.
I don't know what they think a large number of unfortunate young men were doing on Gold,
Juno and Sword beaches in June, 1944, or indeed that there were such beaches. Even moreso,
they are apparently unaware of the over 22 million Soviet citizens who died 1941-1945 during
what is known as "The Great Patriotic War for the Fatherland, 1941-1945"..
Analysts have identified a way to increase the export of Gazprom to bypass the Ukraine The
Eugal pipeline built to deliver gas from "Nord Stream-2 " to end users, will be operating
in 2020, despite US sanctions. "Gazprom" will redirect gas to this pipeline from "Northern
stream-1", experts say
The capacity of the Eugal onshore gas pipeline, built specifically for delivering gas from
the Nord Stream-2 offshore gas pipeline to end users, may allow Gazprom to increase supplies to
Europe bypassing the Ukraine, despite the fact that the United States has imposed sanctions
against laying the Nord Stream-2 gas pipeline. , said experts interviewed by RBC.
The Gascade Gastransport operator,
controlled by Gazprom and the German Wintershall Dea , will commission the first of two Eugal
pipelines with a capacity of 30.9 billion cubic metres per year from January 1, 2020 (total
pipe capacity should be 55 billion cubic metres), which will go from German Greifswald on the
Baltic Sea to the south to the border with the Czech Republic, the Eugal press service said on
December 20. And the next day it became known that the European pipe-laying company Allseas had
suspended the construction of Nord Stream-2 (which should pump 55 billion cubic meters per
year) in the Baltic Sea.
Eugal will lay another 36 billion cubic metre capacity OPAL landline, built to pump gas from the first
Baltic gas pipeline of Gazprom and partners, Nord Stream-1, which achieved at full capacity 55
billion cubic metres per year back in October 2012. Since 2013, Gazprom could only use 50% of
OPAL capacity because of restrictions, and in 2016, the company received permission to connect
to 90% of the pipeline capacity. However, in September 2019, Gazprom was forced to reduce gas
pumping through OPAL, and then through Nord Stream-1, because of a decision of the European
Court of Justice, which, in lawsuit filed by Poland, limited supply by almost half – from
90 to 50% of capacity , or up to 18 billion cubic metres per year.
"The launch of Eugal will ensure a full load of Nord Stream-1. About 20 billion cubic
metres of gas per year can be delivered via a new land gas pipeline, which volume was lost
because of restrictions imposed as a result of Poland's victory in court", said Mikhail
Korchemkin, director of East European Gas Analysis, to RBC. The remaining 17–20 billion
cubic metre Gazprom can pump through a second branch from the offshore gas pipeline
NEL , which runs only through
Germany to the west of Greifswald, so Poland could not achieve restrictions on its
capacity.
At the peak of capacity, OPAL pumped up to 103 million cubic metres of gas per day owing to
a decision of the European Court to decrease transit to 50 million cubic metre. Last week, it
fell to 12 million cubic metres per day. This is due to an increase of 115 million cubic metres
per day in supplies to the NEL gas pipeline, as well as an increase in transit to Europe
through the territory of the Ukraine, Korchemkin points out.
"Now most of the gas from Nord Stream-1, which continues to operate at its design capacity,
is sent to the markets of northwestern Europe through NEL, that is, the limitation of the use
of OPAL by the decision of the European Court has practically had no affect on the load of Nord
Stream", added Deputy General Director of the National Energy Policy Fund, Alexey Grivach.
According to him, after the introduction of Eugal, part of the gas can go to Central Europe
through a new onshore gas pipeline, depending on the current market needs and the optimization
of Gazprom's export portfolio.
Despite the impending U.S. sanctions, the possibility of using Eugal to pump Gazprom's gas
was recognized in November by Arno Bux, chief commercial officer of gas transmission operator
Fluxys, which is a minority shareholder in Gascade. According to him, since 2020, from 80 to
90% of the Eugal capacity has already been booked for 20 years at auctions. "Since the
transportation facilities are reserved on a ship-or-pay basis (" transport or pay "), the
potential delays of the Nord Stream-2 project do not affect Eugal's revenues", he told
Interfax, noting that the flows from the gas pipeline Nord Stream 1 can be routed through
Eugal.
"We cannot predict the volumes that will be transported through Eugal, because it
depends on requests from transport customers", Gascade spokesman Georg Wustner told RBC on
December 23, declining to specify whether gas supplies from Nord Stream-1 will begin on
January 1 through a new onshore pipeline. A representative of Gazprom Export declined to
comment; the press service of Nord Stream AG (operator of the Nord Stream-1 project) did not
respond to a request from RBC.
Lavrov on the 22nd appeared on what looks to be an interesting program on Russia's Channel
One--
"The Great Game Show" with a transcript at the link. Most of the questions deal with
Lavrov's recent trip to the Outlaw US Empire and his meetings with Trump and Pompeo. I found
Lavrov's remarks about Congress most revealing as they're very similar to what he says about
the tiny Russophobic nations other NATO nations seem to feel they can't break with the
overall consensus despite its being idiotic. His response is related to the illegal sanctions
laid against the construction of Nord Stream 2:
"They are threatening it. I said it will be built, no matter what, despite all these
threats. First, I am convinced that the Europeans understand their commercial interest.
Second, this implies an interest in the context of maintaining long-term energy security.
Third, they were, of course, humiliated. The statements were, nevertheless, made, including
those from Berlin which shows that our European partners still retain a sense of dignity.
"I am confident that, just like the TurkStream project, Nord Stream 2 will be implemented,
and TurkStream will start operating some two or three weeks from now.
"US President Donald Trump and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo want to expand trade, but
the US Congress continues to bombard our relations with sanctions. A situation that has now
shaped up in the United States shows that, in their striving to revise election results and
the will of the American people, these Congressmen are ready to do anything, including
absolutely reckless things that, I would say, are not worthy of serious politicians."
As you read the transcript, you'll realize that this is a very serious program where the
truth of the overall situation is being revealed and remarked upon in a manner that would be
unimaginable here within the Outlaw US Empire, and I presume the program is viewed by a
majority of Russians. It should certainly be read in relation to what Putin said at
his presser on
the topics covered and at the Informal CIS Summit .
Many are busy with their plans for the holidays, and the combined transcripts will take
4-6 hours to read, so perhaps bookmark them to read before New Year when more time's
available.
"... It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town. ..."
"... Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject, cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result. ..."
"... Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime. ..."
"... Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight being the narcissist nation it is. ..."
"... Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests. Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit. ..."
"... Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas markets. ..."
"... Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US Imperialism. ..."
"... One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots. ..."
What would Dr Kampmark consider to be an ecologically cleaner alternative to Nordstream I and 2? The US proposal to supply LNG
via an endless conga line of tankers across the North Atlantic would be an ecological nightmare, to say nothing of the specialised
port facilities that need to be built to accommodate the tankers, the extra pipelines needed to pipe the gas to areas of Europe
away from the Atlantic and the potential for accidents and disasters during annual hurricane season. Europe needs the best energy
supply solution possible from a sustainability POV and other POVs and while Nordstream I and 2 may not be perfect, other solutions
are either worse, more expensive or less certain and stable in the long term.
Shale gas is also poop. Only someone totally corrupt or totally insane would buy such junk from the USA.
The collapse of an empire brings up such interesting stuff.
I am of course a Russian troll for stating the obvious, so a merry Christmas from the Kremlin.
Let nuclear bombers fly, baby. Who wants another Christmas. The majority of the present American government (including Trump) are evangelical Christians who believe in
the Rapture . You wouldn't put such people in charge of a
car park, let alone put them in charge of the biggest nuclear weapons arsenal on the planet.
I find this a bit of a strange piece, for reasons that many others have pointed out here in the comments.
With regard to the environmental angle, I should perhaps point out that by far the biggest polluter on the planet is the US
military.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
The US Military pollutes everything under the sun far past Internet & the over 900 worldwide bases it occupies. Heck, the US MIC
pollutes all sports venues with their propagandistic parades of adherence to state & flag military shows.
In the USA they make you stand in honour of the military at sports events.
I'm glad I don't go down to the USA for the USA Grand National Drag Racing events just because of the MIC pollution at events.
Their propaganda pollution is all over the Internet and that is toxic waste that we all have to sift through on our way to real
news aside from institutional American killing of the third world.
GI-Joe turned out to be anything but a good hippie in my book.
MOU
ttshasta ,
The article mentions Rex Tillerson, yet fails to mention Qatar. Exxon Mobil & Exxon Mobil Qatar, that Tillerson worked for, want
to run an LP pipeline from the Norths Pars gas field, the worlds largest, and Qatar owns 2/3 of,through Saudi Arabia, through
Jordan, Syria, through Alleppo then through Turkey on to Europe. Thus Qatar, S.A. and Turkey have sponsored the foreign invasion
of Syria that the the dolts at NPR to this day call a civil war. The US's Al Udeid air base in Qatar is the largest in the region,
Cheney has been to Qatar many times as have Barack and Michele Obama, John Ashcroft was paid $2.5 million to defend Qatar from
post 911 terrorism charges.
Does it seem the article misses the elephant in the room? US Qatari investments must profit?
Never forget the Clintons, Qatar donates to Clinton Foundation, State Dpt. sells weapons to Qatar (diverted to Syria?), candidate
Clinton to declare no fly zone over Syria as POTUS.
In 2016 Thierry Messan's Voltairenet dot org translated an article from Petra the official Jordanian press paper that S.A. financed
20% of Clinton's campaign, which is illegal under US law. Subsequently, and conveniently, Saudi Prince M.B.S. declared Petra had
been hacked and the report was false. I rely on Thierry's translations, and his voluminous site.
Excellent comment. As always, one should follow the money trail.
paul ,
I've never understood the argument that buying Russian gas is a threat to the security of European countries. Russia doesn't supply
the gas out of altruism, it does so because it wants their money. They are dependent on Russian gas. Russia is dependent on their
money. Mutual dependence, mutual gain.
During the Cold War, Russia always supplied every last gallon of oil and every cubic foot of gas that contracts obliged it
to deliver. It did so, again because it wanted their money. Simple as that.
It would have been simpler and much cheaper to supply the gas through land pipelines via Ukraine, the Baltics and Poland. But
the undersea pipelines had to be built because the Levantine dual nationals parachuted in by the State Department to rule over
Ukraine and the Baltics on Washington's behalf have shown themselves to be totally unreliable economic partners. Ukraine refused
to pay for gas that was supplied and stole gas intended for European countries. The rabid Levantines in the Baltics and Poland
were equally hostile. They could have made billions in transit fees, but they always insisted on cutting off their noses to spite
their faces. Bulgaria blocked South Stream on Washington's instructions and lost a reliable source of cheap gas and $400 million
a year in transit fees. A lot of money and a lot of jobs for a poor country. US satellites pay a high price to kowtow to Uncle
Sam. Russia developed its own port facilities in the Baltic and Riga is now a ghost town.
Uncle Sam is now waging economic warfare and imposing sanctions on its previously most loyal and obedient satellites, Canada,
Mexico, France, Germany, Japan, South Korea, Turkey.
Its surprising how history repeats itself. In the first decade of the nineteenth century, Napoleon achieved dominance over
continental Europe. Only Britain stood against him. Napoleon tried to bring Britain to heel through economic warfare, the Continental
System, ordering European countries not to trade with his sole remaining enemy. His orders were ignored all the way from Spain
to Russia, and this lucrative trade continued. The invasion of Russia and the debacle at Moscow were an attempt to enforce the
Continental System. In a similar fashion, Washington's hubris and unbridled arrogance are now alienating even its most abject,
cringing, servile satraps like Macron, Merkel, and Erdogan. With the same result.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Uncle Sam sees Nord-2 as an energy superpower challenge to energy supremacy which equates to American supremacy & hegemonic supremacy
writ large across the world. If the pinko commie bastards in the Russian Federation make inroads by unilaterally making massive
energy deals with the entire EU we will see American interests clamoring for market inroads & market share so that the pinko commie
bastards in the Russian Federation don't make a dime.
Uncle Sam is in actuality a waning ex-superpower thug that is yesterday's man but can't stand being taken out of the limelight
being the narcissist nation it is.
Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything never mind fracked gas at twice the price.no doubt brave new worlder boris
will go for it.gb inc looks over and done with.
Guy ,
"Can you imagine being dependent on the usa for anything"
Yes I can .I live in Canada and they basically own our country, for all intent and purposes .
They did not conquer us militarily but they so corporately.
MASTER OF UNIVE ,
Zackarova is bang on in that the USA is wholly incompetent to govern their own business interests let alone other sovereign interests.
Nord-2 is necessary infrastructure that the USA wants to thwart for their own monetary benefit.
The USA is anachronism, insolvent, and lacks common sense as well as entrepreneurial spirit & business acumen.
MOU
padre ,
How very concerned about environment we are, when somebody else is "destroying" it!
paul ,
The US certainly showed how concerned it was about the environment with the North Dakota pipeline.
Francis Lee ,
Stepping aside from the geopolitics for a moment. In terms of economics the US is attempting to push Russia out of natural gas
markets. If a company did this it would be attempting to construct a monopoly and be subject to anti-competitive laws. If the
US becomes the sole supplier in Europe then it has a stranglehold, both economic and political, on Europe. That's the strategy,
and it seems blatantly obvious.
But the construction being put on this sordid little play by the Anglo-American MSM is that the
US frackers – who never make a profit – are doing Europe a really big favour by enabling them not to become dependent on Russian
gas. The Europeans should there for be grateful for US LNG since it will enable to diversify away from Russian gas.
The reality is, however, that once you become dependent on a single overseas crucial energy source you have been unceremoniously
grabbed by the short and curlies.
Antonym ,
Simply connect more European harbors to the existing gas pipeline network and choose the LNG supplier you want.
Not rocket science but Dutch PM Rutte was sold on abolishing natural gas because of CO2, while trees from North America for burning
in power plants was fine.
Neighbour PM Merkel Germany wants gas but not nuclear (a scientist!). France wants nuclear but rely on a new unproven expensive
design.
Political inmates are running the EU madhouse.
John Deehan ,
In this article, it misses the whole point of why the USA wants to impose sanctions, rather late in the day, on companies involved
in its construction. Namely, the continued attempts by it to isolate The Russian Federation and its its long term strategy of
preparations for war. Moreover, the omission of the reasons why Russia built the gas pipeline could not be more striking. The
coup in the Ukraine made the transit of Russian gas to western Europe via its territory open to pressure from the USA. Hence why
the Russians built the pipeline in the first place. It's the same reasons why the USA is attempting to prevent other Russian gas/oil
pipelines in other parts of the world.
Francis Lee ,
If anything illustrates the reality of the EU-NATO 'alliance' it is this. The US to Germany – and by extension the rest of the
EU – 'You will take expensive US LNG gas and like it' Me Tarzan you Jane. This brazen realpolitik illustrates the true nature
of the vassalised EU. And of course Poland, Romania – please station your inter-mediate range missiles here – and the Baltic uber-Petainist
elites come chiming in 'America the Beautiful.' More than anything this explodes the idea of the EU as a third geopolitical bloc.
It is an occupied region always has been and is composed of countries which can't actually defend their own interests whilst privileging
the US.
Gutless and spineless!
George Cornell ,
Indeed. And as reluctant as I am to entertain it, the Brutish ( spellcheck wants it to be British, no irony there) US is forcing
any vertebrate in the EU to crave armed forces.
Why poor EU countries buy the bollocks that is the relentless pressure or requirement from NATO to buy American and Israeli arms
is beyond me. They should be much more frightened of the Americans than the imaginary bogeymen to the East.
You mean like the Azov Battalion, Right Sector and C-14?
Those bogeymen Tim? Some of whom are now in Hong Kong helping Joseph Wong and his mates fight for 'freedom and democracy' with
some help from people in, er, Langley Virginia. Oh, and Nancy Pelosi.
Well, I support the right of all peoples to self-determination as a universal right and oppose imperialism/neo-imperialism regardless
of who does it, so your false dichotomy does not apply to me.
I thought you were referring to the neo nazi thugs in Ukraine that sprung up like weeds after rain following the overthrow of
Yanukovych by you know who. No, it wasn't Putin. And no, I'm not a fan either.
All bullshit pushed by Mr Hopey Changey that has put the world in grave peril.
In fact the changes of nuclear war are greater than any time in history.
And what happened when the Berlin Wall came down Tim?
Bush solemnly promised Gorbachev that NATO would not move one inch eastward.
And where are NATO now?
paul ,
Then no doubt you support the right of the Crimea and Donbas to self determination from the CIA installed Fascist Coup Regime.
George Cornell ,
Oh for Chrissake! And where were you about Gitmo? And Iraq, and Yemen, and Syria, and Libya? And the lithium in Afghanistan makes
it morally justified? Put the photo of Kissinger on a bearskin rug in your drawer and tell me about how the 95% of Crimeans who
wanted to be part of Russia invalidates what happened there.
Come back to me about the sandbars in the South China Sea. Now there's a place to increase your debt.!
lundiel ,
Russia isn't occupying any of Ukraine. There are Russian volunteers and Russia is giving them some weapons and no doubt finance
but the Russian army isn't at war with Ukraine.
Jay ,
If they were, the war would have been on Kiev's doorstep.
Francis Lee ,
The only people 'taking' seven percent of the Ukraine are those who already live in the Donbass and Crimea are the Russian-speaking
inhabitants who have lived there for generations and who are defending their homeland against the Ukie Army and its Waffen SS
look-alikes in the Azov Battalion and various other neo-nazi outfits like Praviy Sektor, and the Tornado Battalion and Dnipro1
and other charming little outfits such as 'Patriots of the Ukraine' – backed by right-wing fanatics in the Ukrainian Rada namely
Biletsky and Parubiy.
These people are the direct descendants of the scum of the murderous Banderist pro-Nazis who were responsible for mass extermination
of Russians, Jew, and above all, Poles in Volhynia in the far west of the Ukraine between 1943-45. The Ukrainian Insurgent army
(UPA – led by Shukeviych) was the military wing of Bandera's OUN-B (Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists). Unfortunately for
for Mr B, he had an unfortunate rendezvous with a KGB hit-man in Munich in 1955. RIP.
Long live the heroic resistance of the Peoples Republics of Donetsk and Lugansk.
Frank Speaker ,
Exactly Francis.
Some of my family were massacred by these bastard who were their neighbours: a woman cut upon at the front, a woman with a
wooden stake driven through her head, two children thrown down a well. That NATO aided and abetted these same evil scum to overthrow a democratically elected government and re-start their murderous
ways – this time around upon the ethnic Russians in the wast of the country – I cannot forgive my political leaders who have done
this.
That our MSM completely ignore this situation, I cannot forgive them, and that's why I am here.If there's a place called hell, I hope there's a special place reserved for our leaders and media owners who have done this.
eddie ,
They are occupying Jacque Schitt, but their 93rd aid convoy to the Donbas in November, consisting of 45 trucks, was not imaginary.
Greenpeace is yet another "NGO" that is heavily influenced by the National Endowment for Democracy a CIA front that supports US
Imperialism.
I'm ambivalent on the issue of pipelines ( see Keystone XL Pipeline being driven through Indian Land in total violation of
the Laramie Treaty) since they are environmentally destructive but the fact is that this is all about politics and has nothing
to do with protecting the environment.
If "Russia's" Greenpeace was so concerned about the environment they'd worry about their backyard first such as the network
of pipelines being run through Siberia.
richard le sarc ,
One wonders if the invertebrates of the EU will ever tire of being bullied by the Global Bullying Thug in Chief? The clerico-fascists
of priest-ridden Poland one can understand, and the phony 'greens' of Greenpeace the sell-out specialists, but the others are
just like mongrel dogs-the more you kick them, the more they lick your boots.
Boats of LNG floating across the Atlantic to Poland is not energy security. Whatever the politics of Nord Stream 2 we may be assured
the US has not got our back in Europe on this.
We may also be in need of energy sooner than we think, as professor Valentina Zharkova of Northumbria University suggests.
Unlike the Guardian her catastrophe theory goes in the other direction where in the next few years Earth will enter into a cooling
phase. That will set off a series of events leading to a mini ice age as happened with the Maunder Minimum of the 17th Century.
"Gazprom has purchased a pipe-laying ship which would allow the company to build undersea
pipelines despite sanctions. The new vessel may be used to build the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline to Europe."
Apparently the Russians think several steps ahead of the Americans.
This article has all one
needs to know about Russia/Gazprom's ability to finish the job abandoned by the Swiss
cowards, although their ships are apparently still on station. Yes, there'll be a delay, but
that won't matter much. Pissing off the Germans was the absolute wrong move!
@80 Jen It is much too late for the Danes to step in and stop Nord Stream 2.
Their permission was required because the pipe enters their economic zone, but once that
permission was given then the pipelaying started on the basis of "good faith". If the Danes
attempted to renege then I would imagine that it would be Russia and Germany who would tie up
Denmark in legal red-tape, not the other way around, and by the time this got to court the
pipeline would be completed and the gas would be flowing.
The USA's only hope now is that its sanctions scare off companies like Allseas, but that
hope relies on the western conceit that Russia is too technologically backward to be able to
take over and finish the job.
But the Russians are very capable, and extremely wily: if you look at my original post you
will see a link from 2016 where the Russians are already spelling out exactly what they
intend to do.
They acquired a suitable pipeline-laying ship at last three years. They admitted at the
time that they acquired it that it made no economic sense for them to acquire such a
ship.
Economics be damned. They bought it because they had to consider the possibility that the
USA is run by a bunch of duplicitous shits.
As I'm following the case closely, a few supplements.
The problem with the high tech Russian pipelaying vessel is that it is deployed in the Far
East and would need months to get to the scene. The Russian Fortuna lacks the technical
permission from the Danes to work in their waters, but it is suspiciously idling at the
German Coast. NorthStream 2 could ask Denmark to get a special allowance for the Fortuna to
work, and that is not so far-fetched as it seems because Denmark has a new government since
last June.
The Fortuna will at least finish the German part of the pipeline. A German court yesterday
has turned down a complaint by environmentalists who are worried about wintering birds.
The sanctions are a huge strategical blunder of the USA. Yes, the Germans are pissed off,
from the bosses of the chemical industry to the "ordinary people". You can almost hear the
tectonic subterranean crack that moves Germany away from the Anglosphere towards Russia.
In German politics, the Transatlanticians are now in the defensive. The most powerful
transatlantic institutions are IMO the various intelligence services, BND, BfV and so on.
They have certainly initiated the "scandal" about the murdered Georgian djihadist (you
remember, two Russian diplomats were expelled immediately) in order to sabotage the Normandy
talks and NordStream 2 and push Merkel to distance herself from Russia. This has failed,
obviously. Stupid white men.
An excellent show from last week. However still relevant with some reminders from the 80s
that are quintessential irony. Sanchez's journalistic delivery is impressive.
Rapoza's latest effort, for Forbes, is his review of the Russia/Ukraine gas deal that
everyone is talking about. His take, in summary, is that Russia did not really have to give
up very much, it would be to Ukraine's advantage to stop fucking around and concentrate now
on the issues, that Ukraine dropped a very large amount in claims in return for not very much
money (although he does not say how likely Ukraine would have been to win them in court, and
my personal opinion is not very), that Nord Stream II will be completed with not a
significant amount of delay, and that Russia can implement the same no-gas-through-Ukraine in
five years if it does not like the way things are going.
As usual, the range of interpretations of gas agreements is wide and full of water. Most of them have hidden recognition of
groundlessness, because even a simple reading of the document requires above average schooling.
Here is this document, where it is written in black and almost white that the parties agreed on such and such conditions:
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians for domestic consumption, although,
to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against
the background of the absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be extremely
inappropriate.
Why?
Because
Gazprom
is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic phenomenon for immature structures and
individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic
at all. There is no word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not Gazprom.
However, the
Naftogaz
fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on the other hand: the board (8 people) will not have
to return millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize according to the results of the
Stockholm Arbitration
. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant
(not to be confused with capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is comparable to all assets, especially
since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5
billion (according to the Chairman of the Board
Kobolev
), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom. Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom
at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit
system of Ukraine, taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "
Nord
Stream-2
" and, secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject of
negotiations:
Point 2.2.3 The organising company [Naftogaz] will contact LLC "Operator of gas transit system of Ukraine" for the
reservation of capacities of the gas transit system of Ukraine
Provided that at the time of reservation by NCSREPU [National Commission for State Regulation of Energy and Public
Utilities] a
competitive tariff
recognised by the Organising Company and corresponding to the level of gas
transportation tariffs applied in the countries of western and central Europe will be established.
Point 3.2 The Ukrainian side
will take all necessary measures
(create all necessary conditions) by
29.12.19:
for ensuring reliable legal protection of the interests of the client of services [Gazprom] on transit,
predictability, transparency, economic validity, and stability of tariff formation
;
What went on behind the scenes went almost unnoticed:
1. Ukraine's demand for imported gas, which is still falling due to the decline in production capacity, will be covered
from the volumes approved by the agreement (65 billion m3 in 2020 and 40 billion m3 in the following 4 years). The volume of
imports according to various estimates remains at about 20 billion m3 per year. Tariffs will not be applied on all the Russian
gas that Ukraine will consume from pumping on the gas transit system and will be implemented on the territory of Ukraine at
its own expense. The volume subject to a transit tariff will be determined by the difference between the entrance to the
Ukrainian gas transit system and the exit to Europe.
2. All preliminary talk about gas discounts for Ukraine was not included in the agreement. Thus, the price of gas remains
the subject of bargaining and is inevitably dependent on the transit tariff: the higher the price of transit – the higher the
price of gas and, accordingly, vice versa.
3. In fact, the issue of direct gas supplies to Ukraine is not worth discussing at all. I.e., in the event of a
non-agreement on the price, all gas will come to Europe, Ukraine will earn from transit, but these earnings will be offset by
the increased price of gas on the reverse. Thus, even in the event of pumping all gas to Europe, earnings from transit,
according to experts, will not even cover the cost of servicing the Ukrainian gas transit system.
Lastly, Gazprom – which is not Russia, but behind whose back Russia certainly stands, and was opposed by both Ukraine and
the European Union, represented by the European Commission, as well as the United States with its global interests – managed,
at a minimum, to minimise its tactical losses and preserve strategic Russian interests.
The gas war appears to have retreated, but the most interesting thing is yet to come.
I linked a Russian newspaper article above which analysed the deal and in which it was
pointed out that the $3 billion that Gazprom coughed up is 1% of the annual turnover of that
company. And another thing that the article pointed out was that the deal is between Gazprom
and Naftogaz notRussia and the Ukraine. In return for that $3 billion,
which will be pocketed by many Yukitard bastards, I am sure, Gazprom's never ending
altercations with the Yukie gas outfit over compensation and claims and counter-claims have
had a line drawn under them. I suppose that's really why the Porky bloc in the rada is taking
action against the deal: they fear that their nice little earner is being stifled, in that
penalties imposed by arbitration courts against Gazprom have seemingly ended.
All talk about a Ukrainian victory or a Russian victory should be left to politicians
for domestic consumption, although, to be fair, it is worth noting: Ukrainian functionaries
immediately claimed it is a victory for Ukraine. This sounded against the background of the
absence of fanfare in Russia, which, in the face of the most difficult negotiations, would be
extremely inappropriate.
Why?
Because Gazprom is Gazprom, not Russia. Confusion in concepts is a very characteristic
phenomenon for immature structures and individuals on both sides. So talk of Russia allegedly
forgiving Ukraine $3 billion in credit has nothing to do with the topic at all. There is no
word in the document about this, which is natural, because, I will repeat: Russia is not
Gazprom.
However, the Naftogaz fanfare coming from Vitrenko's mouth is also understandable on
the other hand: the [Naftogaz] board (8 people) will not have to return
millions of dollars already distributed to their pockets as part of the prize
according to the results of the Stockholm Arbitration. Moreover, now, if Gazprom pays the
claim amount, the premium will increase significantly.
As for the amount Gazprom has pledged to pay – about $3 billion – it is
less than 1% of the assets of the Russian gas giant (not to be confused with
capitalisation). Few will notice this drop in the ocean. And for Naftogaz? In the absence of
up-to-date information about the assets of this structure, I believe that the figure is
comparable to all assets, especially since, according to the current reform, the Ukrainian
gas transit system, the market value of which is no more than $1.5 billion (according to the
Chairman of the Board Kobolev), leaves from under Naftogaz in general.
Conclusion: tactically Naftogaz and its board benefited from a contract with Gazprom.
Strategically, as it seems, Gazprom at least did not lose, firstly, significantly reducing
the term of the contract and the volume of pumping on the gas transit system of Ukraine,
taking into account the forthcoming and inevitable implementation of "Nord Stream-2" and,
secondly, leaving itself the right to disagree with transit tariffs, which remain the subject
of negotiations
Japan Proposes Dumping Radioactive Waste Into Pacific As Storage Space Dwindles by
Tyler Durden Tue,
12/24/2019 - 23:30 0 SHARES
As the decade comes to an end, the future of nuclear power in the west remains in doubt.
Almost nine years ago, a powerful underwater earthquake triggered a 15-meter tsunami that
disabled the power supply and cooling at three of the reactors at the Fukushima Daiichi nuclear
power plant.
The accident caused the nuclear cores of all three damaged reactors to melt down, prompting
the government to issue evacuation orders for all people living within a 30 kilometer radius of
the damaged reactors, a group that included roughly 100,000 people.
And the evacuation zone:
Now, the
Epoch Times reports that Japan's Economy and Industry Ministry has proposed that TEPCO
gradually release, or allow to evaporate, massive amounts of treated but still radioactive
water being stored at the power plant. TEPCO, or the Tokyo Electric Power Co, is the owner of
the Fukushima plant, and is also responsible for leading the clean-up of the damaged
reactors.
But as regulators have stepped in to try and guide TEPCO as it struggles to dispose of all
the contaminated water, one ministry has offered a proposal that is almost guaranteed to anger
the fishermen who have resisted all of TEPCO's other plans for dumping the contaminated
water.
In its Dec. 23 proposal, the ministry suggested a "controlled release" of the contaminated
water into the Pacific. Offering another option, the ministry also suggested allowing the water
to evaporate, or a combination of the two methods.
But the ministry insisted that the controlled release of the contaminated water into the sea
would be the best option because it would "stably dilute and disperse" the water from the
plant, while also allowing the government and TEPCO to more easily monitor the operation.
And as
we have reported , the Japanese fishing industry isn't the only party that objects to the
government's plan. South Korea has also complained to the IAEA about TEPCO's plans to dump the
radioactive water.
The project is expected to take years to fully dispose of the water.
Still, the fishermen are bound to be skeptical because of one radioactive element that TEPCO
has been unable to remove from the contaminated water: It's called tritium.
Fukushima fishermen and the National Federation of Fisheries Co-operative Associations
have strongly opposed past suggestions by government officials that the water be released to
the sea, warning of an "immeasurable impact on the future of the Japanese fishing industry,"
with local fishermen still unable to resume full operations after the nuclear plant
accident.
The water has been treated, and the plant operator, Tokyo Electric Power Co., states that
all 62 radioactive elements it contains can be removed to levels not harmful to humans except
for tritium. There is no established method to fully separate tritium from water, but
scientists say it isn't a problem in small amounts . Most of the water stored at the plant
still contains other radioactive elements including cancer-causing cesium and strontium and
needs further treatment.
Tritium is routinely found in nuclear explosions and other nuclear accidents, including the
meltdown at Three-Mile Island back in 1979. But experts at the IAEA recommend that the
controlled release of the tritium-laced water at Fukushima into the sea is probably the best
option for handling the situation - even if the Japanese decide to wait until after the Summer
Olympics in 2022.
The ministry noted that tritium has been routinely released from nuclear plants around the
world, including Fukushima before the accident. Evaporation has been a tested and proven
method following the 1979 core meltdown at Three Mile Island nuclear plant in the United
States, where it took two years to get rid of 8,700 tons of tritium-contaminated water.
TEPCO says it is currently storing more than 1 million tons of radioactive water and only
has space to hold up to 1.37 million tons, or until the summer of 2022, raising speculation
that the water may be released after next summer's Tokyo Olympics. TEPCO and experts say the
tanks get in the way of ongoing decommissioning work and that space needs to be freed up to
store removed debris and other radioactive materials. The tanks also could spill in a major
earthquake, tsunami, or flood.
Experts, including those at the International Atomic Energy Agency who have inspected the
Fukushima plant, have repeatedly supported the controlled release of the water into the sea
as the only realistic option.
On Dec. 22, some experts on the panel called for more attention to be given to the impact
on the local community, which already has seen its image harmed by accidental leaks and the
potential release of water.
"A release to the sea is technologically a realistic option, but its social impact would
be huge," said Naoya Sekiya, a University of Tokyo sociologist and an expert on disasters and
social impact.
Other possible strategies for disposing of the contaminated water have included injecting
the water deep into the Earth's crust. Another strategy, which called for storing the nuclear
waste in large industrial tanks outside the plant, was ruled out because of fears that leaks in
the tanks could contaminate some of Japan's most important fishing waters.
The USA government acts as a gangster and should expect that other power will behave equally
bad toward the USA. That's a very bad, disastrous calculation, even in view of the current USA
technological superiority (which might shrink in the future)
Pride goeth before a fall. Washington is proud of itself, but a day will come when it will
count the cost, and mutter, "What the fuck was I thinking?" It was not ever going to actually
interrupt, and then seize for itself, Russia's share of the European gas market – that
was just another example of its addled belief in exceptionalism and its ability to overcome
any and all limiting factors, including distance and capacity.
What it HAS done is reveal itself as a petulant global child who will break anything that
does not please it, and therefore a dangerous and unpredictable business partner.
Thus spake the official Washington arsehole in Germany:
The American Ambassador in Berlin Richard Grenell, about whom it has already been
requested in Germany that he be recognized as persona non grata because of his
repeated attacks against the German leadership, has said that the sanctions imposed by
Washington against the pipeline "Nord Stream-2" had been introduced in the interests of the
EU and many countries of Europe are grateful for them.
"Seriously: from 15 European countries, the European Commission and the European
Parliament have all expressed their concerns about the project. We have long heard from our
European partners that the United States should support their efforts. Therefore, sanctions
represent a very Pro-European solution", said Grenell to the publication
Bild am Sonntag . [A German arsewipe publication of the first magnitude -- ME]
According to him, European diplomats have allegedly already repeatedly expressed their
gratitude for the measures taken by Washington.
Recall that the United States, which from time to time has opposed the emergence in
Europe of a strong competitor for its gas, imposed sanctions against the pipelines "Nord
Stream-2" and "Turkish Stream", requiring that the companies involved in their laying
immediately stop construction. In response, the German government has said it "rejects such
extraterritorial sanctions" directed "against German and European companies.
Just two events that occurred during Saturday night have turned into one of the main news
stories in recent months and years: Russia, the Ukraine and the European Commission signed a
trilateral agreement on the transit of gas over the coming years from Russia to the EU via
the Ukrainian GTS, and President Trump signed a law on the defence budget, in which US
parliamentarians have written separate clauses concerning sanctions against companies
involved in the construction of the pipeline "Nord stream – 2″
If anyone has forgotten, allow me to remind you that Vladimir Putin has never talked about
the categorical refusal as regards the transit to Europe via the Ukraine of Russian gas.
Always, he has only stressed that it is a question exclusively of a commercial nature,
without any political overtones, and that such transit be carried out on favourable terms.
Vice-Premier of the Russian government Dmitry Kozak has said about the new contract to be
signed before the New Year that he parties had agreed on favourable terms. In addition to
this, the Ukrainian side said that "Gazprom" had agreed to pay "Naftogaz" $3 billion,
according to the decision of the Stockholm arbitration. So, can the Ukraine celebrate a
"victory"?
So far, only Kiev has stated this figure of $3 billion. On the Russian side, there has
been no confirmation of this yet, but even if the Kiev figure is correct, I do not see much
reason to celebrate "victory", for if Russia has paid this money to the Ukraine ($2.6 billion
+ penalties), then the Ukraine is obliged to return $4.5 billion to Russia (3 billion
Eurobonds + penalties). The balance is not in favour of Kiev. In addition, the Ukraine has
pledged to stop all legal disputes on gas issues. Yes, in one case there is a dispute between
economic entities, and in a second case there is a dispute about sovereign debt. However,
since both Naftogaz and Gazprom are budget-forming state companies, to a certain extent this
difference in debt statuses is leveled.
Now on transit. There is no denying that for Russia it is not only important but necessary
to transit gas through the Ukraine at the moment, since under long-term contracts with
Europe, Gazprom is obliged to supply the volumes of gas stipulated in them, regardless of the
circumstances. Otherwise, the Russian company would have to pay heavy fines and penalties. By
concluding the contract, Gazprom has once again proved its reliability as a supplier, which,
by the way, was has already been emphasized by the European Commission following the
negotiations.
The only thing currently known about the transit contract is that it has been concluded
not for 10 years as Kiev had wanted, but for 5 years. Apparently, a longer term is not
relevant, chiefly because of complete uncertainty about the future of the Ukraine -- by the
way, in the next few days Kiev is likely to start an active struggle against the agreements
already reached, and if something threatens them at the moment, it is only Ukrainian
instability. According to data received from the Russian company, the volume of transit
through the Ukraine next year will be about 65 billion cubic metres. This is certainly a very
significant figure, but it is significantly less than the 90 billion cubic metres pumped
through the Ukrainian GTS in 2017. In 2021-2024, the annual transit volume will drop to 40
billion cubic metres. This volume allows the Ukrainian GTS to operate at a plus rather than a
minus, but Kiev will not receive any significant financial gain through it.
By the way, a certain demand for Ukrainian transit will remain after the Nord Stream-2 gas
pipeline has reached its design capacity, as European gas demand grows annually and a number
of fields operated in the EU countries are decommissioned in the coming years. As for NS-2
itself, by the time the sanctions are imposed, less than 50 kilometres will have been left on
one pipeline and about 70 kilometres on the other. Even if the Swiss company gathers up its
belongings, Russian pipe-laying ships will finish the job, and even though they lay pipes 3
times slower, they have absolute immunity from American sanctions. One of them is now located
in the area of Indonesia, and the second pipe-laying ship, "Fortuna", which, by the way, has
already participated in the implementation of "NS-2", is in a German port and is ready to
start working within a few days. [My stress! See that Finnish troll? -- ME]
So, by and large, the question is only one of time. But in any case "SP-2" will be
completed in terms of installation, testing and commissioning, and can be put into operation,
at most, at the end of the first half of 2020.
I really really doubt that the US military will attack overtly or covertly. The US already
announced that it will sanction other Russian energy projects if North Stream is placed in
operation.
I don't imagine that will be necessary. Be pretty hard to argue then that they were not
acting solely in their own interests, wouldn't it? It would make a hell of a thriller novel,
though – the pipeline is on the seabed, so any American efforts to tamper with it would
probably have to be from underwater. A submarine has no business being there, so its mission
would have to be super-secret and plausibly deniable. And in that scenario, if it simply
disappeared, the Americans would have to just proceed as if it never existed. There you go,
Karl; a great book idea, you should write it. But I want 20%; 30% if I have to proofread it
before publication to take out all the rhapsodizing about freedom and democracy, and rewrite
the ending where the Americans blow up the pipeline and miraculously escape, sailing home to
a ticker-tape parade and leaving Putin with angry tears running down his face.
Bulgaria is an instructive example here. Remember when it stopped South Stream in its
tracks, and was the hero of America and the EU? And Bulgaria strutted and swaggered, and was
pretty proud of itself while it waited for the rewards of its bravery. And then the USA built
them a Middle School or a new fence or something, I forget, and there were lots of 'well
done, old chap!' compliments, and and then that was it. Bulgaria did not become everyone's
preferred business partner and the destination of enormous foreign investment. And then,
gradually, everybody stopped talking about what a great and brave thing Bulgaria did, and it
just sort of sat there with its mouth half-open, trying to take in how skillfully it had been
creampied, and evidently all for nothing.
And eventually, Bulgaria repented, and went back to Russia and Putin, cap in hand. And
Russia received it warmly, like a brother who fell in with a bad crowd but was not really, at
heart, bad himself. It did not say that Bulgaria must prove itself by repudiating its former
friends. It seemed willing to let bygones be just that.
It is not even too much of a stretch to imagine that might one day be Ukraine as well,
although it certainly could not be under the current conditions. The nationalists would have
to be purged, hard. And there would have to be a completely new political administration. But
there's time, and lots of it. The west is not going to make a prosperous paradise of Ukraine,
it is only interested in stripping it of anything of value, and in the meantime it will go
down and down, because nobody wants to put any money into it. Except, ahem; Russia.
Party Poroshenko initiates sanctions against the supply of gas from Russia
The faction of "European solidarity" in the Ukrainian Parliament initiates sanctions
against the Russian gas supplies directly, reports RIA "Novosti".
As stated by the ex-President and leader of the faction of Petro Poroshenko, the
political force will require the convening of the national security Council on this issue,
and "implementation of sanctions" against the gas supplies from Russia
The people who elected Zelensky expected him to put Porky behind bars. But, surprise
surprise, Zel is a wimp who couldn't bring himself to buck his American overlords.
Said Overlords like Porky and want to keep him around, as the new leader of the Opps, with
hope he gets back into power some day.
Porky is the Ukrainian version of Saakashvili, there is simply no getting rid of him!
What if Germany, angered by American high-handedness, decided to move away from the US
dollar. Could that happen?
It could. Analysts caution that it would be unwise for Washington to laugh at efforts by
nations to make themselves less dependent on the dollar, because it also makes those nations
less susceptible to American sanctions. The world outside America is getting fed up with the
USA's sanctions-happy punishments, which have mushroomed from 5 targeted countries at the
start of the George W. Bush administration to 22 targeted countries at the end of 2018.
One of the ways Russia has hardened its economy against American tampering is in
increasing its use and accumulation of gold as a hedge, which is immune to 'freezing' by the
USA, so long as the gold is held in Russian vaults. That's the key, and momentum is slowly
gathering in other countries. Hungary repatriated all its gold from the Bank of England in
October of this year, and increased its holdings tenfold as well. Romania has submitted a
bill to parliament which mandates that only 5% of the country's gold can be stored abroad.
Currently about 60% of its 103 tonnes is stored at the Bank of England. In 2017 Germany
repatriated around $31 Billion worth of gold which had been stored in New York and Paris.
This week, Poland and Slovakia called for a return of their gold, which is being held by, you
guessed it, the Bank of England. The lesson of Venezuela's stolen gold was not lost on
anyone, and the less foreign gold the Bank of England has in its vaults, the less useful it
is to Washington and its 'freeze' orders.
Germany was chafing at US bullying back in 2018, and talking up policies to pull away from
the US dollar. Would this latest example of American meddling make them more, or less
inclined to pursue financial policies which did not include the United States as a partner,
do you think?
"According to S&P Global Platts Analytics, Nord Stream 2 would have to seek
alternative vessels and contractors to complete the remaining section of pipe in Danish
waters if the sanctions are enacted.
"While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of
around 200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains
complicated," it said.
Russian companies operate capable offshore pipe-lay vessels, which have completed projects
in challenging Arctic conditions, including the MRTS Defender, which worked on the offshore
stretch of the Bovanenkovo-Ukhta pipeline.
Platts Analytics believes MRTS Fortuna could be used to complete Nord Stream 2, but is
capable of laying just 1 km/d.
A further obstacle, according to Platts Analytics, is that the Danish permit application
states that it is assumed that the vessels used to complete the Danish section will have
dynamic positioning capabilities (such as those of the Allseas vessels) which are not present
on MRTS Fortuna.
A Russian pipelaying vessel that already has dynamic positioning capabilities, Akademik
Cherskiy, could be used, but it would take up to two months to arrive to Danish waters as it
is currently stationed in Russia's Far East."
It is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not prepare
for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
Karl, this is no attitude for the Christmas season – don't be so dour and pessimistic.
It takes two years to build a specialized ship, at a minimum, and that's just a regular
design like an LNG tanker – should Gazprom have built two or three, only to have the
Americans laugh and not impose sanctions? Then you would have chuckled ruefully over how
foolish Gazprom was to waste its money; there's no pleasing you. Only two days ago you were
moaning over how the entirety of the funds spent so far would be wasted; the pipeline could
not be completed, America is just too strong. You can go back and look. Now it looks as if it
can be completed, just the remainder will be done at about a third the speed it could have
been. But the money which would have gone to Allseas will be saved, and really there's no
hurry now; they have 5 years if they need it. In 2 months the worst of the winter weather
should be over, and any further slowdowns between now and completion can be blamed on the
Americans, whose fault of course it is. It would have been done now but for American pressure
on Denmark to hold out.
I wouldn't say it couldn't have turned out better, but all things considered the results
are not that bad for Russia and not very good for the USA, which has incurred a lot of
resentment and ill-will in exchange for really nothing. It is not going to stop the pipeline
from completing, but it has made a lot of enemies, and even the Poles have stopped yapping
and do not appear to be celebrating too loudly, lest they anger other Europeans.
""While the most challenging parts of Nord Stream 2 have been laid in water depths of around
200 meters, the remaining section in Danish waters at 90 meters depth remains complicated,"
it said."
Norwegian divers welded pipelines at 900 meters depth (And, yes they had some
problems).
Let me guess – the United States has threatened to confiscate the assets in the USA of
any company which sells dynamic-positioning systems to the Soviets (oops! I mean the
Russians!), and so now they will have to develop the technology themselves. Why not just
threaten to slap sanctions on anyone giving 'aid and comfort' to the Russians? I mean,
they're the enemy, right? Right?? So nobody sell them boots or warm clothes, or anything. See
how they like laying pipe in their skivvies, barefoot.
Say, I'll bet that attitude is good for market share for the remaining American businesses
still operating in Russia. And speaking of that, here's another example – gosh, there
are so many – of America's love affair with sanctions; CAATSA, the Countering America's
Adversaries Through Sanctions Act. According to an analyst at the Foreign Policy Research
Institute,
it's a failure , because it did not prevent Turkey from buying the S-400 system from
Russia when they were supposed to buy the Patriot from the USA, or
prevent Egypt from buying the Sukhoi S-35 from Russia when they were meant to buy the
F-35. Oh, but they were frustrated in that because Israel did not want them to have it.
Washington never misses an opportunity to show Israel it still loves it despite all the
actions Israel makes it take against its own best interests.
"Egypt turned to Moscow for the Su-35 aircraft after being frustrated in repeated
attempts to get a foothold in the F-35 program, a move closely watched in Israel, which
remains the only country in the region to receive the fifth-generation aircraft."
America threatened Egypt with – you guessed it – sanctions if it continued
with plans to buy Russian fighters worth $2 Billion in sales, but Egypt basically ignored
them, only not laughing because it would be impolite to laugh.
"The Egyptian leadership views the US threats as not credible, based on a long history
of Egyptian/US relations where the US has made threats and even withheld assistance, but in
the end has always capitulated," said Andrew Miller, who was director for Egypt and Israel
military issues in the Obama administration's National Security Council."
Egypt also bought the two MISTRAL class light assault carriers that Washington made France
cancel the sale of when Russia had already paid a security deposit, which had to be returned.
Egypt quickly purchased helicopters from Russia to outfit its new ships.
In fact, America seems to be losing its grip on the Middle East and Africa. And its
newly-discovered and somewhat childlike faith in sanctions as a cure-all is ruining its
traditional alliances and eroding its global reach. Much less-powerful countries now
routinely ignore its threats to impose sanctions and more sanctions. The fewer foreign
businesses interested in locating significant assets in the United States – so as to
prevent their being seized in a fit of pique – the less influence Washington can bring
to bear through sanctions. Its most loyal toady, the UK, will soon no longer be a part of the
EU, while nations jostle one another in eagerness to get their gold back from the Bank of
England where the United States cannot slap a 'hold' order on it through its devoted
proxies.
Russian dolts just don't have the technology, isn't that right ?
From the Finnish naysayer:
In retrospect the biggest mistake Russia did was to start the Nord Stream 2 project
without possessing the technology to complete the project and relying on the Western
technology. This made Nord Stream 2 and Russia vulnerable for the sanctions and this
vulnerability was exploited.
Will Russia learn and not start any major project in the future without having the
means to complete the project itself without relying on the West? I doubt it.
As mentioned earlier, commercial contracts normally include provisions for frustration
– supervening illegality can prevent performance of obligations contracted under
different circumstances and no one would expect a company to commit suicide. It's just a
business problem. But a business problem which, as Mark states, leaves the instigator –
the USA – diminished by its own actions.
Every contract has Force Majeure provisions to address factors beyond the control of the
supplier. The list includes of acts of God (weather, for example), civil unrest, labor
disputes, etc. "US sanctions" need to be added.
According to ME they were within 50 kilometers of landfall. According to Karl the replacement
vessel can lay pipe at a 1km/day rate. The resulting calculation isn't rocket science
mathematics. Ribbons will be cut and valves will be turned on in a few months to the clink of
vodka and champagne glasses.
Peskov did not say a fuckin' thing about "hope" that the pipeline will be completed. He
stated that the sanctions will NOT work to bring about substantial delay.
Two pipelines are being laid in parallel. One line , if I rightly recall, has 50 kms left to
be laid, the other 75 kms. The Russian pipelayers, again if I rightly recall, lay at one
third of the speed as did the Allseas vessel. The Russians are also aware of the
geopositioning requirement that the Danes may impose. Only one Russian pipelayer, the one at
present in the Far East, has this capability. from here
"Pioneering Spirit" and" Solitaire" crossed the border of Swedish and Danish waters on
27 and 28 November, respectively, since which time the former has covered 89 km, the latter
-- a little less than 70 km, i.e. they move at a speed of 3.5–4.5 km per day. This
means that they should be able to complete the construction within a month. But maintaining
this momentum depends on the weather conditions.
There was only 1 month's worth of laying left when Allseas fucked off.
The Russians are seemingly, from the troll's point of view, faced with such insurmountable
odds that he is coming in his pants. They'll never finish the job.
Like when they said they would never finish that bridge, across the petersburg-Simferopol
train crosses for the first time this coming Christmas Day?
From same source as above, namely Moskovskiy Komsomolets :
According to a representative of one of the contractors involved in the creation of the
offshore section of "Nord Stream – 2", Gazprom began to insure against sanctions
against companies involved in laying the pipeline in October. The Fortuna pipe-laying barge,
built in 2010 at a Russian shipyard and later upgraded at Chinese shipyards, has been used.
This vessel has been based for about two months in the German port of Mukran, where the pipes
required for the gas pipeline construction are shipped.
According to an MK interlocutor who wished to remain anonymous, despite the fact that
Fortuna is the most powerful domestic vessel in its class, it is unlikely that it can fully
replace Allseas pipelayers. "Fortuna" is able to do such works, but the speed of the project
will be slowed down. "Fortuna specializes in laying infield and linear pipelines on land,
while Gazprom charters vessels with foreign registration for offshore sections.
At the same time, Fortuna has experience working in deep water areas. As part of the
Sakhalin-3 project, the barge was deploying an underwater production facility in the
Kirinskoye field at a depth of 100 meters. The depth of the sea in the Danish section of the
NS-2, which remains to be completed by Gazprom, does not exceed this mark, while Fortuna has
a depth limit of 200 meters", explains the MK interlocutor.
Yeah, according to the Troll:
it is surprising that the Gazprom management didn't prepare for this situation! If this
article is correct the only Russian vessel that can be used to finish the project is
currently stationed in Vladivostok, and it will take about two months for it to arrive to
Danish waters.
The sanction threat has been looming for months, but it seems that Gazprom did not
prepare for it in any meaningful way.
I would be pleasantly surprised if this project is finished in 2020.
For "pleasantly surprised" above, read: "bitterly disappointed".
The United States is less concerned with matters green. Nord Stream 2 poses a security
threat.
Trump's former secretary of state, Rex Tillerson,
saw it as "undermining Europe's overall energy security and stability."
US energy secretary Rick Perry
argues that "Russian gas has strings attached." The claim is that Germany will be come too
reliant and Ukraine further weakened. Ukraine had been the premier gatekeeper for Russian gas
supply, with 40 percent of Europe's total amount transiting through Ukrainian soil. A
slump in gross domestic product occasioned by an end to transit fees is considered
imminent.
Other European states have been crankily concerned about the prospect of Gazprom's deepening
involvement in the continent's energy market. Poland's anti-monopoly body UOKiK showed a
measure of that opposition
by fining France's Engie Energy (ENGIE.PA) 40 million euros in proceedings against
Gazprom.
In February, EU ambassadors agreed that the project be subjected to greater scrutiny. A
Franco-German compromise was struck : Nord Stream 2 would be placed
"under European control".
The Trump administration's actions against Gazprom and Russia's energy influence, found in a
provision of the 2020 National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA), can hardly be seen as noble
endeavours.
The provision threatens
sanctions and the freezing of assets against entities laying down the pipeline unless their
activities cease "immediately". The United States has its own energy interests in Europe, and
wishes to frustrate the effort. Market share is at stake.
The suspension of laying activities on the part of Allseas, a Swiss company, suggests that
Trump's announcement is already biting.
"In anticipation of the enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA),"
went a
company statement , "Allseas has suspended its Nord Stream 2 pipelay activities." The
company would "proceed, consistent with the legislation's wind down provision and expect
guidance comprising the necessary regulatory, technical and environmental clarifications from
the relevant US authority."
The angle taken by the European Union, Germany and Russia can hardly surprise. Themes of
energy security are reiterated. The Nord Stream 2 consortium makes the claim that, "Completing the
project is essential for European supply security." Russian foreign ministry spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova spikily condemned the
sanctions measure. "A state with a $22 trillion national debt prohibits creditworthy countries
to develop the real sector of their economies!"
For a EU spokesman, this
constituted "the imposition of sanctions against EU companies conducting legitimate
business." A German government spokesman suggested that such actions "affect German and other
European businesses, and we see the move as meddling in our internal affairs." Finance Minister
Olaf Scholz has sees
it as an infringement of sovereignty. "It is up to the companies involved in the
construction of the pipeline to take the next decisions."
Nothing is quite so simple. Gas pipeline politics has always been contentious. One state's
sovereign promise is another's weakening. Concessions made to corporate monopolies are risky,
capable of fostering insecurity as much as reassurance. Those who control the tap control a
country's future.
But the imposition of any sanctions regime signals another bout of economic violence. In
the international market, where governments operate as ready gangsters for corporate interests,
prompted by such motivations as seeking more natural resources, tools of state become
handmaidens of economic self-interest...
This month, the energy consulting firm Wood MacKenzie gave an
online presentation that basically debunked the whole business model of the shale industry.
In this webinar, which explored the declining
production rates of oil wells in the Permian region , research director Ben Shattuck noted
how it was impossible to accurately forecast how much oil a shale play held based on estimates
from existing wells.
" Over the years of us doing this, as analysts, we've learned that you really have to do it
well by well," Shattuck explained of analyzing well performance. "You cannot take anything for
granted."
For an industry that has raised hundreds of billions of dollars promising future performance
based on the production of a few wells, this is not good news. And particularly for the
Permian, the nation's most
productive shale play , located in Texas and New Mexico.
Up until now, the basic premise of the fracking business model has been for a company to
lease some land, drill until finding a high-volume well, hype to the press this well and the
many others it plans to drill on the rest of its acreage, and promise a bright future, all
while borrowing huge sums of money to drill and frack the wells.
Throughout the seminar, Wood MacKenzie analysts emphasized that companies can't reliably
predict future oil production by "clustering" wells, that is, estimating volumes of many future
wells based on the performance of a small number of nearby existing wells, and described the
practice as potentially "misleading."
Shattuck called out how the old business model of firms borrowing money from investors while
hoping for future payouts on record-breaking wells no longer works. He summed up the
situation:
" We're transitioning to a point in time, where the investment community was enamored of
the next well and how big it might be. That has changed for a variety of reasons. One very
important reason is the next well might not be bigger. It might be smaller."
The fracking industry is now being asked to produce positive financial results -- not just
promises of new
super wells, or cube development, or artificial intelligence. And yet the industry couldn't
deliver profits while drilling all the best acreage over the last decade. Now, shale companies
need to do that with oil wells that may not produce as much.
Seven years ago, Rolling Stone referred to the fracking industry as a "
scam " while profiling the "Shale King" Aubrey McClendon, the man generally credited with
inventing the business model the shale industry has used the past decade. Today, McClendon's
old company Chesapeake Energy is
in danger of going bankrupt .
Perhaps investors are finally catching on.
Are Child Wells the New Normal?
Last year I covered the issue of
child wells , or secondary wells drilled close to an existing "parent" well, and the risk
they posed to the fracking industry. Child wells often cannibalize or damage parent wells,
leading to an overall drop in oil production.
At the time, I cited a warning about this situation from Wood MacKenzie, which said,
"Closely spaced child well performance presents not only a risk to the viability of the ongoing
drilling recovery but also to the industry's long-term prospects."
Over a year later, has the shale oil industry abandoned this approach or are child wells
still an issue?
During this month's webinar, Ben Shattuck answered that question, making a statement that
should strike fear in the heart of shale investors and the owners of all this shale
acreage:
" We know we're on the cusp of a child-well world."
One of the biggest problems with fracked oil well production is child wells, and according
to Shattuck, that looks like the new normal. When the bug in an unprofitable business becomes
the main feature of the business model, its future is definitely at "risk."
In the Eagle Ford shale, average production per foot of well length and per pound of
"proppant" has been falling steadily. Mr Kibsgaard blamed the decline on a rising proportion
of child wells, which are now up to about 70 per cent of all new wells drilled https://t.co/uG58KcNNJp
As long as shale firms could keep borrowing and losing money to drill new wells, producing
more oil was simple. When profits weren't a concern, the debt-heavy business model worked. But
similar to the dot com boom and bust, the fracking industry is learning that if you want to
stay in business, you need to make a profit.
Without a doubt, drilling and fracking shale can produce a lot of oil and gas in the right
geological regions. It just usually costs more to get the oil and gas out of the rock than the
fossil fuels are worth on the free market. Now, however, the much-lauded "shale revolution" is
facing two big issues -- the best rock has been
drilled and few are eager to
loan money to drill the remaining acreage.
E&E News recently highlighted
what this reality means for Texas's Eagle Ford shale play, where production is now 20 percent
lower than at its peak in early 2015. For an oil basin that's only been producing oil via
fracking for
just over a decade , that is a pretty grim number. However, an analyst quoted by E&E
News highlights the secret to making money while fracking for oil: Simply stop fracking.
"Generating free cash is easy: Stop spending on new wells," said Raoul LeBlanc, vice
president for North American unconventionals at IHS Markit. "The catch is that production will
immediately move into steep decline in many cases."
# IHSM arkit
forecasts capital spending for shale drilling & completions to fall by 10% to $102
billion this year. By 2021, we'll see a near $20 billion decline in annual spending. What's
causing this? Raoul LeBlanc comments- https://t.co/7q1QTiWZVs @HoustonChron
Ah, the catch. To generate cash while fracking requires companies to stop fracking and sell
whatever oil they have left from rapidly declining wells. Because fracked wells decline quickly
even when everything goes perfectly, if a producer isn't constantly drilling new wells, then
the oil production of a field drops off very quickly -- the "steep decline" noted by
LeBlanc.
That's exactly what happened in the Eagle Ford shale, an early darling of the fracking
industry, and most of the top acreage
in the Bakken shale play in North Dakota and Montana has already been drilled, and will
likely see similar declines.
LeBlanc emphasizes this point again in the Journal of Petroleum Technology
, where he is recently quoted saying that the decline rates in the Permian region have
"increased dramatically" for new fracked wells.
A year and a half ago, DeSmog launched a special series exploring the finances
of the fracking industry , putting a spotlight on its financial failings. At the time,
optimism about the future of fracking was still filling the pages of the financial press.
Hughes told DeSmog that with the finances of fracking, "Ultimately, you hit the wall. It's
just a question of time."
With the industry on the cusp of a "child-well world," that wall appears to be approaching
quickly -- unless you still believe the industry promises that fracking's big money is right
around the corner.
As the article says, the key scary thing for investors and the industry about fracking is
that fracked wells don't tail off over years like conventional ones – they stop
producing quite abruptly. Once the sweet spots are sucked dry, the drop off in production
will be calamitous with all sorts of potential impacts through both the oil/gas and the
finance world. It will probably happen far too quickly for most investors to jump off the
carousel in time. It will be a game changer when it happens (and probably, sadly, quite good
news for the Gulf States).
In past years, whenever I've expressed scepticism about the finances of fracking, the
usual response is 'but those guys wouldn't be putting in billions unless they knew there was
lots of oil and gas there'. What they don't seem to grasp is that making money from oil and
gas exploration is not the same as making money from oil production. Its not about selling on
the fuel. Its about first of all extracting money from investors for the exploration (and
getting your cut), then its about developing a prospect and selling it on for a big profit.
They don't really care if the well is profitable in the long term or not. I know of at least
one oil company (not in fracking, mostly off-shore), which has made millions for its owners
over the 40 years of its existence, despite the fact that it has never sold one barrel of
oil, nor ever found a field which could be brought to full production. All their profits have
come from their cut in selling on prospective fields, not one of which has ever come to
production.
===Its about first of all extracting money from investors for the exploration (and getting
your cut)==
==All their profits have come from their cut in selling on prospective fields, not one of
which has ever come to production===
What that tells me is there are a lot of investors that have soo much idle money floating
around the world and can literally throw huge sums of money at some venture and if the
venture fails oh well.
Many authors (Susan Strange, etc.) have used the term Casino Capitalism and this seems to
fit that.
It's like taking millions of dollars and making an idle bet at the roulette wheel and if
you lose oh well it was just pocket change or I'll just make up the losses on some other
scam. Meanwhile millions of people are homeless, without healthcare, hungry, etc. It's is
long past time to storm the castles! Pitchforks Up!!
I predict a nightmare of numerous abandoned wells as the many unprofitable fracking
companies go belly up, leaving the public with an expensive environmental mess to clean
up.
Just another example of western cronie capitalism where you privatise all profit, and
socialise all losses including both monetary and environmental.
The only way to stop this is to make shareholders personally responsible for such losses
including environmental clean up, even after a company goes belly up. Only then will
shareholders demand long term viability and more sustainable environmental practices, instead
of only short term profits.
A much simpler way is to simply insist that any license to drill can only be granted if it
is tied to a certified insurance bond for correct capping and abandonment. It would be
interesting to see just how many insurance companies would be willing to take on that
risk.
This should be the norm for all resource extraction permits: mining, logging, drilling,
whatever. A "restoration bond" has to be in place to finance the restoration of the site
after the valuable resources have been carted away.
This would be cheap in some cases, and very expensive in others (e.g., uranium mining). It
would be a way of factoring the externalities (as economists like to call them) into the
overall cost of the project, as well as decreasing the odds that fly by night operators will
trash the planet.
"You wouldn't know you were near an uranium mine any more ."
Alas, the residents of Red Shirt, South Dakota, a tiny Lakota community on the fringes of
the Pine Ridge Reservation, know about uranium mining. Past uranium mining
activity has resulted in the leaching of radioactive materials into their ground water
and wells. Even the nearby Cheyenne River has been contaminated. They can't drink the water.
Or use it for irrigation or fishing. The entire region is an official National Sacrifice
Area. Just a bunch of poor Indians.
The Defenders of the Black Hills are now fighting efforts to mine uranium using in-situ
leach mining. In this process, holes are dug, water and solvents injected to dissolve the
uranium, then the waste water is brought to the surface and temporarily stored in mud waste
ponds. Sounds like 'fracking?' Concerns are for the spread of contaminants in ground water
and aquifers. Where you can't see it.
Granted, no type of mining is without its problems.
But you could live in an area like mine where well water has to be tested routinely for
the high levels of uranium that occurs naturally in our water. No uranium mines around
here.
I'm going to be polite and ignore the tone of your comment. I was merely pointing out that
uranium mining is not the only reason for high uranium levels in ground water. There is a lot
of uranium in the earth's crust and it is dissolvable in water. All well water should be
checked for uranium levels but it is rarely done.
I'd favor forcing the investors and executives that want to erect these horrors to
personally (along with their family members) do the on-site labor of closing and cleanup,
while breathing the air and drinking the water that locals do. Still, of course, possible to
game even that by capturing the regulatory process of setting cleanup standards and
requirements, a la the federal and state Superfund programs.
Malum prohibitum vs. malum in se
" Latin referring to an act that is "wrong in itself," in its very nature being illegal
because it violates the natural, moral or public principles of a civilized society. In
criminal law it is one of the collection of crimes which are traditional and not just created
by statute, which are "malum prohibitum." Example: murder, rape, burglary and robbery are
malum in se, while violations of the Securities and Exchange Act or most "white collar
crimes" are malum prohibitum." https://dictionary.law.com/Default.aspx?selected=1201
The public won't be asked to fund the cleanup because there will be no cleanup. The
responsible parties aren't interested, and our government is no longer interested either.
It's another one of those issues in which communities without power will insist on government
action, and they will be ignored.
I wonder if could it be the case that some government considers strategically important to
keep production from free-falling, no matter if the economics are not sound, and shifting the
cost to the Treasury. MMT to the rescue of shale plays and financiers.
If the article is correct, calling for a plateau as soon as in 2021, the shale boom will
prove more transient than expected.
I can't keep up with all the interlocks and back-scratches. But Banksters are getting
rich, the intermediators in exploration and production are getting rich, the petroleum Bigs
are getting rich and using the notional global competition and Market to damage one
"nation's" comparative advantage to their own ends. And as with all the behaviors leading to
the conclusion that humanity is a failed, and maybe more honestly a plague species, all the
incentives and flows of power are in the direction of what I believe it was a Reagan
appointee offered as the moral underpinning of globalization and ruination: "God gave us
dominion over the planet, and Jesus is coming back real soon and if we have not used up the
whole place in accordance with His Holy Word as i read it, He is going to be really pissed
"
As with all the stuff we NCers read here, everything seems to drive the truly awake soul
in the direction of despair and that sense of vast futility, and that mindset of "Eat, drink
and be merry, for tomorrow we shall die " And screw future generations – past
generations said that to us, so why should we, or some small elite among us, who now are in a
position to have all our pleasure centers fully engaged and satiated to the max, behave
"Responsibly?" "Responsible people maximize shareholder value (and executive looting)!"
5 million EV takes inevitably back to nuclear energy. Without nukes you can anticipate
losing your residential AC for several hours/day. PG&E is the future.
The Forbes article is crap. Any analysis of electricity costs coming from renewable power
that does not include the costs of the energy storage systems required at high
penetration levels will underestimate the costs. Badly. The solar panels and wind turbines
are the easy part. The energy storage systems will easily cost 10X as much (and take 10X as
much time). Because of this, we've seen renewable energy deployment efforts stall out in
Germany, Spain, China, Denmark, and elsewhere, as they bumped into grid stability issues that
require storage to mitigate. And the storage costs too much.
Using "batteries" also produces a 10%* net loss to charge the batteries right off the bat.
You need 110% of the electricity to get to same 100% you were getting before the battery.
Rather than batteries helping, they actually end up using more electricity. That's also
before counting the electricity to make the battery.
* that's best case, theoretical, scenario.
Batteries are net users of electricity. The do not make it.
The Forbes article talks about balancing the grid so that variable energy sources can be
incorporated reliably. To whit:
Actually, battery storage, though often cost-effective today, is rarely needed to "firm"
the output of variable renewables (photovoltaics and windpower), because there are eight
ample cheaper methods.
I believe the author's thesis is for the electricity from renewables to be fed into the
grid when it is available, not to store it.
Do you think nuclear power plants run continuously and are never taken off the grid? Do
you think we use huge storage batteries when they are down?
Both your quote, and the pdf 'talk about' that. That's all they do. The forbes author
really is a treat. "There are 8 ample, cheaper methods" What are those eight methods? why
only 8? No further details.
"I believe the author's thesis is for the electricity from renewables to be fed into the
grid when it is available, not to store it."
It seems you noticed it too. No details, just numbers spelled out as words and asserted as
evidence.
Well, unfortunately the link that explains his 8 methods is behind a paywall.
But I think we are talking apples and oranges here.
The author of the Forbes article is talking about how a grid works. When a power plant is
taken off the grid, energy is moved in from some other area to take up the slack as long as
that power plant is offline. He expects that should be done with renewable energy also.
If you are depending on only one form of renewable energy, then of course you would need
batteries when that form of energy is not available. But batteries are an added cost and not
as efficient as moving energy via the grid. A better method would be to have many types of
renewable energies available so that you can switch between them as necessary. It is what he
means when he is talking about needing to firm the output of variable renewables.
So for example, in my area, the winds kick up when the sun goes down so it makes sense to
switch from solar to wind power at dusk.
I'm don't buy Amory Lovins' thesis. Bob's criticism is correct. The other 8 methods aren't
listed. The required sizes and associated costs aren't listed. It is impossible to judge the
viability of the scheme he envisions when the relevant information is missing.
A real plan would list nameplate GW for all types of generation assets and GW and
GWh for all energy storage assets. In other words, full details.
The only "plan" I've seen for supplying US energy needs with 100% renewable power that
actually contained full details came from Mark Jacobson of Stanford University: https://web.stanford.edu/group/efmh/jacobson/Articles/I/USStatesWWS.pdf
. To his credit, he did the time-domain analysis necessary to determine the amount of
load-sharing and energy storage necessary to keep the lights on through even extended periods
of unfavorable weather.
Unfortunately, his "solution" required two things: (1) expanding US hydro capacity by a
factor of 10, and (2) deploying a stupendous 541 TWh of energy storage. Neither is feasible.
The first would cause massive flooding and ruin river ecosystems if ever run at full power,
and the second would cost over $100 trillion at today's energy storage costs of $200/kWh. His
plan was so wildly unrealistic (and yet popular with Democrats) that a team of scientists and
engineers issued a formal rebuttal: https://www.pnas.org/content/114/26/6722 .
Jacobson's plan has been debunked .
The South Koreans deployed their nuclear fleet for approximately $3000/kW. At this cost,
we could completely de-carbonize the US electrical system for less than $2.5 trillion. It
would be quite the bargain in comparison.
The South Koreans do have one of the lowest costs for nuclear energy production – a
LCOE of about $2021/kWe compared to the US of $4100/kWe and the world average of $4702/kWe
– but the way they do that is by having much looser regulations and by severely
underestimating the decommissioning, waste management, and accident compensation costs. Is
that what you want for nuclear energy in the US?
I think it's kind of dangerous to just throw numbers around unless you understand what
they actually mean.
Ah, the wonderful "Heaters". They are situated outside EBR-1, just south of ID-20, west of
Idaho Falls, and east of Arco.
The whole of the area around there is a fascinating place to visit for a nuclear nerd like
me, plus you have the wonderful Craters of the Moon NM there too.
Other interesting places to visit are Atomic City, which has a population of around 25,
and is a weird time capsule from the '60s, plus Big Southern Butte, which is a, er, big
butte.
You can also find a gate leading off ID-20 to the north, into INL (Idaho National
Laboratory), which used to be the access road to the army's SL-1 reactor, which underwent a
steam explosion due to a core excursion in 1961, and is (as far as is admitted) the only
nuclear accident that led to immediate deaths in the US.
For a really interesting review of nuclear history read the three books by James Mahaffey.
He was a nuclear plant operator for a while, and describes the little pastime of "reactor
racing", which was seeing who could get a reactor up to nominal operating capacity in the
shortest time.
I guess that this means that Trump and his crew will make another run at Venezuela –
before the fracking industry goes down the gurgler. All of Venezuela's oil fields are like a
big box of chocolates in America's backyard. But if they try to take it, like life, you never
know what you are going to get.
Am I right in guessing that this will significantly impact forecasts of aggregate US
domestic oil production? Do we remain the global "swing" producer?
As PlutoniumKun says above, the collapse of the shale field production will be great news
for the Gulf Coast's petroleum industry. Not only is the Gulf a proven reserve, but with the
inevitable higher prices for crude oil, many more of the offshore wells will become
profitable.
The American shale collapse will also be good news for other world producers of petroleum.
OPEC will regain some of it's lost political influence.
On the down side; all forms of shipping and transportation will have a spike in per unit
costs. A canny politician could use this factor to push an onshoring of lost industrial and
manufacturing capacity. Put Americans back to work in America. That will be a winning
strategy.
Yes, well, I generally assume that the definition of "profitable" in use in the board
rooms of the giant conglomerates 'rules the day.' Until some method of 'regulating' the
actions of the board rooms of industry are brought into play, I'm afraid we are stuck with
some version of the status quo.
Just as the German usual suspects moved nations into 'Realpolitik' after the War, so too have
the modern Austrian usual suspects moved the world into 'Realeconomik.' Both have led our
best of all possible worlds into a Neoliberal Paradise.
Didn't Chesapeake Energy declare bankruptcy a good ten years ago? And then restructured
itself into a shale fracking company with the extreme help of the Obama administration? When
Obama "pivoted" away from KSA he went straight to US drillers. Allowing any hype necessary to
get the needed investments. Obama was clearly panicked. I wonder if it is possible that that
is when he learned that Aramco's reserves were only a fraction of the Saudi hype? Bin
Sawbones was subsequently allowed to provide the estimate of the worth of KSA's oil reserves
at 2 Trillion. The IPO went forward at that estimate and just today there is an article in ZH
about Aramco's actual value being much less. It looks to me like we just up and left KSA. Why
on earth would we do that unless they were running dry? And why would they have fought that
obscene war with Yemen unless they (the Saudis) were getting desperate? Secure people
generally don't do things that stupid. And the next logical question might be, How long will
Russian reserves hold up as they supply both China and the EU? The simple answer is it is all
just a question of time. We need to envision a lifestyle that is far more compatible with the
planet. Fracking was just a distraction. A farce. It would be better to own warm sox than oil
shares. And electricity is not going to help us out if we do not aggressively restrict our
use. I'd just like to know why we can't all come together and admit this one elemental
fact.
Drainage! Draaaainage, Eli, you boy! Drained dry. I'm so sorry.
Here, if you have a milkshake, and I have a milkshake, and I have a straw. There it is,
that's a straw, you see? You watching? And my straw reaches acroooooooss the room, and starts
to drink your milkshake.
I drink your milkshake! slurp I drink it up! Every day I drink the Blood of Lamb from
Bandy's tract.
The last man standing might be profitable.
Not so long ago gas was much higher I think the peak during a pre fracking cold winter was
$15 now under $3. Plus we're exporting the stuff bc us price is so far below Eu price. But us
price is clearly unstable Bc it's too low for frackers to break even, much less make
money.
It's the large fracking production that's driven price down to sub $3. Maybe foolish
investors and banks will soon stop burning $, after which price will rise towards $10 as this
happens utilities will really jump on solar bc gas will be increasingly non competitive.
Ca should refuse all utility requests to build more gas-fired generating plants existing ones
will be shut over the next decade as solar plus storage price continues falling and gas price
rises.
From graphs 2 and 3, you can see that half or more of the national oil production comes
from about 50,000 high producing wells (out of roughly 1mm total). These are of course on the
treadmill of decline and need continuous investment to be renewed.
Anyway after 2014 the national production responded to the price collapse within about a
year. This is what is somewhat different about fracking -- the short time horizon and the
outsize contribution of the "top" wells -- constant depletion and investment -- results in a
fairly fast response to the price environment.
Factor in pipeline capacity shortages come and go, affecting the share of $$ taken by the
midstream. In any case, they're losing money when the WTI price is in the $50-$60 range. What
does that mean? Great question.
So, the shale/fracking industry has ~$200bn in debt, god only knows how much market cap is
at risk on Shale and fracking alone, and it's COMPLETELY UN PREDICTABLE. And people buy
shares in this snake oil on the market? SEC sleeping? what a crock.
I suspect that shale plays like OXY, with marketwatch assigning a "beta" of (get this!)
0.99 to this stock, are fundamental misallocations of capital. In a political sense, it's a
red state SOE type play that doesn't pass snuff. I saw the entire Wood MacKenzie webinar
linked in Lambert's article, and even THEY themselves are amazed at the range of valuations
in the shale sector. No two wells can be compared truly. The webinar references when Ben
Shattuck asked a wall street analyst for their comps on some company, and Wood MacKenzie's
analysis using on the ground depletion knowledge, was 40% lower, versus a higher paid wall
street "comps" analysis!
This entire sector is SNAKE OIL, imho, not to mention the environmental degradation not on
the balance sheets. But it is politically privileged, so we must zip it.
Trump is expected to sign into law the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020
which mandates the imposition of sanctions on companies involved in Nord Stream II's
construction, but while this crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede the project since
it's already in its final stages, its importance derives in the fact that it signals extremely
strong support for the interests of the US-backed "Three Seas Initiative" whose Polish leader
has objected to this game-changing pipeline on geopolitical grounds.
***
The US Senate's
approval of the National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) 2020 means that Trump will likely
sign it into law very soon, which is troublesome for Trans-Atlantic relations because it
mandates among its many sometimes unrelated provisions the imposition of sanctions on companies
involved in Nord Stream II's construction. This crafty move isn't expected to seriously impede
the project since it's already in its final stages after Russia
secured Denmark's permission back in October to construct a crucial segment of this
pipeline through its maritime territory, which will facilitate the project's completion and
thus strengthen Russia's strategic partnership with EU-leader Germany. That outcome will likely
accelerate the ongoing rapprochement between Russia and the bloc's Western European members
that became obvious to all after Macron's successful visit
to Moscow in late August, but which is in turn compelling the US to double down on its
commitment to the Polish-led " Three
Seas Initiative " (TSI) that it envisages functioning as its wedge for retaining influence
in the strategic Central European space between those two.
The impending NDAA 2020-connected sanctions should therefore be seen as an extremely strong
signal of support for this trans-regional integration structure because they satisfy the
demands of its Polish leader for the US to impose costs upon Germany for its reinvigorated
strategic partnership with Russia. Barely reported on at the time, it's significant to mention
that a bipartisan
resolution was submitted to the House of Representatives at the end of October shortly
after Russia secured Denmark's support for Nord Stream II mandating that Congress prioritize
its support for the TSI in the aftermath of that development, with a specific focus on energy
and physical connectivity projects. The grand strategic goal that the US is aiming to achieve
is to create a so-called "cordon sanitaire" that would serve to divide Russia from Western
Europe by exploiting the preexisting animosity that the many states between them have towards
Moscow, and it will likely end up being one of the main drivers of American foreign policy
towards the continent for the foreseeable future.
In pursuit of that objective, the US is also making strategic outreaches to
Belarus , knowing very well that its wily leader Lukashenko is more than willing to
"balance" between the West and Russia in a risky attempt to extract more (mostly economic)
"concessions" from each of them. It goes without saying that this policy will probably ramp up
now that Nord Stream II is a fait accompli and the "cordon sanitaire" is more significant than
ever in the current context. That former Soviet Republic, however, is unlikely to engage in a
decisive "pivot" against Russia, though from a zero-sum standpoint, the gradual moves that it's
making towards the West can indeed be interpreted as being "mildly" against Russia's long-term
interests. Still, there isn't much that Russia can do since it must avoid the perception that
it's putting overwhelming pressure on Belarus or even plausibly considering doing so since that
notion would only accelerate the very same trend that Moscow wants to reverse. Minsk, it must
be said, recognizes how geostrategic its position is for both the Russian-led Eurasian Union
(EAU) and the Polish-led TSI, so it'll try to play them off against the other, all with the US'
passive support.
The US isn't the only Great Power spreading its influence through the TSI, as China is also
rapidly on the ascent there too. The Balkans are becoming more important of a destination for
Chinese foreign direct investment than ever through the Belt & Road
Initiative (BRI), most visibly manifesting itself in Beijing's plans to construct a
high-speed railway from the Hungarian capital of Budapest to the Greek port of Pireaus (the
"Balkan Silk Road"). It also holds yearly meetings with the leaders of the TSI countries and
others in this region through the 17+1
format that was recently expanded to include Greece (having been the 16+1 previously). In
addition, Belarus is a key node on the Eurasian Land Bridge, with China investing in the "
Great Stone " industrial
park that it envisages becoming a major export center along that route. None of this is to
imply whatsoever that China is "teaming up" with the US to "contain" Russia in Central &
Eastern Europe, but just to point out that China's infrastructure investments will greatly help
to connect the region along the north-south axis, after which the US will likely exploit these
apolitical and purely economic projects for its strategic ends vis-a-vis Russia.
Even so, while the TSI space is certainly geostrategic, its economic importance pales in
comparison to Western Europe's. The German economy alone is larger than all of those states'
combined, so Russia isn't exactly losing out in the economic sense as a result of the US' TSI
plans. It is, however, at risk of this "cordon sanitaire" being used as its rival's
trans-regional platform for putting military pressure upon it, which has already been happening
ever since most of its states joined NATO and then doubled down on their commitment to it after
the onset of the New
Cold War in 2014 following Crimea's reunification with Russia in response to the US-backed
coup in Ukraine. Poland and increasingly Greece
bookend this pro-American military structure, while Ukraine and possibly soon even Belarus
could ultimately become its eastern-most appendages by proxy. Russia still has instruments of
influence that it can leverage in an attempt to keep this trend under control, though it's
seemingly on the defensive in recent years and appears unable to gain any successes on this
front, instead choosing to concentrate on Western Europe through Nord Stream II and other
measures.
Looking forward, the rise of the TSI as the US' preferred continental proxy is all but
assured, though it's unclear whether or not it'll succeed with its fundamental purpose of
keeping Russia and Western Europe apart. Classical geopolitical thought suggesting that it
would doesn't take into consideration the much more complex nature of contemporary
International Relations whereby a conventional military clash between the TSI states and Russia
is unlikely for reasons of Mutually Assured Destruction (MAD) stemming from many of the
former's memberships in NATO, and their other memberships in the EU mean that a successful
EU-Russian detente would force them to facilitate trade between Western Europe and Russia if
even a single state vetoes the continuation of sanctions in the future. Altogether, it can
therefore be said that Russia's successful completion of Nord Stream II would flip the
strategic dynamics by once again returning Moscow to a position of strength whereas Washington
would then be the Great Power on the defensive instead. Still, the TSI's potential shouldn't be
underestimated either since it might lead to some surprises for both Western Europe and Russia
if its American patron has a few tricks up its sleeve that it's wiling to teach its regional
partners.
"... Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown on
the "Nazis"? ..."
"... I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the term
"Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic. ..."
"... What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing? ..."
"... I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain a slow-burning
conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue to avoid the Ukraine.
..."
The recent Paris summit and the few days following the summit have brought a lot of clarity about the future of the Minsk Agreements.
Short version: Kiev has officially rejected them (by rejecting both the sequence of steps and several crucial steps). For those interested,
let's look a little further.
First, what just happened
First, here are the key excerpts from the Paris Conference and from statements made by "Ze" and his superior, Arsen Avakov right
after their return to Kiev:
The Minsk agreements (Minsk Protocol of 5 September 2014, Minsk Memorandum of 19 September 2014 and the Minsk Package of Measures
of 12 February 2015) continue to be the basis of the work of the Normandy format whose member states are committed to their
full implementation ( ) The sides express interest in agreeing within the Normandy format (N4) and the Trilateral Contact
Group on all the legal aspects of the Special Order of Local Self-Government – special status – of Certain Areas of the Donetsk
and Luhansk Regions – as outlined in the Package of Measures for the Implementation of the Minsk Agreements from 2015 – in order
to ensure its functioning on a permanent basis .They consider it necessary to incorporate the "Steinmeier formula" into the Ukrainian
legislation, in accordance with the version agreed upon within the N4 and the Trilateral Contact Group.
President 'Ze' statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation) source
" The most difficult question is the question of the transfer of the border control to Ukraine. It's very funny, because
its our border and the transfer of the control to us. But, it's a weak sport, the Achilles' heel of the Minsk Agreement." "It's
what was signed by us, unfortunately. We can discuss this for a very long time. Possibly, the conditions were as such." "But we
signed that we will get the control over our border only after the elections on the temporarily occupied territories." "We dedicated
a very long time to this question, we discussed it in details, we have a very different positions with the president of
Russia ." "But this is the Minsk position, we have to understand this. I only like one thing, that we started talking about
this. We agreed that we will continue talking about this in details and with the different variations during our next meeting."
"This is also a victory, because we will have a meeting in four months."
Q. What do you think, is it possible to change the Minsk Agreement? source
" This will be very difficult to do, but we have to do it. We have to change it . First, we have to understand
that it's been over four years since the Minsk Agreement was signed. Everything changes in our life. We have to understand that
it wasn't my team that signed the Minsk Agreement, but we as a power have to fulfill the conditions that our power at the time
agreed back then. But? I am sure that some things we will be able to change. We will be changing them." "Because the transfer
of the Ukraine's border after our control only after the elections, – it's not our position. I said about this don't know how
many times, but this is the final decision ."
Arsen Avakov's statement on Ukrainian TV: (unofficial, in-house, translation):
" The philosophy of the border control the part of the border that we don't have control over is 408 kilometers. It's not that
easy to take it over, to equip it, even to get there across the enemy territories. It's a procedure. As a compromise, we offered
the following scheme: we will start taking the border under our control stating with the New Year, little by little, reducing the
length of the border that is not controlled by us, and a day before the local election we will close the border, we will close this
bottleneck. And this way will get the control over the border. Why isn't this a good compromise? Considering, that at the same time
according to the Steinmeier Formula, they have to disarm all the illegal armed formations of this pseudo-state DNR. This is how we
see the compromise."
In other words, both the official President and real President of the Ukraine agree: the Ukraine will not implement the Minsk
Agreements as written, made law by the UNSC and clarified by the so-called Steinmeier Formula.
Ukrainian propagandists on Russian TV (yes, Urkonazi and hardline nationalist propagandists do get air time on Russian TV on a
daily basis – for an explanation why, see here and here ) went into damage
control mode and explained it all away by saying " these are only words, what matters is what Zelenskii signed in Paris ".
They are wrong. First of all, statements made in their official capacity by the President or the Minister of Internal Affairs do
represent OFFICIAL policy statements. Second, this explanation completely overlooks the reason why Ze and Avakov said these things.
That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Urkonazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did, in
spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all we see
is Poroshenko 2.0.
So in the behind-the-scenes (but very real) struggle between the Zionist camp (Kolomoiskii and Zelenskii) and the Urkonazi camp
(Avakov and Poroshenko), the latter have successfully taken control of the former and now the chances for saving a unitary Ukraine
are down to, maybe not quite zero, but to something like 0.0000001% (I leave that one under the heading "never say never" and because
I have been wrong in the past).
So what happens next?
That is the interesting question. In theory, the Normandy Four will meet again in 4 months. But that assumes that some progress
was made. Well, it is possible that in a few sections of the line of contact there will be an OSCE supervised withdrawal of forces.
But, let's be honest here, the people have seen many, many such promised withdrawals, and they all turned out to be fake. Either
the Ukronazis return to the neutral zone (claiming huge victories over the (sic) "Russian armed force"), or they resume bombing civilians,
or they never even bother to change position. Any withdrawal is a good thing if it can save a single life! But no amount of withdrawals
will settle anything in this conflict.
Second, there are A LOT of Ukrainian politicians who now say that the citizens of the LDNR have to "return" to Russia if they
don't like the Urkonazi coup or its ideology. They either don't realize, or don't care, that there are very few Russian volunteers
in Novorussia and that the vast majority of the men and women who compose the LDNR forces are locals. These locals, by the way, get
the Ukie message loud and clear: you better get away while you can, because when we show up you will all be prosecuted for terrorism
and aiding terrorists, that is ALSO something the Urkonazis like to repeat day after day. By the way, while in Banderastan all Russian
TV channels are censored, and while they also try to censor the Russian language Internet, in Novorussia all the Ukrainian (and Russian)
TV stations are freely available. So as soon as some Nazi freak comes out and says something crazy like "we will create filtration
camps" (aka concentration camps) this news is instantly repeated all over Novorussia, which only strengthens the resolve of the people
of the LDNR to fight to their death rather than accept a Nazi occupation..
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not have
the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested. Whatever the case may be, it's now over, we are back
to square one.
The most likely scenario is a "slow freezing" of the conflict meaning now that Kiev has officially and overtly rejected the Minsk
Agreements, there will be some minor, pretend-negotiations, maybe, but that fundamentally the conflict will be frozen.
That will be the last nail in the coffin of the pro-EU, pro-NATO so-called "Independent Ukraine", since the most important condition
to try to salvage the Ukrainian economy, namely peace, is now gone. Furthermore, the political climate in the Ukraine will further
deteriorate (the hated Nazi minority + an even worse economic crisis are a perfect recipe for disaster).
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement. That
means that the LDNR will separate from the rump-Ukraine and, on time, rejoin Russia. Good bye Banderites and Urkonazis!
The rump-Ukraine will eventually break-up further: Crimea truly was the "jewel of the Black Sea" and its future appears to be
extremely bright while the Donbass was the biggest source of raw materials, energy, industry, high-tech, etc. etc. etc.). What is
left of the Ukraine is either poor and under-developed (the West) or needs to reopen economic ties with Russia (the South).
Besides, Zelenskii and his party are now trying to rush a new law through the Rada which will allow the sale of Ukrainian land
to private interests (aka foreign interests + a local frontman). As a result, there is now a new "maidan" brewing, pitting Iulia
Timoshenko and other nationalist leaders against Zelenskii and his party. This could become a major crisis very fast, especially
now that is appears that Zelenskii will also renege on this promise to call for a national referendum on the issue of the sale/privatization
of land .
As for the Russians, they already realize that Ze is a joke, unsurprisingly so since he is a comic by trade, and that the Ukrainians
are "not agreement capable". They will treat him like they did Poroshenko in the last years: completely ignore him and not even take
his telephone calls. Right now, there is just a tiny bit of good will left in Moscow, but it is drying up so fast that it will soon
totally disappear. Besides, the Russians really don't care that much anymore: the sanctions turned out to be a blessing, time is
on Russia's side, the Ukronazis are destroying their own state and, finally, the important stuff for Russia is happening in Asia,
not the West.
The Europeans will take a long time to come to terms with two simple facts:
Russia was never a party to this conflict (if she had, it would have been over long ago). The Ukronazis are the ones who won't implement
the Minsk Agreements
This means that the politicians who were behind the EU's backing of the Euromaidan (Merkel) will have to go before their successors
can say that, oops, we got our colors confused, and white is actually black and black turned out to be white. That's okay, politicians
are pretty good at that. The honeymoon between Kiev and Warsaw on the one hand and Berlin on the other will soon end as bad times
are ahead.
Macron looks much better, and he will probably pursue his efforts to restore semi-normal relations with Russia, for France's sake
first, but also eventually the rest of the EU. The Poles and the Balts will accuse him of "treason" and he will just ignore them.
As for Trump, he will most likely make small steps towards Russia, but most of his energy will be directed either inwards (impeachment)
or outwards (Israel), but not towards the Ukrainian conflict. Good.
Conclusion
It's over. Crimea and the Donbass are gone forever, the first is de jure , the latter merely de facto . The rump-Ukraine
is completely unconformable (barring some kind of coup followed by a government of national unity supported Moscow – I consider this
hypothesis as highly unlikely).
If you live in the West, don't expect your national media to report on any of this. They will be the LAST ones to actually admit
it (journos have a longer shelf life than politicians, it is harder for them to make a 180).
PS: to get a feeling for the kind of silly stunts the "Ze team" is now busying itself with, just check this one: they actually
tried to falsify the Ukrainian version of the Paris Communique. For details, see Scott's report here: https://thesaker.is/kiev-attempted-to-change-the-letter-and-meaning-of-paris-summit-communique/
. If the Ukraine was a Kindergarten, then "Ze" would be a perfect classroom teacher or visiting entertainer. But for a country
fighting for its survival, such stunts are a very, very bad sign indeed!
(*rump-Ukraine: In broad terms, a "rump" state is what remains of a state when a portion is carved away. Expanding on the "butcher"
metaphor, the rump is what is left when the higher-value cuts such as rib roast and loin have been removed.)
I said it many times, Zelenskii's ONLY chance was to crackdown on the Nazis as soon as he was elected. He either did not
have the courage to do so, or his U.S. bosses told him to leave them unmolested.
Are the security forces loyal to him to the extent that he could realistically counted on them to carry out a crackdown
on the "Nazis"?
For the Novorussians, it's now clear: the rump-Ukraine* does not want them, nor will Kiev ever agree to the Minsk Agreement.
So what is the Ukrainian thinking here -- that they are better off simply cutting bait on the east and letting Russia deal
with the headache of the Donbass's antiquated infrastructure? And that a truncated Ukraine would at least be mostly free of internal
pro-Russian sentiment?
I am sympathetic to a lot of what Putin has felt it necessary to do, but I must say, I don't buy the incessant use of the
term "Ukronazi." Sounds propagandistic.
What about the Ukrainian people? A large majority of them voted for some sort of reconciliation with the separatists and Russia.
They did so twice: once for Zelenskii, and once again for his party. Does that count for nothing?
I think the plan is to wait until Russia collapses from Western sanctions, and then invade Crimea and Donbass. They didn't
give up on the territory by any means, which is why I don't think that any ceasefire in Donbass will hold. It is going to remain
a slow-burning conflict, the regime will continue to complain about "Russian invasion" and international investors will continue
to avoid the Ukraine.
"That reason is very simple: Ze caved in to the Ukronazis, completely. He now uses EXACTLY the same rhetoric as Poroshenko did,
in spite of the fact that the only reason he was elected is that he presented himself as the ultimate anti-Poroshenko. Now all
we see is Poroshenko 2.0."
This is interesting. It implies z actually meant what he said in order to gain votes to get elected. In fact, he is very similar
to trump in this respect. Lied about desiring an end to the conflict (conflicts in the case of trump), but once in office continued
the aggressive policies (and expanded them in the case of trump). Actually, if one considers poroshenko as the ukraine version
of obama/clinton and zelinsky as trump, it looks like the ukrainian regime is following in the footsteps of the american regime.
It's not just Minsk that has been abandoned by the Kiev junta. Kiev itself has been abandoned by the EU, which now looks to Nordstream-2
for its energy supplies from Russia, thus bypassing the thieves in Ukraine. Even sanctions from the Supreme Sanctioner in DC is
not going to persuade the Germans to shiver in the winter.
"Nord Stream 2: Trump approves sanctions on Russia gas pipeline"
The Russians will probably finish that last segment themselves but the German reaction
will be the one to watch out for – if there is one. Without Nord Stream 2, Germany will
have to accept having a smaller economy because of insufficient energy to power it which will
have knock-on effects in taxation, revenue raising & allocation, etc.
This will make them less competitive against the US and other economies and if they are
forced to buy US gas shipments, it will play hell with their budget due to the excessive
cost. Having a US Ambassador that thinks of himself as a Proconsul of Germany has not
lessened any tensions either. So we will see if there is any German reaction.
When Russia finishes the pipeline, which is not really sure since the swiss special ships
might finish in time or might be actually needed to finish the pipeline, then why would a
reaction from Germany be needed?
If/when the pipeline is done, Germany will take the gas from it for e.g. its chemical
industry. From what I understand, the US hasn't sanctioned users of russian gas in general,
"only" companies who actively build on the pipeline, like the owner of the special ships
used.
If the US however doubles down and sanctions users of russian pipeline gas, then it will
probably have a big fight on its hand. Then not only Germany is affected but almost all EU
countries, except Poland and the Baltics of course.
Frankly, I just don't get the logic behind this move by Trump. Is he saying that he thinks
that Germany is a colony of the US and that the US gets to determine where they get their
resources? That is pretty high-handed, even for the US.
I think that's exactly what these sanctions are about. "The US considers the project a
security risk to Europe" certainly sounds colonialist, and "The Trump administration fears
the pipeline will tighten Russia's grip over Europe's energy supply and reduce its own share
of the lucrative European market for American liquefied natural gas" sounds like the USA
wants to tell Europe what to buy and where.
I'm not sure about pinning it all on Trump though: " Congress voted through the
measures as part of a defence bill last week and the legislation, which described the
pipeline as a "tool of coercion", was signed off by Mr Trump on Friday."
(Quotes from the BBC article)
Why have NATO. Do you need a military against a country that you buy gas from. You give
them enormous amounts of money and they can shut the switch at any time. Maybe we should
bring Russia into NATO to defend against aliens.
Russia asked to join NATO, but were rejected. NATO needs a bogey man enemy to justify
forcing all its members to spend 2% of GDP on US military equipment. The first thing American
arms salespersons did when the Berlin Wall fell was to head to Eastern Europe to sell
arms.
It might be high-handed, but it's not new. Variations of this game have gone on since the
80s, when the first gas exports from Russia were starting. This is an upswing in aggression,
but it's mostly a continuation of standard US policy.
I am not even sure that the increased aggression comes from Trump. It's more that gas
producers in the US are now more powerful than a decade ago (and somewhat desperate due to
low gas prices in the US), so their interests add to the old-school geopolitics.
Well Germany and EU are sure behaving as if they are colonies. Zero fight for what is good
for EU. Think Russia sanctions. Hurt only EU, not US and a little bit Russia, which now have
moved to produce themselves the stuff EU was selling to Russia. EU has screwed itself on the
long-term by order from the US. US is not Europe's friend, but is making sure that it gets
weaker and cannot offer an alternative, economical, social or military.
If you want to amuse yourself you can see the ships here :
They appear to be returning to port. Were last working just to the SSE of Bornholm (the
Danish island).
Here is a gazprom map of the route as of Oct .
Most of the remaining route, the segment in German EEZ waters going in the southwest directon
from Bornholm, is shallow water.
I keep wondering when Europe will decide to throw off the shackles. A complicating factor
may be history: they'd rather an American master, mostly far away, than a German one.
Didn't we interfere with Japanese oil supplies once? For large values of happy, I can say
I'm happy with synopsizing the result of World War 2 as being about 'Who had the most oil?' I
feel like we are now vaporizing so many kinds of capital to maintain energy dominance. Can
the US please stop fighting WWII sometime before WWIII
HB. I have used leases developed in our field in the past ten years to demonstrate that shale
is high cost. Again, rule of thumb the cost of a conventional well in our field is
approximately 1/100 of a shale oil well ($70K range v $7 million range).
Here are some examples with production through 10/31/19:
8 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative BO 83,466. YTD BO 2,085. First production
4/2003.
10 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative BO 116,065. YTD BO 2089. First production
9/2005.
10 producers 4 injection wells. Cumulative Bo 55,595. YTD BO 3,023. First production
3/2006.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 37,418. YTD BO 1,289. First production
8/2008.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative BO 42,494. YTD BO 2,328. First production
10/2008.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 19,216. YTD BO 1,220. First production
12/2010.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative BO 46,463. YTD BO 1,877. First production
8/2011.
4 producers 2 injection wells. Cumulative BO 10,700. YTD BO 634. First production
10/2011.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative 59,592 BO. YTD 4,956 BO. First production
11/2011.
1 producer. Water disposed of in adjoining lease. Cumulative BO 7,872. YTD BO 444 BO.
First production 5/2012.
8 producers 3 injection wells. Cumulative 56,500 BO. YTD 3,858 BO. First production
6/2012.
4 producers 1 injection well. Cumulative BO 11,758. YTD BO 1,457. First production
6/2013.
2 producers. Water disposed of on adjoining lease. Cumulative 3,524 BO. YTD BO 393. First
production 11/2013.
6 producers Two injection wells. Cumulative 25,988 BO. YTD 3,233 BO. First production
9/2014.
Figure in anywhere from $60K-80K to drill, complete and equip each well including
electric, flow and/or injection lines. Figure another $20-30K for a tank battery.
Assume anywhere from 12.5 to 20 percent royalty.
Of course, some projects do better than others. But compare this to shaleprofile.com
wells.
There was very little drilling in our field from 1987 to 2003. There has been very little
since 2015. Century plus year old stripper field.
There have also been many reclamation projects in our field during 2005-2014 of abandoned
wells wherein the producers went bust in the 1990s, with 1998 being a knockout blow.
We took over 2 wells drilled in the 1950s they were abandoned in 1998. We just had to
equip them and build a new tank battery. We also took over three wells also drilled in the
1950s where we had to do the same, plus plug the injection well and convert one producer to
an injector. These work well at $55-65 WTI also.
I can also point to many projects developed in our field in the 1980s where cumulative per
well has topped 40K BO to date.
Conventional oil is a much better deal than shale usually when you can find it. And also
when you aren't trying to pay for 8 figure CEO pay, skyscrapers and jets out of it.
Shale just has the scale. Huge scale. Worldwide game changing size.
Shallow, I can't thank you enough. Alot to digest here. My first glance gave me the feeling
shale drilling dollars are about half as productive. Maybe you have a better number.
When a new field is drilled, is it always under pressure without the cost of lifting it
from the hole? Then once the pressure is exhausted it becomes a stripper?
A lot of the Huntington Beach field lays under the ocean. There is over a mile long row of
wells along the shoreline. I'm assuming they go horizontal under the ocean. Only a few wells
have lift Jacks. Can strippers wells go horizontal?
There isn't enough down hole pressure here for natural flow. Everything goes on pumping unit
immediately and injection wells are also drilled at the same time as production wells.
To put into perspective, the field was originally drilled over 100 years ago. Waterflood
was initiated on a large scale right after WW2. Many wells were plugged in the late
1960s-early 1970s when oil prices were low. The field was redrilled in the late 1970s –
early 1980s. Little activity after 1986, until prices took off during the Iraq War.
For example, we operate a lease that was originally drilled in the 1950s. It was plugged
out in 1972. In 1979-81, all of the plugged wells were drilled out (casing had not been
pulled). New injection wells were drilled.
Cumulative from 9 producing wells since 1979 is over 140K BO with production currently at
5.5 BOPD. It is difficult to tell what these wells produced from 1953-1972, because they were
part of a larger unitized waterflood project. Our guess is around 200-250K BO during that
time frame.
Only a small company would be interested in 9 wells making 5.5 BOPD, but they have been
economic even during the worst part of 2016 (barely during Q1 – 2016).
There haven't been HZ wells drilled in the shallow zones (1,500' and below). However,
there has been some success with 1,800'-5,000' TVD hz wells. Not sure of the economics.
There has been success with slick water fracks in deeper vertical wells also.
No way. It's already here, and there will be no rebound. BTW I did carefully read your
comments above Dennis and thank you for your time to respond. As always, your responses are
significantly better than what my caustic remarks deserve.
As has been said many times, money does not equal geology. Even if a new tranche of
'investment' could be begged, borrowed, or stolen (likely stolen) it would be spent to build
new drilling equipment, pay for new leases/roads/infrastructure, with all of it into new
wells that will produce less than any before them. If inflation is a factor (and it is), the
borrowed & eventually defaulted upon money will buy less than before.
Shale started bad, and it will stay bad. No shale well was a gusher instead, they all
needed huge horsepower, millions of gallons of water, hundreds of tons of sand, and lots of
investment dollars just to get started. None of these were ever a Texas gusher. To me, this
is no business model to follow, it is a debacle.
We have seen hundreds of shale companies go bankrupt over the last couple of years. Going
forward, there won't be hundreds of bankruptcies because there won't be hundreds of shalies
to go bankrupt. Like the motorcar companies of old, it'll go from dozens of market
participants to a handful through M&A and bankruptcies. There is still plenty of surface
carnage to come and it is far from over. Bear in mind, this is largely the same crowd that
kept exclaiming a dropping 'breakeven' price from 2010 forward, to the point where $20 was
wildly shouted from the rooftops (particularly from John Mauldin) as the point of
profitability. Of course, none of it was true. Now we see at long last that $60 (and probably
$75) was the true breakeven point. Lots of C-suite executives should be in jail for their
malfeasance, but of course none are and with the exception of Aubrey McClendon, all of them
are still 'at large'.
So with all this in mind and to round off a long screech, I summarize by saying that 2019
is peak shale.
The small companies, which have gotten only B class land will have to reduce, leading the
decline.
The bigger ones can continue to grow to a certain amount – but using up their A
class land. Especially all non-Permian will see this very soon and start declining. So
Permian growth soon will not be enough to keep up all shale decline – and this at the
cost of the Permian Tier A claims.
Oil production from shale will have a long future if prices settle at 100$ – but
with worse land it will just not be a bit boom.
A boom means high drilling everything costs, in a long calm era everything has more normal
prices (why should a truck driver carrying fertiliser to farm tows earn much less than a
truck driver delivering sand to a hole). And so finally some money can be earned in the oil
spot.
If the Democrats take over and get more green, taxes on oil production will be increased
anyway, and tax credits cut – so more calm drilling anyway. This is a big "if", I don't
know how the D – R battle stands now.
" The golden age of U.S. shale is far from over, with an expected slowdown in the Permian
Basin likely to be temporary, according to the new U.S. Energy Secretary.
The shale boom helped transform the U.S. into a net exporter of crude and petroleum
products in September from a major importer a decade ago. Even as growth is set to slow next
year in the Permian and elsewhere as drillers respond to investor demands for capital
restraint, Dan Brouillette said the shale boom has further to run."
Permian Drillers Are Struggling To Keep Output Flat
Newer wells in the Permian see their oil and gas production declining much faster than
older wells, and operators will need to drill a large number of wells just to keep current
production levels, an IHS Markit analysis showed on Thursday.
IHS Markit has analyzed what it calls the "base decline" rate, calculating the actual or
expected production of all the operating wells at the start of the year and tracking their
cumulative decline by the end of the year. Over the past decade, the base decline rate of
the more than 150,000 producing oil and gas wells in the Permian has "increased
dramatically," according to the analysis.
Your article goes into a lot of depth. I noticed these statements:
"The main driver of Legacy Loss is Total Production, which is logical.
In Permian, higher Initial Production (IPt) increased legacy loss, probably because new wells
deplete faster than old wells"
New wells depleting fasting than old wells partly explains why the monthly legacy loss
keeps increasing from month to month. It's now close to 600kbd/month, according to EIA
DPR.
The chart below from the article shows Jan 2015 as Peak Shale No 1 as legacy loss was
above new monthly shale production. The author says when "red line gets above new monthly
initial production then that's Peak Shale No 2", which might happen as soon as early 2020.
This is shown by the dashed line "IPt minus Legacy Loss" reaching zero, which means Peak
Shale No 2. The author says that this could happen if WTI stays at $55.
The basic premise is that productivity per completion has stalled, and there is no longer
a huge overhang of cheap frac spreads keeping the frac market oversupplied.
And what, Dennis? How, pray tell, will 17 million horsepower -and other infrastructure
including manpower – magically re-appear in 2020 and inflate another peak? With
existing shale finances in the tank, $300 billion of already accumulated and un-repayable
debt, and Wall Street financiers demanding repayment on their investments, your
prognostication for a rebound has a tinge of 'wildly unrealistic' about it.
ExxonMoble boe per day is 2.25 millon and has a market value of $300 billion. The tight oil
shale play over the last decade has increased production 7 million bpd. Is $300 billion of
debt really out of line? Do you have CFO experience with a multi-billion dollar company?
In the trucking industry the major freight companies running 24/7 turn their tractor fleet
over on a 5 year rotation receiving 20 cents on the dollar at retirement. Ready mix trucks
are turned over after 10 years rotation at 20 cents or less on the dollar running 12/5. When
the business environment is good. It's easy to delay retirement a little to meet demand. When
times are difficult, the old trucks sit in the yard and can be stripped for parts.
I have to question your hair on fire comment. Do you know the life expectancy of a
drilling rig for a large corporation ? The related article is talking about retiring 10
percent. That's a 10 year rotation. Maybe replacement is just cost efficient verses down
time. The big boys don't work on the same time frame as the little guy.
HB. $300 billion divided by 7 million comes to over $42,000 per barrel of debt. IMO that
is a high level of debt unless oil prices recover to 2011-14 levels.
Only the best oil production is selling for that in our part of the world and that is
production with a decline rate of 3% per year or less.
Regarding XOM, keep in mind that includes not just the upstream, but the midstream and
down stream, both of which are substantial.
XOM also has substantial international upstream assets which are generating substantial
cash flow at $60s Brent.
The only reason there is any production of shale oil at all is that there is a combination of
cheap money and a plethora of desperate investors starved for yield. Well guess what, the
investors want a return on their investment and the cheap money is drying up. So, artificial
life support is being withdrawn and the patient is now expected to get off the emergency room
gurney and start working for his keep. We shall see how that turns out.
This whole exercise in perfidy is much like Uber, that has never made a profit to date,
and yet was supported by billions of investor dollars. The whole ignominious affair put
hundreds of thousands of cabbies into destitution and bankruptcy, i.e those who didn't enjoy
the largess of investors willing to put up with loss-making operations for years on end.
Uber and Shale; the twin shitstorms of inequity, capital misalocation, and widespread
collateral damage to their respective proximal markets.
I agree with your concerns Mike. It seems to me that debt will be accumulated in the system
until it needs to be defaulted on. The governments of the world have become expert on kicking
the can down the road.
But that path will end one day, perhaps suddenly. Default will come via one of several
mechanisms- currency devaluation and debt write-off, for example. Whatever method, it will
severely hurt those who were expecting pensions or government payments (Medicare/SS), or to
live on savings or investment yield. These things will be massively de-valuated. Negative
interest rates you have been hearing about are just the early symptom of this process. A
president who cannot release his tax returns because he has a long pattern of committing
severe financial crimes, is another. The extreme accumulation of wealth among the super
wealthy is yet another.
I have given up expecting a 'fair' or rational game.
The EIA has December 2019 C+C production at 12.99 million bpd. They have December 2020 at
13.28 million bpd. That is an increase, December to December of .29 million bpd. Quite a
comedown from the over 2 million bpd increase in 2018.
HB. The problem with shale is that it is expensive oil, despite what companies such as XOM
and CVX put out publicly. However, it has a big advantage in that it is onshore, USA.
I think part of the reason that XOM, CVX, COP, MRO and other companies with worldwide
operations keep at it is because it is onshore lower 48.
I remember when everything that these companies were doing was international. It required
employees to live in some less than desirable places. Recall the stories I have related here
about employees of these companies having less than 24 hours to leave Libya, or being herded
out of the office in Venezuela at gunpoint.
Working offshore can't be a picnic. Also, the liability is great, see BP's disaster.
The management and employees want shale to work very badly. And it does at a high enough
oil price. Unfortunately, the price hasn't been there since 2014. But they keep making stuff
up because they don't want to be sent back to the Middle East and other tough places, or work
offshore deepwater.
But what has been bad for the companies has been great for consumers. I can't believe how
much Bernie and Elizabeth ignore the benefit shale has been to the US economy.
What would have happened without US going from less than 5 million BOPD to almost 13
million in eleven years? I suspect a lot of bad things. My primary beef is that the companies
lie about what price they need for shale to work and completed too many wells when prices
were low.
I think maybe shale is finally figuring out they need above my preferred $55-65 WTI
price band. We have been slightly below that and it appears things are really slowing
down.
Also lots of Goldman Sachs charts, with the one below showing a peak plateau from 2022 to
2025. The legend is missing 3 shale plays. The bottom dark blue is Delaware (Permian),
Midland (Permian) above and Bakken, the grey.
The new US defense bill, agreed on by both parties, includes sanctions on executives of companies involved in the completion
of Nordstream 2. This is companies involved in laying the remaining pipe, and also companies involved in the infrastructure around
the arrival point.
This could include arrest of the executives of those companies, who might travel to the United States. One of the companies
is Royal Dutch Shell, who have 80,000 employees in the United States.
Some people believe 'the market' for crude oil is a fair and effective arbiter of the industry supply and demand.
But if we step back an inch or two, we all can see it has been a severely broken mechanism during this up phase in oil.
For example, there has been long lags between market signals of shortage or surplus.
Disruptive policies and mechanisms such as tariffs, embargo's, and sanctions, trade bloc quotas, military coups and popular revolutions,
socialist agendas, industry lobbying, multinational corporate McCarthyism, and massively obese debt financing, are all examples
of forces that have trumped an efficient and transparent oil market.
And yet, the problems with the oil market during this time of upslope will look placid in retrospect, as we enter the time beyond
peak.
I see no reason why it won't turn into a mad chaotic scramble.
We had a small hint of what this can look like in the last mid-century. The USA responded to military expansionism of Japan by
enacting an oil embargo against them. The response was Pearl Harbor. This is just one example of many.
How long before Iran lashes out in response to their restricted access to the market?
People generally don't respond very calmly to involuntary restriction on food, or energy, or access to the markets for these things.
President Trump is expected to sign legislation into law
AllSeas Group SA
said it would halt operations on the Nord Stream 2 pipeline from Russia to Germany on
expectations the U.S. Congress will pass legislation to sanction companies working on the
project, which critics say will bind Europe more tightly to Moscow.
The contractor said in a two-line statement it would suspend work "in anticipation of the
enactment of the National Defense Authorization Act."
... ... ...
Texas Republican Senator Ted Cruz, the main Senate sponsor of the sanctions,
wrote a letter with Wisconsin Senator Ron Johnson to AllSeas Chief Executive Officer Edward
Heerema Wednesday warning the company that it would face "crushing and potentially fatal"
sanctions if it continued work on the pipeline.
"The consequences of your company continuing to do the work -- for even a single day after
the President signs the sanctions legislation -- would expose your company to crushing and
potentially fatal legal and economic sanctions," they wrote.
Good article, I believe it will not only be related to US shale oil quality but also a more
or less collapse in US shale , to use the shale pioneer Mark Papas words from 2019 " the best
in US shale is behind " but the investors choose to not believe him as it not fits with what
the shale producers had presented them. Perhaps this time wall street will learn a lesson
that might be quite exspensive. I am waiting for how much Exxon will write down of their
assets in Permian, that might be higher than Chevron have annonsed.
Tight oil output will not increase as much as forecast by IEA and OPEC so it is not likely a
refining wall at the World level will be be reached. As to demand outrunning supply, when
that occurs oil prices will rise to a level that demand is destroyed to the point that supply
will equal consumption as it must over the long term. Demand (consumption) cannot be higher
than supply (output) for very long as stocks cannot be less than zero plus pipeline fill and
minimum storage tank levels needed to keep the overall refinery and distribution system
functioning. Oil prices will rise from 2020 to 2030, of that we can be sure, unless a severe
World recession occurs (I expect this to begin in 2030+/-2 years and last for 2 to 4 years if
World economists remember their Keynesian economics, otherwise it could be 5 to 7 years, if
nonsense like fiscal austerity in the face of severe recessions is recommended and we are
foolish enough to forget the lessons of 1929-1933.)
Oil quality is not the way to address or label the issue. Quality is a word traditionally
used in oil to describe sulphur content, not a scarcity of middle distillates in the yield.
Needs a different word.
Further, from the article, diesel is not the consumption growth heavy constituent. It's
jet fuel. Up 3.7% last year. Gasoline was up almost 1%.
"... Given decreasing money available to shale oil, declining frac spread counts and falling rig counts, I now guess that US peak oil month is Nov 2019. Permian oil production should continue increasing slowly but it's not enough to offset falling production from other shale basins and other conventional oil basins. ..."
EIA STEO says US oil production in 2019 is 12.25 mbd. That means that IHS is forecasting
12.69 mbd in 2020. This 0.44 mbd growth is assumed to come from the 7 US shale regions on EIA
DPR. In 2019, shale region production was 8.60 mbd. 2020 shale region production is forecast
to be 9.04 mbd, after 0.44 mbd growth. EIA DPR says that Jan 2020 shale region production is
9.14 mbd which is greater than 9.04 mbd which means that IHS 0.44 mbd 2020 growth implies
that a US peak oil is happening about now.
IHS says that modest growth is expected in 2022, but they don't quantify how much growth.
I believe this sentence was added because IHS does not want to be accused of implying US oil
production has peaked. Dan Yergin, vice chair of IHS, founded CERA in 1982 which is now owned
by IHS. Dan Yergin "clearly doesn't care about converting peak oilers. He really wants to
influence Washington." In other words, IHS says modest growth in 2022, to please Washington
politicians. US shale growth might increase in 2022, even with higher oil prices, but I'm
guessing it won't. http://transitionvoice.com/2011/09/whos-afraid-of-daniel-yergin/
Given decreasing money available to shale oil, declining frac spread counts and
falling rig counts, I now guess that US peak oil month is Nov 2019. Permian oil production
should continue increasing slowly but it's not enough to offset falling production from other
shale basins and other conventional oil basins.
Price of oil does have problem that will play out over next 6-8 months. Without a trade war
and Brexit hanging over markets. There isn't a whole lot of reason to be holding government
bonds which yield next to nothing or less than nothing in some cases. Fed is buying bills so
Repo market won't implode into another 2008. Only problem is they need to be buying coupons
or treasuries also. They are buying some treasuries but it's not near enough to hold interest
rates down. Yields on debt are going to rise without something like a trade war holding them
down. That is a problem if your long oil.
Keep an eye on 10 year US treasuries. If they become just a little less liquid and yields
rise as i believe they will. These OPEC cuts aren't going to mean as much as some might
think.
"... One key, yet often overlooked, player behind the push to prevent a full U.S. troop withdrawal in Syria in order to "keep the oil" was current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield ..."
"... Over the course of his long diplomatic career, Satterfield has been known to the U.S. government as an Israeli intelligence asset embedded in the U.S. State Department. Indeed, Satterfield was named as a major player in what is now known as the AIPAC espionage scandal, also known as the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, although he was oddly never charged for his role after the intervention of his superiors at the State Department in the George W. Bush administration. ..."
"... WINEP's close association with AIPAC, which has spied on the U.S. on behalf of Israel several times in the past with no consequence, combined with Jeffrey's long-time acquaintance with key U.S. figures in Iraq, such as McGurk, provided an ideal opening for Israel in Iraq. Following the implementation of Jeffrey's plan, Israeli imports of KRG oil constituted 77 percent of Israel's total oil imports during the KRG's occupation of Kirkuk. ..."
"... the role played by the U.S. Israel lobby in this capacity, particularly in terms of orchestrating oil sale agreements for Israel's benefit, is hardly exclusive to Iraq and can accurately be described as a repeated pattern of behavior. ..."
The outsized role of U.S. Israel lobby operatives in abetting the theft of Syrian and Iraqi oil reveals how this
powerful lobby also facilitates more covert aspects of U.S.-Israeli cooperation and the implementation of policies that
favor Israel.
Kirkuk, Iraq
--
"We want to bring our soldiers home. But we did leave soldiers
because we're keeping the oil," President Trump stated on November 3, before adding, "I like oil. We're keeping the
oil."
Though he had promised a withdrawal of U.S. troops from their illegal occupation of Syria, Trump shocked many with
his blunt admission that troops were being left behind to prevent Syrian oil resources from being developed by the
Syrian government and, instead, kept in the hands of whomever the U.S. deemed fit to control them, in this case, the
U.S.-backed Kurdish-majority militia known as the Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF).
Though Trump himself received all of the credit -- and the scorn -- for this controversial new policy, what has been
left out of the media coverage is the fact that key players in the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby played a major role in its
creation with the purpose of selling Syrian oil to the state of Israel. While recent developments in the Syrian conflict
may have hindered such a plan from becoming reality, it nonetheless offers a telling example of the covert role often
played by the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby in shaping key elements of U.S. foreign policy and closed-door deals with major
regional implications.
Indeed, the Israel lobby-led effort to have the U.S. facilitate the sale of Syrian oil to Israel is not an isolated
incident given that, just a few years ago, other individuals connected to the same pro-Israel lobby groups and Zionist
neoconservatives manipulated both U.S. policy and Iraq's Kurdish Regional Government (KRG) in order to allow Iraqi oil
to be sold to Israel without the approval of the Iraqi government. These designs, not unlike those that continue to
unfold in Syria, were in service to longstanding neoconservative and Zionist efforts to balkanize Iraq by strengthening
the KRG and weakening Baghdad.
After the occupation of Iraq's Nineveh Governorate by ISIS (June 2014-October 2015), the Kurdistan Regional
Government (KRG) took advantage of the Iraqi military's retreat and, amidst the chaos, illegally seized Kirkuk on June
12. Their claim to the city was supported by both the U.S. and Israel and, later, the U.S.-led coalition targeting ISIS.
This gave the KRG control, not only of Iraq's export pipeline to Turkey's Ceyhan port, but also to Iraq's largest oil
fields.
Israel imported massive amounts of oil from the Kurds during this period, all without the consent of Baghdad. Israel
was also the
largest customer of oil
sold by ISIS, who used Kurdish-controlled Kirkuk to sell oil in areas of Iraq and Syria
under its control. To do this in ISIS-controlled territories of Iraq, the oil was sent first to the Kurdish city of
Zakho near the Turkey border and then into Turkey, deceptively labeled as oil that originated from Iraqi Kurdistan. ISIS
did nothing to impede the KRG's own oil exports even though they easily could have given that the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export
pipeline passed through areas that ISIS had occupied for years.
In retrospect, and following
revelations from Wikileaks
and new information regarding the background of relevant actors, it has been revealed
that much of the covert maneuvering behind the scenes that enabled this scenario intimately involved the United States'
powerful pro-Israel lobby. Now, with a similar scenario unfolding in Syria, efforts by the U.S.' Israel lobby to
manipulate U.S. foreign policy in order to shift the flow of hydrocarbons for Israel's benefit can instead be seen as a
pattern of behavior, not an isolated incident.
"Keep the oil" for Israel
After recent shifts in the Trump administration in its Syria policy, U.S. troops have controversially been kept in
Syria to "
keep
the oil
," with U.S. military officials subsequently claiming that doing so was "a subset of the counter-ISIS
mission." However, Secretary of Defense Mark Esper
later claimed
that another factor behind U.S. insistence on guarding Syrian oil fields was to prevent the extraction
and subsequent sale of Syrian oil by either the Syrian government or Russia.
One key, yet often overlooked, player behind the push to prevent a full U.S. troop withdrawal in Syria in order to
"keep the oil" was current U.S. ambassador to Turkey, David Satterfield. Satterfield was previously the assistant
secretary of state for Near Eastern Affairs, where he yielded great influence over U.S. policy in both Iraq and Syria
and worked closely with Brett McGurk, the former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran and later special
presidential envoy for the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" coalition.
Over the course of his long diplomatic career, Satterfield has been known to the U.S. government as an Israeli
intelligence asset embedded in the U.S. State Department. Indeed, Satterfield was named as a major player in what is now
known as the AIPAC espionage scandal, also known as the Lawrence Franklin espionage scandal, although he was oddly never
charged for his role after the intervention of his superiors at the State Department in the George W. Bush
administration.
David
Satterfield, left, arrives in Baghdad with Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, right, and Joey Hood, May 7, 2019. Mandel
Ngan | AP
In 2005, federal prosecutors cited a U.S. government official as
having illegally passed
classified information
to Steve Rosen, then working for AIPAC, who then passed that information to the Israeli
government. That classified information included intelligence on Iran and the nature of U.S.-Israeli intelligence
sharing. Subsequent media reports from the
New York Times
and other outlets revealed that this government
official was none other than David Satterfield, who was then serving as Principal Deputy Assistant Secretary for Near
East Affairs.
Charges against Rosen, as well as his co-conspirator and fellow AIPAC employee Keith Weissman, were dropped in 2009
and no charges were levied against Satterfield after State Department officials shockingly claimed that Satterfield had
"acted within his authority" in leaking classified information to an individual working to advance the interests of a
foreign government. Richard Armitage, a neoconservative ally with
a long history
of ties to CIA covert operations in the Middle East and elsewhere,
has since claimed
that he was one of Satterfield's main defenders in conversations with the FBI during this time
when he was serving as Deputy Secretary of State.
The other government official named in the indictment, former Pentagon official Lawrence Franklin, was not so lucky
and was charged under the Espionage Act in 2006. Satterfield, instead of being censured for his role in leaking
sensitive information to a foreign government, was subsequently promoted in 2006 to serve as the Coordinator for Iraq
and Senior Adviser to then-Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice.
In addition to his history of leaking classified information to AIPAC, Satterfield also has a longstanding
relationship with the Washington Institute for Near East Policy, a controversial spin-off of AIPAC also known by its
acronym WINEP. WINEP's website has long listed Satterfield as
one of its experts
and Satterfield has spoken at several WINEP events and policy forums, including several
after his involvement
with the AIPAC espionage scandal became public knowledge. However, despite his longstanding
and controversial ties to the U.S. pro-Israel lobby, Satterfield's current relationship with some elements of that
lobby, such as the Zionist Organization of America (ZOA), is complicated at best.
While Satterfield's role in yet another reversal of a promised withdrawal of U.S. troops from Syria has largely
escaped media scrutiny, another individual with deep ties to the Israel lobby and Syrian "rebel" groups has also been
ignored by the media, despite his outsized role in taking advantage of this new U.S. policy for Israel's benefit.
US Israel Lobby secures deal with Kurds
Earlier this year, well before Trump's new Syria policy of "keeping the oil" had officially taken shape, another
individual with deep ties to the U.S. Israel lobby secured a lucrative agreement with U.S.-backed Kurdish groups in
Syria.
An official document
issued earlier this year by the Syrian Democratic Council (SDC), the political arm of the
Kurdish majority and U.S.-backed Syrian Democratic Forces (SDF), a New Jersey-based company,
founded and run
by U.S.-Israeli dual citizen Mordechai "Motti" Kahana, was given control of the oil in territory held by the SDC.
Per the document, the SDC formally accepted the offer from Kahana's company -- Global Development Corporation (GDC) --
to represent SDC in all matters pertaining to the sale of oil extracted in territory it controls and also grants GDC
"the right to explore and develop oil that is located in areas we govern."
The
SDC's formal acceptance of Global Development Corporation's offer to develop Syrian oil fields. Source |
Al-Akhbar
The document also states that the amount of oil then being produced in SDC-controlled areas was 125,000 barrels per
day and that they anticipated that this would increase to 400,000 barrels per day and that this oil is considered a
foreign asset under the control of the United States by the U.S. Department of the Treasury.
After the document was made public by the Lebanese outlet
Al-Akhbar
, the SDC claimed that it was a forgery,
even though Kahana had
separately
confirmed
its contents and shared the letter itself to the
Los Angeles Times
as recently as a few weeks
ago. Kahana previously attempted to distance himself from the effort and
told the Israeli newspaper
Israel Hayom
in July that he had made the offer to the SDC as means to prevent
the "Assad regime" of Syria from obtaining revenue from the sale of Syrian oil.
The Kurds currently hold 11 oil wells in an area controlled by the [Syrian] Democratic Forces. The overwhelming
majority of Syrian oil is in that area. I don't want this oil reaching Iran, or the Assad regime."
At the time, Kahana also stated that "the moment the Trump administration gives its approval, we can begin to export
this oil at fair prices."
Given that Kahana has openly confirmed that he is representing the SDC's oil business shortly after Trump's adoption
of the controversial "keep the oil policy," it seems plausible that Kahana has now received the approval needed for his
company to export the oil on behalf of the SDC. Several media reports
have speculated
that, if Kahana's efforts go forward unimpeded, the Syrian oil will be sold to Israel.
However, considering Turkey's aversion to engaging in any activities that may benefit the PKK-SDF – there are
considerable obstacles to Kahana's plans. While the SDF -- along with assistance from U.S. troops -- still controls
several oil fields in Syria, experts assert that they can only realistically sell the oil to the Syrian government. Not
even the Iraqi Kurds are a candidate, considering Baghdad's firm control over the Iraq-Syria border and the KRG's
weakened state after its failed independence bid in late 2017.
Regardless, Kahana's involvement in this affair is significant for a few reasons. First, Kahana has been a key player
in the promotion and funding of radical groups in Syria and has even been
caught hiring
so-called "rebels" to kidnap Syrian Jews and take them to Israel against their will. It was Kahana,
for instance, who financed and orchestrated the now infamous trip of the late Senator John McCain to Syria, where he met
with Syrian "rebels" including Khalid al-Hamad – a "moderate" rebel who gained notoriety after a video of him eating the
heart of a Syrian Army soldier
went viral online
. McCain had also
admitted meeting
with ISIS members, though it is unclear if he did so on this trip or another trip to Syria.
In addition, Kahana was also the mastermind behind the "Caesar" controversy, whereby a Syrian using the pseudonym
"Caesar" was brought to the U.S. by Kahana and went on to make claims regarding torture and other crimes allegedly
committed by the Assad-led government Syria, claims which were
later discredited
by independent analysts. He was also
very involved
in Israel's failed efforts to establish a "safe zone" in Southern Syria as a means of
covertly expanding Israel's territory
from the occupied Golan Heights and into Quneitra.
Notably, Kahana has deep ties -- not just to efforts to overthrow the Syrian government -- but also to U.S. Israel
lobby, including the Washington Institute for Near East Policy (WINEP) where Satterfield is as an expert. For instance,
Kahana was a key player in
a 2013 symposium
organized by WINEP along with Syrian opposition groups intimately involved in the arming of so-called "rebels." One of
the other participants in the symposium alongside Kahana was Mouaz Moustafa, director of the "Syrian Emergency Task
Force" who assisted Kahana in bringing McCain to Syria in 2013. Moustafa
was
listed
as a WINEP expert on the organization's website but was later mysteriously deleted.
Kahana is also intimately involved with the Israeli American Council (IAC), a pro-Israel lobby organization, as
a team member
of its national conference. IAC was co-founded and is chaired by
Adam Milstein
, a multimillionaire and convicted felon who is also on the boards of AIPAC, StandWithUs, Birthright
and other prominent pro-Israel lobby organizations. One of IAC's top donors is Sheldon Adelson, who is also the top
donor to President Trump as well as the entire Republican Party.
Though the machinations of both Kahana and Satterfield to guide U.S. policy in order to manipulate the flow of
Syria's hydrocarbons for Israel's benefit may seem shocking to some, this same tactic of pro-Israel lobbyists using the
Kurds to illegally sell a country's oil to Israel was developed a few years prior, not in Syria, but Iraq. Notably, the
individuals responsible for that policy in Iraq shared connections to several of the same pro-Israel lobby organizations
as both Satterfield and Kahana, suggesting that their recent efforts in Syria are not an isolated event, but a pattern.
War against ISIS is a war for oil
In
an email
dated June 15, 2014, James Franklin Jeffrey (former Ambassador to Iraq and Turkey and current U.S. Special
Representative for Syria) revealed to Stephen Hadley, a former George Bush administration advisor then working at the
government-funded United States Institute of Peace, his intent to advise the KRG in order to sustain Kirkuk's oil
production. The plan, as Jeffery described it, was to supply both the Kurdistan province with oil and allow the export
of oil via Kirkuk-Ceyhan to Israel, robbing Iraq of its oil and strengthening the country's Kurdish region along with
its regional government's bid for autonomy.
Jeffrey,
whose hawkish views on Iran and Syria are well-known
, mentioned that Brett McGurk, the U.S.' main negotiator between
Baghdad and the KRG, was acting as his liaison with the KRG. McGurk, who had served in various capacities in Iraq under
both Bush and Obama, was then also serving Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for Iraq and Iran. A year later, he would
be made the special presidential envoy for the U.S.-led "anti-ISIS" coalition and, as previously mentioned, worked
closely with David Satterfield.
James
Jeffrey, left, meets with Kurdish Regional Government President Massoud Barzani, April 8, 2011, at an airport in
Irbil, Iraq. Chip Somodevilla | AP
Jeffrey was then a private citizen not currently employed by the government and was used as a non-governmental
channel in the pursuit of the plans described in the leaked emails published by WikiLeaks. Jeffrey's behind-the-scenes
activities with regards to the KRG's oil exports were done clandestinely, largely because he was then employed by a
prominent arm of the U.S.' pro-Israel lobby.
At the time of the email, Jeffrey was serving
as a
distinguished fellow
(2013-2018) at WINEP. As previously mentioned, WINEP is a pro-Israel foreign policy think-tank
that espouses neoconservative views and was created in 1985 by researchers
that had hastily left AIPAC to escape investigations
against the organization that were related to some of its
members conducting espionage on behalf of Israel. AIPAC, the American Israeli Public Affairs Committee, is the largest
registered Israel lobbyist organization in the US (albeit registration under the Foreign Agents Registration Act would
be more suitable), and, in addition to the 1985 incident that led to WINEP's creation, has had members indicted for
espionage against the U.S. on Israel's behalf.
WINEP's launch was funded by former President of the Jewish Federation of Los Angeles, Barbara Weinberg, who is its
founding president and constant Chairman Emerita. Nicknamed 'Barbi', she is the wife of the late Lawrence Weinberg who
was President of AIPAC from 1976-81 and who JJ Goldberg, author of the 1997 book
Jewish Power,
referred to as
one of a select few individuals
who essentially dominated AIPAC regardless of its elected leadership.
Co-founder alongside Weinberg was Martin
Indyk. Indyk, U.S. Ambassador to Israel (1995-97) and Assistant Secretary of State for Near Eastern Affairs (1997-99),
led the AIPAC research time that formed WINEP to escape the aforementioned investigations.
WINEP
has
historically
received funding from
donors
who donate
to causes of special interest for Zionism and Israel. Among its trustees are extremely prominent names in political
Zionism and funders of other Israel Lobby organizations, such as
Charles and Edgar Bronfman
and
the Chernicks
.
Its
membership
remains dominated by individuals who have spent their careers promoting Israeli interests in the U.S.
WINEP has become more well-known, and arguably more controversial, in recent years after its research director
famously called for false-flag attacks to trigger a U.S. war with Iran in 2012, statements well-aligned with
longstanding attempts by the Israel Lobby
to bring about such a war.
A worthy partner in crime
Stephen Hadley, another private citizen who Jeffrey evidently considered as a partner in his covert dealings
discussed in the emails, also has his own past of involvement with Israel-specific intrigues and meddling.
During the G.W. Bush administration, Hadley tagged along with
neoconservatives
in their numerous creations of fake intelligence and efforts to incriminate Iraq for possessing
chemical and nuclear weapons. Hadley was one of the promoters from within the U.S. government of the false claim that
9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta met with Iraqi officials in Prague.
What this particular claim had in common with the
'Iraq meets Atta in Prague'
disinformation, and other famous lies against Iraq fabricated and circulated by the
dense neocon network, was its source: Israel and pro-Israel partisans.
The distribution
network
of these now long-debunked claims was none other than the neoconservatives who act a veritable Israeli fifth
column that has long sought to promote Israeli foreign policy objectives as being in the interest of the United States.
In this, Hadley played his part by helping to ensure that the United States was railroaded into a war that had long been
promoted by both Israeli and American neoconservatives, particularly Richard Perle -- an advisor to WINEP -- who had been
promoting regime change in Iraq
for Israel's explicit benefit
for decades.
In short, for covert intrigues to serve Israel that would likely be met with protest if pitched to the government for
implementation as policy, Hadley's resume was impressive.
Israeli interests pursued through covert channels
Given his employment at WINEP during this time, Jeffrey's intent to advise the KRG to sustain Kirkuk's oil production
despite the seizure of the Baiji oil refinery by ISIS is somewhat suspect, especially since it required that 100,000
barrels per day pass through ISIS-controlled territory unimpeded.
Jeffrey's email from June 14, therefore, demonstrated that he had foreknowledge that ISIS would not disturb the KRG
as long as the Kurds redirected oil that was intended originally for Baiji to the Kirkuk-Ceyhan export pipeline,
facilitating its export and later sale to Israel.
Notably, up until its liberation in mid-2015 by the Iraqi government and aligned Shia paramilitaries,
ISIS kept the refinery running
and, only upon their retreat, destroyed the facility.
One would normally expect ISIS to be opposed to such collusion given that the KRG, while a beneficiary of the
ISIS-Baghdad conflict, was not an ally of ISIS. Thus, a foreign power
with strategic ties to ISIS
used its
close ties to the KRG
and assurances that it was on-board for the oil trade, to deliver a credible guarantee that
ISIS would 'cooperate' and that a boom in production and exports was in the cards.
This foreign power -- acting as a guarantor for the ISIS-KRG understanding vis-a-vis the illegal oil economy,
represented by Jeffrey and clearly not on good terms with Iraq's government -- was quite clearly Israel.
Israel
established considerable financial support
as well as the provision of armaments to other extremist terrorist groups
active near the border between the Israeli-occupied Golan Heights and Southern Syria when war first broke out in Syria
in 2011. At least four of these extremist groups were led by individuals
with direct ties to Israeli intelligence
. These same groups, sometimes promoted as 'moderates' by some media, were
actively fighting Syria's government – an enemy of Israel and ally of Iran – before ISIS existed and
eagerly partnered with ISIS
when it expanded its campaign into Syria.
Israel has also long promoted the independence of Iraqi Kurdistan, with Israel having provided Iraq's Kurds with
weapons, training and teams of Mossad advisers
as far back as the 1960s
. More recently,
Israel was the only state
to support the KRG independence referendum in September 2017 despite its futility, hinting
at the regard Israel holds for the KRG. Iraq's government subsequently militarily
defeated the KRG's push for statehood
and reclaimed Kirkuk's oil fields with assistance from the Shia paramilitaries
which were responsible for defeating ISIS in the area.
A
2014 map shows the areas under ISIS and Kurdish control at the time. Source |
Telegraph
This arrangement orchestrated by Jeffrey, served the long-time neoconservative-Israeli agenda of empowering the
Kurds,
selling Iraqi oil
to Israel and weakening Iraq's Baghdad-based government.
WINEP's close association with AIPAC,
which has spied on the U.S. on behalf of Israel
several times in the past with no consequence, combined with
Jeffrey's long-time acquaintance with key U.S. figures in Iraq, such as McGurk, provided an ideal opening for Israel in
Iraq. Following the implementation of Jeffrey's plan, Israeli imports of KRG oil constituted
77
percent of Israel's total oil imports
during the KRG's occupation of Kirkuk.
The WINEP connection to the KRG-Israel oil deal demonstrates the key role played by the U.S. pro-Israel Lobby, not
only in terms of sustaining U.S. financial aid to Israel and ratcheting up tensions with Israel's adversaries but also
in facilitating the more covert aspects of U.S.-Israeli cooperation and the implementation of policies that favor
Israel.
Yet the role played by the U.S. Israel lobby in this capacity, particularly in terms of orchestrating oil sale
agreements for Israel's benefit, is hardly exclusive to Iraq and can accurately be described as a repeated pattern of
behavior.
caucus99percent
free-range politics, organic community
Trump is stealing Syria's oil for the Saudis
gjohnsit
on Fri, 12/20/2019 - 4:28pm
President Trump recently said the quiet part
out loud
.
"We may have to fight for the oil. It's O.K.," he said. "Maybe somebody else wants the oil, in
which case they have a hell of a fight. But there's massive amounts of oil." The United States,
he added, should be able to take some of Syria's oil. "What I intend to do, perhaps, is make a
deal with an ExxonMobil or one of our great companies to go in there and do it properly," he
said. The goal would be to "spread out the wealth."
At the very least this amounts to pillaging, but then respect for the law isn't on Trump agenda.
Trump is "protecting" Syria's oil in the
exact
same way that the mob "protects" a
small businessman from arson.
Not
kind of
the same way. EXACTLY the same way.
Trump comment US intends to keep the oil in
Syria. Guard with US armored forces. Bring in US oil companies to modernize the field. WHAT ARE
WE BECOMING.... PIRATES? If ISIS is defeated we lack Congressional authority to stay. The oil
belongs to Syria.
https://t.co/Leko5s1hXF
So what "great companies" would be willing "to go in there" and "spread out the wealth?"
That company turned out to be
ARAMCO
.
Sources have disclosed that the Saudi Arabian Oil Company, commonly referred to as Aramco, has
sent a delegation of experts to discuss
investment opportunities in the oil fields and
wells in the Eastern Syrian city of Deir Ez-Zor.
According to the oppositionist news site Deir Ezzor 24, Aramco "started implementing
practical steps in this field, where a group of the company arrived in an official mission to
al-Omar oil field in the eastern Deir Ezzor countryside."
There is no legal means to do this. This is the outright theft of resources.
And it keeps getting worse.
It is believed that the
investments will be made through contracts signed between Aramco
and the US government
, whose armed forces have steadily been increasing their military
presence in terms of manpower and equipment around the oil fields.
That is trafficking in the sale of stolen property, but it gets even worse than that.
The Kurdish Syrian Defence Forces (formerly known as the YPG) currently control most of the
country's oil fields and have shifted towards an alliance with the Syrian government after
losing American protection in the north-east of the country in the wake of Trump's "withdrawal"
and ensuing Turkish offensive dubbed "Operation Peace Spring" to clear the area of Kurdish
militias
So we can't even pretend to be doing this for the benefit of the local population, our regional
allies, or any other justification except naked theft.
Trump should be in jail for this.
"I think in this case we are not talking about an operation associated with a huge share of
risk, but, on the contrary, about a well-thought-out operation."
- Professor RSUH Grigory Kosach
The Pentagon is enthusiastically cooperating in this blatant violation of international law.
US troops have
returned
to six out of 16 bases in Syria that had been previously abandoned during the October
withdrawal.
What's more, our military is
settling in
for the long haul.
Barely two months after US President Donald Trump's demagogic announcement that he was pulling
US troops out of northeastern Syria to fulfill his campaign promise to bring a halt to
Washington's "endless wars," the senior civilian and uniformed Pentagon chiefs told a House
panel Wednesday that
there is no foreseeable end to the American presence there.
...
Esper went even further, insisting that US military forces had to remain in Syria not so much to
counter any existing military force, but rather an "ideology".
"I think the defeat, if you will, will be hard because it's an ideology," Esper told the
House panel after repeated questions regarding US strategy in Syria.
"It's hard to
foresee anytime soon we would stamp it out,"
he added.
Everyone that somehow finds a way to defend Trump based on his so-called aversion to foreign
wars needs to take a good, hard look at this. Because THIS is 100% Trump's doing.
US-led forces have blown up three oil tankers in Syria as the United States increases
its pressure on Syria by thwarting the oil trade between the PKK/YPG and the Assad
regime, according to local sources quoted by several media sources.
The YPG are our Kurdish allies that the warmongers were so concerned about just a few
months ago. We "care" about them, right up until they want to sell oil to the Assad
regime. Then they deserve death.
That's OUR oil.
I think the powerful foreign policy cabal in Washington have him by the balls and give
them a squeeze when he gets off point.
One day he is pulling out. The next day he says
he staying in to "protect" the oil fields. The third day he sends US forces back in so he
can sell the oil so that the Syrians don't "steal" it.
What's going to happen on the fourth day when a half dozen American soldiers get
eviscerated by a roadside bomb while on patrol?
but just like congress won't make him withdraw troops from Yemen and stop supporting the
Saudis, they are in complete agreement with him doing that.
Israel bought Syria's oil from ISIS all during Obama's tenure as he watched them take
it out through Turkey.
But it's Russian aggression that is causing all the problems in the Middle East right?
And Iran's too. Why we can't make deals for resources instead of spending gawd only knows
how much money. But then the defense companies wouldn't get all of our money now would
they? We pay for the defense companies CEOs large bonuses and salaries. Great gig!
Regarding your last sentence: this is the great truth that Washington's world hegemonists would have you forget. Taking into
account the untapped vast resources of Canada and Alaska and its expansive offshore economic zones extending deep into the Atlantic,
the Pacific, the Gulf of Mexico and the Arctic Ocean, the North American anglosphere could be entirely self-sufficient and do
quite nicely on its own for hundreds of years to come, it just wouldn't be the sole tyrannical state presumably ruling the entire
planet.
Why, it might even entertain the idea of actually cooperating with other regional powers like Russia, China, the EU, India,
Iran, Turkey, the Middle East, greater central Asia, Latin America and even Africa to everyone's benefit, rather than bullying
them all because god ordained us to be the boss of all humans.
America's major malfunction is its lack of historical roots compared to the other societies mentioned. All those places had
thousands of years to refine their sundry cultures and international relationships, certainly through trial and error and many
horrible setbacks, most notably wars, famines, pestilence, genocide and human bondage which people did not have the foresight
to nip in the bud. They learned by their mistakes and some, like the great world wars, were doozies.
The United States, and some of its closest homologues like Canada, Australia, Brazil and Argentina, were thrown together very
rapidly as part of developing colonial empires. It was created through the brute actions of a handful of megalomaniacal oligarchs
of their day. What worked to suppress vast tracts of aboriginal homelands, often through genocide and virtual extinction of the
native populations, was so effective that it was institutionalized in the form of slavery and reckless exploitation of the local
environment. These "great leaders," "pioneers" and "founding fathers" were not about to give up a set of principles -- no matter
how sick and immoral -- which they knew to "work" and accrued to them great power and riches. They preferred to label it "American
exceptionalism" and force it upon the whole rest of the world, including long established regional powers -- cultures going back
to antiquity -- and not just conveniently sketched "burdens of the white man."
No, ancient cultures like China, India, Persia and so forth could obviously be improved for all concerned merely by allowing
a handful of Western Europeans to own all their property and run all their affairs. That grand plan fell apart for most of the
European powers in the aftermath of World War Two, but Washington has held tough and never given up its designs of micromanaging
and exploiting the whole planet. It too is soon to learn its lesson and lose its empire. Either that or it will take the world
down in flames as it tries to cling to all that it never really owned or deserved. The most tragic (or maybe just amusing) part
is that Washington still had most of the world believing its bullshit about exceptionalism and indispensability until it decided
it had to emulate every tyrannical empire that ever collapsed before it.
Realist , April 30, 2019 at 02:08
"ex·tor·tion /ik?stôrSH(?)n/ noun The practice of obtaining something, especially money, through force or threats."
"Racketeering refers to crimes committed through extortion or coercion. A racketeer attempts to obtain money or property from
another person, usually through intimidation or force. The term is typically associated with organized crime."
I see. So, American foreign policy, as applied to both its alleged enemies and presumed allies, essentially amounts to an exercise
in organised crime. So much for due process, free trade, peaceful co-existence, magical rainbows and other such hypocritical platitudes
dispensed for domestic consumption in place of the heavy-handed threats routinely delivered to Washington's targets.
That's quite in keeping with the employment of war crimes as standard "tactics, techniques and procedures" on the battlefield
which was recently admitted to us by Senator Jim Molan on the "60 Minutes" news show facsimile and discussed in one of yesterday's
forums on this blog.
Afghanistan was promised a carpet of gold or a carpet of bombs as incentive to bend to our will (and that of Unocal which,
unlike Nordstream, was a pipeline Washington wanted built). Iraq was promised and delivered "shock and awe" after a secretary
of state had declared the mass starvation of that country's children as well worth the effort. They still can't find all the pieces
left of the Libyan state. Syria was told it would be stiffed on any American contribution to its rebuilding for the effrontery
of actually beating back the American-recruited, trained and financed ISIS terrorist brigades. Now it's being deliberately starved
of both its energy and food requirements by American embargoes on its own resources! North Korea was promised utter annihilation
by Yankee nukes before Kim's summit with our great leader unless it submitted totally to his will, or more likely that of Pompous
Pompeo, the man who pulls his strings. Venezuela is treated to cyber-hacked power outages and shortages of food, medicines, its
own gold bullion, income from its own international petroleum sales and, probably because someone in Washington thinks it's funny,
even toilet paper. All they have to do to get relief is kick out the president they elected and replace him with Washington's
chosen puppet! Yep, freedom and democracy blah, blah, blah. And don't even ask what the kids in Yemen got for Christmas from Uncle
Sam this year. (He probably stole their socks.) A real American patriot will laughingly take Iran to task for ever believing in
the first place that Washington could be negotiated with in good faith. All they had to do was ask the Native Americans (or the
Russians) how the Yanks keep their word and honor their treaties. It was their own fault they were taken for suckers.
March 12, 2019 at 5:25
pm GMT • 200 Words @AnonFromTN
Superfluously impossible, AnonfromTN said: "It is simple, really. The US needs a law
prohibiting anyone with dual citizenship to hold public office."
Hi AnonfromTN.
Hard to comprehend how you persist to deny how the "US law" is Zionized. (Zigh) Israeli
"dual citizenship and holding "Homeland" public office is an irretractable endowment lawlessly
given to US Jews by ruling international Jewry.
They barged into our Constitution like a cancer and feast upon The Bill of Rights.
What's worse now is how livin' the "American dream" has reversed, and at present, President
t-Rump demands huge increases in war funding.
No one gets informed that future wars converge with Israel's will.
Please consider looking at the Wikileaks video linked below? It illustrates a barbaric type
of war crime-free & unaccountability to "international law," including a lawless US
military Rules of Engagement modus operandi, which governed the serial killing activity of an
Apache attack chopper crew in the Baghdad sky. Look close at the posed threat!
Tell me AnonfromTN? As you likely know, Bradley Chelsea Manning is, and under "Homeland"
law, in-the-klink for exposing the war crimes to America. Is their one (1) US Congressman
raising objection to the imprisonment? Fyi, you can look at the brave writing of Kathy Kelly on
the Manning case, and which appears at Counterpunch.org.
@ChuckOrloski I
can only agree. The patient (the US political system) is too far gone to hope for recovery.
As comment #69 rightly points out, our political system is based on bribery. Lobbyism and
donations to political campaigns and PACs are perfectly legal in the US, while all of these
should be criminal offenses punished by jail time, like in most countries. Naturally,
desperate Empires losing their dominant position resort to any war crimes imaginable, and
severely punish those who expose these crimes.
I can add only one thing: you are right that greedy Jews are evil, but greedy people of
any nationality are just as evil as greedy Jews. Not all greedy globalists and MIC thieves
are Jews, but they are all scum. I watch with dismay the US Empire heading to its crash.
Lemmings running to the cliff are about as rational as our degenerate elites. Israel
influence is toxic, but that's not the only poison the Empire will die from.
Information from local sources said that US army helicopters have already transported the gold bullions under cover of darkness
on Sunday [February 24th], before transporting them to the United States.
The sources said that tens of tons that Daesh had been keeping in their last hotbed in al-Baghouz area in Deir Ezzor countryside
have been handed to the Americans, adding up to other tons of gold that Americans have found in other hideouts for Daesh, making
the total amount of gold taken by the Americans to the US around 50 tons, leaving only scraps for the SDF [Kurdish] militias that
serve them [the US operation].
Recently, sources said that the area where Daesh leaders and members have barricaded themselves in, contains around 40 tons
of gold and tens of millions of dollars.
Allegedly, "US occupation forces in the Syrian al-Jazeera area made a deal with Daesh terrorists, by which Washington gets tens
of tons of gold that the terror organization had stolen, in exchange for providing safe passage for the terrorists and their leaders
from the areas in Deir Ezzor where they are located."
ISIS was financing its operations largely by the theft of oil from the oil wells in the Deir Ezzor area, Syria's oil-producing
region, and they transported and sold this stolen oil via their allied forces, through Turkey, which was one of those US allies trying
to overthrow Syria's secular Government
and install a Sunni fundamentalist regime that would be ruled from Riyadh (i.e., controlled by the Saud family) . This gold is
the property of the Syrian Government, which owns all that oil and the oil wells, which ISIS had captured (stolen), and then sold.
Thus, this gold is from sale of that stolen black-market oil, which was Syria's property.
The US Government evidently thinks that the public are fools, idiots. America's allies seem to be constantly amazed at how successful
that approach turns out to be.
Jihadists were recruited from throughout the world to fight against Syria's secular Government. Whereas ISIS was funded mainly
by black-market sales of oil from conquered areas, the Al-Qaeda-led groups were mainly funded by the Sauds and other Arab royal families
and their retinues, the rest of their aristocracy. On 13 December 2013, BBC headlined
"Guide to the Syrian rebels" and opened "There are
believed to be as many as 1,000 armed opposition groups in Syria, commanding an estimated 100,000 fighters." Except in the Kurdish
areas in Syria's northeast, almost all of those fighters were being led by Al Qaeda's Syrian Branch, al-Nusra. Britain's Center on
Religion & Politics headlined on 21 December 2015,
"Ideology
and Objectives of the Syrian Rebellion" and reported: "If ISIS is defeated, there are at least 65,000 fighters belonging to other
Salafi-jihadi groups ready to take its place." Almost all of those 65,000 were trained and are led by Syria's Al Qaeda (Nusra), which
was protected by
the US
In September 2016 a UK official
"FINAL REPORT OF THE TASK
FORCE ON COMBATING TERRORIST AND FOREIGN FIGHTER TRAVEL" asserted that, "Over 25,000 foreign fighters have traveled to the battlefield
to enlist with Islamist terrorist groups, including at least 4,500 Westerners. More than 250 individuals from the United States have
also joined." Even just 25,000 (that official lowest estimate) was a sizable US proxy-army of religious fanatics to overthrow Syria's
Government.
On 26 November 2015, the first of Russia's videos of Russia's bombing ISIS oil trucks headed into Turkey was bannered at a US
military website
"Russia Airstrike on ISIS Oil Tankers" , and exactly a month later, on 26 December 2015, Britain's Daily Express headlined
"WATCH: Russian fighter jets smash ISIS oil tankers after spotting 12,000 at Turkish border" . This article, reporting around
twelve thousand ISIS oil-tanker trucks heading into Turkey, opened: "The latest video, released by the Russian defence ministry,
shows the tankers bunched together as they make their way along the road. They are then blasted by the fighter jet." The US military
had nothing comparable to offer to its 'news'-media. Britain's Financial Times headlined on 14 October 2015,
"Isis Inc: how oil fuels the jihadi terrorists" . Only America's allies were
involved in this commerce with ISIS -- no nation that supported Syria's Government was participating in this black market of stolen
Syrian goods. So, it's now clear that a lot of that stolen oil was sold for gold as Syria's enemy-nations' means of buying that oil
from ISIS. They'd purchase it from ISIS, but not from Syria's Government, the actual owner.
An estimated 20,000-40,000 barrels of oil are produced daily in ISIS controlled territory generating $1-1.5 million daily profit
for the terrorist organization. The oil is extracted from Dir A-Zur in Syria and two fields in Iraq and transported to the Kurdish
city of Zakhu in a triangle of land near the borders of Syria, Iraq and Turkey. Israeli and Turkish mediators come to the city
and when prices are agreed, the oil is smuggled to the Turkish city of Silop marked as originating from Kurdish regions of Iraq
and sold for $15-18 per barrel (WTI and Brent Crude currently sell for $41 and $45 per barrel) to the Israeli mediator, a man
in his 50s with dual Greek-Israeli citizenship known as Dr. Farid. He transports the oil via several Turkish ports and then onto
other ports, with Israel among the main destinations.
The US had done the same thing when it took over Ukraine by
a brutal coup in February 2014
: It grabbed the gold. Iskra News in Russian
reported, on 7 March 2014 , that "At 2 a.m. this morning ... an unmarked transport plane was on the runway at Borosipol Airport"
near Kiev in the west, and that, "According to airport staff, before the plane came to the airport, four trucks and two Volkswagen
minibuses arrived, all the truck license plates missing." This was as translated by Michel Chossudovsky at Global Research headlining
on 14 March,
"Ukraine's Gold Reserves Secretly Flown Out and Confiscated by the New York Federal Reserve?" in which he noted that, when asked,
"A spokesman for the New York Fed said simply, 'Any inquiry regarding gold accounts should be directed to the account holder.'" The
load was said to be "more than 40 heavy boxes." Chossudovsky noted that, "The National Bank of Ukraine (Central Bank) estimated Ukraine's
gold reserves in February to be worth $1.8 billion dollars." It was allegedly 36 tons. The US, according to Victoria Nuland (
Obama's detail-person
overseeing the coup ) had invested around $5 billion in the coup. Was her installed Ukrainian Prime Minister Arseniy Yatsenyuk
cleaning out the nation's gold reserves in order to strip the nation so that the nation's steep indebtedness for Russian gas would
never be repaid to Russia's oligarchs? Or was he doing it as a payoff for Nuland's having installed him? Or both? In any case: Russia
was being squeezed by this fascist
Ukrainian-American ploy.
The Syria operation was about oil, gold, and guns. However, most of America's support was to Al-Qaeda-led jihadists, not to ISIS-jihadists.
As the great independent investigative journalist Dilyana
Gaytandzhieva reported on 2 July 2017 :
"In December of last year while reporting on the battle of Aleppo as a correspondent for Bulgarian media I found and filmed
9 underground warehouses full of heavy weapons with Bulgaria as their country of origin. They were used by Al Nusra Front (Al
Qaeda affiliate in Syria designated as a terrorist organization by the UN)."
Furthermore, On
8 March 2013, Richard Spenser of Britain's Telegraph reported that Croatia's Jutarnji List newspaper had reported that "3,000
tons of weapons dating back to the former Yugoslavia have been sent in 75 planeloads from Zagreb airport to the rebels, largely via
Jordan since November. The airlift of dated but effective Yugoslav-made weapons meets key concerns of the West, and especially Turkey
and the United States, who want the rebels to be better armed to drive out the Assad regime."
Also, a September 2014 study by Conflict Armaments Research (CAR), titled
"Islamic State Weapons
in Iraq and Syria" , reported that not only east-European, but even US-made, weapons were being "captured from Islamic State
forces" by Kurds who were working for the Americans, and that this was very puzzling and disturbing to those Kurds, who were risking
their lives to fight against those jihadists.
In December 2017, CAR headlined
"Weapons of the Islamic State"
and reported that "this materiel was rapidly captured by IS forces, only to be deployed by the group against international coalition
forces." The assumption made there was that the transfer of weapons to ISIS was all unintentional.
That report ignored contrary evidence, which I summed up on 2 September 2017 headlining
"Russian TV
Reports US Secretly Backing ISIS in Syria" , and reporting there also from the Turkish Government an admission that the US was
working with Turkey to funnel surviving members of Iraq's ISIS into the Deir Ezzor part of Syria to help defeat Syria's Government
in that crucial oil-producing region. Moreover, at least one member of the 'rebels' that the US was training at Al Tanf on Syria's
Jordanian border had quit because his American trainers were secretly diverting some of their weapons to ISIS. Furthermore: why hadn't
the US bombed Syrian ISIS before Russia entered the Syrian war on 30 September 2015? America talked lots about its supposed effort
against ISIS, but why did US wait till 16 November 2015 before taking action,
"'Get Out Of Your Trucks And Run Away': US Gives ISIS 45 Minute Warning On Oil Tanker Strikes" ?
So, regardless of whether the US Government uses jihadists as its proxy-forces, or uses fascists as its proxy-forces, it grabs
the gold -- and grabs the oil, and takes whatever else it can.
This is today's form of imperialism.
Grab what you can, and run. And call it 'fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption'. And the
imperial regime's allies watch in amazement, as they take their respective cuts of the loot. That's the deal, and they call it 'fighting
for freedom and democracy and human rights and against corruption around the world'. That's the way it works. International gangland.
That's the reality, while most of the public think it's instead really "fighting for freedom and democracy and human rights and against
corruption around the world." For example, as
RT reported on Sunday , March 3rd,
about John Bolton's effort at regime-change in Venezuela, Bolton said: "I'd like to see as broad a coalition as we can put together
to replace Maduro, to replace the whole corrupt regime,' Bolton told CNN's Jake Tapper." Trump's regime wants to bring clean and
democratic government to the poor Venezuelans, just like Bush's did to the Iraqis, and Obama's did to the Libyans and to the Syrians
and to the Ukrainians. And Trump, who pretends to oppose Obama's regime-change policies, alternately expands them and shrinks them.
Though he's slightly different from Obama on domestic policies, he never, as the US President, condemns any of his predecessors'
many coups and invasions, all of which were disasters for everybody except America's and allies' billionaires. They're all in on
the take.
The American public were suckered into destroying Iraq in 2003, Libya in 2011, Syria in 2011-now, and so many other countries,
and still haven't learned anything, other than to keep trusting the allegations of this lying and psychopathically vicious and super-aggressive
Government and of its stenographic 'news'-media. When is enough finally enough ? Never? If not never, then when ? Or do most people
never learn? Or maybe they don't really care. Perhaps that's the problem.
Back on 21 December 2018, one of the US regime's top 'news'-media, the Washington Post, had headlined
"Retreating ISIS army smuggled a fortune in cash and gold out of Iraq and Syria" and reported that "the Islamic State is sitting
on a mountain of stolen cash and gold that its leaders stashed away to finance terrorist operations." So, it's not as if there hadn't
been prior reason to believe that some day some of the gold would be found after America's defeat in Syria. Maybe they just hadn't
expected this to happen quite so soon. But the regime will find ways to hoodwink its public, in the future, just as it has in the
past. Unless the public wises-up (if that's even possible).
In any case withdrawal from Syria was a surprising and bold move on the Part of the Trump. You can criticizes Trump for not doing
more but before that he bahvaves as a typical neocon, or a typical Republican presidents (which are the same things). And he started
on this path just two month after inauguration bombing Syria under false pretences. So this is something
I think the reason of change is that Trump intuitively realized the voters are abandoning him in droves and the sizable faction
of his voters who voted for him because of his promises to end foreign wars iether already defected or is ready to defect. So this is
a move designed to keep them.
Notable quotes:
"... "America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said. ..."
President Trump's big announcement to pull US troops out of Syria and Afghanistan is now emerging less as a peace move, and more
a rationalization of American military power in the Middle East. In a surprise visit to US forces in Iraq this week, Trump
said he had no intention of withdrawing the troops in that country, who have been there for nearly 15 years since GW Bush invaded
back in 2003.
Hinting at private discussions with commanders in Iraq, Trump boasted that US forces would in the future launch attacks from there
into Syria if and when needed. Presumably that rapid force deployment would apply to other countries in the region, including Afghanistan.
In other words, in typical business-style transactional thinking, Trump sees the pullout from Syria and Afghanistan as a cost-cutting
exercise for US imperialism. Regarding Syria, he has bragged about Turkey being assigned, purportedly, to "finish off" terror
groups. That's Trump subcontracting out US interests.
Critics and supporters of Trump are confounded. After his Syria and Afghanistan pullout call, domestic critics and NATO allies
have accused him of walking from the alleged "fight against terrorism" and of ceding strategic ground to US adversaries Russia
and Iran.
Meanwhile, Trump's supporters have viewed his decision in more benign light, cheering the president for "sticking it to"
the deep state and military establishment, assuming he's delivering on electoral promises to end overseas wars.
However, neither view gets what is going on. Trump is not scaling back US military power; he is rationalizing it like a cost-benefit
analysis, as perhaps only a real-estate-wheeler-dealer-turned president would appreciate. Trump is not snubbing US militarism or
NATO allies, nor is he letting loose an inner peace spirit. He is as committed to projecting American military as ruthlessly and
as recklessly as any other past occupant of the White House. The difference is Trump wants to do it on the cheap.
Here's what he said to reporters on Air Force One before touching down in Iraq:
"The United States cannot continue to be the policeman of the world. It's not fair when the burden is all on us, the United
States We are spread out all over the world. We are in countries most people haven't even heard about. Frankly, it's ridiculous."
He added: "We're no longer the suckers, folks."
Laughably, Trump's griping about US forces "spread all over the world" unwittingly demonstrates the insatiable, monstrous
nature of American militarism. But Trump paints this vice as a virtue, which, he complains, Washington gets no thanks for from the
150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in.
As US troops greeted him in Iraq, the president made explicit how the new American militarism would henceforth operate.
"America shouldn't be doing the fighting for every nation on earth, not being reimbursed in many cases at all. If they want
us to do the fighting, they also have to pay a price," Trump said.
This reiterates a big bugbear for this president in which he views US allies and client regimes as "not pulling their weight"
in terms of military deployment. Trump has been browbeating European NATO members to cough up more on military budgets, and he has
berated the Saudis
and other Gulf Arab regimes to pay more for American interventions.
Notably, however, Trump has never questioned the largesse that US taxpayers fork out every year to Israel in the form of nearly
$4 billion in military aid. To be sure, that money is not a gift because much of it goes back to the Pentagon from sales of fighter
jets and missile systems.
The long-held notion that the US has served as the "world's policeman" is, of course, a travesty.
Since WWII, all presidents and the Washington establishment have constantly harped on, with self-righteousness, about America's
mythical role as guarantor of global security.
Dozens of illegal wars on almost every continent and millions of civilian deaths attest to the real, heinous conduct of American
militarism as a weapon to secure US corporate capitalism.
But with US economic power in historic decline amid a national debt now over $22 trillion, Washington can no longer afford its
imperialist conduct in the traditional mode of direct US military invasions and occupations.
Perhaps, it takes a cost-cutting, raw-toothed capitalist like Trump to best understand the historic predicament, even if only
superficially.
This gives away the real calculation behind his troop pullout from Syria and Afghanistan. Iraq is going to serve as a new regional
hub for force projection on a demand-and-supply basis. In addition, more of the dirty work can be contracted out to Washington's
clients like Turkey, Israel and Saudi Arabia, who will be buying even more US weaponry to prop the military-industrial complex.
This would explain why Trump made his hurried, unexpected visit to Iraq this week. Significantly, he
said
: "A lot of people are going to come around to my way of thinking", regarding his decision on withdrawing forces from Syria
and Afghanistan.
Since his troop pullout plan announced on December 19, there has been serious pushback from senior Pentagon figures, hawkish Republicans
and Democrats, and the anti-Trump media. The atmosphere is almost seditious against the president. Trump flying off to Iraq on Christmas
night was
reportedly his first visit to troops in an overseas combat zone since becoming president two years ago.
What Trump seemed to be doing was reassuring the Pentagon and corporate America that he is not going all soft and dovish. Not
at all. He is letting them know that he is aiming for a leaner, meaner US military power, which can save money on the number of foreign
bases by using rapid reaction forces out of places like Iraq, as well as by subcontracting operations out to regional clients.
Thus, Trump is not coming clean out of any supposed principle when he cuts back US forces overseas. He is merely applying his
knack for screwing down costs and doing things on the cheap as a capitalist tycoon overseeing US militarism.
During past decades when American capitalism was relatively robust, US politicians and media could indulge in the fantasy of their
military forces going around the world in large-scale formations to selflessly "defend freedom and democracy."
Today, US capitalism is broke. It simply can't sustain its global military empire. Enter Donald Trump with his "business solutions."
But in doing so, this president, with his cheap utilitarianism and transactional exploitative mindset, lets the cat out of the
bag. As he says, the US cannot be the world's policeman. Countries are henceforth going to have to pay for "our protection."
Inadvertently, Trump is showing up US power for what it really is: a global thug running a protection racket.
It's always been the case. Except now it's in your face. Trump is no Smedley Butler, the former Marine general who in the 1930s
condemned US militarism as a Mafia operation. This president is stupidly revealing the racket, while still thinking it is something
virtuous.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles published in several languages.
Originally from Belfast, Northern Ireland, he is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a scientific editor
for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career in newspaper journalism. For over 20 years he worked
as an editor and writer in major news media organizations, including The Mirror, Irish Times and Independent. Now a freelance journalist
based in East Africa, his columns appear on RT, Sputnik, Strategic Culture Foundation and Press TV.
dnm1136
Once again, Cunningham has hit the nail on the head. Trump mistakenly conflates fear with respect. In reality, around the world,
the US is feared but generally not respected.
My guess is that the same was true about Trump as a businessman, i.e., he was not respected, only feared due to his willingness
to pursue his "deals" by any means that "worked" for him, legal or illegal, moral or immoral, seemingly gracious or mean-spirited.
William Smith
Complaining how the US gets no thanks for its foreign intervention. Kind of like a rapist claiming he should be thanked for
"pleasuring" his victim. Precisely the same sentiment expressed by those who believe the American Indians should thank the Whites
for "civilising" them.
Phoebe S,
"Washington gets no thanks for from the 150-plus countries around the globe that its forces are present in."
That might mean they don't want you there. Just saying.
ProRussiaPole
None of these wars are working out for the US strategically. All they do is sow chaos. They seem to not be gaining anything,
and are just preventing others from gaining anything as well.
Ernie For -> ProRussiaPole
i am a huge Putin fan, so is big Don. Please change your source of info Jerome, Trump is one man against Billions of people
and dollars in corruption. He has achieved more in the USA in 2 years than all 5 previous parasites together.
Truthbetold69
It could be a change for a better direction. Time will tell. 'If you do what you've always been doing, you'll get what you've
always been getting.'
Russian President Vladimir Putin said on Thursday that Moscow planned to keep gas transit
via Ukraine irrespective of a number of gas pipelines Moscow currently builds to bypass its
ex-Soviet neighbor.
...
"This is a very difficult, sensitive topic. We would like to solve this problem," Putin said
at his annual press conference in Moscow.
"We will look for a solution that is acceptable for all parties, including Ukraine. That's
despite the construction of infrastructure such as Nord Stream 1, Nord Stream 2, TurkStream.
We will preserve gas transit through Ukraine."
...
Putin said on Thursday that Russia would be ready to give Ukraine a discount of 20-25% for
gas purchases. "I am confident we will reach an agreement ... We have no desire to exacerbate
the situation ... or use this to influence the situation in Ukraine itself."
...
This gives Ukraine three options:
keep buying Russian gas from Europe
swallow their pride and buy discounted gas direct from Russia
Yes it was corrupt before the violent coup, but at least people could live nicely and be
warm during winter. People have frozen during the winters since and many of them had to go
back to work because of the damn IMF loans that hurt big time.
Congress said that they had to put sanctions on Nordstream because of Russia aggression.
One article listed all of the aggressions they have done.
Invaded Iraq.
Supported the Honduran coup.
Invaded Libya
Invaded Syria....well you get the drift. Sorta like how Iran has destabilized the Middle East
as pompous Pompeo is saying. It's the effing hypocrisy!
"... One of the most revealing and absurd responses to rejections of forever war is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries: ..."
"... The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare. ..."
"... The routinization and normalization of endless, unauthorized war is one of the most harmful legacies of the Obama administration. ..."
"... When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something else. ..."
One of the most revealing and absurd responses to
rejections of forever war
is the ridiculous dodge that the U.S. isn't really at war when it uses force and kills people in multiple foreign countries:
Just like @POTUS , who put a limited op of NE
#Syria under heading of "endless
war," this op-ed has "drone strikes & Special Ops raids" in indictment of US-at-war. In fact, those actions are antidote to war.
Their misguided critique is insult to real war. https://t.co/DCLS9IDKSw
War has become so normalized over the last twenty years that the constant use of military force gets discounted as something other
than "real war." We have seen this war denialism on display several times in the last year. As more presidential candidates and analysts
have started rejecting endless war, the war's
defenders have often
chosen to
pretend
that the U.S. isn't at war at all. The distinction between "real war" and the constant U.S. involvement in hostilities overseas is
a phony one. The war is very real to the civilian bystanders who die in U.S. airstrikes, and it is very real to the soldiers and
Marines still getting shot at and blown up in Afghanistan. This is not an "antidote to war," but rather the routinization of warfare.
Because Obama is relatively less aggressive and reckless than his hawkish opponents (a very low bar to clear), he is frequently
given a pass on these issues, and we are treated to misleading stories about his supposed "realism" and "restraint." Insofar as
he has been a president who normalized and routinized open-ended and unnecessary foreign wars, he has shown that neither of those
terms should be used to describe his foreign policy. Even though I know all too well that the president that follows him will
be even worse, the next president will have a freer hand to conduct a more aggressive and dangerous foreign policy in part because
of illegal wars Obama has waged during his time in office.
The attempt to define war so that it never includes what the U.S. military happens to be doing when it uses force abroad has been
going on for quite a while. When the Obama administration wanted political and legal cover for the illegal Libyan war in 2011, they
came up with a preposterous claim that U.S. forces weren't engaged in hostilities because there was no real risk to them from the
Libyan government's forces. According to Harold Koh, who was the one responsible for promoting this nonsense, U.S. forces weren't
engaged in hostilities even when they were carrying out a sustained bombing campaign for months. That lie has served as a basis for
redefining what counts as involvement in hostilities so that the president and the Pentagon can pretend that the U.S. military isn't
engaged in hostilities even when it clearly is. When the only thing that
gets counted as a "real war" is a major deployment
of hundreds of thousands of troops, that allows for a lot of unaccountable warmaking that has been conveniently reinvented as something
else.
It isn't just physical war that results in active service body bags but our aggression has alreay cost lives on the home front
and there is every reason to believe it will do so again.
We were not isolationists prior to 9/11/2001, Al Qaeda had already attacked but we were distracted bombing Serbia, expanding
NATO, and trying to connect Al Qaeda attacks to Iran. We were just attacked by a Saudi officer we were training on our soil to
use the Saudis against Iran.
It remains to be seen what our economic warfare against Iran, Venezuela, Syria, Yemen, and our continued use of Afghanistan
as a bombing platform will cost us. We think we are being clever by using our Treasury Dept and low intensity warfare to minimize
direct immediate casualties but how long can that last.
This article confirms what the last Real Commander-in-Chief, General/President Dwight D. Eisenhower warned about when he retired
58 years ago.
His wise Council based on his Supreme Military-Political experience has been ignored.
The MSM, Propagandists for the Military-Industrial Complex, won't remind the American People.
Until the latest of our world conflicts, the United States had no armaments industry. American makers of plowshares could,
with time and as required, make swords as well.
But now we can no longer risk emergency improvisation of national defense; we have been compelled to create a permanent armaments
industry of vast proportions.
Added to this, three and a half million men and women are directly engaged in the defense establishment. We annually spend on
military security more than the net income of all United States corporations.
This conjunction of an immense military establishment and a large arms industry is new in the American experience. The total
influence -- economic, political, even spiritual -- is felt in every city, every State house, every office of the Federal government.
We recognize the imperative need for this development. Yet we must not fail to comprehend its grave implications. Our toil, resources and livelihood are all involved; so is the
very structure of our society.
In the councils of government, we must guard against the acquisition of unwarranted influence, whether sought or unsought,
by the military industrial complex. The potential for the disastrous rise of misplaced power exists and will persist.
We must never let the weight of this combination endanger our liberties or democratic processes. We should take nothing for
granted. Only an alert and knowledgeable citizenry can compel the proper meshing of the huge industrial and military
machinery of defense with our peaceful methods and goals, so that security and liberty may prosper together.
The psychological contortionism required to deny that we are at war amazes me. US military forces are killing people in other
countries – but it's not war? Because we can manufacture comforting euphemisms like "police action" or "preventive action" or
"drone strike," it's not war? Because it's smaller scale than a "real" war like WWII?
Cancer is cancer. A small cancer is still a cancer. Arguing that it's not cancer because it's not metastatic stage IV is, well,
the most polite term is sophistry. More accurate terms aren't printable.
The anti-Russian insanity that dominates the politics of America is dangerous, stupid and
detached from facts. Two news items from Wednesday (December 18th) should scare the hell out of
you.
The first concerns Russia's Nord Stream 2 natural gas pipeline, which is nearing completion
and will deliver gas to Europe.
According to Reuters :
The U.S. Senate on Tuesday passed legislation to slap sanctions on companies building a
massive underwater pipeline to bring Russian natural gas to Germany, but it was uncertain
whether the measures would slow completion of the project.
Senator Jim Risch, a Republican and the chairman of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee,
said the sanctions will prevent the project's completion and are an "important tool to counter
Russia's malign influence and to protect the integrity of Europe's energy sector."
Nord Stream 2, led by state-owned Gazprom, would allow Russia to bypass Poland and Ukraine
to deliver gas under the Baltic Sea to Germany. U.S. lawmakers say Ukraine could lose billions
of dollars in transit fees if it is built.
This is not the fault of the Democrats. This is being driven by Republicans, with Senator
Ted Cruz
leading the charge .
The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash to
fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas.
The Nord Stream 2 pipeline "would make Europe even more dependent on Russian energy," Cruz
told FOX Business' Maria Bartiromo on Wednesday. "And that makes Europe susceptible to economic
blackmail, because Putin has already demonstrated he's perfectly willing to cut off the gas in
the dead of winter to try to force people to do what he wants."
Russia's "military aggression?" Did Russia invade Iraq twice in the last 29 years? Did
Russia launch a war in Libya? Did Russia arm and train insurgents in Syria? I think Ted Cruz
has not been paying attention to world events over the last thirty years. The number one
country engaged in foreign military aggression is the United States. Hands down.
Here are the actual military facts about Russia:
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Russia's annual manufacturing value added is currently about $200 billion compared
to $2.2 trillion for the US economy.
Russia's working age population of about 85 million is already just a fraction of the US
working age population of 255 million.
Russia's $61 billion of military outlays in 2018 amounted to less than 32
days of Washington's current $750 billion of expenditures for defense.
During the Cold War Russia armed itself to the teeth via a forced-draft and allocated
upwards of 40% of the GDP of the Soviet empire to the military. Today the Russian defense
budget amounts to less than 4% of the country's anemic economy.
The US has eleven such carrier strike groups. Russia has zero modern
carrier strike groups and one beat-up, smoky old (diesel) aircraft carrier. A carrier based
strike group is composed of roughly 7,500 personnel, at least one cruiser, a squadron of
destroyers and/or frigates, and a carrier air wing of 65 to 70 aircraft.
The United States dwarfs Russia's ability to project force via air power-- the US has
6,100 helicopters to Russia's 1,200 and 6,000 fixed wing fighter and attack aircraft versus
Russia's 2,100. More importantly, the US has 5,700 transport and airlift aircraft compared to
just 1,100 for Russia.
The only military category where Russia enjoys a decisive edge is tanks -- 22,710 versus
8750 for the United States. This is a legacy of WW II, where Russian tanks played the
critical role in pushing the Nazis back to Germany.
As recently as 2017, the Russian fleet operated 61 submarines. "Historically the backbone
of the Russian navy, 75 percent of the 61 operational submarines are over 20 years old and
are slowly being replaced." The United States has 75 and is building two new ones each year
at a cost of $5 billion.
So why is this pipeline now a redline in the sand that Russia dare not cross? Apparently
because it will give Russia a way to make more money to finance its massive military buildup
(hopefully you understand sarcasm) and, more importantly, will cost Ukraine lost income. Can't
afford to have Ukrainian oligarchs running out of money that they are sending to Democrat and
Republican consulting firms and candidates.
While it is unlikely that the sanctions will prevent the pipeline from being completed,
largely because they come too little, too late, this is not going to
hinder efforts to punish Russia :
A new Bloomberg headline reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian
Threat" just following new sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National
Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late, despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of dollars to Russia:
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part of
a defense bill are too late to have any effect. The U.S. instead will try to impose costs on
other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
Seriously, that United States has no right to threaten Russia in this way. It is reminiscent
of the sanctions that the United States imposed on Japan prior to World War II that blocked
Japan's access to critical oil and rubber supplies. That was a precipitating factor in Japan's
decision to attack us on December 7, 1941.
NATO exercises near the border with Russia reflect the alliance's preparations for a
large-scale military conflict, Russia's chief military officer said in remarks published
Wednesday.
The chief of the General Staff of the Russian armed forces, Gen. Valery Gerasimov, said at
Tuesday's meeting with foreign military attaches that NATO's activities have heightened
tensions and reduced security along the Russian border.
Asked if the Russian military sees a potential threat of war, Gerasimov said that Moscow
doesn't see "any preconditions for a large-scale war."
He added, however, that Western pressure on Russia could trigger "crisis situations" that
may spin out of control and provoke a military conflict.
The anti-Russia hysteria in the United States is tying the hands of Donald Trump to act
responsibly to protect America. If he vetoes the bill put forward by the Congress he will be
accused, as he has been for more than two years, of catering to Putin.
The fanatics and frauds waving the Russian threat ignore the fact that the United States and
Russia work closely and productively on the Space Station. Our astronauts and their cosmonauts
co-exist peacefully in space and we rely on the Russians to haul our folks to and from the
Space Station. In Syria, the Combined Air Operations Center (i.e., CAOC) communicates daily
with Russian counterparts to ensure that their respective air assets do not fire on each other
or inadvertently wander into a combat space. This has been going on for more than three
years.
Russia still has nuclear weapons. It is their ultimate deterrent against another invasion.
The memory of losing more than 12 million soldiers in World War II remains vivid and painful.
The U.S. public can barely remember that we lost less than 500,000 soldiers, marines and
sailors in World War II. Our inability to remember coupled with unjustified belligerence is
pushing us towards a war with Russia that would be beyond catastrophic.
''The Trump administration should use sanctions to halt the construction of a pipeline that
would allow Russia to transport natural gas directly to Europe, potentially generating cash
to fuel President Vladimir Putin's military aggression, says Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas''
I don't know how many times I have ..Who do these politicians think they are !!??
They were not elected to 'run the world'. WE must get rid of them.
The Col told me awhile ago that the CIA doesn't do 'accidental deaths' ....too bad.
At least, these sanctions are not only directed against Russia, but also against Western
Europe.
First,the sanctions directly affect not only Gasprom, but also Western European companies
that are involved in building the pipelines (since only a small part of the work remains to
be done, Nordstream 2 can probably be finished without some of them, but if everything
continues as before, some Western European companies involved in building the pipelines would
clearly be affected by US sanctions, among them a specialized Swiss company).
Second, the purpose of the pipelines clearly is not only to help Russia selling gas, but also
to help Germany buying Russian gas.
The sanctions are not anti-Russian sanctions, but sanctions against Europe, including Russia,
Germany, and other European countries.
Especially in Germany, there is absolutely no tolerance for such sanctions with which the US
wants to force Europeans to buy uncompetitive expensive US fracking gas. There are talks
about European countersanctions against the US. The US may hope to exploit disagreements
among EU countries. After all some EU countries like Poland are against Nordstream. But the
US should not rely on this - such blatant interference in European matters is clearly not
tolerated by the EU. An appropriate countermeasure might be punitive Tarifs on US fracking
gas exports - there is not much demand for it, anyway, but it would make sense to prevent any
significant amounts of US fracking gas from being bought in Europe as long as the US wants to
force Europeans to buy it.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show once more that the US has become a pariah
nation that has isolated itself and has no real allies any more (except perhaps Saudi Arabia
and Israel).
I would not call these sanctions only anti-Russian sanctions. They are just as well directed
against Western Europe.
First, it is not only Gasprom which is involved in building the pipeline (although it is
the owner), but also European companies (among them a Swiss one). Since Nordstream II is
almost finished, the services of some of these companies may not be necessary any more, but
if they continued normally, also some Western European companies would be sanctioned.
Second, obviously, the purpose of the pipelines is not only to help Russia selling gas,
but also to help Germany (and other Western European countries that will receive it via
Germany) buying Russian gas.
In Germany, there is very little tolerance for such sanctions, and people talk about
counter-sanctions against the US. An appropriate measure could be punitive tariffs on US
fracking gas. There is little demand for US fracking gas in Europe, anyway, since it is more
expensive, but it may make sense to make sure than no significant amounts of US gas are sold
in Europe as long as the US wants to force Europeans to buy it.
The US may hope to exploit disagreements about Nordstream within the EU. After all, some
countries like Poland are against it. But the US should not rely on this tactic working. Such
blatant interference in European energy supplies with sanction will hardly be tolerated by
the EU.
In any case, these anti-European sanctions show one more how much the US has become a
pariah country that has isolated itself and hardly has allies any more (except perhaps Saudi
Arabia and Israel).
I agree that one of the motives for these anti-European sanctions is anti-Russian insanity
in the US. But another important motive is disrespect of the US for Western Europe, which it
seems to regard as a kind of colonies or vassal states it can tell what to do.
In Europe, there is still a certain gap - while polls show that the US is very unpopular,
among European elites, pro-US forces still have a certain influence. But probably, it won't
take very long until European countries will adapt their policies towards the US in the
direction a majority of their citizens wants. Another such example of US folly is the idea
that Germany should pay more for the presence of US troops. According to polls, about half of
the German population wanted US troops to leave, anyway, even before the question of
increased payments was raised, and if the US is serious about this demand, the consequence
that it will lose its military bases is obvious.
I credit you with possessing the good sense, seemingly rare, to not wish to enter into a
direct military conflict with Russia, particularly out of some hyper inflated sense of
threat, owing (no less) to their aggression. Kudos to you for acknowledging which country is
the number one threat of military aggression in the world.
The sarcasm of referring to a mounting Russian threat is merited insofar as their military
budget is actually falling as a proportion of output.
I would suggest, however, when assessing the strength of the enemy you rightly argue that
it is stupid to provoke, that you do not limit yourself to the prevailing think-tank
approaches to assessing that threat. It's pretty obvious to most people that comparing an
Su-35 to an F-35 in dollar terms makes the F-35 3 or 4 times the military threat of the
Sukhoi. Ditto with an Su-57 to F-22 comparison.
But it would be better to listen to actual military experts with technical training in the
STEM disciplines needed to provide the analysis. I would suggest you look at the work of A.
Martyanov's work, a retired Russian naval officer writing occasionally US Naval institute
Blog. Or visit his blog, Reminiscence of the Future, through which you could get more
background on his books, including the latest, The (Real) Revolution in Military Affairs.
His concern is that (while some of us use these CIA factbook-type analysis to cool off the
hysterical claims of threat) Russia hawk politicians and think-tank military pseudo-experts
are using these to seriously downplay Russia's capacity to counter American aggression. Would
welcome your thoughts on his work.
Russia's 2018 GDP of $1.66 trillion, which is just 8% of America's total GDP of $21.5
trillion.
Larry, it is patently and, actually, grossly untrue on both counts. Nor comparison of
military budgets is legitimate tool. In fact, all this is in the foundation of the United
States failing, time after time, having a good grasp of the military balance.
Last winter LNG from the Russian Yamal gas field was delivered to the United States. Perhaps
Washington should deal with its own dependence on Russian energy before it starts pressuring
Europe.
The goal is to overturn the government of Russia, just like the goal has been to overturn the
government of Bolivia (Mission Accomplished), Venezuela, Cuba, China, Russia, North Korea,
Libya, Lebanon, Iran, Syria... This is imperialism. It's history is long and has been
successfully practiced by far by the British and Americans. And it's goal is the theft of the
resources, human and natural, of the countries targeted. It is old news. Nothing has changed
for two hundred years. My God, the original Crimean War was fought for exactly the same
reasons as the current Crimean War although the actual fighting is of a different scale and
different style. Permit me to include in the litany above Native Americans who were
slaughtered for their territory. It is astonishing that President Trump seems to be less than
enthusiastic about this program, but it certainly recommends him highly if he is. And today,
we may ask who is behind this program. It is certainly not the American people.
A new Bloomberg headline
reads "U.S. Concedes Defeat on Gas Pipeline It Sees as Russian Threat" just following new
sanctions included in the House and Senate passed 2020 National Defense Authorization Act
(NDAA) this week.
But two administration officials tell Bloomberg it's too little too late , despite Trump's
heightened rhetoric of calling Germany "a captive to Russia" and charging Berlin with
essentially giving "billions" of
dollars to Russia :
Senior U.S. administration officials, who asked not to be identified discussing the
administration's take on the project, said sanctions that passed Congress on Tuesday as part
of a defense bill are too late to have any effect . The U.S. instead will try to impose costs
on other Russian energy projects, one of the officials added.
The admission is a rare concession on what had been a top foreign-policy priority for the
Trump administration and highlights how European allies such as Germany have been impervious
to American pressure to abandon the pipeline. It also shows how the U.S. has struggled to
deter Russia from flexing its muscles on issues ranging from energy to Ukraine to election
interference.
The resolution contained in the defense spending bill, expected to be immediately signed
into law by Trump, are measures which specifically target companies assembling the pipeline --
a last ditch US effort to block the controversial 760-mile, $10.2BN project that would allow
Russia to export natural gas directly to Germany, depriving Ukraine of badly needed gas transit
fees along the current route for Russian supplies.
Washington's position has long been that it weakens European energy security, while Merkel's
Germany has rejected Trump's
"meddling" in European energy affairs, which the Europeans have lately sought to
diversify.
Secretary of State Mike Pompeo during a February visit to Poland said Nord Stream 2
ultimately "funnels money to Russians in ways that undermine European national
security."
It's expected to double Russian gas shipments to the EU's biggest economy Germany, while
others fear --
including dissenters within Merkel's own ruling coalition -- it will give Moscow
significant geopolitical leverage over Europe while also punishing Ukraine.
The new US sanctions measures will target executives of companies operating vessels laying
the pipeline , and will further seek to hinder those companies' ability to operate on the
project. It's been spearheaded by Russian giant Gazprom and five European energy companies,
including French electricity and gas firm Engie SA and Royal Dutch, and the Swiss company
Allseas Group SA, among others, and is nearing completion, expected soon this coming year.
Bloomberg
reports further, "Trump has indicated that he'll sign the legislation passed Tuesday. The
penalties on companies building the project, led by Russian energy company Gazprom PJSC, would
be effective immediately, according to a Senate Republican aide."
In total, continues Bloomberg, "Some 350 companies are involved in building the undersea
link, most notably the Swiss company Allseas Group SA, whose ships are laying the last section
of pipe in Danish waters."
Regardless, Gazprom head Alexei Miller has for months said it's "past the point of no
return" and that nothing would derail it. "We are working from the idea that Nord Stream 2 will
be realized strictly in accordance with the planned timetable," he
previously told shareholders.
THE UNITED STATES CORPORATION needs to keep its nose out of European energy policy! In
fact, it needs to keep its nose out of everybody else's business.
My apologies if this has been posted before, but here is a news conference broadcast by
Interfax a few days ago detailing a joint French-Ukrainian journalistic investigation into a
huge money laundering scheme using various shadow banking organizations in Austria and
Switzerland, benefiting Clinton friendly Ukrainian oligarchs and of course the Clinton
Foundation.
The link is short enough to not require re-formatting:
Of course. I have said this repeatedly. I say this with confidence because I have read a
book that is solely about Gazprom and all aspects of gas production, distribution, payment
etc. etc. within and outside Russia. Which of course includes the major special problem of
Ukraine. You cannot understand any Ukraine politics and scams (and Uk-RF politics and
conflicts) without understanding the role of gas, and of Ukraine as a bottleneck for a LOT of
the gas flowing between Russia and the EU. The Ukrainians have always been fiddling the
Russians and their gas. And then the EU got into the picture and caused more trouble for
Russia. Anyhow, it is fitting that the scam described in the video runs on GAS.
It is believed that the investments will be made through contracts signed between Aramco
and the US government, whose armed forces have steadily been increasing
their military presence in terms of manpower and equipment around the oil fields. Despite
initially claiming to
scale back troops from Syria, US President Donald Trump announced in October that
America had " secured " and
taken control of the oil in the Middle East.
The sad reality is that the Washington Post, New York Times and most of the mainstream TV
and radio media are worse liars and better propagandists for the US Military-Industrial
Complex than Pravda was for the Soviet Communist Party. There is no and never was an fair and
balanced journalism. There's even no professional journalism!
My Russian opponents and Latin friends now laugh that I don't believe anything coming from
US media today and I'm hoarding hard and untraceable assets just like they do in the Eastern
Bloc, Middle East and Cuba. The 21st Century might yet be the century of dictators and their
storm troopers who learned their lessons from Hitler and Stalin.
If populism and Trump don't survive the coup it'll be pretty grim times for the non-elites
in America. The revenge from the weirdos and the leftist globalist Marxists will definitely
start US Civil War 2.
Yes and thank you for stating fundamental and obvious truths ..
on the other hand ,
"The Washington Post performed a service to the country by shedding light on the
disinformation used to sustain endless war. But the Post's intentions are also political,
seeking to undermine Trump's electoral chances by damaging Trump's military credentials as
well as his standing amongst military personnel. What Washington's elite and the Post do not
know, or perhaps prefer to ignore, is that such media investigations directed against
political opponents actually end up doing irreparable damage to the political and military
prestige of the United States."
The Washington Compost May well have an ax to grind with and motive for publishing
newfound truthiness, it's a miracle ! I fail to see however, just how Trump takes credit in
the bull **** fog, of the longest running war, motivations department.
other than that ...
And so in closing, I would be more inclined to believe sir, propagandizing, the
propaganda, with such an opinion, is just another kin to, let's say, the impeachment farce in
example. Or in the words of "The father of modern day marketing", an obvious attempt at
further shaping public opinion, for the masses, an opinion that grows more weary, more
suspicious, more distrustful, and divergent from government and their various mouth pieces,
by the day.
Stating obvious points such as you have, and blowing it with flawed analysis, is not a
good look ..
Washington Compost, has a much more simple, damaging ,and nefarious agenda.
Truth is being revealed, regarding the mountain of year on year lies, spoon fed to the
bewildered, inflamed, dispassionate, and cowed citizenry, as the bull **** gets harder to
peddle, more impossible to digest whole.
And is happening with or without the post, and likewise, various other "main stream" mouth
pieces and government hacks (in the interests of national security, of course.)
This doesn't seem very complicated to me.
Turkey is emboldened by Turkstream (and by the Ukraine/Georgia stalemate) - Erdogan clearly
believes he can monopolize gas transit between Central Asia/Middle East/Eastern Mediterranean
and Europe. This would be a huge geopolitical and economic benefit for Turkey - far above and
beyond any religion based "leadership" Turkey could benefit from the Muslim world.
Russia doesn't really care as it already has a pole position regarding natural gas to Europe
- Erdogan's actions will only serve to slow down any buildout of competing supply from
Central Asia/Middle East. Erdogan is likely being financially backed by Qatar as well - they
also stand to benefit if Turkey can carve out a pipeline domination in the Eastern Med.
"Follow the money..." If I recall correctly, Haftar got a nice pile of money from Russia in
the form of Libyan banknotes that he ordered, and the status of those banknotes was unclear,
but in LNA zone they are as good as the central bank notes. Legally, payments for Libyan oil
have to go to that bank, and the operations, location and loyalty of that bank deserve an
investigative article.
Erdogan has too little money to succeed, IMHO. If he were flushed, he would place nice
weapon orders in UK, France, Germany and USA, as KSA + UAE did, and as we know from Yemen,
that secures NATO blessings, either verbal or quiet. His military is probably in a better
shape than Egyptian, if vulnerable to attacks by mysterious submarines. The coastal highway
from Egypt is surely good enough for military vehicles, but it is vulnerable to attacks from
air.
Putin's priority number 2 in the region is South Stream, so he will probably not supply
mysterious submarines, Greece could being irate over maritime claims, and Egypt would have
the most obvious motif. My conclusion is that the sultan's dog's barks a lot, and sometimes
bites, but with some caution. Libyan expedition has the smell of Sicilian Expedition, a
notable event during the Peloponessian war.
Egypt will not tolerate a Muslim Brotherhood led Libya as its neighbor. Before the Turkish
support allows the GNA government to defeat Haftar Egypt will intervene. The situation can
thereby soon develop into an intense war during which Turkish troops fight on Libyan grounds
against the Egyptian military.
<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule.
i agree with Psychohistorian's Mezran quote.. a Russian Turkey agreement will foreclose
USA and British access to oil from Libya, Egypt and Turkey( new OPEC will form).
Now the GNA is a UN construct so Turkey supporting it should not be a big deal politically
for the west. As for the CIA fellow, if he is working as closely as he appears to be with
Russia, I think Turkey stepping in is just as suggested:
"...from the karlof1 link:
""Mezran suggested. "If the Turks become the major supporter of the GNA, not the Europeans or
the Americans, and the Russians are the ones who are the major supporter of Haftar, then all
it would take is an agreement between Moscow and Ankara to solve the Libyan problem, causing
much damage to American and European power.""Posted by: psychohistorian | Dec 17 2019 20:25
utc | 11.
I particularly like the strategy cutting out the Central Bank by the General and Russia,
looks to me like there is a master plan being rolled out and it is moving quickly. Perhaps
Peace is breaking out:)
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
@ Posted by: ben | Dec 17 2019 22:58 utc | 20 who wrote
"
b said; "After the NATO war destroyed Africa's richest country Libya is still split."
Another "mission accomplished" by the evil empire. They couldn't stand for any leader to
share the wealth of the nation with it's people, so a lesson was given, and is still in
effect.
"
Thanks for that perspective. That is THE reason that I continue to call out Hillary "We
came, we saw, he died" Clinton as the war criminal I hope she is prosecuted for in her
lifetime.
Does anyone have an idea of both the size and combat readiness of Egyptian forces?
Would Sisi be in a position to send in a force of, say, 50,000 or 100,000 troops with
armour and air cover? If so, he could end both the Muslim Brotherhood/Al-Quaeda problem in
Libya as well as nip one of Erdogan's meddlesome adventures in the bud.
I want what Libyans want, but it seems nobody can be arsed to find that out. I strongly
suspect Libyans' preference would be for neither of these two foreign funded options since
both of these grubby groups are committed to maintaining the repeal of the petroleum act
which has protected Libyans from rapacious foreign corporations and foreign-state owned
enterprises who put sweet FA into any of their hosts' economies while meddling unceasingly in
host politics to ensure everyone but them gets screwed.
IMO the amerikan interest is less about oil & other Libyan resources than ensuring
that Libya can never again support North African nations who the empire is determined to
annex and form into a vast super-national state where governments have no control, but
corporations do.
AFAIK, both cliques in Libya are proponents of Arab nationalism which intend to pretend
the black african and berber populations are all foreigners despite both groups having a
longer history of living in the region than arabs do.
Arabs entered this region, the Magreb, about 647 AD fighting to take control off the
indigenous population of the Magreb which up until then comprised myriad african ethnicities
& language groups until around 709 when Arabs united under the banner of Islam had
complete control.
There really hasn't been a demographic based census in Libya, most likely because the role
of black africans or as the imperialists like to refer to them 'sub-saharan' (which of course
implies they are outsiders) has always been contentious among some Libyans who consider
themselves to be 'Arabs' or as they like to claim, the ruling class.
Generally the bulk of lighter skinned Libyans class themselves as Berber-Arabs, while other
Libyans (eg Muamar Ghaddaffi -may he rest in peace) consider themselves to be Berber.
The iFUKUS intervention promoted a mob claiming to be solely Arab and therefore the
legitimate rulers of the nation. They also reckoned all black africans in Libya were
foreigners. A genocidal campaign of terror and good old amerikan style lynching of black
folks followed. We rightly see the sociopath in H Clinton at this time, but what about
Oblamblam, WTF was he thinking?
Eventually some bright spark saw that killing was wasteful, so those black Libyans
remaining were rounded up and sold into slavery - to 'owners' primarily in Saudi Arabia and
the UAE.
Who knows if Libya can ever find another leader as enlightened as the Colonel? All we do
know is that there is no chance of such a leader emanating from either Haftar's gang or the
'UN-recognised' gang.
Libyans don't deserve either of these agglomerations of arseholes which is why they are
copping them. A big message from the big states that any nation which indulges in such caring
and sharing of neighbours & friends as Libya did, must be severely punished so no other
decent society will dare try that on.
"<=I think if Egypt intervenes in Libya it will strengthen the brotherhood in Egypt and
Libya and may terminate brother Sisi's rule."
I think Snake is on to something here. The power balance in Egypt is fairly evenly divided
with only a slight advantage to Sisi over Muslim Brotherhood forces.
What Turkey is seeking is fair treatment and recognition of rights it feels that it has in
the Mediterranean Sea. What a group of nations (Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US –
hereafter referred to as The Group) is attempting to do is deny Turkey any rights at all.
Those that disagree with Turkish claims have the following position:
1. Greek "owned" islands, which in some cases (e.g. Kastellorizo) go really close to the
Turkish coast, exclude Turkey from any significant rights to the Mediterranean.
2. Turkey has no claim to the area around Cyprus.
3. Cyprus is partnered with Israel, Egypt, Greece and the US for energy exploration in the
Mediterranean Sea and Turkey is not included.
4. In January 2019, the Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum was convened as a means for
Cyprus, Egypt, Greece, Jordan, Israel, Italy and the Palestinian Authority to develop a
regional natural gas market. Turkey was excluded from this forum and was very upset. (A month
later ExxonMobil announced a new gas discovery in Cypriot waters.)
In other words it is a melange of denying rights, legal assertions and exclusion
tactics.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
It is a very big mistake to believe that Turkey is in the wrong and also that it will back
down on this.
In addition to Turkey, the countries that are excluded appear to be Syria, Lebanon, and
Libya. It is right that The Group is seeking to exclude all these other countries?
It doesn't matter whether the oil and gas are viable (it may or may not be) what is
happening is that Turkey is not being allowed any recognition and they are choosing to assert
(take) their rights (because there is no other option available to them). If Turkey did not
do so then they would lose any future rights to the Mediterranean at all.
Syrian, Lebanon and Libya are obviously too weak to assert their rights. Although the
Palestinian Authority participated in Eastern Mediterranean Gas Forum I don't really expect
Palestine to benefit much and it should be noted the Palestinian Authority is are far too
weak to do anything – I'm afraid they are just being used.
Greece and Cyprus are being used as pawns by the US (why else would US Ambassador Pyatt be
based in Greece? This kind of disruption is his speciality) and Greece is being set to
confront Turkey.
Now look at a map of the Eastern Mediterranean Sea and then tell me - Is it reasonable
that Turkey should have practically no rights at all? Any fair-minded person would recognise
that Turkey does and all reasonable people would recognise that all the countries bordering
the area of exploration have rights and should cooperate and work together and none should be
excluded. What is happening is that The Group wants it all.
The reason why Turkey does not want the Libyan GNA to fall is because they fear that
Haftar will fall into line with The Group and further strengthen Turkey's exclusion from the
Mediterranean energy exploration. So it is in Turkey's great national interest to secure
Libya as an ally. Also, the GNA are still recognised as the legitimate government of Libya by
the UN so in legal terms Turkey is not doing anything wrong in recognising and supporting the
Libyan GNA.
As regards the Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone - What is happening is that Turkey and Libya
are showing The Group that it to can carve out areas and claim to areas of the Mediterranean
Seas just as much as they can.
It was widely believed that the 2015-17 Cyprus reunification talks where positive and the
closet ever to reaching a settlement. Who should be blamed for the collapse? Many believe
that is was the Greek Cypriot side that was a fault. The big sticking point was that the
Turkish Cypriot side wanted some 40,000 Turkish troops to remain based in the North of the
Island because of fears over security. At the time the Greek Cypriot side said it was
impossible to accept the continued presence of Turkish troops. This was a big mistake, Cyprus
would have been federally united and in 10 years time the Turkish troops could well have been
greatly reduced. When the talks collapsed the talk was of inevitable partition.
And what do we see in 2019? Anastasiades, the Greek Cypriot President, wants to reopen
talks "exactly where they left off" - A belated recognition that it was the Greek Cypriots
that threw away what would have been a fantastic settlement and a fairly blatant attempt to
peel away Turkish Cypriots from Turkey (Anastasiades call for a resumption of talks seems to
have come with some unnecessary hostile remarks directed at Turkey), and hasty desire (now
that there has been a gas discovery off the coast of Cyprus) to rescue the agreement because
The Group now they can use this agreement to further marginalise Turkey.
I like Frances's take on this...ie smells like a master plan between Russia and Turkey...
Why not...?...the Sultan and VVP deciding to carve up some territory, as in the old
colonial days...?
Russia and Turkey are getting closer all the time...Helmer's take about the 'Stavka' not
being fully on board with this notwithstanding...
The very useful clue is from that Atlantic Council article...the rule to apply here is to
just be for everything they are against...and be against whatever they are for...
In this case they are agitating for the West to step up to the plate and arm the
GNA...even a fly zone for farg's sakes...
Yeah...everything but let Turkey and Russia divide the spoils among themselves
right...?...throw a wrench into the spokes at any cost...?
But the thing is that Trump is not interested in any new wars or proxy wars...and I think
a Libya 2.0 is going to be an extremely hard sell anywhere, with the disaster of Killary's
2011 adventure still fresh in everyone's minds...
So nobody is stepping in...there is a vacuum there and I think that there may be some
grand bargain cooking behind the scenes with VVP and the Sultan...who knows how far
this thing could go...?
It's already causing HUGE headaches in Sodom on the Potomac...as is clear from the shrieks
of agony from the likes of the Atlantic Council and many others...
Turkey may not be the best militarily; they are slow and ponderous but they are strong
enough to move forward, occupy and hold space and take a significant amount of attrition
while doing so. Turkey is strong enough to be able to assert "facts on the ground" even if
they have to absorb several hard blows - they have been learning a lot from Russia on
this.
With regards to Libya, Turkey cannot be prevented from moving forward, occupying space,
supplying the Libyan GNA, providing military equipment and troops, etc. UNLESS their lines of
supply are cut and this means that The Group would have to attack first and sink a Turkish
ship.
And this would mean that Greece (the obvious party that might be set-up for this role)
would attack Turkey and sink a Turkish ship? This would be an act of war against Turkey and
Turkey would, as a result of such action, be fully (and legally) entitled to respond. So,
commonsense tells you that Greece and The Group can't really do this.
If The Group enables Haftar to sink a Turkish ship then Turkey will be able to claim an
attack against them, and retaliate and occupy Libya and expect NATO support whilst doing so.
The effect of such an act by Haftar's forces would inevitably result in victory for Erdogan
(counter-intuitive though that may seem).
While Turkey and Erdogan's association with the Muslim Brotherhood can be seen as a vector
that ensures Egypt's hostility towards Turkey's presence in Libya can this really express
itself militarily?
The Muslim Brotherhood is a strong movement in Egypt which has been around for a very long
time. Effectively this excludes Egypt from joining any direct attack on Turkey because they
will fear the unintended consequences that will arise within Egypt.
I'm afraid The Group, in seeking to exclude a major country like Turkey (with an obvious
major interest in the Mediterranean), is taking the first step towards war. Sinking a Turkish
ship would be another step towards war. Turkey will win any conflict as long as they are
prepared to accept some hard blows (and they will be). The Group will lose any conflict
because they are only able to strike small (sink a ship at most) or strike huge
(annihilation); they have no middle game – Turkey will be able to absorb small blows
and China & Russia will not allow Turkey to be destroyed.
At present, Turkey has nothing to lose (as far as the Mediterranean Sea energy exploration
goes) - it follows that in any military conflict that Turkey will gain. Military conflicts
have to be settled by negotiation - it is only a western delusion that wars are fought to
unconditional surrender or absolute destruction. It is The Group and, in particular, Greece
that will lose (Greece has a lot to lose in any conflict - no matter how well it goes for
Greece - they will have to give up something, even if they think they have won, because that
will be price of ending any conflict (because it always is unless you can annihilate your
adversary).
It is not Turkey that is over-reaching- it is The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and
the US) that have overplayed their hand and have most to lose.
The only thing that makes any sense in terms of a strategic plan is that it nothing more
than machinations by the US seeking to bring chaos closer to the heart of Europe. From the
outset, The Group knew what they were doing to Turkey and they knew how Turkey would feel
about it and how Turkey was likely to react.
div> On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get
into troubles for two reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each other.
And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman , Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
On paper, Erdogan may have easy superiority in Libya, but he may get into troubles for two
reasons:
1) Libyans, currently quite fractured, actually both major coalitions are riven by internal
lack of cohesion. To compare, Assad government had no business surviving, but the opposition
was split into moderates, i.e. small time gangsters and bandits having difficulties making
units of more than 100 people, and jihadists who had some abstruse reasons to hate each
other. And Turkey did not make such a good job in Idlib, Afrin and north Aleppo.
2) Egypt. Forget about ground troops, they would probably focus on air supremacy. This is an
Achilles heel of an expeditionary force. If they are intelligent (a risk that has to be
consider), they may hit the moment Turkey attempts to expand its foothold. Just letting it
slide would be a considerable loss of face for al-Sisi
Posted by: Piotr Berman | Dec 18 2019 2:19 utc |
36
Kastellorizo – A Greek Island off the Turkish Coast
Greece "owns" Kastelorizo, an island which is only about 2 kilometres off the coast of
Turkey. "Ownership" of islands such as Kastellorizo is meant to "give" Greece the "right" to
exclude Turkey from the Mediterranean Sea? I'm afraid that this is an absolutist, simplistic
and unrealistic position.
The "ownership" of Kastellorizo has changed many times throughout history and has been
"owned" by Turkey (the Ottomans) on a number of occasions. If you look at the maps you can
see that Kastellorizo is part of the same geological formation as the nearby Turkish coast.
It's akin to claiming "ownership" of my doorstop and then claiming that you "own" everything
outside the walls of my house (including my garden, car, garage, dog, cat, etc. and then
telling me I can't even use my doorstep or leave my house. If you did that to me, I would
push you aside and that is what Turkey is doing to Greece.
I know that many, many Greeks fundamentally disagree but they are just being partisan,
unfair and realistic and are allowing themselves to getting carried away with hostility
towards Turkey.
Kastellorizo could have been assigned to Turkey at the end of the WWII as part of the
Paris Peace Treaties of 1947 but instead, the "ownership" of Kastellorizo was removed from
Italy and given to Greece.
In any military conflict between Turkey and Greece (like, for instance) sinking a Turkish
Ship, then islands Kastellorizo will be immediately taken into "ownership" by Turkey and it
will be a long time, if ever, that Greece can think about re-"owning" Kastellorizo.
Essentially, the issue of Kastellorizo and its "ownership" would be settled and there would
be very little Greece could do about it.
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey.
Turkey is wrong if it thinks something in international law allows it to annul the freedom of
the seas and block pipelines. I will repost what
I wrote on October 31:
MARITIME LAW EXPLAINED
The United Nations Convention
on the Law of the Seas (UNCLOS) from 1958 guarantees to all countries the right to lay
cables and pipes in international waters. This is part of the freedom of the seas. Laying
cables and pipes is not "economic" activity as defined in the 1982 treaty that gave
countries the right to a 200 nautical mile exclusive economic zone
(EEZ).
Pipe laying is affected only by the little-known
Espoo Convention from 1991 that obliges the parties to carry out an environmental
impact assessment of certain activities at an early stage of planning. Nowhere in the
treaty does it say that it can be used to stop the freedom of navigation or other freedoms
of the seas.
Turkey does not need and doesn't intend to conquer Libya.
All Turkey has to do is maintain the Libyan GNA which is the government legally recognised
by the UN.
Only the Security Council can remove recognition of the Libyan GNA and this would be a
fairly cynical move by the West if attempted (and, I imagine, would be vetoed by more than
just Russia and China).
Military aircraft are vulnerable when ground troops have access to modern surface to air
missiles and are trained in their use. Expect Libyan GNA forces to have copious supplies of
the ground and shoulder-launched versions of these weapons. What good did aircraft do for
Saudi Arabia in Yemen? There is no winner here, only stalemate and that's more than good
enough for Turkey.
The only way to prevent Turkey from achieving its aims is to sink it's supply ships. This
would be a rash and extremely inadvisable act.
I would advise policymakers and Governments (particularly, The Group) to see where this is
all heading and not go down this path.
The coming debacle may present few heroes for our consideration. The weakest states are
probably headed for the smash-and-grab treatment at the end of the day. How is one to believe
that Erdogan gives a damn about the government in Libya?--any government? Hafter and the GNA
are both pretenders who have only marginal support in that country. These are but stick
figures in a land that's been thrown into a howling anarchy, thanks to the military operation
that Obama green-lighted. Since Erdogan is dealing with virtual nonentities, this aggression
is his aggression. And this illegal sea lane is his insult to international law and prior
agreements that recognize the rights of regional nations. It looks a lot like an act of war
or at least a pretty serious provocation.
Greece, for one, ought to be worried about this development, as some of the resources it
counts on as its territorial right is threatened here.
I don't believe that any of the Mediterranean Sea is "international waters" it's all been
carved up into Exclusive Economic Zone's (EEZ)- there's nothing left! The Group are carving
everything up for themselves and left Turkey (and a number of other countries e.g. Syria)
with very little.
Any person thinking rationally would be able to see that Turkey has been treated unfairly
and will see Turkey has been left with no effective (peaceful) way to get any redress.
All Greece and the rest of the Mediterranean nations need to do is get together, cooperate
and share.
The actions of The Group (Israel, Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US) are the ones that are
causing all the difficulties because they have tried to grab everything for themselves and
exclude everyone else.
Greece and the rest of The Group need to include Turkey, Lebanon, Libya, Syria and
Palestine (and remove the US).
When Greece asserts is rights to the Mediterranean Sea based on "ownership" of islands
such as Kastellorizo and uses such "ownership" to deny Turkey rights to the Mediterranean Sea
it is just being provocative and unreasonable and inducing Turkey to consider military
options.
Turkey controls the Dardanelles (the entrance to the Black Sea) by treaty. Turkey has been
treated as it deserves. The Aegean Sea is recognized as Greek waters; and that probably
includes the seabed beneath it. When Greece was at its most vulnerable after the recent
financial collapse, Turkish air force ramped up overflights of Greek territory, some of it
pretty aggressive, just to rub salt in the wound. It wasn't very neighborly. It looks like
Erdogan's new sea lane trespasses the Greek island of Rhodes and several others.
What Andrew Korkblko suggests is that the pipeline, that Turkey is obstructing with the
"Turkey/Libyan Maritime Zone", is not really about Cypriot gas (which b. believes will be too
small and uneconomic to justify a pipeline) but about Israeli gas which is intended to be
piped under the Mediterranean Sea into Europe as a competitor to Russian gas. Maybe the whole
thing about Cypriot gas is just a smokescreen to disguise the true origins (Israel) of the
gas.
What, I suppose, Israel is trying to achieve is to minimise the number of nations that
have a say about (and, I guess, a cut of) the pipeline. So, the attempt to cut Turkey and
other weaker countries out of share (gas transit fees) has forced Turkey to move on its
long-held grievance about being treated unfairly in the Mediterranean Sea.
Are we about to see a war in the Mediterranean between Greece and Turkey caused by US and
Israeli machinations?
I am not talking about rights that are legally justified by "ownership" - what I am saying
is that the whole of the Mediterranean Sea and its resources should be shared fairly and
reasonably by all nations of the Mediterranean.
The proposed gas pipeline is just an example where a small group of nations (Israel,
Egypt, Greece, Cyprus and the US - The Group) have got together to grab what they can for
themselves and exclude others.
Your argument is essentially we have the legal right, we are recognised under
international law, therefore we can do what we like, we can have it all, and you, who have
been excluded, you will have nothing. But, anyone can see that this is unreasonable and the
path to disaster.
But in some ways all this is now moot. The pipeline appears to be really about Israeli gas
and the lack of wisdom in trying to exclude Turkey. If The Group has any sense they will
share the booty with Turkey. If not, they will get Greece to sink a Turkish ship - the
outcome won't be good for Greece.
There's nothing like wild volatility to destroy the integrity of those high-end bankers and
analysts who are brave enough to make oil price predictions year in and year out.
But the forecasting nightmare doesn't stop them, even at the worst of times.
In the final month of last year, banks and analysts were brave enough to divulge their
predictions for 2019.
At that time, the second year of the OPEC
agreement was coming to a close; the U.S. had
re-imposed sanctions on Iran four months earlier with waiver extensions; and the average
price of a Brent barrel for December was changing hands at $56.50, compared to the month
earlier average of $65.20. WTI averaged $49 in December 2018. OPEC had
agreed to cut production again for 2019.
So who should we look for when it's time to forecast what oil prices will do in 2020? That
depends on their track record the last time around.
Here are some of the best and worst oil price predictions of 2019:
The World Bank
For 2019,
the World Bank was one of the first on the scene to provide its outlook in late 2018.
The Bank said the most important factor for 2019 would be OPEC, specifically the lack of
spare production capacity among OPEC members. This lack of oil production capacity would
provide "limited buffers" should there be a sudden shortfall in the supply of oil "raising the
likelihood of oil price spikes in 2019."
While WB acknowledged that the world was currently in a state of oversupply, it could swing
the other way quickly. In the first month of 2019, the World Bank conservatively predicted that
Brent would average $67 per barrel for the year -- a $2 per barrel decrease from its June 2018
predictions for 2019. The WB was quick to add that the "uncertainty around this forecast is
high."
How did they do? Aside from needlessly worrying the market with OPEC's lack of capacity, it
turns out their prediction was a bit high. The average
price of the Brent barrel in Q1 2019 was $63.30; for Q2 it was $68.30, and Q3 at $61.90.
November's average was $62.70.
Citi
Citi's
forecast for 2019 , also made in December 2018, was more sober-minded, with the bank
predicting that Brent would average $60 for the year. It, too, predicted a volatile market for
the next year, largely because the U.S., Russia, and Saudi Arabia -- the top three oil
producers in the world--all had different views as to what that perfect oil price should be.
The bank also predicted that oil production in the United States would continue to offset much
of what OPEC would cut -- a prediction that turned out to be close to reality: US production
has increased 1.2 million bpd this year -- precisely what OPEC agreed to cut.
How did they do? Not terrible. Its primary range was for Brent to trade between $55 and $65
per barrel--a generous $10 price range. Even with that big range, oil sat above $65 for the
better part of February through May.
Bank of America Merrill Lynch (BAML)
Also in mid-December 2018, BAML took a stab at making Brent price
predictions , forecasting that oil would resume its path back up to $70 average in 2019,
with a potential for higher prices in Q2. Similar to Citi and World Bank, BAML said that oil
prices would be volatile.
How did they do? It's hard to argue with the fact that oil indeed appears to be trending
upward, which could be interpreted as "resuming its path back up to $70". And Q2 was in fact
higher, with oil prices actually surpassing $70 for a time in April and May.
However, BAML lost a bit of credibility in our book when it hedged its forecast by saying
that "the only certainty is uncertainty." BAML hedged further in April when it said oil prices
had a higher chance of hitting $100 than what the
market consensus was, due to OPEC supply cuts, a slowdown in US shale, and IMO 2020
regulations.
BAML further watered down its predictions in August when it said oil could
fall to $30 or $40 should China decide to import substantial amounts of oil from Iran,
despite the US sanctions.
The EIA
A month after Citi, WB, and BAML ponied up their predictions, the EIA came out with its own.
Its prediction
for 2019 , provided in its January 2019 Short Term Energy Outlook, was that Brent would
average $61 per barrel. Around this time, specifically at the start of the year, Brent was
trading at $53.80 and WTI was trading at $45.41 .
How did they do? Not half bad. Brent traded at an average of $61.90 for the 3rd quarter
2019, and November's average was $62.70 -- less than $2 off per barrel for a prediction made 11
months ago in a volatile market.
That's it for the predictions made at the start of the year. But other predictions along the
way, armed with a half a year or more of actual data, are noteworthy as well.
FX Empire: Using adaptive dynamic learning (ADL),
FX Empire predicted in July of this year that oil prices would rotate between $47 and $64
between July and October, before falling in November and December to a range between $45 and
$50. FX Empire said it could actually dip below $40 by the end of 2019, or in early 2020.
How did they do? FX Empire's ADL appears to be pretty far off the mark. This CL=F is today
trading at $59.42, nearly $20 higher than it's sub-$40 prediction for the end of the year.
Goldman Sachs' Jeff Currie : In October, Currie, head of Goldman's commodity research,
warned that oil prices could fall as low as $20
per barrel for WTI if oversupply were to result in full storage facilities. With nowhere to
put it, explains Currie, the price of oil would fall dramatically as production would have to
crash. However, crude oil inventories in the United States are not dramatically up, and are
almost even-steven with this time last year, down a total of
1.41 million barrels over the last 50 weeks. Global oil inventories are a different story,
though. In Currie's defense, he did say that there was a less than 50% chance of oil falling
below $20 barrel.
How did they do? By our math, that 50% hedge would have made Goldman correct either way.
IEA : Piggybacking off Goldman's October forecast for the oil-inventory-pocalypse, the IEA's
Fatih Birol said that these low prices would force the US to cut production, resulting in a
price hike once again. In July, the IEA predicted that slowing oil demand would cap oil prices,
and keep them from moving
too much higher. At the time, Brent was trading at $63.01, with WTI trading at
$56.18.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Please
enter a valid email Thank you for subscribing!Something went wrong. Please refresh
and try again.
How did they do? With Brent trading on December 12 at $64.47, the $1.50 increase comfortably
falls within the not-too-much-higher range, so we'd say the IEA's prediction was spot on.
Analyst Poll : In August,
Reuters polled 51 economists and analysts, who thought Brent would average $65.02 in 2019.
At the time, Brent had averaged $65.08, so the $65.02 wasn't stepping out on a long limb.
How did they do? Wisely, the analysts cited the US-China trade dispute and risk of an
economic slowdown as the reason for its new forecast, which was down from $67.47 for the month
before. Still, the price prediction was a bit high.
RBC Capital Markets : RBC's Helima Croft in May suggested that Brent could top
$80 over the summer due to Iranian tensions.
How did they do? RBC got it partially right. Iran tensions did indeed escalate. Iran
repeatedly made threats to close Hormuz, drone strikes attacked Saudi Aramco's oil
infrastructure, and Iran seized a British oil tanker and held onto it for months. Still, prices
didn't get anywhere near $80. But this isn't your daddy's oil market. A year or two ago,
tensions in the Middle East -- especially ones that are more than just threats, would have sent
oil prices soaring. But the market is today permanently spooked with the trade war negotiations
with China and slow oil demand growth, meaning these geopolitical risks no longer pack the same
punch.
Iran : In June, a top military aide to Iran's Supreme Leader
issued a prediction which was really more of a warning: that the first bullet fired in the
Persian Gulf would push oil prices above $100 per barrel. At the time, oil was trading at
$61.67.
How did they do? Not well. Things did heat up in the Gulf, and bullets -- many of them --
have been fired over the last month after major fuel protests in Iran. There were also drone strikes over
Saudi Arabia that did significant damage to oil infrastructure, which took offline over 5
million bpd. Still, oil got nowhere near $100.
Eurasia Group : Henry Rome, a senior analyst at political risk consultancy Eurasia Group,
agreed that these same Iranian tensions could push prices above $100, and a major confrontation
with Iran "would likely" send prices above $150.
How did they do? Even worse than Khamenei's military aide.
WSJ Poll: At the end of April, a week or so after the US announced that it would not extend
the waivers to buyers of sanctioned Iranian oil, WSJ-polled analysts expected Brent to
average $70 per barrel in 2019 -- an increase of $2 per barrel from its previous poll a
month earlier.
How did they do? Oil was already trading at $70 at the time of their prediction, so it
wasn't really a huge leap of faith at the time. Still, prices failed to get any higher than
that for the remainder of the year, rendering their prediction in the far-too-high
category.
I think it should have been seen as a thirty year campaign and the same with Iraq and Libya.
The northern Ireland campaign took 30 years and many people are as bitter as they ever were
much of it secondhand from younger people who weren't even alive during the conflict. The
idea of a quick war is a very big mistake I think and flawed short-term thinking.
The West and the USA in particular have always taken the stand that their ideology is the
only right one. That they have a right to interfere in the interns, affairs of other
countries but their own internal affairs are sacrosanct.
So - USA, with UK support decided that Saddam Hussein had to be removed. They moved in to
do so - they killed Saddam but had no plan to return the country to a functioning nation.
Instead they facilitated the unleashing of internal wars and have now left the citizens of
that country in utter turmoil.
& then went and repeated the exercise n Libya.
Decades ago, Britain decided that Palestinians could be thrown out of their homes to make
way for the creation of Israel and laid the foundation for the Middle-East turmoil that has
caused untold misery and suffering. They followed that up with throwing out the Chagosians
out of their homes and making them homeless. Invited Caribbean's to the 'Mother Country' to
serve their erstwhile lords, ladies, masters and mistresses only to then drive to despair the
children and grandchildren of the invitees who had contributed to the 'Mother Country' for
decades.
We are 18 years into an illegal invasion and occupation of Afghanistan. We are the invaders,
the terrorists. The Taliban are fighting for their country, they may use brutal methods but
so did the French, Dutch, Russian freedom fighters during the Nazi invasions. America's
puppet regime in Afghanistan is reminiscent of the Quislings of WW2. And to use drones to
kill Afghans and to say it is progress that there is more transparency is the height of
hubris. All it does is show the corrosive effect of unfettered power in America and it's
military. Why do we tolerate this inhuman action on another country's society? America is by
far the greatest contributor to the rise in terrorism in the world and if not somehow stopped
the greatest threat to world peace. It keeps on invading country after country with it's MSM
propaganda machine claiming it is spreading Democracy throughout the globe. Thank you America
!
Speaking of Shane Gustafson: this is an excellent book:
Crisis amid Plenty: The Politics of Soviet Energy under Brezhnev and Gorbachev
(Princeton Legacy Library) Paperback – February 1, 1991
Although the Soviet Union has the most abundant energy reserves of any country, energy
policy has been the single most disruptive factor in its industry since the mid-1970s. This
major case study treats the paradox of the energy crisis as an essential part of larger
economic problems of the Soviet Union and as a key issue in determining the fate of the
Gorbachev reforms.
One of the theses of the book is that the Soviet industry had a "silo" structure: the
various components (exploration, drilling, production, transport, export) didn't coordinate
with one another and depended on the glue of communist party apparatchiks to keep the system
functioning. Gorbachev is said to have eliminated that glue and chaos ensued.
"... The sanctions against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in difficult to reach environments. ..."
"... That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok we give up'...? ..."
"... And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world, Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico... ..."
"... That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero... ..."
We shall see how strong. I'd put money on the Germans doing business with their natural
Eastern partners. Business is business, suzerain occupation since 75 years
notwithstanding.
Actually I harbor doubts about the strength of imperial ability, as the natural reaction
every time they use dollarweapon, is the weakening of the weapon...
That Good Man V Putin, I'm sure we all recall, recently spoke to this matter...signing off
with "they (or the dollar) will collapse soon."
zerohedge > "The Dollar Enjoyed Great Trust Around The World. But For Some Reason It Is
Being Used As A Political Weapon, Imposing Restrictions. Many Countries Are Now Turning Away
From The Dollar As A Reserve Currency. US Dollar Will Collapse Soon."
We will see on Nordstream 2 sanctions' effectiveness. Generally, US sanctions, when
aggressively enforced, are extremely effective (and lethal in many cases). The sanctions
against Russia are not that broad but they have impacted Russian energy E&P efforts in
difficult to reach environments.
I would also add that:
a) LNG prices are currently at incredibly low levels and if they hold at these levels
importation of LNG could minimize Germany's hit, and Qatar last week announced it will expands
its LNG export capabilities;
b) Russia / Gazprom did not finance Nordstream 2's construction; initially I believe Gazprom
did so but a consortium of 4 Netherlands (including Royal Dutch Shell), Austrian and German
companies later assumed the financing obligation;
c) Due to an EU ruling related to foreign-affiliated pipelines (or some variation of that),
it will likely be forced to operate at 50% of capacity.
Based on a) - c) there is much less than meets to eye for Nordstream 2.
A more likely outcome than violation of US sanction IMO is an asymmetric response from
Germany; perhaps the EU aviation authorities will deny whatever Band Aid Boeing puts our for
the 737 Max's MCAS system. Or Germany approves Huawei's 5g equipment.
I'm not sure how I missed those Nov 16 posts so thanks for forwarding. This quote will be
interesting:
"With some 85% of the pipeline already laid, new congressional sanctions aimed at
companies participating in the pipeline's construction will not stop it.
Instead, they will become a new bone of contention between the United States and
Europe.
That is just common sense...large Euro energy companies are partners in Nordstream and
have invested billions...do you think they are just going to throw up their hands and say 'Ok
we give up'...?
Even a child can see this Spiegel diarrhea for what it is...
And supposedly the owners of those ships [there is actually only one company in the world,
Swiss-based Allseas, that operates these deep sea pipe-laying ships] are going to drop
Nordstream because they don't want to lose potential US business in the Gulf of Mexico...
That is bullshit...what pipelines are being planned for the Gulf...?...Zero...
Yet the Russians are the world's gas and pipeline superpower and have more pipeline
projects in the works...
As if Allseas is going to risk their biggest customer for some bullshit US
sanctions...[they are also laying the Turkstream pipeline..."
Any company whose operations are all international will unfortunately have to think long
and hard about losing accessing to dollars. Open violations of US Sanctions are still almost
unheard of - Rosneft in Venezuala, Reliance Industries might now be buying Venezuelan oil -
so I would not be pollyanish about their power. Note that European companies will not use
Instinex out of fear of losing access to dollars.
Your questions are absolutely justified. The original story was written by Georg Mascolo,
the German Dana Milbank, i.e. the chief mouth piece of the intelligence services. This is an
obvious attempt to put pressure on Merkel to hamper relations with "Evil Russia" just prior
to a possible breakthrough in the Normandy talks. The German services, especially the BND,
are the last strongholds of Transatlanticism here, and they try to brace themselves against
any rapprochment between Russia and Germany. But this will be in vain. It's simply that the
geopolitical imperative is too strong: the two countries fit together perfectly in terms of
their respective needs and abilities.
Power of Siberia is here. It's finished. Russian President Vladimir Putin and Chinese
Premier Xi Jinping christened the pipeline to begin the month. Next month Putin will travel to
Turkey to join President Recep Tayyip Erdogan to open the first of four potential trains of the
Turkstream pipeline.
It is only Nordstream 2 that continues to lag behind because of insane levels of pressure
from the United States that is dead set against this pipeline coming online.
And the reason for that is the last of the major energy issues surrounding Gazprom needing
resolution this month, the gas transit contract between it and Ukraine's Naftogaz.
The two gas companies have been locked in legal disputes for years, some of which center on
Crimea's decision to break away from Ukraine and rejoin Russia in 2014. Most of them, however,
involve disputes over costs incurred during the previous and expiring gas transit contract.
The particulars today are ultimately irrelevant as these lawsuits have been used as nothing
more than blackmail to keep a new contract from getting signed. Ukraine has sued Gazprom in
courts, like in Sweden, that rule not by the tenets of contract law but rather through the lens
of social justice.
These have been political decisions that allowed Naftogaz to seize Gazprom's European
assets, further complicating any resolution to the conflict. These policies were pursued
aggressively by former Ukrainian President and long-time US State Department asset Petro
Poroshenko and they have done nothing to help Ukraine.
All they have done is strip-mine the country of its assets while keeping a war to prevent
the secession of the Donbass alive.
This dovetails with the external pressure applied to EU member states, like Denmark, to
delay if not outright thwart completion of Nordstream 2.
Opposition to Nordstream 2 in the US is all about leveraging influence in Ukraine and turn
it into a client state hostile to Russia sharing a border with Russia. If there's no gas
transit contract and there's no Nordstream 2 then US LNG suppliers can sell gas there and
deprive Russia of the revenues and the business.
It's truly that simple. But that strategy has morphed over the years into a convoluted chess
match of move/countermove in the vain hope of achieving something that looks like a victory.
But this isn't a game of real chess but rather a timed match.
Because the end of 2019 was always coming. And Ukraine would eventually have to decide as to
which direction it wanted to go. Moreover, that same choice was put in front of the EU who have
clearly, in the end, realized that the US under President Trump is not a long-term reliable
partner, but rather a bully which seeks its goals through threat and intimidation.
Stay with the US or green light Nordstream 2. The choice in Europe was clear. Nordstream 2
gets finished, as Denmark finally granted the final environmental permit for its construction
in October.
That delay moves the completion date out into 2020. And that now gives the US Senate one
last chance to stop the completion of the pipeline because everything else to this point has
failed, including the EU changing the rules on its gas pipeline rules to force Gazprom to
'unbundle' the pipeline from the gas flowing through it.
Germany amended that directive to allow Nordstream 2 to be regulated at the German federal
level and not at the EU level. This was as much of a win as could have been hoped for.
"The reason for the push is that this window is closing. A lot of Nord Stream is done
already. It will cost them dearly. I think if those sanctions pass [the companies] will shut
down, and I think the Russians will have to look for another way to do this if they can do
this," Risch said.
In reality the window has closed.
At the end of the day even if this legislation passes there will be no way to stop the
pipeline from being completed or the gas to flow through it. With so little of the pipeline
left to complete there is no practical way to stop it from happening. Risch and other US
senators are hoping to strand Nordstream 2 as an unfinished boondoggle but that's folly.
The German government wants this pipeline, therefore the German government will put up the
funds to ensure the contractors are paid and the pipeline completed.
There is a limit to the extent which sanctions can block commerce and once completed the US
will have no ability to sanction the gas flowing through the pipeline. It's a sad and pathetic
state of affairs that so much time, manpower and capital was wasted to stop a pipeline that is
necessary for Germany's future.
It also highlights the hypocrisy of US policy since there isn't a peep out of the US on
Turkstream, which will stitch NATO ally Turkey to Russia via 15.75 cm of natural gas every
year. Eventually it will replace the lost South Stream pipeline as the other trains are built
and contracted for.
All of the countries in eastern Europe are hungry for a piece of Turkstream's future. Serbia
Hungary, Bulgaria, Italy and Greece are all potential customers.
And all of these countries that currently get their gas from Ukraine are at risk if nothing
gets resolved between it and Russia. This is why the meeting between Putin and Ukrainian
President Zelensky is so important. It has the opportunity to begin reversing the damage done
to the basic fabric of Ukraine and Europe by agreeing to a path to ending the war in the
Donbass and coming to an agreement on gas transit.
There are more than $12 billion in lawsuits outstanding that Naftogaz has pending against
Gazprom. With Nordstream 2 a fait accompli that is all the leverage Zelensky has at that
meeting.
This game is a microcosm of the way the US foreign policy establishment uses Europe as the
battleground in the war against Russia. And given the way the political winds are shifting,
Europeans are getting very tired of it.
This is why gas storage facilities in Europe are full, there is real fear that Gazprom will
walk away from the talks with Ukraine and will wait out the completion of Nordstream 2. Gazprom
offered an extension of the current contract on the condition that Ukraine drop the
lawsuits.
Naftogaz said no. We'll see if Zelensky is smart enough to say yes.
China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline in operation
HARBIN -- The China-Russia east-route natural gas pipeline was put into operation on
Monday.
At the gas-distributing and compressing station in the city of Heihe, northeast China's
Heilongjiang Province, the data screen was switched on, indicating parameter variations of
the gas passage. The station is the first stop after the Russia-supplied natural gas enters
China.
The pipeline is scheduled to provide China with 5 billion cubic meters of Russian gas in
2020 and the amount is expected to increase to 38 billion cubic meters annually from 2024,
under a 30-year contract worth 400 billion U.S. dollars signed between the China National
Petroleum Corp (CNPC) and Russian gas giant Gazprom in May 2014.
The cross-border gas pipeline has a 3,000-km section in Russia and a 5,111-km stretch in
China.
Shao Hua, general manager of Heihe City Natural Gas Development Co., Ltd. of China Gas,
said that the border city of Heihe still largely relies on coal for heat. With the
Sino-Russian natural gas pipeline's operation, the city now has access to a stable supply of
clean energy.
Heihe has registered 30,000 households for switching to natural gas for heating. It will
take one year to complete full coverage of the gas network in the city, according to the
company.
China's natural gas consumption reached 280.3 billion cubic meters in 2018. The country's
demand for natural gas will continue to soar toward 2040, outstripping domestic output by
around 43 percent, according to an International Energy Agency report.
China aims to raise the use of natural gas to 10 percent of the country's energy mix by
2020 and 15 percent by 2030, said the National Development and Reform Commission.
How Russia-China Gas Pipeline Changes Energy Calculus
By Olga Tanas, Anna Shiryaevskaya and Dan Murtaugh - Bloomberg
Russia is pivoting its energy business to the east. The world's largest exporter of
natural gas has built an enormous pipeline running from Siberia to the Chinese border to feed
China's insatiable energy appetite. The new conduit, called the Power of Siberia, is part of
a plan by Russian President Vladimir Putin to reduce his country's dependence on gas markets
in Europe and tap into the fast-growing economies of Asia. For China, whose domestic energy
production can't keep up with demand, the pipeline offers a vital new source of
supply....
Another fun chart with oil prices and the implicit price deflator. Oil used to mostly
follow the implicit deflator, until 2014.
The index start is different so there is some data discrepency, but it is clear that we
have become an oil economy, we dig it up and sell it to more advanced economies, just like
Nigeria.
Further, it you were to include the median home price over the housing bubble you will see
that median, aggregate home price rose with oil, mainly because oil is about 15% of the input
to home construction, and oil tripled in price.
The true home bubble was in California and Florida, a result we discovered in about 2010,
and was reported on this blog.
We knew what was happening with oil shocks and chose to ignore it so we could have a nice
Dean Baker style narrative. That is, we knew the truth and preferred the deception, which we
also knew at the time. Ex post it is obvious our fake narrative resulted in increased
inequality, which we have now proven.
We, the folks on this blog, were a natural experiment, mostly a natural experiment of
boomers faking it, in full knowledge of the consequences. We got the expected result, low
real GDP growth while interest charges, as a percentage of real growth, going through the
roof.
Now we have another natural experiment. Either the price deflator has to drop rapidly, or
oil has to rise dramatically or we get an MMT moment. Dunno the outcome. But we are really
good at having the MMT moments. We can show that we have become better MMTers as each
generation gains more technology and knowledge applied to central banking.
The financial struggles of the U.S. shale industry are
becoming increasingly hard to
ignore,
but drillers in Appalachia are in particularly bad shape.
The Permian has recently seen
job
losses
, and for the first time since 2016, the hottest shale basin in the world has seen job
growth lag the broader Texas economy.
The industry is cutting back amid heightened
financial scrutiny from investors, as debt-fueled drilling has become increasingly hard to justify.
But E&P companies focused almost exclusively on gas, such as those in the Marcellus and Utica
shales, are in even worse shape. An IEEFA
analysis
found
that seven of the largest producers in Appalachia burned through about a half billion dollars in
the third quarter.
Gas production continues to rise, but profits remain elusive.
"Despite booming
gas output, Appalachian oil and gas companies consistently failed to produce positive cash flow
over the past five quarters," the authors of the IEEFA report said.
Of the seven companies analyzed, five had negative cash flow, including Antero Resources,
Chesapeake Energy, EQT, Range Resources, and Southwestern Energy. Only Cabot Oil & Gas and Gulfport
Energy had positive cash flow in the third quarter.
The sector was weighed down but a sharp drop in natural gas prices, with
Henry
Hub
off by 18 percent compared to a year earlier. But the losses are highly problematic. After
all, we are more than a decade into the shale revolution and the industry is still not really able
to post positive cash flow. Worse, these are not the laggards; these are the largest producers in
the region.
The outlook is not encouraging.
The gas glut is expected to stick around for a
few years. Bank of America Merrill Lynch has repeatedly warned that unless there is an unusually
frigid winter, which could lead to higher-than-expected demand, the gas market is headed for
trouble. "A mild winter across the northern hemisphere or a worsening macro backdrop could be
catastrophic for gas prices in all regions," Bank of America
said
in
a note in October.
The problem for Appalachian drillers is that Permian producers are not really interested in all
of the gas they are producing. That makes them unresponsive to price signals. Gas prices in the
Permian have plunged close to zero, and have at times turned negative, but gas production in Texas
really hinges on the industry's interest in oil. This dynamic means that the gas glut becomes
entrenched longer than it otherwise might. It's a grim reality plaguing the gas-focused producers
in Appalachia.
With capital markets growing less friendly, the only response for drillers is to cut back. IEEFA
notes that drilling permits in Pennsylvania in October fell by half from the same month a year
earlier. The number of rigs sidelined and the number of workers cut from payrolls also continues to
pile up.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of
must-read stories.
Please enter a valid email
Thank you for subscribing!
Something went wrong. Please refresh and try
again.
The negative cash flow in the third quarter was led by Chesapeake Energy (-$264 million)
and EQT (-$173 million), but the red ink is only the latest in a string of losses for the sector
over the last few years. As a result, the sector has completely fallen out of favor with investors.
But gas drillers have fared worse, with share prices lagging not just the broader S&P 500, but
also the fracking-focused XOP ETF, which has fallen sharply this year. In other words, oil
companies have seen their share prices hit hard, but gas drillers have completely fallen off of a
cliff. Chesapeake Energy even
warned
last
month that it there was "substantial doubt about our ability to continue as a going concern." Its
stock is trading below $1 per share.
Even Cabot Oil & Gas, which posted positive cash flow in the third quarter, has seen its share
price fall by roughly 30 percent year-to-date.
"Even though Appalachian gas companies
have proven that they can produce abundant supplies of gas, their financial struggles show that the
business case for fracking remains unproven,"
IEEFA concluded.
Tags
Business Finance
This has no small strategic significance: previously, for foreign sales, Russia was
dependent on customers in Europe who are all, to a greater or lesser extent, subject to
pressure from the war party.
Added to which transport was affected by Kiev's whims. Turkstream (scheduled to start next month) and
the two pipelines to Germany help with the second problem and this one with the first. Sooner
or later, Russia-China pipelines would have appeared but I think Ishchenko's
argument that the Western war on Russia speeded up the process is credible.
(Come to think of it, now that Putin's hand is imagined everywhere, maybe it's time to
consider that he's the American war party's real backer; after all, everything it's touched has
turned to dust: from the forever wars, to Iran's increased influence, to the Russia-China
alliance and now the furore in the USA over Ukraine – itself another disastrous
project.)
"... "Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office. ..."
"... "David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago. ..."
"... It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related, it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade. ..."
"... The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will mean fewer jobs and lower pay. ..."
"... This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported. ..."
"... Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest, but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive. ..."
"... The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion. ..."
"... There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy is back at full employment. ..."
Given his history of promoting racism, xenophobia, sexism and his recently exposed boasts about sexual assaults, not many people
want to be associated with Donald Trump. However that doesn't mean everything that comes out of his mouth is wrong.
In the debate on Sunday Donald Trump made a comment to the effect that because of the North American Free Trade Agreement and
other trade deals, "we lost our jobs." The New York Times was quick to say * this was wrong.
"We didn't.
"Employment in the United States has increased steadily over the last seven years, one of the longest periods of economic
growth in American history. There are about 10 million more working Americans today than when President Obama took office.
"David Autor, an economist at M.I.T., estimated in a famous paper that increased trade with China did eliminate roughly
one million factory jobs in the United States between 2000 and 2007. However, an important implication of his findings is that
such job losses largely ended almost a decade ago.
"And there's no evidence the North American Free Trade Agreement caused similar job losses.
"The Congressional Research Service concluded in 2015 that the 'net overall effect of Nafta on the U.S. economy appears to
have been relatively modest.' "
There are a few things to sort out here. First, the basic point in the first paragraph is absolutely true, although it's not
clear that it's relevant to the trade debate. The United States economy typically grows and adds jobs, around 1.6 million a year
for the last quarter century. So any claim that trade has kept the U.S. from creating jobs is absurd on its face. The actual issue
is the rate of job creation and the quality of the jobs.
Here there are three issues to consider.
1) The direct job loss – the jobs that were displaced due to imports substituting for domestically produced goods and services;
2) The wage effects – the downward pressure on the wages of workers that retain their jobs that can result from job loss and
also the threat of job loss;
3) The impact of a trade deficit on the level of demand in the economy.
Taking these in turn we now have some pretty solid evidence on some of the job loss attributable to trade. David Autor's work
** found that imports from China cost the economy more than 2 million jobs in the years from 2000-2007.
"Estimates of the net impact of aggregate demand and reallocation effects imply that import growth from China between 1999
and 2011 led to an employment reduction of 2.4 million workers" (page 29).
These are workers who are directly displaced by import competition. In addition, as the article goes on to note, there were
more workers who likely lost their jobs to the multiplier effect in the local economies most directly affected by imports.
The impact of trade with China was more dramatic than trade with Mexico and other countries because of the huge growth in imports
over a short period of time. However, even if the impact from trade with other countries was smaller, it still would have a substantial
effect on the communities affected.
It is also worth noting that even though our trade deficit has declined from its 2006 peak (the non-oil deficit has recently
been rising again), workers are constantly being displaced by imports. The Bureau of Labor Statistic reports there have been an
average of 110,000 layoffs or discharges a month in manufacturing thus far this year. If just a quarter of these are trade-related,
it would imply that more than 300,000 workers a year are losing their jobs due to trade.
Of course people lose jobs for other reasons also, like increased productivity. So the fact there is job loss associated with
trade doesn't make it bad, but it is not wrong to see this as a serious problem.
The second point is the wage effect, which can go beyond the direct impact of job loss. The oil market can give us a useful
way of thinking about this issue. Suppose that Saudi Arabia or some other major producer ramps up its oil production by 1 million
barrels of oil a day. This will put downward pressure on world prices, which will have the effect of lowering prices in the United
States as well. This could mean, for example, that instead of getting $50 for a barrel of oil, producers in North Dakota will
only get $40 a barrel. This will mean less money for workers and companies in the oil industry. In the case of workers, it will
mean fewer jobs and lower pay.
This can happen even if there is very little direct impact of trade. The increased supply of Saudi oil may result in some modest
reduction in U.S. exports of oil, but the impact on price will be much larger. The analogous story with trade in manufactured
goods is that the potential to import low cost goods from Mexico, China, or other countries can have the effect of lowering wages
in the United States, even if the goods are not actually imported.
Kate Bronfenbrenner, a professor of industrial relations at Cornell, documented one way in which the potential to import can
have the effect of lowering wages. She found *** that employers regularly used the threat of moving operations to Mexico as a
way to thwart unionization drives. While most workers are not typically involved in unionization drives, it is easy to imagine
this dynamic playing out in other contexts where employers use the real or imagined threat from import competition as a reason
for holding down wages. The implication is the impact of trade on wages is likely to be even larger than the direct effect of
the goods actually brought into the country.
Finally, the balance of trade will have an impact on the overall level of employment in the economy when the economy is below
its full employment level of output. Until the Great Recession, most economists did not think that trade could affect the overall
level of employment, but only the composition. This meant that trade could cause us to lose manufacturing jobs in the Midwest,
but these job losses would be offset by gains in Silicon Valley and other tech centers. This could still mean bad news for the
manufacturing workers who lost their jobs, but the net effect for the country as a whole would still be positive.
The Great Recession changed this view, as many economists came to believe that the United States is facing a period of secular
stagnation: a sustained period in which lack of demand in the economy constrains growth and employment. In this context, the trade
deficit is a major cause of the lack of demand since it is spending that is creating demand in other countries rather than the
United States. If we could reduce the annual trade deficit by $100 billion then as a first approximation it will have the same
impact on the economy as a stimulus of $100 billion.
From this perspective, the trade deficit is a major source of job loss. Our current trade deficit of $500 billion a year (@2.8
percent of GDP) is a major drag on demand and employment. For this reason, a politician would be absolutely right to cite trade
as a big factor in the weakness of the labor market.
It is worth noting that many economists (including many at the Federal Reserve Board) now believe that the economy is close
to its full employment level of output, in which case trade is not now a net cause of job loss even if it had been earlier in
the recovery. There are two points to be made on this view.
First, there are many prominent economists, such as Paul Krugman and Larry Summers, who argue that the economy is still well
below its full employment level of output. So this is at least a debatable position.
Second, if we accept that the economy is near full employment it implies that close to 2 million prime age workers (ages 25-54)
have permanently left the labor market compared to 2007 levels of labor force participation. (The gap is close to 4 million if
we use 2000 as our comparison year.)
There is no generally accepted explanation as to why so many prime age workers would suddenly decide they didn't feel like
working, but one often invoked candidate is the loss of manufacturing jobs. The argument in this story is that the manufacturing
sector provided relatively good paying jobs for people without college degrees. With so many of these jobs now gone, these workers
can't find jobs. If this argument is true, then it means that trade has cost the country a large number of jobs even if the economy
is back at full employment.
In short, there are good reasons for a politician to complain about trade as a major source of our economic problems. There
is much research and economic theory that supports this position.
MOSCOW, November 28. /TASS/. Russian-Ukrainian gas consultations with the participation of
Russian Energy Minister Alexander Novak, the Minister of Energy and Environmental Protection of
Ukraine Alexey Orzhel, Gazprom CEO Alexey Miller, the heads of Naftogaz of Ukraine and LLC Gas
Transmission System of Ukraine were held in Vienna on Thursday.
This is according to statements by the Russian Energy Ministry and Gazprom. Read also
GECF believes Russia and Ukraine
will manage to agree on gas transit to EU this year "The parties discussed
Russian-Ukrainian cooperation in the gas sector -- settlement of mutual claims for the
implementation of contracts, the terms for the transit of Russian gas to Europe from 2020, the
prospects for direct purchase of Russian gas for Ukrainian consumers," the statement said.
Russia, the European Commission and Ukraine have been holding consultations on gas transit
after 2020. The dialogue is complicated by the ongoing legal disputes between Russia's Gazprom
and Naftogaz of Ukraine. Moscow offers a "package solution" that includes a settlement
agreement on legal disputes and direct gas purchases at reduced prices. As a fallback, Russia
is ready to extend the current transit agreement for the whole year of 2020.
Ukraine considers the settlement agreement on legal disputes and the signing of a
short-term contract to be unacceptable. Earlier this month, Naftogaz' executive director, Yury
Vitrenko, announced that Ukraine would pump Russian transit gas to its underground storage
facilities (UGS), if this gas entered the country without an appropriate contract starting from
January 1, 2020.
The next round of trilateral consultations on the transit of Russian gas to Europe through
Ukraine from 2020 is scheduled for the first week of December.
The existing contracts for the supply and transit of Russian gas through Ukraine expire on
December 31.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter. KIEV, November 30. /TASS/. The gas price
for Ukrainians may increase to 12,000 hryvnias (about $500) per 1,000 cubic meters in the event
of the termination of transit from Russia from January 1, 2020, Minister of Energy and
Environment of Ukraine Alexey Orzhel said on Friday.
"The price of 12,000 hryvnia is possible in the absence of transit," he said speaking on the
national television.
Orzhel also recalled that the government had offered Ukrainians the so-called guaranteed
price of gas in the amount of 8,000 hryvnias (about $333) per 1,000 cubic meters in case the
gas transit is halted from the new year and the cost of gas increases significantly.
At a meeting of the Cabinet of Ministers of Ukraine on November 27, a gas price for the
population was fixed at 8 hryvnias per cubic meter.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream gas pipeline in May
2017. The pipeline with a length of 930 km runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast
of Turkey. Further, a land section will stretch for 180 km to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries.
Gazprom began construction of the offshore section of the Turkish Stream in May 2017,
managed by South Stream Transport B.V. (100% subsidiary of Gazprom). The offshore section of
the pipeline runs along the bottom of the Black Sea to the coast of Turkey. Its length is 930
km. The pipeline will be continues by a 180-km land transit line to the border of Turkey with
neighboring countries. The first line will be designed for the Turkish market, the second - for
gas supply to the countries of South and Southeast Europe. The capacity of each line is 15.75
billion cubic meters of gas per year. The first deliveries are scheduled for the end of 2019.
Gazprom announced the completion of deep-sea laying of the offshore section of the first
Turkish Stream in April 2018. Turkey is Gazprom's second largest export market. Currently,
Russian energy is supplied to this country through the Blue Stream pipeline and the
Trans-Balkan gas pipeline. In 2017, Gazprom exported a record volume of gas to the Turkish
market - 29 billion cubic meters, which is 17.3% more than in 2016, and 1.7 billion cubic
meters (6.2%) more than in 2014 when the previous maximum was set (27.3 billion cubic meters).
At the end of May, Gazprom and the Turkish government signed a protocol on the land section of
the Turkish Stream pipeline transit line to supply Russian gas to European consumers. Gazprom
and the Turkish company Botas concluded an agreement on the basic conditions and parameters for
the construction of the section. Joint venture TurkAkim Gaz Tasima A. S. will carry out
construction of the land section.
Earlier, Deputy Chairman of the Board of Directors of Gazprom Alexander Medvedev said that
in the near future the company would finally determine the route of the second line of the
Turkish Stream for gas supply to countries in Southern and Southeast Europe. According to him,
two main options are being discussed in accordance with the procedures in the European Union
and the European Commission. Medvedev cited Greece, Italy, Bulgaria, Serbia, and Hungary as
potential markets.
Gazprom's investments in the construction of the Turkish Stream for 2018 are planned at the
level of 182.4 bln rubles ($2.76 bln) against almost 93 bln rubles ($1.4 bln) in 2017. The
company estimates the cost of laying the pipeline at 7 bln euro.
The Ukies imagine they are so clever! They will waive a claim they have pretty much no chance
of ever being awarded, in return for a lesser amount of guaranteed cold, hard cash plus a
transit deal which will commit Russia to giving them at least another $20 Billion in transit
fees over 10 years. Russia should pretend to consider it, just to wind them up, and run out
the clock on the signing of a new contract. Then say, "I've decided not to after all, old
chap".
Hal,
Could you please comment on Dylan Ratigan's comment about $128
Billion being automatically pumped into the banker's hands without
public comment by Dodd Frank?
Is it the same thing as a repo? I'm a non-economist, just a
simple fellow, that's getting the hang of this con game.
I watched the Ratigan video on your recommendation and agree
it is a fundamental retelling that pulls the elements together
better than anything I'd previously seen. And I completely
agree with his assessment that this was the biggest theft in
mankind's history.
The Fed's highest stated purpose is "the integrity and
stability of the banking system". Problem is, that mission
justifies anything and everything beneath it. They are not in
the business of ensuring a bank obeys the law, and if they
break the law, even the "business law" of making terrible
business decisions, all the Fed thinks they are required to do
is make them whole.
So you have a radically anti-capitalist structure at the
tippy top of a supposedly "capitalist" system. And that's even
before you even get to any discussion of secrecy, subterfuge or
malfeasance.
Why are we not allowed to know who the recipients were of
the *$21 trillion* (GAO number) of free Fed money after 2009?
All we can do is follow the bread crumbs: we do know, for
example, that 2/3rds of those dollars went to European
institutions, including non-bank corporations. Huh? Q: That
benefits the Main St U.S. economy how, again? A: It doesn't.
This means you can pay no attention whatsoever to the ancillary
Fed "missions" around U.S. employment and economic growth.
The $128B Ratigan mentions re Dodd-Frank is just a trickle
in the tsunami of funds reaching bank coffers. Free money of
course is funding massive share buybacks, the *only* cause of
stock "rises" since 2009, but what completely infuriates me is
what banks are doing around buybacks. It's one thing if
buybacks benefit *all* shareholders, but the latest trick (esp
by Jamie Dimon) is to take free money, buy back JPM shares,
*but those shares are only given to Jamie himself and his top
managers*.
(Of course until 1982 companies borrowing money to buy back
their own shares was completely illegal since it's effect is
stock price manipulation).
Repo is just a shorter term version of all of these other
diverted flows. Completely under all radars, with no
Congressional hearings or public scrutiny or oversight.
I always love to be wrong because it means I get to
be right again. I'm not a funding market expert either,
but I hope you're just correctlng Ratigan's views on
the $128B, not the entirety of my ramble? Thx Yves
I don't write about the repo mess because the commentary on it
is generally terrible. This is not "monetizing debt". This is
"providing liquidity to the money markets" which is what the Fed is
supposed to do!!!
The Fed got itself into a corner with super low rates and QE. It
also stupidly decided to manage short term rates via interest on
reserves. Prior to 2008, the Fed intervened in the repo markets
every bloody day to hit the target rate and no one cared.
The Fed drained liquidity too fast. It's been caught out and has
had to go into reverse big time. Its refusal to admit that is why
everyone is overreacting to the liquidity injections.
Yes, MMT proponents oppose a UBI (or BGI). They want a Job
Guarantee. They argue that setting a floor on the price of labor is a
much more important way to regulate the economy than diddling with
interest rates, plus it increases the productive capacity of an
economy, which increases prosperity.
The will accept a UBI that is lower than a JG as a sort of
disability income.
Thank you for that link. It certainly sounds like real life, and they say their
models predict inequality in various countries to within 1%. Any single agent in this economy could have become the oligarch -- in fact, all
had equal odds if they began with equal wealth. In that sense, there was equality
of opportunity. But only one of them did become the oligarch, and all the others
saw their average wealth decrease toward zero as they conducted more and more
transactions. To add insult to injury, the lower someone's wealth ranking, the
faster the decrease. once we have some variance in wealth, however minute, succeeding transactions
will systematically move a "trickle" of wealth upward from poorer agents to richer
ones, amplifying inequality until the system reaches a state of oligarchy. If the
economy is unequal to begin with, the poorest agent's wealth will probably decrease
the fastest. Where does it go? It must go to wealthier agents because there are no
poorer agents. Things are not much better for the second-poorest agent. In the long
run, all participants in this economy except for the very richest one will see
their wealth decay exponentially.
the presence of symmetry breaking puts paid to arguments for the justness of wealth
inequality that appeal to "voluntariness" -- the notion that individuals bear all
responsibility for their economic outcomes simply because they enter into
transactions voluntarily -- or to the idea that wealth accumulation must be the
result of cleverness and industriousness. It is true that an individual's location
on the wealth spectrum correlates to some extent with such attributes, but the
overall shape of that spectrum can be explained to better than 0.33 percent by a
statistical model that completely ignores them.
"... Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies. ..."
"... No informed American can afford to not know the names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. > ..."
"... Hersh hoped that future historians would document the fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved the takeover. ..."
"... The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket. ..."
"... In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent. ..."
"... That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book. Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters. ..."
"... Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state. However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and often place American interests second to that of the lobby. ..."
Although it is generally understood that American neoconservatives pushed hard for the war
in Iraq, this book forcefully argues that the neocons' goal was not the spread of democracy,
but the protection of Israel's interests in the Middle East. Showing that the neocon movement
has always identified closely with the interests of Israel's Likudnik right wing, the
discussion contends that neocon advice on Iraq was the exact opposite of conventional United
States foreign policy, which has always sought to maintain stability in the region to promote
the flow of oil. Various players in the rush to war are assessed according to their motives,
including President Bush, Ariel Sharon, members of the foreign-policy establishment, and the
American people, who are seen not as having been dragged into war against their will, but as
ready after 9/11 for retaliation
Every American should read this superb book about the intimate connection between the
state of Israel and the Americans who planned and promoted the U.S. invasion of Iraq in 2003
(and who still influence U.S. policy in the Middle East). This very well-researched and
well-argued book will enlighten Americans who want to understand how the Jewish State of
Israel powerfully shapes U.S. Middle East policy.
Stephen Sniegowski provides a detailed look at the network of die-hard pro-Israel
Neoconservatives who have worked in the U.S. government, in think tanks, and in the news
media to shape American foreign policy to serve the needs of Israel at the expense of the
U.S. From media baron Rupert Murdoch, whose 175 newspapers around the world ALL editorialized
in favor of the 2003 invasion of Iraq, to deputy Secretary of Defense Paul Wolfowitz, to
Weekly Standard Editor William Kristol, to Secretary of Defense Donald Rumsfeld, to
Undersecretary of State for Arms Control and later Ambassador to the U.N. John Bolton, to
Vice President Dick Cheney, to the Chairman of the Defense Policy Board Richard Perle, the
neoconservatives successfully persuaded President George W. Bush to invade Iraq to promote
Israel's foreign policy interests.
Sniegowski describes how the Neocons promoted lies about Saddam Hussein's supposed Weapons
of Mass Destruction and his supposed ties to al-Qaeda terrorists from a network of think
tanks such as the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), Middle East Media Research Institute,
Hudson Institute, Washington Institute for Near East Policy, Middle East Forum, Jewish
Institute for National Security Affairs (JINSA), the Center for Security Policy, and the
Project for a New American Century (PNAC).
He also traces the influence of Israeli Zionist Oded Yinon on the American
Neoconservatives. Yinon wrote an article in 1982 entitled "A Strategy for Israel in the
1980s" that called for Israel to bring about the dissolution of many of the Arab states and
their fragmentation into a mosaic of ethnic and sectarian groupings. This is basically what
is happening to Iraq and Syria today. He also called for Israelis to accelerate the
emigration of Palestinians from Israel, whose border he believed should extend to the Jordan
River and beyond it.
Yinon's article influenced a paper written for the Israeli Likud government of Benjamin
Netanyahu in 1996 by American neoconservatives Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David
Wurmser entitled "A Clean Break: A New Strategy for Securing the Realm". This paper stated
that Netanyahu should "make a clean break" with the Oslo peace process and reassert Israel's
claim to the West Bank and Gaza. Like Yinon's article, it also called for the removal of
Saddam Hussein in Iraq and the weakening of Syria to promote Israel's interests. It was
written five years BEFORE the Sept. 11 attacks on the World Trade Center. These same three
men - Richard Perle, Douglas Feith, and David Wurmser - who advised Netanyahu's Israeli
government on issues of national security would later advise President George W. Bush to
pursue virtually the same policies regarding the Middle East.
If you want to understand how and why powerful pro-Israel neoconservatives in the U.S.
misled Americans and convinced President George W. Bush to order the U.S. invasion of Iraq in
2003, and how they persuaded the U.S. Congress to give Bush the authority to order the
invasion, read this outstanding book.
Another episode in the sad story of recent American government. It starts with a 1996 paper
entitled "A Clean Break, A New Strategy for Securing the Realm" published by an Israeli think
tank, the Institute for Advanced Strategic and Political Studies. The principal idea was to
foment war in the Middle East and consequently destabilize Israel's enemies.
The policy was adopted by the Israeli pro-settler right wing and Jewish activists in and
around the Clinton and Bush administrations such as Richard Perle, Douglas Feith and David
Wurmser (who all helped produce the original document). They identified as targets Iraq,
Iran, Syria and Saudi Arabia and were handed a golden opportunity after the 9/11 attack on
the World Trade Centre. Iraq was falsely presented as an Al Qaeda base and the media planted
with stories about an imminent attack on the United States using WMD. Despite the CIA knowing
all along that the WMD didn't exist, the US still invaded Iraq and the story was quietly and
unbelievably changed to "building democracy".
As Sniegoski points out, the war has exceeded the cost of Vietnam and the same activists,
now working through Hillary Clinton are looking for "incidents" in Iraq to trigger the next
phase of the plan which is a US attack on Iran.
UPDATE October 2014:
And it gets worse: The 911 story itself keeps morphing. Google "Building 7", YouTube "911
Missing Links" or check the article at http://911speakout.org/7TOCPJ.pdf. >
Important book for those trying understand the chaos that
is currently reigning in the Middle East. From the lies based NEOCON attack on Iraq trumpeted
by the mainstream USA media as a fight to save Western Civilization, to the rise of ISIL.
This books will make those connections clear. No informed American can afford to not know the
names Oded Yinon, AIPAC, The Clean Break, The NEOCONS. Knowledge is indeed power. >
On January 27, 2005, [...] posted the remarks of Seymour Hersh (The New Yorker
contributor) at the Stephen Wise Free Synagogue in New York that a neoconservative cult had
taken over the American government.
Hersh hoped that future historians would document the
fragility of American democracy by explaining how eight or nine neoconservatives were able to
overcome easily the bureaucracy, the Congress, and the press. Stephen Sniegoski, in The
Transparent Cabal, has provided a detailed history of how the neoconservative cult achieved
the takeover.
Other books have stressed how the neoconservative ideology is contrary to traditional
American values: Reclaiming the American Right (Justin Raimondo), America the Virtuous (Claes
Ryn), Where the Right Went Wrong (Patrick Buchanan).
"Memoirs of a Trotskyist" in Neo-conservatism: The Autobiography of an Idea (Irving Kristol)
provided a neoconservative account of the origins of neo-conservatism. Sniegoski noted
correctly that the term neoconservative originated with leftists critical of their former
comrades for attempting to infiltrate the Democratic and Republican parties. Thanks to
leftists who call neoconservatives the ultra-right and to conservative dupes who think that
anyone using a conservative label is a conservative, the neoconservative cancer has spread
through the fragile American political body.
The neoconservatives do not represent the only case in American history of a small group
attempting to take over America. The Plot to Seize the White House (Jules Archer) provided a
detailed account of General Smedley Butler's testimony to Congress about a secret plot to
overthrow President Franklin Roosevelt. Butler, a Republican, authored War is a Racket.
Unlike earlier secret plots to take over the American government, Sniegoski explained how it
was possible for the neoconservatives to operate as a relatively transparent cabal. However,
he observed that the neoconservatives used a Trojan horse technique to take over the American
conservative movement. The goal of the neoconservatives is to promote endless wars regardless
of whether the Democrats or the Republicans are in power.
The neoconservatives do not represent a popular mass movement in America. Instead, the
neoconservatives rely upon the co-operation of other groups. Sniegoski provided extensive
documentation of which groups enabled the neoconservatives. For example, the Christian
Zionists duped their followers into sacrificing money and soldiers. Zionism originated with
the writings of Moses Hess (who helped Karl Marx write The Communist Manifesto, was nicknamed
the Communist Rabbi, and who is buried in Israel). In 1862, Moses Hess published Rome and
Jerusalem. Moses Hess: Prophet of Communism and Zionism (Shlomo Avineri) provided a detailed
explanation of the relationship between Communism and Zionism.
The reason for the fragility of American democracy is the failure of many Americans to
understand the most basic aspects of the American political system and of their
religions.
The Transparent Cabal is an important starting point for understanding how a neoconservative
cult opposed to traditional American political and religious values is able to destroy
America with endless wars.
_The Transparent Cabal: The Neoconservative Agenda, War in the Middle East, And the
National Interest of Israel_, published in 2008 by Enigma Editions of IHS Press, by scholar
Stephen J. Sniegoski is a thorough examination of the role of the neoconservatives in pushing
for war in the Middle East (beginning with the war in Iraq and pushing onwards towards Iran)
in order to protect the national interests of Israel. Sniegoski makes the claim that the
neoconservatives have been the fundamental force behind the war efforts of the United States
and have played a particularly prominent role in the Bush administration. While these claims
have now become common knowledge, Sniegoski makes an important contribution by tracing the
history of the neoconservative movement and its links to prominent pro-Jewish and pro-Israel
groups. In particular, Sniegoski claims that neoconservativism is a tool of Zionism and the
Likudniks of Israel. Sniegoski traces out how following the attacks of September 11, the
neoconservative war hawks had a profound influence on the thinking of President Bush and
offered him a ready made solution to his foreign policy agenda. In this book, Sniegoski also
considers and refutes other theories as to the root causes behind America's intervention in
Iraq (such as the role of oil and war profiteering) but explains how these theories lack the
validity of that which lays the blame on the neoconservatives and their goals for Israeli
dominance in the Middle East.
In a recently written best-seller two political scientists at
the University of Chicago and Harvard (John Meirsheimer and Stephen J. Walt _The Israeli
Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy_) broke a long-standing taboo in the United States and risked
charges of anti-Semitism by exposing the role of the powerful Israeli Lobby (AIPAC) in the
United States and its push for war against Iraq and with its future sights on Iran. This book
echoes many of the claims made by Meirsheimer and Walt and further shows the agenda of the
small circle of neoconservatives in directing American foreign policy. The author maintains
that the neoconservatives are a "transparent cabal", in that they have operated as a
tight-knit secret group but their actions remain transparent.
This book begins with a Foreword by Congressman Paul Findley (famous author of _They Dare
to Speak Out_ and longtime opponent of the Israeli Lobby) in which he explains the importance
of Sniegoski's book and deflects the spurious charge of anti-Semitism. Following this,
appears an Introduction by noted paleoconservative Paul Gottfried who explains his admiration
for Sniegoski's book, offers some comparisons between Sniegoski's claims and those of other
individuals, and contrasts the old non-interventionist limited government form of
conservativism with that of the neoconservatives.
The first chapter of Sniegoski's book is entitled "The Transparent Cabal" and notes the
disastrous consequences that have followed upon the Iraq war spurred on by the
neoconservatives. The author explains what he means in calling the neoconservatives a
"transparent cabal" and notes the importance of their Middle East, pro-Israeli agenda. The
author explains how following the events of September 11, they came to take on a prominent
role in influencing the thinking of the president (who had previously shown little interest
in the Middle East).
The second chapter is entitled "The "Neocon-Israel" Claim: Bits and
Pieces" and exposes the role of Israel's Likudnik party behind the neoconservatives. The
author deflects claims of "anti-Semitism" which are frequently hurled at those who make these
charges by showing that even many prominent Jews agree with this. Following this appears a
chapter entitled "Who are the Neocons?" which shows how the neocons emigrated from their
original home in the Democratic party of the McGovernite left into the Republican party as
the New Left began to voice criticisms of Israel. The author shows that many of the neocons
are actually socialists and Trotskyites parading under the label of "conservative". Further,
the author shows the role of various intellectuals centering around New York City in creating
the neoconservative movement.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "The Israeli Origins of the
Middle East War Agenda" which shows how the goal of Middle East war to further the interests
of Israel has been supported extensively by hawkish groups in Israel. The author explains how
these groups came to have such a prominent role in influencing the policy of the United
States and in suppressing the native population of Palestinians in Israel. Following, appears
a chapter entitled "Stability and the Gulf War of 1991: Prefigurement and Prelude to the 2003
Iraq War" in which the author explains the importance of the first Gulf War of Bush I in
prefiguring the Iraq War of Bush II. After this, appears a chapter entitled "During the
Clinton Years" in which the author shows the continuing role of the neocons during the
Clinton years.
Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Serbian Interlude and the 2000
Elections" in which the author explains how the war in Yugoslavia paved the way for the
coming Iraq War of President Bush. This also explains the split that occurred among
conservatives between those traditional conservatives who opposed the war and the neocons who
firmly supported it. Following this appears a chapter entitled "George W. Bush
Administration: The Beginning" in which the author explains the role that the neocons came to
take in the Bush administration mentioning in particular the role of such figures as
Wolfowitz and Cheney and the role of the Project for a New American Century (PNAC). Following
this appears a chapter entitled "September 11", showing how the events of Sept. 11 allowed
the neocon agenda to gain prominence in the mind of President Bush.
Next, appears a chapter
entitled "Move to War" explaining how the neocons pushed for war against Sadaam Hussein
presenting their case to the American people by claiming that Hussein was in possession of
WMDs which could be used against America. Following this appears a chapter entitled "World
War IV" explaining how the conflict in the Middle East came to be dubbed World War IV by
certain intellectuals among the neocons.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "Democracy for the
Middle East" showing the role of the neocons in foisting "democracy" onto various nations and
their goal of global democratic revolution. The author also explains the role of the thinking
of political philosopher Leo Strauss behind many of the neocons and his profoundly
anti-democratic philosophy. Following this, appears a chapter entitled "Neocons'
Post-Invasion Difficulties" showing how the invasion of Iraq turned out to be more serious
and difficult than originally anticipated by the neocons. Next, appears a chapter entitled
"Beginning of the Second Administration" showing the continuing role of the neocons under the
second Bush administration.
Then, appears a chapter entitled "Israel, Lebanon, and the 2006
Election" showing the role of Lebanon and Syria in relationship to Israel and that of the
2006 election.
Next, appears a chapter entitled "2007: On to Iran" showing how the neocons
continued to press for further wars in particular against Iran by alleging among other things
that Ahmedinejad was a mad man with possible access to nuclear weapons. Following, appears a
chapter entitled "The Supporting Cast for War" noting the role of Christian Zionists (which
includes the beliefs of President Bush, although not his father), former Cold Warriors, and
even prominent establishment liberals in supporting the Iraq war. The author notes however
that the traditional foreign policy establishment elites and many in the intelligence
agencies did not support the war, but were disregarded to further the neocon agenda. The
author also contrasts the difference between the liberal elites who frequently were pro-war
and the popular anti-war movement which had very little power.
Following this, the author
turns to a chapter entitled "Oil and Other Arguments" in which the author considers the
claims that the war was fought to obtain access to oil or for the interests of war profiteers
and shows that while both groups certainly benefited they are not the real reason for the
war. The book ends with a "Conclusion" in which the author expounds upon the continuing role
of the neocons in influencing American foreign policy and a "Postscript" in which the author
notes that no matter who wins the 2008 election that the neocon agenda will likely continue
and is not likely to go away anytime soon.
This book offers a fascinating history and account of the role of the neoconservatives in
pushing the United States into war. The author makes clear the influence of the Israeli
Likudnik party behind the neocons and their goal of strengthening the position of Israel in
the Middle East. It is important to understand the fundamental nature of the foreign policy
elites who have been pushing us into war against Iraq and now with eyes towards Iran.
That old canard "anti-semitic" is heard again in one of the reviews of this book.
Nonsense!!! If one is anti-semitic simply because he is critical of certain policies followed
by Likud, then many Jews living in Israel are also Jew haters.
Let's put aside these negative and nasty characterizations and look at the facts.
Israeli politicians are, undertandably, looking out for the intestests of their nation state.
However, many American pols are beholden to the Israeli lobby (of simply feaful of it) and
often place American interests second to that of the lobby.
To suggest that there is such a
lobby and that it is powerful is hardly anti-semitic. Nor is the author. He is simply stating
verifible facts which any student of politics is free to do. He may be mistaken in his
conclusions but that hardly makes him anti-semitic. And he may not be mistaken at all. He is
not the first to suggest that our leaders are fearful of the Israeli lobby and do its bidding
and often to the detriment of American interests .
Stephen Sniegoski, a diplomatic historian, is uniquely qualified to write about the
neoconservatives' involvement in the prolonged Iraq War originating in 2003. He accurately
predicted their activities and allegiance in this entanglement in 1998, three years before
the acts of 9-11 and two additional years before a traumatized nation yielded to a nescient,
misdirected President, his Vice President/administration, and an ostensibly compliant
bi-partisan House and Senate.
The author presents a tight outline which he cogently expands in intelligible detail,
maintaining that the origins of the American war on Iraq revolve around the adoption of a war
agenda whose basic structure was conceived in Israel to advance Israel's interests. The
pro-Israel neoconservatives and a powerful Israel lobby in the United States fervently pushed
its agenda. Ironically, he extracts his most persuasive evidence from an extensive
neoconservative paper trail that's been clearly recognized by a discreet cadre of vigilant
Americans for years. Thus the title, "The Transparent Cabal."
Dr. Sniegoski asks the appropriate question: "Who are the neoconservatives?" He provides
insightful answers on their pertinent activities since 1972, those who shaped and mentored
them, their immediate family/interconnected family networks, their prominent periodical
publications, their past and present leadership, non-Jewish minority members, their
persistent rise to positions of political influence and authority, their embrace of Christian
Zionists, and their close ties to the extremely conservative Likud Party in Israel. He
reveals their tactical affiliations with key, heavily endowed influential think tanks, and a
vast number of powerful Israel-centric lobbying organizations that reactively finance and
nurture their continued success.
Many readers will recognize his references to writers of previous books, articles and
columns -- many of Jewish heritage -- who bravely fight against well financed, mainstream
media-dominant opponents and their psychological surrogates active on the Internet. These
opponents perniciously engage in personal attacks and retribution, indiscriminately applying
irrelevant anti-semitic labels. They persist at attempting to sway public discourse by
spreading misinformation, disinformation, and mostly NO RELEVANT INFORMATION to the
public.
In various places throughout the book, the author notes curious relationships with current
and former elected and appointed officials. He writes about the ongoing 2008 presidential
campaign in a postscript, citing past and existing direct influences on specific candidates
by the neoconservatives, the Israel Lobby and its supporters.
The book concludes with a summary of the paucity of benefits compared to the predictable
losses of the American people over recent years. These are the real consequences of the
Israel-inspired plan to "drain the swamp" (a euphemism for destabilizing perceived enemies
then establishing precarious nominal democracies) that began with our misadventure in Iraq
and was to proceed with subsequent U.S. military interventions in Iran and Syria. The few
meager benefits and the enormous losses to the United States are compared to the strategic
advantages that the State of Israel derives directly from our five-year induced military
involvement in Iraq and our concomitant departure from past, longstanding policies of
diplomacy and stability in the Middle East.
Sniegoski counsels, "it is hardly controversial to propose that elites, rather than the
people as a whole, determine government policies, even in democracies."
Yet this war has a supporting cast of middle Americans. Many of them were traumatized by
the events of 9-11 and reactively saw an act of patriotism in supporting retaliation against
a falsely perceived enemy in Iraq. It's time to reconsider false arguments preceding the Iraq
War that have only been cosmetically modified until the present day. It's time to dismiss
incongruous ideas formed in the cauldron of confusion after 9-11.
Given today's realities, it DOES take patriotism and courage to insist on formally
normalizing an entangled, unreciprocated military alliance with an Israeli government that
burdens the taxpayers of the United States, promotes angst among its people, and imperils its
military forces worldwide.
Know and embrace Thomas Jefferson's ideal of 'eternal vigilance' as citizens of the United
States.
.
.
Facts in this book are reinforced in adjacent paragraphs and referenced in nearly 50 pages of
notes. Readers are encouraged to read:
World on Fire: How Exporting Free Market Democracy Breeds Ethnic Hatred and Global
Instability by Amy Chua -- "Israeli Surveillance of the Future Hijackers and FBI Suspects
in the September 11 Attacks and Their Failure to Give Us Adequate Warning: The Need for a
Public Inquiry" **a 166 PAGE LEAKED REPORT** documenting foreign espionage activities
surrounding 9-11, available on the Internet (although rarely in COMPLETE UNEDITED FORM **WITH
5 EXHIBITS AND 4 MAPS**). .
Stephen J. Sniegoski has a doctorate from the University of Maryland and studied American
diplomatic history. My review here will refer to him as "S," for short.
This book is about the American neoconservative movement. S goes from its founding through
its influential role in getting the U.S. into the Iraq War, then he discusses the War's
aftermath. S's argument is that the neoconservative agenda regarding the Middle East is
designed to serve the interests of the state of Israel, as those interests are articulated by
the right-wing Likud party there. This agenda supports weakening Arab nations surrounding
Israel so that they cannot pose a threat to her. According to S, the neoconservatives
supported such an agenda since their beginning as a movement, but 9/11 created an opportunity
for this agenda to become the foreign policy of the United States during much of the
Presidency of George W. Bush.
Here are some thoughts:
A. Looking broadly at the book itself, it is a standard narration of the events
surrounding and including the Iraq War. Like a lot of people, I lived through that, so the
sweeping narrative of the book was not particularly new to me. The story is essentially that
the U.S. went into Iraq expecting to find weapons of mass destruction after 9/11, bombed the
country and found that were no WMDs, and traveled the difficult road of trying to rebuild the
country, amidst ethnic division, turmoil, and opposition from Iraqis.
B. That said, there were some things that I learned from this book. First, while
neoconservatism is said to believe in spreading democracy in the Middle East, it is not
necessarily committed to democracy, per se. Initially, it supported a new government of Iraq
that would be led by the traditional, pre-Saddam tribal authorities, who were not democratic.
Second, S seems to imply that even the war against the Taliban in Afghanistan was
unnecessary, since the Taliban initially appeared cooperative in offering to help the U.S. to
bring al-Qaeda to justice. Third, there are neoconservatives who have supported undermining
even America's allies in the Middle East, such as Saudi Arabia. The different groups in Saudi
Arabia was also interesting, for, as S notes, Shiites hold a significant amount of control
over Saudi oil, even though the political establishment is Sunni. Fourth, S argues rigorously
against the idea that the U.S. launched the Iraq War to get more oil. Saddam was offering
U.S. oil companies opportunities to drill in Iraq, plus oil companies did not want the oil
infrastructure of the country to be disrupted or shattered by war.
C. There were also things in the book that I was interested to learn more about, even
though I had a rudimentary understanding of them before. For one, S chronicles George W.
Bush's changing views on foreign policy, as he went from rejecting nation-building, while
retaining a tough stance, to embracing nation building. In the early days of the Bush II
Administration, long before the Iraq War, Condi Rice even explained on news shows why regime
change in Iraq would be a mistake at that point. Second, S discusses the coalition that
emerged to support the war in Iraq. The neocons wanted to protect Israel, but Defense
Secretary Donald Rumsfeld embraced the Iraq War as a way to showcase the effectiveness of a
lean military. Meanwhile, many Americans, frightened after 9/11, supported the Iraq War as a
way to keep the U.S. safe. And Christian conservatives embraced the good vs. evil, pro-Israel
stance of neoconservative policy. Third, S strategically evaluates moves that the U.S. made;
for S, for example, the surge did not actually work, but more stability emerged in Iraq as
different ethnic factions became separated from each other.
D. According to S, the Iraq War was a disaster. It stretched America's military, taking
away resources that could have been used to find Osama bin-Laden. Yet, Israel got something
that it wanted as a result: disarray among her Arab neighbors. An argument that S did not
really engage, as far as I can recall, is that the Iraq War placed Israel even more in peril,
since it increased the power of Iran by allowing Iraq to serve as a proxy for Iranian
interests.
E. For S, neoconservatism is concerned about the security of Israel. Even its staunch Cold
War policy is rooted in that concern, since the U.S.S.R. tended to support Arabs over the
Israelis. S acknowledges, though, that there is more to neoconservatism that that.
Neoconservatives supported a strong U.S. military intervention in the former Yugoslavia
during the Clinton Administration, and neoconservatism also maintains stances on domestic
issues, such as welfare.
F. S is sensitive to any charges of anti-Semitism that may be launched against his book.
He emphatically denies that he is saying there was a Jewish conspiracy to get the U.S. into
Iraq, for he observes that many Jews opposed the Iraq War. Moreover, S does not exactly
present the U.S. government as a Zionist Occupied Government (ZOG), for the neoconservatives
were long on the margins prior to the Presidency of George W. Bush. Even under Bush II, the
traditional national security and intelligence apparatus was critical of the Iraq War,
preferring more multilateralism and a focus on stability in the Middle East. The Council on
Foreign Relations (CFR), long a bogeyman of right-wing conspiracy theorists, also had
reservations about the Iraq War.
G. S largely depicts the Likud party in Israel, and neoconservatives, as supporting
Israel's security as a nation, her protection, if you will. At the same time, S argues that
Israel in 2006 was acting aggressively rather than defensively in its invasion of Lebanon,
for Lebanon had coveted water-supplies.
H. Near the end of the Iraq War, S demonstrates, neoconservatives were calling on the U.S.
to take an aggressive stance against Iran, going so far as to bomb the country. That, of
course, is an issue that remains relevant today. S probably regards such a move as a mistake.
At the same time, he can understand why Israel would be apprehensive about a nuclear-armed
Iran. He thinks that Ahmadinejad has been incorrectly understood to say that Israel should be
wiped off the map, but S still acknowledges that a powerful Iran could provide more support
to the Palestinians, which would trouble Israel. Although S understands this, he seems to
scorn the idea that Israel should get everything she wants and have hegemony.
I. S is open to the possibility that neoconservatives believe that their support for
Israel is perfectly consistent with America's well-being. As S observes, the U.S. government
since its founding has had people who believe that partisanship towards a certain nation --
-Britain or France -- -is not only good for its own sake but serves the interests of the
United States. S disputes, however, that neoconservative policy is the only way to help the
U.S. Could not one argue, after all, that the U.S. would want to be on the Arabs' good side,
with all the oil the Arabs have? This analysis may be a little dated, since the U.S. now has
some alternative sources of energy (fracking), but S makes this point in evaluating the
historical stance of neoconservatism.
I was interested to see the reviews of this book. Usually if any book suggests that Israel
is less than perfect a group of Zionist fanatics surface with several reviews telling us that
there nothing wrong Israel or American support of it.
Remarkably there is only one negative review of this book which has to be seen to be
believed. This reviewer "yoda" from Israel charges in all seriousness that Sniegoski does not
provide evidence that the neoconservatives are "predominantly Jewish " and are " strongly
aligned with Israel". Asking the author to provide evidence for such
assertions is like asking him to give evidence that the sun will
rise in the east tomorrow .
This is I believe the real reason that that there are relatively few attacks on this book.The
author does not engage in shrill denunciations of Israel or of the neoconservatives . What he
does do is quote at length what neocoservstives say and provide careful documentation for any
factual claims. For the most part the reader is allowed to
draw his own conclusions. Should the US continue to finance
Israeli repression of Palestinians and perhaps go to war against Iran or anyone else who
might object to Israeli policie?
Instead of denouncing Sniegoski "Yoda" should consider
the sane Israelis in his own country . For example former
Mossad chief Meir Dagan who said that a war with Iran was
the "stupidest idea he had ever heard of." Also moviemaker
Emmanuel Dror who interviewed virtually all the former directors of the Shin Bett ( Israel's
internal security service )
who all called for disengaging from the occupied territories .
perhaps we all would be better off listening to these Isaelis rather than follow the
neoconservatives into another disastrous war on the other side of the world.
This is going to be a very strange review coming from me. You see, I wrote a novel called
"Other Nations" and well, people that liked it a lot, liked it, but then those that really
disliked it disliked it because my "aliens among humans" were nice people, likeable people,
even charismatic people, everyday suburban types even, living that kind of life. Among us.
Next door, in the next city over. They wanted instead to see the aliens among us portrayed as
well, pick your favorite genocidal maniac or mind-controlling dictator or creature so
dementedly alien that no sense can be made of it. Well!
There are many types of true horror. The kind that passes itself off as my aliens among us
are portrayed, well, I guess some people GET IT - and they liked it.
But I'm not here to push my book. I'm here to push THIS BOOK - because my god, this is
REAL, not fantasy, it's REAL, not science fiction. And yes, they are among us with well -
BUY THIS BOOK. If you are too broke to buy it, get it from the library - and by all means
- READ IT.
Just hope to whatever god you choose that neocons are removed from governmental influence
and that their Amen corner is ignored. Hope to god, because if they suceed in doing the
INSANITY they want to do - America will be FINISHED - if it's not finished already due to
what these Fifth Columnists have done during the 8 years of Twilight Zone (GWB Rule).
And for those Jewish critics on here that might want to compare these neocon FACTS and the
other FACTS openly available to all (which is WHY the book is called the TRANSPARENT cabal) -
compare it to the Protocols - they better think twice about that. Becauase, you see, what's
in here is real, real facts, provably real facts - and if Jews themselves compare this to the
Procols? Some folks might get the idea that maybe that is real too. Perhaps George Soros (who
is Jewish) needs to speak LOUDER against the neocons. They are, indeed, crazies, as Colin
Powell called them. Crazies.
If you want to have an eye opener then read and see who were those Jewish players working
and influencing everything in the Bush Admin.promoting war with Iraq, then this is your book
of truth. The cabal of Jewish players come out of the woodwork in Stephen Sniegoski's great
work. When step by step the plan was a clear war map laid out for the U.S. in detail and
after you realize just who was working for whom in this criminal cabal of the American
government.
When you have Jewish control of the main stream media and Jewish control in Washington, D.C.,
don't wonder why the facts were omitted to make all the right connections for the public to
see in this lead up to a war from lies.
It will be interesting to see how China responds in reality to the naked hegemony of the US
law just passed and signed by Trump about HK. Is China ready to stand up to the bully of dying
empire or be cowed into slicing their response even thinner and thinner but not saying NO
MORE!
We do live in interesting times.
Transferring my post to this thread, about the decline of US fertility rates:
As we all know, constant population growth is essential for the survival of
capitalism, since it is one of the main factors that slow down its tendency of the profit
rate to fall. The article seems to agree with this:
Birthrates have been trending downward overall since 2005, sparking concern about
potential economic and cultural ramifications. Keeping the number of births within a
certain range, called the "replacement level," ensures the population level will remain
stable. A low birthrate runs the risk that the country will not be able to replace the
workforce and have enough tax revenue, while a high birthrate can cause shortages of
resources.
Another related article approaches the issue from another angle:
Virginia Commonwealth University professor Dr. Steven H. Woolf and Eastern Virginia
Medical School student Heidi Schoomaker analyzed life expectancy data for the years
1959-2016 and cause-specific mortality rates for 1999-2017. The data shows that the
decline in life expectancy is not a statistical anomaly, but the outcome of a
decades-long assault on the working class.
So, this is not an "anomaly". If it isn't, then there's an underlying cause, which the
same article hypothetizes:
Obamacare was part of a deliberate drive by the ruling class to lower the life
expectancy of working people. As far as the strategists of American capitalism are
concerned, the longer the lifespan of elderly and retired workers, who no longer
produce profits for the corporations but require government-subsidized medical care to
deal with health issues, the greater the sums that are diverted from the coffers of the
rich and the military machine.
A 2013 paper by Anthony H. Cordesman of the Washington think tank Center for
Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) frankly presented the increasing longevity
of ordinary Americans as an immense crisis for US imperialism. "The US does not face
any foreign threat as serious as its failure to come to grips with the rise in the cost
of federal entitlement spending," Cordesman wrote, saying the debt crisis was driven
"almost exclusively by the rise in federal spending on major health care programs,
Social Security, and the cost of net interest on the debt."
Meanwhile, conditions for the rich have never been better. This is reflected in the
growing life expectancy gap between the rich and the poor. The richest one percent of
men live 14 years longer than the poorest one percent, and the richest one percent of
women 10 years longer than the poorest.
I wasn't aware of this CSIS report. If true, then this is indeed a very interesting
hypothesis.
--//--
The thing I don't understand in the WSWS article linked above is this:
The first nodal point, in the early 1980s, corresponds to the initiation of the social
counterrevolution by the administration of Ronald Reagan, which involved union busting,
strikebreaking, wage-cutting and plant closings on a nationwide scale, combined with cuts
in education, health care and other social programs.
So, Ronald Reagan did a "counterrevolution". That means there was a revolution before
him, which I suppose is the post-war "Keynesian consensus", the "golden age of
capitalism" of 1945-1975.
I really can't understand the logic behind the Trotskyists: they condemn the USSR and
China as "stalinists", i.e. as counterrevolutionaries. But Harry Truman was a
revolutionary? Dwight Eisenhower was a revolutionary? Clement Attlee was a revolutionary?
De Gaulle was revolutionary?
What kind of nonsense is this?
What is most funny is that these same Trotskyists from the same WSWS website use the
rise of labor strikes in China to argue China is a capitalist empire -- but uses the same
strikes as evidence there was a revolution in the West during the post-war (by negative,
since Reagan's "counterrevolution" was characterized by "union busting, strikebreaking,
wage-cutting and plant closings on a nationwide scale, combined with cuts in education,
health care and other social programs").
I think Trotskyism is having an identity crisis. They don't know if they are
essentially a movement whose objective is essentially to tarnish Stalin's image or if
they are closeted social-democrats. They forgot Trotsky fought for the revolution, not
personal vendetta.
"... the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously close to making an enemy of Europe. ..."
"... There is nothing remotely fair about carving out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas. ..."
"... American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership, which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American investors. ..."
In the U.S. Senate, they have spoken about how to block "Nord stream -- 2"
06:37 24.11.2019 (updated: 06:54 24.11.2019)
MOSCOW, 24 Nov – RIA Novosti. The U.S. Congress intends to include sanctions
against the Russian gas pipeline "Nord stream -- 2" in the 2020 defence budget, says Jim
Risch, head of the Senate Foreign Affairs Committee, in the latest edition of "Defense
News".
Sanctions against companies involved in the construction of the pipeline have been
included in a draft law "On National Defense for 2020", said Rish. "The reason for this step
is that the window of opportunity is closings. Most of "Nord stream" has already been
constructed", said the Senator. However, he expressed the opinion that the sanctions "will
convince" the construction company to stop work on the project because the American
restrictions "will cost them dearly".
If sanctions are included in the US defence budget, companies involved in the
construction of Nord Stream 2 will close, and Russia will, supposedly, have to look for other
contractors, says Riesch.
However, he noted that the House of Representatives and the Senate have not yet reached a
final agreement on the bill as a whole.
The US Senate Foreign Relations Committee voted in late July to pass a bill on
sanctions against Nord Stream 2. It was prepared by Republican Senator Ted Cruise and
Democrat Gene Shahin, and, in particular, involves a ban on the entry into the United States
and the freezing of US assets under the jurisdiction of persons involved in the "sale, lease,
provision or assistance in providing" ships for laying at sea Russian pipelines at a depth of
30 metres.
For the bill to enter into force, it must be approved by the House of Representatives
and the US Senate, as well as US President Donald Trump.
Let the Liberty Bell ring out loud! -- albeit that it is cracked and was never rung on 4th
July, 1776, but, as usual, bullshit baffles brains!
And that'd be Jean Shaheen; the translation managed to get both her name and her gender
wrong.
As I have said before now, the United States' high-handedness is taking it dangerously
close to making an enemy of Europe. It has made it clear it is trying to restrict Europe's
energy choices to American LNG or American LNG.
There is nothing remotely fair about carving
out markets for your product by eliminating all other choices. I realize Washington will say
it is only trying to stop Nord Stream II so that Russia will be forced to transit gas across
Ukraine and pay it exorbitant transit fees, and that it is doing Ukraine a favour while not
restricting Europe from getting pipeline gas.
But Washington still aims to control Ukraine
and use it as a bastion against Russia, and if it can arrange things so that Russian gas must
pass across Ukraine under American control, why, it can conjure stoppages and interruptions
of service at its pleasure, as well as helping Ukraine to jack up transit fees so that Russia
must either raise its gas prices until American LNG is competitive, or sell at a loss.
American strategy is always all about getting everyone else by the balls so that they have no
choice but to accept American control and orders. That's called American Global Leadership,
which they figure is good for the world because it's certainly good for American
investors.
Except when he says "we all", he is talking about less than ten thousand people in a country
of 147 million. Yes, few Russians get to breathe the rarefied air of true mental clarity.
So far as I am aware, the latest offer on the table is still for a one-year extension of
the current contract, although Russia did agree to drop legal claims and counter-claims
between itself and Ukraine, in which Russia claimed Ukraine underpaid/did not pay at all for
gas it received. Ukraine has thus far not replied.
Moscow has made some concessions, but there has been no movement at all toward a long-term
contract that I have seen. I maintain that a cold winter of frozen bums in Europe would offer
a salutary effect. Russia is actually better-placed to deliver LNG by vessel than the USA, as
well, as it is much closer.
There must be a limit to European loyalty to the USA in the face of conditions so markedly
against its interests, a limit to how much shit it will smear on its own face to keep its
partner happy and amused.
Apparently U-ropean gas storage networks are full, not to mention that there has been heavy
investment in the Austrian Baumgarten storage network, Germany, France, infact just about
everywhere except the UK (coz the French will store it for them and sell the gas back at a
nice mark up)
Ukraine has already stated publicly that although its own gas storage bunkers are full, that
amount will not likely carry it through the winter if there is an interruption owing to
non-renewal of the gas contract, and if the winter is cold and harsh as usual. I imagine
Europe is the same; storage facilities are not so extensive that they could take the entire
region through a cold winter.
Not surprising that Navalny and his ilk oppose Nord Stream. They oppose anything that is good
for Russia. They don't seem to be interested in developing russia into a better place, but
tear it apart and ruin it from within. It is rather odd that Russia has these types of people
as "opposition politicians". People who hate their own country and don't even pretend to hide
their hatred.
I don't see them that dangerous though because they seem to lack wider support and Russia is
not currently facing any troubles that would turn people against the current rulers.
And I'm not saying that Russia is ruled by a very competent government currently. The economy
should be growing a lot faster than it has been growing for the past ten years. But the
current government is still 100x better than Navalny would be. He would probably bring down
Russia even worse than Yeltsin did.
"Naftogaz" has promised turn off the gas valve
03:01 28.11.2019 (updated: 10:45 28.11.2019)
KIEV, November 28 – RIA Novosti. The Ukraine does not intend to shut off the gas
valve, even if Russia fails to sign a new contract on gas transportation, Executive Director
of "Naftogaz of the Ukraine", Yuriy Vitrenko, has said in an interview with Deutsche Welle.
In his opinion, the valve will be turned off by Gazprom, not Naftogaz.
"But I remind you, that in a letter sent by Gazprom to Naftogaz, in black and white
[it states] that on January 1st at 10 am Moscow time Gazprom has no reason to keep the gas
flowing in the direction of the Ukraine", he said.
So you Russia is going to hold Europe to ransom, not the Ukraine, right?
What happened to all the leverage Ukraine gained by its blinding victory in Swiss
arbitration? They should be able to lead Moscow around by the nose now.
"... Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now, Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this amount through Ukraine, forever. ..."
"... The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure? ..."
The appeal court in Sweden has refused to satisfy the appeal of "Gazprom" in a dispute
with the Ukrainian concern "Naftogaz", according to Tass. Executive Director of "Naftogaz of
Ukraine" Yuriy Vitrenko on "Facebook" called the decision a "complete victory".
"Complete victory, Ukraine wins again! We won the appeal at the first complaint of
"Gazprom" the decision of the Stockholm arbitration!" said his statement.
It is anticipated that decisions in two other cases in court between the same parties
will be taken in 2020.
The Stockholm arbitration court in December 2017 and February 2018 issued decisions on
disputes between Gazprom and Naftogaz in respect of contracts for supply and transit of gas,
obliging as a result, Russian the Ukrainian company to pay more than $ 2.5 billion. Gazprom
appealed against the decision in March 2018, and in May demanded the complete abolition of
the "transient" solution.
Ukraine allegedly offered to do a deal in which they would not drop their claim of being
owed $2.5 Billion by Gazprom, but would take it in free gas. They say they have not had a
reply yet. The same article suggests Russia would be perfectly happy to just run out the
clock. Even happier now, I would think.
A few interesting figures are included in the article. For one, the author claims that in
order to completely circumvent Ukraine for gas delivery to Europe, it would need pipeline
capacity of 230 BcM. Here's how it breaks down – Gazprom sent about 200 BcM to
Europe last year, of which 70 BcM went via Ukraine. If Ukraine is completely cut out now,
Gazprom could manage about 195 BcM, with every other available pipeline to Europe straining
at the rivets. But you need a 'technical reserve' capability, which would take Russia's
requirement to 230 BcM. Obviously, the intent is that they should commit to sending this
amount through Ukraine, forever.
The other interesting figure is included in the claim that 'Ukraine's economy is
growing nicely, but loss of transit income would shave 4% off of GDP.' When the initial
threat that eventually transit would be stopped was floated, Ukraine squealed that it would
bilk it of 2% of GDP. But now somehow that loss would be double but the economy is 'growing
nicely'? Ummm .how do you figure?
The way I see it, Russia has a couple of options; it can just let the clock run out, carry
on with Nord Stream II, and pump everything it can right to capacity, without any going
through Ukraine. That would leave it about 5 BcM short, obviously with no reserve capability.
The USA could be invited to make that shortfall up with its Molecules of Freedom. But that
relies on Merkel not suddenly deciding to slap more restrictions on Nord Stream II so that it
could not pump to its full capacity – she has apparently said all along that Nord
Stream II will not be allowed unless some gas continues to go through Ukraine – the
obvious clash of wills is that Russia is trying to ensure that amount is as small as
possible, while the west and Ukraine are trying to ensure that amount is as large as
possible.
Another option is for Russia to speed up and intensify its own LNG-export capability, and
perhaps it can make up the shortfall with its own LNG carriers. Either way, it is plain the
Ukies think they have Russia by the balls, and can dictate terms as they like – perhaps
they will even add the return of Crimea to their demands for a gas deal, they seem to feel so
confident. Let's see how it plays out; only a couple of weeks remain to get a deal done, and
it's everyone against Russia.
The look on Vitrenko's face will be priceless if the Russians just close up their
briefcases and go home. Not to mention the look on Sefcovic's face. Not to mention the jump
in gas prices in Europe.
"... 38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another 31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night. Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to scale back U.S. involvement overall. ..."
"... The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more support for negotiations and non-intervention: ..."
"... With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons ..."
"... There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they want. It is long past time that Washington started listening. ..."
he Eurasia Group Foundation's new survey of public
opinion on U.S. foreign policy finds that support for greater restraint continues to rise:
Americans favor a less aggressive foreign policy. The findings are consistent across a
number of foreign policy issues, and across generations and party lines.
The 2019 survey results show that most Americans support a more restrained foreign policy,
and it also shows an increase in that support since last year. There is very little support for
continuing the war in Afghanistan indefinitely, there is virtually no appetite for war with
Iran, and there is a decline in support for a hawkish sort of American exceptionalism. There is
still very little support for unilateral U.S. intervention for ostensibly humanitarian reasons,
and support for non-intervention has increased slightly:
In 2018, 45 percent of Americans chose restraint as their first choice. In 2019, that has
increased to 47 percent. Only 19 percent opt for a U.S.-led military response and 34 percent
favor a multilateral, UN-led approach to stop humanitarian abuses overseas.
38% of respondents want to end the war in Afghanistan now or within one year, and another
31% support negotiations with the Taliban to bring the war to an end. A broad majority of
Americans wants to bring the war to a conclusion. I already mentioned the survey's finding that
there is majority support for reducing the U.S. military presence in East Asia last night.
Americans not only want to get out of our interminable wars overseas, but they also want to
scale back U.S. involvement overall.
The report's working definition of American exceptionalism is a useful one: "American
exceptionalism is the belief that the foreign policy of the United States should be
unconstrained by the parochial interests or international rules which govern other countries."
This is not the only definition one might use, but it gets at the heart of what a lot of hawks
really mean when they use this phrase. While most Americans still say they subscribe to
American exceptionalism either because of what the U.S. represents or what it has done, there
is less support for these views than before. Among the youngest respondents (age 18-29), there
is now a clear majority that rejects this idea.
The survey asked respondents how the U.S. should respond if "Iran gets back on track with
its nuclear weapons program." That is a loaded and potentially misleading question, since Iran
has not had anything resembling a nuclear weapons program in 16 years, so there has been
nothing to get "back on track" for a long time. Framing the question this way is likely to
elicit a more hawkish response. In spite of the questionable wording, the results from this
year show that there is less support for coercive measures against Iran than last year and more
support for negotiations and non-intervention:
A strong majority of both Republicans and Democrats continue to seek a diplomatic
resolution involving either sanctions or the resumption of nuclear negotiations. This year,
there was an increase in the number of respondents across party lines who would want
negotiations to resume even if Iran is a nuclear power in the short term, and a bipartisan
increase in those who believe outright that Iran has the right to develop nuclear weapons to
defend itself. So while Republicans might be more likely than Democrats to believe Iran
threatens peace in the Middle East, voters in neither party are eager to take a belligerent
stand against it.
With only around 10% favoring it, there is almost no support for preventive war against
Iran. Americans don't want war with Iran even if it were developing nuclear weapons, and it
isn't doing that. It may be that the failure of the "maximum pressure" campaign has also
weakened support for sanctions. Support for the sanctions option dropped by almost 10 points
overall and plunged by more than 20 points among Republicans. In 2018, respondents were evenly
split between war and sanctions on one side or negotiations and non-intervention on the other.
This year, support for diplomacy and non-intervention in response to this imaginary nuclear
weapons program has grown to make up almost 60% of the total. If most Americans favor diplomacy
and non-intervention in this improbable scenario, it is safe to assume that there is even more
support for those options with the real Iranian government that isn't pursuing nuclear
weapons.
There is substantial and growing support for bringing our current wars to an end and
avoiding unnecessary conflicts in the future. This survey shows that there is a significant
constituency in America that desires a more peaceful and restrained foreign policy, and right
now virtually no political leaders are offering them the foreign policy that they say they
want. It is long past time that Washington started listening.
"... this is why the US went into Afghanistan, to get in between China & Iran ..."
"... The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from to dominate the region. ..."
From the moment that the U.S. re-imposed sanctions in earnest on Iran late last year,
Pakistan has been looking at ways to resuscitate a deal that had been agreed in principle
before the U.S. unilaterally withdrew from the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) last
May. This deal involved moving as much gas as Pakistan needs from Iran's Asalouyeh into
Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah for further transit if required. At the same time,
China has been in long-running discussions with Pakistan over the specific projects that
Beijing wanted to place in Pakistan as part of its 'One Belt, One Road' (OBOR) programme. All
the while, the U.S. has been
trying to stymie any such arrangement but OilPrice.com understands that the
Iran-China-Pakistan deal is now back on, and with a vengeance.
China's covert strategic deals are virtually always buried in interminably long anodyne
statements that belie the true laser-focused intentions of Beijing and this time is no
different. Joint statements just over a week ago from both Pakistan and China sides laid out
four projects that are part of a 'broader co-operation' between China and Pakistan. They all
sound relatively run-of-the-mill affairs, although still major undertakings, and are: the
upgrading of the Pakistan Refinery Karachi, the building out of a coal to liquid engineering
plant based on Thar coal at Thar Sindh, the utilisation of Thar Block VI for coal gasification
and fertiliser projects, and the finalisation of the feasibility study on South-North Gas
Pipeline Project that traverses Pakistan.
The fact that they are much more significant to the global geopolitical balance was
evidenced by the U.S.'s furious warnings to Pakistan, based on the fact that all of these
projects are in reality a key part of Beijing's planned China-Pakistan Economic Corridor
(CPEC), which, in turn, is a cornerstone of the OBOR initiative. Even as it was, U.S. South
Asia diplomat, Alice Wells, warned that CPEC – which, vitally, includes heavy financing
from Beijing and, therefore, a massive debt obligation to China by the host country over time
– will only profit Beijing. As it stands, the cost of just the first round of CPEC
projects has risen from an initial costing of US$48 billion to at least US$62 billion right
now. "It's clear, or it needs to be clear, that CPEC is not about aid," said Wells. "[The CPEC]
corridor is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy, especially when the bulk of
payments start to come due in the next four to six years," she added. "Even if loan payments
are deferred, they are going to continue to hang over Pakistan's economic development
potential, hamstringing Prime Minister [Imran] Khan's reform agenda," she underlined.
The U.S.'s fury would have been much worse if it knew that, in fact, the 'finalisation of
the feasibility study on South-North Gas Pipeline Project' whilst true, is just proverbially
the tip of the iceberg. "The actual plan is to resuscitate the Iran-Pakistan oil and gas
pipelines over time, beginning with the gas pipeline, moving unlimited amounts of Iranian gas
to Pakistan, and then into China and the rest of Asia should it be needed," a senior source who
works closely with Iran's Petroleum Ministry told OilPrice.com last week. "It is being done in
conjunction with Russia, with the twin aims of firstly ensuring that China's 'One Belt, one
Road' initiative continues to run smoothly from the East through Pakistan and then Westwards
into Iran and onwards into Europe," he said. "And, secondly, to ensure for Russia that Iran's
gas does not start flowing freely into Europe as and when the U.S. sanctions are lifted, as
this would undermine Russia's power over Europe, which is founded on supplying over a third of
Europe's gas," he added.
For China, the new pipeline – integral to its plan of making Iran and Pakistan its
client states over time – has the added benefit of putting the U.S. on the backfoot in
the ongoing trade war. For Iran, the incentives of closer ties with China and Russia are
principally financial but also relate to China being just one of five Permanent Members on the
U.N. Security Council (the others being Russia, the U.S., the U.K., and France). For Pakistan
as well there is the added incentive that it is tired of being lambasted by the U.S. for its
duplicity in dealing with international terrorism. Not that long ago, the U.S. accused Pakistan
of supporting the Taliban (correct but it was catalysed by the U.S.'s key Middle Eastern
'ally', Saudi Arabia), Al Qaeda (correct but catalysed, funded and logistically supported by
the Saudis), the Haqqani network (correct but also funded and logistically supported by the
Saudis), and Islamic State (sort of correct but that was also mainly, of course, the Saudis)
against U.S. forces, despite taking hundreds of billions of dollars in aid payments.
Islamabad has also been an outspoken critic of renewed U.S.
sanctions against Iran. Just after the first wave of the new sanctions were rolled out on 7
August last year, Pakistan's Foreign Office spokesman Muhammad Faisal said that: "We are
examining the implications of the U.S.'s re-imposed sanctions on Iran, however, Pakistan, being
a sovereign state, reserves the right to pursue legitimate economic and commercial interests
while respecting the international legal regime." Later, in his inaugural speech as Pakistan's
then-new Prime Minister, Imran Khan, called for improving ties with the country's immediate
neighbours, including Iran, from whose President, Hassan Rouhani, he also accepted an
invitation for an early state visit to Tehran. Bubbling back at that time to the top of the
list of practical initiatives that could be advanced quickly was the Iran-Pakistan gas pipeline
(IPP), which, according to the Iran source: "[Imran] Khan personally backs and has made a
priority project."
In practical terms, Pakistan certainly needs all the sustainable energy sources it can get.
As it stands, the country has seen domestic natural gas production stagnate at around 4 billion
cubic feet per day (Bcf/d) against demand of more than 6 Bcf/d, which has led to repeated load
shedding in many major cities of up to 15 hours a day. Moreover, the supply and demand
disparity is set to become even worse very soon, as industry estimates project that Pakistan's
domestic gas production is set to fall to nearer 2 Bcf/d by 2020, due to aging infrastructure,
whilst demand will rise to around 8 Bcf/d by the same time, driven by rising demand from the
power, industry, and domestic sectors as the economy continues to grow by around 5% per year.
According to Pakistan's Ministry of Energy (MoE), the planned 0.75 Bcf/d of gas (for five
years, in the first instance) that would flow from Iran's supergiant South Pars natural gas
field would add around 4,000 megawatts (MW) of electricity into the Pakistan grid, via a direct
Iran-Pakistan pipeline.
The original agreement for the IPP, signed between Iran and Pakistan in 1995, was predicated
on the pipeline running from Iran's supergiant South Pars non-associated natural gas field into
Karachi but the most recent iteration of the route involves the gas running from Iran's
Asalouyeh and into Pakistan's Gwadar and then on to Nawabshah. The latest projection of the
cost of the pipeline is around US$3.5 billion, according to industry sources, although US$2.5
billion of this has already been invested in the 900 kilometre stretch on Iran's side that has
already been completed. Pakistan's 780 kilometre stretch has yet to be started.
Given the geopolitical importance of both Iran and Pakistan to Russia and China, though, as
analysed in greater depth in my
new book on the global oil markets , finding the money for the remainder of the project
will not be a problem at all For China, there is a threefold motivation. First, its plans to
integrate the IPP into the CPEC project means that Gwadar is earmarked to be a key logistical
node in China's 'One Belt, One Road' initiative. Second, it wants to keep Iran as one of its
key suppliers of oil and gas in the future. And third, it regards supporting those who the U.S.
opposes as being a central plank of its foreign policy, even over and above the short-term
tactic of wrong-footing the U.S. in the ongoing trade war. "One immediate reaction [of China to
the burgeoning trade war with the US], will be to seek to expand and broaden economic links by
offering improved market access to non-U.S. companies, by strengthening supply chain links and
by replacing American commodities with imports from emerging market nations," according to
Jonathan Fenby, China research chairman at TS Lombard, in London.
"There is a tectonic shift going on that goes well beyond the tariff war, as China
seeks to assert itself regionally and tries to establish a wider global role for itself while
the U.S. moves from the 'constructive engagement' of the Clinton, Bush and Obama
administrations to regarding China as a 'strategic competitor'," he added. The U.S. clearly
sees it the same way, not just based on the latest comments by Wells but also on the fact that
as long ago as January 2010, the U.S. formally requested that Pakistan abandon the project in
return for which it would receive assistance from Washington for the construction of a
liquefied natural gas (LNG) terminal and for the importing of electricity from Tajikistan
through Afghanistan's Wakhan Corridor.
The implication of what you just said is that the United States will never leave
Afghanistan as in ever. Even if the Taliban take the whole country leaving only Kabul and its
surroundings, the US will still opt to stay to have bases to launch drones and aircraft from
to dominate the region.
So in twenty years time we might see a story how some young soldier has just arrived
in-country to Afghanistan who will be proud that his grandfather took part in the original
invasion and that he is now following in his grandfather's and father's footsteps.
China, the new world-engineers, has gotta be looking at Pakistan as an industrial water
source. They're probably already building several dams to catch the runoff. Perhaps mining
too – same mountains as Afghanistan, just the other side, no?
China has the money and
manpower. Iran the energy. In fact, we could be thinking the same thing.
Ambassador Wells' warning "..is going to take a growing toll on the Pakistan economy,
especially when the bulk of payments start to come due.." indicates the lack of a mirror in
the State Dept or a copy of the text of the 13th IMF 'bailout' signed last July.
The major forecasters see an oil supply surplus next year, but those bearish outlooks
largely depend on the health of U.S. shale growth in 2020, an assumption that is looking
increasingly fanciful.
Financial struggles are well-known, but the dominoes continue to fall. As Bloomberg
reported , some drillers have recently seen their credit lines reduced, limiting their
access to fresh capital. Twice a year in the spring and fall, banks reassess their credit lines
to shale drillers, and decide how much they will authorize companies to borrow. This time
around is expected to be the first time in roughly three years that lenders tighten up lending
capacities.
The curtailment in lending comes at a time when scrutiny on shale finances is increasing.
Share prices have fallen sharply this year as investors lose interest. The industry continues
to burn
cash , and lenders and investors shunning the industry.
Of course, if drillers cannot borrow to cover their financing gaps, they may be forced into
bankruptcy. The cutting of the borrowing base "can be a good precursor to potential bankruptcy
because as capital markets stay closed off for these companies, the borrowing base serves as
the only source of liquidity," Billy Bailey, Saltstone Capital Management LLC portfolio
manager, told Bloomberg.
Not every company is entirely cut off from capital markets. As Liam Denning
points out , Diamondback Energy was able to issue $3 billion in new bonds at low interest
rates, which highlights the case of "haves and have nots" within the industry.
But the financial stress helps explain the slowdown in U.S. oil production this year. The
U.S. added about 2 million barrels per day (mb/d) between January 2018 and the end of last
year; but output is only up a few hundred thousand barrels per day in 2019 from January through
August.
Confusingly, the IEA still forecasts a substantial increase in U.S. oil production in 2020
at 1.2 mb/d, but not
everyone agrees with that optimistic outlook. The credit crunch and financial stress in the
shale sector could lead to a disappointment in 2020.
It is against this bewildering backdrop that OPEC+ must decide its next move. The IEA says
that OPEC+ is in for some trouble as a supply glut looms – in large part because of shale
growth. Others agree, to be sure. Commerzbank said that OPEC's efforts to focus on laggards
such as Iraq and Nigeria will be insufficient. "It is a mystery why OPEC should believe that it
can avoid this oversupply by making just a few cosmetic adjustments," the investment bank said.
"By early next year at the latest OPEC thus risks being rudely awakened."
However, at the same time, the physical market is showing some slightly bullish signs. In
the oil futures market, front-month contracts for Brent are
trading at a premium to longer-dated ones. The six-month premium rose to $3.50 per barrel
recently, up from $1.90 last month,
Reuters reports. A large premium is typically associated with a tighter market.
Moreover, there is a chance of a thaw in the U.S.-China trade war, which could provide some
tailwinds to the global economy. It's become impossible to trust the daily rumors coming from
Washington and Beijing, but the two sides have shown some desire to at least call a truce and
not step up the tariffs.
Still, the economy has slowed. The OECD
warned that global GDP will decelerate to just 2.9 percent this year, and remain within a
2.9-3.0 percent range through 2021. This is the weakest rate of growth in a decade, and is down
sharply from the 3.8 percent seen last year. "Two years of escalating conflict over tariffs,
principally between the US and China, has hit trade, is undermining business investment and is
putting jobs at risk," the OECD said.
The U.S. and China, then, have a great deal of influence over the near-term prospects for
oil. As mentioned, there is still a wide range of opinions on the magnitude of the oil supply
surplus in 2020, but a breakthrough in the trade war would immediately shift growth
projections, oil demand trajectories, and, importantly, sentiment. Even the mere expectation of
an economic rebound would send oil prices rising, at least for a little while.
On the other hand, the thaw in the trade war is far from inevitable. The two sides have
shown little evidence, if any, that they are actually making progress on some of the structural
issues at hand. There is still the possibility that the talks fall apart and the trade war
marches on, or even grows worse.
Because it is generally assumed that the oil market has already factored in some degree of
optimism around tariff reduction, which has likely added a few dollars to the barrel of oil, a
reassessment to the downside would surely send oil prices tumbling.
From the point of view of election promise of detente with Russia, Trump clearly betrayed them. He was a neocon puppet
from the beginning to the end, His policy was not that different from hypothetical policy of Hillary administration.
Notable quotes:
"... Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact, she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with zero resistance from either party. ..."
"... It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony, and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is neither ..."
"... Anyone who has not read Orwell's 1984 should do so sooner rather than later. The official control of narrative in the novel is what we are presently drowning in. To watch it work so spectacularly is beyond depressing. ..."
"... The complete corruption of Western MSM is the reason many of us regularly read Caitlin and Consortium, all desperately trying to get some sort of a reality-check in an otherwise "Orwellian" media environment. ..."
"... The simple truth here is that in regard to the military (read 'military complex', which includes the deep state and shadow government [intelligence agencies] every president is a puppet. ..."
"... The coup in Ukraine was a major provocation to Russia, but was also a repeat of the Americans' rape and pillaging of Russia under Yeltsin, Clinton's puppet. The per capita median income of Ukrainians has dropped in half from 2013, despite pumping $billions in from the US. ..."
"... Failing impeachment, from the attempts by the Clinton Campaign, to the Congressional sanctions on Russia, to sabotage of Syria withdrawal to the Mueller hoax, to the State Dept hawks protests on Ukraine, the effort to prevent Trump from following through on his campaign promise has been the primary goal of the intelligence community. It is instructive to note that the phone call that has led to the current impeachment inquiry was made on July 26, the day following Robert Mueller's clownish testimony before Congress, effectively ending that line of impeachment. ..."
"... Also note that although the phone call was made in July, nothing was said about it until after John Bolton was fired in September, 2 months later. ..."
Caitlin Johnstone discredits a CNN listicle on Trump's "softness" towards Moscow. In fact,
she writes, the U.S. president has actually been consistently reckless towards Moscow, with
zero resistance from either party.
CNN has published a fascinatingly manipulative and falsehood-laden article titled "
25 times Trump
was soft on Russia ," in which a lot of strained effort is poured into building the case
that the U.S. president is suspiciously loyal to the nation against which he has spent his
administration escalating dangerous new cold war aggressions.
The items within the CNN article consist mostly of times in which Trump said some words or
failed to say other words; "Trump has repeatedly praised Putin," "Trump refused to say Putin is
a killer," "Trump denied that Russia interfered in 2016," "Trump made light of Russian
hacking," etc. It also includes the
completely false but oft-repeated narrative
that "Trump's team softened the GOP platform on Ukraine", as well as the utterly ridiculous and thoroughly
invalidated claim that "Since intervening in Syria in 2015, the Russian military has
focused its airstrikes on anti-government rebels, not ISIS."
CNN's 25 items are made up almost entirely of narrative and words; Trump said a nice thing
about Putin, Trump said offending things to NATO allies, Trump thought about visiting Putin in
Russia, etc. In contrast, the 25 items which I am about to list do not consist of narrative at
all, but rather the actual movement of actual concrete objects which can easily lead to an
altercation from which there may be no re-emerging. These items show that when you ignore the
words and narrative spin and look at what this administration has actually been doing ,
it's clear to anyone with a shred of intellectual honesty that, far from being "soft" on
Russia, Trump has actually been consistently reckless in the one area where a US president must
absolutely always maintain a steady hand. And he's been doing so with zero resistance from
either party.
It would be understandable if you were unaware that Trump has been escalating tensions with
Moscow more than any other president since the fall of the Berlin Wall; it's a fact that
neither of America's two mainstream political factions care about, so it tends to get lost in
the shuffle. Trump's opposition is interested in painting him as a sycophantic Kremlin crony,
and his supporters are interested in painting him as an antiwar hero of the people, but he is
neither. Observe:
1. Implementing a Nuclear Posture Review with a more aggressive stance
toward Russia
Last year Trump's Department of Defense rolled out a Nuclear Posture Review which
CNN itself called "its toughest line yet against Russia's resurgent nuclear forces."
"In its newly released Nuclear Posture Review, the Defense Department has focused much of
its multibillion nuclear effort on an updated nuclear deterrence focused on Russia," CNN
reported last year.
This revision of nuclear policy includes the new implementation of
"low-yield" nuclear weapons , which, because they are designed to be more "usable" than
conventional nuclear ordinances,
have been c
December 8, 2019 © Photo: Wikimedia For all of 2019 December has been a magnet. A number of major geopolitical issues come to head this month and many of them have everything to do with energy. This is the month that Russian gas giant Gazprom was due to finish production on three major pipeline projects – Nordstream 2, Turkstream and Power of Siberia.
