|
|
Home | Switchboard | Unix Administration | Red Hat | TCP/IP Networks | Neoliberalism | Toxic Managers |
| (slightly skeptical) Educational society promoting "Back to basics" movement against IT overcomplexity and bastardization of classic Unix | |||||||
| Home | 2099 | 2020 | 2019 | 2018 | 2017 | 2016 | 2015 |
For the list of top articles see Recommended Links section
|
|
Switchboard | ||||
| Latest | |||||
| Past week | |||||
| Past month | |||||
( Oct 02, 2017 , nationalinterest.org )
 |
 |
 |
Dec 25, 2017 | russia-insider.com
"Russia and China ... have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds ... is an unsustainable proposition ..." Pepe Escobar 12,072 198
The new 55-page "America First" National Security Strategy (NSS), drafted over the course of 2017, defines Russia and China as "revisionist" powers, "rivals," and for all practical purposes strategic competitors of the United States.
The NSS stops short of defining Russia and China as enemies, allowing for an "attempt to build a great partnership with those and other countries." Still, Beijing qualified it as "reckless" and "irrational." The Kremlin noted its "imperialist character" and "disregard for a multipolar world." Iran, predictably, is described by the NSS as "the world's most significant state sponsor of terrorism."
Russia, China and Iran happen to be the three key movers and shakers in the ongoing geopolitical and geo-economic process of Eurasia integration.
The NSS can certainly be regarded as a response to what happened at the BRICS summit in Xiamen last September. Then, Russian President Vladimir Putin insisted on "the BRIC countries' concerns over the unfairness of the global financial and economic architecture which does not give due regard to the growing weight of the emerging economies," and stressed the need to "overcome the excessive domination of a limited number of reserve currencies."
That was a clear reference to the US dollar, which accounts for nearly two-thirds of total reserve currency around the world and remains the benchmark determining the price of energy and strategic raw materials.
And that brings us to the unnamed secret at the heart of the NSS; the Russia-China "threat" to the US dollar.
The CIPS/SWIFT face-off
The website of the China Foreign Exchange Trade System (CFETS) recently announced the establishment of a yuan-ruble payment system, hinting that similar systems regarding other currencies participating in the New Silk Roads, a.k.a. Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) will also be in place in the near future.
Crucially, this is not about reducing currency risk; after all Russia and China have increasingly traded bilaterally in their own currencies since the 2014 US-imposed sanctions on Russia. This is about the implementation of a huge, new alternative reserve currency zone, bypassing the US dollar.
The decision follows the establishment by Beijing, in October 2015, of the China International Payments System (CIPS). CIPS has a cooperation agreement with the private, Belgium-based SWIFT international bank clearing system, through which virtually every global transaction must transit.
What matters, in this case, is that Beijing – as well as Moscow – clearly read the writing on the wall when, in 2012, Washington applied pressure on SWIFT; blocked international clearing for every Iranian bank; and froze $100 billion in Iranian assets overseas as well as Tehran's potential to export oil. In the event that Washington might decide to slap sanctions on China, bank clearing though CIPS works as a de facto sanctions-evading mechanism.
Last March, Russia's central bank opened its first office in Beijing. Moscow is launching its first $1 billion yuan-denominated government bond sale. Moscow has made it very clear it is committed to a long-term strategy to stop using the US dollar as their primary currency in global trade, moving alongside Beijing towards what could be dubbed a post-Bretton Woods exchange system.
Gold is essential in this strategy. Russia, China, India, Brazil & South Africa are all either large producers or consumers of gold – or both. Following what has been extensively discussed in their summits since the early 2010s, the BRICS countries are bound to focus on trading physical gold .
Markets such as COMEX actually trade derivatives on gold, and are backed by an insignificant amount of physical gold. Major BRICS gold producers – especially the Russia-China partnership – plan to be able to exercise extra influence in setting up global gold prices.
The ultimate politically charged dossier
Intractable questions referring to the US dollar as the top reserve currency have been discussed at the highest levels of JP Morgan for at least five years now. There cannot be a more politically charged dossier. The NSS duly sidestepped it.
The current state of play is still all about the petrodollar system; since last year, what used to be a key, "secret" informal deal between the US and the House of Saud, is firmly in the public domain .
Even warriors in the Hindu Kush may now be aware of how oil and virtually all commodities must be traded in US dollars, and how these petrodollars are recycled into US Treasuries. Through this mechanism, Washington has accumulated an astonishing $20 trillion in debt – and counting.
Vast populations all across MENA (Middle East-Northern Africa) also learned what happened when Iraq's Saddam Hussein decided to sell oil in euros, or when Muammar Gaddafi planned to issue a pan-African gold dinar.
But now it's China who's entering the fray, following through on plans set up way back in 2012. And the name of the game is oil-futures trading priced in yuan, with the yuan fully convertible into gold on the Shanghai and Hong Kong foreign exchange markets.
The Shanghai Futures Exchange and its subsidiary, the Shanghai International Energy Exchange (INE) have already run four production environment tests for crude oil futures. Operations were supposed to start at the end of 2017, but even if they start sometime in early 2018, the fundamentals are clear: this triple win (oil/yuan/gold) completely bypasses the US dollar. The era of the petro-yuan is at hand.
Of course, there are questions on how Beijing will technically manage to set up a rival mark to Brent and WTI, or whether China's capital controls will influence it. Beijing has been quite discreet on the triple win; the petro-yuan was not even mentioned in National Development and Reform Commission documents following the 19th CCP Congress last October.
What's certain is that the BRICS countries supported the petro-yuan move at their summit in Xiamen, as diplomats confirmed to Asia Times . Venezuela is also on board. It's crucial to remember that Russia is number two and Venezuela is number seven among the world's Top Ten oil producers. Considering the pull of China's economy, they may soon be joined by other producers.
Yao Wei, chief China economist at Societe Generale in Paris, goes straight to the point, remarking how "this contract has the potential to greatly help China's push for yuan internationalization."
The hidden riches of "belt" and "road"
An extensive report by DBS in Singapore hits most of the right notes linking the internationalization of the yuan with the expansion of BRI.
In 2018, six major BRI projects will be on overdrive; the Jakarta-Bandung high-speed railway, the China-Laos railway, the Addis Ababa-Djibouti railway, the Hungary-Serbia railway, the Melaka Gateway project in Malaysia, and the upgrading of Gwadar port in Pakistan.
HSBC estimates that BRI as a whole will generate no less than an additional, game-changing $2.5 trillion worth of new trade a year.
It's important to keep in mind that the "belt" in BRI should be seen as a series of corridors connecting Eastern China with oil/gas-rich regions in Central Asia and the Middle East, while the "roads" soon to be plied by high-speed rail traverse regions filled with – what else - un-mined gold.
A key determinant of the future of the petro-yuan is what the House of Saud will do about it. Should Crown Prince – and inevitable future king – MBS opt to follow Russia's lead, to dub it as a paradigm shift would be the understatement of the century.
Yuan-denominated gold contracts will be traded not only in Shanghai and Hong Kong but also in Dubai. Saudi Arabia is also considering to issue so-called Panda bonds, after the Emirate of Sharjah is set to take the lead in the Middle East for Chinese interbank bonds.
Of course, the prelude to D-Day will be when the House of Saud officially announces it accepts yuan for at least part of its exports to China.
A follower of the Austrian school of economics correctly asserts that for oil-producing nations, higher oil price in US dollars is not as important as market share: "They are increasingly able to choose in which currencies they want to trade."
What's clear is that the House of Saud simply cannot alienate China as one of its top customers; it's Beijing who will dictate future terms. That may include extra pressure for Chinese participation in Aramco's IPO. In parallel, Washington would see Riyadh embracing the petro-yuan as the ultimate red line.
An independent European report points to what may be the Chinese trump card: "an authorization to issue treasury bills in yuan by Saudi Arabia," the creation of a Saudi investment fund, and the acquisition of a 5% share of Aramco.
Nations under US sanctions, such as Russia, Iran and Venezuela, will be among the first to embrace the petro-yuan. Smaller producers such as Angola and Nigeria are already selling oil/gas to China in yuan.
And if you don't export oil but are part of BRI, such as Pakistan, the least you can do is replace the US dollar in bilateral trade, as Interior Minister Ahsan Iqbal is currently evaluating.
A key feature of the geoeconomic heart of the world moving from the West towards Asia is that by the start of the next decade the petro-yuan and trade bypassing the US dollar will be certified facts on the ground across Eurasia.
The NSS for its part promises to preserve "peace through strength." As Washington currently deploys no less than 291,000 troops in 183 countries and has sent Special Ops to no less than 149 nations in 2017 alone, it's hard to argue the US is at "peace" – especially when the NSS seeks to channel even more resources to the industrial-military complex.
"Revisionist" Russia and China have committed an unpardonable sin; they have concluded that pumping the US military budget by buying US bonds that allow the US Treasury to finance a multi-trillion dollar deficit without raising interest rates is an unsustainable proposition for the Global South. Their "threat" – under the framework of BRICS as well as the SCO, which includes prospective members Iran and Turkey – is to increasingly settle bilateral and multilateral trade bypassing the US dollar.
It ain't over till the fat (golden) lady sings. When the beginning of the end of the petrodollar system – established by Kissinger in tandem with the House of Saud way back in 1974 – becomes a fact on the ground, all eyes will be focused on the NSS counterpunch.
John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 10:11 AM
Tommy Jensen John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:26 AMChina and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the market.The Federal reserve, prints currency, "loans" it to USA corporation, at USURY rates, gives this currency to other "sovereign" puppet states such as Belgium, who then act like they are buying the bonds for themselves.
It is a scam. Those who trust the USA/British Empire, will wind up with worthless paper, while the Usury bankers, their bosses, China and Russia, will wind up with gold.
All you USA worshipers should understand something.
He who has the gold, makes the rules.
Guess the western sheep are going to be the bitc#s of China and Russia for the next century or so.Cliff Aleksandar Tomić , December 23, 2017 6:20 PMI believe America will win. Therefore I sold my gold and bought dollares. The bad guys always win.............LOL.
Mychal Arnold Tommy Jensen , December 24, 2017 4:49 AM" Treason doth never prosper
What be the reason?
For when it prosper,
None dare call it treason" -William ShakespereRichard Burton Mychal Arnold , December 24, 2017 11:11 AMHey Tim or whatever. Yep you always win huh? Vietnam, Afghanistan, Libya, Syria, Sudan, .ring any bells I could go on but you have been embarrassed enough with your msm drivel. Always the weak and defenseless you lily livered chicken's. You better avoid war with the two most powerful countries in the world. Can you guess? and neither are you pedos and babykillers. You make me sick and disgusted. Voted again the most threat to world peace. Ussa, ussa, ussa. Proud are ya all. The time is coming where you reap what you have sown and on that day I shall dance my happy dance that you feel what you and your evil countrymen have wrought in the world in the name of democracy and freedom hope it is on cable! You rotten to the core people!
zorbatheturk Richard Burton , December 25, 2017 2:11 AMHere here, the US Holocaust, countless millions killed all over the globe as the USA plunders, wars and props-up evil, despot regimes. Bin Laden, Taleban, just two of the US former best allies, how long can a 200 year old, degenerate country like the USA keep sponging-off/ using exploiting the worlds billions to enrich itself? USA... infested with drugs, crime, rust belts, slums, homeless, street bums VAST inequality.
Mychal Arnold Richard Burton , December 24, 2017 12:01 PMIt's still a million miles better than a craphole like RuSSia!
Le Ruse Tommy Jensen , December 25, 2017 2:32 AMYep! As Rome burns and eaten from within!
Peter Jennings John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:09 AMYes Tommy.. Good move !!
Buy US$ !! US$ is backed by US government !! Gold is not backed by anything !!wilmers13 John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 12:43 AMRemember the Belgium Bulge a few years back? the process must also work in reverse.
John C Carleton wilmers13 , December 24, 2017 8:39 AMYou cannot buy gold from the Empire, have you not read the book Gold Warriors.
Security is a propaganda term now, stands for war preparations.
Trauma2000 John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 1:11 PMThe Empire sells other peoples gold to China and Russia everyday, having stole and sold Americans gold long since.
Works like this.
The not Federal, and no Reserve(s) dollar, is worth about 1 cent, of a 1913, pre Usury criminal banker scam "dollar".
That 1 % is swiftly loosing it's value.
To keep the American people, from realizing, the USA, is using them for cattle, stealing their labor, through planned hyperinflation,:
Israhell/Washington crime cabal, dumps massive amounts of "paper gold and silver", on the market, each and every damn day the rigged market is open, in order to artificially keep the price of gold and silver way the hell below where it should be priced in federal reserve currency.
This hide s the true inflation rate of the not federal and no reserves private Usury Banker Currency, falsely identified as the "US Dollar".
Israhell/Washington DC, does not have the physical gold and silver to cover what they sell.
It is a criminal scam.
Those who buy this paper gold and silver, small guy, will never be given physical for the paper.
Small guy, traded green paper for white paper. Either will be worthless soon.
Sovereigns, can buy enough of it, to demand delivery of physical.
The day the British Anglo zionist Empire defaults delivering physical gold, to China and Russia, for the paper gold, is the day the curtain comes down on the illusion of the USA financial empire.
Washington DC knows this, China knows this, Russia knows this.
In order to buy time, Israhell/Washington DC, has stolen, sold at hugely discounted prices, to keep the dollar scam alive, just a while longer, all the gold they were supposably storing for safe keeping, of other sovereigns.
They have stolen privately held gold, which was stored in commercial banks and vaults for "safe keeping.
They stole the gold which went missing from the basement vaults in the world trade centers, before they set off the demolition charges.
Then they sold it.
They stole and sold Ukraines gold.
They stole and sold, Libya's gold.
They had intended to have already stole and sold Syria's gold.
They are fast running out of other peoples gold, to deliver to China and Russia at huge discounts, to prop up the scam, just a while longer.
The day there is no more stolen gold to deliver to China and Russia, the music stops, all the chairs are removed, this game of musical chars is over. Starving Americans will eat their pets, rats, and each other.
Thanks Israhell!
Thanks Washington DC/USA.John C Carleton Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 2:02 PMI want more information on this. Isabella said a similar thing. I want to know more... So the U$T's that are in actual fact worthless, Russia is using to buy gold at a huge discount to what should be the true market rate; and then Russia is storing this. I understand the storing thing. I'm a straight forward kind-of-a-guy. But its the U.$.T.'s to Physical Gold I can't get my head around.
Why is the U.$. honouring what is a knife-to-its-throat deal that is very soon going to result in the collapse of the U.$. dollar? And according to this forum fully 20% of Russia's reserves are still held in fiat U.$.T's..?
Why would Russia hold such a large percentage if its reserves in what will be worthless U.$.T.'s when it knows that the U.$. is going to try and scam Russia and default..?
I want to know more.
Bd-prince Pramanik Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 8:28 PMPicture a crime family.
Some branches are pure evil.
Some not so evil.
Some are very open about their evil.
Some are sneaky hypocrites who use the news media to white wash their crimes, and vilify their victims.BUT! And this is one huge BUT, they all know too much on each other to start talking too damn much.
Also, their criminal Empire, (shearing/raping/murdering the sheep for fun and profit) is all tied together. Common banks, common/interchangeable fiat currencies, Usury debt practices.
Take part of it down, the other part will suffer great losses, if not go down with them.
Russia, and China, has gotten tired of the British Anglo zionist Empire lording it over them and treating them like red headed step children.
Russia and China, have not seen the Light, are not operating for the sake of their people, but to keep themselves in power, by returning to the people, some of the wealth they stole from the people to begin with
British Anglo zionist pig fkers Empire, is too greedy to return any of the stolen loot.
The BAzE, have a let them eat grass like the animals they are elitist attitude.
China and Russia, are trying to position themselves to come out on top when the economic reset happens.
They both were FORCED, by Empire, to both buy and hold, huge stashes of both Federal reserve fiat currency, and bonds, to do business in the rest of the world.
The USA military is the enforcement arm for the BAzE.
USA military is corrupted, demoralized, veterans fked over royally, weapons do not work as their purpose, was to steal the labor of the American working man and women, not to produce weapons which worked as advertised.
Russia and China, will continue to buy gold, buy time, to get in a better position to give Uncle Sugar's pedophilic ass both middle fingers.
It is in their interest to do so.
The owners of the British Anglo zionist Empire, have their personal vaults filled with stolen gold.
The politicians you see, the Rothschild's even, are window dressing to hide the true owners, and to protect the true owners asses during slave revolts, by offering, kings, queens, politicians, bankers, heads to get chopped.
These owners have no loyalty to any other person, or country in the world. They see themselves as the chess players, humanity as the pieces, the earth as their personal chess board.
They do not give a FF about America, the American people, or the hand puppet political whore of DC/USA.
The hand puppet whores, are too stupid, and corrupt anyway, to understand whats coming, or to have the power, intelligence, or balls to stop it
There are all kinds of fun and wealth created, for deviant sick bastards, in creating, and tearing down empires.
Besides, all the death and destruction gets them sexually excited
Takes years of study, experience with, and intuition, to begin to understand their evil, and the way the world really works.
Whether someone started years back, educating themselves, preparing for whats coming, will determine if they will enter the kill zone as a sheep or not.
The only protection sheep have, is the hope, the jackals will rape and murder some other sheep, not them. That is why they will not stand up or speak up.
That is why they violently attack anyone wants to leave the herd mentality, everyone else forced to be in the same sheep state as them,
They are afraid the jackal will notice them individually.
Herd numbers and hiding in the herd, are the cowards only protectionMychal Arnold John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 12:41 PMyour answer is in your question!
John C Carleton Mychal Arnold , December 24, 2017 12:46 PMJohn I firmly believe they will get what is coming to them just a matter of time nothing endures forever. But mostly not in our life time, though!
Trauma2000 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 3:15 PMAny day now, any week, not very many months, can the scam go on.
In other words, Americans might want to bone up on delicious recipes for Rats, cats, and their neighbors.BobValdez Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 3:48 PMre: "China and Russia been dumping US bonds for a good while.
They just have to do it slowly, so they can get as much cash, to buy stolen discounted gold with from the British Anglo Zionist Empire, as possible without tanking the market."I have been reading this for a while. But I've yet to see it in practice. Rosneft is still accepting U.$. dollars for oil/gas transactions, the most recent of which I believe was the gas shipment from St Petersburg to Poland..? https://tomluongo.me/2017/1...
I need to read more on this subject.
Paw Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 9:48 PMRussia acceps dollars for oil, and uses them to buy physical gold. No need to hold useless dollars, just convert them to gold.
Richard Burton Paw , December 24, 2017 11:18 AMWhat you buy by petrodollars ?
Saudi .Arabia buys arms. But SA has got millions of unemployed people , because they studied Islamic religion , wahabist fanaticism ... Further SA employs millions of workers from other countries. And owns US assets in value over 1 trillion dollars. So what else to buy , where to spend their petrodollars? Only get billions dollars arms ,that are in couple years useless...Population hate the fully corrupt royal family in numbers approximately 40 thousands princess as they have to get about 500 thousands yearly salaries...For doing nothing , only to spend it everywhere...
Populations hate US presence in SA. Very much.Isabella Jones Trauma2000 , December 24, 2017 11:54 AMBut the Great Satan~USA adore such scum as the vile Crooked Saudi royal family, the snakehead USA ignore all their anti-democracy, anti- human rights their beheading, their evil ways, they worship money the US swine, its all they see and lap-up, plus they have Russia/ China /Iran to pick on and blame not their evil Saudi- swine arms buyers. View Hide
Mychal Arnold Isabella Jones , December 24, 2017 12:32 PMAt the moment, because the US is illegally holding gold prices down using uncovered shorts on paper gold, and at the same time has used sanctions to devalue the rouble, Russia is producing oil at reduced - rouble - rates, selling it on the international market for U$, [artificially inflated] and buying massive amounts of cheap gold with the huge profits she is making.
Russia is singing all the way to the bank right now. The US backed itself into a corner on this one it cannot get out from - short of waging war on Russia !!!Tony B. Isabella Jones , December 24, 2017 11:31 PM10% of GDP goes out where is the ussa 100 as are many others in the west. All western country have huge debts funny how that is or is it?
Isabella Jones Tony B. , December 25, 2017 5:41 AMWhy should anyone who is in love with gold be upset if someone is holding the price down? It should be a wonderful time to buy.
Russia is MINING gold, its own gold.John C Carleton Trauma2000 , December 23, 2017 3:41 PMIt is a great time to buy, if you have some spare cash to store, I agree. It's just a poor time if you need to realise your gold - you wont get the price for it you should. But indeed, it's a buyers market. Yes, Russia has a fair bit of gold "reserves" just sitting in the ground.
Nathan Dunning John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 4:36 PMThere is the face the beast lets you see, and the real face of the beast.
You do not think the beast is stupid enough to show it's real face to all the sheep?
Really?
The sheep who are given personal attention in private places, see the real face of the beast, because it sexually excites the beast for the chosen sheep to die bleating in terror.John C Carleton Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 9:44 AMYou're a tool for the left I bet you're American Liberal.
John C Carleton Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 9:49 AMYou are a sheep.
i Am a wolf.
You are lucky i lost my taste for mutton.
i prefer goat and jackal. View HideMychal Arnold Nathan Dunning , December 24, 2017 12:45 PMalexwest11 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:25 AMGuess you just got here you friggin troll. You know nothing you shill. Go back to the basement mom has brought you dinner and cookies n milk and let the grown men talk, now that is a good boy bye. Sorry John I have disappointed my Mom said be nice but idiots bother me. Say hi to your lovely Mom for me and God bless. Merry Christmas everyone! Got your back as always.
John C Carleton alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 12:18 PMJohn C Carleton • an hour ago China and Russia been dumping US bond
-------
no they don't! Russians reserves are about 100+ bln in USTand WHOLLY 20 % OF RUSSIAN assets in Russian banks are kept mostly $$$ and some euro
oncefiredbrass John C Carleton , December 24, 2017 2:44 AMGlad you are so confident in the currency, which has lost 99% of it's buying power since 1913, when the not Federal and no Reserve(s) was forced on the American people by the Usury Banker ancestors of the owners of the 'Fed", buying USA politicians.
Where did that 99% value go?
To the I%ters. You know, the pedophile elite.
They want it all, they are coming for the other 1% of the "dollar's" value.
They are coming for Social security, government pensions, private pensions, checking accounts, any thing with any value.Oh by the way, just cause you are ignorant of how things work, don't mean they don't work that way, just means you are ignorant.
Have a wonderful day now!
See mother, i was nice to the bad person who was trying to run interference for pedophile baby rapers.John C Carleton oncefiredbrass , December 24, 2017 8:22 AMGood to see someone else Awake! A good portion of the Sheep are still sleeping, they think the National Debt and Zero Interest Rates mean nothing (in the Eurozone Interest is Negative). The US Dollar is soon to be Toilet Paper! Our Military can only overthrow small countries that defy the PetroDollar system. Now with so many doing it, John Carleton is right, the National Debt and Retirements Accounts are basically equal. That is why Obutthead set the start of grabbing them by creating the MYRA, the Theory is the Sheep are to stupid to manage their own retirement accounts, so the Government would grab them and put them in a so called safe investment called "Treasury's". Unfortunately the SS Trust Fund has been raided and is broke, but they do have drawers full of Treasuries. Trump has to immediately open public lands for Mining & Drilling! A normalization of Interest Rates to 5-6% would consume Government Revenues just to pay Interest on the Debt!
Ron John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:11 PMWill work like this, they may already be doing it quietly.
Take private pensions.
They are already in trouble, having stocks, bonds, commercial real estate holdings.
All of these will become worthless, or close to it.
Anything with value, currency, decimal dollars, will be taken by the Washington thieves, and worthless US bonds which will probably never be redeemed, or redeemed for chump change, will be put in their place by Washington, as they "protect" the retirement accounts.
Old people will eat rats, each other, dog and cats, die without medical care and meds which they can not afford.
Some will eat their pistols.
Not going to be nice or orderly.alexwest11 John C Carleton , December 23, 2017 11:25 PMDude, your postings are good and has an element of humor, thanks.
John C Carleton alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 8:58 AMpedophile baby rapers.
------
people who associate everything w/ pedophile baby rapers.
USUALLY ARE pedophile baby rapers.!!!!!YES, $ lost about 97 %, but rest of even worse
russian ruble of 1913 - worthless
german mark -worthless
japanese yen - worthless
etc!Aurora alexwest11 , December 23, 2017 1:19 PMOpen mouth in ignorance, insert foot.
Don't worry about a foot in the other end, i will do that verbally with my Texas cowboy boot.Dispora Pedophiles increasingly Use Israel as 'haven,' activist charge.'
https://www.timesofisrael.c...'Advocacy group: Israel is a pedophiles paridise-Haaetz-Israel News'
https://www.haaretz.com/adv...'Nachlaot, where pedophiles roam free,--the Times of Israel
https://www.haaretz.com/adv...'Israel Found to be Safe For Pedophiles'
http://yournewswire.com/isr...'Jewish Pedophiles Increasingly use Israel as a haven, activist charge'
https://freespeechtwentyfir...'Power, Pedophilia and the US Government'
http://www.whale.to/c/power...'Frankland Coverup Sex Scandal,
(pedophile prostitution ring being run out of Reagan's White House)
http://www.johnccarleton.or...All pedo's, should be given a fair trial, and a fair hanging. A pedophile which was given a fair trial, and a fair hanging, never again, raped a child.
Amazing how that works.How you like them Texas cowboy boots?
alexwest11 Aurora , December 24, 2017 12:43 AMCorrect and very easy at any given moment to be converted in a GOLD.Just follow dynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market and everything will be clear to you
AM Hants alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 7:25 AMdynamic Russia and China buying GOLD on a world market
-----btw . moron
Russia/ china don't buy gold on world market. they are 2 /3 gold producers in the world
WHAT IS YOU LEVEL OF FORMAL EDUCATION ??
it seems you are uneducated moron !
Aurora alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 1:19 PMMychal Arnold alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 12:50 PMWhile all eyes are on the oil price and the ruble to dollar rate, the Central Bank of Russia has quietly been buying huge volumes of gold over the past year. In January, 2016, the latest data available, the Russian Central Bank again bought 22 tons of gold, around $800 million at current exchange rates, that, amidst US and EU financial sanctions and low oil prices. It was the eleventh month in a row they bought large gold volumes. For 2015 Russia added a record 208 tons of gold to her reserves compared with 172 tons for 2014. Russia now has 1,437 tonnes of gold in reserve, the sixth largest of any nation according to the World Gold Council in London. Only USA, Germany, Italy, France and China central banks hold a larger tonnage of gold reserves.
Notably also, the Russian central bank has been selling its holdings of US Treasury debt to buy the gold, de facto de-dollarizing, a sensible move as the dollar is waging de facto currency war against the ruble. As of December, 2015, Russia held $92 billion in US Treasury Bonds down from $132 billion in January 2014.China bought another 17 tons of gold in January and will buy a total of another 215 tons this year, approximately equal to that of Russia. From August to January 2016 China added 101 tonnes of gold to its reserves. Annual purchases of more than 200 tons by the PBOC would exceed the entire gold holdings of all but about 20 countries, according to the World Gold Council. China's central bank reserves of gold have risen 57% since 2009 acording to data the PBOC revealed in July, 2015. Market watchers believe even that amount of gold in China's central bank vaults is being politically vastly understated so as not to cause alarm bells to ring too loud in Washington and London.Le Ruse Mychal Arnold , December 25, 2017 2:37 AMDude stop your only making yourself look stupid by opening your gob and proving or in this case writing. Merry Christmas or is it happy Hanukkah? Troll boy.
alexwest11 Aurora , December 23, 2017 11:29 PMMaybe Happy "Kwanza" whatever is that ??
Bd-prince Pramanik alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 8:51 PMany given moment to be converted in a GOLD.J
----------
???????? converted what ?in Russia, in gold ? you are not Russian, don't live, know nothing
----------
most Russians are stupid and uneducated in finance, savings do not existaverage Russian rather buy car , or flat than save money for something.
it is USSR mentality plagued by memory of deficits
Tony B. Bd-prince Pramanik , December 24, 2017 11:36 PMalexwest11 You are stupid ! a flat or house is real money you know ! They are uneducated in Rothschild finance! are you a russlanddeutsche! or jew from holy ukraine like poroschenko ?
Le Ruse Tony B. , December 25, 2017 2:39 AMRothschild finance can be described in a single word: THEFT.
The world's sole economic problem.AM Hants alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 7:38 AMHumm...
the Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away ??oncefiredbrass alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 2:52 AMYou confuse me. If Russians are so stupid and uneducated in finance, then why is their President a Dr in Economics?
Why are they in control of their vast wealth of natural resources?
Why do they have virtually enough gold to back the ruble and decent currency reserves, that rise monthly?
Also, how come they have free healthcare and education, including university level, if they are so stupid and uneducated?
Why does the US require Russian engines to make it into space?
Like I said, you confuse me, as I assumed you were talking about another super-nation, that has seriously lost it's way.
PUTIN'S PHD THESIS ESSENTIAL READING FOR OFFICIALS
http://slavija.proboards.co...Russia National Debt: $194,545,062,334
Interest per Year $12,805,556,000
Interest per Second $406
Debt per Citizen $1,330
Debt as % of GDP 19.32%
GDP $1,007,000,000,000
Population 146,300,000Russia Foreign Exchange Reserves
View Hidealexwest11 oncefiredbrass , December 24, 2017 3:19 AMRussia is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low deficits and their National Debt is very low, they are one of the Countries that is best prepared for a major economic crash.
oncefiredbrass alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 3:27 AMoncefiredbrass alexwest11 • 28 minutes ago Russia
is one of the largest Countries by land mass with a sparse population
after the breakup of the Soviet Union. They run very low defic
--------
but facts say quite opposite!!!!!!!!during oil selloff of 2008*9 Russian ruble fall 50%, from 23 to 37 per$
during oil selloff of 2014*15 Russian ruble fall 250 %, from 33 to almost 90 per$
right now its about 60 per $ , still 100% devaluation from 2014
-------i don't remember $ fall against euro or yen during 2000 or/and 2008 crises in USA
more than 20 %
alexwest11 JIMI JAMES , December 24, 2017 6:23 AMThe fall of the Ruble was an attack or sanction by the Obama Regime over Ukraine. Why not trying to look up the Debt to GDP ratio for Russia and then the US and then ask yourself what economy is actually in a better position to withstand a Depression. Russia almost has enough Gold to back all their currency. How much gold would it take to back all the Treasuries and Dollars that the US has spread all over the world?
Mychal Arnold alexwest11 , December 24, 2017 12:59 PMbecause in the end only the strong will survive and russia just like china
-------
!!sure moron.avg salary in Russia about 500 $
avg pension 200 $that is why idiotic Russians twice in 20 century totally annihilated own country!!!!!! 1917 and 1991
-----
and for china!!!!!!! it just show how moronic you are
we will see how china is good in 100 or 200 years!!!cause history showed china always being overrun by someone else;
mongols, Manchurians, etclearn a history western moron!!!!!!!!
Why , December 23, 2017 9:42 AMHey let the grown men talk baby boy! You are spouting msm talking points you're trying to debate the choir about hymns. Your not going to make anyone here see the light because you have no truths behind or in front. Msm drivel. One simple question! Who took Berlin? In ww2 of course!
Craig A. Mouldey Why , December 23, 2017 10:51 AMI hope Russia will survive UKUSA's onslaught.
Me too. The U.S. has become the evil empire. The bully on the world stage stealing everyone's lunch money. I know it will devastate us in Canada, but I would still rather see the U.S. economy crumble if it would cripple their war machine, than to see this situation go on. Ron Paul was right: Instead of war, why not pursue peaceful trade? But the U.S. controllers want everyone else under their thumb as obedient serfs. It is evil. And as Smedley Butler so bluntly put it "War is a Racket"! He said this because he was sent to war with Guatemala on behalf of the United Fruit Company, aka Chiquita Brands International. This time, they are trying to steal the lunch money from those who can defend themselves. We aren't going to sit on our couch watching this war on TV, because we will watch it out our front windows.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2017 | oilprice.com
Big Finance not shying away from shale . Hedge funds and private equity are pouring money into the shale patch despite a growing chorus of investors demanding higher returns from shale companies, according to Reuters . The pressure from investors raised questions about Wall Street's commitment to the shale industry, but Reuters says that the flow of money has continued to flood in unabated.
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2017 | www.unz.com
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman (MbS) of Saudi Arabia is the undoubted Middle East man of the year, but his great impact stems more from his failures than his successes. He is accused of being Machiavellian in clearing his way to the throne by the elimination of opponents inside and outside the royal family. But, when it comes to Saudi Arabia's position in the world, his miscalculations remind one less of the cunning manoeuvres of Machiavelli and more of the pratfalls of Inspector Clouseau.
Again and again, the impulsive and mercurial young prince has embarked on ventures abroad that achieve the exact opposite of what he intended. When his father became king in early 2015, he gave support to a rebel offensive in Syria that achieved some success but provoked full-scale Russian military intervention, which in turn led to the victory of President Bashar al-Assad. At about the same time, MbS launched Saudi armed intervention, mostly through airstrikes, in the civil war in Yemen. The action was code-named Operation Decisive Storm, but two and a half years later the war is still going on, has killed 10,000 people and brought at least seven million Yemenis close to starvation.
The Crown Prince is focusing Saudi foreign policy on aggressive opposition to Iran and its regional allies, but the effect of his policies has been to increase Iranian influence. The feud with Qatar, in which Saudi Arabia and the UAE play the leading role, led to a blockade being imposed five months ago which is still going on. The offence of the Qataris was to have given support to al-Qaeda type movements – an accusation that was true enough but could be levelled equally at Saudi Arabia – and to having links with Iran. The net result of the anti-Qatari campaign has been to drive the small but fabulously wealthy state further into the Iranian embrace.
Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often counterproductive: witness the bizarre episode in November when the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad Hariri was summoned to Riyadh, not allowed to depart and forced to resign his position. The objective of this ill-considered action on the part of Saudi Arabia was apparently to weaken Hezbollah and Iran in Lebanon, but has in practice empowered both of them.
What all these Saudi actions have in common is that they are based on a naïve presumption that "a best-case scenario" will inevitably be achieved. There is no "Plan B" and not much of a "Plan A": Saudi Arabia is simply plugging into conflicts and confrontations it has no idea how to bring to an end.
MbS and his advisers may imagine that it does not matter what Yemenis, Qataris or Lebanese think because President Donald Trump and Jared Kushner, his son-in-law and chief Middle East adviser, are firmly in their corner. "I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing," tweeted Trump in early November after the round up and confinement of some 200 members of the Saudi elite. "Some of those they are harshly treating have been 'milking' their country for years!" Earlier he had tweeted support for the attempt to isolate Qatar as a supporter of "terrorism".
But Saudi Arabia is learning that support from the White House these days brings fewer advantages than in the past. The attention span of Donald Trump is notoriously short, and his preoccupation is with domestic US politics: his approval does not necessarily mean the approval of other parts of the US government. The State Department and the Pentagon may disapprove of the latest Trump tweet and seek to ignore or circumvent it. Despite his positive tweet, the US did not back the Saudi confrontation with Qatar or the attempt to get Mr Hariri to resign as prime minister of Lebanon.
For its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little. The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.
It is Saudi Arabia – and not its rivals – that is becoming isolated. The political balance of power in the region changed to its disadvantage over the last two years. Some of this predates the elevation of MbS: by 2015 it was becoming clear that a combination of Sunni states led by Saudi Arabia, Qatar and Turkey was failing to carry out regime change in Damascus. This powerful grouping has fragmented, with Turkey and Qatar moving closer to the Russian-backed Iranian-led axis, which is the dominant power in the northern tier of the Middle East between Afghanistan and the Mediterranean.
If the US and Saudi Arabia wanted to do anything about this new alignment, they have left it too late. Other states in the Middle East are coming to recognise that there are winners and losers, and have no wish to be on the losing side. When President Recep Tayyip Erdogan called a meeting this week in Istanbul of the Organisation of Islamic Cooperation, to which 57 Muslim states belong, to reject and condemn the US decision on Jerusalem, Saudi Arabia only sent a junior representative to this normally moribund organisation. But other state leaders like Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, King Abdullah of Jordan and the emirs of Kuwait and Qatar, among many others, were present. They recognised East Jerusalem as the Palestinian capital and demanded the US reverse its decision.
MbS is in the tradition of leaders all over the world who show Machiavellian skills in securing power within their own countries. But their success domestically gives them an exaggerated sense of their own capacity in dealing with foreign affairs, and this can have calamitous consequences. Saddam Hussein was very acute in seizing power in Iraq but ruined his country by starting two wars he could not win.
Mistakes made by powerful leaders are often explained by their own egomania and ignorance, supplemented by flattering but misleading advice from their senior lieutenants. The first steps in foreign intervention are often alluring because a leader can present himself as a national standard bearer, justifying his monopoly of power at home. Such a patriotic posture is a shortcut to popularity, but there is always a political bill to pay if confrontations and wars end in frustration and defeat. MbS has unwisely decided that Saudi Arabia should play a more active and aggressive role at the very moment that its real political and economic strength is ebbing. He is overplaying his hand and making too many enemies.
Svigor , December 16, 2017 at 6:24 am GMTThe only hope someone as cloistered as a Saudi crown prince can have of being an effective ruler is either by being an extraordinary person (very curious, love learning for its own sake, etc), or be at least moderately intelligent, and listen to consensus.Avery , December 16, 2017 at 6:28 am GMTFor its part, the White House is finding out the limitations of Saudi power. MbS was not able to get the Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas to agree to a US-sponsored peace plan that would have given Israel very much and the Palestinians very little.
Lies and Jew-hatred. Everyone knows that despite their infamous sharpness in business dealings, the world's longest history of legalism, a completely self-centered and ethnocentric culture, and their longstanding abuse of the Palestinians, every single deal the Jews try to sign with the Palestinians heavily favors the Palestinians, and the only reason the Palestinians won't sign is because they're psychotic Jew-haters.
The idea of a Saudi-Israeli covert alliance against Iran may sound attractive to some Washington think tanks, but does not make much sense on the ground. The assumption that Trump's recognition of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, and the promise to move the US embassy there, would have no long-term effects on attitudes in the Middle East is beginning to look shaky.
Hey, you skipped the part where you did anything to support the idea that a Zionist-Saudi alliance doesn't make sense.
K, let's all wait for Art Deco to come in and spew some Hasbara then tell us he's not a Zhid.
{Mohammed Bin Salman's Ill-Advised Ventures Have Weakened Saudi Arabia}Tammy , December 16, 2017 at 9:51 am GMTGREAT news. Hopefully the evil, cannibalistic terrorism spreading so-called 'kingdom' of desert nomads will continue on its path of self destruction, and disappear as a functioning state.
Once more a Saudi Firster was detained in KSA. This time the owner of Arab Bank, a Jordanian with dual Jordan and KSA citizenship. Saad Hariri a Lebanese was the first one who was dual Lebanon and KSA citizens and who lost his diplomatic immunity in KSA.Jake , December 16, 2017 at 12:31 pm GMTI wonder if the Israel Firster who are dual citizens are now sweating? Wonder, if Netanyahu is still an USA citizen? Happy days are coming back .
"Saudi relations with other countries used to be cautious, conservative and aimed at preserving the status quo. But today its behaviour is zany, unpredictable and often counterproductive:"cbrown , December 16, 2017 at 1:07 pm GMTSaudis allied with Israelis, backed by the wealth and might of the US? Guaranteed to bring out the worst in Saudis (which is bad enough at base) and Israelis and Americans.
Machiavellian skills really ? I'd see 6 months ahead if this was true. MBS just made a show that they are a de facto Mafia not a businessman to the whole world. I'd bet he just quashed a lot of efforts and money spent on raising the racing horses of the saud monarch and in turn destroyed some serious connection that were vital but aren't readily available to them. Just how potent money they thought it would be ? Sure all is businesses and it will work so long you can pay the right person. The problem is where to find the right person.Joe Hide , December 16, 2017 at 1:53 pm GMTCome on Cockburn, look at the Big Picture, not the little one. This the old fallacy of looking at the trees and not seeing the forest. What is happening in Saudi Arabia is a piece of the much bigger puzzle being put together over years, decades, and maybe generations.EliteCommInc. , December 16, 2017 at 2:25 pm GMTThe psychopaths at the top of the power pyramid have been engaged in this hidden global game for generations, it's always been part of their longterm strategy.
Very recently Highly intelligent, realistic, morally and ethically centered, and practically oriented individuals, have also formed secret powerful groups to arrive at beneficial goals for humanity. These truly Good Guys have learned that the criminal, murderous, lecherous, degenerate, deviate, psychopaths in positions of great power are irredeemable and should be eliminated where possible. What you see in Saudi Arabia is merely a tree, not the forest. Just the same, to the author, keep writing but research the subject much much more before you put pen to paper, as you do have apersuasive and talented style.
I am going to come to the defence here.DESERT FOX , December 16, 2017 at 2:39 pm GMT1. We have been screaming about the unintended consequences of Saudi giving to charities since 2004.
2. We removed the buffer of Iraq from Iranian ambitions (as unclear as it may be debated) creating issues not only for Saudi Arabia, but others in the region as well.
3. We are the ones who have been fomenting destabilization all throughout the region some of whom would have been allies of the Saudis in some common cause.
4. No one is escaping the negative consequences of our Iraq invasion.
5. We have been complaining about rogue and irresponsible wealthy Muslims ad naseum.
Now when someone steps up the plate to meet the challenges many caused by the US – our first complaint is not astute counsel but rather a series of articles highlighting failure. I would not contend that I support every choice. But I think we should at least take a wait and see perspective. He is operating in a region rife with intrigue and ambitions, not to mention -- Muslims bent on spreading Islam as one would expect a muslim to do. Frankly I am not sure how one governs in the arena of the middle east – especially now – it's a region in major shift.
I think there are more effective choices concerning Yemen and Qatar. But figuring out what the choices are is not going to be easy. And harder still perhaps is implementing them. As for backfire -- we are just not in a position to judge, at the moment. Anyone hoping that another major state collapses in that region is probably miscalculating the value of instability.
The Saudis are the U.S. and ISISRAELS puppet, they do what the Zionist neocons tell them to do, which is to be the Zionist agent provocateur in the Mideast.Anon , Disclaimer December 16, 2017 at 4:55 pm GMTThe Saudis have helped the U.S. and ISISRAEL create and finance ISIS aka AL CIADA and for this the Saudis can rot in hell, and by the way the reason for the attack on Yemen is that the Saudis oil reserves are diminishing and so the Saudis figured they would take Yemens oil.
The main creators of ISIS aka AL CIADA are the U.S. and ISISRAEL and BRITAIN ie the CIA and the MOSSAD and MI6.
The irony is that Saudis, before MbS and during his dominance, are making exactly the same suicidal blunders as the US. No enemy could have damaged the US and its positions in the world more than its Presidents and the Congress in the last 17 years. The same is true for KSA, with the same mistakes being made: undermining the financial system of the country, global over-reach that forces all opposition to unite, crazy military expenses, etc.Art , December 16, 2017 at 5:57 pm GMTSorry, but these people dressed in 14 century robes and garb, cannot be taken seriously. They look like play-people feigning a furious grandeur. Without their petrochemicals – they would be laughed at by everyone – including their own kind. They should not be respected because they are religious – they are old world tribalist thugs hiding behind a religion. They use and abuse their people – holding them back from modernity.Anon , Disclaimer December 16, 2017 at 6:17 pm GMTThink Peace -- Art
@Z-manneutral , December 16, 2017 at 6:31 pm GMTThing is, Saudi regime was rotten through and through before MbS, remains rotten under his rule, and will remain rotten when some other jerk kicks him out and establishes himself at the helm.
It does not matter how smart Saudi Arabia is with their foreign policy now, they became allies with Israel, that means Saudi Arabia can never claim to be a power working for the interests of Islam. MBS is a marked man, no matter how many purges he undertakes in his army, or even if he just hires Pakistani soldiers, if he has Muslims fighting in his army he will always be carrying the risk of being assassinated by somebody who has seen him cross the red line and become pro jewish.Svigor , December 16, 2017 at 6:51 pm GMTI don't really understand the constant hopes that the Saudi regime will fall. How is that any different from cheering Bush's disastrous regime change in Iraq? How will the fallout be any better in Arabia than it was in Iraq, Libya, etc?cbrown , December 16, 2017 at 7:43 pm GMT@Svigorneutral , December 16, 2017 at 8:14 pm GMTIt's not that there's a constant hope it's just they'd fall in the near future and fortunately it will balance the geopolitical power in the future. Their fallout aren't going to be as bad unless the people pulling their string persistent in keeping them in power.
@Svigorsomeone , December 17, 2017 at 12:14 am GMTIt will be better because it means Israel loses an ally, also with the Saudis gone Egypt will also be unable to keep their population in check. The fall of the Saudis means that Israel will be surrounded by regimes that oppose it...
Another Junior Gaddafi that is going to ruin his entire nation while intoxicated with NYT or other Western media coverage. He talks of corruption after spending 1.1 Billion dollars on a yacht and a painting.anon , Disclaimer December 17, 2017 at 12:33 am GMT
Netenyahu is much the same. He has weakened Israel immensely by playing the scary wolf.@neutralSouth Africa was never in danger from their hostile neighbors . They committed suicide. Egypt cannot control its own territory let alone start wars , ditto for Syria and Lebanon. Jordan is a client state of Israel and lacks a functioning army. ...
|
|
|
Dec 16, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
likbez , , December 17, 7935 at 3:13 pm
My impression is that this a gap (could be intentional) between IEA statistics and predictions and the reality. This is propaganda agency after all, with the explicit agenda of keeping the oil price for Us consumers low. So typically that produce too "rosy" forecasts that later are quietly corrected. Their short-term forecasts are based on oil futures and as such has nothing to do with the reality on the ground. Which is quite disturbing.It is undeniable that shale boom which played such a beneficial role for the USA allowing to squeeze oil price (with generous help from KSA) for two and half years is dead.
Now is kept artificially alive by junk bonds and directs loans that will never be repaid. In other words, the USA now enjoys a period of "subprime oil. Unless there is a new technological breakthrough there will be an only minor improvement in efficiency of drilling and oil extraction in the next couple of years, but the lion share of those was already implemented, and on the current technological level we are close to the "peak efficiency" in drilling and services.
Those minor efficiencies will be negated by rising prices of service industries, which can't take the current pricing any longer and need to raise prices for their services.
Old "classic" land-based oil fields deteriorate to the tune of 5% per year, while deep sea deteriorate more and subprime wells much more. You can probably double the figure for each, although much depends on particular geology. Infill drilling accelerates depletion, allowing to maintain high production for sometimes so changes can be abrupt.
In any case each year you need somehow to find 5 MB/d of oil, finance new wells in those areas and infrastructure required. All Us shale production is around 6 MD/day. So you get the idea.
Moreover, with each year, "subprime wells" (multi-stage shale well) costs more and now are at a range of n 6-10 million depending on the number and the length of horizontals and number of fracking stages and other factors. Only few area (sweet spots) can recover this capital investment during the life of the shale well at current prices). More at around $80 and almost all around $100 per barrel. The later is also the price that KSA needs to remain solvent (rumored to be in low 90th).
The shale oil produced in the USA is really "subprime" because large part of it has lower energy content (by 20% or more) and different mix of various hydrocarbons that "classic" oil. Especially condensate from gas wells. Which optimally can be used only as diluter for heavy oil. EIA does not differentiate between different types oil and use wrong metric (volume instead of weight). May be intentionally.
So the future remains unpredictable but general trend for oil prices might be up with some spikes, not down. Although many people, including myself, thought so in early 2015 ;-)
Another factor is that world consumption continue to grow and will do so because population in large part of Asia and Africa is still growing and number of cars on the road increase each year requiring on average 1-1.4 MB/d additionally.
So it looks like the situation gradually deteriorate despite all efforts and related technological breakthrough which allow to extract more from the old wells and more efficiently extract shale oil.
The problem is that new large deposits are very hard to find now and several previously oil-exporting countries gradually became oil-importers. Mexico is one, which will be huge hit.
Obama administration screw the opportunity to move US consumers to hybrid cars so the situation in the USA deteriorates too despite rise of percentage of more economical vehicle in the personal car fleet each year. Rumors were that they pursue vendetta against Russia and that was primary consideration - to crash Russian economy and install a new "Yeltsin".
The USA generally is in better position then many other countries as the switch to natural gas and hybrid electric cars for personal transportation is still possible. It already happened in several European countries for selected types of cars, buses and trucks (taxi, in-city buses and "daily round trip or short trips trucks).
But there is no money for infrastructure anymore and for example many miles of US rail remain non-electrified. Burning diesel instead.
As maintenance was neglected for two and half year disruption of existing supply might became more frequent. also mid Eastern war is also a possibility with Trump saber-rattling against Iran. Recently the leak in undersea pipeline removed 0.5 MB/d from the market and caused a price spike to $65 for Brent (WTI remains cheaper and never crosses $60 this time).
Also with a young prince in charge and the revolution against "old guard" KSA became more and more unstable so the next "oil shock" might come from them. They also have problem of depletion which until now they compensated pitting more and more heavy high sulfur oil deposits online. At some point they will be exhausted too. They also pitch for war with Iran, but they would prefer somebody else to do heavy lifting.
The only one or countries still can significantly increase oil production now Libya (were we have problem because of the civil war after US-sponsored Kaddafi removal and killing), and Iraq where there are still untapped areas that might contain some oil; nothing big, but still substantial in the range of 1 MB/d. Looks like Iran now exports all it could. Same is true for KSA and Russia. In this sense OPEN oil production cuts might an attempt to preserve impression that they are untapped reserved. I doubt that there are much and those cuts are just a reasonable insurance policy against quick depletion of existing wells as higher price gives some space for innovation.
There is also such thing as EBITRA which gradually deteriorates everywhere and can become negative for certain types of oil (for oil sands it depends on the price of natural gas and they are primary candidate if the price doubles or triples from the current level).
Jim Haygood , December 15, 2017 at 7:07 am
ChrisFromGeorgia , December 15, 2017 at 7:46 am' The surplus will be front-loaded the first half of the year will see a glut of about 200,000 bpd. '
That don't square at all with WTI futures being backwardated from Feb 2018 ($57.08) to Dec 2022 ($49.79).
Me so bullish
nonsense factory , December 15, 2017 at 11:19 amBy continuing its' easy money policies well past any recession or growth scare, the Fed has created a monster. Most shale companies aren't profitable and are in fact losing money using any kind of GAAP. However, cheap financing allows them to survive and "drill baby drill." The unintended consequences may include destabilizing Saudi Arabia to the point of an economic and political collapse. One can always hope
Octopii , December 15, 2017 at 8:14 amEconomic collapse in Venezuela due to low oil prices good! Economic collapse in Saudi Arabia due to low oil prices bad! Solution extend cheap financing to Saudi Arabia via Aramco IPO!
Meanwhile, China says it will be moving to all-electric cars and trucks to help solve its horrible urban air pollution problem. . . Meaning global demand has nowhere to go but down.
Why do I feel that this will not end well for the American hegemon? Particularly with Trump in office working overtime with boy genius Rick Perry to promote coal and sabotage renewable energy. . .
The 36″ North Sea Forties pipeline is currently shut down for repairs. Short and medium term prices will carry the effect of that supply loss. In the long term, unexpected developments are common. Considering how completely wrong so many oil analysts have been over the past ten years, including the IEA, there is not a lot of credibility in oil market predictions.
|
|
|
Dec 09, 2017 | www.jpost.com
Simultaneously, it has managed to develop fairly profitable, albeit at times tense relationships with other major or rising world powers. Those include Russia, China and Turkey. At the same time it is engaging a large number of European countries, South Korea, India, and others in assorted trade agreements. Iran has managed to place itself front and center – not only as a bad actor bent on colonization of the "Shi'a Crescent" and possibly beyond – it has also gained increasing political and economic legitimacy among its former adversaries.
Iran has even managed to get the United States under the Trump administration to wage limited war against ISIS, first in Iraq and Syria and to a lesser extent in Afghanistan, despite conflicts and occasional confrontations between US forces and the terrorist group's own militias. While Iran's various financial deals are to some extent being tracked, what remains noteworthy is the issue of energy control in the region, a factor that fuels the numerous conflicts, or at least finances them.
... ... ...
The US has miscalculated by believing other countries are incapable of pursuing independent interests without its involvement, or by thinking such nations cannot use energy markets effectively to marginalize any state that is not already in an active leadership position. The US should take stock of the way the energy assets are being played by various states. It should either separate the authoritarian regimes which only grow stronger with the greater access and interconnections such valuable assets provide, or by outplaying those states at their own game.
|
|
|
Dec 04, 2017 | www.unz.com
From Patrick Armstrong's article (a good one, by the way):@ErebusA Russian threat is good for business: there's poor money in a threat made of IEDs, bomb vests and small arms. Big profits require big threats.Actually, I'd say the Russian threat is necessary to keep the Europeans too frightened to protest while the U.S. steals wealth from them. After all, when the U.S. imports goods and "pays" for them with printed money, it is basically stealing those goods. The U.S. is draining a lot of wealth from Europe (like $150 billion a year), so something must be done to keep them docile. Russia's perfect for that.Well, exogenous events aside, "decline and fall" is necessarily a process. A series of steps and plateaus is typical. A major step occurred in 2007/8, when the money failed. The bankers, in a frankly heroic display of coordination, propped up the $$$ and the West got a decade long plateau. Things are going wobbly again, financially speaking and I suspect the next step function to occur rather soon. Stays of execution have been exhausted, so it'll be interesting how the West handles it, and how the RoW reacts."(Failed) West and a multipolar Rest". The latter is what I think will actually happen in the near and medium term.
I think we already have it, except I don't think West has failed yet. Or it has in a way, the process of failing goes on, but the consequences have not been felt much in the West yet.
Europeans have been invited to join the Eurasian Project, to create a continental market from "Lisbon to Vladivostok". Latent dreams of Hegemony hold at least some of their elites back. The USA has also been invited, but its dreams remain much more virile. That is, until Trump who's backers seem to read the writing on the wall better than the Straussians.I don't see any other power than the West (=US) aspiring to 'manage the world'....The fact is that the rise of the West to global dominance is due to a historical anomaly. It was fuelled (literally) by the discovery and harnessing of the chemical energy embedded in coal (late 18thC) and then oil (late 19thC). The first doubled the population, and as first movers gave the West a running start. The second turned on the afterburners, and population grew >3.5 fold. Again the West led the way. To fuel that ahistorical step-function growth curve, control of resources on a global scale became its civilizational imperative.
The other 'powers' have very modest, regional aspirations... US seems to be obsessed with it.That growth curve has plateaued, and the rest of the world has caught/is catching up developmentally. The resources the West needs aren't going to be available to it in the way they were 100 years ago. Them days is over, for everybody really, but especially for the West because it has depleted its own hi-ROI resources, and both of its means of control (IMF$ System & U$M) of what's left of everybody else's are failing simultaneously. So its plateau will not be flat, or not flat for long between increasingly violent steps.
The West rode an ahistorical rogue wave of development to a point just short of Global Hegemony. That wave broke, and is now rolling back out into the world leaving the West just short of its civilizational resource requirements. No way to get back on a broken wave. In any case, China now holds the $$$ hammer, and Russia holds the military hammer, and they've now got the surfboard. Both of them, led by historically aware elites, know that Hegemony doesn't work, so will focus on keeping their neck of the woods as stable & prosperous as possible while hell blazes elsewhere.
IMHO, what's really going on is that the West's problems are simply symptomatic of what "decline and fall", if not "collapse" looks like from within a failing system. A long time ago I read the diary of a Roman nobleman who in the most matter-of-fact style wrote of exactly the same things Westerners complain about today. How this, that or the other thing no longer works the way it did. For all of his 60+ years, every day was infinitesimally worse than the day before, until finally he decides to pack up his Roman households and move to his estates in Spain. It took 170(iirc) more years of continuous decline until Alaric finally arrived at the Gates of Rome. If wholly due to internal causes, collapse is almost always a slow motion train wreck.
What is really going on is that West has over-reached and can barely handle its own problems.
...Actually, it's just stupid. Cold Warrior or not, the view betrays a deep and abiding ignorance of both history and a large part of what drove the West's hegemonic successes. That both militate against anyone else ever even trying such a thing on a global scale can't be seen if you look at historical developments and the rest of the world through 10' of 1" pipe.
'there would be a vacuum' and 'Russians would move in'. This is obvious nonsense and only elderly paranoid Cold Warrior types believe it (peterAUS?).
The idea that Russia wants/needs the Baltics is even more laughable than that it wants/needs the Ukraine or Poland. None of these tarbabies have anything to offer but trouble. Noisome flies on an elephant, it is only if they make themselves more troublesome as outsiders than they would be as vassals would Russia move.
|
|
|
Dec 03, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
11/29/2017 Notice: Please limit your comments below to the subject matter of this post only. There is a petroleum post above this one for all petroleum and natural gas posts and a non-petroleum post below this one for comments on all other matters.
First, let us define carrying capacity and overshoot. And none has done that better than Paul Chefurka .
Carrying Capacity : Carrying capacity is a well-known ecological term that has an obvious and fairly intuitive meaning: "the maximum population size of a species that the environment can sustain indefinitely, given the food, habitat, water and other necessities available in the environment". Unfortunately, that definition becomes more nebulous the closer you look at it especially when we start talking about the planetary carrying capacity for humans. Ecologists claim that our numbers have already surpassed the carrying capacity of the planet, while others (notably economists and politicians ) claim we are nowhere near it yet!
Overshoot : When a population surpasses its carrying capacity it enters a condition known as overshoot. Because carrying capacity is defined as the maximum population that an environment can maintain indefinitely, overshoot must by definition be temporary. Populations always decline to (or below) the carrying capacity. How long they stay in overshoot depends on how many stored resources there are to support their inflated numbers. Resources may be food, but they may also be any resource that helps maintain their numbers. For humans one of the primary resources is energy, whether it is tapped as flows (sunlight, wind, biomass) or stocks (coal, oil, gas, uranium etc.). A species usually enters overshoot when it taps a particularly rich but exhaustible stock of a resource. Like oil, for instance
When we talk about carrying capacity we need to define exactly who or what we are carrying. Are we talking about humans, all animals or what? Well, let's just talk about terrestrial vertebrate biomass.
Okay, Vaclav Smil and Paul Chefurka (and the estimates of most earth biologists) are correct, the long-term carrying capacity of terrestrial vertebrate biomass is a little over 200,000,000 tons. But how do we know that amount is correct? Easily, because that is what it was for millions of years before the advent of agriculture and other things brought about by modern day Homo sapiens.
Plant and animal species all struggle to survive. In doing so they have evolved to fill every available niche on earth. If a plant can grow in an area, any area, it will do so. If an animal can find a habitat in any area on earth, it will do so. At least since the mid-Triassic, about 225 million years ago, plants and animals have occupied every available niche on earth. If any animal overshot its habitat, dieoff would soon correct that situation. So for many millions of years, the terrestrial vertebrate biomass remained at about two hundred million tons, give or take. I say that because climate change, sea levels rising and falling, continental drift would cause the long-term carrying capacity to wax or wane. Also, the estimate is just that, an estimate. It could be slightly higher or lower. But the long-term carrying capacity of the earth always remained at one hundred percent of what it was possible to carry.
Then about 10,000 years ago man invented agriculture. At first, this only enabled a slight increase in population. Soon only plants that produced the most grain, fruit or tuber per plant, or per area of ground, was selected for replanting. Genetic engineering goes back thousands of years.
Then they discovered fertilizer. Animal and human waste could greatly increase plant production. Animals were domesticated and the plow was invented. More food per area of ground could be produced. Then chemical fertilizers were invented and the population floodgates were opened. At first phosphates from bird guano dramatically increased agricultural production but around the middle of the last century nitrate fertilizers from the Haber Bosch process enabled the green revolution and enabled the population to expand three fold.
It's mostly cows, then humans, then pigs then chickens then Interesting that the biomass of chickens is ovwe three times that of all the wild animals combined. If this chart does not shock you then you are totally unable to be shocked by anything concerning the earth's biosphere.
The world population is still expanding at an alarming rate. By 1989 the population was expanding by about 88 million people per year. Then by the year 2000 population growth had slowed to about 77 million per year. Then the slowdown stopped and started to increase again. it stands at about 79 million per year according to the US Census Bureau.
Now they are saying it will start to slow. But that slowdown has not yet started. True, the fertility rate has been dropping but that has been offset by the increase in population. The fertility rate is dropping but on more and more people.
Notice the U.S. Census Bureau starts the slowdown at almost the exact date this chart was drawn, August 2017. If they had drawn this chart in 1995, then no doubt they would have started their prediction of constant decline in 1995.
But I have no doubt that the population will start to decline. It must, it must because we are destroying the ability of the planet to feed all its people.
Paul Chefurka created the above graph in May 2011. I think he was a little off. He has the world population hitting almost 8 billion then starting to drop around 2030.
I am more inclined to agree with the U.S. Census Bureau who thinks the world population will hit 9.4 billion around 2050. Then I believe the population will start to fall. The rate of population decline and how far it will fall is hard to predict. That will depend on many things but primarily on if and when globalization collapses. The collapse of globalization will bring about civil strife, border wars, and famine around the world.
I want to call your attention to the green, wild animal, portion of the second graph at the top of this post. Notice the wild animal portion of the terrestrial vertebrate biomass, by 1900, had dropped to about 20% of its historical value. Then by 2000, it had dropped to half that amount. Then by 2050, we expect that 2000 value to be cut in half again.
By 2100, it will very likely all be gone. Well, almost all gone. There will still be plenty of rats and mice and perhaps a few other small vertebrates will still survive, but all the large megafauna, except humans, will be gone. Gone forever or at least for the next million years or so. It will take that long for new megafauna to evolve after the human population has been greatly reduced to a billion or even a few million people.
But the far distant future is of little concern to us now. The sad fact of the matter is your descendants will live in a world completely free of wild megafauna. There is no way to avoid that fact now, it is already too late to stop the destruction.
WHY?
Yes, why? Why are we destroying the earth's ecosystem? Why are we driving most all wild animals into extinction? Why have we dramatically overpopulated the planet with human beings? Why did all this happen? However, when you ask why, you are implying that all this had a cause, that someone or some group of people are to blame for this damn mess we have gotten ourselves into.
Was it the early farmers who invented agriculture. Or was it the early industrialists like James Watt or Thomas Edison? Or was it Fritz Haber and Carl Bosch, are they the villains that got us into such a damn mess? No, it was none of these people. It was no one person or no group of people. It was not even any revolution like the industrial revolution, the medical revolution or the green revolution. There is no one to blame and there is nothing to blame.
Agriculture enabled the very small early population to expand. The industrial revolution and later the green revolution enabled more people to be fed. The medical revolution enabled more babies to survive and people to live much longer. Our population has exploded simply because it could. We have always lived to the limit of our existence and we always will. It was just human nature pure and simple.
Now many will say that we are now controlling our population, that we have learned how to limit our fertility rate. Well, yes and no. Reference the below chart and table that were produced by the Population Reference Bureau in 2012.
In the developed world, where most of the world's energy is consumed, we almost have zero population growth. But in the less developed world, the population is still growing.
Here is the perfect example of what is happening, what is still happening , in much of the world. Notice the difference in the infant mortality rate and the annual infant deaths. Most of the world's people are still living at the very limit of their existence.
<sarc>But not to worry. The death rate is rising, babies are dying, the population will soon start to fall in the undeveloped world. </sarc>
Note: The Paul Chefurka graphs in this post were created, primarily, with data from the research of Vaclav Smil and is published in this 24 page PDF file: Harvesting the Biosphere: The Human Impact . The file includes over 2 pages of notes and 4 pages of references where Smil sources and documents every stat he quotes. Below are a table and some text from the paper.
The zoomass of wild vertebrates is now vanishingly small compared to the biomass of domestic animals. In 1900 there were some 1.6 billion large domesticated animals, including about 450 million head of cattle and water buffalo (HYDE 2011); a century later the count of large domestic animals had surpassed 4.3 billion, including 1.65 billion head of cattle and water buffalo and 900 million pigs (FAO 2011). Calculations using these head counts and average body weights (they have increased everywhere since 1900, but the differences between larger body masses in North America and Europe and lower weights elsewhere persist) yield estimates of at least 35 Mt C of domesticated zoomass in 1900 (more than three times the total of all wild land mammals) and at least 120 Mt C in the year 2000, a 3.5-fold increase in 100 years (and 25 times the total of wild mammalian zoomass). And cattle zoomass alone is now at least 250 times greater than the zoomass of all surviving African elephants, which in turn is less than 2 percent of the zoomass of Africa's nearly 300 million bovines (Table 2).
Please comment below but only on the subject matter of this post.
This entry was posted in Uncategorized and tagged Megafauna Extinction , Overpopulation , Overshoot , Peak Oil , Population Explosion , Species Extinction . Bookmark the permalink . 295 Responses to Carrying Capacity, Overshoot and Species Extinction
George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 8:23 am
Great summary. Mainly so I don't have to think about all the depressing aspects: do you not think if humans disappeared but even a few of our larger domesticated animals survived that evolution could go bonkers and we'd have new familes and species springing up all over in far less than a million years. After all homo sapiens are only a few hundred thousand years, and dogs (admittedly still technically wolves) only a few thousand. It would depend a bit whether we left much of the planet that was actually habitable of course i.e. there'd need to be plenty of evolution pressure, but not too much. I guess your point would be we'd get new species but not the mega fauna, but I think there's evidence that isolated small islands can lead to either pygmy species or giants depending on the exact environment.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 9:28 amGeorge, I would have to start by saying that humans are not going to disappear. Other than extinction via natural disaster, like a giant meteorite hitting the earth, species are driven into extinction. That is they are outcompeted for territory and resources. Humans are the drivers of extinction, no species will drive us into extinction. We occupy every habitable niche on earth and will likely continue to do so even after our numbers have been dramatically reduced.The Cunning Linguist says: 11/29/2017 at 10:18 amIf we have a collapse of globalization, and I believe that is inevitable and will happen within the next one hundred years, then the human population will be devastated by civil strife, border wars, and famine. Seven to nine billion hungry people will be a disaster for all other animal life, domestic as well as wild. So I do not believe there will be enough domestic animal life to kick-start evolution of new wild species of megafauna. As I have said before, we will eat the songbirds out of the trees. So there sure as hell will not be any cows left.
Okay, so perhaps it will not take a million years for other large megafauna to evolve. Perhaps it will only be in the hundreds of thousands of years.
So, after we eat the songbirds from the trees, what the hell will we eat then?Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 10:44 amIs it not possible that the human species will drive itself to extinction because we are so successful at destroying the natural environment which we depend upon for our survival?
After industrial civilization collapses, the great human die-off will rapidly reduce human numbers by more than 90%. Life for the remaining humans will be extraordinarily hard. If the overall stress level is high enough, it will be very difficult for humans to raise enough offspring to reproductive age to maintain the species over time. Biologists call this pre-extinction phase die out. Once a species numbers fall below replacement level, they go extinct.
And what the hell do you mean: "If we have a collapse of globalization, and I believe that is inevitable and will happen within the next one hundred years "? Within the next 100 years? You are dreaming! We are in the early stages of apocalypse right now! Rapid die-off will begin within the next few years. 100 years from now, there will be no one alive who will remember it.
Cunning said; "After industrial civilization collapses, the great human die-off will rapidly reduce human numbers by more than 90%." ..Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 10:59 am..while what is left of nature will rapidly move into the niches vacated by species humans have wiped out. If (big if, maybe) there are remaining reproductively viable human populations, they will exploit those recovering niches at rates which will be far below the astounding rates of exploitation during the industrial age. Where humans have abandoned their schemes of destroying the natural world for their own purposes, nature, in some form, recovers quite quickly.
On the other hand, if global warming goes off the scale (ala Guy McPherson, et al), all bets are off. Everything larger than a shrew will be toast.
Once a species numbers fall below replacement level, they go extinct.The Cunning Linguist says: 11/29/2017 at 12:01 pmThe replacement level for animals in the wild and the replacement level for domestic animals are two different things entirely. For animals in the wild, the replacement level may be several hundred to several thousand. Animals in the wild have to find each other in order to reproduce. For domestic animals, the replacement level is two.
In this regard, we Homo sapiens are far more like domestic animals than wild animals. An example would be the Polynesians who migrated to distant islands in sailing outrigger canoes. Their numbers, in those canoes, likely numbered only a dozen or so. Yet huge numbers eventually sprang from tiny numbers.
Yes, stress during periods of great strife and famine will be great. Stress will likely take a great toll. But there will always be survivors. Everyone is not equally affected by stress. Some can overcome, some cannot. It is a little like a plague or disease. There are always some who are immune or otherwise escape the problem.
As for rapid die-off coming within a few years, yes that may happen but I doubt it. Humans societies are far more resilient than you might expect. For instance, look at Somalia, or Venezuela. Somalia, a failed state, has been in turmoil for decades yet no massive die-off has occurred. Venezuela is in a state of almost total anarchy, yet no massive die-off as of yet.
I believe the die-off will start within the next hundred years. Next week is within the next hundred years. But I doubt it will happen by then, or even within the next few years or so. In my opinion, it will take several decades for things to really fall apart.
Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 12:27 pmYou said:
"But I doubt it will happen by then, or even within the next few years or so. In my opinion, it will take several decades for things to really fall apart."What about Limits to Growth? That study forecast that real problems would begin in the first or second decade of the 21st century, in other words, now. Why is Limits to Growth wrong? How do we avoid sudden, catastrophic collapse once world economic growth comes to an end?
What about the fragile, debt ridden financial/credit/monetary system? Have you read the Korowicz paper? How will industrial civilization gradually unwind over many decades when the world economy freezes very suddenly and food stops arriving at the grocery stores? That should lead to a very rapid die-off as every city suddenly becomes uninhabitable.
What about Limits to Growth? That study forecast that real problems would begin in the first or second decade of the 21st century, in other words, now. Why is Limits to Growth wrong?Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 12:37 pmHey, I have a copy of Limits to Growth right here in my hand. On what page do they predict catastrophic collapse before 2050. Help me out here but I just can't seem to find it.
As to real problems, hell yes, we are having real problems right now. We have been having real problems in Venezuela and a lot of other places. But there is a tremendous difference between real problems and catastrophic collapse.
And what about all the other terrible things you are say are happening right now. Hell yes, they are happening and they are terrible. But they have not yet led to catastrophic collapse. But it is very likely they will lead to collapse in three or four decades from now.
The LTG graphs appear to show economic and industrial peaks @2025-2030, if not sooner, dropping off quickly.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 12:59 pmGhung, what page is this on?Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 1:17 pmIt's actually from a Guardian article, taken from Bardi's "The Limits to Growth Revisited". I don't know what page the original graph was on, but I have a copy of the original 1972 graph which shows the same curves, without the more recent data curves.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:17 pmGuardian article "Limits to Growth was right. New research shows we're nearing collapse" :
Ron that graph is from the Graham Turner LtG update: http://sustainable.unimelb.edu.au/sites/default/files/docs/MSSI-ResearchPaper-4_Turner_2014.pdfRon Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 1:32 pmShit? Is this real? I had no idea that we might be this close to collapse.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:43 pmNevertheless, I just can't believe we are that close. I think it will be at least 20 to 30 years from now.
It depends on what you call collapse. The UK and USA are both following the curve such that life expectancy is starting to decline. I think industrial productivity might be going the same way in UK, and definitely our health and old age care systems (which is one of the measures he uses for "services") are in decline (though the government always finds a way to massage the numbers so far). One of the authors of LtG has said that once one of the main curves is definitely through an extrema then the models probably don't work any more which I took to mean possible accelerating chaos, but might mean something else.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:37 pmShit? Is this real? I had no idea that we might be this close to collapse.Alice Friedemann says: 11/29/2017 at 8:02 pmYep -- -
Population overshoot, ecocide, environmental destruction, deforestation, ocean acidification, mass loss of pollinators
I could go on --It doesn't take a weather man to tell which way the wind blows.
This a unique, one-time only collapse because we never relied on fossil fuels in the past, and we certainly won't in the future. If you look at energyskeptic/3) Fast Crash, you'll see the many reasons I think collapse will unfold quickly. Turchin, who has looked at the patterns of collapse in civilizations going back to Mesopotamia, says it takes about 20 years on average. That is in line with Hook's estimate of a 6% exponential decline, which is the rate at which the 500 giant oil fields decline on average after peaking (something like 270 of them last I checked), all others (offshore, shale, smaller, and so on) decline much faster, hence Hooks estimate of an exponential increase of .0015 a year as non-giants increasingly contribute to what's left of production (giants are now 60% of world oil production). If Hook (2009) is right, that means we'll be down to 10% of what we produce after global peak production in 16 years. At that point, even if governments are rationing oil wisely to grow and distribute food, you're reaching the breaking point. Oil makes all other resources possible, so although many resources reaching their limits, the decline of oil will be the true beginning of the end. No more pumping water from the Ogallala 1,000 feet down, going 10,000 miles on factory farm fishing boats, and so on. Oil is masking how incredibly far we are over overshoot. Above all, 99% of the supply chain transport trucks, rail, ships depends on oil. 80% of communities in the U.S. depend entirely on oil, by far the least efficient mode of transportation of the three. Well, it is too big a topic to cover in a comment. I have a lot more to say in my book "When Trucks Stop Running".OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:14 amOh, and when I heard Dennis Meadows speak at the 2006 Pisa Italy ASPO conference, he said that if anything Limits to growth was head of schedule, with collapse starting as early as 2020. We'll see, too many factors. Also in the past, nations avoided collapse way past their carrying capacity by trading or conquering other nations, like the Roman Empire, which had to import food from Carthage and Egypt, no way to grow enough food in Italy.
Hook, M., Hirsch, R., Aleklett, K. June 2009. Giant oil field decline rates and their influence on world oil production. Energy Policy 37(6): 2262-2272
https://www.diva-portal.org/smash/get/diva2:225443/FULLTEXT01.pdfHi Alice,Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:22 pmI'm hoping to see more comments from you in the future, and not just in this one thread, lol.
It's very common for experts in any given field to presume there are none in other fields that are capable of solving the problems they see as civilization killers.
There are no guarantees of success, but success is possible when it comes to finding and implementing solutions to problems such as the eventual depletion of oil.
Once the shit starts hitting the fan pretty hard and fast in terms of declining oil supplies, both good and bad things will happen on a scale that will take the breath away.
The bad will unquestionably include economic collapse across large swathes of some and maybe most societies.
The good will come in the form of action on the part of awakened LEVIATHAN, the nation state. Those of us who cannot see that once LEVIATHAN stirs and focuses on such problems as we FORCED to deal with soon have little understanding of history , human nature, and technology.
Now WHETHER , or NOT, Leviathan, Uncle Sam, John BULL, the Russian BEAR, et al, can do enough to keep the wheels on and turning, instead of falling off, is an open question.
I believe they can, depending on how far gone things are once they begin to come to grips with the various troubles that will threaten their existence.
People CAN AND DO come together, and work together, sometimes. Consider the case of the USA. We were mostly all isolationists the day before Pearl Harbor, but within a couple of days after, we were all ready to to go flat out to murder our enemies on the grand scale, and DID.
Neither I nor anybody else can prove either way whether we WILL work together well enough to prevent outright collapse meaning we die hard deaths by the tens of millions even here in a country such as the USA.
There's no question that we CAN work together, once we realize we must. Whether we get started soon enough is probably going to determine just how bad things will get in economic terms.
But between what scientists and engineers can do for us, by way of providing us with better tools, and what we can collectively do for ourselves by way of collective action, there's a real possibility that some countries will pull thru ok, no longer sleek and lazy and fat and wasteful, but at least still functional, and with most of their populations still alive and leading a reasonably dignified life style.
I will have more to say about what Leviathan awakened, scared and enraged can do later on, way down thread someplace within the next few days, by relating some historical examples.
I too feel that one day the trucks will stop running. It will be a very interesting transition to observe. I imagine it will have a progression that goes something like this:George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 12:57 pm
-trucks running will increase in cost as will the things that they are running about with inside them.
trucks will run to less and less places.
-trucks will run to less and less places less frequently.
-trucks will run only very rarely and only for high priority reasons.
-trucks will stop running altogether.As this process takes place I imagine there will be measures taken to fill some of the void, where and when it is possible to do so.
Ron do you think humans will still be around in a million years or even a hundred thousand? If they are I think it will only be because they have made themselves irrelevant to the environment (i.e. small in numbers and having found a way to live sustainably) and other species will be evolving without too much human involvement.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 1:59 pmYes, George, I think humans will be around in a million years. Not nearly as many as are around today however. If I had to guess, and I do have to guess, then I would guess around 10 to 15 million humans would be around a million years from now. That would be one person alive then for every 500 alive today.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 2:26 pmOf course, all fossil fuel would be gone and everyone would live off the land.
But if you doubt human survival, then just what do you think will wipe everyone out? What will bring the human population to zero?
That sounds as good a guess as any. Part of my point was that they could only survive if they were not intrusive, and therefore would not be an impediment to evolution of other mega fauna. I think average species life time is estimated at around 1 to 2 million years, homo is a family rather than a species so the sapiens could go and something else come along, like we took out the Neanderthals. On the other hand if the bottlenecks get small enough in different locations we could just be whittled away by different causes.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 2:52 pmI think average species life time is estimated at around 1 to 2 million years,George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 2:59 pmThe point is George, Homo sapiens is not an average species. If we were an average species we would still be competing with other species for food and territory, losing some of those battles and winning others. But our numbers would be kept in check by our success and failure of that struggle, just like every other average species.
Our dominance has overwhelmed all other species. Like a plague, we are killing them all off. There is nothing average about us as a species.
Ok, but our numbers were kept in check and we were competing like that for almost all of our history, until the Holocene interglacial came along and we decided agriculture was a good idea, or maybe we had a go before and it never took in a less stable climate. But before that there is evidence of some pretty tight bottlenecks when we were almost gone either locally (e.g. in India) or globally. And things like the Roman empire collapse suggest we can forget any kind of technological advantages in a couple of generations.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 3:11 pmYou lost me. I don't understand your point.George Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 11:23 amBut since our brains to a degree where we could create stone tools and use fire, our population has been on a slow increase, bottlenecks notwithstanding.
What has made us not average is our brains, our mental ability. That is the one thing that has given us a huge advantage over all other species.
We are smart enough to wrestle all the world from every other species that stood in our way. If another species had something that we wanted, including even their flesh, we got it. We are smart enough to dominate the world, but not smart enough to see that we are destroying it.
My point is that unless we find a niche in which we can exist sustainably despite our intelligence and ability to get whatever we want and dominate the world, then we won't survive very long, and may not even then.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 12:31 pmHi Ron,Des Carne says: 11/30/2017 at 1:02 pmI think some (you for example) are smart enough to see that we are destroying our World.
It may not be a majority view, though I think the numbers are increasing.
I would agree that we so far have not demonstrated that we are smart enough to change what we are doing (reduce the rate that we destroy the planet as rapidly as possible to zero (or negative, by which I mean restore the planet closer to a natural or sustainable state).
This may never be accomplished, but we cam move in that direction while reducing our numbers and our impact.
What it is about our brains that makes us not average is our capacity to deny reality. The mind over reality transition (Varki &Brower) is arguably what gave "sapiens" the advantage, successful but apparently impossible risk taking, to do away with neanderthalensis. In small scale hunter bands surrounded by magafaunal predators, denial of reality is a decided advantage, but in mass societies with the capacity to produce mass belief in non-realityy, it is the disadvantage that could do us in. Although not experimentally demonstrable, the idea that this mind over reality transition was an evolutionary event in the hominid genus 100-200 thousand years ago is a plausible explanation for sapiens' dramatic cortical development and the development or consolidation of female sexual selection, not present in our forebears or current great apes.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:26 amIn a future world scratching a living as we did for most of our history as hunter-gatherer bands, but from a depleted world absent of any predators, we might evolve the ability to believe reality, without sacrificing cortical development. The first inhabitants of my country (Australia) managed to get by fot 60,000 years by killing off the megafauna. They were helped by climate change which dessicated the continent, but hung in there making it an extremely attractive aquisition by my ancestors when they came along.
Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 7:38 amIn broad terms, I agree with what you are saying here.
"Our dominance has overwhelmed all other species. Like a plague, we are killing them all off. There is nothing average about us as a species."
But we aren't doing any better than rats or fire ants, lol.
You're dead on about humanity not being an average species. We will be around at least until some other species capable of wiping us out evolves, and it's unlikely that we will ALLOW such a species to exist, unless it's a microbe and we can't wipe it out.
If chimps were to evolve just a little further along the lines of using tools and being able to communicate and work together, and started attacking humans, numerous humans armed only with primitive weapons such as fire and bows and arrows would kill every last chimp, and they wouldn't lose any time in doing so.
This brings up an interesting question. We know chimps use stone tools as hammers to break nuts, etc, , and that they fight ORGANIZED fights to the death sometimes.
Is there any evidence they are using stones as weapons . YET?
No, chimps do not use stones as weapons but they do use sticks to flail another chimp with.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:27 pmChimps will not evolve much further if any. Their numbers are dropping like a rock. They will all be gone in 20 or 30 years.
I once heard an interesting story about chimps. Might have been in one of Pinker's books, I can't recall.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 12:46 pmIf you hang a bunch of bananas from the ceiling that a chimp cannot reach and you leave an A-frame ladder laying on the ground the chimp will set the ladder upright and get the bananas.
If you do the same thing with 2 chimps and a ladder so heavy that one chimp alone cannot set it upright, but 2 chimps working together could set it upright, they'll never get on the same page, so to speak, and cooperate in setting up the ladder. They will both try individually and fail. The bananas will never be reached.Hi Ron,Fred Magyar says: 11/29/2017 at 3:47 pmThe charts in your post suggest about 1 billion might work, I would say 500 million would be my guess, not sure where you come up with 10 to 15 million.
Note that 500 million is roughly the World population in 1550 CE.
Just a different guess as I think a sustainable society could be reached by 2300 at these lower population levels, though perhaps fertility levels will remain below replacement over the long term so population will continually decline eventually some optimum will be determined and fewer than two children will not be encouraged.
Humans, that is Homo Sapiens per se, maybe not. Don't forget Cro-Magnons probably caused the extinction of Homo Neandertalis in about 40,000 years or so ago. Some other future species of the Genus Homo, very likely will be around for another million or so years. This is what I think they might look like. Maybe they will be called Homo technoligicus implantabilis, feel free to call them whatever you want. In any case resistance will be futile and you will be assimilated.robert wilson says: 12/01/2017 at 12:23 am
Cheers!
.
http://www.eindtijdinbeeld.nl/EiB-Bibliotheek/Boeken/The_Next_Million_Years__how_to_kill_off_excess_population___1953_.pdfNathanael says: 11/29/2017 at 4:18 pmFirst of all, Ron, a species which destroys its own food supply or its own habitat *does* go extinct. They're currently referred to as "superpredators" -- it's happened repeatedly throughout history.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 5:15 pmSecond, regarding population growth, my primary charity for 20 years has promoted sex ed, access to contraceptions, and education of women worldwide. We know how to halt and reverse population growth in the "underdeveloped world". It's not difficult except for the religious groups which oppose contraception and oppose women's liberation.
Often the same religious groups who promote burning of fossil fuels. And deforestation.
Basically, whether humans survive depends on whether we defeat those groups, IMO.
Countries like Cuba which are very underdeveloped but essentially *lack* those religious groups (thank you Godless Communism!) they're doing OK on population stabilization.
Hi Nathaneal,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:46 amThere are countries that are religious such as Iran that have seen rapid demographic transition (15 years for TFR to go from over 5 to under 2). Also non-communist nations such as South Korea saw rapid transitions.
I agree education and gender equality as well as access to modern contraception are helpful.
Electrification will also help.
Thank you Dennis,Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 5:41 pmReligion has it's points, as Twain used to put it, both good and bad. Preachers and priests have a way of figuring out what is in their own best interests, short term, medium term, and long term.
There are some religions or cultures, which are not necessarily one and the same thing , that do encourage or more or less actually force women to bear lots of children.
I come from a culture that is very often ridiculed here in this forum, which doesn't bother me at all personally. It's ridiculed on such a broad scale that it's hard to find a public forum peopled with technically well educated people where ridicule isn't the NORM.
As religion goes, my own personal extended family is about as religious as they come in the USA. My nieces and nephews and third cousins, the children of my FIRST cousins, are having kids at less than the necessary 2.1 rate needed to maintain our blood lines, lol. My informal seat of the pants estimate is that the extended family birth rate is down to somewhere around one point five.
It's well known that the birth rate in some countries that are supposedly Catholic has fallen like a rock over the last couple of decades.
And while I can't prove it, it's my firm opinion that once the priesthood in any country comes to understand that it's own long term interests are best served by encouraging small families, small families WILL BE ENCOURAGED. That may not happen for another generation or so, and it may not happen at all in some countries, if there is no top down control of the culture and religion.
Priests and preachers don't exist to serve GOD, or any combinations of gods, etc. They exist because they have found a way to provide a secure and relatively easy way of living largely off the work of their followers.
This is not to say their followers don't get back as much or more as they contribute. Every society has to have leaders, and priests and preachers can be and have often been very effective leaders. Some of them are effective leaders today.
First of all, Ron, a species which destroys its own food supply or its own habitat *does* go extinct. They're currently referred to as "superpredators" -- it's happened repeatedly throughout history.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:31 pmReally, I have never heard of that. The only superpredator I ever heard of are human beings. But if you can give an example of a species destroying its own food supply and habitat, please enlighten me.
Humans on Easter island is the only thing that comes to my mind when thinking of such an example. I'm no expert on Easter island, however I understand people there did not go extinct, and that there was a small group living there when the island was found by Europeans. Again, not terribly well informed about that particular bit of history.Kathy C says: 12/02/2017 at 5:20 amWhen things begin to collapse the grid infrastructure will collapse. Coal factories in China and elsewhere will shut down and dimming will end. James Hansen estimated that warming may be held back by 50% by dimming, so we can expect warming to shoot up. http://www.columbia.edu/~jeh1/mailings/2013/20130329_FaustianBargain.pdfSurvivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:34 pmWhen the grid collapses the nuclear power plants will no longer be able to be cooled. We know what happens then. This article addresses that happening from solar flares or emp attack but of course the failure of the grid from civilization collapse would do the same thing http://www.truth-out.org/news/item/7301-400-chernobyls-solar-flares-electromagnetic-pulses-and-nuclear-armageddon
With collapses of civilization their will be no remediation of forest fires. Chemical and Nuclear Dumps will burn as well as the nuclear power plants that have gone Fukushima.
A very underappreciated study is that of decaying leaves around Chernobyl While horses and other wildlife might now roam around Chernobyl the implications of leaves not decaying is enormous. "However, there are even more fundamental issues going on in the environment. According to a new study published in Oecologia, decomposers -- organisms such as microbes, fungi and some types of insects that drive the process of decay -- have also suffered from the contamination. These creatures are responsible for an essential component of any ecosystem: recycling organic matter back into the soil. Issues with such a basic-level process, the authors of the study think, could have compounding effects for the entire ecosystem."
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/forests-around-chernobyl-arent-decaying-properly-180950075/To just state that humans wouldn't disappear is nothing more than an assertion, as is stating that they would certainly disappear. However what faces humans is much more daunting than just the chaos of civilization collapse. Those who survive everything else will have a hard time reproducing with all that radiation around https://chernobylguide.com/chernobyl_mutations/
Of course long before civilization collapses the countries of the world may well play out the scenario that Richard Heinberg describes Last Man Standing. Sound like politics today?
I suspect someone will bulldoze the nuclear power plants into the ocean before they let them melt down on land. Just a WAG.Fred Magyar says: 11/29/2017 at 9:13 amI posted this as a reply to a comment by GF a few threads back.Tom Welsh says: 11/29/2017 at 9:38 amI highly recommend the following three ASU Origins Project debates and panel discussions to get a good feel for the big picture. It might take up a good four hours or so of your time. This isn't something suitable for sound bites. It involves a lot of in depth cross disciplinary knowledge.
https://origins.asu.edu/events/great-debate-transcending-our-origins-violence-humanity-and-future
Great Debate: Transcending Our Origins Violence, Humanity, and the Futurehttps://origins.asu.edu/events/great-debate-extinctions-tragedy-opportunity
Great Debate: Extinctions Tragedy to Opportunityhttps://origins.asu.edu/events/conversation-inconvenient-truths-love-extinctions
Conversation: Inconvenient Truths From Love to ExtinctionsMaybe we are all royally fucked already but I also recommend E.O. Wilson's book 'Half Earth'.
Cheers!
"Why did all this happen? However, when you ask why, you are implying that all this had a cause, that someone or some group of people are to blame for this damn mess we have gotten ourselves into".Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 10:34 amI would like to suggest, respectfully, that this wording is the wrong way around. The essence of the problem is that no one has been in charge, no one has taken responsibility and that is hardly changing at all.
The world is teeming with governments, corporations, NGOs, and "leaders" of all kinds. But what are all those leaders, and their estimable organizations, really trying to do? Some are aiming to earn as much money as possible. Others are trying amass as much power as possible. Most of their programmes have a lot to do with gaining more money and power which become interchangeable at a certain point (as can be seen from a study of the US Congress, for example).
An intelligent alien visitor to our planet would reasonably conclude that, although individual humans are intelligent to various degrees, the human species as a whole is profoundly unintelligent. It has ample means of diagnosing what has happened, is happening, and will happen. Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing about the obvious threats it faces.
Tom, I think my wording was correct, you just did not quote all of my explanation. You wrote:Joe Clarkson says: 11/29/2017 at 1:20 pmThe essence of the problem is that no one has been in charge, no one has taken responsibility
No one can take responsibility because no one is in charge of the human race. And as far as being "profoundly unintelligent", I think that is an unfair charge. Having a blind spot in our DNA does not imply that we are unintelligent. The human race has never been faced with such a dilemma before. Our brains evolved to its present state during our hunter-gatherer days. We are molded by evolution to do everything possible to survive and reproduce. There is nothing in our DNA that tells us to protect the biosphere because the lives of our grandchildren depend upon it. So we don't.
What is happening is just human nature. That's all.
What is happening is just human nature.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 5:10 pmEvolution has resulted in all species, including humans, having a biotic potential that is greater than the carrying capacity of the niches in which they live. Populations are limited by resource limits and predation, not by self restraint or mutual agreement.
It would have been very unusual, perhaps unique in evolutionary history, for humans to have deliberately limited our population, even though it might have been theoretically possible due to our 'intelligent' ability to foresee our probable future. Despite Malthus, Limits to Growth and many other warnings, no realistic attempt has been made to remain below carrying capacity.
As you note, a massive die-off is inevitable, the only real question is when. Like The Cunning Linguist, I personally think it will be whenever people lose confidence in the global monetary system, as in Korowicz's "Trade Off: Financial system supply-chain cross contagion a study in global systemic collapse". Once money stops flowing so does the food supply.
Hi Joe,Joe Clarkson says: 11/29/2017 at 9:29 pmWhat would cause this rejection of the monetary system? I don't follow the argument. Everyone decides at once that money is no longer a reasonable medium of exchange. Didn't happen during any financial crisis so far, people couldn't access their money at Banks after the 1929 crash, but this was less of a problem in OECD nations during the GFC.
The ETP nonsense is just that, anyone who knows their thermodynamics knows that theory is full of holes.
Didn't happen during any financial crisis so farDennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 12:07 pmNo, but we did come close in 2008. All sorts of debt instruments including commercial paper, CDOs (the root of the problem), many derivatives and letters of credit all froze up. Without prompt dramatic action by the central banks and the US Treasury, the financial system could have collapsed. Nobody knew who was solvent or insolvent, so the central banks had to backstop every financial institution. All this over some mortgage securities based on the US housing market.
Now imagine that growth has turned to continuous worldwide economic recession, the inevitable fate of the global market economy in the face of energy and resource depletion ( it will happen despite the stupidity of the Hill's Group). Unemployment increases year after year and tax revenues continuously fall. Every kind of debt instrument, from sovereign debt to mortgages, to municipal and corporate bonds is more and more likely never to be repaid. Defaults are increasing with greater and greater frequency. The equities of every company become suspect as more and more companies go under.
Sooner or later, a critical mass of people are going to realize that most debts can never be repaid and are therefore worthless as assets. Since almost all money is created from debt, almost all money becomes worthless.
The only thing that makes money work is confidence in its value. When confidence in money (debt repayment) fails, the monetary system fails and without a monetary system, the global market fails.
Billions of lives are dependent on that market functioning smoothly every day. When it fails to function, people will die. I fully expect to lose every financial asset I own at some point, that's why I am preparing to live without money. Unfortunately, most people in the developed world can't do that, though they should be trying to do so with utmost urgency.
I admit that if there were a concerted international effort to declare a debt jubilee and start all over with a new world currency, some form of monetary system might continue after the present one collapses, but I really doubt that creditor countries and debtor countries are going to cooperate with the rapidity and solidarity needed to manage such a transition.
And even though all the productive assets in the world would still continue to exist after a financial collapse, without a market to mediate their interconnected function, everything would grind to a halt. I don't see an international command economy taking over either. That would be harder than creating a whole new monetary system.
The global market economy is very complicated and very fragile. I certainly wouldn't trust my family's life to something that could collapse virtually overnight and neither should you.
Hi Joe,Joe Clarkson says: 11/30/2017 at 6:32 pmThere are a lot of if's in your scenario, any of which if broken makes the conclusion invalid.
I suppose it is possible that all of those things could happen, just as it is possible that a large asteroid will strike the planet.
I choose not to concern myself with very low probability events.
Pretty sure neither of us will convince the other. If you are convinced buy some good farm land and maybe gold, guns, lead, and gun powder.
Probably even better, find a nice community somewhere.
Note that as long as governments are willing to intervene in the economy when necessary, the system is much more resilient than you believe.
The biggest risk to the Global financial system would be free market fundamentalism where government intervention is never invoked.
I cannot imagine a continuous world wide economic recession, this is a fundamental flaw in your argument.
This assumes what you are trying to prove.
I cannot imagine a continuous world wide economic recession, this is a fundamental flaw in your argument.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 1:14 pmWell, I can't imagine how the global market economy and industrial civilization are going to have a steady state economy forever at present levels of production and affluence. Overshoot means eventual retrenchment and die-off.
Up-thread you estimated the carrying capacity of the earth at around 500 million people. You obviously expect to gracefully reach that level (in 2300!) through birth control while still maintaining current standards of living.
I expect that we will reach that population, or fewer, due to complications from resource-depletion-caused economic failure (famine, war, pandemic). There simply isn't enough energy available to make the transition you desire without also destroying the climate, even if there were the political will to do so, which there isn't.
I suggest looking at the history of the last 100 years to decide which future is more probable. Humanity has had the ability to create a high technology, steady-state civilization with sustainable population levels for over a century, but has failed to do so. There is still no evidence that we are serious about making the attempt now. I wonder why you can believe that such a thing will happen at a time when the resources to make it happen will be declining rapidly. Continuous world-wide recession is a certainty and unless you are very old, you will live to see it.
And as far as your suggestions for prepping go, my family has already got it's lifeboat ready in a rural tropical community. I've got the productive land, the community and the guns. I don't expect to rely on gold at all. To my mind, the best durable trade items are ammo, fishing equipment and livestock.
If raising my own food and living without money is necessary, I can do it. If your eco-modernist utopia magically appears, I won't be disappointed, or regret one iota of the 'unnecessary' preparations I will have made, but I prefer to err on the side of prudence.
Hi Joe,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:51 amI don't expect to live forever and as I said don't plan ahead for scenarios I believe have a very low probability of occurring. As fossil fuel resources become scarce they will become more expensive and we will use them more carefully (or efficiently). There has been no need to do so for the past 100 years as they have been relatively cheap and abundant. There will be enough energy from Wind, solar, hydro, and perhaps nuclear to make the transition, as fossil fuel becomes expensive these will be produced as they will become cheaper alternatives. Much of freight traffic can be moved to rail, which can be electrified, moving goods from rail to factory or store can be done on overhead wires on main roads with EV used for the last few miles.
Also keep in mind that fossil fuels by nature are quite inefficient in producing electricity with about 60% of the energy wasted, for heating systems compared to heat pumps there is also higher energy use. The transition to non-fossil fuels will result in about one third the energy use for the same exergy (or work and useful heat) provided.
I make no assumptions about living standards being maintained, perhaps the transition will be very difficult and living standards in the OECD will decrease while living standards in less developed nations increase. Note that declining population will reduce resource pressure and realization of resource limits (as will be clear from fossil fuel scarcity) by the majority of citizens may lead to changes in social behavior.
Also note that we have only been aware of the climate problem for about 38 years (using Charney report in 1979 as the starting point).
If fossil fuels are very limited (say 1200 Pg C emissions from 1800-2100) then climate change might be less of a problem, but this will still be adequate for a transition to non-fossil fuels. Even 1000 Pg of total carbon emissions from all anthropogenic sources (including fossil fuel, cement and land use change) may be adequate for an energy transition, though it will need to begin in earnest in the next 5 to 10 years, the sooner we begin the easier it will be to accomplish.
"What is happening is just human nature. That's all."alimbiquated says: 12/01/2017 at 6:07 pmEXACTLY.
I posted a long rant down thread trying to get this across to people who somehow think we are DEFECTIVE because we don't collectively behave more rationally, hoping to get it across in terms that are intelligible to those of us who have HEARD of evolution, but never actually studied it for more than an hour or two at the most.
Nonsense, this is just Libertarian propaganda, which is actually a fake religion invented by real estate investors in the fifties in a political catfight to avoid rent control legislation. It has now widen to some kind of pseudo-Darwinistic hocus pocus, but it ignores the obvious fact that we became the world's dominant species be collaboration and long term thinking.Hickory says: 12/02/2017 at 12:02 amWe're doomed if we don't get along with each other, and lots of propaganda is pushing you to believe we never have or could, and never can or will. But that doesn't make it true.
aren't all religions fake (fabrications)?Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:42 pmThat's a pretty narrow view of libertarianism.Phil Stevens says: 12/02/2017 at 2:56 pm
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libertarianism
What you say is perhaps relevant to contemporary versions of libertarianism in USA, however it goes back a bit further than the 50's.
It's worth noting there are left wing libertarian models also.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left-libertarianismI'd like to question the assertion that no one is in charge of the human race. In "Against the Grain: A Deep History of the Earliest States" (Yale, 2017), James C. Scott demonstrates fairly convincingly that humans actively avoided adopting grain-based agriculture because the labor:reward tradeoff was far less satisfactory than what could be obtained through hunting and gathering. The accumulation of surplus, and presumably the insurance a surplus would provide against yearly fluctuations in food supply, in other words, was an insufficient motivation for humans to give up hunting and gathering. As Scott documents quite clearly, this refusal to adopt agriculture as the basis of the human economy persisted for more than 5,000 years in Mesopotamia, and much longer elsewhere.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 5:00 pmSo what caused the shift? Alas, Scott fails to explore this in any detail. (Just one of the many weaknesses of the book, which nevertheless manages to make its central argument very well.)
I will speculate that what caused the change was the coming-together of a sufficiently large number (five? a dozen? who knows?) of individuals who lacked the ability to feel remorse, shame, or compassion, and who were motivated purely by a desire to enrich and empower themselves. Modern psychology calls these types psychopaths. I suggest that it was these individuals who, likely with help from others with the related disorder of sadism (see recent research on "the dark tetrad"), were first able to subjugate (Scott uses the very apposite term "domesticate") human communities and force them to labor on the land to produce a surplus, which of course then could be appropriated by the psychopaths and their henchmen.
I am not aware of anyone else who has advanced the notion that civilization was founded by psychopaths and sadists. But recent psychological research (popularized in books such as Babiak and Hare, "Snakes in Suits: When Psychopaths Go to Work") suggest that psychopaths are four times more commonly represented in upper management than in the population as a whole, so it seems plausible to me, at least, that the project of civilization and its attendant destruction of the ecosphere has been, from its inception, forced upon humanity by a small minority.
Phil, thanks for a great post. I have no doubt that psychopaths have had a great influence on civilization. Many great leaders were no doubt psychopaths. Hitler and Stalin come to mind. However, not all of them were psychopaths. Rosevelt, Washington, Jefferson, and many other U.S. presidents were not psychopaths. Neither was Churchill or Gandhi.Phil Stevens says: 12/03/2017 at 4:56 pmHowever, your original sentence was: I'd like to question the assertion that no one is in charge of the human race. So I kept reading, waiting for you to tell us just who was in charge of the human race. Of course you did not do that.
Fair enough, Ron.Fred Magyar says: 11/29/2017 at 12:24 pmMy short answer to your question would be to ask "Cui bono?" Doubtless not everyone who reaps the most benefit from the biocidal trajectory of late capitalism is dominated by one or more of the traits of the Dark Tetrad, of course. Some of us might even be able to argue plausibly that we were unaware of the consequences of our actions. But even though late capitalist society is sufficiently robust that it continues to work out its internal logic without a lot of direct guidance by the dark few, I doubt it would last long without their presence among the wealthy and powerful classes. If their interventions on behalf of the killing machine could be eliminated, my guess is that dismantling the machine would be a much easier project.
Ultimately, it's the ones in positions of power who manifest the traits of the Dark Tetrad whose interventions are critical to maintaining the status quo. If anyone can be said to rule the earth, it's them.
An intelligent alien visitor to our planet would reasonably conclude that, although individual humans are intelligent to various degrees, the human species as a whole is profoundly unintelligent. It has ample means of diagnosing what has happened, is happening, and will happen. Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing about the obvious threats it faces.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 8:04 amThat is my view as well! Though some like E.O. Wilson argue that we have evolved into an eusocial species and can at least in theory function as a hive or termite mound. Where the collective intelligence emerges and even though the individual ants or bees are stupid the anthill is an entity unto itself is smart and knows how to defend itself. See also Douglas Hofstader and Daniel Dennett's book, 'The Mind's I', Chapter 11 titled Prelude Ant Fugue.
http://themindi.blogspot.com/2007/02/chapter-11-prelude-ant-fugue.htmlAlso check out Curtis Marean's talk at the end of Inconvenient Truths From Love to Extinctions from the link I provided above from the ASU origins debates. He specifically makes that analogy about aliens, in his talk.
Marean is a professor in the School of Human Evolution and Social Change and the associate director of the Institute of Human Origins at Arizona State University. He is interested in the relation between climate and environmental change and human evolution, both for its significance as a force driving past human evolution, and as a challenge to be faced in the near future. Curtis has focused his career on developing field and laboratory teams and methods that tap the synergy between the disciplines to bring new insights to old scientific problems. He has spent over 20 years doing fieldwork in Africa, and conducting laboratory work on the field-collected materials, with the goal of illuminating the final stages of human evolution how modern humans became modern.
" Yet, because it has never developed any organ comparable to the individual's conscious brain, it does nothing about the obvious threats it faces."George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:04 pmSuch an organ would be very costly, in terms of depriving humanity of the energy and resources devoted to it, depriving us of the use of these resources for other purposes.
Evolution doesn't create organs that will be useful in dealing with new circumstances, by plan, ahead of time, except by accident. It's just a "lucky accident" FOR US TODAY that our own ancestors evolved hands capable of grasping things such as branches .. which set the stage for us to be able later on to grasp a stone and use it as a hammer or weapon.
No planning is involved. NONE. Various deists who accept the reality of evolution but still believe in higher powers disagree of course.
I can't prove they are wrong. I don't believe anybody else can. All we can do is demonstrate that they have no evidence that such higher powers exist.
An absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, lol.
I doubt if "intelligent" aliens are any different than we are and therefore probably have a very short life expectancy should they ever get to an industrial age evolution can only work from one generation to the next and is therefore incompatible with longer term planning for species longevity.Steve says: 11/29/2017 at 2:25 pm"It has often been said that, if the human species fails to make a go of it here on the Earth, some other species will take over the running. In the sense of developing intelligence this is not correct. We have or soon will have, exhausted the necessary physical prerequisites so far as this planet is concerned. With coal gone, oil gone, high-grade metallic ores gone, no species however competent can make the long climb from primitive conditions to high-level technology. This is a one-shot affair. If we fail, this planetary system fails so far as intelligence is concerned. The same will be true of other planetary systems. On each of them there will be one chance, and one chance only." Sir Fred HoyleRon Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 3:19 pmThanks for posting this Hoyle quote Steve. I have read it before, many times. And the truth of it is so obvious. All the things that have enabled this wonderful abundant life will soon be gone. Then what?Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 5:02 pmHi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 5:58 pmWe recycle what we can, we use less of scarce resources as prices rise and we try to find substitutes for resources as they become scarce. Also population will fall as TFR falls (with a time lag due to population momentum) putting less pressure on resources.
None of this will be easy, and perhaps not possible, hard to predict the future.
Dennis, Hoyle here, is talking about long-term. Recycle or not, we will run out of all fossil fuels and eventually all metals. However, recyclig will help, in the short term anyway.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 6:27 pmNo, we cannot really predict the future. All we can do is look at what is happening right now and say: "If this continues ." And Dennis, it will continue. Human nature may be changed by evolution. But that will take many generations and tremendous evolutionary pressure. So right now, human nature being what it is, we can predict that collapse is just down the road. Just how far down the road is what we are trying to figure out right now.
Ron, if we look at the apparent numbers, say of many species, collapse appears already here, just that the shockwave hasn't hit yet. Remember, if you see an explosion in the distance, it takes awhile to hit.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 11:51 amHi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 12:10 pmYes some things will continue and others will not.
For example fossil fuel output has grown pretty steadily in absolute terms (about 163 million tonnes of oil equivalent per year from 1981 to 2016) and I expect that will change (it will not continue).
The total fertility ratio has decreased at about 1.38% per year from 1965 to 2015, but I expect this will continue until the World TFR approaches the high income nation average of about 1.75 (which would be reached in 2040 if the 1965-2015 rate of decrease continues).
There may be more fossil fuels available than either of us think, but if my medium scenarios are correct there may be enough fossil fuel to enable a transition to non-fossil fuel, then we just need to deal with other depleting resources.
Note that the fact that fossil fuels have peaked and declined (which should be apparent by 2035 at the latest), may enable people to realize that this will be true for every scarce resource and perhaps we will plan ahead and recycle, and use resources more efficiently.
Much of this is a matter of education.
Perhaps the meaning of soon we use differently.
When you say "will soon be gone." Can you define soon in years.
The sun will eventually destroy all life on Earth, but not "soon", as I define it.
Well, perhaps I should not have said "gone". There will always be trace amounts of everything left. And nothing will suddenly disappear. There will be a decline curve for everything. But let's deal with the one with the least future abundance, oil. I believe we are at peak oil right, or very near it anyway. The bumpy plateau may last from 5 to 10 years. Then the decline curve will be much steeper than the ascent.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 1:26 pmThat's about the best answer I can ive you.
Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 3:01 pmLet's assume for the moment you are correct and the peak is either now or next month and we remain on plateau for a year or two.
What happens to the price of oil?
Let's assume that you agree that unless there is a severe World recession in the next year or two that oil prices are likely to rise.
What happens it oil output if oil prices rise to say $100/b or more?
Eventually I expect output will reach a peak no matter how high oil prices rise, I just disagree it will be at the current level of output.
Can you define your limits for the "bumpy plateau" (high and low 12 month average output level)?
If the limits were 80 to 85 Mb/d, then we would agree and I would say we may be on a bumpy plateau between 80 and 85 Mb/d for 10 years or so.
I suspect you may expect output to remain below 81 or 82 Mb/d (World 12 month average C+C output).
Dennis, you must be familiar with the phrase "You cannot get blood from a turnip". High prices will not create more oil in the ground. We will most definitely have higher prices but they will be high because we have reached the peak. So, $100 oil will not create a higher peak.Dennis Coyne says: 12/03/2017 at 10:37 amJust my guess but I believe the plateau will average less than 82 million bpd.
Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/03/2017 at 2:49 pmSo could you define your "bumpy plateau"?
Is it a trailing 12 month average of between 80 and 82 Mb/d?
I imagine we will break above 82 Mb/d in 2018 if oil prices are over $65/b (Brent in 2016$) for the annual average in 2016.
For the most recent 12 months (EIA data) ending August 2017 we are at 80.93 Mb/d.
In the low price environment since 2015 the trend in World output is an annual increase of 280 kb/d. This rate of increase is likely to double (at minimum) with oil prices over $80/b, which would bring us to 82 Mb/d by 2019 or 2020, perhaps this will be as high a output rises, but my guess is that there is a 50% probability that output will continue to rise above this and perhaps a 25% probability it may reach 85 Mb/d around 2025.
I thought I did that Dennis. I the bumpy plateau will average about 82 million barrels per day or less. There could be spikes and dips and it will last from 2 to as much as 10 years. But when it heads down, it will do so with a vengeance.alimbiquated says: 12/01/2017 at 6:11 pmBlah, nobody needs coal or oil in the long run, and metal is never "gone" unless you shoot into space or a fission reactor.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 7:03 pmFor every obvious problem there is an answer that is clear, simple, and wrong.
-H. L- Mencken
Jesus H. Fucking Christ, how fucking stupid can one person be?OFM says: 11/29/2017 at 6:17 pmHi Steve,Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 6:47 pmI will have a lot to say later on tonight.
For now, all I have to say is that while Sir Fred forgot more about astronomy than I have or ever have even DREAMED of knowing, he didn't know shit from apple butter about biological evolution . not even as much as a good student in a good public high school after finishing one high school level course in biology.
"The chance that higher life forms might have emerged through evolutionary processes is comparable with the chance that a tornado sweeping through a junk yard might assemble a Boeing 747 from the material therein."
It's very common for people who are great experts, sometimes even renowned experts at the very peak of their professions, to make fools of themselves talking about subjects of which they know less than nothing.
Hoyle is the best single example I know of and the one I use most often to point out this very common shortcoming.
For what it's worth, he would be RIGHT if the problem were the one of having a gazillion monkeys typing at random and one of them eventually turning out Romeo and Juliet, correct to the last letter.
That involves getting every letter right in one try.
Evolution doesn't work that way. It's more like a poker game, in which you can discard cards you don't want, and keep the ones you do, until you have a GREAT hand.
In a real poker game, discarding is usually limited to two rounds, but in real life and evolution, the number of rounds is literally unlimited, the same as the number of generations. If you have two pairs, you can keep on discarding until EVENTUALLY , assuming all the discards go back into the deck, you have a full house. And given time enough, you could discard your pair, and eventually have four of a kind.
YOU DON'T usually throw away a pair of aces, lol, even in a game that allows you to ask for a redeal if you have no more than a pair.
Evolution is a blind, and runs on random chance, at the individual level and generational level, but at the species level, it's a blind BUILDER, one that generally retains what works from one generation to the next, and builds on it. Over time .. lots of time, usually.
But significant evolutionary change can happen in very quickly, in terms of evolutionary time. House flies evolved resistance to DDT within the space of a single generation of humans, lol.
Biologists work with time on roughly the same scale as geologists and astronomers, counting in billions of years. It's quite possible that life originated not too long after the first stars evolved to the point that the heavier elements were first created from lighter ones.
Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:41 pm"I will have a lot to say later on tonight." ~ OFM
LOL
Hoyle, IMHO, is a closet Cabbage for Christ.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 8:30 pmHightrekker's Alpine Garden of Eden RestaurantHightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:26 am~ Menu ~
Talking Snake Au Jus (So fresh, you can almost hear it hissing!)
BBQ Rib-Woman's Ribs
Stuffed Cabbages for Christ
Wing Pawn Garlic PrawnsDessert:
Apple Pie A La Mode (So sinful, one bite and you will be cast out of Eden, after you pay your bill.)
Tree of Knowledge Crepe Flambι (Ask about our Summer Forest Fire special!)
Adam's Fruit CobblerDrinks:
The Blood of Christ
Holy Water Cider
Milk of Holy CowYum!Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/30/2017 at 8:10 pmStop the presses! I forgot theSurvivalist says: 12/01/2017 at 10:19 pm Cider-Marinated Free Range Chicken Wing Pawn Platter for Two
BTW, I just began my first ever apple cider home brew, Nov 30th . (I actually tried making sauerkraut ages ago.)
What I did was buy half a liter of fresh-pressed raw organic apple juice, and then added the peel of an organic apple to it for a wild yeast innoculation, and closed up top with a simple cellophane wrap and elastic with a toothpick-prick hole on top for ventilationI used these instructions and accompanying YouTube video, Eat The Weeds, episode 9.
So now the bottle is just hanging out in one of my lower kitchen cupboards, and we'll see what happens. (Does it need light?)
I'll try to let POB know if it works and I get a good batch or if it throws a bad one and I have to start over. I am unsure what a good or bad batch is supposed to taste like, but I guess if it's tasty, then it's good.
My fav post that you made was a link to some great riot porn! Oh man that made my dayCaelan MacIntyre says: 12/02/2017 at 8:30 pmHi Survivalist, glad you enjoyed it.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 8:52 pm
Frank Lopez's Sub.Media channel, (which is probably where I sourced the riot-porn-in-question from), its videos, have been picked up by PeakOil.com, incidentally.
I'll admit that some of the riot porn was a bit dubious with regard to its 'methodical randomness', but it could be from the younger 'anarchists' who may be still learning. That's perhaps also why some of the Antifa members have sometimes gotten criticized for their (apparent misplaced or misapplied) 'violence' tactics.The image is of the cider in question about one litre. With the unwashed organic apple peel in it as the only yeast 'starter', it's supposed to take 2 to 3 weeks to start bubbling. The pin you see is to pop the hole in the plastic when it starts doing so.
If it throws a good flavour, I intend on keeping the yeast, and innoculating some more juice but also some kind of straight-up water-and-honey or sugar mixture and see if I can get pure alcohol or 'mead' or something like that from it, using freeze distillation (a 'jack'). (And yes, I am aware of the methanol issue, but apparently, it is not a big deal at this scale/amount, although I'll recheck it to be sure.) (You can of course select the image for a larger image popup.)
If, when or as the 'trucks stop running', we may want and have to look into more local/home-brewing and other locally-/homemade things of course. So we might as well start sooner rather than later.
Once upon a time I provided health services to inmates in a prison. Generally speaking I liked the inmates better than the guards, who for the most part were men who had wanted to become cops but were too stupid to pass selection. I met some real brewmasters (inmates) working that gig. Good luck with the brew.Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/03/2017 at 10:00 pmInteresting line of work, Survivalist, and thanks, fingers crossedPaulo says: 11/29/2017 at 10:36 amUp early today and lit the shop woodstove; just waiting for light to get on with my day which always starts (after chores) with my dog and I going for a walk.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 11:10 amRon, I do not disagree with your post or comments, with the exception of when population will peak and the aspect/timing of social disruption?
On this morning wait for daylight I have been reading various blog sites with CNN ticking over in the background. Maybe it is the speed of the news cycle and my being used to the insanity of what is being reported, but today, after seeing the Trump tweets on Muslim Violence (film clips), the so-called tax plan, sexual misconducts, the recent reports on KSA, Yemen, Syria, and what is ramping up concerning North Korea, I think we are at a crux right now. I think there will be a Market collapse and war; perhaps global in scale. Further to that I don't see any desire or mechanism for defusing tensions or a way to recall the situation.
I am 62 and was a kid during a recent/last big social reset. I had older sibs and parents who moved us north to Canada in '68 because they had had enough. My WW2 veteran parents proclaimed they had seen enough to be afraid, and sold out to start over and build new lives. While I was thinking about it, and your post, I realized that in today's situation there are no simple answers and not really any places to run to. It seems different because of the population numbers and armaments, plus the willingness of people to pretend it's just 'tribal/crooked politics as usual'. Then, I thought about photographs and how a few catapulted us into rapid change last century. Certainly, the haunted faces of the Dust Bowl sparked a move towards reform. Images from the south and the stories of the KKK perhaps Rosa Parks herself helped galvanize the Civil Rights Movement. For me, the image of the young lady holding the dead student at Kent State, (her anguish), the burning Monk and young girl coated with napalm coupled with the lie about the Gulf of Tonkin incident pushed me into cynicism; so much that I was not surprised about the non-existent WMD of Iraq.
Perhaps it won't be an image, or story that we look back to as a turning point. Maybe it will be a tweet. Maybe it will be the Market collapse or a premptive attack on North Korea that sets everything in motion. I just think we are loaded and tamped down like a pipe bomb ready to blow.
I do not think we will continue to grow in population until 2050. I think it could start to unravel pretty fast and any day. I don't see any step back from war(s) in either the ME, or Korea.
From Wiki: (just one event that pales alongside today's triggers)
Kent State
"Just five days after the shootings, 100,000 people demonstrated in Washington, D.C., against the war and the killing of unarmed student protesters. Ray Price, Nixon's chief speechwriter from 1969 to 1974, recalled the Washington demonstrations saying, "The city was an armed camp. The mobs were smashing windows, slashing tires, dragging parked cars into intersections, even throwing bedsprings off overpasses into the traffic down below. This was the quote, student protest. That's not student protest, that's civil war."[10] Not only was Nixon taken to Camp David for two days for his own protection, but Charles Colson (Counsel to President Nixon from 1969 to 1973) stated that the military was called up to protect the administration from the angry students; he recalled that "The 82nd Airborne was in the basement of the executive office building, so I went down just to talk to some of the guys and walk among them, and they're lying on the floor leaning on their packs and their helmets and their cartridge belts and their rifles cocked and you're thinking, 'This can't be the United States of America. This is not the greatest free democracy in the world. This is a nation at war with itself.'"I apologize if this seems North American centric; and in blinders. I wish to reiterate that our population numbers, plus increasing divide and disparity, proliferation of weapons and intolerance, coupled with environmental degradation and Climate Change, makes this much much worse. It's a gun waiting for a trigger, imho.
Yes, things are pretty bad. But things were bad during the Kent State/Nixon era. Yet we survived.Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 11:34 amIt has been my experience, following this biosphere destruction for many years now, that people who see and understand the destruction, almost always expect things to fall apart real soon. They never do.
I once spent several months as a stockbroker. One thing I learned during that period was a truth about insider traders. That is traders who trade the stock of the company they work for. They see things happening inside their company and expect it to cause great trouble or great profit. They are almost always right and almost always way too early with their predictions. Things just never seem to happen as fast as they expected.
We, you and I and a few others, are insiders to this problem that I have described in my above post. We know something terrible is going to happen. But most of us expect it to happen way before it actually will happen.
An example is "The Population Bomb" by Paul Ehrlich. I think he was spot on, but things just did not happen as fast as he expected. I hope to avoid his mistake.
Yep, Ron, and we need to be careful about saying "this time is different". Perhaps we need a list of things that really are different this time.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 1:16 pmOne that should be obvious to anyone paying attention is that, in the late 60s, US debt to GDP was in the mid 30% range. It is now over 100% according to a number of sources. As Gail T. is wont to say, unservicable debt will likely be the trigger that results in a cascading failure of financial systems, and everything else is likely to follow. In short, our financial house of cards has grown three-fold in 50 years, as the global reserve currency is tagged to nothing.
Hi Ghung,Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 1:28 pmI think the debt problem is a little overblown.
Now people use debt differently sometimes implying "total debt" and sometimes "public debt" and sometimes "central government debt".
Which one are you talking about?
I don't read Tverberg's stuff.
Looking at your numbers and the link below
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/GFDEGDQ188S
it seems you are talking about total US federal government debt.
Consider Japan
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/QJPGAN770A
They have been over 100% debt to GDP since 1999 and have been around 200% since 2014.
If Japan has collapsed, I missed it.
Note that I agree with the idea that when the US economy is doing well (which at present is the case), that paying down debt is a better idea than reducing taxes. I would raise taxes if anything ( a carbon tax would be ideal) and reduce the deficit to less than zero and pay down the debt.
Or just balance the budget and let economic growth reduce the debt to GDP ratio.
The figures I posted only include US government (National) debt. Total US debt (public+private) is, of course, much higher.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 4:49 pmUS National debt currently around $20.5 trillion.
http://www.usdebtclock.org/US GDP for 2016 per the World Bank was $18,569,100.00
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CDAs for Japan, most of what they owe is to themselves while they own a lot of that US debt, above. Japan also uses the carry trade to stay afloat.
I only posted this as being one of the things that is different about our situation ~50 years ago. People can make of it what they will. I personally think it is significant since the world runs on credit. No credit, no growth.
Hi Ghung,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 8:17 amHard to imagine no credit.
Also in the 1960s there was less borrowing by the government (so less credit) and higher growth rates (at least in the US) than today.
In the old days there was concern the government would "crowd out" private debt, as if there was some fixed amount of debt the system could sustain and the system always remained at this maximum debt level.
Instead it seems the system had room for higher levels of debt as government debt as increased, but there is little evidence of "crowding out". There may be some maximum debt level that an economy can sustain and Japan may be there. Also note that 50 years ago debt was at fairly low levels, but in 1946 Debt to GDP was 118% of GDP, rapid economic growth from 1946 to 1974 reduced this debt to GDP to 31%, by 1992 it was at 61%, and in 2016 it was 105%.
Strange that the Republicans want to raise the debt higher by cutting taxes, this made sense when the economy was doing poorly during the Obama years and the aftermath of the GFC.
I agree debt could become a problem and would be worried if central government debt to GDP was 200% (as in Japan).
I also don't buy into the unfunded liabilities argument, laws change and governments don't always fulfill their promises, that is just a fact of life.
Personally I believe Tverberg is a person who has discovered a niche she can exploit and is making a living out of it. I had the pleasure of seeing her make her canned presentation at a conference once, where all the presentations were repeated several times over for three days so the entire attending crowd could see them all.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:25 amIf you ask her a real question, she seizes up like a deer in headlights. She knows some elementary level stuff that is worth some thought, in the case of people who know little or nothing about the overall economy and environment.
Her answer in the case of a real question is the same answer you get from a politician who doesn't WANT to answer. She just pretends you asked a DIFFERENT question, and provides a stock answer to THAT question.
She doesn't have anything to say worth listening to , in terms of the level of understanding of the contributing members of this forum.
Being a Cabbage for Christ and a AGW Denier doesn't exactly lend credibility to her work.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/30/2017 at 9:06 pmShe denies AGW?doomphd says: 12/03/2017 at 4:18 amShe does not deny AGW. She just doesn't think the effects of AGW are going to be our biggest problem going forward, especially if we run low on fossil fuel flows in the near future.Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/03/2017 at 10:02 pmOk, thanks for the clarification.Nathanael says: 11/29/2017 at 4:22 pmUK government debt to GDP was well over 400% for decades running; it was never a problem. Don't worry about it. Government debt is not really debt, it's actually money.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 4:54 pmHi Nathanael,Paulo says: 11/29/2017 at 1:39 pmWhen was that?
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/DEBTTLGBA188A
Oh I see high debt but not 400%
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/series/PSDOTUKA
It was over 160% from 1925 to 1952, maybe that's what you mean.
Good point on the rate. I remember my grade 11 Social Studies teacher talking to me after class in 1972. One of our class texts was The Population Bomb. He expected to see, in his lifetime, a collapse of sorts. When I asked him to expand further he described small scale gardens/farms of no more the 2 acres. The primary machinery used would be walk-behind tractors.George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:49 pmI smiled at the memory when I bought my BCS walk-behind ten years ago. I smile every spring when I till the gardens. I still think he was right, just off on the timing (just like I was when I got out of stocks several years ago and put my money in term deposits.)
The older I get, the less I understand. I take comfort in knowing my Dad wouldn't get it, either.
I thought Ehrlich's book "The Dominant Animal"was fairly well measured, and generally in line with the post above (I haven't read the population bomb).Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:44 pmEhrlich underestimated the Green Revolution and Haber/Bosch factor that was really upping food production at the time.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 8:39 am
Ultimately, he will be proven right.I met Ehrlich personally when he visited Va Tech sometime around 1972. Visiting scholars often have smaller seminar meetings after making their presentation to the larger U community, which he did. Not many people attended the particular seminar I participated in , probably less than a couple of dozen. I was taking some ag courses there at the time, and enjoyed a long conversation with him.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:54 amYou're dead on. He badly underestimated what we farmers could do, and are still doing, given the necessary industrial support system that keeps industrial level agriculture humming.
Sooner or later . We are going to have to deal with the Population Bomb. The resources we are devoting to industrial ag aren't going to last forever. Neither are nature's one time gifts of soil and water so long as we are in overshoot.
I was head over heels in love with a milk and corn fed girl from Ohio and we were about ready to join the Peace Corp or something along that line, and go someplace and save the people in some backwards community by teaching them how to farm the American way all day and enjoy each other all night of course.
But one of my crusty and profane old professors took me aside and asked me if I really wanted to go to XXXXX and teach starving people how to produce twice as much food so that twice as many of them would starve a generation down the road.
HE was right about the increase in production just resulting in more mouths to feed . back then. Since then, things have changed dramatically . in SOME countries.
There are good reasons to believe that birth rates may fall dramatically within the next decade or two in at least some of the countries that still have exploding populations. Maybe a few of them will manage to avoid starvation on the grand scale long enough for their populations to stabilize and decline.
It's too late for falling birth rates to prevent famine on the grand scale in a hell of a lot of places.
Hi Old Farmer Mac,OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 2:51 pmLet's assume Ron's prediction of 2050 for a peak in World population at around 9 Billion is correct (this seems a very reasonable guess to me).
Also assume for the moment the grain is freely traded throughout the World with few barriers to trade (tariffs and outright bans).
Are you suggesting that it is likely that World food output will not be adequate to feed the World under this scenario?
Typically famine results from war and food supply not being able to be safely transported to those in need, at least in the past 50 years or so.
Do you expect this to change before 2070?
Hi Dennis,Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 11:25 amI'm going to answer twice, lol.
First off, do I think it's technically possible that we can feed a population that peaks around nine billion a few decades down the road?
This answer depends on how well energy supplies and the overall world economy holds up, with some wild cards thrown in relating to climate, depletion of certain critical resources such as fresh water and minerals such as easily mined phosphate rock, etc.
New technology and the reactions of the people to it will also play a big role.The role played by governments local to national to international will be critical, and huge, because only governments will have power enough to FORCE some changes that may and probably will be necessary.
Here are a few examples.
It may be necessary to force well to do people aka the middle classes, to give up eating red meat for the most part, so that grain ordinarily fed to cattle and hogs can be diverted to human consumption.
(I expect rich people will still be able to get a ribeye or pork chop any time by buying up ration tickets, or buying on the black market, or paying an exorbitant consumption tax, or any combination of these strategies.)
Fuels, especially motor fuels, may be tightly rationed, so that enough will be available to run farms and food processing and distribution industries.
Large numbers of people may be paid or coerced into going to work on farms or in community gardens or greenhouses.
A substantial fraction of the resources currently devoted to other needs or wants may have to be diverted to building sewage treatment infrastructure designed to capture and recycle the nutrients in human sewage.
I could go on all day.
Bottom line, I think that barring bad luck, it is technically possible that we can feed that many people that long, and for a while afterwards, as the population hopefully starts trending down.
As a practical matter, I don't think there WILL BE food enough for nine billion.
It's more likely in my opinion that some countries are going to come up desperately short of food, and be unable to beg, buy or steal it from other countries. Some people, and some countries, are likely to resort to taking food, and other resources of course by force from weaker neighbors .. maybe even "neighbors" on the far side of oceans.
I may be too pessimistic, but I'm one of the regulars here who think that climate change for the worse, much worse, is in the cards, and I spend a few hours every week reading history. Humans have always been ready to go to war, even without good reasons. A lot of people in desperate situations are going to see war as their best option, in my opinion, over the next half century.
Maybe my fellow Yankees will be willing to give up their burgers for beans so that kids in some far off country can eat. I'm not so sure we are compassionate enough to do so on the grand scale.
Hi Hightrekker,Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 1:01 pmIf total fertility ratios continue to fall (for the World they fell from 5 in 1965 to 2.5 in 2015) about a 1.38% per year, there may be no catastrophic collapse.
If that average rate should continue for 16 years then World TFR would be at 2 (below replacement level) by 2031. If the rate of decrease in TFR experienced from 1965 to 2015 continues for 35 years (to 2050), the TFR for the World would be 1.54 in 2050.
Based on UN data from 2015, 65% of the World's population had a weighted average TFR (weighted by population) of 2.05, but a more sophisticated calculation using estimates of the population of Women of child bearing age I have not done, I simply used total population to weight the TFR from each nation which implicitly assumes the age structure of each nation is identical which is clearly false.
Dennis-Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 1:17 pm
We are adding 83 million per year to a already population in drastic overshoot.
The barn door is already open, and the horses are gone.Exactly! That's been my point from the very beginning. It is already way too late to fix things.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 7:41 pmWe have a predicament that must be dealt with, not a problem that can be solved.
Bingo --alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 3:09 pm
We have a winner!Yeah, they shot white people. Can't have that. Nowadays the cops shoot three people on average every day in America. Nobody cares, life is cheap in America. Gun deaths are the price of freedom. Native Americans run about three times the risk of white folks, and black folks run about twice the risk.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 11:03 amIt is obvious that humans are the major drivers of extinction on the planet. We are in the Sixth Extinction event and we cause it directly and indirectly through our actions. the why is quite obvious, all species live to propagate and expand to their limits, our limits are global at this point and so are our effects. I don't see energy as much of a problem as there is plenty of it in various forms and we can obtain it if we want it. That however means continuing the high tech industrial form of civilization which we have embarked upon. Can that be made sustainable and much less harmful, even helpful? Of course it can, it's all about wise choices and thinking before we act instead of just going for profit.SRSrocco says: 11/29/2017 at 11:17 amThe loss of vertebrates is just horrible but the loss of invertebrates will be the undoing of our farming and food production and much of the other life that depends upon them. The loss of insect life due to global human generated poisoning of the environment, especially food production areas, will unwind much of the food production.
As collapse starts, the chaos of riots and crime will rise sharply. All those mentally ill and drug addicted people will no longer have their chemicals, causing a trigger point of violence and chaotic actions.
However the major fast cause of loss of human life will be disease. People forget how it was just a few generations ago before antibiotics. Diseases will spread rapidly among the weak and starving, public sanitation will fail causing more disease to spread. Clean water supplies will become absent, compromised or even purposely wrecked. Hospitals will fail because of both being overrun and the power will fail plus supplies will fail. Disease will grow and spread among both people and their animals. It could take less than a generation to drastically reduce the population of the species, with the resulting loss of knowledge, technical ability and industrial ability the cascade will go further.
In the bad case scenarios much of the infrastructure will burn putting up a cloud of aerosols and GHG's as well as causing a large toxic pulse to the environment.But on the other side humans are very inventive and determined to continue the system that supports a huge population. So we may expand this time forward for quite a while, but only through smart choices and changing how we do things such as agriculture, industry and technology. Smart choices, not choices just for profit.
Just one example of our innovative and creative ability.
From sand to soil in 7 hours
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=stc5MUIloP0NOT TO WORRY .Doug Leighton says: 11/29/2017 at 11:21 amHumans need not worry about the Falling EROI, the Falling Carrying Capacity or the degradation of the environment. Those no longer matter now that BITCOIN is now trading over $11,000.
Technology will solve all our problems and Bitcoin will make us all wealthy once again.
steve
Ron -- The full text of this paper in SCIENCE will cost you 15 bucks but in my opinion, is well worth it; below is the Abstract. Commenters are welcome to talk about educating women, etc. but its too late for Africa for the balance of this century. I have personally observed the situation in Central Africa where you can see a school each containing about 1,000 kids located at roughly one-kilometer intervals along all significant roads -- a lot of kids. Virtually all schools in Africa are run by churches (of all types), and you can guess what these guys are teaching about birth control: I've asked, and the answer is NOTHING. AFRICANS LOVE KIDS. And, health care has improved greatly over the past few decades meaning general health has been upgraded and infant mortality has been reduced greatly. In fact, I would say the bulk of the UN's efforts in Africa are directed towards improving general health at which they have been successful.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 11:39 amSorry for the inarticulate ramble but this is a rather personal interest of mine partly because our family is supporting a young girl in Uganda who will soon become a medical doctor. I had promised to stop commenting on the Blog but the African over population crisis issue is one dear to my heart.
WORLD POPULATION STABILIZATION UNLIKELY THIS CENTURY
"The United Nations recently released population projections based on data until 2012 and a Bayesian probabilistic methodology. Analysis of these data reveals that, contrary to previous literature, the world population is unlikely to stop growing this century. There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100. This uncertainty is much smaller than the range from the traditional UN high and low variants. Much of the increase is expected to happen in Africa, in part due to higher fertility rates and a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline. Also, the ratio of working-age people to older people is likely to decline substantially in all countries, even those that currently have young populations."
There is an 80% probability that world population, now 7.2 billion people, will increase to between 9.6 billion and 12.3 billion in 2100.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 3:11 pmI think you are about 237,500,000 too low with your estimate of world population. Well, that was as of a few minutes ago. It was 7,437,500,000 last time I checked.
World Population ClockHowever, I think the UN is way off on their population projection. I believe that world population will reach 9 billion by 2050, just about a billion and a half above where it is now. However, I doubt it will ever go much above that. The UN, of course, is predicting no catastrophes. After all, that's not their job.
The UN systematically underestimates the fall in birth rate associated with better education for women and their access to health care and contraceptives.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 11:43 amHere is the free pdf version of the paper"World population stabilizationDoug Leighton says: 11/29/2017 at 11:57 am
unlikely this century".
https://www.stat.berkeley.edu/~aldous/157/Papers/gerland.pdfThanks Fish!Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 12:49 pmHi Doug and Gonefishing,David Archibald says: 11/30/2017 at 2:06 amThe article inked below is also of interest (chart from the PDF).
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0959378014001095?via%3Dihub
My work suggests that the world runs out of more land that can be put under grain by 2035. This is mainly Brazil and Russia. Just about every country in Africa is importing grain now. Therefore most of their population growth has to be fed on imported grain. Most of the costs in producing grain are in energy so a rising oil price will have a leveraged effect on food prices.Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 12:31 pmHi Doug,George Kaplan says: 11/29/2017 at 1:10 pmGlad you decided to comment.
Yes Africa is indeed a problem as far as population growth. With education and improved access to health care and internet access on smart phones, African women may become empowered and decide to control their fertility using modern birth control. The transition to lower fertility can happen in a generation.
As an anecdotal example, my family and my wife's averaged a Total fertility ratio (TFR) of 5.5 for the two families (close to the average sub-Saharan TFR), the next generation of 11 children in total had a total of 6 children for a TFR of about 1.1.
Unscientific and likely too optimistic, but not that different from what occurred in the upper middle income nations of the World (population about 2.4 billion in 2015) where TFR decreased from 4.93 in 1975 to 1.93 in 2000 a period of 25 years.
It is the low income nations that have lagged in reducing TFR, economic development is a key ingredient to getting population under control. Easier to say than to accomplish.
The article below is hopeful
https://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2017/06/26/the-race-to-solar-power-africa
I saw something similar on PBS
https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/in-remote-kenyan-villages-solar-startups-bring-light
Dennis I guess this site is rightfully energy-centric but what's your view on the other limits that are showing up like potable water, top soil, phosphorus?Dennis Coyne says: 11/29/2017 at 1:40 pmHi George,Ghung says: 11/29/2017 at 5:44 pmI think recycling human waste might help with top soil and phosphorus, though a Farmer would know more than me. I think recycling water from sewers can also be done and eventually the expansion of solar power may allow desalination of sea water.
In short, I think there are solutions to these issues, especially as we move to more sustainability (less beef production would help) and a peak in population as education levels improve would also help.
Some nations such as Iran have made amazing progress on their TFR, from 1990 to 2005 (15 years) the TFR fell from 5.62 to 1.97 and by 2015 it had fallen to 1.75.
African nations should find out what happened in Iran over that period and import some of the lessons learned.
Note that there are many examples of a rapid demographic transition, another is South Korea where total fertility ratio (TFR) decreased from 5.63 to 1.60 from 1965 to 1990 and in 2015 had fallen to 1.26.
Using South Korea as an example of increased sustainability (the point here?) is not helping your case much Dennis. As their TFR decreased, their consumption grew exponentially. Just since 1991:Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:40 amhttps://i0.wp.com/www.eurasiareview.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/petroleum_consumption.png
Seems their per-capita energy use has skyrocketed in the last 60 years or so, and they now import most of their energy sources. They became 9th in CO2 emissions as of 2005. Looks like increased standards-of-living and declining birth rates are not much of a solution for reducing planetary impacts.
Hi Ghung,Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:41 amI agree. The point was that population growth can be reduced.
We need two things to happen, reduced use of fossil fuels (which peak fossil fuels will take care of by 2030) and reduced population (which peak population in 2050 to 2070 will take care of).
https://www.demographic-research.org/volumes/vol28/39/28-39.pdf
Figure below is from page 1153 of the article linked above.
Note that in 2015 the TFR for South Korea was 1.26, if average life expectancy does not rise above 90 years and World TFR falls to 1.25 by 2100, then World Population falls from 8 billion to 2 billion in about 100 years. This reduces the use of resources and the pressure on other species.
Transition to wind and solar with pumped hydro, wind gas, and thermal storage backup can reduce carbon emissions and reforestation as population falls will help to absorb some of the carbon in the atmosphere. Carbon capture and storage of burned biofuels and cement that absorbs CO2 would be other options for reducing atmospheric CO2.
As fossil fuel peaks prices will rise and the transition to non-fossil fuel will speed up.
The process will be messy, but we are likely to muddle through as there is not much alternative (or not a better one as I see it.)
Forgot chart sorryGeorge Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 3:54 am
I think a common factor in all countries seeing large falls in birth rates is that they are preceded by large falls in death rates. This typically takes a couple of generations, which is one of the biggest causes of population overshoot. In Iran it was maybe a bit faster but not much from above 20 per 1000 in the 50s and 12 in the eighties to around 4 now.yvesT says: 11/30/2017 at 8:39 amRegarding fertilizers, when you realize that there was a "human bones" market in the 19th century, and that for instance England "emptied" the catacombs in Sicily for that, or took back the soldiers bones from Waterloo, you get a sense of the urgency for fertilizer without phosphorus or natural gas based ones.yvesT says: 11/30/2017 at 10:21 am
See for instance below :
"England is robbing all other countries of their fertility. Already in her eagerness for bones, she has turned up the battlefields of Leipsic, and Waterloo, and of Crimea; already from the catacombs of Sicily she has carried away skeletons of many successive generations. Annually she removes from the shores of other countries to her own the manorial equivalent of three million and a half of men Like a vampire she hangs from the neck of Europe."
https://livinghistoryfarm.org/farminginthe40s/crops_04.html
Or below :
https://medium.com/study-of-history/the-bones-of-waterloo-a3beb35254a3I had a better link regarding the bones from Sicily catacombs (many due to the plague epidemia I think), but cannot find it back.
Note : the above quotation is in fact from Justus Von Liebig (German chemist/agronomist), it also appears in below books :Nathanael says: 11/29/2017 at 4:24 pm
https://books.google.fr/books?id=bnXXES5-LRcC&pg=PA175&lpg=PA175&dq=fertilizer+sicily+catacombs&source=bl&ots=uWrEC04pcf&sig=zf_RNhU0HfM_aetTy6AkyHSpp3Q&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi7m_v-uebXAhXF0aQKHR1ABOkQ6AEIXjAK#v=onepage&q=fertilizer%20sicily%20catacombs&f=false
or :
https://books.google.fr/books?id=VugoemP2th0C&pg=PA178&lpg=PA178&dq=justus+von+liebig+bones+sicily&source=bl&ots=M808Tc41C4&sig=D-NkZ4zpKOekifQQs-eJt4P7LsI&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwia1eiczObXAhUJF-wKHRITBM0Q6AEIRTAI#v=onepage&q=justus%20von%20liebig%20bones%20sicily&f=falseAnd this page above (from "Justus Von Liebig : the chemical gatekeeper" p 178) is also interesting on other aspects, suggesting Liebig would today address energy ..
The churches which promote childbearing must be destroyed. They are basically the enemies of humanity. Since they're losing in North America, Europe, South America, and most of Asia, they are targeting Africa.islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 5:00 pm(And *targeting* is the correct word -- they are deliberately sending missionaries to spread their sick, twisted doctrines and spending lots of money to do so.)
If you read my story below, Food for the Poor is a religious group. In Jamaica I believe it is affiliated with Missionaries for the Poor , an international Catholic organisation. So while they are doing yeoman service in providing shelter for poor folks, they are doing diddly squat to encourage poor folks to stop creating more mouths to feed and bodies to clothe and shelter. Isn't that just dandy?Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:49 pmIncidentally here's a recent newspaper article from my neck of the woods:
Crime strangling growth Youth unemployment in Caribbean highest in world, fuelling criminality
Youth unemployment in the Caribbean is said to be the highest in the world, and crime, partly fuelled by this high rate of joblessness, is a major obstacle to economic growth in the region, according to Christine Lagarde, managing director of the International Monetary Fund (IMF).
The IMF boss, who addressed the sixth High Level Caribbean Forum, held yesterday at The Jamaica Pegasus hotel in Kingston, said that crime imposed several economic costs such as public spending on security and the criminal justice system, as well as private spending on security. She also highlighted social costs arising from the loss of income owing to victimisation and incarceration.
Can anybody spot my comment? Hint: I used a pseudonym that should be familiar with everybody here.
Can we be so unpolitical correct to call for "A Pope onA Rope?"Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:57 pm
Someone must draw a line in the sand- or should we all be under a religious spell?
Or do we want to break that spell?"would you like to see the pope on the end of a rope do you think he's a fool"GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 7:54 pmThis was discussed just this morning on NYC NPR, concerning homelessness and the housing provided for low income people. The gist of it was that although there were programs to help the people with food and housing, very little was really being done to solve the problems.Fred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 8:20 pm"This uncertainty is much smaller than the range from the traditional UN high and low variants. Much of the increase is expected to happen in Africa, in part due to higher fertility rates and a recent slowdown in the pace of fertility decline. Also, the ratio of working-age people to older people is likely to decline substantially in all countries, even those that currently have young populations."islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 1:49 pmI have the impression that many of us myself included have an outdated and still colonialist view of African societies. I think changes happening in many parts of Africa will surprise us and technologically leapfrog over much of the built infrastructure of the OECD countries. I have seen it happen first hand in previously underprivileged parts of Brazil.
How we're using drones to deliver blood and save lives
Keller Rinaudo wants everyone on earth to have access to basic health care, no matter how hard it is to reach them. With his start-up Zipline, he has created the world's first drone delivery system to operate at national scale, transporting blood and plasma to remote clinics in East Africa with a fleet of electric autonomous aircraft. Find out how Rinaudo and his team are working to transform health care logistics throughout the world -- and inspiring the next generation of engineers along the way.
BTW, I have a serious question! Does this kind of technology make the population crisis in Africa better or worse? Would like to hear some thoughts on the matter.
It is uncanny how this lead post has come about just when I have been thinking about this subject recently. I am currently very depressed, to the point I suspect it may be clouding my better judgment with respect to various matters. This depression is partly caused by my views of the future of my little island in particular and the world in general. Let me try and illustrate how my thoughts have been brought into focus recently.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 4:07 pmI travel around the city I live in, passing through all the different types of communities from time to time. We have pockets of extreme wealth as evidenced by palatial homes with swimming pools, tennis courts and all the creature comforts you would expect in the home of a wealthy first world resident. Leaving these pockets of extreme wealth, one doesn't have to drive for more than five minutes to reach pockets of extreme poverty, people who are so poor, they cannot pay rent and cannot envision ever buying a plot of land or a house, so they build structures on any piece of land that they can get away with. This type of activity extends across the island and there is no area that does not experience informal settlement (aka squatting). There is a political aspect to this, in that in an effort to garner the votes of the large voting block that poor people make up succesive governments have not discouraged squatting, to the point of encouraging it. See yesterday's cartoon in one of the local rags for a satirical perspective of the situation but, I digress.
I try to avoid too much contact with people outside my socioeconomic and educational class because it inevitably leads me to being depressed but, sometimes I end up in that exact situation. This past Monday night was one such case and it was my observations from Monday night that got me thinking about Peak Oil and carrying capacity and overshoot. I was invited to visit a gathering and told to bring drinks and that they were going to cook so, I decided not to eat a meal before leaving the city. It was a forty five minute drive, including a drive through late evening heavy traffic heading westward out of the city, past a big highway construction project being carried out by a Chinese (honest to God, from China) construction firm that has been active in the island for a number of years. On arriving at my destination I was told by my host that the gathering was at another house less than half a mile away.
This particular house was one of 39 houses made possible by the efforts of a couple from Grand Junction, Colorado (with pics) along with the local branch of Food For The Poor . I estimate that, these "houses" measure about 13ft. by 15 ft. inside and are supposed to include a kitchen, a bathroom and two bedrooms. The sister of my host was the recipient of this house, being qualified for the charity as a result of being unemployed with four children, one of whom was either newborn or yet to be born at the time the house was handed over to her. She was not yet thirty years old when her last child was born. Does anybody see where I am going with this yet?
Back to the gathering. On arriving at the house my host informed that no food had been cooked. By this time I was hungry and asked where was the nearest cook-shop where I could purchase a meal. I traveled with my host to Old Harbour, the nearest town apart from Spanish Town. I can only describe Spanish Town as an overpopulated, crime infested, thug controlled mess, that becomes a ghost town by midnight even though it is surprisingly busy by day. I asked my host if I should buy a meal for them also and they declined but, by the time we got back to the house, they declared that they were hungry and needed to get something to cook to go with the rice they had. So off we went to try and find a local shop that had what they wanted and was still open. First one was a 24 hour joint, built using an old cargo truck body but it didn't have all they wanted so it was off to another one that we managed to catch just as they were closing. We came away with a small packet of "veggie chunks" and some cooking oil. The little propane stove had been fired up and the rice was almost done so in less than fifteen minutes a meal of rice and veggie chunks was being served to four or five adults, one of whom had an infant, less than a year old, sharing the meal with her.
So let me weave together how all of this ties in with the subject of the lead post. First the "house" was only possible through the generosity of citizens of a first world, developed country. The materials that made the house (lumber corrugated, galvanized steel) are the products of extractive industries that rely heavily of FF, petroleum in particular. The soft drinks and alcohol that I brought to the gathering were manufactured, distributed and retailed in a system, heavily dependent on external energy. My vehicle runs of diesel. The rice for the meal I ate and the one at the house was imported from outside the island, again produced and delivered with lots of help from petroleum. The chicken I ate was locally produced with imported grain, a product of industrial scale agriculture, probably in the USA. Thankfully many of the chicken farmers are involved in a project that started with 15 kW systems at about 40 chicken farms and seems to be expanding. The veggie chunks are a meat substitute protein made from soy meal, again a product of industrial scale agriculture.
The cooking oil was probably one of soy, palm, canola, corn or coconut oil, produced at an industrial scale and imported to the island. Jamaica was once an exporter of coconut oil before the industry was decimated by a disease called lethal yellowing back in the early 70s. Virtually the entire population of coconut palms on the island was wiped out by this disease and even though efforts have been made to resuscitate the industry using disease resistant varieties, more than forty years on, the manufacture of coconut oil in Jamaica is a tiny cottage industry.
So here we have five or adults, two males and three females, one of which had four children with the other two having one each. There were other people at the gathering but as far as I am aware only two had jobs, the brother of my host who left before the meal and the woman with the infant who has a part time job selling lotto tickets. All of these people are living on the edge, heavily dependent on a system that is in danger of collapse for their very survival and they are far from alone. there are thousands of them if not hundreds of thousands on this island alone.
If for whatever reason industrial scale agriculture fails, the songbirds are going to be eaten out of the trees. I used to dissect rats in my sixth form (12 and 13th grade) biology classes and there ain't much meat on them but, if we get hungry enough maybe we'll turn on the rats. Without affordable propane, every tree and shrub will end up as firewood. This is the reason why I have an almost obsessive focus on renewable energy, solar in particular. It is my hope that the deployment of renewable energy can stay ahead of FF depletion long enough for global civilization to transition away from FF. It is my hope that our civilization, seeing itself on a real time, renewable energy budget, will begin to recognize the fragility of our situation. I have to ask Ron and others to forgive me as I continue to bring attention to the hopeful stories. It is the only way I can keep myself from sliding into depression and despair. It is the only way I can cope.
The Green Revolution in the 60s was supposed to solve all our problems, and it solved a lot of them, especially in Europe and Asia. It works well when you have a lot of water and farm intensively, but is destructive in semi-arid conditions and when used in extensive agriculture, like the American Midwest.Ron Patterson says: 11/29/2017 at 4:22 pmAfter the Green Revolution, Asia boomed and Africa fell behind, prompting racist theories. Geography and climate are more likely explanations. In India, for example, the more arid north did less well than the wetter south. The Chinese were the first to realize the problem, and started a new generation of re-greening projects to boost agricultural production.
Meanwhile bad farming practices continues to rapidly degrade wide stretches of North America and South America. I was reading recently about a county in SD that lost 19 inches (not feet!) of topsoil between 1960 and 2014. Many places in America simply abandoned farming, like New England and Appalachia. People blame red dirt and the crick risin' in Appalachia and glacial rocks in New England, but that wasn't a problem before soil degradation set in.
The Green Revolution focused on genetics and chemistry, which makes sense if applied correctly. Development economists were puzzled that Kenyan farmers were uninterested in high yield seeds, but the explanation as simple: They need a regular water supply, not better seeds. A lot of places in the world get 3-4 weeks of rain a years, and good seeds don't solve this problem. Pumping the water out of the aquifier isn't the solution either, just ask anyone in Antelope Valley CA, a former grassland turned desert by the alfalfa farmers.
My mother warned my to watch out for flash floods when camping in the desert. It took me decades to understand why flash floods are a particular problem in the desert: More or less by definition, deserts are places where there are flash floods. The flash floods are both cause and symptom of soil degradation. Deserts aren't places where there isn't enough water -- they are places where rainwater runs off the surface instead of seeping into the soil. Degraded soil can't absorb water fast enough, surface runoff degrades soil.
The problem with industrial agriculture is that it treats the great outdoors like a hydroponic farm -- it ignores soil ecology and just assumes the hydrology will work itself out.
A more modern approach starts with water and soil. It's spreading rapidly in Africa, for example with the sand dams in Kenya, the terracing in Ethiopia and Kenya, and the various planting pit (like zai and demi-lunes) in the Sahel and agroforestry (planting trees in fields, or crops in orchards) in a lot of arid places.
It's true that mankind is pushing the limits of what the current ecosystem can carry, but it's also true that the ecosystem could be much bigger than it currently is.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wtOBSmIBx1A
Meanwhile bad farming practices continues to rapidly degrade wide stretches of North America and South America. I was reading recently about a county in SD that lost 19 feet of topsoil between 1960 and 2014.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 4:30 pmThere is a serious problem with that statement. No place on earth has 19 feet of topsoil, not even 19 inches over an entire county.
Topsoil Wikipedia
Topsoil is the upper, outermost layer of soil, usually the top 2 inches (5.1 cm) to 8 inches (20 cm). It has the highest concentration of organic matter and microorganisms and is where most of the Earth's biological soil activity occurs.Inches I mean, not feet obviously.Ulenspiegel says: 11/30/2017 at 5:07 amEDIT: Here's a shot from Kalkriese, Germany where they are digging out a Roman-German battlefield. The artifacts are all found at or just below the border between the black topsoil and the red dirt underneath it -- that was 7 BC
https://www.landkreis-osnabrueck.de/sites/default/files/bildergalerie/k1600_grabung1016_1.jpg
The archaeologists there told me the topsoil is about 1.5-2m deep, and was formed after the Romans left by later farming practices.
In the Kalkriese area, the farmers used sod planting ("Plaggendόngung"), i.e. they removed the top soil on large areas to improve the soil on their fields.alimbiquated says: 11/30/2017 at 5:35 amTherefore, Kalkriese is an example how NOT to do it.
I think the thickness of the topsoil in the area speaks for itself.Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 11:57 amMy point is that as Ron points out, there is a limited carrying capacity for the planet, but I don't really think we are there yet, because there are relatively simple methods available to make huge areas of the Earth's surface. Of course, even if it's possible, it isn't clear it will happen.
there are relatively simple methods available to make huge areas of the Earth's surface.alimbiquated says: 11/30/2017 at 12:50 pmThat seems to be an incomplete sentence. Make huge areas of the Earth's surface what ? Desert? We sure can do that. We are doing more of that every year. Scrubland? We are doing that also by cutting down the forest and trying to make farmland out of it. After a few years the land will row nothing of value. That's happening in the Amazon right now.
There is nothing we can do to increase human habitual area without reducing the wild habitual area. That is what my post is all about. We are destroying every wild thing by destroying their habitat, by taking their habitat for ourselves.
productive.alimbiquated says: 11/29/2017 at 4:22 pmYour last paragraph is not correct. Much of the world is desert, and that desert could be much more productive than it is, given the right agriculture methods.
Whether that will actually happen is another question of course.
Just a line of rocks on contour works too.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 4:11 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kCSYqUiI41w
The chinese are a lot farther down ths road.
http://www.topguilintravel.com/images/longsheng-travel-bg.jpg
But the Ehtiopians are doing their best to imitate the chinese
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVSiR0mWsAAxhqi.jpg
The Kenyns too.
This would be great in East Tennessee, but they get their corn in a jar, as the old song goes.
That very same first world country that donated the materials has plenty of homeless and large amounts of poor. It also has large amounts of empty buildings and huge amounts of food waste, yet they do not take care of their own. That is even a sadder situation as people freeze to death, starve, and die of simple preventable health problems in one of the richest countries in the world. Basic needs are not met and the governing bodies are constantly fighting to reduce the paltry benefits that are given. It's a country full of hate for their own people and hate back at the haters.TonyMax says: 11/29/2017 at 4:42 pmThere's no inherent evolutionary advantage to caring for people you have no relation to. That's the real reason why all of these 'safety net' programs you describe are hated in the general sense and under attack as time marches on.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 9:06 pmNow Tony, we all know the public programs are under attack because of the greed and selfishness of people who already have too much money and stuff.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 2:51 pm
We all know it is the greed and the overconsumption that is causing the destruction of our environment and possibly the whole human race. That is a huge evolutionary disadvantage.
Helping, sharing and cooperating is the advantage. The selfish and greedy are like ticks sucking the world dry for their own personal benefit.There's no inherent evolutionary advantage to caring for people you have no relation to.Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:53 pmThat is absolute Bullshit!
Dr. Sarah Mathew
I study the evolution of human ultra-sociality and the role of culture in enabling it. I am especially interested in how humans evolved the capacity to cooperate with millions of genetically unrelated individuals, and how this links to the origins of moral sentiments, prosocial behavior, norms, and large-scale warfare. To address these issues, I combine formal modeling of the evolution of cooperation with fieldwork among the Turkana. The Turkana are an egalitarian pastoral society in East Africa who cooperate, including in costly inter-ethnic raids, with hundreds of other Turkana who are not kin nor close friends. Through systematic empirical studies in this unique ethnographic context, my research project here aims to provide a detailed understanding of the mechanisms underpinning cooperation and moral origins.
evolutionary advantage of caring for othersCaelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 5:20 pm
About 232,000,000 results (0.58 seconds)
https://tinyurl.com/y7wv5sezThis information is not exactly carved in a stone tablet and hidden on the dark side of the moon.
Hi Ron,islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 6:46 pmI haven't read your good article just yet (although it is doubtful any of it will surprise me or add to what is already more or less understood), but just to mention that I recently listened to a podcast from Chris Martenson's site, Peak Prosperity, featuring William Rees from the University of BC
Two things about the podcast that stood out was that William was in fine form (articulate, clear, concise, passionate, 'deathly' serious, etc.); and the second was his mention of possibly fundamentally changing the natural system of Atlantic cod (fisheries), so that they may never recover. Not everything can simply reverse, and quickly enough, if they can, such as, say, with the depletion of the ozone layer, and when it involves all kinds of living systems much, and the intricacies/complex interconnections, of which we are blissfully unaware of, despite some of our arrogant pretensions to the contrary (such as with regard to the avocation of most if not all forms of geoengineering) it is very serious.
What concerns me also is how some people, such as on this site, can ostensibly claim a required greenwashed BAU from out of one side of their mouths, while on the other side, express grave concerns for the ecosystem. We cannot have it both ways.
To me, much greenwashed BAU is just swapping out different forms of rampant resource extraction, pollution and inequability for other forms.
The system, along with its 'power-politics', is still intact.
IOW, there is no real change.
Loren, assuming that's you, I am certain that radical decline, if not outright collapse, is already well underway, despite the obstinate mindlessness of some people. Just because some don't see something or want to see something doesn't mean it is not there.
My simple recommendation, especially for certain people WRT this deathwish-for-a-culture is to let go/ get out (and in the process, learn things like permaculture and local community resilience, and how our ancestors did some of it). Your comforts are much of an illusion (and predicated, for example, on natural draw-down).
I knew you'd show up sooner or later and since you've always been critical of my support for renewables and EVs, let's bite.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 7:59 pm"To me, much greenwashed BAU is just swapping out different forms of rampant resource extraction, pollution and inequability for other forms.
The system, along with its 'power-politics', is still intact.
IOW, there is no real change."
Are you saying that "there is no real change" going from corporate owned, centrally located, large scale, FF fired generators to small scale, individually or community owned, distributed renewable generators? If so, that's not what the FF and corporate generator class in Australia thinks. They have captured the Australian federal government and are fighting renewables as hard as they can.
Are you saying "there is no real change" going from ICE powered vehicles to EVs that, are perfectly happy to suck electrons from any source including renewable sources individually owned or owned by a co-op of which the vehicle owner is invested? That's not an opinion shared by the Koch brothers who are spending millions of dollars to try and paint EVs in a bad light in the eyes of the public.
Surely you realize that an individual with solar on their roof and an EV is giving a big middle finger to the status quo, including FF corporations and utilities who will no longer be able to feed at that individual's trough. In case you don't realize it, that is a very big disruption of "system, along with its 'power-politics'" and no, in case you haven't been listening, "The system, along with its 'power-politics'", will not be "still intact."
Now if you read my fairly long narrative further up, I hope the point I am trying to make does not escape you. That point is that there are millions, no lets make that billions of poor poorly educated folks who depend on things like industrial agriculture and the current status quo for the basic necessities of life, food, clothing and shelter. If the status quo collapses they are dead, let me say that again, dead! I'm all for dismantling the status quo and replacing it with something that is much kinder to all life on this pale blue dot we call home but, I shudder at the thought of millions or billions of human beings starving to death, just as I shudder at what we are doing to the biosphere. Can you see why I'm depressed right now?
Alan,islandboy says: 11/29/2017 at 10:31 pm
This is my cameo appearance. LOLThere is no real change if we are still relying on the monstrosity that is the crony-capitalist plutarchy/government-big-biz symbiosis, such as for solar panels, etc. and/or what some misleadingly refer to as 'renewable'.
If you are in the biz and I think you wrote hereon that you indeed are then some might suggest, maybe even me, that you are, say, 'soft-shilling' and/or rationalizing for your product using POB as your platform, and maybe problematically skewing the narrative a little more towards a dystopic system that we should be getting the hell out of, while making preparations to do so, like learning how to do the basics in a local, resilient context so that we do not need industrial agro. The longer we rely on industrial anything and as if it's somehow morally/ethically neutral the harder/faster we will likely fall, maybe along something of a seneca curve.
We cannot eat solar panels and electricity is not a necessity, except to for the brainwashed and the brainwashers.
Attempting to play on people's heartstrings, such as about poor people in so-called undeveloped locales to sell a product they don't need and that would risk locking them and others into a certain ('Western') lifestyle, in some contexts, approaches contemptible, by the way.You should already know how sociogeopoliticultural ideologies like Westernisation is foisted upon the global masses through physical, cultural, mental and intellectual colonialism, with the result often being wars and deaths to people and traditional ways of life. Just consider the Middle East right now. In the name of what? Oil and oligarchy?
You've said it yourself hereon that you have some kind of slavery in your family, yes? Well, many people are still slaves anyway, if with coats of white paint. Libya was in the news recently about that slavery incidentally.If we want to do solar panels etc. the right, ethical ways, we need sea changes, such as that avoid slavery and privilege-by-gun, but I highly doubt we will manage them in time, and suspect that we are already long past that time.
That said, how do you feel now?
I am not yet in the business of doing anything with solar PV so, as of right now I have no product that I am shilling for, soft or hard. I am in a business connected to entertainment if you must know. The entertainment business can by no means be classified as non-discretionary and recent technology has allowed far more people to compete with me so it will be necessary to get out of that at some point. How about viewing this as something I see as as worthwhile pursuit for the future of mankind, given my skill set and thus my advocating it as a worthwhile area for me to pursue a vocation in? I am not only advocating for solar PV because it's a field I can participate in but, because I think it can contribute a great deal to reductions in carbon emissions among other noble aspirations.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 10:40 pmAre you going to start suggesting that I want to get into the business of manufacturing and selling EVs just because I am suggesting that large scale EV adoption would be a good thing? I ain't no Elon Musk if that's what your thinking. Now, if the shit hits the fan and motor fuels became really unobtainium, I might take a stab at an EV conversion business, a la Jack Rickard but, right now even Jack seems disillusioned with that pursuit, having posted only one new video since the middle of August and only two new blog posts since the last week of July. At any rate the necessary preconditions for such a business to be successful in an age of factory made EVs, do not exist.
I am with OFM on the point that some of your ideas for agriculture cannot adequately serve the needs of a rapidly growing population of 7.5 billion people. My dad who was a descendant of rebel runaway slaves, known in Jamaica as Maroons , was into agriculture and left me and my surviving sister a six acre homestead when he died. I can tell you agriculture ain't a walk in the park. It's damned hard work and carries all sorts of risks not faced by other pursuits (droughts, thieves, diseases pests etc.) . You seem to have some romantic view of agriculture that I do not share.
As for locking people in to a western lifestyle, that doesn't apply to Jamaica. The western lifestyle came with colonization and slavery. Do you think that people outside of the developed word should forgo electricity, computers, cell phones, the internet and other modern conveniences?
Despite all of that, the Caribbean has been bucking western culture for centuries. Trinidad and Tobago has their carnival and it's music and Jamaica has had as big an impact on western culture with our music (reggae and ska) as western culture has had on us. Even this past weekend, a dark skinned Jamaican woman sporting a huge afro, placed third in the Miss Universe pageant. The girl that won was from South Africa and could pass for Caucasian whether she is or not and I didn't see any other black women in the contest sporting an afro hairstyle (not that I watched it).
When it comes to some things, that train has already left the station. No point in romanticizing about what could have been. I'd rather focus on what small steps we can take to improve things in the here and now, while moving us to a more sustainable future. I will probably remain depressed until the new year. Probably more to with not having any immediate family around for "the festive season" than anything else. Maybe the new year will bring some good news on the renewable/sustainability front! That would cheer me up!
Islandboyislandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 3:17 am
After being in Central America for quite a while, and that heavy Catholic noose around everyones neck, it was so liberating to get out to the islands.
Lets Party Mon!Now you're talking! We in the Caribbean know how to party! I wouldn't be surprised if we woke up the morning after the collapse and said, "Collapse? What collapse? We were too busy partying to notice"GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 8:22 amHaving said that, Trinidad is heavily influenced by catholicism, their carnival being associated with the catholic observance of Lent. I don't see any evidence of the Trinis (as they are known in the islands) taking the admonitions of their various religious leaders too seriously. Hell! I've never been to Trinidad carnival but, I hear it's one wild party!
On the other hand, Trinidad should have some long term concerns about what they are going to do after Oil and Gas production fall below consumption and they have to start importing hydrocarbons. What if either prices are too high or supplies are limited? What if prices collapse due to lack of demand as Seba suggests will happen after EVS and solar begin to dominate transport and electricity generation?
So how is that wind farm coming along?islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 9:04 amWay too early to say. The article dated October 4, 2017 says this:GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 11:01 am"The feasibility study will evaluate the viability of installing the wind farm, which would represent one of the first offshore wind installations in Jamaica and the greater Caribbean region."
I expect the feasibility study is going to take months and I would expect them to do some detailed analysis of the offshore wind resource in the process. It is good that this study is being done so soon after two devastating hurricanes have hit the region. Should keep hurricanes very much in the picture.
Dated
Looking at some Caribbean buoy data it looks like wind would be a good source of power for the islands.islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 4:26 pm
Beside the wind, the island has about 54 billion kwh/day of sunlight falling on it. That is more than ten times the total energy production per year for the island. Energy is not a problem, how the energy is generated is the problem.
Cover less than 0.1 percent of the island with solar panels and make up the difference with wind power.I have done some numbers in terms of what it would take to power the island entirely with renewables, mostly solar. Not impossible but the technocrats, one of whom is a college classmate of mine, cannot wrap their head around 100% renewable electricity!GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 4:36 pmIncidentally, I came across a video presentation on Youtube (with a really annoying backing track) that at about 3 minutes in contains the following text:
"Seba's forecasts are predicated on the assumption that the cost of generating and storing electricity will continue to fall to the point where just about all generation will be solar by 2030. But electricity production would only have to increase by 18 percent in the US to cope with a complete switch to EVs, he said"
That 18% figure squares quite nicely with some back of the envelope calculations I have done.
The choice is to transistion or fail.OFM says: 12/01/2017 at 12:14 pmI've made good friends with a couple of guys from Jamaica who have friends and family here that have managed to get their permanent paperwork taken care of.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 10:31 pmUnfortunately it doesn't look as if they will ever be able to get permanent resident status. They're older guys, and about as mellow and fun people to be around as I have ever met. They come up for an extended family visit every fall, which just HAPPENS to be the time of year local farmers need a lot of extra help, lol.
As soon as I'm finished with family duties, I'm going down to spend a month with them.
Will be spending some money on food and utilities and a few new nice things for them of course, because while they're friends, they're not well off.
Bottom line:GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 8:31 am
It is really hard to face the extinction of your species, no matter what reality presents to you.What has been highly disturbing is watching the natural world be run over and steadily destroyed.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 9:52 amWe cannot eat solar panels and electricity is not a necessity, except to for the brainwashed and the brainwashers.Caelan MacIntyre says: 11/30/2017 at 9:48 pmThan do the world a favor and unplug yourself from all sources of electricity! At least we here won't have to read your fantasies!
BTW there are plenty of people who understand that the current capitalist system is not the answer, read Kate Raeworth's, Donut Economics for starters.
Modern humans could no more live without electricity in the 21st century than they could live without food and water. Try living without refrigeration in any city in the world. You would cause massive starvation in a few days. Try providing medical care to an urban population without electricity.
You have to be completely delusional to suggest that electricity is not a necessity!
That's all irrelevant to my point which still stands especially when the system is destroying our planet. We have lived with electricity for a relative split second of our existence as a species on this planet.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 7:53 pm
Besides, if we're not treating the planet properly, do we even deserve electricity and its conveniences? I think not.And then there are assorted uses for electricity, some being more questionable as priorities than others.
Electric car versus fridge?
FWIW, I have personally lived without refrigeration for months in a major city, at least at home after shopping at the grocery store LOL, but also in the country more hard-core.
If your local community especially is growing and processing its own food, then it's easy.
There's pickling, drying, fermenting, spicing/salting, alcohol, etc., and natural cool-storage, such as root cellars and simple cooling-by-evaporation systems.
There's also 'eating as you go'. Other animals do that, and I've never heard of an animal that needs a fridge or electricity, have you? Maybe your cat at home, but even Meow Mix can last outside the fridge, yes?
But some of us have to actually help make the changes, such as to the narrative, and limit the cling to some kinds of BAU narratives and fantasies.
Do it for Mother Earth, Fred. Or me. Or Harvey Weinstein or whoever/whatever motivates you. Coral.
Obviously, we can't just turn off the lights and fridges overnight, but there are plenty of ways to manage, maintain and consume food that don't require a fridge. So if we can't just turn off the lights and fridges overnight, maybe we should start talking more about how to live without them and/or with greater resilience.
But even if the juice stays on forevermore, some juiceless skills and knowledge are great to learn, have and apply.
BTW, I just watched this documentary on rare earths the apparently highly-polluting stuff that's supposed to help power, until they run out, all these new and relatively-useless electrical gadgets now and in the future to get off of those other pollutants.
but just to mention that I recently listened to a podcast from Chris Martenson's site, Peak Prosperity, featuring William Rees from the University of BCCaelan MacIntyre says: 11/29/2017 at 8:09 pmHighly recommended.
And I'm not a fan of some of Martenson's guests.I came across the podcast indirectly via another site, but do sometimes run into Chris' material. He seems good at interviewing and is easy to follow in videos.OFM says: 11/29/2017 at 7:59 pmThis post is going to be a gold mine for me, because it relates directly to so much of what I'm working on for publication in book form if I ever manage to finish it to my satisfaction. Here's hoping it attracts over a thousand comments, lol! I'm especially interested in comments that dispute my own, because those are the ones enable me to understand my own blind spots.GoneFishing says: 11/29/2017 at 9:17 pmNow so far, nobody has said anything about what I will refer to as the SECOND key fact that one must understand to understand evolution. Hoyle missed the first one altogether, making a total fool of himself, although he was a brilliant scientist, one of the top men in HIS field, his mistake being that he failed to understand that evolution BUILDS on it's PAST " accomplishments".
The second key fact I am hereby pointing out is that while evolution creates new life forms that reproduce to fill any and all available niches, there's no GUIDANCE involved, no overall PLAN, no GOD in charge, if you wish to put it that way.
Evolution is characterized in large part by parsimony, by being conservative in the use of resources. Animals that don't have use for claws don't have claws like tigers, lol, and animals that don't eat grass out in the fields don't have digestive systems like COWS. Evolution creates organisms that are "good at" taking advantage of whatever resources are available, WITHOUT REGARD ANY FUTURE CONSEQUENCES because there is NO LONG TERM PLAN. Behavioral BRAKES that aren't needed don't evolve, lol, and countless things that would be extremely useful, like eyes in the back of our heads, which would keep us from being attacked from the rear, don't often evolve either, because .. well because of more factors than I have any inclination to cover at this minute. Half of the SHORT answer is that eyes in the back of our heads would cost us more in terms of sacrificing something else than they would gain for us. The other half of the SHORT answer is that since pure chance plays such a big role . the odds are astronomically high against it happening anyway.
This a comment/ rant, not a BOOK. The BOOK is in the works, and will be available free to member of this forum who may want to read it and point out shortcomings in it before I publish it, most likely for free on the net. I'm not so arrogant as to think anybody will PAY for it, lol.
Dead ends, blind alleys, and death, at the individual level, and or at the species level, means absolutely NOTHING to "Mother Nature" because she is not sentient, she's not moral, she's not even ALIVE in the usual sense. She's just an artifact, a tool, that we naked apes have invented in our efforts to understand reality.
What I'm getting at, since She IS parsimonious, is that She does not provide brakes where none are needed.
Sometimes things do evolve that prove to be useful under new circumstances, but when this happens, it's just a lucky accident for the creature involved. If for instance a creature evolves a forelimb capable of grasping a branch, so that it can climb better, lol, later on the ability to GRASP something MAY come in very handy, because it sets the stage for that creature being able to grasp a stone which can be used as a tool or weapon. This does NOT mean the creature WILL eventually discover the use of tools and weapons. It DOES mean the probability of such evolution is vastly enhanced. There's NO PLANNING INVOLVED . except in the minds of deists who accept the reality of evolution while also retaining the concept of a God or gods or some guiding force of some sort.IF the need arises for BRAKES, well then, die off, or even extinction, takes care of the problem. If a given species eats only a given plant, and that plant goes extinct, Mother Nature does not grieve for either the plant, nor the species that feeds exclusively upon it,which very likely also goes extinct. She doesn't even consciously keep score, as indifferently as a hired bookkeeper keeps books for a client he has never met and will never meet. She does however inadvertently create a RECORD of historical "scores" , which we can read. It's the fossil record.
It's rather amusing that professional biologists go around talking about human stupidity as if there is something inherently WRONG with people, as if we are collectively DEFECTIVE. We are what we are because we are final product ( up until today ) of our own evolutionary history. We're as " good " or "well designed "as we are evolved to be, like all other living creatures.
Engineers build in safety margins, and add features that may be useful, under certain circumstances, when they design things, because they DO work with and from PRECONCEIVED PLANS. Mother Nature doesn't make plans, she just deals and redeals the cards, over and over, and will continue to do so until all life on this planet perishes which won't be until the sun expands sufficiently to destroy the last vestiges of life on it.
We are NOT something different from the rest of biological creation, we do NOT operate under different rules, we aren't on some sort of fucking pedestal, separate from the rest of the biosphere. THAT whole crock of shit sort of thinking is one of the cornerstones of kinds of the thinking that some of the regulars here like to make fun of, such as religion, nationalism, racism, etc.
A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up his ass. NO. NO. No.
We have succeeded,basically for no other reason that accident in the last analysis, to the point we compete mostly with each other, rather than other species.
The evolved PROGRAMS hard wired into our brains that drive our behavior DO NOT include much in the way of built in brakes, because BRAKES HAVE COSTS. If we over populate, if we use up critical resources on which we depend for our survival, and perish, there's NOBODY who gives a shit.. other than some of us who are aware of the fact that we ARE in overshoot. Mother Nature is INCAPABLE of giving a shit.
The whole fucking idea that we are SOMETHING SPECIAL was probably originated by the first priests and their allies. It's an idea that has little to do with any discussion based on real SCIENCE within the context of understanding our own overshoot .
Now none of this rant should be interpreted as indicating I don't know and understand that humans are tribal creatures, that we are social creatures, and that we survive and thrive because we DO live and work cooperatively. The thing is , we survive and thrive as COMPETING communities, tribes, and nations, rather than as a SINGLE global community. Wolf packs compete. Prides of lions compete. Bands of chimps compete. We humans compete with each other. Talking as if we are DEFECTIVE because we behave this way is a waste of time.
When the shit hits the fan hard enough and fast enough, we do sometimes cooperate with our former enemies, at least temporarily.Old enemies can be new allies.
It's at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that we can cooperate as a SPECIES, at the global level, in order to solve some or maybe even most of the problems associated with our own overshoot. We have cooperated before at levels up to and including the global level. In WWII, most of the developed countries of the world were involved as partisans on one or the other side. We cooperate to some extent at the global level now, in economic terms, and in terms of our physical security, as for instance in arms control agreements.
But just because it's theoretically possible that we can cooperate at the species level globally doesn't mean it's going to happen. I don't think there's any real likelihood of it happening, although alliances consisting of the various major economic and military powers do exist and will continue to exist and some of these alliances will prove to be critically important in determining the course of future history.
"A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up his ass. NO. NO. No." Do you mean E. O. Wilson has his head up his ass?Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 6:17 amDo you mean E. O. Wilson has his head up his ass?GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 8:16 amEdward O. Wilson's New Take on Human Nature
The eminent biologist argues in a controversial new book that our Stone Age emotions are still at war with our high-tech sophistication
Read more: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/edward-o-wilsons-new-take-on-human-nature-
In his newly published The Social Conquest of the Earth -- the 27th book from this two-time winner of the Pulitzer Prize -- Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too. Ants rule the microhabitats they occupy, consigning other insects and small animals to life at the margins; humans own the macroworld, Wilson says, which we have transformed so radically and rapidly that we now qualify as a kind of geological force. How did we and the ants gain our superpowers? By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish desires and I-minded drive to join forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. There are plenty of social animals in the world, animals that benefit by living in groups of greater or lesser cohesiveness. Very few species, however, have made the leap from merely social to eusocial, "eu-" meaning true. To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson's definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice "at least some of their personal interests to that of the group." It's tough to be a eusocialist. Wouldn't you rather just grab, gulp and go? Yet the payoffs of sustained cooperation can be huge. Eusociality, Wilson writes, "was one of the major innovations in the history of life," comparable to the conquest of land by aquatic animals, or the invention of wings or flowers. Eusociality, he argues, "created superorganisms, the next level of biological complexity above that of organisms." The spur to that exalted state, he says, was always a patch of prized real estate, a focal point luring group members back each day and pulling them closer together until finally they called it home. "All animal species that have achieved eusociality, without exception, at first built nests that they defended from enemies," Wilson writes. An anthill. A beehive. A crackling campfire around which the cave kids could play, the cave elders stay and the buffalo strips blacken all day. Trespassers, of course, would be stoned on sight.
As is evident by some of the comments on this thread, while the hive may be able to display collective intelligence, the individual ants can still be pretty dumb! Do check out the link I posted to 'The Mind's I' chapter 11 Prelude to Ant Fugue.
If we can't cooperate globally then the idea of Half-Earth is a farce.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 9:18 amThe idea is still sound! If humans have not yet evolved to the point that they are able to include the whole globe as a part of their hive Well, that's a separate issue and may indeed mean that we are collectively fucked! Because not enough of us have reached that particular point in our evolution.GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 12:18 pmAs George Carlin once said: "The Planet is fine, it's the people that are fucked"
An idea is sound only if it can be implemented, otherwise it is just a bunch of sugars turned to heat and in this case trees turned to wastepaper.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 2:40 pmMy point was not that E.O. Wilson is wrong, but that he would not have presented such a point if he did not think it possible or even probable. It was OFM that was the one saying it was not possible, which is a rather narrow view of humanity. Humanity cooperates on large scale right now.
Looking at the update of Limits to Growth I get the feeling that the flattening out of some of the parameters (energy, industrial output) may be misinterpreted. The same thing would happen if an energy and industrial transistion were occurring.
The key question is what does a transistion look like initially?A field to a forest transistion looks a lot like field, then some bushes with a few small trees, then eventually almost all trees. Originally the trees are hardly there at all and don't seem to be having much effect as their leaves smoother a lot of plant life around them and they take up more and more of the solar energy that used to reach the ground. It starts small then spreads to complete takeover.
An energy and industrial transistion goes hand in hand with a social/governmental transistion. It looks small and scattered at first but steadily fills in even despite the resistance of the legacy systems. Key to the fast takeover is the weakening of the previous growth and it's demise leaving easy space for the takeover.
For example, I have a kitchen ceiling light fixture. It has three bulb positions. I had replaced the three 60 watt incandescent bulbs years ago with a 100 watt CFL (running actual 25 watts).
Last night the CFL started flickering so I pulled it and it had burn marks on the base of the bulb. The CFL bulb has now been replaced by two 60 watt equivalent LED bulbs which together use only 16 watts and provide more light than the CFL.
Also the LED bulbs may never have to be replaced in my lifetime. 180 watts to 16 watts and no more replacement, that is high ground transistion! Now $4 replaces over $500 on the user end and eliminates large amounts of pollution.The power cost and economics have overshadowed the legacy instrument in an inexorable way. The death of an individual instrument allowed the replacement by a superior one.
I think that effect has been happening all across the world in many areas of energy use and industrial process for decades. This effect may have been interpreted as a reduction in energy and industrial output while it is really mostly a transistion in process.So how do we get a fast takeover? Strand and remove the old legacy assets and systems plus do not replace dead systems with the same system. The action is harsh, but that is how it is done.
I will know we are on the right course when I see those large glass buildings being stripped of their components, their glass re-used, their steel reused and recycled, their wiring removed as they are removed. Why and how do we put up R2 buildings that soak up huge amounts of energy for heating and cooling? They need to go now. Passenger vehicles that get less than 150 pMPG need to go now and no passenger vehicle that gets below 400 pMPG should be built ever again. There are many inefficient, harmful and problematical systems that could be removed and changed.
Trash the old ways now and insert better ways, ones that work longer with less harm. Make new systems that heal soil and nature in general. The collapse is occurring now, take advantage of it by putting in superior systems that allow E.O. Wilson's Half-Earth idea to flourish, not finish.
Personally, until a lot of the old stupid harmful systems are put aside we can't see clearly if a fast collapse is at hand or not. Maybe if we just stop following bad and stupid we can ease off our consumption of the planet and reverse some of the major problems we face. There may be no real need to go through a grand scale collapse and huge loss of species.
Yeah, I have to agree with most of what you said.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 6:20 pm"You never change things by fighting the existing reality.
To change something, build a new model that makes the existing model obsolete."― R. Buckminster Fuller
""It was OFM that was the one saying it was not possible, which is a rather narrow view of humanity. "OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 3:40 pmBULLSHIT.
Here's what I actually said in a comment upthread. It was posted a day previous to your comment, lol.
"It's at least THEORETICALLY POSSIBLE that we can cooperate as a SPECIES, at the global level, in order to solve some or maybe even most of the problems associated with our own overshoot. We have cooperated before at levels up to and including the global level. In WWII, most of the developed countries of the world were involved as partisans on one or the other side. We cooperate to some extent at the global level now, in economic terms, and in terms of our physical security, as for instance in arms control agreements. "
Perhaps I ought to lecture you a little on the meaning of the word EXPECT within the context I used it, which I think is obvious enough to anybody who WANTS to understand. In this context, expect means (or not ) that cooperation will happen spontaneously, or with only moderate incentives.
I don't think global level cooperation will happen, IF it happens, until the incentives to cooperate are OBVIOUS and overwhelming, when it comes to really changing the way we do things. I don't think any competent biologist will argue with this position, speaking in the broadest terms, painting with the so called broad brush.
We do after all have a few thousand years of known history that indicates that we are as apt to fight as cooperate, lol.
When the shit hits the fan hard enough, id it also hits slowly enough for us wake up , I EXPECT ( PREDICT ) that WE WILL COOPERATE on the grand scale, at least up to the nation state level, in most nations, and frequently at the international level, and MAYBE even at the global level.
Hi GF,GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 4:51 pmI must admit I'm a little behind in reading E O Wilson, who is as capable a scientist as any in his field, and head and shoulders above almost all the rest, in my opinion. He's also one of the best writers ever in his field, probably THE best writer in biology in my personal opinion.
But so far as a I know, and I have read all of his older books, unless I'm mistaken, he would basically agree with me, because I am, as I interpret his work, AGREEING WITH HIM.
There's a HELL OF DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING people to cooperate on the grand scale, and believing they are capable of doing so.I believe we are capable of cooperating on the grand scale, given sufficient motivation to do so, and have said so already in this thread. I don't EXPECT us to cooperate with people we see as outsiders and enemies, but given new circumstances, new conditions, new problems, new fears, we can and sometimes do find new common ground, and make friends with former enemies.
I'm ready to bet the farm that I'm WITH E O WILSON, rather than AGAINST HIM.
Nuance matters.
To me at least, lol.
A couple of days back in another thread, you lectured me, telling me to THINK GLOBALLY, as if to imply I 'm unaware that most of the people in the world are still desperately poor. I have never said that most of humanity is well off. I have never IMPLIED that most of humanity is well off.
What I DID say, is that FOR WHAT IT'S WORTH, quoting myself, that there is a sound case to be made for the trickle down effect, and that a substantial number of even very poor people humanity HAVE ALREADY benefited greatly from economic and technological progress.
Hundreds of millions of desperately poor people are benefiting today from progress made in fields ranging from public health to industrial agriculture to renewable energy , etc. Hundreds of millions of very poor people are making relatively fast economic progress by some measures, for instance in the rate at which they are able to make use of at least some electricity, even if it's only a single light powered by a battery recharged by a small solar panel.
The less you have, the greater the marginal value of anything new you are able to get.
Just one rechargeable light is worth a LOT to a person who has no other option than perhaps a candle or kerosene lamp or a home made torch.
Incidentally I can remember being told by my grand parents that back when they were kids, it wasn't at all usual to literally light a ( corn ) shuck to provide some light so as to make a quick run to the outdoor privy or take care of some other after dark chore. They had kerosene, but it was considered wasteful to use it unnecessarily.
Things can and do get better sometimes, even on the global scale, lol.
E.O. Wilson would not have written the book Half Earth if he did not think that people could and would cooperate on a grand scale. I don't think he was just blowing wind. Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 6:57 pmI have not read his latest book yet " The Social Conquest of Earth" which relates to this subject.
See mine and Fred's comments above.
" Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 7:11 pmBullshit again. You're deliberately twisting my words into something I didn't say.
You brought up his name, and you have put words in his mouth, as well as mine, in a manner of speaking.
I will say it again. There's a DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING or PREDICTING cooperation between large and diverse groups of people EXCEPT when circumstances leave the various groups little or no choice, and they have COME TO UNDERSTAND that the only real option they have IS to cooperate.
ONCE various competing groups or societies come to understand that they have little or nothing in the way of viable choice other than cooperation, well then I PREDICT OR EXPECT them to cooperate.
I believe my position is entirely consistent with E O Wilson's thinking and beliefs, speaking in general terms.
If you want to play word games,I'm ready, because it's TRAINING as well as entertainment for me. I need all the practice I can get when it comes to making my arguments clear before I go out on my own with my own book and web site .. EVENTUALLY.
The audience here is sophisticated enough to understand nuance, lol.
Well, MOST of the audience here , anyway.
You ask for opposing opinions then you get nasty and personal and show no sign of wanting to learn or discuss anything, just shove your ideas. Since you apparently are not capable of dealing with opinions or thoughts other than your own, I will cease interacting with you. Plus you are always yelling in your comments, very rude.OFM says: 12/01/2017 at 11:06 amHere is what you actually said ""A biologist who talks about humanity as if humanity SHOULD BE EXPECTED to display a hive like consciousness has his head up his ass. NO. NO. No."
I want opposing opinions , and I'm always on the lookout for new facts. I do NOT want my words twisted into pretzels so that they appear to mean something diametrically opposite to what I actually said, by taking them out of context.OFM says: 11/30/2017 at 7:00 pmI think you are more interested in finding personal fault with me than you are in actually discussing facts, possibilities, and ideas.
I use a lot of caps, but seldom more than five or six words at a time, because caps are a lot quicker for me than taking time to use italics or bold.
I'm not presenting a paper for publication here, lol. I'm just participating in a conversation. If you want to take offense, feel free, it's still somewhat of a free country.
I
" Your statement was a direct affront to him and many others."alimbiquated says: 12/01/2017 at 4:15 pmBullshit again. You're deliberately twisting my words into something I didn't say.
You brought up Wilson , and you have put words in his mouth, as well as mine, in a manner of speaking.
I will say it again.
There's a DIFFERENCE between EXPECTING or PREDICTING cooperation between large and diverse groups of people under ordinary circumstances versus under new and compelling circumstances.
IF AND WHEN circumstances leave various groups little or no choice other than cooperation, , and they have COME TO UNDERSTAND that the only real option they have IS cooperation , well then .
I expect or predict that such groups WILL cooperate, sometimes, maybe even almost every time.
I believe my position is entirely consistent with E O Wilson's thinking and beliefs, speaking in general terms.
The audience here is sophisticated enough to understand nuance, lol.
Well, MOST of the audience here , anyway.
Understanding is tough for those who prefer NOT to understand.
This is pretty much nonsense. People are very different than other animals because they get ideas in their head and follow them. That's the secret to our success -- we change our game plan all the time instead of being stuck in a single niche like most species. It's always hard to guess which ideas are going to work out, but societies choose -- so to speak -- whether to destroy themselves or not.Hightrekker says: 11/29/2017 at 10:29 pmAmerica has been choosing self destruction for several decades, and the eschatology our wacky creed planted in our minds seems very attractive, especially to old farts -- the alternative is to try something different.
Many societies have shown themselves to be resilient an sustainable. America has a colonial mentality that doesn't support that, even when it's obvious. My grandmother was born in Kansas and when she talked about the Dust Bowl she would shake her head and say, "I always told them not to cut down those cottonwoods -- they were the only thing keeping the farm from being blown away". Now they're depleting the aquifier in Kansas by planting maize for diesel. So the desert will continue to spread.
But the Japanese aren't like that at all. They've been planting trees for centuries. They don't have much choice, because the hills aren't very stable there. They'll get through.
And the Sahel Zone, the world's worst and poorest place, is changing as well. They've started replanting. A lot of them will survive.
Crazy hippies like this may do better than you think. Civilizations come and go, the species won't die for a while.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FHMNke5ppE
Root hog or die, as my father used to say. You can't imagine a world without Walmart, but it isn't the end of the world.
Another thought -- The Tasmanians. They were probably the wolrd's most primitive culture. They were cut off from the very old Australian mainland after the Ice Ages, and seems to have even forgotten fishhooks one of mankind's oldest technologies. But they had their ways, and they survived.
A panda who was "really, really, ridiculously good at sex" brought the species back from the brink of extinction, but things are still weirdHickory says: 11/29/2017 at 11:32 pmthank you Ron for this posting. I am in complete agreement with you on this.Gene Orleans says: 11/29/2017 at 11:55 pm
nothing more important. it is a bizarre and tragic spectacle to behold, and to participate in.
what a poor use of such an incredible biosphere.Many people from the looks of it here try to deal with the crises we face as a species and civilization the same way as myself. I spend much time here in front of modern electronic gadgetry. It's useful in distracting the mind from a diseased dying world along with a way to pass the time while waiting on my Lord and Savior to return to cleanse all the wickedness Satan has saturated humans with. Yes this is truly a sick sad world we live in now. Matthew 13:38-40.Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 7:51 amIt's useful in distracting the mind from a diseased dying world along with a way to pass the time while waiting on my Lord and Savior to return to cleanse all the wickedness Satan has saturated humans with.Watcher says: 11/29/2017 at 11:55 pmYou are likely to be waiting a very long time. Religious stupidity makes the problem worse, never better.
Didn't know this was here.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 9:57 am1. Any quotes of someone's book on collapse and how collapse happens based on history . . . all worthless. There is no history.
2) There is no history because there has never been 7 billion before. There has never been collapse with nuclear weapons involved before. There has never been collapse with the maggot and fly total in the atmosphere from 6.5 billion corpses before.
3) Chinese oil consumption lags US per capita and they are striving mightily to correct that, as they should. When per capita consumption growth becomes difficult, they HAVE to take oil from someone else. That someone else's population starts to starve for lack of food production or transport. They object to the theft of "their" oil. War. They must. War or starve.
4) Consider Japan. Consider the relations between China and Japan. Japan cries out . . . you're taking this oil to improve your country's standard of living and you are starving our country to death to do this. How can you find morality in this? China will have no trouble whatsoever contriving morality in this.
5) Simply that. When there isn't enough to go around, no one will quietly accept inadequate amounts. Nor should they. All other stuff about global warming and debt and sacrificing lifestyle for someone else is just so much bizarre delusion. You got too little to live, you kill whoever took it.
Hi Watcher,Watcher says: 11/30/2017 at 11:18 amIf you were correct there would be constant World War, most humans realize that conflict does not always lead to a positive outcome.
In an anarchic world things might play out as you imagine, we don't live in such a World.
Most people will do all they can to prevent anarchy.
Ahh so only evil people resort to war.Survivalist says: 12/01/2017 at 8:33 amHaven't you noticed only good guys win?
'Black Earth: The Holocaust as History and Warning' by Timothy Snyder is quite good. If you're not into the minutia of east European history circa WW2 then just cut to the conclusion. 'Bloodlands: Europe Between Hitler and Stalin' is good too.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 11:35 amHere's an interview with Timothy Snyder if you want to get a taste.
Will this be the catalyst for the next Holocaust?
http://blogs.reuters.com/great-debate/2015/12/09/what-will-cause-the-next-holocaust/Almost anyone, I suppose, can call himself or herself an anarchist, if he or she believed that the society could be managed without the state. And by the state -- I don't mean the absence of any institutions, the absence of any form of social organisation -- the state really refers to a professional apparatus of people who are set aside to manage society, to preλmpt the control of society from the people. So that would include the military, judges, politicians, representatives who are paid for the express purpose of legislating, and then an executive body that is also set aside from society. So anarchists generally believe that, whether as groups or individuals, people should directly run society.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 2:09 pm
-Murray BookchinAnarchism is founded on the observation that since few men are wise enough to rule themselves, even fewer are wise enough to rule others.
-Edward AbbeyHi Hightrekker,Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/02/2017 at 8:50 pmI define anarchy as without government.
Let's assume for a moment a World without any governments at all.
Let's also assume there at 7.4 billion people in the World.
I just don't see how that works. The World is not a perfect place, but it is far from clear that a World without any government(s) would be an improvement.
When some one comes up with a plan that is appealing to the majority of citizens in some nation, perhaps such a form of non-government will be instituted.
Collapse Dynamics: Initial Conditions, Media Manipulation and The Short-Circuiting of ConsensualityDennis Coyne says: 12/03/2017 at 10:48 amHi Dennis,
I see anarchy, if it is understood correctly, as potentially having government if it is optional/consensual/legitimate.
For example, if I want you to represent me until which time as I say otherwise , then you can if you wish .
I also see anarchy as potentially 'hierarchical', or at least pseudohierarchical, if it is chosen freely.
So, for example, if I want you to tie me to a bed and have your way with me as your 'slave' if you wish , until which time as I or you opt out , then that is still ok. (fans face with hand)
It is about consensuality and a large part of the whole idea behind media manipulation of the masses is to 'short-circuit' consensuality IOW, to make the masses consent to what they might not have normally consented to.
At the moment, I do not consent, for example, to what we call 'government' to take my money, or 'skim my labor', such as in the form of taxation. It is an 'initial condition' (think the butterfly effect) that can cascade, and seems to have cascaded, over time into dangerous, 'hurricane', territory. I mention this angle also to hopefully appeal to your apparent understanding and appreciation of physics and physical dynamics over time.
Right now, there is software available, ostensibly to support government governing consensually, called Loomio . There are likely others as well.
Hi Caelan,Caelan MacIntyre says: 12/03/2017 at 10:42 pmSee free rider problem. If taxes are not required, then very little is collected. So essentially, not taxes is roughly equal to no government.
How do legal agreements work in this no coercion society?
When there are disagreements how are they settled?
Come up with a system which works in a World with 7.5 billion and maybe someone will pay attention.
Hi Dennis,islandboy says: 11/30/2017 at 5:08 amYour assertion does not necessarily stand to reason and is just an assertion without support. I could flip/modify it this way:
If taxes were consensual, then people would likely feel a greater sense of belonging to their locales and how they are shaped and so give them freely and as they see fit.
Consensual tax collection could be viewed as part of the modus operandi of actual government, rather than as a kind of large-scale centralized armed coercive mob, such that it appears.See also here . I'll paraphrase some of it for you (again)
" if economics is to become an instrument of freedom and prosperity instead of an instrument of statism, then there are certain fundamental fallacies that must be continually challenged and discredited. Chief among these is the persistent non sequitur from externality to coercion -- that is, the bogus conclusion that coercion is a proper means to solve problems involving economic externalities.
One of the most blatant examples of this non sequitur occurs in discussions of the 'free rider problem' and the alleged solution of government provision of so-called 'public goods'. This is a particularly insidious economic theory that bears a great deal of the responsibility of derailing economics into the ditch of statism." ~ Ben O'Neill
A system that works for many more people, rather than a handful of elites, would appear to be a system that truly echoes what the people actually want, rather than what they are forced to.
On the matter of carrying capacity, I have a minor quibble with some of the ideas presented here. Let me start by outlining my understanding of what is being said about carrying capacity.Ron Patterson says: 11/30/2017 at 7:59 am"So for many millions of years, the terrestrial vertebrate biomass remained at about two hundred million tons, give or take"
So that lays a base line for carrying capacity but, unnatural selection, the selection of higher output varieties of crops or genetic engineering of crops would have raised the carrying capacity and I suggest, that increased carrying capacity would be sustainable indefinitely. The use of fertilizer, primarily organic types, if done in a sustainable way and by that I mean, returning animal and human waste streams to the soil, would also result in a more or less permanent increase in carrying capacity. So far, I've outlined two methods that humans could have used to positively influence carrying capacity more or less permanently.
The big change in carrying capacity comes with the FF age and the industrial revolution, first with the advent of mechanization and then with the Haber-Bosch process. A quick Internet search to refresh my memory of what the Haber-Bosch process entails, reveals that it is the chemical synthesis of ammonia (NH3) from nitrogen and hydrogen. Herein lies the basis for the connection between the petroleum industry and fertilizer industries and by extension carrying capacity. However, if we have enough excess energy we can easily get nitrogen from the atmosphere and hydrogen from water though I'm not sure how well that would work at a industrial scale at a global level.
So between the manufacture of fertilizers and the use of diesel powered machinery in farming, we have seen a huge increase in the ability to produce food. Ostensibly this ability can only last as long as the NG used to obtain hydrogen at an industrial scale and the petroleum to fuel the farm machines. However, the University of Minnesota has a Wind to Nitrogen Fertilizer project that aims to use excess wind power to manufacture ammonia so, it may well be that, if sufficient amounts of renewable energy can be harnessed, the manufacture of nitrogen fertilizers could be extended way beyond the end of the petroleum age.
That is the basis for my minor quibble. Obviously, fossil hydrocarbons have allowed us to increase the carrying capacity of the planet in a way that can only last as long as the finite hydrocarbon reserves do. Might it not be the case that, a transition to renewable energy on a massive scale would allow a more or less sustainable increase in the carrying capacity of the planet above and beyond the 200 million tons of terrestrial vertebrate biomass that existed 10,000 years ago? I would argue that, from the standpoint of energy, renewable energy has the potential to yield a far more sustainable increase in carrying capacity than fossil energy has. What the level of that carrying capacity is would require a fair amount of academic research.
I fully concede that there are all sorts of other resource limits that will negatively affect carrying capacity. Maybe I'm just bargaining.
Islandboy, there is no doubt that the carrying capacity of human beings can be increased somewhat by the use of organic fertilizers. But it is chemical fertilizers that have very dramatically and very temporally increased our carrying capacity.HuntingtonBeach says: 12/01/2017 at 2:58 amOf course when the carrying capacity of humans is increased the carrying capacity of wild species, especially megafauna is decreased.
That is one thing that just drives me up the wall. Everyone is concerned about the welfare of human beings. No one seems to give a rats ass about the welfare of all other species.
Hi Ron, I hope your doing well. Thank you for a great post. It sure explains why Costco was so F'n busy last weekend.James says: 11/30/2017 at 8:47 am"No one seems to give a rats ass about the welfare of all other species"
That's just not all true. I'm pretty sure GoneFishing cares about his dog a lot more than myself.
"the selection of higher output varieties of crops or genetic engineering of crops would have raised the carrying capacity and I suggest, that increased carrying capacity would be sustainable indefinitely"
I think you could include the knowledge of harvesting water and controlled irrigation also increasing sustainable capacity
Humans evolved to become the equivalent of RNA in cells. We use tools and information, primarily in technological cells and use them with ATP equivalent fossil fuels to do work. Like organisms or cells in the ecosystem, human organizations seek to grow, profit and take market share to further their existence.Dennis Coyne says: 11/30/2017 at 10:06 amThe human brain is primarily a reward seeking organ as is most neural tissue in the ecosystem. Since humans are dissipative structures, not seeking rewards is the greatest threat they face. Most other threats, short of being chased by a pack of wild dogs, can be watered down and ignored since the brain must concentrate on getting resources and energy. Even though a human can think about things, it does not substitute for being greedy and gathering as much wealth as possible and reproducing prolifically. We're selected for doing that.
The natural greed which evolved because of natural scarcity in the ecosystem, did not wane as we evolved into a technological setting. There is no limit on our desires to be "rich" because we perceive associated advantages in survival and reproduction. Civilization is an explosive cancer that emerged from the ecosystem to consume and destroy the ecological body. Humans are the RNA that can't stop reproducing and stimulate the growth of new cells and distribution systems until the entire consumable earth is covered and the ecosystem dies or at least becomes much less complex.
Hi James,James says: 11/30/2017 at 11:29 amIn many wealthy nations total fertility has fallen below the replacement level, in fact for about half the World's population TFR is below replacement (dividing things up by nation state). Generally it is higher income nations where this is the case and correlation between education level and total fertility is very strong.
These facts and the trend in Global education levels for women don't square very well with your theory.
As Ron has suggested, homo sapiens sapiens is not your average species.
Even the education occurs in schools, the cellular equivalent of the nucleolus. Instead of pursuing the rewards of children, women are pursuing "wealth" created by the technological system. I'm not sure which one is most damaging.Fred Magyar says: 11/30/2017 at 10:30 amThe natural greed which evolved because of natural scarcity in the ecosystem, did not wane as we evolved into a technological setting. There is no limit on our desires to be "rich" because we perceive associated advantages in survival and reproduction.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:49 amAnd out of which orifice did you pull all that BS out of?! Let me guess, you are of the Neo-Liberal Economist school of though, right? Try cracking a few tomes on human evolution and anthropology instead of failed 20th century memes about the nature of man and rationality of markets.
Speaking of the rationality of markets:James says: 11/30/2017 at 11:34 amWhitefish is halting Puerto Rico power repairs, claiming it's owed $83 million
http://www.cnn.com/2017/11/20/us/puerto-rico-power-whitefish-halts-work/index.html
You don't see any greed? None in the ecosystem? Why is everyone trying to accumulate more wealth? Why do all organisms struggle to eat and reproduce to the maximum? Look in the cell, it's all happened before, but mostly with sunshine at the base.Cats@Home says: 11/30/2017 at 1:25 pmWhy do we worship the likes of Warren Buffett?
Cooperation exists, but only to enhance competition against a similarly cooperating group.
Warren Buffett seems like a good man but Jeff Bezos is the businessman I admire most right now.Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 11:07 pmThe Creepy Religion That Explains All Of Trump's Actions.Hightrekker says: 12/01/2017 at 3:22 pm
"The Prosperity Gospel is quintessentially American. One journalist described it as the "religion of winning," so we have to assume Charlie Sheen is onboard too."
http://www.cracked.com/blog/trumps-bizarre-religion-weirder-than-scientology/Blowing Up the TerritorySurvivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:40 pm
Trump's biggest break came from the Democratic party. Booking Hillary Clinton as the good guy in this match was a colossal error, especially when the most improbable thing in all of politics was waiting in the wings: a legit babyface.Bernie Sanders came off like Paddington Bear next to Hillary Clinton. Bernie was a nice old Jewish man from Vermont who legitimately meant well, and he got a real pop from his fans. He drew like crazy. Hell, even I sent him money, the first time I have ever contributed to a political campaign -- every time he got on TV and started shooting about marijuana smokers going to jail while Wall Street hoodlums were walking, I Paypaled him five bucks. I had waited my whole life to hear a politician cut a promo like that -- I think he eventually ended up with a Jackson from me, straight from my personal pot budget.
As a face, Clinton just had too much baggage, a lot of it achingly familiar: A partner known for predatory sexual behavior, wicked family ties to big business, an entitled daughter, a family charity fund loaded with foreign money, lies, flip flops. . . . What was good for the goose might have been tolerable for the gander, but all she really got was a cheap pop, and if she had any moral high ground at all, she lost it when former Democratic operative Donna Brazile, while working for CNN, leaked potential questions to the Clinton campaign before a debate with Sanders. That was cheating, behavior clearly unbecoming to a babyface. But more important was that she failed to deliver on the only thing that matters: she didn't draw. For a while it looked like there might be a "Dusty finish," a gimmick ending (named for Dusty Rhodes, the legendary wrestler and booker who invented it) in which one wrestler is declared the winner, only to have the decision reversed on a technicality -- for instance, interference from Russian hackers. This was a finish guaranteed to drive crowds insane, but Hillary couldn't put it over.
So who's the best worker? If we are using the Hulk Hogan index, it is indisputably Donald Trump. He won the election. He's the president.
But when it all comes tumbling down, be ready for a fresh wave of Trump-brand kayfabe -- transparently flawed in both conception and execution, except that he actually believes it. He'll ride off in his helicopter claiming that Washington was too dirty to clean up, that he tried but he couldn't drain the swamp, that they wouldn't accept the One Honest Man. He'll blame obstructionist Democrats for staging a witch hunt, and the Republicans for not having the guts to back him. In wrestling parlance this is called "blowing up the territory."
Pundits will argue: How much of it was real, how much reality show? How much was a put-on, how much of it was a guy legit skating at the edges of madness and dementia? Was it a work, a shoot, or a worked shoot? The only thing we can be sure of is that the secular writers will get it wrong. And, existentially, at least, Trump will still wear spandex when he mows the lawn. He can't help himself, that's just the kind of jerk he is.
Organisms evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power. With greater power, there is greater opportunity to allocate energy to reproduction and survival, and therefore, an organism that captures and utilizes more energy than another organism in a population will have a fitness advantage.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:50 pm
Individual organisms cooperate to form social groups and generate more power. Differential power generation and accumulation result in a hierarchical group structure.
"Politics" is power used by social organisms to control others. Not only are human groups never alone, they cannot control their neighbors' behavior. Each group must confront the real possibility that its neighbors will grow its numbers and attempt to take resources from them. Therefore, the best political tactic for groups to survive in such a milieu is not to live in ecological balance with slow growth, but to grow rapidly and be able to fend off and take resources from others[5].
The inevitable "overshoot" eventually leads to decreasing power attainable for the group with lower-ranking members suffering first. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain it. Meanwhile, social conflict will intensify as available power continues to fall.
Eventually, members of the weakest group (high or low rank) are forced to "disperse."[6] Those members of the weak group who do not disperse are killed,[7] enslaved, or in modern times imprisoned. By most estimates, 10 to 20 percent of all the people who lived in Stone-Age societies died at the hands of other humans.[8] The process of overshoot, followed by forced dispersal, may be seen as a sort of repetitive pumping action -- a collective behavioral loop -- that drove humans into every inhabitable niche of our planet.
Here is a synopsis of the behavioral loop described above:
Step 1. Individuals and groups evolved a bias to maximize fitness by maximizing power, which requires over-reproduction and/or over-consumption of natural resources (overshoot), whenever systemic constraints allow it. Differential power generation and accumulation result in a hierarchical group structure.
Step 2. Energy is always limited, and overshoot eventually leads to decreasing power available to some members of the group, with lower-ranking members suffering first.
Step 3. Diminishing power availability creates divisive subgroups within the original group. Low-rank members will form subgroups and coalitions to demand a greater share of power from higher-ranking individuals, who will resist by forming their own coalitions to maintain power.
Step 4. Violent social strife eventually occurs among subgroups who demand a greater share of the remaining power.
Step 5. The weakest subgroups (high or low rank) are either forced to disperse to a new territory, are killed, enslaved, or imprisoned.
Step 6. Go back to step 1.
The above loop was repeated countless thousands of times during the millions of years that we were evolving[9]. This behavior is inherent in the architecture of our minds -- is entrained in our biological material -- and will be repeated until we go extinct. Carrying capacity will decline[10] with each future iteration of the overshoot loop, and this will cause human numbers to decline until they reach levels not seen since the Pleistocene.
http://www.dieoff.orgwill cause human numbers to decline until they reach levels not seen since the Pleistocene.Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:38 amSuch a optimist!
Megacancer?Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:28 am"There's no indication that we're going to do anything philosophically different," said Jim Blackburn, an environmental law professor at Rice University. "With a few modifications, it's business as usual."Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 10:37 amAs Houston rebuilds from the most expensive hurricane in U.S. history, local officials plan to dredge waterways, build new reservoirs and a coastal barrier to protect against storms that experts say are growing in intensity due to a warming climate. They have asked Washington for $61 billion to pay for it all.
"Half the inhabitants of Melbourne have probably never seen something like this," Mr Williams said.George Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 11:40 am"This is a vast, intense, high impact event for this state."
Apart from our own actions there may be random events that can take us out. There's a report in the Times today of research into super-eruptions. The Toba explosion, 75,000 years ago, almost took out Homo sapiens. The latest research indicates such events (maybe not quite as bad) happen on average every 17,000 years instead of every few hundred thousand as previously thought, and we are currently in an unusually long hiatus from these.Doug Leighton says: 11/30/2017 at 12:57 pmThe biggest explosion since "civilization" started was probably Krakatoa in the 6th century, which has been proposed as the beggining of the dark ages in Europe and the end of a couple of other civilizations, though there's a bit of controversy about that theory, but it was much milder than an explosion from one of the major calderas would be.
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/why-volcanic-doom-is-closer-than-we-think-90c8d56gr
(paywall but there might be some free articles per month available and the research is to be published in Earth and Planetary Science Letters)
Sorry probably the wrong thread.
Continuing from above (this mirrors my own experience in Central Africa where families currently seem to be averaging about four kids each):GoneFishing says: 11/30/2017 at 5:08 pmPOPULATION GROWTH IN AFRICA: GRASPING THE SCALE OF THE CHALLENGE
"In the past year (2016) the population of the African continent grew by 30 million. By the year 2050, annual increases will exceed 42 million people per year and total population will have doubled to 2.4 billion, according to the UN. This comes to 3.5 million more people per month, or 80 additional people per minute since the early 1990s, family planning programmes in Africa have not had the same attention (as Asia and Latin America), RESULTING IN SLOW, SOMETIMES NEGLIGIBLE, FERTILITY DECLINES. IN A HANDFUL OF COUNTRIES, PREVIOUS DECLINES HAVE STALLED ALTOGETHER AND ARE REVERSING."
Also,
WHY HAVE FOUR CHILDREN WHEN YOU COULD HAVE SEVEN? FAMILY PLANNING IN NIGER
" but Hamani is unusual in that three babies are enough for her. Despite having the highest fertility rate in the world, women and men alike in Niger say they want more children than they actually have women want an average of nine, while men say they want 11."
Sounds like an explosion that will lead to implosion and migration. Families used to be fairly large in the European and American regions not long ago. Some still are.Doug Leighton says: 11/30/2017 at 6:02 pm
There are 27.7 million people in Uganda. But by 2025 the population will almost double to 56 million, close to that of Britain, which has a similar land mass. In 44 years its population will have grown by nearly as much as China's.
"You look at these numbers and think 'that's impossible'," said Carl Haub, senior demographer at the US-based Population Reference Bureau, whose latest global projections show Uganda as the fastest-growing country in the world. Midway through the 21st century, if current birthrates persist, Uganda will be the world's 12th most populous country with 130 million people more than Russia or Japan.
https://www.theguardian.com/theguardian/2006/sep/01/guardianweekly.guardianweekly1"There are 27.7 million people in Uganda."Survivalist says: 11/30/2017 at 10:36 pmThat sounds about right and from personal observation almost all 27.7 million of them are school kids who (currently) are quite well nourished and with decent health care. A big problem, as I see it, is that virtually all schools in Uganda are run by "Western" churches who seen determined to increase the size of their flock by NOT teaching their students about contraception and the benefits thereof: sound familiar?
"In 2015, the median age of the population in Uganda was 15.8 years."George Kaplan says: 12/01/2017 at 1:48 am
https://www.statista.com/statistics/447643/average-age-of-the-population-in-uganda/Doug like you I have some sponsorship in Africa a general women's group rather than an individual. From their letters what they want is education (both formal for the children and also just tips on farming and running a business), enough money (very little) to start a business so they can feed their children, a way to manage HIV if they are infected (many still are) and peace and quiet. What they don't want is more children, forced marriage through kidnap, the return of their husbands to beat them up, interference from the elders (all men) in their business. Often they only realise these options are even possible after they have had contact with the groups set up by the charity.Doug Leighton says: 12/01/2017 at 9:35 amGeorge My African experiences are mainly restricted to Uganda (the pearl of Africa) where my family visit annually and have done so for almost 20 years; we love the country, the people, the wildlife. Its been a joy watching the girl we assisted progress from kindergarten to medical school; to meet and relate to her extended family who've become our close friends. The country (Uganda) and the people are currently doing well, very well indeed (unless you happen to be gay). Wildlife parks flourish and are well managed. My concerns relate to the future. There are too many kids. In my opinion, without reigning in population growth the country will face immense over-population problems in the future. I hope I'm wrong. Having said that, I agree with your comments -- all of them. And its true, woman's business groups are in many respects the future of Africa.Rob Mielcarski says: 11/30/2017 at 4:00 pmCheers,
For anyone seeking a plausible scientific explanation for why:George Kaplan says: 11/30/2017 at 4:08 pm
one species has a uniquely powerful brain
why the brain of that species is capable of visiting the moon but incapable of understanding or acting on it's own overshoot
why one small group of hominids exploded about 100,000 to take over the planet
why religion emerged simultaneous with the behaviorally modern mind about 100,000 years ago
and more big questions: https://un-denial.com/2017/06/25/why-my-interest-in-denial/I find this theory by Ajit Varki and Danny Brower very satisfying.
That's a smart site you have there. I read that book some time ago, it's interesting but I thought a bit of a just-so story, but that's maybe becasue the ideas woud be so hard to prove one way or the other. It's a pity Brower died before his ideas got out to more discussion.Rob Mielcarski says: 12/01/2017 at 1:13 amYour initial reaction to the theory is perfectly reasonable and common.George Kaplan says: 12/01/2017 at 2:08 amIf you dig deeper and start connecting dots I think you may find it is the best available explanation for many big unanswered questions. The theory may not be correct but there are no known facts that slay it, nor any other equally elegant theories that fit the data better.
Varki acknowledges the difficulty of testing the theory, but does point to some promising avenues of research. Unfortunately Varki's speciality and day job is in a different domain so his theory is likely to sit on the shelf until some young scientist with a defective denial gene picks up the baton.
I did find it neat and convincing as you say, but that's the point of just-so stories, plus it's difficult to know where to go if it is correct, but I'm going to be visiting your site without question.Doug Leighton says: 11/30/2017 at 7:39 pmI suppose this 2014 piece is apropos,Hightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 7:50 pmWILL OVERPOPULATION LEAD TO PUBLIC HEALTH CATASTROPHE?
"Our new projections are probabilistic, and we find that there will probably be between 9.6 and 12.3 billion people in 2100," Prof. Raftery told Medical News Today. "This projection is based on a statistical model that uses all available past data on fertility and mortality from all countries in a systematic way, unlike previous projections that were based on expert assumptions."
"A key finding of the study is that the fertility rate in Africa is declining much more slowly than has been previously estimated, which Prof. Raftery tells us "has major long-term implications for population."
Spain's water crisis deepens as Rio Tajo dries upHightrekker says: 11/30/2017 at 9:30 pm(haven't had a wing pawn global cooling update for a while)
http://www.theportugalnews.com/news/sahara-moving-north/43959
Declining uncertainty in transient climate response as CO2 forcing dominates future climate changeFred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 5:09 amhttps://www.nature.com/articles/ngeo2371
( Nature Geoscience , not Watt Is My Head Doing Up My Ass?
No discussion about human evolution or even biological evolution across all species can be considered complete without at least a basic understanding of the biochemical and molecular biological basis of CRIPR-Cas9 gene editing technology and gene drives.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 8:56 amSam Harris' latest podcast has a discussion of this technology with Jennifer Doudna.
https://www.samharris.org/podcast
In this episode of the Waking Up podcast, Sam Harris speaks with Jennifer Doudna about the gene-editing technology CRISPR/Cas9. They talk about the biology of gene editing, how specific tissues in the body can be targeted, the ethical implications of changing the human genome, the importance of curiosity-driven science, and other topics.
E.O. WilsonOFM says: 12/01/2017 at 10:49 am
I have always been a great admirer of E.O Wilson. I have followed his work for years. I especially liked "Sociobiology" and "Consilience". I have followed his feud with Stephen J. Gould, Steven Rose, R.C. Lewontin, and Leon Kamin, (as reported by Steven Pinker and Richard Dawkins). (I always came down on the side of Wilson et al.) And I am very proud to say he is a fellow Alabamian.That being said, there are areas where I must disagree with him. For instance:
From Kirkus Reviews of "Half Earth":
In this final volume of his trilogy, Wilson (The Meaning of Human Existence, 2014, etc.) opens with a compelling proposal on how to slow current species extinction rates: set aside half of the planet (noncontiguously) as wilderness preserves free from human encroachment, a measure that the author claims would stabilize more than 80 percent of species.Fred Magyar, above, quotes from Edward O. Wilson's New Take on Human Nature:
Wilson argues the nest is central to understanding the ecological dominance not only of ants, but of human beings, too ..By being super-cooperators, groupies of the group, willing to set aside our small, selfish desires and I-minded drive to join forces and seize opportunity as a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe ..
To qualify as eusocial, in Wilson's definition, animals must live in multigenerational communities, practice division of labor and behave altruistically, ready to sacrifice "at least some of their personal interests to that of the group." It's tough to be a eusocialist.
First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous. Which parts of the U.S. would we set aside, parts that make half the land area? Could we convince every African nation to do the same? Or Russia? Or China, South Korea or Japan?
Second, as much as I admire Wilson, I think he is just flat wrong on his new take on human nature. And I think Pinker and Dawkins would agree with that opinion. If you had read Pinker's " The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature ," and I have, you would know exactly what I mean. Our minds are not blank slates to be molded by society, to be made to behave like ants in a colony, like a self-sacrificing, hive-minded tribe. All those traits that Wilson says we must give up are in our genes, human nature.
I will not deny that humans can be ruled. An Iron Fist could compel us to behave in such a matter. But all such Iron Fists carry within itself the seeds of its own destruction. Absolute power corrupts absolutely. It's just human nature.
Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 11:09 amAfter reading your eight fifty six am, I'm telling ya straight .. Between your ears, where you live intellectually, you are a TRUE conservative.
The people who we refer to today as conservatives, meaning those who inhabit the right wing politically, are not REAL conservatives, not according to my definition.
Don't forget that I am a follower of the Humpty Dumpty School of Linguistics. Words mean exactly what I intend them to mean, when I use them, rotfl.
To my way of thinking, the first and single most important qualification of a TRUE conservative is that he must have a sound grasp of human nature. You have it. You understand that we cooperate with friends, family, known community, and compete with outsiders .. and that when circumstances compel us to do so, we make friends or at least ally ourselves with former enemies or strangers, and work together .. but mostly only when we have little or no choice but to do so.
I'm just teasing you a little, not making fun of you.
Decent people, left or right wing, want the same things, when you get down to the basics. Peace, dignified life, freedom from unnecessary worries, etc.
I haven't yet read Wilson's latest books. Hoping to get around to it, this winter.
We need to keep it in mind that just because somebody presents a grand plan in a book, and writes as if it might be possible to implement it, he does not necessarily believe there's a snowball's chance on a red hot stove that his plan will ever actually be implemented.
Such books are sometimes intended as sources of inspiration for a new generation of people following along in his footsteps .. and such a plan MIGHT be implemented . a few centuries down the road, lol. Stranger things have happened, historically.
Such a book can be the result of an old man's dreams being put in libraries so as to achieve a sort of immortality . Wilson had that already of course.
I reckon you're even older than I am, and here's wishing you the best at the personal level.
To my way of thinking, the first and single most important qualification of a TRUE conservative is that he must have a sound grasp of human nature. You have it. You understand that we cooperate with friends, family, known community, and compete with outsiders .. and that when circumstances compel us to do so, we make friends or at least ally ourselves with former enemies or strangers, and work together .. but mostly only when we have little or no choice but to do so.OFM says: 12/01/2017 at 11:01 pmSorry Mac, but I just don't get the connection. The definition you pen here could just as well be the definition of a True Liberal.
I am a conservative when it comes to conserving the environment, saving animal habitat and saving species from extinction. But those are qualities held by most liberals and not held by so-called conservatives. Right-wing Republicans call themselves conservatives.
So I just have to accept the lexicon as it exist today. I am a liberal, not a conservative.
"Sorry Mac, but I just don't get the connection. The definition you pen here could just as well be the definition of a True Liberal."Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 11:12 pmYou DO GET IT, Ron, except you haven't yet quite got around to thinking of labels as jokes or weapons . Labels are for partisans. Labels are clubs we use to pound each other into submission.
People with real working brains generally come to the same basic conclusions, regardless of the way they're labeled by themselves or others. There's usually more than one route by which we can travel and arrive at the truth.
You're a man willing to tell it like it is, as for instance when you have pointed out the realities of the way things work in some countries where you worked yourself. A partisan D just won't repeat that sort of stuff, true or not.
When you say you're a liberal, you're just labeling yourself. What you ARE is something else. You're a man with a working brain, a man who understands reality, a man who tells it like it is, as you perceive it to be.
You're a man with a working brain, a man who understands reality, a man who tells it like it is, as you perceive it to be.OFM says: 12/02/2017 at 2:40 pmYou are a goddamn right man, and that means I am a liberal.
Ah yes, but liberal is still just a label.OFM says: 12/03/2017 at 5:49 pmIt is however true that the so called liberals are more often right by a substantial margin than the so called conservatives in terms of having objective facts on their side when considering issues such as the environment, public health, and many others.
But they're not always right. Sometimes the liberal camp seems to have it's head as far up its backside as the conservative camp.
The leaders of both camps seem to be more interested in having plenty of foot soldiers to serve as cannon fodder than they are in the actual welfare of the country.
I can provide as good arguments for any sort of truly sound public policy from a conservative pov as you can from a liberal pov.
To me this proves we both have working brains, and are capable of looking the truth in the eye, and publicly agreeing on what IS true, and what is not.
If we could free ourselves of goddamned infernal partisan politics and identity politics , based on our community cultures, we could make things happen politically.
If for instance we could put the question of subsidizing wind and solar power to a referendum, I could easily convince most of the so called conservatives I know that voting in favor of subsidies would be a GREAT BARGAIN for them, long term. Well, the ones with brains enough that they know a little about the business world anyway. That's at least half of them, and more than enough.
They won't ordinarily support subsidizing renewable energy as part of a package deal because they perceive the PACKAGE to be weighted in favor of their political and cultural enemies. Supporting renewable energy subsidies would mean voting for D's and they don't like the overall D agenda.
Back to you one more time Ron,Hightrekker says: 12/01/2017 at 11:04 amI'm not sure WHERE this comment will appear, but hopefully it will be below my two forty pm.
Allow me to approach this liberal/ conservative label thing from a different direction.
Suppose you meet a new person, and get to talking about oh let us say water pollution, and fishing, and having to spend your local tax money on a sophisticated water treatment plant, because there's too much of this or that and the other as well in the river that passes your town to drink the water, without spending a lot of money. .
If you NEVER MENTION anything that LABELS you as a liberal or conservative, you can talk meaningfully to just about anybody about this issue.
Identify yourself as a liberal, or a conservative, you more or less automatically blow your opportunity to say anything to your new POTENTIAL friend who thinks of himself as your opposite and enemy, politically, other than something he already knows and believes, even if what that something is factually incorrect.
Label yourself as a liberal, and the typical serious Christian voter in the state of Alabama automatically thinks of you as a murderer of yet to be born children. Forget labeling yourself, avoid it to the extent you can, and you have an EXCELLENT shot at talking to that voter about supporting only candidates who have a decent record of being respectful to women, immigrants, minorities, etc.
If I label myself as a conservative, I've automatically blown my chance to have a serious conversation with a liberal about the possibility of having some real choice in education . meaning breaking the teacher's unions and government's de facto monopoly control of our educational system.
You may not like this idea, but think about this how much better are your options NOW, given that we have email, fax, UPS, Fed Ex , etc, when it comes to getting a letter or package where it needs to go FOR SURE and RIGHT AWAY?
I have heard lots of liberals say that allowing any real choice in the schools would mean the end of any real opportunity for poor kids, inner city kids, etc, to get a decent education. Sometimes, in the same breath almost, I hear those same liberals admit that the public schools in lots of communities large and small are literal disaster areas, where hardly any of the kids learn anything. I used to know quite a few of this sort , back in my younger days, when I was living in the Fan and hanging out with the older ( grad students mostly ) kids at VCU having a good time, taking a course or two per semester to keep my grad student ID up to date. I spent about ten years there off and on.
Ya know WHAT? EVERY LAST COUPLE I knew among them moved out of town when their OWN kids got old enough to go to school.
Quite a few of them spent their careers as teachers, lol. And my guess is that not more than one out of ten of those couples ever moved to a place where the schools were the sort of hell holes we read about so often these days .. and that tenth couple of course had NO KIDS, lol.
Yet they almost universally believe in the de facto teacher / government educational monopoly as it exists today, as it totally ruins the prospects of millions of kids denying them, or more accurately, their parents, any real choice in the schools their kids attend. If liberal versus conservative comes into the conversation, it's OVER. The liberals aren't going to listen, any more than conservatives listen.
How many members of this forum think Roy Moore ought to be tarred and feathered ? How many have ever had the intellectual integrity to say the same thing about Bill Clinton?
Liberals are liberals, and conservatives are conservatives, and the gulf between can be as vast as the gulf between East and West. Communication is tough to impossible.
But if we avoid the labels . communication can happen.
Incidentally this rant does NOT mean I am a supporter of the Trump administration in general, or the Trump education department in particular. Nothing I know of concerning the Trump administration seems to be about the good of the COUNTRY or of the majority of the people of this country.
First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous.Fred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 11:19 amEven stopping the rape and scrape accelerating is highly unlikely.
This is total fantasy.
At best, the survivors (if any) on the other side of the wall we are about to crash into, will have enough wisdom and intelligence to embrace the condition they are in.First, the idea that we would or could set aside half the earth for wildlife is preposterous.GoneFishing says: 12/01/2017 at 12:01 pmThat isn't what he proposes even though it is the title of his book. May I suggest you read it! What he is really arguing for is more along the lines of a network of ecological corridors that might connect already existing nature preserves, parks and private property and therefore allow isolated pockets of natural ecosystems to be connected with others.
To be very clear, E.O. Wilson is not in any way naive about our predicament and says so.
That's not to say he has thrown in the towel, especially given that he is now in the later portion of his 80's. He apparently doesn't want to go down without a fight.I have read his book twice already and have the Kindle version on my laptop. To be honest I'm not what anyone might call overly optimistic about the prospects of his proposals coming to pass. Having said that, I do admire his deep knowledge base about the natural world and have the greatest admiration for the man! More power to him for trying!
Cheers!
Fred, I read Half Earth and have to agree with E.O. Wilson. I think my personal bias is toward nature, but that aside, humans can do what is needed. All the gadgetry in the world cannot replace a functioning ecosystem. Those functions are mandatory for the preservation of life on earth. We need to preserve, expand and enhance (if we get smart enough) natural ecosystems around the world.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 12:24 pm
Why not build armies? Armies called the United Conservation and Environmental Protection Corp, whose job is to protect and expand natural areas around the world. It would increase employment and be funded by monies that otherwise go to military purposes. This and other organizations could be doing things that make the people proud to be human, rather than just wheels and cogs in basically destructive system.This is not naοve, this is just choices. Humans make choices, that is one of our inherent abilities. Our current state and appearance is due to a set of previous choices that have not quite worked out. We get stuck in old choices, time to make new ones.
I think my personal bias is toward nature, but that aside, humans can do what is needed.Doug Leighton says: 12/01/2017 at 12:38 pmReally now? If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. Species are going extinct at a rate as fast as the last great extinction 65 million years ago. And the extinction rate is accelerating. If humans can do what is needed it is goddamn time they got started.
Our current state and appearance is due to a set of previous choices that have not quite worked out. We get stuck in old choices, time to make new ones.
Those choices were made, and are being made, by 7 billion people. And yes, it is time those 7 billion people changed the way they are behaving, it is time they made different choices. But don't hold your breath.
I am sorry Fishing, but I just don't share your optimism.
Yup, reminds me of China, driving to a restaurant half way across Beijing with a car full of Chinese because they knew about a hot spot where some endangered species or other was on the menu: get it before you're too late. Life in the real world!GoneFishing says: 12/01/2017 at 2:06 pm"Although extinction is a natural phenomenon, it occurs at a natural "background" rate of about one to five species per year. Scientists estimate we're now losing species at 1,000 to 10,000 times the background rate, with literally dozens going extinct every day. It could be a scary future indeed, with as many as 30 to 50 percent of all species possibly heading toward extinction by mid-century."
http://www.biologicaldiversity.org/programs/biodiversity/elements_of_biodiversity/extinction_crisis/
"If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. "Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 3:21 pm
"I am sorry Fishing, but I just don't share your optimism."By destroying the environment we destroy ourselves. I think that will soon become quite apparent and then those who are already on track can leverage that.
As Charlie Brown would say: Good Grief!Fred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 8:44 pmReally now? If humans can do what is needed then why the hell are they not doing it. Species are going extinct at a rate as fast as the last great extinction 65 million years ago. And the extinction rate is accelerating. If humans can do what is needed it is goddamn time they got started.Ron Patterson says: 12/01/2017 at 11:06 pmOk, let's assume for a moment using round numbers that there are currently 7.5 billion humans living on this tiny planet as I type these words. How many of those humans do you suppose are actually aware of the fact that we are probably in the midst of the sixth mass extinction? I'm going to go way out on a limb here and guess about a couple hundred thousand.
Now most of those couple hundred thousand are in shock and denial of reality. So there are maybe 100,000 humans who are aware and are actually starting to do something.
While that may sound like a minuscule amount I can cite data and research that shows that may be enough to really start to change the current paradigm in a big way.
As I quoted Charlie Brown above: Good Grief!Fred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 7:15 amLOL!Hightrekker says: 12/01/2017 at 12:22 pm
.
Yea, the feud between Gould/Lewontin/Rose VS Wilson/Dawkins/Dennett has been interesting.Fred Magyar says: 12/01/2017 at 8:59 pm
Being somewhat Marxist in my orientation, I was kinda presupposed to the Gould camp, but the Wilson/Dawkins have proven to ring much truer.
The Blank Slate puts the nails in the coffin for Marxist view of human nature, as Marx viewed it as totally a function of environment. Pinker buried that view.
Orr was always Gould and Lewontin's go to guy with media, as he had power in the NYT's and Boston Globe, and could often control reviews and and coverage.
It has been interesting.http://www.planetary.org/explore/space-topics/earth/pale-blue-dot.htmlGoneFishing says: 12/01/2017 at 10:03 pmI'm sure most here are familiar with what Carl Sagan said about our Pale Blue Dot
This excerpt from Sagan's book Pale Blue Dot was inspired by an image taken, at Sagan's suggestion, by Voyager 1 on February 14, 1990. As the spacecraft left our planetary neighborhood for the fringes of the solar system, engineers turned it around for one last look at its home planet. Voyager 1 was about 6.4 billion kilometers (4 billion miles) away, and approximately 32 degrees above the ecliptic plane, when it captured this portrait of our world. Caught in the center of scattered light rays (a result of taking the picture so close to the Sun), Earth appears as a tiny point of light, a crescent only 0.12 pixel in size.
Now guess what?!
At present, the Voyager 1 spacecraft is 21 billion kilometers from Earth, or about 141 times the distance between the Earth and Sun. It has, in fact, moved beyond our Solar System into interstellar space. However, we can still communicate with Voyager across that distance.
This week, the scientists and engineers on the Voyager team did something very special. They commanded the spacecraft to fire a set of four trajectory thrusters for the first time in 37 years to determine their ability to orient the spacecraft using 10-millisecond pulses.
FURTHER READING
The Voyagers have reached an anniversary worth celebrating
After sending the commands on Tuesday, it took 19 hours and 35 minutes for the signal to reach Voyager. Then, the Earth-bound spacecraft team had to wait another 19 hours and 35 minutes to see if the spacecraft responded. It did. After nearly four decades of dormancy, the Aerojet Rocketdyne manufactured thrusters fired perfectly."The Voyager team got more excited each time with each milestone in the thruster test. The mood was one of relief, joy, and incredulity after witnessing these well-rested thrusters pick up the baton as if no time had passed at all," said Todd Barber, a propulsion engineer at the Jet Propulsion Laboratory in California.
Humans can do some pretty incredible things!
Cheers!
Yes, they can even teach their young to love the life of the planet and help keep it safe.HuntingtonBeach says: 12/01/2017 at 10:59 pmNot if your born in the South and damaged by religionFred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 7:14 amWell, E.O. Wilson was born in Alabama into an evangelical family.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 11:14 amSo was I. Well, sort of. My dad was a Deacon in the Primitive Baptist Church but he was not a crusading evangelical.HuntingtonBeach says: 12/02/2017 at 6:01 pmI have told this story before but I will do it again here.
I was about 17 or so when I sidled up to my dad who was sitting in his easy chair. I asked: "Dad, how did them kangaroos get from Australia to over there where Noah's Ark was? And how did they get back?" Dad jumped up from his chair, stuck his finger right in my face and yelled: "Son, that is the word of God and that is not for you to question."
I never questioned my Dad again about religion.
It takes character and courage not act like sheep. My hat goes off to you. Ron, I'm sure you understood exactly what I meant by my earlier comment.Hickory says: 12/02/2017 at 12:15 amWhen countries begin to hit the wall economically ( as happened in Germany in the 1930's for example), the populace will often out of desperation (and ignorance of course) enable a dictator to come to power. This is with the false hope that grandiose promises of prosperity will be fulfilled.George Kaplan says: 12/02/2017 at 2:59 amThis explains why Trump was elected, even though the American has yet to be tested by disruption, much.
As the world hits the wall of growth limits, the risk is for more and more leadership failures, the rise of warlords, the failure of functioning democracies.
Violent choices and dysfunctional government will serve to be a mechanism of population decline, ugly population decline. Current events can be seen through this lens as time unfolds.
Hard to watch.
May be better to have no TV.
The de-evolution will be televised, will be televised, will be televisedThe general population in Germany did not really enable Hitler to come to power. He was appointed as a compomise by the two leading parties in an election who had split the main vote. They both thought he would make such a mess of it that they would sweep the board at the next election. As soon as he was appointed he started killing or imprisoning these smart opposition leaders, and there wasn't another clean election. It was more like an extended coupe, admittedly with a large number of supporters, often ex WW-I soldier thugs, in the general population.OFM says: 12/02/2017 at 2:23 pmGeorge is in the bullseye about how Hitler came to power, considering he was painting fast with a broad brush in such a short comment. I have devoted many a long evening to reading the history of war in the twentieth century, so as to better understand the history of my time.Hickory says: 12/03/2017 at 1:17 amWars are usually the result of politicians either wanting them, or being boxed into situations where they either can't avoid them or consider them the best of an assortment of bad options.
Point taken George. Despite that the general notion that as crunch time develops, there will be a trend towards extremist and totalitarian regimes throughout the world. Along with pockets of failed states, anarchy and warlords. 'Have nots' will take big risks.GoneFishing says: 12/02/2017 at 8:25 amNo devolution involved. Just human nature.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 9:43 am
The loose knit groups with similar hates, anger and dislikes were temporarily brought together. It was an inverse election that utilized the negative and more volatile side of human nature. it only hangs together with constant stirring and occasional negative results (pound the enemy). Finger pointing and passing the buck is not enough, the groups start fracturing.Lose the Tee Vee -- -HuntingtonBeach says: 12/02/2017 at 8:18 pm
The more you watch, the less you know.The difference between the "Tee Vee" and the Internet is exposing your ignorance to the worldRon Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 1:36 pmA question for Dennis Coyne, or any other cornucopian who believes renewable energy will save the world from economic collapse, at least for the next 200 years or so.islandboy says: 12/02/2017 at 2:36 pmDennis, I understand your very optimistic outlook for the welfare of future human populations. I don't agree with it but I understand your argument. But as I understand it, and please correct me if I am wrong, your entire argument deals with the human population of the earth. I don't remember reading your predicted outlook for the rest of the animal kingdom? Perhaps you did make one and I just missed it.
That being said, you have read my outlook many times. And it was all repeated in my post above. Do you agree or disagree? Just where do you see the large wild animal population in the year 2100? Please elaborate.
Edit: Dennis, I know you do not consider yourself a cornucopian, however, I was just comparing your outlook for the future of civilization to mine. And using that comparison?
Nice! I was just thinking about a response to a comment following one of mine further up and this pops up, which dovetails nicely into what I've been thinking. In my comment I mention using wind power to make ammonia as a foundation for chemical nitrogen fertilizer and you (Ron) in you reply stated that, " But it is chemical fertilizers that have very dramatically and very temporally increased our carrying capacity." I don't know if you realized this but, that sort of was my point in that, the manufacture of ammonia and the resulting chemical fertilizer using excess wind (and/or solar) power might well result in a much extended (permanent) increase in carrying capacity by allowing us to continue the manufacture of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate if memory serves me right) in the absence of oil and NG.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 3:18 pmThis can be viewed as a downside to the ongoing exponential increasing capacity of renewable electricity generation. If renewables grow big enough fast enough, there will be incentives to use any excess to do things like manufacture fertilizer allowing mankind's expansion into wild habitats to continue. I think it is important that the existing population of the planet continues to have more or less adequate food supplies in order to avoid the sort of situation that exist in Haiti but, the real problem as I see it, is to get poor people in less developed countries to believe that they would be better off not having as many children. Based on utterances I have heard in my neck of the woods, as recently as last night, many of these people do not see any problem with having lots of kids. There seems to be an attitude abroad that there is a great big world out there, just ready for the taking. No limits. I wonder whatever gives people that idea?
I wanted to post some pictures of garbage, sitting in open storm water channels, just waiting for the next big shower of rain to be washed out of existence. At least that must be what the people who dump this stuff into the drains think. I have to wonder if they ever bother to think about where it's going to end up but, it seems to be a simple case of out of sight, out of mind. I guess some readers will have figured out that if you visit any area of the Jamaican coastline that does not have a regular, structured clean up crew, you will see where the trash ends up. I have seen it and it is depressing.
I don't know if you realized this but, that sort of was my point in that, the manufacture of ammonia and the resulting chemical fertilizer using excess wind (and/or solar) power might well result in a much extended (permanent) increase in carrying capacity by allowing us to continue the manufacture of chemical nitrogen fertilizer (ammonium nitrate if memory serves me right) in the absence of oil and NG.islandboy says: 12/02/2017 at 3:45 pmErrr . I don't know if you realize it but you cannot make nitrogen fertilizer without natural gas . or some other source of hydrogen. Of course, you might get the hydrogen from water via electrolysis but that would be super expensive.
Fertilizer Made with Natural Gas Is Lifting Our World
Referred to by some as the most important technological advance of the 20th century .Between 3 and 5 percent of the world's annual natural gas production roughly 1 to 2 percent of the world's annual energy supply is converted using the process to produce more than 500 million tons of nitrogen fertilizer, which is believed to sustain about 40 percent of the world's 7 billion people. Approximately half of the protein in today's humans originated with nitrogen fixed through the Haber-Bosch process."Of course, you might get the hydrogen from water via electrolysis but that would be super expensive."Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 2:59 pmNot if you are experiencing negative electricity prices as has happened when there's lots of wind and no demand or transmission capacity for the electricity being generated. I think OFM has alluded to this a few times in his ramblings, suggesting that hydrogen production via electrolysis or desalination might be useful ways of avoiding otherwise wasted electricity when the resource is available but, there is limited demand or transmission capacity.
If we ever get to the point where wind and solar generators are ubiquitous and abundant this could be a distinct possibility. In case you missed it in my earlier post here's The University of Minnesota's Wind to Nitrogen Fertilizer project :
We are pursuing a Grand Challenge the challenge to feed the world while sustaining the environment. In the spirit of this grand challenge, a team of researchers across the University are pursuing an elegant concept in which wind energy, water, and air are used to produce nitrogen fertilizer.
WCROC energy from the windEnergy generated from the wind is used to separate hydrogen from water. Nitrogen is pulled from air. The hydrogen and nitrogen are then combined to form nitrogen fertilizer that nourishes the plants surrounding the farmer.
Next to water, nitrogen fertilizer is the most limiting nutrient for food production. Minnesota farmers import over $400 million of nitrogen fertilizer each year and are subjected to volatile price swings. Furthermore, nitrogen fertilizer is currently produced using fossil energy which contributes significantly to the carbon footprint of agricultural commodities.
"Green" ammonia demonstration programme:
Siemens is participating in an all electric ammonia synthesis and energy storage system demonstration programme at Rutherford Appleton Laboratory, near Oxford. The demonstrator, which will run until December 2017, is supported by Innovate UK. Collaborators include the University of Oxford, Cardiff University and the Science & Technology Facilities Council.
Hi Ron,Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 3:53 pmI do not know much about the subject so I should probably not offer an opinion, but because you asked
I agree that humans are the problem and believe that fewer humans (as in reduced population) will improve the situation. Will humans choose to protect some of the mega fauna, until population falls to a more sustainable level? I have no idea.
Is it possible? I would say yes.
High probability? My guess would be no (less than a 66% probability).So I do not have a prediction for the Earth's megafauna in 2100, except to say I doubt your prediction that we will be reduced to rats and mice, etc. is correct. This is no doubt because I believe there will be a gradual transition to a more sustainable society. I believe some of the mega fauna might be preserved until human population falls to 1 billion or so (by 2150 to 2200). Most likely in North America, Scandanavia, and Siberia, and perhaps in the Himalaya and parts of South America. The rapid expansion of population in Africa makes it less likely the megafauna will survive there.
I am using the 40 kg cutoff for megafauna, though there are many definitions.
Note that some would consider cornucopian an insult.
Certainly I do not think fossil fuels are as abundant as those who believe scenarios such as the RCP8.5 scenario (with about 5000 Pg of carbon emissions) are plausible.
I also do not believe resources are unlimited or infinitely substitutable, which tends to be the cornucopian viewpoint. There is great need to utilize resources more efficiently and to recycle as much as possible (cradle to grave manufacturing should be required by law).
Now if you define cornucopian as someone who is less pessimistic than you, then I am by that definition a cornucopian.
I am certainly more optimistic than you, but if we all agreed there would be little to discuss.
Clearly the future is unclear.
The outlook for the wild megafauna is tragic and we should do what we can to preserve species diversity. Getting human population to peak and decline would improve the situation of other species, but I share your pessimism that this will be enough, I am just less pessimistic than you.
I believe some of the mega fauna might be preserved until human population falls to 1 billion or so (by 2150 to 2200).GoneFishing says: 12/02/2017 at 4:19 pmOkay, let's do the math. It looks like the world will reach 9 billion people by 2050. Then if it were to fall to 1 billion by 2150, that would be a decline of 80,000,000 per year or 219,178 per day. That is deaths above births. That would be a catastrophic collapse by any stretch of the imagination. And of course, most of those deaths would be by starvation. And for sure, as I said before, we would eat the songbirds out of the trees.
Hell, if that scenario takes place, there will likely be no rats left. No, no, no, Dennis, please forgive me. You are definitely not a cornucopian. Oh God, how could I have been so wrong?
The most rapid population decreases have been from disease. A few bouts of virulent diseases in a world with little medical help and control could dramatically reduce population.Dennis Coyne says: 12/02/2017 at 5:14 pmPopulation Collapse in Mexico (Down to about 5% in a century)
Hi Ron,Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:27 pmSee chart below. If total fertility ratio (TFR) falls to 1.5 by 2050 then population can fall from 9 billion to 4.5 billion by 2125 and to 2.25 billion by 2200 and to 1 billion by 2300, a fall in TFR to 1.25 (South Korea is about 1.26) would result in more rapid population decline. It is not clear how low TFR can go for the World, it was cut in half in 40 years, whether that can continue so that 1.27 is reached in 2055 is unknown. This scenario assumes life expectancy rises to no higher than 90 for the World.
Deaths would be natural rather than from starvation, this is just a matter of people choosing to have fewer children as is the case today in many East Asian countries such as South Korea and Japan and in many European nations as well.
Education for women and access to birth control and electrification (watch tv, instead of other forms of entertainment leading to increased family size), and empowerment of women in general will reduce population growth. Higher income also helps.
Chart from paper linked below
http://pure.iiasa.ac.at/10438/1/28-39.pdf
Keeping things in perspective, why not go with the experts until they're proven wrong?Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:36 pmWORLD POPULATION LIKELY TO SURPASS 11 BILLION IN 2100
"American Statistical Association. "World population likely to surpass 11 billion in 2100: US population projected to grow by 40 percent over next 85 years."
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2015/08/150810110634.htm
THERE'S A STRONG CHANCE THAT ONE-THIRD OF ALL PEOPLE WILL BE AFRICAN BY 2100Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 7:52 pmThe combination of declining mortality and relatively high fertility is the driver of rapid population growth in Africa. Even if fertility would continue to decline, as assumed by the UN medium scenario, it will not bring down the growth rate in the near future, let alone halt population growth. This is because of "demographic inertia". And this is because Africa has a high proportion of young adults of reproductive age. Even if each one had very few children, the number of births would remain high.
We are all African it's just some of us have been gone for a while.Synapsid says: 12/03/2017 at 12:24 pm
(well if you are east of the Wallace Line, you are part Denisovan, and west, part Neanderthal and a species we haven't discovered yet)Hightrekker,Doug Leighton says: 12/03/2017 at 12:47 pmThe Neanderthals and Denisovans are of African descent too, so African we are.
It's turtles all the way down.
"It's turtles all the way down." LOL Exactly!GoneFishing says: 12/02/2017 at 9:22 pmHere is how the year 2000 looked like to the people of 1900.Ron Patterson says: 12/02/2017 at 6:32 pmhttps://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/the-boston-globe-of-1900-imagines-the-year-2000-97021464/
Dennis, you are assuming that the population will alter their fertility rates to a lower value. Yes, that has already happened in developed countries. The fertility rates in undeveloped countries are still controlled by what their economy and environment will bear.Doug Leighton says: 12/02/2017 at 6:38 pmThe vast majority of the human population lives in undeveloped countries. They will continue to push, push, push against the very limits of their existence. And that will still be the case 50 years from now, and 100 years from now, and 150 years from now.
There are reasons the fertility rate is dropping in developed countries. Female empowerment, contraception, and so on. There are entirely different reasons the fertility rate is dropping in undeveloped countries. Poor nutrition, almost no prenatal care and so on. Also, much higher infant death rate helps keep the population in check. Please check my chart above from the Population Reference Bureau.
I think that if you could just live just one year in Bangladesh, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe, or . you would have an entirely different outlook. You would be forced to take off those rose-colored glasses.
Again, check the Population Reference Bureau chart above.
" if you could just live just one year in Bangladesh, or the Congo, or Zimbabwe, or . you would have an entirely different outlook. You would be forced to take off those rose-colored glasses."Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 9:07 pmWouldn't take a year, one week would do it: even keeping the rose-colored glasses on.
I spent a bit of time on leave in "Liberated Burma"/Karen State shortly after the fall of Manerplaw. A week would do it, however I was there for about 3 months. I haven't had a bad day since.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 10:03 pmGot chased out of Myanmar by someone with a AK, lucky I wasn't a captive. Walked across from Masi.Survivalist says: 12/02/2017 at 10:44 pm
It wasn't the best idea I've ever had.I linked up with some folks in Mae Sot on the Thai side. It was well planned before hand. There's was a lot of back and forth across the border in those days. Did some long range mobile medical patrols in Karen and Karenni State. Got chased around by Tatmadaw/SLORC a bit. When I was 25 that was my idea of a good time. Yeah, kinda fucked I know.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 10:58 pmYea --Dennis Coyne says: 12/03/2017 at 11:09 am
I was the only Farang around in Masi, and everyone else was going back and forth.
Very interesting place.
That was a long time ago, in a land far, far away.
It would be impossible in the homogeneous police state we are currently inhabiting.Hi Doug and Ron,GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 2:32 pmI spent about 5 months hitchhiking through North and West Africa in 1981-2. Tunisia, Algeria, Niger, Nigeria, Gabon, Republic of Congo, and Zaire (as it was known in 1982).
The TFR of half the World's population as of 2015 is less than 2. The World TFR decreased from 5.02 in 1965 to 2.51 in 2015.
Different experts have different opinions
https://www.newsecuritybeat.org/2014/11/population-paradigm-wolfgang-lutz-education-effect/
and
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wolfgang_Lutz
http://www.iiasa.ac.at/web/home/research/researchPrograms/WorldPopulation/News/170109-GSDR.html
The problem I see with fertility rates is the same problem I see with planting trees. Even though I support a foundation to plant trees I realize that future changes could allow people to wipe out those and other trees very quickly, thus rendering the effort useless. I also realize the preserved areas of nature and wilderness could quickly disappear or be irreparably harmed by government decree, war and material/food pressures.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 2:51 pm
The same goes with lower fertility rates. Since they are only based on decisions and not biological, the lower rates could reverse quite quickly. Just stress the population and see how fast it will change.
Once people realize that technological progress is an empty dead system that moves us to an empty dead world, birth rates will climb quickly.Rather than adding to our knowledge, Tompkins argues computers and smartphones represent "deskilling devices; they make us dumber. We're immersed in a system that now requires the use of a cell phone just to get around, just to function and so the logic of that cell phone has been imposed on us.
"The computer is a mechanism for acceleration, it accelerates economic activity and this is eating up the world. It's eating up resources, it's processing, it's manufacturing, it's distributing, it's consuming. That's what the computer's real work does and it does that 24/7, 365 days a year, non-stop just to satisfy our own narrow needs."
Tompkins foresees a dark future dominated as he puts it by more ugliness, damaged landscapes, extinct species, extreme poverty, and lack of equity and says humanity faces a stark choice; either to transition now to a different system or face a painful collapse.
"The extinction crisis is the mother of all crises. There will be no society, there will be no economy, there will be no art and culture on a dead planet basically. We've stopped evolution."
https://www.theguardian.com/sustainable-business/technology-stopped-evolution-destroying-world
Rather than adding to our knowledge, Tompkins argues computers and smartphones represent "deskilling devices; they make us dumber. We're immersed in a system that now requires the use of a cell phone just to get around, just to function and so the logic of that cell phone has been imposed on us.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 3:35 pmSo put the damn cell phones to better use. They can also make us smarter They can be used to track illegal logging in endangered rain forests. The fact that I have a device in my pocket that gives me access to all of human knowledge and access to GPS does not make me dumber.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=3&v=5Fju_wOaV3Y
When a tree calls for help | Topher White | TEDxCERN
Really? You have cell service in the rain forests? I barely have cell service where I live and it disappears totally between the mountains near me. I don't need electronic mapping and GPS to get around so no problem for me.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 5:26 pm
Let the rest feel nervous as they get out of touch. For many it's a disaster if they lose their phones, fully dependent.I don't need electronic mapping and GPS to get around so no problem for me.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 8:44 pmI actually learned how to use a sextant and a compass but GPS is available so I admit that I do use it upon occasion.
In any case my point was that it is possible to use technology for purposes other than tweeting or posting selfies of oneself to Facebook every ten minutes.
Fred, they are highly capable machines but just machines. How they are used is determined by the machine and the operator interface.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 8:57 pm
I could go on for hours how they have had very bad effects on personal time and personal interactions. For many people life is a series of texts and phone calls with real time life being the background now. Interruptions are the norm now. Sacrilege is when they have to turn them off.You won't fix stupid no matter how hard you trynotanoilman says: 12/03/2017 at 9:56 pmhttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_cznepJAbyg
Texting and walking fails compilation
@FredFred Magyar says: 12/02/2017 at 3:13 pm
I come close to nailing a textwalker or walkytalky nearly every time I am out on my bike. SOP, watch out for the buggers. It amazes me that people are unable to move about (foot, moto, car, bus, truck) without a phone in their hand.NAOM
A question for Dennis Coyne, or any other cornucopian who believes renewable energy will save the world from economic collapse, at least for the next 200 years or so.david higham says: 12/03/2017 at 7:28 pmOk, I'll take a nibble!
First of all, why do we have to accept the current definition of what the economy has to be? All of nature has existed on renewable energy since the beginning of life on this planet 3.8 billion years ago, so obviously the problem isn't renewable energy. If it were, life wouldn't even exist. The extractive, linear growth based neo liberal idea of the economy that we have come to accept as normal, is a relatively recent construct that was created by a small group of people at the beginning of the 20th century and it certainly is an aberration! Personally I don't think it is worth saving.
That economy will certainly collapse and no energy source can ever make it sustainable. Therefore it will by definition collapse. However there is nothing that says we need to continue on that path. There are indeed choices that people and societies can make. Even to the point of something that is considered radical and taboo like limiting population growth. (that is a separate dissertation from my point here)
With regards alternative economic thinking maybe start with Kate Raeworth. Not everyone in the world who has ideas that are out of the box are automatically naive cornucopians.
How to Think Like a 21st Century Economist. 45:00 minutes.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dR1Wy7ZAgY0
What is the goal of economics? Does GDP really tell us all we need to know about a country's wealth and well-being? Our guest in this show argues that our economic system should be designed to meet everyone's needs, while living within the means of the planet.
Kate Raworth is the author of the acclaimed book 'Doughnut Economics', and she will join us in the studio for an exploration of a new 21st century economic model and why she believes so many economists have got it wrong for so long.
The implications of her Doughnut Economics are profound and and can be read and embraced as a roadmap for change not just by experts or economists, but by everyone! This is a chance to challenge her with your questions and critiques.
If you want to think a bit more about how ideas like E.O. Wilson's Half Earth might look here's a TED talk that touches on it.
Nature is everywhere -- we just need to learn to see it 16:00 minutes
https://www.ted.com/talks/emma_marris_nature_is_everywhere_we_just_need_to_learn_to_see_it#t-779393
How do you define "nature?" If we define it as that which is untouched by humans, then we won't have any left, says environmental writer Emma Marris. She urges us to consider a new definition of nature -- one that includes not only pristine wilderness but also the untended patches of plants growing in urban spaces -- and encourages us to bring our children out to touch and tinker with it, so that one day they might love and protect it.
Emma Marris is a writer focusing on environmental science, policy and culture, with an approach that she paints as being "more interested in finding and describing solutions than delineating problems, and more interested in joy than despair."
I agree with Gone Fishing, we do have choices! There are people all over the world who are making them.
Regarding the first paragraph of your reply. Conflating the functioning of ecosystemsnotanoilman says: 12/03/2017 at 8:49 pm
using the renewable energy from the sun with the 'Renewable Energy' required by industrial civilisation is a common mistake. The energy from the sun is renewable.
The infrastructure required to collect and store that energy requires the mining of the
requisite minerals,transportation,smelting,manufacturing,installation. The energy
required for all of that is supplied by fossil fuels. All of that infrastructure,and all of the
rest of the human-constructed industrial world,has to be rebuilt. Solar panels last
about 25-30 years. Wind Turbines about 50 years. Our industrial constructed world
has an immense amount of embedded fossil fuel energy. The mineral density of many ores are declining now,which means that the energy required to extract a given amount of mineral is increasing. I haven't done much reading on this site. No doubt someone has posted this link before. It gives a good idea of the scale of the construction required.
Natural ecosystems are quite different. The energy collection occurs using biodegradable
and recyclable materials,without the energy input of fossil fuels.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cubic_mile_of_oilYou don't seem to have come across the concept of recycling.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 9:20 pmNAOM
This is just the typical FF anti-renewable blurb slightly rewritten. It has more holes in than Swiss cheese.david higham says: 12/03/2017 at 9:50 pmHave a read of the numbers in the link. All recycling requires energy. I don't know if anyone has done an analysis of the amount of energynotanoilman says: 12/03/2017 at 11:03 pm
required,but it would be very large. It is also worth remembering that some of the minerals in that infrastructure are difficult to separate and
recycle.Plenty of people have investigated recycling and are doing it. You obviously haven't. Even the Giga-Factory is building a recycling facility.Hightrekker says: 12/02/2017 at 11:04 pmOn the personal level, I have just replaced my washing machine and stove as the old ones were falling apart literally. The stove is ready to go to the local recycler where it will be separated and then sent to be melted back to new steel. The washer will be checked over by a refurbisher who will decide if he can use it or it's parts and what is left will go to the recycler. Simple. All my waste metal goes to the recycler but, unfortunately, we have no glass recycling so that just has to go to land fill.
NAOM
Diet pills?Hillary says: 12/03/2017 at 12:44 am
Kinda makes sense.Elton John blares so loudly on Donald Trump's campaign plane that staffers can't hear themselves think. Press secretary Hope Hicks uses a steamer to press Trump's pants -- while he is still wearing them. Trump screams at his top aides, who are subjected to expletive-filled tirades in which they get their "face ripped off."
And Trump's appetite seems to know no bounds when it comes to McDonald's, with a dinner order consisting of "two Big Macs, two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted."
[ ]In another episode, Lewandowski describes how staffer Sam Nunberg was purposely left behind at a McDonald's because Nunberg's special-order burger was taking too long. "Leave him," Trump said. "Let's go." And they did.
Trump's fast-food diet is a theme. "On Trump Force One there were four major food groups: McDonald's, Kentucky Fried Chicken, pizza and Diet Coke," the authors write.
The plane's cupboards were stacked with Vienna Fingers, potato chips, pretzels and many packages of Oreos because Trump, a renowned germaphobe, would not eat from a previously opened package.
The book notes that "the orchestrating and timing of Mr. Trump's meals was as important as any other aspect of his march to the presidency," and describes the elaborate efforts that Lewandowski and other top aides went through to carefully time their delivery of hot fast food to Trump's plane as he was departing his rallies.
https://digbysblog.blogspot.de/2017/12/hes-got-to-be-on-diet-pills.html
"two Big Macs, two Fillet-O-Fish, and a chocolate malted."GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 11:01 amOh let there be a god
One of the biggest problems we face as population and industry grows is obtaining enough fresh water. Sure there is a lot of water on the planet, but it is mostly salty.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 11:36 amMarcia Barbosa talks about the many anomalies of water and how exploiting them with nano-tubes could help address the problem of freshwater shortages.
Marcia Barbosa has a PhD in physics from Brazil's Universidade Federal do Rio Grande do Sul, where she is now the director of its Physics Institute. She studies the complex structure of the water molecule, and has developed a series of models of its properties which may contribute to our understanding of how earthquakes occur, how proteins fold, and could play an important role in generating cleaner energy and treating diseases. She is actively involved in promoting Women in Physics and was named the 2013 L'Oreal-UNESCO for Women in Science Awards Laureate for Latin America.
Tks, GF!Doug Leighton says: 12/03/2017 at 4:36 pm
LOL! I'm head over heels in love with her!
I kept imagining her giving her talk to this sound track
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wunq6YlcSX0
Can you see all the dancers dressed as raindrops on a Samba Float in a Carnival Parade?Fred As you know my bag is astrophysics, with climate change denial being merely irritating BUT when I see science news headlines like the following then I really get pissed off, or feel sick. Who gives a shit if Earth can "carry" 7 or 9 or 11 billion people when dolphins & elephants are relegated to "bush meat" and when species are disappearing at increasingly alarming rates. You're probably the only one here qualified to assess this issue so please give us your thoughts.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 5:37 pmCURRENT EXTINCTION RATE 10 TIMES WORSE THAN PREVIOUSLY THOUGHT
"Life on earth is remarkably diverse. Globally, it is estimated that there are 8.7 million species living on our planet, excluding bacteria. Unfortunately, human activities are wiping out many species and it's been known for some time that we are increasing the rate of species extinction. But just how dire is the situation? According to a new study, it's 10 times worse than scientists previously thought with current extinction rates 1,000 times higher than natural background rates."
Doug, if you get a chance, watch the ASU Origins project debates to which I have posted links recently addressing the topic of extinction. This is a very serious cross disciplinary discussion and can't really be done justice in a quick response here. It probably necessitates a full post of similar length to Ron's.GoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 7:53 pmHere is a very short teaser.
Origins Project Highlight: Elizabeth Kolbert on Climate Change & Mars
https://www.youtube.com/watch?list=PLusJDXY5SZhWUbALfqiDpk9NGmIoT4n48&v=zTXHcNNiPk4Link to ASU Origins Project home page:
https://origins.asu.edu/I look on space habitats as being trapped inside a giant iron lung. Exploration is one thing, but actually thinking of Mars as a possible home for humans is just sad.Fred Magyar says: 12/03/2017 at 8:19 pmCouldn't agree more! And that's from someone who lived and worked in a hyperbaric chamber as a saturation diver on oil rigs. I'd say that is pretty close to living in an iron lung as wellGoneFishing says: 12/03/2017 at 9:17 pmThe part about going to Mars that has always bothered me is the radiation exposure.
Plenty of dangerous and exciting exploring, work and research to do right here on Earth.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2017 | oilprice.com
Strong global economic growth and Saudi Arabia bringing a risk premium to oil prices could send Brent oil prices surging to $80 next year , more than 25 percent compared to current prices, according to economist Jim O'Neill, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
At 11:59am EST on Monday, Brent Crude was down 0.79 percent at $63.01 .
"While oil prices could be about $60 per barrel in November 2018, my guess is that they will have risen to about $80 per barrel in the meantime," O'Neill wrote in Barron's on Saturday.
Although the economist himself admits that predicting oil prices is a tough job at which he failed when he said in January 2015 that prices would not continue to fall, he now differs from most of the analysts who expect oil prices to be around $60 next year. O'Neill doesn't believe that oil prices will stagnate for a year.
On the demand side, world economic growth has picked up this year "and is now probably growing at a rate of 4 percent or higher. With the exception of India and the United Kingdom, eight of the 10 largest economies are expanding at the same time," O'Neill said.
Although many oil consuming countries try to lessen their dependence on oil, the transition won't take place overnight, so the oil market is adjusting to stronger demand, the economist notes. Looking at the supply side, events in Saudi Arabia are suddenly adding a premium to oil prices. "The Saudi government has been implementing radical changes, both domestically and in its foreign policy, and its reasons for doing so are not entirely clear," O'Neill writes. In addition, the economist argues that the Brent spot price has now moved above the five-year forward price, which suggests that a trend change may be underway. "For my part, I'm unsure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened," O'Neill says, referring to the trend change.
for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2017 | oilprice.com
Venezuela's oil production has been sliding for years, but the descent accelerated in 2015 amid low oil prices and a deteriorating cash position for PDVSA and the government. Production dipped below 1.9 million barrels in recent weeks, the lowest level in more than three decades.
The problems will only grow worse, especially because they tend to snowball. Without cash, PDVSA will struggle to import diluent to blend with its heavy oil – the result could be steeper production losses. Again, without cash, existing facilities cannot be maintained, likely leading to an accelerating pace of decline. An array of refineries are "completely paralyzed," the head of an oil workers union told Bloomberg. Defaults on more debt payments could spark retaliation from creditors, which could eventually put oil exports in jeopardy.
In short, the woes in Venezuela's oil industry contributed to the crisis, but the dire economic situation will accelerate the decline of oil production.
A group of analysts told Bloomberg that they expect Venezuela's output to average 1.84 mb/d in 2018, a level that seems surprisingly optimistic given the pace of decline underway. Other analysts predict output will plunge much lower.
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2017 | oilprice.com
Strong global economic growth and Saudi Arabia bringing a risk premium to oil prices could send Brent oil prices surging to $80 next year , more than 25 percent compared to current prices, according to economist Jim O'Neill, a former chairman of Goldman Sachs Asset Management.
At 11:59am EST on Monday, Brent Crude was down 0.79 percent at $63.01 .
"While oil prices could be about $60 per barrel in November 2018, my guess is that they will have risen to about $80 per barrel in the meantime," O'Neill wrote in Barron's on Saturday.
Although the economist himself admits that predicting oil prices is a tough job at which he failed when he said in January 2015 that prices would not continue to fall, he now differs from most of the analysts who expect oil prices to be around $60 next year. O'Neill doesn't believe that oil prices will stagnate for a year.
On the demand side, world economic growth has picked up this year "and is now probably growing at a rate of 4 percent or higher. With the exception of India and the United Kingdom, eight of the 10 largest economies are expanding at the same time," O'Neill said.
Although many oil consuming countries try to lessen their dependence on oil, the transition won't take place overnight, so the oil market is adjusting to stronger demand, the economist notes. Looking at the supply side, events in Saudi Arabia are suddenly adding a premium to oil prices. "The Saudi government has been implementing radical changes, both domestically and in its foreign policy, and its reasons for doing so are not entirely clear," O'Neill writes. In addition, the economist argues that the Brent spot price has now moved above the five-year forward price, which suggests that a trend change may be underway. "For my part, I'm unsure, but I wouldn't be surprised if it happened," O'Neill says, referring to the trend change.
for Oilprice.com
|
|
|
Nov 30, 2017 | oilprice.com
Venezuela's oil production has been sliding for years, but the descent accelerated in 2015 amid low oil prices and a deteriorating cash position for PDVSA and the government. Production dipped below 1.9 million barrels in recent weeks, the lowest level in more than three decades.
The problems will only grow worse, especially because they tend to snowball. Without cash, PDVSA will struggle to import diluent to blend with its heavy oil – the result could be steeper production losses. Again, without cash, existing facilities cannot be maintained, likely leading to an accelerating pace of decline. An array of refineries are "completely paralyzed," the head of an oil workers union told Bloomberg. Defaults on more debt payments could spark retaliation from creditors, which could eventually put oil exports in jeopardy.
In short, the woes in Venezuela's oil industry contributed to the crisis, but the dire economic situation will accelerate the decline of oil production.
A group of analysts told Bloomberg that they expect Venezuela's output to average 1.84 mb/d in 2018, a level that seems surprisingly optimistic given the pace of decline underway. Other analysts predict output will plunge much lower.
|
|
|
Nov 27, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Mike says: 11/16/2017 at 9:41 am
In the interest of those few oily readers you have left on POB, Dennis (I see you ran Guy, a knowledgeable royalty owner from Texas, off with that stupid comment about the Texas Railroad Commission), lets NOT say what you said.Instead lets say that at $50 dollar hedged oil prices the net back, take home pay for a Bakken operator is actually $20 a barrel. And it is. Costs are not going down, they are going up, and longer laterals and enormous frac's make true well costs actually closer to $9M. Such a well would therefore require 450,000 BO to payout.
Some very learned people on this site, actually knowledgeable about the oil industry, who are now also gone, have proven it will take $85 dollar plus oil prices, sustained, for the unconventional shale oil industry to pay back its debt and simply be able to replace reserves. The days of all this enormous 'growth' crap are over.
To render credible analysis of the future of unconventional shale resources in America one must have had actual first hand experience in the actual business of oil extraction. In other words, one must have had to write checks to drill wells, write checks to pay operating costs, write checks to the Federal government for taxes, write check after check, etc, etc., and watch their net revenue drop like a rock every month. Ignoring debt and economics to simply say there is 40GBO of recoverable shale oil in America is, forgive me, not in the least bit credible.
The EIA, the IEA, almost every predictor of the future ignores the economics of shale extraction and it's debt. Those predictions are therefore meaningless. Hoping for higher oil prices to make the future work out like you want it to is not a tactic, it is not a plan. It is a disservice to people searching for knowledge.
So, ignore the Million Dollar Way thing, and Michael Filloon, the self serving dribble in investor presentations, the "we are going to unleash America's oil 'might' on the rest of the world" Perry/Trump bullshit and listen instead to Shallow Sand. He has written some checks in his day. Best not run him off.
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
SRSrocco says: 11/15/2017 at 7:20 pm
shallow,shallow sand says: 11/15/2017 at 7:28 pmI have mentioned this before, but SERIOUS TROUBLE will come down hard on the Bakken. Looks like someone hasn't been honest about its production figures.
Fireworks will arrive shortly .. hehehe.
steve
Any hints?SRSrocco says: 11/15/2017 at 7:39 pmCompany or government?
shallow,SRSrocco says: 11/18/2017 at 1:09 pmI probably said too much already. However, I just spoke with the ex-senior person from the company. He is going public before the end of the year.
If this news spreads as far and wide as I imagine oh well, we are going to see investors FLEE the Shale Oil Ponzi.
steve
shallow,If you get this, why don't you respond to me at my contact info below:
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne says: 11/15/2017 at 6:12 pm
Bakken statsshallow sand says: 11/15/2017 at 6:39 pmhttps://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/historicalbakkenoilstats.pdf
active wells increased by 158 from August to Sept and output increased by 19 kb/d for the Bakken Three Forks to 1055 kb/d. Only 77 new wells were completed in the North Dakota in August 2017 and output increased that month by 23 kb/d.
Director's cut at link below
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/directorscut/directorscut-2017-11-15.pdf
They have added over 1,100 Bakken and/or Three Forks wells to boost production back to where it was in March, 2016.So, conservatively $8 billion spent just to climb back up.
The amount of capital being burned on energy in the USA is truly remarkable.
Dennis, I have seen data that shows the total cost of all "shale" oil and gas wells from maybe 2003 forward, and then the gross proceeds from same. Very interesting how far from payout the USA wells are, in aggregate.
|
|
|
Nov 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne says: 11/16/2017 at 1:44 pm
Hi mike,Dennis Coyne says: 11/16/2017 at 3:23 pmhttps://www.eia.gov/analysis/studies/drilling/pdf/upstream.pdf
link above has well costs, $6 million D+C for Bakken, land cost about $2 million
USGS tight oil undiscovered is about 36 Gb
https://energy.usgs.gov/OilGas/AssessmentsData/NationalOilGasAssessment/AssessmentUpdates.aspx
Proved tight oil reserves 11.7 Gb
https://www.eia.gov/naturalgas/crudeoilreserves/
So about 48 Gb of proved reserves plus undiscovered resources (F50).
I agree higher oil prices ($85/b or more) will be needed.
I expect by 2020 this is likely to be correct (oil prices above $85/b), but maybe there is more cheap oil out there than I realize. I expect 400-500 kb/d of tight oil increases each year over the 2017-2021 period, not enough to take care of increased oil demand, OPEC, Russia, Brazil, and Canada will probably not be able to make up the shortfall so stocks will continue to fall and oil prices will rise.
Timing unknown, but my WAG is $75/b by Sept 2018.
I based my $30 net on an example given by shallow sand, but you are correct I remembered incorrectly. His example was $45/b wellhead and $15/b net. Sorry I got it wrong.
Divide my 60 month net income by 2 so $3.3 million for a well that cost $7.3 million (in shallow sand's example), so in the red by $4.4 billion for those 1100 wells.
Thanks for correcting me.
Hi Mike,Using shallow sands $7.3 million well cost (8000/1100) and $15/b net, it's 487 kb over 5 years for payout, for the average 2014 well my estimate is about 250 kb over 5 years.
So $29.20/b net is needed for payout and an increase of $14.20 per barrel in the well price (with no increase in costs) would do it. That would be about $70/b WTI, to take care of debt would require higher prices, though perhaps not another $15/b.
If your estimate of $9 million per well is correct, we would need $36/b net for payout and $77/b WTI, perhaps $8/b extra is needed to cover interest costs, but that would imply about $58 billion in debt if interest is 5% on the debt (assuming Bakken output of about 1000 kb/d).
Rune Likvern estimates cumulative debt at about $35 billion, at 5% interest and 1000 kb/d this implies an extra $5/b in interest cost so about $82/b WTI would be needed if well cost is indeed $9 million per well.
Bottom line, higher oil prices are needed for profits somewhere from $75/b to $82/b WTI, and Rune Likvern's estimate is about $84/b, but for a point forward estimate breakeven (7% return) is as low as $63/b (for the average 2016 well).
https://fractionalflow.com/2017/10/08/a-little-on-the-profitability-of-the-bakkennd/#more-1235
|
|
|
May 20, 2016 | peakoilbarrel.com
Brian Rose , 05/19/2016 at 11:04 pm
Big news from Canada today:George Kaplan , 05/20/2016 at 1:36 amhttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-canada-wildfire-idUSKCN0YA0Z1
"The joint-venture Syncrude project told customers to expect no further crude shipments for May, trading sources said on Thursday, extending a force majeure on crude production from earlier in the month."
Eventually market sentiment focused on the recency bias of a 2 year glut is going to shift into the realization that disruptions, depletion, and growing demand have thrown the global balance into a dearth where inventories are being drawn to meet demand such as the news about Saudi's relying on inventory to meet demand, the "missing" 800,000,000 barrels of OECD inventory from Q1 2016, or next weeks inevitable U.S. inventory draw.
Suddenly, an extra outage (like say if anything happens to Venezuela) will cause meaningful rallies instead of being mostly written off.
In fact, judging by the price action on oil over the last 24 hours, I'd say that sentiment is very close to a shift. From 11 AM forward crude oil marched higher relentlessly, even in opposition to dollar strength. Most every single commodity was down, as we're most every stock market except oil.
The best, live, interactive charts I am most fond of are here: https://www.dailyfx.com/crude-oil
I expect one last fight around $50, a few day consolidation move lower. Then market realities will push WTI past $50, and shorts will have to cover pushing it even higher.
Next thing you know were range bound in the mid-$50s at the end of June as everyone questions if shale production will magically skyrocket overnight. Maybe the rig count will go up by 3 or 4, and it'll spark a sell-off back to or below $50 because of the psychological recency bias of a "repeat of 2015".
That is, until rational minds, or the market itself pushes prices back up as it becomes obvious that a slowdown in U.S. production declines will mean little in the face of mounting production declines around the globe, and "surprisingly" strong demand because apparently predicting that lower prices will cause stronger than average demand growth is beyond the economic capability of the EIA or IEA, and markets tend to take their word as gospel.
I remember looking back on the IEA's 2005 World Energy Outlook and being perplexed that anyone still takes their price or production forecasts with any seriousness whatsoever. Their 2003 WEO is even more hilarious.
Every step of the way analysts and talking heads will be confused that prices aren't dropping back to $30 just like they were for 5 straight years from 2003 to 2008. They'll predict Saudi's will raise production to 12 mbpd any day now, or that shale will magically take off overnight.
They'll never even realize that they don't understand the history of Saudi production, or the logistical and financial complexities of shale production rising as fast as it did before. Instead they'll blame the banks, or speculators, or Big Oil for artificially making oil prices rise (without questioning why they let them fall for 2 years in the first place)
But then again if gas is cheap, which average people are fond of, their brain says "I like this, so it must be right". If gas is expensive their brain says "I don't like this, it must be wrong, what evil force made this happen?!?"
Most people are simply incapable of seeing a bigger picture, and they'll simply never understand the relationship between depletion, economic and population growth, and the long-term fact that this equals higher prices (and probably also, in the long run, higher poverty and unemployment).
Their lives will have ups and down, growth and recession, but they'll know and feel it is generally getting harder. They'll never be aware that this is the "fault" of nothing but physics and thermodynamics, even if told directly and shown all the rather clear evidence (I know every one of you has experienced this as I have). Instead, they'll blame those dang immigrants, or the Chinese, or the Congress, or regulations.
They'll blame anything that fits their paradigm enough to allow cohesiveness so their fragile lives can at least MAKE SENSE. You can't blame physics, and, frankly, I think that is a large psychological barrier for people comprehending what is happening. We need to have some agent to blame for things, and physics has no agency. Blaming something for a problem is settling because it gives us something to focus on to solve the problem, or, at the very least, avoid it. The evolutionarily beneficial need to assign agents as the cause of events is what pre-disposes us to believing that events we cannot easily assign agency to are, nonetheless, the will of a greater, invisible, omnipresent agent.
It is for that exact same reason that so many people we know will simply never get it. Physics doesn't have agency, it cannot be avoided, cajoled, or "blamed". It simply is, and that is so unsettling to our psyche that most people have a strong, unconscious drive to negate and ignore that conclusion even if they will acknowledge it is a sound and true explanation of how economics, growth, employment, wealth, energy (physics and thermodynamics), and depletion are woven of the same fabric.
Brian I think you are closer to reality than EIA or USGS, it will be interesting to see how it plays out against your scenario.A couple of other impacts are summer maintenance season in North Sea (Buzzard and, I think, Ekofisk have major turnarounds), Alaska and Canada (maybe Russia as well) and increased demand from driving season in USA and AC use in Middle East.
There doesn't necessarily have to be more social breakdown in Venezuela to have an impact Haliburton and Schlumberger are pulling out and will have immediate effect as the extra heavy oil production needs continuous attention to the wells. I'm surprised Angola and Algeria haven't seen disruptions yet either.
|
|
|
Nov 22, 2017 | www.unz.com
Tsar Nicholas , November 20, 2017 at 3:07 am GMT
An attack on Iran would probably result in the oil supplies through the Persian Gulf being blocked.That wouldn't just affect the ability of westerners to drive. Their holidays would be wrecked, industry would go on short time, food supplies would be disrupted. We live in a very complex world with most businesses reliant on just-in-time delivery. This is not 1917 or 1940.
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2017 | oilprice.com
Barrel traders recently pushed the price of West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil above $55; the first time in over two years.
Scarcity doesn't really justify the upward price movement. There isn't a shortage of oil in the world. But there could be, in the worst case, if missiles start flying between two of the world's largest oil players: Saudi Arabia and Iran.
Maybe it won't happen. But maybe it will. And that's what the "geopolitical risk premium" is all about. It's an anxiety surcharge that's tacked onto every barrel of oil, in fear of supply disruption on a moment's notice. And the fear is back.
After three years of naivety we're back to acknowledging the known unknowns of the Middle East, the uncertainties that strap a 10-to-20 percent premium on the price of a barrel.
Paying a risk premium for oil is nothing new. It's been around for decades and has gone up and down with the hostility thermometer of the Middle East.
Unusually, the pricing of risk dropped to zero around 2015. Three main reasons prompted a sense of world peace: the promise of the Iranian nuclear deal; a feeling that booming oilfields in Texas could offset any disruption; and a growing surplus of oil inventories in storage tanks around the world.
Of late, the notion of oil obsolescence has also perpetuated a feeling of nonchalance. "Who cares about the Middle East and their oil?" has been a question driven by the utopian narrative: "I'm not worried, everyone will be driving electric cars in a few years anyway."
But it's all been a false sense of security.
Electric cars are still rare. Oil remains vital to the world economy. Its geographic concentration is such that a large proportion of the world's needs is produced from underneath layers of geopolitics, religious antagonism, authoritarianism, civil strife and corruption.
|
|
|
Nov 18, 2017 | russia-insider.com
The 942-kilometer pipeline will become operational in January when the flow of Russian pipeline oil to China will double from 15 to 30 million tons
|
|
|
Nov 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Revealed - Saudis Plan To Give Up Palestine - For War On Iran
The tyrants of Saudi Arabia developed a plan that sells away Palestine. They see this as necessary to get U.S. support for their fanatic campaign against their perceived enemy Iran.
An internal Saudi memorandum, leaked to the Lebanese paper Al-Akhbar , reveals its major elements. (Note: The genuineness of the memo has not been confirmed. In theory it could be a "plant" by some other party. But Al-Akhbar has so far an excellent record of publishing genuine leaks and I trust its editors' judgement.)
According to the memo the Saudis are ready to give up on the Palestinian right of return. They forfeit Palestinian sovereignty over Jerusalem and no longer insist of the status of a full state for the Palestinians. In return they ask for a U.S.-Saudi-Israeli (military) alliance against their perceived enemy on the eastern side of the Persian Gulf.
Negotiations on the issue were held between the Saudis and the Zionist under the aegis of the United States. Netanyahu and Trump's "shared personal assistant, wunderkind Jared Kushner", is the point men in these negotiations. He made at least three trips to Saudi Arabia this year, the last one very recently.
The Saudi operations over the last month, against the internal opposition to the Salman clan as well as against Hizbullah in Lebanon, have to be seen in the context and as preparation of the larger plan. To recap:
- Last week the current front-man of the Palestinians, Mahmoud Abbas, was ordered to Riyadh. There he was told to accept whatever will be presented as U.S. peace plan or to resign. He was urged to cut all Palestinian ties with Iran and Hizbullah:
Since the warnings, which could threaten the new Palestinian unity agreement signed by Fatah and the Iranian-backed Hamas in the Gaza Strip, Palestinian media displayed a rare degree of unity in recent days by coming out against Iran.
- On November 6 a letter by the Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo to Israeli embassies was intentionally " leaked ". In it Netanyahoo urges his diplomats to press for full support for the Saudi plans in Lebanon, Yemen and beyond. On the same day Trump tweeted :
Donald J. Trump @realDonaldTrump - 3:03 PM - 6 Nov 2017
I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing....(The tweet was heavily promoted by Saudi Twitter bots .)
- The Saudi tyrant abducted the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, and declared war on the country. The purpose of this move is to remove or isolate Hizbullah, the Shia resistance of Lebanon which is allied with Iran and opposes the Saudi plans for Palestine.
- On November 11 the New York Times reported on the U.S. drafting of a "peace plan" but provided little detail. The chance for such a plan to succeed was described as low.
The left-wing Lebanese paper Al-Akhbar has obtained a copy of the plan (Arabic) in form of a memorandum by the Saudi Foreign Minister Adel Al-Jubeir to the Saudi clown prince Mohammed Bin Salman ( English machine translation ):
The document, which is being unveiled for the first time, proves all that has been leaked since President Trump's visit to Saudi Arabia last May on the launch of US efforts to sign a peace treaty between Saudi Arabia and Israel. This was followed by information on the exchange of visits between Riyadh and Tel Aviv, the most important being the visit of the Saudi Crown Prince to the Zionist entity.The document reveals the size of concessions that Riyadh intends to present in the context of the liquidation of the Palestinian issue, and its concern to get in return the elements of power against Iran and the resistance, led by Hezbollah.
The Saudi foreign ministry memo starts by laying out its strategic perspective:
To face Iran by increasing sanctions on ballistic missiles and reconsidering the nuclear deal, the Kingdom has pledged in the strategic partnership agreement with US President Donald Trump that any US-Saudi effort is the key to success.
...
Saudi Arabia's rapprochement with Israel involves a risk to the Muslim peoples of the Kingdom, because the Palestinian cause represents a spiritual and historical and religious heritage. The Kingdom will not take this risk unless it feels the United States' sincere approach to Iran, which is destabilizing the region by sponsoring terrorism, its sectarian policies and interfering in the affairs of others.The Saudi paper describes the issues and process steps towards a deal in five points:
First : The Saudis demand a " parity of the relationship " between Israel and Saudi Arabia. On the military level they demand that either Israel gives up on its nuclear weapons or Saudi Arabia is itself allowed to acquire such
Second : In exchange Saudi Arabia will use its diplomatic and economic power to push through a 'peace plan' between Israel, the Palestinians and Arab countries along the lines that the U.S. will lay out. Within such a peace plan the Saudis, according to the memo, are willing to make extraordinary concessions:
- The city of Jerusalem would not become capital of a Palestinian state but be subjected to a special international regime administered by the United Nations.
- The right of return for Palestinian refugees, who were violently expelled by the Zionists, would be given up on. The refugees would be integrated as citizens of those countries where they currently reside.
- (No demand for full sovereignty of a Palestinian state is mentioned.)
Third : After reaching an agreement of the "main principles of the final solution" for Palestine between Saudi Arabia and the U.S. (Israel), a meeting of all foreign ministers of the region would be convened to back these up. Final negotiations would follow.
Fourth : In coordination and cooperation with Israel Saudi Arabia would use its economic power to convince the Arab public of the plan. The point correctly notes "At the beginning of normalizing relations with Israel, normalization will not be acceptable to public opinion in the Arab world ." The plan is thus to essentially bribe the Arab public into accepting it.
Fifth : The Palestinian conflict distracts from the real issue the Saudi rulers have in the region which is Iran: "Therefore, the Saudi and Israeli sides agree on the following:
- Contribute to counter any activities that serve Iran's aggressive policies in the Middle East. Saudi Arabia's affinity with Israel must be matched by a sincere American approach against Iran.
- Increase US and international sanctions related to Iranian ballistic missiles.
- Increase sanctions on Iran's sponsorship of terrorism around the world.
- Re-examination of the group (five + 1) in the nuclear agreement with Iran to ensure the implementation of its terms literally and strictly.
- Limiting Iran's access to its frozen assets and exploiting Iran's deteriorating economic situation and marketing it to increase pressure on the Iranian regime from within.
- Intensive intelligence cooperation in the fight against organized crime and drug trafficking supported by Iran and Hezbollah."
The memo is signed by Adel al-Jubeir. (But who were the 'advisors' who dictated it to him?)
The U.S. plan for peace in Palestine is to press the Palestinians and Arabs into anything Israel demands. The Saudis will agree to that, with minor conditions, if only the U.S. and Israel help them to get rid of their nemesis Iran. But that is impossible. Neither Israel nor the U.S. will agree to a "parity of relationship" for Saudi Arabia. Saudi Arabia lacks all elements to become a supreme state in the Arab Middle East. Iran can not be defeated.
Iran is the at the core of the Shia constituency and at the core of resistance to "western" imperialism. Shia and Sunni aligned populations in the Middle East (ex Egypt) are of roughly equal size. Iran has about four times the number of citizens the Saudis have. It is much older and cultured than Saudi Arabia. It has an educated population and well developed industrial capabilities. Iran is a nation, not a conglomerate of desert tribes like the desert peninsula under al-Saud. Its geographic position and resources make it unconquerable.
To defeat Iran the Saudis started proxy-wars in Iraq, Syria, Yemen and now Lebanon. They needed foot soldiers to win these wars. The Saudis hired and sent the only significant infantry they ever had at their disposal. Their hordes of al-Qaeda and ISIS fanatics were defeated. Tens of thousands of them have been killed on the battle fields in Iraq, Syria and Yemen. Despite a global mobilization campaign nearly all the potentially available forces have been defeated by the local resistances on the ground. Neither the colonial settler state nor the U.S. are willing to send their soldiers into battle for Saudi supremacy.
The grant plan of the Trump administration to achieve peace in the Middle East is high on hopes but lacks all the necessary details. The Saudi's promise to support the U.S. plan if the Trump administration is willing to fight their nemesis Iran. Both leaderships are hapless and impulsive and both of their plans have little chance of final success. They will be pursued anyway and will continue to create an enormous amount of collateral damage. The Zionist entity feels no real pressure to make peace. It is already dragging its feet on these plans and will try to use them to its sole advantage.
Posted by b on November 14, 2017 at 05:42 AM | Permalink
x | Nov 14, 2017 5:59:54 AM | 1
"... I have great confidence in King Salman and the Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia, they know exactly what they are doing...."arbetet | Nov 14, 2017 6:02:31 AM | 2Yes, exactly what they are told to do by the usual suspects. Stay on script, ... or else!
Donald Trump on Twitter (5 h ago):Lea | Nov 14, 2017 6:13:23 AM | 3
Donald J. Trump
@realDonaldTrumpI will be making a major statement from the @WhiteHouse upon my return to D.C. Time and date to be set.https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/930320191699017730
This reeks of despair. How long should one give to the clown prince MBS before he achieves the final collapse of Saudi Arabia is the only question I have.somebody | Nov 14, 2017 6:29:53 AM | 4This did not need a leak, it was clear. The "leak" might as well have been invented from what has transpired anyway.Eugene | Nov 14, 2017 7:29:28 AM | 5There is an Arab peace plan from 2002 which Israelis find unacceptable.
Israelis will find this new peace plan unacceptable, too, as it would mean a one state solution - Palestinian struggle for a state would be changed to an equal rights campaign Israelis would find very difficult to counter.
The 'new' plan is too late anyway, Israel cannot directly engage in any war without being existentially threatened themselves, last time proved in Gaza. Hamas might have been forced to allow the Palestinian authority back but they did not give up their weapons.
And neither the US nor Israel can politically afford to lose many soldiers in a ground war. So if Saudi wants to fight against Iran, they have to do it themselves.
Never ceases to amaze the repeated rhetoric about how Iran is the bogyman, when Saudi Arabia financed the destruction in Syria. Israel fermenting discourse, has been going on for so long, to where the world looks upon it as being the "boy who cried wolf". Israel give up its Nukes? Parity, if you believe in the tooth fairy. Exactly who meddles in others foreign affairs there in the MENA?stonebird | Nov 14, 2017 7:45:36 AM | 6Seems like this could be a "deliberate pre-emptive leak" - to see what the reactions will be.Mina | Nov 14, 2017 7:50:31 AM | 7The alternative is a potential turn of Saudi Arabia - towards China and Russia. https://www.peakprosperity.com/blog/113426/if-saudi-arabia-situation-doesnt-worry-youre-not-paying-attention
Either way, the new "owner" of Saudi Arabia will have to make several choices if he wants to do anything at all without running out of cash. Wars are expensive (particulrly if you have to pay mercenaries) and the recent asset seizures will only go so far.
...The actual "plot" mentioned by b seems to have included too many "wish-list" items for the Israelis, for it to be accurate. Although there is definitely a possibility of Saudi and Israeli collusion, Israel for one would prefer the US AND the Saudis to attack Iran. Note that overflying by Israel to attack Iran would probably be over Saudi which makes it into a direct target. The "other" route via Greece would be used on the return (or outward first). Which is why the inclusion of foreign airforces in familiarisation drills in Soutern Israel, actually lends credence to the leak - in spite of what I said earlier.On RT Arabic, article saying that Aoun's aid has been informed that they indeed a war on Lebanon is coming.Mina | Nov 14, 2017 7:51:54 AM | 8
In exchange for letting humanitarian business-help reach the Yemenis, they need to kill ppl elsewhere?
But what if the 350,OOO Lebanese leave KSA (and why don't they already do it?)
I believe KSA will suffer of that much more than Lebanon.Ppl can get organized from now on: "not in my name"somebody | Nov 14, 2017 7:55:05 AM | 9
Withdraw all money from banks, stop consuming. That's the only war they know.4) To clarify the situation Israel is in - from tiny Gaza strip -virgile | Nov 14, 2017 8:05:33 AM | 10The incident increased tensions along the southern sector and threatened to disturb the calm that has prevailed there since the end of the traumatic summer of 2014, which left Gaza in ruins and Israel licking its wounds. As of the writing of this article, silence has been maintained. None of the parties are lashing out, despite the casualties from Islamic Jihad and Hamas.Ever since the tunnel was destroyed, senior Egyptian intelligence officials have set off on a long round of mediation between the parties in an effort to prevent a conflagration from erupting. Both sides are well-aware that the previous round of violence, in 2014, was not planned. Rather, it was the result of a deteriorating situation and the loss of control on both sides. Neither of the parties needs another round of violence like that right now. The IDF has clarified that it did not know that there were excavators or fighters in the tunnel at the time, and that it did not plan to launch a "targeted killing." It simply wanted to destroy the tunnel.
I have been wondering about the Hamas-Fatah reconciliation. Saudi does not want it - if Hamas keeps contact with Iran .
So why it is happening? Israel?
There is no certainty Israel is not interested in a deal with Iran. It might be the safest bet.
I have been saying that for the last year.Jackrabbit | Nov 14, 2017 8:07:28 AM | 11As Obama will be remembered for the Iran nuclear deal, Trump wants to be remembered as the maker of the Arab-Israeli deal to end the state of wear.
Since Trump came to power he has been following a clear strategy of weakening all the parties involved, including Saudi Arabia and Israel!
Syria, Lebanon, Hamas, Fatah, Turkey and Iran are been thrown into deep crisis while Saudi Arabia and Israel are been brought to panic by agitating the "Iran and Shia threat'. Regional leaders reluctant to make concessions are coerced, bribed or quietly removed in all these countries. Local allies such as the Kurds and ISIS have been pampered to move against the reluctant leaders.
Jared is the architect of that strategy. He is in charge of manipulating the Saudis and Israel into a deal that will be then be imposed on the other countries.
Russia is NOT opposed to such a deal, provided it keeps its influence in the region. Therefore Trump is cozying up with Putin to get his collaboration in convincing his allies of the benefits of such a deal.
The hard to break Arabs are Bashar al Assad's Syrians, and the Moslem Brotherhood (Hamas) .
Qatar and Turkey are been blackmailed to put pressure on the Moslem Brotherhood and any opponent to a 'forced' peace deal.The Saudis are the key to the deal as they will be asked to contribute to the financial compensation Palestinians will ask for to accept the deal. They are also the most eager to humiliate Iran and Turkey.
The train is on track, despite failure to tame Syria that remains a nut hard to crack.I'm not convinced that this document is genuine because:somebody | Nov 14, 2017 8:13:57 AM | 12>> as b notes, 'parity' on nukes is a non-starter;>> discussions with Israel about the Palestinians are unlikely to be phrased as a "final solution" with the severe negative historical connotations of that phrase;
>> this wording is also odd: "rapprochement with Israel involves a risk to the Muslim peoples of the Kingdom" because there is no need to make special reference to "Muslim peoples" when 99.9% of KSA is Muslim.
>> Does KSA really have the wherewithal to bribe the Muslim world?
>> The accusation that Iran engages in "organized crime and drug trafficking" seems planted. I haven't seen such a charge before. The standard accusation (in the US) has been that Iran supports terrorism (meaning Hezbollah) and "destabilizes the region" (meaning they don't bow to US-Israeli-Saudi masters).
10 There will be no deal without Iran.virgile | Nov 14, 2017 8:26:56 AM | 13Israel is not stupid. The outcome of the war in Syria is an Iranian base on its border .
Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov said Tuesday that a recently announced agreement on the terms of a ceasefire in Syria did not include a Russian commitment to ensure Iran-linked militias would be pulled out of the country.Lavrov said Iran maintained a "legitimate" presence in Syria, according to the Interfax news agency.
Trump's Middle East peace initiative still on holdcatface | Nov 14, 2017 8:29:52 AM | 14"What will the initiative include? According to various sources, it will consist of regional negotiations along three channels: Israeli-Palestinian with American mediation, Israeli-regional and international (rehabilitation of the refugee camps and mobilization of the world for a regional agreement). It is possible that the initiative will redefine the concept of "sovereignty" in a way that allows the Israelis and Palestinians to share territory creatively. The initiative may even resuscitate the Palestinian-Jordanian confederation idea. Perhaps even a Palestinian-Jordanian-Israeli configuration is possible."
Excellent article, thanks. yet I am left somewhat confused, Harir just talk on TV saying: He was running for a fear for his life (hezbollah wants him dead, like they did with his father), he added that Hezbollah is the danger to Lebanon, he added that he is not held by force and will return to Lebanon.somebody | Nov 14, 2017 8:36:31 AM | 15Something feels wrong, don't you have this feeling as well regarding this story?
13 Yes, that is the Israeli dream - Jordan to take over the rest of the West-Bank and Egypt take over Gaza.nudge | Nov 14, 2017 8:48:55 AM | 16Russia says US providing cover for ISIS - add to the BBC article.
@11...Jackrabbit:Yul | Nov 14, 2017 8:51:06 AM | 17
How convenient that you forget the phrase, "...by deception thou shalt do war", when you rationalize Israeli motivations/sensibilities.Interesting thread from the former US Amb to Israel under Obama:Jackrabbit | Nov 14, 2017 8:56:09 AM | 18
https://twitter.com/DanielBShapiro/status/930425842555027457and then we have this:
https://www.timesofisrael.com/us-delegation-headed-to-israel-to-discuss-syria-border-deal/
In addition to the Syria agreement, the officials are likely to discuss Iran's alleged construction of a military base less than 50 kilometers (30 miles) from Israel's Golan border.
and from Mattis:
https://www.reuters.com/article/us-mideast-crisis-usa-syria/u-s-to-fight-islamic-state-in-syria-as-long-as-they-want-to-fight-mattis-idUSKBN1DE037"We're not just going to walk away right now before the Geneva process has traction," he added.
@11 follow-upsomebody | Nov 14, 2017 9:14:05 AM | 19The leaking of a secret Israeli cable and publishing by an Israeli news organization also seems suspicious.
The past, such blatant Israeli support for an Arab State/Monarch would be the kiss of death, wouldn't it?
The best explanation I can muster for these leaks is this: to further the notion that an attack on Lebanon is imminent so as to distract from the real target of an attack: Qatar.
17Anonymous | Nov 14, 2017 9:24:45 AM | 20
Yep. The last sentence of the Reuters article is ominousOne key aim for Washington is to limit Iranian influence in Syria and Iraq, which expanded during the war with Islamic State.So the US military now works for Saudi?
So lets see:Anonymous | Nov 14, 2017 9:27:30 AM | 21Israel gets the Palestinians dumped.
Israel gets somebody else to attack Iran who will be destroyed in return.Israel: +++ (Palestine, Iran, Saudi)
Saudi: +- (Iran, Saudi)Only the Saudis could come up with a plan like this /sarc.
So lets see: (Updated as I forgot the Hezbollah angle)Don Bacon | Nov 14, 2017 9:43:39 AM | 22Israel gets the Palestinians dumped.
Israel gets somebody else to attack Iran who will be destroyed in return.
Israel gets Hezbollah weakened, allowing takeover of Lebanese oil interests / access for its planned Israel-Cyprus energy route therough Lebanese territorial waters.Israel: ++++ (Palestine, Iran, Saudi, Lebanon)
Saudi: +- (Iran, Saudi)Only the Saudis could come up with a plan like this /sarc.
Palestine is a dead duck anyhow, and there won't be any war on Iran because of the extensive US presence (missile targets) in the Gulf. So IMO the idea that Israel would give up its nukes might be the main issue here.Yul | Nov 14, 2017 9:44:11 AM | 23
Meanwhile Iran will be working behind the scenes to weaken both Israel and Saudi Arabia, especially in the key KSA Eastern Province where Shi'as predominate and ARAMCO will have new owners. The Persians have been around for centuries and they know how to deal with these matters, as evidenced recently.@ 19virgile | Nov 14, 2017 10:00:17 AM | 24Yep, get the Saudis to plonk down billions in weapons that they won't , can't use and take part of that cash to help the Israelis to bomb their Arab brethren.
The US politicians appear as dummies compared to Iranians, Russians and Chinese.somebody | Nov 14, 2017 10:07:03 AM | 25
One may have serious doubts about these expensive and famous US universities that seem to breed political morons.
They all look like vicious children playing dirty and cruel games in a kindergarten20/21never mind | Nov 14, 2017 10:11:56 AM | 26Israel will not attack Hezbollah (never mind Iran) without the US leading .
Saudi cannot get full support from the US for Yemen, never mind Iran .
Last/not least - whilst Trump has fully bought into Saudi and Israeli aims (they might not be the same), his presidency might end in three years. US (and Russian) interest is to balance the interests of Middle East actors not to become a proxy for one of them.
This here is James Mattis from 2013
"I paid a military security price every day as the commander of CentCom because the Americans were seen as biased in support of Israel, and that moderates all the moderate Arabs who want to be with us, because they can't come out publicly in support of people who don't show respect for the Arab Palestinians," he said Saturday at the Aspen Security Forum in Colorado in response to a question about the peace process.....
He called the current situation in Israel "unsustainable" and blamed the settlements for harming prospects for peace. The chances for an accord between Israel and the Palestinians, said Mattis, "are starting to ebb because the settlements and where they're at are going to make it impossible to maintain the two state solution."
Mattis then described a hypothetical in which 500 Jewish settlers live among 10,000 Arabs, and the implications of where Israel draws the border. He called it a choice between giving up the idea of a Jewish state or becoming an apartheid state.
Saudi is desperate. Israel is not far behind. Whatever they did since 2006 worsened their strategic position.
Jack | Nov 14, 2017 10:29:12 AM | 27The Zionist entity feels no real pressure to make peace.Making peace, in any shape or form, with the palestinians is antithesis to the zionist mission. Israel's survival, as a jewish state, hinges on this.
The same could also be said about the first point; Israel would never accept a technologically advanced state in the region that could threaten its hegemony. A nuclear Saudi Arabia will never see the light of day.
Great article; well researched and documented.CarlD | Nov 14, 2017 10:33:23 AM | 28I have a theory and I can't back it up but here goes...
I believe that The Donald gave Saudi two choices; go forward with his plan for the new Middle East or he throws his weight and support in with the 9/11 families in their lawsuit against Saud.
The Saudis have so seldom been out front on foreign policy and certainly never played on the front line solo prior to the past couple of years.
I believe that the Donald's plan is to emerge with the 3 strong actors of the US, Israel and SA and everyone else aligned with them and against Iran. It may actually work.
26,dh | Nov 14, 2017 10:49:15 AM | 29Of course Israel might appear to be in line with the Saudis
in order to weaken Iran and the pro palestinians.
Then after Iran were vanquished, it would take on the Saudis.Dear B,Grieved | Nov 14, 2017 10:59:15 AM | 30Excellent reporting.
I view the agreement, not as a threat to Iran, but as an alliance agreement between three weak actors, Trump, bin Salman and Netanyahu, who need all the friends that they can get. The rhetoric against Iran looks like their traditional positions.
Both Trump and bin Salman are each already in a war for survival with the Globalists (the clique of global elitists, whose members include Soros, Clinton, Tony Blair, Bandar Bush, etc. and who own the U.S. Deep State, the European Union structures, and Western media). Both Trump and bin Salman came to power after the Globalists fight against Russia (for example via the orchestrated drop in oil prices) did serious harm to their respective countries. Both are undoing the Globalist policies. The Globalists will continue to do everything possible to remove them from power.
Netenyahu is also no friend of the Globalists after they tried to rehabilitate Iran with the nuclear deal in order to draw Iran away from Russia. He has also been weakened by the disastrous outcome, for him, in Syria. (Are the Globalists behind the allegations of corruption against him?)
In this context I have difficulty to see that any of these three are in a position, or would be willing to take the risks involved, to launch a war with Iran.
It was on October 1st that Sayed Nasrallah made his attention-getting statement that the Zionist occupiers should go back to the countries they came from, because if the US-Israeli command launched a war on Lebanon there would be no time for the settlers to flee. It was a pretty dramatic escalation of warning, and almost seemed to come out of the blue, but perhaps not, if crazy ideas like the ones in this memorandum were swirling around the region. And they are crazy ideas, all highly dubious propositions.Fernando Arauxo | Nov 14, 2017 11:13:11 AM | 31Jackrabbit @18 makes a point if all this is smoke for the real attack, which is against Qatar. This seems much more plausible. Beirut-based Paul Cochrane laid out this possibility: Behind the Saudi Troublemaking
"... the global powers would vocally oppose such a move but likely not exercise military intervention a la 1991 when Iraq invaded Kuwait. The U.S. troops based in Qatar would just stay in their base; the Trump administration has signaled it has sided with Riyadh, even though the State Department has been more nuanced towards Doha. As for the Turks and the Iranians, they would not want to be brought into a conflagration with Riyadh and the ATQ. That really would tear the MENA apart.Ultimately, there's not much to stop a Saudi gas grab. There's not much desire internationally for yet another Middle Eastern military "adventure" following the debacles in Iraq and Libya, while nobody's lifted a finger against Saudi Arabia for its war against Yemen. As long as Qatari gas exports remain uninterrupted, the global powers might readily accept a change of management.
Mercouris at the Duran picked this up too, and makes a decent case that Saudi could actually get away with this. It seems to make much more sense than the appalling logistics of trying to attack either Hezbollah or Iran. And by grabbing the Qatari half of the massive gas field shared with Iran, Saudi would have achieved an ironic taste of "parity" with its true enemy.
The question is, how possible is such a move for Saudi Arabia?
HAHAHA the jews consider the Al Sauds a joke and they want parity with them? HAHAHAHA Allowed to have nuclear weapons? HAHAHAHA!!! Too funnyPnyx | Nov 14, 2017 11:16:44 AM | 32
Israel's government would be foolish if it were to engage in a deal that promises them what they already have de facto and demands that they abandon the greatest strategic advantage Israel has; the exclusive regional possession of nuclear weapons.Piotr Berman | Nov 14, 2017 11:39:51 AM | 33The most dubious part of the "Saudi plan" is that it may be good for Saudis, in some deluded princely perspective, but there is really nothing of value for USA. Goodies for USA -- Palestinians giving up on the right of return? USA does not consider that right seriously, so value is zero, numerically speaking (zero shows a the result if you are not using exponential notation, 10^-50). Goodies for KSA: the status of "Grand Prince" in Golden Horde.Anna | Nov 14, 2017 11:47:18 AM | 34Golden Horde was a successor state of Mongolian empire that had supremacy over Rus among its various holdings. Rus was split into a number of principalities ruled by princes but one of them was given the function of Grand Prince, and he collected the taxes from all other princes and passing them to the Khan of the Horde. While the power of Grand Prince was considerable, he could be recalled (one way ticket to the capital of the Horde).
KSA imagines having that position in the Arab (or Muslim??) words, of course without the last detail -- obligatory invitation to D.C. with a dinner that may be wholesome, but then again, it may be poisoned. But it is much better to USA to deal with a number of small states that do not cooperate with each other. What if a single change of power in the Kingdom is followed by a request to close all bases? This is a type of bother that is better to prevent from even being contemplated. Mind you, Americans were disinvited from the Kingdom in the past. Trump may trust MbS, but Pentagon does not KSA.
You forgot to mention Macron's recent surprise visit. For some reason, Macron may be on the hook to them. He was awarded with a military contract (navy vessels) from UAE, KSA ally.Piotr Berman | Nov 14, 2017 11:51:12 AM | 35Macron on the hook? Like a hooker? But that lady has no intention to be restricted in the choice of customers. Over time, she will have a kind word (not just words) for everyone.karlof1 | Nov 14, 2017 11:53:39 AM | 36Grieved @30--fastfreddy | Nov 14, 2017 12:03:27 PM | 37It would seem Nasrallah's/Hezbollah's intel reach is quite deep. As someone commented, the plan reeks of desperation; since it's founded on numerous falsehoods, it has no chance of success. I expect the Umma to denounce Saudi's betrayal of Palestine regardless of what their governments say.
An array of unrealistic, unobtainable goals and a leak. Football analogy: It's a pump fake. Look for the hand off and a running play.J Swift | Nov 14, 2017 12:07:23 PM | 38Also see a limited hangout: Warm the Arab public to the concept of totally screwing the Palestinians in Palestine's stolen land (Israel).
I wrote a couple weeks ago that because of several years of weak chief executive, the power blocks in the US were pursuing their respective interests more independently and openly than ever (which they are); and in Arabia MbS is a power hungry Machiavellian prince who is also naive and thus hard to predict, but who must understand that he will need allies, and those allies will likely have an influence on him, for better or worse (which is also true). I was naturally hoping that his daddy's trip to Russia, as his last state visit, might indicate that the king was trying to open an option for MbS to turn to Russia for support against the CIA/State sponsored factions within SA, which might in turn lead to at least the opportunity for Russia to exert some calming influence on the region over time.Temporarily Sane | Nov 14, 2017 12:16:56 PM | 39Well, that may have been the king's thought, but obviously his son has been getting his advice from elsewhere. In the US, a most unlikely alliance appears to have formed (at least with respect to the ME). Because of the vitriol existing between the neocons and Trump, and the fact that the office of the president has largely been taken over by the Pentagon (which often but does not always see eye-to-eye with the Zionist/Neocons), it was easy to overlook the growing power and influence of the Zionist worm in the White House, Kushner.
I think Trump never had a strong foreign policy concept in his own mind--mostly boiled down to a quasi-isolationist, so he hasn't fought hard against turning things over to the Pentagon and Kushner. It is now clear that Kushner, the US's own power hungry prince who is eager to prove his chops in an area he has no clue in--international politics--has fallen completely into the loving arms of Israel. It is clear now that the Trump/Kushner plans for SA are entirely a Nuttyahoo wet dream. The visit to SA, where they were persuaded to spend $110B of money they don't really have mostly on huge numbers of THAAD and other missile defense systems and front-line fighters. Next MbS was persuaded to confront Qatar, as any breaks in a united front against Iran must be spanked (notice how all these events keep happening a couple days after a visit from Kushner, who is usually hot off a meeting with his masters in Israel). Then MbS is apparently advised to go all in to remove opposition within the kingdom, which gives Trump glee because it also punishes Hillary's friends, but also commits MbS to the path, and makes him totally reliant on Israel/Kushner for protection (cutting RF's increasing attraction). Now the crude attempt to boil the pot in Lebanon.
So in short order there will be far more missile defenses than Riyadh needs (but exactly what Israel desires). Israel doesn't want to be first in on a direct attack on Iran, but if there is a whole air force worth of planes with Saudi markings just waiting for Israeli/US/Wahabi pilots to take first blood--once it's a regional war on, who will notice who's planes are attacking Iran after that? And MbS (under careful direction) has now set up trigger points from Yemen to Qatar to Lebanon, just waiting until the preparations are done and an event to be blamed on Iran, and away we go. Israel finally gets its wish. The good news is that MbS has likely bitten off more than he can chew by taking on all of his internal opposition at the same time as Iran, and done so in such a heavy handed manner that I doubt he can buy a life insurance policy. And Russia and Iran have maintained a steady and "back seat" approach to their assistance of everyone who seems to need it--and the US and Israel have been so brazen in their duplicity and untrustworthiness--most countries in the area (and the world) don't seem so eager to follow the US lead any more (plus, the Pentagon is still very strong in the US executive, and I don't think they're quite so anxious to tear into Iran). So there is hope this latest Israeli plan to drag the world into war against Iran will melt down just like it did in Syria, but who knows how much damage will be done before it does.
@4 somebodyWilliam | Nov 14, 2017 12:19:44 PM | 40And neither the US nor Israel can politically afford to lose many soldiers in a ground war. So if Saudi wants to fight against Iran, they have to do it themselves.MBS would have to be absolutely deranged to fight Iran directly. The KSA's regular troops are mostly foreigners from Pakistan and other poorer nations. They are well-equipped but poorly trained. In addition, fighting wars for a country one has no stake in makes for poor morale. They are getting their asses handed to them on a regular basis by the relatively poorly-equipped (but highly motivated) Houthi rebels in Yemen.
It is possible that MBS is wildly deluded but I can't see him facing Iran alone. What is more likely is covert and indirect warfare from the US and Israel with special forces and proxies (like the MEK terrorist group inside Iran and perhaps some Wahhabi fanatics) providing boots on the ground and the whole thing backed up by USAF air power and bankrolled by MBS.
Someone mentioned that 'parity on nukes is a non-starter. That is bullshit. SA already has 85 American B-61 nukes that were delivered to them by Israel at the time when it appeared that McStain's plan of raising an Arab Army out of Turkey would eventually defeat Syria.PeacefulProsperity | Nov 14, 2017 12:25:14 PM | 41No on has ever accounted for those nukes, and I seriously doubt, that once they got their hands on them, that SA would give them back. Matter of fact, video exists somewhere out in the ether of a SA attack on Yemenn in which one of the B-61 nukes was used, it just happens to have 'disappeared'.
I'd say this is a non-starter. The Palestinians though may take a page out of the Zionist playbook, take the money and then just keep fighting, after all, most of world opinion in now firmly with them.
From b's report:Ghostship | Nov 14, 2017 12:27:17 PM | 42"The Saudi tyrant abducted the Prime Minister of Lebanon, Saad Hariri, and declared war on the country. The purpose of this move is to remove or isolate Hizbullah, the Shia resistance of Lebanon which is allied with Iran and opposes the Saudi plans for Palestine."
That's absurd, ridculoous, doesn't make sense at all.
Hariri is a mortal enemy of Hizb, even accused them of assassinations attempts. Saudis keeping Hariri in house arrest gives the control of all Lebanon over to Hizb - a dream come true for them.
Add arresting plotters of 9/11 ponce Talal (also a major sponsor of Clinton/Bush criminal enterprise, CNN lies and Twitter censorship) and ponce Bandar (a butcher of Syria) to the picture and you can see that this all turns conveniently into Russia's advantage. Plus:
Russia, Saudi Arabia sign air defense contracts
And Turkey is already in the fold:
Putin says relations between Russia and Turkey may be considered as fully restored
>>>> stonebird | Nov 14, 2017 7:45:36 AM | 6PeacefulProsperity | Nov 14, 2017 12:31:24 PM | 43The "other" route via Greece would be used.Which one is that? Over the Caspian Sea, through the Caucasus(Armenia, Azerbaijan, Georgia, Turkey or Russia), across the Black Sea, through Bulgarian or Turkish airspace to Greece. That would be available one time only and the fuel loads the aircraft would have to carry would severely restrict the bomb load they could carry. Also, going by previous experience the first time any Iranian SAM batteries locked their radar onto the Israeli aircraft, they'd dump their drop tanks and bomb loads to head out of Iranian airspace ASAP.
Any attempt by Israel to attack Iran would be a disaster for Israel which is why the conspiracy is aimed at getting Hezbollah to launch missiles at Israel and Iran to launch missiles at Saudi Arabia in response to a Saudi attack on Hezbollah. Then the United States could argue that it's intervention against Hezbollah and Iran was legitimate, well at least legitimate enough satisfy the American public and the poodles.
Everything has been going well according to the Putin-Trump plan:PeacefulProsperity | Nov 14, 2017 12:35:43 PM | 44Trump: 'Time to Get Back to Healing a World That is Shattered and Broken'
McCain and the rest of war-mongers (e.g. Lynn de Rothshild) are scared to death by this:
US Senator McCain Slams Donald Trump Over 'Believing in Sincerity' - Sputnik International
Peace is coming to the ME Lebanon's Maronite Patriarch arrives in Riyadh on first visit
Remaining terror state is in the cross-hairs: US breaks ground for new permanent base in Israel
FWIW interesting info-crumbs Arrested: Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal. His Ties to Las Vegasdognuke | Nov 14, 2017 12:43:17 PM | 45
This is the same Saudi Prince Alwaleed bin Talal who, together with Bill Gates, owns the Four Seasons Hotel that is located within the 5 top floors of the Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas.That would be the same Mandalay Bay Hotel in Las Vegas that was the sight of the deadliest mass shooting in our nation's history.
The Four Seasons Hotel-within-a-hotel boasts its own private elevators and separate entrance.
His arrest may or may not reveal more ties to the Las Vegas Massacre. But it does reveal that he's a pretty shady character.Prince Alaweed's arrest was the result of King Salman's decree to create an anti-corruption committee chaired by his son, Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman.
King Salman decreed late on Saturday the creation of an anti-corruption committee chaired by Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman "
"The allegations against Prince Alwaleed include money laundering, bribery and extorting officials, one official told Reuters, while Prince Miteb is accused of embezzlement, hiring ghost employees and awarding contracts to his own companies including a $10 billion deal for walkie talkies and bulletproof military gear worth billions of Saudi royals."
Prince Alaweed bin Talal is also Twitter's second largest shareholder. That would be the same Twitter that allows ISIS, Antifa and anyone who threatens to assassinate our President free reign on their platform but blocks conservative American patriots' accounts.
Speaking of information flow-the Prince's investment company, Kingdom Holding Company, is a major shareholder in Time Warner Cable. The same Time Warner cable that owns CNN. Oh- and they also own a major chunk of AOL that owns the Liberal multi-author blogging platform posing as a news source-Huffpost.
Jim Murren, CEO of MGM dumped millions of dollars worth of his stocks in the weeks leading up to the massacre.That would be the same MGM that owns the Mandalay Bay Hotel. How fortunate that he dumped his stocks before the mass shooting.
MGM Stock Selloff and Saudi Connections to Mandalay Bay Hotel.
CEO Jim Murren circulated an internal memo that stated that he would match donations to CAIR ( a terrorist organization) and the ADL-a very anti-Trump, pro-Islamic organization. He must like Twitter.
The Saudis partnered with the MGMReuters reported that back in '07 Dubai World became partners with MGM.
"Dubai World, the investment holding firm of the Dubai government, will acquire a 9.5 percent stake in MGM Mirage and 50 percent of the casino operator's CityCenter development project for $5 billion."
Dubai World referred to the deal as a "long term strategic partnership."
Prince Alwaleed bin Talal hails from Saudi Arabia.
That would be the same country as the Saudi Royal Air Force-that just happened to be doing some "realistic combat training" in Las Vegas.
From a previous post,
It may or may not be "routine," but during the month of August, from the 5th to the 28th, the Saudi Air Force booked an entire tower of "SLS," a beleaguered Las Vegas hotel. They didn't stay there to ogle scantily clad Las Vegas women. Arrangements were made to keep all female staff away from them. Some areas were closed to the public and pictures of females were yanked from the walls.
The purpose was for "realistic combat training" and they're planning on making a habit of it. The Las Vegas Review Journal reported,
"Saudi Arabia's 10th Squadron Royal Saudi Air Force will be taking part in Red Flag 17-4 at Nellis Air Force Base, according to airwingspotter.com, a site dedicated to military aviation photography and spotting. Red Flag, combat training involving the air, space and cyberforces of the United States and its allies, will be held Aug. 14-25.
"Depending on the year, the Royal Saudi Air Force will bring 175-210 members to these realistic combat exercises," S&K said in the 2014 post."
Who needs a military base when you can rent a hotel? Food's better too.
Caught up in King Salman's sweep was the Commander of the Saudi Navy as well as the Minister of the National Guards. No mention yet of the Royal Saudi Air Force.
Ghostship | Nov 14, 2017 1:04:26 PM | 46
Nuclear strike by proxy, Saudi Arabia purchased(or given) nuclear bomb(s). Temporary nuke parity.
The clown prince MbS is the perfect proxy to strike Iran.
>>>> Jackrabbit | Nov 14, 2017 8:07:28 AM | 11Yul | Nov 14, 2017 1:06:55 PM | 47I'm not convinced that this document is genuine because:>> discussions with Israel about the Palestinians are unlikely to be phrased as a "final solution" with the severe negative historical connotations of that phrase;
>> this wording is also odd: "rapprochement with Israel involves a risk to the Muslim peoples of the Kingdom" because there is no need to make special reference to "Muslim peoples" when 99.9% of KSA is Muslim.
You are aware this is a machine translation? So unless you are fluent in Arabic and can translate the original article, your comment has little value just like Liz Sly's and Anne Barnard's reporting from Beirut.
As for "final solution" why would an Arab be concerned since beyond the Mufti of Jerusalem, Arabs played little or no part is the Holocaust. And the position and role of the Mufti of Jerusalem is heavily overstated by Zionists.
>> this wording is also odd: "rapprochement with Israel involves a risk to the Muslim peoples of the Kingdom" because there is no need to make special reference to "Muslim peoples" when 99.9% of KSA is Muslim.Firstly this could again be down to machine translation but it's more likely to be that 30% of the population of Saudi Arabia are migrant workers so 99.9% of the population are not necessarily Muslims. If you'd bothered to check the CIA World Fact Book, the only honest publication that the CIA produces, you would have known this.
>> The accusation that Iran engages in "organized crime and drug trafficking" seems planted. I haven't seen such a charge before. The standard accusation (in the US) has been that Iran supports terrorism (meaning Hezbollah) and "destabilizes the region" (meaning they don't bow to US-Israeli-Saudi masters).You obviously haven't be paying attention to the bilge about the Tri-border region in South America. I would guess that this is Kushner's contibution to the ploy - most Americans are deeply infected with a disease known as projection and thus assume their enemies would act as they do because being the exceptional country everybody wants to do what Americans do. In this case with the CIA funding their illegal activities prior to about 2001 with money raised from drug smuggling, Americans assume that is what the Iranians are also doing which is ironic when you understand that the Iranians are fighting an existential war against drugs.
https://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-5042362,00.htmlGhostship | Nov 14, 2017 1:15:39 PM | 48
Greenblatt: no resumption of Israel-Palestinian talks in sightFor sure: Abu Mazen must have told the Saudi Pretender and his senile father: Go and take a hike !
>>>> PeacefulProsperity | Nov 14, 2017 12:25:14 PM | 41Ghostship | Nov 14, 2017 1:17:35 PM | 49Oh, a Zionist troll talking bullshit as usual.
>>>> William | Nov 14, 2017 12:19:44 PM | 40james | Nov 14, 2017 1:17:41 PM | 50You could include a link or two to justify your staggering claim.
thanks b!Laguerre | Nov 14, 2017 1:21:30 PM | 51i agree with @20/21 anonymous.. this isn't a saudi plan! (The memo is signed by Adel al-Jubeir. (But who were the 'advisors' who dictated it to him?) )
this is a memo thought up in some neo cons head - whether they are located in israel, or some washington stink tank..
@29 dh.. i agree with much of what you say, but don't you think israel/saudi/usa trio are batshit crazy enough to do something stupid? witness their war on syria.. plenty of stupidity to continue on in the same fashion.
@18/30 jr and grieved... yes - qatar is a thorn in the side of the terrorist state saudi arabia.. nothing like another terrorist state calling you out, lol.. one of them has to be silenced... i doubt the attack is going to be on qatar myself..
@38 j swift.. thanks.. makes sense..
@45 dognuke.. unfortunately that is true and a possibility.. the clown prince is a really unstable dude..
It should be born in mind, of course, that this is only MbS plotting. It can't be spoken of publicly in Saudi Arabia, because the Saudi population is strongly pro-Palestinian. But all the media are owned by members of the royal family, so the population is kept in ignorance and quiet. I don't know whether that number of al-Akhbar has been suppressed in Saudi, but this news has sort of got out anyway, as it will be on the social media, which Saudis are dedicated to.Ghostship | Nov 14, 2017 1:22:54 PM | 52The fourth point is to bribe the public into accepting the plan. That'll cost a lot. And I don't think it will work. Another risk for MbS's power.
>>>> Anna | Nov 14, 2017 11:47:18 AM | 34Jackrabbit | Nov 14, 2017 1:27:18 PM | 53Airbus Industries also just received a large order for A-380s from Dubai (Emirates) - since Abu Dhabi pretty much owns Dubai after there financial troubles a few years back. it wouldn't surprise me if this was an MbZ bribe to various European countries to look the other way when things kick off.
Ghostship @46Ghostship | Nov 14, 2017 1:29:32 PM | 54Military usually want some measure of surprise. If only for this reason, signaling an attack on Lebanon would seem foolish. Unless it was a distraction.
Anyway, we then see a "leaking" of a secret Israeli cable (happens all the time, right?) that supports KSA's anti-Lebanon stance. Hmm... K.
Now we have another leak(!) that implicitly explains Israel's support of KSA as part of a larger "peace deal" (really a "war deal", isn't it?) that includes a betrayal of the Palestinians. Yeah that betrayal makes it totally believable, sure/sarc - but parity on nukes?!?
Posted by: Don Bacon | Nov 14, 2017 9:43:39 AM | 22Jackrabbit | Nov 14, 2017 1:35:27 PM | 55Palestine is a dead duck anyhow...That's what the western MSM with support from Israel, Gulf governments and some Islamists want you to believe. Elsewhere it's still an important issue but US pressure means that many are reluctant to speak out but not Celtic supporters
Tomorrow's leak:CarlD | Nov 14, 2017 1:36:09 PM | 56From Lebanese Government affirming Iran's support for Hezb and willingness to arm them with nuclear missiles.
Oh, and they will do the same for the Houthi in Yemen.
And they killed Kennedy.
/sarc
Re: 40CarlD | Nov 14, 2017 1:37:20 PM | 57Video evidence of tactical weapons used in Yemen and other
conflicts:
https/www.youtube.com/watch?v=neKIaVGj-9Yre 40:james | Nov 14, 2017 1:53:48 PM | 58please add missing slash
related...Alastair Crooke - gambling all on black at the roulette wheel..Peter AU 1 | Nov 14, 2017 2:08:32 PM | 59"This US-Israeli-Saudi-UAE project is, at bottom, an attempt to overturn reality, no less it is rooted in a denial of the setback suffered by these states by their multiple failures to shape a New Middle East in the western mode. Now, in the wake of their failure in Syria in which they went to the limits in search of victory they seek another spin of the roulette wheel in the hope of recouping all their earlier losses. It is, to say the least, a capricious hope."
It is hard to see how they would go about attackiung Iran unless it is just a quick strike/raid and then they all go home again. For the US, military cargo planes with backloads of US boots neatly packaged in body bags is not acceptable.dh | Nov 14, 2017 2:16:59 PM | 60
Trump wants US to be a major energy exporter, but oil prices must go up to get fracking viable in a big way. A play to bump up oil prices? Another option is Trump and Kushner playing MBS to get Aramco listed in the US and prevent China from puchasing the full offering.@50 Thank you james for agreeing with my thoughtful and erudite post but unfortunately it was written by one of the other dh s. I've pretty much retired.frances | Nov 14, 2017 2:52:32 PM | 61To answer your question....yes I think Israel and Saudis are crazy but maybe not crazy enough to strike Iran without a green light from Washington.
Given the first demand: "First: The Saudis demand a "parity of the relationship" between Israel and Saudi Arabia. On the military level they demand that either Israel gives up on its nuclear weapons or Saudi Arabia is itself allowed to acquire such." This entire plan/proposal IMO is a nonstarter because of this initial and presumably most important (it is #1)requirement and whoever wrote it/approved it knew it.james | Nov 14, 2017 3:00:33 PM | 62@dh... that is interesting as i was surprised at the longer post by you.. now it makes sense!dh | Nov 14, 2017 3:20:38 PM | 63i guess they will have to work on a false flag before they get the green light from washington... iran won't do something stupid.. that is reserved for the clown prince/nutjob duo at this point..
@62 A false flag will require a substantial number of US fatalities. Thinking back to the US boat that 'strayed' into Iranian waters some time ago wonder how Donald would handle something similar. Those sailors or whatever they were got soundly humiliated but released unhurt. Hardly a casus belli.Mina | Nov 14, 2017 3:28:41 PM | 64so The Guardians' journalists don't watch the BBCpantaraxia | Nov 14, 2017 3:28:56 PM | 65
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/nov/14/russia-us-isis-syria-video-game-still@30 GrievedRed Ryder | Nov 14, 2017 3:31:25 PM | 66The problem with this idea is that Turkey has already instituted a blocking action by placing Turkish forces in Qatar in response to the original Saudi threat. While the contingent was small, approximately one thousand men, the message was quite clear - hands off. Any move by the Saudis or their allies risks Turkish retaliation. it's a no-go zone.
Regarding the Saudi military, as pointed out, they are out of troops.CarlD | Nov 14, 2017 4:06:21 PM | 67
They could not get Egyptians to fight in Yemen or Syria, nor could they get the Pakistanis to fight on their side in either war.They are desperate.
A war on Qatar would be to ignite Turkey and Iran's support for Qatar, and thus the Israeli-US coalition could punish both those nations, a goal the US would enjoy doing.
The aim is to regain Hegemony over the ME. The Russia-Iran-Turkey alliance has pushed the US aside, if not away. Whatever allows the US to hurt Russia by striking Turkey and Iran would be the goal, and Israel would benefit along with the US.
It would be an air war and the US and Israel would win it.
It isn't about Saudi goals and needs. It's about the Hegemon and Jr. Hegemon in Tel Aviv.
66stonebird | Nov 14, 2017 4:16:23 PM | 68If it remains an air war, the probability is that US/Israel would overwhelm
at the beginning of a combined attack unless defenses are upgraded.However, if in view of the probability of war, Russia were to rush AA
systems to Syria and Iran, the probability that substantial air forces
would be decimated is high. The US forces would certainly be pummeled
in their bases around the Gulf and their naval forces in the Gulf sunk
with the numerous Iran assets in the region.Without resorting to nukes, the US is probably not going to win because
it cannot field sufficient boots on the ground in Iran. And remember, the
stakes are high for China to get its fuel from somewhere and the US will
have to take this into account. Depriving China of its needed fuel is no
laughing matter.They are in Djibouti for a reason.
I believe Israel is trying to chew too big a bone. It will choke.
@42 ghostship@29 dh | Nov 14, 2017 4:16:52 PM | 69This was originally proposed as a "one-off" bombing route. ie. via the Med to cross (at that time Turkey) Now could cross Greek airspace (would need NATO laisser-passer"). Caspian to Azerbaijan. (Has close links with Israel and just tried out an Israeli suicide drone on Armenia for a "client"). From there a short hop to Iran. Fueling over greek airspace.
Return route, nowadays, would be via Saudi Arabia (plus refueling and no need to go any further). It's actually easier than a few years ago.The second para I agree with.
.....
General opinion.
Palestine. The single state AND the two state solution have probably been junked by Israel. Neither of the alternatives gives an ethnically pure "Jewish" state. So what to do with them? At the moment the Palestinians are being dispossesed (of land, houses), forcibly displaced (at the moment the focus is on the Jordan Valley and Bedouin villages anywhere). They are put in "camps" where they are subject to daily harassment and destruction of living amenities (including water). The desired effect is ethnic cleansing (a la Serbia). Gaza is a humanitarian disaster - under-developed children suffer stunting - and as well the IDF concentrate on children as it is easy to make them submit.Where could they go? . Jordan - doesn't want them, as they would make up the majority, and put in peril the stability of the country.
Egypt - doesn't want them either.
"Gulf" countries - you must be joking, many are already minorities in their own countries. (Abu Dhabi,)
Leaves the neighbours, Lebanon, Syria and the EU (via Turkey?).
EU - Soros is taking care of that and destroying national unity at the same time.
Lebanon. Over-populated by refugees already.
Syria - Too many displaced persons, plus Palestinian refugee camps.Maybe Israel imagines the solution is to force them on the latter two countries by means of military action as they won't take them voluntarily.
@50, @60Jen | Nov 14, 2017 4:43:56 PM | 70Sorry for using dh. Didn't realize that it was already taken.
I think that the real war, right now, is between the Globalists and Trump/MBS. Trump and MBS are both fighting for their survival. I can't see how attacking Iran would help them, quite the opposite.
@66 The Globalists want Hegemony over the ME. I'm not sure that Trump does. However, the Globalists first priority is to regain control over the U.S. (i.e. impeach Trump), and then continue their war with Russia. I can't see how driving Turkey and Iran into Russia's hands will help them either to tame Russia or to reassert Hegemony over the ME.
I think people here - and the KSA for that matter too - need to know that attacking and invading Iran won't be at the same (lower) scale as attacking and invading Lebanon, Qatar, Syria and even Iraq. These countries are flat and a major part of their territories is desert. Their populations are not that great either - the largest is Iraq with about 35 million.nottheonly1 | Nov 14, 2017 4:44:40 PM | 71Iran on the other hand is mostly mountainous (especially in its west and south) and its population reached 81 million some time in October 2017. An attack on Iran from the west is going to need foot soldiers to be effective. Where will Israel, the US or the KSA stump up the armies needed to invade Iran? Using ISIS and al Qaida / Jabhat al Nusra failed.
If an invasion comes from the east, how will Afghanistan (chaotic?) and Pakistan be brought on board to allow their use of airspace for air attacks?
A third option would be to stage air and naval attacks from India. That might be plausible if India under Narendra Modi and the BJP is friendly towards Israel and the US.
A number of thoughts comes to mind.Temporarily Sane | Nov 14, 2017 4:49:04 PM | 72
1) Divide and conquer
2) The Enemy of my enemy is my friend
3) Do as I say, not as I do
4) You are either with us or with the terrorists
5) Birds of a Fascist feather flock togetherAs to the "not in my name" shirt and withdrawal from the machine, it won't happen.
Remember the analogy about the frog in the water that will start to boil? No frog would ever do that. It is humans who threw the frog into the pot and watched.
Karma can be a nasty bitch. It has transformed humanity into a frog and the masses will be boiled.
To implement change, people would have to turn off the propaganda hammering down on them from all sides. But that won't happen. People are programmed to believe the lies they are dished out. No de-programming - no change.
Americans and their Fascist alies will have to go through their own collapsing 4th Reich.
And of course: Support your troops. Sell everything and donate the money to the MIC. Because they will come for it anyways. Only in a Fascist country, warriors are elevated over any civil person. This morning at court: people congratulating a father because his son just joined the troops.Reject anything the parasites in the legislative tell you. Like George Carlin said: "I never believe what the government tells me."
End of story.
Spend as much time as you can with your loved ones. The Motherearthfuckers are about to turn the heat on. And it is already way too hot here.@44 Peaceful ProsperityJoe | Nov 14, 2017 4:55:50 PM | 73From the Sputink piece you linked to:
US President Donald Trump has said that heavy sanctions imposed on Russia should not become a barrier to future friendly cooperation between the two nations, adding that cordial international relations would be likely to help resolve the North Korean threat and many other global issues.How noble and considerate of Trump. "Vlad, my friend, I know we are waging economic warfare on your people, surrounding your borders with nukes and want to take over and "regime change" your country. But, hey, never mind all that stuff and let us be friends! Then you can help us do to other sovereign nations what we are doing to you."
Touching, very touching It raises the question: What "many other global issues" is Trump trying to solve? Climate change, perhaps? Ending the war in Yemen? Rapprochement with Iran? Curbing corporate and Israeli influence in American elections and foreign policy?
Peaceful Prosperity...you are not still holding a candle for this duplicitous shitbag, are you?
Trumpets are the new Obots.
Just my 2 cents but it seems to me the real target has always been Russia, more specifically Gazprom, why not just take control of Qatar and their gas field which is also Irans gas field as well, which correct me if I'm wrong could be completely controlled/exploited from Qatar without anyone having to step foot into Iran, couple this with limited strikes on Irans gas infrastructure in the name of removing their ability to be "evildoers" and before you know it Aramaco, which now controls a third plus of the world's nat gas is listed on the NY exchange and it still only accepts dollars. Wonder what countries that pipeline would pass through...Seby | Nov 14, 2017 5:00:52 PM | 74Pleazzzzzz!!!!Mina | Nov 14, 2017 5:10:50 PM | 75What have the british installed wahabist medieval hole in the sand copulators ever really done for Palestine?
TsTacitus | Nov 14, 2017 6:22:47 PM | 76
Trump has been busy planning a huge karaoke with his new buddy Duterte. Guns are on option, courtesy of the NRAI am a new poster to this board. I've tried twice to post something and the message said it was posted successfully, but it is not visible in the comments section. Is there some mediator process that it has to go through first, or is there something else that I need to do? (I left the email and url boxes empty; could that be the issue?)Yeah, Right | Nov 14, 2017 6:30:55 PM | 77The way in which this plays out is almost pre-ordained.james | Nov 14, 2017 6:31:02 PM | 78There is no way that a formal, signed document will exist that states that when-you-shaft-Palestine then we-will-attack-Iran.
What will happen instead is that Trump will broker that "understanding" between Israel and Saudi Arabia. A nod and a wink, and maybe even a handshake.
But the Israelis will insist that the Saudis have to do that Palestine-shafting first, and in The Most Public Way Possible so that the House of Saud can't take it back. Trump will say that this is reasonable, and the dumb-ass Saudis will mull over it then say "OK, sure, if the Yanks vouch for you then so will we".
The Saudis will then dump on Abbas.
The USA will then heap congratulations on the Saudis.
The Israelis will shout Yipeeeeeeeeeeeee!!!!!!!!!!!!
The Palestinians will descend into a deep despair.And then...... [sound of crickets chirping].
Saudi: Hey, when are you going to attack Iran?
Israel: We're working on it. Give us time.
USA: Hey, I thought we had an understanding!
Israel: We do, this takes a lot of planning.
[crickets]
[crickets]
[crickets]
Saudi: What gives, guys?
USA: When are you were going to attack Iran?
Israel: We changed our mind. Bite me.Let's get real here: the Israelis have a track-record of "agreeing" to a quid-pro-quo, then immediately pocketing the "quid" while somehow, some way, never actually getting around to delivering on the "quo"
The Saudis will shaft the Palestinians.
The Israelis will then shaft the Saudis.
The Americans will fume (in private) but ultimately do nothing and say nothing.And years later there will be an off-mike recording of Netanyahu boasting about how he f**ked over the Saudis, and gleefully explain that the reason why he could do that is because the Americans are at least as dumb-ass stoooooopid as, well, a Saudi Clown Prince.
I mean, haven't we seen this movie before?
tactus - it should go thru, unless you linked to the odd url that doesn't go thru - southfront is one of them going on memory..BraveNewWorld | Nov 14, 2017 6:34:38 PM | 79Sorry if some one has mentioned this already, but Jerusalem belongs neither to the Palestinains or the Israelis. It belongs to Jordan and Jordan is it's designated protector just as the freaks in KSA are the protectors of Mecca and Medena. The NATO countries on orders of Israel have burred the Palestinian cause. But if the children running the US and KSA tried giving the third holiest site in Islam (and likely the most important heritage site in the world) to the Jews so they could blow it up to build a Jewsih temple on top of it ,the back lash among the 1.5 billion Muslims in the world would be immense. Not to mention basically righting off international law in it's entirety. China, Russia and the EU would never allow it.seriousJust Sayin' | Nov 14, 2017 6:48:08 PM | 80It has been obvious for years that Bibi and the KSA have have been cooking this up but it wasn't till last year they had any one stupid enough in the White House to try and take a run at it. If you want total war in the Middle East this is how you acheave it. The outcome will be a Palestinian state. Whether there will be a Jewish one if this is tried is up for debate.
Wonder what countries that pipeline would pass through...Debsisdead | Nov 14, 2017 7:06:41 PM | 81Posted by: Joe | Nov 14, 2017 4:55:50 PM | 73
It's a source of not only bewilderment, but also amusement, that there are people so dumb/dishonest (delete as applicable) that after all we have seen in the last few years, even just what we have seen in the last few weeks, that still pretend/think/pretend-to-think that this has something to do with pipelines?
Seriously, would all you "It's the pipelines, stoopid!" gobshites kindly just stfu.
A dumber more gullible bunch of eejits would be hard to find
Posted by: Tacitus | Nov 14, 2017 6:22:47 PMCurtis | Nov 14, 2017 7:26:18 PM | 82Typepad insists on a viable email address - not your real one just a viable one whose mail server will respond to a call. mailinatorDOTcom (remove the DOT & replace with . to visit) is one of many spam dodging sites which will enable a poster to post here, plus let you use it to sign up to all sorts of BBs forums etc. They have a rotating list of email server suggestions. otherwise joblo(or whatever) at gmail will do the trick most times.
Another plan to get the US to fight another war that benefits zionists, this time against Iran. I wonder who is in the role of Lord Balfour.Joe | Nov 14, 2017 7:38:35 PM | 83
I like the idea of an independent religious Jerusalem city, I doubt either party will go for it. The same goes for an Israeli agreement for nuke parity with Saudis or a single open state for Palestinians. While many Palestinians want their own state and even some in Israel want this (including some Shin Bet officials) there are others who say it is too late due to the proliferation of settlements in West Bank. These others (like Miko Peled) say a single state as the only option left. It seems to be a very convoluted (Rube Goldberg?) solution to getting a united front to attack Iran and "solve" the Palestinian issue.@Just sayin, perhaps you could spell it out for me then, but if all you got is name calling maybe you should stfu, kindly that isGhostship | Nov 14, 2017 7:45:48 PM | 84>>>> CarlD | Nov 14, 2017 1:36:09 PM | 56Daniel | Nov 14, 2017 7:46:39 PM | 85Video evidence of tactical weapons used in Yemen and other conflicts:I doubt it, they all look like large conventional explosions to me.
The ones in Ukraine are from a detonation of a large weapons dump while the Saudis managed to hit a rocket manufacturing plant in Yemen that resulted in a very large explosion.
Thanks for the link, CarlD. I think it entirely possible that 'tactical nukes" have been used. I would expect that at some point, a credible, government-tied group will report that these weapons have been used. This will serve to normalize their use in the future. People will feel that since they'd been used already, and we all survived, that using them again will not be so horrifying/dangerous.Daniel | Nov 14, 2017 7:57:51 PM | 86More and more I'm thinking that humanity has reached the end of our rope, and we will have deserved it when the trapdoor finally springs.
Mina @64. BBC is running that same "video game" story. In fact, on their Middle East News page earlier, they had both this and their "expose" of the US helping ISIL escape arrangement.anonimo | Nov 14, 2017 8:11:53 PM | 87and the big plan goes on:Grieved | Nov 14, 2017 8:42:04 PM | 88get Jerusalem for the Vatican !!!
@73 JoePerimetr | Nov 14, 2017 9:36:42 PM | 89I hadn't even considered the aspect of that gas trading in dollars. Now there's a resource grab the US could really like.
I'm not actually at the point of thinking anything will happen, anywhere. There are simply no geopolitical advantages in any of the plays being mooted.
But there actually does seem at first glance to be some potentially cost-effective gain in plundering Qatar. Kind of wish no one had thought of it - I'd much rather see a cooperation develop between Iran and Qatar, the way it recently started to look like it might go.
As to your getting trolled, I will say that with what I've seen in the last few years, even with what I've seen in just the last few weeks, there's nothing I've ever encountered anywhere that says it's NOT the pipelines.
RE: Daniel | Nov 14, 2017 7:46:39 PM | 85, CarlD | Nov 14, 2017 1:36:09 PM | 56Peter AU 1 | Nov 14, 2017 10:15:21 PM | 90I agree with Ghostship, no nukes have been used. The thermal signature from a nuclear detonation is unmistakable, it is many, many orders of magnitude greater than produced by a conventional explosive. Not to mention the by-products of fission, which are always produced by a nuke and are always detectable.
You will know when a nuke is used, believe me.Joe / GrievedDaniel | Nov 14, 2017 10:27:25 PM | 91
Best to discount nothing. Qatar gas the target? Quite possible. Pipelines for Qatar or in Joes theory, Saudi gas. Again possible.
Most depends on what Trump is behind the facade. The facade is the simple minded buffoon that makes a decision on what he has last seen on Fox news. What he has just pulled off with MBS...
My thoughts on Trump at the moment, what is real and not facade. He wants to return the US to the power is was post WWII and through the cold war era. Manufacturing power ect. The big thing, prevent China from overtaking US economicaly which would also mean overtaking the US in science tech and military. Hence the many meetings with Kissinger earlier, Kissinger meeting Putin ect.
Trump needs to seperate Russia and China. Russia is no threat to the US whereas economicaly China is the only threat the US faces (apart from itself).Back to making America great again and gas. Saudi Arabia has oil (supposedly) and US has shale gas. Oil and gas are complementary to each oither rather than competitors. Gas prices are basicaly set by oil prices. The main competitors to US shale is Russian gas and Pars, both of which can be piped to where the gas is in demand. In my reading of Trump, which may not be right, Pars would have to be either US controlled/owned or unable to pipe gas.
The option there I guess is joint US Saudi control of pars.All depends on what Trump is behind the facade.
Thoughts ??
Perimetr @89heath | Nov 14, 2017 10:31:40 PM | 92I would agree that it would be impossible to mistake a powerful hydrogen bomb for any sort of conventional bomb. That's not what is being proposed here, though.
Do you know about the "Davy Crocket" mini-nuke from the 1950s?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eiM-RzPHyGs
Those were even carried in backpacks by the 1950s version of Special Ops soldiers. Since then, fission-fusion hybrid, mini-hydrogen and neutron bombs have been made. As I'm sure you'd agree, military technology is always far beyond what the public is allowed to know.
Like today's B61-12, the Davy Crockets could be dialed to produce explosions of greatly varying power.
https://www.globalsecurity.org/wmd/systems/b61.htm
The Soviet Union actually developed nuclear bullets!
https://southfront.org/nuclear-bullets-dangerous-soviet-project/
So, the range of even publicly known nuclear weapons is pretty great. Some of the explosions recorded in the past few years can be clearly seen as INCREASING in power as the explosion progresses. Though not impossible in some sort of thermobaric bomb, that is a signature of many nuclear bombs.
Point 1 why would Israel give up its nukes?Alaric | Nov 14, 2017 10:36:12 PM | 93
I don't buy this at face value. I suspect MBS used the threat of war on Lebanon as a distraction from his counter coup. The possibility of battle with Iran is a fear factor he exploits to stop a revolt against him.LNG man | Nov 14, 2017 10:41:32 PM | 94The leaked plan and leaked Israeli wire to its embassies are both quite suspicious. Its possible the Israelis are helping MBS. It's just as possible that MBS' foes in Saudi, or the CIA, are leaking these things to embarrass MBS. All are in fact embarrassing to MBS. I don't know but everything about this is surreal. For all we know MBS' moves are just an aid to finish the counter coup and to drive up oil prices. Saudi needs cash. We should expect the very wealthy Saudi opposition to strike back in the media, and it's possible the intelligence community and state department support different sides here.
To enable LNG, Kushner's army [US_I:SA] has been designed to colonize the Syria:Russian: Yemen:Qatar:Iran:Libya (SRYQIL) oil, gas competition, so that LNG can be port to port marketed. All eyes on LNG.Yeah, Right | Nov 14, 2017 10:47:39 PM | 95Posted by: LNG man |
@92 "Point 1 why would Israel give up its nukes?"Peter AU 1 | Nov 14, 2017 11:11:29 PM | 96They wouldn't.
The Israelis might be willing to discuss this - maybe - but only if those discussions are "decoupled" from the issue of the Saudis altering the 2003 Saudi Peace Initiative so that Israel gets everything it wants, while the only thing the Palestinians get is their marching orders.
The Israelis will then pocket that neutered Saudi Peace Initiative (in essence, it would become the Netanyahu Land Grab Initiative, with the Saudis in the role of stenographer) and then proceed to endlessly delay, deflect and derail any negotiations towards a Middle East Nuclear Free Zone.
Something for nothing, which MbS ending up holding that Big Ol' Bag Of Nothin'.
LNG man | Nov 14, 2017 10:41:32 PM | 94Stumpy | Nov 14, 2017 11:31:52 PM | 97LNG port to port is not competitive with Russian piped gas. From what I can see, US needs to either ensure they have control of alternative piped gas, or try and shut down pipes so they can flog shale LNG.
b's post here is articulate and cogent as ever and I cast no aspersion at him or fellow commenters. However, as far as I'm concerned the KSA-Israel drawing up these "accords" is all a pile of sabre-rattling and poseurism crap.Debsisdead | Nov 15, 2017 12:40:03 AM | 98Anything touched by the KSA is a pile of B.S. e.g. the Qatar ultimatum. Anything said by Israel fits the purpose at the time if it varies with their expansionist/farengi code of conduct.
The only way I see any of this playing out is an interlocking web of extortion that compels the two weaker parties to conform to the will of the stronger, in my opinion Israel.
Who knows if Lebanon will cower under the threat but if the Iranian alliance bares its teeth, let's remember that their reach is likely global and likely already in place at key targets. The stupidity of launching a shooting war in the ME with Iran and Israel involved does not mean that someone will not dance the situation right up to the brink.
It's the Asian thrust we should consider, from China to Turkey via Russia. I would guess, and only guess, that Russia and China would most likely wait it out and pick up the pieces during ending credits, or become minimally involved only to prevent a breakout. Can't assume anything here.
Wouldn't it be interesting if the US/KSA/IZ trio throws everything into beating Iran only to have another player open a play to seize the Pacific? Pretty wild.
Posted by: Stumpy | Nov 14, 2017 11:31:52 PM |Hmpf | Nov 15, 2017 2:01:08 AM | 99I reckon you're correct Stumpy. Over the years there have been many "amerika will attack Iran" scares - all have passed by without major incident despite the concerns of MoA-ites that "anything could happen in the next two hours"
It is highly likely that eventually some greedy opportunist with a hat size about 4 times larger than his dick measurement will eventually have a crack at taking down Iran, but I don't reckon we're anywhere near that point yet.As far as 'world peace' & justice for suffering indigenous people goes, today I'm much more concerned about events in Zimbabwe.
Hopefully the military is acting out in order to protect the socialist revolution from greedies & nepotists, and not using the occasion of President Mugabe's age disorders to subvert the revolution by aiding africacom and the world bank oecd mob to boost the amerikan empire's consumption of one of the few remaining independent sovereign entities still surviving on this old rock.Whatever does happen in Zimbabwe over the next week, few will be paying much interest whilst corporate media distracts so many with tall tales of the dissolute instincts of poor people everywhere.
@57somebody | Nov 15, 2017 2:06:02 AM | 100Utter nonsense! Large scale conventional; exploding tightly stacked munitions in a large ammo dump by means of sympathetic detonation. Large quantities of explosives going off must create a mushroom cloud - this is gas dynamics. Afterburning in the rising cloud results from hot oxygen-deficient stythe mixing with air which in return helps sustaining the upward momentum of the plume.
Posted by: Debsisdead | Nov 15, 2017 12:40:03 AM | 98Look, Mugabe is 93. Have you ever been around anyone that age? It is very likely that he is not in any power, but the people who wake him up.
According to German media, Mugabe's wife made him dismiss the vice chancellor who probably had been doing the real work.
So all the army might be doing is to prevent the family from taking over.
|
|
|
Nov 13, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Posted by: Alaric | Nov 12, 2017 4:12:40 PM | 5
|
|
|
Nov 11, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
This pivotal agreement allowed KSA to secretly recycle its surplus petrodollars back into US Treasuries while receiving US military protection in exchange. The secret was kept for 41 years, only recently revealed in 2016 due to a Bloomberg FOIA request:
The basic framework was strikingly simple. The U.S. would buy oil from Saudi Arabia and provide the kingdom military aid and equipment. In return, the Saudis would plow billions of their petrodollar revenue back into Treasuries and finance America's spending.
It took several discreet follow-up meetings to iron out all the details, Parsky said. But at the end of months of negotiations, there remained one small, yet crucial, catch: King Faisal bin Abdulaziz Al Saud demanded the country's Treasury purchases stay "strictly secret," according to a diplomatic cable obtained by Bloomberg from the National Archives database.
"Buying bonds and all that was a strategy to recycle petrodollars back into the U.S.," said David Ottaway, a Middle East fellow at the Woodrow Wilson International Center in Washington. But politically, "it's always been an ambiguous, constrained relationship."
( Source )
The essence of this deal is pretty simple. KSA wanted to be able to sell its oil to its then largest buyer, the USA, while also having a safe place to park the funds, plus receive military protection to boot. But it didn't want anybody else, especially its Arab neighbors, to know that it was partnering so intimately with the US who, in turn, would be supporting Israel. That would have been politically incendiary in the Middle East region, coming as it did right on the heels of the Yom Kipper War (1973).
As for the US, it got the oil it wanted and – double bonus time here – got KSA to recycle the very same dollars used to buy that oil back into Treasuries and contracts for US military equipment and training.
Sweet deal.
Note that this is yet another secret world-shaping deal successfully kept out of the media for over four decades. Yes Virginia, conspiracies do happen. Secrets can be (and are routinely) kept by hundreds, even thousands, of people over long stretches of time.
Since that key deal was struck back in the early 1970s, the KSA has remained a steadfast supporter of the US and vice versa. In return, the US has never said anything substantive about KSA's alleged involvement in 9/11 or its grotesque human and women's rights violations. Not a peep.
Until recently.
Then Things Started To Break DownIn 2015, King Salman came to power. Things began to change pretty quickly, especially once he elevated his son Mohammed bin Salman (MBS) to a position of greater power.
Among MBS's first acts was to directly involve KSA into the Yemen civil war, with both troops on the ground and aerial bombings. That war has killed thousands of civilians while creating a humanitarian crisis that includes the largest modern-day outbreak of cholera, which is decimating highly populated areas. The conflct, which is considered a 'proxy war' because Iran is backing the Houthi rebels while KSA is backing the Yemeni government, continues to this day.
Then in 2016, KSA threatened to dump its $750 billion in (stated) US assets in response to a bill in Congress that would have released sensitive information implicating Saudi Arabia's involvement in 9/11. Then-president Obama had to fly over there to smooth things out. It seems the job he did was insufficient; because KSA-US relations unraveled at an accelerating pace afterwards. Mission NOT accomplished, it would seem.
In 2017, KSA accused Qatar of nefarious acts and made such extraordinary demands that an outbreak of war nearly broke out over the dispute. The Qatari leadership later accused KSA of fomenting 'regime change', souring the situation further. Again, Iran backed the Qatar government, which turned this conflict into another proxy battle between the two main regional Arab superpowers.
In parallel with all this, KSA was also supporting the mercenaries (aka "rebels" in western press) who were seeking to overthrow Assad in Syria -- yet another proxy war between KSA and Iran. It's been an open secret that, during this conflict, KSA has been providing support to some seriously bad terrorist organizations like Al-Qaeda, ISIS and other supposed enemies of the US/NATO. (Again, the US has never said 'boo' about that, proving that US rhetoric against "terrorists" is a fickle construct of political convenience, not a moral matter.)
Once Russia entered the war on the side of Syria's legitimate government, the US and KSA (and Israel) lost their momentum. Their dreams of toppling Assad and turning Syria into another failed petro-state like they did with Iraq and Libya are not likely to pan out as hoped.
But rather than retreat to lick their wounds, KSA's King Salman and his son are proving to be a lot nimbler than their predecessors.
Rather than continue a losing battle in Syria, they've instead turned their energies and attention to dramatically reshaping KSA's internal power structures:
Saudi Arabia's Saturday Night Massacre
For nearly a century, Saudi Arabia has been ruled by the elders of a royal family that now finds itself effectively controlled by a 32-year-old crown prince, Mohammad bin Salman. He helms the Defense Ministry, he has extravagant plans for economic development, and last week arranged for the arrest of some of the most powerful ministers and princes in the country.
A day before the arrests were announced, Houthi tribesmen in Yemen but allied with Iran, Saudi Arabia's regional rival, fired a ballistic missile at Riyadh.
The Saudis claim the missile came from Iran and that its firing might be considered "an act of war."
Saudi Arabia was created between the two world wars under British guidance. In the 1920s, a tribe known as the Sauds defeated the Hashemites, effectively annexing the exterior parts of Saudi Arabia they did not yet control. The United Kingdom recognized the Sauds' claim shortly thereafter. But since then, the Saudi tribe has been torn by ambition, resentment and intrigue. The Saudi royal family has more in common with the Corleones than with a Norman Rockwell painting.
The direct attack was undoubtedly met with threats of a coup. Whether one was actually planned didn't matter. Mohammed Bin Salman had to assume these threats were credible since so many interests were under attack. So he struck first, arresting princes and ex-minsters who constituted the Saudi elite. It was a dangerous gamble. A powerful opposition still exists, but he had no choice but to act. He could either strike as he did last Saturday night, or allow his enemies to choose the time and place of that attack. Nothing is secure yet, but with this strike, there is a chance he might have bought time. Any Saudi who would take on princes and clerics is obviously desperate, but he may well break the hold of the financial and religious elite.
( Source )
This 32 year-old prince, Mohammed bin Salman has struck first and deep, completely upending the internal power dynamics of Saudi Arabia.
He's taken on the political, financial and religious elites head on. For example, pushing through the decision to allow women to drive; a provocative move designed to send a clear message to the clerics who might oppose him. That message is: "I'm not fooling around here."
This is a classic example of how one goes about purging the opposition when either taking over a government after a coup, or implementing a big new strategy at a major corporation. You have to remove any possible opponents and then install your own loyalists. According the Rules for Rulers , you do this by diverting a portion of the flow of funds to your new backers while diminishing, imprisoning or killing all potential enemies.
So far, Mohammed bin Salman's action plan is par for the course. No surprises.
The above article from Stratfor (well worth reading in its entirety) continues with these interesting insights:
The Iranians have been doing well since the nuclear deal was signed in 2015. They have become the dominant political force in Iraq . Their support for the Bashar Assad regime in Syria may not have been enough to save him, but Iran was on what appears to be the winning side in the Syrian civil war. Hezbollah has been hurt by its participation in the war but is reviving, carrying Iranian influence in Lebanon at a time when Lebanon is in crisis after the resignation of its prime minister last week.
The Saudis, on the other hand, aren't doing as well. The Saudi-built anti-Houthi coalition in Yemen has failed to break the Houthi-led opposition. And Iran has openly entered into an alliance with Qatar against the wishes of the Saudis and their ally, the United Arab Emirates.
Iran seems to sense the possibility of achieving a dream: destabilizing Saudi Arabia , ending its ability to support anti-Iranian forces, and breaking the power of the Sunni Wahhabis. Iran must look at the arrests in Saudi Arabia as a very bad move. And they may be. Mohammad bin Salman has backed the fundamentalists and the financial elite against the wall.
They are desperate, and now it is their turn to roll the dice. If they fall short, it could result in a civil war in Saudi Arabia. If Iran can hit Riyadh with missiles, the crown prince's opponents could argue that the young prince is so busy with his plans that he isn't paying attention to the real threat. For the Iranians, the best outcome is to have no one come out on top.
This would reconfigure the geopolitics of the Middle East, and since the U.S. is deeply involved there, it has decisions to make.
So given Yemen, Syria, and its recent domestic purges, Saudi Arabia is in turmoil. It's in a far weaker position than it was a short while ago.
This leaves the US in a far weaker regional position, too, at precisely the time when China and Russia are increasing their own presence (which we'll get to next).
But first we have to discuss what might happen if a civil war were to engulf Saudi Arabia. The price of oil would undoubtedly spike. In turn, that would cripple the weaker countries, companies and households around the world that simply cannot afford a higher oil price. And there's a lot of them.
Financial markets would destabilize as long-suppressed volatility would explode higher, creating horrific losses across the board. That very few investors are mentally or financially prepared for such carnage is a massive understatement.
So..if you were Saudi Arabia, in need of helpful allies after being bogged down in an unwinnable war in Yemen, just defeated in a proxy war in Syria, and your longtime 'ally', the US, is busy pumping as much of its own oil as it can, what would you do?
Pivot To ChinaGiven its situation, is it really any surprise that King Salman and his son have decided to pivot to China? In need of a new partner that would align better with their current and future interests, China is the obvious first choice.
So in March 2017, only a very short while after Obama's failed visit, a large and well-prepared KSA entourage accompanied King Salman to Beijing and inked tens of billions in new business deals:
China, Saudi Arabia eye $65 billion in deals as king visits
Mar 16, 2017
BEIJING (Reuters) - Saudi Arabia's King Salman oversaw the signing of deals worth as much as $65 billion on the first day of a visit to Beijing on Thursday, as the world's largest oil exporter looks to cement ties with the world's second-largest economy.
The deals included a memorandum of understanding (MoU) between giant state oil firm Saudi Aramco and China North Industries Group Corp (Norinco), to look into building refining and chemical plants in China.
Saudi Basic Industries Corp (SABIC) and Sinopec, which already jointly run a chemical complex in Tinajin, also agreed to develop petrochemical projects in both China and Saudi Arabia.
Salman told Xi he hoped China could play an even greater role in Middle East affairs, the ministry added.
Deputy Chinese Foreign Minister Zhang Ming said the memorandums of understanding and letters of intent were potentially worth about $65 billion, involving everything from energy to space.
( Source )
This was a very big deal in terms of Middle East geopolitics. It shook up many decades of established power, resulting in a shift away from dependence on America.
The Saudis arrived in China with such a huge crowd in tow that a reported 150 cooks had been brought along to just to feed everyone in the Saudi visitation party.
The resulting deals struck involved everything from energy to infrastructure to information technology to space. And this was just on the first visit. Quite often a brand new trade delegation event involves posturing and bluffing and feeling each other out; not deals being struck. So it's clear that before the visit, well before, lots and lots of deals were being negotiated and terms agreed to so that the thick MOU files were ready to sign during the actual visit.
The scope and size of these business deals are eye catching, but the real clincher is King Salman's public statement expressing hope China will play " an even greater role in Middle East affairs."
That, right there, is the sound of the geopolitical axis-tilting. That public statement tells us everything we need to know about the sort of change the Salman dynasty intends to pursue.
So it should have surprised no one to hear that, in August this year, another $70 billion of new deals were announced between China and KSA . The fanfare extolled that Saudi-Sino relations had entered a new era, with "the agreements covering investment, trade, energy, postal service, communications, and media."
This is a very rapid pace for such large deals. If KSA and China were dating, they'd be talking about moving in together already. They're clearly at the selecting furniture and carpet samples stage.
As for the US? It seems KSA isn't even returning its calls or texts at this point.
You Ain't Seen Nothing Yet...All of the above merely describes how we arrived at where things stand today.
But as mentioned, the power grab underway in KSA by Mohammed bin Salman is unfolding in real-time. Developments are happening hourly -- while writing this, the very high-profile Prince Bandar bin Sultan (recent head of Saudi Intelligence and former longtime ambassador to the US) has been arrested .
The trajectory of events is headed in a direction that may well end the arrangement that has served as the axis around which geopolitics has spun for the past 40 years. The Saudis want new partners, and are courting China hard.
China, for reasons we discuss in Part 2 of this report, has an existential need to supplant America as Saudi Arabia's most vital oil customer.
And both Saudi Arabia and China are inking an increasing number of strategic oil deals with Russia. Why? We get into that in Part 2, too -- but suffice it to say, in the fast-shifting world of KSA foreign policy, it's China and Russia 'in', US 'out'.
Maybe not all the way out, but the US clearly has lost a lot of ground with KSA over the past few years. My analysis is that by funding an insane amount of shale oil development, at a loss, and at any cost (such as to our biggest Mideast ally) the US has time and again displayed that our 'friendship' does not run very deep. In a world where loyalty counts, the US has proved a disloyal partner. Can China position itself to be perceived of as a better mate? When it comes to business, I believe the answer is 'yes.'
In Part 2: The Oil Threat we couple these developments with China and Russia's recent efforts to drop the dollar from trade, especially when purchasing oil, and clearly see the unfolding of the biggest new driver of the world's financial, monetary and geopolitical arrangements in 50 years.
We also explain why, unless something very dramatically changes in either the supply or demand equation for oil, and soon, we can now put a timeline in place for when the great unraveling begins. Somewhere between the second half of 2018 and the end of 2019 oil will dramatically increase in price and that will shake the foundations of the global mountain of debt and its related underfunded liabilities. Think 9.0 on the financial Richter scale.
Let me be blunt - you have to have your preparations done before this happens. You really, really want to be a year early on this (at least). When it starts happening, the breakdown will progress faster than you can react.
Click here to read Part 2 of this report (free executive summary, enrollment required for full access)
Escrava Isaura -> bobcatz , Nov 11, 2017 1:59 PM
TeethVillage88s -> Escrava Isaura , Nov 11, 2017 2:31 PMThe reason that the world is moving towards China this fast, it's because of Trump.
Trump is too radical, and that's why these nations are running for the exit.
"Trump's policies are taking a whole bunch of countries that were already worried about America's commitment to lead and America's commitment to its alliances. China also wants to be seen now as promoting globalization, promoting free trade, particularly for countries in Asia that don't want to count on the U.S." -- Ian Bremmer
Stuck on Zero -> williambanzai7 , Nov 11, 2017 1:09 PMWot about Dick Cheney, Alberto Gonzales, Don Rumsfeld, G.W.B., Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq, Colin Powell, John Bolton, Condaleza Rice, Samantha Powers, Kagan, Susan Rice, Hilary Clinton, Clinton Foundation, noecons, McCain, Lindsey Graham, Phil Gramm, TBTF
Grimaldus -> Stuck on Zero , Nov 11, 2017 2:08 PMGrab your popcorn and watch to see whether the New Ottoman or New Persian Empire emerges the victor.
Escrava Isaura -> Grimaldus , Nov 11, 2017 2:32 PMYou seem to know the difference, a very basic one at that but the author does not.
"In 2017, KSA accused Qatar of nefarious acts and made such extraordinary demands that an outbreak of war nearly broke out over the dispute. The Qatari leadership later accused KSA of fomenting 'regime change', souring the situation further. Again, Iran backed the Qatar government, which turned this conflict into another proxy battle between the two main regional Arab superpowers."
Iran is Arab? I don't think so.
I tend to be skeptical when I see "breathless enthusiasm" touting the sky is falling geopolitically (which it always is ) and then the "Iran is Arabs" thing just killed it for me.
Oh well. I apologize for nit-picking and will get some popcorn.
apoplectic query , Nov 11, 2017 11:54 AMThat aside, the article still pretty good.
The core issues for the American living standards are:
The price of oil
And the Petrodollar
Lose control of these two and American living standard is over.
The only alternative left is force -- war.
2banana -> apoplectic query , Nov 11, 2017 12:05 PMLook on the bright side. Many of those rounded up were funding corrupt polititians in DC. And ISIS. And terrorist acts in the US, like Vegas and 911.
fearnot -> DelusionalGrandeur , Nov 11, 2017 12:18 PM"the kingdom also provides with full enthusiasm 20 percent of the cost of Hillary Clinton's campaign,"
-- Prince Mohammed bin Salman, 2016
The Clinton Foundation, which is chaired by both Hillary and her husband Bill Clinton, disclosed in 2008 that it had accepted up to US$25 million from the Saudi Kingdom in the same year.
Other foreign governments who have donated money to the Clintons include Norway, Kuwait, Qatar, Brunei, Oman, Italy and Jamaica, which together donated around US$20 million.
SoDamnMad -> otschelnik , Nov 11, 2017 2:11 PMNow I see the big picture. The fuse to the mother of all "Truth bombs" as Bill Holter coined has just been lit and the fuse is short. Until now I personally never really saw the Rockefeller- Langley clan and its comrades all getting cleaned out with the fall of Petro Dollar. But it is the only way. And with that the NY Fed as Dudley knows will lose its narco money and means to support the dollar and its terror on mankind. The fall of Petro Dollar is the only means to the end of the evil and the evil doers of the last 40 years perpetrated by the psychopaths using the petro dollar as its fuel to the weapon of mass destruction. Alice in Wonderland America is about to go Mad Max.
The 1 hour Perpetual Asset interview "The Saudi Straw That Broke the Petro Dollar's Back" with Jim Willie on October 10 is well worth listening. https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=yY9j6vvCFE0 The conclusion laid out in interview is simple and brilliant, Langley (Bush-Clinton- Narco-CIA-Banker-Neo-Psycopaths) and the clear headed leaders in the Pentagon are having it. Peacock MBS caught in the middle trying to save his own neck and Kingdom is collateral damage.
After listening to interview, I ran across two zero hedge links below. The first article makes some very poignant and interesting points that reinforce the dollars end game that we are approaching. The markets have not caught on yet but will with a vengeance.
In the second article taking Bandar out must worry the Bush-Clinton- Narco-CIA-Banker-Neo-Psycopaths more than we can imagine. The last two paragraphs of article sum it up nicely. Time to pay the piper & the devil wants souls. All the gold, wealth, and power won't save them. From the looks of Trump/Putin in Vietnam not to mention Trump's warm welcome from Xi in China the heads of state seem jubilant in what is quickly spinning out of control for the psychopaths of debt, destruction, conquer, divide and slavery. Trump "strangely" pointed out that China and US need to jointly oversee security in Afghanistan which of course will be necessary to police while eliminating 1300 tons of opium production.
The PPT NYFed's actions in paper gold market this week seemed desperate. GS has to be feeling the heat.
1- Fischer and now Dudley resign. Hopeful to hear the latter is leaving BIS as well.
2- Powell a Carlye Group flunky was a brilliant FED appointment to appear to be status quo to ignorant market but is more likely a double agent than Bush butt buddy.
3- expect Cohn to give his resignation soon.
4- Expect NY Attorney General Eric Tradd Schneiderman to resign or do a 180
5- expect David A. Markowitz hired by Goldman in 2010 from the New York Attorney General's office to resign. He defended GS in their NYFed collusion/corruption case
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/end-end-history-us-mid-east-pol...
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-10/saudi-deep-state-prince-bandar-...
silverer -> Cluster_Frak , Nov 11, 2017 1:16 PMI have heard for almost a decade that KSA has been pumping some of their fields too fast requiring huge amounts of seawater to be pumped in to get the flow rates to stay high. Some oil professionals who know this also scoffed at the huge Aramco IPO value saying the oil isn't all there. Not sure what will happen with the teams set to rumble but I will bet Israel will make the first strike to use the element of surprise. I hope the fleet is ready and gets the carriers out of the Persion Gulf.
Herdee , Nov 11, 2017 12:26 PMActually, the Saudi group is just climbing onto another life boat. They're the ones that made the US Ponzi possible by nodding to the US dollar as the reserve currency many years ago. They will force the US to face the music holding a 20 trillion debt. Now China gets a 20 to 30 year fiat ride like the US had. If they're careful, it could last much longer. In the US, there's nothing left floating to hang onto. Maybe some fracked oil for awhile, but it will have to go at a bargain price. The Saudis and Russia can cover a huge amount of the world's consumption. Big bank loans are piled all over the entire US economy. In order for the banks to save themselves, they've weighted down even the grunts at the bottom with eight year car loans which should have never been issued. With everything underwater, and the inability to export inflation by holding the reserve currency exclusively, the US is in for a major ass whooping. Better learn some basic camping skills.
Alasdair Macleod shines light on the current situation:
https://www.silverdoctors.com/gold/gold-news/london-analyst-first-the-cr...
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 | oilprice.com
It is difficult to predict where all this will lead. Some, like Dennis Gartman, warn that although the immediate impact of the latest Saudi events is positive for prices, it will turn negative in the longer run as this sort of instability is unsustainable. Others, such as Morgan Stanley's commodity analysts, are revising upwards their oil price forecasts, encouraged by these same events. OPEC's Vienna meeting, where the cartel will discuss the extension of the oil production cut it agreed almost a year ago, is less than a month away. There are voices suggesting that Saudi Arabia could make a U-turn on its support for the deal in light of the now higher prices resulting from its internal tumult and the spike in tensions with Iran.
In the meantime, the Ritz-Carlton in Riyadh is fully booked until February, as per the hotel's website, and all guests were asked to leave or had their reservations cancelled.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 | oilprice.com
The short-term outlook was bullish: MBS is seen as a key supporter for the OPEC policy of measured production cuts, and his consolidation of power means the cuts are likely to be maintained and extended through the rest of next year.
Conversely, rising prices may also signal increase instability in Saudi Arabia: there are signs that the crackdown may have been meant to stave off a more substantive challenge to MBS from upper-echelon figures in the Saudi hierarchy. The uncertainty in future Saudi oil policy has created a bull market. While MBS is known to favor an extension of production cuts, the turmoil within the Saudi ruling elite could signal a shift in policy in advance of the November 30 OPEC meeting in Vienna, where an extension to production cuts is expected to dominate the agenda
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand
says: 11/08/2017 at 1:12 pmCNBC is claiming the US set a "record" with regard to oil production last week.Dennis Coyne says: 11/08/2017 at 1:57 pmHi Shallow sand,shallow sand says: 11/08/2017 at 3:18 pmAs I am sure you know the record was Nov 1970 at 10,044 kb/d for the monthly average US C+C output.
This past week was 9620 kb/d, over 400 kb/d below the record. (This weekly data is probably too high by at least 300 kb/d and perhaps as much as 600 kb/d.)
If they are talking about C+C+NGL, we don't have data going back to 1970, but maybe they are talking about C+C+NGL which might be higher than Nov 1970, no NGL data so it would be a claim that is hard to refute with data.
Not a record for crude plus condensate. Also not a record for products supplied that was 21,666 kb/d in August 2005, last week was 21,301 kb/d.
Dennis. Yes. Just pointing out another dubious MSM story.Dennis Coyne says: 11/09/2017 at 2:34 pmHey shallow sand,OFM says: 11/10/2017 at 5:54 amWTI is looking pretty good, here's to $65/b soon!
Despite impressions to the contrary, I do hope all you oil guys do well.
I expect prices will tend to be high from now until 2030 so it will be good for the nest egg, or for selling your property at retirement time.
I likewise wish all the regulars here, and all the hands on people in the oild industry, well. And there's every reason in my own personal opinion to believe that times will be good for them for another ten or twenty years at least.shallow sand says: 11/10/2017 at 9:03 amBut I wouldn't advise a child of my own to make a career out of oil. There's no stopping depletion. It can't even be fought to a draw like the sea, one voyage at a time.
Somebody somewhere must have compiled a list of oil towns and communities in the USA that went broke when the oil ran out, locally. I'm hoping to discover it someday and put it in my book. It's probably a pretty long list.
A lot of people think otherwise, but I'm dead sure there will be a market for oil even at two hundred dollars a barrel, in present day money, for at least another twenty or thirty years. It would be much smaller market, but it would still be there, because it's not likely imo that we can electrify all the industries that depend on oil any quicker if we can do it at all in some industries.
After a century plus of constant improvement, we don't have internal combustion engines five times as good as we did a century ago. There's no guarantee we will ever have batteries five or more times as good as the ones we have now.
OFM. When our field came in during the first decade of the 1900s, a stop on the railroad grew to over 10,000 people, many living in tents. A post office, bank, hotel and 13 saloons were built.Eulenspiegel says: 11/10/2017 at 9:22 amCurrent poplulation is 100. Just houses, no businesses. But hundreds of oil wells still pumping in all directions, to this day.
Is this stripper business, or still active development?shallow sand says: 11/10/2017 at 6:22 pmI can't imagine hundreds of wells in maintainance without a local support industry: repairing shops, truck yards for all the special vehicles, a burger shop for the wait times and so on – business around oil. Mainly maintaince, but you can't order always a worker from hundred miles away to fix broken pumps, electric, mechanics, pipes, valves, have transport trucks (or is it all pipelined?).
Oil business is not my speciality, but when I was in the USA in the oil provinces there was lots of business around oil. Lots of installations means lots of people having to do with them normally.
I was just referring to a boom town in the middle of the field.Nick G says: 11/10/2017 at 5:38 pmThere are roughly 25,000 people that live within a half hour of the field. Two supply stores. Lots of service companies. Proabably 100 or so directly employed. Most are not employed directly re upstream, but many others who have jobs related to ff.
we don't have internal combustion engines five times as good as we did a century ago.shallow sand says: 11/10/2017 at 8:58 amI'd bet that automotive ICE's last 10x as long now as they did a century ago. I'd bet that they cost 10% as much per horsepower.
Dennis. Thanks.We don't know what the future will bring, but I'm just hoping for $55-65 WTI for awhile. Gasoline here is $2.51 per gallon, which I don't think is hurting consumers all that much.
I don't think you are wishing anyone ill. Actually, I think most would not think poorly of operations like ours or Mike's.
There is no debate that some petroleum will need to be produced in the future, even by the most ardent of those anti oil.
Operations like ours are producing high quality crude from mostly pre-existing wells, with new ones added in small quantities only when economics merit. The typical land taken up by a well we operate is about 12' x 20'. A typical tank battery takes up 30' x 25' x 3.5' high.
A high percentage of royalty owners in our field are retired. For example, one lease we operate is located on 40 acres. It is owned by a widow who lives on it. The lease produces right around 1,000 BO per year. The cumulative production is over 50,000 BO since the early 1980s.
The landowner receives 1/8 of the oil sold, free of all expemses except taxes. Even at $40 oil, $5,000 per year gross.
I am sure there are many examples like mine.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan
says: 11/08/2017 at 7:08 amOPEC World Oil Outlook 2017 (just released):Jeff says: 11/08/2017 at 7:59 amThank you George. IEA will release their WEO next week (14th).George Kaplan says: 11/08/2017 at 8:13 amFrom the OPEC-report:
"Total non-OPEC liquids supply is now forecast to grow from 57 mb/d in 2016 to 62 mb/d in 2022, with the US alone making up 75% of that increase."The section on decline rates was interesting too (p.184): "the WOO analysis suggests an average implied decline rate of around 4.4 mb/d in the 2018–2028 period, or 7%, of underlying non-OPEC suply. Note that this compares with previous, more in-depth, work done by the Secretariat, which indicated
that underlying observed decline rates in non-OPEC were lower – on average around 5.4% – though with significant regional variations.On the one hand, this analysis shows the challenge facing the upstream sector, with a requirement for more than 5 mb/d p.a. of new supply, if annual average demand growth of 0.9 mb/d in the Reference Case is added to the implied 4.4 mb/d 'lost' due to natural decline. On the other hand, the calculated implied decline rates and substantial new upstream volumes coming online suggest that overall upstream investment activity is perhaps higher than a quick glance at headline capex numbers would suggest "
"with tight oil making up a substantial and growing share of total non-OPEC supply (around 12% in 2016), and given its innate rapid decline rates after initial production, this may in a sense have accelerated the underlying decline. In other words, the system can said to be coping, with supply growth meeting demand needs at the moment"
"that overall upstream investment activity is perhaps higher than a quick glance at headline capex numbers would suggest "George Kaplan says: 11/08/2017 at 7:59 amNope it would suggest that the developments coming on line now follow a normal project S-curve with the big investment costs in the middle then slowing down during installation and commissioning.
There aren't many projects in the middle of the development so costs are down but the new production coming on line is still fairly high (until the second half of next year). The investment problem isn't going to show up really until a couple of years out, but it can't be halted by anything that's done now, just like the over-investment impact kept running even as oil prices crashed.
With all the kerfuffle in Saudi whatever happened to the independent assessments of their reserves? There was a leaked report that said everything was exactly as the Saudi had been reporting, which couldn't possibly have credibility as it came out about a week after the consultants had started work so they wouldn't even have got their computers working properly yet, and then something about the reports being released early next year – and since then nothing.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News says: 11/08/2017 at 12:18 pm
EIA weekly change in ending stocks (crude+products).George Kaplan says: 11/08/2017 at 4:26 pm
Overall stocks down 0.56%, pretty much inline with recent trends, crude up 2.2 mmbbls, gasoline down 3.3 and distillate down 3.4. But the only number that matters to the traders is the crude and because it is up price falls and it's reported we must be back in a glut. Bonkers.FreddyW says: 11/09/2017 at 3:55 amI think we are in refinery maintenance season now, so crude stocks should increase normally. Interesting to note is that gasoline and distillate stocks are back to normal levels. So they will have to draw a lot more from crude stocks going forward.Guym says: 11/09/2017 at 10:30 amSame principle drives lemmings, I think. They have to be over the cliff, before they will recognize it is there.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 | oilprice.com
For the oil markets, the implications are pretty significant. Venezuela has already lost an estimated 20,000 bpd each month for the past year, according to Reuters estimates. And in September, Venezuela's output plunged by more than 50,000 bpd compared to a month earlier. Production could fall by an additional 240,000 bpd in 2018, a decline made worse by U.S. sanctions.
But that isn't even the worst-case scenario. A default could set off a scramble to seize Venezuela's overseas assets. That could lead to much steeper production declines. One OPEC source told Reuters that they see a potential for production declines on the order of 300,000 to 600,000 bpd next year.
|
|
|
Nov 10, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Will Backlash Against Prince Purge Begin Within Military? Firing popular Saudi guard leader may have been a critical miscalculation. November 10, 2017 Saudi security forces on parade, 2009. Credit: AlJazeera/Omar Chatriwala/Creative Commons Muhammad bin Salman, the 32-year-old crown prince of Saudi Arabia, has been called bold, brash, and even an anti-corruption crusader in the press this week. But his arrest of hundreds of potential rivals, including 11 royal princes and many influential Saudi businessmen, can only be described as a pre-emptive coup.
If this was his aim, however, his firing of one prince -- the head of the Saudi Arabian National Guard -- may have been his fatal mistake.
The son of the eighty-one year old King Salman, Muhammad bin Salman, known as MbS, has amassed more power in the last two years than any member of the House of Saud, including its kings. The young prince, who before his father came to power held no position of significance, is now the heir to the throne, minister of defense, chairman of the newly launched "anti-corruption" committee, and, by royal decree, the man in charge of Saudi Arabia's primary source of wealth, Saudi Aramco.
... ... ...
Muhammad bin Salman's betrayal of decades of rule by consensus and consultation in favor of determined autocracy has undoubtedly made enemies of hundreds, if not thousands, of wealthy and influential princes and businessmen. These princes and businessmen are unlikely to wait for their invitation to the Ritz Carlton.
Michael Horton is a senior analyst for Arabian affairs at the Jamestown Foundation. He is a frequent contributor to J ane's Intelligence Review and has written for numerous other publications including: The National Interest The Economist , and West Point's CTC Sentinel.
|
|
|
Nov 08, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Craighead) Rosie Bsheer warns Westerners not to fall for Mohammed bin Salman's reformer act:
Even as Western governments and media outlets sing his praises, the young crown prince is viewed domestically as an incompetent and corrupt ruler who hides behind liberalism, tolerance and anti-corruption rhetoric [bold mine-DL]. This view is shared by ruling members of the monarchy, economic elites and the population at large, who see bin Salman as someone who has disturbed the status quo for the sake of massive personal enrichment and political aggrandizement.
Many Westerners are often eager to promote individual foreign leaders in as "reformers" or "moderates" so that it makes it easier to justify a close U.S. relationship with these leaders. Few would openly argue that the U.S.-Saudi relationship should remain the same or become even closer if the next king is a reckless incompetent who is actively destabilizing the surrounding region. For that reason, there is great reluctance on the part of supporters of the relationship to judge MBS on what he has actually done rather than what he says he wants to do in the future.
Bsheer comments on MBS' recent power grab and how it benefits him and his father:
These arrests, cloaked in populist rhetoric trumpeting a purported campaign to end corruption, actually aim to silence and disempower, if not to completely purge, bureaucrats and members of the ruling family who hold economic and political power and are still not on board with Salman's rise to power.
The arrests benefit Salman in two ways. Politically, they upend the balance of power in the Saudi regime, leaving Salman with few rivals. Financially, they make it easier to claim his rivals' assets as his own, part of a two-year effort to consolidate economic power.
When stripped of their official justifications, we can see that these actions are not those of a reformer at all. They are the actions of a despot engaging in a massive abuse of power. If an adversarial authoritarian regime conducted such a purge and justified it in the same way, the near-unanimous response from the West would be criticism and ridicule, and that response would be appropriate. When MBS and his father do it, they are embraced by the president and their justification is taken at face value by far too many news outlets.
At the very least, MBS and his father should be subject to the same skepticism and criticism as any other authoritarian government. We should be wary of accepting the "reformer" credentials of a person who has so far distinguished himself for his hubris and incompetence while compiling a record of failure and repeated violations of international law. Perhaps we could refrain from labeling the man who is helping to starve millions of people to death as a "moderate." Ideally, the U.S. should take the opportunity provided by MBS' rise to recognize that the relationship with the Saudis has become a liability and put as much distance between us and Riyadh as possible.
The Terror , says: November 8, 2017 at 12:10 pm
The world has plenty of experience – all too much – with "reformers" who arrest and kill their rivals, and who commit mass atrocities against civilian populations, as MBS is doing in Yemen.Our "friendships" in the Middle East have damaged and soiled us more than any foreign relationships in our history that I can think of.
At least when we "opened" to China we did it fairly clear-eyed, and one could credibly argue that it was necessary and served our national interest. But our sick, codependent relationships with Saudi Arabia and Israel have only entangled us in pointless messes, put America itself at risk, fouled us morally, and made us simultaneously a frightening, destabilizing force on the world stage, and an international laughingstock.
When and where will it end? I had some hope that Trump might do it, but so far he seems to be doubling down on the Bush the Younger / Obama stupidity.
|
|
|
Nov 07, 2017 | marknesop.wordpress.com
et Al , November 6, 2017 at 8:04 am
Moon of Alabama: Saudi Arabia – This 'Night Of The Long Knives' Is A Panic-Fueled Movesaskydisc , November 6, 2017 at 1:56 pm
http://www.moonofalabama.org/2017/11/saudi-purge.htmlYesterday the ruling Salman clan in Saudi Arabia executed a Night of the Long Knives cleansing the state of all potential competition. The Saudi King Salman and his son Clown Prince Mohammad bin Salman initiated a large arrest wave and purge of high ranking princes and officials. Part of this internal coup was the confiscation of huge financial estates to the advantage of the Salman clan.
The earlier forced resignation of the Lebanese Prime Minister Saad al-Hariri is probably related to the last night's events. The Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahoo endorsed the resignation. This guarantees that Hariri will never again be accepted in a leading role in Lebanon .
####Plenty more at the link and don't forget to check the comments, of which PaveWay IV & guidoamm are enlightening, the latter: I know from someone that, till last month, managed a fleet of personal jets for the great and the good in Saudi Arabia, that there is an exodus under way. The great and the good are literally taking the cuckoo clocks onboard their 380s and relocating to their foreign residences. Owners of the fleets have not been paying their bills for months neither to the crews, nor to the management nor, indeed, to the facilities.
####Just what Europe needs, a bunch of Saudi princes permanently flaunting themselves away from home in various capitals.
Saudi declares war on Lebanon, by claiming that Lebanon declares war on Saudi Arabia . Given that the Saudis have made their alliance with Israel open, this is a threat to the Lebanese government and society, and a dare to the Russian government regarding its anti-ISIS and anti-Al Qaeda policy.marknesop , November 7, 2017 at 8:28 amNot to mention the S-400 sale.
|
|
|
Nov 06, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Having legged higher at the opens of Asia, Europe, and US markets, WTI is extending gains overnight on middle-east tensions...
Brent is trading above $62 amid anti-corruption drive led by Saudi Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman, which may consolidate his control in OPEC's largest oil producer, and WTI has pushed above $57 as producers such as Nigeria, Saudi Arabia signal they support a potential extension of OPEC output cuts.
|
|
|
Nov 05, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Anonymous | Nov 4, 2017 1:33:00 PM | 18
The sale of ARAMCO is a sign of desperation in the Saudi regime, not strength. They know they are running on empty and will have to use whatever resources they have already to stay in power. The forced reduction in oil price was ostensably aimed at Russia, but it has also crippled Saudi too. Qui bono? A forced sale of ARAMCO will lead to them getting below par in a forced sale - to whom? Zionist central bankers?Peter AU 1 | Nov 4, 2017 12:28:08 PM | 10The Zionists have seen rapprochement between Turkey and Russia, now Saudi and Russia so they will be desperate. What better way to stir things up than linking Saudi in as a primary driver for the Lebanese / Hezbollah position, with the hope of splitting the Russian rapprochment. However, the reality is that Hezbollah/Lebanon is not an existential national security threat to Saudi, but it is to Israel. And that is the elephant in the room again.
Israel was so close to seeing all its regional enemies embroiled in terrorism and social/economic disruption - Iran, Iraq, Syria, Saudi, Turkey, Lebanon - with the prospect of making great gains (for national security purposes natch) in the Golan where Zionist proxy forces have been guarding territory for it. And now it looks to be fading dream. Even Druze living in the Occupied Golan have warned the IDF that they will defend their co-religionists in Syria against ISIS/whatever.
Destruction of Hezbollah/Lebanon only benefits Israel.
b @2pantaraxia | Nov 4, 2017 6:29:40 PM | 61There was talk not long ago of China buying the full 5% of Aramco. Not sure how much was in that, but possibly why US is backing Saudi in their new Lebanon adventure. The US backs Saudi's in Lebanon and Saudi does not sell Aramco to China?
@54 LozionIn Shocking Purge, Saudi King Arrests Billionaire Prince Bin Talal, Others In Cabinet Crackdown
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-11-04/shocking-purge-saudi-king-arrests-billionaire-prince-bin-talal-others-anti-money-lauIn a shocking development, Saudi press Al Mayadeen reported late on Saturday that prominent billionaire, member of the royal Saudi family, and one of the biggest shareholders of Citi, News Corp. and Twitter - not to mention frequent CNBC guest - Al-Waleed bin Talal, has been arrested for corruption and money laundering charges, along with several other top officials. Among those fired and/or arrested are also the head of National Royal Guards, Miteb Bin Abdullah, the Minister of Economy and Planning, Adel Fakeih, and Admiral Abdullah bin Sultan bin Mohammed Al-Sultan, the Commander of the Saudi Naval Forces
snip
the heads of the main three Saudi owned TV networks were arrested, Alwalid Bin Talal (Rotana), Walid Al Brahim (MBC), Saleh Kamel (ART)
snip
This could be a service to Trump, who hates Al-Walid: the two fought it out on twitter during the campaign although Al-Walid tried to reconcile with Trump after his election but to no avail.
snip
To summarise today's even more bizarre Saudi news day:
-Trump urges Aramco IPO
-Lebanon PM resigns
-Saudis intercept missile
-Major cabinet reshuffle; 3 Saudi princes - who run the anti-graft committee - arrested for money-laundering
-A total of 11 princes, >30 ministers arrested on corruption
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher says: 10/27/2017 at 10:44 am
Not gonna scroll. Found some ECB corporate bond buys. Specific companies.
Daimler
Deutsche Bahn no idea what that is
BMW
Eni (!!!!!)
Air Liquide
Schlumberger (!!!!!)
Total (!!!!!)The specific bond serial number (in the US it would be called CUSIP-like) of each purchase is known. The buy takes place on the secondary market. Much the same way the Fed never bought Treasury issuance direct from Treasury. There was always a go between -- which essentially means nothing. This was never discussed about Mort. Backed Securities. Bought them from who had them -- at about 1000X market price.
And this is cool. As of July of last year, 35% of all ECB bond buys (aka lending to private companies with money from nothingness) were of individual bonds with -- get this -- negative yields. They not only loaned money to the company, they paid the company interest for holding the bond.
And y'all think money is a meaningful metric for the overall circumstance of oil flow. hahahahahhaah How can it be? Schlumberger!!! Hell, they are funding US shale flow with money from nothingness.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
FreddyW says: 10/28/2017 at 6:13 am
Thanks that is really interesting. As most wells in Bakken are 10000 feet long, 500 feet well spacing would translate into about 5 wells per section in Bakken. As I mentioned some time ago, the Grail area in McKensey has close to 5 wells per section now. The 2016 wells there had worse production than previous years and they have almost stopped drilling new wells there. As there are maybe 1500 well locations left in the sweet spot area of McKensey (assuming 5 wells per section) and they are adding perhaps 40 wells per month now, it means that there are only some 3 years of new wells left. But it's not like they will add 40 wells per month and then suddenly stop.coffeeguyzz says: 10/28/2017 at 9:48 amSo more and more wells need to come from outside the sweet spots the coming years. Because of the red queen phenomena, if new wells start to produce less, then more wells are needed just to keep total production flat. So perhaps Bakken oil production peaked in 2015. But that depends on how many new wells will be added the coming years.
FreddyOne needs to remember the Three Forks formation when doing those kind of calculations.
Some of the higher producing wells in North Dakota these past 2 years targeted the second bench of the TF.
There have been very few third bench TF wells and, I believe, only a couple targeting the fourth bench so far.Regarding downspacing, it has been a real crapshoot throughout all the shale plays. Operators had been purposefully drilling closer and closer and monitoring results. The biggest influencing factors (among many) seems to be the permeability and brittleness of the rock.
Utica operators are back to 1,000 foot spacing while Marcellus operators continue to drill 500′ or less. Again, the thickness of these formations plays a big role as 3 dimension, not 2, come into play. 80% production in offset wells is the commonly quoted figure from several operators, and they seem to be okay with that.
BTW, I appreciate the charts you regularly post here.
Be advised, Bakken operators have recently changed their flowback procedures and early month produced water numbers have skyrocketed. New wells now show 150/200 thousand barrels produced water their first few months online.
This will skew historical WOR computations.
|
|
|
Oct 29, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Heinrich Leopold says: 10/28/2017 at 12:54 pm
As also smaller companies reported q3 earnings, the results show an interesting trend: production did not go up year over year, despite higher capex and secondly cash flow from operating activites declined strongly even at comparable production rate and product prices.Take Whiting Petroleum WLL, which had basically the same production and a little bit higher revenue due to higher prices, yet operating cash fell from 159 mill last year to 99 mill. This is in my view due to the sharply rising decline rate, which plagues now the whole industry and makes funding of more drilling very difficult. However, this is good news for prices, which can now go up – not only for oil, but also for natgas.
|
|
|
Oct 27, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
FT Oct 27thExxonMobil and Chevron, the two largest US oil and gas groups, are continuing to lose money on oil and gas production in their home country, in spite of the rise in commodity prices since last year.
Reporting earnings for the third quarter, Exxon said it lost $238m on oil and gas production in the US, while Chevron lost $26m. The losses were reduced from the equivalent period of 2016, but came as both companies made healthy profits on their international operations.
(pay wall but one free) https://www.ft.com/content/c43b55c4-bb2d-11e7-8c12-5661783e5589shallow sand says: 10/27/2017 at 9:11 pm
ExxonMobil and Chevron again posted losses in US upstream (for Q3, 2017).George Kaplan says: 10/28/2017 at 2:22 amTheir production decline (or failure to grow) trends look as if they are starting to worry the investors, who were of course the ones insisting they do the things to maintain dividends that now mean the declines are likely to accelerate.Exxon churned out the equivalent of 3.97 MMbpd, short of the 4-million average estimate from analysts. Chevron's tally was 2.717 MMbpd, underperforming its 2.777-million average estimate. In both cases, the figures rattled investors, even as the U.S. oil giants easily beat estimates on their overall earnings.
Since 2014, when crude prices crashed, major oil companies have prioritized one thing -- conserving cash. They've engaged in mass layoffs, canceled marquee projects and put intense pressure on suppliers and contractors to cut prices. Despite a recent recovery, prices are still about half the level seen three years ago, so there's little sign that this focus is shifting. One victim of that strategy for the two big majors may be production.
Exxon declined 1% in New York trading at 9:58, while Chevron lost 3.7%.
http://www.worldoil.com/news/2017/10/27/disappointing-output-betrays-exxon-chevron-profit-victories .
Neither of them has many major projects coming due in the next couple of years (Hebron, Odooptu, Big Foot and a couple of production sharing thins in the Middle East). They used up a lot of the opportunities for brownfield expansion work on their older facilities when the price was high and they might both be seeing big drops in those coming soon, with nothing left to ameliorate them e.g. their offshore facilities in Nigeria and Angola, some in the GoM for Chevron, Hibernia for both. They are both in Tengiz and Kashagan I think but a lot of that production is just going towards maintaining a plateau. So they are both increasingly reliant on Permian
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand
says: 10/27/2017 at 9:11 pmExxonMobil and Chevron again posted losses in US upstream (for Q3, 2017).George Kaplan says: 10/28/2017 at 2:22 amTheir production decline (or failure to grow) trends look as if they are starting to worry the investors, who were of course the ones insisting they do the things to maintain dividends that now mean the declines are likely to accelerate.Exxon churned out the equivalent of 3.97 MMbpd, short of the 4-million average estimate from analysts. Chevron's tally was 2.717 MMbpd, underperforming its 2.777-million average estimate. In both cases, the figures rattled investors, even as the U.S. oil giants easily beat estimates on their overall earnings.
Since 2014, when crude prices crashed, major oil companies have prioritized one thing -- conserving cash. They've engaged in mass layoffs, canceled marquee projects and put intense pressure on suppliers and contractors to cut prices. Despite a recent recovery, prices are still about half the level seen three years ago, so there's little sign that this focus is shifting. One victim of that strategy for the two big majors may be production.
Exxon declined 1% in New York trading at 9:58, while Chevron lost 3.7%.
http://www.worldoil.com/news/2017/10/27/disappointing-output-betrays-exxon-chevron-profit-victories .
Neither of them has many major projects coming due in the next couple of years (Hebron, Odooptu, Big Foot and a couple of production sharing thins in the Middle East). They used up a lot of the opportunities for brownfield expansion work on their older facilities when the price was high and they might both be seeing big drops in those coming soon, with nothing left to ameliorate them – e.g. their offshore facilities in Nigeria and Angola, some in the GoM for Chevron, Hibernia for both. They are both in Tengiz and Kashagan I think but a lot of that production is just going towards maintaining a plateau. So they are both increasingly reliant on Permian
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Heinrich Leopold says: 10/28/2017 at 12:54 pm
As also smaller companies reported q3 earnings, the results show an interesting trend: production did not go up year over year, despite higher capex and secondly cash flow from operating activites declined strongly even at comparable production rate and product prices.Take Whiting Petroleum WLL, which had basically the same production and a little bit higher revenue due to higher prices, yet operating cash fell from 159 mill last year to 99 mill. This is in my view due to the sharply rising decline rate, which plagues now the whole industry and makes funding of more drilling very difficult. However, this is good news for prices, which can now go up – not only for oil, but also for natgas.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2017 | oilprice.com
As much as US$1 trillion of investments has either been deferred or canceled with the lower-for-longer oil prices, and this underinvestment will impact the future of energy, Amin Nasser, the chief executive of Saudi Aramco, said on Tuesday.
"Not much investments have been going into the energy sector... $1 trillion has been either deferred or cancelled," Nasser said at the Future Investment Initiative conference in Riyadh.
Of the US$1 trillion investment, US$300 billion was earmarked for oil exploration and another US$700 billion for project developments, according to the CEO of the state-held oil giant of OPEC's biggest exporter and de facto leader Saudi Arabia.
"This will have an impact on the future of energy if nothing happens," Nasser noted, adding that investments are necessary because of "natural depreciation of fields and normal rise in demand."
"We are witnessing a transformation... But it will be decades before renewable energy takes a major share in the energy mix," the head of the oil giant said.
In July, Nasser said that if the oil and gas industry didn't start investing again, the global oil supply/demand curve will reach a turning point in "a couple of years."
"About $1 trillion in investments have already been lost since the current downturn began," Nasser said in a speech at the World Petroleum Congress in Istanbul in July.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News says: 10/25/2017 at 10:59 am
There was a tight oil spending drought in Q2 & Q3 compared to Q1 2017Energy News says: 10/25/2017 at 11:01 am
Chart on Twitter https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM7CyhWUIAAnRN6.jpg
Macro Energy Insights – WoodMackenzie https://twitter.com/WMEdRawleCash required per barrel for major shale companies – Bloomberg & Al Rajhi Capital
cost including interest + taxes: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM_VzOnVwAAhOyX.jpg
operational cost: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM_VEYHVoAANSEj.jpgSaxo Bank do a good summary of the weekly US Petroleum Balance Sheet
Gasoline imports hit a low for the year (not shown in charts)
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM_a1hGWAAACizI.jpg
https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DM_bVaiX0AEjlCS.jpg
Distillates stocks at 129mb updated to Oct 20thGuym says: 10/25/2017 at 11:08 am
Good grief! That's not a drought, it's the Sahara desert! Especially when you consider most of that spending was to feed the DUCs. Makes me wonder why it took so long for Schlumberger to predict a drop in production.Guym says: 10/25/2017 at 3:05 pmhttps://seekingalpha.com/amp/article/4116190-perfect-storm-oil-prices-will-riseDennis Coyne says: 10/25/2017 at 4:01 pmNot quite all the ingredients that are simmering, but the article lists more than most.
Hi Guym,Guym says: 10/25/2017 at 5:41 pmI agree, a good post in your link above.
Perhaps we are correct about oil prices.
What do you think about an average annual Brent oil price in 2020 of $100+/-20 per barrel in 2017 constant dollars? I would guess there may be a 50% chance this is correct.
I am more concerned about WTI, but I think they will start converging next year, so say oil at 80-120. You are asking about 2020, so I would say 95%, unless severe economic recession, huge tech breakthrough, absolute war, or some other extreme black swan event.I look first at inventory, as this caused the drop in price starting in 2014. The US contains the majority of the over supply. Quite obviously demand exceeds supply, or we would not be experiencing drawdowns. Drawdowns in the US have not reported to be rapid, but an increasing level of exports have basically taken away big builds we may have had lately. Exports will continue to increase, as new export points are scheduled to come online in early 2018. More exports, bigger draws.
We are already exporting close to the daily production of the Permian. The big build was over time, and due to the reluctance of refineries to re-tool. That is not a big factor, anymore. Refineries will be the ultimate losers, eventually. So, I really look for inventories to clear out in the US by sometime 2018. I am not buying into the theory that US exports will cause an increase to world inventories. The rest of the world's inventories were deleted pretty fast.
Next, what will demand be? Who really knows what it is now? I've heard it said, that IEA makes up demand amounts based upon production, which is probably not too far off reality. Let's assume it continues upon the 1.4% increase range. I am not going to attempt to put real numbers to that, we will just need a bunch of additional barrels.
Now, turn to production. OPEC is no more of a wildcard than US shale is. They can pump more oil, but there will be some lead time. US can pump some more, but it will take some lead time. Russia can pump some more, but it will take some lead time. Lead time is roughly equivalent to two years. So that's three years out, approximately, with 4? million in demand to cover. Remember, we are short supply now, or we wouldn't be drawing down inventories. As far as US production goes, I'm going with Schlumberger's assessment. Flat through 2017, and basically flat in 2018.
Any increase in Permian, would offset by declines, elsewhere. To me, that makes 2018 and 2019 look good. 2020? That's a wrap. That doesn't even consider the wild cards of Venezuela or Iran, and leaves a lot of wiggle room, otherwise.
|
|
|
Oct 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Fred Magyar says: 10/25/2017 at 9:03 am
The decisions to not develop these discoveries were made either because of disappointing appraisal, or low oil prices, or a combination the two.George Kaplan says: 10/25/2017 at 9:15 amWonder if that might have something to do with this as well?
http://money.cnn.com/2017/10/12/investing/shell-oil-buys-electric-car-charging/index.htmlOil giant Shell bets on electric cars
One of the world's largest fossil fuel companies is betting on electric cars.
Royal Dutch Shell (RDSA) revealed a deal on Thursday to acquire NewMotion, one of Europe's largest electric vehicle charging providers. NewMotion specializes in converting parking spots into electric charging stations. The Dutch firm has more than 30,000 electric charge points in Europe.
The acquisition, Shell's first in this space, shows how Big Oil is being forced to confront the long-term threat posed by electric cars and efforts to phase out gasoline and diesel vehicles.Or maybe the other way round – there's no oil left to develop so they have to find something else to do – or both supply and demand influences, which is the reality of all economic decisions, not one or the other however much the media feels it has to simplify things to that level.SRSrocco says: 10/25/2017 at 4:15 pmGeorge Kaplan,SRSrocco says: 10/25/2017 at 4:17 pmInteresting article. I believe we are going to see a more rapid disintegration of the Ultra-Deepwater Drilling Industry when the markets finally correct by 20-50%. The notion that the Ultra-Deepwater Drilling Industry will recover by 2020 or 2024 doesn't take into account that the broader U.S. Stock markets have experienced a 230% increase from the lows without a typical 15-20% correction.
Hell, I believe the S&P 500 just hit a record of not experiencing a 3% correction for more than 453 days.
Regardless I just posted a new article titled U.S. DEEPWATER OFFSHORE OIL INDUSTRY TRAINWRECK APPROACHING: https://srsroccoreport.com/u-s-deep-water-offshore-oil-industry-trainwreck-approaching/
Transocean drilling rig utilization fell from a peak of 95% in 1H 2013 to 37% in the 1H 2017. Of the 17 Ultra-Deepwater rigs currently drilling for oil in the GoM (source: Baker Hughes), one leased by Chevron was terminated early. So, the total will be down to 16 in November.
Again, the wild card of much higher oil prices will only occur if the Fed and Central banks start up the printing press BIG TIME. When the Fed's QE3 program ended, the price of oil plummeted.
However, when the Central banks print like crazy, this won't last long. Thus, it won't be enough to allow the Ultra-Deepwater Drilling Industry to recover.
Steve
Here is a link to the Chart I could not post in the comment above:Guym says: 10/25/2017 at 7:11 amGreat post. Do you have any idea of the oil price that may bring back a higher level of exploration effort?George Kaplan says: 10/25/2017 at 7:28 amNo idea – I don't do the oil price prediction thing because I'm pretty sure nobody in history has ever got it right for the right reason. For real 'frontier' type exploration to start again then there would have to be a pick up in lease sales and really they have been tailing off even in the high price years (I think I put some charts in a previous post on the GoM showing how the percentage of offered leases taken up has been falling off. I doubt if shallow a lot of the deep lease areas will pick up again though, there's little left.Guym says: 10/25/2017 at 7:41 amYeah, whatever it would have to be, would have to be more stable and higher than current. So, probably no big bidders on the 97 million acres in 2018.SouthLaGeo says: 10/25/2017 at 7:45 amIn my opinion, exploration will not pick up too much regardless of oil price because of the maturity of the basin, as George suggests above. (Actually, exploration may pick up a fair bit with higher oil prices, but significant successes probably won't).George Kaplan says: 10/25/2017 at 10:38 am
Now there certainly are those that would disagree with that, and, since I'm still in the industry, I often hear the message about the tremendous remaining potential in the northern deepwater GOM coming from those in the ra-ra corner.Not much and no. I think, if anything, the future GoM production will be a bit less than I expected about six months ago. As far as STEO goes I think they come up with a future profile once a year and then just bias it up and down to meet this month's production number – I think a new profile must be due soon. There is about a 10% decline per year, which might increase a bit now, so about 170,000 bpd is needed to maintain a plateau, but the STEO has another 100,000 per year of growth. Next year there is only Stampede early on, which has topsides nameplate of 60,000, but only 50,000 planned with the rest available for tie backs and probably only about 70% availability in the first year; plus Constellation – which has maybe 30,000 but depends on decline in the rest of the Caesar-Tonga field to allow capacity for some of it, so not all of that is net gain; the LLOG fields I described above; and Big Foot at the end which won't contribute much in 2018. So from July 2017 to Dec. 2018 they lose maybe 230,000 and add about 90,000 to 110,000 maybe with a bit of brownfield as well. There's also Atlantis North but I think that only maintains a plateau against fast declines from their other wells. But EIA are saying the GoM adds 330,000. Also in 2019 Big Foot isn't going to ramp up fast, contrary to what I previously thought. It has dry trees, only two have been fully predrilled, the others have the top two conductor sections drilled but the on-platform rig will have to complete them. I think the oil is pretty heavy so not huge production from a single well, therefore even with a 70,000 nominal topsides nameplate, the wells and the usual low availability in the first year will be limiting.Watcher says: 10/25/2017 at 11:06 amEIA's monthly production data to end of July says US production vs 2016 is averaging about 3.4 million barrels per month higher. divided by 30 is 114K bpd increase over last year averaged month by month. (not month to month)For Texas it's 90K bpd increase over last year, as of end of July, averaged month by month. That's most of the 114K.
Don't know if that's far enough back in months for the correction we get here to have moderated.
|
|
|
Oct 24, 2017 | turcopolier.typepad.com
Saudi Arabia. Trump prostrated himself and his country before the Saudis and the leaders of the Islamic World. The Saudis expect that this was more than a symbolic and empty gesture. Saudi Arabia is a weak state in actual capabilities in the world It is a state that the US will not need much longer as a source of petroleum. The feebleness of the Saudi government is demonstrated by the ineffectual nature of its war in Yemen, This genocide is being aided and abetted by the US government as part of its cartoon-like conception of basic social and political structures in Islamdom. The Saudi government grows ever weaker as a result of this war and decline in its monetized assets because of a growing surplus of petroleum in the world. The Saudi princelings are not worth the effort being put into keeping them happy.
Qatar . US military operations in the ME are centered around the command and control facility at Al-Obeid in Qatar as well as the air base itself. The air base is useful but is only one of many used by the US in the ME. By siding with the Saudis DJT has de-stabilized the US relationsip with Qatar and is driving the Qataris in the direction of an pro-Iranian stance. Would the US fight to keep al-Obeid? The Saudis won't do it for the US.
... ... ...
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Urban2 -> Ponderbelle , 13 Oct 2017 02:21
fredgladys, 12 Oct 2017 23:32Saudis bought 15 billion dollars antirocket system. Its one deal only. Just to get Trump to stop messing around and crash the Persians they also bought Russian system.
ShoeFascist -> ghstwrtrx7 , 12 Oct 2017 22:51"A peculiar pattern of Trumpian behavior is emerging. First, his fragile ego forbids him to ever take responsibility for anything. Ever. Second, because he craves the adulation of his base, he will to shift blame or throw any and all supporters and allies under the bus."
He also has a tendency to want to take revenge for any imagined or real slight that bruise his fragile ego. Not a statesman or leader by any strength of the imagination.
ShoeFascist -> Fred Fawcett , 12 Oct 2017 22:46The good news is that ALL empires, throughout history, have fallen. Looking forward to the fall of the American Empire.
Yes laughable and tragic all at the same time. Even the guy whose nickname actually is "Mad Dog" (James Mattis) has gone on record with some intelligent comments on why the Iran nuclear deal should be kept in place.
I'm not surprised you got so much hate on that comment board. The Neo-Nazis seem to loiter where they know they can get away with crap that isn't monitored properly.
Epivore , 12 Oct 2017 20:45US citizens who believe they're 'victims' of a 'deep state' have no idea how their war-mongering nation is viewed abroad...
capelover -> lefttheleft , 12 Oct 2017 18:25lefttheleft -> Rigobertus , 12 Oct 2017 17:25He's the best shot that the USA becomes truly 3rd world.
Mike Baker -> Abigailgem , 12 Oct 2017 17:20Trump is the antidote. You may not like it but he's the best shot at pulling the USA from the brink of ruin.
HeadInSand2013 -> GatesOfRome , 12 Oct 2017 16:08America's been piling on the bad karma since Vietnam. It could well cause the world egregious trauma, but no one will shed a tear when the beast is brought low by its episodic-tho-predictable bouts of cluster-fuck. Methinks they've hit the Big One.
And aren't its politicians infinitely grateful for a citizenry so simply and quickly distracted by Hollywood shenanigans (as awful as they are in this instance) whilst a) 3 million of its own have been blown into third world living standards; b) 528 took a bullet from a shooter in the span of less than 10 minutes; and c) Californians are being roasted alive in the latest indication that something's gone screwy in our biosphere? The Oaf and Chief considers Weinstein as nothing more than relief.
Riddle: What's the difference between a President and a leader?
A: There shouldn't be difference, but now there is.
HeadInSand2013 , 12 Oct 2017 14:53Iran is a danger to the region and the world.
I know enough of Iran to respectfully disagree. In many respects, Iran is similar to China, 30 years ago. Under the right leadership, it has the potential of becoming an economic engine for the South-West Asia, helping economic growth of itself and many of its neighboring countries.
Iran has a well-educated population that does not like the US, mainly because of the past US behaviour both in their country and in the surrounding region. The people there revolted against a US-installed government and used religion as a unifying ideology. Now they should be left alone to sort out the problems that religion has brought to them.
In case of China, Napoleon Bonaparte is quoted to say:
Let China Sleep, for when she wakes, she will shake the world
As the journal Economist once suggested, it is also better to leave the Persian Lion alone. Indeed, the Bonaparte's quote can be restated to apply to Iran; it could read:
Let the Persian Lion Sleep, for when it wakes, it will never live like a sheep
For those interested in military mind-set, it is worth mentioning here that Afghans and Iranians are in fact the same people and approach war and fighting in the same manner. The difference between the two is the cunning and sophistication of the latter.
Jiri -> Durangotang , 12 Oct 2017 11:43Mr. McLean's analysis is largely on the mark. Indeed much of it is supported by Mr. Trump's behavioral pattern, which has been witnessed by the world public during the past 11 months. There is, however, an area where - like many others - Mr. McLean tries to play safe. When he says::
But he promised his loyal base, Fox News and Steve Bannon, he would dump the accord
he is apparently leaving out an important - and probably the most critical - constituency of Mr. Trump. When Mr. McLean says:
He has Bannon and Breitbart howling on his heels, along with most of the rabid rightwing noise machine.
he is getting close; but, then then he shies away from identifying who are the people behind that "rabid rightwing noise machine.".
Many believe that Mr. Trump decisions are influenced by this "rabid rightwing machine" more than anything or anyone else. He has been reported to call many of the machine's "operators" after hours, from the WH as well as his Mar-a-Lago palace, in every opportunity he gets. As examples of the power of this machine, they refer to its ability:
1. To undo the harm of Pope Francis condemnation of candidate Trump, clling him "not being Christian", after his pledge to deport undocumented immigrants and build a wall between US and Mexico. The machine undermined Vatican's moral authority by overnight flooding of the world media with the old story of Pope John Paul II having a close relationship with a Polish women;
2. To pump out billions of dollars into the US futures market on the night of Mr. Trump's election victory to reverse its steep drop of almost 1000 points .
Now the "rabid rightwing machine" wants US decertification of the nuclear treaty with Iran. Mr. Trump is a businessman and no doubt understands how transactional relationships work. He is indebted to this machine, and has to reciprocate its favours in order to receive more of the same in future. Note that he has already registered as a canadidate, to be re-elected the US president for his second term!
And the US did not attack North Korea?
ghstwrtrx7 -> GatesOfRome , 12 Oct 2017 05:23ghstwrtrx7 -> Daniel Berg , 12 Oct 2017 05:15Iran is a danger to the region and the world.
The facts don't support this assumption. Clearly and without a doubt by far the most dangerous, the most destructive, the most deadly player in the region has been the United States. This fact is indisputable to the sincere.
ghstwrtrx7 , 12 Oct 2017 05:02Better refresh. The United States is by definition, an empire. Has been since December 10, 1898. Not all empires have or have had emperors. At least, as an official title. We even still possess a few de facto colonies, Puerto Rico being the most populous. The Philippines were part of the American empire from December 10, 1898 to July 4, 1946.
The Philippines' colonial history has been described by one historian as "500 years in a convent, followed by 50 years at Disneyland."
ghstwrtrx7 -> GatesOfRome , 12 Oct 2017 04:50Trump makes a big medicine show of cancelling "the worst deal ever" (Man! Trump can go from 0 - Hyperbole in no time flat, eh?) but that's easier said than done. The United States simply cannot arbitrarily walk away from the deal. Not legally. Aside from that Trump no longer enjoys the support of the GOP to cancel the agreement.
Oh! Make no mistake. These very same Republicans were all for walking away from the deal when Obama made it and they didn't control all three branches of government (although I'm not sure who or what controls the executive at the moment). Now that they do, having nothing but years of obstructionism to bring to the table, the GOP, lacking any governing skills whatsoever, is as impotent as ever and tearing itself apart from the inside besides.
I tell ya'. The GOP, already severely weakened by the Koch Brothers'-funded grassroots Tea Party movement, may very well just not survive the cancer of Trump.
Again, not the topic. The question is asked: Is Iran in compliance with the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action? The answer, of course, is yes. Trump's entire domestic and foreign policy decisions appear to be based entirely on if Obama had anything to do with it, then it has to go. Bad or good. Right or wrong . This is not a viable method of sound government. It is petty, however. Childish and puerile, to say the least.
At any rate, if Trump renegades on this deal as he has on so many since he's been in office, then it will be the United States which will be in noncompliance with the treaty and it will be the reputation of the United States which will suffer yet another blow delivered by none other than our Buffoon-in-Chief.
Besides, Iran is not the only other nation muckraking about in the region. There are other players in the game. I hear rumors of another, more powerful, more destructive, far more deadlier entity stomping about the place, making a mess of just about everything. Been doing it for decades now. Just keeps making matters worse.
zolotoy -> Fred Fawcett , 11 Oct 2017 22:37I know it's sexy to blame Rethugs for everything, but American wars against weak countries didn't begin with Reagan. From the halls of Montezuma...
Fred Fawcett -> phubar , 11 Oct 2017 21:38Fred Fawcett -> ID4752094 , 11 Oct 2017 21:32North Korea might just decide that it's own best interests would be served by selling Iran a working bomb. With Trump's sanctions interfering with North Korea obtaining oil, Iran might just pay the tab that way. The world could very quickly become a much more dangerous place because of Trump's antics.
Fred Fawcett -> zolotoy , 11 Oct 2017 21:25Israel is probably mentioned because Netanyahu is an active partner in Trump's war on the Iran Deal.
Fred Fawcett -> Stranger1548 , 11 Oct 2017 21:09This is the result of our long string of wars since Reagan took on Grenada. Then Bush in Panama. And on and on until today. We've chosen to do battle with small weak countries that don't have a hope in hell of winning or even inflicting major harm.
With each new painless war the American people have been conditioned to believe that because it hasn't caused personal suffering that war is somehow painless. Now we've worked our way up to North Korea and Iran. Both of them a whole different ball game. War with either or both would likely result in a return of the draft.
Trump's scumbag supporters would quickly be singing a different tune as soon as they found themselves being forced to participate.
Well said.
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theamericanconservative.com
Fran Macadam , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:48 am
Making war in other people's countries is what an American government captured by globalist financial elites is all about. For elites, such wars, paid for by the deplorable ordinary Americans they loathe, have no downside and carry no risk to them. Lose-lose for the American public is win-win for them, they cannot lose, especially since wars that can't be won will never end, perfect profit streams.80 Percent Polyester , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:39 amEarly To Rise , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:58 am"Cotton was among the fiercest and loudest opponents of the agreement before it was made, and he has continued to look for ways to sabotage it."Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore.
He's more like a member of the Netanyahu government who somehow ended up in one of Arkansas's US Senate seats.
Does anyone here know any real Americans who are pushing for this policy against Iran? My family and friends are nearly all real Americans, and not one of them has any interest in ending the deal with Iran. Most of them wish we would get out of the Middle East altogether.Christian Chuba , says: October 13, 2017 at 7:16 amSo the question is, who are these people all excited about Iran? Other than politicians who may be working for foreign lobbies?
This is pure lawlessness. We are breaking an agreement and by advocating regime change against a govt that has not attacked us or even threatened us in a serious manner are breaking the U.N. charter.Everything Must Go , says: October 13, 2017 at 8:01 amWe are doing this while condemning other countries for not following a 'liberal, rules based world order' (whatever that is, oh, wait, it is following Caesar's decrees). Our Hubris will catch up to us, whether it will be by the Almighty that the Haley's and Cotton's claim to serve or just the law of reciprocity, I don't know. No one is more blind than those corrupted by power.
John Quincy Adams, "But she goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy She well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force . She might become the dictatress of the world. She would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit."
He was able to see this because we were not yet intoxicated by power.
Screw Trump. I mean really, screw him. He got my vote because I thought he was going to first crush ISIS and then get us out of the Middle East. Instead he's intensifying nearly every aspect of our Middle East entanglements.Frederick Martin , says: October 13, 2017 at 9:38 amNow he's creating a new mess of his own. And this crap he's pulling with Iran is for Saudi Arabia and Israel. America First really?
Of all of the Obama-era foreign policy decisions Trump could pull back, he's hell-bent on crushing one of the only good ones. I'd be shocked if he has even an elementary understanding of the agreement. "Moron", as Tillerson would say.Fred Bowman , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:14 amWhat seem to be missing here is anybody talking about Israel nuclear capability. That's the "dirty little secret" that nobody talks about. Imho, as long as Iran is in compliance the deal should. Of course Trump and the Hawks in Congress are going to do everything to scuttle it and bring about a war with Iran which will end up being a World War and will necessitate the US returning to a military draft to fight this war. It will be a sad way to "wake up" America to what is being done militarily in their name. But perhaps when they see their little "Johnny and Jill" marched off to war, they'll see what has been done in these endless, unwinnable wars in the Middle East.AR complaint , says: October 13, 2017 at 10:31 am[Tom Cotton gets] "Really whopping contributions "the Swamp" personified."SDS , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 amHe got a $700,000 check from a single Israel donor in 2014. You think anybody in Arkansas not named "Walton" can match that? No sir. Tom Cotton does what Israel tells him to do. Scuttle the Iran deal? No problem.
It's time that my fellow Arkansans did for Tom Cotton what those upstanding Virginians did for Eric Cantor back in 2014, and for the same reason: we want our government back from corrupt politicians working for foreign interests.
I second EVERYTHING said above by all Steve Waclo , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:53 amStephen J. , says: October 13, 2017 at 11:58 am" the president made clear over the summer, he didn't "believe" Iran was in compliance and would not certify again."Wait, what?! What does Trump know that the IAEA has been unable to learn and at the risk of compromising intelligence sources, why has he not shared that knowledge? As with many of the man's "beliefs", such attitudes do not make issues remotely true. We don't need to stir the Iran pot, for goodness sake. Has not this man kicked enough hornets nests around the world?
I believe the "War Hawks"are leading Trump into another war. Therefore, I asked on: February 4, 2017 Will There Be War With Iran?Steve in Ohio , says: October 13, 2017 at 12:35 pm
http://graysinfo.blogspot.ca/2017/02/will-there-be-war-with-iran.htmlthe times they are a'changing , says: October 13, 2017 at 1:23 pm"Cotton is one of the biggest Israel money guys in the Senate, if not the biggest. Really whopping contributions "the Swamp" personified. In return for Israel money he has tirelessly pushed the core Israeli policy of hostility to Iran, so much so that it hardly makes sense to think of him as an American senator anymore."Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries.
Rand Paul, on the other hand, like his dad, is good on foreign policy, but doesn't get the immigration issue. People like me who want a non interventionist FP and low immigration seldom have candidates that believe in both to support. I had high hopes for Trump, but he seems to have too many generals around him telling him the wrong things.
jk , says: October 13, 2017 at 2:04 pm"Cotton is wrong on this issue, but he's hardly a Swamp politico. He understands the dangers of mass immigration and looks likely to replace Jeff Sessions as the leading immigration hawk in the Senate. Unfortunately, I suspect he has presidential ambitions and being pro Israel is a must in GOP primaries. "No it's not. It was a litmus test for the old neocon Establishment GOP, and it's gone the way of Eric Cantor. You have to go to New York, DC, or some left coastal city to find anyone who gives a goddamn about it, and those places don't vote Republican anyway.
Politicians who take the Israel dollar care about it a lot, naturally. And Cotton's near the top of the list.
Don the Neocon.. We can keep the military in the end-stateless, goal-less, sinkhole known as Afghanistan for decades, STILL subsidize the defense of rich EU and Asian countries, fight the latest "Al qaeda offshoot" everywhere on the African continent but we can't afford universal healthcare like US welfare baby Israel or about every other developed country, or restore power or drinking water in a US territory.Kent , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:09 pm"NO KIN IN THE GAME": STUDY FINDS MEMBERS OF CONGRESS WITHOUT DRAFT-AGE SONS WERE MORE HAWKISH"
https://theintercept.com/2017/10/11/congress-war-hawkish-policies-study/
That explains "lifetime bachelor" Graham's behavior!
To our neocon friends:Robert Charron , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:34 pm1. Even though Iran and Iraq are 4 letter words and share the first 3, they are very, very different animals. Iran is an industrial state of 85 million capable of designing and building effective rockets. It is highly unlikely the US can defeat Iran in a conventional war on its own turf.
2. Even if we did defeat them, there is nobody there yearning for American style pseudo-democracy. While they are not perfectly happy with their own government, they'll be dammed if they're going to accept one from us. So you'd have to put millions of American troops in harms way against the civilian population essentially forever.
And a note on the President. I don't believe he knows or cares a thing about Iran or their capabilities. What he does know, after watching Fox News for the last 8 years is: Obama bad. So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative.
It appears that Trump's strategy is to insult and ruin Ran's economy to the point where he can get Iran to do something that will allow him to declare war against Iran because they attacked us.simon94022 , says: October 13, 2017 at 3:54 pmAnd how many countries has Iran invaded in the last 200 years? And how many countries has Israel invaded in the last 80 years?
As I recall we made a regime change in the Iranian government when we had the CIA along with the English intelligence by replacing the elected Prime Minister of Iran with the despotic, tyrannical Shah.
As an American, Trump has desecrated our flag with his flat out lies, not the NFL athletes who simps knelt during the National Anthem.
We will really find out who the Swamp creatures are now. Any congressman or Senator who votes for new sanctions against Iran a country that poses virtually no threat to the United States exposes himself as a bought-and-paid-for tool of Saudi Arabia and the jihadist fanatics the Saudis support.Ollie , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:26 pmLet them be counted!
No president in history has been more feckless and reckless than Trump. The danger demands that the 25th amendment be asserted.Why Does The Heathen Rage? , says: October 13, 2017 at 4:49 pmJoe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:05 pm"So the only reason, I'm certain, that Trump cares about this is because it was an Obama initiative."I've heard this before, but if it were true than why is Trump helping the Saudis wreck and starve Yemen? That was an Obama initiative too. That's why I now think that it's not really the Obama connection so much as the Netanyahu connection that drives Trump. In other words, it's less that Trump wants to undo what Obama did and more that he wants to do what Netanyahu wants.
Any notion of American excellence has now been erased. Our country will not soon recover all that Trump has tossed away and as citizens, we cannot absolve ourselves from blame. We have elected the most odious leader in our history and have allowed (mostly) a Republican Party to participate in government without having made a single contribution to the welfare of the American republic.Joe F , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:07 pmCotton is not alone in his folly that dismisses all real national interest. Like others, there have been many times I have despaired at the state of affairs in our Country, but this is different. Trump and his vandal allies I believe have inflicted permanent and irreversible damage to our country.
One follow up to earlier post: with this action, Trump has proven beyond doubt that the Mullah regime in Iran is a far more trustworthy nation than the United States. Well done DonaldLiam , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:21 pmRegarding the 25th amendment option: how far down the line of succession must one go to find someone who has solid, bona fide cred to stop this inanity?picture window , says: October 13, 2017 at 5:45 pmThe Economist today opines that Xi Jinping has more clout than Donald Trump.And I read on TAC that Trump is p***ing away our wealth and power doing favors for Israel and Saudi Arabia in the Middle East, like scuttling the Iran deal and picking fights with the Iranian government. And I conclude that the reason that the Economist may be right about Xi Jinping is because Trump is doing what I read about in TAC, wasting our time, blood, money, and focus on appeasing a bunch of goddamn foreigners in the form of the Israel and Saudi lobbies.
Pretty damn grim.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
karlof1 | Oct 15, 2017 5:22:59 PM | 12
In the final days of the Iran Deal negotiations, August 2015, I completely missed the interview Kerry did with Reuters, https://2009-2017.state.gov/secretary/remarks/2015/08/245935.htm that Mercouris parses for his detailed article proving the Outlaw US Empire's Imperial Policy is now "irrational"--utterly I'd say since for me it's been irrational for decades when weighing the actual interests of the United States's populous. The key excerpt:"But if everybody thinks, 'Oh, no, we're just tough; the United States of America, we have our secondary sanctions; we can force people to do what we want.' I actually heard that argument on television this morning. I've heard it from a number of the organisations that are working that are opposed to this agreement. They're spreading the word, 'America is strong enough, our banks are tough enough; we can just bring the hammer down and force our friends to do what we want them to.'
"Well, look a lot of business people in this room. Are you kidding me? The United States is going to start sanctioning our allies and their banks and their businesses because we walked away from a deal and we're going to force them to do what we want them to do even though they agreed to the deal we came to? Are you kidding ?
"That is a recipe quickly, my friends, for them to walk away from Ukraine, where they are already very dicey and ready to say, 'Well, we've done our bit.' They were ready in many cases to say, 'Well, we're the ones paying the price for your sanctions.' We it was Obama who went out and actually put together a sanctions regime that had an impact. By I went to China. We persuaded China, 'Don't buy more oil.' We persuaded India and other countries to step back.
"Can you imagine trying to sanction them after persuading them to put in phased sanctions to bring Iran to the negotiating table, and when they have not only come to the table but they made a deal, we turn around and nix the deal and then tell them you're going to have to obey our rules on the sanctions anyway?
"That is a recipe very quickly, my friends, businesspeople here, for the American dollar to cease to be the reserve currency of the world which is already bubbling out there .." (Bold italics in original.)
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2017 | news.antiwar.com
President Trump started his long-anticipated anti-Iran speech by complaining about the 1979 hostage situation. What followed was an increasingly fantastical and absurd accounting of Iran's history, before finally announcing he is decertifying the nuclear deal for "violations," and announcing new sanctions.
The allegations against Iran went from things that happened a generation ago to treating things like the specious "Iranian plot" to attack a DC restaurant as not only the government's fault, but absolute established fact. Beyond that, he blamed Iran for the ISIS wars in Iraq and Syria, repeatedly accused them of supporting al-Qaeda, and claimed Iran was supporting the 9/11 attackers.
The allegations were so far-fetched by the end, that even President Trump appeared cognizant that many won't be taken seriously. Later in his speech, he insisted that the claims were "factual."
When addressing "violations" of the P5+1 nuclear deal, Trump similarly played fast and loose with the facts, citing heavy water claims that are really more the international community's violation than Iran's (Iran was guaranteed an international market for the water, but after Congress got mad the US has refused to buy any more, meaning Iran's totally non-dangerous stock grew), and accusing them of "intimidating" inspectors, insinuating that was the reason there aren't investigations at Iranian military sites.
In reality, Iranian military sites are only subject to investigation in the case of a substantiated suspicion of nuclear activities, and there simply are none. The IAEA has in recent days clarified multiple times that they don't need or want to visit any military sites right now. The only allegations about the sites are from the Mujahedin-e Khalq, which has been the source of repeated false accusations in the past.
And while this was supposed to be a speech about the nuclear deal, Trump closed it off with comments that very much sound like his goal is regime change, saying Iran's people want to be able to interact with their neighbors (despite Iran being on very good terms with most of its neighbors already), and suggesting that whatever he's going to do will lead to "peace and stability" across the Middle East.
|
|
|
Oct 17, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
With backing from the Iraqi parliament, public opinion and international support the Iraqi government of Prime Minister Abadi had for months demanded a return of the 2003 borders for the Kurdish region. It condemned the illegal independence bid. The Kurds had pushed far beyond their original borders and occupied areas with critical oil reserves. The ruling Barzani family mafia sold the oil and pocketed the money that by law was owned to Iraq's federal government. The Barzani militia mafia occupied the federal border stations to neighboring countries and kept all custom income to themselves. Meanwhile teachers and other public workers in the Kurdish region went unpaid.
The Barzani family clan is only one of the powers in the Kurdish region of Iraq. Historically its main competitor is the Talabani clan. Both clans control their own political parties (KDP and PUK) and militia. Both had been fighting against each other during a civil war in the 1990s. Then the Barzanis called in help from Iraqi president Saddam Hussein to defeat their local enemies.
Over the last decade the Talabanis were handicapped by their ailing patriarch Jalal Talabani. After the U.S. invasion of Iraq he eschewed a major role in the Kurdish region in exchange for the ceremonial position of a president of Iraq. When Jalal Talbani died on October 2 his family immediately asserted its position. It negotiated a deal with the central Iraqi government to reign in the Barzanis' quasi dictatorial powers. The Iranian general Qassam Suleiman helped to arrange the agreement.
When the Iraqi government forces, as previously announced, moved to retake Kirkuk from the Kurds the Kurdish militia forces (peshmerga) under PUK/Talibani command immediately retreated. The militia under KDP/Barzani command were left in an indefensible position and had to flee.
Yesterday and today Iraqi national forces retook control of various large oil fields the Kurds had occupied. They are also back in control of border stations with Syria and Turkey. Without them the Kurdish region lacks the assets and income to finance any regional independence. While his project collapsed in front of everyone's eyes not a word was heard from Masoud Barzani.
The Iraqi government will not only retake full control of the areas the Kurds under Brazani had illegally usurped. It will also demand new regional elections. It is doubtful that Masoud Barzani, or any of his sons, can win such local elections after the mismanagement and disasters they caused
Virgile | Oct 17, 2017 10:07:12 AM | 1
Trump should quickly declare victory over ISIS and resist the neo-cons and Israel calls to linger in Syria as the US military may become the target of attacks from everyone who want them out, and this is the large majority in Syria.Peter AU 1 | Oct 17, 2017 10:13:53 AM | 2
After they saw the lack of the US support for the KRG independence, the lack of US condemnation of Turkey's actions against the YPG, the Syrian Kurds have realized that their strongest and most reliable allies are ... Bashar al Assad and the Syrian army.
As mentioned in the article, there will be a discreet dialog between the Syrians Kurds and the Syrian government to the detriment of the USA.
Trump, get your guys out asap!The pieces are starting to drop into to place. US sure got a kick in the butt after going for the Syrian oilfields and killing Russian officers. Well thought out asymetrical warfare by Russia, Syria, Iraq, Iran.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
World oil prices jumped on Monday amid reports of the clashes.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2017 | www.rt.com
Is it about the oil?
While the oil contained in the ground in Kirkuk is important to both sides in the long run, tactically the impact of losing the fields is likely to be more painful for the Kurdistan Region. The 250,000 barrels per day produced in the governorate represent more than a third of the oil output of the entire Kurdish autonomy, while Iraq pumps out more than 4 million barrels daily from its other oil fields.
Still, Baghdad regards the Kurds' unwillingness to share the proceeds from the export of hydrocarbons in the past half-decade as unfair.
|
|
|
Oct 16, 2017 | finance.yahoo.com
BAGHDAD (AP) -- The latest on Iraqi government's move to take control of disputed territories held by Iraqi Kurds outside their autonomous region (all times local):
2:50 a.m.
Iraqi state media say federal troops have entered disputed territories occupied by the nation's Kurds.
The move comes three years after Kurdish militias seized the areas outside their autonomous region to defend against an advance by the Islamic State extremist group.
Al-Iraqiya TV says the military, anti-terrorist units and federal police have taken control of some areas around the oil-rich city of Kirkuk. It says they advanced without firing a shot.
The maneuver comes three weeks after Kurds voted for independence in a controversial but symbolic referendum that Baghdad has so far refused to acknowledge. It says the vote organized by the country's autonomous Kurdish authority was unconstitutional.
A commander of the local Kurdish police force says Kurds remain in control of Kirkuk province's oil wells.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
The FT notes that talks about a private sale to foreign governments - including China - and other investors have gathered pace in recent weeks, according to five people familiar with the IPO preparations, amid growing concerns about the feasibility of an international listing.
The Saudi state oil company has struggled to select a suitable international venue for its shares, as New York and London have vied for what has been billed as the largest ever flotation.
The company would still aim to list shares on the kingdom's Tadawul exchange next year if they pursue the private sale, the people said.
The latest proposal by the company's financial advisers was described by one of the people as a "face-saving" option for Saudi Aramco, which has worked on plans to list its shares internationally for more than a year.
Desk chatter included comments that the Saudis were anxious about the level of due diligence and transparency involved in a public offering.
A Saudi Aramco spokesperson said:
"A range of options, for the public listing of Saudi Aramco, continue to be held under active review. No decision has been made and the IPO process remains on track."
The planned listing of a 5 per cent stake in Saudi Aramco is the centrepiece of an economic reform programme led by Saudi Arabia's powerful crown prince Mohammed bin Salman, who is keen for a 2018 IPO. He has said the company could be worth $2tn although a Financial Times analysis put the valuation figure at around $1tn.
An economic recession in the kingdom is piling pressure on the prince, the king's son and next in line for the throne, amid calls for the government to increase investment and ease austerity. As we noted previously, there could be more at play here...
Some analysts view the possible IPO delay as a sign of the problems Aramco and the Saudi government currently face. A lack of transparency, issues with its oil and gas reserves, and the role of the Saudi government as the main stakeholder have all been suggested as the reason for this possible delay. Most of these suggestions, however, are based purely on issues surrounding the IPO itself. The true reason for this delay, however, likely hides among the intricate societal and economic problems in the Kingdom.
One obvious reason for a delay is the still-fledgling global oil price. A higher price setting -- above $60 per barrel -- would surely drive up the overall interest in the IPO. As long as OPEC and non-OPEC members, such as Russia, are still struggling to get a grip on the oil market, the potential for disaster looms. Needless to say, an oil price slump would have a detrimental effect on the expected revenues of the IPO.
The analysts, it seems, feel no need to look any further than this simple oil price explanation, but several other key factors should be addressed
The impact of an influx of $1-2 trillion into the current Saudi economy is bound to have a significant impact. The implementation of Saudi Vision 2030 is broad and ambitiously planned. A full diversification of the economy is needed to guarantee work and salaries for future young Saudis, with the end of government subsidies or handouts.
A multitrillion investment scheme in a rather small local economy will likely result in total disorder, inflation and possibly ineffective investment schemes. The attractiveness of investing the total amount could lead to staggering inflation, higher costs and superfluous projects being realized.
A delay of such an influx of cash seems to be more and more attractive, giving the Saudi government and local industries more time to adjust and put in place the right steps for a sustainable and commercially attractive economic future.
We previously indicated that China could step in as a financial savior. With around 8.5 million bpd of crude oil imports, which is 2.5 million bdp more than in 2014, the attractiveness of having a stake in Saudi Aramco is huge. Even though an energy diversification program is in place, China's imports from Saudi Arabia are going to increase. For Beijing, a stake in one of its main suppliers is a very attractive proposition. It will not only lock in Saudi crude oil and petroleum product exports to China but it will also provide some additional political and strategic clout in the heart of the Middle East.
There will, of course, be a few big bankers who will be upset as their billion dollar fee/commission just went up in smoke, but this may give MBS some breathing room - without the undue attention of an IPO - as he deals with the nation's economic slowdown. However, coming just a few days after the Saudi king's trip to Moscow, the timing of this leaked information seems interesting at the least.
Tugg McFancy Oct 13, 2017 5:41 PM
Given most of the largest sovereign wealth funds were created from their own oil revenue, I don't see them getting into someone else's oil.
Freddie -> Government needs you to pay taxes Oct 13, 2017 3:00 PM
They would have to release information on their in the ground oil reserves. Their biggest oil field Ghawar is 60 years old and almost dead. They shelved it to hide this.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
FreddyW
says: 10/14/2017 at 10:01 amA bit old so you may have seen it already. But if you haven´t then I highly recommend you to read the global oil supply report from HSBC:YouTube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KfVJBNX2U4The report:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wSgViWVAfzUEgzMlBfR3UxNDg/viewIt contains a lot of interesting information. For example on page 15 we can see that oil field discovery rate has dropped from around 20% to only 5% in 2015. Saying that it has fallen of a cliff is not an exaggeration.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson says: 10/14/2017 at 7:31 am
I already picked the peak, 2015. So I was slightly off, but not by all that much as you can clearly see by the chart. I think we are on the peak plateau right now.Dennis Coyne says: 10/14/2017 at 11:39 amThe actual 12-month peak could be anywhere from 2017 to 2019 but no later than that. Well, in my humble opinion anyway.
Hi Ron,The question was about US LTO, you have picked the World C+C peak, but as far as I remember you have not said anything recently about US LTO except that it will be before 2025.
So far the 12 month centered average for US LTO peaked in June 2015.
If US LTO output continues at the August output level (4750 kb/d) for 5 months, then a new 12 month centered average peak will be reached by Aug 2017 (average output from Feb 2017 to Jan 2018). US LTO output has risen about 600 kb/d over the past 12 months so an assumption of no further US LTO output increases over the next 5 months is a conservative estimate in my view.
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News: 10/13/2017 at 1:13 pm
US Baker Hughes Rig Count (Oct 13)
- Oil rigs fall by -5 to 743 and gas rigs fall by -2 to 185 also miscellaneous -1
- Regions: GoM -2, Permian +1, Wiliston +1, Eagle Ford -6, Niobrara -1, Barnett -4
http://phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=79687&p=irol-reportsother
|
|
|
Oct 15, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News: 10/14/2017 at 1:02 pm
I was just having a quick look at countries that have come back from outages, sanctions, conflict, wildfires. Not sure if this list is complete?Energy News says: 10/14/2017 at 1:55 pm
Iraq's oil production has increased by 1.4 million b/day since oil prices last averaged $100 in July 2014. More than any other countryFreddyW says: 10/14/2017 at 10:01 am
Chart on Twitter: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DMHrqLZXkAAFiro.jpgA bit old so you may have seen it already. But if you haven´t then I highly recommend you to read the global oil supply report from HSBC:YouTube clip:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KfVJBNX2U4The report: https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wSgViWVAfzUEgzMlBfR3UxNDg/view contains a lot of interesting information. For example on page 15 we can see that oil field discovery rate has dropped from around 20% to only 5% in 2015. Saying that it has fallen of a cliff is not an exaggeration.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2017 | fpif.org
For Trump's critics, including virtually all Iran policy experts at the moment, this attempt at scuttling the world's most sophisticated arms control agreement sends absolutely the wrong signal to Iran. Trump is essentially saying, "It doesn't really matter whether you have adhered to the letter of the agreement, we're still going to break our commitment because, honestly, we just don't like you. And by the way, you can't count on the United States to keep its word in the future."
Trump is sending an even more damaging message to the rest of the world: "We as a country suffer from mood swings so severe and delusions so enduring that we can no longer be a responsible member of the international community."
After deep-sixing the Trans-Pacific Partnership and pulling the United States out of the Paris climate agreement, the Trump administration is making good on this one campaign promise even as all the others stall in Congress or the courts. Trump will make America First even if it means going against obvious American national interests, even those defined by the Chamber of Commerce.
This is not the first time that other countries have witnessed the political instability of the United States. But in the past, some underlying continuity provided a measure of reassurance to other countries. Voters might choose vanilla or chocolate, but the world still expects in the end to get some variety of ice cream.
What makes the Trump era different is the lack of that underlying continuity.
... ... ...
It's not just the North Koreans. The democratic world, for instance, found the transition to the George W. Bush years particularly bewildering. Even before the attacks of September 11, 2001, the Bush administration announced that it wouldn't implement the Kyoto Protocol on global warming. After the attacks, the administration broke with international law by embarking on a "preventive" war, violating the Geneva Conventions on treatment of captured combatants, and engaging in torture. The administration also backed away from the Rome statute establishing the International Criminal Court in May 2002 and withdrew from the Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty with the Russia in June 2002. All of these actions profoundly troubled America's allies.
... ... ...
In other words, even with its sharp turn toward unilateralism, the Bush administration held to a bipartisan consensus in favor of multilateral initiatives that benefit the United States. In some ways Bush offered only a variation on the Clinton theme of "a la carte multilateralism" in which the United States picks and chooses the international structures with which it wants to cooperate.
This kind of Bush-style unilateralism wrapped in a-la-carte multilateralism has returned to the White House. It's represented by most of the top administration officials involved in foreign affairs: Secretary of State Rex Tillerson, Pentagon chief James Mattis, and National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster. These are the so-called adults in the room .But Trump is something different. And that's what has thrown Republicans like Bob Corker (R-TN) into a tizzy.
... ... ...
Bob Corker is not a moderate Republican. He has an 80 percent ranking from the American Conservative Union for 2016 (by comparison, Susan Collins of Maine clocks in at 44 percent). He's no softie on Iran, either. Last year, he continued to try to pile on additional sanctions against Iran. Ultimately, he had to content himself with an extension of the Iran Sanctions Act for another 10 years. During the presidential campaign, Corker advised Donald Trump on foreign policy and was even in the running for secretary of state.Corker is cut from the same cloth as Rex Tillerson. They're conservative Republicans who believe in "America First." But they're also committed to preserving a measure of professionalism, if nothing else, when it comes to U.S. foreign policy. They want to preserve U.S. alliances. They want to advance the interests of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce.
They're not isolationists, and they're not exactly internationalists either. They occupy the right wing of the underlying foreign policy consensus that encompasses the think tanks, lobby shops, and mainstream media in DC. They play ball whether it's a Democrat or a Republican in the White House and whichever party controls Congress. They are part of the continuity in American foreign policy that transcends the elections.
So, when Bob Corker takes aim at Donald Trump, it represents a serious breach not just within the Republican Party but within the foreign policy establishment. Over the weekend, Corker charged that Trump was making threats toward other countries that could send the United States reeling toward "World War III." Later, Corker tweeted in response to Trump, "It's a shame the White House has become an adult day care center. Someone obviously missed their shift this morning." Having decided not to run for re-election, Corker is now free to speak truth to power.
... ... ...
So, why pick a fight with Corker just when the president will need him most on the congressional battle over any new Iran sanctions? Writes Adam Taylor in The Washington Post :By handing off any real decision to Congress, [Trump] can avoid having to make a hard decision himself. And by picking a fight with Corker, he has a scapegoat if his supporters grow frustrated with a lack of action in Congress. It seems plausible that Trump's allies are simply being prepared for another legislative failure.
In other words, it's all about the war that Trump and his still-loyal lieutenant Steve Bannon, assisted by UN ambassador Nikki Haley, have declared on the "deep state." They want to dismantle the foreign policy establishment that has presided over America's engagement in the world. A progressive might find much to rejoice in this attack, given that America's engagement with the world has often been through war and corporate penetration. But the establishment is more than that, and Trump/Bannon also want to unravel everything of diplomatic and humanitarian value as well.
John Feffer is the director of Foreign Policy In Focus and the author of the dystopian novel Splinterlands .
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
SRSrocco says: 10/13/2017 at 7:17 am
Verwimp,Great to see you posting an update. I can honestly tell you that the "WEIRD" rise in production per well in the Bakken may not be as high as the data shows. Unfortunately, I can't publicly state the reason I know this. If you contact me via my email address: [email protected] , I can provide a few more clues.
However, the SHITE is going to hit the fan in the U.S. Shale Oil Industry once this news gets out which will likely be made public shortly.
|
|
|
Oct 14, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News says: 10/11/2017 at 4:22 pm
2017-10-11 BSEEgov: From operator reports, it is estimated that approximately 32.68 percent of the current oil production in the Gulf of Mexico remains shut-in, which equates to 571,854 barrels of oil per day. It is also estimated that approximately 20.51 percent of the natural gas production, or 660.55 million cubic feet per day in the Gulf of Mexico is shut-in.
https://www.bsee.gov/newsroom/latest-news/statements-and-releases/press-releases/bsee-tropical-storm-nate-activity-4
Estimate of "Lost" Gulf of Mexico crude production due to Hurricane Nate is 7.82 million barrels of oil.Also, Genscape GoM production chart: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/DL4r7v6UEAA75uK.jpg
|
|
|
Oct 13, 2017 | www.theguardian.com
Trump says he will not recertify deal but stops short of pulling out entirely President says US participation 'can be cancelled by me at any time'
... ... ...
For European diplomats seeking to salvage the JCPOA, the days leading up to Trump's long-awaited speech were a roller-coaster. Initially fearful that Trump could immediately trigger a possible collapse of the deal, the Europeans were buoyed when they were briefed that Trump would not call for the reimposition of sanctions by Congress .
However, in the wake of the president's speech on Friday, the JCPOA's survival looked tenuous.
In the speech, Trump declared: "I am directing my administration to work closely with Congress and our allies to address the deal's many serious flaws so the Iranian regime can never threaten the world with nuclear weapons."
He noted that congressional leaders were already drafting amendments to legislation that would include restrictions on ballistic missiles and make the curbs on Iran's nuclear programme under the 2015 deal permanent, and to reimpose sanctions instantly if those restrictions were breached.
However, any such changes would need 60 votes in the US Senate to pass, and Democrats are high unlikely to give them their backing. Even if they did pass into law, the restrictions would represent a unilateral effort to change the accord that would not be acceptable to the other national signatories.
Hours earlier, the US secretary of state, Rex Tillerson had acknowledged that it was very unlikely that the JCPOA agreement could be change, but suggested that the issue of Iran's ballistic missile programme and the time limits on some of the nuclear constraints in the deal, could be dealt with in a separate agreement that could exist alongside the JCPOA.
|
|
|
Oct 12, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
The deal may certainly be seen as a purely strategic/economic measure to stabilize the oil market – with no geopolitical overtones. And yet OPEC is geared to become a brand new animal – with Russia and Saudi Arabia de facto deciding where the global oil markets go, and then telling the other OPEC players. It's open to question what Iran, Algeria, Nigeria, Venezuela, among others, will have to say about this. The barely disguised aim is to bring oil prices up to a band of $60-75 a barrel by the middle of next year. Certainly a good deal for the Aramco IPO.
There were a rash of other deals clinched in Moscow – such as Aramco and the Russian Direct Investment Fund (RDIF) $1 billion fund for oil-services projects in Russia, plus another $1 billion for a technology fund.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Jeff says: 10/09/2017 at 1:44 pm
Saudis to Make Deepest Cut to Crude Supply Despite Demand, -0.560mbd for November supply.Guym says: 10/09/2017 at 3:23 pm
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-10-09/saudis-to-make-deepest-cut-to-oil-supply-despite-strong-demandThe market is "balancing", stocks are drawing down, demand is healthy, US rig count/LTO does not increase, Nigeria and Libya have a very small upside in the short term, Venezuela is a pretty big downside risk, offshore is not too healthy. And the Saudis cut _voluntarily_ because ?
Because, frankly they know more about the oil market than most of the "anal ists". Rather than fighting them, and claiming no more need for "cuts", they are playing along with the crowd. When the shortage hits, they can claim surprise and blame the EIA for over reporting. Better price for the IPO.clueless says: 10/09/2017 at 3:45 pmIf true, it seems likely to me that the Saudi's [and Russia?] are going to push the oil price issue and the best interests of the West be damned. Looks to me like SS might get back in the money next year.Guym says: 10/09/2017 at 4:06 pmI wonder if Trump will realize that now is not the time to have Exxon's ex-CEO as Secretary of State. I think that Trump really wanted better relations with Russia [and Russia wanted better US relations], but politics has totally destroyed that idea – and I think that Russia now knows it.
I don't think the Saudis or Russians would be concerned too much about what happens in the west. The upcoming supply shortage will happen, anyway. There is a lot of talk by the Saudis of making sure prices don't rise too much, but I am sure that is fake concern. They make it look like they are concerned shale production will gear up, which goes along with what the pundits are saying. They are playing us like a violin. Much like their purported "cuts". Jack production up several months, take it back to where it was before, and call it a cut. We bought it, hook line and sinker.shallow sand says: 10/09/2017 at 8:24 pmI am sure this post does not apply to shale, because shale is a Wall Street phenomenon. However, for us, a price spike will not immediately lead to drilling wells. First, after what we have been going through the last three years, I would want to make sure the price is going to hold. Yes, no way to know that really, but I can guarantee we would not be rushing out to get permits.Watcher says: 10/10/2017 at 12:53 amSecond, after this crash, we would want to heal some. Get cash balances higher, then maybe actually take some decent draws. After all, we are in this for the income, not to see how much we can produce. That is what always blows me away about Wall Street. They analyze every metric imaginable when it comes to E & P's except the bottom line. I'd rather own 50 BOPD and make $50K per month than own 500 BOPD and lose $50K per month.
Third, there are some much cheaper things we can do to boost production than drilling new wells. Workovers may not yield as much, but they cost 1/5 or less that of a new well.
I wonder, outside of shale, if we would see this type of attitude if there is a supply crunch? Will all those high cost projects suddenly come back on line.
Finally, everyone and their dog is proclaiming the end of oil anyway. Everything is going to electric in terms of transportation. Countries abolishing ICE vehicle production. Never mind that is in 2040 mostly.
Now, why would I want to drill more wells knowing oil is nearing the end? Might as well just try to make what I can off this existing ones. No reason to spend a bunch of CAPEX. Is it possible that all of the end of oil talk actually helps cause a supply crunch? Believe me, it is going through our minds now that maybe we need to be worried about decreasing demand in our lifetimes due to EV's.
Best to ignore the EV wackos and watch Chinese and India oil consumption data.
|
|
|
www.bloomberg.com
Saudi Aramco plans to make "the deepest customer allocation cuts in its history" in oil supplies in November to help reduce global inventories and balance the market.State-run Saudi Arabian Oil Co., known as Aramco, will make an "unprecedented" cut of 560,000 barrels a day in its allocations to customers next month, the Saudi energy ministry said in a statement. Aramco plans to supply 7.15 million barrels a day "despite very strong demand" that exceeds 7.7 million barrels a day, it said.
"Saudi Arabia is once again demonstrating extraordinary leadership in its commitment to re-balancing the market, as we approach the upcoming key meeting of November 30 in Vienna, by restraining not only the top-line of production volume, but even more importantly the bottom line of exports, which are what ultimately shape global inventories and market balances," the ministry said. "The kingdom expects all other participants in the effort to follow suit and to maintain the high levels of overall conformity achieved in August going forward."
Saudi Arabia, the world's top crude exporter, is leading the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers including Russia in paring output under a deal that helped propel oil into a bull market in September. Lower compliance with the curbs promised by some nations combined with rising production in OPEC members Libya and Nigeria -- both exempt from reducing output due to their internal strife -- have added pressure on Saudi Arabia to make deeper cuts of its own.
Brent, the global benchmark, erased earlier declines to trade marginally higher at $55.62 a barrel at 3:47 pm in London after the news of the Saudi oil allocations cuts.
The decrease in allocations for November "constitutes a full 290,000 barrels a day reduction over and above the 486,000 barrels a day" that Saudi Arabia pledged to cut as part of its commitment to the global output accord, the ministry said. This adds up "to a massive total of almost 800,000 barrels a day" in cuts, it said.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2017 | www.bloomberg.com
Saudi Aramco plans to make "the deepest customer allocation cuts in its history" in oil supplies in November to help reduce global inventories and balance the market.
"Saudi Arabia is once again demonstrating extraordinary leadership in its commitment to re-balancing the market, as we approach the upcoming key meeting of November 30 in Vienna, by restraining not only the top-line of production volume, but even more importantly the bottom line of exports, which are what ultimately shape global inventories and market balances," the ministry said. "The kingdom expects all other participants in the effort to follow suit and to maintain the high levels of overall conformity achieved in August going forward."
Saudi Arabia, the world's top crude exporter, is leading the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries and other producers including Russia in paring output under a deal that helped propel oil into a bull market in September. Lower compliance with the curbs promised by some nations combined with rising production in OPEC members Libya and Nigeria -- both exempt from reducing output due to their internal strife -- have added pressure on Saudi Arabia to make deeper cuts of its own.
Brent, the global benchmark, erased earlier declines to trade marginally higher at $55.62 a barrel at 3:47 pm in London after the news of the Saudi oil allocations cuts.
The decrease in allocations for November "constitutes a full 290,000 barrels a day reduction over and above the 486,000 barrels a day" that Saudi Arabia pledged to cut as part of its commitment to the global output accord, the ministry said. This adds up "to a massive total of almost 800,000 barrels a day" in cuts, it said.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 10/10/2017 at 2:22 am
Jeff – I think I'm on the same page as you: it might not be voluntary. They had 5% decline rates from mid 2015 until they bought on Al Shaybah extension. They started to have something similar from mid 206 until they made their cuts in October. If you extend natural 5% decline rate from then till now on their pre-cut rate you'd just about get their current production. During the past year they have been drawing down stocks of crude and products for exports, and have announced no new greenfield developments. Khurais expansion was due about now but is going to be next year now, and was announced by the Aramco CEO that it would only replace decline, not increase capacity. They lost a water injection line on one major field to corrosion, I can't remember the replacement time, but a couple of years I'd have thought. All their major investment announcements have been to do with anything but oil in Saudi – petrochem, tight gas (I think a failure), maybe Russian gas, now India – that's what companies do when they've run out of options with their traditional business – the managers in oil companies don't take high risk decisions like that voluntarily.Jeff says: 10/10/2017 at 3:58 pmIf nothing else they might not have any spare capacity so any maintenance (planned or unplanned) will not be able to be replaced. But maybe they are now back to natural decline and want to get ahead of the numbers so it looks like they can still control production rather than being dictated to by depletion.
Aleklett wrote in his book that Saudi can maintain their current production up until around 2030 but they need to invest a lot more in new projects. I don´t remember his assumptions on P2 but he is usually on the conservative side.There can be several reasons for the IPO but I think their motives are: i) need to invest a lot more than what is publicly disclosed, ii) P2 is lower than what is officially stated, iii) use the money to diversify the economy. Everything you read in the MSM is about iii) but I think that i) & ii) are more important.
BTW. Norway privatised Statoil just when their production peaked.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand
says: 10/10/2017 at 6:51 amMissing my point watcher.GoneFishing says: 10/10/2017 at 8:54 amEV push is causing companies such as Shell to say peak oil demand is coming soon. If Shell believes that no reason to be putting a lot of CAPEX into oil exploration.
But demand has increased over 3 million combined the past two years it appears. With the price staying low because high decline LTO can make up any short fall, just ask Wall Street traders and the business media.
I may be completely wrong, but no reason traders can't keep prices low for a lot longer yet. And the suddenly world inventories hit new lows as demand continues to increase 1.5+ million yoy.
Car numbers are expected to double by the 2040's. In order for EV's to take over by then they would have to be built at the rate of over 100 million a year starting right now.Watcher says: 10/10/2017 at 10:13 amEven if there were 1 billion EV's on the planet by 2045 the other 1 billion vehicles would have to be ICE driven in some form. That is not happening, so I think the EV threat to oil is way overblown.
If EV production can reach 130 million cars per year by 2045 it will have reached the replacement rate of ICE's and take another decade or more to complete the takeover.
Those are huge numbers and it is doubtful that EV's will be produced that fast unless oil becomes scarce. If oil prices go up, EV's become even more desirable, so keeping prices somewhat low is better for the oil companies.
Maybe the real reason that companies are not exploring and developing more oil is that there is not a lot left worth developing and not a lot of places left to explore with current technology. They will concentrate on higher profit plays while shifting to other business models.
Yo SS, from fishing dood:Eulenspiegel says: 10/10/2017 at 10:32 am"Maybe the real reason that companies are not exploring and developing more oil is that there is not a lot left worth developing and not a lot of places left to explore with current technology."
Remember that the majors own fewer and fewer reserves, not just in the context of geology, but because NOCs have bought them up -- or the stuff may be forbidden. Iranian fields and Russian fields are largely forbidden to US companies. Libya's oil is probably the best oil in the planet and you're not going to see much of a queue of companies bidding.
But geology is the primary concern. That's why Ron made the blog. This stuff CAN run out or run short, and we see very clearly now after 3 yrs that price doesn't greatly affect production.
We can all rest assured that geology WILL affect production. If there's not much left, then it won't flow, regardless of investment.
Price affects production – you only don't see it. It's only 3 years cheap now. Lots of the projects coming online now have been planned and financed before this time.Dennis Coyne says: 10/10/2017 at 1:06 pmAnd if you already started the project, and sunk the first billions it's difficult to impossible to stop.
The same thing will happen when prices are high again. When is seen that Permian fracking alone can't supply the whole world, projects have to be started, investors have to be found and then it will take years until the oil from "extra deep sea under salt antarctica extra heavy" flows.
When the pipeline is filled, it can keep long time flowing. This is the thing that drives pork cycles – the time lag of investing and result.
Even shale needed a ramp up of several years – all these service companies needed to be founded, pipelines build. This apparatus now can keep going, but won't increase by much without additional tripple digit billion $ investing.
40$ oil wasn't enough to stop many production directly, because it's above most production costs. Even infill drilling old fields to boost production still works – but without exploring (is there still enough stuff) and bringing new fields online this will decline soon.
Hi Eulenspiegel,Watcher says: 10/10/2017 at 1:28 pmI agree there is quite a lag between changes in oil prices and changes in oil output.
Why are you talking about shale? We're 3 years in and price hasn't affected Russia output. Well maybe it did. It increased it. Here is a list of countries producing more oil today than in 2014:USA
Russia
Canada
Brazil
Ecuador
Norway
Turkmenistan
UK
Iran
Iraq
Oman
Qatar
KSA
UAE
Libya
Angola
Indonesia
Malaysia
ThailandYou might be able to find a handful of those that had a long term project come online. The majority achieved it with infill drilling or politics, that didn't take 3 yrs to plan and fund. The price didn't affect it. Nor should it. If you HAVE to have it, you will get it.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 10/10/2017 at 7:28 am
OPEC SECRETARY GENERAL: 'WORLD CAN'T AFFORD SUPPLY CRUNCH'(Possible paywall, I can't quite figure out how it works on Energy Voice)
"This is particularly evident when we look at investment. While investments are expected to pick up slightly this year and in 2018, it is clear that this is not anywhere close to past levels and it is more evident in short-cycle, rather than long-cycle projects, which are the industry's baseload.
"The issue of a potential investment shortfall was a recurring theme at last week's Russia Energy Week conference, with President Vladimir Putin, as well as many oil and energy ministers making reference to the critical investment challenge.
"As we have all learned from previous price cycles, such pronounced and long-term declines in investments are a serious threat to future supply. But given our projected future demand for oil, with our upcoming World Oil Outlook 2017 expecting demand to reach over 111 million barrels a day by 2040, an increase of almost 16 million barrels a day, the world simply cannot afford a supply crunch."
It's noticeable that OPEC, IEA and drillers/service companies, even the Aramco CEO are raising the lack of investment more and more, but they all stay away from discussing the fall in discoveries and lack of attractive prospective projects. Part of it is real concern, though it's noticeable they don't offer much in the way of solutions, and definitely none that might impact their bottom lines in the short term, but part is pre-emptive arse-coverage.
A lot of factors seem to be lining up for an economic bust next year, but then they have looked like that for a few years (maybe the low oil price has contributed to staving off the problem), if it happens a supply crunch might go unnoticed for some time, and only come appear as the real problem it will be when there is some sort of recovery expected.
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Longtimber says: 10/11/2017 at 7:18 am
Art believes falling inventory will result in price support.Jeff says: 10/11/2017 at 9:28 am
http://www.artberman.com/higher-oil-prices-likely-early-2018/New from Laherrere (2 Oct): https://aspofrance.files.wordpress.com/2017/10/jmj-jr7271.pdf It's in French but the figures speak for themselves (and google translate works too). He expects US LTO to decline.P5. Global oil creaming curve
P.17 forecast of US LTO
|
|
|
Oct 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Hightrekker says: 10/10/2017 at 2:03 pm
Capitalism has always had a Strong State to enforce its rules, often violently, from its emergence in the 14th Century Italian City States, to its current neoliberal form. It needs a strong government.likbez says: 10/11/2017 at 12:04 amGreat comment -- Thank you.Guym says: 10/11/2017 at 6:46 amYou can add that neoliberalism needs to enforce oil prices too (energy prices in general). Often violently (Iraq, Libya, Syria). It does need cheap oil to function properly with its emphasis of globalization and extended global supply chains, as well as "low inventories" mantra.
With over $60 per barrel oil price permanent stagnation of global neoliberal economy is a real threat. For the USA it is given. With over $100 for several years it might produce the global stock market crash, and another Great Recession (although the previous one did not actually ended).
So naturally the power of the major neoliberal state (the USA) and its diplomatic and military machine will be applied not to allow this scenario unless this is short term and serves some distinct purpose.
For example, the direct or indirect decision to fuel shale oil boom under Obama might well be one of reasons for the previous over $100 per barrel period; I always asked myself -- why money were flowing so freely at very questionable enterprises? Which have tiny chances of paying them back outside the "evergreen" loans mode (constant refinancing). Why this boom in shale junk bonds, kind of micro housing bubble, occurred when experience of 2008 was still very fresh; why nobody understood the inevitability of the coming bust? Or creation of such a bust was in the plans ?
That's why probably we now see such a prolonged period of low oil prices. And for the US shale industry in less then $50 dollar per barrel environment, Germans have a nice phase: "The Moor has done his duty, the Moor can go"
We might also view the current situation as a kind of Hail Mary pass by financial oligarchy which understands that neoliberalism shelf life is coming to the end and tries to prolong it. I don't know.
But "paper oil" phenomenon definitely plays an important role in the suppression of the oil prices. Subsidies (direct and indirect) and naked shorting has the power to manipulate the prices down, if you can compensate losses at one area, by gains in another. Which is the case for the US economy as a whole. And neoliberal economy globally.
All that means that people who still provide naοve supply/demand curves here and talk about the balance of supply and demand based on EIA figures need to think about it ;-).
The experience of 2014-2017 strongly suggests that in casino capitalism the balance of supply and demand for oil can be achieved at wide range of prices, depending on Wall Street agenda. And if this means ripping of producers, so be it. They can't stop producing, as their balance of payment depends on oil revenues and they are part of global neoliberal economy and dollar system. Considerable part of them have foreign debt that needs to to be serviced, which also helps to put them in the situation of Wall Street hostages. So they can be taken and were taken for a ride.
So power of Saudi to influence the oil prices is definitely exaggerated (not that Saudi are independent nation in any case; they are the USA vassal). Currently I think it is the USA which has most say in setting of global oil prices and even can "overrule" the decisions by OPEC it does not like, at least for a year or more (at the end, paper oil can't fuel cars or planes, so increasing "paper oil production" can't be done forever)
The role of finance in setting of oil prices creates problem with the applicability of neo-classical economics to the casino capitalism environment. Neo-classical economics denies the existence of the financial sector and the possibility of price manipulations by this sector.
As such it is completely detached from reality. Which makes it another example of voodoo science (with nice graphs though ;-)
Then the governments need to dig deep into their pockets to provide funds for capital expenditures for oil, because at $60 oil there won't be enough to keep the economies going for long. Tip: Saudi Arabia, who has one of the lowest costs to produce oil, needs over $80 oil to keep their economy at close to breakeven. Most of the rest are much worse.Boomer II says: 10/11/2017 at 10:39 amThey make a lot of noise that other countries need to up capex greatly, but they are not doing it either. So what will? Hint: oil price.
In a perfect world, a low priced oil would be what we need. Unfortunately, we are limited by the geology of the earth, and the technology we have to work with. At present, $60 oil price will not bring enough out of the earth to keep the economies growing for very long.
At a much higher price, it has the same effect. So, at present, we are stuck with an imperfect world, and an oil price that won't generate sufficient capital investment to keep the world moving.
With multiple natural disasters to clean up after and a desire by some to pump more money into defense, I can't see business as usual in the US continuing.I think demand will change. Why focus our efforts on getting more oil if we don't have an economy to support? Lose a ton of cars in floods and fires, and what do you replace them with?
|
|
|
Oct 07, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Bob Frisky: 09/22/2017 at 6:06 pm
Shale oil entrepreneur Harold Hamm is back doing interviews on the business networks again. Now he is speaking out against how the oil prices are low due to the EIA.shallow sand: 09/22/2017 at 11:38 pmShale Billionaire Hamm Slams 'Exaggerated' U.S. Oil Projections
Billionaire oilman Harold Hamm says the government was way too optimistic with its prediction of more than 1 million new barrels a day in U.S. production, and the snafu is "distorting" global crude prices.
This year's rise is likely to be closer to about 500,000 barrels, far off an initial forecast by the U.S. Energy Information Administration, according to Hamm, the chairman of Continental Resources Inc. and a pioneer in the shale industry.
The EIA projection is "just flat wrong," failing to take into account a new discipline among U.S. drillers, Hamm said in an interview Thursday on Bloomberg TV. "We have capability of producing a whole lot, but you have to get a return on investment," he said, adding, "that's where people have been this last quarter and this year."
The government scenario has contributed to worries about an oversupply that puts U.S. oil at a steep discount to international crude, according to Hamm. "It's distorting," he said . "When we're lagging the Brent world price by $6 a barrel, that's not putting America first, that's putting America last. And that's the result of this exaggerated amount that EIA has out there."
Once it's clear the EIA is off base, prices could rise to $60 a barrel from around $50 now, Hamm said.
The EIA is making these projections because knuckleheads in the C suite at US shale companies went hog wild at the first sign of oil price improvement and made these growth projections for their individual companies, and the EIA just totaled them up.George Kaplan: 09/23/2017 at 2:08 amEvery Shale CEO bashes OPEC. OPEC tried to give shale a break by cutting production, and shale absolutely blew it, just like shale absolutely blew it in late 2014 by not pretty much shutting down. Instead, shale has lied about profitability for 3 years, and the world E & P industry has paid the price.
Too bad Oilpro shut down. Lots of non-US E & P Industry folks posted there. They absolutely could not stand US shale and the US shale CEO smack talk. Hundreds of thousands out of work, because of shale smack talk and Wall Street encouragement of same, which crashed oil prices below $30.
Shale better come through. No one seems to be taking serious the possibility of a supply shock if it cannot.
When shale clearly peaks, what is to keep OPEC and Russia from suddenly making a big cut, driving prices past $200 and crashing Western economies? Why wouldn't they afterthe hubris of US shale CEO's, the Wall Street guys who pull their strings, and the US business media who report everything they say as gospel?
I'd guess a lot of the non-US E&P people complaining about LTO would by from offshore, and I think that side has been just as much to blame for boom and bust mentality with rose tinted specs. (see below the UK investment which went nuts when oil went above $100 and now they have nothing much left).I'd question with the jobs are going to come back offshore even with a big price rise.
As I keep pointing out, there have to be discoveries before development, and there have to be lease sales before that. We're not seeing either, and though exploration is down compared with 2011 to 2014, there's still a significant amount going on, but wildcat, frontier success rates are what have fallen the most (even with the best seismic methods and computer models we have ever had).
|
|
|
Oct 07, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Mike says: 09/23/2017 at 7:07 am
Shallow, I too miss the hell out of Oilpro. That community could debate the unconventional shale phenomena without bias and with a clear understanding of how it has completely changed the world oil order.shallow sand says: 09/23/2017 at 8:31 amAmerican's, on the other hand, simply enjoy cheap gasoline; they don't care how they get it, what it costs, who ultimately pays for it or that it will not last forever. The American public, and the politicians that govern it, have been lied to and completely deceived about shale oil and shale gas abundance. It is a matter of American nationalistic pride to believe what one reads on the internet and to otherwise be stupid about our hydrocarbon future.
I suggested to you several years ago that OPEC and the rest of the world's producing oil countries were not dumb; they read shale oil K's and Q's and have the same access to SEC filings we do. They know the shale oil phenomena is failing financially and that in the process America is drilling the snot out of its last remaining, bottom of the barrel oil resources. OPEC's production cuts in late 2016, in my opinion, were an effort to give the US shale oil industry just enough rope to eventually hang itself. It has done just that; in the past 24 months it has bankrupted out on another $50B, borrowed yet another $50B and is now back over $300B of upstream long term debt with no current ability to pay that back. Hope (for higher oil prices) is not a plan. The Bakken and the Eagle Ford have peaked and now well productivity in the Permian is starting to fade. In a few more years the rest of the world will have the US right back it its teet and will dictate what the price of oil well be. I think in the next 12-18 months we are going to see big reserve impairments in the US, again, and a pretty big shale oil company will end up the toilet, bankrupt. They'll be a bunch of fist pumping going around the world when that happens.
Harold Hamm is whiner; he has always blamed OPEC for lower oil prices, demanded that OPEC cut more production, he needs more pipelines, fewer regulations (where are those, by the way?), needs to be able to export his oil, warned OTHER shale oil companies in the Permian not to overproduce and drive the price of HIS oil down, the sun is always in his eyes now its the EIA's fault. He, like the rest of America's shale oil industry, is desperate for attention and desperate for help. Once again, Shallow, you are spot on.
Mike. It might be worth mentioning here the recent judgment a small OK producer won against Devon Energy.Apparently one of Devon's high volume fracs destroyed one of the the conventional producers' wells.
When I read about these frac hits, I really worry that US is not properly managing these shale oil resources.
From some reading it appears frac hits are a big deal in PB, and that just a few years in, PB shale could wind up unperformimg due to reservoir damage from these massive fracs.
What do you (or others) think?
|
|
|
Oct 07, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher
says: 09/28/2017 at 1:46 amWay too glib a presumption of supply shortage in the 2020 time frame.Energy News says: 09/27/2017 at 12:48 pmIf you're not bringing new production online and the global decline rate is call it 5% then each year from now until 2020 we should see a loss of about four and a half million barrels per day off of supply
And in 3 years that's 13 million barrels per day supply reduction and there is no way countries can feed themselves with that quick level of scarcity.
When one says "supply shortage" the consequence of significance is not higher prices; the consequence is unfilled orders.
RIO DE JANEIRO, Sept 27 (Reuters) – Only one block in Brazil's prized offshore Santos basin received a bid in the country's 14th oil round on Wednesday, a sign low global oil prices may have reduced the allure of potential new crude and gas investments in Latin America's largest economy.George Kaplan says: 09/28/2017 at 12:47 amKaroon Gas Australia Ltd won the block with a signing bonus worth 20 million reais ($6.3 million), but the remaining 75 blocks in the basin received no bids, oil industry watchdog ANP said. Officials expected to sell up to 40 percent of the blocks, raising 500 million reais ($157 million).
http://www.reuters.com/article/brazil-oil-auction/update-2-brazils-prized-santos-basin-receives-single-bid-in-oil-auction-idUSL2N1M80O5A lot more interest in the other basins though, especially Campos. It can't be just oil price that is against Santos, maybe it's similar to the mirror province in Angola, Kwamza, and it's turning out to be a bust.Lightsout says: 09/30/2017 at 4:13 amHi GeorgeGeorge Kaplan says: 09/30/2017 at 5:04 amTwo more dry holes in the Barents sea.
I think this year has killed off a few of the promising frontier basins now – Kwanza in Angola – bust, deep water offshore Canada – mostly bust, Barents – mostly bust, Santos – looks bust, ultra deep US GoM – mostly played out or uncommercial, offshore Colombia – looks bust for oil, couple of West Africa areas – dry holes, offshore Ireland – half way to bust, UK North Sea – very poor lease sale, also one other lease sale (maybe Oman?) I think didn't do very well from memory.George Kaplan says: 09/27/2017 at 6:34 amMARKET SHOULD PREPARE MORE FOR OIL SQUEEZE THAN OPEC SUPPLY GAIN, CITIGROUP SAYSEulenspiegel says: 09/26/2017 at 10:16 amThose in the oil market fearing a flood of OPEC supply next year will probably be better off preparing for a shortage, according to Citigroup Inc.
Five countries in the group -- Libya, Nigeria, Venezuela, Iran and Iraq -- may already be pumping at their maximum capacity this year, Ed Morse, the bank's global head of commodities research, said in an interview. Rather than a surge in output, there's a risk of a market squeeze emerging as early as 2018, driven by those nations because of weaker investment in exploration and development, he said.
"Fear in the market has been that OPEC production will rise dramatically," said Morse. However, "there could be a supply gap emerging, which could point to a tighter market," he said in Singapore on the sidelines of the S&P Global Platts APPEC Conference.
Geology has to do a lot with oil prices – the run up in price the last 40 years is mostly due to geology.Why? The original oil was the kind of very conventional land based oil. Once discovered, the most costly thing was the infrastructure to transport it away.
This came to a limit in the 70s. After this, more and more expensive projects where necessary.
Off shore oil, deep sea oil, small spots on land, arctic oil and last fracking oil. And old fields with injections, infill, pressure control.
All things with big investments – much more than "we build an oil terminal for supertankers and drill a few holes".
And so the market gets more and more unstable – these big investments have to pay out, even when done by a state. And you have bigger and bigger planning time lags, so the classical pork cycle can get investors in the false moment.
US fracking oil adds to the chaos – it's expensive, but fast rampup – but not able to replace deep sea oil due to it's pure size.
Old cheap fields are in decline, or not longer cheap as the chinese giants on secondary or tertiary recovery enhancements. So more and more expensive technology with long planing horizonts comes to a short paced market, together with the political chaos describes by you.
And geology gets more complicated, so the long project times you describe will get longer.
I, without a mathematically model, expect a chaotic market in the future until oil gets (hopeful) phased out and put in the steam engine age.
Low oil prices make high oil prices, and high ones low. The demand is very inelastic on the short term, trucks have to drive and people have to drive to work (and the aunt wants the chrismas visit). Only mid way demand gets flexible, a japanese car instead a SUV next or a house nearer at the job. Or a company reduces work travelling.
Many 3rd world countries have regulated gas prices – so a price spike don't reduce demand here on the short term. That makes things even more scary when something happens on the political scale.
Venezuela dropping to 0 while the Lybian civil war flames up again – and there isn't 3 MB/D spare capacity left. Nobody besides SA perhaps does frenetic infill drilling for capacity he don't need and use. Or develops fields and put them on idle.
Venezuela is the best example of low oil prices making high one – the production will halt sooner or later.
|
|
|
Oct 06, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 10/04/2017 at 2:51 am
I think there are a few things happening. For offshore there is an effect from moving to deeper fields, these tend to be higher pressure and have higher initial production for a given bore size but also much higher decline rates. There has been more smaller fields tied in and these often only use a single production line with no injection support – hence they start declining immediately with no plateau. Horizontal wells also may play a role (onshore and offshore) as they can maintain high rates for longer but then drop off precipitously once the water interface gets to the drainage volume for the well. Cut backs on infill drilling and planned maintenance are probably big parts of the picture as well – those could be reversed if prices went high enough (but still might not be worth the expense on fields at end of life); the other causes not so much.
|
|
|
Oct 06, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News, 10/03/2017 at 1:33 pm
Rystad Energy – October 03, 2017Guym 10/03/2017 at 2:42 pmMature, offshore oil fields now decline at a rate of -8% per year, whereas the same fields declined by only -5% in 2014. And as a consequence, one million barrels of oil have been removed from production balances.
https://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/PressReleases/mature-fields-declining-faster
Goodness! They expect US shale production to triple within five years! You read an informed article that mostly gets your interest, then they start speaking in unknown tongues. Bet the guy's head did a 360 degree turn while he was saying this.He's been snorting the same stuff as the EIA people are.
Even if the oil companies would lay out the HUGE capex necessary for this to happen, they should be shot by shareholders. Look how badly they got burned the last time. They were drilling wells with first year's production at 70k, and happy with it, at the time, because oil was at $100.
At $30 oil, they sucked wind when those wells pumped. There is a definite limitation on the number of locations that can spew out over 200k barrels the first year. Even in the highly touted Permian.
Realistically, to continue at a certain level of capex from year to year, you have to expect that your current wells completed will return your capex for the next year. Plus, those wells have to produce more than the capex, to allow for additional drilling. Due to current limitations on borrowing, it's not likely to get too much better than that.
Where is the capex to come from, and who is the CEO who going to jump out of the airplane first?
EOG had net profit of about 1% on their gross income. So, theoretically, they may be able to add 1% more wells if the net income was all cash flow. How long does that take to triple production?
|
|
|
Oct 06, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson says: 10/04/2017 at 6:39 am
Welfare Kings? Study Finds Half of New Oil Production Unprofitable Without Government HandoutsA new study published in the peer-reviewed journal Nature Energy found that 50 percent of new oil production in America would be unprofitable if not for government subsidies. The study, performed by researchers at the Stockholm Environment Institute and Earth Track, Inc., found that, at prices of $50 per barrel, light oil produced by hydraulic fracturing ("fracking") was heavily dependent on subsidies.
In fact, forty percent of the Permian basin in Texas would be economically unviable without subsidies, and for the home of Bakken crude production, Williston Basin, that number jumps to 59 percent, according to the researchers.
In addition, the study highlights what this additional fossil fuel production means for impacts to the climate:
" continued subsidies for oil investment could produce oil (and associated gas) that, once burned, will yield CO2 emissions equivalent to nearly 1 percent of the remaining global carbon budget for all sectors of all economies."
At current oil prices, perhaps the most effective "keep it in the ground" strategy might be to stop subsidizing oil production.
But what happens with these subsidies when the price of oil is over $100 per barrel, as it was several years ago? The authors of the study report that, under such a scenario, government subsidies are simply "transfer payments" to oil investors. The oil would be profitable without the subsidies, which become, at that point, simply free cash for investors.
While this study provides valuable insight into how subsidies affect oil production and the climate, it notes that its conclusions are not unique. The authors point out: "As others have found regardless of the oil price, the majority of taxpayer resources provided to the industry end up as company profits."
Also in this article:
US Taxpayers Subsidizing Oil Exports to China
|
|
|
Oct 06, 2017 | www.nakedcapitalism.com
The high Gulf of Mexico 'subsidy-dependence' isn't a surprise either, considering that mostly integrated oil companies operate there, and they're not enjoying as much tax deductions as the independent producers that are doing business in shale basins.
"About 10 billion barrels of Permian oil are in fields that would be profitable at $50 per barrel even without subsidies, but subsidies bring on enough extra fields to produce an additional 6.5 billion barrels of oil," the study says.
The effects of the tax deductions are highly connected with oil prices. At $30 per barrel oil, almost no new fields would be profitable to develop, even with those tax provisions, the researchers say. Of course, at $100 oil, revenues from new projects would be enough to sanction nearly all developments without any tax provisions. "In such a case, nearly all of the subsidy value would go to extra profits," the study says.
"Our findings show that removal of tax incentives and other fossil fuel support policies could both fulfill G20 commitments and yield climate benefits," researchers say.
Almost simultaneously with this study, environmental advocacy group Oil Change International said in a report that "U.S. taxpayers continue to foot the bill for more than $20 billion in fossil fuel subsidies each year."
In the other camp, the American Petroleum Institute (API) says that "It's out there; the myth that America's oil and natural gas industry receives federal subsidies. Subsidies are cash outlays from the U.S. Treasury, and the oil and natural gas industry doesn't get them."
API points to the fact that other industries also get tax-deductible expenses and other tax provisions and breaks.
The debate about tax breaks for the oil industry is certainly not new. Those who support the current provisions argue that they have supported an industry critical for the U.S. economy and energy security. Those against say that the provisions are singling out favorites while shifting the tax burden to others.
Environmentalists say that with climate change a real threat, it's just illogical and wrong to support fossil fuel development with tax breaks.
|
|
|
Oct 05, 2017 | www.reuters.com
President Tayyip Erdogan said on Thursday that Turkey would soon close its border with northern Iraq and shut its air space in response to last week's Kurdish independence referendum.
Erdogan, who held talks in Tehran on Wednesday with Iranian leaders, also said Turkey would decide jointly with Iran and Iraq's central government in Baghdad whether to cut oil exports from Kurdish northern Iraq.
On Wednesday, Russian President Vladimir Putin said that it was in no-one's interest to cut off oil supplies from Iraq's Kurdistan, which would raise oil prices.
Erdogan, however, brushed off those concerns, saying the final decision would be made by Turkey, Iran and Iraq.
|
|
|
Oct 05, 2017 | www.msn.com
Six oil production platforms in New Orleans -- out of the 737 manned platforms in the Gulf -- had been evacuated as of midday Thursday, according to the Bureau of Safety and Environmental Enforcement's New Orleans office.
No drilling rigs were evacuated, but one movable rig was taken out of the storm's path. The agency estimated less than 15 percent of the current oil production in the Gulf of Mexico has been shut-in, which equates to 254,607 barrels of oil per day.
Tropical Storm Nate's path is forecast to brush across the tip of Mexico's Yucatan Peninsula early Friday night, then later hit the U.S. Gulf Coast as a hurricane by Sunday morning.
|
|
|
Oct 02, 2017 | oilprice.com
The extraordinary cost reductions achieved by North American oil and gas companies have likely reached their limit, and any boost in profitability for much of the U.S. shale and Canadian oil sands industries will have to come from higher oil prices, according to a new report from Moody's Investors Service.Moody's studied 37 oil and gas companies in Canada and the U.S., concluding that although the oil industry has dramatically slashed its cost of production in the past three years and is currently in the midst of posting much better financials this year, there is little room left for more progress.
"After substantially improving their cost structures through 2015 and 2016, North American exploration and production (E&P) companies will demonstrate meaningful capital efficiency to the extent the West Texas Intermediate (WTI) oil price is above $50 per barrel and the Henry Hub natural gas price is at least $3.00 per MMBtu," Moody's said . In other words, WTI will need to rise further if the industry is to improve its financial position.
The report is another piece of evidence that suggests the U.S. shale industry is perhaps struggling a bit more than is commonly thought. U.S. shale has been portrayed as nimble, lean and quick to respond to oil price changes. And while that is largely true, strong profits remain elusive, despite the huge uptick in production.
Shale drillers have substantially lowered their breakeven prices, but further reductions will be difficult to achieve, Moody's Vice President Sreedhar Kona said in a statement.
" Higher than $50 per barrel WTI essential for a meaningful return on capital ," Moody's said.
The findings are important for a few reasons. First, it suggests that if WTI remains stuck at about $50 per barrel, U.S. shale drillers might be forced to reign in their ambitions, because they won't generate enough cash to reinvest in growth. Second, shale drillers might actually worsen their financial position if they pursue growth. Spending more to produce more -- while that could lead to more oil sales -- might not necessarily be the wisest strategy.
For similar reasons, Jim Chanos, short-seller and founder of Kynikos Associates, has made some headlines shorting Continental Resources. He argues that shale companies simply have to spend too much to keep production going. Shale drillers "are creatures of the capital markets," he told Bloomberg . "Because the wells deplete so quickly, they constantly need to raise money to replace the assets. And this is the crux of the story."
Another significant observation is that the shaky financial position for some shale drillers also suggests that the downside risk to oil prices might not be as serious as once thought. The oil market has tried to assess how quickly shale production would come roaring back. Reports that shale companies were posting juicy profits at very low oil prices has likely factored into heady projections for shale output. The EIA has repeatedly projected that shale output would average 10 million barrels per day next year (although they have revised that down recently to just 9.8 mb/d).
But that might be overly optimistic if a long list of shale companies are not posting "meaningful" returns on capital.
"The market may well discover it has been asleep at the wheel and far too relaxed about shale keeping a ceiling on prices forever," Ben Luckock, a senior executive at oil trader Trafigura, told an industry conference in Singapore last week. Bloomberg surveyed a bunch of oil traders and energy executives at the conference, and the general sense was that oil would trade between $50 and $60 per barrel, up from an informal consensus of between $40 and $60 last year. While there are many reasons for the newfound bullishness, more modest expectations about shale growth is certainly one of them.
In a separate report focusing on larger integrated oil companies, Moody's came to a similar conclusion -- that the substantial improvement in the financial position of the oil industry over the past year is poised to slow down. All of the highly-touted cost reductions and efficiency gains have already been "realized." Moody's lowered its outlook for these large oil companies in 2018 from "positive" to simply "stable ."
|
|
|
Oct 04, 2017 | www.counterpunch.org
No wonder, considering that the ousted Crown Prince Mohammed bin Nayef highly regarded in the Beltway, especially Langley is under house arrest. His massive web of agents at the Interior Ministry has largely been "relieved of their authority". The new Interior Minister is Abdulaziz bin Saud bin Nayef, 34, the eldest son of the governor of the country's largely Shi'ite Eastern Province, where all the oil is. Curiously, the father is now reporting to his son. MBS is surrounded by inexperienced thirty-something princes, and alienating just about everyone else.
Former King Abdulaziz set up his Saudi succession based on the seniority of his sons; in theory, if each one lived to the same age all would have a shot at the throne, thus avoiding the bloodletting historically common in Arabian clans over lines of succession.
Now, says the source, "a bloodbath is predicted to be imminent." Especially because "the CIA is outraged that the compromise worked out in April, 2014 has been abrogated wherein the greatest anti-terrorist factor in the Middle East, Mohammed bin Nayef, was arrested." That may prompt "vigorous action taken against MBS possibly in early October." And it might even coincide with the Salman-Trump get together.
ISIS playing by the (Saudi) book
Asia Times' Gulf business source stresses how "the Saudi economy is under extreme strain based on their oil price war against Russia, and they are behind their bills in paying just about all their contractors. That could lead to the bankruptcy of some of the major enterprises in Saudi Arabia. The Saudi Arabia of MBS features the Crown Prince buying a US$600 million yacht and his father spending US$100 million on his summer vacation, highlighted on the front pages of the New York Times while the Kingdom strangles under their leadership."
MBS's pet project, the spun-to-death Vision 2030, in theory aims to diversify from mere oil profits and dependency on the US to a more modern economy (and a more independent foreign policy). That's completely misguided, according to the source, because "the problem in Saudi Arabia is that their companies cannot function with their local population and [are] reliant on expatriates for about 70% or more of their staff. Aramco cannot run without expatriates. Therefore, selling 5% of Aramco to diversify does not solve the problem. If he wants a more productive society, and less handouts and meaningless government jobs, he has to first train and employ his own people."
The similarly lauded Aramco IPO, arguably the largest share sale in history and originally scheduled for next year, has once again been postponed "possibly" to the second half of 2019, according to officials in Riyadh. And still no one knows where shares will be sold; the NYSE is far from a done deal.
I n parallel, MBS's war on Yemen, and the Saudi drive for regime change in Syria and to reshape the Greater Middle East, have turned out to be spectacular disasters. Egypt and Pakistan have refused to send troops to Yemen, where relentless Saudi air bombing with US and UK weapons has accelerated malnutrition, famine and cholera, and configured a massive humanitarian crisis.
The Islamic State project was conceived as the ideal tool to force Iraq to implode. It's now public domain that the organization's funding came mostly from Saudi Arabia. Even the former imam of Mecca has publicly admitted ISIS' leadership "draw their ideas from what is written in our own books, our own principles."
Which brings us to the ultimate Saudi contradiction. Salafi-jihadism is more than alive inside the Kingdom even as MBS tries to spin a (fake) liberal trend (the "baby you can drive my car" stunt). The problem is Riyadh congenitally cannot deliver on any liberal promise; the only legitimacy for the House of Saud lies in those religious "books" and "principles."
In Syria, besides the fact that an absolute majority of the country's population does not wish to live in a Takfiristan , Saudi Arabia supported ISIS while Qatar supported al-Qaeda (Jabhat al-Nusra). That ended up in a crossfire bloodbath, with all those non-existent US-supported "moderate rebels" reduced to road kill.
And then there's the economic blockade against Qatar another brilliant MBS plot. That has only served to improve Doha's relations with both Ankara and Tehran. Qatari Emir Tamim bin Hamad Al Thani was not regime-changed, whether or not Trump really dissuaded Riyadh and Abu Dhabi from taking "military action." There was no economic strangulation: Total, for instance, is about to invest US$2 billion to expand production of Qatari natural gas. And Qatar, via its sovereign fund, counterpunched with the ultimate soft power move it bought global footballing brand Neymar for PSG , and the "blockade" sank without a trace.
"Robbing their people blind"
In Enemy of the State, the latest Mitch Rapp thriller written by Kyle Mills, President Alexander, sitting at the White House, blurts, "the Middle East is imploding because those Saudi sons of bitches have been pumping up religious fundamentalism to hide the fact that they're robbing their people blind." That's a fair assessment.
No dissent whatsoever is allowed in Saudi Arabia. Even the economic analyst Isam Az-Zamil, very close to the top, has been arrested during the current repression campaign. So opposition to MBS does not come only from the royal family or some top clerics although the official spin rules that only those supporting Muslim Brotherhood, Turkey, Iran and Qatari "terrorism" are being targeted.
In terms of what Washington wants, the CIA is not fond of MBS, to say the least. They want "their" man Nayef back. As for the Trump administration, rumors swirl it is " desperate for Saudi money , especially infrastructure investments in the Rust Belt."
It will be immensely enlightening to compare what Trump gets from Salman with what Putin gets from Salman: the ailing King will visit Moscow in late October. Rosneft is interested in buying shares of Aramco when the IPO takes place. Riyadh and Moscow are considering an OPEC deal extension as well as an OPEC-non-OPEC cooperation platform incorporating the Gas Exporting Countries Forum (GECF).
Riyadh has read the writing on the new wall: Moscow's rising political / strategic capital all across the board, from Iran, Syria and Qatar to Turkey and Yemen. That does not sit well with the US deep state. Even if Trump gets some Rust Belt deals, the burning question is whether the CIA and its friends can live with MBS on the House of Saud throne.
This piece first appeared in Asia Times .
Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009). His latest book is Empire of Chaos . He may be reached at [email protected] .
|
|
|
Oct 04, 2017 | oilprice.com
At this year's Asia-Pacific Petroleum Conference (APPEC) in Singapore last week, the mood was the most bullish since the 2015 APPEC annual gathering, with most executives polled by Bloomberg predicting oil prices at $50-$60 next year, compared to last-year predictions that we'd be at the low end of the $40-$60 band. Still, just a few of the two dozen executives surveyed expect oil prices to average more than $60 in 2018.
One notable exception from the herd is oil trader Trafigura, whose co-head of group market risk, Ben Luckock, said at a presentation at the conference, as carried by the Financial Times:
"We are nearing the end of 'lower for longer'."
"This theory may have had its best days," the manager noted.
By the end of 2019, demand could outstrip supply by up to 4 million bpd, due to underinvestment during the downturn, and U.S. shale supply won't be able to fill in the gap, according to Luckock.
Citi has also warned that oil supply would be tighter next year, as some OPEC members are already pumping at capacity, and can't boost their oil output as much as the oil market thinks they might after the end of the OPEC cuts.
|
|
|
Oct 04, 2017 | oilprice.com
4.19-million-barrel build in gasoline stockpiles.Now EIA is out with official oil and fuels inventory figures and these figures will certainly make oil bulls perk up. The authority said crude oil inventories in the week to September 29 dropped by as much as 6 million barrels to 465 million barrels.
This compares with an average analyst expectation of a 300,000-barrel draw, although the actual forecasts ranged from a build of 2.7 million barrels to a decline of 3 million barrels among 11 analysts polled by the Wall Street Journal.
For gasoline stockpiles, the EIA had some not so good news for traders, but it could have been worse: inventories of the fuel rose by 1.6 million barrels last week, suggesting that the drop in gasoline demand following the end of driving season is already in progress. Still, it's not as bleak as API's figures yesterday that foretold of a 4.19-million-barrel build.
|
|
|
Oct 04, 2017 | oilprice.com
Monthly Oil Market Report which covers the global oil supply and demand picture through July.OPEC crude oil production decreased by 79,000 BPD in August to average 32.8 million BPD. This marks the first OPEC production decline since April and was primarily driven by sizable outages in Libya.
The cartel revised global oil demand growth for 2017 upward by 50,000 barrels per day (BPD) to 1.42 million BPD. The group reports strong growth from the OECD Americas, Europe, and China. Global oil demand for 2018 is expected to grow by 1.35 million BPD, an upward revision of 70,000 BPD from the previous report. Growth next year is expected to be driven by OECD Europe and China.
China's oil demand rose by 690,000 BPD in July, marking a 6 percent year-over-year (YOY) increase. China's total oil demand reached 11.67 million BPD in July. Year-to-date data indicates an average growth of 550,000 BPD, more than double the 210,000 BPD growth recorded during the same period in 2016.
China's gasoline demand was higher by around 0.10 million BPD YOY, driven by robust sports utility vehicle (SUV) sales, which were around 17 percent higher than one year ago. China's overall vehicle sales in July rose by 4 percent YOY, with total sales reaching 1.7 million units.
The numbers from China are interesting given the constant refrain of weakening Chinese demand. This seems to be wishful thinking based on China's investments in clean technology.
|
|
|
Oct 02, 2017 | nationalinterest.org
Perhaps the prince is purposefully driving us to distraction...
Intensified brutality has not been limited to Saudi soil. As defense minister, Mohammed bin Salman was the architect of a more interventionist posture for Saudi Arabia -- motivated far less by quashing terrorism than its regional and sectarian rivalries. In particular, he shaped a policy that flagrantly violated humanitarian norms against Yemen's civilian population. Even the most jaundiced skeptic about the United Nations would regard Secretary-General Antonio Guterres as a highly credible voice on humanitarian situations given that he is the former high commissioner for refugees and former prime minister of Portugal. His special representative for children abused in wartime, Virginia Gamba, has documented hundreds of cases of Yemeni children killed and maimed by the Saudi's indiscriminate use of force.
... ... ...
enoch arden , September 30, 2017 7:20 AM
KlingOn2K , September 30, 2017 3:56 AMThere will never be any science in Saudi Arabia. It isn't a part of their civilisation. It has never been in history. The great Islamic science of the Middle Ages existed in entirely different places: Iran, Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt. The territory to the south has always been a scientific desert. No "human rights" or feminism can change this fundamental historic tradition.
virgile , October 1, 2017 9:14 AMIt has to be said that this near-existential crisis sneaked up on OPEC nations rather swiftly. I can't see how a pampered and indulged populace can get around to educating itself and working for a living in short order. There is a lot of tumultuous years ahead for these nations.
Petar Petrovic , October 1, 2017 10:10 AMSaudi Arabia has no chance to emerge from the middle age unless it leaders admit that their religion Wahhabism is obsolete and need to be revisited.
The trouble is that Wahhabismm and strict Sunnism, contrary to Shiism, forbids any attempt to revisit the teaching of the Sunna ( Koran + Hadith). Wahhabism can't evolve.Therefore Saudi Arabia is trapped in that scheme and can never get out of it. The only way out is the total collapse of the kingdom as a whole. Maybe that is the real Vision!
Petar Petrovic , October 1, 2017 10:07 AMSaudis should look at Syria as a model of democracy and pluralism in Arabic Islamic world, yet with their USA friends they tried to destroy it.
Jeff Edward Easterling , October 1, 2017 1:00 AMAnd these are the sort of people Trump visited first and they are USA allies in fratricidal war in Syria...there are actually lots of similarity between USA and Saudi Arabia;they are both sadistic governments.
Schlesinger's Zenith ElPrimero , September 30, 2017 7:09 AMThanks! :D
Since the actual military/defense/intelligence related spending is 1 trillion dollars a year, including about 100 billion in interest we pay on it, if we cut the spending a little and rely on national guard more since I've read it is cheaper to fund and if necessary nationalize our oil and gas industry like a lot of other countries we could start paying off our debt. :D
The whole world must prepare for the post-petroleum order. But it's not, so there will be chaos and war. A country like Australia could fare better than most - if it could defend itself.
|
|
|
Sep 21, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News, 09/21/2017 at 3:43 pm
Interviewed this morning, Harold Hamm calls EIA STEO projections flat out wrong.US will be lucky to achieve 9.35 million b/day by December.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ignored says: 09/20/2017 at 9:41 am
IEA World Energy Investment 2017, executive summary is available online: http://www.iea.org/bookshop/759-World_Energy_Investment_2017Not much new for those who follow the industry. Upstream investment declined substantially in 2015 and 2016 (44% for the two years combined) but has been increasing modestly this year.
Global costs are expected to decline but cost of US onshore (i.e. tight oil) is increasing by approx. 16% in 2017. The industry has increased its leverage (i.e. more debt) and direct investment to short cycle projects.
I guess this is a gentle way of saying that not much exploration is done at the moment, the industry expects (or needs) higher prices but will be less agile if/when that happens.
|
|
|
Sep 26, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News says: 09/21/2017 at 9:13 am
Crude oil vs NGLsEnergy News says: 09/21/2017 at 9:22 am
I've now included China (NBS, LPG) and The Russian Federation (JODI Data, LPG) in the list of countries that provide separate crude oil & NGLs production data. Since 2013, total liquids production has increased +7.77 million b/day, crude oil +5.01 million b/day, NGLS +2.76 million b/day and so NGLs account for 35% of the overall total liquids increase.
Crude oil vs NGLsJeff says: 09/21/2017 at 3:52 pm
I think NGLs are exempted from OPEC cuts. Not sure if/how much this affect the trend.Energy News says: 09/21/2017 at 4:16 pmOPEC NGLs production made a new high in July – I didn't even notice thatEnergy News says: 09/21/2017 at 4:43 pm
I had been wondering what was in total liquids supply, as both the IEA and EIA use this measure of supply, and so now I know.
|
|
|
get=
> > > > > >
|
|
|
Aug 09, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Posted by: Yul | Aug 4, 2017 7:58:45 PM | 41
Dr Brenner,
Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:
When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.
Dr Brenner,Don't know whether you've have seen this article and the navettes of various Iraqi Shi'a authorities to Riyadh, in particular Muqtada's visit this week:
When Sadr arrived in Jeddah, an anonymous Twitter user known as Mujtahid -- noted for his regular leaking of alleged developments within the secretive House of Saud -- tweeted that the warm welcoming of Sadr "and prior to him al-Araji, offering thousands of [hajj] visas to PMU [Popular Mobilization Units], celebrating the [liberation] of Mosul, are all attempts to get closer to Iran so that they can convince the Houthis to have mercy on bin Salman." Thamer al-Sabhan in a July 31 tweet attacked "[Ayatollah Ruhollah] Khomeini's version of Shiism" and praised what Sabhan called "genuine Shiism." Less than 24 hours later, however, that tweet was removed. It is still unclear whether Sadr is really attempting to mediate between Tehran and Riyadh. However, a senior Iranian official who spoke to Al-Monitor on condition of anonymity expressed doubt that such an endeavor would succeed in ending the rivalry between the two regional powers.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Glenn E Stehle says: 07/18/2017 at 7:05 pm
Stavros H says: 07/22/2017 at 3:34 pmVes,
So you think Putin is happy about this?
Russia lost $26 billion on oil and gas exports
http://www.hellenicshippingnews.com/russia-lost-26-billion-on-oil-and-gas-exports/Russia is making less money on oil and gas exports, according to the data published today by the Federal Customs Service. In 2016, the revenues from oil and gas exports declined by 17.7% (compared to 2015) and amounted to $73.676 billion. Gazprom's revenues from gas exports declined by 25% and amounted to $31.28 billion.
Or this?
Saudis, Russia say oil supply cut being extended to next March
https://www.irishtimes.com/business/energy-and-resources/saudis-russia-say-oil-supply-cut-being-extended-to-next-march-1.3083423While output curbs introduced at the start of the year are working, global inventories aren't yet at the level targeted by Opec and its allies, Saudi energy minister Khalid Al-Falih said Monday in Beijing alongside his Russian counterpart, Alexander Novak. The ministers agreed the deal should be extended through the first quarter of 2018 at the same volume of reductions, they said .
An increase in Libyan output, together with a surge in US production and signs of recovery in Nigeria, may undercut Opec's strategy to re-balance the market and boost prices.
Or this?
Oil Prices Ease on Signs of Steady Output from Some Producers
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/151042/Oil_Prices_Ease_on_Signs_of_Steady_Output_from_Some_Producers?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2017-07-18&utm_content=&utm_campaign=industry_headlines_1Oil prices were about 1 percent lower on Monday as investors continued to await strong indications that an OPEC-led effort to drain a glut was proving effective .
U.S. shale oil production was forecast to rise for the eighth consecutive month, climbing 112,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 5.585 million bpd in August .
Oil prices are less than half their mid-2014 level because of a persistent glut, even after the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries with Russia and other non-OPEC producers cut supplies since January.
Or this?
US Shale Oil Output Seen Up for Eighth Month at 5.6 Mln bpd -EIA
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/151045/US_Shale_Oil_Output_Seen_Up_for_Eighth_Month_at_56_Mln_bpd_EIA?utm_source=DailyNewsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=2017-07-18&utm_content=&utm_campaign=Production_1U.S. shale oil production is forecast to rise for the eighth consecutive month, climbing 112,000 barrels per day (bpd) to 5.585 million bpd in August, the U.S. Energy Department said in a report on Monday.
The increase comes amid market concerns that rising shale output will dampen the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries' efforts to curb a global supply glut.
The U.S. shale production level would be the highest since record-keeping began in 2007, according to the EIA's monthly drilling productivity report.
The US frackers (along with all other high-cost producers around the globe) will go bust before the end of the decade.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/18/2017 at 7:40 pmVes says: 07/18/2017 at 10:46 pm
Glenn,Glenn E Stehle says: 07/19/2017 at 6:35 amIt is garbage articles. Only trading oil shares on stock market is zero sum game so when Mr Buffet makes $1 million many others lost a little bit each to the tune of $1 million. But country producing oil and exporting is not stock market. It is life and life is not zero-sum game. If oil companies in one oil producing country lost 10-20-30 billion it does not mean that oil companies in other oil producing country gained 10-20-30 billion. Glenn, this is so basic.
Look this way, very simple way, if you and your neighbour are earning oil royalties on your Texas land in US$ with exactly same interest and he has to live in Texas (and has to pay living expense in $US) and you live in Mexico (paying expenses in pesos) it is not the same. For you "It's morning in Mexico" but for your Texas neighbour is so so.
Ves,Eulenspiegel says: 07/19/2017 at 8:30 amRevenue = number of units sold x price per unit
A lease that produces 12,000 BO per year at $100/BO generates $1.2 million in revenue.
A lease that produces 120,000 BO per year at $50/BO generates $6 million in revenue.
Most people consider $6 million in revenue to be better than $1.2 million.
It depends on your costs whats the best If you have 49$ costs, the first least will still generate 612.000$ profit, the second only 120.000$ despite pumping the 10 fold amount.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/19/2017 at 8:51 amIf you have only 1 piece of land and can wait(it's your land, and you have the money), the first option is the best if you are a shale company with 1 zillion in debt, the second option is the best to dish out all your assets to hit your payment rates.
Someone here described at a rule of a thumb you should earn the 3 fold price of drilling costs to make a good fortune since you have additional costs so waiting a bit before calling for the fracking pump can pay out here.
Let the Saudis, the Russians and the cheap money wallstreet companies shoot out their battle when the first topples (perhaps SA running out of money first, Venezuala soon goes bottom-up) prices will be north of 70$ again.
Northsea-oil is another candidate for going bottom-up, the same with old giant fields like chinese super fields where they stopped injecting at 60$. Together with a healthy 1.4 mb demand growth there will be times when even a wide deveoloped Permian can't sustain all demands at 40-50$.
Eulenspiegel said:Eulenspiegel says: 07/20/2017 at 3:50 amTogether with a healthy 1.4 mb demand growth there will be times when even a wide developed Permian can't sustain all demands at 40-50$.
I sure hope you're right, and that the competitors "go bottom-up," or at least blink, sooner than later.
This is from Pioneer Resources' June investor presentation.
Why only 2.31$ productions cost for permian horizontals, I think the pipelines are the same as for the verticals direct in the spot beneath?Boomer II says: 07/19/2017 at 9:09 amAll other shales have higher production costs, too which doesn't make the thing better at the momentary depressed oil prices.
Looks like they have big red numbers in Eagle Ford even at top locations.
But if the total BO from the lease is the same whether it comes out slowly or quickly, then getting the oil out quickly at a low price is not as good as getting the oil out slowly at a higher price.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/19/2017 at 9:28 amYour lifetime return on your lease would be the most important number.
BoomerII,Boomer II says: 07/19/2017 at 10:17 amWell that certainly is the conclusion that the Pure and the Humble (aka John D. Rockefeller) came to in the 1930s after the discovery of the East Texas Field.
But just exactly how do you propose that those "higher prices" be achieved in a competitive, free market economy?
Or do you advocate for the re-cartelization of the market place for oil, the way it was between 1936 and the 1970?
Financing in the oil industry will take care of it. If loans and investments dry up as lenders and investors find better deals to make, there will be less drilling. It's the oil industry itself to blame for low prices.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/19/2017 at 11:03 amBoomer II,Boomer II says: 07/19/2017 at 11:29 amThat's how the business cycle works in a competitive, free-market economy. The down-cycle is unkind to many, but some make it through and go on to fight another day.
Do you prefer a system where the government picks the winners and losers?
Between depletion and increased production costs and a temporary glut of oil, the market is making oil and gas investments less attractive.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/19/2017 at 12:07 pmThe government IS stepping in, to the industry's detriment, by selling more leases right now and encouraging what might be overproduction at the moment.
If market conditions hasten the decline of gas and oil, I won't be sorry because I think we need alternatives anyway.
Boomer II,texas tea says: 07/19/2017 at 12:16 pmWhy do you believe the "alternatives" will necessarily make it through the down-cycle?
They may be some of the first to "go bottom-up," especially as the subsidies for wind and solar begin to be phased out in the next few years.
we could always make Mike president That should be good for a couple of hundred $$$ increase per barrelBoomer II says: 07/19/2017 at 12:59 pmCountries that don't want to be dependent on fossil fuel imports have an incentive to find alternatives. Even if they pay a bit more for them (which doesn't appear will be the case), renewables offer them more energy independence. If that is America's goal, it is likely to be other countries' goal as well.Ves says: 07/19/2017 at 11:23 amAlternative energy sources also provide an economic advantage for some countries because they can become energy players even without their own fossil fuels.
Think of alternative energy the way you do military preparativeness. There is value to countries which taxpayers and governments will support even if there is no direct financial benefit. However money spent for alternative energy WILL have more economic benefit than military spending.
"A lease that produces 12,000 BO per year at $100/BO generates $1.2 million in revenue.A lease that produces 120,000 BO per year at $50/BO generates $6 million in revenue."
Glenn,
The only problem is that FEW 120.000 BO cannot pay MANY 12,000 BO. So, picking 120.000 BO wells is losing game in long term. It is like a stock picking vs indexing in investing. Indexing always wins. Shale carpet drilling is like trying to find that one 120.000 BO well that will pay for all losers that are 12,000 BO. Losing game in the long term...
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher
says: 07/17/2017 at 8:21 am
Dood, they are all losing money.VesProppant isn"t free. If you use more of it, it costs more. If you add a different kind it costs more.
And the executive bonuses are production based, not profit based. If they can get other people to fund via loans those bonuses then of course they will do it.
You want evidence the proppant pays for itself in production? You can find it. It appears in the earnings per share number. If it doesn't then there is no evidence.
This is no different than drilling holes to recover pores of oil amounting to 20 barrels, total. At $45/b you get $900 from that. If someone else pays the $7 million for the hole, why not drill?
says: 07/17/2017 at 9:08 am
http://wolfstreet.com/2017/07/17/2-billion-private-equity-fund-collapses-to-almost-zero/Boomer II"Investors who'd plowed $2 billion four years ago into a private equity fund that had also borrowed $1.3 billion to lever up may receive "at most, pennies for every dollar they invested," people familiar with the matter told the Wall Street Journal."
It is the same WSJ that last 4 years were writing about "resilience of shale" like parrots, every day. Of course it is resilient with Gran Ma and Gran Pa money if you look that it was mostly pension funds that are invested.
says: 07/17/2017 at 10:46 am
From the WSJ article.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/17/2017 at 11:39 am"Only seven private-equity funds larger than $1 billion have ever lost money for investors, according to investment firm Cambridge Associates LLC. Among those of any size to end in the red, losses greater than 25% or so are almost unheard of, though there are several energy-focused funds in danger of doing so, according to public pension records."
Ves,Ves says: 07/17/2017 at 12:34 pmSo now those evil shale people are screwing Grand Pa and Grand Ma out of their hard-earned savings?
After all, we have it straight from WolfStreet. Wolf Richter blasts the unscrupulous shale industry when he writes:
" The renewed hype about shale oil – which is curiously similar to the prior hype about shale oil that ended in the oil bust – and the new drilling boom it has engendered, with tens of billions of dollars being once again thrown at it by institutional investors, has skillfully covered up the other reality: The damage from the oil bust is far from over, losses continue to percolate through portfolios and retirement savings, and in many cases – as with pensions funds – the ultimate losers, whose money this is, are blissfully unaware of it."
There's a problem, however, with using EnerVest to bash the shale industry. And the problem is very easy to spot for anyone who has even the most rudimentary knowledge of the oil and gas industry (which of course leaves Richter out): EnerVest's portfolio has very few shale assets.
• EnerVest is the largest conventional oil and natural gas operator in Ohio
• EnerVest is the largest producer in the Austin Chalk, another conventional field.
• EnerVest is the fifth largest producer in the Barnett Shale, which is the only shale holding listed in the company's list of core areas.
• EnerVest has spent $1.5 billion purchasing assets in the Anadarko Basin since 2013, again in conventional fields.
• EnerVest is a top 20 producer in the San Juan Basin, again a conventional field.
https://www.enervest.net/operations/locations-map.html
So Richter uses the implosion of EnerVest, a company that is predominately a conventonal oil and gas producer, to bash shale? That really makes a lot of sense.
Glenn,Glenn E Stehle says: 07/18/2017 at 5:05 pm
shale/no shale, they lost every single penny. and btw wsj lied to you every single day for the last 4 years about milk & honey in oil patch. how do you feel about it?Ves,Watcher says: 07/17/2017 at 1:30 amFor me it is has been "milk and honey in the oil patch." So here's how I feel about it .
Anyone have info on average Bakken water disposal costs?Watcher says: 07/21/2017 at 11:00 amThey are all losing money, but beyond that water costs usually determine the production level below which cap and abandon.
Freddy, I doubt you can get this data, but a gassy geology flows liquid that isn't oil. The relentless march upward of API speaks of NGLs rather than oil. If people just ignore API degrees and flow liquid that is API 47 or even 51, but still call it oil, the numbers will all be corrupted and no one will know.shallow sand says: 07/17/2017 at 11:50 amI gotta go research NoDak's taxation regulation on liquids that are not crude.
coffee: Thanks for the heads up on Rockman BK discussion on PeakOil.com. I had quit looking at that site because it seemed to have become very radical. Rockman is a good poster, however, lots of knowledge, and a down to earth guy too.Watcher says: 07/17/2017 at 1:22 pmWhat he describes there is why this is probably going to play out like 1986-1999. Takes years for US onshore upstream to be placed in the category of "not investible". So $40s or lower, on average, until mid-2020's, unless there is a prolonged major supply disruption, which necessarily means a major Middle Eastern war lasting for years.
The possibility of $90 WTI has to be erased from memory, just like $30 WTI had to be erased from memory from 1986-1998.
Over the course of the history of mankind, more assets have changed hands at a price completely absent any effect of supply and demand than those that might have cared about such things. Vastly more. Let's count a few.coffeeguyzz says: 07/17/2017 at 1:30 pm1) Every single inheritance. In the history of mankind, every single inheritance.
2) All gifts.
3) All conquests.
4) All manifestations of economic predation. Predatory pricing established those levels.
5) All monopolies
6) All thefts
7) All taxation
8) All govt decreed excise or tarrif
Want more proof? How about the ultimate:
The purchase of about 2 Trillion dollars of mortgage backed securities by the Federal Reserve from 2009 to 2015. The pricing of those securities was 0 at mark to market, so mark to market was disallowed, but even with that, the Fed specified the price to be whatever they wished, and the sellers didn't have any reason to complain. The price paid was far above supply and demand (aka 0). $2 Trillion. That probably exceeds amounts for assets from all history that someone imagined was taking place at a free market price. Not to mention the ongoing buys from the ECB in progress today.
So the price of oil will be what the lowest priced large sellers want it to be, and they have no reason to imagine that their victory should be measured in a whimsically created substance.
There is nothing anyone can do about it.
Shallowclueless says: 07/17/2017 at 3:14 pmThe upside potential might be stronger than appears at present for many reasons.
Although the Enervest situation has been conflated with the shale industry, the exact opposite reality might prove to your (smaller operators) collective benefit as you ride out this current storm.
Time was, ss, that some camel upwind in the desert somewhere would fart and global oil markets would reverberate for days.
Now, in hydrocarbon producing countries from Nigeria to the Philippines, including Iraq, Libya, Yemen, Syria, KSA and others there is conflict raging from low level to all out warfare. Heck, there were reports the other day of a thwarted attack on a Saudi offshore facility.
Qatar is virtually quarantined.
Russia is battling international sanctions.And $46 WTI???
You kidding me???We ain't in Denmark (most of us), but something's sure is rotten,
SS – It has been my experience that concerning financial matters, nothing "plays out" like the past. Consider the period 1986-1999: No one was concerned that the world was near peak oil. OPEC spare capacity was at least 4 times what it is today, [ask Ron], at a time when final demand was much less. Iraq invaded Kuwait, and then we went to war to get them out – remember the oil well fires. Russia collapsed. The "BRIC" countries [Brazil, Russia, India and China] were inconsequential. The Dow Jones was down 22.6% in ONE DAY in 1987. The International Monetary system almost collapsed in 1997. The world was transitioning from a period of high inflation to much lower inflation. Japan was booming [until 1990].shallow sand says: 07/17/2017 at 4:37 pmYou can probably add a dozen significant happenings to the list without thinking too hard. The point is, so many variables have changed that something as significant as oil is going to "play out" based upon today's factors, not "like" 1986-1999. Some people are still trying to analog to the 1930's in order to predict the next great depression in the stock market – do not listen to them.
I know things never play out exactly as in the past.simon oaten says: 07/17/2017 at 5:57 pmHowever, one has to prepare for the worst, and prices will be low for awhile IMO.
The Rockman BK discussion helped put it in focus for me. The wells will be drilled, and only when it is clear all large US shale oil basins have hit their limit, will prices begin to rise. That might not take 12 years, but I think at least 5 is likely.
The only intervenor would be a supply shock from the Middle East.
Another poster on another site also has given me some clarity. He states there has not been enough suffering experienced yet in the US oil patch by those responsible for the production boom.
We just went through two bad years of prices in 2015-2016, and at the first sign of light, the industry was able to raise a ton of cash and go back with guns a blazing. There were no consequences to the powers that be from the 2015-2016 low prices. Heck, the strip was higher this time last year, yet we are still adding rigs.
It will take a minimum of five years, until it is universally believed that prices will be low forever, that supply will be abundant forever, and that the sector is a bad investment.
Once that happens, look out, price could rocket. But it will be awhile IMO.
Shallow,Jeff says: 07/17/2017 at 3:17 pmgood paper by mr ray dalio "deleveraging" – worth the time to read .
as you say – history doesn't repeat
rgds
simonSome difference between now and 86-99: i) decline rates are higher, ii) Spare capacity is _much_ lower (oil stocks are high which apparently is what traders observe) – back in 86 KSA could flood the market, iii) not much new big projects in the pipe after 2019 and North Sea is declining this time while it was increasing back then.Guy M says: 07/17/2017 at 5:11 pmRebalancing should go faster this time if (!) demand continues to increase.
EIA numbers are basically worthless, as far as the Permian goes. To analyze it like they are trying to do, you would have to separate conventional production from horizontal production. Take more gathering tools than they are using to accomplish that. Until 2015, they were still drilling 800 a month or so vertical wells, which dropped down to 100 to 150 a month since then. Looking at district 8A, that production is dropping like a rock. Combining the two, production appears to be pretty flat for Texas since the first of the year.
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
From Horseman Capital Management's July Monthly Newsleter
...Having grown up, and spent my entire investing career in periods of bubble inflation and deflation , I am constantly minded to look for where the market is deceiving itself, and then positioning the fund to benefit from the process of realisation. Many years ago, I could see that the commodity bubble was ending, and Chinese growth was peaking. This meant that commodities would be weaker and inflation lower, making a short commodities, long bond position very effective. It was a great strategy, but its effectiveness ended early last year.
The good news is that new market delusion is now apparent to me. When I moved long emerging markets, and short developed markets, the one commodity I could not give detailed bullish reasons for was oil. Unlike most other commodities, the oil industry, in the form of US shale drillers has continued to receive investment flows throughout the entire downturn
I had shorted shale producers and the related MLP stocks before, and I knew there was something wrong with the industry, but I failed to find the trigger for the US shale industry to fail. And like most other investors I was continually swayed by the statements from the US shale drillers that they have managed to cut breakeven prices even further. However, I have taken a closer look at the data from EIA and from the company presentations. The rising decline rates of major US shale basins, and the increasing incidents of frac hits (also a cause of rising decline rates) have convinced me that US shale producers are not only losing competitiveness against other oil drillers, but they will find it hard to make money . If US rates continue to stay low, then it is possible that the high yield markets may continue to supply these drillers with capital, but I think that this is unlikely. More likely is that at some point debt investors start to worry that they will not get their capital back and cut lending to the industry. Even a small reduction in capital, would likely lead to a steep fall in US oil production. If new drilling stopped today, daily US oil production would fall by 350 thousand barrels a day over the
next month (Source: EIA).
What I also find extraordinary, is that it seems to me shale drilling is a very unprofitable industry, and becoming more so. And yet, many businesses in the US have expended large amounts of capital on the basis that US oil will always be cheap and plentiful. I am thinking of pipelines, refineries, LNG exporters, chemical plants to name the most obvious. Even more amazing is that other oil sources have become more cost competitive but have been starved of resources. If US oil production declines, the rest of the world will struggle to increase output. An oil squeeze looks more likely to me. A broader commodity squeeze also looks likely to me.
In the latest letter's sector allocation, Clark also added the following section providing a more detailed explanation why he has boosted his shale short to 15.5%:
We are negative on the US shale sector, during the month we increased the short exposure to oil exploration and MLPs to about 15.5%. Conventional oil wells typically produce in 3 stages: the start-up rising production stage lasts 2 to 3 years, it is followed by a plateau stage which lasts another 2-3 years and a long declining stage, during which production declines at rates of 1% to 10% per year. These wells generally produce over 15 to 30 years ( Source: Planete energies).
In contrast, production from unconventional / shale wells peaks within a few months after it starts and decreases by about 75% after one year and by about 85% after two years (Source Permian basin, Goldman Sachs). This means that, in order to keep producing, shale producers need to constantly drill new wells.
Shale drilling is characterised by drilling horizontally into the layers of rock where hydrocarbons lie. Then hydraulic fracturing which consists of pumping a mixture of water, proppant (sand) and chemicals into the rock at high pressure, allows hydrocarbons to be extracted out to the head of the well.
Since 2016, as oil prices rallied, the number of rigs in the Permian basin, which is currently the most sought after drilling area in the US, rose from about 150 to almost 400 . Furthermore, operations have moved into a high intensity phase as wells are drilled closer together, average lateral lengths increased over 80% from 2,687 ft in early 2012 to 4,875 ft in 2016 and the average volume of proppant per lateral foot more has than doubled (Source: Stratas Advisors).
Intensive drilling is causing a problem called 'frac-hits', which are cross-well interferences. These happen when fracking pressure is accidently transferred to adjacent wells that have less pressure integrity. As a result a failure of pressure control occurs, which reduces production flow. In the worst cases, pressure losses can result in a total loss of production that never returns. According to a senior reservoir engineer at CNOOC Nexen, frac-hits have now become a top concern, they can affect several wells on a pad along with those on nearby pads (Sources: Journal of Petroleum Technology).
A former engineer for Southwestern Energy said that frac-hits are very difficult to predict, the best way to respond is with trial and error and experimenting with well spacing and frac sizes to find the optimal combination.
In May Range Resources reported that it was forced to shut wells in order to minimise the impact of frac-hits. This month Abbraxas Petroleum said it will be shutting in several high-volume wells for about a month (Source: Upstream).
In the Permian basin new well production per rig continued to decline in June, from 617 barrels per day down to 602 . In the meantime , legacy oil production, which is a function of the number of wells, depletion rates and production outages such as frac hits, is continuing to rise . (Source: EIA)
In light of the above growing short bet on shale, this is how Clark is positioned:
The analysis leads me to be potentially bearish on bonds, bearish on US shale drillers, but bullish on commodities. Over the month, we have added to US shale shorts, while also selling our US housebuilder longs . We continue to build our US consumer shorts, where the combination of higher oil prices and higher interest rates should devastate an industry already dealing with oversupply and the entry of Amazon into ever more areas . The combination of long mining and short shale drillers has the nice effect of reducing volatility, but ultimately offering high returns. The combination of portfolio changes has taken us back to a net short of over 40%. I find market action is supporting my thesis, and the research and analysis is compelling. Your fund remains short developed markets, long emerging markets.
While we will have more to say on this, Clark may be on to something: as the following chart from Goldman shows, the number of horizontal rigs funded by public junk bond issuance has not changed in the past 3 months. Is the funding market about to cool dramatically on US shale, and if so, just how high will oil surge?
LetThemEatRand Jul 22, 2017 5:44 PM
A short bet on shale is also a bet on no war that disrupts supply/increases demand. It is also a bet against any kind of crisis in the dollar. As it stands now, that seems pretty risky to me.
NoWayJose -> LetThemEatRand Jul 22, 2017 6:12 PM
I'd rather be long oil services - the inevitable conclusion of the author is that fracked oil depletes faster, the quality drops, that they cannot get more financing and that production will fall? And you want to be 'short' when all this happens?
LetThemEatRand -> NoWayJose Jul 22, 2017 6:31 PM
Agreed. A lot of people have already forgotten that oil dropped massively after the US decided (under zero) that it wanted to punish Russia because "Russia invaded Crimea."
I didn't fully believe that TPTB had so much control over the price of oil before it happened, but the timing could not have been coincidental. When they want oil to go back up, it will.
When that happens is anyone's guess for those of us not in the Big Club, but the idea that oil is in a new normal price range is not supported by history. Oil was double or almost triple its current price under similar economic conditions in the past.
daveO -> LetThemEatRand Jul 22, 2017 10:10 PM
They want control of Russian oil and resources, so it may be cheap for a long, long time. This means the banksters will fund shale production 'til hell freezes over. They want another Russian revolution.
AGuy -> NoWayJose Jul 23, 2017 2:43 AM
"I'd rather be long oil services"
Seems likely oil services will get hit hard when the shale bubble pops. Its likely they are owed money by shale drillers.
Outside of Shale is DeepWater, Artic and Oil Sands. None of these are much better, and I think it will be harder this time for Oil prices to increase to make these non-convensional oil projects profitable. Consumers and business are even deeper debt than they were in 2008-2009. With the Boomers entering retirement, Companies moving to automation and technology reducing the need for travel, its likely that Oil consumption will start to decline. Hire energy prices would accelerate the declines via demand destruction
Deep Snorkeler Jul 22, 2017 6:00 PM
1. Fracked fields deplete fast.
2. Frackers need low interest financing for more fracking.
3. Increased fracking density depletes fields even faster.
4. Fracked wells produce ever poorer oil quality.
EROI is against all you frickn fracking f**kers. There is no economic theory that addresses resource depletion.
fattail -> Deep Snorkeler Jul 23, 2017 8:08 AM
There is no economic theory that addresses resource depletion.
How about printing a fiat currency so that you can buy them all up? Backed by nothing..... Except.... 11 carrier groups and 18 submarines loaded with nuclear missles?
TeraByte Jul 22, 2017 10:18 PM
This is not at all that black and white. Dirty and expensive shale extraction however had advantages and saved trillions dollars in war expense now required to keep the "cheap" ME oil flowing...
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Mike
says: 07/22/2017 at 6:41 pm
Here's one for the shale poodles to gnaw on:MASTERMIND says: 07/22/2017 at 8:52 am"I had shorted shale producers and the related MLP stocks before, and I knew there was something wrong with the industry, but I failed to find the trigger for the US shale industry to fail.
And like most other investors I was continually swayed by the statements from the US shale drillers that they have managed to cut breakeven prices even further. However, I have taken a closer look at the data from EIA and from the company presentations.
The rising decline rates of major US shale basins, and the increasing incidents of frac hits (also a cause of rising decline rates) have convinced me that US shale producers are not only losing competitiveness against other oil drillers, but they will find it hard to make money.
If US rates continue to stay low, then it is possible that the high yield markets may continue to supply these drillers with capital, but I think that this is unlikely.
More likely is that at some point debt investors start to worry that they will not get their capital back and cut lending to the industry. Even a small reduction in capital, would likely lead to a steep fall in US oil production. If new drilling stopped today, daily US oil production would fall by 350 thousand barrels a day over the next month. (Source: EIA)."
Modern agriculture is the use of land to convert petroleum into food. Without petroleum we will not be able to feed the global population."Professor Albert Bartlett, University of Colorado, USA
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
likbez says: 07/23/2017 at 10:09 am
Boomer II,I view low oil price more like sophisticated financial scam than the result of cost cuts.
For the USA dumping shale oil on the market at below cost prices makes perfect sense.In 2016 the USA imported 3,681,395 thousand barrels or 10 million BPD. That means the subsidizing domestic production just in order to drop the prices of imported oil (dumping) makes perfect sense up to the same number.
That's probably why they are trying to increase shale oil production as if there is no tomorrow. And the money are still flowing unabated, although the stupidity of investors can't be completely discounted taking into account the amount of propaganda in WSJ and the USA MSM in general. Critique of shale oil is suppressed. Articles about shale oil in WSJ do remind me Soviet propaganda about successes of socialism.
That also helps to explain the EIA optimism. After all, the agency was created in order to keep prices low, not to propel them high :-)
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Glenn E Stehle
says: 07/21/2017 at 1:13 pmThe New Face Of Big Oil: How Vicki Hollub Made Oxy The Top Player In The Permianshallow sand says: 07/21/2017 at 2:10 pm
https://www.forbes.com/sites/christopherhelman/2017/07/18/touring-the-permian-with-occidental-petroleum-ceo-vicki-hollub/#3aa252192ed0Oxy is the biggest producer in the [Permian Basin], at 270,000 bpd–half the company's worldwide total. Hollub says it will double that within a decade. "It's pretty hard to drill a dry hole there. We don't have to explore to find it. It's just a matter of engineering the right way to get it out." The geology is so stacked with oil layers that it's like having ten fields in one–a petroleum layer cake .
Thanks to better technology and better fields, Oxy has reduced its total cost per barrel (including overhead, capital and operating costs) by more than half, to just $28.
Good article that deserves some closer reading.Watcher says: 07/21/2017 at 2:28 pm$28 is BOE, not BO.
At $60 WTI (my preferred oil price) OXY earns approximately $1.5 billion, or $1.96 per share. Still would be a 30+ PE ratio and earnings would be less than current dividend payments.
OXY spun off its California assets (California Resources Corporation) and loaded it with $6 billion of debt at the height of oil prices. In my opinion this was the most strategically important decision made by OXY. Take a look at what CRC shares are worth.
Whaaaa? This is hype.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/21/2017 at 1:20 pmOccidental Petroleum produces less than 1/4 of its oil and gas output in the Permian, and some of that is labeled South Texas conventional. This silliness is all small potatoes. Hell, just about 1/2 OXY's BOE output is not even in the US. And it would be even more than 1/2 but for a service outtage in Columbia and planned maintenance (during that quarter) in the Middle East.
Their chemical business made them $170 million that quarter, and their total oil/gas income was $220 million, most of which was from international flow.
Oh, and pssst, oil price was higher Q1 than Q2.
OPEC, Russia to Stand Pat on Oil Deal Even as Glut PersistsGlenn E Stehle says: 07/21/2017 at 1:42 pm
http://www.rigzone.com/news/oil_gas/a/151101/OPEC_Russia_to_Stand_Pat_on_Oil_Deal_Even_as_Glut_PersistsOPEC and Russia's plan to clear the global oil glut hasn't worked as they hoped, but there's little expectation the world's largest producers will act more aggressively when they meet this weekend.
Oil has slumped into a bear market and inventories remain stubbornly high despite a deal between OPEC and 10 countries outside the group to cut output. The implementation of supply curbs is faltering as Libya and Nigeria restore lost production.
The trouble for ministers meeting in St. Petersburg to review the progress of the deal is the alternatives look little better than the status quo. If the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries abandons the deal and increases oil output, a further plunge in prices would inflict more pain on their economies. And while deepening the production cuts would spark a rally, that might encourage even bigger flows from U.S. shale drillers.
"They're between a rock and a hard place," said Mike Wittner, head of oil market research at Societe Generale SA in New York. "The bottom line is, it hasn't worked" and "if they cut more, the more they support prices, the more they support U.S. production." .
The failure of the accord is driving Saudi Arabia to consider taking extra steps by itself, according to a report by consultants Petroleum Policy Intelligence, citing information from "key players" in OPEC. The kingdom's exports would probably drop by 600,000 barrels a day this summer as local demand peaks, and it may deepen the reduction to 1 million a day, it said.
Three Years Into Cheap Oil, Gulf Is Still Depending on a ReboundGlenn E Stehle says: 07/21/2017 at 1:43 pm
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-07-19/three-years-into-cheap-oil-gulf-is-still-depending-on-a-reboundEnergy-rich Gulf Arab nations have scrambled to adjust to the slump in oil prices since 2014. Three years on, their economies are mired in weak growth .
Absent a rebound in oil prices, analysts say it's unlikely that these nations can repair their finances without deeper spending cuts that could further hurt growth. The standoff between a Saudi-led bloc and Qatar is also undermining investor confidence at a time when the GCC is seeking foreign funds.
Five charts illustrate oil's dominance and the challenges facing the region.
.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/21/2017 at 1:44 pm
–Glenn E Stehle says: 07/21/2017 at 1:46 pm
,sunnnv says: 07/22/2017 at 2:25 am
Stumbling around the web, I ran across the record of a hearing in 1996 by the House sub-committee on energy and the environment. Part of it has predictions from the EIA's Annual Energy Outlook 1996, which apropos to this post by Ron, predicted that OPEC in 2015 would be producing just over 52 million bpd in the reference case, 61 million bpd in the low-price case, and 47 million bpd in the high price case.Javier says: 07/22/2017 at 8:08 am
See page 7 of:
https://www.eia.gov/outlooks/archive/aeo96/pdf/038396.pdfWell, they only blew that prediction by a factor of about 2.
(Russia-OPEC thinks the price is too low, so 61 million bpd predicted vs. 33 actual.)Their predicted price is about right – inflation adjusted, but no hint of the 2008 spike.
The congressional hearing record has Michael Lynch predicting 2020 world demand at 122 million bpd,
and call-on-OPEC at 57 million bpd.
pg 137 of:
http://ia600300.us.archive.org/11/items/usenergyoutlooki00unit/usenergyoutlooki00unit.pdfPeople that extrapolate always get their long term predictions wrong. A lesson not learned despite overwhelming evidence.texas tea says: 07/22/2017 at 8:50 am"Well, they only blew that prediction by a factor of about 2."Hightrekker says: 07/22/2017 at 1:09 pmbut don't forget at least they were "courageous" enough to make that failed prediction, right Dennis. All it takes is courage not accuracy. I would be curious for those among us who have the courage, how may failed prediction does one get to make before you are no longer courageous and are a compete fool? not that applies to any body here . but for profit doomsayers seem to be able to go on for decades either being courageous or foolish and get by with it. Al Gore comes to mind Michael Mann likewise ..and any and all who continue repeat and support these complete freking fools
Actually, Mann and Gore have underestimated their predictions.texas tea says: 07/22/2017 at 3:52 pmhttps://www.voanews.com/a/who-global-warming-happening-faster-than-predicted/3429127.html
They were wrong– they underestimated the acceleration.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/07/22/autopsy-of-an-excuse/Glenn E Stehle says:
|
|
|
Jul 23, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
New technologies did postoned the day f reconing, but they can't increase the total amount of oil availble so the effects are temporary. Adn they are costly. right now low oil price is financial scam.
dclonghorn
says: 07/20/2017 at 1:05 pm
I agree with George that getting stuff wrong is no reason to quit trying. To do so would be stupid. To look back at why projections were wrong is a much more interesting thing. To that end, I have been looking back at predictions from the 2005 to 2010 period, starting with Simmons and progressing to the oil drum and some others. I do not have the technical expertise that many of these people had, but looking back is a lot easier than looking forward.coffeeguyzz says: 07/20/2017 at 1:52 pmIn my opinion, there are two big reasons the projected decline hasn't come about yet. First, most of the work done was based upon inferred data. Because, the GCC countries don't release much, most of the folks making these projections took whatever info was available and ran with it. I don't blame them for this, as I believe they did what they could with what was out there, but I think they went too far in some instances, and confirmation bias is evident.
A part of Mr Simmon's efforts to deal with the lack of hard data was his review of many SPE papers dealing with various issues. I believe one of these papers is a key to understanding how KSA and others have exceeded projected production. Paper (SPE 88986) deals with well "Shaybah-220 A Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC) Well and its implications for developing tight-facies reservoirs." https://www.onepetro.org/download/journal-paper/SPE-88986-PA?id=journal-paper%2FSPE-88986-PA
This paper by N.G. Saleri describes the efforts to develop the Shaybah Field. After some initial efforts to produce there were unsatisfactory, Aramco kept on trying and came up with the Shaybah 220, a well with eight laterals of around 40,000 feet of reservoir contact, and producing around 12,000 bbls per day for its first year. Saleri describes this as a "disruptive technology".
Simmons devoted a lot of attention to Shaybah, calling it "The difficult last Giant". He included a discussion of horizontal and MRC wells including the aforementioned paper, but I don't think he fully appreciated these MRC wells. They have allowed KSA to produce lots of oil in many fields that were in decline. Another example is shown by the 2008 paper by Mr Asaad Al-Towalib on "Advanced completion technologies in successful extraction of attic oil reserves in a mature giant carbonate field." In this paper they describe how this technology was adapted to produce the attic oil of Abqaiq, KSA's oldest giant. To summarize, Abqaiq had been produced since the 40's, and had produced about 57% of the original oil, but had around 25 feet of attic oil in poorer reservoir that they had not been able to produce. They tried to produce this attic oil via vertical and conventional horizontal wells with little success. They improved their technology and eventually completed many successful MRC wells with geosteering which allowed them to follow structure, and intelligent completions which delay the effects of coning.
So, much as most of us would have underestimated how successful our light-tight frac oil has now become, many underestimated how successful MRC, and associated technology has been for many gulf nations.
I think the next question is what happens next, so using Abqaiq as an example, after successfully producing that attic oil is there another encore or does it become just a depleted field? They have also used this technology to get more out of Ghawar and many other fields, do they have room to run, or are they done?
dclonghornBoomer II says: 07/20/2017 at 2:05 pmThat is simply an outstanding display of, and description of, a serious effort in understanding what is unfolding in the world of hydrocarbon production.
I would suggest that the entire concept of MRC is being currently applied in this 'shale revolution' primarily in the area of maximizing recovery rates, aka better fracturing/completion processes.
Not only will enhanced recovery affect the economics of present unconventional operations, it has the potential to greatly expand the application to numerous, older conventional sources as well as undeveloped – yet recognized – formations with hydrocarbons within them
But the problem isn't so much whether oil is still in the ground, but how much it costs to get it out.Glenn E Stehle says: 07/20/2017 at 2:24 pmNew technologies that don't reduce costs to make oil profitable to drill aren't all that helpful in keeping the oil flowing. Right now we have LTO because the system accepts financial loss. That could change if alternatives promise a better financial return.
coffeeguyzz,coffeeguyzz says: 07/20/2017 at 3:01 pmThe way I understand the term Maximum Reservoir Contact (MRC) is that it refers to multiple laterals being drilled from a single vertical wellbore.
I've seen this done in the Devonian in west Texas, but that is a conventional reservoir. Has it ever been tried in US shale?
The only thing I've heard of that sounds like MRC is this project (see attached graphic), but it is still in the pilot stage.
Oxy believes it can lower cost per lateral by between $0.5 and $1.0 million, and reduce operating cost by over 50% with this technology.
Glenndclonghorn says: 07/20/2017 at 3:47 pmI kind of 'flipped' the MRC concept in dc's post of 'more iron meeting' oil to 'more oil meeting iron' via the greatly enhanced fracturing/conductivity recently taking place in the shales.
Regarding multilaterals, the early (2007-2009) Bakken wells regularly contained 2 or 3 lateral from one vertical.
They used the term "turkey legs' and can still be easily seen on the ND DMR Gis map.Virtually no one except Slawson still does this and even then, only rarely.
(Correction, might still be done in Madison formation, especially Bottineau county. Would have to check. Gis map is easiest way to literally see this).
BHP said a year ago that they would attempt to try this in the future, but I've not kept close track of their efforts.
Thank you very much coffee, I appreciate your kind words. From what I have read MRC technology is a great fit for a number of fields in the gulf countries and may be practical in other places including USA. Of course one of the problems applying it here is that I think you need a unitized field, or at least a very large area to be implemented.coffeeguyzz says: 07/20/2017 at 6:54 pmDo you know if other areas have adopted this?
dcBoomer II says: 07/20/2017 at 10:03 amI'm pretty sure you know a whole lot more about this stuff than I do.
I started digging into it a few years back when the series of stunningly high IPs started to emerge from the Deep Utica.
Big buzz developed about feasibility of sharing hardware/facilities to develop Marcellus and Utica together.At that time, I was amazed to learn of the multi lateral, extended reach drilling using ultra sophisticated whipstocks in the mid east, offshore, and – if memory serves – Sakhalin. Probably do need large reservoir to be viable.
Time will tell if this approach makes sense in the shales. Like everything else, economics will be the ultimate determinator.
The article says this: "On the supply side, global oil production advanced by 0.5 percent to reach 92.2 million BPD." You know, factoring in both population growth and world economic growth, this isn't much. There might be a crunch coming.MASTERMIND says: 07/20/2017 at 12:53 pmThe 1973 so-called "oil embargo" which reduced oil supply to the USA by somewhere around 3% or 4%. It slammed the US economy, caused the largest stock market crash since the great depression, doubled gasoline prices, severely damaged US industry and caused a 55 MPH national speed limit which remained in effect for ten years.Watcher says: 07/21/2017 at 11:16 amJust wait until we experience a 10% or 20% drop in oil supplies. In a few years or sooner we certainly will. When it hits the economic and social damage will be catastrophic.
The end of Western Civilization, from China to Europe, to the US, will not occur when oil runs out. The economic and social chaos will occur when supplies are merely reduced sufficiently. As former Saudi Oil Minister Sheikh Yamani once said "The Oil Age may come to an end for a shortage of oil".
Bakken NGLs.
http://badlandsngls.com/uploads/1/BadlandsPresentationforBakkenConfMay16.pdfThey are talking about 25-30% and the verbage talks about it being in railcars . . . the suggestion is it's part of the total Bakken flow of 1 million bpd. 25-30% of that is ethane? What a scam this would be.
|
|
|
Jul 20, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Someone wanted the public to know that the new Saudi clown prince Mohammed Bin Salman (MbS) took up his new position by unceremoniously disposing his predecessor Mohammed bin Nayef (MbN) by force. The juicy details, true or not, were briefed to Reuters, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times on the same day:
As next in line to be king of Saudi Arabia, Mohammed bin Nayef was unaccustomed to being told what to do. Then, one night in June, he was summoned to a palace in Mecca, held against his will and pressured for hours to give up his claim to the throne .By dawn, he had given in, and Saudi Arabia woke to the news that it had a new crown prince: the king's 31-year-old son, Mohammed bin Salman.
Bin Nayef was a darling of the CIA and his disposal was not welcome. It may well be that the author of the tale of his ouster has his office in Langley, Virginia.
We had correctly called the MbN removal a coup and predicted that "the old al-Saud family king [..] will be offed soon." From the current Reuters piece:
Quoting a witness at the palace, one Saudi source said King Salman this month pre-recorded a statement in which he announces the transfer of the throne to his son. The announcement could be broadcast at any time, perhaps as soon as SeptemberWe also wrote that "[m]any Arab peninsula citizens will want to see [the new clown prince's] head on a pike."
The details of how MbS deposed the previous crown prince MbN will enrage further parts of the Saudi citizens. Additional leaks about extensive MbS contacts with Israel will increase the bad feelings against him. This especially as Israeli is further encroaching on the al-Haram a-Sharif and the Al-Aqsa mosque on the (likely falsely) claimed Jewish temple mount.
MbS' attempt to push Qatar around has, as predicted , failed. The four countries that had joined against Qatar could not agree to increase the pressure. The demands made to Qatar have now been retracted . This is a huge loss of face for MbS and his Emirati mentor Mohammad bin Zayed. The Saudi war against Yemen kills many civilians and costs lots of money but is militarily lost. The announced big economic reforms have made no progress. The Gulf Cooperation Council is defunct and may fall further apart.
Everything MbS has touched failed. His actions violate traditions and religious commandments. His coup has set an example that can now be used against himself. It would not be astonishing to see a revolt against Mohammed Bin Salman even before he is able to make himself king.
james | Jul 20, 2017 3:32:42 PM | 1
thanks b.. i really resent the war on yemen by this asshole in power.. i hope he is gone soon and for that matter - saudi arabia - israel - and all the rest of the rot contributing to de-stability in the mid east all go the way of the dodo bird..karlof1 | Jul 20, 2017 3:40:40 PM | 2Pepe and b probably used similar sources since their articles are quite alike! http://www.atimes.com/article/coup-house-saud/karlof1 | Jul 20, 2017 3:59:08 PM | 3Relatedly, MBS may not be the primary instigator of the Qatar crisis according to this item, https://southfront.org/finally-know-really-behind-qatar-crisis/
Recently, several articles, including the one above, at Southfront were republications of items originating at a new--to me--site, other barflies may want to explore, http://theantimedia.org/
The Angry Arab alerts us to "Ben Hubbard's propaganda work for MBS," http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2017/07/nyts-ben-hubbards-propaganda-work-for.htmlb | Jul 20, 2017 4:01:21 PM | 4As'ad also goes off today at blatant propaganda published by The Economist regarding Hezbollah and its alleged involvement with drug trade--something Nasrallah condemns very mightily, http://angryarab.blogspot.com/2017/07/how-did-economist-documents-its.html
MbS smells the anger, tries to coup-proof his regime:karlof1 | Jul 20, 2017 4:16:03 PM | 5
Saudi Arabia establishes new apparatus for state securityJEDDAH: Saudi Arabia created a new apparatus for state security in Royal Decrees issued Thursday.The (just newly installed) interior minister is said to be a friend of MbS but he is from the family of MbN and thereby a danger. Must be disarmed ...
The new body, State Security Presidency, will be cornered all matters related to state security and be overseen by the king....
all matters related to combating terrorism and financial investigations to be separated from the Ministry of Interior and added to the State Security Presidency.
Everything related to the Security Affairs Agency and other functions related to the Ministry of Interior tasks including employees (civil and military), budgets, documents and information are to be added to the State Security Presidency.
Sorry to monopolize the beginnings of this thread. At the end of his essay about events in Mosul, Craig Murray has this to say about Saudi:Clueless Joe | Jul 20, 2017 4:31:55 PM | 6"The other interesting silence is from Saudi Arabia, which poses as the defender of Sunni Islam throughout the world, but actually has no interest at all in it, except as a tool for promoting the much more worldly interests of the Saudi elite....
"For the Saudi elite, the money they pumped into ISIS in Iraq was a trifle; Mosul ISIL were pawns to be sacrificed and the Sunni civilian population of Mosul is no more important to them. By the combination of funding the spread of Wahhabi ideology and providing unlimited arms and organisational financing, the Saudis can pop up another Al Qaida, Al Nusra or ISIL more or less anywhere, any time it seems useful. Meantime they are focused on cementing their burgeoning axis of Saudi Arabia/Israel/USA to continue the violent promotion of Saudi regional ambition." https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/07/mosul-worse-srebrenica/
It now appears the Unipolarists are reduced to just 4 nations: Outlaw US Empire, UK, Zionist Occupied Palestine, and Saudi Arabia. If Corbyn can become UK's PM, then that number might get reduced to 3.
B: I think your last sentence is key. Some grown-ups, in the US and in the Gulf, leaked this because they want to prevent current crown prince of becoming King, and hope to see him replaced as future king before Salman bites the bullet.ProPeace | Jul 20, 2017 4:40:24 PM | 7
I mean, Mohammed BS has shown how bad he is at managing slightly complex crises, be it Yemen, current jihadi setbacks in Syria, or Qatar - the latter being the biggest indictment I suppose, considering the long-term consequences. So, some smarter people want to push him out before he can become king and weaken the Saudi kingdom to the breaking point.
Not sure what was meant by that, though: "on the (likely falsely) claimed Jewish temple mount"CV Locations should be watched closely: CVN-77 George H.W. Bush 05Jul-18Jul2017, Med/div> divAlso, I believe this 2015 article is worth reminding: The secret projects of Israël and Saudi Arabia
...According to our information, for the last 17 months (in other words, since the announcement of the negotiations between Washington and Teheran, which have in fact been proceeding for the last 27 months), Tel-Aviv has been engaged in secret negotiations with Saudi Arabia. Extremely high-level delegations have met five times – in India, Italy and the Czech Republic.The cooperation between Tel-Aviv and Riyadh is part of the US plan to create a " Common Arab Defence Force ", under the auspices of the Arab League, but under Israeli command. This " Force " is already effective in Yemen, where Israeli pilots fly Saudi bombers within the framework of an Arab Coalition whose headquarters have been installed by the Israelis in Somaliland, a non-recognised state situated on the other side of the the Bab el-Mandeb straits [1].
However, Riyadh does not intend to officialise this cooperation as long as Tel-Aviv refuses the Arab Peace Initiative, presented to the Arab League in 2002 by Prince Abdullah before he became king [2].
Israël and Saudi Arabia have reached agreement on several objectives.
On the political level :
- To " democratise " the Gulf States, in other words, to associate the people in the management of their countries, while affirming the intangibility of the the monarchy and the Wahhabite way of life ; To change the political system in Iran (and no longer wage war on Iran) ;
- To create an independent Kurdistan in such a way as to weaken Iran, Turkey (despite the fact that it is a long-standing ally of Israël), and Iraq (but not Syria, which is already seriously weakened).
On the economic level :
- To exploit the Rub'al-Khali oil-fields and organise a federation between Saudi Arabia, Yemen, and perhaps Oman and the United Arab Emirates ;
- To exploit the Ogaden oil-fields, under Ethiopian control, secure the Yemeni port of Aden, and build a bridge linking Djibouti and Yemen.
In other words, while Tel-Aviv and Riyadh are making the best of a bad deal, and accepting that two thirds of Iraq, Syria, and half of Lebanon will be controlled by Iran, they intend :
- To ensure that Iran gives up on the exportation of its revolution ;
- To control the rest of the region by excluding Turkey, which took over from Saudi Arabia in the supervision of international terrorism, and has just lost in Syria...
divstonebird | Jul 20, 2017 4:53:03 PM | 8Do not underestimate the power of the religious autorities. When I was there (admittedly many, many years ago), the monarchy was very careful to always have their agreement for any policy change. Even now with the strict laws governing behaviour (ie. Women, TV and prayers) their impact on ordinary Saudi society apparently hasn't changed much. It may have even got worse.Anonymous | Jul 20, 2017 6:12:01 PM | 9So the Clown prince's closer ties with Israel - are going to be under close scrutiny. Particularly if Netanyhu continues with the "isolation" and alienation of the Al-Aqsa mosque. Note that the numbers of people hurt in IDF actions against demonstrators has been totally under-reported, if at all. (reported 70 the first day and 35 another. Those wounded include an Imam.)
This is going to pose an ethical problem for ALL the Gulf states. They will have to be seen doing something to retain credibility.On a jovial note; The traditional way, if the reigning Leader did not hand down part of the money to the other tribesmen according to tradition - was to slit his throat. (The King gets it all, then hands down part of it to Princes, who then hand down part of what they recieved to tribesmen and so on right to the bottom. (widows in the Souk with no family). When there is a lot this works fine. I do not know if this will work when there is less to go round.)
Israel is upping the ante in Syria."Israel is going to build a new field hospital in the Israeli-occupied part of the Golan Heights in Syria. According to the Lieutenant Colonel Tomer Koler, the hospital will be located on the Syrian side of the fence build by Israel in the Golan Heights and may become operational next month."
https://southfront.org/israel-build-new-field-hospital-treat-syrian-militants/
Up to now the IDF has treated its terrorists in Israel proper. Now it seems that even Israel is invading Syria. The extra land grab has started.
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Can Washington Prevent The Death Of The Gulf States?U.S. Secretary of State Tillerson is angry that Saudi Arabia and the UAE rejected his efforts to calm down their spat with Qatar. His revenge, and a threat of more serious measures, comes in the form of a WaPo "leak" - UAE orchestrated hacking of Qatari government sites, sparking regional upheaval, according to U.S. intelligence officials :
The United Arab Emirates orchestrated the hacking of Qatari government news and social media sites in order to post incendiary false quotes attributed to Qatar's emir, Sheikh Tamim Bin Hamad al-Thani, in late May that sparked the ongoing upheaval between Qatar and its neighbors, according to U.S. intelligence officials.Officials became aware last week that newly analyzed information gathered by U.S. intelligence agencies confirmed that on May 23, senior members of the UAE government discussed the plan and its implementation . The officials said it remains unclear whether the UAE carried out the hacks itself or contracted to have them done.
That the UAE and/or the Saudis were involved in the hack was pretty clear from the get go. They were the only ones who had a clear motive. Qatar already had specific evidence for the source of the hacking. Congressional anti-Russian sources ignored that and accused , as usual , Russia and Putin.
Tillerson's real message is not the hacking accusation. The hacks themselves are not relevant to the spat and to Tillerson's efforts to defuse it. The "leak" sets the UAE and Saudi leadership on notice that the U.S. has sources and methods to learn of their government's innermost discussions. The real threat to them is that other dirt could be released from the same source.
It is doubtful that this threat will change the minds of these rulers. They believe in their own invincibility. Ian Welsh describes the mindset in his prediction of The Death of Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states:
This is fairly standard: all dynasties go bad eventually because the kings-to-be grow up in wealth and power and think it's the natural state of things: that they are brilliant and deserve it all, when it was handed them on a platter . Perhaps they are good at palace intrigue and think that extends beyond the palace.It doesn't.
Welsh comes to the same conclusion as I did when the recent GCC infighting broke out:
No matter how the spat with Qatar ends, the GCC unity has (again) been exposed as a sham. It can not be repaired. Saudi "leadership" is shown to be just brutal bullying and will be resisted. U.S. plans for a united GCC under Saudi leadership and U.S. control are in shambles.
...
The Saudi under their new leadership overestimate their capabilities. So did Trump when he raised their role. The Saudi "apes with Macbooks" do not have the capabilities needed for a serious political actor in this world. Their money can paper over that for only so long.The step Tillerson and some "intelligence officials" now took may be a sign panic. The "leak" revealed "sources and methods". Like every other government the UAE senior officials suspect that the U.S. is trying to listen to their internal deliberations. But they now know for sure. The specific date given in the "leak" will help them to take some countermeasures. Leaking "sources and methods" is not done lightly. That it has to resort to such measures shows that the U.S. administration is not in control of the situation.
During the fall of the Ottoman empire Britain created today's Saudi Arabia. Two world wars exhausted Britain's power. The U.S. took over the management of the empire including the Gulf states. It needs Saudi Arabia for its fossil energy and the related reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar. Unrest in Saudi Arabia is not in the U.S. interest but such is now in sight. The "leak" is just a tactical measure of an inexperienced administration. It is not enough to defuse or mitigate the conflict and its consequences.
What strategies will Washington develop to counter the foreseeable instability in Saudi Arabia and other Gulf states?
Peter AU | Jul 17, 2017 3:04:50 PM | 1
The petro dollar has been around some time now and has given US control of the world trade currency. As far rich kids being handed everything on a platter, the US government is no different to the Saudi's. This will be interesting.Don Wiscacho | Jul 17, 2017 3:29:16 PM | 2What can Washington do to save the khalijis?Peter AU | Jul 17, 2017 3:39:08 PM | 5Nothing beyond sell them weapons and eavesdropping technology. But this only buys some time, and time unfortunately for the GCC countries, isn't on their side.
With increasing swiftness, across the world technologies are being improved on and invented which will eventually wean everyone off fossil fuels. This won't happen overnight, and even when it does, petroleum will still have value as it is used in innumerable applications. But the price will fall, making the latest crash look like a road bump. When that happens, the show's over folks. The GCC countries will become ungovernable, then uninhabitable. There simply are too many people, too few resources.
The only hope the GCC states have is to diversify their economies. Not MBS's 'Prosperity through Austerity' but a multi-pronged tract to develop all critical sectors. The UAE and Qatar are trying, but betting the house on finance and real estate to the detriment of everything else. Petro dollars are still propping up those houses of cards. Oman is the only one seemingly doing things right: good relations with neighbors, trade, and developing domestic industry. If the rest of the GCC doesn't follow Oman's lead, they are simply finished.
ab initio | Jul 17, 2017 3:30:38 PM | 3 "In any case reserve currency status is not all beneficial to the US."karlof1 | Jul 17, 2017 3:57:40 PM | 6This is what gives the US the power to sanction countries and make it stick world wide. It is a huge part of US power.
Peter AU @5--ruralito | Jul 17, 2017 4:12:50 PM | 7Thanks for calling the trolling. Its comment was almost 100% disinformation.
In answer to b's query, the Outlaw US Empire cannot save itself let alone any of its vassals. They will be used until they are no longer of use. And that time is rapidly approaching. Although, the Qataris seem best positioned to avoid extinction.
Now that I know of them, I get to purchase Mark Curtis's line of books documenting British Imperialism and its association with terrorism. Thanks b!
shrinkage?Mike Maloney | Jul 17, 2017 4:18:06 PM | 8https://southfront.org/trump-hints-abandoning-key-qatar-military-base-talks-saudi-king/
The United States and the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia are ontologically inseparable. You can't have one without the other. The penetration of the U.S. deep state by al-Saud -- whether it's D.C. think tanks or Fortune 500 executive boards -- is complete.stumpy | Jul 17, 2017 4:58:59 PM | 9Tillerson knows this, that's why his "woe is me" shuttle diplomacy is nothing more than Kabuki.
This doesn't mean that al-Thani is without wires into the U.S. deep state; it has plenty. That's what makes this GCC throw-down so delightful. The U.S. is at a point where it can no longer sublate all the contradictions produced by its hegemony.
anon @ 4karlof1 | Jul 17, 2017 6:21:58 PM | 10Re: hack:
Perhaps we shouldnt accept claims about UAE just like that. Lets be honest.I agree. Consider the source at WAPO. Some credibility gap there. I would guess that Tillerson is not the sole source for whatever might have been leaked (if not invented).
Also, as far as sources and methods, it's one thing to burn an inside informer type of asset, but leaking SIGINT in the form of general pronouncements without physical evidence doesn't burn the source, only indicates a potential weakness in the cyber defenses of the target. For all we know there was no hack, per se, given that a lot of US and allied contractors were probably in on the installation and operation of UAE computer systems.
My impression, not to contradict b's analysis but to propose a direction of thought, is that the WAPO is promulgating a brag, that the US can look up anyone's skirt anytime and tell whatever they want. Thus, reminding the players that they'd better stay in line, as b states.
Considering Saudi Arabia's creation, its falling to pieces would be considered Nature's reaction to an artificial construct. Soon, instead of Saudis buying Outlaw US Empire weaponry, it will be asking for handouts as it did during its formative years when the UK held its reins. Given its role in the violent histories of the British and Outlaw US Empires, the remaining nations of the planet will be quite pleased to see its demise--even more so given that the three constitute the nest for Global Terrorism. Dan Glazebrook's series detailing the history of "British collusion with sectarian violence" at RT, one of which b linked to, are well worth the time; this links to the first installment, https://www.rt.com/op-edge/338247-uk-extremists-syria-isis-violence/fast freddy | Jul 17, 2017 6:27:34 PM | 11It seems that it is not the US, but Israel which owns the most advanced spying hacking technology. The US sublet fiber optic data interception to Israeli companies NARUS and Verint. These companies have since been folded (hidden) into other multinational holding companies, but still (Boeing, Carlisle Group).fast freddy | Jul 17, 2017 6:27:35 PM | 12When is this a good idea for "National Security" (which is the constant refrain when withholding information from the public)?
It seems that it is not the US, but Israel which owns the most advanced spying hacking technology. The US sublet fiber optic data interception to Israeli companies NARUS and Verint. These companies have since been folded (hidden) into other multinational holding companies, but still (Boeing, Carlisle Group).Jay | Jul 17, 2017 8:39:20 PM | 13When is this a good idea for "National Security" (which is the constant refrain when withholding information from the public)?
"It [the USA] needs Saudi Arabia for its fossil energy and the related reserve currency status of the U.S. dollar."nobody | Jul 17, 2017 8:52:28 PM | 14Well Saudi oil is mostly going to Europe, but the Saudi policy does obviously effect the price of oil futures around the world.
A lot more than oil backs the US dollar, the "oil based reserve status" only goes so far.
The step Tillerson and some "intelligence officials" now took may be a sign >[of]< panic.ProPeace | Jul 17, 2017 8:58:09 PM | 15Posted by b on July 17, 2017 at 02:33 PM | Permalink
The last monarch to get "mixed messages" from USA was the late Shah of Iran. Qatar and "Saudi" Arabia, take note.
Voltaire network is pushing an interesting deep analysis that we are witnessing ex-Empire strikes back, with the Occulted British ex-Empire putin' [haha] the finishing touches on their expulsion of the ex-Colonial Empire from "their" sphere of influence (aptly named by the slimy blood sucking limeys as "their" "Middle East").
The dismantling of the "Hyperpower" is nearly complete. Bankster power remains untouched.
As you were.
This is interesting Pentagon study declares American empire is 'collapsing'james | Jul 17, 2017 9:28:16 PM | 16
thanks b.. i have been yammering on about 2020 as a critical turning point in world events and that saudi arabia is very central to all this.. in my astro comments on nov 2, 2013 i stated "below is a chart for the next conjunction of saturn/pluto set to riyadh. this exact conjunction happens only once in early 2020, but i suspect given how close it is to the astro positions in the 1902 chart for saudi arabia, that if this chart has legs, this conjunction is going to bring about a transformation of present day saudi arabia and it will probably not be a pretty or easy transition given the issue of terrorism associated with these religious groups i have also mentioned.. saturn and pluto have a connection to terrorism as i understand it and were in the long opposition at the time of 9-11 as well... on the other hand, perhaps it indicates a further clamp down on freedoms and a type of totalitarianism. i suspect it will fluctuate between the two.. and, it is probably already in the process of developing here in 2013.. " from this thread..dh | Jul 17, 2017 9:33:07 PM | 17@8 mike maloney... i fully concur to your words here: "The U.S. is at a point where it can no longer sublate all the contradictions produced by its hegemony."
saudi arabia and the world by extension are going to look very differently come 2020... lol - how is that for a lousy astro prediction? that is like saying, tomorrow things will look differently.. of course i have mentioned this about saudi arabia in the past at moa...
i enjoyed the article "The Death of Saudi Arabia".. it was fun reading the comments to that post too.. i recognized a few regulars in the comment section from sst and moa..
@15 Looks like a big scare piece followed by plea for more weapons. Thank you Pentagon.virgile | Jul 17, 2017 9:53:51 PM | 18The US continues the strategy they have started less than decade ago: Weaken Saudi Arabia to the point it will accept a peace deal with Israel.Sloopyjoe | Jul 17, 2017 10:55:16 PM | 19
The US threw the Saudis into the Syrian quagmire, the Egyptian quagmire, then in the Yemen quagmire, now in the Qatar quagmire.
When the Saudi kingdom will come out of these, it will be exhausted and in a state of terror in front of the Iranian steadily growing political and economical strength. The threat of the collapse to their family ruled system is looming.
The USA seems to have accepted that the Iran Islamic republic's semi-democratic system is here to stay and evolve while the GCC autocratic monarchies are threatened of extinction.
Buying billions of weapons from the USA seems to give these dying entities the illusion that the USA is on their side. In fact the USA has been backstabbing them continuously thus weakening them by the day and preparation for their collapse.
The emirates will have make reforms of a democratic nature if they want to survive.
Saudi Arabia is doomed.First post here.I have seen a lot of confusion/deception as to the nature/history of the Arabia. In order to understand history properly, one must be willingly open-minded and examine as much evidence as possible. Especially, evidence that is contrary to your understanding. This takes intellectual honesty, critical thinking, and courage. History is written by the winners/manipulators. You rarely hear from the other side. Meaning, you never get the complete picture. Therefore, you cannot get historical accuracy unless you do a bit a honest digging. Ex., Anybody with a working brain stem understands that the official story of 9-11 is a big pile of Donkey Doughnuts.
I am not a biblical scholar nor am I very religiously inclined. I prefer historical accuracy over warm and fuzzy beliefs.
I realize there are many readers who are religious and may be ingrained in their beliefs. What I am presenting below will challenge your root understandings. Please try to have an open mind and use logic, reason, evidence(both pro and con), and patterns of behavior to better your knowledge base. Below are links pertaining to the Arabia/Israel:
https://ashraf62.wordpress.com/2016/04/08/the-jewish-roots-of-takfiri-culture/
http://themillenniumreport.com/2015/12/the-house-of-saud-its-jewish-origin-and-installation-by-the-british-crown/
http://www.voltairenet.org/article192024.html
http://en.abna24.com/service/iran/archive/2016/06/18/760877/story.html
https://biblicisminstitute.wordpress.com/2016/01/05/jews-and-history-lies-galore/
http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/pdf/The%20Zionist%20Plan%20for%20the%20Middle%20East.pdf
https://ashraf62.wordpress.com/2015/04/17/the-real-exodus-end-of-israel-3/
http://wikivisually.com/wiki/Ze%27ev_HerzogSecond external link from above article. You need to use Google translate for this article. The Israeli Govt loves to scrub inconvenient facts about their history.
http://www.hayadan.org.il/bible-no-evidence-291099/To find a cure, one must address the root causes of the illness - Sloopyjoe
|
|
|
Jul 18, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Revisiting Saudi Arabia Capitalist Exploits Jul 17, 2017 7:46 PM 0 SHARES www.CapitalistExploits.atIn May of last year I was attempting to figure out if there was an asymmetric play to be had in the land of sand and black gloop. There were a lot of moving pieces to deal with. I think it's worth revisiting but first it's worth reviewing what I thought just over a year ago. Much has subsequently happened so we can piece a little bit more together now.
Only Two Options For The Saudi Sheikhs A few years ago, when living in Phuket, Thailand, a group of Saudis stayed for a week's holiday in a neighboring villa. Outside of the religious and social confines of the land of black gold and endless sand, this group made a bunch of spoiled 5-year olds left to run amok in a candy shop without adult supervision look positively angelic. They were very visible, with an entourage of young Thai "ladies" and a fleet of Land Cruisers to haul them about. On one occasion, after my son witnessed one of the guys buying a beer and throwing a US$100 bill at the waiter, telling him to keep the change, he asked me how come they had so much money to waste. I explained that Saudi Arabia has two things in abundance: sand and oil. And though the world doesn't need sand as much as it does oil, they have grown very wealthy selling the oil to the rest of the world. Depending on whose numbers you take, somewhere between 75% and 85% of Saudi Arabia's revenues come from oil exports, and fully 90% of revenues come from oil and gas. Clearly the Kingdom is dependent on oil revenues in the same way that an infant is dependent on its mother's milk. And unless you've been living under a rock for the last few years, you'll have noticed that the price of oil has collapsed. Now, in a "normal" market the reduced revenues would manifest in a weaker local currency as demand for Riyals declines. But governments and central bankers don't believe in "normal" markets and so the Saudi riyal has been pegged at 3.75 to the US dollar since 1986. It's not hard to see a situation where Saudi Arabia may very well be forced to de-peg the currency to curb the fall in the country's FX reserves should low oil prices persist. Let's look at some of the potential catalysts for this. Could Yellen Kill The Peg? While the Sheiks contemplate how to deal with their predicament from diamond encrusted cars and golden toilets, across the pond we find that monetary policy in the US has been tightening albeit modestly. What's important to understand is that in order for Saudi Arabia to maintain its currency peg it needs to follow FED monetary policy. By following Yellen the Saudis land up sacrificing growth, and by diverging they sacrifice FX reserves in order to maintain the peg. Clearly neither are attractive propositions. According to the Saudi Arabian Monetary Agency (SAMA), for every 100 basis point increase in the Saudi Interbank Offered Rate (SIBOR) this leads to a 90 basis point decline in GDP in the subsequent quarter, and a further 95 basis points in the following quarter. Falling GDP in a country where over 60% of the population are under 30 brings about its own set of problems. Political instability in the Kingdom has been rising and the royal family is increasingly fighting for survival. After all, they had the experience of watching the Arab Spring unfold on their flat screens. If, on the other hand, they opt not to follow the stumpy lady, the gap between interest rates in the US and Saudi Arabia will be quickly exploited by people like me as arbitrage opportunities open up. So this is what we're all looking at right now: SAMA will have to buy riyals in the open market by selling from its hoard of dollar reserves. Any rise in interest rates in the US will mean SAMA will have to further deplete reserves. As I have mentioned before, all pegs eventually break. The question is one of timing. How long do the Sheiks have under current oil prices? The falling oil price since mid-2014, has significantly reduced Saudi Arabian revenues. So much so that the scorecard for 2015 showed a deficit of $98bn, and SAMA is estimating a further $87bn deficit this year. The Saudi government have been funding this deficit by drawing down on forex reserves, spending $132bn in the year to January of this year. With current prices and current reserves they can easily last another 4 years. Some things I'm thinking about:
- Iran will bring additional supply to a market in surplus. Saudi Arabia will be forced to keep the pedal to the metal on production, not wanting to lose any market share. And so I'm not convinced we'll see oil rising in the next 12 to 24 months.
- Internal domestic political pressures can be "addressed" with creating an external pressure or conflict. It wouldn't be the first time.
- We're in a US dollar bull market as I've stated here, here, and here and many other times. Dollar strength will put pressure on the price of oil and thus revenues to the Kingdom.
- This could certainly get interesting and traders have begun speculating on a de-pegging from the dollar. Should low oil prices persist for the next 3 to 4 years, Saudi Arabia will be forced to decide whether it prefers to either cut the production or loosen the currency peg. I could be wrong but I feel like it's too early to play this trade and the costs of entry are not astoundingly cheap. Saudi Arabia has almost no debt and can easily access the credit markets. With debt to GDP of just 2% they have a lot of room to move. Coupled with the upcoming partial listing of Aramco their ability to tap international markets for capital is certainly a factor I'm not sure all currency speculators are considering. What is worth watching are neighbour states. While Kuwait, Qatar, and the UAE all have dollar pegs, they too have vast central bank reserves and sovereign wealth funds. But what looks pretty precarious to me are Oman and Bahrain who could run out of reserves in less than three years. Both these countries have resorted to issuing debt to extend the longevity of their reserves but issuing dollar denominated debt which is essentially asset underwritten by the price of oil in an environment of persistently low oil prices certainly looks like a precarious bet to be making. Investors looking for asymmetry in markets will do well paying attention to the currency markets, and existing dollar pegged currencies in particular. As I mentioned before all pegs break, and the returns that can be made in such situations are of the life changing variety. – Chris "If Saudi Arabia was without the cloak of American protection, I don't think it would be around." – Donald Trump
Ok, so that was over 12 months ago. Fast forward to today and we have some of the answers... and we're a little further down the road.
OilStill looks like isht. The supply and demand setup hasn't gotten any better, and this is not what the house of Saud wants. Nothing shocking to what we expected anyway.
RatesThe tubby lady at the FED has gone ahead with a divergent policy (raising rates). As you can see, I discussed in that article what effect the raising of rates could (or would have) on the finances in Saudi Arabia. Again, nothing we never expected.
ConflictI penned an article on Qatar here. I do think the spat with Qatar has less to do with them than it has to do with Iran and with the Saudi's domestic problems - both financial and political. In the article above, I mentioned some stupid conflict but wouldn't have put it up there as a probability over 50%. And yet now it's happening in real time. Does it subside, does it blow up, or something else?
The question I think we need to ask ourselves today is this: now that the conditions have been met that do nothing to assist the Saudis with their finances (and at the same time they've chosen a path of "external" enemy) where does that leave us with original idea of looking for an asymmetric payoff on the riyal having to de-peg their currency?
I'm watching the dollar index very, very closely. If we break higher, then the Saudis will have a very, very serious problem on their hands as their balance sheet blows out. This could get interesting... and profitable.
- Chris
"Rockefeller once explained the secret of success. Get up early, work late - and strike oil." -- Joey Adams
|
|
|
Jul 03, 2017 | www.voltairenet.org
King Salmane ben Abdelaziz Al Saoud (81 years old) has removed from office 57 year old Emir Mohammed ben Nayef Al Saoud. The latter was the Crown Prince, Vice-Prime Minister and the Minister of Home Affairs, all at the same time.
De facto, the King's son, Prince Mohammed ben Salmane Al Saoud (31 years), will become the new Crown Prince.
Mohammed ben Nayef Al Saoud was considered as the US's man. He has been trained first in Oregon, then later by the FBI and Scotland Yard. He obtained results in struggles against Al-Qaeda dissidents. With his removal, the hopes of the Nayef branch coming to the throne have come to an end.
Mohammed ben Salmane does not have an academic training. At the very most, he is the holder of a baccalaureate awarded by a local school, and we do not know if you actually need to study to obtain this qualification. He made his political debut as the assistant to his father, first the Governor of Riyadh and then the Minister of Defense. When Salmane becomes king in 2015, Mohammed succeeded his father as the Minister of Defense and engaged his country's troops in the disastrous conflict in Yemen. Having royal power at his disposition, he launched a vast project for economic reform (Vision 2030), which ushered in the privatization of Aramco (the country's only source of revenue) and his country's development beyond the oil sector. He is particularly well known for his jet-set life-style and for buying a yacht, Serene, for half a billion euro.
It seems that King Salmane should shortly abdicate, leaving his son in charge. Thus the difficult question of succession is provisionally settled, in a country where up until now was governed by a rule requiring the oldest son of the dynasty's founder to accede to power. Thus the current king, King Salmane, is the 25th of Abdelaziz ben Abderrahmane Al Saoud's 53 sons.
At King Abdallah's death (January 2015), his half brother, Prince Moukrine ben Abdelaziz Al Saoud, had been appointed Crown Prince. But three months later (April 2015), he had been rudely cut out of the order of succession, something quite unprecedented. He was replaced by Prince Mohammed ben Nayef, who in turn has just been removed from the picture.
As a consolation prize, the Nayefs secured that a son-in-law of Prince Mohammed ben Nayef replaces him at the Ministry of Home Affairs. It would be a son-in-law and not a son, because Prince Mohammed ben Nayef did not have male progeny.
The next king, Mohammed, could rule for about fifty years. But were he to die, then his eldest son, also a minor, would succeed him.
Washington had approved the chosen solution to the issue of succession. This solution had been adopted by 31 of 34 members of the allegiance council (the Family Council). It skips two generations. Henceforth, Mohammad ben Salmane is placing young people at the head of different administrations of the country, a country where the average age of the population is 27 years.
|
|
|
marknesop.wordpress.com
The United States' decades-long "special relationship" with Saudi Arabia has always carried major downsides. Yes, the Saudis are a pillar in maintaining the American petrodollar system to prevent the collapse of the US economy; and, yes, the Saudi rulers are lavish spenders on US weapons, which props up the Pentagon military-industrial complex another lifeline for American capitalism.However, the Saudi rulers are also longtime sponsors of Wahhabi fundamentalism which has injected deadly sectarian poison into the Middle East region and beyond. Washington is complicit in fomenting sectarianism through its relationship with Saudi Arabia, and the price for that Faustian pact is a world in turmoil from terrorism.
Donald Trump's presidency is an unfortunate marriage of interests with Saudi Arabia. Trump is capricious, ignorant and impetuous. His understanding of international relations and history seems woefully inadequate. He also appears to be unscrupulous and reckless. It's all about making money that matters to him.
From the earliest opportunity, the Saudi prince wheedled his way into Trump's court. He was greeted in the White House back in March, one of the first foreign leaders to do so. Then two months later, Trump ventured on his maiden foreign trip as president in which he made Saudi Arabia his first stop. Trump was royally received by the House of Saud with sword-waving ceremony . And then the Saudis signed record arms deal with the US worth up to $350 billion the biggest ever in history.
It was during Trump's Saudi visit that the policy of increased hostility towards Iran and isolation of erstwhile Saudi and American ally Qatar was hatched. This reckless, clueless embrace of Saudi Arabia by Trump has led to a dangerous escalation in tensions across the Middle East, which are seen playing out in Syria and towards Iran and Russia.
Trump the tycoon and the Saudi upstart-prince are a duo who are plunging the world into danger of all-out war. The pair are a match made in hell, both being rash and irresponsible in their behavior.
Nobody outside Saudi Arabia had heard of Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman until his father become king in January 2015 on the death of King Abdullah. In the space of two years, the young prince has been made defense minister and de facto chief of Saudi's oil economy. Now, this week he has been shunted into becoming heir to the throne, sidelining his elder cousin and nephew to the king.
The precocious prince has only enjoyed this meteoric rise in the House of Saud because of his father's favoritism. Other more senior royals feel ousted and see the new Crown Prince as undeserving of his assigned authority. In short, he is out of his depth.
In the Saudi succession rules, the royal line is supposed to pass from brother to brother. There are still surviving brothers of the Saudi founding king, Ibn Saud, who have been removed from the succession. The present King Salman first broke the rules when he made his nephew Mohammed bin Nayef the Crown Prince back in April 2015. Now he has broken the rules again by making his own son the heir and unceremoniously pushing bin Nayef to the side. Such are the hijinks of despots.
Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman is the architect behind the disastrous war in Yemen, which is turning into a Vietnam-style quagmire for Saudi Arabia, costing the kingdom billions of dollars every month. He is also reportedly the architect behind the policy of renewed hostility towards Iran. In an interview before Trump's Saudi trip, Mohammed bin Salman said he would never talk to Iran and even threatened to unleash violence on Iranian territory. That threat was followed by the deadly terror attack in Tehran on June 7 in which up to 17 people were killed by Daesh suicide squads.
The hiked-up hostile policy towards Iran has, in turn, led to Saudi Arabia blockading Qatar and causing a bitter rift in the Persian Gulf because Qatar is perceived as being too soft on Iran.
The power-struggle antics among the absolute rulers of the House of Saud have promoted a prince who has a reckless outsized ego and lust for dominance. President Donald Trump seems cut from the same cloth. Courting the young Saudi heir may be lucrative for American weapons-dealing and no doubt the Trump business brand in the oil-rich region. But the consequences of such capricious and clueless "leadership" are throwing the region and the world into increasing conflict.
This week the US State Department flatly contradicted Trump's policy of supporting the Saudi-led blockade on Qatar . It said it was mystified that the Saudis had not presented any evidence to justify the blockade. This is just one example where Trump is being made to look a total fool by following stupid Saudi policy policy that is made by a prince who has gathered a record for disaster in several other spheres.
What a double act. Saudi despotism marries Trump cluelessness. And the world is reaping the calamity of clowns.
This article was first published by SputnikGustavo Caldas · 5 days ago
An attack from Saudi Arabia to Iran will mean the demise of the Kingdom of Saudi Arabia . And the intervention of the USA in support of Saudi Arabia would mean a war of the USA against the SCO (Shangai Cooperation Organization). Those are BAD odds.
guest01 · 5 days ago
Quote from article: "America's deepening and reckless military involvement in Syria is a result of Trump cozying up with the Saudi despots."America's deepening and reckless military involvement in Syria is a result of Trump obeying Israel's orders. America's military was recklessly involved in Syria long before Trump became president. The chaos in Syria was instigated by USA. US military trained, armed and supported terrorists, bombed Syrian military and civilians and established military base in Syria during Obama presidency.
Trump is "cozying up with the Saudi despots" because he got his orders from Netanyahu and Israelis. Before he began "cozying up with the Saudi despots", Trump ordered shooting missiles into Syrian military airport because his Zionist Jewish daughter and son-in-law told him to do so. If Netanyahu and/or his Zionist Jew son-in-law Jared Kushner were to order Trump to bomb Saudi Arabia, Trump would bomb Saudi Arabia.
All along, Trump was blaming Saudis for 9/11 inside job attacks and was threatening Saudis that they should be coming up with more money to USA just as he expected NATO members to pay for US wars costs. He was badmouthing Saudis until he got his orders from Netanyahu and Israel.
Saudis are puppets of USA; Saudis do exactly what USA wants them to do and USA does exactly what Israel wants it to do. Note that the Saudi demands against Qatar are to distance itself from all who resist Israel, namely, Lebanese Hezbollah, Hamas, Iran and Syria. Also, Israel was very pleased that Trump signed billions of dollars worth of weapons agreement with Saudi Arabia because these weapons will be used against Israel's perceived enemies and some will be given to terrorists Israel supports in that region.
Israel rules and Trump wants to make Israel great.
|
|
|
Jun 25, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
atVec | Jun 23, 2017 10:14:39 PM 52
|Jen@31 writes about the legendary Qatari pipeline. That story made its appearance early in the conflict, and if anybody knows its origin, I would be keen to be let know.
That story goes that Assad would not let Qatar have its pipeline because, presumably, Russians wanted to retain their stranglehold on European gas supplies.The subtext is that those Russians must be very hard task masters and Assad, the lowliest of low lives, a terrified thug. And when the troubles started, Assad did not go back to the Qataris to discuss the matter over.
Sorry, I cannot square that.
A pipeline through Syria would have been a great boost to national economy for a number of years & could raise a port of the country to one of global importance, just at a time that Turkey started turning the spigot of Euphrates off (this is a sense I have, do not know if it is right) & a protracted drought and economic hardship all hit the country at the same time.
Consider that Qatar would have been a captive ally for Syria, a commodity rather in short supply for that country. The best part of it is, perhaps, that Syria presumably had a natural aversion to the transit fees.
There is another interesting story in this regard, which is to do with (at least) three rounds of exploration for gas in Saudi Arabia, all failed, and the special need for gas to service its petrochemical industry. If memory serves, the reason is they want to upgrade the heavy crude portion of their production, which has steadily been growing, and which the Saudis might have to sell as bunker oil at great discount, if they fail to find gas.
The story was run in the English papers of the Gulf circa 2012, whereby the Qataris were told in no uncertain terms that their gas 'had to remain in the peninsula' (Arabian subcontinent) for consumption, to serve the oil sector.
Once I chanced on an article on the educational proclivities of the thousands of the Saudi princes. Any guess? Yes, a good portion of them goes in for religious studies! Somehow I do not think they aspire to be lowly priests; but if not, where might they wish to have their sees? What if the other principalities of the Gulf have nobilities with similar outlooks & hopes?
If this is right (honestly, I do not know), it might explain quite a bit about the rivalries of the extremist Moslem clergy, and their activities both within the Moslem world and abroad, why not, even developments in Europe & the States.
Regards, Vec.
Lozion | Jun 23, 2017 10:24:34 PM | 53
@36 & @31 I think you are both right. The Pipelinistan angle is a major part of this feud.A probable change of heart from Qatar who has seen the light that no regime change will happen in Syria therefore making a Fars --> Iraq --> Syria -> Lebanon LNG pipeline a realistic endeavor is causing panic in KSA/US/IS who are trying to pressure Qatar to back-off from any deals with Iran..
If Turkey is firm on protecting Qatar then the ultimatum will come to pass and be null and void..
Don Bass | Jun 24, 2017 1:34:34 AM | 57
@ Vic
Y'know, when I read a comment such as yours: "~ I don't reckon its got anything to do with a pipeline ~" I immediately think of that old trope: Better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to open ones mouth and remove all doubts"
Vic: instead of visiting here to blatantly display your ignorance, how about more usefully spending that typing time to research the topic, hmmm?
The Imperial drive to crush Syria has been in play since the early 1980s, when Assad senior was in power.
Here's a link: http://www.globalresearch.ca/1983-cia-document-reveals-plan-to-destroy-syria-foreshadows-current-crisis/5577785
And another http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2007/03/05/the-redirection
And here's your bonus link, cause I'm feeling the karma burst of sharing http://humansarefree.com/2014/09/exposing-covert-origins-of-isis.html
Now, go and do your homework: you may be able to raise your F to a C, for a pass grade, once you've done some actual reading on the topic.
|
|
|
Jun 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Pft | Jun 23, 2017 8:43:28 PM | 45William Engdahls views. "In my view this is a deep power struggle between Qatar and Saudi Arabia that has little to do with stated reasons regarding Muslim Brotherhood and Iran. The action to isolate Qatar was clearly instigated during US President Trump's recent visit in Riyadh where he pushed the unfortunate idea of a Saudi-led "Arab NATO" to oppose Iranian influence in the region.lysander | Jun 23, 2017 7:43:17 PM | 42The Saudi move, clearly instigated by Prince Bin Salman, Minister of Defense, was not about going against terrorism. If it were about terrorism, bin Salman would have to arrest himself and most of his Saudi cabinet as one of the largest financiers of terrorism in the world, and shut all Saudi-financed madrasses around the world, from Pakistan to Bosnia-Herzgovina to Kosovo. Another factor according to informed sources in Holland is that Washington wanted to punish Qatar for seeking natural gas sales with China priced not in US dollars but in Renminbi. That apparently alarmed Washington, as Qatar is the world's largest LNG exporter and most to Asia.
Moreover, Qatar was acting increasingly independent of the heavy Wahhabite hand of Saudi Arabia and threatening Saudi domination over the Gulf States. Kuwait, Oman, as well as non-Gulf Turkey were coming closer to Qatar and even Pakistan now may think twice about joining a Saudi-led "Arab NATO". Bin Salman has proven a disaster as a defense strategist, as proven in the Yemen debacle.
As to the future, it appears that Qatar is not about to rollover and surrender in face of Saudi actions. Already Sheikh Tamim bin Hamad al-Thani is moving to establish closer ties with Iran, with Turkey that might include Turkish military support, and most recently with Russia.
Kuwait and Oman are urgently trying to get Saudi to backdown on this, but that is unlikely as behind Saudi Arabia stands the US and promises of tens of billions of dollars in US arms.
This foolish US move to use their proxy, in this case Riyadh, to discipline those not "behaving" according to Washington wishes, could well be the turning point, the point of collapse of US remaining influence in the entire Middle East in the next several years."
KSA could not have taken this course of action all by itself. Someone somewhere must be egging them on. But who? The US seems to have no interest in a Saudi-Qatari conflict. Israel might, but only if said conflict is resolved in Saudi favor.I am therefore coming to the conclusion that there is no longer clear leadership of US policy and there are different factions within the US government. The white house and CIA are supporting the Saudis while the Pentagon supports Qatar. This is just a hunch, but it seems like it could make sense. Perhaps this is what happens when a government is in a state of decompensation.
R Winner | Jun 23, 2017 1:41:04 PM | 4
It is mind boggling that a fundamental reshaping of the Middle East was most likely put in motion by Trump completely oblivious of what he was doing shooting from the hip on his Saudi trip.Outside of an outright invasion of Qatar by Saudi Arabia, it is hard to see this as a once in a life time geopolitical gift to Russia, Iran, Turkey, Syria, and Iran.
Juggs | Jun 23, 2017 2:24:33 PM | 9Now when July 3 comes and goes, Saudi Arabia will look completely impotent in the eyes of the countries in the region.harrylaw | Jun 23, 2017 2:36:39 PM | 10I wonder if there is some sort of interest between Russia, Turkey, Qatar, and Iran on a coup in Saudi Arabia. I can't imagine it would be that difficult. I know it is not Putin's policy to play these types of games like the US Regime, but one has to assume that people are just fucking done with the clowns running Saudi Arabia.
Gaddafi's speech to the Arab League in Syria 2008 was so prescient..okie farmer | Jun 23, 2017 2:37:39 PM | 11"We [the Arabs] are the enemies of one another I'm sad to say, we deceive one another, we gloat at the misfortune of one another, and we conspire against one another, and an Arab's enemy is another Arab's friend.
Along comes a foreign power, occupies an Arab country [Iraq] and hangs its President,and we all sit on the sidelines laughing. Any one of you might be next, yes.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2017/jun/23/close-al-jazeera-saudi-arabia-issues-qatar-with-13-demands-to-end-blockadeJuggs | Jun 23, 2017 2:41:55 PM | 13
Qatar given 10 days to meet 13 sweeping demands by Saudi Arabia
Gulf dispute deepens as allies issue ultimatum for ending blockade that includes closing al-Jazeera and cutting back ties with IranPeter AU "Is Qatar, like Turkey, already heading for a multi-polar world? For 25 years, the US was the only game in town, but with Russia's move into Syria there are now options."karlof1 | Jun 23, 2017 3:06:36 PM | 16Hard to see the world heading in that direction:
- Russia and China will no longer allow the US Regime to use the same tactics to start wars against Iraq and Libya anymore.
- China is methodically closing off the South China Sea to the US Regime
- The Shanghai Cooperation Organization is starting to increase their shared defense
- Europe is openly talking about creating its own independent defense force
I wonder if Qatar is already in talks with China about joining the Silk Road Initiative now that it is openly moving into the Russia and Iran sphere.
Juggs 13--dh | Jun 23, 2017 3:20:35 PM | 19"I wonder if Qatar is already in talks with China about joining the Silk Road Initiative..."
You'll find the answer's yes as Pepe explains, https://sputniknews.com/columnists/201706161054701807-west-cannot-smell-what-eurasia-cooking/ and http://www.atimes.com/article/blood-tracks-new-silk-roads/
@17 The best is yet to come. There's a chance Netanyahu will fly into Riyadh to tell everybody what to do. I'm sure he wants what's best for the region.L'Akratique | Jun 23, 2017 3:29:54 PM | 20I quite like the WWI parallel. Trump as Kaiser Wilhelm? There certainly are some striking similarities in character.cankles | Jun 23, 2017 4:05:49 PM | 25Quote from Thomas Nipperdey:
"...gifted, with a quick understanding, sometimes brilliant, with a taste for the modern,-technology, industry, science -- but at the same time superficial, hasty, restless, unable to relax, without any deeper level of seriousness, without any desire for hard work or drive to see things through to the end, without any sense of sobriety, for balance and boundaries, or even for reality and real problems, uncontrollable and scarcely capable of learning from experience, desperate for applause and success, -- as Bismarck said early on in his life, he wanted every day to be his birthday-romantic, sentimental and theatrical, unsure and arrogant, with an immeasurably exaggerated self-confidence and desire to show off, a juvenile cadet, who never took the tone of the officers' mess out of his voice, and brashly wanted to play the part of the supreme warlord, full of panicky fear of a monotonous life without any diversions, and yet aimless, pathological in his hatred against his English mother."
@Laguerre #23Laguerre | Jun 23, 2017 4:42:05 PM | 27I have difficulty in seeing a relationship with the Silk Road Initiative, other than that Qatar exports a lot of LNG to China.China Eyes Qatar in its Quest to Build a New Silk Road
Last month at the China-Arab Cooperation Forum in Doha, Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi postulated that Qatar should take part in the realization of China's Silk Road Initiatives.@cankles | Jun 23, 2017 4:05:49 PM | 25AtaBrit | Jun 23, 2017 4:51:40 PM | 28Yeah, you're right. I hadn't looked into the question sufficiently. Of course the Chinese are looking for more external finance for the project. They don't want to be the only ones who pay. Fat chance, though. The Qataris have been in austerity since the decline in the oil price. Someone I know who works in the Qatar Museum has seen all her colleagues let go. And now the crisis with Saudi.
The Qataris may even have signed contracts with China. But if you know anything about the Gulf, there's a wide gap between signing a contract, and actually getting paid. It depends upon how the prince concerned feels about the project when the question of payment comes up. A company I worked for in the 80s took two years to get payment, even though they were experts in Gulfi relations.
Great piece.Mina | Jun 23, 2017 5:09:45 PM | 29The issue of the threat regarding the Turkish base didn't surprise me much, though. I think it's clear that if MB is the target, then of course Turkey has to become a target, and Qatar - Turkey ties have to be broken. It stands to reason.
It also stands to reason if you simply consider Saudi's importance regionally: A lot is made of Iran's threat to Saudi influence, but Turkey - thanks in part to considerable investment by Qatar currently while investment from elsewhere has reduced massively -- is also very threatening to Saudi's influence, especially on the religious front.
Iran representing Shia interests in the region and Turkey representing Sunni interests is not a difficult future to imagine. It would of course grate with Saudi Arabia given that it had poured vast amounts of money into the Turkish economy and the diyanet.
On a slightly different note there's a scandal going on in western Turkey, in Duzce, at the moment because the local authority has unveiled a statue of Rabia - the four fingered Muslim Brotherhood salute! :-)
http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContent/2/8/271450/World/Region/UN-blames-warring-sides-for-Yemens-cholera-catastr.aspxkarlof1 | Jun 23, 2017 5:16:47 PM | 30
let's blame underfed guys in skirts for funHassan Nasrallah has given his annual International Al-Quds Day speech with plenty of fire aimed at the usual suspects. The Daily Star reports: 'Nasrallah accused Saudi Arabia of "paving way for Israel" in the region.Piotr Berman | Jun 23, 2017 6:42:14 PM | 36'"It's unfortunate that Saudi Arabia is the head of terrorism and today it's holding its neighbors accountable for supporting terrorism," Nasrallah said, hinting to the recent economic sanctions against Qatar.' https://www.dailystar.com.lb/News/Lebanon-News/2017/Jun-23/410688-nasrallah-says-regional-conflicts-seek-to-serve-israel-interest.ashx
Al-Manar provides this report, http://english.almanar.com.lb/292250
Unfortunately, I cannot locate an English language transcript, although one might become available eventually as is usually the case.
Piotr Bermanlikklemore | Jun 23, 2017 6:49:14 PM | 37Aljazeera evil? Are you joking? ....
@Anon | Jun 23, 2017 3:47:56 PM | 24
You did not address the argument I made, namely, that Aljazeera editors apparently belong to "Muslims, who immediately set out to support it [Darwinian theory of evolution] unaware of the blasphemy and error in it." These guys pretend to be nice Wahhabis, dressing in dishdashas, their womenfolks in abayas, but in fact they spread heretical and blasphemous doctrines. However, I am more of a Khazar than a Wahhabi and I do not treat this argument seriously.
It is the fact that compared to other government supported TV/online venues, say RT or PressTV, Aljazeera is well written and edited, has plenty of valuable material, etc. It is a worthwhile place to check when you want to get a composite picture on some issues. And it irritates KSA potentates in a myriad of ways, precisely because it targets "politically engaged Muslim".
It is a good example that pluralism has inherent positive aspects, devils that quarrel are better than "One Ring to rule them all, One Ring to find them, One Ring to bring them all, and in the darkness bind them."
====
Actually, I hope for many more benefits will show up from this quarrel than improved profits for Iranian produce growers. It is worthwhile to observe that Dubai, a component emirate of UAE, has gigantic economic links with Iran, which must be tolerated by overlords from Abu Dhabi: they had to bail out their cousins after real estate collapse, so they have big money stake in Dubai being prosperous. Potentially, Dubai and especially the hapless vegetable and dairy producers in KSA can lose a bundle (the latter had to invest a lot in farms for Qatari market, it is not like letting cows graze on abundant grasslands plus planting cucumbers and waiting for the rain to water them). Aljazeera and Muslim Brotherhood are more irritating to KSA and UAE than an occasional polite missive to Iran.
One pattern in Syrian civil war were persistent and bloody feuds between jihadists that formed roughly four groups:
- "salafi", presumably funded by KSA,
- "brothers", presumably funded by Qatar and Turkey,
- al-Qaeda/al-Nusra/something new that was forcing the first two groups to surrender some weapons (and money?),
- and ISIS that had more complex sources (or more hidden).
Medium term strategy of Syrian government and allies for the near future is to "de-escalate" in the western part of the country and finish off ISIS, partitioning hitherto ISIS territories in some satisfactory way, while maintaining some type of truce with the Kurds. Then finish off the jihadists, except those most directly protected by Turkey. Finally, take care of the Kurds. Some sufficiently safe federalism can be part of the solution, but nothing that would lead to enclaves with their own military forces and their own foreign policy, like Iraqi Kurdistan.
That requires the opposing parties to exhibit somewhat suicidal behavior. A big time official feud between "brothers" and "salafi + Kurds" (a pair that shares some funding but with scant mutual affection" can help a lot. Most of all, a big time feud between Turkey and KSA can stabilize the situation in which jihadists from Idlib and northern Hama observe a truce/de-escalation, while their colleagues from south Syria get clobbered, and definitely will induce them to refrain from attacking Syrian government while it is busy against ISIS. After Erdogan was prevented from marching onto Raqqa, he has two options: "Sunnistan" in eastern Syria under domination of YPG or a much smaller YPG dominated territory that can be subsequently digested. Option one is a true nightmare for Erdogan, more than a mere paranoia. However, Erdogan is also "pan-Sunni" Islamist, so he could be tempted to backstab infidels from Damascus, as he was doing before. An open feud with Sunnistan sponsors should help him to choose.
Cankles @ 25 Is that really you? If so, you should know -rawdawgbugfalo | Jun 23, 2017 6:54:19 PM | 38Look behind the curtain. This has to do with maintaining the price of oil in US$.
Qatar launches first Chinese yuan clearing hub in Middle East .
Qatar opened the Middle East's first centre for clearing transactions in the Chinese yuan on Tuesday, saying it would boost trade and investment between China and Gulf Arab economies."The launch of the region's first renminbi clearing center in Doha creates the necessary platform to realise the full potential of Qatar and the region's trade relationship with China," Qatar's central bank governor Sheikh Abdullah bin Saud al-Thani said at a ceremony.
"It will facilitate greater cross-border renminbi investment and financing business, and promote greater trade and economic links between China and the region, paving the way for better financial cooperation and enhancing the pre-eminence of Qatar as a financial hub in MENA (Middle East and North Africa)."
Industrial and Commercial Bank of China's (ICBC) Doha branch is the clearing bank for the centre, which intends to serve companies from around the Middle East.A clearing bank can handle all parts of a currency transaction from when a commitment is made until it is settled, reducing costs and time taken for trading.
The centre "will improve the ease of transactions between companies in the region and China by allowing them to settle their trade directly in renminbi, drawing increased trade through Qatar and boosting bilateral and economic collaboration between Qatar and China," said ICBC chairman Jiang Jianqing.
At present, Qatar and the Gulf's other wealthy oil and gas exporters use the U.S. dollar much more than the yuan. Most of their currencies are pegged to the dollar, and most of their huge foreign currency reserves are denominated in dollars.
Laguerre @27
Date of article April 24, 2017
In April 2015, Qatar opened Qatar Renminbi Centre (QRC), the region's first clearing centre for the Chinese currency. This allows for trades priced in RMB to be cleared locally in Qatar rather than in other centres such as Shanghai or Hong Kong.ICBC has since become the designated clearance bank servicing the QRC, which has handled more than 350bn yuan ($52.6bn) since its inception.
http://emerge85.io/blog/the-middle-kingdoms-big-four-and-the-gulf~ ~ ~ ~
Trending and not very far to seeing what is now held under the table. Oil will also be priced in RMB because KSA, to maintain their share of exports to China, will need to get on board. For now, it's been reaffirmed, SA does the whipping and USA protects the Royals.Well said, I still think this is all dreamlike. Having natural gas and sharing it with Iran is a mf.Piotr Berman | Jun 23, 2017 7:34:43 PM | 40Qatar: Is it about Trump, Israel or Nascent Influence? http://wsenmw.blogspot.com/2017/06/qatar-is-it-about-trump-israel-or.html
About Sunni-Shia split. My impression is that this is mostly KSA + UAE obsession. For example, there is a substantial Shia minority in Pakistan, but the dominant thinking among the Sunnis seems to be "Muslim solidarity". There is a minority that is virulently anti-Shia, but they are politically isolated and despised exactly on the account of breaking that solidarity. After all, Pakistan forms the boundary of the Umma with non-Muslim India. I base that opinion on comments in online Pakistani newspapers, and what I have heard from an acquaintance who was a religiously conservative Sunni Pakistani. To him, the attack on Yemen by KSA was wrong "because they are Muslim". So even if Pakistan is to a certain extend in Saudi pocket, and its deep state has an extremist Sunni component, overt siding against "fellow Muslim" is out of the question.Dusty | Jun 23, 2017 7:38:26 PM | 41Egypt is another case. One can find rather isolated anti-Shia outbursts, like writings of some fossils in Al-Azhar (who are responsible for the state religion), but the government steers away from that, and in spite of hefty subsidies, it joined Yemen war only symbolically and for a very short time (unlike Sudan that really needs the cash for its mercenaries). As you move further away from the Persian Gulf, the indifference to the "split" increases. As far as Qatar and Aljazeera are concerned, probably no one detests them more than Egyptian elite, as they were valiantly fighting Muslim Brotherhood for the sake of progress with some occasional large massacres (killing several hundreds of protesters, issuing hundreds of death penalties to participants in a single protest, in absentia! incredible idiocy+cruelty). That explains why al-Sisi joined KSA against Qatar.
However, the civil war in Libya that embroils Egypt is a classic case of unexpected alliances. Egypt with a help from Russia, KSA and UAE supports the "eastern government" that bases legitimacy on democratic parliament re-assembled in Tobruq on Egyptian border, and dominated by military strongman Haftar. The latter has the best chance of all people to become a military strongman of all Libya, but apparently has meager popularity and thus, too few troops. He patched that problem by an alliance with a Salafi group that had a numerous militia, currently partitioned into smaller units and incorporated into Haftar's brigades. Even with that, his progress on the ground is very, very gradual. Against him is the government in Tripolis, legitimized by a more fresh parliament and UN/EU, plus a military force that includes several militias. Part of the parliamentary support stems from Muslim Brotherhood, and some part of military support comes from Salafi militias. There are also aspects of a "war of all against all", seems that Saharan tribes collected a lot of fresh blood feuds.
Thus Qatari+Turkish support for Tripoli government is aligned with EU, and Egyptian support for Tobruq government is aligned with Russia and KSA.
I thought I might just throw this out there and see what sticks. US policy is based on power and control. Saudi Arabia has been a good ally but it does not serve use policy or strategic goals any longer. Not really. I think the grand prize for destabilizing the middle east is Saudi Arabia. It would be the only way to truly control the development of other nations or more specifically, to control their rivalries and save the the US from complete economic breakdown. The Saudi's are being plumbed by the best of them, telling them they are you friends, we have your back and so long as Saudi Arabia loses more money and keeps lossing money in needless wars etc.The only hope for Saudi Arabia is to re-denominate oil sales in multiple currencies such as the WTO drawing rights, of course based on another formula, perhaps based on the countries that purchase the most oil. This would be the only way for the royalty to gain longevity as rulers of the country. Any other scenario spells disaster. Of course, it would be a rough go for them for a while, but in the end, a slight change in outlook and the unfair advantage given to the US would go a long way, economically to stabilizing large blocks of countries. They also could of course change their outlook on the world, but that is certainly a difficult challenge. If the Muslim world came together based on their similarities, they could be a very powerful block.
The US no longer has the financial velocity it once maintained and this is much more due to insane ideas about being a hegemon. I never thought revolution would be possible in the US, but it is coming and it won't take much. The country does not appear to have intelligence peddle back a number of policies, drunk on its own poison, it makes capitalism look disgusting. A new business model is needed, one that developes mutual trade based on respect from within the exchange itself. Saudi Arabia needs to cultivate multi-channel support for its biggest resource so that when the returns are no longer there, they will have also developed multiple avenues to prosperity. Just a thought.
|
|
|
Jun 14, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc, June 14, 2017 at 03:54 PM
The Reducing Ocean Shipping CO2 Paradoxlibezkova - , June 14, 2017 at 05:58 PMHey, maybe they should go back to sails...
http://maritime-executive.com/article/big-ships-account-for-most-of-shippings-co2
"Big Ships Account for 80 Percent of Shipping's CO2"
By Paul Benecki...2017-06-13...20:16:44
"At Nor-Shipping 2017, researchers with DNV GL released a study that points to the difficulty of reducing the industry's CO2 output below current levels. The problem is structural: big cargo vessels emit 80 percent of shipping's greenhouse gases, but they're also the industry's most efficient ships, and squeezing out additional improvements may be a challenge.
Just 35 percent of the fleet mostly large bulkers, tankers and container ships is responsible for 80 percent of shipping's fuel consumption, according to Christos Chryssakis, DNV GL's group leader for greener shipping. Unfortunately, these are already the fleet's most efficient vessels per ton-mile. "This is a paradox, but if we want to reduce our greenhouse gas emissions, we actually have to improve the best performers," Chryssakis says."...
That's a valid observation.Similar situation with trucking, but in the USA around one half of gas consumption goes into private cars. So by improving efficiency of private fleet by 100% you can cut total consumption only by 25%. All this talk about electrical cars like Tesla Model 3 right now is mostly cheap talk. They by-and-large belong to the luxury segment.
|
|
|
www.counterpunch.org
pgl , June 03, 2017 at 11:03 AM
libezkova - , June 03, 2017 at 01:29 PMJun 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
Menzie Chinn:"the President cited this NERA study, commissioned by the American Council for Capital Formation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce. Why didn't the President rely upon his own experts within the White House?"
Because his CEA is not yet staffed. The NERA "study":
http://assets.accf.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/170316-NERA-ACCF-Full-Report.pdf
NERA uses its "model" to forecast that the cost to real GDP by2040 will be a 9% shortfall and the cost to employment will by 31.6 million jobs. Now that sounds BAD, BAD. But it sort of reminds me of the kind of "quality analysis" we might expect from the Heritage Foundation. Of course that is what the American Council for Capital Formation, and the U.S. Chamber of Commerce paid NERA to do.
Any 2040 forecast of GDP needs to be based on the forecast of the price of fossil fuels.libezkova - , June 03, 2017 at 01:44 PMThey predict:im1dc - , June 03, 2017 at 02:16 PM"World GDP doubles from 2015 to 2040, with non-OECD GDP increasing 175 percent and OECD GDP growing 60 percent"
I learned much reading this about Russia's taxing of its crude oil...you may find it interesting as well...libezkova - , June 03, 2017 at 04:18 PMCareful though, Irina Slav neglected to mention that Russia never stopped producing as much oil as it could during OPEC's deal to cut production so this is hardly a balanced article
Putin and the Russian Oligarchs are not going to cut production, Mother Russia (Putin) needs the cash flow (as do the other OPEC cheaters)
http://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/OPEC-Cuts-Send-Russias-Oil-Heartland-Into-Decline.html
"OPEC Cuts Send Russia's Oil Heartland Into Decline"
By Irina Slav...Jun 03, 2017,...2:00 PM CDT
"Western Siberia is to Russia what the Permian is to the U.S. Well, kind of. Kind of in a sense that it's one of the longest-producing oil regions and there's still a lot of oil in it. Yet, thanks to the production cut deal with OPEC, Russian companies have had additional motivation to move to new territories in the east and the north, where taxes are lower.
In Russia, the older the fields, the higher the taxes operators have to pay. Now that the country has pledged to continue cutting 300,000 bpd for another nine months, the most obvious choices for the cut are the mature Western Siberian fields. In the first quarter of 2017, for example, output at Rosneft's Yugansk field fell by 4.2 percent, Bloomberg reported.
Production at other Western Siberian fields is set for a decline as well, with the daily output rate from lower-tax deposits in the Caspian Sea, Eastern Siberia, and the North seen to rise to 866,000 bpd by the end of the year, or 74 percent on the year. The shift away from mature fields to new ones will continue over the medium term, according to BofA analyst Karen Kostanian, as overall Russian output grows. No wonder, as tax relief on new projects sometimes reaches 90 percent.
Lukoil's output from the Filanovsky field in the Caspian, for instance, is taxed at 15 percent at a price per barrel of US$50. The average for mature fields is 58.1 percent, in a combination of mineral resource tax and export duty.
And this is not the end of it: in 2018, the Kremlin will test a new tax regime for the oil industry as it seeks to maintain production growth and the respective revenues, contributing a solid chunk of federal budget revenues. The new regime, Deputy Energy Minister Alexei Texler told Reuters, will first be introduced for a selection of 21 fields with a combined output of 300,000 bpd for a period of five years.
In case the government is happy with the results from the test, the new regime would be expanded to the whole industry. Hopes are for a substantial increase in output thanks to the new tax regime: up to 20 percent over the five-year period. These hopes seem to be limited to the Energy Ministry, however, the Finance Ministry worries that the new regime will make it harder to control the flow of tax money. The treasury is also against combining the new regime with already existing tax incentives for the industry.
So, the move away from what Bloomberg calls the oil heartland of the world's top producer is all but inevitable. It will come at a cost for the state coffers of some US$25 a barrel of Western Siberian oil, or US$2.7 billion annually, according to a Renaissance Capital analyst, but the cost will be worth it. The cost would increase, too, if the current output cut arrangement with OPEC fails to push up prices, which for now is exactly what we are seeing, while the ramp-up in the U.S. oil heartland continues."
"With enough thrusts pigs can fly. It is just dangerous to stand were they are going to land." This quote is perfectly applicable to OPEC and Russia oil production now.Neglecting maintenances and using "in fill" drilling just shorten the life of the traditional oil fields. And new large oil fields are difficult to come by.
My impression is that most of "cuts" in production by Russia and OPEC are "forced moves". Production was declining from mid 2016 when old investment were already all put into production and few new investments were made since late 2014.
If we assume the lag period of two years, than in mid 2018 we will feel the results of decisions to cut investments made in 2016.
In this situation announcing cuts allow to save face.
The net result is the same -- the oil price should rise to the level when it is economical to develop "more expensive oil" (deep see drilling, Arctic oil and such) as replacement rate in traditional fields is insufficient to maintain the production.
As long as The US government allow shale companies to generate junk bonds (which will never be repaid representing kind of hidden subsidy) along with "subprime oil", shale can slightly compensate the decline in production, but my impression is that this card was already played. Despite all hoopla from WSJ and other major MSM.
The fact that oil production for some time was artificially kept flat or slightly rising is strange and might be politically motivated (Saudi) which put other producers in situation when they were force to follow Saudi lead or lose customers. China played Russians against Saudi pretty well and got what they want at lower prices.
Those "intensification of production" were short term measures which in a long run are detrimental to old oil fields output.
They might even lessen the total amount of oil that can be extracted from a given field.
The key question here is: Does Russian oil firms has the amount of money needed to maintain production on the current level (at the current oil price levels ) or not.
Obama has a chance to move the US personal fleet to hybrid and more economical cars. He lost this chance. SUV is now dominant type of personal cars int he USA, the trend opposite to what it should be. Even hybrid SUVs like RAV4 hybrid get only around 33 miles highway, less in city traffic.
Transition to Prius type cars (with their around 50 miles per gallon) would allow US consumers to save almost half of oil spend on personal transportation (which probably represent around 60% of total US consumption http://needtoknow.nas.edu/energy/energy-use/transportation/ )
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Eulenspiegel says: 05/24/2017 at 3:20 amSaudi Arabia and independend from oil? Good joke.George Kaplan says: 05/24/2017 at 10:00 amThey are that wasteful, they never had to look for costs, they need foreign workers for anything they do that won't work out.
At the moment they have zero income without energy sector, if you don't count the Hadsch around Mekka as income.
And they are too big to copy the Dubai model, just to build real estate as an industry to live from.They could go solar but then they should start to invest billions in infrastructure to sell the stuff to Europe and China now.
I'll bet some money is going into upgrading their escape pod fleet of jets.Caelan MacIntyre says: 05/24/2017 at 6:31 pmMy chips in for that bet too. Leave the peasantry behind to sort things out.
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News says: 05/29/2017 at 7:06 am
Jeff says: 05/29/2017 at 8:04 amUS shale production increase scenarios at different $WTI prices and cost inflation levels assuming no new debt (no mention of paying down existing debt?)
May 24, 2017 Leslie Wei Rystad Energy
Figure 3 shows the estimated Y/Y growth in NA liquids shale production for different WTI oil prices and cost inflation scenarios compared to 2016 cost levels. The "Call on shale" highlighted section represents the 1.3 million bbl/d average taken from figure 2. The key assumption for this analysis is that the E&P companies will balance the investments with operational free cash flow (cash neutrality). For example, in a 70 USD/bbl oil price range, cost inflation within the range of 0% to 25% is required to meet the 1.3 million bbl/d y/y growth in the "call on shale." In a 50 USD/bbl scenario, the liquids production may only grow as much as 0.5 million bbl/d on a yearly basis even if the costs remain flat. To reach the call on shale of a yearly growth of about 1.3 million bbl/d, the oil price needs to move into the range of 70 to 80 USD/bbl for the companies to stay cash flow neutral.
https://www.rystadenergy.com/NewsEvents/PressReleases/the-call-on-shale
Thank you for the link.AlexS says: 05/29/2017 at 9:14 am"call on shale" they may return the call if the price is >70 to 80 USD/bbl.
"call on OPEC" what will it take for them to return the call?Energy News,Eulenspiegel says: 05/29/2017 at 9:58 amThanks for the link.
I particularly liked these calculations:
"Figure 2 shows the necessary yearly growth in shale production to balance supply and demand from 2017 to 2021. To achieve this, shale has to grow by 1.6 million bbl/d in 2017, and more than 2 million bbl/d in 2021. This implies a total shale oil production of 14.1 million bbl/d in 2021. To achieve such growth in shale production, the number of spudded shale oil wells has to reach ~20,000 wells in 2021, or two times the number of spudded wells in 2016."
Now we have roundabout 4-5 million b/d shale production how can only the double number of new wells bring the triple production?Kolbeinh says: 05/29/2017 at 1:17 pmOn the other hand, is shale now unlimited in resources and can supply the whole world with oil, enough wallstreet silly money (TM) provided?
Oh, and another thing: Do the shale oil wells no more decline rapidly after drilled, but add up nice to such production numbers.
PS: Here in financtial newspapers the typical shale break even price is now at 23$/barrel. There are only a few oil wells left production cheaper than US shale oil.
Let us see the well completion numbers from Texas for May first (RRC), and step by step judge if enough wells are actually completed. The trend is not going right through the roof when looking at the April oil well completion numbers tbh.Glenn E Stehle says: 05/29/2017 at 6:34 pmI don΄t like the expression "call on shale" as it implies that there is a vast base of resources there to be exploited, which could turn out to not be true. I also do not like the term "call on OPEC" as it implies the same.
The countries in OPEC are very different and just some of them can ramp up I can imagine. Who knows actually with all the secrecy and lack of accurate oil field data coming from some of the participants in the organisation.
1. The areal extent of the Permian Basin shale oil plays is quite large in comparison to other plays.http://www.shaleexperts.com/images/Permian-Basin-Geology.png
2. The shale column in the Permian Basin is about 4,000 feet thick, whereas in the Eagle Ford and Williston Basin it is only a few tens or hundreds of feet thick.
3. There are at least seven productive shale zones (which have already been tested), and several more that have not been tested, stacked like pancakes, one right on top of the other, in the Permian Basin.
http://www.aogr.com/assets/images/content/4_0616_fig3_sp16.png
4. The stacked plays in the Permian Basin allow for economies of scale not offered by the other shale plays.
5. Improved drilling techniques have cut the number of drilling rig days needed from spud to finishing of drilling operations (that is, the cementing of production casing) substantially.
6. Post-2015 fracking techniques (Fracking 2.0 and Fracking 3.0) are producing far more prolific wells. Offsetting wells, with identical lateral lengths, and completed with Fracking 3.0 are producing almost twice as much oil as the pre-2015 wells completed with Fracking 1.0.
7. The Permian Basin, being a mature oil and gas basin, already has a great deal of existing infrastructure already in place, and is not too terribly far from the refinery complex on the Gulf Coast, as the Williston Basin is.
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand says: 05/26/2017 at 7:29 amThe only public company that is solely focused on fracking services in the US shale basins in Keane Group, ticker symbol FRAC. The company just went public at the end of 2016.Watcher says: 05/26/2017 at 10:59 amKeane's 10Q for 1/17 is interesting. The company lost $72 million. Their costs of services, which excludes depreciation, selling, general and administrative expenses and interest, was just $16 million less than revenues. The margin between revenues and costs of services was just 6%. This was an improvement over 2016, where costs of services were actually more than revenues.
In the business outlook section, the company states they are seeing higher pricing for services. In particular, due to greatly increasing volumes of sand per well, the company has seen certain grades of sand doubling in price since the second half of 2016.
This is not a small company, they are in all shale basins and do work for some of the big names. Clearly, as more fracking crews are utilized, costs are headed up.
Of course, they still do not have all of their frack crews working. There is still overcapacity in all service areas, as active rigs are still far below the peak in 2014. Well costs have fallen several million dollars since 2014. It is interesting that even with the price recovery in Q1, 2017, most upstream US shale companies showed losses or small earnings per share. ExxonMobil, Chevron, Pioneer, Marathon and EOG all either showed small positive or negative EPS in Q1 from US upstream.
There were outliers, such as Diamondback(FANG), which showed high EPS. However, a close look shows FANG's CAPEX is still significantly higher than D,D&A.
Looking back since 2014, very interesting how the US shale industry battled to maintain production. Saudi Arabia surely didn't anticipate the ability of US firms to operate at a loss for such a long time. 2 1/2 years later, US service firms are still operating at a loss, if Keane's example is accurate. US financial markets are very deep, interest rates remain very low on a historic basis, and executives earning 7-8 figures annually are not simply going to shut down, as no growth equals lower bonuses.
The numbers reported in 2015 and 2016 in aggregate by US shale firms clearly show that the vast majority of 2015 and 2016 shale oil wells were operated at a loss. Almost all will not reach payout in 36-60 months at the current futures strip. Hopefully, when this shale phenomenon has concluded, there will be some in depth studies conducted of the financial side. Those reports should make for very interesting reading.
Our small family business was not immune from cutting, such that 2016 was in the black, despite well head prices for the year it just $36. True, we are not drilling still, and production is slowly declining. This will continue until prices solidly rise into the $55-65 WTI band we desire. However, we can take several more years of $45-53 WTI, if that is what the future holds. The consensus in our small oil patch is that we need to be more worried about future demand, than future supply. As US shale continues to climb the wall, taking total US C+C to 10, 11 or even 12 million BOPD, that climb will get tougher, and more expensive per barrel. Maintaining 10-12 million BOPD for a few years will take more CAPEX than is currently being spent. Maybe Dennis knows how much more?
It seems more of the public is pushing for EV, ride sharing, autonomous vehicles, etc. I have tough time envisioning this, living in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of "fly over territory". But, even though these initiatives are also generally hemorrhaging cash, just as shale has, dollars and cents do not seem to matter. Kind of like how a company like Facebook can be worth $450 billion, yet I have not used it once and see it as nothing but online gossip and a complete waste of time. I can't understand it, but it is reality.
> In particular, due to greatly increasing volumes of sand per well, the company has seen certain grades of sand doubling in price since the second half of 2016.Son of a gun. Imagine that. Here's my fave photo of fracking in the Bakken. It's from 2012:
Look real careful. Bags of ceramic proppant. From China. It's better at holding fractures open than sand. Sand was the downshift because of cost. hahahahahaha
We never do hear about the lower ultimate recoveries simply accepted from use of inferior proppant. Not part of the narrative.
|
|
|
peakoilbarrel.com
coffeeguyzz says: 05/29/2017 at 10:41 pmThere seems to be increasing mention of Occidental being bought out by someone with extremely deep pockets. Owning over 2 million net acres, Oxy is the biggest leaseholder in the Permian.Watcher says: 05/30/2017 at 2:25 amTwo points in following up on Glen's post
The productive footprint of the Permian continues to expand up into New Mexico.
The output from wells in many of the basins has significantly increased in the past 12 months.
More precise targeting, staying in zone near 100%, and diversion processes are the biggest reasons.aaannd, speaking of Oxy, they just loaded the first VLCC Very Large Crude Carrier, capacity 2.2 million barrels at their dock at Corpus Christi.
66 foot draft is too deep, presently, for the channel so 60% loading at dock and balance from smaller vessel when out in deeper water.Cowboyistan.
That's really exciting. So was their latest earnings report.Eulenspiegel says: 05/30/2017 at 2:55 amOXY -$0.69 / share
Oh and btw, EOG -$1.08/shareThe plan would be to sell the acreage to some shale operator with more expertise at achieving profit, like Continental Resources.
CLR -$0.54/share
Red balance sheet ink doesn't matter for shale companies as long as there is a story. They'll get new loans, or enough investors buying new stock.Glenn E Stehle says: 05/30/2017 at 9:03 amShale companies are like .coms in the 2000s they are about the story, not paying big dividents. That's what old oil is for.
If now everyone of big oil drills in perminal and abandones deep water and other long run projects it's a 0 sum game in global supply. Perhaps permian can get really 15 millions or more barrels a day, but without deep see and Alaska + other difficult projects, that's not 1 barrel more in global supply.
And it will be the mother of all oil rushes, with not being able to see a piece of Texas without drilling towers.
Watcher,Boomer II says: 05/30/2017 at 10:38 amRead it and weep.
HOUSTON - May 4, 2017 - Occidental Petroleum Corporation (NYSE:OXY) today announced reported net income of $117 million, or $0.15 per diluted share, compared with a reported loss of $272 million, or $0.36 per diluted share, for the fourth quarter of 2016 .
"Our focus remains on areas that generate the best returns and we are seeing improvements in margins across all of our businesses," said President and Chief Executive Officer Vicki Hollub.
"Permian Resources continues to be a growth engine for our company, with a 5 percent improvement in production this quarter, reflecting increased drilling activity and well productivity in the Delaware Basin."
I know the information I am providing is anathema for those who have been waiting around with baited breath for the last forty years, hoping to see the last gasps of the Age of Oil. But it looks like you might have to wait a bit longer for that longed-for event, maybe quite a bit longer.
It is also anathema to those like Mike and shallow sands, and OPEC and Russia, who with their conventional oil portfolios had hoped for the quick demise of shale. After all, if the cost to produce that marginal barrel is now $50 to $60, and it remains at that cost, there is little hope for an oil price recovery much above that price. Shale killed the price of oil, and may continue to do so for some time in the future. This is not what those vested in conventional oil had hoped for, and continue to hope for.
When Khalid Al-Falih arrived at Davos in late January, the Saudi oil minister was exultant .
Almost five months later, U.S. production is rising faster than anyone predicted and his plan has been shredded .
[S]hale has defied the naysayers. By the time OPEC meets in Vienna on May 25, U.S. output will be approaching the 9.5 million barrels a day mark - higher than in November 2014 when OPEC started a two-year price war. The rebound has been powered by turbocharged output in the Permian basin straddling Texas and New Mexico.
Forced to adjust to lower prices, shale firms reshaped themselves into leaner operations that can thrive with oil just above $50 a barrel.
Since OPEC agreed to cut output six months ago, U.S. shale production has risen by about 600,000 barrels a day, wiping out half of the cartel's cut of 1.2 million barrels a day and turning the rapid victory Saudi Arabia foresaw is turning into a stalemate .
On Thursday, OPEC's own monthly oil market report said that production from non-members would rise 64 percent faster than previously forecast this year, driven mainly by U.S. shale fields.
So far, OPEC hasn't been able to "cut supplies faster than shale oil can increase," said Olivier Jakob of consultant Petromatrix GmbH .
[T]he cartel faces big risks. The most prominent is that extending cuts lifts the oil price high enough for shale to hedge again, as it did earlier this year .
Increasingly, the oil market believes the real battle between OPEC and Russia, on one side, and shale, on the other, will take place in 2018, when an increasing number of observers predict U.S. production will flood the market as it did in 2014 .
U.S. shale producers used the price spike that OPEC triggered earlier this year to lock-in revenues for 2017, 2018 and, in some cases, even 2019. With their financial future relatively secure, they started deploying rigs. Since the count of active rigs in the U.S. reached a low last, producers have added an average seven units per week, the strongest recovery in 30 years .
According to the U.S. Energy Information Administration, American crude production will surpass the 10 million barrel a day mark by late next year, breaching the record high set in 1970. The shale boom will propel non-OPEC output up 1.3 million barrels a day next year, effectively filling up almost all the expected growth in demand.
"The supply and demand balance for 2018 looks very bad," said Fared Mohamedi, chief economist at consultant The Rapidan Group in Washington. "That's when the big fight is going to happen."
In Fight Against US Shale Oil, OPEC Risks Lower for Longer
http://www.rigzone.com/news/article.asp?a_id=150118
Occidental profit beats; shares fall on weak output forecast | Reuters : "Occidental Petroleum Corp's quarterly profit beat estimates on Thursday but the company's shares fell to a near eight-year low as the oil and gas producer forecast lower-than-expected production for the current quarter."AlexS says: 05/30/2017 at 12:07 pmOxy is still largely a conventional producer.AlexS says: 05/30/2017 at 1:28 pm
Permian EOR is conventional, not sure about South Texas. Non-US accounts for almost half of total output.
So Oxy's 1Q results are not representative for the shale sector in generalIn fact, during the years of the shale boom, in 2011-14, OXY was one of the very few publicly traded U.S. E&Ps with positive free cash flow. All of those 3 or 4 companies had large non-shale operations. On the contrary, all pure shale players had significant negative free cash flows.AlexS says: 05/30/2017 at 2:56 pmGlenn,AlexS says: 05/30/2017 at 1:39 pmI agree that "negative free cash flow is not bad in itself". The question is for how long
negative free cash flow is not bad?
Most shale companies had negative free cash flows since 2011 (already 6 years), having accumulated large debts. There was a short period in 2H16 when, due to sharply reduced capex, the shale sector was
free cash flow neutral. But recovering investments since 2017 will result in renewed period of burning cash (as evident from 1Q17 results). So how many more years the markets will tolerate shale companies' negative free cash flows?I personally think that the shale sector could remain cash flow neutral or even slightly free cash flow positive, especially with gradually rising oil prices. But that would imply very modest growth in capex, and hence in production. And that still does not solve the problem of repaying accumulated debt, unless shale companies sell part of their assets and/or issue new shares, diluting existing shareholders.
Exposure to shale operations has actually proven a burden for the U.S. oil companies' financialsVes says: 05/30/2017 at 5:25 pmIn Oxy's case,from 2014 to 1Q17, domestic upstream operations were a negative contributor to the company's earnings (unlike international oil and gas). Positive 1Q17 earnings were due to non-shale operations that offset a $122 million loss from the US oil and gas segment. For 2016 as a whole, U.S. oil and gas had a net loss of $999 million, while all other segments, combined, have shown net earnings of $493 million. The same is true for the large US integrateds, like Exxon, which consistently had negative earnings in its US upstream segment in the past few years due to shale exposure.
That's the reality!
OXY's segment earnings
click to enlarge:
"Most of the giant oil companies seem to think they're not, as they write off or sell their crown jewels of 2011 2014 (Shell, Conoco and Exxon have all done so with their Canadian sands, and as you point out Oxy did with its Bakken shale) and pivot towards the Permian shale. It's called creative destruction, as older producing properties and techniques can no longer compete with the new ones."shallow sand says: 05/30/2017 at 1:02 pmGlenn,
To make a sale someone must buy. Logic does not apply that the sellers are smart and the buyers are dumb at this point. There was a seller and there was a buyer and that is all that we can say about oil sand deals. We don't know the real reasons for these sales. It is just interesting that all deals with oil sands with majors happened in downturn and that all buyers are Canadian companies.
And there is nothing creative about Shell, Exxon, Conoco acquiring all these oil sands properties at inflated prices when oil was at north of $100 during 10 years span and selling all at ultimate bottom when price at one point was $26.Oxy breaks down EPS by segments.shallow sand says: 05/30/2017 at 1:13 pmFor Q1, 2017:
US upstream -$191 million
Foreign upstream $418 million
Chemicals $170 million
Marketing and Midstream -$47 million.The above are pre-interest and pre-tax. Oxy paid quite a bit in foreign taxes, received a large US tax benefit due to US losses, and paid over $70 million in interest, a good chunk being on debt incurred by spending in excess of cash flow on US unconventional in 2010-2014. OXY lost a good chunk of change in the Bakken and completely left the area including a multi-million $ regional headquarters they had just built in Dickinson, ND. Took a big write down on it.
I have looked a OXY Permian unconventional wells. Many pre-2016 were bad, sub 100K BO to date. I assume they are getting better, like the rest of the Permian.
If I am not mistaken, XOM, CVX and COP made positive EPS other than in US upstream in Q1, 2017. CLR broke even, PXD posted a small loss, EOG posted small net income.FANG and XEC were outliers with strong EPS, but upon closer look, these numbers were aided greatly by low DD&A per BOE, as both elected to not place substantial CAPEX on DD&A yet.
Although I'd like $55-65 WTI, can live with $45-53. We will see how many years it takes for Permian to top out, akin to Bakken and EFS. Could take awhile, given land area. Will take awhile to see how much of the Permian is "good".
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News says: 05/26/2017 at 9:53 amI've not seen any recent news on energy debt, no doubt Bloomberg will write an update sooner or laterjed says: 05/26/2017 at 5:36 pm
Had to laugh, earlier in the week I noticed zero hedge suddenly started reporting in "Lower 48 production" after US production dropped last week.jed says: 05/28/2017 at 11:43 pmNoticed today some other guy in the comments picked it up too.
My issue isn't about production. It's the underhanded methods to switch from one measurement to another to suit their narrative.Dennis Coyne says: 05/30/2017 at 7:03 amWhen US production was declining last year they stopped posting US production charts. The moment that changed and production had consistent increases the charts reappeared. I don't understand their issue with being honest.
They have some good stuff there, but for anyone paying attention it really detracts and casts a dark light on them.
Hi Glenn,Mike Tate says: 05/27/2017 at 6:42 amThe EIA makes lots of predictions and many of them are wrong. Conventional output will decline, GOM will be flat or declining and LTO may increase by as much as 2 Mb/d from the previous peak by 2023 and will then decline sharply (peak LTO will be about 6.5 Mb/d at most, but other US C+C output will decrease by 1 Mb/d at 3%/year annual decline). US output might reach 10.5 Mb/d, but not until 2022 rather than 2018, note that this does not satisfy 2016 crude inputs to refineries and blenders which was about 16 Mb/d, unless demand decreases by 5 Mb/d from 2017 to 2022.
I doubt that will be the case, by June 2019 we will probably see $80/b (2016$) for Brent crude. and by June 2020 the price may be North of $100/b (2016$).
Texas oil production has increased in Districts 5,7c,and 8 since October 2014. All the other 10 districts have dropped by a total of 714,406 bbls per day. I am using Texas RRC District production October 14 to January 17.
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 05/24/2017 at 9:57 amThere's a plausible sounding theory, even though posted on Zero Hedge, that the Chinese have been filling their SPR over the last two years, and that is about to stop. This would mostly account for why OECD storage levels only took about 35% of the supply-demand imbalance. If they do stop then about 1 mmbpd of demand would suddenly be lost, but it might also imply that the real economy demand growth in the period since January 2015 has only been half what it looks to have been. Taking account of the sudden drop and a slower growth in demand would mean a longer time would be needed to draw down OECD stocks. However if the China SPR scenario is correct then almost all the drawdown would come from OECD. By my reckoning this would push a balancing out to late 2018 (although by then we may be seeing some bigger supply drops as the pipeline for new project start-ups will be drying up). But if the balancing is pushed out then the chances of many FIDs this year or next will decline and the possibility of a sudden supply crunch in 2019 through 2022 would be greater. The green curve below gives possible drawdown under this scenario. The red one was a previous assumption that the OECD stocks would be drawn down at only about 35% of the imbalance (as happened when they were rising). I seemed a bit iffy when I fitted it that way, and I think the China SPR filling is a better explanation.Watcher says: 05/24/2017 at 6:00 pm
SPRs in general try to have 90 days of domestic consumption in them. This was a standard put into place mostly in Europe. China has embraced it.Dennis Coyne says: 05/25/2017 at 12:30 pmThe US at 750ish million barrels and having a consumption (net of production) of about 11 million bpd (remember, this is real stuff . . . consumption, no refinery gain BS allowed) and so not quite 70 days domestic consumption.
China, at net consumption of about 7 million bpd X 90 needs an SPR of 630 million barrels. That's about what they have, but of course with 5% consumption growth they'll have to adjust up, but for now . . . all is well.
There probably is no flow in or out of China for SPR reasons. Already full. Have been for a while.
Hi Watcher,George Kaplan says: 05/25/2017 at 2:29 pmCrude inputs to refineries and blenders was 16.2 Mb/d for the 2016 average.
https://www.eia.gov/dnav/pet/pet_pnp_inpt_dc_nus_mbblpd_a.htm
So 700/16.2 is 43 days for SPR alone. For commercial crude stocks plus SPR it is 1200 Mb so 1200/16.2=74 days.
This is the chart Zero Hedge had, or linked to the key is Xinhua CFC, who have Chinese data not otherwise available and charge a lot of money for it. I don't know how you'd go about checking if it's correct.Energy News says: 05/26/2017 at 4:26 am
Hello, don't forget that Xinhua doesn't publish China's SPR figures. The SPR figure in the chart is an estimate based on (Production + Imports Refinery Inputs). I'm not sure if all the teapots are included in the official refinery data.Energy News says: 05/26/2017 at 8:49 amI think Zero Hedge borrowed the chart from here:
Scotiabank pdf file: http://www.gbm.scotiabank.com/scpt/gbm/scotiaeconomics63/SCPI_2017-04-12.pdfLatest figures from Xinhua news agency
2017-05-26 Chinese oil inventories month/month April changes: crude +1.64%, oil products -7.87% (gasoline -0.27%, diesel -14.4%) OGP/BBGChart showing March
China's April diesel stocks fall for second straight month -XinhuaGeorge Kaplan says: 05/26/2017 at 1:54 pm
http://af.reuters.com/article/energyOilNews/idAFL4N1IS2EJSo are the numbers you are posting supporting or not the Zero Hedge theory and/or my projection based on it? And if not why?Energy News says: 05/27/2017 at 1:34 pmI guess that Chinese demand must be higher than estimated. Like this article was suggestingBloomberg October 11th 2016
China's appetite for oil.
Fuel use grew by about 5 percent in the first half of 2016, according to China's biggest oil refiner, faster than the 0.4 percent derived from government data. That "official" number is clouded by rising gasoline exports - blends that don't show up in official figures, according to the International Energy Agency, Sinopec Group and Energy Aspects Ltd.
Chinese authorities are also having trouble tracking refinery activity because of the surge of processing by independent refiners, known as teapots, according to Energy Aspects' Meidan.
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-10-10/gasoline-cocktails-mix-with-gaps-in-data-to-cloud-china-oil-view ?
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
shallow sand says: 05/26/2017 at 10:07 pmEnno's shaleprofile.com is full of facts. I went back and looked at his 1/17 summary of all US oil producing shale fields. Interesting that despite adding over 13,000 new wells since the peak in 3/15, US as of 1/17 was still 600K bopd below the 3/15 peak.I do realize data is somewhat incomplete due to TX. I also realize not all wells are included. Still, going to take a lot of CAPEX to climb the ladder back to 5, 6 and maybe 7 million bopd from the shale fields.
Soon, GOM will start declining. Onshore conventional is like the sun setting. Just 60 or so straight hole rigs active, half of the 1998-99 trough. Alaska doesn't appear to add anything.
Unless demand tanks, per Tony Seba's theories, maybe its time to be bullish? When it is clear US shale has hit the wall, price could sky?
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Longtimber says: 05/30/2017 at 4:18 pm
XOM Potential 2nd Downgrade unless APPL or Bazos jumps to the rescue. / sarc"However, unlike its peers such as Chevron and BP, Exxon Mobil is not targeting meaningful growth in production.
Although Exxon Mobil is working on a number of shale oil, conventional oil and LNG projects which will come online in the near term, they will largely help the company in offsetting the negative impact of field declines and asset sales - Shell, Chevron, and BP carry debt loads of $91.6 billion, $45.3 billion and $61.8 billion, respectively. "
https://seekingalpha.com/article/4077223-exxon-mobil-make-s-and-ps-warning
|
|
|
May 30, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Mike says: 05/30/2017 at 6:35 pmGot it tee-tee; America is still a net importer of crude oil. That's some good investigative reporting there.Look, inventory levels are still at an all time high in America and the bulk of that is light tight condensate. The export ban has been lifted in the US for over three years now; nobody afar wants to import LTO, or much of it, and we still can't lower those inventories. The price of oil is low, and volatile. In the mean time all those big wells you own in Oklahoma are just making the problem worse. And while all this is going on, hold onto your knickers .oil imports into America are going UP, not down. Google it.
Canada is the 10th largest oil consuming nation in the world, Mexico the 11th and the UK the 18th. America, on the other hand, is the largest oil consuming nation in the world, by a wide margin. We do not have the LTO resources to achieve, nor sustain, hydrocarbon independence. Forget the costs, and the additional burden that attempting to achieve hydrocarbon independence would place on our national debt, it can't be done. There is not enough of it.
I dislike the American shale oil industry, in general, because it cannot function without borrowed capital and it no longer has the ability, in my opinion, to pay back the hundreds of billions of dollars it owes. I understand that doesn't bother you, and I understand why.
I also dislike the lying the shale oil industry engages in that convinces other stupid people that we have all the shale oil we ever need in America, enough for ourselves, and anybody else in the world that wants to buy it.
Personally, I would rather sell my oil for a higher price than current prices, but then again I have to pay to get it out of the ground, unlike yourself, I am sure, who gets it free and clear of all costs.
I also embrace oil price stability as that leads to employment stability and a healthier oil industry for America's future. I also believe it is important to conserve our remaining hydrocarbon resources in America and to otherwise develop what is left of those resources at a pace that is commensurate with the world crude oil market.
Again, I understand completely why you don't get that. I can't help you.
|
|
|
May 29, 2017 | www.breitbart.com
Iranian Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei launched his latest rhetorical broadside at Iran's arch-rivals in Saudi Arabia from a ceremony commemorating the Muslim holiday of Ramadan on Saturday. Khamenei said the Saudi rulers are "worthless, inept, and villainous."Khamenei also insulted the Saudis as "idiots" for thinking they could purchase the friendship of "pagans and enemies" with their oil money, describing them as "milk cows for the Americans."
Khamenei said the Muslim world is in "grave danger" because of leaders like the Saudis and their "refusal to follow the Koran and lack of belief in the truth." The Saudi monarchy is a major force in the world of Sunni Islam, while Iran's theocracy leads the Shiites, putting them on the opposite side of a religious schism that reaches back to the 7th Century.
That ancient conflict is mixed with contemporary geopolitical concerns, such as the civil war in Yemen, which has become a proxy war between Iran and Saudi Arabia.
The Supreme Leader of Iran, which supports the Shiite Houthi insurgents against the internationally recognized government of Yemen, blamed the Saudis for the continuing bloodshed in that war-torn country, as well as the oppression of Shiites by the Sunni government of Saudi Arabia's allies in Bahrain. Iran's Foreign Minister recently added another link to that chain of blame by accusing U.S. President Donald Trump of emboldening the government of Bahrain to crack down on Shiite demonstrators.
"They act cordially towards the enemies of Islam while having the opposite behavior towards the Muslim people of Bahrain and Yemen. They will face certain downfall," Khamenei predicted.
He blasted the Saudis for signing a multibillion-dollar arms deal with the "infidel" Americans, saying that the money should have been used to "improve the lives of their own people."
Fox News notes that recently re-elected Iranian President Hassan Rouhani, whose more moderate approach is frequently at odds with the "hardline" ayatollahs, has been calling for improved relations with Sunni nations.
"We want the rule of moderation and rationality in the relations between countries and we believe that a political solution should be a priority. The countries of the region need more cooperation and consultations to resolve the crisis in the region and we are ready to cooperate in this field," Rouhani said during a telephone conversation with the Emir of Qatar.
Rouhani's outreach to Qatar might be a little on the opportunistic side, since the emirate is currently experiencing a bit of turbulence in its relationships with Saudi Arabia, Egypt, and other major Saudi states. In fact, on Monday a minister from the United Arab Emirates described the rift as a "severe" crisis that could pose a "grave danger" to the future of the Gulf Cooperation Council.
[May 25, 2017] EconoSpeak Some Saudi-US History
May 25, 2017 | econospeak.blogspot.com
Given Donald Trump's new commitment to support military adventurism by Saudi Arabia in Yemen and more generally against Iran, it might be worth reconsidering how this alliance developed.The beginning for Saudi Arabia was in 1744 when a wandering radical cleric, Mohammed bin Abdel-Wahhab met up with a local chieftain, Mohammed bin Saud in the village of Diriyah, whose ruins are now located in the suburbs of the current Saudi Arabian capital, Riyadh. Wahhab converted Saud to his cause of spreading the strictest of the four Sunni shari'as, the Hanbali code, throughout the world, and this remains to this day the ideology of the House of Saud, the ruling family of Saudi Arabia, with this ideology widely known as Wahhabism. The territory ruled by the early Saudis expanded to cover a fair amount of the Nejd, the central portion of the Arabian peninsula, but when they threatened control of Mecca in 1818, ruled by Egyptians under the Ottomans who collected the moneys gained from pilgrims visiting there, the Egyptian leader, Muhammed Ali, invaded the Nejd and destroyed Diriyah. The Saud family moved to the next village over, Riyadh, and reconstructed their small state, which expanded again in the mid-1800s, although near the end of the century they were defeated and exiled to Kuwait by the rival Rashid family from Hail to the north of Riyadh.
In 1902 the 27 year old family leader, Abdulaziz bin al-Rahman bin Faisal al Saud, reconquered Riyadh and would eventually establish the modern Kingdom of Saudi Arabia (KSA) through marital and martial conquests, with its modern boundaries established in 1932, and Abdulaziz (known in the West as "Ibn Saud") bearing the title of King and Protector of the Two Holy Places (Mecca and Medina), which he had conqurered in 1924. He would have 43 sons, and today's king, 81-year old Salman, is one of the last of them, and Abdulaziz would die in 1953. It should be noted that Saudi Arabia was independent of the Ottoman Empire, and was one of the few parts of the Muslim world that did not fall under the rule of a European power, along with Turkey, Persia/Iran, and Afghanistan.
In the early years, especially in the 1920s, he sought outside advice and support from the British, especially St-John Philby, the rival at Whitehall of T.E. Lawrence, and the first European to cross the Empty Quarter of the Arabian peninsula. Philby was especially helpful during the revolt by the combined forces of the Rashidi and the Ikhwan (Muslim Brotherhood) whom Abdulaziz managed to defeat in 1929, with the rebels pushing an ultra-fundamentalist line against Abdulaziz (an replay of this revolt occurred 50 years later in 1979, with the Ikhwan seizing control of the Grand Mosque in Mecca for a time). Philby would convert to Islam and take several wives. He was also the father of later Soviet spy, Kim Philby.
The first interest by anybody in the US came out of two agreements in 1928 and 1929, the Red Line Agreement that gave the territories of the former Ottoman Empire to a set of British and French companies, and then the As Is agreement of 1929 between Sir Henri Deterding of Royal Dutch Shell, Baron John Cadman of Anglo-Persian (now BP), and Walter Teagle of New Jersey Standard (now Exxon Mobil) at Deterding's Achnacarry Castle in Scotland. These agreements amounted to an early effort to divide up the oil producing world in a cartel. Out of this, Jersey Standard got Saudi Arabia, although at the time oil had not been discovered there. It would be in 1938 by geologists from Jersey Standard, and agreements for production with cash payments for Abdulaziz in gold bars were made. In 1948, Abdulaziz would become the first leader of an oil-producing nation to succeed in getting a 50-50 profit sharing agreement, and as oil production surged there in the 1950s and after, the money would begin to flow into Saudi Arabia providing the basis for its modernization, even as it retained its highly traditional and strict version of Wahhabist Islam and Hanbali shari'a law code.
While Saudi Arabia initially favored Nazi Germany at the beginning of World War II, much like Iran then, it gradually shifted to the Allied side, with FDR declaring the protection of Saudi oil reserves a US national interest in 1943, and the Saudis officially declaring war on Germany in early 1945. It is widely viewed in KSA that the alliance was sealed in 1945 when FDR was returning from Yalta shortly before his death and met briefly on a boat in the Suez Canal with King Abdulaziz, producing a famous photograph of the two of them smiling and shaking hands, shortly before FDR's death. And indeed, despite some ups and downs, the alliance has held since, with oil at its center.
Given that, the nature of the relationship has changed substantially over time. One major change, signaled initiallly by that 50-50 profit sharing agreement in 1948, was an increase in Saudi control over the oil aspect of it, with OPEC founded in 1960, which would impose a quadrupling of oil prices in 1973 in the wake of the Saudi oil export embargo against the US for the US supporting Israel in the Yom Kippur war of that year. Prior to that embargo, KSA had managed to nationalize ARAMCO, the Arabian-American Oil Company, which produced the oil in Saudi Arabia, the original owners of ARAMCO being Jersey Standard, New York Standard (Mobil, now merged with Exxon), Texaco, and California Standard (now Chevron). These companies, especially Exxon Mobil, continue to have an active relationship with ARAMCO, but the Saudis have been in control of their oil and their oil industry since the beginning of the 1970s. This shifted the relationship to being one more of the US becoming the protector of KSA, providing it with arms as the petrodollars poured in, and this aspect of the relationship has reached a new height with this latest visit and arms deal, arranged by former Exxon Mobil CEO and now SecState, Tillerson.
It is worth noting also that for most of the postwar period probably the major irritant in the Saudi-US relationship has been Israel, which even now KSA does not recognize, and Trump's flight from Riyadh to Tel Aviv was the first such direct flight on that route ever. Israel supporters for many years complained about "Arabists" in the US State Department who were more oriented to worrying US oil interests in the Middle East and especially in Saudi Arabia. But today there is now an alliance of convenience between KSA and Israel in their mutual dislike of Iran.
Which brings us to the current situation. I personally think that the current Saudi leadership has gone off the rails in their anti-Iran attitudes. The differences are both sectarian and ethnic, Sunni versus Shi'i Islam and Semitic Arabs versus Indo-European Iranians, with this manifesting itself in a regional power struggle. But this is a relatively recent conflict, only getting going since the 1979 Islamic Revolution in Iran, and only getting really hot with the overthrow of Saddam Hussein by the US under George W. Bush. It was the Saudis who convinced Bush's dad not to go to Baghdad to overthrow Saddam in the 1991 Gulf War, arguing that he kept a balance of power as a Sunni Arab leader against Iran. And they argued with Bush, Jr. not to go in for the same reason, although they would support the US effort modestly once it happened, even though it aggravated Osama bin Laden and al Qaeda against the Saudi monarchy for supporting the US so openly (even though the US had supported the decision by then Saudi intel chief, Turki bin Faisal, to send bin Laden to Pakistan to aid in the anti-Soviet campaign in Afghanistan). But the replacement of a Sunni-led regime in Iraq by a Shi'i led one supported by Iran has upset the Saudis greatly. They also do not like Iranian support of Assad in Syria, who appears to have won his war against largely Sunni rebels, many of them supported by KSA, and now the Saudis are bogged down in a war in Yemen against local Zaydi Shi'a, whom they claim (not with full credibility) are being supported by Iran. So they, and the Israelis, want the US to join them in an anti-Iran crusade.
I think we are at a dangerous moment here. The nuclear deal with Iran is the most importantdeal that Obama made, and even the Saudis and Israelis know it. What they do not like about it is that it meant that the economic sanctions on Iran were relaxed. But most of those sanctions were only put on to get Iran to the nuclear negotiating table. There is no way they can be reimposed without Iran returning to having a nuclear program. The most influential person in KSA now appears to be the son of King Salman, 31-year old Mohammed bin Salman, Deputy Crown Prince and Defense Minister, who gets lots of good press in the US. But for all the talk of reform, he has not moved to let women drive or to desegregate workplaces by gender. He seems to be a warmongering hothead who has pushed this so far fruitless and destructive war in Yemen, which has led to incipient famine in that nation as well as its likely falling apart into pieces. He has even talked about "taking the war to Iran," which we can only hope that he will not be tempted to do with all those fancy arms that he is buying from the US. Trump, or whoever is in charge of US foreign policy in the near term, will really have to both defend the nuclear deal with Iran and resist this warmongering push by our longtime erstwhile ally. Let us hope that this is done.
Barkley Rosser Posted by [email protected] at 12:55 AM Email This BlogThis! Share to Twitter Share to Facebook Share to Pinterest 6 comments:
Peter T said...
- I'm not sure what the drivers of the US hate on Iran are, beyond beltway irritation at a smallish country that refuses to acknowledge US supremacy. War is, I think, unlikely - Iraq nearly broke the US army, and Iran would be much worse; Iran has an open backer in Russia, and a silent one in China, and reasonable relations with all its neighbours (so nowhere to base an invading force). It's also quite careful diplomatically - it does what it feels to be in its interests, but does not go out of its way to provoke.
KSA could panic as the Shi'a consolidate power in Iraq and Syria and their prestige rises across the Islamic world but, again, they lack the access, forces and local allies to do much - and can they afford a defeat?
btw, Iran did not have a nuclear weapons program, and is unlikely to start one even if the US reneges on the deal. Aside from religious objections, Russia and China would not approve, and it would deprive Iran of a chance to split the EU from the US.
All that said, Bush II was staffed by some of the dumbest fucking guys on the planet, and they were geniuses compared to Trump's picks.
- May 24, 2017 at 6:14 AM
bbk said...- Good stuff. But while Ikhwan means "Brethren" or "Brotherhod" and the Muslim Brotherhood's name in Arabic contains the word "Ikhwan", I don't think the Saudi Ikhwan is related to the modern Muslim Brotherhood in any way other than both using the word in their name.
The Ikhwan was the part of the Al-Saud military forces in the early 20th century who eventually revolted against the Saudi regime when the Ikhwan felt the Saudi's had gone too "soft" in their religion and refused to spread the Wahhabi creed via Jihad to the Trans-Jordan, Kuwait, and other areas controlled by the British. When the Ikhwan raided British areas the Brits retaliated and the Saudis didn't want trouble with the British so they fought the Ikhwan with the help of the British. The Ikhwan were defeated with the help of British airplanes and military vehicles.
According to wikipedia the remnants of the Ikhwan formed what is today the Saudi Arabian National Guard which is apparently tasked with protecting the royal family and crushing internal dissent.
- May 24, 2017 at 11:25 AM
[email protected] said...- Actually they had a nuclear weapons program that dated to the time of the Shah and that was initially supported by, well, the US. It was shut down after the Islamic Revolution. Then it was started up again under Rafsanjani in the late 1990s, only to be shut down about the time the US invaded Iraq, arguably one of the few positive things to come out of that invasion. Official US National Intelligence Estimates (NIE)s after then agreed that there was no active Iranian nuclear weapons program. In effect what the Iran nuclear deal did was to scale back their capability to have one, although they still have such a capability, and, of course, they have a civilian nuclear power program that is very popular in Iran.
- May 24, 2017 at 11:27 AM
Peter T said...
No argument - although I think the program under Rafsanjani was more exploration than active development. Iranians are touchy about the civil nuclear program because for them it's a touchstone for respect for their rights as an independent nation. In their view, they joined the IAEA, signed up to the NPT, abided by all the rules and got sanctions, theft of frozen money and threats.If the US priority were fighting terrorism, then Iran (and even Syria) would be better allies than Saudi (or Pakistan). But history has its own inertia...
- May 24, 2017 at 9:37 PM
Unknown said...- Total agreement with Peter T that if fighting terrorism is a priority, hostility to Iran makes little sense. All the major terror groups are Shia with the exception of Hezbollah, but it not a threat to the US or Europe.
- May 25, 2017 at 8:22 AM
Elwailly said...- Unknown said...
... All the major terror groups are Shia with the exception of Hezbollah, but it not a threat to the US or Europe.He means they are all Sunni with the exception of Hezbollah, which is Shia.
(In reality Hezbollah was never a terrorist group in the traditional sense of fostering attacks against civilians. Their sin was fighting the Israelis.)
- May 25, 2017 at 6:07 PM
[Apr 22, 2017] The 'Russification' of Oil Exploration - The New York Times
Apr 22, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
MOSCOW - The American and European sanctions against the Russian oil industry have dashed, at least for now, the Western oil majors' ambitions to drill in the Arctic Ocean.
But drilling will continue all the same, Russian government and state oil company officials have been taking pains to point out, ever since the sanctions took effect over the summer.
"We will do it on our own," Igor I. Sechin, the president of Russia's state-controlled oil company, Rosneft, told journalists in October. "We'll continue drilling here next year and the years after that."
Rather than throw in the towel in the face of Western sanctions intended to halt Russia's Arctic oil ambitions by stopping technology transfers, the Russians have responded with plans to "Russify" the technology to be deployed in the world's largest effort to date to extract oil from the thawing Arctic Ocean.
Continue reading the main story Advertisement Continue reading the main storyThe solution to tapping the Arctic, Yevgeny Primakov, a former prime minister, told a group of high officials in October, "is found first of all in our own industrial base."
Advertisement Continue reading the main storyA major hurdle is already cleared: An Exxon-led joint venture discovered oil in the Russian sector of the Arctic Ocean in September, proving the region holds commercially viable volumes of oil.
Rosneft is already laying plans to drill without Western oil major cooperation. Along with Exxon, Eni of Italy and Statoil of Norway had joint ventures to work with Rosneft in the Kara, Laptev, and Chukchi seas above Russia.
After the September sanctions suspended those deals , Rosneft negotiated to rent from Gazprom four Russian ice-class drilling rigs for next season's exploration work, should Exxon still be sanction-barred from doing the work next summer.
Rosneft has also booked six rigs from North Atlantic Drilling, a unit of Seadrill of Norway, under contracts signed in July and grandfathered in under the sanctions.
The Russians are in early talks with the Chinese over sailing rigs from the South China Sea to the Arctic Ocean, industry executives say.
This spring as the threat of sanctions loomed, Rosneft bought the Russian and Venezuelan well-drilling business of Weatherford, adding to its in-house capabilities.
A further "Russification" of the industry seems inevitable. In October, President Vladimir V. Putin approved the creation of a state-owned oil services company, RBC, a Russian business newspaper reported. The intention is to duplicate, as well as possible, the services purveyed now by Halliburton, Baker Hughes and Schlumberger.
Certainly, some in the oil industry see the Russian official response as bluff, asserting Rosneft has neither the skills nor the capital to drill for oil in its 42 offshore licenses blocks. Under the joint ventures, the Western companies financed and managed the exploration work.
Advertisement Continue reading the main storyThe three companies, Exxon, Eni and Statoil, were to invest $20 billion in exploration, and the company has been mute on how it will replace that. Just this summer, Exxon paid $700 million to drill the Universitetskaya-1 well in the Kara Sea.
Russia, meanwhile, does not even manufacture subsea hardware like well heads. Rosneft's finances are restricted to 30-day loans under sanctions.
Yet the company and the Russian industry are already tooling up for just such an effort.
The sheer uncertainty of sanctions is pushing the Russian industry to turn inward. Russian companies, even those who prefer to work with U.S. oilfield equipment or services providers because the cost or quality is better, can never know when new sanctions might scuttle a deal.
DealBookDealBook delivers the news driving the markets and the conversation. Delivered weekday mornings and afternoons.
Thank you for subscribing. An error has occurred. Please try again later. You are already subscribed to this email.View all New York Times newsletters.
See Sample Manage Email Preferences Not you? Privacy Policy
"The client looks at you and says 'I like you, I like your product, but you are not dependable,' " Alexis Rodzianko, the director of the American Chamber of Commerce in Russia said in an interview.
Russia now has a "hierarchy of procurement" placing domestic and Asian companies first, U.S. companies last.
"The consensus in Russia is this is not a one-off, short-term problem," Ildar Davletshin, an oil analyst at Renaissance Capital in Moscow, said in an interview, of the Russian effort to pivot to domestic and Asian suppliers.
"Nobody will just sit and wait" for sanctions to be lifted, he said.
Whether Russian technology can fill the gap left by Western oil majors as the country prepares for the extraordinary engineering challenge of oil drilling under the Arctic ice remains an unsettled question within the industry.
Russia brings Soviet legacy technologies, including the world's only fleet of nuclear icebreakers, awesome machines of immense power, with names like 50 Years of Victory and Yamal, which sail year-round in the Arctic Ocean.
"Let's not underestimate them," said one oil company executive who visited Exxon's West Alpha rig this summer, but could not speak publicly because of company policy. Russians are no strangers to the north, and the cold. "They are determined to do it. They might do it on their own."
Advertisement Continue reading the main storyThe Russian intention to do just that became clear out on the Arctic Ocean at the end of the short drilling window this summer.
Ice floes were already creeping down from the polar ice cap in tongues when the U.S. government announced Sept. 12 that Exxon was to halt all assistance to Rosneft by Sept. 26, in response to Russian military assistance to a rebel counteroffensive against the Ukrainian Army in late August.
The Exxon crew stopped drilling, though the well was only about 75 percent complete.
In an early indication of the Russians' intentions to go it alone after sanctions, Rosneft executives told Exxon they would not allow the West Alpha rig to leave Russian waters without finishing the well, according to the oil company executive familiar with events on the platform in September.
If Exxon withdrew American engineers, Rosneft would fly out a Russian replacement crew, putting the localization plan into immediate action, the executive said. Rosneft's press service contested this characterization of the company's position, calling it a "fiction."
In the end, Exxon obtained an extension on its waiver to the sanction from the U.S. Treasury Department, stretching the window for work with Rosneft in the Arctic until Oct. 10.
The Arctic Ocean, Mr. Sechin said later that month in the interview with Bloomberg News at the drilling site in the Kara Sea, is Russia's "Saudi Arabia" of oil, vast and pivotal to Russia's national interests.
Rosneft's website estimates the Kara Sea's reservoirs hold about 87 billion barrels of oil and the equivalent in natural gas , calling this more than the deposits of the Gulf of Mexico, the Brazilian shelf or the offshore potential north of Alaska and Canada.
After a daylong pause on Sept. 12 to Sept. 13, the Russian brinkmanship worked: The American crew continued drilling and about a week later, in mid-September, discovered a vast oil deposit, holding about 750 million barrels of oil. Mr. Sechin thanked Western partners for the find, and named the field Pobeda, or Victory.
|
|
|
Apr 21, 2017 | www.nytimes.com
MOSCOW - The Russian government announced Wednesday that it will sell nearly 20 percent of its state oil company, Rosneft , to the Swiss commodity trading firm Glencore and the sovereign wealth fund of Qatar.
The deal defies expectations that no investor would dare buy a share in the Russian asset, given Western sanctions against the government of President Vladimir V. Putin.
But the emergence of foreign money suggests that investors are reassessing the sanctions after the election of Donald J. Trump, who has advocated warming ties with authorities in Moscow and is considering the chairman of Exxon Mobil, Rex W. Tillerson, as a candidate for secretary of state.
Mr. Tillerson criticized the sanctions as harmful for business after they halted an Exxon joint venture with Rosneft to drill for oil in the Kara Sea, in Russia 's sector of the Arctic Ocean.
The deal will bring Moscow $11.3 billion to help plug a widening budget deficit as Russia fights two wars, in Syria and Ukraine, and has struggled to meet pension payments and public-sector payrolls.
The agreement came as a surprise twist in the privatization of Rosneft. With an end-of-the-year deadline looming, no buyers had come forward for the 19.5 percent share in the world's largest publicly traded oil company, as measured by production and reserves. The apparent lack of bidders was a pessimistic sign for investor interest in Russia.
The Russian government had for most of the year planned to sell shares back to the majority state-owned company itself, which would hardly have qualified as a genuine privatization.
The United States decided in 2014 to impose sanctions on Rosneft and other Russian companies in response to Russia's intervention in the war in eastern Ukraine..
The sanctions limit long-term lending and transfer of American technology for drilling offshore and shale oil deposits.
The deal carries other risks as well. Both Glencore and the Qatari fund, the Qatar Investment Authority, have extensive investments in emerging markets. The Qatar fund is also an investor in Glencore.
The announced price valued Rosneft at $58 billion, slightly less than the company's stock market value at the close of trading in Moscow on Wednesday, of just under $59 billion.
Both the market price of shares and the sale price for the 19.5 percent stake announced Wednesday are a relative bargain, indicating the Russian government's eagerness to cut a deal to shore up its finances.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2017 | www.presstv.ir
Saudi Arabia has reportedly canceled or restructured economic and infrastructure projects worth billions of dollars.Reuters in a report quoted government sources as saying that the Saudi government had ordered ministries and organizations to review the projects to either scrap or make them more efficient.
The report added that most of the projects that had been targeted were those that had been devised during lavish government spending buoyed by crude oil prices above $100 per barrel.
However, they would no longer be cost-efficient with oil at below $55 per barrel.
Riyadh's Bureau of Capital and Operational Spending Rationalization is now assessing the projects that are under 25 percent complete, the sources told Reuters.
"Some projects could be retendered so they can be executed in partnership with the private sector, possibly through build-operate-transfer (BOT) contracts," one source familiar with the plan told the agency.
"Other projects could be suspended if they do not meet the current economic objectives," the source said.
The finances of Saudi Arabia, the world's second largest crude producer after Russia and largest oil exporter, have been hit by a downturn in oil prices that were above $100 a barrel in 2014, but start to plunge to well below $40 in 2016.
The plunge in global oil prices prompted Riyadh to rein in public spending in a bid to save money. The kingdom's economic measures are being led by Salman's son, Deputy Crown Prince Mohammad bin Salman Al Saud.
Earlier last year, the Riyadh regime cancelled financial perks for public sector employees and slashed salaries of ministers and members of the Consultative Assembly of Saudi Arabia, also known as the Shura Council.
It further froze major building projects and made unprecedented cuts to fuel and utilities subsidies. Ren Lugay 18 hours ago Hmmm, no money to complete social infrastructure projects but always spare cash to buy cluster munitions from the Great Satan and Israel to bomb innocent civilians in Yemen.
|
|
|
Apr 18, 2017 | www.presstv.ir
Saudi Arabia has launched a massive multi-billion-dollar plan which is expected to increase the kingdom's production of electricity from renewable sources by 10 percent within the next few years.Reuters said in a report that the plan envisaged the construction of 30 solar and wind projects by 2023.
The projects that would be meant to boost the kingdom's electricity generation and reduce crude oil burning could generate 9.5 gigawatt of renewable energy.
The initiative involves investment estimated between $30 billion and $50 billion, Reuters reported.
On a related front, the news service said the Saudi Energy Minister Khalid al-Falih on Monday announced the beginning of the bidding for a project to produce 300 megawatt of solar power.
The project is expected to come online by 2018-2019.
"The energy mix to produce electricity will change, today the kingdom uses large quantities of oil liquids, including crude, fuel oil and diesel," Falih was quoted as saying.
"So the percentage of renewable energy by 2023 (will be) 10 percent of total installed capacity in the kingdom."
Based on an ambitious economic reform program launched last year, known as Vision 2030, Saudi Arabia is seeking to use non-oil means to generate much of its additional future energy needs to avoid running down oil resources and diversify its economy.
The kingdom is restructuring its energy sector as part of Vision 2030 and a focus on renewable projects is a pillar of this transformation as it would help develop the private sector and create thousands of jobs, Reuters added.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Mike 04/15/2017 at 9:35 amHopefully everyone involved in defending Bakken production upswings will not disappear into the woodwork next month, or the month after, when production drops again.George Kaplan 04/14/2017 at 10:31 amOf course marginal shale oil wells that are at or below economic limits get shut in during winter, or get shut in and stay shut in because workover costs to restore production simply do not make economic sense. There are gazillions of those kinds of well in all three of America's shale oil basins. There need not be a flush 'uptick' of production when those wells come back on line (that's investor presentation dribble), in fact it can be just the opposite because of bubble point/higher water saturations.
Re-frac's cost more money. At $20.00 per barrel net back prices a $2.5-3.0M re-frac requires ANOTHER 137,000 BO to payout. Productivity should never be confused with profitability (or lack thereof); in the end the latter always wins out.
And this SPE paper pretty much shoots the hell out of all that "halo" bunk: https://www.spe.org/en/jpt/jpt-article-detail/?art=2819 .
Imagine a situation where you are drilling these $6.5M wells so close together (Marathon at 330 feet, toe to toe) that you have to "protect" them by shutting them in for prolonged periods of time while you frac a new well 3000 feet away. That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
A little more time and realized production data will prove that downsizing actually reduced UR per incremental well and was yet another economic disaster in a string of economic disasters for the shale oil industry, the biggest being oversupply and an ensuing 70% drop in product prices.
People do really stupid things with OPM.
Dennis,... ... ...
The actual reserve that is being produced in the Bakken was "discovered, undeveloped and developed" in 2013, and not covered by the USGS. It's difficult to find break out information for individual areas in most companies reports but I don't think there was more than about 5 Gb developed and undeveloped reserves in 2013, and it might have declined a bit since then, even including actual production.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne, 04/14/2017 at 12:42 pmHi George,Dennis Coyne says: 04/14/2017 at 4:56 pmWhen I give the cumulative output of the scenarios, it is from the start of production in the Bakken/TF in ND, about 1.6 Gb had been produced at the end of 2015 and Bakken Three Forks proved reserves were about 5 Gb at the end of 2015, that gets us to 6.6 Gb, typically there are probable reserves as well, though we would have to guess at how much. Also as oil prices increase in the future 2P reserves are likely to increase.
Note that the F95 USGS TRR estimate for the ND Bakken Three Forks is about 7.2 Gb, if we assume probable reserves at the end of 2012 were zero (in my view not a very good assumption). What do you think is a reasonable estimate for probable reserves if proved reserves are 5 Gb? Your guess would be better than mine. For UK North Sea a typical number would be 3 Gb of probable for 5 Gb of proved (all UK North Sea reserves). For the Bakken it would likely be lower, maybe 1 Gb of probable for 5 Gb of proved reserves might be a reasonable guess.
Bakken average well profile from June 2015 to Dec 2017 shown below (after that the EUR decreases).
Hi George,George Kaplan says: 04/15/2017 at 2:52 amThat is the study I use.
https://pubs.usgs.gov/fs/2013/3013/
If you pull up data at shaleprofile.com
and look at wells from 2014 to 2017, there are 1388 Three Forks wells that have been producing for 20 months (cumulative is 118kb) and there are 1689 Middle Bakken wells (cumulative is 143kb@20 months). So lately (past 3 years) a fairly large proportion of wells have been Three Forks wells (about 45%). After 36 months the difference in cumulative output is about 30 kb (TF is lower at 155kb@36 mo, Bakken is 185 kb at 36 months).I think you are mixing proved reserves from EIA with the undiscovered numbers from USGS. The proved reserves might have some basis and 5 to 6 might be right, I haven't sen any kind of detail of how they are arrived at. But that is not the same oil as in the USGS report it was mostly already known about in 2012 when the E&Ps stopped drilling wildcats. Since then they have been converting probable to proven, and in some cases writing off some of the reserves. If you want to include the USGS data then it should be added to whatever there was as 2P in 2012 as a final recovery.I don't know where there 1300+ Three Forks wells come from the ND production wells for January shows only 1 well in the Three Forks and 45 Three Forks / Bakken. There are other pool's like Sanish and Madison. Madison is a big producer so maybe that is counted as Three Forks in USGS. The ND DMR overall production up to 2015 gives 10 million for Three Forks / Bakken, 1600 for Bakken, 950 for Madison and < 1 for Three Forks alone.
The 220,000 EUR I quoted was for the Three Forks alone from USGS, not Bakken.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
texas tea says: 04/14/2017 at 1:53 pmhttps://www.oilandgas360.com/energy-lifetime-usgs-bumps-natgas-estimate-70-tcf-304-tcf-bossier-haynesville/Boomer II says: 04/14/2017 at 2:44 pmThe money lines which can not be more accurate as it relates to those on this forum who take 1 or 2 data points and make industry wide conclusions
are:
"Changes in technology and industry practices, combined with an increased understanding of the regional geologic framework, can have a significant effect on what resources become technically recoverable. "
"It's amazing what a little more knowledge can yield," said USGS scientist Stan Paxton, lead author of the assessment."
Which means gas prices will stay low, further killing coal.Boomer II says: 04/14/2017 at 8:10 pmAnd it may also mean more support for the Paris Accord so that gas producers will see pressure for countries to switch from coal to gas. Gas producers will have something to gain if coal burning is phased out.
It also occurred to me that if natural gas prices stay low, that should keep electricity prices low, which should help EVs. I've already seen my local utility promoting the Nissan Leaf.If electric utilities can move into transportation that gives them a very big new market. It also expands their influence.
|
|
|
Apr 17, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Energy News says: 04/15/2017 at 10:35 amChina crude oil imports increased to a record 9.21mb/day in March 2017 versus 8.32mb/day in February 2017 (7.33 barrels per ton conversion) Chinese customs data. I guess China is still filling it's SPR.Before I had read this I had been wondering why news articles were saying that world oil inventories had decreased a little. Inventories often build into April. Also news agencies estimates are still saying that OPEC oil exports are holding steady and have not decreased in line with their production cuts, I guess that they have been exporting from their inventories.
inventory declines, news clips
Reuters Apr 11, 2017 Nordic bank SEB said global oil inventories in weekly data have dropped by 42 million barrels in the last four weeks.
http://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-oil-opec-storage-idUKKBN17D1NHBloomberg 2017-04-04 Since mid-February, between 10 million and 20 million barrels have left the Caribbean
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2017-04-03/oil-traders-said-to-drain-caribbean-hoards-as-opec-impact-hitsClipper Data Apr 6, 2017 This week we have seen Iranian barrels drop to 5 million barrels, while barrels offshore of United Arab Emirates have halved in the last week, dropping to just under 10 million barrels.
http://blog.clipperdata.com/floating-storage-holding-up-despite-iran-drop
|
|
|
Apr 16, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 04/14/2017 at 3:07 amThis is worth a read:Dennis Coyne says: 04/14/2017 at 8:55 amhttp://oilprice.com/Energy/Energy-General/Supply-Crunch-Or-Oil-Glut-Investment-Banks-Cant-Agree.html
I think I tend to agree with the banks i.e. I don't really have a clue, and cover myself by changing my mind every couple of days.. But I tend to now think oil shortages may be sooner rather than later.
A couple of big project start-ups for Angola and Kazakhstan have been delayed for a year, Iran and Iraq are not developing at all as quickly as they'd planned (and others expected), there are much fewer, short cycle, small tie backs getting approved than I thought would be the case, offshore drilling in general just isn't picking up, and there seems to be early indications that the cuts in maintenance and brownfield investments from 2014 are impacting availabilities (e.g. with more unplanned downtime) and decline rates (i.e. steeper). So instead of late 2018 for start of big stock draws it may be autumn this year.
It depends also, of course, on how demand changes, whether OPEC (really Saudi) are making voluntary cuts and have increasing spare capacity, or are following a forced decline due to surface facility limitations, and what happens in the Permian which at the moment seems increasingly desperate and bonkers by both investors and the E&Ps, but may turn out to be exactly right.
On the other hand IEA OMR report come out yesterday and their worries about a supply crash soon, which were evident a few months back, seem to have gone away, at least for the moment.
https://www.iea.org/oilmarketreport/omrpublic/
"Indeed, although the oil market will likely tighten throughout the year, overall non-OPEC production, not just in the US, will soon be on the rise again. Even after taking into account production cut pledges from the eleven non-OPEC countries, unplanned outages in Canada as well as in the North Sea, we expect production will grow again on a year-on-year basis by May."
Hi George,AlexS says: 04/14/2017 at 9:12 amYou said,
I don't really have a clue, and cover myself by changing my mind every couple of days..
LOL
You are not alone. I tend to think eventually output will fall below demand and oil prices will rise if that ever occurs. When that actually happens? I do not know, perhaps never, my latest guess is first half of 2018 (tomorrow the guess may change.)
"I tend to think eventually output will fall below demand and oil prices will rise "Dennis Coyne says: 04/14/2017 at 12:09 pmAnd then output will again rise faster than demand and prices will fall. And that will repeat several times until the oil age ends.
Hi AlexS,likbez says: 04/16/2017 at 12:56 amI suppose over the short term there will be cycles. In a very optimistic scenario by 2032 the 3 year centered moving average of World C+C output will be trending lower (with three year average output peaking at 87 Mb/d). A more pessimistic scenario has the 3 year peak in 2016 at about 80.5 Mb/d and a reasonable guess is mid way between these scenarios with a 3 year average peak in 2024 at about 84 Mb/d. Growth rates will vary with the boom bust cycle, so smooth trend lines will not be followed, output will cycle above and below in ways that are difficult to predict in advance.
AlexS,I think this is a neoclassic way of thinking. Oil is the strategic, political tool. So price of oil is a politically important variable. That's why oil wars were fought. As simple as that.
We already saw that world oil production was virtually flat in 2015 and 2016 (2015: 96.80 vs. 2016: 97.17 ) but demand increased (1.4 Mb/d per year I think, so around 2.8 Mb/d for two years) which for some reason did not affect much oil prices.
I think the elephant in the room is the financial system and its interaction with the oil industry. They are now new OPEC and are able to dictate the price (within certain limits) via derivatives. Probably not without some help from KSA, which practiced damping in 2015 and 2016.
I think there are powerful forces that will try to keep oil below $60 because that's the difference between the US economics in secular stagnation mode and the US economics in recession.
In this sense the balance of supply and demand does not matter until there are real oil shortages. Only in the latter case derivatives are of no or little help.
It is very interesting how primitive was behavior of OPEC in late 2016: they decided to cheat on themselves as Ron pointed out. This is really primitive, almost tribal level of thinking. And it might repeat. That's another factor that might limits upside. Unless they are really in trouble and reached peak production capacity.
Rereading posts and articles from early 2015 is also very sobering if you assume neoclassical "supply and demand stochastic equilibrium" exists for oil (which IMHO is a false assumption).
It suggests that few people in 2015 understood the predicament. Most assumed that in a year or year and a half max prices will return to more or less "normal" levels, as non-OPEC producers, which usually have higher cost of production, will be decimated. And then should move higher.
That did not happen. Instead we have had almost flat level of non-OPEC production(2015: 58.77 vs. 2016: 58.18 ); it lies probably within the accuracy of measurements +- 0.5 MB/d .
At prices below $80 or so shale oil production is impossible without generating junk bonds and that means that money are still flowing to shale drillers. Not as much as in good old times, but they are flowing; despite clear indication that most probably those loans will never be repaid in full. Something is really fishy here.
Also please compare your old views with the current situation:
http://peakoilbarrel.com/open-thread-oil-and-gas/comment-page-1/#comment-541443
I wonder if the USA is able to keep oil under $60 (outside few spikes) for two more years.
|
|
|
Apr 15, 2017 | finance.yahoo.com
As the Wall Street Journal's Benoit Faucon and Summer Said report: "Saudi Arabia, Iraq and Kuwait believe $60 a barrel will lift their economies and allow for more energy-industry investment, the officials said, without jump starting too much American shale output, which can be ramped up and down with prices more easily than most oil production. Saudi Arabia, Iraq and other members of the 13-nation cartel have signaled they will push to extend those cuts for another six months on May 25, when they meet in Vienna." Crude prices are influenced by a hard to predict group of variables, from Chinese demand and supply disruptions in the Middle East to the amount of crude U.S. frackers pull out of the ground. Oil prices hit $100 a barrel in 2014 before the market collapsed.
Read more Barrons.com
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 | oilprice.com
" The developments in Syria should be factored in as an additional risk premium in the oil price going forward, especially now that oil inventories are drawing down and the market is no longer in massive surplus," said Bjarne Schieldrop, an analyst at SEB.He expects Brent to average $57.50 in the second quarter, " which means we are likely to see $60 printed at times during this period ."
By Oil and Gas 360
|
|
|
Apr 12, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc , April 12, 2017 at 08:30 AMUpdate re Crude OilOil is in a solid range that will keep oil pumping from all sources, there will be no shortages and price will be capped by supply, imo, no higher than $56 to $60.
"EIA reports first weekly U.S. crude-oil supply decline in a month"
By Myra P. Saefong, Markets/commodities reporter...Apr 12, 2017...10:37 a.m. ET
"Oil futures extended gains Wednesday after data from the U.S. Energy Information Administration showed that domestic crude supplies fell by 2.2 million barrels for the week ended April 7. The American Petroleum Institute late Tuesday reported a 1.3 million-barrel decline, according to sources, while analysts polled by S&P Global Platts forecast a climb of 125,000 barrels. Gasoline supplies also declined by 3 million barrels, while distillate stockpiles were down by 2.2 million barrels last week, according to the EIA. May crude CLK7, -0.24% rose 13 cents, or 0.2%, to $53.54 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. It was trading at $53.46 before the supply data."
|
|
|
Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
Moscow is fully complying with the deal to cap oil production, while accurately evaluating longer-term structural developments in the market, according to Russian Energy Minister Aleksandr Novak. In March, the country's producers reduced output by 200,000 barrels per day as the decrease in January and February was ahead of the original plans, according to the minister. 'Largest discovery' of oil off Scottish coast could raise chances of independence"Russia is reducing its oil production in stages, in accordance with the plans we worked out voluntarily with our production companies," Novak said in an interview with CNBC at the International Artic Forum in Arkhangelsk on Thursday.
"We anticipate complying with the figure outlined in the agreement by the end of April," he said, stressing that the reduction target was 300,000 barrels per day.
According to Novak, overall supply and demand trends will be a major reason for Russia to support renewing the agreement at the end of May.
"Undoubtedly, and this could be an even more important factor, is the situation on the market linked with the balance between supply and demand and the situation with regards to the development of the situation with oil reserves and oil product reserves in the OECD countries and the countries in the world as a whole," said the energy minister.
"And we will be following this closely; it will be important for us to know what's going to happen in April, the forecasts for May and June and the second half of next year," he stressed.
The minister has also pointed to the importance of the Arctic region for Russia's energy strategy.
"Currently, we are producing about 17 percent of our total oil production in the Arctic. In 20 years, in accordance with our strategic plans, this share will increase to as much as 26 percent. But the figures for gas will be even more interesting to you. We currently produce 80 percent of our gas in the Arctic," he said, adding that new production was ongoing on the Arctic shelf.The minister's comments followed the recent changes in US policy to increase the country's energy independence. There has been a resurgence in the activity of US shale producers that could lead to increased supply to the global market given a rebound in the oil price.
"As far as energy independence is concerned I don't think this is anything new for the United States. It's unlikely that at any time it was ever US policy to increase its dependence on imported energy resources," he said.At the same time, the boost in shale oil production may reach up to 400,000 barrels a day this year, according to Novak.
"It's clear that we are all assessing the situation in a sober fashion, we understand that there will be a rise in the production of shale oil. Again I want to say that we need to look at the situation as a whole throughout the world," the energy minister concluded.
[Apr 06, 2017] IEA Huge Oil Price Spike Inevitable
Notable quotes:
"... Meanwhile, demand will continue to grow, eventually overtaking supply. The IEA projects global demand to reach 104 million barrels per day (mbd) by 2020, with the " call on OPEC ..."
"... The IEA warns that unless a wave of new upstream projects are given the greenlight by exploration companies, OPEC's spare capacity will fall to low levels and oil prices will rise sharply. ..."
"... One of the more eye-opening predictions from the IEA is that oil demand will continue to rise without interruption. The agency noted that global oil demand grew by a whopping 2 mb/d in 2015 because of low prices, then by another strong 1.6 mb/d in 2016. Moving forward, demand rises steadily, year after year, by an average of 1.2 mb/d through 2022. India takes over as the largest source of demand growth, a mantle long-held by China. ..."
"... For all these reasons, the much-discussed peak for oil demand remains some years into the future, ..."
"... "[W]e are emphasising an important message: more investment is needed in oil production capacity to avoid the risk of a sharp increase in oil prices ..."
"... This article was originally published on Oilprice.com ..."
Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
Mar 13, 2017Three years of drastic cuts to upstream spending because of the meltdown in oil prices could result in a shortage of oil supply in a few years, according to a new report from the International Energy Agency.
When oil prices collapsed in 2014, oil producers quickly took an ax to their spending. Global oil and gas investment dropped by a quarter in 2015 and by an additional 26 percent last year, the IEA estimates. A long list of projects, particularly very large ones, were put on ice.
Because many of these projects take years to develop, the sharp slowdown between 2014 and 2016 could result in very few sources of new supply hitting the market towards the end of the decade.
To be sure, supply is already coming back. The US has added more than 500,000 bpd since last summer, and shale drillers are ramping up activity. The IEA says that the shale industry achieved cost reductions of about 30 percent in 2015 and 22 percent in 2016, making the average shale well more profitable today than it was before the downturn. That is already leading to a rebound.
But even the nascent recovery in drilling this year will be a far cry from the investment prior to the 2014 oil bust.
Moreover, the IEA thinks that even the revival of U.S. shale at lower prices won't be enough to head off a supply shortage by 2020. The pipeline of new projects is too small.
Meanwhile, demand will continue to grow, eventually overtaking supply. The IEA projects global demand to reach 104 million barrels per day (mbd) by 2020, with the " call on OPEC " reaching 35.8 mbd, up from 32.2 mbd last year.
The market may ask for much higher supply from OPEC, but that would force the group to burn through its spare capacity, which could shrink to well below 2 mb/d. Spare capacity the ability to ramp up or down supply on short notice has been one of the key cushions to the oil market for decades. Knowing that Saudi Arabia could plug any supply gap in a pinch helped reduce oil market volatility, and also reduced the risk premium that would hit the market when unforeseen geopolitical flashpoints inevitably cropped up.
The IEA warns that unless a wave of new upstream projects are given the greenlight by exploration companies, OPEC's spare capacity will fall to low levels and oil prices will rise sharply.
One of the more eye-opening predictions from the IEA is that oil demand will continue to rise without interruption. The agency noted that global oil demand grew by a whopping 2 mb/d in 2015 because of low prices, then by another strong 1.6 mb/d in 2016. Moving forward, demand rises steadily, year after year, by an average of 1.2 mb/d through 2022. India takes over as the largest source of demand growth, a mantle long-held by China.
The IEA, unlike a growing chorus of analysts, thinks that electric vehicles might only have a marginal impact on demand, slowing consumption growth but ultimately not reversing it. On top of that, oil demand will grow in various sectors not related to passenger vehicles, including freight, marine transit, and aviation. " For all these reasons, the much-discussed peak for oil demand remains some years into the future, " the IEA wrote.
So we have rising demand and a shortage of new supply. But, surely U.S. shale, with its falling breakeven prices and resurgence at $50 per barrel can meet the supply gap? The IEA does think that shale will see significant growth, rising by 1.4 mb/d through 2022, assuming oil prices at $60 per barrel. If prices rise to, say, $80 per barrel, then U.S. shale could see growth of 3 mb/d. But the IEA's working assumption is that all non-OPEC countries together contribute an extra 3.3 mb/d of supply over the next five years.
The problem with that figure is that demand is expected to rise by 7.2 mb/d over that same timeframe. The end result will be a strain on OPEC supplies. In light of these numbers, the IEA issued a warning. "[W]e are emphasising an important message: more investment is needed in oil production capacity to avoid the risk of a sharp increase in oil prices " by the early 2020s.
This article was originally published on Oilprice.com
Read more:
$25 trillion investment needed to meet future oil demand The craziest oil price predictions for 2017 Oilprice.com: Oil Prices Hold Steady Ahead Of Inventory Data Oilprice.com: Oil Majors To Boost Production As IEA Warns Of Supply Deficit
[Apr 06, 2017] Oil at near one-month high on supply outage in North Sea
Notable quotes:
"... "The immediate reason for the move was an unplanned production outage in the North Sea," ..."
"... "We have seen a significant reduction in global oil supply since January, with oil on water going from 978 million barrels on Jan. 1 to 812 million barrels on April 3," ..."
"... "These changes are a signal that the rebalancing is happening faster than many in the market believe," ..."
Apr 06, 2017 | www.rt.com
Crude prices climbed one percent on Wednesday on the news of a supply outage at a field in the United Kingdom's sector of the North Sea. Read more Russia quietly cutting oil output while looking at broader prospects Energy MinisterBrent crude, the international benchmark for oil in the region, rose 54 cents to $54.71 per barrel. US West Texas Intermediate (WTI) crude futures were up 52 cents, at $51.55 per barrel. For both benchmarks, this is the best performance since March, 8.
"The immediate reason for the move was an unplanned production outage in the North Sea," said Sukrit Vijayakar, director of energy consultancy Trifecta, as quoted by Reuters. He was referring to an unpredicted production outage at the Buzzard oil field.
Crude prices were also propped up by expectations the Organization of the Petroleum Exporting Countries (OPEC) would continue looking at cutting production.
Moreover, there has been information that shipped oil supplies have dropped by 17 percent this year, according to oil analysis firm Vortexa.
"We have seen a significant reduction in global oil supply since January, with oil on water going from 978 million barrels on Jan. 1 to 812 million barrels on April 3," said Vortexa chief executive Fabio Kuhn.
"These changes are a signal that the rebalancing is happening faster than many in the market believe," Kuhn added.
According to Reuters, OPEC shipments fell to 813.7 million barrels at the end of March from 796.6 million barrels at the beginning of the year.
While US oil stockpiles dropped by 1.8 million barrels last week to 533.7 million, this is still close to a record.
[Mar 25, 2017] I am super skeptical of the financial press reporting about oil production, oil prices, etc. All it takes is a rumor about more drill-rigs moving into the Permian Basin to drive down WTI prices by five to ten percent
Mar 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
GreenPeople's Media says: 03/23/2017 at 10:55 pmThese days, I'm super-skeptical of literally everything coming out of the financial press about oil production, oil prices, the wisdom of investment in oil companies, etc. All it takes is a rumor about more drill-rigs moving into the Permian Basin to drive down WTI prices by 5-10%, or so it seems to the uninitiated.So if the optimistic scenarios described above come to pass, they're also simultaneously the pessimistic scenarios, because apparently all the OPEC nations are also capable of flooding the global market with abundant un-needed oil as well. It seems to the Guy on the Street that the fracking boom is the sound of the oil and gas industries blowing up their own business model. Over and over and over again.
Since our mission in writing a blog is an alternative-far Leftist (or "Snowflake Stalinist" I've been told) analysis of what is wrong with the economic system, and how it has to change so that the younger generations can survive at least at a Second-World living standard, it's important to get the narratives right. I live in Wisconsin, which I would place in the very bottom 5 states in terms of long-term sustainability as the petroleum era coasts slowly to a close, whenever that may be. Besides being the frac-sand capital of North America, we're also one of the biggest crude oil corridors (Enbridge, with 5 and soon going to 6, or, 7, or 8, depending on Line 5's fate.
I think if we don't build-out a 100% renewable-energy-powered mass transit system starting within the next 2 decades, even the Second-World living standard for Wisconsin is way too optimistic. And of course, we're not going to do that, because there's just "plenty of oil" out there (or fracked natural gas, for electric vehicles) waiting to be pumped up and burned. Also, there's no money remaining for that option.
The future: Looks sketchy to me.
B.G. in Wisconsin
[Mar 25, 2017] Whether the oil prices bounce around will depend on OPEC and demand. I think we could see consistently high oil prices if OPEC and Russia choose to moderate their output to match demand
Mar 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne says: 03/22/2017 at 1:32 pmHi Fernando,Thanks.
Whether the oil prices bounce around will depend on OPEC and demand. I think we could see consistently high oil prices until 2040 if OPEC and Russia choose to moderate their output to match demand in order to keep oil prices high. Also note that by the time US LTO reaches 6.5 Mb/d there may be a serious shortage of oil due to the lack of investment from 2015 to 2018 (oil sands and deepwater). After 2021 US LTO output will fall no matter how high oil prices are, though potentially we could see some LTO output from other nations (China and Russia?) which might mitigate the decline a bit (this seems a bit too optimistic even to me), the EIA claims about 320 Gb of LTO resources outside the US, in my opinion we are unlikely to see an ERR of more than 35 Gb for non-US LTO output from 2016 to 2070.
[Mar 25, 2017] The few larger, new discoveries are also in frontier, and therefore generally more expensive, regions
Mar 25, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 03/23/2017 at 7:18 amIt's looking like the shorter cycle times for LTO just means the the volatility acts over higher frequency but doesn't go away. A fundamental problem remains that all the E&Ps use basically the same model, and therefore they all make essentially the same decisions at around the same time, and therefore you get boom and bust. Volatility may be the biggest contribution to delaying or preventing long term investment in bigger (principally deep water and oil sand) projects, but I think the impact of the big drop off in discoveries is significant, and not being fully appreciated.The backlog of discoveries are mostly difficult and expensive developments that were not considered as top prospects when oil was over $100.
The few larger, new discoveries are also in frontier, and therefore generally more expensive, regions. E&Ps are turning to gas, or near field developments, or are giving up on offshore altogether. Much higher, and stable, prices might be needed to get these big projects going. If high prices cause a fast demand collapse, by whatever mix of mechanisms, then they might well not get done.
[Mar 23, 2017] Energy beyond neoliberalism
Mar 23, 2017 | platformlondon.org
The NHS was designed in 1948 by scaling up the Tredegar Medical Aid Society a mutual health provision organisation in South Wales set up by miners and their families that had run for over fifty years. By scaling up this local community-controlled structure, the founders of the NHS fundamentally transformed the economy and politics of healthcare nationwide. Today, we need a comparable transformation of energy provision. Could Eigg in Scotland an island owned collectively by its inhabitants and entirely supplied by renewable electricity be the Tredegar Medical Aid Society of energy?
This article seeks to explore energy alternatives that break with the foundational assumptions of the neoliberal order. Our argument is that, rather than begging for small palliative scraps, the left must make the argument for a new energy and economic settlement. This is necessary for survival, and for justice. We need a fundamental change of direction on energy.
Energy corporations, finance and the state
In Nigeria 72 per cent of people are forced to use wood for cooking, while their country exports 950 billion cubic feet of gas every year. Much of it is shipped to Britain. Yet when Platform invited Niger Delta activist Celestine AkpoBari to London, he was astounded to hear that Britain suffers the worst levels of fuel poverty in Western Europe, with one person dying of cold every six seconds last winter. So who benefits from this disparity? The answer lies in record energy company profits. Together, the big five oil companies BP, Chevron, ConocoPhillips, ExxonMobil and Shell earn more in one minute than 90 per cent of UK couples earn together in a year.
A century-long strategic alliance between fossil fuel corporations and Western governments has fostered an energy system that has been structured by imperial, extractivist and then neoliberal power. Global neoliberal extractivism based on the exploitation of non-renewable natural resources is now trying to solve the dwindling of easily accessible oil reserves by violently pushing for new reserves to be exploited. Cue Arctic drilling, fracking and efforts to extract from beneath the pre-salt ultra-deep waters off Brazil. Once discovered and measured, geological deposits are represented as 'proven reserves' and they then become financial assets that are tradable and valued on the FTSE.
This process thrives on accumulation by dispossession: the expulsion of people from their land, the occupation of villages by soldiers, and the poisoning of groundwater. Military, diplomatic and financial support from states to corporations is key to its facilitation. The aim of Western states is to maintain imperial power by keeping their corporations in control of fuel flows. London is now a centre of both financial and energy imperialism.
Neoliberal common sense persuades us that there is little we can do about this. We are addressed as individual passive consumers of energy, purely as 'customers' and this serves to obscure our other identities, as Doreen Massey argued in the manifesto instalment on Vocabularies of the Economy. We are encouraged to believe that BP and Shell, British Gas and EDF are the organisations best placed to 'efficiently' extract, process and generate energy, and that the market will deliver the best prices to us as the big companies compete among themselves for our custom. Our choices as customers supposedly influence this market. But in practice, the dominance of a small number of multinational corporations annihilates the possibility of any choice that could generate significant change. As Beatrix Campbell writes, global capitalism 'deploys the language of freedom, choice and competition to oust solidarity, co-operative creativity and equality'.1
As a result of these companies' dominance, itself the culmination of successive privatisations by Conservative and Labour governments, Britain's fuel poverty rates are now among the highest in Europe. One in five households was in fuel poverty in 2010; 10,000 people died in winter 2013-4 from cold homes. Yet the Big Six energy companies take £1 billion per year in premiums that are charged predominantly to disadvantaged users.
As even a study commissioned by the Oil and Gas UK lobby group admitted: 'the market has not delivered the most efficient outcome for UK gas consumers'.3 Meanwhile, under the liberalised regime in which the industry operates, the upward volatility of gas prices which is partly due to breakdown in the ageing UK gas supply infrastructure is allowed to feed through into immediate price spikes.
The ability to pick between different energy suppliers is a false freedom. Those who use the energy are excluded from influencing decisions on how any surplus should be invested into fossil fuels or renewables, imported fuel or local sources or on how to structure prices.
Nor does government make these decisions on people's behalf. Under the market fundamentalist regimes of both the Conservatives and New Labour, the UK government gave up this power to corporations. Even though energy regulator Ofgem has been slightly re-empowered in recent years, it still has no role in such decisions, or any capacity for investment into energy infrastructure. In an earlier period decision-making power over North Sea oil was also largely handed over to private oil and gas corporations. Moreover, since the 1980s, taxes on their profits have been consistently cut, leaving Britain with by far the lowest effective tax ratio of the four North Sea oil and gas extracting countries; its tax regime is the second most generous to private oil companies in the entire world, after Ireland.
The outcome has been a dramatically reduced government take, and a fiscal regime that has been described as 'a vehicle for the delivery of corporate welfare on a grand scale'.4 In the six years prior to 2008 the UK lost out on £74 billion. As companies used the cash flow from the North Sea to subsidise drilling in other parts of the world and oil prices rose further, the government succumbed to demands for ever more subsidies. Enormous revenues were accumulated by oil companies and recycled through the City of London.
Fossil fuel corporations have woven around themselves a Carbon Web the set of legal, cultural, financial and government institutions that enable them and prevent democratic control. Decisions made behind closed doors in corporate headquarters, Whitehall and at £1,500-a-ticket conferences lock us all into decades of fossil fuel use. Individuals and wealth flow through the revolving doors between the state, oil and finance. Britain has become a petrostate, and London an oil city, extracting wealth from fossil fuels from Nigeria to the North Sea, from Azerbaijan to Egypt.
Financial holdings in the City are concentrated into fossil fuels, with 20 per cent of the FTSE 100 made up of just BP and Shell. As London's role as a central node in a global fossil fuel economy has grown, so Britain's body politic has become increasingly skewed, at the expense both of the de-industrialised regions of the UK and frontline communities in the Global South.
The big energy companies work hard to convince us that they are essential to the functioning of modern society. In a plastic world, we all use synthetic fabrics, petrol and gas heating. How could we cope without BP and Shell to provide for us? How could national cultural institutions like the Tate or the British Museum function without oil funding? (Hint: Less than 0.5 per cent of their income comes from BP.) This is aimed at creating a perception of dependency, that will allow the continued intense accumulation of wealth by corporations and elite classes.
Re-imagining our energy future
There is always more in reality than one can experience or express at any given moment. A greater sensitivity to the latent potential of situations may encourage us to think about things not only as they are, but also in terms of what they may become.
Individual consumption does not begin to encompass the manifold relationships we have to energy. We take buses, we work in heated offices, we buy frozen icecream. Our public wealth is used to subsidise oil companies, our cultural institutions to launder their image, and our government sends troops to support resource grabs. We have political and economic relationships to North Sea oil, wind turbines in the Thames estuary and carbon dioxide molecules in the atmosphere. The whole relationship of society to energy needs to change. We need to shift power away from the entangled interests of finance and the big companies, and challenge the current monopolised energy system, so that these relationships can become intentional and active, so that energy consumers can become producers, distributors, owners, sharers and collective users of energy. We need to democratise energy. This means commoning resources, dispersing economic power and ending dependence on the multinationals that exploit public resources for private profit.
How can we increase our sensitivity to the 'latent potential' of our energy structures? We need to be able to envision and describe a functional energy system that provides for people's needs and does not entrench exploitation or rely on constant expansion. To do this we need to articulate a new common sense that builds on what Gramsci called 'good sense' working with the grain of existing values and collective practices. One way of doing this is by learning from positive, albeit contested, experiences elsewhere, including Bolivia, Denmark, Venezuela and Norway.
New strategies also need to interact with present struggles, like those of frontline communities in Lancashire and Yorkshire who are blocking fracking rigs; or the Greater London Pensioners Association and Fuel Poverty Action who are using direct action casework to fight for warm homes and democratically-owned, renewable energy; or the Hackney housing estate residents, Islington councillors and Balcombe villagers who are setting up locally owned energy schemes.
[Mar 19, 2017] Good video discussion on Crude Oil production over the next 6 months from CNN
Mar 19, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc : March 19, 2017 at 12:41 PM , 2017 at 12:41 PMGood video discussion on Crude Oil production over the next 6 months from CNNlibezkova -> im1dc... , -1http://money.cnn.com/2017/03/14/investing/opec-crude-oil-us-shale/index.html
"Is OPEC headed for a showdown with U.S. shale?"
by Ivana Kottasova...March 14, 2017...11:52 AM ET
"Is this the start of OPEC vs. American shale, round two?..."
"Is this the start of OPEC vs. American shale, round two?..."It is not.
[Mar 17, 2017] http://www.calculatedriskblog.com/2017/03/oil-another-big-rig-add.html
Mar 17, 2017 | www.calculatedriskblog.com
by Bill McBride...3/17/2017...02:47:00 PM
"A few comments from Steven Kopits of Princeton Energy Advisors LLC"
Mar 17, 2017:
The US oil rig count was up by 14 this week to 631
US horizontal oil rigs were up by 14 to 530
... This was another very aggressive rig add, but curiously came from outside the major plays. This suggests that either the business is spreading beyond its historical boundaries, or that some technical and non-recurring issues may be at play.
[Mar 10, 2017] Tumbling Oil Launches Record Options Trading As 800 Million Barrels Change Hands
www.zerohedge.com
With oil's recent somnolent, low-vol levitation at their back, the number of hedge funds and other speculators who were soothed by the gradual move higher and betting on the success of OPEC reflationary strategy, had recently grown to an all time high, as seen in the chart below showing the number of long net-spec positions in the combined oil futures market.
... ... ...
In total, options equivalent to to than 800 million barrels of crude oil exchange hands yesterday, an amount that is well more than half the total outstanding net long spec positions.
[Mar 05, 2017] The supermajors spent 66 percent more on development costs in 2015 than they did in 2011, despite the widely-touted 'efficiency gains' implemented during the worst of the market slump
Notable quotes:
"... A large part of the problem is, as is often repeated, "the cheap oil is gone". How are prices going to fall no matter how efficient things get ("work smart not hard" the project managers used to say when budgets got bust complete cobblers) when you need to use 15000# Duplex piping instead of 600# mild steel, use latest generation (is it 5th now?) ultra deep water rigs which still only hit one in twenty exploration successes, have miles and miles of anchor cables and riser tubing instead of a short jacket etc. ..."
"... Looking at what Exxon is doing to make itself look good to investors, and then reading articles like this, I wonder if we are seeing the decline of the majors, but people aren't openly saying that yet. They keep hedging their bets by saying the oil business is cyclical, but we are talking about not only lower oil prices, but also declining reserves and higher production costs. ..."
"... The title should be "cost per barrel developed increase 66%". Adjusting for inflation we see that each dollar develops about 70% of the oil it did before. This is reasonable when we consider deep water developments don't have such good wells anymore, and that other areas are mostly limited to pounding increasingly poorer reservoirs or implementing EOR in known fields. ..."
"... Successful efforts accounting methods, as opposed to full cost, are preferred by the shale oil industry because, in my opinion, it helps distort the economic picture and makes them look better than they actually are. Hardly ever is lease acquisition costs (lease bonuses), land work, curative title work, geophysical or infrastructure costs (upstream to midstream gathering systems) used when quoting well costs to the public. This might help answer your question in the Permian: http://info.drillinginfo.com/permian-premium-are-high-prices-justified/ ..."
"... I would say in OKLA the EUR is much to low by a factor of 2-4 for a single horizon, in other words a ~100 acres can be expected to produce any where from 400,000 to 800,000 BO and can have 3 or more productive horizons each capable of those types of production numbers. So for example a ~100 acres can produce 1,500,000BO or more. ..."
"... "Several companies which were early adopters of enhanced completion techniques and have their acreage concentrated in sweet spots have seen significant declines of their IP30 values of new wells, indicating an exhaustion of their acreage. More recent adopters of enhanced completion methods, by limiting drilling to their best acreage, have seen a boost of IP30 of new wells since 2014 but will sooner or later face the same exhaustion problems." ..."
"... The oil and gas sector was particularly hammered in the three-month period, according to the report. The industry employed 3,640 fewer jobs compared to third quarter 2015, a 26 percent drop." ..."
Mar 05, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Boomer II says: 03/03/2017 at 10:14 pmThis could probably go into the previous post about petroleum, but I will put it here.George Kaplan says: 03/04/2017 at 3:53 amOil Majors' Costs Have Risen 66% Since 2011 | OilPrice.com : "According to new research from Apex Consulting Ltd., the oil majors are still spending more to develop a barrel of oil equivalent than they were before the downturn in prices in fact, much more. Apex put together a proprietary index that measures cost pressure for the 'supermajors' ExxonMobil, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Eni, Total and ConocoPhillips. Dubbed the 'Supermajors' Cost Index,' Apex concludes that the supermajors spent 66 percent more on development costs in 2015 than they did in 2011, despite the widely-touted 'efficiency gains' implemented during the worst of the market slump. It is important to note that this measures 'development costs,' and not exploration or operational costs."
Interesting article and so was the Reuters one it referenced. One thing I missed was a discussion of gas versus oil versus oil sands, I assume the figures are for all combined, but it would be interesting to see how things changed for each section (though probably the data is only available internally to the companies or at a big cost from IHS or Rystad). 2011 was an era of mega projects though especially for some huge LNG (many of which ran way over budget) and oil sands, and would also include the cost overruns from the Kashagan debacle.Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 10:47 amHe concludes:
"In other words, the decline in costs post-2014 are, at least in part, cyclical. Costs will rise again as activity picks up unless oil producers work with their suppliers to address the underlying structural costs of oil production."
But is that possible? A large part of the problem is, as is often repeated, "the cheap oil is gone". How are prices going to fall no matter how efficient things get ("work smart not hard" the project managers used to say when budgets got bust complete cobblers) when you need to use 15000# Duplex piping instead of 600# mild steel, use latest generation (is it 5th now?) ultra deep water rigs which still only hit one in twenty exploration successes, have miles and miles of anchor cables and riser tubing instead of a short jacket etc.
In reference to oil sands. This article came about a week ago.Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 10:54 amHave The Majors Given Up On Canada's Oil Sands? | OilPrice.com
Looking at what Exxon is doing to make itself look good to investors, and then reading articles like this, I wonder if we are seeing the decline of the majors, but people aren't openly saying that yet. They keep hedging their bets by saying the oil business is cyclical, but we are talking about not only lower oil prices, but also declining reserves and higher production costs.Fernando Leanme says: 03/04/2017 at 3:54 amJust as coal has seen its best days come and go, I think that is happening with oil, too, but there is a reluctance to call it.
The title should be "cost per barrel developed increase 66%". Adjusting for inflation we see that each dollar develops about 70% of the oil it did before. This is reasonable when we consider deep water developments don't have such good wells anymore, and that other areas are mostly limited to pounding increasingly poorer reservoirs or implementing EOR in known fields.George Kaplan says: 03/04/2017 at 3:33 amFor LTO it's interesting how EagleFord are piling on rigs (5 more this week) and the permitting seems to have increased dramatically, whereas the Bakken is steady to maybe slightly down, certainly for permitting at the moment. I don't know where the difference for this is and I expected the opposite, but it seems EIA knows something as their predicted flattening in the EFS decline rate is looking pretty likely know, while Bakken is looking increasingly weary, with only the outstanding DUCs as a big potential source of new oil.clueless says: 03/04/2017 at 12:07 pmDuring the past 2 years, there has been a tremendous amount of great quality work concerning the economics of onshore LTO production. Much of it has been done by those who post here.Dennis Coyne says: 03/04/2017 at 2:24 pmBut, although I may have missed it, I still have a question that I do not recall being discussed. Buried in each of these economic models, is there a land resource cost?
For example what I would like to see separated out for each model is information such as this (a hypothetical by me, for illustrative purposes only): "The 60 Gb scenario assumes that each average onshore LTO well utilizes 100 acres of oil resource; has an average EUR of 200,000 bbl of oil; at an average leasehold cost of $10,000 per acre. So each average well has an upfront leasehold cost of $1 million, and that cost is [or is not] included in the cost per well shown.
However, let me be clear: if that information is not available, I am not asking anyone to go get it. Just state that it is up to the reader to make their own assumptions of what the leasehold cost is for an average onshore LTO well. But, in that regard, it would be usefull to know how many acres are being used for an average well.
Correct that land cost is not included. I don't know what that is. This based on Rune Likverns analysis from the oil drum.Mike says: 03/04/2017 at 2:37 pmSuccessful efforts accounting methods, as opposed to full cost, are preferred by the shale oil industry because, in my opinion, it helps distort the economic picture and makes them look better than they actually are. Hardly ever is lease acquisition costs (lease bonuses), land work, curative title work, geophysical or infrastructure costs (upstream to midstream gathering systems) used when quoting well costs to the public. This might help answer your question in the Permian: http://info.drillinginfo.com/permian-premium-are-high-prices-justified/clueless says: 03/04/2017 at 5:41 pmThanks Mike! That was good information and a good article.texas tea says: 03/04/2017 at 5:35 pmWith respect to the parameters in your question:clueless says: 03/04/2017 at 5:55 pm"The 60 Gb scenario assumes that each average onshore LTO well utilizes 100 acres of oil resource; has an average EUR of 200,000 bbl of oil; at an average leasehold cost of $10,000 per acre."
I would say in OKLA the EUR is much to low by a factor of 2-4 for a single horizon, in other words a ~100 acres can be expected to produce any where from 400,000 to 800,000 BO and can have 3 or more productive horizons each capable of those types of production numbers. So for example a ~100 acres can produce 1,500,000BO or more.
Current density plots indicate 113 acre drainage will be achieved with a 7500′ lateral with 660′ between wells. A 10,000′ lateral would be 151 acres. I can also say, because of government interference, "forced pooling" the average leasehold cost is something under $2000 an acre. Leasehold cost are usually added to the first producing well as part of the "full cycle" cost and are a one time expense.
Any given unit may ultimately have 10-15 wells. Once the Unit is HBP and the primary term of the leases have expired the full land cost will have been expensed.
My oldest well LTO well in SCOOP has produced over 300,000 barrels of liquids from approximately 51 acres.
Thanks TT! Since I live in OK, your information appears to be very positive information for OK which currently is in a poor economic environment due to low oil [and gas] prices. However, based upon your information, why, in your opinion, has this OK play not attracted nearly as much "hype" as the Permian [or Baaken or Eagle Ford]? Is the long-term potential [ultimate oil to be extracted from the entire play] much less?AlexS says: 03/04/2017 at 7:56 pmclueless,Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 8:27 pmCurrent active oil and gas rig count:
OK: 98
Eagle Ford: 69
Bakken: 38This recent analysis says: "Breakeven analysis of SCOOP and STACK shows underwhelming results compared to other major oil plays."AlexS says: 03/04/2017 at 8:37 pm"Data cleaning process reduces STACK sample size for economics analysis dramatically; many 2016 wells have suspect data."
"Breakevens appear high across the greater STACK and SCOOP, however, strong economics exist within concentrated regions of the STACK and SCOOP."
"Excitement of the SCOOP and the Cana Woodford (STACK) driven by stand-out wells."
"SCOOP and STACK economics generally improving year over year, but gas focused drilling in 2016 hurts overall economics."
"SCOOP and STACK important for current operators, but limited acreage for acquisitions."
"Drilling inventory of the STACK and SCOOP plays not as extensive as other major basins."
Boomer II,Watcher says: 03/04/2017 at 5:55 pmGood presentation by BTU Analytics. And it shows that SCOOP and STACK are not a new Bakken, Eagle Ford or Permian in terms of oil production potential.
How old is that well?John says: 03/04/2017 at 1:53 pmGood Morning Clueless,Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 2:45 pmIn Texas and New Mexico, there is private fee land and state land. New Mexico also has federal land ownership. Texas has very little Federal ownership but there are Relinquishment Act Lands, University Lands, and School Lands, and Stare Fee Lands which would have public records available to review.
The state and federal agencies are mandated to seek competitive fair market prices for land leased for oil and gas exploration. If one obtained the lease sale results from the appropriate state and federal agencies for each scheduled lease sale for the last ten years you might approximately determine an average lease bonus by year that the oil and gas industry paid for both private fee and state lands in an area.
This would not help with acreage acquired early in a play and then flipped to a subsequent purchaser but I think it would be a reasonable number to work with for example the Eagle Ford, Delaware Permian or New Mexico Permian. Colorado, South Dakota, Oklahoma all contain a combination of private and state or federal lands.
It could be an interesting exercise.
Split in oil-price, rig-count flows a cause for concern? Not yet. | TheHill : "That the land rig count is recovering at a stronger pace than its underlying commodity, which usually is the catalyst for changes in the rig count, does present a reason for concern."Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 4:27 pmBakken Oil Producers: IP30 And Well Decline Rate Trends Since 2014 | Seeking Alpha : "Several companies which were early adopters of enhanced completion techniques and have their acreage concentrated in sweet spots have seen significant declines of their IP30 values of new wells, indicating an exhaustion of their acreage. More recent adopters of enhanced completion methods, by limiting drilling to their best acreage, have seen a boost of IP30 of new wells since 2014 but will sooner or later face the same exhaustion problems."Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 4:33 pmAn article from February.Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 4:39 pmThird-quarter jobs down 9,000 from year before biggest decline since oil prices crashed The Arctic Sounder : "Employment cuts across Alaska have mounted monthly since late 2015, leading to four straight quarters of job decline as Alaska remains mired in recession with the nation's worst unemployment rate.
The oil and gas sector was particularly hammered in the three-month period, according to the report. The industry employed 3,640 fewer jobs compared to third quarter 2015, a 26 percent drop."
Unburnable Wealth of Nations - Finance & Development, March 2017 : "[Poor countries] face three special challenges. First, they have a higher proportion of their national wealth at risk than do wealthier countries and on average more years of reserves than major oil and gas companies. Second, they have limited ability to diversify their economies and sources of government revenues-and it would take them longer to do so than countries less dependent on fossil fuel deposits.Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 4:50 pmLast, economic and political forces in many of these countries create pressure to invest in industries, national companies, and projects based on fossil fuels-in essence doubling down on the risk and exacerbating the ultimate consequences of a decline in demand for their natural resources (see map)."
This article gives a good overview of what is happening in Colorado.There is activity, but it is unlikely Colorado will have any sort of boom, like was talked about a few years ago.
Rebound predicted for Weld crude oil production | GreeleyTribune.com : "DJ Basin crude oil sells at a discount of $2 to $3 per barrel to benchmark West Texas Intermediate oil from the Permian Basin. 'Companies here still need prices to go a bit higher before we will see a significant increase in activity,' she said."
[Mar 05, 2017] Cooking The Books? Saudi Aramco Could Be Overvalued By 500 pecent
Mar 05, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Boomer II says: 03/04/2017 at 5:53 pmThis article came out on February 28. I don't think it's been posted here.clueless says: 03/04/2017 at 6:08 pmCooking The Books? Saudi Aramco Could Be Overvalued By 500% | OilPrice.com : "WoodMac puts Aramco's true value closer to $400 billion, eighty percent less than the Saudi estimate, and it arrived at the figure by considering future demand and the anticipated average price of oil (on which profits will depend), as well as Saudi Aramco's status as a state-run company.
WoodMac doesn't dispute the figure of 261 billion barrels lying under Saudi Arabia and just offshore; that figure has been confirmed by independent sources. Where things get complicated, though, is in the management and taxation of Saudi Aramco, which does not release financial statements."
Seems right to me. As I posted a short while back, in my opinion, no rational investor, today, would pay anything for production that might occur more than 20 years in the future. Therefore, only about 88 million bbl of reserves is in play. And those produced 20 years out [risked] have neglible net present value.Survivalist says: 03/04/2017 at 9:32 pmDoes anybody know which independant sources confirmed the 261 billion barrels lying under Saudi Arabia? I was under the impression we were just taking their word for it. Who signed off on confirming it?Watcher says: 03/04/2017 at 11:02 pmBingo. And VERY OMINOUS that a firm like WoodM would fall for the "independent audit" story.Caelan MacIntyre says: 03/05/2017 at 12:12 amThose auditors did not do core drilling. They did no exploration drilling. They took Aramco data, added it up (accountants add things up) and declared 261 billion barrels of reserves.
This is such silliness.
There is also the issue of who paid for the audit.
"There is also the issue of who paid for the audit." ~ Watcher
The Man With The Magic Wand?
We are in a model, Watcher.
[Mar 03, 2017] $200bn in debt looms over American oil and gas - RT Business
Mar 03, 2017 | www.rt.com
$200bn in debt looms over American oil and gas Published time: 7 Jan, 2015 17:44 Edited time: 20 Oct, 2016 14:13 Get short URL David McNew / Getty Images / AFP / AFP
[Feb 26, 2017] Militarists from Obama administration essentially continued Bush II policies and wasted money in Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine, instead of facilitating conversion of passenger cards to hybrids (and electrical for short commutes)
Feb 26, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc : Reply Saturday, February 25, 2017 at 10:08 AM , February 25, 2017 at 10:08 AMUpdate US Crude Oil production, market, and exportsilsm -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 01:16 PMhttp://maritime-executive.com/article/us-oil-exports-hit-record-levels
"U.S. Oil Exports Hit Record Levels"
By MarEx 2017-02-24
"U.S. oil exporters set a new record last week: shipments leaving the country averaged 1.2 million barrels of crude per day, roughly double the levels seen at the end of last year.
Analysts told Bloomberg that the rising American exports are driven in large part by falling domestic prices. West Texas Intermediate futures (the domestic benchmark) are trading below the international Brent standard by $2 per barrel or more, and are now cheaper than some Middle Eastern grades of lesser quality. This makes American crude more attractive to Asian buyers.
There is also an incentive for traders to sell their oil abroad: U.S. storage is costly. If the price of crude is not expected to rise, brokers have no incentive to hang on to their supply and pay rent on a tank to put it in."...
From the report:ilsm -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 01:19 PM
- US Crude Pumped: 9.001 Mbbl
- US Crude Imports: 7.286Mbbl
- US Crude Exports: 1.211Mbbl
- Net Imports: 6.075 Mbbl
- Input Crude to refineries: 15.271 Mbbl
- Net Export Refined Product: 2.488 Mbbl
I did not see any input to the NPR.
The greens might not be happy US is polluting to ship gasoline and distillates out!
See: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/im1dc -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:00 PMTable 1, open the .xls see data 2 for Feb 17 2017 at the bottom.
ilsm, that is the previous week I believe.libezkova -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 04:33 PMYou are just regular incompetent chichenhawk. And it shows. Try to read something about US oil industry before positing. It is actually a very fascinating topic. That's where the battle for survival of neoliberalism in the USA (with its rampant militarism and impoverishment of lower 50% of population) is now fought.If you list also domestic consumption, you will understand that you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the situation. The USA is a huge oil importer (Net Imports: 6.075 Mbbl; see ilsm post), not an exporter. You can consider it to be exported only after drinking something really strong.
It refines and re-export refined products and also export condensate and shale light oil that is used for dilution of heavy oils in Canada and Latin America. That's it.
US shale can't be profitable below, say, $65 per barrel (so called "break-even" price for well started in 2009-2016), and if interest on already existing loans (all shale industry is deeply in debt; ) and minimum profitability (2.5%) is factored in, probably $77.
That's why production is declining and will decline further is prices stay low because there is only fixed amount of "sweet spots" which can produce oil profitably at lower prices. In 2017 they are mostly gone, so what's left is not so attractive at the current prices. And this is an understatement.
The same is true to Canadian sands. Plans for expansion are now revised down and investments postponed.
So in order to sustain the US shale industry prices need to grow at least over $65 this year
And those war-crazy militarists from Obama administration essentially continued Bush II policies and wasted money in Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine, instead of facilitating conversion of passenger cards to hybrids (and electrical for short commutes).
The US as a country waisted its time and now is completely unprepared for down of oil age.
The net result of Obama policies is that SUVs became that most popular type of passenger cars in the USA. That can be called Iran revenge on the USA.
The conflict between Donald Trump and the US Deep State can be explained that deep state can't allow Trump dιtente with Russia and stopping wars on neoliberal expansion at Middle East. That's why they torpedoed General Flynn. It is not about Flynn, it was about Trump. To show him who is the boss and warn "You can be fired".
Due to "overconsumption" of oil inherent in neoliberalism with its crazy goods flows that might cross the ocean several times before getting to customer, US neoliberal empire (and neoliberalism as social system) can well go off the cliff when cheap oil is gone.
The only question is when it happens and estimates vary from 10 to 50 years.
So in the best case neoliberalism might be able to outlive Bolshevism which lasted 74 years (1917-1991) by only something like 15 years.
[Feb 25, 2017] Due to overconsumption of oil inherent in neoliberalism with its crazy goods flows that might cross the ocean several times before getting to customer, US neoliberal empire (and neoliberalism as social system) can well go off the cliff when cheap oil is gone.
Feb 25, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc : , February 25, 2017 at 10:06 AMGee, I can't imagine what could go wrong with thisim1dc : , February 25, 2017 at 10:08 AMClick and look at the map and inset to understand
Israel to become an energy, NG, superpower?
http://maritime-executive.com/article/noble-energy-sanctions-leviathan
"Noble Energy Sanctions Leviathan"
By MarEx...2017-02-24
"Noble Energy has sanctioned the first phase of the Leviathan natural gas project offshore Israel, with first gas targeted for the end of 2019.
Noble Energy is the operator of the Leviathan Field, which contains 22 trillion cubic feet (Tcf) of gross recoverable natural gas resources.
The announcement was hailed by Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu who has played a key role in negotiations with Noble. Netanyahu says the discovery of large reserves will bring energy self-sufficiency and billions of dollars in tax revenues, reports The Times of Israel, but critics say the deal gave excessively favorable terms to the government's corporate partners...
Production will be gathered at the field and delivered via two 73-mile flowlines to a fixed platform, with full processing capabilities, located approximately six miles offshore."...
Update US Crude Oil production, market, and exportsilsm -> im1dc... , February 25, 2017 at 01:16 PMhttp://maritime-executive.com/article/us-oil-exports-hit-record-levels
"U.S. Oil Exports Hit Record Levels"
By MarEx 2017-02-24
"U.S. oil exporters set a new record last week: shipments leaving the country averaged 1.2 million barrels of crude per day, roughly double the levels seen at the end of last year.
Analysts told Bloomberg that the rising American exports are driven in large part by falling domestic prices. West Texas Intermediate futures (the domestic benchmark) are trading below the international Brent standard by $2 per barrel or more, and are now cheaper than some Middle Eastern grades of lesser quality. This makes American crude more attractive to Asian buyers.
There is also an incentive for traders to sell their oil abroad: U.S. storage is costly. If the price of crude is not expected to rise, brokers have no incentive to hang on to their supply and pay rent on a tank to put it in."...
From the report:ilsm -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 01:19 PM
- US Crude Pumped: 9.001 Mbbl
- US Crude Imports: 7.286Mbbl
- US Crude Exports: 1.211Mbbl
- Net Imports: 6.075 Mbbl
- Input Crude to refineries: 15.271 Mbbl
- Net Export Refined Product: 2.488 Mbbl
I did not see any input to the NPR.
The greens might not be happy US is polluting to ship gasoline and distillates out!
See: http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/supply/weekly/im1dc -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 02:00 PMTable 1, open the .xls see data 2 for Feb 17 2017 at the bottom.
ilsm, that is the previous week I believe.libezkova -> ilsm... , February 25, 2017 at 04:33 PMYou are just regular incompetent chichenhawk. And it shows. Try to read something about US oil industry before positing. It is actually a very fascinating topic. That's where the battle for survival of neoliberalism in the USA (with its rampant militarism and impoverishment of lower 50% of population) is now fought.If you list also domestic consumption, you will understand that you are completely misunderstanding and misrepresenting the situation. The USA is a huge oil importer (Net Imports: 6.075 Mbbl; see ilsm post), not an exporter. You can consider it to be exported only after drinking something really strong.
It refines and re-export refined products and also export condensate and shale light oil that is used for dilution of heavy oils in Canada and Latin America. That's it.
US shale can't be profitable below, say, $65 per barrel (so called "break-even" price for well started in 2009-2016), and if interest on already existing loans (all shale industry is deeply in debt; ) and minimum profitability (2.5% is factored in, probably $77.
That's why production is declining and will decline further is prices stay low because there is only fixed amount of "sweet spots" which can produce oil profitably at lower prices. In 2017 they are mostly gone, so what's left is not so attractive at the current prices. And this is an understatement.
The same is true to Canadian sands. Plans for expansion are now revised down and investments postponed.
So in order to sustain the US shale industry prices need to grow at least over $65 this year
And those war-crazy militarists from Obama administration essentially continued Bush II policies and wasted money in Middle East, Afghanistan and Ukraine, instead of facilitating conversion of passenger cards to hybrids (and electrical for short commutes).
The US as a country wasted its time and now is completely unprepared for down of oil age.
The net result of Obama policies is that SUVs became that most popular type of passenger cars in the USA. That can be called Iran revenge on the USA.
The conflict between Donald Trump and the US Deep State can be explained that deep state can't allow Trump dιtente with Russia and stopping wars on neoliberal expansion at Middle East. That's why they torpedoed General Flynn. It is not about Flynn, it was about Trump. To show him who is the boss and warn "You can be fired".
Due to "overconsumption" of oil inherent in neoliberalism with its crazy goods flows that might cross the ocean several times before getting to customer, US neoliberal empire (and neoliberalism as social system) can well go off the cliff when cheap oil is gone.
The only question is when it happens and estimates vary from 10 to 50 years.
So in the best case neoliberalism might be able to outlive Bolshevism which lasted 74 years (1917-1991) by only something like 15 years.
[Feb 21, 2017] A big contributor to the legacy oil decline is the unrelenting physics of fluid phase behavior, with gas becoming more prevalent in the production stream.
Feb 21, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
djtxyz says: 02/16/2017 at 1:44 pmA big contributor to the legacy oil decline is the unrelenting physics of fluid phase behavior, with gas becoming more prevalent in the production stream. Statewide GOR increased from 1200 to 1500:1 cuft/bo in 2015. The legacy wells will be worse (i.e. the newer wells dampen the effect, which have an initial GOR of ~ 1000:1). For reference, generally a GOR> 2000:1 is considered a "gas" well or field.George Kaplan says: 02/16/2017 at 2:17 pmMost of these LTO fields will eventually be abandoned as gas fields.
note I tried to post a *.png graph, but the reply tool failed.
Probably too big convert to gif or jpeg below 45 KB.AlexS says: 02/16/2017 at 2:43 pmFreddyW posted a chart on Bakken GOR in the previous oil thread:FreddyW says: 02/19/2017 at 3:53 pmhttp://peakoilbarrel.com/opec-january-production-data/#comment-595923
Hi,FreddyW says: 02/20/2017 at 3:02 amI missed to take into account the number of days in the month for total producing days in my last post. I wanted to investigate this more. So I did a bit of programing and adjusted each individual well for the number of days it was in production in December to see what the production would have been if it produced as many days as it did in November (adjusted for number of days in that month). I looked at wells that started production in 2014 and wells that started production in 2010. In short, both groups looked very similar and it turned out that about 86% of the increase in decline rate, for both 2014 and 2010, were because of fewer producing days and the rest for other reasons. However there is more to it than that. First of all, adjusted for number of producing days, the decline rate should stay the same or decrease a little every month, not increase. Secondly wells that are of the same age as the 2014 wells have historically had a monthly decline rate of around 3%. The decline rate in November (days adjusted) was 6,9% and in December 8,1. For the 2010 wells, monthly decline rates should have been around 1,5% but were 5,6% in November and 6,9% in December. So the decline rates are currently very very high. The huge drop in December could not have been that huge if the underlying decline rates would not have been that large.
I think the decline in GOR has something to do with it. If the reason for the increase in decline rates are that they are choking the wells, then I expect these high decline rates to be rather temporary, because I would guess that they adjust the choke only once per well. It may take some time to adjust all wells they have planned to adjust, but when that is done then decline rates should normalize. So if that is the reason then maybe it will take a few months to normalize. If the decline rates are still very high in a few months, then it doesn΄t look good for Bakken..
I found a bug in my code. For 2014 about 100% of the increase in decline rates from November to December was because of fewer production days and decline rate in November was 6,43% and December 6,35% (a bit conservative). For 2010 the numbers are 86%, 4,16% and 5,16%. So lower underlying decline rates, but still very high. Sorry about that.Fernando Leanme says: 02/16/2017 at 4:20 pmIs the 2000 GOR a North Dakota convention? There's no reservoir engineering reason to designate a depleted well as a gas well when GOR increases to 2000 scf/bo. Depleted oil wells under depletion drive do experience very high GORs, but they remain oil wells.Boomer II says: 02/16/2017 at 4:51 pmHere's a link that says in Texas there are tax advantages in reclassifying an oil well as a gas well.Watcher says: 02/17/2017 at 1:11 pmhttp://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/11/22/pioneer-denied-request-to-reclassify-oil-wells/
My recall is there's a regulation in Texas that classifies liquids from a gas well as condensate vs oil from an oil well. Almost certainly has some tax consequence.GreenPeople's Media says: 02/16/2017 at 8:12 pmCan any of you professional fellows explain the upsurge in "Legacy Oil Well" production shown in the monthly EIA Drilling Productivity Reports? The major fields, except. Permian, show that the legacy wells are rising after having been on seemingly steady downslopes for the years leading up to about early 2015. Are they reworking old wells? What's the industry practice that has reversed the declines.dclonghorn says: 02/16/2017 at 10:09 pmfor example, this page
http://www.eia.gov/petroleum/drilling/pdf/eagleford.pdfThe legacy well production graph represents the monthly expected change in production.Alex K says: 02/17/2017 at 2:08 amIn the example you referenced monthly legacy decline was about 140,000 bopd at the beginning of 2015. This legacy decline represents the decline of wells producing in the prior month. This decline was large because there were many recently drilled legacy wells, and the recently drilled wells decline more than wells which have produced for a longer period.
By the beginning of 2017 the legacy decline had decreased to about 80,000 bopd per month because there hadn't been as many wells drilled recently.
To dclonghorn:GreenPeople's Media says: 02/18/2017 at 11:28 am
Right. Another point is that more and more wells became idle so they aren't calculated in the legacy well production.Thanks. That helps clarify things for me.Watcher says: 02/17/2017 at 2:44 amSome of y'all are newishcomers and cannot remember how very many times monthly production reports would report completely inconsistent with new completions totals and weather and more or less 15 gazillion other factors we'd throw in.Watcher says: 02/17/2017 at 1:16 pmPoint being, don't think you have why the big recent increase or why this big decrease understood. Your odds on this are poor.
Reminder from last thread:. That Enno chart color coded by year - look at how shallow the post Peak descent slope 2010, 2011, 2012 is vs 2014. Damn near vertical. That would be the last non price smash year.
This speaks to EUR, but not loudly because of . . . Wait, do we have proof these recompletions are happening? Or is this presumption.
Also suggest a read thru of the new rule making paras of the directors cut.
I can remember months when new completions and new wells operating numbers completely failed to explain a change in quoted oil production that month . . . and I embarked on chasing down traffic reports and stop light failures at intersections because trucks hauling oil having been slowed down could conceivably have been the explanation for the numbers. Nada.Watcher says: 02/17/2017 at 1:23 pmWhat we DID conclude was negative - zero explanation for oil output quotes from the number of wells completed in a month. Number of days of bad weather preventing completions also failed to explain. Bad weather slowing down trucks remained a maybe, but for trucks hauling oil, not trucks hauling proppant.
A blast from those early days:Boomer II says: 02/17/2017 at 1:37 pmCeramic proppant for Bakken. From China. Soon after this it was magically discovered that special sand from the US was "superior" (meaning cheaper, but didn't hold the fractures open as well).
This has been my philosophy for decades. Preserve our own resources and use up everyone else's until they run out.Watcher says: 02/18/2017 at 12:59 pmBerkshire's Charlie Munger Has A Much Different Energy Plan For America Than Donald Trump | Seeking Alpha : "Munger believes that the United States should have an energy strategy that involves preserving these shale resources until some point in the future when they are much more valuable. This would be a point in time after the OPEC nations have exhausted their oil and gas reserves.
Munger would have us import oil and gas now from OPEC so that we can save our oil and gas for the future when the world is going to have major shortages."
Sigh.Boomer II says: 02/18/2017 at 3:59 pmPeople Are Not Stupid.
The day comes when a firebrand is in control and dares to rock the societal systemic boat by declaring the price of oil will be non monetary. You want oil from Russia, America? Disarm. You want oil from KSA, America? Convert to Islam.
"We have enough of your dollars created from thin air. Let's have something of real value to us before we send you oil. The price is described above."
But if we haven't wasted our own oil, we'll still have it. And then if other countries want to give us terms we won't accept, then we don't use their oil.Oldfarmermac says: 02/19/2017 at 8:11 amOf course, without imports, we won't have enough to run our country business as usual. But we're going to head that way anyway, as global supplies become more scarce and/or expensive.
When the shit is well and truly in the fan, in terms of oil available for import to the USA, which will probably come to pass within the next couple of decades, barring the technocopians being right in predicting electricity displacing oil, welllikbez says: 02/20/2017 at 4:51 pmWe have both economic and military muscle enough , assuming we wise up about globalization , and don't export the rest of our industrial base, to INSIST on oil being sold to us , although getting it for dollars will be harder from year to year.
Saudia Arabia will never be self sufficient in food until the population there falls by what, eighty percent or better? If anybody will have the capacity to export food on the grand scale, it will be the USA.
And if anybody has a military umbrella under which smaller and less powerful countries can shelter at relatively low risk of the people there being treated like convicts, it will be the USA.
This is not to say we have been or are altogether NICE about the way we treat our allies, but compared to other countries, we stack up pretty well in this respect.
Nothing will move on the world ocean for quite some time if Uncle Sam finds himself in a corner where in his own interests indicate that nothing moves.
Of course considering that ninety percent of the leadership in China consists of engineers and scientists, where as ninety percent plus of western leadership consists of lawyers and other mostly parasitic types, it 's only a question of WHEN, rather than IF China will be a military superpower, and maybe the SOLE super power.
Shale oil is called subprime oil for a reason.Euan Mearns says: 02/16/2017 at 12:25 pmWe need to account for the fact that shale oil production was supported by junk bond issuance. The loss on shale oil junk bonds is not that big: the U.S. energy companies have defaulted on ~$40 billion in high-yield bonds in 2016, more then doubling the $15 billion for 2015 according to Fitch. But they do affect future junk bond issuance
What is interesting is that MSM stopped talking about shale junk bonds in 2015 as if they got some order from above
Most warnings are from 2014, some from 2015:
http://www.econmatters.com/2014/11/subprime-crisis-in-shale-oil-junk-bonds.html
https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-06-18/next-threat-to-u-s-shale-rising-interest-payments .In this sense, even $ 63 might be too low, if loans became more expensive and well servicing costs continue t0 rise. Printing junk bonds is a necessary side effect of shale oil production and this is now definitely more expensive activity then before.
I think that the return to profitability for shale at oil prices below $70 bbl is very problematic.
BP Oil production and consumptionVerwimp says: 02/17/2017 at 5:00 pmWe have now graphed the whole of BP oil production and consumption and calculated the net export balance which is not in decline but it has been flat since 2005.
Nice, Thanks!
The net exports available on the global oil markets are some 60% of the total production. In the case of dropping global oil production it will take a while for the markets to dry out. If you make this same exercise on coal and gas, you get different numbers. Only a tiny fraction of global coal and gas production is available on the global markets. Dwindling global production will result in disappearing global markets in a very short time frame.
[Feb 21, 2017] Is The Bakken a Bust
Feb 21, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Bakken production down 86,150 barrels per day to 895,330 bpd. North Dakota production down 92,029 bpd to 942,455 bpd. It was noted that this the largest decline ever in North Dakota production. But it should not be overlooked that the October in crease in production was also the largest ever increase in North Dakota production.
Guy M says: 02/16/2017 at 11:37 amEIA wildly optimistic in Bakken, Gulf and Texas. Their current numbers have to be way high in relation to what is actually happening. Even Texas RRC site is not predicting an upturn until current permits and completions get a lot higher. At $53 oil, it is not happening, or going to happen.Heinrich Leopold says: 02/17/2017 at 5:23 amGeorge Kaplan,GreenPeople's Media says: 02/16/2017 at 8:20 pmIn my view there is simply a cost issue here. If a well goes from 100 barrels to 20 barrels per day, the mainenance, operating and transport costs go up fivefold per barrel, even if they are the same for the well. So, it might not pay off to send a crew there and pay for transport. Unless, the oil price does not go up, these wells and many more wells are likely to shut down for a while.
I saw a recent story about the rise in the cost of fracking to completion for these DUC wells. Costs are said to have risen to something like $3.2 million in some of the areas where wells need completion. I believe the Director's Cut said last month there were 86o wells awaiting completion. If the story I read was true, then it will be around $2.8 billion to frack those 860 wells. I don't know what the cost of getting a well to the DUC stage is, but it sure seems a lot of money to have sunk in the ground for wells that will be outputting just 100 barrel a day after their first 24 months.Phil Harris says: 02/16/2017 at 12:13 pmIs my thinking fuzzy on this?
Bruno Verwimp wrote back in 2016, September 16th, " .Hold your breath for the next winter. It might bring severe decline in oil production in ND Bakken ."Javier says: 02/17/2017 at 6:31 amI wrote at the same time: " FWIW my 'money' is on Verwimp's observation and model for the Bakken. I for one will be interested to see your chart next spring!"
Another 3 months will be interesting. By the look of it, it might well be down to 700,000 bpd in a year if the uncanny accuracy continues. As I understand it, his chart has nothing in it derived from price.
That is correct. Verwimp's model has no oil price input. This is a serious problem since everybody recognizes that oil price has been determinant in the current oil situation. Therefore one can only conclude that Verwimp's model is accurate due to chance, and therefore has no predicting capability. It will continue to be accurate until it doesn't. It probably represents oil production decay in the absence of sufficient economical incentive.Dennis Coyne says: 02/20/2017 at 3:22 pmHi Verwimp,djtxyz says: 02/16/2017 at 1:44 pmGeology absolutely plays a role, especially when oil prices are relatively high it is clear which fields are constrained by geology. When oil prices fall by a factor of 3 or 4 fields that are not constrained by geology will decline due to economic constraints (poor profitability.) The Bakken only increased in output due to high oil prices and a high well completion rate. Eventually geology will be the reason for Bakken decline, low oil prices clearly are the reason at present.
In Jan 2018 your model predicts about 680 kb/d for ND Bakken/TF output. My 61 well model predicts about 818 kb/d in Jan 2018 and the 85 well model predicts 900 kb/d in Jan 2018, I expect ND Bakken/Three Forks output will be around 825 to 900 kb/d in Jan 2018, with a best guess of 866 kb/d (847 kb/d in Dec 2018). This corresponds to a 75 well model, chart below.
A big contributor to the legacy oil decline is the unrelenting physics of fluid phase behavior, with gas becoming more prevalent in the production stream. Statewide GOR increased from 1200 to 1500:1 cuft/bo in 2015. The legacy wells will be worse (i.e. the newer wells dampen the effect, which have an initial GOR of ~ 1000:1). For reference, generally a GOR> 2000:1 is considered a "gas" well or field.Fernando Leanme says: 02/16/2017 at 4:20 pmMost of these LTO fields will eventually be abandoned as gas fields.
note I tried to post a *.png graph, but the reply tool failed.
Is the 2000 GOR a North Dakota convention? There's no reservoir engineering reason to designate a depleted well as a gas well when GOR increases to 2000 scf/bo. Depleted oil wells under depletion drive do experience very high GORs, but they remain oil wells.Boomer II says: 02/16/2017 at 4:51 pmHere's a link that says in Texas there are tax advantages in reclassifying an oil well as a gas well.Watcher says: 02/17/2017 at 1:11 pmhttp://fuelfix.com/blog/2016/11/22/pioneer-denied-request-to-reclassify-oil-wells/
My recall is there's a regulation in Texas that classifies liquids from a gas well as condensate vs oil from an oil well. Almost certainly has some tax consequence.Boomer II says: 02/17/2017 at 1:37 pmThis has been my philosophy for decades. Preserve our own resources and use up everyone else's until they run out.Watcher says: 02/18/2017 at 12:59 pmBerkshire's Charlie Munger Has A Much Different Energy Plan For America Than Donald Trump | Seeking Alpha : "Munger believes that the United States should have an energy strategy that involves preserving these shale resources until some point in the future when they are much more valuable. This would be a point in time after the OPEC nations have exhausted their oil and gas reserves.
Munger would have us import oil and gas now from OPEC so that we can save our oil and gas for the future when the world is going to have major shortages."
Sigh.People Are Not Stupid.
The day comes when a firebrand is in control and dares to rock the societal systemic boat by declaring the price of oil will be non monetary. You want oil from Russia, America? Disarm. You want oil from KSA, America? Convert to Islam.
"We have enough of your dollars created from thin air. Let's have something of real value to us before we send you oil. The price is described above."
[Feb 21, 2017] To reach pay out for the wells started in 2009-2016 requires an estimated oil price of 65 dollars bbl WTI starting Jan-17. To get a return of 2.5% which can be called an inflation hedge) on the $36B requires an estimated oil price of $77 dollars bbl WTI
Notable quotes:
"... Looking at Bakken(ND) as one big project, it has now spent an estimated total of about $36Billion more than generated from net operational cash flows (Jan-09 Dec-16). To reach pay out for the wells started in 2009-2016 requires an estimated oil price of $65/bo (WTI) starting Jan-17. To get a return of 2.5% (which is, call it, an inflation hedge) on the $36B requires an estimated oil price of $77/bo (WTI). ..."
"... To enable a debt reduction requires a net positive cash flow from operations and the longer it takes before positive cash flow happens, the higher the required oil price becomes to earn some return. ..."
"... Some of this $36B debt has already been written down (also through bankruptcies (Chapter 11s), the business model is not sustainable with low oil prices!), which means that the companies now needs to recover less than the $36B. ..."
"... Write downs/impairments shrinks the affected companies' assets/equities and thus debt carrying capacities. Some make forecasts about future developments without considering the companies' balance sheets. ..."
"... At present oil pries (low/mid 50's) the companies may add an average of 60-70 wells/month from cash from operations, this will likely be a mixture of DUCs and "new" wells. ..."
"... For 2017 I expect companies in Bakken(ND) will continue to spend above what is generated from operations. ..."
Feb 21, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Rune Likvern says: 02/19/2017 at 1:04 pmTo keep the Dec-15 output level from Bakken(ND) through 2016, I estimated this would require the addition of an average of about 95 wells/month (61 wells/month were added through 2016).shallow sand says: 02/19/2017 at 4:33 pmIn 2016 an estimated $2.0 $2.5Billion more than (net) cash flow from operations was spent. This is about 300 350 new wells (spud to flow).
Without this external capital infusion fewer wells would have been brought to flow and thus a steeper decline in production.Looking at Bakken(ND) as one big project, it has now spent an estimated total of about $36Billion more than generated from net operational cash flows (Jan-09 Dec-16). To reach pay out for the wells started in 2009-2016 requires an estimated oil price of $65/bo (WTI) starting Jan-17. To get a return of 2.5% (which is, call it, an inflation hedge) on the $36B requires an estimated oil price of $77/bo (WTI).
To enable a debt reduction requires a net positive cash flow from operations and the longer it takes before positive cash flow happens, the higher the required oil price becomes to earn some return.
Some of this $36B debt has already been written down (also through bankruptcies (Chapter 11s), the business model is not sustainable with low oil prices!), which means that the companies now needs to recover less than the $36B.
Write downs/impairments shrinks the affected companies' assets/equities and thus debt carrying capacities. Some make forecasts about future developments without considering the companies' balance sheets.
At present oil pries (low/mid 50's) the companies may add an average of 60-70 wells/month from cash from operations, this will likely be a mixture of DUCs and "new" wells.
For 2017 I expect companies in Bakken(ND) will continue to spend above what is generated from operations.
Rune, thank you for this post.
[Feb 21, 2017] Oil price will go above 50 dollar per barrel this year
Feb 21, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Boomer II says: 02/16/2017 at 12:22 pmFrenzied Betting, Sleeping Market: Something Must Give in Oil Bloomberg : "Unfortunately for the bulls, the oil market itself has fallen asleep after an initial surge. As Standard Chartered analysts including Paul Horsnell pointed out this week, prices have been stuck around a dollar a barrel above or below $55.50 since mid-December. Meanwhile U.S. crude closed above $54 a barrel only once since OPEC's Nov. 30 meeting, despite crossing that price level 14 times. 'If crude prices are to break out of their recent range in the next few weeks, the risk is to the downside,' JBC Energy GmbH in Vienna said Thursday."Fernando Leanme says: 02/19/2017 at 5:17 pmIt's going to go up to around $63.
[Feb 21, 2017] Chinese oil demand growth
Feb 21, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Reuters calculated Chinese oil demand growth of 2.5% in 2016, based on official data-a three-year low-down from 3.1% in 2015."
> > > > > > > >
[Feb 20, 2017] To reach pay out for the wells started in 2009-2016 requires an estimated oil price of 65 dollars bbl WTI starting Jan-17. To get a return of two and a half percent they need 77 dollars
Notable quotes:
"... Looking at Bakken(ND) as one big project, it has now spent an estimated total of about $36Billion more than generated from net operational cash flows (Jan-09 Dec-16). To reach pay out for the wells started in 2009-2016 requires an estimated oil price of $65/bo (WTI) starting Jan-17. To get a return of 2.5% (which is, call it, an inflation hedge) on the $36B requires an estimated oil price of $77/bo (WTI). ..."
"... To enable a debt reduction requires a net positive cash flow from operations and the longer it takes before positive cash flow happens, the higher the required oil price becomes to earn some return. ..."
"... Some of this $36B debt has already been written down (also through bankruptcies (Chapter 11s), the business model is not sustainable with low oil prices!), which means that the companies now needs to recover less than the $36B. ..."
"... Write downs/impairments shrinks the affected companies' assets/equities and thus debt carrying capacities. Some make forecasts about future developments without considering the companies' balance sheets. ..."
"... At present oil pries (low/mid 50's) the companies may add an average of 60-70 wells/month from cash from operations, this will likely be a mixture of DUCs and "new" wells. ..."
"... For 2017 I expect companies in Bakken(ND) will continue to spend above what is generated from operations. ..."
Feb 20, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Rune Likvern says: 02/19/2017 at 1:04 pmTo keep the Dec-15 output level from Bakken(ND) through 2016, I estimated this would require the addition of an average of about 95 wells/month (61 wells/month were added through 2016).shallow sand says: 02/19/2017 at 4:33 pmIn 2016 an estimated $2.0 $2.5Billion more than (net) cash flow from operations was spent. This is about 300 350 new wells (spud to flow).
Without this external capital infusion fewer wells would have been brought to flow and thus a steeper decline in production.Looking at Bakken(ND) as one big project, it has now spent an estimated total of about $36Billion more than generated from net operational cash flows (Jan-09 Dec-16). To reach pay out for the wells started in 2009-2016 requires an estimated oil price of $65/bo (WTI) starting Jan-17. To get a return of 2.5% (which is, call it, an inflation hedge) on the $36B requires an estimated oil price of $77/bo (WTI).
To enable a debt reduction requires a net positive cash flow from operations and the longer it takes before positive cash flow happens, the higher the required oil price becomes to earn some return.
Some of this $36B debt has already been written down (also through bankruptcies (Chapter 11s), the business model is not sustainable with low oil prices!), which means that the companies now needs to recover less than the $36B.
Write downs/impairments shrinks the affected companies' assets/equities and thus debt carrying capacities. Some make forecasts about future developments without considering the companies' balance sheets.
At present oil pries (low/mid 50's) the companies may add an average of 60-70 wells/month from cash from operations, this will likely be a mixture of DUCs and "new" wells.
For 2017 I expect companies in Bakken(ND) will continue to spend above what is generated from operations.
Rune, thank you for this post.
[Feb 20, 2017] Is The Bakken a Bust
Feb 20, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Bakken production down 86,150 barrels per day to 895,330 bpd. North Dakota production down 92,029 bpd to 942,455 bpd. It was noted that this the largest decline ever in North Dakota production. But it should not be overlooked that the October in crease in production was also the largest ever increase in North Dakota production.
[Feb 20, 2017] it looks likely that the moment Dakota Access is built, there will be a pipeline capacity glut.
Feb 20, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Nathanael says: 02/15/2017 at 1:15 pmIf I'm not mistaken, this means that the North Dakota production (BPD) is now only slightly more than than the existing pipeline capacity leading out of North Dakota (BPD), which is 851,000 at the end of 2016. Production will probably be down to the existing pipeline capacity by March.https://ndpipelines.files.wordpress.com/2012/04/williston-basin-transportation-table-nov-2016.jpg
Now this isn't quite comparable because part of the Williston isn't in North Dakota, so I'd have to look at the Montana numbers. But still, it looks likely that the moment Dakota Access is built, there will be a pipeline capacity glut.
So is the Dakota Access Pipeline going to be half-empty, or will some of the other pipelines be empty and go bankrupt? They're fighting over market share in a surplus-capacity environment.
[Feb 20, 2017] EUR for Bakken for new investments is assumed to be at unrealistic 980K Boe per well
Feb 20, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
HVACman says: 02/16/2017 at 2:04 pm"The incremental investment is budgeted to deliver an average estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of, or approximately 15% over the previous average EUR of 850,000 Boe per well. At $55 per barrel WTI, these completions should generate a cost forward average rate of return in excess of 100%"George Kaplan says: 02/16/2017 at 3:21 pmThe estimated EUR's appear VERY high for Bakken wells by my untrained eye. Any thoughts from the resident experts?
I am certainly not an expert on tight oil but see above. If they get 30 to 40% extra from gas I think they might make it (GOR of 1500 adds 25% I think, and it looks like it will be more than that for most wells). What I don't get is a 'previous average' of 850,000. There's not even one well that looks like that at the moment, based on Enno Peters' charts.AlexS says: 02/15/2017 at 5:41 pmEven more striking declines in drilling/completion activity for individual operators.AlexS says: 02/15/2017 at 6:58 pmIn December 2016, Continental had only 21 producing wells that started production in 2016, with combined output of 8.6 kb/d
In December 2015, it had 152 producing wells that were started in 2015,
with combined output of 45.1 kb/d.In December 2014, it had 253 producing wells that were started in 2014,
with combined output of 58.9 kb/d.So, the number of new producing wells for CLR in 2016 was 12 times less than in 2014.
CLR guidance for 2017:Eulenspiegel says: 02/16/2017 at 5:39 am"The Company plans to complete 131 gross (100 net) operated wells out of its Bakken uncompleted well inventory with first production commencing by year end. In addition, Continental plans to complete with first production approximately 17 gross (8 net) newly drilled Bakken wells in 2017. At year-end 2017, the Company expects to have 140 Bakken wells in inventory, of which 72 gross (40 net) wells will have been completed but waiting on first sales and 68 gross (47 net) operated wells will be waiting on completion.
The Company also plans to participate in completing 40 net non-operated wells in 2017, 35 of which will be in the Bakken.
Continental expects to grow Bakken production by approximately 26% in 2017, when comparing the 2017 exit rate to the fourth quarter 2016.
Approximately $550 million, or 70%, of the operated Bakken capital investment in 2017 will be focused on completing wells from the Company's uncompleted well inventory. The Company has five stimulation crews working currently and plans to average seven crews for 2017 as a whole.
Continental plans to apply various enhanced stimulation techniques on all Bakken completions in 2017 to define the optimum designs for future completions. This includes larger proppant loads, diverter technology, shorter stage lengths and shorter cluster spacing. The Company is also applying high-rate production lift technology to accelerate fluid recovery and early production rates. Combined, these techniques add an average of approximately $1.4 million to the previous standard enhanced completion cost of $3.5 million.
For the uncompleted well inventory, the average budgeted completion cost for the larger enhanced completion is approximately $4.9 million per well. The incremental investment is budgeted to deliver an average estimated ultimate recovery (EUR) of 980,000 Boe per well, or approximately 15% over the previous average EUR of 850,000 Boe per well. At $55 per barrel WTI, these completions should generate a cost forward average rate of return in excess of 100%.
The Company also plans to maintain four operated drilling rigs in the Bakken throughout 2017 and drill 101 gross (57 net) operated wells, with 17 gross (8 net) of these wells completed in 2017 with first production. The 17 gross wells will have an average budgeted well cost of approximately $7.0 million. The average EUR for wells drilled in 2017 is expected to be 920,000 Boe per well. At a WTI price of $55 per barrel, these wells should generate over a 40% rate of return."
http://nocache-phx.corporate-ir.net/phoenix.zhtml?c=197380&p=irol-newsArticle&ID=2239817
Are they producing mainly gas?AlexS says: 02/16/2017 at 8:21 amAccording to Enno, an average Bakken well gives about 200k+ of oil, not 900k. It looks like it's much more gas than oil, or the numbers are completely bogus. Or they have bought the sweetest center of all sweet spots in Bakken?
Questions over questions
As of 3Q16, oil accounted for 61% of total CLR output.shallow sand says: 02/16/2017 at 9:19 am
Apparently, oil's share in CLR production in the Bakken is higher.According to Enno, CLR Bakken wells with the first flow in 2014 have on average already produced > 200kb of oil. Their average EUR may exceed 400 kb and probably reach 500 kb.
Wells with first flow in 2015 and 2016 perform better.That said, even including gas, EURs of 900 kboe look unrealistic
AlexS.AlexS says: 02/16/2017 at 9:24 amI have mentioned company proved reserves and PV10 quite a bit here in the past two years.
I am coming to the opinion that these numbers, required by the SEC, have too many uncertainties to make them worthwhile, at least as to PUD. PDP may be useful.
shallow sand,George Kaplan says: 02/16/2017 at 11:14 amI agree. I think PUD estimates for tight oil formations are much more uncertain compared with conventional fields.
They appear to have been increasing well performance since 2014, maybe getting above 400k for oil if the curves continue (as below). It looks like they recomplete after some time. It will be interesting to see how the two 2016 curves go started high and then the first took a dive. The late 2015 wells did the same and then jumped up, which looks like a re-completion. How much area does one of their new wells drain? Presumably the savings must mostly be on reduced drilling and completions cost, and maybe front loading the returns with higher initial production, not overall additional recovery.Marathon announced today they'd have six rigs average this year up one not sure if that is enough to hold the decline near present levels, mostly that depends on completions rather than rigs though, but they are going for "multiple enhanced completion trials" and expect to increase overall USA production by up to 20% (also six rigs in Eagle Ford).
http://www.marathonoil.com/News/Press_Releases/Press_Release/?id=1012103
[Feb 20, 2017] Bakken steep drop of production
Feb 20, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Heinrich Leopold says: 02/16/2017 at 5:19 amBakken data were out yesterday and we have seen a steep drop below 900 000 bbl/d nearly 300 000 bbl/d below its peak of 1.164 mill bbl/d in December (see below chart). Well performance (new and existing wells) is down to a five year low of 83 bbl per well and falling -20% year over year. This means a cost increase per produced barrel of 20%, even if new wells are performing better and costs per rig are down.Since the well production declines by -20% over two years now, costs per produced barrel are up 40% and rising fast. No wonder companies seem to abandon Bakken for less mature fields such as the Permian. New permits are at five year low and rig count is also grinding down slowly. Inerestingly, number of wells are also falling down 100 wells in December which has been deemed as impossible in some forecasting models.
[Feb 13, 2017] The report by the Hills Group claims to rely on thermodynamics arguments to predict oil's price-volume trajectory going forward. If does not stand up to scrutiny.
Feb 13, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Seppo Korpela says: 02/10/2017 at 8:33 pmThe report by the Hills Group claims to rely on thermodynamics arguments to predict oil's price-volume trajectory going forward. If does not stand up to scrutiny.Rune Likvern says: 02/10/2017 at 10:34 pmThermodynamic analysis of engineering systems is typically based on the first law of thermodynamics together with mass balances.
The second law of thermodynamics introduces the entropy as a thermodynamic property and the related concepts of reversible processes and reversible heat transfer.
Irreversibilities in real processes are taken into account by assigning a value of experimentally determined efficiency to equipment such as pumps, compressors and turbines and
this way the reversible processes are related to the actual ones.A relatively recent development has been to develop a systematic use of an exergy balance to examine where in a complex energy system irreversibilities
take place. Exergy is defined as the maximum theoretical work that can be obtained from a system and its environment as the system comes to equilibrium
with its environment. By combining the first and second laws of thermodynamics an exergy balance can be written down.Rudimentary exergy analysis can be found in the 1941 book Thermodynamics by Joseph Keenan. It was called availability analysis at that time. The most systematic development of the exergy analysis is in the textbook Fundamentals of Engineering Thermodynamics by M. Moran, H. Shapiro, D. Boettner and M. Bailey, 7th ed. John Wiley, 2011.
Although the entropy balance equation can be used (although typically only for steady state systems) to determine the entropy production, to carry it out requires that sufficient number of thermodynamic properties and interactions are known at the system boundaries. Since such a calculation needs to be carried out after the thermodynamic analysis has been completed, it is seldom carried out in engineering practice because the knowledge of the same properties allows the efficiency of the machine or system be determined.
The advocates of exergy accounting claim that knowing where the exergy destruction takes place in a system is a good way of allocating development money to improve it.
This kind of analysis has not taken hold in industry either, simply because, manufacturer, say of turbines know that the irreversibilities are quantified by measuring the efficiency of the turbine, and they direct their efforts toward understanding how the blades of the turbine can be shaped in order to reduce the irreversibilities. Such a task is based on aerodynamic calculations. Compressors and pump are by the nature of the flow through them machines with lower efficiency and their improvement requires again experts with fluid dynamic knowledge to improve them. Similarly improving the heat transfer in a heat exchanger is carried out by making improvements in the heat exchanger surfaces and reducing pressure losses.If these improve the heat transfer, the entropy production is reduced. Here the expertise of a heat transfer specialist rather than a thermodynamicists is needed.
One interesting application of exergy analysis is to calculate the second law efficiency. A high second law efficiency means that the source of energy is well matched with the application.
Thus heating shower water with a thermal solar heater is a good match as unfocused solar energy raises the water temperature high enough to serve as shower water, but not nearly so high as to create superheated steam to power a steam turbine. Thus the most important insight to be obtained is to match the source of energy to the application, and once this insight is internalized, calculation of the second law efficiency adds only marginally to understanding. For this reason it is seldom used in industry. To be sure, optimization of a system's second law efficiency is still worth while, but using other metrics this can be done with topics based on heat transfer, fluid dynamics, stress analysis and the like.
Where thermodynamic analysis is helpful is in seeing how a thermodynamic efficiency of a system such as a coal or nuclear power plant can be improved by increasing the maximum steam temperature of the plant in which the turbine is but one component. This requires that blades are made of materials that withstand the stresses generated at these temperatures. Such developments have increased the maximum temperature of these power plants to about 1000 F, but further improvements have now stalled over the last half a century. For gas fired power plants combustion temperature is higher and and turbine designers implement both cooling technology for the blades and use high temperature materials, that today are made of single crystals, that withstand the hot combustion gases. Interestingly exergy analysis shows that most of the exergy
destruction takes place in the combustion of the fuel, but there is not much one can do to reduce this destruction. For this reason a naive application of exergy analysis may lead the poor allocation of development funds.The report by the Hills Group proposes to use the second law of thermodynamics as the starting point. The unsteady entropy balance for a control volume with one exit and no inlet is given as
dS_cv/dt= Q^dot_j/T_j m^dot_e s_e = \sigma^dot_cv
Next comes the assumption that at all times dS_cv/dt = m^dot s_e$. It is based on the observation that because at the end of oil production when the reservoir has been completely depleted the flow will stop and nothing much takes place, then both of these terms are zero. After cancelling these terms the entropy production is seen to be related to the heat transfer. But his assumption is clearly unjustified while the oil is being extracted and these two terms do not cancel each other. The neglect of the terms leads to an equation that omits the entropy production that is caused by the irreversibilities of the oil flow through the permeable reservoir rock.
The incorrect canceling leads to the equation
dot Q^dot_j/T_j = sigma^dot_cv or sigma^dot_cv= Q^dot_j/T_j
and this can be cast in these two forms, depending which term is known and which is unknown. The report by Hills Group does not tell the reader which is a known quantity and which is to be calculated. In fact, there is no indication in the report how the heat transfer is calculated? In thinking about the heat transfer, for a control volume that includes the reservoir only, it appears that the heat interaction between the system and the surroundings is mainly caused by the geothermal gradient. That is, heat enters from the lower boundary and leaves across the upper boundary. This is a passive process.
The fact that the oil and water in the reservoir have some average temperature in the geological setting only influences the viscosity of the fluids and thus how well they move through the reservoir, but from the energetic standpoint the sensible energy is not important. That is, there is no attempt made to extract this energy in a heat exchanger, nor is the high pressure used to extract energy in an expander. Rather the oil and water mixture flows through a set of throttling valves, in which the exergy is destroyed.
If the entropy production were known independently, then this equation could be used to calculate the heat transfer, but the answer would be incorrect because entropy production is caused by both heat transfer and irreversible processes taking place inside the control volume. For the control volume consisting of the reservoir, entropy production takes place mainly in the pores of the permeable reservoir rock as the flow is forced out.
This takes place by local viscous dissipation and although it can be calculated in principle, in practice such a calculation is nearly impossible to carry out from first principles. The entropy production rate for the system would then be calculated by integration of the local values over the entire reservoir.
Next in the analysis is a calculation of E_Tp. It is defined as the total production energy, or the total work required to extract, process, and distribute a volumetric quantity (a gallon) of crude oil. The report offers the equation
E_Tp = [(m_c C_c + m_o C_o ) (T_R-T_O)]/[m_c]
as a way to calculate it. But this is the energy of the sensible part of the oil-water mixture above the reference temperature T_O. It does not include the chemical energy of the crude oil and the formula cannot be reconciled with the definition of E_Tp.
The following equation also appears in the report
E_Tp = integral_{t_1}^{t_2} T_0 \sigma^dot_cv dt\]
Thus there are two equations to use for calculating E_Tp and there is no mention what the independent variables are and what is calculated using these equations.
If the value of E_Tp is calculated this way then how is the previous equation used? The only unknowns are the reservoir temperature T_R and the oil-water ratio, if the total flow rate is determined from the depletion rate equation. The reservoir temperature can be measured, so the unknown seems to be the water oil ratio. However, the report makes use of an empirical equation for the oil/water ratio as a function of the percent depletion of the reservoir.Finally last equation can only be used to calculate the change in exergy, and this would necessitate a new symbol to be introduced for exergy, and this is not the same as energy.
The report next presents calculation of the oil extraction trajectory that is based on Hubbert's methodology. The calculations are in close agreement what others have found., with cumulative production 2357 Gb that is somewhat larger than what Campbell and Laherrere's value 2123 Gb. It is now well known that the in the calculations based on logistic equation there is a slow drift to large values of the ultimate production as more data has been included in the calculations with the passing of the
In the same section is also a discussion of the surface water cut as a function of the percent of oil extracted from a reservoir. The curve is then rotated in order to satisfy two criteria set by the authors. Now a rotation of a curve is a mathematical transformation and a curve cannot be arbitrarily rotated without destroying the underlying mathematical theory. Furthermore, the report states that E_Tp cannot exceed E_G, the crude oil's specific exergy. The terminology is again used loosely applied to both energy and exergy.
Returning to the calculation in Section 4.1 of the report for calculating $E_{Tp}$ by the equation
E_Tp = [(m_c C_c + m_o C_o ) (T_R-T_O)]/[m_c]
The statement on top of page 19 suggests that the water cut is an input parameter, in which case the value of E_Tp depends only on the reservoir temperature.
The reservoir temperature in turn is a function of the depth of the well, owing to the geothermal gradient. This would allow this equation to be used to calculate the sensible energy of oil-water mixture. But what purpose does this serve?
The sensible heat of the crude oil is not used in any significant way. The crude oil cools as it enters the ground facilities and it cools further as it is transported in the pipelines. No power is generated from the sensible part of the crude oil's energy. Only the chemical energy is valuable upon combustion. The rest of the report relates to how prices are linked to the energy delivered. There is no theory to predict how prices adjust to either temporary surplus or deficit.
From what has been discussed above, the thermodynamic analysis is incorrect and therefore any calculations and graphs based on this analysis must also be unreliable. Readers have noted that the so called analysis predicts a peak in oil production during the 2017-2018 time frame and troubles by 2023. That this coincides with the time others have judged the difficulties to appear, seems to give the report a superficial credibility.
If the authors have a better handle on how much energy is expended in oil production, they can form the EROIE ratio and it would constitute an independent check on the work of Hall and his coworkers on EROEI. Such an independent analysis would have some value
Seppo,
+1 000 000!
I am (and many others) now awaiting Hills rebuttal to this.
[Feb 13, 2017] Mexican oil production is dropping
Feb 13, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 02/11/2017 at 4:40 amI looked at Mexico production by area as below. The numbers in brackets show percentage year on year change for exit rate 2016 to 2017. Only the small area in northern offshore, which is not LMZ or Cantarell, is not declining. Even KMZ looks like it might be turning over. If it goes like Cantarell as Nitrogen and or water start hitting the producers then the will be a big acceleration, if not then the decline might flatten out as the other fields make up increasingly less of the mix. The plateau that KMZ achieved after N2 injection was started is now quite long for an offshore field.
[Feb 13, 2017] Oil industry, and particularly Shale Oil Sands part, lives in hope for the last 3 years.
Notable quotes:
"... For the past eight years we were fed the constant stream of stories of mythical economic "recovery" and all the wealth created in this period from the bankers and economist. And as a result of all that illusory "wealth" retail sector was able to sell goods to consumers with empty wallets and maxed credit cards only by smashing prices to the bone leaving almost nothing for the profit. ..."
"... Imagine the state of economy without this extra unconventional 5-6 mbd and $100 per barrel as a consequence. ..."
Feb 13, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ves says: 02/10/2017 at 4:16 pmSteve,
Oil industry, and particularly Shale & Oil Sands part, lives in hope for the last 3 years. And that is not reality, because hope means dream. Unless someone's live in reality, here and now, they are dreaming. They are dead weight, and tomorrow which will fulfill all their hopes is never to come.Shale and Oil Sands are mostly North American origin of production with 5-6 mbd. where we have the most consumption per capita in the entire world.
For the past eight years we were fed the constant stream of stories of mythical economic "recovery" and all the wealth created in this period from the bankers and economist. And as a result of all that illusory "wealth" retail sector was able to sell goods to consumers with empty wallets and maxed credit cards only by smashing prices to the bone leaving almost nothing for the profit.
Imagine the state of economy without this extra unconventional 5-6 mbd and $100 per barrel as a consequence.
[Feb 13, 2017] There is strong evidence that the US economy can survive only oil prices below 100 dollars per barrel without sliding into recession
Feb 13, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis Coyne says: 02/10/2017 at 9:10 amHi Likbez.likbez says: 02/12/2017 at 10:43 pmI disagree that it implies subsidies. What is implied is that when oil is scarce, the price of oil will increase and more of the expensive oil will be profitable to produce. Eventually the high oil price will lead to greater efficiency in the use of oil (as measured by real World GDP per barrel of oil consumed) and also some substitution of natural gas, and electricity for oil in the transportation sector and after 10 to 20 years demand for oil might fall below the supply of oil and lead to lower prices.
My main point is that the supply of oil depends on profits, not on net energy or exergy of the oil produced. Profits will depend on revenue minus costs and revenue will be determined by the oil price which is a function of both supply and demand for oil.
There is strong evidence that the US economy can survive only oil prices below $100 per barrel without sliding into recession. Some researchers put this magic "perma-stagnation" oil price as low as $60 per barrel. I think understanding of this fact is partially behind this prolonged "oil price crush".So it might well be that we do not have the freedom of "arbitrary" oil prices in the US economy. and in worst case scenario we have oil prices already close to the celling, unless the economy is restructured.
That's why your line of thinking about this problem might be wrong. In other words, this is a very serious situation for the USA. "The long emergency" as James Howard Kunstler aptly called it (not that I agree with his line of thinking or endorse his book).
Meanwhile the US is wasting time and money on the wars of neoliberal expansion, which partially is "brut force" way of securing privileged access to remaining oil deposits. Around 5 trillion was spent so far, or 167 millions of Toyota Priuses at $30K per car, or half of the US passenger fleet (there were 260 million registered passenger vehicles in the United States in 2014)
So instead on concentrating on this fundamental problem that nation is facing, the USA is just "waiving dead chicken" with the military force. If we add the possibility of Seneca cliff that situation might be even worse then I described. The nation does need radically cut the amount of oil spend on personal transportation. Using all ways for this that are technologically feasible. Because this is the lowest hanging fruit. But very little was done in this direction on both federal and state levels.
Meanwhile we expanded the fleet of SUVs for personal transportation - this is now the most popular "form factor" for personal car, which overtook sedans. Growth of the fleet of hybrid cars is unacceptably slow (over 4 million units sold through April 2016; Japan, a much smaller and compact nation, sold 5 millions).
Even such a symbolic act as switching of all personal government cars to hybrids was not done by Obama administration, which preferred only talk about the problem and opened spigot for shale junk bond. The only their "real" achievement was "Iran deal" which probably was instrumental in crashing oil prices. Which probably helped Obama much more than it helped the USA economy as whole, but we should not inspect the teeth of the horse that was given as a gift, as old saying goes.
Also attempts to lessen huge traffic jams in large cities like NY and SF are feeble, despite the fact that the technology is available both to reroute the cars and to optimize traffic lights.
Converting existing roads network into "one way" network is almost unheard outside the city center, even when two more or less adequate parallel roads exists with the short distance of each other.
Variation of the number of lines each way is practiced very rarely, in some city centers and selected bridges.
Green wave for traffic using Wifi connections between traffic lights and cameras is in a very rudimentary stage.
The only progress that I noticed is that more and more traffic lights at night autodetect the presence of the car on intersection and switch to green light if there is not traffic in "main" direction.
[Feb 12, 2017] Wall Street Pouring Money Back Into Oil And Gas
Feb 12, 2017 | www.zerohedge.com
Submitted by Nick Cunningham via OilPrice.com, Despite the near record increase in U.S. oil inventories last week an increase of 13.8 million barrels oil prices traded up on February 8 and 9 as traders pinned their hopes on a surprise drawdown in gasoline stocks, which provided some evidence of stronger-than-expected demand. The abnormal crude stock increase took inventories close to 80-year record levels at 508 million barrels, and is another bit of damming evidence that should worry oil bulls. But the oil markets were not deterred. In fact, that has been a defining characteristic of the market in recent weeks optimism even in the face of some pretty worrying signals about the trajectory of the market "adjustment" process. More signs of optimism abound. Wall Street is pouring the most money into oil and gas companies in the U.S. since at least 2000, according to Bloomberg. In January alone, drillers and oilfield service companies raised $6.64 billion in 13 different equity offerings. "The mood is absolutely different," Trey Stolz, an analyst at the investment banking firm Coker & Palmer Inc., told Bloomberg. "Go back to a year ago and the knife was still falling. But today, it feels much, much better."
[Feb 12, 2017] When worldwide spare capacity is gone, this is the time when we have the true oil peak.
Feb 12, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Heinrich Leopold says: 02/11/2017 at 6:55 amSRSRocco,texas tea says: 02/12/2017 at 8:22 amThanks for your interesting post. In my view the US oil and gas industry plays a very important role for the US economy. As long as US oil and gas production is high, the USD stays strong through a lower current account deficit. The costs of a weak dollar (and lower US production) would be manifold higher (higher interest rates) than the current losses of the oil and gas industry. And the losses are made for private shareholders who do not care as long as dividends stay the same. So, who cares?
However, how long can companies sustain this torrid pace? My guess is the industry wants to sit out the cycle until any spare (net export) capacity is out of the market (see below chart). So, if OPEC does not have any surplus capacity left, the oil price will rise as then OPEC has no chance to increase oil production and anybody can produce as much as he wants. OPEC has cut its production, yet I have no doubt that they want to bring its spare capacity to the market. With the current cut OPEC has just bought time to do this at a higher price. But if the spare capacity is gone, even OPEC will have no interest in keeping prices stable. When worldwide spare capacity is gone, this is the time when we have the true oil peak.
As a high USD slows down oil demand, it will take time until the last drop of spare capacity has gone, yet then it will be a dramatic rise of the oil price.
Heinrich Leopold you are a rare diamond among a pile of pea gravel in your analysis. As for the article, when the answer to every problem is to buy gold and silver I don't give the author that much credit. While he admits he does not understand the oil and gas business, this article shows he also does not have any real historic context for his conclusions.Heinrich Leopold says: 02/12/2017 at 2:17 pmtexas tea,Thanks for your comments. The current situation is at least very interesting as we will soon see how much substance is behind the claims of the industry and OPEC.
Saudi Arabia has probably not as much spare capacity as they claim as the current cut was probably not as much voluntarily as published. On the other side, the recent quarterly report fom ExxonMobil http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/Global/Files/Earnings/2016/news_supp_earnings_4q16_2.pdf reveals the Exxon had a five time higher loss on its US operations than in 4q2015, despite higher prices received. This is a hint that there are enormous cost pressures in US operations. So, the US industry has probably not so much time just to sit out the whole situation.
In any case it is a fascinating poker game.
[Feb 12, 2017] Selling assets to pay down dividends and buy back stocks is liquidation
Feb 12, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Rune Likvern says: 02/11/2017 at 4:31 pmFrom what I have seen it is generally accepted that EROEI for FF has been and will continue (lots of peer reviewed papers documenting this) to be in a downward trend. Then it is open for projections how fast this downward trend will develop and its consequences.AlexS says: 02/11/2017 at 9:43 pmWhat matters is net affordable energy that will be made available for societies.
In the short term it is about flows, longer term; size and quality of remaining stocks.Selling assets to pay down dividends/buy back stocks is liquidation.
Further up in this post Nathanel shared some great insights;
"Personally, from my background in general financial analysis, the two really big metrics I've been watching lately: Dividends in excess of current earnings mean a company in decline. Borrowing money to pay the dividend means a company which is in unmanaged, uncontrolled decline. (Managed decline would involve liquidating assets to pay dividends, and *paying off* debt.) "
"Look at what they do and not what they say."
Several big oil companies have used money for stock buy backs, but another trend I found interesting is also how they move into renewable (solar and wind). This should be an indicator about what these companies find profitable.
Just to be clear, I think renewables are great, but we also need to recognize the dominant role of FF."The oil majors were not spending on CAPEX and were selling assets to pay dividends to their shareholders."They are spending on capex (although they cut spending in 2015-16) and they are buying assets, not only selling.
[Feb 12, 2017] People think LTO development in America will have a never ending source of funding, regardless of price, demand,
Notable quotes:
"... Several companies have already been through bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 11 primarily) and affected bondholders accepted a haircut. Integrated companies have recognized impairments to their balance sheets. So if only those who makes/supports these claims could come up with documentation of the conduits by which the bondholders/creditors are made whole by central banks it would be helpful. ..."
"... The losses/haircuts/impairments will be spread over several years (perhaps decades) and in relative terms the amounts involved do not pose a systemic risk ..."
"... No, of course not. You're buried in normalcy confirmation bias that believes QE creation of 25% of GDP over about 6 years is completely consistent with markets operating in laissez faire fashion. When did you, oh hell, when did anyone last hear the phrase moral hazard? Think about that when you next posture yourself offended. ..."
Feb 12, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Mike: 02/08/2017 at 11:29 amRune, thank you for this. People here I believe had been asking for it, now, unfortunately, it seems to have gone over most peoples heads. There is a fundamental detachment from reality here; people think LTO development in America will have a never ending source of funding, regardless of price, demand, http://oilprice.com/Latest-Energy-News/World-News/EIA-Slashes-Crude-Oil-Demand-Forecast.html or the economic/financial woes of the industry itself. I can't say that I understand that myself.Rune Likvern: 02/08/2017 at 1:05 pmMike, thanks!Watcher: 02/09/2017 at 3:27 amI did not expect my post would unleash an avalanche with unsubstantiated claims about central banks making bond holders/creditors whole for losses incurred by shale companies.
Several companies have already been through bankruptcy proceedings (Chapter 11 primarily) and affected bondholders accepted a haircut.
Integrated companies have recognized impairments to their balance sheets. So if only those who makes/supports these claims could come up with documentation of the conduits by which the bondholders/creditors are made whole by central banks it would be helpful.The losses/haircuts/impairments will be spread over several years (perhaps decades) and in relative terms the amounts involved do not pose a systemic risk.
Ifcentral banks got involved it would be much easier (and better) to manipulate the oil price higher.
Oh I didn't know this was still alive.Dood what substantiation do you need for the claim that if global systemic risk exists financially from growing shale debt they will be bailed out? You got a problem with that claim? Where were you in 2008 when nominal and gross credit default swaps were measured in trillions? Know anyone at the ISDA or even the DTCC?
No, of course not. You're buried in normalcy confirmation bias that believes QE creation of 25% of GDP over about 6 years is completely consistent with markets operating in laissez faire fashion. When did you, oh hell, when did anyone last hear the phrase moral hazard? Think about that when you next posture yourself offended.
Normalcy is gone. It's not coming back. Oil scarcity is relentless and is the likely cause. I can offer you help in re-evaluating what is and isn't normal:. Have a look at the German 10 year Bund. 0.3%. German inflation? About 1.2%.
[Feb 10, 2017] The twisted logic of shale propagandists assumes that investors continue to put money into shale oil companies because they believe in abiotic oil. I'm pretty sure that is
Feb 10, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 02/09/2017 at 4:12 pmI had trouble following the logic one line seems to be that investors continue to put money into oil companies because they (the investors) believe in abiotic oil. I'm pretty sure that is wholly incorrect.Rune Likvern says: 02/09/2017 at 6:02 pmI don't get why the recent uptick in USA production (much of which was due to GoM projects that had been started several years ago, not just from shale drilling) has got anything really to do with the losses of the companies highlighted. Is the suggestion that without that uptick investors would have suddenly realised that all the oil companies are going down the toilet? I'm pretty sure that's wrong as well.
LTO is still a relatively small part of ExxonMobil and Chevrons portfolio (note if you look only at the upstream parts of those companies the losses actually have been worse than shown, they were saved by downstream profits). The losses are because of over investment leading to a supply glut. There has been almost no impact from falling global demand. The over investment was in all sections not just in LTO. LTO stands out because the supply can be seen to clearly increase over the past few years, but it had not much more impact than oil sands (also showing a clear increase) or in fill drilling in Russia and Opec ME, which just acted to stop decline, and therefore doesn't stand out so much.
That ETP thing gets thrown in but, apart from being wrong in many different ways, doesn't seem to be linked to any of the other observations or conclusions.
I like the charts though.
Dennis, thanks for posting this.SRSrocco says: 02/09/2017 at 6:22 pmA few comments first of all I advise people to have a look at ExxonMobil's press release re Q4-16 , 2016 results.
http://cdn.exxonmobil.com/~/media/global/files/earnings/2016/news_release_earnings_4q16.pdfNegative cash flow does not automatically translate into unprofitably if CAPEX is a big portion of it.
There are no doubts that oil companies have taken on more debts, but it would be more helpful if debts were presented on a specific basis that is $$ of debt per barrel of oil (or oil equivalent) of reserves.So far I cannot see the author has made any real attempts to explain the thermodynamic oil collapse.
Rune,Good to see you woke up from the DEAD. Haven't seen you posting much. Glad to know I am able to get you out of BED once in a while.
Anyhow . I would imagine we can use any financial metric to show how profitable or unprofitable a company is by relating it to this or that metric, but in the end the figures speak for themselves. The U.S. Major Oil Industry is in big trouble. Hell, the majority of the economy and financial system is one big BUBBLE looking for a PIN.
Regardless, ExxonMobil and the rest of the U.S. energy sector is in serious trouble. While ExxonMobil only has $29 billion in long term debt, their total liabilities are $169 billion.
There's lots of garbage hidden in these companies that most investors tend to overlook.
steve
[Feb 10, 2017] Are oil prices dictates by the market or the armies
likbez says: 02/09/2017 at 7:54 pmFeb 10, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Dennis,Survivalist says: 02/10/2017 at 12:18 am"Let us assume for a moment that there are some places such as LTO producers or oil sands producers where the net energy of the "petroleum production system" is close to zero. Why would that prevent the oil from being produced, as long as oil prices are high enough to make such production profitable?"
That means subsidies. But where are the sources of those subsidies ? They are in those oil sources which have high EROEI. So implicitly Russia and KAS are subsidizing the US shale production due to neoliberal global financial system based on dollar, because those countries put large part of the income from their oil sales into US treasuries.
My feeling is that Wall Street (and by extension US intelligence agencies, which historically were closely connected - look at the career of Allen Dulles) and oil production are very interconnected.
That's probably why we have such a long period of low oil prices.
Those "free market" supply-demand arguments that have currency here, probably should be augmented with the brute force considerations. In other words, this is at least partially a racket, which is based of the US (and its allies) hegemonic world power and first of all military power.
Russia is definitely unhappy with this situation, and that's why in 2011-2012 the USA attempted to stage a color revolution in this country.
As Roman saying coined it "Vae victis!" 'Woe to the vanquished!'
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_the_Allia
== quote ==
Famine began to afflict both armies. The Gauls were also affected by pestilence. They were on low ground between the hills, which had been scorched by the fires and there was malaria. Many of them died because of disease and the heat. They started piling the dead bodies and burning them instead of burying them. They started negotiations with the Romans and called on then to surrender due to the famine. They also hinted that they could be bought off. The Roman leaders, who were waiting for Camillus to arrive with an army from Veii, refused. Eventually, the starving soldiers called for a surrender or an agreement on a ransom on the best terms they could. Quintus Sulpicius and Brennus, the leader of the Senones, held talks. They agreed on a ransom of 1000 lbs. of gold. The Senones cheated, using heavier weights to weigh the gold. When the Romans protested, "Brennus tossed his sword on the scale, uttering words intolerable to the Roman ears, 'Woe to the vanquished!'" [37]I'm no expert on the matter but from what I understand about Canadian oil sands they're basically burning natural gas to make heat/steam and electricity and using that to mine/refine bitumen into gasoline. I don't know what the EROI is but it's probably the lowest in the world. Nonetheless, natural gas doesn't go in my car or run the farm equipment, but burning natural gas to power the mning/refining of bitumen seems to fill my tank. Now if Canada runs out of natural gas one day I suppose they could run some nuclear to produce heat/steam and electricity to power the mining and refining of bitumen to crude oil products. I don't see why they need a subsidy. As long as they can turn a profit they're good. It seems to me that cheap natural gas and expensive oil is the cornerstone of Canadian oil sands extraction.Ulenspiegel says: 02/10/2017 at 3:27 am"That means subsidies. "Fernando Leanme says: 02/10/2017 at 4:29 amYou should have written energetical subsidies. But why should this be an issue? As long as the other energy is cheap an available, in future it may be green electricity, a energetical subsidy is not bad. In extremo we are talking about syn-fule from CO2, water and green energy.
The Hill approach is not convincing because they assume implicitly that only oil can deliver the subsidy.
Think of oil produced using SAGD and an upgrader as a synthetic product, manufactured using inputs which are converted into outputs the buyer wants. As long as the inputs are cheap enough the product is profitable.So the key to extra heavy oil production is cheap natural gas, or cheap fusion and solar power. I mention these two because Venezuela's extra heavy oil sits in a reservoir that's much warmer than usual. This warmth comes from radioactive decay in basement rocks located under the reservoir sands, and from the sun, which happens to keep the surface pretty warm.
[Feb 09, 2017] Why the USA target Russia for regime change? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia?
Feb 09, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
VK says: 02/06/2017 at 7:20 amWhy target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now?George Kaplan says: 02/06/2017 at 2:50 pmhttps://www.lewrockwell.com/author/jack-perry/?ptype=article
"I've gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the "end game" is in regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into extra innings with this whole Russia vilification project. This is worse than someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government does that, too, but they haven't done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now. What, then, is the motive?
The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil fields are drying up. And the government knows that, but they can't tell us this because it'll create a panic. One would think this would motivate the United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States government fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it, and realize it has the United States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting concessions in the global sphere of influence.
Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it.
At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil."
Saudi has had water injection for much longer than ten years on pretty well all it's fields and I don't think they are using nitrogen injection anywhere, there may be some small CO2 EOR projects though. Their production has been maintained by developing three old, heavy oil fields that were mostly dormant (Manifa, Khurais and Shaybah), by using a lot of in-fill drilling and intelligent wells (where water breakthrough can be controlled) on maturing fields and by extensively redeveloping offshore fields with new wellhead platforms and adding artificial lift.I don't think their fields are anywhere near drying up; they may be hitting some limits in surface facilities probably to do with water injection or treatment of produced water which means they have to continually choke back so as not to damage the reservoirs.
[Feb 09, 2017] Comparing well performance in the Permian and the Eagle Ford, it seems that average IP rates are not that different (582 b/d and 510 b/d, respectively, in the second month of production), but declines in the EFS are much steeper
Notable quotes:
"... Furthermore, well productivity in the Eagle Ford is detereorating over time compared to the wells drilled in previous years, which may suggest that longer laterals and bigger fracs result in only slightly higher IPs but much steeper declines. ..."
"... By contrast, new wells in the Permian continue to perform better than older wells. ..."
"... That may explain why drilling/completion activity and LTO production in the Permian have remained more resilient and are quickly recovering; while EFS has seen the biggest decline in production among the key LTO plays. ..."
Feb 09, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Enno Peters says: 02/07/2017 at 8:40 amAlex,AlexS says: 02/07/2017 at 10:34 am"There is no data on average well quality for the wells that started production in 2016. Is that because the data for last year is incomplete?"
If you go to the "Well quality" tab in the first presentation, you'll see 2016 profiles as well.
The "Ultimate Recovery" overview only supports displaying production histories for wells of the same age. As there are still 2016 vintage wells on which I have no data (the ones that started in Nov/Dec), 2016 is not yet shown if you display it by "Year of first flow".
However, if you change the selection to "Quarter of first flow", or "Month of first flow", then you will see more recent data as well, incl 2016.
You may remember past discussions here where we discussed displaying or omitting incomplete tails in the well profile graphs. The Well Quality tab can show incomplete tails, while the Ultimate Recover tab can't.
Thanks Enno,I just found that the number 2016 in the legend was hidden.
Comparing well performance in the Permian and the Eagle Ford, it seems that average IP rates are not that different (582 b/d and 510 b/d, respectively, in the second month of production), but declines in the EFS are much steeper.
As a result, by the tenth month, average well in the Permian produces 210.7 b/d, and in the EFS only 122.6 b/d.
Furthermore, well productivity in the Eagle Ford is detereorating over time compared to the wells drilled in previous years, which may suggest that
longer laterals and bigger fracs result in only slightly higher IPs but much steeper declines.By contrast, new wells in the Permian continue to perform better than older wells.
That may explain why drilling/completion activity and LTO production in the Permian have remained more resilient and are quickly recovering; while EFS has seen the biggest decline in production among the key LTO plays.
[Feb 09, 2017] Permian Drilling Costs Surge Are The Days Of Cheap Oilfield Services Over OilPrice.com
Feb 09, 2017 | oilprice.com
It was only a matter of time before drilling, fracking, and oilfield service providers for the oil and gas industry started raising their prices to reflect the improving prospects for their clients.
Now the time has come, and drillers and frackers are asking much higher prices for their services; according to a CNBC report , the cost of fracking per well in some cases shot up by 50 percent between bidding and executing.
... ... ...
The Permian is currently the top spot for shale oil and gas. Everyone is buying acreage there and everyone is optimistic, not least because of the relatively low production costs in the play. These production costs, however, are set for a substantial rise, judging by what some small field operators are saying.
One such operator, Lilis, told CNBC that two months ago it paid $13,900 per day per well for the drilling of two wells in the Delaware Basin, an especially prolific part of the Permian play. Now, the lowest going rate per well is US$16,000 per day. Well-fracking cost US$2.2 million two months ago. Now, the price has gone up to US$3.2 million, Lilis said.
[Feb 09, 2017] The US government is trying to keep oil prices under control by selling oil from the strategic reserve
Notable quotes:
"... Following a January announcement according to which the DOE planned to sell 8 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and which some speculated was the reason for the big buildup in crude inventories in the past several weeks, today the U.S. Energy Department said it will sell 10 million barrels of oil from the government's emergency crude reserve in late February. ..."
Feb 09, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher says: 02/08/2017 at 6:27 pm
Following a January announcement according to which the DOE planned to sell 8 million barrels of oil from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve, and which some speculated was the reason for the big buildup in crude inventories in the past several weeks, today the U.S. Energy Department said it will sell 10 million barrels of oil from the government's emergency crude reserve in late February.Jeff says: 02/09/2017 at 3:17 amThis represents the second sale of oil from the emergency stash this year: according to Reuters, last month Shell bought 6.2 million barrels from the reserve and Phillips 66 bought 200,000 barrels, which was below the 8 million projected for sale.
As explained below, that sale was partially held to fund a modernization of the SPR itself. More sales are expected be held in coming years to fund up to $2 billion for the revamp.
ZH
EIA had a news on it: https://www.eia.gov/todayinenergy/detail.php?id=29692Looks like approx. 17 million barrels is up for sale in 2017 and almost 25 in 2018.
[Feb 06, 2017] Whoever holds junk bonds from Us shale operators will never get repaid. What does that mean?
Feb 06, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Rune Likvern says: 02/06/2017 at 3:14 pmFrom a previous post on POB.Watcher says: 02/06/2017 at 4:11 pm"In a somewhat related aspect, I've not seen an updated graphic from Rune on the cash flow from major Bakken operators.
I've always felt that single frame told a very powerful tale, but not so much pessimistic as one might think."The chart likely referred to looks at Bakken(ND) as one entity and below is an updated chart as per November 2016 and instead of monthly free net cash flow it has now been annualized (last 12 months total free net cash flow) to enable the same units on both axis.
For all 2016 the companies in Bakken will use about $2,500 Million more than their free cash flow from operations (this is by not including the effects from natural gas sales).Using Billions = 1,000 Millions on one axis and Millions on the other may be deceptive.
Average gross specific interest cost is now at an estimated $7/bo.
What has to happen for you guys to understand?AlexS says: 02/06/2017 at 4:46 pmWhoever holds that debt doesn't get repaid. What does that mean?
Nothing. If they are systemically vital to the global financial structure, the central banks (plural) will create the necessary money and GIVE IT TO THEM.
It doesn't have to mean anything. And further . . . if YOU were in charge of the situation . . . YOU would do exactly the same thing. You would create the money and GIVE IT TO THEM.
How could you not?
There's also another conceptual leap pending.
If that debt is NOT systemically vital to the global financial system, but IS systemically vital to flowing enough oil for civilization to function - that gets those debt holders bailed out, too.
Watcher,Ron Patterson says: 02/06/2017 at 4:52 pmwhatever is the primary source of funds that flow to the LTO industry, if they still flow, LTO production will continue. The recent data suggest that inflows (in the form of IPOs, secondary share issuances, proceeds from asset sales, acquisitions by the oil majors and private equity firms, etc.) are again increasing. That means that investments in shale oil and gas will rise in 2017 and the next several years, and LTO production will rebound. And that will have an impact on the global oil market.
As regards (excess) money printing by central banks, it affects all parts of the economy, not just oil and gas industry. If there were no money printing, people would not be able to spend thousands of dollars on electronic gadgets; cars, including EVs; solar panels, wind turbines, etc.
If they are systemically vital to the global financial structure, the central banks (plural) will create the necessary money and GIVE IT TO THEM.Rune Likvern says: 02/06/2017 at 6:45 pmI guess that's what happened to the sub-prime mortgage crisis. The banks were "systemically vital to the global financial structure". They all got bailed out. But the purchasers of those sub-prime mortgages, mostly pension funds and such, were not considered vital. They got nothing!
Watcher,
You should write a post and ask for it to be posted on POB where you lay out what it is we do not get.
I for one did not get the memo on central banks omnipotence.
[Feb 06, 2017] Crazy propaganda from Fedbook, sorry Facebook about Russia oil transportation and discovery
Notable quotes:
"... US and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes will not be sufficient to flood the market. ..."
"... Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices. ..."
"... The only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without foreign participation (already producing oil). ..."
"... In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s. ..."
"... Everything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a big deal. ..."
"... Regarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook. ..."
"... From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's rather low on the probability meter. ..."
"... Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now? ..."
"... Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it. ..."
"... At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil." ..."
Feb 06, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 3:59 pmI saw this on Facebook. Can anyone respond?clueless says: 02/05/2017 at 4:53 pm"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine, who heavily tax the proceeds, and Ukraine was applying for admission into NATO at the time.
Putin subsequently invaded Ukraine in 2014, secured the routes to export the oil tax-free by sea, and took control of the port where their Black Sea Naval Fleet is based, by taking the Crimean peninsula from Ukraine by force. This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international law in the free world.
After Obama sanctioned Russia for the invasion, Exxon Mobil could only pump oil from approximately 3 of those 60+ million acres. But now Rex Tillerson is soon to be our Secretary of State, and as of today, there's information circulating that Donald Trump will likely unilaterally remove all sanctions against Russia in the coming days or weeks.The Russian government's oil company, Rosneft, will make half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars from that much untapped oil, all pumped tax-free through Crimea, stolen from Ukraine, now owned by Russia. Putin may have subverted our government just for this deal to go through."
______Now, a flood of oil on the market from Russia would likely keep US oil prices down, thus hurting US drillers right?
If one is conspiracy-minded, could that be part of the deal, too? Russia uses low oil prices to take down US oil production, and then tries assert itself as one of the countries left standing.
In about 1780, Catherine the Great and the Ottoman Empire agreed that the Crimea was a part of Russia. [Yes, there was conflict for years prior (as with any other piece of land in the world).] In 1954, in honor of the 300th Anniversary of the Republic of Ukraine being a part of Russia, Nikita Krushchev "gave" the governance of the Crimea to the Republic of Ukraine. It was not constitutional under the Russian constitution. The UN said nothing about it, nor any other international law body. Krushchev later trumped up an approval without even a quorum.AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 6:12 pmSo the Republic of Ukraine seceded from Russia and took the Crimea with it. In the US, when states (republics) seceded [having been states for much less than 100 years, let alone over 300 years] the rest of the states killed as many people as they could until they "agreed to rejoin the union." People might not like it, but the vast majority of people living in the Crimea had ties to mother Russia, and they voted to go back to being governed by Russia. So, Putin accepted. And please, let's not get into an argument about the fairness of elections, unless your candidate wins.
So, what would we do if Obama gave South Carolina to Florida, and then Florida seceded. I guess that the rest of the states would just say "shucks, we lost South Carolina too." Especially if South Carolina had the only warm water port in the US [the Crimea has the only warm water port in Russia]. The rest of the ports are in the North Sea, etc. And, yes, that is a critical military point.
"This was Hitler style imperialism that broke every international law in the free world." That is a pathetic joke! Okay let's let the US South secede again, since the Cival War broke every international law in the free world and was exactly the same as Hitler's imperialism.
clueless, thanks for the answer.clueless says: 02/06/2017 at 1:59 amJust one clarification: the ports in Crimea are not the only warm water ports in Russia.
Russia has several other ports in the Black Sea and Azov Sea.
Other ports are in the Baltic Sea, Arctic seas and the Pacific; not in the North SeaPerhaps I am wrong, but are those other ports large enough and deep enough for military use [which I failed to state clearly]? I beleive that Russia still operated their huge military port in the Crimea even after the Ukraine seceded and prior to Russia taking back the Crimea.AlexS says: 02/06/2017 at 6:17 amSevastopol, the largest port in Crimea, was founded by Catherine the Great as Russia's main military port in the Black Sea.Duncan Idaho says: 02/06/2017 at 9:18 amIt had special status when Crimea was part of the Soviet Ukraine, and also when Ukraine became independent. Russia had a long-term arrangement with Ukraine for using Sevastopol.
Russia also has a large military port in Novorossiisk (Russian part of Caucasus); but you are right, Sevastopol is deeper, bigger and more convenient.
Also, the Russian State originated in the Ukraine.AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 5:38 pm
See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rurik_dynastyRurik set up rule in Novgorod, giving more provincial towns to his brothers. There is some ambiguity even in the Primary Chronicle about the specifics of the story, "hence their paradoxical statement 'the people of Novgorod are of Varangian stock, for formerly they were Slovenes.'" However, archaeological evidence such as "Frankish swords, a sword chape and a tortoiseshell brooch" in the area suggest that there was, in fact, a Scandinavian population during the tenth century at the latest.[3] The "Rurikid Dynasty DNA Project" of FamilyTreeDNA commercial genetic genealogy company reports that Y-DNA testing of the descendants of Rurikids suggests their non-Slavic origin.
Kiev was the Capital of Russia when Moscow was still a hunting camp
Boomer II,Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 5:59 pmIt's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry, but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread.
Exxon Mobil didn't lease any land in Russia. It is the operator of the Sakhalin-1 project in Russia' Far East (very far from Ukraine); and oil produced from this project is exported by sea (Pacific ocean).
Exxon's JV with Rosneft has also found an oil field in Kara Sea (Russian Arctic), but this project was suspended due to the sanctions.
In the past Russia was exporting a small part of its oil by the "Druzhba" ("Friendship") pipeline through Ukraine and was paying normal transporation fee, not taxes.
Now all Russian oil is exported via Russian oil terminals near Novorossiisk (Black Sea) and Ust-Luga and Primorsk (on the Baltic Sea). New transporation routes include East-Siberia Pacific Ocean (ESPO) oil pipeline linking Russian oil fields in Siberia with the ports on Pacific Ocean and with China's Daking; as well as oil terminals in the Arctic (Varandey).
If US sanctions on Russia are lifted, Rosneft and Exxon will be able to develop their joint project in the Artcic, but oil found there certainly is not worth "half a trillion (500 Billion) dollars', and cannot seriously change the global supply-demand balance.
clueless gave you a good answer on Crimea
BTW, 1) there is no oil terminal in Crimea;
2) Russian oil is taxed in Russia"It's your choice to use Facebook as the main source of information on the oil and gas industry, but please don't repost this BS on the oil-dedicated thread."AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 6:31 pmI never use Facebook as a source of information on the oil and gas industry. The topic never comes up among my Facebook friends or my news sources on Facebook. When I want gas and oil info, I use Google to look at legitimate news sources from industry observers.
I just wanted some people's thoughts on that. Your reaction actually tells me a lot about how you think about it.
We've had quite a few discussions here about how politics, both domestic and international, shapes oil production, so I was just inquiring about any insight. I'm rather surprised that you are telling me not to even post a question on the subject. Touchy, maybe?
The relationship between Trump and Russia has triggered some questions, not just among Democrats, but also the GOP. And some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil.
I just asked, that's all.
"some people are wondering if there is some tie in about oil."Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 6:08 pmThe only "tie in" is Exxon's frozen investments in the Pobeda (Victory) field in the Kara Sea. But that's no secret; you can find information on this project on Exxon's and Rosneft's websites and in international business media.
The Sakhalin-1 project is not covered by the sanctions and is being successfully developed.
And basically what I was asking is this? Will a flood of Russian oil affect US oil prices?AlexS says: 02/05/2017 at 6:23 pmIf you are playing US politics, do you want to put more foreign oil on the market?
"Will a flood of Russian oil affect US oil prices?"Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 8:56 pmUS and EU sanctions only affect Russian offshore projects in the Arctic and development of Russia's tight oil. If sanctions are lifted, projects with foreign participation in these two areas will be able to produce meaningful quantities of oil not before 2025. But these volumes will not be sufficient to flood the market.
Russia is participating in OPEC-non-OPEC supply cuts and certainly is not interested in flooding the market and exerting a downward pressure on prices.
So is it possible that the time frame is so far in the future that it's dead to Exxon even if the sanctions are lifted?AlexS says: 02/06/2017 at 6:05 amI think Exxon could re-enter the project if the sanctions are lifted. If sanctions are not lifted for several years, Rosneft will likely develop this field independently, but it would take more time as Rosneft lacks experience in offshore projects.Watcher says: 02/05/2017 at 5:53 pmThe only Russia's offshore Arctic project is Prirazlomnoye field developed by Gazpromneft without foreign participation (already producing oil).
In general, even if there were no sanctions, Arctic projects would be developed relatively slowly, due to high costs and environmental issues. Russia's long-term energy program anticipates more or less meaningful volumes of oil production in the Arctic offshore only in the 2030s.
Politics aside, it's just factually inaccurate.Boomer II says: 02/05/2017 at 6:10 pm"Exxon Mobil, under Rex Tillerson, brokered a deal with Russia in 2013 to lease over 60 million acres of Russian land to pump oil out of (which is five times as much land as they lease in the United States), but all that Russian oil would go through pipelines in the Ukraine"
Almost all pipelines through Ukraine are nat gas. Not oil. There is some minor oil flow. "All" is just profoundly absurd.
Russia's oil output is going to Asia and northern Europe via Transneft lines to Poland and Belarus. Not through Ukraine. Haven't looked for where those Exxon leases are, but I'm pretty sure that's the Rosneft joint venture up around the Arctic.
Nowhere near Ukraine. This is all just completely wrong.
Ok. This response is much more helpful.Duncan Idaho says: 02/05/2017 at 6:45 pmNow back to my question about prices. What happens when the sanctions are lifted?
Why, sometimes I've believed as many as six impossible things before breakfast.Survivalist says: 02/06/2017 at 12:56 am
Alice in WonderlandFedBook, er I mean Facebook, is a ghetto of sentimentality. I suggest deleting from it. I joined Facebook once for a very short time and the only thing I learnt from it was that most of my friends are idiots.Fred Magyar says: 02/06/2017 at 2:01 pm+10Duncan Idaho says: 02/06/2017 at 3:06 pmAlso +10Fernando Leanme says: 02/06/2017 at 9:36 am
One has to be an idiot to be on FacebookEverything in that stuff you wrote is baloney. Russia's Black Sea exports go through Novorossysk and Tuapse. There isn't an oil pipeline going to Crimea. Furthermore, putting an oil loading port in Crimea is nutty (because the oil comes from the East and it makes much more sense to load as far to the East as possible). There used to be some oil loaded in Odessa, but that was never a big deal.GreenPeople's Media says: 02/06/2017 at 1:14 amRegarding the Exxon deal, that's also baloney. But I don't feel like trying to explain the basics to somebody who picks up information from Facebook.
From all that I've read, I would conclude that a "flood of oil" out of Russia is about as likely as a "flood of new fracked oil from shales in the United States, not yet drilled." That is, it's rather low on the probability meter.VK says: 02/06/2017 at 7:20 amAgain from what I've read (numerous sources) the Russian oil fields are being extracted just about as heavily as they can be at this time, as are the Saudi fields, again relying on a number of different sources.
Without getting too "tinfoil-hatty" I'd say most of the stories about the global oil markets which promise big bursts of production from (heretofore undisclosed) big new oil fields are in the category of "fake news." These stories serve to boost U.S. consumer confidence and U.S. automobile and light truck sales, but contradict what people in the industry (such as Art Berman, Tadeusz Patzek et al.) are saying about future supply.
Why target Russia? Is it because of an impending Seneca cliff in Saudi Arabia? They were supposed to peak 10 years ago but water and nitrogen injections kept them afloat. Now?George Kaplan says: 02/06/2017 at 2:50 pmhttps://www.lewrockwell.com/author/jack-perry/?ptype=article
"I've gotten a couple emails from people who have asked me what I think the "end game" is in regards to Russia. And, indeed, the government is going into extra innings with this whole Russia vilification project. This is worse than someone who has held on to a grudge for years. The government does that, too, but they haven't done it over ideology (as with Cuba) for quite some time now. What, then, is the motive?
The motive is perfectly clear: Oil. You see, Russia has already eclipsed Saudi Arabia as the world's biggest oil producer. This means the big Saudi oil fields are drying up. And the government knows that, but they can't tell us this because it'll create a panic. One would think this would motivate the United States to get cozier with Russia. However, what the United States government fears is that if we do that, Russia will twig to the motive for it, and realize it has the United States over a barrel. An oil barrel. At which point the price goes up. Not to mention extracting concessions in the global sphere of influence.
Thus, what the United States is playing at here is trying to install a different "regime" in Russia. That being, one that Vladimir Putin does not control or have any influence over. This is easier said than done and the United States knows this. But the stakes are quite a bit higher than controlling the dwindling oil supply in the Middle East. Russia is obviously in control of most of the world's remaining oil reserves. The United States needs a puppet regime in Russia to have access to that oil without paying the correct market price for it.
At some point, this gambit will fail. Russia is not the Middle East. A war with Russia cannot be won or cease-fired out of. Nor can a United States-backed "regime change" succeed over there. This is not the 1990s Russia of Boris Yeltsin. The United States, however, cannot come clean with the truth to the American people. The reason is because if the American people knew the truth, they'd never sleep nights anymore. The truth is this: Our entire economic system is based on petroleum and low-cost petroleum at that. But the actual nightmare is that our entire agricultural system is based on cheap oil."
Saudi has had water injection for much longer than ten years on pretty well all it's fields and I don't think they are using nitrogen injection anywhere, there may be some small CO2 EOR projects though. Their production has been maintained by developing three old, heavy oil fields that were mostly dormant (Manifa, Khurais and Shaybah), by using a lot of in-fill drilling and intelligent wells (where water breakthrough can be controlled) on maturing fields and by extensively redeveloping offshore fields with new wellhead platforms and adding artificial lift. I don't think their fields are anywhere near drying up; they may be hitting some limits in surface facilities probably to do with water injection or treatment of produced water which means they have to continually choke back so as not to damage the reservoirs.
[Jan 28, 2017] Crude Oil: So Much For That Rally by Johanna Bennett
Notable quotes:
"... Light, sweet crude for March delivery recently fell 90 cents, or 1.67%, to $52.88 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Meanwhile, brent, the global benchmark, dropped $1.02, or 1.8%, to $55.22 a barrel on ICE Futures Europe. ..."
"... We believe the market will soon get the catalyst it has been waiting for to push higher better inventory stats. Getting ahead of this catalyst is a good risk-reward proposition in our view. ..."
blogs.barrons.com
If you were hoping crude oil prices would end the week on a positive note after yesterday's rally, you're likely to be disappointed.U.S. and brent crude futures fell Friday as worries about U.S. drilling activity once again weighed on the market following the release of data showing that the number of active rigs rose for a second consecutive week.
Light, sweet crude for March delivery recently fell 90 cents, or 1.67%, to $52.88 a barrel on the New York Mercantile Exchange. Meanwhile, brent, the global benchmark, dropped $1.02, or 1.8%, to $55.22 a barrel on ICE Futures Europe.
Crude prices have oscillated between gains and losses over the past several weeks as investor sentiment has shifted almost daily. OPEC and its allies have so far followed through on promised production cuts, yet fears linger that U.S. drilling will hurt efforts to curb global supply.
Crude prices settled Thursday at their highest prices in several weeks. But today's decline pushed futures contacts into the red for the week. If U.S. and brent crude contracts settle at current levels, prices will fall more than 0.6% for the week.
But Vikas Dwivedi and his team at Macquaire recommend increasing oil exposure, pointing to a tightening sour crude market and storage trends. But he warns that 2018 looks challenging.
We believe the market will soon get the catalyst it has been waiting for to push higher better inventory stats. Getting ahead of this catalyst is a good risk-reward proposition in our view. However, we caution against turning a rally into a structural trade. Our balances indicate the market is oversupplied again in 2018. Key 2018 drivers include the return of approximately 1.2 MM BPD of post-deal (OPEC and NOPEC ex U.S.) supply and 0.6 MM BPD of U.S. supply growth + global.
The Energy Select Sector SPDR Energy ETF (XLE) fell 1.3% in recent market action, while the iShares U.S. Energy ETF (IYE) dropped 1.2%.
Elsewhere in the ETF realm, the United States Oil Fund (USO) declined almost 1.8% and the iPath S&P GSCI Crude Oil Total Return Index ETN (OIL lost 2%. The U.S. Brent Oil Fund (BNO) also fell 2%.
[Jan 23, 2017] The US government was a big fracking cheerleader and helped to create shale oil bubble in the USA and associated smaller junk bond bubble.
Jan 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
B.T. : , January 23, 2017 at 08:44 AMMore frackingChris G -> B.T.... , January 23, 2017 at 09:27 AM=
Lower emissions
US C02 emissions are down 7% since 2005 thanks to natural gas from fracking displacing coal in electricity generation.
Yet backwards placing like Europe and NY ban fracking.
And don't get me started on nukes (zero emissions).
Setting aside ground water contamination issues associated with fracking, barring a major reduction in per capita energy use even if (when) you replace coal with natural gas the CO2 emission rate is still a problem. Switching to non-fossil fuel sources needs to be on the to-do list.B.T. -> Chris G ... , January 23, 2017 at 09:44 AM
EPA said fracking isn't having "widespread, systematic impacts on drinking water."Chris G -> B.T.... , January 23, 2017 at 09:47 AMEven with non-fossil fuel sources, C02 emissions rate will still be a problem. You still need to build the wind turbines and transport them to locations, you can't get do that until the transportation sector reduces emissions.
I'm not so sanguine re long-term ground water contamination. Agreed re other points though.libezkova -> B.T.... , January 23, 2017 at 01:28 PMThe US government was a big fracking cheerleader and helped to create "shale oil bubble" in the USA and associated smaller "junk bond" bubble.libezkova -> B.T.... , January 23, 2017 at 01:35 PMB.T.-->My impression is that the current price of natural gas in the USA is unsustainable. It is a kind of "subprime gas".
A side effect (externality if you wish) of fracking is junk bonds bubble. At one point anybody with a lease can get a loan to drill. Not that different from subprime, just much smaller. Many people are not aware about it.
[Jan 23, 2017] Oil depletion might take care of the climate change
Jan 23, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
libezkova : January 23, 2017 at 01:26 PM , 2017 at 01:26 PMIt might well be that "human induced climate change" enthusiasts are barking to the wrong tree.-->Oil depletion might take care of the "climate change" (as well as "excessive" humans) even without Trump or and other politician. This is probably a matter of a decade or two.
The key here is proactive switching the use private car fleet to more economical model and without draconian measures such as $4 per gallon gas or $1K per cubic centimeter of engine volume tax the process is very slow.
Obama administration was pretty inactive in this area, despite all rhetoric.
There is no justification of using full size SUV or light truck for communizing to work unless you agree to pay extra for this privilege.
[Jan 22, 2017] All oil producers will eventually need $75-$80 per barrel to maintain the current level of production, to say nothing to expand it.
Notable quotes:
"... Saudi Arabia's oil minister Khalid Al-Falih says it may not be necessary to extend the deal reached by the group and some non-member nations to cut oil supply by around 1.8 million barrels a day beyond its initial six months, and that doing so could create a shortage. That seems a very quick and painless solution to an oversupply problem that has bedeviled the oil market for the past two years, brought several producers to the brink of collapse and tipped others over it. ..."
"... Saudi oil usage has dropped as natural gas replaces around a third of what it uses for power generation ..."
"... But that changed last year. The start-up of the Wasit gas plant allowed the kingdom to slash the use of crude in power generation by as much as a third -- freeing that oil up for export. In addition, the kingdom cut fuel subsidies, pushing down oil consumption by 2 percent year-on-year in the first eleven months of 2016. That's the first dip since at least 2003, when JODI records begin. ..."
"... In other words oil producers can not afford more then a decade or so with the current oil prices. That means the price in 2026 should be closer to $100 then to $50 per barrel. ..."
"... Also existing wells decline at the rate that can vary from 2% to 16% per year (shale oil) unless you use infill drilling and other measures to stem the decline. The latter requires money or access to junk bond market (business model for the USA shale oil producers). ..."
Jan 22, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc : January 22, 2017 at 10:44 AM , 2017 at 10:44 AMThis is intriguing breaking Crude Oil information and news we need to be aware oflibezkova -> im1dc... , January 22, 2017 at 02:04 PM"Why Saudi Arabia May Unravel OPEC's Big Deal"
By *Julian Lee...Jan 22, 2017...3:00 AM EST
"OPEC's big drama may well be just a one-act light opera.
Saudi Arabia's oil minister Khalid Al-Falih says it may not be necessary to extend the deal reached by the group and some non-member nations to cut oil supply by around 1.8 million barrels a day beyond its initial six months, and that doing so could create a shortage. That seems a very quick and painless solution to an oversupply problem that has bedeviled the oil market for the past two years, brought several producers to the brink of collapse and tipped others over it.
It took a lot for the Saudis to agree to this deal in November, but the rationale seemed at least to make sense. Brimming supply had created financial difficulties for the kingdom, and also complicated the forthcoming IPO of a small part of Saudi Aramco.
Saudi Crude Exports
Crude oil exports hit a 13-year high in November, as OPEC met to agree output cuts
Graphic
The latest numbers from the Joint Organisations Data Initiative offer a different, and compelling, narrative. It turns out that, as the deal was being thrashed out, Saudi Arabia was enjoying a 35-year high in total oil exports.
One big factor was a huge drop in the amount of oil the country needs to burn to generate electricity. The punishing Saudi summers boost demand for electricity -- mostly to run air-conditioners -- to a level that previously required vast amounts of oil-fired generating capacity to be brought into use. The direct burning of crude oil in power stations would roughly double to about 900,000 barrels a day at the height of the season.
Burning Crude
Saudi oil usage has dropped as natural gas replaces around a third of what it uses for power generation
Graphic
But that changed last year. The start-up of the Wasit gas plant allowed the kingdom to slash the use of crude in power generation by as much as a third -- freeing that oil up for export. In addition, the kingdom cut fuel subsidies, pushing down oil consumption by 2 percent year-on-year in the first eleven months of 2016. That's the first dip since at least 2003, when JODI records begin.
This left Saudi Arabia with an embarrassment of riches as the OPEC negotiations were underway last year. Unless it cut output, it would start flooding the market during the first half of 2017. The stars were aligned for it to solve the problem by persuading others to share the burden in a way that has not been seen since the financial crisis of 2008, while at the same time restoring its credentials as a team player within OPEC.
Demand ContractionWe really don't know, and never will, what the true Saudi motivation for agreeing to production cuts was or is. But this new read on the Saudis' motivations for agreeing to the deal has the benefit of explaining why Al-Falih is looking for a six-month time line and why the kingdom has been prepared to make such a deep cut in its production. Its surplus will have disappeared by that time, at which point it can start to boost production again in order to get exports back to the level it wants to maintain.
Such a move could easily be the catalyst for the whole deal to fall apart by June. And there's no way the global backlog of inventory will be dealt with at that time. This seems a situation designed to antagonize the rest of the group and create a raft of bad feeling.
If maintaining exports is more important to Saudi Arabia than balancing the market, then so is a willingness to back out on a hard-won deal that took the kingdom and its partners a lot of political capital to achieve."
'This column does not necessarily reflect the opinion of Bloomberg LP and its owners'
*Julian Lee is an oil strategist for Bloomberg First Word. Previously he worked as a senior analyst at the Centre for Global Energy Studies
"*Julian Lee is an oil strategist for Bloomberg First Word. Previously he worked as a senior analyst at the Centre for Global Energy Studies"That tells you a lot. Bloomberg playing oil short for the last two and half years and probably will continue to do so.
For Us shale oil "break even" price is over $55. For oil sands this "price red line" is probably higher -- $65 per barrel or more.
One cent lower gas prices for a year mean one billion saved for the USA economy. So this "oil stimulus" for the last two and half years of Obama presidency was simply enormous. And in this sense playing Iran card was probably the most brilliant move Obama ever made. That's probably why economy looks slightly better right now and we are not in the recession. So all Yellen noises about 2017 rate hikes are what they are -- politically inspired noise.
In 2017 "oil stimulus" will decline. EIA average for WTI are $43.33 for 2016 and $52.50 for 2017 (forecast), the rise of around 20%. That's around 200 billion taken from the US economy. Oil closed Friday 53.18, so EIA forecast for 2017 might be too conservative.
The key problem with "low oil price forever" hypothesis this is that there are very few places where you can get oil out of the ground for less then $55 per barrel and get a reasonable profit (or balance state budget for oil states).
And BTW Saudis needs around $75-80 per barrel to balance the budget. Probably more (close to $100 per barrel) with Yemen war. Their own oil consumption also continue to grow.
They can sell oil below this price point only as long as they have foreign currency reserves and can accumulate debt. If they tighten the belts they can probably survive on $55-$65 per barrel. But no more military adventures and huge purchases of arms from the USA. Parasitic Saudi nobility appetites also need to be curbed.
And KSA case is pretty much what we can expect in the future: all oil producers will eventually need $75-$80 per barrel to maintain the current level of production, to say nothing to expand it.
And the world consumption still grow annually by 1-1.5 Mb/d (million barrels per day) and this pace will probably continue for the next decade.
In other words oil producers can not afford more then a decade or so with the current oil prices. That means the price in 2026 should be closer to $100 then to $50 per barrel.
Also existing wells decline at the rate that can vary from 2% to 16% per year (shale oil) unless you use infill drilling and other measures to stem the decline. The latter requires money or access to junk bond market (business model for the USA shale oil producers).
Exploration requires money too and all of this stopped in 2015 with the negative effects probably three-four years down the road.
It is also not unconceivable that we are close to so called "Seneca Cliff" when all those stop gap measures will stop working simultaneously and we enter the phase of a steep decline.
[Jan 11, 2017] Cumulative total of Bakken Formation oil production.
Jan 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
R Walter says: 01/08/2017 at 11:20 pm1,590,525,938R Walter says: 01/09/2017 at 7:08 amCumulative total of Bakken Formation oil production.
One billion of those barrels produced in the past five years, four billion barrels to go with the projected 5.7 billion recoverable, another 20 years of production in the pipeline to go.
https://www.dmr.nd.gov/oilgas/stats/statisticsvw.asp
Click on cumulative totals by formation.
By 2035, the Bakken oil will be about done, can't get anymore.
75 new wells per month, 12Χ20, 240Χ75=18,000 more wells over twenty years time.
The price of oil at 50, 4.5 billion barrels of oil, 225 billion dollars.
5,000,000 dollars of cost per well, 90,000,000,000 dollars invested in drilling those 18,000 new wells, 400,000,000 barrels for the extraction taxes, money for the state, 20% for royalties, 80,000,000 barrels for mineral owners, 480,000,000 barrels to keep everyone happy all of those years.
The oil companies can keep 3.52 billion barrels to sell to get them some money.
Times 50 USD per barrel to assess a value, 160,000,000,000 dollars in future income to pay the 90,000,000,000 dollars owed for oil wells drilled. After twenty years of production you will have 70,000,000,000 dollars left over for the buzzards to pick clean.
A measly 3,500,000,000 dollars per year for the oil companies to share. 350 oil companies working, ten million dollars to share amongst stockholders and employees.
The price of oil has to be more or the Bakken will slow to a crawl, then an end.
Made a mistake by a factor of ten. The 20% for royalties, it is 800,000,000 barrels for royalties, not 80,000,000.2.8 billion barrels for the oil companies, not 3.52 billion.
[Jan 11, 2017] What percentage of US oil consumption is food transtoration
Jan 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 11:36 amWhat % of US oil consumption is food transport? This got tricky quickly.Oldfarmermac says: 01/10/2017 at 12:26 pmAverage US person eats about 5.4 pounds of food a day. That's just the food. Average meal travels 1500 miles to reach your mouth.
First tricky item - packaging. It has to transport, too. Amazing variance on this. Glass jar of pickles vs paper around candy bars. The only estimate out there is numbers for municipal solid waste and estimates of % of that is food packaging. Year 2000 US waste generation 4.5 pounds/day/person, and growing. Probably over 6 by now based on the curve, but will use 5 lbs/day cuz round number.
31% of that is packaging and half of that number is food packaging. Some 2006 study. So 15% of 5 lbs a day is 0.75 pounds added to the 5.4 pounds of food is 6.15 pounds shipped a day per person.
For 1500 miles.
Eyeballing some charts looks like typical/average truck hauling weight for stuff hauled is 60,000 lbs. Typical diesel mileage 6 miles/gallon.
6.15 pounds X 320 million mouths = about 2 billion pounds of food moved each day
1500 miles / 6 = 250 gallons truck burned
2 billion lbs / 60,000 lbs = 33,333 truck trips X 250 gallons/truck trip = 198.4K bpd to move food.Ain't much. Maybe there's an error in there. Top of my head . . . things not included, hauling spare parts for the food moving trucks, spare parts for the packaging gizmos, plastic packaging, agricultural consumption itself.
[Edit] Blurb says 17% of total US oil use is agricultural, up and downstream (fertilizer plus fuel). This would be far more than food transport.
I am suspicious of that fifteen hundred mile figure, but it may be accurate. Or it may have assumed a life of it's own, after being tossed out by one or two people who really just guessed at it.Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 1:58 pmMost of the food that is produced in truly huge amounts, staple food, is shipped by water, and or by rail, if it travels a LONG way. A VERY limited amount of food, in relation to the total amount, is air freighted.
Here in the USA, it's not too likely that very much in the way of unprocessed or processed staple food is shipped more than a thousand miles by truck. Exceptions will be mostly fresh high retail value produce, shipped as directly and quickly as possible from grower to retailer.
The REAL food miles come at the very tail end of the distribution chain. I never owned an eighteen wheeler, but I did once own a C70 Chevy which would legally haul about sixteen thousand pounds of apples to market. The farthest local growers usually go with their own truck of this sort is about a hundred miles, one way. Thirty gallons of diesel would take me that far, and home again.
The people who actually bought my apples at retail, after they were picked up at the wholesale market and delivered around town in smaller trucks, usually bought no more than five pounds at a time.
I'm guessing, pulling numbers out of my hat, but I suppose a typical shoppers average grocery purchase weighs from about twenty five to thirty pounds, up to a hundred pounds,depending on family size, and is made on roughly a weekly basis, on average.
And I'm guessing that the average trip to the super market is at least six to ten miles, round trip. THAT's where the food miles really pile up. A liter of gasoline burnt to get fifty pounds home, the last five miles, times around a hundred million households, times fifty weeks, adds up. FAST.
Maybe. The pickle jar weighs a LOT and there's not much food weight part of that. The whole packaging thing is a significant thing, and that's another food item I didn't include, disposal of it.Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 3:20 pmI'm going to guess the 1500 mile thing came from the coasts' pop centers and their daily bread from Iowa and Nebraska. The various websites talking about this like to talk about a head of Imperial Valley California lettuce going to England. X calories burned for 1 or two calories delivered to the mouth. But that sort of thing definitely would drag the average up. 1500 miles maybe is legit.
I am surprised the total transport is south of 1 mbpd, if it truly is. As for shipping, I can't see Iowa bread going to NYC any way but by truck. Not going to fly it there. And the canals don't reach.
Everybody driving the last 5 miles to the store . . . maybe that really doesn't show in the diesel calc. Oh! Of course. The issue is not diesel. It's the 60,000 pounds per trip. A car is carrying the much lower weight per your estimate. Will redo.
14 billion pounds of food move the last 5 miles by car per week, probably at 150 lbs per weekly load (family of 4 at 6 lbs/day/mouth incl packaging)Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 8:07 pm14 billion / 150 lbs = 93 million car trips per week.
5 miles in a 25 mpg car is 0.2 gallons. X 93 million /7 and /42 = an additional 63,000 bpd from the car trips added to the trucks above. About 260K bpd for food transport.
Hmmm of course if it's 5 miles each way that's a X 2 on the 63K. And SUVs for that trip, not a Datsun. Might be up nudging 400K.
It occurs to me that Pepsi and Coke may not be food, and they are heavy.Oldfarmermac says: 01/10/2017 at 5:18 pmI'm having problems with this 400ish K number because the famous 2004 pie chart of US oil consumption said 65% transportation, and of that 65% it was only 37% passenger cars, 18% heavy trucks and 27% light trucks (sums to 45%), and that was before SUVs (called light trucks) had swept up sales. Though F-150s may have arrived.
0.37 X 0.65 is only 24% of consumption. Trucks light and heavy rather more. So what are they hauling. Food as a daily consumable would seem to be the dominant hauled stuff, but apparently not.
Most of the grain or flour that goes from the midwest to the northeast probably gets there by rail, where it will then be baked into bread, packaged, and shipped by truck to food distribution centers, or directly to supermarkets. But the distribution center food warehouse seems to rule these days, because it's better to load a truck up to the doors with a variety of stuff all destined for one address or maybe two or three, than it is to have a truck stop to deliver bread and nothing but bread to a bunch of different stores. That means a lot more total time and miles invested in stop and go driving, compared to the one stop load. That still happens, but not as often as in the past.clueless says: 01/10/2017 at 2:08 pmGrain is milled into flour near where it's grown, when possible, because this reduces total shipping costs, being that the weight and volume of flour is less than the weight of whole unprocessed grain, plus the tailings are used mostly in livestock rations, and customer for that product is most definitely NOT in NYC, lol.
Most of the cows,hogs and chickens we eat are raised in confinement, and are raised in the mid west and southeast, closer to the feed supply, and where land and water are cheaper, and neighbors less fussy, and mostly in localities where neighbors are relatively few in number.
Nobody's ever going to operate a modern supersize hog farm anywhere close to the BIG APPLE,
Watcher's conclusion is probably right not much fuel used to transport food compared to the total available. On the other hand, some random thoughts. 5.4 pounds/day/person is too high. Babies, young children, seniors, etc. Second, the 1500 miles is too high. Some of the basics make up a significant amount of the weight like liquid milk, along with other dairy products, cheese and eggs. These products generally will never go 1500 miles. Vegetables, seafood, fruit, etc yes. But, chicken, pork and beef I think that 1500 miles is too high.Watcher says: 01/10/2017 at 3:16 pmOOPS! Of the 5.4 lbs, 30% 40% is wasted.
Pre oil, railroad cars had no refrigeration to speak of in summer months. That's where the term cattle car came from. Had to ship beef alive to the cities.Oldfarmermac says: 01/10/2017 at 6:04 pm40-50% of a steer by weight is not edible.
I am not at all sure just HOW much of a cow winds up as nekkid ape chow these days, but YOU most definitely don't WANT to know much about what goes into processed meat products, if you plan on eating them.Fifty years ago when I had the "insider tour" of a huge and extremely famous hog slaugher plant that you get only by personal invitation from management,even back then, they bragged about selling everything but the squeal.
I'm pretty sure that well over fifty percent of the live weight of a cow winds up as nekkid ape chow these days, but how much over I can't say. Fifty to fifty five percent would be a reasonable guess. Farmers have been breeding cows for more milk and meat, and less waste, since the beginning. For the last seventy five years or so, this breeding has been based on high tech such as artificial insemination, a solid understanding of genetics, and very sharp pencils. So a typical cow TODAY is going to yield significantly more more than she did a decade or two back.
[Jan 11, 2017] The U.S. must import increasing amounts of OPEC heavier oil for blending in order to refine the ultra-light oil produced from tight oil plays."
Jan 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Longtimber says: 01/09/2017 at 7:18 pmWhere's the Money go if the Feds sell SPR Crude? Gov Black hole?AlexS says: 01/09/2017 at 8:37 pm
Latest from Art:
http://www.artberman.com/the-opec-oil-production-cut-another-year-of-lower-oil-prices/
"In fact, tight oil production is a plus for OPEC. The U.S. must import i n c r e a s i n g amounts of OPEC heavier oil for blending in order to refine the ultra-light oil produced from tight oil plays."Useable North American Tight Oil just 16 x the US SPR ? Seems like a whole heap of Fracking trouble and crude imports to make all that LTO useable.
These are only proved reserves of LTO. Recoverable resources are much bigger.Frugal says: 01/10/2017 at 9:01 pmBerman compares proved LTO reserves classified under strict SEC rules with unaudited "official" reserve numbers for OPEC countries shown in BP Statistical Review. Most experts do not trust these numbers, particularly for Saudi Arabia.
Look, for example, at Rystad Energy's resource estimates, which are much bigger for the U.S. than KSA, Canada or Venezuela.
If we consider only economically recoverable resources, I'm not sure that Canadian oil sands or Venezuela's ultra heavy oil is a lower cost resource than LTO.
These are only proved reserves of LTO. Recoverable resources are much bigger.With all the LTO drilling done in US, thousands of wells, how could there be anything but proved LTO reserves in the US?
[Jan 11, 2017] The prediction about average price for 2017 from Fernando Leanme is 63 dollars
Jan 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
texas tea says: 01/10/2017 at 7:38 amsome things to think about from Art B.Fernando Leanme says: 01/10/2017 at 9:58 am
https://www.oilvoice.com/Opinion/1227/Despite-OPEC-Production-Cut-Another-Year-Of-Low-Oil-Prices-Is-LikelyI continue to predict 63 average for the year. I think I put my price forecast in my blog a while back, and I don't see a need to change it.Dennis Coyne says: 01/10/2017 at 6:33 pmObviously he means 2017. The Brent price averaged about $44/b in 2016 (nominal) and is about $54/b at the end of the year. My guess would be about $75/b by the end of 2017 in 2016$. If Fernando's estimate is in 2016 $ and is the average Brent price for 2017, I agree with his estimate.That means he may be wrong, because I am rarely correct on my oil price estimate.
[Jan 11, 2017] Over 80- percent of convential fields are in decline!
Jan 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
BloomingDave says: 01/09/2017 at 11:30 pmHSBC Global Research Report on Global Oil Supplytexas tea says: 01/10/2017 at 7:23 am
"Will Mature Field Declines Drive the Next Supply Crunch?"Short answer: "yes."
What with 81% of conventional fields in decline!https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B9wSgViWVAfzUEgzMlBfR3UxNDg/view
I have been making the points as outlined in that piece for sometime i repeat long carbon based energy. dumb money indeed
[Jan 11, 2017] 01/09/2017 at 1:25 pm
Watcher says: 01/09/2017 at 3:02 pmJan 11, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
SPR Drain - Buy High Sell Low ?
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-09/us-sell-8-million-barrels-oil-strategic-petroleum-reserveWhy? To fund the pumps and stuff that have rusted away.Boomer II says: 01/09/2017 at 5:53 pmEven if the money is needed for repairs and infrastructure, why sell when prices are low? Why didn't they sell when the prices were high?Watcher says: 01/09/2017 at 6:10 pmMore SPR things:Fernando Leanme says: 01/10/2017 at 9:44 am720 million barrels in the US SPR when full. It's usually not 100% full and when it is (last happened Dec 2009) it's not really full because you can't recover 100% of what you store. Oil gets into pores in the rock and won't come out. Just like less than 100% recovery of oil from an oil field.
The usual calculation is 720 / 20 mbpd US burn = 36 days of consumption storage. With US production at about 8.5 mbpd that number seems to rise to a little less than double - call it 70 days.
But not true. Maximum extraction rate is only 4.4 mbpd (takes 13 days from the word go for the first barrels to enter the system). Not 11.5. So the total embargo of imports scenario because Canada wants to save it for their grandkids means the country goes from 20 mbpd consumption to 12.9 mbpd - for 160ish days (720/4.4) and then just the 8.5 is all we have to function.
Gonna have to compute oil consumption required to haul/deliver food to stores and for people to drive to stores to get it. Tricky for the haulage from central america (fruits).
Salt dome storage caverns don't have pores. They're caverns.Fernando Leanme says: 01/10/2017 at 9:51 amThe Venezuela figure is BS. The reserves outlook gets grimmer by the year, because the current development strategy is incompatible with enhanced recovery. The areas under development are mostly the "sirloin steak" in the Orinoco heavy oil belt, and these high graded areas are now being gutted by pdvsa and partners. They are going after quick kill primary recovery, ruining the reservoirs. This means that not only is the 300 billion barrel figure a poor number, the "real number" is gradually degrading as they continue to lower reservoir pressures and allow water to penetrate the developed reservoirs.Dennis Coyne says: 01/10/2017 at 4:11 pmHi Fernando,Based on what you know I think your estimate for URR for Orinoco is about 100 Gb, if I remember correctly, due to the poor development you outline above.
Please correct me if I am remembering incorrectly. Thanks.
[Jan 08, 2017] Russia oil output in 2016 increased more the two percents
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
AlexS says: 01/02/2017 at 8:31 pmAccording to preliminary estimate by CDU TEK, statistical unit of Russia's Energy Ministry, the country's C+C production in December was 11.21 mb/d, flat month-on-month and close to post-Soviet record of 11.23 mb/d reached in October. Monthly-average output was more than 400 kb/d (3.7%) higher than in December 2015.Watcher says: 01/03/2017 at 3:13 amIn 2016 in total, output reached 10.96 mb/d, up from 10.71 million in 2015 (+2.3%) and significantly higher that the energy ministry's initial guidance in the beginning of the year (10.75 mb/d).
Russia has pledged to cut output by 300 kb/d from October reference levels, but the energy ministry has said that the reduction would be gradual as production cannot be cut abruptly due to weather and technological conditions.
According to the ministry's guidance, output will be reduced by 50-100 kb/d in January. By the end of March it will be 200 kb/d less the October level; and the target of 10.947 mb/d will not be reached until April or May.It is interesting that actual monthly-average output in October was 11.230 mb/d (using 7.33 barrels/ton conversion factor) rather than 11.247 mb/d stated by the Ministry as the reference level.
On my estimate based on ministry's guidance, production in 1st half of 2017 should average around 11.06 mb/d, 100 kb/d higher than the average 2016 level, although lower than in the last four months of the year.
OPEC and 11 non-OPEC countries agreed to cut output for a six-months period starting January 1st 2017, and nothing was said if and how this deal will be prolonged for the second half of the year. For 2017 as a whole, the Russian energy ministry is sticking to its oil production forecast of 548-551 million tons, or 11.01-11.07 mb/d, which implies higher output than the target of 10.947 mb/d in 2H2017. According to independent Russian experts, C+C production in 2017 may average 555 million tons, or 11.15 mb/d. According to a quote in Reuters, the IEA also expects Russian oil production to rise in the second half of the year: "While little information on the duration of production cuts has been made public, provisionally we assume that output will rise gradually again during the second half of 2017."
[ http://www.reuters.com/article/us-russia-oil-output-idUSKBN14M0AZ ].Important to note, the energy ministry said that Russia's crude oil exports (that had increased by 4.8% in 2016), will rise again in 2017 despite output cuts.
Russian oil production: actual (2013-2016) and energy ministry's guidance for 1st half of 2017 (mb/d)
So, 300K bpd "cut".AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 10:23 amWhose order isn't going to be filled?
Presumably the guy who was buying it with no customer because he has tanks to put it in and that's where it was to go. Maybe he's a collector of liquids and never intends to sell. He just has to do without.
Based on the energy ministry's guidance, the actual reduction in Russia'a output will be less than 300 kb/d, but it will still be a real cut, especially given that Russia was expected to increase oil production by 200-300 kb/d in 2017.Nathanael says: 01/05/2017 at 9:53 pmTwo other non-OPEC countries where the cuts should be real are Oman and Kazakhstan, as they were also expected to increase output.
In most other non-OPEC countries, including Mexico and Azerbaijan, output reduction will simply match natural declines.
The table below is from the IEA OMR; the numbers include NGLs
"Presumably the guy who was buying it with no customer because he has tanks to put it in and that's where it was to go. Maybe he's a collector of liquids and never intends to sell. He just has to do without."This is the most awesomely entertaining image of the week, thank you Watcher!
[Jan 08, 2017] The End Of The Oil And Gas Bankruptcy Wave
Jan 08, 2017 | oilprice.com
"Even as oil prices are rebounding, we are closing out one of the worst years for the oil and gas industry in decades. In 2016, the U.S. oil and gas industry defaulted on $39 billion in high-yield energy debt, more than twice as much as the $15 billion in defaulted debt in 2015, according to Fitch."
[Jan 08, 2017] Dirty games around free cashflow and profitability of shale compnaies
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 12:23 pmU.S. independent shale oil and gas producers are now cash flow neutralWatcher says: 01/03/2017 at 3:07 pmFrom the IEA Oil Market Report:
"So far, the shale and tight oil industry has always been characterized by spending levels exceeding cash flow generated. Benefitting from the improved price environment (including a 50% natural gas price increase over the last six months), increased activity and enhanced cost efficiency, the US shale industry is now closer to being able to fund capex programs within operational cash flows. During 3Q16, for the first time in its history, the sector reached free cash flow neutrality. In other words, after more two years of very difficult times, the US shale business model seems on a much more sustainable path. Nonetheless, it remains to be seen whether companies can remain cash flow positive when the industry scales up activity and capital spending and as upward pressure on costs once again takes hold."
Free Cash FLow for US Independents* (USD billion)
* / Free Cash Flow has been calculated analyzing balance sheets of about 50 US shale operators, having more than 80% of their revenues coming from shale activities and covering over 60% of US tight oil and shale gas production
What does independent mean?AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 4:04 pmnon vertically-integratedshallow sand says: 01/03/2017 at 7:30 pmIs interest expense included in these calculations? I am sure reduction of debt principal is not.AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 8:23 pmFree cash flow = operating cash flow capex.Mike says: 01/03/2017 at 9:31 pmOperating cashflow = net income excluding all non-cash items: depreciation and amortization; asset writedowns; gains and losses on asset sales, etc.
Operating cashflow includes only those interest expenses and taxes that were actually paid during a certain period and differ from "nominal" interest expenses and taxes that are shown in income statement (as interest can be capitalized, tax payments can be delayed, etc.).In my view, operating cashflow is a better metric of oil and gas companies' operating results than net income.
Free cashflow shows what is left in a company's coffer after it has spent part of its cash on organic (non-acquisition) capex.
Negative free cashflow means that the company has to borrow money to cover its expenses.
Positive free cashflow means that the company can pay down part of its debt or keep free cash on its accounts.Free cash flow after dividends = operating cash flow capex dividends.
Unlike oil majors, which tend to spend a significant part of their cash on dividends and repurchase of their own shares, U.S. E&Ps normally do not pay or pay relatively small dividends.
The above chart from the IEA monthly report shows that the group of 50 largest shale companies have finally achieved free cash flow neutrality in 3Q2016, which means their quarterly operating cashflow is roughly equal to the sum of their capex and dividends.
That was due to a sharp reduction in capex and lower costs.
I came to similar conclusions, as the IEA, after looking at 2Q and 3Q results from a few large U.S. shale companies.(Of course, my sample group was much narrower than 50 companies).
The shale oil industry has been in positive cash flow situation since prices got above 40 dollars a barrel. Sorry, this is a meaningless assessment of a meaningless article. Positive cash flow basis to what extent, exactly?shallow sand says: 01/03/2017 at 11:38 pm"Free cash flow (two words) shows what is left in a company's coffer after it has spent part of its cash on organic (non-acquisition) capex." Negative. This implies that all wells being drilled by the 50 shale oil companies referenced are now being paid for out of positive cash flow. I don't think so. If so, at the expense of deleveraging, so what?
"Negative free cash flow (two words) means that the company has to borrow money to cover its expenses." Define expenses, please. Including developmental CAPEX?
"Positive free cash flow (two words) means that the company can pay down part of its debt or keep free cash on its accounts." Right. Give me a percentage of the total 50 shale companies surveyed that paid down debt in 2016 and to what extent, please. Last I looked even EOG did not have COH to cover this years maturities.
"The above chart from the IEA monthly report shows that the group of 50 largest shale companies have finally achieved free cash flow neutrality in 3Q2016, which means their quarterly operating cash flow (two words) is roughly equal to the sum of their capex and dividends." How many of these stinking shale oil companies even pay dividends? Come on, Alex. That's BS and you know it. List the 50 and show their losses for 3Q16.
Shallow is right, positive cash flow fills the coke machine down the hall, for the first time in 25 months, that's it. If these shale guys are using cash flow to drill more stinking wells, they are doing so at the expense of deleveraging legacy debt. The marginal price per barrel of shale oil is a meaningless metric now. All of these guys are up to their asses in debt. Folks have got to let this ridiculous IEA, EIA, SPCA and NCAA bunk go and get planted on earth about this shale oil stuff. Nothing has changed in the past 5 months except that OPEC added 5 dollars a barrel to the bottom line. Temporarily.
I guess our goal every time we have borrowed money to buy an asset, be it an oil lease or otherwise, was to pay down the loan principal to zero.Nathanael says: 01/05/2017 at 10:09 pmFurther, we have not borrowed money to drill or work over wells.
Currently, in the commodity spaces I am familiar with, most asset values are still high, despite much lower commodity prices (grains, oil and natural gas).
I assume increasing interest rates may change this, but maybe not?
We looked at a small oil lease recently. It was priced as if the price of oil was a steady $80. It sold for the asking price. In the first quarter of 2016 the lease lost money on an operating basis. It was barely cash flow positive for 2016. Fifteen years ago, the same lease, being also barely cash flow positive in 2001, would have sold for 1/10 of the current sale price, IMO.
Witness record acreage prices paid in the Permian earlier this year.
Farmland is the same. Grain prices are down for the third year, yet land is barely off highs. Net cash rental income, after payment of real estate taxes, is 2.5% or less. This is pre-income tax returns.
I am not smart enough to know what this means, or what one should do in this situation, unfortunately.
I will say, however, I believe few now have the goal of buying assets and paying the debt down to zero. It appears commodity assets are now about leverage, churn and other ways to make money from them, besides from the income produced by the assets themselves.
One area that I think will only get worse is commodity price volatility. I read a long article recently about this with regard to grain prices, written by a large, well respected farm management company. They have really put an emphasis on marketing, they say farmers that don't aggressively hedge will have a tough time.
This I believe is true for oil and gas too. Unfortunately, the cost to hedge has risen dramatically. I recall buying put options near the market for under a buck a barrel around 12-14 years ago. Those now go for $4+.
AlexS, I do not think operating cash flow is the only metric to look at. If we had paid $150K per barrel in 2013 with borrowed funds, the fact that we have had positive operating cash flow in 2016 would be of little solace.
I contend there is mucho debt in the industry that will continue to be "rolled", little will be paid through net operating income. However, much may be paid through equity issuance.
I sure hope the upstream oil and gas industry is not a microcosm for the whole economy. I'm not smart enough to know that either.
"I am not smart enough to know what this means, or what one should do in this situation, unfortunately."Watcher says: 01/04/2017 at 11:53 amThat's fascinating data, "shallow sand". This is the sort of information I love to get so that I can analyze it, so I'll give it a shot. This is first pass.
I think we're watching a bubble. This smells like bubble.
(1) There is too much money among very rich people chasing too few good investments. Accordingly, the prices of investment products are getting bid up in a bubble.
(2) The bubble in oil, in particular, will burst as they see how terrible the rates of return are.
(3) The middlemen and speculators are of course exacerbating the bubble; they always do.
(4) When the bubble bursts, a lot of wealth will "vanish" overnight. It is best to be out of it before it bursts - sell at the top of the bubble if you can, and switch to something which is selling with less inflated prices.
(5) Farmland might be the same sort of bubble. The other possibility is that it might not have the same bubble behavior: its value might increase - if you get the right farmland, farmland which is likely to continue to do well despite climate change - as there are definitely predictions of droughts and crop failures coming in the next few years.
(6) Because of the excess of investment money, it may be impossible to find anything you're comfortable with which isn't selling at inflated prices, sadly. Paying off debt is an option if you have debt. Or insuring yourself against liabilities (are all your well capping and clean-shutdown costs prepaid?). That sort of thing.Clueless should weigh in. I've seen the definition get massaged here and there.clueless says: 01/04/2017 at 12:54 pmCash flow is inputs and outputs, and while SS is asking about interest above, that's not the debt focus. New borrowing can be called a cash influx. I've seen it done. New borrowing improves cash flow over a period measured. If you define it that way, you can borrow your way to prosperity.
(Look familiar, OMB?)
Watcher is mostly right. For example, there are only a small minority of companies that use GAAP earnings as their primary earnings measure. They all must report GAAP earnings, but usually tout some other earnings measure as their earnings that "are more useful for investors to understand the company's financial performance." The GAAP earnings for the most part are standardized. The "more useful" numbers are based upon each company determining for themselves what they will include/exclude. In many cases, totally self-serving. However, they must provide a reconciliation between GAAP earnings and the "more useful" earnings.AlexS says: 01/04/2017 at 3:51 pmWith respect to cash flow, each 10-K (annual) report and 10-Q (quarterly) report includes a GAAP standardized statement of cash flow. You may not be able to glean the information that you seek from that report, but it is the only one that I would trust.
Other statements that a company may make in presentations, discussions, etc about "cash flow" I would not trust without a complete detailed discussion of what they were including/excluding in the calculation.
I used the term for GAAP earnings as being "somewhat" standardized. With respect to oil and gas exploration companies, there are 2 different acceptable GAAP standards: successful efforts and full cost. Successful efforts expenses dry holes. Full cost capitalizes them into the pool of depletable costs and expenses them as the reserves are depleted. [Kind of like a manufacturer. Say that quality control finds one out of every 500 circuit boards to be defective. The company does not immediately expense that circuit board. The total manufacturing costs are allocated to the inventory of 499 circuit boards.] But, in the event of significant oil/gas price plunges, the calculation of the amount of write-downs of capitalized/depletable property is also different, depending on which method is used. That becomes a big deal if prices fully recover, because the write-downs are never reinstated.
Not very busy at this moment, so you got a lot of rambling, which I hope is mostly correct.
Mike, shallow sandAlexS says: 01/04/2017 at 5:24 pmFree cash flow is a widely used measure of a company's financial performance.
Unlike breakeven price and similar indicators which everyone calculates using its own methodology (and nobody discloses this methodology), free cash flow can be easily calculated using the data from company's SEC fillings.Below is a definition of free cash flow from investopedia:
Free cash flow (FCF) is a measure of a company's financial performance, calculated as operating cash flow minus capital expenditures. FCF represents the cash that a company is able to generate after spending the money required to maintain or expand its asset base.
FCF is an assessment of the amount of cash a company generates after accounting for all capital expenditures. The excess cash is used to expand production, develop new products, make acquisitions, pay dividends and reduce debt.
Some believe that Wall Street focuses only on earnings while ignoring the real cash that a firm generates. Earnings can often be adjusted by various accounting practices, but it's tougher to fake cash flow. For this reason, some investors believe that FCF gives a much clearer view of a company's ability to generate cash and profits.
However, it is important to note that negative free cash flow is not bad in itself. If free cash flow is negative, it could be a sign that a company is making large investments. If these investments earn a high return, the strategy has the potential to pay off in the long run. FCF is also better indicator than the P/E ratio.FCF is a good indicator of the performance of a public company. Many investors base their investment decisions on the free cash generated by a company or its equity price to FCF ratio.
It may seem strange that shale companies had negative free cash flow when oil prices were around $100, but achieved FCF neutrality in 3Q16 when WTI averaged only about $45.shallow sand says: 01/04/2017 at 9:44 pmThe explanation is very simple. In 2010-14, shale companies were heavily investing, which helped them to achieve double-digit growth in production and to increase overall U.S. LTO output by ~1 mb/d each year in 2012-14.
While negative FCF is not necessarily negative, in this particular case, shale companies' strategies proved self-destroying.
1) Negative FCF led to accumulation of very high debt;
2) High demand from shale companies resulted in a sharp increase in unit costs for oil services and other inputs;
3) Rapid growth in LTO production caused the glut in the the global oil market and consequent drop in oil prices.Lower oil prices led to a sharp reduction in shale companies' operating cash flows. But these companies even more sharply reduced their capex.
Finally, in 3Q2016 their combined capex was roughly equal to combined operating cash flow.The above chart from the IEA Oil Market Report shows it very clearly.
AlexS. I do not disagree with you that the metrics you are explaining (very well, I might add) are very important.AlexS says: 01/05/2017 at 5:40 amHowever, I assume you agree that balance sheets and estimates of future cash flows are also important to look at.
In reality, all can be reviewed in SEC filings, which are the only numbers that are reliable. Company power point presentations are meant to be promotional material.
shallow sand,Nathanael says: 01/05/2017 at 10:13 pmFCF is a good shapshot of a company's financial performance in a particular period. Of course, it is not sufficient for understanding of this company's whole financial situation and its future prospects.
FCF neutrality in 3Q2016 means that the group of 50 companies didn't have to increase their debt, but debt accumulated over the previous years remains on their balance sheets and is a heavy burden for future development.
Furthermore, FCF neutrality was achieved thanks to lower capex which resulted in declining oil production.
Higher oil and gas prices expected for 2017 should improve oil companies' operating cash flows. A number of shale players have already announced planned increases in capex of 10-50% for next year. That will likely reverse the decline in LTO output. But higher capex will not allow shale companies to achieve significant positive FCF, and hence to start repaying their debt.
At $55-60 they will be able to only slightly increase output by year-end 2017 vs. year-end 2016, while maintaining FCF neutrality. A more aggressive increase in capex would result again in negative FCF and increase in debt.
Furthermore, increase in shale companies' spending will reverse oil service cost deflation, which was the main contributor to declining unit costs in 2015-16.
In my view, a conservative financial and operational strategy, with gradual and modest increases in capex, should allow a moderate growth in LTO production over the next few years without significant increase in debt levels.
But a return to previous growth rates of 1 mb/d p.a. anticipated by some experts (including Rystad Energy) from 2018, would result in further deterioration of shale companies' financial situation. And it would have a negative impact on oil prices.
Yeah, something critically important in addition to free cash flow is the growth (or, in *this* industry, decline) trajectory. It's great to have free cash flow this year, but if your wells all run out in two years and you haven't drilled more, well, your free cash flow this year and next *is the total value of the company*, because there won't be any free cash flow in year three.clueless says: 01/05/2017 at 12:21 amWell, actually, it's not even that good: liabilities also have to be considered.
Easier said than done. Look at the latest 10-Q for CLR. It seems to me that there would be a lot of questions about their results, especially when you look at their operating cash flow and notice the large impairment charge that is added back, thereby not affecting cash flow from operations negatively. But they lost that cash almost as surely as if they drilled a dry hole.shallow sand says: 01/05/2017 at 12:57 amclueless. Regarding CLR and SEC filings, I have brought up several times that the company managed to reduce its estimate of future production costs by 60% from 2014 to 2015, while only reducing all categories of proved reserves by just 9% during the same period.AlexS says: 01/05/2017 at 4:29 amI believe there were some things pulled to keep PV10 above long term debt in 2015 and I expect the same for year end 2016.
CLR was not the only company to do this.
clueless,Mike says: 01/05/2017 at 8:44 amthe large property impairment charge in CLR accounts for 3Q2016 ( $57 million for 3Q and $203 million for 9 months of 2016) is the result of negative revaluation of their reserves (due to lower oil price). It is reflected in the balance sheet as lower net property and equipment (compared with previous period) and as lower shareholers equity.
It is also shown in the income statement, but added back in cash flow statement as that's not real cash paid by the company.
It's a paper loss.Dry hole cost is very small ( $27 thousands for 3Q and $233 thousands for 9 months of 2016). The cost of drilling wells was already accounted as capex. Then the cost of of successful wells was capitalized (and added to PP&E in the balance sheet) and dry hole costs are expensed and appear in the income statement as expenses. But they are added back in cash flow statement as cash paid for both succesful and dry wells was already included in capex.
Alex, thank you for your detailed explanation of free cash flow. After 40 years of operating oil and gas wells I understand the definition very well. It can indeed be used, as you have said, as a snapshot of financial activity within in a brief period of time. As I have said, and Shallow, I believe, it is of little importance in the grand scheme of things. The shale oil industry is in serious financial trouble and 5 dollars a barrel on the "hope" of OPEC cuts has not changed that.Dennis Coyne says: 01/05/2017 at 1:04 pmIts curious to me this intense need for some folks to make predictions about the future. Predicting the role shale oil might play in that future over the next decade, or decades, without understanding the financial condition of those companies extracting it, is a big mistake in my opinion. The shale oil phenomena has not been paid for yet, nevertheless you and others are counting on it decades thirty years from now. I do not understand that, sorry. I really don't have much to contribute here, it seems.
Hi Mike,clueless says: 01/05/2017 at 1:12 pmI agree LTO will contribute very little in the grand scheme.
Lots of agencies and companies provide outlooks of the future. The Chart below shows the BP Outlook 2016 for C+C+NGL and my "medium" scenario for C+C+NGL with URR=3600 Gb for 2015 to 2035.
AlexS I did not do a good job of trying to point out that I think that you have to look at more info.AlexS says: 01/05/2017 at 9:26 pmIf you read metric number 3 in this short article, it might be clearer.
http://www.oldschoolvalue.com/blog/investing-perspective/useless-stock-metrics/clueless,I don't know who is the author of that article, but the very first phrase about operating cash flow is a complete nonsense:
"The way Cash Flow from Operations is calculated is by starting with net income (equity earnings) which doesn't include interest paid to debt holders."
Of course, net income includes "Interest expense".
See CLR's 3Q accounts; income statement.
Net interest expense for the quarter was $82 million.
[Jan 08, 2017] Long carbon based energy perspectives
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
texas tea says: 01/05/2017 at 5:00 pmhttps://wattsupwiththat.com/2017/01/05/energy-and-society-from-now-until-2040/long carbon based energy
Key conclusions of the report:
Developing countries, like China and India are urbanizing and their populations are becoming more affluent, this will increase global energy demand 24% by 2040. This includes the ExxonMobil prediction that energy use efficiency will double (figure 4).
The world population will increase from 7.3 billion today to over 9 billion in 2040, with a much larger middle class population (defined as >$14,600 and <$29,200 yearly for a family of 4) using energy than today. World GDP will effectively double by 2040. Living standards will rise dramatically, especially in the developing world.
Natural gas consumption will increase 54 quadrillion BTUs by 2040. Nuclear and renewables will increase 24 and 20 quadrillion BTUs, respectively. The 2040 energy mix will remain about the same as today (figure 5 and Table 1).
Rising electricity demand will drive the growth in global energy between now and 2040. The increase in the number of homes with electricity, industrialization of the developing world and our increasingly digital and plugged-in lifestyles will drive this growth. Half of global electricity demand is from industrial activity; thus good jobs can be lost if electricity costs are too high. Jobs will move to locations where electricity is cheap, an example is the new Voestalpine steel plant in Corpus Christi, Texas.
Crude oil and natural gas will remain the world's primary energy source. Even in 2040 oil and natural gas will supply 57% of all energy demand, this is an increase from 56% today. Oil demand will grow 18% through 2040 and natural gas demand will grow 44%. The developing world will account for the largest increases. Unconventional ("fracked") oil and gas, oil ("tar") sands, and deep water oil production will account for over 25% of the liquid supply in 2040.
Carbon dioxide emissions will increase, at least until 2030."
[Jan 08, 2017] High taxes create a "tax shield". The price at the pump in Europe is approx one third oil and refining and two thirds tax and duty. Consumption is therefore less responsive to the international oil market price compared to the USA. Europeians also drive smaller and more fuel efficient cars.
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
High taxes create a "tax shield". The price at the pump in Europe is approx. 1/3 oil and refining and 2/3 tax and duty (see http://euanmearns.com/energy-prices-in-europe/ ). Consumption is therefore less responsive (inelastic) to the international oil market price compared to the USA. Also, Europeans have adapted to this over time and drive smaller and more fuel efficient cars.Several oil producers have cut back on subsidies during the last couple of years. This should restrict domestic demand increase. Most oil exporters' oil consumption/capita will probably level off and never come close to the US figure. However, given the level of population growth and demographics (young people) in MENA their domestic consumption is unlikely to reduce significantly (slight increase seems more likely).
Watcher says: 01/04/2017 at 11:47 am"Most oil exporters' oil consumption/capita will probably level off and never come close to the US figure."Jeff says: 01/04/2017 at 2:58 pmUS per capita consumption 0.061 bpd.
Exporters:
Canada 0.066
KSA 0.135
Kuwait 0.156
Qatar 0.145
UAE 0.09The only major exporter not there is Russia at 0.02, but President Trump will help them increase. Not an exporter, but FYI Singapore is highest I've seen at 0.24.
_most_ oil exporters.Watcher says: 01/04/2017 at 7:19 pmIn 2012 ( http://www.indexmundi.com/map/?v=91000 ): Ecuador (0.11), Libya (0.051), Kazakhstan (0.12), Iran (0.23), Iraq (0.22), Venezuela (0.27), Oman (0.46)
mazama says Ecuador may drop to imports this year. They don't list any Libya exports. Kazakhstan and Iran are legit. And the bible doesn't track Iraq.AlexS says: 01/04/2017 at 4:09 pmWatcher says: 01/04/2017 at 7:11 pm"The only major exporter not there is Russia at 0.02, but President Trump will help them increase."How? Will he help to increase car fleet in Russia? KSA and its neighbours use a lot of oil for electricity generation. Russia uses natural gas, nuclear, hydro and coal.
Chris says: 01/05/2017 at 12:58 pmHow? Will he help to increase car fleet in Russia?Precisely.
Just to add information, in Europe, taxes are split in two parts: excise (typically fixed amount) and VAT (variable amount). For gas in Belgium, excise are about 0.60 per litre or half the price of gas.
So price variations due to oil international prices are attenuated. Add to these that taxes decreases when oil price increase and increase when oil price decrease. This is a way to guarantee revenue for the State when oil prices decrease.
[Jan 08, 2017] A future oil supply trajectory
Notable quotes:
"... Desperate, broken men chase their dreams and run from their demons in the ..."
"... . A local Pastor risks everything to help them. ..."
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 01/02/2017 at 4:43 amAfter the Jean Laherrere post on global reserves I had a go at predicting a future supply trajectory myself. It is based on 620 Gb developed declining at 4.35% annually; 150 Gb discovered and undeveloped with about 120 identified from identified conventional projects on companies' books and 30 from shale; and 25 Gb undiscovered represented by a linear decline from current discovery numbers over twenty years. That gives 795 Gb reserves remaining about what he had.Nathanael says: 01/02/2017 at 5:59 pmNote the figures in the legend give the overall production in the years shown on the chart.
Extra heavy oil is given as 30 kbpd coming on stream every year until 2023 representing the drop off in tar sands development and probable falls in Venezuela production, and then 200 kbpd added for every year after. As the projects take about 5 years to complete this would represent about 8 in development at any one time, but also requiring projects for 3 or 4 upgraders, 1 or 2 pipelines and a new refinery to be ongoing in parallel.
For new conventional projects I assumed a one-year ramp up, a ten-year plateau and 10% yearly decline to shut down after 25 years. The numbers coming on line until 2022 I've taken from what is currently on the E&Ps books with some probable short-term projects that could be developed in time. After that I just made reasonable guesses, assuming an extra three-year development time from discoveries for ne fields.
The results aren't very different from Dennis Coyne's except there isn't a new peak (in 2018 which he is predicting I don't know where that extra production could come from based on current development activity) and there is a big gap in 2019 to 2022 reflecting the capital cuts over the past 3 years.
The biggest issue for me is that, assuming exporter countries maintain the same overall internal demand at about half current production, then net exports would fall by 50% in 2032 and to zero by 2041. There is also a 20% decline in available exports between 2018 and 2023. Things wouldn't be quite so clear cut as some countries will continue to export while other producers become net importers.
If this is close to reality I don't see it making transition very easy. Apart from added renewables and nuclear, and increasing efficiencies there will be a turn to gas if there is sufficient easily available, a loss in demand from recession (depression in a lot of places I suspect), and I think also an inevitable turn back to coal maybe with another push to in-situ gasification.
OK, I have to bring in a not-directly-oil-related comment, because it's related to demand. My non-oil projections for growth of electric cars - which are the key technology displacing oil usage. I believe since they are superior technology, they are essentially production-limited. I believe price issues will be automatically addressed by economies of scale as production increases.Survivalist says: 01/03/2017 at 8:43 pmSo my production projections see a big increase in electric car sales in 2018 (thanks to models we already know about). I believe the high sales in 2018 cause much, much more capital , which causes much more investment by car companies. This takes 2-5 years to pay off. So I see a huge increase in production (and therefore sales) in the 2020-2023 time range.
Specifically - to get back to oil - I believe sometime in that time range, 2020-2023, is when electric car sales per year become large enough to displace an amount of oil exceeded the natural decline rate of oil fields (I've seen different estimates for that rate, but it's a close enough range that it doesn't matter for this projection). This is still well before market saturation is reached.
So combine this with your projection out to 2022, along with Laherrere's and Coyne's projections out to 2022, all of which are similar. Before sometime in the 2020-2023 range, we can expect petroleum demand to remain solid. But after that, demand will be dropping faster than the natural drop in supply. There will be a *glut* of oil. There will be no new drilling, or at least not profitably.
If a bunch of oil projects are started in the 2016-2023 period which start producing after 2023, they won't pay off, they'll be big money-losers and make the glut worse. (With a three-year project time, the glut will remain brutal for three years afterwards as old projects go online.)
At that point, low oil prices become the determining factor in the size of reserves. High-priced producers go bankrupt and shut down. Refineries, now with excess capacity, go bankrupt and shut down. Refineries have to retool to optimize for aircraft kerosene production instead of gasoline production. I think it's about this time - after a bunch of bankruptcies which leave wells in a derelict state - that the regulators start going after the survivors to cover their environmental liabilities preemptively, making them plug wells properly. I'm not exactly sure how the rest of the shakeout happens, but I'm glad to be totally out of the industry before then.
Thanks George. That's a fascinating chart. Thanks for breaking out the different production sources. How the world is going to get by on 20% less available exports by 2018 to 2023 is going to be interesting. Zero available exports by 2041! That's gonna be a damned mess.Dennis Coyne says: 01/02/2017 at 6:13 pmHi George,George Kaplan says: 01/03/2017 at 6:37 amWhen oil prices rise in 2017 and 2018 there will be increased output from Russia and OPEC, in my view.
A lot of output in those nations has relatively short time for development, they just need to develop already discovered reserves, there will also be some increase in US LTO output and Canadian oil sands output with higher oil prices. Possibly the peak will be lower, but I expect a at least a 50% probability that the 2015 peak will be surpassed.
Dennis can you say what those resources are i.e. field names, expected production, time to develop. Because I know of nothing like that, and can't think of anything in the past where 1 or 2 mmbpd has been bought on line from FEED to plateau in 18 months, which is what you seem to be assuming. I can only think of Iran as a possible source but most of their stuff is gas flood, that needs big compressors to provide the injected gas it is impossible to go through a design, procurement and start-up cycle on such systems in under 24 months.Dennis Coyne says: 01/03/2017 at 11:55 amHi George,Dennis Coyne says: 01/05/2017 at 10:42 amThere are combined cuts of 1.7 Mb/d. That production from OPEC and Russia can be brought online in June 2017. Also infill drilling will increase in other nations as oil prices increase.. My scenario is pretty conservative relative to IEA and EIA Outlooks.
US lto can ramp up quickly with high oil prices.
Hi George,Caelan MacIntyre says: 01/01/2017 at 7:37 pmI do not have information on specific fields and developments.
The IEA and EIA do have this information and their future outlooks are quite a bit more optimistic than what I have presented. I believe that those estimates are too optimistic and yours may be too pessimistic.
A problem with your analysis is that you seem to assume no reserve growth just as Jean Laherrere does. I believe an assumption of no future reserve growth leads to too pessimistic an outlook.
US reserve growth from 1980 to 2005 was about 63%. I have assumed C+C minus extra heavy reserves will grow by about 300 Gb from 2010 to 2060 or 300/850=35% over 50 years. Perhaps that is too optimistic, time will tell. Also I assume LTO resources in the US are only about 40 to 50 Gb, possibly too optimistic, but less so than the EIA.
Oil price appears to be shyly creeping up maybe because it's testing the ceiling at where the economic engine starts sputtering and backfiring?GoneFishing says: 01/01/2017 at 7:49 pmA little late, but, just-viewed (and recommended)
The Overnighters
Desperate, broken men chase their dreams and run from their demons in the North Dakota oil fields . A local Pastor risks everything to help them."The Overnighters is a feature documentary produced, directed and photographed by Jesse Moss was awarded the Special Jury Prize for Intuitive Filmmaking [etc.]
'The director, Jesse Moss, plays it as it lays. An observational, near-invisible presence, he fills the frame with the faces of economic deprivation and bad choices, neither judging nor sugarcoating. What emerges is a blue-collar meditation on the meaning of community and the imperative of compassion.' ~ The New York Times, Critics' Pick, Jeanette Catsoulis
'A remarkable nonfiction essay on golden rules and grand intentions and oil booms that do not pay off for everyone a rich and troubling documentary highlight of the year.' ~ The Chicago Tribune, Michael Phillips
'Like a punch in the gut. I can't remember the last time a documentary hit me so hard layered, provocative, and surprisingly intimate" ~ Leonard Maltin
'If John Steinbeck were writing in the second decade of the 21st century, 'The Overnighters' is precisely the story he'd want to tell' ~ Salon, Andrew O'Hehir
Another year; another section of the Russian-roulette rollercoaster ride (where corkscrews could mean missing rivets )
A ten percent drop in oil production over 12 years appears quite manageable. All we need is a twenty percent efficiency gain in that time to handle it easily. It will help push EV production.
[Jan 08, 2017] In the oil business, the long emergency is now.
Jan 08, 2017 | href="In%20the%20oil%20business,%20the%20long%20emergency%20is%20now.">
- Cracker says: 01/04/2017 at 1:38 pm Boomer II,
Yes, there is value. The long term predicament has potentially awful implications, and it seems better to prolong the status quo than face the reality that things are changing. Increased production efforts now will result in some additional supply coming online a few years down the road when it will likely be sorely wanted.
Besides, the short term goal is more likely tax reductions and subsidies that can affect balance sheets in the shorter term. In the oil business, the long emergency is now. New production for the long term is less critical than financial survival.
More free money is probably the only thing that will increase production. I can't see reasoned investment decisions going to E&P in this uncertain business climate, but free money clouds the view of risk, so fools will rush in, if history repeats.
Yes, there is value in political hopium. Keeps the masses from thinking about change.
The politicians won't do what we think they will anyway, for the most part.
Jim
[Jan 08, 2017] the coming bust in supply might be a bit different from previously something changed in the oil industry in December 2014
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 01/04/2017 at 8:11 amThe EIA market and finance report for 3Q2016 is out today.George Kaplan says: 01/04/2017 at 8:14 amhttps://www.eia.gov/finance/review/pdf/financial_q32016.pdf
Oil and gas supply is now falling. The chart below shows pretty clearly why there was a glut: over investment leading to over supply, which is now correcting. Nothing much to do with demand reduction that I can see. One thing I haven't seen discussed, and can't find find a lot of analysis on, is how much either direct motor fuel subsidies (e.g. in producer countries and some other developing countries) or high taxes in Europe tend to reduce the impact of prices on demand changes. I'd be interested in any opinions or references.
This is the a boom and bust cycle combined with the end of life in a mature basin looks like (for the UK only one new field approval this year to September).George Kaplan says: 01/04/2017 at 8:17 am
And this is why the coming bust in supply might be a bit different from previously something changed in the oil industry in December 2014 and I don't think things will play out quite as they have previously, even with rapidly rising prices, given the debt load.
[Jan 08, 2017] Mexico might flip from being a net exporter of petroleum products to a net importer of petroleum products in 2016
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson says: 01/02/2017 at 4:53 pmAccording to the Energy Export Databrowser they were still exporting about 600,000 bpd in 2015. That year their exports dropped by 21%. It is entirely possible that export dropped past zero in 2016 and they became a net importer.AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 1:01 amHowever I guess we will just have to wait until we have the total 2016 data. But if anyone else has any further data I would love to hear it.
"I had read somewhere that the value of imported refined products was near to equaling the value of their exported crude."AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 1:37 amCorrect.
The drop in Mexico's net exports of crude oil and refined products was much steeper in value terms than in volume terms. It declined from US$26.2bn in 2011 to U.S.15.6 bn in 2014 and just 400 million in 2016.Mexico: value of the foreign trade of crude oil and refined products (billion U.S. dollars)
source: PEMEX
"It would be interesting to compare the money they earn exporting crude to the money they spend importing refined products. Either way, Mexico is on the brink. Just as Indonesia had to fall back on other forms of revenue, like destroying their forests, once oil exports became oil imports, Mexico will have to find something else to lean on once oil doesn't pay the bills."AlexS says: 01/02/2017 at 7:04 pmA sharp drop in the value of net crude and product exports had a negative impact on Mexico's foreign trade balance, which deteriorated from virtually zero in 2012 to a deficit of US$14-15 in 2015-2016.
But that's not critical, as oil and product exports now account for only 5% of Mexico's total exports, down from 16% in 2011.
Mexico's foreign trade balance (US$ billion)
source: PEMEX
Mexico: net exports of crude and refined products (kb/d)AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 1:47 am
Source: Pemex
http://www.pemex.com/en/investors/publications/Paginas/petroleum-statistics.aspx
I think Mexico needs to build a new refinery of modernize existing refining capacity. That would solve the problem of rising product imports.
[Jan 08, 2017] How much confidence do we have on oil storage accounting? According to Art Berman much of it is unaccounted for oil. Looks like a very good way to manipulate oil prices.
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Ron Patterson says: 01/02/2017 at 1:20 pmSW, just curious but what do you think will cause this turnaround. That is from the current glut to demand outstripping supply. US storage is near its all time high and OECD storage is 300 million barrels above its 5 year average.Javier says: 01/02/2017 at 8:49 pmOECD commercial inventories fell in October for the third month in a row. They have drawn 75 mb since reaching a historical high in July, but remain 300 mb above the five-year average. Product stocks have fallen twice as quickly as crude during that period. Preliminary data show stocks falling further across the OECD in November.
How much confidence do we have on oil storage accounting? According to Art Berman much of it is unaccounted for oil. Looks like a very good way to manipulate oil prices.Ron Patterson says: 01/03/2017 at 7:08 amMy take is that the powers of the world are very much afraid of what a new global recession could do to the shenanigans they have been running at the Central Banks to keep the system from imploding and are very much decided to do everything on their power to prevent a new global recession, and a very important part of it is to keep oil price affordable to prevent the economy from stalling. They cannot control neither production nor demand except by staging a war, but as price is determined by the effect of the production/demand ratio on oil storage, they can control price by rigging the storage reporting. Unaccounted for oil could be the tool to do that.
For most of the world's oil storage, there is no reporting. We have only the USA and a wild ass guess at OECD storage. We have nothing for Eastern Europe, Africa or Asia.Don Westlund says: 01/03/2017 at 12:33 pmWTI jumps up and down a few cents when the US storage figures come out each week, but that's about it. And when that happens the price very quickly reverts to what the actual supply and demand dictates.
If there were actually storage reporting for most of the world's oil, then your conspiracy theory might hold water. But there is not and it does not.
https://www.energyaspects.com/company/events/amrita-sen-ons-2016-conference-appearance?utm_medium=bannerMatt Mushalik says: 01/03/2017 at 3:33 pmThis is a presentation by Amrita Sen at Energy Aspects a few months ago. At the 4:30 minute mark she discusses worldwide crude draws. She is claiming the only place in the world we are getting builds is in the U.S. Not sure where they are getting their information.
Our post was NOT about conspiracy theories. It has number crunching on the statistical fact that there is a huge discrepancy between US crude oil production, imports, exports and refinery intakes.Javier says: 01/04/2017 at 7:28 am8/10/2016
U.S. Storage Filling Up with Unaccounted-For Oil
http://crudeoilpeak.info/u-s-storage-filling-up-with-unaccounted-for-oilMatt,AlexS says: 01/02/2017 at 9:09 pmI know the article said nothing about intentional overreporting of crude oil stocks. It just occurred to me that if intentional it could have a clear effect on oil prices.
Ron,
That USA is the only one reporting crude oil stocks makes it easier to manipulate them, not harder.
Is the following correct?:
How do we know that there is a huge global excess in crude oil?
We know there is some excess from multiple sources, but we only know that there is a large excess from USA reported oil storage.Where is that large excess in USA crude oil storage coming from?
We don't know as 4 out of 5 barrels in USA crude oil storage are from unaccounted-for oil.I think the situation demands an explanation as large unaccounted-for oil is a new phenomenon that started when oil prices were very high.
"OECD storage is 300 million barrels above its 5 year average."SW says: 01/04/2017 at 9:44 amWhen the IEA and all other oil market observers compare current storage levels with 5-year average they miss two important things:
1) Global oil demand continues to increase. Therefore, in relative terms (inventories as % of annual demand) the volume of oil in storage is not as big as if we compare absolute volumes for this year and previous years.
Thus, according to the IEA, global oil demand in 2017 should average 97.51 mb/d. This is 7.94 mb/d higher than in 2011 (89.57 mb/d) and 5.39 mb/d higher than 5-year (2011-2015) average (92.12 mb/d).
7,94 mb/d = 2898 million barrels/year
5.39 mb/d = 1966 million barrels/year
Now compare this with the 300 mbbls surplus in crude inventories vs 5-year average.2) There are two "market buffers" that were always used as a measure of over/under supply in the oil market.
The first are crude and product inventories. They are indeed above 5-year average.
The second is OPEC spare capacity, which is well below historical averages.OPEC output cuts will result in decreasing inventories, but spare capacity will increase.
I was simply commenting on the chart at the top of the post. Perhaps I misread it?
[Jan 08, 2017] 01/03/2017 at 8:52 am
AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 9:29 amJan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
Global oil demand growth remains steady, despite all the talk about EVs, renewables and efficiency gains.
According to the IEA estimate, oil demand was up 1.37 mb/d in 2016, 120 kb/d above their previous forecast.
Growth in 2017 is now seen at 1.32 mb/d, 90 kb/d higher than in November's OMR.
Both numbers are above long-term average annual increase of 1.17 mb/d in 2000-16.
From 2000 to 2017 global demand is projected to increase by 20.4 mb/dGlobal oil demand (mb/d)
Sources: IEA Oil Market Report December 2016; Annual Statistical Supplement 2015.
In the past several years, the general trend in short and medium-term global demand forecasts revisions was upward.shallow sand says: 01/03/2017 at 10:19 am
The most recent IEA forecast for 2017 (from the Oil Market Report December 2016) is 0.7mb/d higher than in the Medium-Term Oil Market Report issued in February 2016 and almost 2 mb/d higher than in the MTOMR-2012IEA global oil demand forecasts, 2012 December 2016 (mb/d)
AlexS. Once again, I very much appreciate your posts, and I am sure many others do as well.AlexS says: 01/03/2017 at 11:38 amIt is interesting to look at these forecasts after the fact.
As for price prediction forecasts, my view is those are simply too difficult given the volatility in oil prices the last 15+ years. Much depends on OPEC policy, as we are once again seeing.
US producers should be very thankful OPEC chose to cut, IMO.
shallow sand,shallow sand says: 01/03/2017 at 4:32 pmOil prices are indeed difficult to forecast. And the EIA had underestimated future oil prices in its International Energy Outlook 2006. But not by much.
Price assumptions in the IEO-2006 are for the average price of imported low-sulfur, light crude oil to U.S. refiners. And these are REAL prices in 2004 dollars.
The EIA provides annual, monthly and weekly-average prices for imported oil both in nominal and real (US CPI-adjusted) terms.
Real prices are in 2016 dollars, but it is easy to re-calculated those numbers in 2004 dollars.The average for the period 2006-2016 was $63.95 (in 2004 dollars), about $10-12 higher than in the IEO-2006 projections, but not 2 times higher.
U.S. imported crude oil prices (annual average), nominal and real (in 2004 dollars)
AlexS.Nathanael says: 01/05/2017 at 9:57 pmGood point, not that far off for a ten year average.
Price risk management through hedging is one of the most important aspects of managing an independent upstream oil and gas company. Also a difficult one. In hindsight this was one of the biggest blunders we made. We maybe are continuing to make it?
I've got a perfectly lovely cyclical model of oil prices. It's great, except that the trouble is that it doesn't actually tell you how long each phase of the cycle is.Watcher says: 01/03/2017 at 11:29 amPerfectly nice for after-the-fact fitting, useless for predicting the price in 201X.
Population gain trumps economics, as it were.
[Jan 08, 2017] Denmark might be the first country in the coming years where oil and gas production stopped
Jan 08, 2017 | peakoilbarrel.com
George Kaplan says: 01/03/2017 at 7:02 amHas there been a country before in which oil and gas production has stopped? I can't think of one, but Denmark might be the first in coming years, what with DONG pulling out of fossil fuels, cancellation of an oil project last year (I think the last real prospect for them I've forgotten the name though) and now this:"Maersk pulls plug on North Sea field"
Paywall (but limited number of articles free): https://www.energyvoice.com/oilandgas/north-sea/127957/maersk-pulls-plug-northsea-field/
"Maersk Oil today confirmed it would cease production on its North Sea Trya field. The operator said it had failed to identify an economically viable solution for the full recovery of the remaining resources in the Denmark's largest gas field. Maersk Oil COO Martin Rune Pedersen said: "Tyra has since 1984 been the main hub for gas production and processing in the Danish North Sea. The Tyra facilities are approaching the end of their operational life, and together with our partners in DUC we have assessed solutions for safe decommissioning and possible rebuilding of the Tyra facilities."'
As I recall the seafloor had been subsiding as the reservoir pressure has been reduced. Jacking up existing facilities or rebuilding would be expensive for the remaining gas resource. I think the hub receives associated gas from some oil fields which will need to be rerouted as part of the decommissioning.
[Jan 05, 2017] Reuter tried to push oil prices down
Notable quotes:
"... Refining runs increased sharply, particularly on the U.S. Gulf Coast, the main refining hub in the United States. While end-year refinery activity tends to increase, this was larger than expected. ..."
Jan 05, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc : , January 05, 2017 at 09:28 AMOuch, I filled up yesterday before this announcementhttp://www.reuters.com/article/us-global-oil-idUSKBN14P02C
"Oil prices fall on big build in U.S. gasoline, distillate stocks"
By David Gaffen...NEW YORK...Jan 5, 2017...12:10pm EST
"Oil prices slipped on Thursday after a surprisingly large increase in U.S. inventories of gasoline and distillates, slamming the brakes on an early rally on news that Saudi Arabia had started talks with customers about reducing crude sales.
U.S. crude stocks fell sharply to end the year, the Energy Information Administration said, with a draw of 7 million barrels, but stocks of gasoline and distillates surged as refiners ramped up production to reduce crude inventories, a typical year-end practice to avoid higher taxes.
Refining runs increased sharply, particularly on the U.S. Gulf Coast, the main refining hub in the United States. While end-year refinery activity tends to increase, this was larger than expected.
"The magnitude of the products changes were much larger than expected and overwhelming somewhat supportive crude data," said Scott Shelton, energy specialist at ICAP in Durham, North Carolina.
The big boost in product inventories was seen as bearish, wiping out a rally that had pushed U.S. crude prices to a high of $54.12 on the day, and dropped U.S. gasoline margins to two-week lows..."
[Jan 03, 2017] On December 30, a Russian government outlet announced that American service companies are scheduled to work on the Arctic offshore platform Prirazlomnaja for three months
Jan 03, 2017 | economistsview.typepad.com
im1dc :
Will he or won't he?"On December 30, a Russian government outlet announced that American service companies are scheduled to work on the Arctic offshore platform Prirazlomnaja for three months this summer an activity which could potentially violate U.S. sanctions"
http://maritime-executive.com/article/does-gazprom-expect-post-sanctions-era-for-oil
"Gazprom's Plans May Anticipate End of Sanctions"
By MarEx...2017-01-02...20:33:13
"On December 30, a Russian government outlet announced that American service companies are scheduled to work on the Arctic offshore platform Prirazlomnaja for three months this summer an activity which could potentially violate U.S. sanctions.
The maintenance period itself is unremarkable: parts of Prirazlomnaja's topsides date to 1984, and the offshore environment above the Arctic Circle is extraordinarily hard on equipment. However, it is not clear that an American firm could perform the work without a waiver from the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The platform is owned by Gazprom Neft, and to penalize Russia for the annexation of Crimea, the Treasury prohibits American firms from providing this firm (and others) with goods, services or technology for "exploration or production for deepwater, Arctic offshore, or shale projects that have the potential to produce oil."
If these sanctions are still in place this summer, the unnamed American service companies could be liable for civil penalties. Recent enforcement actions have led to multimillion-dollar fines for the most egregious sanctions cases.
There is a possibility, however, that the sanctions might be lifted by the incoming Trump administration, which will enter office January 20. President-elect Trump's team says that he remains undecided on whether to lift the Ukraine sanctions program, and his appointee for Secretary of State, ExxonMobil CEO Rex Tillerson, has a close relationship with the Russian government due to projects that sanctions now prohibit: he received the Russian Order of Friendship in 2013 for collaboration with Rosneft on a major Arctic drilling program. Tillerson is a critic of sanctions in general, and his firm still has billions at stake in Russian joint ventures. Last year, the head of ExxonMobil's Russian operations said that the company stands ready to return once sanctions are lifted.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-Conn.), a member of the Foreign Relations Committee, recently told Politico that he considers Tillerson's nomination "as a clear sign of intent that Trump is going to remove sanctions." Procedurally, this would only require an executive order from the president and American service companies could proceed to Prirazlomnaja as scheduled."
Reply Tuesday, January 03, 2017 at 11:00 AM
[Jan 02, 2017] Oil Prices in 2017: What to Expect by Matthew DiLallo
Shale oil extraction require prices at least around $70 per barrel to be marginally profitable. As we need to continue shale extraction prices around this figure are probably the most reasonable scenario for 2017. That makes Bank of America/Merrill Lynch forecast of $69 per barrel more plausible.
Dec 22, 2016 | www.fool.com
Other analysts are much more bullish. Bank of America/Merrill Lynch, for example, sees crude jumping 46% by next June, hitting $69 per barrel. Fueling that outlook is the fact oil and gas investments are down $300 billion, or 41%, since peaking in 2014, which should lead to shrinking supplies. Further, the bank's analysts see the persistently lower prices over the past several years driving healthy demand growth. These two factors could lead to the biggest gap between supply and demand in five years, which could push crude prices higher.
Meanwhile, Goldman Sachs seems to be taking the middle ground. It recently increased its oil price forecast by predicting that WTI crude will rise to $57.50 per barrel by the second quarter, before settling around $55 per barrel in the second half of the year. Analysts at the World Bank, likewise, have a $55 oil price forecast for 2017 due to OPEC's moves to cut output and rebalance the oil market.
Overall, the consensus seems to be that crude will remain in the mid-$50s in 2017. Incidentally, that is similar to what analysts had forecast for oil prices in 2016. Given recent history, the odds of a quiet crude market next year appear slim.
Continued
Recommended Links
Google matched content
Softpanorama Recommended
Top articles
[Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey Published on Jun 23, 2017 | www.moonofalabama.org
Oldies But Goodies
[Jun 24, 2017] The Saudi-Qatar spat - the reconciliation offer to be refused>. Qater will move closer to Turkey
[Nov 11, 2018] Trump's Iran Policy Cannot Succeed Without Allies The National Interest by James Clapper & Thomas Pickering
[Sep 04, 2018] Kunstler Warns -Some Kind Of Epic National Restructuring Is In The Works
[Feb 20, 2018] For the life of me I cannot figure why Americans want a war/conflict with Russia
[Feb 03, 2018] JP Morgan Oil Could Hit $78 Within Months
[Dec 21, 2019] Trump comes clean from world s policeman to thug running a global protection racket by Finian Cunningham
[Nov 03, 2019] How Controlling Syria s Oil Serves Washington s Strategic Objectives by Nauman Sadiq
[Jul 17, 2019] Oil Is Driving the Iran Crisis by Michael T. Klare
[Jul 06, 2019] Why is Iran such a high priority for US elite? Because Iran successfully booted out the CIA and CIA-imposed regime out of their country and successfully remained independent since then
[Apr 16, 2019] The incompetent, the corrupt, the treacherous -- not just walking free, but with reputations intact, fat bank balances, and flourishing careers. Now they re angling for war with Iran.
[Apr 07, 2019] There is no doubt the tight rock structures which are much more difficult to extract oil from than sandstone reservoir can be stimulated in different ways with good result. But that costs a lot of money.
[Mar 30, 2019] The US desperately needs Venezuelan oil
[Mar 16, 2019] (Global) peak oil comes in phases. As Art Berman said, shale oil is oil's retirement party.
[Feb 15, 2019] Consumption of liquid fuels grows over the next decade, before broadly plateauing in the 2030s
[Feb 15, 2019] You can see how the definitions are going to blur and they're going to allow declaring oil production numbers to be anything that they want them to be.
[Jan 13, 2019] Catherine Austin Fitts Federal Government Running Secret Open Bailout
[Jan 12, 2020] Luongo Fears "An Abyss Of Losses" As Iraq Becomes MidEast Battleground
[Jan 10, 2020] The Saker interviews Michael Hudson
[Jan 09, 2020] Opposing War With Iran: Three Reasons by Anthony DiMaggio
Sites
Etc
Society
Groupthink : Two Party System as Polyarchy : Corruption of Regulators : Bureaucracies : Understanding Micromanagers and Control Freaks : Toxic Managers : Harvard Mafia : Diplomatic Communication : Surviving a Bad Performance Review : Insufficient Retirement Funds as Immanent Problem of Neoliberal Regime : PseudoScience : Who Rules America : Neoliberalism : The Iron Law of Oligarchy : Libertarian Philosophy
Quotes
War and Peace : Skeptical Finance : John Kenneth Galbraith :Talleyrand : Oscar Wilde : Otto Von Bismarck : Keynes : George Carlin : Skeptics : Propaganda : SE quotes : Language Design and Programming Quotes : Random IT-related quotes : Somerset Maugham : Marcus Aurelius : Kurt Vonnegut : Eric Hoffer : Winston Churchill : Napoleon Bonaparte : Ambrose Bierce : Bernard Shaw : Mark Twain Quotes
Bulletin:
Vol 25, No.12 (December, 2013) Rational Fools vs. Efficient Crooks The efficient markets hypothesis : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2013 : Unemployment Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 23, No.10 (October, 2011) An observation about corporate security departments : Slightly Skeptical Euromaydan Chronicles, June 2014 : Greenspan legacy bulletin, 2008 : Vol 25, No.10 (October, 2013) Cryptolocker Trojan (Win32/Crilock.A) : Vol 25, No.08 (August, 2013) Cloud providers as intelligence collection hubs : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : Inequality Bulletin, 2009 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Copyleft Problems Bulletin, 2004 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Energy Bulletin, 2010 : Malware Protection Bulletin, 2010 : Vol 26, No.1 (January, 2013) Object-Oriented Cult : Political Skeptic Bulletin, 2011 : Vol 23, No.11 (November, 2011) Softpanorama classification of sysadmin horror stories : Vol 25, No.05 (May, 2013) Corporate bullshit as a communication method : Vol 25, No.06 (June, 2013) A Note on the Relationship of Brooks Law and Conway Law
History:
Fifty glorious years (1950-2000): the triumph of the US computer engineering : Donald Knuth : TAoCP and its Influence of Computer Science : Richard Stallman : Linus Torvalds : Larry Wall : John K. Ousterhout : CTSS : Multix OS Unix History : Unix shell history : VI editor : History of pipes concept : Solaris : MS DOS : Programming Languages History : PL/1 : Simula 67 : C : History of GCC development : Scripting Languages : Perl history : OS History : Mail : DNS : SSH : CPU Instruction Sets : SPARC systems 1987-2006 : Norton Commander : Norton Utilities : Norton Ghost : Frontpage history : Malware Defense History : GNU Screen : OSS early history
Classic books:
The Peter Principle : Parkinson Law : 1984 : The Mythical Man-Month : How to Solve It by George Polya : The Art of Computer Programming : The Elements of Programming Style : The Unix Haters Handbook : The Jargon file : The True Believer : Programming Pearls : The Good Soldier Svejk : The Power Elite
Most popular humor pages:
Manifest of the Softpanorama IT Slacker Society : Ten Commandments of the IT Slackers Society : Computer Humor Collection : BSD Logo Story : The Cuckoo's Egg : IT Slang : C++ Humor : ARE YOU A BBS ADDICT? : The Perl Purity Test : Object oriented programmers of all nations : Financial Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2008 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2010 : The Most Comprehensive Collection of Editor-related Humor : Programming Language Humor : Goldman Sachs related humor : Greenspan humor : C Humor : Scripting Humor : Real Programmers Humor : Web Humor : GPL-related Humor : OFM Humor : Politically Incorrect Humor : IDS Humor : "Linux Sucks" Humor : Russian Musical Humor : Best Russian Programmer Humor : Microsoft plans to buy Catholic Church : Richard Stallman Related Humor : Admin Humor : Perl-related Humor : Linus Torvalds Related humor : PseudoScience Related Humor : Networking Humor : Shell Humor : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2011 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2012 : Financial Humor Bulletin, 2013 : Java Humor : Software Engineering Humor : Sun Solaris Related Humor : Education Humor : IBM Humor : Assembler-related Humor : VIM Humor : Computer Viruses Humor : Bright tomorrow is rescheduled to a day after tomorrow : Classic Computer Humor
The Last but not Least Technology is dominated by two types of people: those who understand what they do not manage and those who manage what they do not understand ~Archibald Putt. Ph.D
Copyright © 1996-2021 by Softpanorama Society. www.softpanorama.org was initially created as a service to the (now defunct) UN Sustainable Development Networking Programme (SDNP) without any remuneration. This document is an industrial compilation designed and created exclusively for educational use and is distributed under the Softpanorama Content License. Original materials copyright belong to respective owners. Quotes are made for educational purposes only in compliance with the fair use doctrine.
FAIR USE NOTICE This site contains copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to advance understanding of computer science, IT technology, economic, scientific, and social issues. We believe this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as provided by section 107 of the US Copyright Law according to which such material can be distributed without profit exclusively for research and educational purposes.
This is a Spartan WHYFF (We Help You For Free) site written by people for whom English is not a native language. Grammar and spelling errors should be expected. The site contain some broken links as it develops like a living tree...
You can use PayPal to to buy a cup of coffee for authors of this site Disclaimer:
The statements, views and opinions presented on this web page are those of the author (or referenced source) and are not endorsed by, nor do they necessarily reflect, the opinions of the Softpanorama society. We do not warrant the correctness of the information provided or its fitness for any purpose. The site uses AdSense so you need to be aware of Google privacy policy. You you do not want to be tracked by Google please disable Javascript for this site. This site is perfectly usable without Javascript.
Last modified: March, 01, 2020
